Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-28-1993 Council PacketMINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 28, 1993 ROLL The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Edwara Callahan, Counci I members J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley, JoEllen Hurr and Gabriel Jabbour. The following 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. Candace Rowlette reoresented the PIanning Commission. Susan Wilson andl. ili McMillan represented the Park Commission. Mayor Callahan called the meeting to order at 7:50 P.M. PRESENTATION TO MARY BUTLER Mayor Callahan presented Mary Butler a plaque expressing the City’s appreciation for past service. on ) CONSENT AGENDA Kelley removed Item n5. Mayor Callahan added Item #8 and removed Item #16. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, 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 resp#?;tive numerical order. (*#2) APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to approve the minutes of the regular Council meeting held June 1J, 1993. Ayes 5, nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Susan Wilson requested the Council to consider acceptance of the Lowry Woods nature preserve from the Nature Conservancy to maintain as a natural area and not be developed. Hurr suggested they hold a public hearing to get input f i om the neighbors. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 28, 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Hurr reported the LMCD adopted the proposed budget at their meeting on Wednesday. They did reduce the amount in their reserve fund to 6 months operating expenses, and the rates will increase to cities. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments. (*#3) #1734 JOHN BURGER, 3750 BAYSIDE ROAD - FINAL SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION #3294 It was moved by Jabbour, seconaed by Mayor Callahan, to adopt Resolution #3294 for Application #1734 for John Burger, 3750 Bayside Road, approving final subdivision. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#4) #1811 C. JACK REMIEN, 3237 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCE Mr. Remien was present. Mayor Callahan referred to a letter from Gary Nasledlek, the only new item since the last meeting. It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten, to approve Application #1811 for C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle, for lot area and lot width variances to construct a new residence. Jabbour apologized for not attending the last meeting. He reviewed approximately 5 years ago the Council changed the policy regarding lots owned in common ownership. He stated he personally does not want higher density, but also does not want to force people to develop lots so they do not lose the right to do so. Mayor Callahan clarified that Mr. Nasiedlek’s letter infers that if the lot belonged to anyone else but Remien, it could be built upon with variance approval. Mabusth stated that the rights of someone else are no different than Mr. Remien’s with respect to this lot. Both would need variance approval to develop. She stated the policy change intended that ownership of lots not be considered with regard to development of a property. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 28» 1993 ZONING FILE #1811 - CONT. Vote: Ayes 3, nays 2. Mayor Callahan and Kelley voted nay. Motion carried. (#5) #1825 THOMAS L. MCCARTHY, 2490 OLD BEACH ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Thomas McCarthy and Mark Gronberg were present Mabusth referred to a plat map of the area indicating only one other lot large enough to possible be subdivided. She reminded them of the Hepp application, in the same neighborhood, which was denied because of an existing easement area that had to be Deducted from the total acreage. The new shoreland regulations allow for flag lots to be developed. The applicant is now proposing a 9.6’ wide drive in the 250-500’ zone meeting the allowed 30% hardcover. Jabbour Questioned whether the drive would be wide enough for emergency venicles. Mayor Callahan clarified that the shoreland regulations were an overlay of existing ordinances, and therefore the flag lot could still not be approved. Gaffron explained with the adoption of the new ordinance, the definition of measuring lot width was changed for the entire chapter. Cook noted the road is only necessary to.be wider for emergency vehicles. He stated the road could easily be widened in the future even if approved at the narrower width. Hurr questioned the minimum standards for a private road. Gaffron replied a private road is required to be 23’ wide when serving 7 or more residences. Mabusth stated there are parts of ShorehiI Is Road that are only 10 1/2’ wide. Gronoerg stated the Long Lake Fire Department has indicated most trucks measure 7.8’ across the wheei base, and the largest truck they have is 8.1’. Jabbour felt they were obligated to consider public safety. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 28, 1993 ZONING FILE #1825 - CONT. Dan Sadlack, 2409 Old Beach Road, stated during the Planning Commission a petition of opposition was presented expressing concerns for environment, aethestic, and safety on the single lane. Mayor Callahan noted the objections raised at the Planning Commission were valid, but added if the applicant meets all the rules and regulations of the City, they are required to approve the appI ica tion. Hurr felt there should only be one curb cut allowed for the property and should be on an outlot. Kathleen Ronald, 2480 Old Beach Road, stated they purchased their property because it was a two acre parcel with privacy. Because of the elevation of the McCarthy property and the addition of a new residence, that privacy will be lost. Paul Anderson, 2530 Old Beach Road, asked the required cul-de-sac radius. Mabusth indicated a cul-de-sac is required to have a 100’ platted right-of-way diameter and 80’ paved width. The turnaround currently located at the end of the street does not meet the standards, but the right-of-way is available. Staunton stated the code indicates it is the obligation of the developer to bring the road up to standard. Jabbour reminded the public that the applicant is not requesting any variances with the most recent proposal. David Schneider, 2540 Old Beach Road, expressed opposition to the propose I. Jabbour noted If the aoplication meets all standards, regardless of the affect it will have on aesthetics, they must aoprove. Hurr indicated the City Engineer suggested only one curb cut for the property because of safety reasons, and she felt they should listen to his recommendation. It was moved by Hurr, seconded oy Goetten, to deny Application #1825 for Thomas L. McCarthy, 2490 Old Beach Road, for a preliminary subdivision because they felt there should only be one curb cut for the property whict. does not leave enough acreage to subdivide, based upon the City Engineer’s recommendation. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 28, 1993 ZONING FILE #1825 ” CONT. Gronberg asked if they would consider the application if the developer upgraded the road. McCarthy requested the application be tabled for 30 days. Hurr withdrew her motion, and Goetten withdrew her second. It was moved by Hurr, second»*d by Goetten, to continue Application 1*1325 for Thomas L. McCarthy, 2490 Old Beach Road, to the July 26, 1393 meeting to allow the applicant time to revise his proposal. Ayes 6, nays 0. (*#6) #1826 ROBERT & ANN HENSON, 2166 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3295 It was moved by Jabbcur, seconded by Ma.vor Callahan, to adept Resolution #3295 for Application #1826 for Robert and Ann Henson. 2166 Shad/wood Road, approving variance for the construction of an attacned garage and lakeside deck. Ayes 5. nays 0. (#7) #1831 EDWARD ENGLER, 3450 BIRCH LANE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3296 Mr. and Mrs. Engler were present. Mabusth explained the applicants propose the addition of a 10x20’ lakeside addition to be placed over an existing patio, with the remainder of patio to be removed, and a 16x24’ addition to the east side of the residence. Fourteen percent of the excessive hardcover in the 75-250' zone is due to the asphalt drive which is used as a turnaround for Birch Lane and used by the City for snow storage. The Planning Commission requested an easement over the asphalt area, but the applicants did not wish to encumber the property with an easement. A condition of the approval resolution is that the City be allowed continued usage of this a^ea, and the applicants have agreed to such. Staunton noted the condition of the resolution will not be binding to future owners. Hurr felt if this is being considered as a hardship for the granting of the variance, then they should require the easement. Goetten oojected past. as they have never requi^'ed an easement in the MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 28, 1993 ZONING FILE t1831 - CONT. Staunton noted the City could deny any subsequent owners future improvements if the condition were not upheld. Gerhardson noted the City has been using the asphalt area for 27-»- years without a problem. Kelley disagreed with the Planning Commission recommendation for approval as they are exchanging non-structuraI hardcover for structural hardcover. MaDusth agreed, but noted according to the applicants’ contractor, the foundation could not support a second story Hurr noted one hardship stated is financial reasons. Mabusth said State Statute allows financial considerations as one of the hardships. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to adopt Resolution <»3296 for Application #1831 for Edward Engler, 3450 Birch Lane, for variances to construct additions to his residence. Ayes 3, nays 1. Kelley voted nay and Murr abstained. Motion carried. (*#8) #1832 SCOTT A. MABUSTH, 740 BROWN ROAD NORTH - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3297 It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to adopt Resolution #3297 for AppIication #1832 for Scott Mabusth, 740 Brown Read North, for a variance to construct a shed in front of the front line of the principal residence. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#9) #1838 ROBERT OWENS, 1700 BOHNS POINT HOAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION #3298 Mr. Owens was present. Hurr questioned the hardcover percentages for the site Mabusth responded that there will be an additional 82 hardcover in the 0-75’ zone because of the tiered walls. s.f . of Hurr asked if this is the only way to repair the wall. MINUTEl' OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 28, 1993 ZONING FILE #1838 - CONT. Mabusth replied this is the preferred design. She noted the Planning Commission requested screening of the concrete patio wall with vines. She added the slopes will be reduced to 3:1 making the area much easier to maintain. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution #3298 for Aoclication #1338 Robert Owens, 1700 Bohns Point Road, approving a conditional use permit to permit land alterations in excess of 100 cubic yards. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#10) ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CHAPTER 5.42 - ORDINANCE #117, SECOND SERIES Gaffron referred to the draft ordinance presented in December 1992 wnich separates the joint use dock Iicense from the marina Iicenses. He noted the addition of a suspension of the marina license in the ordinance allowing the City to remove the license ^or a shorter oenod of time than an entire year. It wou I a be considered a misdemeanor to operate without a license. Staunton noted the City could build into its ordinance sanctions for the misdemeanor. Mayor Callahan stated it is as simple as “no license, no operation". Gaffron stated in the past Orono has been concerned that marinas do not make good neighbors. He referred to the list of permitted business uses included in the revised draft ordinance. He noted the license can be issued without meeting all the B-2 zone standards. Kelley felt some items on the list cannot be quantified. Gaffron replied that many of the standards included are directly from the existing B-2 standards. Jabbour asked if there has been input from marina owners. Gaffron noted that the marinas were notified of the proposed ordinance but he has not received any comments. Kelley asked if all marinas currently meet the 7 criteria sat forth. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 28, 1993 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - CONT. Gaffron noted most meet the criteria, but things change frequently and they may not always meet all the operational criteria on a day- to-day or hour-to-hour basis. That is why it is important that marinas micro-manage their operations. Jabbour noted in the recent past marinas have gone out of their way to more fully comply. Gaffron concurred. He stated all the marinas have agreed to a site plan on file at the City, and they genera I l.v meet all the criteria. Jabbour stated they must realize that marinas exist and the City is not willing to go to court over this issue. He stated they work with marinas to make them comply as often as possible. must Hurr noted one LMCD I icense. condition of aooroval of the license is a current Mayor Callahan suggested they remove that condition. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Kelley, to adopt Ordinance #117, Second Series, Joint Use Dock and Marina Licensing, Section 5.42-5.43, adding minimum operational standards and revocation clause and removing the condition of requiring the LMCD license. Ayes 3, nays 1. Hurr voted nay and Jabbour abstained. Motion carried. \ (#11) 1993 MARINA LICENSES it was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Kelley, 1993 marina licenses for the following: Windward Marina Minnetonka Boat Works Sailors World Lakeside Marina Gayles Marina Crystal Bay Service to approve the Ayes 3, nays 1. Hurr voted nay because staff could not assure her all the marinas meet the required criteria. Jabbour abstained. Motion carried. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 28, 1993 (*#12) 1993 JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE - NAVARRE COVE - RESOLUTION #3299 It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to adopt Resolution #3299 approving a 1993 annual Joint Use Dock License for Navarre Cove Homeowners Association. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#13) ALAN NETTLES, 1940 SHORELINE DRIVE - SEWER REQUEST Mr. Nettles was present. Gaffron explained the Nettles property is adjacent to the Crystal Bay sewer project. The applicant requests permission to connect to the sewer as his septic system is faiIing. Gaffron said to do so the City must readjust the MUSA boundaries, and questioned whether the Council would like to consider other properties at the same time. The applicant also requests that the sewer connection charge be assessed to his property over 15 years. He reminded them this is lakeshore property. Mayor Callanan suggested inclusion of other properties with the request to extend the MUSA boundaries, such as the sewer plant proper ty. Gaffron indicated there were other property owners near this residence who have inquired whether sewer could be extendeo to serve them. Mayor Callahan suggested staff research the possibilities and report back to Council. Jabbour recommended they go forward with the request to sewer Nettle’s property. Kelley questioned whether the property would oe reassessed If connected at this time and later sewer was installed in the area. Mayor Callahan suggested the City would be fair about the situation. Hurr suggested they request an easement across the property for future expansion of the sewer system. She asked that properties benefitting be required to pay the cost to realign the MUSA boundaries. She questioned the ability to subdivide this or other properties in the area. — MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 28, 1993 1940 SHORELINE DRIVE - CONT. Gaffron stated this parcel could not be subdivided and he was unaware of any other in the area. He noted in the past the Ci ty has been able to uphold its requirement of larger parcels sewered areas. even i n Jabbour asked the expected time frame for a MUSA expansion. Gaffron stated the Metropolitan Council has indicated if the City is willing to do a trade-off of existing MUSA acreage, they could fast track the request and have approval within 4 to 6 weeks, otherwise it would be 90+ days for approval. He noted Noerenburg Park may be an option for a trade. Mayor Callahan suggested staff investigate whether a trade is available, and directed staff to review adjacent properties and others in the City for sewer expansion. Mayor Callahan recessed the meeting from 9:55 to 10:00 p.m. (*#14) SHORELAND ORDINANCE - DNR APPROVAL RECEIVED It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor.Callahan, to accept the information regarding the DNR approval of the Shoreland Ordinance as presented. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#15) SHORELAND SEPTIC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS Kelley questioned the number of properties affected by the shoreland regulations with regard to septic systems. He asked variances will be allowed. i f Goetten noted she recently spoke with a resident, and indicated to him that the City may have some flexibility when requiring a system to conform. She felt it to be an undue hardship to require a property owner to immediately upgrade a non-conforming system. Gaffron explained most systems less than 10 years old most likely will not be affected. He noted out of 1,200 systems in the City, 600 probably will be required to be upgraded within the next few years, which is not a feasible number for staff to monitor or homeowners to comply with. He noted per the current septic program, owners have one year to comply if their system is found to be non- conforming. The DNR ’ s ordinance suggests a 2 year 9f*4ce period. Gaffron felt this may allow the City additional flexibility. J MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 28, 1993 SHORELAND SEPTIC SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS - CONT. Mayor Callahan suggested they research the possibiIity of a program similar to sewer project financing whereby the public could borrow at a low rate for long periods for system repair/reoIacement. All members agreed with this suggestion. Goetten felt they should gather all pertinent information prior to ho I aing an informational meeting. Gaffron explained under the current septic program, it will take three years to inspect every system and to do the necessary soil boring tests to confirm the separation. (#16) KENNETH FIGGE, 2004 SUGARWOOD DRIVE - REQUEST TO VARY FROM COVENANTS REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour, to accept the information regarding the Kenneth Figge request for 200J Sugarwood Drive for a request to vary from covenants as presented. Ayes 5, nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT A) Mayor Callahan reported both he and Todd Olson of Long Lake agreed they should press the mediator. Moorse reported he has talked with the mediator who indicated they are moving rapidly. B) Mayor Callahan noted Todd Olson also agreed that they need to do something regarding the intersection of Willow Drive and Highway 12 with regard to a signal light. C) Mayor Callahan referred to a letter from Minnetonka concerning ground water quality control, and suggested staff resend Orono’s original response. D) Mayor Callahan noted the Metropolitan Council representative’s for this areas term is up for reappointment. Goetten stated currently Mary Smith Is the representative, and also a resident of Orono. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 28, 1993 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT - CONT. E) Mayor Callahan referred to a letto^ from Mound regarding a signal light at County Roads 15 and 51. n suggested this matter to discussed by the County Road 15 Commit lee. F) Mayor Callahan noted the administrator is working with other cities bn an agreement with the Metropolitan Council to provide grants for technical assistant in researching a cooperative agreement. Moorse reported the next meeting will be held at the City of Shorewood on Wednesday at 5:30 p.m. G) Hurr noted the second quarter payment is due the LMCD and requested the City decide if it is to be paid. Kelley suggested they pay the bill and discuss the strategy later. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Goetten, to authorize payment of the second quarter due the LMCD. There was no vote. H) Kelley reported the City Administrator will present the draft fire contract at the next meeting. I) Kelley Inquired about the ball field at Hackberry. Gerhardson reported the pipe is in and the field is drying. J) Kelley suggested the crossing be marked for the Luce Line Trail at Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road. Hurr felt if the crossing were marked, this would only encourage those using the trail not to be cautious. Mayor Callahan suggested they post signs. - K) Goetten reported Buckhorn Days was an enjoyable event. L) Goetten reported the next Highway 12 Task Force meeting will be held at the Norseman on July 15th. M) Kelley asked if the Old Crystal Bay Road bridge is scheduled for replacement this year, and felt It should not begin at this time as it is too near the opening of the school. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 28, 1993 POLICE CHIEF REPORT (*•17) ACTIVITY SUMMARY COMPARISON 1991-1992 It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to accept the Information on the Activity Summary Comparison 1991-1992 as presented. Ayes 5, nays 0. CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT (#18) REQUEST FOR PAYMENT #6 IMPROVEMENT - STUBBS BAY SANITARY SEWER It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Goetten, to approve Payment »6 to Progressive Contractors, Inc., for the Stubbs Bay sewer improvement in the amount of $77,011.11. Ayes 5, nays 0. (•19) BIKE/HIKE TRAIL PROGRESS REPORT Lili McMillan reported the Park Commissior. has discussed the bids and the agreement and requests a work session with the Counci I . She reported Hennepin Parks wi I I provide a landscape plan by July 20th. The bids expire by the end of July. Kelley stated he was afraid their decision would be drivsn by the bids. He said he would not mind waiting another year. Jabtour noted they can ask for a bid extension. Doug and Kim Hile stated they are still unaware of what Is to happen on their property. Mayor Callahan explained that is because the City is waiting for a ! ’^hdscape plan from Hennepin Parks and cannot commit to any plan until that time. Jabbour suggested they share the landscape plan with the affected neighbors immediately upon receipt. KeI ley reiterated the traiI will go down a pubiic street, Starkey Road, and the neighbors have not even been notified. A meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, July 21st at 7:45 a.m. («20) REVIEW OF BIDS - BIKE/HIKE TRAIL No action required. minutes of a regular orono council meeting HELD JUNE 28, 1993 CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (*•21) RECORDER’S CONTRACT ADJUSTMENT It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to approve a fee change for the recorder’s contract as follows: $115.00 base fee per meeting for the first two hours, plus an additional $5.00 per 15 minutes thereafter, effective May 15, 1993. Ayes 5, nays 0. % (•22) ANIMAL CONTROL IMPOUND FACILITY Moorse explained Reo Raj Kennels will no longer be boarding dogs, but the City has worked out a program with Wright County Humane Society where by they would add onto their kennels and do the boarding. The City will be required to contribute $1,000 in the future for the expansion. The City will begin using the Humane Society as of July 1, 1993. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Kelley, to approve the temporary use of Wright County Humane Society’s facilities for the boarding of animals. Ayes 5, nays 0. (•23) DEMOLITION OF CITY BUILDINGS IN CRYSTAL BAY Callahan stated, "does $16,000 cover all the cost of the building and removing the tar, and all that stuff?" Kelley said "no grass". Gerhardson indicated "Just the buildings themselves, and taking out the footings". Moorse said "get rid of all the concrete footings and everything". Callahan said "what happens with all the tar?" Jabbour said "they are going to have to come back . Goetten said "doesn’t take care of the gasoline either . Jabbour said "are you kidding? that’s a 10 year project, I guarantee you". Callahan stated "when are they going to take the tar out from around that is fenced in?" MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 28, 1993 DEMOLITION - CONT. Gerhardson noted ”we wi I I bring in a recycler that we would normally do if we were going to pave some road. We are going to do that anyway along the course of the summer during construction time. They just come in and grind it up and then haul it up here to our facility to stock pile for shoulder repair later on." Jabbour said "sounds good to me Kelley stated "when you rip alI this out, what are we going to have left, Just dirt?" Gerhardson replied "yes". Kelley asked "and are we going to seed it? :•'"hards'^n replied "yes, the seeding is not in that amount, but I or.’t think we are talking $300 to seed something like that." Hurr said "we’re going to do that with our staff though. Gerhardson said "oh, yea. Jabbour asked "John, why aren’t we burning the buildings? Gerhardson replied "I never really got a response from the Fire Department." Jabbour answered "Josh, they do that for $.500 per residence. Kelley stated "one of those residences is awfully close to someone’s house. I don’t know which one it was, but..” Gerhardson said "there is also concern about lead paint and that was brought up particularly when we wei*e going to grind up the rubbish and stuff." Kelley added "and the old City hall is all brick. Gerhardson said "yes. Hurr questioned "did you make a formal written request to Long Lake to respond to burning to it?" Gerhardson replied "just several phone calls. Hurr said "and they never returned your phone calls? MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 28, 1993 ► DEMOLITION - CONT. Jabbour stated "OK, if we are going to have to tear the brick building down, we nfiight as well go for it." Hurr said "it is a good exercise to have a two story buiIding like that, I should think that would have been a good fir’s exercise." Gerhardson said "the yellow house would have been the only one that could have been burnt where the ?as pump is." Kelley said "isn’t there a house close by?" Gerhardson replied "and a very large tree, and we need to take the buildings out of there before we try to take out the gas tanks." It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten, to approve the demolition of the City buildings per the memo. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#24) LOWRY WOODS ACCEPTANCE FROM NATURE CONSERVANCY It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour, to accept the Lowry Woods area from the Nature Conservancy. Hurr requested a public hearing be held prior to acceptance. Jabbour agreed a hearing should be held prior to the development of any trails within the area. Ayes 4, nays 1. Hurr voted nay. (#25) LMCD USE OF LYDIARD BEACH FOR MILFOIL HARVESTING It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour, to approve the use of Lydiard Beach by the LMCD for milfoil harvesting, and to close the beach from Wednesday to Friday, June 30 to July 2 from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#26) RECOMMENDATION FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten, to approve staff’s recommendation on this matter. Ayes 5, nays 0. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 28, 1993 (*#27) LICENSES It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to approve the following Iicenses: Special Event Application -Viking Bassmasters 10/3/93 - 6 a.m. - 3 p.m. Launch from North Arm Landing Site Evaluator/Designer License - Koch’s SoiI Testing Otto Associates, Inc. Residential Kennel License - L. James & Kathleen Marier Ann & Rod Crawford Ayes 5, nays 0. (*«28) BILLS It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, payment of the AlI Funds Account. Ayes 5, nay 0. to approve ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by KeI ley, to adjourn the regular meeting of the Council at 11:15 p.m. to executive session. r AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JUNE 28, 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 upon request from the Recorder. ROLL CALL % % Presentation to: Barbara Peterson Mary Butler C/ryl 1. CONSENT AGENDA* APPROVAL OF MINUTES* 2. Regular Meeting of June 14, 1993 % PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT - JoEllen Hurr Rep. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 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 denials * 3 Final Subdivision 4 5 * 6 7 8 10 11 12 #1734 John Burger, 3750 Bayside Road - Resolution #1811 C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle - Variance #1825 Thomas L. McCarthy, 2490 Old Beach Road - Preliminary Subdivision , • #1826 Robert and Ann Henson, 2166 Shadywood Road - Variance Resolution , #1831 Edward Engler, 3450 Birch Lane - Variance - Resolution #1832 Scott A. Mabusth, 740 Brown Road North - Variance - Resolution , . . „ „ #1838 Robert Owens, 1700 Bohns Point Road - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution Ordinance Amendment Chapter 5.42 1993 Marina Licenses: - Windward Marina - Minnetonka Boat Works - Sailors World - Lakeside Marina - Gayles Marina - Crystal Bay Service ?.993 Joint Use Dock License - Navarre Cove - Resolution AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1993, 7:30 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Continued 13. Alan Nettles, 1940 Shoreline Drive - Sewer Request *14. Shoreland Ordinance - DNR Approval Received *15. Shoreland Septic System Requirements *16. Kenneth Figge, 2004 Sugarwood Drive - Request Covenants - Review of Planning Commission Action to Vary From MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT POLICE CHIEF REPORT *17. Activity Summary Comparison 1991-1992 (Information only) ENGINEER REPORT 18. Request for Payment #6 - Stubbs Bay Sanitary Sewer Improvement 19. Bike/Hilce Trail Progress Report 20. Review of Bids - Bilce/Hike Trail (No action required) CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *21. Recorder's Contract Adjustment Animal Control Impound Facility Demolition of City Buildings in Crystal Bay Lowry Woods Acceptance From Nature Conservancy LMCD Use of Lydiard Beach for Millfoil Harvesting n « /• _ J_T • . — ^ m ^ ^ A 22 23 24 25 aww WWW ^ — — — — — 26. Recommendation for Disciplinary Action CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (27*) BILLS (28*) ADJOURNMENT UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 06/28 06/28 06/30 07/05 07/06 07/12 07/19 07/21 07/26 HRA meeting - 7:15 p.m. Council meeting - 7:30 p.m. Council Work Session 7:45 a.m. - Department Operations Monday Holiday - Independence Day Observance Park Commission 7:15 p.m. Council meeting - 7:30 p.m. Planning Commission meeting 7:00 p.m. Hwy 12 Policy meeting 5:30 p.m. Orono Council Chambers Council meeting - 7:30 p.m. Planning Ccrrr.issicn PUBLIC ATT2MDAMCZ CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATEE PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME OR NUMBER w CD :*i » ♦ ;i: Hn 8 ID O M Z g v4 ♦ > os njo 5 ri M M M rj n Ch ID itk Ui O H :-:4 SliSSJi'B i^lEio y M 65 M □ c: H h- p. H(A ac ff ra CD X H M r» Q ^*• n »i ►i p. 0 O t) ' M pi o d p p u) ^ tj M L; O VD U1 Cl • • • »-i . » H ft 'v Ip 50C ;r. w fi KJ 0 >v- O o o & n u M > Ml O *<; n pa o o »ti ><*. (» »-« 0 P» T5 If U M M il. P* o 1 j !t iij i: I' UJ li p p Pi (» ft I* U n III » ^ I* o *»j p. »ij ir *U P M »• ft lA >) o JO % P w M ft M <: I»1 O a »i t-4. I* »! n If p o o :i o in U u) »« O U) I M I ft ji n H p l‘»1 O »-*!» If ff» ‘s ’ u o m f* o p If PS If II ft P »« :o CD TO ft H ft ft ii 'v (p jr. w H- n >v- Ml ft I li JO o CD M H M P< ft >0 U) H ft . •U ft ui H :j I' O it ^ip ft M ' iP X ft M ft I ?S' ft TO ID ft If • J'O M O ft M H If M 4 UJ I ‘ o • H O> w ni:a H i't so « 4 » I • I -* M I * I - u\ tn 4^ UI t«i M H f * O CD -J « o\in 4« 4 Ui O O o T»; CD (/I > o ft :r rr s M ffs p */» h c *0 o » fJ t Ht-* !' g *0o JO <; p o o ft ft P »1 M P P ft (0 ft ft ff I- *A p p- ft w a a ft •1 • ; ; ID o ft JP ft 11 (A JO •« ft n H o ID o oUI Ij ft I I I I I C< 0 M P ft s s (A n ft f- ti ai <"1 l> :j 'n ft I •■ VI o p < H- ft r» il* M- P ft P UJ ftS 0 1 «< f-» VD , , l»j li o S ft O I VO h VO pu TO UJ H ft P (A ft f-‘ JJ P. S ft tJ n (I r* CD s ft ft H* H Jv I* p ti ft M Oi ft * jr JP O 'o o) P < J »1 » ' t: ’-q ft ui :o TO I t; ft ft t/j ft n ft I- n ft ft 0 ft M II n a ft () :< o ft :< M ft I'* Ul M ao M ft ;i ft 0 I-' p ft AU JO 4^ M ft H UJ ft (XJ UI 0 UI Ol H* C JO ff O I* 12 ^P »1 P If l/i o o n It JO ft ft 0 f-‘r. in It (i. i‘ i: o ft p II 41; l/i 4^ 41. JO H r H H ft u) tr ID o) ft M P. r) f -• otn H- ID M h‘ 14 O H P. JO Oo ft M If l» ft 1^*o p 4t H 'J Ui »l jro :J ft ft n ft P '{y ft M .1 |. j'n ft ^ * "'6! UI 01 ff 01 f-' 3: ft ft If T < « o ri I* P U) fts ft o It f-o p Uir. i* If III f * Vi> »o M I VO Ul PJ i .0 > IS »' J p *n ft P S I' 'U Ul o P »i u . p. •• 0 >1o ^ a < f- o ft ft «: P 1.) Ji I ' ft P M (1 lA f n ft P ft ft Xo 11 X ft p (X p ft p n It P ft 1. f’J P Ort . |4 C| O p C| p p- ft tJ o »d H Sia H in X nIT Ui nj It (t M I * -I o o ft i: ft n P •XI I ‘ ft »1 ft pa UJ o i.i 4^ ID O ,1 P !l ft M ft•t! I* M ft S (D ft ft ♦1 M P rn U y It u P I-* I* ft s' ft ft O P • JO i ft O (D ft ft •<% ft If ft s' (U 3 4« tJ »o O JJ If UI 11* 4» If O II P u: it> p fto p I . JOr ftn :< ft n JJ 'I' 01 II Ui It M Jr UI S J UI P M Ul ft »1 UI vj in o ft P M ft M P O ft 'n rj p- It ft 'O P , O r- ft P- ft I ‘ i ‘ p. P II I- n {u ft I' o P lA :< 11 n CD H o JO to ft a ♦io *9 > »0 ►0 JOo <: I * X ft o i: If ft UJ fi o o 01 JOo fta § P ft f I I ‘ iTi U) I 1 4« VO O O ft ft f) O ii*Ct ft S’1 »'3J itp If ^ (A f f ft lA lA 0Itf-* _P_ TO O ft XX (D jr fta ST n (I p tx l» It f o »1 ft ir ft P n ft R O JJ ft UJ ft i ft n P UJ ft •< (A XX ft n ft ft n 1* ft o t P S M ft ft rt '(J ft cn M 0 ft It f-‘ P* ft ft P ft U) »1 ft JO in M o TO t) P*E ft u; p p ft ft It o nZ CDw JO > H Oz M o ft nj M X H C ► no CDin nj 11 ID (A ft P ft P |-t H- 0 P !0 Or» lA ft ft »1 :< ft ft n I* P •P in ID # o tn u >* fto o Ml C| r: P ft t) !? '* •o ft f1 u H (Jl Hn I * 4* :< UJ ft ft »i IIs u* ft UJ M P ft It I ' ft t1 It o H-n fta (0 ft p^ ft VO VO VO ♦u (D It ft ‘1 (Ao p O O X 0 fta p ^I' 0 |4. ft nj ft ti lAo0 I to TO O fta < ft »i M ft P n ft tn I * ft P H P ft »-■ X p h •1 TO _ft_ JO H- rt c ft P P 'O n ID o o n p M :t ft XX ft lO tr I* ft ft •< tn M '0 ^ ^• P S" o tr ft P • ft o -2 n ft o 3ft o fj (Q X* ft h It ft tjm s pRRJ“ n I* ft n ‘•’■o ? s? ft^ o tr ^ n^ o J! o O' ft ft ft p > ft VXI XX ft p P iX 'ti ft o - - ft >ow s § O nj O n JO o §8 tr* O H U ^ M W H JO CD ' O to CD O CD tn n. fto Id’- jn inr t» in K •no JO o M' 1"^ t4 . o !i R n» I * ft p p ft •u o vi > K ^cj "a ji-t‘ ft ft ft _a___ O lU JO OS O ' 2; L COUNCIL MEETING JUN 2 8 1993 cmroFORONO 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, CouncI I members J. Diann Goetten, Gabriel Jabbour, and Charles Kelley JoEllen Hurr arrived at 8:45 p.m. The following 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 C'^ok, City Attorney Kevin Staunton, and City Recorder Teri Naab. Charles Schroeder, Stephen Peterson, Sandra Smith and Charles NcI an represented the Planning Commission. Mayo>' Callahan called the meeting to order at 7:34 P.M. (#1) CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Callahan added Items H7, 12, and 1/. Moorse related that Hurr wished to removed Item 42. It was moved by Goetten, seconded by KeI ley, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Ayes 3, nays 0. Motions for all Items adopted by consent agenda will 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 wi I I be Iooking at the goaIs needed to meet the management plan and the time table on ways to fund the necessary tasks"; and Page 6, Paragraph 1, to read "reported at the LMLOA Government Affairs Committee of the Lakeshore Homeowners meeting". It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten, to approve 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 COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no comments. 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 I • 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 consideration. Gerhardson reported he recently discussed the problem 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. F further clarified that the property is for sale and the resolution was not filed in the chain of title as the property is torrens. Mabusth concurred. KeI ley questioned what happens if the house selIs and the agreement has not been signed and th® 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 enforce the condItlons 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 appr,>ve the request for Application #1737 for Richard Hollander, 680 North Arm Drive, for a 60 day extension to the deadline date for removal of hardcover, subject to an agreement being signed within 10 days from this meeting and a Letter of Credit for 150X 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 part’es. 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 deny or approve. Mayor Callahan clarified that the applicant has a heavy burden to show hardship. Remien began by stating he has discussed the Issup with several Council members who asked his intent in pu. .basing the property. He stated he purchased the property with the int.*nt to add on to his existing residence, but always felt if those p ans changed, the lot could be sold as a bu i Idable lot. He to Mr. Bachman’s letter which infers he will realize f* riancia I 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 the letter stating the development of this lot will have a negative 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 residence the old shed and sidewalk leading to the Bielkes house would be removed. He said as a resident of Casco Circle, he sees 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 loss 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 sold, and added Remien has already attempted to seI I 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 the 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 Nasiedlek, 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 iiave 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 were 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 only stub provided for the group of 3 lots and v;as used for the Bielke house 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 ZONING FILE #1811 - CONT. determined to be unbuildable 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. Goetten 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 'and. He said larger lots typically on the Iake are more desiroable, 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 deal with commonly owned parcels on IndiVidual merits. 1 J ■L- MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ZONING FILE 41811 - 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 failed. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Kelley, to table Application 41811 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. (45) 41820 HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, NORTH ARM ACCESS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Kelley, to table Application 41820 for Hennepin County Department of Environmental Management, at the request of the applicant. Ayes 3, nays 0. (46) 41822 MARK PRUETER, 3215 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION 43287 Mr. Prueter was present. Mabusth explained the applicant proposes an 18x26’ addition to the rear of the existing residence and a smaller 15x10.6’ 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 expre':sed concern about removal of the existing wooden waik to the rp.ar 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 41 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. 6 atmtt MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 S. i ZONING FILE #1822 - CONT. Kelley stated he felt with this addition the property would 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 fami 1y. Goetten asked the total lot coverage percent and hardcover percents In each zone. Mabusth answered lot coverage is 14.1%; existing 0-75’ hardcover is 18.9%, proposed 17.2%; and existing 75-250’ hardcover is 29.4%, proposed 30.2%. 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 said this Is a substandard lot and asked if the applicant could 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 adept Resolution #3287 for Application #1822 Mark Prueter, 3215 Crystal Bay Road, for side setback variances, average lakeshore variance, and 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 arise. Mayor Callahan said they would be monitoring the situation regarding precedent set by other communities. k MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 (#7) #1824 ERIC 4 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; and 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 allows for the lot width to be 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 the 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 Counci I 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 travel led 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 exclusive of the roadway area. Kelley stated he is noi in favor of the subdivision, but meets all the standards, he would vote for it. if 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. 8 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ZONING FILE #1825 - CONT. Mabusth indicated by inciuding 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 regulations 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, she said she has discussed 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 de.'ice 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 removal and the fact that they need additional 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 allow 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. Kelley pointed 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 of the existing garage. Mr. Henson stated they have ruled out the removal of 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 will 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 iterns. 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 wlII 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. 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 repiled it will be 10’ wide and anything less would 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 wi I 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 two stall 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 'overage, 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 drainaqe and access easement along the north lot line. Kelley suggested the applicants submit a grading plan to the City for review. Hurr asked If the drive will be located over the easement. I MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ZONING FILE #1826 - CONT. Mr. Henson noted it could be moved to the south to avoid the easement, except at the entrance. Goetten amended her motion, Hurr seconded, requiring the appiicants 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 0-76’ 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 roof 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 •• o 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 an 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 approvaI . 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. Goetten 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. Nelson 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 tftat the rock landscape area underlain with plastic In the lakeshore 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 Use 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 ORDINANCE 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 adhere to the requirements, but not make that a cond ition 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 comp Nance with the B-2 standards prior to licensing (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 Iicense appIication, or conditions of the Iicense. Currently there is nothing in the code that requires the business to upgrade property until an improvement is initiated. Mayor Callahan felt they should issue the licenses, which should contain a 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 thfii intend to force a marina to cease operations if license is re‘-'*K<^j. 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 Iicensing 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 , B-3, etc., do not have many of the restrictions that apply to the B-2 zone. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING MELD JUNE 14, 1993 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - CONT. Mayor Callahan noted that the hours of operation for otrier 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. Goeiten 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 all owed 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. (*#12) 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 Callahan suggested they table cons I deration of this item. All agreed. MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 (#14) 300 TCNKA AVENUE - CONCEPTUAL REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION/DROP UNIT Dave Christensen v/as present. Gaffron explained the applicant and his neighbor propose the vacation of Hiil Street and splitting of 2 vacant iots, to be combined with their respective properties. They aiso request that the sewer unit for the vacant iots be dropped. AM members agreed the concept is c good idea. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT A) Hurr reported she has been working with Marge Gasch on amenities for the new City Hail. A banner is proposed made out of fabric to hang above the entrance in the Administration buiiding, and the Historical Society is arranging pictures to be hung. There has been discussion regarding on-going displays from either the schools or Art Center. They have discussed using the brick waiI in the Counci I Chambers for name plates to honor Mayors of the City and citizens. It is hoped some of the items wili 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) Kalley 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 'nadequate, Long Lake would pay the difference until the following year. They have discussed ways in which Orono could help offset this urioalance. Moorse is working on a draft of the 1994 fire service contract, to be reviewed early July. J MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 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 functional, 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 the 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 neighbor, 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 (#15) 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 informed of the plans. He expressed 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 repn*-tod they have discussed with the property owners the planting, ulong 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. 1 7 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 shouid repiace 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 wit!) 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 Callahan stated the City cannot make any decision regarding the plantings until they know what help they will recel'e from Hennepin Parks. He felt they should not even be discussing the project with homeowners at this time. He directed sta^* to discuss with Hennepin Parks what possible plantings are available. Hurr asked when the bids will be released. 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 metro 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 were 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 gee«.e 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 remove.!. She questioned wliether Hartman felt they should subsidize all other requests the same, i.e. if Woodhill Country Club requested sim'lar 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 Cal lahan reported the first year when the prograiii 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 Pheasant 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 ether remedies, but to no avaiI. KeI ley noted the government cannot be asked to solve alI homeowners probIem?. 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 In the next City news letter. 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. (5ic#l7) 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 equI tab Ie. 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". AM members agreed to the wording and directed the Mayor to sign and staff to send the letter. « i 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 Police facility to the memory of WInton Burmaster. Ayes 3, nays 0. (*#24) GREGG PALMER STEF INCREASE It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Kelley, to approve adjustment 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 I icenses: seconded by Kelley, to approve the Septic System Installers: D.S. Enterprise Fuhr Trenching Raff Ie PermIt - Special Event - Methodist Hospital Foundation at the home of H. Kahler July 30, 1993 Gear West Duathlon Orono High School June 20, 1993 Ayes 3, nays 0. (*#26) BILLS It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Kelley, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Ayes 3, nay 0. 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JUNE 14, 1993 ADJOURNMENT Mayor Callahan adjourned the regular Orono City Council meeting at 11:50 a.m. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: 1 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator June 22, 1993 John and Mary Jane Burger, 3750 Bayside Road Final Subdivision - Resolution The applicants have fulfilled all conditions of preliminary subdivision approval and submitted all required final plat submittals as set forth in Resolution #3131, resolution granting preliminary approval of the 2-lot plat. Staff recommends approval of the final plat. Burgers Bayside Second Addition, subject to the findings and conditions set forth in the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF BURGERS BAYSIDE SECOND ADDITION FILE NO. 1734 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota: and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision of a two lot plat by John Burger and Mary Jane Burger, (hereinafter " the subdividers"); and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the LR-IA and RR-IA Zoning Districts, finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that will either allow new development of a single family residence on Lot 1 and continued use and development of the developed lot. Lot 2 without the need of any variances; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1. Completion of all the requirements of Resolution No. 3131, the resolution granting preliminary ’ approval of the two lot plat, 2. Dedication on the plat of right-of-way for a public road shown as County ’ Road No. 84 (Bayside Road). 3. 4. Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. Execution of a maintenance and easement agreement, escrow agreement and deed of appurtenant easement to allow access to Lot 1, Block 1 via Landmark Drive and Outlot C and Lot 1, Block 2 of Bayside Landing. Page 1 of 4 5. 7. Dedication to the City of a flowage and conservation easement providing for limitations on the use of wetlands and/or drainage ways described therein and shown on tlie plat as drainage easements. 6. Payment to the City of a park dedication fee in the amount of $3,696.00. Payment to the City for the legal review and filing of the plat, easements and covenants in the amount of $200. 8. Payment to the City for the final plat application of $175.00. WHEREAS, on June 8,1992 Council conceptually granted approval of a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (B) that prohibits the combining of separated parcels for area credit divided by a public, private or platted road or road ea.sements which result in any segment thereof being less than the minimum acreage required for that zoning district based on the following findings: A. Outlot A consisting of 4.26 acres is landlocked. Applicants have attempted to obtain access from the State, the City of Orono and adjacent property owners but have been unable to obtain legal access. B. Let 1 consists of 2 acres of dry contiguous lands and a residence can be constructed meeting all required setbacks of the RR-IA Zoning District. Lot 1 is able to sustain botli a principal and alternate septic site per a report by Stephen Weekman dated May 6, 1992. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Burgers Bayside Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 1 Access to Lot 2 shall remain as currently defined directly off of County Road 84 or Bayside Road. Access to Lot 1 shall be via Landmark Drive and a private access easement over Outlot C and Lot 1, Blcx.k 2, Bayside Landing. Page 2 of 4 A special lot combination shall be filed against the ehain of title of Outlet A and Lot 1, Block i recognizing the relationship of fhe two parrels as they are to be considered as one residential unit and sold as one. No residential accessory structures shall be allowed to be built on Outlot A. Outlet A can never be developed as a residential unit but is set aside as an area credit for Lot 1. 3.A special lot combination shall be filed against Lot 2, Block 1 and Outlet B. I'his agreement recognizes that Outlot B shall provide riparian use and access exclusively for Lot 2 and that there shall be no parking either temporary or permanent of vehicles on this limited site. 4.Alternate septic test site shall be staked with no snow fencing prior to any construction or land alterations on Lot 1. 5.The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder’s Office or Registrar of Titles Office on or before December 28, 1993, together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the easements and covenants noted above. The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event it will be necessary to file a new application with the t-.ty of Orono for subdivision review. Dated this 28th day of June, 1993. AITEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Mayoi Page 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28ih June 1993 by Edward J. Callahan and Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public , . f ■■'if f* Pace 4 of 4 • % CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.3131 A RESOLOTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE TWO LOT PLAT LOCATED AT 3750 BAYSIDE ROAD PILE NO. 1734 WHEREAS John Burger and Mary Jane Burger (hereinafter 1 • <-c"\ nn Aor\l 24 1992, filed a formal subdivision applicatxon wx crty for°a"pp?otiof a' two lot residential plat of property legally described as follows: Tof 1 Block 1, Burger's Bayside and Lot 50, Auditor s subdivision No. 203, and Lots 15 and 16, Block 5, Bayvrew Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property )r and WHEREAS after due published and mailed notice in accordance with WHEREAS, arrer au« y Orono Zonxng and Minnesota Statutes 462.3d8 et. q. ^ v,o i h a nublic hearing on Subdivision Codes, the Orono to be heard concerning th7s application ^erfgiv^n the opportunity to speak thereon, and WHEREAS at their regular meeting held on June 8, 1992, the Oi^^no City council c“^'idPrfd"the"slbdivision application of the applrcants, noting the following findings of fact: 1. The property is the LR-^1A_ S^ingl^^^ L"lile"nUaV ZoninP%istrrc\", The f-l^^„,\-i{;L‘’il“d"fitrirtrch ^e^TiTrealeVTo- LoTa-iolatS f Vric\is°1t"? District consists of a total of 4.51 acres, 2.a acres a y contiguous and 1.61 acres wet. 2. Lot 1 and Outlot A are located within , 3 3^acr^ requiring 5 acres xn ajrea. 2e”ac*res dry - for a total drywet and Outlot A consists of 4.26 acres ary buildable at 6.59 acres. 3. Per section 11.03 „\^;,^\e"weral iTcot" fa^reS l^dVy rnriguoPs^ I'anlP Px^cluPtWe Jf wetlands public and private righr-of-ways, vehicular or pedestrxan easements. Page 1 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _________ \ 4. Applicants propose legally combining Lot 1 and Outlot A as a single residential unit requiring a variance to Section Subdivision 6 (B) that prohibits the combining of separated parcels for area credit divided by a public, private or platted road or road easement which results in any segment thereof being less than the minimum acreage requirec. for that zoning district. 5. Outlot A consisting of 4.26 acres is land locked. Applicants have attempted to obtain access from the State, the City of Orono and adjacent property owners but have been unable to obtain legal access. 6. Lot 1 consists of 2 acres of dry contiguous lands and a residence can be constructed meeting all required setbacks of the Zoning District. Lot 1 is able to sustain both a principal and alternate seot Ic site per a report by Stephen Weckman dated May 6, 1992. 7. In the Mav 6, 1992 memo, Stephen Weckman co, f'.rms that adequate area to dev«>lop an alternate on-site sep ic / within Let 2's dry buildable enve lope a 1 though the property is scheduled for sewer in a pending sewer improvement project. 8. Lot 1 located Wxthin the RR-IA Zoning a^7«nina residentially developed meeting all standards of the RR-IA Zoning District except for the required width which does not measure 300' at the 100' setback where lot measures 210 . \\\ available dry buildable area to the east or west to allow Lot 1 to expand the width measured in an east-west line. NOW, THEREPORU BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findiras not-d above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary pl^t application of John and property located at 3750 3ayside Road per Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc. sub3ect to - g conditions: Access to '.ot 2 shall remain as currently provided directly off of county Road 84 or Bayside Road. Access to Lot ^ ,'’® /i „ Landmark Drive and t private access easement over Lot 1, Llock 2, Bayside Landing. At the time of the filing of the final plat .Page 2 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3131__________ application, applicants shall provide a copy of a fully executed access easement and covenant amendment confirming that Lot 1 will share in the cost of maintenance and upkeep of Landmark Drive. 2.Applicants shall execute a special lot combination recognizing the relationship of Outlot A with proposed Lot 1 as they are to be considered as one residential unit and sold as one. No residential accessory structure shall be allowed to be built on Outlot A. 3.Applicants shall execute special lot combination recognizing Lot 2 and Outlot B as one unit. The agreement shall reflect Outlot B provides riparian use and access exclusively for Lot 2 and that there shall be no parking either temporary or permanent of vehicles on this limited site and that Outlot B shall continue to provide riparian access to homestead portion of property on Lot 2. 4.Alternate septic systems shall be staked with snow fencing prior to any construction or land alterations on Lot 1. FINAL PLAT SUBMITTALS The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month: A. RECORD PLAT drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1“=200‘. Drawing to include: a) Lot lines platted per preliminary survey. Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" over designated wetlands per original designation within the Burger Addition plat of 1977. c)Dedication of 66' of right-of-way for County Road 84 or Bayside Road. d) Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along all perimeter property lines and 5' on each side of Internal property lines except omit at designated wetland area. Page 3 of 5 i j jj. ^ j AJ- »-. • ' ^ f ‘L I ■> f *if f U -i » » i.1# U'MVftU* ?r A WW'V' 6'i rry t7Uf 1 TT~ «.*»».*• V'V « ^wu* /C'^/ U* • V'V CITYofORONQ i 'j RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL^:-v rf ' ;r.r< .v. K.HUUI\ 14- TVia^V'V NO. JXji. M4-U4-XI# llinifl\ I U'C* " 4/7r^”i‘ Tv ■),*»?r*.:. I w'w* t V u v'Vi n\,'i i v / •». / I ^ /.. V'wV Lm ff B. LEGAL DOCUMENTS required: a) Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b) The applicants must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. Applicants should provide confirmation of that original flowage and conservation easement taken over designated wetland at the time of the 1977 plat are filed on the chain of title of the pj^operty. If this cannot be confirmed, applicants will be 0xp0cti.0ci wO £i.l0 cl n0W fXowsg’0 ond cons0r*Vcition 0aS0in0nt» c) Execution of a bike easement taken over 10' dra^iiage and utility easement adjacent to County Road 84. Please contact John Gerhardson (473-7357) for a copy of the bike easement. C. FEES TO BE PAID: Total Due $375.00* a) Final plat fee = $175.00 b) Legal review and filing fees = $200.00 c) *Park dedication fee - The Park Commission has reviewed the two lot subdivision and has determined that the property is not suitable for park use and will ask for a cash payment in lieu of land. The City Assessor will be asked to determine the value of the undeveloped land. The Park dedication fee shall be based on the value of 8% of the undeveloped land. Park fees must be paid at the time of the filing of the final plat. Park Commission did ask that applicant execute a bike easement over the 10' drainage and utility easement that abutts County Road 84. A copy of the easement will be sent to applicants by the Public Works Director. Applicants are hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval shall expire in one year from the date of Council's approval of the preliminary plat (June 8, 1993). Page 4 of 5 • • • « CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3131_________ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 8th day of June» 1992. Barbara A. Peterson/ Mayor ATTS3T: br6thy M. ^lillin,'City Clerk FTATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of June, 1992, by Barbara A. Peterson & 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. NOTABY^PUBLuf - M^NESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My cofT'^'sslon expires S-12-90 Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 5 of 5 L; TO:Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:June 25, 1993 SUB.IECT: 1 C. Jack Remicn, 3237 Ca«‘'0 Circle - Variance - Continuation of Review List of Exhibits B - Notice of Council Action 6/17/93 C - Letter Received from DNR 6/14/93 D - Memo and Exhibits of 6/10/93 This item was tabled at the June 14th meeting on ^ vote of 3-1, after a motion to approve failed on a vote of 2-2. The intent of the tabling was so Hiis item would be brought back when the entire five member Council would be present. Exhibit C is the letter from the DNR distributed at the June 14th meeting. The only additional submittal received is a memo (Exhibit A) from Mr. Nasiedlak who is purchaser of the vacant lot. Staff Recommendation If Council accepts the applicant’s hardshi[’ statements as sufficient grounds for granting of the requested lot area and width variances, then Council could grant variance approval. A resolution incorporating these additional hareships would be presented for final action at your July 12lh meeting. Conversely, if Council finds insufficient grounds for approval, staff would draft a denial resolution for formal action on July l2th. .1 (, • 2 - - Date: To: From: Wedncsdav. June 23. 1993 oC Jlil— n I I Mayor Callahan and Orono City Council Members Gary Nasiedlak UUN' Z 2 1-3 Subject: Variance for property located at 3237 Casco Circle (Rernien Lot) Although much has been said already about the subject property, 1 believe a lew comments are in order: Can one person be denied the right to do something if all other individuals have that right? If Jack Rernien is denied this variance, he would be denied the right of any other citizen -- that of qualifying for the variance under Orono s hardship ordinances. This in itself is an undue hardship for Mr. Rernien. The June 14, 1993 DNR letter mentioned that the proposed use be reasonable. Is it unreasonable to ask for a variance to build a single family home similar to homes on other properties within the area? This is no more unreasonable than the vacant lot proposed by Mr. Bachman. In fact, the vacant lot is more unreasonable than a property put to use as a homestead. A single-family dwelling built on this lot would be nothing more than what other residents on similar-sized lots in the neighborhood already have. 1 he proposed use of this property is reasonable. A reasonable use is not vacant land. We cannot rely on the words contained in DNR's letter that states that hardship does not appear to have been demonstrated, since we do not know what information Mr. Bachman provided to the DNR. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landov^Tier. Jack Rernien was aware of three previous variances on this lot. If he had been the new purchaser of this property three months ago, as I was, he would have contacted the city of Orono regarding this property, and just as they had stated in the past three variances, Orono staff would have led him to believe that this lot would receive a variance and be buildable. Never had Orono expressed the possibility that the lot may not be buildable. Since Orono’s Planning and Zoning staff has previously recommended and the City Council has approved of the buUdability of the Rernien lot within Orono's guidelines, then the radical turnabout of tlie Council's position, not the landowner, created the hardship. Consequently, Mr. Bachman ’s argument - that when a variance applicant purchases the property with actual or constructive notice of the zoning ordinances' restrictions then the applicant ’s hardship is self-created and does not constitute undue hardship - is incorrect. Jack Remicn used the correct procedure in applying tor this variance. Mr. Remien had other options. He could have: - Sold the property to me under contract for deed and let me apply for the variance. - Given title to the lot to his ex-w;fe: the lot in separate ownership would then have been entitled to the variance under the hardship ordinance. But. Mr. Remien and I chose to rely on Orono’s Planning and Zoning staff s guidance in obtaining a variance for what we were led to believe was a buildable lot. The variance, it granted, will not alter the essential characteristic of the locality. Mr. Bachman’s analysis referred to the May 24 City Council meeting where neighbors presented testimony on how a new home would etfect the neighborhood s character. What Mr. Bachman neglected to point out was that most of the objecting neighbors live in nice homes that are built on lots similar in size to the Remien lot. The essential characteristics of a neighborhood will not be altered by a new home built on a lot essentially the same si/e as many other lots in the neighborhood. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property Mr. Bachman ’s analysis relied on his belief that there are no special conditions which specifically apply to lot 18 and distinguish it from other property. I disagree. This property is quite distinguishable from the other similar-sized properries in the neighborhood since the other properties contain homes, while the Remien iot is void of any structure with the exception of an aesthetically unappealing garage. We are asking only for what others in the neighborhood have already done, and what all others could do, except for Mr. Remien. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoynent of a substantial property right of the applicant. This hardship is not created by the landowner. Mr. Remien and I relied completely on Orono’s staff when they told us what Orono’s building restrictions were regarding the subject property. We believed the lot was buildable. and we acted upon the city’s recommendations i-egarding the ordinances and restrictions [>ertaining to the lot. A substantial property right of the applicant will be denied if this variance is not approved, becau.se any c'lizen who owns this lot. wiih the exception of Jack Remien, could apply for and be granted this variance. Therefore, in conclusion, 1 believe a hardship exists when an individual is denied what all other individuals would be granted. I hope you will thoughtfully consider the above statements, and grint the variance. y CMca3.wpd j rs o CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 APPLICATION NO. 1811 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 6/17/93 TO:C. Jack Rcmien COPIES: 3235 Casco Circle Wavzata. MN 55391 Tom Zappia, Iverson, Bemdi & Zappia, Ltd.. 9*fl Hillwind Rd. NE, Suite 301, Fridky. MN 55432 Peter Backman. Leonard, Street &. Deinard, Suite 2300, 150 S. Fifth St., Mpls., MN 55402 Gary Nasiedlak. 1910 Shadywood Rd., Wayzata, MN 55391 Kevin Staunton. Popham, Haik etc., 33UU Piper Jaffray Tower, 222 Ninth St. S., Mpls., MN *55402 Dave Truax, 4879 Drake St., Maple Plain, MN 55359 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 6/14/93 VOTE: See below COtiNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Motion to approve failed on a 2 to 2 vote. Motion to table passed on a vote of 3 to 1, tabling this item untU the June 28th meeting at which a full five member council is anticipated to be present. Enclosed please find a copy of the letter submitted by die Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, which was distributed to Council at the June 14th meeting. This item will be placed on the June 28th Council agenda. That meeting starts at 7:30 p.m., at the Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Pi-rkway. If you desire cenified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available iVom the Citv Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. »,• NO. 1811 OUNCIL ACTION 6/17/93erson, Bemdi & Zapptu. Lid..Rd. NE. Suite 301. Fridky.Leonard, Street &: Deinard.50 S. Fifth St., Mpls., MN 55402 ,1910 Shady wood Rd., 4 55391 , Popham, Haik etc., 330o Piper T. 222 Ninth St. S., Mpls., ?79 Drake St., Maple Plain, slow this item untU the June 28th meeting ■esent. id by die Minnesota Departm.e le June 14th meeting. agenda. Tliat meeting stans at 7:30 tvay. minutes, they are available ifom the I )i\ i\STATE OFrp^j [>.0 !1 S @ TriS.\department . cOF NATURAL RESOURCESphcne .-jo.METRO WATERS 772-7910 12CO WARNER ROAD; ST. PAWL, MN 55ia6rii= NO.June 14, 199Mb. Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono P.O. Box 66Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0065 RE: APPLICATION .^1311, C. JACK RS.MEIN (3237 CASCO CIRCLE), LOT WIDTH VARIA2TCE FOR LOT HELD IN COMMON OWNERSHIP, LAKE MINNETONKA (27-133, #9), CIT^ OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTS Dear Ms. Mabusth: The purpose of this letter is to clarify points discussed in lay correspondancs 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 sane ownership. The lot in question for variance application request #1311 has a substandard width and is under the same ownership as the adjacent let. Therefore, the city's ordinance requires that the j.ots be combined. I also noted that in order for the city to grant a variance that hardship must be demonstrated. Bill Clano, cf the Attorney General’s Office, and I have had follow-up * discussions regarding this natter and frit further clarification was required regarding hardship. Based on the information we have reviewed for this case, hardship does not appear to have been demonstrated. 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: A. The proposed use is reasonable. B. It v.vuld be unreasonable to require conformance with the ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise due to "f'.’^ctioral and aesthetic concerns" and ggon oT7l.i.Q considerations alone do not constitute prac..ical difi-iculty. C. The di'’iculty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property, such as peculiar topograohy. If the problem is common to a number of homes in the area, it is not considered unique. D. The proalem must not be created by the landowner. E. The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. N ECUAL OPPORTUNITY EMP'-CYE.P MS. Jear.ne Mabusrh June 1"* / J-993 Page 2 of aV. ^v>at the aoclleant has a "heavy burden The couits ^ ^ 1V -the oreirequisites to the granting cr - '"■°°^nc^°ara satisfied. T.tis is because a variance allows property ^^brSeed in a manner forbidden by the ordinance. 1.4 urm ari\/ietpd of the actioH taken on this The lO^days o^f final action and copies of the officialreejuesr within 10 day ^ if the variance request record ^®p^°a3e''contact"J:;e"at‘772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. sincerely/ ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc: Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist Bill Clapp, Attorney General s C.^^ce Tom Zappia Peter Bachman City of Orono Shoreland File TO:Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse. Citv Administrator FROM: DATE: Michael P. GatTron. Asst. Plaiininq & Zonins Administrator June 10, 1993 SUBJECT: ^1811 C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle - Variance Renewal - Continuation ot' Review y :> • c/ t p List of Exhibits -I A - Letter from Remien’s Attorney 6/4/93 B - Memo from Gary* Nasiedlak (Buyer of Lot 18) 6/8/93 C - I-etter from Bielke’s Attorney 6'9/93 D - Notice of Council Action 5/27/93 E - Staff Memo 5/27/93 Re: Sewer/Water Assessment F - Section 10.08. Subd. 3 Re: Issuance of Variances G - Excerpt from State Statutes Re: Variances II - 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 of the lot as additional yard, is not a reasonable use. and (2) the fact that Mr. Remien did not do anything to create the situation, 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 Bielke’s, has submitted a letter responding to Exhibit A (Exhibit C). Also please review the sewer and water assessment memo (Exhibit E) which Council should have received in the mail previously. That memo concludes that Lot 18 was assessed footage for sewer and water, but no units. The basis for that assessment was a review' of code standards and City policy at the time of assessment, but was not the result of a formal Vufiance/lot buildability review'. Sewer and w-ater is available to the property and connection to sewer and water is feasible. If the variance is approved, the property owner would have to pay sewer and water connection charges and bear the cost ot installing sewer and water stubs. Also attached are .sections of the Orono code and state statutes regarding the question ot "undue hardship". Zonini: File ^1811 June 10. 1993 Face 2 Staff Recommendation If Council accepts the applicant’s hardship statement as sufficient grounds for granting your June 28lh meeting would draft a denial resolution for formal action on June 28th. ch • = ! 17:3g ID: lUuRSCN =E=?NDT;iZPF?; TEL NCitlS •* ic.^ I \ I li •> t > \ r.i li -Nii > I - / \iri \ I 11» A ^-\c- 1% I . • • I. • • . , I I I I June 4/ 1993 BSSn? BY FJl X - S94-S8dd • / Mr. X«vln P. Staunton M«. Karan Colo PophaB^ Kailc^ sciinobrich & KaufBan^ Ltd. 3300 Pipor Jaffray Tower 333 Soutn 9tn street: Mlnnoapolls, MN 55402 ft It ? Ovir Cliont* C» jaeJe Rtti&ien"3237 Caaco Cii.de C*Remien Lot") orono Zoning 7ila No* iBii our Pile No. 13193 Dear Mr. Staunton and Mb. Colo: I would like to address tne issue of "undue hardship" aa it relates to the Application for the Variance for tha nemlen Lot. It appoared from tha city Council meeting of May 24, 1993, that the Council was unwilling to grant the requested variance In the absence of a specific finding hardship. First, it is again import^t to identify tte three eleoonts necessary under Minnesota Law to establish an undue hardship: 1 Tha propsrty in question cannot bs put to a reasonable use without the variance. 2. Tha situation of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. 3, Tho variance, if granted, will not altar the eseential character of the locality. These are the olosonts as identified inof the city of Moorhead# 44fi N.M.2d 917, 923 (Minn. App. 1989). Tha Staff Report of May 27, 1993 facts which are relevant to the undue hardship issue. * 93 hR I 17 j 31 ID: I rcR>OTd;Z^t“r I TEL n3 •&12 5/1 -77^-1 ^-•^Q c.'i:: Hr. Kovin Staunton Mb. Karan cola junu 4, 1993 paga 2 1.Jaojc Rfualan purehaBod Lot 19 whara hi® hom® ia looatad in 1974. 2.Ja«» Romlen purchasad Lot is (the Renien i/ot) in 1989. 3.The Renien Lot had bean granted a variance for conatruction o£ a aingla fanily hone in February of 1984 which expired in February of 1985. 4.Anoroxiinately one year later the Renien Lot was again granted an identical variance which ran fron January/ 1986 and expired January 1907. 5.Finally, an identical variance was again granted fron February of 1987 to February of 1998. 6.Lot 18 appears to never have been in conaon ownership with Lot 19 until 1989. 7.Lot 18 has never been legally conhined with Lot 19. Saatad^e substandard siae of through any subdivision Sie on his part. He acquired the Renien Lot Icnowing prior building variances had been granted allowing tte RiniM Lot as a separate lot, to be used for the construotlon of a single family residence. At the tine Mr. Renien began negotiating with Mr. Mertes for the purchase of ^ Renien Lot was covered by orono variance No. 1101 • In aach of the cases relied upon by the neighbors in position to {fc! Binl.n*«>Lue»t for .nother varianeo, tha applicant either (1) affimatively created the substandard lot; (ii) had tnowledoe of the substandeurd nature of the lot prior to. /11.H was aware of the denial of prior variance Sr iir^S applicant-o predece.eor in title cre.^ JS2^IHS-4-n5ard nature of the lot. Meet importantly, none of the eases cited by the neighbors in opposition ms a situation tSI City “onell on thJao prior occaaien. nac grantad a varianca for the Idantioal purpose T-. V rltv of Kapleweodj 366 H»H.2d 624, 927 (Minn* App.