Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-14-1993 Council Packet
MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ROLL The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Edward Callahan. CounciI members J. Diann Goetten, and Charles Kelley. JoEllen Hurr arrived at 3:45 p.m. Gabriel Jabbour was absent. The fol lowing represented the City staff: City Administrator Ron Moorse. Public Works Director John Gerhardson, Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning AdminiStrator Michael Gaffron. City Engineer Glenn Cook, City Attorney Kevin Staunton, and City Recorder Teri Naab. Charles Schroeder, Stephen Peterson, Sandra Smith and Charles Nolan represented the Planning Commission. Mayor Callahan called the meeting to order at 7:34 P.M. (#1) C-^NSENT AGENDA Mayor Callahan added Items , 12, and 17. Moorse related that Hurr wished to removed Item 42. It was moved by Goetten. seconded by Kelley, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Ayes 3, nays 0. Motions for all items acopted by consent agenda v^lI I be included In the minutes in their respective numerical order. (#2) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Hurr asked that Page 5, Paragraph 3, be changed to read, "The Environmental Committee wiI I be looking at the goals needed to meet the management plan and the time table on ways to fund the necessary tasks”; and Page 6. Paragraph i, to read reported at the LMLOA Government Affairs Committee of the Lakeshore Homeowners meeting". It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten, to aporove the minutes of the regular Council meeting held May 24, 1993 as amended. Ayes 4, nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no comments. PLANNING COfWISSION COMMENTS There were no comments. L n n r ■ VO MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 PUBLIC COMMENTS Harvey Reder, 3596 Livingston Avenue, explained there Is a need to correct drainage on the 3500 block of Livingston Avenue. He noted he has discussed this with Gerhardson and asked the status of the considerat I on. Gerhardson reported he recently discussed the problerr with residents along the street who have presented a landscaping plan which should permanently resolve the drainage problem. (#3) #1737 RICHARD HOLLANDER, 680 NORTH ARM DRIVE - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Mabusth explained the original after-the-fact variance was approved in 1992 subject to the removal of existing hardcover shown on the site plan. The applicant has requested a 60 day extension of that removal deadline due to weather conditions. Mayor Callahan clarified that staff recommends a signed agreement with the applicant and the submittal of a Letter of Credit. He further clarified that the property is fo'* sale and the resolution was not filed In the chain of title as the property is torrens. Mabusth concurred. KeI Iey questioned what happens If the house sells and the agreement has not been signed and the buyer is unaware of the conditions and does not wish the hardcover to be removed. Mayor Callahan suggested they approve the request based on the agreement signed within 10 days and the Letter of Credit submitted or the City will enfoice the conditions of the original resolution. Kelley inquired what the next step would be If the extension were den Ied. Staunton replied the applicant was unaware that he needed to be present at this meeting. He stated litigation would be the last step and suggested the City send the applicant a letter asking for an appearance before the Council to explain why the removals have not been completed. Kelley asked if it is the responsibility of the City to contact the selling real estate agent. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ZONING FILE #1737 - CONT. Mabusth answered the agent has contacted the City and has been shown the entire file. She reported the gazebo, deck and deck above the boat house have been dismantled and need to be removed. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Kelley, to approve the request for Application #1737 for Richard Hollander, f80 North Arm Drive, for a 60 day extension to the deadline date for removal of hardcover, subject to an agreement being signed within lO days from this meeting and a Letter of Credit for 150% of the improvements be submitted to the City, and failure to provide such will result In the City enforcing the conditions of the original approving resolution. Ayes 3, nays 0. (#4) #1811 C. JACK REMIEN, 3237 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCE Mayor Callahan asked the City Attorney to summarize the position of the attorney’s of the competing parties. Staunton reported the Council has broad discretion to grant or deny variances but they are required to articulate reasons from evidence as presented In doing so. Undue hardship must be present to approve a variance. He reviewed the many relevant facts presented by both sides, and said the Council needs to decide a reasonable use of the property, and based on the information presented Council has the discretion to either dery or approve. Mayor Callahan clarlflec that the applicant has a hea\y burden to show hardship. Remien began by stating he has discussed the Issue with several Council members who asked his intent In purchasing the property. He stated he purchased the property with the intent to add on to his existing residence, but always felt if those plans changed, the lot could be sold as a buildable lot. He referred to Mr. Bachman’s letter which infers he will realize financial gain. He asked If it Is a prerequisite that something must be gained from the approval of a variance, or Is the purpose merely to prevent negative impact. He referred to the comment in tne letter stating the development of this lot will have a noratlve affect on the Lake and stated every building has that same negative affect, and he felt this would be beneficial because it would provide a new structure on the lake versus old dilapidated buildings. He added, with the new ; isidence the old shed and sidewalk leading to the Bielkes house would be removed. He said as a resident of Casco Circle, he seas a benefit to allowing this lot to be developed. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 - CONT. Remien pointed out that Bielke claims that he will realize a substantial ‘oss in property value if the variance Is approved and asked to see a purchase agreement indicating the value has decreased because of said variance. Thomas Zappia, applicant’s attorney, asked the Council to review the chronological order of events to find hardship. He stated when the Bielkes purchased their property, a variance had been granted for this vacant lot. He said if the lot were not owned in common, there would be no other reasonable use of the property. Mr. Bielke stated the benefit is greater to Remien If the property is combined and then cold, and added Remien has already attempted to sell as a who Ie. Peter Bachman, Bielkes’ attorney, stated that Zappia’s letter does not present any new facts, and referred to a letter from the DNR Indicating opposition to tne variance. He reiterated that Remien opposed the variance prior to his owning the property, purchased the property knowing it was an unbuildable lot with an expired variance, and purchased the property with the Intent to add onto his existing residence. Gary Nasledlek, potential buyer of the lot, stated he believes the hardship is the fact that they purchased the property based on the information and recommendation of staff. He referred to a policy change which requires the City to consider all commonly owned parcels Individually. He said they have purchased the property contingent upon variance approval, and this contingency affects other buyers. Kelley referred to the staff finding that the property was not assessed individually for sewer and water. He felt the applicant has not presented adequate hardship. Gaffron explained Lots 16, 17 and 18 were commonly owned and assessed for one sewer and water unit at the time those utilities were installed on casco Point. The as-built maps indicate the three parcels ware considered by the City or its engineer as one existing building site. Lots 16 and 17 contained the residence now owned by the Bielkes. The sewer stub on Lot 18 is the oniy stub provided for the group of 3 lots and was used for the Bielke nouse as that was probably the most likely location for easy connection due to site topography, etc. He stated the facts have changed as ownership has changed and felt that Just because additional sewer and water units were not originally assessed does not mean that it was formally MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 K*. ZONING FILE #1811 - CONT. determined to be unbulldable at the time, but merely reflected the City code at the time. He noted that a variance review had not been applied for nor completed at the time. Goecten stated she appreciates the difficult position of both parties, but added her position has not changed, that being that previous approval was based on hardship, and in good faith the Council must grant the variance. She felt the development of this property would be consistent with that of the neighborhood. Hurr agreed that the property is very consistent with surrounding properties. It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten, to approve Application #1811 for C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle, granting a variance renewal for the construction of a new residence. Mayor Callahan stated he has difficulty finding a hardship to grant the variance as he feels using the property as lawn a reasonable use of the land. He said larger lots typically on the lake are more desireable, and would facilitate expansion of the existing house In the future. He said he was troubled by the comings and goings of the variance, and agreed a hardship must be found at this point to approve the variance and not just base it on past practice. He thought perhaps the previous renewal variances were granted due to the lack of objection at that point. Kelley stated they Just approved a variance that evening based on no additional land available to expand. He hoped they could prohibit such on other lots by maintaining a minimum standard. He noted that as an elected official, he has Individual thoughts, which may or may not be in agreement with past Council action. Hurr questioned the assessed value. Remien replied the valuation is $57,000. Hurr reiterated the development of this lot Is consistent with the neighborhood, and the value would suggest it is a buildable lot. Kelley felt the Issue of assessed value was not quantifiable. Remien questioned why the Council chooses to ignore the policy established in 1983 to deai with commonly owned parcels on Individual merits. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 - CONT. Mayor Callahan replied the Council Is trying to determine If there is justifiable hardship to approve the variance. Vote: Ayes 2, nays 2. Mayor Callahan and Kelley voted nay. Motion fai led. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Kelley, to table Application #1811 for C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle, until all Council members can be present. Hurr felt by tabling action, they were placing undue hardship on the potential buyers and sellers Involved with this situation. Vote: Ayes 3, nays 1. Hurr voted nay. Motion carried. (#5) #1820 HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, NORTH ARM ACCESS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Kelley, to table Application #1820 for Hennepin County Department of EnvironmentaI Management, at the request of the applicant. Ayes 3, nays 0. (#6) #1822 MARK PRUETER, 3215 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3287 Mr. Prueter was present. Mabusth explained the applicant proposes an 13x26’ addition to the rear of the existing residence and a smaller 16x10.6’ lakeside deck in exchange for the removal of existing sidewalks on the west side of the house, pavement areas, replacement of steps and a 19x15’ lakeside deck. The proposal has minimumal impact on the average lakeshore setback. The applicant has expressed concern about removal of the existing wooden walk to the rear needed to traverse a low area of the property. It has been noted that a hydrant exists to the rear of the property for emergency use. Prueter requested that Condition #1 of the resolution be amended to postpone the removals until the completion of the project. Kelley Inquired about neighbors’ response. Mabusth noted the applicant has discussed the plan with neighbors and there have been no objections. e r MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ZONING FILE #1822 - CONT. K'SlIey stated he ^elt with this addition the property wouid be developed to its maximum and noted it may be difficult for the Council to consider additional variance requests. Prueter Indicated the only other addition they could consider would be a second story. He said his goal was to provide enough space for a future family. Goetten asked the total lot covertige percent and hardcover percents in each zone. Mabusth answered lot coverage is 14.IX; existing 0-75’ hardcover Is 18.9X, proposed 17.2X; and existing 75-250’ hardcover is 29.4X, proposed 30.2X. She asked if the applicant has considered a drainage plan. Prueter indicated they do have a drainage plan which provides for the filling of the low area between the house and garage to Improve the drainage situation. Goetten stid this is a substandard lot and asked if the applicant cou1u propose further removals of hardcover. Prueter suggested the removal of the walkway along the lot line. It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to adopt Resolution #3287 for Application #1822 Mark Prueter, 3215 Crystal Bay Road, for side setback variances, average lakeshore variance, ana hardcover variances to permit the construction of an addition to the existing residence, subject to Condition #1 of the resolution amended to reflect the removal date be upon final Inspection of the project, and the inclusion of the additional 65 square feet of hardcover to be removed. Ayes 3, nays 0. Mayor Callahan asked the applicant If he has an easement to cross the rail road. Prueter replied he has not discovered an easement In the title, and questioned the City’s objection should a problem arfse. Mayor CaMahan said they would be monitoring the situation regarding precedent set by other communities. i MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 » • (#7) #1824 ERIC & SHELLY LILJEQUIST, 3490 BIRCH LANE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3288 It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Kelley, to adopt Resolution #3288 for Application #1824 Eric and Shelly Liljequist, 3490 Birch Lane, approving a rear yard setback to permit the construction of a detached garage. Ayes 3, nays 0. (#8) #1825 THOMAS L. MCCARTHY, 2490 OLD BEACH ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Thomas McCarthy and Mark Gronberg were present. Mabusth explained this is a request for a 2 lot subdivision within the LR-1B 1 acre zoning district. The applicant has proposed two options: 1) to create an easement through Lot 2 for access to Lot 1 which would reduce an area variance and would not be acceptable; aid 2) access via a platted corridor. She explained under the former ordinance, the lot width would have been measured at the 35’ rear/street setback and 75’ lakeshore setback and the property could not have been developed as a flag lot due to the lack of width at the 30’ setback. The current ordinance a'lows for the lot width to De measured at the shoreline and the 75’ setback. She indicated the Planning Commission was asked to consider the combination of zones 75-250’ and 250-500’ with regard to hardcover to compensate for the excess hardcover within tne platted corridor. The application was denied based upon the excess of hardcover within the 250-500’ zone. Gronberg suggested the recent Lund application was very similar In that there was an overage of hardcover within one zone and a shortage In another, and Council was asked to consider the property as a whole. He suggested the platted corridor be maintained at 27’ wide, but the paved surface be reduced to 8’ wide, thereby maintaining the allowed 30X in that zone. However, this would create an undesirable looking lot. McCarthy noted the 2*way travelled road currently used In the Shore Hills neighborhood Is reduced to 10’ wide in some areas. Goetten felt the subdivision should meet the 1 acre standard exclustve of the roadway area. Kelley stated he is not In favor of the subdivision, but if it meets alt the standards, he would vote for it. Goetten felt if they were creating an unsafe drive, that would be grounds to deny the application. She stated the Lund application was dissimilar due to the size of the property. a MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ZONING FILE #1825 - CONT Mabusth Indicated by including the drive In the total hardcover calculation, they would limit development closer to the lake. Mayor Callahan noted this is the first variance request before the Council to the new shoreland i^gulatlons and suggested tabling until a full Council is present. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Goetten, to table Application #1825 for Thomas McCarthy, 2490 Old Beach Road, until all members of the Council are present. Ayes 3, nays 0. Gronberg asked Council for direction regarding the width of the drive. Mayor Callahan said he would prefer to see the application vanish, but if it were to proceed would like to see the drive at a width sufficient for emergency vehicles. (#9) #1826 ROBERT & ANN HENSON, 2166 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES Mr. and Mrs. Henson were present. Mabusth explained the applicants propose an attached garage and associated drive to the rear of the residence, an 8x25’ lakeside deck (a portion of which is within the 0-75’ zone and encroaches the average lakeshore setback). In exchange for the removal of the tennis court, brick patio, walkway under an overhang, and a storage shed area. The deck has been reduced per the Planning Commission suggesting, however, the application was still denied. Since that meeting, said she has discussea the drainage issue with the Planning Commission Chair explaining the catch basin leading to the tile to the drainageway. Staff had hoped a storm water treatment facility could be incorporated, however, the City Engineer has cautioned against as there is very little land available. The County has advised there Is no sediment control devise within the catch basin, and staff feels this device should be Incorporated during the construction of the drive. The Hensons are willing to dedicate a 5’ easement along the north property line. Mr. Henson said he understood the sediment control would not be effective, and that Is why they would be willing to dedicate the drainage easement in anticipation of the installation of storm sewer. Kelley expressed concern about the addition of another garage on the property. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ZONING FILE #1826 - CONT. Goetten stated she appreciates the size of the proposed hardcover removai and the fact that they need additionai storage. She said in the past she has been very strict enforcing the OX hardcover in the 0-75’ zone, but because of the vast benefit derived from the removal of the tennis court, would be wiI Iing to ailow the lakeside deck. A neighbor presented the Council with a petition In support of the variance and stated he felt the removal of the tennis court would be an Improvement In appearance and drainage in the area. KeMey >^:>'nied out a two car garage currently exists on the property and the proposed garage, the owners would have four stalls. He suggested they consider the removal cf the existing garage. Mr. Henson stated they have ruled out the removal cf the existing garage because of the following: It provides privacy from the County road, they have three vehicles, with the removal of the existing storage shed they w!M need additional storage space, and It would be very expensive to remove the garage as it has a very thick concrete base. Mayor Callahan questioned what they currently use for storage. Mr. Henson answered the shed proposed to be removed is used for storage, and the tennis court is used for parking of their vehicles and boat In the winter. He added the house does not have a basement for additional storage. Kelley noted upon approval of other similar applications. It has been the City’s experience that properties tend to accumulate additionaI I terns. Mrs. Henson stated the existing garage was built In 1978, and Is maintained In perfect condition. Mr. Henson said they have lived on the property for nine years and can assure the Council they are not Junk collectors. He added, If they are forced to remove the existing garage, they will not pursue the project. Mayor Callahan questioned if the application would be allowed If the applicants were not proposing the removal of the tennis court. Goetten stated it would have to be considered on Its own merits. - - -. wi4 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ZONING FILE #1826 - CONT. Hurr questioned the location of the drive. Mr. Henson stated the drive will be located on the north lot line as access off the County road Is already provided at this location. Kelley questioned the width of the drive and asked If It could be reduced. Mr. Henson replied It will be 10’ wide and anything less wouId not be adequate for emergency vehicles. Hurr questioned whether the bituminous would be removed around the existing garage. Mrs. Henson stated it would remain. Kelley indicated he sees no hardship for the granting of the variance In the 0-75’ zone. He added he would be wiI Iing to approve stairs to the lake as they have done in other applications. Mr. Henson stated their lawn Is very wet and soft and they need support for seating. Charles Schroeder asked the applicant if he has considered the possibility of a smaller garage. Mr. Henson stated because of the location of the existing garage, they need a two stalI garage near the house. It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Hurr, to approve Application #1826 for Robert and Ann Henson, 2166 Shadywood Road, approving lot coverage, setback, and hardcover variances to permit the construction an attached garage and smaller lakeside deck, subject to the hardcover removals listed in the application. Mayor Callahan suggested they discuss the drainageway. Mabusth noted staff has recommended a 5’ wide drainage and access easement along the north lot line. Kelley suggested the applicants submit a grading plan to the Ci^y for review. Hurr asked If the drive wIM be located over the easement. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ZONING FILE #1826 - CONT. Mr. Henson noted It cou IJ be moved to the south to avoid the easement, except at the entrance. Goetten amended her motion , Hurr seconded, requIrIng the appI I cants to dedicate a 5’ wide drainage and access easement over the north lot line. Mayor Callahan asked if the concrete wall along the County road would be removed. Mr. Henson noted that Is needed to support the existing garage. Vote: ayes 4, nays 0. Mayor Callahan recessed the meeting from 9:00 to 9:11 p.m. (#10) #1827 RICHARD HENRY NELSON, 3908 CHERRY AVENUE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3289 Mrs. Nelson and Don Bonickson were present. Mabusth explained the residence Is located completely In front of the average lakeshore setback and one half Is within the 0-75’ zone. The applicant proposes a new roof, an expansion of the existing building envelope, an addition to the rear with a grade- level deck, and a slight rcof extension over the existing lakeside deck. The applicant currently proposes the removal of 480 square feet of rock underlain with plastic, a walkway on the west side of the property, and a concrete pad. The Planning Commission recommended approval subject to the removals. Mrs. Nelson reported they suffer from severe water problems and the Planning Commission recommended a grading plan, which they Intend to do. Kelley asked if the area of plastic to be removed will be replaced with sod. Mrs. Nelson indicated that is probably what they would plant In that area. Hurr expressed concern over the addition within the 0-75* zone. Mabusth explained it is a 4* overhang over ah existing deck, which is considered an intensification. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ZONING FILE #1827 - CONT. Bonickson explained the reason for the overhang Is to carry the roof design throughout the residence. Kelley noted aesthetics are not a viable hardship for variance approval. Hurr said she finds little credibility with removal of non- structural hardcover for structure. She asked if the plastic could be removed under the other rocked area. Mrs. Nelson explained that plastic is necessary to prevent water seeping Into the house. Goet+en questioned the elevation of the property. Mrs. Nelson replied the lot slopes from the rear to the lake. Hurr asked if the concrete patio could be removed or reduced. Mrs. N.. ion stated the area was essential. Hurr reiterated that they must be consistent with past decisions on other properties. It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to adopt Resolution #3289 approving Application #1827 for Richard Nelson, 3908 Cherry Avenue, for variances to permit the construction of a new roof and 17x12 roofed deck addition to the rear of the existing residence, with the additional condition that the rock landscape area underlain with plastic in the iakeshore yard be replaced with sod. Ayes 3, nays 1. Hurr voted nay. (#11) ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CHAPTER 5.42 Gaffron explained past policies related to controls of marina licenses. Recently it has been suggested and the Lake U^e Committee has come to some conclusion that if the B-2 Code were revised, the licensing process should be a very simple annual process, and they should deal with issues through the B-2 Code. Staff’s position Is that Is fine and will be very functional if the B-2 Code addresses all the concerns and issues that come forth from time to time, such as traffic control, aesthetics, passive and active control, and environmental control. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ord: :ance amendment - cont. The drafted ordinance would separate business license from joint use licenses, includes a short list of business use standards that first of all suggests that businesses be required to adnere to the B-2 requirements, but not make that a condition of licensing, require proper insurance, and require them to notify the City of any change in business or use of the property. The proposed ordinance does not require that marinas show that they are in corneliance with the B-2 standards prior to ! icensing (none can meet those standards anyway), does not address boat length, dock, density or any other zoning issues, and it does not establish standards for Information to be collected with the license application, or conditions of the license. Currently there Is nothing in the code that requires the business to upgrade property until an Imp'-ovement is initiated. Mayor Callahan felt they should issue the licenses, which should contain i provision to revoke based on unwanted activities or If found to be non-conforming with the B-2 section. He agreed businesses should be required to file a new site plan with any changes, and felt staff should have the authority to approve subject to the owner having the right to appeal to the Council. Hurr asked how they would regulate hours of operation. Mayor Callahan felt they should also include a provision In the license that if it is revoked, the business is ineligible for another license for 12 months. Hurr asked if they Intend to force a marina to cease operations If I icense is revoked. Mayor Callahan said they should begin the process with the assumption that the business will comply, and If not, the license will be revoked. Goetten noted the licensing process has not worked in the past, but she Is willing to try something new. Kelley asked If the City licenses gas stations or grocery stores. He clarified that they are licensing a specific industry and felt this to be over regulation in some cases. Gaffron clarified that other business zones, such as B-1, 0-3, etc., do not have many of the restrictions that apply to the B-2 zone. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - CONT. Mayor Callahan noted that the hours of operation for other business do not disturb the surrounding neighborhood, unlike marinas. He felt staff should collect the Information on the license that they deem appropriate and necessary. Hurr questioned if they do not count boats, how they Intend to control parking. Gaffron stated it would be impossible. He asked what the Council perceives as the magnitude of the problem from the public’s standpoInt. Goetten replied they rarely hear any comments. Hurr felt the City was trying to regulate businesses differently. Mayor Callahan stated he felt the business should be required to have enough parking for customers. Gaffron noted most streets near marinas are posted "no parking". Mayor Callahan said he felt it was unfair that at public landings people were allowed to park anywhere while marinas are required to establish parking areas. He said if it is felt that a business does not have adequate parking, that can be adjusted. He stated he thought they had agreed not to count boats. Hurr stated she never agreed to that as the City would lose the ability to regulate parking. Mayor Callahan suggested they table consideration on the proposed ordinance and licenses until the next meeting. All agreed. (*IM2) 1993 JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE - FOREST ARMS ASSOCIATION - RESOLUTION §3290 It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Kelley, to adopt Resolution #3290 granting a 1993 Joint Use Dock License to Forest Arms Improvement Association. Ayes 3, nays 0. (#13) 1993 MARINA LICENSES Mayor CaI Iahan suggested they table cons Idsrati on of this item. All agreed. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 (#14) 300 TONKA AVENUE - CONCEPTUAL REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION/DROP UNIT Dave Christensen was present. Gaffron explained the applicant and his neighbor propose the vacation of Hill Street and splitting of 2 vacant lots, to be combined with their respective properties. They also request that the sewer unit for the vacant lots be dropped. All members agreed the concept is a good idea. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT A) Hurr reported she has been working with Marge Gasch on amenities for the new City Hall. A banner is proposed made out of fabric to hang above the entrance in the Administration building, and the Historical Society is arranging pictures to be hung There his been discussion regarding on-going displays from either the schools or Art Center. They have discussed using the brick walI in the Counci i Chambers for name plates to honor Mayors of the City and citizens. It is hoped some of the items will be in place for the open house. Kelley said he thought the Ideas were great and did not have the time to dedicate to make them happen, but trusted Hurr to use her discretion. Hurr asked that staff arrange for a fire truck and police car to be available for children to view at the open house. B) Goetten reported she and Hurr attended the League of Minnesota Cities’ conference In St. Cloud, at which she also gave a presentation regarding the process they went through obtaining the City Hall. The subject was controversial issues. C) Kelley reported he and Moorse met with representatives of the Fire Department to go over the budget. He explained a large portion of the budget goes to the firemen for making calls, but that pay is based on the number of calls made, which fluctuates. Historically, if the amount budgeted was inadequate. Long Lake would pay the difference until the following year. They have discussed ways in which Orono could help offset this unbalance. Moorse is working on a draft of the 1994 fire service contract, to be reviewed early July. r r MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD NE 14, 1993 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT - CONT. D) Kelley reported he spoke with a neighbor wishing to put an addition on to his house, but because he is within 1,000 feet of French Lake, must have a conforming septic system. This person's system was found to be non-conforming but is still fundlonal, and must now upgrade his system prior to being allowed the addition, which is a financial hardship. Kelley felt the City will be faced with many issues as such in the coming future and should establish guidelines or policies. E) Kelley reported he went on the Park Commission’s park tour at which they witnessed the flooding of a tee ball field at Hackberry Park due to leaking tiling system. He suggested this leak be repaired Immediately. Gerhardson explained originally the leak was to be repaired during a larger drainage project, but it has been determined the leak should be repaired immediately. Goetten reported during the repair of tne railroad line in her neighborhood, workers on that line collapsed the drain tiling in the area in several places. The problem was resolved by a neifjhbor, but Goetten felt the City should contact the railroad to let them know of the potential damages they cause. Mayor Callahan suggested staff draft a letter to the railroad. CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT (•16) BIKE/HIKE PROGRESS REPORT Kelley noted as the trail leaves Baker Park it runs along a City street, Starkey Road. He asked If those residents have been informec of the plans. He «»>pressed concern that many bikers and/or roller bladers would be riding on a neighborhood street and It may not be safe. Hurr noted Hennepin Parks have the first option to acquire all these properties In the future. Mayor Callahan said the Hennepin Parks considers this their trail and has announced they will decide allowed uses. Cook reported they have discussed with the property owners the plantings along the trail between Highway 12 and Watertown Road. Hennepin Parks has agreed to replace the plantings, but with only approximately one-half of what owners expect. He reviewed the cost If plantings are replaced as the owners desire. i MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 BIKE/HIKE PROGRESS REPORT - CONT. Mayor Callahan pointed out the City Is not obiIgated to replace any of the plantings because they are on public right-of-way. Hurr agreed and noted she Is willing to replant something, but not what the owners expect. Kelley stated this is exactly what he thought would happen, and did not feel that is the right thing to do. He stated they should replace the screening as It stands. He added, the trail should be similar to that along Willow Drive, and does not need to be 8’ wide. He asked if the City has contacted the owner of the property north of Watertown Road. Cook stated they have discussed the plan with him. Kelley reiterated Hennepin Parks has agreed to replace the plantings with their stock. Mayor Callahan agreed, but added Hennepin Parks has an idea of what they are willing to provide, and they believe it would be best to replace the plantings with similar plantings, and do not believe spruce plantings would do well in this area. He reminded them that Hennepin Parks has not signed the amended agreement. Essentially, the City is leasing the trail area to Hennepin Parks to use as a regional park. The people in charge of the plantings want to do as the City wishes, but it still is considered a regional trail. He directed staff to send a copy of the agreement to all Council members. He added, Council needs to assess whether they wish to proceed with the trail at all. Hurr stated she is still in favor of the trail, and If there is a question about continuing the process, they should invite the Park Commission to be heard. Mayor Callahan reiterated that all members are in favor of the trail, but circumstances may prevent It from happening. Kelley stressed the need to fulfill promises made to homeowners. Mayor Callahar: stated the City cannot make any decision regarding the plantings until they know what help they will receive from Hennepin Parks. He felt they should not even be discussing the project with homeowners at this time. He directed staff to discuss with Hennepin Parks what possible plantings are available. Hurr asked when the bids will be released. 16 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 BIKE/HIKE PROGRESS REPORT - CONT. Cook reported on June 18th. Hurr stated the Council needs some understanding by the next meeting, and suggested staff also contact the Hennepin Parks Commissioner representing this area. Moorse reiterated Hennepin Parks believes this to be a part of their regional trail system and not the City’s trail, and needs to be operated consistently as such. Goetten noted all members felt this to be a City trail until Mayor Callahan met with Hennepin Parks and discovered their position on the trail. Hurr stated she Is not sure the City should be "part-owner" of the trail. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#16) GOOSE RELOCATION PROGRAM Moorse reported he has taken a survey of surrounding communities regarding their response to such issues. Most cities have a policy to pay for programs If on public property, but private citizens must pay if on private property. The City of Plymouth has recently Initiated a program whereby payment is based on the number of complaints in a certain area, not the status of ownership. He said the question here Is whether the program benefits other areas of the City and should be considered a service. Ray Hartman, resident of the Pheasant Lawn area, asked who the government should service and why are they obligated to do so. He felt the area benefitting from the program is much larger than the Immediate Pheasant Lawn area. He felt the geese should be treated as a nuisance and should be the responsibility of the City to help eliminate. He reported the geese are gathered on both sides of the bridge and collected while on the water. There are only two other areas In the met:o area that surpass the Pheasant Lawn area In numbers of geese collected. Out of 1,000 geese collected last year, 200 came from the Pheasant Lawn area. He felt a small neighborhood was subsidizing the removal of geese for all surrounding residents. He said if they v/oi e not collected at all, the residents would experience a much larger problem. He stated the City should consider additional participation and additional pick up sites in the City. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 GOOSE RELOCATION PROGRAM - CONT. Hurr stated geese in her area also keep her up In the evening, but If she wanted to get rid of them, she would be willing to pay for the removal. She questioned whether Hartman felt they should subsidize all other requests the same, I.e. if Woodhlll Country Club requested similar support. Kelley said he lives on a private road where the homeowners must pay for snow removal. Many times they have asked the City to take over the road and the expense of the snow removal, but to no avail. He felt this was the same concept. Hurr said before she could approve this funding, the City would have to look at reimbursing all taxpayers equally for the removal of nuisances. Mayor Callahan reported the first year when the program was carried out in another bay, many residents called to complain as they did not wish to see the geese removed. He said it appears that the program is not universally desired, and it appears that the program is not really helping to control the geese. Hartman reported the Phoasant Lawn area has many smalI chiIdren who cannot even play In their yards because of the goose droppings. He felt there was benefit In the program. Kelley stated swan decoys In the area may help to deter the geese from using this area. Hartman noted they have tried this and many other remedies, but to no aval I. Kelley noted the government cannot be asked to solve all homeowners probIems. Hartman Indicated they are very restricted In how they can solve the problem. Goetten urged him to contact the LMCD for support. Moorse suggested the Pheasant Lawn residents ask surrounding residents to help pay for the program. Hartman asked if notice could be printed news letter. In the next City Hurr felt that would be endorsing the program and was not In favor. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 GOOSE RELOCATION PROGRAM - CONT. Mayor Callahan suggested he also contact the LOLMA. Goetten asked that the City be kept informed of the progress. (»#17) 1992 GENERAL FUND BUDGET YEAR END SUMMARY & ADJUSTMENTS It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Kelley, to approve the 1992 General Fund Budget Year End Summary and Adjustments. Ayes 3, nays 0. (#18) ADJUSTMENT TO RECORDER’S CONTRACT Hurr expressed concern about discussing a personnel matter at an open meeting. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Hurr, to table discussion to the work session to be held June 16th. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#19) LMCD 1994 BUDGET Mayor Callahan said it is intolerable that the LMCD exists, much less that they have Increased the rates. Hurr reported the LMCD Is discussing making the rates more equitable. Mayor Callahan directed staff to draft a letter to the LMCD expressing Orono’s views. Hurr stressed need to maintain funding for environmental issues as the lake Is Orono’s greatest asset. (#20) CITY OF INDEPENDENCE - COMP PLAN AMENDMENT Gaffron explained the letter drafted states, "we support the amendment as long as It does not require upgrading of Interceptor capacity downstream of Maple Plain through Orono". All members agreed to the wording and directed the Mayor to sign and staff to send the letter. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 (♦«21) ABOVE GROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS - ORDINANCE #116, SECOND SERIES It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Kelley, to adopt Ordinance #116, Second Series, amending Ordinance #9.34 adopted April 1, 1984, and entitled "Fire Protection and Prevention". Ayes 3, nays 0. (♦#22) PROCLAMATION LESTER KELLEY - RESOLUTION #3291 It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Kelley, to adopt Resolution #3291 dedicating Kelley Parkway In memory of Les Kelley. Ayes 3, nays 0. (*#23) PROCLAMATION WINTON BURMASTER - RESOLUTION #3292 It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Kelley, to adopt Resolution #3292 dedicating the Orono Pol Ice faciIIty to the memory of WInton Burmaster. Ayes 3, nays 0. (*#24) GREGG PALMER STEP INCREASE It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Kelley, to approve aojustment to Gregg Palmer’s salary to Step 4, Level 5 of Compensation Plan effective May 21, 1993. Ayes 3, nays 0. the the (*#25) LICENSES It was moved by Goetten, following Iicenses: seconded by Kelley, to approve the Septic System Installers: D.S. Enterprise Fuhr Trenching Raffle Permit - Special Event - Ayes 3, nays 0. Methodist Hospital Foundation at the home of H. Kahler July 30, 1993 Gear West Duathlon Orono High School June 20, 1993 (*•26) BILLS It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Kelley, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Ayes 3, nay 0. .j MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HE'0 JUNE 14, 1993 ADJOURNMENT Mayor Callahan adjourned the regular Orono City Council meeting at 11:50 a.m. Edward J. CalLahan, Jr., Mayo DorothyfM.Ha I Iin, City Clerk AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1993, 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^j^on request from the Recorder. ROLL CALL 1. CONSENT AGENDA* APPROVAL OF MINUTES* 2. Regular Meeting of May 24, 1993 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Charles Schroeder Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ♦♦ APPLICANTS **Immediately after the Council has reviewed your application please sign the three (3) original resolutions at the Recorder's desk. Applicants need not execute resolutions for subdivisions, vacations and aenials Request for 4 5 6 7 8 #1737 Richard Hollander, 680 North Arm Drive - Extension #1811 C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle - Variance #1820 Hennepin County Department of Environmental Management, North Arm Access ■ Conditional Use Permit - Resolution #1822 Mark Prueter, 3215 Crystal Bay Road, Variances - Resolution #1824 Eric and Shelly Liljequist, 3490 Birch Lane - Variance Resolution , « i • • #1825 Thomas L. McCarthy, 2490 Old Beach Road - Preliminary Subdivision , , „ • #1826 Robert and Ann Henson, 2166 Shadywood Road - Variances #1827 Richard Henry Nelson, 3908 Cherry Avenue - Variances Ordinance Amendment Chapter 5.42 « i 1993 Joint Use Dock License - Forest Arms Association - Resolution 1993 Marina Licenses: - Windward Marina - Minnetonka Beat Works - Sailors World - Lakeside Marina - Gayles Marina - Crystal Bay Service 14. jOO Tonka Avenue - Conceptual Request for Sub "■'’ision/Drop Unit 9 10 11 12 13 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT i AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1993, 7:30 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA ENGINEER REPORT 15. Bike/Hike Progress Report CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 16. Goose Relocation Program 17. 1992 General Fund Budget Year End Summary and Adjustments lii. Adjustment to Recorder's Contract 19. LMCD 1994 Budget 20. City of Independence - Comp Plan Amendment *21. Above Ground Fuel Storage Tanks - Ordinance An’endnrent *22. Proclamation Lester Kelley *23. Proclamation Winton Burmaster *24. Gregg Palmer Step Increase CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (25*) BILLS (26*) ADJOURNMENT UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 06/14 - Council meeting - 7:30 p.m. 06/x6 - Council Work Session 7:45 a.m. 06/20 " Sunday - Orono Facilities Open House 1-4:00 p.m. 06/21 - Planning Commission 7:00 p.m. 06/28 - Council meeting - 7:30 p.m. 07/05 - Monday Holiday - Independence Day Observance 07/06 - Park Commission 7:15 p.m. 07/12 - Council meeting - 7:30 p.m. 07/19 - Planning Commission meeting 7:00 p.m. 07/21 - Hwy 12 Policy meeting 5:30 p.m. Orono Council Chambers 07/26 - Council meeting - 7:30 p.m. 9 V >-* ♦ -• «4^ W 5 **< ct ^ O •»! w c m sro?“ r M 6 Uin ir a:,!? 'J* « •: • 0 ^ a •0 ii 6 ^ •1 S||a .. a'^ 5 __________^ * ■» .. li O M » A % /•c ‘ * /o MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 % ROLL The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Edward Callahan, CouncIImembers J. Diann Goetten, Gabriel Jabbour, Charles Kelley and JoEllen Hurr. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Ron Moorse, Public Works Director John Gerhardson, Police Chief Stephen Sullivan, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, City Attorney Kevin Staunton, and City Recorder Teri Naab. Charles Nolan represented the Planning Commission. Mayor Callahan called the meeting to order at 7:38 P.M. (#1) CONSENT AGENDA Moorse removed Items 48 and 22. Kelley added Item 47. Goetten added Item 420. It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Ayes 5, nays 0. Motions for all items adopted by consent agenda will be Included in the minutes in their respective numerical order. (42) COUNTY ROAD 16 SAFETY IMPROVEMENT UPDATE Pat Murphy, Director of Hennepin County Public Works, and Bruce Polancheck, Planner, were present. Murphy stated he last appeared before the Council with a proposal to either upgrade the 2 lane County Road 15 or do major maintenance. He said he appeared before the City of Minnetonka Beach at the same time. Since that time the County has prepared a complete rebuild concept plan for the highway, which does not show construction limits or Impact. The proposal includes the area between Areola Bridge to the Highway 12 connection near Wayzata. He asked the Council to review the plan and provide them with dIrectI on. Polancheck explained they propose three types of development. The first is a typical section with two 12’ lanes and 8 shoulders, equaling 40’ paved right-of-way. The second Is the typical road section with a continuous left turn lane or two way turn lane in the middle equaling a 54’ right-of-way. The third section Is proposed In fewer areas and includes the typical section with both left and right turn lanes and would be a 66’ wide paved right-of- way. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 COUNTY ROAD 15 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS - CONT. Hurr noted the turn lanes are shown at a 14’ width versus a 12’ width. Polancheck said this is a typical width for a turn lane in lieu of the shoulder. He asked that they review the drawings he had to present. He explained west of the intersection of County Roads 15 and 51 a left lane would be provided, and east of County Road 51 to Heritage Lane a right turn lane would be provided. From Heritage Lane to Millston the road would taper to a typical section. From Millston passed Green Trees Road, the road would have a left turn lane. A left turn lane would be provided east of Tanager Bridge. Both right and left turn lanes are proposed for the intersection of Orono Orchard and County Road 15 tapering to a left turn lane to Woodhill. From there a typical section would be provided to Highway 12. Goetten inquired how much wider the road would be than the existing. Murphy said they would have to widen the road and acquire easements In some areas. Goetten reiterated the Comprehensive Plan calls for this road to be a scenic road. She questioned how they wi I I handle the Increased speed I ImIts. Murphy said they propose essentially the same road as existing with safety improvements. Polancheck noted they could considered the elIminatlon of the right turn lane between Spates Avenue and Heritage Lane to make the road narrower in this area. Hurr questioned whether the left turn lane p*-oposed near Heritage could be used by traffic turning off Heritage going eastward. ancheck said that is not the Intended use, but people could use for such. He said they have tried to provide a turn lane onto every public right-of-way. Kelley suggested they consider eliminating the turning lanes by Spates Avenue to force the traffic to use County Road 61. Jabbcur noted some residents in Orono believe County Road 15 should remain a narrow, hard to travel roadway. .Li. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 COUNTY ROAD 15 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS - CONT. Polancheck referred to the curve near Bracketts Point, and noted the County felt it their duty to remove the undesirable curves in this area reducing the curve to a 12 degree curve versus a 28-30 degree curve. However, this substantially Impacts the property to the north. Jabbour noted a previous City Council during a subdivision process for Green Trees voted against the right-of-way moving northward in this area. Murphy reiterated the County can build any portion presented, or rebuild any portion of the road as it currently exists. Goetten felt if the curve were reduced in this area it would only encourage speeding. Jay Richards inquired about provisions for a bike path along the road as he felt in the current state, the road was very dangerous for bikers. Goetten noted Councils in years past have not been In favor of widening the road. Hurr agreed that paved shoulders would make it much safer for bikers. Murphy said it would be possible to mark the shoulder for bikers where it meets recognized standards. Richards felt the trail should run the entire length of the pro j ect. Jim Rivers noted they need to slow down traffic on the road, not provide for it to go faster. Murphy said the County is not trying to make the road easier to speed on, but they are obligated to place safety features during a reconstruction. Rivers felt paved shoulders would create more traffic problems. Goetten Inquired about the funding for the project. Murphy replied If Council approves the project, it will be put Into the Capital Improvement Program for 1996. I MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 COUNTY ROAD 15 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS - CONT. Goetten asked about a signal Iight at County Roads 15 and 51 . Polancheck said one is not proposed. Jabbour expressed opposition to such. Goetten stated it is difficult to access onto County Road 15 from Orono Orchard Road, and felt a light further westward may help that situation. Jabbour inquired about the width of the existing right-of-way. Polancheck said the road could be built within the existing right- of-way of 66’, however, some portions may extend beyond. Murphy added wherever turn lanes are proposed, they may need the additional right-of-way. Polancheck reported that City staff was also opposed to reducing the curve near Bracketts Point. Murphy indicated all the necessary survey data is not available. He said to date they know the surface road will be close to the existing roadway, but stressed the plans presented are only conceptual. Goetten asked about the maintenance option. Murphy noted that would include resurfacing of the existing road with the addition of turn lanes wherever possible. Goetten asked the cost of the project excluding acquisition of easemen t s. Murphy replied the project would cost just under $5 million. Gerhardson questioned funding responsibilities of the City. Murphy stated the City may be required to fund a portion of storm sewer, but he anticipated this amount to be minimal and said they could define the cost better at the layout stage. He requested the Council to consider the proposal and reply at its earliest convenience but no later than next fall. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, second'^d by Goetten, to table action on the County Road 15 safety Improvements until after a work session is held on the issue. Ayes 5, nays 0. 4 J MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 (♦#3, 4 & 5) approva: of minutes It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour to approve the n mutes of the regular Council meeting held May 10, 26, 1993; the Boa'd of Review meeting held April 29, 1993; and the Reconvened BoarC of Review meeting held May 10, 1993. Ayes 5, nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no comments. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT COMMENTS Hurr reported the next Board meeting is Wednesday, May 26th. The LMCD will conduct a tour of the lake on an upcoming Friday evening. The Board is considering changes to the regulations regarding multiple dock side setbacks and unrestricted watercraft storage (I.e. sailboats), trying to establish consistency. The Environmental Committee will be looking at changes needed to the Comprehensive Plan and ways to fund the technical revisions. She reported Mr. Dunn will be present at the next meeting because the LMCD has challenged his in/out storage of boats. May or Cal I ahan questioned whether the LMCD Is considering requiring the marina owners to contribute with the use of their marinas for public access purposes as a condition of getting a license. Hurr replied she was unaware of such a condition. Goetten asked for a status of the Lake Access Subcommittee. Jabbour noted the paper reported incorrect information. Hurr noted the Maxwell Bay access was not listed in the paper because Orono asked the LMCD not to be Involved with the DNR access. Jabbour stated the City withdrew from the Task Force because of the prejudice displayed towards the City; that does not mean the City s Interest n the Lake has ceased. If anything the City’s obligation has doubled. He indicated the LMLOA has also removed themselves from the Task Force and many cities have been absent throughout the process. He expressed concern that a document will be generated drastically biased towards Mr. Grathwol’s point of view Indicating Orono has been a part of the process and agrees with the outcome. He felt they should object to the document. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 PUBLIC COMMENTS Jennifer Dotzenroth, 3225 Casco Circle, reported at the Governor’s Affairs Committee meeting that evening there was discussion that the DNR has made an option on Gayles Marina. Moorse stated he has not received information confirming that. Dotzenroth asked to be updated regularly as this matter proceeds. Carol Burgess, 2800 Pheasant Road, expressed appreciation for the Council’s past suppori ^or ♦‘he goose removal program. She asked the Council to reconsider its continued support, and asked them to look at how the problem impacts other areas of Orono. She noted throughout the lakeshore community, other cities have supported this program with funding. Mayor Callahan questioned how the project was funded. Burgess replied the residents of the area have paid $800 per year and the City has paid $200 per year. Mayor Callahan noted that during the past year, some residents expressed horror regarding the program. Burgess said the area Is so filled with geese that children cannot play In their yards. She noted that Dr. Cooper of the University may have other suggestions to remove the geese. Mayor Callahan suggested the residents approach the LMCD for help funding the project. Hurr noted that other cities around the lake are funding removal only from public lands. She felt they must provide the same financial support for any problem if they authorize this funding. Mayor Callahan directed staff to obtain Information from other lakeshore cities regarding their support of the program and report to the Counci I . (»#6) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT #3 - RESOLUTION 93283 It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour, to adopt Resolution #3283 approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment #3. Ayes 5, nays 0. 6 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 (#7) #1691 & #1702 CITY OF LONG LAKE, 130 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD - FINAL SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION #3284 Kelley inquired about the landscape plan and a provision in the covenants to ensure the plantings will be installed. Staunton replied there are provisions within the covenant that would allow Orono to obtain an injunction and to take litigation to enforce if such violations are determined. Mayor Callahan suggested the City should contact Long Lake • ^ ^ provision is not being adhered to prior to litigation. He said the City of Orono will be the primary party to enforce the covenant, not the residents, and added the covenants are perpetual. KeI ley questioned the time frame for the landscape screening to occur. Moorse replied as the properties are developed, screening will be planted. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour, to adopt Resolution #3284 for Application #1691 and #1702 the City of Long Lake, 130 Orono Orchard Road, approving the planned residential development and plat of rieming Trail. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#8) #1734 JOHN BURGER, 3750 BAYSIDE ROAD - FINAL SUBDIVISION It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour, to table action on Application #1734 John Burger, 3750 Bayside Road, at the request of staff, pending receipt of the required easement documents. (#9) #1811 C. JACK REMIEN, 3237 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCES Mr. Remien was present. Gaffron explained this is a request for a third oj! ® variance for lot area and width originally approved In 1984. When the original variance was granted the property was owned in common by the property owner to the north. The property is in a hal zoning district, and contains 77* of the area requirement, and 55* of the lot width. The Planning Commission voted in this on a vote of 3 to 2. A question has been raised about the consistency with the DNR shoreland regulations. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 - CONT. In staff’s opinion, vased on a letter received from the DNR, the City’s codes are in compliance with the DNR regulations and the City may grant the variance If the City finds a hardship exists. He stated previous to 1984, the City would not have considered a variance for common ownership property. He referred to a study in 1983 regarding common ownership revealing the number of lots in the City in common ownership and the size of lots throughout the various zoning districts, and concluded that the number of common ownership lots that might eno up requesting variances is relatively small compared to the number of properties in the varous zones, and therefore upon the recommendation of the City Attorneys at that time, changed the policy to accept variance applications for common ownership lots. Gaffron noted that the first and second renewals were fairly non- controversial using the same documentation and hardship statement as the original approval. It appears the neighborhood now questions whether or not this variance should be g*^anted. Staunton said there is still some dispute whether the DNR shoreland regulations would prohibit approval of a variance He opined that the regulations provide an opportunity for a variance and the DNR regulations were only designed as guidelines for development of the City ordinance. He felt the real issue for this case is whether or not a hardship exists to allow the granting of a variance. Mayor Cal lahan asked If It wac, the CI ty Attorney ’ s opinion that the Council’s only task is to apply the City codes. Staunton concurred. Mayor Callahan read a letter from Robert Hare, realtor for the Bielkes. Tom Zappia, attorney for Remien, felt the real Issue Is the variance under the Orono ordinance. The primary issues are: the property in question has a history of variance approval proclaiming buiI dabiIity; the applicant acouired it as a buildable lot; there is no other reasonable use for the property; and the variance would not adversely impact the neighborhood as there are several other substandard lots in the area. Warren Bielke, 3241 Casco Circle, said he purchased his property in November 1905 and at the time the former owner of this lot requested a variance which both he and Remien stated objections to. Mr. Remien purchased the vacant parcel after that variance was approved to use for the addition to his residence. a 1 il k. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 - CONT. Jennifer Dotsenroth, 3225 Casco Circle, stated an objection to the variance citing additional hardcover and severe erosion problems in the area as reasons to deny. She felt most parcels in this area meet the lot area standard, and noted that Casco Circle is very narrow and they do not need the additional traffic on the road. Dick Kunz, realtor, said he disagrees with the adverse affects of this development on other property values. He noted the buyer of this property intends to build within the hardcover guideI Ines and one additional residence will not create that much mo re traffic. Dave Stilspth, 3233 Casco Circle, said if this property Is developed there will be minimum separ^^tion between the three residences and be very congested. This Goes not fit the general look of the area. He felt the properties should oe combined. Hurr inquired the width of his lot. Stilseth stated his lot Is a bit larger than 60’ wide, but adi-ed was grandfathered in and he purchased it 14 years ago. Gary Nasiedlek, buyer of the vacant lot, said they began their procedure by calling Orono and getting the specifications to build for this property. They agree to remove the garage on the lot. He felt the house will fit the neighborhood, and added the road could be widened. He said he has offered to postpone building until the Bielkes sell their property. Mayor Callahan clarified that the buyer has a contingency in his purchase agreement based on approval of this variance, and that he was aware of the need for the variance at the time the purchase agreement was drafted. Nasiedlek concurred. Chuck Plain, 3227 Casco Circle, expressed opposition as most parcels in the area are larger pieces of property and approving this variance would place three residences in close proximity. Jay Richards, 3243 Casco Circle, stated he was excited when Remien purchased the property to add onto his residence. He concurred that If approved this will be the only area where three residences are placed in close proximity. He agreed there Is a need to minimize hardcover in this area because of the erosion problems, and stated the Council may wish to consider making Casco Circle a one way road In the future because of its narrow width. p MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 - CONT. Richards asked that if approved the concept plans be a part of that approval as it is crucial that a smaller residence be placed on this parceI. Peter Bachman, attorney for the Bielkes, referred to the Lorge case where the City was sued over the common ownership issue in 1982. He said this case does not set a precedent as it was settled out of court. He presented that even though variances have been approved in the past, there are major issues preventing approval at this time, including: the common ownership issue, and undue hardship. He referred to a case whereoy the Court indicates that without the presence of a demcnstrated hardship a variance cannot be approved. He felt the applicant’s plight is partially of his own doing. The Courts also have stated that i: the property adjacent to the substandard parcel is owned in common, the properties must ba combined. The Courts have also indicated that past variance approval does not entitle automatic approval of the present request. He felt the law is very clear in these areas. Mayor Callahan questioned whether the thrust of his argument Is the Council’s ability to deny. Bachman repiied he is trying to point out that the CouncII has the authority to deny, but not the authorization to grant the variance if there Is no undue hardship. Mayor Callahan said they are trying to determine If there Is a hardship. Bachman distinguished that the owner purchased the property knowing that It was substandard and owns the property adjacent to the vacant parceI. Hurr pointed out when the owner purchased the parcel It was declared buildable. Bachman disagreed, noting that the variance had expired. Hu'‘r noted the parcel has been assessed for sewer and water and historically been taxed as a buildable lot. Bachman stated ihe appileant has used this parcel In common with his homestead property. Me said he has asked other city attorneys and the uniform response has been that It is nonsense to grant variances based on the property being taxed a buildable parcel. He suggested one could request the assessor to tax a parcel at a higher rate and then request a variance ’ased on such. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 - CONT. Goetten felt that reply rather simplistic. She inquired about the assessment of sewer units. Gaffron reported that the properties in this area were assessed footage and there was no unit or area charge. This parcel was assessed the front footage charge and would have to pay incremental charges based on recent sewer upgrades. He added the sewer stub on this parcel is used by the Bielkes and needs an easement. Bachman clarified the point he was trying to make is the City has the right to control land use and it should not be based on historical taxing practices. He felt the only reason why these properties were not combined is the owner feels he wiI I make more money if sold separately, and a variance cannot be approved based on economic reasons. He said an applicant for a v;.'r|ance m.ust meet all applicable City and State standards. He said "-operty does not have any unique characteristics to distinguisn (t from other substandard parcels. He felt denial of the variance does not prohioit the use of the property as It can be combined with the adjacant parceI. Bachman reviewed the findings included in the draft resolution and felt they were lacking. Steve Sllus, potential buyer of Damien’s developed parcel, stated he has agreed to this purchase knowing the adjacent parcel will be deveI oped. Hurr asked him if he felt that to be a negative. Sllus replied he did not any more than the property developed on the south side. Chris Bielke noted the three variances approved in the past have been to owners not owning the parcel in common with adjacent parceIs. Jabbour questioned whether the owner could sell the two parcels independently and the new owner come back with the hardship that there is no available land and this is a reasonable use. Staunton opined that could be done. Bachman retorted that the iaw provides that anytime property Is owned in common ownership it must be combined. 1 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 - CONT. Kelley asked the applicant his hardship. Remien said he purchased tf'e parcel as a buildable lot and if combined he would suffer a suostantial loss. He stated he purchased the parcel for $80,000 and intends to selI for $92,000, but wlI I not realize a fnanclal gain as he must pay the realtor fees, attorney fees and has paid taxes on the parcel. He felt the hardship is that there is no additional property to combine to this property to make it conforming, but added it does contain the necessary spuare footage. He said he has maintained the vacant parcel, but has viewed it as completely independent from is homestead parcel. Mayor Callahan asked the applicant If he had opposed the previous variance request. Remien replied his former wife opposed the variance In 1987, and In fact, she was not listed as a property owner at the time. In final resolve, he purchased the property after the variance approval with the intent to maintain or sell as a buildable lot. Hurr clarified that he receives two separate tax statements. Remien stated that is correct. Hurr asked about the narrowest developed prope»*ty In the area. Bachman noted the staff report indicates this parcel Is 5’ narrower than the next smallest developed property. Gaffron clarified that the two parcels next to this property are also 55’ wide, out there are no lots narrower than this property. Dotzenroth stated there are no lots narrower than this property, and requested Council to again consider the environmental impacts. Jabbour repiled that the vacant parcel could contain hardcover even If combtned with the adjacent parcel. Dave Truax, Remien’s realtor, disagreed with the position held by Hare that the values in the area will be reduced. He stated both the Remiens and the Bielkes enjoy the benefits of the vacant parceI. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 - CONT. Chris Bielke stated they do have a privacy fence long the lot line. She added during a recent open house of their property, there was conversation regarding this property and interest in their property has dwindled. Kelley said he would vote to deny as no undue hardship has been shown. Goetten stated prior Councils have decided this to be a buildable lot, and she feels honor-bound to rely on their decision. Staunton indicated that it is correct that prior action does not bind the Counci I to grant the renewal variance as approval is time limited and lapsed. He said the Council needs to independently confirm the hardship for this request and previous action cannot act as the sole support for this approval. However, he added that the Council is not legally prohibited from granting the variance based on hardship. Mayor Callahan questioned past ownership regarding variance approval. Gaffron stated the variance was originally approved whi ie under the common ownership with the property to the north, then it was sold to a separate owner, and now is owned by an adjacent property owner agaln. Mayor Callahan stated other than economic reasons, he did not see any claim of hardship. Hurr felt they have set a precedent in the past by granting variances where the area meets 11% of the standards. She felt the only question is the ownership. She felt they were bound by previous approvals. Mayor Callahan reiterated that they must find a hardship to approve, and the property could be combined and provide a reasonable use of the property. Hurr disagreed, that they declared this property buildable and now are disagreeing because it is owned in common ownership with the adjacent property. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 - CONT. Mayor Callahan asked if the Council was mistaken with the first approval, why should they repeat that mistake. Hurr asked about the City’s past policy to consider taxing history. Kelley noted they cannot look at valuations. Goetten stated the Council has approved variances in the past based on sewer avallabiIity. She felt the Counci I does not have the right to require the combination. Jabbour said he Is sensitive to the fact that a hardship must be demonstrated and also to the former promise of past Councils. He felt the applicant could demonstrate a hardship if the two parcels were sold independently. Mayor Callahan stated the hardship would have then been created by the appIicant. Goetten indicated the Issue Is not the common ownership, but rather the fact the property was purchased subsequent to being declared buildable. She felt they would be taking a right away by denying. She felt If they deny this application, the Council would be setting a real precedent and reiterated past practice has been to consider sower and water availability and taxing history. It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten, to approve Application #1811 for C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle, approving variance to permit construction of a new residence. Jabbour asked the applicant to try harder to demonstrate a hardship. He said he would I ike to do the honorable thing. Kelley disagreed and stated they are elected officials and can be replaced if their actions are not agreed upon by their constituents. He felt they were not bound by past decisions. Goetten felt the hardship is the availability of the sewer and water. Vote: Ayes 2, nays 3. Kelley, Mayor Callahan and Jabbour voted nay. It was moved by Kelley to deny Application #1011 for C. Jack RIemen. 4 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 - CONT. Mayor Callahan asked the appileant If he would I Ike additional time to demonstrate hardship. Riemen stated he would like the application to be tabled. Kelley withdrew his motion. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour, to table untiI June 14th Application #1811 for C. Jack Riemen, 3237 Casco Circle, to allow the applicant time to demonstrate hardship. Ayes 5, nays 0. Mayor Callahan called for a recess from 10:30 to 10:40 p.m. (#10) #1828 CHRISTOPHER TULLY, 1355 NORTH ARM DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION #3285 Mr. Tully was present. Gaffron explained the applicant seeks a conditional use permit for an accessory structure In the rear yard of a through lot, meeting the required 15’ side setback and the 30’ rear setback. The applicant has agreed to combine all seven of his parcels. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution #3285 for Application #1828 for Christopher Tully, 1355 North Arm Drive, approving a conditional use permit for the construction of an accessory structure on a through lot. Ayes 5, nays 0. Hurr asked the intended use of the structure. Tully replied It wo..ld be used for storage. (#11) 1993 MARINA LICENSES Gaffron explained this issue involves six applications for 1993 marina licenses, In staff's opinion three of which are without controversy and similar to past applications: Crystal Bay Service, Windward Marine, and Minnetonka Boat Works. Lakeside Marina has made an application requesting 30 to 50 boats intended to be stored on land for lake use in addition to their 77 normal slips. They have not paid the slip fee for these 30 to 50 as part of the application. The question is whether or not the City is still in the business of regulating boat density. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 1993 MARINA LICENSES - CONT. Resolution #938, referenced in every license issued since that adoption, coupled with the existing code sections which state that if the operation of the marina is to be a detriment to the lake or the environment or neighbors, the Iicense should not be issued, leads to a conclusion that no license should be granted for the 30 to 50 boat addition. Resolution #938 states that Increasing the boat density does create an environmental problem. He felt that to be a conflict in issuing a license for the extra slips. He recommends that based on this analysis a license be issued for the 77 slips, and not recognize the additional boat storage on land. He noted the B-2 zoning section of the code discusses dock lengths, but does not address boat density. His concern Is that in light of past practice of recognizing past boat density, if boat density is not addressed with these Iicense appiications, the City may not maintain continuity and may give up some authority it may want to maintain. Mayor Cal Iahan asked if the three appIications in question directly related to the number of boats. Gaffron replied all of them are historically related to boat density, and the form and fee schedule used for the application are tied to boat density prohibiting an increase in density. Mayor Callahan felt the Issue was properly brought to the attention of the City and the staff’s analysis of the history Is correct. He felt the thrust of the regulation suggested In Resolution #938 is related to length of docks, not boat density. The Lake Use Committee came to the belief that the City ought to regulate the marinas as a business and as such confine efforts to ensure they do not engage in activities which might be considered nuisances, and regulate them in actual use of the land simi lar to the way other land owners are regulated. Consideration was given to whether the B-2 section of the code should be revised, and that is "^der consideration at the PIanning Commission level. The two iss.*i Mat the Committee was concerned about was that the land use be in accordance with the general views of the City and the marinas do not act in such a way as to be a nulsanca or obtrusive in the neighborhood. One major issue to consider is adequate parking. Specifically, the Lake Use Committee did not want to regulate the number of boats at the marina, and more specifically did not want to regulate dry stacking. The Committee generally believed that the marinas should be allowed to run as a business in any way deemed useful. He felt that marinas. Kept within those parameters, v.ere desireable w>».hln the City and serve a useful purpose in getting the public on the lake. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 1993 MARINA LICENSES - CONT. Mayor Callahan suggested the Council grant all six licenses, not based on the number of boats, and modify Resolution #938 to abolish any reference to boat counts, and change the basic fee structure so as not to be based on the boat slips. Jabbour asked the Council to address Mr. Dunn’s most recent request that Jabbour be allowed to be involved with discussion regarding marinas. Mayor Callahan explained Dunn originaily suggested Jabbour not be allowed to be Involved with discussion regarding marinas as he is also a marina owner and Dunn felt it to be a conflict of interest. Mr. Dunn recently has expressed a wish that Jabbour be allowed to participate. Mayor Callahan felt Jabbour could act responsibly and urged him to participate in discussion. Rivers agreed that he felt that Jabbour is an elected official and sh'^u I d carry on as such and would look at the issues from the City’s standpoint. Kelley and Goetten concurred that they felt Jabbour would act in accordance. Jabbour felt marinas have to be run as a serious business and noted many regulations governing them. He felt counting boats was counter-productive and felt they should consider envelopes of use rather than boat density. He acknowledged that they need to know the number of slips to justify required parking. Hurr felt the perception is as bad as reality. She questioned Dunn’s original request to have Jabbour not participate. Mayor Callahan stated that one can only assume that Dunn felt Jabbour did not need to step down in the first place. Rivers questioned the conflict between the LMCD and the City’s position on boat density. He asked who governs. Jabbour noted that the City is not Indicating that a marina can have as many boats as they wish, but rather that the City should not concern themselves with actual boat density and should only be concerned with defining parameters and an acceptable use of the property. r MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 1993 MARINA LICENSES - CONT. Hurr noted that the plan for Windward Marina indicates no storage Is allowed on the east side of the gazebo, but boats were stored there all winter. Gaffron noted the Council approved a plan that supersedes the original plan, allowing such storage. Jabbour commented that the LMCD has difficulty understanding that all boats are used in the lake, yet they have a very distinct difference between boats to be launched on a daily basis and boats to be launched that are dry stacked. He felt it would best serve by the City if they acknowledge that all boats will at some time be launched in the lake, and felt the City does not wish to restrict marinas and their types of service. He added, the City does not intend the street to be used for parking and the entire marina property used for boat storage. • Mayor Callahan stated he has read the applicable Statute and found out that it was completely revised in 1991, and the word park.j.n^ appears in It once, so he assumed that there is only one occasion where the LMCD has control over parking. The area which it appeared in the Statute had to do with parking in connection with marinas. Mayor Callahan surmised that the only place which the LMCD has been given power by the State to regulate parking has to do with parking in marinas. The Statute goes on to say, "the regulation by the LMCD has to be In accordance with and conforming to the zoning ordinances of the City". He opined that if the City’s view about the use of the land is that you allowed to park as many boats on the property as you wish, the LMCD cannot govern this densit> . The LMCD is beyond its authority if it tries to govern boat parking on land based on the fact that the boat will be launched Into the lake. Resolution #938 indicates a Joint control with the LMCD over dock use, as long as the dock is attached to land in Orono. He said If the LMCD is planning to condition the grant of licenses on any connection with parking, he opined they are not empowered to do so. He felt the LMCD is trying to prohibit or limit the use of marinas and encourage free access for the public, and the reason for restricting marinas appears to be to encourage freu access. He said, "access is access, and the damage to the lake doas not depend upon who pays to get the boat into the lake". Jabbour reiterated in the past the City has established unattainable goals, and is now trying to change that philosophy. He felt they could not rely on the LMCD to come up with logical uses as the LMCD has expressed a bias towa-d a certain type of boaters. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 1993 MARINA LICENSES - CONT. It wao moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Goetten, to approve the 1993 marina license for the following: Windward Marina, Minnetonka Boat Works, Sailors World, Lakeside Marina, Gayles Marina and Crystal Bay Marina, and directed Resolution #938 to be amended to revoke language related to boat density. Hurr questioned what they intend to base parking standards on If the boat density Is no longer an issue. Mayor Callahan noted marinas will till be required to compliance with the B-2 zoning secti-m. be i n Gaffron expressed concern that the City would no longer require an exhibit attached to the license indicating factors such as dock layout, required parking spaces, etc. and felt this may create problems. He suggested staff return with an amended exhibit. Mayor Callahan agreed and suggested that may be important to complete first. He changed his motion to direct staff to change the license form and exhibit and report back at the June 14th meetirtg to Council with a new license ordinance, including matters previously discussed at the Lake Use Committee meetings and by Council. He directed staff In the mean time to not interfere with marina operations for the lack of a license. Jabbour expressed concern that this not be construed that the Cl tv Is not concerned with boat density. Hurr said, "some of us very clearly criticize the LMCD, but If It had not been fcr their involvement for the years that Orono was doing "diddly squat" with marina licenses, nothing would have gotten done." She said she does not have the greatest amount of confidence in Orono with regard to regulations Involving marina operatI on. Jabbour and Goetten agreed with Hurr that the City has waited too long to enforce the ordinances. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour, to table action on the 1993 marina license to the June 14th meeting, and enforcement of the ordinance requiring a Mcense be suspended, and directed staff to report to the Council with a draft of the license ordinance reflecting previous discussions. Hurr asked if they would have a chance to review the ordinance prior to Its adoption at the June 14th meeting. I MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 1993 MARINA LICENSES - CONT. Mayor Callahan noted he did not anticipate adoption of the ordinance at the next meeting. Vote: Ayes 5, nays 0. MAYOH/COUNCIL REPORT A) Mayor Callahan explained after meetings with members of the Hennepin Parks, it has come to his attention that they consider the bike trail as their project and are allowing Orono to contribute. It was his impression that the Hennepin Parks interprets the agreement differently than the City does. He noted at the meeting there was discussion that the screening along the trail should be replaced similar to what is currently there. Hurr questioned the allowable speed on the traiI. Mayor Callahan said the agreement reads “only used by pedestrians and bicycles' and does not address speed limits. Mr. Byrani of Hennepin Parks interprets this section to mean, he will decide the use of the trail, and said, 'for instance if we decide that we want to have roller skating, skate boarding, and etc., we will put them on. We will place It and maintain it.” Hurr asked if there will be a center line. Gerhardson confirmed there would be. Ke I ley questioned the 8’ width of the tral I and noted the trai I through Baker Park is narrower. Hurr felt the 8’ Is essential as it is next to a roadway. She questioned who Is responsible for maintenance of the trail. Gerhardson replied Hennepin County will provide maintenance. B) Kelley reported he and Moorse have met with City officials of Long Lake to discuss the Fire Department. They have reviewed the historical budgets and reported all money has been accounted for the past 5 years. They will meat again to review the 1994 budget. Jabbour said the City is fortunate to have Rick Perry as Fire Chief. Kelley stated they need a philosophy established on the ownership of equipment. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT - CONT. C) Goetten reported the City of Long Lake has appointed two residents to approach MnDot regarding the Iight situation at WiI low Drive. Long Lake has suggested Orono and Medina join with them. D) Jabbour expressed concern by residents that Orono has be involved with the Lake Access Task Force. He said he to these people that Orono was unhappy with the chai committee, and Jabbour felt the committee is winding stated he wants the archives to reflect that only 2 or of the committee have been attending the meetings of Force. Orono was only Involved in establishing the cri counts. He expressed his frustration with the process to ceased to exp I ained r of the down. He 3 members the Task terla and the LMCD. Mayor Callahan noted that was always the major danger of the report. He stated the press reported the names of many members OT the Task Force, many of which did not know the> were even on the Commit tee. E) Hurr volunteered to serve on an ad-hoc committee to review the County Road 15 improvements. Goetten volunteered also. F) Mayor Callahan expressed pleasure with the addition of a Police Department report on the agenda. Sullivan reported Reo Raj Kennels will be going out of business as of June 30th, but the City may have an opportunity to use Wright County Humane Society. He said he would keep them posted. POLICE CHIEF REPORT (**12) MONTHLY REPORT It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour, to accept the monthly activity summary report. Ayes 5, nays 0. (»*13) NORTH TONKA CRIME PREVENTION COALITION It was moved by Hur;-, seconded by Jabbour, to Information regarding the North Tonka Crime Prevention Coalition. Ayes 5, nays 0. (*•14) NORTH MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DONATION It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour, to accept the Information regarding the North Memorial Meuical Center Donat on. Aye* 6, nays 0. MINUTES OF A REGULAR OryuNO r.OUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY L4, 139o ENGINEER’S REPORT There was no report. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (ms) ABOVE GROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS Moorse explained the tanks will be located 32 1/2’ property line and the code requires a 50’ setback, standa'*j was written for basic steel tanks. from the but that Staunton suggested amending the code. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Ca.lahar, to direct staff to draft an amendment to Section 9.34 adding an exception to the 50’ setback for 1 hour fire rated tanks to be setback 30’. Ayes 5, nays 0. (*»16) SALARY ADJUSTMENT D.J. GOMAN It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour, to approve increase for D.J. Goman to $6.61. Ayes 5, nays 0. a salary (*i17) TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT - GOLF COURSE It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour, to authorize hiring Don Kvam as temporary starter at the Orono Golf Course effective May 25, 1993 at an hourly rate of $5.50. Ayes 5, nays 0. (•19) 1992 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Mayor Callahan noted he did not receive the Information In his packet. It was moved by Mayor Cal lahan, se. .ided by Jabbour, to table action on the 1992 budget adjustments. Ayes 5, nays 0. (*•20) WILD FLOWER SEEDING - FRENCH LAKE PARK It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabtjur, to approve the expenditure of $1,500 to do the finish grading and seeding at the sewer pond property, to be paid for from the Park Dedication Fund. Ayes 5, nays 0. Hurr asked that the name French Lake Park not be recognized as It hat not been approved by the Council. 22 j I i i i L MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 (»#21) ESTABLISH PLANNING COMMISSION TERMS - ORDINANCE #115, SECOND SERIESIt was moved by Hum, seconded by Jabbour, to approve Ordinance #115, Second Series to establish the Planning Commission terms. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#21A) SEWER PLANT PROPERTY UPDATE Kelley asked each Counci I member their opinion of the value of the property to the City. Goetten said she was not against selIing two lots, and reminded him this sale is to help offset the cost of the new facilities. Mayor Callahan believes it ought to be sold. Jabbour said, “if I owned the property, I would keep It , but expressed concern that they had promised the public the property would be sold to offset the cost of the new facility. Hurr stated no opinion. Jabbour said he agrees with Kelley that it is important to maintain open lands, and suggested they could acquire land in a more desireable location. Kelley asked If they would be willing to change their minds If a number of the public opposed the sale. Hurr stated there will still be many reminding them of their promise. Mayor Cal lahan said he Is not opposed to sel I Ing the property regardless of the promise to the pubiic. Moorse Indicated If tne subdivision is to move forward they must prepare a Comprehensive Plan amendment for sewer. Mayor Cal Iahan felt they shouId not start the process until a price for the land is arrived at. Moorse stated the appraisal would be done early June. Kelley questioned the need for a private ro.*d to serve the three residents. Mayor Callahan stated he was not excited about going to the MetropoI Itar> Council with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. No action required. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD MAY 24, 1993 (#21B) OLD CRYSTAL BAY BRIDGE EASEMENT ACQUISITION It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Goetten, to approve the permanent and temporary easement for the Old Crystal Bay bridg© project, and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the easement. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#22) LICENSES Moorse added an application for a septic license from Olson Construct Ion. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Goetten, to approve the following I I censes: Septic System Installers: Olson Construction Clover Hill Co., Inc. Garbage Haulers: Baldy Sanitation Inc. East Tonka Sanitation Ayes 5, n-'.ys 0. R&W Sanitation Inc. & R4W Roll-off Service, Inc. (*#23) BILLS It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour, the All Funds Account. Ayes 5, nay 0. to approve payment of ADJOURNMENT Mayor Callahan adjourned the regular Orono City Counci I meeting at 12:15 a.m. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hal I In, City Clerk J TO:Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator % . // % FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jearme A. Mabusth, Building &. Zoning Administrator Crry, June 8, 1993 OifQ % % 1^^1737 Richard Hollander, 680 North Arm Drive - After the Fact Variances - Request to Extend Deadline Date List of Exhibits A - Applicant ’s Request B - Resolution #3194 C - Site Plan Approved with Application #1737 Council approved Mr. Hollander ’s after the fact variance application on November 9, 1992. The application involved improvements made to the property that exceeded storm damage permit issued in 1987 under the authority of the emergency ordinance. Approval of the after the fact variance was conditioned on the removal of accessory structures within die lakeshore protected zone and non-strucni ’-al improvements within the 75-250 setback zone to be completed by June 1, 1993. The applicant claims that as a result of the wet spring he has been unable to get equipment to 'he lakeshore yard needed to remove the structural debris and masonry block boathouse structure, refer to Exhibit C. Hollander has di.sniantlcd the gazebo and deck structure and the upper level deck of the boathouse. The Building staff made an inspection of the site on June 3, 1993 and reported that the razed gazebo and deck still remain stored on the lakeshore yard and that the plastic underlain within the specified landscape areas have yet to be removed. The inspectors also confirmed that the 248 s.f. of gravel drive has yet to be removed. Mr. Hollander is in the process of selling his home. Two months ago a realtor contacted my ottice to request information on the Hollander property and appeared to be surprised when told of the specific hardcover removals to be completed by June 1st. Council should also be aware that the property is torrens and the County does not accept variance resolutions for filing against the chain of title. The applicant has not advised of the method to be used for removing the building debris from the lakeshore yard. If would appear the only method available would be to barge it from the site. —- Zoning File #1737 June 8, 1993 Page 2 If it is Council ’s intention to approve Mr. Hollander ’s request for a 60 day extension, staff recommends that Hollander execute the standard developer’s agreement whereby he agrees to complete the following by August 1, 1993: A. Dismantling of masonry boathouse. B. Removal of all building debris and block from site. C. Removal of existing gravel parking area and replanting with natural ground cover. D. Removal of plastic underliner beneath the specified landscape areas. Applicant must also provide a letter of credit to cover 150% of the cost of required improvements listed above. The posting of a letter of credit is not usually required of residential land owners as conditions of approval of a land use application. Staff recommends that security be required so that the City could complete the removals if the deadline is not met as property is for sale. Options of Action To approve Mr. Hollander ’s retjuest of the 60 day extension and require the execution of a developer’s agreement and posting of letter of credit to cover 150% of cost of the required removals; or Denial of the equest and direct the City Attorney to proceed with the appropriate legal action to enforce conditions of Resolution #3194 which was agreed to with the execution of the resolution by Mr. Hollander. 1 May 26,1993 680 North Arm Drive Mound Mn. 55364 Orono City Council Reg; 680 North Arm Drive Resolution MAY ?. S This letter is to request an extension on the work on our home at 680 North Arm Drive. We have had an unusually rainy spring with high lake levels and this has prevented us from completing all the work requested . We have completed the removal of the second floor of the boat house, the removal of the gazebo and removal of plastic ground cover. But the area around and under the lower level of the boat house is still to wet. It requires heavy equipment to do the removal of the foundation and the final grading. We would respectfully ask for a 60 day extension to properly allow for the ground to dry out and the lake levels to drop. We don't think the high lake levels will permit excavation any sooner than this without excessive risk of equipment and to our lower lot. We have enclosed pictures to show the progress we have made in the removal of the gazebo and second floor of the boat house. Thank you for considering our request. Sincerely, Richard and Cynthia Hollander Q. (^L.OOlZ^ ■ • .“'V . * *4 :* . “•i tjM-' I * .. . ^ ^ *• . m- • " • ■* 'Wr: • • * «» ^ h-iou t .. ■ - * K* z ^ ‘Mf- ; -■ • ! • I * i: Wmi. ■■ r 6 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _________ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (A) AND SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 PILE #1737 WHEREAS, Richard Hollander (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 680 North Arm Drive wxthin the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: See Exhibit A attached Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the apolicant has applied to the City variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (A) and Subdivision 2 to allow a grade level deck and gazebo to remain in the lakeshore yard located 14' from the shoreline where a 75 setback is required resulting in additional hardcover at 735 s.f. or .9 where 3,550 s.f. or 23.6% exists and where none is allowed. Minnesota : 1. 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1737. The property is located in the LR-IB lakeshore Residential zoning district requiring 1 acre in area. The prope-ty consists of 19,100 s.f. or .43 ac d*s. 3 The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 18, 1992 and October 19, 1992 and of^the proposed variances as amended based upon the following findings: a) The unusal shape of the lot. b) The majority of the area of the a-|- 1°'= ^ = located within the 0-75' setback at 15,000 s.f. Page 1 of 7 ^t)T O'}, itw \\ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.3194 c) Approximately 744 s.f. of the hardcover within the 0- 75* setback area has been installed because the historic erosion problems of the steep lakeshore bank which was intensified at the time of the 1987 storms. d) AoDlicant has provided written affidavits ^tom contractors and friends confirming that deck and g^^ebo structure was constructed prior to the 1987 storm and constructed sometime in the early '80s. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions oroperty are peculiar to it and do not apply ge ?ther property in this zoning district; that variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve ^ SInvenience to^^the^applicant, but is necessary to aHev t a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is f 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. q The Citv Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commissi^^ reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety a welfare of tha community. CONCLUSIONS, 01 )ER AND CONDITIONS ».“r4 decking ®conl«ilted" w\thoj.t^ 1. All non-structural and structural ^*tdcover improveme^ scheduled for removal as shown on Page 7 of this resoiut lhall tt completed by June 1, lf93. Hardcover within the 0 75' setback area shall remain at 3,799 s.f. or H^dcover within the 75-250* setback area shall remain a 1,537 s.f. or 37.4%. Page 2 of 7 0\ & CITY of ORON RES- .'ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3194 ______ 2 Applicant shall obtain a demolition permit from the City prior to the removal of the screen house/attached deck and gsizsho locatsd within ths i3.ksshor0 yard* 3 Applicant shall restore natural ground cover with grass seed or sod to all areas where non-struccural improvements are to be removed. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are Permissive only and must be exercised by applicant first obtaining a demolition pennit to complete the removal of the screen house and deck structure and to finally complete all hardcover removals by June 1, 1993. 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of conditions of this variance shall constitute a the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any y grun.ed herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood aarees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and \^tle of the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of November, 1992. ATTEST: 'Dd^othy l^r^allin. City Clerk Property Owner(s) Pace 3 of 7 u CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 3194NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss • COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the .) . KS ypaagp-i JAMIE L BOSMA NOTARY PUBU&MINNkSOlA letCPW COUNTY Uif Comm. E«i« 12-19^ No (TT^ d'rytiju!^ Public I X / . ^ X Page 4 of 7 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3194 ________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 3 ) ss. Or> 4-his O ---- ------ nn h € Kiafnre me a Notary Public within and for said county/ personally aoo/aart ’d D t4-^ylln ndpr mnrrs'eii to me to oeappeart.d and' who execllted the foregoing inJtrumen?, aid acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. m STATE OP MINNESOTA ) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) , * / 199 / before me fNltiry public with-n -d°for said County,^ (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 cf -7 RESOLUTION s3194 EXHIBIT A Lot 1, except that part thereof lying Northwesterly of the following described line: Beginning at the most southerly corner of said Lot 1; thence North 26 degrees 39 minutes West along the Southwesterly line thereof a distance of 9.0 feet; thence continuing along the Southwesterly line of said LcL 1 on a tangential curve to the left the radius of which is 363.65 feet, a distance of 202.61 feet to actual point of beginning of the line to be described? thence Nortn 31 degrees 23 minutes 52 seconds East to the Northeasterly line of said Lot 1 and there terminating. Auditor's Subdivision Number 362, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County. Page 6 of 7 Lake Minnehnka i^tbucriohiitoKitKJC, nue Kt>. l>37 Ccnfoiir /<nfT M^uiyJ f/«nc r {*s^ _____ __f‘^c!a m?<»^ %^\\ - 'X 1.:^ r #i i>' / I 1 v'^1 6- '?»/i-56-1 1?lMOV2. PoR-TTOKi OF *'k>-V.Vv^V> V.'.*> I ^‘• t •• .**'»^. v^*. f- TF- </*Y V #% ,11 “ yK*,:*‘ / ✓ ('' ’^'V RESOLUTION i?3194 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO I Dorothy M. Hallln, City Clerk of the City of Orono. Hennepin County. Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of n resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of the proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held Qfj November 9 • 1992 _, and that the same is a true gnd COrrect copy oT said resolution was duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto 3=?t my hand and seal this 10th , day of October . 19 92 hi / allin. City Clerk (SEAL) fJorfh Arm WAaiysjsvEj;.Lake MinnefonKa ^«*n^tc,R-r<ONi2t>OMsJQ, F^ur Wo. I-J.3-^.1 S ii»oyi5-e lint 3 45 f/H if ^ <*4‘ »S I , M^ariu/ sf^n< ^ X 'N,X'\'*> |*r^cfam?»v^ MaU £wts//n^ TT^ = .' •', ' \ OntkW* ^I *% ^ •• V * C. ^ o r “r ’ ^ •,y -. ^vT t»• - *• •t Ti !§ M ^ >>>wVwX V VV ->5 ♦ .•^W*v.k, 3: If.d *>N VV v > :^>©ncVc?cr * •* •; » ^tHovi PbitnoKi qF^ <SAT:^^P^ ^Loioe^i2£Ej 'f^*Jtrsm(ti ■^.7^ *.‘^d r'^^v'oc '•PV;'#-. • ^1 TO:Mayor Callahan aivJ Orono Council Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning & Zoning iVuininist^!^^ ^ June 10. 1993 0 #1811 C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle - Variance Renewal - Continuation of Review- List of Exhibits A B C D E - F G H Letter from Remien’s Attorney 6./4Z93 Memo from Gary Nasiedlak (Buyer of Lot 18) 6/8/93 Letter fror: Bielke’s Attorney 6/9/93 Notice ot Council Action 5/27/93 Staff Memo 5/27/93 Re: Sevver/Water As.-essment Sectio* 10.08, Subd. 3 Re: Issuance of Variances Exce.-pt from State Statutes Re: Variances Memo and Exhibits of 5/19/93 Please read the attached letter from the applicant’s attorney (Exhibit A) regarding hardship To summarize, the letter provides a rationale to conclude that (1) the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without a variance, i.e. the use ot the lot as additional yard, is not a reasonable use, and (2) the fact that Mr. Remien did not do anything to create the simalion, and (3) constructing a new residence on the lot will not alter the essential character of the locality. Gary Nasiedlak, who is buying Lot 18 from Remien, has submitted a memo (Exhibit B) relating his position. Peter Bachman, attorney for the Bieike’s. has submitted a letter responding to E.xhibit A (Exhibit C). Also please review- the sewer and water assessment memo (E.xhibit E) which Council should have received in the mail previously. That memo concludes that Lot 18 was assessed footage for sewer and water, br. no units. The basi.. for that assessment was a review of code standards and City policy at the time ot assessment, but was not the result of a formal variance/lot buildability review. Sewer and w-ater is available to the property and connection to sewer and water is feasible. It the variance is approved, the property owner would have to pay sewer and water connection charges and bear the cost of installing sewer and water stubs. Also attached are sections of the Orono axle and state statutes regarding the question of "undue hardship". Zoning File 1 June 10, 1993 Page 2 Staff Recommendation If Council accepts the applicant’s hardj^hip statement as sufficient grounds for granting of the requested lot area and width variances, then Council could grant variance approval. A resolution incorporating these additional hardships would be presented as a consent agenda item at your June 28th meeting. Conversely, if Council finds insufficient grounds for approval, staff would draft a denial resolution for formal action on June 28th. -SI ID:IvEr.£C.N E=-.N'JTiZRFP: TF'. KC:6l2 £71-7734 f \ I K •' t » '- r.i KMI > I - / \m \ I M » irv u. A I' I « • # Juno 4, 1993 aSBT BY »BX - 334-aeaB Mr. Xavin P. Staunton Ms. xaran Cole PophaVf Kallc, schnobrich & Kaufaan# Ltd. 3300 Piper Jeffrey Tower 333 South 9tn street Miimeapolle/ HN 55402 RE: Our Client: C, Jack Remicn-3237 caoco Circle ("Romien Lot") Orono Zoninof File Mo. 1811 our Pile No. 13193 Dear Mr. Staunton and Mb. Ccla: I would like to addresB the iesue of "i^dua 5**^**;5^P" reletea to the Application for the Varlance for Remlen L>t. It appeared from the city Council JSZmltLA1993, that the Council wao unwilling to gr^t the r^eetod variance In the abeence of a epeeiflo bardehip. Piret, it i» again important to __ three elements necessary under Minneeota Law to establish an undue hardship: 1 The property in question cannot be put to a r.«.«nablB uM without the variojuso. a. The situation of the landowner is dus to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, will not altar the asaantiel Character of the locality. Th.oo «• the olowt. .■ W^liloh^to (Minn. App. 1989). »93 IDs lUSSSCN 3er.NDT2j2A=Fl TiTL n3:£12 571-f’7j.i =12S FC3 . Mr. Kevin Staunton Ms. Karen Cole June 4, 1993 page 2 1.Jaok Rcmlen purohaeod Let 19 where hie hoae la located in 1974. 2. 3. jftOC Rottlan purchased Lot is (the xeraien lot) In 1989. The Remlen Lot had been granted a variance for eonetructien of a single faaily hone in February of 1984 which expired in February of 1985. 4.xnnroxiiBately one year later the Renien ZiOt vae again granted an identical variance which ran froo January/ 1986 and expirad January 1987. 5.Finally, an identical variance vae again granted frost February of 1987 to February of 1988. 6.Lot 18 appears to never have been in cosunon ovnerahip with Lot 19 until 19P9. 7. Lot 18 has never been legally combined with Lot 19. created the eubetandard aiaa ofBale on hie part. Ha acquired the Remien Lot icnovi^ that three prior building variance# ^“J^****"Lot. as a aeparate lot. to be used for the conetrj^ion of a eingle family reeldence. At the time Hr. Rem..M b^M negotiating with Hr. «ertas for the purchaee oj 18, the Reaien Lot was covered by orono variance Ho. 1101. liSIISsS-SsSfff:' acguleltlon; (ill) wae aware of tha denial ofraouasta; or (Iv) the applicant'e predeeeeeor In title ^**e^*^ th«Taubatandard nature of the lot. wherecaeee cited by the neighbors in oppoeition hae a eituation the City Council on three prior occeelons bed granted a variance for the Identleel purpose. Xn Hedlund ▼. City oftSas); S5 coG?t d^tg^Si^^n Hedlund created his own * • • • Fs: 17132 ID! ICSPSQN EE=JsDT4iZP»=»I TEL 571-7734 r* ^ C. L3 ^ «L ^ Hr. Kdvin Staunton Ma. Karon Colo Juno 4/ 1993 Pago 3 Mr Hodlimd acguliroO a oubotan<lard lot tnat could not JiSi? ">»•• 1^“KM AAV •lUTiTouruliiicf ftdjftccnt KT• H^dlund did not r^o^d Wlewood ordinanc. prior to momil.ltion. H. vaoEi;rsr3:p:r“|Sjj^^^ Sn.cifiaally notod that tho city of Maplovood did not contaat the fact an undua hardship existad# Tho Court notad that vittout an ar^ varianca tha aubatandard Hadlund lot could not ba * raaaonabla uoa* Implicit in this stataaent is that the "Bale of tha lot to an adjacant lot was not a ‘'reasonable use . But tto variance denial was upheld because mr. Hedlund had created his undue hardahip* Aa I indicated in my prior correspondence 1993, iPy Matter of thf ▼srlanoe ttomiast of Waldo and J9lWt9B » ‘194 M?W?2d 298 (Klnnt Apprise?), is completely dlotinguISiable from the Remien Lot. #...•1* nflapim w. Cltv T.alf Klea. 396 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. App. iSalf is also dlstln^ishable from the Ramian Lot. Tha applicant in fiiiSf Slto was daniad a Varianca Application baoausa of tta nSnbS iSd dS^a of variances raguas^. J"®" for tha denial was ths eoncsm over the proposed septic systm. £vsn after ths applicant modified its building plan would not require a variance for the ssptlc syatan setback, tho variance was determined to be too groat and thoro ^ cnanea of ..wer .ystmi failur.. had actual notiea that «han thla waa undaraiied and without a varianca. ?n"lc2IoS waa rialf-craatrd hardahip. each lianlm purcMcad tha Kaplan Lot with actual nccleo that thraa 5aJia“U h“ b.anV«Bt«l “"Ua ha ownad tha adjacant Lot 1». ^tS.5 lot. «. rexsinino lots slso had a cabin which was rented out as a SlSinil^dialllnd. Bona of tha individual »«5 ^Stl^SurSt vh.f thay pur^aaa^thj^^. IJt. upon wnlca the seasonal cabin was located. -n fact, they were JUN-2lt!.-• 17:33 ID: I TEi. SD:6l2 5“l-7?:-:^rilZa Pc£ Mr. Kevin Stounton Me* Karen Cole June A, 1993 Pe^e 4 .«-rlfloallv told that if they wieh to sell their property, all •t'T.iic^ureB on ell four lote would have to be eeld ae a VSiqlm parcel. Again, thie property involved im ^ The variance would have created a problem with the Individual eeptio ayeteno conetrueted in reeldential areas. The iS kffi -tated that the tvr lots with the saasonal cabin had^a ^reasonable use" under the existing .i***^^®could continuo to b« U96d a ooaoonal cabin* Tha RealoS^Lot doee not hev# an alternative reasonable use. Use ae a vacant lot is not a reasonable use/ Tue threshold issus regarding the Reaien Lot is, (i) what is an ?ff.rnatlve "rsasonablo use"? A reasonable use is a use ae ^arerained under the existing ordinance. The Minnesota Courts thJt thr?easonable uee requirement does not mean that ^ S!.t «». W c«not b. put to «*_<*•« SlSoSt a^vari.nc. KOTtU T. i9VA 917, 922 (Minn. App. 1989). SaCTY 1^3 N.W.2d 410 (Minn. 1949). If tho City at orono war. to dotaruin. that tba u.a iGbaSSnSard lot .. an .nlargad yard la a there would be no reason to grant any Si*S4aeantip-onlrtv that is substandard could always be sold to an adlacent!sss:sji;r“‘5hi;. -ouw n.v.r w 2««a putting proparty to - ua. tea at^no ordinance other than simply ae « vacant place af property. in currr, an individual owned all of a large P®^°®i<;;jnrS2" ^ ’ He conveyed off one parcel of the Property to oneAv>t*r* Heir *'f the property to a eec'ind purchaser# Ultimately S! 5ic«.I SI pS?Sh«;r of beta parcal# and eynad ttathe You^s younge sought to retransfer the Slpalty aftor aavarance S S”.?! “aSl-cao-. andjwpa of toa^ona^P«eal^^ tba varlanea hlld tBat avan though tba granting 55“Sr^;rwS*S4l*“orb 0 narda^P on o«.r 11 v; ‘ 'Tt s:^2£^53.^i_l7:35 ICtl'JERSCN EERMDTJiZP.PFI TEL N0:5l2 571-77Z4 R125 -25 Mr. K*vlh Staunton KB. Karon Colo Juno 4, 1993 Page 6 proporty. Tho Minnosota Courta have alae reeognixed that certain action® by eitv couneila may contribute to eotabliohing the undue hardahip. tirll CftWniTlif^ o- MoDoneugh. 210 H.W.2d 416 (Mlnny^l973)" McDonough acquired a lot in 8t. Paul to dywliah four exiating buildinga and to construct a 32 unit apartment building. However, the lot was not large enough to construct the 32 unit apartment building and comply with the existing aetbacx and building coverage requiramentsi. McDonough applied for a variance eo ae tr allow conatructlon of a 32 unit apartment building. Approxinetely on« y**i" attjir McDonough bed applied for the verienca, St. Paul adopted er. emendaent increasing tho ofr- otreet perJcing requireBent for multiple reaidentiel dwell^ge. McDonouoii amended hie Application for a Variance to Include t variance from the new increased off-atreet parking requirement. The Zoning Board delayed action upon hie new Application for another year. Pinally, the city granted all of the variances. Thereafter, e neighborhood organisation brought a Declaratory Judgment seeking to set aside tho citye granting of the variancee. The Supreme court held the "delay In processing defendant's reguests for variances constituted a h^dshlp peculiar to tha tract due to the fact that the ordinance rwiulrlno th. .dditlon«l ort-.trMt PjrXln.; during that delay." The supreme court citing CBgfT reefflrmec thet B verienoe provldae the opportunity to evold uxuimseery turdahlpa wulting trom ta>« rigid •nforc.a.nt at . erdinanca. av«i though th. gr.nting a£ th. variuic. night woric . hardehip on adjoining property owners. in considering the Remian Lot, there is no qusstlon of C^cil daisy. Rather, prior councils have affirmatively P*’i°*’ variancee, the laat of which was conteaporansous^th Mr. Remien's negotiating the purchase of the *^*®^*JV J”*** Lot had three Identical variancee for four years Rsmisn's acquisition, on at least had granted a nsw variance for the Remian Lot even after a year lapee between variancee. In light of the existing law, it appeere SSlIncethan Jack Remian had aequirad the Remian Lot in 1900 the veriwwe would most likely have to be granted not put the Remian Lot to «ny reeeonetole 2\£J5tr3Jack Remian, who owned an Bdjacent lot, and the Remian Lot mean that ho le not entitl^ to oiaply becauae he owned an adjacent parcel of property. Again, KA.V-L7 75 17.34 ID::*.-ER£3H E£-.NDTi.Z^>=P 1 TE-. N3.612 5^1-7734 4^ llllT nil / S12S P27 -----—■ Mr, K«vln Staunton Mu. Karan Cola Juna 4, 1993 Faga 6 14. l«Boi^ant to nota that nothing that Mr. Raaion did craatadit la i»po^ano - ^ Raaian Lot. JaoJc Rasian acquiradthe o^atandard natwa or tn TO gubatandard but that thraa It with iSJad! To fore. Kr. ttomiot, to uoe th. yard 1# an unroaoonablo «a* and tnwf.rora an undue hardship. . 4 - to Roveila it it is eatabliobed that (i) the rSSlot^be PUt*toa reasonable use without a variance, oroperty ^ additional yard, is not a reasonableL:; :ss “ S22n?iS*ehir«Urif th.'locillty, all three re»air«..nt. of an undue herdehip have been set. Very truly yours, XVSRSOS, SBUR37 & 2JLPPZJ1,' ZiVb* Theses K. Sappie IMZijrh ^ . ooi C. CTecH Reaien (by far) . _ , D^4««*dPeter Baohaen - Leonard, street & oeinera • < i'' P O P H A M H A I K SCHSOl^lCH A K aj ^mas . ltd ui Ort CCS SRsvr^. C^w4"AOO Taw jO9*<4j-ia00 MiA« . VvCA :>A »f« 303-530 COSO O.C. Tfw T02 f«i SUITI 3300 222 South Ninth STWCC* Misn E a^olii. Minnesota 994C2 tel 6f2-333-48 0^ . I 6t2*334*9 0 00 IMT-f a>«Ar jatAw Or':CSS: LC AZ»3. rc^ 91 i9?-4t>A9ta47t Sf'^r'OAAT Tew 0»I4^-T| i-ipAjul TELfCOPr TRAMSMTUAL SHEFT TO! Mr. Mike Gaffron -_Citv of Qrono FAX NUMBER: (> 473-0510 PHONE NUMBER:( ) 473-7357 FROM: KEVIN P.STAUNTON. ESO. PHONE NUMBER;333-4800 date: June 7, X993 FILE NUMT:er:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _AUTHORIZATION HTTMDER: 3Q15 NUMBER OF PAGES IMCLUDING COVER SHEET:- - - - - -2- - - - - - COMMENTS: IF AffT PROBLEl/S WHH THIS TRAHSUIJTAL. PLEASE CALL MARGARET NOYD AT (612) 334-2677 The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended for the the Individual or entity named above. Tf the reader of this messag- is not tho intended recipient, or the ^ployee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you - hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying or this communication is strictly prohibited. If y^ have received this fax in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the United States Postal Service. 6-fo*n3 Date:Tuesday, June 8, 1993 11 Tir Mavor Callahan and Orono Citv Council Members ^ w - '3L'N' '9 lC'C-3 From:Gary Nasiedlak 1910 Shadywood Road, Orono, MN Subject:Variance for property located at 3237 Casco Circle (Remien Lot) My wife, Mary Jo, and I are the hopeful buyers of the Jack Remien property noted above. Since February 27, 1993, we've been in contact with Orono Planning and Zoning staff, and have attended the appropriate Planning Commission meeting and the subsequent City Council meeting regarding ihe variance for the Remien lot, I made a statement at the City Council meeting that I believe was not clear to Mayor Callahan regarding how my purchase agreement for the subject property reads, as well as the agreement I've entered into regarding the sale of my home. On February 25, 1993, our realtor, Dick Kunz, informed us a lot was Tor sale. We expressed our interest in the land, and Mr Kunz contacted Jeanne Mabusth of the City of Orono. Ms Mabusth told him what ordinances and restrictions applied to the lot in obtaining a building variance. We wrote our purchase offer to clf.rily to b<3th buyer and seller, the exact sfxjcifications as told to us by the City of Orono, and to make clear that these were the the restrictions v. Jer which the lot was being sold. We entered into a purchase agreement (copy attached) with Mr Remien on Saturday, February 27, 1993. Next, in preparation for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, we contacted an architect who worked closely with the City of Orono in developing a .print of a home based on the quoted restrictions and requirements. Our main goal was not to have an escape clause in the purchase agreement, but rather to clarify to both buyer and seller the Orono building restrictions. The restrictions that governed the variance were quoted to us by Orono. At no time were we led to believe that this lot was a non-buildable lot. In fact, it seemed that it was a matter of course that a variance would be issued, just as it had been in the past On the day of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, during a routine conversation with Commission staff, I was profoundly surprised to learn of an objection by the neig!jbt)r to the north concerning alleged erosion problems and the lot ’s substandard width. Tlie Planning and Zoning staff were fairly unconcerned about the objections, and later that night the Commission voted in favor of the variance. Based on the Planning and Zoning Commission ’s approval of a variance being granted on the Remien lot, we entered into a purchase agreement for the sale of our lK)me. Not long aficrward. the buver of our home sold his home. We have a clause in our home sale agreement that states that the sale of our home is contingent u[X)n a buildability variance being granted on the Remicn lot. However, based upon the facts that variances on llie Remicn property were granted previously and that the Commission’s recommendations have been rarely overruled, we Indicated to our buyers the likelihood of a variance Ixung granted. We were then placed on the May 10th City Council agenda. About five days before the meeting, we were removed from the agenda due to a complaint lodged by the neighbors citing a new DNR regulation that could possibly affect the lot’s buildability status. The Commission was forced to postpone our hearing in order to research the complaint. Again, the City Planning and Zoning staff reassured me saying, "The council has a way of looking Ixjyond the surface of these issues." We wei« never led to believe that a variance would not be granted. The City Planning and Zoning staff indicated to us that the variance would be issued if the specifications that were quoted to us were complied with. These circumstances in themselves have created a hardship not only for ourselves, but for our buyers, Jim McManus and Megan Tully, and for the buyers of their home. As a .uit, many homeowners' dreams will be made or broken based upon on the City Council’s decision. The final decision regarding our variance has been delayed tor nearly two months as a result of a sequence of timely placed objections. Not that these objections shouldn’t be addressed in a public forum, but that the public forum should not be used as a vehicle to prolong or delay a commonplace decision. More specifically, a variance to this property has been before the City Council a minimum of four times. Orono employees, as well as the Planning and Zoning Commission staff have done their due diligence and have reached a conclusion which they have expressed to the Council and to the buyers and sellers of this property -- that this is a buildable lot. Please consider the following: 1) If the properties to the north and the south of the Remien lot were uninvoivedt the Council would find that the lot has been a past hardship as demonstrated by the three variances Couiuril granted to this property. The question is, how often has Orono NOT granted variances on properties which have historically been granted vananccs? If the answer is rarely, why then would you disallow a variance on this property? As Orono residents, we have placed our faith and trust in the City Council as a b<xly of individuals who arc principled and fair-minded. We believe the City Council should be consistent in it.s jxdicies from year to year. 2) The Planning and Zoning staff provides a local perspective on matters. Their hard work in dealing with variances and ordinances and the due diligence they provide in making recommendations to the Planning Commission should be given deference by the City Council. If it is not, then Onjno residents cannot rely on suff s advice and rccommend«iiions .'egi'.rding opinions and ordinances tor the City of On>no. 3) 'Fhe City Council should us'* the same standards of hardship in the case of Jack Remien's lot as they do in all variarces issued. In this case, the property to the north, prior to the Bielke's ownership, createu »he current situation by selling off the lot as a buildable lot, one which has more value than a non-buildable lot. And through the next ownerships, from Tuttle to Smith to Mertz and tij-n to Mr Remien, this lot was sold as a buildable lot always commanding a higher price th.u. if it were not buiidable. The ordinances say that a hardship exists when the situation of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the proi^erty, and not created by the landowner. Mr Remien did not create this situation, but in fact, the lot to tlie north which is currently the Bielke residence originally created this situation - it is ironic that this property i;> the very one fighting it. 4) The Bielkes should not receive the financial reward for having a non>buildable lot next to their property. The Bielkes purchased their property with notice that a variance had previously been given. Even while the Bielkes owned their property, two such variances were given; it is thus evi..ent that the price that the Bielkes paid for their property reflected the buildable status of the Remien lot. Meanwhile, the price paid by the Remiens for their lot reflected the value of a buildable lot. By reversing the buildable status of the Remien lot, the City Council would unjustly enrich the Bielkes at the expense of the Remiens. / would like to address issues raised by neighborhood residents: SOIL EROSION - Jay Richardson, who lives two properties to the north, cited soil erosion as a problem in the area. The hill on Mr Richardson's property is located 150- 200 feet from the Remien property, and is adjacent to the Bielke property to the north. As you move south away from the Richardson property and nearer the Remien lot, the incline becomes much less steep. As a matter of fact, the Bielkes have stated in the fact sheet they show potential buyers of Jieir home that there has not been a soil problem on their property (copy enclosed). At their April 19 meeting, we gave the City Planners photographs taken of the hill on the Remien property. The photographs show no evident erosion problem. In addition, our home would be positioned 55-60 feet behind the hill, and would not disturb it. TRAFHC - Although traffic is a concern, the marginal increase in traffic caused by one home will be insinnificant. LOCALITY CHARACTERISTICS - The objection that granting a variance for this property would alter the essentia! characteristics of the locality is not justified. There are manv substandard lots in the area. Immediately south of the Remien property are two properties which are each 55 feet wide. Immediately north of the Bielke property is a 60 foot lot. similar to the Remien projwrty size. As you look at this neighborhood, there is a mixture of homes, some are newer and some are older. In many cases, our potential home would be equal to. or an improvement to the area. I've attached a copy of our conceptual home plans for your review. L PROPERTY VALUES - The Biclke's real estate agent stated that !h? Bielkc residence would be valued far less with the lot next door being built upon. This statement improjxjrly Jissumes that the reference point is the value of the residence with an adjacent unbuildable lot. Please ask yourselves: 1) If no one was contesting this lot would you consider it buildable? 2) How often has Orono turned down a variance after it has been granted three times in the past? and 3) If two properties, one to the north and one to the south, have sold the same lot as buildable in the past, should those lots have the right to contest the buildability of that lot, as both lots have either made or paid a premium for it as a buildable lot? It is ironic that both the persons requesting the variance and the persons fighting against it, live on properties that sold the Remien lot as buildable at one time or another. Both neighbors will not live in this neighborhood after this matter is closed. At the City Council meeting, the new buyer to the south expressed bis favorable opinion about the house being built on this lot. We cannot ask the neighbor to the north’s opinion, since the house is not sold yet. Within 150 feet, other neighbors who have expressed an opinion are the neighbors to the immediate south and the immediate north ot the Bielke and Remien properties, resj)ectivcly. It is interesting that both of those properties are of substandard size and contain nice homes, one lot being 55 feet wide, and the other 60 feet wide. I hope you will consider the points made in this letter, and will grant the building variance on the Remien property. Very truly yours. caaco w|Hi m • *:i . I 1 1 . I (ta BURNET F. A L I Y ADDENDUM TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT m ANK TMs fvm ty M.nn«»v3ta Association oJ REALTDns* Minne«><a Asvx auoo of REALTOnS’ {fsc'a'r^s any R§b >ify tf s'ng oui of U50 Of fr.isusa of this *oim 1 Dale___ 2 Page __T"' 1 P&ges 3. Addendum to Purchase Agreement between parties dated "Z ~ Z-'7 pertaining to the purchase 4. and sale oi the property ai '■i Z-Z 'l__(^iKC.LJ^____________________________________________ 5 UfL'ti__p-iHA U-A.::2lE:trrAdcI tS,. .. ..A// £££ ; 7. _ 8 pURfi^^^tg. rPp EUlLOn'i', •Srjlcrj^s/N rfrf :JlJ&_5r^ft:ve^ rAfgP t^-l? 8*;. 9 A<yKgE- -p) c:4;6-7^gRA7'£u 10. <>F=.zi;.<p:g. A \'c>.Rhi^nce, -p a Maov-e. umi AcufF-om/:^ 11. -p PjL’Il^r'^ rf^^fOS-tZO ___3U'1£r^‘t> -fflAj Ppr? p<?f.Al. f> -p. 12 ii:LI—Dl*._XilItL 1/>_.. <2E^iPi<iL^<lZtl2e. 13, f7jU CtAliNZ^ :_______________________________________________________________________ t4. 15 16. 17 18 19 20- 21. 22 2 a 24 25 26 27 2a 29 • J^AlK PF>M WA^ U/tL f3£ N^J __A H____________________________________________________________ • niXCK K- TMa M lO f=^'BB'f. ____________________7l> Jfo^^ AT > Ho <L/^V£:P> N/u^ nr^jJf^ U/T^liN 7S Ntf-Ai^U • Hi^rr a’VBf^ j pgp/N Er Ttfe cS/f:i,_g0-fWE£H a u nf - 7$ __p/^M ” H t?^:ai AU Hl/f« N6^(£fi " AriO A UHe. 2So f^M " N/PAIAU ^ HlZ,H Nt^JJirS IaJILL I'lof e.xc^£iy cr LANH -^TAU R ato Z^i£p- Iti -TUI5 AP€A. N/^U ftrf EX«:;gEP Z.'iioia pr- _•..JiAr-i2_z^vifeg-- .E^e3Piji?_i»t^ ^^.<^pe>crp..ur/e, will HgT 3>c££o 30% ■gp_ plAT -LAHP AREA » ‘ fie^/Er-£^.E. a ^ tTEptnep et 'TPe __WU,L-Jigf. gAi^L?_ir-a_gJ=--pH£..:r<rrAL^ATff? APC4. ^P f1& Lof ■ 30 _^-^eueg-A:,gg&^2-r^pFL>Vlt?E. &i'T£g^ UJItR r^ggpFigP OF -p^e- 31 __MC^T T—UlfR _________ SMtP<&fur( fX^lAL eeWa^ye Qaa^ gj 0>tc/«'V' Ai// ufility ,T\ool:-Ufi (<*^s Tefp«v«^? fJeuj It CV4\ 3-M^ /^ y!• •■./,1 /'•» J - //-> r ; • i f. # • » I f .' . I ;•■ • y * .'• .* .• ■. ■1 . ‘■V.‘ • • • . • • *•* . • « ' • • ■ i t I 1 • 1 t I ■•■.7 « 5 ’ . %* • \ * •; I. • / • V % • 4 :. f • •♦•'• • • >r.‘ V-. ■. >V/:- i V ‘V • H 1 ■t *« H ' •. •? 1 •s.'f ’^• c.; •;’ • t j . 1 '• • * . • • . •?• • • 4 f ’• ' P 'f i I I j 1 J i iV i ifrt BURNET ESTATE TT^ANSFER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT :y-» iOOTMd Dy :«• M»r>r#«au Atmctmo zt 3£iLTCPS^ A&aocuoon ^EALTCr^S* ATv i40iirfv *n»nq 9ui af um or oi «na 'arm. V Cat*______________—----------------------------------- ■■ 2. ^age ___________:*------------------- 1 This *.sc csuf® siatefTteri concerns 'sai ^rccery .^cai#d n ^.r/ --------------------------------------------------- - 4 «^-iirtv :? _____________________________rescr.saa as--------------------------------------------------------------------------— . ^ * -Uij zisc'.csi*n s •ct 1 ^a/rirr/ 'll anv <ir.a 2v tns Sdiisns) ar ary A^snus) i -Mres^rnr; irv -ir-.ui n r..» :rarsac; c7'inc s .-a a s-cssitui# «r inv rnc#c-jor.i :r Ara/rarces tr« -av -in -3 C3ta>n. 3UVE3(SV iNO ScULHStS) MAY WISH TO CBTAIN PflCFESSICNAU AOVICS ANO/OB INSPECTCMS OF *HE PROPERTY ANO TO PROVIDE FOR ApoRCPRfATS PROVISIONS IN A CONTRACT 3E* iVEr.N aUYEBlS) ANO SeUEH(S) WITH 3ESPECT TO ANY ADVICE.INSPECnCN&OP^CTS.1 3. ra SELLERS .nPOBMATICN: Tha iaiief :isc:asas ;ne ‘oilov,inq nformaiion -in ;n* know«*OQ« max evan T.ou?n :nis not It a wafrirtv 3fo»cac;iva su.ars rrav "»<v I’n ini* .mcfmauon m cacoirq Afreinef ir.a cn Arnai •arms to sufc.nasa tna sv='^ '2. srccar-A -^a 3a.iai.si au.ronias anv -qanttil fatxasanong any carMSi .n m.s iransacnoo to Ofovnia a coov c« in.s staiamanl ^^i7c.'<L!n; a';;.*.:;o,;sin«7o« mLTs7.^,'!^ua. Kno-naooc Th« .nformarton Id .1 a oisciotura ana s not .ntanoad to sa part of any contract bafy»aao tna Buyar and Satlaf. •ft A. GENEBAL INFORMATION: /pyrS" 17 ' ’ •a 19. sa 21. ^1) .Vhsn CiC /ou surcnas# or 2uiU3 tns "«om»7 ----- (2) “•av# you uv#o n :r»is nom# *or *ri# o#si *2 'norths? (3) r-as tn#f# fc##n any flood cr other oisastens) at th# orooerry? If >#s. giv# otiails of -vnai .^accened ana ^nen: Y#«,NO, BURNET REALTY' REAL ESTATE TRANSFER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 66. Address _______________________ 67. Page 2 6d 69. 70. 71. 72. Unused Weil: Is there a well on the oroperty which is no longer in use? DYes ENo II yes. has it been sealed according to State Regulations MSA 1S6A7 DYes GNo Comments; ________________________________________________________________ Contaminated Well: Is there a well on the property containing contaminated water? Yes. Date well water last tested for contaminants:___________ Comments:______________ 73. D. LAND USE AND PROPERTY CONDITION; 74. Are you aware of any of the following existing: Encroachments? Yta___ Soil problems? Yss_ Diseased frees? Yes___ No Rodent infestation? Yes. Resinct»ns or Reservations on the use of the propeny? Yes______ 75. 76. 77. 7a 79. 80. NoJdT N0_ie^ No_L Insect Ini t? Mss.NofedGI Easemeras other than utilih/ or dramaga aasamants which do not interfate with prasart imprcMmeriU? Is lha property located in a designated flood plain? Mn________ No Comments: ______________________________________________ 82. eaE. INSULATION DISCLOSURE: 84. Does the tnsuiaoon m the property contain urea lormaidehyda foam? Yea 85. Date insulation installed: ___________________ Type: _____ 8a Comments: ____________________________________________ Unlmown Company; 87. F. OTHER KNOWN DEFECTS: 8a Are there ^ny other known defects in or on the property? 89 ______________________________________________ If yes, explain below: 51. 9Z 9i G. SELLER’S STATEMENT (To be signed a* time of listing) 94. We/I. ownerfs) of the property at 9Si acknowledge the above Real Transfer Disclosure SUMmenl and give permission to Listing Broker to disclose 9a this info^atiop^ the prospe^n^rbuyers. 97. ^ b ini9 98. H. BUYER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: (To be signed at hme of purchase agreement) 99. We/I. the Buyer(s) of the property at_________________________________________ too. do acknowledge receipt of the Reai Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement artd agree that no representations 101. regarding the condition of the property have been made, of*'or than those made above. LISTING BROKER ANO 102. AGENTS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS ANO ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CONOfTIONS EXISTING IN 103. THE PROPERTY. 105 I, SELLER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: (To be signed at time of purchase agreement) 106 -»S OF THE DATE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT. WeA. the Seilens) of ihe above propeny agree that the conoition of the prooerty is :he same aa noted above and will be m proper wcrxing order107 108. on date of dosing, eiceoi for 'he changes indicated above and dated: 109 ___________________________________ -- -___ _________ 110 MN etiros iseat onicinal ccev to umNO enoxER-. comas to saixiR. surtJt. silunc snoNaii L. ! I ifh BURMET REALTY REAL ESTATE TRANSFER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 66. Address________________________ 67. Pago 2 66. 69. ?a 71. 72. Unu«d well: Is lne.6 a -e,l on Ih. srooaiT/ ^icn is no longer in os.7 CYos^^.o II yes. has It seen sealed according 10 State flegulations ■^SA 156A7 CYea w. o Commenis: Contaminated Well; Is there a well on the properly containing contan-n *ed water? Yes. Date well water last tested for cor minants:------------------- Comments;------------------------- No 73. D. 74. 75. 7E 77. 7a 79. 80. 81. LAND USE AND PROPEHTY CONDITION^ Af0 you 3war9 of any of followinQ existing. E.ncmachments7 Yes___ Soil oroWems? Yes_ Diseased Trees? Yes___ No_kdT Rodent Intestadon? RestrtcMns or Reservations on ate use of the property? Yea _____ No NoJkT^ No_L Insect IreestatxM? Yes. Easements otner than uuUly or dramage aasemants when oo not intedara with prasarijmprovenww? Is ina property located m a cesignaied Itood oiam? Yes ------------ No Commtnts: ’iw eaE. INSULATION DISCLOSURE: 84. Oo«f lh« Insulaoon in prop^ny contain uraa formtldahyda foam? Y« Date insulation installed: ----------------- — Commenis: ______________________________ Unknown 85 86 Type;Comparty: 07. F. OTHER KNOWN DEFECTS; 88. Are there any other known defects in Of on the property? Yes 89. 9a 91. If yes. explain below: 1 93. Q, SE11 PR’S STATEMENT: (Tb be signed at time of listing) 94. 9S 96l rS.'o^*ge*th°e* Transfer Disclosure Statement and give permission to Listing Broker to disclose this intoitpatiop::* the prt5Soe^vf^uyers.. 97.%Y7r^ ga H. BUYER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: fTo be signed at Ume of purchase agreement) 99 We/1, the Buyerts) of the property at---------------.. --------------------——------------------------TITIZI lOa do acxnowieoge receipt of the Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement and agree 101. regarding the condition ol RvisriJa I101 regarding the condition ol the property have oeen maoe. oinw m-n u.u»« -- ------ 102. AGENTS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS AND ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CONDITIONS EXISTING IN 101 THE PROPERTY. 104. 105 I SELLER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT; (To ae signed at time of purchase agreement) .Od ■ *S OF THE OATH OF THE .CCEFTAHCE CF THE^POPCHASE AOHEEME^.J^ 107. 1C8. prco#fty. agrat trial tn# conottion of tha ofroarty is tna sama as noiad oOova and da m propar worwng order on data of cfOfing. avcaot for fha changes nojcatad acova and dated: 109. na isto oaiciNAL coair to listing ano«n: coaics to sCLLEfi outir, siujng anoKCT.t2 H6 in *.9 3 12: IS Fa.v :uN 93 i ^ •P KA\-L7T.> SRO". CUE CNE ZEP.O law orrictJ* LEONARD. STREET AND DKINARD UI-? PAiE.OaZ C- -lo-'iZ p.«rA«t 4 «V«*« AWVfH a«^*vf - t**C»*^- OCV««* A »r\Au« e«A«wU iCC*M r ^ »«45**C t*«o« I. STarn# irrra« 0. ^pmirnj OAV»OJfl« n««>***o J- a*»>CA « -* HUO** • A«f*^** jOmm «. piiAOwr* ^ .. «,*.•«« A. •a*««- »»A»a 0A«i9 "s «A#«C3 •V'M «••€»• to AMCIkA «- •©•••AAW liOMirr • ^SmtMQ •MCtA»» •• rt»vc^ J. »««*• ^ i*A"a •» 5av «0 C, ULkCwavO A «w«lt OAVia 9A»rrom K j. ktfVtLk •. *to«Tr y^tfT^^ ■ cl -R» & •OAikt. taTVO* v^«« •*. -liOnnj i*^9C*v »to»pTwr *»fc4* M«o»'t.ssiONAw A^iit5C»ATi::N ;5Ul***e 2300 l«0 SC u Th rifTH STWCt^ ^„,r,r.A«3U.S. MINNESOTA S5402 (6:21 33S*l»jO rAC4 *-* i-t Ci.«2l 223*‘C»T June 9f 1993 ^•caA -. •4j«a « ■ eo#*«4a • a. 06*<» •«*av*v ^ cv«» fsmcr s, ■ fC«kto^ A •‘Vtok^ • w>*rV)a f uA«< WWUAM W. fTC»«» k- fci-n^ PC*XJI t .^m 1. •et««A4r CAAmt U lAAJiC o •»• k»awf»e. >s*tk**arnj« nj------w. »ti.AAA«tY Pf n?r t eo^v***^ CAdOcra ▼ ww-SAi kO*<to to. ^w^*94»«« •cecjrr m. r2#ci»w>« j. •tomto«Ato«euto AtotoVP V*-^ «Ar»vi A*0«CV • % tf • c*<» Ck cek*9» irrm r « / lAtoAV e c*vw«.ft* TA«i»«C f Ptto«4to ^1 r. l/Jer.T' \mz w 4A;a“X •pw<i^A L>a^C«> lai •ACV.'Sb e«a6 VHA aaa m. afiCH -TFllf f M*"**” ITtvie J. w«©<#4 AA«I a9«t »C«0» «. (Cga^c • kioea»9*air».—••» A«fMV<i W »«. ••w-ieaM tCPtrC^ tt ato** !••••.»##» S.9MCV k9«ti« .#••€ »QtT u*e«tk 9. OAMk M. AAT0«M«S fpAiTCP** 0*««C-f dial NU*-»C" (612) 335-16^2 Kevin staun'Con, Esq. 222 3. KiJrth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Be: »pplieatlo« for T«ri«aeo by c. Jock *o*l« Dear Hr. Staunton and Me. Cole: provided “ “i;rr: :ir~.g.i-v.i.-Bsis ss zappla'e correspondence ie ^tnat would riee to ♦vlSnoo, but It raiaos no n« Author, a T**'*;?’ ^ o* unduo ooroly confix • There has never been a this • !$ W.0 in “f?" vborir a variancadlatinguishts it from the prx tras granted. 06 1‘''00 12:10 fax JL'N 9 '33 IB:49 FAX-L775 rPOM 0N£ S£UtN OME Z£PO (2lnil I (in’) FPoE.203 Kevin Staunton, Esq. Kar^n Colo, Enq. June 9, 1993 £»ago 2 p^y \\ ‘irsaleable lakeshore. property is m ni^a ^«S“98 both th* ^tl. and Mertes appUcatienG. Hben tne lot pMGOTt r««id«nc«bought the lot Intending -to^q?a^=V Pr Sru*l” rgg-i-^on ” aT rK tr«anne «la»th. Hr. Reaien *S^the last xarianoe grant<^ « P"approxioately one year earlier. Hr. Reolen bought the lot vlth full xnowledge that tn. Xo^ svibs^^^^d^ird • 22?S “ hSJ.’^Coco Clxol. Situate, on double lots# , X 18 does not »eet the 80t !«* vidth ^li»oSrSf orono ordinance S 10.03. ^e tact that Hr. of lets 18 and 19 *»• that% variance a voriancs i* it %fas eartain that a e^be no need to -ake the a^“^'t.“ccntlng««. according to *l«dln, attached to the JSt^dth and is ® circle neighborhood ___ ^4 a %mii Id. QAlj area along casco wa-,. Od 1<> 9-3 12: FA\ ;ms a '33 1S‘-5C Fa.\-L775 FROM ONE SEUEN CN“ ZERO PAGE.00^ Kevin Staunton, Esq. Karen cole, Ecq. jxine 9, l9‘93 page 3 . =l*an,ln, 1^. a..anti.l ewrartar of ti.e neighborhood. variances to e^cpire. Hr. Jeppia ’ ® ‘^of J2 SXd^G ^reasoS>lS*^^f^^^ 2Ss^ Misit. because there is a r vith )CBowlodge that it wasnot aet OMiien ourchased the out that wbeto a because Hr. zaopio neglects to Granting muni^olpallty ^ done), ^eecifiee 12 spccifxca variance (as '^r 5 10.08, subd. 3, epec^ before a• « well. Orono Ordinance i ^v. , applicable) o«ic*« • ‘Hfssf'caTS .IStSoW^^MuSirS. TB. orono ot««»ards aro “ .. d«:d MO 1 "«■« proi«r«y 1" SStleSo*^UW^ » «>«Standard ho. l- under conditions aiioaea wj a reasonable use ix u»«» oifieial controls. ,^,.i.. 1^ X. c» v«y ci^iy^ ^ ^ '“*SSS"SiS^ In conjaneti^ Witt IseM, eabi^ . ***SS l»gs. g^oasonablo w tt c^iiw eltv cases M.W.Zd 824 (Hinn.App- noted that without „h4« the court orooerty.invSlvi“SSon ^.WP, tto ?;^onSro u« *“ a variance, th^ 173 ^iiJ^fwind that Similarly, ^^S^^r^Tzappla, --the another case cit^ K^i^eenc?# of a wi^» the lot SS 521 ?^Fxy under cannon own i, au. to Stend^d HO - ^„’^”S..ted H. tt. circumstances unique lando%mer." "It juj applicant notice or rxw constitute n onlttedj 06 10 12:20 FAX FAX-IT75 »)H O > J'JH 9 'S3 15:52 L_ CNt SEUEN ONE Z-^0 PA-SE • Kevin sta«uiton. E*i«* Karon cole, Snq. June 9, 1993 pago 4 IJCA K W 2d 624 Si.ua.xy. “Ir'».v fii Snowiadga. tSe ,f putchaae, ^ “® „.l ■piigi.t- is “X. • ^ >iA 3 »*The variance, ' e^«n“tl ch«act« of «« localxty- _ _ _ _ _ a house onneighborhood. •-’ —*• A "Economic considorationft Standard Wo- hardship i^t "constitute terms of this Chapter. prop«.y »cx*ts u«.« «. . . . ^ ._.JFoperry «i®ts ^ 18 in is ;*>iSTVnly '^SslMo conjunction wt^ ’t ^ * ''•'xa^ J^twy ..lllag tlMloM R««ien »®*^ * ,S h“ lUant not MJee as aach aonoy------.-rooMOt.“Z?.I?!)*2 ’«noale argawot >%4»r* as if ^ ‘"i^oaiatoly adjoining prop.. ' ^ .pecmcaliy „alTai»> ‘STi^l^itS“i«^ 8Pt>v to i» i»yapply to L^ u tn« .“oriSra. J" nothing Vhe orop5r?y ^i^^standard lot. Mothingattributes of th^r»^ /* ^^t it i» «tn. “i*‘fns tr^ otnor «u»«naara lot-thl. lot fro. o«»x ^.uy ^ 5 or*otruSr.» in tb« dl-triother land or «rruo la located.*♦ (16 l<iat3 12:21 Fa\fa.v-l::.?mi7 JCN 3 ’93 ’=•51 from On £ SEU cH CNr: ZERO opC£.035 Kevin Staunton, Esq. Keren Cole, Esq. June 9, 1993 Page 5 ' X,ain, «, no spocial condition, vitd respect to Lot 18• property right of the applicant.pxwptu. --'3-------- - . 3« H.W.2d 624 (»^-*PP- LJgyn"^oV 307. »>“•. 19*7)‘ <-««>«-» lot grounas ror * v***-*. s^„d«d HO. »• "■*? S code."cocic • . IU,,ly.i.. «x«.tin, ot SS St'jhbotinfl prop«ty, laiSI^S eonSlct with tJio sTjTo^ sfc “on ?nrprovide. In rol»«»t part- The °1 O' ^.-J o idancg-fll ..a^d^CTflWd iTig ?.^T.?„LLj?iui i rn Vhv plan. • • • Jtf^^^^izens of the aetropolitan area i*SS"cit:y t» =it^ 5i “o«nXa. r_ . . _:^ t11Y<19Pay^^ Wilkin ^ ^ g-round water ouppli^ . . the zoning chapter i*coepreheneivo municipal p • • limiting cong««tion Sd^ted for the purposes of - • • I ^ J HO 1 * • JUN im l ml f A.k r \A “ 4-1 I o IMI> C3 i S :. «FROM CSE StOEM OSE ZERO •* — Li : . 0^7 Kavin Staunton, Eaq. Karon Col*^f Knq. June 9, 19.93 page 6 ^. in t2ie public right-of-way; (6) pjcevcntlnq .gvgcrQVling ^ inH ^^n^AHtration Of by St—uSb of th« land and bxiildings and th« i" ^surrounding then. (Efflphaaxa added,) •r orono's coinprahansive plan is full of policiss to prOTiotc lowar danaity developnent around Lake HianetonJca. These policies should be aupported. l^w Cited tg llg.„IaPBi& w,. y,«nia»s attempts to distinguiflh controlling caseMr. Zappia ® «ntira page of bis latter is spent 416 CMxnn. 1973) • orot.asit:ien tliat where a city present setter, ar>^4on for two years on an application council unjustifiably de y neantime changes the controlling for variance (and in ^SW^is ix-relcvant. No ordinances) , a vari^ce Has been overruled for one here alleges delej^ second, college v- citv ospl^ing tuie “STad s^T, tie ist S) . jSFT Zappia' a fails’ to des^n^f «.y legally pex.«isslble basis for a finding of undue hardship. canalneion «.c« 1. noU.ln, to cS“2 « IST PO.