Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-08-1993 Council PacketORONO CITY COUNCIL .MINUTES REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 8, 1993 7:30 P.M. y ROLL CALL The Council met on November 8. 1993 at 7:30 p.m. in the Orono Council Chambers. 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono. Minnesota. Mayor Edward Callahan. Councilmembers J. Diann Goetten. and Charles Kelley were present. Councilmembers Hurr and Jabbour were excused. Also present were City Administrator Ron Moorse. Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth. Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, City Attorney Kevin Staunton, Public Works Director John Gerhardson. City Engineer Glenn Cook and Recorder Barbara Anderson. Mayor Callahan called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. ♦1. CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Kelley requested that Items til, H%, tl9, ^11 and #15 be added to the consent agenda, Councilmember Goetten moved. Kelley seconded, to approve the Consent .Agenda as amended. Ayes 3. Nays 0. Motion carried. Motions for all items adopted by consent agenda will be included in the minutes in their respective numerical order. Mayor Callahan called attention to the Financial Reporting Achievement Award received by the City and noted that it was quite an accomplishment to have leceived this award. •2. APPROVAL OF MINUITS Councilmember Goetten moved. Kelley seconded, for approval of the Minutes of the October 25, 1993 City Council Minutes as submitted. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 3. CRYSTAL BAY SITE RECOYLMENDATION BY LIU MC.MIIXAN Lili McMillan gave a report on the discussions held by the Crystal Bay Site Subcommittee and reviewed the issues regarding the future development of the park. She introduced Randi Carlson, a resident of Crystal Bay, who was also present. The Subcommittee telt that the option they preferred was to close the segment of Prospect Avenue between Parcels .A and B and combine them into one large open g*’een space. This option would require the approval of the Police and Fire Departments. Randi Carlson stated that there are numerous families in the area with children that w'ould use the park, and she believed that they all v.ould benefit from the park being created. Mayor Callahan commented that he felt that this area should be utilized as a park: however, it was difficult to close streets, but he felt that a large green space was the best use of the property. Ms. McMillan stated they would pursue this w’th the appropriate agencies and bring it back betore the Council with their recommendations. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 8, 1993 4. FRENCH CREEK PRESERVE BY SUSAN WILSON Mayor Callahan moved, Goetten seconded, that the Park Name for the portion of the old sewage treatment plant property retained by the City as French Creek Preserve. Ayes 3. Nays 0. Motion carried. 4A. CROSS COUNTRY SKIING AT ORONO GOLF COURSE Councilmcmber Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to develop a cross country ski trail at the Orono Golf Course. Ayes 3, Nays 0. Motion carried. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Janice Berg, Representative There were no comments from the Planning Commission. PUBLIC COMMENT Harvey Reder requested permission to speak regarding Item tfb A1 Ingleman, 350 Old Crystal Bay Road, stated he was concerned about the City putting a stop sign at the intersection of Highway 15 and County Road 51. Mayor Callahan assured him that the City had no intention of placing a stop sign at that intersection. He noted that the Hennepin County Department of Transportation will be back before the Council in the spring with a proposal tor a major maintenance project on County Road 15. 5.#1780 CITY OF ORONO, 1000 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH, SUBDIVISION/FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, RESOI.UTION #3351. Councilmcmber Goetten moved. Kelley seconded, tor approval of #1780 City ot Orono, 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road South, Subdivision and Final Approval and adopting Resolution #3351 . Ayes 3, Nays 0. Motion carried. 6. #1860 ZELMA MCKINNEY, 3599 LIVINGSTON AVENUE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mayor Callahan stated that the Council had been advised by the City Attorney that they must grant a Conditional Use Permit to Mrs. McKinney because to allow the continued non-conforming use of the residence as a duplex, because it wits used that way prior to the adoption of the new zoning regulations, and they also cannot require the residence to be owner-occupied. He noted that the City could require the petitioner to supply two additional parking spaces to comply with the zoning requirements that tour stalls Ik* provided for two residential units. Gayle .Siegler was present representing her mother. Zelma McKinney, and she stated that the additional parking .spaces required will result in the loss of grass and yard area. A CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 8, 1993 - # Harvey Reder. 3598 Livings'oii Avenue, stated he believed the additional parking spaces should be added behind the house rather than in the front along the existing driveway, and he believed they could gain access from Blaine Avenue rather than from Livingston Avenue. He noted there was a difference in the grade between the street and the back yard, but believed that two parking spaces could be provided in that area. If the additional spaces were located behind the house they would be screened from his view. Greg Goodfellow, 3585 Livingston Avenue, stated he had submitted a letter to the Council. He understood that the reason for the Conditional Use Permit was because Mrs. McKinney wanted to sell her property and would realize more profit it if were sold as a duplex. He stated that he understood that at one time the property had been used as a tri-plex. He reviewed his letter and noted that he understood that the units used did not meet current building code requirements for a duplex. He was concerned about the decrease in property values for the adjacent residents. He stated he was opposed to the Council granting the Conditional Use Permit. Mayor Callahan reminded the audience that their City Attorney had concluded that the City must grant the Conditional Use Permit because the use existed prior to the new ordinance. City Attorney Kevin Staunton reviewed the legal position rf the City regarding granting of the Conditional Use Permit. Harvey Reder stated he wrs concerned about new residents of the property storing boats and other recreational vehicles outside on the pro[»erty. Councilmember Goetten stated that nothing of that nature should be parked on the lot because it was so small that there will be only four spaces for vehicles. City Attorney Staunton commented that the City has the authority to regulate the storage of vehicles on a property. Mike Anderson, 3580 Livingston Avenue, inquired about whether there were three rental units within the residence. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth responded that the application involved "i request for two legal rental units in the home. The bedrooms in the basement are not legal because they lack adequate egress windows. Karen Cuff, 3572 Livingston Avenue stated she was concerned about the drainage in the area if the two additional parking spaces were to be placed in the front yard, and the effects of the additional hard surface coverage on the property and potentail drainage problems on her property. Councilmember Kelley commented he favored placing the two additional parking spaces behind the house and having them access from Blaine Avenue. Mabusth commented there wouid be a problem with the additional hard surface coverage in the front as drainage is a problem on Livingston Avenue. She noted staff wx>uld explore gaming access from Blaine Avenue. Mayor Callahan requested this item be tabled for two weeks to allow staff to work out a solution. He noied that the Council favors the parking spaces accessing from Blaine Avenue. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 8, 1993 Councilmcmbcr Kelley moved, Goeiien seconded, to table /^1860 Conditional Use Permit for Zelma McKinney. 3599 Livingston Avenue to allow staff to work out a parking solution. Ayes 3, Nays 0. Motion carried. *7. mis CHARLES AND SHIRLEY PYLE, 3548 IVY PLACE, VARIANCE, RESOLUTION ^3352. Councilmember Goetten moved. Kelley seconded, for approval of .<^1878 Charles and Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place, Variance to allow 75’ zone hardcover variance for addition to existing residence, and adopt Resolution #3352. Ayes 3, Nays 0. Motion carried. ♦8.. #1879 ALLEN AND KATHLEEN BAKKE, 1127 LOMA LINDA AVENUE, VARIANCE, RESOLUTION #3353. Councilmember Goetten moved. Kelley seconded, for approval of #1879 Allen and Kathleen Bakke, 1127 Loma Linda Avenue, after-the-fact setback and hardcover variance for deck constructed/refurbished in 1985, and to adopt Resolution #3353. Ayes 3, Nays 0. Motion carried. *9. #1880 THOMAS AND JANE REGNIER, 1205 ELMWOOD AVENUE, RENEWAL VARIANCE, RESOLUTION #3354. Councilmember Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, for approval of #1880 Thomas and Jane Regnier, 1205 Elmwood Avenue, renewal of side street setback variance for construction of additions to the existing residence, and to adopt Resolution #3354. Ayes 3, Nays 0. Motion carried. 10. #1882 JOHN M. O’SULLIVAN/O’SULLIVANS, 2420 SHADYWOOD ROAD, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Michael Gattron gave the staff report and stated that an agreement had been reached and staff would draft a resolution amending the commercial site plan approval for Council action at their next meeting. •11. #1883, STEVEN .M. ENGLUND. 3855 CHERRY AVTNUE, VARIANCE, RESOLUTION #3355. Councilmember Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, for approval of #1883, Steven M. Englund, 3855 Cherry Avenue, for approval of a lot area variance for construction ot a single family residence on a 0.37 acre parcel, and adopt Resolution #3355, Ayes 3. Nays 0. Motion carried. 12. #1884, ORVILLE FISHER, 475 OXFORD ROAD, VARIANCE, RESOLUTION #3356. Cot ncilmember Gi,>etten moved, Kelley seconded, for denial ot #1884 Orville Fisher, 475 Oxford Road for an after-the-fact variance and to adopt Resolution #3356 denying the variance. Ayes 3, Nays 0. .Mation carried. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 8, 1993 13.. FLAG LOTS - REVIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Assistan* Planning & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron gave the statY report and reviewed the proposed new standards for flag lots in the City of Orono. He stated that staff and Planning Commission recommend that the access corridor be created as an outlot. and that the City retain the ability to require a shared access between the two lots in instances where curb cuts are a concern. He noted that the outlots would be 30 ’ in width. He indicated the Planning Commission’s intent is that the proposed standards apply only to front/back lots after the ordinance is adopted. Mayor Callahan moved, Kelley seconded ‘o subscribe to the Planning Commission recommendation regarding flag lots and staff is hereby dirt-icd to draft an ordinance implementing these requirements. Ayes 3, Nays 0. Motion carried. Mayor Callahan m.'ved, Goetten seconded, to extend the moratorium on flag lots until December 31, 1993. Ayes 3. Nays 0. Motion carried. 14. TYi » 1 WETLAND BUILDABILITY CREDIT Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron reviewed the staff position on the current status of wetland regulations and potential issues which need to be addressed by the City. He discussed the current wetland designations on the City maps and discussed the scope of wetland classification which had been enacted as part of the Slate Wetland Conservation Act and now requires that wetland alteration permits be issued for developments encroaching into wetland areas. Mayor Callahan commented that he felt the Cityordinances should not be changed and that development approvals be contingent upon approvals from the other agencies dealing with the preservation of wetlands and mitigation of impacts upon those wetlands. City Administrator Ron Moorse .stated that as a proposed subdivision is developed it has to be done in conjunction with the other "‘gencies and he believed that should be taken into account when a project is going through Orono’s subdivision process. Discussion ensued regarding whether the City of Orono should become involved in regulation ot wetland mitigation or leave that aspect of development to be regulated by the other agencies. Mayor Callahan felt strongly that approval by the other agencies throughout the developmental process w’as sufficient to prevent lots being platted in unbuildable areas, and he did not believe the City should invest time and funds in something that was already being regulated. City Engineer Glenn Cook commented that most potential developers request subdivision approval from ihe City first and the approvals of these other agencies comes alter that fact. Discussion ensued regarding the length of time for processing a subdivision application and the possibility ot requiring that the approvals from other agencies come before the final approval by the City. Councilmember Goetten stated she felt that was necessary. Mayor Callahan stated he felt that the City should require developers to obtain agency approvals before City approval. He stated that he also believed that the Planning CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 8, 1993 Commission should not attempt to deal with wetland mitigation issues. He smted that the Council would not adopt a formal resolution regarding this issue that evening. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Mayor Callahan stated that he would be attending a meeting with the Mayors of the cities of Long Lake. Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach this week. He also stated that the City of Orono signed a contract with the City of Long Lake for both Fire and Police protection. Councilmember Kelley noted that he had read the Minutes of the LMCD meeting and they were accurate. Mayor Callahan stated that in an update from the Metropolitan Council they will now negotiate with cities on various operational issues as part of any comprehensive plan amendment process. It will include things like sharing of governmental services and allordable housing. Councilmember Goetten gave an update on the Willow Drive Task Force and noted that the Mayor of I ong Lake said they were not going to support the left turn restrictions. The Committee decided not to go ahead with this plan. They are urging that MnDOT continue its efforts to achieve completion of the Willow and 12 safety improvements by the spring of 1995. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ♦15. EXTENSION OF PROSECUTION CONTRACT Councilmember Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, for approval of e.xtension ^ Prosecution Services with the City of Minnetonka for 1994 in the amount ot S31.017. Ayes 3, iNays 0. Motion carried. 16. LONG LAKE ANNEXATION/SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION /j'3357. City Administrator Ron Moorse gave the staff report and stated that the City ot Long l^e wants the new resolution approved. Mayor Callahan commented he supported the change as it relieved the tty of Orono of a burden. He felt the last paragraph should be left in and he supported it as presented. Mayor Callahan moved. Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution #3357 approving the .settlemeru agreement in the form as submitted by the City of Long Lake. Ayes 3, Nays otion came 17. UNDERGROUND TXNK REMOVAL UPDATE Mayor Callahan discussed the problem of removal of the contaminated soil and rci'iewed the problems assiiated with this project. He felt that they should proceed as rapidly as possible to have this situation CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 8. 1993 dealt with. He felt that it should be handled by a professional firm if necessary, rather than attempt to save funds by doing it ourselves. Public Works Director John Gerhardson stated that further testing is needed underneath the gas tank to determine the extent of leakage. Councilmember Kelley stated he was concerned about gas tanks at marinas and other facilities leaking and how such leaks could be prevented in the future. Mr. Gerhardson stated that all underground fuel tanks should be registered and tested and replaced when a change of ownership occurs. He noted that testing was done on a subjective basis. Councilmember Kelley requested staff to make an inventory of tanks in the City and report on when they were tested and the schedule for testing them. Councilmember Kelley thanked John Gerhardson for remr ing the old City buildings and saving the City money. He complimented him on the excellent job he did. ♦18.. CERTinCATE OF EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING AWARD Councilmember Goetten moved. Kelley seconded, that the Council congratulate Finance Director Tom Kuehn and the Financial staff for the City’s obtaining the G.F.O.A. Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the 1992 Comprehensive Annual Finance Report; and acknowledges the valuable assistance provided by the audit staff of Malloy, Karnowski, Radosevich and Co. Ayes 3, Nays 0. Motion carried. *19. LICENSES . . ' Councilmember Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, for approval of the following licenses: Septic System. Installer Quickway Excavation Rockford* Gambling License Resolution #3358 Lions Mound Noithwest Tonka Club at Navarre Lanes 3435 Shoreline Drive One Day Set-Up Permit -Minnetonka Center for the Arts 2240 North Shore Drive Holiday House Event November 18. 1993 Approximately 6-10:00 p.m. Ayes 3, Nays 0. Motion carried. ♦20. BIH.S Councilmember Goetten moved, Kelley secon Jed. to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Ayes 3. Nays 0. Motion carried. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY OF ORONO NOVEMBER 8, 1993 ADJOURNMENT Mayor Callahan moved. Goetten seconded, to adjourn ihe meeting at 9:30 p.m. Ayes 3. Nays 0. Motion carried. ATTEST: 8 AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1993, 7:30 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* uii the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Fublic Packet which may be obtained upon request from the Recorder. ROLL CALL * 1. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Regular Meeting of October 25, 1993 % PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS 3. Crystal Bay Site Recommendation by Lili McMillan 4. French Creek Preserve by Susan Wilson 4A.Cross Country Skiing at Orono Golf Course PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Janice Berg Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ** APPLICANTS **Immediately afr r 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 * 5. #1780 City of Orono, 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road South - Subdivision - Final Plat Approval - Resolution 6. #1860 Zelma McKinney, 3599 Livingston Avenue - Conditional Use Permit 7. #1878 Charles & Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place - Variance Resolution 0. #1879 Allen & Kathleen Bakke, 1127 Loma Linda Avenue - Variance - Resolution 9. #1880 Thomas & Jane Regnier, 1205 Elmwood Avenue - Renewal Variance - Resolution 10, #1802 John M O'Sullivan/O'Sullivans, 2420 Shadywood Road Commercial Site Plan Review 11. #1883 Steven M. Englund, 3855 Cherry Avenue - Variance - Resolution *12. #1884 Orville Fisher, 475 Oxford Road - Variance - Resolution 13. Flag Lots - Review Planning Commission Recommendation 14, Type 1 Wetland Buildability Credit MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 15. Extension of Prosecution Contract 16. Long Lake Annexation/Subdivision Resolution 17. Underground Tank Removal Update *10. Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting Award •LICENSES (19) •BILLS (20) ADJOURNMENT AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1993, 7:30 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA ‘.•V' UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 11/08 - Council meeting 7:30 p.m. 11/11 - Holiday - Veterans' Day Observance 11/15 - Planning Commission meeting 7:00 p.m. 11/21; - Council meeting 7:30 p.m. 11/25 - Holiday - Thanksgiving Day 11/26 - Holiday - City Office Closed 12/01 - Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. - Truth In Taxation 12/06 - Park Commission meeting 7:15 p.m. 12/08 - Reconvened Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. - Truth In Taxation 12/13 - Council meeting 7:30 p.m. (Last scheduled 1993 meeting) 12/24 - Holiday - Fxiday 12/27 - Holiday - Monday 12/31 - Holiday - Friday MINUTES OF THE REGULAR C^RONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 25, 1993 ROLL The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Ma\ (j^^Ed^ard VV. Callahan, Councilmembers J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley. loEllen Hurr andCjj^el Jabbour The following represented staff: City Administrator Ron Moorse, Assi<\^^ ^ Planning & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, City Attorney Kevin Staunton.<9^ic .j Works Director John Gerhardson. Assistant City Engineer Shawm Gustafson and Rcco C mt Marva Hurst. Mavor Callahan called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. %/^ V *• (HI) C OUNTV ROAD 15 SAFETY IMPROV EMENTS 1 lurr gave a brief introduction regarding the plan and asked Steve Petersc*. from the Planning Commission to describe the original plan and the changed plan. Pre.sent from Hennepin County were Vern Genzlinger, Head County Engineer; Pat NIurphy, 1 lead of Hennepin County Public Works, and Bruce Polacek. Engineer tor the project. Bruce Polacek talked for a few minutes about the study Hennepin County prepared, noting that the accident rate in the Brackett s Point area is 3 times higher than other areas. He commented how County Road i6 in Minnetonka, which was a similar situation, has improved in regard to safety when turn lanes were created. Mayor Callahan asked if the road would be worked on in segments and if some segments could be eliminated. Polacek stated that the road was reviewed in segments due to the sensitivity of certain sections. Murphy added that certain segments could be eliminated if necessary. Goetten stated her concerns are as follows: center turn lanes could cau.se .some contusion, cspcciallv at night because the area is poorly lighted: the blacktop incre.^c w-ill be massive, and that speed is not generally enforced unless a car is travelling more than 10 mph over the speed limit. Mavor Callahan invited members of tt*** public to comment. David Halper. 1420 Shoreline Drive, commented that it took him 11 minutes to exit his drivewav recentlv. He felt that the improvements to the road would increa.se tralfic on the road and he was perplexed why the City Council is going ahead with the proposal when there were no positive comments at the last public meeting he attended. Lowell Janke. Fox Hills area, stated his concern is that the shoulders are very narrow and it‘s difficult to make a right hand turn and would prefer to see a right turn exit lane. He telt that widening the n>ad would increase traffic, especially trucks and buses and would like to see the speed limit be 30 mph. Bob Stierna. 1930 Shoreline Drive. re.id a letter referencing Minne.sota Rules Chapter 88-0 regarding natural preser\aiion routes, staling that the area could be considered for review lor designation as a natural preservation route. Barbara Halper. 1420 Shoreline Drive, stated that she felt Council should consider redirecting traffic imio Highway 12'394 just as it was done when the bridges were under repair. Jim Rivers stated that the County should have to operate by the same standards as the Citv ot Orono regarding hardcover issues and adding acres of blacktop would be ''Tong. He commented »haflhc real problem is m't left turn lanes or shoulder, but rather the speed limit should K* reduced. i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 25, 1993 COUNTY ROAD 15 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS CONT. Several other residents commented on similar issues, saying that the proposed changes would onlv encourage an increase in traffic and speed, thereby making the road less safe. Other comments were that the City needs to look at oilier alternatives and also the long term picture of the freevvay (394). .labbour asked whether a lower speed could be posted. Polacek stated that the City would have to petition the County to petition the State to do a speed study. The Commissioner of Transportation has authority for setting speed limits. He cautioned that a speed .study might indicate that a higher speed could be set. Kelley agreed with the public and commented on the difficulty of crossing the road to use the lake mid^lhe hardcover issues, but stated that he'd like to see safety concerns reviewed. Goetien commented that she agreed with Kelley and would like to see County Road 15 remain a scenic parkway...not a scenic freeway. Hurr reminded everyone that the Resolution only asks the County to further study the situation, and that there is no commitment at this time to make the changes. Jabbour that he felt Hennepin County should be told now whether to continue with more detailed plans and if the City has no intention of making the changes, the County should be informed before spending additional time on the project. Mayor Callahan stated the purpose of the Resolution would allow turlhcr study of the situation and that it would not be possible to know whether improvements shimld be made to Countv Road 15 until the study is done. Pat Murphv staled that the proposed plan shows the minimum improvements the County would be willing to build and that there would he nothing that the County could eliminate and still improve the safety of the road. Kelley asked wliat the maintenance plan would be if the Resolution is turned dov\Ti. Murphv replied that the road and shoulders would be repaved and right turn lanes installed if needed. He asked that the Citv Council make its decision to proceed or not tonight. It was moved by Hurr to recommend approval of the resolution as wTitlcn. T^e motion failed due to lake of a second. The Council directed that the plan tor the major maintenance activities on the roadwav address as many safety concerns as possible. (#2) CON,SEM Jabbour remo\ed item #3. Mayor Callahan added items #7. 13, 14. It was moved by Hurr, seconded bv .labbour to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motions for all items adopted by consent agenda will be included in the minutes in their respective numerical order. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 25, 1993 (#3) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 11 1993 Jabbour requested that the minutes be amended referencing the motion made by Jabbour reeardinc #18, Park Commission Recommendation regarding the Provision of Ball Fields on School District Property to reflect approval of the $20,000 expenditure to acquire the assets (equipment). It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Hurr, to adopt the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 11, 1993 as amended. Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS There was no one present from the Park Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION COM.MENTS Steve Peterson and Sandra Smith represented the Planning Commission.There was nothing to report. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (#4) #1850 JAMES SPINNER, 940 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES Mr. Spinner's contractor was present. Gaffron reviewed the proposal stating that the applicant has proposed additional reduction in hardcover of 250 s.f. in the 0-75’ zone. It was moN ’ed by Hurr, seconded by Kelley to deny the application per the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Ayes 5. Nays 0. Mr. Spinner's contractor reminded the Council that the applicants have agreed to remove some hardcover and stated that there is no other hardcover that could be remosed. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Callahan, to reconsider the application. Ayes 5, Nays 0. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded b> Goetten to refer the application back to the Planning Commission for review. Ayes 4. Nays 1. Hurr voted nay. (#5) #1877 TANDEM PROPERTIES/PETER ROAD AND 2645 WATERTOWN PO.AD - SKETCH I LAN RE$ lEM FOR PROPOSED SUBDIVISION Mr. and Mrs. Dickey were present along with the developers, Dick Putnam and jhu Ostei-son. Gaffron explained that the sketch plan review is before the Council because of the size of the properties invoKed. > MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 25, 1993 ZONING FILE #1877 CONT. Mr. Putnam gave a brief description of the parcels and Mrs. Dickey talked about the historical significance of the site Kelley asked if the barn would come down and if not, is it structurally sound. Jabbour asked if anyone from the Native American organizations have reviewed the plans and approved them. Mrs. Dickey replied that they had. Kelley asked if the land would be deeded to the City of Orono. Mrs. Dickey replied that it would. Mr. Putnam talked about the various ideas regarding roads platted in the developments. There was discussion by all members regarding these roads and the mature woods on the Coffin property. Jabbour stated that he would like more information and input from the Native American community. Sandra Smith. Planning Commission, commented that the Planning Commission suggested a meeting with individuals representing the Native American community to review plans to be sure that their input would he included. Mr. Putnam reviewed the wetland issues regarding each property. He hired a .specialist to do a wetland studv on the Coffia'Dickey properties and presented a map indicating the wetlands (using rules of other agencies) and setbacks per Orono ordinances. The results of the wetlands and setbacks pose a serious problem in the usefulness of the parcels. Gaffron noted that the code required a 75 ’ setback for septic purposes. He indicated that 75 ’ setbacks may not be appropriate, necessary or justified in relation to Type 1 wetlands. He went c I the discuss mitigation matters. There was some discussion as to where mitigation should be done. Hurr and Jabbour felt mitigatior should be done on site. Gaffron commented that Orono has in the past allowed Type 1 wetland as dry buildable, and that in the City’s 1975 maps many Type 1 wetlands were not delineated nor protected, the problem is to primarily determine whether lype 1 s should be considered diy buildable, and secondly mitigation issues. Jabbour asked for llie staffs position regarding type 1 wetland setbacks. Gaffrtm stated the City should recognize and define Type 1 vvetlands to be consistent ^'i^h other agencies but that there is perhaps no justification to cntorce a /5 septic system setback from a Type 1 wetland. Gal Iron lelt that mitigation should be dt>nc up front to protect future residents from ha\ing to deal with the issue individually. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 25, 1995 (##6) #1884 ORVH.LE FISHER, 475 OXFORD ROAD - VARIANCE Mr. Fisher was present. Gaffron explained that 12 large trees and several dozen smaller trees were removed from the propertv in the 0-75' zone. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the application for variances. Gaffron recommends denial of the request for variances. Gaffron noted a proposed restoration plan has been revised to address the concerns of the Planning Commission. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Kelley, to deny the application for variances and to approve the revised restoration plan subject to DNR review. Ayes 5. Nays 0. *t#7> COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5 - MUSA BOUNDARY/STORM WATER MANAGEMENT POLICIES - RESOLUTION #3348 It was moved by Hurr. seconded by Jabbour. to approve Resolution #j348 approx ing Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 5. Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT 1. Mavor Callahan discussed the letter and draft of resolution he distributed earlier suggesting Congress and the State appropriate funds for the mandates they pass dovvn to cities. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour to adopt Resolution Ayes 5. Nays 0. 2. Mayor Callahan suggested that a copy of revised budget figures regarding Police Contracts should be shared with Spring Park and Long Lake. 3. Mayor Callahan sugge.stcd administrative action regarding liquor violations should be taken after the prosecution process is completed. 4. It was moved bv Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour. to approxe Resolution #3350 to dissolve the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, and to determine whether, through adissolve tne i.aKC MinneionKu .............- V.T ’ ; . cooperative effort, a regulatory body needs to be created to perform any ot the function of the District, and if so. to join in forming such a body. Ayes 4. Nays 0. Hurr abstained. Hurr stated that she supports reorganization of the LMCD. 5. Goetten asked for comments from the Council regarding the letter from Bob Vasek regarding Highway 12 and Willow. POLICE CHIEF REPORT Chief Sullivan handed out tlirec reports indicating that the first described all occurrences for ^ the month, the second compares the four cities through August, and the third report, from ie State of Minnesota, describes Part 1 and Piirt II offenses, broken down by each city through September. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 25, 1993 ENGINEER REPORT (#9) PAY REQUEST Ml - STUBBS BAY SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour, to recommend payment of request #7 to Progressive Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $138,006.14 but to hold the check until Bederwood Park is cleaned up. Ayes 5, Nays 0. mO) RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR COOPERATIVE SERVICE STUDIES It was moved bv Hurr. seconded by Kelley, to deny the resolution in support. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) LEGAL SERVICES Mr. Barrett from Popham Haik was present. Moorsc explained the 1993 proposal for legal services by Popham I laik, along with information for civil legal ser\ ices for the past three years. Hurr asked what other cities Popham Haik represents. Mr. Barrett replied they represent St. Louis Park, Afton, Minnetrista, Excelsior and the Minnehalia Creek Watershed District. Hurr stated she would like to know the retainer charge for the otlier cities. It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour to recommend continuation of the contract for tlie next three months and to request the City Administrator to prepare an RFP for 1994 within the next two weeks. Ayes 3. Nays 2. Mayor Callahan and Kelley voted nay. (#12) STEP ADJUSTMENT FOR STEVE SULLIVAN, POLICE CHIEF It was mo\cd by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour to table the adjustment until Januaiy- of 1904. or such earlier time as may be appropriate. Ayes 5. Nays 0. •(#13) STEP AD.IUSTMENT FOR SCOTT OBERAIGNER It was moved bv Hurr. seconded by Jabbour to recommend approval of the Step Adjustment for Scott Oberaigner from Step 3. Level 5 ($12,864 per hour) to Step 4, Level 5 ($13,541 per hour) effective October 25, 1993. Ayes 5, Nays 0. *(#14) GRASS SEEDINC; AT NEW CITY FACILITIES It was moved by 1 lurr, seconded by Jabbour to recommend approval of the grass seeding. Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#15) SPRINC; PARK POLICE CO.NTR/VCT Moorse explained that the language of the hold harmless clause and the termination clause is causing some ccmcern lor Spring Park. Spring Park has suggested that it the contract is terminated for cause, they not ha\e to pay the termination costs MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETINGHELD OCTOBER 25, 1993 SPRING PARK POLICE CONTRACT CONT. There was discussion as to what could be considered just cause. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, .seconded by Jabbour. to recommend appro\-al of the contract subject'to working out tlic issues of the hold harmless clause and the termination clause. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#16) LONG LAKE POLICE CONTRACT It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour. to recommend approval of the Long Lake Police Contract. Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#17) SCHEDULING OF A BUDGET WORK SESSION The budiict work session was scheduled for Thursday, November 4, 1993 at 7:45 a.m. (#17A) NATURE CONSERVANCY LAND ACQUISITION It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to approve payment of the costs of related to the donation of propertv fium the Nature Conser\ancy, including an environmental review of the property, costs for title commitment, and costs of recording the deed. Ayes D, Nays 0. (*#18) LICENSES It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour to approve the following licenses. Septic System Installer - Groth Sewer & Water (*#19) BILLS It was moved by Murr, seconded by Jabbour. to approve payment of the All Funds Account, Aves 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT It w'as moved bv Hurr, seconded by Jabbour. to adjourn at 11:24 p.m Edward J. Callahan, Jr. Mayor ATTEST: Dorothv M. llallin. City Clerk y * TO: FROM: Mayor, City Council and Ron Moorse Lili McMillan, Park Commission DATF :September 1, 1993 '3^ If SUBJECT:Crystal Bay Site Subcommittee Review % On August 23, 1993 Susan Wilson, Alex Vongries, Lili McMillan, Randi Carlson (resident of Crystal Bay) and John Gerhardson met to discuss future park development on the Crystal Bay site. We outlined the issues involved in starting this project and are asking for guidance from the Council on che following parameters of the project: 1) Time frame: When is the Park Commission to actively begin planning for this project? 2) Economic: Need to determine source of funding and budget. 3) Public involvement: Park Commission has discussed holding a public hearing in which Crystal Bay residents can express their ideas. This subcommittee would also like to recruit two residents to help with the planning process. We discussed general land use ideas for the site. These ideas, that the Park Commission has been reviewing, are as follows: 1) Combining land parcels A and B (see attached map) into one green open space by closing Prospect Ave. between So. Brown Road and Arbor Ave. Parcel C is less desirable as park land than parcels A & B. Parcel C contains the Council Chambers building whose future, at this date, is unknown. The possibility of selling parcel C, as one residential lot, should be explored provided that the sale proceeds go towards development of the Crystal Bay park. 3) Any expansion of parking for the post office should^coordinated and included in the overall design of future park space. / • TO:Ron Moorse, City Administrator 4 % % FROM:John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director DATE:November 4, 1993 SUBJECT:Park Name - French Creek Preserve % Recently there has been discussion regarding the use of the old sewage treatment plant property. Part of the land will be sold for private development and part of the land will be retained by the City. The part that will remain City property is the northern most site where approximately four acres of wildflower seeding has been done and the old settling pond that is now a protected wetland. The Park Commission wishes to give a name to the area retained by the City as French Creek Preserve. Susan Wilson. Park Commission member, will be in attendance at the November 8, 1993 Council meeting to discuss this matter further. TO: FROM: DATE: Ron Moorse, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director November 5, 1993 % SUBJECT: Cross Country Ski Program Orono Golf Course Recently the City of Orono received a request from Gear West, Inc. to develop a cross country' ski trail at the Orono Golf Course. A one day marathon was conducted last year and was very successful. Gear West has presented their proposal (attached) and the City has prepared a draft agreement (attached) for an expanded program for the 1993-1994 season. Susan Wilson, Park Commission member, will be present to discuss this matter at the November 8, 1993 Council meeting under Park Commission Comments. AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Orono ("City") is the owner of a golf course; and WHEREAS, Gear West Ski & Bike ("Gear West") wishes to create and use a cross country ski trail on the golf course during the winter of 1903-94; THEREFORE, the City and Gear West hereby agree tliat: 1. 2. 3. Ski Trail Layout and Grooming ; Gear West will be responsible for the layout and grooming of the ski trail. The layout of the trail will be designed in cooperation with John Gerhardson and Ron Steffenhagen of the City, and Dick Schmidt of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ("DNR"). Gear West anticipates that ongoing grooming of the trail will be conducted by DNR and Gear West. The DNR is not obligated under this Agreement to provide such grooming services but is permitted to use its equipment to groom the trail whenever snow conditions permit. Grooming conducted by Gear West will be done with the use of a snowmobile pulling a lightweight ski trail groomer. Races; Gear West may hold a series of up to six (6) recreational sprint races one evening per week in Januarv' and February of 1994, weather and snow conditions permitting. The City shall have the option of cancelling any of these races if. in its sole judgment, snow conditions are such that conducting of the race would detrimentally affect the golf course. The races will be held between 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Gear West will be responsible for providing adequate lighting of the course for each race. Use of Facilities; The City shall make the clubhouse for the golf course available to Gear West from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on each race night. The City agrees to arrange for adequate heating for the clubhouse on race night. An attendant will be on duty during the time of the race. Storage; The City agrees to provide Gear West with a secure storage facility on tlie golf course site allowing storage of Gear West’s snowmobile, trail groomer, and lighting equipment between the months of December of 1993 and February. 1994. inclusive. 5. Costs; Gear West will reimburse City of Orono for any additional costs incurred as a result of their use of the course. 6. Indemnity; Gear West agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City for any liability incurred as a result of use of the golf course by Gear West. cm' OF ORONO Dated: John R. Gerhardson GEAR WEST Dated: Jan Guenther Septcnber23, 1993 Mr.R ¥ chard Flint Chairnan, Or')no Parks Commission 1405 County Rd. 6 Orono' \5N 55356 RE: Cross Country SUUng on the Orono Golf Course Dear Mr. Flint: f '. We ari writing to present to the Orono Parks Commission the enclosed ■ propo al for a cross country ski course on the Orono Course As y " . may rtcall, last winter wc successfully created a ski trail on the Go.f . /'Coursl oh a trial basis. This winter we would like to estab ish a more • • jf ___________ Oronn Golf Coursc. Wc feel that this will A ■ ,7orm4zed ski program .t the Orono Golf Course. We feel tn« tm swu. ■ 'en.bleLtli the City of Orono and the citizens of the jlilize one of-Orono's great outdoor resources; its public golf coursebetter Octobif 5 V/e would also like the opportunity to spend a few »^«nut« at ucioo.j .. _________.,1 fr. answer anv Questions that m that yc Mr. FI Sincer 'T. ieting in brdez.to discuss ourproposal and to answer any questions u or yOnr comi^sslo.n members may have, nt. thank you (kiivtKffor 'yMt consideration. We look forward . * r>__..7!i ^ '»to hearing from you. f :ly yours,/ 4-: ^ • f. Jan Gi enther Owner Wk ^ctefWeiles Orono Resident. ■■ 332-5^56 - / JLG/P enclos W/bu lire: Proposal ft •% •• . / $ • m \ / 'I . :/440 vlMfm ivt-, ' i0H0iAKt,ml , 553 56 : > ' (613) 473 • 0093 i Omnn nnlf roiirif Ski Trflil UntilCrPcouM?; skiing on the Orono Golf Course has been popular f®'' re<jently, skiers were forced to create their own trails, tjwcally . Resources pejimeur. During the winter of W91. the r'PNR") began grooming a trail that extended south into the Golf C T tVsll This trail was^oomed whenever the DNR performed grooming on the eas Luce urfr.rThe grooming of the DNR trail continued through the winter of |'9f-’92 and Into the winter of '92.’93, until our proposal to create a more challenging trail layout was accepted by the city. ho d’’an S S race on a trial basis. Afler CO .solution Ron ^ grAoming was held a. the ourselves. A new ski trail layout was created gircTsideution to crea^^ K'2;n:.X“ ifs—,5.s..™ held on one of the foggiest nights of the yearl Primnsal For Wlnlff 91“^^ _. i, (wofold. First, to provide the 4'rnfa*s.t;''oti: ?vInlng «oss ‘c'ountry- ski races hosted by Gear West Ski & Bike. i . , a Tiv. fAurcp will have a layout similar to the trail gro.-meu on a trial -tisTasl'wimcT It will be designed in cooperation with John Gerhardson. Ron ifTenagle and Dick Schmidt of the DNR. ba Stiicuciia^iv ------------- 1^.,. «■ f , Fi?st, we would agam '°°P* .now conditions permit. Secondly, we will provide .ae a«5not Ouf ttrooming equipment wouia consist uiX -5;r.rZ?.iS e mi rginal snow conditions u r-«« rnn<ulted with its insurance carrier and found that skiing on Races: We would like to hold a scries of six (6) recreational sprint races on Tu^esday evlnings in January and February, weather and snow conditions Dermitting. The races would be held at 6:30 p.m. and they would be approximately 30 minutes in duration, anticipated that they would be attended by approximately 30 skiers ft-om the local area. Lighting: On race evenings the course will be lit by a series of propane lanter distributed around the course. Due to the terrain, "compacr nature of the ski course and the reflection of the lanterns off the snow, we expect that the course can be safely lit. tsiraoic \Q provide them with a warm place to change, it i! our unacr,....w.,g that this fac.iity evenings and we would reimburse the City for their nominal increase in heating co:ts. Storage: We would like access to a secure storage facility in order to hou.se the snowmobile, trail groomer and lighting equipment. Indemnity: All racers would be reqi ired to sign a waiver indemnifying the City of Orono and Gear West Ski & Bike. Community Involvement: Gear West Ski & Bike has successllilly held the Gear West Duathfon running/bike race In Orono during the last two aone to the benefit of Orono ’s 4th grade students. West Duathlon running/bike race In Orono dunng tne lasi iwo sumn.ci*. * riQ rtrthU event have cone to the benefit of Orono's 4th grade students. left for Saturday October 2nd is the 1st Annual Gear West Octoberfest 5K o™- S'””®' W. would like .0 ^cMta^toilaWafki race a. par, of,ha six race .erica, again .0 as„s, Orono ’. youth. Thank you vety much for your consideration. FBOM Id.20. 1993 loiie ?. WAIVER ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK AND RELEASE I,____________________________, know that nordic skiing is an action sport carrying significant risk of serious injury, death or property damage. 1 also know that are natural, mechanical and environmental conditions and risks which independently or in combination with my activities may cause property damage or severe or even fatal injuries to me or others. I agree that I am alone responsible for my safety while training and participating in nordic ski events and I specifically acknowledge that the following persons or entities including Peter Welles, Jan Guenther, Gear West Ski & Bike, the City of Orono and any agent, representative, officer, director, employee, member or any affiliate of any person or entity named above are not responsible for my safety. I specifically RELEASE and DISCHARGE, in advance, those parties from any and all liability whether known or unknown, even that liability may arise out of carelessness on the part of persons or entities mentioned above. I agree to accept all responsibility for the risks, conditions and hazards which may occur whether they be known or unknown. Being fully aware of the risks, conditions and hazards of nordic skiing, I HEREBY AGREE TO WAIVE, RELEASE AND DISCHARGE any and all claims for damages death, personal injury or property damage which I may have as a result of my participation in training or participation in nordic ski events, against any person or entity named above whether such injury or damage was foreseeable or not. 1 further agree to forever HOLD HARMLESS and INDEMNIFY all persons and entities identified above, generally and specifically, from any and all liability for death, personal injury or property damage, resulting in any way ft^om my training or participating in nordic ski activities. This Acknowledgment and Assumption of Risk and Release shall be binding upon my heirs and assigns. Signature:.Date: Pai.nl's Signature (if participant is under 18):, TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmcmbcrs Ron Moorse. City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator November 4, 1993 9o V SUBJECT: #1780 City of Orono, 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road - Final Subdivision - Resolution All conditions of preliminary subdivision approval have been met. On November 4th, the Metropolitan Council approved the City of Orono ’s application to extend sewer to the 4 + acre residential lot. Title work has been finalized and the sur\eyor is in the process of completing the creation of the hardshells/mylars of the final plat. The City will create a flowage and conservation easement over the wetland area and drainageway within Lot 1. The City will also grant an access easement over portions of Outlot A providing a non-exclusive access easement to the residential lot. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted for Council’s review and action. ch A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF FRENCH LAKE AT ORONO FILE NO. 1780 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City: and W'HEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision of a plat of land owned by the City of Orono. a municipal corporation, hereinafter the City; and WHEREAS, on October 25. 1993, the Orono City Council approved Resolution No. 3348 approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 5 that would realign the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (hereinafter "MUSA") within the City; and WHEREAS, Lot 1, Block 1. French Lake at Orono, the residential lot within the subdivision would now be included within the MUSA and be served from the existing Metropolitan Waste Control Commission’s facility located within the property; and WHEREAS, on November 4, 1993, the Metropolitan Council approved the City of Orono’s application. WHEREAS, Outlot A shall remain as an open space area to continue to be owned by the City consisting of a private driveway and tuture site for development ot a park. WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the RR-IB Rural Residential Zoning District and Shoreland Regulations, finding that the residential lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use as a single family residence to be fully developed without the need of any variances; and WHEREAS, the City has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the Municipal CtxJe. including; Pace 1 of 3 ci 1.Completion of all requirements of Resolution No. 3284, the resolution granting preliminarv' approval of this subdivision. Dedication on the plat of right-of-way for a public road shown as Old Cry stal Bay Road. 3. 4. Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. Dedication to the public of a flowage and conservation easement providing for limitations on the use of wetlands and a drainageway located within Lot 1, Block 1, French Lake at Orono, and shown on the plat as drainage easements. 5.Execution of a non-exclusive permanent access, improvement and utility easement over Outlet A in favor of Lot 1, Block 1, French Lake at Orono. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of French Lake at Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 1.Future owner of Lot 1, Block I, French Lake at Orono, shall be responsible for the regular maintenance of the private driveway while the drive continues to serve the residential lot and MWCC facility. The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Registrar of Titles Office or Hennepin County Recorders Office on or before May 8, 1994 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the easements noted above. Page 2 of 3 The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event it will be necessar>' to file a new application for subdivision review. Dated this 8th day of November, 1993. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan. Jr., Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of November, 1993 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Pace 3 of 3 oo•nn z o 33 Oz 03m 33 X m I m• 5 I t z I o * c/» c i liiJf- ilj- ?r-T*■11':^u r.: H -f 1 o m 3) (/) IZ 3 (A On ..............-■A-......................................it I ^ c-------- • “ / **‘1 • » * ■ * //^h 'i » f '''•-•ili • T-, [i| ‘ '-••I.V'A *r ■'■ ■-•' •/• ill Ij*A-~ t (1 . f it ' )f.r -----------“9iTif -liS, ■n mzo > Xm > —I O o o o 13 O , O ' o it ^o CITY of ORONO RESOLITION OF THE CITi ’ COUNCIL NO. 3 ^ <Jys A RFSOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PLAT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1000 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH - FILE NO. 1780 WHEREAS/ the City of Orono, on July 19, formal subdivision application seeking approval residential plat of property legally described as: 1993, aof filed a one-lot refer to Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and nailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. sea. and the City o Orono's Zonina and Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a Dublic hearing on August 16, 1993, at whicn time all persons desiring to be heard concerning ^this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on August 23, 1993, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application as proposed, noting the following findings of fact: 1.The property is located within the RR-IB, Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2.The property contains approximately 36.7 acres of l^nd, 13.75 acres consists of dry contiguous land. Tne oroposed plat contains one residential lot exceeding the two acre minimum lot area requirement consisting of 4± dry contiguous acres. 3 .A Gravity sewer line runs adjacent to the west lot -ine of'the property and the City has agreed to extend sewer to the rural property. Paae l of 4 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF piE CITT' COUNCIL NO. _______ 4 . 5 . 6 . 7. Concurrent with the review of this subdivision, the City also has filed for a minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would allow the inclusion of this property within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. The hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was held on August 16, 1993. The" sewering of this rural property will not result in any change from the current two-acre rural zoning. The rural residential lot is located within southern basin of French Lake, a Natural Environment lake. Access to the site shall remain via an existing gravel driveway that currently serves an NWCC lift station facility. Outlet A shall remain as an open space area consisting of the private gravel drive and future site for development of a Dark. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Cicy Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the prelimina?;’/ plat of the property located at 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road South per the survey dated January 18, 1990, revised August 12, 1993 by Mark S. Gronberg <_f Coffin and Gronberg, Tnc., subject to the following conditions: 1. iV-or to the City granting final approval of the proposed •••^division, the City must have received confirmation from the Metropolitan Council that the residential will be included within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and approved for sewer service. 2. The future owner of Lot 1, Block 1 shall be responsible for the regular maintenance of the private driveway while the drive continues to serve the residential lot and MWCC facility. Page 2 of 4 CITY of ORONO •X % m *RESOLITION OF THE CITV ’ COUNCIL NO. O O .> J The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to tne regularly scheauled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month; 1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to I" = 200'. Drawing to include: A.Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc. dated 1-18- 90, revised 0-12-93. B.Drainageway that flows to northeast that intersects Lot 1 shall be designated at a 15' width drainage easement. C.Wetland area to t.he west of the OHWL of French Lake shall be shown as drainage easements on the final plat. D.Designation of wetland wituin Outlot A at southwest corner of plat. E.Dedication and designation of drainage and utility easements along west lot line to include MWCC ^wer lines as shown on engineer's sketch included as Exhibit I of currenc review. F.Dedication of drainage and utility easeme.nts 10' wide along all perimeter property lines. Please note that along the west lot line where utility easement is not shown, there must be a minimum or 10' along the entire west lot line. G.Designation of sewage lagoon pond and French Lake southern basin within Outlot A. 2. Leoal documents required:mm m w A.Updated Title opinion indicating any encumbrances or other documents affected by other interests. Page 3 of 4 RESOLUTION # fg ^ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) CITY OF ORONO ) I Dorothy M. Hallln, City Clerk of the City of Orono , Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of the proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on August 23 , 19 93 and that the same is a true and correct copy of said resolution was duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set 24th _ _, day of August my hand and seal this 10 939 ^ ^ • llin. City Clerk (SEAL) TO:Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmcmbers Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator / % FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building *& Zoning Administrator November 4, 1993 V #1860 Zelma McKinney, 3599 Livingston Avenue - Continuation ot the Review of the Conditional Use Permit Application Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - Attorney's Opinion Engineer ’s Report, 11/4/93 Engineer ’s Amended Site Plan - 4 Off Street Parking Stalls Notice Sent to all Property Owners Ziegler Letter 10/8/93 Neighbor ’s Letters Staff Memos of 9/16/93 & 10/7/93 Status of Application Review of the application was tabled pending receipt of the City Attorney ’s opinion. The City Attorney was asked to consider two issues. The first being whether the City could legally deny a conditional use permit to allow the continued use of the residence as a duple.x. The second questioned whether the City could require that the duplex be owner occupied. Please review Exhibit A. the attorney ’s memo of November 3, 1993. It is the attorney ’s opinion that the City must issue a conditional use permit to Mrs. McKinney to allow the continued use ot the nonconforming use of die residence and that the City cannot require the duplex to be owner occupied as a condition of issuing the conditional u.se permit. Review Exhibits B and C, the City Engineer has provided an updated repon and site plan showing two off street parking stalls meeting the required setbacks resulting in a total of four off street parking stalls (two within garage). Tlie conditional use penult for a nonconforming use shall be subject to all pertinent controls set forth in Section 10.05, Subdivision 5 (A-J). As long as residence remains a duplex, a building permit could never be issued for an addition to the struemre nor could there be an increase in the number of bedrooms from the current four bedroom. As already noted in earlier memos, two off street parking stalls must be provided for each of the residence units (review Exhibits B and C). Zoning File /^1860 November 4, 1993 Page 2 Staff has enclosed copies of letters received the day of the meeting and were not iixluded in the Council packets but distributed at the meeting. Many of the concerns e.xpressed by neighbors are already addressed in the code, i.e., outdoor storage of equipment, etc. in residential yards, e.xpansion of bedrooms or intensification of use. Issues like the parking of RV vehicles on the limited site must be included as a special control with the conditional use permit. The memo of September 16th (Exhibit G) ciied specific conditions or limitations for the nonconforming duplex use that were also adopted in the Planning Commission ’s recommendation of approval. Council Action To provide staff with conceptual direction so that an appropriate resolution can be drafted for Council ’s review and action at their November 22nd meeting. ' the meeting and were not included any of the concerns expressed by or storage of equipment, etc. in ■ use. Issues like the parking of RV rol with the conditional use permit, conditions or limitations for the ine Commission’s recommendation POPHAM H.MK MEMORANT)f^\fTO: RE: DATE; Orono City Council 3300 Piper Jsffray Tower 222 Soj(.*i Ninth Street Mini'.e9r‘''Iis- Mli'itesou 55*102 (612) 333-4800FROM; Kevin Staunton. Esq.j^ir^ Conditional Use Permit Application of Zelma McKinney (#1860) November 3. 1993 apropriate resolution can be drafted jeting. At your October 11, 1993 meeting, you asked me to address two issues regarding the ubuvc-rcfcrenced matter. The first issue is whether Ms. McKinney is entitled to a conditional u.se permit. The second issue is whether, if the City grams Ms. McKinney a conditional u.se permit, it can require that the non-confonning duplex on her property be owner occupied. After reviewing state statutes and the City’s ordinances on this is.suc, we have concluded that Ms. McKinney is entitled to a conditional use permit and that the City cannot require the duplex to be owner-occupied as a condition of issuing the permit. I. ACTION ON THE APPLICATION Ms. McKinney has requested u conditional use permit pursuant to Orono Code §10.03, .subd. 5. That provi.^iun of the Code allows Council to issue a conditional use permit for "any land or buildings which were actually and legally devoted to a non-conformlng use on Januaty 1. 1975 ..." if the conditions contained in subdivision 5 are met. Ms. McKinney’s use of her property meets the conditions outlined in subdivision .5. Therefore, the Council may grant her a conditional use permit which would allow the continued use of the building on her property as a duplex pursuant to the conditions outlined in the Ordinance. The City is not required by the ordinance to issue this conditional use permit. However, failure to issue the conditional use permit would likely be considered a "taking" of Ms. McKinney's properly because it would prohibit a use of the propeny that was legal and conforming prior to amendments to the xoning code. Although the City i.s entitl<'d to ’Take" Ms. McKinney’s projieriy if it takes it for a public use. the City would be required to compensate Ms. McKinney for dial taking. Consequently, unless the City wishes to exercise its power of eminent domain over Ms. McKinney’s propeny, it must issue her a conditional use permit. 2i9-::o:c.*fo u/j/oj il Oioiio City Council November 3. 1993 Page 2 U. OWNER OCCUPANCY You have also asked whether the City may require, as part of the conditional use permit it issues, that the duplex continue to be owner-occupied in the future. The City is clearly authorized under iis code and constitutional principles to require that the non- conforming use of ihc property not change or expand in tlic future. If such a change or expansion occurs, the City is entitled to prohibit the new use as contrary to the zoning code. However, this limitation only applies to the non-cunforming portion of the use. In this case, Ms. McKinney’s use of her property is non-conforming because il houses more than one "family" In a "single family" residential district. The non-conformity is not the identity or status of the occupants of the property. Consequently, the nature of the non-conforming use will not change as the identity of the persons residing In the duplex changes. Since the non- conforming use of the property would not be changed or expanded if the property were not occupied by the owner, the City cannot make owner occupation a condition of issuing the conditional u.se permit. cc:TJBarreu 11.-04-.1993 13:58 612 635 1311 BONESTfiOC 8. A3SC. Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & Associates Engineeri A Architects November 4, 1993 Ctta 0 loneiifou MU • •oitp'' C •! Msv'* I le^ii t cooit »• riiArvjl I a kh«ih<h( lutn M rB#rvn C^A Corijfyn A A Oofson 0/ fcJMe' O LflCttXf AOO#^ C A i A jry A louAJon Ma/i a Hjrior Pt Mcriii ? •jut'rem. ^|. >cc ^rc Do^.Ad C Tr^rnjl C Ary^i. t| !|«**||l V|<Tf| ff W<»*ir * »£ A^fl M A IC ^ WUrD i Ti*dA»ii W Aetnan fl C Lynch ^1 9 MJtj/>0 9ff J#ny O AWnc h 9£ icon i A»^jn#«. 9| Mr/'m 9 Anorior •! Mjn t loA M Mere A Sra C#7 VU Mone^' 9f Oir.fi j Id^rton *1 A Ue kh.'^i •! 9^1^ j C«^'’ •! VI« Q I •? P.Ol Ui«i I Jtnifn. f I L 9*» Octvfl 91 <i«n L VU<«nitn 9f Oa^ o Ahftoikt 9f 9 iMa imrp' 9r K#cn f ^ 9f Dou^ J Wnoc 91 IrjM^ S Ck(«jto> 91. CiCAC 0»v<ff 9| 9jw« G Mfwr 91 9 Gofor 9| CNhflA IXMOn Uo M P#MVVi/ M 0 •o<’ .|-ei 9 Cn;e^j<^ Ms. Jeanne A. Mabustb, Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 Re: McKinney Duplex File No. 139.1860 Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the proposal for four parking spaces at the proposed duplex on Livingston Avenue. The arrangement that provides two parking spaces in the existing garage, one along the east side of the garage and one at the 30 foot front yard sed>ack is feasible. This arrangement will provide adequate vehicle access while providing four parking spaces. However, parking on the existing driveway will not be possible and the garage must be reserved for parking. We recommend that the two additional parking spaces be paved. A bumper curb should be installed along the south end of the most southerly parking space as shown on the attached sketch. Please contact me at this office if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours veiy truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLDC & ASSOCIATES, INC. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E. 11-04-1993 13:58 612 636 1311 eor.ESTRoo a. assc.P.02 Ul 2 UU UJ 2 cd r'T^C' PIELD a NOWAK ' ^RveY.ORs...,T3^igg^g MlNNKAf^UO, MlNNIimUH MA^ftUT AVI. psK H CERiriPlCATtE OF SUBIVEV Harvey McKinney _______ LIVINGSTON iiuj; AVENUE lr*P»\ Scale: 1" - 30' m Description: Lots 11 2nd 12, Block 4, Navarre Heights. [he bounJftrft5*or ffie \ond*aD^vi dftcrfbta^and^^! ot a survey of oyiiu 11 '•fir any, from or on s«ld land- n*'.o tt.i»._2jth atv ei^July 19G9 ..... Sof^eyorv^ ^ byUJf-HoJ 1/QG Book NO,• • D o o ^^ESViP^ CITY of ORONO MuflidpaJ OftWj!i Post Other Boil 66 CnsUl Ba>. .Mlnnaoti 55323-(X)66 October 13, 1993 To all Affected Property Owners Notified for the Review of Application #1860, Zelma McKinney of 3599 Livingston Avenue The above referenced application will be scheduled before tlie Council at their November 8, 1993 meetine. If owners wish additional information to be included in the Council packets, please see that all submittals are received by the City office no later than November 1, 1993. JAM/ch n- I KHUOM . 47.V7.'57 • 1A\ • J7M»5IO Octobers, 1993 Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Zoning File #1860 - Conditional Use Permit Dear Ms. Mabusth: This letter Is written on behalf of my mother, Mrs. Zelma McKinney, the property owner and resident of 3599 Livingston Avenue. Wayzata, MN, with regard to the application for a conditional use permit. Mrs. McKinney has owned and resided In this property since purchase In May of 1962. As you are aware, my mother, Mrs. McKinney, Is contemplating the sale of this property, which Is s(^ asset and primary means of subsistencs. In conjunction with the contemplated sale, we have consulted legal counsel regarding the encumbrances to the property which have been proposed for consideration with respect to the conditional use permit for continued use of this residence as a duplex. Some oMne restrictions to use which have been proposed by the Orono Planning Commission appear to be unouiy prohibitive and as s«ich will have a negative Imoact on the value of this properly to potential buyers. I would roquost consideration of the following concerns: o As a property owner, my mother. Mrs. McKinney, currently has the right to vacate her portion of the house. If she so elected, and offer same for occupancy by others. This right cannot be denied her without due process of law. She has enjoyed this right for more than 30 years without interruption. If i« Plan a rinhf which. If denied Id future owners, will limit the market for this residence. Any limitations to use which may be placed on the lower level of the house should Include the specific physical alterations which would discharge the restriction, I.e. installation of a c^e compliant means of egress will permit use of this room as a bedroom by homeowner. (The bedrooms on the upper levels of the house are very- small by today's standards). The suggasted removal of the kitchen facilities on the lower level would pose a financial burden on the property owner and serve to further diminish the value of this property. The property om\er would offer Instead to remove the stove and appropriately terminate the gas service to It. Thewould offer Instead to remove me stove ana appropnaiwy wmiraio mo remaining sink, refrigerator and cupboards are typical of facilities commonly found in famyy rooms of many single family residences throughout the comrr.unity. o All other considerations proposed by the Planning Commission are In process and will be comoleted orlor to sale of the property. With respect to the concerns expressed regarding Clearance on the upper level fireplace, the original Installation of this unit was Inspected ano anofoved bv tho building cede official at the time of construction. We have requested information from the manut.acturer of the fireplace and will provide same to the City of Orono ao soon as it is from her many years of careful ownership. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. SIrKerely. I L ^ ^ m • • -! ! .. •■ ,Sr ■■‘■/I-'- •;*?u -V.r... ' r..*•4 ^f’rifc ,e/-• * -/- > 4 ^ > • •» ^ ' # « '* W-'. 'W-. :S- «• i • >. • k* «» l.v **S' *'• f ■. . • .-* , ft f •?* ! T. • t !.' *• ft > * t • t • A * ft •Vi- • ' • U* To: Orono City Council FromSHerse1 Forester Date OCT 9-93Subject; H1860 Conditional Use Permit-3599 Livingston Ave City CouncilI’ve got a excessive number of cars right across the street at 2255 Blaine Ave right now and I don’t need more parked cars on the *^'~**^ ^*9^^ arour^d the corner on Livingston and Blaine. I drive snow plow for MN.DOT. and cars parked on the street are a real problem. Don/t add more parked cars on the street. / Hersel Forester 3599 Crystal PI Navarre MM 55391 • ! % J . I, * . . ) \ # ft V • *,• t T*• •• • f • a • I . k » • t • , *• J • fi' #' * s \ • f •» • .*4 . I 2 • ' I . . I »*■ • ^ ■■'kh.- ':* • <:. .; • v.j\‘ - V .V • 'ii- j •/f, - . . jV *' t"' ■|l‘ v-V' Sy,.'- if,. .*■ »-r . 'N - * # i • V'm' V'} V» / • * * •*r ’■V; •• .* • S' - Ii-1:!;'. •* . .. OCT !■' 1 19»' ,V i ’ ; >.• • .-V •* ^ ‘IV- ’X-' '.I . ".U'l ■ III 11 .-.i. * ♦ ’.V* r. 'b>\ ni..to: mayor CALLAHAN and OROMO COUMCILMEMBERS from: HARVEY REDER (19 year neighbor to Zelma McLinney ) SUBJECT: H1&60, ZELMA McKIMNEY,359P Livingston ave-Conditiona1 Use Permit. List of Items to te!l council 1.Apologize for not speaking at Sept.23 Planning Comw^^jj^i cyi 2.Describe 19 years of living directly across the streeMf I f rTSr^zlviQ. 3. My concerns and request/suggestions. 4. Means of Enforcement of Conditional Use Permit. I tern 1 1 did not realize the importance of this Conditional Use Permit and that the Permit is for the future owner of that property more than it is for Zelmas continued use. I was caught "sleeping". I apologize. Item 2. I have been living directly across the street from Zelma McKinney since late Oct-1974. I have no complaints about the way Zelma has operated her property these last 19 years. Zelma has, for most of the time, been livin-q alone on the main floor with a couple of renters on the top floor. I would describe the "Type and Level of Use" as "Quiet-Lew Key-Conservative".For many years now,I don’t belive Zelma has owned/operated more than one vehicle at this address.The renters normally have had two vehic1es.Zelma does’nt drive now so only the two renters generate most of the traffic. Nothing much was ever stored outside like R.V. or Boats. Zelmas yard was always neat and clean. It was operated much like a single family home. Zelma McKinney has been a good neighbor and I regret she is moving. Item 3. My concern is that more parking spaces would e^epand the level of use just as adding more bedrooms would. The traffic/park 1ng as proposed in Exhibit M,I feel, is not a good usable plan and would lead to m,"'.ny cars parking in the street.The two cars inside the garage can always be blocked by cars outside the garage doors.Uhat would the inside car do if urgently needed? Also,a six inch snow storm,on that uphill grade, would force cars to park on the street. Its a poor plan for a "duplex"in Winter. A new larger garage would help. The size of the lots is about 8334 sq.feet under curent LR-IC , single, family zoning.I feel the property is too small for too many vehicles. Also, where would one park "RV’S and boats...Off site location,! hope. My suggestions are: Non dally used vehicles 8< boats etc. be stored in off site locations. The current driveway/garage be limited to three daily used vehicles.Let the new owner request his/her own larger garage/parking plan if and when they need it. The new owner might not need more than three vehicles. Item 4. I am conserneo aoout the current method of enforcement of this permit. For example. Ordinance No. 172 page 271, requires 75 Percent of all owners within 1000 feet are needed to have this reviewed by Orono City Council. Also of consern is the effort to eliminate the Homestead credit whlci. Orono uses to prove "owner occupied". The new owner will laugh at the City or neighbors if the permit is hard to enforce. In closing: I have no problem with a couple adult renters on the top floor. The real restrictions to Zelmas property are a result of the "City- changes in 1962, 1967/68, and again in 1975.The smaller lot and only one driveway,one garage,don’t help the "traffic-flow" situation. This,only on paper plan,is a future problem.More vehicles and/or parking do not benefit the neighborhood.! ask Council to approve the plan with only three daily used vehicles parking spaces,as it has been used. Thank You. Harvey Reder - -- /-.1 P3596 Livingston Ave. • • /X' yt-^u^j^-tf^ S 'f^CT i '1 (^x. /'ujx\d^uij. 7^ ifuL C^)J^:t.