^iugrloto^id^ Hadlimd crdated lil. own FR: 1'?!32 ID: ICEFSZN =EFNDTi#2c--PI TE_ NC:Fl2 “Tl-773.: Hr. Kovin Staunton Ha. Karen Col« June 4/ 1993 Page 3 hArdshiT}. Hr. Hedlund acquired a Bubatandard lot that ueid for bulXdlnsr a eingla family noma, xye^lot^waa^tvlce afl^ SB anv surrounding adjacent lot. Hr. Hedlund did not read or examine the Maplewood ordinances prior to J*" BOMci^ioallv noted that tho city of Maplewood did not contest the SidL Sa^dship oxiBted.'^ Tho co^'rt noted that without an iltl wiince the substandard Hedlund could not bo put to ajnSonaSiruSer implicit in this stateaent is that ^e "fale" of ths lot to an adjacent lot was not a ''reasonable use . variance denial was upheld because mr. Hedlund had created his undue hardship* \a T indicated in my prior correspondence of May 21r 1953, Iff»; Shr».ri«oS ct wn9 m ntfin.H?5 ?d !Ib (Klniir W. 1^?); ireempIatBly dlstlnguiababie from the Remien Lot. M V citv of TiS^e Sleo. 396 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. App. iSeJ^^ie^lia® distinguishable from the Remi^ Lot, TOe applicant in ceotle Design was denied a Variance Application because of the iLgJ^Sd^J^e ” fiances requeeted. The unde^ying re^on ssi=s^";S““:!.!SSj'hS:s«r*s=rsi^ss:v “s^s.':irJrKr!.. jjH_0-C-'r3 rV. 17:33 ID: It£=S:Ni TEL SD:El2 ="1-773-:=123 Fes nr. Kavin Staunton Xg, Karan Cola Juna A, 1993 Paga 4 ^ -1^ thev wish to sell their property, allspecieioaliy told would have to be sold as a three 4 _ this property involved an on-sito septic Bingl. have erl.ted a problen with the system! The constructed In residential areas. Thaindividual egtio *ys«^ seasonal^ln re2r.nor3i2e'~t^Sa;.'2„"Sl2.-.tiv. r.-eonahie uae. U.e aa a vacant lot is not a reasonable use/ threehoid SSfai*alternative "raasMabla US . Minneeota Courts determined use requirement does not mean thathave held that the reaeonab^ uoe^re^ ^ ^ a property v. Board ad4ustnant^ 446 H.W.2d »PP. -Sn]’. ^sJS!iOE2!ffl^ *■»«« (Minn. 1969). If the City f TrL^SablS Sfe?”then VS^T^ll "“^..on toVnt any^rijnee.^ K,Sl«.t property i!/““w"nSv2r“S 2n? S2S f^‘S v«rlMc. elne. Ii“y» ho V”; „5SS’'S; “?din«« Sth«"than*eiBply ee a vacant piece a, preperty. in oay, an individuel o^cd jll »* "^^.^P-rcei^^^po^r ’ ‘ He Snveyed off J”® a sSSnd purchaser. Ultimately the other half of tte parcels and owned tts the Youngs became tte the Youngs sought to rstransfsr the entire Property, Jo JhS curSs. Se Currys then soughtone pereel of the Property to ^ Currys. ^ ^ ^inglm family a variance for a Court in eurrr held that nouse on this re-acguirsd both parcels of ths the mere fact that the ^ y^^nite the two eo as toproperty after severance d^ not Mun^e "SStitite « -ingle lot. ‘=“;^i“ne"a?eel a denial of the of the peculiar site and reasonaole use of their variance would deprive curr^ SfiJ thec^eviir. though the granting Koporty. in fact, the ot'ier adjoining property It tha varianca would work a ^rdaWf uee of the ownara, the variance must be 9^»'''"^,„:2|;ibie’ue." of tne property as a vacant lot wae not. A. '• u ;i,‘<~3^:-’93_£5i_17:32 ID: lUERSCN ScP-^JDTiiZPPPI ~EL N0:5l2 571-7734 S13S ?23 Mr. Kmvih Btavmton MB. Karan Cola Juno 4, 1993 Page 5 property. The Minnesota Ceurto have also recognized that certain actions by City Cexineile may contribute to afit^U^lishing the undue hardship, in Merrlaa Cnaanmitv Con^oil v. MoDoneucrh^ 210 N.K.2d 416 (Minn. 1973), McDonough acquired a lot in St. Paul to demolish four existing buildings and to construct a 32 unit apartment building. However, the lot was not lairge enough to construct the 32 unit apartment building and comply the existing setbacx and building coverage requirements. McDc...ough applied for a variance so as to allow construction of a 32 unit apartment building. Approximately one year after McDonough had applied for the variance, St. Paul adopted an amendment increasing the off- street parking requirement for multiple reeidential dwellings. McDonough then amended his Application for a Variance to Include a variance from the new increased off-street parking requirement* The Zoning Board delayed action upon his new Application for another year. Finally, the City granted all of the variances. Thereafter, a neighborhood organisation brought a Deolaratory Judgment seeking to set aside the city*s granting of the variances. The Supreme court held the "delay In processing defendant's requests for variances constituted a hardship peculiar to the tract due to the fact that the ordinance requiring the additional off-street parking space was passed during that delay." The Supreme Court citing eugry reef firmed that a variance provides the opportionity to avoid unnecessary hardshipa resulting from the rigid enforcement of zoning ordinances even though the granting of the variance might work a hardship on adjoining property ovnsrs* in considering the Rsmien Lot, there is no guestion of Council delay. Rather, prior councils have affirmatively granted prior variances, the last of which was ccnteaporaneous with Mr. Remien's negotiating the purchase of the Remien Lot. The Reaien Lot had three identical variances for four years prior to Mr. Rsmisn's acqulsitien. on at least one occasion, the City Council had granted a new variance for the Retoicn Lot even after a year lapse between variances. In light of the existing law, it appears that if someone oth^ than Jack Remien had acquired the Remien Lot in 1988 the variance would most likely have to be granted since the purchaser could noi- put the Reaien Lot to any reasonable use. Doee the fact that Jack Rsmien, who owned an adjacent lot, and then later acquired tihn Rmi.An Lo^ lOBan ho Is next entidtzlod to tho voxrlanco a imply because he owned an adjacent parcel of property. Again, rRl 17i34 ID::V'ERS3S E=.=SDTiiZP=PI TEL N3:612 5-»l-7724 ^ nil 7 nil. s:Z£ P27 -------- Kr. K*vin Staunton Ma. Karan Colo Juno 4, 1993 Paga 6 undue liardship* Aoain raturninu to 1* it is established that (1) the B?Snertv ^not be put to a reasonable use vitheut a variance, ?'«? Si SS2 of the lot as additional yard, is not a reasonable use and (il) the fact that Mr* Realen did not do anything to Siite the situation, and (iii) the lot will not eltar the SSntlel eherecter if the locality, all three requlraaents of an undue hardohip have bean net. Very truly yours# ZVSRSOVr BBRtfCT & 2A9PX&# LTD. ThOBAS K. Sapp: TMZijrh piter^achaen*'-' Leonard f street & Dolnard P O P H A M H A I K 3Chncb«ich a Kajfman. Ltc U S. O'r ccr 2KNvr.li, C aw AA aoo TKV. 305 0 43-iaCO H i A ** , ^wCKi 5A TC. 303*330 ‘CO?0 Suits 330Q 222 South N inth Street MiP^.NEAROLia. Minnesota 554C2 Tel 6t2-333*40OO Fa I 6 t 2-334-aeee iNr£.«NAT.Or'icss: Lf A2»a. Ttw 31 • 3T.ai.A3ia47l »T'>TTOA«T Tet OllA^TIl-Z^iJjui WA^MIH<3T3i«. D.C. Tfu TFIFCOPY TRMSmTTAL SHEtT TD; Mr. Mike Gaffron - City of Orono FAX TIMBER: ( ) _473~Q51Q. PHONE NTTMBER: ( ) 473-7357 FROM: KEVIN P. STAUNTON. ESQ. PHONE itfTTMRFR! (612) 333-4800 DATE: June 7, 1993 FILE NUMBER:AUTHORIZATION NUl'IBER: 3_CL13_ NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: COMMENTS: IF ANY PROBLEVS WITH THIS TRMiSUlTTAL, PLEASE CALL UARGARET NOYD AT (612) 334-2677 The information contained in this facsimile message xs attorney privileged and confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agen 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. fr' Date:Tue.sday, June 8. 1993 !Ju^. To:Mayor Callahan and Orono Citv Council Members 'aUM' -g 1 From:Gary Na.siedlak 1910 Shady wood Road, Orono. MN Subject;Variance tor 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 Febniary 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 the 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 prop)erty 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 for 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 clarify to both buyer and seller, the exact specifications as told to us by the City of Orono. and to make clear that these were the the restrictions under 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 footprint 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 neighbor to tlie north concerning alleged erosion problems and the lot's substandard width. The 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 home. Not long afterward, the buyer 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 upHm a builclability variance being granted on the Remien lot. However, based upon the facts that variances on the Remien property were granted previously and that the Commission’s recommendations have been rarely overruled, we indicated to our buyers the likelihood of a varijuice being 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 t*.'4iicing beyond the surface of these issues." We were 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 result, 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 for 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. PJatse consider the following: 1) If the properties to the north and the south of the Remien lot were uninvolved, the Council would find that the lot has been a past hardship as demoustrated by the three variances Council granted to this property. The question is, how often has Orono NOT granted vai iances on properties which have historically been granted variances? 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 body of individuals who are principled and fair-minded. We believe the City Council should be consistent in its policies 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 Orono residents cannot rely on staffs .advice and recommendations regarding opinions and ordinances for the City of Orono. L 3) The City Council should use the same standards of hardship in the case of Jack Remien's lot ;is they do in all variances issued. In this case, the property to the north, prior to the Bielkc's ownership, created the current situation by selling ott 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 Mer^z and then to Mr Remicn, this lot was sold as a buildable lot always commanding a higher price than if it were not buildable. The ordinances say that a hardship exists when the situation of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, and not created by the landowner. Mr Remien did not create this situation, but in fact, the lot to the north which is currently the Bielke residence originally created this situation -- it is ironic that this property is 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 evident 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. I \^vuld like to address issur< 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 nor^. 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 their 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 w >uld be pt)sitioned 55-60 feet behind the hill. and would not disturb it. TRAFFIC - Although traffic is a concern, the marginal increase in traffic caused by one home will be insignificant. LOCALITY CHARACTERISTICS - l*he objection that granting a variance for this pro[)erty would alter the. essential characteristics of the IcKality is not justified. There are many substandard lots in the area. Immediately soulli of the Remien property are two properties wh?';h are each 55 feet wide. Immediately north of the Bielke properly is a 6()-foot lot, similar to the Remien property size. As you Icxik 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 ?n improvement to the area. I ve attached a copy of our cv'iicepiual home plans for you; review. i PROPERTY VALUES - The Bielke's real estate agent stated that the Bielke residence would be valued far less with the lot next door being built upon. This statement improperly assumes that the reference jK)int 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 (O 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 his 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 of the Bielke and Remien properties, respectively. It is interesting that both of those properties arc of substandard size and contain nice homes, one lot being 55 feet wide, and the otner 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. Attachments caico mi-pd hr <&! BURMET REALTY ADDENDUM TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT BLANK This fofm ApD'Ov'Vd by the Mlnoosota Associatkjn ot REALTCnS* M.nnawxa Aswl«i»cn o< PEALTOnS* disclaims any uab<My arising ou! ol usa or misusa of 1h*s form 1 Dale "Z- ^ 2.7- 1 •)_______________ 2. Page -------^_____ot _3_________Pages 3. Addendum to Purchase Agreement between parties dated '2. ~ g-7 t9 T3> pertaining to the purchase 4 and sale ol the property at__... d IR,C ____________________________________________________ 5 Ufi;Li_^rjAu_Ac:i-£fZ7>cic:is-_^f=__:fMio A/^pggMgrfT' ■ 6. A/,Rgg. 'p r.e^lN NITH T/<& ^/fJt 7 pfeiN->-fAYfe- -ri-le VAPJAHce, -fUAT HA*> JH FLAc-f^ -n<E._______ 8 rURp^’^-tS. Cf- EtJiLOW'}/, At> 7 ?-l& ^LT^Vl^'l rAfeJ^ ^-17-8 ’j. 16. 17 ia 19. 20 21. 22. 21 24 25 2a 27 2a 29 9. <^BLA..e.Pi^j^ ALtrd? A/fR/S-£,_-^__<:^A>/-"eKA-7£:,__Nf-TtErTtieL 10. A VARtANAg. -p 1^t/’/L/7 A bJITtl .^APA/^fg, 11. rtL>ieR£>' rR->p<?r-gL? pUAUil> .__BUTgr^i^_^A^>fggfe _4:M&7'__P/=^ pr?»AU tP 'p? 12. U/tLL Erg, UlfhilM EXliffllUi V^L/tL?g LIHE:-f>. Pg^A.CQ/»^/,____ 11 4'rie^pi'U.£WjL'iZ|J _________________________________________________ 14. _ * EP^Nf iTAciK pp^ivt PT/iHY WA*^_t-J|t-t. J10U±^J. 15. LgtX. TTi&N 3c? Fe&T.____________________________________ » YAP/? S^ar E’/\CK OH gACU_3fi?e: IQ Pk.'T L g/-S> TMaH [O fBfB.r- • 6g.|- lvv <::k pfVM_._7Ue_LAK£... AT__Mc:f:Nv>u M//,/t L^A-jer- map .k t ^ N^y UE.^^.. than 7:5 PSfir c?«. CrntgRt-Jl^S. AT tug- £'(2,HT UhE:. Pjfe-p'N EP-H -flip: NEIZ'|t-lf=:>:-PJH/, * No C/VBF. U/LA OrVi/;R ITtT^lN 7eT Ppj= j- c:>p NtrAtAU M//^» i/dajE g-" » Harp crz^vgPjA:> PEf^iHBLy m -ni^. ^rf'f ,..e>erp^£^.A ppV>M " Ngl^/VIAU Mt/y» /V^T^g " Arri7 A UHEl 2^0 pto;M ''N^PAIAU Ml/|H R/A/Etl* E;/M hlo-f B.XoeE.n Z'ClV, rp -fHA-f LAND AREA T^AU i^AiH2_A4LV£j?:^tl_rjiii.;'..o g, Wg>4:. pT » Ma PI:? ^iPVfcp. E?£toi'tP 'jUE 2^67 UN£ U/t.',L Hrj &>c ££:d 3c ; % __<Of^ 'jHAf LAMP AREA.____________________________________________________ _*_4tiE..‘7c-rAU UT^ c^pVEP^f&’’ At> iTEFtHEP g>T c:iff __Wli.E__lY6tr_ EAc-'^P gp fHE LaVIP APgA ^f..-^H£_LgIli ±_ffiuee_A iFEEri.[di-p4 /^r^pptgp <-Arp~T OP -fHe, 31. ___T<ie#^F^erip_.ji-i/T"iVEX_-Wl:fR_Ml.T. 32 ______________________________________________________________________________ 33 Ou.(3jegj--b Suogfssrul (AL eeUa^g Cidai, Sglkt/<. >iA(jhf*|a.r; 0>k /**Y' F^ys A ilA/ U.ti I ity , \\ool:-Ufi -(c*#»s iTef/^tv'e^ll -Qjr Meu-> I CK A0\iv 3-1-13, I I•r. • I • / I • .' f »• . ■ 4^ V •*V k vm: •‘.vf »• CA '/Ly^A/U.. •. it ■ I•« • f *• • 4 A • . 1; » , I * * • :• I / •. ^ I 1 BURBET ^EAL ESTATE THANSrER OISCLOSURE STATEMENT *>i« 'onrx 40on>«d .!>• wHor^wu AsaoOAiton zJ M*nr»*ou Aivyuonn ci P£Ai_rC»^S* «40»»fv A/IWVJ Ot UM Of (TkSUiO H 'orm V Oai« _________________________________________ 2. _______________•«-------------------------- f > ♦ I 1 T^'S c:SCC5ufe statemert :o*’.cerns *.r.e '9ii Drccerr/ ocaieo n ne u.ry cl —_ ‘ ^ ^ Siai® Ql Minnesota, cescnoao is -------------------------------------------------------— 4 ucuntv -r------------------------------------ Thir*-sc‘csur» s net a ^arranr/ ol any Kina 5v Seilarisl or any AgenUS) • ;;:,„ar.r5arv^r-,,. .n:r„:ran»c.or^ .nc a su=s:,m:. xr anv n^econs :r-arrartm, ,n, w.an :o c=.a.n. 3. 9. ai.vca/r;» amO 5£LL=FUS1 MAY WISH TO OBTAIN PPCFESSICNAL AOVICS AND/OR INSPECTICNS CP 7hE PROP^'TT^ and to provide for APORCPRIATE PROVISIONS IN A CONTRACT 3ET/VErN BUYEHiriNO SELLERIS) WITH RESPE-T TO ANY A0VlCS.aNSPECT10NS/0EFECTS. ■a SEUL=RS information: Th* s*.ief :.sc;oses :ne (ciicw.ng rtcrmation w,.n :n* knowteega mat «van •i a VaTaptv -rosca<r.;v« =uvars .^ay r,.y in.s ,n«:fma..on .n oeceng -rin.r aro cn wnai terms to i ?rcc~ ; StJis, autrortzs. ar,v ^.r,«„ reorasaoeng ary ‘ ' ^ __... .. ^tir> am/ ar^LLsj Of anucoaieo said ol .^rocerry. am moms:rrro:;maoTSvT. ^n. S.I.R., ,s a c.sciosure and >s not intended to oe part ol any coniraet Setvmen the Buyer ana Seiler. /uSl/ taTo any'person or entity n connection -n *ny tS ' !a A. GENERAL INFORMATION: 17. (1) tVhen esd you surenasd cr euild rn* ncme? ia 19. 2a 21. 22L 22 24. 2S 22 (2) -ave you lived n tnis nome for -ne oast i2 montns? es_ (3) -as mere ceen any flood cr ciner cisastensi ai me ore carry? If >es. ^ive details cl ^fnai nacceneo ana vvnen: No. .!7. .51 s tne crooerty suitaoie‘Of year T3und use? --------------------- • - ____..i-^ t R. STRUCTtlRAL SYSTEMS: Do arty of tie tollowino conditions cufTentty aalst or have they sreyioualY »,..l!------ 29. \Give ceciiis 'o anv cuesuon answered “yes ) (1) ThE BASEMENT 41 rounoaoon cfooieni Ytf ■ - ^ ,51 r-ooojnq ^ Cl vvei wmt ym-------—— ^ O unageaeeoige YH — No .No :a 31. 32. 32 (•) Oram ding preoiem iO C'aottd loorsm^ (g) Sewer oeaojo (h) Cmer ^%fl ym >%e No No No No OS 3S 37. 3S Give detaiis to any quesnon answe^ — ^ I ^ .>3^ _• (2) THE ROOF? iGive decaiis :o any question answered “yes*) o.oc*-.t* ^ lai What IS me age ol me rtjollng m«ertei7-/L"tt.^*- r>.f^ 7-i Comments: u Ve O (Dl Has mere ever ceen mtenor carnage from ice Duikluo? Ici Mas mere ever been any leattige or ctner prooiems?JNo 42. fcj Have mere ever been any reoairs or reoiecem^f made to me 43, Give qeiajis fo any quesiion answered “yee“: f .T.g,^ i n r. ^ I c./>cg. ^ rK.e%%r l^ee^Al fT^kL ------------------------------- No Oe.!/u C. I -:r<-K e - u ~»mm ■■ . e»*-----—----■ ■ i------------------------ aa,C SPECIAL COMMENTS ON HEATING. PUIMBING. ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL SYSTEMS: 47 The "tao^g are tn v«rwng Older and snaitse at smeiMcasmg unless Ctnerynse staled ncarnmeresoeo* AO Items AstBd 46. beicw ire nci necessaniy pan cf mis saie. ^ r-- *.u I t—y . r u .;r^r 1 5 s 2 J ^ 12. !a Aingt Hood Pengff4»f ^ Mcfgwiv Cv«n 7V\cr C<snw4srw ^99zm •visror r*v«r * 4sn Comoaoor 34/84gi C«S0CS4i ^•ymcing Sr%itr% Mtcnan.vri 4*^41* Wwl YES NO YES iV Gmqo Ooor Cparors and ai caireia '/•noiaang Fan^Fixturoi Seomrr Syrnn SmoM Owicton Camrai vioium Oojr Seat Window TMvnona Wacar . - AfoooOummg ___ Central Haainq Syoeni ___ Canon Aif Caneeonmg ___ Condmontnii ___ Furnace Hunaaiw Baaronc Air P»jnear SuooMinenai Soi« Freoieca Edueanam ^r#o»aca ancJdr naan 65. S^mvi ^jmo Cram *^Wvj ^'vvaia Swuer Sys»n Anacrad ^uoonna and CaMS 5^501 ino Ecuion'WYf ___ tnonaraor ___ Matar Socanar SenriRiar Sys*arr» E’ecircai Systams Cirwr BURMET REALTY REAL ESTATE TRANSFER DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 66. Address 67. Page 2 6a unused Well: Is user, a w.,1 on Ihe prupen, which is ho longer in us,7 CV,,^^o 69. H yes. has it seen sealed according to State Regulations US6 156A? CYes _No 70. Comments: _________—----------—---------------------------- n. Contaminated Well: Is there a well on the property containing conta/ninaied water? Yes. 72. Date well water last tested for contaminants:------------------- Comments:------------------------- 73. D. LAND USE AND PROPERTY CONDITION,: 74. Are you aware o( any of the following existing. Encroachments? Yes----- Sod probtems? Yes_ Diseased Trees? Yes___ No_i^ Rodent Infestation? Yes Rostnctions or Reservations on the use ot the property? Yea--------- 75. 76. 77. 7B. 79. 00. 81. 82. NoJ-cT NO.Jeir' No Insect Infestabon? Yes.Noi^ rtuaii I — — Easwnertts other than uulity or cramage easemertts wh«fl do not mienere wrth preaemjmprwements? Is the property located m a dasignaied flood plain? YIss No Comments: saE. INSULATION DISCLOSURE: 84. Does the msuleoon in the propeny contain urea lormaldehyde toam? Yes 05. Date insulation installed:-------------------------------- 'yP®' --------- 06 l Comments:____________ ___________________________ Unknown Company: If yea, explain below: 87. F. OTHER KNOWN DEFECTS^ 88. Are there any other known defects in or on the property? 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. G. gpi I PR’S STATEMENT (To be signed at time of listing) la !I»!w)^«’'h°: Tr»TMttr OUclOTur. Slaemehl end giv. p.rim=ion to UsOng BlcMr Id dl«os. ga .his m. 97.1 ' / ^ BUYER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: (To be f.gned at time of purchase agreement) 99. 100.100. 'Lknw^eS^e^Je^ei'cTo? m? r1^* Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement anO ini renardina the condition of the property have been made, other than those .made above. USTING BROKCT AND 102! AGENTS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS AND ABE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CONDITIONS EXISTING 101 THE PROPERTY. 104. ------------1 ' ' ' '' JOmm 105 I SELLER'S ACKNOWLEDGE.MENT: (To be signed at time of pu-xhase agreement) 108. on date of closing, exceci ‘or the changes indicated aPove and dated: 109. 110. MN RCTCS ISTO oniCiNAL COPT TO USTtMQ OnOKER; CCmHS TO SELUR. BUY€R. SELUNG eROKEIt c£r no 111-93 FA\-L7 ; •>I I » » UN 03 iSi'iS FROn ONE SEUEN ONE ZERO PA2E.C22 E^yis-i 6. ■ID-I'i i_Aw orriGt» LF-ONARD. street and deinaro P^^OrtSSlONAW ASSOCIATION J «v-* Awwt* I. i^ru «.c »a J 9. .o«i«^s * s-c***^- V«««wv» •• A. wi^ «/C»a JI9 C. a M5**C ▼• |r»*C« C. §T4*»8f ftrvCM i*. 9W**"*4 arrnv ^PrnimJ ^«AH9 ••. nOBCW wr«i* •aaao ^ „^^AO J. (Mli.CA ^ ••tiA**^*^* -'**• r>tacA*CA« -O-A A C. #4AOwr* J • 4***fw <»4**«** •.amvma t ••A«» IS CA •« Wll^ O* AV • .A«C9V pgrTH PAA*f<t • #»#•• W aa CIIA •«. iO*—A-'« AOP4PT » t-AV^» .4>U C PUCtAAB jcscp -* p. npvc' Uk«P«ti« J. «. mMkLtr WA»A ». wirra 5a V*0 W. WLkf mav S POPlAt »>/•!• OAVIO AIKCVA ». C»«*^ ^ UBOOPfp ne«PT J. Sh CA »h t^evtkk B. s»'0«Tr agygcop •• CURB O. SAMPBOP • <«A£k9.'»4’^0* .r, •tT9.-«e« ¥«Oma JI B. 9AA3fB9 •i»pTWW»k4A SUI’^C 2DOO i&o sOutm rfrTH sthgct Miri«r.A?^l-tS. MINNESOTA 5SA02 TCLCO wONC C6I21 333»ilO0 rACSiMiLC iftil* 332*‘C3T June 9, 1993 c*c«>e ^ •AJ«AM « *OB*P<* • <ma CL. •- 00“<* • «A»k*P A CWMP NAMC' a v^MxtoA a OOPB • <««tAA.C. A. PAWlA p wry^r^P f ua «jC i«CAkA*. J" ^ CVSXPC yrc>H» W BCwrgB prrui H. iACMPAji .jD^lt 1. •BtAPAP cjiMmt k. pf**^^ MAPC O. &HAWPC. MtfWPArrgp oam «3 MBTBApB maa « V. ptLlJUkwTr pfTpt «• *OPT*«r MPACrfv CABOkTiB 9. arrrca wm>t»%AMP VVWUAM A. POCW mpmPhM A »C pvlTB «Bt£ WC pO' $«-*tPvCP WQPCP * w-^P4t-«P •OPCBT P. P3PCCPW9P J- *A»4.ttA*eCA j^rnm P (CPkCB CA^T^i mxry* 9 OADVk A»GP|« • Vtt • SAP'CkOOk*^ rrm f « fvtrirp 9a ««9 B CTM»*.«p TAP»*C t ^1 f. tOPrm^ ipic M. ca ;bti UkPVJP P9fAI>Pl JAiCWlIl a^Qi^c • iaopABO«*/^«.>ppBi ABTPV« W M. St^tlT #<*«iAt9iiPPP .fMB’ Ajrtt S. OCf«*B0 (.•M-9991 S'9pr» • Kie SCOTT 9AP*tk 9. fWkPtCI. M. AATOBA^S •r «PW*M^ nAiTGW s e.oBcr otAL NU-»e« (612) 335-16^2 Kevin Staunton, Esq. o“S?.‘^°Hti3c*^isnobricl> * Kauiman, Ltd. IfSS^ipS'^iMray Tower 222 S. Ninth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Rc: Application for varianee by C. JaoX Remien Dear Mr. Staunton and Mb. cola: ”” “It"Iin~y cir* to sse ?i^a “'«^U«ndence is It^rise OTouSeTo^T*"* ® variance in *SwJilly*o>'P*T80asive and His f ^ ^ ^ m -The key tert. in thi. sacter inoluds: There hae never **“ * *19?* and t^ itetTn^iahee“S*’?rer^“e p/lor can- where a vari«>o. was greeted . ,,6 10.0.3 12:10 Fa\FAX-L77.5 I'"’ JUN g •33 1B:rPOM 0N£ SEOEM OnE Z£R0 PCiGE .C02 Kevin Staunton, Esq. Karen Cole, Esq. J^e 9, 1993 page 2 . eonbination With nwnlen in 1988 and there is no since its «Uetable together. S^e%h«V property is ir. high defend. ~ epplications^^ «nen the lot pwmt^resiSioe iSught the lot . - see letter of %9V7to^j‘c). to Jeanne Hahusth. ... ne-ilh "4t lot vas Bubstandard* »r. Renien ^^o£ S .^/“^eVh^s"^c»-» Cixol. Sit»at«i on doublG lots• ^ not meet the 80% nininum lot width reguirenent of orono ordinance feet that Hr. R-i«>‘ a variance is ii vm certain that a vwlanM night not be ®*"**^„V w4ld be n® "««<* reSas*: a?^2.«ts*^““tingent.porenase ey^ resolution sss “ v£ SSS^.SV-»rKSS ”^.c. feet short <^ ttei^«“fset.-circlH neighborhood a.>,a onlva .tew4a vould create th® oniy If the variance i=. ?'»2‘;^ii^ee substandard lots in area along Casco circx« 06 FA\-L7 7 o » M I O i > •» ^ :\jK - ,=3 1S--53 from one EEUSN ONE ZERO Pm la — • 0w*-* Kevin Staunton, Esq. Karen ColCf ^q» June 9» page 3 „ „v, Chan,in, osBanti.l character of the neightoorhood. . . • TTfhvlanca were grantca, it •variances to expire. ^^r“oi“o o'rtrn^«t lo.08, S. SgSlcS^lef Sfo'r« a |?aJSi^ «W|h ’»^or the ‘^Si^arS lt«.«ar.ia are as fell=«.= statutory stanaaros- i* v- mit to us. 7“ hy the iiiir.r.rwTiTc» very =1*^ s^; - ^.Ui;“rri3o«e"Sirpo^t.__ pedlund ci;*r^«ed hy^. x5js),. involve c««on ^sn P- reasoa^le_u« ««wiinS. W69), Siall^S ’rii' ^¥g^-*“-^^kppIa/"^e^ b^^'SSisSle Sp-"Sg-^^»Sriv oncer co.»c„ ownership. ^ Standard Ko. =• "^“^.ated hy the circumstances unique to nx*. t' r . landowner." -If -an applicant /»i?g ordinance.- as d^^^!f«lt-createdairfd«s notcor^itu^^^j_. j^tationo oditt. ] 116 I'J 93 12:211 FAX FAX-L775 j,,„ 9 ’s; is.:o ^ nil O un > pp>5£ . 035 Kevin Staunton, Eiiq. Karen Cole, F^q* June 9/ 1993 Pago 4 .. of Maplewood/ 366 N.W«2d 624 SiiailsjrlY, case 2appia# the court (Minn.APP. l^aS)/ where a prorchases land wito i^n ftSther and of thTzoiang resiariftxo^ knowiedg®, of purchase, the hardship is self are in effect* i^denied even where there io nS Seated and a varxance ^ parcel. In the present case, “non«bl= use for «• hS Inm aaalssion, vith full is o» j 3 -The varience, if grajrted, will not alter the S^nSar=kaV.cter of the locality.- aapie testiao^ W ter %o oMential character of the a house on tot is wouxa neighborhood. „„eld«ratione alone shall not St3mdard Ho. 4. "^““S^^hiV « hnelysia: Thera is ^t*,^ conl^iSl with gt ».^s in tS?v«^, 5SS Remicn seems to raise ro mteh money selllhg tas Aweo standard nos. h-7 tHot applicahie to this case.) attributes of t-j^ro^rty ^ ^ubatandard lot. s;;i4S.E2«'3^ ““■ „ other land or etructuros xn tne cui* ia locatod." (1(5 1" i>3 12: il r A a- L i I ‘j ^ II, »iII > J'JN 9 • 3c- k t? • * FROM ONE SEiJEN ONE ZERO “PGE.P3S Kevin Staxmton, Esq. Kaxen Col©. Esq* jun© 9. 1993 page 5 ' • Again, tnere are no special condition^ with respect Stand^ Ho^ o?f»SJ^ntial Aa otatcd 9t 307 Minn. 313, 2~9 it. ««-» ("whera a lando%mor , _. **ao aoft fMmXl.App. ISw*/ >. . ., Is PgohXPl^9P Minn. ^ *’ «07 ^ / "wher« a lanaowiioir purchaW ‘’y a variance under the statute.Ot groiind© i^oc^ * standard HC. U- 'T SS5 ^r„tSiy“to^- intent of «e ronin. cnaractar of pn© of larg« treaa, nei^notin? property, conflict vitH tBe 9^^ ??iffle uJ density section of -tte ifct?o‘n ?r»l provides, in r.lc«nt part. The aalntenanee of i nvarfrfflidlnd °« SiS^:?^^^^,-avoidi4^th. m f.mctft-a£ f .^fs MiHnetpntof ^ pieaerve tMa quality or ^ ^is^wa“t\'? “‘*: ISSS^^p^-f ■ • ■ (*> congestion MU I “ i - . • i. k .A.* J’JN S3 1 3 t 51 FRO!^. CNE SE'JEH ONE "ERO S3GE.037 Kevin Staunton, Eaq Kar«n Colts, Enq. Jxine 9, 19.93 page 6 t U. tie public rlght-cf-way; («) nEfiysntlna^^^aiga ^ rr? "S. build lngV\^ Srbulk£HK£ A^>n4«4on orono'6 comprehensive plsJi is full of pol^ios to pro^e “l««"k.SlSy le«llp»ont ur.o/d I^e Xibnobonka. Tbouc police .-SB Should be supported. gapple Kr. Zoppik'u attempt:* dlBcuasin, Maa^..pyjf n^^agT^do with tha 416 proposition that vhere a city present atatter, st^ding .-«-i j-.ti ^qf two vears on en application council unjustifiably delws nhanoes tha controlling for variance (and In the meant^ irrelevant. Ho ordinances), a varimce »y l»ens2KEUlfid f»f one hare alleges delay. « review HirTthYeateim cellece y- cityanpl^lng JAe vorc^ scope of r . . »T Zappi^s ff^‘^o5^i^ir fans to d«;™^ta -my legally pemisslble tasiS^for a finding of undue hardship. i^^nolqaiOP Thosre i* nothing Circle or - o ‘"'‘^hronl^ it is a posslhle financial gaj.n to Mr. Remien. Very truly yours, LEONARD, STREET AND DEIKARD /} By Peter H. Bachman ^'"^warren and Christina Bi^lke »H*SB 161KE\STM*T0M .tCZ W M Torai. PftGE.ea? *» .UN 9 '9? 15: seven ONE 2E90 pp Oc.^n\ p/^i|^i^i| ^ tbansmittal LETTEa Iv\W OHflCES LEONARD, SrniEET AND DEINAKD rnoioisaoKAL association SIJTTB 23U0 150 SOl-TH MPTH STJUSET ^fl^C^E^POLlS, MSs-n V50X\ S54ca TELHPUONB (ffl2) 33S-X30O PA3IMI1S. (il2) 335-1/SS7 I Ncmt /MJt.v tHSStSBUOOn 0> OOTY OF TIBS AND DESaOr W TBiaODFT JMAGB. Date of Trancnitrtai: 9, 1993 (5a)^........... t™ tecoiiPM nn>a. gASSBiTTir m,TT«T*U T9« name : Fevin sMunton, E.<i./Kar«i Cole, Bs<J. KtBK/cOMi>Aire: pophan B.ik sclmobrich Kaufman Ltd. CITY: Minncapolio, MN rACsaiI.l: HOJCBBR: (612) 334-8888 TELBPBOHF iraMBER: <612) 333-4800 SEHDEB's HAMB: peter H. Baetanan, E»J./«17 total mrasBR or pages (iwarouw tsmbbehm . LBwm) • immediate MOTIPICATIOS of TRAKSMITTAL (Y/H) : » CTalEirr/MATTER ITOMBKRS: 2908-15996 ..uMiximun ^ ^ «VIKa WbOHLWS KBCKiraa 0« MMWWOTWCAIaL (613) S35-1619 XT T«» MB BAVIKa origtBBl will follow -bY mail. COMMENTS: SCCT BY: DATE; TIME: jJOT>TED SENDER: •I . X>_ CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 APPLICATION NO. 1811 NOTICE OF COLIVCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 5/27/93 TO: C. Jack Remien 3235 Casco Circle Wavzata, MN 55391 COPIES:Dave Truax 4879 Drake Street Maple Plain, MN 55359 5 FOR 0 AGAINST TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 5/24/93 VOTE: 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 materials you wish reviewed by Council, no later than Monday, June 7th. If you have any questions, please contact Jeanne MabustIt 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, \/A^t/VOCe TO: FROM: Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse, City Administrati . Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:May 27. 1993 SUBJECT: Sewer/Water Assessment, 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 prcpeny and the adjacent property. A distinction must be made between the sewer being •’available" and whether or not the property has been assessed (and on what basis 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 IS was assessed for front footage for both .sewer and water, but was assessed for neither a 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 hou.se on Lot 17, was designed and installed to serve the house on Lot 17. 'Fhe 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 whether or not a sewer unit was provided based on someone ’s interpretation of codes in 1965 or 1971 should not be the sole criteria for determining whether a hardship exists for the current application. No variance/hardship review was done to make tho.se assessment determinations. Scwer/Water Memo Mav 27. 1993 Page 2 Water Assessment Tlie following is a table defining how Lots 16 through 19 were assessed for water, WATFR 1971 - LW-1 Lot 16 Plat 43300 Parcel: 0500 Assessed 6070 Units Ownership as of 1974 (earliest tax record available 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 5571 Unit Remien Separate Tax Parcel At the time City water was installed, all properties were assessed a tootage charge of $5.80 per front foot (Lot 18 was assessed $319). Only those lots with existing residences or those which were thought to be buildable were assessed a unit charge of $580 per unit. Staff 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. Tuthill’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 Tuthill’s ownership. As it currently stands, a water unit has not been as.sessed to Lot 18. A water smb 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 have to be paid as part of the buildin*’ permit. Further, the owner would have to pay all 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 of assessment roll attached. Sewer/Waier 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.WFR 1965 - LS-1 Ownership as of 1965 Plat 43300 Assessed (assessment drawings) Lot 16 Parcel: 0500 60’/1 Unit STP-IC*McNeal Separate Lot Lot 17 0550 55’/No STP-IC McNeal Separate Lot Lot 18 0600 55’/No STP-IC ' McNeal Separate Lot Lot 19 0650 55’/I Unit STP-IC Hulse ? or Kelgzan ? Separate lot *"STP-1C" is the $225 sewer plant charge, still collected today for new connections in which was assessed for all existing residences, and 1 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 charee 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. Tlie 1965 .sewer as-built contains a cormector arrow for Lots 16-17-18, and indicates one stub was placud 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 location retlected the best feasible connection location based on the septic system serving the house. Scwer/Watcr Menu) May 27, 1993 Page 4 If the Council finds that this lot is buildable. the sewer connection charge payable with the building permit is as follows: $ 225.00 - plant charge 191.50 - lift station by-pass charge 1.238.50 - lift station ftl force main charge $1,655.00 total due with building permit Brief Zoning Hislorj' The "Casco Point District" was established in 1950, containing no regulations regarding lot size for existing lots. Ordinance m adopted in 1959 established a minimum building lot size of 1 acre area/140 ’ width, and allowed Council to grant variances for existing substandard lots in single separate ownership. By not addressing common ownership lots, this section clearly inferred that substandard lots in common ownership could not be granted variances. The 1967 Zoning Code included the Casco Point area as "R-ID", requiring 1/2 acre area and 100 ’ width. Those standards remained in affect when the designation was changed to LR- IC in 1975. Conclusion Lot 18 has been assessed the footage charges that were assessed to all properties for the 1965 sewer and 1971 water projects. The lot was not assigned sewer or water units, based on apparent determination of potential buildability based on codes in effect at the time. Council is reminded that no variance review was conducted at the time of assessment to determine actual buildability of the lot. If the lot is detennined by Council to be buildable, sewer and water connections are feasible although stubs are 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 permit is issued would be $1,877' for water and $1,655 for sewer (based on pennit issuance in 1993). ch I,s LCAO HVot s*,1 i I 4 . • i •• • ' . 4 . ■ -5' •'» ^'... ;; . % I .U‘ !• I » 4,-v^ w:| i • ,;v > \ 6 Afi • t. •..ti ' * i ' • ••/..Vl:. •' .t,' 4 * !• 4 S. ,,. • • ^* . • ;tif* 'H’m . . ••: • ■ • 1 \ ■•' t * t • 4 *■ i t \ * 1 IK- 1 '•* 1,. ‘ i ■ l ••» *14 V. 1 •• •; *. If ■ 1 t • • ^ P 1 \ t. .♦ I I * >. GAR A’ OPP .4 •,.OAR <? I4" 1;'<: f/v' OAR. 1 ■ * y !fSv ■>.. \ f. r^."' , > r .V '• * *’»•. 4>,rv #GAR •dX••• •• • t •15 \\ ' 1__:;c —------» ^°40'V'‘ . (450) { 500) 16 * ♦ ' 1 HO. .1 ( 1 0'^^ ,r 20 1(700) V • I A,- \1_____775) 1 ■ i ,-b ■ ■ ■< 1- / 7 n (Aim eic^Hat. rai'col Roaidcnt Roaldt Footago Unltfl CommorCo.tiVgiitngO Commorc, Ovoraizod Sorvlooa43220 2410/ 2730'' 3200' 3400 I|3300 3600/3800'4030 I1050 4250/ 4400/ 4600 1|.800 5000/ JJ200 '!i0 121^ 200 2|50 300/ 5' 246oil 200,00237.05195.75lOO.OO 150.75 156.0? 142.50 216.05 176.73 IO2.8O 160.77 211.20 60.00 120.00 60.00 60.00 60.30 120.00 1111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1" 1" AoGrnb.Aaaiut.Aaamt.AaamtRoald,Resld.Comm.Comm,Footage Unite Foobago Unit a1427. l| 4 580.00 •1160.00 580.001374.09 560,001135.35 580.001034.70 580,00lOl^i-.OO 580.00 1" 904.92 826.50 1253.09 1025.03 1060.24 932.47 1224.96 348.00 696.00 311.8.00 348.00 349.74696.00 580.00 580.00 580.00 580o00 580.00 580.00 580.00 20,00 20.00 500.00 580.00 580.00 580.00 500.00 20 c O' -----------------— 550 600 ■ 60:6fl'“ 55.00 55.00 55.00 1 1 K’n r 348.00“ 319.00 319.00 319.00 _ 530.00 580.00 . 20, Ot. 700 —SsTTin—------1---------51'). 60 580.00 i 775 70.75 1 456,75 580.00 ! 050 23.75 1/2 •1“137.75 290.00 2U. 0 900 210.00 lH/2 1”1218,00 070.00 20 vO ! 950 30.00 1/2 1“174,00 290.00 20.t) . f 1000 30.00 1/2 174.00 290,00 XO60 20.00 116.00 1070 40.00 232.00 1100 60.00 31'jB.OO 1150 60.00 31 i 8.00 580.00 1200 22,75 131.95 20 IZVLUa^EEN ..—--1 o\oi; 1 i» !) 4 2A • L>AK 22"ELM ' ““T2'’T^ak ii:n r MAfj.:nt ------vj 1 L in’MAPLE 2?.'Ly\rLr Ownership - Lois 16-17-18-19 1965, 1974-Present Tax Book Applic Year 16 17 18 19 1965 McNeal McNeal McNeal llulse?— •NO TAX RECORDS AVAIL/\BLE •• • 1974 Tutliill •• Tuthill • Tuthill • Rcmicn • 1975 Tulltill Tuthill Tuthill Rcmicn -- 1976 Tuthill Tuthill Tuthill Remien — 1977 Tuihill Tuthill Tuthill Remien mm 1978 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien — 1979 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Rcmicn — 1980 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien — 1981 Tuthill Tuthill Stnilh Remien mm 1982 Tuthill Tuthill Smith Remien mm 1983 Tuthill Tuihill Smith Remien mi 1984 Tuthill -Tuthill Smith Remien — 1985 Corson -Corson Smith Remien — 1986 Biclke -Bielkc Smith Remien //988 1987 Biclkc *Bielke Mertes Remien #1101 1988 Bielke -Bielke Mertes Remien — 1989 Bielkc -Bielke Remien Remien — .1990 Bielke -Bielke Rcmicn Remien - 1991 Bielke -Biclkc Remien Remien - 1992 Bielke -Bielke Remien Remien mm 1993 Biclke .Biclke Remien Rcmicn /tfisu NOTE: Dash (-) between same owner indicates lots legaiiy combined. NOTE: Ownership is as listed at beginning of nominal tax year. ^Application Iliston /\pplicalion #Action Date Applicant mi Approved 2-27-84 Exp. 2-27-85 (Smith) #988 Approved 1-13-86 Exp. 1-13-87 (Mertes) #1101 Approved 2-9-87 Exp. 2-9-88 (Mertes) 11811 (Remien) § 10.07 shall aoorove a certificate of occupancv for a non-conforming use. Failure‘to apply for such occupancy certii-icate will be prima facie evidence that"such non-conforming use was either illegal or did not lawfully exist on January 1, 1985. tta -ite^olan lhall brittached to a survey by a dimensions of existing ^b^/oc proposed structures^to^be^eo^^^ |arsidrboindtr5rth4 req“irerof £-street ^Vthe iandsra!e"plans. and“a° 1 site improvements are to be bonded at the rate of 1- l/'2 times their estimatea cosu. SEC. 10.08. VARIANCES. Subd 1. Variances: When Granted. The Council si i'E-3i'““ 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 oe TtLSirof a^.^%Scrs ?^hr?e7uest tle^^oTIhail be -£e»ed - ^the^Boar^d^ of^Appe^^^^^^ Adjustments for plan and on the character 21 'derelTm" ::ZTen2i°s2° riff?cu\\\^ror Lordship to the degree considered reasonable ORONO CC 264 (4-1-84) 5 10.08 jjrr..*;'-.*.’ lh2ract^''r''%n^^^ features IV the%olo!e6 buUding, ^^jacture, nr ule Ts it mav deem advisable. The Council by unanimous action may waive reference to the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. B. The Board shall hold hearings as required by ° V o c"^aV 3. la?iire%o'"rive'n.f?led notice '^°^^-tavilidatl'^"h%“prl«ed?ngs‘ pcivfd“d a"bon\® fld^lttemoV to comply with this Subdivision has been made. C Subject to such limitations as may be imposed by .he council r-3,™-,,L^°^m^/‘'i!,riudl°'=to^:isions^^^^ tL^ oroatfs°| w^tnjes ^^he/. ilinp^ ot "wt it.n^ bt ieis^ by tibiron eth "-m^aT^eV h^elt^ by TI.^Tn^ud iS| the final order. Subd. 3. Variances; Issuances. c 1 .».u .r v/i':rn‘..“='r,‘tf u;s an^^^e effect of the proposed variance upon ^^e hefp\\',|^\®ra"ff?c welfare of the community, /, ^isn the public conditions, light and air:, g nrooertV in the surrounding safety, and the °the"^ CoS thaU hear requests area. Before granting a , this Chapter in for variances i j. i>nforcement would cause undue hardship instances where their str c ^hf» individual property underbecause of circumstances unique the individual prop^ consideration, and to ^11 be in keeping with the spirit f^S^Jnt^:n%^*of^?hL=C^Spt\=r“°""Onre\rraship- fs Jsed in connection Sith thlqranting of a variance means: 1 The proper tv in question cannot be ? reasonable use if us'ed ?nde"r Conditions allowed by the official controls . ORONO CC 26 5 (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 locaxity. 4. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property g^j_sts under the terms of this Chapter. 5. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight si^tems. Va??;nces shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 11 . Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use under this Chapter for property in the zone where the a person's land is located. 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two- ami dwelling . 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land located. property right of the applicant. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in anv way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in an^ S?heJ respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. 12 '^he grantincr of such variance will not merely serve as a conv'enience to ^he apclicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or djfficulu.y. Source; Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted; 7-14-86 ORONO CC 266 (4-1-84 ) mm ^ § 10.08 B. The Board or Council may imrose conditions in arantinq o^ variances to insure compliance with t ‘s Chapter and to ^ Jcent crocerties. No variance sb-.ll be grantea or change-i beyond the use permitted in this Chapter in the district where such land is located. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 Subd 4. Variances in Border Areas. The Zoning Chapter seeks to regulate land use throughout Orono so that the location of rhe various^-ones will be compatible to each other and to existing usL and regulations Where property in the City adjoins prope^y in anothe? municipality which = cft7“nrorer\y! ;fls to Stie strict enforcement of a'i! the City regulations as to sncrpn°pe?ny Sn^asonable, the Council may take location of the property and the regulations of the adjoining ^nScYpality in consiLring application for variances nereunder. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 subd. 5. variances: Denial. Variances may be denied by motion of the Council and such motion shall constitute a finding ann Set^rminatinn that the conditions required for approval do not exist No application for a variance which has ^ or in* tart shall be resubmitted for a period of sir (_6) months ^rom ?L LirSf said order of denial, except on grounds .■ T® or proof of change of conditions found to be valxa the Plannx g Commission . Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 subd. 6. variances: Failure of the Board recommendation is transmitted by the Board within six.y (60) days after referral of the application for variance to '=*’? Bo®rd, Luncil may take action without further awaiting such recommendation. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 Subd. 7. Variances: Violation of Conditions. ^ tion of anv condition set forth in granting a variance shall be a violation of the Zoning Chapter and automatically termina es variance. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 ORONO CC 266-1 (4-1-84) § 10.08 Subd. 8. Variances; Expiration. Variances ^snall expire after the date of Council approvax if no^ used. An/:L”e.'^,;yrhrirrVuS°r-/v.riance. Source; Ordinance Mo. 172 Effective Date; 1-1-75 unde- ^he r.otlsVons\r,5l^ntlot:°l4tu^er Statutes, Section 462.36, Subd. 1, do not ® on real property. The order issued by the City |hall xnciuoe the legal description of the property involved. ' variance shall not affect its validity or enforceability. SEC. 10.09. CONDITIONAL USES. Subd 1 Conditional Uses; Purpose. in order to give iirlu.^sYaUrs^te lSa^\"b\e"^^V.fe'n ‘iucrc!r=utst"'an=^ces exist a cond\tiona'l""use per.it .ay be 9-nted Conations .ay be app^ to issuance of the permit and a periodic and be^lc^t'e'd^p^^periy^ wVtTVes^^^^^^^ respect^So SlirVffe"c1:s''‘lfn'^s°u"rround^ \"o“g^rfnt° fnd^^tl d^n? lpp\\°cations''fir'^conditional use'^^II.its and to impose reasonable conditions upon the granting of these permits. Source; City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 Subd. 2. Conditional Uses; n«^:r^T-o i-hf» Council may grant conditional use permit "• rnns;:,v,”..“K.*4.2; ir^srleighborhtld an5 for recommendation in regard to ?fan<:rng or tne neignoo conditions thereof, if any, or for the IIIiaT lf su/h^condtlional use. The Council may by unanimous action waive reference to the Planning Commission. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date; 9-14-67 ORONO CC 267 (4-1-84) mu;cs, ;oil ec- led nd ac- or r»ly ms llo rm ISC in )n- hc VO m- ve id ‘SS ay ty n- m cs it c- tg n • ^4* • Jv, •w • i*- %*'V Tjt.rt^ • •iS: “ ■rvT-';x- ■M .-Ci- ■> & » .'4^: ;>• • • 99 r • •• • W ' •# ..i'j jU- biuii uc maac m ojiiionnancc wiin mis section out only alter tnere snail have been liled in the otVicc of the city clerk a written consent of the owmers 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 w hole 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 liteial provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of cir­ cumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinancc.,^‘*Undue hardship” as used in connection with the granting of a variance means th^roperty in question c^j^ot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls^e plight of the laMowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the lan^wner^md the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the localit^Qcconomic con ­ siderations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the proi>- erty exists under the terms of the ordinanco^^nduc hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construcH^ as dehned in section 1 16J.06, subdivision 2, when in harmony with the ordinancofeilie board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permittedM+nder the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person ’s land is locateuLt he board or governing body as the case may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. The board or gov­ erning body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. Subd. 6a. It is the policy of this state that handicapped persons and children To:Mayor Callahan and Orono Council members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Stephen Weekman, On-Site Systems Manager Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:May 19, 1993 Subject: #1811 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.Lot area Required 80% area Exi.sting = 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 Re.solution for Approval Correspondence 1 - Bachman 1 etter 4-26-93 2 - Staunton Memo 5-4-93 3 DNR Letter 5-17-93 Planning Commission Minutes 4-19-93 Planning Commission Memo & Exhibits A thru G 4-15-93 Original 1983-84 Variance Documentation Zonii.j File #1811 May !9, 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 exliibits for further 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. E.xhibit 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 of the application. Please refer to the Planning Commission minutes for further information. Included as Exhibit H 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 lot width variances with the vote 3 For, 2 Against based on the findings and conditions noted in the previous approvals. Jeff Johnson and Cteve Peterson voted against approval of this application. Jeff Johnson felt he could not support the request as he felt the two lots should be combined as neither has sufficient area to meet the zoning requirements. Steve Peterson felt that the approval required too many variances. Zoning File #1811 May 19. 1993 Paiic 3 of 3 Subsequent Discussions Shortly after the Planning Commission meeting. Kevin Staunton received a letter from the Bielkes’ attorney, Peter Bachman, indicating his 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 discussed this issue at length with DNR officials. While they initially indicated our "lots of record” ordinance may be inconsistent witli DNR Shoreland Regulations, after further in-depth review they determined that our 80% rule is not inconsistent with tiie 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 .equiring 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 hardship e.xists. Council may recall that upon recommendation of the City Attorney, in 1984 the City revised its interpretation of the e.xisting lots of record code section relating to one acre or smaller lots with sewer. Prior to 1984, stafY interpreted the language (which has not changed since 1967) to mean that the City would not even consider variance applications for existing vacant common ownership 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 owned unsewered lots. Because this 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 Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution. Council’s optional courses of action may include: 1. Approval. 2. Table, requesting additional infonnation 3. Conceptual denial. 4. Other. r-r !• I - - • • - Acril 19, 1993 Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Acininiatrotcr Occno City Kail 2780 Kelley Parkway Crcno, subject: LAiJD USS APPLICATION ’#1611 AT 3237 CASCO CIRCLE Dear Ms. Mabusth; In an effort to expand on the letter submitted by Bielke & Richards, here are seme additional censideratiens which are pertinent to making a well-infcrmed deciaicn. 1) The aucceasicn of ownership cf Let 18 is: Year Owner 1976 Tuthill 1977-1986 •Smith 1987-1988 Mertes 1988-Present "Reraien When Mertes bought the lot in 19S7, it was his intention to build a home after selling his other residence. By 1968 Mertes was still unMle to sell his existing home and subsequently/ sold the lot to me for $80,cco as a buildable lot. At that point my intention was to expand my present residence on Lot 19 to cover in serve part, Lot 18. In October of 1985 when Bielke .purchaeed his home, there was a valid variance for that lot. In 1986 and 1907, variances were again granted to build on Lot 18. At no time did Bielke file a request that these variances be denied. The soil erosion problem referred to in Paragraph #2 was the result of tiie rain storm of the century in the early 1980's when 8-10 of rain fell in a 12-hour period. There has been no other significant erosion of record since that time. In Paragraph #4, the question of "owner hardship" is the adjacent property which could be added to make this lot buildab-e. There ere numerous hernus on the east shore of Casco Pomt with sised lots, and a new residence wculd net cempremise the integr-ty c.. the neighborhood. Jttti K3. Jeanne A. Matusth, Zcninc Adninisr.rator Pa^e 2 The c-^eti=n of financial,gain_foo ^a.lf U f that'l purchased the lot in 19co fcr 5cC/CC0 a.a sa---..^ -- yeaca later for^S95,M0 WithwtTre”«<3 variance, 1 vcuia be aubjected to a serleua financial loss on ths property. in eloaing, there are tvo final canranta which do ireact the re<?ieat for denial of this variance: for sale. 2) At the preaent tlrra, 1 have gcalified buyer. ^ alga«3 purchase agreerenta not only for Lot 18, but also Lot 19. ssrs“£ Si: on May 20/ 1993. cse Respectfully submitted/ ^ack Reinien n A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) FILE NO. 1811 WHEREAS, C. Jack Rcmicn (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of 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 of Lake Minnetonka and between the Northwesterly and Southeasterly lies 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 plai 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 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. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application w.as reviewed as Zoning File #1811. 2. The property' is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. 4. The property was in common ownership with contiguous Lots 16 and 17, Spring Park prior to 1967 through 1977. la)ts 16 and 17 are now legally combined. The property is now in common ownership with Lot 19. 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 regulation, provided a lot of record meets 80% ot the required lot area and lot width and has municipal sewer available. Pace 1 of 6 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 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 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 ol 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. 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. The property measures 55 feet in lot width and is appro.ximately 5 teel short of tl e narrowest lots in the 33 lot Casco Circle neighborhood at 60 feet. T le Orono Planning Commission reviewed this applica ion on April 19, 1993 and a majority of its members recommended approval of ihe variances as proposed based upon the following findings: A. No available land - lots are developed on both sides of property B. C. The property is served with sewer and water. A house and improvements can be constructed witliout the neea for additional variances. By granting this variance there will be no negative effect on tlic 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 tor future hardcover and setback variances. Page 2 of 6 I. J. G. The special conditions applying to the parcel of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. H. 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 of the applicant. The granting of the proposed variances will not in anyway impair the health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be 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 finds that the conditions existing on this propeny are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent ot the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 12. The City Council has considered this application inc.uding 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 the above 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 I^age 3 of 6 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 feel of lot width, subject to the followine 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 confom.'.ag structuies. The only variances granted with this approval are lot area and lot width. No othv ■ inces are granted. Applicant is hereby advised that in approving the development of this substandard property that all future improvements must meet the current standards ot the code and that a future Council might not approve any improvement to the property that requires a variance .pplicani 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 smbs to serve the property, if required. An easement must be granted in favor of 3241 Casco Circle over the portion of the sewer line which lies within the subject property, 3237 Casco Circle. The easement area must be of sufficient s.ize 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. Authorii ; granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exerci.sed by application for a building pernui within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance wil expire on that date (May 24, 19^4). 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 terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 11. The undersigned applicant has read, und- rstood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of May, 1993. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 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 ot the City. Notarv Public Page 5 ol 6 • ^ t-' I exhibit Crrlifl^nt^ of Sur.<»y for Hioi'v'b Johnson of \at IS, spring Park Monnnpin Count*/i M^nnono ^ n:fs ijbi I cortlfy ^ lo a tfV«V and roricrt r-jM- aontation oN^ ourvey <'f ' tound.rJeo or U>XW, «■•>’'“ r,^’. tb. location of nil ' tb.r.on, .nd Ibo PtoFO.od loc-lU. I a propo.nd buiwine. I- do-" port to .hou othor .............................. encroachrneuts. 1' [§@[§0W B .'1' - I 1983 CITY Or UiiONO Scnla I tr^ • o : =r 40• 6-17-S3 Iron n»>rUrr CORDON R. COFFIN CO., INC. Gordon R. Coifln S* lyv'".*)H,rV S. Cronborg Hog. bo.!-b Land Survnyora and ?l«wwri> Long Lnxn, Hinnanotn #761 •.AW r«. LEONARD, street AND DEI.^iARD MUOrE:S5«Or4Ai '>Oc* at<o^4 8 3«f» 4 #V^»* • 5*l*s • & • iioc»n M , «i«it *t B‘«r*M4S •CIVV c*:«a> r• • ?*»*3*» 5»%- ^ cr« S*tr»cs • ar.AwM C-*<UC» > **At8 4C«rii .« HjTiausM .'fr«Cl • r..r •»;-*«5 5 »C* H •• • -t:» c T «sf c*«t»*7' 3.«3h r M H liCBMAM S*r.C* 0 ir«w*-C» . 4*»r • • 50»si» 4A*M|ffi«w C**»«*M w 3*v.r.v:»»» B*t'*^C*« « 4IT**4% cs««»3 *4 kfOC^I^t.SCn ••30^** .!»»•> ■4^«nw*5 • j wcac*»r0 4 **«*^C4**t*. -• --. ■••• MA«NA<lb «• '*yM4 •!. • C**M C 4Ui'*>k fi*> 4 3 .C I w Alt . 4 « M - MAT . A K t«'Cr« maS**44 C r '^ •W'O •, M4 • »,C '. C4*3W^H T.mik\ J4MCt • •0*- ■'C**4*C ** *«*M* S A*»Clk4M •>r-*44SM ■cnr«*• •-•V f •Aurn * JvSt^- *4 r swC* »4«»eNc: . J* 3A>*9 4f.. r« H4»« r “I e4«r.o k w<kkf»*kf; •Ctitf* -i ••wuri 34«^'3 «4*4TCA 4>-.r.4M '-AJf- M4*«« **ri4'** .. s»*t* ‘» kUMCkk V 3'juo.4.*i • *.»rrfc$«»*o r.. r«i <i ^Avi'SC** «05a>4<4A l«A*«AN)i?H - C-Atk S TA^W.*:* T<»n««4**. t \4%< avi* Sutrr ^*>0 0 50 <»euTM r r^M GT^eCT MINNEAPOLIS. Minnesota 55-40c TCLCrMCNC *0 Jl •ACS ^>ILC •».> «:? April 26, 1993 w * f .* **• . 41. •• • •.#♦•.*.t»t •*•'•••.*» *;t••'•• . .k • H • A ; * A 4 . • ‘ r % y ■<3 S'A A r.t%i •../-r . « *• . .t'' • «4*k '-HfrAA-. A 4T... AW . r.nrrsr • •rvi ’S k #r*f • •• A*k -MAH . V 8»» V '»*«4 S •Afc»*l . -lW»tk W4*»-, 3 k WP'3% j"A*«i c wirit«4*“r.'» 4wrn-. »rn»A*».‘ WAA* •* r;«k\*A«>t4 Af^r * t ji-.. ^4«-\i-,t »• ».L» Afrr« ';4w.‘**N » w3«*:4i s*svts • ■c«»«kr * s*.-wk«x A • ^ • ••*«V8 k . 4«> A w «^«4 .<:««••• 4'*»*tnst •C'» A.*A»<«t w »3»“iCA'.C*« ..•?••! 4 J •• SA*. *.A*f'.4 ,A«»S W C«C*‘.fP •*• 'I W ’ • 0 %T •* r M I A*>:irw • t • f •• ». A .tAytr s CTfwwl* •4-y c ••Arf4 ,4HC r .-.-"vrACv ff.r - 3awa‘4 A kAy>cH A.^AA*.*i*, • Ac r • * fC»*A«D . t^.- tkc* a»-«..a» ^ • ••• »/vf «rs4 n r* 3C'*»an&I CAA I DC'S4*3 t n*i ‘ «AS. k '.-••i* ,3«Rr« nr SI n-.nT- OAsiCi 0 ro*** -A y>| , w SaIO**'!-A c » M • . • «• C • S ••WDi^rP S C‘ WCtl» DIAL NUMSrn (612) 335-1862 Kevin Staunton, Esq. Popham Haik Schnobrich Kaufnan Ltd. 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 S. Ninth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Re; city of Oroso; Request for Variance by Jack Remien Dear Kevin: Recently I called you to discuss case law providing that the City of Orono is not required to grant the above-referenced variance simply because similar variances have been granted in the past. Since that time, I have done a little additional research and I now believe that the City of Oronc is definitely prohibited by DNR rules from granting the requested variance. Enclosed pJease find a copy of Minn. Rules S 6120.3300. Note particularly the language in subpart 2(D) which provides in relevant part "[I]f, in a group of two or more contiguous lots under the same ownership, any individual lot does not meet the requirements of items A to E and subparts 2a and 2b, the lot must not be considered as a separate parcel of land for the purposes of sale or development." Under subpart 2a(F), the minimam lot width is 75 ft. The lot size proposed by Mr. Renien is only 55 ft. and clearly not in complia.nce with DNR regulations. I had a telephone conversation today with Tibor Gallo from the Minnesota Attorney General's Office. Mr. Gallo confirmed that a 55 ft. wide lot in common ownership with an adjacent lot pu—hdt be considered as a separate parcel of land for the purposes of sale or development. As you know, DNR rules have the force and effect of law and are binding on the city of Orono. Orono, of course. Kevin Staunton, Enq. 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 me a call to discuss this matter. Very truly yours, LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD ) ") . Peter H. Bachman PHB/tess Attachment cc: Warren and Christina Bielke (by facsimile) PH8\DIELK£\STAUNT»I.L01 UH: 4b li I • • «• i=i ti !i i t ••I i'v! i f !ii!1 t ); !l:r T I! i: .:i I i :»i »:«•» •r» I'!;! • li r. :i*., » !• f •I # :;m- • ir.t .1 I . •? •! r '4 I 4 vt Re- For- Trans- moic ested iuOQ 6120J200 SHORELAND .VND FLOODPLAIN NLANAGEMF.NT D. River classes in water-oriented commercial distncis Uses Surface walcr-crientcd commercial ••Commercial planned unit development Public, semipublic Parks and historic sites Forest management C C C P Ccc p ccc p E. River classes in general use districts. Uses Re- For- Trans- mote ested ilion C N C Cc p ccccc p c N Ccc p Commercial ♦•Commercial planned unit development Industrial Public, semipublic Extractive use Parks and historic sites Forest mcnagemcni Mining of metallic minerals and peal • •As accessory 10 a residential planned unit devcloprncnt - L.m.ted expansion of a commercial planned UP to six additional dwelling units or sues may be flowed as a^rmmed use pr vided the provisions of pan 6120.3800. subpart 2, are satisfie Sunitory Authority: f 03.*/W ^ History, li SR 3029 To^^^ effcas of shorcland crowdma to prc^poUuuon of surface and grouno waters on ims for sewage treatment systems -“umne aaes to maintain propeny values, to maintatn histone values oi sig^ lots created after the date of enactment or the rc an foUowing; or exceed the dimensions presented in subparis -a ano . A Lots must no. be «cup,cd byjn, mom unm .h,a mdr«n^ in subparts 2a and 2b. Residential allowed if dcsi^^ exceeding those in the tables in subpyts -a part 6120.3800. and approved as residential planned umt dc el p . ran be used to Onlv land above the ordinary high ° ^ .j jjoib ihe ordinary meet lot area standards, and >o‘'^f th *tanchr^murt ?S.:^rD’m ^c“/nrv»^ ?»“'crscie?4«cm scrv.ee .. sve.- sblc .o .h^e „v,ronmcn. laics, subdms.ons of duplexes, .nplexes. and quads must also meet the folloiving standards. or exceec trols alsc the gti®*' b« creat surface ityasvi phy, in govertu menl c to E an from Ic the lot bccam to pt subc suit: over theripa con 5768 Tribu- I tary C Pc p ':7bU. ^ry C C •'oN-lDg s«pro- urface o pro- dam’ ificaot jacent tures, :otial meet lOf: cated sities gned i800. *d to nary ;part vail- ‘tn. 5769 SHOREL\ND AND FLOODPLAIN >L\N'ACEMENT 6120J300 nary high watrr' ti. . buUdng riast ^ve common sewage treaimem and watersysvcma that serve all dwelling units m the building. ^^tercraft docidLg facilities for each lot must be centralized in one locauon and serve all dwelling units in the building triplex, or quid’d'.verpmlnS “ C. One cottage may be allowed in local controls on lots meeting or exceeding the duplex dimensions presented in subpans 2a and 2b if the con- irols also require all of the following sundards to be met: (1 ) For lots exceeding the minimum lot dimensions of dupl'*x lots guest cottage must be letted within the smallest duplex-sized lot that could be created including the principal dwelling unit. (2) A guest cottage must not cover more than 700 square feci of land surface and must nut exceed '.5 feet in height. (3) A guest cottage must be located or designed to reduce its visibu- ID' as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation.' ipogra- pny, increased setbacks, color, or other means acccpublc to the local unit of government, assuming summer leaf-on conditions. p. Ujis of record in the office of the counD recorder on the date of enact- ment ofJcK^ shoreland controls that do not meet the requirements of itirrns A to E and subparts 2a and 2b may be allowed as building xiies without variances from lot size requirements provided the use is permitted in the zoning distnet the lot has been in separate ownership from abutting lands at all times since i: l^camc substandard, was created compliant with official controls in effea at the time, and sewage treatment and setback requirements of the shorcland controls are met. NeccssaD variances from setback requiremenu must be obuined before any use. sewage treatment system, or building permits arc issued for the lots. In evaluating all the vanances, boards of adjustment shall consider sewage treat­ ment and water supply capabilities or constraints of the lots and shall deny the Yankees if adequate facilities cannot be provided. If, in a group of two or more contiguous lots under the same ownership, any individual lot does no: meet the requirements of items A to E and subparts 2a and 2b, the lot must not be consid­ ered u a separate parcel of land for the purposes of sale or deveiopment. The lot must be combined w>th the one or more contiguous !ou so thev equal one or more P^ce** of each meeting the requiremeuts of items A to E and subparts 2a 2b as much as possible. Local shnreland cnnfrf*>l< may a rninimiitn siZC _for Donconforming lots or inipose incir restnctions on their development. ^ t. It allowed by local governments, lots intended as centre Jed accesses to pubuc waters or recreation areas for use by owners of nonriparian lots vsiihin subdivisions must meet or exceed the followiiig standards: . (1) They must meet the width and size for residential lots, and be suitable for the intended uses of controlled access lots. If docking, mooring, or over-water storage of waterendt is to be allowed at a controlled access lot. then the ’4ndlh of ihc lot must be iDcreased by the percent of the requiremcDt.'; for riparian residential lots for each watercraft provided for by covenant beyond six. consistent with the following table: Controlled Access Lot Frontage Requirements Ratio oflake size to shore length (acres/mile) Less than 100 100-200 Required increase in frontage (percent) 25:o / bo Ub; -tO POPHAM T|ATK MEMO RAN DtM j300 Piper Jaffray To«»r 222 South Ninth Street .Minneapolis. Minnesota SS402 (612) 333-4600 VTA TELECOPY TO:Ron Moorsa Jeanne Mabouth FROM: DATE: RE: Kevin P. Staunto May A, 1993 Remien Variance Application Attached please find a copy of a letter and a ' ction of the DNR Shoreland Regulations which were sent to me by Peter Bachman of the Leonard^ Street & Deinard firm in Minneapolis. Mr. Bachman represents Warren and Christine PielKe. 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 got your input on this matts. :. Please give me a call early this afternoon so that we can talk further. 481KPS 1 PHONE NO. iwx STATE Of DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METHO WATERS - 1200 WAJ^^EH ROAD, ST. PAUL, 772-7910 MV 5510.6r.L= NO. May 17, 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), CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Ms, Mabusth: We have raviewod the above-referenced variance application whicn involves contiguous nonconforming lots of record that are under the same ownership. The DNR's model shoreland management ordinance (based on the 3, 1989 statewide standards) specifies that lots of record on the date of enactment of the local shoreland controls that do not meet the minimum area and width requirements may be allowed as building sites without variance provided: “the use is permitted in th 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 a,id setback requirements of this ordinance are met." (Section 6.1, A.) Section 6.1, C. in the DNR model further specifies that if, in a oroup of two or more contiguous lots under the same ownership, any individual lot does not meet the area and width standards 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 ^j[th the one or more contiguous lots so the meet the area and width requirements as much as possible. In Orono'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 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 area within eighty percent (80%) of the requirements of this Zoning Chapter. However, the lot of record shall net be more intensely developed unless combined with one or more abutting lots or portions thereof so as to create a lot meeting the requirem.ents of this Zoning Chapter. AN tOU/»u OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Ms. Jeanne Mabuath May 17, 1993 Pago 2 . *. j r.7-oviaion in tho city of Orono’s Zoning ChapterWe interpreted this provision ^ ^ rule" it could to mean that if a corrjnon ^’’^'7®^® hut that if could not meetbe considered a separate buil^able lot, lot under standa”rdsr - feel this Provlaion otJUs Zoning Chapter^is inJeif if this%fovisiof cofli be clarihed by adopting language more consistent with the DHR model. • ., t»A»a<ri Ini' does not meet the 80% lot width '^^^ir^meAtr^SI fity-s rsMp"''f Sdanc^with Minn. Stat. 462.357, subd. 6., (2)). Thank you for the opportunity to comment 772-7910. Please contact me at sincerely, “'0 Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc; Ed Pick, shoreland Hydrologist Tom Zappia Peter Bachman Ci^’^ of Orono Shoreland File •4 MINUTES OF THE OKONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 19, 1993 ZONING FILE #1810 - CONT. weckman stated to his knowledge there ^ = area He said the apartment has its ovn access .. exterior. He said this use has existed for many ?Sir=an"^^aTtM's"Vea"as a separate building, thereby allowing the independent exterior access. v.iiti't in iP'17 ~nd is a landmark to DeNero noted the been restored and maintained ‘tK^tt^T.-rry o%'r‘^^is^:%rir%drthl*tle^?rioa, and other safety features. (#10) #1811 C. JACK REMIEN, 3237 CASCO CIRCLE - , VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 7:50 The Affidavit of Pub I i oat i on and Cert i f i cate of Ha i li ng were noted. - 8:25 P.M Mr. Remien was present. f. H fhic i.5 a variance request has been approved threeWeckman noted this is a variance 0 times in the past. He no nrpliminary plans appear to meet buiidabiiity prior to ® t eTiXed ^prev i ous I y approved height and hardco-er '■equ i rements. common ownership policyheight and hardcover '‘®®“”®"'®"i ’ ,,^1 the common ownership policy hardships for this property. "““f^^^'^a^erare of similar size, of the City. He stated many lots in «® ®[®® „^i,^,boring propertythe City. He ®'®'®° , I from the neighboring property o:n;rs“T;d‘' a° letted"' sUmUted by Pemien providing background information. stated Bellows read the letter fro.n Remein. Warren and Chr i st i ne B : e l ko expressed ' Vhat were not the lot is substandard, ana ^^ere are discussed with prpvious variance review. i minutes of the orono planning commission meeting HELD APRIL 19, 1993 ZONING FILE 4M811 - CONT. , .. whpn thev Durchased their property, the variance Mrs. Bielke stated when P noted they along with Remien opposed had not yet been to Remien purchasing the parcel.the first varance request, pri presenting reasons for She read a letter ^/°‘J^eection 10.C8 dealing with variance denial. She referred welfare of the public approval regarding the -h'lpm in this area should make the lotand suggested the eros on problem in th. .^are^a^^^ ^ unbuildable as it \he added they did have theirdetrimental to the neighborhood spe addend ^t ^ depreciate house listed prior to this situati , joes not meet the ^Ht:r!rfo^^p'pVovarVnd®s:gg:Ued this lot be combined with Uot Mr. Nisledlak. Potshtla^ ^“n''e ^ a°kUhoVe ®and'w!will be built back /rom the lakes^^ would build would not lower erosion problem. He t® j said he would be willing to suppirthrBie°.ke's^Uh%?a°n, to'present to potential purchasers of their property. weckmah reviewed that the sewer connection stub for Lots 16 and ,7 Is located within the boundary of Lot 18. Mrs. Bielke stated It 3-5' ”itMn the added they were unaware of 'h®' ® 'that ion ^^at Lot 18 was S;;SS?M^biranr't'’haris*X th°e sewer line was placed within its boundary. Mabusth disagreed, [nstaT^at ion of tnat pipe, and were owned in common at the ^ that is why it was placed on Lot is. Mrs.December 1985 which states, in«/ would become buildable . ♦•Kca nipikes need a new stub Bellows indicated that statement meanp^^^^^B request to their property. t^he property has changeo hands because of past and this request would not setseveral times as a buI I dab Ie Iot, ana ; nL precedent in the neighborhood. / f MINUTELl OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 19, 1993 ZONING FILE mail - CONT- It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of Application #1811 for C. Jack Remien, 3237 Casco Circle, approving lot area and width variances to construct a new residence. Johnson said he respects the position of all Involved parties, and could not support the request as he felt the property should be 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, w‘-ather in single separate or commonly owned, are to be judged on their own merits. The finding that no additional land is 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. Bielke stated they were unaware that It was for sale until too I ate. Jay and Gay Richards, 3243 Casco Circle, stated they were given the impression that Remien purchased the parcel for use in conjunction with Lot 19. He said the only reason why the City approved the variance in the past was because it had been taxed as buildable, and an attorney owned it at the time and the City did not want to be brought into legal action. Bellows felt that 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 Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mai ling were noted. Mr. Goodyear was present. Mabi.srh reviewed the applicants request to add a r jcond story to the existing residence, including the addition of a 2’+ expansion Into the right side yard to square off the foundation. The applicant also proposes alterations to the existing boat house. TO: DATE: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Stephen Weckman. On-Site Systems Manager April 15, 1993 SUBJECT: /i^lSl 1 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) - Existing 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 area Required = 21,780 s.f. 80% area = 17,424 s.f. Existing = 16.748 s.f. or 77% Variance = 5,032 s.f. or 23% Eot width Required = 100’ 80% width = 80’ Existing = 55’ Variance = 45’ or 45% riP ^ ✓1 ■ 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 - Bielke Letter ^ 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. t_. 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. Rough plans have recently been submitted for the proposed home and the potential buyer of the propeny will attend the Planning Commission meeting if there are any questions. A preliminary review of the proposed residence has been completed by staff. 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 appeal to meet the height requirements. Therefore, no additional variance would be required. This propeny. Lot 18, was originally owned in common witli the two lots to the north. Lots 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 neichbors. Warren and Christine Bielke. who live adjacent to the subject 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 from them explaining their position. They have included a list of signatures of other neighbors who support the denial of the application. Zoning File #1811 April 15, 1993 Page 3 Hardship St;;tement 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. r t / 1 7 / ■ ■ - I '"■! /]0- • ■ r iH i| CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION 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) wA f I cr ter cyyrsA'rc neerre t A L'l i i U e. J. V'k- \,' W W i -T K J. # W*»VV fTC ,-v,‘ A # w.* • V'\rurr\-U l fcun Tl 11. VL>*rvDT..v**//i\t.eear i i i m»t/t i t.*u C'» 7«"i ri'*r»^ j'o i Ti f * rT*.U.'U* A w* V UV'V^ M\.'JU t A Ji • •* < PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 3237 CASCO CIRCLF. Property Identif. Number (P.I.D.) go- 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/resident la Zoning District; Residential / single family APPLICANT Name C. Jack Remlen Phone (home)471-7297 Address: Casco Circle _ City: Phone (wor)c )_557-2300 Orono Zip:55391 if different than applicant) ^nd ir> Name Tt H fl- /_ Phone (home)^"7<^~ Phone (worlc) Lp " “bi* ^ *4 Address; l>Vn .S-l________ City; H//0 I^PI::;!/Zip;9^ Estimated Construction Cost $______________DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request in detail: Lot width variance so that new owner mav build. VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ Lot Area Setbaclc; X Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements; Tilts variance would be the same variance ^ranted twice nrevlcuslv for previous owners.request .1 variance to build a borne on the cuf^crtC 35 wMe Iwu. PltMse seo the addendum to this naee attached for .^ore details. (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the followincf infonnation must be submitted by the applicat:i.on deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete; 1. ^ Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list), 4« Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8ii"xll" for I reproduction). Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8h"xll"). 64/ ^ S)cetches or plans of floor S elevation views (pro^'ide 1 copy 8^"xll"). 7. _As an addendum to this application, please attach 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 yoirr 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 pajnnent) 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 )cnowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acJcowledges 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 —^ this req^st. Owner's Signature Date i A pplicant must have alj ^ubmittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please ma)ce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. J ' “ •)•*1« • * *4 'r I 1 i .* j I Ix»<' >»| 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 Remien, 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 tne 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 requirements: 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 lake will not be less than 75 feet of the normal high water mark or otherwise 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 will not exceed 30<s of that land area. 6. There will be 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 a re o j. s imilar 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. RUN DATE 05/25/9S BATCH 00^HEMJCPIN COUT4TY PROPERTY Xr4rORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMT4ERS LIST REPORT NO. PAGE PI<i35<*Ol11PROP ADDR ONT4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR 58 20-117-25 45 001005245 CASCO CIR JAHES H RICHARDS A WIFE JAMES H RICHARDS 5245 CASCO CIRCLE HAYZATA MN 55591 58 20-117-25 45 001505257 CASCO CIR J E MERTES A R V MERIES C JACK A JANE REMIEN JR 5255 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55591 58 20-117-25 45 001405255 CASCO CIR CHARLES JOHN REMIEN JR CHARLES JOHN REMIEN JR 5255 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55591 9 5 PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 58 20-117-25 45 0015 05255 CASCO CIR 0 M SPILSETH A P 0 SPILSETH DAVID M SPILSETH 5255 CASCO CIRCLE HAYZATA MK 55591 9 58 20-117-25 45 0016 05251 CASCO CIR J E COOPER A J E COOPER J E COOPER A J E COOPER 3251 CASCO CIR HAYZATA m 55591 38 20-117-25 45 0031 00058 ADDRESS UEMSSIGNEO THE CASCO CO THE CASCO COMPANY ROBERT 0 MACNIE 5155 CASCO CIR HAYZATA IW 55591 PROP AODR (»tJER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 20-117-25 45 0050 03241 CASCO CIR H L BIELKE ACM 8IELKE HARREN A CHRISTINE BIELKE 3241 CASCO CIR HAYZATA ttl . 55591 f * I TOTAL BATCH •i* . . ; 004 00007 ■ jM V »\ . i I ‘t. I . * < t 9' • i. 4 • ♦ t "9 •»* 4.* • ^ ^. •••. f ; , y. • ^ I * .• V •1. '1 * ^ 4 « •* «A :•,> • • # . p 4 1.r * ' »' • ■ . * %* ' 1' : 4 A ■K'‘i ^> (« •• » • ■t ri: »1 4 1 4 I'.-!- V' ■< *-■yA that the tacts represented are an accurate and true « REPPESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS J OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY P'^PAR^IENp OF PROPERiy ;FAXATI0N» TO TJIff BEST KNOHLEOCE AND BELIEF.wm 3 t / •• DATI — . I . , • , • -'‘V ■■ . 