-U.1. “ po«ible financial gain to Mr. Eemien. Very truly yours# jL£0NARD, street and detnard A Peter B* Sechaan "wa^en end Christine Bi*^lko Mi\»lhn\STM»T«.LO? wr a 'CTQi. SfiGt-Sa"^ •• JUN S3 16:*iS FROn ONE SEVEN ONE “E^O HPGE.ZOI FACSIMILE TBANSMrTTAL LETTCB LAW OfTlCM LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD rROPESSloSAL .VSSOCIATIOM SUTIB 300 150 SOUTH rn»TH SnUBET MINNUAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SHOO THLEPHONB (02) 33S-150Q PACSIMILB (612) 33S-1<S7 ouMpmeynALiiT Mom OI«.Y noil TOBUffl <»■**« 0®iV nojaoarr b stbcbt MMCXMAanBLY Nuiunr ~ ALNAMBDSBLOfV. V I T9 HI YOU BAVB BJiOriBBimBOED Date of Tranenit'tal: Jvmo 9, 1993 ntiBAgg lpW]TpTVH<L _ W ro vjusauq ^ axTr^-r^rji vat NAMS: Kevin Stauntion, Ea<l»/Karen Cole, Esq* FIRM/COMPANY: PophajB Baik. Schnobrich Ka ufman Ltd* CITY; Minneapolis, MM FACSIMILB HtJMBKR: <612) 334-8888 TELBPMOMB MtJMBER; (612) 333-4800 SENDER*8 HAMB: Peter H. Bacbauu), Eaq./#317 total number or pages (IMCLTOIIIO T1AHEMIT*AI» LlSSSt) IMMEDIATE HOTinCATION OF TRANSMITTAL (Y/N) : K CLIENT/MATTEK NUMBERS: 2808-15996 t«>T.r. (612) 335-1419 IT TOO MS aSVlIie PaOB*JDB lUtdtTYUfci OB origlaal will follow My Bail. COMMENTS: SSCNTBY: DATE: ■HME. NUTTIED 5EM5BR! CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 APPLICATION NO. 1811 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 5/27/93 TO: C. Jack Remien COPIES:Dave Trua.\ 3235 Casco Circle 4879 Drake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Maple Plain, MN 55359 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF .MEETING: 5/24/93 VOTE:5 FOR 0 AGAINST COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Tabled to June 14th meeting, in order for applicant to have time to provide a statement of hardship in support of the application. This item is scheduled for the Monday, June 14, 1993 Council meeting. Meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. Please submit your hardship statement and any additional maierials you wish reviewed by Council, no later than Monday, June 7th. If you have any questions, please contact Jeanne Mabusth or Mike Gaffron at 473-7357. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. hhiToi<.y TO:Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse, City Adminisirator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:May 27, 1993 SUBJECT: Sevver/Water As.sessment, 3237 Casco Circle Introduction Because some Council Members indicated they might place significant weight on whether the subject lot had been assessed sewer and water units, I have reviewed the assessment history of the property and the adjacent property. A distinction must be made between the sewer being "available” and whether or not the property has been as.sessed land on what bads it was assessed). Summary Assessment records were searched for Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19. At the time of both the sewer and water assessments. Lots 16, 17 and 18 were held as three separate tax parcels in common ownership. The house addressed as 3241 Casco Circle was mostly on Lot 17, partially on Lot 16. Lot 18 was assessed for front footage for both sewer and water, but was assessed for neither r» water unit nor a sewer plant charge. No water stub was provided to Lot 18. The sewer stub existing on Lot 18 and serving the house on Lot 17, was designed and installed to serve the house on Lot 17. Hie record suggests that Lot 18 was not considered as separately buildable by the City at the time sewer and water was installed and assessed. The 1 acre zoning standard in effect in 1965 (changed to 1/2 acre in 1967) and the code standard that allowed Council to grant variances for substandard lots in single separate ownership but by omission suggested that such lots in common ownership could not be granted variances, likely combined to suggest that Lot 18 would not be separately buildable. Council is cautioned that whetlier or not a sewer unit w'as provided based on someone ’s interpretation of codes in 1965 or 1971 should not be the sole criteria for determinim, whether a hardship exists for the current application. No variance/hardship review was done to make those assessment determinations. **‘»"**“^*-' ■TMiill ......... Iin iiiinnfrBnni ■TfciUlli Sewer/Water Memo May 27. 1993 Pace 2 \N’ater Assessment The following is a table defining how Lois 16 through 19 were assessed for water. WATHR 1971 - LW-l Plat 43300 Parcel: 0500 Assessed Ownership as of 1974 (■earliest tax record available Lot 16 6070 Units Tuthill Separate Tax Parcel Lot 17 0550 5571 Unit Tuthill Separate Tax Parcel ♦Lot 18 0600 5570 Units Tuthill Separate Tax Parcel Lot 19 0650 55’/l Unit Remien Separate Tax Parcel At the time City water was installed, all properties were assessed a footage charge of $5.80 per front foot (Utt 18 was assessed $319). Only those lots with existing residence's or those which were thought tt> be buildable were assessed a unit charge of $580 per unit, .jlaff has found no documentation to-date as to the detail of this attempt to determine buildability of vacant lots as part of this assessment; however. City Clerk Dorothy Hallin indicates that those lots thought to be buildable were assessed a unit. The placement of water stubs clearly reflected Mr. Tulhill s common ownership of Lots 16-17-18. Only one stub was installed for the three lots, and "connector arrows were placed on the as-built drawing to reflect TuthilTs ownership. As it currently stands, a water unit has not been assessed to Lot 18. A water stub has not been provided. Front footage has been paid. If the City determines that the lot is buildable. the current water unit connection charge is $1,877 per unit which would luive to be paid as part of the building pennit. Further, the owner would have to pay ail costs of connection to the water main, which is across Casco Point Road from the lot. A new stub-in can be created relatively easily by the owner’s contractor. Please .see the water system as-built and copy ol assessment roll attached. Sewer/Water Memo May 27. 1993 Page 3 Sewer Assessment The following is a table that indicates how Lots 16 through 19 were assessed for sewer. SF.WLR 1965 - LS-1 Ownership as of 1965 Plat 43300 Parcel: Assessed (assessment drawings) Lot 16 0500 60 ’/1 Unit STP-IC*McNeal Separate Lor Lot 17 0550 557NO STP-IC McNeal Separate Lot Lot 18 0600 55’/No STP-IC McNeal Separate Lot Lot 19 0650 5571 Unit STP-IC Hulse ? Separate lot ♦"STP-IC" is the $225 sewer plant charge, which was assessed for all existing residences, and still collected today for new connections in specific projects (no inflation factor) At the time City sewer was installed, all properties were assessed a footage charge of $12.00 per front foot. Those lots containing a residence were also charged the $225 plant charge. Lot 18 was assessed 55’ x $12 = $660. Staff has found no documentation suggesting that vacant lots were assessed the plant charge if they were considered buildable, so it is quite possible that no buildability determination was made at that time. Other than the plant charge, there was no "sewer unit" charge for properties in the 1965 project. The 1965 sewer as-built contains a connector arrow for Lots 16-17-18, and indicates one stub was placed on those three lots. This stub was on Lot 18. and the house on Lot 17 was connected to this stub. It is likely that the Lot 18 stub kKation reflected the best feasible connection location based on the septic system se ving the house. Sewer/Water Memo May 27, 1993 Page 4 If the Council finds that this lot is buildable. the sewer connection charge payable with llie building permit is as follows: S 225.00 - plant charge 191.50 - lift station tt6 by-pass charge 1 238.50 - lift station ttl force main charge $1,655.00 total due with building permit Brief Zoning History The "Casco Point District" was established in 1950, containing no regulations regarding lot size for existing lots. Ordinance #22 adopted in 1959 established a minimum budding lo inferred that substandard lots in common ownership could not be granted variances. Tlie 1967 Zoning Code included the Casco Point area as "R-ID". requiring 1/2 acre ^ea and 100 ’ width. Those standards remained in affect when the designation was changed to LR- IC in 1975. ConcIusk)n Council is reminded that no variance review was conducted at the time of assessment determine actual buildability of the lot. If the lot is determined by Council to be buildable. sewer and water co^ctions are feasible although stubs ate not in place and would have to be installed by the owner s contractor. Connection charges which would be due and payable at the time a building pemit is issue would be $1,877 for water and $1,655 for sewer (based on permit issuance in 1993), ch a l-i-AO • M hiMf K* I a i•■J,..| »•GAR t • • t ’j! %r I* •• *4r • - I • J . j ■ ^’“v ’j\\Sy\s- ^:'-P .> >1*:. • ' Vi' ■ ■ ■ . ^ •• •; .«.1 ;' - •; -'li i’* '- ’ k,i: I ■ I 1 I • GAR .* '» V ORP k*. •» •. •••.^;■• •• •• . .. I i j • .. 't|* • ‘‘^jv . g'lk= :m .v: V &?&•*••* • 4. t ( ' iSK If*.a:.V \9- V I \ im OAR r t“. ’ ”>•*'« ■ w OAR ( 500) T 1 HO. 1 U- K700) li 21 V \ \ »••n 2;^ / 111! (ajM^Vlftt; Pcu'col Rooldont Hooldo CominoroPootago Unlto i’ou{:/sgo2 ii3300 2730^3200'3kOO3600''3800'11030 11050 1|2S0- lih.00^ 4600 4800 5000/ 5?oo 'HO 12.5 Commorc* Overaizod246.11200,00237.05195.75 178.41100.00150.75 156,02 11^2.50 216.05 176.73 102,80 160,77211,20 60,00 120.00 60,00 60,00 60,30 120.00 1111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 70.75 23.75 210,00 30.00 30,00 20,00 4.0,00 60,00 60,00 22.75 ADGl'ilfc,Hoaid, Poptago Aaaiut, Reald, Unit a1" 1" l4?7.Ij)^1160.00 1374.891135,351034.701044.00074.35 904.92 326.50 1253.09 1025.03 1060.24 932,4.7 1224,96 348.00 696.00 348.00 3I|.8,00 349.74696.00 >18.00 580.00 580.00580.00 580,00580.00580.00580.00 580,00 580,00 580,00 580,00 580.00 580,00 580.00 580.00 580.00 580.00 580.00 500.00 560^00 Aaamt,Comm,Footaf'o Accmt, Anami; Comm,Unit a Dow ■> 7 7. o o i' ‘•ft 20.00 20,00 20 cO 20, Ot nn^ X. / wVJKl 580.00 ■■ 456.75 580.00 1 ”137.75 290.00 rt1"1218,00 fi'O.OO 20 01"174.00 290.00 174.00 290.00 9^ %W 116,00 232.00 3>!8,00 3I18.OO 530.00 131.95 SSlUt*esid» nits80,00:8o,oo;8o,oojoo.oojeo.oo^0,00580,00580,00580,00580,00580,00580,00580,00500.00500.00580.00 580,00 580,00 580,00 580100 Assml;, Couua, FoottvKP Tax Book Ownership - Lots I6-17-IS-19 1965, r''^4-Prcscnt Applic NOTU; Dash (-) between same owner indicates lots legally combined. NOTl:: Ownership is as listed at beginning of nominal tax year. AppHcation llistors DateAcrJieiiiica.* #761 Action Approved 2-27-84 Exp. 2-27-85 (Smith/ Approved l -n 86 Exp I -n 87 (Mertes) #1101 Approved 2-9-87 Exp. 2-9 88 (Merles) #1811 iRemien) Year 16 17 18 19 1965 McNeal Me Neal McNeal llulse.'-- ••NO TAX RECORDS AVAILABLE • • •• 1974 Tutliill Tuthill • Tuthill Rcmien • 1975 Tuthill Tuthill Tuthill Rcmien mm 1976 Tuthill Tuthill Tuthill Rctnien — 1977 Tuthill Tuthill TuthHI Remien — 1978 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien — 1979 Tuthill I'uthill Smith Remien mm 1980 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien mm 1981 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien — 1982 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Rcmien — 1983 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien #761 1984 TuthiH -Tuthill Smith Remien mm 1985 Corson Corson Smi'h Rcmien mm 1986 Bielke Bielke ^Ciith Remien #988 1987 Bielke Bielke Mertes Rcmien #1101 1988 Biclkc Bielke Menes Remien -- 1989 Bielke Bielke Remien Retnien -- .1990 Bielke Bielke Rcmien Remien — 1991 Bielke Bielke Remien Rcmien - 1992 Bielke Bielke Rcmien Remien - 1993 Bielke Biclkc Remien Rcmien #1811 5 10.07 , » s r^r'nMOAncV fOT S non"“COn f O T m 1 US0«shall approve a certificate ^ will be prima facie Failure to apply for such th-r illegal or did notevidence that such non-conforming use was eith.r meg lawfully exist on January 1, 193d. Subd. 6. Building to hereafter erect or indicating that the existing building permit shall have been is.ued with this or proposed structure and the use ot^ne aoplications for zoning Chapter ^ erection or major alterations building permits pertaining j-moncinns of a structure, shall be which will affect the " site If the site accompanied by three subdivision or land composed of consists of land not a to a survey by a partial lots, the site of the lot, registered land surveyor showing The site olan shall also show lots or parcel to be ^uilt upon The erected or dimensions of existing on the site in relation to structurally altered, ^-j-reet parking olan and suchoutside boundary, ^he required off street par other information as mans submitted for all enforcement of shall contain lighting and uses ^^oevt one and tam ilj to be bonded at the landscaoe plans, ana aii so-t.- rate of"1-1/2 times their estimated cost. SEC. 10.08. VARIANCES. subd. 1. variances: «h- Granted. variances from the strict app safeguards in the zoning Chapter and rmpose there a^e practical variances so grante , v,-,.Jch{n'? in the wav of carrying out the difficulties « the Zoni4 Chapter and where' strict '‘l^.^XVrseTy affeft th^p^^^^^^ intent of z''on7nTc\at°er n- t^he^^-^Vh or welfare of the public. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 Subd. 2. Variances; Reference to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. a The Planning Commission Is constituted as the Board Of artLSiro°/a^.’;%Sces advisory to the ^ ref-^rred to the Board of Appeals andthe request therefor shall be re - of the prooosed Adjustments for “udy ooncernin9 the ‘hS character variance upon the comprehensive recommendation to and development -,^ch variance so as to relieve such r/rfic^uTtU^or^ Lrdsh\p^o the degree considered reasonable OBONO CC 264 (4-1-84) s 10.08 ► .. P conditions related to ^the^ of the ^ropos^i^ buUdina, structure, «'“uirts' i? r,af deem \d;isa’ble. The Council by may waive reference to the Board of Appeals and Adjustm.nts. B The Board shall hold hearings as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section ^^2.354, Subd^ . ^ before published in the official newspaper . .ug hearing in the day of the "'the |jrpose of giving mailed person or by agent or attorn-y. mailina the notice may use any TX'uir. te-rd^^^rd^term^ine the na^ °n^tf^ o1%;V^prlo^^idirgr" t\1 fa?iirl\o"’fi:-e^rfled notice t° -dividual property o«hers or ^pfvfdfd f bofa ffdf fttefpV\o"°cLpf;\\^^rthis Subdivision has been made. C Subject to such limitations as may be imposed by bhe council tie B-rd may adopt rules iHSi- Se“^fa5^hS o^fd-iof f ndingf and fhe Vtfofta^ef on ealh matf “ h°eard by it, including the final order. Subd. 3. Variances; Issuances. h 11 cfnsifer"th?^adf ife^ a^^l ™fe?^,aUon^of fff Bofr^ ^r?he Iffect of -e ZZ f ntlcfpatel"'.Tr7ff= =°fif°a"nd the" effect laf e"s"%% "propeft'y ?n^ the surroundingsafety, and tne etrect o Council shall hear requests area. - the 1 iter al' prov is ions of this Chapter in for variances from ^ enforcement would cause i.ndue hardship instances where their ?°diviLal property under fonsfd^rftifnf^rnf to gr£t ?n‘fe"eVing°"i?th'^lfe ip^rll L"fpt%%“°"’UnVuf hfra^Sip^'^s u"sed in connection with the granting of a variance means. 1. The property in question cannot be — ? reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controIs. ORONO CC 265 (4-1-84) § 10.08 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. 3. The variance/ if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. Economic considerations / constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for .he prope . exists under the terms of this Chapter. 5. Undue hardship also includes, but limited to, inadequate access ?o^n%\TuVtiora“drfl^el\V«\n\%srtrs\\\-/t°es. Section llSd.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. 6. The Board of Appeals and =“thT/ c"ha%rer^/or“pr^p^lr^rrn ^h^e "to^n:‘’:Se^rl "tL ^a^ffected person's land is located. 7 The Board or Council may permit as a % , r^reo-fnmilv dwellinQ as a two-family variance the temporary use of a one-famiiy aweix-ng dwelling. 8 The special conditions applying to struct,re or land in qulstio^ are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to . .-ha •^■'Q+'T’ict in which said land is other land or structures in the district located. 10. The granting of the necessary for the preservation and enjoyment o a su s property right of the applicant. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will ♦ • 1 t-h safety# comfortr moralSf or in any S?h\fre%\^ec\*yrn\ra'^rt^‘ the^ of the Zoning Code. 12 The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary alleviate demonstrable hardship or diffrculty. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 ^ a* ORONO CC 266 (4-1-84) § 10.08 granting of va/iknc?s%rinsye SSB T? Changed b%'o^”"the Ef-ikte'd in this Chapter in the district where such land is located. Source: City Cede Effective Date: 4-1-34 Subd. 4. Variances in Border seeks to regulate land use throughout treKisting the various zones will be compatioie v.o adnoins property uses and regulations. Where Pf;°.P®tty rn the City in another municipality acnlvino to the Citv propertYfsubstantially different from those applying tt so as to make strict of all tne City^ such property '5®th^ regulations of the adjoining location of the ‘ acclimation for variances hereunder,municipality m considering application Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 subd. 5. variances: Denial. aTinding motion of the Council and ®u„ij-ed for approval do not and determination that the conditio . ? . ^ been^denied wholly exist. NO application ,® J®“®"=® ”^J?od ol sirceT months from or in part shall be resubmitted arounds of new evidence ^k^toorof “hlge" o/cLditions' found to b'e valid by the Planning Commission. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 ?lu"ri'^m"f “aVencTio^^^^^^^^ further awaiting such recommendation. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 subd. 7. Variances: violation of Conditions. A viola- "viriatlo “n""o;%^"e%^°nin “‘chIpte\^an"d ”auU^tlciri“ the variance. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 ORONO CC 266-1 (4-1-84) ; . : § 10.08 2ubd. 8. Variances: Expiration. Variances shall expire one vear after the date of Council approval if not used. ^^ny change in use of the property shall require a new variance. Source: Ordinance Mo. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 Subd. 9. A certified copy of every variance granted unde- the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.358 and 462!359 shall be filed with the Hennepin County Recorder. Variances filed with the County Recorder pursuant -o Minnesot statutes Section 462.36, Subd. 1, do not constitute encumbrances on real n'rocerty" The order issued by the City shall include the legal dfscliptYon of the property involved. Failure to frle a variance shall not affect its validity or ena.orceability. SBC. 10.09. CONDITIONAL OSES. Subd. 1. Conditional Uses: Purpose. In order to give the district use regulation the flexibility districts the obiectives of the Zoning Chapter, in certain districts, «tditional uVes are permitted, subject to the granting cr a use permit Conditional uses include those uses generally not suitable C a ^articilar zoning district, but which may under some circum^stances be suitable. When such circumstances exist, a conditional use permit may be granted. Conditions may be applied trts“u°an"ce ^/th^permitted a periodic nI/®fo“r^ a*%rtilular™Ver%*'o*n^ or%i?m“* Because of their unusual c.h^acteristiL, conditional uses require consideration so they m.ay be located properly with respect to the respect''to thiir Yff%"c1:s''^o®n''s°u?^^^^ In order to achieve these conditions upon the granting of these permits. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 Subd 2. Conditional Uses; Reference to Planning commission. Before the Council rl^CSonsfor such conditional uses as Prescribed in the district reg ?L^^Pi;nn/n",^ C^o^^^^^Io^n^lo-r-stp^y anf ^d^vll^^^^ irire*"neirhbo"rh^^^d\^"r?rr%efomS,^n'd ‘k\ion in regard - .ranting refiaT-o^^^tr/h^ crdr^^ofa^l action waive reference to the Planning Commission. Source: Municipal Code^ Effective Date: 9-14-67 ORONO CC 267 (4-1-34) iia cs, ;oii ec- led nd LIC- or ply )ns ito rm ISC in )n- he ^rQ m- ,vc fid )SS ay ty n- tin cs It ic- n )C le > n e Dr c V 9 c e s II- y s; •i-T •m»< My •• V «r’.* t^y •* ^ • r rc*- 'is.: r- £ % ♦ - ••• -li; .li- •i * t.**' •ad -♦nr -TrJii. . -/iT .;rA • 2 V S«& ► <*^rf ■•-idBW.- -4n» — (• *• V •X" t C' V ^■4 W, .‘.S'V- r* ar L 5r •* ^, ir sliail be inauc m conionnancc with this section but only alter there shall have been filed in the otficc of the city clerk a written consent of the owners of two-thirds of the several descriptions of real estate situate within 100 feet of the total contiguous descriptions of real estate held by the same owner or any party purchasing any such contiguous prop erty within one year preceding the request, and after the affirmative vote in favor thereof by a majority of the members of the governing body of any such city. The gov erning body of such city may, by a two-thirds vote of its members, after hearing, adopt a new zoning ordinance without such written consent whenever the planning commis sion or planning board of such city shall have made a survey of the whole area of the city or of an area of not less than 40 acres, within which the new ordinance or the amendments or alterations of the existing ordinance would take effect when adopted, and shall have considered whether the number of descriptions of real estate affected by such changes and alterations renders the obtaining of such written consent impractical, and such planning commission or planning board shall report in writing as to whether in its opinion the proposals of the governing body in any case are reasonably related to the overall needs of the community, to existing land use, or to a plan for future land use, and shall have conducted a public hearing on such proposed ordinance, changes or alterations, of which hearing published notice shall have been given in a daily news paper of general circulation at least once each week for three successive weeks prior to such hearing, which notice shall state the time, place and purpose of such hearing, and shall have reported to the governing body of the city its findings and recommendations in writing. Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and adjust ments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable con ditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. (2) To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of cir- . ....... • •• .• Subd. 6a. It is the policy of this state that handicapped persons and children -1 To:Mavor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse. City Administrator From:Stephen Weckman. On-Site Systems Manager Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:May 19, 1993 Subject: C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle - Variance Renewal Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.03, Subd. 6 (A) - Existing lots. Section 10.03, Subd. 6 (A) (1) - "R" Districts of one acre or less with public sanitary sewer. Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B) - Minimum lot requirements. 1.Lx)t area Required 80% area Existing =w Variance = = 21,780 s.f. = 17,424 s.f. 16,748 s.f. or 77% 5,032 s.f. or 23% 2.Lot width Required = 100 ’ 80% width = 80 ’ Existing = 55 ’ Variance = 45 ’ or 45% Additional Exhibits II I J K L M Remien Letter 4-19-93 Resolution for Approval Correspondence 1 - Bachman Letter 4-26-93 2 - Staunton Memo 5-4-93 3 - DNR Letter 5-17-93 Plat .ling Commission Minutes 4-19-93 Planning Commission Memo & Exhibits A thru G 4-15-93 Original 1983 84 Variance Documentation Zoning File /^1811 May 19, 1993 Page 2 of 3 Description of Request The applicant requests the renewal of lot area and lot width variances granted per Resolution No. 1607 (2/84), Resolution No. 1904 (1/86), and Resolution No. 2123 (3/87). The applicant, C. Jack Remien, currently owns the subject property (Lot 18) as well as the neighboring property (Lot 19), where the applicant resides. A potential buyer for this property who wishes to construct a residence would like assurance that the lot is buildable. The potential buyer has submitted conceptual plans which demonstrate that a residence can be installed which will require no additional variances. Please review the Planning Commission memo and exhibits for furtlier information. This property. Lot 18, was originally owned in common with the two lots to the north. Lots 16 and 17. which were not combined. As a result of the common ownership study completed in 1983, the City changed its policy on common ownership lots in sewered zones and based on the individual merits of Lot 18, the lot area and width variances were granted. At the April 19 Planning Commission meeting, Warren and Christine Bielke, who live adjacent to the subject property ^Lots 16 and 17). asked for the denial of the variance as they believe the lot too small and the impact too great with the construction of a residence. Exhibit G of the Planning Commission packet is a letter from the Bielke’s indicating their position which includes signatures of other neighbors who support the denial ot the application. Please reter to the Planning Commission minutes for further information. Included as Exhibit II is a letter from Mr. Remien addressing some of the concerns brought forth by the Bielkes. This letter was read by the Planning Commission Chair, Maureen Bellows, at the Planning Commission meeting as it did not arrive in time to be included in the Planning Commission Packet. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission approved the lot area and lat width variances with the vote 3 For, 2 Against based on the findings and conditions noted in »he previous approvals. Jeff Johnson and Steve Peterson voted against approval of this application. Jeff Johnson felt he could not support the request as he telt the two lots should be combined as neither has sufficient area to meet the zoning requirements. Steve Peterson felt that the approval required loo manv variances. Zoning File ^1811 May 19, 1993 Page 3 of 3 Subsequent Discussions Shortly after the Planning Commission meeting, Kevin Staunton received a letter from the Bielkes ’ attorney. Peter Bachman, indicating Ins discussions with a DNR attorney lead him to believe that DNR regulations prohibit the City from granting this variance. Further discussions lead to this item not being placed on the May 10 agenda pending additional information. Staff di.scussed this issue at length with DNR officials. While they initially indicated our "lots of record" ordinance may be inconsistent with DNR Sboreland Regulations, after further in-depth review they determined that our 80% rule is not inconsistent with the intent of the DNR regulations, that the intent of the regulations was not necessarily to deny buildability of a lot that meets their minimum lot area requirement (15,000 s.f. on a General Development Lake) while requiring only minor variance to the DNR minimum 75' requirement for sewered GD lakes. The DNR letter of May 17 sets forth the DNR position, and concludes with a reminder that if the City grants a variance. Council must find that a hard'' 'p e.xists. Council may recall that upon recommendation of the City Attorney, in 1984 the City revised its interpretation of the existing lots of record code section relating to one acre or smaller lots with sewer. Prior to 1984, staff interpreted the language (which has not changed since 1967) tr mean that the City would not even consider variance applications for existing vacant common ow nership lots less than 80% of the lot width and area requirement. On the advise of our attorney, since 1984 the City has accepted variance applications for such lots, and based on the merits of each individual case, has granted a number of such variances. At the same time, however, recall that the City tightened up its ordinance language with regards to commonly ow’ned unsewered lots. Because tliis application is controversial, at the risk of flooding you with paper, we have included documentation from the original 1983-84 variance review, which may help Council understand the basis for the original approval. Staff Recoinmendatioii Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution. Council’s optional courses of action mav include; 1. Approval. 2. Table, requesting additional information. 3. Conceptual denial. 4. Other. r *> r Acril 19/ 1993 jsaanne A. J-’^busth, Zcning Aeminiatr'-'- Occno City Hall 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono / Subject: LAND USS APPLICAIICN #1811 AT 2237 CASCO CIRCLE Dear Ms. Mabuath; In an effort to expand on the letter submitted by Bielke & Richards, here are eare additional ccnslderaticns which are pertinent to making a well-infcrmed decision. 1) ‘The flucceasion of ownersliip cf Lot 18 iat year Owner 1976 1977-1986 • 1987- 1988 1988- Present Tuthill Smith Mertes Remien When Martas bought the lot in 1987, it was his intention to build a S Sun, hi. oth.r r.aid.nc. By 19B8 to sell hiii existing heme and subseqaent-y/ w.d the lot to J® ® . as a buildable lot. At that point my intention was to expand my presen residence on Let 19 to cover in acme part, Lot 18. In October of 1985 when Bielke purchased his home, there w a vsUd variance for that lot. In 1986 and 1987, variances wera^ag^ to build on Lot 18. At no time did Bielke file a requeew -nat these variancea be denied. Th. Mi: .ro.lon pceblM r.<«rrM to In P“»9r.|h « ^ e£ th. rUn etom o£ th. emtury In th. Mrty 1»M ® fell in a 12-hour period. There has been no other significant eroeion of record since that time. in P«r»,r.ph »4, th. qu.atlon o£ "own«r h»rfMlp“^ 1»^ "® adjacent property which could be added to make thia lot hu the neighborhood. r. X r r - ^ ^ t'!3. Jeann6 A. M^fcusch/ Sonins Ac.iur.i2trawwr Pa-ge 2 The cuesticn of financial gain foe iKyaelf is miniral ’-’hen one ccnsicera f^«hased t;ne loi in 19SS f=r saO,CCO a=i _i; £lv. vi.*ra later for $95»000 less real ea^'iffce ccrmisaicna. xn ac^it^cn/ rwl eaiaf taxes baaed cn that lot as being build^le. Without a renewed variance; I would be subjected to a ser-cus nanc lose cn the property. In closing; there are two final comments which do impact the request for denial of this variance: Tn 1986 and 1987; variances were passed without objections from BieiL. What is different is that today Bielke also has his res-dence for sale. 2) At the present time; I have qualified buyers and signed purchase agreements not only for Lot 18; but also Lot 19. Approval of this variance would be greatlymyself; but also by the two qualified b.’.yers who are scheduled to close on May 28, 1993. Respectfully submitted A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) FILE NO. 1811 WHEREAS, C. Jack Remien (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the propeny located at 3237 Casco Circle the City of Orono (hereinafter "City-) and legally described as follows: Lot 18 Spring Park, also all the land including the vacated highway. Lake Shore Drive, lying be.ween the Northeasterly line of said lot and the shore of Lake Minnetonka and between the Northwesterly and Southeasterly } cs of said Lot 18 extended Northeasterly to said lake shore, and being part of Goveautient Lot 6, Section 20, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the ,‘^th Principal Meridian, and also indicated on the plat of said Spring^Park (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25. Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of a new residence on a property that is 16.748 square feet in area or 77% of the minimum area required of square feel or half acre and the width of the property is 55 feet or 55% ot the required 100 feet of lot 'vidLi. Minnesota: 1. NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File ^1811. The propeny is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. The propenv was in common ownership with contiguous Lots 16 and 17, Spnng Park prior to 1967 through 1977. Lots 16 and 17 are now legally combined. Ihe property is now in common ownership with lx)t 19. Section 10.03. Subdivision 6 (A) (1) of the Municipal Zoning Code provides tor development of lots of record held in separate ownership since ^ etfeciive dale of the zoning regulaiion. provided a lot of record meets 80% ot the required lot area and lot width and has municipal sewer available. Page I of 6 « • 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Prior to December 19. 19F \ the City Council always required that when two or more lots were owned in c:jmmon. each lot must individually meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code before any of the lots can be built upon and that two or more substandard lots owned in common must be combined so that the resulting combined lot meets the requirements of the Zoning Code before the lots can be built upon. Upon completion of a 6 month City wide review of the common ownership issue, on December 19, 1983, the City approved a proposed amendment of the municipal code that would permit all substandard undeveloped lots within the sewered areas of the City regardless of the ownership of the'-e lots, the same standards for review. The property is 16,748 square feet or 77% of the required area. The pn^perty is consistent in area with 7 other developed lots within a totai developed neighborhood of 33 lots. The property measures 55 feet in lot width and is approximately 5 feet short of the narrowest lots in the 33 lot Casco Circle neighborhood at 60 feet. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 19, 1993 and a majority of its members recommended approval of the variances as proposed based upon the following findings; A. No available land - lots are developed on both sides of property. B. C. K F The property is served with sewer and water. A house and improvements tan be constructed without the need for additional variances. By granting this variance there will be no negative effect on the public health, satety and welfare. By granting this variance it is consistent with the development of the area. By granting this variance there should be no need for future hardcover and setback variances. Page 2 of 6 G. H. I. J. K. The special conditions applying to the parcel of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right ot the applicant. The granting of the proposed variances will not in anyway impair the health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any ether respect be contraiy' to the intent of the Zoning Code Tliat the granting of such variances wdl not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficultv. 10. This application is a renewal of variances granted on February 27, 1984, and the findings stated in that approval resolution tNo. I'-*') were acceptable at that time and are still valid. 11. 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. 12. 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. CONCLl SIGNS, ORDKR AM) CONDITIONS Based upon the ahiive findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25. Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of a new Page 3 of 6 I residence on a property 16,748 square feet in area or 77% of the required 21,780 square feet (1/2 acre) and with a lot width of 55 feel or 55% of llie required 100 feet of lot width, subject to the foll'^iwing conditions: 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The detached garage located within the right-of-way of Casco Circle is a non- conforming structure and subject to all pertinent municipal ordinances for non- conforminc structures. 'Fhe only variances granted with this approval are lot area and lot width. No other variances are granted. Applicant is hereby advised that in approving the development of this substandard property that all future improvements must meet the current standards of the code and that a future Council might not approve any improvement to the property that requires a variance .^pplicant shall pay the appropriate water unit charge and sewer connection fees at the time that the building permit is issued. Tlie property owner shall bear all costs of connection to the municipal sewer and water, including the installation of new stubs to serve the property, if required. An easement must be granted in favor of 3241 Ca.sco Circle over the portion of the sewer line which lies within the .subject property, 3237 Casco Circle. The easement area must be of sufficient size to allow maintenance of the sewer line. Side, street, and lakeshore setbacks are approved per the attached survey (Exhibit A). As part of the normal building permit procedure, applicant shall provide a grading and drainage plan for the property. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with die applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (May 24, 1994). Page 4 of 6 10.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically temiinate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 11.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby acrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of May, 1993. AITEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan. Jr., Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of May. 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 e.xecuted on behalt of the Citv. Notar\' I^iblic Page 5 of 6 4 UO-J^cv '' I cartlfy 'i''" ^ Is 8 tr^<t and rorirct sontation o>\a ourvsy of Iho boujjdarJefl of Lot\lB, .’ll ' the locotion of all ^stlOR M.Udt.u- th«r*on, and tho proposod loe'itio'. oj 9 prooosad building. U do«« n-t - • port to show olhor ittprov«nv.n» •> «r ancroftchinauts • - 11983iu .....i C TY Or Uf?0N0 CORDON R. COFFTK CO., INC. Scale t [>i ta : o s 1» e 40* 6-17-fli Iroi» nnrkor '^don n. Coffin n»a- >Virk S. Cronbarg B*K* ' Land Surveyors and Plaiuxr* Long Lo«a, Hlnnsnota #761 • -f*’__________________________ ». Aws z^p-rtc.r* LEONARD. an O QEI^. ARD »M40r c r> fil0^4 A t Af.'V.OC • ATlO^« % • i • .r*. t ?»t«S 0 • I *«BC •'•. *•„--!» •* *‘-r*w4H •CiWW* r; * r**»*3«i 3*v n •» CCi i^ir**CN • C**««*»CS M MAY : kr«rii V a OUb ^Sm 3 »CB H .• • ••IIW'C T •Qf 9«A3*« r M Bwa’*i H UCB***** 9*t>C*« 0 er«vi**CB . 4»r§ • 30*3l» 4A**.i rr»« « c*ft»**M 3AV r.v:*« 9*tr^C*« n W»T*«AA •OOC*' BAPBOW-J ••\XA*C J wC&CPfB CW ^ **«*'*C«Af* ,p • O**** C AWi*'A • - •*•»..• • M “»*Ar. A M«'-« ' VW « «;> ' 4 -<0 •• M* • ••c '. l. ••••l »l*fc ..4WCB V *3»- •• •OttM- . • •ICILA N •onr**• •-•V t .AMr". A *fC%U— “ ^ '•At* ^4*nt*«c: . t ti .•» 3AA'3« 4r..r* pABu r *t C4W.QI ^ w'V.AfACn BiiiP* ^ •.iBra CAir*3 AA^TC» 4^-.r. A M C-* S’* 4.4A4 A pr<A«« # B»CA ' I kUwCkk V 9vuo\.A.*. • r.BftAS»AO r.rnC Sami %C«» ■ OlAIOAt atAT^ANBCN - :»-AtW 3 tA*m« t*l«M A*. • 1A%'?4 •> A^ar A* I'.'i. r ^ *t • A M «• C . * *« Su*Tr .^^00 '90 iCUTM r 5'^^CE* N N Sa POL*S. m.'s-n ESOTA .9.T»-i0c TC lCT mOn C ‘0 IJ .l.SA • ^uo •ACS *^«LC >^. »•* -Ji: '•»? April 26, 1993 i A f r««*» . .*» * ^ • •§. •• m ♦.•••••■tit »4*. A TC'-'S <**.'.i* - ;uA*. A 4a ;» A a . •-'.f % KJ S'A A %•.*—A • 4 •'..tP • «•**•»• * ••k*k**S3^ g,4«l ••ifr<i«*, • ••■••AW , fsr f •• vrs . •r»» A - ^4^ -MAH .‘.-N S g-i .•.4S :aaa .( , -iwpck **A»", 3 I Mrs 3** )i«*4«A c ••' r» »*-**^*> . ara »-4a .* MA>* m *)\^i-AV«* •t*r A I S^-ll »•* ^A***kH-.k '• kC ‘ Arm s’svcs • I ••rr-44141* ar'...4M «r»*- • 5*»avO I S’.-Uk*» A • <r» ^ C , 4«* A M 4ait • C-3» C '.A-irA^rai .c »«•• • •» A’At**«« ♦C'*iC A'.C m ..•*►•/* J A*NAn-.4*» *,4 ,A»*A M nCo.f* A m ••• Tw*' n r Mfii t aa :ir» m ,tt t •-%i# I VV'V'M '• <..^ k A ,:AVtP C C*Ja'wC* ' 4M--C ' a*4rr 4 .AHC r .-.-•VfBCt f$.r. lAcA'r •.,%•••,H.- 4 • .Al. «tl r.S3Pr.r • •fC*»AB3 f? tie* ab * . * - s••^.i» ‘ ••• »e ? hrs/.-i f♦ CC'*»a»»3 ; c »A ir.A ah CI f 3C’*<**3 ^‘B*r AAi* k .Pf .OBBfB urnt BA hiC a C P.4^’1 M SA«C**'W» wn-TO C 0'WCC'» J»Au NUM«rn (612) 335-1862 Kevin Staunton, Esq. Popham Kaik Schnobrich Kaufnan Ltd. 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 S. Ninth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Re: City of Orono; Request for Variance by Jack Remlen Dear Kevin: Recently I called you to discuss case law providing that the City of Orono is not required to grant the ahove-referenced variance simply because similar variances have been granted in che past. Since that time, I have done a little additional research and I now believe that the City of Orono is definitely prohibited by DNR rules from granting the requested variance. requirements of items A to E and subparts 2a and 2b, the lot raus not be considered as a separate parcel of land for the purpoises o sale or development.” Unde.v subpart 2a(F) , the minimum lot width is 75 ft. The lot size proposed by Mr. Remien is only 55 ft. and clearly not in compliance with DNR regulations. I had a telephone conver.iation today with Tiber Gallo from the Minnesota Attorney General’s office. Mr. Gallo confirmed that a or development. Ae you know, BHR rules have the force of lew end are binding on the City of Orono. Orono, o- ooursa. Kevin Staunton, Eaq. April 26, 1993 Page 2 could be more restrictive, but cannot be less restrictive than provided in these rules. I would appreciate it if you would give r.e a call to discuss this matter. Very truly yours, LEONARD, STREET A.'ID DEINARD ... • ■ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gy ! >A’. . r. * A. Peter H. Bachman PHB/tess Attachment cc: Warren and Christine Bielke (by facsimile) PMBMICLKlMTAyiTQM.LOl !| • • t « ' I I * *k »• I •i f I * \i • • 'i' |!..•I pl:l I'l •». ’ r. • * i • M• ll’j. • I < H*. II I>«< JVi •< \ ! i? Ip Re- For- rnoic estcd ition cultural 6120J200 SHORELAND .\ND FLOODPL-\IN MANAGEMENT D. River classes in water-oriented commercial disincis Uses Surface watcr-oriented commercial ••Commercial planned unit development Public, seraipublic Parks and historic sues Forest management 5768 Tribu- Urban tary C Cc p ccc p ccc p c pc F c pc p c pc p Uses E. River classes in general use districts. Re- For- Trans- mote csted ition Agri cultural Tribu- Urban tary C C N C C C P cc c N C C C P Commercial ••Comm;rcial planned unit development Industrial Public, semipublic Extractive use Parks and historic sites Forest management Mining of metallic „ o o o P P minerals and peat P P P P P r •a \ accessory to a residential planned unit development - Limited expansion of a commercial up to six additional dwelling umts or sites may be flowed as a permuted use p vided the provisions of pan 6120.3800. subpart 2, are satisfied Sunilory Authority** ^ ^ Hlstorr- SR 3029 6120J300ZONTNT; provisions . Subpan 1. Purpose. To manage the effects of shoreland ““ crowding, to prevent pollution of surlace and ground waters vide ample space on lots for sewage ireaimcm systems, to ages to maintain property values, to maintain histone values of hfsionc sites, and to raamuin natural charactensiics of shorelanas water areas, shoreland controls must regulate lot sizes, placement of structures, and alterations of shoreland areas. j Subo 2 Resideodal lot size. All single, duplex, inplex. and quad rc«>demiw lots creafed after the date of enactment o^‘ the loc^ shorcl^d or exceed the dimensions presented in subpans -a and ^b. and the folio ^ nc propeny B. On natural environment lakes, subdivisions of duplexes, tnpiexcs, and quads must also meet the following standards: 5769 nary higli ‘ systems lb one locati triplex, or ( or exceed trcls also the guest be create surface t ityasvi' phy, in< govcrixc ntwu: o: to E an iroip Ic the lol breamt time, a are me any us evaJua meot 1 varian contig requu er^a must parce and • for n to pv su^ suitz over the npa con • I J 5768 Tribu- jan Liry C P C P Tnbu. a Ury C C C c c p living *pro- lurfacc , to pro- dam- nificaot djaceot ictum. 'eotial •n«t mg: cated SJIifS gned 800. •d to irary tpaii vaiJ- f«rt. ^ - •V.'. • .Twy 5769 SHOR£L\.ND AND FLOODPLAIN .ALlNAnFMENT 6120JMO Dlry high waftr IV,.h., ““ one .ocabon .ripl6x, or quid’dlver;^i^. i*’ cor.age may be allowed in local controls on lots meeting or exceeding the duplex dimensions presented in subpans 2a and 2b if the con trols also require ah of the lollowing standards to be met: (1) Fc, lots exceeding the minimum lot dimensions ofd’.nlix lots the guest cottage must be It^ted within the smallest duplex-sized lot that could be created mciuding the principaJ dwelling unit. (2) A guest cottage must not cover more than 700 square feet of land surface and must not exceed 15 feet in height. (3) A guest cottage must be located or designed to reduce its visibii- ity as viewed from public waters and adjacent sborelands by vegetation, topogra phy, increased setbacks, color, or other means acceptable to the local unit of j^overmnent. assuming summer leaf-on conditions. P' of record in the office of the county recorder on the date of enact ment oflo<^ shoreiand controls that do not meet the requirements of items A to t and subparts 2a and 2b may be allowed as building sites without variances from lot sue requirements provided the use is permuted m the zoning distnet ti^lot has been in separate ownership from abutting lands at ah times since it became substandard, was created compliant with official controls in effect at the time, and sewage treatment and setback requirements of the shoreiand controls are met. iNecessary variances from setback requirements must Je obtained before any use. sewage treatment system, or building permits are issued for the lets. In evaluating all the variances, boards of adjustment shall consider sewage treat ment and water supply capabilities or constramts of the lots and shah deny the Yankees if adequate facilities cannot be provided. If. m a group of two or more contiguous Jots under the same ownership, any individual lot does not meet the requiremeau of items A to E and lubpans 2a and 2b. the lot must not be consid ered M a iep^te parcel ofland for the purposes of sale or development. The lot must be combined wuh the one or more contiguous iou so thev equal one or more parcels of land, each meetmg the rcquire.mems of items A to E and subpans 2a and 2b as much as possible. Local shoreiand confroi^ m*v ^ , ..je for PonconfbrTnmg lots or iiiigSg' meir rest.ncnons on tliei^—^ .........wii s icii uociuprncni. , .,. E- If allowed by focal governments, lots Intended as controlled accesses to pubUc waters or recreation areas for use by owners of nonnpanan lots wuhm suboivisions must meet or exceed the following standards: . ui 8- and size for residential lots, and besuitable for the intended uses of controlled access lots. If docking, mooring, or over-water norage of watercraft is to be allowed at a controlled access lot then the width of the let mun be increased by the percent of the requirements for npanan rcstdential lots for each watercraft provided for bv covenant bevond slx. Consistent with the following table: Controlled Access Lot Frontage Requirements Ratio oflake sue to shore length (acrrs'miJei Less than 100 ioo-:o<) Required mcrcase in frentage (percrntl 25:o 1 oo to 3300 Piper Jiffrty To»er 222 Couth Nlrlh Street Hi.‘.neepol i t. MinnevotJ Sr>462 (612) 333-4800 VTA t^:lecopy TO:Ron Moorsa Jeanne Mibouth FROM: DATE: RE: Kevin P. Staunto May 4, 1993 Rcmien Variance Application Attached please find e copy of a letter and a section of the DNR Shoreland Regulations which were sent to me by Peter Bachman of the Leonard, Street & Deinard firm in Minneapolis. Mr. Bachman represents VJarren and Christine Blelke. In his letter Mr. Bachman takes the position that the DNR Shoreline Regs prohibit the granting of a variance to Mr. Remien. I am in the process of reviewing these regulations and am planning on discussing the matter further with him at 4:00 this afternoon. Prior to that time, I would like to visit with you both to gat your input on this matter. Please give me a coll early this afternoon so that we can talk further. 4S1XPS ‘.t PHONE NO. feT' STATE OF ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 12 00 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, M.V 772-7910 A» I^ MH <in May 17, 1993 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal B?y, Minnesota 55123-0066 RE* APPLICATION #1811, C. ^.aCK REMEIK (3237 CASCO CIRCLE) , LOT Dear Ms. Mabusth: We have reviewed the above-referenced variance application which involves contiguous nonconfor:ning lots of record that are under t a 3am=5 ownership. The DNR's wodel shoreland munagenient ordinance (based on the July 3, 1989 statewide standards) specifies that lots of record date of onactaent of the loc?l shoreland controls that do not meet the nininun area and width rcquirepents may be allowed as bunding sites without variance provided: "the use is permitted in the zoning district, the lot has been in separate ownership from abutting lands at all times since it ,became substandard, was created compliant with official controls in effect_at the time, and sewage treatment and setback requirements of this ordinance a e met." (Section 6.1, A.) section 6.1, C. in the DNR model further specifies that if, In a group of two or more contiguous lots under ^^e same ownership, any individual lot does not meet the area and width Swandards of the ordinance that the lot must not be considered as a separate parcel of land for purposes of sale or development, but must be combined with the one or more contiguous lots so the meet the area and width requ'lrements as much as possible. It* jrono's Section 10.03, Subd. 6, A., 1., it states that a lot of record which is .., serviced by public sanitary sewer and which does not meet the requirements of this Zoning Chapter as to .:r width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval if the area measurements and width of, that lot area within eighty percent (80%) of the requirements of this Zoning Chapter. Howev'er, the lot of record shall not be more intensely developed unless comuined with one or more abutting lots or portions thereof so as to create a lot meeting the requirements of this Zoning Chapter. N t'J'JAL OPPORTUNfTY EFtPLOYER Mr.. Jeanne Kabusth May 17, 1993 Pago 2 , t-hn citv of Orono' 3 Zoning Chapter W« interpreted thin provi lot met the ”80% rule” it could to ntean that if a common lot, but that if could not meet be considered a separa ^or^bined with the continuous lot under the 80% rule it meet 80% of the city’s 1/2 acre common ownership. ^ width minimum still meet the DNR ^^anda ”^d" Teel thi^ P/^^/^'^HoTevaT, we "^note °thr? Se^^ct^y’s fthiB^foviaiSn cou'ld be clarified by adopting language ^Sr^LnSiete^Vvlth the DNR nodel. iUWi- - - - - - -- -- Therefore, since the «-ein lot doco^not^^^^^ requirement, the city g ownership. A variance can bewith the adjoining lot under . demonstrate hardship (in rcordance'witfMir. s\"a'’t. 46..3f7, subd. (R))- Thanh you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772-7910. Sincerely, CJ) Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc: M Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist Tom Zappia Peter Bachman ^ .it« City of Orono Shorelana riie *<*•'>. ••r. • • 1 MINUTES OF THE O.T^^NO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 19, 1993 ZONING FILE #1810 - CONT. weckman stated to his there «rA« Ha said the apartment has its own access auor ^ exterior He said this use has existed for many years Recently the owners apolled for a permit to up rade the apartment, and It was determined they would need a conditional use permit. the independent exterior access. j"; <«• .»«.t... ..f... features. T* hv Rpllows seconded oy Cohen, to recommend approvalrp“ rc\7ion’;,8Vo HTn’ry D^Nero, , las 6th Avenue North. ^Proving a conditional use permit for a guest house use. Ayes , y— (#10) #1811 C. JACK REMIEN, 3237 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCES — PUBLIC HEARING 7:50 - 8:25 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. Remlen was present. weckman noted this Is a !’“t*®^an“'y’'^°o®‘‘aM JiTT3ab\"l i tV^^ i“oV U I l^.^h/ r.:rs^l^s^^orfh?rpr;rer^y!7fnoJ:£t;£^^^^^^^ of the City. He stated many lo s the neighboring property o:n;rI“'a'';d" 'a° re"tte?'VuVmTtt'e“d by Remlen providing background Inf ormation. Bellows read the letter from Remein. warren and Christine Blelke a*®--****^ *.^^*1 «ues*' Vha"' wtr“'*^o? the lot is substandard, and there are issues discussed with previous variance review. minutes of the orono planning commission meeting HELD APRIL 19, 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 - CONT. Mrs. Bielke state, w-'- had not yet been to Remien purchasing the parcel, the first variance 1 P"‘J?orney reasons for She read a * ® ® Section 10.08 dealing with variance deniai. She health safety and welfare of the pubi c. approval regarding the _,rr»h’iem in th»s area should make the lot and suggested the " Jo the problem and would be unbuildc.ble as it wou Hnnri She added they did have their detrimental . ^^® . ^ « i^uat*! on^ but felt this may depreciate house listed prior to request does not meet the JPtte^lTfo^^P^'p^ovarVnd suggested this lot be combined with Lot 19. , I IQ aH\/1&0c1 th&t th© hous0 Mr. Nisledlak. j.®' akeshore ind wl not add to the , o^* f eTr the house he^ wou Id ^hu, I d _wou I d^not ^ lower ruppr/thrB%°/ke's’'“w?th%?:ns to'present to potential purchasers of their property. • uiart that the sewer connection stub for Lots 16 and 17:rratrd'':rhin'th'e runr^ ot uot ,s. Mrs. Blelk. stated ' » lln^hl^t^T added they were unaware the City Indicate that Lot 18 was Sr^SS?Mihirand“'t‘‘hari;*wrth°e'sewer line was Placed within Its boundary. Mabusth disagreed. i me^o^rnlta? I at I on^of %h^ P*P«» thlt Ts'^thy'^i/wTs^ placed on Lot 18. Mrs. Blelke / T^'^faTe^s ^'’They ^ do° not° an^t%Tpl^^ '^0^1^December 1985 which states, they would become buildable . Bellows indicated ' to"“ to their property. She fe ^ property has changed hands J:'::!::r,r.*«%^^b"ld;hr.*l"oV.*and tms reouest wou.d not set a new precedent in the neighborhood. a • * *• t- \ . k*. ,0^/ . . • / MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 19, 1993 residence. Johnson said he respects the position of ^‘ could not support the request as he felt the property should b combined with Lot 19 as one condition for approval is that no additional land is available. Bellows felt that was an incorrect interpretation of the code. Mabusth noted the code specifically states that substandard lots, whether In single separate or commonly owned, are to be their own merits. The finding that no additional land ,s available was validated during the variance review because at the time the lot was not owned In common with adjacent lots. Peterson felt approval requires too many variances. Schroeder questioned why the neighbors did not buy the parcel. Mrs. Blelke stated they were unaware tnat It was for sale until too late. Jay and Gay Richards, 3243 Casco Circle, stated they were fjj® Impression that Remien purchased the parcel for use in . with Lot 19. He said the only reason why the City , ® variance in the past was because It had been taxed as bu.ldable, and an attorney owned it at the time and the City did not want to be brought into legal action. Bellows felt thwit Issue was not pertinent. Vote; Ayes 3, nays 2. Johnson and Peterson voted nay. (#11) #1812 THOMAS PATRICK GOODYEAR, 712 TONKAWA ROAD VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:40 - 9:05 P.M. ^ The Af fidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mai ling were ncted. Mr. Goodyear was present. Mabusth reviewed the applicants request tc add a second story to the existing residence, including the addition of a 2 ♦expansion Into the right side yard to square off the foundation. me applicant also proposes alterations to the existing boat ouse. TO:Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Stephen Weekman, On-Site Systems Manager DATK April 15, 1993 SUBJECT: C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle - Variance Renewal - Public Hearing Zoning District LR-IC, Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre minimum. Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.03, Subd. 6(A) - E.xisting lots. Section 10.03, Subd. 6(A)1 • "R" Districts of one acre or less with public sanitary sewer. A lot of record existing upon the effective date of this Zoning Chapter in any R District of the City of up to and including one acre, which lot is serviced by public sanitary sewer and which does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval if the area measurements and width of that lot are within 80% of the requirements of the Zoning Chapter. Section 10.25. Subd. 6(B) - Minimum lot requirements. 1. 2. l^t are a Required = 21,780 s.f. 80% area = 17,424 s.f. E.xisting « 16.748 s.f. or 77% Variance * 5,032 s.f. or 23% l^)t width Required » 100* 80% width = 80’ Existing = 55’ Variance = 45* or 45% X c r fp t Zoning File #1811 April 15, 1993 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map D - Survey E - Resolution #1904 F - Front Elevation G - Bidke Lettei Description of Request The applicant requests the renewal of lot area/lot width variances granted per Resolution #1607 (2/84), #1904 (1/86), and #2123 (3'87). Each of the variances expired at the end of one year before a building permit was issued. The applicant. C. Jack Remien, currently owns tfie subject property (Lot 18) as well as the neighboring property (Lot 19), where the applicant resides. A potential buyer for this property who wishes to construct a residence would like assurance that the lot is buildable. Rough plans have recently been submitted for the proposed home and the potential buyer of the property will attend the Planning Commission meeting if there are any questions A preliminary review of the proposed residence has been completed by :,:aff. No hardcover is proposed within 75 ’ of the lake and hardcover within the 75-250 ’ zone is at 24%, meeting the 25% hardcover requirement. Hardcover between 250-500’ of the lake has 16.5% hardcover. Lot coverage is at 10% and the structures appear to meet the height requirements, nierefore, no additional variance would be required. This property. Lot 18, was originally owned in common w ith the two lots to the north, LaJts 16 and 17, which were not combined. As a result of the common ownership study, the City changed its policy on common ownership lots in sewered zones and based on the individual merits of Lot 18, the lot area and width variances were granted. The neighbors. Warren and Christine Bielke, who live adjacent to the rubject property (Lots 16 and 17), believe the lot too small and the impact of building a residence too great and ask that the variance be denied. Enclosed as Exhibit G is a letter trem them explaming their position. They ha\e included a list of signatures of other neighbors who support the denial of the application. ___ft____________ Zoning Tile #1811 April 15, 1993 Page 3 Hardship Statement Please review the attached exhibits. Resolution #1904 and the staff memo of December 3, 1985. Staff finds the hardships and findings of these documents to remain valid. / •(/ i ’ n .si-> i ''1 4 ' ' • ■ J rd CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION rrrv oc u A I I C*' u‘MU'r*U rri;^ijrr nccrrc Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non conforming use $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Aitr?rtLi. uri f iWi. * ^ m ^ • m m • • 1 1^1 W M W I ^ W WV i -r A 1 » w»*V*ire ,• A t %J m\fHECK r‘»f revi im f i. y£ fT7r*T«* L/ S.i' V*/##vt.cuAf f I r »r»MM « cu I $ u 1 1 !-•< »1 T f ^ L\/va I X <1 .'iT / “S’ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 3237 CAS(JI CIRCLF. Property Identif. Number (P.I.D.) 20-117-23-43-0013 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: _ _ _residential _ _other (specify) vacant/resldentla Zoning District: Residential / single family APPLICANT Name C. Jack Remien Phone (home) 471-7297 Address: 3235 Casco Circle City: Phone (worlc )_557-2300 Orono Zip:55391 if different than applicant)mmBR (i ^na tr*TV Name U iC Phone (home) ^"7*^ ^ Phone (wor)c 3 V Address: )(j. .S~i_______ City i H r, ^ Ilt!li n DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $________________ Describe request in detail: Lot width variance so that new ovmer inav build. VARIANCES REQUIRED _____ Lot Area Setbac)c : X Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average La)ceshore i Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DBSCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: _ This variance would be the sane variance granted twice orevlouslv for previiJuY ^ owners. LV refme?<t a variance to Soild a home on the dUrVlTlU 53^ wide iUl. Plaaaa the addendum to this n lee attached for ncre details. (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the applicatxon deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete: 1. I' Completed Application Fonn ?. u Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3, u Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. ^-'“certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8>i"xll" for I reproduction). 5»\;/ATopographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8%"xll ). S)cetcheE or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8J5"xll"). 7. _As an addendum to this application, please rttach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. _Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the—aboj^ 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 Jiest of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges 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 investiga tion and verificatiopnof this r^q^st. Owner's Signature ____________Date J? Applicant must have al^ ^ubmittals into the City offices 25 days before Planning Commission Meting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Coamd-sslon and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building * Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. f -r f /i yzj% VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3237 CASCO CIRCLE The intention of this variance request is to re-instate previous variances #1607 and #2123, which were approved for previous owners. The current owner, Mr.C. Jack Reitiien, was aware of the previous variances, but was not aware that renewal on an annual basis was required subsequent to purchasing the property. The variance requested is for permission to build on the current 55 foot wide lot. There is no vacant property on either side of the parcel. The building permit would be for a building that is in conformance with all other building require.ments: 1. Front setback from road right of way will not be less than 30 feet. 2. Side yard setback on each side will not be less than 10 feet. 3. Setback from the lek« will not be less than 75 feet of the normal high water mark or .. ....jiwlse at the sightline of the neighboring houses. 4. Hard cover, as defined by the city, will not e.xceed 25% in the area between 75’ and 250' of the high water mark. 5. Hard cover beyond the 250' mark w.,.11 not exceed 30* of that land area. 6. There will oe no hard cover within 75' of the normal high water mark. 7. The total structural lot coverage, as defined by the city, will not exceed 15% of the total land area of the lot. The hardship remains the same as outlined in the previous variance approvals. The lot is narrower than current conforming lots, but this is a pre-existin condition, and other lots in the area are of similar width. There is not vacant land on either side, and there have not been tax abatement appeals on this property by Mr. Remien. We respectfully ask the City of Orono to Grant this variance. 2^ \ RON DATE 05/25/95BATCH 00^t PROP ADDR OltICR NAH6 taxpayerNAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER HAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR ) PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR % 1 %i \ T HcrtJCPiti courn'Y property i?<roRMATioN systemPROPERTY OtRitRS LIST REPORT HO. PI‘.55<i01 PAGE 1]58 20-117-25 *5 0010052A5 CASCO CIR JAMES H RICHARDS I WIFE JAMES H RICHARDS 52<*5 CASCO CIRCLE WAVZATA MN 55591 38 20-117-25 95 001505257 CASCO CIR J E MERTCS A R V HERTES C JACK A JAME REMIEN JR 5255 CASCO CIR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 93 001905255 CASCO CIR CHARLES JOHN REMIEN JR CHARLES JOHN REMIEN JR 5255 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55591 58 20-117-25 95 0015 05255 CASCO CIR 0 M SPILSETH A R 0 SPILSETH OAVID M SPILSETH 5255 CASCO CIRCLE HAYZATA MN 55591 58 20-117-25 95 0050 05291 CASCO CIR H L 8IELKE A C H BIELKE HARREN I CHRISTINE BIEUE 5291 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55591 . 'a ■ ■•S* 1 » . I # * •« , w' •r: I' . 4 • • -f “ •, ' V *. • »t 58 20-117-25 95 0019 05251 CASCO CIR J E COOPER A J E COOPER J E COOPER A J E COOPER 5251 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55591 58 20-117-25 95 0031 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO THE CASCO CO THE CASCO COMPANY ROBERT 0 MACNIE 5155 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55591 'It ( . ' i > -.1 “ . ■ ^ . TOTAL BATCH 00^ 00007 9T •s 9 I- ' ♦ 9 * ' <4 i.' -;r ( A t J r A /i # 9 ‘ I ‘ X CERTIFY that THE TACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE representation OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE, RECORDS or THE HEEtlEPIN COUNTY DEPAR^EN]^ OF PROPER^/^W^ATION, TO BEST OF MY KNOMIEOGE AND BLLIEF. r ^I DAT »» A/ I A 9 • I f -4 *-•V ' • .»y .♦ • ;< I .\ 1.^ x^.rf^r ^l.T t>. V i*i.;‘ t> ‘ if .' '*1 */ *.• » . 7 ^ ‘^',V: '•• * *K .•' # 1. •' • ^ 4 « .) • V / F . ' • * V * • f , •»^* V* ^* f , • _-i exhibit .. ^ CKrUrirat.i Of Survey for nieir^" Jo^nnon _ of lot 18, spring Park jJk^’>Sirp-i(3S>zC, Honn^pln County, Hlnn^»ut., 'i)l':Vr‘it^ - 67Sfsk *TS? * t I iTb^tr cortlfy n«-< ’»'l*' la a tfyn and rorir^t i-pi - aonUtlon of 0 Burvay of »h- toumJarJeo of Lot 18, SprlnK f'*'*. tha locotion of «1J exlatlng N. Un.u- tbaraon, and tlio propoao'l loc*tU*n .'I a propoaad building. U du-« n^t r = r port to show oU'.or lcprov..r.M,» .. encroftchmants• <0 - 11983 Lu .... - - CITYO.-UrtONO CORDOH R. COFFIf' CO., INC. ty' 'Seaia i frt ta : o : I- e /.(V Iron pnrkrr Gordon R. Coffin lu»f »v-rk S. Cronknr, P«C. Land Survayora and PLatuiara l/ing Ln<". Hinr.*'('otn #76 CITY roRONd^ 'f City of ORONO • ••• »■jiRESOLUTIO;^ .op^Me city council; ncouiL.v-1 I lyj ^ 'vu:W-*6g»S»» 1904 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) PILE #988 WHEREAS, James E. Mertes (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 3237 Casco Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 18, Spring Park, also all the land including the vacated highway. Lake Shore Drive, lying between the Northeasterly line of said lot and the shore -f Lake Minnetonka and between the Northwesterly and Southeasterly lines of said Lot 18 extended Northeasterly to said lake shore, and being part of Government Lot 6, Section 20, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, and also indicated on the plat of said Spring Park, (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of a new residence on a property that is 16,748 square feet in area or 77% of the minimum area required of 21,780 square feet or half acre and the width of the property is 55 feet or 55% of the required 100 feet of lot width. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #988. 2. The property is located in the LR—IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The property was in common ownership with contiguous Lots 16 and 17, Spring Park prior to 1967 through 1977 when the current owner, Douglas Smith, purchased the property. Lots 16 and 17 are now legally combined. 4. Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (A) (1) of the Municipal Zoning Code provides for development of lots of record held in separate ownership since prior to the effective date of the zoning regula tion, provided a lot of record meets 00% of the required lot area and lot width and has municipal sewer available. Page I of 6 1 wi (HIS ORONOfflcsofusaLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 190^^_ _ _ _ _ _ 5. Prior to December 19, 1983, the City Council always required that when two or more lots were owned in common, each lot must individually meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code before any of the lots can be built upon cnl that two or more substandard lots owned in common must be co. oi.ned so that the resulting combined lot meets the rquirements of the Zoning Code before the lots can be built upon. 6. Upon completion of a 6 month City wide review of the common ownership issue, on December 19, 1983, the City approved a pro posed amendment of the municipal code that would permit all substandard undeveloped lots within the sewered areas of the City regardless of the ownership of these lots, the same standards for review. 7. The property is 16,748 square feet or 77% of the required area. The property is consistent in area with 7 other developed lots within a total developed neighborhood of 33 lots. 8. The property measures 55 feet in lot width and is approxi mately 5 feet short of the narrowest lots in the 33 lot Casco Circle neighborhood at 60 feet. 9. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 18, 1985, and a majority of its members recommended approval of the variances as proposed based upon the following findings: A) No available land - lots are developed on both sides of property. B) The property is served with sewer and water. C) A house and improvements can be constructed without the need for additional variances. D) By granting this variance there will be no negative effect on the public health, safety and welfare. E) By granting this variance it is consistent with the development of the area. F) By granting this variance there should be no need for future hardcover and setback variances. G) The special conditions applying tc the parcel of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately ad joining property. Pace 2 of 6 \■■ f^CITY 3&‘0F,^.\ rdRQNQ >4 v ‘ 1 ;r , <►. •» -I '»* > RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.1904 m; The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. I) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. J) The granting of the proposed variances will not in anyway impair the health safety# comfort# morals# or in any other respect by contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. K) That the granting of such variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant# but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 10. This application is a renewal of variances granted on February 27, 1984# and the findings stated in that approval resolution (No. 1607) were acceptable at that time and are still valid. 11. The City Council has considered this application includi.ig the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission# reports by City staff# comments by the owner and the effect of the proposed variances on the health# safety and welfare of the community. 12. 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 appli cant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings# the Orono City Council hereby rants variances to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25# Sub division 6 (B) to permit the construction of a new residence on a property 16,748 square feet in area or 77% of the required 21,780 square feet (1/2 acre) and with a lot width of 55 feet or 55% of the required 100 feet of lot width subject to the following conditions; !• The detached garage located within the right-of-way of Casco Circle is a non-conforming structure and subject to all pertinent municipal ordinances for non-conforming structures. Page 3 of 6 4.fe. ^- .-XA-,.'; ^CIIT^r m- '-ir 0RQN9 «.^siaiiii?y of OROiNO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1904 2. The only variances granted with this approval are lot area and lot width. No other variances are granted. 3 Applicant is hereby advised that in approving the development o*f this substandard property that all future improvements must meet the current standards of the code and that a future Council might not approve any improvement to the property that requires a variance. 4. Applicant shall pay the appropriate water unit charge, sewer connection fees, and park fee at the time that the building permit is issued. 5. The property owner shall bear all costs of connection to the municipal sewer and water, including the installation of new stubs to serve the property, if required. 6. Applicant is allowed to remove the one fallen willow tree at the lakeshore, but removal of the three standing willows is not approved at this time. 7. Side, street, and lakeshore setbacks are approved per the attached survey (Exhibit A). 8. Auth. ritirs granted by this variance run with the property not the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year he date of Council approval, or this varianc*? will expire on that date (January 13, 1987). 9. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 4 of 6 £4 ferr' '--f te ^ CITY’ ••^ OF . r ORONCI / of OROIXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1904 Adopted by the Orono City Jamiary, 1986. Council on this 13th day of rothy M./Tlall^n, City Clerk l/ynZ<] ^Prnpprl-.y OwnP»r 7 Page 5 of 6 77.ccc^L Tim Adams# Acting Mayor ' CITY’r OF* ORONO ’-■C. I „„5 RllPK:^®if ORONO lOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 1904 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) S3. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this I day of ^W-AJ 1986 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared ^ A1cn-rE^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ to me to be the person(s) descril^d inandwhoexecuted the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Kifcjy /A /9&y MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) //1986, before me known to me personts)-^e^~ribed"^ and who executed the foregoing instr^ent, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as nis (their) free act and deed. MAT.f J fjirwOiAS 5 > ^•euc-i!i.,N(soM I < CbCWi I ? Mv Ccffm.uKi-t Jtn 9 1999 | NOTARY ^JS^IC MY COI^ISSION EXPIRES Page 6 of 6 W. jtSrown ijaiici 501 West 78th Street urveyiiflg; 0 SURVEY FOR: SUMMIT BUiI^De'r B PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 18, and that part of vacated .ake Shore Drive lying in Lot 18 PRING PARK ADDITION, according ‘.0 the recorded 4Llat thereof, ennepin County, irHinesota WOODROW A. BROWN. RLS. President LAKE ^ MINNETONKA ELEV. FEB 27,1905 59.0 SCALE: fi 40 O » IRON MOM \ •• N NGT€:: D i>v4Lu »#oc J A5 SHou^>Ni Docs l^OT' pC«.T"A|N) -TO -THC (91.5) Denotes Proposed Eleva^^ 89.7 Denotes Existing Elevation Proposed Garage Floor Elevation* 92.f Proposed Top of Block Elevation* 92.< Proposed Basement Floor Elevation*84. Proposed Walk out Elevation* 84.4 BENCHMARK; Spike in Power Pole at N.W. Cor. of Lot 18 - 100.00 I hereby certify that this sketch plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervisiof and that I am a duly registered land surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date; March 4. 1985 Reg. No. Revised; January 10. 19^6 15230 /a J /^^:S0Lu■r/0/O nJ^Qi-j wo 4-is 7/if AjvrtA-’iA*/ S‘^44pcjr* Tts ‘ \- » ^ A w\s sa STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) CITY OF ORONO ) I Dorothy M« Hallin, City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of the proceeding's of sai^d^City Council at a^igeetlng of said City Council held ^ « 19__ _• and that the sane Is a true and correct copy of said resolution was duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. 27A” Witness ^ hand and ^al this AUZ:, _ _ _ _ _ _ orothy M/ Hallin,^ City Clerk (SEAL) L 1-. April 13. 1993 Uu > 1 Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Orono City Hall 2780 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota « ^ ^ • APR 1' •■'I 1995 Dear Ms. Mabusth; This letter is in response to the Land Use Application #1811 for the property at 3237 Casco Circle. The property owner, Mr. Jack Remien, has requested lot area/lot width variances on this substandard sized property (lot 18) to accommodate the sale of this property. (It should be noted that the adjoining property, lot 19, owned by Mr. Remien is also for sale.) We are requesting that these variances be denied. A brief history of this lot is as follows: 1. This property (lot 18) was originally held in common with the two lots to the north (lots 16 and 17), which are now combined. 2. The LR-IC zoning district was created in 1967, establishing the requirements tor buildable lots. 3. The lot was sold off from lots 16 and 17 in 1977. 4. In 1983, lot width/lol area variances were granted for the lot. 5. Subsequently, Mr Remien bought the property and informed his neighbors that his intent was twofold: to keep anyone from building on the land, and to put an addition onto his current home. 6. Now Mr. Remien wishes to sell both his current home on lot 19 and lot 18 as separate parcels anJ leave the neighborhood. It is our request that the current application for lot width/lot area variances be denied for the following reasons: 1. Lot 18 is substantially substandard to the requirements of LR-IC. The 55 foot lot width is far below the 100 foot width requirement of LR-IC. In addition, it is not consistent with even the narrowest lots in the neighborhood, being ne;u-ly 10% narrower than any others. The area is only 77% of the required half acre size. 2. Increased hardcover on this particular lot would e.xacerbate an already serious erosion problem that is occuring on lots 14, 15. 16, 17, and 18. In particular, we would encourage the Planning Commission to e.xamine the hillside erosion problem that is ver>' evident on the north side of Mr. Remien’s property. 3. To allow a two story’ home to be built on such a substandard piece of land comoromises the integrity of the lakeshore as well as the neighborhood in general. 4. There is no "ow’ner hardship" justification for compromising zoning standards to this degree. It is more one of financial gain for Mr. Remien. In summary, wc would encourage the Planning Commission to not just reissue these variances, but to deny them. Please look again at the situation and the neighborhood impact. Possibly a solution that would benefit both Mr Remien and the neighborhood could be found Sincerely, Cju<.o Warren and Christine Bielke 3 ^ ^ciS cc C /< ■ Gail and Jay Richards The undersigned also support the denial of these variances: T)Cc*-- I /l-ir I\ Z2Z^ Cf/^CCb C\^Co . ^JT C<1<7 CO <32/lC ^ • S/C/' ^ p- ^. Ca s cyj « L. M fhonino S TA T f OF ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ~METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUE, MN 772-7010 June 14, 1993 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono p.o. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 RE: APPLICATION /1811, C. JACK REMEIN (3237 CASCO CIRCLE), LOT WIDTH VARIANCE FOR LOT HELD IN COMMON OWNERSHIP, LAKE MINNETONKA (27-133, #9), CITV OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Ms. Mabusth: The purpose of this letter is to clarify points discussed in my correspondence of May 17, 1993. In that letter I noted that the city's ordinance requires contiguous substandard lots to be combined if they are under the same ownership. The lot in question for variance application request #1811 has a substandard width and is under the same ownership as the adjacent lot. Therefore, uhe city's ordinance requires that the lots be combined. I also noted that in order for the city to grant a variance that hardship must be demonstrated. QiH Clapp, of the Attorney General's Office, and I have had follow-up discussions regarding this matter and felt further clarification was required regarding hardship. Based on the information we have reviewed for this case, hardship does not appear to have been demonstrate-!. Hardship must be demonstrated to justify approval of a variance request. The approval of a variance due to hardship should be based on the following prerequisites: The proposed use is reasonable. It would be unreasonable to require conformance with the ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise due to "functional and aesthetic concerns" and econoiais considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty. The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property, such as topography. If the problem is common to a number of homes In the area, it is not considered unique. The problem must not be created by the landowner. The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. A. B. C. D. E. AN equal opportunity evPLOYgB Ms. Joanne Mabusth June 11/ 1993 Page 2 The Department should be advised of >^he action taken or, ^tM^ T-Brtueet within 10 days of final action and copies of the ota-^wlai rocor“should be forwarded to this office if the variance requeet is not denied. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely/ Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc:Ed Pick, Shoraland Hydrologist Bill f’lapp, Attorney General's Office Tom Sappia Peter Bachman City of Orono Shoreland File TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator June 7. 1993 #1820 Hennepin County Depanment of Environmental Management - North Atm Access - Conditional Use Pemiit - Resolution Brief Review of Application At Council ’s April 12th meeting members voted to allow the County to proceed with the necessary repair of the seawall at the Nonh Arm Landing subject to applicant filing a land use application before the building permit is issued by the City. The land use application was filed and a building permit has been issued. The majority of repairs have been completed. The work commenced some time during the week of April 19th. Please review the enclosed packet of information for a more detailed review of the proposal. At the site inspection, staff and the City Engineer obsen ed vegetation and debris collecting within the tliree curb cuts at the outer edges of the parking area that would eventually drain directly into lake. Staffs real concern was for the invisible pollutants such as oils, nutrients and other chemicals from vehicles that are Hushed into the lake with an initial down pour. The issue of water quality was never raised during the first review but has become a major issue during the review for the repair of the seawall. The County representative. Denis Bailey, concurs with the City ’s position and has agreed to submit a letter that would affirm that the County will install a treatment facility prior to the boating season of 1994. As of the writing of this memo, the City has yet to receive the letter but Mr. Bailey has advised that it will be submitted in time for the Council meeting of June 14th. Mr. Bailey advised that he has reviewed the City Engineer’s comments but feels it more appropriate that the engineering staff of their Environmental Department be assigned the task of designing a treatment facility that will be subject to the review of the City of Orono. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Ctnnmission recommended unanimous approval of the conditional use pemiit for the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Management for repairs to a section of a seawall at the North Arm access as shown on plans for Hennepin Coumy Project No. 9209. sheet 2 of 2 by Wayne Shoo, a Registered Professional Engineer, dated May 6. 1992, subject to the condition that a treatment facility for stonn water be iastalled priiir to the boating season of 1994. Plans for the treatment facility are to be designed by the Environmental Manaiiement Depanment and shall be reviewed by the Orono City stall at the time ol the issuance of a building permit. The enclosed resolution been drafted to rellect the approval of the Planning Commission. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUTVICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 FILE mid WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Management, (hereinafter "applicant") has applied to the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") for a conditional use permit per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 to permit the repair of a seawall at the North Arm public access. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. Tliis application was reviewed as Zoning File #1820. 2. 3. The property is l.Tcaled in the LR-IC Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. On May 17, 1993, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application as proposed and recommended approval of the conditional use permit based on the following findings: A) On January 13, 1986 the City of Orono granted a conditional use permit for the installation of the .seawall at the North Arm access. B) Repair involves replacement of existing w'ooden sections of wall adjacent to the ramp area and replacement with steel sections. The wooden sections of the wall are in a serious state of disrepair and presems hazards for the public who use the access. Page 1 of 4 4. 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the repair of the seawall 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 its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan ot the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicant and the affect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more ot the findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 to permit the repair of the seawall at the North Arm access subject to the following conditions: 1.Applicant shall install a treatment facility for surface water control as it relates to sediment, debris and other pollutants that wash into Lake Minnetonka from the paved parking area at the North Arm access. Staff shall review the final pl^ for the facility prior to installation and that said installation be completed prior to the boating season of 1994. Violation of or non-compliance with any ot 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 misdenie.inor. 3.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Hennepin County Department of F.nv ironment Management, hereby agrees to the recording ot this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 2 of 4 Adopted by the Orono City Council on Uiis 14th day of June, 1993 ATTEST: Dorothy M. Haliin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Authorized Representative of the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Management STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day of June. 1993, by Inward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) __day of ss. , 199___. before me a Notaiy' PublicOn this_______ within and for said County, personally appeared ________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this dav of ss. , 199 , before me a Notarv’ Public within and for said County, personally appeared _______________________^----------------- known to me to be the person(s) described ir and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Pace 4 of 4 .0 To:Mayor Callahan & Orono Councilmcmbers Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator May 12, 1993 #1820 Hennepin County Department of Environmental Management North Arm Access - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Hennepin County originally applied for approval of a conditional use permit for the insiallation of the seawall at North Arm access in 1986 (review Exhibit E). Early in April, Mr. Bailey of the County advised City staff of specific repairs needed to maintain safety of users of public ramp. Repair work was scheduled for the week of April 19th. The repair of the seawall requires a conditional use permit. Staff presented the County ’s problem to the Council seeking direction (review Exhibit F). At the April 12th meeting of the Council, members voted to allow the County to proceed with tlie necessary repairs subject to the condition that the land use application would be filed before the required building permit could be issued by the Orono staff. A building permit has been issued. The repairs took place sometime the week of April 19th. I he following ordinance is pertinent for this review: Section 10.03, Subd. 19 - Prohibition. It is unlawfiil for any person to .....repair any seawall.....without a conditional use permit issued by the Council List of ExUbits A - B - r - D - E - F - G - H - I - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Dennis Bailey Letter 4/9/93 Original Plan for Seawall Installation 1986 Staff Memo to Council 4/8/93 DNR Letter 4/27/93 Gustafson Report 5/7/93 Plan for Repair of Seawall - Current Application Review of Application Refer to Exhibits E and 1. The repair involves the replacement of existing wooden seawalls adjacent to the ramp area and replacement with steel sections. A building permit w’as issued by the City. As required, the repairs were designed by a licensed engineer. Zoning File #1820 May n, 1993 Pace 2 Please review Exhibit H, the engineer ’s report. Upon our site inspection, staff observed the three locations where run-off flows directly through three curb cuts within the surrounding bimminous curb that defines the paved parking area. We observed vegetation and debris that collected in the parking area that was now washed to the shoreline. As Gustafson ’s report notes, it is the invisible pollutants that raise the most concern, specifically oils, pollutants and nutrients that arc flushed into the lake with the initial downpour. The issue of water quality from the stormwater that collects on the parking area was never addressed in 1986. In light of recent State directives and the City’s long-standing goal reflected in ordinances that call for improvement and maintenance of water quality, staff recommends that we begin a dialog between both City and County to determine the best treatment facility and a reasonable deadline for installation. Staff has discussed the City’s concerns with Dennis Bailey and a copy of the engineer ’s report was faxed to his office. Bailey seemed to be supportive of our recommendation but wanted first to review the various treatment facilities listed in engineer ’s report. Staff asked if an installation deadline of next spring seemed feasible and he felt it would be. Suggested Recommendation To recommend approval of a conditional use permit for the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Management for repairs to a section of a seawall at the North Arm access as shown on plans for Hennepin County Project No. 9209, Sheet 2 of 2 by Wayne Shoo, a registered professional engineer, dated May 6, 1992 with a request that County install a facility for surface water control as it relates to sediment and debris that washes into Lake Minnetonka from the paved parking area and that the City work with the County in formulating the best alternative for the development of that facility. It is further recommended that the control be developed sometime prior to the boating season of 1994. Isv CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION /f Site Address Countv Road 51—200' west of Co. Rd. 19 - 3700 North Shore Drive Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Please attach legal description to application if not incl|jded on required survey. APPLICANT Name Denis Bailey Phone (home) Phone (work) Hennepin County Address ,;.i7 w-»rrh F^f^h ^rrppt_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ City Mplq. Zip 55401-1309 OWNER (if different than applicant) Ncime Phone Phone (home) Address City Zip Date Property Acauired I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent (month/year) parcels cf land. PBBS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _ _ _ _ $ 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application _ _ _ _ $125.00 Residential accessory Use _______ $175.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 Guest Uouse/Guest Apartments mmmmm « ■ _____ $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg 0 _ _ _ _ $250.00 Coinmercial/Industrial Use X $200.00 Land Alteration CITY OF OTiCHQ FiiiAHCE OFFICE 1350200000 01 CEH 200.00 Ct^Ui mL 4.00. Ov hECEIFT-THAHK YOU a27i:i>o cool ROi ri4: 04/29. . Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ' _ _ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more X_ _ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshor© PRD/PID - see fee schedule Renewal Fee - $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS $200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review {+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation _ _ _ _ $175.00 Easement Vacation $ 75.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _ _ _ _ $300.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _ _ _ _ $300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ _ _ _ $100.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTYPresent Zoning District Present Use of Properry LR-IC Residential Other (specify) Public Access DESCRIPTION OP REQtreST wooden seawall with steel sheetln Describe request in detail. p______ . ,,, u.^ndri ckson Publi seawa 11 boat ramp at Hendrickson Public REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. , owners within 350' (you can obtai thls\^^st f^^orneVneprrcounty Department of Finance A-603 Governmer Center 348-3271). l\ of survey \y 6. Construction plan, if applicable^ nlease attach a separate list of SJbS ‘SV""Ap"°'"ui»“r»o^ not been included# __________________________—— Certlfica^Ion’by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _"- - -- - - - - - - - - APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE information required or is true and correct to the best of has/her Icnowledge. C ^ a Date0^^ Applicant's gi cmature ---------------------- aoKnowled,es -V^rEUrtfiy l??y“s\\«r c\’J.'iu?tVn'’t*s: rg?n«r ‘^co:ri°s".ton m^m^Lr^nd louScil members for purposes of tnve.tiqation and verification of this request. ^ ^ ____ Date ________________________Owner's signature______________________________'________________________________________ A;;rio;'n‘t‘must have ?irr"d'M!>n?™o7eToh”month^- Office of this change prior to the meeting. S' / . j. »r— \ !**»/ . «, _^ 7 » • S 1 Ot-w 0 \"f \ \ \ \ \ \\ / \ / \ \ \ ] y y CJ' \ \ :»»: V I lO* 25 \ 8 \ ' i(j)\ 9\(2’r"^ :^ \ \ \A (I) I sc / i w \ \I « w ? i \ *■.. ' \ Jp' V i '* v..\,c\"’ :0)\V 5 \ i 5C-5)£ \(-«? V A ^ ^mr iO 1-4-9>‘ 'J| :e|ir§i:8 e,:s:| |;r| 55:::f«);(r^43: (4^ / / r\ V ( •\. AUD SU8D MO 275 < -- i rt T! 'Cl 55)1 f ? V 4 >,* N V n \ N^vV- N I "TI 1 « •’ y lc * accK I CS'S'A. 5i* vI:* (t) (H) w ■ (33) MA£IL|©; ■XJI 3? IS. M :9S.d (1) :s\ n > (11)/ I I- V '*S !S ■5 ^ rss.» yii('^) {>v -I «i 4*^1 41 n 5^ i3 n\ •r ; 3^ f V (’4)^ IW 1 3 •nvr.------—7 'US) '• 2/ 2'i: 1 U1 'f ^ j 1 ® I ^ .......13 jaj—^ »« R \ ^ \'4% ‘ V 4 ' V RUN DATE 0A/1S/#S •ATCH OOA HEf#«PIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0»t«RS LISTPROP AOOR OFMER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SO 00-117-25 54 0006 00050 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED COUNTY OF HENNEPIN HENN COUNTY PROP AOOR 0IO«R NAHi TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 50 00-117-25 56 0066 05010 NORTH SHORE OR E 0 JOHNSON A P J JOHNSON EUGENE JOHNSON/PAULA JOHNSON 5010 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA W S5361 PROP AOOR QNNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR SO 00-117-25 56 0052 05675 NORTH SHORE DR HARRY SKRYPEC HARRY SKRYPEC 5675 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA HN 55561 PROP AOOR 0»MER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR 50 00-117-25 56 0057 00050 ADDRESS UNASS1«^0 NANCY L OLAIR NANCY L OlAIR 5501 VILLAGE OR •' EDINA m 55659 . PROP AMR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER HAME/AOOR 50 17-117-25 21 0011 05705 NORTH SHORE DR H SULUOLD IT AL N/t. ESI OR HAROLD OULLHOLD 5705 NORTH SHORE DRIVE HAYZATA HN 55591 ; V 58 00-117-25 56 005500050 ADDRESS UNASSIGFIEO STATE LAND DEPT CITY OF ORONO PARK6/15/79 ST DEED 156756 30 00-117-25 36 0P50 05655 NORTH SHORE OR A A 0 HAGEN AL A DONNA HAGEN 5655 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA HN 55591 50 00-117-25 56 0055 05605 NORTH SHORE OR R G RESSLER A S RESSLER REX G RESSLER 5603 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA HN 55591 50 00-117-23 36 0050 05760 NORTH SHORE OR NANCY L OLAIR NANCY L OLAIR 5501 VILLAGE DR EDINA m 55659 4 . r. TOTAL BATCH 006 00015 • V 4 REPORT NO. PI655601 PACE 1050 00-117-25 36 006205010 NORTH SHORE OR E 0 JOHNSON A P F JOHTCQN EUGENE A PAULA JOHNSON 5010 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA Et4 55591 50 00-117-25 56 0051 05669 NORTH SHORE DR HARREN E BERG ET AL H/L EST NARREN E BERG 5669 NO SHORE DRIVE HAYZATA rtl 55391 50 00-117-25 56 0056 05605 NORTH SHORE OR GLENN C UPTON GLENN C UPTON 5605 NORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA HN 55591 30 17-117-25 21 0010 01610 SHAOYHOOP RD DAG ROGERS DONALD A GAIL ROGERS 1610 SHAOYNOOO RD HAYZATA »t4 55391 6 I * 4 RUN OAH 04/15/9S BATCH 004if. i; r «• € f' C 4. 1 »\ ‘ * ^ • . . I •• K . . -t (- # • « # \ •» I •f.', ••' r• i I . v> r.. 4 i ;.ir - r '4 ► » • l : ‘ i‘ s> ■ ■' , 'M;- ^ >■ f •• '■ t* H - •*!, • HIH«PIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI455<*01 PAGE 11I » • N t i ‘ ■ f» i • ^ • * V! •ir* *K • vi . s\ . ♦- N •I. * • it . . " \ .< I' >/ ? n, , * • \ i4 r » *1.4,:^. *-?i ^' '•' m!v • I • ^ i <t • . i*.')1 •; ,*v •• *''**,' ^iV '• • . • ■ 1 I« ^ :'l' ’* ■^ * • 4 % «. ,v-• .• or THE Hr»#«PIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THf BEST DATE /mm. ^ I ‘! »A. . «%^4 i, ^ S‘ • »» •; • r I • y 1 • • '/ . 'I. •, • : D HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMEN 417 North Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1309 Pnone: (6i2) 348-6846 FAX: (612) 348-8532 9 4*.-. 4 f -frr ‘i / ^ 7 . '•V.i-'' April 9, 1993 APR 12 1SS3 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway Long Lake, HN 55J56 Dear Ms. Mabusth: I would like to obtain the city’s approval for replacement of the wooden retaining wall on each side of the boat ramp at the Hennepin County access on North Arm (Hendrickson Access). The existing retaining wall is unsafe and not totally functional. Attached are the plans for the work which should take 4-5 working days and commence as soon as possible or about April 19, 1993. I would appreciate eny help the City of Orono can give to expedite this process for approval which will also be obtained from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to call me at 348-4378. Sincerely, O- Denis Baily Lake Improvement f t\e«rr\b«i 1 HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal oppof**jnity empioyef To: From: Date: Uft % I ( v -, ..' » n * >- *.v: ' . y Mayor Callahan & Orono Councilinembers Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator April 8, 1993 Subject: Hennepin County/Nonh Arm Access - Repair of Sea Wall ^A p V* Dennis Bailey of Hennepin County contacted staff on Thursday, April 8th advising of the need to replace timber walls at approximately 28 ’ in length at either side of public ramp at North Arm Access (review attached exhibit). We originally reviewed a conditional use permit (Application il^989) for the installation of the sea wall in 1986. The Code requires a conditional use permit for the repair of sea walls. Mr. Bailey advises that the current condition of the timber walls are a hazard to the public who use the ramp. Mr. Bailey has advised that it is imperative that the wall be repaired before the season opens to boaters. The contractor is scheduled to commence the repairs the week of April 19th. Bai'Jey was advised that it was impossible to get the conditional use permit application before the Planning Commission and meet the April 19th deadline. The following options of action are available to Council: A. Allow applicant to prcKeed with necessar>' repairs but require the filing of the required conditional use permit before repairs begin. Application would be reviewed at the May Planning Commission meeting as an after-the-fact application. The County must submit plans for Building staff and Engineer’s review prior to installation. A building permit will be required for the repair work. B. Advise County that a conditional use permit for the proposed repairs would be required before the City would grant a building permit. Mr. Bailey has advised that in this case the repairs would not commence until after the boating season, sometime in the fall of 1993. Council Action Provide staff with directions for Hennepin County as to appropriate action to proceed w’ith nccessar>' repair of sea wall. ,1'.- V STATE OF .DEPARTMENT * / OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE NO. Metro Waters, 1200 Warner Rd. , St. Paul, I<DJ 55106FILE NO772-7910 April 27, 1993 Hennepin County Public Works Attn: Denis Bailey 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8568 RE; Permit #89-6391 Extension, Lake Minnetonka (27-133P), Hennepin County Dear Mr. Bailey: As requested in your reply to our telephone call of April 20, 1993, the expiration date of Permit #89-6391 is hereby extended to June 23, 1994. Please note that pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, the perTnit can only be kept active for 5 years, thus the June 23, 1994 expiration date. However, it would be possible to do maintenance in accordance with Special Provision #17 in the future, even after expiration. All other terms and conditions of the permit shall remain in full force and effect. Sincerely, W. Knudson g Regional Hydrologist cc:Minnehaha Creek Watershed District LMCD City of Orono City of Spring Park S. Walter, Conservation Officer DNR Fisheries, D. Zappetillo AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER IZ w «^ « ' ** a> — W Bonestroo Rosene And0rlik& 1'^ I Associates Engineers & Architects O-fi G »C5#i U' Pg • jc!»h^ C f if w V'VJ a If'-J-C t Qf»v> I Ccce. •£ c aoci-! C ^1 kiJ'* M 15?''^. C *A •k** 0^ Cc/^iw ti-*t cr :•• A r-i r?t'* »l tc-#** f f »# »rr»' >5 Cj /^5 O l-ic:*# ♦crf'T C •-lie* A A .*^7 > a M4-I3T PI W c’*jr ’ •£ •ftf < f t<j Trwii f ArcT'W'^ A * Sc-i-f C •! ft ►! f!r-#e/Mi'trfT A| »- p ; •.-? 'A ft^g A c ® >x •! (T i pp .AA-fj f *.«j i-i Pi ,fffy O •f'TlVCn. Af «#r^t»n A A'*cf»icr' MS'! r •» A Wo u*7 W Vc*en. '» r#- e« i »f tet —<i! *6 1 CjiA^t A! Mj » r AJkl 'f V fi J of^ I ‘A/f'-c- *r Ol^' C <rf«c*U S 'vt,i e#?* 9 pf. Oo-<; II i fe^A.1 Pi V'jv^/' 3 OwltA'I'S^ Af CfCJO C ve» II C"A# II A ertticr' irs V M 0‘io^ ^1 r*-| r HL Hay 7, 1993 Mb. Jeann* A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator city of Orono Post OfficB Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Be: Hennepin County Seawall Repair File No. 139-1820 Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the application from the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Management Involvlnq the repair of * recent site inspection the following observations were wade. The existing bituminous parking lot drains oJ* The runoff is controlled by a bituminous curb ®lo[)9 the parking area. At three locations the runoff flows into the lake through 3 foot wide curb cuts. It is obvious that a -»J9e amount of sediment presently washes into the lake due to the parking . Probably more important is the fact that this hardcover collects oils, pollutants and nutrients that are flushed into the Ijjj® events. The critical period of a rainfall event flushing during the first few minutes of a ,S Tt ^iStM^to the sed?ment and debris that washes into Lake Minnetonka from the paved parking area. Excivatiar««» in tha parking lot lo« polnta. Tha axiating curbing along the lot would direct tha aurfaco drainage to the axcavationa which would be filled with sand and pea gravel, pollutants and nStrianta would ba trapped by attaching J® pi ibo5i<r« wav e aeotlc svstem works. The excavatxon must oe acove^ the normal water level of the lake to function properly. At some in tine, tha granular media would need to ba ranovad and replaced with freah material. E^ivStian infiltration trench along tha parking lot perimetar. The f«S2h woSld ba“wo teat wide and filled with P*® gr*n?«?5:v"iS««rSf^i«uh5*noi""%iuu?Snt;^nS^s??i!;nt!;%iSi^ be t?«5id bv SttIJhing to the grir^ular natorlal. The excavation muat bJ itovS ?h. nS^Jrililtar level of tha lake to ^“"®tion properly. To maximize thie option, the existing curbing along the perimeter of the perking lot should be removed. — W t if- Ms. Jeanne A. Mabuath , , ^ ^Building and Zoning Administrator April 6, 1993 Page 2 the existing curbing along the parking lot wherever possible to Stlw th. rS^off t? flow o?«r a OagatataS butfar area. This could be built up 6" to slow the water down and guide some of it into the soil. It la important that a hardy vegetation be established along this buffer area. Theee suageetlone are intended to stimulate discussion provide ideas to build on. Any improvement will require a ^ta* npecared* Hopefully# the City and County can coordinate their efforts to provide a solution to the water quality problem that exists in this location. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions. Yours very truly# BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK (i ASSOCIATES# INC. Shawn D. Custafeo^ . P.E. Lw.__ 41 ?■- ev h a -V , ■i ” w ■ -M TO: FROM: DATE: Mavor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator June 4, 1993 X, X SURIECT: #1822 Mark Prueter, 3215 Crystal Bay Road - Variances - Resolution Brief Review of Application The applicant proposes an 18’x26’ two story addition to the rear or south of the existing residence struemre. The majority of the addition will be placed over an existing deck and stair structure. The lakeside deck and access stair at approximately 19’xl5 ’ will be replaced with an 18’xlO'/6’ deck. Tlie original lakeside deck received setback variance approvals in 1978. Based on the lakesioe view windows of the adjacent residences the replacement deck will have minimal impact on lakeshore views as properties are located on high bluffed areas with lakeshort yards over 100’ in length. In fact, the new deck will minimize the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback area by IW. Hardcover excesses exist on the property. Applicant shows a 1.7% reduction in the 0-75 setback area and a .8% or 65 s.f. increase m the 75-250 ’ setback area. The major concern for the Planning Commission for the review was need to maintain a 10’ emergency vehicle access between the adjacent residences at 3205 and 3235 Crystal Bay Road (review E.xhibit L). Principal structure at 3205 is located 15’ from the side lot line and a grade level deck located 2-3’ from side lot line. Staff advised that the code allows a 2 setback for grade level deck without railings foi if emergency vehicles were to gain access to buildings the structure would not present a physical obstacle or may easily be driven over. The residence at 3235 is 10’ from the side lot Kne. Applicant was asked to consider redu 'ing the lengtli of the addition so that a 10’ setback was met on the cast side lot line. The applicant advised the length was needed to accommodate a hallway and still allow room for a reasonable expansion. At the end of the discussion, Prtieter advised that a fire hydrant was located to the rear of h»3 property and that if emergency vehicles were to approach the site they would have to come via an exsement driveway over the railroad property to south side of applicant ’s property. Because ot the steep topography at the south side, \ehlcles would remain on access road and hoses attached to hydrant would be used to suppress tire. Please review the enclosed Information submitted for the Planning Commission review tor more detail. r Zon.'ng Memo ^1822 June 4, 1993 Page 2 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application as proposed requiring a 4 ’ west side variance and 3’ east side setback variance, approval of 7’ side setback variance for replacement deck and 9’6" encroachment of the average lakeshore setback and a hardcover variance within the 75-250’ zone for an increase of 65 s.f. or .8% subject to the following conditions; All existing improvements scheduled for removal must be completed prior to Building Inspector’s footin, 'spection for new addition. Upon application for building permit, applicant shall provide a detailed grading/drainage plan to determine how runotl that collects to rear of existing residence is to be maintained once addition occupies portion of current retention area. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission s recommendation. 1. 2. . f A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) AND SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 (B) AND 2 FILE #1822 WHEREAS, Mark Prueter (hereinafter "the applicani") is owner of the property located at 3215 Crystal Bay Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Refer to Exhibit "A" attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit construction of an 18'x26’ two story addition to rear of the existing structure to be placed 6’ from the west side lot line and 7 ’ from the east side lot line where a 10 ’ setback is required, construction of a replacement deck at I8’xl0.6‘ that will be placed 3 ’ from the west side lot line where a 10 ’ setback is required and 9'/^’ in front of an average lakeshore setback line where no such encroachment is allowed. Tlie proposed improvement will result in a hardcover increase of 65 s.f. or .8% with total hardcover proposed at 2.496 s.f. or 30.2% where 2,431 s.f. or 29.4 exists and where only 2,069 s.f. or 25% is allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: t. 2. FINDINGS Tliis application was reviewed as Zoning File #1822. The prop«:ny is IcKated in the LR-IC, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring acre in area and a minimum width of 100 . The pri)perty consists of 12,174 s.f. in area. Lot width measures 55’ in a straight line at the shoreline and at the 75’ setback line. Page 1 of 7 3.Tlic Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 17. 1993, and recommended approval of the variances as proposed based on the following findings and hardships: A. Lot narrows at the midpoint of the property measuring 55’ at the lakeshore and 35’ to the rear. B. The applicant proposes a reduction of hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area at 1.7%. C. D. E. F. G. Emergency access can be achieved via 10-l- foot corridor between adjacent residences to the east and west. Prime access to site will be from the south from the municipal hydrant. Total structural coverage: is proposed at 1,724 s.f. or 14.1% where 15% would be allowed. Proposed lakeside replacement deck will reduce the encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line by The existing deck is 15’ in width. The proposed deck will be lO'/i’ in width. The home was constructed prior to existing zoning requirements. No additional land is available to allow for expansion without the need of variances. H. I he property has steep slopes to south creating unique drainage problems. 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 variance would not adversely a^ecl 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 haidship 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. Page 2 of 7 5. The City Council has considered this application includuu: the findmes v A recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staft. comnieiits by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on tiie heahh, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono Ci^ Council he/eby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions ifend 2 and Sect, 'n 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of an 18 ’x26 ’ two story addition to the rear of the existing residence and construction of a replacement deck of 18 ‘xl0 ’6" to the lakeside of the existing residence subject to the final improvemeni plan for the property as shown on page 6 of the resolution and upon approving this variance the City grants a 4 or 40% west side setback variance, a 3* or 30% east side setback variance, a 7 or 70% west side setback varianc . for replacement deck, a 9’6" setback encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line and a hardcover variance for a net increase ot 65 s.f. or .08% with total hardcover now at 2,496 s.f. or 30.2%, subject to the following conditions: 1.All existing improvements scheduled for removal shall be completed prior to the footing inspection for the new addition. Applicant shall provide a grading and drainage plan that addresses maintenance of positive drainage from foundation of new .addition. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not wiui the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application ter a building permit within one year of the tlate ot Council approval, or this vanaiKC will expire on that date (June 14. 1994). Violation of or nor compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zo' g ccxle, shall aut^'»matically lerminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable a.s a misdemeanor. Page 3 of 7 5. AlThST; The andersigiied applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 14th day ot June, 1993. Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner(sl STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day of June, 1993, by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipa! corporation and said instrument was executed on behall ot the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" Lot 1, Block 2, Townsite of Langdon Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota: That part of Lot 1. Block 2, and of that part of Northern Avenue, now vacated, Townsite of Langdon Park, described as follows; to-wit: Commencing at the point of intersection of the Northerly line of the right-cf-way of the Great Noithem Railway Company with the Southerly extension of the dividing line between I^ts 1 and 2 in said Block 2, Townsite of Langdon Park, thence Northwesterly along the dividing line between sa»d Lots 1 and 2 and same extended, a distance of 213.14 feet; thence Northeasterly deflecting right at an angle of 82055’ from last described course, a distance of 180 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence continuing from said actual point of beginning Northeasterly on the extension of saitl last described line, a distance of 60 feet; thence Southeasterly in a straight line 263.2 feet to a point in the line of said right-of-way of the Great Northern Railway Company, which point is 140 feet Notiheasterly. measured along the Northerly line of said railroad right- of-way, from the initial point of commencement; thence Southwesterly along said Northerly right-of-way line 35 feet; thence Northwesterly in a straight line 247.7 feet to the actual point of beginning; ALSC including all that part of Lot 1 in said Block 2 lying between the Northwesterly line of the premises hereinabove described and the shore of Lake Minnetonka, and between the Northerly ex'^'n^ion of the Northeasterly and Southwesterly side lines of the premises hereinabove first desviioed. Page 5 of 7 i .? y ,xi* -»rv. // .n jF\'-a a*v ‘t 1 *I 1 t **'N * \ ":A /) G THIS ITEM HAS BEEH MICROFILMED •n.-*** PiT^ or r.',ir*ro:* for Steve;-. A. Ilcvor'-rer? in Lot 1, 31oc< 2, To'-T.sita of L-encflon r.-»r.< llernonin Cr.-untv, rir.r.esot-i \ Certificate of Sur*/cy: '\**y ^ I herchv rertifi' that \-- this is a tr:n -inri rormet \ reoresentritior of a suir'e;' r the bc’inh-.iri'-’so:o'* that nart or ii •■» of that cart or' ‘forthorn .Avenue, now varatoc., Tovnait#* of Lnnrdon Park, riescrited as ^ollovs; to-wit: Corarencinr at the p^int of section of the Northorl:* line o. the rinht-^f-ua;.' of the Great Northern Pail’-’av Cctnanv vlth the Southerly ex tension. of the''iivldinr line betveen Lots 1 ar.n C I'n said Plor> 2, Tour.c.te unedon Pirt; th^ncu Korth^catorly alonr the dlv'.dlnr line bef.-een said 1 and 2 and =a=e eirterded, a dlat-ince of theno, Kortheaaterlv deflerttnr rl.^ht -f. onocci ff-on Last dosrriboo courae, a c-st-anc ^ Iso Ul to the actual colnt of he^nnln. of the tract of land to be described; thence contlnu-nj [d’list dcsc-fb-^‘'line, a distance of 60 heet; thence Southeaster^ J"et-?r”ay eo the Grlat llort.hern Rail'-ur Coupsny, line of ■-K"i-7^.y4-,;e.33terl-, ensured alone the Kortherly which noln- is 14^. ^ - *t,g initial point of cor>- line o'' srrtd mllroftd ri.v-t-o - ' ^ ^ f'ortherlv rieht-of-vay nancenent; thOHa^e Southuesterlv alonp ' li^e 247.7 feet line 35 f«et; thence Hor-hwo.eterl, In part of to the actual ^int or^?lr..e vorthC^terly Une of the h^^lnLSo'-^c^e c;?bed and the t^’a “dtoithu.sterly Sid. ind bof.aen th. northerly ytenaion o. .be Nor. location of all Unas of th. prenls.s ^o shou other inprovenents axlatlr.K buildings thercor. It oca not puroo. or encroachrentf?. nioc’< 2, •'ir.d ’■ ■ i\w> ■> •* ^ \ T 3 J-' •• \ VO- *'^r ■■................-> •- Scale: Date { o i !'• = 40' Q-2-76 Irnn Gomcn H. Co.'fin ?£'/Jr.\c. fcCow Lird S'iT*.*eyor and ?l.ar-nor Lon.v L^’xe/F4 "xe=cta Page 6 of 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTV OF HENNFJIN ) 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 dav of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared _______________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) tree act and deed. 9l TO:Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabus'b, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:May 11. 1993 SUBJECT: //1822 Mark Prueter, 3215 Cry'stal Bay Road - Variances - Public Hearing The applicant proposes an 18’ x 26 ’ two story addition to the rear of the existing structure. The addition will be placed over an existing deck and stair structure. The lakeside deck and access stair will be reduced in size from 19’ x 15’ to 18’ x 10 ’6". In order to minimize impact of the additional hardcover, applicant proposes removal of existing hardcover improvements. The construction of the deck will require an average lakeshore setback variance. The new deck will reduce the encroachment by 2’6". Zoning District - LR-IC Total lot area - 12,174 s.f. Total lot area exclusive of Ciy'stal Bay Road easement area => 1 1,474 s.f. (road easement area = 700 s.f. Pertinent Ordinances 1.Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) - Side setback variances A. Addition - west side yard Required = 10 ’ Existing = 6 ’ Proposed = 6 ’ Variance = 4 ’ or 40% Addition - east side yard Required =10 ’ Existing = 9’6" Proposea = 7 ’ Variance = 3’ or 30% Replacement deck - side yard Required = 10 ’ Existing = 3’ + or - Proposed = 3’ + or - Variance = 7* or 70% Zoning File #1822 May 11, 1993 Page 2 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback Existing = 12’ Allowed = 0 Proposed = 9’6" 3. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover A. 0-75’ setback area = 3,200 s.f. (3,900 - 7(X)) Allowed = 0 Existing = 3,200 s.f. (3,9(X) - 7(X)) Existing = 607 s.f. or 18.9% Proposed = 552 s.f. or 17.2% B. 75-250’ setback area = 8,274 s.f. Existing = 2,431 s.f. or 29.4% Proposed = 2,496 s.f. or 30.2% Net increase of 65 s.f. or .8% 4. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of lot coverage for lots less than 1.99 acres Total lot area = 12,174 s.f. Existing coverage = 1,426 s.f. or 11.7% Allowed = 1.826 s.f. or 15% Proposed = 1,727 s.f. or 14.1% List of Exhibits A - Application B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map D - Existing Hardcover E - Proposed Hardcover F - Existing Second Floor G - Proposed Second Flour H - Hardship Statement 1 - Lower Level F.xisting/Proposed J - Upper Floor Level Existing/Proposed K - Elevations L - Surveys ot Adjacent Properties (3205 & 3235 Crystal Bay Rd.) nescriptl«>n of Request The existing structure was built prior to the first zoning regulations esiablishcd in 1955. Zoning File #1822 May 11, 1993 Pace 3 Tlie lakeside deck received variance approvals in 1978. In early discussions with the applicant, we reviewed all existing improvements to detennine what improvements were non-essential. The wooden plank back walkway at 159 s.f. is essential for the rear yard because as applicant's addendum notes it is a collection area for runoff from the higher elevations to the rear of the property. Applicant’s garage is entranced via a driveway that accesses from the east over the railroad property tliat abuts property at the south side. Based on the lakeside view windows of the adjacent residences, the replacement deck improvement will have minimal impact on lakeshore views as properties arc located on high bluffed areas with lakeshore yards 100’-f in length. Although hardcover excesses exist within the 75-250’ setback area, structural coverage of the lot does not exceed the allowed 15%. Excesses of hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area result from the off street parking area adjacent to road. This type of parking area is essential on a road like Crystal Bay Road where the traveled road is no wider than 14’ and the steep drop to the lakeshore is within a few feet of the roadway. Hardship Statement Plea.se review Exhibit H. Tssues for Consideration 1. Applicant has reduced hardcover with the front deck access stair structure by 82 s.f., the front walkway within the 75-250’ setback area has been reduced 63 s.f., the side walk at a 128 s.f. along west side of house has been totally removet’ What other existing improvements should be considered for removal? 2. Should the addition be reduced in width to meet the required side setback and extended further south in the rear yard Any recommendation of approval must include the condition that all hardcover removals must I'c completed prior to building inspector’s footing inspe tit>n for new addition. Options of Action Approval subject to conditions; or Denial. If denial is your recommendation, then please refer to the necessary findings in Section 10 08, Subdivision 3 (A) 1-12. ch • *w * CITY OF ORONO — VARIANCE APPLI I/. f • r^ Ci. 5 OO ;‘/4 Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Rent-wal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non conforming use $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) I* T TV T iT r *!■ “ UU I t Ut U'MC'Ml/ c 7a/-' ajT “ rcu7rcI Aitnrtc w c# / J.ci- 1 w'w'Vii W' Vi/V'V i rr^j t'J. •••L.Jf kmim V' • V ' rirrv*i. riuuM /I • V* crrrTDT. TLM.i/v vn//f t k/u ** V 7 r' i »V IV r <“}V f "• n f Ti^r?*:. f W'T w u vv'j. iwx # Ji PROPERTY INFORMATION f’»4 / V v-r/ A.fA. A Site Address 32/■> /^\/ Property Identif. Number (P.I.D.) AT—A^_T——£. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. yTjg /9/Date Property Acquired _ _ __ _ _ __ _(month/year) I fdo<Frdo naiA also own the adjacent parcels of land^ Present use of property: Zoning District:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Vresidential other(specify) APPLICANT Name Address: ~?2/j~ City: Phone (home) / '7^^^ _ _ Phone (wor)c) ^ 3c?s-o Zip: 17"?^/ OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Phone (wor)c) Address: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ City:Zip: L / ^DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost $c /’S'/ k/ z.f VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width vxAHard cover Lot Coverage y/Setbac)c :Front 'Side Rear _ _ Average La)ceshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DBSCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONTRITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual propert conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements.- - - - I' ^ Applicant's Signature (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the applicatio: deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete; 1. _Conpleted Application Form 2. _ _Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtair this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. _Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. _Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8%"xll" for reproduction). 5. _ _Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8%"xll"). 6. _Slcetches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8J5"xll ’*). 7. _As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of 8. any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please 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. Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges 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 investiga tion and verification of this request. DateOwner's signature LL2. Applicant must have all submittals Into the City offices 25 day.*? before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants oust be present at all scheduled review ncetings of the Planning Ccoaission aad Council. If an applies*)t is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building s Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. J • (■■■■ ■ ■' MU I • f»|AP1»MiC^UtNt or lois U. 43. 57. 50. !fl. 89. ro 4 n ^iku s AooiMOi to nc or M|f«4(0trA SAOi. f 551) VAC IM w ' 5R (5G) J « (C9)"' KKiC f (i ftW53 E OLD COUNTY RO fS* ( 104) (45), ■ A V t (57). V \\\^ HT/ s tX XX X ' / Ki, /"^^V4?)/; c>-« <^vX X y rjv »<s I 60. 54' c 4^*0 it LAiFAYEYTE 5 ^ ( «4) y ■"<?>vvl • ID IPlo c,e. \ ^ ct \ (13) 4 »#> (15) a i IOC :s:"^ TTVf . (6),,;^, t./'1. »^/ .n •V t V. SI r*.* - i j HARD COVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET Set Back Zone: 75'-250' EXISTING liARDCOVER IN ZONE ITEM LENGTH X WIDTH - N S.E. House 24 X 26 624 S.F. Front Deck 12 X 19 -228 S.F. Front Deck Stairs 15 X 3 45 . F. Front Cement Slab 7 X 10 70 S.F. Front Walkway 45 X s 135 S.F. Side Walk 64 X 2 mm 128 S.F. Rear Deck 26 X 5 =130 S.F. Rear Deck stairs 12 X 4 48 S.F. Back Walkway 53 X 3 *159 S.F. Garage 22 X 20 —444 S.F. Walkway 2'X2’ pads 1 1 X 4 S.F.=44 S.F. Stairs 25 X 3 75 S.F. Bsmt Door Landing 4 X 4 :S 16 S.F. Driveway 15 X 19 •285 §f F- TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE (A)2431 S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE (B)^m 8274 S.F. (A) 2431 / (B)8274 X 100 29.4? I I h-., r k' fe*' ' I: V / J • — IM •• TOTAL PROPCRTT AREA IN ZONE (B) (A) 2530 /(B) 82*4 100 •A PROPOSED addition ITEM HARDCOVER LENGTH CALC 11.A1 ION S WIDIH S.F. House 4 2 X 26 =1092 S.F. Front Deck 10.6 X 18 s 191 S.F. Front Cement Slab ■* /X 10 s 70 S.F. Front Walkvav 18 .V ^ S.F.*s 72 S.F. * 2 X 2 pads Back Walkway 53 X •3 3 159 S.F. Back Deck Stairs 12 X u S 48 S.F. Garage 22 X 20 3 444 S.F. Walkway 2’X 2' pads 11 X 4 S.F.S 44 S.F. Stairs 2 5 X i 3 7 5 S.F. Bsmt Door Landing X /«4 S 16 S.F. Drivewa>1 5 X 19 3 29?S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE (A)2496 S.F. 8274 S.F. 30.2X t: '■■■A :;*'b % rl / rt /A * — f.rjr^cv THIS nm MS BKH NcmmiiED for Stcvflr. A. Iiov-5rb?r? in Lot 1, 31or< 2, Townsit* oT I^rgdon C Minty, Vlrn-s'ita Cortlflcat'3 of Curvoy: I hereby r^ptl'*y that thi* It a tr*:« inri '•orr^ct rawatartfitior of a 3ur*.'»»y of tho bj’in.-. ot I, nioov -5 o'* t of 0k of that nart of ’Mrf iorn Avnnuo, row vaoator, Towralto of I/in.^or Park, dasrribe'i as ^ollovs; to-vlt: Corsnaneinp at tho 'y'lnt of Intor- saetlon of th« Kortharlr* lino of tho riifht^f-way of t»w* Oraat ?:cptham Pailvny C<'tnan7 with tho So\:thorly ax- tons ion nf thn •^ivldlnp linn fcatwoon Lota I and C in said ’•lo^^ ?, Tcvnrito of lonfrlon Park; thanca korthwostorly alony tha dividinr lina batvaan said Lots I and 2 and saaa axtandad, a dlstanea of 21?.14 faat; thanca Iforth^astarl*.* daflartlnp’ rl.^t at an ar.^la of i2®55* from last daaoribod eoursa, a dlstanea of 160 faat to tha actual oclnt of baglnnlnr of tha tract of land to ba daaerlbad; thanca eontlnulnz frets said actual oolnt of baplnnlnr fforthaaatar? ' on tha axtansion of aald last daserlbad Una, a distance of 60 faat; thanca Southaaatarly in a atraiyht lino 243,? faat to a point In tho Una of said riisht-of-wa/ of tho Croat ttertham Rail»»r Co-spaiqr, which nolnt la 140 faat Pcrthaastvrly, aaasurad alone tla Fortharlj* Una o* anid railroad rl/tht-of-way, froa tha initial polct of r oancanont; thonca Southwaatarly aloni; aald Bortharly ri£ht-of-t lina 35 faat; thanca Forthwaatarly in a atrai|ht Una 247.7 fa< to tho actual point of hoflnnln<; A16C includine aU that port ^ Ut I in said Wock 2 lylRf botwaae tha rorthwaatarly Una of tha (♦ proaiaas haralnabxra daaeribed and tho ahora of Uiko Kiaaotonko^ ^ and botvaan tha Korth.arly axtansion of the Borthaastarly and Southwao^rly aida linoo of tho prociaas harairaboTa first daaerlbad; and tba location of all axiatlne buUdinfs thareop. It doas not puroort to show othor iaprowoaants or oeoroachnsntfl. Seolos Data } o t !• * 40* 9-7-76 Imn marker rden X. Coffin Und Surro;'or and Platsamr Land L.ika, Kipjsasota bSSZ L HARDSHIP V / \ Several characteristics ot this property inhibit the abitiitv to meet the ISX (V5'-25U') hardcover iiniitiation and set back requirements. A. B. D. Home constructed prior to existing zoning requirements. Thus making it extremely difticult tor proposed addition to comply with these regulations. No additional land available tor expansion. Thus etfecting our complaince to the hardcover and side set back requirements Shape ot Lot; With the lot becomming progressively narrower from lakeshore to rear, this limits the area on which to build. Therefore restricting the design to add more livable space to our home. The topography of the lot, ie. steep slope at rear creates poor drainage and necessitates the need tor the back walkway, therefore inhibiting hardcover compliance. ••• Un^Vi^ UiV«U < ILBM£>OWt. u. ' ^-T " r^ ^>!:i5 f5 ‘ i; IBii,r ■ Wi,- pfnf 3?ri ■•.'.'il I (!'^ * I • ijii fmi iu ,.»,i .,r ',^i A UPtHtft LewL- ««.i^riM<Tf *“. J. ? a-^* IC 13 ^Micy / Di»MKyi Boom T *00 loo 1V11 1; ! '1 • a*^"t rt*^4" 9 IOTG44CIJ 3 ! * Lwuldt lCc^m Hl(yi|llW COWthACT. iNC iliyilMMMM —IT'I I I I 1 n 4M0fAA«LH. (Miawni m, wm. mn-mn utiAttmitf imr 1 If't” K H' 6milv ---vt> 13' SUM ♦ KIIOICM /Z'x IB ,.1: igit“» ir LlVlMl^ 800*1 • • r^rc -ti ■S'! »' <I0'-A “ 1 s OCaCM^lON O# AfVtSiONS *>«»•• • / ' i V.vl^'>r' V-'-. • • t ■' s=*‘* •- ■*•'!I. ^ ►» ««W ' ill \ • H r ' rt *• / / •". / ' /f 1 % • < ;, • • rrr' r' ■m *4 , I i •4 - .V r r # •— - J-»-' ^ ^ — ATASuy Plat of Survoy fcr DuWayno Schlbllla In Lot 1, Block 2, Towrslt^ of l^rgHor Park Hennepin County, Wnn. ^ See It: Dite : o : 1" s 4o» 6-4-75 Iron nerktr Gordon R. Coffin Land Sunroyor and Planner Long Lake, Minnesota Tats «a Ml c 2 ^ I 9|o^ 3i TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator June 8, 1993 % % ^4i #1824 Eric and Shelb' Liljequist. 3490 Birch Lane - Variance - Resoflj^n Additional Exhibits I - Gustafson Repeal 5/17/93 J - 1-3 Options for Consideration K - Gustafson Repor 6/4/93 Brief Review of Application Applicar.Uk propose the removal of an existing single stall garage and replacement with a two stall 24 x24’ detached garage. Suff noted in a recent inspection with the City Engineer that applicants lad already obtained a demolition permit and removed the former garage. The former garage was located 20’ from the street lot line. The proposed garage shall be located 15’ and 10’ from the side lot line where the former structure was 1’2". Applicants note that the garage with doors facing onto the street could not meet tlie 30’ setback without requiring the removal of several mature trees. The 10’ separation could not be maintained from the principal structure and the proposal wo -csult in excessive hardcover. If the garage was to be placed with doors facing away from the street lot line a mature maple tree would be lost aod once again excessive hardcover would result. The major concern for the review was how to achieve safe access onto the adjacent public roadways as property is located at a intersection of three roadways. Birch Lane has a 20’ wide right-of-way but measures no more than 14" in width. Applicants’ lot is across the street from two homes who park vehicles or boau right at the edge of the roadway providing limited space to maneuver out onto the road. Applicants’ original proposal. Exhibit H. proved to be the most efficient access alternative for the site. After a site inspection the City Engineer, review Exhibit K. concurred that three options presented in his report proved to be less functional than the garage and driveway layout presented by applicants. The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the variance application for a street setback variance of 15’ for a proposed 24 x24’ detached garage and adopted the applicants’ hardship 'latement and added the following: 1 Existing pattern of development along the severely restricted roadway presents unique access problems for placement of garage and driveway 2 Proposal results in a reduction of hardcover within the 75-250’ setback area 1 Zoning File #1824 June 8. 1993 Page 2 3.The former garage was located r2" from the side lot line and the proposed garage will meet the required 10' setback. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions set forth in the Planning Commissian recommendation. Please review the enclosed information prepared for the Planning Cor.imission review and minutes of May 17th meeting for more background and detail on the review. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9 (B) FILE #1824 WHEREAS, Eric and Shelly Liljequist (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 3490 Birch Lane within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Baulder Park, Hennepin County. Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (B) to permit the construction of a 24’x24’ detached garage to be located 15* from the street line instead of 30* required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Mimiesota: 1. 2. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1824. The property is located in the LR-IC Zoning District requiring 'A acre in area. The property consistt of 13,894 s.f. or .32 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this applicatioo on May 17.1993, and recommended approval of the variance as proposed based on the following findings: A. The limited right-of-way of Birch Lane at 20* and the substandard setbacks of structures of the older residemial developmem has created unique ingress and egress problems. Page 1 of 5 B. The former detached garage was located 1 ’2" from the side lot line and the new structure will be located 10*. C. The proposed improvemem will result in a reduction of hardcover. D. If garage was placed parallel to street meeting the 10* side and street setback, a large maple tree would have to be removed. E. If proposed garage was to meet the 30* street setback, the 10 ’ separation setback between principal structure and detached structure could not be met. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the fmdings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS. ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above fmdings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (B) to permit the construction of a 24’x24 ’ detached garage within the street yard of the lakeshore lot to be located 15 ’ from the street m line instead of the required 30*. subject to the following conditK •JIV Page 2 of 5 1. 3. Authorities granted by this variance nin with the property not with the rf ^ ucants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building pemiit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (June 14, 19S4). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of June, 1993. ATTEST Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY or HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day of June, 1993, by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. A Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instniment was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public withinand for said county, personally appeared___________________________— known to me to be the person(s) described m and who executed thy in.<tniment. and Acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) NOTARY PUBUC On this day of 199__before me a Notary Public withinand for said county. personaUy appeared ---------^ known to mo to be the persoo(s) desenbed in ind who executed the foceioiiii uatnimeai. and Klaiowledgol that he (iliey) exconed tbe nme u his («helr) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page 5 of 5 V To; From: Date: Mayor Callahan & Orono Councilmembers Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator May 12, 1993 Subject: #1824 Eric & Shelly Liljequist, 3490 Birch Lane > Variance • Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC. Lakeshore Residential Lining District Applicants propose a detached garage within the street yard of their lakeshore property. If garage was plac^ such that doors faced away from street and a turnaround provided on site, garage could be located 10 ’ from the street lot line. Applicants garage shall have doors facing onto street at a 15’ setback. The minimum setback for such garages b 30’. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review: 1. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (B) - Detached garage stnicture. 2. Street setback variance: Required » 30’ Proposed « 15’ Variance » 15’ or 50% Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Lot coverage review required for all lots under 1.99 acres. Total lot area « 13,894 s.f. (required Allowed * 2,084 s.f. or 15% Existing “ 1,162 s.f. or 8.3% Proposed ■ 1,434 s.f. or 10.3% 3. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Review of hardcover 0-75 ’ setback area - 3,918 s.f. Existing » 0% Proposed » 0% 75-250 ’ setbKk area =» 9,976 s.f. Esisring * 2,330 s.f. or 23.36% Proposed * 2.023 s.f. or 20.28% 21,780 s.f. or Vi acre) Zoning File #1824 May 12. 1993 Page 2 List of Exhibits A • Application B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map D - Neighbors ’ Acknowledgement Forms E - Existing Hardcover Fact Sheets F - Proposed Hardcover Fact Sheets G - Elevation/Floor Plans H - Survey Review of AppUcation Applicants propose the removal of the existing single-stall garage and replacement with a two-stall 24’ x 24* detached stnicture relocated 15’ from the street line requiring a setback variance of 15’. The existing structure is located 20 ’. The proposed garage shall be 10 ’ from the side lot line. The existing structure is 1.2’. The adjacent Birch Lane (20 ’) and Baldur Park Road (30’) arc narrow at width. The existing garage located 20 ’ from the street lot line requires backing out into the street for maneuvering a mmaround. At that specific point, cars can be coming in three different diiectioiis requiring special care for maneuvering in the right-of-way. The new garage and drive will provide no improvement in safety. Staff has askeu the engineer to review the site plan for any other option that would provide mote safety for the ;*pplicants who will use the garage and for the public who travel on the adjacent roadways. One may argue that these are low use roadways but during certain peak times, safety may become a major issue. Saff will include any skffrhf the engineer provides in your final packets to be delivered on Friday or suff wUI preaent them at your meeting. StnUnMOt of Hanbhips Please review Exhibit A. Applicant notes hardships as follows: If garage with doors facing onto road met the 30' setback, the 10 ’ separation setback between principal structure and detached structure could not be met. If garage was placed parallel to the street meeting the 10 ’ side setback and 10 ’ street setback, a large tree wouW need to be removed within the street yard. Both proposals requiring extended drive and turnaround area on the site would rewIt in increases in hardcover. IsMCS far CoMldenlh» 1 Would planning Cofiunission approve hardcover variances for the purpose of increasuig safely? Zoning File 4^1824 May 12. 1993 Page 3 Would members consider granting a side setback variance for a garage with doors facing to the side and turnaround provided on site? Optfons of Action Approval as proposed. Approval as amended. Denial again, please refer to Section 10.08. Subdivision 3 (A) (1-12) for the necessa ry findings for denial. CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional varlc^nce) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non conforming use $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address BiRCH LANE _________________ Property Identif. Number (P.I.D.) Q8~ 117-23 43 Attach legal description to application if not I (w: Property Acquired (month/year) * . h ’ * r included on requirg^^^vey. ) (do not)^ a 130 o*wn th.)^ adj.cent parcel, of Present use of property: Zoning District: residential CITY CF OF:(»IO FLMA^JCE OFFICE 12Z020000Q 01 CE.i 1 75.0C CHECK Tl 175. Q( HECElFT- fhAKK YOU 1 AO» VW*' APPLICANT Phone (home)612/471-7255 Name ERIC & SHELLY LlUEQUlST Addr...:5«)B!RO( UNE City: Phone (work ) 612/872-65CX) NO/ W Zip:55391 (if different than applicant)Phone (hone) Name Address: Phone (work) City:Zip: 0B8CR1PTI0H OP RBQ018T Estimated Construction Cost $ 4/QQQ.(X) Describe request in detail: VARIANCE FOR THE REAR SETBACK AW FOR Th£ DETACm (oARACSE 30^ MINIMtfl SETBACK------------------------------------------------------------ VARXAHCB8 REQUIRED Lot Area Lot width X Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) MAMD8B1P/DB8C1UPTI0H OP 0ND8UAL PROPERTY COEDITIORS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions prevei ting compliance with Zoning Code requirements:^____ In order to ACCOrtCDATE A DETACHED GARAGE AT T-E 30* MINIMIM SETBACK/ THE GARAGE VOJ. lU’rWFi’"T)€ PRINCI®/^. RESIDENCE STRUCTURE.:Ja«THAN ACqUI___ _ _ - - PIACBCT Vmi) AUa ITTOASL IH: NbtiJ POR ATinriWAL MARH.JVER irn ________ jp the garage was PtATEDparallel TO T>€ STREET-DOORS PACING SIDE^i TV€ lO'SETB^K/ A (attach additional sheets if necessary) rbquired submittals All of the following infonaation Must b« sutwiitted by the application d<«5llin» data In ordT for your applicatl<» to tw considered coaplef» 1. V Completed Application Form 2. * Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. X Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. X Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8>i"xll" for reproduction). 5. X Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy Sh^xll**). 6. ^ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8*j"xll**). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. _Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please reaesiber that voor variaiice application is not complete if tbe infooMitioii bee not ti iacloded. AmXCAMT'S 8IGHAT01IB 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 certifie* that the information supplied is true and correct to the bes^of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date Oy/22/33 OWBBf SZGBAraiB The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorises reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date 04/22/93 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Cemmission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Appllcemts meet be present at ell scbedeled review meetings of the Plammiag CrmmIssion sad Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meetia.g, please make arrangements to have an authorised agent attend in your place and to aOvise the Building 4 Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. RUN OATf MTCH 001RROR MOR OMIIR MtHK TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SO 00-11T-2S AS 0001 0SA70 OIRCN LA REX EUGENE OOLLINGER JR REX EU6E»« OOLLINGER JR SA70 OIRCH LA NAVZATA N4 S5ST1 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMCRS LISTSO 00>117>IS AS 0002 03AA0 OIRCN LA E LILJEOUIST • S LILJEOUIST ERIC J A SMELLY R LILJEOUIST SATO OIRCN LA NAYZATA N4 55ST1 REPORT NO. PIOSSAOl PAGE 1SO 00<117-tS AS OOOS. OlAAO OALOUR PARK RO CORAL N LAMRENCE CORAL N LAMRENCE S120 lOTH AVE SO MPLS Ml SSA17PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SO 0e<117-2S AS OOOA OlAAA OALOUR PARR RO VIOLET OEROSIA VIOLET OEROSIA lAAA OALOUR PARK RO NAYZATA Ml 5SST1 SO 00-117-tS AS OOOS OlAAO OALOUR PARR RO R E ENOEORETSON ET AL RICNARO E ENBCORETSON A JEAN ENGEORETSON lAAO OALOUR PARK RO NAYZATA Ml S5ST1 SO 00-117-2S AS OOOA OlASA OALOUR PARK RO NAP NELSON NALLACE E NELSON A221 NASMOURH AVE S MPLS Ml SSAtSPROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SO 00-1L7-2S AS 0000 OSSIO NORTH SNORE OR O A J SIRRAOALJIT A JASMINOER SIRRA SSIO NORTH SURE OR NAYZATA Ml S5S91 SO 00~U7>2S AS OOOT 0SS20 NORTH SNORE OR OAVIO A SINGER OAVIO A SINGER S520 NORTH SNORE OR NAYZATA Ml 55ST1 SO 00-117-2S AS 0012 0SA70 NORTH SNORE 0( HAROLO J ONOUELLETTE HARQLO J OROUELUTTE SATO NORTH SNORE OR NAYZATA MM SSSTl PROP AOOR OM«R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SO 00-117-2S AS OOlS OSAOO NORTH SHORE OR ORUCE A NUSOAUN ORUCE A NUSOAUN SAOO NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA MN SSSTl SO 00-117-2S AS OOIA OSATO NORTH SNORE OR KENTON H CARLSON ETAL KENTON N CARLSON SATO NORTH SNORE DRIVE NAYZATA Ml SSSTl SO 00>117>ts AS OOlS OSATO NORTH SNORE OR RAO CARLSON KENTON N CARLSON SATO NORTH SNORE OR NAYZATA Ml SSSTl TAXPAYER NIME/AOOR SO 00>117-2S AS 002S OSASO OIRCH U E R ENGLER A 0 ENGLER EONARO R A OOMIIE ENGLER SASO OIRCH LA NAYZATA Ml SSSTl SO 00-117-2S AS 002S OSASO NORTH SHORE OR P E OOMMN A 0 0 OLAOER PAUL OONMAN/OAROARA 0 OLAOER SASO NORTH SNORE OR NAYZATA Ml SSSTl SO 00-117>2S AS 002A OSAAO NORTH SNORE OR JOHN S NELSON ETAL JOHN ICLSON SAAO NO SNORE OR NAYZATA Ml SSSTl TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SO 00-117>2S AS 0027 OSAAO OIRCN LA R MLLIAM TONARO ETAL R MILLIAM TONARO SAAO OIRCN LA NAYZATA MN SSSTl TOTAL OATCN 001 OOOIA » tt-iir-ts «s nn.•!««• MilUi MM mMMi N UMMNM COMi N LMItNCt •IM l»tN A¥| to ••HI MN fttir>0 •O'lir-ts M MOM OMJUI MIR*• io-uy-«i «i toit•MM NHIN4j oowtiunt MM MROni Mivnrt Ml Htn R • 0 CMUM RfNMM II mm IM______ _Mvctn Ml mn ND. mmaiI Adjacent Property Oimers’ Acknowledgement Form I ^(print address!(print name(s)1 Application No._ _ _• I (we) understand that in or use (are) not asked Council that I (we) am (are) aware of but merely to that tL proposed neighbor’s project or usethe improvement pl.'.ns and that tne prop requires Council approval. ProdeXty/X)wher Property Owner Date ^ r4Xri.s; ”” Application Mo. - - -• I (..) understand that in (ar«) not aakwJ to doclar.-npproval ~ ^ ^ but notoly to confirm the Y ^ noighbor'a project or nae the improvement plans and that tne propo. requires Council approval. /Property Owner Date 4 - ? I - Property Owner If you have «.y information that -ay to th\^\»ild ”/‘ 5o^^•n^*0f^i"c•; .riVa?t ‘^iria^yi%“-rt^o-Vh.Tch«.ui«. meetin, date. o /-W “TC#1 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIACLE ONE)Cg^ 7S-250'25Q-5CO'SOO-IOOO' ■ Existing Hardcover in Zone A. ■ House _t S.F- LENGTH •« WIDTH « •• * 1 * 'Y » • m 8.Pi • ••• Y m t • S.F. • • t • •• «• X ■ S.F. •Y • •• f t«« . S.F. • I # 9. GARlfii ^ « Y • S.F. • f. nilVtV.AY.X • • m S.F. • •y , • • • t 9 • « V • n. SiniWALK *Y •• •I.Fi • i « • Y > m a S.F. • • • • • • • • y . » • S.F.E. Jatio/ . . .Deck • 1 • • X 1‘•Imt.F. • • R.LiNDlCARff y • fm a SaFi ARIAI UNDERLAIN IV ^ .y • • • • S.F. PLASTIC - .. .. • •fHttTIKG . - • •• • • y ^ • 1 • , S.F. • • • «»• • I « X m • f S.F. •m a. Other y . .. • _ 1.• f.F. m Total HAnocovM in Zohs Total Pwmrty A aba m ZoHt • •s^yr »uo A li Q_% r:# r' I « • w *•••• • • HARDCOVER CAICULATIOH HORKSHEET SETBACK zone; (ciRCLS'ome ) 0-75'^5^25^ 2SO-SOO' 500-1000' Ext STINE K arocover ih Zone 7'ci 'y2 *»'% t A. MQUSf uenoth*« X , VltOTH "" ” ■ ■— X .a . /25 • • • " • • ••X ,_ a X . • • •• • ' «» . .« ■ •X ,m *«*.