^^/J^ /^ChnuT ~^/^ 22/^ /(2'p^t^y 3^i 7 7^L>Viy7U]<7cy7 ^c^. !^. J! r u . r . / ' xt^A\ji.C^KdJ^^ t TC^ /7~^<rz^-^>^. ,77\t!yi4i 'ylU'r]r'\L‘^,^t6<^ ii^l2::2;^k4i^7i Ci-'-n.i^ C-^ "7^^ 2^)^'t,C'iU^ Ct^u*^ ■ ^^Lit^Tt^ ^/)/Ut^ ^'~^t(22c/ --// 7. >K ,L^'Hu. C'>i&i.7 / J . /; / ' / ^/ / / / :7 yi/J ; - ^ ' ! 2jlC^ fJr^:Ho^nT7U''iL ''jHU'U.Asu. / ■ r ^ /;7/^ 7lCi-J\4'L itk^'KA /JjLczf'-i,.^ / y /- -/V ^ . 1,1 r^) /-*x^ Pit'LfUj^ ^ ^ )4W jdxtcutPT'^y * > \ j 7^ it ^ . ^P^^Ju/tcn-x^ CtU-: ’ tM MoV U<- stu^/ c^i-ii j>c<z/^r'^"'-C. C l'^CUiL ^ l^y/^6u'u^?- id'f diu S^r>7 <2<- K ^CtTk^liXty '^uf iuL.' 'jTut^'^ ptv>\M-v f^c<fjuLcJ2- UrC^ / ’ I j / ;f ' ^ ^ y^ I'C'^r j^ ^j^7Ax/Ut*ryL''y>x^-'^' j'>7^ ''f~i/ />u O^L^' 7^*y^ LA«-(2u^s^M ^X.X/ /K/V s^^9/ TO:Mavor Callahan an<^ jno Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:October 7, 1993 SUBJECT: /'1860 Zelma McKinney. 3599 Livingston Avenue - Conditional Use Permit Additional Exhibit N - Site Plan Submitted by Applicant Locating Parking Stalls on Site Brief Review of Application Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5, the applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to allow the continuation of a nonconforming use that has existed on the property prior to 1962. The applicant has owned the property since May of 1962. At that time, the residence structure contained rental units. Per Exhibit E, a building p^'rmit issued in 1957 by the City also confinned that rental units existed within the structure. In August of 1962 the City passed an ordinance allowing only single family use of the area but Ihe amendment did not require that a conditional use permit be filed for the continuation of a nonconforming use In 1968 and 19^5 the code was again amended and now required the filing of the conditional use permit to allow continuation of nonconforming uses. The applicant was never aware of the requirements ot the code amendments. Mrs. McKinney now wishes to sell the property as a legal duplex. Mrs. McKinney has provided an income tax record and original handwritten rent receipts to the City to confirm that property has been rental property through her ownership. As already noted in 1957, the City officially recorded that there were rental units within the residence structure. Staff asked the Planning Commission to review the pertinent sections of the code to determine if there was a deadline for the -iling of conditional use permits for nonconforming uses which existed prior to the 1975 or 1968 code. There was nothing in the code that would proliibit applicant from filing the current conditional use permit for the continuation of the nonconforming use. As of this writing, the City is in receipt of one letter from an adjacent neighbor who was opposed U3 the City granting approval of a duplex use of the property, review E.xhibit M. Staff received phone calls fnmi neighbors who were pleased to see that the residence was not going to be used as triplex but rather a duplex and that it would be sold as an owner-occupied residence. At the public hearing, there was no one in the audience who voiced concern with the proposal. A iiiember of the Planning Commission noted that this would be the time to require that the property revert back to the single family use with the sale of the property by Mrs. McKinney. I hc majority of the members found the property would be suitable for a duple.x use and could support the four off street parking stalls (two within double car garage). The Zoning File #1860 October 7, 1993 Page 2 applicant was asked to provide an amended site plan showing two additional off street parking stalls, review Exhibit N. At the time of the public hearing, there was no one in the audience who voiced a concern with the current proposal Since that meeting, staff has received several phone calls from one adjacent neighbor who is concerned that the City could not enforce the various controls that were to be placed on the property. It is staff’s understanding that the neighbor will present a written commentar)' at your meeting as he was unable to complete the statement for inclusion in your packet. From various discussions that 1 have had with the neighbor, the following concerns were raised: 1.All off street parking stalls were based on the maximum four bedroom use of the structure. What if there are additional drivers with a total of five or six cars parked on property? There is currently no problem with Mrs. McKinney and her current renters. 2. 3. How do you control the parking of recreational vehicles or additional cars owned by owners or renters not used daily or ctorage of large equipment? Once the homestead cicdii is discontinued, how would the City be made aware if structure was not owner occupied? The conditional use pennit can be written to limit off street permanent ler/renter parking to four or five stalls. The second fioor apartment could be limited to use of no more than two adults (two unrelated adults or couple with young children). The parking of recreational vehicles on limited site would not be allowed. The storage of equipment in yard is subject to existing ordinances of City. As for the issue of "owner occupied," staff would recommend that written controls similar to the ones adopted for the nonconforming u;.e at 1960 Sht)reline Drive be considered for this conditional use permit. Staff has provided various sections of the code to the neighbor specifically dealing with required standards for all conditional use permits, controls on nonconforming uses and the recommended controls developed for the current review. It is unfortunate that the neighbor did not raise these concerns during the Planning Commission review allowing for input and direction from the Planning Commission. The City Engineer has been asked to review the updated site plan providing off street parking. In reviewing the various corttrols on off street parking for residential p'^operty, it would appear that parking adjacent to the garage stall doors would not be disallowed. iTie site plan shows four *»ff street parking stalls not crediting the two within the garage. The proposed off street parking meets required setba- ks for residential parking. Zoning File #1860 October 7, 1993 Page 3 Please review the enclosed staff memo dated September 16th prepared for the Planmng Commission's review providing background on the ordinances, history of the property, building violations and special conditions for control of conditional use permit. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit subject to the controls outlined in the staff memo. Approval was based on the findings that the operation of the use would be consistent with the surrounding single family residential neighborhood. The use would not have a detrimental affect on the public health, safety or welfare nor should that use diminish the property values of adjacent properties or improvements in the vicinity. The minority opinion of o.ne felt that clearly tliis was the time for the property to revert back to a single family use finding that the property did not meet current zoning standards and that property was incapable of supporting a duplex use. Options of Action 1.To adopt the Planning Commission recommendation of approval and to add any other conditions of approval deemed necessaiy by Council. As this u.se can only be compatible with surrounding single family neighborhood if governed by adequate controls, stiff would recommend that a resolution of approval be drafted similar to the one developed by the City Attorney for Smith Bay Marina for the property located at 1960 Shoreline Drive approving a boat sale/nautical shop at the residential property. Staff has enclosed the resolution that includes the exhibits consisting of approved site plan, consent of applicant and pertinent ordinances (nonconforming use sections and standards for operation under a conditional u.se permit); or Denial; finding the proposed use to be in complete conflict with the necessary findings approving a conditional use permit and that the duplex use would be in complete conflict with the intent of the LR-IC Zoning District for single family residential use. Council Action To provide staff with conceptual direction so that appropriate resolution can be drafted per Council's review and action at their October 25, 1993. ch 6 To:Orono Planning Commission Members Mavor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator // From: Date: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator September 16, 1993 Subject:#1860 Zelma McKinney. 3599 Livingston Avenue Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing The applicant has owned the property since May of 1962 and at that time the existing triplex use would have been permitted. Since that time, three major zoning ordinances have been approved whereby only single family residential use would be allowed of subject property. The applicant now wishes to sell the property as a legal duplex and seeks approval ot a conditional use permit that would recognize the non-conforming use as a legal use. The following ordinances are pertinent to the review: 1.Section 10.20, Subd. 3 (1) - Duplex credit. One duplex may be located on a single lot as a conditional use upon application therefore provided that public sanitary sewer service is available, and the lot is adjacent to a commercial or industrial district, and the duplex is constructed within 200 feet of the commercial or industrial district. A duplex is defined as a two-family unit residential building. Please refer to Exhibit C. Note property is not adjacent to a commercial v trict and could not legally apply for a duplex credit. Ordinance No. 45, Exhibit I. The very first ordinance calling for single family residential use within the district. This was approved after the applicant purchased the property (5/62 purchase. Ordinance passed 8/62) and note ordinance did not require non- conforming uses to apply for conditional use permits to continue a non-conforming use. 3.Section 31.100 of 1968 Code. Exhibit J. Once again, single family use was reaffirmed but now a conditional use permit was required for all non-conforming uses. 4. Section 31.100 of the 1975 Code, Exhibit K, repeated the same as the 1968 Code. 5.Section 10.03, Subd. 5 (A-J) of your current Code, pages 251-253. Conditional Use Permit required to allow non-conforming use to continue subject to all pertinent ordinances. 6. Section 3.05. Subd. 11. E.xhibit G - Separate Service Duplex units located in one building on one parcel of propeny and owned ny one owner niav be served by a shared or single service. The residence shall be sold as owner iKCupied duplex unit Zoning File ^!860 September 16, 1993 Page 2 of 5 List of Exhibits A - Application A-1- Addendum B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map D - Floor Plan, Second Floor Apartment E - Building Permits Issued 1957 F - Building Permit Application 1978 G - Section 3.05, Subd. 11-Separate Service H - Survey I - Ordinance No. 45, 8/62 - First Ordinance Calling for Single Family Use J - Section 31.100 of 1968 Code - Required CUP’s for Non-Conforming Uses K - Section 31.100 of 1975 Code - Also Required CUP’s for Continued Non- Conforming Use L - Building Inspection Notice - 9/9/93 M - Letter from Adjacent l^andowner Description of Request Mr. & Mrs. McKinney purchased their home in May of 1962. The home at that time contained rental units. Rental use has continued to the present. Basement unit is not occupied, but the second Boor rental unit is currently occupied by two people. Mrs. McKinney has been advised tliat if she is to sell her home as a duplex, she must seek to make that use legal, via a Conditional Use Pemiit. She has been asked to provide evidence that the use existed back to 1962 and that the use continued through the years without a lapse in time. The applicant has provided income tax record and original handwritten rent receipt records for the years not covered by the tax record to confirm that propeny has been a rental property through her ownership.* Review Exhibit E. A building pemiit was issued in 1957 and the City noted the following on the pemiit: "Tnis house is being used for multiple dwelling." Review Exhibit F, as late as 1978, the City was approving building permits for improvements to the apartments. The structure is currently divided off into three separate apartments. The lower level basement walkout cannot support a beo.oom per current code. Applicant is not proposing a triplex but seeks approval of a duplex. The second apanment is located on the second floor, review E.xliibit D. * Staff will have this information at your meeting Zoning File ^1860 September 16, 1993 Page 3 of 5 The Building Inspector was asked to inspect the facility. As City lacks a housing code, there are limits as to what can be required by the City at this stage. Review Exhibit L. The following was noted by the inspector and should be enforced whether this conditional use pemiit is approved or not; 1. There were no permits issued for the central air conditioning unit, furnace, and basement bath. Contractor should be asked to come back and obtain the necessary City permits. 2. 3. 4. Inadequate clearance for second floor apanment’s upstairs fireplace and should be corrected prior to property being offered for sale. Property is served by municipal water and the former well should be abandoned. Applicant should obtain the necessary pennits from State Health Department and provide City with a copy of certification that well has been abandoned. Inspector notes that there is no legal egress trom windows in basement for bedroom use. If duplex use is approved, staff would recommend that applicant pay for the necessar>' SAC charge to the Metro Waste Control Commission (MWCC) ($750.00) and applicant is further advised that she can apply to the MWCC for a refund of 20% of the tee. Based on fhe 1968, 1975 and current code, if a pon-conforming use existed on any land or buildings prio.- to 1968/1975 codes that use may continue pursuant to obtaining a conditional use permit and tliat the non- informing use be governed eneral by the standards set forth under the non­ conforming use section of the code (A-J). Applicant has applied under Section 10.03, Subd. 5 for a conditional use permit to allow die duplex to be recognized as a legal non-conforming use. Per that Code, this use could never be expanded (i.e. triplex or structural addition to expand area). General repairs of the structure can never exceed 50% of the fair market value of said smicture. This property has contained a non-conforming use for over 31 years. Alterations may be made to a building containing lawful non-conforming residential units provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units or bulk of the building. Any addition to this strucnire that would expand the apartment can not be allowed and the future owner or prospective buyer must be made aware of the special controls now placed on the property if it is to be recognized as a legal non-conforming use. The applicant is specifically offering this property for owner occupied use only. This should be included as a condition of approval. Review Exhibit H. The propeny has adequate area with a grassed yard. Ther is a two-stall garage providing at least two parking stalls for both owner and renter There is adequate area on site to serve additional off-street parking. This is a corner lot and it is importani that off-street parking be provided for residents of the duplex. Zoning File #1860 September 16, 1993 Page 4 of 5 Review Exhibit M. Tlie letter from Karen Cuff asks that the property be sold as a single family home to preserve the interest of all single family homeowners within the neighborhood. The lett-T notes the City ’s plan to rezone. The application does not involve a rezoning but the request of an owner to continue a non-conforming use that would have been granted an automatic conditional use permit at the time of the zoning amendments in 1968 or 1975. The problem is that average homeowners are never aware of major zoning changes that may affect their property. The McKinneys were never aware that they should have filled for a conditional use permit with the City. The City has received calls from other neighbors stating that they had no problem if it was to be recognized only as a duplex and to be sold as an owner occupied property. Issues for Consideration 1. 3. 4. It will not be necessary for members to go inside the strucnire as the inspector:, have confirmed the floor plan of the second floor rental unit. There is an exterior stair access at the rear and an emergency access through the interior hall to the front door. Review the property, specifically the yard, can this residence function as a legal duplex providing adequate parking off site? What other facilities should be provided for '.cgal duplex? Review the standards under the non-conforming use sections of the code that are pertinent for the duplex use. Are there other controls that should be written into this specific conditional use permit, i.e. owner occupied, no bedroom use of basement area? Is it too late to grant a conditional use permit for this non-confoiming use? Members should be aware that Mrs. McKinney did not kn^w that she had any issue with the City until her agent was advised of the zoning issue. Applicant has provided documentation that use existed prior to August 27, 1962 and in addition that use continued without lapse through the period. The code does not specifically state there is a Jeadline for the filing of such conditional use permit. Can you legally deny this conditional use permit? Members may wish to refer to Section 10.09, Conditional Uses, specifically Subd. 6 (A) (1-3), the necessary findings for granting Conditional Use Permits. Upon your site inspection, docs this residence appear any different from any of the other Navarre Heights residences ... physical appearance ... its use? 5. Other issues raised by Planning Commission members. Zoning File #1860 September 16, 1993 Page 5 of 5 Options of Action If application for CUP is denied. Planning Commission members must provide a deadline for the phasing out of the second floor rental apartment currently occupied. At thf. time the building is vacated by all renters, specific structural modifications vould be required, i.e. removal of kitchen facility in second floor and basement apartments and any other strucniral modifications that would deter use of either the basement or second floor as a residential unit. OR If approved, the following conditions should be considered in your approval. 1, All pertinent standards set forth under non-conforming use sections of the code listed under Section 10.03, Subd. 5. Removal of kitchen within basement. Disclaimer that basement area could never serve for legal bedroom use Legal abandonment of well through appropriate permits via State Health Department. Applicant to obtain permit from City to make necessary alterations to fireplace in second floor apartment maintaining clearance. 6. The property must be sold and retained for owner occupied use only. 7. Second floor apartment may never be e.xpanded by a structural addition to residence. 8. Applicant to assume responsibility to see that appropriate contractors file for the necessary permits for recent improvements specified in inspector s notice. 9. Adequate off-street parking to be provided for two residential units. How many spaces? 10. Payment of a SAC fee of $750.00. 11 Any other conditions deemed necessary by Planning Commission members. Isv 2. 3. 4. 5. members must provide a deadline ently occupied. At the time the ications would be required, i.e. irtments and any other strucniral ;cond floor as a residential unit. TO:FROM:DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City AdministratorMichael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator November 1, 1993 Oa /S^1878 Charles and Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place - Variance - Resolution Jered in your approval: ig use sections of the code listed egal bedroom use its via State Health Department. ^ alterations to fireplace in second copied use only. structural addition to residence. iropriale contractors file for the in inspector’s notice. idential units. How many spaces? Commission members. Application Requesting 75 ’ zone hardcover variance for addition to existing residence. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Planning Commission Action Notice 10/27/93 C - Revised Drawing Per Planning Commission Recommendation D - Memo and Exhibits of 10/14/93 Summary Please review the memo and exhibits of 10/14/93. Briefly, applicants request a 75-250 ’ hardcover variance for construction of a family room, foyer, and covered entry This is a revised version of a proposal approved for variances in 1992. but which was not constructed. The currem proposal omits the previously approved garage relocation, and merely includes the attached audition to the house. Hardcover removals are proposed in the 0-75 ’ and 75-250' zones. A lot coverage .ariance is also requested. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this application at their October 18th meeting and on a vote of 6 to 0 recommended approval subject to additional reductions ot hardcover in the 75- 250 ’ zone, by removing a portion of the driveway and reducing the length ot the covered entry way. In the 0-75 ’ zone, hardcover will be reduced from 23.3% to 19.7%. In the 75-250 zone, after the hardcover removal proposed and recommended by Planmng Commission, hardcover will reduce from 72% to 58.2%. Lot coverage by structures is increasing from 14.8% to 20.0% as a result oi this application. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commissi m recommendation. A resolution reflecting Planning Commiss.or’s recommendation is attached. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO .MUNICIPAL ZONLNG CODE SECTIONS 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C); 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) FILE #1878 WHEREAS, Charles D. Pyle and Shirley Pyle (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 3548 Ivy Place within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 174, Taylor's Subdivision of Spring Park Lots. Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03. Subdivision 14 (C) to permit structural improvements to the property that will result in 2,440 s.f. or 20.0% lot coverage by structures where only 15% is allowed, and a variance to .Section 10.22. Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (L) seeking approval of hardcover variances within 75-250’ setback area where only 25% hardcover is allowed and where 4.742 s.f. or 58.2% hardcover is proposed and where 5,870 s.f. or 72% e-xists on the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning F.ie #1878. The property is kKated in the LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District recjuiring 21,780 s.f. or 0.5 acres in area. The subject property contains 12.225 s.f. or 0.28 acres. Page 1 of 6 3 The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 18. 1993. and recommended approval of the proposed variance application as amended based upon the following findings: A.The proposed improvements to the property result in a reduction ot hardcover in the 0-75’ zone from 23.3% to 19.7%, although no imorovements are proposed in that zone. Further hardcover in the 75- 250’ zone will be reduced from the current level of 72% down to 58.2%, a reduction of appro.ximately 1.128 s.f. hardcover. B.Based on the existing drainage patterns of the property, runoff produced from the structures placed within the 75-250’ setback area will not drain directly to the lake but will drain tc he street which drains directly to the lake, hence the proposed hardcover reductions in the 75-250’ zone are desirable. C.No major land alterations are proposed as a result of the structural improvements. D. The increase in lot coverage by structures is not incongruous with the basic development pattern of the imnicdiate neighborhood. The current variance rccjuest is a revision of Application #1750/Resolution #3183 which included the family room addition and relocation/construction of a new detached garage. The garage is no longer a part of the proposal. Tb'* 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 inting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a lire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve a convvnience to the applicants, but is necessary' to alleviate a dernonsirable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 6 • i r 6. 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 v.iriance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections ’0.0.. Subdivision 14 (C); 10 22. Subdivision 2; and 10.56. Subdivision 16 (L) to permit the construction of a 381 s.f. addition to the residence and covered entry of approximately 249 s.f. in area, subject to the following conditions: 1 Lot coverage by structures on the property shall be limited to 20.0% of the lot area. Upon application for a building permit. applica.T.s shall complete the following: A. Show all existing and proposed improvemerts on a copy of the certificate of survey. B. Provide detailed grading and drainage plan. All hardcover scheduled for removal on the property as shown on page 6 of this resolution shall be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new constructioti The owner anti future owners of the property are advised that any future proptjsals to add hardcover on the propeny will require prior City approval, and might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent hardcover removals, resulting in no net hardcover increase. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the propeny nt»l with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application ft'r a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (November 8, 1994). Page 3 of 6 5.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions oi this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution 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 propeny. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regu'ar meeting held on the 8th dav of November, 1993. AITHST: Dorothy M. Hallin. City Clerk l-dward J. Callahan. Jr.. Mayor Property Owner(s) STATH OF MINNFSOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF' IlF NNIiPlN ) I'he foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8ih day of November. 1993. by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. & I3orothy .M. Hall in. Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Oroiio. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on bcl.alf of the City. Notary F^iblic Page 4 ot 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. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) NOTARY PUBLIC On tliis day of . 199 before me u Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared , _____________________________;---------------- known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 6 *• • a 0 -ii Hwg>i 16 ’ ^^n>A«cnaene p vexefb .'V7ij> f/f wrtwi e^AX? 4<ju€«p0kJlW — (:aete 'i^4» ewTW ( KPnv>»J ) lo^ipevf^ _________________ ^ u^Mce ^ereiw; Cffc?to>gp *«viW r * il ^ «er<»K^ - peters ftWN ^/f ii>5 ^ - fCf^O\J ce PRje ^ H* - cpuJi^ fwndJ ft^vJ« ^ f/f -^5 <1* l"»i^' T<7tPl. RSttfrreO 4» - ^p?r^vHPv H>^ *> 1 fl/HJ CTMOe'A/^y „ lO^J, - fepjit« e*JTf-y <#*4pfy -'"\^ ele upr'^?^3«» fMii^#»A/^WKx;^ivxJ^ vMy 4>uef^ e»jn*^ i”^t4>' ■#» f€^^W^if7 uq/to/^Ci- pevc^rfe ca^eKP - pevc^rfe {^■x\c^ n>^ __j/- A /« a g»'ue ^ !Vi^f:-i\.X .»• I “.5 6c» o/T 1-*>/V’P/4CA^'TS ^/A/Al- I^^Osat T IN iCeS^'^^ t-o f*.c. le^c^* r CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE //1878 NOTICE OF PLANTSTNG COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 10/27/93 TO:Charles and Shirley Pyle 3548 Ivy Place Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO:Daryl E. Hansen. Architect 3841 Thomas Ave. So. Minneapolis. MN 55410 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance DATE OF ivIEETING: 10/18/93 VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval s./bject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission recommended approval subject to two revisions: 1. Delete an additional lO’xlS’ portion of c,\isting driveway hardcover as shown on attached sketch (revert to grass). 2. Reduce length of covered entry to 7’. Sidewalk between covered entry and driveway to be only as wide as eiur>', remainder in grass (per sketch). These revisions yield approximately (10’xl8*) + (7’.x8’) = 236 s.f. of further hardcover deletions. Please provide a revised site plan by November 3. 1993 for presentation to the Council at their November 8. 199J meeting. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council .Monday. November 8. 1993. meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the Citv Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. COMMISSION nscn. Architect s Ave. So. MN 55410 0 AGAINST ver a.s shown on cred entry and ketch). utter hardcover a to the Council nutes. they are jmmission. Dary l E. Hansen. Architects A > 3841 Thomas Avenue South ( 1 Minneapolis. Minnesota 55410 Telephone 612*920*6232 JZ 29 October 1993 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono, Municipal Offices P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: /^1878 Charles and Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place Variance for Hardcover & Lot Coverage Dear Mr. Gaffron: Enclosed is a revised plan for Charles & Shirley Pyle addition and hardcover reduction. In compliance with the agreement reached at the 18 October Planning Commission Meeting, the revised plan reflects the folic/ing changes: 1. Change in covered entry projection from house to 7'-0" in lieu of 14'-0”. Additional reduction in existing driveway hardcover of 180 sq. ft. Reconfiguration of driveway remaining to allow for turn-around. In making this concession, it should be noted that the driveway area remaining is less than minimum standards for ease of vehicle maneuvers for turning around. Please notify me if there are questions regarding these changes. Sjrocer^y , Daryl_/4;. Hansen HO'/1393 H d Telephone 612*920»6232 / TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator October 14, 1993 /L / ■ SUBJECT: #1878 Charles and Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR 1C , r. / «J ' Application: Requesting 75-250’ zone hardcover variance for addition to existing residence. Note: Tlie proposed addition to the house was origi.nally reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council as application #1750, which resuited in variance approval resolution #3183 in Sf.jjiomber 1992. The propert>’ owners subsequently determined that they would not proceed with the detached garage portion of that application, and just do the residence addition. The current application therefore does not reflect all of the hardcover additions and subtractions proposed in the previous application. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Site Plan with Proposed Addition and Hardcover Removals F - Resolution #3183 G - Existing Hardcover Calculations ^ >4 . Affi<c4T7r*A-» MccuefeO Hardcover Review 0-75’ 75-250’ Lot Coverage bv Structures EXISTING 23.3% (948 s.f.) 12% (5.870 s.f.) 14.8% (1.810 s.f.) APPROVED VIA RESO #3183 19.7% (805 5 s.f.) 50.9% (4,154.5 s.f.) 20.6% (2,523 s.f.) PROPOSED IN CURRENT APPLICATION 19.7% (805.5 s.f.) •i • 61. (4,978 s.f.) * 2C4% (2,4% s.f.)-5V- iMMO Zoning File #1878 October 14, 1993 Pace 2 Discussion Please review Resolution #3183 and the site plan approved with that resolution. In comparing the current proposal to that approved in September 1992 the following changes are noted: 1. The existing detached garage will remain, and no new garage is proposed. 2. Driveway revisions with the current proposal are minimal. 3. While the 0-75’ hardcover reductions approved previously are proposed to be carried out. hardcover reductions associated with the garage project in the 75-250’ ■»one are not proposed. This results in merely an 11% 75-250’ reduction rather tnan the 21% reduction under the old plan. Lot coverage by structures under the current plan will increase from 14.8% to 20.4% where 15% is the standard allowance. The previous approval was for 20.6%. the difference being in the size of the existing and previously proposed garage. The Planning Commission is asked to recommend whether the current proposal is acceptable. Please review the findings and conditions in Resolution #3183. The removal of trees is no longer an issue. The extent of site regrading will be relatively minimal with this proposal. Staff Recumniendalion If Planning Commission finds that the findings of hardship and unusual property- conditions as stated by the applicant in the current application and in Resolution #3183 are adequate to justify granting of the proposed hardcover variances, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate, conditioned on: 1. Limit structu.-al improvements to 20.4% lot coverage on the property. 2. Upon application for building permit provide; a survey locating all existing and proposed improvements detailed grading and drainage plans all hardcover scheduled for removal be removed prior to footing inspection for the new construction. ch J 0 ^ /o'7 .r\ 1 CITY OF ORCNO — VARIANCE APPLICATION #1Initial Application Fee SI75.00 (S50.00 per «ach acditiional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SIOO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non ccnforaing use $200.00 After-the-?act Fees (Double application fee) rv Q I •A PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Cr Property Identif . Nunber (P.I.D.)— Attach iecai description to application ir no included on reouired survey. 'llb ‘ [ nicnth/year ’Date Prooertv Acquired - - - I (doXg^T^ also cwn the^adjacent parcels or lanc.^ of orooerty: V residential - -other ( sp-C-^ JPresent use of property. Zoning District: L-^\ 6'_ _ _ _ ^ applicant Phone (hone) uv Mair.e ?hcne (wor;<) Address . ^ City: _ _ _ _ Zip: OWNER Name {if different than applicant) Phone (hone)—^\ '- . ^ Lg ?hor.e (work) Address DESCRIPiION OF REQUEST : City; 1_ Estimated Ccnstructicn Cost SOCQ, VARIANCES required Lot Area Setbac)c: Lot width V Hardcover _ _Lot Coverage j.j.Qnt: _ _ Side _ _ Rear _ _ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) ^SHIP/DES^^ON OF OHtlSOM. PROPERTY CONDITIONS ^.^^oe V^^3W06fe•■ fKg\T.CVw rI \ (at.t.ach additional sheets if necessary) required SUiiMITTALS , . 4. „ of t^e follo%^pg information must be submitted by the applxcation def*dline date in order for your application to be considered completg^ 1. v/ Completed Application Form 2. > Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list fror.. 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 i^nclude hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8%''xll" for reproduction). 5. Topographic survey (ex sting and proposed elevations) if any changes in existinc crade are proposed (provide one copy 6H"xll"). 6. ✓ S)cetches or plans of floor s elevation views (provide 1 copy ). 1'. As an addendum to this application,, please attach a separate list of 8. any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variemce application is not complete if_the—ahoy e information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requesVed by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and''or ccnsu_tan_ expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct t<5 the best of his/her kncwledoe. Applicant's Signature S . ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date OWNERS SIGNATURE ^ r v The owner hereby ackowlecges and agrees to this app-icaticn and ..u..w.ie^ authorises reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga ­ tion and verification o^ this request. ^ J'Z'b Ovmer's Signature _____________________ Date _ . / Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Plannino Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled rovicw meetings of the Planning Cammission and Council. -- a.. appi..cant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please m.ake arrangements to have an author!ted agent attend in your place and to advise the ou*ld..ng & ..o,i..ng Office of this change prior to the meeting. #1878 ! r i 1 U I I * • fI?*);,'.MtcKMVr. '.Ill! ^ • • ' •■ * "•■■ ’ i‘ H V?>WfUDPH • JpOQ! :0ltCR HAHf U I MtnitPIH COUin PROPERTY IfifOHMAIlOM SYSJU1 PROPE»fV OEtJERS LIST tO-U7-*5 *2 0001 poqsp 'ADDRESS UNASSICIICD ^ MPLA h it al trustees iTAXPAVm . JAHIS H lUPlEUT ' •t, f**?*^*®®!l 7100 HAVEATA piVO b 11':, ;'i.rp. : 1*. * .1 •; »! » < k l! • JP 20-117-2S A2 OOiq PpOfi APOII . oss^i : IVY PL•Sower haite •,r r jemett ctal f taxpayer -.' i ARTHUR iI JEHETT •554* IVY PLACEHayeata m 5smIf* • K * r, t* • V‘* :| r .•lb;.* • » i>; PROP POOR ,<H«R HA»f taxpayer •, I jNAff/APOR 56 29-117*21420054 *05545 JVY PL JEFfREY I DEBRA DAIDERRY JEFFREY A DEBRA OArAERRY 5545 IVylpL.rl H4Y«ATA ftr;: 55311 * f'}P)% w l.r )v » ♦ i.-'. : • I•i'*' i*if ?•*'#lit * *.. - I. ' • * REPORT HO. PI45S401 PACE 7. 36 20-117-23 42 0016 05550 TVY PL »t1 A J DAHPIER ' MiLLiAH oampier 5550 IVY PLACE HAYZATA W 55591 58 20-117-23 42 0017 05548 IVY PL CAS PYIE CIIARUS 0 PYIE 5590 JVY PLACE HAYZAIA m 55591 58 20-117-25 42 0019 ' 05554 IVY PL TRAIA J DUYSSE TRAHK J DUYSSE 5554 m PLACE HAYZATA »•< 55591 50 20-117-25 42 0027 05560 IVY PL JOHN II IIOIIOUR VII I HIFE JOIIil II IICMXIUR VI1 5560 IVY PLACE HAYZATA III 55591 TOIAL PATCH 005 00007 1 tiRiiTY THAT the tacts represchieo are an ArcimAic and truf represchtation or jniormation as ir appears this oaie ihe^recoros 7/OAf I ■ I $ • •r-.‘ •. • . I D D . .« M CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR CHARLES PYLE OF LOT 174. TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA a >M00itiiiOR 0^ S0Fin9 Pifi L9tt Trii iRitndt to iRe« ii»t DouRd4f!fi o» iRf «Do»f JotcfiBfT prop iRd IRf lOCdtiO't 0* »n fiittiR9 R0m%#. 4nd tttibit ■'•rp. C0t#f tPfrfON. It iOfl '»0l pw'to'^t to ^R0» i'»f OlPf' l*p^ Ot#*f At i Of • RC fOiCR^fRlI. 0 ifOR ifOfMIpS IhOail prt 04ttJ dOon «n ittuafO l«t«.« 1 •»»t t-I* •>. i P^cuav)h^ l" V, t> i, kf '^uf •• N ( tn.ii.hk V • I M 4i tl t^h4s ^ ^ •• Jak.' *•1% ’ •■«•• Ml I M t it0h I I. ■« * t ..<«4 • <« tOi nji» 4 MtMkr«-(4 ‘Wn ' t I\.t • «• ««9 I CITYof ORONO A< \\U'r^j^ ^//iVMm% ov/RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3183_ _ _ __ A RESOLOTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.03r SUBDIVISION 14 (C) AND 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 PILE #1750 within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City”) and legally describe follows: Lot 174f Taylor's Subdi/ision of Spring Park Lots, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and 2 523 s f. or 20.6% coverage where only 15% is allowed and a variance t^ Sec’Aon 10.22, Subdivision 2 seeking %\.°Lr^d"cove7!s variances within the 75-250' setback area where or allowed and where 4,154.5 s.f. or 50.9% is proposed and 5,870 s.f. or 72% exists on the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota:FINDINGS 1.This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1750. •*> dL m ’..,225 S.f. o .28 acres. 3.The Orano Planning Commission reviewed this application on priroLrvaS’e \^ppx\^^^4ior.r=^^^ the following findings: Page 1 of 6 ikigi CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 3183NO. A.Comprehensive improvement of the property results in a reduction of 1,617 s.f. or 20% hardcover within the 75 250' setback area. B.Based on the existing drainage patterns of the property runoff produced from the structures placed within the 75-250' setback area will drain away from lake and into street. C.No major land alterations are proposed as a result of these structural improvements. D.New location of the garage addition will conform with the basic development pattern of the immediate neighborhood . 4.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5.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 variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings the Orono City construction of a detached garage at 564 s.f., an addition to residence at 381 s.f. and an overhead roof subject to the following conditions: structure at 305 s. 1.All structural improvements shall be limited to a total of 20.61 lot Coverage on the property. Page 2 of 6 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3183________ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Upon application for a building permitr applicants shall complete the following: To provide a survey locating all existing and proposed improvements . a. b.To obtain a detached garage demolition permit for removal of existing c. To provide detailed grading and drainage plans. d. To provide a planting schedule for replacement of two mature oak trees. Applicants to provide size^ type and location on survey submitted with application..po5 All hardcover scheduled for removal within the 0-75' setback area (142.5 s.f.) as shown on page 6 of this resolution shall be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. All hardcover scheduled for removal in the 75-250' setback area (1,715.5 s.f.) as shown on page 6 shall be removed prior to final inspection and occupancy of the garage. 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 (September 28, 1993). 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 reed, 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 resoluticn in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 6 CITYof OROXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3183 CITY of ORONO M RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.3183 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this ) ss. day of . (-’/T 199 n befor^me a Notary Public within appeared < ___in and who executed tlT5knf^”o d to"bo 'the -Versonl's) d^^rjbed and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executea the same as his (their) free act and deed. UHDA S. V££ notary PUBUC • MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My commission escirw o-i2-w .QjS MlNNBCO»Pfr^ Notary Public ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 19 9 before°me a Notary Pubir/wlthln and tor said coonty, personaXXy appeared ■ . person(s) described in and who executed me fo?^oing Instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the saune as his (their) free act and dee . Notary Public Page 5 of 0".J •’ ^ 1 " • /r:; f ' -i)• ;m ------------- - ■ 'i« •I* •• I ,• u- T98?. ’ic?vK .'•••if- ■•;IV.. 7;-.r X' k -I VL''J' ;?• • /•. >>• Jfe;: f*{ i¥i!T? iiisif/r.? Jii - 1 'i i.'iJ fit'' ?tf f» * \;ri: i »-T>5 k4CUl^ -V • • ■ ^ » f V** ' .. * . %i ■ ' •■1%. V/.- • ; I'S-.- . - '^* ■«.'•.•* i« *••- , _ •#'' >• v^. * ; / *. • . . ' .* S .» / .4 *' I . '♦! I • iC: i . i'«‘ *.i *., f VI v.t5 iVSJ'.. H pafi^ o* < >. ..*»■ V s HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 'icTBACK zone : (CIRCLE ONE) 75'250 Existing Hardcover in Zone J-9Z ■250-500' 500-1000' A. House LENGTH 3 4 2 WIDTH S.F. ^ {mOOO 9/. C7 C/ sy^ ujou>7?; */ ** uyoofi /5 .^3 5* S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2 * Cuocifi *. Garage .//X y ./7 X _________ c. D riveway y •u o r D., Sidewalk ___ UJAuK \E.^ATIO/• •% , •)eck F.Landscape areas •underlain Vi BY , PLASTIC* sheeting _ S.F. _ S.F. m _ S.F. VJ5 /s 'X' /y.^ X /y i 2/0 —/^r./9 • 2.5 = 37 _ S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. /77 S.F. ^l^rrjz g. Other S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Total Hardcover in Icne - Total Proper ' ' A rea .n Zone yo75 ^ S.F. ?yr 4* T S.F. d] X 100 - 2 A. 2 2CC rfA fir (^^7- c<^U*^rfO AS //AA6c*U€a) ^M/&n H / ^9 2^ Ne^t<c ''-\ ■ <j .i I ------ j CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 473-7357 55323 APPLICATION NO. 1750 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 9/30/92 TO: Mr. & Mrs. Charles Pyle 3548 Ivy Place Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES; TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF TING: September 28, 1992 VOTE; 5 For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: To approve per the findings and conditions of the resolution previously mailed to you, except that condition #3 shall be amended to read as follows: 3. All hardcover scheduled for removal within the 0-75' setback area (142.5 s.f.) as shown on page 6 cf this resolution shall be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. All hardcover scheduled for removal in the 75-250' setback area (1,715.5 s.f.) as shown on page 6 shall be removed prior to final inspection and occupancy of the garage. Please arrange to sign the 3 original resolution copies at the City Offices (Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30). All persons with an Interest in the property must sign the resolutions. You must apply for and obtain a building permit prior to commencement of construction. (The building permit application is a separate application from the zoning variance or conditional use application.) Variance Approval is limited to the extent shown on approved plan and as noted in the approval resolution. Changes in approved plans are subject to further review by the City. Variance approval expires one year after date of approval. Permit application must be submitted no later than September 28, 1993. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 PUBLIC COMMENTS - CONT. Butch Loomis, Assistant Fire Chief for Long Lake, commended t Orono Police Department and the reserves for a great job at ine emergency preparedness excercise. Loomis, Chair of the Fund Raising Committee for the thanked Mayor Peterson and Stephen Sullivan for participating in the fund raising events at Octoberfest. (»#6) #1748 ROBERT & RITA HOVLAND, JoNDITIONAL^USE°PERMlT/VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3182 It was moved by Jabbour. seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution #3182 for Application #1748, Robert and Rita Hovland, 1245 North Drive, for a conditional use permit to permit the mstallat.on of an accessory structure on a through lot and a variance to the required setback. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#7) #1750 CHARLES i SHIRLEY PYLE, 3548 IVY PLACE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3183 Charles and Shirley Pyle and Daryl Hanson were present. Gaffron explained the changes the applicants have made to the proposal since the last meeting. Goetten asked about history of the property. Gaffron noted that while the Inspectors had the Impression the driveway had been expanded some years ago, there are no specific records'^of the additional hardcover being added to the property. Mrs Pyle stated that what exists on the property now was there when they purchased the property e years ago. Jabbour felt they are taking a bad situation and trying to get It close to good. Goetten felt they did Improve the proposal from the last meeting.' Callahan stated the applicants have made a definite effort with regards to this proposal. 6 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 ZONING FILE #1750 - CONT. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Butler, to adopt Resolution #3183 for Application #1750 for Charles and Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place, for variances to construct an addition to the existing residence. Mrs. Pyle asked that Condition #3 be amended to allow the existing garage to remain untiI the new garage is buiIt. Callahan agreed to amend his motion to amend the Resolution, Condition #3, to allow the hardcover in the 75-250’ zone to remain until- just prior to the final inspection or the Certificate of Occupancy, if appropriate for this property. Butler seconded the amendment. Vote: Ayes 5, nays 0. Motion carried. (*#8) #1763 WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB, 200 WOODHILL ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION #3184 Road, to grant a conditional use permit for land alterations. Ayes 5, nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT willing to deal with them. He stated the President of the Little League expressed interest at the last Park Commission meeting of pursuing ball fields in Maple Plain. Butler suggested writing the letter in terms that say, came up at a Joint meeting between the City Council and the School Board, and it seems that you are out of the loop of s®'"® ^^® current information. Please contact the School Board for an uudate.” To: From: Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrate Date: Subject: September 17, 1992 #1750 Charles and Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place Variances - Resolution - 2nd Review Pertinent Ordinances “ Review of Amended Plan - Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 0-75* setback area = 4,075 s.f. Existing hardcover = 948 s.f. or 23.26% Amended proposal = 805.5 s.f. or 19.7% 75-250' setback area = 8,150 s.f. Allowed = 2,037.5 s.f. or 25% Existing = 5,870 s.f. or 72% Original Proposal » 4,253 s.f. or 52% Amended Proposal = 4,154.5 s.f. or 50.9% Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of lot coverage Total area * 12,225 s.f. Allowed lot coverage = 1,833.7 s.f. or 15% Existing “ 1,810.2 s.f. or 14.8% Original Proposal = 2,640 s.f. or 21.5% Amended Proposal = 2,523 s.f. or 20.6% Variance = 712.8 s.f. or 5.8% Review ofStructural Areas Credited against Lot Coverage; Existing house = 1,273 s.f. or 10.4% Proposed garage *■ 564 s.f. (original 612 s.f.) or 4.6% Addition ■ 381 s.f. or 3.1% Roof structure = 305 s.f. (original 374 s.f.) or 2.5% Total coverage ■ 20.6% (original 21.5%) List of Exhibits A - Applicants' Addendum B - Original Proposal C - Amended Proposal Review of Amended Proposal Applicants have reduced the garage by 46 s.t. and overhead roof structure by 69 s.f. Total lot coverage reduced from 21.5% to 20.6%. Hardcover in the 0-75' setback area has been reduced from 23.26% to 19.7%. (Removal of 142.5 s.f. of landscape underlain with plastic, refer to Exhibit C.) Hardcover in the 75-250' setback area has been reduced from 52% to 50.9% resulting from the reduction in garage size. Zoning File #1750 September 17, 1992 Page 2 paved area and landscape area underlain with plastic. Staff has amended the original resolution reflecting the new lot coverage and hardcover facts. Options of Action Adopt a resolution approving amended proposal or Daryl E. Hansen. Architects P 3 3841 Thomas Avenue South 1 d Minneapolis, Minnesota 55410 Telephone 612*920*6232 ■e 16 September 1992 Ms. Jeanne A. Nabusth Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono, Municipal Offices P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth, After the 14 September City Council Meeting, the Pyles & I have re-evaluated the project and proposed the following compromi* to hardcover and structural coverage at 3548 Ivy Place. - Remove 165 sq.ft, of plastic below crushed rock on 0-75' and small section 75'-250' as noted. - Remove 69 sq.ft, of proposed covered entry (structural coverage). - Remove 2 feet of length of garage or 48 sq.ft, of stiuctural coverage (27 to 25 feet long). - Remove respectively affected driveway section or 28 sq.ft. These changes reduce structural coverage from 21.5% to 20.6% and proportionate reductions in hardcover as noted. We retained a little R/P at corner of house in 0-75' because of potential water problem to basement. We hope these final changes meet with Council approval. Please call if there are any questions. Daryl Hansen cc. Charles & Shirley Pyle HEBO'iTIl crrvo* ORONC SEP 1 7 1992 V f 'f'*• •?,' ^ * 4 /h' «•* ' ^ * V >* »’* ‘‘A j< *1 ■ r ’ 5i ,**.. s *. -.r*! I A i 'I LIGATION NO. 1750ICE OP COONCIL ACTIONe of Notice: 9/17/92Daryl E. Hanson3841 Thomas Avenue SouthMinneapolis, MN 55410B5 For 0 Against additional time to reduce the ought with original proposal. taff has enclosed the staff Ll*s action at the September town starting September 21st presenting your application MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETINGHELD SEPTEMBER 14, 1992ZONING FILE #1748 - CONT.Butler felt there were a coupleof applications before them tonight where the applicants were caught between two groups of Planning Commission members. She felt applicants that complied with the directives of the Planning Commission should be recognized for doing so. It was moved by Butler, seconded by Jabbour, to direct staff to draft a resolution approving setback variances for Application #1748 for Robert and Rita Hovland of 1245 North Arm Drive, approving a 15’ side setback from the north lot I ine and a 13’ setback from the south lot line. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#5) #1750 CHARLES & SHIRLEY PYLE, 3548 IVY PLACE - VARIANCES Charles and Shirley Pyle and Daryl Hanson were present. Mabusth explained this application was also reviewed at both the July and August Planning Commission meetings. She noted the revised proposal includes additional removal of 75-250’ hardcover at 172 s.f., and the 663 s.f. roof structure originally proposed has been reduced to 374 s.f. She noted the real issue for this proposal is the lot coverage. Lot coverage was originally proposed at 24.5% and has been reduced to 21.5%. The Planning Commission recommended approval based on lot coverage be held at 18%, which would mean the applicants would have to give up either the roof structure or the family room addition. Butler stated here Is another situation where the applicants were given directives from the Planning Commission and came back with a proposal and were denied. Goetten felt that does not mean that the vote should have been changed. Jabbour agreed with Butler. He expressed concern about residents exerting energy and money on revised plans and the City does not act In good faith. Goetten stated the lot Is small and has excessive amounts of hardcover. She asked the applicants if there were any other areas where they could reduce hardcover. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 ZONING FILE #1750 - CONT. Hanson said from the beginning they knew they would have to make concessions, and they tried to reduce the hardcover prior to submitting the original proposal. After the first Planning Commission meeting they were asked to reduce hardcover percentages more, which they have done. Jabbour noted that at one point a project becomes over ambitious for the lot. He stated the City’s ordinances reflect their concern about water run-off into the Lake. Mr. Pyle said the first group of Planning Commission members to review the proposal did visit the site and felt the project was beneficial, but the second group did not inspect the property. Goetten stated she appreciates the cuts the applicants have proposed, but felt the project too ambitious for the lot. She agreed with the Planning Commission’s recommendation of 18X total lot coverage. Mrs. Pyle referred to two small planting areas In the 0-75’ setback area. She stated the boxes around the plantings and plastic underneath could be removed. Mabusth stated this would reduce 0-75’ hardcover by 177 s.f. It was moved by Butler, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to approve Application #1750 for Charles and ShIrIey Py1e, 3548 Ivy Place, for variances to construct an addition to the existing residence, based on Cof dition #1 of the resolution be removed and n condition that tht tv'1 angular planting areas and plastic underneath be removed, and limiting lot area coverage to 21.5*. Ayes 2, nays 3. Callahan, Jabbour and Goetten voted nay. Motion failed. It was moved by Caliahan, seconded by Goetten, to table AppIIcation #1750 for Charles and Shirley Pyle for two weeks to allow the applicants time to reconsider their proposal. Ayes 3, nays 2. Mayor Peterson and Butler voted nay. Motion carried. Goetten explained that If the application were denied, the appIicants wouId not be allowed to return with another proposal for six months. L Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorser City Administrator Prom:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:September 10, 1992 Subject #1750 Charles and Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place Variances - Resolution Pertinent Ordinance ~ Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 0-75' setback area •= 4,075 s.f. Existing hardcover = 948 s.f. or 23.26% Proposed hardcover = 948 s.f. or 23.26% 75-250* setback area = 8,150 s.f. Allowed = 2,037.5 s.f. or 25% Existing = 5,870 s.f. or 72% Proposed = 4,253 s.f. or 52% Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of lot coverage Total area = 12,225 s.f. Allowed lot coverage ® 1,833.7 s.f. or 15% Existing = 1,810.2 s.f. or 14.8% Proposed “ 2,640 s.f. or 21.5% Variance * 806.3 s.f. or 6.5% Planning Commission recommendation to limit lot coverage to 2,200.5 s.f. or 18% Structural Areas Credited against lot Coverage: Existing house *= 1,273 s.f. or 10.4% Proposed garage = 612 s.f. or 5% Addition * 381 s.f. or 3.1% Roof structure =» 374 s.f. or 3% Total » 21.5% List of Exhibits A - Application Al- Applicants' Addendum B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey/Existing E - Proposed Site Plan F - 1-2 Hardcover Fact Sheets G - Planning Commission Minutes 7/20/92 H - Planning Commission Action Notice 7/23/92 I - Planting Schedule Proposed by Applicants Memos from July & August Planning Commission Meetings Zoning File #1750 September 10, 1992 Page 2 Description of Request The applicants propose the removal of the existing garage within the street yard and the installation of a new detached garage to be placed closer to residence structure. The comprehensive improvement project also includes a family room addition to the southeast side of the residence located out of the 75' setback area and behind the average lakeshore setback line. The garage structure at 612 s.f. area meets the required 10' side setback. Applicants propose 374 s.f. of a roof structure to be placed over a walkway and patio area to connect detached garage and residence structure. The roof structure meets the required 10' setback from both side lot lines. Per the directives of the lot coverage ordinance the area of the structure has been included in the lot coverage inventory. Note the 50 s.f. of trellis area has been reduced from the total roof structure area. The improvement project will also result in the loss of two large mature oak trees in the street yard. Planning Commission members were asked to consider conditioning approval on a replanting schedule. The application was reviewed at both the July and August meeting of the Planning Commission. At the July Planning Commission meeting members noted concern at the intensification of the lot coverage from 14.8 to 23.9%. Members also questioned whether additional hardcover removals could be made to offset the increase in the structural coverage. Commission members concurred with staff that the removal of the large, mature oak trees should require a planting schedule (review Exhibits G and H;. The applicants presented an amended proposal at the August meeting of the Planning Commission. The amended plan showed a reduction of 172 s.f. or 2% of hardcover resulting in a total 20% reduction in hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. Lot coverage was reduced from 23.9 to 21.5%. Review Exhibit I, applicants presented a replanting schedule as follows; 1 1/2 to 2" diameter tree. Sunburst Locust or Green/White Ash to be planted in the northwert section of the site plan and a 5-6' Black Hill or Colorado Spruce in the southwest section of the site plan. Review Exhibit E, note break in drainage. Runoff from the majority of the proposed new improvement shall drain to street side of property and eventually northwest to Casco Cove along Ivy Place. At the August meeting, the Planning Commission accepted the amended plan as far as it related to hardcover removals and the replanting schedule but felt that the lot coverage variance was too excessive and conditioned approval on holding lot coverage to 18%. Applicants would have to exclude either the family room addition or [•luM I •) •! •r«Ici::I« I f i % *:» • ' 24 August 1992 i Mayor Barbara Peterson and City Council Members Edward Callahan, J. Diann Goetten, Gabriel Jabbour & Mary Butler City of Orono, Municipal Offices P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 » I 1 Q o 1Auo to —• Re: #1750 Charles and Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place Variances for Hardcover & Lot Coverage Dear Mayor Peterson and City Council Members: Continuing in the process to receive a variance for hardcover & lot coverage on the above property, Charles & Shireley Pyle myself attended our 2nd Planning Commission Meeting on 17 August 1992. U'e had expected to receive unanimous approval on the request for variance, because we had fully complied with the directives of the Planning Commission Members at our first meeting, 20 July 1992. This compliance was documented by Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator, in her 11 August 1992 memo to Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members. Our revised plan following the Planning Commission's directives included the following items: - Reducing roof structure below the directed amount. - Increasing the amount of hardcover reduction by 172 sq. ft. over the 1445 sq. ft. previously proposed. - Submitting a replanting schedule for two large oak trees to be removed. Because of our compliance with all the directives, we were completely surprised by the 17 August Planning Commission Members vote against our application as submitted. We were also surprised by the fact that only one Planning Commission Member had been at the last meeting and was the only 17 August Member to have visited the site. He was the only Member to vote for approval as submitted but was not seconded. We find the lack of continuity between the two different Planning Commission groups confusing and frustrating in our attempt to proceed with an addition that we and tlie adjacent neighbors feel is a big improvement to the property. Both neighbors were willing to come and voice their approval, but we told them it was not necessary. The whole point in moving a two car garage adjacent to the house, was to give a unified appearance to the house as a whole and have a covered connection from garage to house. Existing bedroom windows prevent attaching the garage to the house. For all the reasons mentioned, we request that you approve our application as revised according to the first Planning Commission Group's directives. We feel that if the same Members were present at the second meeting, we would have received their approval. If there are any additional questions regarding our application, please notify us. We thank you for your support. Since^ly, DarylVE. Hansen cc. Charles & Shirley Pyle CITY OP ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, HN 473-7357 ZONING FILE #1750 55323 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: August 24, 1992 TO:Mr. & Mrs. Charles Pyle 3548 Ivy Place Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO:Daryl E. Hansen 3841 Thomas Ave. S. Mpls., MN 55410 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING: August 17, 1992 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against Planning Conmission recommended the following Approval of the amended application subject to the conditions set forth in staff memo dated August 11, 1992, In addition, the Planning Commission recommended that structural coverage of the property be limited to 18% rather than 21.5% as proposed in amended plan. Applicants' next scheduled meeting is confirmed at the City Council September 14, 1992; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 17, 1992 (i»4) #1750 CHARLES & SHIRLEY PYLE, 3548 IVY PLACE - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:20 - 7:36 F.” The Affidavit of Pub Iicat ion and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Pyle and Daryl Hanson were present for this appIicat I on. Mabusth explained that the applicants were asked to ctr.irture at the last Planning Commission review. The applicants now propose a roof structure of f ® ® ^° 72^" ^^^^f existing is still reouired for the proposal. She added 172 s.r. or ex b hLdcover along the northwest side of the house has been propose< ?or removal. The result is a total 12% in the 75-250’ setback area to approximately 52>t,. Lot coverag is proposed at approximately 21%. Mr. Pyle felt that the garage located closer to the house would add to the aesthetic value of surrounding properties. He add-d th J^dcover along the northwest side of the house has already Peen removed. He requested that if the plan is approvea he ex 1st1ng garage be allowed to remain until the new garage is built. Chair Kelley stated that is typically allowed. Mr Pvle noted there are two oaks trees that would need to be removed and replaced, but added because ® the property, they may have to look at other options. Schroeder clarified the hardcover removed hardcover. Chair Kelley stated he has a problem with the excessive lot coverage. Hanson advised that the existing residence is a two bedroom home, w??ra two car garage, and already exceeds the lot coverage standards He indicated the roof structure was proposed to unify two structures. He added the roofed area will serve as an outside covered patio area. Chair Kelley explained t.hat the lot coverage ordinance Is rpiativelv new but it provides that lots do not get over-built on. He added ^the ordinance is aimed at smaller lots, in order to protect the visual impact of the property. is non-StructuraI MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 17, 1992 that ake ZONING FILE #1750 - CONT. Bellows noted she does not favor applications substandard circumstance and make it worse. Mrs. Pyle felt they were improving the property. Bellows said their proposal intensifies the use of the property. Mrs. Pyle said the neighbor to the north is in favor of the request. Hanson stated he was under the impression that if they chanf;ed the proposal as the Planning Commission requested at their last meeting, the request would be approved. Chair Kelley asked what type of addition is proposed for the existing house. He noted allowable lot coverage is 155i, and asxed the applicants to demonstrate hardship. Hanson reiterated that the property is filled to allowable lot coverage with the existing two bedroom home. Mrs. Pyle stated the addition to the house is a family room and a foyer. It was moved by Chair Kelley, seconded by Bellows, to recommend approval of Application #1750 for Charles and Shirley Pyle of 3548 Ivy Place, to allow a lot coverage variance for an addition to the existing residence and a detached garage, and approval to remove mature trees on the property, subject to removal of hardcover identified, and lot coverage is not to exceed 18X. Ayes 4, nays 0. 7:45 - (#5) #1757 ALBERT D. HANSER, 1685 FOX STREET - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:51 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mai ling were noted. Albert D. Hanser, Jack Taylor and Merridth Howell were present for this appIicat I on. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 17, 1992 (#4) #1750 CHARLES & SHIRLEY PYLE, 3548 IVY PLACE - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:20 - 7:36 P.M. The Affidavit of Pub I i cat ion and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Pyle and Daryl Hanson were present for this appIication. Mabusth e:<plained that the applicants were asked to structure at the last Planning Commission review. The applicants now propLe a roof structure of 376 s.f. A lot coverage variance is still required for the proposal. She added 172 s.f. of existing hardcover along the northwest side of the house has been propose for removal. The result is a total reduction of 20% hardcover, from 72^ ir°he 75-250' setback area to approximately 52%. Lot coverage is proDosed at approximately 2^%* Mr. Pyle felt that the garage located closer to the house wjMJ I d add to the aesthetic value of surrounding properties. He hardcover along the northwest side of the house has ^®®" removed. He requested that if the plan is approved. the existing garage be allowed to remain until the new garage is built. Chair Kelley stated that is typically allowed. Mr Pyle noted there are two oaks trees that would need to be removed and replaced, but added because of other existing trees on the property, they may have to look at other options. Schroeder clarified the hardcover removed is non-structuraI hardcove r. Chair Kelley stated he has a problem with the excessive lot coverage. Hanson advised that the existing residence is a two bedroom home, with a two car garage, and already exceeds the lot coverage standards. He indicated the roof structure was proposed to unify the two structures. He added the roofed area will serve as an outside covered petio area. Chair Kelley explained that the lot coverage ordinance is relatively new. but it provides that lots do not get over-bui It on. He added the ordinance is aimed at smaiier lots, protect the visual impact of the property. in order to MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 17, 1992 ZONING FILE #1750 - CONT. Bellows noted she does not favor applications that take a substandard circumstance and make it worse. Mrs. Pyle felt they were improving the property. Bellows said their proposal intensifies the use of the property. Mrs. Pyle said the neighbor to the north is in favor of the request. Hanson stated he was under the imoression that if they changed the proposal as the Planning Commission requested at their last meeting, the request would be approved. Chair Kelley asked what type of addition is proposed for the existing house. He noted allowable lot coverage is 15;^, and askec the eppiicants to demonstrate hardship. Hanson reiterated that the property is filled to allowable lot coverage with the existing two bedroom home• Mrs. Pyle stated the addition to the house is a family room and a foyer. It was moved by Chair Kelley, seconded by Bellows, to recommend approval of Application #1750 for Charles and Shirley Pyle of 3548 Ivy Place, to allow a lot coverage variance for an addition to the existing residence and a detached garage, and approval to remove mature trees on the property, subject to removal of hardcover identified, and lot coverage is not to exceed 18%. Ayes 4, nays 0. 7:45 - (#5) #1757 ALBERT D. HANSER, 1685 FOX STREET - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:51 P.M. The Affidavit of Pub Iication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Albert D. Hanser, Jack Taylor and Merridth Howell were present for this appIication. To:Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:August Hr 1992 Subject #1750 Charles & Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing Review of Amended Plan Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 30.22, Subd. 2 75-250' setback area = 8,150 s.f. Allowed = 2,037.5 s.f. or 25% Existing * 5,870 s.f. or 72% Originally proposed at 4,425 s.f. or 54% Amended proposal = 4,253 s.f. or 52% (removal of 172 s.f. landscape area underlain with plastic northwest side of house) 2. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Review of lot coverage. Total area * 12,225 s.f. Allowed lot coverage = 1,833.7 s.f. or 15% Existing » 1,810.2 s.f. or 14.8% Originally proposed at 2,929 s.f. or 23.9% Variance ■ 1,095.3 s.f. or 8.95% Amended proposal at 2,640 s.f. or 21.5%* Variance = 806.3 s.f. or 6.5% Originally, roof structure proposed at 663 s.f. and has been reduced to 374 s.f. (50 s.f. of trellis area has been removed from total roof structure area). Planning Commission had originally requested structure be reduced to 400 s.f. Breakdown of Structures Credited Against Lot Coverage Existing house ■ 1,273 s.f. or 10.4% Proposed garage “ 612 s.f. or 5% Addition ■ 381 s.f. or 3.1% Roof structure ■ 374 s.f. or 3% Total * 21.5% List of Additional Exhibits G - Planning Commission Minutes 7/20/92 H - Planning Commission Action Notice I - Daryl E. Hansen Transmittal Letter J - Revised Plan K - Applicant's Addendum/Planting Schedule (Original packet for Planning Commission Meeting 7/20/92 has also been included) Zoning File #1750 August 11/ 1992 Page 2 Discussion At the July meeting of the Planning Commission^ the application was tabled providing applicant with additional time to submit a revised plan reflecting the following directives of the Planning Commission: 1. Reduce roof structure to a minimum 400 s.f. Applicant has reduced roof structure to 374 s.f. The trellis area has been excluded. 2. Remove additional hardcover used in landscaping. Applicant has reduced 172 s.f. of landscape hardcover along the northwest side of existing structure within 75-250' setback area. Refer to amended hardcover facts above. 