1% . 'j'Vft} “ ;• *. .in ’rfpl'i'-' ■■ »4'', ''1 vf i r* J fc... if I '* 1' -4* . 4 4* I E> Ik ! •'! • ■ V * * ^ ! V i * ’ / • I * I•», •;r » 4* » ' * k* - . r.'T I- » ' .» ? . /r-. >4 1 %. i L »<4 ♦ . r, ' I I- T, _ i » • r> w 'exhibit ^--- _ CKrtlflfatM of Survey for Tlioiwe Johnson — ■ ■ ■;. of I-ot IS, spring Park ■ot-5^Sifp-\C&Sf, Hnnnopln Com,ly, Hinn««U t)T:Vei^hy -(S7Ss^, L . ^ZT7T\ r .\ I cortlfy ’•*' l9 ft tfyo and rorie/*f i-pf aontfttlon of a ourvay .'f '»i.» _ boundarlan of Lot 19, SprlnK *«'. tba location Of nil axistlnff M* ''j.'’ theroon, and tho P:r a proposed building. port to ahou othnr isprovr-’M • •• «i encronchrmiits. I' ]^i©f:wi r( .'!« - 1 1983 Lu ...... CITY Or OtJONO CORDCH R. COFFlfJ CO., IHC. Scale I I>i : o : c 40* 6-17-93 Iron nrirkrr pel No.l77'-.5Cordon R. ton in Hark S. Cronhorg Land Survayorft and ?lam»«r»« Long LnKft, Hlnnenotn #761 City of OROINO • — ^ CITY - OF ORONO j., ' RESOLUTipjM .oWJIe CITY COUNCIL 1904 ii 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 Parle, also all the land including the vacated highway, Lake Shore Drive, lying between the Northeasterly line of said lot and the shore of 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 80% of the required lot area and lot width and has municipal sewer available. Page 1 of 6 CITY OF ■;,< ORONaP V.Vl * ':i to i-'* mis ITSBtt^ir ORONO fSiGSDFIl^l^LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.1904 5. Prior to December 19^ :983, the City Council always required that when two or more lot^ 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 and that two or more substandard lots owned in common must be combined so that the resulting combined lot meets the rquiremeiiLs 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 Cir' le 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 to the parcel of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately ad­ joining property. Page 2 of 6 h CITY -./iOF : ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ‘ V >m 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 including 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 trc^fic 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 Co.mprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants 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: 1* 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. Pane 3 of 6 1 • :*'* ■ A r- ■ I ^ %A-s -it of ORONO [ CITY I . 0^- lORONCy 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 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. 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 insta 1 lat.ton 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 no approved at this time. 7. Side, street, and lakeshore setbacks are approved per the attached survey (Exhibit A). (January 13, 1987). 9. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms an conditions of this variance shall constitute a violatio zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 10. The undersigned applicant has himsel^^ agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of ^^^^elf, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 4 of 6 a »■ tVr THIS rp HAS BEEM^MicRomltir of o Rorvo CITY ■ OF ORONO d RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 190-^___________ CITY OF ORONQ < i -V 7 OROIXO OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.1904 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this 3;v»i day of ■__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 1986 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. /4 /9&y MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ^j -- ^ ---------- Notary Public wi_^in and for said Counfty# personally appeared _ _ _ _ _ __ _known to me to be the day of 1986, before me person(s>-^es<^ibed in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ------vxvvwvvvw . NlCf^LAS i MiwNESOTA S t ^ H£N\'£P;,^ CO'JNry I ^ 'V CCfT!fT.^5.cn Eipi.yj g iggp > Vvvv^^vw.vvvv^ vv^^^vv^^vvv^iv^^ 5 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 6 of 6 Urowu jjanci aairveyip^; inc 501 West 78th Street Bloomington, Minnesota 55420 (612)881-0047 SURVEY FOR: SUMMIT B PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ot 18, and that part of vacated ake Shore Drive lying in Lot 18 PRING PARK ADDITION, according ) the recorded 4^t thereof, ennepin County . f^nesota * .. rKBS6’£uTr^"^i WOODROW A. BROWN. R LS. President LAKE NSiNNETONKA ^ ELEV. FEB. 27,1985 59.0 ^SOL» No. 9 SCALE: r’s 40' O * IRON MON. NcTTB : Di^'LLurr->Ca.' A3 SHovoN3 Does pC/2.TA#lO T-O -THC (91.5) Denotes Proposed Elevati^ 89.7 Denotes Existing Elevation Proposed Garage Floor Elevation® 92.; Proposed Top of Block Elevation® 92.< Proposed Basement Floor Elevation=84 Proposed Walk out Elevation® 84.4 BENCmARK: 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 supervisioi and that I am a duly registered land surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Date: March 4, 1985 Reg. No. 15230 Revised : Janua ry 10, 1986 /aJ solixt“/oaJ . ArTsjfe coNFiGiAAJ^'^OhJ wo 6-63 7/37 m 0 * % 0 • . * ••mm f ^ ^ LAA..N 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 proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on_ _ _ _January 13_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _^ 19 , and that the same is a true and correct copy of said resolution was duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. Witness Whereof, I hand and ^al this (SEAL) 6^ April 13, 1993 Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Orono City Hall 2780 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota Uu APR, X 1953 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, ov/ned 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 for buildable lots. 3. The lot was sold off from lots 16 and 17 in 1977. 4. In 1983, lot widthylot 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 Jlome on lot 19 and lot 18 as separate parcels and leave the neighborhood. It is our request that the current application for lot width/Iot area variances be denied for the following reasons: 1. Lot 18 is substantially substandard to the requirements of LR-IC. The 55 toot 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 nearly 10% narrower than any others. The area is only 77®/o ot the required halt acre size. 2. Increased hardcover on this particular lot would exacerbate 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 examine the hillside erosion problem that is very evident on the north side of .Mr. Remien’s propeny. 3. To allow a two storv’ home to be built on such a substandard piece of land compromises the integrity of the lakcshore as well as the neighborhood in general. 4, There is no "owner hardship" justification for compromising zoning standards to this degree. It is more one of financial gain for Mr. Remien. In summary, we 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, Warren and Christine Bielke Gail and Jay Richards OasccC‘,rcU The undersigned also support the denial of these variances: S2Z^ C^5Co C(/(:CLb 'hi.'L'T CASct/ a^cL(, fj' Co • 3 9~o~^ C To: From: Date: Subject: Mavor Callahan and Orono Councilincnibers Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator June 24, 1993 C/Jy Ofi.C, O t /j^l825 Thomas L. McCarthy, 2490 Old Beach Road - Preliminary Subdivision Status of Application At the June 14th Council meeting, the application was tabled as policy issues raised during the review of the application requires the full Council ’s consideration. This specific issue involves the new Shoreland Regulations as it relates to the measurement of lot width. The applicant proposes a flag lot that would be allowed under the current ordinances as lot width is no longer measured at the street setback line for a lakeshore lot but at the shoreline and at the 75 ’ setback line. The issue was how the e.xcess hardcover in the 250-500 ’ zone as originally proposed by applicant was to be addressed as the City does not encourage the granting of variances with the creation of new lots within a subdivision. Staff proposed that hardcover improvements within the 250-500 ’ zone or access corridor be credited with the 75-250 ’ hardcover improvements against 75-500 ’ setback area. Improvements within the 75-250 ’ setback area would now be limited as a result of crediting driveway hardcover within the setback zone. Staff has been asked to prepare background information comparing the impact of the former code and the new Shoreland Regulations as it relates to lot width. Please review Mike Gaffron ’s memo. Exhibit A. List of Exhibits A - Gaffron Memo Dated June 16, 1993 B - Revised Hardcover Inventories C - Amended Site Plan D - Staff Memos of May 11 and June 10, 1993 Amended Hardcover Facts for Proposed Lots Lot 1 0-75 ’ setback area Allowed = 0 s.f. Proposed = 0 s.f. = 13.970 s.f. Zoning Pile ^1825 June 24. 1993 Page 2 75-250’ sethack area = 25.880 s.f. Existing hardcover = 8,588 s.f. or 33.18% Proposed = 6.470 s.f. or 25%* * Removal sidewalk = 350 s.f., drive = 780 s.f., timbers = 82 s.f., deck = 880 s.f. and removal of landscape stones = 26 s.f. Total hardcover removal = 2,118 s.f. 250-500’ setback area = 3.970 s.f.. Allowed = 1,191 s.f. or 30% Existing = 1,700 s f. or 42.82% Proposed = 1.181 s.f. or 29.75% Review of Amended Proposal Applicant has submitted new’ hardcover facts and an amended proposal, review E.xhibits B and C. Applicant’s amended plan shows a 9’ 3" width driveway within the 30’ corridor located within the 250-500’ setback zone now meeting the hardcover allowance for the zoning district. Applicant has demonstrated that hardcover requirements can be satisfied within each independent zone. The alternative method of hardcover determinations as recommended by staff would be as follows: Total lot area between 75-500’ setback area = 29,850 s.f. Allowed = 7,462.5 s.f. or 25% Total hardcover proposed = 7,651 s.f. or 25.6%. Staff’s alternative for considering total hardcover within the 75-500 setback area creates a more restrictive hardcover analysis and would tend to reduce hardcover improvements closer to lake. Council Action To provide conceptual direction to staff so that an appropriate resolution can be drafted for formal action by the Council at their July 12th meeting. Isv To: From: Date: Subject: Jeanne Mabusih. Building & Zoning Administrator Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator June 16, 1993 iJ^1825 Thomas L. McCartiiy. 2490 Old Beach Road - Background on: 1. Flag lots/width measurement 2. Hardcover zone balancing List of Exhibits A - Sketches Regarding Lot Width Issue B • Sketches Regarding Hardcover Issue 1. Lot Width Measurement. Before the Shoreland Ordinance was in effect, lot width for a lakeshore lot was measured (as a matter of policy) at the 75’ setback and the street setback lines Stnce the definition of lot width relied on having a front yard, and lakeshore lots by deiinition did not have a front yard, this resulted in the need for staff to develop a policy, which we did. During the Shoreland Ordinance review, the Lake Use Committee agreed with staff that lakeshore lot widths should be measured at the shored and at the requ^d lal;eshore setback line (7571007150’ depending on GD/RD/NE classificauon), while non-lakeshore lots would continue to have lot width measured at the street setback Ime. Perhaps one of the first cases in which the new definition r^e into effect w^ the Boykc subdivision on Lydiard Lake. Because the easterly lot with the abut the shoreline, its width was measured at the str«t setback lute oullot Idle width of the newly created lakeshore .01 to the west was . . straight line from the side lot lines at the shoreline and at the this lot had a lengthy narrow "flagpole" section, that met the width standards as does the McCarthy proposal. Background Note that for non-lakeshore siriations and for lakeshore Shoreland Ordinance, the City has historically a back lot. These include an eas ement through the front lot, a t gp lOj; or creation of an outlot over the nanow flagpole portion. Thomas L. McCarthy, Background June 16, 1993 Page 2 The easement option typically resulted in lots that didn't abut either a public or private road, hence a variance^br lack of frontage was automatically required. The way to avoid this variance was to create a flag lot extending to the street. Hcwevet. this resulted in the need to grant a lot width variance since the lot width at the front setback line from the street was merely the width of the flagpole and not even close to meetmg the width requirement. The solution to both th easement and flag lot options was the ouilot option. By creatine an outlot driveway that in a sense functioned as a private road, it could be areued that the back lot now abuts a road, and the entire length of the lot line that abuts the outlot would become the front lot line for defining a front setback line and theretore the lot width. Over the last five years or so, the City has normally required the outlot option, and the area of the outlot is excluded from lot area. An inadvertent effect of die new shoreland lot width definition was to revive the possibility for flag lots on the lakeshore. This would nonuall, nol be an issue except in a case such as McCoy's where total area of the property does not allow for the outlot option. Hiis leads to issue #2. i.e. hardcover in the flagpole. 2. Hardcover Zone Balancing. The question here is whether it is legitimate to allow a higher percentage and square footage of hardcover in a zone further from the lake, as long ^ the zone closer S ±e l^e is reduced by an equivalent square footage, to avoid the need for a variance. While I believe this is a logical policy and procedure to have in place, and while I would argue rather vehemently to persuade anyone tot this is a reasonable, beneficial and fair pSicy. : will concede that the bookkeeping and future review procedures must be in pla« so^nat future problems don't arise. For instance, if a lot is allowed an extra I OOO^s .' of .lardcover in its 250-500' zone in exchange for reducing its allowance in ih, '' -ISO' .one bv that same 1.000 s.f.. this must be adequately documented m Ci^ files and procedures put in place so that at some future date allowed to go up to his -25 %* limit since his actual limit is really 1.000 s.f. less the 25% figure. Looking at Exhibit B. assume that the entire fl^ole wide, and an 11’ wide driveway runs its enure length. This consti u s ^ s f in the 250-5(XD’. where >0% would be allowed, and in the examp e, resu hardcover where only 1.350 s.f. would be allowed at a 30.o level. Thomas L. McCarthy, Background June 16. 1993 Page 3 I would argue that the property owner should be allowed the right to have the 250 s f overace in his 250-500 ’ zone as long as he agrees to reduce the 25 % allowance in his 75-^50 ’. by the equivalent 250 s.f. This in essence results in a 24% hardcover limit lor his V5-25O’ zone, a 36% limit for his 250 -500 ’ zone, and the same amount of overall hardcover he would have had under the standard allowances. buUL^ter proportio n.ol if is further from the lake_^ Obviouslv we would not allow a situation that would work the opposite direction, i e increasing hardcover nearer the lake in exchange for less hardcover in a zone lurther from the lake. This would be opposite the intent of our ’'hardcover zones philosophy. If Council would agree to this hardcover policy interpretation, we would see a few less "nuisance" hardcover variances each year, and cause less aggravation tor propertv owners and staff. I would prefer to view tins as a policy clantication of the hardcover ordinance rather than as breaking new ground. From an admimstralive standpoint, we can certainly put in place review procadures so that .umre problems should not occur. Acceptance of this police will also allow staff to. in general, do a hardcover balancing for anv lakeshore property requesting a permit, such that a unused hardcover "credit" in a zone nearer the lake can legitunately use that credit zone further from the lake, without requiring a variance. Recommendation CouncU has the option of revising the shoreland lot width defuiiuon to add the requirement for meeting the width standard at the street setback ,,nd at the lake setback line. However, 1 don’t see that this will impact the McCarthy case, since it came in under the current ordimmce. I would stronniy recommend that the Council accept the concept of whereby hardcover unused in zones nearer that lake can be legitimately used ,n zones further from the lake without a variance. Isv ^ E'AT' J'* 'TO A /Aei/AJCA f^O<^ Lo'T~ I NOT T='/z^t^'r:^€js^ of^ A j2^A-^ * ^o ^/Je^>i*T “ T“0 jn ^ ir I •• •fpiS poT HNJg^ As TV^^ f^MT '^'A,<£-Aclk IAVL4.AJG5 ^ «^7"T2 S . /Og^TflV^ i^T 6-?7T» C#2-<>^tT pi><J^ TrVt5- eP^TL^OT' A^^A < I 6.1TS /9a 4Ai^c:C/it5.2.^ y^/A^ UOT^J fc ’<^ 'Tft^/^Tif^C^ Tr-i? “p4^<^poi-e ” AS. fM^ cF 'TFT 7r'<2.^^’ s^cf'jc: . 5-^. /vv<-owoi-^r/ia...^-^sr' A-.^ . //^< s-C . ^ / ^-5. Avco'-J«^ /*^ iilO-STiO ’ 1 J^MA^'lS C^^MC. CA.crM 2S5-^o' TO PAVg^OV-^ 7S-iXO- a:. (s ey A —i ’TTH^ PAAt>cjb'Jet^ iv^v.:r P^»«.=r7ti^/4vj>^a< .TT+f LA'M^^ . (j^^ /M«7<T" SH'^'7'^ ^ • /' L ^ ///i ^ /t tPAficeU i ^ P1 Tf,K'/^/I r ^ S HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE one ) (0-75^ 75-250' 250-500' E xisting Hardcover in Zone 500-1000' a.House . ' x « 'S.F. LENGTH WIDTH X = •S.P. X ' • s. p. •• X 5?. P.• •• • ,• X = ■5?. P. 3.Garage x »S. P . c.Driveway x =S. P . X _ = • S. P. D.Sidewalk x S. P. X S.F.% X S.F. E.^ATIO/ Deck X = ■S.F. F.Landscape x =S.F. areas UNDERLAIN BY , X S-F. PLASTIC SHEETING X = •' # S.F. • ■ ?,•. / X S.F. G. Other . x_S.F. Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone -/f -'/ r v>*.; f S.F, B~| X 100 - /Jy 9 "70 g,p, I R i o •% / t c V. /I ' HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE one ) 0“75' (J5-2S^ 250-500 E xiting Hardcover in Zone 500-1000' A, House 3. Garage c. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/ Deck f.Lakdscape -. AREAS underlain BY , _ PLASTIC SHEETING Q. Other LENGTH •• • X X X X = S7?o S.F. WIDTH .* .* ss m Total Hardcover in Zone ■ • • • Total Property Area in Zone _ S.F. S.F. S.F. . S.F. S.F. OO S.F. O : i . S.F. , S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S-F. m S.F. S.F. 2 C . S.F. ^y S.F. / / ^-^9-f 3 [13 i ! r./ 790 TJ.Fr-. i^€C< SSO —>10 -y) ?S88 .^in z^,'3ao X 100 - _ 3/- /■? J% exar/Mt Z! f8 re.Fr. s Ju 25,8Qo- c / ^ /CT( HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House B. Garage c. Driveway D. Sidewalk e. Patio/ Oeck F.Landscape areas UNDERLAIN plastic ' • SHEETING G. Other LENGTH WIDTH / .* Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone, S770/7 OO JL B /tx/fTf /J (jSG-5^ 500-1000' • . = S.F. S.F. S.F. • « S.F. • • s S.F. S.F. = /P/20 S.F. • . S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. =* .S.F. • S.F. 3 . S.F. 3 ' • S.F. • •» •• 3 •;S.F. * S.F. /7CO . S.F. . J?70 S.F. 1 X 100 -82 S-/S ~}S I W'u ■ - f 19/SA.fr. ^ ' /V 5*/ //S/ r 3770 r 27.15 i ALTERNArh b PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR TOM Mc C arthy OF lOT 4. SHORE HILLS HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA -7 0 PC S.F.A !. o t.P.UJ Y2.^2 :^SC_«IP'l«*< Of lit «. S^ore HI 11 5. this surver inthn-Js to show the boundaries of the above described propert». and the luCJlion of an enistinj house and shed thereon. It does not purport to sh',>« any ullUi mpi ivenenls o» aiic rua( hn.'i l \ ro: From: Date: Subject: Mayor Callahan & Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator June 10, 1993 #1825 Thomas L. McCarthy, 2490 Old Beach Road - Preliminar>' Subdivision, Class III Additional Exhibits I - Amended Hardcover Facts Submitted 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 Shoreland Regulations. The property consists of a little over two acres. The applicant provided two alternative plans for development. Review E.xhibits 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 Shoreland Regulations would now allow flag lots as lot widths are measured in a straight line at both shoreland 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 hardcover on the narrow 20’ corridor to roadway. As this was the first subdivision application under the new Shoreland Regulations, we have no previous policies to base a recommendation. Staff suggested that Planning Commission consider the area between the 75-500’ setback for deternmiing allowed hardcover. Total area would now be at 29,700 s.f. and would be allowed 7,425 s.f. or 25% hardcover. The Planning Commission felt uncomfortable making any recommendation coiiceming this issue and felt it more appropriate for Council to make the final 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 = 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.t. 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 hardcover to meet the 25% allowance under this format. Applicant should determine if he can maintain 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 a.s a major negative impact on their neighborhood. They noted the condition and limits of the private road, Shorehills Road, and potential hazards for the users of the roadway. Shorehills Road was platted in 1941 and is served from Old Beach Road. It will be applicant’s responsibility to provide written conTinnation tha* legal access is provided to die -^ew lot. It is doubtful that covenants for a subdivision approved in 1941 would still be ir cW«i f but the City would have to ask for confirmation as a condition of final subdivision approval. It would also be the applicant’s responsibility to provide documents that the fiinire lot owner would be responsible for an equal share in the maintenance and upkeep of the private road. Tree removal was a major concern. The property is covered with mature plantings. If the property is to be developed, it will require the removal of several mature trees. The City has no regulations over tree removal c.<cept tor the area within the 0-75 setback area. Drainage was another concern. The neighbors felt that to place a house on this portion of the propertv will impact drainage in the area. The City Engineers were asked to go out and inspect the aa-a to determine what impact new residential construction will have on the immediate watershed. The City Engineer will be able to respond to any drainage concerns at the meeting. f b-3 Zoning File .^'1825 June 10, 1993 Paee 3 Please review the enclosed infonnation 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. Options of Action To t ppiove the two-lot subdivision per Alternative B limiting hardcover within the 75- 500’ setback area at 7,425 s.f. or 25%. Access to proposed Lot 2 will be directly off private toad. The acces.sory shed within Lot 2 shall be removed. OR To approve the two-lot subdivision per Alternative B and to approve hardcover variances within the 250-500’ setback area. OR To deny the subdivision based on the Planning Commission ’s findings and recommendation. C'ouncil Action To provide staff with conceptual direction so that an appropriate resolution can be brought back to the June 28th meeting for Council s formal action. Isv To:Mayor Callahan & Orono Councilmembers Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zo'ing Administrator Date:May 11. 1993 Subject:#1825 Thomas L. McCarthy, 2490 Old Beach Road - Preliminary Subdivision, Class III - 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. Tilt following ordinances are pertinent for this review; Section 11.03, Definition 66. Class III Subdivision. Section 11.03, Definition 24. Lot Area Minimum. In urban areas served by sanitar}’ sewer, each lot must contain contiguous dry buildable land equal to the minimum areas as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter ot the City Code or half­ acre, whichever is less, (exclusive of public and private rights-ol-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements, surface areas below the ordinar>' high water mark of any wetland or lake) and have legal acce:,s to the building sire without encroachment 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 is 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, Definition 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 (929.4) and at the required structure setback from the OHWL measured in a straight line between the points of intersection ot the side lot lines with the structural setback line. I or L:ikc Minrictonka. a General Development Lake, the setback is 75 . Alternatives A and B show Lot I as meeting the required lot width standards. Note there is only one lakeshore lot proposed with the two-lot subdivision. Lot 2 will be non-riparian to Lake Minnetonka. As lot width is measured at ^e lakeshore and at the 75 ’ setback line. Lot 1 may be platted ;is a flag lot with a ^0 wide corridor without requiring a lot width variance. (Lot widtli is measured at the 35’ street setback for the non-lakeshore lot.) ji 4. -V Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B). Lot Standards for LR-IB Lakeshore 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 shorelLne 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 e.xcluded from proposed lot area Area Variance = 3,000 s.f. or .07% Alternate B: Lot 1 = 1.006 acres Lot 2 = 1.004 acres 5. 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 = 595 s.f. or 12.86% 250-500’ setback area = 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 %. List of Exhibits A B C D n F G II Application Property Owners List Plat Map Sewer As-Built Engineer ’s Report Hardcover Fact Sheets Alternate A Alternate B Review of Subdivision Application The Shore Hills plat was completed in 1941 prior to City-wide zoning or lot standards. The majority of lots within the Shore Hills plat meet or exceed the currem LR-IB zontng standards. Lot 4. the subject propeny, consists of a Itttle over two acres. Alternate A woul - s Zoning File ^1825 May 12, 1993 Page 3 not meet the required area standards of the Li2-1B zoning district. Alternate B would meet all required LR-IB coning 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 conformance 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 limitation of 25%. Staff 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 easier to develop hardships for the access drive within the naiTOw corridor of the lot located within 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-H’). 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 curb 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 E.xhibit D. Sewer is located within lakeshore yard. This is the only sewer line that can function for this property. It will be necessary to install the access line along the west side yard of Lot 1. Appropriate easement would have to be developed over Lot 1 in favor of Ix)t 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 water unit 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 surv'ey, the majority of accessory improvements exclusive ot the drive are located within the lakeshore yard. The accessor)' 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 die newly proposed lot line. Zoning Tile May 11, 1993 Page 4 Issues for Review I.Ucking a hardship statement for hardcover excess of 3 + %, would members recommend a hardcover variance under any circumstances? At your site inspection, please note the driveway improvement and lakeshore yard improvements on proposed Lot 1. 2.What alternative form of development would you recommend for approval? 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 existing curb cut at Shore Hills Road. Alternate A involves a reduction ol some 3,000 s.f. in area for a 20 x 150 drive that would encroach Lot 2. Shared access would also be required. Recommendation To recommend approval of the two-lot Class III subdivision application ot Thomas L. McCarthy finding that all LR-IB lot standards and shoreland development standards have been satisfied and that there is adequate sewer and water to serve a new lot based on the following conditions: 1.Applicant shall create an access and utilib/ easement over Lot 1 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. 2.Applicant to provide 10 ’ wide drainage and utility easements along all perimeter property lines and 5 ’ along the shared lot line. 3.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. 4.Determination as to the recommendation for a shared access. If a shared access is required, there mav 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. 5.Members recommendation concerning excess of hardcover within the 75--.0 setback area w ithin proposed Lot 1. Are there hardcover improvements essential to the use of the property, i.e. backout area for driveway apron, deck adjacent to patio doors from indoor pool addition, access stairs from upper elevation doors in lakeshore yard, etc.? i To: From: Date: Subject: Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers m Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator June 23. 1993 % L /5^1826 Robert and Ann Henson. 2166 Shady wood Road - Variances - Resolution The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions of the Council’s recommendation. The legal description for the 5 ’ drainage easement along the northwest side lot line has been drafted. Applicant shall provide a fully executed drainage easement for filii.'g with the approval resolution. A building permit for new construction cannot be issued until botii resolution and easements have been executed. Isv imrnM A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (A), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (B) AND SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE NO. 1826 WHEREAS, Ann M. Henson and Robert F. Henson, Jr. (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 2166 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: Lots 19 and 20, Block 1, Wiley’s Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C). Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (A), Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of a 24’ X 26’ attached garage addition to be located at the street side of the residence and an 8 ’ x 25’ grade-level deck to be installed at the lakeside, portions of which will be located in front of the average lakeshore setback line where no such encroachment is allowed, said structure will be located 67’ from the shoreline where the existing residence is 71’ 6" and where a 75’ setback is required, both the deck and garage will require hardcover variances as proposed deck located within the 0-75’ setback zone will result in total hardcover of 229.5 s.f. or 4.7% where 321 s.f. or 6.7% exists and where none is allowed. The attached garage proposed within the 75-250’ setback zone will result in 5,621.5 s.f. or 46.8% haidcover where 10,095.3 s.f. or 84.11% exists and where 3.001 s.f. or 25% is allowed and all proposed and existing structural improvements will result in 3,466.6 s.f. or 18.3% where 2,826 s.f. or 15% is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. FINDINGS 1. Tliis application was reviewed as Zoning File ,'^^1826. Pace 1 of 6 3. The property is located in the LR-IC Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one-half acre in area or 21,780 s.f. The subject property consists of 18,843 s.f. The Orono Council reviewed this application on June 14, 1993 and recommended conceptual approval of the propo.sed variances based upon the following findings; A. Hardcover improvements on the property exist at 10,095.3 s.f. or 84.11%. The applicants propose the removal of existing improvements with final hardcover proposed at 5,621.5 s.f. or 46.8%. The proposed improvements will result in a total hardcover reduction within the 75-250 setback area of 4.473.8 s.f. or 37.2%. B. The applicants’ property is severely impacted at the time of heavy rainfall from the County storm sewer that overflows in their lakeshore yard. The applicants’ front yard is unstable because of moisture content during summer months restricting use of outdoor lawn furniture. C. The street yard tennis court will be remc'^ed and replaced witli a grassed yard that will provide additional absorption area for runoff from County road and overburdened storm sewer at times of heavy rainfall. D. The existing residence has no basement and needs additional storage area provided by the existing detached garage within the street yard. E. The existing garage and backout apron at higher elevations provide visual privacy and a sound barrier to the heavily trafficked adjacent Count>’ road. The City Council finds that tlie conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning distiict; that iiranting 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 applicant, 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. Pace 2 of 6 5. The City Council has considered this application including the reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to the Municipal Zoning Code Sections noted above to permit the constnjction of a 24’ x 26’ attached garage and an 8 ’ x 25 ’ grade-level deck for the property located at 2166 Shadywood road, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. All hardcover removals as set forth on Page 6 of this resolution shall be completed prior to the final inspection for the new construction. Upon application for a building permit, applicant shall provide a gruJing/drainage plan for entrance/curb cut improvements at County road for the installation of the new driveway. Applicants shall also include with building permit application information the County permit approving proposed alterations. Applicants shall grant a 5 ’ drainage easement along the northwest side lot line of the property to allow for future improvement of the County drainage facility that exists on the adjacent property. Applicants shall install drive such that 5 ’ drainage easement will not be encroached. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (June 28. 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 tenniiu'te any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 3 of 6 6. 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 tlie 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 28th day of June, 1993. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin. City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of June, 1993 by Fxlward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrament was executed on behalf of the City. ’ Notary Public Page 4 of 6 . i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of . 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed ihe foregoing instrumem. and^cknowledged thac he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of ^199 __before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appearedknown to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed ihe foregoing insttument.'iSdTcknowledged that he (they) executed die same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Paee 5 of 6 .'C- *1 __before me a Notary ibed in and who executed e same as his (their) free before me a Notary ;ribed in 2nd w ho executed he same as his (their) free CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR ROBERT & ANN HENSON IN LOTS 19 & 20. BLOCK 1. WILEY S PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA > ei'L "-’A > llGAl DESlUfPTION Or PREMISES SURvEY^O: Thdl pari Id 19, 3 lock 1, lying Nor lhw;s ler I y of a line drawn through said lot parallel wir.i the South­ easterly line uf said lot and 1?.S feel I'nrihwesterIy therefrom, AMO ALSO the Sou! hea s ter I y half f'*pni and rear, of lot 20. Block 1, all In Wiley’s Pirk. Lake Mlnni*li»nka (for purposes of this survey thi Northwest­ erly line of the Southeasterly naif, front and rear, of lot 20 lias been essumed to be a line drawn from the nidpolnt uf the SouthwesterIy line said Lot 20 Northeasterly through the midpoint of the dashed lakeshore traverse line as shown on the plat). This survey Intends 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 Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. To:Mavor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator <5; 7 From: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusih, Building & Zoning Administrator June 25. 1993 ^ % 1*1^1831 Edward Engler, 3450 Birch Lane - Variances - Public Hearing Additional Exhibit M - Applicant’s Letter of May 24, 1993 Requesting to be Scheduled Before the Council Meeting of June 28, 1993 The applicant proposes a 12 ’ x 20 ’ addition at lakeside of the existing residence located out of the 0-75 ’ setback area and will be placed over an existing concrete patio. To the northeast side of the residence, applicant proposes a 16’ x 24 ’ addition meeting the required 10’ setback, ’lakeside addition and portions of the side addition will encroach the average lakeshore setback line. Applicant proposes the removal of existing non-structural improvements to offset structuial expansions. Structural coverage will be at 15.06%. Hardcover has been reduced and is proposed within the 0-75 ’ setback area at 2.93% and in the 75-250 ’ setback area at 43.43%. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the Engler application finding the average lakeshore setback encroachment negligible as existing residence to west side is already impacted by existing structure and residence to the east .side of property is buffered by a 7-8’ high arborvitae hedge providing year round buffer. Members questioned the possible reduction ofthe proposed addition so that lot coverage would not be exceeded by .06%. Applicant advises that the proposed improvements were trimmed back considerably from the original proposal and horizontal e.xpansion was tlie only available option as the foundation of the existing house could not sustain a second story. Hardcover was the major concern for the Planning Commission as 43 -h% hardcover was deemed excessive on the 21,630 s.f. property. Staff advised members that 1,960 s.f. or 13.9% of the hardcover within the 75-250 ’ setback area was asphalt driveway that serves as turnaround and snow storage area tor the City. Birch Lane right-ot-way stops at the west lot line of the property. Vehicles that travel on Birch Lane use applicant’s property as a turnaround. Public Works Director has con.irmed that the property is used for storage and applicant repims that the City has replaced piantings that were damaged by snow maintenance vehicles. A member of the Planning Commission asked if an easement could be granted over the property assurinc the City that this area will be available and remain tor City s use. Any other applicant would have been asked to reduce the size ot the paved area to offset hardcover increases, the e.xcessive hardcover on the site results trom the extensive paving in the street yard If the paved area was reduced, it would create major snow storage problems tor City and Zoning File #1831 June 25, 1993 Pace 2 eliminate turnaround area. Applicant asked that encumbrance not be placed on property. Planning Commission conditioned approval on applicant a;:rceing to allow paved area to remain and to continue to allow property to be used for snow removal and storage purposes by City. The Planning Commission conditioned approval on the .’ollowing; 1. Applicant to provide a detailed grading and drainage plan specifically addressing cuts into higher elevations for proposed construction along east side. 2. Upon the execution of this resolution that applicant agrees to retain asphalt drive area as it currently serves City’s needs for snow removal and storage. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the findings and conditions set forth on the Planning Commission ’s recommendation. Please review the staff memo of June 16th for more backcround on this review'. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (B) AND SLTBDFVISION 2 FILE NO. 1831 WHEREAS, Edward Engler (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3450 Birch Lane within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: refer to Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03. Subdivision 14 (C) for structural improvements to the property that will result in 3,383 s.f. or 15.6% structural coverage where only 15% is allowed, per Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) where a 12 ’ x 20’ lakeside addition will encroach 21 ’ beyond the average lakeshore setback line and the east side 16 ’ x 24 ’ addition will encroach 12 ’ beyond the average lakeshore setback line where no such encroachment is allowed and proposed improvements will result in 221 s.f. or 2.93% hardcover in the 0-75’ setback area where 353 s.f. or 4.68% exists and where none is allowed and a hardcover variance within the 75-250’ setback area at 6,119 s.f. or 43.43% where 6.185 s.f. or 43.89% exists and where 3,522.5 s.f. or .25% is allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RES0LVT:D by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FLNDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1831. Ihe property is located in the LR-IC Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 21.780 s.f. or one-half acre in area. The property consists of 21.630 s.f. or .496 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 21, 1993 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon die following findings: Page 1 of 6 Lk 4. 5. A. Applicant proposes the remo*’al ol 132 s.f. or 1.75% ot hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area. Total hardcover will remain at 221 s.f. or 2.93% B.Hardcover within the 75-250’ setback area has been maintained at 43.43%. There already exists 43.89%. C.1,960 s.f. or 13.9% of the existing hardcover within the 75-250’ setb.ack area shown as asphalt driveway serves as an additional area for snow storage and turnaround for City vehicles. The age and condition of foundation of existing residence strucrure will not allow for an upward expansion. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planmng Commission, reports by City stall, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of die commun'ty. 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 distri- t; that cranting of the variances would not i- .verscly alfect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or otlier 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 ot the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AM) CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council herebv grants variances to the Municipal Zoning Code Sections noted above to permit the constmetion of a 12’ x 20’ lakeside addition and a 16’ x 24’ east side additic :i to the existing residence, subject to the following conditions; Page 2 of 6 C1 1. 2. 3. Applicant shall agree to continue to allow the City to use asphalt driveway area as shown on survey dated March 19. 1993, revised May 21, 1993, for turnaround use of snow plows and shall continue to allow the storage of snow during the winter months on the areas defined on that same survey included as Page of this resolution. Applicant shall provide a detailed grading and drainage plan with the application information for building permit for new construction. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are pennissive 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 28, 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. Pace 3 of 6 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of June, 1993. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on 28th day of June, 1993 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and Cuy Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notar>’ Public Pane 4 of 6w- L STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county# personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument# and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) Notary Public ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 9-1 On this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ ___ _ _ _^ 199^^^ before me a Notary Public within and for said county# personally appeared __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ —---— known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument# and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public 1 Page 5 of 6 L ■t-ydlica** Mrk* ''^•" o" LrJ<urJi pi*;* .'t*: •. j,. '• . \ ■•'•A'*-' '■' ••' .f . • -•*••*! U Page 6 of 6 #1 83 1 TO:Planning Commission Members Pon Moorse. Cily Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:June 14, 1993 SUBJECT: #1831 Edward Engler, 3450 Birch Lane - Variance - Public Hearing The applicant proposes a 12’x20’ addition to the lakeside of the existing residence to be placed over an existing concrete patio area and a 16 x24 addition to the side meeting the required side setback of 10’. The lakeside addition will be located in front of the average lakeshore setback line as well as a small portion of the proposed side addition. The applicant proposes removal of existing nonsiructural improvements to offset structural expansions. The improvements result in an excess of .06% structural coverage. Hardcover excesses exist within the 75-250 ’ setback and 4.68% hardcover exists within the 0-75 ’ setback area. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review; Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Structural coverage Total lot area = 21,630 s.l. Allowed = 3,244.5 s.f. or 15% Existing = 2,748 s.f. or 12.7% Proposed = 3,383 s.f. or 15.6% Variance = .06% .Section 10.22. Subdivision 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback, review E.xhibit L Staff has located the approximate locations of the residences on adjacent properties. The lakeside addition is located completely in front of an average lakeshore setback line and a small portion of the side addition encroaches the average lakeshore setback. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Review of hardcover A.0-75 ’ setback area = 7,540 s.f. Allowed = 0 Existing = 353 s.f. or 4.68% Proposed = 221 s.f. <'r 2.93% B.75-250 ’ setback area = i4.090 s.f. Allowed = 3.522.5 s.i. or 25% Existing = 6 185 s.t. or 43.89% Prop»>sed = 6,119 s.t. or 43.43% f 4 Zoning File #1831 June 14, 1993 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicant ’s Addendum C - Property Owners List D - Plat Map n - Neighbor’s ,icknowledgment Form F - Lakeside Elevation G - Proposed Floor Plan II - Existing Floor Plan I - Survey J - Hardcover Fact Sheets K - Olson Letter 9/6/81 L - Staff Sketch Description of Request Applicant proposes the installation of a 12’x20 ’ lakeside addition to be placed over an existing patio. Portions of the existing patio are located within the 0-75 setback and shall be removed. Some 72 s.f. of existing landscape area underlain with plastic shall be removed. The entire addition shall be located in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The house to the immediate west receives no impact because the existing re.-’idence is located in front of the propo-sed addition. The house on the east side is shielded by year around arborvitae/everpeen plantings providing a solid screening from adjacent residence sirucmres. The 16 x20 side addition shall be 16’ from tlie east side lot line easily meeting the 10’ side setback. Applicant has proposed removal of 701 s.f. of nonstructural hardcover and the addition of 635 s.f. of strucmral hardcover. There is an increase of 2.9% strucmral coverage on the property. The total coverage at 15.6% requires approval of a .06% variance. The original structure was built prior to 1956. A building permu was issued for the 40’x24 ’ garage^in 1981. Based on 1981 reviews, the City did not require hardcover inventory and structure's conformity was reaffirmed in a letter to an adjacent resident advising that the detached struemre met all required zoning regulations. Review E.xhibit K. Statement of Hardship Applicant iu)tes the following hardship: need to expand the existing single story structure for growing family. It is doubtful that a structure of that age could support a second story. Applicant also notes that extensive driveway area in front of garage serves as a tumaroun or City snow plows. .Members will remember limitations ot Birch I.ane from the Liljequist review i Zoning File #1831 June 14, 1993 Pace 3 of last month. The paved area at end of roadway is not located in road right-of-way but on applicant ’s property. Review the plat map, Exhibit D. Note the road right-ot-way ends right at the west lot line of applicant ’s property. The City snow plows turnaround and store snow on applicant ’s property. Review Exhibit I and the plat map, please note that the car parked in tront of garage is not parked at applicant ’s property but at property owner s to immediate south. Issues for Consideration ch 1. 2. 3. Should structural improvements be reduced so that 15% lot coverage is not exceeded? Some 600 s.f. of landscape area underlain with plastic exists within the 75-250 ’ setback, refer to Exhibit L. Should additional areas be removed? Applicant has shown a reduction over existing. Does the fact that the applicant ’s property provides a turnaround and storage area for snow removal have an impact on your determinations and tinal recommendation? CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION -4 I ‘‘ 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) PROPERTY INFORMATION K .*• i\ ) V.) ‘■-.if Xr ^ *'3i '**• T T V f" ^ ^ ^i I u*i i-*neMu» C* f ?.i * r " *** CuTTC I l-'f ' aUlL. 1 ^ w ‘-'V*-V'VV'W M *rvUUM 1 TrJ. f t vv KECtlPr-TH^^K Y0U_ ;f27J550 cool .%'!Site Address /^//^c /7 J. A7J b_________________ Property Identif, Number (P.I.D.)^_ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired iTtZ/'J <J / (month/year) I (do)(do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: _^-^residential _ _ _other ( specif y)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Zoning District:_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT Phone (home) "7 / ~ ^ *7 ^3* Name ^A) fc- / _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (work) 3 V > ~ Address: 3 !^S 0 /6’/A.’iVV i.nutr City: LC'A\/2^a7^ Zip 05/2^/“t OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail; VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ Lot Area Setback: Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Re^r Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DBSCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance with 2o->ing Code requirements: (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 completej^ 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from flennepin 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 8i5"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 vov.r varian e application is not complete if_the— infonnation 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 additions* fees (staff txme not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in rev.'ew of this applica-^on, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correctyto the best of his/her knowledge. / Applicant's Signature-Date a OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further .’-norizes reasonable entr> onto the property by City staff, consultants, i*gents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes cf investiga­ tion and verification of this-xe^uest. / V / > //Owner's Signature Date ^ mm mm mm ^ mm ^ mm mm ^m ^ mm mm ^m mm ^ —- - — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -— Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the -- * — . j — Planning Commission Meetings are held on thePlanning Commission Meeting . , , v ^ i .a third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. {i i " • *7 AJ SI 4f ••i .J # • • ; •••'« • ' » k -wli •v '% V t • /t! !.i May 24, 1993 The City of Orono Orono, MN RE: Variance for i<r. & Mrs. Ed Engler 3430 Birch Lane Wayzata, MN 55391 To Whom It May Concern; We are requesting this variance for the following reasons: We are growing out of the house. We need the additional space because of the increase in size of our family. We have looked at going up, but it is financially prohibitive. In addition, we are not sure the existing structure could support it. We also feel, that because the City snowplows need our driveway to turn around in and use it to store snow in, that we should be granted this variance. We feel that it is unfair to ask us to give up hardcover, when our family needs it, in order to provide .a turnaiO-.md for the public. RUN DATE 05/11/9SBATCH OOeRROR ADOR OI«4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NA»^ TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NA^« TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR HE^tiEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OIHERS LIST58 08-117-23 A2 000505A50 NORTH SHORE DR LUCILLE M OFFERMAN TRUSTEE LUCILLE M OFFERMAN TRUSTEE 1669 NORTH FARM RD LONG LAKE MN 55556 38 08-117-23 « 0012 03A70 NORTH SHORE DR HAROLD J BROUELLETTE MAROUO J BROUELLETTE 3A70 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 A3 0020 03AA2 NOR1H SHORE DR GERALD J RAY E^^AL GERALD J RAY 36A2 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 A3 0023 03A50 BIRCH LA E R ENGLER A B ENGLER EDHARO R A BONNIE ENGLER 3A50 BIRCH LA HAYZATA m 55391 38 08-117-23 A3 0026 03A60 NORTH SHORE DR JOHN G NELSON ETAL JOm NELSON 3A60 NO SHORE DR HAYZATA MN 55391 58 08-117-23 A3 000105A70 BIRCH LA REX EUGENE BOLLINGER JR REX EUGENE BOLLINGER JR 5A70 BIRCH LA HAYZATA m 55591 38 08-117-23 A3 0013 05A80 NORTH SHORE OR BRUCE A NUSBAUM BRUCE A NUSBAUM 3A80 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA m 55391 •> # J. ..1 38 08-117-23 A3 0021 05A50 NORTH SHORE OR HllLlAM C ODDEN HILLIAM C ODDEN 3A50 SHORE OR HAYZATA m 55591 , r • 38 08-117-23 A3 002A 05AA8 rX)RTH SHORE DR JAM ERLEP JAMES A MARY ERLER 5AA8 NORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-25 A5 0027 05A60 BIRCH LA R HILLIAM TOI^ARO ETAL R HILLIAM TOHARO 5A60 BIRCH LA HAYZATA MN 55591 k * REPORT NO. PIA35401 PAGE 2158 08-117-23 A3 000203A90 BIRCH LA E LILJEQUIST A S LILJEQUIST ERIC J A SHELLY R LILJEQUIST 3A90 BIRCH LA HAYZATA m 55591 38 08-117-23 A3 U019 03AA0 NORTH SHORE DR DAVID J LINOBERG DAVID J LINDBERG 3AA0 NORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA MN 55591 38 08-117-23 A3 0022 05AAA NORTH SHORE DR HILLIAM D ROBINSON » H 0 ROBINSON 3AAA NORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA MN 55591 \ 38 08-117-23 A3 0025 03A58 NORTH SHORE OR P E DOHHAN ADD BLAOER PAUL BOHMAN/BARBARA D BLAOER 3A5d NORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA MN 55591 TOTAL batch 008 0001<* . ^ V, ■i. J . r- 1 I I . i I I r • RUN DAT! 05/11/95 BATCH OOe ♦ • HEft4TPIN CCX^4TY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHTiERS LIST ' /• V• i i '• % , REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 22 fu .V V,. ■fH ir^'i ' I . ‘’ll » /• * ■ * I , . k . '!•* s I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INTORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HFWEPIN COUNfV OEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF HY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. DATE P.. . •i • N I - I ?• h •' 15; h 4. % I Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form -It I (we) [print name(s) of SY^'C' /wVVl:^ [print address] have reviewed the plan_s for_ the proposed ^ ^tanl ul: property located at tt _^^^,L=-a Application No 1 (we) understand that in executing this aOcnowledgement, I (we) am fArpl not asked to declare approval or dxsapproval or the propert. ^ u *. iv t-n confim for the Citv Council that I (we) am (are) aware Oi.but merely to conrirm ror cue cx rcrnTPct or use the improvement plans and that the proposed r.erghoor s project or requires Council approval. ^ /YyS Property Owner Date 7 Property Owner riVvv. Q Date \ ***********ik************************** I (we) ^JiT-hL/l. ^of ^ y y~-^ j'icK'll-i '^/-fcxujT yJ-^7_ [print name(s)]/[print address] for the proccsed imorovement or proposed use of the have reviewed tne plans for une prop . .-oferred to as Land Use property located at .3 >< /7 -'c c /Y l_U.- - a-so Application No I (we) understand that in executing this "^rrr"o"pVrty‘L^’use (are) not as).ed to declare-approval -are of but merely to confirm for the City neiahbor's project or usethe improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s projec requires Council approval. -r^AlUrJ p^^erty Owner 3 Date DateProperty Own^ If you'have any information that may assist the “rding°f this Land use Application, please *“‘™tLTche“d “etU d^Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to .he soheauled^meeti g it /'O J I \\-r!$•'I ‘.'i * *« i* V 2-45I ASPHALT SHINGLES TO MATCH EXISTING ---------- / /lO' POUGH 6AU1N CEDAR LAP SID NG. (TYP) LAKE SIDE ELEVATION v:o f CAtlihfv «A41| H C* BEDROOM MALL MASTER BEDROOM ► • > i^r n ATRtfi Dovm KITCHEN vfnOVf l-iftlNG irsuOtf AND liVAf D«*tN«»0 VTM • tArfrnill-l—-I— f.*<D iiAu «; >«|tiffOCr I 1A neC »«AC«K <}• I j/4* » >4* mcffO I All 01 or + 5 t^»0 V.A** 1« >3 ATkCMG 3»4 14* r c ft « )- rif4«VC*kA&ft nATTft 3 m. i*ov» vA*'o» nA«r«v t '3' WOA*D •r»*OVP fHOiNG fcMPPTI»OC« A««0 TAA» •Al.i 7 EXISTING BEDROOM AATCM ft.^4It»Oe« ABO/C • -«* MSlOMt iCvEi M€« fCOO* I »T m I«iSTMO IwOO* CiNC Of l«tftfi»«0 »too« 3«r»0 ^tOCA X>ST»«• oc > 4* TCAic.Ut I •A*t*«OA»0 f.iu*n I •lA^to tptM pmo T«U9V» DPIbiGHVt) »* WAMli» AC’U»r» i t3 «TC« on t'tj «TCM on •iTffcc* vault HIV CV4MO • r »*-«•»»OCK l»4 T * O ClOA* » 44 e«»U4.A!A3M •»4 ahk. nAit /\ § 7" I • tr K O' I I* Jj AT»^ OOO* t CvlTOn •nt>0» AfftCVf i»r rtf^ATon L.rATCM mAkt AB KffDfD t VTf TTTir, in»Dc% Tz:r~f-T—t- • r r-ft I'r • r o r n i/r 4J-: i/r •pn?^ D t •<ift / \ « tt:r-..7••• i 3 ll^ FUj ^ ouiu! UJ< ^y< O' ^ —H0 toto< < Qt< j uir>3 01 z O to Q I Q- < II D®<r 111 \ 51 o)- . Oujc<> 0.-1“o<>- (^U< (L(/)E SHEET 3 q 1 ^ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR ^V1me\ 1 At.% ED ENGLER IN LOT 18. LYDIARD S PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA Lull- Mimtfonlca BniitAnq Upqai p#ief|pti<y 7**?* no»tlv!.««t*rljf h«U of |i6t II. ’Lydiard' i Park- S%sSr:i5' th.. Jhi piuf Of Iron Mrli«r Marifi^t •iiotfn «r« on %n "tt 10^11 dottai Mvisii IIAM f // *9 MtMIfrfiMN . < .» s **.Vdl fVir HV vmlii Atn» ^OfTf tmufi. JOti itui I Am a .ImW i -L .i I-------------- a 1 a *-------- - - ^ -- «.Aif 1- 20' . - V 3 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ome ) 75-250' 250-500' 5C0-1CC0' E xisting Hardcover in Zone House 2 2.8 S. O JuC //y LENGTH WIDTH X 5.7 3. Garage G. Other Total Hardcover in Zone Total Propcrty Area ih Zone 3S-3 ?sy S.F. S • r • S.F, S.F. • » c. Driveway • »r- • • • X • • _ X • % • D. S idewalk ' • •• _ X •« . • - X • 8S • • • •« •.• /Vr/^2^. /- X S. o E. Patio / Deck • • * ••• _ X • • m- F. Landscape • • 2y - X 3.0 •7Z. AREAS UNDERLAIN 3Y ,. X •• PLASTIC------- SHEETING « • • m . X • ss ^^cr* Cc^tL.//. 7 V a.i7 '2 • •X s 5*3 . S.F. a ]'».« . S.F. . S.F.r *• • . S.F. ; ? i ^ . S.F. V* H - j , S.F. S.F. S.F. if S.F. 0 S.F. • . f S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F.A 'TSVO t a.P. 7SVO X 100 -% rf.f T /ar 0 i) ^ A* /r«i < / /^cArr.c : 7Z SSJ-/3Z z 27i / “T 7S'v^ - 2.93 m,. ^ r /JZ 5*' / / HARDCOVER CALCUUTION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE. (CIRCLE ONS) 0-75' (75-25^ 250-500' 500-1000 Existing -Hardcover in Zone A. ■ H ouse s/. o LENGTH (T.3 /O,/ - X - S.F, 3. Garage Vo. c • • ir» • c. D riveway X « X • 99/S.F. / f<riO S.F. 7 S.F. D.. Sidewalk 'S.F.' S.F, E. Patio / Deck S.F. S.F. F. Landscape AREAS underlain BY . . PLASTIC".......... • SHEETING /4yft . ______________ X X S.F. _______ S.F. G. Other - X . X S.F. S.F. S.F. Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area m Zone ^ / fP *»" S.F. V-j . /S9 7 C 1 /y. o7o ,.p, B '4-^ X 100 - ^y^yo Af'* Aj a, r, = 2 V / - 3/V 011^ ^fv*.-21/ y -r Vi*, VI 7- / AcA:r^c.-^SZ / ---------- • •__________ - -70/ }-lQOO' 2- S.F. S.F.> /S'? 7 « • _ S.F. . _ S.FjJ _ S.F. f • S.F. ^ S.F. «• L S.F. f S.F. S.F. __ S.F.CO__ S.F. — S.F. _ i.F. • • • . __ S.F. _ S.F. • • • _ S.F. L ...Ld sy % » <.'5 • 7tf / J € September 16, 1981 CITY of OROXC r -l IMIur li... br,.0»M4l »U,. 'AUI.M«,*,^I O., //,, Xnr,/, S/u.rr uf Ukr \Unnetunha ^ K WfJ.. . Mr. Kenton Carleon 3498 North Shore Drive Wayzata, mn 55391 R«i 3450 Birch Lane - Complaint 'oea^vte. carlaoni a _ this morning’ l*provided him^a*eSi^ 9«rage construction y^r concerns. He said that you had also^J!iaitid*h4 *** <H*cuss«d about the matter. ^ ** also visited him yesterday ^ ««ctio« »f h.. runoff may occur bicau.I S5 "o-^what more Kempf. project ifSithin However. Mr. the zoning code. l have no hardcover regulations of There is no local ordinance or^aSt2f2^ him this construction. «puce»«t-o?*s.‘ eff.etad iMlphbQr.. Homv.r n2* i'®’*your •9u«Uy MU*. o( you? probi.« 2 m hi'e«‘nSJTf * "ot tb. lolo i»ptov«.„t. b.c.u.. o(. n.4l!So222oS2«"r*2222xS.'’*'"' ‘*"*^“«* AimiMSTaATioNa leiAMt -naucikuau. auiu* -*^t* ■> * -i- i . _ •.. _ _ _^ - -. * _ •■ »if ri ^ , f V * • , .- . Kenton Carlson Page 2 Kr. Carlson, as 1 said to you yesterday, your solution is to reguest and initiate a stom~sewer/dralnage i^proven^nt proiect* Only in this way can the City help you solve the neighborhood flooding. A proper engineering review is required, followed by any necessary physical construction or alteration. The cost of this improvement would be assessed to all the properties contributing to the runoff, not just those affected bv the flooding. Please understand, this is not a way for m or the City to dodge any responsibility. A formal improveoent project is the only mechanism we have for helping to correct the probloi. Let. me know if and when you wish to get thi* underway. cci Walter R. Benson John R. Gerhardson City Council Paul Kempf 0 * • • %r... .1 ^j1 «5^ft ♦ ©*.' « °f 'tf %- ■»/.r,! jZ<f /•tl^O, • -• r f, /^/ !WI T owle REAL ESTATE W»’ter < Pir^fci S'umbeT (612) 347-9347 AppMj^Contu^Son v§iu§i*on r#*pmw KUm0t Ret>^r$ 4nar>r»j F«naw Mong^g# ;.L«<Tt <r»S«lrfW>nj» Sjw Ponrotio ^#v*«w V%xfgig# Property Mor^eprnent Ui/Mer>/vt«MS«ng ’0o§nf P0m»or>i J^xounttn^'OuCQeri^ OpmfSt>on%, E 'V-'ieer »ry 4 m«( Menegerwir %C#rv#f C40e0*fr#i|» Jjr»«rA:fvr Menjgerr^^ Retearcfr Vlfmer lnv9nt{X\ . ScsTkii srj AtHorct^^ ConitfhUKvi Uwittm Saioe and LMttftQ droMrm 5#on*« CWc# 4#fai< 4t»ar?m#f)r i.jnj ind rarwv ^lap'#«a''far>or **60£>f<w#w» i'n^sfmanr sawf 5an»wlf>af«•^acM May 24, 1993 Ms. Jeanne Mabuslh Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 /P.^. f:u I’i'll Dear Jeanne: Thanks for your courtesy in discussing my variance request for 3450 Birch Lane this past Monday, I enjoyed our conversation. As per our conversation, this letter is to request, that barring any unforseen problems that you and/or the planning commission may find, we would appreciate it very much if we could be placed on the June 28 council agenda for the following reason. My wife and 1 are expet'ting our third child in September, and we would like at least the opportunity and/or possibility to complete this work by that time. Consequently, it is imperative that we begin working on our project no later than the first week of July. Once again 1 enjoyed our conversation and look forward to both meeting and working with you in the near future to bring my request to a successful conclusion for both myself and the City of Orono. Very Cordialljj.,__ / / / Ed and Bitnnie Engler EREidkp irmabufth ere Towle Real Estate Company 330 Second Avenue South. Suite StX) Minneapolis MN 55401 Telephone ,612' 341-44 44 Facsimile i6I21 347-Q380 Owner Member Colliers International Property Consultants TO:Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator % A FROM: DATE: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator June 23, 199? SUBJECT: rf?1832 Scott A. Mabusth. 740 Nonh Brown Road - Variance - Resolution List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 6/21/93 C - Memo and Exhibits of 6/16/93 Please review the memo and exhibits of June 16th. Brietly, applicant requests a variance to locate an accessorv building nearer the front lot line than the residence on the property. The proposed 10’xl6 ’ shed will be set back 146 ’ from the street, and is heavily screened by existing vegetation. The proposed shed replaces a slightly smaller shed at the same location. Planning Commission Recommendation Tlie Planning Commission reviewed this at their June 21st meeting and voted 7-0 to recommend approval ba.sed on the applicant’s statement of hardships, which has been incorporated into the attached resolution for approval. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the attached resolution. ch 5?u ■i A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9 (D) FILE #1832 WHEREAS, Scott A. Mabusth and Jeanne A. Mabusth (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the propeny located at 750 North Brown Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: That part of Government Lot 1. Section 34, Township 118 North. Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian described as follows: Commencing at a point on the west line of Government Lot 1 distant 133.00’ south from the northwest comer thereof; thence continuing south along said west line 458.70’; tlience east at right angles 344.14 ’; thence north at right angles to the southerly line of Registered Land Survey 1275; thence westerly along said southerly line of Registered Land Survey 1275 to the point of beginning; all in 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 (D) to pennit the construction of an accessory building to be located nearer the front lot line than the principal residence structure on the property, where no accessory buildings are normally allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1832. This property is located within the LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Page 1 of 5 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 21. 1993. and recommended approval based on the following findings of fact, hardships, and practical difficulties: A. The topography drops severely to the rear or east of the residence struemre. B.The more uentle sloped area to the immediate north side of the residence is occupied by a wild flower garden originally designed and planted by Edmond Phelps. C.The proposed shed shall be placed within the footprint of the existing shed on the property, and will not require the removal of existing mature trees. D.The street setback for the zoning district is 50 ’. The residence is located 162’ from the street lot line, and the proposed structure will be placed 146’ from the street lot line. E.The existing and proposed sheds are placed in a strategic or functional location, adjacent to the work yard and gravel driveway. F.Tlie mature plantings on the property specifically evergreens, provide year round screening from adjacent properties. G.The placement of the shed is consistent with the pattern of development of the older established properties adjacent to North Brown Road. Moving the proposed shed location further cast to meet the residence structure setback would place the shed in a drainageway that drains the driveway aiea. Further, the existing screening is of a location and nature such that the shed will have no visual impact, will not be obtrusive and will be virtually invisible from the road and neighbiiring properties in all seasons. Page 2 of 5 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pc^se 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 preserv'e a substantial propeny right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) to permit the construction of a 10’xl6’ accessory shed located nearer the front lot line than the principal residence building on the property, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the owners, 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 28, 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 applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby acree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Pace 3 of 5 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of June, 1993 ATTEST: Dorotny M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of June, 1993, by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk ot the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this 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 insinimenl, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared---------------------—^^^---------— known to me to be the pcrson(s) descnbed in and who e.xecutea the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page 5 of 5 CITY OF ORONO l».0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Scott A. Mabusth 740 Brown Road North Lomi Lake, MN 55356 ZONING FILE ^1832 NOTICE OF PL/^NNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 6/23/93 COPIES TO:Philip Nelson 125 Hackbcrrv Hill Long Like. MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance DATE OF MEETING; 6/21/93 VOTE 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recominends the following: Approval as submitted NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant ’s nexi scheduled meeting is comirmed as: City Council Monday, June 28, 1993, meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. • 1 L' TO:Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:June 16, 1993 SUBJECT: /?1832, Scott Mabusth. 740 North Brown Road - Variance - Public Hearing List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey ll - Statement of Hardships F - Sketch of Proposed Shed Location G - Topographic Map H - Picture of Shed to be Moved In Pertinent Code Section Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D). No . . . accessory building shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot . . . Pertinent Facts Setback from street to existing house: 162.1’ Setback from street to«existing shed: 148’ Setback from street to proposed shed: 146’ Discu.ssion The applicant proposes to replace an existing 8’xl6’ shed wiiii a 10’xl6’ shed. The location slightly nearer the street than the residence requires a variance. Please review the applicant ’s statement of hardships. Applicant indicates that topography to the rear of the residence is steep. ITie obvious flat area just north of the house which would meet code requirements is occupied by a wild Bower garden. Moving the location funher east would place it in the drainageway that drains the driveway area. No trees need to be removed by replacing the shed in its current location. Y our site inspection will confirm that the property is heavily wooded. The natural woods and added plantings through tiie decades make this a very secluded site. The shed will be screened from the road by existing evergreens so as to be not obtrusive and virtually invisible in all seasons. t Zoning File ^1832 June 16, 1993 Paec 2 Applicant also notes that this shed location is the most appropriate location to serve its function, i.e. storage of property maintenance equipment. In reviewing this application. Planning Commission should keep in mind the intent ot the ordinance. In a typical higher density neighborhood, storage sheds in the front yard between the street and the residence certainly have a negative visual impact, providing a cluttered effect. Visual impact is probably the only reason for this ordinance. It would appear that for this property, the propo.sed location will have virtually no visual impact from outside the property. Note that portions of the property are within the Shoreland Zone. Virtually all of t^e existinc hardcover is outside the Shoreland Zone. Overall hardcover on the property is 7.7%. Staff Recommendation A recommendation for variance approval would be appropriate if Planning Commission finds that a hardship has been demonstrated. Planning Commission ’s options include; 1. Approval. Conditional approval. 3.Denial. 4. Table for more information, 5.Other. f T S CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION‘y r- Ir cs:^ i-T.* ;J- -:v •5 • ji-.-.T- ■A’ 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) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address *’• 7 ” V ♦* ” •*' 0 '* i ^ ^ f U A » » C*» L' / / r ■' *r *< L ‘ r T rc ^ 7^ } f* tA J. W 4-W'WV'V V' 1 U* k. I f X » W* • V ^ /" Urri‘ Ti if * w. ^ I »-/ • V r"i: r,*:*rua ;/V v -i #I f !rtt'r\ ; W-* •* “* ” r 4.0 ” * * •* j A ? v»A f Ti» ■rTx.»^uu*v uwx f\vx iv^ , |C* .'ZZ V'4.' .' ww X X Property Identif. Number (P.I.D.)^_ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired 9— / ~* ~7^_ _ _ _ _(month/year) I (■deJ(do not) also own the adiacent parcels of land. Present use of property: __^;^[^esidential _ _ Zoning District: 2-/6. ^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ^^PJjJCANt Phone (home) 4^*7^ ** GS" 7^<P* Name H. _ _ _ _ _ Phone (wor)c) other(specify) Address: ^ O o-±Zj!j City: ^^Oy-(T?\_Cl- - - Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Ncime Phone (woric) Address:City:v Zip: DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $, Describe request in detail ^ a z. e 3L ^ •'Sh^sAjcrh^k^ jji jH F^or^ -------------irm VARIANCES REQUIRED • 4 • * * _ _ Lot Area Setback: Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) p (ttxei /M /a>r<wC^gP —< ^^15-___7 , HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements _ _ _ _ _A'f^T'A cA’cD- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -— - - - - - - - - -- (attach additional sheets if necessary) required submittals of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your a" plication to be considered complete: 1. Completed Application Form 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one' (1) copy £^"xll" for reproduction), 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8Ji"xll"). 6. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8h"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 yoor variance application is not complete if th e above information has not been included. mm mm mm mm mm • 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. DateApplicant's Slgnature^‘^^^''^^^>/^,^^ ^ /7J\_ OWNERS SIGNATURE ^ The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further aiirhorizes.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 (X y71\ Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of* the Planninjg Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building S Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. CQ tn I <• II ihl ♦- -A7 00/3/^s<-X-*A«X._ayuti^J^^ -----------—\jJa^f:JfEoLA^________ -- LcJa S'^s iuOt___J - 3_.f 5 _ o_o. / /<. 3l.r.i'iIL^aa__1^3__/3~ r;- - - / f f /'-W A/......... i______/. L^a. 4__^ /. Jc^ ^ J _________>. ___ ______^ __________________________________ ——- fici.y__i^'Tsc^.jCtr ,fidl_________ II ________ ..’S //<^*--7 ^ 3 A OO '•5T __________________/b r r ’ ^3^'- • *— >m i X' - - - — -^ . -r mm. m ^ ^ _/v^-^^Wrw. y/l*^ —_________________ A? (:r I . yTX^/rs^ 'S ^ ^ ^ Cm _________ ______ , /I t'.> • ••(o . r r J ! 2>5/ - J/^- ~ Z3 / "3- O oc t <:* /V i^<^. ^ ____ » •j . , _i *v :•». *•. -*'^ 3 S'3 3- ______ ;. -s c^t~ /^- _________ J, y /rt^/7" ^y<.furrs— f-ci______ „__ i, , ,rTLr- _^5'3S'^________ • • • *. . _ • mt T ^ ,.3'/-//f — as /3^ ^<5^)3 _____ •• «4. /yyv<y\^ /} . (2, ^ c*oc-Coic#-<y»t- a/ <*•<'^56 ^ o^- L--^ , ^-5- 3 3T^ .............. ..3/ ^ n S’ - ?3 a./ <7003 .............. (S -4.1^ _ _ v/^.v » ' * • # • r-*^*^..** ■♦•,», O O Ol vS t L*Mji, /n^ SS3SC • • ,s4 - //f-- 3>3 00 /O Aou J /?^Vl- /7VU-<-^ji G /*? (L<iXly •• P-Oo^ D/C ■3 ‘P-' / / s- ~ I3 A/ 0 c> 0? ^}\a. <i /?lu^ S.C>of ^ D. 4a»^ 3-^3 T^'. .*• A •. * * p\-/ >•. >: V • • • riMl V* "*♦ »K J, * . T-* !■ »*A - •■• * r.# ••• ■*.»'••••• • »*-• rv -i' ■ A-^'- r •■•'■ " / • » • f*« ' » #•%«••. *•••! « r Addendum to Application ^ 1832 Statement ol'IIardships The proposed 10’ x 16’ storage shed requires a setback variance as it shall be placed 25 feet in front of the front line of tlie residence structure. Tlie existing storage shed is 23 feet (refer to attached e.xhibit A). ITic following hardship andor lindings are uni(iuc to the property: 1. Refer to the attached topographic e.xhibit B. Note the topography drops severely as you move to rear or cast of the residence sUajcturc. 2. fhe more gentle sloped area to the immediate north side of the residence is occupied by a wildflower garden originally designed and planted by Udmund Phelps. 3. Hie proposed shed shall be placed within the footprint of the existing shed and will not require the removal of existing mature trees. 4. Ilie street setback for the zoning district is 50 feet, fhe residence is located 162 feet from the street lot line and the proposed structure will be placed 146 feet. 5. llic existing and proposed sheds are places in a strategic or functional location - adjacent to the work yard and gravel driveway. 6. The mature plantings on the propertv', specifically evergreen, provide, year round screening from adjacent properties. 7. llie placement of the shed is consistent with the patten, of development ol the older established properties adjacent to North Brown Road. 7 Tr •d.o •*”oo° N, ■• 7 >i n lr-ia tti.r % l>fWw ■ Ml -1 ■^¥\l / /If M m\i rrt #U ■■■^^Mr ^ / / V y■’ ^ I *001| y » i\ i •’• • \ \i\ \ • \ SJ^7a#!l:'A-'73n ■ /./VX \A" / \ A"X J / \ V 5^, Vj%»A..- - ’T- ^ /7 ^ ///-/ 7 CITY OF LONG LAKE ( %==72^>'-:'1'-:----'^XX ' I cr2S==?.=s-3:r*-^^-' **- 1 nuiUing and Zoning Dept. Attn: Michael Gall'ron Stephen Weekman I understand that n.y land use application, to be reviewed by the Planning Commission on June 21st will be scheduled before the Commi.ssion at their July meeting. If the application proves to be non-controversial, I would appreciate being .scheduled before the Counsil at their June 28th meeting although 1 understand your ultimate decision must be based on stall’s work load. 1 have asked for special consideration as 1 will have volunteers to assist in demolition and preparation tor the loundation during the 4th of Jul>' weekend. Philip Nelson, my surve^^or. will represent the application at both the Planning Commission and Counsil meetings. Please send copies of staff memos and action notices to Mr. Nelson at 125 Ilackberry I fill, Orono 55356. Scott Mabasth 740 North Brown Rd. Orono, MN 55356 Ph. 476-0578 r«- ’ j .*»•• •L'* • - .. V -' % • • •--------- • •••••. •. .. »:• r:- - :«• --v,V r* • *> •. • • * •2?'• • r , ■• •m r • •• . -• • • •• •• 'T" •*•- " ' * r * « - ^ • • * * . • - • - • <•" ’ ‘ T > • • • . ^ '■ ^ ^ . • *• fc.® **"• \ ’** ‘’•**>^ »» -s V. •** v’il . ‘V : ^: -V * ,•- , V ;.;V • r®* ■ ‘ * “-W *■ •.'' ' *» ««^ »Jt ■•' •• • • >• • • • • . . ,^- y, »••• * r • •,/■ ,*•«.N ^.It .:. ..... ., ..