«•*. • a. Oaaacs ^ ^ V. 3 • X ./z. ^30 i •• • % 9 *m • • • e. D riveway . * ,,X . • 1 % _SSo _ • * X . 1 • X , •f ^ • *svo Om*. a .*# y, 0 w-2.2. • • coAJt. rrut X ._ m So •• •TO « t «X _ m . .................UU^ y X •• •. •• . - V.#>< t // r. Landscape X •m AREAS UNDtRLAtH mv X • • ■0 1 PLASTIC-.........••• • SHEETIHO X • 0 • /f N 2 • • X t * • 2 ’ . _ « _ • 70 2> 2. 1 X 2.2 5 A nTMta#i*i«A«# 4P##ni X •■/ Total Hardcover ih Zone - S.p. S.F. S.P. SiPi S.P. S.P. S.P. S.P. S.P. S.P. S.P.« S.P. S.P. S.P St P • Total Property Area \k Zone - — 0 zno -Afn. 91ZL. X100 9 99f .... {J} t2£_% « 0 4 •< . .. I»I4 4 1 • HAROCOVEa CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK zone : (CIRCLE ONg) 0^-75j) 75-250' « Existinq H arocovea in Zone 250-500' PROPOSED 500-1000' • • •• • 1 * A. ■ Housi X • LENOTH •« • vaOTM • * t X • •• % S.P. • • X __• • 4 «-S. « • *E • • X 1 l.ff . • • X • •• • ••• K. . • 1 •«.* • B. Garaas . . • • X • • t.c. ** * ’1 * tp> • • • c. Driveway . % X • ' . 4 m •. •X m 4 t.0. • • D.. Sidewalk •X M e ^ I.R.’ • 1 • • X i.R. • • • • • t • • • X 4 i.r. 1. ’atio /.....................Dick • • 4 X •t41. - ■liR. • • E.LANDICARt .X 4 4ii • IbP* ARtAI UNOfApSlN X • • • , IbPb• U^fT I'C'-••••»• •— sSetiho • • • ••• « • X •. 4 • 1 • i» — t»p« • • • • • A X • I.A. ‘ • a. Other X •f.R. • • • • Totai . HAftoeovsn in Zone Total Pao ^iaty A asa m Zone 0 :+C^ - ____ O t.r, ^ - y y /f iIX* S % IQO • Q % fj- • • ^ » * • • * HARDCOVea CALCULATION UORKSHEcT jtTJACK ions: (CIR£UE-0N8) 0-75' 250-500' 500-1000 Exist IHO Harocovex im Zono m 4 A.House 2 V.35 LIHCTH WIDTH /2./-; X /<?■ ^ • • • • w I • *. B B. Garagb 9 c. D riveway ZL-Oau ^ x ' Q • <9 m O..SIDIWALK djigi££ OM-, X X • M/fitliC ’ 1.21119/:4in5T#:• ••• «• z y t I /Tiyj » • R.UUfSICARf ARIAt UNOIRUAIH BY FUABTtC*--------- sHUTina • • r» X X OlHER^^ifLIS/SSi r-t v.^ X i r :____ X_______ Total Hardcover in Ione f Total Promrty A rea ih Zone 775_ s.P. • U3' • •• « S>(» Si, £& X£ SiP« s.P. S.P. I.p. f.p. S.P. S.P. S.P S.P. S.P. X 3.^ I.p." I.p - S.P S.P S.P. / ' 9 9Tf ... f^7€_ X no • - % C4*-o'TOT O# 9tA« fi.«v^-rio«<l<t>*-o'' 4*c2$^/SryW WM I.TI0M =Tr^;uS !LK itf-l ***** •(rtwr-- -» •^ Cc5?IV^ S'*l<* <t| v^.* t TV/ «r tv #.« ^ aiMt MA f*n# i#r#n _ C*Mk« FOUNO«nON PLAN (formtd concrttt) ALTERNATE «»«<«■ ¥4*»/V <•> I -<•t4'-o5-4'%— '■"-f<-4'GARAOe FLOOR M^«rS**OM M-H. >AI»4CHO<l ■«*.' Mi*«Blt* amSmT^mT r •4o-ra }--•• 4A^4 »«# . . t ___/*/■ «r 1/ «« ....». rotMMTHM n.AN lliinw* turn MH SECTIOW 2A 11%“.!'.#'* > Uui/ ___________ iiJuli;___ .__ mOMT SIDE ELEV ^ A f k* f»iiM^ ggia.-’gaatu^ !• lb% - •wt# •%**•-* • TV ••ctioma^a #*r LEFT SIDE ELEVATION FRONT ELEWlOri P-20M I I a'" 1*^ % i^rtm"* ^ t f iCitto of Survey for Pave Whalen of Lnt 2, fllock 1. naldur P.irk licnncoin Co inty, Hinncnone X O ' R»intiwq y<o ea| Qewcrtn^iofi tot if Bloek If *laldur Peril*. Thie Burvey shoifo thcj locetiofi of ell eeietiny biaildiiuie end visible *herd- cover in rolntion to the bounderten of tno ahoVO deecribnd property, it we not purport to ehoo eny other ‘•^^■••^coonte or encroech«wnte. o t Iron Mr ter iieerinqe ehouii ere heeed on en eeeuood dltM. rS55St*S?®^--^ I *>-1b‘ tt- tM f## l.y » Bonestroo Rosene Ancferlik& Associates Engineers S Architects j 9c'f'*'r>c Pf « •Cr'T X ®f* vvev^ C • " • T f •. • e' 0 ^ c o< • ^ r £ %r>ev **£ Eocen G ^ a M ttf' ^ C ‘’A •Se''r^ Cc^^cTa^t ((. r> A y* : ,t *'£ ten 9 m t>r »r-j'-t 'A Pf : • : ««.v pf 9i te'* C * * A f‘f Vjtk A ♦Jr'VC:^ V<r,,r' ' P£ Tej ^ f ryj P£ e A, A C"''A-j 5;. i;a '7f •£ vr"ae Van»re/ P£ p e,., pj r- ,, , *'.rr A ,. •, V » , AC*" * • *^ • , .% ^■•*•< , V PC V ' pf P V.ij''J P£ •••. D «»►-.•• •• »■£ P A'-^p-u *' P§ <? Pu *' Pf Ma/# A Vp4’ Ga*» X .Vy •*'» •*'£ ‘ J*" e ► : A. fft • K P£ '"PK?. C-llAf' ..irr.- M.v« O X.* tn Pf K* e- 3 P£ V t>»* <P G'iVA^ '• Pf w X •’^p' Pf Oj', f’ .rr"f/ PI p cJ*J ‘c*te' Pf ■e!»' P »aut Pf roojas J fte*vM Pf O Gu^fa^\c^ Pf Ce.iiO 0<*vief Pt C*‘a» ^ A £iH:Avon wTV V Pa\A^^fc< Hanan M Oson jannei f igy^i[tarot MAY 1 8 IC‘93 May 17, 1993 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Ke: Liljequist Variance File No. 139-1824 Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the certificate of survey submitted with the variance application for the proposed garage on Eric & Shelly Liljequist's property. The survey shows the proposed garage 15 feet from the twenty foot wide right-of-way for Birch Lane, aligned with the west property line. There is some concern that the irregular alignment of the driveway will create a problem with vehicle access onto Birch Lane. We have attached three options that should be considered to improve the situation. OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 Align the garage and driveway with the house. This is the most common procedure to align a garage. The orientation of the driveway at Birch Lane will be improved. Align the garage with the house such that the doors face away from the street. The driveway would curve to intersect Birch Lane at an improved alignment. Align the garage and driveway at right angles to Birch Lane. This is the most common procedure to align a driveway. The orientation of the driveway at Birch Lana will be optimized. It should be noted that the st\4tv.fard right-of-way for local residential streets (private or public) in feet wide. The proposed garage is shown 25 feet from the centerof Birch Lane for all options except OPTION 2. OPTION 2 shows the garage 20 feet from centerline. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 6 ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 233S YMit »ligMwy M • St. Pmd, MN SSff J • 4BQ0 iC: I'.TkI -IIT. Lif c-ll-a^T-TrS.'I> 1^ i.1* •• ce il- :•It-:;thc tin. cf cf-ctoj t-iij-jr:-?:.*-:.? .t t ! ♦ t Cor royo miia Iimi IIIOGK. I, r.ifik llGlM*0|(4t» #%| «««««• <io^* ^ “f Q OX O iO /I L. .; •» KalAriwfi t4»nA| nyrc%f»fiAmi !• Mo«0 l« *ll«40«tfc SMCVAy ^H o«m 1>I«m of .»I | VAi«%iAO !*«•* IO m»»4l viaiOlO Cov^r !«• |•ll■•i|«•l• iw %•••* lv.'« i«t t UO ««00«v 1% aoo« !!«•«. «« mmf o^o«# iof»rov*?o«At • or coc» • o • iroo io%r»ri llOOilOH* i;OOoO Ofr flOJCll oa OO 000«IM«l tfOloO. OPT/ok / 3 • «af i » «ntf Mmi I • 0v4f »• «l lAo iMr ^4 1 *« % * • 4 I ‘2 ••••• ^4 • t. V M m Bonestroo Rosene Andef1lk& Associates 0*Tc G *4* r**" .r- e -’f • >• • p f w - t ■ , ' r p ? . , r»''’ ff c >''» ’*'4! C *’1 G V S^V4^ C ^ * •V'' O' C . ''K- !4''« Engineers ft Architects t ft**' * t ‘ r •. 4t f »► « ^ r’V*»* *• •■ « ■ * 4' -: A f • •- ■ * . •! . . ■ • ‘« ••’r 0 re** <r ^ * * • ‘ */4'i ^ -'.♦'’V' **f V<«' ••• >? * •'•f » : :* 3^4’ :* '-Of- »v F *• , . *’f Vj • J A4 f^L -*.• K A ” *'k • * ,. .1 (•' ,.»• PI . .i.r '»: • •• ■ . A *»'• •• f 4*#* 9 r»j^ ; 91 » • *♦• •• » * «^««r 9 A Pi «.*VI rf C *' »1 *.U» A 'f A* . A •.•- w. * " r . ,r • ' ‘ *■ * 4' f • A * — ..*! ® f **•'-0 i Ca’.j^ *m •*' li *'t PF V'4A'' 0 pf -c t?' . ^ ^F •'“♦•■#•. * F . • w'- , ••■ Anu • V C'V '• f f rqe«r\A/i3l June 4. 1993 Ms. Jeannv Mabusth. Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 Re: Liljequist Variance File No. 139-1824 Dear Jeanne, Subsequent to our inspection today, we have prepared this letter regarding the proposed garage on Eric A Shelly Liljequist's property. The existing flat topography, closely situated stru^ures and narrow width of Birch Lane pose a difficult arrangement for street access. The applicant has requested that the proposed garage and driveway be aligned with the west property line. The garage Is proposed to be 24' x 24' with a 22 foot wide bituminous driveway. There is some eoncem that the irregular alignment of the driveway will create a problem with vehicle access onto Birch Lane. However, the applicant's requested t'lignmcnt may be the best option due to the configuration of the other driveways in the vicinity. We have looked an the feasibility of aligning the garage such that the doors fxe away from the street. The driveway would be constructed in a curve to meet the street. To provide adequate room for a passenger vehicle’s 22J foot radius outside wheel tracks would require that the garage be located approximately 12 feet further from the property line than proposed. Also, the alignment of the driveway would require that a large evergreen tree on the property be removed. This alignment is shown on the attached sketch. The fact that the propt*«ed driveway is twice the width of the existing driveway will ir.ipiove access onto the stveet. Both Birch Lane and Baldur Park Road have relatively low traffic volumes and adequate sight distance. Due to these existing circumstances we would recomraeml approval of the applicant's proposed garage and driveway with respect to an engineering standpoint. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTRCX). ROSENE. ANDERUK & ASSOCIATES. INC Shawn D. Gustafsi>n. P.E xa • PjmjI MN 55111 • 6f2-ftlA-4ftOO J 0^. ll-IC: » • * thc *:itv cr cii-4?::-7~‘;,7 »>*o Cuf iil A# c#r •'•yw li|«iil«M koi Iildcn I. ^ 1 Q «. •« L«%. i» !•&«•«& t« r«f%*a Tltl« ^ll«M»l| Cl«^ Ml At I W«*« t# ••»«!«• M*ait CMwr !•• rMlM%ioM tM %4m* |4‘» mI • f*lwi«v «•••«# •Mv'M f**«v«^*%*. 14 *«••. m«* «•«* •4M:« • M • IrM iM»r»rc MMt 4MH« t-MwA Mtr #11 M I «. r I lt»*y «««<f «M «M I M W*» r* • • To: From: Date: Subject: %A.Mayor Callahan & Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building Sl Zoning Administrator ^ June 10. 1993 #1825 Thomas L. McCarthy, 2490 Old Beach Road - Preliminary Subdivision. Class III Additional Exhibits I • Amended Hardcover Facts Submined for Lot 1 Under Alternative B Brief Review of Application The proposed two-lot subdivision is the first subdivision of a lakeshore property under the new Shoreiand Regulations. The property consists of a little over two acres. The applicant provided two ahemative plans for development. Review Exhibits G and H. Alternate A was immediately set aside as it would have involved an area variance for proposed Lot 2. Easement areas must be deducted from the area of a proposed lot. The new Shoreiand Regulations would now allow flag lots as lot widths are measured in a straight line at both shoreiand and at the 75' setback line. The major issue for this review has been the excess of hardcover within the 250-500’ setback area resulting from the impact of driveway '.ardcover on the narrow 20’ corridor to roadway. As this was the flrst subdivision application under the new Shoreiand Regulation, we have no previous policies to base a recommendation. Staff suggested that PUnniiv Commissioo consider the area between the 75-500’ setback for determintiig allo%ired hardcover. Total area would now be at 29.700 s.f. and would be allowed 7.425 s.f. or 25% hardcover. The Plannii^ Commission felt uncomfortable making any recommendation concerning this issue and felt it more appropriate for Council to make the flnai decision. The Planning Commission denied the application based on the fact that a hardcover excess existed within the 250-500’ setback area and that the Planning Commission would not recommend approval of a subdivision where a variance was required. Review Exhibits H and I. The applicant has submitted a revised hardcover proposal for proposed Lot 1. Lot coverage is reviewed as follows: Alternate B - Lot 1 0-75’ setback area = 14,000 s.f. Allowed s 0 s.f. Proposed = 0 s.f Zoning File #1825 June 10, 1993 Page 2 75-250’ setback area = 27.100 s.f. Original proposal = 8,588 s.f. or 31.69% Amended proposal « 6,410 s.f. or 23.65% 250-500’ setback area = 2,600 s.f. Existing = 1,700 s.f. or 65.38% Amended proposal » 1,520 s.f. or 58.46% If the City was to consider hardcover based on the area between the 75’ and 500 setback, hardcover would be reviewed as follows: Total area * 29,700 s.f. Allowed * 7,425 s.f. or 25% Proposed = 8,110 s.f. or 27.3% Hardcover excess * 685 s.f. or 2.3% The applicant would have to remove 685 s.f. of existing haidrover to meet the 25% allowance under this format. Applicant should determine if be can mnmuin hardcover at the allowed 7,425 s.f. or 25% or will he need the additional area of the property to support needed improvements. Many of the adjacent neighbors turned out to protest the proposed subdivision. They were concerned over what they foresee as a major negative impact on their neighborhood. They noted the condition and limits of the private road. Sborehills Ro^, and potential hazards for the users of the roadway. Sborehills Road was platted in 1941 and is served from Old Beach R^. It will be applicant’s responsibility to provide written confirmation that legal access is provided to the new lot. It is doubtftil that covenants for a subdivision approved in 1941 would still be in effect but the City would have to ask for confirmation as a condhion of final subdivision approval. It would also be the applicant’s responsibility to provide documents that the ftiture tot owner would be responsible for an equal share in the maimenance and upkeep of the pnvate road. Tree removal was a major concern. The property is covered with manu^lantings. If the property is to be developed, it will require the removal of several mature trees. The City has no regulations over tree removal except for the area within the 0-75’ setback area. Drainage was another concern. The neighbors felt that to place a house on this portiM of the property will impact drainage in the area. The City f igineen were asked to go out ^ inspect the area to determine what impact new residential construction wUI have on the ii^iate watershed. The City Engineer wUI be able to respond to any drainage concerns at the meeting. Zoning File #1825 June 10, 1993 Page 3 Please review the enclosed information prepared for the Planning Commission review It will be helpful for Council members to also review the minutes of the May 17th meeting for neighbors ’ concerns. OpOons of Actkm To approve the two-lot subdivision per Alternative B limiting hardcover within the 73- 500’ setback area at 7,425 s.f. or 25%. Access to proposed Lot 2 will be directly off private road. The accessory shed within Lot 2 shall be removed. OR To approve the two-lot subdivision per Alternative B and to approve hardcover variances within the 250-300’ setback area. OR To deny the subdivision based on the Planning Commission’s findings and fecommendatkMi. Council Action To provide sttff with conceptual direction so that an appkopriate lesolui’m can be brought back to the June 28th meeting for Council’s formal action. To: From: Date: Subject: Mayor Callahan & Orono Councilmember:; Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator May 11. 1993 #1825 Thomas L. McCarthy, 2490 Old Beach Road - Preliminary Subdivision, Class in - Conditional Use * Public Hearing The applicant proposes a two-lot division of the 2 + acre parcel. Mr. McCarthy provides two alternative plans for development. Alternates A and B. Applicant’s preference is Alternate A. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review; 2. 3. Section 11.03, Definition 66. Class DI Subdivision. Section 11.03, Defmition 24. Lot Area Minimum. In urban areas served by sanitary sewer, each lot must comain contiguous dry buildable land equal to the minimum areas as prescribed in the Zoning Chap^ of the City Code or half- acre. whichever is less, (exclusive of public and private rights-of-way. vehicular or pedestrian easements, surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any wetland or lake) and have legal access to the building site without encroachmem of a wetland or flood plain area. Alternate A. preferred by applicant, requires access easements through Lot 2 in favor of Lot 1. Area of access easement would have to be excluded from dry buildable area of Lot 2. There b clearly not enough area within Lot 2 to provide an easement without also having the City approve area variances. The City does not grant area variances with the creation of new lots. Section 10.02, Defmition 43 (B). Lot Width. For lots which abut a lake or tributary at the shoreline measured in a straight line between the points at which the side lot lines intersect the ordinary high water level (9W.4) and at the required structure setback from the OHWL measured in a straight line between the points of intersection of the side lot lines with the structural setback Ime. For Lake Mitmetonka, a General Development Lake, the setback b 75 . Alternatives A and B show Lot 1 as meetmg the requued lot width standards. Note there is only one lakeshore lot proposed with the two-lot subdivbkm. Lot 2 will be non-riparian to Lake Minnetonka. As lot width b measured at the lakeshore and at the 75 ’ setback line. Lot 1 may be planed as a fUg lot with a 20’ wide corridor without requiring a lot width variance. (Lot width b measured at the 35' street setback for the non-lakeshore lot.) Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B). Lot Standards for LR-IB Lakcshorc Residential Zoning District require that each lot meet 140 ’ width requirement as follows: Lot 2 at 35* street setback measures 200+’. Lot 1 measured in a straight line at shoreline and at the 75* setback measures 180+' Lot area: Required = 1 acre Alternate A : Lot 1 at 1.005 acres Lot 2 Proposed » 40,560 s.f. or .93 acres (3,000 s.f. of driveway easement excluded from proposed lot area Area Variance » 3,000 s.f. or .07% AitcmitfA Lot 1 * 1.006 acres Lot 2 a 1.004 acres Section 10.22. Subdivision 2. Hardcover. Alternate A 0-75* setback area » 0 75-250* setback area * 8,360 s.f. or 28.05% Proposed Lot 2 75-250* setback area > 250-500’ setback area 595 s.f. or 12.86% « 1,020 s.f. or 4.9% Hardcover has not been provided for Alternate B proposal but clearly proposed Lot 1 would have an excess of hardcover over the allowed 25%. Lirt of E]T ^ I4 I l i I A - Application B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map D - Sewer As-Built E • Engineer's Report F - Hardcover Fact Sheets G - Alternate A H - Alternate B nReview of SohdivWen AppBcal The Shore Hills plat was completed in 1941 prior to City-wide soning or lot stendards. Zoning File <>1825 May 12. 1993 Page 3 not meet the required area standards of thc^ LR-IB zoning district. Alternate B would meet all required LR-IB zoning standards. Hardcover excesses exist within proposed Lot 1 with either Alternate A or B. Unfortunately, hardcover facts have been provided without a plan of all existing hardcover improvements. Staff will ask that the hardcover site plan be submitted by your review at the May 17th meeting. At the time of a subdivision, the City reviews for confonnance with all pertinent ordinances. Applicant has an excess of hardcover and has presented no hardships. On your site inspection, note the excessive parking and apron area adjacent to the garage. Some 910 s.f. of existing improvements must be removed if Lot 1 is to meet the hardcover limiution of 25%. Suff should also note that Lot 1 as proposed in Alternate B would have an excess of hardcover within the 250-500* setback area. It would be ' ^sier to develop hardships for the access drive within the narrow corridor of the lot located w in the 250-500* setback area. Alternate B is the acceptable alternative for subdivision as Alternate A involves an excessive lot area variance. Access The City Engineer has asked that a shared access be required rather than a separate access for Lot 2 at Shore Hills Road. Shore Hills Road is a private road. Lot 2 does have adequate width adjacent to Shore Hills Road (200->-*). If a shared access is required by City, the City must grant an area variance for proposed Lot 1 with Alternate B because area of easement in favor of Lot 2 would be excluded from Lot I’s area. The request for a shared access is consistent with City’s policy to eliminate additional cuih cuts on roadways. The shared access may be limited to the existing curb cut area at Shore Hills Road and minimize impact on lot area of Lot 1. Sewer/Water Review Exhibit D. Sewer is located within lakeshore yard. This is the only sewer line that can function for this property. It will be necessary to mstall the access Ime along the west side yard of Lot 1. Appropriate easement would have to be developed over Lot 1 in favor of Lot 2. Note utility easements are not excluded from areas of lots. Water shall be provided from the service on Shore Hills Road to the immediate east. Future developer of Lot 2 shall be responsible for payment of a sewer unit at $10.954 .20 and wate* jnit at $1,877.00 based on current fee schedule upon application for a building permit. Lot Configuration Although all accessory improvements have not been shown on preliminary survey, the majority of accessory improvements exclusive of the drive are located within the lakeshore yard. The accessory shed is located at the shared lot line in Alternate B and if approved must be removed prior to final plat approval as it does not meet the required 10* setback from the newly proposed lot line Zoning File #1825 May 11. 1993 Page 4 Issues for Review 1. 2. Lacking a hardship statement for hardcover excess of 3 + %, would members recommend a hardcover variance under any circu-nstances? At your site inspection, please note the driveway improvemem and lakeshore yard improvements on proposed Lot 1. What alternative form of development would you recommend for ai^roval? Note Alternate B may result in a slight area variance if shared access is required. It can be minimized if access to Lot 2 via easement is limited to exiting curb cut at Shore Hills Road. Alternate A involves a reduction of some 3.000 s.f. in area for a 20 ’ x 150 ’ drive that would encroach Lot 2. Shared access would also be required. nd\r i») 11 'i:'. • To recommend approval of inc two-lot Class III subdivision application of Thomas L. McCarthy finding that all LR-IP lot standards and shoreland development standards have b«n latitfiH and that there is adequate sewer and water to serve a new lot based on the following conditions: Applicam shall create an access and utility easement over Lot I in favor of Lot 2 to provide sewer service from existing service-Y in lakeshore yard. Adequate care must be taken during the construction of the service line as sewer line is located within the 0-75 ’ setback area. 1. 2. 3. Applicani to provide 10 ’ wide drainage and utUity easements along all perimeter property lines and 5’ almig the shared lot line. Upon application for a building permit, future owner of Lot 2 shall make payment for a sewer unit and water unit charge based on the current fee schedule. Determination as to the reconunendation for a shared access. If a shared access is required, there may be a need to grant an area variance for Lot 1. If driveway approach is restricted to the first 20 ’ within corridor, area of driveway easement could be reduced to no more than 200 s.f. It may not have an impact on lot area. Members recommendation concerning excess of hardcover within the 75-230’ setback area within proposed Lot 1. Arc there hardcover improvemems essential to the use of dte property, i.e. backout area for driveway apron, deck adjacent to patio doors from indoor pool addition, access sttirs from upper elevatioo doors in lakeshore yard, etc.? ^ f 1 * J CITY OP ORONO - SUBDIVISIOH APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION . Q.M Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) //~ Please check one - Property _ _ abstract or . .» '**5^ ’ Site Address -• . : torrens? Attach legal description to application WK.1CMT N»m. "TT/cwKti LlifO^^Tihy Phone (heme) Phone (work) Addronsi b9^ A^. ^ City 1 pit Zip! 9 CNMIBE (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work) Address 1 Citv*Ziot (attach list ic more than one) HI8TZIIG LAND 081 Number of Tax Parcels Development Size / Present Use (check)/acrcf CITY CF ^ ^ f I)v/WCf QFFICFAcres Dry Land IJ^020C^ Acres Wet Land LMiii Acres Total, all parcels n^C£jpf.rtm YOU *..ldenti.l, no. of Other (specify) _ Present Zoning District ^ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sitess/ NuBiber of Building Sitesi Proposed Gross Densityt Minimum Lot Sizei Proposed Uses (check) / /T Existing units New Units Total Units Units per J__ Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) f MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form Freliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. Certified Propert/ Owners List of owners within 350* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). As an addendum to this application, please attach a seoarate list of any other persons you wish notified of this applicati*' 2. 3. 4. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. Title opinion. Easements, Covenants, etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Date _ _ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. PEES y. Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Preliminary Review (Class I A II Subdivision) $200.00 300.00 300.00 Preliminary Review (Class III & all non-residential) 325.00 t 25.00/Lot Final Plat Reviev (Class III) *(Plus any legal or engineering charges} Renewal of Preliminary Subdivision Application Renewal cf Final Subdivision Application 175.00 150.00 100.00 The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required nr requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature Uy\AA^ Date Date Applicant must have all submittals into thfb City offices 2S^ays before the Planning Cosmlssion Meetir . Planning CoMsission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each montn. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Cosmiisslcn and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorised agent attend in your place and to advise the Building * Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. MM MH M/tt/n MTCN M?TJMMViar/i M ti*iir-» ti•tMI MMURim LA C N INOQT til • C A CNAIH.lt 9 CfCILlA tNOOT lAAl NAtil MM U CMLtLtlON m USSl HCtMIPlN COUNTY MRMCRTV INFOmUTION SVSTCN fWVfKTV OMCM LISTM tl-117-» tl OOOS •tiOl HANLIMM LA CMC N MULSCM CMC N tAULSON CAOl HAPLC MM LA CNCCLtlOt m tSSSi MPORT NO. MASS401 AACC 17St 71-117-n it OOOS 02440 OLD NACN NO CAOL A SMiCN lAAL A 8NCCN 2440 OLD MACN M NAYZATA »M MStl I TAMMVIt ti-iir-cs tt 0004 OLO NACN NO N N • R A IWARCt NICNML N • RATNV A NWARCS MAYCATA Ml IlSf I M 11-117-21 22 OOOS 02440 OLO MACN NO HWMCtCO COROORATION NClMCtCO CORNORATION 4S7C CMIRNOOe DR CNN ORAIMC Ml I5S44 SO 21-117-CS 22 02444 OLO MACN RO D A SAKLAO AON SARLAO OANICL A OARLAO 24H OLO MACH RO ORQND Ml tiS41 I 7 ■I 1 •1 n TAMMVIN TMMnrn so 21-117-CS 22 0007 OTtlO OLO NACN RO RIITN 0 OLMN CTAt RUTH • OitON NAYtATA m MS41 SO I1-1I7-2S 22 0010 02040 OLO MACN RO MAVarO IM I0S41 0 .* “ to CI-U7-CS 22 0014 0 c 0 C MMIMOO CO INC MAIMMM IS700 RIMR 10 OO NRKC OOCW m SRSSl SO 21-117-2S 22 0000 020S0 OLO MACH RO LAUML RARTRIM-STAUOLV lAUML RARTRIM-STAUOLV ttSO OLO MACN RO NAVMTA Ml BSS41 SO 21-117-2S 22 0017 02400 OLO MACN RO R C RICNNOOO COHRANT INC '■ 0 C MCMRIOO CONRANV INC 1S700 RCINCR OR 00 * y NARU OROM Ml SSS44 iiil SO tl-ll7-2S 22 0020 OCtM OLO MACN RO I N OLANCN CO LTO RTNSNR SIN N MTN ST BS4S1 SO S1-117-2S 22 ORf>« 02BN OLO MACN RO 0 N SCMCIMR ANN LCAF 0 N SCMCIMR ANN LlAf 2B40 OLO MACN M NAVaTA Ml S0S41 SR 21-117-2S 22 NIO 02WS OLO NACN W N C RICNNON CONRANV INC N C RIOORMO CONRANV INC 1S7M RCININ N m HARLC OMWC Ml SSS44 r TOTAL OATCN M7 0M14 c MM Mfl M/M/91 MtCN M7 NlMCrtN COUNTY MOMRTV INFOWMrxaN SYSTCH MOKRTV OMMRS LIST RCMRr NO. 9I4SM01 RAGC IS • / ‘.I X CfinrY THAT TMI TACTS MMCSOffti AM AM ACOMATt AN| TSUI •CMCMNTATXON OT INTOMMYtON AS IT APKARS THIS MTI ON TM MCOMS or TW MtMSlN COUNTY SCSASTNiNr OT PSOMIITY TAXATION* TO TM SIST OT ISf KNONLCSOO ANS SCLXCT. 'tSiMUlAA ■ ^eaKiiali ( CO OX 7\ *r r‘.. ay ' '•. H-'V: . S.^-;> A’/ ' Bonestroo Rosene Afxlerllk & Associates Engineers & Architects SAi' Pf • r* A'' Pi \'h' . n » li S E ’^"T' 'je'’*’ <f w Pf G t PF •>^w- V tre* '' ' P* *v^<y C ''Vor*f't I J * V*r*T' ? Pf »r»*- • O. -'PE e e 9- vi f .‘f C'.<. : ■*.' ■■ re** fius^e* * * *•', ^ 90w': i»* pf V.* * * V ^ - -F V I ^ f J P£ •• w *r :r- o»‘ * * i • ** j »-i" Pr p p? v^ee' V<<n.re/ pe p P.»o pf P*- j P,''P P£ V e*^4 4 j p A P»*-‘* -r* S ’.'.la' iJ '£ • • ^ ^ • f e»*' p 4fvj^'U'r P£ P P. *•. Pf V^» A Pf 04»'. A \\»e- p£ -r i : « - PE * !»'• • ' • A ''"'-jr P£ P*'«.o - J^v«ve'i Pt v.». : A^ V Pi V r J P£ . P'**» C j pf ' ••^* A •'• »•* pf . . ^.................... f -.w Pi* • <• T P '^k ki p£ . Be'*- e pf >*evN' r G^ijii'vz'' PE Ce»-rfi 3 P£ A E t . - M v», —»<^ \i V-'* * t''ye*'J'CT May 7, 1993 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: McCarthy Lot Division File No. 139-1825 Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the proposed property division for Tom McCarthy of Lot 4, Shore Hills subdivision in the Northwest Quarter of Section 21, located on the north side of Shore Hills Road and west of Old Beach Road. The division is acceptable from an engineering standpoint. Drainage and utility easements should be provided 10 feet wide along the right-of-way for Shore Hills Road and 5 feet wide along all other property lines for each lot. We recommend that the existing driveway be located within a 30 foot wide outlot, to serve the purpose of a common access for both lots. Sewer service to Lot 1 is provided by a service wye located to the north of the existing house, near Lafayette Bay. The location of the existing sewer line is shown on Record Plan A65. Sewer service to Lot 2 could be provided by connecting to the sewer line and running a service along the westerly line of Lot 1. This alignment would require a 10 foot wide drainage and utility easement along the westerly line of Lot 1. There is also an existing sewer line located under Shore Hills Drive, as sho%#n on Record Plan A66. Sewer service to Lot 2 from this line may be possible, but it would require the excavation and replacement of the roadway and driveway in the area. The elevation of this sewer may prohibit its use to service Lot 2. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions. Yours v'*ry truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. >X^dwv> Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 23JS Wnt Highway 34 • St. Paul, MN SSI13 • 412-434^4400 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE one) ^75j) 75-250 250-5C Existing Hardcover in Zone A, House LENGTH WIDTH 500-1000' S.F. S.F. i.S S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage c. Driveway ✓ / S.F. S.F. S.F. c. S idewalk S.F. 1_ S.F. E. Patio / Deck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , . PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other - X - X - X ^ X OTotal H ardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone |~X| O -r f71 ooo^ X 100 - S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. i.P. 13 % HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET S£T3ACK ZCNE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' ^TS-ISO^ Existing Hardcover in Zone 250-500' 500-1000' A. House x S-390 S.F. LENGTH WIDTH X . .............a 9 S, F. X S.F.m •• X S.F. X • S.F. //z S.F. c. Driveway x /4€o S.F. X .a • S.F. D. Sidewalk x s 4‘fO S.F. X S.F. X S.F. E. 'ATIO/ D eck X fro S.F. S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY X _ .S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X 9 • S.F. X S3 9 • »S.F. G. Other x m 24 S.F. • Total Hardcover in Zone 23 40 S.F. Total Propcrtv A ria in Zone m rj«o aITI zf,8oo 2 f, 900 t.P. X 100 -OS • 0’f'- [S ii:. HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET Total Hardcover in Zone Total Proaerty Area in Zone ^ [TM^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE one ) 0‘■75' ^5^2^ 250-500' 500-. Existing Hardcover in Zone a.House X • s LENGTH width • X X m • X X » • a.Garage X • c.Driveway X • 5*7 - X 0. • Sidewalk X _ X X 35 1 E.’at 10/ Deck _ X ! F.Landscape X • M i AREAS UNDERLAIN BY X m 1 PLASTIC SHEETING X X . . s G. Other X » _ __ . s S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. . S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. X 100 S.F. S.F. t.F. 1 B> 1 V. 96 4 '2C-9J HiCAttWV 2. HARDCOVER CALCUUTION WORKSHEET a SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' Existing Hardcover in Zone 250-500'j 500-1000 I * Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone 3 s.p. "X| ^S0 I > I /yz0 -1 |T| X 100 - 4‘,fo _•% A. House X s 9 c c LENGTH WIDTH * X a.•c c X _c c • X at c e X _• c e 3.Garage X c e c.Driveway _X X • c . e 0.Sidewalk X m X ^ . P E.X - Q . B .'AT 10/Deck X B . m F.Landscape Xareas UNDERLAIN BY X < . B.PLASTIC SHEETING X ' «;.B. X G. Other X S.P. • ^/' L ^ w/i / A r HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK zone; (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250' 2 Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House B. Garage c. Driveway 0. Sidewalk E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , , PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other LENGTH X X WIDTH / .• 500-1000' S,F. S.F, S.F. S.F. S # F • S.F. S.F. Total Hardcover in Zone - _ Total Property Area in Zone - ^ o A.rn - X 100 « . S.F, . S.F. , S.F. . S.F. S.F. S.F. SfF. # S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. '/f - Q B 94.^00 t.F. _o_J% / ly t’ ' HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' C^5-25QD 250-5' Existing H ardcover in Zone 500-1000' A. H ouse _ LENGTH B. G arage c. Driveway 0. Sidewalk E. Patio / De'-k AREAS UNDERLAIN BY PLASTIC SHEETING G. O ther ^ X . X - X _ X S??o S.F. WIDTH j* .* lloo 4 ‘fo S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Fi .... S«F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Total H ardcover in Zone Total PROPt«rvY Area in Zone [7] f5gg 4^\T\ 2Z/CG X )'.n 27, /oe %.*. m ___ » ~ gft'*eu€ TSC TA fi'. 0«U iiO 0fr*iC¥f j'rtK^r EC 0§0 »(ac - H€9 Sd.fr >va* ~ *7, /#• - 27.3»* HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250'(^50-50^ 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House LENGTH B. Garage c. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape . AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , __ PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other X - X X X S.F. WIDTH S.F. S.F. - S.F, S.F. _ S.F. /7CO s,p. / .• S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, ; / S.F. f S.F. « • / . ; isi S.F. S.F. /?ao S.F.T otal Hardcover in Zone - __ ’ # « * Total Property Area in Zone - z X 100 - ^ O $,p, 1 & 1 /7 CC JL B -IGOO' _ S.F. _ S.F. _ S.F. _ S.F. _ S.F. _ S.F. . S.F. . S.F. . S.F. . S.F. . S.F. . S..F. # . S.F. • , S.F.• S.F. t.F.A , S.F.m jr % I •.r': TOM Mc C arthy OF LOT 4. 8HORE HILLS HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA ooc/ I.£GAl DCSCBIPIlOH Of PREMISES: Lot 4, Shore Hills This survey Intends to show the boundaries of me above described properly, and the *!■ *" . existing house and shed thereon. It does not purport to shou any other iaproveaents or enc oac QKAieNVf 5“ Cams, k f.RONBEKG. INC.i Wrrin crflrfi Hut Ihit Mtr\r\ mm p»«f»rrd Spt w mx Ami 0«l ai^Simtw llir Uw« of llir Suit uf Mmnr%i44 --------------------------------------------- Ma.S S Uanhfta Miwe uH U««H Nw»»«» onn •oeNO 9S-f}0 V / n Mn ■w 0i«i n-/$9 » PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR TOM McC arthy OF lOT 4. SHORE HILLS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I -OAl OESCJIPtlON Of I. I « . S»tor^ H i I I i . fht% Iiu.o.1% -0 sHu. IH« bouiKJirie^ O' me lOove Hercribed prop^ri,. the .y' ^ ,.;'irnq houir-nomed mer,,MO. II d«e» mil purport lu ShO» my omi.r .•pru...»..l» o, euv -.a. Ml s \fknhs%* fW\ fllrfl . t 4m |V**e ,iK fMf .4 •!**.%f im .*W>I MAY 1 '4 1CS3 May 11, 1993 Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Jeanne, I am writing to you in reference to a notice I received concerning the proposed two lot subdivision of 2490 Old Beach Road. We recently purchased 2480 Old Be&ch Road in Orono. We purchased the property because of the privacy and "uncrowded" feel the neighborhood has. If the l£.nd owned by Thomas McCarthy is subdivided, it is our feeling this subdivision would not be aesthetically desireable for Old Beach Road. Currently, there are 2 and 3 acre lots accross the street from us, we own 2 acres, as do our neighbors. The property Mr. McCarthy owns is sloped, so that if a home was built on the lot, it would be "sitting on top of us." The subdivision would most certainly have a negative effect on our property value. We strongly urge the City of Orono not to grant approval for the subdivision. We have a beautiful neighborhood! We would hate to see the "pr.tchwor *•." effect so many neighborhoods suffer from in nearby lake communities. Thank-you so much for your time, Jeanne, As I*m sure you are aware, the outcome of this subdivision holds emotional as well as financial implications for us. 4 Sincere1y, -Ml ,v ^ Kathy A. Modares 2480 Old Beach Read Orono, MN 55391 Ma V' 17,1993 OPPOSITION NOTICE We, the neighbors surrounding 2490 Old Beach Roadj adamently oppose the subdivision of this property. ^/ /.<=r yyl^,T\l-e ^\cL<^-^ Qroi^o ) I Z/,r^2iT ^3^-/ \t^OOJsm3\^'^C' J^ojJTc'ct^ \ /J ' SSJ ?/ CWl "3 ^ '11^ y^il^U'’ j.s ^j ■Z6, QiCcJhisu- V ■V\Qv X u ■^1,^ \ \jo • X cx U q^' 0^/\Y\ t-l-) 5 . 5 S3 3 I CyOy (rK:^ "2 ^ r- i ^ ^LT€t<^^re S HARDCOVER CALCUUTION WORKSHEET SETBACK zone: (CIRCLE ONE) (0-753 75-250' 250-500' Existing Hardcover in Zone 500-1000' • • A.H ouse . * : m < = ’ S.F. LENGTH WIDTH • • • \< a. • s e. X = • S.P. • ■ X =» . S.F. • • - • • • • . » .• ^ • • - - X = S.F. B.Garage _ x = . s.f. C. ^ • • D riveway >C = S.F. • — 5< • • / / : = _ S.F. 0. • Sidewalk : x: ** _ S.F. A X: = _. 'S.F. W X • : » S.F. E.’atio /D eck X " • _ S.F. . F.Landscape ^ x » . ' _ S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN « { , X s S*F. PLASTIC SHEETING «• X *? ' S.F. X * •. • • « ' '» S.F. • \ G. Other ___ x • » S.F. V. # •• Total H ardcover iii Zone ^ s.f. • • • • • • Total Property Area IN Zone /4y ^oc? j.p. T1 ^ -Tl i4,ooo ^ iQo . O A|----------------------L2.1 4 ■% • •« • MiMllte riiMilirii ---- / /• c CAiKrh r HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE one) 0-75' (175-25£) 250-500 Existing Hardcover in Zone 500-1000' • A.House • X a SS?o S.F. «•LENGTH WIDTH • X a m S.F. •X • • • S.F. • X • S.F. X • • . S.F, B.Garage X 3 S.F. c. D riveway _ X • /800 S.F. X / / • S.F. D. ' • Sidewalk X i 4/ 0 S.F. «X • ••S.F. . X • , S.F. E.’at Io/ D eck • _ X ^so S.F. y/AiafAr . - * • V • • X 0 • • • s 8Z S.F. areas underlain BY ,X S»^F. PLASTIC sheeting X • ’ C3 • •.•// m S.F. • >« X * * •0 a • •• •;S.F. • JTP,J^S G. Other ; X • a % 2 €S.F.• T otal Hardcover in Zone • 9 • Total Property Area in Zone S.F. 27, a.p. m m f5gg 27,/0o X 100 - ■ ^ e^ttr/AV 72. ^2/7S ifecic 8^^ I 2< I ZS88-Zf78 r €*7iO Jir /•^ r ^ ^ r h T'ap'K HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK zone: (circle one) 0-75' 75-250'(^S0-500]) 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone ! A.House X • S3 S.F. LENGTH WIDTH V* • X S.F. X S3 ft ft S.F. m • • • « ft X • * 4 a S.F. X • t a S.F. S'. I Sarage . X • S.F. • c. D riveway X - /7^iP S.F. •t • • / / X % ft « • S.F. 0. : « • Sidewalk A. ft S.F, 1 X a S.F. ft X • S.F. E.^ATIO/ Deck X S.F. ^ 1• P.LANDSCAPE X • S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY • X a SvF. PLASTIC SHEETING ft X • • ft.•. /S.F. ft X _____ * •• V ; a *;S.F. • \ 6. Other X ft S.F. ft s # # Total H ardcover ft ft IN Zone /7ao S.F. • • • • » • • ' a IN Zone ....... 2COO S.P.lOTAl. rHOrcHTT nKt- m ijri X 100 - ■ ---- • /^ZO r 2 r S9. yr ^ i>tiuniiYi ■i 6955 VVaSt rgtcn Ava $0 Minneapo'is. MN 55439 :6‘2)942-92:2 FAX ;6'2)342-95C9 \ June 10^ % Jeanne Mabueth City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN. 55356 RE; 2490 Old Beach Road Dear Jeanne: pipalisvSS::root zone. Combining the total area from the 75-250 foot 29*^700^^^ 250-500 foot zone we get 64in ^ proposed hardcover would be aguare feet. This would amount to a percent for the two zones which is better than the allowable 251 in the 5-250 zone and 30% in the 250-500 zone. Sincerely, —\ Thomas L. McCarthy / js ; i ,L. To: From; Date: Subject: Mavor Callahan & Orono Councilinembcrs Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator June 10, 1993 #1826 Robert and Ann Henson, 2166 Shady wood Road - V^ariances 4>. r, / Zoning District: LR-IC, Lakeshore Residential Total area = 18,843 s.f. Status of Application The application involves the installation of a 24 ’ x 26 ’ garage addition at the street side of the residence. The structure meets all required setbacks. A new access drive is to be installed and the remaining portion of the paved tennis court, shed and bricked patio area at east side of court were to be removed. The application also involved a request tor a 10 x 25 deck that was to be installed at the lakeside of the house that would extend 6 ’ beyond the lakeside of the existing residence. The existing residence is located 71.5 from the shoreline and the proposed deck structure would be located approximately 65 . The house with deck structure would now encroach 25 ’ beyond the average lakeshore setback line. The application involves a lot coverage variance of 3.6% (existing = 16%, proposed = 18.6%), hardcover excesses within all zones and lakeshore and average lakeshore setback variances. The Planning Commission denied the application finding the request for additional hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area to be excessive. The Commission would have approved the hardcover varianes needed for installation of the garage addition but applicant did not want to separate the improvements. Please review the enclosed packet of information for detail on the Planning Commission review. In addition, review the minutes of the May 17th Planning Commission meeting. The applicant has submitted an amended proposal for Council ’s review that would now include only an 8’ x 25 ’ deck and has agreed to remove all grade level brick patio walkways on property. The following ordinances are pertinent for the review of the amended proposal: 1, Section 10.03. Subd. 14 (C) - Lot coverage review. Total lot area = 18,843 s.f. Allowed = 2.826 s.f. or 15% Existing = 3.018.4 s.f. or 16% Original Proposal = 3.516.6 s.f. or 18.6% Amended Propo.sal = 3,466.6 s.f. or 18.3% Variance = 640.6 s.l. or 3.3% 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (A) - Lakeshore setback variance required for deck. = 75’ = 71’ 6" = 67’ V’ariance = 8’ or 10.6% Required Existing Proposed 3. Section 10.22, Subd. I (B) - Average lakeshore setback variance required for deck. Allowed = 0 Existing = 15’ Original Proposal = Amended Proposal 25’ = 23’ 4. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover. A.0-75’ setback area = 4,793 s.f. Allowed = 0 s.f. Existing = 96 s.f. or 2% Original Proposal = 321 s.f. or 6.7% Amended Proposal = 229.5 s.f. or 4.7% B.75-2.50' setback area = 12.002 s.f. Allowed = 3,001 s.f. or 25% Existing 10,095.3 s.f. or 84.11% Original Proposal = 5,744 s.f. or 47.86% Amended Proposal = 5,621.5 s.f. or 46.8%’" Hardcover reduction = 4,473.3 s.f. or 37.2% Removals: Blacktop/tennis court = 4,736.8 s.f., brick pad = shed = 125.8 s.f., brick patio areas not involved with overhang 90 s.f. brick patic area with 4.5’ over - Additions: 624 s.f. 111.7 s.f.. = 32.5 s.f.. C.250-500’ setback area = 2,048 s.f. Allowed = 614.4 s.f. or 30% Existing = 1,865.3 s.f. or 91.08% Original and Current Proposal = 1,669.3 s.f. or 81.51% Additional Exhibits G - Applicants’ Adderduin n - >\mended Staff Sketch i Zoning File #1826 June 10, 1993 Page 3 Review of Current Proposal Please review applicants’ addendum with a restatement of hardships and unique findings for the property. The Hensons have attempted to respond to the Planning Commission ’s coP''ems regarding the increase of hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback area and have attempted to oliset it by reducing the deck structure by 50 s.f. and by reducing the extension into lakeshore by 2’. The deck is now proposed at 8’ x 25’. The applicants have proposed the removal of the brick patio within the lakeshore yard and the brick walkway/patio along the east and west sides of the house. Unfortunately because of the 4 5’ overhang along the west side of the house, only 1.5’ of the underlying brick walkway can be credited. Overhangs are considered hardcover when »hey exceed 1.5’ in width (3’ of overhang remains as hardcover). Since the Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission Chair was concerned that there was not more discussion involving the condition of the storm sewer that drains along the west side of the property. It was Chair Schroeder ’s position that if we could achieve an improvement in the current storm sewer and treatment of runoff by applicants granting additional easement areas this would offset the increase of some 200 s.f. of hardcover within their lakeshore yard. Staff has been in contact with the County. A meeting with the County, applicant and City staff has been scheduled at the site to discuss the possibility of an improvement but the Ciiy Engineer has already advised there is limited area to handle any water quality improvements. Staff will report on the findings made at that inspection. Mr. and Mrs. Henson have advised that they are very willing to dedicate additional land if it means an improvement of the existing system that creates major hazards for the children who play within the area. A reduction of some 40% hardcover on the site with removal of the tennis court was deemed a positive gain by the Planning Commission but failed to see this as a trading point tor excesses of hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback area. The Chair has asked that you consider a limited improvement in the 0-75 ’ area if the existing storm sewer can be upgraded, if not for water quality purposes at least to make the drainageway safer and functional for the adjacent residents. Charles Schroeder will be at your meeting to discuss his concern and position on this issue. Options of Action Approval of amended application as proposed and conditioned on approval that all hardcover removals scheduled for removal must he completed at the time of the footing inspection for the garage addition and that applicant grant access and drainage easements for the purpose of improving exi.*:iing storm sewer that drains along the west side of the property. Please note applicant does not wish to separate deck and garage request so the option of Just acting on the garage addition is not an option tor Council, Zoning File ^1826 June 10, 1993 Page 4 OR Denial of application as proposed. Council Action To provide conceptual direction so that staff can prepare the appropriate resolution for Council ’s at'tion at their June 28th meeting. H To:Mayor Callahan & Orono Council members Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building «& Zoning Administrator Date:May 13, 1993 Subject:#1826 Robert and Ann Henson, 2166 Shady wood Road Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC, Lakeshore Residential Total area = 18,843 s.f. (required = 21,780 s.f. or '/2 acre) Applicants propose the installation of a 24’ x 26’ garage addition at the street side of Uieir residence. The structure meets all required setbacks. A new access drive will be installed and the entire remaining paved tennis court will be removed in addition to a shed and a bricked patio area at east side of court. The deck proposed at the lakeshore side of the house will result in additional hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area and will extend further into the lakeshore protected area an additional 6’ beyond the existing residence. The deck will encroach 25 beyond the average lakeshore setback line. The following ordinances are pertinent to this review: 1.Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Lot is less than 1.99 acres in area. Lot coverage review is required. Total lot area = 18.843 s.f. Allowed = 2,826 s.f. or 15% Existing = 3,018.4 s.f. or 16% Proposed = 3,516.6 s.f. or 18.6% Variance = 690.6 s.f. or 3.6% Structural coverage has been increased 498.2 s.f. or 2.6%. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (A) - Lakeshore setback variance required for deck. Required Existing Proposed Variance = 75’ = 71’ 6” = o6 ’ = 9’ or 12% 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback variance required for deck. Allowed = 0 Existing = 15’ Proposed = 25’ Zoning File ^1826 May 13, 1993 Page 2 4. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover. A.0-75’ setback area = 4,793 s.f. Allowed = 0 s.f. Existing = 96 s.f. or 2% Proposed = 321 s.f. or 6.7% Hardcover increase = 225 s.f. or 4.7% B.75-250 ’ setback area = 12,002 s.f. Allowed = 3,001 s.f. or 25% Existing = 10,095.3 s.f. or 84.11% Proposed = 5,744 s.f. or 47.86%* Hardcover reduction = 4,351.3 s.f. or 36.25% * Removals: Blacktop/tennis court = 4,736.8 s.f., brick pad = 111.7 s.f., shed = 125.8 s.f. Additions: 624 s.f. C.250-500’ setback area = 2,048 s.f. Allowed = 614.4 s.f. or 30% Existing = 1,865.3 s.f. or 91.08% Proposed = 1,669.3 s.f. or 81.51% List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - Application Property Owners List Plat Map Neighbors ’ Acknowledgement Form Hardcover Fact Sheets Survey/Site Plan Description of Request Applicant proposes the installation of a 24’ x 26’ attached garage addition to the street side of the house and a lakeside deck with doors at lakeside providing access to lakeshore. Current lakeshore access to house is at the west side. The application did not include elevations of the proposed improvements so it is difficult to determine how garage is to be attached to the principal structure at the deck that runs along the south side or street side ot residence. Staff shall ask the applicant to bring elevations to the meeting. Zoning File #1826 May T3, 1993 Page 3 The applicants propose a lakeside deck, the majority of which will be placed within the 75’ setback where no such encroachments are encouraged and tew are allowed. As for the visual impact upon adjacent residences, they would appear to be minimal. Because ot the location of the principal structure in relation to house on the west side, the deck will not be visible from the view windows of the residence. The vegetation and plantings along the east side shall minimize impact of deck upon the views from principal structure on east side and from the deck. Applicants principal structure already is located well in front of the residences on both sides. Upon your site inspection, review the area where the driveway will enter the property at the county road. Note catch basin to the east that takes drainage from county road through culvert at the west side lot line. Installation of the drive will involve alterations wit'.iin the county road that may impact the underground stormwater facility. Applicant has been advised to contact the Hennepin County Department of Transportation as a permit is requited before work can commence within right-of-way. Applicant shall be asked to provide more detailed plans on any changes in elevation or any excavations within the underground tiled area. Staff cannot schedule the application before the Council until the county has signed otf on the proposed improvement. Issues for Consideration 1.Can a lakeside deck be relocated on the property to minimize impact on 75’ setback area? Note 24’ exists between principal structure and east lot line. A 3’ wide walkway could be provided from proposed doors at lakeside providing access to lakeshore deck within side yard. Walkway would not extend any further than the principal struemre at the west side. The majority of deck hardcover would now be relocated within the 75- 250 ’ setback area. 2. 3. Are there other improvements on the property that could be considered for removal? Lot coverage on the property has been increased 2.6%. Applicant has proposed the removal of the 5 ’ x 24’ shed along the west lot line. The two garages create a coverage problem for the substandard property. Can any structures be reduced in area? Applicant should be asked to respond. 4.E.xcesses of hardcover exist within the 250-500 ’ setback area. Applicant proposes a 10% decrease. If the deck/patio area at some 90 s.f. adjacent to existing garage along east and north side is increased, an additional 4.4% reduction of hardcover would be realized. Paved area at 1,120 s.f. is needed to provide access to and from garage. -I Zoning File #1826 May 13, 1993 Page 4 Options of Action Any recommendation for approval must include the condition that all hardcover scheduled for removal must be completed at the time of the Building Inspector ’s footing inspection for the new construction. Approval subject to conditions. Denial, Once again, please refer to Section 1.08, Subd. 3 (A) (1-12) for the necessary findings for denial.1 L; CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION I - Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non conforming use $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) s '-“x WT.' ■irA-SiB PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^ Cl TY OF DRCHO F li\’nfiLt vi’i’ILE 1350200000 01 £E.V 225. <?i -p T n 1'3? ^iifjf3. r • j. • u • / ^ fy___I__;;------:-------------------- 11 i .* A .-I rr^^^ Ai* Property Identif. Number Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired 5/u/i (month/year) imK YOU H27V640 cool ROl 710- 04/23.- I (do) (do not) also own th4 adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; ^ residential _ _ _other(specify) Zoning District:___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ APPLICANT Phone (home) E/I" ^ ^ Name h^l ^ A A VA Phone (wor)c) ^ ^0" I ^ Address: Cr cl^U'OO I'i_ City: iO - - Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Phone (wor)c) Address:__ City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $_ VARIANCES REQUIRED ___ Lot Area ^ Setbaclc: jh/jViA. Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Front Side Rear Average La)ceshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DBSCRIPTION op unusual PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance with^Zonp;g Code Requirements:- - - - - ij conditions preventing <--uiuiJixa*iv-c w^u*. _ - - /r'Yj / U1 AJi -tV> t'C^f).iy-AAJL^,j jUJiJja ^ /AjycUj cUn^ iXt o-<-OC^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete: 1. _Completed Application Fonn 2. _ _Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. _Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. _Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8>5"xll" for reproduction). 5. _Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8J5"xll"). 6. _S)cetches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8%"xll"). 7. _As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. _Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign 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 beat of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges 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 investiga tion and verification of this request Owner's Signature Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission ^uttd Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. RUN DATE 04/19/95 BATCH 001PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR V “58 17-117-25 42 000802164 SHADYNOOO RD GEORGINA L HACKNEY GEORGINA L HACKNEY 2184 SHADYNOOO ROAD HAYZATA MN 55591 HENNFOIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OUTERS LIST$ •58 17-117-25 42 000902178 SHAOYHOOU RO CIS ANDERSON CURTIS ANDERSON 2178 SHADYHOOD ROAD HAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 158 17-117-25 42 001002172 SHADYHOOD RD N H I 6 R HELCH NORMAN H HELCH 2172 SHADY HOOD RD HAYZATA MN 55391 ‘‘1 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 58 17-117-25 42 0011 02164 SHADYHOOD RD A H I R F HENSON JR ROBERT F HENSON JR 2166 SHADYHOOD ROAD HAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 42 0012 02142 SHADYHOOD RD P C I H A MERLO PAUL C I MARCIA A MERLO 2142 SHADYHOOD RO HAYZATA MN 55391 58 17-117-25 42 0015 02138 SHADYHOOD RD JEROME J LAGUE I NIFE JEROME J LAGUE 2136 SHADY HOOD RO HAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR (MCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 58 17-117-25 42 0021 05601 TOGO RD THOMAS L SNYDER THOMAS L SNYDER 5601 TOGO RO ORONO MN 55591 58 17-117-25 45 0156 02177 SHADYHOilO RD MARK A SHEPHARD HARK A SHEPHARD 2177 SHADYHOOD RD HAYZATA MN 55591 ♦ »■ f j J, .li 58 17-117-25 42 0022 02171 SHADYHOOD RO JACQUELYN A ROBERTSON JACQUELYN A ROBERTSON 2171 SHADYHOOD ROAO HAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-25 45 0137 02189 SHADYHOOD RO ROBERT J LATIMER ROBERT J LATIMER 2189 SHADYHOOD RD HAYZATA m 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0135 02195 SHADYHOOD RD JOHN H ANDERSON JOHN H ANDERSON 2195 SHADYHOOD RD HAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 001 00011 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN ^“OUNTY DEPARTHENP OF PROPEiO^Y^TAXATION> TOJIHE BEST OF HY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF.. DAT ms. t . y • •■■ ■» ;• • ‘ -..J.*' •, '.f\ ’»• i « •' r ♦»\ I V y » *•. » I. .. i '.S \ ,1 \SU . .4 ^'1 ) 1 o tP o ' o;c;vMi;?'i V'nr »■• 1<.»» or 1 **.x f** ?C)(W ir "*.v 1 ^ iSf it (0S> ui a a.o;ol oL (^1 0*6,1* (6Z) /••7 (9.0 (^)(9:)(SZ)(ri)iU)(c^/)(u) — i?- 9?-C^uo:-Cl -ii ^9.J6U u* icf o» ui 1^ LT :S s: LW )C L« ■j^C4 t»* 4-<* ^4 O K ‘■/ oi • ^ Oi (£c&0^09 4- o<; ■■> 09 09 09 09 U9 !(09)(e9)(e9)(r9)199)ll>l )(99)(69)r ^lOl)i f-t 5^-Sa U9 - / is: 6 ii Kf* ^ - 0? •oc ^oc ^rc po-.-O;(K "h 00 09 0^-2. ir. •' cr 1 O; I V. ^ • > TJ::om "KT v6^)(K) jIc i^'Oc- LT 0, (»:) 6i k i9*) Uf) CK (T, (SS) ^1 - •'. • -f....... ;esi OQ •/ a: 6 -01 CL POISON!A1 -- *ll cft'l < 7•<c^ C .tv ro^)(6•) ;/t ) LS. (01 ) (" ) PC u* t_-4 ^ |rx. 5£ O' - ? COr) (Ofi) 61 u^:z ot; o; O' o: rc£) >1S * ■ # . ViOMVQ • • j,«n / 6 Cl I / •' / •' "•# -V •■•. -A.- ^ f / &• . 4^ ' *■ - t .*-'i ‘ f :,.r^'=vc ^ 17 ^ r* • • ' • -^ — i I c i i ■*•... *•“ *^ .•'tl '• * •• • I - f-..-. ^ ■ ,- • V. • CO 9fi ' *311 i ;%*U «0A3Attns AlMXn rC2 Oil DSIn /£i )Q 335 f2 lOl iO NCI id? Jrti I 3^n0 jD Ibfd iO N0lir)fA Mji hj.^f IttbfAtN S.A31U OK'N V(0^) 5' *5/(91)-c 9e / ■'■ L--C3 • <• SV;K I (we) ■ pg# Miacent Property Ownffs' Acknowledgement Form r. til.err. ^ print name(s)][print addredis] have reviewed the plans property located at Application No ns for the procosed improvement or pro: f)/vrxfU .• (V also referred proposed use of the to as Land Use X J in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am 1 („e) of the property or use (are) for the City Council that I (we) am (a-^) aware of the "rroLment plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date '-7^ Pr«^pefty Owner 9- ji.^-73 __ 'V' ^ Dsit6 ii^i,*********************************** [print name(s)j nave reviewed the plans for the f °P-f,^'"^---:i\rePrerto ^ o': property located at also .eterr Application No. • 0 , j *. A 4-v.af- in executino this acknowledgement, I (we) am thrirproLllnl°p\lTs^°ndlLf t^^^ neighbor's project or use requirss Council approval. Ill(JW^VfSIA,gj.Cif3J Property Owner Date Property Owner Date • a. *-v,am r^i-v In the review of If you have any i^°™®“°2sf-‘'mit *out comment's to the Building & zonrng^ffice arieVsVirdayi prior to tue scheduled meeting^ date. i ■' jr ^‘1 *'S . 0 .5 \ « % HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET S£ISACK ZONE: (circle one ) 75-; E xisting Hardcover in Zone n •House LENGTH B. Garage c. Driveway D. Sidewalk h -O I / 0/ - X 4.S F.Landscape AREAS underlain BY , , PLASTIC SHEETING _ X G. Other WIDTH / •• a Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone 9C ^ 38.S /»<5 : t 9C S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. z^s S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 4 7 93 S.F. S.F. iy' ___I S.F. S.F. • • »1 .. 1 ‘V \ S.F. ,-T *. S.F. S.F.(r \' W -i.' S.F. S.F. S.F. B B 4 793 X 100 - Dc^jk.3Z! 4773 * lOO s 70 HARDCOVER CALCUU^TION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE one) C-75' 75-250'^50-500^ 500-1000 Existing Hardcover in Zone Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone /S6S.3 2a S.F. S.F. ^-Zl-93 A. rouse _X , m S.F. • • LENGTH WIDTH t X .• S.F. X 3 S.F. •• X _3 i.. w • r t S.F. X _ « • mmm • 1 •• S.F. B. Garage ^3.3 X _^z-e.4 S.F. C. UniVEWAY-X _//-z.a S.F. . X _ / .*• __ W • f • » S.F. • D. Sidewalk . X iM W I I f S.F. X •S.F. X • /a M W V 1 f S.F. 3 X 24-S.F. F,Landscape . . * X • S.F. AREAS underlain : 3Y X • 3 • • S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING _ X • 3 / .• • S.F. - X % • • S.F,• VJ/iu* G. Other Mn _ X __a, 67 2?. 7 S.F, /S6S.3 ^ m ZO*S X 100 - % be^ue%3 -r 2'=’^*^y IO0 % _ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. - S*F '% .51 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR ROBERT & ANN HENSON IN LOTS 19 & 20, BLOCK 1. WILEY'S PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA '• r r'<f,. /f/ 'J LEGAL DL5CH!«»nON 0? PREMISES SURVEYS): Ihdt pari Lrl 19, 3lock 1. lyiig N.. thwvs Ipr I y of a line drawn Ui»-ough said lot parallel with the South easterly line V* said lot and I?.5 fe?t NorthweslerIy therefrom. AND ^LSO the Southeasterly ,*alf. f»*ont and rear, of Lot 20, Block 1, all In Wile/*. Park. Lake Hi nn»-! <»nkd (for purposes of this survey the NSrthwesl- erly line of the Southeasterly half, 'ront and rear, of lot 20 Imis been assumed to be a line drawn *roro the midpoint of the Southwesterly line said lot 20 Northeasterly through the midpoint o' fhe dashed lakeshore traverse line as shown on the plat). This survey ‘ntends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of an existing house, garage, and shed thereon, and the location of all existing visible **hardcover** thereon. It does not purport to show any other Improvements or encroachments. 0 : Iron marker t1;arings shown are based upon an assumed datum. 'W ^ PREMISES SUk•*E Y' Dj . 3lock 1. lying r I hwc* s ler I y o' ^ said lot parallel i*iih the South- i<? lot and 1?.5 feet ?iorth»,(er.terly the Southeaster 1• ^alf. front and Kk 1 . ail In Wiley*; Park, take joses of this survey ihe Ndrthwest- itheasterly half, front and rear, of jfl»ed to be a line drawn from Southwesterly line said Lot 20 |h the midpoint o' the dashed line as shown on the plat). to show the boundaries of the above and the location of an existing house, freon, and the location of all irdcover" thereon. It does not purport iprovements or encroachments. ►ased upon an assumed datum. ( IK«I -«f's IV M4V K mi' nrwkf wn liitnl aarf d».il I Mh 4 dnl% aicn4rfnl C n41 4ml 14ivl SKMntw wmii'f ^ «4 lllr SUIT ♦< Vtwmi <..44 y. I Mim*i » Mro^r NitniKi Urs^ m -I Vf . i'. \vj KJ J :r1. !• I ± u 5 O' 0f\r> % Q ^ s^ t5i ^ 'A s I *»w ____,v V'ariance Requests for Hensons 2166 Shadywooci Road As part of a home remodeling project, we are requesting two variances from Orono--a lake setback variance and a hardcover variance. We propose to build an attached garage on the street side of the house and a deck on the lake side with access through our living room via atrium doors. The hardships we cite are as follows; The only access we now have to the lake side area of our home takes us within four feet of our neighbors lot line (on the north side). We practically walk into their yard, giving us and them no privacy. In addition, our living room currently has only one window that opens. And, because o<"the high water table in our yard, lawn hirniture sinks into the soggy ground, causing many near accidents for our guests and family. Our current garage is located several hundred feet from the home. Access is inconvenient, especially wdth small children in the winter. We have very limited turn-around ability in our current driveway and many times are forced to back directly into County Road 19. Realizing that the proposed deck would encroach on the 75-foot setback area, we are proposing to eliminate the tennis court, except for a driveway that would provide access to the house. In addition, we would eliminate the shed on the north side ot our property as well as all brick walkways and patios on the property. Brick is located adjacent to the tennis court, on the south side, north side and near the lake. We plan to replace all of this hardcover with grass. By eliminating all brick, we would more th^ offset the square footage of the deck we have proposed (please note that the deck size has been reduced from lO-feet by 25-feet to 8-feet by 25-feet). There is very little additional hardcover that we could remove. We feel it is necessary to keep our existing garage and access due to the lack of storage areas we have. Our home has limited storage space and a wet basement, due to the water table. The shed currently allows us storage of fireplace wood as well lake equipment, lawn furniture and lawn tools. By eliminating the shed, we lose substantial storage space. In addition, we own three cars, one of which currently sits outside and is easy prey for thieves and mischief. City staff has had discussions with Planning Commission members since our presentation. One individual suggested that we put in a patio. However, we have been advised that because the ground is so wet (high water table plus street run-off on both sides) a patio would only be stable if excavated and put in a sand base. And even then, the pafio may not be stable as this same procedure was done to install the brick walkways, which have J not held up well. We believe that two posts for a deck would be much less obtrusive in the 0 - 75-foot area. In addition to the above improvements, we plan to take down the current fence that surrounds the tennis court and replace it on the south side of the propeny only. That way we will shield the view of our neighbor's property and have a more visually pleasing landscaped yard. We would also replace fencing along the retaining walls near the existing garage. Another suggestion by the chair of the Planning Commission included allowing an easement on our property so that drainage improvements could be made. We are more than willing to work with the City on drainage easements and improvements as we have tried to work with the County in the past on this situation and have achieved no results. We believe the current drainage is not only detrimental to the lake, it Is also dangerous to our young children as debris, including glass, cans, paper and other items, runs directly into the lake at the present time. I VJ : * • ♦ ■V',. hi 0',,i-RtPT\o]i , »'^’: "“dr . \V' ■. iM '’■ v.°, 1 “^ >;*; '{d\rrr>rr.i“kivu^,-uv-; „f i"'-’ ^“'.'.L^d V""! •' l« ’' l';idr'y ^''Tn'ro ""' , f. sUOW \ ,.y \°d ' prov>pV;;,..%on.V;,r(lcover r,'irrn,;;;;:;l,:.r ro ■.">>- ■'” I, tin "*''*rt/tia^"' "’ TO:Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse, City Administraior .A \ FROM: DATE: Jeanne A. Mabusih. Building & Zoning Administrator June 9, 1993 ? % SUBJECT: #1827 Richard Henry Nelson, 3908 Cherry Avenue - Variances - Resolution Additional Exhibits I - Amended Site Plan Reflecting Hardcover Removals Brief Revir y The application involves a residence structure that is located completely in front of the average lakeshore setback line. Half of the residence is located within the 0*75 setback zone and the other half within the 75-250 ’. Structure is located 54 ’ from tlie shoreline. Applicant proposes an expansion of existing building envelope involving installation of a new roof that would be at a higher pitch than the existing roof, expansion of the structure along the south side involving a deck with roof supported by post/ beam, the majority of which will be located over nonhardcover surface (267 s.f.) and at the north side the overhang will be extended 4 ’ over the lakeside deck. The applicant had offered no hardcover removals with the proposal presented for the Planning Commission ’s review. The Commission ’s major concern was that applicant consider the removal of existing non-essential improvements specifically within the 0-75 ’ setback ^ea where 42 + % exists. The applicant offered to remove some 480 s.f. of plastic underliner beneath rock landscape area within the 0-75 ’ setback and a concrete walkway along the west side of the residence (15 s.f. of hardcover area remains for allowance of overhang along west side, total hardcover 70 s.f.) and a concrete pad at the southeast comer of garage totally within the 75-250 ’ setback area. The applicant explained that the structural additions within the 75-250 ’ setback are proposed to provide a more formal/landing for entrance to house but the major reason was to improve a drainage problem that exists along the south side of the property. Applicant will have to perform some additional grading allowing for positive drainage away from stmemre. Extended roof line would bring drainage further out to sloping elevation. Hardcover facts have been amended as follows: Zoning File ^1827 June 9, 1993 Page 2 of 2 Section 10.22, Subd. 2 0-75’ setback area = 6,990 s.f. Allowed = 0 Existing = 2,960 s.f. or 42.35% Amended proposal — 2,433 s.f. or 34.8% (reduction of 520 s.f. of nonsiructural hardcover) 75-250 setback = 16,230 s.f. Allowed = 457.5 s.f. or 25% Existing = 3,158 s.f. or 19.46% Original proposal = 3,425 s.f. or 21.1% Amended proposal = 3,322 s.f. or 20.4% (removal of 103 s.f. of nonstructural hardcover and an addition of 267 s.f. of structural improvements) Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application as amended subject to applicant providing detailed grading and drainage plans with building permit application for new improvements. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the Plaiming Commission recommendation. Please refer to the original packet enclosed for the Planning Commission ’s review fo** more detail in addition to the minutes of the May 17th Planning Commission meeting. I i- A RESOLUTION GRANTWG VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1(B) AND 2 FILE #1827 WHEREAS, Richard Henry Nelson (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 3908 Cherr>- Avenue within the City of Orono (her:inafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 14 and 15. Block 4, Crystal Bay View, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 (B) and 2 to permit the construction of a new roof and 17’xl2 ’ roofed deck addition to the rear of their residence located in front of the average lakeshore setback line where no such encroachment is allowed and for expansions of the existing building envelope located within the lakeshore protected area where no such expansions are allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1827. The property is located in the LR-IC Zoning District requiring a 'A acre or 21,780 s.f. in area. The property consists of 23.220 s.f. or 5.3 acres. 3.Tlie Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 17, 1993, and recommended approval of the variances as amended based on the following Undines: Page 1 of 6 4. 5. A.The existinc residence was constructed prior to current zoning standards W for lakeshore development. B.The existing roof is in need of repair. The new design will help provide positive drainage immediately off roof and from struemre. C.The total structure is located in front of the average lakeshore setback line. D.Structural coverage of the property is at 2,524 s.f. or 10.8% where 15% would be allowed. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the aoplicant, 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. Tlie 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 Z-ming Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 (B) and 2 to permit the construction of a new roof and I2'xl7 ’ roofed deck struemre located in front of the average lakeshore setback line where no such encroachment is allowed and the expansion of the exis.ing building envelope within the lakeshore protected area, subject to the following conditions Paae 2 of 6 1. 2. 3. ATTEST: Applicant shall provide a grading and drainage plan at the time of the filing of the building permit application for the new construction. The drainage plan shall address changes in elevations along south side of residence providing positive drainage from structure. All hardcover improvements scheduled for removal shall be completed prior to initial inspection of building inspector for new construction. Removals shall be completed as shown on page 5 of this resolution. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (June 14, 1994). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of June, 1993. Dorc thy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day of June, 1993 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public 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 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 Publb STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of SowTi m mTu)V*^^r5on(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ^ 199 ___before me a Notary Public within and for said Notary Public Page 4 of 6 TO:Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusih, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:May 12. 1993 SUBJECT: #1827 Richard Henry Nelson, 3908 Cherry Avenue - Variances - Public Hearing The applicant proposes installation of a new roof that would be at a higher pitch than existing roof. Installation of the new roof requires variance approval as the entire structure »s located in front of the average lakeshore setback line and involves an expansion of the building envelope. Half of the residence is located within the 0-75 ’ laSceshore protected area, approximately 54 ’ from the shoreline. Applicant proposes an expansion of the structure along the south side involving a deck with roof supported by post/beam, the majority of which will be located over a non-hardcover surface. The addition is located within the 75-250’ setback area and located in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The applicant has offered no hardcover removals where excesses exist. The following ordinances are pertinent to this review: 1. 