Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-09-1993 Council Packetr %^ MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 9, 1993 ROLL The Council met on the above date with the following members present; Mayor Edward Callahan, Councilmembers J. Diann Goetten, Gabriel Jabbour. JcEllen Hurr arrived at 8:20 p.m. Councilmember Kelley was absent. 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 Shawn Gustafson, City Attorney Kevin Staunton, and City Clerk Dorothy Hallin. Sandra Smith was present to represent the Planning Commission. Mayor Callahan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. (#1) CONSENT AGENDA Goetten removed Items #7 and #10. It was moved by Goetten, seconded b/ Jabbour, 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) JIM BRANDL, DIRECTOR COMIdUNITY EDUCATION SERVICES WAYZATA SCHOOL DISTRICT Mr. Brandi stated he was requesting the City Council to appoint an elected or employed representative to a collaboration council. Stating the main intent of the formation of this independent council is to encourage collaboration between all the cities and organization within the boundaries of the Wayzata School District. Goetten asked what prompted the establishment of this commission. Brandi stated it started last February with a space needs study \^ithin the community. It was rcicognized at that point that there were both city and school needs in the next 5 to 10 years. The school board recommended that a task force oe established. Mayor Callahan asked if there would be requests for financial contributions i Oiono cooperated in this organization. Brandi stated it i?.ay and they will also be looking at some grant possibilities. Mayor Callahan stated the Orono Council would consider the request and agreed the lack of duplication was good stating Council will serious consideration to this request. He thanked Mr. Brandi for appearing before to the Council. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 9, 1993 (*3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Jabbour, to approve the minutes of the regular Council meeting held July 26, 1993. Ayes 3, nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no comments. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (#4) #1840 JIM TAYLOR, 1342 REST POINT CIRCLE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3313 Mr. Taylor was present. Mabusth stated this application involves the installation of a deck/walkway connecting upper level gravel parking area to deck at east side of ._sidence. The structure will be located approximately 7' from the side lot line. The applicant has a physical disability which prompts the variance application. The Planning Commission recommendation was to remove half of the patio by August 31, 1993 and the concrete slab by September 30, 1993. Applicant thought the dates were reversed and is requesting removal of the patio in September and the concrete slab in August. Planning Commission representative Smith stated there would be no problem with that requ.^st. Mayor Callahan suggested that hardships be based on other reasons than a physical disability. Mabusth stated the Planning Commission would be conducting a work session to review hardships. Jabbour asked that the hardship referring to a physical disability be stricken from the resolution. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution #3313 for Application #1640 for James Taylor, 1342 Rest Point Circle, granting a variance to permit the construction of a 22'7« X 3'4" deck/walkway connecting upper and level gravel parking area to an existing deck at east .side of residence structure and removal of existing patio and concrete slab, subject to the resolution jjging amended to the requested removal dates. Ayes 3, nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 9, 1993 (#5) #1841 WILLIAM AND LORI CORNELIUS, 960 TONKAWA ROAD VARIANCE William and Lori Cornelius and Stephen Longman, their contractor, were present. Mabusth stated the application is for hardcover and setback variances within the lakeshore setback area to allow a section of an existing access drive, approximately 1200 s.f., to remain as part of a loop driveway in order to save a grove of mature maple and oak trees. Goetten asked why the driveway is not straight into the garage. Gustafson stated there is not much room for turning and backing 'out of the garage. Mabusth stated the applicant did not know the loop driveway was within the 75' setback area until the snow melted and construction of the house had started. She noted there is 16% hardcover within the 250'-500' where 30% is allowed. Cornelius produced an old survey and pictures showing the trees he is trying to save. There are no objections from abutting property owners. Jabbour asked what the hardcover percentages were within the 75'- 250' . After calculation Mabusth stated it would be 24.6% where 25% is allowed. Jabbour stated that the resolution should be amended to reflect 1200 s.f. of 0-75 hardcover be included in 75 to 250 hardcover allowance and that staff develop a control on the removal of mature trees once driveway is installed. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to approve the variance reguest for William and Lori Cornelius, 960 Tonkawa Road, subject to amendments. Amended resolution to be brought back to Council for August 23, 1994. Ayes 3, nays 0. (#6) #3842 TOM BROWNE, 760 BROWN ROAD SOUTH V:\RIANCE - RESOLUTION #3314 Mr. Bro.vne was present. MINUTES OF THE REGULTiR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 9, 1993 #1842 TOM BROWNE, 760 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - CONT. Mabusth stated the applicant is proposing a screen porch expansion within the 100' structural setback area from Tanager Lake over an existing deck, 162 s.f. deck addition to the south side of the existing deck and the enclosure of a 7 x 8 1/2 foot upper level deck. Applicant stated he had no objection to the removal of the pool from the application as the Planning Commission had recommended. Browne asked that a triangular section of deck be included in 162 s.f. of deck hardcover to allow for greater width in connecting deck area. It was moved by Goetten to adopt Resolution #3314 for Application #1842 for Tom Browne, 760 Brown Road South, granting variances allowing a 8 1/2' x 7' enclosed upper level deck, a 19 1/2' x 16' screen porch over an existing deck and a connecting deck addition and denies variances for a 20' x 26' deck/pool structure and includes approximately 15 s.f. of additional decking. Seconded by Hurr stating the play area should be able to be repaired. Goetten amended her motion to include the removal of Item #1 of the proposed resolution regarding repair of cement slab. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#7) REVISED DRAFT - INTERIM STORMWATER MANAGEMENT - ORDINANCE Mayor Callahan stated he felt Council should consider the stormwater management plan before the Planning Commission. He directed staff not to have this item on the agenda for the August 18th Planning Commission meeting and to wait until Council has an opportunity to discuss this item. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour, to set Friday, August 13, 1993, at 3:00 p.m. as a work session to discuss this item. Ayes 4, nays 0. Gaffron asked Council if the other 2 public hearings should be held. Council directed staff to proceed with the flag lot public hearing only. Mayor Callahan stated the Flood Plain and Wetlands Management would also be on the agenda for the work session on August 13th. Jabbour requested that general operations also be on the Agenda for the August 13th work session. 4 J • ^ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 9, 1993 (#8) TIMING OP PERMIT-TRIGGERED SEPTIC UPGRADES Gaffron asked for direction from Council regarding whether the two year time frame for repair of septic systems which are non- conforming solely due to the lack of three foot separation, should apply when there is an application for a building permit. Staff feels such systems should generally be upgraded concurrently with the building project. The DNR has also taken this position per their letter of 0/4/93. Hurr stated she agreed that the City should use building permits which add bedrooms or living spaci: as a lever to ensure needed repairs are completed. Gaffron described various scenarios and types of permitted building projects that might or might not affect existing septic systems or future drainfield sites. Hurr noted it would be a disservice to cur residents if they found out after their building project was completed that they had destroyed their only possible site for replacing the septic system. Council discussed the ramifications and impacts of using or not using leverage at the time of a building permit and possible enforcement problems. It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour, that any building permit extending the exterior envelope would be the trigger for concurrent replacement of a non-conforming system. Discussion ensued as to whether additional issues would be forthcoming. Gaffron indicated that is likely, and this may be just one of many issues with septic code enforcement for which Council will be asked to define policy. He also noted that efforts at publicizing the new requirements have met with limited success as it seems few residents have read the materials sent out so far. Gaffron indicated a concern regarding holding up building projects proposed late in the year for as much as 6 months in order that site evaluation be completed prior to building permit issuance. Jabbour indicated this would be a real problem, since construction in Minnesota occurs year around. Mayor Callahan stated that dealing with the City is becoming burdensome for residents. Discussion continued regarding the construction process and how it is perceived by residents. Mayor Callahan called t.he question. Ayes 2, nays 2. Motion failed. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour, to I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETINGHELD AUGUST 9, 1993*r E TIMING OP PERMIT-TRIGGERED SEPTIC UPGRADES - CONT.table this item to the August 23rd Council meeting and directed staff to bring back an outline of an ordinance which incorporates the triggering by application for a building permit, and which addresses the concerns about construction season timing, giving a number of options for Council to consider. Ayes 4, nays 0. Goetten stated she liked the idea of having options, and would like to see ways to inform the public included in the staff memo. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Hurr stated the County Road 15 Safety Improvement Committee will be conducting a public information meeting on Monday, August 30th at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Notice of this meeting will be mailed to the affeced property owners and plans are available at City Hall for the puolic to review. After this information meeting Hennepin County would like some concept suggestions from the City so they can proceed with additional plans and possibly hold a public hearing in the Spring of '94. ★ ★ W Mayor Callahan asked about the fire contract. Moorse stated agreements on major items have been reached. The contract is now being reviewed by the Cities' Attorneys. The issues of dissolution and purchase of new equipment is being worked on. Mayor Callahan noted the police contracts should state the ability to change the contract if one or more of the contract cities drops out. ★ ★ ♦ Mayor Callahan questioned progress on the bike/hike trail. Moorse stated a list of things are being worked on. These include letters which include landscape plans being sent to abutting neighbors to solicit their concerns regarding the bike/hike path and contract language with Hennepin Parks. Jabbour noted his concern that the use of MSA funds for the this project is legal. Staff was directed to confirm this with City Engineer. Mayor Callahan stated he is considering hosting another Mayor's breakfast within the next 2 weeks. Mayor Callahan reques^-ad a joint meeting with the Planning Commission at 6:30 r.m. on Wednesday, August 10, 1993, to discuss the B-2 zoning of marinas. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 9, 1993 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (#9) FRENCH LAKE PARK - WILD FLOWER SEEDING Moorse stated the original request was for $1500 for preparing the property and planting wild flowers. After getting estimates from contractors the price has increased to $1900. Therefore the request is for an additional $400. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Hurr, to approve an additional $400 for wild flower seeding at French Lake Park. Ayes 2, nays 2. Motion fails. It was moved by Jabboux’, seconded by Callahan, o use the original $1500 approved and do as much of the work as possible. Hurr moved to reconsider, seconded by Jabbour, to approve an additional $400 from the park dedication fund to be used for wild flower seeding at French Lake Park. Ayes 3, nays 1. Goetten nay. Goetten stated she feels the Public Works Department should be doing the work to save money. (#10) 1993 SEAL COATING PROJECT REJECTION OF BID Goetten removed this item from the consent agenda. She asked; does this mean there will be no seal coating of any of the streets, why not go out for other bids and are you going to do twice as much £jeal coating next year? Gerhardson stated that after comparing the bid price with last year's cost this was much higher. He stated we will probably double up on seal coating next year and use the money we save on seal coating for '93 for paving this year. No action by Council. (#11) COUNTY ROAD 6 UPDATE Moorse stated this is information regarding the County's plans for improvement to County Road 6 from Highway 12 southerly and westerly to County Road 90 in Independence. Mayor Callahan appointed the County Road 15 Committee and himself to review the concept of the County Road 6 project. (#12) WORK SESSION TO REVIEW PROPOSED 1994 ANNUAL BUDGET Moorse suggest this work session be held the week of August 23rd. Council established Thursday, August 26, 1993, at 7:45 a.m. as a work session to r*eview the proposed 1994 Annual Budget. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 9, 1993 (#13) 1993/1994 ASSESSOR PROPOSAL Hurr questioned what was included outside the contract amount; postage, stationary or what else. What is the total cost per year. Jabbour requested the charges to other cities under his contract. Mayor Callahan stated Council will table this item until the August 23rd meeting and requested staff to determine total cost, comparison information and information as to how Mr. Erickson arrives at his fee. Callahan requested this information be mailed to Council prior to the August 23rd meeting. (#14) SEWER PLANT PROPERTY SALE Moorse stated the City Attorney has reviewed the purchase agreement and a number of changes were made and sent to the purchaser. We are in agreement with everything but the access to the property and the Mayor's changes to the MUSA language. Council directed the Public Works Director to identify the trees which will be moved by the purchaser. Council stated a wider access between the MWCC property and the property to be sold be indicated. Hurr noted the balance owed should be changed from $300,000 to $200,000 because the purchaser has paid $100,000 down. Mayor Callahan suggested that Council authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to negotiate the contract in accordance with changes made and have the language approved by the City Attorney that the city be allowed to enter into the contract. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Staunton stated he had received information from Leon Erstad, who represents the City in the Richard Stodola matter, the judge has ruled the City must negotiate a shared dock with the Tillotsons. Council requested this item be discussed in executive session at the August 23, 1993 Council meeting. (#15*) LICENSES It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Jabbour, to approve following license: One Day Liquor License - Smith College Club of MN Minnetonka Center for Arts September 11, 1993 Ayes 3, nays 0. the 8 -L, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 9, 1993 (#16*) BILLS It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Jabbour, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Ayes 3, nays 0. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Jabbour, to adjourn the meeting at 10:37 p.m. Ayes 4, nays 0. .... --mJht - i AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, AUGUST 9, 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 urJer the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtainedSMfe^ request from the Recorder. ROLL CALL C/fy 1. CONSENT AGENDA* % % %2. Jim Brandi, Director Community Education Services,^4fayzata School District APPROVAL OF MINUTES* 3. Regular Meeting of July 26, 1993 PARK COMMISSION COl !ITS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Representatives Peterson &. Smith PUBLIC COl ITS - (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 4. 5. 6. *7. 8. #1840 Jim Taylor, 1342 Rest Point Circle - Variances - Resolution #1841 William and Lori Cornelius, 960 Tonkawa Road - Variances - Resolution #1842 Tom Browne, 760 Brown Road South - Variances - Resolution Revised Draft - Interim Stoi..iwater Management Ordinance (Public Hearing August 18' Timing on Permit-Triggered Sept' Upgrades - Clarification MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER REPORT CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 9. French Lake Park - Wild Flower Seeding *10. 1993 Seal Coating Project Rejection of Bid County Road 6 Update Work Session to Review Proposed 1994 Annual Budget 1993/1994 Assessor Proposal 11 12 13 14. Sewer Plant Property Sale CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (15*) BILLS (16*^ ADJOURTOfENT i AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, AUGUST 9, 1993, 7:30 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PAPKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 08/09 - Council meeting 7:30 p.m. ■ Planning Commission 7:00 p.m ■ Planning Commission 7:00 p.m ■ Council meeting 7:30 p.m. ■ Holiday - Labor Day - Park Commission meeting 7:15 - Council meeting 7:30 p.m. ■ Planning Commission 7:00 p.m ■ Council meeting 7:30 p.m. 08/16 08/18 08/23 09/06 09/07 09/13 09/20 09/27 p.m 'J. Planning Ccmissicn uncil To: From: Date: Subject: Mayor Callahan and Qrono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator July 29. 1993 K Wayzata School District’s Proposed Community Collaboration Council I have attached information from the Wayzata Public Schools regarding a proposed Community Collaboration Council. The Council is to encourage collaboration between all the cities and organizations within the boundaries of the Wayzata School District. The School District is requesting that the Council appoint a representative to the Collaboration Council. Jim Brandi, Director of Community Education Services, is coordinating this process. He has indicated he is available to provide additional information about the Collaboration Council at the August 9 Council meeting. COMMUNITY EDUCATION SERVICES 210 COUNTY ROAD 101 NORTH RO. BOX 660 ...__WAYZATA. MN 55391-9990 (612) 476-3200 FAX 476-3214 I July 26, 1993 Ed Callahan, Mayor City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 '31)0 2 9 1905' Dear Mayor, Thank you for allowing me to submit the enclosed proposal for your city council to review. The main intent of the formation of this independent council is to encourage collaboration between all the cities and organizations within the boundaries of Wayzata District 284. The boundaries of the district are used to to define the ••community” only. The main purpose of the council will be to act as a catalyst to promote collaborative efforts between the membership organizations. We all tend to center in our own problems and opportunities and lose site of our neighbor who may have the same problems and challenges. Diminishing fiscal resources are beginning to affect us all. We have to look at ways of coordinating our efforts to do more with less. We are requesting your city council to appoint an elected or employed representative to this collaboration council at your August 9 th council meeting. Thank you for your time and consideration of this proposal. Sincerely, im^Brandi director. Community Education Services JB:DMG Enclosure COMMUNITY COLLABORATION TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION PROPOSED COMMUNITY COLLABORATION COUNCIL STATEMENT OF PURPOSE THE COMMUNITY COLLABORATION COUNCIL WILL STUDY THE ON GOING WANTS AND NEEDS OF THE DIVERSE COMMUNITY SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM WITHIN DISTRICT 284. THE COUNCIL WILL ACTIVELY PROMOTE COORDINATED PLANNING AND COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT. The following recommendation from the Community Collaboration Task Force is a result of the Community Space meeting held in February. The broader scope of this recommendation is from a consensus of task force members that believe cooperative and collaborative efforts are needed on a number of issues in our learning community. The proposed Community Collaboration Council would be an independent entity that will use the boundaries of District 284 as the defined community. Communication between the Collaboration Council representatives and their respective boards/organizations is a key element for improving the health and well being of the families of our community. We acknowledge that every community citizen is a part of a family. Thus space, learning, physical well being and numerous other qualities of community life would be considered by the council based upon the needs that come to the forefront at any given time. The Board of Education, the eight municipal councils, and participating community organizations would advocate potential collaborative projects. Commitment to listen to and act with the Community Collaboration Council representatives Is critical to the success of this venture. The Collaboration Council can begin to unify our community In addressing and solving unmet needs in a cost effective and efficient manner. The Task . Force recommends the following structure: 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 5 PROPOSED MEMBERSHIP CITY ADMINISTRATORS (MINNETONKA, WAY2ATA, & PLYMOUTH) ELECTED OFFICIALS/REPRESENTATIVES (MINNETONKA, WAYZATA, & PLYMOUTH) REPRESENTATIVES (ELECTED OR EMPLOYED) FROM EACH OF THE MUNICIPALITIES OF CORCORAN. MAPLE GROVE, MEDICINE LAKE. MEDINA, & ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT 284 ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNITY EDUCATION DIRECTOR DISTRICT 284 BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBER CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE MEMBERS (ONE FROM EACH... NORTHWEST,WAYZATA, TWIN WEST) MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION MEMBER WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES REPRESENTATIVE COMMUNITY AT LARGE REPRESENTATIVES MAXIMUM OF 25 MEMBERS TIME LINE JULY -AUG FORMATION OF COUNCIL SEPT COMMUNITY COLLABORATION COUNCIL FIRST MEETING SEPT - OCT COUNCIL TRAINING AND GOAL SETTING NOV-JUNE COMMUNITY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT JULY 1994 REFLECTION ('UUNCII. iiAicETING AUG 9 1993 ^OFOROMO :7 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 26, 1993 ROLL The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Edward Callahan, Councilmembers Gabriel Jabbour, r ,irles Kelley, and JoEllen Hurr. J. Diann Goetten arrived at 7:52 p.m. The following represented staff: City Administrator Ron Moorse, Public Works Director John Gerhardson, Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Finance Director Tom Kuehn, Police Chief Stephen Sullivan, City Attorney Kevin Staunton, City Engineer Glenn Cook and Recorder Teri Naab. Mayor Callahan called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. (#1) CONSENT Kelley added Item #9. Mayor Callahan added Items #14, 16, 17 and 18. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Ayes 4, 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 It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to approve the minutes of the June 12, 1993 Council meeting. Ayes 4, nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Thare were no comments. LAKE MINNETONKA REPRESENTATIVE CONSERVATION DISTRICT JOELLEN HURR, Hurr referred to the invitation to a boat tour and luncheon sponsored by the LMCD to be held August 7 , 1993. She asked that members wishing to attend contact her. Hurr reported the Board will hold their regular meeting on Wednesday, July 28th. Lakeside Marina, Navarre Cove HomeoWiiers' Association, and a dock area variance for property on Ethel Avenue will be discussed. Mayor Callahan clarified that the LMCD is recommending prosecution of the Lakeside Marina for the off-lake storage. J» « •jj MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 26, 1993 LMCD REPORT - CONT. Hurr noted that the LMCD has not licensed this marina for such storage. Mayor Callahan noted that the LMCD’s policy to license off-lake storage is contrary to the policy of the City. Jabbour stated the LMCD's dry stacking ordinance is totally inconsistent. He noted the LMCD encourages the use of marinas for lake access on a daily basis, but feels it is wrong to allow the same owner to store their boat at the marina and put it in the water whenever he wishes. He asked the difference. Hurr noted the storage of boats and the parking become an issue. Mayor Callahan state 1 he does not believe that the LMCD has the power to deal with the storage of boats on land. Hurr stated since she lives on that bay, she is glad one organization is looking to remedy the problems as Orono is not. She stated she wishes Orono would :iust quit paying their dues to the LMCD because they are sending mixed messages. Jabbour suggested they schedule a work session to determine how they will handle the situation with the LMCD. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour, to instruct Orono's LMCD representative to vote against the prosecution of Jim Dunn of Lakeside Marina for off-lake storage of boats, and request the representative to convey to the LMCD that their Statute is in contradiction with the policy of the City of Orono. Ayes 3, nays 1. Hurr voted nay. Motion carried. Mayor Callahan referred to the correspondence between the City of Shorewood and the LMCD regarding the milfoil program. Hurr stated she understood that the milfoil program was not a part of the budget. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments. Goetten arrived at this time. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 26, 1993 (#3) AUDITOR’S REPORT - APPEARANCE BY KEN MALLOY Ken Malloy and Sherry Elgibrunt representing the City's auditing firm, reviewed the components of the financial statements, including the audit opinion, the test for compliance with State Statutes, letter on internal controls, and the management report. Kelley asked if he has done a cost analysis of services either for Orono or similar cities. Malloy stated that has not been done for Orono, but has provided that information for other cities. Kelley felt that may be important if the cities begin to share services. Elgibrunt reviewed the enterprise fund balances beginning on Page 9 of the report. She noted they recommend a review of the water and sewer rate structure to determine if funding is adequate to cover current and future expenditures, and consideration of a refund of certain general obligation bonds for a cost savings. Malloy stated overall the City's financial records are accurate the City is in good financial shape. He added he feels the City is well managed and has looked ahead to determine future needs. Hurr asked if a study has ever been recommended regarding the enterprise funds which currently indicate a deficit. Malloy indicated he does not remember such a recommendation, but there was discussion about matching rates. Moorse indicated due to a study conducted in 1990-1991, the Navarre water rates were increased. Mayor Callahan thanked the auditors and congratulated Tom Kuehn on the fine job. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded b*y Kelley, to direct staff to study the recommendations of the auditors and report back to the Council at the last meeting in August. Ayes 5, nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 26, 1993 POLICE CHIEF REPORT Sullivan presented the Council with statistical data through the end of May, 1993 and reviewed its content. Jabbour expressed frustration of hearing about the dissolution of the canine unit through other channels. Sullivan apologized, but indicated he has reported the issue through the appropriate chain of command. Kelley asked the savings from this. Sullivan stated it is a minimal amount, approximately $500-1,000, but the saving is not the reason for ceasing the program, but rather the fact that the dog was not performing at an acceptable level. Hurr asked if the initial decision to begin the canine unit was approved by the Council. Sullivan agreed that it had been approved by Council for a term ol three years, ending in March of 1993. The program was recently terminated because of the unacceptable performance level of the dog. Hurr felt the Council should have been involved in the disbanding of the program. Sullivan indicated the matter would have been presented to the Council during the budget process to determine if they wished the program to continue in 1994, but that would mean purchasing a new dog and he would have recommended against it. Jabbour stated the City is run by the Council, and they should not be informed after-the-fact on issues of importance. The Council should be allowed to maxe conscious, well-planned decisions for its citizens. Jabbour questioned the status of the agreements with the contract cities. Sullivan reported he has presented the agreement to Spring Park, where it was well received, and plans to present it to Minnetonka Beach and Long Lake in the near future. Mayor Callahan ca..led for a recess from 8:30 to 8:40 p.m. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 26, 1993 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (*#4) #1762 PAUL BOYKE, 793 NORTH PERNDALE ROAD - FINAL SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION #3308 It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to adopt Resolution #3308 granting final plat approval to applicant Paul W. Boyke for the plat of Lauranne Woods Second Addition. Ayes 4, nays 0. (*#5) #1823 MARGE ROSSING, 130 CYGNET PLACE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3309 It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to adopt Resolution #3309 for applicant Margaret D. Rossing, 130 Cygnet Place, granting a variance to permit the construction of a 20'x28', 2 1/2 story addition to the west side of the existing residence to be placed 28.8' from the rear lot line where a 50' setback is required and 41.14' from the street lot line where a 50' setback is required. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#6) #1825 THOMAS L. MCCARTHY, 2490 OLD BEACH ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Tom McCarthy, Mark Gronberg and Robert Mitchell were present. Mayor Callahan noted that the issue of allowing flag lots does not seem to be in accordance with what the Council thought they were adopting with the new shoreland regulations, and the Council seems to feel the previous ordinance contained a better policy regarding such lots. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Goetten, to invoke a moratorium on the creation of flag-type lots for a three month period to allow Council the opportunity to review the ordinance. Jabbour questioned their legal obligation. Staunton opined that a moratorium is designed to allow the City to review and study planning issues of a broad basis, and this is an applicable situation. Vote: Ayes 5, nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 26, 1993 (#7) #1834 MARY K. MCCARTY, 245 TONKA AVENUE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3310 Mary McCarty was present. Mabusth explained the applicant seeks a lot area and lot width variance to allow the construction of a new residence on a vacant lot in the Stubbs Bay area which has been provided a sewer stub. She noted Lots 3 and 4 to the north will go tax forfeit and the applicant hopes to acquire the property. Tne owner to the north of the tax forfeit property has indicated he is not interested in the property, and they are not certain of the intent of the owner to the west. Mayor Callahan asked what happens if the applicant doe<- not acquire the additio'ial property. Mabusth stated then she would be back before the Council requesting setback variances. She indicated the same findings used to justify the sewer stub connection be made to support the current variance request. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Kurr, to adopt Resolution #3310 for Mary McCarty, 245 Tonka Avenue, granting lot area and lot width variances to permit the construction of a new residence on a property that consists of 12,500 s.f. where 87,120 s.f. is required. Ayes 5, nays 0. (*#8) ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - SECTION 12.30 - NON-CONFORMING SYSTEMS REPLACEMENT - ORDINANCE #118, SECOND SERIES It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to adopt Ordinance #118, Second Series, amending Section 12.30 by revising the required timeframe for repair or replacement of non-conforming septic systems. Ayes 4, nays 0. (*#9) MET COUNCIL - SW AREA MUSA TOUR It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to accept the informaf:OP presented regarding the Metropolitan Council's SW area MUSA tour. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#10) NORTH SHORE DRIVE MARINA - 1993 LICENSE Gaffron explained the marina has met all the conditions of the license, but has failed to submit the late tee. They did however overpay according to staff's calculation of 20 allowed boats. Therefore staff recommends the marina pay the additional late fee of $46.00. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 26, 1993 NORTH SHORE DRIVE MARINA LICENSE - CONT. Goetten suggested staff send a letter of explanation. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Kelley, to issue a 1993 commercial marina license to North Shore Drive Marina, subject to payment of the additional late fee. Ayes 4, nays 0. Jabbour abstained. (*#11) FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE - MANDATED UPDATE - INFORMATION ONLY No action required. (*#12) STUBBS BAY SEWER CONNECTIONS - GROUP VARIANCES It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to authorize staff to make a single project variance application to the Minnesota Department of Health on behalf of the affected Stubbs Bay area residents. Ayes 4, nays 0. (*#13) SECTION 5.42/5.43 AMENDMENT - APPROVED 6/28/93 No action required. HAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT A) Hurr announced that she v.’culd be submitting her resignation as the LMCD representative effective the following day, and urged the Council to consider another appointment. Mayor Callahan asked her to reconsider. He stated she has done a good job in an impossible situation, and has been the target of his frustration with the LMCD. Kelley urged her to reconsider, as he stated her knowledge would be difficult to match. B) Jabbour thanked Kingsl&y Murphy for the wildflower garden along the roadside. C) Mayor Callahan thanked recorder Naab for her service. D) Mayor Callahan announced the disciplinary hearing is scheduled for Thursday at 5:30 p.m. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 26, 1993 CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (*#14) 1992 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to accept the 1992 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report as submitted. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#15) PROPOSED FIRE CONTRACT WITH LONG LAKE UPDATE Moorse reported they are working on a three-year rolling contract, whereby at the end of the first year, the cities would review the contract and determine if they would like it extended for another year. Kelley explained the proposed contract enables tne City to have an ownership inteiect in all new equipment. Jabbour expressed appreciation for the efforts in getting the communities to work together. Kelley suggested they return with the draft contract at the next meeting. (*#16) STUBBS BAY CONNECTION GRANT PROGRAM It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to approve staff's recommendation in establishing the program in two phases. Ayes 4, nays 0. (*#17) ASSESSMENT DEFERRAL - RESOLUTION #3311 It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to adopt Resolution #3311 approving a special assessment deferment for Patty Lou Clapp. Ayes 4, nays 0. (*#18) NO PARKING - NORTH ARM DRIVE - RESOLUTION #3312 It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to adopt Resolution #3312 restricting prking on portions of North Arm Drive. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#19) WATErt/SEWER RATES UPDATE No action required. Discussion on the subject was held during the audit repctr.. 8 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 26, 1993 (#20) BIKE/HIKE TRAIL UPDATE Moorse explained there are three major issues outstanding: the landscaping, the agreement with Hennepin Parks, and the cost. He noted Hennepin Parks has submitted a landscape plan, which was reviewed by the Park Commission and Council jointly, and sent on to the property owners. Gerhardson noted he met with the Hiles and Brandenbergs to discuss the plan, and explain the possibility of a retaining wall. They expressed opposition to the retaining wall. Jabbour asked if all affected property owners received a copy of the plan. Moorse indicated it was only sent to owners who expressed a concern in the past. Jabbour reiterated that the residents have indicated the City has done a poor job of communicating and that is why Council directed the staff to present the plan to all owners. Moorse indicated Hennepin Parks has noted the changes to the agreement suggested by Orono can be dealt with through an amendment to the agreement, and Hennepin Parks is generally amenable to Orono's suggestions. He noted the cost is greater than normal for a trail due to the necessity to mal;e room along the right-of-way and the need to install storm sewer and gutters. The City will however realize a savings by jointly constructing the trail as opposed to doing one on their own. Doug Hile presented the Council with a letter of opposition. Mayor Callahan commented that the replacement of the trees may not be until next year during the appropriate planting season, especially if the trail is only constructed to the bridge this year. Hile noted a discrepancy in right-of-way easement location. He felt the majority of trees to be removed were located on his property. Hurr noted that obviously the City must work within its own right- of-way. Jabbour stated he thought that due to the proximity of the Hile's septic system to the property line, all the landscaping would need to be located on their property in order to provide a buffer from the trail. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 26, 1993 BIKB/HIKE TRAIL - CONT. Hile stated he has submitted a written description of what they want in exchange for the removal of their trees, and added they do not want a retaining wall, but would prefer a berm. Mrs. Hile stated she was told by staff that all their trees along the lot line would have to be removed to facilitate the trail, and would be getting 13 replacement trees. Hile noted he is also concerned about the trail expediting the flow of water to the ponding area in their yard, and felt an engineer should review the drainage issue. Mayor Callahan indicated that all of the Council members agree that they are not forcing the Hiles to give an easement for the trail. Hile stated but it has been threatened that if they do not give the easement for the trail they will end up with a retaining wall and fence. Mrs. Hile stated they are willing to give the easement for the trail if they are assured they will receive similar value replacement trees. Craig Brandenberg stated he has counted the number of trees involved, measuring from the center o£ the road, which is approximately 50 trees 30+' high and at least 2" in diameter. 30 of those trees are definitely within the right-of-way. He noted that Gerhardson has indicated that the trail can not be constructed unless all the trees in this area are removed. He stated he had not seen a plan for landscaping along his property until recently, and that plan is not adequate. Hurr questioned whether the trail can be built totally in the right-of-way in this area. Cook responded that the trail cannot be built without a retaining wall or an easement. Kelley expresised his opposition to the rrail as follows: 1. The cost estimate is very expensive; $340,000+ provided by the City. He felt that is greater than the entire sum of money spent by the City on park acquisition. He also felt there was not enough detail on local use and need for the trail. MINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 26, 1993 BIKE/HIKE TRAIL - CONT. 2. He felt just because Hennepin Parks is willing to pay half of the cost, does not make it a good deal. He stated he is against the philosophy that they must spend the money or someone else will with respect to Hennepin Parks funding. He stated the City has no idea where they are going with the park system or what they want. 3. He suggested they consider tieing the trail connecting Baker Park and the Luce Line in with the upgrade of County Road 6 and reduce the cost. 4. He asked where they are going to acquire the funding. He suggested the use of MSA funds for storm sewer to provide for a trail is not acceptable. He noted the trail is costing $200,000 per mile for a trail we are not sure we need. 5. He stated if they destroy the trees and install curb and gutter they are destroying the rural character of Orono. He asked why the destruction of the trees are any different than those along lakeshore property. Hurr noted there was a survey which indicated a need for trails. She questioned what the City provides for the age group 35 to 60, and felt the trail is an excellent opportunity to provide for that category of residents. Jabbour stated he would be happy to do nothing, but personally would like to see the trail constructed. He stated they cannot proceed until staff has obtained the consent of the property owners. Goetten agreed that they need an overall park plan. She indicated the residents do not feel their questions and concerns have been answered. She asked how the Hiles have felt threatened. Hile answered the alternative to providing an easement is less desireable. He stated they are not in favor of the bike trail, but are willing to concede if they are satisfied with the landscape plan. He expressed fear that if they are unhappy, there are many more residents feeling the same way. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 26, 1993 BIKE/HIKE TRAIL - CONT. Hurr pointed out she sat on the Council during the time prior to the construction of the Luce Line Trail, and there was plenty of opposition, now all feel it is a valuable asset. She indicated she has seen the plan submitted by the Hiles which calls for a $10,000 landscape plan for their property alone. She questioned why Kelley was in favor of cooperative services but not of a joint trail. Kelley responded that he is in favor of reducing government cost for services, but added they just do not have the funding for the trail. He pointed out that Orono did not fund any portion of the Luce Line Trail. Mayor Callahan reviewed the process which has taken place to this point. He pointed out all meetings have been public and held in accordance. He stated the Park Commission and the majority cf the Council seems satisfied with the landscape plan. He suggested they table action on this item until a survey can be provided of the area clarifying the ownership of the trees, allowing staff t'.'ne to explain to the residents why the landscape plan is acceptable to Council. He suggested they extend the bids, and obtai'i written approval from Hennepin Parks regarding the cost and work out the mechanical process for amending the agreement. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Goetten, to table action on this item subject to the conditions set forth above. Hile asked if the Council is fiscally responsible to proceed with construction of the trail. He stated he is concr,.ned they are spending money without rhyme or reason. Mayor Callahan stated he is also concerned about the dollar amount, but did not feel they are spending without rhyme or reason. And, in fact, the dollar amount has not increased much from the original feasibility report. Brandenberg agreed with Kelley on all points.« Vote: Ayes 4, nays 1. Kelley voted nay. Motion carried. Jabbour asked the residents to put themselves in the Council's position of trying to protect the citizens of Orono by providing a buffer from the traffic to use as a trail. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 26, 1993 (#21) REQUEST FOR FUNDING PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT Eva Hoer, PTO member, was present. She explained the background of the project, their goals and accomplishments to date. Hurr asked if they involved the various Park Commissions in the design process. Hoer stated due to her lack of knowledge in this area, she was unaware that the Park Commission could have provided a wealth of information. She noted the playground is designed to challenge different ages and abilities. The playground at Schumann Elementary is completed. Jabbour asked how they could proceed with only half the funding. Hoer explained they worked out a long range payment plan with the contractor. Mayor Caxlahan noted that the School District wanted to improve the playground at the time of the referendum and included $50,000 to do so. He asked what moved the PTO to increase that amount to $175,000. Hoer stated the playground can also be considered a neighborhood park. The School District has agreed not to limit the use of the structure, and has agreed to all the maintenance and liability. She pointed out that for a small investment the City will gain a very valuable asset. Goetten asked to table the decision to allow time to review the material. It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Kelley, to authorize funding of $10,000 from the Park Dedication Fund for the playground equipment at the Schumann Elementary School. Ayes 5, nays 0. Hoer stated they would be having a dedication in the fall and hoped the Council members would attend. Mayor Callahan recessed the meeting at 10:30 to 10:35 p.m. (#22) COUNCIL PARTICIPATION IN CORN DAYS PARADE No action required. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 26, 1993 (#23) COUNTY ROAD 6 UPGRADE No action taken. (#24) SALE OP SEWER PLANT PROPERTY Moorse reported the acre parcel was advertised and two bids were received. One bid was received prior to the deadline, and one bid was received 4 minutes after the deadline. The first bidder has expressed objection to acceptance of the second bid. Hurr asked if they are not bound by the published time. Staunton stated legally the City was not bound to follow the bidding process, and had established its own terms. He noted the terms would have to be followed if it were deemed that one party had a substantial advantage due to the extension of those terms. He stated in this case, both parties had the same opportunities. He added there may be some concern that the initial bidder may have bid differently had he known there was another bidder. He reminded them that they can reject any and all bids, but that t.he bidding process does not offer them an opportunity to negotiate the price once the bids have been opened. Goetten stated their responsibility is to get the best bid for the City. She felt they should open both bids and reject if necessary. Bob Abdo, representative of the bidder, stated the terms were published. He stated his client had called and was told by staff that if the bid were late, it would be rejected. The day of the bidding the time clock was checked and the bidding process was closed prior to delivery of the second bid. Kelley expressed concern that they expedited the process too quickly not allowing enough time to adjacent property owners to determine if they wished to purchase. Abdo stated his client understood the rules of the game, but would be willing to negotiate after the opening if necessary. Jabbour asked if the appraisal was made public. Moorse stated only the appraised value was public. Jabbour indicated he has lost many bids due to being late. Hurr felt they were bound by the process they established. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 26, 1993 SALE OP SEWER PLANT PROPERTY - CONT. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Hurr, to reject the second bid for the property due to the fact that it was received after the deadline. Ayes 5, nays 0. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Kelley, to reject the first bid received based on the property was not sufficiently exposed to the public and it is unlikely the City has obtained the best price. Abdo asked that the bid be opened for consideration, or if the Council deemed necessary, open both bids for consideration. Mayor Callahan stated the purpose of rejecting both bids is so the City can obtain additional bids. He stated if he were the first bidder, he would not want the bid opened. Kelley stated he agreed with the bidder's attorney. Mayor Callahan withdrew his motion, Kelley withdrew his second. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour, to open the bid received for the sewer plant property. Ayes 5, nays 0. Moorse opened the bid and announced the offer is $300,000. Abdo noted his client is also willing to pay the $18,000+ for sewer, and $20,000+ for fill and agrees not to subdivide for 5 years. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to direct the City Attorney to review the terms of the purchase agreement based on the criteria established by the Council and staff, and report at the next Council meeting. Kelley cautioned that he would not approve any variance if the property were subdivided in the future, and suggested the bidder review with staff the street improvements that will be required. Vote: Ayes 3, nays 1. Hurr abstained. Mayor Callahan voted nay. Motion carried. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 26, 1993 (*#25) LICENSES It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to approve the following licenses: Firearm Use Permit - Park Gun Club Hennepin Parks Special Event - Fishing Tournament, Bell Industries Ayes 4, nays 0. (*«26) BILLS It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Ayes 4, nays 0. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to adjourn the meeting at 11:48 p.m. Ayes 5, nays 0. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Halim, City Clerk To: From: Date: Subject: Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator August 4, 1993 1 cnYuf ’' /If1840 Jim Taylor, 1342 Rest Point Circle - Variances - Resolution Brief Review of Application The application involves the installation of a 22 ’ 7" x 3’ 4" deck/walkway connecting upper level gravel parking area to deck at east side of residence. The structure will be located approximately 7’ from side lot line requiring approval of a 3’ side setback variance. Lot coverage exists at 16.7% and will be increased as deck with railing that extends more than 6’ above grade is included in lot coverage inventory. Lot coverage is increased .5%. Hardcover within the 75-250’ setback area exists at 51.8% and will be increased to 52.6%. The existing access from the higher elevations at the gravel parking area to the rear of the property present hazards for the owner with his physical disabilities (review Exhibit D). The applicant was asked to consider removal of existing hardcover improvements to offset the addition of 77 s.f. of new hardcover. Planning Commission Recommendation The Plaiming Commission recommended unanimous approval of the variances required for the installation of the connecting walkway subject to the condition that 50% or more of the brick patio area (9’ x 9’ = 81 s.f.) within the 75-250’ setback area shall be removed by August 31, 1993 and that 10 x 15’ concrete slab in the 0-75’ setback area would be removed by September 30, 19'A *1 ae Planning Commission adopted the appropriate hardships set forth by applicant in granting approval and also noted the following hardships or unique findings in approving the side setback variance: 1. The deck will encroach no closer to side lot line than the existing deck. 2. 3. Sloping topographies and location of mature vegetation will have no impact on the views of adjacent residences. The City has received no negative comments from any of the neighbors notified during ^e review of this application. « Zoning File /jfl840 August 4, 1993 Page 2 Based on the hardcover removals required by the Planning Commission, hardcover facts are amended as follows: 0-75* setback area Existing = 665 s.f. or 11.9% Proposed = 515 s.f. or 9.2% Reduction of 150 s.f. or 2.7% 75-250* setback area Existing = 4,976 s.f. or 51.8% Original proposal = 5,053 s.f. or 52.6% Per Planning Commission recommendation = 5,013 s.f. or 52.2% The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission recommendation. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C), 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE NO. 1840 WHEREAS, James Taylor (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1342 Rest Point Circle within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: Lot 10. Rest Point Park together with the southwesterly half of public right-of- way vacated adjoining said Lot 10, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C), Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a 22 ’ 7" x 3’ 4" deck/walkway resulting in an increase of .5% of lot coverage where 16.7% exists and 17.2% is proposed and where 15% is allowed. Hardcover within the 75-250 ’ setback area exists at an excess of 51.8% and is proposed at 5,013 s.f. or 52.2% where 25% is allowed and the structure will be placed T from the east side lot line where a 10’ setback is required. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, 1. 2. 3. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1840. The property is located in the LR-IB Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 15,140 s.f. or .34 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 19, 1993 and recommended approval of the proposed variances as amended based upon the following findings: Page 1 of 5 5. A. Applicant’s physical disability would be aggravated and intensified with an increased use of stairs. B. Severely sloping topography and mature vegetation along east lot line minimizes impact of structure on adjacent residence. C. The proposed deck will extend no closer to the east side lot line than the existing side deck. D. The neighbor to the east has been advised of the proposed improvement and the City has received no negative comments. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C), 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to pemiit the construction of a 22’ 7" x 3 ’ 4" deck/walkway connecting upper level gravel parking area to an existing deck at east side of residence structure, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Applicant shall complete the following removals of existing hardcover improvements: A. 40 s.f. of brick patio area within 75-250 ’ setback area by August 31,1993. B. 10 ’ X 15 ’ concrete slab within 0-75 ’ setback area by September 30, 1993. Current and future owners are placed on notice that if additional improvements are proposed for the property that it shall be necessary to provide an updated survey and hardcover inventory upon application for a building permit. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 9, 1994). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violaiion of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 3 of 5 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of August, 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 9th day of August, 1993 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor anc’ City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was t icuted 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 instnunent, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared____________^__________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page 5 of 5 TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator July 13. 