- -■ -...-^. ., ... *• * n.-' '• ■ •’ •' '•• • '-.' •■•■ >"*' * r» • r:'. • ^’Uw'*♦ ti**V I?MW * 17^-m* m .• « « • 9- -f . « • fv -V-* >"• A’ •' ^ TO: FROM: DATE: Mavor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator June 24. 1993 SUBJECT: ;S^1838 Robert Owens. 1700 Bohn ’s Point Road - Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Public Hearing COUNCIL MEEnNG JUN 2 8 1993 cmr OF ORONO Additional Exhibits J - Engineer’s Report Applicant applied for a permit under the emergency ordinance in 1987 to allow repairs to lakeshore banks damaged in the back-to-back 100 year storms. Failure may have resulted from either poor workmanship or design failure as the original method of restoration involved placement of geotechnic fabric supported by an underlying substructure. The new proposal involves the installation of two tiers of concrete blocks with an underlying geo-grid support system as applicant seeks a permanent solution. The engineer’s report. E.xhibii J, has confirmed that the proposed geo-grid support system as presented by GME Consultants will provide the necessary stability and support for the Allan Block walls. The Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit for the applicant as propo.sed subject to the following conditions: 1. 3. Erosion control to be maintained on property before land alterations commence and shall be maintained until ground cover is restored. Applicant shall provide a landscape schedule for plantings upon application for a building permit for the installation of a retaining wall. Landscape plans shall include plantings to buffer or shield 31^-4’ walls from lake views and that vines shall be planted adjacent to foundation for concrete block patio located at bluff of lakeshore bank. The planter installed at the top of the lakeshore bank shall be removed as a result of the installation of the two-tiered wall. After the motion of approval, applicant advised that after this last rainy weekend applicant reported that a second tension crack had appeared running parallel to the lake and 3’ closer than Hr e.xisting tension crack. He asked if there was a procedure available for an emergency situation as exists on his property as he is fearful that the bank will collapse at any time given the rainy forecast of the coming week. Council representative, J. Diann Goetien, advised that it may be possible for a poll to be taken of at least three members of the Council to permit staff to issue the neces -a*-*' permit. The City Administrator held a conference call w ith three members of the Council :he next day and received permission for the staff to issue a permit Zoning Memo #1838 June 24, 1993 Pace 2 for the emergency repair. It should be noted that the City Attorney had advised that the official bew^aper of the City be notified of the conference call and to be included if they deemed it necessary. The representative of the newspaper contacted my office and advised that they felt it would not be necessary but would appreciate a follow-up report and the result of the action. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission recommendation. Please review the enclosed staff memo for more background on this review. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 19 AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 FILE NO. 1838 WHEREAS, Robert H. Owens (hereinafter the "applicant") i« the owner of the property located at 1700 Bohn’s Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as: Exhibit "A", attached (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03. Subdivision 19 for land alterations in excess of 100 cubic yards and for the installation of retaining walls not to exceed a 4’ height to be installed within the lakeshore protected area where no such alterations or structures are allowed per Section 10.55, Subdivision 8. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. FINDINGS 1. 'riiis application was reviewed as Zoning File #1838. The property is located in the LR-IB Uakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 21, 1993 and recommended approval of the proposed variance to Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and per Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 recommended approval of a conditional use permit for land alterations and the installation ot retaining walls within the lakeshore protected area based on the following findings: Paee 1 of 5 a.The existing lakeshore bank has sustained severe damage and may result in the complete collapse of the bank. b. Repairs of the steep bank completed in 1987 have failed c. d. The plan provides for the installation of 3-1 sloped banks adjacent to the tiered walls section allowing for easy maintenance and to facilitate restoration of ground cover. Hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area exists at 804 s.f. or 7.4% and is now proposed at 888.6 s.f. or 8.2%. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that cranting the variance would not adversely atfect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring propenies; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the installation of retaining walls and the necessar>' land alterations within tlie lakeshore yard 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 u.se ot the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS. ORDER /VND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to .Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.55. Subdivision 8 and per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 grants a conditional use permit to pennit grading improvements and the installation of two tiers of Allan Block retaining walls witliin the lakeshore protected area where no such encroachment is allowed and per plans by G.ME Consultants, Inc., Project No. 3766-A, Page 2 of 5 dated June 1993 subject to the following conditions: 1. 3. 4. 5. Erosion control to be maintained on propeny before any land alterations commence and to be maintained until ground cover is restored. Upon application for a building permit, applicant shall provide a landscape schedule for plantings that will provide a buffer for block walls to minimize impact upon the lakeshore view. Applicant shall plant vines adjacent to foundation of concrete block patio at bluff of lakeshore bank. The e.xisting planter box at the bluff of the bank shall be removed as a result of the installation of these retaining walls. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner, but are pennissive only and must be exercised by application for a land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council approval or this variance/conditional use permit will expire on that date (June 28, 1994). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of tliis 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 agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of herself, her heirs, successors and assigns, hereby acrces to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of June. 1993. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin. City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Ir., Mavor Property Owner(s) Paue 3 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of June, 1993, by Edward J. cilahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who e.xecuted the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) e.xecuted the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of ,199 , before me a Notary' Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) tree act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 of June. 1993, by the City of Orono, ;half of the City.e me a Notary I^iblic 3ing instrument, and deed. re me a Notar>' Public 'oina instrument, and 5 w deed. That part of Lot Throe (3), In *'Audltor*a Sutxitvlalon No. 349, Hannepin Coiin^, Minnesota'* cJeecribed ae follows: Coi.wT>enclng at the point of tntcracctlori of the Southoaeterly Uno of Lot 11 In said Auditor's Subdivision No. 349 and the dividing line between Lota 3 sr^i 4 In said eubdlvielon; ttienoe Soutl»eosterly along the dividing line between said Lota 3 and 4 a distance of 114.OS feet to the artgle point In said dividing line, said point being the actual point of beglni'^lng of the tract of land to ba described; thence Southerly along die dividing lino between said Lota 3 and 4 a diatanca o^ 130 feet; thence East deflecting to the left at an angle of 90 degrees 14 minutes to the al'or^ of Lake Minnetonka; thence fJortherly along shore of said lake 160 feet more or leas to ll've dividing line be­tween Lota 2 and 3 In said subdivision; thence Westerly along the dividing IIne^between said Lota 2 and 3 to the angle point In last said dividing line; thance continuing Westerly In a etralglit lino to the actual point of beginning; except t/ve Westerly 20 feet Uiereof, said 20 feet being mcoeured at right englee to the dividing lino between said Lota 3 and 4; according to the plot Ihoreof on file or of record In the office of the Registrar of Tides in and for eatd Hannepin Coun^.Togedier with an easement for road purposes over that part of said Lot 3 lying Westerly of the Westerly line of the premises hereinabove first described end Northeostorly of a line described as follows: Beginning at Initial point of conmcnccinont of U>e tract of land I'verelnabove described; thence Southeeeterty along the dividing line between said Lots 3 and 4, 114.65 feat to the angle point In said d«vldlng line; thence continuing Southeasterly on an extension of said dividing line to the Westerly line of the tract of land hereinabove described and Uvo e ^orTnlnallng, as shown in Deed Doc. No. 316624, Files of Registrar of Titles.Together with an easement for right of way for driveway purposes over tlvat part of the Westerly 20 feet of said Lot Three (3), lying Northerly of the South line of the premises heretnabovs first described and Southerly of the line drawn sen - s said Lot Three (3) from d've ar^glo point In the dividing line bei'ween Lots Three (3) and Four (4) to Uva angle point In the dividing line between Lots Two (2) and Three (3) In said "Auditor's Subdivision Number 349, Hennepin County, Minnesota", said described 20 foot right of way being 20 feet wide as'^nxiaaurcd at a rijht angle to the dividing line between said Lota Three (3), and Four (4), as slx>wn In Deed Doc. No. 316G24, Files of Registrar of Tltlo^. _ .V * • • ... I*: }o To: From: Date: Subject: Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator June 18, 1993 /S^1838 Robert Owens, 1700 Bohn ’s Point Road - Conditional Use Perrait/Variance - Public Hearing The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to allow repairs to a lakeshore bank that sustained damaged in the 1987 back-to-back 100 year storms. Applicant suspects either poor workmanship or design failure created the recent panial collapse of the existing bank. The 1987 method of restoration involved placement of geotechnic fabric supported by substructure, but obviously the underlying support structure was inadequate. Applicant is hesitant to return to the same method and seeks a more permanent solution. The new proposal involves the installation of two tiers of concrete blocks with a geo-grid support system. As of ti:is writing we have not received the design tor the support structure, but we have been advised that the necessary soil borings were completed on the 16th. The Engineer s final report will be pre.sented to the* Planning Commission on Monday, June 21st. The following ordinance is pertinent to the review; Section 10.03. Subd. 19 - Conditional use permit required for the installation of retaining walls within the lakeshore protected area and for land alterations involving the movement of earth in e.xcess of 100 cubic yards. List of E.xhibits A - Application A-1 Applicant’s letter of May 27, 1993 A-2 Applicant’s Letter of June 17, 1993 B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map D - GME Consultants, Inc. Repon October 19, 1992 E - Section of Block Retaining Wall F - Photographs G - Gustafson Report June 8. 1993 H - Packet of Permit Information for Stonn Damage Repair of 1987-88 I - Topographic Survey Review of Application The subject property received severe damage from the 1987 stoniia. The retaining wall that runs along the shared lot line of die subject property and the property owner to the south was installed to replace an existing wall that had been completely destroyed. Tlie lakeshore bank i Zoning Pile i<^1838 June IS, 1993 Page 2 sustained severe erosion. The repairs involved rip rapping at the shoreline area and the installation of geo-grid fabric with supposedly a support sub-structure similar to the recent Susan Sumey proposal. As it was the e.xpress desire of the applicant to achieve a permanent solution with the current improvement proposal, the City Pngineer i.as recommended a concrete modular block retaining wall. Review E.xhibit E. The applicant proposes the installation of an Allan Block Retaining Wall that will be installed in two tiers. The highest wall will be 4 ’. Applicant will install 3:1 sloped land areas to allow for easy maintenance and installation of plantings tor the purpose of achieving immediate ground cover for stabilization of disturbed areas. Review E.xhibii J. It is not clear whether the current proposal involving a modular block wall will cover the same area proposed in the original landscaping design that involved timber wall construction. It is hoped the .site plan/layout of the walls will also be presented. Note the planter at the soudi side of the bank will be removed with the installation of the walls. The City Engineer will provide a report for your Monday meeting reviewing tinal intormation. Members may question staff as to the review of an application where we have not received complete information. Unfortunately, Mr. Owens had not realized that he would have to proceed with another conditional use permit application alter receiving approvals to restore his lakeshore banks in 1987 and 1988. Stalfhas proceeded with the review of this application as there is an immediate need to act swiftly because the collapse of the bank not only involves a small portion but as applicant’s addendum notes, A-1, there is a tension crack running parallel with the crest of the slope that indicates potential for complete failure. Upon your inspection, you will note that a plastic sheet witli temporary anchors has been placed along the bank to prevent further undermining by runoff, but with this rainy late spring applicant is concerned that time is running out. In your final recommendation, the following should be included in your conditions of approval: 1. Erosion control to be maintained on property before any land alterations commence :md to be maintained until ground cover is restored. To be consistent with similar applications in the past, applicant is to provide a landscape schedule for plantings that will shield the block walls from the lakeside view and that ground cover be immediately restored within all disturbed areas. . CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPL^^Tl ' % V »PROPERTY LOCATION I IOC S P<0» ^ T'^O ^ J -H- Site Address Property identification Number (P.I.D.) /^ - ~~ *Z3 COO 3 Please attach legal description to application i^ not included • on reouired survey. . '• APPLICANT Name Phone (home) I ~^ 4? _ _ _ Phone (work) Address nOQ City zip OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Address Phone (home) Phone _ _ _ _ Citv ZiD Acquired N^O-vf . _ _(month/year)Date ProDfix^X-Acquirea _. \ v w ——- - I (do) <(do__no^ also own the adjacent parcels of land^ PEES - CONDITIONAL DSE PERMITS - $ 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application■' ~~ “TTv *r nr^rf^n _ _ _ _ $125.00 Residential accessory Use _ _ _ _ $175.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $150.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _ _ _ _ $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ui > I Wl U'MWMl.’ J-TkiMirC ni'CTrC I AltrTMWi* U'» * lu i- 1 V ^ V» J !.'■ ii it I i u'w'ViL u' “ f rc ki Vr V»w'i ei-M wVV#VV ruzric U I n 11. w V fc.W'V • vvi.W'V YOU rf274340 COOl ROi T07: 06/01/ $200.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling ~ 101 cu. yd. or more - , ^ u a Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of ^akeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule Renewal Fee - $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHEF APPLICATIONS $200.00 Comiaercial 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 PROPERTY ^ Present Zoning District L. ~~ [ I Present Use of Property (~AMH.YResidential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION.OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: \mA<o€ tf. J ^■Hot>A6 Cot,LAP.<?«^AU;Ay ~ ■ /tCi iQ 2 j* ^a^41l~Tp ----------------- - ------------------------------- ----------------—_ -—-—--------------------------------------------------_ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. i/Completed Application Fonn. 2. i^ertified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtai this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Governmen Center 348-3271). *3. ■ L'Plat Map. 4. ^Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor)’. 5. *^T opographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 6. ^Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. you ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (ll* X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Departm»^‘nt that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff; Date 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 unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied i., true and correct to the best of his/her )cnowledge. Applicant's signature Date 93 OWNERS SIGI4ATURE The owner hereby aclcnowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. . Date / 9 JS_ _ _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 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 advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Robert H. Owens 1700 Bohns Point Road Wayzata. MN 55391 May 27. 1993 Zoning Department City of Orono P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 SUBJECT: LAND USE APPLICATION EMERGENCY REPAIR Ladies/Gentlemen: This 'otter will provide additional information concerning our Land Use Application dated May 27. 1993. This Application covers the repair and rebuilding of the storm damaged bank above the shoreline of our property on Lake Minnetonka. This was caused by the five inches of ram on September 16, 1992. As your records will indicate, more than 150 lineal feet of shoreline collapsed in the "100 year rain" of July 1987. This was rebuilt during 1988 at a total cost of $70,000. Because of what is believed to have been defective design and workmanship, a portion of the bank collapsed again in the September 1992 heavy rain. A permit was issued for the repair in 1987 without a Land Use Application. This is the reason an Application was not made earlier. As the photographs indicate, only a portion of the bank has collapsed. However, a "tension crack" running parallel with the crest of the slope indicates possible failure of the entire bank. This could spill over into the lake, and the repair would be a great deal more costly. The project has been studied by the consulting engineering firm of GME Consultants, Inc. and by McCombs. Frank, Roos Associates. Inc. in order to arrive at a method of repair and rebuilding which would be permanent. This has resulted in the combination of earth moving and retaining wall construction shown on ihe enclosed plans. The GME Consultants ’ report is enclosed. It inoicates three possible methods of construction. Two of them show the use of retaining walls. The third indicates cutting the bank back so severely that it would cause us to lose significant large trees very important to our property and a large part of our yard facing the lake. I am prepared to provide additional information for your engineers if this is required. We respectfully request approval of this Land Use Application as soon as possible. Sincerely. ROBERT H. OWENS 1700 Bohns Point Road Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 June 17. 1993 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Day. Minnesota 55323 RE: LAND USE APPLICATION OF MAY 27. 1993 Dear Ms. Mabusth; This letter will confirm our conversation concerning the status of final design details. As covered in my letter to you on June 11. 1993. the lake shore bank design by our engineer, GME Cons 'tants. was submittea to your engineer and to you last week. The final Geogrid remforcemer* npsign was not finished pending soil test borings which have now been completed. Fin^. ‘nn wiil be completed and sent by fax to your engineer and yourself Friday, June 18. . 3. As stated earlier, after this second failure of the bank, we have gone to considerable expense to investigate and design a permanent repair. Our Consulting Engineers tell us the combination of retaining walls and Geogrid fabric is the way to accomplish this. Had I understood tn .equirement for a Land Use Application and not just a permit, this process would h ' -e started months ago and the bank would already be restored. As it now stands. I am very concerned the work is completed before more of the bank collapses into the lake. Please call me if you require anything further. ft O’REPORF no. Plf«J5<«01 PACE 1nal design details.'e bank design by our to you last week. The est borings which have 3y fax to your engineergone to considerable jiting Engineers tell us to accomplish this. not just a permit, this sady be restored. As Dre more of the bank 58 16-117-25 22 0002016A0 BOIP)S P01t<r HO OSD DUNLAPDAVID J « DIAUE J OUtILAP 10<iO OOIIN3 POIlir HD MAY2ATA t«< 5559158 16-117-25 22 000501725 DOlINC POim HO T 8 J FELOMAUM TERRY 8 JULIE rCLOMAflTI 1725 00I1N5 POim ROAD WAYZATA MU 55591 58 16-117-25 22 000501700 OOlItJG POIMI RO RAC outM3 ROO':Rr II 0I1EM3 1700 BOMN3 POIMT ROAD WAYZATA MM 5559150 17-117-25 11 000101665 D0IIM3 POIMT RD 1ST IMIERSTATE DK-SO TRSTEE T PEMMY GAMIOHO 1605 K0IIM3 POIMT HD WAiZATA tUJ 5559138 17-117-25 11 000800050 ADDRESS UMA5S1GMEDC K MEMMAM JR 8 M M GRAYDOM K MEMMAM JR MICHELLE M C MEIOIAM 1655 nOIIMS POIMT RO OHOMO ini 55591 MEMMAM • 6; f. AM ACCURATE AMO TRUE CATE OM THE RECORDS AXATIOM, T^^HE BEST 'i J ^ .* » • • \ / I .• • V V ./GME COIMSULTAIMTS, INC.Eim CONSULTING ENGINEERS MCCC21;tAvf No '.Vrreaccf.s, M.': 55447 Pbrne (6*2) 559-1659 "a« 512) 559-0720 #1 October 19, 1992 Mr. Robert Owens 1700 Bohn Point Road Orono, Minnesota 55391 GME Project Mo. 3766 : Preliminary design concepts for the_shore line slope repair at 1700 Bohn Point Road in Orono, Minnesota Dear Mr. Owens: This letter presents the tesults of our field surveying and preliminary design concepts for the shore line slope repair at your house at 1/00 Bohn Point Road in Orono. Authorization to perform this work was your acceptance of our contract addendum dated October 9, 1992. This report concludes the scope of services described in our contract addendum. Project Desctiption We understand that the slope along the Lake Minnetonka side or ycur prooerty failed during the "superstorm” of 1937. In 1933, the sicpe was"repaired by Outdoor Environments, a landscaping firm from Shakopee. You stated the slope was stabilized by placement or georabric. The slope was reshaped and fill was placed with a small^ bulldozer. The fill was common borrow and contained broken pieces of concrete i.rom a razed beach house. During the heavy rains in the week of September 13 through 13, 1992 approximately 5 inches fell one night and caused a failure of the m-d- section cf the slope. You stated that prior to the failure, the crest of the slope had experienced some settlement. During our si^-e visia on October 8, 1992, we observed the failed area but did not see any qeofabric protruding from the exposed slope. You have subsequent-.'/ learned from t.ne contractor t.hat geofabric was n^ placed curing original slope repair. Also during our visit, we observed a tens-^-n crack running parallel to the crest of the slope, approxi.mately back from the edae. This crack traverses almost the entire length o- the slope. You stated that this crack is located at the approximate boundary between the fill and the natural soil from the initial slope repair. Scope of Services WILLIAM C. KWASNY. PE. GREGCPYP REUTER. PE MARK 0 MILLSOP Thomas paul venema. pe WYATT A GUTZKE. PE SANDRAJ FORREST .In E djJ' OooortuTTitv WILLIAM E BLOEMENOALPE. MERVYN MlNOESS. PE. STEVEN J RUESINK. PE. Mr. Robert Owens GME Project Mo. 3766 Results October 19, 1992 On October 8, 1992, the writer and an Engineering Technician obtained elevations along three survey lines extending from the existing house perpendicular to the slope and ending at the edge of Lake Minnetonka. Line 1 was established approximately 20 feet south of the north edge of the house; Line 2 was established approximately 50 feet south of the north edge of the house; and Line 3 was established approximately 75 feet south of t.he north edge of the house. Attached are the cross sections based on these elevations. Line 2 was established through the existing failed tone within the slope. As can be seen from the attachea cross sections, the slope is divided into approximately two portions. An upper tone having a sideslope of approximately 1.1 to 1.5 horizontal:! vertical; and a lower zone having a flatter slope of approximately 2 to 3 horizontal:! vertical. Based on the preliminary data, it is our opinion that it is the upper steeper zone that is marginally stable. Based on our engineering assessment of the cross sections, we submit three possible remedial schemes: 1. w • 3 . Reshape the entire slope to form a flatter, more stable configuration Construct a double retaining wall eliminating the existing sideslope Combination slope vith reshaping and a single retaining wail We have included preliminary drawings outlining these possible remedial measures. After discussing these with you, we understand that reshaping the entire slope is undesirable since this would require losing a large amount of ground and trees. If one of the two remaining schemes is chosen for slope repair, it is important that the existing fill soil be removed and replaced in a properly compacted condition. The natural soils should be benched, and the fill placed and compacted in horizontal lifts, thereby eJ.iminating the creation of a potential failure surface between the fill and natural soils. In addition, the use of a geote:<tile behind the wall would be beneficial for stabilization. It should be noted that alternate 3 would be less costly than alternate 2, since a rouah budget estimated cost for tied back timber retaining walls is about $10 per square foot of wall. A ALLAN BLOCK RETAINING WALLS RIP RAP LAKC: GLOGRID AS REQUIRED 120 - 110 }-m 111 w zo I— < > 111 100 TYPICAL SECTION AT MAX. WALL HEIGHT ALLAN BLOCK RETAINING WALLS OWENS RESIDENCE ORONO. MINNESOTA OME 6/i0/93 GPR * 0 n L\ ^.-.0, cr ") 'J ) .V >: •» w’ * ^ • *- I It f^- ' ■ V ■ ’ - V'-* V' - ’•*• •. • ■is^^T..J,. v'f • ;V.^ ?*« * B-r’:.,.:...' :-£’-r '.' V ' • ' ^4. ■" fi- ' ■'.' ,5::^- - ;■-Pi•'llp^ ti.i.:r ^.- •: -<*••"•-'• 'iv •• -------if.*. .1 I ^*- ■ • • ^'' iSir ^^■■4' , ■■ . \ • • rx- , . f* •-vi . ‘ •tv » K » ■'*w*vw »:' t;i*:-. .w ^CS:- tev; : Vfca!^::-;^/,, ; ■ ' >' . • . ’^ ■ - ■ ^;-vx‘;.^: ;.t ..■ • , • "V ■■ f'"-.;'• ■ ' .;■ ' -f- , . >■ VjKvViV: : . X , .>■ ■ -i; ,■>* .' i ■ ■' 'i.j{'.'"*' '' -r ■ "■’Sis. ^.u.Vi:-: '•.. »■' '.v.'i .W • T-; .•».-;<;•. ■ :iV^t*V ■ • .T^-:--.,v ■* •'VV'a ■ * ‘ ' sS*' -■ • i '''Vi.;;-.' S iJ;" ■ ■„■ •' . f :-.l''"*''^’ ^.■';i‘- - • Z’ i: s— ii- -jtt. lEL'^ 1u . ■. '» M Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects June 8. 1993 0**c O Pf PcCfT '.I S'c pf • .V'-rC*' C t P£ r I Sorv.lM P£ F PF ^F. r '. %•?' P? Prc«^ G iL^uri-r p£ V F.*!**' '1 C ‘“■'I V.J'3 A '*? i? PF \.V PF Gc*'. .J O Pf Pir-T C P-;ie« * ^ r*". * Or^j'^c'' p* V^'4 A -‘rffisor PF PP Vj < J PF D o '' 9C V. Fu'»;a'3: C Ar.}^, P£ i*rje Martn?* P£ %*C** »^ P P£ P'' r . p.'*e p£ V P r4 A . C P 'A pf ■'T !.■.•'•:*' PF ^ *.*A j’^': PF G P»rr:'‘ p£ Af'*''efn P Arjefso'’ PF V«.f. 9r pf Vj. A >- PC Ga'', Xf p£ Ga^'e ^ F:;?-,- Ofc A ar 4c« '*£ p'' 0 J CavAf ’E D Aa s PF V ^•- ? P£ L P*': O G'JV* Pfc K4»T^ I A PE C).»'^v 0 *^ f.* PP f- V>>J P- '*-' P£ AT"*' P *ary p£ O-^utias J Senotf PB D GiiWaf*.on PF Cfc<y O’. A' PE A F'fASOO iPO V Pj.v^W> Ha'^an *.? 0'«3.'' ja'*^i P Er'^'hamt r Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal B.ay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Robert Owens Shoreline Repair File No. 139-1838 Dear Jeanne, Subsetjucnt to our inspection last Friday, we have prepared this letter regarding the proposed shoreline repair and retaining wall on Robert Owens property. Tlie proposal is to construct a timber retaining wall at the top of a 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope. Tile previously constructed embankment was constructed at a 1:1 or 1.5:1 slope and has sub.sequently failed. We feel that the proposed 3:1 slopes and 4 to 6 foot wall is feasible but more detailed plans will be needed. The wall will need geogrid ties or another approved support system. W'e do not recommend timber retaining walls ns a permanent solution. Concrete modular block retaining walls are a more permanent and expensive option that should be considered for this application. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONFSl ROO, ROSFNE, ANDERLIK c'c ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson. P.E. ' 2335 West Hl'^hway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 ■* • T» -»-’«'!----- --- _^... ■ ■ ' •” I • "5 rw... k : ■ im. :<;■ , ■ . :-►.»> • *< - . - • • V I • j r i:^ ... .^ iw\ *• V H- *« ><4 ^ .’/i * . •■ .ft- 4^^.,. . .1 • -.V* *, . %» S: - . .................... ■.. ■• - y /• .. •> Rf'?- ••••■'• iv■' ■''• i / .. . . i.♦ •,... • V - V . - • •if ; ••♦ • • . . ..• < • • • i mm ,• \ •• ^ .4 . . ^ S .^ • ••\ .TT'-p — — ' M . ■»*'. ,-• •' ■«•*;• • * ■' V 11 [/-j ♦-'1 vv'j '*‘3 ^-v . e; V- >V **!• - i'M • 5 ‘ ;•' • * t;nr- 1 Swtf^ !?, !«f f .Vw. ,1 , , _'• ■-•:■■ ■■'■-.v'% •* < .. ? t.'. ■ '. • 4,’%^ Hmft -•,: n.»w irc j «ow ''•••• j*r» '>• •:«<, *f ^ mm 0^ ^ TttMli .^. .- .r • • 4 ' fl ^44 * ’V V ■’■ * ■*.* *■'"* w -■ r?:^ - ■■■'j,' . ■ * .i/v% • i*.**’*'"» ,.T# •>. .;•»' ^ «f;.* %* » • . . • V • ■^ '''r-. ' ■ V rs. ?fir? ^ _____ .. . ........ _. , Ct V»!» ^9 'W*f t- 1 I ... ii V - .»» !• 5^**» *ff'‘f**.**^ •'f. •••!«? nmmx Vi, *.W, ‘ -' #-•. ;?■■'•• ' *^. *• ^ ■’“•i*** •»> WWW v.»» ■ i**„ ■ ■•• ■ v>K.ri V,5 ■ * 1- . ’ t ■ »»■ • *• , , ■ i, ; f -n- ?''■•.■ T?»» •9«f^ mrmm ♦?>* aaQ^icfttffi. ■.‘A '^- ^ r*5;>«w wt H XW wwt ^ w «e». Itn niw fw w yttr. •■•* • -'.'It «*4 f. • ^ * *‘.'^.^.5’ ‘ . • ,1. r*. >*. ntm «. ncxoR mo Msoeiurts • X' 0 ~ .... . ,. ' .-..•I •/'/■•V .^,... jTs^ • 4 . ...i.i .. ' . ", ,iV ■. h-J". ■■ :'•• : : '-;- ♦ yV'., <•'-.,-4» *_«^ •c*• •-c*M -I • •• «• .* • ..•* •*> . ; r- •-. ■ - •. ^. 1* *. I • ^ .***, • ■• Vi’ .’ • ,'> ■•■y- ■' • ■ i- ■..••■• . mm •-•'>'-■ - ' ■ «; •• ; •• »4 I • ^ - - '^V’* * . !'.-. • SV-* • i ?>-:■ n. • t m # • m « • »m A It 4 '« m #1 '• #• i» • •»«' >♦. *4«? ,,, Cfff tai M %^1t1 J««* • i« *# ^09 #««.•/ 4m»0 .^4t 4M «4HM l^'. • ••4* --.« i.. ^.•.ii:;»':u«*.‘iIS MtM •• f9lmf «<»«» - 1709 %(%«*• 1 m4 '•. •#f# .r:. , ti «««U «• t* mm <H| m mmnmm tm 9* «««M«i tW flM m4 w*Mt—ttw m «l«t tH» viM »m 4t«t«M#a fr«* tl*# \»** t» Mch wall Wf«r# •# ««• ••I# • ««•• pl0t0 rmi0¥. -]|r If JfM !»•«» My 9«MCi«M, flaM* «M»««e tOI» •ffic». -i-. -'r •*•'■ *C' - «r'*^ fVi •« \\. lit tMM «*ry tf«ly* Mwmoo. Mtem. mniux • uwcTAm. iw.r* OtMP 9, Co«k CICjc ! &;':W:-. .‘•Meaik^ *J» ■ J iT ^ 4 ^ «• • • .»■» a •.V-*--.?'":VVK:.;.,.; 4 •»• •'‘* •■ :r-:-v^r V*•■A I « - - . ->5^ • :vr>, IN . .V-4-- - '■»: • ' * - •• • •»• •'^ . - r • - .• >« *^-** ' ■* ■••*. -» '^r* •V,* *.* '.v: ;v-r. * “r,V4 « ’ '■ ^i.' •'•*".■ > J*-* *. . .. -r •:'■*; ^ ’ •» ‘ .vv.'^ "’' ' "v-y/.^iV^ ••’•rif, >.?/. ‘. 'V' a 0>.'r« 4--* '«** • '-vfjvi'4''-. # '■ • -■; il m »#•*' j «f •• /.-V i'iyife- -4 .%#p-- ‘-.* ■h»^ .4vi ■■ ■ ;^- , ’ i ^ I ...... ^ . • . ... V''-mi .** • ^al. • ' -.'V y . i r-i m T m • •' i# • • •iy 'r* • • .';-*^ ■* ‘ • . ..• \;*JVV. ,» •. •', ' .. .....* t {. r *••• .1 V . J ' ** « .^,1- • ■^^:-.*C» *’t- -• ^ * v: .- ,a* r .t.Ofc. i'. . ^ .S. .; .-. .. ' - i .N,ar- ^V J. . • *. ' . cm.,-' -s' ,*:•■• r:- ^ f ;• V* ft f • '', ^ -. . t • -A • • r -V. ; * x.>;i,* •.'• •. ..,. *vv . ^ • •• j/.. •'• « •'^ ^ . ^j .4 • * ‘ • •;»• - / ' . • • fc *• '• ••*#.’, • ! •» ♦••• • •• I. •' •* 9T . /• ^ ' * . .T,Vi^it* *vW /;• • '••*•• #• ii •r • - , • t % #M^* * ‘ •• -W •w' *.o/^f -~SV*'* tvo't ♦ . #•• '*••#•• • •» ■• •^m y • . W# 4? J r-: % • - . %. . V . » ^ k « • j* • • . ♦ • I|s:^.... li-i. ,r».4 - , «p ■ •<> • V '' V ^ • »• •• -m • ■>»■ -t r •• •r*- ■ ’ **•: V *.* ■.». ‘ ■»•• > / '• ^ ••• •■ • . mm- m 40 • •••!!%•# • ••» Ml • t: ,' >' ' >41 * -«*• W • .*^Vi { • 4,»-;'m- -•■‘J , >• 0 • 1. * •4*4 -■ ,*' '%'ff •' * '•■•‘' ^ ‘ ^ f . * .'4 / -. .^.•-/ * *• B ^ '* . ,rjy , f , / ‘ ,t ^ ,.v . V V «4< •i 4 4»V/ 'V*i \1 .*, »••;»■ ‘'.i -i* jj t ; i* %h‘ '7 .. •- , , k.»' ■•, .■-• **■>»', •* ■'"i '*••»,• rIN* ^ 4 ■• • t-■V ' f iir'i’V "> •- 'V , •'itipif); vttfsmt K.> Jf V . #- • ■ <> 4.-J>4 ■VI. ,4\r p:; , (Vvu.: • 4.-V - , •^■ V ■*■'*. ■ I# ' *,-:»-?*■"• •■■■ V, . .-' ■^:i* r-':,v'' •* v *.*w. , 4'.'*’" i i ^t .'V tfW ■■*,■ »,/ ■ . ''»n4y» y'y m ' 'll**"' '*. nBRflRSTBPf t>?^' i • rtiKKi-nf ■'i-^-Sf ■' ••*“• m f%ipk(0m H*. 1 r Nr# - ^ . 1 . .t f •• 4« U>4|r#id m •> ^z^Jr..•*.**^3 ^ «Xi ...'„ #*4-* !5 ---------90Km U^tfMArf s «M| iMM t^ ........iaS;g^ Z.^ji v^- \ rji*- Jf V^i f ^ * f V’% . ', 't: .’•'■'■' - , \- y *'•.i , .-V‘.y\/y r--^'•i '^T. ' V?V- -*t * •';i **»%fe*>VV*^* *>f#^ • ^ * 5. -A *• * * "" ’ ’v.’*'- - * **: • * V •* * •* :* ' i: . . ’ . • •• **'•’*• « • •*- * -,. • * .:i5 W '■•* .* ‘•- '"‘Sin i,.; 0 a-.' , V . *.•!, '* *X----- * n A .. . ' *v ' •*♦ * • •^>. . W r, ^ 7* M'tv*!-•<■ »♦>•• ' -♦ i / :^. -’ •■'.* V *v»* t'**- *• • V- ‘ ' -*. •4. ^-r t - . .•it-* -. i..: . -* j V •! . 0*' -“l ^ ^ V f :• ■ -„.-.r»*-# •' •• I.. •» • • * •<'•^rc**** ••v'5'^ .j ij 1 % . -•: %v « ♦ / «*i>- V. « •• •• • • • • •V#-# ^1 < •• •« -*•«'I •»v .y .. : ; *» ^♦ r.-..^ .V. »n ^' .» I* ^ Vi .tA ^.; r- • :x‘V'V l/0*>».|V •»*'*• #.•«l [^VV. ■ fe'ljv- ■ • i* ^-i Xj^^Ck **i ^ str‘0^' T ^ -V > V>. >'jtj’ "-■^r : ■ : r^*- *^-,, 4^. * T* • »- ». -.. • • j. * • ■ '•^•■ >■ Jr-. ■im 1r- • •• Ifp.-" ->»• ■ -.-V' ..V * •-V* • I* .i .*-*4i*-• <;{# • •*••• t * cec '^:j* •» Y>’V •••>• • s ,.v .. ' .’i . . %pii ■m VJ- V' »i II'" /! y <k ^ ; *■y: ■ .* •>' V--''•>HVyvvr»)i^.V-■ V vif.^V) P “WNf^TOR . -•rr-T-J- • * i 1 V ; A •. .♦ • «.• •<•' •.*%♦• > -•• «M»|»«*ni *■* i!*8:*/i VV.:. lAH-U/l » • ••<• •»ns>v.’ir&rA ■——ife H v.*» ^^f»' FSMARKS:\ r. *; -;• • #> * * - 8 •/ t*'* # • «<y .*s *: --i ‘’;V 4-p. V • • L ■• ■i' ■ psi-.#' L'.-.V . A. ^vr:^m « •: . .• t7i . t ^ ,• . ♦ ; ■ V,>‘:V-C'-i -•ivrv irr- •;' V •6 rw -<0w4’ •%•* V ,•' •'*- > . ?l»!^ V-?V ^ ^■ ‘ ■ • '‘^ ‘ ‘ - '■ . . - ^ . . . ■ - r’ '■••%' - V *• • i V . i“y:. • . i -r -istt. •' %t. .-I-'• k.* ^ . V\^' f • >>•■• • *;• r y/T>r . •. ;• .% •• • v««* f • ,•,•.• * •• -t • •V.- ••.... - 1 * » - "I ;\ * I« * ■% *-V. » *»•. .■M ' .irl • -'r • t l<-y- ", ^ >V--» iV. *4»r »?.»« * ■ »f L"-‘> ■• v--“ P V •■•'■■'“> •••1 0 9 w.. *rv •!.■ :>:?l ■I _»'Jl 7'. *10.3*77 -i- .r>(fe ' ; V’>- M' .!. -Vl >::,i- A_ ;v. ^ T ' ‘ >h4 •it':-.*,,- . . ♦♦ . . ;• • - - • ■m \r»=?255•^SaSfrr.M- r. ^ f. 1, Ji. ®}«H> '-:*•<•■' * - I *• rnumum Js-awTBSittJiaa: ; ■ . — - -'_T‘ i h V ;>^vWi^s5w sss^ i T-^•*r. wm. ■:vf!--"-iij^ ffiteffffgaa r‘i ’?;'■ -: >H' rTir.- . >. ,.%.‘ioL. tsi-smsw .* ■ • t‘.l %>1 S>i ■ *'V . ■ C”% r . '.f: -■ • if*: Kf -.* I a -.'h-. A « ---------------------------------------- rwwiu \A. ^5; :' - If >■•.■.• H'!;^n-: •. '>/v- - ^ -<•: r.v ;<3C %' • »•'*.... ^4..r--rv - .;•''/ ,-* 4»-- *‘ • ; •.• .. '•*N« '.. •• * .♦*• *»« * • *^ *vS '•. .• t 1 » •.• .s *.* ,v • *.4^.^*** ■ * ‘ “.I***. ,r - « • > • . • A « *» • *• •*l .r •», ^ '• 1' -i' V*.’ *1 v;-; •* ■• ':.u • . - ■.-w *..*» ^ ■* . %/■;■ «f-.. ?. w/.••• 0*9 or •«• <!trr W. _J»4?7 . . t.0>» A , ., ■ V .. .f.f. •■ ..!,'■• •rr-., ./* <■'• ' >* It*-**' ..U.•» ^ *; r?'^. Kni-V*. • M*' 'vv:-.?- B :v,- ^..c.v.-* ■ *‘- ,«£Wv JS«3S; - •ri'.v'- 'l .., .. ».•, -‘v*. .*/.-. -' jiff, •>; fe-* V.r.A.: - •IP MUM^-T^t.yf -WM • ft '* t 9Vnm ‘Atm^ ^ >» "w»«iUKwe^VA - _____r^z ;..v;;>' ,• 7 -:> r •*■ A)^;3 . ♦ :• ' , 7 • •’'7-*'' ' 7 * ■■» ■ •• ’ ■ IV ■ . H*. • .'..- '*\^ i:- ••- f: ••' ,r. .%* • % mmm; u *. ‘»..7 t;*'’* •',. .^.i ,• ____________^________________________________________ V'y ■'■' -'.V ^’V '-■ '•• =- -'vA^vrSi - :-.A. :*‘W.j..' . ■•A.y...,'.y ’'A'..'' ''.v^f','- H I •; ’ A!; ;7A:•^•.::-1?..VV-■A•• ' I '• !•••.. V i •> . '^ ■ < M tvximmi '* < ‘4>3*. ‘ f 4.'t MM » .. -V A^; • ■- —■ ■ , •1 • •• i. -/ * ■ . .^ ' 2 • \ *V : ; M-:. SietmsSt 9mfk » imurntf ( t<^\: •_■ -•:. e »0799 9A, ^ «» *.f. •»S2 4#4 M.f, fiilMtl’^ **^*. ........... tsrmsjss^ ....... 'W,.: ri v!tr *.- ,llJ' ' ■**.'• ;• ■■ V.*'.^x ♦»• •» Vi- -<-«i-- * . **..'• -•••y ■■* > *.- -. - • » -1^* •V.‘-X ... ■ -,v'- fAV;.. -* »*'•*. ‘ .‘.V . ■* .. j;; ^ • ••■» • '' • >' '■-” ‘ . 'A' .............. r ,.- i4- --------- */•./ w. ?«. '. '• —1 r mi y -r.A. , k.i-• . ; •• A'V' .-?rt7 ■ 1 1 1 .- -• .V ’^AjAV............................................. pAS?':A..Aiy-:V7 ..V" : AV -. ■ .-A'f : VM.k . ■ ’ r V’.; m.-:-P'\ ' r-* ‘4/- .tv.'f ■ - i«^-> ?...r-v^-.w l,»l* KM 1.1i —^ *'"' ■'TTT.IV V=** .* *•'** •' ^.'----------:• V -i'- ‘ V .•: VV-- ‘ ■ lf^■' •' ■ ' •• ■ . • *.;4 . / • • a %<■ « k' . - a* • . 'V .a- -• - - *.. r % \ • % I »•^•« *1-m ■<*■*• •• 4 ■ *v -. 4.r*,'^ •v •' . ^ *.. .^. i>* •• -• ^ ,/ • ■ - -•■'■- ■ ■ -i* ,-• ' .■ V . . » .. 0 , .$ ■ v/- '.-^ -r...v. 'a ?Vr-'V'; -- o«THtefTveoMN6tt w . ‘ .vrv . ^ ' * 2j3t-i._-‘-y'? *^ A •I v*^ » A - li,::.r.\\ ■ 1?'.# ^ ■ >M :-;v';►■ ■'; '■'/ V ' •,?v-. .1 '■■ ■'.a.C.i,' 't ,;', JImiimM •>«% ^ fvt9ff» *»«s« «>i.e yugitg^y ^ «*r «s«9anai *s» •^4 'if'Xy .*.n •*»?*«•%£«» «mwwmii% ♦ ♦,V'- - y- yuawc 3. TlTwitllm <!WiiiMi<l w4«% «^4« twwJlvtlMi f«* ^ i^wwpp.w «!» $mlSmai^» W «*% ^smrai^ai,^ «ilv M0 twwrt 1S»* .•»n-!?aft«4^b» £•» ^ Vs-'.Xtfl?** «4t!)la «iM T^» •? '•-'*<?' ‘•* ‘ 'lr*i*«4.\ ny»"cynl> or tJi4» v«tr?.«i»«« «!it4*<* «mn ^ -i#•.’ * ■ a‘ .... 1 * • ••'■'A. •*>.%•''.'Vji 42»0. V ...... •«• ▼4*4n«4»« «?? •»» a#«-^«^i4^)iww »KH ••!? •mrt^ •??.-!*4 »»*5f»w».*.lfsali? *I!S? a«n>«rr/r* r?"* •' ■ ■ ,>S. 'i- . ■. , y-''' . ‘ :‘’vr: •<'/ Wi'rlP^ wisi«r» Hatm ^ vcw.; ^i,. y j »*«p4»4«# w’ fliHir. M «i«*BieN»Sl# ao a »106 5* 9!m mim»& Mi «MifM4 HatMy MMM M jMM »1M1M III «M» mSm at «t«l« «f tM fil—iy* . - V:. 1£* hia >.aMra* •e aMa »*» >', !>«, .■;, V r- ;• ‘ ^ ’-•‘■a' i- >,*!:». a.- •/ ■■:>V-A7^J-i«-' a - ■ ■-" t *4iu ••W - 4W»a. »<«.,. u .. a«»^ ;. i-‘■ ..■• '* • %y, iiKas® ', ■-' ? >• t-v?,'- ;>i4s - V'i*'.’C-- ' •: .V •Vf ...•-^ 1 'r V . ' ' V* I’aV'. ^ r- ±'yyy.--'‘!i;:^?wsym^'v- 'n.' ■■^‘ ':y*-'j:i,v.';sB| .*. - R®§#: i'-’W* . ‘ * ■ - .a. ' < TT ji ■ • • - • i • * . •»- .♦ » ., - •'i » ■ l ... . *v J* ,, • .*’»i ’Vi- .V ■ V 3^ ’^v’ i. „ V* i'/N fess^'l , ...‘vV ?*•: aiu.-v; - ,.^ v«,a^ ♦ «ai4 ’ -^> ’,1. ,•<A» ;:n7? »*«&.• f. ■». *i'-;V ■-•■•fr ■!-^~ *- *.■•' 1^ * ■;y:.*«».»- -»*'.,,’ *■ \ ’•iaV-.-.’-. j; . ,,-5 ;V^.ga■ 'iMymm^rn •* .. > • * - aj />■ , -wv ^ :. X . '•,!>• r.\ ‘•a a ■■ ■'■ ■-- ■ a, ?>-•-■■■■=•' «y ■ ■.>:? ' h- • .V - #.; •» ..J-> < VVJ> — «•• .’ ^ y-• V •• ^ ■ •a* - .4"# ^ X: r. _.- -.' Vi* m§^r-:‘::,y.. >)-i4,-' „ •*, ■7‘‘.V' X' ■ a"^-. 1 •i ■; >*-'.^'' t- ■''•V' . ...a---It. . V ' • ' »|y »■■•«** »• ♦■.- «» . .... 'u . v< '>: ■' ..■ >*■ w ' • "!!'• yjsy^^^:-r ■ -'-yym' *'\‘X '■*.'" ■ '"^s' ’ *■ '*H'' ■ wfj&ayyr.' ' m> yw .-r».' lie, 6 J r C .» ror •. J R o o 2«' t' O w f ' 0 ni .fc Uo.i 1^*1 cUnT'*'^ are from plats of record or Information provided by LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC UND SURVETORS REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OP MINNESOTA 7601 • 13rd Avenue North 560-3093 tOl. k- Minnrapoli^, Minneaota 55428 #untrgiira (BerttHratf I I 1 XV<■br* p 5 * c:>c i- hC^ iiOk^S iiai \Za. i ^ C ^ I -Ti' .1*. Pu ^ ‘ ill uSil 08'HI '04‘,1 Wi hefehv cefttfv ttiat thil ia M Imo *nrl rArr^t 4 -2 0 :2 i 111 J i -4 '■4 <4- ■* 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & W| Associates Engineers & Architects Ori*C’ »*f // • C h! Mj-'w* k vrr>^*i f U**r^ j I .«ii h», •*> Ci >• •'t h» <4/*.... M C - ^ *'« I «W t •WMit.li'l A ■ >• ».d h .'2 :?JV.'I ^ ftUfCn t A| A A •tk«i.:iM. 8{ A 1*1 M^njr I V.^4»*sirkn >ii e »w-.i rt w A I A .•Jura'll f t^u-;jftn rj .%»**,in 'A i* f*f *iu /*c to j Av*** Ajrti *V li A ic r T aot'ji W A^rvd* >*i V .-••Jr* C V/*^^ ;jf^$ < **f >''V * ??wn .'r ^ A^ftwin hf Vj.'Ii I ilc ?l ^u•t A !ca Gary W Mg^n CA-te: / tc^rr »► AAIA kf AWL i CevAcn !• VWU^i ^J H in«w^» I i<« .i|i .a ri , v^-ie^r fr< Af- Cj»y f> «vv»/</ rj S Ti.ilfirt'fi »l VyA 4# '** . a«n;« !•» \n.*wi fi %.vjfw*t Af <n ' • 'v« f*< f h4*r\ ^ IM kw.ti M l*.A«^^iy •l^'Ofl V f*4tiv* U»r^\ f » June 21, 1993 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Robert Owens Shoreline Repair File No. 139-183$ Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the soil boring logs and construction details for the proposed concrete modular block retaining wall on Robert Owens’ property. The proposal is to construct a two tier wall with 3:1 (horiaontai to vertical) intermediate slopes and geogrid restraints. The previously constructed embankment was constructed at a 1:1 or 1..5:1 slope and has subsequently failed. We feel that the proposed wall is feasible from an engineering standpoint Due to the marginal soils in the area (some clayey silt), close construction supervision is recommended to insure adequate compaction of the embankments. The soil should be placed at near optimum moisture conditions. This may require that moisture correction techniques be used If the soils are overly wet or, veiy unlikely, dry. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERT.IK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. E 6125590720 Gi^E C0N?iX7-n T5 INC F-UJl T-3T8 P-007/009 JUN 13 ’93 14:14 UMDIMS GSm FIML SU)FB TO 3(H) X 1(V) A 0 W BEMQfVB UMSOPE iVC^S lU.^ f i 0 10 FIST RBIA]• ;u mu. jJKxncHs *(>^111 QBQMD. KD > • GME CONSULTANTS, INC. 14O00 21M Av«mi« Monti Minnoapolit. MN 55447 6/93 C3766-i^ L- (0 ^ TO:Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admi^tr^iltt ^ ^ ,, % June 22, 1993 Joint Use Dock and Marina Licensing/Section 5.42-5.43/Revise Drint - Add Minimum Operational Standards and Revocation Clause (( List of Exhibits A - Memo and Exhibits of 6/11/93 B - Outline of Current B-2 Section C - Licensing General Requirements Section 5.03 At the June 14th meeting. Council tabled action on the licensing amendment and 1993 licenses pending further discussion of what "conditions " might be written into the license, and what types of activities should trigger revocation. It was also suggested that language be added to allow revocation. I have reviewed the B-2 Zoning Ordinance and picked out those site operation activmes which if not adequately managed result in marinas not being a "good neighbor". If Council agrees that the main thrust of the licensing should be dealing with site operation rather than the physical aspects of the site, then the following two additions to the December 1992 draft Section 5.43 should provide the City with good site management controls. Revise Headii^ for Draft Subdivision 5 Subdivision 5. Business Use License Standards. Businesses required to be licensed under this section shall adh ero-te be subject to the requirements and performance standards of the B-2 Zoning District and per the following provi sieas business use license standards: A. (No change from previous draft). B. (No change from previous draft). Add Subdivision 5 (C) "Operation Standards" C.Operation Standards. Each business licensee shall adhere to the,followin g minimum operation standards: Paricinp facilities on the site shall he managed so as to eliminate traffic.,Q£ parlcinp congestion, eliminate illegal on-street psyKthgi ——9V2.id pede.strian traffic through neighboring property. f-. k- Memo June 22, 1993 Page 2 2.Boat engine testing and charging shall be limited to the hours 8:00 a.m, to 6:00 D.m. 1.Retail sales and seivice shall be limited to the hours 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. except as necessary to accommodate normal fishing activity or private use of premises stored boats. 4 The site shall he kept neat and orderly, and free o f garbage. 5.On land storage of boats shall be managed so as to eliminate anv view ohstnictioas for traffic entering and leaving the site. Parif jpg ap<| on-land 5storage of boats, trailers, materials and equipment chap hg limited to those locations shown on an approved site operation plan, which plan shall be submitted or undated as part of the annual license application. Such site operation Plan shall also indicate seasonally variable uses. T Lights shall he shielded from the road, the lake, an d adjacent properties Add Subdivision 7 "License Revocation" Subdivision 7. License Revocation. Failure to adhere to the business use liCfiPSe ctandarris of Subdivision 5) (A through C) shall be cause for license revocation per the provisions of this chapter. Staff Recc 11 il K- 1. Adopt the proposed joint use/marina licensing ordinance. Sections 5.42/5.43 as revised. 2. 3. Issue 1993 licenses to the marinas that applied for them. Attach a "license conditions" exhibit that includes the following information: The seven operation standards from Subdivision 5 (C). Notice that failure tc idhere to these seven standards shall be cause for revocation per the provisions of the code. Whether or not marina is authorized for fuel sales subject to compliance with the state fire code. Statement that marinas providing dock space shall hold a LMCD multiple dock license. 1 i 1 Memo June 22, 1993 Page 3 4. 5. r-.- ■ A notification that "this license authorizes the holder to operate a marina business in the City of Orono, but shall not be construed as vesting any rights to a specific type or level of activity nor to a specific number of boat slips or boat density". Per Council's discussion on June 14th, continue to collect information on applications for informational and documentational purposes. Council should set a date for a joint meeting with Planning Commission to discuss marina regulation issues as noted in the June 14th memo. Arr I I ■i > To: From: Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: June 11, 1993 Subject: Marina Licensing ^ fTVA'S II ^ 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 mimber of issues. The priority given to uiese issues nas 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 Codes can be revised to provide for eventual elimination of extrme non-conformities, then licensing could become merely a tool to annually monitor activity at mannas and provide minor revenue to cover the City s costs of regulating those uses and the problems they cause, i.e. parking, traffic, complaints, etc.4 ; J 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 magnitude of these problems is. For example, outside of the few ongoing complaints from 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 require detailed regulation of the marinas but they do require some level of overall control of the marina operations. This level of control can oe 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. This ordinance reflects the recommendations of the Lake Use Committee last fall. The proposed ordinance separates the Joint Use Licenses from the Marina ^iness Licenses. The Joint Use Section more clearly defmes what is and isn't consider^ a joint use. and sets tninitniim 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 the property 4. Limits business use license to the B-2 Zone. ■1 • \ I k 4 4 w J Marina Licensing June 11, 1993 Page 3 The draft Marina Business License Ordinance does noL' recjuire 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 mannas. 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 techiucally 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 'jatnple 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 iww. 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 informational purposes The conditions of issuance to be placed on each license can be limited to those issues the Council believes 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 B-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? Marina Licensing June 11, 1993 Page 4 2.Issuing a license without any reference to historic 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. 3.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 determining the amount of parking needed, etc. 4.Should the City simply identify an envelope and leave total discretion for ite 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.? 5. 6. What is the perceived magnitude of the problem, and type of regulation needed? The envelope concept is valid and could be structured to be easily enforced. However, possible pitfalls include: Marinas might not accept a restriction of their existing envelopes by requiring greater buffering or setbacks. Those that do might wish to solve lateral storage restrictions by building upward. 7.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. 2. Adopt the proposed Joint Use/Marina Licensing Ordinance, Sections 5.42/5.43. Issue 1993 licenses to the marinas that applied for them. Attach no "Conditions of Issuance" exhibit. On the front of each license indicate "this license authorizes the holder to operate a marina business in the City of Orono, but shall not be construed as vesting any rights to a specific type or 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 documentational purposes. 4.Set a date for a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss the issues noted above in relation to marina regulation. i 1 ■4 i 1 r 7 \JgrZS\Of^ SZC. S.42. JOINT OSZ OP XA3Z PACILIT12S. Subd. !• °®-^“ihe'’roMn-'ncs oiven'^thea:the following teras have the aean.ngs , • TDAf^nS & A. f this Section, nave - - -- - Slip, w®«r4r “h% doU?nr-«i-- aoch or other thing designed or used or„ wa-er, t?oring of %‘=«“,”“f°,fuo«^ devices.including' nvoor-ng p or -nd-^aeans a o"n {i1>d a«a%«2 ro*ri;=re. whether it is locate o 5ff°the licensed premises.w..>.---- emises. land , —stl^/ug%%”rr;en-b-It%raSon|-tera or or water used for ^ne s ygarly basis. land... .. .,«• nn;sr:,”,svi,'sv.tv.^ or water used for the temporary s.orag sSort periods of tame.sno£^ - - ' —«*-i» than two adjacent«T«-inc ase" means more tnan lalceshore activities:X More than two adjacent riparxan Ian ingJ-e au,-~. _ 2. An association of to'^thl lake riparian la»d°«nersj«iuh^^^^^^^ boat slips for sharing a docx ox the members. .-j _a. ^«iv. a. not rorthe members. boa“t‘»Spa lor »«akehold«s « overnight campia^ >.4, e "o- use ^wit"!oarlL^t‘°havtS| lbllined°an^luel ‘lice'nse therefor fron. the City. ■** -------------------------------------------------------- subd. 3. License Applicetij^n^. Any 2poordinance. Subd. 4. Public Hearing. hearing%on such application for license, ^^No'^^uch hearing shall be ;t^^it\l‘'a\^hTrncresf orth^e applicant in or denial. subd. 5. Joint Cse standards. Joint uses shall adher :o the following standards: A.. Any association t.T'^tho 'l’rk“'’which :*S ”es”, ne^^**^- 3 ,uch use shall .“f;® straight line between the points at LO,. 56..^_ pc zonino district by a Be Any joint use . providing transient boat louncile c. parkin, facilities no^t^^ hall be ®PPt°”^g•’need °*o°r *p«kin, on any street right-of-way. which creates the neea j^oj^ t' . c is hereby added as follows BCTION 2. section 5.43 iS her y SBC 5 43. MARINA BUSINESS LICENSE. . oefinitions. ;lg|: S:»a^%”^; and 4^SI- the neanings iven them in Section 5.4z. iven them: -="®i“*i”es? of “d"oc“kln;m«Ln5"o/Uo*/i4 rina business or the business ats. (j ■ f . • • in ori0 cr* r?*or ‘s • 3. "Manna aTlow'=‘Q within the of the permitted, accessory or condxuxonal B-2 zoning district. C. ••Business b^oyS: means renting or "ire oz mor^'boats belonging to |:^onfo\\"er"than tL^ownfr or "occupant of the property, excep. when licensed as a joint use. Subd. 2. License _ Required.is unlawful ouiju. —------T'7 ■. _a7X ,• ri Ansiness use without first givfng obta!nll"an aLK! Ucense therefor from the City. subd. ^ - persons making. Iroense app .hall provide such informationforms provided by the City and shall pro hdeemed necessary by the Council in by may be application ordinance. ?;rie%“for^li=ense applications shall Subd. 4. public Hearing. Dpon^ ^^^^Sfn°fuch^nSice "s'"!” ^ _ license, the Council may cal- a s^ail be mandatory, butde« Appropriate. NO such^ear^^^^^^^ ^ i„, ?t%1^eAre%°st°=f^e applicant in cases of license revocation or denial. Subd. 5. Business ^Jere to^tS^retirements and be licensed “the^ B-2 zoning district and per wheperformance standards of tne following provisions: os>i-rntred- Each business shall A. i^^ coverage for the provide certification of liability x delation of the license period B. The primary business «|«j;f ”ble“ tor nor&yi^9 shall be the siileeiaed on the premises., the City of any and j,* seoarately licensed ^“^,*5ht^B-2 riYo^^e^rcSr/AVnAin «■-"*' provision, of zoning district standards. Subd. 6. Business Use °®®^r^g^stit other than B- business use shall be use I except |^»Vs«ict, suci” use conducted in said district shall SS?‘£rrl^2a"ti“b«in a. license. i 'lOmJW «' l.^ef> im.«..<viiie>'./»W^e-ie'i x iaj.lt l.■le^lh».«».*^el —iw- =T r* i'- CITY OF ORONO License Year P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Phone 473-7357 Date application sent to Marina Date application returned to City ANNUAL COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APPLICATION - Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42, Subdivision 2 - Licensed Rec^uired^. It is unlawful for any person to engage or participate in the "business •■'f dcckuic, rn»'oi iiiu. or boats or (operating) a commercial boat dock business" without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPUCATION. REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY APRIL 15 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. RIJSINESS INFORMATION 1. BUSINESS OR TRADE NAME Street Address_____________ Mailing Address Marina Phone Office Phone 2.OWNERSHIP/OPERATION Fee Owner (if different than above) Address_________________ Phone 3.BUSINESS ORGANIZATION: (Check applicable item) individual ownership ____ partnership __corporation List the name of each partner or corporate officer and their title: Name of the marina manager responsible for daily operation: List the minimum number of employees on duty when the maniw is open to the public during the boating season: dock ____ repair or service personnel others available for sales/public information, etc. : *3 Page 1 of 4 List every occupant of the property other than the Business noted above. 4.PRINCIPAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY (Check all services offered): in-water slip rental buoy rental dry storage ____ winter in and out service boat clubs repair parts 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 List proposed hours of operation: dock access retail sales AM to PM & service AM to PM 6.MARINA SECURITY is provided by: CARETAKER living on site? _____ Sl ips AND BOAT I. List the maximum mimbet of boats in each category. Each slip, mooring or oto yace aca^y used for storage or keeping of boats or watercraft must be indicated and numbered on the dock and site plan submitted with this application. lte«,l Slips/ Other Toul Owned Boats Spaces Boau BOATS STORED IN THE WATER (for lake use) At dock slips ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- Total Boats in Water ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 7. a. 8.BOATS STORED ON LAND FOR LAKE USE a. Inside Buildings ------- b. Outside on Racks ------- c. Outside - other means ____ Total Boats Stored on Land for Lake Use ------- 9.TOTAL BOATS FOR LAKE USE (Add 7 and 8) Page 2 of 4 { r--’ 10.OTHER BOATS ON PRE.MISES (SUMMER) a.Transient boats (repair/service) b.New boats for sale (inventory) c.Used boats for sale (inventory) d.Other (list:) Total Inside Buildine Outside Building Total 11.OTHER BOATS ON PREMISES (WINTER) Transient boats (repair/service) Contract storage (customer’s boats) Inventory (new & used boats) Other (list: ___________________) Total Inside Building Outside Building a. b. c. d. Total OFF-STRF.RT PARKING REQUIREMENTS 12.SUMMER PARKING a. Retail sales/service customers 8 spaces minimum (+1 per each 800 s.f. over 1 b. Boating customers 6 spaces per 10 boats for lake use [.6 x__(line 9)] = c. Launching ramp customers (day use) 10 spaces minimum per ramp = s.f.) =cars cars cars TOTAL SPACES 13. WINTER PARKING [.2 X__(add lines 12a and 12b)]a.cars ICK CONSTRUCTION 14.CHECK ALL IHAT APPLY: Permanent ____ Seasonal _ Concrete __ Metal Foam Pilings: Decking: Wood Wood ___ De-icing normally used Metal Other___ Other Flotation Method (if used):Barrels Other Page 3 of 4 j attachments. The following must accompany this application: 1.A CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY indicating the boundaries of the marina property and the authorized dock use area, the location of all structures, storage areas, docks, slips, buoys, launching ramps, gas pumps and tanks, parking areas, access areas, fencmg and landscapmg features. The drawing shall be updated each year to show all existmg 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. 2. 3. A copy of your LMCD UCENSE APPLICATION. A COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APPLICATION FEE according to the current City fee schedule. Initial Application @ $300.00 Renewal Application @ $200.00 Each Boat Unit (Line 9) @ $2.00/ea Late Fee (if not postmarked by April 15) $150.00 TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION is received, the City CouncU wiU review ttelicetise application and will thereafter pass upon the application per the licensing procedures of Chapter 5. TUB MARINA MAY flPFN FOR PITBI 1C USE ONT,Y TIPON APPRPVAI.QEJ pv THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section5.42oftheOrono Municipal Code, theapplic^thereby CouncU to review this Marina License application, and agrees and authorizes the 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 Page 4 of 4 ii J II- ■ iTI ■I j •4 IV CITY OP ORONO EXHIBIT A resolution no. . rnuntTIONS OF TSStmNCE FOR COMMERCIAL DOCK LICEN^ I. LICENSEE Address _ • . I • 19 to Deceinber 31 ^ 19License Period - January - - II. BOAT DENSITY w —1 4 r>e 1 *1 f*hs and buoys shall not excsod The number of in-place boat slip ' Exhibit B^ and in accordance the number shown on the the^number of authorized boat sUps^Uf^^s? or buoys'LcLd the 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 Authorized Number of Winter Stored Boats i; . n/. k r Exhibit A Resolution No Page 2 III. DOCK LAYOUT (reference Exhibit B attached) IV. V. VI. VII. Maximum authorized length of maa.n dock feet. Docks extending beyond 200 feet and re«,ai"norc^n?o%":r^g 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. Marina (is) (is not) authorized for FUEL SALES subject t compliance with the State Fire Code. Reguired number of OFF”STREET PARKING SPACES SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this “ subiect to full compliance wxth these condxtxons. Faxlure t comply with these conditions is cause for Ixcense revocatxon and/or prosecution by the City. in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any '^^ht to use Lake^ nr Dr©ini,s6S in ct nifiinn©ir p©irinxtt©d by bni the use^of Lake Minnetonka and the premises ® to such requlations and ordinances as the City and otn cVetent regulatory authoricies shall deem necessary from time to time in the public interest. \ i i I 4 n. OUTLD4E - SECTION 10.41 B-2 LAKESHORE BUSINESS DISTRICT (Current Language Essentially Unchanged Since 1975) I. Siibd. 1. Purpose., o Original intent of B-2 was for limited commercial service area for recreational boats. Expansion of activity and vegetation removal have resulted in adverse effects on lake and neighborhood. Purpose is to provide for partial restoration of shoreland, avoid lake pollution, protect adjacent property values. Suhd. 2. ApolicatiotL o All building permit applications shall be reviewed by Council in. Uses. .Siihd. 3. Permitted Uses. A. Repair and servicing of boats B. Winter storage of boats. C. Sales/rental of boats, motors, fishing equipment and bait, fuel, boat supplies and marine items. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses,^ Sale of cigarettes. B. Sale of 3.2 beer or semps. C. Sale of prepackaged food. (NOTE: There is no ’Accessory Use’ section in B-2.) rv. Standards. .Siihd. 5. P?rK»"f ReQuireroents "Off-street parking facUities shall be sufficient to eliminate any^ffic or parking congestion likely to be caused by the busmess conducted... . 4 ^ ’ ‘ri ■ i .< 4 'f.i o o 6 spaces for first 1,000 s.f. of floor area per 10 land/waier slips. 8 spaces plus 1 space for each 800 s.f. floor area (Floor area includes warehouse and outside sales/additional storage areas related to sales and service functions). o o o 10 trailer spaces for each "day use ramp Spaces not allowed across roadway. Required parking may not be used for storage exc egt up to 80% of required parking may be used for storage October 1 to May 1. No paring in required yard or landscape areas ■Siihd. 6. Yards. o The minimum required yard areas (see Subd. 9) must be landscaped/pUnted. ■<siihd. 7. I.andscaDing Areas._ Tn addition to landscaping in required yards Minimum landscape areas: Lakeshore - 10% of lot depth; ^ 10’. ^ 75 ’; Breaks not to exceed 30’ total. Side - 10’ minimum (not in front yard or lake yard) Front - 10’ minimum, breaks not to exceed 50’ total Detailed plan - Landscape area must include: - "Natural woods area"; trees to be 6* minimum height, shrubs 2 minimum height. Not less than 50% opaque. No uses allowed in landscape area other than required landscaping and access roads. Privacy fence may be required, but fence won ’t substitute for landscaping. Use nursery stock, maintain in growing condition. f ■■1 1 *- ^ .1.1 • o All requirements of this section must be completed prior to Certificate of Occupancy or as otherwise provided. S Additional Performance Standards. o o o o o o o o o Sanitary facilities required, including boat pumpout. All access roads must avoid residential areas. All access road.s must be paved first 30 ’ or have dust control measures to match public road. Shield lighting from road/lake/adjacent residences. 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. boat engine testing/charging limitation, 7 00 a m. - 10:00 p.m. retail sales/service hours except as necessary to accommodate normal fishing activity or private use of premises-stored boats. Keep site neat and orderly. Keep site free of garbage, provide cans Commercial docks: May extend no further into lake tto is necessary to accommodate docking without causing obstruction. Length of docks shall be regulated by City Code Shall be constructed so as to be safe. Shall be maintained in neat and orderly marmer. If on-land boat storage provided, must not create a fire hazard. "Dry stacks" not to exceed 15’ in height. On-land storage not to occur in required yards. GasoUne/fue! storage tanks shaU be in a safe location, maintained neat and orderly. •-J1 .1 -.4 A 4 j r Q Area. Height. Lot Width. Yard Reouirements. Heisht - 2 ‘A stories/30’ maximum Lot area - 2 acre minimum. Lot width - 200’ minimum. o o Lot depth - 200’ minimum. Lakeshore yard - 75’ (*inconsistent with landscape area required in Subd. 7). Side yard - 10’. Front yard along street - 30’ (*inconsistent with landscape area required in Subd. 7). giiKH in .Sethack/Hardcover/Tree Removal. 75’ lakeshore setback required. o No activity closer than 50’ to adjacent residential property nor to adjacent right-of-ways except storage and parking. Hardcover 0-75’ 75-250’ 250-500’ 500-1000’ 0% 25% 30% 35% Tree removal - live ^ 6" diameter within 75’ of shore needs CouncU permission. Subd. 11. Drainage. o No development aUowed that causes flooding, erosion or deposition on neighboring properties. Site/drainage plans required (for development). Runoff may be required to be channeled to stormwater facilities, AU changes in grade must conform to Surface Water Management Plan and other regulations of City or other agencies. 4 \ 4 1 I t« :i\ i V h.' V. Suhd. 12. Non-Conforming Uses vn. Any non-cnnforming use without structure and anv non-conforming use with structure of value S3.000 (or more?) as of 1-1-75 shall be allowed to continue as a non-conforming use per Section 10.03. Except that the provisions below regarding elimination of non-conforming slips/buoys/dock lengths shall supersede other code sections. Elimination of non-conforming use of boat slips, buoys or overall length of docks": Any increases to number of slips, number of buoys or dock length beyond previous City license approvals, which are authorized b> LMCD, must decrease number of slips/buoys or dock length by a like amount in an area that is non-conforming. VI, Variances. Siihd. 13. Variances. Allowed per provisions of 10.08. .Suhd. 14. Variances for Required Landscape Are^ o 4 year installation period allowed to any applicant who: Meets all other provisions of this chapter. Submits a plan providing 50% opaqueness at end of 4 years. Submits a plan that does 25 % of the plan each year, plus provides a bond that it will get done. Council may allow one area to be done first year, another the second year. etc. Dock Standards - Adoption by Reference. C.U.. Rriaiine to Malawi^ and 0-H.r Fix^Tor Floarinf .StnitWTO MKl^WKJin T - Adopted bv Reference. Adopts:LMCD Ordinance # 1 Dated 1-28-70 LMCD Ordinance # 1 Amendment Dated 5-27-70 LMCD Ordinance # 1 Second Amendment Dated 1-28-71 i MAI f - 4s-' o City reserves right to deny a variance to the above even if LMCD grants one. (NOTE: LMCD Ordinances referenced pertain strictly to dock length, location and construction, and regulate mooring areas, but do not regulate boat density or number of slips.) VIII. Suhd. 16. Reference to Other Ordinances^ 2,3,4,5 code sections are conditioned on effectiveness of LMCD ordinances regarding marinas. If LMCD ordinances are declared invalid, no marina can have more slips/buoys or longer dock than was permitted on the day LMCD’s ordinance became invalid or than was last approved by LMCD, whichever is less. City reserves right to be more restrictive than LMCD ordinances. ■A S 5.03 SEC. 5.0 3. ACTliiN ON APPl. ICAT ION, TRANSFER, TERMINATION AND DUPLICATE LI CEN f. K. . ; r .1 n t i n 5 . Thp v\' ;noil .n • i r .,i n t any appi ir Jt L.>n t •• : ‘^ '* W purront cal.^ndat t • '' ^'ntirr? .‘npaiaa li.-.’n..' .oar. All appl icat ionn, .n'lidin-; uropisod lironr.o poriod;-, must be consi.^tent witi *i ' !^apt*‘r. Subd. Isnaina. If an application in approved, the City Clerk shall tarthwith issue a licenr.e purr.uant thereto in the • form prescribed ‘he Council upon proof of ownership, payment ot the appi-oor i It- .;c ‘n.se t-e, and approval of the bond or insurance as form ind i--‘v or carrier, it requir-d. All li'^nses i.hall be on 1 calendar ••>ar ba'is unless otherwise specified h-rein as to o,rfi-.lir Vm..-.'O - -’nl-ss. otherwise h-rein specified, license ?ee<; Shall \>; cr o-r ated on the basis ot 1/I2th tot each calendar month or pat t ‘tner.cf remaining in the then -a. Provided, that tor licenses where the fee is les.. ^ minimum license te- equal to one-half of the annua 1 11cerise fee shall be charqed. Licenses shall be valid only at one location and ' on the premises therein described. •• " . '5. ‘ Subd. 1. Transfer. A license shall be transferable between persons upon consent of the Council and f-5^ investigation to-. No license snaU oe transferable to Cs" location without prior consent of the ‘JTif. - anv oi the fee■for a duplicate license. It is unlawful to make ^Y. t transfer. ‘ill in______ t rSyfcw nc Uji f*f'*Crevoca t ion'^of.'any license, the Counc 11'Sha 11 ' “ ' "sec;: *’5.04. LICENSE FEES. All ’1 icenses fees Chapter shall be issued only upon payment M fixed and determin-d in accordance witn City code ..ecdon 1.0 . ORONO CC in,-)(4-1-34) TO: FROM DATE Mayor Callahan and (}rono Council Members Ron Mixirsc. Cirv Administrator COUNCmiEEnfiL jun 8 OTYoroniio Michael P Gaffron. Asst Planmnc & Zonine Administrator June 22. l‘W> SUBJECT: Joint I’se [>Kk License Navarre Cove Homeimncrs Asstviation List of Exhibits A License Resolution B - Application Navarre Cove Homeowners Association has made the appropriate application tor a 19<)3 license and has paid the required fee and late fee The application indicates no changes from previous licenses This joint use vsas first licensed in I97S We have had no complaints regarding this joint use dock Staff Recommendation Suff recommends approval of a 1993 Joint Use Dix:k License for Navarre Cove Homeowners Association per the attached resolution. to approve a 1993 annual Joint Use Dock License for Navarre^ove Homeowners Association. ____ayes. --------nays. Moved by . seconded by ch RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE TO NAVARRE COVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 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 Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the State, LMCD, and the City 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 public waters and on tlie 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 property rights of the riparian owners both as to residential owners and the con^erci^ marina owners to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining their property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill 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 Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists betwwn and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian owner has exclusive privileges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that 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 comr v. >Ji all other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. Tliis mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners ^d the public gener^ly includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights, and Page 1 of 2 i r WHEREAS, Lake 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 WHFRFAS the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the consmKtion aSLk facilities when such facUities are and nnain^ by^ or more families, which regulations include the a^l hcensmg of Joint Use Docks pursuam to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this ResoluUon is to set forth the above noted general condidons and concerns and the following special conditions as ^ relate to an application an annual Joint Use Dock License descnbed on Exhibit A attached, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City CouncU of the City of Orono here^^L^ Suff to Usue a Joint Use Dock Ucense according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. of June, 1993. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on .he28th day 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 to <lay <>f ^ 1993 by EdwalJ“j. Jr.Orono, a Minnesota municipai corporation and said insttument was execuiea City. Notary Public Page 2 of 2 i t' CITY OF ORONO EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE I.LICENSEE: Navarre Cove Homeowners Association Dock Address: 2505 Kelly Avenue Agent: Daniel T. Lindsay, % Kim Goebel Address: 100 South 5th Street, Suite 2500, Minneapolis, MN 55402 Licensee is:unincorporated homeowner’s group incorporated homeowner's association unincorporated club or recreation group incorporated club or recreation group other License Period - January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993 n. BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibit B, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the numbei 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 Boats per prior license MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY Carman same a r. Exhibit A Resolution No. Page 2 Exceeding this maximum boat density, or exceeding the number of permitted 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. DOCK LAYOUT The dock structure or layout authorized by this license shall be as shown on attach^ Exhibit B, 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 lull compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the City. None 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 maimer permitted by this resolution, but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public interest. i RESOLUTION ^?3031 ■ * •. • •» • 73- -/W- V ^ . \ 'y=Ko:r. UfSlf /i>-/jL — • -•.#* i »• CDoao no. HDvmi;^ 9m Z3 tf/iT 'mm0gM m h ,- = y»H Ml-6,0 |iiz- 6-C> I f‘?7‘« " /4fl',^n - /iM~ /’ffr '/f2- /P<5^ u 40 CO ca CO .Lp^co 47) / • r tz^ioL> —^ Lu$U / :AVARRE COVE homeo \o:ers association 2: > < >• UJ mx- C A p>Ay o DCNores i»ON monuwci eCAPiNCS SHOWN ARC A5SUM Vr Ar— , ,4r«A«« • f i» •# /^•/ rcrff .f/9 , rr CITY OF ORONO P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 473-7357 c LICENSE YEAR 19^^ rjUN' 2 2 1993 ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.4'’ Date Form Sent by City Staff February 1. 1993 Date Application Returned to City Fee Received S______________By Employee • • r TV T V Tfjc t' * '7 L" w' *j.^ c T *r f j.M'TtTi. U Wl t ^ WU ...... . .*» i rrv V a I7 u rr^ u < ^ 2. ,V\w' I • vrv L‘7 rVfc.* » • wv !;S:L£!rT^ riX/ 7i(?: Section 5 42. Subdivision 2. LICENSE REQUIRED - It is unlawful for any (group or association of persons or families, more than two in number, whether incorporated or not) to engage or participate in ... joint use (of any lakeshore property) without first havmg obtamed a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SL-BMIT SIGNED APPLICATION. REQLTRED ATTACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY MARCH 1 OF THE UCENSE YEAR. A.S.S0CIAT10N INFORMATIO N 1. Association title or name (if any) 2. Lake ______ 4. Mn of (VorY). hd r/>rwvu>i'f> Person responsible for this application: Name ii^lW A. ______ Phone inn ^ Q/, 7J=CX\ Aji... • • il/iRelationship to association _ Association is (check applicable items): unincorporated homeowner’s group, incorporated Homeowner’s Association, unincorporated club or recreation group incorporated club or recreation group. Page 1 of 5 W 8 Principal purpose of joint use dock is (check applicable items); provide boat mooring and lake access for residential properu’ ____ provide swimming access, beach, or offshore dock. ____ provide a club or association gathering place for activities. Dock is located on (check applicable item)’ ____ one member's private property. 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 Legal property description A j PID# fZ. _________________ Listed property owneris) Names of abutting lakeshore property owners; (North/W^t) K&Xi/PJI/A ^Name ^ i»^ Artihity TPviUt^ (VuTvO (Name A- Address) (South/East) 9. (Name + Address) Names of other affected property owners: __________________ (Name + Address) (attach sheet if necessary) Insurance Coverage • The jointly used dock is injured by one of the following: ____ property owner’s homeowner’s policy. ____ separate group/association owned policy. List the following information: Name of insured Name of insurance carrier of — Name of insurance agency ft Policy No. ____Effective date of coverage (P>[pl $6gP|DCO Public liability, per occurrence S OOD Page 2 of 5 10. Security and policing of the jointly used dock and propeny is provided by (check applicable items): fencing ____ security lighting ^ property owner’s presence contract security' service other (specify) norK INFORMATION 1 1 . List Dock Use Area Specifications: Width of shoreline: €>Q ft. Ungth of main dock from shore: Dock setbacks from side property lines at shore: TT)____ ft- and —2£X Dock Construction (check applicable items):12. 13. 14. 15. A ft ft seasonal dock (relocated or replaced each year) permanent piling with seasonal deck permanent pUing and decking wooden decking ____ metal decking List Dock Accessories: Number of fire extinguishers available at the dock ^ Number of life preservers available at the dock 2- List number of slips in each category ("slips" includes boat lifts): Transient (day use only) slips O Transient (day use) off-shore buoys _ Permanem moorage slips lf> Pennaoeo moorage off-shore buoys _jQ_ Dry storage (rack) slips Q Maximum number of boats at the dock Jfi_ 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. spaces. FBOSIQN AND SEDIME NTATION CONTRQL 16. Shoreline is protected by (check applicable items); stone rip rap ___ wood seawall ___ metal seawall concrete seawall 17. grass and vegetation only ____other (specify)--------------------------------- Depth of water at shoreline: O ft: at 50 ft. out: 100 ft. out. Page 3 of 5 required attachments The following must accv)nipany this application; B C. DOCK PLAN - ALL APPLICATIONS A dock plan, drawn to scale, showing the shoreline width of this propeny. 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. HNlNirnRPORATFD GROUPS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. A list of the names and mailing addresses of dl members and/or slip users. 2. 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 ongmally made in_______(state year) and on file with the City.' _____ Applicant's initials INCORPORATED CLUBS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. A list of the names, mailing addresses and titles of all corporation officers. 2. A statement as to the total number of members in the club or association. ____ 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 articles of incorporation and/or by-laws as originally made or last amended in . (sta** y«") on file with the City.' kf-L Applicant’s initials D. ^NNIIAI. urFNSE FEE - ALL APPLICATIONS Joint Use Dock l icense Application Fee according to the current City Fee Schedule INITIAL APPLICATION FEE RENEWAL JOINT USE FZE. per year PT T I.S SUP FEE for each permanent moorage slip lift, dry suck, or buoy slips @ 2.00 each TOTAL DUT: this APPLICATION $ $ $ 20.00 IT^CO Paee 4 of 5 ^ATE FEE - Renewals Application for renewal of licenses shall be made no later than March 1 of the license year. The City shall not accept renewal license applications received after March 1 unless the application is accompanied 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 Committee. 