2. 3. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Lot coverage is reviewed as follows: Total lot area = 23,220 s.f. Allowed = 3,483 s.f. or 15% Proposed = 2,524 s.f. or 10.8% Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback variance Complete structure is located in front of the average lakeshore setback line. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Hardcover inventory 0-75 ’ setback area = 6,990 s.f. Allowed = 0 Existing = 2,960 s.f. or 42.35% No hardcover increases proposed 75-250’ setback area = 16,230 s.f. Allowed = 4,057.5 s.f. or 25% Existing = 3,158 s.f. or 19.46% Proposed = 3,425 s.f. or 21.1% Hardcover increase of 267 s.f. or 1.6% * Zoning File #1827 May 12, 1993 Page 2 ♦Includes 247 s.' of roofed deck addition and 6" of overhang. IVi' overhangs are not considered encroachments and are not included within hardcover inventory. If overhang e.xceeds the ponion of the overhang that exceeds \'A' is added into hardcover area. Applicant proposes a 2’ overhang. Note overhang along west, north and east side of residence has not been included because it will be installed over existing hardcover. Total hardcover on property = 6,385 s.f. or 27.4% List of Exhibits A - Application B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map D - Hardcover Fact Sheets E - Survey F - Building Sections G - Floor Plan H - Elevations Description of Request The installation of the new roof requires variance approval as the improvement involves an expansion of the building envelope of a structure located in front of the average lakeshore setback line and portions of structure are located in lakeshore protected area. The addition to the south side of the residence also involves an expansion of the existing building envelope located in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The structural addition meets all other required setbacks and does involve an addition of approximately 267 s.f. of hardcover. In addition to the installation of a new roof, the applicant proposes the replacement of windows which will not an involve an expansion of the building envelope. As ready noted, ae applicant has not offered removals of hardcover as the proposed addition is located within the 75-250 ’ setback area where no e.xcess exists. Upon your site inspection, note the proposed structural improvements within the average lakeshore area will have minimal impact on lakeshore views of the adjacent residences on either side. On the east side there is a lakeshore access where adjacent neighbors have either provided natural screening or fencing providing a buffer from public lake access and to the west the higher elevations and natural plantings along the west side minimize impact on view windows. ■ % Zoning File #1827 May 12, 1993 Page 3 Issues for Consideration Although the proposed addition is located out of the 75 ’ setback area and does not involve hardcover variances within the 75-250 ’ zone, should applicant offer a matching removal within the 0-75 ’ setback area at a minimum 267 s.f. - - or other removals? Statement of Hardship Refer to Exhibit A, applicant notes need to repair roof because of water problems. New design will help provide positive drainage off roof. Review west elevation, the existing residence does not have a main entrance at the street side. The roofed deck will define new entrance and also provide cover from elements. Staff would add house was originally used as a seasonal cabin and constructed prior to current zoning standards. Options of Action Approval as proposed; Approval subject to conditions; or Denial. Refer to Section 10.08, Subd. 3 (A) 1-12 for necessary findings. CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional varianc^T^r Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non conforming use $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Vi 0 r rrv nr norfun U4. I 9 V* LVkiAiijrr ncrjrc I ▲liniTi/U Ul I iUA. Property Identif. Number (P.I.D.)^?* Z/'? 3 ^3 <^02 0 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired _ _ _(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land Present use of property: L—residential _ _ Zoning District:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (home) Q! Oi QFH 175,0 C^£CK Pu 175.0 other (specif lY’.iil /-'/IT tilrr^tvuuyj APPLICANT Name ________ S*70 9: OA<t _______ city: O^a^o Phone (worlc) f'' 03 7? _____ Zip: r«r?/^ / -#WigHr^i£ nH£*fLiLiil "Llian uppliTmint) Phone (home)____ jui la'er- £\ Name D fJ ^iONSJ i C. ^ X_______ Phone (worJc) Address: ^ Lyf^_____Zip: 3(^ 4^ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ^ O^ao o Describe request in detail: VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback: VC Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lalceshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:_ /4 S' /><<=>- ) (^c>CaX - e— *N<Sv.«>,~C \ S-. ’-f x l f\r> r V-. A . ~r r-k Vr^XjTr vPVxe^ 1, (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered completes 1. _Completed Application Form 2. _ _Certified Property Own-ts List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. _Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. _Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8J5"xll" for reproduction), 5. _Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8%"xll"). 6. ___Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8%"xll ”). 7. _As an addendum to this application/ please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. __Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been xncluded. 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 corre Applicant's Signature o.thejb^t of his/her knowledge. — Date «/-^/-£/ OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants. Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Ccamiission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. RUN DATC M/20/9S MTCH 005PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NA»«/AD0R PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR yS0 06-117-2S SS 0017 QLMO CHERRY PL RONALD L GLESNE ETAL RONALD L GLESNE 1A70 CHERRY PL HOUND HN 5536« 3S 08-117-2S 35 0020 03908 CHERRY AVE RICHARD H NELSON RICHARD H NELSON 3908 CHERRY AVE MOUND M4 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0063 C1S25 MINNIE AVE STANLEY J TIP8ETTS STANLEY J TlBOtTTS 1525 HIltllE AVE MOUND NN 55360 38 08-117-23 33 0086 03925 CHERRY AVE RUSSELL D PEHLE ET AL RUSSELL D PEHLE 5925 CHERRY AVE MOUND HN 55364 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OFMERS LIST I• •' .* ): ' ■•L*REPORT NO. PX4S5401 PAGE 10 •38 08-117-23 33 0018 03928 CHERRY AVE DONALD R O'REILLY A NIFE DONALD R O'REILLY 3928 CHERRY AV MOUND HN 55364 , • I., .I . \* *.* 5 .»•1'VV - ♦38 08-117-23 33 001903926 CHERRY AVE • • • 1ALOEN J PURVEY ETAL Pi 4 •ALDEN J PURVEY t • .- r ‘3926 CHERRY AVE ‘ '• •V,." *MOUND MN 55364'...■ **■|N.t.irji 38 0e-117-?5 35 0027 03907 CHERRY AVE F REINHARDT ETAL F REINHARDT 3907 CHERRY AVE HOUND HN 553AA 38 08-117-23 33 0028 01520 MINNIE AVE f HARK m JENSEN ETAL ‘MARK H JENSEN , mV- 1520 MINNIE AVE ; HOUND MN 55568 . . »■ I. f ■ • 38 08-117-23 33 0084 03884 CHERRY AVE KEFMETH C A VERNA E MEEKS KENNETH C A VERNA E HEEKS 5884 CHERRY AVE MOUND MN 55364 J ' i -5® 08-117-23 33 0085 03890 CHERRY AVE < - 8 O FELDMAN ABA FELDMAN ‘ ^ rt , B 0 FELDMAN ADA FELDMAN i'r ’. : 3890 CHERRY AVE <HOUND MN 55368 ;vssaii \ •h * :*i-r * - I 38 08-117-23 33 0087 03883 CHERRY AVE PAUL E I MARY J TAYLOR PAUL TAYLOR 3883 CHERRY AVE HOUND MN 55368 '-r ■ .** ' .• TOTAL 8ATCH r \• A I 4- . .• ■*; :I • 1- *■ I • « 0D3 ODOll ».» '3 1 . • 1 x: ♦ I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AM ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUFFTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KMOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. . * . * * ;• 9 M DATE t** * 1 4 * •‘ A I » • V :--. •• i - r.. .V. • 1 ''.V* ' V ir\ i ; . »• • •« » •5.•« * 4 •. A ' DO0*J •l- % " A I’ r; w * V t , 111-' i »<J ♦ • .A.. < <*. i 4/ •!O.T-cj- r w I J: > U i^ ^ >X .^4 *■ ^— c(23) 4 V I®!?p '; -.4 c;’H *R L $r. 0 oi’\z (1)MO ei6 II i*<n I ! *b*;t3)(1)C *rrf^ 5 -i ^PMfF?^ ) i“\?f 2B '•^ 1 ( 12}wV ^s (el) ’P J'7(71) T o■zi o (70) ?. (69). ®‘ (63) / /(6P) •; * f _ t ,'i ^ 3 ,7 ^ '6 N 8 ? !5C ?9 •- 15; (Tyl^lSlk: S ^ se.s6 <SO SC (70 • J 12 \ . \ l§ii8 (66) 1 1 !C ! 'SC r A4 7? '0§ i 1 ^ 1 £ •C ;2S) Lj fc 1 ^'<L|7)P sc ec 1 7? a : ‘co J., (29) ,.. H (lo) „c = * ^ =80 ^ Q ^ <;a (32) « P " <3 (33) ■90 ‘ '7 = (34) ,9C •■ : S '3 S (35) ISO ‘ ^ /•s:''3 (87) •7 ' n , (■«5) (44) (43) ■cS 9S (42)(4 0 (40)? b ^ 4*»** 5(38) -J i W 5C _ K 'Jf SC sc 'sc r-’W ■v.\ ii 5^ , jZ“ ........;..., so “5“!C "5^■ir To .4.91 ~11.^1: i';1' 16 g| 17 Ij 18 ^ (45)1 p9) 1 (50) 20|^‘g (83) »g ' 23 g (53T 2*S (54)(35) 26 g (56) ''1 tS7) 28 g: {: •i 1 V *C V • sc LJL.V t ' SC j1 ■ r— io 1 SC • JJ 11 1 (89) iU ^ 1^* 9 '. 06 S •'A M’,yHCGAt l N».19, riAT--5&^IOC 7^ occ Sic.a ^ 3 1 ,<-H X* <r‘ •r* 1 1 (7) •33 0 ■j (o; j(39)|v3) > ' s: V ^ / 7u. IS nb- GOVT LOT 5 :9I6.C0 =*; LEGALLY RECORDED MAP. IT “^OUDT’ flTTOKJ OP TNPORMATTQN 14:43 1A.V uij 4/3,0110^ ^H il M HARDCOVER CALCUUTION WORKSHEET SE-dAcx zone: (ciRCLH OWE) Co^S) 73-250' 250-300' Existing H ardcover in Zone SCO-IGOG' A. H ouse X *1»74C c • •UINGTH width X •• • ••c r %- X is • r • Q - m •••X S.F, __X ,F. 3 . Ga RAG c S.F. c. Driveway <^4.S.F. f f S.F. D. S idewalk /4 48 ■'.S.F. . X .. n / X •• : S . r . S.P.E. Patio / Oec .k X • •S.F. F. Landscape x •8/s S.F. BY . X o.^2S S.Fi PLASTIC SHEETING X : : * S.F. Wp«oT/Ai^jg. ^7X ••r . / ar 0 S.Ft U.»>va ,' G. Other /^ x //7 • S.F. Total Hardcover in • 26ne • . S.F. • • • # , Total Property A rea in 1 Zone S.F. A II V) A Z?Co X 100 ^2-35 •% 1 HiMoai ttiMUi U5 !• JO i ^‘'i .\.*^ ‘ t’- J •. 4H.ARDCOVSR CALCULATIQfl WORKSHEET SETBACK zone : (CIRCLE one ) 0-75' (^5-2^ 250-500' 5G0-IC0G' Existing H ardcover in Zone $ i \ • • A. H ouse -X _s S(>4.S.F. * • •LENGTH WIDTH ^hcj 72.2 X _/2-2 s i •..S.F. u __ X 4.//7-S- P. 'PlA^^rc^ ■* 6 X 6 3^S.F. ^!C 1P/rD . X .Z6,7 S.F. a. CARAgg 4 V G 24 ^S.F. c. Driveway ,_ X S.F. “^OCiC. Vi*iLu llo X ) •//<5 • S.F. D. SiDSHALK _,33 S.F. 3^S -'5*S. r • 4. S'Cinc~5tcp^ 7T7F <27 _ S.F. 24-y i'O ^ SC S.F. F. LANDSCA PE AREAS . UNDERLAINWiMfiOW %ICUS BY :S.F. ^*4-a PLASTIC SHEETING X • / •/ <ui>A4C^ ^ur~h 27 X _ • • ,*•• 73 • ^ G. Other ///— X ^. /ni S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. !hZ3c? Total H ardcove .r in Zone ' - ^ • - r • Total Pro'herty Area in Zone - _ U?7,ltO X 100 » ?o 5.F i] 3/^-8 - 4 jQO-lCOQ' S.F. S.F. S.F, S.F. S.F, _ S.F. - S.F. <i-€ ••% ‘V. V j % . ■ r\ ^ *,f: -A CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DICK & BETH NELSON OF U0T6 14 A 16. BLOCK 4. CRYSTAL BAY VIEW HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA ITGAl OESCIIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: Lots ‘4 and tS, Block 4, CRYSTAL BAY VIEW.i\ This survey Intends to show the bourii^rles of the above described property, and the location of an eilstInQ house, two sheds, and all other visible "Hardcover* thereon. *t does not purport to show any other iNprovements or encroach ments. 0 Denotes iron Marker Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datua. f ll [ i eivr.# ♦. I . . llatk It- .1 K\. tte. . ... ...» .Wiw t )4 /VBKT CiJ^‘^4 -f\ te- er^iHee<2w? fHT FTQ> ft-SUILPtm ^T!/M •nv --:> l^vl- ^ i TT” ' , » {^-.•. ^V" i * *••1 •^V•1II*‘• : > VI v • .*:• . S ’' ‘W'-’/'-f hi>"..!'.' "V • r-'*’.)-- ■'•>/../’i^*‘.‘ - A' • *■. .V A*. ♦ti* V f ' I v’“ # ’ r' : •‘V*- < v/St *i » '*• .» *IvSK V,’- ^'^'AIIRv '/-r'<.?••■.:!•, *r »•/.■,• s-»« . » t1 r** t jL» X’,*- yr ‘’V^T .... , ■. n Ik ) h! h 1 y[4 y--------------^ • 1 S? : u X .V S5 5; /I ^ To:Mavor Callahan and Orono Coundlmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator % From: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administr^^|^<>^/ June 11. 1993 Marina Licensing ^ | 5. ^ QfiV List of Exhibits A - Ordinance Proposed December 1992 B - Sample Application Form 1993 C - Sample License "Conditions" Exhibit - Used Since 1979 Council tabled action on 1993 Marina Licenses pending further discussion of what limitations or conditions, if any, should be tied to the marina licenses. The question was raised as to whether the City intends to continue its historical position on dock length and boat density issues, definition of a "site use envelope", and whether or how these and other factors should be attached to the licensing process. Background A. Purpose of Marina Licensing. Historically the City has used marina licensing to address a number of issues. Ihe priority given to these issues has changed over the years 1. Initially (1962) to control dock lengths and layout as a health/safety/welfare concern. 2. Control of boat density, parking, and buffering was added to the licensing process in 1965. 3. City took a strong position in codes and policies during 1970’s, resulting in all commercial docks meeting 200 ’ length limit by early 1980’s, but making only minor headway regarding buffering and landscaping. 4. City attitude in the 80 ’s changed to less concern about docks, more concern about land and site use. 5.If the B-2 Coiles can be revised to provide for eventual elimination of extreme non-conformities, then licensing could become merely a tool to annually monitor ? :tivity at marinas and provide minor revenue to cover the City’s costs of iCgulating those uses and the problems they cause, i.e. parking, iraflic, complaints, etc. Marina Licensing June 11, 1993 Page 2 B. Current Problems and Magnitude. In determining the current purpose and extent of marina regulation the City needs to determine what the current problems are and what the rr^nnitude of these problems is. For e.xample, outside cf the few ongoing complaints ..om specific residents, does the general public perceive that the marinas are "out of control"? What very specific factors lead to this perception if it exists? What specific changes do residents want the City to pursue? Staff s perception of the problems is as follows: 1. Traffic control. 2. Aesthetics. 3. Passive environmental control (factors related to the physical makeup of the site). 4. Active environmental control (factors related to use of the site, such as boat density, noise, and site operation). These problems do not requi*^ detailed regulation of the marinas but they do require some level of overall control of the marina operations. This level of control can be achieved with the "envelope" approach along with some additional general regulations in the areas of parking and environmental issues such as surface water management. Proposed Licensing Ordinance Attached is the draft Licensing Ordinance that was presented to Council in December. Tnis ordinance reflects the recommendations of the Lake Use Committee last fall. The proposed ordinance separates the Joint Use Licenses from the Marina Business Licenses. The Joint Use Section more clearly defines what is and isn’t considered a ;oini use, and sets minunum standards for joint uses regarding number/density of boats, joint uses in the RS (island' Zoning District, and parking. The Marina Business License becomes a new section, 5.43. This section includes definitions of business uses, and includes a short list of business use standards including: 1. Adherence to the B-2 Zoning District requirement. 2. An insurance requirement. 3. License holder notifies City of all other businesses happening on >he property. 4. IJmits business use license to the B-2 Zone. Marina Licensing June 11, 1993 Page 3 The draft Marina Business License Ordinance does not : require adherence to the B-2 standards in order to be granted a license. address or provide the City with any authority to regulate boat density, dock length, site planning, or any of the other potential issues as part of the licensing process. provide any standards as to what information should be collected for the license or what specific conditions can be placed on issuance of the license. The draft ordinance clearly reflects the Committee’s intent to issue an unconditional license to operate a marina business on an annual basis to each of our marinas. The draft ordinance is in a format that could be adopted tonight, and since it is not part of the Zoning Code, no public hearing is required. Once the ordinance is adopted. Council could consider issuing 1993 licenses to all the marinas, although technically we would have to request insurance information from each applicant. There are some remaining issues as far as licensing, these include: 1. What information to collect with the applications. 2. What conditions of issuance should be placed on each license, if any. A sample of our 1993 application form is attached, along with a sample of the "Conditions of Issuance" exhibit which we have attached to all licenses issued since 1979. Staff has never micro-managed the marina operations and doesn’t wish to start row. We have not spent much effort on analyzing or using the information collected with applications, but we feel it would be prudent to continue to collect it for documentation and inlormational purposes The conditions of issuance to be placed on each license can be limited to those issues the Council be,i ves require some level of regulation. Following is an outline of issues related generally to the regulation of marinas that probably need to be discussed at a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Council. Note that the Planning Commission in reviewing the P-2 Ordinance earlier this spring concluded that a Joint meeting on this issue will help them better understand Council s goals regarding marinas. 1. Does the City want to move away from a major policy position (boat density regulation) taken by the City in the 1970 s? *1 J Marina Licensing June 11. 1993 Pace 4 2. 3 5 6 Issuing a license without any reference to historie boat density limitations without concurrently adding a boat density section to the B-2 Code, is perceived by staff as the City delegating all boat density control to the LMCD. This is fine, if that is the Council’s intent. We probably need to keep track of the number of boat units approved by LMCD on a yearly basis for historical documentation reasons, and as a basis for detemiining the amount of parking needed, etc. Should the City simply identify an envelope and leave total discretion for its use to the marina operator, presuming each operator will micro-manage his site to eliminate complaint generating activity? Or should there be some level of regulation as to minimum amount of parking required, minimum standards for circulation on the site, etc.? What is the rftC'iived magnitude of the problem, and type of regulation needed? Tlie envelope concept is valid and could be strucnired to be easily enforced. However, possible pitfalls include: - Marinas might not accept a restriction of their e.xisting envelopes by requiring greater buffering or setbacks. - Those that do might wish to solve lateral storage restrictions by building upward. If we really want the envelope system to be self-controlling, we need to require that "boundary barriers" be built in to provide a physical control. Staff Recommendation 1. Adopt the proposed Joint Use/Marina Licensing Ordinance, Sections 5.42/5.43. 2. Issue 1993 licenses to the marinas that applied for them. Attach no "Conditions of Issuance" exhibit. On the tront of each license indicate "this license authorizes the holder to operate a marina business in the City of Orono, i-ut shall not be construed as vesting any rights to a specific type oi level of activity nor to a specific number of boat slips or boat density" (language subject to City Attorney approval). 3. Continue to collect information on applications for informational and documeniational purposes. 4. Set a date for a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss the issues noted above in relation to marina regulation. V^IO/O i. ^<’'-'-pfPs^'"'^ / '*■-) C^s i> 1?^ his Section, SEC. 5.42. JOINT USE OP FACILITIES. «* 1 Definitions, ror Subd. 1* , ~ j.v.e nean ‘’’ncs aiven tneni:the following terns have the nea,.-. . . A. "Boat Slip, VcTing, mooring cr , . __ o^he'- thing designee or used -or w. ^ water#doc.< or Owne- iv or cermanentl/ -♦* storing of a rfg® buovs or other devices. including nocrr.ng cos.s, buo. soace or B. "Eoat Slip, ; boit tenporarily or other thing '3«3i?"/f^°f<,“®:1:o'ria!:e,‘whlther it is located on o- ^ernanently on off t.he licensea prenrses. C. -Boat Slip- a long-term or or water used for the storr.ng of a g. yearly basis. aeans a boat slip on land B. "Boat Slip, Ob'”O'" 'iiany different boats .or or water used for the temporary storage o. . Short periods or adjacent E "Joint Ose" of usinc Lakeshore lrcfu“les°^ t^^lSl ^ow^n^ or ‘for any other pu..pose. activities: r-’-a-'an landowners.1. More than two ad^acen. r...a--an x •« 4-Ho use of a single dock. sharing m th- t--.-na’--? an and/or non- 2. An = fdfacent to the lalce riparian providin permanent boat slips sharing a dock or doc.>t =.- the meinbers. j,-4 j--** onlv, a not-for- = • "" ^^%fl=/:ovl^g"traisient boat slips profit organiration or used for day us. recr.at-on lor stakeholders _oraJjr_ - overnight cajnpxng t* ^ Subd. 2. License Required., oe-^son to engage or participate in jjnrn obtained an annual license tnereror rron It is unlawful for any use without first having the City. Subd. 3. License Application. Any person or group of n*»r<;cns mak’no* aoolication for a joint use license shall _ „^nvide"d by the City and shall provide sucn rnrornawion as ;°rbe^de-tfn/ceisary L the Council it order application. The fee for license applxcatxons snail be se^ b^ ordinance. Subd. 4. Public Hearing. Upong filing of any 1- -fffTT 1-fc‘^nse the Council may call a hearxng upon such it may"" deem" aporooriate. No such hearing shall be notxce w within the discretion of .the Councxl, except. that^a°h4aring shall be held at the request of the applicant xn cases of license revocation or denxal. Subd. 5. Joint Use Standards. Joint uses shall adhere to tiiG following’ st^ncinids: A Any association of riparian and/or non-rxparian landowners within a a^n/^o -rAj a3;s^e-?^^h ^one hoat -y. - shoreline as measured by a “ , ^ Fu-^ther/ all such use shtfl ^dLit'^to^'h^ Vhorer^^^^^^ Management Regulations of Section 10.56. B Anv joint use in the RS zoning distrxct ^ • 'a.* a«si^ociat"’'on providing transxent boat not-for-profit org^xzatxon us"ed for day-use recreation or slips for stakeholders of a P - ^ allowed only in conjunction erira’valTd” conditfina? use permit for said use issued by the Council. c Parking facilities not adlowed. l^*wh\=h" crl^^erlhe "n^td "fTr par.ting ="n any street right-of-way. • e j 4 er 2.dd0ci 2.S follows •SECTION 2. Sectxon 5.43 xs hereoy SEC. 5.43. MA.RINA BUSINESS LICENSE. «« rnr* the purpose of this section, Subd. 1. __Definxtxons. siin. Land", "Boat Slip, given them in Sectxon 5.42. The toxx« ^ given them: the°bus'^nes^^ of dockinSf^mooring or storing marina busxnesa or the bus*.nes boats. • ‘ ■ 3 "Mcrir.a Business” ir.eans e..cac ..g •? r> t'^ei-•; 1 us*=s allowed —•=of the permitted, accessory or coacr.iona- B-2 zoning distract. C.-Business of Docking, buoys __ _ _-mT-otr-; dine soace, anc^uc-.-? means renting or for ^ nwn^r or occu--"- of the property, exc_. t.0-- storing one or nu-.t= oth'erThin the ^wner or occupant of the trope when licensed as a ^oant use. — !■ Subd. 2. License Required^^^^It^t^^ uTe'tJiihoui ” f i5st gl^fnTobtalSIl^antLiJi incense-th-erefor from the City. .•__ -y 02 )DtaJLnea clu -------- ^ Subd. 3. License ftpplic^bion^ ^ny per^o^n^^^ persons making . license ^?PLicatron busrn information as forms Pbovi^b/ counofr in order b° -t °n such ^pSlicatfof" ?he"f:‘/or-license applicatrons snail ordinance• .c • 1 4 ^rr pnv aDolication subd. 4. public Hearing. ^|°Ji^^^nnon such notice as it for license, the Council may <=^L1 a hear 9 j mandatory, but ill deem appropriate. thrioua^cil, bhat a heari.-.g SSaifbffe\“d?t.the°reVest of Ihe applicant in cases of 1-• - revocation or denial.. or cenicix. ^ ^ subd. 5. Business t^tS®requirSenli''^^^ be licensed '“i®i^i’^|3“o''f'the S-2 toning district and per -ne performance standards or following provisions: -f Each business shall A. d" = “rfi\\iii\y ins'uxance coverage for the provide certification of liabiii.y lurltion of the license period. ___ BB. The primary °fpon/ible for notifying shall be the li=®“=®bolder,^d sn ^ o„ the premises. Such Ihfcity of any and -LL sl^rately nTo^'eToflffhfn^ nfo^^^ Pb=-slons t. zoning district standards.jtrxcr subd. 6. Business Hse L^cenae^LimitedJo b- business f fusines? use is allowed by ordinance in 2, except that wheji a busine^^^ inducted in said dis.-C- another zoning dist---^ license, not be required to obtain M CITY OF ORONO License Year P.O. Box 66, Crystal Ray, Minnesota 55323 Phone 473-7357 Date application sent to Marina Date application remmed to City ANNUAL COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APPLICATIOJj - Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42, Subdivision 2 - Licensed, Required^ It is unlawful for any person to engage or panicipate in the "business ot docking, mooring, or storing boats or (operating) a commercial boat dock busine-" without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPLICATIO’^’. REQUIRED AITACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY APRIL 15 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. )^i;.SINESS INFORMATION 1. BUSLNESS OR TRADE NAME Street Address__________ . Mailing Address Marina Phone Office Phone OVVNERSHIP/OPERATION Fee Owner (if different than above) Address Phone 3.BUSINESS ORGANIZATION: (Check applicable item) individual ownership____paimership _corporation List the name of each partner or corporate officer and their title: Name of the marina manager responsible for daily operation: List the mioimutn number of employees on duty when the marina is open to the public during the boating season: dock attendants ____repair or service persoimel others available for sales/public information, etc Page 1 of 4 List cvcrv occupunt of the property other thun tlie Business noted above. 4.PRINCIPAL BUSINESS ACTI\aTY (Check all services offered): in-water slip rental buoy rental dry storage ____ winter in and out serv ice boat clubs repair pans and service fuel sales boat launching (day-use ramp) boat rental boat holding tank pumpout bait and tackle sales boat and trailer sales charter boat port-of-call other _____ 5.BUSINESS SCHEDULE (Check appropriate items): open all year ____open during boating season only dock access AM to PM retail sales & service AM to PM 6.MARINA SECURITY is provided by: CARET/\KE.R living on site? _____ SI IPS AND BOAT UNITS List the maximum number of boats in each category. Each slip, mooring or other space actually used for storage or keeping of boats or watercraft must be indicated and numbered on the dock and site plan submitted with this application. , «. t , iCompany Rental Rental Slips/ Other Total Ov^Tied Boats Spaces Boats BOATS STORED IN THE WATER (for lake use) a. At dock slips ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Total Boats in Water ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 7. 8.BOATS STORED ON LAND FOR LAKE USE a. Inside Buildings ____ b. Outside on Racks ____ c. Outside - other means ____ Total Boats Stored t>n Land for I^e Use ____ 9.TOTAL BOATS FOR LAKE USE (Add 7 and 8) Pace 2 of 4 i .J 10. OTHER BOATS ON PREMISES (SUMMER) a. Transient boats (repair/service) b. New boats for sale (inventory) c. Used boats for sale (inventory) d. Other (list: _____________ ) Total 11. OTHER BOATS ON PREMISES (WINTER) a. Transient boats (repair/service) b. Contract storage (customer’s boats) c. Inventory (new & used boaL>) d. Other (list: ________________ Total Inside Buildin*: Outside Building Total Inside Building Outside Building ) Total riFF-STWF.RT PARKTNO RROUTRE^rENTS 12.SUMMER PARKING a. Retail sales/service customers 8 spaces minimum (+1 per each 800 s.f. over 1,000 s.f.) = b. Boating customers 6 spaces per 10 boats for lake use [.6 x __(line 9)J c. Launching ramp customers (day use) 10 spaces minimum per ramp = TOTAX SPACES cars cars cars 13.WINTER PARKING [.2 X , (add lines 12a and 12b)]carsa. nor.K CONSTRUCTION 14. CHECK ALL THAT APPLY; Permanent ____ Seasonal Wood ____ Concrete Wood ____ Metal Foam Pilings: Decking: ___ De-icing normally used Metal ____ Other_____ Other_______- Flotation Method (if used):Barrels Other Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application: 1. 2. 3. A CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY indicating the boundaries of the marina property and the authorized dock use area, the location of all strucmres, storage areas, docks, slips, buoys, launching ramps, gas pumps a.id tanks, parking areas, access areas, fencing and landscaping features. The drawing shall be updated each year to show all existing facilities, all changes from the previous season, and any changes proposed for the duration of the current application. The drawing shall also indicate the locations of winter storage and required winter parking spaces. A copy of your LMCD LICENSE APPLICATION. A COMMERCIAL MARINA UCENSE APPLICATION FEE according to the current City fee schedule. Initial Application @ $300.00 _____________ Renewal .Application @ $200.00 _________ Each Boat Unit (Line 9) @ S2.00/ea___________ Late Fee (if not postmarked by April 15) $150.00 TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION $____ is received, the City Council will review the license application and will thereafter pass upon the application per the licensing procedures of Chapter 5. THE marina may OPEN FOR PUBLIC USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENvS E pV THE CITY COUNCIL., Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Marina License application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City’s designated employees or agents to enter upon the manna property at any reasonable time to perform safety and code compliance inspections. Authorized Signature Date Tide Relationship to Owner Pace 4 of 4 CITY OP ORONO EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL COMMERCIAL DOCK LICSNoE I. LICENSEE Address License Period - January 1, 19_ _ to December 31, 19- - II. BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat the number shown on the at ac e ^ number of authorized boat slips^Uf^'^s? or luoys'^ number permitted in the prior year*s license. Authorized Summer Density per attached plan: Bay - - - - --- - - - - - - - Transient Slips - - - Rental Slips - - - Company Slips -- -— ^ Sub-Total: Slips at Dock -- - - - Offshore Buoys - - - - Maximum Boats in Water - - - - Dry stacked slip for use in lake Maximum Boats in water per prior license Other Boats (for sale/service, etc.) maximum boat DENSITY ON LAND AND/OR IN WATER ■ffssr?:: Exceeding this maximum d^nsrty, or ex drn, ^f4„2e"ect Authorized Number of Winter Stored Boats ------------ Exhibit A Resolution No Page 2 III. DOCK LAYOUT (reference Exhibit B attached) Maximum authorized length of main dock _ _ feet. Docks extending beyond 200 feet and docks encroaching into required side yard setbacks are hereby specifically declared to be illegal non-conforming structures which are not permitted under this license. The application (does) (does not) contain such illegal structures. All such violations are subject to prosecution under Sections 5.42 and 10.41 of the Orono Municipal Code . IV. V. VI. Marina (is) (is not) authorized for FUEL SALES subject t compliance with the State Fire Code. Required number of OFF—STREET PARKING SPACES —* and/or prosecution by the City. VII Nothinq in this license shall confer upon any person for the honpfit of anv property iny vested right to use Lake Minnetonka offhe premTser rTa mannL permitted by this resolution, but the use'll Lake Minnetonka and the premises ^ to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from trme to time in the public interest. To:Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorsc, City Administrator % From: Date: Subject: t//Michael P. Gaffron. Assistant Planning & Zoning Administr^r^''/// June 7, 1993 Joint Use Dock License - Forest Arms Association List of Exhibits A - License Resolution and Exhibits B - 1993 Application The Forest Arms Countr>' Club Addition Homeowners Association (aka Forest Arms Improvement Association) has readied an agreement with LMCD regarding the layout of their dock. The Association has submitted a 1993 Joint Use Dock License Application, and has included the appropriate late fee. There have been no complaints regarding this joint use dock. The siltation problem has yet to be resolved, but is unrelated to the granting of their annual joint use dock license. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a 1993 Joint Use Dock License t> the Forest Arms Improvement Association per the attached resolution and exhibits. Moved by ____. seconded by _____, to grant a 1993 Joint Use Dock License to Forest Arms Improvement Association per the attached documents. ____ Ayes,____Nays. UlMli RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A JOINT USE DOCK LICENSt TO FOREST ARMS COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION HOMEOV NERS ASSOCIATION, INC. SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1993 TO DECEMBER 31, 1993 WHEREAS, the City of Orono, hereinafter "City" is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, State Statute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462. et. seq., to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of the public within the City; and WHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Naniral Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of polite power of the State. LMCD, and the Cuy of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the -aublic waters and on the land within the City which, if unregulated, may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate the propertv rights of the riparian owners both as to residential owners and the commercial nnrina owners to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining their property. The LMCD. DNR and City of Orono must fulUll their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the commonlaw rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owners; WHEREAS, as to I^ke Minnetonka, a munial right of enjoyment exists between and is shared bv riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian owner has exclusive privileges over Uke Minnetonka. The only additional private right that any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dcKk to the navigable depth ot the public waters. Ihere can be no dispute but tliat the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but die right to each riparian owner. This mutual right ot enjoyment which is shared by riparian owne»‘s and the public generally includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian owner ha* n<) exclusive privileges to these rights; and Page 1 of 2 i «. WHEREAS. I^ke Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and maintained by three or more families, which regulations include the annual licensing of Joint Use Docks pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Joint Use Dock License described on Exhibit A attached, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Joint Use Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 14th dav of June, 1993. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day of June, 1993 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ORONO EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE LICENSEE: Forest Anns Country Club Addition Homeowners Association, Inc Dock Address: 4245 Forest Lake Drive Agent: Lynn Adams Address: 915 Forest Arms Lane, Mound, MN 55364 Licensee is:unincorporated homeowner’s group incorporated homeowner’s association unincorporated club or recreation group incorporated club or recreation group other __________ License Period - January I, 1993 to December 31, 1993 II. BOAT DENSITY The number of in*place boat slips, lilts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibits B and C, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year’s license. Authorized Boat Density per attached plan: Bay Transient (Day use only) Slips Permanent Moorage Slips Boat Lifts Sub-Total: Slips at Dock Offshore Buoys Maximum Boats in Water Maximum Bt'ats per prior license MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY Forest Lake same 11 Exhibit A Resolution No. Page 2 Exceeding this maximum boat density, or exceeding the number of pcmtiitcd slips, lifts or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code. III. DOCK LAYOUT The dock structure or layout authorized by this license shall be as shown on attached Exhibits B and C. Any changes in this layout shall be subject to prior review and approval of the City Council. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the City. 1.The Purchase Agreement by and between the City of Orono and the Forest Arms Country Club Addition Homeowners Association, Inc. will permit a maximum of 14 slips. The City will approve 14 slips for this license year based on the number of developed interior lots within the subject plat. V.Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a manner permitted by this resolution, but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such regulatioas and ordimmces as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessaiy' from time to time in the public interest. CITY OF ORONO P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 473-7357 LICENSE YEAR 19 rjrv nr r7;jA;.rrr /‘rrrrr I v.*i / A- \,' J.C’V T7 ■••0 # w' » vv rucrv*1. f i.cn nI u 7T f w‘«VV ^NNTTAT. JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42 j\>iri'TuT^ruAiik' vnn/Si.wuAi t tnnifix t vu rnni ijfli Tfj- TTi^m t / V UWX IWA f ^ “T • 05/20/: Date Form Sent by City Staff February 1. 1993 Date Application Returned to City Fee Received $ 7 -----------By Employee Section 5 42. Subdivision 2. LICENSE REQUIRED - It is unlawful for any (gro'ip or association of persons or families, more dian two in number, whether incorporated or not) to engage or participate in ... joint use (of any lakesliore property) without first having obtamed a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPLICATION. REQUIRED ATT 'CHMENTS. AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CIT\ CLERK BY MARCH « \ T f T/^T7XT C C A D1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. association information 1. Association title or name (if any) AQr-e^j' ^ 5 ^ ^ Mi h-y l~!~0 n ________ Bay Fo <_ A" ^A9Jl L ^ 2. 3. Lake Person responsible for this application: Name 11-, A c FcJ ^Phone 3FH Mailing Address ^^ ^)~f~ p, • i) f- Relationship to association ' ^ ^ _______ 4.Association is (check applicable items): ____ unincorporated homeowner ’s group. incorporated Homeowner’s Association, unincorporated club or recreation group incorporated club or recreation group. V Page 1 of 5 7. 8. 9. Principal purpose of joint use dock is (check applicable items): f.^provide boat mooring and lake access for residential property, provide swimming access, beach, or offshore dock, provide a club or as.sociation gathering place for activities. Dock is located on (check applicable item): ____ one member’s private property. L^.-^^easement or outlot owned in common, property leased by the group/association. property owned by the group/association. List Dock location and ownership information: Street address V Legal property description Lo T5 PI D^ ^ ^ ^--------------- -y Listed property owner(s) Fo u /v -----J_t^ I ^ ^ fUoFc 3 •4^ I vy, p/ 0 \) t* ^ F . Names of abutting lakeshore property owners: ■North/W^- (Name + Address) It C\ (■South/East> (Name + Address) Names of other affected property owners: (Name + Address) (attach sheet if necessary) Insurance Coverage - The jointly used dock is insured by one of the following: property owner’s homeowner’s policy, separate group/association owned policy. List the following information: Name of insured FO f ^ ^ . Name of iasurance carrier F------------ Name of insurance agency ^CCk^' Effective date of coverage _2- pniicvNo. ^ Amount of coverage: Public liability, per person, per occurrence $ j ,COC,(lC_ Public liability, per occurrence Page 2 of 5 5 \,COC)COO Security and policing of the jointly used dock and property is provided by (check applicable items): .L^T^ncing ^-'^urity lighting property owner’s presence contract security service other (specify) DOCK INFORMATION 11, List Dock Use Area Specifications: Width of shoreline: ft. Length of main dock from shore: / ^ ft. Dock setbacks from side property lines at shore: ^ ft. and 3 O ft. Dock Construction (check applicable items):12. seasoPu,; deck (relocated or replaced each year) permanent piling with seasonal deck ____ permanent piling and decking 13. wooden decking List Dock Accessories: metal decking Number of fire extinguishers available at the dock _ Number of life preservers available at the dock ~7 / 14.List number of slips in each category ("slips’ includes boat lifts): Transient (day use only) slips ______ Transient (day use) off-shore buoys _____ Permanent moorage slips ! H Permanent moorage off-shore buoys _____ Dry storage (rack) slips___________Maximum number of boats at the dock / H 15.List number of off-street parking spaces available for users of the joint use dock. Parking, if provided must not be separated from the dock by any public road. C)_____ spaces. EROSION AND SKDIMENTATTON CONTROL 16. Shoreline is protected by (check applicable items): stone rip rap ___ wood seawall ___ metal seawall concrete seawall grass and vegetation only other (specify) 17. Depth of water at shoreline: O tt; at 50 ft. out: 3 I at 100 ft. out: Page 3 of 5 REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany tliis application: A. B. C. DOCK PLAN - ALL APPLICATIONS A dock plan, drawn to scale, showing the shoreline width of this property, the side property lines and the location, layout and dimensions of all docks, slips and buoys. If off-street parking, dry storage or other on-land functions are intended, these also should be shown on the plan. TTNTMrORPORATED GROUPS OR ASSOCIATIONS A list of the names and mailing addresses of all members and/or slip users1. A certified copy of the by-laws or agreement for joint use. Note: This copy is not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same by-laws or agreement originally made in_______(slate year) and on file with the City." Applicant’s initials /1/U>TNCORPORATF.D CLUBS OR ASSOCIATIONS 5/ 1. A list of the names, mailing addresses and titles of all coiporation officers. IT-'6/ ist of the names, mailing addresses and rules of all corporation 0 2. A statement as to the total number of members in the club or association. / H members 3.A certified copy of the articles of incorporation and by-laws of the corporation. Note: These copies are not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same aniclcs of incorporation and/or by-laws as originally made or last amended in ^ V(state year) and on file with the City " Applicant’s initials D. ANNUAL LTrFNSn FEE - ALL APPLICATIONS Joint Use Dock License Application Fee according to the current City Fee Schedule INITIAL APPLICATION FEE RENEWAL JOINT USE FEE, per year PT IIS SLIP FEE for each permanent moorage slip, lift, dry stack, or buoy ) slips @ 2.00 each $ $20.00 TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION ^ Pace 4 of 5 $ i CO 13.00 Uie ^ 7 2.CTO I LATEFEE - Renewals Application for renewal of licenses shall be made no later than March 1 of the license year. Jhe City shall not accept renewal license applications received after March 1 unless the application is accomnanied bv a late fee of $25.00., REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, the application will be reviewed by the City Council and in the case of new or unusual applications, also by the Planning Commission and Marina Conuiiittee. The Council will pass upon the application after complete review. THE SUBJECT DOCK MAY BE INSTALLED AND/OR OPENED FOR USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests tlie Orono City Council to review this Joint Use Dock License Application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City’s employees and agents to enter upon the property at any reasonable time to perform safety and code compliance inspections. Signed Date hu., 2.0 - 9J y Page 5 of 5 i No. 3io.oa 26 WSU 1/* HSU Units i MULTIPLE DOCK AND MOORING ^ AREA LICENSE ■ ' F LAKE IMINNE I ONKA CONSERVATION DISl'RICT • County of neiinepin, State of Minnesota ss. »/ WIIEKL'AS, .-.•A. #. . , ♦ arir:- ¥>• FQRKST AR>f^ TMPROVFftFNT AS.SfirTATIX3^ •. ^ *«■. ^. -f’. II ««» '• 1 ' 4245 Forest Lake Drive. City nf Omnn Three Hundred Ten and No/100*s __DOLLARS ; % f . A A a-A AM ^. W ^ i / ■• “laid L/^E M.WErTOOr«ER^Al .ON UCTRlCr as ^ District and complied with all the requifcments of said Ordinances necessary for obtaining this . ^0W, TllliKtl OUE, By order ol .he Board o. Directors ol said District and b, virtue hereof, the said '* ‘ Forest Arms Imrrrovt^mr’nt AceoernMnn-----------------— is hereby yr ■ -it _„pera,e a n.uhipledock subject iJ^.is.iLg^nd fire derrsity policies and rey^ror^adopted by the Dts'nF-> Bo^^ ^ '...u vi- A.«? fimended with 4/27/93 site pinn nnnmvpH •4/?,R.^l—--------------------— v: V of Directors,---------—------------------- ^ r^n ur- />'• «•* ,r is . - > .Pt . P IP-.. ^ • r ^ ev^r. non -confor >iing ~structure •^ •• ______ ______—. -t w«» '* -r-r-v,5.^7/.« rf • A's* •**■' « . • • • ' - t‘'V^or llie pc'rbd of the-----1993 Dock ^0^ ' \v •./■f-.v. ,, f .season and . • ' V V • » ; . # Jh# * V '.ending Decetiibcr 31 \ 19 93 subject to all the conditions and provisions oOald Ordinances. K 2-^ H . . speeiaf pern,it. Sl^t mS'.h'ir^Sm | ' ' ' Oi.«. »«lei »y l»«l ~d can*.-. - MINNCTON^ Wf^VATION IHSIWCT .b»^ t-XCCUb riorF' gene \ ► f. W‘JT ^—30 S--------------160 30'fi>ves{ La-lte SH0REIiNEl?2?:4.ELy _F0RE5I-ARMS:/ASSN._jSC/lLr. /‘-av Kh.1 -lilVtO (10) 11 X 32' Slips 2-11 (A) 11’ X 21' Slips I, 12-14 APR 2 7 1993 yJ 6 g U.M.C.D. To;Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembcrs Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator % % From: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning 8c Zoning Administn'^^ ^4/ June 4, 1993 300 Tonka Avenue - Conceptual Request for Vacant Lot Split/Combination with Adjacent Properties/Drop Sewer Unit/Vacate Unused Street Right-of-Way List of Exhibits A - Letter of Request and Sketch B - Plat Map C - Staff Sketch Background James Patrin is owner of the vacant Lots 17 and 18, Block 5, Bayside Addition, also known as "300" Tonka Avenue. This property at one time had a small cabin on it. which has been gone for approximately 10 years. The lot was assessed one sewer unit as part of the Stubbs Bay Sewer Piqiect at the non- reduced amount of $12,630. Lots 17 and 18 are each 50’ x 125’, and are legally combined into a parcel containing 12,500 s.f. or 0.29 acre. This is a 2 acre zone. Council assigned a sewer unit to the property knowing that lot area and width, and perhaps .setback variances would be needed to construct a residence on the lot. Conceptual Request The property owners to the north (across the unused Kill Street right-of-way), Phil and Karen Skoog, and the property owner to the south. Dave Christensen, have come to an agreement with Mr. Patrin to purchase the lot. The Skoogs would end up with Lot 18, Christensen with Lot 17. If the City would then vacate the portion of Hill Street between Lot 17 and Skoogs’ homestead, Skoogs would legally combine Lot 18 and the vacated road with their homestead property. They would be willing to grant a utility easement (to maintain a corridor for future utilities between Tonka and Creswiew) but would prefer that easement be located to allow some expansion to their house, which is very near the existing Hill Street right-of-way. The Skoogs and their predecessors have been maintaining the Hill Street right-of-way as vard for many years. If the City was unwilling to vacate it for some reason, they apparently would agree to a special lot combination resolution being filed in their title, which would tie Lot 300 Tonka Avenue June 4, 1993 Page 2 of 2 18 to their homestead property for the future. Public Works Director John Gerhardson has suggested vacating the entire Hill Street right-of-way between Tonka and Crestview. Tliis would necessarily involve two additional homeowners. Staff Recommendation Council should weigh the loss of $12,000 in sewer revenue vs. the value of not having to grant major variances or increase the density in this neighborhood by adding another house. Council should address the following questions so that the Skoogs, Mr. Christensen and Mr. Patrin can proceed accordingly: 1. Will Council agree to drop the sewer unit if the required subdivision to split Lot 17 and 18 (and combination with the adjacent parcels) is completed? 2. Will the Council agree to vacation of the unused Hill Street right-of-way in exchange for drainage and utility easements deemed acceptable by the Public Works Department? If Council conceptually agrees to dropping tlie sewer unit, the parties will proceed with the subdivision necessary to split Lots 17 and 18, and if Council conceptually agrees to the vacation, then the Skoogs would make application for that vacation. (Staff would contact the other owners abutting Hill Street). Given that this is a 2 acre zone and construction of a new residence would add to the already high density of this neighborhood, staff would support the proposal. pllVi ct:* n’Z "iiny 11 1 uu" . e 4 . •'r^ «ii-r . « uV *:.; ' * •• •* s/ 3^ * • ^ ‘ f • , • A * ‘ r **<^ • •»..* jA 1. lo * Cza^^ rcx^.^JUN' '4 1-S3 S It- o. Frc-v: VWA . L.of 0\v«S 'tC»o 5 Loi IT ♦ 19 ^ioclc <C» ^~T6»NKa.' Aye} % ^0 .; Do.ve C/r » S"Ve ^^S®Q-ir^^i, "Pk.! SKck?^ 0.rc,. _____•_ ! ' tcf pv.vrc.w»a.s’e. Uo.+ s.. A6 . . .C“Tc>Afc^ Akj< \__________ I f'o ^ ^a»vie5 ^9-"^ ^ / A a J < r4 ^ ^ ^ . . ________ • •# '-oe o.'tVoLck "fW?, lo+5 -Vo i____j ^ -{ I • [CLv» <( <Aj * M o r\. \ o 4y I "7 ^ i^ . _____t **> '-•f *—7ir -r‘T G) ..m. .... Av\so (•4- p^vs'^cUc.if* 4-K<. ^<3.4^. •. • _ . • . f { 0*^*' y&-«-«ii ^ -fUt c-»*V-7 _r«-‘=]h^ ..__ i , A .1'^^ ^ * M’ vT;r;^'eV • ■ • v^*- ■ .»■ » - T- -.... .T-.t^r\> ••i -t• ••■ ---------------------------------— -■'Viu‘X- ■ - ■ ~ •o,»., -\ ••..y^A .........,K>r^; i-'iW^-t 3 • • « * • . Sp _ lA__44.v<__.1 ® "tr __j&?C. . «^5^0 t^nfco. I______J0» 0^c9 _' • * * * , * 0_S C>r-i<L \d4-*__*. A. - > x4 .'JUWt . (L\ Vs cJip^-S. _vot-cLcv-Vt_ yVV^ 4 V>o,4- uOa^-V-j » - ^ ' ( leu? «v%e»v->t:cl V'jr4l-v f z' V»6cax <. iV. 'Unc ^uto-V ^ i Lo-C -v^ (X.<A<4 o*^ ---\o^'->•5■®. .• . __ ' ■i * . • • ■ -^*r » ... *' ‘■'r-i’-^I t-.*'*r. ^ fscc^ • ,t» k.<t « VQ?I^ ^ 231'rfjli TO TO4 ^2^ ^ i4't 60* • ' /62. t C* (?2)....3 k ______7-i T LOT 3 26J<. le P^S GOVT LOT 2 7 r:s r, fn. ST0R^.‘ SEiVER DISTRICT BOUNDARY ‘^''"HCOL 01 STRICT boundary tS-iTERS^ED DISTRICT BjjNi/Af-Y :nc=event boundary /I TO:Ron Moorse, City Administrator John Gerhardson. Public Works DirectorFROM: DATE: June 10. 1993 SUB.JECT: Bike/Hike Trail - Old Cr>-stal Bay Road % ' V r As a result of concerns by adjoining property owners to the Bike/Hike Trail on Old Crystal Bay Road, City staff and the City Engineer have met with some of the property owners to find our what they would like to have for screening, buffer, or plantings on their property after the trail has been coitstructed. ^ I Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& Associates Engineers & Architects June 9, 1993 Mr. John Gerharclson, Public Works Director City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota Orro G Bcrfsfrx? X Pci^^'r P£* C Ar jer ’^ P£ L jcrva>a **£ £ T^rre' P5 G ero If Cock PE PP G Schuhvrrt PE Sv.wn M trer* n C ® A A Sdr^'cro rg •> tn A OJlMcn Pf Pc:rrx P p.-<h4\; A fovre* r.lV»J O LOMiOlJ P£ PcCfnC Pune* A»A jfv ^ P£ Mjr# A Hjrion P£ Vi:hje- T Pi\jfrr>^n Pg >j • Pf P ^lA Ov^^nj C Bwfv^ircJf Pc Tnon'js f Arn;uv PE »f V4rTT4i/ PE P P.lu PP Pn.tip ; Pyn^ Pfc Aprs M P--j A iC P W Prtrv:'' Pt V.n^AC Lyr'fh p£ jjnf, P VJ'4rc3 Pg >v, D P^’*j:^*' ®f Af^'retn p Arj^^ Pg PE \*4r» A Se-D PE W PE j P£ A.jn P-CA Sct*T4:t pf Phi.o J Cjva ^» Pf \tdfk C A4 V Pf B -f*•'»'' Pf L P^' r G'<».» pf L W PC Ga'V Af llCT/ pf ’ i Pf Af n »< »£ Dcui}iJi j 3e''ct PE Sn^v^n D Gust4*v>^ Pf O C'fV AT Pf A f'c«v^ Lee M Pa»\e i*. Hartjn M C icr^ jarT>ei f E'^''«jnot JUN 1 0 '1993 55323 Re: Old Crystal Bay Road Trail File No. 13966 Dear John. I ~ 1 .ininEtiimi We have enclosed a summary of the parcels on the Old Crystal Bay Road Trail Improvements project. Tlie summary lists each parcel in numerical order and includes the Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN), property owners and/or taxpayers, and the property address and/or mailing address. Tlte easement information will be added when the negotiations with property owners have been resolved. Tlic location of the parcels is shown numerically on the attached map. Also, we have enclosed status reports for each of the property owners that we have met with to discuss the trail, tree removal and tree replacement, Tlie concerns, requests and demands of these property owners are summarized in the reports. It is our intention to update and inform the council on the results of these meetings so that decisions can be made regarding the trail project, property owner demands, landscaping policy and subsequently increased costs. When more direction is given by the council, we will prepare the tree replacementlandscaping plans as requested. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours verv truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. M <crH Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. \¥/-»t UlnhxAyaw lA, • Pail! MW • AI7-A3A-A600 4 Project No. 13966 EAStMliNr RECORDS I’rojcct Name OUJ CRYSI AL HAY HOAD TKAIL Date June 9. 1993No.P.l.N.Properly Owner Address Width Area (.<5q.ft.) Type of Ensetnen! Rodney L Minuich 340 Old Crystal Bay Road 0 0 Perinanenl 1 04-117-23-13-0001 Pnuln Minnich Dmg l.nkc, MN 55346 0 0 Tcm|K>rary Dennis O. Thompson 12201 Minnclonka Blvd.0 0 Periiiaiicul 2 04-117-23-13-0004 250 Old Crj'sin! Hay Road Minneluiika. MN 55343 0 0 Temporary 26-! 3 Walerlown Road 0 0 .................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................■■ PcrmancDt 3 04-117-23-12-0007 Patricia C. Dickey Long Like. MN 55356 0 0 Temporary Josepli II. Rosch 6906 James Avenue S 0 0 Permanent 4 33-118-23-43-0001 2760 Walertown Road Richfield, MN 55423 0 0 Temporary Rol)crl J. Will 160 Old Crystal Bay Road 0 0 rermanenl 5 33-118-23-43-0006 Ann M. Will D>ng Lake. MN 55356 0 0 Temiwrary 2775 SiKer View Road 0 0 Permanent 6 .33-118-23-42-0010 Craig J. Bratulenhiitg, ct al Ijong Lake, MN 55356 0 0 Temporary William D. Ililc 2790 Sih'ers ’iew Drive 0 0 Periiianenf 7 33-118-23-42-0002 Kimhcriv It. Mile 0 Long Ukc. MN 55356 0 0 Temporary Charicen 11. Pallcr 315 SiKer Meadow Drive 0 0 Permanent 8 33-118-23-42-0003 James V. Bailer Orono, MN 55356 0 0 rcm|K>rary Robert A. Scliski 375 Milver Meadow Drive 0 0 Permanent 9 33-118-23-42-0004 Baibata J. Scliski Ding 1 ake, MN 55356 0 0 Temporary Veda Incorpotalcd P.O. Box 375 0 0 Permanent 10 33-118-23-13-0013 2f<05 Wayzila Blvt!. W Long Lake, MN 55356 0 0 Temporary ■ i Veda Inc./VCI Capital Inc.P.O. Box 375 0 0 Permanent 11 33-I18-23-42-0012 450 Old Crystal May Road l;ong Ijkc, MN 55356 0 0 remporary Project No. 1395i>EASCMKN'I' REXORDSProject Name Oi l) giYSI AL HAY ROAD I KAIL Date June 9. 199J JVIV .< 1 Ml ' ■ No.P.l.N.Piopcrty Owner Address Width Area (Sq.ft.) Type of l‘asemcnt Veda Incorporated, ct al P.O. Box 375 0 0 Permanent 12 3.1-118-2.V13 00I1 2765 Wavzata Blvd. W «1 joiig Lake, MN 55356 0 0 Temi>orary County of Ilcnncpin 2765 Kelley Parkway 0 0 Permanent 13 33-118-23-12 0002 llcnncpiii County Library 0 0 Tcm|>orary 1.135 Brown Road S 0 0 Pcttnancnl 14 33-118-23-I2-00G4 City of Orono W.ay7.ata. MN 55391 0 0 Tciniwrary City of Orono 1335 Brown Road 0 0 Permanent 15 33-118-23-12-0007 2700 Kelley Paikway Way/ata. MN 55391 0 0 *rcm|>orary Willow Properties % Albert B. Yngve 1021 Idaho Avenue N 0 0 PermaneDt 16 33-118-23-12-0008 2743 Kelley Parkway (’.olden Valley, MN 55427 0 0 Tcnipoiaiy Imlcpeiulcnt School District it^278 685 Old Crystal B.iy Road 0 0 rcrnianeiil 17 28-118-23-43-0005 770 OKI Crystal May R..a0 Ixnig l.akc, MN 55356 0 0 Temporary Independent School Distiict #278 685 Old Crystal Bay Uoad 0 0 Permanent 18 28-118-23-43-0008 Administrative Office-Superintendent I jong Like, MN 55356 0 0 Temporaiy 1442 Homestead Prail 0 0 rermanent 19 28-118-23-43 0006 Albiii 1*. ‘Phies, ct al Ijong Lake, MN 55356 0 0 Temporary Imlcpentlcut Sc'?ool District #278 685 Old Cryst j1 Bay Road 0 0 Permanent : I 20 28-118-23-42-(X)05 Attn: Supcrintemlcnt Ijong Dake, MN 5.^<56 0 0 I'eniporary < 2700 6(h Avenue N 0 0 Permanent I 21 28-i;<.VM/.(X)02 John II. Ixin Ixmg Lake. MN 55356 0 0 Tcnipoiaiy 1 isogcr A. La/endin. ct al 1265 Maplewood Drive 0 0 Permanent 22 28-118-23-42-0004 Ix»u A Jeaunine Beasley Ixnig Dike, MN 55356 0 0 rtui|Kjraiy I oiiisc W. Otten P.O. Box 117 0 0 Permanent 2.1 28-118-23-31-0001 2^10 Sixth Avenue N Ijong Lake, MN 55356 0 0 Tcm|>orary ■ ri-■ 1 -m<f. ri a iTitrJiriifh'iir — I’rojccl No. 13966 liASIiMIZNT KKCORi:)S Piojcct Name OLD C RYSM Al. HAY ROM) I RAIL Dale June 9. 1993 K/i \Vf^ No.IM.N. 1 I'ropcriy Owner Address Width Area (Sq.ft.) Ty|)e of Eascnieiit 24 28-1I8-21-120002 Hoyd n. M. niHclilwm 3020 Sixlli Avenue N 1 150 1 loiucslcad Trail Ding Lake, MN 55356 0 0 0 0 Pcrnianent Temporary 3060 Sixth Avenue N 0 0 Permanent 25 28-118-21-12-0014 Gregory 1). Malik Long I.ake, MN 55356 0 0 temporary Gregory D. M.ilik .1060 Sixth Avenue N 0 0 Permanent 26 28-118-11-.12-0015 3050 Sixth Avenue N Long I.akc. MN 55156 0 0 1 ‘cni|>orary 3060 Sixth Avenue N 0 0 Permanent 27 28-118-21.12-0016 Gregory I). Malik IjongDakc, MN 55356 0 0 Tein|>orary Ilcnncpiii Counly Park Rc.scrvc District 3800 County Road No. 24 0 0 Pernnuent 28 28-1I8-21-32-0011 3180 Sbctli Avenue N Maple Plain. MN 55359 0 0 Temporary 29 . 30 .11 12 1.1 14 1 35 16 _______^ u STATUS REPORT TO COUNCIL OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS June 9, 1993 File No. 13966 PARCEL NO. 1 I met with Rod and Paula Minnich on the evening of Tuesday, May 25, 1993. Tliey indicated that they were in favor of the trail. However, they did not want any invasion of privacy and requested a continuous barrier be constructed along their frontage of 165 feet. Tlie planned on leaving town for a vacation shortly and w-ould contact me on June 1, U93 with more detail on their proposed landscape barrier, but have not yet. Their friend is a landscaper and he warned them that trees are available in several classes, i.e. A. B. C, and D. He was sure that the trees that Hennepin Parks had available were not Class A and that those trees would not be acceptable. Tliey wanted evergreen trees (6’ tall Colorado Blue Spruce) planted close together in offset rows such that it would not be possible to walk between the trees. Tliey also requested that we transplant the 4 small pine trees and 1 large deciduous tree located on their property. They were concerned about the increased vehicle traffic on the road and requested an "No turns allowed" sign be placed at their driveway. PARCEL NO. 2 I sent notices to Mr. Dennis niompsoii at his residences in Orono and Minnetonka, on May 20, 1993. I was not able to find his telephone number and have not made contact with him as of yet. PARCEL NO. 3 John Gerhardson and Jeanne Mabusth have had conversations with Ms. Dickey. PARCEL NO. 4 No contact made at this tune. PARCEL NO. 5 1 spoke to Bob Will and he indicated that they were in favor of the trail. However, they did not want any invasion of privacy and requested a continuous barrier be constructed along their frontage of 435 feet. He gave a detailed account of a bicycle race that took place last year along Old Crystal Bay Road. Many of the riders stopped at the top of the hill and rested on his property. Some of them used his hose for water. He is concerned that this fvne of activity will continue when the trait is constructed. He wants a barrier tall enough 50 that the bicyclists cannot look into his bedroom window, but the trees should not grow much more than 10 feet tall. He wants the barrier to discourage anyone from entering his property. He thought that evergreen trees 6 to 8 feet tall that are planted tightly together, located 4 feet behind the trail would be suitable. He wants the trees to be a no maintenance" species and was concerned that a detailed landscaped proposal be prepared for his review. He indicated that if we were not prepared to prepare a landscaping proposal for him, he would contact a professional landscaper for service and send the invoice to the City for payment. He does not know specifically how the landscaped barrier should be built and wants an expert to tell him the best way. PARCEL NO. 6 John, Harlan Olson and I met with Craig Brandenburg on the evening of Monday, May 24, 1993. He indicated that he is not in favor of the trail. We explained the need to remove the trees adjacent to his property and he requested a landscaped buffer be constructed. He indicated that we should plant evergreen trees (Colorado Blue Spruce) every 12 feet on center along his frontage of 230 feet. Also, an offset row' of deciduous trees (2 diameter iMaple or Ash) should be planted along the evergreen trees. Also, some bushes or shrubbery should be planted intermittently. Tlie trees should be planted on top of the bei m on his property. The small existing evergreen trees should either be avoided or transplanted on his property. PARCEL NO. 7 Please see the attached letter from Doug Hile dated May 28, 1993. John, Harlan Olson and I met with Kim Hile on the evening ot Monday, May 24, 1993. I met again with Kim and Doug Hile on the evening of Tuesday, May 25, 1993. They indicated that they are not in favor of the trail, lliey requested more detailed plans than were available. They agreed that to construct the trail along their septic drain field would require a retaining wall. However, they said that they would grant the City an easement for the placement of fill needed to construct the trail to the north of their drain field. Because of this, we were able to eliminate the majority of the retaining wall proposed adjacent to their property. Tliey have requested that we either avoid or transplant the majority of the trees along their property. They requested additional trees be planted and the details are presented in Mr. Hile’s letter. They were concerned about the drainage on their property. By constructing the trail we will be increasing the runoff a minimal amount. By constructing curb and storm sewer we will be shortening the time it takes for water to reach their property. They currently have a drainage problem due to poor grading on their property. They requested that hydraulic calculations be done to accurately predict the amount of additional runoff that will reach their property. Also, we were asked to check the capacity of the existing 22" x 28" corrugated metal arch pipe culvert under Silver Meadow Drive. Also, they asked that the low area on their property be e.xcavated to provide additional storage volume. PARCEL NO. 8 ■An I. -to' John, Harlan Olson and I met with Jim Bailer on the evening of Monday, May 24, 1993. lie indicated that he did not want a retaining wall and would grant the City an easement for placement of fill needed to construct the trail. He requested that any trees removed on his property be replaced with evergreen trees. Also, he requested a hairier of Lilac Bushes be constructed along his frontage of 330 feet. He was concerned about the proximity of the construction to his septic mound system and we said that we would have Mike Gaffron look at the situation. We have not contacted Mike at this time. PARCEL NO. 9 John Gerhardson has contacted the Sehski ’s. Please see the attached letter from Ralph Berman dated April 30, 1993. We have changed the plans to include a retaining wall next to the proposed bridge that will eliminate the need for easements. PARCEL NO. 10 John Gerhardson and I have contacted Mr. Tom Owens, the attorney for VCI Capital Incorporated. PARCEL NO. 11 No contact made at this time. PARCEL NO. 12 No contact made at this time. PARCEL NO. 13 No contact made at this time. PARCEL NO. 14 Property owned by the City of Orono. PARCEL NO. 15 Property owned by the City of Orono. PARCEL NO. 16 No contact made at this time. PARCEL NO. 17 We have met with the Superintendent and members of the School Board and they have agreed to grant the City an easement to construct the trail east of the existing pine trees. We will saw cut their bituminous parking lot when the trail is constructed and dispose of the excess bituminous. Tlie area will be graded and restored as part of the trail project. PARCEL NO. 18 We have contacted the School and they will let us know if the trees on their property should be removed or transplanted. I will contact Mr. A1 Hoskins to determine his decision. PARCEL NO. 19 No contact made at this time. PARCEL NO. 20 We have contacted the School and they will let us know if the trees on their property should be removed or transplanted. 1 will contact Mr. A1 Hoskins to determine his decision. PARCEL NO. 21 No contact made at this time. PARCEL NO. 22 No contact made at this time. PARCEL NO. 23 John Gerhardson has contacted the Otten’s and they have agreed to grant an easement to the City for construction of the trail. PARCEL NO. 24 No contact made at this time. PARCEL NO. 25 No contact made at this time. PARCEL NO. 26 No contact made at this time. PARCEL NO. 27 No contact made at this time. PARCEL NO. 28 Property owned by Hennepin Parks. .j.., - < • • • May 28, 1993 Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. Bonestfoo, Rosene, Axidrelli & Associates 2335 West Highway 36 St. Paul,^fN 55113 Dear Mr. Gustafson: Re: Hile Property at 2790 Silverview Drive, Orono, Minnesota This is in response to your request for some detail of our landscaping needs after the construction of the Old Crystal Bay Bike Trail. Without a wrinen description of the plans for our property, it is difficult to make final decisions about our needs. I have repeatedly asked for this wrinen detail and I do not understand why it is unavailable or delayed. Furthermore, several comments that you made during our conversation on the 26th were inconsistent, including the planned start date of construction. This entire plan continues to be conftising and the initial conversation that you had with my wife about a retaining wall with a chain link fence was inappropriate, given the fact that you quickly discarded that option when you talked with me. You stated that we were "indecisive" about our needs. I have been a successful executive for 20 years and I make decisions after I see all relevant data, not in the absence of facts or details. We arc trying to be cooperative but I resent what seems to be attempts to mislead or intimidate us. My greatest fear is that the people involved in building this trail arc simply incompetent. If we are to assume that the trail will simply wipe out one side of my property, wc expect that adequate foliage would be provided to restore the value and privacy. At a minimum, we would need the following: 15 8' pine trees 15 4" diameter maple trees 10 4* lilac bushes Construction of a birm along my property line, fully sodded, to maintain rural character. Construction of a stone retaining wall along the septic area, to maintain rural character. Our children's swingsci needs to be moved. We w'am to keep ail the existing trees and foliage possible. We would need to have the trail accommodate drainage issues on the property, including the excavation of the pond area at the back of the lot. There docs not appear to be a drainage easement on my survey other than into the pond area. This area is currently overrlowing and the trail Page Two Hilc Property will clearly increase the problem if proper drainage and the excavation are not completed. This is a large issue relative to the impact of the trail on my property value. I continue to request written detail of the plans for my property. I cannot make informed decisions without them. A.DoM^^ilc 27W Silvcrview Drive Orono, MN 55356 612-449-0051 cc: Charles Kelley Edward Callahan J. Diane Goetten Gabriel Jabbour Jo Ellen Hurr TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator June 10, 1993 % Ko % ■V SUBJECT: Goose Relocation Program At its May 24th meeting the Council directed staff to review two items related to the goose relocation program. One was to determine whether there are other areas of the city that may be experiencing a problem with geese and which could potentially requesc funding assistance from the city for a goose relocation program. The second was to determine whether other cities participate in the funding of goose relocation programs that benefit private property. The city recently received a call from a resident on Brackett's Point interested in participating in the goose relocation program. The resident did not request funding from the city but simply wanted to contact the University about participating in the program this year. Although there are other areas in the city where a goose problem could potentially exist the city has not received complaints from any other areas of the city. Several cities in the Lake Minnetonka area participate in the goose relocation program operated by the University of Minnesota. All of the current participation is related to publicly owned property. Pqj. ©xample the City of Minnetonka uses the service for its Community Center property. They do recommend the program to private property owners but they do not participate in the cost. The City of Shorewood entered into a three year agreement with a qroup of property owners through which the city paid the full cost of the program. The agreement expired in 1991. The city has not continued to fund the program since that time. The City of Long Lake funds a goose relocation program for its swimming beach area on Long Lake. The City cf Deephaven pays for the program at several of its parks. The relocation program does benefit adjacent property owners but the city's funding of the program is based on the problem at the park. The City of Plymouth is initiating a program through which they v^xll fund the removal of geese on selected private proper y depending on the number of citizen complaints. % % /7 TO: J /? FROM: DATS: Mayor ar.d City Council Ron Mcorse, City Ad:ninistrator May 21, 1993 r 'X I • SUBJECT:1992 General Fund Budget Year End Summary and Adjustments , ^ j end results show revenues The 1992 General ‘ ^ OO. General Fund revenues were exceeding expenditur-s ^ amount of $3,024,890.00. This at $3,008^,509.00 g ^3q;l qO ^or 99.46% of the budgeted amount, is a dirrerence at $”’ 929,888.00 versus the budgeted 96.9% of the budgeted amount. AS anticipated, even e^endit^res ^o^ one^division did^etceed^ This 'was the* recycling division. The exoenditure overage was due to two items: A.) - 'THf* vsim/ arcre oarticioation andCity clean up days. Tne very _ct^yc m ^ ove^budget For^ l^^^the volum'es will be substantially in 1993. B.)r,iT-hside recycling proaram. Due to the withdrawal of the r/Ssta the expe.ndxture increase aid cause tne -ec/ expenditures to exceed the budgeted amounv.. General accounting indicate level, such as <^he reccing drvrsron ove age curbside the^ r^eKes with the ^dget" set by were off-set mainly by expenditure ”S?ilSL^S*the^srreer;afnterance materials budget item. in order to formalize the Council's authorization In 0^2® leve's a budget adjustment is needed. It is star r^ommendkion that the ^”2 recycling budget f„^n.t^'^^eet”ma!nfent;=°/-m;leriLs fine item and $2,350.00 in the contingency account. 1 L It TO: FROM; Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator M % DATE:June 10, 1993 SUBJECT; Contract for City Recorder Services The agreement and contract with Theresa Naab to record and compose the minutes of the City Council and Commission meetings runs from August to July of each year. The renewal of the contract for 1993/1994 is being brought to the Council early this year due to a request for a change in the contract by Theresa Naab. (Please see the attached letter) . Ms. Naab has requested that the base fee of $115.00 per meeting be charged for the first two hours and that an additional $5.00 be charged for each 15 minutes thereafter. This is due to a trend of longer meetings. Ms. Naab has indicated the initial contract was entered into based onmost meetings lasting approximately 2 hours. In 1992 and 1993 the Council meetings have averaged nearly 3 hours in length with some considerably longer. The time spent by the Recorder includes the time during the meeting to record the minutes and approximately 1 5 times the' length of the meeting to compose and type the minutes. Ms. Naab has indicated that if the requested change is made the base fee will remain the same for the 1993/1994 agreement. She has also requested that the change be made effective as of May 15. It is staff's recommendation that the Recorder contract be renewed with the changes as indicated above. agreement & CONTRACT FOR CITY RECOP-DER SERVICES is mscis 3nci ©nt0iTGd intio 2 . 