1993 SUBJECT: /('1840 Jim Taylor, 1342 Rest Point Circle - Variances - Public Hearing The applicant proposes the construction of a 22 ’7"x3 ’4" deck/walkway connecting upper level parking area to side deck structure. The structure will be located approximately T from the side lot line and 35 + ’ from the street lot line. As walkway/deck strucnire will be attached to the principal struauie, it must assume principal structure setback. A side setback variance of 3’ will be required. Structure will be located over a non-hardcover surface and will require hardcover variance as excesses exist within the 75-250 ’ setback area. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review: 1.A. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Lot coverage Total lot area is 15,140 s.f. Allowed = 2,271 s.f. or 15% Existing = 2,539 s.f. or 16.7% Proposed = 2,616 s.f. or *17.2% ♦Note that decks with railings that extend more than 6’ above grade are included in lot coverage inventory. B. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Hardcover within 75-250 ’ setback area Total area = 9,590 s.f. Existing = 4,976 s.f. or *51.8% Proposed = 5,053 s.f. or 52.6% •Review Exhibit H. staff has added additional driveway area adjacent to garage, sidewalk along south side of garage and area of circle stone walkway. Also note concrete slab at 10 x 15 is located within the 0-75’ setback. Hardcover has been recredited totally within the 0-75’. C. Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B) - Side yard setback variance Required = 10’ Proposed = 7 ’ Variance = 3’ or 30% Zoning File #1840 July 13, 1993 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map D - J. R. Petersen, M.D., Mound Medical Clinic E - Floor Plan F - Elevation G - Hardcover Fact Sheets 0-75’ H - Hardcover Fact Sheets 75-250’ I - Hardcover Site Plan J - Survey of Shoreline Submitted for Application #1483 K - Survey 9/25/75 L - Resolution #2806 Description of Request Please review Exhibits A and I, applicant wishes to install a connecting deck from upper level parking area at street side to second level side deck with access stairs to grade level at west side. Review Exhibits E and F, applicant claims current access to residence from higher elevations along north side are difficult because of a medical problem noted in Dr. Petersen ’s letter. In fact, applicant had advised that he had hoped to install the connecting deck prior to his moving into the residence on the 21st of this month. Current access stairs with no railings present hazards for the current owner with his disability. In 1990 the former owners applied for after-the-fact variance approval for structural repairs and additions to the existing boathouse structure in the lakeshore yard. The City approved structural improvements involving a 5’xl6’ deck located 4’ from the 929.4 elevation. Staff inspected the site and viewing the improvement plan submitted with the application, it would appear that the proposed linking walkway will be installed over natural ground cover resulting in additional hardcover. As shown, the structure will be approximately 7’ from the side lot line. The deck would appear to have minimal visual impact upon the adjacent property because of the sloping topographies, location of mature vegetation and view windows of adjacent residence. The deck will encroach no closer to side lot line than the existing deck. The addition of the connection walkway will result in additional structural coverage where excesses already exist resulting in an increase of .5%. Zoning File #1840 July 13, 1993 Page 3 Applicant should be advised that current survey information and hardcover facts are adequate for the current review but if any other improvements are proposed for this property that an updated survey and hardcover inventory will be required. This notice should be included in your final recommendation. Statement of Hardship, Unique Findings or Practical Difficulties Please refer to Exhibits A and D. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. Will it be necessary for applicant to remove existing hardcover improvements to offset the addition of 77 s.f. of new structural hardcover? If so, what improvements may be considered for removal. Refer to Exhibits G, H and I. If an improved access to the property has been defmed, can additional stair strucmres leading from parking area be removed? Options of Action Approval as proposed; or Approval subject to conditions. If hardcover removals are required, the hardcover must be removed prior to footing inspection for the new construction. Any condition of approval must include notice to both current and future owners of a need to provide an updated survey and hardcover inventory if additional improvements are proposed for property; or Denial. ft “I /i if\ A CITY OP ORONO - VARIMCE APPLICATION * f ^ Initial Application Fee $175.00 ^ CITY OF ($50.00 per each additional variance) FI;^A^CE OFFICE R^riGw^X Vari^ncG Fs0 $100 #00 iJivVtVvvv ^ (no change from original application) . ly^M Variance for non conforming use $200.00 "T.vctc-t:W'v^<*r After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) COofFOJ TJE:: _________________________________________________________ 06/16/^ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address /yj-'/c ---------------------- Property Identif. Number (P.I.D. —l—1"^ vr V.<ks.ct Attach legal description to application if not ^ i>ivj included on required survey. '• y '' / Date Pr^p****-^y-^cquired ~Jrf^y ■ ^ /'/'•'<_ _(month/year) I (do)(do not)^also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential _ _other (specify)______- - - -- Zoning District_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ j^PLICANT (home) - - - Name ♦'_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ^^one (worlc) - - - - - Address: —_ _ _ _ City:/- .■->• :1:-— ONNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)- - - - - - - - - - - Name __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Address:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _City:_ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $, ' - - - --- - 7 > . •.-■ , '//^v Ay ry.-^'- J'yn'y 10^'l‘f ft)Describe request in detail: " r J i . • yf'P'C _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ Lot Area _ _ Lot Width Hardcover - -^Lot Coverage _ _setback: _ _ Front _ _ Side _ _ Rear _ _ Average Lakeshore ___Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning } '■RUN DATE 07/07/9SIBATCH 001PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AODR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP AOOR OltlER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR PROP ADOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR 36 07-117-23 31 0016 01367 REST POINT CIR N E P1NE6AR IRA PINEGAR HILIIAH I REBECCA PINEGAR 1367 REST POINT CIR MOUND HN 55366 36 07-117-23 31 0019 06565 NORTH SHORE DR HAROLD L ALBRECHT ETAL HAROLD L ALBRECHT 6565 NO SHORE OR HOUND HN 55366 36 07-117-23 31 0022 01362 REST POINT CIR J R I J K TAYLOR J R TAYLOR I J K TAYLOR 1362 REST POINT CIR HOUND HN 55366 36 07-117-23 32 0031 01360 REST POINT CIR D I J BOIES JR DAVID B I JErtllFER BOIES JR 1360 REST POINT CIRCLE HOUND HN 55366 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATIOTI SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST38 07-117-23 31 001701337 REST POINT CIR STEVEN M BECRAFT STEVEN M BECRAFT 1337 REST POINT CIR HOUND HN 55366 38 07-117-23 31 0020 01336 REST POINT CIR JANICE K DE HATTEO JANICE K DE HATTEO 1336 REST POINT CIRCLE HOUND HN 55366 36 07-117-23 31 0023 01366 REST POINT CIR KID HANKINSON KEITH 0 I DONNA H HANKINSON 1368 REST POINT CIR HOUND HN 55366 38 07-117-23 32 0062 01356 REST POINT CIR R I H HETT RICHARD I MARJORIE A NETT 1356 REST POINT CIR MOUND HN 55366 REPORT NO. PI635601 PAGE 136 07-117-23 31 0018 01320 REST POINT CIR PATRICK RAY JURGENS PATRICK JURGENS 1320 REST POINT CIR HOUND HN 55366 36 07-117-23 31 0021 01:^60 REST POINT CIR JACK EDHARDS KUTZ JACK EDHARDS KU1Z 1360 REST POINT CIR HOUNO HN 55366 36 07-117-23 51 0026 01350 REST POINT CIR RICHARD L ANFINSON RICHARD L ANFINSON 1350 REST POINT CIR HOUR) HN 55366 TOTAL BATCH 001 00011 .■ A ■" V I)I)J D i I I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HErMEPIN OF HY KNONLEDCE .■r • y V p. i f I a:CM Sb „ y \w .V#. “ / 1^2 \- Xo> a*N. — w V ' xrx TXV"t>rr V >o/>^ S iShS " VN/%v <4 )«»w > fs«« s:V/:^ / /%. ^ rv. Ik. .'2^3? ?; / ^--^ f H* rr-~\ • V'u «-:Ci N;:; ^'1 <>i *Nk ' 1 UJ -\nj% SM .: t " \v> W O 'iXrX /.r^s* ffyj) ! !'*' 7'i '0 h. I 8 ^6V4 £ [fir Oil ■«< *93. fly -- ^ - <f. #«>. ro ^ T rrt “ -'iv'.i^ '•■ \r- »4))6S v% »■ I r\x»’. iai.64 ^ IT? C _ i « 5 -J ^NDE uTT /•- •* AA Ci ^!ji-?t V ~>/ A It" / S X'S S^ ^.o> ,.r^ // / X:Vj- % fvQ X iit y<=y ,.• -, ^ ••* •. r si " §0 w— K 2- § ^ a; w . 0*•... *.,.• »•''>''', /^3V 2 S N N \ l4- .Vi <.s «>' y C .. /» \,.5-^ Cj _1^** _x* ^ i^ ^:\r-\ ' X '-'V. Ni^* i>\.° .V•'t. \ >' r\r^ MOUND MEDICAL CLINIC J.O A A / ' T , ♦ IA <W^ i« '•. Mound Medical Clinic 2200 Commerce Boulevard Mound, Minnesota S5364 472- 1144 Maple Plain Medical Clinic 4960 Hiahway 12 Maple Plain. Minnesota 55359 479-1921 Crow River Medical Center 707 Elm Avenue Delano. Minnesota 55328 972-3961 Wayzata Family Medical Clinic 250 North Central Avenue. Suite 105 Wayzata. Minnesota 55391 473- 2635 June 10, 1993 Re: James Taylor To Whom It May Concern: Mr. James Taylor was seen by the undersigned on May 14, 1993 for complaints regarding knee pain. He had had knee injuries in the past as a college athlete and has had some problems since that time, all culminating in some osteoarthritis development in his knees. At this point he is not a surgical candidate however needs to be treated medically. One of the important considerations in patients like Mr. Taylor is avoidance of climbing stairs, particularly going down stairs is mechanically difficult for patients with knee problems of his type. He's told me that he is planning an addition onto his home that may involve stairs, although with a variance he may be able to avoid this. I feel that it would be in this patients best medical interest to avoid stairs if at all possible. Sincerely yours, 1 Jerry R. Petersen, M.D. JRP/ck Affiliated with Methodist Hospital iV '^ f=- HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (crRCLE ONs) (Q-75^ 75"250 Existing H ardcover in Zone /3V<3 Cifioic 250-500' 5CQ-1000' A. ■ H ouse S # F • Porct\ LENGTH 30 WIDTH /V^. 5 il3^ s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Total Property Area in Zone S.F [T]_fZd£_-f [T]_£^S_ X100 //.9 ^ s % W?ir.T ■. ^ i I • • ^• • • I »N B. Garage X = S.F. • c. D riveway . • ^ X _^ S.F. X « • » . S.F. • • D. SiDEWAL.K Y ... = ' S.F. X /^o = S.F. X / do » ^0 . S.F. E. ’ATIO/D eck •X e . ‘ S.F. Fi Landscape • •* X « * S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY 1 't » S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X • •• = S.F. •• • • • 3 * _ S.F. % 6. Other • X • • S.F. V ^ . ... # Total Hardcover • % IN Zone - (P ‘M O-TS' 4, r*-- ,c2X^t-^ 1 HARDCOVER CALCUUTION KORKSHt s£T3Ac:< zone : (crscLE one ) Q “75'^75-250^ 250-500^ 500-1000' Existing H ardcoves in Zone (S^A Uje^^ C irzo I c. A. ■ House B. Garage c. Driveway D... Si DEWALK / E. Patio/_20. “'""s Jc ^ F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , - PLASTIC SHEETING i£E. N<cj arcIC _ G. O ther ot-a 50 X = 1<46C,'^ ^ LENGTH « WIDTH • M •< ^'1 M 9 « • X ,-. = ' S.F.:zri?:vi X . • • * S.F./ • > ' •• __ X 1 •?u•V )II• » 1 ; \ i «• __ X _ • " _ _ S. r # 'n; 1 4 » __ X _«?-y = s.r.o/I ( i 34 > • — X _ to 3S ■ - Aoo = 1 AGO ' S.F. • U 31 _ X _IS . W6S o 0 ^'\0/ _ X _ 3 3 *? e S /SO "^S.F. /•i. .• - __________ X __. S.F.• /ft _jeo_rls.F. _§i_ / S.F. • SQ*1 S.F. S33 77 S.F. S.F. S.F, • ^ Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone •fO5^3"“ S.F. & I ^7 ^ T‘*r — 0*5^ g^VLg. 1 • • V-.‘* • ■ * —s'* ■*» • •r v-' ^ * - ? . . * V V ;♦ ^ •• • r/.‘ick >: 1-v:'i •%••- .* > ji •.*.'ii-** - .:•«• . •# . .• . - '- • .; .. *%.rr, i** • • •*. •.* •• T ■* *V^ • ••* **'^*. '♦ *■• .*;•. - n • • • ”*• ; •••T. . V >*. — • 'ij • « J •■. V.- .--.r..• - ’ . . - *T-** •• ..- .‘i - - k-.* •• - ***»^-, ♦ -.•— I o ■2 or^under my^dlrecr^sunervfqfnn^^^ Prepared by me registered Civil Enoin^^ ^ am a cUiIy laws of the State of mnnesSta^“ Surveyor under the COFFIN & GRONBERG. INC. Scale: I incii = 20 feer Rate : ^m\ 20 1990^ JLl ___________•_______I ___I____________________ ^ • I •!H Ft 473-052 ARLEIGH C. SMITH • • - i? ^ : u..' •,>. .-• i 1 ,g^yaurti freluMonal Engineer inJ Lani Surveyor ^ 2030 Ea«t Wayatt BoulorJ W*y*au. A\inn«ca NAT or suaviY or PROFWTY or R»’ck^f4 UJrn..A»*»5 A “3 1 y tJat~\ su»r^ Df’.ge. A4»«o»t4 i'J'J'6-f <=» . '• iv • 1 - 7.*. » i* • • T •“a ^ 1 V5^vXT \\Xv 44- i ■S- ■> . ■ . V ' ■)\ A*-* \ ' \?7' 1 - ^ rra * •m !« . f ..♦■ i • • • ■•.,3 • V •1 192^ I that the furvey. \ •'r'- i V CITY OF ORONO 5693337 City of OR.OIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2806 ___ A RESOLUnOH GRANTING AFTKR-THB-PACT VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10-22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 S 2 FILE #1483 WHEREAS, Harold and Merle Vogt (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located 1342 Rest Point Circle within the City of Orono (herexnarter City ; and legally described as Lot 10, Rest Point Park together with the Southwesterly half of public right-of-way vacated ad:oin^^ Lot 10, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter tne property ), and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for after-the-fact variances to Municipal Zoning 9°^^® Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow structural structure consisting of a deck addition to the lakeside of the Structure located 4' feet from the shoreline, and ^ f west side lot line, and other structural repairs to the accessory structure located within the 0 75 lakeshore protecte area where no structures are allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1483. 2 '’’he oropertv is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lkeshore'^Resriential Zoning District, as such the property is subject to all pertinent lakeshore regulations that govern development within the zoning district. 3. The structure was constructed some time in the early 1950s serving as a boathouse and storage area. The current pattLrof Sle of the structure is for storage in the lower area and as a three season porch in the upper level. 4. The structure serves as an accessory use to principal residence as structure contains no plumbing heating. Page 1 of 5 CITY OF ORONO City of OROrVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ _2806 5. In 1975, a lot area variance was approved for the property to construct a residence. A condition of that approval required that the non-conforming accessory structure be removed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 6. The City failed to enforce or implement the removal of the structure upon the issuance of a Certificate o.. Occupancy for the new residence. 7. The structure received minimal repair and use from 1975 to the present. 8. The applicants purchased the property in 1989 unaware of the unique history of the structure nor of the City s policy regarding tne repair of structures that are located within the lakeshore protecte’ area (within 75' of the 929.4 elevation). 9. The applicants performed major repairs to the structure including the construction of a lakeside deck, hard board siding to the upper level and the installation of windows. 10. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 16, 1990 and recommended approval of the after- the-fact V5».riances based upon the following xindings. A) The building has existed on the property for over 40 years. B) The structure appears to be in good condition and is used as a supportive/accessory use and not as a second residential unit. 11. on March 12, 1990 the Orono Council conceputally approved the after-the-fact variances based on the following findings: A) The foundation of the structure provides stability and support of the lakeshore bank. B) The structure has existed on the property undetected for over 15 years. C) The applicants had no knowledge of the original requirement that the structure was to be removed nor that the City requires special approvals before structures within the lakeshore protected area can receive major or minor structural repair. Page 2 of 5 ^ CITY OF I ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2806 __ D) Terry W. Duffy, a professional engineer/ in a reported dated Apr' 1 18/ 1990, found the structure to be in sovnd structural condition. health, safety and welfare of the coininunxty. 13. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this orooerty are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variancerwluld not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, ainir pose a fire hazard or “fher danger to «i?eniencl !o the applicants, but /? = alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty, necessary to preserve a substantial and aoolicants; and would be in keeping with the p intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants after-the-fact to Municipri zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to p«mft certain ^structural repairs to * storage".«a ISri^p^L^sThrinsraflaVicn o/? l" ashore located 6- from lt^^cTufes ^^r^%i?oUt"Iub j'eV;o ^t-ir ^ ^emodlrA^”u^\^r\^" “orh^Vine Structure. 2. NO “ructural repairs^^shall^^ approved ^fo^r^^this thl'^iJa^onVy wa\l foundation, repair of rafters, posts beams or joists. Page 3 of 5 CITY OF ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 2806 3. The detached lakeshore accessory structure shall not be provided with heating or plumbing facilities, nor shall the structure be allowed the use of a cooking stove. A single refrigerator is approved for use of applicants and future owners. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive onl^ and must be exercised by application for a building permit within ten days of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (June 8, 1990). £. 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. 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 the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, MinneVp^at a regular meeting held on the 29th day of May, 1990 AT Lth'y-IfTTpallin; City Clerk ' 'tcojj^rty Owner (s) Jam4s R. Grabelfr,-Mayor z L Page 4 of 5 • • • • • • . CITY OF ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2806________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoin*^ instrument was acknowledged before me on this 29th day of May, 1990, by James R. Grabek » Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal c'^rporation and said instrument was executed on behait of the* City. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of /u~__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _» before me a Notary PubTT^ within and for said county, personally foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. I !u^ NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESO •» ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) n^5-r^sa id count-yT 'perso^'l 1 y the same as his <their) free act and deed. -nia^couHn. /r% . * •• RESOLUTION ft2806 STATE OF MINNESOTA‘ )■ )• . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) • m • • CITY OF ORONO ) ) I^Dorothy M. Hallin, City ^ oroceedings^o^f sald City Council at a aeeting of said City Council held May^ 29 ♦ 19^-0. * that the sane is a true and correct copy of said resolution was duly adopted by said City Council afc said meeting. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set ay hand and seal this 15th , day of August_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _^- -, -9.90- -. . *ordthy M.allin, City Clerk m • • • « •• • TJIANSF2R SNTISea pflCP£frr uj f, p*je*jc»fco»i o. To; From: Date: Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator August 6, 1993 COUNCIL MEETING AUG 9 1993 CITY OF ORONO Subject: /^1841 William and Lori Cornelius, 960 Tonkawa Road - Variance - Resolution Additional Exhibits J - Adjacent Neighbors - Letters of Support K - Updated Survey Locating Trees L - Large Scale copy of Tree Area M - Landscape Plan N - Engineer ’s Report Brief Review of Application The applicant has filed for hardcover and setback variances within the lakeshore setback area to allow a section of an existing access drive to remain as part of a loop driveway in order to save a grove of mature maple trees. Review Exhibits B and F. Applicant s contractor, Stephen Longman, advises that surveyor relocated loop drive out of 75 ’ setback area without advising owner or consultant. The location of the existing drive in relation to the 75 ’ setback area was not realized until spring. Applicant notes that if driveway was to be installed as approved on original site plan, it would involve the removal of 8 to 10 trees. Review Exhibits K and L. Applicant has provided an amended survey locating uees within interior ol loop drive. The section of gravel drive is located 50 ’ from the 929.4 elevation and results in approximately 1200 s.f. of hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback area. The Planning Commission sought confirmation that a former drive had served property along the north boundary. Staff provided a copy of an aerial view dated back to the early 1970 s showing a former drive along the north side in addition to a drive along the south side of the property There was never a looped configuration. The western portions of the road are no longer visible upon inspection. The former owner who appeared at the Planning Commission meeting advised that the specific section of road that remains served as access to the lower field area for maintenance purpo.ses. This portion of the property was never viewed by stall nor by Planning Commission members during the first review as applicant had presented hardcover facts that related no improvements within the 0-75 ’ setback area. At a recent site inspection, both the City Engineer and applicant ’s contractor confirmed the existence ol the old roadbed. In an early planning decision, the applicant changed the location of the access doors on the garage to die north side in an attempt to minimize impact on grove of trees in street yard. In planning the development of the site, the house was placed too close to the treed area to have a turnaround within the front yard. The location of the well head in the street yard (review Zoning File /'1841 July 5, 1993 Page 2 of 3 Exhibit M) also limits installation of a turnaround. Applicant is either forced to proceed with the loop road plan approved with the variance and the building permit requiring removal of several mature trees or to seek special consideration of the City. Longman also advised that there would be no impact on existing drainage with the use of portion of the old drive as drainage would continue to flow to the west and north. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the application as proposed subject to the following conditions: 1. City Engineer to approve drainage plan with the extension of culvert and to determine if proposed loop configuration ot drive will improve treatment of runoff and sediment control from roadway. The culvert that carries surface runoff from the south was reviewed by Gustafson and he reports the drainage and watershed to be limited to adjacent property. He reviewed drainage on the southern property on another inspection for the City and states drainage from the localized watershed is very small. Please review Exhibit N, the engineer has provided specs and design criteria for the future driveway to ensure that drainage continues to flow away from the lake. Gustafson recommends that he review the final construction plans for the loop road as the original approved design will require major cuts in higher elevations and raise additional drainage concerns. 2. Analysis of landscape plan around front of the residence. Review exhibit M, landscape areas have been shown to be planted and a paved unroofed carport area shown providing direct access to main entrance. Paving is limited except for a slightly expanded drive along front of residence. Drainage will continue to flow to road corridor and to lake along north landscaj-*e line. 3. All road improvements for section of road within 0-75 ’ setback area shall not exceed tlie 12 ’ existing roadbed width. This would include any curbing improvements required by the City Engineer for the purpose of directing runoff.. The enclosed approval resolution has been dratted per the Planning Comniission recommendation. Staff is not able to reproduce readable copies of the aerial maps of the old roadbed. Staff will have a copy at the meeting for Council ’s review. r A . Zoning File #1841 August 5. 1993 Page 3 of 3 Options of Action To adopt the Planning Commission ’s recommendation of approval, subject to the findings and conditions set forth in the approval resolution; To deny, finding hardships unacceptable and to direct staff to draft the appropriate resolution of denial for formal action at the August 23rd meeting. Isv A Aeifk A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (B) AND SUBDIVISION 2 FILE NO. 1841 WHEREAS, William G. and Lori Cornelius (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the propert>' located at 960 Tonkawa Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: refer to Exhibit A enclosed, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for varnnces to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 (B) and 2 to permit a section c a former roadbed located within the lakeshore protected area to remain and to be upgraded as part of a loop driveway. The former gravel roadbea is located 50 ’ from the lakeshore where a 75 ’ setback would be required and will result in 1200 s.f. of permanent hardcover where no hardcover is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, 1. 3. FLNDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1841. The property is located in the LR-IB Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The subject property consists of 2.8 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 19, 1993 ;md recommended approval ot the proposed variances based upon the ^ollo^■/ing findings: A. Applicant and applicant’s contractor were not notified by surveyor that loop driveway approved with building permit was relocated out of the 75 ’ setback area without any consideration of the impact on e.xisting e.evations nor on mature trees. Page 1 of 6 4. 5. B.The use of a section of a former gravel drive located within the 0-75 ’ setback area will allow for the saving of eight to ten mature maple trees within the street yard. C.Applicant had applied for an average lakeshore setback variance in October of 1992 and would have added the request for the use of 1200 s.f. of gravel drive located in 0-75 ’ setback area had owner or buildc* ’’een made aware of surveyor ’s amendment to site plan. D.Lx)cation of house in relation to the mature grove of trees and location of well head restricts the in tallation of a turnaround to the immediate west side of residence E.The applicant does not propose to expand road as a result of the improvement and will continue to allow drainage to flow to west and north of drive. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keying with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 6 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 (B) and 2 to allow a section of gravel drive to remain located 50 ’ from the shoreline requiring a 25’ or 33% setback variance and 1200 s.f. or 2.66% hardcover surface where no such hardcover is allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. 3. 4. 5. All road improvements within the 12’ wide drive located within the lakeshore protected area shall be limited to the e.xisting roadbed as the City will approve no expansions of drive within the lakeshore protected area. Prior to the installation of the drive, the City Engineer must approve the driveway and final drainage plans for site. Authorities granted by this resolution 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 (August 9, 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. Page 3 of 6 ..1 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of August, 1993. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ;1 Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of August, 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 behalf of the City. ’ Notary Public Page 4 of 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this dav of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared ________________________known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public wutiin and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(.s) described in and who executed the forego, g instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 6 .X.------------- 1i EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ! That part of Lot 19, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 217, Hennepin County, Minnesota, Lying easterly of the easterly line of the plat of Partenwood, according to the plat thereof on file or of recordin the office of the Registrar of Deedsin and for said County. ALSO Lot 18, and that part of Lot 17, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 217, Hennepin County, Minnesota, wnich lies northerly of the following described line and its extensions: Commencing at the point of Intersection uf the northerly line of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 617, files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, atid the northeasterly line of County Road No. 135; thence North 23 degrees 20 minutes West along said northeasterly line of said County Road No. 135 and its northwesterly extension a distance of 171.35 feet to the actual point of b^^ginning of the line to be described: thence North 83 degrees 35 minutes East to the shore of Lake Minnetonka and said line there ending. Mi TO:Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:July 14, 1993 SUBJECT: ;?1841 William dc Lori Ctmel'is, 960 Tonkawa Road - Variance Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.22. Subd. 1 (B) - Lakeshore setback Required = 75 ’ Existing = 50 ’ Proposed = 50 ’ Variance = 25 ’ or 33% Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Hardcover within 0-75 ’ Allowed = 0 Existing = 1,200’ Proposed = 1,200’ Variance = 1,200’ or 2.6% List of E.xhibits A - Application B - Addendum to Application C - Property Owners List D - Plat Map E - Minutes of 9/9/92 Council Meeting F - Survey of Average Lakeshore Setback Line for 1992 Land Use Application G - 0-75 ’ Hardcover Facts H - 75-250 ’ Hardcover Facts I - Current Survey Review Exhibits E and F, in November of 1992 the applicants applied for a variance to the average lakeshore setback to allow construction of new residence and pool that would be placed completely in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The application was approved and applicants proceeded with construction. The new residence is now occupied b> the applicants. Problems commenced when it was realized that the survey submitted with *he previous variance application. Exhibit E showed a loop driveway completely located out of the 0-75 ’ setback area. Neither the owners nor the contractor had realized that the surveyor had relocated this specific section of loop driveway (review Exhibit I) out of the 75 ’ setback area on the survey. If the driveway loop is to be installed as shown on Exhibit E, the improvement would result in the loss of several mature trees. Zoning File ^1841 July 14, 1993 Page 2 Tlie applicants’ contractor notes in his addendum to the application. Exhibit B, the existing roadbed would be designed so as to direct runoff to the south and west to an existing collection point for the local watershed. Drainage would then travel over the grassed area eventually to Maxwell Bay. 1,200 s.f. of nonstruciural hardcover would remain within the 0-75’ setback area. The road is located 50’ from the 929.4 elevation. The road will remain at a maximum 12 ’ width. Description of Hardships, Unusual Findings or Practical Difficulties Please review Exhibits A and B. Applicants note the following: 1.Surveyor had proceeded to change location of loop drive as it relates to tlie 75 setback line relating to the City’s ordinance standards but failed to advise both owners and owners ’ contractor. During the winter months the contractor proceeded with development of the site not realizing that the driveway was located 50’ from the lakeshore. 2. It was never the intention of owners to expand on existing drive bed at 12 ’ because of the location of the mamre trees within the area. 3.If the facts were known, such a request would have been included with the variance application reviewed in November of 1992. 4. 5. Driveway has existed in its present location for over 70 years. The relocation of the drive would result in the destruction of six to eight mature oak and maple trees. 6.There will be no additional encroachment nor further disturbance of the 50’ setback area for installation of the road. 7.Driveway will be constructed so tnat drainage would drain away from the laice towards a urassy area to the west providing treatment before it enters the lake. 8. The driveway configuration facilitates safe ingress and egress for the site. Issues for Consideration 1, Would the fact that the driveway exists within the 0-75’ setback zone have any impact on your decision-making? J Zoning File #1841 July 14, 1993 Page 3 2. Can another form of tumarouml be provided for the property? . . . and maintain desired ambiance for house of this size on a 3 + acre site . . . and the mature trees? ■P 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 dj. "*? /» .. (■// J-.‘ .* t/. / /'I /> X 4 ^ . ‘ • i«• % « ,(i:i f - \ * A < • City OF OROS’O L' fAi^^ktrC1 jknnixi.-^ffCu rrc iJt 1 as^l. S Ww'VilO WV'V' n i rCki i'A U«t.lt i f • vv fee)f^L-rr V L. I /uL M n I u 17^i 1 • vv PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^L-O ^ M ^001 i<0i 71 ri: a; /n7/0- Property Identif. Number (P.I.D.) //7 ~ ~ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired /O ~^7X_ _ _ _ _ _(month/year) I (d^-)tgo not^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential _ _ _other(specify) Zoning District i U R. \ (?> APPLICANT Name Phone (home) ^ .Xy<.. Phone (worlc) ^3.1 - Address: \ ~V v 1 ^ V-Ll 1 cA • City:\:Uu Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name UJ>\V\\avv^ ^ V-cv-\ Phone (home) 9^o Phone (worlc) <j^"r3 ~/c7 VU' Address: S/7«-/ \lJ City: _ _ _ _ _ _Zip:__S',£V^ OT •• mm mb mb mb mb mm mm mm mm mb mm mm mm ^m DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ coO_>_ Describe request in detail: v\cvVcV Cou\jc ~>tvcv \vaj --------- V'VTtlvA^ ♦ Cc^K:r.y>^.0 »gv .. VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ Lot Area Setback: Lot Width Lot Coverage Front Side Hardcover Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship cr practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:/ \ >r C* Oh. cV v« f> V .1 •—Cl..’ ^ <rV\vV4 \v%« ’A . Z,V VU cA (attach ad(?itional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete: 1. _Completed Application 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 8%"xll" for reproduction). 5. _Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8J5"xll"). 6. _Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8%"xll"). 7. _As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant anl Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga­ tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission emd 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. • ! Stephen Longman BUILDERS,I N C. June 22, 1993 Re; 960 Tonkawa Rd. Variance Request IS [Va.■G Tf i t / \X ■j iA. Dear Jeanne: The following is a brief recounting of why we suddenly find ourselves applying for a variance. As you recall I instructed the field crew from ROit Krueger and Associates to locate and stake the existing driveway and show it on our survey when we came before you for our original variance request regarding average lakeshore setback. When the technician in the survey office was preparing the final drawing he noticed that 1200 sq. ft. of the existing driveway was inside the 75' lakeshore setback. He took it upon himself to change the driveway on the survey/site plan so that it conformed to the code. He did not tell me that he did this, nor did he realize he was wiping out half a grove of mature hardwood trees with the stroke of an erasure. We proceeded with the project under the assumption that the driveway on the survey was the driveway as it. in fact, existed since 1921. Had we known otherwise we would have surely dealt with it at our first variance hearing. We consider our hardship that the driveway has existed in it's current location for over seventy years, that the driveway, by your standards, has always been hard cover, and that to move it outside the 75' lakeshore setback would destroy 6-8 mature oaks and maples. Please note that we would not be disturbing any of the 50 feet of existing marsh vegetation on the lakeshore which provides run off filtration or any other existing trees or vegetation. We would shape the existing driveway so that the drainage would be away from the lake and towards the grassy area to the west which is already a collector from the adjoining lots and provides first stage aeration before the run off enters the lake. Furthermore this driveway configuration facilitates safe ingress and egress for the site. Jeanne, please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions or helpful comments. Thank you for your patience and professionalism during our past meetings. Sfeve TJSngman P reside n STEPHEh/ LONGMAN BUILDERS. INC. "Custom Built Homes" 13539 Oak Hill Ct., Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55346, (612) 937-2987 RW DATE 06/15/9S BATCH 005PROP AODR O^INER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AODR OI'INER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR iHENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY Ol'ftiERS LIST38 08-117-23 12 000100980 TOtO'.AHA RD L D OORR/M A DORR TRUSTEES LAURENCE S riARlUYN DORR 4335 ElOOOLElGII, FLINTRIDGE LACANADA CA 91011 38 08-117-23 12 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGtiED N G A L J CORNELIUS HILLIAM G CORNELIUS LORI J CORNELIUS . 0 TONKAt^lA RD JuONO HN 55356 38 08-117-23 21 0015 00975 TONKAHA RD A J FARAS A H K TAVEGGIA ANTHONY J FARAS 975 TOtJKAHA RD LONG LAKE MN ' 55556 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 12 t38 08-117-25 12 000200970 TONKAHA RD R A LAUER A F R LAUER RICHARD A A FREIDA R LAUER 970 TONKAHA RD LONG LAKE KN 55556 50 08-117-25 12 000300960 TONKAHA RO W G A L J CORNELIUS HILLIAM G CORNELIUS LORI J CORNELIUS 960 TOtACAHA RD ORONO MN 55556 tf# 38 08-117-23 12 0006 00990 PARTENJKXJD RO DRUCE A MARY ENGELSMA BRUCE A MARY ENGELStIA 990 PARTENHOOD RD LONG LAKE MN 55556 38 08-117-25 21 0014 00955 TONKAHA RO JAM GILBERT ‘ • JAMES H A MARY M GILBERT 955 lOtiKAHA RD LOtm LAKE MN 55356 %i: 38 08-117-23 21 0016 00985 TONKAHA RO GABRIEL E JABBOUR GABRIEL E JAl’BOUR 1:r I • - . TOTAL BATCH 21 UtUVERSlTY AVE M E 00.^ 00006 r.-/\ \ h ■MPLS MN 55413 i .J I* I . ■ % « il 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENrJEPlN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST i jf. - % , • ' # OF MY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. OATI •6 Ml) tt k r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 9, 1992 (#7) #1768 DR. WILLIAM R. & RHONDA T. OMLIE, 1860 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3195 Dr. 0mlie was present. Mabusth explained the Pi ann i ng Commi ss i on tabled *';® j?® application dealing with a request ^ portion of the application deals t®! recommended to be approved by the Planning .'“.tri^tuJe applicants to complete final roof <1®®' 9"®/°': '^'® ®'reou??esShe noted approval of this portion of ^ the p j hardcover to remain the same on the property. It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Butler, ^ J' Shldywood RoaS! for a side setback variance for the addition to the existing residence, subject to the conditton that hardcover -at 25.1*. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#8) #177d''WILLIAM & LAURIE CORNELIUS, 960 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3196 Laurie Cornelius was present. Mabusth explained setback for a new average lakeshore approximately 207’ would have minimal existing residence the applicants request an average lakeshore residence and a grade-1 eve I pool. To meet the setback, the residence would have to be located from the shoreline. She stated the new residence impact to surrounding residences and noted the is located in front of the proposed location. A specifically define lineal shorelineButler asked that Finding of the property. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to adopt .aig^for Application #1 770 for William and Laurie Come lus. 960 #3196 for APPMcai average lakeshore setback variance to construct a new residence and grade level pool, as amended. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#9) #1771 JAMES i SARAH JANE MARKOE, 340/350 NORTH ARM LANE - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION #3197 Mr. Steadman a.nd Mr. Peterson were present to represent the applicants. i I!%!'. fti li R? ij ri I lilj IWit 'in p - - t'z n o z z > / ' J ^ 'Sk U S .1 ?!COITKATC or SURVEY STEPHD<LOMGMAWCX3»CTTnJCTttN>. ./ see [I«ntinmsmM llssocfitas, UB l HARDCOVER CALCULATIOfIJQgKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (ciHCLE cne )^^^-7^ 75-250' 250-500' 5G0-1CC0' E xisting Hardcove .^ in Zone - A. House 3. Garage c. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. P atio/ Deck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN ?^AST.C ’ - SHEETING G. O ther LENGTH /<3 ^ X X WIDTH Total Hardcover in Zone Total P roperty Area in Zone S.F. S • r» S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /3-C 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. mm •B -vr X 100 rP . ^(b /o . Jt»A. ^ HAKDCOVES CALCULATION WdSibncr ■t SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75C 75- Existing Hardcover in Zone I. _ 250-5G0' 5uH^1QC0 '1 4 >2 a . House -v GC>o-yf< B. Garage c. Driveway 1^0 i ( E. Patio / becK F. Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY ; . PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other LENGTH D. Sidewalk 5 c. / o c> \0 X X X WIDTH ‘I to / JL d-^ Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone S.F. 3l\^ //f'to /3Lo 5LOO ' I CO o S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. |T1 7.f. ■? j* Y S.F.fl tH /(=», (o B ~}<?, 3<f y X 100 - '% ! [ J GRAYDaJ McCUaEY 980 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, Ntl 5535o July 18, 1993 To tine Orono Planning Connission; I have been asked by our new neighbors Bill and Lori Cornelius to show some practical consideration for a situation regarding the turn­ around driveway at their new home. My wife and I, with our family, have lived at 980 Tonkawa Road for over 36 years during the summer. I have noticed the existing turnaround driveway on the old Ridler property, and know it has been used for many, many years. It seems to me that if it has been there for all these years it should stay where it is. I am welcoming our new neighbors and learning of the frustration ution willthey have had concerning the driveway. I hope a practical so be forthcoming. As I have been told, they have been asked to cut down six to eight old trees and move the driveway over which may cause many 100-year-old trees to die. If it is a question of run-off, then I believe the existing trees are presently keeping the erosion and run-off to a minimum. By ripping out hundred-year-old trees and disturbing other surrounding trees and subsequently causing them to die is not a practical solution to the problem. I hope more common sense will prevail and let the driveway stay where it has been probably for the last hundred years. I appreciate your practical consideration given to this matter and welcome our new neighbors Bill and Lori Cornelius. Sincerely, &4ydon McCulley KJ JAMES H. GILBERT 955 Tonkawa Road Long Lake. Minnesota 55356 (612) 471-0809 Home (612)339-9121 Office July 19, 1993 City of Orono Planning Conunission Members and City Council Members P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Bill and Lori Cornelius 960 Tonkawa Road Orono, MN Variance Dear Members: We are neighbors living right behind the Cornelius' new home on Tonkawa Road. We understand that there might be a minor issue relating to the 75 foot lake setback requirement in the location of driveway is adjacent to a marshy portion ofLake Minnetonka. My wife Mary and I went over to review the property and the minor encroachment. We are also aware that this driveway location is the same identical driveway location that has been in existence for over 50 years by the prior owners. Notwithstanding the fact that there is new construction here, existing driveway should be allowed to be used. It has been used for over 50 years with absolutely no problem 1 1 ^^solutely no negative environmental impact by allowing that driveway to continue to be used as it has been used. The alternative would be to move the existing driveway a foot or so to the south of the 75 foot setback requirement, but to do so would cause the removal and demolition of a number of beautiful trees. The environmental impact of that would be negative. u parking situation also should be considered by the City. We all know what it is like to drive in the winter in Orono and some of us who have long driveways with slope are well T' ■> City of Orono July 19, 1993 Page 2 aware of how difficult it is to park and maneuver on slippery driveways with snow embankments. We have a similar driveway to the Corneliuses with a circle and do have difficulty in maneuvering on the driveway in the winter and bad weather. I think the Corneliuses might face that same problem if they have to modify the location. The current existing driveway they propose to continue using is best suited for those weather problems. •„.v - I - •' RICHARD LAUER 120 GIDEONS PT. RD. TONKA BAY. MN 55331 JUi JULY 19, 1993 ORONO CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ORONO P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY. MN 55323 DEAR COUNCIL MEMBERS: WE LIVE AT 970 TONKAWA AND ARE NEIGHBORS OF THE CORNELIUS’. THEY HAVE SHOWN US AND WE HAVE DISCUSSED WITH THEM THEIR PROPOSED CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS CONFIGUARATION WILL REQUIRE THEIR GETTING A VARIANCE FROM THE CITY OF ORONO. WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ON RECORD AS SUPPORTING THEIR PROPOSED DRIVEWAY AND WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT THE VILLAGE OF ORONO APPROVE THEIR VARIANCE REQUEST. THANK YOU!! Lw ^ > i-s Willin ]iih iir m\ fij ijliiili j!I !!! i)!i I *i! I *J ill- 5 .t ' i. . I ;v . • ilJ 55 !i:3cm IlH iij if' c: *. r# > - ^ ■ .- X 1 1 i!s CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 1''li*STTPMFN LONGWAN COt^STRlKmON Wai ,. . Ron Rnnoor R Assoclatos, Inc. Lino AM t!30^ >• 'Ml «•# « • * ‘ > i \ * f • % \ \ \ V^ ^ ' 1 •; ' y wvWWW %A > >»•»«■» •■■4 \ \ ••• **v / V » , % “ X A^»\i .) C '^Ti ^ Ci;V/ ..\ rr NV.' Ojcj<.'y 3~t?r? 'f: V*•2• -i; t-.H 7 »* •^ * *r I ■ - - - O.■:; , V 'd§ao -i. J “.Ny.*n"£l» .liuo/;^y ( ...•^.“ V£?.w . Oiy. :ri. \ \ \ \- Ah -. i-' WAiLc. feo jiy? A.O.. J jyk'iBeir • I • • i* V '* * *” • *. . * *‘*’*, -Jr •• • ___•• y ^ .. • I I • » V. . S-: >— r i'‘‘ \ ^ ».* • •• I • * “ *. •' • • Aft ^•; ' ' ■.•.••■• ■■•v.1 -•.•,: •s* V 4' .• r-!^...-,S.• ■ r ■ gy ^ ^ i Bonestroo BOElm Rosene Anderlik & Associates ( /!•». t • '‘f rt • ' . »*|^» I » f*» V1«* I V i<v^ <• f t V • ii.vt * I ! n»^t t‘l « . r- wi if I ##■* ''T »'*l^ .%f% 17 11 •» h| '*1 V I ( r*V»i f »• A ffcv.'.^nj A VlA’C“3 lr\”* * .'-‘#“'>1 'ju f«j I' »w-i o Pt ' iiour^ A 'A in*v A Mi.tvtkM' Mj't A Pf V*i'.ir » Pf !r»i Ik Iriu PI h»**H^* tt Ai'-jAfurfi AiA Kif>^i NU'ltiP/ Pp V<M4f K f<u l-l P-.V ; ^pAr |'» W A »C ^ Tr^ v.*-* f| C l<iiM nt. 9 MjMikJ >»f rc p A/v/-^UJ*! f# ffcti i*r M.*.n A S:ti Cjiy W PI O.Ki.N I ^rv^PfriKi 1*1 A.ijr» ffYl kr^^<?r V^i'i *1 PI *•* V , || V I' /••« f*| I i*** m 1*1 I f*| (*.ii« I: »'ivii!»► ^ f»Xkl ft/sjr* l‘f 1C I'C I f*f VuiVWM |» t Vi C? v^» »*f ( »M* r% A f ,« I rt ' M IU'U»M Vl ( ktiifi » t *u,nf'jnn M Engineers & Architects August 4, 1993 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Bill Cornelius Drainage File No. 139-1841 Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the drainage for the proposed loop driveway construction submitted by Stephen Longman Construction for the Cornelius property on the east side of Tonkawa Road. The driveway is proposed to be constructed along the alignment of an existing access that encroaches into the shoreline setback. If the alignment is approved by the City Council, we recommend that it be constructed to direct the surface runoff to the southerly side of the driveway. To accomplish this drainage, we recommend that the driveway be superelevated with a 3 percent cross slope along the shoreline setback. A four inch, shoe formed, integral bituminous berm curb should be constructed along the southerly side of the driveway. At the low point in the driveway, a small bituminous spillway should be constn:.cted to minimize erosion. A small detention area should be reserved here to collect the site drainage. A 12 inch culvert with aprons should be constructed under the driveway for an outlet to the west. We recommend a small wooden ba.ffle weir with class 1 riprap be constructed at the upstream end of the culvert. The baffle weir will trap floatable debris before reaching the culvert. The debris will need to be removed regularly for the baffle weir to function properly. The existing culvert should b.*? extended beyond tlie proposed fill to outlet into the detention area. Silt fence should be installed along the shoreline for erosion control. The entire disturbed area should be seeded or sodded. We have reviewed possibility of constructing the driveway further south of the proposed location. Tliis alignment requires .significant tree loss and excavation. We would not recommend this alignment from an engineering standpoint. We recommend that the driveway alignment be shifted as far south as possible. If the most westerly 16 inch Maple must be saved, the alignment shift should begin immediately past the tree. The driveway wiU need to be raised 2 to 3 feet at the low AUG — <£• — ^3: FF:I EO□ NESTROO !?. ASSOCIATES R . O S N point to allow proper drainage and culvert installation. A revised drainage and jeradine plan should be prepared prior to final approval. * * Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. MIM ijl ^ Medical Institute of Minnesota August 9, 1993 Offices of the Mayor and City Council City of Orono P.0, Box 66 CE101Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 RE: Variance Application for Bill and Lori Corneliuo Dear Mayor and Members of the Council; As a ten year .resident of the City of Orono, I am pleased to have this opportunity to express my support for the variance application of Bill and Lori Cornelius, «h^h I understand will be presented for your consideration at this evening's Council meeti.ng. As vou know. Dr. and Mrs. Cornelius have built a beautiful^ new home in Orono, at 960 many parcels of lakeshore property on Lake Minnetonka, lot lines^and frontage at 960 Tonkawa are quite irregular. Nevertheless, Bill and Lori have been able to build their new home in complete compliance with all City ordinar^a and requirements, except for the one outstanding issue addressed in\heir variance application. It is my atrong hope that you iill approve this^plication, not only because it is consistent with established plans for the because I believe it is the better solution for the City of Orono. 1 support the concept and principle behind the 75 setback requirement for lakeshore property. In ; believe that the City's requirements surfaces enhance the visual beauty, privacy, wa.er management, and natural environment of the Lake. But I also granting of variances to these requirements, where homeowners ^an legitin,ataly request equitable variance serves the best interests of the City ^ this case, I believe the variance should be granted, both because it serves the best interests of tne i y an most equitable solution to a unique problem. The alternative to this variance is the ^ hardSoSd t««" Clearly, removal of these trees would reduoe 5503 CREEV VALLEY DKIVT • BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 5j43 Mayor and City Council August 9, 1993 Page 2 the beauty, privacy, and natural environment of the lake far more than the proposed driveway. In addition, I understand that water management analyses indicate that removal of the trees would be more harmful to drainage and water management than the proposed driveway. The proposed driveway would be essentially invisible from the Lake. Approximately 1/2 of the shoreline at 960 Tonkawa is wetlands, and I understand that the 75 foot setoack issue is based on the driveway's proximity to these wetlands, rather than to open water. In my view, the variance application of Bill and Lori Cornelius is both consistent with the established plans for the property, and in the best interests of the City itself* For those reasons I would like to request that you approve their application. Sincer miller 2435 Countryside Drive Orono, Minnesota 55356 Fo;Orono Planning Commission Members Mavor Callahan and Orono Conpcilmembers Ron Moorse, Citv Administrate; From: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator August 5, 1993 ^1842 Tom and Sheila Browne, 760 South Brown Road - Variances - Resolution Additirnal Exhibits L - DNR Letter of July 23, 1993 M - Staff Sketch of Improvements Allowed With Planning Commission Recommendation Brief Review of Application The Brownes seek multiple variances for structural intensification, additions to the existing principal structure and an accessory structure for a property now classified as a lakeshore lot (review Exhibit G). The property is zoned RR-iB and applicants have maintained a 26 ’ setback from the former wetland that existed in the eastern portions of the property. The wetland is now classified ;is Tanager Lake, a Recreational Development lake, at the 929.4 elevation. All structural improvements are proposed within the 100 ’ structural setback area from Tanager Lake. Please review the enclosed packet and staff memo prepared for the Planning Commission review. The Planning Commission was advised of the DNR’s conceptual review of the application asking that no new structures be allowed to be installed closer to lake than existing deck and recommended that if the deck/pool structure at 20 ’ x 26 ’ was approved that the existing cement court area be removed. The DNR specifically asked that a naniral vegetation buffer be retained along the banks adjacent to Tanager Uike (review the DNR written report. Exhibit L). The applicants advised that the bank areas are covered with a natural vegetation and have never been disturbed or m;ide into a lawn area. The Planning Commission advised applicants that this was a very difficult application to consider as most of the existing improvements were approved b;ised on the former regulations. All new structures proposed were in violation of new Shoreland Regulations. They agreed to support the DNR recommendations and approved the following structural improvements (please refer to Exhibit M): A. 816’ X 7’ upper level deck area to be enclosed now as part of principal structure. B. Screen porch to be installed over existing deck but refused to allow the encroachment closer to Tanager Lake. C. 162 s.f. of new deck adjacent to screen porch strucnire. Zoning File ftmi August 5, 1993 Page 2 Tlie Planning Commission denied the 20’ x 26’ pool/deck structure and conditioned approval on the eventual removal of the patio/basketball court, remnant ot a former detached garage, to be removed at some future date when major repairs are deemed necessary. The following setback and hardcover variances will be required as a result ot the Planning Commission recommendation: 1, Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C-1). A. Upper level deck enclosure. Required = 100’ Existing = 56’ Proposed = 56’ Variance = 44 ’ or 44% B.Screen porch addition located over existing deck Required = 100’ Existing = 48 ’ Proposed = 48 ’ Variance = 52’ or 52% C.New attached deck structure. Required = 100’ Existing = 55’ Propose ’ = 55’ Variance = 45 ’ or 45% 2. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L-1). A.Hardcover variance within the 0-75’ setback area. 0-75’ setback area = 25,875 s.f. Allowed = 0 s.f. Existing = 4,540.4 s.f. or 17.5% Original proposal = 5,239.9 s.f. or 20.2% Per Planning Commission recommendation = 4,702.4 s.f. or 18.1% Additional hardcover = 162 s.f. or .6% (original proposal = 699.5 s.f. or 2.7%) B.Review of hardcover within the 75-250’ setback area = 15,440 s.f. Allow'ed = 3,860 s.f. or 25% Existing = 1,216.4 s.f. or 7.8% Proposed = l,2l6.4 s.f. or 7.8% No changes in hardcover proposed I i Zoning File ;!'1842 August 5, 1993 Page 3 C. Review of total hardcover (based on dry buildable area only) Existing = 5,756.8 s.f. or 13.9% Proposed = 5,918.8 s.f. or 14.3% 3.Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Review of structural coverage Total area = 41,315 s.f. (total dry buildable area) Allowed = 6,197.25 s.f. or 15% Existing = 2,320.6 s.f. or 5.6% Proposed = 2,482.6 s.f. or 6% The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission recommendation. ,'■1 .Lsmi A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C-1) AND (L-1) FILE NO. 1842 WHEREAS, Thomas R. Browne and Sheila R. Browne (hereinafter "the applicants") are ow ners of the property located at 760 South Brown Road within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: The south 396 feet of the west half of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 3, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the fifth principal meridian, except the south 93 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C-1) and (L-1) to permit the enclosure of an SW X 7’ upper level deck located 56’ from Tanager Lake where a 100’ setback is required and where the structure already exists at 56’, screen porch addition proposed at a 43’ setback where a 100’ setback is required and where a structure exists at 48 ’, a deck addition attached to proposed screen porch to be placed 55’ instead of 100’ as required and where the existing deck exists at 55’ and a 20’ x 26’ pool/deck structure to be located 59’ from lake instead of the required 100’. Hardcover variances are proposed within the 0-75’ setback area at 5,239.9 s.f. or 20.2% where 17.5% exists and where none is allowed NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1, This application was reviewed as Zoning File ^1842. The property is located in the RR-IB Rural Residential Zoning District requiring two acres of dr>’ buildable area. The property consists of a total of 4.9 acres and has 41,315 s.f. or .95 acres of contiguous dry buildable area. Page 1 of 5 3. 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 19, 1993 and recommended approval of the proposed variances as amended based upon the following findings: A. The 4.9 acre parcel has approximately one acre of contiguous dry buildable area . B.Shoreland Regulations now require 100 ’ setback for all strucmres from the Recreational Development lake that encroaches the property placing severe restrictions on the building envelope and making existing structures non- conforming. C.The existing septic system has been found to meet the 3’ separation required by new Shoreland Regulations and septic code. D.The majority of the dry buildable area, approximately two-thirds of the dry buildable envelope is located within the 0-75 ’ setback area where no hardcover or structural improvements are allowed. E.Structural setbacks for the newly classified shoreland property make it unbuildable for new development. F.Proposed stmctural improvements are at 2,482.6 s.f. or 6%, well under the allowed 15% strucmral coverage. G.Total hardcover based on the dry buildable portion of the 4.9 acre parcel is proposed at 5,918.8 s.f. or 14.3%. Tlie City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it anil do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect tiaffic 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 ot the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 A 5.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C-1) and (L- 1) approving an enclosure of an 8Vi’ x 7 ’ upper level deck, installation of a 19 Vi’ x 16 screen porch over an existing deck and a connecting deck addition of 162 s.f. and denies variances for a 20’ X 26’ deck/pool structure, subject to the following conditions: 1.Concrete slab defined as basketball court/patio area located within the 0-75 ’ setback area may not be repaired and must be removed when structure deteriorates. 2.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 (August 9, 1994). 3.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. 4.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 3 of 5 J Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of August, 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 9th day of August, 1993 by Edward J. Callalian, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. ’ Notary Public Page 4 of 5 i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 __before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary public v/ithin and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, andTcknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 5 J TO: FROM: DATE: *>4. Plaining Commission Members Ron Moorse, Ciiv Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator July 14, 1993 SUBJECT: ^1842 Tom and Sheila Browne, 760 South Brown Road - Variances - Public Hearing The application involves multiple variances for additions to the existing principal structure and the installation of an accessory structure on the recently classified lakeshore property. For years the applicants had proposed improvements maintaining a 26’ setback from the wetland located within the east portion of his property. Review Exhibit F, applicants ’ hardcover facts have been prepared based on the setback from the Long Lake protected tributary' at the cast boundary of lot. Unfortunately, per the shoreland ordinance, Tanager Lake at the 929.4 elevation is now located at what was originally determined to be the edge of the wetland. Staff has had to readjust the hardcover facts based on the 75’ setback line described in E.xhibit G. Two-thirds of the dry bnildable envelope are now located within the 0-75’ setback area where no improvements are allowed. Structures that normally met the 26’ setback are now nonconforming located within the 100’ setback required for structures from shoreline of Recreation:'.! Development lake. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review: Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C-1) - Setbacks for Recreational Development lakes. The following improvements require setback variances: A. B. Upper level deck to be enclosed as part of principal structure. Allowed = 100’ Existing - 56’ Proposed = 56’ Variance = 44’ or 44% Screen porch addition located over an existing deck (review Exhibits G and I). Allowed = 100’ Existing = 48’ Proposed = 43’ Variance = 57’ or 57% C.New deck structure. Allowed = 100’ Existing = 55 ’ Proposed = 55 ’ Variance — 45 ’ or 45 %- Zoning File #1842 July 14, 1993 Page 2 D.Pool/deck structure. Allowed = 100’ Proposed = 59’ Variance = 41’ or 41% Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L-1) - A. Hardcover variance within tiie 0-75’ setback area required from recreational development lake. 0-75’ setback area = 25,875 s.f. Allowed = 0’ Existing = 4,540.4 s.f. or 17.5% Proposed = 5,239.9 s.f. or 20.2% Additional hardcover = 699.5 s.f. or 2.7% B. Review of hardcover within 75-250’ setback area = 15,440 s.f. Allowed 3,860 s.f. or 25% Existing = 1,216.4 s.f. or 7.8% Proposed = 1,580.4 s.f. or 10.2% Additional hardcover = 364 s.f. or 2.3% C. Review of total hardcover (based on dry buildable area only) Existing = 5,756.8 s.f. or 13.9% Proposed = 6,820.3 s.f. or 16.5% Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Review of structural coverage. Total area = 41,315 s.f. (total dry buildable area) Allowed = 6,197.25 s.f. or 15% Existing = 2,320.6 s.f. or 5.6% Proposed = 2,951.6 s.f. or 7.14% List of Exhibits A - Application B - Property Owiiers List C - Plat Map D - Neighbors Acknowledgment Forms E - Survey - Existing F - Hardcover Fact Sheets G - Site Plan - Improvements Zoning File #1842 July 14, 1993 Pace 3 H - Elevations East/South I - Grade Level Floor Plan J - Existing Deck Plan K - Second Floor Plan Description of Request The proposed improvements on the property consist of an 8'^’x7’ enclosure of the upper level deck at the southeast comer of the residence. A 19'/^xl6’ screen porch is to be installed over an existing deck some 31.5 s.f. or additional hardcover extends closer to shoreline elevation at northeast comer of screen porch. Review Exhibits G and 1, an L-shape deck addition is proposed along the south side of the remaining deck and new screen porch structure with an attached 20’x26’ pool and deck strucnire to the south to be placed adjacent to the cement patio area (slab of former garage). Review Exhibit G, the new hardcover improvements within the 0-75’ setback are 31.5 s.f. of screen porch addition, 320 s.f. of pool/deck addition and 162 s.f. of new deck. Statf has also designated the 50 ’ street setback and 100’ strucrural setback defining the limited building envelope of the property. Description of Hardships, Unique Findings and Practical Difficulties Review Exhibit A. applicants note the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 4.9 acre parcel has been reduced to less than a 1-acrc dry buildable envelope. The new 100’ setback for recreational development lakes place severe restrictions on the building envelope making existing structures nonconfomiing. Current septic system has been found to meet the 3’ separation required by new Shoreland Regulations and Septic Code. Placement on the marsh area requires some form of protection for outdoor living tlius the need for a screen porch. 1 he majority of the dry buildable area at least two-tliirds is located within the 0- 75’ setback area. Staff would add the following after completing the review: 6.Stmctural setbacks defined on E.xhibit G would classify die property as unbuildable if open for new development. Zoning File #1842 July 14. 1993 Page 4 7. Proposed structural improvements are at 7.14% well under the allowed 15% structural coverage. 8.Total hardcover based on the dry buildable ^jortion of the 4.9 acre parcel at 41,315 s.f. is proposed at 16.5%. Issues for Consideration 1. What existing hardcover improvements can be removed to offset 513.5 s.f. of new hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area. If basketball court was removed, this would result in a reduction of 307.4 s.f. hardcover within the 0-75’ and 307.4 s.f. in the 75-250’ setback? 2. Can proposed improvements be reduced in area? \ L CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION f# ^ 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 Sit. Address 7/^0 l^(.l------------------- .MScF^r Property Identif. Nunber (P.I .D. —// 7 * ^2 —CnEC*'^^ Attach legal description to application if not a included on required savvey. ivo! Date Property Acquired g~/ _________(month/year) ttt/i-. I (do)(do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ____other (specify)----------------------- Zoning District:_______________________ _______ APPLICANT Phone (home) -------- Name (TkeiU /3/?„ay^<2._____________Phone (work)jyf-XXVV---------- [O/2c*rJ0) ir Af^f^rAss: 'ILa /3/^nujjU /Li City: l(/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)^- --- - - - - - -- Name ______________________________-________ ^^one (work)--------------------------- Address: ___________________________ City:___________________________________ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost ----------- Describe request in detail; fiailcl ^ ^e/iSoAj daj tx. AftAlh------ — — — — - — VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ Lot Area _ _ Lot Width _ _ Hardcover _ _Lot Coverage V Setback:_ _Front _ _ _ Side Rear - - Average Lakeshore _ _Other (specify)_ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requiremen s we,7 C7nXWb • ga>y //^r^r «//>'>- liAJ/t too' U»ThAc.k. io. S.'lf nicdeAAJ ------ B^c A uSC of (haa^k. bu^y • C am /^oT e/stioy QaldaaA\riinUu-.—ZtfJLEi-ffit* - A • .. 3' * i. t. i . ------------------------------------ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete; 1. )C Completed Application Form 2. V 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. X Ce^ttificate of survey (signed by a 1 ■ censed 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*s"xll"). 6. )CS)cetches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8%"xll"), 7. _As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any othe.. persons you wish notified of this application. 8. _Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by oriainal fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature ^ 0 2<T^ Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owni.r nereby ackowledges Agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto che property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, an Council members for purposes of investiga­ tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature /^Aji iSr2<,%o^ Date i? " Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Comirission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ) I KUM OATI 06/22/95 BATCH COl HEHNEPIH COUNTY PROPERTY IHrORMATlON SYSTEMPROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 03-117-23 3<i 0001 00775 BRONN RD S M D SIMPSON ASM SIMPSON M 0 SIMPSON ASH SIMPSON 775 BROtAI RO S HAYZATA W 55391 *• PROP AIDR ONNER NAME T»yrMYER NAME/AOOR 30 03-117-23 A3 0001 00038 ADDRESS UTJASSIGNEO SUAO H AZHARI SUAO H AZHARI 17A5 FOX ST HAYZATA HN 55591 PROP AODR OI««R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 03-117-23 A3 0005 00800 BR0I«4 RD S R A VICKERMAN ET AL H/L EST RUTH ANNE VICKERMAN 800 BROITN RD S MAYZATA HN 55391 PROP ADDR OFMER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR I TOTAL BATCH 001 00009 r' * - ' »• f * 4 *uit V / ... .. ■**X PROPERTY 044ERS LIST38 03-117-23 3A 0017 02000 WEBBER HILLS RO T J ERDAML ADM ERDAHL THOMAS J ERDAHL 2000 WEBBER HILLS RO WA 'ZATA 55391 38 03-117-23 A3 0005 00680 BROWN RO S C L ANDRUS ETAL COLEBERT L ANDRUS 660 SOUTH BROWrj ROAD HAYZATA HN 55391 38 10-117-23 12 0001 00860 BROtM RO S DAVID M SKEIE A WIFE DAVID M SKEIE 860 BROWN ROAD SOUTH WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PIA35A01 PAGE 138 03-117-23 3A 002902015 WEBBER HILLS RO RICHARD W PULA ETAL RICHARD W PULA 2015 WEBBER HILLS ROAD WAYZATA 101 55391 38 03-117-23 A3 OOOA 00760 BROWN RO S T R BROWNE A S R BROWNE THOMAS R BROWNE 760 SO BROWN ROAD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 21 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSTGNED E S BORMAN A J E CORWIN JULIUS HENOEL C/O BURT H CORWIN AOO 1.r AVE N MPLS I'Ji 55A01 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE representation OF INFORJiATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS * OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE u 9 TP ^ . I ii~ iiirnii ■■ III m\ l■nll¥■ tT'iaii ~i ■ m mi ii<T~n mi ■ irlili iru t ~i itfinrii n i\m- iri nm'irri n i n iii n i ii iiiilTm rniiiirTfc* ii'itfi irmr ii~nm¥nBriTnnmi TmTi~niMif ~ r ~[TirT^~n ii~ i~ r j. ^ • •Adjacent ^Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form ^'A{\\f ' - ^I (we) V\\Xh H -H ( <0 of [pijint name(s)][print address] u have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 76c fc f2cL also referred to as Land Use Aoolication No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am'(are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's proje'"'- or use requires Council approval. kH Property Owner (q -V- Date \\ Property Owner Date *************************************** I (we) C J/?/. <: [print name(s)] of CAO Sr, [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at /C2O Sp _ _ _ also referred no as Land Use Application No. _____. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare “approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council aporoval. ! OulT of Tou/^ /~o> ^u/y 5 o ,« O1 X A Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use /application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. I (we) ^Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form c hoeonl f P_S)nf)D i^iUS (print namt(s)l address] ^ +.he nlari'- for the prooosed improvement or proposed use of tne have reviewed the plan^ t P . also referred to as Land Use property located at __ _ _ __—-- - - - --- - - - Application No._____ . , ^ chat in executing this acknowledgement, 1 (we) am I (we) “"fdisapproval of the property or use (are) eor the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of th^ rmr-lerenTplaTs^^nd'that tL proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Date V\ON.ft±A^_A, . Property Owner Date I (we) SuS/l/i2— [print name(s)l of *7 7^"" ^^ (print address] A 1-v.o nlans for the proDOse^ improvement or proposed use of the have reviewed the p ^ - also referred to as Land Use property located at -7f.o So rU-------- Applicatiori No. -_• I (we, understand that in "^^^„“f:f:^|%";opVrtVor ’^ (are) not asked ^°^^j“‘^he'"^ity Counci 1 that I (we) am (are) aware of thrim;rovem°ent°plifns^nd that the proposed neighbor's project or use • « . __ _ _ _^ I MMrequires Council approval. Property Owner Q,/i 9 Date Property Owner Oi 1^3 Date „.... ‘"'-v.';:.:".::'. “S’™ 4^ilit' HARDCOVER CACCilCATrOfT ScTBACK ZONE! (CIRCLE ONE) / \ • KSHECT* 75-250' 250-50Q' 500-1000' A. ■ House B. Oarage c, Drive’way D.. Sidewalk : E. Patio/ Deck F.Landscape areas UNDERLAIN BY ■. • PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other COVER IN Zone n -A Q - • S.F. LENGTH WIDTH • X = • S.F. X • • = S.F. ■ X s» S. F1 X • X ft • = S.F. • X ft = S.F. X ft ft ^ S.F. X1 • a . S.F. X « • S.F, __ X t:i - S 1 F • X1 es , _ S.Fl X1 », • • . S.F. _ 4^ X> ^_ S.F. - o ft V► • ^ * _ S.F. X1 ft ft L • ■ _ S.F. X V# S • F t _ o • ft iTAL Hardcover i S. F • H Zone - ---------------------- . pRopiRrf A rea IN ZCNE - 'Z^ZJZ^--- S.F. B _ X 100 —------------- ft B l HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEg ScTBACK zone: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' E xisting Hardcover in Zone A. ■ House B. Garage c. Driveway D,. Sidewalk _ E. Patio/ DECK G. Other F. Landscape areas UNDERLAIN BY - PLASTIC ’ SHEETING __ X X X _ X _ X 250-500' 500-1000 •. * "Total Hardcover in Zone Total PnOPEsrj' A rea in Zone B X . LENGTH • X . WIDTH • • • S • F» X fl • S.F. •••X wmm S.F. X _ S.F. •m X S.F. • X •mb S.F. •X __ • % . S.F. X • S.F. ^ w\ m X .5=• S.F. S.F S,F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. X I'jO "'•% HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET ScTBACK zqhg : (CIRCLE ONE) 0"75' 75"250'^25C"50^^ 500-1000 Existing Hardcover in Zone 4-_ _^ 1s.FA. ■ House LENGTH WIDTH B, Garage —X c. Driveway D.. Sidewalk . E. Patio/ Deck V/•» F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY . . PLASTIC SHEETING X X G. Other _ X S • R • S.F. S.F. S.F S.F S.F. S.F S.F ’ S.F S.F. X 'g'5' S:---- “ : ---- S-F- S.F. X _ S.F. S.F '^O. S s.F. S.F. ‘ Total Hardcover in Zone \ s.F. Total PsopiRTY Area in Zone s.F.B V* •» 10^1 .y?- -1 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET S£TBAC'< ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-/5' 75-250'( E xisting Hardcover in Zone 500-1000' A. ' House ___-------------- x B, Garage c. Driveway y>cx:yi— E. Patio / Deck F,Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY ; . . PLASTIC SHEETING <^‘=’'^'o'Tor.MER LENGTH V tr* ’ X X D.. Sidewalk > Mr \Cr X 7:0.■2- WIDTH X___VfL %o^l- u e: . - X _ S.F. SIF • S.F. S.r. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F S.F. SI FI C* S.F. S.F. S.F. S.«^. S.F, • •. ■‘Total Hardcover in Zone Total Propssty Aaea iti Zone s.r, n^iso s.f. f v 5j£L22_V rg ns7?o. X100 - _Z.s-'•% II ■Iftfti — •-*** I ■'> !• •r'O ^ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET ScTBACK zone: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' SgO-lCGO^'' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. ■ House B. Garage c. Driveway j<5,v I *^--'^‘70 e. Patio/ Deck -Ipoe<- F.Landscape areas UNDERLAIN BY I , PLASTIC SHEETING -t::j«2vvv-ccc^«-( G. Other 3^,-=)X Ifl length Cr'X WIDTH '7v S.P. \7 X u • • S.F. • ••X ss S.F. X • S.F, • X "ZyL.S.F. X ■ S.F, X CrZ■^.S'. • S • F1 s X s~q r • S.F. S X Hf mm S.F. VS"X S.F. C4?X (4 S.F. •• • A,\j C^’'X 1 a 1—1r•S.F. X .S t r • • • . un X • • S.F. V -5T X • S.F. X _• • x<S.F.• ‘ Total H ardcover in Zone Total PRoPERrr A rea in Zone __ 5,F, S.F. m zg.c.! -r [T]_23SI^ X K'O" —Li ;o. HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SST3ACK zone: CciRCLEONS) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500'CSOO-lCOi^ A. ■ Kouss B. Ga BAG c , c. Driveway E. Jatio / Deck F, Landscape AREAS underlain BY ■ . PLASTIC -MEETING •' >vul, v_CO-LJ. G. Other D.. Sidewalk . X at S.F. LENGTH U>'X width \'Z T2-- S.F, \1-X .11 _ .I __s.fV • «•X S3 s.F. X S.F. ZH ■ • X S.F. X J.______ ^OO S.F, 0 l«.oM X ..■SH.'T *«»(pZZ'Z . s.Fi cr <T X q -2S ^ . S.F. r V X 1 • S.F. X .V \s,f. i’T X ^ .345^ s.F. •• 'V ('<>X vv rrt ’ “Z^Cc> _ S.F. S.MLi.X __m ”” 112. S.F. • • X S3 43.S'^_ s.F. X • • • S.F, X _• • x<S.F. •.. ■ Total Hardcover in Zone Total Propertt Area in Zon^ SZlZ.Qpi -f _g 7n?:o?i s.F. [a nn ^'^■O s.F.B B ICO - * • • * ' • . I ♦ . '• • I \. I ^ >4 ■ i * 1 I <*9 I i ;v . ‘; >, * I ^ I I‘•.•i/•; V-: ; ) % • : r: I *i « 0 V.; ,. I •< 1*..I. I* ^ . • . ir. .t r^f: *• r.;. • » '••: • t •( r. M- V-; • » , * * ' f •% %' • ' ■ i; r » j' :* . u «.r* '» • ♦ « . •* V'J * I ' • I . • I • f I • . I If ^ . ‘ V ^ *L J ... • «i '•.•' Vj’ v'‘ . ■> ’• <• -i ..■V-C{rY v;^ H 'Tjv. • . . •.<•■* :.**. a) \ "• ' •?;■ ' v ' ' *. 7 • * . • *L ^ ^ V* ■■.•.. • ‘ *j “l/l'{f^ <^i^* i iiSi'4:r ■ . V ^ V,. • r • 'it . ‘I-; ., 'fr.; • «/'y.t •' <; : -v; .. 'Tr ■ ■- -‘j *. ' '' • Vi•, V •; • -. ■.'• ■ ' -' VL. ’• * I .' A I i # •4 - I *.•*•* » • •* ' * • . • * * i / I I • •. k( ■* .. . j \ y ) . J ’. i -. • • •. •. r, ’•-.■• A. * * r;V7« / i.< ■* , < 7 »»•>, M * ■ • ,. •.• .:;•• •; V ;v.-. "i ’'-vr-VV ’ •• *• ^7.;.. r ■ ^ m * •• • •* ■ •> «. • « • -'•■J t .# • .- 9-• *v-<; •> * - ’ .# «• • • • V. 1 . .*•>1 , VT 7 'riv<: •'. • •.. • . • •: ■' .*. •• ■•''•.■• *, • - ••■ • •:•■ •••■'•■ ---•-* --J: :: r * • •» I * ^ * ^ ^ V..1.VV.* • ‘ v' ^ ' . • /: • * • . » • i * . • ()■ ni 0 T- ,• • « V • * • » • *1- J*'. •. * •• • • • • :f . -♦ • • .* s • ' - .•• *. • •- • • • .• * . .* *. ■•. •• ■ -• t %. A • .-V *. • > * * •• • .« ■ •* ‘ ‘ y \ . - ;. . ■ * • h\ < - • *• / lA : «• \§ Z • . «• .'•'T "U* •• . . .. .. Akrj; . • V ' -r. -; • » > • . *• . ** a' IV ry iu; . ^®2k-..v * 4 • .• '* • • •/* t > . „•• ;.v u./ , ,.N. •». . < t -X.' ‘ ..v:: >* • V.'jr •• '^.*- .* •*. • r ■ ,•> • • ■ * V., Tl ■ %• * V- •' I .< « •f *. > ' • V ' .‘.rr • - <•«’*' • . *.t . . - t.' ^ ^ c '•• , ^ «* ^ » •%'* :::— . /. -V •. * i ^ v"' VryS^*'' i.*: ‘.*W‘v* • . i • •wV-' l-'f -'.w, ■>ri • > v/Cf ' .. ••.',> •..v/.-i:. . *• ,v —. '. . - • • jv.r. * -- ■ ^• ■ ■•• •»,- .,t » • •» . •■ • •:; i ■“ •■*>• . • .i -.- ; ‘ ..■ *7‘A , , • • • * .A ^ —r >b. 0 i X:: r « %» 9^ . . A.; V.; \ ' •; ‘Viy:- ^':vr-- \; •. .. ■, J I . . 10* ■ I . I »♦’ • • •• . I* ■’•.y !* I I »,»• f*i • • . • • '. • j ■ • tj, •» ‘ ’• • • ■'•■ • V , ■ . •• ■ • •• - V* I . • • 1 . ,0 >?' .. I ‘ I • . V* •* »* I. •, . ■ • i*-: •'. • • , . ■' •.-* J;-/.-.'vy. .' •• >w • ^I • ‘ -- ’V• • •' '-A-"*A-,> ; .. t V A ' •* • . • • ‘ . .. . 1 . ». ' ‘ J 4 . •• , . ■/ ‘kv • ;-v-• ,.•.J ■■ •••■ ■• ^ :••'•:• • . :'5;*r y* C• •..• .'•• . .,, . -•' • . •..•' • 'V;:' Z V- ' h-^|| ••■iL ‘v ■ ' ■ ' v.;;y.^v..:;;-;. V Vk.Jk- *. • ! . • ‘1 . • *. • : V i. ',. i'4I' k • • •• ' • y.'A?*: i • •» kr-b'> \ ■ \»r» *V^V u ; ;;Vi*rkVt . k ‘A r: ;t‘.• *\i',: i'^VlvV.ii »*r. I??'!* - M> 1'• • *./•» 'J f* •. 'f-'-nvy.;A.vrif.^f.T V . v'V k>kiv I ’f‘' •. •* n \ f VA'^niViv ^♦s 7 • >' • ."k'lHyv-., f. .. .1 • •'• .■ •'; ■. j - : C- ,; '■ - ■•. «. • ■ . ■•. ■ - I-'. ■ I y- \\ •■••■ .•.. j' '« • . i •* . • .• V. • . ,s ’i >A -'r' •,m .rvrS f*w: • i :» \ :• j i . r ^ 4 J* 1 iA-% f! % *•I".-I 4 ■it* • r • ••• ;kk vkkkVk-- -.vsCk • 4 ».■ » V. .VS. . :•• - ., .V H- ., ; .V'. **-■- ' • ■ ' _. . < * iv•^ ky.** * . r* • j •p ’ .**•... . .^ ^ . * • * I 'i *• ‘ *# * — 4 . ' • f- : . •■ ./*'.“tf..,•.(• ' • •. •• ■ *• ■.. •••■ • .'..' < ■*»•. ••'■ i ... ■ ■ 4, ’. •■.■'. I-’. .». ■';. *• .•• •. • ’ i- .':,, •>••■■..: •,*'. ''■<• ■■,;•■•; --.i . .-•■-.'i'.-’.‘•VJ'' . ■ •••. • • . •'* • *.;•••'« • U* « kk ' \,r- •;*«• • , » f* • .. •■ ' t. ■ • I ’ 14 ’ . • • * ‘ . ; • •. .\ -'I V*.•'.'J r ,. ■ r -.< ••• - ; •, ..' • • ■ . ’ .'•''t ■■. . . ... ' ••••'•". • •'•. r •.•■.'• • ■ .*• .■'••. • •.• '■■ . ■ • . V •* ■‘t‘: : •!. •< lYi ••. -..r , I « . • * * *4 •» . ». , .» .. r , . , . ... y • .y ' ■. *• .y». t* • • f • f k 0*' i M -; /• * »I * •** • /• */ • ft - f • i . . i.-'-/?-'. * kk,:-.'kVvk»^---4' ..’./•'i /k."!. , 7’'.'k.k''vvk'’k‘ • ■; • r ■ •., .■« *■ . ‘ * 1 •. * • •' s '* ^ ^ *i'5 :•• • ^ ('. • »« i . * * . ' / ' 1. 0 I • • . -ft •i. »l«- t 4 , • ■ ■ • * ' ' . I-.. ’. f •f « ft .. # • ft . »/ * .*• i «» ‘k:r.. • ft . 4 • • * ft . ? . '. *. * r « ' ft . f ft • . # * \ t\\ • ’ .,1. I. ‘ : V, r V.*: r ♦ kv • “'' ft # * 4 ! S \ . •• • # •• •:. » ;r I • # ft • • • • i.V,,. . . •. • • 4 ft ,». . • * *• .• ' • V * • ft »• . X -k • • •; .*4 •- 4* . t ft J ^ft . I i • % ..‘ft ft. I ft. . • { . • ft .ft '. . , ' /*k ft* * •; }'r y\ • . fI ’ ;• ft . .• •. m ♦ •^ • ’kft' * , ft, ft.,-r V % ' •\r • ftk * • • ,ft / } *ft • ; •• I .• -k • • , • ’ ^ . . ft y •. • »* 4 k ■•'ft ^ • > _ . » 4 . * 'k< - # • ft • ft* ft*^ A• .•» \ . . ' ft ft*' A *.< . r •.» ; • 4* • '.ftV.rv'-; #•1 • • ‘ t »/l i ^ !*...♦ ft '• * * ft . ft* I .%. *# '• • . 1 • .•I . ftT •» * i i .k-.:fkk \ A ’ 4 ; r, : l . * .''‘‘V ^ * 1 •,» \ ' •(% ’ ♦ V •• • * J ■ •| i' « J i ■ ' *. - 1 !' ♦* *v^ • • *.• • * .*'■• .,« • * . * • <.V '* *k» V #t/» Lt' •*/* ** • / •V ■’* ^!U/J - W *T.. *}t I'v#*V=i';§' rhi’AV/>. •}. .\ vV'. ‘^V • VV Jj.ji* f\.A %* * „ .S/ .* .V i "• ' . I 1^' V/- • t # t . \ I. S' *.n <.v “r- *.» V I * li* f i»-‘t. •*» •.»»».*i. L>. '.f, ; »‘ . . . t' .'* *• 4» ♦. il** '• -•* \ ‘ ■ ; >*‘j- *'■ • Iff• • ••t . a1* • n •t * • •< '■ \ ,’VY. «‘*. . *> V • •: .•** • I*» *»r 0\ \ r .V X.1.^ ^ *1 V.. .V » «♦ V *.. ■• • • I * •, / t•.» » v, s '.. ■ . . ;V .Vi * .1 % • .'4 -f. r»l » *>*!• ' ». * * V I L - 4 **4 . ‘ • . * ‘Vv : -.j:. . sv%v;vi,,:, ,v ■'• '■y 'V:- v. ,. v>’.’-'.•*• /• • 'r-r *. '• •■' • • f.” •,.. -• V..*Vr. 1' .•*. H -. . < it? .v\ * I •' » . »'.•'• ..o'4.V • M STATE OF ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WtRO waters - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. RAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NO.772-7910 July 23, 1993 FILE NO L- Jeanne Mabusth City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota fJUO z 6 10S3 55323 RE: VARIANCE REQUEST, TOM AND SHEILA BROWNE, #1842, TANAGER LAKE (27-141P), CITY OF ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY Dear Ms. Mabusth: We have reviewed the documents you submitted regarding variance request #1842. We understand that until recently, the city used its wetland setback of 26 feet rather than the more restrictive lake setback at this site. With this in mind, we will not object to the proposed conversion of the deck to a three season porch if the following conditions are taken into consideration: 1. The three season porch should not encroach any further on the lake setback than the existing deck. (The current proposal shows a small area of further encroachment). 2. Some of the existing impervious surface (i.e. the basketball court) should be removed and the area left with pervious landscaping or lawn. 3. An unaltered, natural vegetation buffer should be left adjacent the lake. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist c: Tanager Lake (27-141P) file AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER . i !*• t. ■ ' • *. ' i ‘ v\ t -N. • , • 1 mmm ■s' ••••..?•;':-"I i-5‘ • * . . * I I . - • t r h : * '•••-I. i.. : »• r • *•^. . ,•••»• »w’.< •{.• ■» ^ ♦. .5 t*. - • V. ) & ii • r .;•• I .1 . 4 i . \ ♦ I t. % • ♦ ’ •» * < •, I ' * • I ^ B i * ■'}■■ C 0 '' i l’ •• I* r.r t, • \ • . f I ‘‘ f. !• ’ V *‘0 f .. . % ; , • 1 • s • #• • , . «■ , • ’ t’f i ■• . • •• .• ? 1 i » ■■ -r ; ;■ . :J! 'Liw * • ♦ ’’ iV- \ W • I ‘ ‘ * * «i‘ * ’ <* • * * # > ’ > » -IV-V . . ‘‘.-r > - ' ♦ : - • » r"' •srs.v'V- :. \ )a . ‘■Lv.' • ■•■•■’••■'■ WV'T-i.-■•.!', V.- ' '.• ■:••. • • • •■ • - nV •.• .•.’ . -r, • •; ;'V ‘*V’\ •■ , ’ 4V'V n > iv\\.y, / . til .• • f ^ / • • . V1 • ,T. • * X •* * 'I, ■ -V, ■1 • 0 ■! Ul ^ y Jf,s 5^1 \n NL. • •. »• !? ■ . i i / •M . ■.a «»* • I,* ^.1' . I. ■< ‘ **» /, I ‘ * f t i .•. i.. ' ». • ♦ *« • • " I r •4 * • \ ••• *\; L ^ ^ h'‘i •v.'-.» V'y r.’ ■•.*■-•; '^ • ••■ !v >■ •; . v ■■••; . ' S'... •.■•- .' • ■ ■:••’ :.-.P'‘ .’ •••. ‘ .n ;;••■ sCv.^v'-'::- '/S.'-.'vi : >. /*■' :•■■ ■• / ' .1 • < .4*vl ' fc » -t . . • .• , \ ^ • . *. . r . • .A< . • . .S‘ ',;ir • •, •• % ,■ I ?• < • ■'■ i ‘'f ■ 'L^U : I C r^ Vv-.. ■i”. I ,: -v. ' !' M ■ »'Viv» t-y:y%yc;y • -I ' 1 s « ^ * * ’ # . *V • /. •.' »: • -,VMV.:t;/uTk, .. • I . i » M i 'I' U , > .1 icv ” 9 ;%• * •• «. • . . « • '■: •••-.< » f 1‘. ’. . ; ♦ .• .• « « #* *f *•- .* >1 r 1 i .* • i •;.' *• . I ».. • . I t i . . X \ .1 9*0 . » *:* ■. u ■•' r •■ :i • ! • . I . » , ...i X j »■ ^ i - ♦ I * X. * .-‘ » •-' ’' • j' • • '• ; • X . « .1 : •• (A . • * ; I- * •tIVl TO;Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admimsirato COUNCIL MEEMG AUG 9 1993 pmr OF ORONO DATE:A.ugus! 6, 1993, 2:40 p.m. SUBJECT: Timing on Storm Water Ordinance Related to MUSA Amendment In response to my question to Met Council ’s Barb Sennes today as to what is the minimum we need to complete as far as NURP/BMP adoption for the Interim Strategy in relation to the Nettles/Sewer Pond Property, she indicated we must: 1. 2. Adopt a one-paragraph Comprehensive Plan policy statement as part of the MUSA amendment, indicating that we will implement NURP/BMP standards and will incorporate them into our official controls (zoning code). Provide a City Council resolution indicating a date certain by which we would adopt an ordinance to implement the Interim Strategy. Six months was suggested as a reasonable time frame. 7. TO:Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:August 3, 1993 SUBJECT: Interim Storm Water Ordinance - Information Packet Attached is the information packet which will be distributed to the Planning Commission the week of August 9th for their August 18th public hearing regarding the interim storm water ordinance. The initial draft with my early comments has been revised to address some of the early concerns; Levels of review matching our current practice have been suggested, so that the Council will not have to review storm water plans for every building permit or grading permit. Council and Planning Comr.io.>ion review would generally only be necessary for subdivision approval, commercial site plan review, or variance requests. The definitions section has been pared down to include only those definitions not covered elsewhere in the code. The detinitions of floodway, public water, regional flood, and wetlands will be revised in the chapters in which they currently appear. It is important to note that the required submittals for a storm water management plan for .subdivisions and gradin2 projects requiring a CUP, are no more detailed nor extensive than we have been requiring for some time, ^he level of detail tor individual residence con.struction and smaller grading projects is in stafPs opinion not overwhelming but often essential to determine the impact of a proposal. While most storm water management j ms submitted for individual residence project.s will continue to be handled by in-house stall, occasionally review by the City Engineer will be required as it i.s today. Staff would develop a short application form and submittal checklist to assist applicants in providing the appropriate and necessary inlormation. I realize that the degree of detail encompassed m this proposed ordinance may be much greater than Council anticipated from Met Council’s "directive" that we adopt NURP standards and _____ _ __• _!__ ______ nf theBMP’s. The memo to Planning Commission attempts to address some of the nuances of the ordinance and the potential impacts it will have on stalf and consulting man-hours as well as financial impact on our residents. Your comments and direction early on and throughout the review process will help ensure we end up with an interim storm water ordinance we can all live with. ch J To: From: Date: Subject: Chairman Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron. Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator August 6, 1993 Interim Storm Water Ordinance - Public Hearing List of Exhibits A - Proposed (Draft) Ordinance & Headings Outline B - Met Council Comprehensive Plan Amendment tt'h Approval 4-28-93 C D E F G - "Interim Strategy" - Met Council Document - Nov. 1992 "Model Storm Water Management Ordinance" - Cover Sheet and Model Ordinance w/MPG Notes "Model Policy Language for Local Comprehensive Plans" Current Orono Code Sections Re: Storm Water • 10.03 Subd. 19/20/21 (Filling & Grading) • 10.52 Subd. 4 (Hwy. 12 Corridor) • 10.53 Subd. 8 (A)(4d):8, 10 (Hwy 12 PUD) • 10.55 Subd. 11 (Floodway, Flood Fringe) • 10.56 Subd. 16 (G). (I), (J), (K) (Shoreland) • 11.10 Subd. 21 (C) (Flowage & Conservation Easements) • 11.41 Subd. 1, 2, 3 (Drainage & Storm Sewers for Subdivisions) Impact of Minnesota Rules and Statutes - Sandstrom, 1993 Background In response to the Met Council ’s 1988 Systems Gi.-.tcm-nt regarding local comprehensive plan sewer policies, the City completed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Kc. 3, which was approved by Met Council in April 1993 (Exhibit B). Condition No. 5 of Met Council ’s approval required that "as part of its next comprehensive plan amendment, (Orono) must adopt the Metropolitan Council ’s Interim Strategy to Reduce Nonpoint Pollution to All Metropolitan Waterbodies" (Exhibit C). Interim Storm Water Ordinance August 6, 1993 Page 2 The currently proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to add the Alan Nettles property and a portion of the Orono sewer pond property to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) constitutes ou*- next Comprehensive Plan Amendment and therefore the expectation is that Met Council will not approve this amendment unless the Interim Strategy’ has beenivn'pUed with. The Interim Strategy has three specific requirements: 1. Adoption of Shoreland Regulations (Adopted Feb. ’92, DNR approval May ’93). 2. Adoption of National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards for storm water ponds. 3. Adoption of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for construction sites. The NURP standards generally are a set of criteria for design of storm water ponds that addresses water quality issues as well as volume and storage. In general, this is done by requiring "wet" detention ponds that allow for settling and storage of suspended sediments by having the outlet higher than the bottom of the basin. Therefore, these ponds maintain a permanent water surface rather than draining dry a few days after a storm event. The Best Management Practices refer to an inch-thick volume published by MPCA entitled "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas". This document contains suggested methods and procedures for controlling urban runoff water quality via permanent structure (detention ponds, infiltration basins, filter strips, etc.), "housekeeping" practices (fertilizer management, catch basin cleaning, street sweeping, etc.), and construction site erosion atid sedimepLci^ntrol practices (temporary sediment basins, silt fence, outlet protection, etc.). Quoting directly from MPCA, a BMP is defined as "a combination of land use, conservation practices, and management techniques, which when applied to a unit of land will result in the oppommity for a reasonable economic return with an acceptable level of water Interim Storm Water Ordinance August 6. 1993 Page 3 quality." There are generally two reasons to implement BMP’s from a water quality standpoint. The first is to protect the existing level of water quality from future degradation. The second is to correct existing water quality problems. The two facets of implementing BMP’s include site planning and storm water management. From an administrative standpoint, adoption of BMP’s and NURP standards is pointless without formalizing a procedure for reviewing projects. That procedure should include an application process, a review process, and penalties for failure to adhere to the provisions. As a result, the ordinance placed in front of you for consideration is not simply a one sentence document stating "we hereby adopt NURP standards and BMP’s", but rather is a complete interim approach to dealing with nonpoint source pollution. Future Storm Water Management Plan Please realize that we have termed this an Interim Storm Water Ordinance because it does not incorporate a comprehensive Storm Water Management Pian for the City, which has yet to be developed. Such a plan will be a fairly exhaustive study of the individual watersheds and subwatershed.s within the City and will define par'meters and criteria for their protection. Such a plan is mandated by the Metropolitan Surface Water Managenent Act, Chapter 509 of Minnesota Laws. 1982. Also known as "509" regulations, these will become a front burner item as soon as the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 509 Plan is approved. Our storm water management regulations ultimately will have to be in compliance with the Watershed District Plan, as well as other regulations discussed in Exhibit G. We have been preparing to develop such a plan by taking the initial step of acquiring 1" = 100 ’, 2’ contour interval topographic maps for the entire City at a cost approaching $80,000. The nonh half of the City has been mapped, and the souUi half is nearing completion. Interim Storm Water Ordinance August 6, 1993 Page 4 The attached draft interim ordinance is based on the model ordinance provided by Met Council as a suggested vehicle for adopting NURP standards and BMP’s. I have revised the format of the model ordinance to conform with our code format, and have revised language and omitted or added language in a first attempt to tailor this to Orono ’s situation. However, there may be some basic philosophical and policy questions that, as this ordinance is reviewed by Planning Commission and Council, will result in additional significant changes. The original m'xiel ordinarice with my notes is included as Exhibit D. Highlights of Proposed Ordinance Please briefly review the attached outline of headings and subheadings within the proposed ordinance, which would become new Section 10.57 of the Zoning Code, immediately following Section 10.55 (Flood Plain and Wetlanus Management) and Section 10.56 (Shoreland Regulations). The subdivisions entitled "Statutory Authorization," "Findings," and "Purpose" contain general statements about the authority and need for a storm water management ordinance. Subdivision 4, "Definitions", provides meanings for terms which are generally not defined elsewhere in the zoning or subdivision codes. Note that the definition of "land disturbing or development activities" appears to be all inclusive of activity which might range from as small a project as adding a sidewalk or patio to developing an 80 acre subdivision. Subdivision 5 goes on to say that for any such activity that requires a building permit, subdivision approval or "permit to allow land disturbing activities (i.e. a land alteration permit), a site-specific storm water management plan must be submitted and approved. The tew exemptions listed in the model ordinance suggest that virtually all construction projects, minor or major, must address storm water issues. From an administrative standpoint, we may have to more closely define which types of permits can be issued without triggering a storm water management plan. This might be done by a future Council resolution or decided now and just ( Interim Storm Water Ordinance August 6, 1993 Page 5 added to this ordinance. Subdivision 5 (B) discusses the variance procedure. In the model ordinance this was termed "waiver", but laid out a procedure that we would likely consider as a standard variance request. Subdivision 6 lays out procedures for making an application for "storm water management plan approval". While me listing of required submittal information appears quite detailed at first blush, the requested information can be broken down into two general categories: 1. ■ Information about the site that is generally available or which is available in sources at the City. 2.A site plan indicating what is currently existing, what will be existing when the project is done, and what protective measures will be in place as the project progresses from its "before" to its "after' state. A major concern with requiring a storm water management plan for each and every land disturbing activity requiring a permit" is the degree of detail requiring an applicant to hire expensive consultants to provide the information. Clearly, a subdivider should be required to provide detailed survey work, "before" and "after" topography, and a detailed site plan providing every bit of information listed in the ordinance. However, to require the same degree of detail from a resident who is building a detached two-car garage on his two-acre lot is probably e.xcessive and we need to better define varying degrees of submittal for various project scales. Subdivision 7 is the plan review prcKedurc and, as it appears in the model ordinance, presumes that virtually every submitted storm water management plan must be reviewed by the Interim Storm Water Ordinance August 6, 1993 Page 6 Planning Commission. However, the author of the model ordinance noted that each City will have its own process and should tailor the review procedure accordingly. Therefore, I have redrafted Subdivision 7 (A) "Process", to follow our current management practices i.e.: 1. Storm water plans involving "normal and customary grading" for e.xisting or newly constructed buildings or land alterations under 100 cubic yards (and not in a protected lakeshore or wetland area) will be reviewed by the Building Inspector as part of the building permit review. Historically, we have involved the City Engineer in normal building permit reviews only on rare occasion, perhaps half a dozen times a year. I would not anticipate this changing significantly. 2. Where grading in e.xcess of 100 cubic yards not associated with a building permit is proposed, a conditional use penrat with City Engineer review would continue to be required, and all subdivisions and unusual land alterations would continue to be reviewed by the City Engineer with costs borne by the applicant as is our current procedure. The implications for staff in reviewing storm water management plans for the general day-to-day project is in spending the time becoming familiar with the BMP s, and sp>ending additional time assisting applicants in providing adequate information and responsive plans. For all new homes, staff has been dealing with grading and drainage plans for a number of years and we don’t anticipate major changes in the time needed to process a building permit. Subdivision 7 (D), originally entitled "Performance Bond", is revised to read "Completion Agreement and Letter of Credit". This section generally requires that an applicant execute a standard form "Completion Agreement" similar to a Developer’s Agreement, and provide a Letter of Credit covering the costs of storm water management plan complenon. The normal Developer’s Agreement we already use for subdivisions and major land alteration Interim Storm Water Ordinance August 6, 1993 Page 7 projects would incorporate such a "completion agreement" Further, language has been revised from the model ordinance to allow the Council by resolution to waive the Letter of Credit requirement for specific categories or types of projects. Staff does not intend that every individual residential building project be subject to a formal agreement or Letter of Credit. The City may wish to write into this ordinance the specific categories of projects exempt from the Agreement/Letter of Credit. Subdivision 8 contains sixteen categories of approval standards, which Met Council suggests are appropriate excerpts from the "fiest Management Practices" document for inclusion in a local ordinance. These entries are quite abbreviated, and often refer to structures, methods, or procedures which are discussed at length in the BMP document. As you read through the approval standards, I believe you will agree that many of them are general common sense statements that you will agree with in principle. In fact, many of these practices have been required by City staff for many years, without any clear direction in the code. A potential problem, however, will be seen in standards F and G, which get into determination of watershed areas and runoff rates. This is where our newly acquired topographic maps are a critical part of storm water control implementation. For instance. Subdivision 8 (F-1) requires that "sheet flow runoff from adjacent areas greater than 10,000 square feet in area shall also be diverted around disturbed areas, unless shown to have resultant runoff rates of less than 0.5 cubic feet per second across the disturbed area for the one-year storm." This kind of a standard clearly requires engineering review to determine runoff rate for the one-year storm for a given site of certain slope and groundcover characteristics. On the other hand. Subdivision 8 (F-2) merely states all activities on the site shall be conducted in a logical sequence to minimize the area of bare soil exposed at any one time. This type of Interim Slonn Water Ordinance August 6, 1993 Page 8 requirement can be dealt with by staff working with the property owner or developer without the need for coasultant expenditures. Many of the approval standards in Subdivision 8 clearly will apply only to new subdivisions. J we think it will be much easier for developers to comply with a set of known standards and for staff to be able to discuss such standards intelligently, rather than relying solely on the City Engineer to define and relate what the City ’s storm water control requirements are. Subdivision 8 (H) Items 1-9, are the NURP standards for design of storm water detention facilities. The significant difference from what we have seen developed in past subdivisions is that an average permanent pool depth of 4-10’ will be the norm, rather than storm water ponds that drain dry a few days after a rainfall event. This is no guarantee that the NURP pond will always contain water, but its outlet will be set significantly above the bottom of the pond, the purpose being to retain sediment that settles out of the detained runoff Subdivision 8 (I), regarding wetlands, in Item 1 indicates that runoff shall not be discharged directly into wetlands without presettlement. This is in line with the change in thinking regarding wetland values that has occurred over the last 20 years. Recall that in the early 1970’s, state of the art storm water management was to run storm water into the wetlands rather than directly into the lake via storm sewers. Gradually this has evolved into what is a generally accepted philosophy that untreated runoff has a negative impact on wetlands, and therefore should be treated before it gets into the wetlands. Instead ot using the wetlands as our storm water settling basins, we must start protecting them from the influent sediment. Item 3 of Subdivision 8 (I) requires replacement of wetlands that are to be drained or filled. This section also works in concert with our existing Section 10.55, which is concurrently Interim Storm Water Ordinance August 6, 1993 Page 9 proposed for revision to provide stronger direction for wetland management as well as address federally-mandated language updates. Subdivision 8 (J) is an absolute prohibition on "land dismrbing or development activities" on slopes of 18% or more. This appears to be a much stronger requirement than the Shoreland Regulations recently adopted, which merely required thorough review of the possible soil erosion impacts and visual impacts before a pennit may be issued. This new prohibition clearly suggests the need for a variance for any land dismrbing activity on slopes of 18% or more. We often find individual residence development on slopes steeper than 18%. Adoption of this requirement should be carefully considered. Subdivision 8 (M) sets out a program of inspection and maintenance of constructed storm water management facilities, a practice which has not formally been in the code in the past. It is staffs understanding that the City Engineer and Public Works Department have occasionally inspected those storm water facilities for which the City has drainage easements, but this section now formalizes that practice. Subdivision 9 contains lawn fertilizer regulations, which would seem to serve as excellent guidelines but will be impossible to enforce. Staff has neither the man hours nor the inclination to act as "fertilizer cops", but the guidelines provide the basis for what could be a very productive public relations campaign. Wc would anticipate creating a brochure and perhaps asking the newspaper to publish intormation on lawn fertilizing. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission is requested to carefully review the wording and the impact of the proposed Interim Storm Water Management Ordinance. Clearly there are certain sections which will require additional staff time, additional City Engineer review, and in some cases result in applicants incurring greater costs for development of storm water management plans for Interim Storm Water Ordinance August 6, 1993 Page 10 individual sites. This ordinance is not necessarily in its final form, and Planning Commission and Council may determine that some sections should be omitted, some added, and revisions made to accomplish its goals while limiting its financial impact on the City and its residents. Please feel free to comment and ask questions. I would hope to spend some time at the August 18 public hearing discussing those sections which are changes to our current practices. OUTLIl/E - PROPOSED INTERIM STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE Subd.1.Statutory Authorization Subd.2 Findings Subd.3 .Purpose Subd.k .Definitions Subd.5.Scope and Effect A. Exemptions B. Variance Subd.6 .Storm Water Management A. Application B. Required Submittals 1. Exist'.:g Site Map 2. Site Construction Plan 3. Plan of Final Site Conditions Plan Review Procedure A. Process B. Duration C. Conditions D. Completion Agreement and Letter of Credit Approval Standards Subd. 7. Subd. 8. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. (Plan must meet standards to gain approval) Site Dewatering Waste and Material Disposal Tracking (Street Cleaning) Drain Inlet Protection Site Erosion Control Storm Water Management Criteria for Permanent Facilities Design Standards (NURP) Wetlands Steep Slopes Catch Basins Drain Leaders (Roof Gutter Discharge Typ.) Inspection and Maintenance Models/Methodologies/Computations Watershed Management Plans/Groundwater Management Plans Easements Subd. 9.Lawn Fertilizer Regulations A. Use of Impervious Surfaces. B. Unimproved Land Areas C. Fertilizer Content D. Buffer Zone Subd. 10. Penalty Subd. 11. Other Controls Subd. 12. Severability ORDINANCE NO.SECOND SERIES INTERIM STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1. The City of Orono Municipal Zoning Code is amended by adding Section 10.57, Interim Storm Water Management Ordinance, to read as follows: SEC. 10.57.STORM WATER MANAGEMENT. Subd. 1. Statutory Authorization. This ordinance is adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.351. Subd. 2. Findings. The C:ty of Orono hereby finds that uncontrolled and inadequately planned uce of wetlands, woodlands, natural habitat areas, areas subject to soil erosion and areas containing restrictive soils adversely affects the public health, safety and general welfare by impacting water quality and contributing to other environmental problems, creating nuisances, impairing other beneficial uses of environmental resources and hindering the ability of the City to provide adequate water, sewage, flood control, and other community services. In addition, extraordinary public expenditures may be required for the protection of persons and property in such areas and in areas which may be affected by unplanned land usage. Subd. 3. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to promote, preserve and enhance the natural resources within the City of Orono and protect them from adverse effects occasioned by poorly sited development or incompatible activities by regulating land disturbing or development activities that would have an adverse and potentially irreversible impact on water quality and unique and fragile environmentally sensitive land; by minimizing conflicts and encouraging compatibility between land disturbing and development activities and water quality and environmentally sensitive lands; and by requiring detailed review standards and procedures for land disturbing or development activities proposed for such areas, thereby achieving a balance between urban growth and develcpment and protection of water quality and natural areas. Subd. 4. Definitions. For the purposes of this ordinance, the following terms, phrases, words, and their derivatives shall have the meaning as defined elsewhere in the Municipal Code or as stated below. 1. "Applicant" - Any person who wishes to obtain a building permit, zoning or subdivision approval. 2. 'I Control Measure" - A practice or combination of practices to cor.trol erosion and attendant pollution. 3. "Detention Facility" - A permanent natural or man-made structure, including wetlands, for the temporary storage of runoff which contains a permanent pool of water. 4. "Hydric Soils" - Soi''s that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. 5. "Hydrophytic Vegetation" - Macrophytic plant life growing in water, soil or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content. 6. "Land Disturbing or Development Activities" - Any change of the land surface including removing vegetative cover, excavating, filling, grading and the construction of any structure. 7 "Person" - Any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, franchisee, association or governmental entity. 8. "Retention Facility" - A permanent natural or man made structure that provides for the storage of storm water runoff by means of a permanent pool of water. 9. "Sediment" - Solid matter carried by water, sewage, or other liquids. 10. "Structure" - Anything manufactured, constructed or erected which is normally attached to or positioned on land, including portable structures, earthen structures, roads, parking lots, and paved storage areas. Subd. 5. Scope and Effect. Every applicant for a building permit, subdivision approval, or a permit to allow land disturbing activities must submit a storm water management plan to the Zoning Administrator. No building peimit, subdivision approval, or permit to allow land disturbing activities shall be issued until approval of the storm water management plan or an exemption from the approval requirement has been obtained in strict conformance with the provisions of this section. The provisions of Subdivision 9 of this ordinance apply to all land, public or private, located within the City of Orono. A. Exemptions, ordinance do not apply to: The provisions of this 1. Any part of a preliminary plat for the subdivision has been approved by the City Council on or before the effective date of this ordinance; 2. Any land disturbing activity for which plans have been approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District within six months prior to the effective date of this ordinance; 3. A lot for which a building permit has been issued on or before the effective date of this ordinance; 4. Installation of fence, sign, telephone, and electric poles and other kinds of posts or poles; or 5. Emergency work to protect life, limb or property. 