3. Replanting schedule for two large mature oak trees to be removed as a result of the proposed improvements. Refer to Exhibit J. Applicant proposes planting in northwest landscape area 1-1/2 to 2" diameter Sunburst Locust or green/white ash tree and a 5-6' Black Hills or Colorado Spruce in the southwest landscape area. Although not specifically noted in the Planning Commission recommendation, it was the unanimous concurrence of the Planning Commission that a replanting schedule be considered with this variance application. Applicant has complied with this suggestion. At the meeting, applicant advised that one of the large oak trees on the property is diseased and would require removal in the near future. Per the review memo for July 20th, the hardship statement can be found in exhibit A. A recommendation of approval should contain the following conditions: 1. Grading and drainage plans must be submitted with building permit fee new improvements. 2. All hardcover scheduled for removal must be completed at the time of the footing inspection for the new garage. 3. Applicant to obtain a demolition permit for removal of detached garage. 4. Final planting schedule to be submitted with building permit. Planting to be confirmed at the time of the final inspection for new construction. Isv f } 29 July. 1992 JUL 3 1 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono. Municipal Offices P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota. 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth, I am writing In response to the Orono Planning Commission's recommendation <0. with regards to the Pyle's variance application, zoning file #1750. Replanting schedule to replace the necessary removal of two mature oak trees wl11 be dependent on the construction schedule of proposed new garage, removal of present garage, and deletion of driveway area and designated hardcover, but prior to sodding of this area. We plan to consult with a landscape representative, from a local la:>r»scape service. In order to obtain assistance and recommendations. What species of trees will create an attractive impression and will grow favorably under the large canopies of two other mature oak crees that exist, and will not be removed, within the setback zone of 115 - 250 feet. N.W. section of site plan. Consideration of the canopies of nine other mature oak and maple trees that exist along the S.W. property line or contiguous with the neighbor's property to the S.W.. within the same setback zone. Planning considerations: 1. 2. 1 1/2 - 2 Inch diameter tree. Sunburst Locust or Green/Whlte Ash In the N.W. section of site plan. 5 - 6 ft. Black Hill or Colorado Spruce In the S.W. section of site plan. Sincerely. Shirley Pyle cc. Daryl E. Hansen, architect Ml , M U U ^Ms. Jeanne A. Mabustn Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono, Municipal Offices P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth, Enclosed is a revised plan for Charles & Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place, showing a reduction in the amount of proposed roof structure covering the entry and patio area as part of their addition and garage relocation. The amount of covered area would bo reduced to 406 sq.ft., less 50 sq.ft, trellis area, making a total area of 356 sq.f ■ In addition, they are reducing the hardcover area by another 172 s^.ft. (north of existing house) making a total reduction of 1617 sq.ft, of hardcover area. I hope this will be adequate for receiving a variance to construct their new addition. I know they are excited about proceeding with this new project. If you have any questions, please call. I am assuming we will be scheduled for the August 17th Planning Commission meeting and would appreciate being notified if for some reason we are not scheduled. cc. Charles & Shirley Pyle rz:IT., VV* V F'V r ^ ir*'' .1^ H CITY OP ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 473-7357 ZONING FILE #1750 55323 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: July 23, 1992 TO:Mr. & Mrs. Charles Pyle COPIES TO: Daryl E. Hansen 3548 Ivy Place 3841 Thomas Ave. S. Wayzata, MN 55391 Mpls., MN 55410 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variances DATE OP MEETING: July 20, 1992 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against Planning Ccminission recommends the following: Planning Conunission reconunended tabling application to allow applicants time to amend plans to address the following issues: A.Reduction of structural coverage. Approximate 663 s.f. of roof structure over walKways and patios to be reduced to approximately 400 s.f. Please note that trellis roof area is not included as hardcover and to specify area of trellis in your new calculation. B.Reduce original hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. It was recommended that additional landscape area underlain with plastic can be removed. C.Replanting schedule in light of the need to remove the two mature oak trees (I thought they were maples). NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Please contact Jeanne Mabusth if you have any questions pertaining to the directives noted above. Applicants' next schedu ■*' 1 meeting is dependent upon receipt of a revised plan. Deadline for the August 17, 1992 meeting is Wednesday, August 5th, or Wednesday, September 9th, for the Septc oer 21, 1992 meeting. ffbnlii 6^ oc THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING minutes of the JULY 20. 1992 ZONING FILE »1748 - CONT. Cohen asked what is ^ tor their vehicles Hovland stated they need that and storage. recommend denial of . . . . . .. . . . . . . (*6) *1750 CHARLES S SHIPLEY PYL-. 3548 IVY PLACE - 7.3, - 7:36 P.M. variance - PUBLI icate of Mai I ing were noted.TneAftidavitofPuhiicationandCert.t. a . __ their architect, jaryi Charles and ion. present tor th.s aoOM „.-o„ose to relocate an Mahusth explained "^3' 'c%s\°r°'trthe ^“S. dence and 1 nstal l^^a raitra^ea-ird^^^f •'L-sle^rs^t".- o 'ro t-0 stroc.re 10 he ^trclr-er^^ oavir -1 -YS anh ^ o ^^^ere^ ^ . ^here r/r-.:u.ry:,.....-™; ... nrpfised his concern about Johnson expressed coverage. intensification of the lot attached the Cohen asked It the applicants were wl roofed area. H»rrease the roofed K.. taken the position tha. a ;rVs-nor^ard'c^o^er^ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 20, 1992 ZONING FILE #1750 - CONT. Hanson noted the roofed area Is proposed to tie the structures together In a distinctive way. He said the area proposed to be roofed currently Is considered hardcover as there is sidewalk there. Mabusth explained that It is the structural Impact that they are dealing wlth. Johnson reminded them that this type of Issue came up during an application on Baldur Park Road. Hanson stated the applicants would be willing to further reduce hardcover in the 75-250* zone by removing plastic under IandscapIng. Mabusth said that may cause some drainage concerns. Mrs. Pyle said the Building Inspector has confirmed that It would not create a problem. Rowlette indicated she would consider approval of the application If the applicant reduced the roofed area to approximately 400 s.f. and removed additional hardcover used in landscaping. All other Members agreed. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Rowlette, to table Application #1750 for Charles and Shirley Pyle of 3543 Ivy Place, to allow applicants to redesign their proposal. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#7) #1752 GEORGE W. KALWEIT, 4265 FOREST LAKE DRIVE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:45 - 7:50 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mai IIng were noted. George Kalweit was present for this application. Ho referred to a letter sent to the City explaining the situation. He said they had contracted witn a builder who was unfamiliar with the City's ordinances and did not obtain a building permit. The project was stopped prior to completion, and noted his safety concerns. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of Application #1752 for George W. Kalv'eit, 4265 Forest Laka Drive, for a variance to allow structural repe.Irs within the 0-75’ setback area. Ayes 4, nays 0. 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 20, 1992 ZONING FILE #1748 - CONT. Cohen asked what is the hardship. Hovland stated they need that large of a garage for their vehicles and storage. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Cohen, to recommend denial of Application #1748 for Bob Hovland, 1245 North Arm Drive, for a conditional use permit and variance. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#6) #1750 CHARLES & SHIRLEY PYLE, 3548 IVY PLACE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:31 - 7:35 P.M. jhe Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Charles and Shirley Pyle and their architect, Daryl Hanson, were present for this application. Mabusth explained that the applicants propose to relocate an existing detached garage closer to the residence and install a patio area and a family room addition. All structures meet the required side setback. There Is 663 s.f. of roofed structure to be placed over paved walkways and patio. There is a decrease in hardcover, but an increase of 9.IX in structural hardcover. There Is an excess of structural lot coverage. Johnson expressed his concern about the loss of trees and the intensification of the lot coverage. Pyle explained that they originally intended to attached the garage, but because or the layout of the house, It was not feasible. He advised that one of the trees to be removed has a disease already. Mrs. Pyle said they were not opposed to replanting trees. Cohen asked if the appi icants were wi I I ing to consider deleting the roofed area. Hanson stated the applicants are willing to decrease the roofed area by 200 s.f. He noted that part of the area is covered by a treI I is. Mabusth reported that the City has taken the position that a trellis area is not hardcover. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JULY 20, 1992 ZONING FILE #1750 - CONT Hanson noted the roofed area is proposed to tie the structures together In a distinctive way. He said the area proposed to be roofed currently Is considered hardcover as there Is sidewalk there. Mabusth explained that It is the structural Impact that they are dealing with. Johnson reminded them that this type of issue came up during an application on Baldur Park Road. Hanson stated the applicants would be willing to further reduce hardcover In the 75-250’ zone by removing plastic under IandscapIng. Mabusth said that may cause some drainage concerns. Mrs. Pyle said the Building Inspector has confirmed that It would not create a problem. Rowlette indicated she would consider approval of the application If the applicant reduced the roofed area to approximately 400 s.f. and removed additional hardcover used in landscaping. All other Members agreed. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Rowlette, to table Application #1750 for Charles and Shirley Pyle of 3548 Ivy Place, to allow applicants to redesign their proposal. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#7) #1752 GEORGE W. KALWEIT, 4265 FOREST LAKE DRIVE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:45 - 7:50 P.M. The Af f I dav 11 of Pub I I cat I on and Certificate of Ma I I I ng were noted. George Kalweit was present for this application. He referred to a letter sent to the City explaining the situation. He said they had contracted with a builder who was unfeunillar with the City’s ordinances and did not obtain a building permit. The project was stopped prior to completion, and noted his safety concerns. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of Application #1752 for George W. Kalwolt, 4265 Forest Lake Drive, for a varIance to allow strueturaI repairs within the 0-75’ setback area. 4yes 4, nays 0. 8 To: From: Date: Subject: Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator July 16, 1992 #1750 Charles and Shirley Pyle, 3548 Ivy Place - Variances - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Review of hardcover A. 0-75' setback area = 4,075 s.f. Existing hardcover = 948 s.f. Proposed hardcover * 948 s.f. B. 75-250' setback area = 8,150 o.f. Allowed “ 2,037.5 s.f. or 25% Existing = 5,870 s.f. or 72% Proposed = 4,425 s.f. or 54% Existing variance = 3,832.5 s.f. or 47% Proposed variance = 2,387.5 s.f. or 29.2% Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of lot coverage Total area = 12,225 s.f. Allowed lot coverage = 1,833.7 s.f. or 15% Existing = 1,810.2 s.f. or 14.8% Proposed = 2,929 s.f. or 23.9%* Variance » 1,095.3 s.f. or 8.95% ♦Adjusted amount if it is determined that roofed patio and walkway not credited against lot coverage. Adjusted amount = 2,266 s.f. or 18.5% Variance = 432.3 s.f. or 3.5% List of Exhibits - A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Proposed Site Plan - Elevations Southeast and Southwest F - 1-2 Hardcover Fact Sheets Description of Request Applicant proposes the removal of the existing garage within the street yard and the installation of a new detached garage closer to residence structure. The comprehensive improvement project also includes a family room addition to the southeast side of the residence located out of the 75' setback area and behind the average lakeshore setback line. The garage structure at 612 s.f. in area meets the required 10’ side setback. Applicant propcces t63 s.f. of roof Zoning Memo #1750 July 16, 1992 Page 2 structure over a walkway and patio area to be installed between the detached garage and residence structure. The roof structure meets the required 10' setback from the side lot line. Planning Commission members are asked to consider the lot coverage ordinance specifically the section that reads as follows; "All roof structures which extend more than 6' above grade level." In reviewing the lot coverage facts for the improvement project, the 663 s.f. of roofed area was included with structural inventory. Lot coverage is shown at 23.9% where 15% is allowed. The improvement does result in a reduction in overall hardcover of approximately 18%. Structural coverage increases from 14.8% to 23.9%. Review Exhibit E. Note break in drainage. Runoff from the majority of the proposed new improvements shall drain to street and eventually northwest to Casco Cove along Ivy Place. Hardship Statement Please review Exhibit A. Issues for Consideration 1. The improvement shows a 9.1% increase in structural hardcover on the property. Can non-essential structural improvements be reduced in area? How essential is 663 s.f. of roof structure? Review ExhiL-t E, the southeast elevation depicts impact of proposed structure. 2. Hardcover has been reduced almost 18% and is now proposed at 54%. Are there other non-essential areas of hardcover that can be removed? The majority of landscape areas underlain with plastic are to be removed with the proposed improvement. What of proposed improvements? Can paved or walkway areas be reduced? 3. Improvement project will result in the loss of two mature maple trees. Is it appropriate to ask for replantings with variance approval? Anv condition of approval should contain the following conditions ; 1. Grading and drainage plan must be submitted with building permit for new improvements? 2. All hardcover scheduled tor removal must be completed at the time of the footing inspection for the new garage. Zoning Memo #1750 July 16, 1992 Page 3 3.Applicant to obtain a demolition permit for removal of detached garage. 4.Planting schedule to be submitted with building permit as a result of the less of two mature maple trees within street yard? ram m WJK* 5(2a»'SSSMBi lEK wrra Mii1« SS33B01 \9T^ r«M*i M«T»1 [#.M • • I«M^ riM*1 iSfAl rsiT r«ws¥«i ;ra« [•HM] 11 »ic*j • 1 ¥C?:1C*J f 1 •l*lf r«»«fi*i ,;.r^-->.i 'i; V \ '41 ' . -’n %i w»-:''^/t?r-;t";•.r J> ' ^ ,. o'" 'M><',.( \*C (6t) / /»^i^ \v9 . o« 60 /O' / ‘P. ’\ '^ - - '<<• 4> C //. 1 ^r/, •♦ ' X^''- -/^ j?'-' ' >’’ XX,'”'’ ■' " 'V^4\ .‘’■'"'4 a”*' . »” \ «v'T- ' V x*'* \ ■ V iX ^ (n) X V ;x /\^'X '.‘S «X'A' A -”1 ::'>: "-X p m t w^ * f 0 ^ \ M «. ( (f'H f;^ j » , « ; F < «'§i ;•• 4 Ml I VRiM OAtt 06/2S/92BATCH 005PROP AOOR OIRCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 58 20-H7-25 A2 000100058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO S L KAPLAN ET AL TRUSTEES JAMES N lUPlENT 71D0 HAYZATA BLVO MPLS MN 55<»2fc NEliiEPlN COUNTY PROPERTY IHTORHATIWl SYSTEM PROPERTY OltffRS LIST58 20-117-25 <*2 001605550 IVY PL ttl S J DAilPIER HILLIAM S OAMPIER 5550 IVY PLACE HAYZATA rtl 555Y1 REPORT NO. PIA55A01 PAGE 758 20-117-25 42 001705548 IVY PL CAS PYLE CHARLES D PYLE 5548 IVY PLACE HAYZATA HN 55541 1' •• raw ADDR ONNCn NAH6 HAHE/ADOII 36 ^0-U7-^3 42 0016 03544 IVY PI A M JEHCTT tTAl ARTHUR N JlllETT 3544 IVY PLACE HAYZATA m 55391 30 20-117-23 42 0019 03534 IVY PL TRArtC J BUYSSE FRANK J BUY'SSE 3534 IVY PLACE HAYZATA m 55391 36 20-117-23 42 0027 03560 IVY PL JOHN H HONOUR VII I NIFE JOmi H HONOUR VII 3540 IVY PLACE HAYZATA HN 55391 I; PROP A6DR OFtlER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 36 20-117-23 42 0054 03545 IVY PL JEFFREY t CEBRA OANBFRRY JEFFREY A DEBRA DANBERRY 3545 IVY PL HAYZATA HN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 003 00007 I o I 1 1. I " I 1 CERTIFY THAT THE TACTS PEPRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS or THE HEIflEPlN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPCRJY_TAXATION, TO^THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF DAT 14 I ( CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR CHARLES PYLE OF LOT 174. TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA loi '4f.§r \ tin iJti. *0 in# £oun<j«riti 4tc*e cror IOC4liO^ <3* •»* 4»*’*i* •"'3 LO*t» II »»0l . apr % sr •ncr% 4'0 .j.«. »: 4PQf* •M K » • • I <9N»i ! ■«» fc « • tHjr Ml !.*<*li/ >♦»' >rti tHjr * i.-'i; ! ,#A* ♦*i: 4n 4Ui I y » 'n f-• ’ • I • , . •.*. ^ X* ^ • 4 L**’i*.' J *;« * • x: •» ^ 8 \ •“ • ' 1. »i (*,*- K • * i j » » I • • * » • • ■ ' J \ I » ' • • » ‘ ' ^aMn fl.Z ' c»,^ : v_y ;. , \ .v>, > \ \\ \ . <\ V.C V\J *• V - 0^1 1 'r1 St tr " Si ^il !■- i . 1.5^.III 1 ' t 1 ^ - 1 1 > iS^“r4r rfi 9ll ~~ 1 \v .1 ri h ‘ r J % V >4^ X i /'rt€ HARDCOVER CALCUU\TIOM WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250' Existing Hardcover in Zone 250-500' 500-100C' A.House ./o X 3 4 2.• S.F. LENGTH WIDTH • X • • • ••S.F. 9*f O {^OCfO 9/X . <T7 (T/• • S.F. S*/x ‘'cuoca ??X • • ; '/(T • /<?S.F. 9" Luff /5 •»•S’ X —S.F. 2 "u/ociff . .//X ✓ ,/7 2 3.Garage .X =:S.F. C. • Driveway X • • S.F, X •« • • S.F. • D. : • • Sidewalk X • S.F. Cuffafi cual K X 8 yj5 S.F. •• • • •X a • • S.F. E.’atio / lpr:<X /y r 2/0^2 T ./?e • /y.c X 2.5 a .37 S.F. F.Landscape AfftK X • s /77 S.F. AREAS 4 rr/c •UNDERLAIN BY ,X •a S.F. PLASTIC" ■•• SHEETING • • « . X s S.F. •X • S.F, • G. Other X 3,S.F. Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area m Zone s.F. 9<^7S t S.F. ^ ? -9Z •i Oio - V inn ■ 2 ?o cai/A^rf^o /S • • /*rc€ HAR COVER CALCULATIOH WORKSHEET SETBACK zo,.b : Corcu CHE) 0-75’ dUS) 250-500' 500-1000 E xisting Hardcover in Zone _ mm mm mm mm mm A. House ^ ^--2- LENGTH //a(^ //. ^ WIDTH X (^'5'. 7 ® 2yT. ^ s.F. _ S.F. 2y, S.F.'/2 7i» X s.F. 3. Garage c. Drivev /ay CfX/C. 2V. 2 • I • ••• 2V. 2 X D.. Sidewalk C______x •2.0 ^ _____€, 3 X 22. 2 /. ? 5.7 3. 5" 2V //✓.g S3V s.F. S.F. 37S.F. 7/ S.F. 25 S.F. /5 / s.F. r. e. Patio/ pMr/a Deck #> SA^PiAiftC F.Landscape _____ areas underlain BY - X _ X PLASTIC” ■* • sheeting y ^ . c ^ O . S S'*o 5'/* '*U>o»a 0-3i X X _ X o. Vd* X G. O ther a/cpao 7. s x 7 X ^ T 2 // 7J /2 3 0 Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone S.F. /Z _ S.F. 92Y 37 37 7 Z. 53 70 3/50 s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F • 5^70 ^B 3/So t X 100 - 77. 0 2 B o>Yo • - •• •• V' •• •• HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET scTBACK mme: (circle o;ie1 <251^ 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in. Zone A.H ouse ./o X 3 4 Z • SS /5 S.F. • ft length width • X C 9 S.F. ^ iM0OOi>9/X . ^7 C/ • ft S.F. m syi'' ujooo ??X ;S /S’S.F. 9^' ujoo O /5 X .33 • •ft s 5“ S.F. 3. Z "u/cao Garage . .//>c X A ,f7 =s 2 ft S.F. C. • D riveway • • f r* « X • S.F. X ft S.F. D.,: ft • Sidewalk • •• X • S.F. Cf^OAp £4^P uK X cs 935 S.F, •* X S.F. E. U f.L ’atio/ )eck /S /</.€ X . X /y ^ 7,5 z/o-^Z T/?e JT S.F. 4NDSCAPE OiP X 9m /77 S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY /fc*Trtc X S.F. PLASTIC ” ■ SHEETING • • • X • • S.F. X • S.F. ft G. Other X S.F. Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone yyr s.F. 9<??5 t S.F.B B 9075 i X 100 -f.2€ % m c I 0m o 0m 0mm fYL€ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE one) 0-75' (]75-250]^ 250-500 Existing Hardcover in Zone 500-1000' A. H ouse Z0.9 //. 6 LENGTH //.(iT . X WIDTH X 3. Garage c. D riveway 2V. 2 X 22.2 • • *r» • 2V.2 X /. ? D.. Sidewalk Ji X 5.7 “ZO ^ 3. S C/u0c^ coyK-IC • C. 3 X 2y = E. Patio / D eck itKtt F. Landscape _ AREAS underlain BY , _ _ PLASTIC SHEETING </ *' S“* _________ S%‘*u^OM> <?. vs G. Other X X X .X 4* f Z J? o. s o. yz - X , X . X ^ X . X . // VJ ?<p /2 7 Total H ardcover in Zone Total Piiopertv Area in Zone 2yii V s.F. «r5; 7 5 27^0 VV 2£ S.f- s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ■*/5 'Z 73 7^ /5 / S.F. /Z S.F. S.F. 9ZV S.F. S.F. V__S.F. J7 77 S.F. S.F. S3 70 S.F. 3/sot S.F. a 5y7<7 rTL_^^££X- X 100 - 72,0 2__ Ao m •• ^ -««r> ••• TO:Mayor Callahan and Orono Coundlmcmbers Ron Moorse. City Administrator 't FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Michael P. GalTron. Asst. Planning & Zoning Admmistr; % November 2. 1993 'V/5>1879 Allen and Kathleen Bakke, 1127 Loma Linda Avenue - ^ After-the-Faci Variance - Resolution % Apr/lication After-the-fact side setback aiid hardcover variance for deck coastructed/refurbished in 1985. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Planning Commission Action Notice 10/27/93 C - Applicants’ Letter of Agreement Re; Shed Removal D - Memo and E.xhibits of 10/15/93 Summar} Please review the memo and exhibits of October 15th. BrieBy. applicants rebuilt and expanded their deck without permits in 1985. A neighbor’s recent survey brought the lot line Encroachment to lieht. The Buildinu Inspector ’s discussioris with the applicants confirmed thatencroachment to light. The Building Inspector the portion of deck along the front of the house and partially along the side was new construction in 1985. Tlie entire property is in the 250-500 ’ zone, with total hardcover of 35.0% where 30% would nonnally be allowed. Planning Commission Recommendation After reviewing the history of the deck and fence additions with the applicant. Planing Ct)mmission recommended after-the-fact approval of the deck as-is 2’ trom tie lot line, subject U): fence encroachment int»i neighboring property at rear of applicants lot be brought into compliance retmrve the storage shed located in the front yard remove portion of driveway backup apron to compensate ^or deck hardcover added in 1985 ^35*A ftY 2‘35 to / Zoning File #1879 November 2, 1993 Page 2 paymenl of after-lhe-facl investigation fees for the variance application and for the building permit which applicant is required to obtain. Staff Recommcndaticn In the attached resolution, staff has included a finding regarding the nature of the deck encroachment in relation to neighboring property boundaries, noting that if the railing around the deck was eliminated (only portions of the railing are required by building code due to platfomi height), the deck would not need a setback variance. The finding further notes that the railing as it exists provides no greater encroachment than would a 6 high side yard fence in this lo'ration. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution is attached for Council ’s consideration. A RESOLUTION GRANTING AFTER-THE-FACT V ARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L); iVND SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE ^1879 'VHEREAS, Allen and Kathleen Bakke (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1127 Loma Linda Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follow'*-: All of Lot 22 and that part of Lot 29 lying south of the north 100’ thereof as measured alone the east and west lines of said l.ot 29. and the east two-fifths of Lot 21 as measured along the north and south lines thereof, and the east two-fifths as measured along the north and south lines thereof of that part of that part of Lot 30 lying south of tlie north 100’ thereof as measured along the east and west lines ot said Lot 30. "Loma Linda", Hennepin County. Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for after-the-fact variances It) Ml .licipal Zoning Code Section 10.22. Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (L) to pennit hardcover in the 250-500’ setback zone exceeding the 30% allowed hardcover, and an after-the-fact variance to Section 10.24. Subdivision 5 (B) to allow encroachment of a deck within 2’ of a side lot line where a 10’ side yard setback is normally required for such structures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. .Minnesota: FINDINGS 1, This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1879. 2. The priiperty is hKated within the LR-IB. Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Page 1 of 7 3. 4. The Orono Planning Commission rcv.^rwed this application on October 18, 1993, and recommended approval of the C'.er-the-fact variances subject to specific hardcover removal requirements, based upon the following findings: A.The applicants* statement of hardship and unusual property conditions indicate that the angle of the house in relation to the lot lines creates poor accessibilitv to the rear of the lot, necessitatins the deck. B. The deck as it exists today has been in place for eight years. C. D. E. Hardcover prior to the deck installation was approximately 32%, now is approximately 359^, all in the 250-500 ’ zone. There is an area of the driveway backup apron which can be removed to reduce hardcover on the property by approximately 2%. Applicants’ fence encroachment 2 ’ over the rear lot line should be eliminated, and the storage shed ItKaied in the front yard where no storage shed would normally be allowed, should be removed. Applicants apparently conversed with the Building Inspector at the time of the construction, and for unknown reasons no permit or variance applications were made at that time. The deck is an encniachment on the side setback requirement because its railing extends above th; gK'und i1iH)r level of the residence. Portions of the deck are at an elevation that requires a railing per the building code. If the deck was lowered and the railing removed, there would be no need for a variance. However, age of the deck and its railing height no higher than the height that a fence could be in the side yard, suggests that the encroachment has a minimal impact on the neighboring properties, especially since that deck is near the rear comers of the two nearest neighboring properties. The City Council has considered this application including th<^ findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reptirts by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the comrnunitv. Page 2 of 7 6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this propeny are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring propeny; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORi)ER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants after-the- fact variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22. Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to allow 33.2% hardcover in the 250-500’ zone where only 30% hardcover is normally allowed, and an after-tlie-fact variance to Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to allow a side yard deck setlwck of 2’ where a 10’ side yard setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions: 1 Hardcover on the property is limited to 33.2% of the lot area as shown on the sketch on page 6 of this resolution. Hardcover removals required to bring the property into compliance with this requirement are indicated on said sketch, and such removals shall be completed within thirty days of the date of this resolution. 1 he property owners and all future property owners are advised that this property is at its hardcover limit, and any future proposals to add or revise hardcover on the property will require City approval, and might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover resulting in no net increa.se of hardcover on the property. The storage shed located in the front yard shall be removed from the property upon applicants’ sale of the property but in any case shall be removed no later than June 1. as agreed to by the applicant.s. Applicants sliall »>btain an after-the-fact building permit (double permit fee) and shall pay the $175 (X) after the fact investigation fee for this variance application. Rage 3 of 7 4.Applicants shall eliminate tlie encroachment of the fence into the neighboring property to the rear, within tliiny days of the date of this resolution. 5.Authorities granted by tliis variance run with the property not with the owner, but are permissive only and must be exerci.sed by application for an after-the-fact building permit within thirty days of the date of Council approval. Further, all terms of this resolution must be complied with no later than one year from the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (November 8, 1994). 6.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of .he zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7.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, herebv aiiree to the recctdine of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council on this 8th day of November, 1993. AITli.ST Dorothv M. Ilallin, Citv Clerk Edward J. Callahan. Jr., Mayor Property Owncr(s) Pace 4 of 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8ih day of November, 1993, by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the Citv of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 7 H/moar/EH calculati StriACX XONi: (CIRCLS cnc) Liisririo lUiocovd in Zoni A. Houif __ tncTN "7.0 { I I O O ( G) CM oo I. $AAAC< . c. C«ivr*Ar 9. SlOCAALK . \a I• FENCE ONJ ‘•f;cc« -’bfi'frE'HEREr,I ^ ^ n '' p.Umosofc ARCAS tMOtRLAiN • f FUllTIC SMitrina WRKHEET 0-/5' ;5-’50' $uO-iooo‘ MI3TN • »** i.».(P s.r. t.r. I.F. t.F. i.F.($) 2,35 sC f.F. ^ i.F. (J) l.F. <P I.F.^ f.F. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this dav of , 199 before me a Notarv' Public within and for said county, personally appeared _______________________________ ________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) NOTARY PUBLIC 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 w ho executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Pace 7 of 7 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONLNG FILE #1879 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: October 27. 1993 TO:Allen and Katlileen Bakke 1127 Loma Linda Ave. Mound, MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance D\TE OF MEETING: 10/18/93 VOTE: 5 FOR 1 AGAINST Planning Commission recommended approval subject to conditions noted below 1. 2. Deck may remain as-is 2 feet from lot line. Recommend that fence be brought back into property at rear, 3. 4. Remove shed per applicants confirmation letter dated 10-18-93 Remove portion of driveway backup apron, revert to grass area (per drawing attached) to compensate for deck hardcover added in 1985. 5.Payment of af:er-the-fact investigation fees for variance application (5175.00) and building permit (double permit fee). 6. Applicant to obtain building permit. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as City Council on Monday, November 8. 1993: meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the otticial Planning Commission minutes, they arc available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. (J) < ( O'o o C n o 7* T ^ -K . fence ONir >5^UNE H ERET» /r ^ ^ r V tjXM< b-| I uO N®'n2b l-tAS C<?AJcr2<^ WO i2.erAi?'/sC:> r CITY WIDE A/C, HEATING & REFRIG., INC. 2529V4 7TH AVENUE NORTH ST PAUL. MINNESOTA 55109 (612) 770 0862 ^ ^^ j/' U- L L‘/\M L>L-Ll or r n ^ ^ u /'^ ' ' _i '0 cf A y fleav* cL'ix^v ..C ^ -4,.7 , 1 c-C-r-t fs'w r-'XJj X.aL ^'-• c(lL-iar->- ^(lsul CLi'Uj<i.t:. X.-^i .^CCtc C I'j.C 's, - rj /'7 ^ Q "^ftc *-ic C'*l. " f / ''■ “ ' *- V.^ c C Ai/ic-K /JuX icX l^^^ A^- G ‘| '3' Ci iOL ' ' ' L To:Chainnan Schrceder ami Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron. Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator October 15, 1993 Subject:#1879 Allen and Kathleen Bakke, 1127 Loma Linda Avenue After-the-Fact Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Application: After-the-fact side setback and hardcover variance for deck constructed/refurbished in 1985. Pertinent Code Sections 1.Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - "Within 250 ’ to 500 ’ of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 30% hardcover". (E.xisting hardcover is 35%). Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B) - "Side yard adjacent to another lot - 10’ setback required". 3.Section 10.03, Subd. 15 (Non-encroachments) - "Terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar struemres, which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than 2’ from any lot line" are non-encroachments. (The deck in question has railings which extend above the main floor of the residence and therefore is required to meet a 10’ setback). List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey 1990 Letter Regarding Storage Shed July 14. 1993 Letter RE; Fence Encroachment. Shed and Deck Addition July 21, 1993 Letter from Property Owner Brief .Suminary I'his property is for sale. Ihe owner has been required to make an after-lhe-lact application for decks w hich were constructed (partially reconstructed?) in 1985 without a permit. Zoning File #1879 October 15, 1993 Page 2 Apparently, applicant had had some discussion with Building Inspector Tom Jacobs at that time, although no record of such discussion or subsequent permit exist'. The deck as constructed today is 2' from the side lot line where such a deck would nomiully require a 10 ’ side setback. This issue c- me to light when a neighbor ’s survey indicated applicant’s fence was over the property line on the east side (since moved back onto property). A portion of applicant’s maintained yard area is actually on the neighboring property. Staff cannot confirm what specific hardcover was at the site of the deck prior to 1985. Inspection today by Lyle Oman indicated that the rear deck and a portion of the side deck are over what appears to be a concrete slab. This leaves approximately 350-400 s.f. of deck in the side and front yard over bare ground, constituting approximately 2.7-3.1% hardcover that potentially did not previously exist. The entire property' is in the 250-500 ’ zone, and total hardcover today is 35.0% according to the surseyor’s calculations. Discussion The deck system as it exists complements the house and seems to be an integral amenity that has now existed for eight years. The neighbor to the northeast who was concerned about the fence has not commented regarding this application, although he has been notified. Also notable is that the chain link fence at the rear of the property extends 2.16 ’ over the line. Without question, this house sits tig'uly into the rear of a relatively narrow 70 ’ wide lot. Absent confirmation of what pre^ iously existed, staff questions whether action should be taken to grant after-the-fact approval for the deck. Note that the railing surrounds it for safety purposes, yet the railing is what makes it an encroachment. The non-encroachment code section would allow a "ground floor level" deck within 2 ’ ot the lot line. Should we require that the railing be removed to make the deck setback legal, ignoring the safety issue? Aside from the setback issue, the deck appears to constitute a hardcover increase from 32.5% to 35%. in a zone that allows only 30% hardcover. Should the deck or portions of it be removed because it constimtes excess hardcover that was never approved? Or should an equivalent 350-4(X) s.f. of hardcover be removed elsewhere on the property? Where might that removal occur ' It may be of some benefit to have the homeowner describe to Planning Commission in detail exactly what work was done in 1985 and what exact changes were made. That seems to be the missing piece of information in order to come to a fair recommendation. Zoning File #1879 October 15, 1993 Page 3 The Building Inspector notes that based on the condition of the deck system, it is likely that all portions of the deck, including front, side and rear, were constructed or reconstructed at the same time. Also note that in 1990 Building Inspector Lyle Oman requested that the storage shed in the front yard be brought into compliance. That has not yet happened, although applicar' has verbally stated he intends to remove the shed rather than request variances to setback and accessory structure requirements. Staff Recommendation Staff would recommend the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Ask that applicant confirm e.xactly what work was done in 1985 and what structure or hardcover e.xisted prior to the current deck. Based on that information, determine whether the existing 2’ setback should be . allowed to remain as is or whether changes to the deck should be made. Determine whether it is appropriate and whether hardships exist to grant a hardcover variance, and whether concurrent hardcover removals should be required, ... • - Request that applicant declare in w riting a time certain when the non-conforming shed in the front yard will be removed. ‘“ Recommend whether applicant should pay an after-the-fact investigation fee which was not included with this application. / Your options regarding the information on the deck construction would be to accept applicant ’s verbal description at the meeting or table the request pending receipt of a sketch and additional infonnation in writing. r Isv ► ...r : I % — •» ’y-) »* i • I v ‘ 9 jr . -* « •% V *.f * »••• Srt • • I •- ••./ft .■••S * • A. . *. ‘V.' * • •V “ •'<'f .1.^ ?r •' • : ••* # • i I; • ; • > «;• f « • •* • I ••* I ‘■U 4 ^ .'v^' <1 '■’.V • 7 ' , « • » I • . >f •r\i i %•r. i 4 • r;v* .‘-I•, >•; •i \ I ^' V • •. - ■•-4F . . » .. . ^ .t; f. /y i M •i/, ^ i.^ i : •’■ ’4.:• # •I i ■! .*'T" r;r' • *' i CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION // ^ ^ Initial Application Fee $175.00 J 7 j;’. ($50.00 per each additional variancef ' ''.-•5' -V-' v; Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 . - [. (no change from original application) •:;.) I,; •••*.••?. Variance for non conforming use $200.00 •; jr, |';V-; *rj After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) - ‘‘V; - - - - -- - “ - • - - ^ * v*.« |V-,"* 'i', PROPERTY INFORMATION ‘ > '• ?V Iv, Site Address //(^? -^Sn-Pf 7, h. ^ f ,V Property Identi.f. Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not (1 included on required survey. . Date Property Acquired Aptt iL /V^^V (month/year) 1 (do) (4o nc^ also own t)\e adjacent parcels of land. y; V Present use of property; V residential _ _other (specif y)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ rVi’l'- Zonlng District;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ____________________________________________________________ -^V'' APPLICANT Phone (home) V 7 -3 • 2 ^ 9 f n,’- Name 4- 17^ A Phone (wor)c) 7 7tT - <f-^<>’^- . Address;//J?7 iteHif* ^,/^iPA AO* City:‘7A'cTHa-__ Zip; i?*;--- - - - - - - ; • »i • V ?—. . . . .-. . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . fiv. v.y OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ •+:' i'/ # ’ \ ^ • Name Phone (wor)c)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Vi,/A Address; _______________________ City;_________________Zip;------------------ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost » , ' *• ** iDescribe request in detail: _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J..’ Vy^' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --— —- - - - --- - - - - -I. •. *. • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ *V 7 FVARIANCES REQUIRED il : ll*. >, ■ e Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover _ _Lot Coverage rnm^^rn^rn _ _Setback: _ _ Front _ _ Side _ _ Rear Average Lakeshora _ _Other (specify). . . . ... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . HARDSeiP/DESCRlPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements i /fAtf) P*^llQ OffLK <r<n4T>( Z t n r ----- ¥\A,rl€ \l'A\ ; cT ^ c f -----"T^ >4#C ----- cvN..- (\uv .Wf,u,i>vvc .7— i4ia/> Mr 77^^11 ^---- ♦*<7*0 44,V# ■*-tk ^ c-jt ^ /-/iriLu <vai. :/j£. (l«v,.(,v) d O’.t.J. rj \A /*Y /* ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS . ^ • All of the following information must be sxibnixttcd by the applicati on deadline date in order fo r 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 8Ji"xll” for reproduction). 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy Slj"xll"). 6. Sketches or plans of floor i elevation views (provide 1 copy 8ij''xll''). 7* As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application, 8.___Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. mm mmm m mm tm» mm mm mm mm mm tmm 9mm mm mm mm ^m mm mm mm mtm ^m mm mm mm mm ^m ^m iMi mm mm mm mm mm APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and corr^t to the bes^ 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. 0%mer' s Signature u.Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before e Planning Ccirm Lusion Meeting, Planning Commission Meetings are hel l ^ third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all sche u e review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applican s unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Bull-ing * Office oj this chance prior to the meeting. cning « •., . ... Jl' .RUN DATE.09/27/91o.-WTCH OOS MErtiEPIN COU4TY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONTJERS LIST. r , . \sa 07-117-2S w oooa01079 LOHA LXNOA AVB yj ONNIR NAHi A R KNOXTAXPAYER * ^ RALPH B KNOX NAME/AOOR 1029 LOHA LINOA AVE r-;, • . » . V .HOUNO Itl 5556^ 11 »■ •« I. PROP AOOR OIMER NAHE TAXPAYER « "t • o ■'••• • > ‘ • - M NAHE/AOOR 56 06-117-25 25 0012 01150 LOHA LINOA AVE N H BOCKMANN ET AL H/L EST HILLIAH A BOCKHANN 1150 LOHA LINOA AV .. ; HOUNO HN 5556A • • • Ti Cr • .1 ’ >• • ».*• *• PROP AOOR OHNEH NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR t» • I • • • ♦ ».% • . f 56 06-117-25 25 0019 01155 LOHA LINDA AVE JEFFREY L HARTINEAU EOHIN J GI60S 1155 LOHA LINOA AVE HOUNO MN 55344 .. •• ' ‘ I, * » U';*' ‘'i> v '. .. 18 08-117-21 21 0022 } PROD AOOR .OlOAS LOMA LINOA AVE CMCR NAHE .<! T 0 OSTERBCRG/K J OSTERBERG Vi * >• TMPAYER i TIHOTHY 6/KRISTI J OSTERBERO ■ NAM/AOOR V * ^ lOAS LOHA LINOA AVE HOUNO ttl S51AA f u «»• '• ' PROP AOOR L'.’OM€R NAHi 'I TAXPAYER V- •• 1 .r NAHE/AOOR 18 08-117-21 21 0025 01040 LOHA LINOA AVi C 0 HOLCOHBE • H J HOLCOHBi C COUCLAS HOLCOHBE 1040 LOHA LINOA AVE HOUNO m 55144 •» . /. , . I ► . . . iv- • Ci :'I'Pk ■• V. V^•. V. ' * • • i • ^ - - • . • I ' *1 .' ■. * . r. 38' 07-117-25 14 0012 01145 LOHA LINOA AVE JEFFERY 0 J0W4S0N ETAL JEFF 0 JOHNSON 1145 LOHA LINOA AV HOUNO HN 55364 36 08-117-23 23 0013 01140 LOHA LINDA AVE STANLEY H GOLDBERG ETAL STANLEY GOLDBERG H 0 7019 TUPA DRIVE HPLS HN 55435 36 08-117-23 23 0020 01127 LOHA LINOA AVE GENEVA G HEBSTER GENEVA G HEBSTER 341 DEXTER DR LONG LAKE HT4 5535^ 56 06-117-25 25 0025 01035 LOHA LINOA AVE R C BROHN AHA BROHN ROSS C A HELINOA A BROHN 1035 LOHA LINOA AVE HOUNO MN 55364 36 06-117-25 23 0026 01122 LOHA LINOA AV<! ROGER I NILI TAHS ROGER c ^xLLIAMS ai5 SH 16TH ST HILLHAR HN 56201 • $ REPORT m. PI435401 PAGE 4 ' # 0 %! . : - 1- ■■; ‘ I38 07-117-23 14 0055* 01034 LOHA lUm AVE RAJ HEGG ROGER A HEGG 1034 LOHA LINOA AVE raur^O HN 5.1364 r • . ^•.. . • I.- -.^ V S^'iVv. • ••*' •• L •• V.' ' •' 1 ‘ *. * - • ■ ^ wi V Vo* • * • • . . ' I I t • > •t 38 08-117-23 23 0018 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO STATE LAND DEPT CITY OF 0RC»40 STREET 6/19/70 ST DEED 136853 * ♦T ■ i AS I I ■ % 58 08-117-25 25 0021 01119 LOHA LINDA AVE N J A C J POLLARD HILLIAH J A CAROL J POLLARD 1119 LOHA LINOA AVE HOUND HN 55364 ,1 5,1 ‘ A U :*. » - . ■ • / 'M.» - j; • . ‘S; 36 06-117-23 01033 LOHA LINOA R H SANDLER ETAL R H SANDLER 1056 LOHA LINOA LANE HOUNO m 55364 r ' ‘ 25 0024 •-v ’ i • I '• % M • I- ^ I • . ♦ . • * » . * r I * • I . . ' 'r ' I* V• •**j’’* v\ •- • • • • ♦ d ». *. ., * *5' . TOTAL BATCH 0Q3 QQQ14 ••r . ^ .P • I • e ••V*.- 1 * ! ’ ■’. . t • . . • • /. * • ••• • ’• • I . ^ ■ i .: I .J .« . u < !•:* *?i. I . • •• H - *• ;4-' •' . V ; I; • • . r . J * /* * . *. • • . i V \\\\ \ \ \ \ \ /(11)0.«^c. i Oil (01 ) 6 B1f “toJ (6) • ci; (0) 1 .1 • • • d Cl^ U) 9 V ^V 1 6l^ (9) S HAk • ^ \ \ /6 C6l -to Or ■.Sl.»0.68S ^(94) ,,»»<:?f S\cc\9(£l) (ZD S«Sl /•.. X (09)'(29)W3tOMe£ig^\ 1 (l33«iSlauz'riu sioi ^ V...". X jg (>2) ^ * jC I *. f. ^(9S) \ ||s|M'3 Wi ^ * CiU ‘*> i*''(r9 . * tt t. It »• P at (ONO) l^’l y yn >w«» a C ::l »>■ ''7 » V;.«;PN /;>lir- ’vj[, ;wj ¥r^T% ^XA/, b C. E. COl •R ASSOCIATES, IXC. ms COULTER PETERSOS PROFESSIONAL REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED IS SISS., fZSf. k lOU UCESSED IS CITY OF MISSHPOUS P.O. SOX 8900 WNNEAPOUS, MINNESOTA 55^08-0900 PHONE (612) 824-0370 FAX (612) 953-3074 NORTH NOTES: 1) • DENOTES PROPERTY CORNER. 2) BEARINGS SHOWN ARE ASSUMED, 3) CIRCLED NUMBERS DENOTE HARD COVER AREAS.'............. legal DESCRIPTION; LOMA LINDA AVE. All of Lot Twenty Two (22) and that port of Lot Twenty N.ne (29) lyfng Sooth of the Nor':h One Hundred (100) feet thereof as measured along the East ond West lines of sold Lot Twenty Nine (29), and the East Two Fifths (2/5) of Lot Twenty One (21) as measured along the North and South lines thereof, and the East Two Fifths (2/5) as measured along the North and South lines thereof of that part of that port of Lot Thirty (30) lying South of the North One Hundred (100) feet thereof as measured along the East and West lines of said Lot Thirty (30). “Loma Linda", Hennepin County, Minnesota. NOTE; this SURVEY CERTIFICATE IS NOT VALID WITHOUT AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE ! efsor CERTIFY that this SIRVIY, PU.N OR ?J[P0RT i.\S PREPARED BY MB OR INDER/MY nDIRECT SITERVISION .LSD THAT I AM A DIXY REOLSTEP.ED Sl'RVTVO? L'NPER THE UiS OF THE STATBJl^MI.NNESOTA.HE UiS OF rat STATB M^NgOT*. DXH;REV. 10/6/93 RIG. KO. 1 3792 OJEST: BAKKE JOB SO. ii.m SCALE: r - I0‘ BK /PG. 913/140 SHEH 1 OF 1 ( o CM / ( oo tr/u . b-l l<<' -S’ r l"ENCe ONI'4 ^UNE HERET, V c^rr“;A £u^rtAti VaJ <T1^ Noreb /v)or^ ' . ^ W24?A. ^AS* Cor'iCi^<'(~' (ov-^ i/wCtf'S- P9 Bg ojeN^\l<s^ f HARDCOVER aLCUUTION WORKSHEET sET3Ac:< ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' (j5G-50^ 5GO-iCCO E xisting Hardcover in Zone A. House x _ 5Het> B. Garage c. Driveway D|u; WcM D. S idewalk m ^(QevoaLif^ E. Pa TTO/ D eck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , . PLASTIC SHEETING G. O ther LENGTH -7.6 X WIDTH ar -J22JL_. s.F. <P .r,® S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.d) 5^.F. (S^ S.F. (J) S.F. .F. <2^ S.F. S.F. _ S.F. _ S.F. S.F. S.F. Total Hardcover in Zone S.F. Total Property Area in Zone S.F.E 3 \xq o ( X 100 - vP-% • • • ,Oisr;.'iI.'*G»«CAi‘*'^.*.**A*i**. •i^vV^.r «.•»»*/ ! CrTY“ CITYof ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323*Municipal Offices OF ORONOhi On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka July 2, 19$0 Allen Bakke 1127 Loma Linda Avenue Mound, MN 55364 Re: Storage Shed Dear Al: It has come to the attention of this department that you have recently constructed a storage building on your property. Thi.; let-er is to .'otify vou that a permit is required for storage'buirdi/gs wi^h o -er^20 square feet of area and that even if a permit is not P®'?“Yf^and ^00!^ for a mus^ meet setbacks. Please come to Ci^y Hall and appl permit before Julv 9, 1990 . Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Lvle Oman, Senior Building Inspector co(''^Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building s Administrator^ Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning i Zoning Administrat Bruce Vang, Building Inspector ■OLOlSG A ZONING - 473-7M1 ^«srs<i|N(; ADMlNISnUTION A rtNANCE - *73-m$ fAX -47MSM PUBLIC WRM - «n-Tm CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Ofono. MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. 8oi 56 Cr/sfa' Bay. M.N 55323 0066 Mr. Allen Bakke 1127 Loma Linda Mound. Minnesota 55364 Re: Fence Encroachment. Shed and Deck Addition Dear Al: As we have discussed, your neighbor had a survey done of their proper^ and discovered your fence was placed on their side of the line. We also discussed a storage shed that was placed on your property and a deck that was added onto, both of which are in violation of setback ordinances. This letter is to require you to remove the fence before July 27 and m file a v^ance application to keep the deck addition and shed or remove them by Augu . 199j. If these declines arc not met. the City may initiate legal action. If you have a problem meetmg th deadlines, feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official LO/ch cc:Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Adm Bruce L. Vang. Field Inspector Mr. &. Mrs. Tim Osterberg 1045 Loma Linda. Mound. MN 55364 Telephone (60 473-7357 • FAX 47X)510 CITY WIDE A/C, HEATING & REFRIG., INC. 2529V4 7TH AVENUE NORTH ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55109 (612) 770 0862 ir- I • i •'7-a/- k /V y ^Cc^-< JUU ?. 6 1 1 r ^ ^ rZriLJK "fii /7QjSn^jO cc'*^ 7^^'^ (Kcu) 4-^<v/4 » x/ r>' _________ _ 4 -T.OAt.0 yliJHsw; •/<.<..«. ’^UhD Ci<.<-\L‘-U^' /2-< -^LCfl^ d *^(-£ui) AXdWv f2jL. P .CJ.fUL<L^-^C^ ! *tO jL-t. / f ^ I '!y (^J) f2ai^^j 'p 1127 LOMA LINDA AVE PERMIT RECORD TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator V-' / Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator . s November 2. 1993 s>V "v, %/i^I880 Thomas and Jane Regnier, 1205 Elmwood Avenue - Renewal Vari<©?e - Resolution Application Requesting renewal of side street setback variance for construction of additions to the existing residence. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Memo and Exhibits of 10/7/93 Pertinent Code Section Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) requires a side street setb.ick of 35' in the LR-IB Zone. Summary Applicants propose renewal of variance granted in 1990 to allow construction of a second story addition and room addition which will continue the existing 6.5 side street setback of the existing house. The 1990 approval limited hardcover to the standard 25% in the 75*250 zone, removal of an existing fence, and provision of screening between the side street and the f^oposed addition. Planning Commission Recommendation At their October 18th meeting. Planning Commission recommended 6 to 0 to approve the renewal variance per the previous conditions. Staff Recommendation Statf recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation, per the attached resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE ii^lSSO WHEREAS, Thomas Regnier and Jane Best Regnier (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1205 Elnuvocxl Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Lot 1. Block 5. Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter ’the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24 Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence, such additions being UKated 6.5 feet from the side street lot line where a side street setback of 35 feet is normally required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was review'ed as Zoning File #1880. The property is located in the LR-IB. Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zt)nine District. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 18. 1993. and recommended approval of the pri>posed variance on a vote of 6 to 0. based upon the following findings: A. The additions will have no significant effect on the perception of visual density in the neighborhtxxl. Pace I of 5 4. 5. 6. D.There is no other reasonable and feasible iocation for the addition meeting the eode requirements, the hardship being the existing house location .mcl the lot width in relation to the required side street and side yard setback. C.With appropriate vegetative screening and removal of an encroaching fence along the nonh side of the garage, the additions will have no detrimental impact on the neighborhood. This application is a renewal of variances previously gnmted via Resolution ^2852 (Application File #1566) on August 13, l^W. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commissit)n, reports by City stalf. comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property arc peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance w'ould not adversely allcct traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or mher danger to neighboring propeny: would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Z»>ning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLl'SIONS, OROKR AND CONDITIONS fiaseil upo.i one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a \ariance to Municipal Zoning Ctxle Section 10.24. Subdivision 5 (B) to permit die construction of a second storv addition and westerly extending rotim addition to the existing lesidence. such additions being 6.5 feet from the side street lot line where a 35 foot side street setback IS normally required, subject to the following conditions. Applicants shall remove the existing fence area located on the m>rth side of the garage, prior to ftnuing insj^iection tor the additions. 1 f 3. Applicants shall limit hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone to 25%. All existing and proposed hardcover approved with this variance application is recorded on the survey and hardcover calculation attached to this resolution as E.xhibit A. The current owner and all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall be maintained at the current levels, and any proposed improvements to this property that will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City and such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of e.xisting hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for removal, as shown in Exhibit A must be removed prior to tile footing inspection for the new construction. As pan of the building permit application, applicants shall provide a veuetation/.screening plan for the area nonh of the westerly ad ooon. such plan • ----------------------to provide a sufficient number and size of plantings to yiei !paqueness at full maturity to a height of at least 10 feet. These plantings shall be completed within 90 days of the date of final inspection of the additions, and failure to provide such plantings shall be considered a violation ot the terms and conditions of this resolution. Authorities cranted by this variance ruii with the property not with the applicaiits. 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 (November 8, 1994). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the tenns and conditions of this resolution shivil constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigr-id 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 ot title ot the property Page ? of 5 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of November, 1993. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hall in. City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of November. 1993, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalt of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTS 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 tiie'foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared _______ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 5 Hii*ocovii IN ZodiA. House IfHOlM . . .HIDlll *r ♦ ‘ I. (a AA6 ’ . c. DmvewAT • * Siocmauk % • __» ___ X _ * ___ X 2 I I i.r. t.r. t.r. If. A. llouK-----_______ « ^Jl^S ___• fPt. 7 %.t. If.lGIH NIOIH A. House ^ I ___Jo,] UN6IH MIOIH 75' 75.350- <^250^ SOO-IOOG' • J^^9 ,.>. ___t.r. ___ i.r. __lir, ___I.r, ___ s.r. I ? • f. # /. tc A .*f /' . . ^ t, f- r ;v**' I. P*TIO/ ^ D icr ,1 • I r.UnDfCiff L^LL - » JL _ X ___ Ir rmttsc iNtITiNC 1 • • I» I K». ■ I_____ X,t_ tr- ...„A •• OlMU _____________I r » K/. y s.r. ___________ I.r. ___ I.r. _ I.r. -------------- I.r. ____________i.f. /•'fv ?. p»ne/ “ rttR .V' $ *,. , f .U tOJCAPf iS!A| t'lJt'LXIU !' nisi 1C SHllt ItIC . ?. ,___•riL .9. ?(t/f i.». A m t5^.7 1 /5. 1 *u ^J JoV.K ,.,. 1 • ‘ ■ . X •01 T, 77 t _ f / „S.r.1 _ '/• 5. .V. n (O, S t.r.1. Gaaa ^i •• •/# - lU i *J*....f. CaivriiAY m •n _____________t I.r.a / .*• r .I.r.B. ^irtruAi A » _____ 1 .... JA 1 ^ J A .2./v/. f_,.,.• / V. 5 ./rr i . /v? v «... I. Pmio/ Deer.« . • 1/ .5 I.r. » • r .li'iDSf Art 1 * 1 z / «:f. ^5* C/< »_i I.r. AAf A) UmC ALAIN l»X • 1 r V A 0.4? .2 / V. rr.v ....ALAS!1C SMf (T trio X • >7/. / 6 loiAt N aaocovcr in Zoih lOTAU FwINIY A n CA III Zqnc _____s.r. -19 ' Y i.f. [ A ] 3] I.r. |j3 0. OfllCA ZZJ I.r, I.r e. OfMEA j] 2Z.V 4fn » 100 • ~^0 % lofAl N*RrcovCA |M Zo:«| loiAt riOTfAlT A a IA III 7o»l| 3 46j^/L. X100 ZYsy 3i.,. [TJ lU Toial Haaocovcr 111 Zortf ToTAU pAOrfATT A a IA 111 Zoitf 23./? %[Il_iViii_4 (T]__i:^^ X 100 - 72.3 I,., (ca (XI GAL DtSCRIPIlON Of PRLHISIS SURVCUO: •». !, UlocK 5, “SiSijA Mill Rovlscd. Mcnucpln Co Minn" t of • A s^enue. ^7 en oo .t! >' -- V i: „ *'•*• \ MvP; If f I ; r. .r- r'~~ K»7 ‘m V AjA<VH.e NliiiM s \ .-••• - -•.■•;:: : ■ ’V-y-y^rf^ V-V^V^n : yym. •• :•;>; <K. \ ' '■ \ \ ' ‘■ a A%- . - Bwilni tat ■n 1“ 1 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONLNG FILE #1880 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 10/27/93 TO: Thomas and Jane Regnier 1205 Elmwood Avenue Mound, MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION: COPIES TO: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 10/18/93 VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval as submitted per conditions ot previous approval. NOTES AiND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant’s ne.xt scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Citv Council Mondav. November 8, 1993. meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, diey are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. TO: FROM: DATE: Plannimi Commission Members W Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator October 7, 1993 SUBJECT: ^1880 Thomas and Jane Regnier, 1205 Elmwood Avenue - Variance Renewal - Public Hearing Application Requesting renewal of side street setback variance for construction of additions to existing residence. List of E.xhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Proposed Site Plan F - House Plans G - Hardcover Calculations H - Resolution ^2852 1 - Staff Memos and Minutes from Application #1566 Pertinent Code Section Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) requires a side street .setback of 35’ in the LR-IB zone. Pertinent Facts 1.Proposal is to construct a second story addition plus a room addition wh:’ b will continue the existing 6.5' side street setback ot the existing house. The proposal was approved in 1990, subject to removal of an existing fence, limiting hardcover in the 75-250' zones to 25% (some removals required), and provision of screening between the side street and the proposed addition (please review Resolution #2852). Discussion Please review the staff memos, exhibits and minutes from the 1990 Planning Commission review. That approval granted in August 1990 expired Augu.st 13. 1991. Applicants arc proposing no changes from the original approval. Zoning File /I^ISSO October 7, 1993 Page 2 Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission determines that the findings and conditions of Resolution ^2852 are still applicable, then a recommendation for approval subject to those findings and conditions would be appropriate. I 2 L>' ^ CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION^// Initial Application Fee $175.00 ^ ^ ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non conforming use $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) r A.r,, *J . •/;V PROPERTY INFORMATION Site QCS ^UnLOOTid Att- Propsrty Identif* Nuinber (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. — Date Pr^ipi^rtiL Acquired __(month/year) I (do)^o notJ)also own the adjacent parcels of land.^ Pj^esent use of property* __V_resi^ential _ _ _other(specify)_ Zoning District: y^iD0l^ ftlJYti ^ ^ APPLICANT Phone (home) Thr'nv}*^ t ,\l phone (work), SfOrnfe Address! (1.CS l1nLCi:r'r< M-Citv: Or&nQ____ Name Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Phone (wor)c) Address:City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $_ Describe request in detail: ''-^'7-K ( r ” pK)(^ r- n/h'C ^ MPQ iriciO CAn /^U &-\i VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setbaclc; Lot Width Hardcover _ _Lot Coverage Front ^^■'fc^Side _ Rear _ _ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HAFDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Desoribe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual _pr^ertyuescriDe unaue narasnip or -- - - - - -- - ^ i conditions preventing compliance withA,>7P,»-A ucuvD imtr If U(Mt-tAn^r,c re VC fru ADDiTioiii ■ ,4 ( cVi\}L i C~T (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following inf ormation must be submitted by the application deadlin e 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). Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8J5"xll" for reproduction). 5, Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8J!"xll"). 6. S)cetches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8Jj"xll"). 7, fis an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. __Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yonf variamce application is not complete if the above jn format:!on 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 th^best of his/her Jcnowledge. Applicant's Signature --4 u Date a-2.^-Q5 OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby aclcowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry ont > the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and ouncil members for purposes of investiga ­ tion and verification of ^is lest. ^ Owner's Signatur' Applicant must hav^ll submittals into the City offices 25 days Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are he ® third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Cosnslssion and Council. If an app ® unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to ave an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building on ng Office of this change prior to the meeting. I I I I I • I I I • • ^ » . - --------r“. • '• II I • I I * \ t^oTn ■S» 5 7 *• \ \ (66)«4 >1 LOTiT 44 ^ I .(Sa) 4 ;4 '^rr ^ i I I / "-' T ! (ic4): • *:i.—4 K • » A • 4 • 4. -W Tf-r-<-------------i-TT-T-r Tfr- I I y - i - -• -T —iT*r V . . 1 (WK(“ / ■■■>;: 4' • 1 'tv --------i -» • . 1 1 • (2]\4 .YW: T-'i-rf) Ll'COi l4 (15) (Y4C 4-a*l51 A ''A .'Cl V 1-^ !^5 ,—I c'....:ac2'3 » .* • I I * 4*. * '.. CuVii: t ■ I /••••••< (23) ^ ..'Tr ? (53) ■S.-..4(65).^_ 4(6^0^ I__1^3 ___‘ ~A ,. ----4 JT,[5 ..^(37) si ,4,..^ ^ .■> V 4^ ? IT f «.^ V - \ 4 ^ i(7-5>'rj w ' * ' * 7fei60) ■* ' 9^^ i-a''x-j -a « « j. :a.iy.u Xt^' '^i'i)3l 1 1 » 1?. "(II)SI]1 '* ■ \ to (>0)« 1 ttT.^ % «$> (D IMJJ DATE 06/21/90BATCH 001PROP AOOR CMIER NAHCtaxpayerNANE/AOOR PROP ADDR 0»tCR NAME taxpayer NAHi/AOOR PROP AOOR OIMER NAME taxpayer NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR RROP AOOR 0»MER NAME taxpayer NAHE/AOOR COIMTY PROPERFY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST50 07-117-23 14 0016 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEDstate land deptCITY OF ORONO 30 07-117-23 14 0034 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE LAND DEPT CITY OF ORONO CONVEYED E/0/02 ST DEED 161147 50 07-117-23 14 0060 01169 NORTH ARM DR CAIW 0 OElTO STAL TodJ * . OARV-0 noOAtIC OCITO Dc > 1U9N ARMOR NOUNO HN S5S64 SO 07-117-23 41 0015 01205 NORTH ARM DR M 0 HENRY A L M HENRY MICHAEL 0 A LISA H HENRY 1205 NORTH ARM DR mound 55564 50 07-117-23 41 0010 01295 EirtRXX) AVe J A DENZEL AML DENZEL JEROME A MAURENE L DENZEL 12T5 limoOO AVE hound 55364 30 07-117-23 14 0030 Oil'9 LLMHOOO AVE 0 E OARLOCK ARK GARLOCK BR.XE GARLOCK ll.’T ELMHOOO AVE HOUr^O MN 55364 SO 07-117-23 14 0054 01179 NORTH ARM OR nan ROCKVAH NORMAN A NANCY ROCKVAM 1179 NORTH ARM DRIVE HOUND MN 55364 30 07-117-23 41 0013 01205 NORTH ARM DR PAUL R SKAGERBERC PAUL R SKAGERBERC 1205 NORTH ARM OR mound MtJ 55364 30 07-117-23 41 0016 01205 ELMHOOO AVE TAJ RECtNER THOMAS D a jane REGNIER 1205 ELMHOOO AVE mound HN 55364 3a 07-117-23 41 oosa 01304 ELMHOOO AVE RICHARD J JOW4SON ET AL RICHARO J JOHNSON 1304 ELMHOOO mound MN 55364 REPORT NO. PI43S401 PAGE 138 07-117-23 14 0033 01100 ELMHOOO AVE J H LAMBRECHT ET AL J0(< H LAMBRECHT 1180 ELMHOOO AVE IWUNO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 01199 ELMHO J A E HARVEY J SCOT HARVEY 1199 ELMHOOO HOUtW MT4 55364 14 0059 0 AVE 30 07-117-23 41 0014 01245 NORTH ARM OR ROBERT 0 HOVLANO GEORGE HOVLANO 1285 NO ARM OR mound MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0017 01265 ELFt9000 AVE JOHN A PERKINS JR ETAL JOHN PERKINS 1265 ELMHOOO AV mound MN 55364 TOTAL BATCH COl 00014 q\ T- Wrr V )\ f .. • * • • •... / • * »j —1», '• 3 . I =j • . • s& ■•. *'. o •2 r1 tnt • * r • ' I * ' * 9 I i ^ A ^ tl^jh/ >r iivfl r*ru/»,> . —l::I ---- - / % * Br **tcu^» ___- . 1|- ,/r,^ *rS.yf^‘j VA'ii T<:J3d t'»l5 L. .. , -•A . « « 1 1 Xthci - « 9 1 k \ \ ^ ^ •.. 1 ^ . • f- * • i r^'VW Vl/iL *.- % • I -l|•-''f’Hai.'H i~' J -' -'-1. J.L'_*_ L.ii'- '•*'-« .. r ------ iit ' j —-1: - « c: v 7 •9.9 % O*♦ Q A^' r •' 7wu^i;« l - : . Vf*iAI I •> TV!v*-«- ^ f - -J— t ul A 0 V-. ■.. N . V-. . N ' ‘ \ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEE: SrT3Ac:< ZONE: (CIRCLE o.'Jc) 0-75' (^250' j250-500' 500-IQG0' Existing Hardcover in Zone* A. House X \1.’^-_mxj s.p. LENGTH WIDTH X (o » / S.F. » /3.X q.q S.F.' ( _>ic7-«.-,v | S.?-,7^0 ■ 3 = 30 •« . (r, s.-1 Po c. L Md oVoX JT- /. » § S.F.1 X ^■S 3 ? s.F. /C) .X 3 = 30.9 X • • M ”* S • r* • • X 3 ./o f ,.p. X » 5*5* 5" * s.F. hecL 7'^ - 2.X (o, >-s... E.^ATIO/b6c:< / . X Jo. 3 s.F. p/cin^r ■ V F. 1 AfjnSCJXPE ^ Z—X 0. S « lb s.F. AREAS Au j-LC el 1 /s UNDERLAIN , RY . ^ /X 0 - ? V S.F. PLASTIC ^/ SHEETING X 0 . (cl ■ . X /Hi f U s.F. X 0, (o7 - S.F. » • R. Other (jYO^ /X • . S.F. X Total Hardcover • IN Zone ^S.F.T Total Property Area IN Zone jO, G'LG s.F.T m '2-^icH 3^)b,is'Lb X IQQ - ^3//^ % o 1 I I J HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE 0NE_) 0-75' 75-250'f 250-500' 50( IQCO' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House '7« / _X_ _ _ LENGTH WIDTH __ X 3. Garage c. Driveway x (s ro l>€ I D. S idewalk X E. Patio / Deck F.Landscape areas UNDERLAIN BY , . PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other X ac . 3 ^ /^<v. I Total Hardcover in Zone Total Propertv Area in Zone 12J0 I Ic C 0 S.F. S t 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. [ j nnWv/ S.F.s l 4[T1 X 100 - # « m 5731002 CITY OF ORONO City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI NO.Ze^A,6 2 852 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A V.ARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24 SUED. 5(B) FILE #1566 WHEREAS, Dr. and Mrs. Thomas Regnier (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1205 Elmwood Avenue within the City of Orono, (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 5, Saga Hill Revised Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to tne City for a variancvn to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24 Subd. 5(B) to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence, such additions being located 6.5 feet from the side street lot line where a side street setback of 35 feet is normally required. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as zoning file #1566. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 16, 1990 and recommended approval of the proposed variance on a vote of 5 to 0, based upon the following findings; a. The additions will have no significant effect on the perception of visual density in the neighborhood. b. There is no other reasonable and feasible location for the addition meeting the code requriements, the hardship being the existing house location and the lot width in relation to the required side street >»r.J side yard setbacks. TRANSPfft iNTSRSO ^ £ C OEM U» PW«in>IM|Pv8liCWC0»0SPage l or 5 DEC n 6Y - I r. ^ nrPtiTv CITY City of OROINO OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 2852NO. c. with appropriate vegetative screening and removal of an encroaching fence along the north side of the garage, the additions will have no detrimental impact on the neighborhood. 4. 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 cn the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24 Subd. 5(B) to permit the construction of a second story addition and westerly extending room addition to the existing residence, such additions being 6.5 feet from the side street lot line where a 35 foot side street setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicants shall remove the existing fence area located on the north side of the garage, prior to footing inspection for the additions. Page 2 of 5 CITY I1 Il^ORONC^ City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI NO. 2 85 't 2. Applicants shall limit hardcover in the 75 - 250 foot zone to 25%. All existing and proposed hardcover approved with this variance application is recorded on the survey and hardcover caculation attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. The current owner and all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall be maintained at the current levels, and any proposed improvements to this property that will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City and such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for removax, as shown in Exhibit A must be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. 3. As part of the building permit application, applicants shall provide a vegetation/screening plan for the area north of the westerly addition, such plan to provide a sufficient number and size of plantings to yield a 70% opaqueness at full maturity to a height of at least 10 feet. These plantings shall be completed within 90 days of the date of final inspection of the additions, and failure to provide such plantings shall be considered a violation of the terms and conditions of this resolution. 4. 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 13, 1991). 5. 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. Page 3 of 5 CITY OF ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2'?4^ 2852 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of August, 1990. ATTEST: ..t.-.: A-.. m-iA Dotfothy'^Tjialliri, City Clerk ^ . i* . Property Owner(s) '■-LL/V ss. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on the 13th day of August, 1990, by James R. Grabek & 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. / /it MEWH6HN COUMY^ Notary Public /[JfiAlL 9- My Commission l.xpires Page 4 of 5 CIT City of OROINO I I 1 1 L M RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 2852NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COT’NTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this /5 before me a Notary Puljlic wi appeared '/Tl o~yvi<3..S _LL_cLP day of ^ ^ ------ ;<fithin and for s^id coun-jr/ , 1990 personallyor sai<- --------.. ■ - ,to me to be l2 Lnd‘ wfto exe5Uied the foregoing lL%r^ment°"‘iid°a“'otfetgi^^^ that h;““(the7)''«i^uted'the same as his (their) free act and oeec. mctary public ________ ^ 9c9 my commission E^PIKi^ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) , , on this day of hrJ:f:hlthis ____'Yal^c?untv, p’er’soVa’lly appeared.Rotary public. Within and^.or^s^=^_-=t^^^^^^^^ PAX r, the foregoing instruments person(s) describea in an (t>,ev*) '"executed the same as hisand acknowledged tnat he (theyj execai.. . a ^ ^ M ^ £% Ck ^ , 199^ before me (their) free act and deed. WXcx /*>. .»LzMzskz. notary poblix THET'^f,^VMi*NNESOTA f-f- 9?- my commission expires Page 5 of 5 A_________ RESOLUTION «2852 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) I (AtACl . c. D uivimat t. SulMALl_______ in»»; • I I. (atio/h • • ;v ** ■ / liC» • r.LinDUAFi lY »LA|T|C litCIfliat t* Omii .— * U. / loiAt IUa»covt« lit ZoMl loiM. N omrty A ria in ZotfC irY 0 C. 0.MM _____» 11} ?! f>[i 0_JLLJ!L_+— * »“ */Q ToIAI MiRCCO vCR III Zo’if loTAL FRorcMT A ria m Zo«f .lliYJi /< 6 Z .1 -...... • -- 4 » ?’4 t • */5. 2 -lo.i • 7ol.<t. r.•«m t.r. •. l.A. X r V r. t . r 1 •I.r. r^iL A.f _ _ _ I. A. /> . . . ^// 5 ,V. ?. ^<7. f t. (lARACf ■•, S.f. r;.-. _.. ■ , 1 -Jrirnot* ... I.f . /* f /• . -.4 • . _ '7L* « i ,£__.____7*7 . ?^r C.i'iiiAx «m /^y I.R.. ■*. _ t . • ---------- _ c f »4vr.4AI^- i.r. _ _ A •t r r» / c_V m /2 I.r. • •. t I.A. V p t f #k CiRitUAl v m I.R* V*. 0. SlClfMAlY^-' • * »-----:----------• ............zL-Jl-,I ' M ^Jr/•1 m I.R.«. 1 * • • i ,* • . j.;. y I.r. I *) 9 %A . Z .__/j'Lf-. • V I. r.«I.R. f • • * - i ^ ^ V ---------- CiCA /<' 5 _ta )If. 1. pATIo/ Pf :r.« •• I.R. • ’ i* 1 • X .VAi -e ,, .:^ 5 t 1 i*iDx r irr ««i , I.R. *.. t ' 1 %A«' * . . .. . * • A.UI08CAPI . . --------------- ItClfL^lll %. V' • • - V ■ t ART At U’iOCRLAlfl n m I.R. % • •f* r•v«* I..--------------------- • ------------• !> . , ri»*Tic -------------- I.r, SHfIT INC _ Z/- i t # • yz 1 J . ^ ...... .1 • ________,L----------------- /V » Is riAii IC iHf C Tlria -I.R. I. OlHlR t*r. ».A 0 0 o//o Total H aaocovir hi Zo:ii • —-----^^ C3 Total pROftAtt A ria in Zom • (3 0 y/v./ lW_^i2—% r.Al DtSCAIATION Of yWEHIStS SUR»mpl V I. OlOCk S. *S.ig» Mill Revised. Hennepin Co Hinn IV 40 \ A o ^fC7 D E/mwooJ «»>• / o f / k'4?