3 . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of 1993 by and between he City of orono, Minnesota and Theresa L. Naab. I, Theresa Naab, agree to provide City Recorder services subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. I will attend all Park Commission, Planning Commission and Council meetings, record and type up the minutes and return to staff for review; I will attend any special meeting I may be asked to attend for the purpose of recording minutes; The City will pay a $115.00 base fee for each meeting attended for the first two hours, and $5.00 for each additional 15 minutes thereafter. In the event I am unable to attend a meeting, the City will supply a substitute. At their discretion, either the substitute or I will type up the minutes. If I do type up the minutes, the fee will be prorated, based on hours of meeting; In the event that a meeting is cancelled less than 2 hours prior to the meeting because of lack of guoitim, weather, etc., the full rate shall be charged for attendance. This contract shall remain in effect until a 30 day written notice is given by either party terminating saio agreement. This agreement has been executed on the 14th day of June, 4 . 5. 6. 1993. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Theresa L. Naab ApriI 26, 1993 Ren Morse Civy of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ron: This letter is to share a fact with you. Meetings at the old City hall were shorter than they in the comfcrts of our new City hall. Many times meetings ti.at used to take two hours have now gone to four. The problem is the added work load Is reciprocated with equal pay. no longer being My proposed solution is to charge a base fee of $115.00 for the firsl two hours and $5.00 for each additional 15 minutes thereafter, which I wiI I begin to charge May 15. Please to do not hes't^r + a to call if you have any questions. Respect-f u I I y Submitted, X Teri Naab, Recorder f ► % r? TO; FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator /v// June 10 1993 . / SUBJECT; LMCD 199'’ Proposed Budget The LMCD's 1994 proposed budget is attached for Counci? review. In general the overall expenditures show a very minor increase. However, several individual expenditure items have changed significantly. Also the funding sources have changed significantly. The major changes in expenditures are as follows: 1.Thu purt-time technician position has been eliminated for an expenditure reduction of $15,000. 2.A lakeuse density study has been added for an expenditure increase of $15,000. 3 .The Save the Lake program expenditures have increased from $14,000 to $24,000. This increase is proposed to be funded by private contributions. A.lthough the revenue contributed by cities was significantly reduced for 1993 the city's contribution levels have increased nearly to the 1992 level in the 1994 budget. YEAR ALL CITIES QRONO 1992 $170,230.00 $30,165.00 1993 $123,000.00 $21,550.00 1994 $166,500.00 $29,500.00 (estimate) In addition to the change in the city contribution level the use of reserve funds in the administrative portion of the budget has been reduced from $43,432 to $-0-. The use of reserve funds in the Eurasian Water Milfoil program has been increased from $-0- to $27,000 . The LMCD has invited city administrators to a meeting to discuss the budget on Monday, June 14th. If any member of the Council would like me to follow up on any specific questions or issues at this meeting please call me by noon on Monday. did LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT I : i : May 28, 1993 .4,TO: City Administrators FROM: E:<ecutive Director Gene Strommen^^^^^^P^4^ - JUM SUBJECT: Preliminary Draft Budget Review Jm' ^ 'si# < ^ The 1994 LMCD pre!iirinary draft budget has been presented tc the board May 26 for its initial review ana comment. Th»» Orel iminary draft as reviewed and by the board is offered for city staff and mayor/counci1 review ana comment. It has been our oractice the past two years to invite city administrators to meet with the executive^aiadministrators to meet witn rae ?o dIJLl with the puns supporting the budget. the budget to their mayor/counci1. available meeting time to meet witn i. j 1:30 pm, Monday, June 7 LMCD Office Room 160 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata An effort will be made to qi«tions?^coimentI. by phone the week ot June 1 fct SSI,, yes All are otherwise encouraged J7th are or now, IS 'f9t:estea. Tnose “f;:r ?hf date if that is better. As a reminder,^ your “|?°2dootion^of this draft the LMCD board oeiore to the budget after it is budget =iT"^^‘i^'bero”e"july 1. It is possible th«rwi?l b^adjustments in t.he adopted version. 1 , . V 1 1 he calculated as the adopted Thanks for your response and participation. 1 ,iitji*rzrjLisHea£s««i lake MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1994 Preliminary Draft Budget revenue 1 LMCD Communities Admn Levy 2 Reserve Fund Allocation 3 Court Fines 4 Licenses & Permits 5 Interest, Public Funds 6 Shoreland Rules. DNR City Grants 7 Shoreland Rj.es, DNR Consultants 8 Other Income SubTotal. Administration la) Income Prepaid at 80% in 1992 9 EW Milfoil Program a City Contributions b Other Public Agencies c Private Solicitation d Reserve Fund Allocation ft Interest .. SubTotal, EW Milfoil 10 Save ine Lake Program: a Private Donations b Interest Sub Total, Save the Lake 11 TOTAL REVENUE disbursements ADMINISTRATION Personnel Services: 1 Salaries 2 Mgmt Plan Impl/PT Tech. 3 .Employer Benefit Contributions 4 Total Personnel Services Contractual Services: 5 Office Lease & Storage 6 Professional Services w.v" 1992 1992 1993 Budget Actual Budget tr>ovJk)C OO$107,230 $60,000 $0 $0 $43,432 $38,000 $46,347 $45,000 $85,000 $138,595 $117,300 $8,000 $14,336 $7,000 $20,000 $16,000 $0 $10,000 $8,000 $0 $0 $15.$0 $268,230 $330,523 $272,732 1994 Budget $103,500 $0 $45,000 $112,000 $6,000 $4,000 (a) $2,000 la) $272,500 7 Total Contractual Services • **V Office 4 Administrative: 8 Office, General Supplies 9 Telephone 10 Postage 11 Printing. Publ. 12 Maintenance, Office Equipment 13 Subscriptions, Memberships 14 Insuiance, Bonds 15 Mileage, Expenses, Training 16 Total Office Ik Administration $63,000 $ 170,000 $17,000 $0 IQ $250,000 $63,000 $0 $25,512 $0 $17,722 $106,234 $63,000 $57,280 $7,930 $0 $5,700 $133,910 $63,000 $0 $30,000 $27,000 $6.QQQ $126,000 $0 $0 $0 $9,054 $4,193 $13,247 $10,000 $4,000 $14,000 $20,000 $4,000 $24,000 $518,230 $450.004-$420,642 $422,500 $104,500 $0 $17,0QQ $106,643 $0 $18,777 • $105,700 $15,000 $18,000 $106,150 $0 $19,600. $121,500 $125,420 $123,700 $125,750 $10,130 $5.55Q $10,461 $4,926 $10,482 $5,550 $ 11,600 $5.4QO $15,680 $15,387 $16,032 $17,000 $3,300 $2,350 $4,000 $4,500 $1,700 $20C $5,200 iZJiQQ $3,888 $2,043 $3,082 $1,682 $1,480 $235 $4,804 $4,000 $1,600 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $200 $6,000 $2,500 $4,300 $2,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $250 $5,000 $3JIQO $23,750 $19,345 $23,300 $23,550 Cipital Outlay: 17 Furniture, Equipment 18 Total Capital Outlay Legal 19 Legal Services 20 Prosecution 21 Process Service 22 Total Legal Contract Services/Studies 23 Shoreland Rules, DNR Consultant 24 Shoreland Rules, DNR City Grants 25 Lake Use Density Study 26 Wetland Inventory Mapping 27 Public Information, Legal Notices 28 Public Access Studies 29 Mgmt Plan Implementation Studies 30 School District Boater Ed. Program 31 Total Contract Services/Studies 32 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION CONTINGENCY/MISCELLANEOUS 33 At approx. 5% of Admn Budget 34 TOTAL ADMIN, CONTINGENCY Eurasian Water Milfoil (EWM) Weed Harvesting Program 35 Barge Service 36 Trucking 37 Personnel 38 Equipment Ins., WC Ins, FICA, 39 Opn,Supplies,Fund Raising 40 Contract Services 41 Contingency (at approx. 5%) 42 TOTAL EWM OPERATIONS 43 SAVE THE LAKE PROGRAM 44. TOTAL ADMN, EWM, S/L EXPENSE 1992 Budget 1992 Actual 1993 Budget 1994 Budget $2,000 $4,423 $5,000 $3,000 $2,000 $4,423 $5,000 $3,000 $18,000 $25,000 $300 $16,095 $30,011 $30 $25,000 $27,000 $2QQ $20,000 $30,000 $200 $43,300 $46,136 $52,200 $50,200 $10,000 $20,000 $12,000 $1,500 $3,000 $4,000 $0 IQ $3,075 $3,000 $14,750 $0 $100 $1,435 $0 $^ $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $2,000 $27,500 $5,000 $2,000 $4,000 $15,000 $0 $2,000 $0 $30,000 $Q $50,500 $22,360 $37,500 $53,000 $256,730 $233,071 $272,732 $272,500 $11,500 $0 $0 $0 s;:;;, $268,230 $233,071 $272,732 $272,500 $ 114,000 $32,000 $45,000 $31,000 $16,000 $0 $12,000 $0 $20,956 $25,363 $19,113 $16,847 $0 $ 12,8^ $0 $35,280 $43,560 $9,040 $30,400 $9,250 $6,360 (Detail follows close of 1993 season) $250,000 $95,176 $133 910 $126,000 $0 $14,000 $24,000 ' $518,23.0 $420.64,2 $422.500 EWM EQUIP. INFORMATIONAL: Reserve Fund a Accrued for Equipment Acquisition $50,000 $50,000 lotus.budget94 3/24/93 Jl HV .f Deephaven Excelsior Greenwood Minnetonka Mtka. Beach Minnetrista Mound Orono Shorewood Spring Park Balance for 13 cities 6/28/91 lake MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT met TAX CAPACITY 1992 Budget Distribution of Expense admin SHARE OF $107,230 ^ OF TOTAL net TAX CAPACITY 6,303.113 2,538,336 1,247,268 67.249,959 1,728,106 5,367,482 7,148,129 14,378,759 8,070.339 1,913,039 7.78 3.13 1.54 20.00 2.13 6.62 8.82 17.72 9.95 2.36 Tonka Bay 2,909,85?3 . by Victoria 2,362,547 2.91 Wayzata 8,816,260 10.87 Woodland 2,097,909 2.58 Totals Less Mtka. 132,131,lUJ ( 67,249,959 ) 100.00 64.881,144 8,343 3,356 I, 651 21,446 2,284 7,099 9,458 19,001 10,669 2,531 3,850 3,120 II, 656 2,766 EWM SHARE OF $63,000 TOTAL SHARE OF $170,230 4 , 901 13.244 1,972 5,328 970 2,621 12,600 34,046 1,342 3,626 4,171 11,270 5,557 15,015 11,164 30,165 6,268 16.937 1,487 2,262 1,833 6,848 1.625 To77l30 63,000 4,018 6,112 4,953 10,504 4,391 170,230 "i . ittr r .1 I ■ • til ■ • .ar^B nf-naa I ra n—naMdalXai laiaIr. i r i ■i LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Eurasian Water Milfoil Control Program Proposed 1993 Budget 1992 Actual Salaries (and positions as Project Manager (1) Field Supervisor (1) Asst Supvr/Asst Mech (1) Harvester Operators (4) Conveyor Operators (2) Access Maint Helpers (2) projected for 1993) - 360 hrs @ $ 18/hr - 490 hrs @ $ 12/hr ... 440 hrs @ $ 10/hr ... 440 hrs @ $9/hr ... 440 hrs @ $7/hr - 400 hrs @ $6/hr Total Salaries Employee Benefits Workers Comp Insurance FICA Expense Total Employee Benefits Contract Services Mechanic - Eq.Repair Service @ $17/hr (plus mileage) Specialty Mechanic Contingency Aquatic Plant Survey (provision for 1993) Chemical Control (Diamond Reef) Aerial Surveys Program Evaluation 1992 Total Contract Services Administrative / Fundraising Clerical Services Contingency Telephone (long distance charges) Postage (fundraising mailings) Printing (fundraising) Office Supplies Public Information (film,empl.ads,video) Legal Expenses Committee Expenses (food,bev,mtg rooms) Uniforms (shirts,water shoes,gloves) Mileage/Travel Expenses Equipment Insurance (boats,suburban,harves' vrs) Total Administrative / Fundraising $7,237 $18,126 $25,363 $5,563 $1,940 $12,897 $0 $30 $1,063 $933 $236 $525 $152 $0 $274 $188 $8,209 $11,610 1993 Budq $6,480 $5,880 $4,400 $15,840 $6,160 $4,800 $43,560 $4,200 $3,300 $7,503 $7,500 $5,346 • $4,750 $0 $2,000 $3,281 $2,000 $460 $0 $110 $500 $3,700 $0 $9,250 $1,000 $200 $1,500 $450 $250 $300 $400 $200 $350 $250 $1,540 $6,440 •( • • • i EWM CONTROL PROGRAM BUDGET, 1993, P. 2 Field Operaiions Fuel, Harvesters/Work Boats Fuel, Service, Supplies (Suburban Equipment Supplies,Maintenance, Fuel Tanks (Harvesters/Work Boats) Total Field Operations L days'^6/21-8/20) (§) 2 X 8 hrs est. $45/hr X 704 hrs = Total Truck Service SUBTOTAL, Program Operations Contingency Funds Contingency @ 5% of program . > ^ncn^L: PROG j^iyi^ 0CPENSES5^ii|^:;v::ii^^-^-^ - REVENUES: LMCD Community Contributions Agency Matching Grant Hennepin Cons. District Private Solicitations interest TOTAaRiyENUE^^lti'^'-^"^ ■V VNX;. A ... ' •'V >•'V 'v!; -s.- •. i . > ■■ - •V ' > ♦Operations share of interest Reserve Fund . Reserve for Equipment Acquisition 1992 Actual 1993 Budg $3,302 $0 $13,545 $5,500 $1,500 $18,500 • $16,847 $25,500 $20,956 $35,280 $20,956 $35,280 $95,176 $127,530 $0 $6,380 ,:-^l?:$95,i7a 133,910^ $63,000 $63,000 $0 $25,512 $17,772 $57,280 $7,930 $5,700 * «• ' C»106,284 "5:;F^^;;^^;$133.910^ .Vv •*- ' • $50,000 $50,000 lo(ui:twin93b -‘-j 1 ’- a’; . ' ..'1 .............— ■ ^ Ad LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT QOO EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 160 • WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 • TELEPHONE 512-A73 7033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR May 28, 1993 eOARDMEMBER, David H. Cociiran. Chair North Shore Charters Toa.pZ^.‘’c^a., 3222 No. Shore Drive Tonka Bay Wayzata, MN 55391 Douglas E. Bateock, Secretary Scon"iZ:%e^su,e. Greetings, Charter Boat Licensee: We are pleased to present your 1993 charter boat registration for operation on Lake Minnetonka. e encourage you to display this certificate. VOIIT- charter boat operation is recognized by the LMCD Board"orDi^c?ors L providing laVo The District is pleased that you take rne cime and investment to attract “ wide range of people can en^oy this valuable lake resource. Minneirista Mike Bloom Minnetonka Beach Albert (Bert) Foster Oeephaven James N Grathwol Excelsior JoEllen L. Hurr Ofono William A. Johnstone Minnetonka Duane Markus Wayzata George C. Owen Victoria Robert Rascop Shorewood Tom Reese Mound Robert E. Slocum Woodland Please alert all pilots to maintain minimum wakes during no™” charter operation, in order to vi'it on Lake Minnetonka an enjoyable, quality experience Avoid making large wakes while en route at fas P to pickup points. received%a!?s''?rom^tieL''reSid^ pointing cut that they have been disturbed by "party boat" noise. 4-ina cooperaSon in this mattar.will help us avoid creating farther ordinance restrictions in this regard. Please forward copies of any pilot license renewals «al'expirrdur?nrthe sLson. A self-addressed envelope is enclosed for this purpose. Qimilarlv should your insurance coverage expire the seaso^, tSat rLew.l certificate should be provided promptlye o 1-he citv of Wayzata advised the LMCD that theyRecently tne city ot y i,«o of the Wayzatawill no longer be issuing permits for use or still LAKE f 1INNET0NKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Charter Boat Licensee, Page 2 The LMCD urges the following guidelines when using the Wayzata public docks; A.Advise advance-booked patrons to park in the City's free municipal parking ramp at the rear of the Carisch Building- between Broadway and Walker streets. The Depot parking lot should not be used* Most cxty streets have limited parking with time limits and are not recommended for charter patron use. B.Advise catering services to avoid tying-up limited space while unloading, using the space only for the time during which supplies are being moved to or from the charter boat (approx. 15-30 minutes). C.Check with the Wayzata Chamber of Commerce, 473-9595, regarding dock-use dates to avoid conflicts with chamber or city special events. The Lake Use and Recreation Committee has concluded that=i;ssi IlSel 1=1= & season. LMCD Chair Dave Cochran and Lake Use Committee Chair Bert Foster join in wishing you a successful charter season. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Fuger^^R. Stromraen Executive Director enc; certificate, envelope c/enc;Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol City where berthed -Orono City of Port of Call - Orono b! Foster?"LMCD Lake Use £ Recreation Chair ■ : ■,- ■ ____ ■ ■■i 111 III I — llllI Mflflll 'S*SStSS»^i^i52E5SZ7;S2^i^^S2?Si^:?2^v^^' T .... ...I II ,.. L^( ,;'\Vear_i92l -/:^P V ilAKEpNNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT •■ •: •% v’;. r^ri?TirirATr: 0F CHARTER BOAT REGISTRATION ■'>L .'•V'V ^,.,, ''llili;, .&'■•■/- i 77 ■'*’. ■ ■' ■'■j/iijii . :!' ’i'.''‘ “•:•» 'r■ '• '■' :0' Sv‘jili*.' .f9j^4jL^.'f r^0f*S ^ f 4 ^ < f/Tx* . V » A* 3 f ^ :». f. <7^., ^ /. PI ' !■—■WI II H.I ' mu** »**"”**" ^* " * J***** ■■**■^•1 ITJ WJgy. ■■■^liwi Wia^iwf "si-V lake MINNETONKA conservation district .............................. * *' 'V'- i .- ••'■-: - >f.NVS ««i I/I UfMO l« U I * 05/26/93 \ lake MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRI^ cc-aQi 900 E.^yzata Blvd, ^S^te^l60, Wayzata MN 55391 l.m.c.d. meeting schedule JUNE 1993 Tuesday 6 Friday Saturday Tuesday Friday Wednesday Administration Conmittee Subconnnittee Meeting 5:00 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata Water structures Lake inspection Tour 5:00 - 9:00 PM 7?30^am?^#13^Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Lake Use & Recreation committee 7too pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata wayzata Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force 0:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Administrative 6:00 pm. Tonka Bay City Haxi LMCD Board of Directors Meeting 7:30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall Mr/MTG93.<nm I To:Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilrnembcrs Ron Muorse. City Adniinistraior \ J From: Date: Subject: Michael Gaffron. Assistant Planning & Zoning AdministratfJ^ June 11, 1993 City nf Independence - Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Sewer Expansion - Request for Letter ot Approval List of Exhibits A - Proposed l^etter Drafted by City oi Independence B - Draft Revised by Staff C - Cover Letter and Summary of Proposed Amendment The City of Independence is proposing to provide municipal sewer to areas around Lake Independence and Lake Sarah. This project uses existing planned capacity in the Maple Plain interceptor which carries the sewage from Maple Plain to the Long Lake pumping station on Orono Orchard Road. In order to expedite tlieir Comprehensive Plan Amendment through the Met Council, Independence is asking the six adjacent cities to fonvard a letter to Met Council indicating no impact on our plans, policies, or systems and urging Met Council to expedite tht amendment process tor Independence. Without this ’e’>er, their City Engineer indicates the process will be held up approximately six weeks and they will lose valuable construction time. In discussing this with Glenn Cook, the only impact on Oroi.o would be if, at .tome time in the funire, Orono reverses its past position and wants to use capacity in the inrerceptor. Council may recall that the City of Orono fought to keep that inrerceptor dow n-sized to eliminate fumre capacity for Orono. However, it is conceivable that, with commercial expansion along the nonh side of Highway 12. the City might one day want to have the option of using the interceptor that we argued so strongly against. On the t)ne hand, sending a lener stating there is no impact on Orono could come back to haunt us in the future if we w'anted to make use of whatever capacity might be availaole in that pipe. Conversely, sending a message that we might want to use that pipe in the fumre would undoubtedly raise some eyebrows at Met Council, and signal a change in philosophy that realty has not txrcurred. It would seem prudent to itidicate that we have no problem with the project as it has no apparent impact on our current plans, policies or systems, as long as it docs not require upgra-'it. ^ '^f interceptor capacities downstream of Maple Plain (i.c. in Orono). .Stall has drafted a revised letter for Council approval. •rll City of Independence-Sewer Expansion June 11. 1993 Page 2 Options 1. Send the letter as revised by staff. 2. Send the letter as drafted by Independence. 3. Send no letter. 4. Other. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Option I [r [« Mav 18. 1993 Ms. Lynda Voge Referrals Coordinator Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East 5th Street St. Paul. MN 55101-1634 Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment E.xpansion - Independence Wastewater Collection System Dear Ms. Voge: We have reviewed the proposed Conprehensive Plan Amendment for the City of Independence - Wastewater Collection System Expansion. Wc have determined that the proposed amendment has no potential impact on our plans, policies or systems. Wc funher urge the Metiopolitan Council to expedite the Comprehensive Plan Amendment review process in order to prevent funher environmental degradation and public health hazard. Sincerely, Citv of (3rono // il o o ^ • t JS CITY of ORONO Municipal OfTW«s pfKt Oflice B<ix 66 Cr>!itJAl Bi»>. MinmsoU 55323-0066 June 11, 1993 Ms. Lynda Voge Referrals Coordinator Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East 5th Street St. Paul. MN 55101-1634 RE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Expansion - Independence Wastewater Collection System Dear Ms. Voge: We have reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan for the City of Independence - Wastewater Collection System Expansion. We have determined that the proposed amendment has no potential impact on our current plans, policies or systems. We support the amendment as long as it does not require upgrading of interceptor capac.ty downstream of Maple Plain through Orono. We further urge the Metropolitan Council to expedite the Comprehensive Plan Amendment review process in order to prevent further environmental degradation and public health hazard. Sincerely, Edward J. Callahan, Jr, Mayor EJC/lsv TtLLP!l< - 4T.V735^ • • 473-Q510 CITY OF HENNEPIN COUNTY MAYOR—Marvin D Johnson CLERK/TREAS—Mary L Letmz Mav 18, 1993 COUNCIL MEMBERS Charles P Anderson LeRoy E Haglund Leverne M Vassar Jim Osh ’3 Lynda Voge. Reterrals Coordinator Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East 5th Street St. Paul. MN 5510M634 Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Wastewater Collection System Expansion Dear Ms. Voge: Enclosed please find the required information for an amendment to the Independence Comprehensive Guide Plan. The amendment increases the number of connections to Medina s sanitary sewer system by 135 units. The amendment does not change any guided land use. population density or rural area policies. Due to the severity of the current environmental problems, expediency is ot premier importance. We are asking all reviewing governmental'agencies ;md communities to submit comments immediatelv in order to facilitate construction in the summer of 1993. The amendment is being distributed to adjacent communities a* agencies with this letter. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call Loucks & Associates. Inc. at 612/424-5505. Ver>’ truly yours. CITY OF INDEPENDENCE . MarNin Johnson Mayor MJ/cms cc:Independent School Districts No. 278. No. 879 Cities of Corcoran. Greenfield. Maple Plain. Medina. .Mmnetrista, and Orono Pioneer Creek W.D. Crow River W.D. Hennepin County Soil Conser\ation District 1790 COUNTY ROAD 90. MAPLE PLAIN MlfiNESOTA 55359 — PHONE (612) 479-052 1 I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. >jponsoring governmental unit: Name of contact persons: Address: Telephone: Name of preparer: Date of preparation: B. Name of Amendment: City of Independence Mary Leintz. Clerk 1920 Countv' Road 90 Maple Plain. MN 55359 479-0527 Loucks and Associates, Inc. May 7, 1993 Independent Wastewater Collection System Description The Cit>' of Independence is proposing the addition of 135 units to the existing 201 sepiirate collection system constructed in 1986. The wastew ater project will add 24 housing units outside the current MWCC sewer service region. The other 111 are located within the current MWCC sewer service area. The 111 units comprise 190 acres, the 24 serve approximately 120 acres ot residential land. An area of 640 acres in size, the southern half ol Sections 25 and 26. is proposed to be eliminated from the present MWCC sewer service region. The overall result is a reduction of 330 acres of MWCC sewer service area within the City. One hundred fifteen new connections are in the Lake Sarah drainage basin. Ot these parcels, most are substandard lots of record within 1,000 feet ot the lake shore. Twenty (20) connections are proposed south of Lake Independence, ail within the existing MWCC sewer service area. Background On April 9, 1985. the Cities of Medina. Independence, and Greenfield entered into an agreement, herein referred to as the Tri-City Agreement. Tlie purpose of the Tri-City Agreement was to establish parameters by which Independence ;md Grecnlicld could construct a septate collection system to reduce identified pollution problems resulting from poorly tunctioning on-site septic systems on and around the shores of Lake Independence and Lake Sarah in Independence and Greenfield. Connection to Medina's Sanitaiy Sewer System was the only viable alternative. The Tri-City Agreement allowed the Cities of Independence and Greenfield to discharge into Medina's Independence Beach Trunk Line, the septate from up to 154 single family dwelling lots. At this time. Independence has connected 97 of its allocated units. Greenfield has coiuiected 52 homes with a reserve of five vacant lots. The system was initially put into operation on March 12, 1987. It wa.s built under an MFCA Treatment Works Grant. The grant limited project funding to only those homes with failing systems. M:my homes w’ith marginal systems were not included in the Cit>’ of Independence project because of this limitation. Justification of Needs .Additional connections are needed in the Cit>' of Independence to prov ide suitable sanitary sewer to existing residences and platted lots. Many of these residences have failing or no systems at all. As homes are built on existing lots of record, they will have the opportunity to connect to the system rather than add to the pollution problem of Lake Sarah and Independence. According to a memo from Carolyn Dindort', Limnologist with the Hennepin Conservation District, dated Januaiy 3, 1992 (attached), project staff for the Lake Sarah Clean Water project reviewed information and conducted surveys to determine if septic systems are a source of pollution to Lake Sarah. Available information indicates that failing septic systems are a source of pollutants to Lake Sarah. The Lake Sarah Clean Water Project staff mailed a survey to residents around the lake to gain additional information about their septic svsten; Many ot the systems are old and not maintained.- They indicate that there are several homes which still use outhouses for their sewage system and there are areas which can t meet the separation distance to the water table and where there is no space for a mound system. Several septic systems are located between the lake and the house, increasing their potential as pollutant sources to the lake. The soils maps and information about the seasonally high water table in the area of Lake Sarah in the City of Independence, were reviewed for suitability for septic systems. Most of the soils around the lake have a seasonal high water table within one to three feet of the surtace. ITie soils are unsuitable tor septic drainilelds. According to the Pioneer/Sarah Creek Watershed Management plan, the majority of the soils surrounding the lake are unsuitable for even mound svstems. An evaluation of the results of the Lake Sarah Clean Water project by MPCA staff suggests that most of the ground water input into the iake is from near shore areas. These are the areas that are likely to be affected by failing septic systems. .A laboratory report shows high phosphorus concentrattons (.2 -.5 milligrams/liter) i . in the subsurface samples. The majority of this phosphorus is likely to be from septic systems. Summan of Request • ** The Cit>' of Independence has identified the need to provide sewer service to an additional 135 parcels. Many of these parcels have existing homes with failing systems that jeopardize the water quality in Lake Sarah and Lake Independence. Others are existing platted vacant lots which are on or a short distance from the lafce. The third category is a special condition propeny located at the Shady Beach Resort. A report prepared by the Lake Sarah Clean Water Project states that the soils and water tables around Lake Sarah make the area noncondusive to septic systems. The system expansion is endorsed by the Lake Sarah Home Owner's Association. There is adequate capacity in the existing system for the additional connections. Existing and Proposed Connections The Tri-City agreement assigned the City of Independence 97 connections to the system and the City of Greenfield 52 connections for total of 149. The City of Greenfield also has allocated capacity and services to five vacant lots. There are three types of properties considered for connection to tlie existing system. Many of these connections can be made by direct connection to the existing system. Others require tlie construction of additional system improvements. Connections bv Category 1.Existing residences which are not connected to the sv'stem. but operate with an on-site septic system or no system at all. 2.Existing platted vacant lots adjacent to the existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities. a.Special Condition - platting of Shady Beach Resort. Connection Tvpe and Number Developed lots utilizing private systems Vacant platted lots of record 99 31 Special Condition - platting of Shady Beach Resort (4.5 acres into 5 lots) Total 5 135 C. D. Svstcm Extensionsm Infrastructure improvements are required in order to provide the proposed service. In the North Lake Sarah area of Independence new lateral lines will be built along Lake Sarah heights Drive and Feni Drive. All other connections will be made by cutting into e.xisting ser\dces on adjacent parcels to avoid pavement disturbance. An additional pumping station will be added near the point where Lake Sarah Heights Drive and the railroad right-of-way meet to assist the homes west of there which have difficulty pumping against the head in the existing system. All of die system, including the installation of individual pumping tanks, pumps and service connections, will be installed immediately as part of a single project, the cost of which will be assessed to the benefitting properties. ATTACHMENTS What is the official local status of the proposed amendment? % A public hearing was held on the Wastewater Feasibility Study, April 13. 1993. Plan Amendment - Acted upon by Planning Commission, May 25, 1993. Plan Amendment - Approved by the City Council, May 25, 1993. 'Die following adjacent governmental units have been sent copies of the plan amendment on May 21, 1993. City of Corcoran City of Maple Plain City of Greenfield Pioneer Creek Watershed District School District No. 278 Hennepin County Soil Conservation District City of Medina City of Orono City of Minnetrista Crow River Watershed District School District No. 879 II. IMPACT OW REGIONAL SYSTEMS A.Wasiewaier Treatment 1. Change in city’s year 2000/2010 flow projections. __ No/Nci Applicable. X Yes. What will be the net change? How were these calculated? 35.750 tzallon/dav. calculated at 275 gal/dav per family Community discharges to more than one metropolitan interceptor. X No/Not Applicable. __ Yes. Indicate which interceptor will be affected by the amendment and what will be the net changes in flows? B. Transportation 1.Relationship to Council policies regarding metropolitan highways, V No/Not Applicable. Yes. Change in type and intensity of land uses at interchanges and other locations within a quarter-mile of the metropolitan highway system? X No/Not Applicable. Yes. 3. Impact on e.xisting trip generation, X No/Nol Applicable Yes. 4.Capacity of road network to accommodate planned land use(s) (including metropolitan interchanges). No/Not Applicable. Yes. ♦ ? \ c. 5. Impact on transit and parking strategies, X No/Not Applicable. Yes. 6.Does the proposed amendment contain any changes to the functional classification of roadways? (These changes require Transportation Advisory Board (T.\B) review.) X No/Not Applicable. Yes. Describe which roadways. Aviation i. Impact on regional airspace. X No/Not Applicable, Yes. Impact on airport search area. X No/Not Applicable. Yes. 3. Consistency with guidelines for land use compatibility with aircraft noise. X No/Not Applicable. Yes. 4.Consistency with the long-term comprehensive plan for an airp *1 in the vicinitv of the community or proposed development. X No/Not Applicable. Yes. D. Recreation Open Space 1. Impact on e.xisting or future federal, state or regional recreational facilities. X No/Not Applicable. Yes III. IMPACT ON METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK A.Land Use 1. Describe the following, as appropriate; a. b. c. d. Size of affected area in acres 310 Existing land use(s) Residential ^undeveloped Proposed land use(s) Residential e. f. Number of residential dwelling units and types involved 130 existin g lots of record plus 5 lots to be platted Proposed dcl:^’tv No change Proposed squa e footage of commercial, industrial or public buildings N/A ___________________________________— B.Change in tlie city ’s population, household or employment forecasts tor 2000, or anv additional local staging contained in the original plan. X No/Not Applicable. Yes. C. Change in the urban sen. ice area boundary of the community. X No/Not Applicable. Yes. D. Change in the timing and staging of development within the urban service area. X No/Not Applicable. Yes. IV. IMPACT ON HOUSING A. Impact on the supply and affordability of housing types necessaiy to sen e persons at ditTerent stages in the life cycle. X No/Not .Applicable. Yes. Impact on the supply and affordability' of housing ty pes necessarv ’ to sen e persons at varying income levels. X No/'Not Applicable Yes. C.Impact on the community's numerical objecti\es for low- and moderate- income, modest-cost market rate, and middle- and upper-incom.e housing units. X No/'Not Applicable. Yes V. WATER RESOURCES A.Does the plan amendment affect a Minnesota Department of Natural Resoiu-ces or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers protected wetland? If yes, describe type of wetland affected and show location on a map. X Yes.To protect Cake .Sarah and Lake Independence surface water No. B. Will the wetland be protected? X Yes. Describe how.Connectinti 135 housing units to the existing septate system, removing existing residences from failing private septic systems.. ___ No. E.xplain why not._________________________________________ Will the plan amendment result in runoff which affects the quality ot any surtace water body? If yes, identify' which ones. _ Yes. X No. Will the water body be protected? X Yes. Describe how. See attached No. E.xplain why not. VI. IMPLEMLNT.ATION PROGR.VM A. C’nange in zoning, subd vision, on-site sewer ordinances or other official controls. ___Nc.'Noi Applicable. X Yes. The City of Independence will be updating its Comprehensive Plan in the summer of ld93. Prior to this revision, the City will apply National o Urban Runoff Program (Ts'URP) standards for the design of new storm water ponds and the MPCA’s Best Management Practices (BMPs) titled Protecting Water Oualirv in Urban Areas for any proposed development occurring in the City to reduce nonpoint pollutant loadings related to storm water runoff. The City has incorporated these standards as part of their controls to implement this policy in accordance witii the revised plan amendment. Final adoption of these standards will be implemented by December 31, 1993. The City will also work with the Department of Natural Resources to adopt the revised shoreland regulations consistent with the DNR’s schedule of priorities. Memorandum TO: DATE; FROM: SUBJECT; Tom LoucJcs. Loccks and Associates January 10. 1992 Carol;m Dindorf. Limnologisi. HennepLn Conser/adon District Sepdc Systems Around Lake Sarah Project staff for the Lake Sarah Clean Water Project have reviewed information and conducted surveys to help determine if septic systems are a source of pollution to Lake Sarah, Although the surveys are not fully completed, some information is available to in^cate that failing sepdc systems are a source of pollutants to Lake Sarah. Soils maps and information about the seasonally high water table in the area of Lake Sarah. Independence and Greenfield, were reviewed for suitability for septic systems. Most of the soils around the lake have a seasonally high water table within I to 3 feet of the surface. These soils are unsuitable for septic drainficlds. According the the Pioneer-Sarah Creek Watershed Manage.me.nt Plan, the majority of the soils yuTOunding the lake are unsuitable for even mound systems (see Figure 1). A field survey was conducted to determine if there is ground water flowing into Lake San^. A mini well was used to pull water samples from beneath the bottom of the Lake along the shoreline at various sites. Field measurements of surface and subsurface water samples differed, indicating that ground water flow direction was into the lake on both the north and south sides of the lake. Tnere are areas interspersed around the lake where subsurface flows are not e.xpected to be high due to tight clayey soils. .An evaluation of the results by .MPC.A staff, suggests that most of the ground water input to the lake is from near shore areas as indicated in Figure 2. These are the areas that are likely to be affected by failin g septic systems. Tne laboratory report shows high phosphorus concentrations (.2 to .5 mg,'L) in the subsurface samples. The majonty of this phosphorus is likely from septic systems. Project staff mailed a survey to residents around the lake to gain additional jiformation about their septic systems. Many of the systems are old and not maintained. We are aware that there are several homes which still use outhouses for their sewage system and in areas where they can ’t meet the separation distance to the water table and where there is no space for a mound system. Several septic systems are located between the lake and the house, increasing their potential as pollutant sources to the Lake. I believe that septic systems are a source of pollutants to Lake Sarah, Additional evaluation and monitoring is planned to bener identify the ground water/sunace water interactions. _1 I ! ! i I » I t t I 1_L- ••ri ^ “ iffa I • I I AREA PROPOSED FOR 115 ^ 1 i ♦* ;s-'ll H • t ^ - o3%i=x> ?1 X « !' I n I I.AREA PR0W sEDJ*^0R;2P^N6W-U V •• N ,r - I J I • -1 t jf JT- I !•• i< I J *J I r-^ j^iiiai -------------—u " ‘‘A5 ‘-ll0P /j!,,'ig r * Tn II »*«A^ 'll ‘^|T X] AGRICULTURAL ^ COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ^ RURAL RESIDENTIAL CITY OF INDEPENDENCE /.I\*tscJU LAND USE ALLOCATION < \ /I- 'i . „ 1 1 --\~T \tH 'k I t 1 1 t I i h/ ' la!II • •f*’ I I I I “ t- Xx: - ') # ini111 ; I .V 1 1 1 J]f lU-r A” \ \ u (i!i5 »:♦! ^ittin IM I I A' ■ ICI «l> I II ' I i I.r_. >L. J__1 •••‘L! f!f.Jh WPI— I —'^4 V V Ai im ■:♦ 'f:'?!*’; U.l^_. A W»%'>i . *1 IVJ S KrJIa^K Ifiiai • till II i\ •• I'iuri 1^1 tm»0% !••»« I I I i I I i I I I I I I I I I I T I ( I 1 I o O "0 130>o •* DOme/)ma ;i*:o sm H Do K> \'iS^V \2l ) § Hi sog T1 C/)m $m j) o 51 C/)m 30 O _j Z»_ “0 30o -0o (/)mo "O 30o TJo (/)mo m X w H Zo zm TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator June 9, 1993 Ordinance Amendment Related to the Ground Fuel Storage Tanks X % r'- ' Location Above The City Code currently requires a 50' side and rear property line setback for above ground fuel storage tanks. This requirement is based on the traditional fuel storage tanks which do not have any structural fire protection. The new concrete enclosed storage tanks have a one to two hour fire rating. The Uniform Fire Code enables these types of tanks to be located within 15' of a property line The Council at its May 24th meeting approved an ordinance amendment allowing fuel storage tanks with a minimum of a cne hour fire rating to be located within 30' of a side or rear property line. The amended ordinance reflecting the Council's action is attached for formal approval. ORDINANCE NO.SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 9.34 ADOPTED APRIL 1, 1984, AND ENTITLED "FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION." The City Council of Orono ordains: Ordinance No. 9.34 adopted April 1, 1984, and entitled "Fire Protection and Prevention" is hereby by repealed and Ordinance No. _ _ _ , Second Series is adopted. Ordinance No. and Prevention." Second Series Entitled "Fire Protection Subd. 1. Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Adopted. The Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, 1982 Edition (MUFC), is hereby adopted as though set forth verbatim herein. One cop/ of said Code shall be marked CITY OF ORONO - OFFICIAL COPY and kept on file in the office of the City Clerk and open to inspection and use by the public. A. Restriction on Flammable or Combustible Liquid Storage. 1. Prohibited Districts Established. Pursuant to MUFC Sections 79.501 and 79.1001, the Council hereby declares all land located within the following specified zoning districts to be the districts within which the storage of flammable or combustible liquids in aboveground tanks is prohibited: R-IA, R- IB, RR-lB-1, RS, LR-IC, LR-lC-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, M-6 and PRD. 2. Aboveground Tank Locations. In those districts not included in Item 1 above, the storage of flammable or combustible liquids in aboveground tanks is permitted provided such tanks are located in conformance with MUFC Sections 79.501 and 79.1001, and with the following: (a) No such tank shall be located in any required front yard space as defined in the Zoning Chapter. (b) No such tank shall be located within 50 feet of any side or rear property line unless it has a minimum one hour fire rating. A tank with a minimum one hour fire rating may be located within 30 feet of any side or rear property line. (c, No such tank shall be located within 75 feet of any lake, wetland, stream or drainageway unless such tank is diked in accordance with MUFC Section 79.508. The minimum setback for a diked tank shall be 30 feet from the lake, wetland, stream or drainageway. This ordinance becomes effective from and after its publication. Passed by the council this 14th day of June, 1993. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk A RESOLUTION DEDICATING KELLEY PARKWAY IN MEMORY OF LES KELLEY WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a community of distinction because of rsity of land, lake and wetland areas of natural beauty, and WHEREAS, it is the City of Orono's goal to protect the natural ^/(^uty of the community, and WHEREAS, in order to accomplish this goal the City must call upon its citizens to volunteer to serve the City in various capacities, and WHEREAS, Lester Kelley was appointed to the Orono Park CommlBslon in January of 1977, and WHEREAS, during the time Les served on the Park Commission substantial park land was developed, skating rinks were constructed, swimming beaches were established and a bike/hike trail was designated, and WHEREAS, Les offered direction and guidance to the community as a resident, businessman, school board member and Park Commission member, and WHEREAS, in recognition of Les Kelley's dedicated service to the community the Orono City Council has taken action to name the roadway serving the Orono municipal facilities Kelley Parkway. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orono City Council does hereby dedicate Kelley Parkway to the memory of Les Kelley in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the community. Adopted this 14th day of June, 1993. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor A RESOLUTION DEDICATING THE ORONO POLICE FACILITY TO THE MEMORY OP HINTON BURMASTERWHEREAS, Winton (Wimp) Burmaster served the public as a police officer for 28 years. He served the Orono Police department as a patrol /officer from 1962 to 1976, as a Sergeant from 1976 to 1900, and as an » Assistant Chief of Police from 1980 until he retired in the spring of 1986, and WHEREAS, during Winton's career his professional, caring demeanor endeared him to the public that he served and the officers that he supervised, and WHEREAS, he was a positive asset to the community, a good neighbor ana a friend to all who knew him, and WHEREAS, Winton was respected and admired by those officers who served with him. His kindness and professional guidance will never be forgotten by the officers who served with him, and WHEREAS, the Orono Police Benevolent Association unanimously requested that the Orono City Council dedicate the new Police facility to the memory of Winton Burmaster, an officer and friend who sincerely cared for the community where he served and lived. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orono City Council does hereby dedicate the Orono Police facility to the memory of Winton (Wimp) Burmaster in recognition of the outstanding example he set for the department both peisonally and professionally during his many years with the Orono Police Department. Adopted this 14th day of June, 1993. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor L. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Ron Moorse, City Administrator i John Gerhardson, Public Works Director c % % %Position Evaluation and Salary Adjustment - Gregg Palmer June 10, 1993 Gregg Palmer began employment as a maintenance worker in the Public Works Department on May 21, 1990. His staning salary was Level 5, Step 1. In the past four years, Gregg has become familiar with all operations of the Public Works Department and has acquired the necessary certification and licenses in sewer collection systems and waste distribution systems. Gregg has a very good attitude and is an excellent employee. Therefore, I recommend to adjust Gregg Palmer’s salary to Step 4, Level 5 of the Orono Compensation Plan effective May 21. 1993. LIST OP LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MEETING OP JUNE 14, 1993 Raffle Permit - Methodist Hospital Foundation Home of H. Kahler Event being held by invitation only July 30, 1993 Septic System Installer - D. S. Enterprise Fuhr Trenching t N Special Event -Gear West Duathlon Orono High School Run - Bike - Run June 20, 1993 20 Minnesota Lawful Gambling Applic8.tion for Exeniption from Lawful Gambling License i__-------------- Fitl in me unshaded portions of tf>/s application for exemption and send it in at least iS days before your gambling jcr-v iy for praaiss.n^. Name and Address qf Organizatioii—-----" c-frfertofev,ou$ Orgamzaoon Narr« I Methodist Hospital Foundation_ _ : V-971 1 VQ'-’.-OCl __________ --------- Slate Zocooe StfMI ^ ES 21354 ■ Co^Fry ( * liennopin __ P*>ore6500 Excelsior Dlvd. St^. Louis - - -- Johnson (612)932-5023 Davi(^A^_^qBLn ----->932-5023. fi/peofNdnrpr^drgtutization ? Check the box below which indicates your type of organization □ Fraternal □ fleiigious C Veterans C Other non-profit Gomiitina^te___ o( site wrwe acov^ty mil taKa piaca Home of H. Kahler Attach proof of nonprofit status which shows that your organization is nonprofit C IRS designaoon □ Cerofscaoon of good standing from the Minnesota Secretary of State's office C Affiliate of parent nonprofit orgenization (charter) StTMt City.............. 2725 Rainey Rd. Orono Dated) of acoviiy July 30, 1993 Types of G€unes •Townanip Stal# Zip cocp 55391 Coonty Hennepin ;• X.. ■ raffle Finaneiat Report Netpeolit MitalVetue etWtee Bingo Raffles Paddlewheeis Tipboards Pull-tabs I declare all information submitted ro the Gambling Control Division is true, accurate, and complete. PkMbmt fcomiebow (ipn^ e»emnef« teas pwebased •m: Chief executive offleer’a signeture lacai Cooemment AcknowledgementLocal CovemmontACKnawicu^nw^____ -itt ————-------- I foawd « copy ol ffwi «p(XicaJion Thit pmLb>t me activity. A which to dIuBcMr the acBvrty. City or County_______ City Of oountv name 30 day* of the date IBIed Township Townsh^g.{l^me Signature of >;€H^on receiving applicaoon Title Data received emam ' e««' e is ^>ysre<SMW • V. •me mwm fV~7W.Jr. Mail with $25 permit fee and copy of proof of nonprofit status to; Deoartment of Gaming - GamolingControl Dtvision Rosevnood Pfaza South. 3ra_i cor Date received ^ • * A RESOLUTION GRANTING GAMBLING PERMIT FOR METHODIST HOSPITAL FOUNDATION BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Orono agrees to approve the gambling permit application for the Methodist Hospital Foundation for a one day operation, July 30, 1993, at the home of H. Kahler, 2725 Rainey Road, Orono. The above listed resolution was moved by _ _ and duly seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: •phe following Councilmembers voted in the negative: above resolution was duly adopted on June 14, 1993. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk iii_ _ _ -GlTYofOUONO SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLERS (612) 473-7357 LICENSE APPLICATION Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 All qu#»stions must be answered. License fee, bond, certificate of irsurance, and evidence of MPCA Certification must be attached. All applications are subject to a ten (10) day approval period. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Business or trade name 0. s.4 n '^Cf Business address capo L. s------- Business phone ^,2 Q Residence phone Name of applicant or company representative holding MPCA certification [^iJcxn^(srcK^ Installer PumperType of certification held: Certificate expiration date __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Have you ever held a Septic System Installer license in Orono before? Most recent year _______ Have you ever had a license revo)ced? /V<r3 Where? -------------------------- ---------------------------- When? Do you do Municipal Sewer hook-ups? Yes No _ Do you pump out septic tanks? Yes _ _ _ _ No CITY OF Qr<D^•Q FlrJAUCE OFFICE 1311500000 50,0 V SUBMITTALS REQUIRED: ruprfi Ji “RECEIFT-rmK YOU , H2J3S00 cool ROl^ T(^S l/C'I, $50.00 License application fee. 05/l>. 2. $2000.00 license and permit bond naming City of —> obligee. The State Plumbers Bond will not be accepted. y 3. $50-100-300,000 minimum Certificate of Insurance. 4. Copy of current MPCA Certificate. LICENSES WILL NOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE SUBMITTED List persons other than applicant who are authorized by you to apply for permits under your license —_ ___ _ _ _ _- ■ -- - -* The undersigned hereby makes application to the City of Minnesota, for a license to install and repair septic ®ys » and/or pump out septic tanks, subject to the laws of the State of Minnesota and the Ordinances of the^€1^ of ~ Date ^^ 93 Applicant's Signature CITY USE ONLY Staff recommendation Approval Reason for denial: Denial Date City Council Action Date Date license mailed _ _ _ Approved Denied CITY of ORONO SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLERS (612) LICENSE APPLICATION Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay# MN 55323 All questions must be answered. License fee, bond, certificate of insurance, and evidence of MPCA Certification must be attached. All applications are subject to a ten (10) day approval period. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Business or trade name Business address ^ \ <%c\ W > a ’Vo - SiSo 3 Business phon^C o^aN Residence phone _ Name of applicant or company representative holding MPCA certification _________________________________________ _______ PumperType of certification held: Installer _______ Certificate expiration date ________ Have you ever held a Septic System Installer license . Orono before? Most recent year ________ rrwAi^'r Xrr^rr t U*l t iui. ? TM C"f*.i w*l i ^V/VVWHave you ever had a license revo)ced? c> Where? _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ When?-i *r;<X tfUl t IL Do you do Municipal Sewer hoolc-ups? Yes Do you pump out septic tanks? Yes _ _ _ _ No No 50.00 50.00 EIPT-fMA^K YOU 'i T15:: vw/ k. # X •-W _I ^ I. UA.1 r-Ai v.”iy TfI >U’ I V wwvi l<\/^ It SUBMITTALS REQUIRED: 1. $50.00 License application fee ^4. $2000.00 license and permit bond naming City of Orono ^ obligee. The State Plumbers Bond will not be accepted. $50-100-300,000 minimum Certificate of Insurance. 6-/3-^ Copy of current MPCA Certificate. LICENSES WILL NOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE SUBMITTED List persona other than applicai^ who are authorized by you to apply for permits under your license ^ q,C-Q>- C-Vxwc;.^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ The undersigned hereby makes application to the City of Orono, Minnesota, for a license to install and repair septic systems, and/or pump out septic tanks, subject to thelaws of the State or Minnesota and the Ordinances of the City^^[]^rono. Date Cg - Applicant's Signature 3^*-^ CITY USE ONLY Staff recommendation Approval Reason for denial: w Denial Date City Council Action Date Date license mailed Approved Denied Date: To: From: Subject: June 3, 1993 Ron Moorse, City Administrator Steve Sullivan, Chief of Police Special Event Application Gear West Duatblon j )iave reviewed the application submitted by Jan Guenther on behalf of the Gear West Duathlon. This race is scheduled for June 20, 1993. As we have not experience any problems in the past with this event, I have no objection to the issuance of this permit. — 2«T* e ~r » ' ^1.CITYof ORON Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323• Municipal Offices • “"-I^RON^On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka data PRIVAC7 ADVISORY I„ accordance with M S. 13.04, Subd 2^ ^Rights ^ data", we would Ixke of its deoartaents may require furnish oer^ai^ “private or confidential inforaation.private You are notified that: 1 The inforaation you furnish will be used to determine your ciaimcation for the^^permit or license requested. 2. YOU may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. f;der^r a^t°=i:rt^“\hTLrenfn%”ess:if t^p^’cesr?^ /e“i*t « license. 4 If your recuested permit or license re^es Council action to approve, some information may become publxc. 5. you have certain rights under M.S. 13.04 to review private data on yourself. 6. Your full name is required to process this application or permit. w L- Middle Last Address 'cit.Y/ Phone cyh*^ Gd State Zip I understand my rights as stated above CULDINC a ZONING - 473-7357 assessing AD-MINISTRATION a finance - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 47 3-735 9 GEAR WEST SKI & BIKE P.O. Box 457 1985 W. Wayzata Blvd. Long Lake. MN 55356 nui Njmg: AAAn Clty/StMts: n 1- t J ♦ .. f ' • » . -4 4 >- ft-- t* ».*,« K * ^ . »¥V » ...V •' - * . - fl«r M F Pi lilirciiriy 2Zl# i I«!4 proMHy tril«44. 1 44r«« to m¥ido ¥y mny docfi^o of m rt^o p«l«civa to my •^ill4y to ••4#ly eontoioto th# ru»» or Vlfc< rac#» I ••♦Mm# •!! H#lt# ooooototodwktH rufiiilM III thi# Ificlu^ln# bill 9^0% llftilf#^ to: foil#. c^XBCX with othor portlClp##t#. th# 4 ^ Sh/ i##*h^«clM4l"4 h#4* m>*d/or humMIty. trmffic, rood comdtUono, •!! •ucK rioko MiM kn#wfi mnd •fpr*eU«#4 l»y mo. HMviNM rood «hl» »#lv«r and kfi#w»«« t**ooo facto and U* <0N«i^«r«tt#n of your ' rmlmmmm Hoar Hoot 9kl A PIk# and #il OJOOnooro. t^.<P «#pr4».'#wk#*lv## and ouCGOOOoro #f#m #11 cl#fm_# and ll•P•ll»^•• •rl«li»4 #u* of my p4rtlelp#»»#n l" »*»»• orort vhou#h kH#t ll••lll•y m#y «ri## of •••llpMtic* or c#r«l«»0n##* on tho part or tho poroono namod is thf# mairor. SenJ to: (5EAR WE5T SKI & S\KE • PO Sox 467 • Lori0 Ljke. MN 56366 *• .-V *WE5T MmuH tun*73-0093*’'*•'* bjk0|_4l^ run du^thlon. Doth runo folloiv tho Mmo courto»0 |r«oo and grovel poth Mfhtch windo into tho wood# bohind Orono School. Tho biko routo cireloo Dokor Pork ond lo hilly «nd oconlc. Do^innoro and ollto racoro Mfill onjoy tho couroo. % WHERE) Orono Hlfh.S.Cihool (20 min. woot of Minnoopolio) Tako Hwy. 594 (Hwy. 12) woot throufh Lon# Lake. Torn N off 12 onto Old Cryatal Day Road. Tho hl^h achool la tho 2nd building on tho loft. WHEN) Sunday* Juno 20th, D:50am atart (wavo atart If nocoaaary). Radiator by mall ualn^ tho ontry form on tho back, or rofiator in poraon oithor at Goar Woat in Lon^ Lako (475'0099) or at Eiito Wavo In Minnotonka (Juat aouth of Dyoriya at Rld^odalo) (549-5070). Pro?ro^latorod.racora may pick up packota on raco day from 7*Dam at raco alto, or at Goar Woat from 10-5 on Saturday tho 19th. Paco day roflatratlon from 6:50-D:00am. HOW MUCH) 120.00 boforo Juno 12th. $27.00 aftor Juno 12th. Mako chocka payabio to Goar Woat Ouathlon. WHY) LOTS OF FUN) T-ahirta ANP food! Awarda for tho top malo and fomalo finiahora and for tho top 5 mon and womon In oach (10 yoar) a^o ^roup. RULES) Holmota ro<^utrod. DIko chocka aro optional at Goar Woat. MORE INFO) Pro-raco bIko rido on Saturday, Juno 12th at Goar Woat. Call Goar Woat for more Info; 479-0095 —MiHfiism pmmtf sbrus GEAR WEST Ouathlon le part of tho 1993 MInnoaota Ouathlon Series. Other races are: • Oakdalo. May 22 (612) 759-5150 • Puluth, July 24 (600) 452-2664 • Spicor Valloy. Aue. 21 (507) 559-9767 • AppIo PwMthion. Sopt. 16 (612) 656-0065 SOOHSOKSom mm—i/4ee. M/e esA/e, o/efiA/#^, eetHeef- wmma* cYeimQ* •ntMUNo aiMo mi cMhm *«ratek«o. IimtI rata moiilMro •SuM wpla cai nHio cM tar« •Oaktaya H-L^ aad MORII 12995 Pld|odalo ur. Mtka • 549-9070 Of»ii M-MQ.a r Oat KM / Qaatt-o DOMINOES PIZZA GIANT BICYCLES PROnLE GREAT HARVEST ’B^R 9 oa awiM i iMur tmt 1 % O' uCOUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED. MAY 28. 1993. 8:41 PMCHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT28117 <•> 1993/05/26 84,281.00 84.281.00* 28188 <*> 1993/05/26 8133.56 8133.56* 28189 <•> 1993/05/26 867.77 867.77* 21190 <•> 1993/05/28 88.951.54 88,951.54* 28191 <•> 1993/05/26 82,646.54 82,646.54* 21192 <*> 1993/05/26 836.585.38 836.585.38* 21193 <»> 1993/05/26 81,111.00 81.lie.00* 28194 <*> 1993/05/26 8991.84 8991.84* 28195 <•> 1993/05/26 $146.50 $146.50* 28196 <•> 1993/05/28 $164.00 $164.00* 28197 <*> 1993/05/26 830.00 830.00* 28198 <•> 1993/05/26 $350.00 $359.00* 28199 <•> 1993/05/26 $498.72 $498.72* 28200 <•> l993/05/?‘$1,279.36 81.279.36* 28201 <•> 1993/05/26 85.59 $5.59* 28202 <• > 1993/05/26 82.769.71 82.769.71* 28203 <• > 1993/05/26 8100.00 8100.00* 28204 <•> 1993/05/26 8112.69 8112.69* . . . . . . . . . . . . DESCRIPTION CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION W/H & TRANSFET'ED COLONIAL LIFE INS ACCOUNT po number invoice NO NUMBER 9999-2030 000294 9999-2030 000301 9099-2030 000300 PM# IMANUAL INS w/.; COfWERCIAL LIFE INS INS W/H FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LA WITHHELD FEDERAL TAX/MEOC 9999-2030 000295 FIRST NATIONAl BANK OF LA CITY SHARE FICA/MEDCR 9999-2030 000298 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LA NET PAYROLL TRANSFER GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE DEF COMP W/H GROUP HEALTH PLA i W/H INS 5/23 A e/8 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPOR: A MARK THOMT3N IC0288780 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT A DALE SKREEN 900262310 ICMA RETIREMENT fRUST-457 W/H DEF COMP LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SER W/H UNION DUES MED CENTER HEALTH PLAN W/H INS 5/23 A 6/6 MEDICA CHOICE INS W/H MINNESOTA BENEFIT INS W/H MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE STATE TAX W/H MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF C W/H DEF COMP PEBSCO/OBRA w/H DEF COMP 9999-2030 000293 0999-2030 000311 9909-2030 000303 9999-2030 000308 9999-2030 000307 9E90-2030 000309 9999-2030 000306 9999-2030 000304 9999-2030 000302 9999-2030 000305 9999-2030 000299 9999-2030 000312 9999-2030 000314 4^( .COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED. MAY 26. 1993. 8 41 PM p«9« 2CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNTNUMBER INVOICE NO PONUMBER MANUAL 2I20S <*> 1993/05/26 $643.46 $643.46* PEBSCO/US CONE OF MAYORS W/H DEF JOMP 9999-2030 000313 28206 <•> 1993/05/26 $54.00 $54.00* PERA LIFE INS INS W/H 9999-2030 000298 IP 28207 <•> 1093/05/26 $3,504.60 $3,504.60* PERA PERA W/H 9999-2030 000297 IP 28208 <•> 1993/05/26 $21.00 $21.00* $64,455.26* UNITED WAY CHARITY W/H 9999-2030 000315 IP I' n o /^r\COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED. JUN 9 . 1993, 9:22 PM pagtCHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNTNUMBER INVOICE NO PONUMBER MANUAL28212 <•> 1993/06/14 S14.22 S14.22* AT&T TELEPHONE 0549-4320 000621 OH 28213 <•> 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 $128.10 S60.00 $188.10* ALL STAR PRO GOLF CO ALL STAR PRO GOLF CO GLOVES GLOVES 0591-4801 0591-4801 56318 53075 OH OH 28214 <•> 1493/06/14 $25.00 $25.00* AMERICAN NATL BANK PAYING AGENT FEE 0907-4630 000653 OH 28215 <•> 1993/06/14 $50.00 $50.00* ASSN METRO MUNICIPS MTQ 0039-4356 000619 OH 28216 <•> 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1963/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 $42.65 $28.64 $28.64 $28.64 $28.64 $28.64 $185.85* AT & T INFO SYSTEM AT & T INFO SYSTEM AT & T INFO SYSTEM AT & T INFO SYSTEM AT & T INFO SYSTEM AT A T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROC DATA PROC DATA PROC DATA PROC DATA PROC DATA PROC 0129-4340 0059-4340 0069-4340 0129-4340 0174-4340 0249-4340 000620 000620 000620 000620 000620 000620 OH OH OH * OH OH OH 28217 <*> 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 $36.00 $51.08 $47.26 $134.34* AUGTES MOBILE CHEF AUGIES MOBILE CHEF AUGIES MOBILE CHEF COFFEE SANDWICHES SANDWICHES 0591-4802 0591-4802 0591-4802 19799 000618 762 OH OH OH 28218 <• > 1993/06/14 $5,631.64 $5,631.64* BLACKOWIAK & SON LEAF BRUSH REMOVAL 0265-4348 000622 OH 28219 <•> 1993/06/14 $145.00 $145.00* BLACKOWIAK & SONS TRASH 0295-4348 102486 OH 21220 <•> 28221 <• > 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1903/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 $847.49 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN $100.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN $506.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN $240.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN $175.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN $82.50 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN $480.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN $271.85 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN $1,195.17 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN $619.55 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN $2,050.20 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN $1,034.00 $7,601.76* BONESTROO ROSENE ASN $24.55 BUDGET PRINTING $30.29 BUDGET PRINTING $220.99 $275.83* BUDGET PRINTING $250.00 $250.00* BUREAU OF ALCOHOL-TOBACCO ENG CONSULT MARCH ENG RETAINER MARCH CONTOUR MAPS REBILL HM)OT ENG CONSULT MARCH DNR PERMIT APPLIC WELL 93 FOX ST DNR PERMIT MWCC TURN BACK PROJ MSA GENERAL MARCH INSPECTION MARCH FRONTAGE RO INSPECTION MA WATER TOWER INSPECTION MA WILLOW DR RECON REVIEW SUPPLIES POSTAGE REPORT COVERS & INDEXS 0140 0200 0200 0200 0549 0249 05690249 0408 0486 0438 0351 4305 4304 4305 4305 4305 4305 4305 4305 4306 4306 4306 4305 024251 024251 024258 024258 024258 024258 024258 024259 024260 024261 024262 024263 0174-4210 36458 0129-4321 36521 0069-4322 36550 0590-4383 000652 OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH oCOUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED, JUN S. 1993, 9:22 PM e page 2lECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNTNUMBER INVOICE NO PONUMBER MANUAL28223<*>1993/06/14 610.92S10.92*CELLULARONE TELEPHONE 0249-4320 000624 OH21224<•>1993/06/14 622.70622.70*CHESWICK/GARY MTG 0129-4356 000625 OH2822S <*> 1993/06/14 640.00 640.00* CHUNKS OARAGE REPAIR 0129-4341 3253R OH 28226 <•> 1993/06/14 6325.00 6325.00* CITY OF ST PAUL CONF 0129-4356 029689 OH 28227 <•> 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 621.62 684.20 6105.82* CITYVIEW PLHBQ A HTQ CITYVIEW PLMBQ A HTG PARTS PIPE 0590-4343 0590-4343 14042 14048 OH OH 28228 <*> 1993/06/14 6308.91 6308.91* COLONIAL LIFE INS CO INS 0129-4152 000623 OH 28229 <*> 1993/06/14 1903/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1003/06/14 617.99 630.25 667.67 66.99 621.41 62.02 62.63 60.85 61.05 6160.76* COMMERCIAL LIFE/ORP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/ORPcommercia; life/grp COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/ORP COMMERCIAL LIFE/ORP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/ORP JUNE INS JUNE INS JUNE INS JUNE INS JUNE INS JUNE INS JUNE INS JUNE INS JUNE INS 0039-4152 0069-4152 0129-4152 0174-4152 0249-4152 0549-4152 0590-4152 0590-4152 9001-1298 000626 000626 000626 000626 000626 000626 000626 OOP626 00j626 OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH 28230 <•> 1993/06/14 620.45 620.45* CUSHMAN MOTOR CO PARTS 059ft 423?59102 OH 28231 <•> 1993/06/14 674.45 674.45* CYS UNIFORMS UNIFORMS 0129-4221 58908 OH 28232 <•> 1993/06/14 1903/06/14 621.11 65.00 626.11* OEMBOUSKI/JAY DEMBOUSKI/JAY MTG PARKING 0129-4356 0129-4381 000627 000627 OH OH 28233 <•> 1993/06/14 641.04 641.04* DISCOUNT STEEL INC STEEL 0249-4232 2469 OH 28234 <•> 1993/06/14 6294.15 6294.15* DODD TECHNICAL TONER LASER PRINTER 9001-1261 17252 OH 28235 <•> 1993/06/14 65,265.00 $5,265.00* E-Z RECYCLING MAY FEE 0295-4392 00653 OH 28236 <•> 1993/0C/14 645.00 645.00* E.S.O. COMPANY INC SHARPEN CLIPPIRS 0249-4232 4715 OH 28237 <•> 1903/06/14 6750.00 6750.00* EARL W DAY A SONS REFUND SAC FEE 9001-2226 000628 OH o o OCOUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED. JUN 9. 1993, 9;22 PM pagt 3CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR ACCOUNT PODESCRIPTION NUMBER INVOICE NO NUMBER MANUAL 2923S <•> 1993/06/14 8124.00 8124.00* EAST SIDE BEVERAGE BEER 0591-4815 214972 OH 28239 <*> 1903/06/14 864.86 864.86* FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL PART 0569-4232 1556 OH 21240 <•> 1993/06/14 81.000.00 81,000.00* GOLF CAR MIDWEST GOLF CART RENTAL 0590-4331 000630 OH 21241 <*> 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 814.44 8128.12 888.S8 842.11 877.53 8350.78* HAMEL BUILDING CENTER HAMEL BUILDING CENTER HAMEL BUILDING CENTER HAMEL BUILDING CENTER HAMEL BUILDING CENTER SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 0290-4231 0290-4343 0290-4343 0290-4343 0290-4343 76087 76850 77562 77691 77729 OH OH OH OH Oh 21242 <•> 1993/06/14 85.55 85.55* HAPPYS POTATO CHIP CHIPS 0591-4802 238294 OH 28243 <•> 1993/06/14 81,791.00 81.791.00* HENN CTY FIN DIV MARCH ROOM & BOARD 0080-4358 001092 OH 28244 <•> 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 87.64 87.64 87.63 87.63 87.63 838.17* IMS/MN IMS/MN IMS/MN IMS/MN IMS/MN INK ROLLERS INK ROLLERS INK ROLLERS INK ROLLERS INK ROLLERS 0039-4210 0069-4210 0249-4210 0174-4210 0569-4210 14094 14094 14094 14094 14094 OH OH OH OH OH 28245 <•> 1993/06/14 845.00 845.00* INNOVATIVE MICROQRAP COPIES 9001-3500 12037 OH 28246 <•> 1993/06/14 $108.38 8108.38* J C MARKETING GOLF BALLS 0591-4800 2009 OH 28247 <•> 1993/06/14 862.30 862.30* JIM HATCH SALES CO VESTS 0249-4221 2492 OH 21248 <•> 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 890.61 89.41 815.68 8115.70* KUEHN, THOMAS KUEHN, THOMAS KUEHN, THOMAS MILEAGE MAY MILEAGE MAY MILEAGE MAY 0069-4381 0174-4381 0569-4381 000651 000651 000651 OH OH OH 28249 <•> 1993/06/14 863.90 863.90* LAMBERT SOD SOD 0590-4343 000633 OH 28250 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 8220.00 8409.00 81,203.00 8579.00 8781.00 821.00 893.00 8114.62 LOQIS - SUITE LOGIS - SUITE LOQIS - SUITE LOQIS - SUITE LOGIS - SUITE LOGIS - SUITE LOGIS - SUITE LOGIS - SUITE 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 APRIL SERVICE APRIL SERVICE APRIL SERVICE APRIL SERVICE APRIL SERVICE APRIL SERVICE APRIL SERVICE DATA PROC/DISK SPACE JAN- 0549-4352 0569-4352 0069-4352 0129-4352 0174-4352 0039-4352 0039-4355 0039-4355 AR0493 AR0493 AR0493 AR0493 AR0493 AR0493 AR0493 AR0493 OH OH OH OH OH OHOH OH • • oCOUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED. JUN 9 , 1993, 9:22 PM 9 1CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNTNUMBER INVOICE NO PONUMBER MANUAL2t2SO<•>1993/06/141993/06/141993/06/141993/06/141993/06/14 S966.51 $3,270.80 i248.01 $58.70 $208.17 $8.172.81*LOOTS - SUITE 300 LOQIS > SUITE 300 LOOTS • SUITE 300 LOOTS - SUITE 300 LOOTS - SUITE 300 DATA PROC/DISK SPACE DATA PROC/DISK SPACE DATA PROC/DISK SPACE DATA PROC/DISK SPACE DATA PROC/DISK SPACE JAN- 0069-4355 JAN- 0129-4355 JAN- 0174-4355 JAN- 0549-4355 JAN- 0569-4355 AR0493AR0493AR0493AR0493AR0493 OHOHOHOHOH 21251 <•> 1993/06/14 $48.00 $48.00* LONG LAKE FAMILY PRACTICE HEPATITIS SHOT 0129-4306 000631 OH 21252 <•> 1993/06/14 $78.85 $78.85* LONG LAKE GLASS REPAIR 0249-4341 16211 OH 28253 <•> 1993/06/14 $1,519.74 $1,519.74* MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT REPAIR SWEEPER 0249-4341 34547 OH 2S2S4 <•> 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 $6,931.00 $1,061.00 $7,992.00* MALLOY KARNOWSKI CO MALLOY KARNOWSKI CO AUDIT PAYMENT 92 AUDIT PAYMENT 92 0020-4300 0549-4300 21672H 21672M OH OH 21255 <•> 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 $1,479.92 $2,000.32 $1,103.48 $813.00 $542.00 $458.16 $271.00 $258.12 $387.20 $7,313.20* HEDICA CHOICE HEDICA CHOICE MEDICA CHOICE MEDICA CHOICE HEDICA CHOICE MEDICA CHOICE HEDICA CHOICE HEDICA CHOICE HEDICA CHOICE JUNE INS JUNE INS JUNE INS JUNE INS JUNE INS JUNE INS JUNE INS JUNE INS JUNE INS 9001-1298 0129-4151 0039-4151 0249-41510069-4151 0174-4151 0115-4151 Uj49-4151 0569-4151 1931401 1931401 1931401 19314011931401 1931401 1931401 1931401 1931401 OH OH OH OHOH OH OH OH OH 21256 <•> 1993/06/14 $44.73 $44.73* MIDWEST BSNS PROD CORKBOARD 0129-4210 528161 OH 21257 <•> 1993/06/14 $506.52 $506.52* MIDWEST MACHINERY INC KNIVES 0249-4232 18753 OH 26251 <•> 1993/06/14 $36.22 $36.22* HXNN COMM TELEPHONE 0249-4320 000636 OH 21259 <•> 1993/06/14 $24.98 $24.98* MN BENEFIT ASSN INS 0129-4152 000635 OH 21260 <•> 1993/06/14 $31.50 $31.50*MPLS OXYGEN CO DEMURRAGE 0249-4232 370329 OH 21261 <•> 1963/06/14 1993/06/14 $244.42 $55.61 $300.03* MTI DIST CO MTl DIST CO GUARD RAIL PART 0590-4343 0590-4232 334313 334654 OH OH 21262 <•> 1993/06/14 $35.68 $35.68* NORTHERN AIRGAS PARTS 0129-4232 20211 OH 21263 1993/06/14 $264.46 NSP UTILITIES 0549-4324 000638 OH P*9« * o o oCOUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED. JUN 9. 1993, 9:22 PMCHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR page 5DESCRIPTIONACCOUNTNUMBERINVOICE UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES 0099-4324 0590-4324 0249-4324 0290-4324 0569-4324 003638 000638 000638 000638 000638 ST LIGHTS 0249-4325 000637 LEGAL CONSULTING MARCH LEGAL RETAINER MARCH LEGAL CONSULT MSA BIKE/Hl LEGAL B & D GARNISHMENT LEGAL CONSULT MARCH LEGAL CITY HALL LAND ACQU 0080-4303 0080-4301 0359-4303 0080-4303 0408-4303 0480-4303 367765 367765 367765 367765 367765 367765 PRINT TICKETS PRINTING 0590-4322 0174-4322 100176 100257 PERA 5/10-5/23 9999-2031 000639 CANDY & CIGS CANDY 0591-4802 0591-4802 41804 41819 CONE L VEE 0039-4356 000634 FILM DEVELOP FILM FILM DEVELOP 0129-4210 0129-4210 0174-4210 3767960 3768051 3761171 JULY FEE SUPPLIES 0059-4307 0059-4210 000629 000629 GASOLINE GASOLINE 9001-1260 0590-4220 000640 000642 REPAIR REPAIR REPAIR 0129-4341 0129-4341 0129-4341 000641 44243 44430 PART 0590-4232 9799 STAMPS 0039-4210 L728I63 PONUMBER MANUAL 1993/06/14 $1,362.01 NSP1993/06/14 $82.58 NSP 1993/06/14 $170.20 NSP1993/06/14 S33.68 NSP <•> 1993/06/14 $1,073.09 $2,986.02* NSP 28264 <•> 1993/06/14 $1,141.68 $1,141.68* NSP 21265 1993/06/14 $328.69 POPHAM HAIK & ASSOC1993/06/14 81,258.98 POPHAM HAIK & ASSOC1993/06/14 $110.50 POPHAM HAIK & ASSOC1993/06/14 $204.00 POPHAM HAIK A ASSOC1993/06/14 $32.00 POPHAM HAIK & ASSOC <•> 1993/06/14 $496.40 $2,430.57* POPHAM HAIK A ASSOC 21266 1993/06/14 $830.40 PRAIRIE OFFSET <•> 1993/06/14 $73.82 $904.22* PRAIRIE OFFSET 28267 <•> 1993/06/14 $4,623.64 $4,623.64*PUBLIC EMPL RET ASSN 2I26I 1993/06/14 $60.60 REED VENDING <•> 1993/06/14 $61.00 $121.60* PEED VENDING 21269 <•> 1993/06/14 $300.00 $300.00* REGISTAR U OF MINNESi 21270 1993/06/14 $12.24 RITZ CAMERA1993/06/14 $116.92 RITZ CAMERA <•> 1993/06/14 $10.02 $139.18* RITZ CAMERA 21271 1993/06/14 $5,840.00 ROLF E ERICKSON <•> 1993/06/14 $16.32 $5,856.32*ROLF E ERICKSON 21272 1993/06/14 $1,884.00 ROLLINS OIL CO <•> 1993/06/14 $481.87 $2,365.87* ROLLINS OIL CO 21273 1993/06/14 $188.49 RYAN FORD1993/06/14 $408.67 RYAN FORD <•> 1993/06/14 $100.00 $697.16* RYAN FORD 28274 <•> 1993/06/14 $12.31 $12.31*SCHARBER A SONS INC 2827S 1993/06/14 $49.55 SCHWAAB INC OHOH OHOH OH OHOH OH OH OHOH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OM OHOH OH OH COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WEL. JUN 9. 