6. Such other projects or categories of projects as may be exempted by resolution of the City Council. B. Variance. The City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, may grant a variance to any requirement of this ordinance upon finding that compliance with the requirement will involve an unnecessary hardship and variance from such lequirement will not adversely affect the standards and requirements set forth in Subdivision 6. The City Council may require as a condition of variance, such dedication or construction, or agreement to dedicate or construct as may be necessary to adequately meet said standards and requirements. Subd. 6. Procedures. Storm Water Management ®lan Approval A. Application. A written application for stoirm water management plan approval, along with the proposed storm water management plan, shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator and shall include a statement indicating the grounds upon which the approval is requested, ^ that the proposed use is permitted by right or an as exception in the underlying zoning district, and adequate eviflence showing that the proposed use will conform to the standards set forth in this ordinance. Prior to applying for approval of a storm water management plan, an applicant may have the storm water management plans reviewed by the appropriate departments of the City. B. Required Submittals. Two sets of clearly legible blue or black lined copies of drawings and required information shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator together with the appropriate fee for processing and approval as set forth in the City fee schedule, and a letter of credit when required by Subdivision 7.4 in the amount to be calculated in accordance with that section. Drawings shall be prepared to a scale appropriate to the site of the project and suitable for the review to be performed. At a minimum the scale shall be 1 inch equals 100 feet. At a minimum, the storm water management plan shall contain the following information: 1. Existing site map. A map of existing site conditions shov/ing the site and immediately adjacent areas, including: a. The name and address of the applicant, the section, township and range, north point, date and scale of drawing and number of sheets; b. Location of the tract by an insert map at a scale sufficient to clearly identify the location of the property and giving such information as the names and numoers of adjoining roads, railroads, utilities, subdivisions, towns and districts or other landmarks; c. Existing topography with a contour interval appropriate to the topography of the land but in no case having a contour interval greater than 2 feet; d. A delineation of all streams, rivers, public waters and .’etlands located on and immediately adjacent to the site, including depth of water, a description of all vegetation which may be found ir. the water, a statement of general water quality and any classification given to the water body or wetlcxnd by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and/or the United States Aimy Corps of Engineers; e. Location and dimensions of existing storm water drainage systems and natural drainage patterns on and immediately adjacent to the site delineating in which direction and at what rate storm water is conveyed from the site, identifying the receiving stream, public water, or wetland, and setting forth those areas of the unaltered site where storm water collects; f. A description of the soils of the site, including a map indicating soil types of areas to be disturbed as well as a soil report containing information on the suitability of the soils for the type of development proposed and for the type of sewage disposal proposed and describing any remedial steps to be taken by the developer to render the soils suitable; g. Vegetative cover and clearly delineating any vegetation proposed for removal; and h. fringes and floodways. 2. Site construction plan, construction plan including: A site a. Locations and dimensions of all proposed land disturbing activities and any phasing of those activities; b. Locations an a dimensions of all temporary soil or dirt stockpiles; c. Locations and dimensions of all construction site erosion control measures necessary to meet the requirements of this ordinance; d. Schedule of anticipated starting and completion date of each land disturbing activity including the installation of construction site erosion control measures needed to meet the requirements of this ordinance; and the construction construction. e. Provisions for maintenance of site erosion control measures during 3. Plan of final site conditions. A plan of final site conditions on the same scale as the existing site map showing the site changes including: a. Finished grading shown at contours at the same interval as provided above or as required to clearly indicate the relationship of proposed changes to existing topography and remaining features; b. A landscape plan, drawn to an appropriate scale, including dimensions and distances and the location, type, size and description of all proposed landscape materials which will be added to the site as part of the development; c. A drainage plan of the developed site delineating in which direction and at what rate storm water will be conveyed from the site and setting forth the areas of the site where storm water will be allowed to collect; d. The proposed size, alignment and intended use of any structures to be erected on the site; e. A clear delineation and tabulation of all areas which shall be paved or surfaced, including a description of the surfacing material to be used; and f. Any other inforipation pertinent to the particular project which in the opinion of the applicant is necessary for the review of the project. Subd. 7. Plan Review Procedure. A. Process. Storm water management plans involving the normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or the grading of the driveway serving such building, or any movement under 100 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the existing drainage, shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Inspector at the time of issuance of the building or grading permit, provided that the storm water management plan submitted is in accordance with the standards of Subdivision 8. All storm water management plans submitted for subdivisions, any unusual land alterations as defined in Section 10.03, Subd. 21, and all other land disturbing activities involving more than 100 cubic yards of earth movement shall be referred by the Zoning Administrator to the Planning Commission and the Council for action in accordance with this chapter. B. Duration. Approval of a plan submitted under the provisions of this ordinance shall expire one year after the date of approval unless construction has commenced in accordance with the plan. However, if prior to the ej 'ration of the approval, the applicant makes a written re. est to the Zoning Administrator for an extension of time to commence construction setting forth the reasons for the requested extension, the Zoning Administrator may grant one extension of not greater than one single year. Receipt of any request for an extension shall be acknowledged by the Zoning Administrator within 15 days. The Zoning Administrator shall make a decision on the extension within 30 days of receipt. Any plan may be revised in the same manner as originally approved. C. Conditions. A storm water management plan may be approved subject to compliance with conditions reasonable and necessary to insure that the requirements contained in this ordinance are met. Such conditions may, among other matters, limit the size, kind or character of the proposed development, require the construction of structures, drainage facilities, storage basins and other facilities, require replacement of vegetation, establish required monitoring procedures, stage the work over time, require alteration of the site design to insure buffering, and require the conveyance to the City of Orono or other public entity of certain lands or interests therein. 4 A D. Completion Agreement and Letter of Credit. Prior to approval of any storm water management plan, the applicant shall submit an agreement to construct such required physical improvements, to dedicate property or easements, or to comply with such conditions ls may have been agreed to. Such agreement shall be accompanied by a letter of credit to cover the amount of the established cost of complying with the agreement. The agreement and letter of credit shall guarantee completion and compliance with conditions within a specific time, which time may be extended in accordance with Subdivision 7.2. The adequacy, conditions and acceptability of any agreement and letter of credit shall be determined by the Orono City Council or any official of the City as may be designated by resolution of the City Council. Further, the City Council may by resolution waive the letter of credit requirement for specific categories or types of projects. Subd. 8. Approval Standards. A. No storm water management plan which fails to meet the standards contained in this section shall be approved by the City. B. Site Dewatering. Water pumped from the site shall be treated by temporary sedimentation basins, grit chambers, sand filter, upflow chambers, hydro-cyclones, swirl concentrators or other controls as appropriate. Water may not be discharged in a manner that causes erosion or flooding of the site or receiving channels or a wetland. C. Waste and Material Disposal. All waste and unused building materials (including garbage, debris, cleaning wastes, wastewater, toxic materials or hazardous materials) shall be properly disposed of off-site and not allowed to be carried by runoff into a receiving channel or storm sewer system. D. Tracking. Each site shall have graveled roads, access drives and parking areas of sufficient width and length to prevent sediment from being tracked onto public or private roadways. Any sediment reaching a public or private road shall be removed by street cleaning (not flushing) before the end of each workday. E. Drain Inlet Protection. All storm drain inlets shall be protected during construction until control measures are in place with a straw bale, silt fence or equivalent barrier meeting accepted design criteria, standards and specifications contained in the MPCA publication "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas." F. Site Erosion Control. The following criteria apply only to construction activities that result in runoff leaving the site. 1. Channelized runoff from adjacent areas passing through the site shall be diverted around disturbed areas, if practical. Otherwise, the channel shall be protected as described below. Sheet flow runoff from adjacent areas greater than 10,000 square feet in area shall also be diverted around disturbed areas, unless shown to have resultant runoff rates of less than 0.5 cubic feet per second across the disturbed area for the one year storm. Diverted runoff shall be conveyed in a manner that will not erode the conveyance and receiving channels. 2. All activities on the site shall be conducted in a logical sequence to minimize the area of bare soil exposed at any one time. 3. Runoff from the entire disturbed area on the site shall be controlled by meeting either subsections a. and b. ora. and c. a. All disturbed ground left inactive for fourteen or more days shall be stabilized by seeding or sodding (only available prior to September 15) or by mulching or covering or other equivalent control measure. b. For sites with more than ten acres disturbed at one time, or if a channel originates in the disturbed area, one or more temporary or permanent sedimentation basins shall be constructed. Each sedimentation basin shall have a surface area of at least 1 percent of the area draining to the basin and at least three feet of depth and constructed in accordance with accepted design specifications. Sediment shall be removed to maintain a depth of three feet. The basin discharge rate shall also be sufficiently low as to not cause erosion along the discharge channel or the receiving water. c. For sites with less than ten acres disturbed at one time, silt fences, straw bales, or equivalent control measures shall be placed along all sideslope and downslope sides of the site. If a channel or area of concentrated runoff pisses through the site, silt fences shall be placed along the channel edges to reduce sediment reaching the channel. The use of silt fences, straw bales, or equivalent control measures must include a maintenance and inspection schedule. 8 u ®®^ F4. Any soil or dirt storage piles containing more than ten cubic yards of material should not be located with a downslope drainage length of less than 25 feet from the toe of the pile to a roadway or drainage channel. If remaining for more than seven days, they shall be stabilized by mulching, vegetative cover, tarps or other means. Erosion from piles which will be in existence for less than seven days shall be controlled by placing straw bales or silt fence barriers around the pile. In-street utility repair or construction soil or dirt storage piles located closer than 25 feet of a roadway or drainage channel must be covered with tarps or suitable alternative control, if exposed for more than seven days, and the storm drain inlets must be protected with straw bale or other appropriate filtering barriers. G. Storm Water Management Criteria for Permanent Facilities. 1. An applicant shall install or construct, on or for the proposed land disturbing or development activity, all storm water management facilities necessary to manage increased runoff so that the two-year, ten-year, and 100-year storm peak discharge rates existing before the proposed development shall not be increased and accelerated channel erosion will not occur as a result of the proposed land disturbing or development activity. An applicant may also make an in-kind or monetary contribution to the development and maintenance of community storm water management facilities designed to serve multiple land disturbing and development activities undertaken by one or more persons, including the applicant, at the discretion of the City Council. . The applicant shall give consideration to reducing the need for storm water management facilities by incorporating the use of natural topography and land cover such as wetlands, ponds, natural swales and depressions as they exist before development to the degree that they can accommodate the additional flow of water without compromising the integrity or quality of the wetland or pond. 3 . The following storm water management practices shall be investigated in developing a storm water management plan in the following descending order of preference: a.Natural infiltration precipitation on-site; b Flow attenuation by use of open vegetated swales and natural depressions; c.storm water facilities; and d.Storm water detent ion facilities. 4 . A combination of successive practices may be used to achieve the applicable minimum control requirement specified in subsection 1 above. Justification shall be provided by the applicant for the method selected. H. Design Standards. Storm water detention facilities constructed in the City of Orono shall be designed according to the most current technology as reflected in the MPCA publication "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas", and shall contain, at a minimum, the following design factors: 1. Permanent pond surface equal to 2 percent of the impervious area draining to the pond or 1 percent of the entire area draining to the pond, whichever amount .is greater; four to ten feet; 2. An average permanent pool depth of 3. As an alternative to items 1 and 2 above, the volume of the permanent pool shall be equal to or greater than the runoff from a 2.0 inch rainfall for the fully developed site. 4. A permanent pool length-to-width ratio of 3:1 or greater; 5. A minimum protective shelf extending ten feet into the permanent pool with a slope of 10:1, beyond which slopes should not exceed 3:1; 6. A protective buffer strip of vegetation surrounding the permanent pool at a minimum width of one rod (16.5 feet). 7. All storm water detention facilities shall have a device to keep oil, grease, and other floatable materials from moving downstream as a result of normal operations; 8. stormwater detention facilities for new development must be sufficient to limit peak flows in each subwatershed to those that existed before the development for the ten-year storm event. All calculations and hydrologic models/information used in determining peak flows shall be submitted along with the storm water management plan; A I „ ^ ^ , ?• All storm water detention facilities must have a forebay to remove coarse-grained particles prior to discharge into a watercourse or storage basin.I. Wetlands,. 1* Runoff shall not be discharged directly into wetlands without presettlement of the runoff.^ , 2. A protective buffer strip of natural vegetation at least 26' in width shall surround all wetlands. 3. Wetlands must not be drained or rilled, wholly or partially, unless replaced by restoring or creating wetland areas of at least equal public value. Replacement must be guided by the following principles in descending order of priority: . _ Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity that may destroy or diminish the wetland; .... , fc>. Minimizing the impact by limiting tn6 dcgirs© or magnitud© of th6 wotland activity and its implementation; c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland environment; ■d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the activity; and s. Compensating for the impact by ^splacing or providing substitute wetland resources or environments. 4. Wetland alterations shall be in accordance with the additional requirements of Section 10.55. J. Steep Slopes. No land disturbing or development activities shall be allowed on slopes of 18 percent or more. K. Catch Basins. All newly installed and rehabilitated catch basins shall be provided with a sump area for the collection of coarse-grained material. Such basins shall be cleaned when they are half filled with material. L. Drain Leaders. All newly constructed and reconstructed buildings will route drain leaders to pervious areas wherein the runoff can be allowed to infiltrate. The flow rate of water exiting the leaders shall be controlled so no erosion occurs in the pervious areas. IfTsr M. Inspection and Maintenance. All storm water management faci'Iities shall be designed to minimize the need of maintenance, to provide access for maintenance purposes and to be structurally sound. All stormwater management facilities shall have a plan of operation and maintenance that assures continued effective removal of pollutants carried in storm water runoff. The Director of Public Works, or designated representative, shall inspect all storm water management facilities during construction, during the first year of operation, and at least once every years thereafter. The inspection records will be kept on file at the Public Works Department for a period of six years. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain any necessary easements or other property interests to allow access to the storm water management facilities for inspection and maintenance purposes. N. Models/Methodologies/Computations. Hydrologic models and design methodologies used for the determination of runoff and analysis of storm water management structures shall be approved by the City Engineer. Plans, specification and computations for storm water management facilities submitted for review shall be sealed and signed by a j^0qistered professional engineer. All computations sha appear on the plans submitted for review, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. O. Watershed Management Plans/Groundwater Management Plans. Stormwater management plans shall be consistent with adopted watershed management plans and qroundwater management plans prepared in accordance wit Minnesota Statutes Section 103B.231 and 103B.255 respectively, and as approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources in accordance with state law. p. Easements. If a storm water management plan involves direction of some or all runoff off of the site, it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain adjacent property owners any necessary easements or other property interests concerning flowage of water. Subd. 9. Lawn Fertilizer Regulations. A. Use of Impervious Surfaces. No person shall apply fertilizer to or deposit grass clippings, leaves, or other vegetative materials on impervious surfaces, or within storm water drainage systems, natural drainageways, lakes, wetlands, or within wetland buffer areas. B, Unimproved Land Areas. Except for driveways, sidewalks, patios, areas occupied by structures or areas which have been improved by landscaping, all areas shall be covered by plants or vegetative growth. u L C. Fertilizer Content. Except for the first growing season for newly established turf areas, no person shall apply liquid fertilizer which contains more than one- half percent by weight of phosphorus, or granular fertilizer which contains more than three percent by weight of phosphorus, unless the single application is less than or equal to one-tenth pound of phosphorus per 1,000 square feet. Annual application amount shall not exceed one-half pound of phosphorus per 1,000 square feet of lawn area.D. Buffer Zone. Fertilizer application shall not be made within one rod (16.5 feet) of any wetland or water resource. Subd. 10. Penalty. Any violation of the provisions of this ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined by law. Subd. 11. Other Controls. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this ordinance and the provisions of an erosion control or shoreland protection ordinance adopted by the City Council, the more restrictive standard prevails. Subd. 12. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. Sactlon 2. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER and shall become effective immediately upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota this _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 1993. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor METROPOLITAN COUNCILMean Park Centre, 230 Exist Fifth Street, St. Paul, AAV 55101-1634 612 291-6359 F.i.\ 612 191-6550-s^ TTY 612 291-0904"A\Vu-April 28,1993 Michael Gaffron Assistant Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: City of Orono Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review Comprehensive Sewer Plan Update Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 14023-4 Dear Mr. Gaffron: At its meeting on April 22, 1993, the Metropolitan Council considered the city of Orono’s comprehensive plan amendment. This consideration was based on a report of the Committee of the Whole. A copy of this report is attached. The Cbuncil approved the following recommendations contained in the above report: 1. That the Metropolitan Council adopt the findings and the staff report as part of these recommendations. 2. That the Metropolitan 0>A^ns;.I inform the city of Orono that it may adept the amendment and no plan modificatior a fCijuired. 3. 4. That the Metropolitan Council inform the city of Orono that its rural service area policies and land use controls qualify the city as an exception to the Council’s Rural Service Area policies. lhat the Metropolitan Council recommend that the city of Orono to complete its 1981 HI Analysis update, establish an inspection program to eliminate illegal clear water connections, and prepare and submit annual progress reports to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the Metropolitan Cbuncil of actions taken to solve infiltration and inflow problems in the munidpal sanitary sewer system. Recycled Paper Michael Gaffron April 28, 1993 Page 2 5. That the Metropolitan Council inform the city of Orono that as part of iu next comprehensive plan amendment it mus. adopt the Metropolitan Council s Intenm Strategy to Reduce Nonpoint Pollution to All Metropolitan Water Bodies. Sincerely, Dottie Rietow Chair DR:lv Attachment cc: Ronald Morse, Administrator, City of Orono Donald Bluhm, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Steven Schwanke, Metropolitan Council Staff ft * AAA A r n'f 0^ ^ ^ ^ tv.in '•'•,’ t1 I *i • j j.. ! Jrl.^ METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ^„,„,x,<„ m ^r^ii-omih m P.,,k C,m,. :.<0 E^,i r,f.l. Sum. S>. Paul. SIX S.UOM-U 6U Sil-ilSt Fl\ S„ .91 s. . (I mw.-v/uvu »w DEC 2 '1992 November 30, 1992 Dear Local Government OfEcial: On October 22, 1992, the MetropoUtan CouncU adopted an -interim strategy* to reduce nonp^nt source pollution loadings to the reg-cn’s surface waters. A copy of the strategy is enclosed Counc/has also developed a model ordinance to assist local governments m implementing the strategy. A copy of the ordinance is also enclosed. A Dlanneis’ forum sponsored by the CouncU is scheduled for 9:lH) a.m. on Tu«day, Decernl^r 15, 1992, in the CouocU^ambers at 230 E. 5th Sl . SL Paul The forum is designed to d^ss the strategy and model ordinance. We are asking that you mvite the responsible for preparing or developing your local land use controls to participate in this event Earlier this year the Council developed an interim strategy to control the quality of stonnwater runoff in the Minnesota River basin in response to a directive by the EPA and the MPCA to reduM nonpoint source pollution in the rive, by 40 percent by 1996. At the public he Coutc U to discuss the proposed strategy a number of meeting participants recommended tha. th interim strategy be applied throughout the region to protect other nvers, streams and lak«. In response to t^ sugg«tion, the CouncU held another series of pubUc meetings and adopted the interim strategy for the remainder of the region on October 22. poUution. First, the Council asks that local governments adopt design standards for nw stormwater ponds that reduce the contaminant loadings from surface water runo One set of design criteria that is widely acrepted is from the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) developed by the USEPA. As a second step, local governments should include in their stormwater pl^ the MPCA’s urban "best management practices" (BMPs), titled Protecting Water QtmUty In Urban Areas or an equivalent set of standards. These standards are to be used for aU new and redevelop^ land development. (Section 4.1 of the document contains design criteria for stormwater ponds that wUl satisfy the requirements under item one above.) 1 i r )vb4MB0|B®LlTAN COUNCIL or -’91-6359 fax 6i: 29i-6S50 tty 6i: 29i o9o-t g^/2i« Park Centre. 2 Ernt Ftfilt Street, St. Pml. A/A 5>!0N634 01. -V/ OJjy The enclosed model ordinance is a suggested method of incorporating one and two above in a local land use ordinance. This ordinance should be tailored to Ot within existing ordinances and local regulatory procedures. It is not intended that local governments adop the ordinance as is. implement the shoreland regulations. n,e interim strategy to reduce nonpoint source poilution will take effect on ' that date, the Metropolitan Council will require modifications of those comptenensive plans th not include the three measures described above. and other governmental units remain actively involved in creating long :erm solutions that reduce the negative impacts of nonpoint source pollution. Please contact Jack Frost at 291,6519 or Carl Schenk at 291^6410 if you have any questions about the Council’s nonpoint source pollution reduction strategy or the planners forum. I hope your local government will be represented at the planners ’ forum on December 15. Sincerely, Dottie Rietow Chair cc:Metropolitan Council Members i I INTERIM STRATEGY TO REDUCE NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION TO ALL METROPOLITAN WATER BODIES Nov. 1, 1992 Jack Frost Steven Schwanke Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre, 230 E. Fifth St, St. Paul, MN 55101 Publication No. 640-92-117 ■I I ..3 i WATER QUALITY IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION TO ALL METROPOLITAN WATERS Summary of The Policy Issue In 1990 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Minnesota Pollution^ntrol Agency (MPCA) agreed on a goal to reduce nonpoint source pollution in the Minnesota River by 40 percent from pre-1980 levels. The two agencies have set 1996 as the target date to achieve this goat To accomplish this goal, current land development and agricultural practices must be altered to restrict nonpoint source pollutants from entering area water Ixxlies. While the Minnesota River may be an acute case of water quality degradation due to nonpoint source pollution all water bodies in the seven county area are impacted to some degree by human activities in both urban and rural areas. The Mississippi River, especially in the Spring Lake and Uke Pepin area, is severally impacted by excessive algal growth. A major inter-state and federal study is currently being conducted to identify the causes of the excessive algal growth. However, it is known that nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, from whatever source are the prime cause of excessive algal growth. Both the Slate of Wisconsin and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are attempting to get the MPCA to impoM phosphorus limits on the Metropolitan Plant in St. Paul as a means to reduce the algal growth. If phosphorus limit, are imposed on the Metropolitan Plant this could result in capital expenditures of 580 to 360 million. Since phosphorus is found in surface water runoff it may be more Mst effective to control nonpoint sources of runoff and have a more beneficial impact on the river than by controlling point sources of phosphorus. To address the acute problems on the Minnesota River, the Council developed an interim strategy for communities in the Minnesota River basin. This strategy incorporated basic water quality management practices that will improve the water quality of the area water bodies. During the public participation process in developing these strategies, it became clear that these same interim strategies were appropriate for all local governments in the seven county area. A consistent and equitable policy is established to apply these strategies metro-wide. The Problem The Metropolitan Council has cocumented an increase of nonpoint source pollution to area water bodies. These added pollutants reduce the recreational value and accelerate the eutrophication of area water bodies. The increase of nonpoint source pollutants to area water bodies can be traced to two primary sources: land development and agriculture practices. Land development or urbanization, generally increases both the volume of runoff as well as the concentration of pollutants in the runoff. This happens with the conversion of lard to hard surfaces and by the destruction of wetlands. Detention ponds or artificial depressions can help mitigate these impacts. The best designed ponds, however, will not reduce the increased volume of runoff following urbanization nor will they totally remove the additional polluian's following urbanization. An increase in runoff volum.;, total phosphorus and other pollutants are the results of urban development. erosion; agriculture supplements such as nutrients, pesticides and her ici an anima wm products. Each of these sources fill area water bodies smothering aquatic life, chanp the aquatic environment by limiting light penetration of the water, and result in the transmission of toxins to area water bodies. The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is fortunate to have an abundance of lakes and nyere. Th^ water bodies provide the area with recreational, aesthetic and educat.onal benefits en^ed by other parts of the United States. Preservation of these water bodies and the associated wildlife habitat is a major component of the CouncU ’s planning framework. Measures to preserve and enhan^ he environment can be found in all of the Council ’s major system and policy plans. Policy 7 of the MDIF states that the Metropolitan Council: suppom the maintenance of environmental quality throughout the region and vnU support programs or strategies to maintain or improve the natural environment (page 16). Reducing nonpoint source pollution to area water bodies has a number of positive outcome. Reduced nonpoint source pollution has an overall positive effect on the environment, impro^the water quality in lakes, wetlands and floodplains and allows for fishable and swimable water bodies. Water resource management has historically focused on point sources such as wastewater treatment plants and industrial facilities. Efforts to reduce pollution from point sources has been effective. Nonpoint source pollution abatement is the next challenge that must be addressed to ensure that water bodies in this metropolitan area are protected. Existing Legislative and Policy Structure For Addressing the Nonpoint Source Pollution Problem The Minnesota Legislature Two pieces of legislation have been passed in the last decade thaf set a framework for addressing the nonpoint source pollution issue. However, it will take several years to put this framework m place and will require local governments to extensively revise their surface water management plans and activities. Watershed planning legislation In 1982 legislation was passed requiring Watershed Management Organizations (WMO) to prepare watershed plans that addressed water quality issues. Under this legislation each WMO is to prepare a plan that states objectives and policies for water quality and identifies alternatives for improving water quality and methods of implementation. These plans are to be reviewed by the Metropolitan Cbuncil "in the same manner and with the same authority and effect as provided for the council s review of the comprehensive plans of local government units" (Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.231 subd. 8 (1990)). The Council is required to determine whether the watershed plan conforms with the management objectives and target pollution loads stated in the CouncU ’s water resources plan prepared pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 473.157. Local government planning As a part of the WMO planning process described under Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.201, each local government will be required to prepare a local water management plan, capital improvement program and official controls necessary to implement the watershed plan. As part of the local water management plan, the local government will need to define water quantity and quality protection methods adequate to meet performance standards established in the watershed plan. Local governments will also be required to amend their local comprehensive plans to reflect the contents of the watershed plan. Local governments will have two years to amend their comprehensive plans from the time the WMO planning process is complete. Under rules currently proposed by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), WMOs have until 1995 to complete their plans. The earliest local governments are required to revise their comprehensive plans is 1997. It could take several years beyond 1*>97 to implement local government plans. The second piece of legislation is Minnesota Statutes, section 473.157, that requires the Metropolitan Cbuncil to prepare a water resources plan that includes management objectives and target pollution loads for watersheds in the metropolitan area. From this plan WMOs will advise local governments of their target pollution loads. Local governments will revise their stormwater management plans to include implementation steps that assure the target pollution loads are met The Metropolitan Council has set as a priority developing the target pollution loads for watersheds tributary to the Minnesota River. This is a priority because of the urgency to meet the EPA/MPCA reduction goal of 40 percent by 1996. Target pollution loads for Bevens, Carver, Chaska and Sand Creek watersheds will be developed by 1992. Pollution loads for other watersheds in the Minnesota River Basin will be developed by rn:a-1993. The Council will also be actively pursuing the development of target pollution loads for all watersheds in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The Minne^ta Pollution Control Agency In accordance with the Clean Water Act, Section 319, the MPCA is charged with developing a state* Wide strategy for addressing nonpoint pollution. This plan is a four year plan developed in 1990 and is periodically updated as new information becomes available. This strategy both targets and prioritizes problem areas and develops a management plan for addressing these problem areas. The management plan looks at both a voluntary and a regulatory approach to addressing problems. The state plan is also required to develop various approaches to funding problem solutioru from federal state and local sources. The Board of Water and Soil Resources The Board of Water and Soil Resources is the primary state agency responsible for surface water plaiming and is the lead agency responsible for carrying out many of the administrative aspects of the recently passed Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, better known as the "no-net loss" legislation. The act provides landowners with three options for preserving or enhancing wetlands: the wetland preservation areas option; the permanent wetland preserves option; and the wetland establishment and restoration program. If a land use practice requires the taking of a protected wetland the legislation requires a 1:1 and a 2:1 mitigation of wetlands in rural and urban areas respectively. IL Wetlands perform essential hydrologic and water quality functions such as lowenng ot flood peaks, providing interchange between surface water and groundwater, and filtenng and absorbing pollutants. Beca..sc of these functions, wetlands are critical for reducing nonpomt source pollution to area lakes and rivers. The Metropolitan Council In September, 1988 the Metropolitan Council adopted its Water Resources Management Wastewtuer Treatment and Handling Policy Plan (hereafter the policy plan). Local governments were notified of the poUcy plan contents in the April, 1989 systems statement and pursuant to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, had nine months to amend their comprehensive plans. The need to reduce nonpoint source pollution, to especially the Minnesota River Basin, through regulating and development is well documented in the Council ’s policy plan. However, because of the potential that nonpoint pollution may impact MWCC wastewater treatment plants effluent limits in the future the Council adopted Policy M of the Council ’s Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan which states: [TTtreatment levels required for wastewater treatment plants in the metropolitan system should clearly recognize the need to control both point and nonpoint sources of pollution from within and outside the Metropolitan Area (p. 9). Council has actively pursued the implementation of its policy to reduce nonpoint source pollution to area water bodies. The Council ’s policy plan outlines the responsibilities for implementing policy 1-1. These include, but are not limited to: 1. working with watershed management organizations (WMOs) and the MPCA on monitoring and managing nonpoint source pollution programs; and. evaluating the efforts of WMOs and local governments to control nonpoint source pollution and their impact on river water quality and effects on treatment plant effluent limits, (p. 10) The Council has also used ite authority under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976 to reviw and comment on comprehensive plan amendments and environmental reviews to implement its policy ___I.. •_____rnmnn#»nf< fnCtlSCd OH thC flCCd tOon reducing nonpoint source pollution. These comments have generally focused on the need to reduce nonpoint source pollution and the possible tools that may be used to accomplish this task. In addition to policy 1-1 of the Council ’s Water Resources Management Plan, Part 1, the Council has two other policies addressing the environmental effects of nonpoint source pollution and water quality. The Council ’s Water Resources Management Plan, Part 3 states in policy 3-4 that: The Council, through its numerous review and approval authorities, will preserve all protected and unprotected natural watercourses — including associated wetlands, channels, floodplains and shorelands — to enhance water quantity and quality and to preserve their ecological functions (page 3-26); w Policy 3-6 of the same policy plan slates:. action that threatens the viability of the water and related rcsou.ee will be negatively reviewed (page 3-30). Proposed Interim Strategy An interim strategy is needed to address both the nonpoint sourw pollution issue and to implement the Council ’s policy 1-1 of the Wastewater Treatment end Handling Policy Plan, Part 1, policies 3-4 and 3-6 of the Council ’s Water Resources Management Plan, Part 3. nic Council is committed to working with'WMOs and local g^emments through the planning process outlined in Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.201. The Council also recognizes its responsibility to prepare and adopt a water resources plan that includes management objectives and larMt pollution loads for watersheds in the metropolitan area pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 473.157. In order to prepare the plan the Council had to prioritize its work schedule. Since the Minnesota River has been identified as having an acute problem with nonpoint source pollution this area will be addressed first and form the framework for dealing with nonpoint source pollution on a metropolitan wide basis. It will uke several years for the Council, WMOs and local governments to prepare and implement the above referenced plans. In the interim, steps should be taken that allows local governments and WMOs to take immediate action to reduce the adverse impacu of nonpoint source pollution on area water bodies. As part of their planning efforts, local governments will need to adopt measures that implement nonpoint source pollution reduction strategies. Local governments will need to amend exbtine Capital Improvement Plans and local regulations to ensure the financing and long-term management and maintenance of ponds and wetlands receiving stormwater runoff. The Metropolitan Council recognizes that implementation is an important Issue for local government and for the long­ term effectiveness of any effort to reduce nonpoint source poUu ‘ion. This interim strategy is a minimum that the Council will accept as part of any local government comprehensive plan. It should be recognized by local governments that more comprehensive revisions to stormwater plans may be required once the Council and WMOs complete their planning under Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.201 and 473.157 in order to meet water quality goals. 1. Local governments throughout the jnetropolitan area must adopt design standards for new stormwater ponds that will reduce the contaminant loadings from surface water runoff. One set of design criteria that is widely accepted is from the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP). Appendix A is attached and describes NURP deigned pond performance standards. Thee criteria, or similar specifications which are equally effective, should be incorporated in the stormwater plan of every local government in the metropolitan area. At the present time, this policy doe not direct the retrofitting of existing stormwater ponds. 2. Local governments in the metropolitan area must also include in their stormwater plae the MPCA’s urban "bet management practice," titled Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas or an equivalent set of standards. These standards are to be used for /• » 3. 4; 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. all new or redeveloped land development These local governments must also notify their residents of ways to implement Tnat management practices" and available resources, if additional information is needed. All local governments in the metropolitan area must adopt the Department of Natural Resource shoreland regulations as found in the Statewide Standards For Management Of Shoreland Areas as prescribed by the timeline in (Minnesota Regulations Parts 6120 2500 • 6120.3900) and consistent with the DNR’s implementation strategy. Local governments should work with the DNR to dete::nine the most effective way to implement the DNR’s shoreland regulations. All local governments in the metropoUtan area must adopt as part of their comprehensive plans and official controls the measures described m iteim 1 and 2 by January 1, 1993. Each local government should notify the affected Watershed Management Organizations of its intentions to comply with items 1 and 2. After January 1, 1993, the Council may require modification of plan amendments that involve land use activities that would generate surface water runoff, unless the l^al government has adopted the interim measures described in items 1 through 3. ^e Council will not require a plan modification regarding nonpoint source pollution if a local government has adopted '^URP standards and MPCA’s "best management practices" by January 1, 1993 and is following the DNR s shoreland regulation implementation strategy. The Metropolitan Council will continue to develop target pollution loads for all watersheds in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The Assodation of Metropolitan Municipalities will advise its member cities of the urgent need to implement runoff and land management practice that improve the quality of direct and indirect runoff discharges to ar#ra water bodies. The Metropolitan Council and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities will work with State of Minnesota agencies to reduce nonpoint source pollution to area water bodies in Greater Minnesota. The Metropolitan Cbuncil and the .Association of Metropolitan Municipalities will monitor the effectiveness of the above-mentioned interim steps to address the nonpoint source pollution problem in the metropolitan area. ORDINANCE NO. ) S6f(Z,lCr-^ lhTS^\ v*\ grnPM WATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE FROMOTO^ICrrm: HEALTH. GATm' AN^ ■OENErotL v^Txr/«JiD-eF Tin: cijtgfisig ‘MINI^OTA, BY-AMEND" c O' QRDINAN €BC p^'^ -5^ ADOPTING NEW SECTIONS REQUIRING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. Vs) /0,S*7 * ^uJoA 1. STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION This ordinance is adopted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section^2351.fw tiiiui and tuwm, 3?|<.21 for oountita^ hn'rinfi n nf lt»M thw» lOO QQQ aeeor dmg to the'1950 Lemuel % -»P . 2. FINDINGS Th#.^r;fy riiinitji Twh] hereby finds that uncontrolled and inadequately planned of wetlands, woodlands, natural habitat areas, areas subject to soil erosion and areas containing restrictive soils adversely affects the public health, safety and general welfare by impacting water quality and contributing to other environmental problems, creating nuisarices, impairing other beneficial uses of environmental resources and hindering the ability of the^City,'Coun^iTj0wi*fof to orovide adequate water, sewage, flood control, and other community services. Iri addition, extraordinary public expenditures may be required for the protection of persons and property in such areas and in areas which may be affected by unplanned land usage. SM 3. PURPOSE The purpose of this ordinance is to promote, preserve and enhance the natural resources within the unity Tnuaij,of /Orrs»^ and protect them from adverse effects occasioned by poorly sited development or incompatible activities by regulating land disturbing or development activities that would have an adverse and potentially irreversible impact on water quality and unique and fragile environmentally sensitive land; by minimizing conflicts and encouraging compatibility between land disturbing and development activities and water quality and environmentally sensitive lands; and by requiring detailed review standards and procedures for land disturbing or development activities proposed for such areas, thereby achieving a balance between urban growth and development and orotection of water quality and natural areas. n AS 4. DEHNinONS For the nunx)S«\)f this ordinanc e, ihe following terms, phras es, words, and their denvatives shall • 1 ... La mm — ------------------------—aM #1*^ tor inC purposes UUS swiniaj, ------— haveJhe meanineAtated below, ^en not inBonsnter*. >vith the context, words used in the presen _ a a • I 1 * • • t _ .1 - _•_______I-.—)luf^num inbcrNrh Vense include the future tense, words in the plu^number include the singular number, and words merely directive. 4.1 Applicant . Any person who wishes to obtain a building permit, zoning or subdivision approval roprml measure . A practice or combination of practices to control erosion and attendant ‘/f’- pollution. Detention facility . A permanent natural or man-made structure, including wetlands, for the temporary storage of runoff which contains a permanent pool of water. 4.4 FIcxxi fringe. The portion of the floodplain outside of the floodway. s • 6^ 4.7 5^ 4.8 4.9 1 4.10 4.12 4.13 Oj 4.14 /£) 4.16 ajo (i(NJ >0- ITS Floodplain. The areas adjoining a watercourse or water basin that have been or may be o '' covered by a regional flood. Floodwav. The channel of the watercourse, t^eted of water basi^ and those-ponitinsjjf ^ the adjoining floodplains ‘.hat are reasonably required to carry and'Hischarge^oodwater an^ ' (I^^^de water stor^^ during a regional flo^. ^ Hvdric soils. Soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing ^ season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. ' HvdroDhvtic vegetation. Macrophytic plant life growing in water, soil or on a substrate that VrS is at least periodically defleient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content Land disturbing or development activities. Any change of the land surface including removing vegetative cover, excavating, filling, grading, and the construction of any structure. Person. Any individual, firm, corporation, partnership, franchisee, association or governmental entity. 4.11 Public waters. Waters of the slate as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.005, subdivision 15. Reponal flood. A flood that is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in the state and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an /o.-c^ average frequency in the magnitude of a 100-year recurrence interval " Retention facility. A permanent natural or man made structure that provides for the storage of storm water runoff by means of a perma.nent pool of water. \ ru«<- Sediment. Solid matter carried by water, sewage, or other liquids. Structure. Anything manufactured, constructed or erected which is normally attached to or positioned on land, including portable structures, earthen structures, roads, parking lots, and ' paved storage areas. / Wetlands. Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table fiuT' is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this definition, wetlands must have the following three attributes: a) Have a predominance of hydric soils; •>>. ) b) Are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions; and c) Under normal circumstances support a prevalence of such vegetation. [COMMENTARY: Many of the aboveHef^^oifr^re derived from state law. A local goverrtment should insure that the defviitioru^^fff^^l^ consistent with definitions in the local zoning code.] 5. SCOPE AND EFFECT si A , Applicability. Every applicant for a building permit, subdivision approval, or a permit to allow ^ ’ land disturbing activities must submit a storm water management plan to the (pteoning •da^irtmonl; rirpurliiirnt ^wmiwuwity riawalnpiwenti zoning administrator^ No building permit, subdivision approval, or permit to allow land disturbing activities shall be issued until approval of the storm water management plan or a waiver of th^pproyal requirernent has been obtained in strict conformance with the provisions of this tfftffnSnce. The provisions of SJl^. section 9 of this apply to all land, public or private, located within the [City, ^Pewa— ■€uuiily] of Exemptions. The provisions of this ordinance do not apply to: A) Any part of a subdivision if ^lat for the subdivision has been approved by thef City Council jCtfuiit) Doaul, Tuwii Dean^^on or l>efore the effective date of this ordinance; jfv\; Is. Any land disturbing activity for which plans have been approved by the watershed tjijnjgffnrrri nrginiTP*i"" within six months prior to the effective date of this ordinance; ^ A lot for which a building permit has been approwd- on or before the effective date of this ordinance; If) Installation of fence, sign, telephone, and electric poles and other kinds of posts or poles; or Emergency work to protect life, limb, or property. 9 Waiver. The4[City Council, :R)wii Duanh, County Doard^ upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, may waive any requirement of this ordinance upon making a finding that compliance with the requirement will involve an unnecessary hardship and the waiver of such requirement will not adversely affect the standards and requirements xt forth in SeatioB S 6. ThefCity Council, ?own Doardt County Beard) may require as a condition of the waiver, such dedication or construction, or agreement to dedicate or construct as may be necessary to adequately meet said standards and requirements. • 6. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVAL PROCEDURES /{ , Application. A written application for storm water management plan approval, along with the proposed storm water management plan, shall be filed with the .fplanning department, dapoftmewt uf ujimiiuuitji dLiUopiweiUy zoning administratorjfand shall include a statement indicating the grounds upon which the approval is requested, that the proposed use is permitted by right or as an exception in the underlying zoning district, and adequate evidence---- showing that the proposed use will conform to the standards set forth in this ordinance.* Pnor p X to applying for approval of a storm water management plan, an applicant may have the stora . water management plans reviewed by the appropriate departments of thej^ity. county]. Two sets of clearly legible blue or black lined copies of dravdngs and requ:red information shall be submitted to the [planning dapuitiiieiii, depiU lllieiu uf uammuiuiy .a U. zoning administratoifi and rhalt- ba jrrnmpawiad by a rrrri| p lumumueiliaf unit's chief finanoial ufficar] uiduiLhig tin, pujiiicut ef all ragutrad fa— r processing and approval as set forth ii^eetien 7i5i and a bond when required by Giction 7. .u. r.Lr.-LUUxj in ihe amount to be calculated in accordance with that section. Drawngs shall be prepared to a scale appropriate to the site Of the project and suitable for the review to be performed. At a minimum the scale shall be 1 inch equals 100 feet p Stnrm water management plan . At a minimum, the storm water management plan shall contain the following information. /« a) d: 3) k Fxisting site map , A map of existing site conditions showing the site and immediately adjacent areas, including: TTie name and address of the applicant, the section, township and range, north point, date and scale of drawing and number of sheets; Location of the tract by an insert map at a scale sufficient to clearly identify the location of the property and giving such information as the names and numbers of adjoining roads, railrr .ds, utilities, subdivisions, towns and districts or other landmarks; Existing topography with a contour interval appropriate to the topography of the land but in no case having a contour interval greater than 2 feet; A delineation of all streams, riven, public waters and wetlands located on and immediately adjacent to the site, including depth of water, a description of all vegetation which may be found in the water, a statement of general v .iter quality and any classification given to the water body or wetland by Minnesota Departnenl of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and/or the United States Army Corps of Engineers; Location and dimensions of existing storm water drainage systems and natural drainage patterns on and immediately adjacent to the site delineating in which direction and at what rate storm water is conveyed from the site, identifying the receiving stream, river, public water, or wetland, and setting forth those areas of the unaltered site where storm w'ater collects; A description of the soils of the site, including a map indicaf.‘n| soil types of areas to be disturbed as well as a so*! report containing ii.i 3rmation on the suitability of the soils for the type of development proposed and for the type of sewage disposal proposed and describing any remedial steps to be taken by the developer to render the soils suitable; Vegetative cover and clearly delineating any vegetation proposed for removal; and ) 100 year floodplains, floou fringes and noodwa}^. Site q)nstruction plan . A site construction plan including: Cl)Locations and dimensions of all proposed land disturbing activities and any phasing of those activities; Locations and dimensions of temporary soil or dirt stockpiles; Locations and dimensions of all constructions site erosion control measures necessary to meet the requirements of this ordinance; Schedul?: of anticipated starting and completion date of each land disturbing activity including the installation of construction site erosion control measures needed to meei ihe requirements of this ordinance; and Provisions for maintenance of the construction site erosion control measures during construction. 3 Plan of final site conditions. A plan of final site conditions on the same .>cale as the existing site map showing the site changes including: Hnished grading shoum at contours at the same interval as provided above or as ri’.quired to clearly indicate the relationship of ..posed changes to existing topography and remaining features; A landscape plan, drawn to an appropriate scale, including dimensions and distances and the location, type, size and description of all proposed landscape materials which will be added to the site as part of the development; A drainage plan of the developed site delineating in which direction and at what rate storm water will be conveyed from the site and setting for.h the areas of the site where storm water will be allowed to collect; oj) The proposed size, alignment and intended use of any structures to be erected on the site; es) & A clear delineation and tabulation of ail areas which shall be paved or surfaced, including a descripMon of the surfacing material to be used; and ) Any other information pertinent to the particular project which in the opinion of the applicant is necessary for the review of the project. 7. PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURE S jfkN-«Process. Storm water management plans meeting the requirements of Section 6 shall be submitted by the .{planning department, depailHiuU of coiminmity doMalepnieiit> zoning administrator^to the Planning Commission for review in accordance with the standaixb of 8. The Commission shall recommend approval, recommend approval wth conditions, or recommend denial of the storm water management plan. Following Planning Commission action, the storm water management plan shall be submitted to the jfCity Council^Town jBomJ, Cumitjf Duatil) at its next available meeting. -iCity Council, Town- Doaidi Coi Bonrdj^ action on the storm water management plan must be accomplished within 120 days following the date the application for approval is filed with dcpirtment nf mmniuiMjf derdopmeHti zoning administratorjl [COMMENTARY: The process outlined in Section 7.1 can be modtf^ to be consistent with the regulatory process of the particular local government unit example, one local government may have a particular department which reviews landMx regulatory matters except the final decision to approve or deny a land use plan ohpermii^wluch it reserved for the governing body of tne local government unit Another local ge^fernrnerttal unit may provide the department wlich reviens land use regulatory matterywith full^authority to take final action on the ap'jlication. Other local governments mdy use a hybrukpwess where some permits are acted upon by the appropriate regulatory^partment while othe^hnd use matters are left to the goverrung body for final approvdCj 5k2b Duration. Approval of a plan submitted under the provisions of this ordinance shall expire ' cSo c. one year after the date of approval unless construction has commenced in accordance v-ith the plan Ho>vever. if prior to the expiration of the approval, the applicant makes a written request to the -{planning depwlmuit. dLpjHiiient o f eonmiuniiy ULietopinmt, zoning administratorifor an extension of lime to commence construction setting forth the reasons for the requested extension, the planning department may grant one extension of not greater than one single year. Receipt of any request for an extension shall be acknowledged by the I . ......irnnrtmrr* HAnart gimt rf ""^inmunitj dnTlnpmrnt. zoning administratorj^vithin days zoning adminSratorlshaTl in^cl decision on the extension within 30 days of receipt Any plan may be revised in the same manner as originally approved. Conditions. A storm water management plan may be approved subject to compliance with conditions' reasonable and necessary to insure that the requirements contained in this ordinance are met Such conditions may, among other matters, limit the size, kind or character of the proposed development require the construction of structures, drainage fadlities storage basins and other facilities, require replacement of vegetation, establish required’ monitoring procedures, stage the work over time^reqmre altwation of th^site design to insure buffering, and require the conveyance to the [City, Town, Qsunty) of or other public entity of certain lands or interests therein. Performance bond . Prior to approval of any storm water management plan, the applicant shall submit an agreement to construct such required physical improvements, to dedicate property or easements, or to comply with such conditions as may have been agreed to. Such agreement shall be accompanied b> a bond to cover the amount of the established cost of complying with the agreement. The agreement and bond shall guarantee completion and compliance with conditions within a specific time, which time may be extended in accordance with SeCfhni 7.2. The adequacy, conditions and acceptability of any agreement and bond shall be determined by the r>rr>l^ 4City Council, Teiin^ar d, Co unty -Boof d] o r any of ficial of the [City, Touti. County] nf as may be designated by resolution of the [City Council^ T\iWTrfio3Trfr'€ounty a APPROVAL STANDARDS - HAV^ ^ t No storm water management plan which fails to meet the standards contained in this section shall be approved by ihe^City Council, Town Doard, County Board), • [COMMENTARY: Sections 8.2 through S^Hare an^xtimple of how best management practice for handling storm water runoff and design duf^for detention ponds can be included wuhm an ordinance. Additional best managemeptpaCti^s and design criteria can be found tn the MPCA publication 'Protecting Water Qemity in Urdan Areas.' Site dewatering. Water pumped from the site shall be treated by temporary sedimentation ^' basins, grit chambers, sand filten, upfiow chambers, hydro-cyclones, swirl concentrators or other appropriate controls as appropriate. Water may not be discharged in a manner that causes erosion or flooding of the site or receiving channels or a wetland. Waste and material disposal . All waste and umrsed bunding materials (including garbage, debris, cleaning wastes, wastewater, toxic materials or hazardous materials) shall be proper y disposed of off-site and not allowed to be carried by runoff into a receiving channel or storm sewer system. • Trackine. Each site shall have graveled roads, access drives and parking areas of sufficient vwidlh and length to prevent sednaent from being tracked onto public or private roadwa>-s. Any sediment reaching a public or private road shall be removed by street cleaning (not flushing) before the end of each workday. Hrain inlet orotection. All storm drain inlets shall be protected during corutruction until ^ ■ control measures are in place with a straw bale, silt fence or equivalent barrier meeting accepted design criteria, standards and specifications contained in the MPCA publication "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas. .Site ercsiun control . The following criteria (a. through d.) apply only to construciiou activities that result in runoff leaving the cite. k) Channelized runoff from adjacent areas passing through the site shall be diverted around disturbed areas, if practical. Otherwise, the channel shall be protected as described bdaw. Sheetfiow runoff from adjacent areas greater than 10,000 square feet in area shall also be diverted around disturbed areas, unless shown to have resultant runoff rates of less than 0.5 ftVsec. across the disturbed area for the one year storm. Diverted runoff shall be conveyed in a manner that will not erode the conveyance and receiving channels. AJ! activities on the site shall be conducted in a logical sequence to minimize the area of bare soil exposed at any one time. Runoff from the entire disturbed area on the site shall be controlled by meeting either subsections(^ and j^or^and £» (^) All disturbed ground left inactive for fourteen or more days shall be stabiliMd by seeding or sodding (only available prior to September 15) or by mulching or covering or other equivalent control measure. \8) For sites with more than ten acres disturbed at one time, or if a channel originates in the disturbed area, one or more temporary or permanent sedimentation basins shall be constructed. Each sedimentation basin shall have a surface area of at least one percent of the area draining to the basin and at least three feet of depth and constructed in accordance with accepted design specifications. Sediment shall be removed to maintain a depth of three feet. The basin discharge rate shall also oe sufficiently low as to not cause erosion along the discharge chanivl or the receiving water. 1^) For sites with less than ten acres disturbed at one time, silt fences, straw bales, or equivalent control measures shall be placed along all sideslope and downslope sides of the site. If a channel or area of concentrated runoff passes throug^ the site, silt fences shall be placed along the channel edges to reduce sediment reaching the channel. The use of silt fences, straw bales, or equivalent control measures must include a maintenance and inspection schedule. Any soil or dirt storage piles containing more than ten cubic yards of material should not be located with a downslope drainage length of less than 25 feet from the toe of the pile to a roadway or drainage channel. If remaining for more than seven days, they shall be stabilized by mulching, vegetative cover, tarps or other means. Erosion from piles which will be in existence for less than seven days shall be controlled by placing straw bales or silt fence barriers around the pile. In-street utility repair or construction soil or dirt storage piles located closer than 25 feet of a roadway or drainage channel must be covered w: tarps or suitable alternative control, if exposed for more than A.ero" seven days, and the stormdrain inlets must be protected wth straw bale or other appropriate filtering barriers. 5;tnrm water manageme nt criteria for permanent faciliti es. i\ An aoDlicant shall install or construct, on or for the proposed land disturbing or ^ development activity, all storm water management facilities necessary to manage increased runoff so that the two-year, ten-year, and 100-year storm peak discharge rztcs existing before the proposed development shall not be incre^cd ^d accelerated channd erosion will not occur as a result of the proposed land disturbing or development activity. An applicant may also make an in-kind or monetary contribution to the development and maintenance of community storm water management facilities designed to serve multiple land disturbing and development activities undertaken by one ^ or more persons, including the applicant — C* The applicant shall give consideration to reducing the need for sjorm water management facilities by incorporating the use of natural topography and land cover such as wetlands, ponds, natural swales and depressions « they exist oefore development to the degree that they can accommodate the additional flow of water without compromising the integrity or quality of the wetland or pond. The following storm water management practices shall be investigated in developing a storm water management plan in the following descending order of preference: (5|) Natural infiltration of runoff precipitation on-site, if ouitable soil conditions afo avoilablo for use; (COMMENTARY: The purpose ohhis provision is to encourage the development o[ a storm w/i i»r mnna nment plan thahtne oura^es natural infiltration. This inclines nmvidinv js much natural or ve^ctated^na s on the site as possible, minimam g imperviouTsurfaces. and directing rUftoff to^eetated areas rather than to adiomms streets, storm sewers and ditchesfl Fow attenuation by use of open vegetated swales and natural depressions; 3) Storm water retention facilities; and (i) Storm water detention facilities. ij) A combination of successive practices may be used to achieve the applicable minimum I control requirements specified in subsection (I) above. Justification shall be provi by the applicant for the method selected. ' jSn ^ Design standards . Storm water detention facilities constructed in the [City, Townr-Qwuiy] of shall be designed according to the most current technology as reflected in i c MPCA publication ‘Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas", and shall contain, a a minimum, the following design factors: I) A permanent pond surface area equal to two percent of the impervious area draining to the pond or one percent of the entire area draining to the pond, whichever amount is greater; 2) An average permanent pool depth of four to ten feet; [COMMENTARY: An alternative to subsections (a) and (b) would be to require that the % volume of the permanent pool be equal to or greater than the runoff from a'ZO-inch rainfall for the fully developed site.] 1~ A permanent fKxal length-to-width ratio ot 3:1 or greater; A minimum protective shelf extending ten feet into the permanent pool with a slope of 10:1, beyond which slopes should not exceed 3:1; ■» q A protective buffer strip of vegetation surrounding the permanent pool at a minimum width of orie rod (16.5 feet) /this width b corsbtent with the draft rules developed by the Board of Water and Soil Resources under the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 ]; f All storm water detention facilities sh ill have a device to keep oil, grease, and other floatable material from moving downstream as a result of normal operations; f. Storm water detention facilities for new development must be sufficient to limit peak ^ flows in each subwatershed to those that existed before the development for the 10 year storm event. All calculations and hydrologic models/information used in determining peak flows shall be submitted along with the ?torm water management plan; All storm water detention facilities must have a forebay to remove coaise-grained particles prior to discharge into a watercourse or storage basin. 9^^ Wetlands . Runoff shall not be discharged directly into wetlands without presettlemcnt of the runoff. 2 Co "Ti) A protective buffer strip of natural vegetation at l^t one rod (16.5fc^ in width shall wrround all wetlands. {Thb width b consbtent whk^he draft rula^dJveloped by the ^ ' Board of Water and Soil Resources under the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. j • ^ 3?) Wetlands must not be drained or filled, wholly or partially, unless replaced by restoring or creating wetland areas of at least equal public value. Replacement must be guided v ^ by the following principles in descending order of priority: ^ S Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity that may destroy or diminish ^ the wetland; ^ Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the v/etland activity \ g n and its implementation; ^ u v [^) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland b \ environment; ^ ^ >p Reducing or eliminating ihe impact over time by preservation and maintenance ^ ^ \ operations during the life of the activity; and ^ ^ ^ VCompensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute wetland resources or environments. fCompetuatioh, including the replacement ratio and quality of replacement should be conshfMt with the requirements outlined in the rules which will be adopted by the Boambf Water and Soil Resources to implement the Wetland Conservation Act of IRvl.J \ 8rtO $teep slopes. No land disturbing or development activities shall be allowed on slopes of 18 per cent or more. arn Catch basins All newly installed and rehabilitated catch basins shall be provided with a sump V?. • area for th^rollection of coarse-grained material. Such basins shall be cleaned when they arc half filled with material. JLTf Drain leaders All newly constructed and reconstructed buildii^s will route drain leaders to u . pervious are^ wherein the runoff can be allowed to infiltrate. The fiow rate of water exiting the leaders shall be controlled so no erosion occurs in the pervious areas. g 15' Tmngction and maintenance. All storm water management facilities shall be designed io • minimize the need of mainTenancc. to provide access for maintenance purj^scs and to be ’ structurally sound- All storm water management facilities shall have a plan of operation and maintenance that assures continued effective removal of pollutants carried in storm water runoft The director of public works, or designated representative, shall inspect all storm water management facilities during construction, during the first year of operation, and at least once every five years thereafter. The inspection records will be kept on file at the public works department for a period of 6 years. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain any necessary casements or other property interests to allow access to the. storm water management facilities for inspection and maintenance purpose. Models/methodologies/comoutations . Hydr^pgic models ana design methodologies u^d for the determin^fi^" ^ and analysis^! storm water management structures shall be aooroved by tho^iTector of pubfic worksO Plans, specification and computations for storm water managemW'^cilities submitted for review shall be sealed and signed by a registered professional engineer. All computjtions^shalLappeaiL^ the plans submitted for review, unless otherwise approved by thcmrector of public work^. c (’•A. x Watershed management ola ns/groundwater management plans. Storm water management ^ O plans shall be consistent with adopted watershed management plans and groundwater management plans prepared in iccordancc with Minnesota Statutes section 103B.231 and 103B.255 respectively, and as approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources in accordance with state law. 8L1^ Easements. If a storm water management plan involves direction of some or all runoff off jhe responsibility of the applicant to obtain from adjacent property owners any necessary casements or other property interests concerning flowage of water. 9. LAWN FERTILIZER REGULATIONS 3^/X • Use of impervious surfaces. No person shall apply fertilizer to or deposit grass clippings, ^ leaves, or other vegetative materials on impervious surfaces, or within storm water drainage systems, natural drainage ways, or within wetland buffer areas. D . Unimproved land areas. Except for driveways, sidewalks, patios, areas occupied by structures or areas which have been improved by landscaping, all areas shall be covered by plants or vegetative growth. Q/CQ Fertilizer content . Except for the first growing season for newly established turf areas, no ' person shall apply liquid fertilizer which contains more than one-half percent by weight o phosphorus, or granular fertilizer which contains more than three percent by weight o phosphorus, unless the single application is less than or equal to one-tenth pound o phosphorus per one thousand square feet. Annual application amount shall not exceed one- half pound of phosphorus per one thousand square feet of lawn area. > • *0,41^ BufTer zone. Fertilizer applications shall not be made within one rod (16.5 feet)^of any ■ wetland or water resource. [This distance b coiv,istent with the dr^nuUssleyelopid by the Board of Water and SoU Resources under the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991.J *10. PENALTY r Ani; itfiWSii nrn^rr«’^T^<’a»«>>n Y|^«^*^«f»^a 7^^uja^iUU_o£^lS4adkian6ft4haU.4u>jaicJ iiOt UioM ^ nnr mf>r#»-than-fi Yr h""^**^^ HQila»-forreflet^ojfejjjc>-«»MJ-«^ ^^paratc-oftense shall bc^ ^ \rJ-C -^ccmed3»nmiiucd4)a^ach-day^urin|T5n)Trwhiclra^olation'occUKnoricominues:----- ^ ^ ^4^4^ • 11. OTHER CONT In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this ordinance andjhe provisions of an erosion control or shoreland protection ordinance adopted by the (City Council, 5kjwuf BoJlUrttouiily Duaid], the more restrictive standard prevails. 12. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or applicatic n \ ■' \This ordinance stall be effective the .^3;-EffECrn\T:‘&A'l E “• _____day^af_____- —r 199 I ! Model Potlcgf Lonfuafe for Local Comprelienclve Plam. To auist local govenuBcnti in implcmeoUi^ the ioterim strategy, the GouncQ developed the following language for inclusion in local compreheniive pl^; ^ The faame of locale iSJU) will apply National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) -c> - Btandards* Cor the design of hgk slonn water ponds and the MPCA's urban best management practices titled Water Qu ality In Urban Areas* to the review of ai^ proposed development occurring in the (city, township or county^ to reduce nonpoint source pollutant loadings in storm water runoff. The fname of Jocid eovermnentl will incorporate these stan^ds and requirements in hs storm water management plan and land use eontrols to implement this policy. \ The fname oflocalaovemment^ wOl work whh the Department of Natural Retoufcea to adopt the revised Shoreland regulations consktent with the JWR's schedule of prioritiesi *The local govemmmit may adopt standards and other requirements that are equivalent to NURP and the MPCA's urban best management practices if it chooiei. 4 § 10.03 B The establishment of any new building for the housing of animals or fowl shall be located 150 feet from the nearest lot line. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 ^ P^q(2uc'ls produced on the farm may be sold at retail. One temcorary roadside stand may be established for conducting such business. One temporary ^5ard°durin^eight square feet in area may be located rn the front yard during the period when products are for sale. Off-street parking must be provided for. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 Subd. 19. Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to ^Sd:\'ra^^^^'dYrt“ s°m/la“materi"al within the limits of the City; to fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land so as to elevate re^'AfniSILtural grade; or to build, alter, or repair seawall, retaining wall, or to otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore crocerty without a conditional use permit issued by All^of the above referenced land alterations involving filling Grading shall be performed with only Section 10.02. Granting of such permits ^s su^bject to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other app statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies. Source: Ordinance 47, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-22-88 Subd. 20. Permit. An application for such permit shall information as the Council may require from time to time. Applications shall be filed with the City Administrator and shall be accompanied by a deposit to be determined by the City, whic^ will be used to offset the cost of processing the appj^.atiun. Any unused portion will be refunded to the applican^ -—' ORONO CC 258 (4-1-84) * ’*• r § 10.03 • • .• 91 Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 ^ Govern the normal and customary grading in the arL of an existing or a newiy constructed building, or the grading of the driveilV serving such building, nor to any movement under too ctblc Varda's whYch does not adversely imfact the existing drainage Lch grading and earth moving shall be approved by the drainage. bucn gr y issuance of the building permit, ptiiiding thffTplan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property h , . builder shall be referred by the removal or grading Co^ission and the Council for unusual land alterations: 1. All excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet if any amount of the excess material removed below 12 feet depth is to be stockpiled on tl site. 2. Any additional fil 1 brought on site in excess of 100 cubic yards except for fill required to raise grade for adequate frost footings protection. 3. Grading or alterations that would propose any changes in elevations within 5 lines except for drainage swales and ditches. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 Subd, 22. \Rip-rap Defined. Rock placed at v^ter i.evel of lakeshore to prev^t erosion of shoreline by water^ction. Subd. 23. "permit Required. The Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the JJcr^al and customary rip-rap of lakeshore pr^erty. It is unlaJjfl^ for any rip-rap lakeshore propert/swithin the ,^^®. be peLit issued by the City Wineer. Any>lhusual d^.he referred by the City Engine^ to the Winning Commission and tne Council for action in accordahc^ witlj/xhis Chapter. Srurce: Ordinance No. 167 ,^ffective Date: 6-25-74 Subd. 24. ApplicX^o* foVsPermit. An application for such permit shall be accopi^nied by a th’e^Cityof the proposed rip-rar/^nd such other, information as the y Engineer may require^from time to t 'meX Applications shall filed with the City Admnistrator and shall\be accompanied by in the amount presoffibed by the current Cit^fee schedule payable to the Ci y Source: Ordinance No.^196 Effective Date: 8—22-*7 ORONO CC 258-1 (4-1-^4) § 10.52 ^olosel^^s Tart orthe"^|^^l^n, then the feasibility of ro^viding this service wilf|^ development. Source; Ordinance 78/ 2nd Series Adopted; 1-22-90 Subd. 4. Storm Water Management. Site Drainage plans must be of^?hl -|fYc*ieSr^sto%\\’e ^crpici%1 a*„’i-"hate5l^ necessary to guarantee that the quality of runoff from the site, meets or exceeds the City's standards. Subd. 5. Available Zoning Districts. \Due to the unique set of constraints, and opportunities that affect future, decisions regarding development within Highway 12 Corridor Study Area, applicants strongly encouraged ,to utilise the planned unit development approach, outlined iri-Section 10 of the Orono Zoning However, applications will be accepted for rezoning requests for any of the following existing zoning /-^neistent with a finding of consistency with the Highway 12 Corridor Study and subject to compliance with all of the additional requirements established in ’^is section; B-6 Highway Commercial District PRD Planned Residential Development RIA One Family RWldential District RIB One Family Residential District . M6 Multiple Famil^Planned Residential District Any proposal which requireVa modification to zoning or subdivision requirements/must be\done as a Planned Unit Development. / \ Subd. 6. Building/Design and Construction. *.a addition to/other restrictionV^of this Chapter, the use, ocf.struction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards. ORONO CC 359-1 Ordinance 67, 2nd S^xes Adopted: 5-8-89 / At/' fO ,53 g,^:Ay«10.53 (k) Any other information that may have been required by the Planning Commission or Councii\in conjunction with the approval of the general concept plan. (3) An accurate le^al description of ^the entire area within the^D for which final development plan approval is sought. ^ (4) A tabulation i^icating ^t^he number of residential dwelling units and expected population. \ / (5) A tabulation indicaWpg the gross square footaqe# if any, of comi^rcial and industrial fltlr’ space bV type /fXactivity (e.t. drug Store, dry cleaning, supermarket). (6) Preliminary architectural “typical” plans indicating use, tloor plan\ elevations and exterior wall finishes of proposed building, including mobile"’homes. \ (7) A detailed si.te plan, suitable W recording, showing the physical layout, desi^ and purpose of all streets, easements, rights of >»ay, utitility/lines and facilities, lots, block, public ^nd coininon open spece# general landscaping plan, structure, including mobile homes, and uses. (8) Preliminary grading and site alteration pl*” illustrating changes to existing topography ana natural site vegetation. The plan should clearly reflect the site treatment and its conformance with the approved concept plan. (9) A preliminary pi'ht/^repared in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance. (10) A soil erosion control plan acceptable to watershed districts. Department of Natural Resources, Soil Conservation Service, or any other agency with review authority clearly illustrating erosion control measures to be used during construction and as permanent measures. * ORONO CC 359-12 Ordinance 67, 2nd Series Adopted: 5-8-89 » • § 10.55 reaulatiomof other governmental agencies having ji^isdiction, inlluding l^thout limitation, the Minnesota Departme^ of Natural Resources, \he Minnehaha Creek Watershed Districy^and the Lake Slnn^tonka tonservation District. In addition/ no use shall adJl^Vselv^af^ct the capacity of the channels or/loodways or any *'^bStaty to%e main stceam or of any drainage a-i^tch, or any other nr qvstem and no use shall Aversely affect the gS^-2tror%u\Styo7%‘ro”jnd water runoff/ the quality of the natural environi^.it. A.\permitted Uses. (When/in conformance with this Cnapter): All uses p^ermitted in the Floodway District. 2.\ Agricultural uses such as general farming, outdoor plant nurseries\ horticulture, truck farming and forestry. 3 tional iiS6S such ss golf coucs6Sf tennis courts, driving Ranges,-" archery ranges, parks and nature B. Conditi\tial Uses. (When in conformance with /preserves, this Chapter): / All \:onditional uses as listed in the Floodway District. / Reside^ial accessory structures such as open decks and pay^s providedNthe structure meets the setbacks r6guir6d by Subdivision 8* / 3. Comraercia\ storage of boats and marina equipment in the "B-2" Zoning Use district, provided all storage meets the re/irements of the "B-2- Zoning Use District. z' 4. Other access^y uses not specifically listed when approved by the Council, buV no use shall be aproved which will restrict or obstruct any floods, flow or which will raise the lev4l of any flood flow. \ / 5. All structures constructed as conditional us^shall be constructed in accordance wi^ the State Building Code. Subd. 11. Standards for Floodway and Flood Fringe Conditional Uses. A. All Uses. No structure (temporary or permanent), fill, deposit, obstruction, of »«tetiais, or equipment, or other uses may be allowed as conditional uses wnicn, lating alone or in combination with existing or reasonably anticipated future uses, adversely affect the capacity of ^ floodway or increases flood heights. ’it ORONO CC 367 § 10.55 B. Fill: 1. No fill shall be deposited in the floodway and anv fill deposited in the flood fringe shall be no more than aS^ve" Genlririy lill shlil^e limited to that needed to grade or landscape for that use and shall not in any way further obstruct the flow of flood ''^jf^^spoil from dredging shall not be deposited in the floodway nor in the flood fringe. _in me riooa y All fill shall be protected from erosion by vegetative cover in’the form of grass, natural ground covers, shrubs and trees as determined by the Council. 4 All filling and grading activities shall be performed with only "clean fill* as defined in Section 10.02. Source: Ordinance 47, 2nd Series Adopted; 2-22-88 C. Structural Work For Flood Control. Structural works for flood control such as dams, levees, dikes and floodwalls shall be allowed only upon issuance of a conditional use permit. In addition, any proposed work in the beds of will change the course, current, or cross-section of the shall be subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1976, Chapter 105, and other applicable statutes. ^ Applications the Planning other zoning Subd. 12. Conditional Use Permit Review, for conditional use Permits shall be reviewed by Commission and the Council in the same manner as ----^ conditional use Fermit>pplications. No conditional ““ shall be issued unless the applicant, in support of application, shall submit'certified engineering data, the affected land and water areas. A. Notice to ^ate. UJ:on filing of an application for a conditional use permit, tl^e Zoning Administrator to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the for proposed conditional uses suiJvflciently in advance so V»at tne Commissioner will receive at leas^^ ten days notice A copy of all decisions granting/conditional use permits shall forwarded to the Commissioner of^ Natural Resources within ten days of such action. / \ B. Conditions of i^proval. In granting a conditional use permit the City prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguard^, which are\ in and purposes of this Section^ Violations\of such conditions and Safeguards, when made/a part of t.ne \erms of conditional use permit is granted, shall b^deemed a violation this Section punishable/as provided herein. \ ORONO CC 368 (4-1-04) § 10.56 4 Vstairways, lifts and ^landings may be that ensures control of soilNerosion. 5. StaiVays./^ifts and landings must be located in the most visually Jncobspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the^pXbUc water assuming summer, leaf- on conditions, whenever practical 6. Fa"^lities\>ecessary to provide shore access to physically handicapped P«V Regulations, Chapter 1340. 7. A building permi constructioil of stairways, lifts and landin such improvements are constructed above, at shall be obtained for regardless of whether below grade. G. bceep oxopcs. «**j -ft-- - - - - - . normit for construction of sewage treatment systems, driveways, structures, or other improvements on steep slopes, shall^^jx provide^adequate information to allow '=he <:ity to evaluate possible s^ruc?ures, vehicles; and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. H. Height of Structures. No structure witnin the Shoreland Overlay District shall exceed the forth in the standards for the underlying zoning district. I. Vegetation Alterations. 1. No live tree within 75 feet of the shoreline with a diameter of 6 inches or more (or 19 circumference or greater) measured 3 feet above gtaff removed without first obtaining a permit from the City sta provided that at least the equivalent number of ori size and nature found acceptable to the staff are P^ted at the same setback from the shoreline as ^5°®®^twe^^ltes to staff determinations as to type, size and quality of the trees be replaced will be to the Council. Removal of trees Jy shall not require a permit but such trees must be inspected y City staff prior to their removal. Steep Slopes. Any applicant requesting ■4 ORONO CC 376-13 (2-24-92) § 10.56 2 Intensive vegetation clearing within 75 ^ ^ ^ and on steep slopes within the Shoreland irerlay Dfstrict%^' pro" Limit/a clearing of shrubs and lest than 6 inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and trees less than -i^e is allowed to provide a view to the tSr principa l^^-e 1 l^in, s\%%";uretrrei.?ctes^t^ ‘’ot’^lr facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced. J, Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling. 1 Gradinc and filling and excavations necessary ?rr'=1ThVse"/acl'irtr:s"%o''fol »gG^r^ the issuance of a separate I”ivit\ "pproved^ ptrSit^fM conltructitn ors«uctures, S«at«ent "Items, and d-iveways shall adhere to the gra rng and filling standards of this section. 2. Grading, filling and excavating is prohibited within 75‘ of the Ordinary High Water Level of the public waters enumerated in Subdivision 7 of tnis section. 3. Public and private roads, driveways, and Dublic or private watercraft access ramps shall S" I"cI«tr»cted within 7V^of the Ordinary Sigh Water Level of the public waters enumerated in Subdivision 7 of ^is .. no alternatives exist, such improvements shall standard zoning variance review procedure, and such review sh take into account the following considerations: a. Such improvements shall be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. b. All roads cind parking areas shall be to minimize and control ercsion to public the requirements of all agencies witn Except for those projects requiring of structures, sewage treatment systems, alteration permit will be required as designed and constructed waters consistent with jurisdiction. 4. permits for construction and driveways, a land follows: C ORONO CC 376-14 (2-24-92)Q § 10.56 a*. ■ For movement of 1-100 cubic yards of material anywhere within the Shoreland Overlay District, a staff issued land alteration permit shall be required. b. For movement of more than 100 cubi.: yards of material anywhere within the Shoreland Overlay District, conditional use. permit approval by the City Council is required in addition to the required land alteration permit. 5 The following considerations and conditions must be adhered to during the issuance of construction permits, grading and filling permits, conditional use p rmits, variances and subdivision approvals. a. Grading or filling in any Type 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 wetland must be evaluated to determine how eitensively the proposed activity would affect the following functional qualities of the wetland- (1) Sediment and pollutant trapping (2) Storage of surface run-off toand retention; prevent or reduce flood damage; (3) Fish and wildlife habitat; (4) Recreational use; (5) Shoreline or bank stabilization; (6) Noteworthiness, including spe­ cial qualities such as historic significance, critical habitat for endangered plants and animals, or others. This evaluation must also include a determination of whether the wetland alteration being requires permits, reviews, or approvals by other Federal agencies including but not limited to watershed districts, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, or the United states Army Corps of Engineers. b. Alter.^tions must be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time possible; c. Mulches or similar materials must be used, where necessary, for temporary bare soil coverage, ® permanent vegetation cover must be established as soon as possxoie, d. Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water feature must be used; ORONO CC 376-15 (2-24-92) S 10.56 acceptable local soil and water conservation dfftSctTa?l “he’o“nited States Soil Conservation Service, f Fill or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that'creates an unstable slope, a Plans to place fill or excavated rortired°”slVpTsta^bTl^^r^^^^^^^^^ 30% or greater; PilX or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones; i. Any alterations below the Ordinary ?oSSist^oner®ol the^ oCartLnforNrtu^al^^^'ou^^^^ under Minnesota Statutesp Seciton 105.42; i. Alterations of topography must only he allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses Snd do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby property, k. Placement of natural rock rip rap, including So?i^fnta “ "oTfoot vertical, the landward^^ the _ • _ ___ d- within 10 feet of the Ordinary Hign water ' . :S"rV.. "Ji si..!," lSr,f. ,.bdlvl.l... !!. 11 !< •' «“* zoning code. 6. Connections to Public Waters. Excavations where the intended purpose is the boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors, are proniDi ordinary High Water Level. ,® t^uhl.ot to anoroval of thethe ordinary High Water Level »te subject to approve Department of Natural Resources and other agencx concurrent jurisdiction. K. Storm water Management. The following g eneral and specific standards shall apply in addition to ‘hose standards fS^d in lections 10.55 and 11.41 of the Orono Municipal Code. 1. When possible, existing foit-eTTtVrer n" tVr /t°ir^»T/te ”* rr‘oil “/e.ore discharge to public waters. ORONO CC 376-16 (2-24-92) r « § 10.56 2^ X d0V0lopniGnt must b0 pl0nri0d and conducted in a manner that will minimize the extent of disturbed rtin-off velocities, erosion potential, and reduce and delay ?Sn-off volets ^Disturbed areas must be stabilized and protected arsoon as“«sibll and facilities or methods used to retain sediment on the site. 3. When development density, topographic features, and soil and vegetation conditions are not sufficient to diversions, settling basins, ®^^*^^"9<5evices, dikes, waterway^^ pipes and manmade materials and facilities. 4. When constructed facilities oerform water management, documentation must be provided by a figistered professional civil engineer that they are designed and !nSllled consistent with the field office technical guide of the local soil and water conservation district. 5 N«*w constructed storm water outfalls to public waters must provide' for filtering or aettUng of suspended solids and skimming of surface debris before discharge. L. Hardcover Limitations. No hardcover or impervious surface shall be Disced, located, ^constructed within 75 feet of the Ordinary High water Level of a^lake or tributary, Yn *the lifts, landing!., and ^ckboxes as regulated elsewhere in Municipal Code. 2. Between 75 f«et and 250 feet of there shall be no greater than^25% hardcover. Between 250 feet an 500 feet of the OHWL there shall, be no greater than Yi^be^^no Bet/eon 500 feet and 1000 feet/p^f the ' :.WL there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. /' Public Uses. M. Standards' for Commercial, Public, and Semi- // 1. Surface water-oriented commercial uses and public or semi-public uses with similar needs^^to ‘^lots °with use of public waters /may be located on parcels or Y,^tnnlna frontage on public waters, if permitted by the\underlyxng zoning district standards. Thc*se uses with water-orien^d needs must mee the following standards:\ ORONO CC 376-17 (2-24-92) S 11.10E. Flowage and Conservation Easements. The Council may, upon recommendation of the .Planning Commission and/or City staff, require the subdivider to convey to the City a flowage and ^ ^ conservation easement restricting the use, improvement and development of certain portions of the land to be subdivided. Flowage and conservation easements will be made a condition of Final Plat approval as follows: 1. Whenever any open water, creek, stream, or natural drainageway occurs in any portion of the subject tract, the floodplain or floodway of the lake, pond, stream, creek or drainageway shall be described as a drainage easement subject to a flowagt and conservation easement to the City. 2. Whenever any wetlands, marshlands or lowland acting as a stornwater retention area occurs within anv portion of the subject tract, said area shall be described consistent with established flood or water retention elevations, soil type characteristics and vegetation characteristics as a drainage easement subject to a flowage and conservation easement to the City. i. Flowage and conservation easements may be described and conveyed by metes and bounds with the ownership and maintenance responsibilities remaining with the individual parcels of Class I Subdivisions. 4. Whenever a flowage and conservation easement is required, the easement shall be fully executed prior to Final Plat approval using the legal descriptions of the Final Plat and shall thereafter be filed in the chain of title of the property concurrent with the filing of the Final Plat. F. Homeowner's Association Agreements. The Council may, upon recommendation of the Planning Confntission and/or City sta*f^ require the subdivider to create -a viable homeowner's association, acceptable .to the City, which'^will be responsible for the ownership and maintenance of among other things: common facil ies, private roads, private,sewer and water lines, open space, pathways, drainage ways,/'and drainage ponds, and any improve lents which are not \to be^ccepted by the City for public ownership and maintenance. S^ueb^maintenance shall include, among other things, repair, replacement when necessary, snow removal, grass cutting, weed control, plean-up of trash and debris, mosquito control, odor control, sid.t removal from drainage ponds and drainage ways, and gradir^ and si^>rfacing of private roads. If a reasonable maintenance^ standar^d is not maintained by the homeowner's associati<^, the City shall have the right to take action it v^eems approprl^ate to protect the health, and welfare the public and to assess against said homeowner's association and/or land i^the subdivision for all costs incurred therefor. Such corrective action will not change ORONO CC 443 SEC. 11.40 .^\p S 11.40 AD DEDICATION AND RESERVATIONS bd- -sions^^shhl nlw to a new ,.j,e subdividet. ;The City may authorize a improved improves and dedicates ?*: rnVi“rV"eqa“«d ftreeV^''^-^^ °‘"' subdivision boundaries, «iihd 7 Widening ind^alignment o£ Existing Roads. Where a subdivllsion borders^nj^isting narrow road or when the t^mprove and ^ed^ate at^^rls^expense;^^^^^^^ “If ar^l%t“reV« "sLu Srimiroved !nd dedica;:^d'by the suMi-'Vr at his own expense to the full width as reqjnred by this ChaptetfS, Subd. 3.Xanl reserved fcr any rV t”h“e z"o^ing counted in sat^ying yard or area r®qu“y®"“,.°‘citv in £el Chapter wheth^the land is to be dedicate<\to the City in tee simple or an/^sement is granted to the City. SEC. 11.41. DRAINAGE AND STORM SEWERS. drainage system shall be separate and ^f^®P®"^®2ll°L*desiqSed by sewer system. Storm sewers, where required, . ,^2mnuta- the method as approved by the City, and °^mlets shaA betions shall be submitted along with plans. Inlets , provided so that surface water is "O' =«ried across or around any intersection, nor for a distance of more t*’?" a. ^urb Gutter in urban areas. When calculations indicate capacities are exceeded at a point, we to made for flow beyond that point, and basins shall intercept flow at that point. Subd. 2. Nature of Storm Water Facilities. A. Location. The subdivision shall be the City to carry away by pipe or open ditch sP“"Aoit of the water that may exist either previously to, or as a subdivision. Such drainage facilities shall be , casements right-of-way where feasible, or in P®^P®^“®^ withof appropriate width, and shall be constructed in acc^anc the City's construction standards and specification—- ^ (4-l»y4) ORONO CC 464 S 11.41 B. Accessibility to Public Storm Sewers. 1. Where a public storm sewer is accessible, w j • ' ehail install storm sewer facilities, or if no the subdivider sh ^.g^g^nable distance adequate provision shall outlets disposal of storm waters, subject to the be made for the d P . However, in subdivisions containing specifications £0*^ in area and in business and lots 'tf ° undecgto.ind stocm sewet systems shall be cSnrtrurted"th^:ighoit“"th: lubd.iisions and be conducted to an approved out-fall. ^ connection to a public storm sewer will be provided for'futu"e*'storm *^watet^disposa^ subdivider the time the subdivision receives incoVporVted°by Vnclusion in the performance bond required for the final subdivision. C. Accommodation of Upstream Drainage culvert or other drainage ^from" Us"" enUre upstream enough to accommodate potentla . , subdivision. The City drainage area, whether .he fa^ ro^v\strnV^^r r ;«mlt"tld b^theToninq Chapter o/the City Code and Comprehensive Municipal Plan. D Effect of Downstream Drainage Areas. |o^^^^rU*m%r»qe^^%i!lties^^^^^^^^ City *“t^re'rvlTs ‘‘’a'gu’'id‘e'’ to tee^de/'im'prove'ments. Where appropriate^^sha^U ®f\“i-^«d“an «istlnrd"cwnV’tre'« development of the subdivision will overload an existing , drainage facility, the City may “ ‘ °p„vement of t^e -lairifer.r^ ^ watercourse or facility. E. Flood Plain Areas. The City "*'otesent*and It necessary for the health, safety or >'el£«® ‘q* ^'vatlon of f'lture population of the area and necessary . subdivision ;lter, drainage, and sanitary facilities J’i'tl.in the M plai^ of or: any portion of the property which areas shall ary stream, lake or drainage course. --suiting from be preserved from any and all destruction or ^ . i or stumps cleLing, grading, or dumping of earth, waste material, or by the appropriate conservation easement. (4-1-84) ORONO CC 465 § 11.41 Subd. 3. Dedication of Drainage Easements. A General Requirements. Where a subdivision is >1 K« 9 w*»^lands swamp/ watercourse, drainageway, channel, traversed by a storm water easement, or stream, there shall^ drainage right-of-way conservation and g lines of such watercourse, and of and“«ns»u^io„ oc bo^.^.s^wiU be^ ade.ua^.e or^the Safntained^SrirWen channel with landscaped banKs and adeqnate width for maximum potential volume of f B. Drainage Easements. 1. Where topography or other conditions are , ^ ;mmrical the inclusion of drainage facilities such as oerpetual unobstructed easements at within road in ^Jidth ^for such drainage facilities shallleast fifteen (15) feet in road lines and with be provided ^to^°a^%ublic roadway. Easements shall besatisfactory access a olat Drainage easementsasir;:'.." S3 a" ....... drainage facilities. subdivision IS a plat. supdividec shall dedicate, by drainage or conservation eaVement of land on. both sides of existing watercourses, to a distance to be determined by the City. 4. wetlands, swamps, and low-lying lands along watercourses subject to conservation and flowago lands subject to periodic be utilized for average density procedure nor for compucx y area requirements of any lot SBC. 11.42. WATBR FACILITIES. % ^ Subd. 1. Public. Water Systems. A Where a public water main is accessible, subdivider shall'install adequate water ‘^"°citv"^ hydrants) subject to the sp^lfications of the Sta B. Water^ain extensions shall be approved by City. ORONO CC 466 (4-1-84) Impact of Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410 and Minnesota Statutes Section 103BJ365 on Metropolitan Storm Water Design by Bruce Sandstrom, BWSR March 23, 1993 I.Introduction In the last five years there has seemingly been a continuum of mandates from the state and federal government for local government that potentially affect the design and operation of storm water systems in the seven county metropolitan area. In the next five years, we are going to see varying successes in carrying out these mandates. Here is listing of the most prominent recent mandates that will or may impact storm water management: 1987 • metro ground water planning authorized 1989 - DNR shoreland rule amendments 1990 - revisions to Metro Surface Water Management Act 1991 - Wetlands Conservation Act 1991 • MS 103B.3365 (Reding Bill, 1 acre impervious surface) " 1991 - EPA erosion control permit for development >5 acres ^ 1992 • adoption of metro surface water management rules — . s > 0 1992 - Met Council interim policy on NFS pollution 1993 - Chapter 8420, rules for implementing WCA 1993 - MPCA draft rules for wetlands & water quality standards These mandates are sometimes as overwhelming to state and federal bureaucrats as they are to the local officials who ultimately have to deal in some way with implementation of them. Why is this happening? Can ’t the state and federal government get it together? These rules and regulations all relate in some ways to storm water design and management, but it seems that the events and processes are somewhat disjointed at times. Its not that the politicians and bureaucrats purposefully set about to cause confusion. I feel that the laws and rules are a result of the combination of a more informed public demanding cleaner water and the realization that non-point pollution has a major impact on water quality. This is where local government, the land use authority, comes in. Local govcrMcnt is the most important player in controlling NPS pollution, thus is the prime recipient of the mandates. Its an issue that won ’t go away. But it’s going to be a struggle for a while to put together local programs that will keep up with the mandates. Some interest groups advocate the retro-Gtting of existing storm water management systems with tertiary treatment facilities or believe that all discharges to wetlands need to be pre-treated prior to discharge. Others allege that our goals don ’t reflect the impact of natural baseline water quality on our metro lakes. Still others want to throw in the towel, saying that you can’t expect metro lakes to be high quality, that they are the casualties of urbanization. Only through the application of detailed, coordinated surface water planning can the varied goals of all the players be met. The first generation of "509" plans (•) have been successful in varying degrees m accompli shing this. Hie B\VSR beheves that the second generation "509" plans will achieve a more coordinated, uniform approach and it is, at the present, the only game in town with that regard. The problem is that now many cities are developing their local watershed management plans at the same time the playing field seems to be changing. • The MetropoliUn Surface Water Maoagement Act, Oupter 509 of the Laws of 1982, the preparation of local surface water management plans on a watershed basis. For brevity and common understanding, most people still refer to these plans as ’S09'plans. The law is now codified under Miimesota Statutes Section 103B.201 to 103B.25S. The BWSR has been compelled by the legislature to be involved in three separate activities that directly or indirectly affect storm water management; the 1991 Wetlands Protection Act (WCA), the recently adopted rules relating to ’509" plans (Chapter 8410), and the guidelines for implementing the retention requirement for developments creating more than one acre of impervious surface (MS 103B.3365). I will overview the latter two activities and my associate, Mr. Greg Larson, will overview the WCA. II. Metropolitan Surface Water Planning Rules (Chapter 8410) After over a year of deliberation by a 44 member advisoiy committee, the Board of Water and Soil Resources adopted Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410 on May 27, 1992 (effective August 1, 1993). The rules provide the process for and the content of "second generation 509 plans." Some of the specifics that Watershed Management Organizations (WMOs) and ultimately, cities and townships, must deal with regard to storm water planning include: • identifying specific goals and policies with respect to erosion • adoption of specific controls to abate both urban and rural erosion • adoption of guidelines on erosion control BMPs by reference or consistent with BWSR, MPCA, Hennepin Cbunty, or Ramsey County • adoption of controls requiring enforceable erosion control provisions on all building, grading or driveway permits • adoption of a nuisance ordinance to abate land uses that degrade water quality but are not regulated by other ordinances • adoption of iriinimnm standards for storm sewer design that; * address target nutrient loads * establish permissible runoff rates * provide for the removal of floatable pollutants * set pond design standards for nutrient removal • adoption of enforcement procedures and responsibilities for enforcing the standards These requirements apply to revisions of first generation ”509" plans and any first generation plans that are submitted to the BWSR after August 1, 1992. Many first generation plans are due for revision during 1995. Many are not, however. New requirements relating to water management can render a certain aspects of a "509" plan out of date. Each of the 46 WMOs have to monitor these requirements and decide whether they are significant enough to warrant revising their plan before its planned revision date. In some cases, cities will be adopting more restrictive storm water design requirements before the WMOs affecting them adopt a more comprehensive second generation ”509" plan. This type of situation may well lead to local debates and possible dilemmas. Some cities have already found themselves in this situation. They’ve started to develop their local surface water management plan in compliance with the WMO plans that afiect them only to find that they now have to consider such things as the Wetlands Conservation Act, water quality rule revisions, and the Met Council’s interim nonpoint program. They are rightfully concerned about the potential of gaining the WMO’s approval of their local plan and then finding that this is not enough to satisfy the interests of state, regional and federal agencies. III. Minnesota Statutes Section 103B3365 (The Reding Bill) The BWSR also is responsible for the adoption of guidelines for implementation of MS 103B.3365, also referred to as the Reding Bill after the biUs primary author. Chapter 160 of the Laws of 1990. This law requires local government units (LGUs) to require storm water retention devices or areas for the runoff generated firom new developments that create more than one acre of new impervious surface. (See Attachment A) The law mandates that: 9 • local governments require water retention devices or areas be installed when more than one acre of new impervious surface is created. • local water management plans (both metro and non-metro) specify the controls best available technology to: minimize off-site storm water runoff maximize overland flow over vegetative surfaces increase on-site infiltration replicate pre-development hydrologic conditions minimize discharge of pollutants encourage natural filtration functions reduce mosquito breeding habitat Depending upon a person ’s perspective the legislation has two flaws or two good points. First, the law carries no oversight or penalties. Second, the law only provides for the development of guidelines instead of rules that have the force and effect of law. The BWSR is charged with the responsibility of adopting guidelines for local government to follow. The first set of guidelines has undergone agency internal review. The second draft has just been submitted for agency review. The BWSR desires to have a third and final draft of the guidelines adopted by late May. It is the BWSR’s position that when LGUs are compliant with the recently adopted rules for metro watershed planning, they will be in full compliance with the Reding Bill. In fact, when many first generation "509 plans" are fully implemented, the affected LGUs will find themselves already compliant with this law. Within the next year the BWSR plans to begin the process to amend the rules for non-metro comprehensive water plans. This rule revision will attempt to establish specific performance standards for controls for implementing best management practices in non-metro Minnesota. VI. Tying ll Together The challenge for all levels of government is to provide a coordinated approach to assuring that storm water doesn ’t degrade our water resources. It will not be easy. State laws that conflict add to the confusion. For example, the WCA protects all wetlands from draining and filling yet the Reding bill charges local governments to use BMPs to "reduce mosquito breeding habitat." Water managers often also point out that one of the legislatively defined purposes of "509" is to "protect, preserve and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems..." This is consistent with the state shoreland rules which also encourage the use of wetlands for treatment of storm water (MN rule Chap 6120.3300, Subp. 11). Both of these policy directives may in fact be in violation of existing and future state water quality regulations. A reasonable and prudent person will likely conclude that a balanced approach needs to be taken to resolve such conflicting policies. The issue of erosion control, wetlands management, and storm water management need not be as complex as the state and federal government mandates sometimes seem to make it. As you hear about other mandates today, keep in mind that they originate from • % concerns from citizens over the plight the quality of our lakes and streams. A goal of the Board of Water and Soil Resources is to work with other state and federal agencies to simplify and coordinate these type of mandates on local government at every possible opportunity. I predict that there will be continued movement towards certifying local programs as adequate replacement of federal wetland fill and erosion control permits. When this happens, we will be one step closer to the one-stop permitting, the elusive concept that everyone talks about but no one seems to be able to accomplish. In the seven county Metro Area we have almost everything in place to finally say we’ve achieved true comprehensive watershed management, of which storm water management is a major component At present the metropolitan surface water management act is the best vehicle to use to accomplish this. It will happen when a majority of local governments can demonstrate to the state and federal agencies that Aey are doing just that. Many are doing just that and BWSR applauds their past and continued success. a:stormh20.doc ATTACHMENT A MS 103B.3365 Water retention Subdivision 1. Impervious surface over one acre. New development that covers or replaces surface vegetation with an impervious surface of one acre or more may not take place without water retention devices or areas being required for the development site by the local unit of government. Subd. 2. Exemptions. Linear projects such as sidewalks, paths, trails, and the reconstruction, repair, reconditioning, or resurfacing of existing roads or impervious surfaces are exempt from this section. Subd. 3. Application. This section does not preclude a local unit of government from imposing more stringent requirements authorized by law on the development site. Subd. 4. Local water plans. Each water management plan required by sections 103B.201 to 103B. 355 must specify controls that utilize the best available technology to minimize off-site stormwater runoff, maximize overland flow and flow distances over surfaces covered with vegetation, increase on-site infiltration, replicate predevelopment hydrologic conditions as nearly as possible, minimize off-site discharge of pollutants to ground and surface water, encourage natural filtration functions, and reduce mosquito breeding habitat. Subd. 5. Guidelines. By January 1,1992, the board of water and soil resources must develop guidelines to assist local units of government in implementing subdivision 1. Laws 1991, c. 160 TO: FROM: DATE; SUBJECT: Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator V-c Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator August 6 1993 Time Frame for Septic Upgrades when a Building Pemiit is Requested List of Exhibits A - DNR Letter 8/5/93 Issue In light of the recent allowance of a 2-year period for compliance, should building permits be withheld until commencement (or completion) of required septic upgrades, when the system ’s nonconformity is solely based on the lack of 3’ separation? What are the options? Staff Viewpoint Withholding a remodeling, addition, or accessory building permit until the septic upgrade is complete (or at least underway concurrently) is a useful "lever" to ensure not only that the property owners ’ resources are channeled to the septic system repairs, but also to ensure that the property improvements do not have a negative impact on the existing system or future ability to upgrade. Therefore, we would prefer that systems identified as needing upgrade be repaired concurrently with improvement projects in most situations. As a minimum, site evaluation should be complete before a permit is issued, and repairs occur within a reasonable lime frame, generally before the building project is finished or shortly thereafter. We would develop an agreement to this effect, for signature by the owner in order to be issued the building permit. Discussion In a situation encountered last week for a property in Webber Hills, the property owner wished to add a third stall to his two car garage. The request for a permit triggered a septic conformity inspection, since the property was within the Shoreland District. Inspection determined that the existing trench drainfleld has less than 3’ separation and needs to be replaced. The owner generally accepted the replacement requirement, but was reluctant to accept the idea that he would not be allowed to do the garage addition without concurrently making progress towards septic repairs (i.e., hiring a site evaluator to do testing and design, getting a septic contractor lined up for the installation, etc.). Staffs intent would be to work with the homeowner in accomplishing the projects concurrently, not necessarily deferring the a ition Memo - Time Frame for Septic Upgrades August 6, 1993 Page 2 until septic repairs are totally complete, but gaining a reasonable assurance that system repairs will be accomplished forthwith. Completion of site evaluation and getting bids is also a help to the homeowner because he will know early on what it will ultimately cost to repair the system, and may replan his project finances accordingly. The DNR’s Ed Pick is in charge of the Shoreland Management Program for the south half of Minnesota. His attached letter indicates a fairly hard-line approach, suggesting that at any tLiie a shoreland property owner intends to make improvements to his property, he should have to upgrade his nonconforming septic system before or concurrently with the improvement project. Pick’s apparent definition of "improvement" ranges from major additions and remodelings down to a project as minimal as reroofing, residing, plumbing repair, etc. He feels the only exemptions should be emergency repairs. Staff requests that Council confirm whether general non-emergency building projects should be required to upgrade septic systems concurrently or be allowed two full years regardless of any building project. Staff Re Mill lendation Staff requests direction on the following: 1. Septic repair time frame involving emergency building repair permits. 