/7t'C / -Til .5^00 o 1^ «r\ *rv J oo \ S\'^4 1 •■ # >\ ‘1 ll • Ir»*« V flf* 9^rf J. J? 7 ■<1, ^ A- ♦ • » A. A 44 * /A4 5 k'e^t3^ /TPP/coVtrt> ^ P4AN3 fcLAA/>^^e?p AV^.AOO’»d fx»Wg ♦ d>A4*t»B ---------------------^ lul > \\Ulil \Ui n I iji *YAIX# 4t C04i§99 !» Rft>«r jvM^> crtfC 39f«fer>/ffv4 4, 145^* _ CITY OF ORONO LAND USE FILING INFORMATION Prepared By: Carolyn Sominers, Secretary to Nancy E. Husnik, Legal Assistant Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd. December 21, 1990 The following is a recap of the resolutions submitted to this office which have been filed with the Hennepin County Recorder’s Office. All resolutions which have been returned to our office are enclosed; the Special Lot Combination/Phillips was filed on December 14, 1990 and has nOLt at yet been returned to us. RESOr.UTION MUHflEB_____ 2852 2865 2879 2883 2884 2893 2894 (end.) (end.) (end.) (end.) (end.) (end. ) (end.) 35*4iNEH APPLICANT’S NAME_ _ _ _ _ Regnier, Dr. and Mrs. T. Prass, David and Suzanne Minnegasco, Inc. Buranen, James S. Siford, Ruby L. Kaley, Philip F. Luke, Duane DATE JFILEU 12-11-90 12-11-90 12-11-90 12-11-90 12-11-90 12-11-90 12-11-90 'dec se isso DOCTJMENT IBER 5731002(A) 5731003(A) 5730994(A) 5731000(A) 5731001(A) 5730996(A) 5730995(A) ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 ZONING FILE 11563-DENZEL CONTINUED Mabusth also noted that in lieu of removing 1.49% of hardcover, the Planning Commission recommended that fire lane, which the applicants maintain and improved significantly with plantings, be credited in the area calculations of the property. Mabusth stated that this specific area of fire lane is in excess of 2,000 s.f. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2850, granting the side yard setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover variances to construct additions to the residence at 1295 Elmwood Avenue. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. 11564 JOANN GRIMES 4720/4730 NORTH ARM DRIVE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT RESOLUTION #2851 Ms. Grimes was present. Bernhardson briefly explained the information pertaining to this application (see Michael Gaffron's memo dated August 3, 1990). It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2851, approving a metes and bounds subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for Joann Grimes and James Hoffman at 4720 and 4730 North Arm Drive West. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1566 DR. ft MRS. THOMAS REGNIER 1205 ELMWOOD AVENUE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2852 Dr. Regnier was present. Bernhardson provided a brief summary of the information contained in Michael Gaffron's memo dated August 7, 1990. Dr. Regnier asked whei-her he could replace the existing section of fence by the garage once he removes that section. Gaffron replied, "You could replace what now exists with a section no more than 3*j' high. There may be a sight distance problem if a fence is placed where the fencing currently exists. If you decide to put a fence in that location, staff could work with you to see what can be done." It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by rouncilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2852, approving a side street setback variance to construct additions to the existing residence at 1205 Elmwood Avenue. Motion, Ayes-4. - 11 - ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 ZONING FILE #1566-REGNIER CONTINUED Nays-0. Motion passed. 11567 ROBERT & LOUANN POWELL 2916 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2853 Mr. Powell was present. City Administrator Bernhardson provided a brief summary of Michael Gaffron's August 7, 1990 memo. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Callahan, to adopt Resolution #2853, approving the average setback and hardcover variances to construct a deck on the lake side of the residence at 2916 Casco Point Road. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1568 JAMES & JUDITH PIERPONT 1801 WEST FARM ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE RESOLUTION 2354 Bernhardson presented Council with a brief review of this application. He noted that staff has recently learned that Lot 14 has the principal and alternate septic sites to serve the structures on Lot 15. Bernhardson stated that the Pierponts are purcnasing Lot 14 under a 7 year Contract for Deed, which will preclude a legal lot combination from occurring at this time. He said, "This would pose a problem should the terms of the Contract for Deed be terminated.” Mrs. Pierpont said, "There is no question that we intend to combine the properties when we are able to do so. We would like to put the access driveway on Lot 14.” Mabusth questioned whether the Cix.y Attorney could recommend a method to provide the City with assurance that the lots cannot be separated in the future until a legal lot combination can occur. Barrett stated that it would be necessary to have the fee owner of Lot 14 execute whatever agreement is used. Councilmember Callahan asked how the septic system came to be located on Lot 14 rather than the Lot with the principal structure. Gaffron replied, "The subdivision involving this property was done before the Septic Code went into effect in 1978. Prior to 1978. a review of septic system locations in relation to property lines was not included in the subdivision process." - 12 - TO:Mayor and City Council FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admin. DATE:August 1, 1990 SUBJECT: #1566 Dr. and Mrs. Thomas Regnier, 1205 Elmwood Avenue Variance - Resolution Application - Request for side street setback variance to construct additions to existing residence. Zoning District - LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential - 1 Acre Sewered. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Resolution Notice of Planning Commission Action 7/17/90 Memo and Exhibits of 7/10/90 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of July 10th. Briefly, applicants are requesting approval to construct additions 6.5 feet from the north (side street) lot line where a 35 foot setback would normally be required. The additions include completion of the second story over the center portion of the house, and an addition to the west. Existing 75 - 250' hardcover is 23.19%. Applicants intend to maintain hardcover at or below the the 25% limit. At their July 16th meeting, Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 for approval, finding that the second story addition will have no significant impact on the perceived visual density the neighborhood, and that the existing house location and lot width are hardships, since only a 15 foot wide building envelope paralleling the south lot line would be available under the code standards. Planning Commission conditioned ; leir recommendation for approval on the following: 1. Hardcover in the 75 - 250 foot zone shall not exceed 25%. 2. Applicants to remove fenced area on north side of garage, and provide additional vegetation screening along north side of new addition. Regarding the Planning Commission recommendation for screening. Planning Commission gave no direction on the height, amount or opaqueness of the vegetation required. In the resolution, staff is recommending that the screening provide a minitiium 70% opaqueness to minimum height of 10* at maturity, along the File #1566 August 1, 1990 Page 2 of 2 proposed addition to the west. These figures certainly can be revised at Council's discretion. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution for approval is attached. '[ ■ J - *' ■ / r u.■!-0 .'■t p*. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HEfO JULY 36, 1990 ZONING FILE »ISSS-RICHARD ANDERSON COOTIWEU Anderson cannot the proximity of the "®^9hborino property oft^he ^"arf*rc'=t\ons^^1%sfir9 r/A'n'derson to bcin, the d.cR into confornance. Johnson withdrew his motion. It was moved by Johnson, ^^^^"'^^rnhen *^^owlVtte,° Nays, application #1565. Motion, Ayes-., Cohen, Rowle y Motion carried. Architect, were 11566 DR. A MRS. THOMAS REGNIER 1205 ELMWOOD AVENUE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:55 P.M. TO 10:02 P.M^ M.ifmce- Pr. and Mrs. Reamer anc . Da.e ..ultinge.., p r e 5 *■* n t. . .-.vio. •~i'T»sentsd (see MichaelGat fron e.xolainec the creposa. -c.n, ^..senc-u Gaffron's nemo dated July 10, 1^90). 1- Mulfincer stated that the plan Proposed eveninc will r.a'.e the most pf the existiht laypit o. the house. Rowlette as^cd whether a floor plan had been sobmitted with tne cippiiCciticn. Mrs. Reamer provided a cocy ot tne floor plan. Keliev asked Gaffron whetner staff had been able to that \t'^L?vevor had -eluded all e.ist.,,, tnd"a?er'’th„/"her:';s no ha‘rdeover-on the north side of the property. Rowlette noted that there is a fehced area eh the north side of the carape that does not shew pn the pians. raffron molied that he has reviewed the surveyor's calruLtiohS use standard City forms and appear comp.eta. He a .K.. the Citv IS aoine to have to rely more on the apilieants and their surveyors to provide accurate information. consider She also Pr and Mrs. Peam-r indicated that they do not use the fonc«'i area and would consider rcmovin: it. - - ORONO PLANNING COHNISSION HEET1«G HELD JULY 16, 1990 EONING FILE 11566-RECNIEE bile -.nd the PublicThere were no comments from cne puw* Heating was closed. Howlette reiterated her -99e«^°n of fencing removed and the along the road where the suggested that plantings iJL«en the visual impact. Rowlette addition will be located ^ ^he addition is the most agreed that the proposed location oc logical. It was moved by Bellows. 'to° construct approval of the "“^gidence provided that hardcover is additions to an existing fence along the north Pain.ained at or below 25^ p-an inos be placed tc screen «.-!« of the aaraae be remove- Navs-0. .Motion ..,0 addition from the street. -lo-i-... -s carried. 11567 ROBERT * LOUAN'I POWELL 2916 CASCO POINT ROAD pSbUC^EARINC 10:08 P.M. TO 10 = ^ ^ .1 r^nri^^actor w-is w.—sen —The appiiran..-' conuu rho 1r bohaif. tificate of .Mailing wereThe Affidavit of Publicatiwn and Cer ‘ cuffron su.^ar:=ed ;.hc 12. 1990 pertaining to contic^'^d hin and expressed concern the applicants* neighbors had unrelated to the deck, rooarding the boat canopy and oche. iss-cs Ro-l.tte stated that the confiauration of the doc. seeded ode in relation to the existing patio an. -ee. •s c•-1 fp^ •‘hJt tt\c acclicjnts ^roferred AoDlicants* contractor tt J", ^ deck. Me also said to have the light into t.hethat the proposed contigurawion wi.. lower level of the house. There were no public comments pertaining to this application and the Public Hearing was closed. ^ Ku x»»i’ev seconded by Bellows, to recommend It was moved Motion. Aves-5. Nays-0. Motionthat hirdcover remain at 41.3 . carried. /4 Kw Ke'lcv. seconded by Cohen, to recommend inrroial r°riv.-7a :o •la.^'.-shcrc .ettac. variance ol U foot, arcrovji Motion carried.Motion, Ayes-j. - 19 - To; From: Date: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator July 10, 1990 Subject: #1566 Dr. 6 Mrs. Thomas Regnier, 1205 Elmwood Avenue Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for side street setback variance to construct additions to existing residence List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Proposed Site Plan Elevation Vie<. Hardcover Calculations \ Pertinent Facts - 1. The existing house is on a corner lot at a jog in Elmwood Avenue. The existing house is 6.5 ' from the north lot line, which would be considered a side street lot line in this case, normally requiring a 35' setback. The existing attached garage is 5.3 ’ from the east lot line. 2. Applicants propose to construct an addition to the west side of the house, extending the existing north line of the house 6.5' from the lot line. Additionally, a second story addition is proposed to complete the existing partial second g^ory, also being as near as 6.5* to the north side lot line. 3. Existing 75-250' hardcover is 23.19%. In conjuction with the additions, applicants propose to remove enough existing retaining wall and concrete sidewalk hardcover to maintain hardcover at or below the 25% limit. 4. Existing lot coverage by structures is 12.8%. with the proposed addition, lot coverage will be 14.8%, meeting the 15% limit. Discussion This lot is by definition a corner lot, and the defined front lot line would be the east lot line, with the side street Zoning File #1566 July 10, 1990 Page 2 lot line being the north lot line. In the LR-IB zone, the required side street lot line setback is 35'. The existing house is approximately 10' from the paved driving surface of Elmwood Avenue on the north side of the house, and the addition will similarly be approximately 10 or more feet from that road. Absent the need for hardcover or lot coverage variances, this lot is still limited by the location of the existing house so near the roadway. Traffic heading southward then eastward along Elmwood might perceive this house after additions as substantially increasing in bulk near the traveled roadway, although there is some minimal existing vegetative screening in that area. Because neighboring adjacent la>>eshore residences are much nearer the lake than the existing house or proposed additions, there is no average setback encroachment. Staff Recommendation Answering the following questions should help the Planning Commission in determining an appropriate recommendation for the proposed variance request: 1. Will the completion of the second story above an existing substandard street setback increase the visual density in the neighborhood? 2. Will the additional structure located 6.5' from the side street lot line, have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood? 3. Can the proposed westerly addition be constructed at a location further from the side street lot line, or is the existing house location sufficient justification for allowing that addition as proposed? Isv • C-0 i /'<■' -/<✓ / (T. /\ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE CNE) (^1^ ^p-jijg^SOQ-lQQO Existing Hardcover in Zone iff* i ^ A. House X LENGTH WIDTH 3> Garage c. Driveway D., Sidewalk __ _ _ A. E. Patio/ Deck F,Landscape _ X j?.. LO. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. S.F. y 7 mm , y S.F. S.F. fm WS % t ^ AREAS UNDERLAIN X a S.F. BY •- - - - plastic • sheeting X ■S.F. S.F. Other X -S.F. Total Hardcover in Zone - Total Property Area in Zone y S.F. S.F. ^ > ■ A 7z:*f 41 B X 100 - - L B py'/o A € f f< HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSH^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' Existing Hardcover in Zone (V A Wp I f c -^.3 X /7. f a (T^/. 7 S.F. Ai flwUwCi M UE.'ICTH 30.2. X width a 2sy.7 S.F. /2.J ^9. 9 /I/. ?S.F, 7r-’rj.is. 2 y ZiS.3 a ♦ S.F. «P- ^ X r. /a S.F. % ^ Km ^ 5 X V. 5 a Co, ^S.F. /)(Cr .*'• r QfLl ^ i'C W A V- 70.3 S.F. X a S.F. D. SfOSWALK-?. S X p a Ay. A S.F. X 3S? S.F. 2?. 2 X /V3. S’S.F. E. Patio / D eck /y, 5 ^fo.3 m /y?. y S.F. F.U nO SCAPE AREAS / UNDERLAIN ' ' J / X o. s /<r S.F. Z / X ^.y S.F. BY PLASTIC SHEETING L / > X ^ 0. .2 a /V. t ?.v S.F. > X li, / S.F. - n»L.e» X 2 2 J S.F. Total H ardcover in Zone S.F.0 Total Property A rea IN Zone iZ 6 S.F._5_ A ov^y.3 R to.X 100 • 2.3-J9 % /*c . HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' Existing Hardcover in Zone 250-5000 500-1000' A. House 7J 3. Garage D.. Sidewalk E. Patio/ 3eck F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other X LENGTH X c. Driveway x - X X X X lo. WIDTH Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zcne / s.F. f5 V N tQ.'o s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /Z ^S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S .S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. . S.F. w f • ' - _- ' S.F. S.F.B y/V. / JL R ] O _ X 100 -72,% • • • • • • ^ t ‘C-^ t.r r K 2 ^ 2 2 ♦ 3 . 2 2 2.2-. r V /o- 2 t{S3. ‘ /yy /v^ 3 I /3V/ --r, /H, ^0^ ‘ /2. £ % .. 4- 2Vy“?, lK4Wi- »»- 4- •f- 20.^ ^ n u * -^/ao * 4- / 2 S ^ + /02- -- /t"? -i- ::^B9 7 y ^/5E +- \ /SH! 4 r 2 I2<=? -/V. SX OK r h To;Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator November 8, 1093 Subject:#1882 John O’Sullivan/O’Sullivan’s, 2420 Shadywood Road - Agreement Reached Mr. O’Sullivan met with the City Administrator, Police Chief, and Jeanne, Lyle and me this afternoon. Chief Sullivan had also been in contact with Don Bryce, Mound Fire Chief, just prior to the meeting. After a di.scussion of the history and need for this fire lajie, we reached the following solution which is agreeable to City staff and Mr. O'Sullivan: 1. The curb will be painted yellow between the outer edges of the two doorways. 2.I'he property owner will mount signs adjacent to the outside of the doors, flush with the building and located approximately 3 ’ in height, with arrows pointing towards the opposite door, and indicating "No Parking - Fire Lane". 3.The existing portable sign will continue to be placed on the pavement midway between the two entrance doors. 4. Diagonal striping of the pavement will not be required, but the Police Chief reserves the right to require that in the future if he deems it necessary. 5. Onforcemeni of the fire lane will be per items 2. 3, and 4 of Chief Sullivan’s memo to all officers dated 9/1/93. This configuration will nieel the intent of the fire code yet allow' additional legal parking at eithei end of the fire lane. The result is an additional 2-3 legal parking stalls which actually reduces the degree of variance required with the initial approval in 1987. Staff will draft a resolution amending the commercial site plan approval for Council action at your next meeting. ^/^lO SArT^tJ ~:j,,^ Az tJUJ I a c ^ "Q ^ 1 pxjt^e • « datej 9-1-93 TO:All Officers FROM:Chief Sullivan SUBJECT:O'Sullivans fire lane Contrary to rumor and incomplete information gathered eUaout the fire lane at O'Sullivans, it was designated a fire lane by council resolution. Therefore, it is a valid fire lane. This memo is intended to clarify our policy. Our policy will be: yC No officer shall park a squad car in the fire lane once it is marked as described in the letter from A;o Lyle Oman to John O'Sullivan dated/ ) 8-31-93. ^ / (^Officers shall give verbal warnings to any driver who has parked in the fire lane. ^2) Tickets will be issued only in response to a request from an employee of O'Sullivans for an unattended vehicle which was left in the fire lane. Or, officers may issue a ticket if a citizen refuses to move the vehicle after they have received the verbal warning and request by the officer to move it. L_. ( > To:Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmcnibers Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator V/> From: Date: Michael P. Galfron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administratoi*5^ November 4, 1993 % Subject:#1882 John 0’SullivanyO ’Sullivan‘s. 2420 Shadywood Road - Request to Amend Commercial Site Plan Review Application: Request to eliminate designated fire lane at front of convenience store List of Exhibits A B C D E I' Site Diagram Notice of Planning Commission Action 10/27/93 Planning Commission Minutes 10/18/93 letters Submitted by Applicant to Planning Commission In-house Memos from Chief Sullivan Staff Memo & Exhibits 10/12/93 letter from State Fire Marshal 11/5/93 Discussion The basic issue at hand is whether a fire lane required as part of the City ’s commercial site plan review and approval in 1987 should now be striped and provided with proper signage. It is the opinion of the Building Inspection Department that the fire lane requirement from 1987 is valid, and that the magnitude of the activity on this site has become so great that striping and signage is imperative for the public health, safety and welfare. The Inspection Department has offered a compromise, striping an area approximately 8’ deep and 50’ long in front of the store, as opposed to the original 14’ x 64 ’ fire lane shown on tlie 1987 approved site plan Tlie property owner’s position and opinion is as follows: 1. 1 3. 4. 5. 6. They have gone over five years without a fire lane. I'hey never had a legitimate fire lane because Tom Jacobs did not have the authority to impose one on the site plan I'hat plan was not approved by the Mound Fire Department. His immediate competitors do not have tire lanes. He feels he is being discriminated against because his immediate competitors don’t have a fire lane. Surrounding communities do not require fire lanes. Zoning File ^1882 November 5, 1993 Pace 2 City Authority for Establishing Fire Lancs ^ . Orono ’s fire lane ordinance is in Municipal C( Je Chapter 9.34, Subdivisions 7-11 which was adopted essentially in its current form in May 1981 (see Exhibit II of the October 12 niemo, especially code pages 222-223). Section 9.34, Subdivision 7 (C) empowers the Chief of Police to order the establisliment of fire lanes. Staff cannot confirm whether Jacobs conferred with Chief Kilbo or the Mound Fire Department in requiring the fire lane in 1987, however, there was no apparent argument from the property owner in complying with that requirement at that time (in fact he has long had a portable sign on the premises that says "No Parking - Fire Lane"), and the City Council approved the site plan with the fire lane shown. Further, Subdivision 4 of Section 9.34 grants authority for enforcement of the fire code to any or all of: a. The Minnesota State Fire Marshal or his repre.sentative. b. The Fire Chief of the respective Fire Service Disrict. c. The Chief of Police. d. The Building Official. Staff contends that the requirement for a fire lane in 1987 was absolutely proper. Further, staff contends that staff has been consistent in requiring fire lanes where they are necessary whenever commercial/industrial/multiple residential properties are undergoing new construction, reconstruction tir other major permit activity. This is the appropriate time for requiring changes such as the establishment of fire lanes where they are needed. The City has not historically required the establishment of fire lanes where they are not needed nor where no new activity is occurring on a property. This is why a number of businesses referred to by the applicant cannot be considered as equivalent situations. Staff would further note again that where it becomes necessary to establish fire lanes due to increased activity or traffic on a property, the Police Chief in consultation w ith the Fire Chief and Building Official, has the authority under Section 9.34, Subdivision 7 (C) to establish a fire lane at anv time. The attached letter (Exhibit G> from the Deputy State Fire Marshal furtner establishes the City’s authority to adopt ordinances equal to. in addition to. or more stringent than the Uniform Fire Code. Is (here a lued for a fire lane at this site? A number of reasons why a fire lane is needed at this location have been brought to staff's attention by various parties including the Police Chief, the Fire Department and the Building Inspection Department. These iiKlude: 1 The Fire Code requires unobstructed view of self service pumps to the employee work station in the building that numitors the pumps. 1 he fire laiK keeps \chicles from bliKking access the main public entrance/cxit b>r the building. Zoning File ^1882 November 5, 1993 Page 3 3. The Police and Building Inspectors have observed on many occasions vehicles parking in the area noted as fire lane on the original plan, hence the portable "No Parking - Fire Lane" sign cuixently in use has failed to the keep the fire lane clear, since it provides no dimension as to what area is or is not a fire lane. Staff would funher note that activity has increased over the years on this site due to the multiple use aspects, i.e. gas pumps, convenience store, car wash, and auto repair, to a point that customer vehicles in for service/repair are often parked double deep along the east lot line, and cars are often parked in areas not designated for parking stalls and not marked for that purpose. Building Official Lyle Oman, in his letter of August 31. 1993, indicated he would compromise by reducing the fire lane to 8’ x 50’ \\hich would allow an additional parking stall at either end of the front of the building. This apparently is not acceptable to the property owner. In response to a few of the comments made by Mr. O Sullivan at the Planning Commission meeting, staff would submit the following: In regards to the "requirement for a designated fire lane if he were 150’ off the road", that is an entirely different issue. The UFC requires a Fire Apparatus Access Rt)ad 20’ in width leading to any building located more than 150’ from a roadway meeting minimum standards. This has nothing to do with the fire lane issue at hand. While staff agrees w ithout question that enforcement of our codes must be fair, consi.stcnt and equal for all cases with similar conditions, it is staff’s opinion that conditions (i.e. normal level of activity) at O’Sullivans are significantly different from that at his immediate competitors. Staff Kecommendation .Staff would request that Council specifically review Exhibits J and K of the October 12 memo, which ere letters from the Mound Fire Department and Building Official Lyle Oman Further, pl-ase review the minutes of the October 18 Planmng Commission Three letters (E.xhibits D) were submitted by Mr O’Sullivan at the Planning Commission meeting Also attached are in-housc memos from Police Chief Sullivan to his staff regarding the O’Sullivan’s fire lane, included here at the request of Chict Sullivan. Finally, statf would ask CouiK'ilmembers to visit the site to gain a sense of the magnitude of activity occurring. In light of the P anning Commission recommendation and the tact that Chief Sullivan was not involved in the ini'ial review in IQ87 that established this fire lane, staff would recommend this fire lane be re-evaluated by the Police Chief in consulution with the Fire Chief and Building Official \ ■ . "Vv' ;.*• .•• V * ^-fv--i'-^4:^ MINUTES OF THE O^.ONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 to make improvements. Lindquist stated that if the situation was to improve, more trees would be required. Fisher stated the project could become quite costly. Schroeder responded that. "With all due respect, cost was not a relevant consideration since the situation was avoidable. The goal now is to do the right thing for the City and protect the lake. Lindquist asked what would be a reasonable amount of plantings to replace what was destroyed. Gjffron su2gested the landscaper, Dale Gustatson, would be able to help resolve that issue. Peterson stated that the Planr ing Commission was being asked to consider the after-the-fact variance, not plan for the restoration. Schroeder indicated a restoration plan was included so may need consideration. Nolar did not want to accept the plan as submitted. Smith added she would like to see a combination of larger trees and unuerstory to come close to restormg the area as it was. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Nolan, to deny Application ^1884 for OrvUIe Fisher, 475 Oxford Road, for an after-the-fact variance related to clear cutting in the restricted 0- zone. Staff is directed to work with the Fisher’s landscape engineer to develop a plan that would compensate for the large trees taken out and to plant understory so as to duplicate or improve what existed prior to the clear cutting. This plan should be complete pnor to the next Council meeting so the plantings can be done as soon as possible this fall. Ayes 6, nays 0. Hui.- commented that the Hennepin Soils office has criteria that has been established on a buffer strip that may be helpful. am ^ISS2 JOHN M. O’SULLIVAN/O’SULLIVAN’S 2420 SHAD^'WOOD ROAD - COl^I^ERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW HE/VRING 10:15 P..VI. - 10:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. - PLTBLIC John O’Sullivan was present. and mark the fire lane. The property owner feels he should not be requireu to do _ application is essentially a request for an amendment to the commercial site plan pp previously. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO.>LMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 Schroeder asked why this application was before the Planning Commission. Gaffron explained that it is part of the appeal process stated in the Code when the applicant does not want to comply with City requirements. Because Mound is a contract city, the appeal process is to the City Council, not to the State Fire Marshal. O’Sullivan gave a summary of his position on how this situation came about. He noted in February of 1988 he was given a permit that stated he complied with all conditions. He indicated there never has been any striping or signage indicating a tire lane and he has operated 5 1/2 years without these. O’Sullivan continued dial on July 15, 1993 an Orono police officer tagged one of O’Sullivan’s emplovees for parking a motorcycle in the storefront, and that the employee told the oflicer that other Officers have stopped at the station and said they would not tag anyone for parking there and it wasn’t a legal lire lane. O’Sullivan noted that the citation ended up being revoked but it became an issue" with the Chief, and this resulted in a letter from Stephen Sullivan, Chief ot Police, to O’Sullivan, dated July 28, 1993. (O’Sullivan gave copies ot this letter to Planning Commission members.) O’Sullivan’s response, in a letter dated August 10, 1993 to Steve Sullivan, included the statement ”1 am not aware of anv officers parking in our lire lane and my mght managers nave also conlirmed this. ’We do not have a legal fire lane and only consider the area directly in tront of our entrance/exit doors a No Parking area. O’S dlivan indicated he sent the letter to the Chief because they sit on the board together on a monthly basis, and he assumed that the letter he sent would not be shared with the officers. He stated he felt the officers were getting some "unfair heat". He noted Liat he also copied the letter to the Orono Police Officers Union representative so they wou'J know O Sullivan s feelings on the matter. O’Si'llivan continued that this lead to an interoffice memo dated August 9 from Officer Tomcheck to Chief Sullivan regarding the re.search he did as to whether O’Sullivan s had a tire lane. Apparently Tomcheck concluded that there is no code for it or no need for a fire lane. O'Sullivan stated the next event was a meetmg in late August on O there w^ Marshal Jerrv Babb, Officer Tomcheck and O’Sullivan. He noted duit Babb stated no code mandating a fire lane and it was ludicrous to impose it on O’Sullivan as did not have fire lanes, and Babb told O’Sullivin it would only be enlorced ^ a fire lane. Babb concluded by saying that if 'he City- required JJ^rnr^that al it would have to be enforced with every other t usincss in Orono. O Sullivan i that point, he did not think there was any further issue. MEVLTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 O’Sullivan continued that later Lyle Oman, Orono Building Official, met with him with the original site plan stating that the fire lane was part of the original resolution and must be enforced. O'Sullivan felt that his customers who had been parking in this area for the past 5 1/2 years would be upset when they were cited for parking in that area. O'Sullivan indicated that on approximately September 25, he had a phone conversation with Jerry Babb regarding the past issues and asked Babb for a wrinen letter conlmning the fact that no fire lane was necessary. On October 5, O'Sullivan received a letter from the Mound Fire Chief regarding the designation of a fire lane. There was nothing in the letter diat said anything about a City or State code that would require the fire la.ie. The letter was signed by the Fire Cliief cad two Fire Marshalls, one of them being Jerry Babb. He questioned who had caused these people to change their minds but did not call eit.her one or uiem. O'Sullivan noted he then talked with some members of uie Orono Council as he expected ‘Uttber problems over this issue. On September 24 he filed this application with the City since he didn t loiow how else to proceed. O’Sullivan then distributed to the Planning Commission a letter, dated October 18. 1993, to John O’Sullivan from Officer Tomcheck who could not be at the Planning Commission meeting. O’Sullivan quoted from Officer Tomcheck’s letter: "Mr. Oman said that there could be noted he confimied that with Don Bryxe. Mound Fire Chief. He also wanted Bryce to e.xplam why he needed a fire lane for "life safety" because he felt they had a very safe facility. O’Sullivan stated that on October 18 he talked with the State Fire Marshal s Office who stated that if he were 150’ off ot the road, a designated fire lane would be required. He has three access points and is less than 150’ off the road so there is no issue with that. Peterson noted tiiat the 1987 building permit application and variance did require a fire lane. he never had a legal fire lane since it was improperly imposed by Tom Jaco s. O’Sullivan closed with the following points: 1. They have gone over 5 years without a fire lane. u . 2. He contends they never had a fire lane because Tom Jacobs did not ave authority to impose one on the site plan. 3. The plan was not approved by the Mound Fire Department. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4. 5. 6. 7. Immediate competitors do not have fire lanes. He feels he is being discriminated against with a required fire lane smce other businesses do not have this requirement. Surrounding communities do not require fire lanes, including Wayzata. Plymouth, Shorewood, Tonka Bay, and E.xcelsior. Pictures were passed around of neighboring businesses that do not have designated fire lanes. but bv Mike Palm, one of the Fire Marshals. tT, “• r—- overlooks the gas pumps. Peterson asked if O’Sullivan had ever received a registered letter from the Chief of Police of Orono stating that a fire lane was required on the property. O’Sullivan responded that he ha not. Peterson then asked Gaffron to look at Orono Code Section 9.34, Section 7 (C) wtere * discussion about the Fire .Marshall and the Mound Fire Chief. Peterson quoted. The Ch Police is herebv empowered to order the esublishment. designation and maintenance of '“-s on public or prf vate^operty wherever and to whatever estent as he may determine is «“OMbly necessarv to ensure open and unobstructed emergency access. In this ‘'f Chief (not the Fire Chief) may confer with and accept the recommendations of the Buildi^ Official or the Fire Chief of the applicable Fire Service District. The Fire Lane O^er stall ta in wnting and shall be served in person or by registered letter upon the prope^ fl,, has record " Peterson suggested that this states it is not the Fire Chief but the Police Chief J m^right t“nate'L fire lane, and asked why the Chief of Police tad not wntten such a letter. O’Sullivan noted that Chief Sullivan tad not taken the issue up with him but had let others deal with the problem. Schroeder thought the requirement for fire lanes would have to be consistent and should no. be anniied incotisistentlv to the detriment of the business owner. MEVUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 Schroeder asked if a 16’ section of white striping would solve this matter. O’Sullivan responded that it would for the Fire C’.iief. Schroeder stated this appears to be an issue that the Fire Chief and Police Chief must sort out and resolve. It was moved bv Peterson, seconded by Berg, to refer the issue of fire lanes to Council and the Chief of Police for his opinion reaarding Section 9.34 ot Section 7 (C) and determination if, m fact, there is a need for a fire laie or not. Schroeder added that all other similar simations should also be reviewed. Ayes 6, nays 0. O’Sullivan asked if the municipality had the dght to supersede Minnesota Fire Codes. Schroeder stated that would require the City Attorney ’s opinion. 3025 WATORTOW n '^R oST^^^ ' SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR PROPOSED SUBDFVISION - NO ACTION REQUIRED Dick Putnam (Tandem Properties), Jim Deanovic (Peter Andrea Company). Mark Gronberg (property owner) and Robert Hare (broker from Burnett Realty) were present. Gaffron explained this was a sketch plan review for development of 130 acres at Old Crystal Bay Road and Watertown Road. Some concerns to be considered are access issues, wetlands, trails and the historic significance of the property. Putnam explained that on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road is consisting of approximately 62 acres. The Dickey property, on the south side of Watert^n Road is about 68 acres and contains a large arena and the site of the "Ancient Ones . The Dickey property is basically farm land with the e.xception of the old homestead where there are trees and the arena. The Coffm property has a number of fields with some forests and a number of wetland areas. When the property was bought, the City did not show any wetlands on the map. Other agencies define these wetland areas differently. Putnam stated the plan connects the two properties by continuing the existing public road from Old Crystal Bay Road to Willow Drive. The developers have ulked lo the Orono Park Commission. There are two plans included m the Planning Commission packet, one designed before the Park Commission mce g after an on-site visit. Approximately 3 1/2 acres have been identified as part of ±e historic site including the bam. ty'A. c //- CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay» MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE ^1882 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: October 27. 1993 TO:John O’Sullivan 8047 Ranchview Lane Maple Grove. MN 55311 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Commercial Site Plan Review DATE OF MEETING:10/18/93 VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGALNST Planning Commission recommended that Council refer this matter to the Orono Chief of Police per Municipal Code Section 9.34, Subd. 7 (C). copy attached. Further, that all similar situations be reviewed by the Police Chiet. No recommendation was forthcoming as to the validity of the 1987 commercial site plan review fire lane requirement, nor to the appropriate dimensions, it any, tor such fire lane. Applicant’s exhibits (letters of 7-28-93. 8-10-93 and 10-18-93) will be included in the packet for Council review. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confinned as City Council on Monday, November 8. 1993; meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Isv J •u 5 9.34 ensuring imnediate unobstructed access for emer^ y equipment. A. fire Hydrants. Whether °\ “n^fvate' fire lanes are hereby established at all feet on either hydrants, which fire lanes shall extend ten ilO) side of the hydrant and twenty (20) feet in front of the euro pavement edge nearest the front of the hydrant. B. Building Exits. «>’®ther matKed^or^ujijn^^^ fire lanes are hereby established at all build ' shall extend the Fire Code or State Building Code, which fire ten (10) feet in all direction from saia ^ marked aslanes are required, they ®hall be establ sheu and oarKea provided in Subparagraphs C or 0 of this oubdi/ maintenance of fire lanes on public - necessary and to whatever extent as he may determine is Ynis deter- to ensure open and unobstructed emergency , accent the mination, the Police Chief ™®'/ t recommendations of the Building Officia orders shall be in applicable Fire Service District. Pi®®.''®"® “fn/red letter unon waiting and shall be served i" Person or commercial the prooerty owner of recoid, or in the nmoertv prlperties, Ly be served upon the tenant occupying the property. Subd. 3. Fite Lane Standards. The iee and extent of required :ee"fand" ^nflgi^f- Chief in consideration of the particular acc m,rid#»d and desiq- -^d° f ifast^^ i'lSi-STr‘u^c%e'd- cattyinu a vehicle axle loading of 5 tons (10,000 pounds). ' ’d t^ be ''e%"t%bn!sherpu™f to'^slb/iv/sfon^?: c®K "®^rra°Jh3°C or D one or more permanent upright metal signs Shall be determined by the Police Chief. A When the fire lane is located on u- r iaht-of-way, the required signs shall be ejected by the City cr by the public agency having jurisdiction over the property. ORONO CC 222 (4-1-84) bL.. m « « .V- %/■ \ \ / »yy •*' • * •’ • ? t * • ; \ • O j/ j / /;. i.~i > • ■/ i / tm. c>-/ la:^e ^I4gu9r u>, * *1* '.'* •■' * C ^ ST.9VA itu I 11 V9n t^rono PoMre Cni9T Orono Poi>r.9 tmpt. P»> Sox 8h t;ry9t9l Say, mn Sf^A2^ r' ^ ^ # J ^ : I ■ y uoar Stove; Artor reaaipg your letter to ine oateo 7/2S/Si, [ tnougnt ic t«ouid be appropriate to reapona to you ano your otricers. witoin a year of opening our etore, m ^eo/SH, I aa»<eo rormeo Coief, Me I Ktino IT IT. wouio ne aii rigor to ofrer me or-icer.a tree beverages at wy oiisinees. Me eaio yea ano moicateo toe offioer® woulo appreciate toe geatiire. we nave never to my Knnwieoge given tnem anytning except tree beverages. _ _ _ ___ _ __ — -- - - - - - -- I am not aware or any otficers parxing in our nre lane ano my nignt managers nave also confirmeo tms. we oo not nave a legat tire lane ano only ccnsioer' tne area directly m front of our entrance/exit ooore a NO Parking area. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ tn regaros to otficers spencmg excessive time in my store on unomciai oreaKs, 1 can omy give you my observation. During tne day, ditterent otTicers stop in for a beverage ano are usually in ano out Cjuicxiy. sometimes customers wiii asK tnem questions ano occasionally I oo, ano tney are a«ways courtsous to reply, wmcn i believe is gooo public relations. Its up to you ano not me to oetermine if tnat is inapprop- Tnere .ar« also times wnen £ m sure tney taxe an ofticia* breax ano sit oown ano eat, wmcn some people mignt misconstrue as unofticia*. I I iii i'. I • 'i. I nave pnsteo your tetter ano asxeo my casniers to comply. Tms nss been a very open policy wmcn nas been going on tor over five years. I was a bit euipr^aeo to reao that it nao omy recently -come to your attention. ■:4 -1 rour lATTwr gave me tne imprsssion tnat someone mignt oe giving you a oistorteo view OT wnat raaiiy nas been taxing p»ace."•ft I I woii 1 o oe giao to oiscus-s tms witn voii Turtner it yotJ tael it's • sppropnars. ___________" ^ tj Sincerely , ■’H .f-m .wi 1 jonn o Su•iIvan O Sullivans Texaco cc: pniir.a irrir.er s unior» representative % 1 W JPollce DepaFtinneiit f > • . I«. " • 4>! • C' C lllrl l*>ii|i r> I*«'Nt B<»v Kf) OnnI.iI Ha\. \1N ' " l\l' ^ nr.-. M\ 4''"'iO 'p Kincr^cPi. \^:io f IX ^ 1 ><; ‘MI July 28, 1993 , D>“2L Mr. Tom O'Sullivan O'Sullivan's Texaco ~ 2420 Shadywood Road Navarre, MN 55392 Re: Free beverages and snacks prohibited Dear Tom: Our department has a policy that prohibits my officers from accepting free beverages and snacks. It has recently come to my attention that your employees have been giving f ree beyeraLges_ to jny. . officers who come in to take a break at your store. ' Further, it appears that some oFt"Rem~park their squads in your fire lane and spend excessive time in your store on unofficial breaks. I appreciate the support that you have shown our department over the years. I know you mean no harm nor do you expect any favors in exchange for the free beverages that you give my officers. However, there is a concern with the public perception of any impropriety by my officers, "it looks bad' to hav^“the ofrTc^ers'Tak'e excessively long brealcs, to park in the fire lane, and accept any free beverages or snacks. _ - - - -— ^ Please instruct your staff not to give my officers anything for free. This is important because I don't want my officers to be tempted to violate a department pciicy bv' one of your employees who is just trying to be nice. I have enclosed a copy of a memo to my officers to give you additional insight into this problem. Thank you in advance for your help. Cordially, Stephen X. Sullivan Chief of Police SX3:cjh .. ^yz.' • D -3 // 10-18-93 John O'Sullivan, Proprietor O'Sullivans Gas Mart 2420 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Mr. O'Sullivan: During the July 26, 1993 Orono Police Department meeting, one of the subjects discussed was the alleged fire lane in front of O'Sullivans (Texaco Station) in Navarre. It is only marked by one movable sign indicating a fire lane. The question was "is it legal and why is it there?" I was given permission by Chief Sullivan to follow up on this matter. The following was related to Chief Sullivan via memo on August 9, 1993. I talked with Mound Fire Chief Don Bryce via phone. He thought a fiI"© lane in front of a gas station was ridiculous. Fire Chief Bryce went on to say that if there was a fire at a gas station, that only an idiot would pull a fire rig next to the building on top of all that gas. I met with Mound Fire Marshall Jerry Babb at O'Sullivans and he too agreed with Chief Bryce. Fire Marshall Babb said there is no clear cut definition of a fire lane in state codes. He showed me the 1991 Uniform Fire Code, 79.903 paragraph J, line 5, which says "the dispensing device shall be in clear view of the attendant at all times and obstacles shall not be placed between the dispensing cj©vices and the attendant". Fire Marshall Babb also said that with all the new safety devices that are now mandatory, that chance of any major fire at the pumps is unlikely, and that it is the owner of the property or by city ordinance that would dictate a "no parking" area. I met with Public Works Director, John Gerhardson, in person and talked with Building Inspector, Lyle Oman and neither could produce a city ordinance requiring a fire lane for O'Sullivans to me. Mr. Oman said that there could be something in the building plans, but said to me that Tom Jacobs, the former building inspector, may have placed a fire lane on the building plan, but he is unauthorized to do so. After researching this, I drove to several gas stations within the City of Orono. I drove by the Amoco Station, Martins 66, the Crystal Bay 76 Station, and the gas station located at the Orono Shopping Center on Highway 12, and none of these gas stations have a fire lane posted. I hope this letter will help you in your discussions tonight at the Orono Planning Commission meeting. Sincerely, < 1 <i. ' Larry Tomcheck /! Date: To: From: Subject: July 28, 1993 All Officers All Police Reserve Officers All Community Service Officers Chief Sullivan Review of Policy as discussed at July 26 1993 Department Meeting /'-i 300.21 APPEARAHCB OP IMPROPRIETY Department personnel shall avoid actions which give the appearance of impropriety. 300.22 SOLICITATIOM AND ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS Officers and civilians shall not under any circumstances solicit any gift, service, gratuity, loan, fee, discount, or anything of value arising from or offered because of police employment or any activity connected with said employment. Officers and civilians shall not accept any gift, service, gratuity, loan, fee or anything of value, the acceptance of which might tend to influence directly or indirectly the actions of said officer or civilian in any matter of police business; or might tend to cast an adverse reflection on the department or any officer or civilian thereof. This rule also includes the acceptance of free meals, snacks, or beverages or partial discounts when the discount is duty or department connected. These two department •:>; icies seem very clear and explicit to me. However, it recent? ,- c. me to my attention that some officers were accepting f^** snacks or beverages at O'Sullivans and the Spur station in Spring Park. Therefore, I felt it was necessary to discuss the issue at the department meeting. At the department meeting, I said several things that I want to reiterate in this memo. 1. Unless responding to an emergency call, no officer is to park their squad car in the fire lane at O'Sullivans or anywhere else for that matter. /// 2. No officers are to accept free pop, coffee, or food from O'Sullivans, the Spur station, or anywhere else. For clarity, that also means any discounts (unless the general public has the sane opportunity) and this prohibition applies to restaurants located in cities outside of our jurisdiction. 3. If any officers accepts free food or beverages at these locations after the department meeting, the probable discipline would be stronger that a written reprimand.* 4. If any officer has any doubts whether or not a gift or discount is proper, the officer should ask me directly so i^at there is no unintentional violation of these department policies. * Depending upon the circumstances, I probadbly would seek to impose a one day suspension against any patrol officer and a three day suspension against any supervisor who violates this policy or has direct knowledge that a subordinate has violated this policy and fails to take proper action to investigate and initiate disciplinary action against the subordinate officer. Date: To: From: Sxibject: August 12/ 1993 All Officers Chief Sullivan Fire Lane Enforcement After some checking by Officer Tomcheck/ it appears that the '•fire lane" at O'Sullivans Texaco is not a legally designated fire lane. The area is considered a "no parking area" by the owner who put the sign there to discourage customers from parking in that area. 'j’hQreforS/ no officer shall issue any tickets to any citizen who pai')(g ix vehicle in that area. AlsO/ no officer shall park a sguad car in that area as that sets a bad example to the public. DATE:9-1-93 TO: FROM: SUBJECT All Officers Chief Sullivan O'Sullivans fire lane Contrary to rumor and incomplete fire lane at O'Sullivans, it was designated a fire lane by council resolution. Therefore, it is a valid fire lane. This memo is intended to clarify our policy. Our policy will be:1. No officer shall park a squad car in the fire lane once it is marked as described in the letter from Lyle Oman to John O'Sullivan dated 8-31-93. 2. Officers shall give verbal warnings to any driver who has parked in the fire lane. 3. Tickets will be issued only in response to a request from an employee of O'Sullivans for an unattended vehicle which was left in the fire lane. 4. Or, officers may issue a ticket if a citizen refuses to move the .ehicle after they have received the verbal warning and request by the officer to move it. iP A? O i ^ V 4^ dcM' ^ ^ ^ Cv\i" vvv VkIw { O- f>o\\ fVV-^ 1 \ ^ S'- CV/ TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator October 12. 1993 0 F 7-'^-'7 2 SUBJECT: i<^1882 John O’Sullivan, 2420 Shadywood Road - Commercial Site Plan Review - Public Hearing Application Request to eliminate designated fire lane at front of convenience store. List of Exhibits A • Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List v D - Survey F - Resolution #2229 G - Referenced Site Plan H - Pertinent City Code Sections 1 - Pertinent State Fire Code Sections J - 10/5/93 Letter from Mound Fire Department K 8/31/93 Letter from Lyle Oman Pertinent Code Section Section 9.34. Subdivision 4 (D) - Authorizes the Building Official to coordinate enforcement of the Fire Code with enforcement of the Stale Building Code and Zoning Chapter. Section 9.34, Subdivisions 7-11 - Define fire lane requirements. Summary This property was the subject of a commercial site plan review in 1987 which resulted in Resolution #2229. approving a conditional use perm** variances and commercial site plan approval for major remodeling on the site A fire lane between the building and the gas pumps was required on the approved plan referenced in the resolution. That fire >ane was never striped, and after observing for a number of years that traffic and parking on the site has increased and that traffic generally has ignored the single Tire lane" sign adjacent to the building, and after receiving a request from the Orono Police that this be Zoning File /I^1882 October 12. 1993 Page 2 resolved, the building inspector wrote a letter to Mr. O’Sullivan regarding the requirement to stripe the fire lane. The applicant is requesting that the striping not be required and the fire lane eliminated. Authority for Fire Lane Requirement The City adopted the State Fire Code in July 1979. and adopted Ordinance ^237 providing for the establishment and regulation of fire lanes, n May 1981. Those ordinances were recixlified as Section 9.34 of the Municipal Code in April 1984. Section 9.34, Subdivision 1 officially adopts the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code. Subdivision 4 provides that entorcement of the code is granted to and may be exercised by any or all of the following: A. Minnesota Stale Fire Marshal or his representative B. Chief of the Fire Depanment contracted to serve a given area C. Chief of the Orono Police Department or his officers D. The Orono Building Official or his representative. In their June 10, 1987 memo regarding this commercial site, Orono Building Official Thomas Jacobs and Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth indicated that fire lanes must be posted on the entire north side of the convenience center. The plan apparently was subsequently revised to show a fire lane approximately 64’ in length, 14 deep between the convenience store and the pump island. That plan showing the fire lane was approved by the City Council. The State Fire Code indicates that appeals to a fire code requirement shall be made to the local "Bi^ard of Appeals" and/or "local governing body" before they may be acted on by the State Fire Marshal In this case, the Planning Commission is acting as Board of Appeals, and the City Council is the liKal governing body City Rationale for Requiring Fire Lane 1 The Fire Code requires unobstructed view of self-serv ice pumps to the employee work station in the building that monitors the pumps 2 The fire lane provides an access corridor for emergency vehicles. Zoning File #1882 October 12. 1993 Page 3 3. The portable fire lane sign currently in use has failed to keep the fire lane clear, since it provides no dimension as to what area is or is not fire lane. 4. The Inspections Depanment has consistently required fire lanes in instances of new construction of similar uses. An example is the new Spur Station in Spring Park (for which Orono does building inspection) and which has a striped fire lane the length of the building. Furthermore, the Mound Fire Department is being consistent in requiring the striping, considering it has jurisdiction over the Spring Park Spur Station as well as the Super America in Mound, which has a 5' fire lane extending approximately 40’ along the tront of the building. It should be noted that the Building Official has not required retroactive striping of fire lanes for existine similar uses, but has only required the striping when a property is doing major upgrading. However, please be aware that the fire code allows the Fire Chief to order the establishment of fire lanes for any existing building as he may deem necessary. Letter from Mound Fire Department The letter dated October 5. 1993 from the Mound Volunteer Fire Department, signed by the Fire Chief and two Fire Marshals clearly indicates that the fire lane is required. It further suggests that permanent signs should be installed in place of the portable sign. Building Official’s Position Orono Building Official Lyle Oman has indicated that striping must extend 8’ out from the sidewalk a length of approximately 50 ’ (extending to either end of the concrete apron). This leaves one parking space along the front sidewalk at either end. and appears to be a significant compromise from the fire lane shown on the approved plan yet still maintaining the intent and integrity of the fire lane Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the request to eliminate the fire lane be denied, that the 8’x50’ area be required to be striped per Lyle Oman ’s letter of 8/31/93. and that the portable fire lane sign be replaced with permanent fire lane signs Mr O'Sullivan will likely be present at the Planning Commission meeting to sute his side of the is.sue Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final action ch CITY OP OROMO - GE*JERAL LAND USE APPLICA PROPERTY LOCATION #1 ■ ^ A" C *1 5 0 Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)!<rii <rcr-u Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ________________ APPLICANT Name C h,\' *r A\•j ' k i c, / I / ^ AddrGss rV Phone fhome) Phone fwork) _ _ _ City /i'J^A.rCfl^rL Zip OWNER (if different than applicant) Neune_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ Address Phone (home) Phone __ _ _ City _ _ _ Zip ?ndor?grn^tflfsrown t.e adjacent p.rceTi^f‘ WEBS “ CONDITIONAL OSE PERMITS - _ _ _ _ $ 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application $125.00 Residential accessory Use $175.00 Institutional (church# school# etc.) $150.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more lakeshore Grading# seawall# retaining walls within 75 of lakesn PRD/PID - see fee schedule Renewal Fee - $100.00 (no change from ^ ^ After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application OTHER APPLICATIONS $200.00__ _ _ _ Commercial Site Plan Review (♦ consultant fees) $250100 VacationEasement Vacation , Easement Vacation With Subdivision Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) Comprehensive Plan Amendment Appeals $175.00 $ 75.00 $300.00 $300.00 $100.00^ « w w ^ — - - - - — Other - see fee schedule PRESENT DSB OF PROPERTYPresent Zoning District Present Use of Property _ _ _ Residential _______ Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST ^ Describe request in detail: ~T'f4r htPy\. f P T ^ iT /''r {'.r/ I f >L'C F/n F LPt fi 'F /f C K C SS * fit f'^l" ( x f i f >ir 1 S ”• (. ^ c. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtai this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Governmen Center 348-3271). 3. Plat Map. 4. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor). 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 6. Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A NORXING COPY (11* X 17* OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. ■V w w w Me a* mb mb mm mm mm mm mm ^m ^m mm mm m» mm mm mm mm mm mm ^m ^m ^m Certification by Clerical Department t.hat Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff; Date APPLICANT*S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff tine not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses Incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her )cnowledge. Applicant's signature r L Date •/ /: Ul 6/OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. '-f!_________corner's signature A 4- <- <- V. Tt Date Applicant must have al^l submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building 6 Zoning Office of ♦'his change prior to the meeting. ^ 93 :</ VV. • r^ 2 V .» >* >Vi >;r^--‘ ‘^—-ai_ 9 V / % » . > A 4 /%• A \ ai^vn. V<r \ \> I ’2 \f i 1^Ny • 3 r 'If"I'0 V, I ! •‘ ♦»* #• 4 y ki M Mt al ,t««* I 4«0 / y s< ^v •^v 1 •'.«y l/t (*««J n <*vAWR * , COVC.v - ' i ^ (4**) V • • « nN «0. ’’P4^S(V'^ ^ V' y^'pfi^i ✓ <a J ^^-<'A^JCO^ P^Q 'y / ^S^o \ ^ \ 13») O, ?< (\^'\ • % > ✓ s V'•• . V < ->0 t #V V • • •< ( >■' x« -3 liiri OATf OS/|S/£SI (Ull 00 mioicpiH couuTf roopiRTY iMroRHATioM srsTtnPROPIRTy OU>»RS LIST RtPOMi in.PACC SI POP AOPR i.:.-:ip i:iiic tr: ntP i:-‘i:4/AC0R IS I7-1I7-TS OOOS 0)S<40 SlIORClllIt OR tRu’tii u n/Riiii I Wire u mRiiti 2501 LirAltnC RO UAflATA Hll SSIOI 70 17-1)7-25 0007TRCSIIKAICR BIOL RIS fOitJ) IRCSMUATCR DIO RIS MO 2S00 SiUOVLIOCO RO IIAVARRC MM SSISO- 50 17-117-21 OOMlAFATITTC RIOCC ItOMfOMtlRSLArAvmc RIOCC iionioioitRs 1700 M TARM ROAQ lOllG LAKE tot SS5SA ITPP AOOR C;.‘::iR MAltC lA/PAflR li/nC/ACDR so t0-ll7-;i 11 0002 o:a 20 smaoiwooo ro tOIACCUR SCRVICC CIMItRS VOiACClW SCRVICC CUIURS CO RO IS I If lUVAPRC MM SS502 50 20-117-21 II OOlS 02AAS SIIAOTUOOO RO 1ST lUU OAIIK or MAVARRC 1ST lUTL OAtK or MAVARRC CO ROAO IS A CO RCAO 19 lUVARKI MM SS192 10 20-117-21 II 0017 02<iSS tlUOTMOOO RO JARIDO IMC JARIDO IMCORPORATCO DOX AO MAVARRC MI) 55592 r?CiP AOOR C.n:tR IIAMC lAM AUR i;*.m:/;.oor 50 20-117-21 11 0010 0;«.SS SHft»lt.'033 RU PAUL n II.*SlUMO CTAl OR PAUL M CMSIUIU I OX to l.'AVARRC STATIOM *^>2 l.'.tCAlA 101 5S591 50 20-117-21 11 0024 05111 SHORlllMC DR MCI ICASCD PROPCRTT IMVCSTRS SUPCR VALUE SI ORES lliC COKru''Al| TAX DIP! P 0 rii.< 990 tins lui ss'iAo 10 20-117-21 I) 0020 02500 SIIAOTUOOO RO 1MI RCCIMTS OF me U OF n R C COOROIMATOO/ U OF M ROOM SOS MORRILL HALL 100 CliURCll SI SC MPLS tut S5455 f) m.r :rcp 1. !R 1; VaiIR l.*v.l/;i!»R TOTAL PAKH 002 00009 I CfPTlFT THAT THE FACTS RCPRCSCIfTCO ARC All ACCURATE AIF TRUE RCPRlStlltAT10!l OF IIIFOimATIOM AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE Jl THC RECORDS OF me HtICilPIM COUMTT OCPARIMLNT OF PROPfRTT TAXAIIOll, TO THC DCST OF MT M’.OllllOCC AID OfllCF. / 1 DATE >v|/ 1^1 0^2 0 CS5 r\\ I ^ I 'I'o m- i ‘^'ciJy I IORONC^ City of ORONO ftCSOLUTION OF THf CITY COUNCIL /d‘n -13 # • NO.2JL2. #•- • m • • . fv »• vVvV • • * A COMDXtXONAL OSN MOMSCXffAL lONXM SBCTXON i0.40» SOmVXStON 4 VAKIAIICBS TO 8KTX0N 10.40, SOWXTXOXON 0 III A VAAXAIICB TO SaCTION 10.01, MMOmOXCMI 10 AND m SKTXOn 10.40, OTOOmiXOfl 2 APPROVBS ms COMUOICIAL SITS FLAN AMD BUILDING PLAN APPI.JCAT10N PILB 1958 wiir^REAS, Vouyaaor Service Center* Inc. (hereinafter *thc applicant’ ) his .in interest in the property located at 2420 Shadywood Road 'Within the City of Orono (hereiriat ter "City") and legally described as lollcws: P.I.D.i 20-ll7«23 11 0002 Unplatted 20 1 17 2i: Comnencinq at a point in North line of Section 20 distance 1*761.42 feet East from North 1/4 corner thereof thence South at right angles to a point in Southerly line of County Moad No. 15 thence East along said road line 49.58 feet thence on a tOfiTOTitial curve to the left having a radius of 041.51 feet aistaneo 245.43 feet thence South 23 degrees 10 minutes West to center line of County Rood No. 19 thence Northwesterly along said center line to North lino of Covernsient Lot 1 thence East to beginning except road Secticn 17 end Hennepin County* Minnesota (hereinafter "property*)} end wnBRBAS, the applicant has made application to tha City of Oronc to permit the expansion of the existing full service station uao por ruction 10.4C* Subdivisior 4 (D)* per Section 10.40* Subdivision 4 (B) to grant a right side street setback variance of 15* or 42% whoro 25 foot is required and q left side rtrcct setback variance of 4* or 23% whoro one# again a 35 feet setback is tequired* por Section 10.41* Subdivision 10 to grant an off-street parking v.iriance of 3 stalls or 12% where 24 stalls aro f'^rutred bared on the proposed use level of the property and por Soction !?.10* Subdivision 2 sc^k! approve of the commercial Site plan and building rl.in for -i mixed jne f.^i'-ility cenr.ir.ting of a convenience storo/ful 1 service staticn/car wash. *• nne'-t'*.-^: NOW* THFREPORB, RE IT HEf^OLVEO by the City Council of Orono* FINDINGS 1. This applir'»*’cr rr^virwoi ,^r. .'cning Pile 1958. 2. The property i r. in th' h-1. Retail Tales Rusincss Zoning Pit r ii't . rage 1 of 5 City of ORONO L tiry] I f)f ■ I RONO J MtOLUTMN 0» THf OTf COUML Na_i221_—. */ t V w *r * . > .«• t ^ - . ' 3.Th« property ia approaiaataly » •‘At The B-1 toning Diatrict raquiraa 20«Q00 a*f* in af«a. 4. The . . .. j relax site pli *» ^orono Manning Coanilasloa r#Mai»#d tliia a»pH«aM w . 15. X»I7, and •£2i**?i,*L!J^if2T12ffcSri2i*iS5iparaiit. varlaneaa and tha e^relal alt* ^ JJJ by JflCk W#X®h •fid A##OCi#k#Ba Til# approved the variancea to the required aide/atreet aetbaek of 3S f b&aed on the folloving hardahipai a) Th»» narrow shape of the let at the northwest corner of the property; b) The Hennepin County Department of Transportation for additional right-of-way along the lot lines of this severely limited corner of the property; c) The location of the existing service station/garage on the property; And approved a parking stall variance of 3 stalls where 2# aro -equired baaed on the following findings: a> Ten additional parking stalls art availabl e at gas dispensing aisles for r:*jick sales - convenience store cuatonersi b) Pour additional stalls aro available for service bay area of servico garage. cars served within !i. The City Council finds that the eo.iditiona eais g w this pr _ rorty are peculiar to it and do not apply general lyvw othnrpragw^ in this toning district; that granting the variancea adversaly affact traffic conditions* light* air nor pose a fXre aaaaiw or other danger to neighboring properties; would not Mrely anrvnnnn convenience to the applicant* but is necessary to a 1 lovlaton ewaien* rtrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preaervo a aenecamriea property right of the applicant; and would be in ’e^PlM JrJ r.pirit and intent of the Honing Code and Comprehensive rise or smw ity r. C» ty Counci 1 finds that granting a conditional use pemlt tn allow the expansion of the full service station will not ^ rictnmental to the health* safety or lencra 1 wolfaro of tho punAAC, would not adversely affect light* air nor pose a fire hasard oroww .'ingf'r to neighboring properties, no* will it depreciate aurroe^i^ rro^erty values and that the proposed level of use of tbo prepwr^ will ho in lie**ping '^/ith the intent and objectives of the 2ooing cowe .ird Coerreheasive r*an of the City. rage 2 of 5 i \ V-I r IT Y (..) F U) N •J City of ORONO RtSOLUTION TMf CITV COUlUCIt • • • . k % B«««d upon en« or aoro of tho obooo findia^» tM Coonei 1 horoby Otofito totbocli etty Io.40**SoMi7ioV<M'V lil^ offotroot porkiof vo/ioooo tobdivision 10 snd psr Soetion 10«40« SoMivisioo 4 <>> • oofiditionsl «so porait for tho oaponsion of tho osistiaf fall aaavioo otntion uso snd por Soetion lO.Ol* Sohdivision 10 sppravoo tho osMStaiol Pits and building plans per drawings by Jack Welsh and Associotos os folloess a) b) c) Site plan* 8C-018 revised 6/30/B7; Floor plan and building elevations* 05-018 dated 0/30/07• Canopy elevations* dra%m by S*M* dated 7/10/07 and revised for tho Council's review at their Meting of July 27* 1987; snd subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuing a building permit or general permits for tho imprcvement of the property based on the plans noted sbevo* tho following must be submitted to the City: a) Updated survey by licensed/registored surveyor locotiof now County right-of-««ay and proposod iaproveaonts; b) Logal doscripvion of tho right-of-way to bo dosdod by ^alt- claim dood as an eascMnt - County may create logal dooeription for said easement. e) Payment for SAC charges and sewer unit to be dctermimod by the City upon final review of %»orking plans. 'U Csecution of a Developers Agreement to insure that landscaping is restored in all disturbed areas* repaving of all disturbed areas* installation of curbs and gutters and drainage structure if required by the M.C.w.D. e) Letter of Credit in an amount equal to 1501 of the required improvements set forth in Item 0 above. Working drawings to be submitted with building permit application must be signed by an architect and an engineer licensed within tho State of Hinnesota. The entire structure shall be serviced by a sprinkler system . Appendix C of the State Ouilding Cofle snd the drive or the nortk oido of tho building posted an a *Fire Lane*. Page 3 of 5 1 city of OBiCWSO I '■' J MiSOLUTION OP TMf CITY COUNCIL NO.« ' i - - s 4* Ji p«rNit frow th# City !■ r«N.alr«d for ifittailotion of undorpround poa tonko. tho ftoto Itaifora rivaOMO •tondards aiull apply for both tho raMOval# rolooatioo and plooiaant of undarproimd tanka. S. Tho undoraianod* aa authorltod aponta of Vooyapor Soroi^ lnc*« haroby aqroo on behalf of thonaolrea* their hoiro» oooooooora and aaaipna to cloae off either one or both aeeooooo oloooob to tho intersection of County toads 15 and 15 upon docuwenftion and verification by the City of Orono or the Hennepin County Oepartaant of Transportation that accidents (personal injury and/or property dsNape) fi^ve occurred resulting froe tho use of the subject acceoaea or aa a result of a potential increase in use of the proposed ripht tom lane to be installed by Hennepin County and tnat the undersipned further apree to close off the accesses within 10 days of verification with written notice by the City of Orono or the County of Hennepin. s. Authorities pranted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must bo enoreiaod by application for a buildinp permit within one year of tho date of Council approval* or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (July 27* 1900)• 7. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and condi­ tions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the soninp code* shall automatically terminate any authority pranted heroin* and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 0. The undersicned applicants have read* understood and hereby apree to the terms of this rea'^'ution and on behalf of themselves* their heirs* successors and assigns* hereby apree to the recordinp of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the orono City Council on this 27th day of July* 1907. 1 •• \ Ja^s k. Grabeir* Nayor * • John O'Sullivan Page 4 of 5 km rMOval and hitorm Wtwm Cod* Irs* sttceasaors I claaaa^ to tho fuoontotlon and ty DaportMAt nf property deoe^e) leceesee or as a rioht turn lane rsipned further rification with lennepin. ;he property not be exereiaed by of the date of resolution will eras and condi* m of the aoning ited herein^ and and hereby agree easelveSf their ecording of this ly of July* 198 i tf V .•'- ‘ V' '-Ssr i :*»'.■»»__'•?<"'■ i___<UkJyEA toma n&i so.fStCITT or OftCIIO P.O. Box €6 Crysta ’ Bay, MH Nonci or puii55323 473-7357 Data of Notieof €/l€/97TOt Erwin Smith507 Park Lana Lonq Laka, MN 55356 conn fOt John o*8ttUiraa507 Park LanaLong Laka* Ml 5935frm or ArPLXCkTZOSt XX VarlaneaXX Commercial Sita Plan kavlawDATS or ITIIWi 6/15/87 voTBt 5 for 1 AgainatPlanning Ceamianion ra<tnda tha folloaingtXX Approval subject to conditions noted below Nonts AMO SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Prior to the July 13, 1 987 Council meeting, the following should be submitted to staff by July 2, 1987; 1. Amended site pl^n designating the following: a) Redefine car wash lanes; b) Define traffic flow - locate traffic signs, car wash aiale control; c) Submit redesign of building with increased parking stalls; d) Show newly defined right-of-way at northwest corner; e) Show fire lane on north side of convenience store (confirm height of canopy - minimum height 13*6"); 2. Information on car wash. 3. Support material on traffic count at peak nours. 4. Hours of operation - days of operation. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from t‘'» City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. SBC. 9.34. FIRE PROTECTIOH AND PREVENTION. S 9.34 ‘j£_ /C Subd. 1. Minnesota Uniform Fire Code uniform Fire Code, 1982 Edition set forth verbatim herein. One copy CITY OF ORONO - OFFICIAL COPY and kept on file in the the City Clerk and open to inspection and use by the Minnesota as though be marked office of public. Subd. 2. Fire Code Amendments. As authorized by the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, the following amendment, to the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code are hereby adopted for the City. A. Restrictions on Flammable or Combustible Liquid storage. Prohibited Districts Established. to MOFC Sections 79.501 and 79.1001, the Council her«hy all land located within the following specified districts to be the districts within which the storage combustible liquids in aboveground tanks P^hibited. R lA^ R-IB, RR-lB-1, RS, LR-IC, LR-lC-1, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, M 6 and PRD. 2 Aboveground Tank Locations. In those districts not included in Item 1 above, the storage of flammable or combustible liquids in aboveground tanks is permitted n“s are located in conformance with MUFC Sections 79.50 1 and 79.1001, and with the following; (a) No such tank shall be located in any required front yard space as defined in the Zoning Chapter. (b) No such tank shall be located within 50 feet of any side or rear property line. (c) No such tank shall oe located within -re rtf Anv lake wetland, stream or drainageway unless such link il dikId in accordance with MUFC Section 79.508. The minim^ setback Jor a diked tank shall be 30 feet from the lake, wetland. Stream or drainageway. CO. e - y' ORONO CC 219 (4-1-84) 5 9.343. Underground Tank Locations. The storage of flammable or combustible liquids in underground tanks shall be permitted in any district in accordance with MUFC Section 79,601 and with the following:(a) No such tank shall be located under any required front yard space as defined in the Zoning Chapter. (b) No such tank shall be located within 10 feet of any side or rear property line. (c) No such tank shall be located within 30 feet of any lake, wetland, stream or drainageway. B. Restrictions on Liquified Petroleum Gas Storage. Pursuant to MUFC Section 82.105, the Council hereby declares all land within the City, except for land zoned I-Industrial, to be the district within which no liquified petroleum gas storage installa ­ tion shall exceed 2,000 gallon water capacity for any one property; and the Council further declares that no liquified petroleum gas storage installation over 500 gallon water capacity shall be located in any required front, side, rear or lakeshore yard as defined in the Zoning Chapter, but shall conform to all setback requirements for principal buildings. C. R«'str ictions on Explosive and Blasting Agent Storage. Pursuant to MUFC Section 77.106(b), the Council hereby declares all land within the City to be the district in which storage of explosives and blasting agents is prohibited. Subd. 3. Definitions. Wherever the words or terms are used in this Section, the Fire Code or the Fire Marshal Division alterations and amendments, they shall have the following meanings: A. "Building Official" means the person appointed by the Council to administer and enforce the State Building Code. B. "Chief" means the Chief of the Fire Department which has contractual jurisdiction in each respective Fire Service District, or his authorized representative. C. "Corporation Counsel" means the Attorney for the City. D. "Jurisdiction or Municipality" means the City as a whole, and also that part of the City corresponding to each separate Fire Service District. Subd. 1. Enforcement. Authority for enforcement is hereby granted to and may be exercised by any or all of the following persons: A, The Minnesota State Fire Marshal, or his authorized representative. ORONO CC 220 (4-1-84) S 9.34 . • and for fire scene command. C. The Chief of the Police f' .'’j,® officers. The Police Chief shall be responsible enforcement policy and activities between the p service Districts and between the Fire Chiefs and the Building Official. D. The Building Official or his representative. The Building of the coordinating enforcement of the Fire Code State Building Code and the Zoning Chapter of the Clt/ <-ooe. Subd. 5. Permits and Fees. A. Wherever the Fire Code or this a permit, applications for said permit shall be oermit ing Official with all information required, and f.F ^itv application fee as fixed and determined in accordance with City Code Section 1.05. Application fees shall be non-refundable. B. The Building Official shall refer all Fire Code permit applications to the Fire Chief of the vice District who shall perform required i ^eimnw L The Fire Chief shall upon request by the Building written report to the Building Official prior to perm C. All fire Code permits shall be ^^® Building Official upon the advice of the Fire 5^®^ c! re’Chief such conditions of approval as may be required by except that fireworks permits pursuant to issued issued by the Police Chief. One such copy of all permits so issued shall be delivered to the Fire Chief for his record. D. No Fire Code permit shall be issued if said permit would authorized an activity or use .P^^fwJ crate structures contrary to any provision of the Fire Code, Building Code or the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. Subd. 6. New Materials. The City Administrator, Police Chief, Building Official and the Chief of every Flre^partme t protecting a Fire Service District of the ^ity shall as a committee to determine and specify, after giv ^ q- persons ar opportunity to be heard^ any new now ^cupanciei which shall require permits, in enumerated in the Fire Code. As they occur, sue of the shall be listed; such list shall be posted in ^ <jis- Police Chief, the Building Official and each Fire Chief, tributed to all interested parties. ORONO CC 221 (4-1-04) s 9.34 Subd. 7. Fire Lanes Established. The Council hereby provides for the establishment of Fire vehi^es^ and ensuring immediate unobstructed access for em g y equipment. A Fire Hydrants. Whether marked or unmarked, tize la«es are hereby established at Pf ffe't''/n eitiSH hydrants, which fire lanes shall extend ten ( ) curb or side of the hydrant and twenty (20) in fro pavement edge nearest the front of the hydrant. B anildina Exits. Whether marked or unmarked, eire lanes are h^eby estabUshed at 'H^Htend the Fire Code or state Buiiding Code, which fire ten (10) feet in all direction from said Marked as lanes are required, they shall be - provided in Subparagraphs C or D of this subdivi C Existing Properties. The Chief of Police is hereby empowered ^o order the '^®Vr\v“w‘h«ev« maintenance of fire lanes on public . P'’^ wi ‘ --cessarv and to whatever extent as he may determine is rea ^uis deter- to ensure open and unobstructed emergency access. acceot the mination, the Police Chief may confer VkI rire C?ief of the recommendations of the Building Official or nrr4Ar«? ^hall be in applicable Fire Service District. Fire Lane i-tiL uo^n writing and shall be 7 tL“'*lair of commnrcfal ^?o%ert!n.