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 the 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 die property at any reasonable rime to perform safety and code compliance inspections Signed Date 6/ Page 5 of 5 TO: FROM: DATE: Mavor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse. Citv Administrator % I / < Michael P Gatfron. Asst. Planning «Sc Zoning Administrator June 21, I9P3 9^ s SUBJECT: 1940 Shoreline Drive - Alan Nettles - Request for Sewer Connection List of Exhibits A - Letter of Request B ' Wetlands Map C - MUSA Boundary D - Septic Card E - Report from Septic Site Evaluator F - Sewer As-Built Summary Mr. Nettles has a failing septic system, and since his property is only 15’ from an existing municipal sewer lateral, he is requesting to be allowed to connect to the sewer. In order to do so. no City project is necessary, but there would be an $11.218.00 connection charge (plus $750.00 SAC), and Mr. Nettles would pay all costs of direct connection into the existing lateral. Also. Met Council would have to approve a MUSA boundary amendment. Existing System/Mound Site Options The existing septic system is in the front yard between the house and County Road 15. The system is by definition ik/.Tconfonning since it consists of trenches which do not meet the 3 ’ water table separation. The system has been weak for a number of years and has apparently reached the end of its useful life. A mound system could be developed in the back yard, but that location poses some problems for the property owner by eliminating the other typical uses of that yard. In the front yard, a mound could be placed in the flat area near County Road 15, but might require a setback variance. Feasibility of Sewer Connection A municipal sewer lateral exists approximately 15’ from the comer of the property. The line in the abandoned street referred to by Mr. Nettles is simply a 4 set ** Une serving the Tourangeau residence. That line contains three cleanouts rather than s. and a second service could not be added directly to that line. Therefore any connection of the Nettles’ residence would require a separate 4" connection from the house to the lateral just downstream Memo June 21. 1993 Page 2 from the manhole in County Road 15. a distance of approximately 200 ’. While there is no existing stub dedicated for the Nettles' property, it is feasible for his contractor to add a stub. MUSA Amendment In order for this property to be connected to the municipal sewer, the City would have to apply for and be granted a MUSA boundary amendment, since this property was not served with sewer as part of the Crystal Bay project and was never included within the MUSA. Given the City’s recent experience with the Stubbs Bay MUSA amendment and the more recent Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan amendment, we have learned that requested additions to the MUSA are not "automatic". A recent discussion with Steve Schwanke at Met Council left the impression that MUSA amendments to add a property here and there would go smoothly if existing areas within the MUSA are removed, resulting in no net increase in MUSA acreage (sounds a little bit like our hardcover ordinance, doesn ’t it?). The fee schedule indicates a $300.00 application fee for a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan, which we would expect Mr. Nettles to pay if no other properties were brought into the MUSA at the same time. I would anticipate spending approximately 20 to 40 hours of staff time on such an application, including staff reports, meetings at Met Council, etc. Perhaps the main question to ask in considering whether Council would want to amend the MUSA boundary is whether there are existing areas to use as a trade-off. City Philosophy While the Comprehensive Plan does not contain a specific intent to sewer all lakeshore properties, that would not be an uiueasonable goal for the long-term. The plan does indicate that our 2-acre zones, in which the Nettles’ property is located, generally will remain unsewered in order to eliminate the potential for high density development. With a policy of sewering 1/4- acre to 1-acre neighborhoods yet leaving them in the 2-acrc zone, the City has avoided new high density subdivisions in those areas. Clearly, the intent of the City if Mr. Nettles is allowed to connect, would be that his property is no more subdividable than it was without sewer. In line with that thinking. Mr. Nettles intent is to merely solve an existing problem, not to prepare for a subdivision. Staff Recommendation In order for Mr. Nettles to connect to the sewer, both the City Council and Met Council must approve an expansion of our sewer service atea and MUSA boundary. The City in the past has not done individual MUSA amendments in order to serve individual properties, but has allowed a number of properties to connect over time and then complete a comprehensive MUSA Memo June 21, 1993 Page 3 amendment at a later date. However, we have been told in no uncertain terms by Met Council that this practice cannot continue, and that MUSA amendments must be completed before properties connect. Council should consider whether it is appropriate to initiate a MUSA amendment for just this property, or whether additional properties should be included. The question of what current MUSA property to "trade" is unanswered. Because connection is technically feasible, if the Council does proceed and Met Council approval is obtained. Mr. Nettles would bear the cost of the connection charge ($11,218.00). the SAC charge of ($750.00). the permit fee ($35.50). the cost of actual connection to the lateral system (no estimate on this), and the $300.00 Comprehensive Plan amendment application fee. Mr. Nettles also is requesting that the connection charge be spread as an assessment ovei fifteen years. The City’s normal policy would be to collect the entire connection charge as a lump sum at the time of connection. The fifteen year assessment would require Council approval. As a matter of interest, staff has received inquiries from two nearby Shoreline Drive property owners as to the feasibility of sewer conneciion. While these properties are not adjacent to the existing sewer system and could only be served by a new lateral sewer project, this certainly raises the question of whether a project might be feasible to serve the Fox Hill area (Heritage Drive, Heritage Lane) which has a number of 1-acre or smaller unsewered lots. Council’s options include the following: 1. 2. Conceptually approve, direct applicant to make the appropriate Comprehensive Plan amendment application and direct staff to commence such an application. As above, including additional properties in the MUSA amendment (the Orono sewer pond property comes to mind). In both options 1 and 2, which current MUSA properties will be traded? 3. Table for additional investigation. Denial. 5.Other. f Alan R- Neiilem* Duuet B. Johnson* Eirie T. Anderson, Jr.** James Vt Njos*^: Neil M. Meyer* Michael B. Bnman* Came L. Hessf Pbu I £. Bohnsack n* Steven A. Under* J. Scott WinnooT MEYER & NJUS, P.A. attorneys at law 5000 NORWEST CENTER «?0 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET mint ^eapolis . mn 554o:-4i;i A 'I 6i:/34i-:i8i F.AX 6i:/337-5894 ILLINOIS OFFICE 1 Ith Floor, Suite 93 111 North Stale Stiwt Chicago. IL 60602 312/781-4370 F.VX 312,731-4375 .NUCHJGAN OFFICE 29532 Southfield Road, Suite 200 Southfield, .Vfl 48076 313/557-3737 FAX 313/557-8247 7 'I'D® June 4, 1993 Mr. Ronald Moorse City Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re; Alan and Anne Nettles - Owners 1940 Shoreline Drive Municipal Sewer Request Dear Mr. Moorse; Over the past several years, our septic system which is located in the front yard and within the 250 foot setback from Lake Minnetonka has begun to accumulate water in the rainier periods. We recently had some soil borings done which showed our soil to be mottled and the water table to be within approximately 18 inches of the septic field. The City Engineer's office should be receiving a letter from S 6 P Testing, Inc. outlining the test results and possible sites for mound systems in our yard. We are told that t.he sites available would likely require setback variances from the driveway, if in the front yard, and removal of a laurge ornamental bush as well as possible side yard variance in our back yard. Additionally, a mound in the back yard would render it unusable for most of the activities which our family carries out back there such as volleyball, soccer, frisbee, croquet, etc. Our back yard also starts to slope back towards the wetlands to the east and south of Brown Road across from the old municipal council chambers. ^ That wetland borders our property, T^urangeaus', Morses', Stiernas', and the new subdivision (Prineus) lot where construction is due to start soon. In the alternative, the City's municipal sewer line is located approximately 20 feet from our west lot line in, as I understand it, an abandoned street. The sewer lines that were originally provided to 1950 Shoreline Drive were for a multiple family which has now been converted to single family use and the rental cabins have been torn down. We would much prefer to connect to the munl2Inal sewer line as opposed to having the digging and breaking u^o? our driveway to put the septic ir-c^n^nic^t t“o “hV rnrcfpri' "" paTrrio!^connection charge over a 15 year amortization schedule. I am told that this cost is approximately $11,000.00 at present. I understand that the comprehensive plan may ^ave to be amended to Will be an environmentally better solution than having septic fields adjacent to the lake or wetlands. Diamsaeo rf i T*oct this TeQuest to the appropriate department of the ci?y and have the city's representatives contact us so that we can discuss the details of this matter further. Thank you for your attention to this request. Very truly yours, MEYER 4•NJUS ^.A. Alan R. Nettles r « ARN/sjk cc: Edward Callahan, Esq., Mayor SEC. 10, T. nr, R. 23MAXWELL'S A''"i;:.n {nrr A'jvwr ^•D bCgyST Mt.L' .M>Y »'^-j>-~ i 1^ <-Mv i I • 1 « T « . • ■ i., • 7 a r p i; , i 3oc »■ -j '»T' \ • v ”‘ * REG. 4JVN0 SSURVEY V*' '► i t *t»ti $€f*mmi A#^ m i:j [T; 1 1 a 1 1 4 1 i_L ■H^AO /^iirw /VW»^ i- • ##* « .* <« *; Su&iecT ‘ f^fi^Penry l/i^ Ia I -------/ A, 117 A fM.7 T,oc»tSau.RcSNol96 -----------------------O^o ----------t*^ic«*jiio^iaoi.-'t rw iSgi f V / tract s H0S-I Oeysr/K-BAV W'-'•1 IINSPECTION RECORD 1 ‘UMPOUT RECORDDATECOMPl lANCE DATE gallons 1,‘ZZ'BI -g/lyu/Mfyi^ 3 __ _______ftvrr-A <pr- tXiCtiMUNCM- _________ 5 ~ *37 ^^^n «t n r fci<-1 Atn V erJ <3,/3 ^//'^ ^h^iri' ^hV^ciV\r^ S___ 3 AirO C - CONFORMING S - SUBSTANDARD N - UOftlCAUUiUUUk % I- 4 lOCATlONSKETCH I I 1 4- 0-M.I I I I • ' I I I V 4 f i» {. k* T » > !• P rtf«A Include 1) Well location I*. I I I 21 Distance fioni|iouit to septic tanks, disi and drainfield I 3) North •from and mailLi coi4AJrY /S' ■i! '•i;'V:-A 'J ' •I • M W Av11 mT1 »‘. I C i , • * ; * • I l?V •* . I•i • • 1 \ •vS A *«i : n. I . * •* , ‘I ;*.! • :♦••• : -S*v> •••' • * ^ .f' ■•K • • ••• > f , •. !•■.• vgfj I:iIIfl■ I*'?.*/? J^> V ''5^ I T t ;► §»\i$: ■ ‘ itr * ' ■M • . 4};'' .mmUV> A^' .»fi-• a • * I » rIBr* • IiA.., .' '■ &V0!.,eg ■■-.■f'7fuVC•v:^V'>’r.Wi- ’ <••'V 'A . . V‘V..V’■•?; '' ■" fi:? ••• ■ ’‘^'. % ' *VI I . • ' ^•i/••’. **j «• * '1*4 •••;OTip'-'•■. • i » •’ it ‘ .• I ^r» ..Si*-• a«. »•.■ '> K:V • I* • ^ . * ’•* . • /> »I- V *» * ’I *• ! . * . ? . • I I *. :• • ( •A f-i • ^ . V^ “ a • • * ADDResS CODE ___ CITY OF ORONO SEPTIC SYSTEM INVI NTORY CARD cute Connected to Municipal % ( i •..:; i • * •' I .:•/■■■; K Standard tranch O Mound Syttem type O Other __________ Permit No._ Date of permit .proMMvio /(?-//7 -2 3 V Tier Lor ^ Lagal Oniinpiiun ^ S. ^ ___ IfUtalter ! .. > ••■ Jir ■■ i I I •J • •> No. Bedrooms Building lypa f J>£70 C or GPO ^ fKt^ ± Laundry Ur.hwjiher Garbage Disposal SEPTIC TANKS Materiel Proper outlet and inlet Capacity I) Baffles liquid depth to RO level Height of tank bottom above water tebU Distance to iwarest building DRAINFlELD: Totel length of lines Total treatnfsant area Isq. ft.)_______ Tyne of filter maiarlat______________ Number of lines Trench width Height of dreinfield ebuve vvater table Soli type Dlitanca from nearest bldg. . Depth of fill over drainfleld — TIW Perc rate .. . mm/in Depth of rock over tile under tile 5 « c eo Eo WELL DATA 9 3 £V h T3e S oc ^I ^ «•»(« U) s $ jr ce*• u a S E o sc B«ra o E 6 V) U E Da. c a & «a Co o /V e c o « $ I « 1 . I V I , * • I./\ ^• ^; • ,• 1•r ;.*i I ' i I' -i ■■‘•I '•. Ain R. Ncciica* Dnid B. Johmon* EMte T. Aadenon. Jr.** James M. Njua*T{ Neil M. Merer* Midael B. Bramn* Canie U He«t* PiMl E Bolinasck n* Sievcn A. Linder* J. Soott Winatoat n n t f MEYER & NJUS, P.A. ATTORNbYS AT LAW 5000 NORWEST CENTER ‘Kl SOUTH SEVENTH STREET MLNNEAPOLIS, NLN 55402-1121 612/341 2181 FAX 612/337-5894 ILLINOIS OFFICE 1 llh Floor. Suite 93 111 North SUte Streel Chicafto, IL 60602 312/78;-»3,-C fax 312^^81-1375 MicFUGAN OFFlCt 29532 Southfield Road. Suite 200 Southfield, MI 48076 313/557-3737 FAX 313/557-8247 I ‘ I I une 15, 1993 „r. Moors. ^JUN 1 6 19S3 City Administrator City of Orono p.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Alan and Anne Nettles - Owners 1940 Shoreline Drive Municipal Sewer Request Dear Mr. Moorse: Enclosed Dlease find a copy of S-P Testing, Inc.'s report regarding our svstem Please have the appropriate City personnel ca .®* *, ?o« convenience to discuss the possibility of doing a municipal hookup. Very truly yours, MEYER VNJUS, P.A. R. Nettles ARiVsjk S-P TESTING, INC.Steven B. Schirn.ors — MP^a Cert, No. 627 95t Katydid Lane NE • St. Michael. MN 55376 • (6l2) 497-3566 Jur.e 199 Alan s, Anne Nettles 1940 Shoreline Dr. Orono, Henn. Co., MN A Site Evaluation was completed on this prcperty for On-Site Sewace Treatment for a 4BR home. This site has an existing On-Site Sewage System located east of the house. At this time effluent is surface discharging & the system has failed. Soil Borings were completed indicating a seasonally high water table (mottled soil' at 18’* to 30" below the ground surface. To properly treat septic effluent, this system should have been a Pressurized Mound System. Additional Soil Borings were completed east of the system & at the highest elevation west of the house & also indicated mottled soil less than 36" below the ground surface and would also require a Pressurized Mound System. State & local Code requires the bottom of the treatment a’-oa be a minimim of 3* above the highest known saturated soil (mottled soil). An Approximate cost for a Pre-.urized Mound System would be from $8,000.00 to $10,000.00 depending on the location. 5^teveu B. Schirmers SBS/ds . C 'i.. 1« w i ^ m££TIN6 To:Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmcmbers Ron Moorse. Citv Administrator 8 :m CITY OF ORONO From: Date: Subject: Michael P Gaffron. Assistant Planniniz & Zoning Administrator June 21. 1993 Shoreland Ordinance - DNR Appioval List of Exhibits A - DNR Letter Dated 3 25/93 With Attachment Fifteen months after our adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance, the DNR has finally issued a letter formally approving our ordinance. The letter indicates approval of our flexibility request and "conditional" approval of the o*. Imance. The conditional approval indicates mainly items of clarification or "housekeeping", which should be adopted the next time we do a general zoning code amendment. To briefly revif*w their hst of four conditional items. 1. These are merely statute recodifications. 2. We can certainly add "lockbox" to the definition of water-oriented accessory structures. Note that by definition, "stairways, fences, docks and retaining walls" are not considered water-oriented accessory structures. Our current detinition reads: "24. Water-oriented accessory structure or facility. A small above ­ ground building Vi other improvement, except stairways, fences, docks, and retaining walls, which, because of the relationship of its use to a surface water feature, reasonably needs to be located closer to public waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of such structures and facilities include boathouses, gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump houses, and detached decks. ” We would merely add "lockboxes" to this list of examples. Council will remember that a different section of the Shoreland Ordinance notes that none of the examples are allowed in the lakeshore setback zone other than the lockbox. 3.In the "intensive vegetation clearing" section of our ordinance, we noted that such activity couldn ’t occur in the 0-75 ’ zone or on sleep slopes. The DNR wants us to include "bluff impact zone" as another area where intensive vegetation clearing isn’f allowed. This seems reasonable. Tliey also suggest we expand the 0-75 ’ zone to include bluff impact zone in regards to the prohibition on cutting 6" or larger trees, which also seerrs reasonable. Memo June 21, 1993 Page 2 4. We merely need to add short legal descriptions for the various basins and watercourses, which can be easily accomplished. The above four conditions for approval of our ordinance appear relatively inconsequential, and staff u ill include them in the next general zoning code revision ir;-S T A T f O ► .'u'.V lS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WATERS, 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD, ST. PAUL, (612) 296-4800 V' 4 ’ ^^ k ' 'phone no May 25, 1993 The Honorable Edward Callahan Mayor, City of Orcno 2545 North Shore Dr., Box 72 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 LE liW A ^ received ’i:. region VI WATERS \rv ' ■> C Z\ f 4 Dear Mayor Callahan: APPROVAL OF ORONO'S FLEXIBILITY REQUEST AND CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF SHORELAND MANAGEMENT CONTROLS Thank you for submitting your community’s request for flexibility from the statewide shoreland rules and your city's shoreland management controls which were previously adopted on February 24,1992 for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) review. I will >»ddress the flexibility request first and then discuss DNR’s conditional approval of the shoreland controls. % Your predecessor's letter of March 12, 1992 included city staff memoranda which requested flexibility from statewide standards in the following areas: 1. reduction of the structure setbacks from right-of-way lines (primarily from streets and roads) , 2. increase in the structure height limit, 3. elimination of the setback requirement for lock boxes of limited size, and ^ w j 4. relaxation -rl the Impervious coverage requirement based on increased distances from the ordinary high water level of the protected water body. The city’s letters and attached materials adequately describe those situations and justifies its request. I am hereby fully approving the city’s request for flexibrllty. I also am informing you that the city’s land use controls are conditional.ly approved at this time. Your controls will fully comply with Min.**esota Rules, Parts 6120.2500 - 6120.3900 provided that the conditions identified during our review of your city s ordinances and outlined in the attached pages are addressed and incorporated into your land use controls during the next ordinance amendment process. we remain available to asaist the city with the along with the implementation and enforcement off the shoreland coS2?ols AS required by the ordinance, notices of dseifiions for variances, conditional uses, and amendments in sSorfland area/ must be submitted to the Department. These should AN eOoAL CPPOarUNi’V EMPLOYER The Honorable Edward Callahan Conditional Approval of Orono's shoreland Controls Page 2 be sent directly to Area Hydrologist Ceil Strauss c^t the following address: DNR • Division of Waters, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106. Funding may be available in the future for an administrative grants program for cost sharing the costs for implementing, administering, and enforcing the shoreland ordinance on a 50-50 basis. You will be contacted regarding your participation in this program when funding is available. I wish to congratulate you for the efforts the city council, planning commission, staff, and local citizens have taken towards pj-otecting the water resources of Orono and the Stare of Minnesota through the adoption of its land use controls: which include the statewide shoreland management standards. Sincerely, DIVISION OF WATERS Og^^ghi Sium^lSupervisor La^ Use Management Unit c: Enclosure Lloyd Knudson, Regional Hydrolo^st Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist^ Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist Mike Gaffron, Aeeietant Planning & zoning Administrator Gene Strommen, LHCD Pen Albrecht, Division Accountant NEEDED AMENDMENTS TO SHOilELAND MANAGF.MFNT RKGULATIONS FOR CITY OF CRONO, HFTJNFRIN COUNTY The following specific changes need to be wade co tht city of Orono's shoreland management regulations in order to be compliant with the statewide standards. Since these are mainly items of clarification or •’housekeeping," amendment of the city's current ordinance (adopted February 24, 1992) is not required prior to state approval of the city's shoreland management regulations. However, these items must be addressed the next time the city amends the affected sections of their ordinance. 1. 2. 3. 4. The following sections need amendment to reflect recent statute recodification: a. In Subd. 2 - "Chapter 105" should be "Chapter 103F" b. In Subd. 3, 17 (Public Waters) - "105.37, Subdivisions 14 and 15" should be "103G.005, Subdivisions 15 and 16" c. In Subd. 16, J, 5, i - Section "105.42" should be "Section Subd. 3, 24 - The Water-Ot.^ented Accessory Structure definition should be amended to include "lock box" as an example of such structures since it is the only type of structure the city has chosen to allow in the shore impact zone. Subd. 16, I - Subitem 2 must be amended to add bluff impact zone to the areas where intensive vegetative clearing is prohibited. The city may also want to amend Subd. 16, I, 1. to add "bluff impact zone" to the areas where removal of trees with a diameter of 6 inches or larger is limited. The streams that are required to be protected by the shoreland management controls with the city of Orono need to have legal descriptions added. A copy of the descriptions contained in the attachment to the Hennepin County Protected Waters Inventory Map is attached. We have highlighted the appropriate waterooursee. In addition, the city has chosen to include watercourses that are not on or only include a portion (l.e. Long Lake creek) on the Protected Waters Inventory Map within the city’s shoreland district. The legal descriptions for these watercourses would be as follows: From Section Townshifi Eanqe Section 'TownshiD Range Painters Creek 30 (basin 154P) 118 23 31 (city limit) 118 23 Stubbs Bay Creak 32 (basin 162P) 138 23 5 (basin 133PJ 117 23 Dickey Lake Craak 27 (basin 161W) 119 23 34 (basin 160P) 118 23 Long Lake Craak 35 (basin 160P) 118 23 10 (basin 141P) 13 7 23 Marne Section from :o *^nge Section Townsnfr; Unneaed to SC Eagle Cneeic 12 10 36f 3u1 n nn Unnenwd to Eegle/PIl'* U.04(8«$1n 541 ] Bass Creek 20asin 96) 3(Bas1n 599) 11 (Basin 58) 32 unnamed to Bass Like 8yan CretH unnamed tributary Bassett creek unnamed tributary Plymouth Creek S. Fk. Bassett Creek Minnehaha Creek (MhC) 32 18 13(Bas1n 583) 17 118 119 119 119 118 113 118 119 iia 29na 118 117 21 21 22 22 22 22 21 21 21 24 22 3 29 27 119 31'Sasln 119 566) 2(9asln 119 111) 31 119 lUBasIn 118 98} n 118 lQ(Bas1n 118 58) 21 118 22 29 21 118 ?ance 24 21 21 22 21 22 21 21 21 24 21 8(Bas1n 117 133) UnnaMd to .ake Calhoun 29(Bas1n 29 38) Unnameo to MhC 16(Batin 28 16) LyerCa lre^pr eekgr7srT*iTg3S.(.BasihgU ianaasvBiHain9)p^«tM^ iMflMiduaeMi I ^ 22 21 22 24 24 !X23 s;sgiB34 26(Bas1n 118 104) 17(Bas1n 29 650) 17 28 33rSas1n 29 31) 16 28 22 24 23 24 ?4 1 ;1.8ifcfiir8aaBP!2 3|>^ ta—a^iMi 1«—n-t MM /• fiaCT' v'iS ^BSRHSKSL am % V ■« six Nile Creek *0eer creek Unnemed to Klee Lake Pioneer Creek (PC) Spurzem Cree« unnamed to PC 32(Bet1n 117 24 27(Bes1n 117 24 186) 16(Bas1n ’117 24 !>v133) S(Beeln t 117 24 184) 19 117 24 to117 24 7(Bas1n 117 24 7(Bet1n 117 24 10.146) 24(Besln 118 24 10-146) 22 116 24 176) 31 118 24 6(Bet1n 117 24 34(Bes1r^119 23 178) 1S(Bes1n 118 23 424) 16(B4l1n 118 24 176) 29 118 24 186) /' To: From: Date: Subject: Ron Moorse, Cit>' Administrator Stephen Wo '•ar.an. On-Site Systems Manager June 22. 1993 Impact of DNR Shoreland Regulations on Septic Program % o' % C'' % % Th,. Citv Council adoried a Shorebud Ordinance lo comply with the DNR Shoreland n- in^larch of 1992. .As a result of these new regulations, septic systems must be • • e,nv rime bundin'^ nermits, variances, conditional use permits, or inspected at a /‘'y complhnL with the current Minnesoa Pollution Control septtc systems withm the Shor ,^.a,er table. The borings are necessary to using soil motUing “ “ “3.“'- . , s„ija,ion reauirement between seasonal water table and the ronl “™:’T™t wi„ be referred to as a'•System Conformity Inspection ’.) ,f an inspection -cal^a nonWort^g^^^^^ - ^nt the system into conformity ^ u^own at this time exactly how many me ■ ITm of L existing 1200 septic systems .uold require repair or replacement. The DNR Shoreland Reguladons performed before a permit is issued jq shoreland properties in order to inspections were added to the routme inst^^n P nennl^urchasine a home with the intent be forthright and fair to the homeowner. confo^ng^when they purchased it, but non- of remodeling it could fmd that the septic sy^ reouirine a conformity inspection. Therefore, ide^'t^u ru“m“tutg dS^s me routine septic inspection wUl give homeowners advance notice of their system ccnfonnity. Currently staff is completing an de^'^oertS^ ouSe^^^^^ zone until the Shoreland District, while mspectmg septic in^Shorelana areas are currently being as merely -cshingling or replacing detenoratmg siding. U.C ,0 me addition of soil borings .0 septm "d“ p.ore time will be required to complete "«ecu^^^ routine inspecaon ol all 1-00 systen^ teauire anpro.ximately three years to complete, routton. Staff estimates that me tnspecaoos "'^^“■“”'^,„..,oojorming systems, wim an additional year required to complete repairs ot me non TO:Building & Zoning Department Staff Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning Zoning .Administrator DATE:June 18, 1993 SUBJECT: Background on Shoreland Septic Ordinances List of Exhibits A - Mandate to Adopt State Shoreland Rules - 2/8/90 B - Excerpts from DNR "State-wide Standards" C - Excerpts from DNR "Statement of Need and Reasonableness" D - Excerpts from DNR Model Ordinance E - Nonconformity Section of Orono ’s Shoreland Ordinance Adopted 2/24/92 F - Excerpts from MPCA Chapter 7080 (Septic Standards) G -Excerpts from Orono Septic Code H - DNR Formal Approval of Orono Ordinance 5/25/93 Summarv’ The City was mandated by the legislature through the DNR to adopt Shoreland Management Regulations consistent with state-wide rules. The City’s Lake Use Committee reviewed the state-wide standards and the DNR’s model ordinance during 1991, and assisted staff in drafting the City’s Shoreland Ordinance which was adopted February 24, 1992. After an extendeo review process, the DNR in May 1993 formally approved Orono ’s Shoreland Management controls as being substantially in compliance with the state rules. Orono ’s Code Complies with State Septic Requirements The "State-wide Standards" (Exhibit B) on page A-1.34, item D, require that local governments develop and implement programs to identify and upgrade sewage systems that are inconsistent with MPCA Chapter 7080. Tlie City program must require reconstruction of existing nonconforming systems whenever a permit or variance is required for a property. The program must include one of a number of proposed approaches to identify and upgrade nonconforming or illegal systems. The state-wide standards further require (on page A-1.48) that the City adopt ordinances to require the upgrading or replacement of existing nonconforming systems, and again refer to Chapter 7080 and define as "nonconforming" tho.se systems which are failing, cesspools, leaching pits, seepage pits, deep disposal methods, or those not having the required separation above ground water. ■fl Memo June 18, 1993 Pace 2 The "Statement of Need and Reasonableness " (Exnibil C) dated August 1988 is the DNR’s document justifying the state-wide standards. Pages 60 and 6i of this documeni indicate the reasoning behind requiring upgrades ot nonconforming septic sy>tems. To assist Cities in adoptir.g ordinances consistent with the state rules, DNR distributed a model Shoreland Ordinance (Exhibit D). That model ordinance suggested language requiring all private sewage treatment systems to meet or exceed MPCA s Chapter 7080 standards. On pace 34 of the model ordinance, the suggested language for dealing with nonconforming sewage treatment systems again indicates that sewage systems not meeting the requirements "must be upgraded, at a minrmum, at any time a permit or variance of any type is required for any improvement on, or use of, the property. For the purposes of this provision, a sewage treatment system shall not be considered nonconforming if the only deficiency is the sewage treatment system ’s improper setback from the ordinary high water level. The model ordinance goes on to suggest that upgrading or replacement of nonconfonning systems identified by our program must occur within a reasonable period of time which will not exceed two years. It again identifies systems with less than the required separation above ground water per Chapter 708u as being considered nonconforming. Note that since Orono has always had a one year timeframe for replacement of nonconforming systems, we adopted a one year timeframe in the Shoreland Ordinance instead of the f.vo year period. Exhibit E excerpted from our Shoreland Ordinance shows that our language is indeed consistent with the DNR requirements. Exhibit F, excerpted from Chapter 7080, is the MPCA Rule 7080.0060 which defines that "systems with less than 3’ of unsaturated soil or sand between the distribution device and the limiting soil characteristics shall be considered nonconforming". Exhibit G is the definition which the City adopted for nonconforming systems, which is consistent with the DNR standard. Exhibit G also indicates that existing nonconforming systems must be replaced by "code" systems whenever such classification is reasonably obtainable. Although not defined in the code, from a policy standpoint staff has determined that reasonably obtainable generally means " is feasible within the boundaries of the property , and the cost of the system should not generally be a factor in determining reasonableness. Our Section 12.30, Subdivision 8 (B)(4) dictates that owners of nonconforming systems be issued orders requiring maintenance, repair, alteration or replacement, and those systems found to be nonconforming shall be brought up to conforming status within one calendar year from the date of the order. Similar language has been in our code since 1978 or earlier. Memo June 18, 1993 Pace 3 Conclusion In effect, the new Shoreland Ordinances eliminate the "grandfathering" of existing systems not meeting the 3' separation requirement. This was the intent of the legislature, the MPCA. and the DNR. Our codes rellect and comply with that intent. The City ordinance since at least 1978 has required nonconfonning systems to be upgraded within one year, and at the time the Shoreland Ordinance was reviewed there seemed to be no good reason to change this requirement. The DNR has formally accepted Orono ’s Shoreland Ordinance as having met state requirements. The impact on the septic program, as noted in the memo from Steve Weckman, is that many existing systems not meeting the 3’ separation but apparently functional and acceptable in all other respects, will have to be upgraded within one year of the date they are determined to be nonconforming. From a practical standpoint, the City may exercise some leeway in the timeframe, and there are some built-in problems with how long it will take to define which systems are nonconforming as part of our ongoing inspection program. However, it is clear that within what our residents see as a very short timeframe, we will have to determine which shoreland systems are nonconforming and require them to be upgraded. At this point I have little expectation that we or anyone can get the MPCA to drop their requirement for a 3’ separation from mottling or other evidence of soil saniration, even though some experts believe that short-term seasonal samration in clay soils will not have a significant effect on treaunent as long as the effluent is absorbed into the ground. The fact is. we have been requiring new systems to meet this separation standard since 1978, and most systems built since the early 1980 ’s (when the level of private consultant expertise had generally risen to a level that site evaluation was fairly consistent and accurate) are conforming to the separation requirement. I STATE OF ^ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 500 LAFAYETTc ROAD • ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA • 55155-40. M \ *^MlNNISOTA '• ' V is»« / DNF) INFORMATION (612) 296-6157 February 5, 1990 •• / . FEB - 8:-tj ■I' \ The Honorable James Grabek Mayor, City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ._ _ _ _ _ _ Dear Mayor Grabek: NOTICE TO ADOPT REVISED STATEWIDE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT RULES On liilv 3 1989 the revised Statewide Standards for "Management of Shoreland Areas" Jules LcOTeeffectlvMHinnesota Rules Part 6120.2500 - 6120.3900). Under the Authority of Minnesota Lies Part 6120.2800. Subp. 2, you are hereby notified that your City/County must upgrade its land uce controls or shoreland ordinance by February , 1592, to comply with the new rules. The rules were developed through a consensus process by 23 groups representing diverse interests from agriculture and environment to local and state governmental agencies including the Department of Natural Resources. A series of ten hearings AdminiL?ative lL Judge in the fall of 1988 completed the public review process. The Legislature has provided grant monies to assist local units government in In^tinr lhP new shoreland rules. A grant application form is enclosed. Please return the^completed form by March 5, 1990. to the Shoreland Hydrologist serving your region (see attached map): Regions 1, 2, 3 * Russ Schultz, Shoreland-;Hydrologist DNR-Div. of Waters 1601 Minnesota Drive Brainerd, MN 56401 (218) 828-2605 Regions 4, 5, 6 DNR-Div. of Waters Shoreland.Hydrologist 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, -MN 55106 (612) 296-7523 Tie Shoreland Hydrologist is your primary contact for the grant application, Iligi£?r«penJes. and re a ted questions. The Area Hyfologst serving yorcity/™^ (see attached map) will be your primary contact when it comes .^,nce. revising your zoning ordinance. Please feel free to call upon the Sincerely, DIVISieS^F WATE Ron Nargang, Director Enclosure cc: John Stine, Regional Hydrologist Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist Dorothy Hallin. Zoning AdrninUtrator^m^^Clerk^^ / /' STATEWIDE STANDARDS rOR NT or SHORELAND AREAS" Effective Date: JuIy 1969 1- *’^ wVi * J“ •ir* 4 # 4 -.... • T.—tr. . J ^ —M, ‘ •.. . " *^ —•. - — • • • to • . **,•• *r^ . _T -•* " *TJ^ * • • ►•* >fcl ■ • ,\.:c ^ • V* v-^ r .• • - ? ^ ' • •.A'' ^ -------- • Minnesota DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division of ffaters SHORELAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (612) 296-9226 satisfied. MS s 105.485 13 SR 3029 6120.3400 SANITARY PROVISIONS. Subpat^ 1. [Repealed, 13 SR 3029] SubD. 2. "Water supply. Any public or private supply^af wat<“r for domesticl^vtposes must meet or e.xceed s^g.nda*ras for water quality of the f^aesota Departmen^o^He^lth and the Minnesota Pollution Contro'1>Aiiency. Private wells m located structed, maintained, and sealed in Water Wei Health. accor. rcui^ruc etltCHto nstraction LI L Ail a iuw A. ^ -------------------------------- --------------- Code cf the Minnesota>Bepartment of Subo. 3. Sewage treatment. Any premises used for human occupancy must be provided with an adequate met.hod of sewage treatment. available. A. Publicly-owned sewer systems must be used where 1 private sewage treatment systems must meet or e rules of the Minnesota Oepart.ment of Health,3. A1 exceed applicable- - -- the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, speci..ically chapte. 7080 for individual sewage treatment systems, and any applicao-e local government standards. C. On-site sewage treatment systems must be set back from the ordinary high water level in accordance with the following table: Sewage Treatment System Setback Standards Class Natural environment Recreational development General development Remote river segments Forested river segments Transition river segments Agricultural river segments Urban and tributary river segments Setback from ordinary high water level (feet) 150 75 50 150 100 100 75 75 / / \ D. Local governments must develop and implement programs to identify and upgrade sewage treatment systems tha are inconsistent wich the sewage treatment system design criteria identified in item 3, exclusive of the appropriate A-1.34 • \ i / 4 / setback from the ordinary high water level_in_iten C. These programs must require reconstruction of existing nonconforming sewaae svstems whenever a oermit or variance of anv tvpe is required for any improvement on, or use or, the property, and must include at least one of the following approaches: (1) a systematic review of existing records to determine which systems in the jurisdiction are nonconforming and requiring reconstruction when practicable; (2) a systematic on-site inspection program including all properties where adequate record of conformances does not exist, identifying nonconforming or illegal systems and requiring reconstruction wnen appropriate; (3) a notification or education program that is oriented toward convincing substantial numbers of property owners to evaluate their sewage systems and voluntarily upgrade the sewage treatment system, if nonconforming; or 6120.3500 S’JSDIVISION PROVISIONS. Subpart l.\. Land suitability. Each lot cr^a^ed through subdivision musc^ suitable in its natural stafte foi the proposed use with radnimal alteration. Suitability analysis by the local unit of government shall consid^^ susceptibility to flooding, existence ocse^etlands, soil apo rock formations with severe limitations for development, se^re erosion potential, steep topography, inadeqi^te water pdpply or sewage treatment nditions unsuitable for fish and wildlife habita V- f capabilities, near-shore aquatic water-based recreation, imp' ^ presence of significant histone sites, or any other feature of the natural land likely to be^n^mful to the health, safety, or welfare of future residents^of ti^ orooosed subdivision or of the community. Subp. 2. Platting. All subdivisions that create five or more lots or parcel^"^ that are 2-1/2 acr>sa or less in size must be processed by local governments as place in accordance with Minnesota Statute's, chapter 505. Local governments must not record parcels^'or issue building or sewage permits for lots created aft^ enactment of official controls under parts 6120.2500 j;o 6120.3900 t.hat are not part of oft^iaily approved subdivisjLons. Subp. 3. Consistency with other controls. Subdivisions . A-1.35 (1) prevention of soil erosion or other possible pollution of public waters/ both during and after construction; \(2) limiting visibility of structures and othe facilities as viewed from "public waters; and (3) adequacy of''the site for^wafeer supply and Oil-site sewace treatment; and s. \ \ .3. an assessment of the types, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate in relation to the suitability of public waters.to safely a’ccommodate these watercraft. Local governments may impose conditions when granting condiuional use permits that specify: increase'd^setbacks from public waters; vegetation allowed to be removed or.required to be established; sewage treatment system location, d^^gn, or use; location, design, and use requirements for water^aft launching or docking, and for vehicular parking; struc^re or offier facility design, use, and location; phasing of construction; and other conditions considered necessary by the local unit of government._ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ __ , Sudd. 4. Nonconformities. nrv •Local governments must require upgrading or replacement of any existing, on-site sewage treatment system identified as a nonconformity under a program established under part 6120.3400. Systems installed according to all applicable local shoreland management standards adopted under Minnesota Statutes, section 105.485, in effect at the time of installation may be considered as conforming unless they are determined to be failing, except that systems using cesspools, leaching pits, seepage pits, or other deep disposal methods, or systems with less soil treatment area separation above groundwater than required by chapter 7080, shall be considered nonconforming. 3. All nonconformities other than on-site sewage treatment systems must be managed according to applicable state statutes and local oovernnent official controls. Subp. 4a. Shoreland management by townships. Townships may adopt shoreland'^hmanagement controls under authorJrty of Minnesota Statutes, seb<;^n 394.33, subdivisio^K^if the controls are not inconsis^y^t with or less c^<$rictive than the controls adopted by the couh<y in which township is located. A. For the purposes ^^^parts 6120.2500 to 6120.3900, shoreland management controlsadopt^d by townships will only be considered to be consistenpx<^t.h coihvty controls if they cover the same full range of sir6reland management provisions covered by the county contro^ah contain dimensionei^tandards at least as restrictive as^.erfiose in the county contro>s<, and do not allow A-1.48 E'y. ^ MINNESOTA SHORELAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM STATEMENT OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS FOR THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO MINNESOTA RULES PARTS 6120.2500 - 6120J900 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATERS AUGUST 1988 t i I J Subitem (2) requires that stormwater management facilities be designated and installed consistent with Field Offices Technical Guide of the Minnesota Soil and Water Conservation districts and the United States Soil Conservation Service. This provision is needed to insure that the constructed and installed facilities operate to handle the runoff they are designed for. Item (3) requires that construction of new sto^water outfalls to public waters be equipped with devices for filtering or settling of suspended solids and skimming of surface debris before discharge. These provisions would result in minimizing pollution in water bodies and enhancing qiial -i i-y _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6120.3400 SAJIITARY PROVISIONS Subpi—tt—purpose. This subpart is proposed to be repealed because the intent and purpose are already incorporated in 6120.3500, Subp. 1 and Subp. 2 and 6120.3400, Subp. 3. Subp. 2. Water Supply. One of the changes made in these subparts requires the water quality standards of the Minnesota Department of Health and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to be adopted as minimum standards or to be exceeded for any public or private supply of water for domestic purposes. This provision would promote the public health and welfare of shoreland residents. The other change requires that wells no longer in service be abandoned according to water well abandonment standards of the Minnesota Department of Health. While the number of abandoned wells in Minnesota is unknown, it is believed to be very high. Officials of the Minnesota Department of Health estimate the number of improperly abandoned wells to be 1/2 million to 1 1/2 million. If wells are not abandoned according to standards, they are a threat to public health and welfare since they become conduits through which contaminants reach and pollute groundwater aquifers. Almost 100% of rural Minnesota and some cities depend on ground water for their domestic water supply. As such its protection is important to prevent disastrous consequences on public health and welfare. \ Subp. 3. Sewage Treatr.ient. The changes in the introductory paragraph and Items A and B are needed to update the language and to eliminate inappropriate or redundant phrasing. Generally, the notion that sewage is to be "treated” as opposed to "disposed" is conveyed with the new language. In Item A, "publicly-owned sewer systems" is a better way of describing the types of systems that should be utilized in Sloreland areas when they are available. In Item B, the changes made are needed to reflect more appropriate and current terminology, and to specifically refer the rule user to the comprehensive state rule (Minn. Rule 7080) that is incorporated into the shoreland rules for on-site sewage treatment. In Items C, D, E, F and G, it is reasonable to delete from the rule the stated standards, criteria and factors for location and installation of sewage treatment systems, since all of these items are addressed in a consistent and comprehensive fashion in the relevant rules (Minn. Ru es 7080) that are referenced in Item B, above. Further, the numerical sewage the OHW of lakes are deleted and subsequently re-arranged the setback values for lakes their new tabular arrangement not changed from the original for sewage treatment systems from consideration of several developmer. and protection. system setback standards from as they appeared in text format in tabular form. In Item C, are underlined only because of , as the values themselves are set of rules. The setbacks for river classes are derived aspects of shoreland First, the system location is related to and dependent on the location of the principal structure. Ordinarily, along rivers at the area of the principal structure setback is either flat or sloping toward the river at varying rate . For sloping building sites, placement of the sewage treatment system can use this natural slope for gravity f of sewage effluent from the principal structure to the septic tank and finally to the drainfield. Additionally, the flow of groundwater is usually oriented towards the river. This can enable dilution of the nitrate component of the effluent in a manner that will not pose a health threa to the well water supply of the principal structure, since most residences would be designed with the well a or the principal structure and upslope of the groundwater f from the drainfield. For this reason it is reasonable to establish a sewage treatment system setback at a distance closer to the river than the principal structure setback. Second, the location of the sewage treatment site should be related to the management objective of each river class, the expected recreational uses of the river (which is a component of the river classification system) , and the inherent capabilities of soils or building sites adjacent to the watercourses to effectively treat the effluent loads in the drainfield. For example, a system setback of 150 feet for Remote river segments accomplishes the management objective as stated earlier because drainfield location will ensure that a high degree of effluent absorption (phosphorous) and dilution (nitrates) occurs between the system location and the watercourse. This in turn maintains and enhances water quality which is important for the Remote river class and the recreational use expectations and activities associated with the class(f'shing, swimming, recreational boating). The soils capabilxty for this class can be generalized as moderate to poor since most of the Remote river segments are in areas of either shallow soil depth to bedrock or high seasonal ground water tables, which are both limiting factors in siting sewage treatment systems. For these ^ reasons, a sewage treatment system setback of 150 feet is needed and reasonable. The same rationale also applies to the Forested and Transition river segments, with the only difference being a sewage system setback standard of 100 feet which is related to the reduced structure setback provision for these two classes. These watercourses generally receive a high amount of recreational use and preservation of water quality is important. These segments generally have higher flows than Remote river segments and therefore would have better assimilation and dilution capabilities, justifying the slightly reduced setbacks for the placement of on-site sewage treatment systems. Sewage treatment setbacks for Agricultural, Urban and Tributary segments of 75 feet are reasonable since they relate to the proposed structure setbacks. They are also reasonable from a water quality aspect since Quality of these segments is primarily influenced by other factors such as agricultural runoff and urban point and no­ point pollution sources. Most of the Urban and those ^ Tributary segments having concentrated development alreaa> have municipal sewer service available or installed and the sewage setback discussion is no longer relevant. Item D addresses the upgrading nonconforming sewage treatment systems via local government implementation of shoreland zoning controls. The overall issue of nonconforming sewage treatment systems was identified as a high priority issue by local officials and DNR-Division of Waters staff during a statewide shoreland program advisory committee process conducted in 1983. The results of that process, as documented in Sup. 3, Issue 1, clearly point to the need for aggressively addressing nonconforming sewage treatment systems through the Shoreland Management Program. The negative environmental impacts of the existence of non- conforming sewage treatment systems are well documented. For example, a November, 1980, Environmental Protection Agency publication entitled ''Groundwater Protection" clearly describes the processes and threats of groundwater pollution from malfunctioning on-site sewage treatment systems. In shoreland areas, groundwater resources are often directly linked to the surface waters of the lake or stream. More recently, two published reports entitled, "Protecting Minnesota's Waters ... The Land Use Connection" (MNPCA, 1986) and "A Citizen's Guide to Lake Protection" (MNPCA and Freshwater Society/Foundation, 1985) clearly discuss the negative impacts that failing systems and improperly treated sewage have on our shoreland resources. Briefly, these impacts are often seen as algae blooms, fish and wildlife population declines, unsightly or smelly water, and eventual erosion of soils if discharge from failing systems breaks out. onto the ground surface. The provisions in this item were developed and agreed upon by the Shoreland Management Committee after modifying the earlier proposals drafted by DNR Shoreland staff. The requirements found in the introductory language of Item D are needed because local governments in some cases cannot reasonably develop and implement programs to correct non- conforming sewage treatment systems unless appropriate funding is available. However, in many cases, the level of funding required to implement parts of item D may already be available at local units of government, since zoning administrators and support staff (building inspectors, sanitarians, clerks) could feasibly satisfy on a routine basis the requirement that systems be updated when permits are issued and variances are granted, and the costs of implementing this section may not be substantial. Further, it was found reasonable by the Shoreland Management Committee that such programs must require system reconstruction whenever permits or variances are required and/or granted, as recommended in SUP 3, Issue 1, point 5. This requirement is needed to ensure that none nforming systems are upgraded by the property owners, at the time of permitted expansion, remodeling or new building. This will have long term positive impacts towards the protection, improvement and preservation of shoreland area natural resources, specifically surface waters and groundwater. Finally, in conjunction with the requirements to upgrade systems through funded local programs, three specific program approaches are listed to provide guidance to local officials in meeting the rule's intent for addressing nonconforming systems. Subitems (1) and (2) are approaches that are currently being successfully implemented by some Minnesota counties with substantial lake acreage and development activity. Subitem (3) was developed by shoreland staff as an alternative approach to subitems (1) and (2). Collectively, subitems (1), (2) and (3) satisfy recommendations from statewide shoreland managers as found in SUP 3, Issue 1, points 4 and 6. Subitem (4) is needed t provide local units of government with the flexibility to introduce creative and effective alternatives for meeting the intent of this item. For example some Minnesota counties are currently and successfully holding up the sale and transfer of shoreland properties until either the buyer or sellers agree to having the necessary actions done to bring nonconforming sewage systems into compliance with Chapter 7080 and setback requirements of this subpart. In summary, all of the above approaches are needed and reasonable in order to set guidelines for future local programs aimed at correcting existing non-conforming sewage treatment systems. 6120.350Q SUBDIVISION PROVISIONS Subp. 1. LancK^uitability. The language in establishment of lo created on paper but structure and siting o recreational facilities, unsuitable lands cannot filling. The proposed langu issues that must be considere new language requires that e in its natural state, that alteration, grading and government should consj to flooding, existen topography, near-s water-based recr presence of s rules regarding the deficient totally sewage This provis ade sui ling an the subdi of wetlands, aquatic condition important toric site s may be unsuit^Jble for building ment systems and n is needed so that ble by grading and resses very important en lots are created. The ot created must be suitable minimum vegetation local units of sions susceptibility ness of the unsuitable for ildlife habitat, other feature \ 7 O'^ T.A5LE O*’ CONTENTS • • • - • SECTIONS Section 1.0 Section 2.0 Section 3.0 Section 4.0 Section 5.0 Statutory Authorization St Policy General Provisions 5c Definitions Administration 3.1 Permits Required 3.2 Certificates of Zoning Compliance 3J Variances 3.4 Notifications to DNR Shoreland Classifications and Land Use Districts 4.1 Shoreland Qassification System 4.2 Land Use District Descriptions Zoning and Water Soppiy/Sanitary Provisions 5.1 5.2 5J 5.4 5.5 5.6 •• ‘5;8 . ■ ~A' ---------- 7 Lot Area and Width Standards Placement, Design, and Height of Structures Shoreland Alterations Placement and Design of Roads, Driveways and Parking Areas Stormwater Management Soedal Provisions ton -Commercial, IndustriaL PubUc and Semipublic Uses •Agricultum Uses -Forestry -Extractive Uses -Mining of Metallic Minerals and Peat Condinonal Uses ■'Water Supply and Sewage Treatment ,Sectid3jS.0.. NonconfonnJties ■i ■. 6.1 Corutructioh on NondSnforming Lots of Record -■ ' - 6.2 Additiors/Expaiuiohsto Nonconforming Structures '• 6.3 Nonconforming Sewage Treatment Systems SabdJrision/Plattinf Provisions Planned Unit Developments i.‘ j.; . .* Section 7.0 Section S.0 PAGE 1 1 8 8 8 9 10 11 :o 24 27 27 28 29 30 30 30 30 31 33 33 34 35 37 appendices .Appendix A Appendix B Considerations for Township Zoning Ordinance Ccrtlflcatlon Checklist PAGE A-1 B-1 5.8 (4) the t\ pfes, uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project will ^ ^ generate are compatible in relation to the suitabilit>- of public waters to safejv accommodate these watercraft. \ 5.72 Conditions attached to conditional use permits. The (designated body), upon consideration of the criteria listed above' and the'purposes of this ordinance, shall attach such conditions to the issuance of tlia^onditional use'permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes ofihis ori^ance. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the fbUowihg: (1) increased setbacks from the-ordinaijr high water level; (2) limitations on the natural vegetation t^'l^ removed or the requirement that additional vegetation bC'-Ranted, and <'3) Special provisions for the location, design, an^Hse of structures, sewage treatment systems, watercraft launching d^d docking areasr^and vehicle parking areas. ^ Watcp^upply and Sewage T^tment Water Supply. Any public or private supply of water for domestic purposes must meet or exceed standards for water quality of the vlinnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control .Agency.__________________________________________________ 5 82 Sewage treatment. Anv premises used for human occupancy must be provided with an adequate method of sewage treatment, as follows: A- Publicly-owned sewer systems must be used where available. B All private sewage treatment systems must meet or exceed the Minnesota PoUution Control Agency’s standards for individual sewaee treatment systems contained in the documem titled, ^ "Indmdual Sewage Treatment Systems Standards, Chapter 7USU , a copy of which is hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance. C. On-site sewage treatment systems must be set back from the ordinary high water level in accordance with the setbacks contained in Section 5.21 of this ordinance. All proposed sites for individual sewage treatment systems shall be evaluated in accordance with the criteria in subitems (l)-( ;• the determination of a site’s suitability cannot be made wtn publicly av-ailable, existing information, it shall then be tne responsibility of the applicant to provide sufficient soil bonngs an percolation tests from on-site field investigations. Evaluation criteria: (1) depth to the highest known or calculated ground water table or bedrock; D. \ E. \ 2^ soil conditions, propenies, and pcnncabiHry; tIfjfSistcncc of lowlands, local surface depressions, and rock outcrops; MnnconforminR sewage treatment systems shaU be regulated and upgraded in accordance with section Sri^of this ordinance. ________________________—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 < t- - f*, -onhfc,."***-^-' ■ •. ..r. . ■■ JrmMK did N (3)the deck c>£To^tnt toward the^dmarThigh water level does not cxcecdl^cemo^ setback of the structure from the ordinarym^uii^r level or dees not encroach clos^han 30 feet, whic^^i^is.mor^stnctive; and tSTdeck is construrtcd primarily of wood, and is not roofed .oMcrcenedi-—-———"** Nonconforming sewage treatment systems. A- »B. ^ r O y, *;^ r* kS"* \ - 'v ,o identify g^^^SSHS^pSleTocal shor^d^aaSicnt standards adopted under Niirmesota SmtutSl ™dSn®lS.485, in effect at the time of installation may bL corSdered as conforming unless they ft dete; mined to be failinjL except that systems using cesspools, leaching pits, seepag nits or other deep chsposal methods, or systems with less soil ?re“’tmen?area se^paXn above POundwa«r than W the Minnesota Pollution Control AgeneVs Oiapter 7080 tor design of on-site sewage treatment systems, shaU be considered nonconforming. i \ 34 3 ;.VJ £jo c ^ R. Sewage Treatnient. Any premises used for human occuoancv miist b^x^rovided with an adequate method of sewage treatment per Jfunicipal Code Section 12.30. On-site sewage treatment systems must be setback from the Ordinary High Water Level in accordance wirh the setbacks contained in Section 10.56, Subdivi'^ion 16 (C). Non-conforming sewage treatment systems shall be regulated and upgraded in accordance with Subd. 17 of this ordinance . S. Significant historic sites. No structure may be placed on a significant historic site in a manner that affects the values of the site unless adequate information about the site has been remq3£j»4-€kad^ocumented in a public repository. noncon Subd. 17. Nonconformities. All legally established mities as the date of this ordinance may continue subject to^uulrrraole State Statutes and as regulated elsewhere in the Orono Municipal Code. In shoreland areas, the following standards shall also apply: A. Construction on Nonconforming Lots cf Record. Develooment or use of existing lots of record shall be regulated as set forth in Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 of the Orono Zoning Code. B. Additions/Expansions to Nonconforming Structures. All additions or expansions to the outside dimensions of an existing nonconforming structure must meet the setback, height, and other requirements set forth in the Orono Zoning Code. Any deviation from these requirements must be authorized by a variance pursuant to provisions of the zoning chapter. I*"tr C. Nonconforming Sewage Treatment Systems. A nonconforming sewage treatment system as defined in Section -2.30 and located within the Shoreland Overlay District must be upgraded and made conforming, at a minimum, at any time a permit or variance of any type is required for any improvement on, or use of, the prooerty. Further, the nonconforming sewage treatment system provisions of Section 12.30 shall apply to all shoreland areas. j Subd. 18. Subdivision/Platting Provisions. A. Land Suitability. Each lot created through subdivision, including Planned Unit Developments or Planned Residential Developments authorized elsewhere in the Zoning and Platting Codes, must be suitable in its natural state for the proposed use with minimal alteration. In analyzing the suitability of land for a specific use, the City shall consider susceptibility to flooding, existence of wetlands, soil and rock formations wi severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, steep topoaraphy, inadequate water supply or sewage treatm^en capabilities, near-shore aquatic conditions unsuitable for water- based recreation, important fish and wildlife habitat, presence of significant historic sites, or any other feature of the natural land likely to be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of future residents of the proposed subdivisicn or of the community. i ( ORONO CC 376-20 (2-24-92) .U-YV..3.: <• j. a *• ‘'-Zi —♦ • *••<». »»».»•»• ■ MINNESOTA I'OUTO h'N COM UOL AGKN(.:V ■ ■ MA'iEEOl'AUrYOlVTSION ::^ . • . • » —- .. . • . - V ' »I rindiv Treatment Systems Standards ; ' V .• .V-• ••<•/.•?. nig ’ • ^ -T-.Vi/7f • ' w;. *- - - '....j.* .» ■*• -. ■' • t . ^ V c-rvl5»,.,v.v;iru"i--rr-:.r-- - mm ^ * *X- ' ** * . *1. ‘ :<<.■■-'Ir V • ' « . • • vvf/.y ->•! ->^r'i'. X* -V 1 i- -2.»' *'rx/r 7 ;y [•*v*v.L- -r U>'**.'i. •' ^v_ -3 PtVdpf;rif'. ir .-.'V' ^-rs! ■ -/v^i-ry: fea^ia^ftaiawi lacE sas -•.—- ’ * • •of surface water, or into any rock or soil formation the structure of which is not conducive to purification of water'by .filtration, or into any well or other excavation.in' the ground.• IAll new or existing systems which discharge to surface waters or the ground surface must obtain either a NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or'State Disposal _ _ System Permit from the agency and shall comply with all . - - - - - requirements pertaining thereto. MS s 115.03 subd 1 7080.0060 TREATMENT REQUIRED. The system, or systems, shall be designed to receive all sewage from the dwelling, building, or other establishment served. Footing or roof drainage shall not.enter any part of ‘ the system. Products containing hazardous materials must 'not be discharged to the system other than a normal amount of household products and cleaners designed for household use. Substances ,not used for household cleaning, including solvents, pesticides, flammables, photo finishing chemicals, or dry cleaning chemicals, must not be discharged to the system. ! * Systems that were installed according to a^ applicable local standards adopted and in effect at the time of ‘ installation shall be considered as conforming unless they .are ’’ determined to be failing, except that systems using cesspools?’ leaching pits, or seepage pits, or systems with less .than three feet of unsaturated soil or sand between the disETTbuETon device I I I and the limiting soil Characteristics shall be" considered nonconforming • r • • MS s 115.03 subd 1 13 SR 2752 *• -'1. 7080.0070 SYSTEM COMPONENTS I. The system shall consist of a building'sewer, sewage'tahl<,' ' i •• *• ’ ..r|.,• •. ; . I ' . .• 0^yu. ^ (b) System Construction Status Definitions: i. "New System" - Any proposed system or any newly constructed system, which construction takes place after the adoption of this Section, shall be a "new system" until the time of 'final inspection and approval by the City. ii. "Existing System" - Any system con­ structed and in use prior to the adoption of this Section. "New systems" shall become "existing systems" at the time of final inspection and approval by the City. _____________ (c) System Conformity Definitions: i. "Code System" - A system which meets all the location, design and construction standards of the current City Codes, and which is operating satisfactorily by treating and disposing of the entire current sewage input without discharging any pollutants into ground or surface waters. _ ^ ii. "Conforming System" - A system which does not meet all the location, design and construction standards of the current City Codes, but was installed according to the code in effect at the time of installation, and_ which is satisfactorily by treating and disposing of th.g ^^entire current sewage input without dts-Ghairp±TTg-aTry.^po 1 lutants iTrto^ground or surface waters. ^^ iii. "Non-Conforming System" - AAprohi- bited system; a\system located within a designated^lOO-year floodplain; any sy^trem-which may or may not meet__aJ-I-^the location, design or construction standards of the current City Codes which is failing for any reason; and any system with less than 3 feet of unsaturated soil or sand between the distribution device and the limiting soil characteristics. iiii. "Failing System" - Any system which is being used beyond its capacity or for any other reason has failed to treat properly and/or dispose of the entire current input and is therefore: ^ , (1) Discharging pollutants, or any liquid, to the surface of the ground or the ground water or to any lake, stream or other body of water; or, (2) Not accepting sewage input from an occupied building; or, (3) Creating a safety hazard due to unprotected or improper construction or maintenance; or, (4) Creating a public nuisance in any manner . 11. "Owner" - Any person having legal or equitable title or sufficient proprietary interest in any building or subject to the provisions of this Section. For purpose ^ notification, the owner shall be the occupant of the property or the person listed as taxpayer on the current tax rolls. ORONO CC 491 (2-10--92) 0 (4) Electrical wire fron^ power supDly must not run over any tanks but must be laid beside the 1-anks and olaced in conduit along the electrical posv..tanks an . Electrical cords from the pump and floats must be run through a 2 inoh PVC conduit (Schedule 80). VJires must not have ground contact. (b) Pumoing Chamber. (1)' Effluent pipe exiting the oh^mbtar should be laid on a uniform slope up to the soil lr“e"f4"/nt=\\ta^^fo=r‘'proper drainhacb. ^ If the pipe at the tan. must shall extend the right of entry to the City inspector by explicit 2iQpj70val of the owner recuesting such permit^ which approval iray be filed in the chain of title for the property. Failure of any party to crant the City access for this purpose shall be grounds to classifv anv system on the property as Non —Conforming. The City At*-ornev shall thereafter take such action as is necessary to enable the City to perform the inspection and to enforce all the of this Section^ and to assess the cost thereof againsi. the property. 2. Inspection Report. Within thirty (30) days after the inspection of each system by the City» the City shall provide the results of said inspection in writing to the owner of the system, including the classification of the system as to conformance with City requirements and potential for existing or future problems. Notice of non-conforming or failing systems shall include orders for maintenance, repairs or replacement, the procedures for obtaining all required permits, the deadline for completion of the construction or pumping and the penalties for failure to comply with the order. 3. Code and Conforming Systems shall be inspected by the City at least once every two years. ------------ 4. Owners of Non-Conforming Systems shall be issued orders requiring maintenance, repair, alteration or replace­ ment. Systems found to be non-conforming shall be brought up to conforming status per Subdivision 5 (c) within one calendar frcm the date of the order. Systems found to be non-conforming due to failure or pollution hazards shall have remedial action required within a reasonable period of time as follows: (a) Sewage tanks requiring pumping shall be pumped within 48 hours. . (b) Sewage tanks or systems found to be clogged, overflowing, leeching or otherwise discharging pollutants shall be pumoed within 48 hours and thereafter as needed and the system shall be repaired, altered or replaced within 90 days. - 5. Systems required to obtain and maintain a MPCA State Disposal System shall meet the requirements of Rules Chapter 7080.0030. If the State Permit lapse.*:, orders snail be issued to cease use of the system within ten (10) days, such use to be discontinued until reinstatement of the State Permit. 6. Failure to obey a lawful order requiring repair, alteration or replacement of a Non-Conforming ® ^ be cause for the City ro enjoin the owner or occupant from further use of the system. Upon notice, the owner shall have ten ' , to show cause to the City why the property should not e c for occupancy according to Minnesota Statutes 463.15 et.seq. ORONO CC 502 (2-10-92) . n STATE Of ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES w PHONENO. (612) 296-4800 May 25, 1993 WATERS, 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD, ST. PAUL, 032 pleso ^MV 1903 i < w : The Honorable Edward Callahan Mayor, City of Orono 2545 North Shore Dr., Box 72 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mayor Callahan: received region VI WATERS APPROVAL OF ORONO'S FLEXIBILITY REQUEST AND CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF ' SHORELAND MANAGEMENT CONTROLS Thank you for submitting your community's request for flexibility from the statewide shoreland rules and your city's shoreland management controls which were previously adopted on February 24,1992 for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) review, I will address the flexibility request first and then discuss DNR's conditional approval of the shoreland controls. Your predecessor’s letter of March 12, 1992 included city staff memoranda which requested flexibility from statewide standards in the following areas: 1. reduction of the structure setbacks from right-of-way lines (primarily from, streets and roads) , 2. increase the structure height limit, 3. elimination of the setback requirement for lock boxes of limited size, and 4. relaxation of the impervious coverage requirement based on increased distances from the ordinary high water level of the protected water body. The city's letters and attached materials adequately describe those situations and justifies its request. I am hereby fully approving the city's request for flexibility. I also am informing you that the city's land use controls are conditionally approved at this time. Your controls will fully comply with Minnesota Rules, Parts 6120.2500 - 6120.3900 provided that the conditions identified during our review of your city's ordinances and outlined in the attached pages are addressed and incorporated into your land use controls during the next ordinance amendment process. We remain available to assist the city with the needed amendments along with the implementation and enforcement of the shoreland controls. As required ay the ordinance, notices of all hearings and decisions for variances, conditional uses, and amendments in shoreland areas must be submitted to the Department, These should AN EQUAL CPPORTUNITY EMPLOYEFI The Honorable Edvard Callahan Conditional Approval of Orono's shoreland Controls Page 2 be sent directly to Area Hydrologist Ceil Strauss at the following address: DNR - Division of Waters, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106. Funding nay be available in the future for an administrative grants program for cost sharing the costs for implementing, administering, and enforcing the shoreland ordinance on a 50-50 basis. You will be contacted regarding your participation in this program when funding is available. I wish to congratulate you for the efforts the city council, planning commission, staff, and local citizens have taken towards protecting the water resources of Ororo and the State of Minnesota through the adoption of its land use controls which include the statewide shoreland management standards. Sincerely, DIVISION OF MATERS OgJ^tghi SiinhK Supervisor Land Use Management Unit Enclosure Lloyd Knudson, Regional Hydrologist Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist^ Ed Fic.k, Shoreland Hydrologist Mike Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Gene .Strommen, LMCD Pam Albrecht, Division Accountant COUNCIL MEEHNG /6 TO:Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator JUN 2 8 1993 env OF ORONO FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:June 25. 1993 SUBJECT:Kenneth Figge, 2004 Sugaruood Drive - Request to Vary from Covenants of Sugar Woods Planned Residential Development - Review of Planning Commission Action Please refer to the enclosed staff memo that further provides background concerning resident’s request. Briefly, the resident seeks approval of a three part request to vary' from covenants as follows; 1 Request to curve driveway in order to save mature trees within 50’ street protected area. To install sidewalk as shown on Lan-Dscape Design construction plan, dated 10/25/92. revised 11/20/92. Review Exhibit H. shown at a 7’ maximum width. Sidewalk is proposed within 50’ front/street setback area where no such improvement is allowed. 3.Filling of approximate 35’x25’ triangular shaped depression at a 10" depth to create" positive drainage from rear of house and to allow drainage to flow via a namral drainage path to northeast. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission unanimously approved the three pan request as follows: 1. Applicant had demonstrated that curved drive was needed to save mamre trees within 50’ undisturbed area. Tlie paved sidewalk within the 50’ protected area was also approved. Width is approved at a maximum 7’ width as shown on landscape plan submitted for this review. Approval was conditioned on the circular sidewalk and formal landscaping area being omitted from area of road outlot in addition to the steps that end at the street lot line. The portion of the paved walkway that encroaches within road outlot shall be installed at existing grade level providing no interference with snow maintenance equipment and snow storage. Tlic covenants specificaUy state that the only improvement permitted within the 50’ street setback zone is a 20 wide drivewav. Figge Memo June 25, 1993,. * j Page 2 Approval of the sidewalk was based on the following findings A. Installation of the walkway required no removal of trees as walkway follows path of utility lines installed at the time of construction. B. Installation of walkway had not required major land alteration but followed existing grade except for alterations needed to level sidewalk. C. Total width of paved walkway (7 ’) and paved drive at 12’ does not exceed allowed 20’ maximum width for driveway allowed per covenants. D.Based on limitations of offstreet parking space and the overall design and needs of existing structure, cement walkway to street will provide walkway access for visitors who park in Sugarxvood Drive. 3.Filling of depressed area to rear of house will have no impact on drainage to west or east and will allow approved drainage plan to function by allowing drainage from rear lot to flow to northeast along approved drainage route. Applicant will file a conditional use permit witlrin the next month for drainage improvements to define swale within the natural drainagew ay that exists within commons outlet and nondisturbed area of existing property and property to immediate east. Exhibit F. New members of the Council should be aware that the City approved an abbreviated review process early in 1991 that allows the Planning Commission to assume the sole responsibility for the review and final recommendation regarding request to vary from the Sugar Woods’ covenants. Each applicant is given the opponunity to appeal to the Council all decisions of the Planning Commission. Applicants do not pay a fee and assume the complete responsibility for the preparation of all requests before the Planning Commission. It applicants wish to appeal a Planning Commission recommendation, they are placed on the Council agenda for the followine Monday (the 4th Monday of the month). Please review page 4 of Exhibit E that outlines the review procedure. Specific site conditions have been listed providing e.xamples of necessary supportive infonnation in addition to exhibits and submittals to support the request. ch ii^ iihiTrt /3 TO:Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:June 17. 