2. Septic repair time frame involving additions/remodeling.«!/accessory buildings, etc M PHONE NO. STATE OF ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 (612) 772-7916 .T FILE MeJ AUG .5 'igta- August A, 1993 Mr. Mike Gaffron Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono city Hall, P.O. Box 66 - - Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Dear Mike: GUIDANCE ON IDENTlfYlNG AND UPGRADING NONCONFORMING SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS IN SrIOKELAND AREAS In response to your request, I am going tc repeat the specific part of the statewide shoreiand management rules which addresses this topic. Minnesota Rules 6120.3400, entitled Sanitary Provisions, in Subpart 3. D. states in part that "Local governments must develop and implement programs to identify and upgrade sewage treatment systems that are inconsistent with the sewage treatment system design criteria , . . These programs must require reconstruction of existing nonconforming sewage systems whenever a permit or variance of anv type is required for anv improvement on. or use of. the property . . . (My emphasis added). You asked me to briefly put in writing my experience with and understanding of this particular part of the shoreiand rules. I think this language is very clear in stating that whenever a developer of shoreiand property applies for any type of permit, the owner/developer of that property is required to provide information that any sewage treatment system to be used on that property conforms with the state's standards. These standards, with the exception of system setback from the ordinary high water level, are contained in the applicable rules of the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, specifically chapter 7080 for individual sewage treatment systems. The justification for this requirement is further explained in an enclosure I have excerpted and highlighted from the Statement of Need and Reasonableness that DNR was required to provide in August 1988 prior to the State's adoption of the statewide shoreiand management rules. I feel this enclosure explains much of the rationale for requiring nonconforming systems to be upgraded whenever any type of permit is applied for. About the only case I can foresee where a local governmental unit may not require upgrading would be in cases where an existing structure may be damaged through no fault of the applicant. I*m thinking of events such as storms, malicious misconduct, vandalism, etc.. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mike Gaffron Guidance on Nonconforming Sewage Treatment Systems Page 2 August A, 1993 As I discussed with you, DNR has been administering a shoreland management program beginning in 1970. We have been asking local governmental units to upgrade nonconforming sewage treatment systems since then. 1 feel that anytime an applicant decides to spend money on improving their shoreland property, they should be expected to provide information about the status of the sewage treatment system they are using on that property and, if necessary, be required to upgrade that system concurrently or before proceeding with their proposed project. The public health of the surface and ground waters of the State of Minnesota is everyone's responsibility and each citizen must share that responsibility when they propose to develop or re-develop property that will affect those waters. I trust this information, along with the enclosure, explains DNR's guidance. If there are any questions or need for further assistance, do not hesitate to contact either me or Ceil Strauss. Sincerely, Edward L. Pick Shoreland Hydrologist Enclosure c: Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist 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-»va8 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 tc ensure that nonconforming « 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 shore]and managers as founa in SUP 3, Issue 1, points 4 and 6. Subitem (4) is needed to 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 buyers 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. 6120.3500 SUBDIVISION PROVISIONS Subp. 1. Land Suitability. The language in the current rules regarding the establishment of lots was deficient in that lots may be created on paper but may be totally unsuitable for building structure and siting on-site sewage treatment systems and recreational facilities. This provision is needed so that unsuitable lands cannot be made suitable by grading and filling. The proposed language addresses very important issues that must be considered when lots are created. The new language requires that each lot created must be suitable in its natural state, that is, with minimum vegetation alteration, grading and filling and that local units of government should consider the subdivisions susceptibility to flooding, existence of wetlands, steepness of the topography, near-shore aquatic conditions unsuitable for water-based recreation,^important fish and wildlife habitat, presence of significant historic sites or any other feature TO: FROM: DATE: Ron Moorsc, City Adnunistrator John Gcrhardson, Public Works Director July 21, 1993 uUUULMEfHNG aUG 9 1993 CMYOFOROMO SUBJECT: French Lake Park - Wild Flower Seeding In May of 1993 the Park Commission recommended and the Orono Council approved an expenditure of up to $1500 for wild flower seeding on that part of the old sewer plant property tha t was to be kept by the City as a passive park. After further review, it has been determined that the area is larger than we first thought and it will require additional preparation of the area before the seeding can occur. Tlierefore. it is recommended that Council authorize an additional $400 for a total amount of $1900 to be paid from the Park Dedication Fund. TO: FROM: Ron Moorse, City Administrator John Gerhardson, Public Works Director DATE: - August 4, 1993 SUBJECT: Sealcoat Bid 1993 1993. On Friday, July 23, the City received and opened bids for sealcoating City streets for We received only one bid from Astec Asphalt for $25,121.25. After review of the bid, it appears that the unit costs are higher than expected. Therefore, it is recommended to reject t^e sealcoating bid from Astech Asphalt. We will not sealcoat any streets this year but will add the streets to be sealcoated in 1993 to the list of streets to be sealcoated in 1994 and hope that we will receive more favorable prices by having a larger project. / TO: FROM: DATE: ll'-;Ron Moorse, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director July 21, 1993 uUNCILMEEHNe AUG 9 1993 cmroF ' il' SUBJECT: County Road 6 Upgrade Recently the City of Orono received notice from Hennepin County that they are planning to upgrade County Road 6 from State Highway 12 southerly and westerly to County Road 90 m Independence. Ron Moorse and I have met with the staff at Hennepin County to review the plan. It is Hennepin County’s intent to acquire right-of-way in 1994 with construction in 1995. Because Hennepin County is applying for funding for constructing a bike/hike trail on that part of County Road 6 from Highway 12 to McCulley Road. Atuehed for review is correspondence from Hennepin County regarding the improvement. This item was reviewed by the Park Commission at their July meeting. Attached are the draft minutes of July Park Commission meeting stating their comments on the matter. It is recommended that Council appoint one or two members of the Council to work with City and County staff to review the concept of the project as we did on County Roa HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 320 Washington Avenue Soi^^- Hopkins, Minnesota 55343*a3(i8 PHONE: (612)930-2500 FAX (612)930-2513 TDD: (612) 930-2696 June 23, 1993 A r c Mr. John Gerhardson Director of Public Works City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: ISTEA Application for STP Funds For CSAH 6/8941 Dear Mr. Gerhardson: We would very much appreciate your support for our application for the above project so that we may have the opportunity to obtain 80% federal funding for the project. Enclosed is a generic letter for your possible use in support of the application we are making for STP funds. In determining the ranking of the project, two of the Items we need to address are: first, consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and secondly letters Indicting at least general support for the project. The specific criteria in the application to which we are responding are: Consistency With local Plans “Consistency with the local or county comprehensive plan. Implements a solution or addresses a problem Identified in the plan. (Reference appropriate report and page numbers and provide copies.) Maturity of Project Concept/Coordination "Extent to which agreement has been reached among all agencies and units of government affected by the proposed project and/or which have approval authority of project plans or mitigation of project Impacts. We would appreciate your assistance In identifying the pertinent portion ?f your Comprehensive Plan (and any other document - e.g. CIP) that ^"<^^cUes consistency between the plan and the project. Please also provide a section of the plan. Your letter of support, using the enclosed generic letter as a starting point. Is also vital to being able to leverage County and c funds with 80% federal funds. HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer June 23, 1993 Page 2 Since we are working on ten applications due July 9th, and we have a holiday before then, we would like to receive your response by July 1, 1993. Please call me at 930-2674 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Warren K. Porter, P.E. Senior Professional Engineer MKP:gk Enclosure cc: Tom Johnson «l 3 OI iZ Tf JH • • ! ^ r-a—_c ««uO 1 /«0||IM p-O r %. O , 'I.-Ata • ifiiAio PlOtJ ^ ■«S I**! f « 0*5 0) w So aE 49U3J0 A i««#o (^fy »m C !• Sa. s! : H •1 J /n 'bf “1 ' «s 10 JO ] I’ E,iPlr 1 ^090*9 0«0b PMVMMtig M MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 6, 1993 BALL DIAMOND UPDATE - CONT. It was moved byWhite, seconded by Wilson, to table action on_this issue until a report is made to the Commission oy tne Ball neid Committee. Ayes a, nays 0. (S6) GOLF OUTING Chair Klint announced a golf outing is scheduled for J®” at 5:00 D.m. at the Orono Golf Course with dinner to .ollcw at Billy’s Light House at 7:30 p.m. Wilson asked staff to provide the Commission with the golf course financial information. (#7) COUNTY ROAD 6 - HENNEPIN COUNTY ROAD UPGRADE Gerhardson reported the County has included an upgrade to County Road 6 south of Highway 12 to include caving of shoulders, overlay of road. re-estaBIishment of the ditches, and a wider right o. way. In some areas an urban design may be used vO lessen . - impact. Chair Flint noted the City has planned for a bike yail JlI along County Road 6, but added he does not want this to be an ?orlhe 0?d crystal Bay Road trail. A trail in this area would be of less value to Orono residents and children. White asked about the cost to the City. Gerhardson said the County proposes to use ISTEA funds available. It was moved by White, seconded by Wilson,notify the County of the City’s interest in a traM along ths section of County Road 6 to be ' Crvs4^ B^y Roadtrail plan, but not as a substitute for the Old Cryscal Bay Roao trail proposed. Ayes 4, nays 0. Wilson felt a wider shoulder in this area ®/XVu*ghouJbike use and stressed she does not want seoarate trails throughout the entire City. LETTER TO RESIDENTS FROM DICK FLINT Chair Flint noted City Administrator Moorse is to residents along the proposed bike trail pending the joint meeting with Council. TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Auyust 5, 1993 ^Oc ^ SUBJECT: Work Session To Review Proposed 1994 Annual Budget OIhq The City's 1994 tax levy must be certified to the County by September 15. Working back from that date it is recommended the proposed budget and tax lev>' be adopted by the Council at the September 13 Council meeting. It is suggested that a work session to review the proposed budget be held during the week of August 23. This would provide time for revisions to the proposed budget prior to the September 13 meeting. TO:Mayor and City Council COUNCIL MEETING PROM:Ron Moorse, City Administrator/,/^ DATE:August 5, 1993 AUG 9 1993 CI1Y0F0R0N0 SUBJECT: 1993/1994 Assessor Proposal I have attached a proposal from Rolf Erickson for assessment services from September 1, 1993 through Augu 31, 1994. The proposal is for a 3% increase in the contract an., .nt. Mr. Erickson has indicated the increase is due to an increase in workload related to additional homes constructed during 1992 and new property tax legislation. In 1992 Council reduced the proposed contract amount from $70,080.00 to $70,000.00. It is recommended the 1993/1994 contract be approved at the $72,000 amount. TO:Ron Moorse, Orono City Administrator FROM:Rolf • Erickson, 473-1844 DATE:July 15, 1993 RE:1994 Assessment Proposal Tera of Contract: Septenber 1, 1993 through August 31, 1994 Current contract amount:$70,080.00 Requested amount for 1994 Assessment:$72,168.00 Monthly Fee:$6,014.00 Z am requstlng this increase because because of additional new houses constructed during 1992 and the fact that the State Legislature has again passed legislation which requires us to do extra work. Two extremely complicated changes were included in the tax bill this year. The first change is a law which limits the amount that the market value of certain properties can be increased to lOZ a year or 1/3 of the difference between the "limited value" and the actual market value of the property. While this value limit sounds good in theory it does not limit taxes. The last time a limited value was used was in the 1970*s and it created a bureaucratic nightmare and was finally declared unconstitutional. The second change is a special program to defer t-he value added when ’tt^tes over 35 years old are improved. The amoui-t of the Improveoients v/i&f. be recorded and then added back in to the market value of the ^..epitrty after a prescribed waiting period. If this amount is acceptable please present this to the council at the next meeting. If you have additonal questions, please let me know. CC'. €0:FROM:DATE:Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator f^/l August 6, 1993SUBJECT: Sewer Property Sale s Staff and the City Attorney have now reviewed the offer presented by Mr. Melamed for the purchase of the sewer plant property. The addendum to the purchase agreement has been revised to address issues identified by staff and the City Attorney. The revised addendum is attached for Council review. This revised addendum has been sent to Mr. Melamed for his review. It is staff's understanding that the major issue left to be resolved is the access to the open space area to the north of the parcel to be sold. Mr. Melamed is concerned that the drive from Old Crystal Bay Road not become a major throughfare for traffic into the park. The terms of the sale provided by the City indicated the access to the open space to the east of the MWCC access would be for maintenance purposes only. This was included in the terms based on staff's understanding that the plan for the use of the open space was to eliminate the driveway between the MWCC pumping station property and the pond so that the only vehicular access would be for maintenance purposes. In discussions with Mr. Melamed, he has been advised of the potential for a small parking area to be developed just south of the MWCC station property and to the west of the existing driveway ajea, to be used by those who drive to the park. Staff has also indicated a potential alternative pedestrian access to the park area could be a pathway through the trees along the west side of the MWCC pumping station property. Because people tend to take the most direct route to their destination, those who use the park will tend to walk into the park to the east side of the MWCC property simply because that route would take them directly to the pond area. It is staff's recommendation that pedestrian access to the open space aiea not be limited. Depending on the Council's long term view of how this land will be used there are a number of alternative solutions regarding vehicular access: 1. Agree to limit vehicular access to maintenance purposes only. 2. Agree to limit vehicular access to maintenance purposes only for 5 years (the same time period as the restriction regarding further subdivision of the property to be sold). A subdivision would add a new source of traffic Sewer Property Sale August 6, 1993 page 2 and would change the character of the property away from a private estate type property to one more closely related to a normal subdivision. Unrestricted access. Those who drive to the park area will tend to park in the open area just south of the MWCC station. This means that they will be using the roadway adjacent to the property to be sold to get to the parking area. This also places a potentially active gathering point relatively close to the property to be sold. Simply allowing this traffic to continue into the open space area would not have a greater impact on the adjacent property than would the parking area. Future Subdivision During the discussion of the future subdivision of the property into two lots the question wis asked regarding the need to upgrade the roadway from driveway standards to public roadway standards with the addition of a second residential unit. I have attached a memo from Jeanne Mabusth indicating it is staff's determination that a future subdivision cf the property to create an additional residential lot would not trigger the need for upgrading the roadway. The factor that could potentially trigger the need for an upgrade would be increased traffic related to the park use. TO: FROM: DATE: Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator July 29. 1993 SUBJECT: Impact of Future Subdivision of Residential Lot within City of Orono Plat as it Relates to Upgrade of Road It has been well documented by many of our sophisticated developers that there ® between the Comp Plan and the subdivision regulations specifically Comp Plan (CMP 7-u, Private Driveway) where maximum service for a driveway can be at three residential umts. Subdivision regs. (Section 11.33, Subd. 4. typical section) requires a pnvate street at t^e residential units. The City Attorney finds that the ordin^ce has precedence over Comp Plan thus staff requires a road upgrade at three residential units. In the City of Orono subdivision application, #1780. the existing driveway serves an MWCC facility and a proposed single residential unit. The op^a space outlot retained by the City remriins as merely open space with no defined use. If the residential lot is subdivided m the fuatre the roadway would now serve two residential units and the MWCC lift station. The ordinance is specific and references only residential units. One would argue that the road need not be upgraded because the driveway would continue to serve two resident-al nnits. If a future park is developed, an upgrade of roadway may be necessary based on safei- u-kn’-' lerations and the need to provide turnaround. Staff Findings As subdivision code specifically bases intensity of use on residential units, staff would “8^ that the future subdivision of the residential lot within the Orono plat would not trigger ^ need for an upgrading of the roadway. The issue for the City is whether the development of a par wUl trigger the need for an upgrade based on the intensity of use that may well exceed that of a residential unit. The MWCC facUity is not classified as a residential umt nor does its limited use suggest a need for concern. Enc. CMP 7-17 Subdivision 11.33 - Subd. 4 ADDENDUM TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT DATED JULY 1993 BETWEEN ROBERT L. MELAMED AND ELIZABETH MELAMED OR THEIR ASSIGNS, BUYER, AND CITY OF ORONO, SELLER 1. Leyal Description. Attached as Exhibit "A" is a surveyor’s sketch which generally shows the boundaries and size of the property. The exact boundaries, size and legal description shall be set forth in a survey to be prepared by a registered land surveyor and provided at Seller’s expense. The exact boundaries shall be jBxed by mutual agreement between Seller and Buyer. 2. Purchase Price. The purchase price shall be the sum of ' payable as follows: S 50,000 earnest money as hereinbefore set forth; $ 50,000 additional earnest money to be paid upon acceptance by Seller of this Purchase Agreement; the balance to be paid in cash on date of closing. 3. Date of Closing. Subject to the satisfaction of all conditions of this Purchase Agreement, the closing shall take place at the offices of Abdo and Abdo, PA^ 710 Nortbstar West, 625 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, at 10:00 o’clock a.m. on Tuesday, October 5, 1993, or at such later time as the panies mutually agree. 4. Real Estate Commissions. Seller and Buyer acknowledge that neither has retained or agreed to pay a commission or finder’s fee in connection with the sale of the property and each shall indemnify the other from any claims therefor as a result of the other’s actions. 5. Sewer Connections. Buyer shall be obligated to pay for the cost of connection to the sewer system including the installation of a sewer stub or stubs, connection to any home, sewer access charges and city connection charges. 6. Representations and Warranties of Seller. Seller makes the following representations and warranties to Buyer (in addition to those contained in the preprinted Purchase Agreement), which shall be true at the time of closing as if such representations were made at such time. All such representations, warranties and other agreements made by Seller shall survive the closing and any investigation at any time made by or on behalf of Buyer. The property is-zoned for residential use, and a single family residential dwelling together with a guest house are permitted under such zoning. b) To the best of our knowledge, there are no environmental proceedings, applications ordinances, petitions, court proceedings, resolutions or investigations by public or private agencies which could prohibit, impede, delay or adversely affect the use of the property c) To the best of our knowledge, there are no incinerators. septic tanks, cesspools or underground storage tanks of any kind or nature on the property, and no pollutants are discharged from the property directly or indirectly into any body of water. To the best of our knowledge, seller has not stored. released, disposed of, or permitted the storage, release or disposal of any asbestos, PCBs, any toxic or hazardous wastes, any petroleum based products or petroleum tanks, or any pollutant or any other substance or material, the storage, release or disposal of which is regulated by any law, regulation, ordinance or code e) A public sanitary sewage system is located adjacent to the property and is of sufficient capacity to service the property for a single family dwelling and guest house. There are no wells on the property There is an MV7CC utility easement on the far westerly portion of the property 7.rnvenants of Seller. Seller agrees to complete the following. at its expense: a) Subsequent to closing. Seller shall allow and permit Buyer to remove at buyer's expense up to twelve (12) pine trees as selected by mutual agreement between buyer and seller, which are located on the Outlot which is south of the MWCC lift station and west of the driveway which abuts the property. For each tree removed by Buyer, Buyer shall provide and plant, at their expense, a tree of the same or similar species which is no less than six feet in height in such reasonable location on the Outlot as Seller shall direct. 8.Conditions Precedent to Seller'_s— addition to all other conditions herein contained. Buyer's obligations under are subject to the fulfillment of the following conditxons: a) Prior to the date of closing, obtain MUSA expansion so that two sewer stubs can be used in connection with the construction of a dwelling and guest house on the property. The Seller will use its best efforts to obtain tne MUSA expansion. b) All representations and warranties of Seiler c:>ntained in this Agreement shall be true and accurate as of the date when made and at the date of closing. c) Seller shall have performed or complied with r.ll of the covenants, agreements and conditions required by this Agreement to be performed or complied with by it prior to the date of closing. d) As of the date of closing. Buyer shall have determined to their satisfaction that the soil conditions of the property including, but not limited to, its make-up, compaction and percolation are in an acceptable state (as Buyer solely determines based on soils information provided by a qualified soil testing firm) to construct and build a home and guest house without soil correction or pilings. e) As of the dace of closing, the property is subdivided and platted in accordance with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, including Che issuance of all permits (indlddlng use permits) CO restore Che property to its original terrain. f) As of the date of closing, all action, permission and compliance with applicable laws and regulations have been completed so that the property can be connected to two sewer stubs which may be installed in the adjoining sewer system. All documents and instruments required to be delivered LIST OP LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1993 ■S’ ^ % One Day (1) Liquor License -Smith College Club of MN Minnetonka Center for Art Center "Smith Day in the Country" September 11, 1993 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. I- Date: To: From: Re: July 27, 1993 Ron Moorse, City Administrator Steve Sullivan, Chief of Police Liquor License Application I have reviewed the application from the Smith College Club to have a one day set-up permit for an event at the Minnetonka Center for the Arts. As this organization has obtained this permit for several years and we have not received complaints, I have no objection to the issuance of the permit. • 0 * ! I : : ■ ■ i : yj ' ■} * I , •i* -f • I %•*. »• • J It] a »• • >• t. « ./ ‘ I;;.; f > I \;V .•' *• • \ •f v*:* iyi ■... r.-. '* 'J vf.* • ^*4‘Mi- ■ 'i\ ■ f.-i• ;• H . 1 .. • <' •*1 •'t ' * »•••;; *1 rnufJE 612 ?9G 6159 ’ •• 'r. I . • .3 I» V- :■ ? • -S-t. ■'<'} r4 ••V,i .IiJ u‘> 't • I, . ^ 0 • ‘V*'•>' Vvi ■■ 1.^ V‘i^ >*. 'if ' **•*» ‘MM ;.c ‘Nj . V •* f • f4 w s: r> .‘-.V •■•I MINNESOTA DEPARTMENr OF PUBLIC SAFETY «" LlOUOn CONTROL DIVISION 333 SIBLEY • ST. PAUL. MN 55101 DATE. ^ '4i3 APPLICATION Fon CONSUMPTION AND DISPLAY (SET UPI^E^MI'^ ONE DAY PERMIT FEE |'lfe6.'0(T' $25.00 ir P4AMC AMO AOUHESS SMOVMN ahe Nor connEcr. make changes in spaces beloin -r i. * • * V • w “*.n»v* I r.rr.Tr A i- ’ci. V* » Auu • .'.A ,‘i -Tii ■' V* 4 V'W** ^ ir[a, :i , f •ri** • . NOTE: ALL CLUB ‘ON-SALE* INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSEE'S ARE EXEMPT FROlWAPPLyiNa . • » » VI Cl V 1. r / .1 «t p « V * r • •; -r.'. ;.;:v•r « • - ' ,< I. •;> k'-: • <' - * "it 7. •% -i.' /►V Ev . V. . ;.v> s- - - :U h-tCi-TT- T-:u ;’t» 3 Atipllcattit N««n«PAtintrthi*. Co«»niriio'«| S>>wHh ^oUtCyC Cv>j7 C>( T'lM. OMlInctt Slicvf A^ttiriN Boa Nu«nb*r JUi2.__C^h\_r>K Lovc;c">\j ^->^0(c^^cvY^c.^JNr _1A wAj narrrvpf -----------Hr---------------- Club 0»ub««C ■utirtvti ^••*>0 o* Ouilntit Of Clob M«n«fOf K> A I laos N«Mif Of DBA ]cou*«H ■US^n«M bbono - -- - . — -----------------—I Mo^,^-pTj4.^ tdi.vQXV; C.<^ft<.Y^•lOf.L’,A.-> Addi^ll ril ' ■■ AWiv^«- VV>*\<\^Vov^v<<x Cj/v\Viv (0/ Art-) Slv«. □«« _cPa.M C Hox-Tv> ^V>o<-A b . I ^-1.- Vli.^-SV IS APPLiCAt ION —-------------- uniniNAc ncNcwAcCIj TriANsrcnQ ________ rDv#a isno ir TnANSfcu. rTjtiMyTriLictNscts NAMi ANDwuiTf^si »Hnb "l mam I lliMin««$ Patinff/Qirietr ron A PUBLIC BUSINESS: " ■ — P..m„,h,0, Sl.l. tl.f H.,n, .Od A,|,|.„. ol twh II » Co.|>o.»>.on. S.»H II., H.m, ,nd A.)0„ oHKhOtn,„. * ' lAOdrtta ■' ' ■' UifUfMtl I'oilntf/Olllctf Uuilntu M««lno(/Olllctf ■.\-n . .• * y I Ol- Aititieai Addftia Halo Cub U*f«f*U«d IQio's Lf't^lTi 1*1 iiMt* t.l«ib Al Pt»tO«i| L«K«tlt»M |Sy| f.iwb OTiicat/liwtcie* NumbOf of Mt»tibtft POfI A PWfVATE CLUB A»*«oun| ol Outi Club o«**i*ii»Mr"™* n»n#0 0» n«nl«i|> ^^••br(ii*io *ltowi'«r««obit 1 Uu«« Club M«in|«4a Lo«^«<« ■ 4 To# M*M«b«f« to Sl*M« I louiM* iUt«/Uift(lo« Nemo ------ OVv>isVL [.cxiTfyvi "TfrciSicYx^ Club OllUat/Uueclof N«m« A r«vc>^-b, H i (X - 4^-g s t .^A 4'd*ii m 1:1 Addf««l r”'^ I I ^>0 0 t^rivx> ^ Add*«tl luB »-y oincer or d-r,cu-.r; if club. ,ny dub ollicer or dir.clor. .vr Law* or local ordinanr« "i* ****^ Conuol Act revoked or jujpended or ueen convicted lor any violation ol Stale Lawf or local ordinance!; il »o. jive date end detail! N.-.V _________[________ i^^rM:urc’:i»’;r.:r;zv.':c,?i'r;i:;;rrrMit7!ru^'DytrtuNyt\;’D^ NO consideration will be given to this application unless approved as provided be low ip the business is located in a county Aoo.o.ad - Cbtl.o«eiob County •oa*# o* A«bff-----------o777 IP THE BUSINESS IS LOCATED IN A MUNICIPALITY Ao^bavd - Coubcil PitHdfbi o» BtBtfMbuiiot •*sr V Vl...ww^ IF A CLUB ATTACH A COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS OF THE CLUB AND A CURRENT LIST OF members IOa 4j^I^VlI. cash CHECK M-l—fb* .:^r' 'o-l data pbivacy advisohy 2 6^ in accordance with H.S. 13.04, Subd. 2, Infotnation j Ko nivpn to individual# we would like to inform you required ^Yo a permit or license from the City of Orono oJ^\ny°“o% urfepartments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You are notified thats X The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. 2. you may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 3 The information may be shared with other locjl' • fedeJal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license. 4. If your requested permit or license require? council action to approve, some information may become public. 5. you have certain rights under n.S. 13.04, Subd. 3, to review orivatB dsta on yoursGlf* 6. your full name and date of birth are required to process this application or permit. LastPrint: First Middle 3\OU Street Address im. City State Zip Date of Birth Phone I understand my rights as stated above. M043 / . W. U tLMEEHNG j 9 1993 CITYOFORONO 0I/O1/93 PR: 110CB PRItrlEQOR 01/31/93 PR CH PRRCQOREMP • NAME471698060474S63339 476921919 471940971 475443962 472503691 469596026 47599|721 471963129 468921019468622940 472529007 469701969 507595424 469696592 469420832 469097994 474667112 475390151 477500666 475444249 477463977 475069921 399625359 471569963 473141624 475604753 504260'i07 47250)574 469920293 121262417 469723373 475344512 490943542 476019674 477700023 334506291 477029779 473109429 469909535476793291 470700901 469946107 475392993 473746173 473609629470566529 499629194 475569177 267460042 472563051 474663296 470704904 475505292 469629481 500403192 477691539 OPTANDERSON, BRUCE L 31 BOeZIEN, SUE A 31 BORIS. SCOTT W 31 BOSMA, JAMIE L 12 BRINKHAUS, JOHN F 42 CHE$"!CK, GARY B 31 CORNICK, JAMES I 31 DEMBOUSKI. JAY C 31 DRESSEL. Robert p 93 EMLISH III, IRVINQ 31 ERICKSON, DOUGLAS J 93 ERICKSON. KURT R 31 FISCHENICH. DAN T 31 FRITZLER, JOHN M 31 OAFFRON. MICHAEL P 33 QERHARDtoN, JOHN R 42 GOMAN. DAVio J 35 GREGORY, JAMES D 42 HALLIN, DOROTHY M 12 HANSEN, STEVEN C 42 HANSING, CAROL J 31 HASEMAN, CAROLE 12 HULTMANN. TIMOTHY J 61 JENSEN. I^OONEY W 93 JOHNSON. BRADLEY P 31 JOSTROM. FOREST J 93 KENNEN. JANICE M 31 KNUTSON. CHARLOTTE A 15 KUEHN. tHOMAS M 15 KVAM. DANA J 93 MABMTH. JEANNE A 33 m, DAVID E 61 McIntyre, william e 93 •CNICHOLi. DAVID L 31 mills JR. WALTER H 93 MOORSE. AoNALD J 12 MORO^iYWSKI. JAMES 31 NELSON, DAVI6 D 35 OAS, DANIEL O 93 OBERAIGNER, SCOTT Q 42 OBRIEN. RANDY 1. W2 OMAN. LilZ E 33 PALMER, GREGORY A 47 QUAST, WAYNE A 92 RATHBUN. BARRY J 9*2 ROSS. j6hN a 93 SCHOCNHOFF. JOHN B 31 SKRIEN, DALE S 4*! STEFFENHAQEN. RONALD 93 SULLIVAN. STEPHEN X 31 THOMTON. MARK R 31 TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F 31 TOMCZYK, MARK W 31 VANG, BRUCE L 33 VEE. LINDA S 12 WALTERS, LINDA G 15 WECKMAN. STEPHEN J 33 YTDGROSS27126.05 16390.55 3092.96 9979.29 25749.05 27593.59 27396.35 23792 71 355.35 27322.80297.60 25240.76 26500.09 27039.63 23539.48 32832.23 3435.99 21554.01 20277.89 19959.77 9553.95 14630.72 2052.00 932.17 26975.13 1599.50 3898.94 16229.90 34629.43 496.75 29479.95 1953.00 654.5021744 98 ii 39535.70 28^13.92 :J31.39 1017.75 19612.55 20014.47 23539.44 19648.55 23237.26 19439.03 1647.257530.61 19171.70 20277.99 32897 59 24410.31 24789.45 25372 91 20277 99 15964.D9 14591.90 17859.79 CURRENTGROSS 56 69 20 30 50 95 42 00 40 99 1568.40 1052.69 74.39 626 1611 1727 2019 1621 169 1907 124 1569 1906 1692.24 1473.44 2172.42 739.08 U63.04 1269.29 1093.29 560.62 913.20 375.00 108.15 1627.22 187.00 253.33 1014.64 2167 179 1945 192 167 1591 247.25 2511.94 1569.40 132.27 274 35 1029.13 1083.26 1473.43 1255.93 1366.34 1327.02 231.00 796.39 1357 1269 2059 1509 1637 1569 1269 1C.*4 1094 1117 60 75 20 00 75 29 50 28 20 76 15 40 28 64 96 92 EMP 9 NAME DPT YTDGROSS CURRENTGROSS46918802619324677 470366069 473646272 476527196 CALLAHAN. EDWARD J Qoetten. J.DIANN HURR JOELLEN L JABBOUR, GABRIEL KELLEY. CHARLES 1111 11 11 11 k400.00 1933.36 1933.36 1933.36 1933.36 300.00241.67 241.67 741.67 241.67 1.266.69 63.226 61 ©COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 5 19f3 23:03:56^NECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE029702919.55*telephone 0175-4320 00C816 029703 1993/09/09 1993/09/09 979.20 96.75 995.95* A-1 MINNETONKA RENT A-1 MINNETONKA RENT iJFNTAL DOwLY 0569-4331 0099-4343 000843 000842 029704 1993/09/09 1993/09/09 974.63 979.45 9154.09* electricALL STAR ELECTRIC repair lot LTQ PUMP PROTECTION 0249-4233 0099-4343 9272-21 9267-17 029705 1993/09/09 92.253.33 92.253.33*ALL STEEL PRODUCTS PARTS 0290-4343 1674 • * ^ Ik 029706 1993/09/09 1993/09/09 1993/09/09 1993/09/09 1993/09/09 1993/09/09 929.64 929.64 929.64 942.65 929.64 929.64 9185.95* AT f I SYSTEM? I JNFO SYSTEM AT * T INFO SYSTEM * T INFO SYSTEM AT * T INFO SYSTEM AT A T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCDATA PROC . V data PROC DATA PROC DATA PROC DATA PROC 0174-4340 0249-4340 0069-4340 0129-43400059-4340 0129-4340 000817000817 000817 000817 000817 000817 029707 1993/09/09 1993/09>09 939.50 936.00 974.50* AUGIES mobile CHEF AUGIES MOBILE CHEF SANDWICHESCOFFEE 0591-4802 0591-4802 3970 19853 026709 1993/09/09 955.26 955.26*BIFFS INC BIFF RENTAL 0290-4331 BI008844 021709 021}10 029711 021712 1993/09/09 1993/09/09 1993/09/09 1993/09/09 1993/09/09 1993/09/09 1993/01/091993/09/09 1993/09/09 1993/09/09 1993/09/09 1993/09/09 1993/09/09 1993/09/09 1993/09/09 1993/09/00 1993/09/09 9160.50 950.51 9290.00 91.212.239945.57 9231.97 ,.9204.53 99,167.96 9109.97 926.75 9900.04 950.00 91.499.75 914.329.69* 979.54 979.54* 915.12 915.12« 976.69 976.69 9153.36* BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROOBONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROOBONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN BUDGET PRINTING CELLULARONE CHIPPEWA TOP SOIL CHIPPEWA TOP SOIL OCB RO ST IMP EASEME wtr‘‘tSwer INSP-MAY ENG FINAL KELLEY PKW ENG final KELLEY PKV ADOL SERVICES MAY ENG MAY®**'°°^ ENG APPLIC MAY ATTEND CC MTQ MAY ENG CONSULT MAY LABELS 0249 0249 0439 0496- 0426- 0426< 0426-0406- 0355- 0249- 0940- 0200- 0200- -4305 -4305 -4306 -4305 -4305 -4305 -4305-4306 -4306 -4305 •4305 4304 4305 TELEPHONE DIRT HACKBERRY PARK 0129-4322 0249-4320 0290-43430290-4231 oPO NUM 024925 024926 024924 024922 024922 024922 024922024921 024923 024920 024919 024919 024919 37440 000919 000120 000844 Ptgt 1 MANUAL ON OH OH OH OH OH OH OHOH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OHOH OH OHOH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH I % • —• '-%• - • Jl CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDORl9i3/0l/090JI7U 979.24 91S.S9 993 82 £|iy oj long lake^ CITY OF LONG LAKE UTILITYflasherP2.714 “”'"»/»•9137.'00* QNONBERO tract a rls 1410 * * - .--■ *■'. 02I71S • inVAt'Al1993/01/09 12*3/0I/09 1993/09/09 1993/09/09 1993/06/09 939.25967.6796.99 921.41 92.02 9.85 92.63 917.99 91.95 9160.76* S22JIJCIAL life/gr?ggfggCIAL UFE/GRP .LIJE/QRF £5?fj§?CIAjL LIFE/GRP cm£r5rl^'‘ LIEE/QRR .LIFE/ORP£S?fggci^L life/orp£S??j|NC|AL LXFE/QRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP AUG INS AUG INS AUG INS auq ins aug ins auq ins auq ins auq ins auq ins 021716 1993/06/09 9292.05 9292.05*COPY DUP PR INC developer 021717 '1993/01/09 95.265.00 95.265.00*E-2 RECYCLING JULY FEE 021711 1993/09/09 9191.70 9191.70*ESS BROTHERS A SONS GRATES 021719 1993/09/09 943.32 943.3'GIBBONS-KEARNS INC bug spray 026720 1993/09/09 »1.000.?i 91.000.00*GOLF CAR MIDWEST CAR RENTAL 021721 1993/06/09 937.15 937.15*GOLF SCOREMATE INC SUPPLIES 021722 1993/09/09 995.29995.29*GRAF IX SHOPPE lettering for CAR 021723 1993/09/09 1993/09/09 97.40 922.80 930.20* HAPPYS potato CHIP happys potato chip chips CHIPS 021724 1993/09/09 9925.48 9935.48*henn cty fin div JUNE ROOM & BOARD 02I72S 1993/09/09 9190.94 9190.94*HENN CTY SHERIFF DPT JUNE BOOKING FEE• •% 021726 1993/09/09 9145.59 9145.59*HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED GRASS SEED . .•< V <54 o0569-43240249-4324 INVOICE000850000850 ■ P89t 2manualSi0249-4506 1343 OH 0069-4152 0129-41520174-4152 0249-41520549-4152 0590-4152 0569-4152 0039-4152 9001-1298 000819 000819000819 000819 000819 000819 000819 000819 000819 1 S! 9001-1261 1759431 OH 0295-4392 000711 OH 0569-4234 7387 OH 0591-4801 2856 OH 0590-4331 000845 OH 0590-4232 1053 OH 0185-4341 7967 ON 0591-4802 0591-4802 0080-4358 242965 242982 000848 SI - OH 0080-4358 000822 ** ^ -• 0590-4343 57742 oCOUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 5 1993 23:03:56CHECK HO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT •06S1-4306 000646026727 026726 026729 026730 026731 026732 021733 1993/06/06 1993/06/09 1993/08/09 1993/06/09 1993/06/09 1993/06/09 1993/08/09 1993/06/09 1993/06/09 1993/08/09 1993/08/09 1993/08/09 1993/06/09 1993/06/09 1993/08/09 1993/06/09 1993/06/09 1993/06/09 1993/06/09 • 1993/06/09 1993/06/09 1993/06/09 1993/06/09 1993/06/09 :u9:./06/00 1993/08/09 1993/06/09 1993/06/09 1993/08/09 1993/06/09 1993/06/09 61.500.00 61.500.00* 676.14 676.14* 61.600.00 61.600.00* 620.67 620.67* 641.77 632.37 69.41663.55* 6100.00 6100.00* 646.75 646.75* HERMAN APPRAISAL $RV APRAISAL-SWR PLANT S HIGHWAY $5 RENTAL RENTAL JOHN DUNN PAINTING INC PAINT POST OFFICE KEAVENYS DRUG KUEHN. THOMAS KUEHN, THOMAS KUEHN, THOMAS LOE’S OIL COMPANY 61,065.00 LOGIS -SUITE 300 61,436.00 LOGIS -SUITE 300ini.oo LOGIS -SUITE 300 626.67 LOGIS 4*SUITE 300 6210.05 LOGIS -SUITE 300 $820.85 LOGIS -SUITE 300 645.22 LOGIS -SUITE 300 614.65 LOGIS -SUITE 300 634.20 LOGIS -SUITE 300 6133.71 LOGIS -SUITE 300 6405.00 LOGIS -SUITE 300 626.77 LOGIS -SUITE 300 $752.00 LOGIS -SUITE 300 639.00 LOGIS -SUITE 300 62,193.00 LOGIS •SUITE 300 67,375.12* 6116.60 6116.60* 637.28 6336.21 6373.49* $2,337.00 $1,550.00 6679.00 62.215.00 66.961.00* LONG LAKE GLASS LONG LK FORD TRACTOR LONG LK FORD TRACTOR MALLOY KARNCWSKI CO MALLOY KARNOWSKl CO MALLOY KARNOWSKl CO MALLOY KARNOWSKl CO SUPPLIES MILEAGE JULY MILEAGE JULY MILEAGE JULY LAND MGMT INFO CENTER MAPS PARTS JUNE SERVICE JUNE SERVICE JUNE SERVICE DATA PROC/DISK SPACE DATA PROC/DISK SPACE DATA PROC/DISK SPACE DATA PROC/DISK SPACE DATA PRO/DISK SPACE DATA PROC/DISK SPACE SURGE PROTECTORS JUNE SERVICE UTIL BILL FORMS JAN-juNE *;ervice JUNE SERVICE JUNE SERVICE REPAIR RENT TRAILER PARTS AUDIT PYMT 63 FINAL AUDIT PYMT 63 FINAL AUDIT PYMT 63 FINAL AUDIT PYMT 63 FINAL 0249-4331 0099-4343 0590-4210 0069-4381 0569-4381 0174-4381 0174-4210 0249-4342 0129 0174 0039 0039 0069 0129 0174 0549 0569 0129 0549 0569 0569 0069 0069 -4352 -4352 -4355 -4355 -4355 -4355 -4355 -4355 -4355 -4210 -4352 •4210 -4352-4352 -4352 0249-4341 0590-4331 0249-4232 0069-4300 0590-4300 0549-4300 0569-4300 000847 000821 000823 000849 000849 000849 10916 006405 AR0693 AR0693 AR0693 AR0693 AR0693 AR0693 AR0693 AR0693 AR0693 ARU693 AR0693 AR0693 AR0693 AR0693 AR0693 1651 001471 171777 21774 21774 21774 21774 OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OHOH OH OH o 0 oCOUNCIL CHECK RCOISTER Thu Aug 5 1993 23:03:56CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR Pag* 4DESCRIPTIONACCOUNT 9 INVOICE PO NUM. MANUAL0129-4151 102552 OH0249-4151 102552 OH0069-4151 102552 OH0174-4151 102552 OH0115-4151 102552 OH0549-4151 102552 OH 0039-4151 102552 OH 0569-4151 102552 OH 9001-1298 102552 OH 0249-4233 000827 OH 0249-4233 000854 OH 0249-4210 568397 OH0059-4210 568397 OH0039-4210 568397 OH 0174-4210 568397 OH0069-4210 568397 OH0129-4210 568397 OH 0249-4320 000851 OH 0040-4154 000855 OH 0590-4154 000855 OH 0090-4324 000826 OH0569-4324 000826 OH 0129-4152 000828 OH 0129-4240 000852 OH 0174-4380 000853 OH 0174-4306 000831 OH0174-4306 000831 OH0290-4306 000831 OH0039-4306 000831 OH 0549-4324 000833 OH0099-4324 000833 OHi".'0569-4324 000833 OH ■0569-4324 000830 OH 021731 021739 02I740 026741 026742 026743 0?T744 026745 026746 026747 1993/01/091993/01/091993/0a/081993/06/091993/08/09 1993/08/09 1993/08/09 1993/08/09 1993/08/09 1993/06/09 1993/08/09 1993/08/09 1993/08/09 1993/08/09 1903/08/09 1003/08/00 1993/08/09 1993/08/09 1903/08/09 1903/08/00 *1993/08/091993/08/09 1093/08/09 1993/08/09 1903/08/09 1903/08/09 1993/08/09 1993/08/08 1993/08/09 1993/08/09 1993/08/09 1993/08/09 1993/08/09 S2,000 <813 9S42 S4S8 8271 8258 81,103 8387 81.479 87.313 .32.00.00.16.00 .12 .48 .20 .92 .20* 8353.32 8399.72 8753.04* 87.73 87.73 87.74 87.73 87.74 813.35 852.02* 836.22 836.22* 829.10 860.60 889.70* 893.2883.40 896.68* 824.98 824.98* 8100.84 8100.84* 825.00 825.00* 8140.00 830.00 8125.00 8425.00 8720.00* 8330.65 81,538.03 812.11 8199.21 MEDICA CHOICE HEDICA CHOICE MEDICA CHOICE MEDICA CHOICE MEDICA CHOICE MEDICA CHOICE MEDICA CHOICE MEDICA CHOICE MEDICA CHOICE MIDWEST ASPHALT MIDWEST ASPHALT MIDWEST MIDWEST MIDWEST MIDWEST MIDWEST MIDWEST BSNS BSNS BSNS BSNS BSNS BSNS PROD PROD PROD PROD PROD PROD MINN CO»M MINN UC FUND MINN UC FUND MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO MN BENEFIT ASSN AUG IF^ AUG INS AUQ INS AUG INS AUQ INS AUQ INS AUQ INS AUG INS AUG INS ASPHALT ASPHALT SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES TELEPHONE UNEMPLOYMENT COMP-N UNEMPLOYMENT COMP-J UTILITIES UTILITIES AUG INS MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS AS CODE BOOKS MOSTCA NAAB/THERESA NAAB/THERESA NAAB/THERESA NAAB/THERESA NSP NSP NSP NSP DUES 7/19 PLAN MTQ ADDL DUE 5/17 MTG 7/6 MTQ 7/12.6/28,7/26 CC MT UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES • ^ o &COUNCll CHECK KEOISTCK TUI Aiig S 1913 23:03:59 '•ft 9 .CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT 8 INVOICE PO NUM. MANUAL 02I74S 1963/06/091693/01/091993/01/09 1993/01/09 1993/08/09 1993/08/09 8196.6383.3189.20 87.40 81.921.98826.60 810.06 84.255.18* NSPNSPNSP NSP NSP NSP NSP UTILITIESUTILITY UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITY 0249-43240175-4324 0569-4324 0290-4324 0549-4324 0569-4324 0590-4324 000833000856 000856 000857 000856 000857 OOOS58 818!8! OH 021740 1B93/08/C9 81.138.20 81.138.20* NSP STREET LIGHTS 0249-4325 000832 OH 02I7S0 1693/08/09 84.674.13 84.674.13*PUBLIC EHPL RET ASSN PERA 7/19-8/1 9999-2031 000859 OH 021751 1493/08/09 860.00 860.00* PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIP CO CALIBRATE RADAR s 0129-4342 4993 OH 9 021752 1993/08/09 1993/08/09 864.20843.20 8107.40* REED VENDING REED VENDING CANDY & ROLLS ROLLS & CANDY 0591-4802 0591-4802 41781 41790 8! 021753 1993/08/06 878.00 878.00*REO RAJ KENNELS IMPOUND FEE 0185-4360 000860 OH 021754 1993/08/09 SIS.59 815.59* RICKS SUPERVALU SUPPLIES 0590-4232 000835 OH 021755 1963/08/09 1993/08/09 $28.56 861.97 890.53* RITZ CAMERA RITZ CAMERA FILM PROCESSING FILM PROCESSING 0129-4210 0129-4210 3764904 3784213 81 1 021756 1993/08/09 83.180.59 83.180.50*ROLLINS OIL CO GASOLINE 9001-1260 000834 OH 021757 1993/08/09 86.424.50 86.424.50*SCHOENING EXCAVATING RENTAL 0249-4331 000863 OH 021751 1993/08/09 83.004.00 83.004.00*SENIOR COMMUNITY SEIWI 3RD OTR 0100-4385 000861 OH 02I75B 1993/08/09 8142.08 8142.08*SOUTHAM BUS COMM USA I AD/SEAL COATING 0249-4322 CPC026501 OH 021760 1993/08/09 819.50 819.SO*STAR TRIBUNE NEWSPAPER 0039-4240 000862 OH 021761 1993/08/09 863.37 863.37*STREICHERS SUPPLIES 0129-4232 65873.1 OH ♦ *i W 1993/08/09 1993/08/09 1993/08/09 884.32 8140.53 8252.95 THE LAKER THE LAKER THE LAKER FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINANCIAL STATEMENT 0549-4322 0569-4322 0069-4322 000825 000825 000825 OH^^-"81 0 O po HUM.Pt9* 5 MANUAL324324324324324324>324 0008330008S6000856000857000856000857000858 1H25000832OH2031000859OH43424993OH480248024178141790Si•4360 000860 OH -4232 000835 OH -4210 -4210 3764904 3764213 Si L-ii:o 000834 OH )-4331 000863 OH 0-4385 000861 OH 9-4322 CPC026501 OH 19-4240 000862 OH S9-4232 65873.1 19-4322 69-4322 69-4322 000825 000825 000825 V • V;i«^OH COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Aug 5 1993 23:03:56CHECK NO CHECK DATE1993/08/09*1993/08/091993/08/09028762 CHECK AMOUNT*884?32*829.90832.808624.91*VENDORTHE*LAKER. . . . . . . .THE LAKER THE LAKER DESCRIPTIONFINANCIAL STATEMENT*** FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINANCIAL STATEMENT ACCOUNT i0590-4322 0174-4322 02« w j::028763 1993/08/09 847.92847.92*TOWN 4, COUNTRY WINDOW WASHING 0099-43430287841993/08/09 8237.388237.38*UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS 0129-42210287651993/08/091993/08/09 8223.878151.778375.64*US WEST CELLULAR INC US WEST CELLULAR INC TELEPHONETELEPHONE 0129-43200129-43204i:'h i- t 028766 1993/08/091993/08/091903/08/091993/08/001993/08/091993/08/091993/08/091993/08/091993/08/091993/08/09 1903/08/09 1903/08/09 854.33854.39812.24828.588275.07840.828141.90884.458107.03881.64 881.64 881.64 81.043.73* US WEST COMHUN US WEST COMHUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMHUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COfMUN TELEPHONETELEPHONETELEPHONETELEPHONETELEPHONETELEPHONETELEPHONETELEPHONETELEPHONETELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE 0175-43200549-43200549-43200569-43200129-43200069-43200590-43230039-43200590-4320 0174-4320 0059-4320 0249-4320 :028767 8 1993/08/09 8298.24 8298.24* VEE LIN CONFERENCE/VEE 0039-4356 Pa* 028768 1993/08/00 82.610.00 82,610.00*WAYZATA-CITV OF 2ND QTR FIRE 0133-4318 fiV . 028768 1993/08/09 832.48 832.48*WECKMAN STEPHEN MILEAGE 0174-4381 •• 026770 1993/08/09 1993/08/09 8434.86 874.45 8509.31* WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIR WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIR TIRES TIRE 0249-4232 0290-4232 028771 1993/08/09 875.229.11 875,229.11*WM MUELLER & SONS 1993 PAVING 0249-4233 021772 1903/08/09 88.75 88.75*WRIQHT HENN ELECTRIC UTIILITES 0249-4324 t 1^; *.••'■ - r. ■ ' , • . r..‘. , 8157.781.37 INVOICE000825*000825000825000836414199000867000864000868000869000839000839000838000839000838000839000838 000839 000839 000839 000837 000841 000870 45542.A 45542.A 000829 000840 PO NUM Ptg* 6 MANUAL ITY OF ORONO POST VOID, TYPED AND REVERSED A/P BATCH PROOF Batch Fite: HC073193 Page 1 «i, AUC 5, 1993 2:00 PM •••req; LINDA--. .loc: OR-FINCE - -job: 2436 RS021. . . . . -“prog: OH450 <1.51 >-• “report id: TRBPRCWF InvoU e Ntinber Invoice Amt Units Inv Date vendor ID / PEDB Cd / Addr Cd Term CCOUHT NUM9ER Secondary Ref Distribution Amt Tax Tax Amt Due Date Vendor Name Misc Post >>ROGfUN / OtJECT Encb PO# / Pmt Discount Amt Tax2 Tax2 Amt Pst Date Vendor Address Rfnd Fmt Product ID Retail Amt Chrg Charge Amt CIc ID-No Vendor City, State Zip Spck CkTy /Item Description*•Item Description Duty Duty Amt Batch ID Division Code and Description R1/2 Prep T«MS«s«asBsaaassssss3sa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa M M A ^azaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa===raaaaas=aaaa aaaa 74-4232-0S9O-83 000165 33.87 1 07/02/93 T311 P .000 XF OP OlV EXPENSE 33.87 07/02/93 RON STEFFENHAGEN 01 ■3UIPNENT PARTS S ACCES 0.00 07/31/93 Hz Address Lines NB 0.00 0R026978 HU SUPPLIES HCO/3193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LU Net Amount:33.87 1 :01-4151-0115-31 000166 2,605.04 1 06/28/V3 275 P PR .000 CIERICAL 271.00 07/02/93 GROUP HEALTH INC 01 HOSPITALIZATION INSURANC 0.00 07/31/93 NU 3600 PO BOX 66117 NB 0.00 OR026979 ST PAUL. MN 55166 HU JULY INS HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LU Net Amount:271.00 2 :01-4151-0129-31 000166 2,605.04 1 06/28/93 275 P PR .000 -OlICC OIV EXPENSE 1,375.36 07/02/93 GROUP HEALTH INC 01 HOSPITALIZATION INSURANC 0.00 07/31/93 NU 3600 PO BOX 66117 NB 0.00 OR026979 ST PAUL, NN 55166 HU JULY INS HC?7^ 93 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE lU Net Amount:1,375.36 3 01 *4151-0249-42 000166 2,605.04 1 06/28/93 275 P PR .000 iTREET DIVISION EXPENSES 542.00 07/02/93 GROUP HEALTH INC 01 HOSPITALIZATION INSURANC 0.00 07/31/93 NU 3600 PO BOX 66117 NB 0.00 0R026979 ST PAUL, MN 55166 HU JULY INS MC07319S AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LU Net Amount:542.00 4 074-4151-0590-83 000166 2,605.04 1 06/28/93 275 P PR .000 OOIF OP DiV EXPENSE 271.00 07/02/93 CROUP HEALTH INC 01 HOSPITALIZATION INSURANC 0.00 07/31/93 NW 3600 PO BOX 66117 NB 0.00 0R026979 ST PAUL, NN 55166 HU JULY INS MC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LU Net Amount:271.00 5 »1-4151-0174-33 000166 2,605.04 1 06/28/93 275 P PR .000 ’LANNING 8 ZONING OIV EX 145.66 07/02/93 GROUP HEALTH INC 01 lOSPITALIZATION INSURANC 0.00 07/31/93 NW 3600 PO BOX 66117 NB 0.00 0R026979 ST PAUL, MN 55166 HU JULY INS HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LU Net 145.68 6 b ITT or ORONO ROST VOID, TYPED AND REVERSED A/P BATCH PROOP Batch File: HC073193 Pafle 2 Nil, AUG 5, 1993 2:00 PH •••req: LIVOA. . .loc: OR-FIHCE- -job: 2436 BS021. . . . . .pro®: OH450 <1.51>- -report id: TRBPROOF CCOUNT HUMBER lOGRAN / OCJECT Invoice Nuiter Secondary Ref Encb PO« / Pat Product ID Invoice Aat Units Distribution Ant Tax Discount Aat Tax2 p1-J790-9001-00 000167 AUMICt SHEET GENERAL FU ItCEUANCOUS INCOME 01-4SS6-0129-31 OLICE OlV EXPENSE ilTINCS-CONF-SCHOOLS 72*4321-0549-81 RTIR OP OlV EXPENSE OBTAGE 73*4321*0569*82 n«B OP DIV EXPENSE OITAGE 01*4321*0039*12 DNIN OlV EXPENSE bSTAGE pi*4210*0039-12 WIN OlV EXPENSE PPICE SUPPLIES REFUND OVERPAYMENT Net Amount: 000168 CONFEAEIICE Ntt Amount: 000169 SUA/UTA 2ND OTA POSTAGE Net Amount: 0C0169 SUR/UTA 2ND QTA POSTAGE Net Amount: 000170 PETTY CASH AE1M6 Net Amount: 000170 PETTY CASN AEIMi Net Amount: 958.56 1 958.58 0.00 0.00 958.58 300.00 1 300.