“.Vb:%et«d'u7on'‘the °/enant occupying th. property. Subd. 3. Fire Lane Standards. The and extent of required fire lanes shall be determined by Chief i.i consideration of the particular and^desig- tion on individual properties. As a minimum, all marked and desig ;«ed fire lanes shall be it least 20 feet in unobstructed width. Shall have at least 13 feet 6 inches of vertical where necessary provide for a turning radius of a ofanrshall be constructed of all-weather surfacing capable of carrying a vehicle axle loading of 5 tons (10,000 pounds). Subd. 9. Fire Lane Signs and Marking. has been ordered to be established pursuant to „s Subparagraphs C or D, one or more permanent if bearin^the words "MO PARKi:i - FIRE LANE", or similar -o^^s if approved by the Police Chief, shall be placed designating t, restricted area. The number, size and location of required q shall be determined by the Police Chief. A. When t.he fire lane is located on P^^.P.®^5^ or within a public right-of-way, the i gd erected by the City or by the public agency having juci over the property. ORONO CC 222 (4-1-84) S 9.34B. When the fire lane is located on private property, the required signs shall be erected by the property owner at his own expense within thirty (30) days of the date of t. e or er establishing the fire lane. Subd. 10. Fire Lane Maintenance. All established lanes shall be permanently and continuously maintained by the property owner to be free from obstructions including motor vehicles, trailers, equipment, storage, rubbish, vegetation or accumulations of dirt or snow. All required fire lane signs shall be permanently and continuously maintained by the property owner o be securely fastened, not visually obstructed in any way, and free from paint or vandalism. Missing or vandalized signs shaii. promptly replaced. Subd. 11. Obstructing Fire Lane. Whether located on public property or on private property, it is unlawful for any person to obstruct any established fire lane at any time. Subd. 12. Required Water Supply - New Construction. ^The Building Official may order the installation or relocation of tire hydrants in areas not served by the municipal water system, an or uses other than single-family residential, a self-contained on-site source of water as a condition of issuance of a building permit. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 FIRE, BURGIJiRY AMD SAFETY ALARM REGOLATIOMS AMD ^ •Purpose and Scope. SBC. 9.35. REQUIREMENTS. Subd. A. This Section provides for regulation in the use of fire, burglary, and safety alarms, establishes users’ fees, and establishes a system of administration. B. The purpose of this Section is to protect the public safety services of the City from misuse of public safety alarms and to provide for the maximum possible service to public safety alarm users. Subd. 2. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this Section, shall have the meanings stated: 1. "Public Safety Personnel" - City employees or employees duly authorized tc maintain and enforce public safety. 2. "Alarm User" - The person in control of any building, structure, or facility wherein an alarm system is maintained. ORONO CC 223 (4-1-04) (6-19-84) "•/ -r^"-.-V •?•■ :> •- L • t f: *. *t - • -» • • • I • % • < • i-j •■ iJ • •• ' J :, ■■■- ■ '>r •> * i • FIRE MARSHAL DIVISION ^-''-'.'f'AlTRE SAFETY 4‘ • •■ . t • . . . I. : ' t/i « 4 % « r • •. •*I . • . 7—■ • ■ .• -. f si» ♦ I ■: I •: •, i ; »( I t I *. E:draW;f^m MnnwotfRuItt im/inc|uding " Amendinmts adop(«l through Septen^ 25,1989 A & Miscellaneous Statutes • ,*p •*1 • rm»- . »< ^ » .»,.(• • • V *• - . » *.• • *t ✓ -I • •*«■ • a • .-•**V . •» * . *w • Cw » • r !• • • * *• a» * i . * » ••*■ -» • . Ihinted • . ^ • ••>» • I « • * II / Month • % *;•* •. -H, ■ . . ^ » ♦! %> A • f«• ••• ■• Year •* .*.• • f •« . ‘Atv^;- ;. i. ■ .. ::.. .•-•V.u . ♦ • » r . • *• V* .**. • \J ‘.t^ r *4 **-. } * * •T - t •y :..J All i>. a * I ' <3-4 a •f, /- r .'V • .^ •. ■•#*»# *• *j* • •• * ■*<•* • • .» • ll'' *,**% i « * •* ■• • ■ r' ^ Jr - H V .- 5I if ‘1 I. » V « • » 4 . ' • . \ M •.< - ^ • •» • • •• . ? V -i f • ^ t. U •;•“•■' ■.•.t»r- ■wV» % .•eji’-T'*.K^ 'C 9^ ^ r ^ # •« r iw fn\ ■%/># roBTifegSWx *■ v' ^ 4 ♦ rt3 K:nm ■ 5» •T^'* ar« I I f' I I %’• ,ir-jTiZy i s 19ME0TUN^OfUl Fine COPEorhhidcr the flit deptftineiil ftom giining iiranediaic access to said A miainMini 3-foo( cleai space shall be maintained around iwriwhwTf ol<M flit hydrantteacept as otherwise required or approved byO) MUMIHw tt Hldram f Eqnlpwwil. All fire protection equipment wlqidmil rimU N clearly idenlified in a manner approved by the chief to prevent ■k. ItJIV. to) Curnl. Fut apparatus access roads shall be prosided and ■hMatoad to accoidaiKC with the provisions of this section. 'C (h) WkmlindM. Fire appenius acceu roads shall be required for every mna^rird when any portion of an esterior wall of the flisl at dm ISO feet from flit department vehicle acceu. tPnOMb I. WhM baUdMffs anconqitMtly prowewd wtUi m ippmved igatUUi grain or ednr shnilor condMoat. dM chief any mqaift addmonal umciflrd In Section 10.301 (b) Onm at net moia toan two Oroup R. Division 3 or QraepMOccepen- llantiMoaefhtappacainsroadtnaybercquiredwhenilitdelemJnedbyihe chtof iMi acceu ^ a single road may he impaired by vehicle congestion. ceadhtonef unato, clhaaiic conditions or other factors that could limit access. FutoflbfiaicoaBbaaiMe storage, sec Section SI. 109. to) fMlklhawiotomiicnimd width of a Are apparatus access road shall he not tomimlOfut. to) %hrSlMlClaamnet. Fire apparatus acceu roads shall have an unobstructed of not ku than 1 3 feet 6 inches. 110111 Upan UP*"* si *”tlcalclcrToce way be ledocad, provided such I dau nai hapdr aoeesi by fm sppiraMs and approved sigas Mc msulkd i iadicaitoi in aaiaMiihad vertical citaraaca Vertical clearances or widdn required by this I ha tocransrdarhen. indie opinion of the chnf, vertical clearances or vide flit apparatus access If) Iwton. Fht appanus acceu roads shall be designed and maintained to s of flic apparatus and shall be provided with a surface M> driving cajpahilitics Hit uraing radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be f AH dead-end Tut uiparatus access roads in eacess of i... I dull hr provided with approved provitKMiv for the turning aroum of J i'10.207-10J01lit Orldfcs. When a bridge is required to be used as access under this section, it shall be constructed and maintainrd in accordance with the applicable sectioat ai the Building Code and using designed live loading sufficient to carry the imposed ""T j loads of fire apparatus.(j) Grade. The gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall nor eacced the maximum approved by the chief.(k) Obstruction. The required width of any fire apparatus access road shill not be obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and clearances established under this section shall be nuialained at all limes. (l) StgM. When required, approved signs or other approved notices shill be provided and maintained for Tire apparatus access roads to identify such roads and prohibit the obstniciion thereof or both. rTwflliWS lOPflllTICmlQn Sec. lO.ne. (a) Cctwral. Approved numbers or addresses sball be plwod on all new and existing buildings in such a position tt to be pUialy visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numben shall contrail widllheir background (b) Street or Road Signa. When required by the chief, a street or road shall be identified with approved signs. Kayloa Sec. I#.2f9. When access to or within I structure or Ml area is unduly dtffictih beciuse oi secured openings or when immediate acceu is necessary for life* saving or fire-fighting purposes, the chief may require a key ban to be installed to an accessible location . The key box sball he a type approved by the chief atoihaB contain keys to gain necessary acceu u requirto by dw chief. JT^T‘£ - •V*. DhfltlonlN INSTALLATION AND MANiTCNANCE OF FIRf • PROTECTION, UFE-8APETV SYSTEMS AND APPLIANCES J Inetallatlon Sec It.Jbl. (a) Type Rcftorcd. The chief shall designate the type and I— of fire appliances lo be installed and mainiainad in and upon all bnildtofi premises in the junsdictioa other than private dwellings. TWa toni he d__ according to the relative severity of prolMbIc Are, todwtag Ihn npUiiy wMh which it may spread. Such appliances shall be of a type suitable for tte probabto clut of fire associated with such building or premises and sball have approval of • I the chief. (b) Spectol Haurda. In or.-upaijcics of an especially hvatdous nmnre or whrrc specul hb/ards exist in addition to the normal hazard of the ocoipuncy. or r I • • f • ! •- 0 ?*» , > •' . * ' 7510.3170 ARTICLE 10 OF ONIPORM FIRE CODE. Subpart 1. Sec. 10.207(a). Sec. 10.207 Fire Cnde ^mended by adding a subsection of to the Uniform read Sec. 10.207. (m) Marking Fire Lanes. The marking of lanes on private and public property shall be designated approved by the chief. Subp. 2. Sec. 10.207(n). Sec. 10.207 of the Uniform Code is amended by adding a subsection to read: Sec. 10.207. (n) Obstruction of Fire Lanes. Parking motor vehicles in, or otherwise obstructing, fire lanes prohibited at all times._ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __—- —- - - Subp. 3. Sec. 10.301(f). Sec. 10.301(f) of the Uniform Tire Code is amended to read: Sec. 10.301. (f) Approval and Testing. All fire alarm systems, fire hydrant systems, fire-extinguishing systems (including automatic sprinklers), wet and dry standpipes, basement inlet pipes, and other fire-protection systems and appurtenances thereto shall meet the approval of the chief as to installation and location and shall be subject to periodic tests required by the chief. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to the chief for review and afr>toval before installation. Subp. 4. Sec. 10.309(b). Sec. 10.309(b) of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: Sec. 10.309. (b) Where Required. Standpipe systems shall be provided as set forth in Table No. 1C.309 and shall have a constant water supply and pressure. EXCEPTION: Dry standpipes may be installed with prior approval of the chief. Subp. 5. Table No. 10.309. Table No. 10.309, Item No. 2, "Occupancy" column, of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read: TABLE NO. 10.309. Item No. 2, "Occupancy" column: Occupancies 3 stories or more but less t.han ISO feet in height, except Group R, Division 3. Class II standpipes are not required in Group E or Group R-1 Occupancies. STAT AOTH: MS s 299F.011 HIST: 14 SR 847 7510.3180 ARTICLE 11 OF UNIFORM FIRE CODE. Subpart 1. Sec. 11.1X7. Article 11 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended by adding a section to read: Fires or Barbecues on Balconies or Patios Sec. 11.IV* ;a) Open Flame Prohibited. When required by the chief, *r «•'; dtructure containing three or more dwelling units, no pers<*<i ?hall kindle, maintain, or cause any fire or open flame on any balcony above ground level, or on any ground floor patio within IS feet of the structure. (b) Fuel Storage Prohibited. No person shall store or use any fuel, barbecue, torch, or other slmlisr heating or lighting chemical or device in the locations designated in subsection (a). EXCEPTK grills ‘ to the ! that ma sides, I installc chief. Subp. 2. Code is amenc Sec. 11.2' Christmas trf Subp. 3. is amended Christmas Sec. 11.21 of natural or Occupancies i (b) Public natural or re light decorat business and (c) PlasM- of flame-reta electric ligh (d) 1-1 Oc not be stored Sec. 11.203(c Subp. 4. Code is amenc Sec. 11.3C a false alarr any station c auxiliary fir defaces, or r breaks, injur or other supp part of any f guilty of a e STAT AOni: HIST: 14 S 7510.3190 AST Subpert 1. Code is asMnd- 5ec. 12.10 day-care Immm residential 1 services refe. subdivision 1' egress requlc- J Mo444id VohuiUe/i 9hc, 2415 Wilshiro Blvd. Mound. Minnesota 553G4 October 5, 1993 tM. <. ■»lO / 2-" ^ -> O'Sullivan/Navarre Auto Repair County Road 15 & County Road 19 P.O. Box 65 Navarre, MN 55392 Dear Mr. John O'Sullivan There seems to be some controversy about the dedicated fire lane in the front of your store. This problem has been brought to my attention by Jerry Babb, Lyle Oman, and the Orono Police Department. I am going to uphold the fire lane dedication area for fire safety reasons. 1. The entry way into your store cannot be obstructed in any manner. The includes vehicles. 2. The attendant on duty must see the fuel dispensing pumps at all times, vehicles in this area obstructs the view. If something goes wrong they must shut down the pumps at once. The intent of the fire lane in this area is not for the purpose of parking emergency vehicles, but for life safety. When this building was built it was addressed to install a fire lane in the said area. MN Uniform Fire Code Article 10 Sec. 10.207(m) MARKIfC FIRE LANES. The marking of fire lanes on private and public property shall be designated and approved by the Fire Chief. •JPC Art 10 Sec. 10.207 (n) OBSTR'JCTION OF FlRi: lANTS. Parking of motor vehicles in or otherwise obstructing fire lanes shall be prohibited at all times. UPC Art 10 Sec. 10.207 (L) SIGNS Wh<*n requiretl, approved signs shall be provided and maintained at all times and prohibit the obstniction. It is my reconnontLition to paint this area with yellow striping and have permanent sij^ns ias tailed. Thank Yo»», Mik<’ Palm ,'kxind Fire Mirstwil iL .-U- Jerry Babb Mfwuxl Fire Miirshal }0-(Z -‘>j CITYofORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Ofono. MN 55355 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 C066 August 31, 1993 Mr. John O’Sullivan 2420 Shadywood Wayzaia, Minnesota 55391 Re: Firelane Dear John: Tliis letter is to confirm our conversation of August 30. 1993 regarding the designated firelane in front of your building at 2420 Shadywood. Due to the ongoing problem of vehicle parking in the firelane, the City must require you to provide stripping to clearly designate the area. As we discussed, the stripping would extend to the sides of the building to where the concrete meets the blacktop and must be a minimum of 8 ’ wide. Tliis would provide a parking space on each end of the firelane and still allow traffic to flow through. The stripping should be yellow with the words "No Parking Fire Lane." The portable firelane sign must also remain in its present location. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Your fine facility is a great asset to the community. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Ottlc'al LO/ch cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Adm. Bruce L. Vang, Field Inspector Steve Sullivan, Chief of Police IclcphoiK (6!2) 47.3-7357 • FAX 473-OSlO r<0v C5 '93 Ii:i8 H. I- 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA PIFAIITMiNT OF FUtUC iAFCTY •TATI pmt MARtHAt DIVISION lit SlOCLOW BUILOINQ 450 north syndicate STREET ST. RAUL. MINNESOTA $5104^127 TELEPHONE; (S12) 643.3000 November 5, 1993 Mr. Lyle Oman City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Oman: I am providing the following information regarding fire lanes as reguested. The 1991 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code, which is applicable throughout the state and in all political subdivisions and municipalities therein, covers fire lanes in Section 10.207 as follows: Fire Lanes See. 10.207. (a) Marking Fire Lanes. The marking of fire lanes on private and public property shall be designated and approved by the chief. (b) Obstruction of Fire Lanes. Parking of motor vehicles in, or otherwise obstructing, fire lanes shall be prohibited at all times. The Minnesota Uniform Fire Code defines ■Chief" in Section 9.105 es the chief officer of the fire department serving the jurisdiction or the chief officer's authorized representative. Minnesota statute Section 299F.011 further states that nothing shall prohibit a local unit of government otherwise authorized by law from adopting or enforcing any ordinance or regulation which specifies requirements equal to, in addition to, cr more stringent chan the requirements of the uniform fire code. Any ordinance or regulation adopted by a local unit which differs from the uniform firs code ntusc be directly related to the safeguarding of life and property from the hazards of fire, must be uniform for each class or kind of building covered, and may not exceed the applicable requirements of the uniform building code adopted pursuant to sections 15B.59 to 16B.73. Sincore;.y. 0 Bruce McLaughlin 'Deputy State Fire Marshal Codes Specialist AN EQUAL ORRORTUNITY EMRLQYER TO:Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse. City Administrator FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: % // \ Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator ^^ VNovember 4. 1993 <^1883 Steven England, 3855 Cherry Avenue - Variance - Resolution Application Lot area variance for construction of a single family residence on 0.37 acre parcel. Zoning District LR-IC, single family, 1/2 acre minimum lot size List of Exhibits A • Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 10/27/93 C - Memo and Exhibits of 10/5/93 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of October 5th. Briefly, applicant proposes to construct a single family residence on a combination of two lots held in common ownership. The two lots would be legally combined. Other lots in the area are owned by applicant’s relatives but are not in common ownership by definition and arc not available for purcliase to increase the size of this property. The lot is approximately 16.000 s.f. in area, and there are both smaller and larger developed lots in the neighborhood. There are no designated wetlands on the property. The property is in the 250-500 ’ zone which would allow 30% hardcover, allowing ample area for construction of a residence, driveway, and amenities. Lot coverage by structures would, of course, be limited to 15%. Sewer is available and assessed. A well would be needed. The topography of the property in relation to the road suggests that fill will be needed when the house is constructed. Applicant has been advised that any filling prior to a building permit will require a land alteration permit and perhaps a CUP if in excess of 100 cubic yards. 1 Zoning File #1883 November 4, 1993 Page 2 Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this at their October 18th meeting and found that with no additional land available and the lot being not inconsistent with development in the neighborhood, the lot area variance should be granted subject t): 1. 2. Lots 8 and 9 be legally combined. Payment of sewer connection charge of $225.00 plus current SAC charge at time of building permit issuance. 3. Standard hardcover limitation of 30%, lot coverage limitation of 15%. 4. No variances other than lot area will be granted for development of this property. Planning Commission also noted that the site plan submitted is conceptual only and while that site plan shows lot coverage slightly over 15%, lot coverage may not exceed 15% when final site and building plans are submitted for permit approval. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution for Council consideration is attached. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) FILE /('issa WHEREAS, Steven M. England (hereinafter "the applicant") has interest in the property located at 3855 Cherry Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 8 and 9, Block 7, Crystal Bay View, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit the construction of a single family residence on the property containing 16,251 s.f. or 0.37 acre in area where the normal zoning district requirement for lot area is 21,780 s.f. or 0.5 an acre for single family detached dwelling purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1883. The property is located in the LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshorc Residential Zoning District, requiring 0.5 acre in area for a building site. 3.Municipal Code Section 10.03. Subdivision 6 (A-1) indicates that "a lot of record . . . may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Counc^il approval if area. . . is within 80% of the requirements of the zoning chapter . At 0.37 acre, the property contains only 74% of the 0.5 acre requirement, and therefore requires Council approval. Page 1 of 5 n iniii^^aininrita—r^M ............... 4. 5. 6. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 18, 1993, and recommended approval of the proposed variance, based upon the following findings: A. At just over 16,000 s.f. in area, the combined lots contains substantial area for construction of single family residence without the requirement for any other variances to the zoning chapter. B. Municipal sewer is available and assessed to the property. C. Developed lot sizes in the neighborhood range from 0.14 acre to 1.5 acres of dry land, averaging about 0.5.5 acres. The combination of I^ts 8 and 9 at 0.37 acre yields a lot size that is not inconsistent with other lots in the neighborhood. D. Their is no other land available for purchase Ln order to make the lot size conforming. The City Council has considered this application including tlie 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, safet) and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property arc peculiar to it and do not apply generally to othe; property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is r^essary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is neccssaiy to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent ot the Zoning Code amd Comprehensive Plan of tte City. Page 2 of 5 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivisions 6 (B) to permit the construction of a single family detached dwelling on the property containing 0.37 acre in area where the zoning district standards require 0.50 acres in lo» area for such use, subject to the following conditions: 1. Lots 8 and 9 shall be legally combined prior to issuance of the building permit. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. A sewer connection charge of $225.00 plus the current sewer available charge shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance. No variances other than the lot area variance are approved via this resolution. The standard lot line setbacks, hardcover limitation of 30%, lot coverage limitation of 15%, and all other requirements of the zoning chapter, shall be adhered to. No further variances will be granted for development of this property. Property owner is advised that a complete grading and drainage plan must be submitted in conjunction with tne building permit application. 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 (November 8, 1994), Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 5 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of November, 1993 ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of November, 1993, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor oc City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public ♦ i t Page 4 of 5 L STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be tlie person(s) described in aixl who executed Uic foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in aixl wIk) executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 5 L CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #1883 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 10/27/93 TO:Steven England 3420 Minnehaha Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55406 COPIES TO:K. M. Ncvers 9700 Portland Avc. So. Bloomington, MN 55420 TYPE OF APPLICATION:\:v. j Mice DATE OF MEETING: 10/18/93 VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval of lot area variance subject to conditions noted below NOTES AM) SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Lots 8 and 9 must be legally combined prior to issuance of the building permit. 2. Payment of sewer connection charge of S225 plus current SAC charge at tune of building permit issuance. 3. Standard hardcover limitation of 30%, lot coverage limi.ation of 15% No further variances will be granted for development of this property Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, November 8, 1993, meeting starts at 7:30 p.m If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. 3 ; M TO:Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE:October 5, 1993 SUBJECT: #1883 Steven Englund. 3855 Cherry Avenue - Variance - Public Hearing Application Lot area variance for construction of a single family residence on 0.37 acre parcel. Pertinent Code Sections: 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) - Requires 0.5 acre lot area B 10.03, Subdivision 6 (A-1) - "Lot of record . . . may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes without Council approval if area ... is within 80% of the requirement of the zoning chapter." Pertinent Facts: Lot area required = 17,424 s.f. or 0.40 acre Lot area existing = 16.251 s.f. or 0.37 acre List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Propeny Owner ’s List D - Survey E - Letter of Request F - Conceptual Sketch O - Conceptual Hardcover/Lot Coverage Calculations H - Neighborhood Developed Lot Size Comparison (Map) Background Various relatives of the applicant have for many years held various groupings of property in this immediate neighborhood. The subject Lots 8 and 9 are owned in comnK>n by his relative Kaiheriite M. Nevers. Adjacent properties to the cast, s<.wth, and west are owned by others. Af^licant notes that the only adjacent property owned by relatives, to the west, is not for sale. No additional laixl is available for purchase. w 11 rr- Zoning File ^1883 October 5, 1993 Page 2 The site is approximately 160’ deep and 100’ wide, which would yield a building envelope excluding setbacks of 80’ wide by 100’ deep, suitable for construction of a single family residence without encroachment. There are no designated wetlands on the property. The property is in the 250-500’ hardcover zone, which would allow 30% hardcover or approximately 4,875 s.f. Applicant s conceptual plan estimates hardcover at 3,580 s.f. or 22%. The allowance for lot coverage by structures is 15% or 2,438 s.f. Applicant’s concept plan slightly exceeds this amount. However, no variance is proposed nor recommended, and applicant should be limited to 15%. The 14 ’ alley to the rear is not vacated, but is not open to travel. Applicant notes that if this were vacated, lot area would increase 700 s.f. or .016 acre, but would not quite increase to the 80% standard. The lot line abutting the platted alley is considered as a rear lot line for zoning purposes. Lots 8 and 9 are served by one sewer stub. The property was assessed for sewer as part of the 1%5-LS-l project. The only sewer connection charge remaining would be $225 unit charge and $750 SAC charge (1993 figure), due at the time a bunding permit is issued. The property would have to be served by a private well Developed lot sizes in the neighborhood range from 0.14 acre to 1.5 acres dry, averaging about 0.55 acres. Your site inspection will reveal that this property sits below the road elevation, appearing to be somewhat bowl-shaped. However, this is not designated wetland and conUins trees throughout. Mr. Englund and his neighbor to the east have recently cooperated on installation of a culvert to allow the historic eastward drainage pattern to be maintamed. Some filling of the property will likely be required in order to construct a residence. Applicant should be advised that a grading plan will be required as part of the building permit application process. Any filling prior to the building permit will, however, require a land alteration permit (and a conditional use permit approval if in excess of 100 cubic yards). Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission concludes that no additional land is available, that the best use for the parcel is as a single family dwelling site, and that construction of a rcsittencc on the property will iK)t be out of character with the neighborhood, a recommendation for approv could iiK:lude the following conditions: Zoning File mS3 October 5, 1993 Page 3 I. Lots 8 and 9 must be legally combined prior to issuance of the building permit. 2. Payment of sewer connection charge of $225 plus current SAC charge at time of building permit issuance. 3. Standard hardcover limitation of 30%, lot coverage limitation of 15%. 4. 5. No further variances will be granted for development of this property. Planning Commission notes that the site plan submitted in support of this application is concepmal only, and that other than the lot area variance, no other variances which might be necessary to complete the concepmal plan are intended to be granted. y r • ' / • ^ CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non conforming use $200.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) \3 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 3^ - - C.'^c/znY - //7 - 2.3 73 oev/ C kVIProperty Identif. Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _^(month/year) I (do)(^ no^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: _ _residential ' Zoning District: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ V other (specify) APPLICANT CName /^/ 14 (j Phone (home) C ? Phone (wor)c) 2Z2.-7?i"^ Address: 9/^0 City:Zip: 52^^ OtINBR (if different than applicant)Phone (home) BS/-5"o Name X". M. /iXr Phone (work) Address: ?7co 5» City: /7<-trv>^ zip: DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: VARIANCES REQUIRED NC Lot Area Setback: Lot Width Front ____ Hardcover Lot Coverage Side Rear _ _ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) BARDSHIP/DBSCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: iT cr !T • \(attach additional sheets if necessary)REQUIRED SUBMITTALSAll of the following infonnation must be submitted by the applicationdeadline date in order for your application to be considered complete1. ^ Completed Application Form2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtainthis list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center348-3271) .3. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8%”xll" for reproduction). 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8%"xll''). 6. _SJcetches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8*j"xll'*). 7. _As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. _Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application Is not complete If the above infonation has not been included. 'V pmrxy 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 )cnowledge. Applicant's Signature Date ONMERS 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 "Ty)- _ _ _ _ _ _ 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 aeetings of the Planning CooBission 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 4 Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. n 9 w H.....■ 'S‘5 i 1 n n .174 RUN OATf 10/1V90 BATCH 009fiOR AOOR 0»t«R NANI TAHRAYER NAME/AOOR SO 00-117-2S SS OOOS OSOSO CHERRY AVE ARTHUR C BRANBIUA TRUSTEE A C BRAMBIUA SOSO CHERRY AVE HOUND IM 5SSA4 HErtttPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OMCRS LIST30 00-117-ZS S3 000600030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED KATHRYN H EN6LUND ETAL K H NEVERS9700 PORTLAND AVE S 0329 OLOOHINGTON HN 55920 REPORT NO. PI935901 RAGE 1930 00-117-23 S3 000700030 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO KATHRYN N ENGLUNO ETAL K H NEVERS9700 PORTLAND AVE S 0329 OLOOHINGTON MN 55920 1 PROP AOOR U»0«R NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SO 00-117-2S SS 0000 03060 CHERRY AVE KATHRYN M ENOLUND ETAL K N NEVERS 9700 PORTLAND AVE S 0329 OLOOHINGTON m 55920 30 00-117-23 SS 0009 00030 AOORESS UNASSIGNED KATiWYN H ENPLUNO ETAL K H NEVERS 9700 PORTLAI.D AVE S 0329 OLOOHINGTON MN 55920 30 00-117-23 S3 0030 OSOSS CHERRY AVE STATE LAND OEPT CITY OF ORONO PARK 9/13/79 ST DEED 156753 } I PROP AOOR OMCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR OMCR NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOt SO 06-117-2S S3 0039 OSOSS CHERRY AVE STATE LAND DEPT CITY OF ORONO PAMK 9/13/79 ST OEEO 156753 SO 00-117-23 S3 0092 OOOSO AOORESS UNASSIGNEO KATHRYN H ENGLUNO ETAL R H NEVERS 9700 PORTLAND AVE S 0329 OLOOHINOTQN H4 55920 SO 00-117-23 SS 0095 03003 CHERRY AVE PAUL E A MARY J TAYLOR PAUL TAYLOR lOOS CHERRY AVE HOUND HN 55369 30 00-117-23 S3 0090 03093 CHERRY AVE C L AFOERSON ETAL H/LIFE EST CARL L ANDERSON 3693 CHERRY AVE HOUND HN 55369 SO 00-117-23 S3 0093 03060 CHERRY AVE 0 H ENGLUNO ETAL COL A MRS 0 H ENGLUNO 5101 SPRING ROCK CT FAIRFAX VA 22032 SO 00-117-23 S3 0090 03090 NORTH SHORE OR ROGER ORAIOaNO A NIFE ROGER GRANNINO 3090 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND IM 55369 SO 00-117-2S 33 0091 OOOSO AOORESS UNASSIGNEO KATHRYN H ENGLUND ETAL K H NEVERS 9700 PORTLAND AVE S 0329 BLOOHINGOTN »tl 55920 30 00-117-23 33 0099 OOOSO AOORESS UNASSIGNEO 0 H ENGLUND ETAL COL A MRS 0 H ENGLUND 5101 SPRING ROCK CT FAIRFAX VA 22032 SO 00-117-23 S3 0099 OOOSO AOORESS UNASSIGNEO 0 H ENOLUND ETAL COL A HRS 0 N ENGLUNO 5101 SPRING ROCK CT FAIRFAX VA 22032 OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOM SO 00-117-23 S3 0050 OOOSO AOORESS UNASSIGNEO 0 H ENGLUNO ETAL COL A HRS 0 H ENGLUND 5101 SPRINB ROCK COURT FAIRFAX VA 22032 36 00-117-23 S3 0053 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO STATE LAND OEPT CITY OF ORONO PARK 9/13/79 ST OEEO 156759 30 00-117-23 S3 0059 00030 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO STATE LAND DEPT CITY OF ORONO PARK 9/13/79 ST OEEO 156759 i ' j \ 1 MM DATE 10/11/90 MTCN 009 HEMCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMCRS LISTPROP AOOR OM«R NAM TAXPAVfR NAM/AMR Si 00-117-tS SS OOSS OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO STATE LAND DEPT CITY OP ORONO PAM A/15/79 ST DEED 15A75A *1 . 1 PROP AOOR OMER NAM TAXPAYER NAM/AOM Si OD-117-2S SS 0007 OSDOS CHERRY AVE PAUL E A NARY J TAYLOR PAUL TAYLOR SODS CHERRY AVE MOUND (M SBSA4 t f 1 f * *. 4 'If n s . <i MRHiii REPORT NO. PI43540I PAGE 2030 00-117-23 33 0000 QSOAO NORTH SHORE OR DANIEL J OHLANO DANIEL J OHLANO 3060 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55364 30 00-117-23 33 0004 03004 CHERRY AVE KENNETH C A VERNA E HEEKS KENNETH C A VERNA E MEEKS 3004 CHERRY AVE HOUND MN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0088 TOTAL BATCH 009 00022 ALLAN C & TERRI L LARSON ALLAN C & TERRI L LARSON 1665 HICKORY HILL DR EAGAN MN 55122 X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEffCPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT. OF PROPERJY TAXATIQN» TV THE BEST OF HY KNQHLED6E AND BELIEF ■ < uT 4 ■ i > 4 *f. '• -4' i-r'y-V'^ •■'>•:' « • V“ . \^ 4%‘V*.# - * ^ »" '« * '“-. iii£22L'2'V ^‘’•'- ^ .- -- 7' o: denotes iron marker set •: denotes iron marker found (♦jj•): denotes existing spot ‘vatlon AH bearings are based ui an assumed datum. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISIS SURVEYED: Lots a. and 9. Block 7, CRYSTAL BAY VIEW Ttiis survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. Arem • f7 i ^c^fx ^ i:< \\{ I hereby terlify thel thin turv»*v wj* pirp^unJ by mr or undff mv Uim t vmon, end lh4t 14m » duiy renietereU Civti I nniiHfri aiul 1-«h! Survryiw utulrr ir/H ■ e i * i ‘ *»v - — . < •> o•) (C.. ^^ ^ ^ i Septemoer22, 1993 ’■^ifw nf nmnnm • • 0 w* V* v*>w * \'5nance Application applicant ■ Stovo En<^iunc - Mury^r\ri^ frir mmimunn Mr hi?a r-mirAm^rif• . n^m •«»<•«»■) • m * * i * t « * • * • • ••• • •» • m mf 90 ‘ « P.eO'Jtrements for Zone LR-iC - 1/2 Acre - 21,780 so./ft E/isting lot size - 16.251 ea./ft - 75^ of requ^ec size with vacation of alley. - 1 6.951 sa/ft. * 78f^ of required size «> af 5h»p • Not Doing 2Die to Puilc on evisting lots 2>'e3ie '^ote t'at lots lO C. i ’ are owneo oy a cifferen: Memoe'' of my * 1 1 y and 3' • n ot f 0^ sale this t’me ! am not expecting tne need for any further ••/anan:? m '‘eqard to setDack.s or hardcover Tneny va*j StO'^e Engi'jhd 4 i . •vr iyn ■ f • 1 ^• • - G HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK zone : (CIRCLE one ) 0-75' 75-250'("250-5G0' E xisting Hardcover in Zone 5G0-IC00' A. House LENGTH WIDTH /fcoo S.F. I ,T C o'lL S.F. S.F. \'j Qi 3. Garage J f ^ c. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio / Deck F.Landscape areas underlain E lastic ' ' SHEETING G. Other 2 c 3 /2- . X . X 3 o &o Z o (s O Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone B m 72o 6oo 2 VO 2 VO /8o S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. 3T8C /fe.zr / S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. r-;* O' •, O .s '7 > ^ » X <*/ i« X 100 2 2-2o / / / / / / / J '' 'i'C - / r / ■/ V . O “ w-l • 1 1• f 1 r $ ^ ■ ■ ^ ,. /' o > 1 1 . - , ^ »1 )CJr' ^ 1 <\i r>g 1 * ' V. :r r^ -—' - oo H P LI J \ - L >r^7 wS ^V’*Js i j ^.Hi??V. \y .. .> 1»< j r* r' P.;;>) r? -r"■TT^T i "T‘ ‘ 1AV 3i‘-Mr>V 1 .S €■' rf1 % >: 1., ?t OM ' ID) • s : V/ M -" .HldON rpr -XT-'' -•11' -i -1 '■ '|y'\ * .'•►! 1- .s TO: FROM: DATE: StBJECI: Michael P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator ^ Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse. City Administrator O; November 3. 1993 % % #1884 Orville Fisher, 475 Oxford Road - After-the-Fact Variance • Denial Resolution - Consent Agenda List of Exhibits A - Resolution for Denial/Requiring Restoration B - Notice of Council Action 10/28/93 Attached is a resolution for denial of the after-the-fact variance application for tree removal and intensive vegetation clearing on this property, per Council’s action of October 25th. I'he Hennepin Conservation District suggested substituting some other type of grass for the reed canary grass planting along the lakeward base ot the new plantings shown in the re.storation plan. A list of 15 to 20 possibilities has been forwarded to the landscaper. The restoration is underway with most of the trees in place as of this writing. Temporary erosion control measures are in place. Staff Reconuneiidation Staff recommends adi>ption of the attached denial/restoration resolution. Moved by . seconded by , to adopt Resolution # denyimt after-the-fact variances for Orville Fisher at 475 Oxford Road for tree removal and intensive veiLtetation clearing in the 0-75 ’ lakeshore setback zone, and .equiring restoration of the site per the attached plan. Vote;_____ayes._____nays. A RESOLUTION DENYING AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES TO MUTSICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 3 AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (I) FILE #1884 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for tlie protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WTIEREAS, Orville Fisher (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 475 Oxford Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Stielows Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, applicant has applied to the City of Orono for after-the-fact variances for approval of tree removal and intensive vegetation clearing within 75' of the shoreline of Lake Miimetonka w here no tree removal or intensive vegetation clearing is normally allowed per Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 3 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (I); and WHEREAS, the Orono Planning Commission after due public notice held a public hearing on October 18, 1993 to review the application, at which time the applicant, his agents, and all other interested members of the public were allowed to comment on the propt)sed variances; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on October 18. 1993 recommended on a vote of 6 ayes. 0 nays, that the after-the-fact variances be denied and that the applicant restore the site per a revegetation plan to be approved by the City Council, and Page 1 of 5 WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendations of the City staff and the Planning Commission; and the comments, written statements, and restoration plans submitted by the applicant and his landscaping consultant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono. Minnesota hereby denies the after-the-fact application as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: FINDINGS 1. This property is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 2. The property is located within the Shoreland Overlay District as defined in Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, and therefore is subiect to the standards applicable to tliat district. 3. Municipal Code Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (1.1) prohibits the removal of live trees with a diameter of 6" or more and located within 75 ’ of the shoreline without first obtaining a permit from the City staff provided at least equivalent number of replacement trees of a size and nature found acceptable to the staff are planted at the same setback from the shoreline as those removed. 4. 5. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (1.2) prohibits intensive vegetation clearing within 15' of the shoreline, but allows limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than 6 ” in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees of any size, to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and water craft access areas, and permitted lock boxes, provided that screening of structures, vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced. Municipal Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 3.13 defines "intensive vegetation clearing" as the ct^mplete rerntwal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block. Paee 2 of 5 8. 9. The applicant or his employee under his direct control did remove twelve trees with a diameter greater than 6" located within 75’ of the shoreline without first applying for or obtaining a permit from the City. The applicant or his employee under his direct control did intensive vegetation clearing within 75’ of the shoreline on the property by removing approximately fony-elght trees of diameter 2" to 6" and dozens of trees with a diameter of 0" to 2". removing virtually all woody vegetation in the 0-75’ zone except for three 24" to 30" hardwoods near the north boundary of the property. The Council finds that this activity meets the definition of intensive vegetation clearing. The applicant upon notification of the violation indicated a knowledge of the code prohibitions on tree cutting, and at the Planning Commission public hearing indicated that while his intent was to gain additional views of the hke from the existing residence, it was not his intent to have the employee remove trees within the 0-75’ zone. He stated that the employee did not follow his instructions, but that the applicant is ultimately responsible for the employee’s actions. The Council finds that no acceptable hardship has been presented by the applicant nor has any justification been presented that would support after-the-fact variance approval. The Council finds that the intensive vegetation clearing that occurred is clearing in excess of that "limited clearing of shrubs and trees and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees" which might be allowed by code if screening is not substantially reduced. The Council finds that screening has been substantially reduced, to the detriment of the neighborhood and the users of the lake. The Council finds that the intensive vegetation clearing and tree removal in the 0-75’ zone, if approved after-the-fact, would r'*sult in the alteration of the essential character of the neighborliood; that the plight of the applicant is created totally by the applicant and not by circumstances unique to the property nor out of applicant ’s control; that granting of the proposed variance would appear to serve as a convenience to the applicant and tlie applicant has demtinstrated no reasonable hardship or practical difficulty; that the conditions and Zoning Cixle requirements imposed on this property apply to all other properties in the Pace 3 of 5 13 Shoreland Zoning District in which this property is located; and that granting after-the-fact approval is not necessarv^ for preserv'ation and enjoyment ot a substantial property right of the applicant. In review of the factual findings noted above, the Council tinds that granting of the proposed after-the-fact variances to allow tree removal and intensive vecetation clearins in the 0-75* zc^ne would be in complete conflict with the environmental standards for lakeshore development within the City and would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The City looks to the broader environmental principles and goals set forth in its Community Management Plan and the intent ot this specific zoning district standards when dealing with matters of the public, health, safety and welfare. The City has an obligation to provide its citizens with a designated and optimum level of density, open space and quality of life, which includes the preservation of lakeshore areas in their natural state to the greatest extent possible. The applicant had ever>' opportunity to verify with the City and the staff whether or not the tree removal and intensive vegetation clearing were allowed or whether such activity required a permit, prior to that activity. The intent and full purpose of the City’s Zoning Code and Community Management Plan have been violated in a manner so severe that the City Council must act to deny this application. The City Council cannot approve the illegal actions of a resident or his agents when similar actions would have been denied through the normal review process. FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby orders the restoration of vegetation on the property within thirty days of the day of this resolution. The applicant and the agents of the City shall be guided by the following directives in the process of restoration; 1.y\pplicant shall replant trees, shrubs, and grasses per the approved restoration plan attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Appropriate erosion control measures shall be maintained in place during restoration until the di.sturbed earth areas are suitably revegetated. Page 4 of 5 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 8th day of November, 1993. ATTEST: Dorothv M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of November, 1993, by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was e.xecuted on beha of the City. Notary Public Page 5 t)f 5 CITY OF ORONOP.O. Box 66Crystal Bay, MN 55323473-7357 ZONING FILE #1884 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTIONDATE OF NOTICE: October 28, 1993TO: Orville Fisher COPIES: Dale Gustafson475 Oxford Rd 1845 Wisconsin Avenue NorthLonu Lake. MN 55356 Golden Valley, MN 55427 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance VOTE: 5 FORDATE OF MEETING: 10/25/93 COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: 1. Denial of after-the-fact variance request. Approval of revised restoration plan subject to any comments by DNR and Hennepin Conservation District (Staff is contacting these agencies and expects comments in a few days). 3. Restoration to proceed as soon as possible. Please have your landscape contractor contact staff as to time frame for restoration. A denial resolution will be drafted and placed on the Council’s November 8 Consent Agenda for adoption. Applicant need not be present. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator t; September 29,. 1993 Flag Lots - Draft Recommendation to Council ■> //. y-' % % List of E.xhibits A - Sketch B - Staff Memo 9/8/93 At your work session on September 14th, Planning Commission concluded that the creation of new "flag lots" in the classic sense should not be allowed either in lakeshore or non- lal eshore areas. AH "front/back" lot subdivisions hencefordi should make use of an access outlot w’hich is excluded from the creditable lot area. Further. Planning Commission discussed dimensional standards for lots created by such subdivisions, as well as requirements for access, screening, and accessory structures. Planning Commission did not discuss whether or how these dimensional standards and general requirements should be applied to existing developed or undeveloped lots of record. Requiring 1505^ of the normal setbacks for additions to existing homes on back lots or Bag lots (of which there are approximately 120 in the City) may result in additional variance applications. In these existing cases, it can be argued that a hardship would be created for the property owner by imposing higher standards than are required of their neighbors who likely purchased their properties in full knowledge of these neighborhoixl layouts. For the above reasons, my recommendation would be that the dimensional standards for lot area, lot width, and setbacks not anolv to existing lots . However, it may be prudent for Planning Commission to further consider whether some of the access, screening, and accessory' structure standards might be appropriately applied to existing lots. Draft Recommendation to Council Based on the September 8th memo and our discussions of September 14th. Planning Commission is asked to confirm the following draft recommendation to Council regarding the tlac lot issue. 1 Basic recommendation: A.fhe classic "flag lot" should not be created henceforth, on lakeshore or non lakeshore, and to do so should require a sariatKC Flag Lot Memo September 29, 1993 Page 2 B. Where a front/back lot division is appropriate, an outlot shall be created for access. C.Such front/back lot division with outlot should be an allowed use when they meet specific standards. D. The acce.ss outlot shall not be creditable lot area. II. Rationale for higher standards for front/back lot divisions: A. B. With such divisions there is created a potential confiict in front yards abutting rear yards, with the resulting incompatible typical uses of such yards. Driveway outlots which abut adjacent r. sidentially-used side and rear yards can have a negative impact on those adjacent properties. C. Creation of additional driveway cuts within a given length of roadway that would normally ser\’e one residence, may cause safety problems in some cases. D. The potential use conflicts and negative impacts of items A and B above can be reduced or eliminated by requiring higher standards for buffering, either by screening or by increased separation of uses. Ill, Recommended standards for front/back lot subdivisions. A. Front/back lot div isions mav be used v/hen existir i: lot dimensions are narrow and deep, such that lot width does not allow for a side-by-side lot split, but acreage is adequate to provide a "front lot" and a "back lot" without requiring an area variance when the area of the outlot access corridor is excluded. B. Front/back lot divisions may be used for individual "lot splits", but may not be used when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots if creation of a "back" lot is merely a convenience to the developer rather than supported by unique site factors. C. A front/back lot division shall not be allowed when any existing residence on a neighboring property abutting the access outlot is legated nearer the affected side lot line than a distance equivalent to the zoning district required front yard depth. I) Dimuishinal standards for back lots shall be as follows: 1. IaH area shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement. Flag Lot Memo September 29, 1993 Page 3 2. Lot width measured parallel to the street at the rear of the "street yard" of a lakeshore back lot, or at the rear of the front yard of a non-lakeshore back lot, shall meet the zoning district requirement. The street yard for a flag lot will be a yard staning at the point where the access outlot corridor ends and the creditable lot area begins, lakeshore back lots shall meet the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setback, and at the rear of the street yard. 3. The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 150^ of the zoning district front yard requirement. 4. The side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shall be 150% of the zoning district yard requirements. E. Dimensional standards for front lots. 1.A front lot created as part of a front/back lot division shall meet all zoning district area, width and setback standards, except that the side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access outlot shall be equivalent to the side street yard requirement for that zoning district. F. Access requirements. 1.Access outlots shall be 30* minimum width, end shall be wide enough to acconimodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. In approving front/back lot divisions, the City may require that both front: lot and back lot share a driveway access within the access outlot if Council determines that creati: g an additional access to the existing street will be a potential safety hazard. Driveways and parking areas within a back lot shall be kKated at least 10 ’ from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot. No access outlot may be platted abutting an adjacent access outlot c.xccpt when the intent is to combine the two access outlots for creation of a pubhc or private ro.id meeting City standards. Flag Lot Memo September 29. 1993 Pace 4 Screening requirements. 1. 2. Driveways constructed in access outlots shall be adequately scr'^ened by fencing or vegetation at the discretion ot the City, at all points to the rear of the required street yard of the front lot. so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yard of adjacent lots. The street yard of the back lot shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation (at the discretion of the City) so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights to the side or rear yards of adjacent lots. H. Standards for accessory structures. Accessory structures shall adhere to all requirements of the zoning code, with the following additional requirements; 1. Accessory structures within a back lot shall be allowed no closer than 10’ to a neighboring property’s side or rear yard. 2. Accessory struemres shall not be allowed within the required street yard of a back lot nor within the required rear yard of a front lot which abuts the street yard of a back lot. 3. No accessory structures shall be allowed within an access outlot. Staff RecomiTienciation Planning Cr.nmission is requested to confirm that this memo correctly outlines Planning Commission s coMclusions regarding flag lot issue. If so, it will be presented to Council as your recommendations. ch TO: FROM: Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse. City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planninc &. Zoning Administrator DATE:November 1. 1993 i OBJECT: Flae Lots - Planninc Commission Recommendation Summanm inirsuam to Council ’s direction. Planning Commission has reviewed the issues related to the creation and use of Hag lots, and has recommended standards for the use of such lots including when thev should be used, dimensional and setback standards, and requirements for access, screening and accessorv structures. These standards are recommended to apply only to newly created "front/back" lot situations and not to existing lots or residences. List of Exhibits A - Sketch B - Planning Commission Minutes C - Staff Memos Background On July 26. 1993 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 119, Second Series, an interim ordinance prohibiting the granting of preliminary subdivision approval for subdivision applications creating Pag lots. Section II of that ordinance referred the matter to Planning Commission for study, specifically regarding the implications of allowing lakeshore development creating fiag lot: and the potential need for amendments to the City code to implement the results of the study. After due public notice, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Wednesday August 18. 1993 regarding potential revisioas to the zoning code which might include revising the liKations at which required lot width is measured, and/or eliminating the creation of flag lots. I'he minutes of that hearing arc attached riie issue was again briefly discussed at a Planning Commission work session on September 14lh. and the final recommendation was approved on a vote of 5 to 0 at a Planning Commission meeting held October 21. 1993. Ti^ •'.oratoriuin expired on October 2bth. hence Council action to revise the code should proceed in a timely fashu/n if that is Council ’s intent Memo - Flag Lots November 1, 1993 Page 2 Planning Commission Recommendation I Basic recommendation: A. The classic "flag lot" should not be created henceforth, on lakeshore or non- lakeshore. and to do so should require a variance. B. Where a froni/back lot division is appropriate, an outlot shall be created for access. C. Such front/back lot divisions with outlot should be an allowed use when specific standards are met. D. fhe access outlot shall not be creditable lot area. 11. Rationale for higher standards for front/back lot divisions: A. With such divisions there is created a piuential contlict in front yards abutting rear yards, with the resulting incompatible typical uses of such yards. B. Driveway outlots which abut adjacent residentially-used side and rear yards can have a negative impact on those adjacent properties. C. Creation of additional driveway cuts within a given length of roadway that would nonnally serve one residence, may cause safety problems in some cases. D. The potential use conllicts and negative impacts noted in items A and B above can be reduced or eliminated by requiring higlier standards for buffering, either by screening or by increased separation of uses. Ill Recommended standards for front/back lot subdivisions. A. B. I ront/back lot divisions m;iy be used when e:x. sting lot dimensions are narrow and deeo. such tliat lot width does not allow for a side-by-side lot split, but acreage is adequate to provide a "front lot" and a "back lot" without requiring an area variance when the area of the outlot access corridor is excluded. Front back lot divisUms may be used for individual "lot splits", but may not be used when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots if creation of a "back" Uu IS merely a convenience to the developer rather than supported by unujue site lactors Memo - Flag Lots November 1, 1993 Page 3 C.A front/back lot division shall not be allowed when any existing residence on a neiuhborinc property abutting the proposed access outlot is located nearer the affected side lot line than a distance equivalent to the zoning district required front yard depth. D. Dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows: 1 Lot area shall be 150% of the zoning district requirement. Lot width measured parallel to the street at the rear of the "street yard" of a lakeshore back lot, or at the rear of the front yard of a non-lakeshore back lot, shall meet the zoning district width requirement. The street yard for a back lot will be a yard starting at the point where the access ou:*'M corridor ends and the creditable lot area begins. Lakeshore back lots shall meet the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setback, and at the rear of the street yard. The depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 150% of the zoninc district front vard requirement. The side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shall be 150% of the zoning district yard requirements. E. Dimensional standards for front lots. 1.A front lot created as part of a froni/back lot division shall meet all zoning district area, width and setback standards, except that the side yard of the front lot adjacent lo the access outlot shall be equivalent to the side street yard requirement for that zoning di.strict. Access requirements. Access outlets shall be 30’ minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening w ithout encroaching on neiuhboring properties. In approving front/back lot divisions, the City may require that both from lot and back lot share a driveway access within the access outlot if Council detennines that creating an additional access to the existing street will be a potential safety hazard Memo - Flag Lots November 1, 1993 Pane 4 3. 4. 5. Driveways and parking areas within a back lot shall be located at least 10 from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. No more than two residences may be served by a driveway located within an access outlot. No access outlot may be platted abutting an adjacent access outlot except when the intent is to combine the two access outlots for creation of a public or private road meeting City standards. G. Screening requirements. 1. Driveways constructed in access outlots shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation at the discretion ot the City, at all points to the rear of the required street yard of the front lot. so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headliehts into the side or rear yard of adjacent lots. 2. The street yard of the back lot shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation (at the discretion of the City) so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights to the side or rear yards of adjacent lots. H. Standards for accessory structures. Accessory structures shall adhere to all requirements of the zoning code, with the following additional requirements: 1. Accessory structures within a back lot shall be allowed no closer than 10 to a neighboring property ’s side or rear yard. 2. Accessory structures shall not be allowed within the required street yard of a back lot nor within the required rear yard of a tront lot which abuts the street yard of a back lot. 3. No accessory structures shall be allowed within an access outlot. IV. Application. Tlte Planning Commission recommends that the above standards only apply to lots created by subdivision after the date ol ordinance adoption, and that all existing flag lot t r front/back lot situations will not be subject to any of these standards. Memo - Flag Lois November 1, 1993 Page 5 Staff Recommendation Staff generally concurs with Planning Commission ’s recommendation, especially the stipulation that this not apply to existing lots and residences. If it did apply to them, we would likely see additional variance requests in areas where the neighborhood has accepted the current situation. Planning Commission questioned and staff noted that there have historically been few if any complaints about Hag lots over the years from neighbors. However, the standards proposed for new lots will generally ensure that the potential negative impacts from flag or front/back lot situations will be minimizec'. If Council so directs, staff will prepare an ordinance reflecting the proposed standards and requirements for adoption at your November 22nd meeting. r . : o ■ V' ^ *1^ A # \0^ c^ L!\\c^ 'ca lod^^ lAHiC (orz. /jF r\I 1 y ..c- 1 /• <l I t/1 1 cV 1 \ rs**^ VA*-^j rv^ct< r'-^-'-’ loo'- r n Mo'-^! v^cs VI I •li a -§1______________I [oo '^ f/Lc/^T l^-(9A-'l^ 1 « Voo o;P> Acer*::' tcc^"- ^cAaow..«> c I ^ ! h ' 5 ' ^ i t;;! ui f b MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETLNG HELD OCTOBER 21, 1993 Peterson questioned whether the City needed until May 1995 to upgrade its storm water ordinances, and indicated that he would hope they could be completed sooner. Gaffron noted that most cities had been allowed six to eight months by Met Council for implementing their "Interim Strategy", and Orono ’s May 1995 deadline was apparently somewhat of a compromise on Met Council ’s part. It was moved by Janice Berg, seconded by Charles Nolan, to recommend adoption of the proposed language into Part II. Chapter 3 "General Policies for Natural Resource Management" in the Orono^Comnunity Management Plan as proposed. Schroeder indicated this is a public hearing and no members of the public were present to comment. The motion carried on a vote of 5 to 0. (#2) FLAG LOTS - RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Schroeder asked whether any Commission members had questions on the proposed recommendation to Council regarding flag lots. Smith questioned as to whether some of the standards should apply to existing lots or existing residences. Schroedei questioned what would be the impact of applying these standards to existing properties. Gaffron indicated that some of the area and setback standards would certainly result in additional variance applications in neighborhoods that "bought into" the existing situation, and therefore the new requirements would probably be a nuisance. Some existing buildings would become nonconforming structures. Schroeder noted that, for instance, screening might only be an issue for an existing flag lot in a dense area such as Casco Point, and questioned whether there were complaints of this nature. Gaffron indicated there are vimiaPy no complaints regarding existing flag lots. Schroeder indicated that there appears to be little need for imposing these recommended requirements on existing properties. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to transmit the reconunended standards for the creation and use of new flag lots as outlined in the staff memo, as Planning Commission's recommendation to Council. Motion carried (jn a vote of 5 to 0. Schroeder reminded the Commission of its scheduled 9:00 a.m. Saturday meeting to view the Coffin and Dickey properties. Motion was made by Smith, seconded by Berg, to adjourn at 8:35 a m. Motion carried. Charles Schroeder. Chair Person To: From: Chairman Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Mavor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:September 8, 1993 Subject: Flag Lots List of Exhibits A B Staff Memo to Council 8/19/93 Minutes of 8/18/93 Public Hearing Following is an outline of possible standards which could be adopted that address many of the concerns raisea by Planning Commission. This is not in an ordinance format, but should help you identify whether there are additional issues and concerns to address. Once Planning Commission has concluded that all appa* rnt issues have been identified and appropriate standards discussed, the ne.xt step is to determine whether flag lots should be: A. An allowed use under strict minimum standards; or j3 \ conditional use requiring Planning Commissson/Council review but ultimately allowed if strict standards are met; or C. Not allowed, therefore requiring a variance for each proposed flag lot creation. I. Use of Flag Lots A. Flag lots may be used when existing lot dimensions are narrow and deep, such that lot width does not allow for a side-by-side lot split, but acreage is adequate to provide a "front lot” and a "hack lot" without requiring an area variance when the area of the flagpole corridor is excluded. B. The area of the flagpole corridor shall not be credited towards required lot area. C. Flai! lots may be used for individual lot splits, but may noj be used when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots if creation of a flag lot is merely a convenience to the developer rather than supported by unique site factors. D. A flag lot shall not be allowed when any existing residence on a neighboring property adjacent to the flagpole corridor is located nearer the afTected side lot line than a distance equivalent to the zoning district required front yard dcpdi. f Flag Lots September 8, 1993 Page 2 II. Dimensional Standards for Flag Lots A. Lot area: (same as ?) (1'/^times'?) (2 times?) zoning district requirement. The flagpole corridor shall not be credited towards lot area. B. Lot width; per zoning district requirement (lot width shall be measured parallel to the street at the rear of the "street yard". The "street yard" for a flag lot will be a yard starting at the point where the tlagpole corridor ends and the creditable lot area begins.) C. Street yard: (per above measurement definition) (same as?) (IV^ times?) (2 times?) zoning district requirement. D. Side yard: per zoning district requirement, except the side yard of the newly created front lot adjacent to the flagpole corridor shall be equivalent to the side street yard requirement for that zone. E. Lakeshore flag lots shall meet the lot width standard at the shoreline, at the lakeshore setback, and at the rear of the street yard. F. Rear yard: per zoning district requirements. G. Flagpole corridor width; 20’ minimum, but shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal, screening, etc. without encroaching on neighboring properties. III. General Requirement.s A.Access In creating flag lots, City may require that both front lot and flag lot share a driveway access point within the flagpole corridor if Council determines that creating an additional access to the existing street will be a potential safety hazard. Driveways and parking areas within a flag lot shall be located at least 10’ from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. No more than two residences may be scr\cd by a driveway located within a flagpole comdor. Flag Lots September 8, 1993 Page 3 B.Screening 1. Driveways constructed in flagpole corridors shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation at all points to the rear of the required street yard of the front lot. so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yard of adjacent lots. 2. The street yard of the flag lot shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights to the side or rear yards of adjacent lots. C. Accessory structures. Accessory structures shall adhere to all requirements of the zoning code, with the following additional requirements: 1. Accessory structures shall be allowed no closer than 10’ to a neighboring property’s side or rear yard. 2. Accessory structures shall be allowed in the street yard of a lakeshore flag lot. but not in the street yard of a non-lakeshore flag lot. 3. No accessory structure shall be allowed in the flagpole corridor of a flag lot. PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES August 18, 1993 The Planning Commission of the City of Orono held a public hearing to discuss Flag Lot Issues pursuant to notice at 7:00 p.m.. Wednesday, August 18, 1993 at the Orono Council Chambers. Chairman Charles Schroeder itJ Planning Commission members Candy Rowlette, Sandy Smith and Charles Nolan were present. Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffrcn, and Recorder Lin Vee were present representing staff. Chairman Sc.hroeder called the meeting to order e::plaining that the meeting was to discuss the issue of flag lots in general terms and asked Gatfron to provide some general information and history about flag lots in Orono. Gaffron defined flag lots from resource books. "Flag lots are permitted in rural and developing municipalities to permit development ot back land areas while still maintaining their rural character." A fiag lot could be defined as typically separated from a public or private road by another lot which gains access to the public or private road via a narrow corridor that is typically 10’-50* in width. "The usual requirements for a fiag lot are as follows: minimum lot area at least twice the area in tlie zone where located e.xclusive of the right-of-way connecting the'lot with the public road; minimum front, side and rear yard requirements to be met on the portion e.xcluding the right-of-way;yninimum of 20 ’ and maximum of 50 for right-o*-way; not more than 1 flag lot for each right-of-way; rights-ot-way should be a minimum distance apar of at least the minimum lot width in the p; rticular zone." This definition does not necessarily relate to anything the City has done or is presently doing. Pnor to our Shoreland Ordinance, there were a couple methods to look at subdivision of a narrow, long piece of property that was either on or off the lake and someone wanted to create a back and front lot. In a lakeshore siniation. one method is to create a flag lot that abuts the lake and a back lot that abuts the street without lakeshore access. The opposite situation would never be allowed because the lake lot would need to have a shoreline width equal to the requirement for the district. The Code has said that lot width is measured at the frtmt or street setback line from the side lot line Gaffron illustrated these situations Prior to the recent Shoreland Ordinance, the lot width for a lakeshore lot would be measured at the 15' setback and die street setback and a flag lot would require a variance. With the Shoreland Ordinance, the width is measured at the shoreline and at the 75 ’ setback but at no other locations, making a flag lot a possibility. To avoid variances in the past, a private easement was granted to access the street. Another way was to create an outlet, typically a private driveway outlet, owned by the person who uses it. This allows the back lot to meet the width standard without a variance. The outlet area is not considered with the dedicated area for either the back or front lot. PUBLIC MEARLNG ON FLAG LOT ISSUES August 18, 1993 With the new Shoreland Ordinance, Hag lots that were never allowed because of a width Before passin» the Ordinance, Council looked at cul-de-sac lots or the lake and found ±em to nsuallv reauire variances. Thev questioned if it was fair to require lakeshore lots to meet the setback w?dth at the shoreline. 75' back, at the street setoack and at the road. The Shoreland Ordinance was adopted in February of 1992. Gaffron stated that Ilaa lots and cul-de-sacs could be defined differently. He provided several e.xamples of situations that CL,-renily e.xist in Orono (see E,xhibiB from * • 1993) One diagram illustrated that a driveway next to the house could be > oroolem. i.e. dus chM en piavinc, etc. Another example illustrated that under old t=S'‘ldtio,.s a vanance would be needed whife under the new Shoreland Regulations, no vanance would be requned. should not receive credit for '.ciciiiiining the average lot area. Rowlette questioned ho.v would make the lot differer from an oiitlot. Schroeder noted the end result would be die same its just how it is defmed. This leaves three different ways to '--.be the same situat.on. Plaiuiuig Commission will have to decide which is the best de.-i^.on to use. Nolan noted ther wUl be non-confonnance situations no maner which defini!,..'a is chosen. Schroeder thouehi flag lots are not necessarily bad. Rowlette agreed referring to examnles presented earlier. Smth asked if Gaffron had Diked with other ciues to see how they naTio “with“horclmc. Schroeder cored some negatives of lo« am the nve- aoins oast someone’s house and c back lot next to someone s front yard. Rowlette lell ih Muld L opportunities in writing an ordinance that would address some of these issues such as (he kind and area of screeiiing/buffering needed. Nolan thinks Ihcrc is a need to have flexibility in Ihe Code, espec,ally when is cons dered Gaffron responded tltat one way to add tins fle.xibdtty ,s to make a fUg lo a varia!Tc= every time. RowlL noted that in a recent Watertown Road apphcat.on there was a lot of discussion about positioning the road. In that case, the dnveway was an tu Mabusth asked if the -back from a driveway easemem is addressed at this time and if the setback for an existing house and j^d should be a front street setback rather than a side setback creating a larger ^ Nolan were concerned about how the setbacks would affect the property with the new house u/.infgd to assure sufficient butfering. PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSLfES August 18, 1993 Gaffron discussed the potential issue of access points and public safety. If a flag lot is created, does each lot require a driveway? Would a shared driveway be a solution? Smith suggested a cul-de-sac for three homes to rhare. Nolan questioned who would be responsible for the cost of a newly created cul-de-sac. ihe property adjacent to the subdivided property has no interest in sharing the cost of a cul-de-sac and it doesn’t seem fair to make him participate. Nolan felt that one of the negative effects of flag lots is the look of crowding since there could be two or three driveways with little space between them. Topography can play an important role in determining the safest location for driveway access. Rowlette pointed out that on a County road, the Count)’ may not grant another access. At this time, a cul-de-sac would need to serve three or more units on a private road to meet the standards. Gaffron thought there could be the possibility of creating standards for a cul-de-sac serving two units. It may be possible to create circumstances when flag lots will be allowed with a variance and another set of circumstances where flag lots will not be allowed. Gaffron cautioned members on writing into the code reasons to grant a variance. Nolan would consider establishing minimum requirements. Schroeder asked if there were any conunents from the public. Tom McCanhy suited he previously lived on Baldur Park Road where lot widths were 50’ and agreed with the concerns Planning Commission members have about intrusion of headlights and setbacks. Knowing limitations are helpful. McCarthy wondered if the City was e.xpecting many similar requests. Rowlette thought this could be an issue since Tonkawa Road is a good e.xample of lots which could become flag lots. People on Baldur Park Road knew what to e.xpect when they moved there because of the high density. The neighbor across from McCarthy, David Schneider, stated he was opposed to the subdivision of McCarthy’s lot because of aesthetics. Although discussion was not about this particular application, he felt that neighboring propenics were affected and had little opportunity for input. He was worried there may be an excessive number of lots requesting subdivision. Schroeder pointed out the Plarming Commission was trying to determine if there was an ordinance that gives tl.e City the control it wants in light of the new Shoreland Regulations and an i '.consistency that has developed inadvertently. Smith asked the public what they thought seemed to be reasonable regarding flag lots. Schneider referred to the negative impact aesthetically of having another h ■'use constructed when they moved to this area for privacy. Schroeder pointed out that prior to purchasing, it wouid be the responsibility of the buyer :o ascertain what propenics may be subdividable. McCarthy thought each situation has its own specific needs and should be considered as a variance. Schneider reit trated that how a subdiv ision affects adjacent properties should oe the major concern rather than standards for the Mwly created lot. McCanhy referred to the Troy Anderson application where screening was required because of neighbor opposition. L PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES August 18, 1993 asked Schneider » respond ,o f/e^prcTed ^tefdriv"buyerf of Che shared driveway would he aware of this when purchasing the property. Gaffron lisced three different ways of administering flag lots: 1 Variance procedure. Every stoation will require a variance with proof of hardships and a list of conditions. ^ rrinml Ike Permit Write all s'tandards in the code that a Hag lot should oe. "smlrdardf are not met. an applrcatron could be made for a vanance to the conditional use. 3. Write strict enough standards into the ordinance where flag lots could only he created unde; very strict conditions. f « f tr Ornno has been the variance procedure, reviewing each Nolan felt the preference lor Or^no ha.s b.ea application. Rowlette recommended that ^ CUT. Rowlette does not want applications that want to go throug e ^ot many of n .,e situations to see every application for a Hag lot. S .. to review if each one were brought so there would not be an e.xcessive PP situations in the before the Planning Commission. Rowlette feels me future. „„.»d:5S' use permit sets up sianuards so that if they • expe-^ution that the conditional we the Flarming Commissinn, the ’ see strict standards written into Nolan asked if and hi could try by addressing some Smith stated she liked the idea ^ Noll^ feU ^«e may Rowlene felt cul-de-sacs take away trom the ‘ otijcrs where it would not be be some situations where a cul-dc-ssc ^ PP Pj^ ^ cul-de-sac would avoid several appropriate. Smith was thinking of P^^^" a shared driveway may be a goal driveways feeding onto a busy . -onccDt NoLm pointed out that there may and Rowlene agreed. Smith was agreeable to^s Jj^riom be topographic situations where a shared driveway is PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUES August 18, 1993 Schroeder asked if anything should be done about the inconsistency with the Shorcland Re^nilalions and questioned' if a recommendation should be made to return to previous reflations so these flag lot situations would be reviewed. Rowlette noted that they would be reviewed anvway because the developer would bring die subdivision application to the Planning Commission. Gaffron asked if flag lots should be an allowed use that does not require a variance or a use mat needs a variance so that Planning Commission could request changes. Schroeder would prefer the var’ince approach. Rowlene feels that if the rules were well written, there w'ould be less need to review every' detail and less bureaucracy. Mabusth asked about the problem of flag lots and the lot not meeting the width at the cul- de-sac There may need to be a mimmum width set for such lots. Gatfron noted that most cul- df sac’lots require a variance. He also pomted out that these are lakeshore lots and under the current Shoreland Ordinance, no variance would be required. Schroeder thinks a variate should be required. If it makes sense, the flag lot would be approved. Rowlette would still like to see an attempt made to write a strict ordinance regarding flag lots. For e.xample, ordy a certain percentage of flag lots would be allowed with a new subdivision of more than two lots. Nolan would still lean toward the variance procedure bec.ause of the umque topographies m Orono however, he would like to see a possible orainance. Gatfron asked members to attempt to put some ideas together and submit these ideas to him and he would try- to draft an ordinance ScLeder noted some issues to be resolved include whether measurement of a lakeshore lo at the front and back should be retained, how a flag lot might automatically be P'^r^med, the length of the flagpole relative to the proximity of the house (butfer), and does the butfer nee to be paved? gravel? or dust? Nothing needs to be concluded from the current meeting. Gaffron .sked for a list of conditions from members of the Planning Commission so tnat he can worK with them. s could then be discussed at a later meeting. Schroeder asked that the Planning Commission focus on the change in the way calculations are done for lot width and the need for variances relative to and after adoption of the Shoreland Regulations. Since there is a ninety Schroeder would recommend revertin. to the pre-existinf, condition of mcasurin. . and at the l..ke because an acceptable flag lot formula has not been developed. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled tor September -0. 1993. asked members to consider a work session to further discuss these issues. It was morning meetings do not provide enough time to .accomplish recommendations so meeting at 6:30 p.ra. would be more productive. Members thought clariftcaiion of what the Council really wanted Commission to consider in relation to lakeshore flag lots/ouUots was lakeshore (lag lots should also be considered. Tje same concerns are raised for both types ot PUBLIC HEARING ON FLAG LOT ISSUTS August 18, 1993 lots Schrocder thought one of the major issues was the change in measurement of lakeshore lots and the ramifications of measuring from the front and back lot line. Rowlette asked what the ramifications are of not changing the current measurements in the Shoreland Regulations. Gaffron explained that anyone who wants to do a flag lot on the lakeshore and meets the area requirements, doesn’t have to meet the width at the street setback and does not need a variance. Rowlette stated that if an ordinance were written with strict enough standards, there would be no need to remm to standards prior to the Shoreland Regulations. Gaffron agreed. Rowlette stated an ordinance would need to be wnnen that is strict enough to meet all concerns or return to previous standards and she thinks the Planning Commission should try to do this. Schroeder would prefer recommending to the Council that they go back to the previous way of calculating lot width and then work over the next 90 days to draft a new ordmance. Rowlette felt the moratorium was already doing that. Nolan stated that if at the end of 90 days the Planning Commission has not resolved the issue, then 'he recommendation could be given to Council to return to previous calculations. Rowlette thought it wouldn’t make any difference which way the Planning Commission acted. Gaffron felt the Council should be informed of the progress of the Planni.ng Commission and will write a memo to Council. The meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m. To: From: Date: Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator August 19, 1993 Subject: Update on Flag Lot Review List of Exhibit A - Diagram - Front/Back Lot Situations The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider flag lot issues at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, .\ugust 18. While no specific recommendation to Council was concluded, the general direction of the discussion was as follows: 1. There was general discussion on the background of the changes to lot width measurement under the new Shoreland Regulations. Chairman Schroeder, who was on the Lake Use Comminee that reviewed the Shoreland Regulations, agreed that there was never a specific intent to make flag lots on the lakeshore an allowed use. Much of the discussion centered around the tact that whether the City allows fl^ 1915. front and back lots with .-»n outlot access, or front and back lets with nn access earen^ent over the front lot, the impact on the neighboring properties is the same. The rationale behind use of an access outlot versus use of a flag .ot v/as discussed, in terms of our past code definitions and requirements. It wds noted that under the current code, the "flag pole" portion of a flag lot is creditable lot area, where an outlot or an access easement arc not creditable. It was also noted that ty'pical model ordinance definitions ot flag lot specifically disallow crediting the flag pole portion towards required lot area. Planning Commission discussed at some length the specific impacts of front/back lul development in general. T.hese include: .a Back lot’s driveway abuts front lot’s side and back yards. This leads to concerns about nobe, headlights, dust, child safety, and other potential negative impacts. b. Some of these negative impacts might be minimized by requiting greate* lot area for the rear lot. requiring greater setbacks for the rear lot. an requiring greater than normal screening and buftenng. update on Flag Lot Review August 19, 1993 Page 2 c. d. There is also greater potential impact on abutting property owners not involved in the subdivision, specifically those adjacent to the flag pole access portion. Perhaps minimum standards could be set for when a flag lot might or might not be allowed, depending on pre-existing neighboring development. The issue of the number of curb cuts in a given distance on a busy road is a valid health, safety and welfare concern. The Planning Commission members felt generally that control on the u.se of front/back lots is needed, but had varying opinions on whether the control should be to make all flag lots a variance : or make them a conditional use which requires Council approval but which would normally be approved if strict specific conditions are met; or whether they sh.w'd be an allowed use under very strict administrative controls, which if not met would still require a variance. Planning Commission indicated they would like to take a stab at compiling a strict set of sta*’dards for use of flag lots or front7back lot situations, and give that further consideration as to whether the variance method is the most appropriate control. Their intent would be to schedule a work session in approximately three weeks, by which time members would have forwarded their suggested standards to staff for compilation. Planning Commission questioned whether their proposed process and expansion of the ir ;ue to consider general front/back lot issues rather than strictly focusing on lakeshore flag lots, was beyond the scope of Council’s intended direction. It may be necessary to address all the issues to reach a suitable conclusion on flag lots. If Council has concerns regarding the scope of Planning Commission’s review, please advise. ii• Ii:1 i:( * i M L^'T__________ To: From: Date: Chairman Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron. Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator 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 yaru ), 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 coa^idered. Since the City in recent years has generally moved toward creating dtiveway outlots rather than flag lots, the shoreland lot width definition resulted in an unanticipated inconsistency. Application /I'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 adopted. 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 the> were not aware that flag lots would be allowed ur<der the new regulations, and asked for time to reconsidered the code requirements, and pos>ibly amend the code if that seems appropriate. A 90-day moratori"m was adopted for subdivisions proposing flag lots. Use of Flag Lots The Flag lot might be defined in a numler of ways, but is not currently dctined in the zomng code One 'finition might be: "A lot typically separated from a public or private road bv another lot and which gams access to the public or private road via a narrow com or tyVicallv 10' to 50’ in width, which is pan of the flag lot". Another way to look at it is t t Ordinance Amendment - Definition of Lot Width/Flag Lots - Public Hearing July 28, 1993 Page 2 a fiae lot is the result of subdividing a deep lot in half to create a "front lot" and "back lot", with a connecting corridoi 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 reejuire a variance. One option the City allowed in the distant past was an easement through the front lot to access the back lot. In contemporar>’ times, however, the City has reijuired 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. ”nd in the definitior of flag lot ap^aring 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 the 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 aoove. Issues related to the number t>f 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 Irom 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 1 his 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 abi)ui the use of flag lots will help in detennining whether a code amendment is appropriate and how It might be structured. Staff would, if appropriate, bring options back to Planning Commission for funber consideration. t-Ac., t-or s/zf /y^> ^/^-». re«r»B wit>rV - 35' ^ /o'Si&^^ sr' t(c»e ^TA.e^r^~>^' ^ A<L. Sl<t,'7 t.«>T3 - U'io' A-r-s\»iva Uinf i*20 \vT -?r' SffTBAOi 5(mO* sr»Aic»4^ "7r* 5«T»Ae^ S^^rsAO&s AT sM9<ru/Ai# ______Jfe, ^ » •200 m •♦••.-^. '* • • ' .** . • • .’a \ ••:.*' * : s • : ^ • / * Vi. . p^> • *y ^y*» « • • ••' • • t.; '•♦ ^ '.- f • «. • • - ♦ • a \ a • . • • .4. » • • .1 • . . *, a _ •-a • * ■ ^ J ^ 9 • « • .,■••• ,r- *. • J. #4 • • • 5UTLOT C • > • ■^IS CAST ,, --»42 ss i« <• O ,n'>:\5J <4141 :«0 IlkST \o> cast • H •-4 zjA.ji V’ • ' . .• V': * * '^ .••,'■ * . ^ ^ • L.t- ', • * , ' 2o 2S' . |4 Nt |4 .* » • • • •' ^ X .. - N . A • » • • %. • • . Ii*®-.-r.. M" ^ 21SU V CMT (»' V;Tfl i-I 0 • 7>,V LOT 18 ^ M • • • ••. „ ; w ' • • 4 * 6^^ 5 V • .#X»!». / • • .*• *• .• LOT »• vT irt7*nT~ .- , Part at LOT 19 (\> •» •X • « *c^dt:------• ~ • I rr f ---------------------- I '^_-- ;~e OV) * ' ‘ ^ • iA un.to % , ~ J~ «*^'i7J/r ) • \ N0EREN6 c»F DiC/t/trVaPrV Ui^Jode PiJ>G loi 20' C^^\bo«^ 12.0' L^AjC. R.23 A *^ as.93. 2i34.18 S834Z'f B'iv S29.28 ft ■ BAY-StSE -RQli^yi^O Ro V-308.97 NB9*n't$Vi \ n>TA S\10 -2S. I ^ Low A V 2/VO X 2^00 r^*o<?«n./Me 200 ”7- C^reACK y rJ \ A \ mAv ' \ ■ji2& .•/ '■\\\?^5^ 35UI iz/yi /, /' 5^*^1 “' AOb _ Ic»'^ 2 i'll '' *Z5*L fii84t)2lW 73 f ✓ V" fM V // " KLITZKE I /24) ^^5.34 'TTPTT^JT^iV) / t 7. (25) ^ ADDITION 876.06 334. n /V/5V7 W $10 2, 267. Z9 2!3 170 2*» 9 ^ V ^ • I F yjt /40'*o>e.TM AT 7, ^J8 /WL4 ,c . a • • • ^ * 4 t .j«.» • * pm M.C . V. -i- t I { • : *#, f • \oTO 00 1041 (1^ / (ii>IiCC> CL \ 7 r 4 * ^ wO / / / o*V"i.»uii’a< • :i ^ V l*‘lf)4U'jTiKu HI 7 ii •*»* 4.T< R'7»L-nsi A-r ^(wo‘ 1.'\ V h?» ^ «»««M S)5^ k I i ” L*HU «•:» 4**dl* . • f 0* • , ■ - ■ t. -. • • » •x ■ . ‘* .* • ■-. ■■ — ^, • • • * •• •• • / i --------- 5« 55 (HUliUtcM.Ja') ALVER R- FREEMAN 9 I : I. 11.2..-iMowJ -tsib yJff/Aye <t» M^i^<* *T~o diC^v^r T?^«' ._ . -LMiikTM. tfAA^^^JCfe /w -rv^ pttvrT f c "f < S \ 4. f l‘ t s C 1•' % \ \ K, K K ' •’ 4 L_ ■ •• . \ ■: ■'•':p^:-yrA jj *.^ y'i . “ ' ' rrr 4^4^29 10 e iiZlL rr? ifct.»4 J . t •■#.rv Hi 1» V ^ rvj • IVM • ■ •• ■ ..^1 ‘ -'.‘ iV ■ . ■• '^\oV .<. f!:v 2/6 w>rtw t>a o* . i\>»BRO .•■ *•. 40$. S • » ■i-v.ir;;'/-''- V*. . A? 1 "/*•►•’'• IJS*' ■#^ •.• I ' /• W * w * t «'£ •V.' «. .31$ m 04 4.3 13704 F\- t f ♦ * 9 i I ‘A* •I • I I • V, >>.r I». , 0 ’ j > *; * *•• •■» :*V .i%i. /t * nI 4 $ * •» •. i« V ^ > 5 ^ • 5kf\’v‘V> V \ • ' B ■' ' •• ■? A •j- '• 5 3( i 15 2 r:ic i ,» ♦. « if !5l J0'tcJO Mr ior 54 N0*04‘4rE^ />.<iia >H.tl WSTH ^ \ & £i. / 2:*o / r» kS / / \ .V \V V f A*X «V'» ’\ .'•» «T »»' \'l«- »\" \ ' «*i (t.'V* .>/v, \ J :’■ \ , ' i '\' \ AV. \ \ \ vY\> i/.o’-A'-, \*' \^» V V v\ At ’\.» I ' ‘ V. V Wi T^. 4 ' i » •'fiT rtW fU »♦# % (••, I I f ./ . •- ‘'V J « V \'i ^ A' \‘* ' «v T •*‘ t\ \ \ A •Mvii')*; Vv. ‘ ■ I \ ll . . .1/ .V-Y •/ I >\\ ( (> / I # ' « . k''' ' ' >•■';■■;■ I ’v» > • ». ,y '‘^’«ii /> iiihTm IP^ > (V)i'V\ J >V'(- *•'».l;S 4 \ ;y f.\ t ^ »• ir ( )’K '• Ux fV i ♦.»»,1- r V; ft/*; vl' ■/ »v / V > A \ .*> < r « li\ f" y !.»• \/. 9(0 >vi »11 \r v-^ Vv /»». / ■fO X ) !*(■ f L-« V.o .'i,I /. •rJ r.A 7 »•»(;( ^7 W ¥ ^ S\ tn> :*'^^}\ \ /» /f »•» Vi '/ff /' ;■-/ ^ •’/ A t-"y ' ■ ;y/ /;-.v;~ '•/ //;. *A>. V •" i ,«/( »\1 t iH (//) / f 1 r V V {^)•v\l». •rt' 4 •r\a** 'i?/ ‘j «'’(/ <■ ip ^ *« )»• mt » / A«iA <V 39-f; «'t«7 ^«'l- /> > V 7 7k-;i ^ »» /*/ I (Cl^O) ^Sprtr^P^fk . ,'f (/3)^ '////. // V)- j ol /if rjy % IM */"4ri '5.1 A \|- V V) ivr 3SS T) /v. c € < % * »7]IPS V Y*\ Iziik: *»/4r fhl^ H < Vi. I i3ii^ 2r^ “fck i'#"l >7V\k?'*\V ('SJ \C3^>/ / ni 'spi!vV-r'l'''‘’'t»i**C'<'7 ‘■-"r 3CO ♦T’^ *4•r.»:‘(i) »"6)’x '*(•)± f 4^ 'JL / •. ./ V / /■ Lot 150 Spring Park %'h M/ in /A /> ii • • f t » * * ♦ itr: i VS'- ?o > ,(] •^'y o t -j r;x^o f Jj m'Q’.vi"51 »• . V -3#i««Uoi % 0>*0 arfc;4 irV.JiiLl ___ij 2* :::^i i • : . ■...•. ,?>tc..'u,i ih'.u.a; r.-.J* *♦,!• • • . I ' • .* / •. • < . •f -r*----- r# ‘ouiut i IT* *^r/i iO *vk i XJ.UYoiARo- ; ave ; I ♦• < V .i ■ cr* • > 34; /•» >4 N T :*j hi »♦ \ A- ■*< « 4 p. v:!: e^r g »t,e/,rs :iV r; % •I Ilf« % ”/ . /, >' * *. .N • < • 11^ X / iir* M r / z? •i'V '.V ■43: > »^VV;'I I -.A ■Jf;• ♦ • f ♦■/: • • i\';» ; Pi' •.: • ! *f*V*'- tpl-.»w -.,101.0.: • 2 l\a >r' I5 i.'i.' .4 • 4I* •i1 • . V- i -s i’.r> I .V .♦) *3: mc>S •' 7 ,ac. ■'vjL Ul f\x f % ‘I?!/".R-•* I«f^ o» = ./i 'I P# » A V / !f )r\ »i A > ♦ ^ I 2t/>, A •Ar •I , * ,#fii £4" .V;?,'#. ».i ”'t.^if i;5^• %•//>: i /• I /:?^v/i: ri, M 7 f\) », 4? VI-r S- r ''/TV I' s fJif rin- 5? i/' ^ ■»: ■a .<# «».•r.«’•7 IV 4 1 •• a • »^1:^ 6 ♦ I:.‘l L»'» '.r>*r .'>PA>lj t .#?!»i‘ ^ Sirt'f'r.i • ‘I • I'. Vx I v‘‘^ r r. ; \vy> 4 \v^ . V# ; VCA'V i ' 1. . - * If<t i- ■V- 'j- Mj '= / •* * t *.•.-!*.AV 1 ^ V’ ' *'i •. v...^ w i.-’i ■t' 4^.7:^ \ "N 'V r < { •ssbsj A**?"^ - r---* “■ >.v X ■y p» m \>4 .'D \** ty.\i 4v;o,"> ». •’ \ A ?' *♦ « l» sss- /5''.T Wv. ■.*1; V*i ‘''a .-v,Ir- •V ■^- .».«n *1 I * i »’ y» y i • I- i\V c: • • V A- > /vv iW ■ft Ay’'"-.' 'A> V /'CTir Or,V ' / /, / N / J.rll »# li V* 1*vili ♦ L P ' i ‘in'/ vty p y #fV. ^ ' *>vyyr-yAy '/ V‘.iK > ^'4 Si®^ ; 4 ., /Vi i ••'A^TiV?i t’*i- wi / S bi>.^ v.t :p4 s'tr^s ''Mr n<<- ■’’fa t I vx, Hrr>7/"^ % /«. •A % ' / K' L’i. ♦•r•* t ■>♦' # X*k \ /V »•'/4. ' .r<i,*A , ' ■ '7-^V;r, liV. V i ^Xv. A ' * * 5^'.i V (T*'^ * I »/.»^ » #Z(i: • • :l\✓ y>». I y «r- ■.>5-1. 5 ? »l 'V ’• 1 7 8 ■-' •**. fja* >s f *»;) ! , » # I • t' »A VM M ‘i *• *. • ••f s I* 'Coils'•;iA I y P f ##v#»/•' « A 'A.7':' - •.‘ ‘ /V/ • \\ '•;: i , rv^T:[ V4* • ‘ 7 7 ••'• :•* ir-.r :«AS, Ks'i ' '‘t t.V -•%. :y; !« •' a..-'"/ • I > 1 4 V ti' V Jf /’ 79,?v / I A ’♦V*i‘-*’ yliA Y I To: From: Date: Subject: Jeanne MabusUi, Building & Zoning Administrator Ron Moorse. City Administrator Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Michael P. Gaffron. Assistant Planning «fe Zoning Administrator June 16, 1993 #1835 Thomas L. McCarthy, 2490 Old Beach Road - Background on: 1. Flag lots/width measurement 2. Hardcover zone balancing List of Exhibit! A B Sketches Regarding Lot Width Issue Sketches Regarding Hardcover Issue 1. Lot Width Measurement. Before [he 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 detimtion 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 lequued lakeshore setback line (7571007150’ depending on GD/RD/NE classificauon), 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 Uie 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 Ime 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 ihis fot had a lengthy narrow -fiagpole- section, that met the width standards as does the McCarthy proposal. BackgfQUM Note that for non-lakeshore situations and for lakeshore situations prior to the Shoreland Ordinance, the City has histoncally seen three option for gaimng a^ess to a'-ack lot. These include an easement through the from lot; a flagpole to create a Oag UJ or creation of an outlot over the narrow tlaepole ponion 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 outlot 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 lo»s 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. Thomas L. McCarthy, Background - June 16, 1993 Page 3 I wou|d argue that the property owner should be allowed the right to have the 250 s.f. overage 250-500 ’ zone as long as he agrees to reduce the 25% allowance in his 75-250 ’, by the equivalent 250 s.f. This in essence results in^'4% hardcover limit for his 75-250*’ zon^36% limit for his 250-500 ’ zone, and^lh^ame amount of overall hardcover he would haWiad under the standard allowance^ but a greater proportionjof it is further from the lake^ Obviously, we would noi'aUow a simoon that would work the opposite direction, i.e. increasing hardcover nearer the Kike ijK^xchange for less hardcover in a zone further from the lake. This would be opposite^e intent of our "hardcover zones" philosophy. If Council would agr^o^s hardcovcuiolicy interpretation, we would see a few less "nuisance" harc^^r variances each year, and cause less aggravation for property owners and sut(f. I would prefer to view ftis as a policy clarification of die hardcover ordinancp^ther than as breaking new gr^n^ From an administrative .standpoint, we can certainly put in place review procedurb^o that funire problems should not occfir. ^Acceptance of this police will also allow staff to, in generai>4^ hardcover b^ina for any lakeshore property reruesting a permit, such that a with ^used hardcover "credit" in a zone nearer the lake can legitimately use that crMit in a zone further from the lake, without requiring a variance. Recommendation 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 well as at the shorelme and at the lake setback line. However. I don ’t see that this will impact the McCarthy case, smce it came in under the current ordinance, v 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 m zones further from the lake without a variance. w To:Mavor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers iT Ron Moorse. City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Michael P. GalYron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administr November 4. 1993 Wetland Issues W ^ ‘ V Following is a summary of the current status of wetland regulations, and potential issues that need to be addressed by the City: 1. Agencies that exert authority over wetlands include: Wetland Types Reeulated Min. Size Wetland Regulated A.DNR 3. 4. 5 2.5 ac. B.US Army Corps of Engineers (w/USFWS) 1 - 8 No min. C.BWSR 1 - 8 No min. D.MCWD (is our LGU)1 -8 No min. E.Orono Those designated on our 1974 maps, which include some Type 1, much Type 2-3-4-5, and some Type 6. No min. (per maps) How does the "Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991" affect the City of Orono? m The "Act” prohibits draining or filling (wholly or partially) ot all Type 1 thru 8 wetlands as delineated using the 1989 Federal manual, unless replaced by rcstored/created wetland of an equal public value. ACRONYMS:DNR: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources USFWS: United States Fish & Wildlife Service BWSP; Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources MCWD: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District LGU: lAKal Government Unit (Responsible for enforcement of Wetlands Conservation Act) USGS: United States Geological Survey Wetland Credit Issue November 4, 1993 Page 2 3. • After January 1, 1994, wetland replacement will have to be on a 2:1 basis, i.e. 2 acres of new wetland for each acre destroyed. • The "Act" is administered by the Board of Water and Soil Resources through the designated Local Government Unit (LGU) which in Orono ’s case is the MCWD. • Prior to its designation as LGU. MCWD only regulated Type 3-4-5 wetlands greater than Vi acre. Now it regulates Types 1 thru 8 of any size. • The MCWD will likely require a formal wetland delineation by a qualified expert for all subdivisions that potentially have wetland soil types. • Because the Corps and the State (via BWSR & MCWD) have determined that Type 1 thru 8 wetlands are to be protected, our 1974 wetland mappii.g is no longer an adequate representation of all existing protected wetlands In the City, because our mapping did nos identify all Type 1 thru 8 wetlands that exist in the City. • One ramification of the "Act" is that wetland areas we have not previously protected or identified now are regulated by others. If we choose to not regulate these in a similar manner and in conjunction/cooperation with the other agencies, developers and property owners in the City will potentially be stopped by other agencies from doing activities which the City might allow. This would be a poor City policy in the opinion of staff, and should be avoided. What City policies/codes need to be revised in order for the City to act responsibly and resp>onsively on this issue.’ • Revise definition of wetlands to conform witli those of other agencies, i.e.: Revise language as to what constitutes a wetland (hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, hydrology). Add language to require wetland delineation using the 1989 Federal manual and other contemporary delineation methtxls. Acknow ledge that our current referenced documents tor identifying wetlands (1974 maps; USGS topo quads; HUD FIihhI Plain maps) do not result in a complete picture of all regulated Type 1 thru 8 wetlands N Wetland Credit Issue November 4, 1993 Pace 3 Consider whether wetlands not on our maps but identified under the new regulations (mainly Types I, 2, 6 and 7) are to be considered as dry- buildable land for lot area credit purposes (see item 4 below). Consider whether City will take a position regarding wetland replacement, in light of our current code requirement prohibiting excavation, grading, filling, etc. in wetlands. 4. Options for wetland credit and mitigation for subdivisions: OPTION Allow dry buildable credit for any wetlands not shown on City’s 1974 maps. Disallow dry buildable credit for all Type 1-8 wetlands, deny variances for replacement/relocation of any Type 1-8. Protect Type 1-8 wetlands in the locations they exist, via existing code (conservation and flowage easement, 26’ setback, etc.) Disallow dry buildable credit for all Types 1-8, but grant variances for rcplacement/relocation of certain types (perhaps 1, 2, 6 7) on the site if consistent with other agency approvals RAMIFICATIONS Other agencies will disallow certain uses of such wetlands that we would allow, potentially putting a property owner in jeopardy of having to mitigate by replacement; and possibly creating lots that are in fact wholly or partially unbuildable. This ignores the question of varying wetland values, by protecting all Type 1-8 and disregarding the fact that a Type 1 degraded wetland that is a low spot in a cornfield has less defined public value than a beautiful Type 3-4-5 wetland with open water. Given that Type 1 wetlands may be very prevalent on a given site and scattered randomly, this option would yield very little flexibility to a developer. In this option, for example, if a 30-acre parcel had 20 acres of dry buildable, 5 acres of Type 1 wetland and 5 acres of Type 3 wetland, the developer wimld be allowed to rekKate the Type I’s to a different kx atkin on the site, but would still only have 20 / Wetland Credit Issue November 4, 1993 Page 4 acres of dry buildabie credit (assuming a 1:1 replacement). (Note that under the 2:1 rules, he would have to create 10 acres of Type 1 for relocating 5 acres, and would end up with only IS acres of dry buildabie.) This option gives the developer some flexibility in rearranging a site for the most efficient development, while still protecting the public interest in wetland preservation and not placing an individual lot owner in jeopardy. Note that if wetlands are relocated, the City would be well served by obtaining easements over the newly created wetlands. (The former wetland locations could then be used as dry buildabie with no easement required.) This is staffs recommended option. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Council is requested to consider the facts and issues raised in this memo. In light of two pending developments (Dickey/Coffin and Lundgren Brothers) which are in the sketch plan stage and which have significant amounts of newly-detined wetlands, an early conclusion as to the wetland credit/mitigation issue will assist staff in advising these and other developers. If you conclude by chtnising an option that requires code revisions, please direct staff accordingly. / w. A/- TO; Mayor and City Council FROM: Ron Moorse, City Administrator DATE: November 3, 1993 SUBJECT: Extension of Contract for Prosecution Services XV ’>■ In 1991 the City requested proposals for prosecution services in an effort to reduce the costs of this service. The process resulted in the cities of Orono, Minnetrista and St. Bonifacius contracting with the City of Minnetonka for prosecution services. This arrangement has substantially reduced the cost of prosecution service. The initial agreement was a two year agreement. This agreement is now up for renewal for another two year term. The Police Chief has indicated the agreement has worked well the past two years and recommends the two year extension. The initial agreement as well as the proposed agreement sets a maximum dollar amount for prosecution services based on the projected actual costs of providing the service. Although most of these costs are fixed, i.e. salaries, some are variable. After two years of experience with the agreement the City of Minnetonka has proposed making two exceptions to the maximum dollar amount to address two areas of variable costs. First, the agreement sets a maximum amount the City of Minnetonka will pay toward the cost of serving subpoenas. This amount is based on the amount spent during the first 2 years of the agreement. If this amount is exceeded, Oiono will pay the additional cost. Total costs for subpoenas for alT of the contract cities have been approximately $1,200 per year. The maximum amount in the contract is $1,500 per year. Secondly, if there is a case where there would be a conflict of interest for the prosecutors, i.e. prosecuting a city employee; that would require the hiring of an outside prosecutor to handle the case; the City of Orono would pay all costs of the outside prosecutor in excess of $100.00. Both of these exceptions are reasonable since they would be unplanned expenditures directly related to the City of Orcno. The total cost for Orono for 1994 would be $31,017. The annual cost, in the original agreement with the City of Minnetonka for 1992 was $30,000 per year. This is a 3% increase over a 3 year period. rniincil Action Requested - Motion to approve the two year extension of the prosecution agreement with the City of Minnetonka and to authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to sign the agreement. N600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka. Minnesota 553-tS Telephone (612) 939-8266 • Fax (612) 939-8248 September 14, 1993 Otv Altornev ’s Office Proudmn Prosecution Sers iccsfor the Cities of: Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Minnctrista, Orono and St. Bonifaciiis S£? 7. 0 Charlotte Erickson City Administrator City of Minnetrista 7701 County Road IlOW Minnetrista, MN 55364 Brenda Fisk City Clerk City of St. Bonifacius P.O. Box 268 St. Bonifacius, MN 55375 Ron Moorse City Administrator City of Orono P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Barbara Bedell City Clerk City of Minnetonka Beach P. O. Box 146 Minnetonka Beach, MN 55361-9419 RE: Prosecution Contract Dear Colleagues: In accordance with my previous letters to you with our {.roposal for 1994-95, I have enclosed a proposed joint powers agreement. This is basically the same as our current contracts, with the following changes: 1. The four cities are combined into one contract. 2. The dates are revised and the historical reference in the first paragraph is deleted. 3. Language is added to clarify that our advice and training is only in the area of ciminal law. 4. The fees are increased by a total of $2000. Prosecution Contract Cities September 14, 1993 Page 2 5. Two more exceptions are added to the fee paragraph: costs in excess of $100 per case for hiring an outside attorney for conflicts cases, and subpoena costs in excess of specific dollar amount for each city. I have allocated a total of $1500 for subpoena costs, even though we have spent approximately $1200 in the recent 12-month period. Each city's share is based on the city's percentage of the total fees. Please let me know if you have any concerns about the proposed contract. I would like to have all five cities approve a contract by the end of November, so that we can circulate copies for signing before the end of the year. Thank you for your consideration. SincerQl Desy^fL. Peterson City*^ Attorney JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR PROSECUTION SERVICES This agreement is between the City of Minnetonka ("Minnetonka") and the Cities of Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Orono, and St. Bonifacius (sometimes collectively referred to as "Cities"), all of which are Minnesota municipal corporations with the power to cooperatively exercise municipal powers pursuant to Minn. Stat. §471.59. 1. Purpose. Each of the Cities and Minnetonka have the power and responsiblity to prosecute criminal matters within their respective jurisdictions. They wish to provide for the exercise of such prosecutorial powers by Minnetonka on behalf of the Cities. 2. Provision of Services. Minnetonka shall provide all of the personnel, office space, and supplies necessary to prosecute the criminal offenses for which the Cities are responsible, including enforcement of the Cities' codes of ordinances. In addition, Minnetonka will provide legal advice and training regarding criminal law to the Cities' departments which have law enforcement and code enforcement duties. All personnel providing these services will be Minnetonka employees, and Minnetonka will be responsible for all employment matters related to these employees, including employee benefits, workers' compensation, and unemployment compensation. When hiring any attorney to perform these services, Minnetonka will include a representative from each of the Cities, at their option, in the interviews of the finalist candidates. On occasion, Minnetonka may subcontract for assistance from attorneys who are not Minnetonka employees. Minnetonka will provide the identities of these individuals in advance to the Cities. Personnel provided will consult with the Cities' elected and appointed officials regarding policy and guidelines. 3. Fees. The Cities will Minnetonka for calendar year 1994: pay the following fees to Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista Orono St. Bonifacius $ 2,068 per year $20,678 per year $31,017 per year $ 7,237 per year For calendar year 1996, these fees will be increased by the same percentage increase granted by Minnetonka to its management employees for 1995 wages. The fees will be paid in advance, on a quarterly basis beginning December 31, 1993. Minnetonka will notify each City in writing after the 1995 percentage increase has been determined. If this notification occurs after January 1, 1995, each City will have 30 days after the notice to reimburse Minnetonka for the increase retroactive to January 1, 1995. The a. fees will be for all of the services described in paragraph 2, except that each City will be responsible for the following: All costs of any appeal, excluding Minnetonka personnel costs. Before pursuing any such appeal, Minnetonka must receive approval from the City Administrator or City Clerk of the affected City. All costs in excess of $100 per case for retaining an outside attorney because a matter involves a City official, employee, or member of their immediate family. All costs for service of subpoenas in excess of the following amounts: b. c. Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista Orono St. Bonifacius $ 45 per year $510 per year $765 per year $180 per year 4. Term. This agreement shall begin January 1, 1994, and conclude December 31, 1995. 5. Termination. Any of the Cities may terminate this agreement if Minnetonka fails to perform the services provided in paragraph 2 above by giving 60 days advance written notice of termination to all of the other parties. Each City will not be responsible for paying fees during any time that Minnetonka fails to provide it the required services. Minnetonka may terminate the agreement if any of the Cities fails to pay the fees due within 60 days after Minnetonka notifies the City in writing, with a copy to the other Cities, of the delinquent payment. At Minnetonka's option, termination by any party voids the agreement as to all parties, upon 60 days advance written notice from Minnetonka. 6. Renegotiation. After July 1, 1995, the parties will analy2e the fees to determine if they accurately reflect the costs incurred by Minnetonka in providing prosecution services to the Cities and are appropriately allocated between the Cities. The parties agree to negotiate in good faith a potential extension of this agreement with or without a revision in the fee structure. 7. Exchange of Data. The Cities will provide all information, data, and reports necessary for the prosecution services, including police reports and arrest records, to Minnetonka without charge. The parties will cooperate with each other in every way possible to assist in the provision of these prosecution services. 8. Confidentialitv. Minnetonka will maintain the confidentiality and privacy of documents which tne Cities provide, in accordance with the Minnesota Data Practices Act. 9. Indemnity. Minnetonka will indemnify and defend each of the Cities against all claims arising out of Minnetonka's performance of the services specified in paragraph 2 above. 10. Insurance. Minnetonka will obtain professional liability insurance to cover each of the Minnetonka employees providing the services under this agreement. 11- Amendment. This agreement may be amended only in writing signed by all of the parties. 12. Notices. All notices required or permitted in this agreement and required to be in writing must be given by first class mail addressed to the relevant City at its City Hall. Date:CITY OF MINNETONKA By Its Mayor And Its City Manager Date:CITY OF MINNETONKA BEACH Its Mayor A; id Its City Clerk Date:CITY OF MINNETRISTA Its Mayor And Its City Administrator Date:CITY OF ORONO Its Mayor And Its City Administrator Date:CITY OF ST. BONIFACIUS Its Mayor And Its City Clerk '9 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator November 4, 1993 Long Lake Sewer Plant Property Annexation % % V’ I have attached a letter from Chris Dietzen, the Long Lake City Attorney, regarding the joint resolution to finalize the concurrent detachment and annexation of the Long Lake sewer property. The joint resolution is the final action required in the annexation process. The joint resolution, as initially drafted, includes a paragraph (7) in which the City of Long Lake covenants that it will oppose the annexation of any other property from Orono into Long Lake, and a paragraph (8) in which both cities request the Minnesota Municipal Board to approve the covenant made by Long Lake in Paragraph 7. In his letter, Mr. Dietzen indicates the City of Long Lake would like to eliminate paragraph 8 and would not oppose the elimination of paragraph 7. Mr. Dietzen suggests these changes as better reflecting the current spirit of cooperation between the two cities. It is my understanding that the restriction against any future annexation of property from Orono into Long Lake was a key ingredient in the settlement of the sewer plant annexation issue, and that both paragraphs 7 and 8 are important to making this restriction as enforceable as possible. It is also my understanding that Orono's interest in restricting further annexation has not changed. It is therefore staff's recommendation that, at a minimum, paragraph 7 remain; and that paragraph 8 remain if the City Attorney indicates this paragraph significantly increases the enforceability of paragraph 7. jAMft ^ LAARIN IIOUKT L HORRMAN ^ACRP OAiV 0 RPiMfTM LiNOGRfN OtAALOM RmiOCti ALLAM f MOLLIOAM jAMCt C CnCRfON tow AM) J 0«t«C0U OINfN RViUlA iONNO RULLMCN AOMATI to ill MANX I HAAVIV CHAALitS MOOCLL CHAWTOA mIA J 0«irziN J0»«l A If A me LMOAM RtiMtA TMOMAIA gTOLTX«AN MCHAfLC. JACKMAN JOHN I Dtf HL jOH% fl\WI|AZt^SR< Tm^AS J RlYNN JAIAftA QUINN TOGO I RAHMAN AfTf A R ItCR JfAOMt H RA>#4RI OtAAlOW tCCR JOHN I LUNOQUIIT OAVLf NOLAN CiUltATO* TNOMAA I MUMAMAf V JA J0»«« A COTTfA* ilArAlCi A AOTHMilWiA AAUl I ALUNRITT ALAN L RILOOW RAT mUCNM Sf.VMAN Larkin . H offman . D aly & Lindgren . Ltd ATTORr^EYS AT LAW 1600 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON MINNESOTA 66431 1194 TELEPHONE (612) 835 3800 FAX 1612) 696^3333 >JOV' 1 MCMAIL • LIIAAON SAfaoAY c koaitao 3aav a van CLCVC* TAN CL . lOWtIt ▼000 M VXATtOViCH j M«A4AN uI ’^MOTVy J RCANC AIANM anocason CX3NNA L AOIACR M^CHACL W SCMLf Y USA A GAAY 3AAV A ACfAtCRf CMA:STOAMf A J MAAA'STMAL MiCMAfLA AOIfATtCN SmM#«ON K McCAMIAiOGC #^iUJAM C CA»RM*M ^A jOmN j SrCRRCNMACCN OAN CL *1 vest mark a auaik ,0»*N A HIU. jAAifSR martin TV.OMAA J Sf VMOOA micma C l j smith VIUS A INOI OWrOMTN HOLMSO RACOfAiCK R h AUSCA m MAAV I VOS LAAAY 0 MAAHN JANC £ RACMCA ACNCC L TOCNGCf MAACV A RACiSMAN MARifL C A*'L0UI OR CCUN8CL ^YfNOfUA anocason jOSf am GiTiS •AtSO AOM iTTIO in WISCONSIN October 20, 1993 Mr. Ronald Moorse City Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal 13'y, Minnesota 55323-0066 Re; City of Long Lake - Fleming Addition Our File No.; 14,422-01 Dear Ron: Enclosed for review by the Orono city council are the following documents; a. b. Settlement Agreement; Joint Resolution of the Cities of Long Lake and Orono (form A); and c.Joint Resolution of the Cities of Long Lake and Orono (form B). As vou will recall, the Joint Resolution must be approved by both councils and delivered to the Minnesota Municipal Board. The submission is due by November 30, 1993. The enclosed Joint Resolution (form A) is drafted in accordance with Governs of the City of Long Lake. Specifically, the City of Long Lake has concerns regardina the desirability and enforceability of Paragraphs 7 and ft of the Joint Resolution. It is the feeling of the Long Lake City Council chlJ thise two paragraphs are not in the spirit of cooperation that the two Larkin . Hoffman . Daly & Lindgren . Ltd. Mr. Ronald Moorse October 28, 1993 Page 2_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ citiep had been seeking the establish and that currently exists between them. Therefore, the city council at its October 19, 1993, city council meeting passed a resolution approving the Joint Resolution (form A) in an amended form which strikes the old Paragraph 8 and, if the City of Orono chooses to 6unend the Joint Resolution further by striking Paragraph 7, the City of Long Lake also approves such an amended version (Form D). Please have this presented to the Orono city council and advise me in order to have this filed with the Minnesota Municipal Board in a timely fashion. Since re ly^^^ Christopher J. Dietzen, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. bh cc: Honorable Tod Olson, Mayor CJD:VD9s SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the City of Long Lake (Long Lake), a municipal corporation, located at 1964 Park Avenue, Long Lake, Minnesota 55356; and the City of Orono (Orono), a municipal corporation, located at P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323. RECITALS WHEREAS, on February 26, 1990, Long Lake filed with the Minnesota Municipal Board a petition for the concurrent detachment and annexation of certain real property, which is described in Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. into the City of Long Lake pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 414.061, Subd. 5, fiL ; And WHEREAS, on March 28, 1990, Orono filed its response in opposition to the petition of Long Lake; and WHEREAS, the matter is presently pending before the Minnesota Municipal Board, and currently scheduled to resume trial on November 25, 1991; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to amicably resolve the petition of Long Lake without further litigation. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows: 1. Long Lake shall forthwith file an application for rezoning and subdivision approval of the subject property with Orono for the development of thirteen (13) lots as described in L Exhibit B which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. As part of the application for rezoning of the subject property, Long Lake agrees to extend sewer and water to the subject property, which shall be chargeable against Long Lake's allocation for sewer and water units. 2. Upon filing of the application for rezoning and subdivision approval with Orono, Orono agrees that it will use its best efforts to expeditiously process the applications Additionally, upon receiving all appropriate filings from Long Lake as an applicant property owner for subdivision, rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment, Orono sha^.! commence its reguired procedure to file an application with the Metropolitan Council to amend the MUSA line and shall work with the Metropolitan Council to expeditiously process that application Orono agrees to process all aspects of the rezoning and subdivision applications simultaneously with the processing of the application for amendment of the MUSA line with the Metropolitan Council. 3. This Agreement is expressly contingent upon the zoning approvals of Orono, and the approval of the amendments to the MUSA line by the Metropolitan Council, in a form that in the sole judgment of Long Lake would permit the reasonable development of the thirteen (13) lots on the subject property. Upon the granting of the zoning approvals of Orono, and the approval of the amendments to the MUSA line by the Metropolitan Council Orono shall contemporaneously complete and execute the Declaration of Covenants contained in Exhibit C and forward it (L. • to Long Lake for execution along with copies of the zoning approvals and approval of the amendment to the MUSA line. If Long Lake determines in its sole judgment, that the zoning approvals of Orono, the approval of the amendments to the MUSA line by the Metropolitan Council, and the completed Declaration of Covenants would permit the reasonable development of the thirteen (13) lots on the subject property. Long Lake shall execute the Declaration of Covenants and cause the same to be recorded and proof thereof forwarded to Orono. 4. Upon satisfaction of all conditions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, supra, and upon filing of the final plat, the parties shall cause to be executed and delivered to the Minnesota Municipal Board a Joint Resolution in the form attached as Exhibit D providing for the concurrent detachment and annexation of the subject property from Orono into Long Lake pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 414.061, Subd. 5. 5. The parties agree that time is of the essence and tha*- each municipality binds itself to the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in taking all action that is reasonably necessary to effectuate the terms and conditions of this Agreement Dated:1 r THE CITY OF ORONO Its Mayor By f A ti Its City Attorney 3. ATTEST: City Clerk Dated THE CITY OF LONG LAKE Its Mayocf ATTEST: City Clerk Its City Attorney CJD:QU18 4. JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITIES OF LONG LAKE AND ORONO (FORM A) For the concurrent detachment and annexation of certain lands from the City of Orcno and the annexation of the same to the City of Long Lake pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 414.061; and the stipulation of both municipalities that neither will support future annexations by either municipality pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 414.061. RECITALS WHEREAS, Long Lake has petitioned for the concurrent detachment and annexation of certain real property, described in Exhibit A which incorporated herein by reference, into the City of Long Lake pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 414.061, Subd. 5, fit Sfia-; and WHEREAS, Orono has opposed the petition of Long Lake; and WHEREAS, the matter is presently pending before the Minnesota Municipal Board, and currently scheduled to resume trial on November 25, 1991; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to aunicably resolve the petition of Long Lake without further litigation allowing Long Lake to assume jurisdiction and Orono to enforce certain covenants after annexation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Cities of Long Lake and Orono do hereby resolve as follows: 1. That certain real property situated in the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, which is legally described in Exhibit A, and to which Long Lake holds title in fee should be detached from the City of Orono and annexation to the City of Long Lake. 2. That the City Council for the City of Orono finds that the above-described property now located within the City of Orono abuts the City of Long Lake and is subject to concurrent detachment and annexation by concurrent resolutions of the two council of the two municipalities pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 414.061. 3. That city council of the City of Orono agrees that the above-described property should be concurrently detached from the City of Orono and annexed to the City of Long Lake. 4.That the city council of the City of Long Lake agrees thP.t the above-described property should be concurrently detached from the City of Orono and annexed to the City of Long Lake. 5. That this resolution is being adopted concurrently and jointly between the city council of the City of Orono and the city council of the City of Long Lake, Hennepin County, Minnesota, approving such detachment and annexation as provided by law. 6.That both the city council for the City of Orono and the Ci'y of Long Lake requests the Minnesota Municipal Board to grant their request for the concurrent detachment and annexation of the above-described real property to be effective upon issuance of the Board's order or at such later date as provided by the Board in its order. 7. That it is the desire of the City of Long Lake to covenant that it will oppose from this day forth the concurrent detachment pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 414.061 of any property 2. r presently located within the City of Orono and annexation of said property into Long Lake, and agrees that this covenant shall be specifically enforceable against Long Lake by the City of Orono in any proceedings before the Minnesota Municipal Board, or any court of competent jurisdiction. 0. That both the city council for the City of Orono and the City of Long Lake request that the Minnesota Municipal Board approve the co^'^enant of Long Lake that it will from this day forth not support the concurrent detachment and annexation pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 414.061 of any property located within the jurisdiction of Orono, and that said covenant shall be specifically enforceable by Orono in any proceedings before the Minnesota Municipal Board and any court of competent jurisdiction to be effective upon issuance of the Board's order or by the court upon the issuance of its order. Passed by the City of Orono this - - day of 1?93. Edward Callahan, Mayor ATTEST: , Clerk 3 . Passed by the City Council of the City of Long Lake this day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 1993 . Tod Olson, Mayor ATTEST: LuVerne Hanson, City Clerk CJD:gW8a i. 0? \1 % TO;Ron Moorse. City Administrator FROM: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director 1 DATE:November 4, 1993 \ SUBJECT: Fuel Tank Removal Crystal Bay Site On November 1, 1993 we began rem.oval of the underground fuel tanks at the Cr> stal Bay site. The unleaded gas tank had holes in the bottom and it was determined that there was contaminated soils under the tank. We could not remove the comammated soils because our equipment would not reach to the depth necessary to find the end of the conumination. Further testing of that area is necessary to determine the appropriate method of mitigation. We also experienced approximately 80 cubic yards of contaminated soils around one diesel fuel tank. That material has been transported to the Public Works site where it is being stored until the proper method of cleaning up the contaminated soil is determined. Due to the contaminated soils, eight additional soil samples have been taken for further analysis. I will present further inlbrmation as it becomes available. TO: PROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator November 4, 1993 //V c (9 Receipt of the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting - 1992 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report >1 Attachment:Notification Letter From Government Finance Officers Association Dated 10/22/93; Sample News Release; Award of Financial Reporting Achievement The City of Orono has been awarded the G.F.O.A.'s Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the Comprehensive annual financial report for the year ended December 31, 1992. This is the sixth consecutive year the City has earned the certificate. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. Congratulations to Finance Director Tom Kuehn, and to his staff for their ongoing efforts, and to the audit staff of Malloy, Karnowski, Radosevich and Co. for their valuable assistance, and to the City Council for the leadership in supporting and encouraging the City to seek this award. The Certificate of Achievement plaque will be shipped separately in the next few weeks. At that '• ime the City can arrange for a formal presentation, with appropri=>te pu.jlicity. PROPOHED MOTION ■ Moved by seconded by that the Council cong.rat'ulate Finance Director Tom Kuehn and the Financial staff for the City's obtaining the G.F.O.A. Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the 1992 Comprehensive Annual Finance Report; and acknowledges the valuable assistance provided by the audit staff of Malloy, Karnowski, Radosevich and Co. Ayes , Nays n:f GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 100 North Michigan Avenue. Suite 000. Chicego. Illinois 60601 312/977-9700 • Fax: 312/977-4006 > '7 '1SS3 October 22, 1993 The Honorable Edward Callahan Mayor City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Mayor Callahan: We are pleased to notify you that your comprehensive annual finan­ cial report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1992 qualifies for a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form or recognition in governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. When a Certificate of Achievement is awarded to a government, an Award of Financial Reoorting Achievement is also presented to the individual designated*by the government as primarily responsible for its having earned the certificate. Enclosed is an Aware of Financial Reporting Achievement for: Thomas M. Kuehn, Finance Director. The Certificate of Achievement plaque will be shipped under sepa­ rate cover in about eight weeks. We hope that you will arrange for a formal presentation of the Certificate: and Award of Financial Reporting Achievement, and that appropriate publicity will oe aiven to this notable achievement. To assist with this, a sample news release and the 1992 Certificate Program results are enclosed. We hope that your example will encourage other government offi­ cials in their efforts to achieve and maintain an appropriate standard of excellence in financial reporting. Sincerely, GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Stephen J. Gauthier Director/Technical Ser'/ices Center SJG/kas Enclosures WASHINGTON DFPiCE 1750 K Street N W. Suite 650. WasMngton OC 20000 202/429-2750 • Fe* 202/429-2755 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 180 North Michigan Avenue. Suite 800. Chicago. Illinois 60601 312/977-9700 • Fax; 312/977-4806 October 22, 1993 NEWS RELEASE For information contact: Stephen Gauthier (312) 977-9700 (Chicago)--The Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Finan­ cial Reporting has been awarded to: CITY OF ORONO by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) for its comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR). The Certificate of Achievement is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and finan cial reporting, and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. An Award of Financial Reporting Achievement has been awarded to the individual designated as primarily responsible for preparing the award-winning CAFR. This has been presented to: THOMAS M. KUEHN, FINANCE DIRECTOR The CAFR has been judged by an impartial panel to meet the high standards of the program including demonstrating a construe tive "spirit of full disclosure" to clearly communicate its financial story and motivate potential users and user groups to read the CAFR. The GFOA is a nonprofit professional association serving 12,625 government finance professionals with offices in Chicago Illinois, and Washington, D.C - 30 - WASHINGTON OFFICE 17S0KScTMt. N W..Su4e 650. WMtanoton. CX: 20006 >9^7202/429-2750 • Fai 202M29-2755 The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada presents this AWARD OF FINANCIAL REPORTING ACHIEVEMENT to: Thomas M. Kuehn Finance Director City of Orono, Minnesota Tlie Awat J of Finunaal Reporting Achmvmenl is presenteJ by the Government Finance UtfKen Association to those individuals who have been instrumental in their government umt arbifvmg d Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. A Certificate of Achievement is presented to those government units whose annual financial reports are judged to adhere to program standards and represents the highest axeard In government financial reporting. Executive Director Date Octooer 22, 1993 PRESENTATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTIMG The Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting is the highest form of recognition for state and local governments. The Certificate program thereby advocates that recipients be formally recognized for their outstanding accom­ plishments. If you would like a formal presentation of the Certificate of Achievement plaques, you should contact your GFOA State Representative. Your representative's mailing address and phone number is as follows: Denise Kautzer Director of Finance Metropolitan Airports Commission 6040 28th Avenue South Minneaspolit, MN 55450 612/726-8149 LIST OF LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 8, 1993 n S<;pCic System Installer - Quickway Excavation Rockford "o '4.AC'W 'Q. '4^ ’/y ^ Gambling License - Lions Mound Northwest Tonka Club at Navarre Lanes 3435 Shoreline Drive One Day Set-Up Permit -Minnetonka Center for the Arts 2240 North Shore Drive Holiday House Event November 18, 1993 Approximately 6-10:00 p.m. CITY of OKONO (612) 473-7357 Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay^ MN 55323 SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLERS LICENSE APPLICATION All questions must be answered. License fee, bond, certificate of insurance, and evidence of MPCA Certification must be attached. All applications are subject to a ten (10) day approval period. 1. 2. 3. Business or trade name f C- Business address JoCY. ^~QS ^ / Business phone V 7 7- "SO 77^ Residence phone ^ ~77~ 5 7 4. Name of applicant ar company representative holding MPCA certification ----*______________________________ 5. 6. 7. Type of certification held: Installer Certificate expiration date Pumper Have you ever held a Septic System Installer license AfYv r,c rrjnun ^------------------.. iX Most recent year ^ 21 __ ' '''Orono before? Have you ever had a license revolced? Where? \J O V?hen? f7.V/)Afif CfF/Cfiznzoom m C£H 5Q.0C 8. Do you do Municipal Sewer hook-ups? Yes 9. Do you pump out septic tanks? Yes _ _ _ No SUBMITTALS REQUIRED: ^ 2. L<^3. 4. $50.00 License application fee. $2000.00 license and permit bond naming City of Orono as . obligee. The State Plumbers Bond will not be accepted $50-100-300,000 minimum Certificate of Insurance Copy of current MPCA Certificate. ' LICENSES WILL NOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL ITQ!S ARE SUBMITTED List persons other than applicant who are authorized by you to apply for permits under your license ________________________________________________ The undersigned hereby makes application to the City of Orono, Minnesota, for a license to install and repair septic systems, and/or pump out septic tanks, subject to the laws of the State of Minnesota and the Ordinances of the Cityj of Orono. Date /O ' y I " 3 Applicant's Signature ____ CITY USE ONLY Staff recommendation Approval Reason for denial: Denial Date City Council Action Date Date license mailed Approved Denied STATE OF MINNESOTA OAMBLINQ CONTROL BOARD PREMISES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION LG214PPR PRINTED:08/13/93 POR BOARD USB ONLY AMT PAID CHECK NO. DATE LICENSE NUMBER: B-01B30-001 EFFECTIVE DATE: 02/01/92 EXPIRATION DATE: 01/31/94 NAME OF ORGANIZATION: Lions Mound Northwost Tonka Cl\ib OAMBLINQ PREMISES IMFORMATIOW NAME OF ESTABLISHMENT WHERE GAMBLING WILL BE CONDUCTED Eavarro Lanas 3429 Shorollna Or Navarra 55392 ;X)ONTY • ♦ . f V lEPXN IS THE PREMISES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS?: Y LESSOR IMFORMATIOM DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION OWN THIS SITE?: No IF NO, LIST THE LESSOR: Oonald Scharvan 3495 Bhoralina Or Navarra MM 55392 NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER (WHEN NOT LESSOR): cm OF Dim Fm>iCE OFFICE 1313400000 01 CES 10,00 TOIM. „ ,^.00 *^.00 90,00 .^EC£IFT~fHm YOU BINGO ACTIVITY U2Ss950 COOl Ml 70S:4 BINGO IS CONDUCTED ON THIS PREMISES: No IF YES, REFER TO INSTRUCTIONS FOR REQUIRED ATTACHt^Hf^^^^J SQUARE FEET PER MONTH: SQUARE FEET PER OCCASION: AMOUNT PAID FOR RENT MONTH: AMOUNT PAID PER OCCASUM^ru nmnru STORAGE ADDRESS 2339 COMNBRSE BLVD MOUND NN 55344 BANK INFORMATION Marquatta Bank 2220 Co—area Blvd Mound NN 55344 GAMBLING BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0031419 ON TRE LINES PROVIDED BELOW LIST THE NAME, ADDRESS AND TITLE OF AT LEAST TWO PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO SIGN CHECKS AND MAKE DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS FOR THE GAMBLING ACCOUNT. THE ORGANIZATION’S TREASURER MAY NOT HANDLE GAMBLING FUNDS. /?.^ f7 A (BE SURE TO COMPLETE TBE REVERSE BIDE OP TRIS APPLXCATZOM) .TIlS FORM WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE IN ALTERNATIVE FORMAT (I.E. LARGE PRINT, BRAILLE) UPON REQUEST ACKNOWLEDGMENT OANBLXNO PREMISES AUTEORISATZON I HEREBY GIVE CONSENT TO LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, THE GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD, OR AGENTS OF THE BOARD, OR THE COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OR PUBLIC SAFETY, OR AGENTS OP THE COMMISSIONERS, TO ENTER THE PREMISES TO ENFORCE THE LAW. BANK RECORDS INFORMATION THE GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD IS AUTHORIZED TO INSPECT THE BANK RECORDS OF THE GAMBLING ACCOUNT WHENEVER NECESSARY TO FULFILL REQUIREMENTS OF CURRENT GAMBLING RULES AND STATUTES. DECLARE THATI I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION AND ALL INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO THE GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD; ALL INFORMATION IS TRUE, ACCURATE AND COMPLETE;; ALL OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION HAS BEEN FULLY DISCLOSED; Z AM THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE ORGANIZATION; I ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FAIR AND LAWFUL OPERATION OF ALL GAMBLING ACTIVITIES TO BE CONDUCTED; I WILL FAMILIARIZE MYSELF WITH THE LAWS OF MINNESOTA GOVERNING LAWFUL GAMBLING AND RULES OF THE GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD A.UD AGREE, IF ISSUED A PREMISES PERMIT, TO ABIDE THOSE LAWS AND RULES, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS TO THEM; ANY CHANGES IN APPLICATION INFORMATION WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD AND LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE CHANGE; I UNDERSTAND T21AT FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED INFORMATION OR PROVIDING FALSE OR MISLEADING ZNFORMAKON/ilAY RESULT IN THE DENIAL OH REVOCATION OF THE PREMISES PERMIT. ZBP/EZBCUTZVB OFFICER ■ IT A< DATE • MUST SIGrmrrS-APPLICATION IF THE GAMBLING PREMISES IS LOCATED WITHIN CITY LIMITS. 2. THE COUNTY** AND TOWNSHIP** MUST SIGN THIS APPLICATION IF THE GAMBLING PREMISES IS LOCATED WITHIN A TOWNSHIP. 3. FOR TOWNSHIPS THAT ARE UNORGANIZED OR UNINCORPORATED, THE COUNTY** IS REQUIRED TO ATTACH A LETTER TO THIS APPLICATION INDICATING THE TOWNSHIPS STATUS. 4. THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT (CITY OR COUNTY) MUST PASS A RESOLUTION SPECIFICALLY APPROVING OR DENYINC THIS APPLICATION. 5. A COPY OF THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT'S RESOLUTION APPROVING THIS APPLICATION MUST BE ATTACHED TO THIS APPLICATION. 6. IF THIS APPLICATION IS DENIED BY THE LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT, IT SHOULD NOT BE SUBMITTED TO THE GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD. TOWNSBIPt BY SIGNATURE BELOW, THE TOWNSHIP ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE ORGANIZATION IS APPLYING FOR A PREMISES PERMIT WITHIN TOWNSHIP LIMITS. CITY* OR COUNTY**TOWNSHIP** CITY OR COUNTY NAME TOWNSHIP NAME SICNi^TORE OF PE^^N REQEIVIN^ APPLICATION SIGNATURE OF PERSON RECEIVING APPLICATION DATE RECEIVED TITLE DATE RECEIVED REFER TO THE CHECKLIST FOR REQUIRED ATTAG MAIL TOt OANBLINO CONTROL BOARD 1711 W COUNTY RO B - SUITB 300 S ROSEVILLE, MM 9S113 . • . I . I A RESOLUTION GRANTING GAMBLING PERMIT FOR NAVARRE LANES LOCATED AT 3435 SHORELINE DRIVE BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Orono agrees to approve the gambling permit application for the Northwest Tonka Lions Club for operations at Navarre Lanes, 3435 Shoreline Drive. The above listed resolution was moved by and duly seconded by The following CouncilmemLers voted in tiie affirmative: The following CounciImembers voted in the negative: The above resolution was duly adopted on November 8, 1993 . ATTEST:Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk k Date: To: From: Subject: November 3, 1993 Ron hoorse, Cit^ ndministrator I Steve Sullivan, Chief of Police One Day Set-Up Permit ^l^0^4fCI7 200 0109 MIN^IESO^A^E^AnIMEN.Of PUBLIC SAEerE 333SI0LEV . St pwl'mn °6"|01 H.liA^ IE1/.A DATH: APf’LK.A riUN rOM CON5UMPT1UM AfJU DISPLAY (5E T UPiT’^RMIT ^ ONE DAY PERMir FEE Jlfe6.06' $25.00 NAMr AND AOOnrs5 ^Un^iU ah C Niif ronnfCT ma > 5 CHAfiGCS IN srAcf 5 «r I ciu CF or^mo FmfiCE OFFICEumoooco 01 CEH :501 C‘.V 5 NO IE: ALL CLUB 'ON-SALE’ INTOXICATlf^G LIQUOR LICENSEE S ARE EXEMPT FRO^^'^. r/}iM rjAi T( ■.I A|i|illc4ni| N«*m« (Hu«tr«<i|i. ^ .'i# po# it ft.«» bounty : YOUicuuoio ccoi r<oi Ti ------:------------IL'il I Kv K3 oy^ T.fnpiT I ...1 Ati»4t* riiip Nbiif ol o* Club Mana^r T_______________ tY\ iAAg^icyVt^ ni fji'tinati 1 ilftlau*«ni. IJa'tc* *«an. #«c | \Vets.n<. rv Bu«»n*»t AHon* “ /'A Ctxj* ^5 Ml - - - S.Jf'itW ttaM. •!( I " Latj^PMai -K iVr-v Lc^W CW aa pnJ,-+~l_ — —«'*« V ^ — ■ ■ I _____ _ ._____________ • w f V I L/^ % V I ! I Atffi.at* .,1 Mana^w ---------^^ ■ 1 * Pift-tir Or. UauA-ut-L CAr»-.*^ fW, If ^ ^ ol ------------------------ 1A j *S Al'IM U A M« )»♦ OMIMMIAI _____________ On ® .rr..A»4M rn I I icfWrrNT.Mf Anrr77r,-^r7;r?r^ llt«%ina%« i'aioia*/DMtfar ron A i*uniic BusiNt«;s — ■ ......... .............. " » Co.on.A..