Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-12-1992 Council PacketMINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONC COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 12, 1992 ROLL The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Acting Mayor J. Diann Goetten, Councilinembers Gabriel Jabbour, Edward Callahan and Mary Butler. Mayor Barbara Peterson was absent. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Ron Moorse, Public Works Director John Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, City Attorney Thomas Barrett, City Engineer Glenn Cook and City Recorder Teri Naab. Acting Mayor Goetten called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. (<M) HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS ASSESSMENT - PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 - 7:05 P.M. Moorse explained the public hearing is regarding assessments against properties related to hazardous building action. JoEllen Hurr asked why the City is paying half of the legal fees incurred. Moorse explained the hazardous building procedure was long and leading toward a court proceeding, which would have meant additional legal fees. The City, as part of a settlement with the property owners, offered to pay half of the legal fees to avoid a court battle. The amount the City will pay is $10,226. CONSENT AGENDA Goetten removed Item #14 from the Consent Agenda. Butler added Items #5 and 6. It was moved by Butler, seconded by Callahan, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Ayes 4, nays 0. Motions for all items adopted by consent agenda will be included in the minutes in their respective numericai order. (*#2) APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was mov«d by Sutler, seconded by Callahan, to approve the ml nut OS of tfne regular meet i ng of the Counc i I he I d on September 28, 1992. Ayes 4, nays 0. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 12, 1992 PUBLIC COMMENTS Goetten announced the dedication of the Kelley Parkway on October 14th has been postponed because of the untimely death of Mary Kelley. (#3) #1621 TERRY JOHNSON, 1045 LINDEN LANE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3186 Mr. and Mrs. Terry Johnson were present. Gaffron explained the applicants originally submitted their proposal over a year ago. Since then, there have been many changes CO the proposal. The applicants propose the removal of an existing detached garage to be replaced by an attached garage and a driveway. They also propose a new deck and a second story addition over the existing residence. This proposal results in the following hardcover percentages: 0-75’ reduction from 8.9X to 7.2%; 75-250’ Increase from 22.1% to 40.5%; and a reduction in the 250-500’ zone. He clarified that the applicants intend to keep the wall and sidewalk system on the northwest corner of the house, but noted that it Is built with wooden cribbing containing non-compacted gravel, that only the cribbing is considered hardcover, a-"^ the square footage of existing walkway hardcover is equivalent tc Tie amount reported for replacement. Mr. Johnson stated they need to keep this system for drainage purposes. Gaffron reported the Planning Commission’s main concern was the steep lot and the amount of run-off funneled toward the lake. He stated the City Engineer had reviewed the property that day. Cook recommended the City condition approval on the applicants maintaining the drainageway in a manner that prevents erosion. Goetten asked if Cook felt the new proposal helps the drainage situation. Cook noted the renovation will channelize the drainage and will increase the velocity of that run-off. Goetten asked who is responsible if the improvements property aggravate the drainage problem in the area. the Cook stated the City should make it known it is the responsibility of the property owner to correct any future drainage problems. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 12, 1992 ZONING FILE #1621 - CONT. Gaffron noted staff has discussed a retention pond.somewhere on the property or eisewhere in th'^ neighborhood, which may be reaiized at a later date. Goetten clarified the applicants intend to use foundation and asked if that foundation hts been certified by a structural engineer. the existing inspected and Mr. Johnson stated prior to purchasing the property, they had a contractor visit the site who indicated, because of the 12 block used, the foundation could support a second story. Goetten explained that if the foundation is found to be unusable, the City will require the house to be moved further back on the property. Callahan said the Planning Commission felt the driveway would focus a major amount of water in a different location. He said he hesitates allowing double the amount of hardcover within the 75- 250’ zone. Butler felt, after review of the property, it is a very awkward property and the applicants have a hardship for moving the garage closer to the house. She agreed the driveway may create a river on the property. Mr. Johnson stated the run-off actually flows across the property opposed to down the drive. He added, by decreasing the amount of hardcover at the actual point of the water entering the property, It will alley for better absorption. Jabbour suggested they consider a smalI landing area or berm at the top of the drive to prohibit water from Linden Lane entering the property. Gaffron noted Cook has recommended a 3* side-to-slde slope for the driveway to help direct run-off to the sides rather than down the length of the driveway. Goetten agreed with Callahan that they should not allow the applicants to double the amount of hardcover within a zone. She said she would prefer the existing garage to remain in its present location opposed to the new garage. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 12, 1992 ZONING FILE #1621 - CONT. Jabbour felt this property is a good example of the DNR’s intent to allow a certain percentage of hardcover on a property within 1000’ of the lake opposed to a certain percentage within different zones. He felt the problem is the need for such a long driveway, but noted the house is of modest size. Jeff Johnson noted thfi Planning Commission felt the biggest impact of this project being the off-site drainage concern, and they felt if there is a chance to improve that situation, it is more Important than the hardcover issue. Mr. Johnson felt they were actually improving the drainage situation for their neighbors. It was moved by Butler, seconded by Jabbour, to adopt Resolution #3186 for Application #1621 for Terry Johnson, 1045 Linden Lane, for variances to construct an attached garage and additions to the existing residence, subject to the applicant being Informed prior to the issuance of a building permit of the City Engineer’s recommendations. Ayes 3, nays 1. Goetten voted nay. Barrett suggested adding the following language to the resolution, "as recommended by the City Engineer or as may be required by the City Engineer in the future". This will ensure the ability by the City Engineer to monitor the situation in the future. Butler accepted the Attorney’s suggestion, Jabbour seconded the amendment. Ayes 3, nays 1. Goetten voted nay. Mrs. Johnson asked if they would have any recourse against the City If In the future the drainage problem became worse. Mr. Johnson asked that wording be added to ensure the City could not require the removal of the Improvement should it be determined that it has caused additional drainage problems. (»#4) #1743 ALBERT HANSER, 1685 FOX STREET - FINAL SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION #3187 It was moved oy Butler, seconded by Callahan, to adopt Resolution #3187 for Application #1743 for Albert Hanser of 1685 Fox Street, approving the final subdivision of the property. Ayes 4,nays 0. i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 12, 1992 (»«5) #1755 LEONARD NISKA, 1204 SHADYWOOD ROAD - __ AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION #3188 It was moved by Butler, seconded by Callahan, to adopt Resolution #3188 for Application #1755, Leonard Niska, 1204 Shadywood Road, approving a variance and granting a conditional use permit for the construction of a storage shed. Ayes 4, nays 0. (*#6) #1761 MARK HUNSLEY, 3464 EASTLAKE STREET - AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3189 It was moved by Butler, seconaed by Callahan, to adopt Resolution #3189 for Application #1761, Mark Hunsley, 3464 Eastlake Street, approving a va-iance to construct a storage shed on Outlot B, Bayside Beach. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#7) #1765 JOHN MOORE, 801 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCE Jim Cradit was present for this application. Gaffron explained the existing house is approximately half within the 0-75’ zone. The applicant is proposing an addition to the existing kitchen and a second story addition over the master bedroom, both within the 0-75’ zone. Jabbour stated the survey they were provided does not show the existing hardcover. Gaffron noted a complete copy of the updated survey Is further back In the Exhibits. Butler asked if the appileant anticipates doing foundation work for the kitchen expansion. Cradit noted the steep embankment below the kitchen area and the amount of erosion is partly due to the fact that the house does not have gutters. He stated the excavating for the block work needed for the kitchen expansion will be done by hand. Butler suggested that be made a condition of the resolution. She added the property does not have its house numbers posted. Goetten said she would like to see a trade-off of hardcover within the same zone. She felt if the app'leant expects to get permission for an addition within a sensitivd area, he should be expected to give something up. A. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 12, 1992 ZONING FILE #1765 - CONT. Jabbour asked if the walk from the garage to the deck could be eliminated. He felt this was an additional convenience. Butler stated there are walks all around the property. She asked if the appiI cant wouId like to mainta•n the walk to the deck or get permission for the kitchen expansion. She suggested walking on the grass. Gaffron pointed out hardcover in the 250-50C zone may be under the allowed percentage. Further discussion led to a conclusion that the updated survey does not show gravel driveways existing in the 250- 500’ zone. Goetten suggested they request a complete and corrected survey. Jabbour suggested staff prepare a handout explaining survey requirements and the City’s policy on hardcover. Gaffron noted both I terns are thoroughly explained in the building perm 11 and zoning applications, but are not always read or adhered to by applicants or their agents. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Butler, to table AppII cat I on #1765 for John Moore, 801 Tonkawa Road, until the applicant provides a complete survey and to allow the applicant time to consider removal of hardcover within the 0-75’ zone. Ayes 4, nays 0. Callahan suggested the applicant may wish to consider the removal of both the walks. (#8) SHORELAND FLEXIBILITY REQUEST: A) STATUS UPDATE B) FORMAL FLEXIBILITY REQUESTS - SPRING PARK, WAYZATA, TONKA BAY, MINNETONKA BEACH AND WOODLAND Gaffron explained other cities have proposed granting a "Shoreland Impact Plan" conditional use permit In lieu of variance approval for commercially zoned property to allow additional hardcover, in exchange for improvements required by the city. He stated during the redevelopment process for the Navarre area, the City will find most properties wiI I require a variance to the hardcover ordinance. He stated the DNR has expressed that the City should not be granting as many variances as it currently does. He asked t e Council If they wished to formally respond to the formal flexibility requests. 1 « I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 12, 1992 SHORELAND FLEXIBILITY REQUESTS - CONT. Callahan felt they should consider the option of granting of a conditional use permit versus approval of a variance. He stated currently there is not an economic force driving the redevelopment of Navarre. He felt they should respond positively to the fI ex IbiIity requests. Jabbour felt they should respond to these and all requests. He noted the DNR has been very forceful with regard to the shore I and regulations. He 'elt the response should thank the DNR for the 3r?ini?^to review the proposals and urge the DNR to grant the cities flexibility to maintain existing development. JoEllen Huinoted Minnetonka Beach has requested the same flexibiIity as Orono. She felt any redevelopment of property shou d proJiSe for an l^mprovement to the property. She stated Orono shou d stress that fact when commenting to the DNR on the flexibili y requests. Goetten concurred, but noted the City needs to recognize other cities identity and needs. Callahan stated the DNR has not drafted their overall plan with relation to Lake Minnetonka. He said if the other cities are planning to adopt a rational plan with regard to their actual city development, then Orono should encourage the DNR to accept that proposal. Gaffron was directed to draft a letter of response to be reviewed at the next meeting. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT A) Jabbour reported that some residents feel it is more attractive to pay the fine for burning without a permit than to go through the inspection process. He suggested a 60 day permit. Butler suggested that renewal permits not be reinspected. D) Jabbour noted he read in the Sailor newspaper that the Little League group feels the City Council is ooposed to the ice arena. He did not want the City to be divided between groups. He suggested a letter to the Little League reiterating the Council’s views. C) Callahan requested a staff person attend the meeting to be held by the Metropolitan Council. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 12, 1992 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT - CONT. D) Callahan noted the agenda for the LMCD’s Task Force indicates the Chairman is looking for a consensus. He suggested, if the Orono representative is not in favor of the consensus, a letter be sent explaining Orono’s position. He added, following the consensus vote, the reason for the establishment of the Task Force has been completed. He suggested at tnat point, all Orono representatives dissolve from the Task Force. Jabbour noted he is very disturbed v.'ith the Task Force. He stated alI members of the LMCD are on the Task Force and he felt they have made a conscious effort to sway the outco'^e. He said he has been lobbying to dissolve the Task Force. Callahan stated he was under the impression that the Task Force was to consist of a number of different entities, of which, the LMCD is one part. Jabbour directed Moorse to send a letter to the LMCD designating Jabbour as the Orono representative to the Task Force, and to remind the LMCD that they should only have one representative also. He asked that Dennis Osmoson and Gordon Kimball of the DNR be sent a copy of the letter. Callahan stated negotiation regarding Maxwell Bay can only be between the City of Orono and the DNR. Jabbour stated at the next meeting, he wiI I accept the information, raise his obiecticns, and move to dissolve the Task Force, and indicate Orono will not entertain any involvement with regard to the landing with anyone other than the DNR. Hurr Indicated if the membership cf the Committee was limited, Jabbour would have lost alIles as 'veI I as enemies. ENGINEER’S REPORT (#9) PAY REQUEST #1 - PUMP & METER SERVICE It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Butler, to authorize Pay Request for the installation of the hoists at the new Public Works faciIity to Pump & Meter Service in the amount of $24,967.47. Ayes 4, nays 0. 