1993 SUBJECT: Kenneth Figge, 2004 Sugaruood Drive - Request to Vary from Covenants List of Exhibits A - Location Map B - Plat of Sugar Woods C - Original Survey Presented with Building Permit Application D - Revised Survey with Amended Driveway Plan E - Supplemental Sheets to Building Pennit Application for Sugar Woods Development - Highlight of Covenants Required by City F - Current Drainage Pattern for Properties Located at 2002 and 2004 Sugarwood Drive G - Hardcover Fact Sheet H - Packet of Support Information Submitted by Applicant ’s Consultant Zoning District R-IA - Planned Residential Development Lot area = 53.421.89 s.f. or 1.226 acres Building envelope area = 19,483.23 s.f. (defined by 50’ front and rear setbacks and 40’ side setbacks) Allowed hardcover = 15,586.6 s.f. or 80% Proposed hardcover = 10,125 s.f. or 50% Description of Request At the time of the development of the plat of Sugar Woods, covenants governing the development of each site were developed by both City and applicant s attorney. The City e.xecuted the covenants in an attempt to reenforce special conditions of plat approval. The Sugar Woods handout. Exhibit E. highlights some of those development controls. The applicant asks the Planning Commission to approve "variances" to these covenants. The first involves a slight curvature of the driveway resulting from the need to save a mature tree. Review E.xhibit C. the curved drive was shown on the original site plan submitted with the building permit. The building staff could not accept this plan for with the building permit application because of the curve and asked tor an amended site plan. Exhibit D. Applicant now seeks approval of the Planning Commission. -■ 1 Zonine File ^2004 June 17. 1993 Pace 2 The second request involves installation of a paved walkway located within the 50 ’ front/street protected area. The conditional use permit that granted approval of the planned residential development and the covenants specifically state that the only hardcover improvement allowed within the front street protected area shall be a driveway at a maximum width ot 20’. The whole intent of the P.R.D. application was to minimize removal of trees. This would be the first request for the installation of a walkway within the front yard protected area. The builder, Mr. Kramer, has advised that no trees were removed as a result of the installation of the walkway as the walkway follows the line of the utility installation trom Sugarwood Drive. The third request involves the need to till a low retention area to the north ot the existing residence, review Exhibit F. The area is located within the 50 ’ rear protected area. The standing water has already killed off several of the trees located within the area. Applicant wishes to provide positive drainage from the residence and connect with existing natural drainageway that drains from west to east. The low area will receive approximately 20 cubic vards of fill from the construction excavations on site. Applicant ’s consultants have advised that there are major problems developing with drainage for both the residence at 2002 and 2004 Sugarw ’oods and will file a conditional use permir application for the July meeting that will involve a more comprehensive review and improvement plan. New members should be advised that it is the responsibility of the applicant to present their position seeking to var>' from the covenants. Review Exhibit H, the packet of supportive information submitted for members review and action. There is no chwge by the City for these reviews. In the review of these requests the Planning Commission will have the final say. It will only be brought m the Council if applicant wishes to appeal a recommendation and final action of the Planniiu Commission. If the Planning Commission denies a request, the applicant may proceed with an appeal to the Council at the very next Council meeting on June 28th. ch N 1/2 SEC. 34. T.ne, ft. 2. sec: 2|it IIS,’r. 23 •yr ca n ■ ■• •«• t*« •« ««B*I m *4 «•«• *m* m •« m •taa •VA !, C* !---------------^ I V I I ..«••••« m ••«•«••« • M »• m ■ I ar^i f *** Sl/GA/? }fVO/)S Pvp^(yR.t.DOC.NO • .M * *4 i!: 87’JVl?- w JjU? 69-- M«M« * M • ■!<». »• «» • |» ..... . i««4>« t« «*l* 4«> 4|l I n»M .* T Hi*fi-----------—-------------------------------- ii T' """ I ~T' I ri. i Hi f @UR\V .... SlltCt 2 W 3 SlittlS yn ro to ►H • w >CX) 0) :u CDcnrt t«J a >(n <ai .0 0 <•r Xo% ^ TJ ‘X)ft*m -• o ^ M CD 10 CO»—•I—• •• U1 a isj Kj (D c*)toLn *iTiQ)T, in (J^.0 :< n M. UJ D a ^ <Dw :r. o u n- o Q. • uy -SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET TO BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAI. CON. TRUCTION WITHIN THE PLANN'^D RESIL <TIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SD''.AR WOODS SUBDIVISION In addition to the plansr specifications and inj.orr?.auion requested in the Orono Building Permit Application packet, the following is reauired by special resolution of the Orono City Council of all applicants seeking to obtain a building permit within ihe Sugar Woods subdivision: 1. 3. Your site plan must designate the Specific Building Setback Area for your lot. ) front 50', rear 50' and side 40' for Lots 1 through 4, Block 1; and B) front 50', rear 50' and side 30' for all other lots in Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4. Per Orono resolution #2652, each lot shall be served by a single driveway/one curb cut at a 20' maximum allowed width- The driveway width shall be measured parallel to the loop road, Sugarwood Drive. The portion of the drive located within the front/street setback area shall be placed in a straight alignment from the loop road and shall not be curved. An inventory of all hardcover on the lot must accompany each application (see worksheet attached. Attachment A). All hardcover improvements on each lot shall be within the buildinc oad defined as that portion of the lot that is not within Lhe building setback area (exception; ^ the driveway leading to Sugarwoods Drive located within the front building setback area, retaining walls and similar land­ scaping structures that may be built within the front building setback area). The hardcover improvements for each lot shall not exceed 80% of the area of the building pad for each lot. The hardcover areas of each lot shall include the surface area on the ground of eacn of the following improvements on the lot (the inventory shall include allowed improvements within the front/street setback area,; A) Footorint of each and every structural improvement on the lot, including each house, garage, accessory building, porch and covered walkway; B) All wooden decks and boardwalks regardless of the spacing between the planks on the surface; C) All driveways and parking areas that are paved or graveled ; E) All walkways and patios that are covered with asphalt, concrete, paving blocks (regardless of the space in between the blocks), or covered with gravel, rock or woodchips upon an underliner (whether the underliner is impervious or not), but not those walkways that are dirt, grass or gravel, rock or woodchips without an underliner; I o. o . 7. F) Each and every landscaped area with an underliner (whether the underliner is impervious or no t)t regardless of wherher the area is covered wi h woodchips, stones, dirt or plants; G) Any swimming pool or wading pool; H) Any tennis court covered with concrete, asphalt or clay, but not any tennis court co\ered with grass. Lot Coverage. Per Ordinance 80, 2nd Series adopted February 26, 1990, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the 1 acre average density at 6,534 sf. The following shall be included in calculation of lot coverage by structures: a) all roofed structures which extend more than 6' above grade level; b) tennis courts, patios, decks and all similar open structures when partially or fully enclosed by fences, railings or -'alls which extend more than 6' above grade level ( if any portion of such structure extends more than 6' above grade level, the entire structure shall count towards lot coverage); c) pools, including pool basin and associated deck or patio areas, regardless of whether such pool basin, deck or patio is enclosed with a fence. All lots shall be provided with a functional means or method of backing out. The City will not approve the backing out of motorized vehicles onto Sugarwood Drive. For all applicants who find they cannot meet the required standards for development within the Sugar Woods Planned Residential Development, please refer to Attachment B for special directions. Written confirmation from Rebers Construction that the building plans and site plan have been approved by the Architectural Review Committee for Sugar Woods. At the time a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a new dwelling within the subdivision of Sugar Woods, the City has agreed to execute and deliver to the owner of each lot a partial release of subdivider's agreement for that lot. Upon the recordation of such partial release of subdivider's agreement, the Registrar of Titles is authorized and instructed to remove from the Certificate of Title for the lot, the memorial of this instrument and the memorial of the partial release of subdivider's agreement . Please contact the Building and Zoning Department (473-7357) if you have any questions concerning t.he directives listed above. Prior to any site preparation , tree cutting , land alteratio.TS construction, the Building Setback Area must be defined on the site with plastic or wooden snow fencing. This fencing must remai_n on the site until a representative of the Orono Building Department provides written confirmation that fencing may be removed. HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET U L.achment A ProDOsed Hardcover - a. House X xengtn wiotn b. Garage X X X c. Driveway X (include area within front setback area) X = _ _ _ _ _ d. Sidewalk e. Patio/ Deck/Pool/ Pond X X X X X f. Landscape areas underlain X with pervious or impervious sheeting/_ _ _ _ _ _ _ x_ _ _ _ fabric X g. Other X X Lot Area TOTAL HARDCOVER s.f. - Building Setback Area Building Pad Area _ _ __ s.f. Allowed Hardcover Building Pad Area s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. S • • S.f. s. f e ^9 • 4b. 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. s.f. X 80% =s.f. 3 At.tachrr.ent B '' REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR ALL APPLICANTS UNABLE TO MEET SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SUGAR WOODS PLAT All owners' or builders' seeking special consideration nust submit a written request to the Zoning Administrator 7 days before the official Planning Commission meeting for the month (third Monday of the month). The City Council of Orono has approved an abbreviated review process for all such request whereby the Planning Commission shall assume the sole responsibility for the review and final recommendaticn regarding these special requests. Each applicant shall have the right of appeal before the Council of all decisions of the Planning Commission. All appeals to the Council shall be placed on the Council agendas for the following Monday (fourth Monday of the month). Applicants may find that the strict enforcement of these special requirements for residential development to not be practical nor functional when certain site conditions are found within a building lot. The following site conditions are listed below as examples to assist applicants in the preparation of their specific request: 1. the shape or limited area of a building envelope; 2. unique or mature trees within a building envelope or front/street setback area; 3. the topography of a building envelope; 4. desire to place house within a building pad so as to minimize impact on adjacent properties. All special requests shall consist either of one or more of the following submittals, depending upon the specific site conditions to be considered: 1. survey/site plan designating structures, pathways, drives and type of back out improvement; 2. inventory of hardcover (be sure to include all hardcover within front street/street setback area); 3. topographic mapping of property; 4. location of mature, unique tree specimens; 5. other unique physical characteristics of property that requires special placement of house/drive on site. HARDCOVER CALCUIJ\TION| WORXSHEp p « Uliurlii i]lriT Proposed Hardcover - a. House xengrn X X i. wicrn b. Garage X X X c. Driveway f I 3ri (include area wicnin fronz serback area) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X _ _ _ _ _ __ “ _ _ _ _ _ X _ __ " _d. Sidewalx e. Patio/ Deck/Pool/ Pond f. Landscape areas underlain X X X X X 11 /nv with pervious or impervious sheeting/_ _ _ _ _ _ ^ - - - - fabric X g. Other X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER s.f. - Building Setback Area Building PacT Area \<^ s.f. Lot Area .HZZ. Allowed Hardcover Building Pad Area s.f. S . I . s.f. s.f. S.f. S • X. • lO. s.f. X 80^ = - s.f s • ^ • e ^3 • ^ • S.f. c ^S • <i. • s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. «5 s.f. LINDQUIST & VENNUM 4200 IDS Center 80 ScxfTx Eio»^ S^^«rr IAmscapous MMC90TA 55402 2T05 Tel£pmc»^ 612-371 >3211 Fax 612>371>3207 fyN Dcnve >« LMOJIST VCMitti & OWTTHSfW 800 1 Trx Swrr S^rr 2125 DtNvta Colorado 8(SSXJ 5401 TELFPHONf 303-573-5000 Attorneys At ROBERT G. MITCHELL, JR. 612-371-3262 \ June 16, 1993 'JUN '1 e 1C‘S3 Ms. Jean Mabusth Zoning Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway Long Lake, MN 55356 Re: Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth J. Figge, 2004 Sugarwoods Drive Lot 2, Block 1, Sugarwoods Dear Jean: On June 2, 1993 you and Paul Vang met with Larry Kramer, his employee Wayne and myself concerning three issues about the Figge residence in Sugarwoods. This letter will constitute the Figge's application to Orono for permission for two items with regard to their new house. The three items relate to a sidewalk from the front door to Sugarwoods Drive, the driveway itself from the garage area to Sugarwoods Drive and a drainage area immediately north of the patio at the rear of the house. We understand this matter will be heard by the planning commission at its meeting on June 21, 1993. Driveway issue. Orono's position on the driveway through the 50-foot building setback area to the street is that the paved surface of the driveway must be perfectly straight. The Figge's propose that the preferred and reasonable interpretation of the rule is that the 12 foot wide paved driveway surface may curve within the 20-foot wide permitted zone for a driveway, but that the 20-foot driveway zone itself must be straight from the street through the 50-foot restricted zone. Alternatively, if a variance is needed, the Figge's believe the driveway will be more aesthetically pleasing both to their house, to the development and to the public if 12 foot surface can be curved. The slight cuir/e will enable them to better landscape their property to insure privacy for their property and to add additional landscaping to the Sugarwoods. It also aids in preservation of existing trees. Sidewalk issue. While originally the declaration permitted curved, half-moon driveways with two curb cuts, Orono Resolution No. 2652 reduced the number of curb cuts to one curb cut and one June 16, 1993 Page 2 single driveway. Neither the declaration nor Resolution 2652 prohibits sidewalks. The staff is concerned that if only one driveway is permitted, and sidewalks are not specifically discussed, that they are prohibited because no grading is permitted in the 50-foot zone. The Figge's position is that due to the severe elevation change at the rear of their house, as contrasted to the relatively flat elevation from the front door of the house to the street, the topography is distinct from other lots in Sugarwoods. In addition, their house is relatively close to the street compared to other houses and other lots because their property falls off to the rear. Also, as a result of the topography falling off to the rear, there is relatively little space in the front of the house or at the side of the house outside the 50- foot restricted zone within which to put a driveway, parking area and pedestrian access to the house. When the houses in Sugarwoods are constructed in each instance some "grading" has to be done from the street to the house to install the sewer line. Such is the case with regard to the Figge residence as well. Thus, the city understands that not all grading is prohibited within the 50—foot restricted zone. In addition, when the grading was done for the installation of the sanitary sewer line no large trees were removed. No large trees will be removed to install the sidewalk. The sidewalk will be over the sanitary sewer line where grading has already occurred. The declaration does not prohibit sidewalks. In fact, it mentions them at Article IX, Section 16(e) as counting (appropriately) as hardcover, or "Covered Area". The Figge's Covered Area at 60.7% is well below the maximum permitted of 80%. Presumably the prohibition against "grading" is intended to prevent substantial earth additions, subtractions or movement within the 50—foot zone which would alter the land a»id thus take away from the naturally occurring elevations and topography, the variety of which is one of the esthetic elements in Sugarwoods being protected. In fact, no "grading" is needed to install the sidewalk. It lays on the existing elevations following the slope of the land, so the sidewalk does not contravene the purposes of the "no grading" rule. The Figge's believe that it is reasonable given the topography of their lot which falls off steeply to the rear, and the conseguent relatively small size of their actual usable lot area and the restriction it therefore places on the size and extent of their driveway and parking area, and in view of the fact that their house is relatively close to the street and there f/ June 16, 1993 Page 3 is only a small elevation change, that a sidewalk curving in the fashion indicated on the site plan attached be a permitted improvement within the 50—foot zone. The sidewalk will be low- key, nicely landscaped and will be a positive addition to both the Figge residence and to Sugarwoods. Drainage Issue Immediately north of the patio, at the rear of the house there is an area approximately 35' x 25', triangular in shape, under water with about 10" of water at the deepest point which water has already killed some mature trees. The Figge's wish to fill this area so that the area will positively drain to the north of the lot where the drainage and utility easement lies and where the balance of the drainage on the lot now flows. This small, low spot was caused by "volunteer" (suckering) ash trees which grew up along fence line. The trees should have been trimmed to prevent water blockage, but they were not. Over time, as the ash grew in profundity they stopped the water flow out of the area, caused the water build-up and killed trees in the area. Even though this fill will be within the 50- foot setback zone, it is beneficial to the Figge's property and Sugarwoods in general in that it will facilitate better drainage from the site, will prevent the killing of more and more trees and will restore the area to its preexisting natural condition. Procedure. The Figge's would like peirmission to make the three changes described above. The methodology of making the changes may either be by interpretation of the existing declaration and Orono Resolution No. 2652, or by variance from Orono Resolution No. 2652 and other governing rules and regulations because of hardship to the applicant. With regard to the sidewalk, the hardship to the applicant is caused by the unique shape and topography of the Figge lot in that it drops away steeply to the rear limiting the usable area outside the 50-foot setback zone on the street side of the property; the problem is a naturally created one not created by the Figge's; for a substantial and lovely new house it is a hardship that there be no adequate means of pedestrian access to it. The lack thereof would set their property apart from other lots in Sugarwoods which have a more amenable usable building area on the street side for appropriate venicular and pedestrian access. The reasons for the driveway interpretation or variance are similar, but are more related to, in essence, carrying out the intents and purposes of Orono Resolution No. 2652 in that a curving driveway, the Figge's submit, is more aesthetic, more natural, than a perfectly straight driveway and it is our view that "straight" refers to the permissible 20-foot width from the June 16, 1993 Page 4 street through the 50-foot building setback area. In the Figge case, the 20-foot driveway parcel is "straight." The only thing that is curved is the 12-foot paved portion of the driveway within the 20-foot straight driveway itself. The reason for stating that the driveway may not be "curved" in Resolution 2652, referring to the 20-foot strip for the driveway, is that an owner could run a very long driveway somewhat parallel to Sugarwoods Drive thus consuming a great quantity of land in the 50-foot setback zone when what Orono intended in Resolution 2652 is that the 20-foot permitted driveway access be in a straight line from the street to the house so that the 50-foot restricted zone would not be consumed by the 20-foot wide driveway. The reasons for permitting the small amount of fill as a matter of interpretation or variance are that an unnatural condition, namely, the fence line which was allowed to go to seed so that sucker trees came into existence and blocked drainage exists. This is through no-fault of the Figge's. The topography of the land, the placement of the houses, the provision for the perimeter drainage and utility easement around the lots substantiates that in limited circumstances Orono understood that slight variations in existing drainage patterns might be necessary to carry out proper drainage for residential lots. We submit that this is such a circumstance and that the small amount of fill be permitted to improve the drainage situation. RGM/ssc cc: L. Cramer Co. Lan-De-Con Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth J. Figge |7 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 22, 1993 Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mayor and City Council Steve Sullivan, Chief of Police Activity Summary Comparison 1991-1992 The attached memo compares the activity levels on a "City by City" basis between 1991 and 1992 as well as total reported activity data. ACTIVITY SUMMARY COMPARISON 1991 TO 19)2 The uttached Monthlv Aciiv'it}' Report is for December 1992. Since the re'^/ort retlccts "year to date" totals for the current year and the previous year, it can be used to compare total reported crime and other police activities between 1991 and 1992. The purpose of this memo is to draw some meaningful conclusions from these statistics. It can be used to compare year to year, or city to city. In 1991 the Orono Police Department had 15 1/2 authorized police officer positions. The nine btisic contract positions included a Chief, three Lieutenants who rotated as street supeI^'isors, and six uniformed patrol officers. Addition.ally, there were four positions for primary patrol of Spring Park and 2 1/2 positions for primary patrol of : .ong Lake. Dunng the year one lieutenant resigned in March and that position was not filled in 1991. The Chief retired in June pulling another lieutenant off the street to be "Acting Chief until I was hired in August of 1991. We were short handed on the street during 1991. In 1992 the Orono Police Depanment had 15 authorized police officer positions. David McNichols was hired to replace the lieutenant who resigned in 1991. He was hired in March and completed his field training program in June. We also hired nvo additional part-time officers (John Schoenhoff and Scott Boris) to be used to reduce over time costs .if regular officers. They were hired in March and also completed their field training progra V in June. The new officers brought the depanment up to a full strength of 15 full­ time officers and 3 part time officers fully trained and ready to serve by June ol 1992. We used many patrol hours the first six months of 1992 training these three new officers. The nine basic contract positions in 1992 included a Chief, two lieutenants, a full- time" investigator (Jim Morowezynski who would work a uniformed shift once in a while when needed), six uniformed full-time patrol officers and the three part-time uiucers. Additionally, Spring Park maintained the additional patrol strength of four full-time positions. Long Lake reduced their additional patrol coverage from 2.5 officers^or 100 hours per week for the whole year of 1991 to 1.75 officers or 40 hours per week the first 3 of 1992 and 80 hours per v/etk the last 9 months of 1992. That was approximately a 30% reduction in additional uniformed patrol. (Long Lake has kept the 2 officer coverage since March of 1992 so they will have slightly more coverage in 1993 than they did in 1992, but less than what they had in 1991.) This background about the staffing levels of our department and the number of additional officers on patrol in Long Lake and Spring Park was necessary to help understand the changes in the various activity levels between 1991 and 1992. Remember that these statistics reflect "reported" crime and it is believed that "actual" crime is committed more often, but is not always reported by the victim to the police. Part one crimes are eight serious crimes chosen by the FBI to group together. Comparing 1991 to 1992, serious crime repons increased in Orono and Long Lake, stayed the same in Spring Park and decreased slightly in Minnetonka Beach. 'Fhere was a dramatic increase in Long Lake from 58 repons in 1991 to 103 reports in 1992 or a 77.8% jneret^e in serious crime reports. This could be a result of the decreased patrol coverage froni -.5 officers in 1991 to 1.75 in 1992. In all four cities combined, pan one crime increased from 314 reports in 1991 to 375 reports in 1992 or an overall increase of 13%. Activity Summary Page 2 Part two crimes are generally less serious. They include misdemeanor a.ssaults, ihctts and vandalism, as well as DWl arrests and drug law violations. Comparing 19-^1 to 1992 these crime reports increased m Orono, Long Uke and Spring P^k and stayed the same in Minnetonka Beach. The increase in Spring Park was from ln5 reports m 1991 to ^_4 reports in 1992 or an increase of 35 .79ir. Some ot this increase was caused by having otticers assigned to work as security at Lord Fletchers and being able to make arrests. When we combined part one and part two crimes into a group that represents total crime other than traffic offenses, there was an increase of 9.55^ in Orono, 35% in Long L.ake, tmd -1.. /o m Spring Park There was a decrease of 14% in Minnetonka Beach. In all four cities combined, part one and part two combined crimes increased from 968 reports in 1991 to 1131 reports in 1992 or an overall increase of 16.8%. Because there were fewer officers assigned to Long I..ake and there was a 35% increase m reported crime * '] general patrol cars spent more time taking those reports in Long Lake in i99*, than they had in 1991. The police do not have direct control over most reported crime in part one and part two crime categories. In the traffic category there is a more direct relationship betw een a cop being there" and enforcement action that results in a police report reflected in the traffic category. (This category docs not include DWl arrests). In the traffic category Orono had an increase from 659 reports in 1991 to 727 in 1992 or approximately a 11% increase Likewise Minnetonka Beach had a similar 11% mcret^e from 47 reports in 1991 to 52 reports in 1992. Spring Park had a dramatic increase frorn 135 reports in 1991 to 342 reports in 1992 or a 153.3% increase. In 1992 we took extra efforts to see that the four additional officers assigned to Spring Park were in Spring Park uid were not pulled out of that area without good reason. The results in increased traffic enxorcement attest to a "cop being there" more of the time. In contrast, long Lake had 268 reports in 1991 and only 217 in 199^ for a decrease in traffic reports which corresponds to their 30% reduction on e.xtra patrol from 2.5 officers in 1991 to 1.75 officers in 1992. Part 3, part 4, and part 5 reports are the remaining non-criminal police reports ffiat are recorded.’ All four cities had increased from 1991 to 1992. Likewise, when all activitks are added up, all four cities had a to'al increase of activities compari^r ’O'^l to 1992. The grand total in 1991 was 6021 and in 1992 it was 7031 or a 16.7% incr-^a: e in activity. This summary looked at reported crime for comparison purposes. It did not iOok at the issues of clearance rates or total arrests made. This report shows that there was more crime reported and handled in 1992 by approximately the same number of officers. It mso shows that having more officers on patrol can increase traffic enforcement. It might show that cutting back uniformed patrol can lead to an increase of crime reports. But, there are many variables to consider and I do not mean to propose there is a direct relationship between the frequency of officers out on patrol and the frequency of reported or actual crime. « <• I COUNCIL MEMBERS: This sheet will esplein the various classito-cations used in our crine activity report. PART I OFFENSES This classification is for eight t^T^es of serous crime. They consist of Criminal Homicide, Forcible Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Burglary, Larceny-Theft (felonies). Motor Vehicle Theft, and Arson. PART II OFFENSES This classification covers all other less serious crimes. Some e^'amples are misdemeanor assaults, forc-'y, fraud, ei^ezzlement, Buy, Receiving or Concealing Stolen Property, Vandalism—Criminal Damage to Property, Weapons, Prostitution, Other Sex Offenses, Narcotic Drug Laws, Crimes Acainst Family and Children, Driving Under the Influt.nce, Liquor Laws, Disorderly Conduct, etc. . . TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS This classification includes all violations of road and cjifiving laws (except DWI which is a Part II incident), parking violations, and other violations of Traffic and Motor Vehicle laws. (This category would reflect speeding tickets issued.) PART III INCIDENTS - LOST AND FOUND This classification includes reports of all lost, found, or cibandoned, persons, property, and animals. PART IV INCIDENTS - CASUALTIES This classification includes reports of all types of accidents including motor vehicle accidents, boating accidents, public and house accidents, and firearm accidents. It also includes animal bites, fires, suicides, sick care for, and mental cases handled. PART V MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS This category includes any other citizen complaints not otherwise classified. This would include dog at large, or dog barking complaints as well as reports of suspicious activity. It also includes all miscellaneous officers reports as well as certain services performed such as warrants served, driver license pickups, money escorts, funeral escorts, etc. R/YEAR END 1993> Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & Associates Engineers & Architects June 14, 1993 Citv of Orono 13^' Hr own Road C'vs^tl I3av, MN 55323 ore G A < e «»E • C • =*t n L ®£ ^ .»r:l E ^-"vr R C>*-« *’E •icce^r G 5^- X4v*^ V Er^^-r C P ^ Attn:Mr. John Gerharcison Public Works Director A Sjrftn: *»£ C jct'* ^ e **€ A »E O •<nkrt j »oc*e^ C * A A 9.>«r.jc'' "E * -«.»f VCO P£ 7^1 < P P£ Tfvvr*4ii 9 :^‘U '' a i a C =»f T^orrji i A-nt^uv r-fc iv^ae* Vsn^n^t PB v<-j^ P.*o »£ r P,..r PE A ;»^ M i< r ; A C P Pf C P£ fi V»,*nC PE .«•"% D PE p A''JA':,c'' P£ Vvk P Pofi p£ A Of J**v A \V.'* en P£ Gj-a ; i PE A.mr 9a A PE P''*<0 j Cai^f Pf % VJ?* D P£ \* rs 9 .e' A-' PE , ■*.£* G ':i PE :. A PE G,kv r A CC*71 P£ ^ V'?.: ► p£ •er** 9 \K C P| n . Be 'ct P£ V'A(V'’ O Gu «p^a p§ C« “O P£ C*'^' es A c v*w:n tf ' V P**.Ne-',*v •-^^n VI C son -AT’ips f Er^•^J»dl % % % Re:"'tubbs Bay Sanitary Sewer Improvements File No. 13937 y. *■. i- Dear Mr. Gerhardson: Please find enclosed three (3) copies of Request for Paxinent No. 6 for the above mentioned project for your further handling. This portion of the work has been satisfactorily completed and we recommend payment at this time. Upon approval, we suggest the following distribution: 1 copy - 1 copy - 1 copy - Citv Bonestroo PCI with payment Should you have any questions, please feel free to call. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENH, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC Harlan M Olson HMO:pah:enc 13937.COR 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 Bonestroo Owner City of Orono, 1335 Brown Road. Ciystal Bay, M.N 55232 Date June 14, 190> ; ffos€nc Andeflik B 1J1 Atsocljces For Period Februarv' 3, 1993 to June 14, 1993 Request No. 6 | InpPtMn A A* trmmrza Contractor PronTCisive Contractors, Inc., 8/3r> Zachar\' Lane, Osseo, MN 555r>9 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT Stubbs Bay Sanitary Sewer Improvements File No. 13937 SUMNLARY 1 Original Contract Amount 2 Change Order - Addition 3 Change Order - Deduction 4 Revised Contract Amount 5 Value Completed to Date 6 Material on Hand 7 Amount Earned 8 Less Retainagc 5% 9 Sub-Total 10 Less Amount Paid Previously 11 AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYN4ENT NO. S $ 43,991.60 Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROa, RQSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIAIES, INC Approved by Contractor PROGRESSIVE CONTRACTORS. INC. Approved bv Owner CITY OF ORONO, MN Specified Contract Completion Date: October 15, 1992; July 31, 1993 Date:. 13937.RFP 1,480,331.95 s 12^24.323.-55 s 1.197337.55 s 0.00 s 1.197,337.55 s 59.866.88 s 1.137,470.67 s 1,060,459.56 $77,011.11 No.Item Uoil Cootracl Quantity Unit Pnoc Quantity To Dale Amount To Date BASE BID • Sluhhs Rav NnrthN^est. Stubbs Pay Northeast and Havsidc East Part A - Sanitary Sewer 1 S" PVC SDR 35. 0 ’-8 ’ deep in place 2 8" PVC SDR 35. 8*-10* deep in place 3 S’* PVC. SDR 35. 10*-12* deep in place 4 S’* PVC. SDR 35. 12’-14’ deep in place 5 o" PVC. SDR 35. 14*-16* deep in place 6 3” PVC SDR 26. S’-10’ deep in place 7 3" PVC. SDR 26. 10’-12’ deep in place 8 3" PVC. SDR 26. 12’-14’ deep in place 9 3" PVC. SDR 26. 14’-16’ deep in place 10 8" PVC. SDR 26. 16’-18’ deep in pkice 11 S’ PVC. SDR 26. 18’-:0 ‘ deep m place 12 8" PVC. SDR 26. 20 ’-22’ deep in place 13 S" DIP. 8 ’-10’ deep in place 14 8" DIP. 10’-12’ deep in place 15 8" DIP. 12’-14’ deep in place 16 10* PVC. SDR 35. 0 ’-8 ’ deep in place 17 10* PVC. SDR 35. 8 ’-10’ deep in place 18 10* PVC. SDR 35. 10’-12* deep in pl.ace 19 10* PVC. SDR 35. 12’-14’ deep in place 20 10* PVC. SDR 35. 14’-16* deep in place 21 10" PVC. SDR 26. 12’-14’ deep in place 22 10" PVC. SDR 26. 14’-16’ deep in place 23 10* PVC. SDR 26. 16’-18’ deep in place 24 10" PVC. SDR 26. l8 ’-20 ’ deep in place 25 10" DIP. 14’-16’ deep in place 26 Std. MH 8 ’ dp.. 4 ’ dix. W/R1642B cstg. 27 MH depth greater than 8 ’ deep 28 8" DIP. outside drop 29 6" PVC. SDR 21. force main 30 Jack or auger 6" PVC. SDR 21 force ma-ii 31 4" PVC. SDR 21. force mam 32 Air release manhole 33 Rock stabilization LF LF LP LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF IL\ TN 615 1.775 1.175 225 230 55 125 355 3tX) 310 315 115 120 30 35 425 130 105 340 135 245 440 405 40 30 36 140 25 900 60 2.800 1 500 14.1X1 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.50 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.50 20.CO 23.00 27.00 2100 23.00 24.00 15.50 15.50 16.50 18.00 19.50 19.00 20.50 23.00 27.00 31.50 1J50.00 90.00 250.00 11.00 130.00 10.00 2.000.00 11.10 755 1.806 1.014 180 347 118 132 734 122 250 169 162 20.5 415 25 171 277 49 421 453 300 35 30 36 152.2 19.2 933 105 2.675 1 10.570.00 25.284.00 15J110.00 2.880.00 6.072.50 1.888.00 3.094.00 13.579.00 2.440.00 5.750.00 4.563.00 331.12 3.726.00 492.00 6.432.50 38 /.50 2.521.50 4.986.00 95530 7.999.00 9J8630 6.900.00 945.00 945.00 48.600.00 13.698.00 4.800.00 10.263.00 13.650.00 26.750.00 2.000.00 3.675.43 1 13Q37.RFP RP-1 Item 3-1 Coaaecl 6” PVC into existing manhole 35 3"x4" PVC service wye branch 36 4** PVC service pipe in place 37 4" PVC service riser pipe in place 38 Improved pipe fdn. in 6** increment depth 39 Mechanical trench compaction 40 Detour per detail 41 Insulation 42 Sanitary sewer television inspection 43 Access manhole (Addendum 2) Total Part A • Sanitary Sewer Part B • Restoration 44 Bitummous surfacing removal 45 Common excavation 46 CL 5 aggregate base (100‘T> crushed) 47 CL 2, aggregate shouldcnng 48 Type 31 bituminous base course 49 Type 41 bituminous binder course 50 Type 41 bituminous weanng course 51 AC*I bituminous material for mix 52 Bituminous material for t'ck coat 53 Bituminous material for seal coat 54 FA-3 seal coat aggregate (CL A) in pL 55 Bituminous material for patching 56 12" RCP. Class 3 in place 57 18" RCP. Class 3 in place 58 24" RCP. Class 3 in placid 59 36" RCP. Class 3 in place 60 12" RCP nared end in place 61 18" RCP nared end in place 62 24" RCP flared end w/trash guard in pL 63 36" RCP flared end w/trash guard in pi. 64 Mechanical treuch compaction 65 Impr. pipe fdn. in 6" increment depth 66 Remove e.xisting CMP culvert 13937.RFP CVmlraci Unit Quantity Amount Lnit Ouantity l*n<*To Dale To Date E.\1 400.00 i 400.00 EA 85 60.00 84 5.040.00 LF 2.100 11.50 I.9S0 22.425.00 f.F 100 11.50 78 897.00 LF 24.000 1.40 20.115 28.161.00 LF 14.875 l.OO 13.593.5 I3J93.50 LS 1 6.000.00 1 6.000.00 SY 300 20.00 LF 8.075 0.60 7.985 4.791.00 EA 1 UOO.OO 1 1 *nnnn $343,450.93 I ^1 SY 11.000 1.75 10.000 17100.00 CY 6.000 3.70 5.800 21.460.00 TN 7.800 3J0 6.579.92 55.929.32 TN 400 1150 5073 6J41.25 TN 1.400 14.50 1152.46 18.160.67 TN 450 15.00 588.25 8.823.75 TN 1.000 16.00 23 368.00 TN 167 120.00 98.75 11.850.00 GI.1.200 IJO 100 130.00 GL 1.400 3.00 TN 70 50.00 SY 1.000 2100 206 413100 LF 150 17.50 518 9.065.00 LF 75 20.50 LF 50 25.90 LF 40 48.45 10 365.00 E^\4 410.00 EA ->1.005.00 2 1.660.00 LF 315 1.00 LF 300 2.00 LF 315 3.00 260 780.00 t \ RP-2 i 1 \ ________________ Item Unit Om tract Quantity Unit Price Quantity To rmc Amount To Dale 67 Filter blanket in place 68 Riprap. CL III in place h9 Tree removal 70 Sod with 4" topsoil 71 Seed w/topsoil. mulch & fertilizer 72 Erosion control fence 73 Wood fiber blanket 74 Furnish and plant Evergreen tree (Blue Spruce) 6’ high 75 Furnish and plant shade tree (Sugar Maple) 4' diameter 76 Remove & repl, wood or chain link fence 77 Remove & transplant bushes 78 Remove &. transplant tree • Desiduous 79 Remove &. trausplaut tree • Coniferous 80 Geotextilc fabric (Addendum 2) Total Part B - Restoration Part C - Lift St.ation #1 - West l.nke St. 81 Lift Station No. 1 Total Part C - Lift Sta. #l - W Lake St. SY SY EA SY AC LF SY EA LF E.A E.A EA SY 200 200 175 14.000 4 4JOO 1,S00 6 600 12 12 12 15.000 2o0 45.00 125.00 2.00 800.00 2.00 1.10 350.00 350.00 10.00 50.00 100.00 100.00 U50 60.400.00 151 2.475 1.5 825 1.240 14.135 95% 18.875.00 4.950.00 1200.00 1.650.00 IJ 64.00 •>1 -»n “> sn $204,181.49 57 -tun on $57280.00 Part D • Lift Station #2 - Tonka Avenue 82 Lift Station No. 2 Total Part D ■ lift Stx # 2 - Tonka Av Total Pan A - Sanitary Sewer Total Part B • Restoration Total Part C - LS. #1 - West Uke St. Total Part D - LS. #2 - Tonka Avenue TOT/\L B/^^E BID 1 50J50.no 95% 47 Xiisa. S47.832J0 343.450.93 204.181.49 57J80.00 47 >rt7 50 $652,844.92 ALTERNATE NO. 1 - BEDERWOOD Part A - Sanitary Sewer 83 8" PVC. SDR 35. 0’-8’ deep in place 84 3“ PVC. SDR 35. 8’-10’ deep in place U- LF 625 405 13.00 I3.IX) 237 476 3.081.00 6.188.00 l39.’7.:v»T»RP-3 Item 85 S" PVC SDR 35. 10’-12’ deep in place 86 8" PVC SDR 35, IJ-U* deep in place 87 H" PVC, SDR 35. deep in place 88 8" PVC, SDR 26, 0’-8* deep m place 89 8" PVC, SDR 26, 8’-10’ deep in place 90 r PVC, SDR 26, 10’-12’ deep in place 9’ r PVC, SDR 26, 1J-14’ deep in place i'' PVC, SDR 26, 14*.16’ deep in place 93 3" PVC, SDR 26, 16’-18’ deep in place 94 3" PVC, SDR 26, 18’-20’ deep in place 95 S'* PVC, SDR 26, 20’-22’ deep in place 96 8" DIP. 3’-10’ deep in place 97 3" DIP. 10’-12’ deep in place 98 Sid. MH 8’ dp„ 4’ dia., W/R1642B csig. 99 Manhole depth greater than 8* deep 100 4" PVC. SDR 21, force mam 101 8” X 4” PVC service \^yc branch 102 4" PVC service pipe in place 103 4" PVC service riser pipe in place 104 Mechanical trench compaction 105 Improved pipe fdn. in 6" increment depth 106 Rock stabilization 107 Sanitary sewer television inspection Total Part A - Sanitary Sewer Part B ■ Restoration 108 Bituminous removal 109 Coiimion excavation 110 Class 5 aggregate base (100^ crushed) 111 Type 31 biiummous base course 112 Type 41 bituminous binder course 113 Type 41 biiummous wearing course 114 AC-1 bituminous material for mix 115 Bitunimous material for tack 116 Tree removal 117 Bituminous material for patching Cootnu:t Unit Qiufliity AmcNint Unil Quafltity l*nce To Date To Dale LF ro 14.00 556 7.784.00 LF 25 15.50 51 790_50 LF 20 17.00 119 2.023.00 LF 25 14.00 LF 50 14.00 LF 30 14.00 LF 25 15.00 LF 165 16.50 33 544.50 225 18.00 180 3140.CJ LF 30 22.00 55 IJ 10.00 LF 50 26.00 35 910.00 LF 20 20.00 20 400.00 LF 20 20.00 EA 10 1J50.00 12 16.200.00 LF 28 90.00 41J 3.735.00 LF 70 15.00 60 900.00 EA 13 60.00 9 540.00 LF 460 15.00 310 4.650.00 LF 40 15.00 20 300.00 LF 2.415 1.00 2J52 2J52.00 LF 4.000 UO L~00 2,550.00 TN 100 11.00 LF 1.888 0.65 1.742 1 117 30 S58.530.30 SY 1.100 2.00 950 1.900.00 CY 500 5.70 400 2280.00 TN 700 9.00 700 6,300.00 TN 200 19.00 73.29 1392J1 TN 10 23.00 IN 150 20.00 TN 19 120.00 3.67 440.40 GL 250 IJO E\50 125.00 50 6250.00 SY 500 2100 13937.RFP RP-4 No.Item 118 Sod with 4" topsoil IP Seed w/topsoil. mulch (t fertilizer 120 Gcolextdc fabric (Addeuduiii 2) Total Part B - Restoration Unit Conlmcl Ouaniity Unit Pnee Owntiiy To Dale /Vmciunt 'lb Date SY 3J00 2.00 AC I.O 800.00 SY 1.100 IJO LOGO 1 ^nnnn Part C - Lift Station #3 121 LiU Station No. 3 Total Part C - Lift Sta. #3 Total Part A • Sanitary Sewer Total Part B • Restoration Total Part C • Lift Sta. 3 - Bederwood TOTAL AL1T2RNATE NO. 1 - BEDERWOOD ALTERNATE NO. 2 • BAYSIDE NORTH Part A ■ Sanitary Sewer Total Part A - Sanitary Sewer la937.Rl-l‘KP-5 40.450.00 122 8" PVC. SDR 35. 0 ’-3* deep in place LF 140 13.00 123 8* PVC. SDR 35. 8"-l0 ‘ deep in place LF 225 13.00 124 8" PVC. SDR 35. 10 ’-12* deep in pl.ace LF 85 14.00 125 8" PVC, SDR 35. 12*-14' deep in place LF 225 15J0 126 Std. MH 8' dp.. 4' dia.. w/R1642B cstg.EA 3 1350.00 127 Manhole depth greater than 8' deep LF 6 90.00 128 8* DIP. outside drop LF 6J 250.00 129 8* X 4* PVC service wye branch E.A 6 60.00 130 4* PVC service pipe in place !-F 105 15.00 131 4* PVC service riser p.pe in place LF 10 15.00 132 Improved pip<5 fdn. in 6" incrcincat depth LF 500 2.00 133 Mechanical trench compaction LF 810 1.00 134 Sanitary sewer tclevisioo inspection (Addendum 2)LF 675 0.65 S20.062.91 95%IS sn $38.427JO 58J30.30 20.06191 i?7 sn SI 17.020.71 SO.OO fi Item Part B - Restoration 135 Tree removal 136 Sod viiih 4" topsoil 137 Seedv^ilh topsoil, mulch Sl fertilizer Total Part B - Restoration Total Part A - Sanitary Sewer Total Part B - Restoration TOTAI. ALTERNATE NO. 2 • BAYSIDE NORTH ALTERNATE NO. 3 - CYGNET PLACE Part .A - Sanitary Sewer 133 3" PVC. SDR 35. 0'-3’ deep in place 139 3" PVC. SDR 35. 8’-10' deep ia pl-.co 140 8" PVC. SDR 35. 10*-12' deep in place 141 8" PVC. SDR 35. 12*-14' deep in place 142 8" PVC. SDR 35. 14'-16' deep in place 143 8" PVC. SDR 26. 0'-8' deep in place 144 8" PVC SDR 26. 8'-10' deep in pl.acc 145 8" PVC. SDR 26. 10'-12' deep in pl.ace 146 8’ PVC SDR 26. 12'-14* deep in place 147 8* PVC SDR -6. 14'-16’ deep in place 148 S' PVC. SDR 26. 16'-18' deep in place 149 8" PVC SDR 26. 18'-20* deep in place 150 8" PVC SDR 26. 20'-22* deep in place 151 8" PVC. SDR 26. 22'-24' deep in place 152 8" PVC. SDR 26. 24’-26' deep in place 153 8" PVC. SDR 26. 26'-28* deep in place 154 8" PVC SDR 26. 28’-30* deep in place 155 Std. MH 3’ dp.. 4' dia.. W/R1642B cstg. 156 Maoiiole depth greater than 8' deep 157 8" DIP. outside drop 158 3* .x 4" PVC .service \Nye branch 159 4" PVC service pipe in place 160 4’ PVC service riser pipe in place 161 Improved pipe fdn. 6" incrcnieni depth 13937.RFP Unit Contract Ouanucy Unit Price OuAmity lb Date Amount To Dale E.A 50 125.00 SY 2.000 2.00 AC 0.5 800.00 SO.OO 0.00 Q.Da SO.OO 400 12.00 238 2.S56.00 LF 225 1100 295 3J40.00 LF 335 13.00 116 liOS.OO LF 235 M.'jn 15 210.00 LF 50 15.50 10 155.00 LF 25 13.00 37 481.00 LF 65 13.00 139 1.807.00 LF 75 14.<J0 206 1884.00 LF 280 15.00 612 9.180.00 LF 735 16.50 744 12J176.00 LF 385 18.00 916 16.488.00 LF 440 20.00 430 8.600.00 LF 120 23.00 135 3.105.00 LF 135 26.00 125 3250.00 LF 145 29.00 155 4.495.00 LF 175 3100 185 5.920.00 LF 170 j3.00 95 3.610.00 E.\18 1J50.00 18 24J00.0C LF 138 90.00 136J 11285.00 U 5.2 250.00 3.6 900.00 C\34 60.00 34 2.040.'X) LF 1.050 1100 1.020 11240.00 LF 150 12.00 109 1J0800 LF RT-6 7i00 1.75 6.630 ll.f)90.00 ... ->~ m ...» , ContnkCt Unit Quantity Amount X Item Unit Quantity IMce To Date To Date 162 M*. haaical Uc ich compactioo LF 5-^45 1.00 5.473 5.473.00 163 Sanitary sewer lelevLsion inspection LF 4.495 0.65 4.453 ______2j94.45_ Total Part A - Sanitary ScAcr $153,495.45 Part R - Restoration 164 Pvemovc existing bituminous SY 10.800 1.80 9.780 17.604.00 165 Common excavation CY 4_300 4.40 4200 18.92.0.00 166 Class 5 aggregate base (100^ crushed)TN 6.000 8.50 6.000 51.000.00 167 Type 31 bituminous base course TN liOO 14.50 1275.98 19.951.71 168 Type 41 bituminous wcanng course TN 1200 15.50 169 AC-1 biiummous material for mtx TN 160 120.00 68.8 8256.00 170 Bituminous material for tack coat GL 750 1.50 171 Bituminous material for patching SY 300 22.00 172 12" RCP. Class 3 in place LF 300 17.50 175 3.062J0 173 15" RCP. Class 4 in place LF 30 10.00 30 570.00 174 l8" RCP. Class 4 in place LF 75 21.00 175 33" RCP. Class 3 in place LF 100 23.00 70 2210.00 176 48" RCP. Class 2 in place LF 80 .Sl.OO 80 6.480.00 177 12" RCP flared end in place EA 12 165.00 178 15" RCP flared end in pl.ice EA •>3‘yO.OO 179 18" RCP flared end in place EA 4 410 00 180 33" RCP flared endw/trash guard in pi.EA 2 2JOO.OO 2 5.000.00 181 48" RCP flared end w/trash guard in pi.Ej\mm 2.O65.00 5230.00 182 Mechanical trench compaction LF 495 1.00 150 150.00 183 Impr. pipe fdn. in 6" incremcal depth LF 400 2.00 150 300.00 184 Remove existing CMP culvert LF 495 3.00 250 750.00 185 Filter blanket in place SY 25 2.50 186 Riprap in place CY 50 30.00 lo7 Tree removal E\15 125.00 13 1.625.00 188 Sod with •I'' loosoil SY 7i00 2.0C 189 Seed with topsoil, mulch & fertilizer AC 2.0 800.00 190 Gcoicxlilc tabric (Addendum 2)SY 5J00 1.50 5.000 —7<;mnn 1 13937.RFP RP-7 r No.Item Unit Omtract Ouanlity Unit IVicx Quantity To Date Total Part A - Sanil . *v Sewer 0 Total Part B - Restoration TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 3 ■ CYGNL F PI-ACE ALTERNATE NO. 5 • O.XFORD ROAD P.irt A - Sanitary Sewer 13937 RFP RP-« Amount To Dale 153.495.45 ia.<t .<109 71 S302J04.66 191 8" PVC. SDR 35. 10‘-12’ deep in place u-675 13.00 398 5.174.00 192 8" PVC. SDR 35, 12’-14’ deep in place LF 400 14.50 370 5J65.00 193 8" PVC. SCR 35. 14’-16 ‘ deep lii place LF 150 17.00 300 5.100.00 194 8" PVC. SDR 35. 16 ‘-18’ deep in place U'2U0 20.00 50 1.000.00 195 Std. MH 8’ dp.. 4’ dia.. w/RU>42B cstg.EA 5 1J50.00 5 6.750.00 196 MH depth greater than 8’ deep LF 28 90.00 '•'* 7 1.998.00 197 8"x4" PVC service wye branch E.^\12 60.00 13 780.00 198 4" PVC service pipe in place LF 500 1100 390 4,680.00 199 4" PVC service riser pipe in place I-F 40 1100 25 300.00 200 Improved pipe fdn. in 6" increment depth LF 2.000 2.00 1.118 2236.00 201 Mechanical trench compaction LF 1.925 1.00 1.508 1208.00 '•'^2 Sanitary sewer television inspection 1.425 0.65 1 118 7'»(5 70LI* $35,617.70Total P’rt A - SaniUry Sewer Pari B - Restoration 203 Bituminous surfacing removal SY 4.100 2.00 3.960 7520.00 204 Common excavation CY 1.600 4.60 IJIO 6546.00 205 CL 5 aggregate base (100% crushed)TN 2JOO .8..50 ■’50 19.125.00 206 Type 31 bituminous base course TN 400 16.00 36111 5.793.76 20? Type 41 bituminous weanng course TN 300 18.00 20S AC-i btiuminoiis maienai for mix TN 42 120.00 18.11 117320 209 Cilumuious material for ‘uck w.'al GL 235 1.50 21J Bituminous material for patching SY 15C 2100 211 Tree removal E.A j 125 00 212 Sod with 4** i.ipsou SY 4.000 100 213 Seed w/iopsoil. mulch A fcrtili/cr AC OS 800.00 214 Ero¥ on control fence LF 200 100 21- le fabric (Addendum 2)SY 2i00 1-^0 400 1 fjv) no B - Restoration $45257.96 Item Unit 0>n tract Quantity Unit Pnee Quantity To Dale Total Part A - Saaitary Sewer Total Part B • Restoration TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 5 - OXFORD ROAD Change Order No. 1 216 Modify Lift Station No. 3 0 Total Change Order No. 1 LS 9J90.00 Change Order No. 2 217 Jack 4* services under CSAH #84 218 Granular borrow 219 4* Sthpiog. white paint Total Change Order No. 2 LF CY LF 250 2.000 6.758 65.00 8.50 0.20 250 2.000 6.758 Total Base Bid Total Alternate No. 1 - Bederwood Total Alternate No. 2 • Bayside North Total Alternate No. 3 - Cygnet Place Total Alternate No. 5 - Oxford Road Total Change Order No. 1 Total Change Order No. 2 TOTAL WORK COMPI-ETED TO DATE 139)7 PI P RP-9 Amoilol To Date 35.617.70 S81.175.66 9A90JXI S9_-90.00 16.250.00 17.000.00 I tst fin $34,601.60 652.844.92 117.020.71 0.00 302J04.66 81.175.66 9J90.00 “ta rini (X\ SI.197J3755 i PROJI-.CTI^ PAYMI-NT STATUS Owner City of Orono Project Stubbs Bay Sanitary Sewer Project No. Ffle No. 13937 Contractor Progressive Contractors, Inc. CHANGF ORDERS No. Date I 7-8-92 Modify Lift Station #3 2 114-92 Jack services, granular borrow, striping Total Change Orders - Add PAYMI'NI' SUMMARY No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Period Start 8- 7-92 9- 8-92 10- 13-92 11- 18-92 2-3-93 8- 7-92 9- 8-92 10- 13-92 11- 18-92 2-3-93 6-14-93 Total Payment to Dale Retainagc, Payment No. Total Amount Earned I39J7 RFP 1,137.470.67 59,866.88 1.197337.55 RP-IO Original Contract Change Orders Revised Contract Amount $9390.00 534.601.60 $43,991.60 Payment Retatnage Compleled $116,255.77 $6,118.73 $96,918.04 305.777.08 22312316 444345.11 272,411.08 36349.68 730,993.61 275.415.46 51.04533 1,020,904.62 90,600.17 55,813.66 1,111,627.22 77,011.11 59.866.88 1,197337.55 1,480,331.95 43,991.60 1324323.55 TO; FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator June 25, 1993 SUBJECT: Old Crystal Bay Road Bike Trail %0 ri Background The Old Crystal Bay Road Bike Trail grew out of a citizen survey w .ich identified bike/hike trails as the highest parks priority. A bike trail system was designated for the city with the Old Crystal Bay Road Trail identified as a priority to serve as the north/south link for the trail system. The key attributes of the Old Crystal Bay Road Trail are as follows: 1. The trail connects the Luce Line trail with Baker Park. 2. The trail serves the school campus and the city facilities. 3. The trail serves as the major north/south link in the city's proposed trail system. 4 . The trail could provide a future connection to Noerenberg Park. 5. The trail is separated from the roadway. To obtain sufficient funding for the trail, the city approached Hennepin Parks as a possible funding source. Hennepin Parks had planned a trail connecting the Luce Line to Baker Park. This trail was planned to the west in an undeveloped area where the trail would not be on a road right-of-way but rather would be in a separate trail corridor on right-of-way purchased specifically for the trail. The trail was planned to be located in western Orono or Independence. As such, it would not have ser’/ed the High School and would not have been a major link in the city's trail system. Hennepin Parks agreed to assist in funding the trail because could get the connection to Baker Park less expensively than purchasing right-of-way for a separate trail corridor. Issues 1. 2. Cost. The bids for the trail have now been received. The lowijid exceeds the engineer's estimate by $37,000 or 7.7%. Both the City and Hennepin Parks can choose not to continue with the project due to the higher cost. Hennepin Parks has indicated they are still willing to continue with the project at the higher cost. Control. The proposed agreement with Hennepin Parks contemplates the trail as being a part of the Regional Trail system and as such being operated by Hennepin Parks. This means that Hennepin Parks would have ultimate responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the trail, enforcement of rules, and determining the types of use allowed on the trail. This arrangement has both advantages and disadvantages for the City. The major advantage to the city is the the City does not have to maintain the trail i.e. mow the grass, repair the trail, repair signs, etc. However, the City may conduct maintenance activities if the City wants a higher level of maintenance than Hennepin Parks provides. The major disadvantage is that Hennepin Parks determines the types of uses allowed on the trail. The uses on the trail will be consistent with the uses allowed on other trails in the Regional system, except that Hennepin Parks has agreed to limit the uses to pedestrian uses and bicycling. Horses and snowmobiles will not be allowed. Hennepin Parks currently allows inline skatir.g on their trails. This has concerned some Council Members. Although the City has designated a bike/hike trail system the types of uses to be allowed have not been determined. When considering the issue of the control of the uses on the Old Crystal Bay Road Trail the City should consider what uses it would allow on its own trail system, and determine if they are compatible with the uses contemplated by Hennepin Parks. 3. Landscaping. The bid specifications for the trail included planting 100 trees. The cost is approximately $20,000. The agreement with Hennepin Parks p>rovides for an additional $22,000 worth of trees. Hennepin Parks has indicated they can provide lilacs and other types of shrubs in addition to the trees included in the bid specs to provide a type of screening that they believe is significantly better than what is existing along the roadway. Hennepin Parks will develop a proposed plan by July 20th. Alternatives. If the Council decides not to participate in a cooperative venture with Hennepin Parks, the cost of the trail becomes more than staff would recommend the City fund on its own. Alternatives to the bike trail as currently proposed are as follows: 1. Provide a pathway on Old Crystal Bay Road by paving the existing shoulder. This would be similar to the pathway on a portion of Willow Drive. This alternative would have much lower costs, but would be contrary to the Park Commission's recommendation regarding a separated path. » 2 .Encourage Hennepin Parks to construct their original path to the west, in a way that would best serve Orono residents. This path would not serve the schools or the City facilities. 3 .Plan to construct separated paths only when the roadway is being reconstructed. The pathway its<^lf then becomes relatively inexpensive because the grading and shoulder work are substantially done as part of the road construction project. The bike paths would then be constructed as the City's M.S.A. streets are reconstructed. This would mean a major delay in constructiong a path on Old Crystal Bay Road, since the roadway is in very good condition and not in need of reconstruction. .^0 TO:Ron Moorse, City Administrator CGUMCIL MEETING FROM:John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director DATE:June 24, 1993 JUN 2 8 1993 cmroFORONo SUBJECT: Bid Tabulation Bike/Hike Trail Old Crystal Bay Road Attached for Council information is the bid tabulation of the bid opening on June 18, 1993. Please be advised that we are still in discussions with Hennepin Parks regarding tree/shrub planting. Hennepin Parks will be presenting a sample plan of area where the trees will be removed and showing their recommendation of a replacement plan. ch • •aonesiroo Project Name Old Crystal Hay Road 'I'railMM Roscot frS AndtHik & Asiocljtes Project No.MSAP 152-102-12 b’ile No.13966y^mmx • /WfMMcta Bid Opening 11:00 a.m., C.D.S.T., Friday. June 18, 1993 Owner Oroiu), MNBID TABUIAI IONTabulation of Five Low Bids of Five Received I hereby ceility that this is an exact reproduction of bids received.('.lean R. Cook, P.IL Keg No. 9451 Did No. 1 Did No. 2 V'allcv Did No. 3 AIbcr Hid No 4 iJrivcway Did No. 5 Dave Perkins llardrivcs. Inc.Paving, Inc.Consiruclion.Inc.Design, Inc.Contracting, Inc. !!£S Unit 12»y Unit Pric*lotal Unit lYkn I'fHal Unit Vfkn Total Unit Price ToUl Unit Price ToUl Base Bid % 2101.501 Clear and grub trees US 1 7,(HK)(J0 7.CHMUI0 9.750 00 9.750.00 23.000.00 23.000.00 18,000.00 18,000.00 28,000.00 28.000.00 2104 501 Remove barb wire or woven wire fence LF 2,100 1.00 2.100.00 0.83 1.7431)0 0.35 73500 0.55 1.15500 1.00 2.100.00 2104.501 Remove eo&uete curb 1 F 60 4(X)240.00 5.00 300.00 3.00 180.00 4.95 297.00 10.00 600.00 2UM 501 Remove CMP or RCP culvert LF 500 5.25 2.625.00 8.25 4.12500 5.25 2.625 00 2.75 1.375.00 10.00 5.000.00 2104.505 Remove bituminous pavement SY 2.700 1.50 4.050.00 1.70 4.590.00 2.50 6.750.00 2.50 6.75G.00 2.50 6,750.00 2104.513 Sawing bituminous pavement LF 10,500 1.00 10,5(XM)0 1 35 14,17500 1.25 13.12500 1.00 10,500 00 2.50 26,250.00 2KM.521 Salvage plate beam guardrail IF 125 4 50 56250 4.55 568.75 3.00 3750f)4 70 5«TS0 too 125.00 13966 TAB Hr I lliJ No. 1 llardrivcs, Inc.Util No. 2Valiev#Paving, Inc.nil! No. 3 AIbcrConsuucfion, Inc.Hid No. 4 Driveway Design. Inc.Uid No 5 D.ivc Perkins ('oniraiting, Inc.No. Iicm linit UnitPricjc TiXal UnitPritx I'olal UnitIMcc Polal Unitl^icc Total Unitl*rux Tmal2KH.521 Salvage chain link fence LI’150 3.15 472.50 3.20 480.00 4.00 600.00 1 50 225 00 2(K)3(K)(I0 0104.601 Relocate maitboxes. sign, cic«1 1,000.00 1,(KK)(K)1,5(KU«)1,5(K)()0 750.00 750.00 4.000.00 4,000.00 500.00 500.00 21O5J01 Common eicavaiion CY 8.100 3.20 25,920.00 3.35 27.135.00 3.35 27,135.(K)4 10 33.210fK)9.(K)72.900 00 21QS.521 Oranular borrow (CV)CY 3.7(K3 10 50 38,85000 985 36.445.00 10.50 38,850.00 7.05 26.085.00 12.00 44,40(100 2105.523 Common borrow (CV)CY 11,900 6.50 77,350.00 6.38 75.922 (H)760 90,440(K)6.70 79,730.00 7.00 83300 00 2105.535 Salvaged topioil CY 5.UK)3.00 15,30000 350 »7,850.C0 3.60 18360.00 3.20 1632000 6.00 30,60000 2105.609 C^oiexlile fabric. TVpe V CY 2,500 l.OO 2,500(10 1 35 3,375 tX)1.00 2.50000 2.15 5375.00 1.00 2.500.00 2112JUI Subgrade preparation SY 8,650 0.25 2,162.50 0.45 3,892.50 0.30 2.5950IJ 0 80 6,920 (K)0.75 6,487.50 2211.sot Aggregate base, Cl. 5,100% crushed IN 750 7J0 5,625 Of)690 5.175(H)9.fKl 6,750.00 9.90 7,425.00 10.75 8,062.50 2211.501 Aggbase, Cl. 5,100% crushed(path)'IN 3.550 7.50 26,625.00 8.93 31,701.50 8.70 30.885 (X)9.35 33.192.50 8.75 31.062 50 2211.501 Aggbase, Cl. 5,100% crushed(drv«7)IN .LHO 8.(KI 3,010(X)9 85 3.743UI 9.00 3,420.00 11.00 4,180.00 9.75 3,705.00 2331.504 Bituminous material for t.\.xture IN 111 125.00 28J75.00 118(10 26.786(H)123(10 27.921 (K)129 80 29.464 60 1.00 227.00 2331,508 lype 41 wearing course mixture TN 725 17.50 12,687.50 17.48 12,673.00 21.90 15,877.50 23 40 16,965 00 32(KJ 23.200.00 UT2 Did No. 1 Ilafdiivcs, Inc.Bid No. 2 Valley Paving, Inc Bid No 3 AIbcrConstruction,Inc.Bid No. 4 Driveway Design, Inc.Bid No. 5 Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc.Unit Unit Unit Unit UnitNo. fiCO!|Unit OH Price Ttrtal Priix 4V>la1 Price Total Pritx:Total |Pricc ToUl 2331.514 Type 31 base course mixture TN I.hSO 16.50 23,92500 16.55 23,997.50 1865 27.042 .50 21.45 31,102.50 30(K)43.500.00 2331.518 Type 41 bit. mixture for bike path W 1,460 19.50 28,47()(K)22.30 32,5 58XK)18.80 27,44.5.00 22.10 32,266.00 29.00 42440.00 2331.518 Type 41 bit. material for driveway TO 150 35.00 5,250.00 41.00 6,150.00 30.00 4300.00 41.80 6,270.00 39.00 5,850.00 2357.502 Bituminous material for tack coat Ol.500 1 00 500 00 1..30 650 (XJ 1.10 550.1X)3.00 1300.00 2.00 1,000.00 0412.604 Kcvstone rcUiningwall SF 900 12.00 10300.00 1275 11,473.00 1100 9,900.00 11.00 9,900 00 15.00 13400.00 2501.511 12’ RC pipe culvert, ( lass V IF 19 (K)1,140 (X)24 75 1,485 00 19(X) 1,140(X)19 80 1,188 (X)25.(X)14v ‘ 2501.511 15* RC pipe culvcri, Class V LF 703 21.00 14305.00 25.75 18,153.75 21.00 14305.00 22.00 15310.00 26.00 18430.00 2501.511 18* RC pipe culvert, Gass III LF 1,430 23.10 33,033.00 27.85 39325.50 23.10 33.033.00 24 20 34,6()6()0 29.00 41,47000 250U11 24’ RC pipe culveri. Gasi 111 LF 25 30.00 750.00 3300 825.00 29.50 737.50 30.80 770.00 33.00 825.00 2501.515 12* RC pipe apron EA 1 315.00 315.0)363.00 365.00 315 00 315.00 330.00 330.00 275.00 275.00 250L515 18* RC pipe apf^EA 2 368.00 736.00 420.0f»840.00 370.00 740.a)385.00 770.00 350.00 700.00 2501.515 24* RC pipe apruii llA 1 446.00 446 00 540.00 540.00 450.00 45000 467.50 467.50 45000 45000 2501.515 15* CM pipe apron HA 8 74(KJ 592U)I5.‘ (I)1,240 (X‘75 00 6(KIU)77 00 6164XJ 95(X)760 U) 139W.TAB \\\y Hid No. 1 lUrdrives, Inc.Hid No 2 Valley Paving, Inc.Hid No. 3 AlberCuiuUuction.Inc.Hid No. 4 UrivcN^ay Design, Inc.llkl No. 513avc Perkins ('onlracting, Inc.Na, Item Unit IllTotal UnitPricx Fotal Unitl*rioc 'total UnitIhicc Total UnitPrice Total 2501J21 28* span RC pipe arch culvert 11 100 48.00 4.80000 55.00 5,500.00 50.00 5,000.00 40.50 4.05000 5I.(KI 5,100.00 2501.325 2B* (pan Rr pipe arch apron EA 1 500(10 5(KI!)0 54000 54000 500.00 500 00 522.50 522.50 400.00 4oaoo 2MI3 511 Iniiall CMP or RCP culverts LF 240 10.50 2,520.00 15.43 3.708.00 10.50 2,520(X)11 (HI 2.640(10 15.(X)3,600.00 2303.511 13* CM pipe culvert IF 240 11.50 2.760 00 2420 5.80300 12.00 2380.00 12.10 2,904.00 10.00 2,400.00 2506.509 Construct catch basin manhole EA 11 1,260.00 13360.00 1,19000 13,(8>0 00 1,3(X)U0 14^t(XKK)1.320.(Y)14.52000 1300 00 14300.00 2306JQ9 Comuucl catch buin lv\4 525.00 2.100.00 970.00 3380.00 525.00 2.100.00 550.00 2,200.00 uoaixj 4,400.00 0306.602 Adjust frame St ring cafg.llA 7 150 00 1.050.00 16000 1,I20(X)400 (X)2.8(K)(‘jO 250.00 1,750.00 150.00 i,c:j.or 2511.501 Random riprap, CUsi 3 CY 60 63.00 3,780.00 45.00 2,700.00 65.00 3,900.00 66 00 3.960(X)7500 4,500 (JO 2331 JOl Cone, curb A gutter. Deslp B618 LF 7,500 480 36,(K*) (K)4 60 34.50000 4.75 35,625 00 4.90 36.750.00 5.00 37,500.00 0331 603 Cone, curb A guticr, Dcs. 0618 rein.LF 120 5.40 648.00 5.20 62400 5.30 63600 5..50 66(MX)6.(W 72000 2333JQl Bituminoui curb IF 1,500 2 00 3.0(K) (XI 2.70 4,05(. 00 2.00 3,000.00 3.00 4300.00 3.00 4300.00 2554.603 Reconstruct ptalc beam guardrail LF 125 12 80 1,6(MUV)12 85 1,6(K> 2 5 600 750 00 13.45 1.681 25 10.00 U50.00 13966.TAB in 4 Iicm 2357J01 Wire fence design 6 5 9320 (Woven wire) 2557.603 Furnish A install chain linV fence 0557.603 Instill chiin link fence 0564.603 4* wide solid line • white paint 2571.502 Maple Sugaf • 3* CAl. USiU 2571.502 Ash Summit • 3 ’ CM. BAH 2573J03 Silt fencd, preissembled 2575.501 Roadside seeding 2575 .502 Seed. Mixture .500 13966 TAB 0564.602 Furni'^h A install ”No Parking* sign HA 2571.501 Spruce Colorado Blue - 4* 111. DAB IL\ 2571.501 Spruce Colorado Blue • 6* hi, BAB H/V Bid No. 1 llardrivcs, Inc. Hid N ). 2 Valley Paving, Inc. Hid No 3 Alhcr Constructioi;. Inc. Hid No 4 Driveway Design, Inc. Hid No. 5 Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc. Unit Unit Price Tolal Unit Pfkx T.Mal Unit Price Total Unit Priix:Total Unit Price Total Ll-2.100 3J1 6,951.00 3.26 6,846.00 3.05 6.405 (It)440 9,240 00 4 50 9,450 00 IF 250 7.56 1,890.00 7.70 1.925.00 9.00 2,250.00 3.60 900.00 3.50 875.00 LI*150 4.95 742 50 5.20 780 00 4.20 630(10 2.20 330 (10 2.00 300.00 HA 20 4500 90000 55.00 1,100.00 45.00 900.00 90.00 1300.00 150.00 3,000.00 I F 11,100 oil 1,221 00 0 12 1,332 00 0 11 1,221.00 on 1,221.00 0.20 2.220.00 liA 25 158.00 3.950.00 160.00 4000.00 110.00 2.7503J0 115.00 2375.00 150.00 3,750.00 HA 25 185.00 4.625.00 1S5Q0 4,625.00 155.00 3.875.00 15500 3375.00 225.00 5,625.00 Vu\25 236.00 5,900.00 235.00 5,875.00 2153J0 5,375.00 285JJO 7,125.W 500.00 12,500 00 \iA 25 22000 5,500.00 210 fu 5,250.00 200.00 5.000.00 215.00 5J75.00 35aoo SJ50.00 U l,7(K)2 00 3.400 00 2.30 3,9100t)1.!S0 2.55000 1.50 2,55()(l»1.75 2.97500 AC 11.0 137.00 U07.00 175.00 1,925 00 210.00 2310.00 143.00 1,573 00 75a00 8,250.00 in 880 185 1.628 00 365 3,2!2CO 265 2332.00 1.95 1.716.00 3.50 3,060.00 JW BT 5 • • • • r ny No. 1 llardrivcs, Inc.Did No. 2 Valley Paving, Inc.Bid No 3 AlhcrC'onslniciion,liic.Hid No 4 l)fivcw;'V Dcsigti Inc.Did No. 5 Dave Perkins Conlracting. Inc«.iia Item Unit QIY UoilPikx Total Unit■Yirc Jolal UnitPlUX Total UnitlYicc Total UnilPric*I'oul 2573 J05 Sodding, type Uwn SY 7.000 1.53 10,710.00 1.52 10,640 (K)1 47 t0.290f»0 1.60 11,200.00 250 17,500.00 2573.511 Mulch malcrUl. lypc 1 'IN 22 137 (JO J.0I4U)165.00 3,630.00 170.00 .4,740 00 143 00 3,14600 500.00 11.000.00 2573.519 Disc anchoring AC 11 37.00 407.at 65 (K)715CJO 95.00 1,045.00 33.50 423.50 15000 1.65000 2373.331 Cununerd*! fert., Analysis 12 12-12 IN 1.3 274.00 411.00 370.00 555.00 39000 5K5 lit)286 00 429.00 700.00 1.050.00 Total llase Bid 513.121.50 55.4,4«075 559,403.50 367,868.85 « 718,264.50 Allcrnaio Did • PalhMay 2101.301 Qctr tod grub trees 12i 1 1,000.00 1.00000 6.800.00 62500.00 1.000.(X1 1,000 DO 550(1^55000 1,000.00 1,000.00 2104 Ml Remove CMP or RCP cuK’crt IF 300 6 30 1,89000 5.20 1,560 00 6.30 1,890.00 2.75 825.00 10.00 3.000(1) 2105.325 TopsoU borrow (CV)C'Y 6(K)5.00 3,000.00 9.20 5,320.00 900 S,4IHII»7.70 4,62000 1000 6,000.00 2112.501 Subgrade preparation SY 1,330 025 337 50 0 45 607.50 0.50 675.00 0.80 1,080.00 0.75 1.012.5C- 2tM 504 Bituminous msterial for miifare TN 19 125.00 237300 118 ( JO 2,2421)0 12UJ0 2,337 (X)129 80 2,466.20 1.00 19.00 2331.508 IVpe 41 wearing course mixture IN 105 1750 1337.50 1748 1,835.40 21 90 2,299 50 23 40 2,457.00 32.00 3360.03 1396* TAB HI6 • ‘ •Uid No. 1 llardrivcs, Inc.Hid No. 2 Valley Paving, Inc.Hid No 3 AlhcrC'onstniction, Inc.Hid No 4 Drivew. y Design, Inc.Hid No. 5 Dave Perkins ('ontracting, Inc. No. Ilcmi Unit Unit Prior Total Unit Price 'Icrtal Unit IVicc Total Unit Prii*Total % Unit Price TituI 23.11.514 Type 31 base course mixture IN 210 16 50 3,46500 16 55 3,475 50 1865 3,916 50 21 45 4.504 50 30 00 6.300 00 2501.311 24 ’ RC pipe culven, Q. Ill 1.F 1.275 27.40 34,933.00 32.55 4131 25 27.50 33,062.50 28.60 36,465.00 33.00 42.075.0C 2506.309 Cor struct CB ntar.hole EA 4 1,155.00 4,62000 1.200 00 4,800.00 1,150 00 4,600.00 1.210.00 4,840.00 1,200.(10 4.800.00 2531 JOl Concrete curb and gutter LI 1.500 4,80 7,200.00 4.60 6,9',X).n0 4.75 7,125,00 4.90 7350.00 5.00 7300.00 Total Alternate Hid 60,660(K)75,241.65 64,305.50 65,157.70 75,066 50 s •t 13966 TAB m-7 ifid No. 1 Hid No. 2 Bid No. 3 Bid No. 4 Bid No. 5Bid Bond. Cert, dicci, Ctth depoitt 5% Bid Bond 5% Bid Bond 5% Bid Bond 5% Bid Bond 5% Bid BondFinHardrivcs, Inc.Valley Paving, Inc.AlbcrConstruction Driveway Design, Inc.Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc. By Stanley I Icmphill Douglas G. Vetter Timothy Alber m Randall M. John.son David P. Perkins President AddreiB 9724 - 10th Av N 8800 - 13th Av I:PO Box 399 4810 W Medicine I.akc Dr 15775 Juniper Ridge Dr Qly, Suie, Zip Code Plymouth, MN 55441 Shakopcc, MN 55379 Rogers, MN 55.174 Plymouth, MN 55442 Anoka, MN 55303 TDiephaoe (612) 542-9060 (612) 445-8615 (612) 428-8752 (612) 559-9004 (612) 427-0109 FaNa (612) 542-8750 (612) 445-0355 (612) 428-2245 (612) .550-1165 (612) 427-3806 1 3966.1 AU I1T8 IjOW Bidder Old Crystal Bay Rd. No. 8975 CSAII No. 20.50 Ilcnn Parks No. 2320Ilcm No.Item Unit Qty.Unit l^lce Total Price Qty.Total Qty.TuLal Qty.Total2101.501 Gear and grub trees 1 $7,000.00 $7,0(X).0()$5,(XX).(X)$1,0(X).(X)$1,(XK).00 2KM.501 Remove barb wire or woven wire fence LF 2100 Sl.OO $2.1(».00 2100 $2,100.00 0 so.oo 0 $0.00 2104.501 Remove concrete curb I.F 60 $4.(X)$240.«)60 $24().(X1 $().(X)0 $0.00 2104.501 Remove CMP or RCP culvert LF 500 S5.25 $2,625.00 340 $1,785.00 160 $840.00 0 $0.00 2104.505 Remove bitumin.vjs pavement SY 2700 $1.50 $4,05!I.(K)15(*J S2,25().(K)12IX)$1.8(X).fX)0 $0.00 2104.513 Sawing bituminous pavement SY 10500 $1.00 $10,500.00 9000 $9,000.00 1500 $1,500.00 0 $0.00 2101.521 Salvage plate beam guardrail LF'125 $4.50 $562.50 125 $562.50 0 $0.(X)0 $0.00 2104.521 Salvage chain link fence U-150 $3 15 $472.50 150 $472.50 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 ’ 0101.601 Relocate mail boxes, sign, etc.liJ 1 $1,000.00 $1,(KK).(X)1 $850.(X)1 $150.00 1 $0.00 2105.501 C mmon excavation CY 8100 $3.20 $25,920.00 56W)$17,92().(X)8(X)$2,560.00 1700 $5,440.00 2105.521 Granular borrow (CV)CY 3700 $10.50 $38,850.00 2700 $28,350.00 500 $5,250.00 500 $5,250.00 1 2105.523 Common borrow (CV)CY 11900 $6.50 $77,350.00 8900 $57,850.00 1500 $9,750.00 1500 $9,750.00 2105.535 Salvaged topsoil CY 5100 $3.00 $15,300.00 35«j $10,500.tt)850 $2,550.00 750 $2,250.00 2105.609 Geotextile fabric, tyj^e V CY 2500 $1.(X)$2,500.00 1500 $1,500.00 500 $500.00 500 $500.0) 2112.501 Subgradc preparation SY 8650 $0.25 $2,162.50 7300 $1,825.00 1350 $337.50 0 $0.00 2211.501 Aggregate base. Q. 5, lOO^e crushed IN 750 $7.50 $5,625.00 500 $3,750.00 250 $1,875.00 0 $0.00 2211.501 Agg. base. G.5, 10()^ crushed(path)IN 3550 $7.50 $26.615.(X)2400 $18,000.00 550 $4,125.00 600 $4,500.00 2211.501 Agg. base, C1.5, 100^ crushed (dr^'wy)IN 380 $8.00 S3.040.(X)300 $2,400.00 80 $640.00 0 $0.00 2331.504 Bituminous material for mixture TN 227 $125.00 S2K.375.0()175 $21.K75.(X)36 $4,5IX).(X)16 $2,000.00 $17,920.00 8(X)$2,560.00 1700 $5.440.00 1 $28,350.(1)500 $5,250.00 500 $5,250.00 1 $57,850.00 1500 $9,750.00 1500 $9,750.00 II $10,500.00 850 $2,550.00 750 $2,250.00 y $1,500.00 500 $500.00 500 $500.00 1 $1,825.00 1350 $337.50 0 $0.00 I >:.750.00 250 $1,875.00 0 $0.00 II $18,000.00 550 14,125.00 6(K)$4,500.00 y S2,4<».no 80 $640. r«)0 $0.(X) $21,875.00 36 $4,500.00 !6 $2,000.00 1 IjOW Bidder Old Crystal Bay Rd. No. 8975 CSAII No. 2050 Henn Parks No. 2320Item No.Item Unit Qty.Unit Price Total Price Qt.v.ToUil Qty.Total Qty.Total2506.509 Construct catch basin liA 4 S525.00 $2,100.00 2 $1,050.(X)2 $1,050.00 0 $0.000506.602 Adjust frame Sc ring cstg.liA 7 $150.(11 $1,050.00 7 $1,050.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.002511.501 Random riprap, Class 3 CY 60 $63.(X)$3,780.00 50 $3,150.00 10 $630.00 0 $0.002531.501 Cone, curb Sc gutter, Design U618 LI-7500 $4.80 $36,000.11)7500 S36,CK)0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.000531.603Cone, curb Sc gutter, I3cs. B618 rein.LF 120 $5.40 $648.00 120 $648.(X)0 $0.00 0 $0.002535.501 Bituminous curb LI-1500 $2.00 $3.(X1).(K)0 $0.00 15(1)$3.(XX).CH 0 $0.0025.54.603 Reconstruct plate hci^m guardrail LF 125 $12.80 $1,600.00 125 $1,600.00 0 $0.'X 0 $0.00 2557.501 Wire fence des. 6.5-932()(woven wire)LP 21(1)$3.31 $6,951.00 21(11 $6,951.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 1 2557.603 Furnish & install chain link fence IP 250 $7.56 $1.890.(X)250 $1,890.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 1 0557.603 Install chain link fence IP 150 4.95 $742.50 150 $742.50 0 $0.00 0 SO.OO 0564.602 Furnish & install "No Parking sign PA 20 $45.(1)S'KD.dl 20 $9(W.(1)0 so.oo 0 $0.00 1 0564.6034" wide solid line-while paint U-11100 $0.11 $1,221.00 9600 $1,056.00 1500 $165.00 0 $0.00 2571.501 Spruce Colorado Blue-4* III. Bi&B ItA 25 $158.00 $3,950.00 25 $3,950.00 0 $0.00 0 so.oo 2571.501 Spruce Colorado Bluc-6’ lit. B&l)liA 25 $185.(1)$4,625.00 25 $4,625.(1) 0 $0.(X)0 $0.(X) 2571.502 Maple Sugar - 3" CAI. B&B 1-A 25 $236.00 $5,900.00 25 $5,900.00 0 SO.CX;0 $0.00 2571.502 Ash Summit - 3" CAL Hc'tB I-A 25 $220.(1)$5,5(X).(X)25 $5,500.(1)0 50.(1)0 $0.00 in twmm__-J D)W Bidder Old Crystal Bay Rd. No. 8975 (N :sAic 0. 2050 I let N(in Parks [). 23201 Item No.Item Unit Qty.Unit Price Total Price Qty.Total Qty.FoUil Qty.Total2573.503 Silt fence, preasscmbled LI*1700 S2.IM)$3.4(K).CX)KXX)$2.0(X).00 200 $4(X3.00 500 $1,000.002575.501 Roadside seeding AC 11.0 5137.00 $1,507.00 7 $9.59.(X)2 $274.tX)2 $274.002575.502 Seed. Mixture 500 LB 880 S1.85 $1,628.(X)560 $1,036.00 160 $2%.00 160 $2%.002575.505 Sodding, type la\Mi SY 7000 $1.53 $10,710.00 5(XK)$7.650.'X)1500 $2,295.00 500 $765.(«2575.511 Mulch material, Type 1 119 22 $137.00 S3,014.tK)14 $1,918.00 4 $548.00 4 $548.002575.519 Disc anchoring AC 11 $37.(X)$407.00 7 S259.(X)2 $74.tX)2 $74.002575.531 Commercial fert.. Analysis 12-12-12 •m 1.5 $274.(X)$411.00 1 $274.00 0.25 $68.50 0.25 $68.50Total Base Bid $513,121.50 $398,902.00 $73,988.00 $40,231.50Alternate Bid • Pathway $0.00 2101.501 Clear & grub trees I.S 1 $1,000.00 $1,(XX).(X)0 $1 (XX).(X)0 $0.00 0 $0.00 1 2 KM. 501 Remove CMP or RC'P culvert 300 $6.30 $1,890.00 300 S 1.890.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 2105,525 Topsoil borrow (CV)CY 600 $5.00 $3.0(X}.(K)()00 $3,000.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 2105.501 Subgradc preparation SY 1350 $0.25 $337.50 1350 $337.50 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 1 2331.504 Bituminous material for mixture 119 19 $125.(X»$2,375.(X)19 $2375.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 1 2331.508 l\pc 41 wearing course mixture TN 105 $17.50 $1,837.50 105 $1,837.50 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 1 2331.514 'IY|X5 31 base course mixture 119 210 $16.50 $3.465.(K)210 $3.465.(X)0 $0.00 0 $0.00 2501.511 24" RC pipe culvert. Cl. Ill LF 1275 $27.40 $34,935.(X1 1275 $34,935.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 2506.509 Construct CB majtholc i:a 4 $1,155.00 S4,620.(X)0 $4,620.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 ( TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator DATE:June 23, 1993 'iVe SUBJECT: City Recorder Contract OTta The Council at its June 16 work session discussed the request to increase the City Recorder fee for meetings lasting longer than 2 hours An additional $5.00 would be charged for each 15 minutes beyond 2 hours. The base fee of $115.00 per meeting would remain unchanged through July of 1994. The Recorder has requested that the change be made effective as of May 15, 1993. It is staff's recommendation that the Recorder contract be renewed with the changes indicated above. iiL COUNCIL MEEHNC DATE: TO: FROM: June 23, 1993 Ron Moorse, City Administrator Lt. Cheswick jUN ? 8 1993 'CITYOFORONO SUBJECT: Animal Control Impound Facility Negotiations have been under way with the Humane Society of Wright County located on Highway 12 in the City of Independence to provide for animal impound services for stray dogs and/or cats. As you are aware on June 30th of this year, Reo Raj Kennels will no longer be in business. We therefore had to locate a new facility. The Humane Society of Wright County has been given permission by their board of directors and the City of Independence to expand their facilities and we found that this location best suited our needs. The Humane Society of Wright County is requesting financial assistance from the municipalities that they will be contracting with, but due to this time restraint they have proposed a sixty (60) day temporary agreement allowing the City of Orono to house animals until the negotiations are completed. The cost to the City of Orono will be as follows: Impound administrative charge - $5.00 per animal Daily rate for dogs - $7.50 per day Daily rate for cats - $6.50 per day Euthanasia & disposal fee $20.00 per animal I recommend that we proceed with the animal impoundment under this agreement until a more permanent contract is finalized. If you have any further questions, please contact me. t TO:Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:John Gerhardson, Public Works Director ^3 DATE:June 23. 1993 8 SUBJECT: Demolition of City Buildings Cr>'stal Bay In January, 1993 Council authorized the demolition of the "lumber yard" building m Crystal Bay due to its unsafe condition. We are now ready to demolish the rest of the buildings. The following is a cost per building for demolition: Administration Office Equipment with operator Container and landfill costs $3,600 $ 3,825 Public Works Office and Garage Equipment with operator Container and landfill costs $ 2,400 $ 2,250 Lumber Yard Container and landfill costs for footings $ 1,800 Public Works Garages (behind Council Chambers) Equipment and operator Container and landfill $ 1,800 $ 600 $16,275 I recommend we proceed with the demolition of those buildings. •{ a TO: FROM: DATE: Ron Moorse, City Administrator John Gerhardson, Public Works Director June 23, 1993 COUNCIL MEETING JUN 2 8 1993 CITYOFORONO SUBJECT: Lo\sry Woods Acceptance from Nature Conservancy In April, 1993 the Orono Park Commission received a request from the Nature Conservaticy to accept a parcel of land in Orono known as the Lowry Woods. Lowry Woods is approximately 14 acres of land just off County Road 84 (Bayside Road) near 3800 Bayside Read. The Park Commission has reviewed the request and recommends obtaining the parcel from the Nature Conserv'ancy. Attached is information from the Nature Conservancy and Park Commission Minutes relating to the discussions about the property. .TheNature. Qouscrvaucy 'kunnesota chapter April 8, 1993 Mr. Richard N. Flint Gray, Plant. Mooty, Mcx)ty & Bennett 3400 City Center Minneapolis, MN 55402-3796 Dear Dick: Since its inception in 1958. the .Minnesota Chapter has aggressively acquired unique natural anas throughout Minnesota. Our actions have resulted in retained ov.-nership of 62 preserves totalling approximately 17.000 acres, voluntary registry of 262 tracts through our private regisp7 program, and protecuon through public designation ot an additional 180,000 acres as local, state or l©deral conservation areas. Of the latter, more than 140,000 acres has greater legal protection as Minnesota Scientific and Natural Areas than we can provide as a private owner. We are proud of this record, but we have much tmore to do. The Minnesota Chapter Board of Trustees approved a strategic plan to guide our activities through the next decade. I have enclosed a copy of the proposed update of tlie plan for your information. As part of the planning process, we identified the need to transfer some of our current land holdings to better and more appropriate managers. The suggested areas tor transter are listed in Appendix A ot the plan. 1 would like to initiate a discussion with you about the possible transfer of I.