„A ............. . ...„ A..0,,.. P. E„.o..«„ t7g//£, 7^s . • l*4ll>ia* AUllctf ^ ------- ^FkrrtJ f‘ !/. /2rj Afirli an 5‘f£o /U*:i^eA-/5ilt. /Uo. A*jtiiaM UJa*/242t.. X/jU SS57/ INI® o«aa>*ii»®^4w'<ib«< ol MaMit»««« row A AwivATg Clue 2.^^ (SaA. /^aaX. ^XJt^Zeaii. ^x/ SSJ^ / AM.ounI ®l nu»» Ma>nt»eiti>l» AaOwHat**®®!* VIw \FS '10 /? '« < 'ub fliiti'iiM® t^fa® lit n#««iaii »LH»»% f.tuJi Mat**ta«<« i.fp«Na*l t O* M®ttt®®t« |t« )|.M® « iQwtM *n... On, TrnTTTTTi r ;T7I>*» # 11 oiTii,w® I I|«B OMl«®«/t»ttart®* N®'**® Arf*lia»» I.adXtn^unirr.h/M ,rt, oM.c,r o. d-.ccJo.. 7c.o0 a.., club uM.ctr u, ,Ji,«,or ,v,,L..,„, loci p.o......„r7.’r‘,l^'s^,r.'','i°,'.*:' "t:" °'°' •' *'•" NO CONS'DI ^'A! ION iNlLl nr GivrN lo Mils APP l»?ATION UNliSS ArfAQvro ASPnovlOf 1) BMOi^ ir T Ml BUMNf s*> IS lOCA T11) IM a CO u N f v ^oo.tfo ^#...®..®t, Cootia ®9>®«®"«®l I.®l'®«® •I tMt BUSINESS IS ICM-ATf 0 in a MuNiCitAUTv ^**"***^ - <u n*»twoi«Mo«' f A*! D««® •r A ( tun AMArH A ro^v or thi constitution and nviAAfS or iMi cLuir and a cunRlNt ust or MTMBIRS CAyi CHICK •« • . • • . ,% ■. .• /•.% - •«• . • .a •; *. •* ■ % ;;; r‘* .• I : •> . \ •••; » - i r ( r TO; FROM: DATE: Ron Moorse, City Administrator \ John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director November 4. 1993 ^'4 \ SUBJECT: Demolition Costs - Crystal Bay Site During the planning process for the new City facility, we estimated demolition costs of the oU buildings in Crystal Bay to be $35,000.00. In February the old lumber yard storage shed a^ the smaller storage shed leased from the railroad were demolished due to the unsafe condition thev were in. $23,130.00. The total cost expended to-date for demolition is 527,995.UU. r I o V;/iCOUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Nov 4 ^I^^CK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT 1993/n/OS029294029295029296 029297 029291 029299 029300 1993/11/081993/11/081993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/OC 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 S19.55 $19.55*$480.00 $480 00*$39 42 $185 S3 $224.95* $55.00 $39.00 $53.00 $53.00 $200.00* $70 00 $70.00* 1993 01 23 08VENDOR A T A T DESCRIPTIONtelephoneALEXANDRIA TECHNICAL C FATS TRAINING $28 $28 $28 $28 $43 $28 $187 $6 $6 .64 .64 64 64 90 64 10' 01 01- ALL STAR ELECTRIC ALL STAR ELECTRIC AMERICAN TELECOM AMERICAN TELECOM AMERICAN TELECOM AMERICAN TELECOM ASPLUND COFFEE AT i T INFO SYSTEM AT 4 T INFO SYSTEM AT 4 ; INFO SYSTEM AT 4 1 INFO SYSTEM AT 4 T INFO SYSTEM AT 4 T INFO SYSTEM AT 4T REPAIR LGT HWV 12 4 LAMP REPLACEMENT PHONE MAINT INVE 812 PHONE MAINT INV • 12 PHONE MAINT INV • 12 PHONE MAINT INV 1125 COFFEE DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA PROC PROC PROC fROC PROC FROC TELEPHONE ACCOUNT • 0175-43200129-43560249-42330099-4343 0099-4340 0099-4340 0099-4340 0099-4340 0129-4382 0249 0129 0i74 0069 0129 0059 4340 4340 4340 4340 4340 4340 0129-4320 029301 1993/11/08 $95.04 $95 04*AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS CO SUPPLIES 0549-4232 029302 1993/11/08 $85.20 $85.20*BROCK WHITE SUPPLIES 0249-4232 029303 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 $10 65 $47.77 $58.42* BUDGET PRINTING BUDGET PRINTING printing ZONING NOTICES 0129-4322 0174-4322 029304 1993/11/08 $2,440 88 $2,440 88*CARGILL SALT ROAD SALT 0249-4233 029305 1993/11/08 $10 92 $10 92*CELLULARONE TELEPHONE 0249-4320 029306 1993/11/08 $405.79 $405.79*COLONIAL LIFE INS CO INS 0129 -4152 1993/11/08 1993/11/081993/11/08 1993/11/08 $17 99 $6 99 $30 25 $21 41 COf#4ERCIAL LIFE/GRP C^ERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP NCV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS 0039-41520174-4152 0069-4152 0249-4152 O u INVOICE001105124889272-239267-19 001106 001106 001106 001106 65036 001104 001104 001104 001104 001104 001104 001103 042678 65574201 40082 40038 864545 001110 001109 001108 001108 001108 001108 PO NUM Page 1 MANUAL OHOHOH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH o o ©COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Nov 4 1993 01:23:08 •CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT1993/11/08. . . . . .$2?02’1993/11/08 $ 8S1993/11/08 $2.631993/11/08 fi 951993/11/08 $67 67029307 $160.76*VENDORCOMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP * COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GR«» COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP descriptionNOV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS ACCOUNT 80549-41520590-41520569-41529001-12980129-4152 INVOICE001108* ' 001108 001108 001108 001108 P49* 2PO NUM. MANUALOHOHOHOHOH0293011993/11/08 $464 91 $464 91*CONNELLY INDUSTRIAL PARTS 0569-4232 OOllll OH0293091993/11/08 $189 87 $189 87*COPY DUP PR INC COPY MACHINE 0129-4210 1816475 OH 029310 1993/1 $5 50 $5.50*DEMBOUSKI/JAY PARKING 0129-4381 001112 OH 02^311 1993/11/08 $5 33 $5.33*DISCOUNT STEEL INC STEEL 0249-4232 5485 OH 029312 1993/11/08 85.265 00 $5.265 00*E-Z RECYCLING OCT RECYCLE FEE 0295-4392 000795 OH 029313 1993/11/08 $4,630 00 $4,630.00*EHALT. GREG REIMB GRINDER PUMP 0408-4399 001113 OH 029314 1993/11/08 $52.19 $52.19*ESS brothers & SONS GRATE 0569-4234 008280 OH 029315 1993/11/08 $168.81 $168 81*FEED i<ITE CONTROLS CHLORINE 0549-4234 24134 OH 029316 1993/11/08 $150 00 $150 00*GANGELHOFF, DONNA PICKUr DEERS 0185-4360 001114 OH 029317 1993/11/08 $92 80 $92 SO*HACH CHEMICAL CO CHEMICALS 0549-4234 410010 OH 029311 1993/11/08 $6 21 $6 21*HENN CTY DEPT T.AX POSTAGE 0040-4321 001116 OH 029319 1993/11/08 $1,099 00 $1.099 00*HENN CTY FIN DIV SEPT ROOM A BOARD 0080-4358 001115 OH 029320 1993/11/08 $286 41 $286 41*HENN CTY SHERIFF DPT SEPT BOOKING TEE 0080-4358 001117 • OH 029321 1993/11/08 $100 00 $100 00*INGLESIDE ENGINEERING SEPTIC Lie REFUND 9001-3115 001118 OH 021322 1993/11/01 $411 69 $411 69*JOHN BECKMAN REPAIRS 0590-4343 001107 ON 1993/11/08 $23 »6 KUEHN. THOMAS MILEAGE 0069-4381 001119 OH (aM i 4 #COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Nov 4 1993 01:23 (•8NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDORKUEHN, THOMAS029323029324 02932S 029326 029327 020321 029329 029330 1093/11/081993/11/081993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/1 /08 1993/11 *08 1993/11/.'8 1093/11/0(1 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1903/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1093/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1903/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1093/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 831.36 855.22*842 50842 50‘837.50837.50 837.50 837.50 850.75 8579.00 8220 00 8409 00 81.203.00 8781.00 839.00 875.00 844.50 831.15 813.35 830.00 83.625 75* 84 99 8143 78 8148 77« DESCRIPTIONmileage ACCOUNT • 0569-4381LEHNES TIRE SERVICE 1 SCRAPE TIRESLOG IS LOGIS LOGIS LOGIS LOGIS LOGIS LOGIS LOGIS LOGIS LOGIS LOGIS LOGIS LOGIS LOGIS LOGIS LOGIS - SUITE 300 - SUITE 300 - SUITE 300 - SUITE 300 - SUITE 300 - SUITE 300 - SUITE 300 - SUITE 300 - S:iITE 300 - SUITE 300 - SUITE 300 - SUITE 300 - SUITE 300 - SUITE 300 - SUITE 300 - SUITE 300 LONG LK FORD TRACTOR LONG LK FORD TRACTOR 8387 8258 8271 81.479 81.103 82,000 8813 8542 8458 87.313 .20 12 00 92 48 3'’ 00 00 16 20- MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE CHOICE 8331 53 8331 53 ‘MIDWEST ASPHALT 18 57 MIDWEST BSNS PROD$8 57 MIDWEST BSNS PROD114593MIDWESTBSNSPROD$124 44 MIDWEST BSNS PROD$8 58 MIDWEST BSNS PROD$8 57 MIDWEST BSNS PROD$8 $313 58 24*MIDWEST BSNS PROD $30 . $36 22 22* MINN COMM NETWORK SERVICES NETWORK SEi”':rES NETWORK SERVICES NETWORK SERVICES COURIER SEPT SERVICE SEPT SERVICE SEPT SERVICE SEPT SERVICE SEPT SERVICE SEPT SERVICE SEPT SERVICE MAINT HP2392A TERMIN MAINT HP2392A TERMIN MAINT HP2392A TERMIN COURIER PART RENT SEEDER NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS ASPHALT OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE I ASER OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES JET TONER SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPLIES TELEPHONE 0295-43480069 0569 0129 0174 0569 0129 0549 0569 0069 0174 0039 0039 0069 0569 0549 0069 -4340 -4340 -4340 -4340 -4352 -4352 •4352 -4352 -4352 -4352 -4352 ■4355 ■4340 ■4340 -4340 •4353 0249-4232 0290-4331 0569 0549 0115 9001 0039 0129 0249 0069 0174- ■4151 •4151 •4151 1298 4151 4151 4151 4151 4151 0249-4233 0059 0069 0129 0069 0174 0039 0249 4210 4210 4210 4210 4210 4210 4210 0249-4320 INVOICE001119 PO NUM. •001120 AR0993-2 AR0993-2 AR0993-2 AR0993-2 AR0993-2 AR00993-1 AR00993-1 AR00993-1 AR00993-1 AR00993-1 AR00993-1 AR00993-1 AR0993-2 AR0993-2 AR0993-2 AR0993-2 Pagt 3 MANUAL OH O OH OH OH UH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH 177434 OH001711OH 001123 OH001123V/* 1 OH i 001123 OH001123OH001123wTl OH001123wfH OH % 001123 wn (OH001123wn OH * * 001123 wn OH 001127 OH • 001125 OH001125OH 001125 wTl OH001125OH •- 001125 wn OH001125wfl OH001125wn OH * 001124 Of OCOUNCILCHECK REGISTER Thu Nov 4 1993 01:23:08 Pag*4CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT 1 INVOICE PO NUM. MANUAL0293311993/11/081993/11/08 916.17 928.08 944.25*MINN UC FUND MINN UC FUND UNEMPLOYMENT DICKEY UNEMPLOYMENT ROSS 0040-415405S0-4154 001122001122 OH 029332 1993/11/081993/11/08 9216.54916.24 9232.78* MINNEGASCOMINNEGASCO UTILITIESUTILITIES 0099-43240569-4324 001128001128 OHOH 029333 1993/11/08 924.98 924.98* MN BENEFIT ASSN INS 0129-4152 001126 OH 029334 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 984.53 91,241.89 99.46 91,115.26 9798.70 988.28 985.51 922.28 93.31 9226 63 93.675.85* NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES 0249-4324 0549-4324 0569-4324 0099-4324 C'59-4324 0249-4324 0590-4324 0290-4324 0175-4324 0549-4324 001130 001129 001129 001130 001130 001130 001130 001130 001130 001130 OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH 02933S 1993/11/08 91,152.37 91,152.37* NSP ST LIGHTS 0249-4325 001131 OH 029338 1993/11/08 971 40 971.40* OMAN/LYLE MILEAGE 0174-4381 001132 OH 029337 1993/11/08 9153 62 9153.62* OPTICOLOR FILM &PHOTO FILM 0129-4210 171118-1 OH 029338 1993/11/08 94,704.74 94,704.74* PUBLIC EMPL RET ASSN PERA 10/11-10/24 9999-2031 001133 « OH 029339 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 922 81 913 79 936 60- RITZ CAMERA RITZ CAMERA FILM PROC PART 0129-4210 0129-4210 3762899 3762901 OH OH 029340 1993/11/08 1993/11/08 94.860 00 914.998 50 $19,858 50* SCHOEN^NG EXCAVATING SCHOENING EXCAVATING HAUL BLACKTOP CLEANUP CRYSTAL BAY 0249-4233 0480-4399 001135 001136 OH OH 029341 1993/11/08 $3,004 00 $3,004 00* SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVI 4TH QTR PYMNT 0100-4385 CO1134 ON 029342 1993/11/08 $1,000 65 $1,000 65* ST JOSEPH EQUIPMENT REPAIR MOTOR 0249-4341 SW03414 OH 029343 1993/11/08 $19 50 $19.50* STAR TRIBUNE NEWSPAPER 0039-4240 001U7 OH f' % L ACOUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Nov 4 1993 01:23:08 Page 5CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT •INVOICE PO NUM. MANUAL1993/11/08 S46.60 STREICHERS REPAIR 0129-4342 74006.1 ON1993/11/08 532.91 STREICHERS REPAIR 0129-4342 74003 1 OH029344579.51*1993/11/08 523.74 STRINGER BUS SYSTM FAX PAPER 0249-4210 184259 OH1993/11/08 S23.73 STRINGER BUS SYSTM FAX PAPER 0549-4210 184259 OH1993/11/08 523.74 STRINGER BUS SYSTM FAX PAPER 0039-4210 184259 OH1993/11/08 $23 73 STRINGER BUS SYSTM FAX PAPER 0569-4210 184259 OH1993/11/08 523 74 STRINGER BUS SYSTM FAX PAPER 0069-4210 184259 OH1993/11/08 $23.74 STRINGER BUS SYSTM FAX PAPER 0174-4210 184259 OH0293455142.42*1993/11/08 5975.12 SULLIVAN. STEPHEN NATL lACP CONF 0129-4356 001138 OH 029346 5975 12* 1993/11/08 586.55 THE LAKER ADV 0174 4323 001121 OH 1993/11/08 531.40 THE LAKER ADV 0039-4323 001121 OH 029347 5117.95* 1893/11/08 5288.46 US WEST CELLULAR INC TELEPHONE 0129-4320 001140 OH 029349 5288.46* 1993/11/08 541 30 US WEST COMMON TELEPHONE 0069-4320 001139 OH 1993/11/08 582 60 US WEST COMMON TELEPHONE 0174-4320 001139 OH 1993/11/08 582 90 US WEST COMMON TELEPHONE 0249-4320 001139 OH 1993/11/08 528 90 US WEST COMMON TELEPHONE 0569-4320 001139 OH 1993/11/08 512.39 US WEST COMMON TELEPHONE 0549-4320 001139 OH 1993/11/08 590.13 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 0039-4320 001139 OH 1993/11/08 558.02 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 0175-4320 001139 OH 1993/11/08 582.60 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 0059-4320 001139 OH 1993/11/08 5257 12 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHOr."0129-4320 001139 OH 1993/11/08 5106.74 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 0590-4320 001139 OH 1993/11/08 5141.90 US WEST COMMUN ADV 0590-4323 001139 OH 02I349 5984.60* 1993/11/08 5376.37 WATERPRO STOCK METERS 9672-1273 508359 OH 029350 5376.37* 1993/11/08 52,004 73 WAYZATA-CITY OF 3RD QTR WATER 0549-4359 001141 ON 029351 52,004.73* 1993/11/08 57.00 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIR REPAIR 0249-4342 38E63 OH 029352 57.00* 1993/11/08 58.31 WRIGHT HENN ELECTRIC UTILITIES 0249-4324 001142 OH 029353 58.31* 568,202.48 Q Q Pag* 5PO HUM.MANUAL74006 1 OH74003 1 OH1842S9OH194259OH184259OH184259OH184259OH184259OH001139OH001121001121OH COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY Thu Nov 4 1993 01:23:13001140FUND•001 GENERAL FUND $36,014.87FUND942591 PUB FAC CONST $14,998.50FUND•426 92 STUBBS SWR FD $4,630.00FUND•672 WTR OPERATING FD $4,735.88FUND•873 SWR OPERATING FD $2,343.72FUND•674 G/C OPERATING FD $774.77FUND•999 PAYROLL CLEARING $4,704.74$68,202.48 Page 1001139001139001139001139001139001139001139001139001139001139001139 S9.069.60$9,069.60*FIRST$2,732.57$2,732.57*FIRST$36,130.90$36,130.90*FIRST$1,355.00$1,355.00*GREAT«eoeoO OGROUP tT i INVOICE ^•96 1ip030000532IP030000524IP330000511IP130000519IP30000520IP30000525IP30000534IPto000516IP0000515IP0000521;p0000521IP000514IP 1 000523 IP 1 000533 IP 000529 IP 000527 • IP 000520 10/24/93 PR CB PRREGOR 189 11/30/93 PR- 190 CM PRREGOREMP » NAMt4716880604745633394769218194718408714754438624725039914695250264759997214688210184725290074687018685075854244696965624684208324690979844746678124753801514775006664754442494774639773886253584715699634731416244776472794756047535042603074725005741212624174753445124809435424777000233345C3281477028779473108428468909535 476783251 470700901469841107 475382983 473746173 47360962i« 470566529 469629194 475569177 267460042 472563051 474663296 470704904 475505?#2 461629488 500403192 477881539 ANDERSON, BRUCE L BOBZIEN, SUE A BORIC, SCOTT W BOSMA. JAMIE L BRINKHAUS. JOHN F CHESWICK, GARY B CORNICK, JAMES LDEMBOUSKI, JAY C ENGLISH III. IRVIMQ ERICKSON, KURT R FISCHLNICH,^ DAN T FRiTZLER, John mOAFFRON MICHAEL P GERHARDSON, JOHN R OOMAN, OAVIO J GREGORY, JAMES D HALLIN. DOROTHY M HANSEN. STEVEN CHANSINO. CAROL JHASEMAN. CAROLEJENSEN. ROONEY WJOHNSON. BRADLEY PJOSTROM. FOREST JKARNITZ, RICKY D KENNEN, JANICE M KNUTSON^ CHARLOTTE A KUEHN^ THOMAS M MABUSTH, JEANNE A MCINTYRE. WILLIAM E MCNICHOLS. DAVID L MOORSE, RONALD J MOROWCZYNSKI, JAMES NELSON, DAVID D OAS^ DANIEL O OBErtAlGNER, SCOTT 0 OBRIEN. RANDY L OMAN^ LYLE E PALMAR. GREGORY A OUAST. WAYNE A RATHBUN BARRY J ROSS, JOHN A SCHOENHOFF. JOHN B SKREEN, DALE S STF^FENHAGEN, RONALD SULLIVAN. STEPHEN X THOMTON. MARK R TOMTHFCK lAWRENCF F TOMCZYK MARK W VANO. BRUCE I VIE, LINDA S WALTERS, LINDA G WfCRMAN, STEPHEN j YTD CURRENTPTGROSSGROSS313749220186247312253546101464314474373400612137994162151423541815161168313818349172720313832741173622313 2917 99 1616 923137863321702553134690371568403137399641S09773137193051692233332380111473444244926791937433547883718187422912109133750122789358126928422615413140827311287666544441220954059639393275529370803136841361S8311932785.75 170 50312282174251315595562757715223166210146515476350521676133405501818452193173800962531311021515492312528047423118431363046616419235310101168 63931781808850422538541116419 92 27107 28 1412 35 33 32380 .06 1473 45 42 25818 52 1408 28 92 31742 55 1366 31 92 26100 21 1083 29 93 2862 75 231 00 31 10254 30 823 59 42 26037 01 1245 76 93 27893 55 1269 28 31 45252 78 2059 20 31 33468 89 1509 78 31 34333 99 1566 38 31 34900 94 1568 40 i3 27893 58 1269 28 1:22927 03 1271 47 - 9 ^ {20957 66 1059 12 13 24567 32 1117 93 •2.345 38 EMP « NAME469188028 CALLAHAN. EDWARD J 18324677 GOETTEN. J DIANN 470366069 HURR, JOELLEN L 473646272 JABBOUR, GABRIEL 476527186 KELLEY, CHARLES YTD CURRENTDPTGROSSGROSS113300.00 300.Ou112658 37 241.97112658 37 241.87112658.37 241.67112658 37 241.871.286.81m m• « ■ fl r f “ t‘.W i - » U »M ^ ~l P «cf £C>^ / •V•V 'ri i^l . fi,' Li eJ] V V 1a jy^-j^ a *4, ■ •j ; r .r ^ - i-^ — z:J 55|7w«s 'J^r:3 JJ 5> ::d -y iii >1^ • c:> ^^ is©ir^ Hi? 1%'u#>7a 3J ##^i COUNCIL MEETING NOV 8 1993 CTTYOFORONO i iiJ aJ '• r-n J t WEST HENNEPIN RECYCLING COMMISSION QreenfielcJ-Indspendenco-Long Lake-Loretto-Maple P*aifv-Medina-Oronc 65 Stubbs Bay Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 476-0012 i i October 23, 1393 To: Ron Moorae FAX # 473-0510 FOR THE I^mEDIATE ATTENTION OF YOUR MAYOR A CITY COUNCIL • ■ Be: 1994 Curbside Recycling The subject matter of the attached letter will definitely affect WHRC cities, and is very likely the first wave of numerous solid waste management changes for Hennepin County. I have advised both E-Z Recycling and Wright Recycling of this notice. Both E-2 6 Wright have been using the Recycling Center (HTS) in Brooklyn Park for approximately half of WHRC cities recyclables. Potential Impact on WHRC Cities Based on WHRC city recyclable tons taken to HTS for the first 6 months of 1993 and the number of households in each city, our cities cfiula ex^.act recycling contract increases beginning In January 1994 of; QiXa Greenfield Estimated Increase $ 700 Independence 1,500 liong Lake 1,000 X,oretto ;ioo Maple Plain 000 Medina 1,600 Orono ARIOSI $10,''oa Total 1 The subject letter is clearly an indication of the direction the Board of Comniseloners (the Board) is headed. I believe it is imminent that the Board will reduce the tipping fee and ultimately raise a portion of source reduction and hazardous wastes costs through user fees. At this late dato is unlikely that the Board will cease funding city curbside recycling urograms In 1994. However, it appears that cities will need to plan new funding for curbside recycling beginning in 1995. I will keep you advised. Very truly yours, Amelia Kroeger Recycling coordinator copy; sailed to WHRC CommlSilonerB Mr WliK ^ fknmpnt C0M*tfy Pmmi m Ikifrun^ IP 23- 1593 1P:3J RHH Ninni-sots *512 897 f-90i p,02HENNEPINdepartment of environmental managementAM North Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1309Phone: (612] 348-6846 PAX: (612) 348-8532 October 20. 1993 Dear Recycling Coordinator: The purpose of this letter is to inform you of a proposed change to Hennepin County’s Solid Waste Sr)c«:ial Fees and Handling Charges which may affect your organiration. The County’s Department of Environmental Management has recommended to the Board o Commissioners that a fee of $10 per ton be assessed on certain recyclables dr^ off at the Recycling Center in Brooklyn Park by commercial haulers. The fee would be effective as of January 1, 1994, if approved by the County Board. The fee would be assessed on office paper, magazines and ca^egs, newspaper, cardboard, metal cans, glass containers and plastic bottles delivered by commercial haulers. The purpose of the fee is to offset County costs to handle and racket these recyclables to end markets or scrap brokers but not debt service or operating cosU Recycling Center. It has been set equal for all recyclables to accommodate mixed loads of material and avoid the need to weigh each individual material in a load separately. The County Board’s Ways and Means Committee has schedul^ a Public Hearing on this and other proposed changes to the County’s Solid Waste Special Pecs Handing Charges. The hearing will be on Thursday, October 28, 1993, beginning at 11:00 a.m. in the County Board Room, 24ih floor of the Hennepin County Government Center. Individuals wishing to testify should contact Lois Hawkins, Committee Clerk, at 348-4019. Sincerely* Paul M. Krocning Planner, RecycHng Unit u TP ,Ptl| HENNEPIN COUNTY on equof oppoAjnity tmpioyer LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT € 11/1/93 to: INFO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: mv r> • ! ^ y 1393 Mayors, LMCD Member Cities City Administrators, LMCD Board Members Chair Bill Johnstone bake Minnetonka Conservation District Third Quarter Mayor's Report and Discussions Concerning LMCD's Role in Representing its Member Cities Mayors' participation in the quarterly LMCD Mayors Report is a valuable communication forum. The board appreciates your taking the time to share thoughts as well as to hear LMCD's progress on its range of issues. The September 24 meeting report is forwarded to share the comments made among the mayors. Board members' observations about this meeting include: 1. Th»;re is a need for continued improvement of corwunication with member cities. 2. The LMCD needs to more clearly communicate to cit.y officials its responsibilities in governing the l<lke. The state enabling act creating the LMCD and Mak'.agement Plan objectives and policies need to be periodically referenced. (background enclosed) 3. Most cities prefer to retain their individual board member lather than have them combined. 4. A single organization managing lake concerns is still re-ognized as useful and necessary. 5. Funding to carry out lake programs should be more equitably shared by public lake users. Since the mayor's meeting, some cities have addressed LMCD's role and manner in which it is being carried out. Their responses have been constructive while raising questions. One city, Orono, passed a resolution calling for LMCD's dissolution. That resolution is enclosed. LMCD board members are being asked to continue their personal contacts with their city councils to obtain feedback. An LMCD board workshop, 9:00 am, Saturday, November 20, dedicate further time to addressing Cxty concerns. The board is committed to an open exchange with city officials to resolve any unmet expectations. Thank you for continuing to express your interests to your board member as well as the board as a whole. m LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT THIRD QUARTER 1993 REPORT TO THE MAYORS MEETING REPORT 7:00 AM Friday, September 24, 1993 Lafayette Club, Minnetonka Beach PRESEI^fT: Mayors: John Anderson, Excelsior; Skip Johnson, Mound; Jerry Rockvam, Spring Park; Bob Gisvold, Wayzata; Ed Callahan, Oronc; Nick Duff, Woodland; Dick Engebretson, Deephaven; Vern Haug, Tonka Bay; Bob Abdo, Minnetonka Beach; Scott Carlson, Minnetrista (also LMCD Board member and treasurer). LMCD Board members: Tom Penn, Vice Chair, Tonka Bay; Bill Johnstone, Minnetonka; Doug Babcock, Secretary, Spring Park; Toro Reese, Mound; Bert Foster. Deephaven; Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach; George Owen, Victoria. Also present: Senator Gen Olson; JoEllen Hurr, Orono Council; Eugene Stromroen, LMCD Executive Director; Rachel Thibault, LMCD Admin. Technician; John Mugford, Sun-Sailor. 1. Welcome and introductions: Tom Penn, for Chair Cochran, welcomed those present and asked everyone to introduce themselves. Penn announced the new officers of the LMCD Board who will be taking office at the October 27th Board meeting 2. Discussion of the 8/22/93 concept draft report on LMCD Organization: Johnstone reviewed the main topics of the 8/22/93 Administrative Subcommittee memorandum submitted as a concept draft report to the mayors, city council members and city administrators. Johnstone then asked the mayors to comment on the report. The comments of the mayors were as follows: Haug. Tonka Bav: ► w-strongly fdvors a 14 inoinber board. He does not want Tonka Bay to be without a representative. *His feeling is that if people want to play on the lake they should pay. *He suggested th«'»t the LMCD Beard members could do the preparatory work on board issues. Then the mayors could make the decisions Cor the District. Carlson. Minnetrista* • i ii ♦Carlson's concern is that the LMCD has more responsibility than originally planned, eg. Eurasian water milfoil (EWM) control. ♦Carlson feels that a smaller board is more efficient, but is not sure how the District should be redivided. « j- •Regarding broader based funding, he doesn't see that much more funding is required except for the EWM program. The boat registration fee has been discussed as one way to raise funds. ♦There should be a consensus between the cities and LMCD Board on these issues before going to the legislature. Rockvam. Soring Park: „ w .. i♦Rockvam does not think that the reorganization of the board Is going to happen because none of the cities want to give up a vote. ♦He sees the primary issue of funding the LMCD is with the D^M J cities have tried to fund the program alone, but the lake is public waters. He wonders why the state is not funding the program. •He thinks the funding of the EWM program, possibly through more i^ney fr^ the DNR boat surcharge or a boat user sticker, should legislation. He sees it as dangerous to go to the legislature for anything else. •Johnson said^that the Mound Council members are okay with co^ining^f^und and Spring Park for one representative. They feel that a seven mesiber board is more manageable. Third Quarter Report to the Mayors, 9/24/93 Meeting Report, Page 2 Johnson. Mound, continued: •He suggested commissions to do some of the background work for the board and more citizen participation. •He would like to see the boat sticker funding implemented. Callahan. Qrono: •His personal opinion is that the LMCD should be abolished. He suggested that the lake management could be done better by a joint powers agreement. •The LMCD was originally founded to regulate certain things. Now it is trying to bring other bodies together as a facilitator to define what the other agencies and cities are going to do. A.s a facilitator, it is not a guardian of the lake, but an agent of out.side agencies, such as the DNR and MCWD. •He feels that a seven member board is more efficient, but the structure is not the problem. He feels that institutionally it is not useful any more. Johnson. Mound; •Johnson asked Callahan if that was the opinion of the Orono council members. Callahan responded that he plans to bring the matter to the Orono council to see if it would want to make a resolution to disband the LMCD. •Johnson said that he would like to ask the question of all the lake cities as to whether or not they want to disband the LMCD. If not, then they need to quit discussing it and move on. Senator Gen Olson: •Olson asked, if the LMCD is disbanded, then what do the cities propose to take its place? The second question for the cities to ask is what is the appropriate way of managing the lake. Abdo. Minnetonka Beach: •Abdo said that he feels that the LMCD is for the betterment of the Lake. With a joint powers agreement, who would be responsible to govern the lake and the shoreline? The lake belongs to the state, and he is not sure a group of cities would have the right to govern the lake. Callahan. Qrono: •Callahan said that Orono does not feel it has a fair representation with one vote. However, he recognizes that weighting the representation would not be acceptable to smaller cities. •Callahan asked what the LMCD is doing. Taking care of the environment? He's not sure LMCD is. EWM control would be done by t.ne DNR if pot the LMCD. On multiple dock licensing, LMCD doesn't do anything Orono couldn't do. The Water Patrol could be governed by a joint powers ^.greemenc . •The DNR and Met Council drove the Management Plan to keep LMCD in existence. •LMCD has no powers to deal with other authorities. Johnson. Mound: •Johnson said that the LMCD is the joint powers agreement for the lake. The LMCD is a necessary buffer for the cities. It is up to the cities to get close to their LMCD representatives and have the representatives explain what is happening to the councils. Once appointed, board members should not be under the thumb of the city councils, as they need to do what is best for the whole lake. •He hears that the LMCD doesn't do enough, or it does too much. He agrees that the LMCD needs to work more efficiently. However, if the LMCD were disbanded, something new would have to replace it. •As a small city they would like to have a voice. Ha suggested an executive committee of seven board members (to counsel the full board). •Duff feels there is a need tc have better communication between the board and the cities. The cities shou.'.d be advised before decisions are made.I ( Third Quarter Report to the Mayors, 9/24/93 Meeting ?eport. Page 3 Anderson. Excelsior: *Anderson said that Lake Minnetonka is a special resource upon which the lake cities depend. *He is not in favor of taking action to disband the LMCD. He supports working to improve the LMCD. Rockvam. Sot 1no Park: •Rockveun sees a credibility problem with the LMCD. He thinks there is a problem with reorganizing. He supports an Executive Committee. He also wants to get issue of disbanding out of the way. •Rockveun believes the Mancgement Plan was the cause of the credibility problem. The Board did not listen to the cities and as a result the Met Council had someone rewrite the plan. He sees the goals and objectives as difficult to implement due to lack of funds. •Rockveun was upset that some of the temporary minimum wake buoys were left in after the high water emergency was lifted. •Rockvam said that the Technical Review Committee was supposed to be a temporary committee, now it is permanent. (The executive director explained it was extended one year at the cities’ willingness to participate.) •He feels that the LMCD Environment Committee overlaps the MCWD jurisdiction. He said the tNrn is getting out of its ballpark. Carlson. Minnetrista: •In response to Rockvai.C s comments, Carlson said that the Management Plan identifies objectives and Iijlj assigned agencies for each issue. The LMCD was identified as having a coordinating role for some issues. The LI-ICD has been charged to be the coordinator for Lake Minnetonka because it looks at the lake full time while other agencies deal with it part time. •Carlson believes there will be only a marginal increase in funding required to implement the Management Plan. Most objectives are funded by otner agencies. Glsvold. Wavzata: •Gisvold believes the Management Plan is a "turf* issue. The LMCD should monitor lake quality. When the LMCD comes above the shoreline it causes a problem. The cities do not need another government agency controlling them above the shoreline. ,w-^^ •Gisvold recommended staying away from the legislature. He said the LMCD should get focused on its original purpose of managing the lake. He feels the LMCD has mostly done a good job. •Gisvold thinks that the subcommittee reviewing reorganization should have representatives from the cities. Senator Olson: •Olson has concerns about bringing these matters to the legislature. She strongly urged not proposing any action until there is strong agreement among the cities. ^ •Olson said to put a plan together as the legislators prefer to deal with an issue that has agreement among affected groups. •Regarding broader based funding, she said not to bring up the boat user fee until the 700 car-trailer parking issue is resolved. Johnstone: ♦Johnstone asked the mayors to bring the question of whether or not there should be an LMCD to the councils. P#nri I•Penn said that part of the frustration is that the LMCD is not hearing enough from the board members. The board members are not bound to do what the city council says, but the cities should let their board members know about their concerns to brin^ to th« LMCD BoArci. Third Quarter Report to the Mayors, 9/24/93 Meeting Report, Page 4 3. Evaluation of proposal for board member alternates: A 9/8/93 letter from LMCD Attorney Charles LeFevere was distributed which explains that neither the LMCD nor the cities have the legal right to appoint an alternate to a board member. Tne organization was created by the Legislature, rather than by the cities. Therefore the LMCD is governed by the law creating it. This law does not allow for board alternates. LeFevere also (•ave several reasons it would not be a good Idea to have alternates. 1 4. Voluntairy aspect of Cities' contributions to Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM) control budget: Penn gave an overview of what the EWM Task Force has been doing. He reported that outside agencies are a key part of the EWM control program. The LMCD has attempted to get the most for its money. He stated that the cities contribution to the EWM control program is a voluntary contribution and always has been. He feels the cities get their money's worth. He asked for continued support from the cities. The EWM task force and the LMCD will continue to make the EWM program more efficient. He said the LMCD will ask for more county and state help for EWM control. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 am. Prepared from LMCD staff notes 10/26/93. i-J i.I -4 :11 ’'U • I » • -* ••••'. - A— • - Sk CITY of OKOINO KE5l)U.riION O ' Tilli CIH COUNCIL \ 5cL f?"«El‘ NO. o o o REHOLLTION CONCERinUO LMCD 103 .B605-Subdivifiion 4, the Lak thercc-ftsi ac hV. vo.e. .o. iJB IT FURTHER RESOLVED, ^h*i^>u"gh ''cooperative the member Citiee to deceinune w » ^ perform any o£ the ^ ^ I t v-i,» 251li doy October, .y l by tH. Orono City Council. Ed^'aicl J.^'allahan, Jr.Mayor attest: nSi^niyTT-TSTTir-curr 1 n rk ‘ •1 ; ► I* H • tt I I * i: r»i I . I !; • 1 t 'h I : • '—»^- ^ '*|»*f*'-•*.vLAKF MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT I0JII 6II WAILR Plv\NNING AND rHOJKCI I.MI'l.IMKNI \HON 2490 10311.611 IlUAKU. Subdivision I. Coniposiiimi. T he dislrirt is governed by a ho.ird composed of mcin- bcfs elected by the governing bodies of the municipalities included in the district, wach municipality shall elect one member. Subd. 2. Term. The term of oHicc of each board member is three years. Subd. 3. Pouers. Subject to the provisions of ch:.ptcis 97A, I03D. IU3b, I03G, and 115. and the rules and regulations ol the respective agencies and governing bodies vested with jurisdiction and authority under those chapters, the district has the lollow- iiig powers: (1) to regulate the types of boats permitted to use the lake and set service fees; (2) to regulate, maintain, and police public beaches, public docks, and other public facilities for access to the lake within the territory of the municipalities, provided that a municipality may supersede the district’s action under this clause by adopting an ordinance specifically relernng to the district’s action by one year alter the district s action; (3) to limit by rule the use of the lake at various times and the use of various parts of the lake; . . . (4) to regulate the speed of boats on the lake and the conduct of other activities on the lake to secure the safety of the public and the most general public use; (5) to contract with other law enforcement agencies to police the lake and its shore, (6) to regulate the construction, installation, and maintenance of permanent and temporary docks and moorings consistent with federal and state law; (7) to regulate the construction and use of mechanical ami chemical means ol deic­ ing the lake and to regulate meehanical and chemical means of removal of weeds and algae from the lake; (8) to regulate the construction, conliguration. sire, location, and maintenance ol con,.i.cic.al mariaa! and Ihc.r related faeilmes imludinf patkinf. are.ae arid e.a.ma^ facilities. I he regulation shall be consistent with the applicable municipal building codes and zoning ordinances where the mannas are located. (9) to contract with other governmental bodies to perform any of the functions of tlUMo undci take research to deiermmc the comlilion and developmciii ol the lake and the water enicting it and to transmit their studies to the ^ and other interested auihonties. and to develop a comprehensive program to eliminate pollulion.^o r.ssiMance from and join in projects or enter into contracts ^iih fcclcral and state agencies for the study and ticatmcnt of pollution problems and demonstration programs related to them; and . ut.. (12) to petition the beard of managers of a walersbed conservalicn district is located for impiovcments under section lUJl 05. not iciiuired of the lake conservation disuict. sJbd 4 ll.l.-."- -'J P■o..■Ju.cv I I.C 4do,.l a 5c.nl. .Ckotato. of Hi' aiu.n of ll.c ll.nmcl. acd .ulen of P..Kcdu.c .0 fovero ll.c b,..,d . actions that arc consisleni with law. llivtorv: 19^0 c J9I art 2 i 49 1U3U6I5 UISIKICI t)IHCT KS. Subdivision 1 Klcctiuii and terms, (al The bond slull elect Iron, its . cl,,»pcHVm. lo serve lo. s penod of cnc ,es, and s'.all also elee.. see.e.a.v and . I.ea- 1 he olheers hold olhec al ihc pleasure ol the board , . . Subd 2 romrfns.iti..n. I be board s tall fis the lomjK.isjt.on of the olheers Subd 3 Other Olinc.v and euiployrcs. The m.aid may appoint other olheers. r* I t EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka provides a guide for maintaining and enhancing where possible, the environmental quality, recreational experience and aesthetic quality of the lake. Presently the LMCD. cities and state agencies that have a hand in managing Lake Minnetonka maintain active regulatory and reactive enforcement postures. The overall objective of this plan is for the vimious managing entities to coordinate their management activities on the lake in order to avoid duplication of efforts and for the LMCD to facilitate interagency coordination while continuing to be a strong and consistent advocate for Lake Minnetonka. If the environmental quality and user experience on the lake is to be protected, difficult decisions will have to be made by all managing entities. Decisions that control certain types o'* lake use and access and that impose necessary environmental controls to enhance water quality will not be popular, but they are needed for the good of the lake as a whole. Every agency involved with Lake Minnetonka is affected by this plan. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) need to improve the funding of existing programs, tighten regulatory 'controls and provide more enforcement. The cities need more extensive shoreland manageuicnt and environmental protection programs. The LMCD needs more clearly defined goals, more consistent access policies and a program tor better regulating ever increasing use of the lake in the summer. The pi; . includes general goals for lake use and recreation management and for environmental protection and inanagement for Lake Minnetonka, It contains specific management objectives (outcomes) that are identified by year. It also contains policy statements that suggest the preferred course of action that should be taken to meet the objectives, and identifies lead and supporting agencies for each of the policies. Lead agencies are the agencies identified as having the primary responsibility for carrying out a given policy. In most cases, lead agencies also have the principal jurisdictional authority; but in some cases, the lead agency has little real authority, and its principal job is to facilitate or coordinate the activities of other agencies having more direct jurisdiction for the actually implementing the policy. This plan is based on extensive research and assistance provided by the 14 lake cities, cooperating agencies, and consultants. It incorporates by reference the materials contained in the Luke Minnetonka Management Plan Working Papers, which assembles much of the background research upon which this plan is based. Appendix 1 includes terms used in the plan. LAKE USE AND RECREATION MANAGEMENT I he "Lake Use and Recreation Management” chapter of the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka establishes an overall goal for managing the surface use of l^c Minnetonka, pioposcs specific objectives that need to be accomplished before the end of this decade in onto to belter manage the lake environment, and identifies the lead agencies and cooperating agencies that in the view of the LMCD should have the responsibility for carrying out related management activities related to Lake Minnetonka. Lake Minnetonka is the premier general recreation lake in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, and every effort should be made to maintain and enhance its general recreational potential. The recreational use of the surface of Lake Minnetonka should be managed for broad public use with special focus on improving the quality c** the user experience. The public and private recreational lands surrounding the lake should be managed for the broadest public use and to minimize conflict oetween different types of uses. As one of the few water bodies in the region large enough for recreational use by large sail and power boats. Lake Minnetonka should be managed to ensure its long-term availability for such craft. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT Lake Minnetonka must continue to be an open, fresh water lake capable of supporting year- round recreational activities. Its waters should be as clear and free of pollutants <ts practical. The accelerated succession of the lake should be controlled to ensure that Lake Minnetonka can continue to exist as an open-water recreational lake into the foreseeable future. Algae and other vegetative growth in the lake should be balanced to provide adequate aquatic habitat and human enjoyment of the lake. 1 he challenge facing resource managers protecting the natural environment in and near Lake Minnetonka is to implement development controls that will inhibit the decline in water quality and the functional values of wetlands. Plans to protect the natural environment should extend beyond the shoreland of the lake to include the entire upper basin. In order to achieve environmental protection goals, the LMCD has to rely on other agencies and the 14 cities. While the LMCD has authority to regulate activities below the 929.4-foot contour (ordinary high water) on l>ake Minnetonka, the cities on the lake have authority to regulate activities above that level, and the DNR and the MCWD have regulatory powers extending both above and below the ordinary high water level. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE The Management Plan forges a new partnership between the LMCD, cities, MCWD, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, Hennepin County, Carver County, the Hennepin Conservation District, the Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District, the Metropolitan Council and the DNR. Ai important role of the LMCD is to advocate lake programs, keep partnerships functioning and maintain consensus with respect to priorities and programs. The management structure builds on strengths and does not create a new layer of government with its corresponding bureaucracy. An essential function of the LMCD, I eyond its regulatory programs, is to help assure that other agencies have the resources to implement their programs. The LMCD does this by being the foremost advocate for the lake, not by direct funding. In this way, traditional authorities and programs are maintained and enhanced when warranted. Funding for lake management will shift more of the costs to users. But beyond that, the existing taxing authority of tlic LMCD is profx>scd to be continued without change. IMPLEMENTATION The Implementation chapter summanzes the management activities presented in this plan by year m which activities need to commence in order to meet the dates established in the management objectives spread throughout the plan. The purpose of this chapter is to clearly identify management activities by date and agetKv, so that managiniT entities can budget their own resources as needed to accomplish the proposed activities on time. r I Pi f Thursday Thursday Friday Saturday Monday Thursday Friday Hadnasday Tuasday 10/26/97 as1mk.9ti.Asv LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 E. Mayzata Blvd., Suita 160, Wayzata, MN 55391 473-7033 11 19 25 26 L.M.C.D. MEETING SCHEDULE NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, 1993 NOVEMBER 1994 Laka Usa Dansity Study Planning Maating 8:30 am, LMCD Office, Wayzata Veterans Day (Office Closed) Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force 8:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Water Structures Committee 7:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Board Workshop 9:00 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Lake Use & Recreation Committee 5:30 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata Lake Access Committee 7:00 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata Thanksgiving Holiday Holiday (Office Closed) DECEMBER Administrative Committee Meeting 5:30 pm. Tonka Bay City Hall LMCD Board of Directors Regular Meeting 7:30 pm. Tonka Bay City Hall Environment Committee 0:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata •Sje4A««-<it-T; {/vM^ ia CL flrUW4i^ 0 l(Xt>e/vHA«^ ?,/995 400-?:ocp\ a^tluL-gCflW (v4>^ C^<Auxa- I^Vffiitc T2ia^*^ lAJict J/t. I4<-a(>l^ Olt473-2456. cii/^4ctlbiA. m:A COMMUJ^MTM llOf^Ave.So.^1 IJS^ . •. ^ ^}innrr./i ^ Vc|<j7?r<.^ *-*J 'i ^ •^0-4' C^L^' M S~S 3 ,2 ^(7 lililiililiiilliiililiilliiiMI *Vr^ f --' ii^v <49^ MMi:or'»n ' sfi n» ’. M ('Tf i» fj 1 A fJM IfJ V/f S 1 fj I fi I r ft A Ml 'AM ! p \ ' ■ ' ................. i < ;i I . ■ M ' * I < I • ■ BLUEPRINT DRAFTING BEGUN FROM GROUP REPORTS The policies rnd action steps proposed by the R-.'gLnal Blueprint issue groups are providing the ‘building blocks* for drafting the Blueprint document. The Council's Committee of Whole will begin considering draft sections of the Blueprint in November (see item on page 2). This issue of the Update takes a look at the findlr>gs arxf corKlusions of ^ issue groups, and describes tbi^Baxt ^p^n developing the Bw8Sini. ^ _ ■ STRENGTHENING THE REGION’S ECONOMY The Economic Strategy Group recommended that a regional economic strategy be developed, with government playing a supporting, not interventionist, role. Government woula help remove barriers arKJ support the economy with foundations* like infrastructure and an educated labor force. Government would not foster growth of specific industry sectors; the private market would do a better job of picking *winners.* Promoting the region as one economic unit is a key. As a start, the Council is bringing togetiier busirress people, educators and development ofTiciahi in a regional rourKftable Nov. 15 to discuss creating a regional economic strategy Among the issues to be considered supporting business to pr»rxnc the regional economy, dev^opmg an education strategy th<]d improves job skills, arxl promoting the region internationally. Other ideas to be pursued; • Looking at how well infra­ structure is meeting business needs, including tht^ possible need for new infrastructure, like tele­ communications. • Establishing goals to measure progress of the regional economy. • Providing business with data compiled by the Council. ■ REVITALIZING OLDER AREAS The future of the central cities and *'^the suburbs are linked, the Re'development/Reinvestment Group ^has concluded, and the region as a^whole will suffer if its older areas continue to deteriorate. A 1992 National Ceague of Cities stud-, showed that met^o areas with a wide disparity between central city and suburban per capita irKome have slower total empt^ment growth than metro areas where the disparity is less. The group sees jobs and econdfhic development as essential ingre­ dients in revitalizing our older areas. The problem is current incentives and their effect on development: toc^ many encourage development outside older areas and too few| support redevelopment jnskJe. The Council is considering specific stepsf to ’level the playing field* and support efforts to improv^ conditions In deteriorated areas. I Examples of possible steps include; • Establishing a regional f indemnification fund for cleanup, liabilities at polluted sites aiKl October 1993 clarifying the standards for cleanup. • Returning tax-increment financing to a focus on promoting redevelopment and housing for low- and moderate-income households. • |i I . j I» ‘ • f . » " f income,peopl9tqijo^ • Targeting housing to efforts areas in dedne and recluoa concentrations of povei^^ •:'. ' vr ■■ ■ A. ■ THE COUNCIL’S REGIONAL BLUEPRINT — WHAT IS IT? The Regional Blueprint — the Development and Investment Framework — is the Coundrs plan for economic growth and development in the region. The Council expects to complete a new drdt of the Blueprint for public discussion by the end of January 1994 arKf adopt a firuil version next spring. The Council is looking at managing suburbari growth, encouraging redevelopment arxJ reinvestment where it's needed, promotkig jobs and economic growth, and managing regional faciikies that support development. If you're interested In healing develop the Blueprim, pleMe caH Vivian Ramirez on the Coimcii Aaff at 291-6594. AM?’ IN v r S f M T Mt tr IMS - Itit Update mailing list.• You're welcome to attend the meetings of the Council's Committee of the Whole, which will begin reviewing the Blueprint draft in November (see calendar). • We can regularly send you the agendas and information materials for Committee of the Whole meetings where the Blueprint is discussed. • If you have questions or comments, you can talk to any Council member or the staff listed below; John Kari (291 -6548) Ana Moreno (291-6601) Joanne Barron (291 -6385) Guy Peterson (291-6418) Bill Byers (291-6322) Hal Freshley (291-6467) Pal Pahl (291-6392) Alan Morris (291-6446) 9 9 9MIW9 9 99 ■ A NEW APPROACH TO LAND USE PLANNING The Urban Service Area Group concluded that a new approach to regionaiji^d use planning is The grdQp affirmed the concept of an urban service area as crucial to promoting the orderly expansion of regional services. But it found that negotiated agreements with cities vrould be less regulatory and more comprehensive than current practices. Such agreements would consider how to deal with issues like fordable housing, environ ­ mental protection arnf local sharing of goverrvnent services. Under the new approach, a local request to expand the urban service area would trigger negotiations between the Council and local governments. The negotiations would produce solutions tailored to city, mutticommunity and regional concerns. Cities would be responsible individually for meeting the terms of the agreement. But they would be encouraged to plan solutions jointly with other communities The Council would also eritphasize joint planning by ’clusters’ of cities where ex|>ansions of the urban service area are not involved Such rrfanrwig would focus wi common and transit facilities. An expansion in the urban service area may be allowed to accommodate such development if justified by strong market demands and too little available land. ■ INVESTMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT The Regional Investment Group determined that the region faces decisions about making major investments in new regional facilities-possibly a new airport or expansion of the existing one, a light rail transit system, and upgrading of sewage treatment. The impact of these investments on future long-term regional debt could be substantial. Among the ideas being considered: a consolidated and streamlined review of regional investments to monitor debt levels; Council review of sjDecial facilities (like those for sports, entertainment or cOltural activities), as well as region-wide programs (such as a restructured fiscal disparities'program) that raise ^llars fro'm sources in the region. November 15^Work eeMlon for business, education and government leaders on developing a regional economic strategy — discussion sponsored by the Council, Greater Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce, Minnesota Higher Education boordinating Board and Twin Cities Economic Development Planning Group. Remainder of the Render lists meetings scheduled to date when Council members will consider the Blueprint draft. You're cordially invited to attend any of ^e meetings. All meetings will be held at the Council offices. Meeting/times and agendas are occasionally changed, so please call to confind (291-6594). NOVEMBER November 23, 4 p.m. Comrnittee of the Whole — initial discu^ion of Blueprint draft. / DECEMBER ■ SCHEDULE FOR DRAFTING BLUEPRINT From now through mid-November, Council staff will be merging the findings of the issue group reports into a first draft of the Regional Blueprint. Meetings of the Council's Committee of the Whole have been scheduled for November, December and January (see calendar) for Council members to discuss the policies and action steps included in the draft. During this time, the Council will meet with ’partner* organizations to discuss their reactions to the draft. The Council expecns to adopt a draft for public hearing at the ernf of Jarniary Later in 1994, the Council will adopt the Blueprint as its action plan for shaping the region’s future December 7,4 p.m. Committee of the Whole — Blueprim draft. December 14, 4 p.tr;. Committee of the Whole — Blueprint draft. JANUARY January 4,4 p.m. _____ Commllta* of the draft. ■ ' f,-'. V * el ■ V; ; January 11,4 Commiltet of tho Whc draft. January IB, 4 p.io. Committee of tho WIM m -V, ;,v' , Yi , ... draft. January 2S, 4 p.oL;" l ____ Committee of the draft. January 27,4 p.m. Metropolitan Council — adoption of ptblic twaring draft of Blueprint • »-< I I I > r« Of V f I iif Ml N I I i. I OCT 2 T 1S88' October 25, 1993 Mayor Edward Callahan, Jr. Orono City Office P.O. Boy 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mayor Callahan: This letter Is to inform you that Washington Scientific Industries, Inc. has recently experienced a mass lay-off. This lay-off was due to unexpected schedule reductions by two of our major customers. The facility affected is located at 2605 es Wayzata Blvd., Long Lake, MM 55356 The names, positions affected and effective dates are noted on the attachment. If you have any questions concerning this lay-off, please contact j Terry J. Blount Washington Scientific Industries, 2605 West Wayzata Blvd. Long Lake, MN 55356 (612) 473-1271 Inc. attachment WASHMOTON sciwrnRC meutmip, me. W worst. . to. >40 • L«y~| LM. •t»4;H271 _____ft Wame^.f.klns, Jolene V.Albrecht, Daniel A. Anderson, Helen M. Anderson, Jeffrey M. inderf.on, Steven D. ^Andrews, Ronald E. Bakeberg, Patricia Beck, Everett L. Blackowlak, Geraldine M. Bladow, Bradley D.Brabant, Wayne Carlson, Robert D. Coleman, Joyce A. Constenlus, Brian H. Elllngson, Florence A. Fairfield, Gary W. Fancher, Diane F. Flecke, Julie A. Funk, Kevin I. Glttlns, Ronald J. Glaeser, Charlotte L. Haegele, Kent A. Hermanson, Curtis H. Hill, Steven A. Hlnchcllff, Steven W. Holmberg, Lloyd A. Jaqua, St even L. Kelly, Jerome W. Kleser Dennis A. Koeppe, Suzanne P. 'Krause, Donna E. Lobltz, Catherine A. Maass, Diane L. Madison, Michael A. Marketon, Elizabeth B. Marschel, Ronald D. Martin, David E. Motzko, Kathleen A. Mounemlthy, Kam Nadeau, James C., Sr. Newman, Larry O. Okeson, Steven A. Olson. Sandy L. Otten, Jeffrey A. Pawelk, Adeline E. Plotnlk, Tim J. Salonek, Isabell A. Schuldt, Kurt L. Smith, Gary K. Spaulding, David E. Stauffeneker, Marlorle A Tasche, Joanne C. Thelsen, Delores I. Decker, Arvld A. Villareal, Manuel Vogt, H. Doug Weege, Dorene O. Williams, Ben L. Wirgau, Betty J. Wren, Mike C. Zleska, Karen B. Zlmbrlck, Ronald L. Zltzloff. Joanne F. Job Title Production Worker Production Worker Production Worker Machine Operator B N/C Mill Operator A Machine Operator B Production Worker Machine Tender Production Worker Production Worker N/C Mill Operator A Production Worker Production Worker Production Worker Production Worker Production Worker Production Worker Machine Operator B Production Worker N/C Mill Operator A Production Worker Machine Operator B Production Worker Production Worker N/C Mill Operator A Production Worker Production Worker Machine Operator B Production Worker Machine Operator B Production Worker Production worker Machine Tender Production Worker Production Worker N/C Mill Operator A Production Worker Production Worker Production Worker Production Worker Tool Cutter Grinder A Radial Mult. Spndl. A Production Worker N/C Mill Operator A Production Worker Maintenance Mech. A Production Worker Machine Operator B Machine Operator B N/C Mill Operator A Production Worker Machine Operator B Production Worker Machine Operator B N/C Mill Operator A Production Worker Product Ion Worker N/C Mill Operator A Machine Tender N/C Mill Operator A Machine Operator B Production Worker Production Worker Effective Date10/26/9310/26/9310/24/9310/24/9310/22/9310/24/9310/03/9310/22/9310/25/9310/24/9310/24/93 10/22/93 10/24/93 10/22/93 10/22/93 10/22/93 10/26/93 10/24/93 10/22/93 10/22/93 10/25/93 10/26/93 10/22/93 10/24/93 10/24/93 10/25/93 10/24/93 10/22/93 10/22/93 10/26/93 10/26/93 10/25/93 10/25/93 10/22/93 10/24/93 10/22/93 10/22/93 10/24/93 10/22/93 10/25/93 10/25/93 10/22/93 10/25/93 10/22/93 10/25/93 10/25/93 10/25/93 10/22/93 10/24/93 10/25/93 10/26/93 10/24/93 10/26/93 10/24/93 10/24/93 10/25/93 10/26/93 10/24/93 10/24/93 10/22/93 10/25/93 10/22/93 10/25/93 Name Job Title Rffectlve Date Anderson, Eva L. Buckley, Terry W. Card, Keith A. Bwald, Bruce K. Mltchum, Pnllllp L. Secora, Donald M. Spencer, David A. Zabel, Joel E. Benefits Administrator Production Supervisor Sr. Mfg. Engineer Sr. Buyer Chief Mfg. Engineer Production Coordinator Cost Estimator Sr. Tool Design Engineer 11/05/93 10/22/93 10/22/93 10/29/93 10/29/93 10/22/93 10/22/93 10/22/93 J MINUTES OP THE MEETING OP THE BOARD OP EDUCATION OP ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON OCTOBER 11, 1993 Tho regular Meting of the Board of Education of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Monday, October 11, 1993. Present:Dave McXo%m Peg Swanson Martha Van de Ven Thomas Mich Pamela Schroeder Neal Lawson Absent: Janes PranXlin Board member John Maresh arrived while the meeting was in progress. UPON MOTION by Pamela Schroeder, seconded by Martha Van de Ven, the consent agenda was approved as follows: - approved the minutes of the September 27, 1993 regular meeting; - accepted the recommendation of the Sabbatical Leave Committee and granted a sabbatical leave effective at the end of the first quarter, November 8, to the end of the third quarter, April 10, of the 1993-94 school year for Melodee Monicken; - approved the appointment of Penny Gorman as a part-tiM paraprofessional at Schumann Elementary School for the 1993-94 school year; - approved the ice arena lease for the 1993-94 school year as follows: LEASE ON FILE IN DISTRICT OFFICE t - approved the bills as covered by vouchers 079590 through 079807 and office checks as covered by vouchers 3915 through 4077. Hotion carried. Board nenber Maresh absent. Dr. Mich reported that the workshops conducted by Dr. Ernie Stachovski were very successful with good response on the part of the teachers; that he would be conducting the Elements of Effective Instruction workshop on October 28 and 29 and that Board members are invited to attend; that the Tenure Ceremony v/ill be held at the October 25 Board meeting; that he was distributing a list of the schools attended by students winning scholarship awards; that through the fitness component of our Staff Development program, employees will have the opportunity x.o participate in an exercise program in which a team goal of 150 miles has been set or "The Walk to Duluth”; that on October 14 the middle school will participate in the program "Turn Off the Violence”; that faculty meetings have been held in each of the buildings in order to update the faculty on the progress of the bond referendum proceeds, legislative information and outcome based education; that a breakfast meeting will be held on November 3 to honor retiring principal, Ronald Gilbert; that he wanted to congratulate the athletic teams as they are doing a superb job. Dr. Mich shared with the Board the following Improvement Goals that have been designated for the 1993~94 school year which are an outgrowth of the North Central Association Accreditation process: 1. Develop processes and strategies to improve communication to parents of secondary level students. 2. In order to maximize the use of technology, develop a plan(s) to integrate curriculum and technology K'12. 3. Assess program for bus safety, K-8, and develop recommendations ^ 4. Coordinate career development education K-12. Dr. Mich stated that there were other goals that were suggested but those goals were more on a building level and will be handled in that particular area. Dr. Mich provided information on the annual class size report which includes data from each of the four schools. He provided background information and stated that given the financial constraints of this school year, the class size report is very favorable. He reminded the Board that this data relates only to class size and not student/teacher ratio. Dr. Mich answered questions from the Board for clarification purposes. Dr. Mich reported on the progress that has been made with respect to the implementation of the long-range plan which was adopted by the Board of Education on October 12, 1992. He stated that a great majority of the recommendations have been completed or are in progress and that financial constraints have placed a hold on parts ( of tho plan but that such has been accoaplished because the plan clearly set forth priorities and a direction for the School District. UPON NOTION by Peg Svans^n, seconded by John Naresh, the Board of Education accepted a gitt in the sub of $1,000 from Ms. Margaret Davis for the purpose of purchasing Spanish instructional naterials for first graders, and that the Board accept the Benorial gifts for Nr. Janes Naki for the purpose of assisting young athletes who are unable to pay the athletic fees or are in need of funds to help with the purchase of equipment. Motion carried. Dr. Mich stated that, on behalf of the Board, he would send thank you notes to Margaret Davis as well as the family of James Maki. Dr. Carl Shutts, Orono High School Principal, reported to the Board on the opening of the school year at Orono High School providing information on academic achievements, athletic achievements and activities that are available to students or that are being planned/developed for the school year. He shared with the Board information on long term projects/initiatives that he and his faculty are discussing/designing. Chairman McKown stated that after the adjournment of this meeting, the Board would go into Executive Session for the purpose of the annual evaluation of the superintendent. He stated that a report on the Executive Session would be made at the meeting on October 25, 1993. UPON MOTION by Pamela Schroeder, seconded by John Maresh. the meeting was adjourned. Motion carried. € e y Dave McXown, Chairman m TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator 41^ GlTYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: ?750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 October 28, 1993 Board of Managers Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka. Minnesota 55345-1597 Dear Board of Managers, This letter is to restate the City's support for the Watershed District's submittal of a Clean Water Partnership Grant application for water Quality efforts related to Long Lake. The City Council, at its meeting of October 28, 1991, adopted a resolution authorizing submittal of a Clean Water Partnership Grant application for Long Lake. This latter is to re-confirm the City's support of the water quality efforts and the grant application. Sincerely, Ronald Moorse City Administrator Tilrirtrr" (612) 473-7337 • PAX I7345I0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGHELD OCTOBER 18. 1993 I ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above dale with the following members present; Chair Charles Schroeder. Charles Nolan Jr.. Sandra Smith, Stephen Peterson, Janice Berg, and Dale Lindquist. The following represented the City staff: Assistant Building & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron and Recorder Lin Vee. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (/^l) #1875 FREDERICK AND DAVro WHITE 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION (RENEWAL) - PUBLIC HEARING 7:03 P.M. - 7:17 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Frederick and David While were present. Gaffron explained that this was a request for a one lot subdivision. A parcel is proposed to be split off from the lot with an existing house which would be 2+ acres leaving a 17 acre parcel for future development. This application was before the City Council about four years ago and received preliminary approval. That approval required that an additional 17 ’ of right-of-way be granted for a toul of 50’ from the centerline of County Road 19. Establishing an outlot eliminates the present concerns for adding roads and park fees. It disallows the use of the remaining parcel as a building site until it is further subdivided. This application is for a renewal of the same conditions. David While noted that the wetland does not show up on DNR maps. There is a drainage ditch pul in by the County which drains the surrounding properties. Frederick White stated that the approved conditions are not what they asked for but what the City forced on them. They were to Couiicil three limes and they feel that it would cost more do what the City asks than the land is worth. Schroeder stated that what the Planning Commission is being asked to do is review a renewal of the same application. He though the applicants may not be interested in renewing it on the same basis. White explained that originally they proposed three lots but the City would noi approve that unless interior roads were installed. When a building permit for the existing house was taken out, three lots were established in the area and now they can’t even get one lot from that same area. Gaffron explained that if the applicants wish to make any changes from the resolution, a different application with a different fee structure would have to be filed. That application would include park fees and interior roads. White stated the County would approve three accesses for three lots from the County road but the City denied that request. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#1) #1875 FREDERICK AND DAVID WHITE - CONT, Schroeaer reiterated that the Planning Commission was prepared to act only on the renewal application as previously approved in September of 1989 and if there were any changes, the application would have to be refiled. Frederick White stated they do not accept the changes the City has required from their original proposal and that the Court could decide in February. Gaffron explained that a court case is pending because a purchase agreement in 1984 required that a portion of the 17 acres be sold off. In order to do that, the subdivision process must be followed with City. The City required cenain conditions other than what the White’s had hoped for. making it difficult to sell. Schroeder stated the Planning Commission has three options: 1. Approve as originally approved. 2. Deny the application. 3. Table the application. Approved or denied, the application will proceed to Council in the current form. If this form is not agreeable, Schro.*der suggested the application be tabled so the Whites could work further with the Zoning staff. Nolan clarified that the ouilot could be further subdivided at a later date. A separate application would be required to do this at a later date. White stated the City was requiring that all possible lots be established at the time of subdivision. Gaffron explained that the Planning Commission and Council’s intent in allowing the outlot was to avoid the requirement for interior roads. The City did not want to add more driveways to a busy road even though the County might allow it. Schroeder stated the Planning Commission was not prepared to redesign the subdivision. White noted that 30-40 plans had already been discussed with the City and this was the only one they would approve. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Peterson, to table Application #1875 for Frederick and David White for renewal of preliminary plat approval granted via Resolution No. 2508 on September 18, 1988. Ayes 6, nays 0. t- r.^ W tmm ■■ ■ m MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (M2) JAMES W. OGLAND/DONALD J. STOYKE 3345/3339 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VACATION OF ROAD - PUBLIC HEARLNG - 7:19 P.M. - 7:50 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were r»oted. James Ogland and Donald Stoyke were present. Gaffron referred to a letter received from the DNR today that was handed out to Planning Commission members as additional information to the packet. He explained that this application is a request to vacate a portion of Hillside Phce. a 25’ wide dedicated right-of-way which probably goes back 75-100 years. This extends from Dakota Rail ro the shore of Crystal Bay. Within that strip is a paved, travelled right-of-way called Crystal Bay Road that doesn’t show on the maps. The City has maintained that road for many years and it is the sole access for many houses in the area. No portion of that right-of-way is dedicated to the City. Gaffron suggested the portion used for Crystal Bay Road not be vacated. A Ciiy sewer main comes from Hillside Place to the south located roughly in the center of the property. The Stoyke house would gain a better setback because of vacation since he would gain half of the property. Topographic change is quite dramatic in this area. The issue with the DNR letter is that by State statute, the City is required to notify the DNR of any vacation of a public right-of-way on lakeshore property. Schroeder read the letter addressed to Mike Gaffron from Martha Reger of the DNR which was received by fax on October 18, 1993. Jim Ogland, 3345 Crystal Bay Road, stated that he and Don Stoyke, 3339 Crystal Bay Road, were requesting vacation of this fire lane, in which case the land would revert to the adjacent property owners. He noted that the fire lanes were originally platted to provide access to the lake for water in case of fire at the cottages. At one time, there were three such fire lanes but two others have already been vacated. Ogland stated that he and his parents have lived at this address for 50 years and have maintained this fire lane as part of their yard. By vacating this fire lane, it would allow the lots to be more conforming and allow a clearer title for the adjacent property owners. He added that the land is quite steep with several large trees with limited and obsolete use. He has also talked with John Gerhardson, Public Works Director, who had no objections to the vacation as long as a sewer easement was granted. Ogland stated that although the DNR has the right to be notified, the City has the authority to make a final decision. He felt that because of the terrain and closeness of the properties, it would be impractical to use a^ a public access. The Stoyke home is 9" from the line of this property. Ogland felt the DNR would always take the position to keep land for public use. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION \IEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#2) JAMES W. OGLAND/DONALD J. STOYKE - CONT. Smith asked if there were other access points in the vicinity. Ogland responded there was an access 600 ’ to the west and in Spring Park. Smith asked about other properties that had been vacated in this area. Gaffron explained that there was a 1969 vacation of a neighboring property but there was very little information in City files regarding the process. Warren Paschke, 3349 Crystal Bay Road, stated that he owned his propeny since 1938 and has never seen anyone attempt to use the 25 strip for lake access. If the DNR were to try to use this, it would cause a serious hardship for residents on that road because of the width of the road. There are fire hydrants available for fire fighting and he did not feel fire fighting equipment could reach the lake. Paschke noted that he supported the vacation request. Gaffron stated that it was the City Attorney’s opinion that the City should not vacate that portion used as a travelled right-of-way and 10 ’ either side of it and that each property owner should additionally grant an easement to the City for the right-of-way of Crystal Bay Road in their properties. Ogland stated they were trying to simplify ownership oi ihe property. A vacation with granting of easements would be simpler than the City maintaining ownership of an island that was 38 ’ X 25 ’. Smith asked if there were any intentions to develop the property. Ogland confirmed there were not. Lindquist noted that no sewer easement currently exists but typically a 10 ’ easement on each side of the sewer pipe is granted. Lorraine Paschke. 3349 Crystal Bay Road, commented that when >'ou drive down Crystal Bay Road, there is a sign that says "No Public Parking". No one has ever known that there is any public property on this road. Many residents on this road have requested no parking signs. She disagreed with the DNR when they s-y that property is available for public use. Schroeder agreed with Paschke as a practical matter but legally it may be different. Schroeder noted that if vacating were approved, the Planning Commission would have to find that it was in the public interest to do so. The lener from the DNR must be considered. He felt if the DNR had a chance to Ux)k at this property, they may take a different view. I i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (n) JAMES W. OGLAND/DONALD J. STOYKE - CONT. Ogland stated that vacation would put the property back on the tax roles which would be best for tlie public interest. He does not like the encumbrances on the property because they don’t know if they should maintain it or not. Smith asked about similar vacations on two neighboring properties. Gaffron explained that one goes back to 1969 and the other before that. These two accesses were similar and in the past it was found acceptable to grant a vacation. Peterson stated he fell compelled by the DNR to avoid the vacation since there is a Minnesota statute that gives clear guidelines. Smith asked if the application were tabled, would conversation with the DNR be helpful. Gaffron though it might. He also stated he had discussed with Reger the possibility of vacating everything except the portion between the lake and the landward side of the road. He questioned if any problems would be solved by vacating everything back from 10 ’ off the road. This would remove the issue of public access. Lindquist stated he would like to see the property owners have this property but feels the need to stay within the legalities of the system. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Nolan, to table Application #1876 to allow the applicants. City and the DNR time to discuss the DNR concerns. Ayes 6, nays 0. (#3) #1874 GARY DESANTIS/SAILORS WORLD 1955 SHORELINE DRIVE, VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 7:52 P.M. - 8:28 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Gary DeSantis of Sailors World was present. Gaffron explained this request for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances to place two storage strucnires of 8’ x 8’ x 20 ’ on the property. He asked if Planning Commission were interested in allowing more hardcover or the existing hardcover to be changed from grade-level to a larger structure. The character of these structures should be considered vs. existing buildings. DeSantis explained the recent history of the property. Ownership of the property was gained 11/2 years ago. They felt the property would be more valuable with a building on it. It was a long process obtaining a building permit. There is no storage in the building or on the property for storage of lawn mowers or boating accessories. He expressed his concern over MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETLNG HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#3) miA GARY DESANTIS/SAILORS WORLD - CONT. hardcover noting that some off-site parking had been secured at the Minnetonka Art Center. He felt that it may be better to take a couple parking spaces for placement of the storage structure than to attempt to place them on a grassed area. Peterson asked if the applicant was aware of DNR comments on this application. DeSantis was not but they were included as part of the original packet. Nolan asked what the intended schedule of completion of improvements was for the property. DeSantis responded that they had three years to complete the commercial site plan and that time has not e.xpired. The rainy season this summer has caused problems completing the parking lot and landscaping. DeSantis explained that the structures are moveable with no foundations and could be considered temporary or permanent. Nolan observed piles of lumber, a tractor, rotting timbers and a dumpster on the property and questioned the standard practice of operation regarding use of these landscape areas. The City has designated certain areas yet Nolan noted most of these areas had some type of coverage on them. i.e. boat, construction materials, etc. DeSantis responded that the marina is in a winter storage mode and has the ability to use Lhe property for winter storage. Landscape timbers will be removed when the landscape contractor has time to complete his work. Smith asked if some of the items could be moved to clean up the property. DeSantis asked where they should be moved to. Nolan added that was the point he was trying to make. Even if the landscaping were complete, would there still be materials left in landscaped areas? Is this the standard of operation the Planning Commission could expect to see in the future? DeSantis did not feel he should be criticized for not completing the improvements. Part of the landscaping price was removal ol the old timbers and the contractor has not completed that portion. Schroeder noted there were worthwhile improvements. The B-2 zone has been an issue for consideration by the City for some time. He has concern over adding more hardcover in the form of storage. He did not see renting storage space as part of the overall plan. He suggested storage could occur across the street or on some other part of the property further from the lake. He also expressed concern that aesthetically the storage buildings would not be consistent with the existing buildings. I I i 0m MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNLNG COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 #1874 GARV OESANTIS/SAILORS WORLD - CONT. Lindquist asked t3 ha^'e the 75’ setback area defined and noted his objection to hardcover in the 0-75’ setback area. Peterson also expressed concern over adding more structure to this already developed property. He suggested looking at parking spaces 35, 36, 37 and 38 if the strucmres were to be placed on the property. He felt the DNR was implying that the strucnire may be acceptable if piaced over existing hardcover. Nolan stated that these siructtires tend to "look bad" aftei a period of time even though they are galvanized. He asked if DeSantis would consider any other type of structure. DeSantis said they would but explained that one of the strong points of these strucmres was the longevity of weathering. He felt that maintaining the building would not be a problem since it would be similar to some boat maintenance. Berg asked if the strucmres would be leased. DeSantis confirmed that they could be with an option to buy. He stated dock boxes do not provide sufficient volume for storage. Schroeder stated he would be inclined to find some type of storage for the personal lawn mower, etc. close to the existing building. He would be opposed to any type of "mini-storage" as there are off-site options for this. Smith suggested DeSantis consider enlarging the existing outside shed (which has the same outside siding) and using some inside cabinetry for life preservers, etc. Although this may not be ideal to the applicant, it may be a workable compromise. DeSantis stated it would depend on what could be attached. There is a need to store pumps. Currently the shed houses only electrical equipment. He questioned if he would gain enough storage by enlarging the shed but thought it would worth a tr>. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Lindquist, to deny Application #1874 for the requested hardcover and lakeshore setback variances for two storage strucmres. The proposed location is unacceptable and there docs not stem to be enough of a hardship. DeSantis asked if the strucmres were moved to the parking sp»:es out of the 0-75’ setback area and only one structure used, would ihe objection be removed. Schroeder noted the 0-75’ setback issued would be addressed but the namre ot the building and hardcover are still issues. C MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO^LMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#3) miA GARY DESANTIS/SAILORS WORLD - CONT. Nolan felt that if something long and narrow could be done along the building it would solve the issue of aesthetics, no structural hardcover would be added to the site and it would provide some storage, probably not all, but would be an improvement. Gaffron stated that if the application were denied and sent to Council, Council could send it back to Planning Commission for further consideration. Tabling the application would bring it back to Planning Commission without any Council input. DeSantis would prefer to have the application tabled. Schroeder noted the feeling of the Planning Commission was to have a limited structure that was compatible with the existing building, used principally for personal use and not rented out. Lindquist added that further seasonal storage needs should be considered for off-site locations. Peterson and Lindquist withdrew their motion. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Peterson, to table Application #1874 for a request for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances to place two 8’ x 8’ x 20’ storage modules on marina property. Ayes 6, nays 0 (#4) #1878 CHARLES AND SHWLEY PYLE 3548 IVY PLACE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 P.M. - 8:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Charles Pyle was present. Gaffron reviewed the request explaining the current request is slightly different than that approved in 1992. The previous application included an addition to the side of the house, a covered entry way and replacement of detached garage There were some hardcover trade-offs in the 0-75 ’ and 250-500 ’ setback areas. In the new application, no changes are proposed to the driveway or garage. The addition to the house is still proposed with some hardcover removals. Pyle explained that the initial bid was much higher than the final bid so they had to look at some other alternatives. Schroeder asked if there were any way to reduce the driveway. Nolan asked if there were a way to reduce the breezeway. 8 r i I c MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (/f4) #1878 CHARLES AND SHIRLEY PYLE Pyle explained that the architect redesigned this with the architecnire of the roof. He thought some reduction would be possible. The garage could not be moved right next to the house because there are bedroom windows on that side of the house. He confirmed that the exterior of the garage would be redone at the time of the remodeling project. Gaffron noted the breezeway could be shortened up with less sidewalk and mo;e green space to help reduce hardcover. Pyle stated he would be agreeable to some reduction in the breezeway as well as some asphalt in the driveway. It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Berg, to approve Application #1878 subject to reductions of approximately 10’ of driveway parking apron aial a portion of the breezeway for a total hardcover reduction of approximately 250 s.f. The new design will be brought to Council. Other conditions recommended by staff are st:ll appropriate other than the change in percentage. Ayes 6, nays 0. (#5) ALLEN AND KATHLEEN BAKKE 1127 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:42 P.M. - 9:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Allen and Kathleen Bakke were present. Gaffron explained that this application is a result of the neighbor getting a survey and finding the Bakke's fence to be over the lot line and the deck too close to the lot line. Upc'i investigation, it was found the decks were done in 1985 without a buildiug permit. Bakke confirmed that the exi^.ing J,eck was refurbished in 1985 with an additional deck to the front. He stated he had con>.e4.,«i.jn with Tom Jacobs, the Building Official at that time, who told him no permit was necessary to refurbish the deck. He feels there were inaccurate surveys which is why the fence was not within the Bakke lot line. The east side fence has been moved within the Bakke property line. Gaifron addressed the issue of the shed. Bakke confirmed that the shed would be moved when they 'eft the property. There was discussion about the accuracy of the surs'ey submitted with the application It was determined that the survey submitted. d.ited October 6, 1993. is accurate MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (/^5) ALLEN AND KATHLEEN BAKKE - CONT. Nolan asked about the intricate pipe structure on the roof. Bakke explained it was for solar heating of the pool. Peterson asked about the fence to the back of the property shown on the survey that indicates it is 2* over the lot line. Bakke stated he would move it within his line although the neighbor said there was no problem to leave it where it was. Peterson thought the deck should be approved since it was done so long ago but the fence should be moved to comply with the lot line. The other fence had ahead) been removed. Schroeder asked if there were any other removals possible since there is still an excess of hardcover. Gaffron explained that in the 250-500’ zone from the lake, only 30% of the property is allowed to be in hard surface which includes driveways, sidewalks, retaining walls, landscaped areas underlain with plastic or fabric, etc. He did not think there was any way to reduce hardcover other than removing some of the driveway or the existing decks. 32% hardcover probably existed prior to the deck addition, now 35% exists. Bakke stated the turnaround was not necessary as they were able to back out. The shed currently occupies that space but will be moved so this portion of paved area could be removed. Smith asked about any precedents being set regarding after-the-fact variances for decks. Peterson felt tii*^ in this case, the deck construction is so old it is difficult to deal with but otherwise these after-the-faci variances should be dealt with very carefully. Smith did not want it to appear that as a violation becomes older, it may be overlooked. It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Berg, to approve Application #1879 subject to the removal of the shed, removal of the backup apron in the driveway as drawn and moving the fence so it no longer encroaches the neighboring property. Ayes 5, nays 1. Planning Commission members agreed there should be an after-the-fact variance application fee paid and after-the-fact building permit fee. Smith referred to an earlier application (Sieff*s) which was tabled because the Commission did not feel they could approve extensive decking. Although the Bakke decking is older, she dkl not feel that time should make a difference in the approach to the application. Nolan felt there were differences with tlic Sieff application such as: 1 The Sieffs liad very intense hardcover/decking - probably twice that as Bakke s. \ I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18. 1993 (#5) ALLEN AND KATHLEEN BAKKE - CONT. 2. 3. By taking the removals proposed at Bakke ’s, they come very close to conformance of the hardcover requirements. Fewer concessions were granted by the Sieff s. Smith wanted to be sure that Planning Commission was not sending messages to residents that you can "go do what you want to do and hope you don't get caught; and the longer you go without getting caught, the more likely it is that you can continue to have what it is that you wanted in the first place". Schroeder noted that the applicant apparently had conversation with the Building Official at the time the construction was done. (#6) #1880 THOMAS AND JANE REGNIER 1205 ELMWOOD AVENUE - VARIANCE (RENEWAL) - PUBLIC HEARING 9:07 - 9:10 P.M. i The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Thomas Regnicr was present. Gaffron explained this was a renewal application with no changes from the original application approved in 1990. The proposal requests a side street setback variance for construction of an addition. Schroeder asked about removing the fence. Regnier confirmed that the fenced area would be removed with the landscaping improvements. Smith asked if the graveled area was actively used for parking noting there was a car and two boats at this site. Regnicr explained the boat is waiting for some repairs and the yellow car will be removed from the site. It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Smith, to appo've Application #1880 for Thomas Regnicr. 1205 Elmwood Avenue, for the renewal variance of a side street setback variance for construction of addition.s to the existing resi<lencc. Ayes 6, nays 0. (#7) (?i882 JOHN M. O’SULLIVAN/O’SULLIVAN’S 2420 SHADYW(H)I) ROAD - COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW^ - PUBLIC HEARING John O'Sullivan requested to be moved to the cml of tik* Agenda MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#8) #1883 STEVEN M. ENGLUND 3855 CHERRY AVENUE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:13 P.M. - 9:35 P.M. The Affidavit of Pub’ .ation and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Steve Englund were present. Gaffron explained this was a lot area variance for determining the buildabiliiy of a lot that is 0.37 acre. The Zoning Code requires .5 acre. Although several relatives own neighboring parcels, no additional land is available. The lot is 100’ wide and meets that standard. Some drainage improvements have been made. A drainage culvert was installed in consultation with the Public Works Department on the neighboring Anderson property. There are mature trees on the property and it is not a designated wetland according to the maps. The property is in the 250-500’ hardcover zone where 30% hardcover is allowed. The conceptual proposal would not be a problem on this lot. No other variances would be proposed. The property has been assessed for sewer and a well would be required. A 14’ alley to die rear would not be necessary to vacate. 15% lot coverage is allowed. Lot sizes vary in the neighborhood and this lot is not inconsistent with the area. Lindquist asked why Englund had no proposed house plan. Englund responded that he wanted to be sure the lot was buildable before incurring the expense of designing a home. Smith asked how much fill would be required because of the steep bank from the street to the proposed home site. Englund slated he hoped to move as few trees as possible. He would fill only what is necessary from the road to the house and the driveway would be level with the road. Some berming may be necessary. Englund noted that fill required would be approximately 5-6’ in height. A neighbor questioned what was being proposed and expressed concern over previous water problems in this area. Englund confirmed there would be no grading on the back of the lot. He noted an excessive amount of water in the spring that had drained as a result of the culvert installation. Gaffron cxplaiiKd there would be a significant amount of fill for the driveway and yard berming but likely none under the house. If fill comes in piecemeal before the building permit is issued, a conditional use permit would be required. If all till is brought in at the time of htnise construction, it can he brought in as part ot the building permit Smith asked if how the fill was brought in could affect the drainage Gaffron responded that a grading plan would be requi’’**<? before any fill was brought vinto the property. 12 i J € V MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (m #1883 STEVEN M. ENGLUND - CONT. Lindquist expressed his concern over the drainage issue and cautioned the applicant as he proceeds with development of the property. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Berg, to approve Application #1883 for Steven Englund, 3855 Cherry Avenue, for a lot area variance for construction of a single family residence on a 0.37 acre parcel subject to conditions 1-5 as listed in the staff memo dated October 5, 1993. Ayes 6, nays 0. (#9) #1884 ORVILLE FISHER 475 OXFORD ROAD, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:45 P.M - 10:12 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Orville Fisher was present. Gatfro.i explained that a complaint had been received from a resident that there had been some tree cutti ig in the 0-75’ zone. Upon investigation, a Stop Work Order was issued as there had been a number of trees. 6" in diameter or greater, removed in the 0-75’ zone as well as intensive vegetation clearing. Tree cutting in the 0-75’ setback area is not allowed by City Code. In addition. Shoreland Regulations that were adopted about one year ago nr-hibit intensive vegetation cutting and clearing in the 0-75’ zone. Violation tags have been b-sued and are pend.ng in the courts. The applicant has had previous grading violations in the 0-75’ setback area on previous property. Staff would recommend denial of the after-the fact variance and look at the proposed restoration plan to consider if it meets standards the City should require. Gaffron noted other activity on the property as there is a sewer connection and remodeling occurring which ^is separate from the tree cutting issue. Fisher apologized to the public. Planning Cooor.ission and staff regarding the tree cutting and stated it was not done intentionally. He explained that a college student had done the work while the Fishers were out of town and was given instructions not to cut within the 0-75 zone. Both the college student and Fisher incorrectly measured from the shoreline. Fisher noted he contacted a surveyor to verify the 75’ setback line so they could determine the extent of the damage, and he also contacted Jeanne Mabusth to begin steps for rcstoratic • and corrections. He is not asking for approval of an after-the-fact variance but to determine what will be necessary to correct the problem. A landscaper has been hired to develop a plan for restoration v)f what nau existed. Boxelder trees were removed but they would be replaced with trees (as large as possibl.*) that could survive in a low level, high water table area. A boxeltter is considered a weed tree mat can’t be purchased commercially so more e.xpcnsive trees will be replaced. 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#9) ^1^1884 ORVILLE FISHER - CONT. Melvin J. Peterson, who formerly lived on the property and is technically the current owner as the closing has not yet taken place, expressed his concern over what impact the current problems could have on the November closing. He did not know about any of the activity in the yard or tree cutting. Fisher noted the title is a transfer for a Contract for Deed. Schroeder noted that typically the Planning Commission deals with the owner of the property, not a future owner. Since the issue is with the applicant, it will be assumed he is the owner. Schroeder asked why Fisher wanted to cut the trees since he was fiilly aware of the City ’s position of activity in the 0-75’ setback area because of previous problems. Fisher explained they did not want to cut as many as were cut but wanted to gain additional views. Schroeder asked how he would gain views by cutting only trees from 75’ back since there would still be trees in the 0-75’ area. Fisher responded that most of the larger trees were 60’ and back and thought that was beyond the 75’ setback. He had assumed the water was at a high water mark this year although he did not have a survey. He measured from the waterline with a tape measure. Gaffron explained this would not work because the water is actually lower than normal at a 929 elevation. Schroeder pointed out that had Fisher cut only from the 75’ line back, it would not have helped his views. Fisher did not want the area clear cut because there is a neighboring tennis court that he wanted to be left screened. Lindquist asked how large the trees being proposed for replacement would be. Fisher responded they would be Ash and Linden trees as tall as those taken out and 4-5" in diameter. Schroeder asked if all trees taken out would be replaced, even those out of the 75' zone. Fisher confirmed not all of them would be replaced. Lindquist asked if the proposed screen on the south side would be done at the same time as the rest of the replacement. Fisher responded that currently only 12-13 trees were scheduled to be replaced in the 0-75’ zone. Schroeder asked if the City could do anything about requiring tree replacement outside of the 0-75’ zone given the nature of this particular issue. Gaffron felt it could be tied to mitigation of the area. Peterson asked how staff felt about the planting proposal. Gaftron responded that there had existed understory and screening, and that the replantings proposed might have a different character which might be considered good or bad. If the root system is still in place, some of the understory may grow back which would be better than if it were all grubbed out. Nolan noted the 4-5" trees to be replaced would require large equipment to do the work. He felt understory would be desirable and asked about the discussion of gray-twig dogwood. I c MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#9) #1884 ORVILLE FISHER - CONT. Gaffron explained that the landscaper had suggested gray-twig dogwood as a species that would thrive in this type of environment. Nolan questioned the number of trees being replaced, noting there were many more trees cut when the smaller trees and understory are considered. He felt the applicant may be getting just what he wanted by clear cutting the area and then only replacing a few trees. This is similar to the previous discussion about after-the-fact variances. The City would not want to set an example that it is ok to do as you want and you have a problem only if you get caught. This problem is really only paying a little extra money to get what you wanted in the first place. Fisher stated this was not his intent. He had a surveyor identify each tree and its location so the replacement would be in the same location. The new trees will actually provide more screening than the lower boxelder trees that were previously there. From the house, the Fishers actually looked over the boxelder trees while the new trees will be much taller and larger. They will be placed in the exact location of the previous trees. Schroeder thought it would be a long time before the trees would be large enough to impact the views. Lindquist asked what could be done other than replant the larger trees and add some understory. Schroeder thought that since this is a chance to make improvements, everything should be done to make improvements. Lindquist stated that if the siniation was to improve, more trees would be required. Fisher stated the project could become quite costly. Schroeder responded that, "With all due respect, cost was not a relevant consideration since the situation was avoidable. The goal now is to do the right thing for the City and protect the lake." Lindquist asked what would >e a reasonable amount of plantings to replace what was destroyed. Gaffion suggested the land: :aper. Dale Gustafson, would be able to help resolve that issue. Peterson stated that the Planning Commission was being asked to consider the atter-the-fact variance, not plan for the restoration. Schroeder indicated a restoration plan was included so may need consideration. Nolan did not want to accept the plan as submitted. Smiui added she would like to sec a combination of larger trees and understory to come close to restoring the area as it was. It was moved by Schroeder. seconded by Nolan, to deny Application #1884 for Orv ille Fisher. 475 Oxford Road, for an after-the-fact variance related to dear cutting in the restricted 0-75 ’ zone. Staff is directed to work with the Fisher’s landscape engineer to develop a plan that would 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO^LMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 1&, 1993 (#9) #1884 ORVILLE FISHER - CONT. compensate for the large trees taken out and to plant understory so as to duplicate or improve what existed prior to the clear cutting. This plan should be complete prior to the next Council meeting so the plantings can be done as soon as possible this fall. Ayes 6. nays 0. Huit commented that the Hennepin Soils office has criteria that has been established on a buffer strip that may be helpful. (#7) #1882 JOHN M. O’SULLIVAN/O’SULLIVAN’S 2420 SHADYWOOD ROAD - COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW HEARING 10:15 P.M. - 10:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. - PUBLIC John O’Sullivan was present. Gaffron explained that in 1987 the City did a commercial site plan review for this property. One of the City ’s requirements was that a fire lane be established. It was brought to the attention of the building inspector by the Orono police that the fire lane is not accomplishing what it was intended to do. The building inspector has required that the property owner stripe and mark the fire lar^. The property owner feels he should not be required to do so. This application is essentially a request for an amendment to the commercial site plan approved previously. Schroeder asked why this application was before the Planning Commission. Gaffron explained that it is part of the appeal process slated in the Code when the applicant does not want to comply with City requirements. Because Mound is a contract city, the appeal process is to the City Council, not to the Stale Fire Marshal. O’Sullivan gave a summary of his position on how this situation came about. He noted in February of 1988 he was given a permit that stated he complied with all conditions. He indicated there never has been any striping or signage indicating a fire lane and he has operated 5 1/2 years without these. O’Sullivan continued that on July 15. 1993 an Crono police officer tagged one of O’Sullivan’s employees for parking a motorcvcie in the storefront, and that the employee told the officer that other officers have slopped at the station and said they would not tag anyone for parking there and it wasn’t a legal fire lane. O’Sullivan noted that the citation ended up being revoked but it became an issue with the Chief, and this resulted in a letter from Stephen Sullivan. Chief of Police, to O’Sullivan, dated .luly 28. 1993. (O’Sullivan gave copies of this letter to Planmng Commission members.)I € MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (r7) #1882 JOHN M. O’SULLIVAN/O’SLTLIVAN’S - CONT. O’Sullivan’s response, in a letter dated August 10, 1993 to Steve Sullivan, included the statement "I am not aware of any officers parking in our fire lane and my night managers have also confirmed this. We do not have a legal fire lane and only consider the area directly in front of our entrance/exit doors a No Parking area." O’Sullivan indicated he sent the letter to the Chief because they sit on the board together on a monthly basis, and he assumed that the letter he sent would not be shared w ith the officers. He stated he felt the officers were getting some "unfair heat". He noted that he also copied the letter to the Orono Police Officers Union representative so they would know O’Sullivan’s feelings on the matter. O’Sullivan continued that this lead to an interoffice memo dated August 9 from Officer Larry Tomcheck to Chief Sullivan regarding the research he did as to whether O’Sullivan’s had a fire lane. Apparently Tomcheck concluded that there is no code for it or no need for a fire lane. O’Sullivan stated the next event was a meeting in late August on O’Sullivan’s property with Fire Marshal Jerry Babb. Officer Tomcheck and O’Sullivan. He noted that Babb stated there was no code mandating a fire lane and it was ludicrous to impose it on O’Sullivan as other stations did not have fire lanes, and Babb told O’Sullivan it would only be enforced if he wanted to have a fire lane. Babb concluded by saying that if the City required O’Sullivan to put up a fire lane, it would have to be enforced with every other business in Orono. O’Sullivan indicated that at that point, he did not think there was any further issue. O’Sullivan continued that later Lyle Oman, Orono Building Official, met with him with the original site plan stating that the fire lane was part of the original resolution and must be enforced. O’Sullivan felt that his custc.mers who had been parking in this area for the past 5 1/2 years would be upset when they were cited for parking in that area. O’Sullivan indicated that on approximately September 25. he had a phone conversation with Jerry Babb regarding the past issues and asked Babb for a written letter confirming the fact that no fire lane was necessary. On October 5, O’Sullivan received a letter from the Mound Fire Chief regarding the designation of a fire lane. There was nothing in the letter that said anything about a City or State code that would require the fire lane. The letter was signed by the Fire Chief and two Fire Marshals, one of them being Jerry Babb. He questioned who had causal these people to change their minds but did not call either one of them. O’Sullivan noted he then talked with some members of the Orono Council as he expected further problems over this issue. On September 24 he filed this application with the City since he didn’t know how else to proceed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18« 1993 (r7) #1882 JOHN M. O’SULLIVAN/O’SULLIVAN’S - CONT O’Sullivan then distributed to the Planning Commission a letter, dated October 18, 1993, to John O’Sullivan trom Officer Tomcheck who could nci be at the Planning Commission meeting. O’Sullivan quoted from Officer Tomcheck’s tetter; "Mr. Oman said that there could be something in the building plans, but said to me that Tom Jacobs, the former building inspector, may have placed a fire lane on the building plan, but he is unauthorized to do so." O’Sullivan noted he confirmed that with Don Bryce, Mound Fire Chief. He also wanted Bryce to explain why he needed a fire lane for "life safety" because he felt they had a very safe facility. O’Sullivan stated that on October 18 he talked with the State Fire Marshal’s Office who stated that if he were 150’ off of the road, a designated fire lane would be required. He has three access points and is less than 150’ off the road so there is no issue with that. Peterson noted tliat the 1987 building permit application and variance did require a fire lane. O’Sullivan stated that the code the Chief quotes indicates that the fire lane can only be designated by the Fire Chief, not a Building Inspector. Therefore, O’Sullivan would argue that he never had a legal fire lane since it was improperly imposed by Tom Jacobs. 2. O’Sullivan closed with the following points: 1. They have gone over 5 years without a fire lane. He contends they never had a fire lane because Tom Jacobs did not have the authority to impose one on the site plan. The plan was not approved by the Mound Fire Department. Immediate competitors do not have fire lanes. He feels he is being discriminated against with a required fire lane since other businesses do not have this requirement. Surrounding communities do not require fire lanes, including Wayzata, Plymouth. Shorewood, Tonka Bay, and Excelsior. Pictures were passed around of neighboring businesses that do not have designated fire lanes. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. O’Sullivan noted that he had called Don Bryce and asked why he changed his stance on the fire lane issue, and Bryce had agreed there is no code and stated he did it to appease the police department. O’Sullivan also indicated he found out that the letter had not been wntten by Bo’ce but by Mike Palm, one of the Fire Marshals » pi MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#7) #1882 JOHN M. O’SULLIVAN/O’SULLIVAN’S - CONT. O’Sullivan went on to say that Bryce stopped at O’Sullivan’s at 5:30 p.m. today and asked if he >vould agree with striping a small area in front of the windows. He did not agree because of the principle of the issue when no one else is asked to do the same thing. He noted that Bryce agreed there was no site obstruction because the cash register is on a platform and overlooks the gas pumps. Peterson asked if O’Sullivan had ever received a registered letter from the Chief of Police of Orono stating that a fire lane was required on the property. O’Sullivan responded that he had not. Peterson then asked Gaffron to look at Orono Code Section 9.34, Section 7 (C) where there is discussion about the Fire Marshal and the Mound Fire Chief. Peterson quoted, "The Chief of Police is hereby empowered to order the establishment, designation and maintenance of fire lanes on public or private property wherever and to whatever extent as he may determine is reasonably necessary to ensure open and unobstructed emergency access. In this determination, the Police Chief (not the Fire Chief) may confer with and accept the recommendations of the Building Official or the Fire Chief of the applicable Fire Service District. The Fire Lane Order shall be in writing and shall be served in person or by registered letter upon the property owner of record. ’ Peterson suggested that this states it is not the Fire Chief but the Police Chief that has the right to designate the fire lane, and asked why the Chief of Police had not written such a letter. O’Sullivan noted that Chief Sullivan had not taken the issue up with him but had let others deal with the problem. Schroeder thought the requirement for fire lanes would have to be consistent and should not be applied inconsistently to the detriment of the business owner. Schroeder asked if a 16’ section of white striping would solve this matter. O’Sullivan responded that it would for the Fire Chief. Schroeder stated this appears to be an issue that the Fire Chief and Police Chief must sort out and resolve. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Berg, to refer the issue of fire lanes to Council and the Chief of Police for his opinion regarding Section 9.34 of Section 7 (C) and determination if. m fact, there is a need for a fire lane or not. Schroeder added that all other similar situations should also be reviewed. Ayes 6. nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#7) #1882 JOHN M. O’SULLIVAN/O’SULLIVAN’S - CONT. O’Sullivan asked if the municipality had the right to supersede Minnesota Fire Codes. Schroeder stated that would require ihe City Attorney’s opinion. (#10) #1877 TANDEM PROPERTIES/PETER ANDREA COMPANY 3025 WATERTOWN ROAD AND 2645 WATERTOWN ROAD - SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR PROPOSED SUBDIVISION - NO ACTION REQUIRED Dick Putnam (Tandem Properties), Jim Deanovic (Peter Andrea Company), Mark Gronberg (property owner) and Robert Hare (broker from Burnett Realty) were present. Gaffron explained this was a sketch plan review for development of 130 acres at Old Crystal Bay Road and Watertown Road. Some concerns to be considered are access issues, wetlands, trails and the historic significance of the property. Putnam explained that on the v/est side of Old Crystal Bay Road is the Coffin properly consisting of approximately 62 acres. The Dickey property, on the south side of Watertown Road, is about 68 acres and contains a large arena and the site of the "Ancient Ones". The Dickey property is basically farm land with the exception of the old homestead where there are trees and the arena. The Coffin property has a number of fields with some forests and a number of wetland areas. When the property was bought, the City did not show any wetlands on the map. Other agencies define these wetland areas differently. Putnam stated the plan connects the two properties by continuing the existing public road from Old Crystal Bay Road to Willow Drive. The developers have talked to the Orono Park Commission. There .e two plans included in the Planning Commission packet, one designed before the Park O inmission meeting and one after their on-site visit and comments. Approximately 3 1/2 acres have been identified as part of the historic site including the bam, farm site and burial area. A public trail connecting the historic site to the DNR woods has been illustrated which is adj.^»cent to the Luce Line. That property has been donated by the Dickey ’s. A trail would also be considered along Old Crystal Bay in an easement over the right-of-way. On the Coffin property, two cul-de-sac roads are being considered because the wetlands and woods make it difficult to design a UH)pcd road. Two acre lots are being considered for both sites which is the zoning requirement. 24 loLs could be developed on the Coffin property and 26 lots on the Dickey property. 20 B t < MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#10> #1877 TANDEM PROPERTIES/PETER ANDREA COMPANY - CONT The Park Commission felt it would make more sense to restore the existing home rather than the bam to use for an interpretive center because it would be less expensive. Gaffron commented on the public vs. private road access issues. Putnam expressed his surprise when they met on site and Gaffron indicated that just because the road was platted at a 60’ right- of-way it would not be considered a public road. Putnam asked why Casco Point Road, where he lives, was plowed by the City which was a cul-de-sac and the City wouldn t maintain this type of road. The developers would propose that the streets be public and publicly maintained although they have been told that is not the case. The roads would be constructed to public standards but maintained as private. Topography, existing homes and proposed lots will determine where the roads will be constructed. Smith asked if there had been discussions with the Native American community regarding sacred grounds She wants to be assured that nothing will be disturbed that is considered sacred and there will be no repercussions in 50 years. She volunteered to be involved with any discussions^ Deanovic explained that a medicine man must come to the site to determine where sacred grounds exist. Two medicine men. one from Montana and the other from Canada, have already been to the site and determined the same area as sacred ground. Smith asked if members of the local Native American community had been involved. Deanovic thought Pat Dickey would be able to confirm that this is the sacred ground as she has worked extensively with the Native Americans. Smith also wants confirmation directly from the Native American community that no lands will be disturbed that are considered sacred. Putn^ suggested a group, be formed who has an interest in this issue to work on the details. This group could include Smith, and representatives from the Council and Park Commission. State archaeologist* have already been involved and confirmed the hillside as sacred. It is no longer legal to "dig" to determine t^ stams of sacred ground. The Native Americans object to digging but walking on it is acceptable. Smith asked about the possible consideration to maintain the horse bam as a stable and nding arena for the development. Putnam explained that has been dropped from the plan for two reasons; 1) They were unsure if the soils were useable in the pasmre area. 2) They did not have enough information when they first considered it. Feedback about having a riding arena at this kKaiion was not positive. Smith asked what the plans were for screening the lots that abut the Luce Line on the Coffin propeny Putnam explained that the existing tree lines would not be disturbed and there may be possible enhancements of the wetland area. Smith questioned the concept of an interpretive center and asked who would maintain it finarKiaily. The Park Commission has indicated there is not money available for maintenance. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETLNG HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#10) #1877 TANDEM PROPERTIES/PETER ANDREA COMPANY - CONT. Deanovic thought that it could be maintained privately after talking with Pa; Dickey. Although the barn would be desirable to use. it would be more expensive. Smith would like to the see the bam kept at least in its present condition. Putnam commented that there were other considerations for the bam sHc. Parking has been a problem for users of the Luce Line and this site could be a possibilio to provide parking and some use of the bam. Smith asked if the DNR would be interested in working on the trail idea connecting to the Luce Line. Putnam stated that as a regional trail, this would not meet the criteria but as an offshoot for the municipality it would make a lot of sense. Smith asked if the designated trails were on outlots so they could be converted to roads if that was ever desired. Putnam responded that discussions had taken place with agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Department and Corps of Engineers to create a drainage system of creeks and ponds that do not currently exist. The trail would be 25-30’ wiue and publicly dedicated but not a road. Smith asked if the location where the sweat lodges are could be protected. Putnam responded that there is no significance to where they are placed, that was just the most convenient location. Putnam stated that as developers they would like to try to create a path so that everyone benefits but if the City says that path has to be subtracted from the 2-acre lot area, it may not be worthwhile. For the person owning a lot and selling, it nay be better not to have the trail. However, for the benefit of the whole area, a trail makes a lot of sense. Schroeder asked the status of the trail along Old Crystal Bay Road. Gaffron thought things had come to a halt and did not know how the agreements with the property owners along the trail had turned out. Money continues to be a problem. Peterson asked what the feelings were about the possible choice of a southern cciridor for Highway 12 as it would greatly impact their propeity. Putnam felt there was some nsk but added that development could discourage this route as the final choice. Peterson stated that the projx>sal looks gtxxl but has a concern with the wetland issues. How will it be handled if there is no septic site available on some of the lots and how will the lots be designed since there arc wetlands scattered throughout the property? I 22 J \IINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO\LVIISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (AlO) mm TANDEM PROPERTIES/PETER ANDREA COMPANY - CONT. Deanovic resp(inded that a large group lud visited the site including representatives of the Watershed District, City staff. Army Corps of Engineers. BWSR and Steve Schirmers for septic sites. In the end. City ordinances will be a determining factor. Deanovic thought 1:1 mitigation may be possible. The Watershed representative felt this was an oppormnity for improvements. One of the main issues is that what was classified as wetlands in the past differs from current definitions. Most of the wetlands were classified as Type 1 . Gaffron confirmed that under MPCA standards there are certain types of wetlarids that meet the criteria for septic installation. Putnam felt their biggest problem will be dealing with the Orono ordinances relative to the setbacks for septic symms and the dry buildable land Putnam gave examples of how the wetland maps differ. According to the City map. there was 2.66 acres of wetlands on the Coffin property but 12.15 acres have been iuentified by their consultant using current methods. Deanovic explained that City maps were done in 1974 and wetlands were identified under different standards on a black and white aerial photo. Although the Dickey property showed no wethnds on City maps. sur* eyors designated approximately 4 acres. Putnam explained that on the Coffin property Vf 62 acies. if the City maps were used lot sizes would be 2.47 acres. If the wetlands v er- subtracted, lot sizes would be reduced to 2.08 acres. Tlie City will have to decide how to deal with the wetland designations. Deanovic commented that they had discussed with other agencies how they felt abeu, changing some of the wetlands. They were agreeable since better wetlands would be built rather than a "rut in a field". Putnam stated that according lo Orono ’s code, it they created a NURP pond or wetland, that would have to be subtracted off of the two acres. At this time it is a 1:1 replacement but after Januarv’ 1 it will be 2; 1 . The way it stands now. if four acres of wetland were altered at this site, four acres of wedand would have to be replaced somewhere else. This could be done on site, within the Watershed District or within the County. If, for example, a wetland were replaced in Medina, what benefit does that have for Orono even though it meets the Stale requirements’ Putnam noted that staff had suggested to Putnam he not Unrk at planned devclcpment since this propeny is not in a sewered area. Meeting a 2-acre requi»ement may create a problem on soiro of the lots with the wetlands considered anc meeting th, 5 setback trom the wcilaiKis for septic systems 23 s MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGHELD OCTOBER 18, 1993(m) mn tandem properties /peter andrea company - cont .Deanovic pointed out that no matter how the lot sizes are calculated, they are over 2 acres. Problems in the French Creek development may have been caused by not having ftill disclosure. Gaffron explained there were designated septic sites in that planned development of 1-1.25 acre sites. However, when the sites were developed, there were different views of where the house should be placed, etc. so it was difficult to protect the septic sites. Peterson opined that it may be the best alternative to replace wetlands in Medina if the ultimate goal is to protect wetlands even though it would be a loss to Orono. Schroeder felt the wetlands should be saved in Orono. Two people from BWSR, the governmental agency that enforces the technical wetlanvi policies, did not favor mitigation in another area. Putnam stated at this time the ordinances don’t mesh between the State aiiJ municipalities, which causes many problems. Schroeder asked how important it was that the lots be two acres. He thought some five acre lots might solve some of the problems. Putnam thought it may be more difficult on the Dickey property because there is already a pattern established. Wetlands, ponds and trees actually increase the value of the property. Their view is that the Coffin propcity is more valuable and the homes will be higher priced. Not all people want to have large lots they have to mow. Hare commented that economics are involved but also aesthetics. The developer is proposing development that may be better for the City. High ground makes a parcel more valuable. A site with only one acre of dry buildable may not be any more valuable than a two acre lot that is all dry buildable. People who are looking for lots in the Orono area are looking for space between their neighbors yet want to be part of a community. Schroeder asked what the expectations are of the price of the lots and homes. Deanovic thought the Dickey property would be S80.000 - $110,000 per lot and the Coffin property would be higher, more comparable to Tuckborough in Medina. Hare thought that enhancing the wetlands may make the property more valuable. Putnam stated they would probably relocate some of them. This is an opportunity to alter Type I wetlands but you wouldn’t want to alter Tyne 3 wetlands, nor would that be allowed. Nolan asked what other developments the developers have done. Some of the projects they did were Copperfield in Mendota Heights, several projects in Eden Prairie including Summer Oaks, and many sites for Centex Homes in Eden Prairie. Plymojth. and Mendota Heights. They have not done any projects with septic s* stems. 1 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGHELD OCTOBER 18, 1993(#10) #1877 TANDEM PROPERTIES/PETER ANDREA COMPANY - CONf.Nolan felt it desirable to take some of the Type 1 wetlands and integrate them through the neighborhood with a good plan. Some areas could be developed into more productive wetlands. Mitigation on the site is preferable to looking in other areas. A meeting with the developer and Planning Commission members was scheduled for 9:00 a.m, Saturday. October 23. The sketch plan will also be presented to Council at the October 25 meeting. (#11) FLAG LOTS - FINALIZE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL A motion was made by Schroeder, seconded by Berg, to table discussion of this item until Thursday morning at the special Planning Commission meeting Ayes 6. nays 0. (#12) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE Lindquist and Peterson reported that in the Juiidt application problem the Council did not approve a deck at the bottom of the stairway for storage in the 0-75 ’ setback zone. Council requested that adequate hardships be stated on the applications. Surveys need to be accurate. Council denied the Spinner application as the Planning Commission had recommended. Nolan commented that the Spinner survey was inaccurate and h"'d been pointed out. (#13) OTHER ISSUES Smith mentioned the meeting with Long Lake and Orono with a mediator over the Highway 12 issue. This was the second meeting and Smith is attending them. A MnDOT representative is available as a technical advisor. Orono is represented by the entire Council. These meetings run parallel to the Policy Committee meetings which are MnDOT meetings. Two meeting dates are set in November and again in January. The meetings are open to the public and held at the Orono Council Chambers. Smith commented that MnDOT stated the reason they are looking at Highway 12 upgrades is because the people from Wilmar want to get into the Cities. Schroeder reminded members further discussion needs to take place before the end of November regarding the B-2 zone and encouraged members to visit all of the marinas. Schroeder suted Mabusth had checked into insurance for Planning Commission members. His question was whether they are insured if they injure a dog. etc., not if one of the members is injured on an inspection. Gaffron will research further. 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD OCTOBER 18, 1993 (#14) APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Lindquist, to approve the minutes of the September 20, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. Ayes 6, nays 9. (#15) REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNCIL MEETING Berg volunteered to attend the November 8, 1993 Council meeting. (#16) PLANNING COMMISSION - PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 21, 1993 AT 8:00 A.M. Schroeder reminded members of the Thursday meeting regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Lindquist, to adjourn the regular Planning Commission meeting at 12:38 p.m. i Charles Schroeder. Chair Person. € TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council The City has been billed for 41 hours of legal services related to the Public Works staff disciplinary hearing. The hours can be divided into three categories: in following through on the1. ) Advice to city staff disciplinary action. 2. ) Research and advice to the City regarding the Open Meeting Law and Government Data Practices Act as they related to the hearing. 3.) Conducting the disciplinary hearing Of the legal service time spent related to the disciplinary action, 17 hours were related directly to the hearing, 18 hours were related to research and providing advice related to the Open Meeting Law and other related issues, and 5 1/2 hours were related to providing advice to staff and preparing for the hearing. I have attached a letter from Popham Haik responding to concerns expressed by the City regarding the amount of time spent on each phase of the disciplinary process. In relation to the legal costs, the letter requests that the City evaluate the sep-ices received and make whatever payment, if any, the City feels is warranted. P O P H A M H A I K SCriNOaHtCH A K aufman . LfO i 0»«ir.#« OtMv««. n»*no t««.ft§ iiog MtAMI. fAi. tuiTC 1300 222 iOwiTM N inth it»C*T M:NNCAOOi*ft. Mimncchta 99402 TKU 6 1 a-31J-4600 rA* 6 I a-»J^-66i® lMr(ftNAf<>N«i, OfTlCtf: LCi^llO. QiftMAMf Til 01140.141 46ii4af tlL OM4t-Tlt-20tSOl WlAAHiaiAnUi. o r f I 9T99 KCVIM m. •TAWNTOM, 160. Dfil64»T DtAU (6161 164*6610 October 21. 1993 V|^ facsimile Ronald J. Moorse Pot Office Box 64 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323*0066 Re; Billing for O’Brien Disciplinary Matter Dear I am wrlUng at Tom BarreU’s request to respond to the portion of your letter of Oc«*er .9. .993 » him U».dC. wlU. d» S M lS“irch.t w. jwovide you ib?ut who the wlvlee wi, provided to end why it toolt» much time to comply noted that vprexhnately 17 hours wM devoted to the heuln* in thU nutter uid mked that we review why the hearing was aUowed to go on for so long . I have reviewed the bUl and have the foUowing itspotues to ycur inquiries: • OnenMee • lit el the CouncU to consider this matter on two diffcteai occasion. _____ /vr^tonu wos tho Coundl’s approval of your decision to impose discipline onthose two Sessions was the Coundl’s approval of your oeemon » ^ • O’Wen. in connection with that meeting, we analyzed the Open Mw^g Law a^^ta sr.C'w'K'iSr.szsz,; ss,v»r,.i« st«oso3ss«i taaim ft Ronald J. Moors'; October 21, 1993 Page 2 dimcuu open MccUn* Uw and Da. W a^fc^ "" through thoae laauea and be sute that we were providing the City witn me p - . .t ^ iinon him. • xi>» Hairint. Once Mr. dte ^TpSiZelPobS^ « hearing „ effort to create PoUclea do not otttHne the type of he^ng City acted in an xc r:' ssTJ-irr;-' Ks-rfr=rn-- hearing took as long as it did{ U/UK ■» iwai^ — •• payment, if any, you feel is warrsited. ._’^=r«r»rr^riiE=rs.nsr’‘ “ • Sincerely. Kevin P. Staunton cc: TJDarrcii UW««> m I’ O r tl A M H A I K ^ \ Z h ti • Sk r A 1 J I M • t ;« U t Jrrir# c r* ♦»»*•! • TCk «U9 0«9 1200 Miami rtofiOA ^fu 101 A^l-(X)50 V j 1 t I ^ > O »,* ^ / « ».* V T I- •'I % • .. S • r I M • s r, I A M c - I . M I * I| f t • r* 4 o ;. 11 . r, I -. 3 j n 4 9 -*«: K i 1 U^H OOOO • ••• I • • I . f I •4 t J9IC4?I Waam ««6ros. II c; 20? ®«i*.«70C KrviN p C ta 'jmton , r%Q Omiiif niAi ff^fSi d04-o3to • k.rf. Ml Olaman t •# I Of I4*« >J i-a VC t-303 C> Julv 2S. 1003 VIA HAND DELIVEKY AND VS ^lAIL VIA FACSIMILE Mr. Randy O’Rricn H03i» County Road 6 Maple Plain MN .-55359 Mr. Ron.ikl Mnorsc Ciiv Manaecr City of Of( no 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay MN 55323 Re: Randy O'Brien Diseiolinary Appc.^1 Genilcmen: I am wriling on behalf of the Ornno ('iiy Council icgarcJini* the hearing in Uic ahove- rclcrcnced matter. As yt5u know . Mr. 0*Brien’.s appeal hearing is .scheduled to be held at 5:30 p.m. on Tluirsday. July 2*J. at the Orono City Ccurxil chambe's. The purpo.se of this Idler i.s to .advise both parties of the pri.'ce.s.s wluch will I'c u.sed at ih.nt hearing. Both parlies are entitle J U) legal repiesontatu'n at the hearing. I under.siaid that Andrew Parker will be. rcpf ’sonting the City Manager. At dii.s lime. I aju not aware that Mr. O’Brien will be reprc.scntL- .i> Icyal counsel. Julie Friedmann will icpic.seni ihe City Council. 'ITic hearing will i)C held fur the purpo.se of determinirg v- hethei the di.sciplinc iiriptr.scd t>n Mr. O'Bncn b> ihe City Manager .sliould he vacated. The City Manager shall have Ihe burden of showing ihai the coruiuct of Mr. O'Brien warranted the discipline imposed ar>d ifiai the procedural icticiremcrts of :lie City's personnel policy wee followed Mr. Randy O’Brien Mr. Ronald Moor sc July 2.^. mn Page 2 At iJit' hcaiitJg, ihe City Manager will present evidence ihnnigh documents or sworn testimony from w!tne.s.se.s. The City Manager's wiine.s.ses wdJ be subject to cross examination by Mr. O’Brien. After the City Manager h.is presented hi.s case. Mr. O’Brien will be allowed to present evidence Uirougli documents or .swum le.stlmony from wimc.s.sc.s. Mr. O’Brien’s witnesses will be subject to cross-examination by iJie City Manager. BoUi pariie.s will have the opportunity to present rebuttal evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the partie.s will have up to ten mirudes each to .summarize their arguments on Uic issues. Tlic city council will then clo.se the meeting to deliberate. The council’s dcci.sion will subsequenily be delivered to both panic.s in writing Tlie Mayor or his dc.sign«c shall be the pre.siding officer at the hearing. The presiding ofliccr will rule on any evidentiary objection.s. The Council shall accept any rca.sonably reliable evidence, according it the appropriate weight it is due. The presiding officer ha.s the power, however, to exclude any evidence that is unneccs.sarjly cumulative or duplicative. I hope this ck'arly .sets out the procedure to be followed at the. hearing. If you have any questions between ,iow and ilic hearing, please feel free to contact either me or Julie Friedman. cc: Julie I-'riedman Andrew Parker Diane Guiten Sinicr^V uKevin P. Siaunto.'i j/l, HAIK, SCHNUSMICtt, <k iVMUriwiMiM, utu.MINNEAPOLIS O^^lCE 3300 P1PE« JAfFRAY TOWER 222 SOUTH fTM STREET M1HHEAFOU8. MINNESOTA SS402 TELEPHONE 012-338-4000 .nashi N oton Office 1300 I STREET N W SUITE 500 EAST WASHINGTON. D C. 2000S TELEPHONE 202-962-0700 r Client No: 3643 OENVER OFFICE 1200 seventeenth street SUITE 2400 DENVER. COLORADO 00202 TELEPHONE 9 MIAMI OFFICE 4000 INTERNATIONAL PLACE 100 S£ SECONOSTREET MUMI. FL 33131 TELEPHONE 30S-S30-00S0 City of Orono August 23, 1993 PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH REMITTANCE For professional services rendered, including: Matter No: 56 Labor Matters 06/09/93 E. Richter f )06/09/93 A. Parker 06/10/93 E. Richter 06/11/93 E. Richter 06/14/93 E. Richter Discuss issue regarding whether City Council meeting must be closed pursuant to Data Practices Act; analyze law -egarding same; contact client to advise of status. Discussion with Mr. Gerhardson regarding equipment violations. Review and analyze facts and policies regarding recommendation to suspend employee; research and analyze Minnesota Open Meeting Law and Government Data Practices Act regarding same; contact client to advise of requirements for closing city council meeting to consider suspension. Review and analyze law regarding whether City Council meeting should be closed to consider disciplinary action; discuss analysi.s of same; contact client to advise regarding related issue regarding published agendx Discuss with client application of open meeting law to Council’s consideration of disciplinary action; discuss and analyze related law; prepare plans to proceed; advise client regarding same. .7 3.3 ; 1.0 Poph«n3. Hai*' Schnobnch, I ^ ‘ -ffTiAA, LTD. 3300 Piptr Jaffmy Taw^r • 222 So S4. MN 55402 HAIK, SCHMUOMion, 01 Client No: 3643 City of Orono 06/14/93 K. Siaunton 06/14/93 06/16/93 06/17/93 K. Staunton K. Staunton E. Richter 3300 PIPER JAFPRAV TOWER 222 SOUTH #TH STREET MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA i S402 TELEPHONE 612>333-4a00 1M0 I STREET N W. SUITE 500 EAST WASHINQTONrO O. 20(£3 TELEPHONE 202-M2-E700 DENVER OFFICE 1200 seventeenth STREET SUITE 2400 DENVER. COLORADO 8020i TELEPHONE lO MIAMI OEPCE 4000 INTERNATIONAL PLACE 100 SE SECOND STREET MIAMI. FL 33131 TELEPHONE 305-530-0050 August 23, 1993 please return this port on with remittance Advise city regarding 4.8 IVISC Cliy procedure for council consideration ot employee discipline. Confer with Public Works Director regarding personnel process issues. _____!___Tn^rhrjrHQnn .5 Discussion with JGerhardson regarding process for employee discipline. Prepare concspondence to Mayer and City Council members explaining Open Meeting Law and Data Practices Ac t, and application of same to closing portion of council meeting to address recommended • ___________tn PitV 2.3 L;U u 11UU --------- disciplinary action; prepare letter to City Administrator to confirm procedures ___St^tU Administrator to conuuu regarding same; analyze related statutes and ___ cjirnP- 06/18/93 E. Richter Discuss correspondence to Mayor. City Council members and correspondence to City Administrator, incorporate changes; review related provisions of personnel policies. 06/18/93 K. Staunton Work on opinion letter to city council regarding open meeting law requirements for consideration of potenual employee discipline. 07/01/93 K. Staunton Advise public works director regarding documents from disciplinary process to be placed in personnel file. Confer with JGerhardson regarding 07/13/93 K. Staunton process to be used in Randy O’Brien appeal hearing. 07/14/93 A. Parker Analysis of hearing process in 1-day suspension case .6 .2 .4 I PofOxum, H«ik. SetmobnetT. A Kaulman. LTD. 3300 Pipar Jaffr»y • 222 So. 9th Si. • M.nn.ap.*» MN 55402 PfOf RAL I 9 I HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, & KAUFMAN, LTD. Client No: 3643 City of Orono 0Hl4i93 K. Staunton 07/15/93 A. Parker 07/15/93 K. Staunton 07/19/93 A. Parker 07/22/93 .A. Parker 07/26/93 K. Staunton onati93 K. Staunton 07/27/93 K. Staunton 07/28/93 J Friedman on 129193 J. Friedman w MINNEAPOLIS OFF CE 3300 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER 222 SOUTH 9TM STREET IflNNEAPOUS. MINNESOTA 5S402 TELEPHONE 612-333-^«S00 dV^MlNGTON OFFICE 1200 I STREET N W. SUTTE 500 EAST WASHINGTON. D C. 2001 TELEPHONE 302-962<«7tX) DENVER OFFICE 1200 seventeenth STREET SUITE 2400 DENVER. COLORADO 90202 TELEPHONE “‘^ge: 11 MIAMI OFFICE 4000 INTERNATIONAL PLACE 100 S E SECOND STREET MIAMI. FL 33131 TELEPHONE 30S-S30-0050 August 23. 1993 PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH REMITTANCE issues associated with appellate hearing for employee; discuss process with client. Discussion with Mr. Moorse regarding hearing; analyze background facts and develop strategy regarding same. Discussion with Ron Moorse regarding Randy O’Brien appeal. Discussion with Mr. Moorse regarding personnel issues and prepare for bearing. Discussion with Mr. Moorse regarding employee discipline and hearing. Work on letter outlining procedure for O’Brien hearing; discuss procedures for hearing with J. Friedman. Discussion with City ^ Administrator of procedure for O’Biien hearing. Analyze council’s ability to deliberate on appeal of O’Brien hearin private; draft letter to parties outlining ground rules for hearing. Confer with Attorney K. Staunton regarding hearing on O Brian s suspension. (O’Brien) Confer with D. Gotten regarding hearing on O’Brien's discipline; confer with J. Hurr regarding same; attend and advise city counsel at the hearing regarding O’Brien’s discipline. g «n Popham, Haitt. Scunobrteh, A LTD 3300 Pip#r J«»av To^er • 222 So. aUi S« • tMnmipoU. MN 55402 .5 .5 .4 1.6 .5 .2 8.7 A HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, & KAUFMAN, LTD. Client No: 3643 ^MINNLAPOUS office lyw) PIP£« JAFFRAY TOWER 799 SOUTH STM STREET MtNNEAPOUS MINNESOTA SS402 TfLEPHONE •17-33S-ASOO DENVER OFFICE 1700 seventeenth street SUITE 2400 DENVER. COLORADO S0202 TELEPHONw Page: 12 WtSMINOTON Of ^ICi 13001 STAfrr n w Bufte soo iMST WASHWOTON, OC TWm me^HONt isa-m-*no MIAMI Of f C( 4000 INTfANATIOMAL PtACf loose GkCOMOSTAifT MIAMI. fl S3131 TELBWNB 305-S3O-00S0 City of Orono August 23, 1993 please return this portion with remittance 07/29/93 A. Parker 07/30/93 J. Friedman Total Hours: Amount Due, Profcssion.il Services Expenses Advanced: Meet with witnesses, prepare for and handle suspension hearing before City Council. (O’Brien): Work on findings of fact. 41.0 7.7 06/10/93 Computer Assisted Research * Westlaw 06/30/93 Telecopy Charges 06/30/93 Photowupies 07/30/93 Postage omo/93 Photocopies Total Expenses Advanced: *1 # • • Attorney SUMMARY BY ATTO Hours Worked # • # # ♦ Billed Per Hour Bill Amount B. Richter K. Steunton A. Parker j. Priedmen 8.60 12.10 9.70 10.60 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 688.00 968.00 776.00 848.00 Total all Attorneye 41.00 80.00 Total This Matter 1.7 S3.28O.0O 57.81 5.50 8.40 .52 3.40 $75.63 • • TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator November 4, 1993 SUBJECT; Council Upd"te # SCHOOL DISTRICT BALL FIELDS Although the Park Commission would like to see the construction of the Little League Ball Fields proceed on the school district property as quickly as possible, there are several items remaining to be accomplished before construction can begin. One is the development of a lease agreement between the City and the School District. The second item is the development of an agreement between the City and the Orono Youth Baseball Association setting out the conditions under which the Association would be allowed to construct and utilize the fields. The third is that although this process has been before both Council and the Park Commission several times the property owners near the proposed site have not received formal notification of the proposal and have not been solicited for comments regarding the proposal. The City's Attorney has prepared a lease agreement for the property. This agreement will need to be approved by both the City Council and the School Board. The City has had initial discussions with the Orono Youth Baseball Association regarding an agreement concerning the ball fields. However, neither party has begun to develop the actual agreement at this point. Although the creation of a park, and development ball fields, does not require a public hearing process, the City generally notifies affected property owners of such proposals. It is recommended that copies of the proposal be provided to affected property owners and that based on comments received from the property owners, the City can determine whether a public information meeting is needed. CROSS COUNTRY SKIING ON THE ORONO GOLF COURSE I have attached a proposal presented to the Park Commission regarding a cross country ski trail on the Golf Course. The trail would be maintained by a volunteer group and available for use by the general public except on 6 evenings when ski races would be held Staff is working with the group that has proposed the ski trail and races to clarify the proposal. If the proposal appears to be workable. it will be brought to the Council for consideration. At a meeting with MnDOT engineering staff. City staff were advised that ’"he safety improvements for Highway 12 are still on track to be bid in the fall of '94. However, the MnDOT staff indicated the availability of funding for the project is not certain. Based on this information staff will initiate contacts with MnDOT to ensure the project is given high priority for funding. i- \ >■ I Council Update November 4, 1993 page 2 I OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD BIKE/HIKE TRAIL The Old Crystal Bay Road bike/hike trail committee has identified a number of alternatives for cost reductions related to the Old Crystal Bay Road trail. Hennepin Parks has also proposed a new trail corridor in the Orchard Park area. The alternatives for the Old Crystal Bay Road trail include eliminating curb and gutter north of the City facilities, constructing the trail only from Baker Park to Highway 12 at this time and phasing in the remainder of the trail along Old Crystal Bay Road over a period of years as additional right-of-way separated from the current roadway right- of-way becomes available. These alternatives will be analyzed and presented to the Council with the committee's recommendation. I I i jffk Scptcnber 23,1993 •# % • I I ♦ Mr.R]chard Flint Chairr wn, Orono Parks Commission 1405 County Rd. 6 Orono, MN 55356 RE: Cross Country Skiing on the Orono Golf Course Dear Mr. Flint: : • We are wriung lo presem lu me wiuhw ...........““■7;..............: . ’ proposal for a cross country ski course on the Orono Golf Course. As you _______fli •l^s trail r>n writing to present to the Orono Parks Commission the enclosed " . may ?dcall. last winter we successfully created a ski trail on the Golf /Coursi oh a trial basis. This winter we would like to establish a more • //orm^zed ski program at the Orono Golf Course. We feel that this will ‘ enable\otf» the City of Orono and the citizens of the surrounding area to “ better litil'ze One of.Orono’i great outdoor resources; its public golf course, Octoblf 5. We would alio like the opportunity to spend a few minutes at that meeting In order;, to difcuss our proposal and to answer any questions that yc u or yO'or commjssion members may have. nt, thank you {n adyAnep for your cdhsider.ition. We look forward nng from you.* V ^y'"'>. . •jyycurs, . ‘ Mr. FI to hea Sincer Jin Gi ner enther Ovsnei etc^ WejJcs Orono Resident. 332-5^56 >* ' 4 JLG/PCW/bu enclosure; Proposal # •r > GEAR < V.#. 0 • 0. r. 'r •. /. 'S40 ViROtHU tvt- \ a •'fit lorn ,SS3 UW473-00fS I Orono Golf Course Ski Truil trail layout was accepted by the city. L«it winter we mnde . proposel to John Gerhardson to create a more "lo’op" that roughly followed the Golf Course's perimeter. We also "S'"' ho d’ln informal evening race on a trial basis. After •PP™''* grjoming was held at the Golf Course. It was attended by ^^eated ItefTenacle Dick Schmidt of the DNR and ourselves. A new ski trail layout was ere K cotlderaJion to creating a continuous loop:, access <«" L f tees and greens, and safety of skiers. The evening race was held and t was attended by approximately 20 skiers. By all accounts the race was a success, even tho g hed on one of the foggiest nights of the yearl jKjjf'^J^^^^i^^'S^posad ski course is twofold. First, >.o P'®'*’* rraSnWOr/no^with.groomedcroM^^^^^ Stl Trail Layout: The course will have a layout similar to t^he trail r®®"’®^ ®" * bl la.: winLr it will be designed in cooperation with John Gerhardson. Ron StefT?n.igle and Dick Schmidt of the DNR. First, snow conditions permit. Secondly, we will provide Idfcal glooming wrseJvM^:r.T,,.°irs ussrs.; a.« ITU rginal §now conditions. u r-taa /Ttflfu’ted with its insurincc carrier end found that skiing on r Races: We would like to hold a scries of six (6) recreational sprint races on Tuesday evlnings in January and February, weather end snow conditions permitting. The races ^ would be held at 6:30 p.m. and they would be approximately 30 minutes in duration. It is anticipated that they would be attended by approximately 30 skiers fVom the local area. Lighting: On race evenings the course will be lit by a series of propane lanterns distributed around the course. Due to the tcrain, "compact" nature of the sk» course and the reflection of ihe lanterns off the snow, we expect that the course can be safely lit. Clubhouse: We would like to be able to use the clubhouse facility on *ace evenings between the hours of 6:00 and 8:00 p.m.. Many of the skiers that would be attending the races come directly from work and it would be desirable to provide them with a warm place to change. It is our understanding that this facility is healed during the winter to a temperature of approximately 50 degrees. We would like to be able to turn the heat up to a comfortable level during the race evenings and sve would reimburse the City for their nominal increase in heating costs. Storage: We would like access to a secure storage facility In order to house the snowmobile, trail groomer and lighting equipment. Indemnify: Ail racers would be required to sign a waiver indemnifying the City of Orono and Gear West Ski & Bike. Community Involvement: Gear West Ski & Bike has successfully held the Gear West Duathlon runnlng/bike race In Orono during the last two summers. The proceeds of this event have gone to the benefit of Orono's 4th grade studems. Scheduled for Saturday, October 2nd is the 1st Annual Gear West Octoberfest 5K Run & Walk also for the benefit of the Orono School System. We would like to create a charitable ski race aj part of the six race scries, again to assist Orono's youth. Thank you Vtfy much for your consideration nrmiT« Rima