8 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 12, 1992 CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#10) BRIAR STREET - PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to table discussion regarding this issue. Ayes 4, nays 0. (♦#>1) ASSESSMENT FOR HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS - RESOLUTION #3190 It ViS moved by Jabbour, seconded by Butler, to adopt Resolution #3190 adopting the assessment rol I for hazardous buiIdings action ~ 1992 - Ayes 4, nays 0. (#12) ESTABLISH PROCESS FOR REVIEW OF FUTURE USE OF CURRENT CITY HALL SITE Moorse referred to a request by the allowed to preserve the Council Chambers and m. ve it to a different Iocation. Callahan suggested they proceed with plans to raze all bSlld^nSs Tthe crystal Bay City Hall site and replace the buiIdings with grass. Butler asked about the money they had planned to raise from the property. Jabbour suggested transferring the ownership of the sewer pond property to the Park Commission and taking the money out of that fund and putting it into the building fund. Callahan suggested beginning the subdivision process for the sewer plant site. Goetten felt the City owes the residents consideration of the Crystal Bay site and any future development. Jabbour stated they wi I I not be able to put in grass unti I next u,.. ing, so that wi I I allow t i me to plan for the si te. He fel t they should proceed with the subdivision of the sewer pond site and go ahead and sell the two lots, based on the financial situation. Butler said she would rather develop the Crystal Bay site into a park. Callahan suggested sending a letter to the Pioneer Museum informing them that the Council has not made a decision at this time. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 12, 1992 (#13) ESTABLISH CANVASSING BOARD MEETING The Canvassing Board meecing was scheduled for November 4, 1992 at 4:00 p.m. (#14) CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S SALARY ADJUSTMENT Goetten explained there are some issues the Council wished to review prior to approving. It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Butler, to table a decision on the City Administrator’s one-year anniversary salary adjustment. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#15) RESCHEDULE 1993 BUDGET WORK SESSION Callahan stated it is unclear as to how the City will be affected by the HACA credit in the coming year. He stated he would like to review this at the work session. A work session to review the 1993 proposed budget was established for Friday, November 6, 1992 at 3:00 p.m. (#16) CITY FACILITIES FURNITURE ORDER/FUEL STORAGE Moorse explained they have taken an inventory of existing furniture which can be used in the new bu i Iding. He asked that the dol lar amount be changed to $80,693 to reflect the inclusion of conference tables for the Council Chambers. It was moved by Butler, seconded by Jabbour, to authorize the furniture purchase for the new facilities, not to exceed $80,693.00. Ayes 4, nays 0. Moorse explained the Council approved the bid for fuel storag i by Pump & Meter, and it was discovered at a later date that the bid did not include certain Items. Pump & Meter resubmitted an unacceptable bid. He explained they have now submitted a bid for $75,354 which includes everything including all costs related to excavating and dewatering. Jabbour asked the status of the contingency fund. Moorse stated they are furniture and equipment, been a I Iocated. still within the amount allotted However, every dollar of that fund for has Jabbour reiterated they have not allowed for any type of emergency. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 12, 1992 CITY FACILITIES - CONT. Moorse reviewed the items that have been deferred to date. ^^reTis?,'ng ‘SST,oT n^t purchasing the fuel tanks has been reviewed. Gerhardson noted he has reviewed the issue of transport versus tank wagon delivery and it was determined it would cost $.05 to .08 more per gallon. Butler felt it would be penny wise and pound foolish to wait on something that Is as involved as the installation of gas tanks. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Butler, t<5 authorize the JJrchase of fuel storage tanks from Pump » Meter for an amount of $75,354. Ayes 4, nays 0. (*#17) LICENSES There were no licenses. (««18) BILLS It was moved by Butler, seconded by Callahan, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Ayes 4, nays 0. ADJOURNMENT pi tv Counci IActing Mayor Goetten adjourned the regular Orono Cl ty Counci i meeting at 9:40 p.m. to Executive Session. Ayes 5, nays 0. t /"? > «J 0/ 01ann Goetten, Acting Mayor / / Dorothy(^.r Hal I In, City Clerk Council PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATEATE /I ? PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) 1 . cJCH> ^ j - IX. > 2. i S'/___________n.............. 4. 5. 1 6 . / . \ 8. 9. 0. 1.• 2. 3. 4.______________________ — 5. 6. 7. 8 . 9. • 0. — 1 CfTYOFOHONO PUBLIC HEAniNQ NOTICE u—Counc4 will hold • Public------ih# proposed•i A^ 19«9 Fagonwu Poim Road - LoTs‘23U:®?® °® P' 0 ie-117.23 14 0016, Addition 42220 *.. .3865 and 3675 Shoralina Ohvo . RaniS*2JeS?lS.S'J**^*“* l••''0<»on ParkP' ** 20-117-23 22 0007. Additionez42u■ _ 3677 Shoraline Oriva - Pad Lota 1 and 2Townaita of Langdon Park |1.412.75 P.IO 20-'117-23 22 OOOoTAddition 42420 I T 2405 (Ainwoody Avanua - Part Lot 2. Townaita of Langdon Park $i .412.75 PIO 20- 117-23» OOOOrAddition 424» •; piopoaad aaaaaamant rod ia on fiia Clofk at tha Adminiatrativa OJteaai^ Br^ Road South. Wriitan or oral oMactl^ wM ba oonaidarad. No appaal j may ba takan as to tha amount ofany t **rittan obiacDon |lt «lad with^ City Clark prior to tha haaring praaantad lo tha praaMng oflicar at the f»«nnq. An appaal to tha asUict Court may bei^c!^zss5sz.“K,':i^sx: 12211,!?. Clark. Tha City has 2!S2Lt!L*K*P5^** aaaaaamant dalarmant ordinanoa baaad on tha applicant moating occupancy, and income • • ^ 'V®y2?**'^®l*^CityCoijncilr ijf - . V M! /i/Dorothy M.Hallin ^ a, • 'I — Oerlt i (f^lbHthed in The Laker ehd'Rioneer Sept. 28 land Oct 5.1992) V - 4. Affidavit of Publicationstate of Minnesota. County of Hennepin.Bill Holm, being duly sworn, on oath says lhat he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER. Mound. Min* nesota. and has full knowledge of the facts which arestated below;A.) The newspaper has complied with all the require­ments constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02. 