«wry Woods l*resene, which is located in Orono. to the C’ity of Orono. The Board of Trustees must approve any proposed'final transfer and will want to ensure that the natural features for which the preserve was acquired will be maintained as a condition of transfer. We will also r^uire that the new managers have a thorough understanding of and obligation to maintaining biological diversity. I am writing to you in your capacity as a member of the O totk ) Park Board to explore with you the possibility of transfer of this property to the City of Orono for park purposes. I understand that Su^ Wilson has briefed you on the Conservancy's Lowry Woods Preserve (map enclosed) and the tact that our strategic plan calls for identifying a new miiager for this site. I would like you to review the enclosed materials and meet with you at your earliest convenience to discuss this matter further. 1 look for\v ,ird to visiung with you about this and will call you next week to schedule a m^ung. Thanks. Sincerely, / / ^ / ----------------- Nelson 1. French State Director Enclosures cc: Lee Goderstad Sin«\n Wilson The Nature Conservancy • Minnesota Chapter • Box 110 1313 SE 5th Street • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414-1588 • (612) 331-0750 primed an retvried Pace 9 Appendix A Preserves Transfers, Restoration Sites The following preserves should be evaluated by the Minnesota Btwrd of Trustees for transfer in the next five years. The evaluation must be systematic and thorough to deter­ mine: — whether the re.sponsibility to the preserve donors is upheld, — whether the preserve will receive adequate management by the receiving organization, — what rights, if any, TNC should retain in the property. Preserves Blue Devil Valley Blue Gentian Prairie Egret Island Femdale Marsh Glyrm Prairie Halma Prairie Hardscrabble Woods/Tuslar Sanctuary Hovland Woods Ka.sota Prairie Laible Woixls Lake Alexander Preserve Lowry Wcxxls Lundblad Prairie McDougall Homestead Moe Woods Morris Point Partch Woods Paul Bunyan Savaima Paul Nelson Wilcilife Sanctuary Phillip J Englund Ecotone Rockville Tamarack Bog Sandhill Crane Meadows Seven Sisters Praine Stalfaason Prairie Susie Island Wabu Woods Wahpcton Prairie Restoration Sites Restoration of highly degraded sites with little natural vegetaion will not begin until sites that are ecologically viable and which have a core natural area are protected. If an opportimity arises to begin one of these projects, TNC will act as a catylst, but this will not be a major focus of the Stewardship program. Major restoration efforts are known as de novo restoration. Examples where this type of project might be necessary in Minnesota are mesic prairie (SE) and black sod savanna. Less than 500 acres of good quality SE mesic praine exists in the state. r^ol^d that^ ® ‘’y Netting, and passed, it wai ' I I The Board approved and ratifies, effective as of s:pte%'%r:^:f • ir:cr::^orj::d"rn'H: Minnesota from Mr. and Mrs. Goodrich L^^^witrchr unoerstanding that, in accordance with Mr. Lowry's Wishep, sard tract win be maintained so long as ■ orciinf-^®® ® natural area and that should pressures ' af conditions making continuation impractical, the property be sold ■ and the proceeds used to purchase other suitable prof>erty within Minnesota. (Res. 45-65) I -' f / r< e . ? ^ ^ Tr • • —TlI'* -r* T* .1 t • p. 8 The issue v/as brought to the Board of Governors once again. The following is from the minutes of the Sept. 9. 1966 meeting. LOV.'ERY TRACT. •■■INNESCTA; There was extensive discussion of the proposal in the Agenda that this property be sold to provide funds to pay off outstanding project loans to the Minnesota Chapter. Rough asked whether the pro­ perty should not be retained for its open space values and Xr. Ross pressed this point. It v/as then pointed out that the Acting Executive Director had already authorized sale in principle under authority of Resolution 45-65, of April 10, 1965, which however, spoke of using the proceeds to purchase other suitable property within iv-innesota. " it v/as agreed to include in the resolution a hortatory clause stressing the desirability of open space use. Upon motion by killer, seconded by Arnold, and passed, it was resolved that: 1. The action of the Executive Director in authorizing the Minnesota Chapter to sell the Lowery Preserve is ratified and confirmed effective as of June 29. 1966, but it is urged that the possibility of making the sale to some governmental agency for open space use be thoroughly explored and that every reasonaole effort to effect such a sale be made. 2.vhe net proceeds of the sale shall be used to refund outstanding loans from the matching and Loan Fund to the Agassiz Dunes and .v.almberg frairie Projects. Any P-9 surplus shall be used to acquire natural areas in the State of iv.innesota. 3. Any officer or officers or any other person designated in v/riting by the Executive Director is authorized to take any steps necessary to effectuate this reso­ lution. (.Aes. 123-66) .^n a letter dated Sept. 13, 1966 from John humke to '/.‘alter Lehnert the pov/er of the .'.irj-.esota Chapter to determine the fate of Lowry woods v/as reaffirmed, /.r. iiumke noted: At the Board of Governors Meeting on September 9, 1966 a resolution to ratify and confirm the r-xecutive Director’s action authorizing the I..innesota Chapter to sell the Lowry Tract was suggested. In the ensuing conversation, the resolution, which will be for.vardei when the minutes are printed, was modified to read that the possibility of sell­ ing this property to a municipality, school, or other party that would use the Preserve for open space rather than development, should be fully explored and that preference should be given to a sale of this type. It is not the intent of the forthcoming resolution to limit the sale only to an open space use but to have this possi­ bility fully explored and given preference if possible. in 1967 the possibilities were explored of selling Lowry woods to the Hennepin County Park Reserve District and the village of Crono.i.o agreement was reached, .'.inutes of the i..inr.esota Chapter Eoard of Trustees can be consulted for reference p.lO In early 1973 an owner of some adjacent land wished to arrange a land trade, but the offer was rejected by Ti'iC. legal iNFORI-.ATICr: Survey The area has been surveyed but the condition of any boundary or corner posts is not known Deed the quit claim deed for Lowry .loods is dated 16 December 1964 and is registered in Hennepin County. Tax Information The Nature Conservancy has exemption from taxes on this propert/ Other Leral r.atters_ There’are no leases, special insurance policies, or conservation easements attached to this property as of Oct. 1978. r.:ANAGEr/£NT AND USE PLAN Land Outside the Preserve, Access and Parking There is about 10 acres of similar quality woods to the east of the preserve. Mo acquisition is recommended. TNC land does not abut a public road. To reach the preserve from County Road 84 it is necessary to cross about 100 feet of private land. TNC does not, therefore, have le^al access t^ this property PT’orprve Perimeter DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 1. 1993 ATTENDANCE Dick Flint Susan Wilson, Alex Vomzries, Jim White, Sherokee Use, Lili McMillan. John Gerhardson, Jack Brinkhaus, Absent: Roben Howells, Guest: Eva Hoerr, Recorder: Jim White. PARKS TOUR Prior to the formal meeting, the members toured the following: Proposed Bike/Hike Trail; Navarre Playground; Cr>'stal Bay Playground: Hackberry Park, Bederwood Park, Lowry Woods; and Summit Park. Councilmember KeUey accompanied the Park Commission for this portion of Uie meeting. APPROVAL OF MLNUTt S Postponed until regular recorder could be present, future meetings Next meeting. Tuesday. July 6. 1993. Lili McMillan suggested to July meeting be a regular meeting. Volunteer recognition should be at to September meeting. Tamarack Center group will be given a volunteer award. Golf outing will be Wednesday. July 14th at 5;00 p.m. tee off time at Orono Municipal Course. Teri Naab to be invited. LOWRY WOODS Ayes 6. nayes 0. 1 I' : }< /■ ? •••? ; ' •’ ^ • t 4 ORONO BIKE/IIIKF TRAIL Chair Plim reported on meeting with Hennepin Parks personnel on the agreement document. Hennepin Parks’ document has ambiguities and vague language. Problem: to change the agreement now, it needs to be brought back to Hennepin Parks Board for approval. Hennepin Parks Superintendent feels it is better to agree and accept agreement now and later process an amendment if there are substantive issues. That way the agreement is cemented and becomes a done deal. Chair Flint explained his proposed language changes and handed out the Parks document and his suggested changes. Bids will be opened June 18th. They could be tabulated by the engineer and be ready for presentation at a special meeting ot the Park Board before the City Council meeting on the agreement. Tuesday, June 22nd at 7:15 p.m. was agreed upon for a Special Park Board meeting to discuss the trail agreement and review the bids. PLAYGROUND EQUU’MENT FOR ORONO SCHOOLS Eva Hoerr made a presentation on behalf of the playground committee for Schumann Elementary and Orono Primary School. Goal is to build community benefitting playground facilities. She presented a packet of materi.ils on proposed playground equipment and designs. Ms. Hoerr walked through her materials explaining the comminee’s goals and needs to fund their project. Their goal: $125,000 by September 1st. $10,000 is requested from Orono, the City with the largest number of families in the school district. Question and answer session followed. Issues asked were: insurance, safety design, how was Orono’s contribution level determined, precedent setting - what if other cities asked for similar donations? Chair Flint stated he’d support some level of funding. Decision and vote will be at July meeting. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Richard Flint, Chair Person r3 JU J MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 4, 1993 ATTENDANCE The Park Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Dick Flint, Susan Wilson, Lili McMillan, Robert Howe I Is and Jim White. Sherokee I Ise and Alex Vongrics were absent. John Gerhardson, Public Works Director and Teri Naab, Recorder represented City staff. Chair Flint called the meeting to order at 7:19 p.m. (#1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Wilson asked that Page 5, Paragraph 4, be "Vongries, McMillan and I Ise were assigned equipmen t. . . ' changed to read: to evaluate park It was moved by WiIson, seconded by HowelIs, to approve the minutes of the April 5, 1993 Park Commission meeting as amended. Ayes 4, nays 0. INTRODUCTION Chair Flint Introduced Jim Commission member. White, the newly appointed Park White said he is employed by MCOA, a development agency for the City of Minneapoi is. He was involved with development in the 1970s, is a member of the Minneapolis Bike Advisory Board, and served on the Hennepin Parks Board for three years. He noted he may soon be joining the private business sector. He said he lives on Casco Point with,his wife and four children. He noted he Is know Iedgeab e about municipal financing laws. Chair Flint noted White’s qua Ii Tications were very different than the rest of the Commissions and felt that would be an asset. White asked each member to tell a bit about themselves. McMIMan reported she has been on the Commission for one year, has a conservationist background, and is a sports-oriented person. She stays at home to take care of her two chiIdren. Howells stated he taught history and coached in Hopkins 29 Hennepin Parks. blader. She lives off of County Road 51 and has three children. 1 L L J . _ minutes of the park commission meeting of may 4, 1993 INTRODUCTION - CONT. Chair Flint stated he has been the Chair of the Park Commission for the past three years and has been with the Commission for approximately 6 years. (#2) LOWRY WOODS - NATURE CONSERVATORY Chair Flint explained the Nature Conservatory may be interested in conveying to Orono the Lowry Woods area if Orono agrees to maintain in the area in its natural state. He noted Wilson has conveyed to the Nature Conservatory that purchasing the property is not an option. Wilson explained the area is a segment of a map I e/basswood forest, but is too small for the Nature Conservatory to maintain for spec Ific species. Chair Flint inquired about access to the area. Gerhardson reported due to current development of property to the east and south, the City has required access be provided to the Lowry Woods from Bayside Road. Wilson noted there are many wildflowers on the property. Chair Flint noted this property does not abut the * ! 1 He noted the southern portion of the property is wooded, slopes northward to a field area. He said access f°^^® could be obtained with an easement over the parcel to the norm. McMillan questioned the City’s obligation >f the property were donated and asked about walking trails. Wi'iij? said she felt the Conservatory would stipulate the area .'lot be developed and must be maintained as natural e^v I ng cutting down of trees to ensure ^*]® . area. She did feel they would not object to walking trails thro g the property. White asked If the area Is fenced, and questioned maintenance and the necessity of such to disallow ne g properties to use the property as a parking area. Wilson noted It is partially fenced. Chair Flint said the City has many parks "9/®® ‘ ' h!s^'’not with no fencing to prohibit Its use and the City experienced any problems. He suggested they add this area to their scheduled park tour. uU 7 CTP U MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 4, 1993 LOWRY WOODS - CONT. White said he would supply them with area! photos from the County. Wilson noted the property drastically slopes from south to '^orth. Shi added this area is nuch like Woldsfeld Woods Nature Conservatory has not maintained the area for the last 15 years and she expected little cost associated with maintenance. White asked if a survey has been conducted of the trees and w i I d I i f e. Wilson said to her knowledge there is not a survey on the wildlife in the area. White suggested that may be helpful In determining walking trail locations. He noted they may be able to get a volunteer from the County to provide the survey. Chair Flint questioned whether they should hold an informational meeting for the neighbors. Wilson suggested they do so after they have obtained more Information. McMillan recommended they study the possibility of access to the Luce Line. Gerhardson said he would find out the name of the owner of the parcel to the north. v. .r: neighborhood nature area. McMillan felt walking trails would not be neeaed if the area were not publicized. She questioned the need for parking. Howells asked what will happen with the property if Orono does not accept. WlIson said the Nature Conservatory Is determined to dispose of the property and probably wiI I selI. Chair Flint felt Orono could probably do a better maintaining the area, and suggested the involvement of neighbors. r,v.T r s" " MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 4, 1993 LOWRY WOODS - CONT. Gerhardson noted the private drive wiii soon be upgraded to a road and parking may be feasible along that area. McMillan inquired about the cost of transferring the land. Wilson noted she was told it would cost the City $1.00 for the transfer. It was moved by Howells, seconded by White. ^rT’^fhe'^^iturethe option to acquire the Lowry Woods area from the Nature Conservatory, subject to review at comments received by neighboring property owners. Ayes 5. nays 0. (#3) DAKOTA RAIL LINE RECREATIONAL TRAIL of McMillan reported she and Chair Flint l . I people from surrounding communities to ^ ‘ Pf She said the line runs from west of Wayzata to Hutchinson, w bankrupted in 1985 by Burlington Northern and subsequently purchased by a private d^eveic.-.er as an i-estment Vfne"°T" itt are discussing the possibility of purchasing the line .or trail purposes. Chair Flint said the group is asking for a statement of support. White noted the developer Is looking to make money on the iniestment He felt this would be an ideal project for the communities to ban their funds together and request the State to match dolIars. Chair Flint reported at a sem nar held last fall on Rails to Trails organizations were Informed to begin projects ear Iy, °b^® " I^ron^ pub Me support. ban together, and have an over-al coord?nator. He stated the communities pian to hold several meetings at which they will be inviting ^tate and DNR rspresentatives. He noted the owner cannot abandon the line until he has obtained State approval. Wilson felt the DNR would be a key player In development of the traiIs. Howells asked If they have discussed the issue of their purchasing a portion of the trail for parking with the City of Mouno. HcMII Ian Indicated the City of Mound would like to incorporate this area with their downtown redevelopment project. Wilson felt this to be an Important project and suggested they lend their support and help. U r-» MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 4, 1993 DAKOTA RAIL LINE RECREATIONAL TRAIL - CONT. It was moved by Wilson, seconded by McMillan, to recommend supporting the acquisition of the Dakota rail line for trail purposes, and to help in any way possible incIwJing supplying the group of communities with names of people to help with the project. Howells questioned the number of bridges along the line. Gerhardson said there were two. Vote: Ayes 5, nays 0. (#4) BIKE/HIKE TRAILS - OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD Chair FIint reported a tour of the bike/hike traiI and meeting has been scheduled for May 5th at 7:30 a.m. with the Council and City Engineer. They will discuss concerns such as the cost, curb ana gutter, the loss of screening, and the Hennepin Parks contract. Wilson questioned where the trail would connect to the lOK. Chair Flint noted the trail would connect to the road leading to Starkey Road. He insisted Hennepin Parks will be paving the section between Starkey Road and the 10K. Wilson suggested that condition be added in the contract. Chair Flint felt that was unnecessary as he was sure they .rt^nded to do so. White said their policy is that trails will be paved. HenncDin Parks has a nursery In Crow Hassen of plants native to the area which they would be happy to supply for planting along the trail. Chair Flint said plantings would need to be approved as they would be on private property. McMillan noted that Mayor Callahan was concerned about the curb and gutter. Chair Flint said he was concerned with the cost of the overall project ' cltfng that this trail was costing double the average trail. White asked them to keep in perspective the City ‘ ^ ®5‘^®ra I ? pay half of the trail. He stated it was there placed anywhere in the area would cost the same. \ Is a trail running along Old Crystal Bay Z®®*! likely to become a feeder road for an upgraded Highway 12. minutes of the park commission meeting of may 4, 1993 (*»5) JUNE PARK TOUR The June Park Tour was scheduled for Tuesday, June 1, 1993 at 6.00 p.m., following the tour established at xhe April meeting with the addition of Lowry Woods. (^0) HENNEPIN COUNTY BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chair Flint referred to a letter from Emily Ann Staples requesting voiunteers to this committee. White suggested they contact Jan Gunther, owner of the bike shop in Long Lake, as she may be willing to serve or may know of someone. FRENCH LAKE PARK wiidflower mix is very expensive. White said he would check with the County to see if they can supply all or some of the necessary seeds. is hoped they can provide the necessary plantings and seeds Inexpensively as possible. It was moved by White, seconded by Howells, to recommend approval °pIr.*,-r'a ‘n-amoLrt ^St trrridr.oS-ro^I^es S.^^ay^O^- Wilson requested permission to have removed a fence bordering the west side of the pond. All members agreed. Wilson requested permission to remove trees encroaching the wetland area. All members agreed. Gerhardson said they would be closing access off to the area of new plantings so as not to disturb the wildlife. (#7) PROGRESS A. Hackberrv Park;. Gerhardson reported this project has not been started. • * liiJ crz MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 4, 1993 B» Summit Park: Gerhardson reported the canoe rack is in place and the City has received three applications. The "Canoe Launch Only" sign has arrived and will be installed shortly. The large tree near the swimming beach has been removed and the sod in the swimming beach area will be removed apd replaced with sand. Wilson asked that they also remove a large rock in the center of the canoe launch area. Gerhardson reported the Tamarack Senior Center has been responsible for picking up trash at this park both last year and this. appear before the 11 reported in the Howells suggested a letter of commendation. Chair Flint suggested requesting them to Commission to accept commendation and have newspaper. White explained a volunteer recognition program operated by Hennepin Parks whereby annual recognition is given to certain individuals or organizations and their picture is hung in the building for a year as a reminder of the appreciation. He said the commendation is presented at a meeting where coffee and cookies are served. Chair Flint suggested the annual recognition be presented to the Tamarack Senior Center at 7:00 p.m., July 6th. Gerhardson was instructed to invite the Tamarack Senior Center and the newspaper representative to the meeting. It was suggested that they ask 11se to consider development of the plague to be presented in conjunction with the "Adopt a Park" program. Howells recommended covers be placed on all trash barrels to prevent spill age. (#8) WIRTJES SUBDIVISION REVIEW Gerhardson reported this is a single lot subdivision of property on Watertown Road, east of Cygnet Place. It was moved by Wilson, seconded by White, to recommend Park dedication funds in lieu of dedication of park land for the Wirtjes subdivision. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#9) McCarthy subdivision review Gerhardson reported this Is a single lot subdivision off Old Beach Road. MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 4, 1993 McCarthy subdivision review - cont. Tt was moved by Wilson, seconded by McMillan, to recommend park Ldication funds be accepted in lieu of park land for the McCarthy subdivision. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#10) PARK MONITORING T+ uiac Horided that the park monitoring program would continue for mrknth McMillan would supply Gerhardson and White with a ’Spy TSS*?;rl whft"e was assigned to Casco Swimming Beach and Navarre Playground. OTHER White asked If they have considered establishment of a "Friends of pSr^^■ foundation, whereby contributions could be received. Chair Flint suggested they consider the establishment of a fund Suh the Minneapolis Foundation to avoid some iegai procedures. *** Howells asked about the financial statements for the golf course. Gerhardson reported they are not completed yet. McMillan volunteered Commission members. to coordinate a golf outing for the Park Gerhardson reported Orono has been challenged to a b^ the City of Medina and Bonestroo Engineering. The date is _ _ _ _, at 1:00 p.m. at Hamel Park. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Wi Ison, seconded bv Howe I Is, to adjourn the regular meeting of the Park Commission at 9:50 p.m. Thft next meeting will be Tuesday. _JujLe^. 1 . 1993 at_6xgO-P-^ Richard Flint, Chair Person 8 i c TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT; Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator June 25, 1993 /If, JUh ^ CITY C^iflQ Use of City Beach Access For Milfoil Harvesting fO/fO/y/j iilliilliiSsil closed during the harvesting operation hours. The nearest alternative access is a 25 minute trip for the harvesters. It is staff's recommendation that the use of the beach access be allowed to enable the most efficient harvesting operation. COUNCIL MEETiNG TO; FROM: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator JUN 2 8 1993 cmroFORONo DATE:June 23, 1993 SUBJECT; Recommendation for Disciplinary Action The Council will be requested to enter into an executive session to approve a disciplinary action against a city employee. Details ot the incident and recommended discipline will be provided in a separate packet. LIST OF LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MEETING OF JUNE 28, 1993 7 Special Event Application - Viking Bassmasters Larry Johnson Bass Tournament October 3, 1993, 6 a.m.-3 p.m. Launch from North Arm Landing Instructions, Take-Off and Weigh In North Shore Marina % site Evaluator/Designer License - Koch's Soil Testing Loretto, MN Otto Association, Inc. Buffalo, MN 55313 Residential Kennel License - L. James and Kathleen Marier 2775 White Oak Circle Ann and Rod Crawford 4705 North Shore Drive Date; To: From: Subject: June 15, 1993 Ron Moorse, City Administrator Steve Sullivan, Chief of Polic Special Event Application I have reviewed the application submitted by the Viking Bassmasters. This organization has had their event in our city in past years. As there has not been problems associated with the tourncunent, I have no objection to the issuance of this permit. rerriii PAPJVDES S SPECIAL S'/ENTS PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF ORCNO, MINNESOTA Fee: $50.00 Phone Number; S' Name; j—cwt"/! :) / Address; ^-V W City/ Stare, Zip; PV / v.. ___________' 1 ~ Location of Parade or Event; SV'-Crrc- Wo to ^ V vi *T' V I CITY of OKONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55olM*Municipal Offices On th<i North Shore of Lake Minnetonka DATA PRIVACY ADVTSPRY n ao-ordar.ce with M.S. 13.04, Subd. 2, "Sights of subjects of you to furnish ‘certain private or conrrdential inromat.on. You are notified that: 1 The infort.ar.ion you furnish will be used to determine your oualification for t.he permit or license requesteo. •dm 2. -ion wav refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or ircense. 3. The information may be shared cVAi^ orfederal agencies to the extent necessary to process t..e permi- license. . e _ II ^ oT" ^ icense recu^res Councxl acw^cn aJjrir," so^^enniotmrtS-mly become public. • u.»e. iumreaT- M ">3 04 to Tsview orivate5. You have certain rranrs unaer ii.b. -j.u-* data on yourself. 6. Your full name is required permit. Q DJ70CSSS this application or oC5 *cAwv^:e First Middle Las' Address c.551»1 ^ City St.ate Z-wp _ _ _(^y-^ 1 ^ C .B> _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone I understand my rights as stated above. Signature BL ILDINC A ZONING - 473-7 357 .assessing ADMLMSTRA-nON A FINANCE - 473-7338 Pt'BLIC'.vORKS - 47 3-7339 CITY of OKONO (612) 473-73S7 Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 SITK EV7VLUATOR/DESIGNER LICENSE APPLICATION All questions must be answered. License fee and evidence of MPCA Certification must be attached. All applications are subject to a ten (10) day approval period. _ Business oi trade name H ‘ S1. 2. 3. Business address tSo 'X g/ I La/Z£TTo , fh/O f Business phone 77~ t ift ^ 7 Residence phone ~~ 4. Name of applicant^r ^ompan_^ rep^sentative^s) holding MPCA certification E.N- 5.Type of certification held: Site evaluator X, System designer. Certificate expiration _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6.Have you ever performed site evaluation or design wor)c in Orono before? Vg-S Most recent year 199^ 7.Have you ever had a license revoked? )f^c> Where? When? SUBMITTALS REQUIRED; ]/^\.. $100.00 License application fee. 2, Copy of current MPC.A Certificate. LICENSES WILL NOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL T^LL ITEMS ARE SUBMITTED The undersigned hereby makes application to the City of Orono, Minnesota, for a license to perform site evaluation and septic system design subject to the laws of the State of Minnesota and the Ordinances of the City of Orono. Date KogJl'x staff recommendation Approval Reason for denial: &Denial Date City Council Action Date Date license mailed Approved Denied c;ry orrot^o fiAWVCr OFFICE 1311500000 01 CEH iCO.OC CHiCK TL 100.00 hEiEiFT-THA^S yet'W'/4fVi rMi ..'<}} 71Q: •rT4.1 wA / w livA ; »lA » 'Vi/ 1 • / CITY ot OKONO SITE EVALDATOR/DESIGNER LICENSE APPI-ICATION (612) 473-7357 Post Office BOX 66 Crystal Bay# MN 55323 . an License fee and evidence of MPCA -sT be bo a ten (10) day approval period. Business or trade name 077c> AS^CC'• ^--------------------------- Business address 9 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. •^tT7 ^>>^1 Business phone (^<^2.'' •^^'7 '2~'Z Residence phone Name of applicant or company representative(s) holding MPCA certification -J ,— - - - - - --- - - - --- - -- Type of certification held: ^ Site evaluator _2S. System ai_.-—oor-f-1 f 1 r-ate exDiration 4-^ I—vM-------------------------—designer. Certificate expiration nave you ever performed site evaluation or design work in Orono before? Mo __ Most recent year ----------- When? SUBMITTALS REQUIRED i* 7 7V nC nor>iJiiLI I I Li c'muiiu i." V ^ ^TrpI 1 U4. 4 Vi i z‘nnt'u ‘u^ i J-X 1 wv _ _ ^ -—, , r ? /I*L-uil Avv*^: rue fir* T7 iOv.vvnr^criPT-rti^}ii(.yot} S2765S0 cool ROl T15: 06/2Z LICENSES WILL NOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE SUBMITTED The undersigned hereby makes JL° septicMinnesota, for a license to Perform site evaluation an^ system design subject to the laws of the State ot Minne the Ordinances of the City of Orono. Staff recommendation Approval Reason for denial: _ _ _ _ City Council Action Date Date license mailed _ _ Approved *■ ■ ‘ KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1, I'J ____ to Dece^er 31, 19 Cwr...r; /, /■''^7/^^/^y. , 7^. .jr^ Property Addre :__ (include city ana rip ] m Mailing Address (if different):_ Phone: (home)____S ^ 3 ^ ^ ^(work) RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Infconation: $25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time (over 3 months of age) ^ ^ q •- Principal Breed ^ Purpose for more than 2 dogs:------^— Dogs normally kept: ^^inside ____kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Information: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: Business Activities :______ ________—--------------------------------E7^\T5d()(:'i)i? (e-xample: boarding, breeding, veterinary car_, retax , - qi Q Normal Business Hours _________________________________________ After Hours Contact: (name)__ (phone) Dog runs/exercise areas are: 01 ££?.' 25, OC iHEiii JL S5,0v —(■miP7-rH^\‘K YOU H2747Q0 cool HOI T03: — 06/03/ inside outside _ _both ■-ouncil®for^rLnnel''Lcensl on this°lorm; the ;"fdoirno/fraSffnra^hhoritv ’'ro"^\o\atT •itv Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigend -raLs t^ City permisssion to inspect the premises prior to h"ns: ^”rtIo^\.\"nd%\e*"u"nde\\%n"d^%°,"rL^? the license approval. y ------------ ~ ' DateAppJ/xcant __________ ror City Use Only p. (hi :-'.ennel inspected by / /Ty-'d ijel So Date f / 9 3 -.ecommends Approval Denial KBiniEL LICE^JSE APPLICATION Effective January 1/ 19 _____ to Deceniber 31/ 19 flfJA) Aowner:____________ Property Address; ^70^ a/ '^Uq/^CL—^ (include city and zip) (work) " m Mailing Address (if different);------------- Phone; (home) Iq\^ ~ ---------- RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Inf oration; $25.00 (payment must accompany application) COUNCIL MEETING JUN 2 8 1993 CITY OF ORONO a i i f.»■;COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER TUE. JUN 22. 1993, 10:40 PM CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNTNUMBER INVOICE NO28317 <• >1993/06/23 $4,281.00$4,281.00‘CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION W/H & TRANSFERRED 6/2028318 <* >1993/06/23 $9,505.02$9,505.02*FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LA W/H FED TAX/MEDCR/FICA 6/28319 <• >1993/06/23 $2,855.54$2,855.54*FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LA CITY SHARE FICA/MEDCR 6/228320<*>1993/06/23 $40,132.87$40,132.87*FIRST NATIONAL DANK OF LA NET PAYROLL TRANSFER & CC28321<^>1993/06/23 $1,118.00$1,118.00*GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE DEF COMP W/H 6/2028322<*>1993/06/23 $30.00$30.00*ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 W/M DEF COMP 6/2028323 <* >1993/06/23 $2,908.87$2,908.87*MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE STATE TAX W/H 6/2028324 <• >1993/06/23 $100.00$100.00*MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF C W/H DEF COMP 6/2028325 <^ >1993/06/23 $349.62$349.82*PEBSCO/OBRA W/H DEF COMP 6/20 28326 <* > 1993/06/23 $703.46 $703.46* FEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS W/H DEF COMP 6/20 28327 1993/06/23 $3,425.35 $3,425.35* PERA PERA W/H 6/20 28328 <*> 1993/06/23 $21.00 $21.00* $05,430.73* UNITED WAY CHARITY W/H 6/20 ^ • *<. ■ • k • f %' ‘ ‘=W • i>Tkf • ■ -ft *•. -k* 4* ■ Vi 9999-2030 000336 9999-2030 000337 9999-2030 000338 9999-2030 000335 9999-2030 000343 9999-2030 000340 9999-2030 000339 9999-2030 000346 9999-2030 000344 9999-2030 000345 9999-2030 000341 9999-2030 000342 Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel Tom m m m ■■flSSa Noteaaaaaaaaraaaaistresraae a05/05/93 : ana a a a«•*■a» aaaa20.00 HW TR Hand Written05/07/93 10.00 HW TR Hand Written05/06/93 37.10 HW TR Hand Wi111 en05/07/93 20.00 HW . TR Hand Written05/07/93 190.00 HW TR Hand Written05/07/93 30.00 HW TR Hand Written05/10/93 11.25 HW TR •Hand Written05/11/93 900.00 HW TR ■Hand Written05/14/93 100.00 HW TR Hand Written05/17/93 1.000.00 HW TR Hand Written. 05/19/93 109.64 HW . , TR Hand Written05/24/93 44.68 HW TR 'Hand Written05/24/93 1.197.50 HWi TR ..Hand Written <• >$164.00* 28304 <•> 1993/06/10 $30.00 $30.00* 28305 <•> 1993/06/10 $1,279.36 $1,279.36* 28306 <• > 1993/06/ lO $5.59 $5.59* 28307 <•> 1993/06/10 $2,873.88 $2,873.88* 28308 <•> 1993/06/10 $100,00 $100.00* 28309 <•> 1993/06/10 $115.70 $115.70* 28310 <* > 1993/06/10 $703.46 $703.46* 28311 <•> 1993/08/10 $54.00 $54.00* 28312 <• > 1993/06/10 $3..77.38 $3,577.38* /•:*1•I r 08/20/83 PR: CB PRREGOREMP • NAME DPT 47i688060 474563339 471840871 475443862 472503991 469526026 476643387 475989721 471963129 468821018 468622840 472529007 468701868 507585424 469686562 468420832 469087884 474667812 475380151 477500666 475444249 477463877 475060821 388625358 471569863 473141624 475604753 504260307 472500574 469820293 121262417 469723373 475344512 480843542 476018974 477700023 334506281 477028779 473108428 468909535 476783251 470700901 469848107 475382983 473746173 473609629 470566529 ANDERSON. BRUCE L BOBZIEN. SUE A BOSMA. JAMIE L BRINKHAUS. JOHN F CHESWICK. GARY B CORNICK, JAMES L DELANEY. JANE E DEMBOUSKI. JAY C DRESSEL. ROBERT P ENGLISH HI. IRVING ERICKSON. DOUGLAS J ERICKSON. KURT R FISCHENICH. DAN T FRITZLER. JOHN M QAFFRON, MICHAEL P QERHARDSON. JOHN R GOMAN. DAVID J GREGOI^Y. JAMES D HALLIN. DOROTHY M HANSEN. STEVEN C HANSING, CAROL J HASEMAN. CAROLE HULTMANN, TIMOTHY J JENSEN. ftoONEY W JOHNSON. BRADLEY P JOSTROM. FOREST J KENNEN. JANICE M KNUTSON. CHARLOTTE / KUEHN. THOMAS M KVAM. DANA J MABUSTH. JEANNE A MAY. DAVID E MCINTYRE, WILLIAM E MCNICHOLS. DAVID L MILLS JR. WALTER H MOORSE, RONALD J MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES NELSON. DAVID D OAS. DANIEL 0 OBERAIGNER. SCOTT G OBRIEN. RANDY L OMAN. LYLE E PALMER. GREGORY A OUAST. WAYNE A RATHBUN. BARRY J ROSS. JOHN A SCHO^NHOFF. JOHN B 31 31 12 42 31 31 93 31 93 31 93 31 31 31 33 42 35 42 12 42 31 12 61 93 31 93 31 15 469629194 475569177 267460042 472563051 474663296 470704904 475505292 468629488 500403192 477881539 SKREEN. DALE S SULLIVAN. STEPHEN X THOMTON. MARK R TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE TOMCZYK. MARK W VANG, BRUCE L VEE. LINDA S WALTERS. LINDA G WECKMAN. STEPHEN J YTDGROSS 22303.21 13308.58 7953 .10 20913.00 22411.98 22050.31 1383 55 18744.99 61.80 2141C.74 37.20 20535.56 21343.32 21962.92 19119.17 26549.96 2652 17879 16470 15415 7605 11865 831 576.82 21740.59 1061.50 3041.27 33 52 05 40 82 44 00 CURRENTGROSS 54 80 1627.22 1014.63 606.36 1611.68 1727.20 1566.39 236.00 1566 61 1607.34 37.20 1568.40 1707.91 1692.23 1473.44 1937 317 1402 1269 1083 571 921 399.00 95.28 1568.40 220.00 288.07 1014.64 43 43 93 28 28 40 77 15 28126.62 2167.60 93 90.75 90.75 33 23943.32 1845.22 61 1179.00 438.00 93 77.00 77.00 31 16925.67 1479.98 93 819.38 161.00 12 31198.19 2311.84 31 20855.90 1568.40 35 1814.76 99.20 93 389.40 73 75 42 15525.18 1260 66 92 16114.69 1245.75 33 19119.15 1473.43 42 14890.91 1321.67 92 18779 63 1366.33 92 15781.98 1083.28 93 1036.75 176.00 31 5851 55 350.69 42 15637.47 1083.27 D 93 16470.04 1269.28 31 26719 98 2059 20 31 19763 07 15C9.76 F 31 19981 81 1566.38 31 20667 71 1568.40 33 16470 06 1269 28 12 12844 08 lOl^* 64 15 11543.25 1073 83 33 14506 05 1117.92 61.315 76 06/30/93 PR: 175CM PRREGOR CITY < PAYROL' EMP • NAME 469188026 18324677 470366069 473646272 476527186 CALLAHAN. EDWARD J GOETTEN. J.DIANN HURR. JOELLEN L JABBOUR. GABRIEL KELLEY. CHARLES DPT YTDGROSS CURRENTGROSS 11 1800.00 300.00 11 1450.02 241.67 11 1450.02 241.67 11 1450.02 241.87 11 1450.02 241.67 1,266.68 FIT - - 1 rTTTWnirarill trii riin i ' .~i. -hm o rt %'kJ oCOUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED. JUN 23. 1993. 9:22 PM page 1IHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNTNUMBER INVOICE NO PONUMBER MANUAL 28332 1993/06/28 $55.00 A & T UPHOLSTCRY CO REPAIR 0129-4341 21880 OH <•>$55,00* 28333 1993/06/28 $45.38 ALL STAR ELECTRIC REPLACE LOTS 0249-4233 9272-19 OH <•>$45.38* 28334 1993/06/28 $32.85 ASCOM MAILING SYSTEM METER RENTAL 7/1-9/30 0039-4321 396649 OH 1993/06/29 $32.85 ASCOM MAILING SYSTEM METER RENTAL 7/1-9/30 0069-4321 396649 OH 1993/06/28 $32.85 ASCOM MAILING SYSTEM METER RENTAL 7/1-9/30 G174-4321 396649 OH 1993/06/28 $32.85 ASCOM MAILING SYSTEM METER RENTAL 7/1-9/30 0249-4321 396649 OH 1993/06/28 $32.85 ASCOM MAILING SYSTEM METER RENTAL 7/1-9/30 0569-4321 396649 OH <•>$164.25* 28335 1993/06/28 $34.84 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF SANDWICHES 0591-4802 1131 OH 1993/06/28 $51.94 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF SANDWICHES 0591-4802 1460 OH <•>$86,78* 28336 1093/06/28 $20.45 AWARDS INC PARCHMENT PAPER 0039-4210 26397 OH <* >$20.45* 28337 1993/06/28 $29a 18 BARTON SAND/GRAVEL SAND 0290-4231 000655 OH <•>$291.18* 28338 1993/06/28 $331.56 BIFFS INC BIFFS 0290-4331 000656 OH 1993/06/28 $55.26 BIFFS INC BIFFS 0590-4331 000656 OH <• >$386.82* 28339 1993/06/28 $146.97 BLACKOWIAK & SONS TRASH 0099-4343 000654 OH 1993/06/28 $58.58 BLACKOWIAK & SONS TRA^H 0590-4343 000654 OH <•>$205.55* 28340 1993/06/28 $6.05 BLITZ ONE HR FOTO FILM DEVELOP 0129-4210 3673 OH <•>$6.05* 28341 1993/06/28 $348.79 BOB RYAN FORD REPAIR 0129-4341 44747 OH <•>$348.79* 28342 1993/06/28 $1,248.95 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENG CONSULT APLIC-APRIL 0840-4305 024545 OH1093/06/28 $100.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENG RETINER-APRIL 0200-4304 024545 OH 1993/06/28 $825.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENG CONSULT I & 1 APRIL 0569-4305 024545 OH1993/06/28 $44.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENG BIr\E HIKE APRIL 0359-4305 024545 OH 1993/06/28 $53.50 BONESTROO ROSENF ASN ENG DNR PERMIT-FOX ST-APR 0249-4305 024545 OH 1993/06/28 $240.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN COMP PLAN-MET COUNCIL-APR 0200-4305 024545 OH 1993/06/28 $280.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN WATER SUPPLY RE MTKA BEAC 0200-4305 024545 OH1993/06/28 $132.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN UPDATE STREET MAP 0200-4305 024545 OH1993/06/28 $151.72 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENG CONSULT APRIL 0200-4305 024545 OH 1993/06/28 $53.50 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENG GEN-APRIL 0200-4305 024546 OH1993/06/28 $635.25 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN BRIDGE INSP-APRIL 0242-4305 024546 OH1993/06/28 $437.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN MSA STATUS REPORT CC-APRI 0200-4305 024546 OH1993/06/28 $1,117.56 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN INSP STUBBS BAY SAN SWR-A 0408-4306 000702 OH 1993/06/28 $80.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN EA..,EMENTS OCB RD BRIDGE-A 0355-4306 000703 OH1993/06/28 $231.91 BONE«'TROO ROSENE ASN WATER TOWER INSP-APRIl 0438-4306 024549 OH 1993/06/28 $398.38 BONE .TROO ROSENE ENG LS 128 SOLUTION-APRIL 9673-1500 024550 OH <•>$6,028.77* O 5UNTJER INVOICE NO PONUMBER MANUAL-4341 21880 OH-4233 9272-19 OH-4321 396649 OH-4321 396649 OH-4321 396649 OH-4321 396649 UH-4321 396649 OH-4802 1131 OH 1 1-4802 1460 OH-4210 263S7 OH1-4231 000655 OH1-4331 000656 OH 1-4331 000656 OH 1-4343 000654 OH )-4343 000654 OH >-4210 3673 OH J-4341 44747 OH 3-4305 024545 OH D-4304 024545 OH 9-4305 024545 OH 9-4305 024545 OH 9-4305 024545 OH 0-4305 024545 OH ft ft Q-4305 024545 OH 0-4305 024545 OH 0-4305 024545 OH 0-4305 024546 OH 9-4305 024548 pH 0-4305 024546 OH 8-4306 000702 OH 5-4306 000703 OH 8-4306 024549 OH 3-1500 024550 OH ECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION NUMBER INVOICE NO NUMBER MANUAL283591993/06/28 $30.34 G & K SERVICES UNIFORMS 0549-4221 000663 OH<•>1993/06/28 $137.45$637.12*G & K SERVICES MATS 0129-4343 000663 OH2^360 <» >1993/06/28 S168.74$168.74*GALL’S INC.LETTERS A BRASS 0129-4221 800018 OH28361<•>1993/06/28 $97.50 $97.GO*GANGELHOFF, DONNA 2 DEER REMOVED 0185-4360 000662 OH283G2 <• >1993/06/28 $1,728.00$1,728.00*GEPHARDT ELECTRIC ADDL WIRING PW 0480-4520 17301 OH283631993/06/28 $155.25 GOPHER STATE ONECALL MAY FEE 0569-4306 305C516 OH<•>1903/06/28 $103.50$258.75*GOPHER STATE ONECALL .. •MAY FEE 0549-430S 3050516 OH28364<•>1093/06/28 *350.00$350.00*OOVT FINANCE OFF ASN 1992 CAFR REVIEW FEE 0069-4300 00C700 OH28365<•>1993/06/28 $15.00$15.00*GREGG PALMER LICENSE 0549-4383 000686 OH28366<»>1993/06/28 $1,616.25$1,616.25*HENN CTY FIN DIV APRIL R A B 0080-4358 1128 OH28367<•>1993/06/28 $477.35$477.35*HENN CTY SHERIFF DPT APRIL BOOKING FEE 0080-4358 000666 OH28368 <«> 1993/06/28 $237.35 $237.35* ;iENNEPIN CO-OP SEED GRASS SEED 0290-4231 53479 OH 28369 <• > 1993/06/28 $8.05 $8.05* HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER POSTAGE U040-4321 000665 OH 28370 <•> 1993/00/28 $127.10 $127.10* JABBOUR,GABRIEL MTQ 0020-4J32 00C668 OH 28371 <• > 1993/06/26 *79.78 $73.»8* JO ELLLN HURR FRAMES 0052-4900 000667 OH 28372 <• > 1993/06/28 $64.10 $64.10* JOHN BECKMAN INSTALL BULLETIN BOARDS 0129-4343 000657 OH 28373 <•> 1993/06/28 $3.75 $3.75* KOEHNENS STANDARD PART 0129-4232 000669 OH 28374 <• > 1993/06/28 $29.25 *29.25* LASER LABS INC PART 0129-4232 200173 OH 28375 <• > 1993/06/28 f ..84.00 .•^384.00* LONG LAKE FAMILY PRACTICE HEPATITIS SHOTS 0129-4306 000671 OH 28376 1993/06/28 $20.00 LONG LAKE VET CLINIC VET FEE 0129-4244 000670 OH *COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER WED. JUN 23. 1993. 9:22 PM page 4CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNTNUMBER INVOICE NO PONUMBER MANU/i0249-4342 164267 OH0249-4232 168726 OH9001-2226 000664 OH0129-4341 000674 OH0249-4151 000680 OH 0129-4151 000680 OH 0069-4151 000680 OH 0174-4151 000680 OH 0039-4151 64102552 OH 9001-1298 64102552 OH 0129-4151 64102552 OH 0249-4151 64102552 OH 0069-4151 64102552 OH 0174-4151 64102552 OH 0115-4151 64102552 OH 0549-4151 64102552 OH 0569-4151 64102552 OH 9001-2226 000677 OH 9673-1282 51480793 OH 0039-4210 535568 OH 0069-4210 535568 OH 0249-4210 535568 OH 0174-4210 535568 OH 0129-4210 535568 OH 0059-4210 535568 OH 0249-4383 000705 OH 0569-4383 000705 OH 0549-4383 000705 OH 0174-4383 000705 OH 0590-4383 000705 OH 0129-4383 000705 OH 0080-4302 000675 OH <•>$20.00‘28377<•>1993/06/281993/06/28 $79.53$6.81$86.34*28378<•>1993/06/28 $750.00$750.00*28379<•>1993/06/28 $283.91♦283.91* 28380 <•> 1993/06/28 1993/06/28 1993/06/28 1993/06/28 T417.91 $146.90 $146.90 $542.02 $1,253.73* 28381 <•> 1993/06/28 1993/06/28 1993/06/28 1993/06/28 1993/06/28 1993/06/28 1993/06/28 1993/0C/28 1993/06/28 $1,103.48 $1,479.92 $2,000.32 i813.00 $542 00 $458.16 $271.00 $258.12 $387.20 $7,313.20* 28382 <■ > 1993/06/28 $8,167.50 $8,167.50* 28J83 <• > 1993/06/28 $21,629.00 $21,029.00* 28384 1993/06/28 1993/06/28 1993/06/28 1993/06/28 $198.55 $8.80 $35.42 $18.38 <•> 1993/06/28 1993/06/28 $8.80 $8 80 $278.75* 28385 m <•> 1993/06/28 1993/06/28 1993/06/28 1993/06/28 1983/06/28 1993/06/28 $16.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $8.00 $32.00 $80.00* 28386 <• > 1993/06/28 $7,500.00 $7,500.00* LONG LK FORD TRACTOR LONG LK FORD TRACTORMARK HUNSLEYMARTINS NAVARRE 66MED CTR HEALTH CARE MED CTR HEALTH CARE MED CTR HEALTH CARE MED CTR HEALTH CARE REPAIRPARTSREFUND SAC FEE MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE REPAIRSJULY INS JULY INS JULY INS JULY INS JULY INS JULY INS JULY INS JULY INS JULY INS JULY INS JULY INS JULY INS JULY INS METRO WASTE CONTROL COMMI SAC FEES METRO WASTE JULY FEE MIDWEST MIDWEST MIDWEST MIDWEST MIDWEST MIDWEST BSNS BSNS BSNS BSNS BSNS BSNS PROD PROD PROD PROD PROD PROD OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES MINNESOTA MINNESOTA MINNESOTA MINNESOTA MINNESOTAMINNESOTA POLLUTION POLLUTION POLLUTION POLLUTION POLLUTION POLLUTION CONTR CONTR CONTR CONTR CONTR CONTR VEHICLE VEHICLE VEHICLE VEHICLE VEHICLE VEHICLE INSP INSP INSP INSP INSP INSP MINNETONKA 3RD OTR LEGAL- U'11 o 0COUNCIL CHECK f:GISTER WED, JUN 23. 1993, 9:22 PH page 5CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNTNUMBER INVOICE NO PONUMBER MANUAL28387<•>1993/06/28 $15.00$15.00*MN DARE OFFICERS ASSOCIAT MTG 0129-4243 000679 OH 28388 <•> 1993/06/28 $13.50 $13.50* MPLS OXYGEN CO DEMURRAGE 0129-4232 370330 OH 28389 1993/06/28 $330.00 NAAB/THERESA MEETINGS 5/24-6/14 0039-4306 000704 OH <•> 1993/06/28 $165.00 $495.00* NAAB/THERESA MEETING 6/21 0174-4306 000704 OH 28390 1993/06/28 $93.32 NAVARRE HARDWARE SUPPLIES 0590-4232 000682 OH1993/06/28 $52.46 NAVARRE HARDWARE SUPPLIES 0249-4232 000682 OH1993/06/28 $23.85 NAVARRE HARDWARE SUPPLIES 0129-4232 000682 OH1993/06/28 $128.87 NAVARRE HARDWARE SUPPLIES 0290-4231 000682 OH 1993/06/28 $6.22 NAVARRE HARDWARE SUPPLIES 0569-4234 OOOC82 OH1993/06/28 $14.78 NAVARRE HARDWARE SUPPLIES 0549-4232 000682 OH <•> 1993/08/28 $8.72 $328.22* NAVARRE HARDWARE SUPPLIES 0099-4231 000682 OH 28391 <•> 1993/06/.>8 $100.00 $100.00* NORTH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CE SEMINAR 0569-4356 000683 OH 28392 1993/06/28 $1,492.43 NSP UTILITIES 0549-4324 000681 OH 1993/06/28 $3.31 NSP UTILITIES 0175-4324 000681 OH <•> 1993/06/28 $23.94 $1,519.68* NSP UTILITIES 0569-4324 000681 OH 28393 <• > 1993/06/28 $21.84 $21.84* OMAN/LYLE MILEAGE 6/7-6/21 0174-4381 000701 OH 28394 <• > 1993/06/28 $12.00 $12.00* PERA INS JULY INS 0129-4152 000688 OH 28395 1993/06/28 $185.61 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR REPAIR 0129-4341 11172 OH 1993/06/28 $65.00 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR REPAIR 0249-4341 000684 OH <•> 1883/06/28 $137,68 $388.29* PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR REPAIR 0174-4341 000684 OH 28396 <•> 1993/06/28 $15.00 $15.00* PITNEY BOWES KEYS 0129-4210 775873 OH 28397 <•> 1993/06/28 $189.52 $189.52* PRECISION TURF SUPPLIES 0590-4231 002971 OH 28398 < • > 1993/06/28 $77,011.11 $77,011.11*PROGRESSIVE CONST STUBBS BAY PAYMNT 16 0408-4531 000687 OH 28399 <• > 1993/06/28 $4,732.96 $4,732.96*PUBLIC EMPL RET ASSN PERA 5/24-6/6 9999-2031 000685 OH ' 00 <• > 1993/06/28 $37.20 $37.20* PEED VENDING CANDY 0591-4802 41828 OH 28401 1983/06/28 $20.98 RITZ CAMERA FILM DEVELOP 0129-4210 3769271 OH G o Q 28401 1993/06/28 $27.76 RITZ CAMERA FILM DEVELOP 0129-4210 3769977 OH<•>1993/06/28 $55.26$104.01*RITZ CAMERA FILM 4 DEVELOP 0129-4210 3760578 OH28402 <» >1903/06/28 $1,742.70$1,742.70*ROLLINS OIL CO GASOLINE 9001-1260 000689 OH28403<•>1003/06/28 $25.85 $25.85*SCHWAAB INC .V STAMP 0069-4210 L740582 OH28404<■>1993/06/28 $11.18$11.18*S€W LIKE NEW UNIFORMS 0129-4221 000692 OH28405<•>1993/06/28 $15.00$15.00*SKREEN.DALE LICENSE 0549-4383 000691 OH28406<*>1003/06/28 $143.28$143.28*SOLAR SPRAY LOTION 0591-4801 2046 r: OH28407<•>1993/06/28 $146.52$146.52*SOUTHAM BUS COMM USA INC BID ADS 0290-4323 025541 OH28408<•>1993/06/28 $132.26$132.26*STA-SAFE LOCKSMITHS LOCKS 0099-4231 1443 OH28409<•>1993/06/28 $750.00$750.00*STEPHEN WHITMAN REFUND SAC CHQ 9001-22i6 000697 OH284101993/06/28 $2,506.36 STRETCHERS NEW EQUIPMENT 0129-4550 000690 OH <•> 1903/06/28 $258.80 $2,765.16* STRETCHERS SUPPLIES 0129-4232 000690 OH 28411 <•> 1993/06/28 $505.88 $505.88* SUBURBAN TIRE INC TIRES 0129-4341 39349M OH 28412 <»> 1993/06/28 $983.83 $963.83* TOWN & COUNT.RY JUNE CLEANING 0099-4349 000693 OH 28413 1993/06/28 $242.60 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS 0129-4221 405837 OH <•> 1993/06/28 $219.39 $461.99* UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS 0129-4221 408200 OH 28418 <•> 1993/06/28 $92.91 $92.91* US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 0549-4320 000695 OH 28415 1993/06/28 $53.76 VEE LIN MILEAGE 0039-4381 000694 OH <•> 1993/06/28 $5.60 $59.36* VEE LIN MILEAGE 0040-4381 000694 OH 28416 1093/06/28 1993/08/28 $234.41 WARNING LITES OF MN FLASHERS 0249-4331 0044893 OH <^> $369.77 $604.18* WARNING LITES OF MN FLASHERS 0249-4331 0044892 OH 28417 1993/06/28 $25.48 WECKMAN STEPHEN MILEAGE 0174-4381 000698 OH a aCOUNCIL CHECK REOISTE!? WED. JUN 23. 1993. 9:22 PMCHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR page 7DESCRIPTIONACCOUNTNUMBERINVOICE NO PONUMBER MANUALBOOTS0129-4240 000696 'UROCK0249-4233 4190 OH PARTS 0249-4232 02138 OH 28418 1903/06/28 <•>28419 1093/06/28 <•> 28420 1003/06/28 <•> ■ ,«rr I . $25.48“$54.76$54.76“WEST PUBLISHING$294.84 WH MUELLER & SONS $294.84* $381.76 $381.76 “ $215,112.30* ZIEGLER INC i* mmmm ••• '*.*.• :• ;y \ 4^- . . ' - : < < . . i . :* . '* i 'f ^ •» ET% 1. TA- 4 " k V/ ^ J* .< ' • t * ’ '< ■ ^ ■ ■ ..1^6:. ■■ V< . ; o r t?ln:ri Sj '«i_i l£»it r* i’- #1) -il t=-< ’ey |S^i %M^ r -• -^4 1 't t-1*sd #% ^ r^ S ii COUNCIL MEETING JUN 2 8 1993 CITY OFORONO \ . I illi iliai June 1, 1993 Mayor Jerry Rockvam City of Spring Park PO Box 452 Spring Park, MN 55384 RE: Stoplight at County Road 51 and County Road 15 Dear Jerry: Mayor Skip Johnson has asked me to send you a letter concerning a discussion that apparently was held at a Northwest Tonka Lions meeting of May 26, 1993. Skip suggested that Hennepin County be contacted with regard to the timing and/or other issues associated with the stoplight at that intersection. He indicated that during rush hour traffic the traffic is backed up from the east heading west on County Road 15 for a long distance. If you would like to set up a meeting with Hennepin County, I would suggest that you contact Tom Jo..nson, Director of Planning and Engineering, Hennepin County Bureau of Public Service, Department of Public Works, 320 Washington Avenue South, Hopkins, MN 55343- 8468, telephone number is 930-2680. Tom will be very happy to meet with you and representatives of Orono and Mound who are affected by this traffic backup. If I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sinc^ely, J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager cc: Pat Osmonson, City Clerk, Spring Park Mayor Ed Callahan, City of Orono Ron Moorse, City Administrator, City of Orono ES: Is printed on recycled peper CITY of MOUND j 534' VAV.VCCC nCAC, MOUr-D Mi‘4?'<ES0rA 55354-’63r ■512' 4T2 GAOO FAX ri 121 4 r2‘C620 June 23, 1993 JUM p 4 -jOc::? • —‘v # Mr. Thomas D. Johnson, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer Hennepin County Department of Public Works 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, MN 55343-3468 RE; Stop Light at County Road 51 and County Road 15 in Spring Park Dear Tom: Mayor Skip Johnson asked me to contact you regarding the enclosed letter that I sent to Mayor Jerry Rockvam of Spring Park recently regarding the traffic congestion at the above intersection. During rush hour ti'affic is backed up to the east and I was told that recently it was almost to the intersection of County Road 19 and County Road 15 in Navarre. I have not received any response to my letter to Mayor Rockvam. I have spoken to Mayor Johnson and he has asked me to contact you dire''’’ly to see if a meeting could be set up among Spring Park, Orono, Hennepin County and Mound as to what could be done to resolve this problem. If affects all of our communities because people using the roadway are driving westerly into our communities and are experiencing major traffic delays. Please contact me at your earliest convenience with regard to having a meeting to discuss this matter. JSfnc^dv. 6-^dward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager cc:Mayor Jerry Rockvam, Spring Park Mayor Ed Callahan, Orono Ron Moorse, City Administrator, Orono Pat Osmonson, City Clerk, Spring Park Pat Murphy, Director of Public Works, Hennepin County Mayor Skip Johnson, Mound ES:ls enclosure printed on recvcted pacer i ^7r«/.^ta/'yi(/?^'<rc^7tctf/e<^cd m Det^)haven Excelsior Greenwood Long Lake Medina Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION fT'' 540 Second Stroet • P C) Hox 473 • f.xcidsior. Minriesoirt 5533V-Vi73 (612)474-5530 • P\ix (612) 474-0430 Orono St. Bonifacius Shorewood Spring Park Tonka Bay Victoria Woodland '■JL'If I 7 ICS? June 16, 1993 Executive Cominitfee Langley assured the Mayor Callahan was immediately send a Mayor Edward Callahan City Council Members City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mayor Callahan and Council Members: Thanks to several cities in the cable area regulated by the Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission, our staff received a of the letter from Robert V. Langley (Triax Cablevision) emphasizes the industry's posture on the 1992 Cable Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission, who granted and raguiates the franchise agreement with Triax Cablevision, had not received a copy of this correspondence until last night's meeting of the Commission. At that time, Mr. Cable Commission that the correspondence sent to purely accidental. Mr. Langley also promised to , , ^ follow up letter of apology, that explains his mistake, acknowledges the Cable Commission's authority and states that it will not happen again. This corrective action by Triax Cablevision does not completely remove my overall concern that any information from the cable company, that conflicts with what you hear from your Cable commission, could result in confusion and time consumption by the city council and city staff. Please remember that any guestions dealing with cable TV or upcoming telecommunications in general, can be directed to the Cable Commission staff or myself as Chairman. For your information, and consistent with what we have reported to your city, there can be no rush in deciding what action be taken bv the Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission on the rules dealing with rates and services. I hav i enclosed a copy of an article, that shows the FCC postponing the implementation of rate regulation until October 1993. This is in accordance with what the cable commission has expected, and also supports the concept that we wrote in detail to your city council back in April 1993. June 16, 1993 Page Two Finally, I think it is clearly worth repeating, that your Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission will continue to keep you informed on any event/action that will effect the residents in the City of Orono. Sincerely, 3 U * «iniPfjMiw ;• ) s^3I^;vO inr ■; •>-•)<? I U lODW »n rtA ri»t n m« M n ^ June 14, 1993FCC POSTPONES RATEREGOunoNs 1M on By JFA.NM.Nt AN KKSA !■ H V ASHINGTOS ■ II ■ — -nic Fcdemi BIIB Communica- tion\ HI mm siun ex- pf\tct1 l.iic Tndiy ti' .inix«uikx* il wax dcinyjnp implcmctu i lion of new rate rules from June 21 lo Oct I •T!ve FCCu'xJ.u (June lt| IX ixxiiing a public nonce jp- nuuncing Ihe ueien.il >f me effective dale of cable raie reculaiinns uniil CXt I Tlie cable rate freeze vmII aUt» be exfemlcd.** FCC Acnnc Chairman J.imex Oiiell»> said last Fndav The new effective date is expected to dovetaii vMih FCC adoption of coM-of -ver- vice guidelines this fall Op eraiors vkould use these guidelines lo justify rates abme the FCC s bench­ marks Quelle^ said ^>f^fv^ced guisJelines should be unveiled “soon ■* Tlie FCC vxjcbt die supfxHi of three kev cf*nimiiinc:ilHim l.iwm.ikcr* l3^t week (<*r ils Stas of the rate rules. Quello said in an inters lew on Thurs­ day Tlie lawmakers contacted ••sere Mosise Fj>t^ and Com merer Cornmnicc Chairman John Dingcll fD-Mich I. Hmoe telecommunications sutvoinmittec cnainnan Ed­ ward Markrv (D-Mass ) and Senate Commerce Cc'mrmnce Ouirmon Ernest Hotlines (D- S C ). Quello and other FCC oifjcials said •‘Evers bivJv reerets it. but Sf f RATE, PACE Rate Rules Won't Kick in June 21 COMtM i l^ EKOM PAGE J evcr.oody undeniands ii, ‘ said the FCC source. Therr is a semiment xmcjng some lawmakers that “rather than rushing too fast and not being able to deliver to coasun>er!. it makes more sense to make a realistic timetable and stick to it." one aide said. The su\. which wi’iJ aiw extend the me firc.»r from August ur«ii (.Xt I. gives cabte openuors mure bivaiiJi> mg space to prepare for raic regulanon by resmictunng tiers m a “revenue neutral** fxshjon that will nujumac (heir cash flow under the new rules It also puts ofl reg- ulaooo h\ local franchising auihonues If a franchise auinorus orders an operator to re­ duce hix rate, it is believed that lire operator would E.nlv hr liable for rnllhacks or refunds i% of Oct 1. capic lotmsisis and FCC sources said f irlasTnp the rules will also eruble the FCC u> wrap up die mxnsKlerjtiixi ami moAC am rrsiiicxis to the rules belore inev go into efTcct, anomevs mkI. The FX'C requested the delav to allow u to “gel Its adminisfT.xiivr house in onier ’ Quello xaiJ Earlier in the week. Quello said at the National Show in San FraiK isco that the FCC woxiJd attempt lo issue a Slav on Fndav if Congress failed to ear ­ mark addiuiMial funding to help the FCC odminisitr the Cable Act On Tuesdav. i Senate panet appnrved SI 1-5 miJ- hon of 5 1 2 million the FCC had requested for the cu.rent fiscal sear to cover cable regulation Bui a House Appn^pnauoru lubcommiiiec had caiier re­ jected the FCC s funding reguesi Cable lobbvisu . said they would not thwart FCC funding efforts. Despite this “erKouraging sign ” in the Senate. CHjfllo said a suv is needed hei^iuse even li Congress were u> magicaily appnrpnaie the monev overrughl.^ i! would take the FCC tune to gear up for whai is ca- pertrxJ to he an onslaughl of rale awnpiaaics. bnitisr authemrv cernricaiions and other pennons. The PCX' teed up the lUv request tn a June 4 lener to CafMiol HUl m which the agerKs detailed lu lack of resourcTs. ukHiding an SI H million budget shon- faiJ independent of rvew cable mandates " * If fexicTaJ rrguiaiors and congmssionaJ aides at-^ P.ndmp the N.inonal Shove w^re given a mccel for cverv gnpe ihcv heard la.si week over new pnee and other cable reculations and turned it over to the FCC. the agency s rinancial wives would be cured. Frustnied cable opcniors. pameuiarfv small ones, pleaded with regulators to delav implementing the rate rules aixl to revrui j niimbrT of cable regulafK^ns. **lf vvr go 10 Uie bmchmahia. wr U be emn of bus1ne^s tnmnrrow.’* mamird snail iTpcruor Txn Robak. vw-ner of Ap>ik) Cabtcv'isxsi. Small oprruors. whi'i d trunared (he micmpfv^nes at the pubix fxvficv xr^vmnx. a iTram l ic get a svmpatheiic ear tmm nrcubiors and .udes Another small operator ctmipiained that it would hr impossible to imnrtuce j la cane services «vn 220 and 4nn customer svrarms on a cost edeci ve ^xso As an example, he uid. hix franchise authonr. had comtiellcd him to carry The Disnev Ounnel. so he went out and Nnjghl frapx to pia<e thu'ughout his IVstem, oniv to have three cuxitvmers sign up Quello. who wix scheduled to hold a meeting with FCC xiofferv lasi week tt' expl<»re waw to bnng relief to small oprra.ors. said he persoruJIv fieiievex independcnilv owned svsiemx — those with I.OfX) or fewer subscnl'ets and no» airiliaicd with a MSO — should be exempt from Cable Act rules Will Capiioi Hill buv Quello s pitch"* C^ieilo gave hunscif a*‘5() 50 chance.** The newiv formed 1 10 member Small Cable Business Assooaiioa plans a li’bbving trip here later this month or in Julv and plans to launch a letter-writing campaign targeting members of Congress arnf me FCC ih-s week to trv to secure relief from cable rui«. said S 'B.A board member B R Belisle. vice president of Bchsie Commum cations Inc The group has raised a wax chest of $12,000. she said .Aside frt'm those from smaJl operators, though, some cungressionaJ axSes beuevc lawmoaers won i be remblv responsive to cable complaints about FCC implementation of the new law “Overall. I don I think arv'^ne a nirresied ui maxs gnpes. said Caihy Reid, ft romv cnurwel to the House teieinm mumcaiicms subconwninfr ■ Highway 12 Corridor Task Force 518 West Litchfield Avenue Willmar, Minnesota 56201 P.O Box 287 612-235-0300 MEMORANDUM Date: From: June 2i, 1993 Ken Warner, Coordinate To: Subject: Highway 12 Task Force Members Highway 12 Task Force Meeting, July 15th Chairman Gordy Wetter has called a meeting of the Highway 12 Task Force for ThprS^laYi July 15th at the Norseman Cafe in Cokato. The purpose of our meeting will be to receive an update on the progress of the E.I.S. study by MnDot and any other related concerns with Highway 12. I wanted to get this memo to you early enough to allow you to get this important meeting on you calendar. I will send you a reminder postcard one week before tne meeting and I hope that many of you will be able to attend as it has been quite some time since our last meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Looking forward to seeing you on July 15th! ’•JU 'JUN 2 Z 1093 i K board members David Cochran. Chair Greenwood Tom Penn. Vice Chair Tonka Bay Oooq!as E Baocock Secretary DCO:i Caf scr. Trea^uter Mmnetnsia Mike Bloom Minnetonka Beach Albert (Bert) Foster Deephaven James N Grathwol Eiiceisior JoEilen L. H^rr Orono Wiliam A Johnstone MimetC'^ka Duane Mar^uS vVayzata George C Ow*'n Victoria Robert Rascoo ShOreACCd Tom Reese Mound Robert E Slocum v;cod:-ind LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST VVAYZATA BOULEVARD SUTE '.60 • VVAY2ATA. MiNNESOTA 55391 • TELEPHONE 612 473 7033 EUGENE fl. STRCMMEN. EXECUliVE DIRECTOR May 4, 1993 The Honorable Tom Workman I'tate Office Bxdg. 100 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Dear Tom: Pending legislation concerning Lake Minnetonka Conservation District tundiny aworces has been a matter of concern for some of the fourteen member LMCD cities. The LMCD board had an opportunity to review the intent and effect of this legislation as well as some of the cities response to it. The enclosed letter was adopted by the board April 28. It is forwarded for your information and understanding of the board's position on this subject. We trust the board's response will assist you in this matter. Please keep us informed of your immediate thoughts as well as the eventual outcome of legislation affecting the taxing authority of LMCD member cities as it related to the LMCD. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Eugene E. Strommen Executive Director ERS:jt enclosure JUM C i.OSJ LAKE MIHNETONICA CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO: FROM: DATE: RE; LuMCD MEMBER CITIES LMCD CHAIR, DAVID H. COCrlRAN APRIL 28, 1993 LMCD FUNDING SOURCES Recently been expressed about io’^?im!nate"unguage “?:iur"pectfir"bufn:l?L ’^t»ing"autnority to tbe .e.ber cities to fund the LMCD budget. we think it appropriate to advise you ^^%“ru?:grt=hrbr.^S euance^n the ;.e^ber cities' taxing authority to finance its programs. First, the Propo-d legislation was introduced Sco d=^s^^ In'-hi-rtt^was in?roduced (we underitand it may be amended to restore iheli^itatio'n) , not to considered by the ^CD as a man^ suggestion that it increase reliance on city P J Ll^CD other city revenues to finance tts programs. To the toatr y, has been committed for some time to limiting its use taxes or other city revenues as a ^n 9 statutory authority andfunding sources within the limits of the ^CD s s^atut y ^Cn'^t^n^^CLr^oln^^ud^^lfuirrs iL"bcre??cl4rI:s of the hake. We affirm tl'.st commitr.ert. Each member of the LMCD board is appointed her member city. We welcome your thoughts and common relating to issues affecting the Lake and ^cp, particularly^^ ^ financial natters. As /ou kno^, j- • hodv for its review and proposed budget in June to each cicy g draft of the proposed budget comment. Our practice is to also submit yL have t:o each c'ty afCGr th6 May Board ruGOtincj will :dequa?e";pf,ortunity for “^S^prec atfyoC^ inpCt“^“continue this practice and invite and appreciate you c: Mayors • • • • • I LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTillCT Administrative Committee !i, w i_ Meeting Notice and Agenda 6:00 pm, Wednesday, June 23, 1993 rjui) r'i 109.-^ 1, Minutes of 5/26/93 review, comment and approval; 2. 3. 4 . Subcommittee report to the Administrative Committee, per 6/8/93 meeting report. Chair Johnstone: a. Board membership discussion b. Funding discussion c. Committee/organization structure discussion d. Long range plans (Management Plan), not discussed at 6/8/93 subcommittee meeting (LMCD Enabling Act will be a helpful resource for discussion of the above topics. Please bring your copy included in your LMCD Code Book and/or recently provided) 1994 Administrative Budget review, considering adjustments to municipal levy taking into account an unfunded technician staff position for 1993 at $15,000 to be reallocated to 1994 funding and an additional $10,000 from reserve funds to reduce the municipal levy from $103,500 to $78,500; Board member staggered terms, staff discussion to poll board members on actions taken or intended to be taken, considering at this time that the three year terms of all board members expire the end of 1994, except where board members have already received official action from their city councils for a newly-'.idjusted term, wri11en city, confirmation o^ which is needed for this_ discussion.!. (Spring Park city confirmation has been received) 5. Additional business; 6. Next meeting and adjournment LAKE MINMETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Committee 6:00 PM, Wednesday, May 26, 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall Present: Scott Carlson, Dave Cochran, Bert Foster, JoEllen Hurr William Johnstone, George Owen, Robert Rascop, Tom Rees4, staff members Rachel Thibault and Gene Strommen The report of the 4/28/93 meeting was not prepared at the time of this meeting. There was discussion on the 5/18/93 Report to the Mayors meeting. The committee agreed that the n>eeting was received and productive. However, there ^ on the structure of the Board. Reese Board members contact ^heir mayors or councils to get feedback on this issue and bring it to the Board. Cochran stated that if there were plans to adjust the Board make up, it would be a good time to address ^ funding, such as boat stickers. Johnstone commented that first the LMCD should try to find ways to operate more efficiently and look into alternate ^®g®LMCDthings to address before the reorganization of the U4CD. Carlson suggested a five year budget relating to the implementation of the Management Plan obDectives. There was discussion about the Board make up. There were ono;^ntreftimrIrrerired^^^"'?H^^^ Te%'s^::iler, it r6cjuir6 inor© hired staff. Carlson said he needed to know how to proceed with the and offered five categories as topics of further discussion: 1. Funding 2. Budgeting ^ . 3. Long range plans (Management Plan) 4. Organization 5. Committee structure subcommittee. The issue of staggered terms was discussed, and Sirec?orwas Lked to redo the proposal for staggering the terms, referring back to the January discussion. 6/8/93 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:30 PM - Regular Meeting VJednesday, June 23, 199 3 Tonka Bay City Hall, 4901 Manitou Rd (County Rd 19) 7:30 PM - REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Cochran READING OF MINUTES - 5/26/93 Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - From persons in attendance on subjects not on agenda COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock A. Approval of minutes, 6/12/93 meeting B. Gideons Point Homeowners Assn., Gideons Bay, Tonka Bay; recommending reconsideration of the variance application and approval of the revised site plans dated 6/2/93 and 6/3/93 for the new dock license and variance applications from Gideons Point Homeowners.Association, for 46 BSU as outlined in Wartman's 6/2/93 letter, the variance hardship being shallow water C. Stocks Side Setback Variance application. Mound, Halsteds Bay; recommending approval of the variance for 5' setbacks, with reasons and limitations as stated in 6/12/93 minutes D. Joseph Zwak, Greenwood, St. Albans Bay; excess boat storage at outlot, enforcement held in abeyance at committee direction pending recommendation from LMCD Attorney LeFevere E. Lakeside Marina, Maxwell Bay, Orono; recommending Jim Dunn, President, be allowed a hearing at this meeting regarding the conditions imposed on the 1993 license renewal F. Additional business 2. LAKE USE AND RECREATION, Chair Foster A. Approval of minutes, 6/15/93 meeting B. Intoxicating Liquor License Fees, recommending the fee be reduced from $3000 to $1500 in 1994, reflecting this figure in the LMCD Budget LMCD Board of Directors, Agenda, 6/23/93, Pg. 2 C.special Events, new and renewal, informational per minutes Personal watercraft practice course, referring application and stipulations in draft letter to Board for discussionQ • D. Decibel Test, 5/25/93, program report a. Recommending that the decibe] level limit on Lake Minnetonka be reduced from 82 to 80 decibels E. Hennepin County Sheriff’s Water Patrol Report F. Additional business 3.ENVIRONMENT ... A. Environment Committee, Chair Hurr (no meeting this month) B.Eurasian Water Milfoil Ts ’k Force, Chair Penn 1) Report of 6/18/93 meeting (handout) a. Harvest operations progress b. Access treatment and maintenance 4.LMCD LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE, Chair Grathwol A. Report o£ 6/15/93 meeting 1) Task Force Report Preparation Plan 2) City Car/Trailer arking Agreement Status 5.ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Carlson A. Report of 6/8/93 Fee Study Subcommittee meeting B. Report of 6/8/93 Administrative Subcommittee meeting C. Report of 6/23/93 meeting financial REPORTS, Treasurer Carlson A. Financial Reports (hand-out) B. Audit of Vouchers for Payment (hand-out) C. 1994 Budget Review and Adoption EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Stromnen UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT 6/17/93 Holmes & Graven CHARTKRKD h £ Attorncii at R obert a . Ai^sor R onald H. Oatty Stcfbcn J. Btutx JOHN B. Dean NI aryg . dobblns Stcfanic N. Galey CoRRiNK A. Heine James S. Holmes David J. Kennedy John R. Larson welllnoton M, Law Ciurles l. Lefeverc 4T0 PHUborf Ctnfer, Minneapnift, Mlnnea^ta 55402 (612) JJ7-9JOO Ktalmlle (612) 357-9310 Lr>l^.r<;UcRo» Laitu K. MoLLirr Barbara PoirwooD James M. strommen James J. Thomson , jil Lab BY M. webtiiejm DOVME l. WII.KI.NS Gaby I*, wintiji WAITER S DIRECT DIAL 337-9215 David L. Craved (iti^-iwd OF COINS EL R obert C. Carlson R obert U Davidson June 1, 1993 Mr. Ronald Zamansky^ Zamansky Professional Association 4924 IDS Tower 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 RE: Lakeside Marina Dear Mr. Zamansky: As I informed your associate last Thursday, the ^MCD Board of Directors has wanted Lakeside Marina a continuance until June 23, 1993 for hearing on the Koposed additional conditions for the Lakeside Marina commercial Prior to the hearing we would be glad to consider any arguments or information > ou wish to present to the LMCD staff. The more complete our information, of course, the more likely it is that the Board will make a fully informed decision. There is no 4q.S?^ent t?;at you provide any such information, but 1 would Uke to mv.te your comment or response to the following: 1.In our meeting of last Wednesday, you suggested that believe the LMCD has the legal authority to require allowng LMCD acents access to the books and records of the Marina for the purpose of determining compliance with LMCD ordinances. If you have any legal authority for that proposition, I would be happy to consider it. 2.The proposed conditions require access to certain records of the applicant. If these conditions describe records which are not currently maintained by the appUcant, it would be helpful to have a description of the type of records that are maintained so that any conditions imposed will not unnecessarily require the keeping of new or additional records. 3.You commented at our meeting that the proposed conditions would be hichly burdensome to the Marina. The draft conditions were not prepared with the purpose of imposing unreasonable burdens. ir unreasonable burdens are created because of our failure to understand CLLSJ922 K.C.W____ UU10-* JUN3 1993 J Mr. Ronald Zamansky June 1, 1993 Page 2 the nature of the business or record keeping practices of the ' it would be helpful to have an explanation of the true nature of tho business and Record keeping practices. In any <=ase we would appreciate an explanation about what parts of the proposed conditions your client finds so burdensome and why. 4.At the meeting you stated that Mr. Dunn has approximately 8 watercraft stored on land L violation of the LMCD Code. If V^TnmtffcaU^^^ of why these watercraft are so stored, despite a number of notifications from the LMCD that such storage was prohibited, we would hearing it. Likewise, we would be interested in any explanation ab why tl'^ boats cannot be removed immediately other than Mr. Dunn _ desire to have the income from such storage. 5.The purpose of the proposed conditions is to require that agents of the LMCD have access to information which will enable them to determine, with some confidence, the status of any boats on the Manna If you have any suggestions about alternative ways of accomphshing this objective, please let us know. Very truly yours. Charles L. LeFevere CLL/cmm cc: -Gene Strommen CU.S1922 LKllO-4 lAINN< i*' V*; drz—A«i P,\^---— Oi ^ LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DI5 UOOLASrwAYZATAOOULeVAMD. SUITE 160 • WAY2ATA. WlNNESOfA OOTJ. • H imiUfll. ..l.•••.•» •• M EUGENE R. STROMMEM i:*i:culivl I'lnirit'U QAHO MEMGERS J;ivkI II Cciclitfiii. ClKiir Greenwood Penn. Vice Chan ronkn Day March 26, 1993 Mr. Jim Dunn Lakeside Marina, Inc._ • ji.i5 E o.ii>cocK. Sccrciii'y 3 324 North Shore Drive ocoll C.nilKon. IrciiSufOf MinitclMSia .viikn Ulauni MiiiMcloMka Scach MlK!fl (Ocrl) Foslof OijcpiKivuii J;iincr. N Gmihwol t:*c>-'lsiof joCII’<> L. Huff Ofono fViiit. 'll A. JoittiMono MinnulOiikn • uane M.iikiis Way;ain ^COfni! C. Owen Vicloiin jhi.-il Har.cop SIlUlOWQOU . gm nccr.c MotiHfl (lobcil E. Slocum Woociland Wayzata MN 55391 Dear Mr. Dunn: The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has not yet received an application for the commercial or multiple dock license Marina, although a check for $1635 was There is a balance due of $61 on the late foe. anticipation of receipt of an application, th Board of Directors voted at its regular March 24, 1993, to impose the following conditions on your 1993 license. Licensee shall maintain books and records Efficient to establish that marina launching facilities are not being used in conjunction iTtuily irtle watercrift parKad or stored on land at the marina. Such records shall b available for inspection by LMCD officers nnt agents upon advance notice. such books and rLords Lall include the name, address a.nd telephone number of the owner the watercraft stored or parked on land at the marina. Additionally, the licensee sh^^ maintain records to establish the status or each wate“ra£t in a form satisfactory to the executive director of the District. Such records would include, but not be limited to. a In the case of watercraft at the marina for estimated date of completion of the work. b. In the case of watercraft at the marina for ^the^date the^^watercraft :L^^d:!ivered^?o"s?orag%"and the date by which It must be picked up by the owner. Tn the case of watercraft being sold at ^ho marina evidence of ownership by the the marina, ^ _H»-->i<eraao agreement. **• V ti r I i I Lakeside Marina/ 3/26/93, Page 2 SK*g “rS'£?S-T '°"r'L«ioT^£be liTelltr^k sSch a he^inrSithin 30 days of the date you receive this notice. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT .XJ' ^ugeney^^^ tr ominei i Execif€ive Director ERS/rst —.Md- ... 't'l - ^ p IT-r L ik- DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT RcKular Meeting 7:30 PM, Wednesday, May 26, 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair Cochran at 7:39 PM. ROLL CALL: . ^ . n .Members Present: David Cochran. Chair. Oreenwood: Bei Foster. Deephaven: Mike Bloom. Minnetonka Beach: Scott Carlson Treasurer. Minnetrista; Thomas Reese. Mound; JoEllen Burr. Orono Robert Rascop, Shorewood; George Owen. Victoria; Duane Markus Wayzata, Robert Slocum. Woodland. Also Present: Charles LcFe vere. Counsel: Deputy Ken Shilling. Sheriff’s Water Patrol Rachel Thibault. Administrative Technician: Eugene Stromincn Executive Director. , » Members Absent: James Grathwol. E.xcelsior; Wm. Johnstone Minnetonka; Douglas Babcock. Secretary. Spring Park: Tom Penn Vice Chair, Tonka Bay. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Cochran Cochran did not have any announcements READING OF MINUTES Carlson moved. Reese seconded. 4/28/93 Board meeting as submitted. to approve the minutes of the Motion carriea unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS Don Blaser. Wayzata Yacht Club (WYC). asked for permission to address the actions of a Board member as detailed in a letter from Scott Spaeth. Commodore. WTC, dated 5/26/93. Cochran re­ sponded that Board policy allows ^ive minutes for discussion. If the subject cannot be completed in that time it will be continue to the end of the meeting under New Business. • « i Blaser said the letter presents a complaint against Board member Duane Markus. Wayzata. According to the letter. Mn^kus approached several University of Minnesota student sapors and asked them who had given them permission to be on ^ J'" ty. The letter savs he intimidated them, implyina the> had done something wrong, and harassed them. It is »‘ ‘ that type of behavior is not expected of Board members. asked for a definition of what would constitute of the Board member when approaching a licensee. The is concerned about a similar approach being made to the six and seven year old sailing school participants.