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 0.72 OA026980 Vendor ID / PEOB Cd / Addr Cd Term Vendor Nane Nisc Post Vendor Address Rfnd Ffflt Vendor City, State 2ip SpCk CkTy Division Code end Description R1/2 Prep SBCSsssxBSzssssxsssxsassssszssa srss SS3S T370 P PR .000 WALSH. CAROL 01 No Ad'^ress L .nes NB NW AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LU 07/12/93 377 P 07/02/93 JOHNSON/BRAOLEY 07/31/93 No Address Lines 0A027345 00000 HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PA .000 01 NB NW LU 325.09 1 07/12/93 629 P PR .000 130.03 07/02/93 POSTMASTER 01 0.00 07/31/93 No Address Lines NB 0.00 0R027346 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 NW HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LW 130.03 325.09 1 07/12/93 629 P PR .000 195.06 07/02/93 POSTMASTER 01 0.00 07/31/93 No Address Lines NB 0.00 0R027346 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 NW HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LW 195.06 1( 100.69 1 07/13/93 536 P PR .000 0.24 07/02/93 CITY OF ORONO 01 0.00 07/31/93 PETTY CASH Ni 0.00 OR027347 00000 HW HC073193 AP ACCOUHTS PAYABLE LW 0.24 11 100.69 1 07/13/93 536 P PR .000 0.72 07/02/93 CITY OF ORONO 01 0.00 07/31/93 PETTY CASH NI 0.00 0R027347 00000 NW HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LW TY OF OftONO POST VOID, TYPED AND REVERSED A/P BATCH PROOF Batch File: MC073193 Page 3 Itn, AUG 5, 1W 2:00 PM ---req: LIM0A--. .loc: OR-riHCE - -job: 2436 #S0;M. . . . . --prog: OH450 <1.51»- -report id: TRGiPROOF Irwoice Nuiter Invoice Amt Units Inv Date Vendor 10 / PEOB Cd / Addr Cd Term 'CCOUNT WIMSER Secondary Ref Distribution Amt Tax Tax Amt Due Date Vendor Name Misc Post kROCRAN / OBJECT Encb PO« / Pmt Discount Amt Tax2 Tax2 Amt Pst Date Vendor Address Rfnd Ffflt Product ID Retail Amt Chrg Charge Amt Ck ID-NO Vendor City, State Zip SpCk CkTy /Item Description--Item Description Duty Duty Amt Batch ID Division Code and Description R1/2 Prep BBaSSSBBSBSBSBBS SSSSSaB-3SSSa«BSB SBsssxssaszsasrs sssssssa aaaa^aaazaaasaaasaassraaaaaaaa aaaa aaaa )t-«210*0174-33 000170 100.69 1 07/13/93 536 P PR .000 lANNlNC t ZONING DiV EM 3.45 07/02/93 CITY OF ORONO 01 FFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 07/31/93 PETTY CASH NB 0.00 0R027347 00000 HW PETTY CASH REIMS HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE IV Net Amount:3.45 13 i1-43S1-0039-12 000170 100.69 1 07/13/93 536 P PR .000 «IN OiV EXPENSE 3.19 07/02/93 CITY OF ORONO 01 UVEI-MIICAGC-PARRINC 0.00 07/31/93 PETTY CASH m 0.00 0R027347 00000 HU PETTY CASH REIMS HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LU Net Amount:3.19 14 :T«-4321-0S90-83 000170 100.69 1 07/13/93 536 P PR .000 XF OP OIV EXPENSE 10.60 07/02/93 CITY OF ORONO 01 JSTAGE 0.00 07/31/93 PETTY CASH NB 0.00 0R027347 00000 HW PETTY CASH REIMS HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LW Net Amount:10.60 15 001-4232-0099-17 000170 100.69 1 07/13/93 536 P PR .000 BVT BLOG OIV EXPENSE 50.30 07/02/93 CITY Of ORONO 01 iOUiPMENr PARTS B ACCES 0.00 07/31/93 PETTY CASH NB 0.00 OR027347 00000 hW PETTY CASH REIMS MC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LW Net Amount:50.30 16 001-4S21'0129‘31 000170 100.69 1 07/13/93 536 P Pi .000 >OLICE OIV EXPENSE 21.83 07/02/93 CITY OF ORONO 01 POBTACE 0.00 07/31/93 PE'TY CASH NB 0.00 0R027347 00000 HU PETTY CASH REIMS HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LU Net Amount:21.83 17 001-42:0-0129-31 000170 100.69 1 07/13/93 536 P PR .000 01 ICE OIV EXPENSE 8.36 07/02/93 CITY OF ORONO 01 FICE SUPPLIES 0.00 07/31/93 PETTY CASH NB 0.00 0R027347 00000 HU PETTY CASH REIMB HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LU Net Amount:6.36 18 TV Of ORONO POST VOID, TYPED AND REVERSED A/P BATCH PROOF U, AUG 5, 1993 2:00 PN ---req: LINDA. . .loc; OR-FINCE----job: 2436 RS021. . . Cdtch File; HC073193 Page 4 prog: OH4SO - -report id: TRBPROOF COUNT NUMBER mm / OBJECT 1-4221-0129-31 LlCC OlV EXPENSE OTNIMC t PERSONAL EQUI Invoice Nuit)er Secondary Ref Encb PO« / Pmt Product ID 000170 Invoice Aait Units Distribution Aat Tax Discount Amt Tax2 PETTY CASH REIMS Net Amount: 100.69 1 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 Vendor ID / PE08 Cd / Addr Cd Term Vendor Name Mi sc Post Vendor Address Rfnd FM Vendor City, State Zip SpCk CkTy Oivi'pion Code and Description R1/2 Prep aacBsssrsssassasxsssxs«sB«sssas BXBB xxxa 536 P PR CITY OF ORONO .000 01 PETTY CASH N0 00000 NV HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE rt-4S43-0099-17 ivT BlOC OlV EXPENSE INT BLOGS I GROUNOS 000171 INSTALL UNITS Net Amount: 597.00 1 597.00 0.00 0.00 597.00 07/14/93 T317 P PR .000 J7/02/93 JOHN BECKMAN 01 07/31/93 3.4 HARRINGTON DRIVE NB OR02734S LONG LAVE, MN 55356 HW HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYA9IV LM 1-6S56-0129-31 Id OlV EXPENSE INGS'CONF'SCNOOLS 000172 I1-6SS6-0129-31 ICB OlV EXPENSE INGS-CONP-SCHOOLSi; T>4900-0299-S2 KIAL PROJECT CONTING bciAL PROJECTS-CONTING 1>4«eO-0299 S2 BCIAL PROJECT CONTING BCIAL PROJECTS-CONTING CONFERENCE Ntt Amount (KK)173 MEETING Not Amount: 000174 POS PROFILES/JOB EVAL-JUNE Net Amount: 000174 POSITION PROFILE APRIL Net Amount: 150.00 1 07/16/93 T371 P OR .000 150.00 07/02/93 SPIAA CONFERENCE 01 0.00 07/31/93 No Address Lines RB 0.00 0R027349 HU HC0731O3 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LU 150.00 21 10.00 1 07/21/93 T101 P PR .000 10.00 07/02/93 GOLDEN VALLEY COUNTRY CLUB 01 0.00 07/31/93 No Address Lines MB 0.00 0R027350 HU NC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAVABLE LU 10.00 2a 190.75 1 07/15/93 614 P PR .000 80.r5 07/02/93 PERSONNEL DECISIONS 01 0.00 07/31/93 NU 8343 PO BOX 1450 MB 0.00 0R027351 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55485 NU HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LW 80.75 23 190.75 1 07/15/93 614 P PR .000 60.00 07/15/93 PERSONNEL DECISIONS 01 0.00 07/31/93 NW 8343 PO BOX 1450 MB 0.00 0R027351 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55485 HU HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LU 60.00 ;|TV OF ORONO POST VOID. TYPED AMO REVERSED A/P BATCH PROOF Batch File: HC073193 Page 5'HU, AUG 5, T993 2:00 PM ---req: LIMOA. . .loc: OR-FIMCE- -job: 2436 iS021. . . . . .prog: 0H450 <1.51»- -report id: TRBPROOF ACCOUNT WMER BtOGBAM / OBJECT Units Tax Tax Amt Tax2 Tax2 Amt Chrg Charge Amt Item Oetcription*-ltem Description Duty Duty Amt Invoice Nunber Secondary Ref Encb ROi / Pmt Product ID Invoice Amt Distribution Amt Discount Amt Retail Amt 001*4900-0299-S2 000174 SPECIAL PROJECT CONTIMG SPECIAL PROJECTS-CONTINC taassssfi asssssrsssssasBs asssssssssssssss 190.75 1 50.00 O.OC 0.00 JOB EVAL/POSmON PROFILE NAY Net AMxatt:50.00 Inv Date vendor ID / PEOB Cd / Addr Cd Term Due Date Vendor Name Misc Pott Pst Date Vendor Address Rfnd Fmt Ck lO-No Vendor City, State Zip SpCk CkTy Batch to Division Code and Description R1/2 Prep aaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasaaaaasaaaaaa aaas aaaa 07/15/93 614 P PR .000 07/15/93 PERSONNEL DECISIONS 01 07/31/93 NU 8343 PO BOX 1450 HB OR027351 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55485 NW HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LW 25 001-43S6-0069-15 PINMCE OIV EXPENSE MEETINGS-CONF-SCHOOLS 000175 MNGFOA CONFERENCE Net Aaiount: 150.00 1 150.00 0.00 0.00 150.00 07/06/93 A50 P 07/15/93 NINNESOTA GFOA 07/31/93 No Address Lines 0R027352 00000 HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PL .000 01 NB LW 26 001-4SS6-0069-15 PINAIICE OIV EXPENSE NiETINCS-CONF-SCNOOLS 000176 NN GFOA CONFERENCE Net Amount: 94.79 1 07/06/93 T372 P PR .000 94.79 07/15/93 RAOISSON ARROUUOOO 01 0.00 07/31/93 No Address Lines m 0.00 OR027353 HU HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LW 94.79 001-4306-0299-S2 000177 1.444.26 1 07/21/93 678 P PR .000 8PECIAL PROJECT CONTING 162.00 07/21/93 SAFE BENEFITS 01 1TNER CONSULTING SERVICE 0.00 07/31/93 6681 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE NB 0.00 0R0273S4 MINNEAPOLIS, Wi 53427 HW AUG FEE HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LW Net Amoi^t:162.00 999-2030-9999-00 BALANCE SNEET PAYROLL CL ACCRUED WAGES PAYABLE 000177 AUG FEE Net Amount: 1.444.26 1 1.282.26 0.00 0.00 1,282.^6 07/21/93 678 P PR .000 07/21/93 SAFE BENEFITS 01 07/31/93 6681 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE NB OR027354 MINNEAPOLIS, HN 55427 m HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LU 001-4210-0129-31 ^ICE DIV EXPENSE OFFICE SUPPLIES 000178 RENTAL Net Amount: 189.87 1 189.87 0.00 0.00 189.87 06/30/93 142 P PR .000 07/21/93 COPY OUP PN INC 01 07/31/93 6636 CbDAR p>VENUE SOUTN NB 0R027355 RICHFIELD, MN 55423 NU HCO73193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LU ^ITT OF ORONO POST VOID, TYPED AND REVERSED A/P BATCH PROOF 'HU, AUG 5, 1993 2:00 PN ---req: LIMLA. . .loc: OR-FINCE- -job: 2436 #S021. . . Batch File: HCD73193 Page 6 prog: OH450 <1.!>1>- -report id: TRBPROOF CCOUNT NUMBER tOGHAM / OBJECT Invoice Nunber Secondary Ref Encb PO# / Pmt Product ID Item Description* lassasssaxssssasssssssss asssssssraaaaaaa (72-4234-0549-81 000179 WTER 09 OlV EXPENSE (TILITY SYSTEM MAI NT SUP Invoice Amt Distribution Amt Discount Amt Retail Amt Item Description irsss: SALT Net Amount: >72-4383-0549-81 lATIR OP OlV EXPENSE ICCNSES % TAXES 000180 W-2030-9999-00 iAUMCE SHEET PAYROLL CL CCRUEO WAGES PAYABLE CERTIFICATE Net Amount: 000181 W-2030-9999-00 AUNCE SHEET PAYROLL CL CCRUEO WAGES PAYABLE UH 8/1-8/15 Net Amount: 000182 «-4511-0480-00 ;iTY NALL CONSTR MPtOVEMENTS TO LAND WH 8/1-8/15 Net Amount: 000183 ©1-4356-0039-12 MIN OlV EXPENSE fETlNGS-CONF-SCHOOLS LANOSCAPING/TREES/SOO Net Amount: 000184 ICMA CONF Net Amount: Units Tax Tax Amt Tax2 Tax2 Amt Chrg Charge Amt Duty Duty Amt 1932.97 932.97 0.00 0.00 932.97 15.00 15.00 O.CO 0.00 15.00 1,011.84 1 1,011.84 O.OG 0.00 1,011.84 498.72 1 498.72 0.00 0.00 498.72 25,000.00 1 25,000.00 0.00 C.OO 25,000.00 505.00 1 505.00 0.00 0.00 505.00 Inv Date Vendor ID / PEOB Cd / Addr Cd Term Due Date Vendor Name Mi sc Post Nst Date Vendor Address Rfnd Fmt Ck ID-NO Vendor City, State Zip SpCk CkTy Batch ID Division Code and Description R1/2 Prep 3SSZ3SSS M ^ ^ « » « « ^ w ^ M ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ M ^ ^ VMM ^ ^ ^ w w^ ^ ^ ^====ssss 07/01/93 1034 P PR .000 07/21/93 CARGILL SALT OlV 01 07/31/93 PO BOX 282 NB OR027356 CINCINNATI, ON 45296 HW MC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LW 31 07/16/93 T325 P .000 07/21/93 GREGG PALMER 01 07/31/93 No Address Lines NB OR027357 HU HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LU 32 07/16/93 275 P PR .000 07/21/93 GROUP HEALTH INC 01 07/31/93 NU 36C0 PO BOX 66117 NB OR027358 ST PAUL, MN 55166 HW HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LU 33 07/16/93 467 P PR .000 07/21/93 MED CTR HEALTH CARE 01 07/31/93 SOS 12-0033 NB OR027359 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55486 HW HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LW 34 06/30/93 1096 P PR .000 07/21/93 MIOLANO NURSERY INC 01 07/31/93 2425 HIGHWAY 55 NB OR027360 HAMEL, MN 55340 HW HC073193 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LW 35 07/20/93 T373 P PR .000 07/21/93 ICMA CONF REGISTRATION 01 07/31/93 No Address Lines NB OR027361 HW HC073195 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE LW CITY or ORONO POST VOID, TYPED AND REVERSED A/P BATCH PROOF THU, AUG 5, 1993 2:00 PM —req: LINDA. . .loc: OR-FINCE job; 2436 #S021. . . Batch File: HC073193 P«9e 7 -pros: OH450 <1,5I^***"Ccport id: TRBPROOF account number PROGRAM / OBJECT Invoice NuiRier Invoice Amt Units Inv Date Secondary Ref Distribution Ant Tax Tax Amt Due Date Encb PO# / Pint Discount Amt Tax2 Tax2 Amt Pst Date Product ID Retail Amt Chrg Charge Amt Ck ID*No / Item Description*-Item Description Duty Duty Amt Botch ID ■>■■>■■■>■««>»■»»>«» »»«=»»»*»*===»»» ssss===== = ss=a*= = = = = = = s = = = sr= = = = 001-4399-0129-31 000185 50.00 1 07/30/93 50.00 07/21/93 0.00 07/31/93 0.00 OR027362 UNDERAGE ALCOHOL PURCHASE HC073193 police OIV EXPENSE OTHER CHARGES Vendor ID / PEOB Cd / Addr Cd Term Vendor Name Mi sc Vendor Address Rfnd Vendor City, State Zip SpCk Division Code and Description R1/2 ZSSSSSS=r=SSSSS3S3SS3SSSSSSZSS 536 P pp .000 CITY OF OROHO PETTY CASH 00000 AP ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Net Amount:50.00 Post Fnt CkTy Prep 3333 SSSS 01 NB HW LW 37 Batch ID: HC073193 System Computed Total: 35,163.47 User Computed Total: 35,163.47 Distribution Total: TOTALS MATCH 35,163.4/ Net Total:35,163.47 ITT OF OROHO POST VOID, TYPED AND REVERSED A/P BATCH PROOF lU, AU6 5, 1993 2:00 PH -•-req: LINDA. . .loc; OR-FIMCE job: 2436 NS021. . . Batch File: MC073195 PW 8 •prog: OH450 <1.51>--*-report id: TRBPROOF XOUNT NUMBER lOCRAN / OBJECT Invoice NiiTt)er Secondary Ref Encb PO0 / Pmt Product 10 Invoice Amt Units Distribution Amt Tax Tax Amt Discount Amt Tax2 Tax2 Amt Retail Amt Chrg Charge Amt Item Oescriptlon--Item Description Duty Duty Amt Batch ID Inv Date Vendor ID / PEDB Cd / Addr Cd Due Date Vendor Name Pst Date Vendor Address Ck ID-No Vendor City, State Zip Division Code and Description Term Misc Post Rfnd Fmt SpCk CkTy R1/2 Prep ssss ssss —.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .MMO TOTAI System Computed Total: Distribution Total:35,163.47 iANO NET TOTAL:35,163.47 0 :.VICITY OF ORONO WED. AUG 4. 1993 08/04/9357 PM ---req: CHAR IMMEDIATE PAYMENT A/P loc: OR-FINCE- -job: 2418 IJ302 CHECK REGISTER IP0804.0 - -prog: CK200 <1.07>-Pag* 1report id: CKREa---Chack Payae ID Payee Name Date Check Amount Type Subs Rel To NoteOR 028676 OR 02S677 OR 028678 OR 028679 OR 028680 OR 028681 OR 028682 OR 028683 OR 028684 OR 028685 OR 028686 OR 028687 OR 028688 OR 028689 OR 028690 OR 028691 OR 028692 OR 028683 OR 028694 OR 02869S OR 028696 OR 028697 OR 028698 VOID.START VOID.START VOID.START 1059 1047 1046 1040 1041 1060 1051 1057 1058 1043 1063 1048 1049 1042 1052 1054 1053 1045 1044 1050 Void - Starter Check Void * Starter Check Void - Starter Check CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION COLONIAL LIFE INS COMMERCIAL LIFE INS FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT AND CO HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT AND CO ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICE MEDICA CHOICE MINNESOTA BENEFIT MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP PEBSCO/OBRA PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS PERA LIFE INS PERA UNITED WAY 08/04/9308/04/9308/04/93 08/04/93 08/04/93 08/04/93 08/04/93 08/04/93 08/04/93 08/04/93 08/04/93 08/04/03 08/04/93 08/04/93 08/04/93 08/04/93 08/04/93 08/04/93 08/04/93 08/04/93 08/04/93 08/04/93 08/04/93 0.00 VM IP0.00 VM IP0.00 VM IP 4.361.00 MW IP 137.18 FM IP 67.77 IP 9.148.80 MW IP 2.706.75 MW IP 37.636.66 MW IP 1.153.00 MW IP 146.50 IP 164.00 IP 30.00 MW IP 350.00 MW IP 2,558.72 MW IP 5.59 MW IP 2.802.74 MW IP 100.00 MW IP 192.90 MW IP 763.46 MW IP 54.00 MW IP 3.539.62 MW IP 21.00 MW IP VoidVoidVoid • V. % : Q K-! '( ) 4 QCOUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Fri Jul 23 1993 23.59:27CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT 8 INVOICE02I66S$1,270.45 DALE TILE COMPANY ALL BLOG TILE-FINAL 0480-4520 000393 028669 1993/07/23 S532.73 $532.73* GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCT OFFICE FURN ALL BLOG 0480-4540 000396 028667 1993/07/23 $27,698.10 $27,698.10* GEPHARDT ELECTRIC ELEC ALL BLDGS-FINAL 0480-4520 000395 028668 1993/07/23 $6,202.60 $6,202.60* GRESSER INC PW BDG-RETAINAGE/FIN 0484-4520 000388 026669 1993/07/23 1993/07/23 1993/07/23 $1,030.40 $1,919.70 $5,420.10 $8,370.20* HOFFER’S INC MINNESOTA HOFFER‘S INC MINNESOTA HOFFER’S INC MINNESOTA PUB WKS GLASS-FINAL POLICE GLASS-FINAL CC/ADMIN GLASS-FINAL 0484-4520 0483-4520 0480-4520 000392 000392 000392 028670 1993/07/23 1993/07/23 $42.90 $215.13 $258.03* METRO SYSTEMS METRO SYSTEMS INFO BOARD RETURNED ROTARY DISPLAY STAND 0482-4540 0482-4540 71141-CH 71146 028671 1993/07/23 $32,295.60 $32,295.60* MIDLAND NURSERY INC LANDSCAPINQ/TREES/SO 0480-4511 11272 028672 1993/07/23 1993/07/23 1993/07/23 $6,000.00 $5,759.90 $7,000.00 $18,759.90* MULCAHY INC MULCAHY INC MULCAHY INC CC/ADM ORYWALL PUB WKS DRYWALL POLICE DRYWALL 0480-4520 0484-4520 0483-4520 000390 000390 000390 028673 , 1993/07/23 1993/07/23 1993/07/23 $7,365.00 $14,065.00 $15,768.00 $37,198.00* NORTHSIDE CONS INC NORTHSIDE CONS INC NORTHSIDE CONS INC POLICE BDDG-CARPENTR PUB WKS-CARPENTRY FI CITY HALL-CARPENTRY 0483- 4520 0484- 4520 0480-4520 000389 000389 000389 028674 1993/07/23 $16,434.80 $16,434.80*STEININQER CONST CO SITE WORK 0480-4520 000387 028675 1993/07/23 1993/07/23 1993/07/23 1993/07/23 $5,745.47 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $13,245.47* VOHNOUTKA ROOFING VOHNOUTKA ROOFING VOHNOUTKA ROOFING VOHNOUTKA ROOFING PUB WKS ROOFING ADM BLDG ROOFING POLICE ROOFING COUNCIL ROOFING 0484-4520 0482- 4520 0483- 4520 0481-4520 000391 000391 000391 000391 pn wnu Pig* 13IP IP IP IP IPIPIP IPIP IPIP IP IPIPIP IP IPIP IP s Oi .*5r^ci. a COUNCILMEEnNG AUG 9 1993 CfTY OF ORONO \ . r CITY OF ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1993, 7:15 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS ATTENDANCE AGENDA 1. Approval of M nutes of July 6, 1993 Meeting. 2. Report on July 21 work session with City Council. 3. Report on baseball field. Consider instructing the committee to initiate working with the School District. 4. Discussion of procedure for determining citizen input regarding old City Council site. 5. Report on Golf Outing. 6. Revenue enhancements to pay for park maintenance and capital improvements. 7. ,.,ike/hike trail. 8. Dakota Rail meeting. 9. Sewer property sale. 10. Information items: a. Rail to trails - San Francisco area b. Use of Lydiard Beach - milfoil removal c. Hennepin County Park Tour de French III Bike Ride and Festival ADJOURNMENT DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 6, 1993 ATTENDANCE The Park Commission met on the above date ^° * * °'^ * members present: Dick Flint, Susan Wiison. Robert Howeils and Jim White. Sherokee Use, LIii McMillan, and Alex Vongr es were absent. John Gerhardson, PubI Ic ^ j rector and Ter I Naab, Recorder represented City staff. Chair Flint called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. (#1) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Flint request changes on Pages 3 and 4. It was moved by Howells, seconded by wiison, to approve the minutes of the June 22, 1993 Park Commission meeting as amended. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#2) SCHOOL PLAYGROUND FUNDING Eva Hoer presented the Commission with an update on the fund raising progress and samples of the wood to be used for the equIpment. White asked how the school can donate $50,000 without going through the competitive bidding process. Hoer explained the School Board has elected to provide $25,000 for each playground, thereby eliminating the need for She noted she Is there as a representative of the Ad Hoc Committee of the PTO. She noted In discussions with both principals of the schools, they indicated they would not be opposed to other children using the equipment both during school hours and after, and the school is willing to accept the liability for community usage of the playground equipment. She stated the City of Plymouth l.as a policy to donate $10,000 to each playground constructed. She added, the area within Orono that is within the Wayzata School District is primarily junior high school age children. Clair Flint noted that McMillan has suggested that any money allocated from the Park Commission be designated for the playground equipment at Schumann School as It- lies within me boundaries of Orono and will be considered a City playground. Hoer noted that Maple Plain has designated their donation for the Primary School for the same reasons. Gerhardson suggested that any motion to recommend a contingent upon It being an allowable expenditure of narK Dedication Funds.• f>• « MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 6, 1993 SCHOOL PLAYGROUND FUNDING - CONT. Chair Flint stated that he believed this was not an issue. He felt since It was appropriate to fund equipment at Bederwood Park, it Is also appropriate to do so at this playground as long as the equipment will be available to the Community. Wilson felt they should support the project to some degree, but considering their limited funds, suggested a smaller amount such as $4,000 to $5,000. White suggested they recommend a level of funding from the Park Dedication Fund to be matched with City funds. Chair Flint cautioned that the Council feels it Inappropriate for the Commission to recommend expenditure of City funds beyond the Park Dedication Funds. White noted they can be guaranteed that Orono children will be using the equipment. Chair Flint asked it the CDBG funds could be used. Gerhardson said to change the use of the funds approved they would need to go through the public hearing process again. Hoer stated that she will approach the Council with the request for the entire $10,000 regardless of the amount recommended by the Park Commission from the Park Dedication Funds. Howells asked what they will do if approaches them with a similar request. Mound School District Chair Flint noted that school district does not have a playground within the City limits. It was moved by Wilson, seconded by White, to support the playground equipment project because the Park Commission believes that a public playground at the location will be of value to the Community, but due to current budget pressures and funding restraints, recommend a donation of $5,000 from the Park Dedication Fund to be used solely for playground equipment at the Schumann School. Ayes 4, nays 0. Hoer explained the Committee has also established a "Friends of the Playground Committee" to raise funds for the maintenance of the equipment, and such Committee Is also willing to help the City solicit residential input for future park projects. draft \ • MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 6, 1993 (#3) SUBDIVISION REVIEW SUESS Gerhardson reviewed the location of the Suess subdivision, a 20+ acre parcel to be divided Into 8 lots. He suggested they consider the acquisition of a trail easement along Watertown Road. He added they will only get dedication for the portion of the property not Involved in the previous subdivision. Chair Flint noted the right-of-way along Watertown Road is 66’ wide. Gerhardson concurred and added there is a 10’ utiIity easement outside that right-of-way whi'^h currently has power poles on it on the north side of the road. Wilson stated she is not convinced a trail would ever be needed along the road and felt a wide shoulder would be adequate. Chair Flint felt that Watertown Road could become a major thoroughfare in the futuie. Gerhardson noted a trail is not designed in the park plan along Watertown Road. It was moved by Howells, seconded by Wilson, to request a park dedication fee In lieu of land for the Suess subdivision. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#4) BIKE/HIKE TRAIL PROGRESS REPORT Chair Flint announced there wiI I be a work session with the Council on Wednesday, July 21, 1993 at 7:45 a.m. It is expected that by that meeting White will have had a chance to discuss tne agreement with Hennepin Parks, and Hennepin Parks will have submitter* i landscape plan to the City. (#5) BALL lAMOND UPDATE SCHOOL PROPERTY Gerhardson referred to a site plan included in the packet and noted one to two ball fields are feasible in the area indica.ea. He noted the Park Commission last recommended that staff continue to review the site for a ball field. Chair Flint questioned the status of the Ball Field Committee with regard to the Maple Plain site. Gerhardson said he was unaware of the progress. It was moved by White, seconded by Wilson, to table action on this Issue until a report is made to the Commission by tne b Field Committee. Ayes 4, nays 0. \. MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 6, 1993 (#6) GOLF OUTING Chair Flint announced a golf outing Is scheduled for July 14, 1993 at 5:00 p.m. at the Orono Golf Course with dinner to follow at Billy’s Light House at 7:30 p.m. Wilson .asked staff to provide the Commission with the golf course financial Information. inn) COUNTY ROAD 6 - HENNEPIN COUNTY ROAD UPGRADE Gerhardson reported the County has included an*upgrade to County Road 6 south of Highway 12 to include paving of shoulders, Qy0Pl^y of road, re^establishment of the ditches, and a wider right-of-way. In some areas an urban design may be used to lessen the impact. Chair Flint noted the City has planned for a bike trail along County Road 6, but added he does not want this to be an alternate for the Old Crystal Bay Road trail. A trail in this are? v'ould be of less value to Orono residents and child.*en. v.'nlte asked about the cost to the City. Gerhardson said the County proposes to use ISTEA funds available. It was moved by White, seconded by Wilson, to dlrec^ staff to notify the County of the Commission’s Interest In a trail along this section of County Road 6 to be included as part of the overall trail plan, but not as a substitute for the Old Crystal Bay Road tralI proposed. Ayes 4, nays 0. Wilson felt a wider shoulder In this area would be adequate for bike use and stressed she does not want separate trails throughout the entire City. LETTER TO RESIDENTS FROM THE PARK COM.MISSION Chair Flint noted City Administrator Moorse is holding the letter to residents along the proposed bike trail pending the Joint meeting with Council. CRYSTAL BAY SITE Chair Flint reminded the Commission that under their plan for the year. It was time to Initiate planning for the Crystal Bay site. Wilson noted she met with Bradley and Gerhardson and they previously made a general proposal to the Commission. She said they felt citizen Input was Important. • t * • DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PARK COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 6, 1993 CRYSTAL BAY SITE - CONT. Chair Flint noted the Historical Society has Indicated a desire to move the old Council Chambers to the school site to be used for historical purposes. He suggested this issue be put on the next agenda and the Confirpl ssion be spnt al I information regarding the Crystal Bay site gathered to dai*^. OTHER Gerhardson noted there has been an interest expressed on the part of the Fire Department to burn the buildings on the Crystal Bay site as a training procedure. Chair Flint asked If people are allowed to use the French Creek Pari; yet. Gerhardson noted the plantings have not been completed to date. WiIson reported Counci I has agreed to accept Lowry Woods. Howells suggested they purchase a sign for the property, and noted he would like to see a parking area developed immediately. Chair Flint noted the Commission has developed a standard sign to be placed in City parks. Gerhardson noted that a sign of this type could cost up to $700 which will be paid for from Park Dedication Funds. Wilson felt they should reduce the size of the sign in order to save money. White said they should be considering revenue enhancements to help pay for park maintenance and capital Improvements. Gerhardson noted he will add this item to the next agenda. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Wilson, seconded by Howells, to meeting of the Park Commission at 9:23 p.m. adjourn the The next meeting will be Tuesday. August 3. 1993 at_7:15 p.nii. Richard Flint, Chair Person LAKE MINNETONK/* CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Committee Meeting Report 6:00 pm, Wednesday, June 23, 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall Present:Committee Chair Scott Carlson, Mike Bloom, , Cochran, Bert Foster, Jim Grathwol, JoEllen Hurr.- Bill Johnstone, George Owen, Tom Penn, Bob Rascop, Tom Reese, Executive Director Gene Strommen, Admn. Technician Rachel Thibault Absent: Doug Babcock, Duane Markus, Bob Slocum MEETING REPORT REVIEW. The report was accepted as mailed. The meeting report of 6/8/93 was mailed Five topics were assigned to the SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT, to all board members, subcommittee, namely: 1. Funding 2. Budgeting 3. Long Range Plans -- Management Plan 4. Organizational Structure 5. Committee'Structure ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURF -- Johnstone proposea that LMCD's organizational structure be approached from two levels: 1) Changes which can be made without legislative authority; 2) Changes which might require legislative authority; Jchnstone believes the subcommittee responsibility is 9st ideas on the table before making recommendations. The 6/8/9J subcommittee meeting discussion started in that direction. In addition to organizational structure, the subcommittee on 6/8 (see minutes provided earlier) reviewed and offered ideas on: * Board membership * Funding (a sub-group of budgeting) * ComiT.ittee organizational structure Administrative Committee member discussion: . j Penn -- sees the initiative to restructure the board coming from one or a few people. Fo'^ter -- points out that LMCD restructuring was a topic during the Management Plan deliberations. A proposal to reduce* the board size was opposed by most cities. Cochran sees It appropriate to continue to e.xamine LMCD s structure. Carlson -- believes changes in the structure should be the result of LMCD initiative. Grathwol -- advises LMCD must stay close to the citie while finding a way to structure the board with potentially fewer cities represented on it. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT, 6/23/93, P. 2 Hurr — envisions that a board rnomber could represent more than one city. Carlson — points out that for LMCD to accomplish its tasks the board must have the cooperation of its member cities. Johnstone — hears concerns from various sources that the board is too big and inefficient. Board representation through elected districts based upon population would not provide eguitable city representation. He believes cities have a strong desire to preserve their interest in LMCD. Cochran — finds some city officials supporting two or more cities jointly appointing LMCD board members to retain 1 ocal control . . , , j i.Carlson — recommends an issues paper be developed to address the various options in preparation for a meeting with state legislators. Johnstone offered to draft an outline to reflect the thoughts of this discussion and previous meeting reviews. Concluding committee observation: LMCD's authority to manage the lake is largely limited to the lake's recreational asoects. Lake environment, its watershed and development around the lake are managed by the cities and other agencies. 1994 BUDGET REVIEW. The 1994 Preliminary Draft Budget was presented to the committee for consideration of an adjustment to the reserve fund taking into account an unfunded staff technician position for 1993 at $15,000 to be reallocated to 1994 funds, and allocating $10,000 from reserve funds which would reduce the municipal levy for administrative revenue to $78,500. Reserve balances were discussed. Curison pointed out that the Administrative reserve is approximately $190,000 which represents about nine months operating funds. (Actual balance as of 12/31/92 was $197,808) Strommen reported that a sampling of cities showed that most cities try to have a six month operating reserve but it is often less than six months. Carlson added that cities have taxing authority for additional funding needs. LMCD is totally dependent on its reserves, with the balance of funding varying as to fees and other sources. Administrative cash flow needs were ,, responding an average month ranging from $25,000 to $30,0C0, higher June through August during the milfoil harvest. The committee expressed concern about drawing reserves too low. A $10,000 reserve draw-down would leave barely a nine month operating reserve according to Carlson. f ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, 6/23/93, P. 3 It was the conmittee-s owe^rSl 0 .SoS" month reserve at this time, and ,e«onable.reduction from current reserves that would oe reason adjournment. The time expiring, the meeting was ad jour chair Carlson at 7j25 pm. Respectfully submitted Eug^e R. Strommen Executive Director Sunday, 22nd 10:00 11:00 1:30 am am pm Sunday, 22nd 10:30 am Monday, 23rd 7:00 am Wednesday, 25th 7:00 am Thursday, 26th 6:15 pm Saturday, 28th 10:00 10:30 am am Saturday, 28th 11:00 am Saturday, 28th 10:30 2:00 am pm Sunday, 29th 10:00 1:30 am pm Sunday, 29th 10:30 am MYC Sailboat Races, Main SYC Sailboat Races, Big Is. WYC Sailboat Races, Main UHYC Sailboat Race, East USMS-Minnetonka Challenge 5-Mile Swim (Excelsior to Wayzata Bay) Bell Industries Dealer Fishing Tournament WYC Sailboat Race, Wayzata Bay MYC Burton Cup Sailboat Races WYC Burton Cup Sailboat Races SYC Sailboat Race, Big Island UMYC Sailboat Race, East UMYC Sailboat Race, East MYC Sailboat Races, Main WYC Sailboat Races, Main UMYC Sailboat Race, East 7/21/93 LAKE MIMHETOMKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT SPECIAL EVENTS CALENDAR AUGUST 1993 Sunday, 1st 10:00 1:30 am pm Sunday, 1st 10:30 am Tuesday,3rd 6:00 pm Wednesday , 4 th 6:00 pm Thursday 5th - 8th - Sunday, Thursday,5th 6:15 pm Saturday, 7th 7:00 am Saturday,7th 10:00 am Saturday,7th 2:00 pm Sunday, 8th 10:30 am Sunday, 8th 1:30 pm Tuesday,10th 6:00 pm Wednesday, llth 6:00 pm Thursday,12th 6:15 pm Saturday,14th 10:00 10:00 am am 11:00 am Saturday,14 th 2:00 pm Sunday, 15th 10:00 1:30 am pm Sunday, 15th 10:30 am Thursday,19th 6:15 pm Saturday,21st 10:00 11: 00 am am 2 :00 pm Saturday',21st 2 :00 pm 10:30 am UI4YC Sailboat Race, East 6:00 pm MYC Sailboat Race, Main 6:00 pm MYC Sailboat Race, Main MYC M Inland Championship Regatta 6:15 pm WYC Sailboat Race, Main Mtka. Challenge 5 Mi. Swim (Excelsior to Wayzata Bay) 10:00 am WYC Sailboat Race, Wayzata Bay 2:00 pm UMYC Sailboat Race, East 10:30 am UMYC Sailboat Race, East 1:30 pm WYC Sailboat Race, Main 6:00 pm MYC Sailboat Race, Main 6:00 pm MYC Sailboat Race, Main WYC Sailboat Race, Main MYC Sailboat Race, Main WYC Sailboat Races, Wayz Bay SYC Sailboat Races, Big Is. 2:00 pm UMYC Sailboat Race, East MYC Sailboat Race, Main WYC Sailboat Races, Main UMYC Sailboat Race, West 6:15 pm WYC Sailboat Race, Wayz Bay WYC Sailboat Race, Main SYC Sailboat Races, Big Is. MYC Sailboat Races, Main UMYC Sailboat Race, East LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 E. Wayzata Blvd, Suite 160, Wayzata MN 55391 473-7033 L.M.C.D. MEETING SCHEDULE AUGUST 1993 Tuesday Saturday Monday Friday Tuesday Wednesday Administrative Subcommittee 7:30 am, LMCD Office, Wayzata Fee Study Subcommittee 4:00 pm, location to be announced Water Structures Committee 7:30 am, #135 Norvest Eank Bldg, Wayzata Lake Use & Recreation Committee 5:30 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force 8:30 am, #135 Norvest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Environment Committee 8:00 am, #135 Norvest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Administrative Committee Meeting 5:30 pm. Tonka Bay City Hall LMCD Board of Directors Regular Meeting 7:30 pm. Tonka Day City Hall 07/29/93 «p/nTa«3. Aw* MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 19, 1993 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Stephen Peterson, Candace Rowlette, Sandra Smith, and Janice Berg. Dale Lindquist arrived at 7:34 p.m. Charles Nolan, Jr. was absent. The following represented the City Staff: Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, and Recorder Teri Naab. Edward Callahan and J. Diann Goetten were present. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (#1) #1829 DIANE SIBFF, 1080 WILDHURST TRAIL - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 - 7;22 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Diane Sieff was present. Mabusth explained the applicant requests approval of an after-the- fact hardcover variance for the repair of an existing deck, and an expansion to the deck at the northeast corner from 6x20' to 14x20' . All improvements meet required setbacks. The applicant proposes the removal of an existing shed located in the 0-75' setback zone, reducing hardcover from 2.3% to 0%, and 68 s.f. of concrete slab in the 75-250' zone. There is a 92 s.f. increase of hardcover in the 75-250' zone. Smith questioned if the removal of the concrete pad near the detached garage, the walkway around the attached garage, and the rock by the northern drive would be possible. Sieff explained the rock was just left over and dumped directly on the grass but serves no purpose. The walk is used for the service door from the garage and also is needed to reduce erosion problems. Peterson inquired about the history of the property. Mabusth explained a variance application was approved in 1979 for the detached garage. All improvements proposed with this application were completed in 1991. Rowlette asked if both drives were necessary. She felt the southern drive was difficult to exit the property from because of the lip on the road. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEET[NG HELD JULY 19, 1993 ZONING PILE #1829 - CONT. Sieff stated during the winter, the southern drive is the only access from the property. Also the neighboring property uses it for access. The lip on the road was installed by the City to help direct drainage. She offered to remove the plastic under the flower beds on the lakeside of the residence. Rowlette felt two driveways were not necessary and asked the applicant to consider more aggressive removals of hardcover. She pointed out existing 75-250' hardcover is 39.5% and proposed is 39.9%. Schroeder noted the City issued a Stop Work Order in February for this project. Mabusth advised a "Stop Work Order" was never issued as decks were already repaired The Inspectors observed the new construction when visiting a neighboring property. Letters were sent to the applicant advising of the need for a building permit. Sieff stated she was notified of the need for a permit after the construction was finished. Peterson inquired about the square footage of the walkway. Mabusth said it is approximately 3'x 25'. Sieff asked that the application be tabled to allow her time to review possible hardcover removals. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Rowlette, to table Application #1829 for Diane Sieff, 1030 Wildhurst Trail, to allow the applicant time to reconsider additional hardcover removals and submit her best efforts to the City. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#2) #1840 JIM TAYLOR, „ „„ ^ «1342 REST POINT CIRCLE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:22 7:41 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Taylor were present. Mabusth explained the applicant proposes the installation of a connecting walkway to an existing deck, requiring a 3 se b ck variance. Hardcover is currently at 51.8% and proposed at ^2.6% in the 75-250' zone. She questioned whether the walk is proposed over natural ground cover or non-hardcovered surface. HIHUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 19, 1993 ZONING FILE #1840 - CONT. Lindquist arrived at this time. Taylor stated the last 8 to 9' near the house will be located under an existing eave, which will cover that portion of the entire walk. He explained his need for the walk for access to the house opposed to using the steps. Mabusth noted the eaves had not been included in hardcover calculations so the walkway would be included as new hardcover. Schioeder noted Mrs. Taylor had indicated the potential exists to remove a portion of the brick patio and the concrete slab. Taylor stated he would prefer not to have to do so immediately, but it is his intent to reduce the brick patio to install draintile and would be willing to remove the slab. Mabusth stated the walkway is necessary to provide a safer access to the residence. Peterson asked about comments from the neighbors. Mabusth stated there were no comments. Smith asked if there was a chance to improve the appearance of the rock drive. Taylor said it is his intent to do so. Smith questioned the existence of the porch near the lakeshore. Mabusth explained the City approved the improvement of this structure in 1990 with the condition that it could not be converted to living space and plumbing could not be provided. Rowlette suggested staff brief the applicant on the conditions related to this structure on the property. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Berg, to recommend approval of Application #1840 for Jim Taylor, 1342 Rest Point Circle, for a side setback variance to allow the installation of a walkway to the existing deck, conditioned upon the removal of 50% or more of the brick patio by August 31, 1993 and removal of the concrete slab by September 30, 1993. Ayes 6, nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 19, 1993 (#3) #1841 WILLIAM & LORI CORNELIUS, 960 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 7:41 - 8:39 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Cornelius, Steve Longman, applicants' builder, and David Riddler, former owner, were present. Mabusth noted the City approved an average lakeshore setback for a new residence and a pool at the end of 1992. At that time the survey indicated a loop drive located out of the 0-75' zone. However, a portion of the drive is located within the 0-75' setback area at 1,200 s.f. hardcover. The applicants advised that portion of the drive had existed on the property for years. The applicants claim to relocate the drive on the property would mean the loss of mature trees. The applicants propose the drainage to run away from the lake draining to the west and eventually to the marsh. Longman explained the surveyor originally located the drive on the survey but later realized it was within the 0—75' zone and changed the location without notification to the builder or owner. He reiterated the loss of 6 to 8 mature hardwood trees if the drive were to be relocated. He pointed out they are not adding additional hardcover in the 0-75' zone, but merely using the existing hardcover for the drive. Peterson stated he does not have a problem with the drive, but does have a problem with the 12" culvert coming from the neighboring property to the south across the Cornelius property and dumping into the lake. He asked if there were a way to filter the groundwater. Longman stated they intend to extend the culvert under the drive and direct drainage to the natural swale/marsh area to the northwest of the drive. Mabusth asked about a retention area to the south of the drive. Longman stated that was not their intent, and the natural drainage pattern flows to the marsh area. He stated the culvert has been in place since approximately 1920. He added the Lauer property does not appear to be adding to the run-off. He stated it is their goal to grade the property so there is not water standing on the south side of the drive, but they are open to suggestions. Cornelius stated there has not been water flowing out of the culvert during this wet season. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 19, 1993 ZONING FILE #1341 - CONT. Riddler stated he never had a problem in this area in the past and the same sized culvert has been there for many years. Smith stated in an effort to reduce hardcover in the 0-75' zone she would like them to consider relocating the drive through an existing opening in the wooded area thereby reducing tree removal. Longman stated this is not feasible because of the following: the curve would be too narrow to maneuver, they would lose mature trees, and the slope would be in excess of what the code allows. Mrs. Cornelius reminded them that they could have subdivided the property and then there would be even more hardcover than presently. Rowlette stated she has a difficult time approving this when the previous two applicants were asked to remove all hardcover in the 0-75' zone. She stated she would never have voted in favor of the original application knowing the location of the proposed drive. She remembered visiting the property during that application process and stated she did not see the existing drive in the 0-75* zone. Riddler stated the drive had been there for many years. Rowlette asked if it was located on the survey. Mabusth stated the survey did not locate that portion of the drive as it was intended to be removed with the total redevelopment of the property. Longman noted Bruce Vang, the City Inspector, did locate the existing drive on aerial photos. Schroeder called for a recess from 8:05 to 8:15 p.m. Mabusth pointed out the aerial photos indicate two driveways from the property. The property owner indicated he used the loop portion of the drive for maintenance of the property near the lake, but the portion connecting the loop and the exit to the road was never used and became overgrown. Schroeder clarified that there never was a loop connection between the two drives as currently proposed. Riddler concurred. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 19, 1993 ZONING FILE #1841 - CONT. Longman r.tated with the proposed drive, the connection is there. He reiterated the hardcover in this zone is existing hardcover. He stated it has impacted the lake in the past the same as it will in the future. Rowlette stated it is their duty to improve run-off to the lake. She felt they needed more information on the drainage issue. Mr. Cornelius stated there is very little run-off presently, and it will ali drain to the marsh area on the property. He pointed out the loss of mature trees will only negatively impact the run-off situation. He submitted letters of support from neighboring property owners. Schroeder read the letters from James Gilbert and Graydon McCulley. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Lindquist, to recommend approval of Application #1841 for William and Lori Cornelius, 960 Tonkawa Road, for hardcover and setback variances to construct a portion of the drive in the 0-75' zone, subject to the City Engineer approving the drainage plan with the extended culvert and analysis of the landscape plan around the front of the house and no expansion of the existing drive in this area. Rowlette stated she is disappointed with the after-the-fact request and reiterated she would never have voted in favor of the original application had she known this, but would vote in favor at this time to preserve the trees. Smith stated she is disappointed that the applicants are not willing to consider alternatives. Mr. Cornelius stated they did review all the options. Vote: Ayes 6, nays 0. (#4) #1842 TOM BROWNE, 760 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:39 TO 9:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Browne were present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 19, 1993 ZONING FILE #1842 - CONT. Mabusth explained since the adoption of the shoreland regulations, the wetland eirea has been reclassified as a recreational development lake and structures must meet a 100 ‘ setback. She reviewed the impact of the regulations on the building envelope for this property. The applicant proposes enclosing an upper level deck, a screen porch on an existing deck with an addition to one corner, and an additional connecting dec.k area to the south with the installation of a pool and deck area. Mabusth pointed out they are allowed to have non-structural hardcover in the 75-100' zone. The DNR's structure setback for this area is 100'. The DNR has expressed concern about the additions of structure toward the lake and recommends the following: no new construction extending lakeward, the removal of the basketball court, and that applicant maintains the existing natural vegetation on the lakeshore bank. Mr. Browne stated their primary concern is the protection of their septic system and the marsh area. Smith stated she does not have a problem with the screened portion to the existing deck, but does not agree with the addition of the pool and would like the basketball court to be removed. Mr. Browne stated the court is used by their children to ride bikes on as their drive slopes to the busy County road. He asked if they are suggesting he remove the court in exchange for the pool? He felt there would not be enough area on the property for the pool if it had to be located outside the 100' setback. Rowlette stated she would like to see a condition that the court would not be replaced in the future if repairs were necessary. It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Smith, to recommend approval of Application #1842 for Tom Browne. 760 Brown Road South, for variances to enclose the upper le/el deck, and screen porch on the lower deck extending no closer to Tanager Lake, and the expansion of the lower deck as shown; and denial of the request for a pool and deck addition subject to the condition that the concrete slab may not be repaired and must be removed in the future when major repairs ar^ deemed necessary. Ayes 6, nays 0. MINUTES OP THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 19, 1993 («5) #1843 ROBERT & JOAN SUBSS, 2590 WATERTOWN ROAD - SKETCH PLAN/SUBDIVISION Mr. Suess, Mark Gronberg and Ear] Fischer were present. Mabust'h explained this is a 8 lot subdivision, of which Lots 5 an ] 6 do not meet the required lot width. Staff recommends extension of the road to the western boundary of the property to provide for a future connection to Goldenview Drive, with the development of a temporary cul-de-sac in the interim. Drainage on this property is a major issue. Currently major portions of the property drains to the northeast and through the Hackberry Hill neighborhood. During the review of the previous 3 lot subdivision, the applicant proposed a retention pond to the north. In the current review, the Engineer has suggested directing drainage to the south to Watertown Road, which does not have drainage ditches to carry the run-off. Gronberg noted because of the neighbors' concerns to the east, the existing tree buffer was left and the drainage swale was moved further to the west creating a larger than average drainage easement. He questioned if this area would be deducted from the dry buildable on those lots and felt that would be a hardship. He questioned the purpose of the connection of the road to Goldenview Drive. Mabusth replied this would be a part of the network of roadways. The City is trying to connect the interior roads in the City. Lindquist questioned where the pond on Lot 8 will dram. Suess stated it currently drains to the northeast. He added if the road were required to be extended, it would destroy one of his lots and one of the possible lots on the Hallson property. He noted Mr. Hallson has already paid for a road, Goldenview Drive, and did not feel he would like to pay for another. Mabusth noted that access can still be from Goldenview Drive, but that access corridor to be platted at the time of a future subdivision would only be developed at the time the City found a need to develop through roads. Peterson asked about the septic sites. Mabusth noted two lots have been tested satisfactorily, and they do not anticipate any problems with the remainder of the lots. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 19, 1993 ZONING FILE #1843 - CONT. Suess pointed out his homestead has existed on this property since the late 1800s. He said the drainage issue should have been corrected with the development of the Hackberry neighborhood and he felt he should not be solely responsible for the correction of the drainage problem. Mabusth stated perhaps there is an opportunity to work with the neighbors to the east to create a joint drainage easement- Lindquist questioned the need for the road. Mabusth explained that the interior roads are all private roads until connected, at which point the City will take over maintenance. Lindquist asked ix lots have been platted on the Hallson property to see where the boundaries could go. Mabusth noted the northern Hallson lot at 4+ acres has not been platted as yet. Fischer stated the residents want the private road to deter public traffic. Rowlette stated the access may be very valuable should Highway 12 be relocated to the southern corridor. She suggested staff confirm the ability of Hallson to divide his property if the road were to be located across his property. Mabusth stated they will be requiring drainage information with the filing of the preliminary plat to determine the impact on the dry buildable area. She noted the new development cannot send drainage at a greater velocity to property to the east than property emits at undeveloped conditions. She felt the Hallson property could be subdivided into two parcels even with all or part of a future road extension. Peterson felt they should allow the cul-de-sac and not require the extension of the road. Mabusth stated even if the Hallson property were divided, the road would not necessarily be constructed as the property is served by Goldenview. No action was taken. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 19, 1993 (»6) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE Peterson reported Councilmember Kelley cautioned the Planning Commission in accepting the removal of non-structural hardcover for structural hardcover. Mayor Callahan stated that advise was for both the Planning Commission and Council. Peterson reported on Council action on zoning applications presented to them at their last meeting. the the Smith asked if it is their job to thoroughly review applications and do an in-depth review prior to passing application on to Council. Mayor Callahan stated that is correct. Councilmember Gootten felt the Planning Commission could be stricter, and added sometimes new information is presented to the Council that the Planning Commission did not have an opportunity to review. («7) OTHER ISSUES Peterson reported he has been asked to serve on a County Road 15 Improvement Committee to review the possible upgrade of the road. The next meeting is scheduled for August 5th, 7:30. Smith reported the next Highway 32 Policy meeting is scheduled for July 21st at 5:30 p.m. She asked when the Commission would begin reviewing other issues. She suggested Lhey consider a survey of applicants to determine if there aro ways lo improve service. Mabusth suggested staff develop a survey and present it to the Commission for review. Schroeder nominated Smith to be the representative on Highway 12 issues and Peterson the representative on County Road 15 issues. (#8) APPROVAL OP MINUTES It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Peterson, to approve the minutes of the June 21, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. Ayes 6, nays 0. [*•■■• ■ c: r: MINUTES OP THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 19, 1993 («9) REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNCIL MEETING Peterson and Smith volunteered to attend the meeting August 9, 1993 Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chair Schroeder adjourned the regular Planning Commission meeting at 10:10 p.m. Charles Schroeder, Chair Person i TO; FROM: DATE: Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator August 6, 1993 SUBJECT: Information Transmittal to Planning Commission - Flag Lots To:Chairman Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:August 6, 1993 Subject: Ordinance Amendment - Definition of Lot Width/Flag Lots - Public Hearing List of Exhibits A - Staff Sketch - Hypothetical Example For Discussion B - Plat Map Examples C - Staff Memo 6/16/93 Background Based on the historic definition of lot width (measured at the "rear of the front yard"), non-lakeshore cul-de-sac lots and flag lots have always required a lot width variance. However, for lakeshore lots, which had no "front yard", but only a "rear yard" and "lakeshore", staff as a matter of policy measured lakeshore lot widths at the street setback line and the lake setback line. The definition of lot width was revised when the Shoreland Regulations were adopted to require that lakeshore lots meet the required width only at the shoreline and at the lake setback line. This eliminated the need for variances for most lakeshore cul-de-sac and flag lots. However, the Lake Use Committee reviewed the Shoreland Regulations merely in the context of cul-de-sac lots and the issue of lakeshore flag lots was not considered. Since the City in recent years has generally moved toward creating driveway outlets rather than flag lots, the shoreland lot width definition resulted in an unanticipated inconsistency. Application #1825 on Old Beach Road, was the first lakeshore lot subdivision the City has dealt with on a General Development lake since the Shoreland Regulations were adopt^. Both Planning Commission and Council members expressed a concern that while the creation of flag lots had not been allowed anywhere under the prior code, the new shoreline regulations did not continue that policy. Planning Commission recommended denial of the application based on hardcover issues having to do with the driveway within the narrow platted corridor. Council subsequently directed that the issue of lot width for lakeshore lots be studied, since they were not aware that flag lots would be allowed under the new regulations, and asked for time to reconsidered the code requirements, and possibly amend the code if that seems appropriate. A 90-day moratorium was adopted for subdivisions proposing flag lots. Use of Flag Lots The Flag lot might be defined in a number of ways, but is not currently defined in the zoning code. One definition might be; "A lot typically separated from a public or private road by another lot and which gains access to the public or private road via a narrow corridor typically 10’ to 50 ’ in width, which is part of the flag lot". Another way to look at it is that Ordinance Amendment - Definition of Lot Width/Flag Lots - Public Hearing July 28. 