331A.07. and other applicable laws, as amended. l)hrn.Mrrl ' which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for__££z __________successive weeks; it was first published M^d^ 3<^ r the jiA- day of and was thereafter prinjbd and published every Monday, to and including Monday. ^ f 19^.the day of Authorized Agent notary WBUC^MWNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My oofwnltilon wplres 7-19^ Subscribed and sworn day ->/ I'whl By;Notary Public Rate information (1) Lowest dasslBod rate paid by commercial users for compar* gi' Each addittonal sucoossivo week. $4.02. __.JBlK. AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1992, 7:00 P.M. (*)Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Discussion will be held upon 'request. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request from the Recorder. ROLL CALL 1. 7:00 P.M. Public Hearing — Hazardous Buildings Assessment APPROVAL OP MINUTES * 2. Regular Meeting of September 28, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Jeffrey Johnson Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT **APPLICANTS** Immediately after the Council has reviewed your application please sign the three (3) original resolutions at the Recorder's desk. Applicants need not execute resolutions for subdivisions, vacations £ucid denials. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. #1621 Terry Johnson, 1045 Linden Lane - Variances “ Resolution . #1743 Albert Hanser, 1685 Fox Street - Final Subdivision - Resolution #1755 Leonard Niska, 2304 Shadywood Road - After-the-Fact Variance/CUP - Resolution #1761 Mark Hunsley, 3464 Eastlake Street - After-the-Fact Variance - Resolution #1765 John Moore, 801 Tonkawa Road - Variance - Resolution Shoreland Flexibility Requests A. Status Update B. Formal Flexibility Requests - Spring Park, Wayzata, Tonka Bay, Minnetonka Beach, Woodland YOR/COONCIL REPORT ENGINEER REPORT 9. Pay Request #1 - Pump & Meter Service 11. 12. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 10. Briar Street - Public vs. Private Resolution Adopting Assessemnt For Hazardous Buildings Establish Process for Review of Future Use of Current City Hall Site 13. Establish Canvassing Board Meeting 14. City Administrator Salary Adjustment 15. Reschedule 1993 Budget Work Session 16. City Facilities Furniture Order . . 1 J i AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1992, 7:00 P.M, CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (17*) BILLS (18*) ADJOURNMENT INFORMATION ITEMS INCLUDED IN COUNCIL PACKET UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 10/l2 - Council Meeting 7p.m. 10/14 - Lake Use Committee 7;45 a.m, 10/14 - Dedication of Kelley Parkway 4 p.m, 10/17 - Pall Clean Up Day 10/19 - Planning Commission 7 p.m. 10/26 - Council Meeting 7 p.m. r A MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 ROLL The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson, CouncI I members J. Diann Goetten, Gabriel Jabbour, Edward Callahan and Mary Butler. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Ron Moorse, Public Works Director John Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Chief of Police Stephen Sullivan, City Attorney Thomas Barrett, City Engineer Glenn Cook and City Recorder Teri Naab. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. (#1) LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 1993 BUDGET Jim Daniels and Tim Pattrin were present. Pattrin explained he was on the budget planning committee and that committee has submitted the 1993 budget proposal. To date, 8 of 10 communities that have reviewed the proposal have approved It. Butler questioned the budget amounts for conferences and postage. Daniels explained that the 1992 and 1993 funding for operations Is similar. He noted the Commission started a newsletter In 1992 which had not been budgeted for and is included in the 1993 postage amount. He added, another major change Is coverage of 10-12 City Council meetings per month. He explained that the Commission has a contingency fund to activate the program. He stated another change is the assessment of sales tax. Pattrin stated the proposed budget is comparable with adjacent CommIssIons. Mayor Peterson asked If the additional equipment would ensure better reception for local programming. Pattrin stated he could only speak for the production end of the cable casting process, which would be improved. Jabbour suggested broadcasting the LMCD meetings, as It Important for residents to understand how the LMCD functions. I s Daniels noted the Commission does not have staff to cover such meetings, which would have to be covered by trained personnel. Daniels thanked the Council for their support by adoption of a resolution supporting legislation putting control of cable TV back In the hands of the local cable commissions. 1 4 J MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMISSION - CONT. Pattrin explained that the video Industry changes very quickly and therefore it is Important to keep abreast of those changes by attending conferences. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Butler, to support the Cable Commission’s 1993 proposed budget. Ayes 6, nays 0. (#2) CONSENT AGENDA Butler added Items #8 and 9 to the Consent Agenda. Mayor Peterson removed Items #3 and 4. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, Consent Agenda as amended. Ayes 5, nays 0. to approve the Motions for all I terns adopted by consent agenda will be Included In the minutes in their respective numerical order. («3 & 4) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mayor Peterson referred to the minutes of the Augus^ 18th meeting. She asked in Paragraph 3, Swanson be added after thw name Peg. She referred to the minutes of the September 14th meeting, and asked that on Page 13 the percentage of Increase be added to the motions adopting the 1993 budget. It was moved by Mayor Peterson, seconded by Jabbour, to approve the minutes of the special meeting of the Council held on August 18, 1992 as amended. Ayes 5, nays 0. It was moved by Butler, seconded by Callahan, to approve the minutes of the regular Council meeting of September 14, 1992 as amended. Ayes 5, nays 0. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT JoEllen Hurr reported at the LMCD’s meeting on Wednesday, a public hearing was held regarding the Pheasant Lawn Homeowers Association for a multiple dock Iicense. She stated the Lake Minnetonka Access Task Force will meet on October 21st at 7:30. Fees charged by the LMCD will be reviewed on October 10th, 7:30 a.m. A public hearing regarding styrofoam docks will be hold on October 28th, 7:00 p.m. She noted the LMCD is considering adoption of Orono’s ordinance In kind. She reported training for persons check Ing water quality will be held at Lord Fletchers on October 10th at 10:00 a.m. I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 (#5) MAXWELL BAY ACCESS UPDATE Marge Gasch reported that the DNR purchases a parcel of residentally used property on Maxwell Bay, and the Legislature passed a grant for money to be used for development of a public access. She reported several lakeshore residents met with the DNR to express their concerns. JoEiien Hurr referred to the packet of information submitted. She explained Plan C, which provides for possible future expansion to the east, is the preferred plan among the concerned residents. She suggested this be a joint venture between the City and the DNR to ensure that the City is a part of the project and can