^ n .. i Markus responded that it is his belief, that as a n<>.“ J member, he has the right to go on a licensee * ^ activities. He expressed objection to the use of the WYt fdc‘ > ties for activities not covered by its license. Me nccusetl the WYC of allowing the University of Minnesota Sailing Team to use a barter svstcMii of docking its boats in return for dock Markus contends that is the s.-ime as renting space to them. A ,s f- •y- k-' LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 26. 1993 Blaser said the arrangement is that the Sailing Team wcnild have to build its own dock if it should need one. They use the property at no cost as a service of the WYC to the I’niversiiy. Markus said the WYC has no right to do that. . Markus said the WYC has been harassing the City of Wayzata and it is his intention to ask the city to withdraw from the lake access car/trailer parking program. Carlson suggested a different forum is needed to discuss this issue in a less volatile atmosphere. Further discussion will be held under New Business. COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Babcock In the absence of Babcock due to a death in the chaired the Water Structures Committee reports. A. Approval of Minutes fami!,. Cochran MOTION: Rascop moved. Cochran seconded, to approve the minutes of the 5/8/93 Water Structures Committee meeting as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. (IIOA), Gideons Bay.B. Gideons Point Homeowners Assn., Tonka Bay. , , ^ iit r«.On 4/28/93 the Board approved a length variance to II- lot the 12 slip dock on Outlet A and the length variance lor the docks on the west end of property was denied with a provision that the 120’ docks on Lots 4 and 5 could remain for this season only. A new site plan was to be provided showing the docks, as approved, for the entire shoreline, initialed by the parties agreeing to it at the 4/28/93 meeting. At the 5/8/93 Water Structures Committee meeting the appli­ cant submitted revised site plans dated 5/7/93 which did not meet the criteria established by the Board. The Committee has recommend the Board den the Gideons Point HOA ® plans dated May 7, 1993. and to recommend approval of the 1.^85 site plans renewal without change, for this season. Cochran in fairness to Babcock it would he appropriate to return the application to the committee. The documents needed to prepare the findings and order for the new dock license appi- cation have not been completed and the revised Out lot dock plan was not received until today. i MOTION: <^'^chran moved. Slocum seconded, to approve rene , without change of the 1985 licensed site plan, pending the dock plan approved on 4/28/93, drawn to scale. ‘‘ V. o*, the same people who initialed the plan approved at the Board meeting. Direct Staff and *‘ ° . u® memorandum e.xplaining the advantages the various alternatives available to the LMCD in response to the Gideons Point Homeowners Ass’n. application and the leg.nl ‘ ^ “ sibilitv of those alternatives. The Water Structures is to be directed to consider that memorandum and report back to the Board. -*• A LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 26, 1993 DISCUSSION: LeFevere explained the purpose of the motion is to allow the HOA to get its boats into the water. Ultimately the Board will have to approve or deny the revised application after findings are prepared. He said the amended declarations were not received until yesterday and the Outlet dock plan was received today. This will give the committee another opportunity to look at the issue and the memorandum. Bill Merriam. 25 Gideons Point Road, said the Board had ap­ proved a 112’ length on Outlet A. He said the City of Tonka Bay has approved the 112’ dock on Outlet A. Cochran said the intent of the motion was to have staff and counsel prepare a memorandum for the variance on Lots 1 - 5 on the west side of the development. Slocum, as seconder agreed with that interpretation. Hurr questioned the inclusion of the 1^85 plan in the motlori when the Board already approved a 112’ dock on the Out lot A atui 120’ docks on Lots 4 and 5. LeFevere said the only thine that can be approved is the 1985 licensed plan as a renewal without change until the Findings and Order for the new ;#pp 1 i ca t i ons are approved. That will allow the rest of the riparian owners to put in their docks. The applicant can wait for approval of the 4/28/93 plan, and comply with the 1985 licensed plan, or build illegally. Thev can only build legally to the 1985 plan. Vern Haug! Mavor, City of Tonka Bay. said the city has approved the 112’ dock with a 125’ setback from the cast lot line. That dock is under construction to that specification. The city would like the Board to work on the docks on the west end, advising the City of Tonka Bay of its action. He cannot personally see any purpose in going back over the docks on the east end. . . . Hurr said she would rather not issue any permit than have a permit that is not going to be abided by. Rascop said there was a decision made at the April Board meeting and that should be approved. Cochran said the parcel has to be treated as a whole. He would be satisfied to consider the matter of the east end closed. LeFevere said he would have no problem with leaving the east end out of the discussion, treating the west end separately. Tie problem with taking final action on the west end at this time by denying the pending variance app 1 i cat i on . i t is a ^ ‘ nation which allows no room for reconsideration. Fimiings aic needed to justify the denial. .... , u • „ . Cochran asked if that means the LMCD will be looking the other way as to the docks being installed per the new site p an presented 4/28/93 on the east end. LeFevere said it has been the LMCD policy to not take enforcement action until the Poaid has taken final action on an application. The requ i red documents have been received within the past two days so there should be no delay in taking final action. MOTION: Hurr moved. Rascop seconded, to table the new *iocL license an.) i he variance applications to the Water Structuie.s Committee. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 1 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 2(>, 1993 MOTION: Cochran moved. Slocum seconded. to direct staff and legal counsel to prepare a memoramlum exp I a i n i tje (I) ailvan- tages and disadvantages of the various alternatives available to the LMCD in response to the Gideons Point Homeowners Assn, vari­ ance application for Lots 1 - 5 an.l (2) the legal de f ens i h i I i t y of those alternatives. .. .u » . i. DISCUSSION: Merriam said it is his understanding that tiie motion will confine discussion to the variance application on the west side of the property. . . .• Justin Holl. 30 Pearl Street, said he has no objection to the 80’ side setback from Pearl Street includine the walkway through the marsh, with the understanding that (1) theie will l>t. no filling of the peninsula area, (2) there will be dark colors on the canopies. (3) there will be no lights on the docks at night, and (4) there be a new survey at the end of Pearl Street. Cochran said those are matters for discussion at the Water Struc­ tures Committee meeting on June 12. Carlson said the review should include the variance crite­ ria. He would also want comment on what kind of precedent tins wi 11 set. u • .Rascop objects to the motion because this puts in the site design business. The applicant should vide the alternatives. Merriam said the HOA has no forth with a whole series of configurations. Jerry Holl. 30 Pearl Street, is oppo*^ed to the west end. She would rather see the docks for Lots 1 on Lot 3 and no walkway thiough the wetlands. Reese wants all of the docks for the development shown on the dock plan. Cochran said that would be on the final VOTE: Motion carried. Markus, Reese, Rascop and Bloom voting nay. the District have to pro­ plan to come plan ft>r the - 3 combined C. Clay Cliffe Homeowners Assn., Old Channel Bay, Tonka Bay The Water Structures Committee recommended approval of an application for a new dock license or C1 ay C1iffe Homeowners Assn, with a minor change in dock co figuration per the 4/30/93 Thibault explained the Assoc’aiion is licensed for 9 slips and uses 7. Its density is 1:100’. The change is to • slip #4 from 12’ x 32’ to lb’ x 48’. Everyone within 500 u.is notified and gave their approval of the new site plan. MOTION: Foster moved. Carlson seconded, to approve dock license for Clay Cliffe Homeowners Association with a change in the dock configuration per the 4/30/J3 site pi.in. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. a new minor LMCD cept D. Unrestricted Watercraft Storage Concept The Water Structures Committee recommended staff and the attorney prepare draft ordinances consistent with the policy as revised by the committee and explained i the ci>n in the memorandum dated 5/21/93. I LMCD DOARD OF DIRECTORS May 26, 1993 Thibault asked if the exemptions for certain unrestricted watercraft listed in item 4 d) of the memorandum refer to water­ craft stored on land or water or both. If the exem|)tions are just for unrestricted watercraft on land, that is covercti in 4 a) which does not count unrestricted watercraft stored on land at commercial multiple dock sites. ., » i:„ Hurr said densitv on the Lake is density whether stored in the water or on land. It would be inconsistent to not count them foraspecialclassofusers. , Markus said the unrestricted watercraft should be counted in some wav for density. They arc still there even if pulled up on land from the water. He asked what constitutes a non-piofit organization. The executive director said the organization would have to be an IRS 501-C-3 non-profit as an Educational, Scientif­ ic or Rel igious group to qual i fy. r ,,, Markus said this proposal creates the possibilit\ ot an unlimited number of schools on the Lake. Cochran said there are two kinds of density. There is the density of boats in use on the Lake and the density created by the number of boats stored on the shoreline. , , ■ • .Thibault suggested the unrestricted boats on land and i ii the water should be allowed with limits based on certain criteria to keep track of the density. Foster said unrestricted boats do not have the same impact on the Lake as larger boats and are se1f-1imiting in the area they cover. Markus did not necessarily agree, as a l(> llobic (.at can cover the entire Lake quickly. u.cc Hurr said if someone wanted to start a canoe rental business she cannot see the difference in whether it is for profit or non­ profit. Cochran said there is the possibility of the non-profit designation being misused. Foster said he would h^ave no with eliminating the word non-profit. Bloom said boat dcn.sit.\ is a problem and he cannot agree with exempting them. MOTION: Hurr moved, Foster seconded, to return the pioposal to the Water Structures Committee. DISCUSSION: Thibault asked for direction on enforcement regarding unlicensed storage of unrestricted boats in the interim as she does multiple dock inspections. The Board would be no violation at this time if the number of unrestricted boats did not uicrease from last year. The ^ 3 said the staff has information on how many ^ ^ ^ ^ there are at each site and can monitor any change in the number. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. E. Walden Tract Y, Deephaven Walden Tract Y is an out lot owned by the Walden Dock .Associ- ation. The Association has submitted documentation of grandfathered boat storage. The f ;\ “ing the documentation allowing non-conforming g i anil r .i t he i c u status for four slips. .stiff to s«tMOTION; Rascop moved • Hurr seconded • to direc ^ ^ iiiivi- up a file for Walden Tract Y, accepting the documentation ing a grandfathered status. . n i mo u s I \ .VOTE: Motion carried u n a n imo u.. i \ . LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 26, 1993 F. June Inspection Tour The committee has set June 11 from 5 PM to 9 PM foi the annual boat tour. The time was selected to allow concentrating the inspection on boat activity and density. Hurr said she has made arrangements for a boat. Upon ques­ tioning from Slocum she said the boat will be supplied by Tonka Bay Marina, Gabriel Jabbour owner. Slocum questioned the use of a boat from an individual who has publicly e.xprcssed his differ­ ences with the District. Hurr said, if that were policy, the District could not use a bout from any facility it licenses. The other Board members agreed the offer was appropriate and should be accepted. Hurr withdrew the offer because of the question raised. G. Deicing License Deposit Refunds MOTION: Hurr moved. Rascop seconded, to approve deposit refunds of SlOO each to the following deicing licensees that met the license requirements with few or no deficiencies: Ali Brock, Harrisons Day Dennis Carlson, St. Albans Bay Curly’s Minnetonka Marina, Echo Bay Frank Elshaug, St. Albans Bay Excelsior Bay Assoc., ExccJ<ior Bay Gayle’s Marina Corp., Maxwell Bay Grays Bay Marina, Grays Bay Howard’s Point Marina. S. Upper Lake Mike Kramer, Gideons Bay Reid MacDonald, Lafayette Bay Denny Williams, Jennings Bay Leno Mikenas, St. Albans Bay Minnetonka Boat Works, Wayzata Bay Minnetonka Yacht Club, Carsons Bay Douglas Ramstad, Wayzata Bay Paul F. Resberg, Grays Bay Rockvam Boat Yards, West Arm Sailors World Marina, Smiths Bay Tonka Bay Marina, Lower Lake S Rodney Wallace, St. Albans Bay Wayzata Yacht Club. Site 1, Wayzata Bay Wayzata Yucnt Club, Site 2. Wayzata Bay Wayzata, City of. Wayzata Bay James Wyer, St. Louis Bay Ed Yaeger, Gideons Bay The following licensees had deficiencies and are to have $50 of their refund withheld to cover the cost of the third inspec­ tion: Minnetonka Boat Works. Browns Bay North Shore Drive Marina. Maxwell Bay VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. r . LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 26, l‘)93 H. Multiple Dock Side Setback Requirements The committee recommends that the staff and attorney prepare a draft ordinance to institute a 10«o setback zone for multiple dock licenses. . , i,Ilurr said it would be ridiculous to require a licensee \ith '>,000 feet of shoreline to have a 200 foot setback. Carlson said the City of Minnetrista has not had an opportu­ nity to look at the proposal. Rascop e.vplained the subject was introduced by Committee Chair Babcock as a method of putting outlots for multiple docks in the center of the shoreline of a development. Case in point is the Gideons Point problem where the outlot is on an end adjacent to property not in the develop­ ment. This proposal would place the impact of the docks on the development. , , ,• «rA motion by Cochran to implement the recommendation of the committee did not receive a second. I. Lakeside Marina, Ma.xwe 1 1 Bay, Orono The committee recommended that Jim Dunn. President. Lake.side Maiina, be allowed a hearing at this meeting regarding the condi­ tions imposed on the 1993 license renewal. . . r, LeFevere said there is a question as to whether Dunn yaw timely notice of his request for a hearing. Regard I ess. I he committee decided to give Dunn a hearing at this Board meetin^. However, the District received notice from his legal counsel that Mr. Dunn is in Florida and cannot make this meeting. The request for a continuance came in Tuesday, May 25, by Dunn s LeFevere advised him staff could not grant a continuance. That would have to be done by the Board. Counsel for Mr. Dunn asked if he could meet with District representatives to discuss whether there is some way of settling this matter. . LeFevere and the executive director met with Dunn s counsel 5/25. LeFevere is not optimistic that settlement can be reached based on what Dunn’s counsel proposed. He does feel it is a good idea to grant the continuance until the next Board meeting. The reason for that is, if the matter can be solved by discussion, the time will be well spent. If this issue winds up in tion it could be a lengthy process. It is LeFevere s opinion the courts would be more sympathetic to the LMCD by its granting a continuance. MOTION: llurr moved. Rascop seconded, to continue to in June 23 Board meeting the appearance of James Dunn. Marina, for a hearing on the conditions placed on the .lanna license. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE, Chair Foster A Approval of Minutes. Foster moved. Reese seconded, to approve the minutes of the 5/18/93 Lake Use and Recreat i on rom- mittee meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 1 >A: [i ■ / ‘5i 4 ^ LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 26, 1993 1: a •ay ry . ■ J L' ■ . ,:i’ ( i. . «/ i, i. B. Paradise Lady Charter Boat, Wine & Beer License Applica- t ions MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded, to approve on-sale wine and on-sale beer license applications for the ParaiJJse '.aily charter boat, waiving the investigation and i nves t i ga t i «.>n fees because the applicant had passed the inspections for the Fajrajjj.^. Princess charter boat. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Special Events 1) Deposit Refunds MOTION: Foster moved, Reese seconded, to approve deposit refunds of $100 each for the following: a. 1994 Lake Mtka Ice Fishing Contest, 1/29/94 (canceled) b. Ho 1iday/Johnson Crappie Tournament, 4/24/93 c. MDA/Fina Fishing Tournament. 6/26/93 (canceled) VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. D. Decibel Test Foster said the committee had the cooperation of the Minne­ sota Pollution Control Agency, the DNR, and the Sheriff’s Water Patrol in providing personnel to conduct the lest on May 25. <’ne marina operator, two Board members and one private party brought boats for the test. He said it was easy to determine which boats were loud and which ones were not. It was an enlightening expe­ rience. A written report will be made. Owen asked what an individual should do when an obviously loud boat goes by. Deputy Ken Shilling said the best way is to notify the Water Patrol by telephoning 471-8528, 525-6210 or 911. The Water Patrol follows up on formal citizen complaints. It is best to have the registration number of the offending boat and a description of the operator. E. Hennepin County Sheriff’s Water Patrol Report Shilling reported the following since the last Board meet­ ing: * Two BWIs have been issued * The initial charter boat inspections have been completed. Follow ups will be done where needed. * There was one Personal Injury accident on Crystal Day as a result of passengers in a smaller runabout being thrown out when hitting the wake from a large cruiser. Commenting on the accident on Crystal Bay, Bloom said the occupants who were injured were fortunate that there was a boat nearby to rescue them. The accident exemplifies the "wash and wake" problems of larger boats. He said as the density increases and boats increase in size there will be more of this tvpe •'f accident. Foster said this is worthy of discussion by the committee. t t i 4 t ' *. :* i-s * LMCD BOARD OF DIRHCTORS Mav 20, I‘>')3 F. Presentat ior» of Marine Radar Gun to Water Patrol The executive director reported tu’o marine r.idnr \.vie presented to the Water Patrol on 5/25. cost funded l)y l he Save the Lake Fund. Captain Peterson accepted the radar behalf of the Water Patrol and expressed appreciation. explained that the guns register speed down to I inph and will >e useful in the quiet water areas. The other Radar guns purchased for the Water Patrol by the LMCD in the past continue to he used. 3. ENVIRONMENT A. Environment Committee, Chair Hurr 1) Approval of Minutes Hurr moved. Reese seconded, to approve the minutes of 5/1 I/93 Environment Cominiltee meetine as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. , '>) Hurr submitted a concept for contractual svr' ice to assess the environmental protection objectives of the Manasement Plan for Lake Minnetonka. The executive director said Dick Osgood. Ecosystem ^ '‘’l;-- eies, formerly with the Freshwater Foundation, ha.s obserted that the Managemen't Plan environmental protection objectives c.ni,.| be better met if they can lie lirol.cii clown into more specific c.iiv.. The executive director sniil there is a need to conli.i'-1 " ' ^ a professional in the area of environmental protection to ^ how the District may want to convert the objectives •l'-' “ thing more definitive. The Environment LMCD Board consider a plan to engage a qualified ' lead the agency stakeholders toward a common vision of vvhat lhc> want the lake to be. Funds arc available in 1993 for this t>pc of consultant service and funds are proposed to be budgeted for 1 994 •MOTION; Reese moved. Cochran seconded, to proceed wiili the plan for contractual services to assess environmental goals of the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka ^, the Envi roninent Comm i 11 ee memo randuni to the Board <a c( . - VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B.Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Stroiimieii for rh.iir Penn cated. This will bring the fuel capacity to approx iin.itel.. one week’s operating supply compared to the current day oi day am , ^*^*^New crew member applicants have been interviewed. orienta­ tion will start the week of June 10. I: «r'“' IL LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 26, 1993 r a t c s Nine access sites have been selected for herbicide iie.it-* ment. There has not been an opportunity to examine them to date to determine the individual need. Gray’s Bay is scheduled to >t treated the week of June 1. i ri . ♦ There will be clean up at the accesses to pick up t lie Moat­ ing weeds. r c» o« «There is no information available on the outcome of Slate legislation on aquatic exotic funding and regulation. Field enclosures for the SONAR study to test dosage will be installed at St. Albans Bay this week. There will be five sets of three enclosures. Lake Zumbro and East Parker Lake will also be tested. The enclosures are 15’ in diameter. The Task Force agrees Zebra Mussel is a threat to the Lake. Because of the inability to identify and locate larvae on a boat, and the threat potential from a multi-state area, the control will have to be a multi-agency operation. The Task Force i>Ians to take leadership in the Zebra Mussel spread prevention Reese said there should be money expended on a projection of what the Lake would be like five years or so after a Zebra Mussel invasion. Markus asked if the LMCD can get some of the st.ite boat license surcharge fee for that purpose. The executive director responded that a need statement would have to be pte- pared. So far the DNR has been supportive. The LMCD did receive $60,000 from the exotics funding for Milfoil control. Reese said the milfoil eating weevil had been found in the Lake. The executive director said there was no intentional introduction of the weevil. It is appearing in a natural circum­ stance. That could be an asset toward long term Milfoil control. 4. LMCD LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE, Strommen for Chair Orathwol A. Report of 5/7/93 meeting 1) City of Minnetrista Car/Trailer Parking Agreement MOTION: Foster moved, Hurr seconded, to approve the City of Minnetrista Car/Trailer Parking Agreement as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Lake Access Task Force 1) Report of 5/12/93 meeting. The executive director reported the major port ii>n of s?..’run.ira*need?o'’r Tw*‘.cc?ss" s U i on X .‘ake has been determined. Some of the sites are for sale. known to be available. The Task Force acccp.ed the sitin. suh committec^repoM.^ Force recommended directing the IMcn staff, in cooperation with the DNR staff, to: I •» LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 26, I99J a. Continue Public Access Car/Trailer Parking Acreeinef»t negotiations with Hennepin County. Mound. Dccphavcn. Orono. Wayzata and Spring Park. At tlic ciappie tournament on 4/20 there were S'> car/trailcrs parked at the Hennepin County Public Works site. County offi­ cials agreed to counting 70 spots minimum at that site. That plus the 19 at Spring Park and street parking would give tlie Spring Park access about 110 car/trailer parking places. The City of Spring Park is scheduled to review its car/trailer siting on Jun? 7. Rascop said he was at ll.e Spring Park access at 7 AM on fishing opening and '.here were 4 open car/trailer parking spaces. b. Explore car/trailer public access potential among com­ mercial marinas , , ,t..It will be a matter of determining what is available and the cost of leasing spaces for free public access. ^ , c. Prepare findings and recommendations on the lake Access Task Force study by Fall. 1993. The executive director said the Task Force intends to have the findings and recommendations available to the Pi sin cl hy Fall, 1993. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Chair Carlson A. The minutes of the 4/2S/93 are not yet prepared. B. Report of 5/26/93 meeting: Carlson reported that he. along with Johnstone. Ilurr and Owen, will constitute a sub-committee to meet with staff to discuss budgeting and organizational changes. The discussion will include information gained at the meeting with the mayors on 5/18. FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Carlson A. The April Statement of Cash Transactions has been de­ layed primarily due to computer program complexities and training of the new employee. D. Audit of Vouchers for Payment Carlson distributed the check register for May. (heck No. 9161 is to be voided. In the future there will be a memo tolumii indicating the purpose of the expenditure. The deposit check for the federal income tax is not shown in the amount of $I.J u.s/. MOTION: Carlson moved. Owen seconded, to approve bills in the amount of $24,932.51, Check Nos. 9I3(> through 91) and payroll checks 1048 through 1053. VOTE; Motion carried unanimously. C. 1994 Preliminary Draft Budget, including EWM operations. The 1993 EWM budget was presented. The executive directoi reported the 1994 EWM budget is not detailed by line item. '^ ‘^ a total based on the 1993 plan. There are some changes i ii the I 1 . 5s- ii' LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS M.jy 36, 1993 1993 budget. The executive director pointed out ;i chanee in Insurance from $8,209 in 1992 to $1,540 in 1993. Ttii s results from a change to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust • (LMCIT). Under Field Operations, the total for Equ i ptnen l Sup­ plies, Maintenance, Fuel Tanks has been increased to $18,500 from $11,000 to reflect the addition to the fuel tanks. That is an increase from $13,545 in 1992. The bottom line is a decrease of $142 in the 1993 EWM Control Program Budget. MOTION: Carlson moved. Reese seconded, to approve the 1993 Eurasian Water Milfoil Control Program Proposed 1993 Budget as submit ted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. The Board received the LMCD 1994 Preliminary Draft Budget. Carlson pointed out there are no funds being taken from the Reserve. There is $45,000 budgeted for Management Plan studies. Hurr asked about the $100 actual expenditure for .egal notices in 1992 vs. the $2000 budgeted for 1994. Carlson ex­ plained the $100 figure is an error caused by a mis-cI assifica­ tion of accounts. MOTION: Hurr moved. Owen seconded, to approve the draft 1994 LMCD budget for forwarding it the cities for review and comment. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Carlson said the city administrators will be invited to discuss the budget with the executive director. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT, Strommen A. Staff Priorities The executive director reported that Thibault will bo moving her activities outdoors now that the summer season is arriving. She will be working on the dock inspections and boat inventory. The e.xecutive director commended Thibault for her assumption of many duties of the secretarial staff when it was short banded during the secretary-bookkeeper staff change. The executive director said Joanne Tyk is moving into her secretary-bookkeeper duties professionally. Appreciation was expressed to Carlson for the assistance he has given in putting the computerized bookkeeping system into operation. Jafi Briner. Clerical Assistant, has continued to meet the demands of her position. . The executive director is on jury duty but in contact with the office by phone and at each day’s end. The executive director anticipates the Administrative Com­ mittee will give the staff more challenges. B. Waiver of Immunity - Insurance LeFevere explained that the Minnesota Statutes prt'tect tlic LMCD from tort liability in the amount of $200,000 to a S'*0O.o00 L ’ 4 f LMCD DOARD OF DIRECTORS May 26, 1993 limit. Thu District has purchased $1,000,000 in coverage. The Board can waive its protection up to $1,000,000 if it wants to. It would be a public policy issue to do that. If someone is damaged by any action of the Board, that individual should get at least as much recovery for that as the insurance coverage. order to waive the protection above $600,000 to $1,000,000 there . is an extra premium of $230. Carlson said the City of Minnetrista waives the protection. MOTION: Hurr moved, Carlson seconded, to waive the Statuto­ ry limitation on tort liability and pay the additional premium of $230 to provide the $1,000,000 coverage. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Carlson observed that the differences between Board member Markus and Wayzata Yacht Club have created a situation which requires hearing both sides completely. He does not feel it is something that can be resolved at this meeting. This is some­ thing that three or four Board members could sit down with the parties and discuss in an orderly manner. The issue carrie.s a fair amount of emotion. Markus said he understands from Thibault that the unre­ stricted watercraft that are at the WYC are not part of the WYC license. Thibault responded that because of the Code amendment which was being discussed, the unlicensed storage of unrestrict­ ed watercraft on land was not being enforced. She asked the %YC to remove the boats from the water and place them on land. They did that. . , .Markus said he then contacted the City of Wayzata. He said he was not abusive to the young people. He asked if they were renting space from the WYC. Markus was told they are exchanging work for the dockage. He did not block the WYC exit or entrance. He believes he has the right as a Board member to check on licen- see comp Iiance. . ,. • i LeFevere said that when an application lor a license is made there i:* -^n implied right for the LMCD to inspect ami the licen­ see cor..«ieVt;s to that. LeFevere said that when the Board was faced determining whether members had a conflict of interest it was agreed to be prospective rather than retrospective and try to reach agreement on the concerns. There could be an investiga­ tion of this matter to decide who was right or who was wrong in the past. On the other hand the Board could decide whether there should be guidelines that the Board wants to impose on its own Board members in the future. LeFevere said that unless the Board wants to take some action against a member, it is ju.st as pro< ac­ tive to look to the future and decide whether the Board wants to consider some guidelines for its own Board members rather than investigating. Blaser said the WYC never intended to deny anyone access. The information they have from more than five or s i x i ndividuaIs is that Markus’ confrontation might have gotten out of hand. AS 1 A \' {F: LMCD DC :d of directors May 26, 1993 everyone should know it has not been easy for the WY«* and the Markus* to live as close neighbors. The WYC would we 1 conio a review by an impartial group. Cochran suggested that if the Board wants to hear lioih si*lcs of the issue selected members of the Board, with no conflict of interest, should discuss the issues and come back to the Board with a recommendation. Slocum said they should address the broadest issues. Bloom said this is an unfortunate situation. lie aerecs there is a need for guidelines for the future. fie does not believe the Board should determine right or wrong. It is not qualified to do so. There has to be a determination of what kind of standards should apply to Board member’s actions. MOTION: Hurr moved. Cochran seconded, that a small commit­ tee be appointed, similar to the one that worked on the conflict of interest matter, to develop guidelines for Board member ac­ tions and behavior. VOTE; Motion carried, Markus abstaining. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cochran declared the meeting adjourned at 10:05 PM. David Cochran. Chair Douglas Babcock. Secretary I a ;u. Action Report: Meeting: LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Water Structures Committee 7:30 AM., Saturday, June 12, 1993 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata, Room 136 Members Present: Thomas Reese, Acting Chair, Mound; David Cochran, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Deephaven; William Johnstone, Minnetonka: Duane Markus, Wayzata; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present: Rachel Thibault, Admin­ istrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. The meeting was call to order at 7:30 AM by Acting Chair Reese* 1. Gideons Point Homeowners Association, Gideons Bay, Tonka Bay. The committee received two options for the Findings and Order for the new multiple dock license and variance applications from the Gideons Point Homeowners Association (HOA), with memo­ randum from the LMCD attorney as directed by the Board. The committee also received a letter from Thomas Wartman, Director, Gideons Point Homeowners association, dated 6/2/93, outlining the HOA proposal, revised site plans dated 6/2/93 and 6/3/93 for the new dock license for the entire development and the variance on t he we s t • Reese explained that at the May Board meeting the attorney was asked to prepare a memorandum describing the advantages and disadvantages of granting the variance request of the HOA along with the defensibi1ity of either action. LeFevere’s 6/4/93 cover letter says that there is sufficient factual basis on the record of proceedings in this case to sup­ port either decision. Therefore, it is within the discretion of the Board of Directors to determine whether the standards of the LMCD Code are met. By the very nature of variances, they tend to be subjective. The executive director reported that the HOA has presented a plan for the docks on Lots on 1 - 5 (West End) which follows the 80* setback from the west property line. The neighbors to the west, not in the development, have given their approval. AS stated in the 6/2/93 letter, the HOA has agreed to reduce the total number of boat storage units in its license from 51 to 46. The executive director said that is more restrictive than the LMCD requirement of 1:50*. The HOA has made specific decla­ rations in its restrictions and covenants to cover the changes, including the new site plan for Outlet A. . On the overhead projectoTf Thibault presented the site plan showing water depths for the docks at the west end with lengths of 170’ for the dock on Lot 1 running through the wet­ lands, and the other three docks at 140*, 128* and 128 to meet a water depth of 4.3*. Thibault said the 6/3/93 site plan sub­ mitted shows the locations of all of the docks on the development shoreline. _ , Reese said it is his understanding these site plans are agreeable with the neighbors and 'here is no longer any conten­ tion about the 112’ dock on Out lot A. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE June 12, 1993 „otth»> orooerties outside of the development. Cochran noted that t’le developer had agreed to use the entire site as single proper- cy for doc*kage purposes with an easement along the shoreline. That easement was not filed with the county. The the lots in the development claim they were not aware of the Jestrictions to their docking rights. Cochran said he believes it would not be fair to the property owners to try to enforce the 1985 license agreement, or to have the ®PP.^ ‘ docks in one area in a marina like style in front of another orooerty and on that basis he supports the variance ^ MOTION: Foster moved, Cochran seconded, recommend ‘o the Board approval of the revised site plans dated 6/2/93 for the*^new dock license and variance applications from Gideons B Owners Association, for 46 Boat Storage Units as outlined in Wartman’s 6/2/93 letter.The hardship for the variance '"°"*'*D?lcUSSIO^N-‘*°FosVer^ the Board .nembers observed this prope^fon Vh“6/U "our of the Lake. Within 100’ of ‘H* «"d °f the^docks on the west end the boat was churning up lake sedi He believes it is reasonable to allow property owners to reach 4* water depth, a hardship due to shallow noted that because this is an inside corner of the Lake, the docks will not interfere with navigation or the public use of the '•“'"•johnstone asked if the majority of the owners were in favor of the variances. The executive . responded there was not 100* agreement. Johnstone then .xecutive director if he would recommend approval. The *?* . , iirector responded that he and Thibault have spent time on this application. He stVff Vo'es not be^this type in many locations around the Lake. Staff does not lieve the churning up of the Lake bottom by . have Utson for granting a variance. water ?«"s hillchanged since the 1985 plan approval. Low water years na caused additional cattail growth in lagoon and shore^area beyond. The current proposal is not ^ au- dock Filing boats can enter the lagoon on still potsi- ble. Thibault added that she believes there is definitely a hardshiPj.u^ said the west end is not reasonable *! a swamp If the District continues to allow docks , areas ?he7and further there were will be requests for use of areas that should not be considered shoreline. better configura-Rascop said he believes there could be a better coniigur^^ tion. He b»*lieves the hardship is not caused y noifienon but by the original developer. '1 m- I- i'- ir’ WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE June 12, 1993 Slocum said he does not believe the people who bought Lots I through 12 knew that someday they could have a marina in front of their properties. If that information was available they proba­ bly would have done something else. It is acknowledged that could be enforced. That would be grossly unfair. As far as the dock over the wetlands, the District has approved this type of arrangement in the past. /OTE: Motion carried, Markus and Rascop voting nay. Rascop noted the Board resolution of 5/26 denying the vari­ ances on the west end. The LMCD attorney is to advise how to handle the introduction of the present recommendation. Justine Holl, 30 Pearl Street, asked that the stakes defin­ ing the end of Pearl Street be certified. Reese advised Holl that is a land issue to be handled by the City of Tonka Bay. 2. Stocks Side Setback Variance Application, Mound, Halsteds Bay The committee received the report of the Public Hearing to consider a variance application from Thomas and Roma Stocks, 3032 Highvicw Lane, Mound, held on 5/26/93, to reduce the side setback requirements from 10’ to 5’ to permit installation of a dock and a boat. The Findings of Fact accompanied the Public Hearing report. . , . . -Thibault pointed out the check list for variance application review dated 6/3/93. Foster said it is his understanding that the property was platted with a 20’ lake frontage with the intent to allow a dock. There has been a dock there for many years. To require the 10 setback would negate the use of a dock. The owners. Stocks, are asking to make the dock legal so they can proceed with the sale of the property. , ^Robert Humphrey, the original owner of the lot, said there was never anything documented in regard to dock rights. When he purchased the lot he had a dock on the property with a 25 cabin cruiser. No one seemed to be aware of the LMCD regulations. This is a situation where there is a small lot with large lake frontages on either side. There is no problem with traffic, safety or movement of boats. Roma Stocks clarified the last two sentences in paragraph 4 of the Public Hearing report, indicating that she and Mr. Stocks were not aware, at that time, of any complaint filed with the LMCD about the dock installation. If they had known, it would have helped them resolve the problem when they first bought the property. ^ Humiphrey said the LMCD inspector thought there . setback requirement and inquiry with the City of Mound indicated it was a non-issue. Reese responded that the information was available if there had been a check with the LMCD staff. Rascop added that the City of Mound has adopted the LMCD ordinances by x*c*f6ir0ncc« Foster said he does not believe there is a boat traffic problem at this location. He noted there is documentation tnat the neighbors do not object. Thibault said the neighbors do not object as long as there is no encroachment on their Dock use Areas. 1 3 r ’» t V r y *. • WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE June 12, 1993 Reese said there are many 20’ lots around the lake, number unknown. He asked how the District would say "no" to others if this is approved. Foster responded that if the neighbors say no, he would have a hard time voting for the variance. Reese re­ sponded that the LMCD Code does not allow "making a deal" on the W£l t 0 I* • The executive director reviewed the variance check list. He observed that there has been a dock at this location for 20 years. This property is not an outlot, rather there is a home on it. Circumstances would be different if this were a 20’ lot next to 40’-50’ small lots. Cochran said he does not agree with the process of LMCp giv­ ing approval if the neighbors are willing to agree in writing. Future neighbors may not agree. . . ij Markus believes approval of this variance application would be a precedent setting action. He suggested the Stocks might have legal recourse against the realtor who sold them the proper­ ty with the assurance (represented by the real estate company) that they had dock rights. .u , i, Foster said he believes there are other 20 lots on the Lake with docks on them. He understands that the neighbors do not want anything on their titles that would indicate approval of the 5’ variance but do not object to the variance. He observed that the use is a for small dock for a small boat. Vhe executive director said the LMCD staff is recommending imposing limitations, such as a maximum 3’ wide by 40’ long dock with no canopy, for a boat with no more than a 7’ beam. Johnstone said he is persuaded by the fact that a dock has been there for many years. j MOTION: Foster moved, Slocum seconded, to recommend grant­ ing the variance for 5’ setbacks because this use is reasonable, a dock has existed at this site for 19 years, and would not encroach on the neighboring dock use areas. Limitations should be imposed restricting use to one 40’ long "stick" dock, with no canopy slip structure, except the small canopy type used on boat lifts, for one restricted watercraft with a maximum 7’ beam, to stay within a 10’ dock use area. DISCUSSION: Rascop asked what is the hardship. It was agreed the small lake shore frontage with no dock use area i;i a hardship. Johnstone said determining hardship is a subjective thing, the essence of granting variances. Robert Floeder, 3027 Bluffs Lane, owner of another 20 lot in the development, was advised he will have to make separate application for a variance. Reese advised him that approval of this variance would not guarantee his variance application would be approved. VOTE: Motion carried, Markus and Rascop voting nay. 3. Joseph Zwak, Greenwood, St. Albans Bay; boat storage at out lot .Joseph Zwak, 5165 Queens Circle, Greenwood, and three neign- bors are the owners o -ot 7, Strickland Addition, a lakeshore lot adjacent to Zwak’w ff-lake residential property. Zwak and 1.. WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE June 12t 1993 his neighbors have 4 boats stored at the lot in • olation of LMCD Code Sect. 2.02, Subd. 2, which states that unless Subd. 1 allows a greater number, two restricted watercraft may be stored at a lot without a residence that was platted before 8/30/78. It is this Code provision that allows the storage of only two restrict­ ed watercraft at Lot 7, Strickland Addition. Zwak was advised, by certified mail on 6/4/93, that the District requires compliance with the LMCD ordinances, namely storage of no more than two restricted watercraft. An inspection was scheduled for the week of 6/14/93 to verify compliance. Non- compliance would force the District to direct the prosecuting attorney to commence criminal prosecution. Thibault stated the LMCD considers the lot an out lot adja­ cent to a residential lot giving access to the Lake. Zwak tends Lot 7 is homesteaded by the four users and it has been used since 1979 for 3 or 4 boats. Thibault said LeFevere has advised that an outlet, regard­ less of who owns it, does not have any different rights for 87 of shoreline than any other lot, that is storage of 2 boats. The Greenwood City Council adopted a Resolution allowing the four boats to remain for this year while the Council considers the situation. , ^ . Zwak was present and stated that the reference to this as an outlot is wrong. Zwak views it as a residential lot. He said the LMCD regulations allow a residential lot 4 boats per lot. The owners contend this is a residential lot, homesteaded to their properties, and has been used for over 13 years. It is an unbuildable lot due to a wetland. Zwak says there is case law that upholds their contention. The owners are not asking any more than any other residential lot on the Lake is entitled to. Thibault responded that Lot 7 is not adjacent to the other owners* lots. Zwak said there is an Attorney General opinion in 1986 stating that a lot does not have to be physically adjacent to another lot for homesteading. Thibault responded that the LMCD Code says there has to be a residence on the lot and that all four boats must be owned by residents of the lot. Cochran said, as the Greenwood LMCD representative, he is familiar with the property. He can see no reason to change the LMCD definition of Lot 7 as an outlot. Zwak said, if the Board is not amenable, this will have to be decided in court. He does not like the criminal prosecution referred to in the LMCD letter to him. Cochran said he would be comfortable to go along with the City of Greenwood action lo hold off enforcement for a year, with an attempt to solve the problem. Rascop said he believes the LMCD Code is clear. Foster said he would be willing to hold off on the prosecution for further clarification from the LMCD attorney. . u MOTION; Reese moved, Johnstone seconded, to hold in aoey- ance the date of compliance and consult with the LMCD attorney to bring back a recommendation to the Board. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 5 .• . r 'I w:r % * 0 WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE June 12, 1993 4. Unrestricted Watercraft Storage concept and affected ordi­ nances, discussion and consideration for amending ordinances. Thibault’s memorandum regarding the concept of unrestricted watercraft storage was deferred for discussion upon Chair Bab­ cock’s return. 5. Multiple Dock License Inspections; staff report on procedure Thibault presented the check list used for multiple dock inspections, dated 6/9/93. She asked the committee to comment and make changes or additions. The following were suggested: Item l.c. Check for oversized watercraft in docks extending beyond the setback. • j Item 5. There may be additional signage items to be checked for compliance with licensing requirements and the Code. Johnstone suggested the checklist be provided to the licen­ sees when it is completed. The District should know how many vehicle parking spaces are available at the licensee’s location, the size of the parking spaces, if impervious or gravel, if spaces are striped and the ratio of parking spaces to boat slips. Foster suggested to add to the list the number of boat clubs involved in the slip use. Foster feels boat clubs add to the density on the Lake because of the heavier use of each boat. Reese would like to know how many unrestricted watercraft are at each location. Johnstone suggested checking the Management Plan for other current or potential elements to be considered 6. Annual June Inspection Tour There was no formal report on the 6/11/93 inspection tour. 7. Foxhill Homeowners Association Thibault reported she has contacted the Foxhill Homeowners Association regarding compliance with its license. The Associa­ tion is licensed for 13 slips and have put in 7 or 8. One slip was allowed at 32’ with a 40’ canopy. The slip was put in at 40*. She has not heard from the licensee to date. 8. Dock at Gluek’s Point, Deephaven Cochran and Thibault have received complaints about a 240* dock at a residence on Gluek*s Point. There will be further investigation to determine whether a variance is appropriate 9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 AM. FOR THE COMMITTEE Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Douglas Babcock, Chair i % T; % ii Lk LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report:Lake Use and Recreation Committee Meeting:7 PM., Tuesday, June 15, 1993 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata, LMCD Office Members Present: Bert Foster, Chair, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Thomas Reese, Mound. Also present: Deputy Ken Shil­ ling, Sheriff’s Water Patrol; Eugene Strommen Executive Director. The meeting was cafled to order by Foster at 7:05 PM 1. Intoxicating Liquor License Fees The executive director asked the committee to review the fees charged for liquor licenses in light of the 1992 amendment to MN Statutes (per Attorney LeFevere’s 4/2/93 letter). The District issues one liquor license to the Queen oi Excelsior. The fee charged is $3000. There have not been any reported incidents of liquor license violations for the current licensee. There was one violation of a beer and wine license for a different charter boat. ^Reese said he agrees the fee charged should reflect the cost of issuing and inspecting, and other directly J®^*^**^ enforcement and no more. He believes the $3000 fee **‘**1* . Deputy Shilling said the Water Patrol does not stop the charter boats unless a problem is reported or observed. MOTION: Reese moved, Foster seconded, to recommend to tne Board that the liquor license fee be reduced to $1,500 in 199 , reflecting that figure in the 1994 budget. DISCUSSION: It was noted that the liquor licensee pays for his own license background investigation. . VOTE: Motion carried, Grathwol abstaining because, he has done work for the owner of the Queen of Excelsior. 2. B. Special Events: A. New Special Events ^ /i-, 1) Operation Bass, Inc., Bass Tournament 9/19/93, Minnetonka Boat Works, Wayzata Renewal Special Events (Informational) . . ^ 1) Excelsior Chamber of Commerce 4th of July Fireworks 2) Minnetonka Challenge 5-Mile Swim, 8/7/93 and 8/23/933) Viking Bassmasters, Bass Tournament, 10/3/93 The executive director reported that an inquiry has been ^'"'‘Foster said personal watercraft competition is a growing activity all over the country. He said the LMCD has a code provision prohibiting motorized racing on the Lake. V; ■ i LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE June 15, 1993 The executive director said there would be speed limit stipulations, not to exceed 40 mph. The practice information does not suggest the activity is intended to be carried on at speeds over the limit. There would be a limitation on the time each session, to meet the 30 minute ordinance requirement for operation in the same area. Reese said it would have to be limited to weekdays during daytime hours, and they would have to meet the 82 decibel re­ quirement. The Water Patrol would be notified when the course was being set up. The Water Patrol has the right to order practice to stop if there are any problems. The practice course will be limited to no less than 300* off shore. Under these and other conditions Reese could favor a conditional permit for one year. MOTION: Reese moved, Grathwol seconded, to instruct the staff to draw up stipulations for a permit based on the committee discussion and to present the application to the Board for dis­ cussion. Comments from the Water Patrol are to be included. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 3. Decibel Test Report The committee received a report from Rachel Thibault, Admin­ istrative Technician, regarding the May 25th Decibel Test. The report included comments from Brian Timerson, MN PCA Noise Spe- cii^l ist • Reese said there is a problem in the manner of measuring decibel levels accurately as pointed out by Timerson in his report. Shilling said the PCA says the idle test is legal. He explained the procedure the Water Patrol uses in enforcement. The Water Patrol usually gives a warning to a suspected viola­ tor. The violator has to make an appointment for another test at the Water Patrol headquarters. On complaint the Water Patrol will write out a warning without a test. , Shilling reported that a boat has to be at least 84 deci- bels, 2 more than the ordinance requirement of 82 decibels, before a citation will be issued. Shilling said that is a PCA requirement based on the possibility of outside noise interfer­ ence. Reese said a reduction of the noise requirement to 80 decibels would allow the 2 decibel leeway to bring the citation level to 82 decibels. ..... *Foster said he was uncomfortable that the test did not accomplish its intent. Reese said there were not enough boats. Foster expressed concern that boats are being sold that do not meet the noise standards. ^ .u-.MOTION: Reese moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend tne decibel level for boats be reduced to 80 decibels, the tests be made at idle and standardized. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 4. 1993 Charter Boat Roster j ^The executive director suggested the members carry and use the list to assist them in identifying charter boats on the Lake. •i LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE June 15| 1993 5, Sign up to Ride with Water Patrol Evening/Weekend Patrols This was a reminder to Board members to participate in the ride along program with Water Patrol deputies on evenings and weekends. 6. Water Patrol Report Deputy Shilling reported as follows; * Since the last meeting 5 BWI citations have been issued for a total of 8 for this season. The Water Patrol is observing the use of the designated driver as a reason for a reduction in BWI s •♦ A saturation patrol was held on 5/29. The weather was inclement and there were no citations. 0 'There were several thefts from boats on Harrisons Bay and Cooks Bay. Three juveniles have been arrested for the Cooks Bay thefts. The Water Patrol has suspects for the Harrison Bay thefts. The Orono police assisted in passing on information on the suspects. 7. Boat Wakes Reese introduced the subject of the control of boat wakes following a comment from a fisherman who no longer fishes on Lake Minnetonka because of the wakes. Foster said he has observed strict enforcement of wake violations on the intercoastal waterways in Florida. Reese said he does not believe the boaters who are sending out high wakes are aware of what they are doing. He suggested asking the Power Squadron to do a study on wakes and develop some guidelines on how wakes can be controlled. The executive direc­ tor and Foster will contact the Power Squadron for its reaction. 8. Towing Reese said there is a problem for water skiers created by the roughening of the water by boats towing knee ‘"J tubes. Shilling agreed that there seems to be a lack of courtesy • on put this on a future agenda some of the suggestions. For discussion purposes ®“**®*L ed a water skiing group could put out a b LMCD could consider a ban on towing of kneeboyds and/or set up restricted areas on the Lake for water skiing only. 9 Prosecution Decision Sppe.ling the iecisTon. He feels the District ease is borderl.ne "i ■>-V V.' lii i LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE June IS, 1993 for an appeal. Grathwol is concerned that the Sheriff’s Depart­ ment understand LMCD’s position on whatever action it takes on a possible appeal. 10. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 PM FOR THE COMMITTEE Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Bert Foster, Chair J [ i MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON MAY 10, 1993 Tht r«9ular Mating of tho Board of Education of Orono Indapandant School District No. 278 was held on Monday, May 10, 1993. Prassnt:Davs McKown Don Andsrson JaMs Franklin Pag Swanson Martha Van da Van Thomas Mich Naal Lawson Board Mabar Marash arrivad while the Mating was in progress. Chairaan McKown stated that, at the request of Pag Swanson, the item concerning the appointMnt of the School District auditor firm would be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed as the first item under New Business. UPON NOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Don Anderson, the consent agenda was approved as follows: approved the minutes of the April 26, 1993 regular Meting; a|q>roved the contribution of $250.00 to the Orono Education Association to offset costs of the recognition/retirement breakfast held at the end of the school year; anpx’oved the bills as covered by vouchers 078007 through 078186 and office checks as covered by vouchers 3413 through 3604. Notion carried. Board Msber Naresh absent. Dr. Mich distributed the completed form that was sent out to the eleMntary parents regarding student placsMnt. Dr. Mich expressed sympathy to the family of Edmund Nalsh. Mr. Malsh was a Mmber of the Board of Education when the Orono School District was established in 1949. Dr. Mich provided the Board with inforMtion in regard to the Isgislative Mssion and stated that Board members should pass on concerns to our legislators; that there are long-range planning itsM that are not being acted on at this tiM as there are not available funds; that the site-based decision making conmittM will Met on Nay 12 for a full day session; that he wanted to congratulate Neal Lawson as he was elected a director for the Minnesota Association of School Business Officials; that on Nay 18 thtt awards carasony will ba hald at tha high school at 8:00 p.a. with tha Board saating baginning at 9:30 p.s.; that a ratiraaant braakfast will ba hald for Warran Nalson on Juna 30; that 8ua Kuappars has baan nasad as tha principal of tha Orono Niddla School; that Sua Haidt has accaptad tha position of tachnology coordinator and Don Boylan will work with tha District during this transition. UPON NOTION by Don Andarson, sacondad by Jin Franklin, Tha Board of Education approved tha 1993*93 Final Budget in the aaount of $17,504,896 and tha 1993*94 Pralisinary Budget in tha asount of $18,883,998. Nr. Lawson answai^d questions fros tha Board for clarification purposes. Notion carried unanisously. UPON NOTION by Nartha Van da Van, sacondad by Jin Franklin, tha Board of Education approved tha 5000 series policias/procaduras as presented. Dr. Nich explained that with tha approval of tha 5000 series, it Mill ba understood that a number of policies remain in need of repair such as a weapons policy, gang related activities policy, a departments for proper »Ueyconduot/driving control, etc., a specific sexual harassment policy for students, and a revision to tha policy regarding school officials to search student lockers and that these policies will ba returned to tha Board in a timely fashion during tha 1993*94 school year. Notion carried unanimously UPON NOTION by Nartha Van da Van, sacondad by Pag Swanson, tha Board of Education approved tha revised 6000 policias/procaduras as presented. Notion carried unanimously. UPON NOTION by Don Anderson, sacondad by John Narash, tha B'^^^d of Education approved tha bid for tha middle school gymnasium flooring to tha lowest responsible bidder, Nidwast Sportfloor Inc. in tha amount of $94,500. Nr. Bartil Haglund, BOS Architecture, answered questions from tha Board for clarification purposes. Notion carried unanimously. UPON NOTION by Pag Swanson, seconded by Don Anderson, the Board of Education awarded the bid for fuel tank removal and replacement to Sehl Equipment, the lowest responsible bidder. Nr. Lawson answered questions from the Board for clarification purposes. Notion carriod unanimously. UPON NOTION by Pog Swanson, sacondsd by Don Andsrson, tbs Board of Education approved ths following maintenancs and improvsnsnt projects, recommended by the administration, for completion during the summer months: Project list on file in District Office. Notion carried unanimously. Shamus Roller, Youth Center Committee Chair, introduced to the Board the youth center proposal that was developed by the Youth in Action Board which consisted of approximately 18 students. Holly Brown and Any Becker, Youth in Action Co-Chairs, and Shamus Roller provided the Board with information on the rationale f / a youth center as well as information on the structure, organisation, staffing, policies, activities, and budget. Nr. Shamus seated that the development of a youth center would improve the health of the community and he requested that the Board grant approval for the students to move ahead and raise funds to be used for the establishment of the youth center. UPON NOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Jim Franklin, the Board of Education approved the request from the Community Education Youth Advisory Board (Youth in Action) to seek outside financial assistance for the establishment of a youth center to be housed at the Orono Student Center. Notion carried unanimously. The Board of Education commended the students for their creativity and persistence in working toward the establishment of this youth center. Nelanie oeLuca, Community Education Director, provided the Board with a brief report on the Grade 7 Youth Service Day, held on Nay 7, which provided the students the opportunity to represent the Orono Niddle School throughout the community on a variety of projects. Chairman NcKown stated that the next item to be addressed was the appointment of the School District auditor firm which was removed from the Consent Agenda. Nr. Lawson explained to the Board the process that was followed in arriving at recommending the firm of Nalloy, Kamowski, Raddsevich 6 Co., P.A., and provided background information on this firm. UPON NOTION by Peg Swanson, seconded by Nartha Van de Van, the Board of Education approved the audit firm of Nalloy, Karnowski, Raddsevich & Co., P.A., to perform the 1992-93 financial audit. Notion carried unanimously Dr. Sue Sjeklocha, Staff Development Coordinator, provided the Board with highlights of the staff development program of the 1992-93 school year and shared the themes and goals for the f p h- H ■ ‘4 ' t 1993-94 school year. Dr. Sjaklocha inforsod the Board that a writton report of the staff davslopssnt prograa vill ba prssantsd to tho Board at ths Juno ■sating for approval. Dr. Sjaklocha raspondad to guastions fron tha Board The Board axprassad appraclation to Dr. Sjaklocha and tha staff <l#valopBsnt cosaittaa for thair hard work and afforts in providing a quality program for tha District's staff* UPON NOTION by Don Andarson, sacondad by Jia Franklin, tha Basting was adjournad. Notion carriad. h Board workshop followed for tha purpose of davaloping/discussing tha District's goals. John Narash, Clark Dave NcKown# Chairman 1 ■.'i '1 'i-1' I i -A.- f NIMUTE8 OF THE MEETING OP THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON MAY IS, 1993 9:30 P.M. Th« r*9ular aeating of tha Board of Education of Oiono Indapandant School District No. 278 was hald on Monday, May 18, 1993. Prasant:Dava McKown Pag Svanson Don Andarson Martha Van da Van Jaaas Franklin Thomas Mich Naal Lawson Board mambar Marash arrivad whila the naating was in prograss. Chairman McKown statad that, with tha parmission of tha Board, Itams ona and two undar Naw Businass would ba switchad so that tha Canvass of tha Elaction would ba tha last itam on tha aganda. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, sacondad by Martha Van da Van, tha consant aganda was approvad as follows: approvad tha appointmant of Sua Kuappars as tha principal of tha Orono Middla School affactiva July 1, 1993; ai^rovad tha appointmant of Sua Haidt, high school taachar, as tha Tachnology Coordinator for tha School District affactiva July 1, 1993; sat tha data of July 1, 1993 at 7:30 a.m. for tha annual maating of the School District; approvad tha bills as covarad by vouchars 078187 through 078194. Motion carriad. Board mambar Marash absant. Dr. Mich axprassad congratulations to thosa studants %dio wara inductad into tha National Honor Sociaty aarliar in tha avaning and ha also congratulatad thosa studants who racaivad scholarships/awards which totalad approximataly $42,r70 and haaxprassad appraciation to all who so ganarously contributa in ordar to maka thasa scholarships/awards availabla for Orono's studants. Dr. Mich statad that tha alamantary spring musical, hald on May 6 may ba saan on cabla telavision on May 20 at 5:30 p.m. or on May 22 at 9:00 p.m.; that ha wantad to axprass appraciation to Haidi Fol^ and all othars who workad so hard in making tha prom a succass again this yaar; that ha and Naal Lawson will analysa tha Omnibus -I r Education bill in ordor to dotornino its costs and hs highlightad SOM of ths provisions of tha bill; that ha vantad to axprass appraciation to Marga Gasch and Evy Zachar and tha judgas for thair work with tha alaction hald today; that graduation will ba hald on Juna 10 and Board Msbars ara invitad to participata in tha awarding of diploMs; that tha ratiranant recognition brunch will ba hald on Juna 11 at tha Lafayatta Club; that ha wantad to axprass appraciation to Dick Stawart and avaryona who halpad during tha special olyapics event hald on our canpus last weak; that an open housa/dadication will ba hald on Juna 20 at tha Orono City hall; ^at a breakfast will ba hald on Juna 30 to honor Warren Nelson in his ratirsMnt. UPON NOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Jin Franklin, tha Board of Education awarded tha roofing bid to tha lowest responsible bidders N ft 8 Roofing for tha high school (bid iten 1-4) in tha anount of $95,366 and Granite city Roofing for Schumann Elementary in the amount of $68,700. Notion carried. UPON NOTION by John Haresh, seconded by Jim Franklin, the Board of £|$ucation called for bids for the replacement of the middle school football/soccer field lights. Notion carried. UPCW NOTION by Nartha Van da Ven, seconded by Jim Franklin, tha Board of Education called for bids for playground surface at Orono PriMry and SchuMnn Elementary. Notion carried. UPON NOTION by Peg Swanson, seconded by John Haresh, the Board of Education called for bids for milk. Notion carried. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Education of Independent School District NO. 278, as follows: 1.It is herein found, determined and declared that tha general election of the voters of this District held on May IS_ _ _ _ _19 93. was in all respects duly and legally called and held. 2.As specified i>i the attached Abstract and Return of Votes Cast, a total of 405_ _ _voters of the District voted at said alaction on ttia alaction of two school board Msbars for three year term vacancies on tha Board caused by expiration of term on July 1 next following tha general election as follows: I iilrhilUffiii siae r .* \ '* Don A. Anderson 166 Panels P. Schroeder 233 Peg Swanson 111 3.and Pamela P. Schroeder havingPeg 1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ received the highestnumber of votes, are elected to three year terns beginning July 1, 1993. 4.The school district clerk is hereby authorized to certify the results of the election to the county auditor of each county in which the School District is located in whole or in part. Notion carried. UPON NOTION by Jin Pranklin, seconded by Peg Swanson, the meeting was adjourned. Notion carried. bhn Naresh, Clerk Dave NcKown, Chaiman j V k] J •.! »r I' Ki I' State of Minnesota OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 130 ST ATE CAPITOL SAINT PAUL 55155 JUN 1 0 1993 ARNE H. CARLSON Governor ♦ TO:AFFECTED STATE LEGISLATORS, CLERKS, CITY AND C ADMINISTRATORS FR: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 scats 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 for the scats. 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, Stillwater 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 Wednesday, July 7, at 6:00 p.m. in the council chambers at the Metropolitan Council office, located at 230 East Fifth Street in downtown St. Paul. Persons interested in applying arc requested to appear at the hearing. Each candidate will be allotted no lunger than 5 minutes to make a presentation before the nominating committee, followed by a brief question and answer period. The nominating committee will then submit a list of nominees to the Governor for this appointment. If you have any questions or need an application, please feel free to call Cheryl Talberg at 296-0077 or John Hultquist at 296-(X)13. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNm' EMPLOYER ^ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 idl v; • 1=*.: • 'r Metropolitan Council Plan : SF1081 ”5~ . 1 mr a j j f- APPLIED MEMBRANE TECHNOLOGY, INC 11558 CNCOMC CIRCLE. MINNETONKA. MINNESOTA 55343 (818)t3M1>1 ■ Fac (•12)5334830 June 9» 1993 Mr. Ed Callahan Mayor of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Orono* Mn. 55323 Dear Mr. Callahan: As residents of a home that fronts on County Road #15, my wife and I have some comments we would like to make about the so called ’’Up-grade or widen­ ing plans recently presented to the Council by Pat Murphy, Director of Public Works for Hennepin County. In 1991 our neighbor, at 1487 Shoreline Drive, and ourselves personally finane ed a modification of approximately 75 feet of County property that hindered the visibility of drivers exiting or entering our two properties through our common entrance. Prior to proceeding with this modification, we consulted with John Gerhardson of Orono and Officials of Hennepin County Highway Department, and then sought the support of neighbors for a petition to modify the S-Curve at Bracketts Point so as to reduce the hazards to several residents of the affected area. We were unable to secure the support considered necessary to submit a petition to the proper authorities to develop and execute a plan for this purpose “ because of this - our neighbor and ourselves proceeded to carry out the modifi­ cation I have referred to previously. The modification we have brought about has considerably improved the safety of exiting and entering our properties as far as the two residents of the two properties are concerned, although it is still a cause of concern to the occasional visitor. The remaining concerns we have as to the safety aspects of County Rd. #15 adjacent to our properties are the ever increasing number cf vehicles using the road and the speed at which they travel. While the Orono Police Chief has tsonltored the speed of the traffic and concluded that a high percentage of the vehicles were adhering to the posted speed limits, we consider that speed traveled through this particular section of the road creates significant danger to others. It is our earnest request, therefore, that no changes be approved which vould result in additional vehicles on the road or in any way increase Che speed at which they traverse this or any other section of County Road #15. Your.i very truly. Elmer and Janet ^noverElmer and Janet 1489 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, Mn. 55391 League of Minnesota Cities 3490 Lexington Avenue North St Paul, MN 55126 (612) 490>5600 . \ ‘K.i ■jl!N 17 loss June 15, 1993 Mr. Ronald Moorse, Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Dear Ron: On behalf of the League of Minnesota Cities, please a^t our congratulations on the dedication of your city facilities. Having participated in this pro^ss in Minnetonka, I know how significant this accomplishment is for you and your community. I would very much iike to have been able to attend the dedication, but will be out of town that day. I will look forward to having a personal tour some time soon. Again, congratulations! Sincerely, ILnes F. Miller Executive Director if "i!■f: '4.»» ■; f ; JIM RAMSTAD THIRD DISTRICT, MINNESOTA JUDICIARY COMMITTEE W' SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE «b 4Smimcto «i Oirici 322 C ammom houu Oppici iutiO<iiO WAtMiMCTOM. DC 2091S-2303 {202) 225-2171 JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE Congrefffi of t(ie IHniteb l^tateo i^ouoe of Hrpre^entaltbeo Va5f)mston, BC 20515-2303 oittmct oppicf 0120 fiMM Avfwut Soutm . # 152 OLOOwmcTOit. MN 55431 (€12) ii 1-4600 June 15, 1993 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Par)cway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear City Council: Thank you for the invitation to attend the Orono City Facilities dedication cerenony and open house. I certainly would have enjoyed the opportunity to be apart of the grand opening festivities. It is unfortunate that I will be unable to accept your kind offer due to a scheduling conflict. Again, I want to thank you for the kind invitation. Please contact ey office should another opportunity with the City of Orono arise. Sincerely, JIM HDfSTAD Meaber of Congress •V, JR: 80 [O'(nrn . \ !lu , r ?■ JUM 16 199S PMINtfD OM RfCYCLEO PAPER r « .V (oiCF^^^ uiiUI,l’i. i. •" ' !•«••• •• r■JUM‘ '4 1993 SUBURBAN HENNEPIN REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 12616 County Road 9 P.O. Box 41320 Plymouth. MN 66441 Tolaphona (612)669-9000 I ' f • . I • * : ft• r! . ■ . M >• I- • .. ' -I';'. •••»'*. 1 *1. 1 vi-.l :*''3 »TiJ . / ' yy >l .• > \ ^ * *' [ • '*_1 7 ■ i•.4,1 1 I tl' iCt' ti ikr>m C' t| t ,*■ • ; •J . •* • I :•.-!;*#• •' *‘. k * • » . ‘ • i I %•* • . I 4 . . • • • I . •‘ »7 'J i •:• • TI W] ■ V ^ V h\' 1• J m ? HENNEPINMyWS » i.tZ # • June 2, 1993 City of Orono 2750 Kalloy Parkway PO Box 66 la Crystal Bay,>MN 55323 .« • • ? ' * • Dear City Council Meabars, I greatly appreciate your Invitation to the Orono City Facilities Dedication Cereaony and Open Mouse on Sunday, June 20th. Although I will be out of town that weekend and unable to attend, I wish you euch success with your prograa and hope you enjoy your new facilities. • Thanks again for the Invitation Sincerely, ._.ld J. Doabrowskl. Chalnsan Hennepin Regional Park District •! V r m. k- U: OROVO POLICE DBPARTMEIIS 0 OATB: TO I PRONt RE { May 27, 1993 Ron Moorse, City Administrator Steve Sullivan, Chief of Police Information for City Council/Receipt of State Grant Money Last year Julie Ohnann, K-8 Social Worker at orono Schools, asked if I would be interested in submitting a grant application to expand the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) presentations to Orono schools. (We have provided the D.A.R.E. program at the fifth grade level for several years.) It was decided that she should submit the application naming us a participant. The proposed program was to have Officer Jim Comick give presentations to K-4 grades; one presentation to each classroom. The school received the grant and we provided the presentations. (See attached letter from the school.) We have now received our share of the grant funds from the school district. I anticipated receiving approximately $600, so I am very pleased to say we received $1,000 for our involvement. The school has applied for a similar grajt for the next school year and we intend to participate once again. ■■ .!• • % VS ' ■•■.-'V '■ ■'■n' .'AM1 ■4 O R O N O S C H O 685 Old Crystal Bay Road Lone Lake, Minnesota 55356 (612) 473-7313 Fax (612) 473-1477 O L S May 21, 1993 Steue Sulliuan - Chief Orono Police Deportment Old Crystal Bay Road long Lake, MN 55356 Dear Chief Sulliuan, I am uiritlng to thank the Orono Police Department, and especially Jim Cornick, for proulding our students uilth the Drug Rbuse Resistance Presentations on May 12 and 13 at Schumann Elementary School. Jim Cornick did on outstanding job! I recelued uery positiue feedback from students, teachers, and parents regarding the important Information he shared, the questions he answered, and his general professional presentation style. This Is such a nice eHample of our community working together to prouide necessary and quality services to our children. It is my hope that we can prouide this preuentlon seruice to our students again during the 1993-1994 gear. Sincerely, Julie Ohmann, MSUI K-8 Social Worker Orono Schools Scf%ing . . . Independence—Long Lake—Maple F ain—Medina -Minnetonka Beach—Orono An Eaual Opportunity Employer •' i cr CITYof ORONO 'i'>.tv.-'i -S' Munici|»l Offices Post Office Box 66 Cr>!^ Bey, Minii»U 55323-0066 %fjtisavPt- June 21, 1993 Eugene R. Stromnen Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 East Lake Street Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Dear Gene, The Orono City Council reviewed the proposed 1994 LMCD budget at its June 14th meeting. The Council did not take formal action on the budget. However, the Council directed me to forward their comments to you. The major' concern expressed by the Council related to the increase in the City's contribution toward the budget. The budget calls for a 33% increase in the City's contribution. It was suggested that the increase in City contributions be reduced by using reserve funds, as in 1993. The City is trying to minimize its own 1994 budget increase. A $7,000 increase in its LMCD contribution is very difficult to accommodate within the City's no­ growth budget plan. Mayor Callahan also expressed strong concerns regarding the focus and direction of the LMCD. This lack of agreement between the City and the LMCD makes it difficult to support the budget proposal. If you have further questions regarding the Council's comments, please call me. Sincerely, Ronald J. Moorse City Administrator TELEPHONE -473-TI57 • fAX - 473451®