1993 Page 2 a flag lot is the result of subdividing a deep lot in half to create a "front lot" and "back lot", with a connecting corridor along side the front lot for access to the rear lot. The City has generally moved away from allowing creation of flag lots because they by definition require a variance. One option the City allowed in the distant past was an easement through the front lot to access the back lot. In contemporary times, however, the City has required that the corridor be platted separately as an outlot when "back lots" are allowed. No lot area credit is granted for the outlot. From a planning standpoint, not all cities allow the creation of flag lots, and in the definition of flag lot appearing in "The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions" (1981, Rutgers University Press), it is noted that "Flag lots are permitted in rural and developing municipalities to permit development of back land areas while still maintaining their rural character. The usual requirements for a flag lot are as follows: minimum lot area at least twice the area in the zone where located exclusive of the right-of-way connecting the lot with *e public road; minimum front, side and rear yard requirements to be met on the portion excluding the right-of-way; minimum of 20’ and maximum of 50 ’ for right-of-way; not more than 1 flag lot for each right-of-way; rights-of-way should be a minimum distance apart of at least the minimum lot width in the particular zone." One negative aspect of a flag lot is that its driveway corridor is adjacent to the side and rear yard of the front lot. Secondly, the back yard of the front lot abuts the functional front yard of the flag lot and without proper screening and buffering, the flag lot resident may find having rear yard uses abutting his front yard to be visually and otherwise incompatible. Adequate buffering might mitigate this, hence the typical requirement of "twice the required lot area" noted above. Issues related to the number of curb cuts within a given length of busy roadway may be a valid concern in some situations. Fire safety and emergency vehicle access would be a further concern as the narrow corridor extends a greater distance from the road. It should also be pointed out that whether the City allows the creation of flag lots, back lots with outlot driveways, or front and back lots with an easement access, the functional result is the same. Staff Recommendation This is a public hearing, and Planning Commission is requested to consider whether flag lot are appropriate on lakeshore or generally in the City. Identification of issues and concerns about the use of flag lots will help in determining whether a code amendment is appropriate ^ how it might be strucmred. Staff would, if appropriate, bring options back to Planning Commission for further consideration. ^isc44.ss/o#vj /'AC* «-or s/z«^^/y^ /ti//o. »etfx»o t/^it>TP ^35' ^tto^r ^ /o* sr' S7T«Ftf'T"^7r ’lArldJ^ Sw^nSLACKS ^ ^ /VC.. St-nf ^"7 L»rz - ^t/o* At-^no^itf <.#^c ^^2^0 /vT '7T' SerBAiic ST«i^lC»HT ta#..!# at sMo€fU/A<# ST*WCI4^ A^ "7r* V.400 • *.> /. • .•» • t I . W • m 0 « \ ••' iP A‘P':^T.E/iN/1^ 0 0 ^ ...' ' I • »o> /S;^ .4^ .P^l'^^^7t*"'i S O V..’I ,OOTLOT C t • • • • • f.'• > * .’ v’^' .• •..' i • > • • » • ,,,mt *•..* • - V •I. •• • Vc m.i4 ^ » W F<^ '-'T- V jsr V* \r^ 2iJlii I*”* •!w i! ,1 ClkST CAST • ^ 141.41 Jiv ' w» m ’ n:: •. *• td Co(UL\^0^\^ . f- « • • 20 A*r' 55 ' STHW?*”' 214.^4 CJ4T ,• 1 • .» I -vj*. •K • • •• • U* f^»‘vs'^*'« v ‘' Vr •.-« • • •¥* .• .• .. ^ -I- ■f . .•-.* • .f » •. ^ — ::?./>...ir ■ r.- ,.t V . * ' • ' L. '-V- • .-.-»•'.->!■ • . »•• , .• ^ V •. . ; >s: • * ••> V. • 0V5 :: - -ifH''.te :sr *. V Z' •*• - •• -*. * • * •• • • -• • • • • • ’ • ■ Yi) ■tor ♦• >fTrayn-r’ :• • ; *. \P ^r^co CH IT' ----------y |7V2*r^ / Port ^ LoT^ 19 ‘ •j* ♦-r * » . • * :. ->?0^ r 2*’ I timxi > 4 • ,-3/; 'MiT ’r'.V , ‘* • * ».•- . •, 4 f r- , -^1 'Hit • ^ J w/ U". *..• 4 'V > ‘ >‘- '4* r.*'* • • ■ I 1 «.* II ^.vpWig" 'W9 - : *rp • i’ f • • 9.23 \ 2i34. IB Res. ' (Za.93. N8541 '/i\W SZ9.28 N'\ 9 %- BAYSIDE 306.^7 m0.1Hwy - 2^115 .V uj it>*r>»i A’.\Vw ♦ SLOW 4ti.tl 1^' ji' 2JOO Arr sHo«€X/ m6 "7^ ^eT€AOC ^ /SS* at CT/j4?irr S€*TSAiAJi ^2«0 O 'r» \'-“V 2 li^ 3S- 3|6JZ / -'22 1 V'' ^<5.34 73?. 23? , .^r/' »<LIT2KE I (21) 2/3 220, iVl A }45ii ^ZO , I -"/P5 ‘xa 2 fl5) ^ ADDITION 114) 6 \'n TS^j. f/iUr^ilW S7S. 06 N83*0TW y* “• 5/ft 2i Z4C S27. / 0 jUO* (p4\bnrH so' ZRm^AcK^ \ Cit A IT3X ^ J'4^' \v X NOERENE A % //'; / V ^ S X ✓' vV v^/ iXl V • I •..X * * •X ■^J^'V :-T '^<1 \ * y» .ItS'S’W" L.*' f '/A ffXri. /vzsv ^k V >/\v X./ ;oron \ vV I/K2.X / ! |y^v»\ N w W.sv ^‘.59 V \\» XjSs . V tA •5*25 ,0t i A'♦ A. 8aiV >«V s.V\ Sijy. '^aT f V S (^L. ••_M fV ® Xi269^ 100 JLM e*.'A A / / si NO. 1113 •tty»'t.j a&jVr •»*•.,•700 / "4osi,V;;:r^,^< C>F TAf ^ ('^‘0^ (^C\ /yA PLAG 2o' coA^fc»oft- /2.0* LO^C. . {iz^o) : (\ZZA) (A^ • ••. •.• . . . . IIfizzi) '// • .* » « • m 0 <-r : » •V V t .------------ / (it)uo 0^ ^3S v\nii's»''‘»®*‘" ‘" ’».w >? rsM 0 [v'\ *i)*jn.“iv \- ^ 3S> s«t6A<y< is> Ito' (iHO' iW c a.tV *■2*L>:*5»*. 4 j : .• C.i £• r-»* • *iS ' L'HU 4'iOI* M4.H "•>r nif'wc'vi zitv s. •• 6 - • *• • * •', .V. , • . * » \ •. • .*.j ‘* I-4 */•*:«'* .••. • m 9 •9 ^• * , - ^ . . • •V .•.' iVY'*^ ; y ,0 • S' •V , ^«v ktr. • r ../# • ■ • • V.*4» - V .# •^ 7 ' r. \ .. :; ..^ £. • ,f 'K- S .• 1 ' i • •* !? fMA<‘ i /" J:i -—±_ •• t 4< .R:^3 V . > ^S- :.; ■ ,. .<yrr i^ • «* I ■' Si 'Uie? '....w * »^ ♦ / V o? ‘ ^ l^roW S' / ?/I. M ' / *TJ(^z) ^ J i//0 »r»z TT?^OOsfe L.* * • » I ;• <“ N » ^ (ie) • ^ ^|jDd Bulids 091401 •? I-.. y ^9 <\Vv.- ! r\_u i r • «3> ♦ OO a -.« '• « . • • • y .............. . •. 4 .' .■. »\ , . - •» • # ^5^ r DF- V/.'/.; Hi/'/J': ■ viai^rfs («w, A^- ■/■ ■ /A* MV^ec?, oiif?5Sii5»o-’^''/ ••• •• ;■ • . r V «: » Vf\ «»tl *« *-^1 -- Mv r.*... o *<•> ■J^... t-k ’>. '•••** n • ■•• .• ■ \:U ■ . •• '. • ., ■• •, w ^y^.:$u!*'yy^') I (ffiz^ynu- '-m r . • ? r/ ‘■:' . . I ■ >■' ■MP ••• •:• ?%'! •: . i : • .♦ • ^ .i i .' . * « i\ ■A~- f:< 1-- f/irj .-»;•* * n / • .* • , • • I « •% > . • \ r • • :v - .* ’ * • • • I . • * » • f 1 • ‘ . . • ^ • t • / . . . *•« »• I. ,jj • . *; i #* : • .» • . *•• I ■ * . • r I ' * * » • .* « Vfei-M •‘•'‘'^V^^j^i.i■; ■■■ r’+-r# -»» . . j * ht^> •* » . t*IM * M «o u ^o i. I ./TTr^/a 4! > ioo % NO'ZVi'S'Jf 9103?w&------jraig^ •V30 I »s* 4—7^ 5io.oa V-' . ^ •‘iVv*-. ■• Vv..^ ^...♦ »• . 'Fy'-v » ■••.* ■"•i . I • • - y* R ff- ' «>.< .•'Vi • * ♦.40S « •>rVf . r \WQ s«»j *j • •I6f.f4 ^ •f—^iSJ % #’ V. ;■•• •• . . .#r^ ••■• V* ‘ * 1 ^ •k '• S ’ f rS f 2 ;V Si; . •a at * :|< *■■ • ■: V iJS * * :► *• • ^. « H»rfh to6 - ^^3f6 ,s • • • ^ • 1 f • ^ • "i • • * * ' ' * .• v I; ■ •.*?• .! ’‘-(iS! ‘ •■ • --Vi^r-rlv • . : KS;' •‘/4 ' ,.'• r : ‘‘‘ ' ,, • • - *••’ s • .• P.‘••'I;. ' . • . . ' *C ; • .'5t| > .• '-•••••. •*'• •*■ '•‘SI • •'.' ■ ■ fv;tvf'yv*^i pV-J; • •! ; •t sr’"'-«■ '■-. ’■• t>i>'•». w r • ^^ I' ■ *. » /•• • ' V- .*• .t‘* ____ •"S' ■ •'■s I'O I.' ^ mi:® f.‘ *J .. ’ ^4 %n<■ *'t ' * ifti * • ls4 '1u^. .< :>- y* '-■•'ifs# r?' r* if' To: From: Date: Subject: Jeanne Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator June 16, 1993 #1825 Thomas L. McCarthy, 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. Since the definition of lot width relied on having a front yard, and lakeshore lots by definition 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 shoreline and at the requir^ lakeshore setback line (7571007150’ depending on GD/RD/NE classification), while non-lakeshore lots would continue to have lot width measured at the street setback line. Perhaps one of the first cases in which the new definition came into effect was the Boyke subdivision on Lydiard Lake. Because the easterly lot with the house did not abut the shoreline, its width was measured at the street setback line from the driveway outlot The width of the newly created lakeshore lot to the west was measured as a straight line from the side lot lines at the shoreline and at the 150’ setback. Even though this lot had a lengthy narrow "nagpole" section, that met the width standards as does the McCarthy proposal. Background Note that for non-lakeshore situations and for lakeshore situations prior to the Shoreland Ordinance, the City has historically seen three options for gaimng access to a back lot. These include an easement through the front lot; a flagpole to create a flag or creation of an outlot over the narrow 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 for lack of frontage was automatically required. The way to avoid this variance was to create a flag lot extending to the street. However, 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 meeting the width requirement. The solution to both the easement and flag lot options was the outlot option. By creating an outlot driveway that in a sense functioned as a private road, it could be argued 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 therefore the lot width. Over the last five years or so, the City has normally required the ouUot option, and the area of the outlot is excluded from lot area. An inadvertent effect of the new shoreland lot width definition was to revive the possibility for flag lots on the lakeshore. This would normally not be an issue except in a case such as McCarthy ’s where total area of the property does not allow for the outlot option. This leads to issue #2, i.e. hardcover in the flagpole. 2. Hardcover Zone Balancing. Th^estion here is whether it is legitimate to allow a higjpr^rcentagc and square footagSif hardcover in a zone further from the lake, asjodg as the zone closer to the lake is reHiiqcd by an equivalent square footage,.^ avoid the need for a variance. While I believe this isViqgical policy andfrocedure to have in place, and while I would argue rather vehemenUy tdwrsuad^onc that this is a reasonable, beneficial, and fair policy, I wUl concede that tWsjMK^eeping and future review procedures must be in place so that future problems dol(Vl»;j^. For instance, if a lot is allowed an extra 1 000 s f of hardcover in its 2X500’ zon^n exchange for reducing its allowance in lli; 75-250’ zone by that s^d1,000 s.f., thi^^mu»t be adequately documented m City files and procedures put/m place so that at soinbs^ture date a new owner can t be allowed to go up to limit since his actu2Siq^t is really 1,000 s.f. less than the 25% figure. Looklh^at Exhibit B, assume that the entire flagpole pohiqn of the lot is 30 wide, and^ll ’ wide driveway runs its entire length. This constitute^a^ha^over in thp^-500*, where 30% would be allowed, and in the example, results ifl^LbOO s.t. (cover where only 1,350 s.f. would be allowed at a 30% level. Thomas L. McCarthy, Background . June 16, 1993 Page 3 I w^d argue that the property owner should be allowed the right to have the 250 s.f. overage msWs 250-500 ’ zone as long as he agrees to reduce theJ255T allowance in his 75-250 ’, by me equivalent 250 s.f. This in essence results in^4% hardcover limit for his 75-250 ’ zoiwj^36% limit for his 250-500 ’ zone, andjh^same amount of overall hardcover he would ha^had under the standard allowanpeiT but a greater proportion of it IS further from the lak^ Obviously, we would not^How a sim^diTthat would work the opposite direction, i.e. increasing hardcover nearer the^JiKejn^change for less hardcover in a zone further from the lake. This would be opposije^ intent of our "hardcover zones" philosophy. If Council would agrep^this hardco^bc policy interpretation, we would see a few less "nuisance" harder variances each yeqr, and cause less aggravation for property owners and sprff. I would prefer to view this as a policy clarification of Ae hardcover ordinanep^ther than as breaking new grobn^ From an administrative standpoint, we can certainly put in place review procedurfc^so that fimire problems should not opeur. . Icceptance of this police will also allow staff to, in generatX^ hardcover baUr^ing for any lakeshore property requesting a permit, such that a phapW with hardcover "credit" in a zone nearer the lake can legitLiiately use that cr^t in a zone further from the lake, without requiring a variance. Recommendatioii Council has the option of revising the shoreland lot width definition to add the requirement for meeting the width standard at the street setback line as weU as at the shoreline and at the lake setback line. However, I don’t see that this will impact the McCarthy case, since it came in under the current ordinance. ^ 1 would strongly recommend that the Council accept the concept of "balancing" hardcover whereby hardcover unused in zones nearer that lake can be legitimately used in zones further from the lake without a variance. t!^ E'a .’T J'* TO A /AeiAAJC^ ;=t?fa> ^ |0(?T HAV/^<i> OI^ A Pv4itLC_ eoACii * ^o t^J€' ^Oe^^•T^ TO *^eT74-oi^ */ \ « f.* « / i YA s> > • r r y rf^s i^T /s 6o/^&«t>nr2-ct* -m& f^NT YA,«./^ ia ^NC* f » •» /0^7?tl?A- l^T 6^rs C.Jiei.vT' ^iiTtOT Aa^A # t I r I « I •• T.- . 3 •. l^-bSTF/AJisr^ IV^ Po(9^ A ..„iJPnC4St^O/t»—AOT^YAj-TnQ, /r QA»U7 ivatrA<u.ie<?tifc yC sngA€^ i-/AiC-. f d -4 • i -•!'^A^--....: •j .| . 4»» . A Zms:,'. j- - - ?• - •} t— i. oie . w»^tH o*t» j » r-Ti . -vt" -* ^________ ' Ha. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DI_S.TBJ.C1 E 6l2'473-7t ^^1093 BOARD MEMBERS Dnvid H Cochran. Chair Greenwood Tom Ponn, Vice Chair Tonka Bay Ooiiglas E. Babcock. Secretary Spring Park Scoll Carlson. Tre' -urer Minnetrista Mike B'orm Minnetonka Beach Albert (Deri) FoMor Oeepiuivo'' James N. Grathv^oi 6<ce ‘s:Of JoEHen L Hurr Orono William A Jofmstone Minncton^.a Duane Markus Wa> :a!a George C Ov.en Victoria Robert Rascco Sho* weed Reeso Mound Rc-Oort E S'oeum Woociand 900 EAST VVAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 160 • WAY2ATA. MINNESOTA 55391 ^T * .. o -.noT EUGENE R. STROMMAugust 3, 1993 hr. H. RichartJ Zuckman 1819 Dupont Ave S Minneapolis MN 55403 Dear Mr. Zuckman: PHONl ECUTI •7033 OR C;r/" The annual LMCD multiple dock license inspection was conducted at Sandy Beach Place on July 14, 1993. The inspection indicated that there were discrepancies from your licensed sire plan. The walkway between Slips 5 and 6 is 32* instead of 28*. Also, there are two personal watercraft being stored on a slide on the shoreline, along with two row boats,^ The LMCD Code states that all boats must be stored at a designated boat storage unit (BSU) as numbered on the site plan. The slides are not included in the licensed BSU locations. It you wish to give up a slip at the dock, you may apply to move the BSU to a slide storage space on shore. Further, each personal watercraft on the slide count in the total number of restricted (over 16* or 10 hp) watercraft stored at your site. With the two on the -ilide and five at the dock, there is one too many, tae total number of restricted watercrafi must be reduced to six. The row boats, which are unrestricted watercraft, are not being counted at this time because a related code amendment is being considered. However, the number of row boats must remain at two, the same as previous years. The extra restricted watercraft must be removed by August 18. Please call to confirm that this has been done. We will expect the walkway between Slips 5 & 6 to be in compliance for the *94 season. Your cooperation in bringing the Sandy Beach Place dock into compliance \s appreciated. SirR?erely , n "feachel ThiBault Administrative Technician c: City of Orono; u. Babcock, Water Structures 3-7033 ^OR BOARD MEMBERS David H. Cochran. Chair Greenwood Tom Penn. Vice Chair Tonka Bay Douglas E. Babcock, Secretary Spring Park Scot! Carlson. Treasurer Minnethsta fwlfke Bloom Minnetonka Beach Albert (Bert) Foster Deephaven James N. Grathwol Excotsfor JcEilen L Hurr Orono William A. Johnstone Minnetonka Duane Markus Wayzata George C. Owen Victoria Robert Rascop Shorewood Tern Reese Mound Robert E. Slocum Woodland LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 160 • WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 • TELEPHONE 612473-7033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR August 3, 1993 Mr. Ray Zitzloff 1160 htiritage Lane Wayzata MN 55391 Dear Mr. Zitzloff; On July 20, 1993, Jo Ellen Hurr, LMCD's Orono Director, you and I met to discuss the construction of Slip 1 of the Foxhill Homeowners Assoc, multiple dock which is not in compliance with the license. You advised that the site plan for the approved configuration was drawn wrong and the dock installers put it in incorrectly because of the site plan. To correct the configuration of Slip 1, all of the slips would have to be removed and reinstalled. An agreement was reached to leave the dock as is for this year, but the last two lakeward sections of Slip 1 would be removed and a barrier put up to prevent people from falling into the empty metal frame sections. You will see that a new site plan in compliance with the license requirements is submitted for the 1994 season. We appreciate your cooperation in ensuring that the Foxhill docks are installed property for the 1994 season. Sincerely, LAK^ MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT r, ,/ ............................................................................. lachel Tfilbault Administrative Technician J. Hurr M. Johnson M. Gaffron,Orono D. Babcock,LMCD 2. 3. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE AGENDA 7:30 AM, Saturday, August 14 Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Blvd, Rin 135 (Elevator handicapped access west entrance, Wayzata Blvd) 1. Michael Revier, 2691 Jlthel Ave, Orono, caraans Bay; Public hearing report and findings for dock use area variance application Louis fi Judith Cosentino, 20640 Linwood Rd, Deephaven, Lower Lake South; Public hearing report and findings for dock length variance application Pending issues before the committee (informational only):^ a) Unrestricted Watercraft Storage at multiple docks-pending staff report __ b) "Envelope concept" for multiple do*;, licenses-pending staff analysis c) Boulder Bridge new dock license application-pending new site plan for dock reconfiguration d) Gideon's Point HOA new dock license application-license issued for 1993, pending site plan for entire development, new variance application submitted 4. Additional business 'C i LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Public Hearing: To consider a variance application for Michael D. Revier, 2691 Ethel A'enue, Orono. Carmans Bay. The variance is for an adjusted dock cse area due to the converging lot lines of the site. The lot has approximately 28’ of shoreline. Meeting:7:00 PM.» Wednesday, July 28. 1993 Tonka Bay City Hall Members Present: Tom Penn, Vice Chair, Tonka Bay; Bert Foster. Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Wm. Johnstone, Minne'^^'^ka; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; Scott Carlson, Minnetrista; Thomas Reese, Mound; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; Robert Rascop, Shorewood- Douglas Babcock. Spring Park; George Owen, Victoria. Also Present: Charles LeFevere, Counsel. Rachel Thibault, Administra­ tive Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Vice Chair Penn called the Public Hearing to order at 7:05 PM. The staff memo submitted to the Board states that, according to the City of Orond, Revier’s lot was platted on 9/17/52. The LMCD Code would allow 5’ side setbacks and a dock length to 4 water depth or 60’ maximum on this size lot. if the property lines did not converge. . „ Thibault explained that the Revier property is adjacent to a 15’ corridor. Lot B R.L.S. 115. owned by Gordon Amundson, 2697 Ethel Avenue. Because the Revier property, with approximately 28’ of shoreline and converging lot lines, essentially does not have a dock use area, Revier would like to create a shared dock use area with Amundson. • uu Thibault said a point has been raised by the neighbor to the north, David Runkle, 2684 Casco Point Road, that the Revier property title shows access to use Lot B, the 15 strip for bath­ ing and dock use. It is Thibault’s understanding that tne shared dock would be angled toward the south, away from the Runkle property. Thibault submitted photos, supplied by Revier, showing the area. . uuReviei said he shares a dock with Amundson, neighbor to tne south. The Amundson dock has been there for about 30 years. The location of the dock was established to meet the 5 setback and to retain 4’ of water as the Lake level drops. The proposal is to start the dock at the common property. 1 ine and to extend the dock to follow the property line. Dick Kauffmann, 2696 Ethel Avenue, owner of the Property to the south of Amundson, asked for an explanation of the dotted lines in the Lake on the Hennepin County half-section map. Kauffmann is concerned that they ‘ the lake bed and he does not have any dock rights. Thibault said she has been told the dotted lines indicated lot lines when the property was originally platted and the water level was much lower, exposing more lakeshore. LeFevere explained that Lake Minnetonka was a navigable body of water when Minnesota entered the union. The bed and body of the Lal:e is owned by *^^®^State of MiL“si?^and cannot be sold. That applies to the lake bed below PUBLIC HEARING - REVIER July 28, 1993 the "ordinarv low water mark" (OLWM). The OLWM has never been determined for Lake Minnetonka. The Lake bed can be privately owned to the OLWM, but that land would be subject to the rules ol the LMCD. The LMCD has ignored that fact because it cannot determine who owns real estate. The LMCD tries to provide every one who has riparian lake shore access to the Lake. LcFevere suggested ignoring the dotted lines unless they become part o the solution. , ,, . Foster suggested just whiting out the dotted lines and work with the 929.4’ OHWL. . ^ Hurr said the dotted lines are on a Hennepin County plat map. The City of Orono, in discussing the application, deter­ mined the dotted lines define the area that may be used by the property owners for their docks. Orono says Amundson has 20 of shoreline and Revier has 20’, for a total of 40 . The Revier Certificate of Title refers to bathing and boating rights on Lot B, the Amundson property. The 40’ wide dock use area defined by the dotted lines does not infringe on the neighbor to the north. LeFevere said, under the LMCD Code, each site is treated as having its own dock 'use area. The Code does not say how many people can share a site. n ,• Amundson said his dock has been there for 30 years. Revi- er’s lot is the only one that has an interest in his property. Grathwol said the purpose of this hearing is to get informa­ tion. The Board needs a copy of the title record. The survey submitted by Revier does not show the 929.4 line. That information should be available. If there is a shared dock between Amundson and Revier, the District should have information about that agreement. The District needs a scaled drawing showing the Runkle, Revier, Amundson and Kauffmann dock locations. The District tries to solve the problem of converging lot lines by making arrangements with the neighbors to make the docks fit with the land. Kauffmann said there is no hardship to anyone down the line in this instance. . Bloom asked for an explanation of the two docks shown on the drawing. Revier said the one running almost east is the current dock. The dock running to the northeast is the proposed dock. Revier said there is nothing unique about the area. Foster said there seems to be different infoimation being given. There should be agreement as to what the dotted lines mean. He requested that LeFevere resolve that question. LeFe­ vere said he is not sure there is disagreement between himself and the Orono opinion. He is suggesting a more practical than legal method of resolving the problem. No one knows where the low water line is. That is something which would have to be determined by a District Court. Without that i"’'?/."’® V„° buUd Board could be in the position of giving someone a right to build a dock on someone else’s private land. This is not the place to determine the legal property rights. If necessary that should determined by someone else. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIER July 28, 1993 ;:u:r~-0;,VF;;;r:rEVES owners of Tract C. R.L.S 115. It is his belief the Rcvioi property was platted without access. He presented a picture of the area taken from the Lake.Amundson responded that the dock was there when Runkle bought his lot. Kauffmann objected to the picture submitted by Runk.’e as being deceptive as to his lot 1 me locat ion. Penn said this variance request and public hearing informa­ tion will be submitted to the Water Structures Committee for its meeting, 7:30 AM., August 14, 1993 at the LMCD offices. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:40 PM. Findings of Fact: 1. 2. 3. Michael Revier has submitted a variance application for his being converging* lot lines. Revier has submitted that there is 28’ of shoreline property. The survey shows 20’ at the 928.75 elevation water level. maximum on this amount of shoreline if the property lines did not converge. 4.The Certificate of Title for Revier’s owned by Gordon Amundson, 2697 Ethel Avenue. 5.Revier and Amundson have indicated that they plan to share a dock which will be located on the common property line. 3 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT CHECK LIST FOR VARIANCE APPLICATION REVIEW Appliconl's name and address: Michael D. Revier, 5320 Baker Rd, Minnelonko, MN 55343 Properly location: 2691 Ethel Ave, City of Orono Boy/oreo: Lu^v^r Lake S Shoreline frontage: approx. 28 ’ Section 1.07. Subd. 1. Generol Statement. Where practical difficulties or particular hardships oc'-.ii' ' where necessary to provide occess to the hondicopped, the Boord may permit a voriance from th-. requirements of this Code or mcy require ■' vorionce trom what is otherwise permitted by this Code, provided thot such vorionce with whatever conditions ore deemed neccssorv by the Board, does not odversely affect the purposes of this ordinonce, the public health, sateiy ond welfare, and reosonoble occess to or use of the Loke by the public or riporion owners. '. Type of variance being applied for: Adjusted dock use oreo 2. Practical difficulties and/or hardship requiring variance: Converging lot lines creating a limited dock use areo 3. Decision standards for variance as observed by stoff: A. Is the proposed use reasonable? Yes. This lot was platted before 2/2/70 which allows this property to have 5’ setbacks, ond a dock to 4’ water depth or 60 ’ maximum length. The proposed use, to put in a straight dock for one boot, or two if he shares the dock with the neighbor to the south, is a reosonoble use for a lot with smoH lokeshore. B. Would it be unreasonable to require conformance to the ordinonce? Yes. The opplicant’s property hos lot lines that converge near the shore creating olmost no dock use area. C. Is the difficulty of conforming to the ordinance due to circumstances unique to the property? Yes. While this type of pie shaped lot is found elsewhere, it is unusual. In the post the Board hos granted variances to similarly shoped lots, creoting o more useable dock use areo by odjusting the lot lines more perpendicular to the shore me. Check list for Revier Vorionce opplicofion, page 2 D. Is the problem is one created by applicant? Mo, the problem was created by the shape of Revier ’s properly, Lot C, when plaiting of the property was done. However, the opplicant hos bathing and dock richls on the shore of Lot B, on adjacent 15’ wide lot southeast of the Revier property. E. The vorionce, if gronled, will not alter the essentiol character of the locality. Mo. The dock is proposed for residential use in a residential area. The dock is proposed to be a smoll "stick' dock for one or two boots. Because of the small omount of shoreline, even with o vorionce, the opplicant would have o limited dock use area for boat storage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends granting a variance for o dock use area by adjusting the lot ines, creoting a corridor for the aock use area. A proposed dock use area diagram is ottached. The proposal ad usts the extended property lines of Revier ’s, Amundson ’s, Junkie ’s and Kouffmonn ’s ots. t should be made deor to the applicant that the dock and oil boat storage mus fit within the dock use area, with 5’ side setbacks. The conditions should specify that this would not allow a conopy, which require 20' siae setbacks, without written permission from all affected neighbors. The dock length would be limited to reach 4 ’ water depth measured from the 929.4 ’ lake elevation, approx. 40 ’ according to the applicant. Sianed:llzX'&xLCf-Tate: ?achel Thibault August 6, 1993 ■1 £u.(rvRle^PROPOSED DOCK USE AREAS FOR REVIER AND AMUNDSON PROPERTIES. Rachel Thibault, LMCD 8/6/93 Adjust 25® North Adjust 25® South . Adjust 25® ‘ ^ ^ South V. KAUFfMti NORTH / Approx.Scale 1" = 20* N' •' ' i «••••*«••« 3T3t yyT7 4* •■»* a* • •=»)» *5 1'^I ‘ ^ yj'iny u V. TT I ^ l!>!•I I f CO r ^r 1 1 cJ \ V. V*^ a 5? Joo C9\^^U9D 9i2 ;eas pdssoqo»a ue jeeq uoim'v\ saidoo ^;uO 3iON % J V ; o «>•sc o 3 Uo —u s• > n « u O C >« u — 0 U U >« « V U ) 6T Cl u ^ ^ wl ^ u 3 —••3V H S Z ^ r4C' V/' O U o >c 3 VO <9 V Z :2 V# w O ^ O u 0 Z N? n >• •<4 ^ JS <3 uaJ uJ "SI ~taC> U C O' V • 3 3 - tCS 0 W) V) u <M 3 -4 £ uJ•7 \'l0 » “3 4J *A 4 J A 3 \" • 3 U -4 O ^ U -4 W U O iM w U t7*• s *om *3 -• >• <0 •«< <«« «i4 a *3 <a • «Mo o o »- z o o u V >* V C u W ^ -• V > »4 C bi u 3 <-» >. O u -« U 3 ra Sk, V >* z *J 3 n wi ^ 3 O V Z "X z w £ w ^ 3w 3 Or a o u 3 V u t- CERTIF ICATE OF SURVEY FOR c. GORDON AMUNDSON IN TRACTS A, B. C. D. & E. R. L. S. NO. 115 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA i /UGAl DESCRIPnOfi 'Jf POEMI'jfs /">4l Pdrl of ''dct ■' IM'"! Nurth«o'.t-r I f ii* i I i'>0 I. follows Be<;t»nin.| jt U'O "loSt TaM-rl* ot .. tn#nc» ••rrtf>««sler I )f alon'l a li'"' -ii'.n 1' •tv.Mi.lo ~ sect the «>OSl easterly corru-r Jl Tr Kt «. t J V 1$ <awt So.’tfwester I y fro" S.liJ "uSt f.i'.twri* • •fientP defii’CttO') riijht to <1 piiinl ,'n I •1'* itiriiiv*. • sa.i' Tract A iistaiu “i feet southea. l.- . • ' on •..iii " c.rrn»r of t-irt C. anJ sai l 1 1 "e li.er.. wi.li >i. That part of Tr.'Ct d lyim *< rth»es t-r 1 y >1 1 . 1'••• f-.ilcws BeoinniiiT at 'he “"St £as'*;rl» corner " LAKE MIWIETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 8/6/93 Staff Memo regarding Revier Variance From: Rachel Thibault Subj :Certificate of Title granting Lot C of Registered Land Survey (RLS) 115 access to Lot B of RLS 115 I called Dennis Hill, Hennepin County Property Description Depc. for clarification of the Certificates of Title for Lots B, C and D of RLS 115, as submitted by the Runkles. All three certificates state that the RLS 115, is subject to the right in favor of Tract C said survey to use of shore for private bathing and dock, on Tract B. Dennis said that this,means that Tract C, Reviers property, has the right to use the shore of Tract B, for bathing and docking. It appears that Tract B was divided between Amundson's and Kauffmann's properties after RLS 115 was platted, with Amundson owning the part of Tract B with shoreline. This combined ownership of Tract B is probably why the reference to Tract C s bathing and decking rights is mentioned on Kauffmann’s Certificate of Title, however, his property is not affected, and he does not have the right to use the shoreline of Tract B. Dennis also said that in iiis opinion the dotted lines on the plat map were underlying legal descriptions before the area was platted as RLS 115, when the lake level was much lower. He did not feel that these lines had any current application. ‘BIKSKIP 'S SOSOIflSim (.ion, snmrAK 3tm BirisiM ' "Bisseis sauirii OF SFKIHO FAUX LOTS ' JUN 171993 GOVT LOT 4 a ■ rrtf^r' V--’!5>- N W «; w 1 N E T"1» July 25. 1993 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Mr. Gene Strommen Ref.; Revier dock use area variance application Property at 2691 Ethel Avenue, Orono abutting Carmans Bay PID (20-117-23-24-0046) Dear Mr. Strommen: We have received your letter regarding a public hearing notice pertaining to the above referenced dock variance request. With this response letter we intend to formally state our objection to the dock variance and we will also provide some pertinent background and prior plat history to backup our request that the dock variance across our property line be denied. In order to be as concise as possible, we will explain the history and submit the appropriate lake use maps. Certificates of Titles and pictures to explain our position. We (Dave and LuAnn Runkle) live at 2684 Casco Point Road which boarders the Revier property on the north. The properties actually interface at an old vacated street named Spray Street. Our property description and certificate of survey bear this out. The vacated Spray Street runs approximately due east into Carmens Bay and it is identified as a lake access corridor for the sub-division identified as R.L.S.-No.l 15 which include the following properties: Owner Address PID No.Shore line ^ 929.4 Rivier 2691 Ethel Ave -0046 a:20 ft. now, 0 feet on old map Amundson 2697 Ethel Ave -0045 15 + 5 feet = 20 feet.-cun/ed Kauffmann 2696 Ethel Place -0044 95 feet,-curved, 1984 5* deal Pulver 2691 Caroline Ave -0025 £ 100 feet Background- Historical •Sub-division R.L.S. No. 115 v/as platted with converging lake lot lines and shared lake access at Lakeshore Avenue when lake elevation was lower •Lot -0046 was originally platted without lake or road access •PID's -0046 4 -0045 4 0044 carry document no.( 518678) wording in Titles (year 1956) •Doc. No. 518678 provides lake access/dock for-0046.-0045 4 -0044 thru Track B corridor •The 518678 doc. results in 3 properties agreeing to use lake access of the vacated Spray St. •Lot -0046 has never had a dock but uses easement agreement per Document 518678 Background-Recent •With higher water elevations(after 1969). lot-0046 now has shoreline of approximately M feet •Lot -0046 was recently acquired by Rivier and he is in the process of building a house. Rivier is a building contractor by trade and does not have an occupancy title to the house as yet •Rivier/agent is on public record at Orono planning meeting (3/15/93):' no dock is planned •Rivier was knowledgeable to the historic 3 property lake access arrangement poor to buying lot •Amundson is on public record at planning meeting that -0045 and -0046 share lake access/^ck •Rachel T. of LMCD was notified via fax on 5/13/92 of our lake access concerns for the record and with subsequent correspondence and meetings Htceivto UL 281993 *• t July 25. 1993 Page 2 In conclusion, we oppose any dock or setback variances from the cjrr.'jnt LMCD "Regulation of structures within the lake." We also call notice to the LMCD rule tigntening for setbacks (now 10 feet) for less than 50 foot property widths due to recent 5 foot shoreline transaction by lot-0045 owner. V5 believe that the historical platting of the sub-division R.L.S. No. 115 had an agreement that satisfied the originators and that agreement must satisfy the present property owners as well. The current owner of the -0046 lot does not have a hardship. Lot -0046 has a documented easement for use of the vacated Spray Street lake corridor. However, if the present owner has a problem with current lake area use, he must work it out with his neighbors in the same sub­ division and not encroach on other properties The 518678 agreement has worked satisfactorily for the R.L.S. No. 115 owners since 1956. Any approval of a variance for lot line setback relaxation from the LMCD guidelines or for extending a dock over our deeded lot lines will cause us a hardship. This hardship pertains to our impacted recreational use of the affected lake area and economically as well for the resale value of our property. We strongly encourage you and the LMCD members to vote down the variance request now and redocument the lake access comdor for all future buyers of the -0046 property. Please contact us if you have an questions with regard to this response or our position in this matter. David & LuAnn Runkle 2664 Casco Point Road Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Work phone: 927-4525, LuAnn Home phone: 471-7578 CC. Jo Ellen Hurr Chuck Dayton Attachn'.ents: The attached documentation is intended to support our position of variance denial. 1 . 3 Certificates of Title for PID's -0046, -0045, -0044 2. Document No. 518678 providing lake access for -0045 & -0044 in 1956 3. Lake plat map received from City of Orono in 1981, combined lake corridor 4. Runkle lot survey (20-117-23-24-003) showing Lakeshore Avenue etc. 5. Various lake pictures showing Spray Street corridor and general area D9307251 mww i«*i •••• • »* %• 1 L ?r A \ No di’IimnuMil l.i.xr\ nnc! li.in>ri*r nilriril. t*cMifi» MlP nf liiMl Kslalr ValiM’ {SUPn -/9 -y<CVrtifiralP uf K<.‘al lisl.ilr V'.ihii* Nn ________ ____ . I!» PATBICK H. SXIWOB MV 1 9 M92 Cuiiiily Atiililiir -I3J.74^2 13 - iJci'nly------------------------------ SI A TB Oi:i:i) TAX UUK IIKIIKUN $ N V- Dale:November 9 .miIL TvJ ns Irn.n 7IT1 O < o f’« O•n c f • • • Z?QO tM^ 2 H -4 it» — *< fT| .O » ' |A r*i f»l7: C»a;? 5 0:2 S -« — *• r>r* (rcMTvcd for iccufdiiig data) M*ll VAl.UAlll.K niNSIItKIlATUIN. .. ScoLL W. Kc.inir., !>iiii|lc. licrchy convey (s) ntui warraiil (s) lo Michoe I_D , Revigr __ , Uruiilur P . C!raii(er («). real oroncrlv in llenneDiii Ccmntv. Minnexola. described as follows: Trnrt C, LdnU Survey No. 115. Filon of Heyistrar o» "‘lies. County of llotMiepin. «MCtpt that part thereof lyli*g Southcoater ly of a lltie dra««it fro*** a point on the Southwesterly line of eaitl tract diatant IS feet Nor thwee ter 1 y from ttie moat Southerly corner of said tract, through tl«e Nor U«eaa let 1 y corner of said tract. f7" Together with an easement for right of way for road purposes over that part of Oloclt Number rive (SI. Wlnahlp's Subdivision of lot Number One (tl. Spring TnrN. 2nd nivlalon. lying Southwesterly of tl»e premises above described and between the Northerly e«tei»slon of the easterly line and the Westerly lli»e of Ctliel Avenue (now Tract C. neglatermi I.and Survey No. IIS) ami nlsu toyeUiec wiiii the right to use of shore private bathing ntid dock In front of a strip of land IS feet in width. lyl*'g Southeasterly of end ii«me«llately adjacent lo tlie South* easterly line of the premlceo hcrei«i«hove first described, and whlcb IS (o**t strip runs Northeasterly 5iong the Sou theas ter I y lino of s.sid premises from lh»j easterly esteonioo of the Southwesterly line of.said premises to the tliore of Caimcn's Bay l.ake Minnetonka; (now Tract 0. Ucylstered Land Survey No. IIS) lugirlhcr willt all licitMhIaiiinils and ap|iuiiciiaiiccs hcioii|iiiiK iiicrrto, siiiijrcl tu tlir luiiuwiiig cxcc|iuuiis: ThG seller certifies the seller does not know of any wells on the described real property. ^ ^ ScuLl W. ITcarns • 11* •• STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN -Tpr*-:r» > , « • 1 ? ' 7 7 •* • • *1 . SI. The foregoing iivsiniincnl was acknowledged bcfuie me this ■ day of ^ Scot! W. Kearns, single,_______________ ^ ^ ____________________ \ NUrARIAL STAMP Oil SEAL ttlA OrilCR riTLC Utt RAHKl ■■■S2ssr I 1^44^******'****' C ^lUNAfCiUNA rt'HC or PERSON bf ••ni lo (Ineludt n«m« and addr^M of Oianla ______SON f AKINO ACKN^LCUOMCNT bad^ tbl ilarfi , Grantor (j|). 1«« SiatrmvMit lot lha laal piopariv iiaictibad^^ tbia Inalrumant abould •d I nils INS r HUM ENT was imAf i eu d\ in a^ie anii Auonrssi William It. Kocnicj KOENK; & DICKINSON, LIMITED 2 305 Comiiuiice Ulvd. Mound, MN 55164 (612) 472-1060 Miclmol D. Pevier 5120 P.iker Ro.id I nnr>i n*ik *1 , (*’i 5*^ 34 1 MC *r ti CERTIFICATE OF TITLE Trantfer from Mo, 527183 A. D. 1966 No. 527185 OiiTRICT COURT (•! Ortttn*lly rfgl«t€rcd the 22nd d«f of Volune 287 f»%t 88973 CAWCF11 tun ft Mbmisoia . •'■mi If Kiimri. REGISTRATION ^hli it to certify that Dorottry L, Kearn# of 2691 Ethel Avenue, City of Orono, County of Hennepin, State of Hlnneaota If now the ownor(t) of 8n ottaf# in foe timplo of and in the following described land tifuafed in the County of Hennepin and *fate of Minnesota, to wit: Tract C. MgttCcre<! Und Survey Po. 115, Fllei of Aeglatrar of TUlei, County of Hennepin, eitcept thft pert thereof lying Scutheatterly of a lint dravn frow a point on the Sc^uthyeaterly line of aald tract dlatant 15 feet Northweiterly frow the Southerly corner of aald tract, through the Hortheaaterly corner of aald tract# Together with an aaaeitent for right of way for road purpoaia over that part of Block Punber Five (5), Hlnthlp'a Subdlvlalon nf Lot Pufiibtr One (1), Spring Fark, 2nd Dlvlalon, lying Southweaterly of the prent ate fboyt deacrlbed and betweep the Northerly ^fttnalon of the Eaetcrly line and the Heatarly Una of Ethtl Avenue Cnoi* t^ait lir>egtttjiraa Und Survey No. 115) and atao together with the right to uae of ahore for prlvatt bathing and dock In Troiit of i atrip of lAnd 15 feet In South- eaatarly of and lawedlattly adjacent to the sduthaaatbrl^, lint of the>reailaea herclnebova fleet dcacrlbed, and which 15 foot atrip rune Northeaaterly along the Southe.naterly.nina bf aild prcolaea fro« the faftOrly avtenalon of the Southweaterly lint of aald premlata to the abort of Carvien*B Bay Uka Hlnnetonka; .(now Tfaft ,B*, ioglltdted Und Survey No. 115) !. •-,1 '•* ‘j y\\ i \ ^ * Subioct to the tncumkrancet. lions and tnlartsi noltd by lha fnimorial underwriflen or endorsed hereon; and subject to the ■following rights or encumbrances subsisting, at provided in the twerJty-fourth section of "An act concerning the registration of land md the title thereto" of the (fontral laws of the State of Minnesota for the year 1905, and the amendments thereof, namely: I. liens, daimi or rights trising under the laws or the conifilution of the United Slates, which the staluN »of this state cannot require to appear of record. 3. Any tea or apecial atsesamenl for which a aalt of the land has net been had at the dale of the certificate of title. 3. Any least for a period not eaceeding three years, when there it actuel occupation of the premises under the lease. 4. All righta in public highwaya upon the land. 5. Such right of appeal or right le appear end contest the application as is allowed by law. 4. Iht righta of any person In posatfslon under daed or contract for deod from fho owner of the certificate of title, that the eeld Dorothy L. Kearni la of the ege of 61 yeera. la uraaarrled and la undar no dlaablllty. IN WlTNtSS WHtREOF, I htva h,f*wnta twintnittrf nam# and afriiad Iba aaal el m, •ffica tiitt tenth da, ol Fabroary 197* Vayne A. Johnson Registrar of Titles, In and for the County oMlwmemn^^ ****®^^ Minnesota. OOCUMINTlI KINO OV NUMOte iNatnuMCNT MEMORIAL // or BSTATIl. lASIMirm OR CNARCiS ON TNI lANO DISCRIBCD IN TNI CIRTtriCATI OF TIfll HIRF10 AnACHIO -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ■ ■ ■ -I ■ J - trmm ---------------------------- ~ ■ — — - ■ . Fg=M=- Date or moiaTKATioN I oiruTv 958056 1602784 7276793 Kertgage 2293751 Ter Deferral TirnlnilIor»“ of Dor Vu ,6k ”#etars bl Gen Adon In re-Eatatr rt Dorothy Liuf Reerna DAre or ^WSTHUMCNT 8»aM«l Id**! Nov 10 1969 Stp 26 1984 Jul 6 1992 Apr 8 1992 Nov 24 1969 S*p 26 1984 Jul 6 1992 S#p 1 199? 8:50 AMOUNT 99000.00 UNO II Hldwiit~TeJifaI Javlnga er^dToen Association of Minneapolis, Mlnntapolla, Minn.___________ 1 Dorothy Ktarna CITy^rUiroho tTrsiloaCca special deftrred aaseaenen/s Appointing Scott V. Reerna, pereonel repreaentecIve Deputy Deputy Deputy •ft oven 9 of Hlnnetotity of H«nnepin andthat part thareof lying thvaitarly from thtS), Vinahtp'a Subdtvialon and hatveai tha Northarly vcy Ho. 115) and alto at in vidth, lying South- |h»d, and «dilch 15 foot the Southwaatarly Una of 15)pon; and subjact to tha tha ragiitration of land tharaof, namaly: raguiva to appaar of raeord. nd affiKod tha teal of my office ry 1976 i. Johnaon hfrar of Tillat, 1 tlGNATURt Oe RfOtSTRAR III • By ^,2. zh 0«P«_*7 HC 1050 CERTIFICATE OF TITLENo. 726642DISTRICT COURT No.(a) 6402Originally registered the 22nd day of September Volume 287 Page 68973Transfer from No. 654115 A. D. 1944$TAH a Ml CoMiY a HiThis it to certify th^t.VII..tie REGISTRATIONJanet C« Rauffmann, 2696 Ethel Place, City of Wayrata, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota N? 726642COUNTY OF HENNEPn STATE OF MINNESOTA THisisAcoNnnoNOFTte nEGGTFR AS 10 DC VMTHM CERTinCATE OF mu ON F1U IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY OF im.ES AS OP THE ^ W wf-JREG6HURQITITUS' *V/OEPUTV1b new the ewnsrfs) ef an estate in fee simple ef and in the following described land situated in the County of Hennepin and State ef Minnesota, to wit:Par 1; The North'^eaterly 100 feet of Tract A except that part '.hereof lying Northwesterly of a line described as follows: Beginning at the most Easterly corner of Tract E; thence Northeasterly along a line which if extended would intersect the most Easterly corner of * • Tract B to a point distant 15 feet Southwesterly from said most Easterly corner of Tract B; thence deflecting right to a point on the Northeasterly line of eaid Tract A distant 5 feet Southeasterly from said most Easterly comer of Tract B and said line there ending,* Registered Land Survey No. 115, Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin. 2: Tract B except that part thereof lying Northwesterly of a line described as follows: Beginning at the most Easterly corner of' Tract E; thence Northeasterly along a line^-which if extended would intersect the most Easterly corner of said Tract B to a point diatant 15 feet Southwestsrly from said most Easterly corner of Tract B; thence deflecting right to a point on the Northeasterly line of Tract A distant 3 feet Sc«itheasterly from said most Easterly corner of Tract B and said line there ending. Registered Land Survey No. 115, Flits of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin. Subject to the right in favor of Tract C, said Survey to use of shore for private bathing and dock as shown in deed Doc. No. 518678, Files of Registrer of Titles, /v-7 V _• vIa./ " / J . / '* Subject to the encumbrances, liens end interest noted by the memorial underwritten or endorsed hereon; and subject to the n ¥NC 1090 »•CERTIFICATE TITLETransfer froa Mo. A6129S A. D. 1944 No. 527182DISTRICT COURT No.(t) 6^02Originally registered the 22nd day of September Volume 287 Page 88973REGISTRATIONSniE If MiidoTA.CUMY If HEMKnLThis is to certif/that c. Gordon Amundson and Carol M. Amundson, husband and wife, as Joint tenants of 2697 Ethel Avenue, City of OroDO, County of Huonepin^ State of Minnesota N9 527182COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA this is a condition Of THCREGISTER AS TO THE WITHIN CERTIFICATE OF TITLE ON nt£ IN THE OFFICE OF THEOF T.:i^ AS OFp-2/OtHurr / |T'-- r. ar« now tho ownor(s) of an estate in fee simple of and in the following described land situated in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, to wit: described as follows: Beginning at the most Easterly comer of Tract E; 15 5!^ * !V'“ extended would intersect the most Easterly comer of said Tract B, to a point distant ftafrA '*►“*? Easterly comer of Tract B; thence deflecting right.to a point on the Northeasterly line of ” i t * ^ Southessterly from said moat Easterly comer of Tract B, and said line there ending;Tracts D and Retiatertd Land Survey No. 115, Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin. 5l8678^*Flle! ^ “** private bathing and dock, as ahown In deed Doc No.310D7B» Files of Registrar of Titles. as to Tract B; Subject to so,easement for right of way for r.'ad purposesg as to Tract B; I: Sub|eet to tho encumbrances, liens and interest noted by the memorial underwriHen or endorsed hereon; and subject to the i\ nutate of ininneoota, U County of.....---------------------------------------1 OmihiM - ..doyofy^JjUji^^*^..................... .« .brforrme. ^ ‘ .........kJotary"ru^Hc .......u-itkin ond for told C'cunfy. pemonatly aiiprnrrd * jiiiius'A'. .■•■ ................................................... CA« tamo «_ *‘4*----------------------/►«« •«* dttd^............-......— - -.................... Jfotary TW kkak HM avM “fc. Mm." m Im m w^iiT m AAjnK.ni I* co/nfTUO*w*^ txpifts.................-..............i9..,m t to Or •MOTttto ** r« -ir*---->ix..............—r y % ■ • • •" • •• I !l \ N, 1,m 1 ■ s 1 i i 11 «•« P* ! -1 ^ 01 mr4 toa H 1 « »5'9.. 4 a i I ?1nI its ■ r «.4 • ■ I « I i'i i 5 s if 1 % I 5-oe 1 i ^3 00 ^ is «i ^9 ^ Ie « I 5 I Ik ■ 1 * £ n ii t : i i it « I .« { I 2 L 1009 - WarvtMijr I«>« *Uli Form f4e. S* CT. hrtu'eeu indenture. i Julius A. Wllll.l.»3<!.1i .•/•I Jr f/*»» - ^ ^ ^ 4c I-* . /.*# u(v:urrleJ» .......... Ziric7nc7in IZZ™____..«rf staff •/-----Hlnnc sou-------------»«»W- •/ th, tfvm,l ,;rf. ■UnM9(«. n„t tht m>ld$MHJL------nflh* fr»f /-*W. Im mw^,lff»ti..m ./ thf - On« «nJ noTlOO......................................................... TATi-V-—”JL* •:-.•■•: ••---- t0 JTL^~Z Jn h.,md fm,t,l ^ thf mtiJ imrttM of tho Ofromd tUr rtrfl,4 t.hr>rof !• !>rrthtt \Jtrd I/O *f Mtrrhu Urant, Hafgalo. Sftl. amd Comtrg uoto »Ar «•/«/ ;«rf/r« of thr ffnm.t narl «« J^at __ ;;____Uaimcjin________and SUtte o/ Uf^rriUd #• ro ii4f • Trjct B» Kcjilitorcd L .aJ aurvuy Nu. 115, ril«i of llcgl«tr«r of Tltlci, County of Hennepin* subject to right in f.vor of Tr.et C, MgUt.r.d Und of Mgl*tr«r of TltU*. County of Honnaptn,, to oi* of ohor* for prlv*t* bathing and dock In front of aald Tract B* — ..... fTAic OP nktartA. fiomenr OF HBWW prtiM IB ^ • M n) om conr oi M cigM «B) It 4DI cLnooijLIn «y olM JUl 2 P l?»i fl Ow tiiihonl ntg$^^ m* Mm ftabc k Otk •« •«». Togrthff loith mil the hfrrtlilamtmh nmd ni'iniftfmamrfo thfr^ r«l/a/«if/War/raanf* aod ao< a# »«**/• <a^^- _________________________ .tmil thf —JuUwJ-At————— —— —................7~.'. 7~T~ r^-_ K«a ____hrlrm. f.\rrulnr* noA uihiiloimItylM-m rio.Mt. "•' ........................................... ftff fivtn titl /nf’iifii6^ ,tod Ihf l.,rg..lnrd «mf graotM land, nad prand*.. to thf OuM nnd [''• Ltd Ur/» uf Jffruad »»flr «-»<?«.. »Ar oafHffff of a,Ut ^fitf. and »A. AWr. ood •/ M tun lfur ag-ii„.l .<11 imrwonj, lawfully flnimlng or to rinim ll<r wMoIr or amy fmH ^ j if aa„. kerrinhrfal JoHaord. .A. «,<.f tUr ,a,rt ,HH .....................I /V- fend. In «ertlBWtf Wrtwf. TA^ *iW pnri. 0£------of H>t grot Imrl ha-M-hrrruuto orl----UM,- hand «lAf day amtl ymr frtd mbot'f urUUm. \ , >-*>” * *■'—..................../a 1 ‘rtfrHff of I .x ^julUa A. MlUtana^n ^ Mf Csa«BU.B«n l»»# 17. l|e& ^** ^ # C » M b • a * • •» ^ * */ • • * - r . • •:% I . 4 %• * ! ' •*» V. . . • * •. # •. . . A- to.'. • • j T'o*\:tz *}oyi * it* f * a *» • * ^ • *v' A- . • I m* • V * ' • u •i ' • •• . - * i.' ;w -v' . . ‘ ' v>' .\..... .-J- I';. '-;••■ A '■):4 i. t r \ % \ ^ >i \ I *•) 141 Q/ 14 ^ ^/sjsV ^ ^/ v! J ntt ii :_____:lv ^&/i 25 -.//-• I i-i 157 ' ^ ' ■ •/-* r oi.fl r'tv* C"**- *a tV\ft.f OAa ,«*/U^ (9tO%VO r V* U^pper . i.iS Ac K ^ ; * >y) CA ro'.' ^h\ * ,4LV' (? I \ SifRAY r' V-^?...3;7 j%o \ - c<^135^^".4..o • \•t* .M* j: 14 r^fe ^ i' S' t Xff / f • #I :\v «0 Lf/ 5:. A / .^A r- ^ 4":;/ \v-'* I \ :;^23 S' /7>* <N* . C . rtifjr.ilc of for Tnoo.If»rc f. lr:T.\iz, In Covcrr,c.anl Lot 4, itrtirr. SVKOVtfN #U ACc»«0 fi. or vfi6 ^t*n n*i7icip£x f^noiBriy t 4, Dtcllon 20, Township 117, Bance 23, correrroncinc ty; , block 5» Winshlp'6 Subdivision of Lot 1, Spring Park 2nd 3 hercbj' certify that this is a true and correct, representation of a 6un*ey of the boundaries of: ^ That part of Coverni&int Lot Z corresponding to that part of Block Z of Winshio's SutiJivision of Lot i, Spring Park 2nd Division, nev vacated, l>'ing South of the liorth 130 feet thereof, inrludinc that part of Like* bore Avenue vacated lying between the South line of said Uerth 130 feet of said Block Z ext-ended East, and a line parallel with the Southeasterly line of Block ^ of said plat extended Northeasterly, pessing through the rost Easterly point of the cur>'e at the Southeast corner of said Flock Z, Section 20, Township 117 North, K;rre 23 Vest of the 5th Principal Fieridian; B/ That Txart of Lot Lots 17, IF, and 19, _______ Division, vacated, and all that'part of Spray Street vara tee, lying between the East line of rtld Lot 17 extended to the North boundary of Spray Street ano the Ver-terly llni? of said Lot 19 extended Northwesterly to the North bo\ir.s=ry of Spray Street; £/ Tnat port of Coverrx»?r.t Lot#4, Section 20, Township 117,- Range 23# coni- prlred betvesn rerielr lines appearing on the plat of V.inshin's SuWivision Lot 1, Spring Fferk 2nc Division, which portion of said plat is now vacated, said land beitif deccrlt-ed according to the lines of soid plat as follows: All of Lot 16 of Block 5 of V.lnship*8 Subdivision and all thot part of Spray Street in sold Subdivision lying betvxcn the east lino end the vest line of said ^t Ic extended to the north Lctindcr^ of Spray Street, according to the plat of Vinship*6 Subdivision on file or of record in tho office of the .County Recorder In and for said Covinty, And t>ie location of all ousting buildings thereon. It does.n^pur^rt Jo ehow other iicprovenonts or encroachoents. ;Scale: 1« = 100’ Date : f-E-79 Iron niirV.er Lend Surveyor and Planner Long Lake, flirr.esota MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGHELD MARCH 15, 1993ZONING FILE iie04 - CONT.Bdllows noted that the comparable was suggested by Mabusth, who was referring to comparable view situations, not structure sizes. She noted It Is not their Intent to preserve a 180 degree view for all property owners. Dave Runkel submitted a letter and exhibits. He Indicated because of the allowed height per code and the difference In elevations, the residence could be built at a 40* difference from the RunkeTs. He proposed that the residence could meet the average lakeshore setback and all required setbacks, and noted to approve a variance the Planning Commission must have a unique situation with Justified hardships. He questioned the Impact of the additional hardcover on the property and the Impact on drainage In the area. He stated they may have a problem'With dock rights as the property only has 26*- 30* of lakeshore. He added, In the past there has not been a dock for this property. Cohen felt the situation was created by the aberration of the adjacent lot with the platted corridor. Bel lows stated the situation exists because of the platted corridor to the lake, which the City would not allow to be platted by today*a standards. She reiterated that If the average lakeshore were takbn from the Kauffman property Instead this proposal would meet the setback. She added the owner has a hardship created by the lot configuration. She felt Runkel was asking for an Impossible situation by asking that future potential views be preserved In ease of an addition to the Runkel home, and citing historical uses of the property. Oava Runkel said he made the current owner aware of the unusual situation prior to the property being sofo. Mr. Amundson, 2697 Ethel Avenue, presented the Commission with a copy of nis torrens property title which states appilcant*s property shall have the right to use his dock. ' Landsltdel explained the owner Is also a builder who Intends to preserve the natural setting of the property. He noted a dock Is, not Planned. He proposed that the higher alevatlons, natural vegetatIonend growth will screen the house from the Runkel property and felt the views will not be Impacted. Ha said the applicant Is building the house for himself. %« .\JvCtO "froifvv ^Kor€ -Xo.;*.' . '"t . V; k: r . '. ■'•►..•••V•»*•■.,.■',.r .• ro -»! r f EVV>»Vi A^V)JVb- I ^2a;’5 La-^;.v; l‘ >^* '^^ i,^ V . .■ *•• r . • V, -t. s '; V •) ^ A ’^ i •' " r • *■ •" ;• * “'' ♦ ^*'1* 5^4! T ■. V'/’ r’ r ‘ —. -i . «.*v - r>:. ^■Qk Wl/ V'/l R, v4-*w*ct'C-t.pT-C)OSCc» r STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PHONE NO. metro waters - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 5510J^^ 772-7910 July 29, 1993 Rachel Thibault Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 East Wayzata Boulevard, #160 Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Dear Ms. Thibault: RE: VARIANCE REQUEST, SEASONAL DOCK, MICHAEL D. REVIER, LAKE MINNETONKA, HENNEPIN COUNTY I have reviewed the above-referenced variance ? July 26, 1993) and the proposed dock does not require a DNR permit if it meets the following conditions; 1. The proposed dock is removed every fall before winter freeze up. 2.The proposed dock will not be a danger to navigation or endanger public health and safety. 3.No more than four watercraft are moored to the dock on a regular basis. Thank you for the opportunity to review this variance application. Should you have any questions please contact me at 772 791 . Sincerely, ' 1 ’• ''' i' 1 (• ■* * ‘ Joe Richter Hydrologist cc:Lake Minnetonka File, Carmens Bay (#9) AH COMM ODprinTI If.JlTV OVC3