control tne use of the access. The DNR will consider payment in lieu of taAes. She felt access from Tonkawa Road opposed to County Road 51 was a plus. Gordon Kimball, Regional Trails and Waterways Supervisor, Introduced Stan Lindahl, landscape architect for the project, and Brad Thompson. Kimball noted the property designs address the concerns of the lakeshore property owners. He asked that Council refer the DNR to the appropriate reviewing body for further consideration. Jabbour acknowledged that the DNR has gone out of its way to address Issues of concern. He asked that the DNR consider putting in writing that they will not revisit Orono again until all other communities have been reviewed for additional parking and access. Kimball stated this proposal will put the DNR in the range they had hoped for parking needs. Jabbour suggested if putting t'lis commitment In writing is not acceptable, the DNR consider making each zone have the same number of parking spaces available. He stated because Orono had the foresight to provide open land for public use, they should not be made to pay the consequences. Lindahl reviewed the proposals. He noted it was decided that three ramps for loading and unloading was needed. Pian C provides for 50 to 60 car/traller parking spaces, and 15 car only spaces. Plan D provides for further setbacks from the Lake and the street, and there would be additional car/trailer parking spaces. Mayor Peterson asked about picnic tables at the site. i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 MAXWELL BAY ACCESS - CONT. Lindahl stated their main focus Is for access facilities and shoreline fishing. The DNR felt they should not provide picnic tables. Jabbour understood the DNR is trying to substitute current areas on the Lake where people shore fish, with more appropriate fishing iocations. Hurr noted a consensus among property owners that Plans C and D are an Improvement over what is currently at the corner of Tonkawa Road and County Road 51 . Goetten asked Gasch to provide the City with a summary of I terns discussed at the meetings with the DNR. Callahan reiterated that the citizens favor Plan C, and asked the DNR’s intention with regard to the different proposals. Kimball stated the DNR realizes the benefits, particularly with Plan D, that allows the DNR to meet all their goals. The DNR currently does not have a preference to any plan. Jabbour noted the issue of adding density to the bay. He suggested the DNR project the sites to their maximum capacity to enable the City and the DNR to review maximum density on Maxwell Bay. Lindahl noted the DNR has provided lighting at the site and citizens have asked that a telephone be provided. Goetten asked about hours of operation. Lindahl reported the DNR does require the access to be available a minimum number of hours per day, but otherwise it would depend on whether it were a Joint venture. Goetten asked if the access would be open year round. Kimball stated they do not do anything to keep the access open In the winter, however, they do not lock people out either. Mark Breneman, Manager of North Shore Drive Manna, stated It is not safe to go out on the ice at this location at any time. Butch Loomis, Assistant Chief of the Long Lake Fire Department, suggested dry hydrants be provided on the site. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 MAXWELL BAY ACCESS - CONT. Gerhardson noted sewer severs the property boundaries, and the City will wish to protect and maintain these lines. Mayor Peterson stated the next step would be a review by the Planning Commission. Moorse suggested the DNR submit a sketch plan review. Debbie Breneman asked if the DNR would disallow shore fishing under area bridges in lieu of the fishing pier proposed. She suggested the DNR discuss this option with the County. Kimball noted if the DNR is able to purchase the commercially zoned property to the west of the parcel they currently own, they would abandon plans for the parcel they own. Goetten felt Plan D was too ambitious for the property. Butler felt the additional setbacks were a plus with Plan D. Norm Paurus, 2500 Casco Point Road, asked about taking this significant amount of property off the tax rolls of the City. Mayor Peterson called for a recess from 8:16 to 8:20 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS Rich Kiemen, 1212 Briar Street, requested the Counci I consider snow plowing in front of his property. He stated the road Is platted on City maps as a public street and sewer runs underneath the road. Gerhardson stated this portion of Briar Street has always been perceived as a private road. He asked that staff be given a chance to review this and other similar situations. Mayor Peterson noted a past owner did designate the roadway as private. Kiemen felt they were dealing with words like perceived. He noted the street is platted as public on the City maps. Mayor Peterson stated the Issue would be on the agenda for the October 12th meeting. r I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 PUBLIC COMMENTS - CONT. Butch Loomis, Assistant Fire Chief for Long Lake, commended Orono Police Department and the reserves for a great job at emergency preparedness excercise. the the Loomis, Chair of the Fund Raising Committee for the Fourth Grade, thanked Mayor Peterson and Stephen Sullivan for participating in the fund raising events at Octoberfest. (*#6) #1748 ROBERT & RITA HOVLAND, 1245 NORTH ARM DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3182 It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution #3182 for Application #1748, Robert and Rita Hovland, 1245 North Arm Drive, for a conditional use permit to permit the Installation of an accessory structure on a through lot and a variance to the required setback. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#7) #1750 CHARLES & 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 6 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 until the new garage is built. 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 It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution #3184 for Application #1763, Woodhill Country Club, 200 WoodhIII Road, to grant a conditional use permit for land alterations. Ayes 5, nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Jabbour suggested the City Administrator send a letter to the Little League informing them that the School Board Is ready and 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, "your name 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 some of the current information. Please contact the School Board for an update." m MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 ENGINEER’S REPORT (*#9) PAY REQUEST #6 - HIGHWAY 12 FRONTAGE ROAD - SEWER, WATER & STREET IMPROVEMENTS It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to authorize Pay Request #6 for Highway 12 frontage road to B & D Underground Inc. In the amount of $28,616.07. Ayes 5, nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#10) CITY FACILITIES UPDATE John Davies and Irv Dahlstrom from Kraus-Anderson and Jack Boarman were present. Davies reported that the Council will be able to hold their December meeting at the new facilities. He referred to an updated construction schedule. He reviewed the Orono budget update which indicates a negative contingency. Jabbour asked if they had moved $100,000 from the furniture fund to the contingency fund, thereby making the negative contingency fund $257,748. Boarman explained that they intend to use any existifig furniture they can In the new facilities. He reminded them that the Council chose to add 5,000 s.f. of mezzanine above the Council Chambers for future use and a generator, which has increased the cost of the fad I i ty. Jabbour felt there are itemc that appear without the knowledge of the Council that perhaps should be revisited. Davies said everything that has been done was in the original design package. Butler asked about the kennel roof that is requested to be deferred. Davies explained it is a garbage/recycIing center and a kennel, which was on the original drawings. Sullivan clarified the kennel is not for the canine, but rather a holding cell for dogs apprehended. 