1993, 9:22 PM p«gt 6HECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNTNUMBER INVOICE NO PONUMBER MANUAL<■>$49.S5‘ 2S276 <•> 1993/06/14 83,222.00 $3.222.00* SECOND CHANCE UNIFORMS 0129-4221 0031683-lN OH 28277 <•> 1993/06/14 8485.82 8485.82* STA-SAFE LOCKSMITHS DEADBOLTS & LOCKS 0549-4343 1367 OH 2827S <•> 1993/06/14 8770.20 8770.20* STRQAR ROSCOE FAUSCH TH 12 STUDV-APRIL 0209-4306 0011561-14 OH 21279 <•> 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 $39.16 847.85 850.83 835.50 $173.34* THE LAKER THE LAKER THE LAKER THE LAKER AO AD AD AO 0590-4323 0039-4323 0174-4323 0200-4323 000632 000632 000632 000632 OH OH OH OH 21210 <•> 1993/06/14 856.45 856.45* TRI STATE PUMP PART 0569-4232 8923 OH 28211 <■> 1993/06/14 8541.39 8541.39* TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO REPAIR GARAGE DOOR 0099-4343 18482 OH 28282 <•> 1993/06/14 8166.90 8166.90*U S WEST CELLULAR TELEPHONE 0129-4320 000643 OH 28283 <•> 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 8255.60 843.13 8208.73* ULTIMATE AWARDS ULTIMATE AWARDS PLAQUES PLAQUES 0129-4210 0039-4210 2859 2860 OH OH 28284 <*> 1993/06/14 1693/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1003/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 1993/06/14 $251.63 853.78 885.28 842.63 880.58 885.28 885.73 812.70 829.84 8106.17 8141.90 8984.61* US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE ADV 0129-4320 0175-4320 0039-4320 0069-4320 0174-4320 0059-4320 0249-4320 0540-4320 0569-4320 0590-4320 0590-4323 000650 000650 000644 000644 000644 000644 000644 000044 000644 000644 000644 OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH 28285 <• > 1993/06/14 830.80 830.80* WALTERS LINDA MILEAGE 0069-4381 000647 OH 28286 <•> 1993/06/14 8317.73 8317.73* WATERPRO METERS 9872-1273 450109 OH 28287 <•> 1993/06/14 8147.70 8147.70* WAYZATA-CITY OF CONF 0129-4356 000648 OH 28288 <•> 1993/06/14 829.68 $29.68* WECKMAN STEPHEN MILEAGE 0174-4381 000646 OH O i- €>C>COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED. JUN 9. 1993. 9:22 PM p«9« 7ACCOUNTCHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION NUMBER INVOICE NO NUMBER MANUAL282191993/06/14 $328.20 WEST STOP REOl-MIX INC CEMENT 0290-4231 42763 OH<*>1993/06/14 $126.77$454.97*WEST SIDE REOl-MIX INC CEMbNi 0099-4231 428S7 OH 28290 <•> 1993/06/14 $8.69$8.69* WRIGHT HENN ELECTRIC UTILITY 0249-4324 000645 OH 28291 <•> 1993/06/14 $731.66 $731.66* YOCUM OIL CO INC DIESEL 0249-4220 000649 OH •rr ■ ■' « $81,914.74* O 1 06/06/93 PR CB PRREGOR 05/23/93 PR CB PRREGOREMP • NAME OPT471688060474563339 476921819 471840871 475443862 472503991 460526026 476643387 475989721 468821018 472529007 468701868 S0758S424 460686562 468420832 469087884 474667812 475380151 477500666 475444240 477463877 475069821 388625358 471560863 473141624 477647279 475604753 504260307 472500574 121262417 469723373 480843542 476018974 477700023 334506281 477028779 473108428 468909535 476783251 470700901 469848107 475382983 473746173 473609629 470566529 469629194 475569177 267460042 472563051 474663296 470704004 475505292 468620488 500403192 477881530 ANDERSON, BRUCE L 31 BOBZIEN, SUE A 31 BORIS. SCOTT W 31 BOSMA. JAMIE L 12 BRINKHAUS, JOHN F 42 CHESWICK. GARY B 31 CORNICK, JAMES L 31 DELANEY. JANE E 03 DEMBOUSKI, JAY C 31 ENGLISH III. IRVINQ 31 ERICKSON. KURT R 31 fischeni6h, dan T 31 FRITZLER, JOHN M 31 QAFFRON, MICHAEL P 33 OERHAROSON^ JOHN R 42 GOMAN, DAVID J 35 GREGORY, JAMES D 42 HALLIN, DOROTHY H 12 HANSEN, STEVEN C 42 HANSING, CAROL J 31 HASEMAN. CAROLE 12 HULTMANN. TIMOTHY J 61 JENSEN. RODNEY W 93 JOHNSON. BRADLEY P 31 JOSTROM, FOREST J 93 KARNITZ. RICKY D 31 KENNEN, JANICE M 31 KHUTSON, CHARLOTTE A 15 KUEHN, THOMAS M IS MABUSTH. JEANNE A 33 MAY. DAVID E 61 MCNICHOlS. DAVID L 31 MILLS JR, WALTER H 93 MOORSE. RONALD J 12 MOROWCZYNSKI, JAMES 31 NELSON, DAVID D 35 OAS, DANIEL 0 03 OBERAIGNER, SCOTT Q 42 OBRIEN. RANDY L 02 OMAN, LYLE E 33 PALMAR. GREGORY A 42 QUAST, WAYNE A 92 RATHBUN, BARRY J 92 ROSS, JOHN A 93 SCHOENHOFF, JOHN B 31 SKREEN, DALE S 42 STEFFENHAGEN, RONALD 93 SULLIVAN. STEPHEN X 31 THOMTON. MARK R 31 TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F 31 TOMCZYK. MARK W 31 VANG. BRUCE L 33 VEE, LINDA S 12 WALTERS, LINDA G 15 WECKMAN, STEPHEN J 33 YTDGROSS20675.99 12293 95 2859.06 7346.74 19301.32 20684.78 20483.92 1147.55 17178.45 10800.40 18967.16 19635.41 20270.69 17645.73 24612.53 2334.90 16476.50 15200.77 14332.12 7034.42 10943.67 432.00 481.54 20172.19 841.50 1644.54 2753.20 12170.24 25959.02 22098.10 741.00 15445.69 658.38 28886 35 19287.50 1715.56 315 65 14264 52 14868 94 17645 72 13569.24 17413.30 14698.70 860.75 5500.86 14554.20 15200.76 24660 18253 13415 10099 15200 11829 10469 13388 78 31 43 31 78 44 42 13 CURRENTGROSS1935 99 1014.63 451.65 581.10 1611.68 1727.20 2104.22 205.00 1603.19 1778.55 1568.40 1566.38 1692.24 1473.44 2172.43 208.31 1337.50 1269.29 1083.28 627.45 913.20 432.00 141.63 1568.40 184.25 294.90 264.91 1014.63 2167.61 1845.21 405.00 1319.20 247.25 2511.84 1803.66 138.88 170.95 1029 12 1083.28 1473.43 1183.50 1366.33 1245.78 217.25 605.74 1327.02 1260.28 2050 20 1509.76 1552.22 1627.22 1269.28 1014 63 974.54 1117.02 63.459 95 EMP I NAME DPT 471688060 474563339 476921819 471840871 475443862 472503991 469526026 476643387 475989721 468821018 472529007 468701868 507585424 469686562 468420832 469087884 474667812 475380151 477500666 475444249 477463877 388625358 471569863 473141624 475604753 504260307 472500574 121262417 469723373 480843542 476018974 477700023 334506281 477028779 473108428 468909535 476783251 470700901 469848107 475382983 473746173 473609629 470566529 469629194 475569177 267460042 472563051 ANDERSON. BRUCE L BOBZIEN, SUE A BORIS. SCOTT W BOSMA, JAMIE L BRINKHAUS, JOHN F CHESWICK. GARY B CORNICK, JAMES L DELANEY. JANE E DEMBOUSKI. JAY C ENGLISH III, IRVING ERICKSON, KURT R FISCHENidH, DAN T FRITZLER, JOHN M GAFFRON, MICHAEL P GERHARDSON^ JOHN R GOMAN. DAViD J GREGORy, JAMES 0 HALLIN. DOROTHY M HANSEN. STEVEN C HANSING, CAROL J HASEMAN. CAROLE JENSEN, ROONEY W JOHNSON. BRADLEY P JOSTROM. FOREST J KENNEN. JANICE M KNUTSON. CHARLOTTE A KUEHN, THOMAS M MABUSTH. JEANNE A MAY, DAVID Q MCNICHOLS. DAVID L MILLS JR, WALTER H MOORSE, RONALD J MOROWCZYNSKI, JAMES NELSON, DAVID D OAS. DANIEL 0 OBERAIGNER, SCOTT Q OBRIEN. RANDY L OMAN. LYLE f PALMER, GREGORY A QUAST, WAYNE A RATHBUN. BARRY J ROSS, j6hn a SCHOENHOFF, JOHN B SKREEN, DALE S STEFFENHAGEN^ RONALD SULLIVAN. STEPHEN X THOMTON, MARK R 474663296 TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE 470704904 TOMCZYK, MARK W 475505292 VANG. BI^UCE L 468629488 VEE. LINDA S 500403192 WALTERS. LINDA 0 477881539 WECKMAN. STEPHEN J 31 31 31 12 42 31 31 93 31 31 31 31 31 33 42 35 42 12 42 31 12 93 31 93 31 15 15 33 61 31 93 12 31 35 93 42 92 33 42 92 92 93 31 42 93 31 31 31 31 33 12 15 33 YTDGROSS 18740 00 11279.32 2407.41 6765.64 17689.64 18957.58 18379.70 852.55 15575.26 18030.85 17398.76 18069.03 18578.45 16172.29 22440.10 2126.59 15139.08 13931.48 13248 84 6406.97 10030.47 339.91 18603.79 657.25 2488.29 11155.61 23791.41 20252 89 336.00 14126.49 411.13 26374.51 17483.84 1576 68 135 70 13235.40 13785.66 16172.29 12385.74 16046.97 13452.92 643.50 4895.12 13227.11 13931.48 22601.59 16743.55 16863 17472 13931 10814 9494 12270 21 09 50 81 88 21 CURRENTGROSS 1612.52 1014.65 340.06 579.05 1611.66 1727.20 2175.00 345.15 1484.09 1615.88 1568.40 1736.22 1992.24 1473.42 1937.42 168.41 1348.42 1269.28 1083.26 592.96 930.32 149.35 1803.66 178.75 224.38 1014.62 2197.90 1845.22 336.00 1318.20 293.25 2311.84 1568.40 135.57 97.35 1038.71 1083.28 1473.44 1183.48 1922.51 1245.78 214.50 489.84 1083.27 1299.28 2059.20 1509.77 1515.25 1599.40 1299.29 1033.99 999.90 1117.92 61,591.19 r. fi 0^k i M i I C^c couNciLiiBime JUN 1 4 1993 CnYOFORONO S M 2 3 9 10 16 17 23 24 30 31 May T W T 4 11 1$ 25 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 S 1 8 15 22 29 S M July T W 1993 JUNE 4 II 18 5 6 7 12 13 14 19 20 21 T I 8 15 ■)'> F S 2 3 9 10 16 17 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Sunday Monday I Tuesday ■ Wednesday Thursday "■3 FriJav , 2 •Park Commission Mtg 7:15 pm •Park Tour 6:0br------ •Council Mtg 7:30 pm •Flag Day •CouiKil Work Session 7:45 am 22 23 25 Saturday 12 •Fiiber’s Day ! •Planning ' •Open House 1:00 ' Commission Mig ' . 4:00 pm ' 7:00 pm | . ; 1 i ! 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------——*-------------------------------------—1 27 28 ^29 ! •Council Mtg 7:30 pm 30 1 i ' j 1 1 i 1 June 5 M T W T F S 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1993 JULY August S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 r”-------------- - - - Sunday Monday Tuesday ; Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday -------------------------------------------------------4 1 1 t 1 1 ( 1 i^ ! J |3 -------------------1 |4 I Independence Day Tf • ■"5 Holiday *6 •Park Commission Mig 7 15 pm 7 1 *8 1 1 10 : i i ! T2 •Council Mtg 7:30 pm 13 "14 15 T6 1 17 1 1 18 \9 •Planning Commission Mtg 7:00 pm '20 Ti ' •Hwy 12 Policy Meeting 5 30 pm 22 '23 24 i '25'""'26 •Council Mtg 7:30 pm '27 28 29 '30 ■31 /oti » ' 6 U June 10, 1993 CITY of ORONO Nfunkipal Offices Post Office Box 66 Costal Bav, Minnesota 55323-0066 Chuck Siggerud Metro District Engineer MnDOT 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, Minnesota 5S113-3105 Dear Mr. Siggerud, S5 A ^ S“S.: - City was advised the proDecc o delayed until 1995. The Toe an e:^l^t.^on for fhe deUys or any assurances Chat Che 199S dace is a firm dace. TO help Che Cicy "rov^ir'he ci°cy tfch"a\'rfc?Sg prioritizing these projects, p Hiahway 12 safety improvementsot Che projeecs «i'=h che Highw^^^^^ project is X^nroilc^ and an explanacfon of why che Highway 12 or ranking the ^u^e-e oroiects that are scheduled forproject is ranked lower chan ^hose proieccs^c^.^^ ^ ;°SjeccfJS2c^«iU active funding in 1993 and 199a. The Cities of l^ng in Che cost of j^as indicted Che signalizacion can notDrive incersection. MnTOT^h^^,^ channelization. MnDOT has K^i^drea^d^c is noc^wj.^^^^^^^^^^ noc’'cosc''e“feotTve''"co do this temporary work and Chen replace it TELIPHONE - 47>TJ57 • * •*TW«» •j Chuck Siggerud Metro District Engineer MnDOT June 10, 1993 page 2 with peinnanent construction. MnDOT first took this position in November of 1991 when the project was planned for 1993. The nroiect has now been delayed by two years. This temporary solution needs to be revisited to clarify the actual amount of the project that would have to be replaced by the permanent construction, and to clarify the actual timing of the safety improvement project. If there is uncertainty remaining about whether the improvements will be constructed even in 1995 we need to look much more closely at installing the temporary signal and channelization lanes. while the safety improvement project and temporary signal project are being reviewed, the cities are left with a dangerous high traffic intersection. A near term interim solution nee<^ t be identified as soon as possible. One suggestion made y resident whose family has experienced several accidents at that intersection is to restrict left turns during the morning and evenina rush hour periods. Left turns are a cause of a portion of thraS?id^nts at the intersection. Please review thi^s option in terms of its feasibility and effectiveness from a traffic movement and traffic safety standpoint. The real solution to these safety problems is to move up the adipted MnDOT should be able to firm up the schedule for these types of projects. Please provide a response to the following items at your esiirliest: conveni6nc6: 1 An explanation of why the safety improvement project has been delayed including an explanation o^ why the project can not be constructed in 1994 versus 1995. 2 An explanation of the scheduling and prioritization of the proj«ts^wTth which the safety improvement project is competing. ■a A clarification of which portions of the termporary widening and channelization improvements would "e'd “ be re- done" as part of the permanent project and an estimate of dollar value of the duplicated work. 4. A firm schedule for the construction of the safety improvement: project. Chuck Siggerud Metro District Engineer MnDOT June 10, 1993 page 3 Deephaven Excelsior Greenwood Long Lake Medina Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 540 Stfcond Street • P.O. Bo* 473 • Excelsior. Mii».'»soia 55331-0473 <612) 474-5539 • Fax (612) 474-0430 Orono St. Boni/aciua Shorewood Spring Park Tonka Bay l/ictoria Woodland I. II. III. IV. V. LAKE MINNLrONKA CABLE COMMONICATIOMS COMMISSION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1993 5:00 P.M. 540 SECOND STREET, EXCELSIOR ■JUH 1 0 W93 Call to Order Approval of May 1993 Minutes Reports a. Officers: Treasurer - May 1993 Check Register - Pattrin b. Administrator/Production Coordinators c. Triax Cablevision Unfinished Business a. Regional Ch. 6 Removal & Addition of C-SPAN II - Salazar b. Status of South Shore Apts. (Excelsior) - Daniels c. Update on Status of FCC Rates/Service Rules - Salazar d. Update on Orono Studio Status - Pattrin New Business . , a. Channel Realignment Due to New "Must Carry" - Daniels b. Review "Draft” of 1994 Budget - Salazar VI. Matters Pros the Floor VII. Adjournment LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COffllSSION FULL COMMISSION MEETING TUESrAY. MAY 18, 1993, 5:00 PM 322 SECOND STREET, EXCELSIOR I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brancel called the meeting to order at 5:07 P.M. DIRECTORS PRESENT Barb Brancel/Shorewood, Chair Jim Olds/Excelsior, Vice Chair Tim Pattrin/Orono, Treasurer Ann C. Thies/Medina, Secretary Dennis Stanga/Deephaven, At Large Tim Salazar/Minnetrista, At Large OTHERS PRLSENT Jim Oan^els/Administrator Colleen Lindskoog/Admin Asst. Bob Langley/Triax Cab levis ion LeAnn Smith/Award Recipient Lynn Forrester/Award Recipient Jan Gray/Greenwood; Bobbi Abdo/Minnetonka Beach; Tom Markle/Minnetonka Beach; Mary Gessner/Minnetrista; Bob Gagne/Shorewood; Bob Anderson/Tonka Bay; Sidney Wear/Woodland II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Brancel asked for discussion or motion to approve the minutes of the April 16, 1993 meeting. ^ ^ ^Motion S.18.93.1 Gagne moved to approve the minutes. Gray seconded. Notion passed unanimously. Brancel introduced and welcomed Bob Langley of Triax Cablevision and Conwissioner Mary Gessner of Minnetrista. III. REPORTS a) Treasurer's Report Pattrin described financial transactions for the month of April 1993. Daniels stated that everything was pretty much routine except for Tape Stock, which had a large quantity used due to city council requests for copies of ’*-etings filmed. Motion 5.18.93.2 Stanga moved to approve the Check Disbursements for the period of 4/1/93 through 4/30/93. Thies seconded. Notion passed unanimously. Pattrin then described the 1993 First Quarter Report. Motion 5.18.93.3 _ _ _ Olds moved to approve 1993 First Quarter Report. Stanga seconded. Notion passed unanimously. b) Admi.iistrator^s Report u •. 4.1Daniels stated that council coverage and carriage on Channel 8 has been greatly received. The Congressional -hows are also going over very well. ^Capitol Update" may continue with a one/month format while the Legislature is not in session. Daniels tl.“n requested a Commissioner to volunteer to write an article for the next quarterly newsletter. ^ . ,...4. j 4.The Video Toaster is almost ready to go. There are just a few things that need to be done to the computer before it can be used. b) Production Report ... .4.. aDaniels informed the Commission that Jim Schindler has resigned his position and has gone to work for Paragon Cable. An has been placed and interviews are in process. Production wise, the police chiefs are putting a program together chat will be done on a monthly basis. "Ask Your City" is still in progress, it has taken a little longer than expected to get it worked out. tMCC - May 1993 Meeting Page 2 c) Triax Report Langley reintroduced himself and gave a brief history of his background in the cable industry. Salazar stated that he feels that Langley is a good addition to Triax and welcomed him to the Commission meetings. IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) 1993 Revised Budget for Approval Brancel deferred to Daniels. He explained that the original budget is prepared approximately 6 months prior to knowing the actual dollar amount tha^ will be received from Triax. Being that this budget, after Commission approval, goes to the cities for approval, tne revised budget does not have to be approved by the cities. Brancel then gave a brief description of the revisions and asked for discussion. Motion 5.18.93.4 Gagne moved to approve the 1993 Revised Budget. Olds seconded. Gray asked if the budget was based on a fiscal or calendar year. Daniels stated it was a calendar year. Brancel called the vote. Motion passed unanimously. b) Committee on Orono Studio Pattrin stated that the Orono studio is not acceptable, so they have begun to look at other possible locations. Pattrin said that Thies has gone to Holy Name School and they did not have the room. After speaking with Orono Schools Superintendent, Pattrin said they had no other space available either. However, he has spoken with Long Lake's Mayor and was told that the former Orono Police Station is available. The Mayor told Pattrin that it was preferred that the facilities be rented out for government use, which the LMCCC is considered. Currently the rent is approximately 5900/month, however being that Long Lake is a Commission city, it may be lower. Brancel asked where exactly this building is. Pattrin stated it is on the border of Long Lake and Orono. He then asked for direction for the Committee from the Commission. Olds stated he feels Triax has to be brought into any decision making. However, the franchise agreement clearly states that Triax is required to provide two working studios. Brancel asked if the Comnission feels that the Committee should continue discussions with Triax. Gagne stated he feels that should be the next step and the Commission concurred. c) Regional Channel 6 Removal & Addition of C-SPAN II Brancel asked Langley for an update. Langley stated that Loretto and Maple Plain are fighting the switch. However, he stated he will continue to pursue the situation and keep the Commission updated. Olds gave a brief explanation of the situation. He then stated that it is Triax's problem to provide those cities with Regional Channel 6, however, Triax has to remove it from our franchised are as previously directed by LMCCC. Langley stated he will take the Commission's concerns back to his superiors, however, Triax is currently looking into all alternatives. He then asked for a month to have it resolved one way or another. Brancel asked for a formal motion that states that Triax Cablevision has 30 days to have the situation resolved. Motion 5.18.93.5_ _ _ _ Gagne moved that Triax has 30 days to have the situation resolved. Gray seconded. Salazar asked if that was how the Commission was going to leave it. Stanga asked if there should be a penalty attached to the motion. Brancel stated that she felt a penalty imposed at this point shouldn't happen and that if Triax fails to comply with the motion a penalty will be discussed. Salazar emphasized his feeling that this was it for Triax's chances in getting LMCCC - May 1993 Meeting Page 3 things concluded. Brancel called the vote. Motion passed unanimously, d) Update on Hennepin County Auditor Daniels stated that of the "tax" that Hennepin County was threatening to impose on subscribers there has been no word. However, it was known that Hennepin County was planning to wait for any Legislative action prior to proceeding. With the close of the Legislative Session and no action in regard to this, however, things may just be starting. Daniels stated he has not heard anything as yet and asked Langley what he knew of the situation. . . , Langley stated he hadn't heard anything either, but would be keeping a close watch. Daniels stated that this is a very important issue not only for the Commission but the cable subscriber as well. l. • * Salazar asked Daniels to give the viewing audience a brief history of the subject matter due to it's importance. . ^ uiDaniels explained that Hennepin County was attempting to levy a tax based on cable company use of city easements. They had planned for this "tax" to be on Triax s bills and pass the costs on to the subscriber. V. NEW BUSIHESS a) Award Video Program of the Quarter Brancel presented the Spring Quarter Video Award to LeAnn Smith, she felt very honored to do the program let alone get an award for it. the Commission. Smith stated that She then thanked Minnesota Community Television Awards Brancel presented awards for being Finalists to: Jan Gray/Senior's Corner - Gray stated that she feels the Commission provides a great opportunity to program for a large section of the community and thanked the LMCCC for that privilege. , , , . i. .4Lynn Forrester of Excel. Elem. Schl./Let's Explore Excelsior - Forrester thanked the Commission on behalf of the 3rd and 4th graders tnat produced the show. Jan Haugen/Where Are They Now - Brancel thaiixed the Commi-.sion in her absence. c) 1st Quarter 1993 Triax Complaints Status Daniels stated that due to the Commission's interest in become a regular quarterly report. He then stated that Triax quarter were handled extremely well. this matter, this will complaints for the 1st d) Name Cowittee for 1994 Budget n • i Brancel asked for volunteers. Gagne asked what would be involved. Daniels 6xp1d1n6d that it was one or two meetings to estimated what expenses may occur in 1994 and to submit the proposed budget to the full commission and then to the 14 LMCCC cities for approval. Anderson, Markle, Gagne and Salazar volunteered. e) Discussion on Commission's Position to Control "basic" Rates with FCC Forwla Daniels stated that Tom Creighton, the Commission's attorney, is still sifting through the FCC mandates, however, the Commission will have to take some action once he gives a recommendation 4 j iDaniels then described an article from the Pioneer Press regarding a major deal that took place with Tima Warner and US West that may create regulatory opposition. Daniels then said he feels the Commission should retain or take as much control of rates as possible. ^ i ^St^ng^ aslc9d what ^yp6 of rat6 regulation Is involved. Daniels explained that as UKCC - May 1993 Meeting Page 4 of now the attorney is still looking into it. Pattrin asked Daniels if he feels that the FCC will define what "basic" cable is in order to prevent the cable companies from readjusting their cable line-ups to maintain or raise current rates. Daniels stated that hopefully the FCC will define it, however, right now he does not know, but feels that the Commission must stay involved. Olds concurred with Daniels, however, feels that this is going to be a very lengthy process that may not create any dilemmas for this Commission. He also stated he feels that it is somewhat of a waste of the Commission's time to continue to discuss a situation that there is not a lot of understanding of at the present time. Salazar stated that he would hate to see a confrontation between Triax and the Commission once everything is interpreted due to a lack of discussion. Langley stated that Triax has always taken a pro-active stance with FCC mandates and once again they did not take the new ones lightly. He then stated that their is a step that the Commission can take to somewhat protect their interests, it is called the Certification Process. Certifying hands all the power to the FCC. Not certifying means the FCC makes the rules but the Commission retains power of how they are implemented. Markle stated that he feels that the FCC is going to be influenced by major deals taking place with technological advances in telephone and cable companies, such as the one Daniels described earlier. f) Triax Response to Servicing South Shore ApartMnts Daniels stated that this is still in the works and hopes to have it resolved in the next couple of weeks. The situation is that an apartment complex in Excelsior is requesting cable hook-ups and it requires plant extensions (it does meet the formula of 30 residents/mile). Pattrin asked what the apartment managment's position is. Daniels stated that they are afraid of the appearance of cable wires on their building, however, hopefully they will get together with Triax to visit an existing cabled building. Langley concurred. Election of Officers for 1993/1994 Brancel read the following names of the nominations: Chair: Tim Salazar, Minnetrista Vice Chair: Barb Brancel, Shorewood Secretary: Ann C. Thies, Medina Tim Pattrin, Orono Jim Olds, Excelsior Bob Anderson, Tonka Bay Dennis Stanga, Deephaven Treasurer: At Large: At Large: At Large: Brancel then opened the nominations from the floor. Motion 5.18.93.6 Gray moved to accept slate. Gagne seconded. Olds stated he felt the motion should be revised to state that it closes the nominations from the floor and accepts the slate as presented. Gray and Gagne concurred. Notion withdrawn. Motion 5.18.93.7 Gray moved to close the nominations from the floor and accept the slate as presented. Gagne seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Salazar presented a recognition award to Brancel. Salazar wanted the audience to know that Brancel has worked very hard and has done an outstanding job and is happy that she will continue to work for the Commission. Brancel thanked the Commission and stated that after 7 years, she still enjoys her involvement and looks forward to continuing as Vice Chair. VI.HATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Gray stated that she feels Jim Schindler should be credited for the work he did in « • UtCCC - May 1993 Meeting Page 5 his tenure with the LMCCC. The Commission concurred. VII. ADJOURNMENT Motion 5.18.93.8 Olds moved to adjourn, unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Thies seconded. Notion passed Respectfully submitted, PROGRAMMING REPORT Chronicling the activity at the Lake Minne Communications Commission Studio in Excelsior f May 1 through Tuesday, June 2, 1993. onka Cable cm Saturday, I. Works completed A. Meeting coverage 1. Excelsior City Council-producer Bob Bolles covered the meetings of May 3rd and May 17th 2. Spring Park City Council-producer Jan Haugen covered the meetings of May 3rd and May 17th 3. Shorewood City Council-producer Harold Dircks covered the meetings of May 10th and May 24th 4. Tonka Bay City Council-producer Tim Wiley covered the meetings of May 11th and May 25th 5. Victoria City Council-producer Tim Wiley covered the meetings of May 6th and May 20th^ 6. Lake Minnetonka Ccii)le Communications Commission- Tim Wiley covered the meeting of May 18th B. Series programs 1. Capitol Update-the eighth edition of this studio program features Rep. Steve Smith with guests Sen. Gen Olson and Rep. Jerry Knickerbcclc‘=;r 2. Seniors' Corner-the sixteeth edition of this studio program features host and producer Jan Gray discussing seniors' concerns with Executive Director of Senior Community Services Ben Withart, Chairman of the South Shore Senior Task Force Bob Gagne, and Senior Task Force member Vi Tendall. 3. Congressional Update with Rod Grams—the second edition of this studio program features Congressman Rod Grams discussing local and national political concerns with host Tim Salazar 4. Congressional Update with Jim Ramstad—the second edition of this studio program features Congressman Jim Ramstad discussing local and national political concerns with host Tim Salazar C. Individual programs 1. A Warm Fire-producer Tim Wiley captures the relaxing image and sound of wood burning down in a fireplace *16 programs were created* D. Orono Studio-the following new programs were cablecast on Channel 21 1. Orono School Board Candidates Forum Orono H.S. Pop Concert Orono Primary Spring Musical Orono Primary Creative Dance Orono H.S. Health Fair Shumann Elementary Music Concert (continued on next page) 3 . 4 . 5 . 6. E. Workshops-the following workshops were conducted: Editing I on May 4th and May 6th Editing II on May 11th and May 13th Studio on May 18th Total participants: 5 F. Promotion -Weekly program schedule printed in the Sailor. The Laker/Pioneer and Chanhassen Villager -Program schedule and highlight information which cycles through on Channel 21 when programming isn't being run II. Works in progress A. Programs 1. Vendetta-producer Patti Keiper 2. Spring Park Sock Hop-producer Zack Moos 3. Oak Hill Cemetery Restoration-producer Bob Bolles 4. Excelsior Apple Days-producer Bob Bolles 5. Excelsior Childrens' Flower Garden Planting- producer Bob Bolles 6. Light Rail Transit-producer Tom Sullivan 7. Toys for Tots Program- producer Mary Badrawi 8. Action People-producer/host Chief Craig Anderson B. Workshops-summer session workshops will begin Thursday, July 8th with Introduction to community Television Respectfulj.y ^submitted, Greg Q/Gorman Production Coordinator l/eephaven Excelsior Greenwood Long Lake Medina Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Orono St. Bonifacius Shorewood Spring Park Tonka Bay Victoria Woodland 540 Second Street * P.O. Bo* 473 • Excelsior. Minnesota 33331*0473 (612)474-3539 • Fax (612) 474*0430 June 7, 1993 Mayor Edward Callahan City Council Members City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mayor Callahan and Council Members: Enclosed you will find a copy of the final "revised” budget for 1993. Each year the Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission creates and submits a budget for the upcoming year, using projected figures that are calculated from Triax Cablevision reports. Now that the actual check has been received, an appointed committee of the Cable Commission prepares this "revised" and final budget. Since the original 1993 budget was approved last fall (1992), this latest compilation of actual dollars received, does not require any further City Council action. You may, however, notice that the Cable Commission has taken special effort to use these additional dollars to cover unforeseen costs involved in last fall's relocation ot the office/studio. The Cable Commission has recently enjoyed some very positive results in the FCC rule-making process regarding added services with a significant rate reduction, and more stringent subscriber service requirements. In addition, the local programming on Channels 21 and 8 has received very favorable response from the cable customers in virtually every city. Our contact with your City Council has never been better, and I not only appreciate, but also eiicourage your input regarding any related communication topics that effect the subscribers/residents of your community. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Timothy Salaz Chairman TS/cl cc: Commissioner Pattrin LMCCC 1993 REVISED BUDGET 1993 1993 Acoroved Revised INCOME Franchise Fees $ Interest S 118,000 5.500 .00 .00 120,616. 5.500. 61 00 123,500 .00 126,116.61 OPERATING EXPENSES Administrator $36,750 Adininistratcr salarv Access Staff 32,000 Prcd. Ccord, ?T prod, asst. & admin, asst. Secretarial Service 600 Pavroll ser’7ices Pavroll Taxes A 9,000 PERA S Employer w/holdir.g Travel Expenses 1,600 Ccminission visibility ail cities, i*4.\CT.\ 5 errands Health Insurance 4,200 Amt. attributed to enpioyee heaic.h ins. Leaal Fees 2,000 RCUwiri0 l0C3.i. aSSlSwSnCS Insuranca/Bcnds 4,300 -r 400 4,700 Workers Comp, Dishonesty Bond, Property Liaoility Accounting/Audit 1,900 - 300 1,600 Bcckkaeoino, a.n.nuai audit Ccnf/Convention 6,300 MACTA, MATCA, XFLC? Cffice/Studio/Janitor Service/Supplies 2,400 +1,400 3,300 Normal ofrice/studio supplies, cieaning/ccpy mach. aareement §S3C/mc. Membership Dues 1,300 NATCA, MACT.A, magazines, 3 iccal Chambers of Commerce, Rotary Telelephone/Voice Mail 1,750 Monthly/answering service Pcstage/P.O. Box 1,250 + 100 1,350 LMCCC age.ndas/correspcnd Miscellaneous 900 Varies Advertising/Promo 4,000 1 ( ( 1 1 1 1 4 quarterly newsletters to all 14 cities/direct ^ mail cromcs bill Office Equipment 0 •* 400 400 Computer printer Office Rent 8,000|1+ 500 1 1 8,500 Office Rent/bank box Equipment Maint/Repair $ 1.200'200 11 1.000 Increased hours on equip. 119,450 +2,300 121,750 SALES TAX 1.500 1.500 S 120,950 $123,250 1993 APPROVED 1993 REVISED SPECIAL FUNDS Capital Funds Taoe Stock Technical Audit Financial Audit-Triax Studio Eauionent Legal Fund Office Ecuipment Access Eauipment Access Development \ Continaencv 0 0 0 500 5,100 100 1,0U0 5,000 9,000 +300.00 300.00 Future tane ourchase Future audit if needed VideoToastar/misc. parts Future Legal Counsel P.eplace.'ne.nt/new equipment Ecuipment to cabJecast live city council meetings 9,459.35 Coverage of 10-12 city council meetings/film develcpment/DeV^olf audio s ooo•^759.35 21,459.35 SALES TAX 800 + 16.61 816.61 $21,500 ,+775.96 22,275.96 GRAND TOTAL S145,525.96 1WI5 /STHt -me (943.eueecr ........... State of Minneso i a Ol-HCH OF thf: govhknor 1 .to ST,\TF CAPITOL SAINT PAUi. 55155 AR.N’L H CARl.SON G()V».KM)k TO: FR: JDM 1 0 1995 i. ! J } r A rei rc n AFFECTED STATE LEGISLATORS, CLERKS. CITY AND COLfNTT^^ " ADMINISTRATORS JOESEPH R. KINGMAN III, DIRECTOR OF APPOINTMENTS AND CONSTITUENT SERVICES DATE:JUNE 9, 1993 SUBJECT: NOTICE OF MEETING DATE FOR METROPOLITAN COUNCIL CANDIDATES In July 1993, all Metropolitan Council seats will become vacant due to the redistricting of the Metropolitan Council Districts. The Metropolitan Council Nominating Committee must now conduct a public hearing to consider candidates tor the seats. Attached is a map showing the new Met Council districts. Governor Carlson has designated the following persons to serve on the nominating committee: Maureen Shaver (Chair), Wayzata Karen Anderson (Elected official), Minnetonka Sally Evert, Stillw’aier Paul Gam, Arden Hills Janice Johnson (Elected official), Hastings Martin Kellogg, Saint Paul Douglas Tenpas (Elected official), Eden Prairie The nominating committee will hold the hearing on Wediu^day, July 7, at 6:()0 p.m. in the council cliiuiibcrs at the IMetropolitan Council office, located at 230 East Fifth Street in downtown St. Paul. Persons interested in applying are requested to appear at the hearing. Each candidate will be allotted no longer !*...> f minutes to make a presentation beiore the nominating committee, followed by a bru'-' Tt ^-stion and answer pencxl. The nominating committee will then submit a list of nominws to the Governor for this appointment. If you have any questions or need an application, please feel free to call Chery l Talberg at 296*0077 or John Hultquist at 296*0013. •s\ KOI SI op(’<»K ri Niry rsiPtostR ^ WWNTfO ON «»f CrCLCO Metropolitan Council Plan : SF1081 City of Long Lake 1964 Park Avenue - Long L.\ke, Minnesota 55356 Phone: (61 UL. It. June 4.1993 Dr. Barbara A. Luikem 776 North Drown Road Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 '^JUN' 9 loss Dear Daibara: Thank you tor your letter of May 24 suggesting thiit the City of Long Lake place a "total" ban on jet ski use on Long Lake. I can only wish that you had been in attendance at our last Council meeting so that you could have commented on our plan of action. I think ol tlie area around the lake as a community rather than segments of two cities and, I assure you, you would have been most welcome to share in our discussion. As things stand, the council rcccivxd a proposed ordinance which limits the use of jet skis on the lake. 'Hie limits include a limitation on the sound levels at a specific distance trom the shoreline, a limitation on the hours of use (9:00 AM to 6:00 PM), a limitation on the number of minutes of use in one locale (a ma-ximum of 15 minutes followed by at least 15 minutes of non-u.se in that area) and specific limits on speeds moving to and fi-om shore and in the vicinity of other lake users. We did not spccificaUy ban the use of jet skis bccau.se we are not sure that we would be permitted to single them out without banning all power crafi. As a Long F^e resident of some 28 years, I remember the days when sailboats and canoes were tlie only craft permitted on the lake. Personally, I would be happy to return to that limitation, but 1 anticipate that those who bought homes on the lake e.xpecting to be able to water-ski would not be so agreeable. We have advised the City of Orono that we arc interested in limiting jet ski use on Long Lake and have directed our city atiomey to provide Orono our draft of an ordinance. We will ask that thev’ make such adja^tments as thq’ believe appropriate. At that point we will draft a single document that is supported by bolli Cities. The next step will be Ihiblic Hearintjs on the proposed Ordinance and then council passage of the Ordinance. 0r.ee both Cities have a common Ordinance covering jet ski use on the lake, we will forward it to the DNR tor their leview .ind approval. (We believe that will be a formality). rago • L /\ftcr that wc will have something that we can direct our police ilcpartmcnt and Water Patrol to enforce. Although it seems that there are many steps to take, I assure you that we intend to move as rapidly as possible to achieve jet ski limitation. I am taking the liberty of sending a copy of your letter and my response to it along to Ed Callahan, the Mayor of Orono. I would expect that he would appreciate hearing directly from you. I hope that thb letter covers the questions you posed and reassures that we arc moving towards a satisfactoiy resolution of the problem you have identified. If there is anything you feel you would lie to discuss further, please feel free to call me at home My number is 473-4539. Sincerely^ Tod Olson, Mayor City of Long Lake Kv' ‘ * TAO/lo E.J. Callahan, Esq. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 17, 1993 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Stephen Peterson, Candace Rowlette, Sandra Smith, Charles Nolan, Jr., Jan ice Berg, and Dale Lindquist. The foilowing represented the City Staff: Zoning Administrator Jeanne Maousth and Recorder Teri Naab. Edward Callahan, Gabriel Jabbour and Charles Kelley were present. Chair Schroeder called tne meeting to order at 7:00 p.nr He introduced the new members* Sandra Smith, Charles Nolan, Janice Berg and Dale Lindquist und expressed his appreciation to the outgoing members: Jeffrey Jonnson, Maureen Bel lows and Ed Cohen. (#1) #1821 MARGO WIRTJES, 3085 WATERTOWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 8:58 - 8:59 P.M. It was moved by Lindquist, Application #1821 for Margo applicant. Ayes 7, nays 0. seconded by Rowlette, to table Wirtjes, at the request of the (#2) #1825 THOMAS L. MCCARTHY, 2490 OLD BEACH ORAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 8:15 - 8:50 P.M. The Affidavit of Pub I I cat ion and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. McCarthy was present. Mabusth explained two options for development as outlined in the memo. She noted the City Engineer has requested that no new curb cuts be approved. She Indicated the code does not require a shared access for new developments off private roads and noted there is adequate width along the road for an individual curb cut for Lot 2. She proposed the only way to approve this application without variances Is to include the area within the 250-500’ setback area within the 75-250’ area and credit the driveway hardcover against the 75-250’ hardcover allowance of 25X. Applicant would have to maintain hardcover at 25*. She noted the applicant proposes hardcover at 25.1* within the 75-250’ setback area. She also noted the shed at the shared lot line would need to be removed. Charles Smoot, 2665 Maple Ridge Lane, expressed strong opposition to the proposal and explained this is one of the principal wooded areas left in the area to help with run-off. He presented a petition of opposition. He felt the existing house and lot were appropriate for the neighborhood. He added the applicant has not lived In the neighborhood yet and wishes to change It already. 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 17, 1993 ZONING FILE #1825 - CONT. Dan Saklad, 2496 Old Beach Road, stated there Is no way to develop this property without major destruction to the neighborhood. He noted the lane is only wide enough for one car. He expressed strong opposition to the subdivision. Mrs. Saklad questioned the zoning for the area. Mabusth replied »• I? is a one acre zoning district. She referred to a phone conve* .ion with Karen Paulson, 2605 Maple Ridge Lane, who expressed sL.w .g opposition to the subdivision and concern for the loss of mature trees. Cha i r Schroeder read letters of opposition from Kathy Madaris, 2480 Old Beach Road and Joyce and Keith Olson, 2510 Old Beach Road. Mabusth questioned whether the Commission would recommend that the drive be included in the 75-250’ area and hardcover calculations. She asked if they would consider either the granting of a hardcover variance for the narrow 20’ wide portion of the lot or consider this portion a part of the 75-250’ zone and require the applicant to reduce hardcover to 25X. Chair Schroeder questioned the buildabillty of Lot 2. Mabusth stated it Isa buiIdable, non-rlparian lot. Peterson asked the applicant his plans for this parcel. McCarthy said he would like to develop this property in the future. He noted the previous owner Indicated the vacant property provided little benefit. He stated he would like an opportunity to build on this parcel and only intends to enhance the neighborhood by doing so. Smoot stated all other surrounding propertirs maintain at least cne vacant acre. He questioned the need to subdivide at this time if the applicant does not propose to build right away. Rowlette questioned how a building on this property would affect the property at the lower elevation. She questioned whether a similar division has ever been approved. Mabusth Indicated there has never been a division as such approved In the past as flag lots did not conform to standards. Flag lots are allowed based on the new lot width standards for lakeshore lots. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 17, 1993 ZONING FILE #1825 - CONT. Paul Anderson, 2530 Old Beach Road, questioned why the Commission was considering ways to interpret the code to allow the division when they should be concentrating on why the proposal is necessary. He lelt this would be a detriment to the neighborhood. He said construction of another residence along the drive would be make passage on the road difficult and create an unsafe condition. Chair Schroeder answered they are not trying to find a way to approve the division, but if this is a legitimate request they must consider all the facts. Peterson noted because the neighbors all have 2+ acres does not mean that this property must maintain that acreage. Saklad felt the division would be detrimental to the environment and create an unsafe condition. Rowlette stated they must concentrate on the pertinent Issues, and added just because they do not want a development does not mean they can deny it if It meets all rules and regulations. Smoot noted then unless the rules change, they cannot approve the division. Saklad questioned the hardcover issue. Mabusth explained that if approved, the appileant would be required to remove much of the hardcover on the developed lot and would not be able to keep improvements on the lot as it exists now. McCarthy stated some of the required removals are not necessary I terns. It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Chair Schroeder, to recommend denial of AppIication #182 for Thomas L. McCarthy, 2490 Old Beach Road, based on the lack of hardship and the application setting a negative precedent. Ayes 7, nays 0. Chair Schroeder called for a recess from 8:50 to 8:58 p.m. (#3) #1820 HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, NORTH ARM ACCESS ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 - 7:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mai I Ing were noted. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 17, 1993 ZONING FILE #1820 - CONT. Mabusth explained the County proposes the replacement of an ex Is 11ng wooden s eawail with steel. She noted the permit has been issued and the repairs have been completed. The County was unaware that a new conditional use permit would be required and thought any repairs would fall under the previously approved conditional use permit. She pointed out the major issue with this application is the question of storm water management affecting the quality of run-off to the lake from the parking lot. She noted the City would like to see something in place prior to the 1994 boating season and referred to three options recommended by the City Engineer. The County is agreeab'e and staff wi I I work with them to determine which option is most viable. She suggested the Watershed District should also be asked to covenant. Nolan suggested approval be conditioned upon on-going maintenance of the area. Mabusth explained that is currently being done by the County. It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Peterson, to recommend approval of Application #1820 for Hennepin County Departmerit of EnvIronmentaI Management, North Arm Access, approving a conditional use permit and variance for the repair of an existing seawall, per staff’s recommendation. Ayes 7, nays 0. (#4) #1822 MARK PRUETER, 3215 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 7:11 - 7:34 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. and Mrs. Prueter were present for this application. Mabusth explained the applicants request side setback, and hardcover variance for an addition to the rear of the existing residence, and an average lakeshore setback variance to ^allow replacement of an existing lakeshore deck proposed at 18x10.6 . The deck area wi I I be reduced. Mr. Prueter stated they hope to make this their permanent residence, but need more living space for future family additions. He pointed out the lot narrows at the rear and the house was constructed prior to adoption of the current zoning ordinances. There is no additional land available on either side and the neighbors do not object to the project. He testified that the walkway from the house to the garage is necessary because of ponding in this area, and he hopes to address this issue. J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 17, 1993 ZONING FILE HI 822 - CONT. Rowlette asked if it is possible to fill In this area. Mabusth said they will need to add some fill with the addition, and the applicants hope to look at ways to redirect the drainage. She noted they propose the removal of the sidewalk along the side of the house, but because of the limited area to direct drainage, tiling may be necessary. She referred to concerns regarding accessibility for emergency vehicles, and pointed out there is a 13’ setback from the structure on the western lot, and an approximate 4’ setback from the grade-level deck on the eastern lot. Chair Schroeder asked the applicants if they had considered maintaining the existing setback on the eastern side. Prueter said they considered an upward expansion, but that did not provide the necessary living space. This proposal allows for the most economical solution to add living area. Mabusth noted emergency vehicles can go over grade-level deck structures, that is why the ordinance does not require them to be set back further from the lot line. Nolan suggested the proposal could be reduced by 2’. Prueter said the addition needed to be that size to accommodate the hallway and still allow for a reasonable expansion. Rowlette stated she was happy with the reduction of the deck and the west side lot line setback, but was concerned with the encroachment Into the eastern side lot line setback because of the access and drainage issues. Prueter pointed out there is a firs hydrant at the rear of the property where they access the drive from the east which provides access to the detached garage. Chair Schroeder stated that helps to some degree but would feel more comfortable maintaining the 9.6’ eastern side setback. Nolan indicated if the addition were reduced by 2’, the property would remain within the existing hardcover calculations, and felt the impact would be minimal on the room sizes. Chair Schroeder explained they not only have to take into cons I deration the comments of existing neighbors, but must try to consider concerns of potential new neighbors. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 17, 1993 ZONING FILE #1822 - CONT. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Berg, to approve AppIication #1822 for Mark Prueter, 3215 Crystal bay Road, approving setback, hardcover and average setback variances for an addition to the rear of the existing residence and a deck, subject to conditions set forth in staff’s memo, and conditioned upon a drainage plan being provided. Ayes 4, nays 3. Smith, Nolan and Rowlette voted nay. Mayor Callahan questioned how access is gained to the property. Prueter answered he thought he had an access easement running parallel to the railroad tracks. (#5) #1823 MARGE ROSSING, 130 CYGNET PLACE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:37 - 8:14 P.M. The Affidavit of Pub Iication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Marge Rossing was present. Mabusth explained the applicant proposes a 20x28’ addition to the north side of the house, and a 26x38’ detached garage which meets the 10’ separation setback from adjacent structures. There is no hardcover or structural coverage problems. Rossing explained the addition is to accommodate the care of her brother. The detached garage is needed as the existing attached garage wiI I become a part of the residence. Peterson questioned what will be stored in the new garage and noted construction equipment on the property during his inspection. Rossing stated the equipment was there to facilitate the clean up of the property, and none will be stored on the property. Mabusth noted the encroachment onto the Wirtjes property. Rossing noted those items have been removed. Peterson questioned the need for an additional garage. Rossing rioted the large detached garage is storage area for boats. 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO T'-ANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 17, 1993 ZONING FILE «1823 - CONT. Clair Bloemendaal, 145 Cygnet Place, testified that the property is an eyesore in the neighborhood and has been for many years. She expressed concern that this proposal would only add to that condition. Rowlette questioned the normal size of a three stall garage. Mabusth stated a three stall garage is typicaliy 28 to 30’, and the proposal is oversized. She noted the existing garage exterior is not finished. Rossing indicated they hope to do so this summer. Smith inquired as to how long the garage has been uncompleted. Rossing answered two years. Berg asked who the contractor is for the proposal. Rossing said her sons would be doing the addition. Nolan asked about the materials to be used on the addition. Rossing stated the garages and additionwill be sided with the same material as the house. Rowlette questioned whether there are time limitations on construction. Mabusth indicated the permit requires an inspection to be made at least every 6 months or the permit will expire. Rossing indicated she had not been contracted by the Building staff prior t^o last week regarding the completion of the existing garage. Rowlette said she understood the neighbors’ complaints and suggested screening along the road. Peterson asked if the driveway has been Included In the hardcover calculations and noted its considerable size. Mabusth indicated that was included, but added it is at this time to control the use of the grass for parking of vehicIes. i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 17, 1993 ZONING FILE #1823 - CONT. Bloemendaal noted there currently is scret^i’ing along the roadway, but due to the season cnanges, only helps ;>art of the year. She stated many times there are several vehicles jarked on the property for extended periods of time, including long transport vehicles. Mabusth inquired if there is a business being run out of the home. Rossing answered there is but the equipment other than a van is stored off-site. She noted sometimes her other son will stop by with his dump truck. Berg asked if a certificate is issued upon completion. Mabusth answered cniy with new residential construction, and a final would only be required for this project. Peterson noted if the permit expires, that only ensures the City that work will not continue until another is issued, and not that the project will continue. Chair Schroeder expressed concern about the use of the garages. Mabusth expressed the difficulty of poI icing individual properties. She quest*>ned where the equipment from the existing attached garage will be stored until the new garage is completed. Possing said she proposes the construction of the garage prior the add 11ion. Nolan felt they should require a screening plan. Mabusth noted the applicant in earlier discussions had alluded to the construction of a berm along the roadway and the planting of evergreens, but because i t would be in excess of 100 cubic yards of fill, a conditional use permit is necessary. Rossing noted the scrub trees along the roadway on the second lot need to be removed. Lindquist suggested they request a landscape plan be presented to Council along with tne application and that the project be arp»*oved in phases. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 17, 1993 ZONING FILE #1823 - CONT. Rossing said she would like to commence with the additlDn as soon os possible, but noted she does not want to construct the berm at this time, but would like permission to place the fill from the addition where the berm would be located. Mabusth clarified that the Planning Commission would like to combine the landscaping with this request and that she could not stock pile fill from construct ion without a conditional use permit. It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Peterson, to approve AppIication #1823 for Marge Rossing, 130 Cygnet Place, for rear and street setback variances to construct an addition to the existing residence, on the hardships that the lot is an unusual shape and the house was constructed prior to adoption of the existing ordinance, subject to the project being staged beginning with the completion of the existing detached garage, and second the proposed detached garage be completed prior to commencing with the addition, and a landscape plan to be presented to Council to be completed over the upcoming years, and the driveway boundaries identified. Ayes 7, nays 0. (#6) #1824 ERIC A SHELLY LILJEQUIST, 2490 BIRCH LANE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:59 - 9:18 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Liljequist were present. Mabusth explained the aopMcants seek a street setback variance for a detached garage to be located in the street yard of the lakeshore lot. She noted that during the inspection of the property, staff found it necessary to back out onto Baldur Park at the three way intersection, and suggested they need to remedy this situation. The City Engineer has provided three options: 1. align tho garage and drive with the house: 2. construct the garage so the doors face away from Birch Lane and angle the garage aligning it with the property boundary; or 3. di»'0Ctly angle the garage toward Birch Lane. Mabusth indicated the applicant has requested hardcover be kept to a minimum as he wishes to complete future improvements to the house. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 17, 1993 ZONING FILE #1824 - CONT. Liljequist reviewed Options #1 and #3 aligning the driveway directly with the drive across the street and said this is not viable and Option #2 provides for too sharp of a turn into the pfop0rty. He said with their proposaI they can back out onto Birch Lane. Peterson felt Option #2 was the most logical. Liljequist noted with their proposal they would be reducing hardcover to 20%. Mabusth questioned whether the Commission would sacrifice additional hardcover for safety concerns. Rowlette said she would be willing to allow an overage of hardcover, but could not assure a future Planning Commission would *eel the same way. Liljequist indicated they plan to remove the sidewalk and rocks on the property. Rowlette asked how many houses are on Birch Lane, and indicated the majority of the garages on Birch Lane are setback at similar setbacks. Mabusth stated the applicants are also attempting to mature tree. She added she has not received comment neighbors. She indicated a preference to Option #2 hardcover would still remain below 25%. save the from the and said It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Berg, to recommend approval of Application #1824 for Eric and Shelly Liljequist, 3490 Birch Lane, approving a street setback variance for a detached garage, as presented by the appiicants. Ayes 7, nays 0. (#7) #1826 ROBERT & ANN HENSON, 2166 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:18 - 9:54 P.M. The Affidavit of Pub Iicat ion and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Henson and Mark from Triple D, builder, were present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 17, 1993 ZONING FILE #1826 - CONT. , ^ „u Mabusth explained the applicants propose the removal of the existing tennis court, the construction of a detached garage and the addition of a deck within the 0-75’ zone. She noted the County must approve the proposed changes with regard to the approach, and the application will not be presented to Council until such approval is received by the City. The applicants propose the removal of the shed and adjacent brick structure. She noted there is currently no direct access onto the lakeshore yard from the house. She pointed out she could not remember a time when the Planning Commission approved new structural hardcover in the 0- 75’ zone. She suggested a walk from the lakeshore side doorway around to the side where a deck could be constructed out of the 0- 75’ setback area. Mr. Henson said that would be too near his neighbor, and noted the drainage that runs between the two lots. He indicated they propose the garage as their current garage is 120’ away from the house, uphill. He noted the tennis court needs to be resurfaced and the fencing repaired or replaced. He pointed out for the removal of 5,000 s.f. of hardcover, all they request in return Iimits of the code is the lakeside deck. outside the Mrs. Henson noted their engineer is currently working on plans for the access approach. Peterson questioned whether there is other hardcover in the 0-75 zone that could be removed. Mr. Henson noted there Is approximately 33 s.f. of brick area near the lakeshore. Paul and Marcia Merlo, 2142 Shadywood Road, expressed strong support for the project. They felt the removal of the tennis court would help the quality of the lake in terms of drainage, and the applicants should be allowed some type of deck on the lakeside of their home. Mr. Henson pointed out the deck will only extend 6’ past the existing structure as a portion of the structure currently protrudes 4’ and the deck would be placed in this area. Peterson noted they garage. II have a tight turn into the proposed Mark, applicants’ builder, said the garage will be off set from the house with 16’ doors, which should provide enough room If garage is sQuare with the door. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 17, 1993 ZONING FILE #1826 - CONT. Rowlette noted the proposed garage will bring hardcover to 47.86% in the 75-250’ zone. She questioned if other improvements could be removed. Mr. Henson stated his alternative is to repave the tennis court. Chair Schroeder expressed concern with the increase in the 0-75’ zone and explained their long-standing position has been not to approve anything in this zone. He said he would support the garage but not the deck. Mr. Henson felt the deck was more valuable and to him than the garage. Chair Schroeder stated they cannot base their decision on Increased value, but rather must focus their main concern on protection of the lake. Mr. Henson reiterated he is removing 5,000 s.f. of hardcover for 225 s.f. of hardcover in the 0-75’ zone. Peterson asked the size of the deck. Mr. Henson replied it is proposed at 10’x25’. Peterson asked if that could be reduced. Nolan suggested an alternative would be a stepping stone grade- level patio in lieu of a portion of the bricked walk near the house. He said this would not eliminate additional hardcover, but would make it more usable, and would not increase it. Mr. Henson noted the area could only be approximately 10x10’, and he does not want a deck that small. He added the land In this area is very unstable due to the high water table and any kind of grade- level deck would not be practical. He noted it is not practical to remove a portion of the brick walkway to reduce hardcover as an overhang from the house currently covers this area, thus no reduction would be realized. It was moved by Peterson, to recommend approval for Application #1826 for Robert and Ann Henson, 2*'66 Shadywood Road, for variances to construct a garage and lakeside deck, based on the condition the tennis court, side shed, and brick area near the lake be removed, approval from the County is received prior to commencing, and the deck be reduced to 8x25’. Motion failed due to a lack of a second. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 17, 1993 ZONING FILE #1826 - CONT. Nolan said he would be willing to second if eIiminated. the deck were Mr. Henson reiterated the importance of the deck to him. Rowlette asked how Important the existing garage is to the appIicant. Mr. Henson stated they need the additional storage and it wOuld not be practical to landscape out that far from the house. Merlo stated he felt It would be a travesty not to approve this application for the benefit of the lake. He felt the applicants could grade the drive so the run-off was funneled to the lawn area. Rowlette disagreed, and stated she felt without the removal of the existing garage and concrete walIs, the drainage problem would only be exacerbated. Lindquist stated his concern with the deck going beyond the setbacks of the existing house. Nolan Indicated he would consider a trade-off. Mr. Henson pointed out there is nothing left on the property with which to trade. Rowlette said she would like to see more hardcover removed, and added she Is not against some kind of deck on the lakeside, but would not be forced to use the removal of the tennis court as a bargaining chip. Chair Schroeder clarified to the applicant his options. Mr. Henson asked that the application be denied. It was moved by Chair Schroeder, seconded by Rowlette, to recommend denial of Application #1826 for Robert and Ann Henson, 2166 Shadywood Road, based on the fact the encroachment into the 0-75 zone is too excessive in consideration of the additional hardcover in the 75-250’ zone, and in consideration of the removal of the tennis court. Ayes 6, nays 1. Peterson voted nay. The applicants left at this time and returned later. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 17, 1993 ZONING FILE #1826 - CONT. Mr. Henson questioned the brick walkway on the side of the house and the area that is calculated as hardcover. Mabusth explained an overhang Is considered hardcover If it excaeds 1 1/2’, so 3’ of the applicants’ 4 1/2’ overhang area is calculated as hardcover. If the brick were removed underneath the overhang, hardcover would be based on 3’ of overhang area. Henson said he would be willing to remove this area if that would make a difference. Rowlette said this will be added to the record and forwarded on to the CouncI I. (#8) #1827 RICHARD HENRY NELSON, 3908 CHERRY AVENUE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:54 - 10:10 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. Nelscn and Don Bonnicksen, the builder, were present. Mabusth explained the applicant proposes a new roof extending beyond the existing building envelope over the residence which is located within the average lakeshore setback area and the 0-75 zone. She clarified that the roof will extend beyond the footprint of the house over a smalI section of existing deck on the lake side and a new deck to the rear of the house. The appileant proposes no hardcover removals. Nelson clarified that the purpose for the project is to get a deck to the rear of the property because run-off has caused structural damage to the home. Currently the roof has three peaks and the back of the property Is terraced downward to the house. He said he wants to pul I the house together architectural I y. He noted he was unaware that he should consider removals of existing hardcover and said he would be glad to remove the plastic under the rock landscape area. Mabusth questioned whether he would be grading away from the back of the house. Nelson clarified he intends to dig drainage tile to run to the drive. a small trench and install Smith questioned his neighbors’ response. Nelson said those he talked to are in support of the project. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 17, 1993 ZONING FILE #1827 - CONT. Mabusth noted the removal of the plastic under the rock landscape area would reduce hardcover by 818 s.f. or l0+%. Chair Schroeder asked If the applicant has looked at other removals. Nelson noted he intends to remove the walkway, but this area will be overhung by the new roof. Nolan asked about the concrete pad to the left of the garage. Nelson said he would be happy to remove this also. Chair Schroeder inquired the status of the patio area. Nelson said he could not remove a portion of such without destroying the entire patio. addition of a rear side deck, subject to the P'®^ rock, concrete walkway on the west side of the house, and the concrete pad on the southeast side of garage be conditioned upon the applicant working with staff to address the Srainage concerns. Ayes 6. nays 1. Rowlette voted nay because she wished to see more aggressive hardco''er removals. (#9) #1828 CHRISTOPHER TULLY, ioNDi??oiIiAL^SsE°PERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING 10:10 - 10:15 P.M. The Affidavit of PubIicatlon and Certificate of Mai IIng were noted. Mabusth explained the applicant has applied for permit to construct an accessory structure on hi s noted al I lots owned by the appi leant in this are combined. The area to the rear of the undeveloped road and probably will remain so. ^he structure wen exceeds the required 35’ setback for a principal structure. It was moved by Rowlette. seconded by Nolan, to recommend approval of Application #1828 for Christopher Tully, 1355 North approving a conditional use permit to construct an accessory structure on a through lot. Ayes 7, nays 0. V MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 17, 1993 (#10) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE Chair Schroeder explained Commission members attending Council meetings are asked to report to the Council on the actions of the Planning Commission, and following, report back to the Planning Commission the action of the Council. (#11) OTHER ISSUES An orientation meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, June 9, at 7:30 a.m. for all members of the Planning Commission. 1993 (#13) APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Chair Schroeder, approve the minutes of the April 19, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. Ayes 2, nays 0. Rowlette, Smith, Nolan, Berg and Lindquist abstained as their did not attend the meeting. (#14) REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNCIL MEETING Chair Schroeder volunteered to attend the meeting June 14, Council meeting, and urged ail new members to attend. 1993 ADJOURNMENT Chair Schroeder adjourned the regular Planning Commission meeting at 10:20 p.m. Charles Schroeder, Chair Person Lite ' IJNI VERSITY OF MINNESOTA Department of Fisheries and \MIdiife College of Sutural Resources 200 Hi hisnn Hall, I ^SO Fol\s ell A ve. St. Paul. MS 55108 IOJO 612-624 Fax:6l2 625-52'^S^ \M.VS£S0TA CiH>Pr/i\Tf\f. FISH ASP ^ILDUFE „ ^ -s FESF.KPCH LStTCCH'^FF.PATOPS U 5 Fnh anJ H lUItfr 5/n irr ' L mvmiiv t>f PtfHtffmfnt of \aturjJ Petourrei • • Mi'Jii/r ifu'wfrmrni/ninrtfi#* Friday, July 10, 1992 Mr. Ron Morris City Manager City of Orono P.O. Box 86 Orono, MN 55323 JUL 2 0 1992 Dear Mr. Morris: We completed the Canada goose capture and translocation in the Metropolitan Area on Monday, 6 July. A total of 4,161 geese (1,257 adults and 2,904 young) were trapped at 59 sites and transported elsewhere. In 1991. we caught 2,822 geese (1,144 adults and 1,683 young; at 56 sites. Like last year, adult geese were divided between Oklahoma (500) and Mississippi (757) and released on their wildlife areas. The goslings were transported to Minnesota sites, mostly in the north and northwest, and released. Goose production this spring was highest in the last 10 years. The early and cool spring gave the birds plenty of time to nest and kept the grass green and growing, contributed to an unusually productive year for the geese. While adults were up by only 113 (10 percent) in 1992, we caught 1,221 (73 percent) more young. The crew trapped 98% of the geese they attempted to capture, up from 95% last year The cool weather made for less stress on the geese and the goose capture crews. We lost one adult while trapping, and one gosling and one adult during transport. This was less that the four expected based on our estimate of the one death per 1000 geese captured and transported. All deaths resulted from the stress of the capture combined with an infirmity or disease. No birds were lost as a result ol injury. The locations, dates, and number of geese captured in your city were: Location PHEASANT LAWN-l PHEASANT LAWN-2 Date 6/22/92 7/2/92 Young 92 40 Adults Total 74 166 25 65 1 TOTAL 132 9 9 23 1 The cost of the 1992 removal was $1,000. Ms. Burgess has informed me that the City of Orono will pay $200 and that the Pheasant Lawn Homeowners will pay $800. Please make the check payable to The Canada Goose Program and mail to: The Canada Goose Program 2195 Dudley Ave. St. Paul, MN 55108. Thank you. Attached is a summary of the Twin Cities removal for 1992. Sincerely yours. Dr. James A. Cooper Associate Professor cr, Ms. Carol Burgess, Pheasant Lawn Homeowners Assoc. i 1992 CANADA GOOSE REMOVALS -JIM COOPER, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA SHE HYLAND LAKE MARSH LAKE AND NINE MILE CREEK-1 NORMANDALE LAKE PENN LAKE (NORTH AND SOUTH) WANDA MILLER POND MISSISSIPPI RIVER NORTH TWIN LAKE TWIN LAKE NORTH APARTMENTS-1 TWIN LAKE NORTH APARTMENTS-2 LAKE ANN LAKE MINNEWASHTA LAKE SUSAN CARSON S BAY-1 CARSON’S BAY-2 DELLV/OOD HILLS GOLF COURSE OLEARY PARK VIENNA WOODS PARK AND KETTLE PARK OFF 35E BRYANT LAKE OLYMPIC HILLS GOLF COURSE 6241 KNOLL DRIVE 6400 TRACY AVE. COLONIAL CHURCH WTERLACHEN GOLF COURSE LAKE CORNELIA LONG BRAKE TRAIL-DELANEY BLVD. MILL POND MOORELAKE GENERAL MILLS INC SHADY OAK ROAD-2 LONG LAKE ELM CREEK PARK RESERVE-SWIMMING BEACH BAKER PARK RESERVE LAKE OF THE ISLES CARLSON TOWERS-GATES APARTMENTS-1 CARLSON TOWERS-GATES APARTMENTS-2 OOMMUMTYCENIER SHADY OAK ROAD-1 GILFILLAN LAKE-1 GILFILLAN LAKE-2 LAKE MINNETONKA-NARROWS BRIDGE AREA-1 LAKE MINNETONKA-NARROWS BRIDGE AREA-2 PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE GROUNDS WOOD LAKE NATURE CENTER SOUTH TWIN LAKE CENTRAL PARK-BENNETT LAKE LAKEJOSEPHNE LANGTONLAKE MCCARRONSLAKE HARSTAD PROPERTY-SILVER THORN ESTATES ISLAND LAKE OWASSOLAKE CHRISTMAS LAKE LAKE MINNETONKA-TIMBER LANE AP' A OF GIDEON SILVER LAKE MINNEHAHA CREEK NEAR WEST 34TH STREET-1 MINNEHAHA CREEK NEAR WEST 3«TH STREET-2 WAYZATA SWIMMING BEACH cm: BLOOMNGTON BLOOM NGTON BLOOMNGTON BLOOMNGTON BLOOMNGTON BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN DEEPHAVEN DEEPHAVEN DELLWOOD EAGAN EAGAN EDEN PRAIRIE EDEN PRAIRIE EDINA EDINA EDINA EDINA EDINA EDINA EDINA FRIDLEY GOLDEN VALLEY HOPKINS LONG LAKE MAPLE GROVE MEDINA MINNEAPOUS MINNETONK.’ MINNETONKA MINNETONK/i MINNETONKA NORTH OAKS NORTH OAKS CRCNO CRCNO PLYMOUTH RICHRELD HO66INS0ALE ROSEVILLE ROSEVILLE ROSEVILLE ROSEVILLE SHOREVIEW SHOREVIEW SHOREVIEW AND ROSEVILLE SHOREWOOO SHCREWOCO ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE AND ST. LOUIS PAT K ST. LOUIS PARK WAYZATA YOUNG ADULTS TOTAL BP*Fr?MLE 6/24/92 33 1 5 48 6/26/92 20 6 26 3 6/24/92 205 86 291 32 6/26/92 25 8 33 4 6/26/92 31 13 44 7 6/17/92 56 10 66 5 6/16/92 71 24 95 12 6/16/92 44 18 62 9 6/18/92 44 9 53 4 6/29/92 22 12 34 6 6/29/92 70 29 99 14 6/29/92 28 13 41 7 6/23/92 17 22 39 8 7/6/92 28 12 40 6 6/25/92 124 35 159 17 6/30/92 36 15 51 7 6/30/92 21 10 31 5 6/24/92 47 14 61 7/2/92 110 39 149 18 6/24/92 13 7 20 3 6/24/92 14 6 20 3 6/24/92 12 6 18 3 7/2/92 58 24 82 12 6/26/92 17 10 27 5 6/24/92 32 13 45 4 6/26/92 40 14 54 7 6/17/92 77 20 97 9 6/18/92 26 6 32 3 6/29/92 18 20 38 8 7/6/92 42 18 60 10 6/16/92 80 37 117 6/17/92 60 14 74 7/1/92 112 62 174 27 6/20/92 51 t, 56 1 6/27/92 71 33 104 18 C/18/92 10 5 16 2 6/19/92 99 22 121 12 6/15/92 21 1 22 1 6/30/92 34 13 47 6 6/22/92 92 74 166 26 7/2/92 40 CDinCM1 1 6/20/92 30 19 49 9 7/1/92 16 6 22 2 6/16/92 59 2 5 84 13 6/25/92 73 34 107 15 6/25/92 69 29 98 15 6/25/92 28 17 4S a 6/25/92 37 22 59 12 6/15/92 48 18 66 4 6/15/92 103 37 140 16 6/15/92 44 25 69 13 6/29/92 26 4 30 2 7/6/92 28 12 40 22 6/17/92 36 9 45 4 6/19/92 40 19 59 7 7/6/92 65 20 35 10 6/23/92 64 59 123 22 ifi‘> WOOOHttl CXXJMTR Y CLUB SOOTHVIEW COUMTY CLUB WAYZATA AND ORONO WEST ST. PAUL 6/10/92 6/30/92 49 42 1 7 20 6662 ^9^ rl - 4 1 iA I I APPLIED MEMBRANE TECHNOLOGY. INC