8 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 CITY FACILITIES UPDATE - CONT. Boarman explained 75X of the area is for garbage and recycling. The roof over the structure will actually reduce the amount of maintenance. He stated most communities have an ordinance requiring garbage to be contained within a structure. Jabbour suggested they revisit the garbage area and the dentils and columns for Public Works. Boarman reiterated that he suggested removing the columns at the beginning of the project. He stated other communities havt chosen not to roof their garbage area and that has not been a problem. Jabbour asked about the jail facility. Boarman explaineo the Jail is a 4 hour holding cell. He added if they added the interview room and added a day room/lunch area, it could be considered a 72 hour nolding cell. He noted the security card access is required by the State, and the camera system, to be deferred, is the State-of-the-art for police facilities. Goetten asked if there was anything they should be doing now to facilitate the future installation of the camera system. Boarman said they are installing the conduit and wiring for the system. Jabbour suggested removing the "remaining contingency" and "total" from the bottom of the budget update as he felt It very misleading. Boarman stated he has recommended a $150,000 contingency, comparable with other projects this size. He added some items have been put on hold to allow the Council the ability to not get ahead of the funding process. He stated the Council has opted to add quality improvements to the project in spending the contingency funds. Goetten suggested a structure. chain link kennel in lieu of the blocked Butler asked if the contractors are back to working full days. Davies reported some problems with sub-contractors, but reported they are back on track now. He noted they are recommending the award of the bid for the salt storage building, and are recommending deferral of the cold stc.age building. Jabbour asked about the gas storage. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 CITY FACILITIES UPDATE - CONT. Moorse explained that the de-watering costs were not included In the bid. Boarman explained that they sent out detailed specifications, but the contractors ignored the issue of de-watering. The bids were rejected. The bids were resubmitted but the vendor mislead the City as to what that bid included. He stated until they find a way to feasibly get rid of the water, they will not go any further with this portion of the project. Jabbour felt they may not even need the gas tanks. Gerhardson noted there are times when the City needs quick access to fuel and stations are not open. He feit this item Is important to keep in the project. Callahan asked about other anticipated expenses prior to completion of the project. Boarman explained that he recommends preserving between $32,000 to $50,000 for final unknowns dealing with the project. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Butler, to defer all items listed on the Orono Budget Update from the Dentils down. Ayes 5, nays 0. Callahan stated the Council wants control over all changes. Davies indicated they have not done anything without approval. Boarman reported since they are working with a negative contingency, every cost item will be brought to the Council for approvaI. (#11) LONG LAKE FIRE CONTRACT Moorse explained both the long Lake and Orono Councils have approved a one year contract based on the initial proposal by Long Lake, however, the final contract has not been submitted to the City for execution. It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to approve a one year agreement for fire protection with the city of Long Lake at a cost of $76,193.00 and to authorize the Mayor and City Administrator to sign a contract reflecting this agreement. Ayes 4, nays 1. Butler voted nay. Motion carried. i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 (#12) POLICE SERVICE CONTRACT - CITY OF LONG LAKE Moorse explained Long Lake is concerned with language related to supplemental officers and the responsibility for extraordinary costs after termination of those officers. He stated since the contract Is only for one year, Long Lake is not locked into an amount of supplemental officers for coming years and the issue has resoIved itself. Jabbour felt the City of Orono should not agree to a contract unless the City gets what it requires. He asked about recourse If the contract is not renewed. He indicated it would not hurt his feelings at ail of the contract Is not renewed. Moorse explained Long Lake wants the option to reduce the number of supplemental officers mid-year based on cuts of State aid. Jabbour stated if the City would need to lay-off officers due to this cut, the City of Long Lake would need to pay for the costs Incurred. Sullivan stated it may be merely a matter of reassigning hours. Moorse felt it was better to agree with 2 supplemental officers at the beginning of the contract as Orono has those officers already hired, and mid-year, if deemed appropriate, allow them to reduce that number. Jabbour suggested they allow a percentage of hours to be reduced opposed to a full officer. Sullivan stated Long Lake has asked that this issue be negotiated in good faith if deemed necessary. Moorse felt it may be appropriate to determine a percentage amount that could be reduced by the City of Long Lake and still not negatively affect the department. (#13) DONALD GRONBERG’S STUBBS BAY SEWER ASSESSMENT APPEAL Moorse explained Mr. Gronberg is before them regarding his assessment for sewer. Butler indicated by submitting a counter proposal, Mr. Gronberg is taking a step In the right direction. She noted Council should discuss the merits of this request in executive session. 4 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 GRONBERG’S ASSESSMENT APPEAL - CONT. Moorse explained there Is some disagreement about buildabillty of the lot if sewer is not provided. He stated if the lot is buildable without sewer, the assessment should be lowered. Gaffron indicated the buildabillty is based on the amount of a variance the Council is willing to grant for this property. Gronberg reviewed the issues and neighboring properties. He noted he cannot sign a permanent easement for the sewer project until a building permit Is Issued for the property. Mayor Peterson stated the Council would discuss this Issue In executive session and report back to Mr. Gronberg the next day. (»14) BID AWARD FOR SALT & SAND STORAGE BUILDING It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to award the bid for the salt and sand storage building to J. & F. Construction in the amount of $36,409.00. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#15) ESTABLISHMENT OF A WORK SESSION TO REVIEW THE 1993 PROPOSED BUDGET A work session to review the 1993 proposed budget was established for Thursday, October 8, 1992 at 3:00 p.m. (#16) CITY HALL & PUBLIC WORKS BUILDINGS - PAYMENT NO. 7 It was moved by Mayor Peterson, seconded by Jabbour, to approve City Hall and Public Works Buildings Architect’s Application and Certificate for Payment No. 7 as presented. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#17) REQUEST FOR PAYMENT - BOARMAN & ASSOCIATES It was moved by Mayor Peterson, seconded by Jabbour, to approve payment to Boarman Associates for architectural services for the month of July, 1992 in the amount of $23,975.06. Ayes 5, nays 0. (»»18) APPOINT ELECTION JUDGES FOR NOVEMBER 3RD GENERAL ELECTION - RESOLUTION #3185 It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution #3185 appointing election judges for the General Election to be held November 3, 1992. Ayes 5, nays 0. i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 (*#19) FEE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - TOPOGRAPHIC COPY CHARGE BRUSH FEE - ORDINANCE #109, SECOND SERIES It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Ordinance #109, Second Series, amending Ordinance #99, Second Series, entitled ”1992 Fee Schedule". Ayes 5, nays 0. (*#20) PERFORMANCE REVIEW & SALARY ADJUSTMENT - SCOTT OBERAINGER It was moved by Jabbour, s3Conded by Goetten, to increase Scott Oberainger’s to Level 5, Step III effective October 22, 1992. Ayes 5, nays 0. (*#21) LICENSES It was moved by Jabbour, following Iicenses: seconded by Goetten, to approve the Septic System Installer License: Quickway Excavating one Day Set-up Permit: Minnetonka Center for the Arts - Holiday House Ayes 5, nays 0. (*#22) BILLS It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Ayes 5, nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Peterson adjourned the regular Orono City Council meeting at 10:33 p.m. to Executive Session. Ayes 6, nays 0. Barbara Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hal I in. City Clerk A 3 f To:Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P.Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Date:October 7,1992 Subject:#1621 Terry Variance - and Jonell Johnson, 1045 Resolution Application: Hardcover and setback variances for major remodeling of residence. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Discussion Resolution Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/23/92 Planning Commission Minutes 9/21/92 Memo and Exhibits of 9/17/92 Please review the memo and exhibits of September 17th. The applicants are proposing major rennovations to the existing residence^ per Plan "D" as follows: 1. Lift house# add 3 to 4 courses of block to existing foundation. 2. Addition of second story over house. 3. Addition of attached garage and second story rec room. 4. Addition to east side of existing house. 5. Replacement of existing decks, addition of deck adjacent to rec room and master suite. 6. Construction of open porch/portico over existing deck on lakeside, extend existing deck along house 10'. 7. Removal of existing detached garage and gravel parking area. 8. Construction of new driveway. A portion of the existing house encroaches into the 0-75' setback zone, as does the entire existing deck (8'x46'). There is a concrete patio underlying most of the existing deck and a retaining wall/stairway system at the northwest corner of the house, both of which are proposed to be removed. New structural encroachments in the 0-75' will be a section of deck approximately 8'xll', and the roofed porch/portico over the deck and centered on the main part of the house. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone will reduce to 7.2% where pre­ existing is 8.9%. In the 75-250' zone, hardcover will increase from 22.1% to 40.5% where only 25% is allowed (This was reported in error by staff as 39.7% in the Planning Commission memo. Recalculation indicated the rec room deck was inadvertently omitted from the Plan "C calculation). In the 250-500' zone, where the garage and gravel parking area will be removed, hardcover reduces from 76.1% to 23.3%. Zoning File #1621 October 7, 1992 Page 2 As a function of the entire lot area^ hardcover will increase from 21.9% to 24.8%, still within the 25% limit espoused by the DNR, but significantly over the 15.2% of the lot area that could be covered based on Orono's square footage allowances. Planning Commission Recommendation Please review the Planning Commission minutes. On a vote of 4 in favor, 3 against. Planning Commission recommended approval of the hardcover/setback variances per the Plan D proposal. The Planning Commission was quite concerned that the increased hardcover coupled with the length and steepness of the driveway could create runoff problems and they recommended that the City Engineer take a very close look at not only this property but properties upstream and downstream to determine whether a neighborhood drainage project would be appropriate and whether the proposed grading plan is sufficient to eliminate potertii*.! problems for the applicants. Planning Commission also noted the steep driveway slope averaging upwards of 12% could become a problem for the applicants in the winter. Finally, Planning Commission was not unanimously in agreement with the applicants' suggestion that removal of the existing garage and gravel areas near the road are sufficient to justify the increases in hardcover adjacent to the existing house. Drainage Issue The City Engineer has been requested to review the drainage plan and drainage generally in the neighborhood. He will be prepared to address the drainage issue at the Council meeting. Staff Reconnoendation A resolution has been drafted which reflects approval of the Plan D Improvements as well as the proposed grading plan. Any additional recommendations by the City Engineer can certainly be incorporated into the conditions of approval. Council's options include: A. Approval per attached resolution B. Approval with additional conditions. C.Denial. D. Table for revision or further information E.Other.i A RBSOLDTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2; 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8; AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) PILE #1621 WHEREAS, Terry and Jonell Johnson (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1045 Linden Lane within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit "A" attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence and an attached garage, such construction constituting hardcover in the 0-75' zone where no hardcover is allowed, hardcover in excess of the 25% normally allowed in the 75-250' zone, and structural encroachment into the 0- 75' lalceshore setbaclc where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1621. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. The Orono Planning Commission originally reviewed this application on February 19, 1991 and voted 6-0 to table, advising applicants to submit a revised proposal excluding any additions in the 0-75' zone which are not above the existing house footprint and minimize hardcover to the greatest extent possible. The applicants submitted a revised proposal which was reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 18 and 20, 1991. The application was Page 1 of 8 5. ® vote of 4-0, with applicants being directed to provide a grading and drainage plan to confirm that runoff can be directed so as to not affect applicants’ P^opos6d linproveinen'ts nor noighboiring properties. proposal (Plan D) was submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commicoion at their September 21, 1992 meeting. . porch and deck additions in the 0-75' setback zone, addition of a second story above the existing driveway leading from the street to the attached garage. The existing detached garage and parking area near the road are proposed to be removed. On a vote of 4 in favor, 3 against. Planning Commission recommended approval of the hardcover and setback variances ?oUot!ng''£ln°dLgsr““"“°" a)Location of the existing garage is impractical for a residential home, requiring homeowner to walk approximately 175' from the garage to the residence. The location of the existing house partially within the 75 setback zone is a factor over which applicants have no control. The unusal shape of the lot, being 50' in width at the road and more than 150' in width at the shoreline results in a relatively high hardcover percentage in the 75-250' zone. The proposal results in a slight hardcover decrease in the 0-75’ zone. Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff# comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 8 6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in thi-. zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affe^*- traffic conditions, light, air nor posi 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 the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L), to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence which result in hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone of 7.2% where no hardcover is normally allowed, 40.5% hardcover in 75-250' setback zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, and structural encroachment in the 0-75' zone yielding a structure setback of 60' from the shoreline where a 75' setback is normally required and no structure is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall adhere to the "Plan D" grading plan (Exhibit "B" attached) and shall adhere to any modifications recommended by the City Engineer. 2. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone is approved at a level of 7.2%. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is approved at a level of 40.5%. Hardcover in the 250-500' zone is approved at 23.3%. All existing and proposed hardcover approved with this variance approval is recorded in the calculation worksheet and diagram included in Exhibit "B". The current property owner and all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall not be increased above the currently approved level and any proposed improvements of this property that will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City. Such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removal of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for Page 3 of 8 3. 4. 5. October, ATTEST: removal as a condition of this j.esolution must be removed prior to the footing inspection l:or the construction. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 12, 1993). 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. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of thelmselves, theirs heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of 1992. Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 4 of 8 i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) } SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of October, 1992, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the Cxty of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public r • Page 5 of 8 9 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HEN ’EPIN ) day of _199On this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J^nown to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 6 of 8 r EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. legal DESCIUPTIO Lots 4 and S; and that part of Lot 12, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 12; thence East along the North line of said Lot 12 a distance of 165 feet to a point of intersection with a straight line drawn from a point on the South line of Lot 10, 84 feet East along said South line from the Southwest corner of said Lot 10; thence Southerly along this last descricLd line a distance of 52 feet; thence West par­ allel with the North line of Lot 12 along a line hereinafter referred to as Line "A" to a point on the West line of. said Lot 12; thence Northwesterly along said West line of Lot 12 to the place of beginning, including that part of Northeasterly 1/2 of Linden Lane, vacated lying betweeh the extensions westward of the North line of said Lot 12 and of the line above described and designated as Line That part of the Southwesterly half of vacated Linden Lane lying between the ejttensions across it of the North line of said Lot 4 and the 'South line of said Lot 5; all in "Lin­ den Beach", according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the Office of the Reg­ ister of Deeds in and for said County. Lot 4, Block 1, Forest Lake Park, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County. CITY OP ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, NN 473-7357 ZONING FILE #1621 55323 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice; 9/23/92 TO:Terry & Jonell Johnson COPIES TO: t 1045 Linden Lane Mound, MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance VOTEDATE OF MEETING: 9/21/92 Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 4 For 3 Against 1. Approval of hardcover/setback variances per construction proposed in Plan "D". 2. City Engineer to review drainage plan and upstream drainage concerns (staff will coordinate this). 3,Applicant advised that if foundation cannot be re-used or if footprint is revised, further City review will be necessary. 4. Hardships as noted in application. Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council October 12, 1992; meeting starts at 7:00 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 Planni g Commission. ■-i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 21, 1992 ZONING FILE #1764 - CONT. Gaffron explained that an outlet was established providing lakeshore access to the lots In this development. He noted staff recommends that only one of the two lots In this proposal gain access from the outlet to the lake. He reviewed the issue of flood fringe areas, and stated the Planning Commission needs to determine whether to treat this property as a flood fringe or wetland. Evans requested the application be tabled until he has discussed the ramifications with staff. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Rowlette, to table Application #1764 Austin Evans, 255 Landmark Drive, to allow the applicant time to discuss the proposal with staff. Ayes 7, nays 0. John Thiesse, 3845 Bayside Road, stated he has no objection to the proposal, t asked that the deeded lake rights remain with the lot on the cul-de-sac. Rowlette asked that only one of the lots within the proposal be allowed lake access through the outlet. (#3) #1621 TERRY & JONELL JOHNSON, 1045 LINDEN LANE - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:15 - 7:40 P.M Mr. and Mrs. Johnson were present. Gaffron explained this current proposal Is being referred to as Plan "D". The application was first brought before the Planning Commission about 1 1/2 years ago. The plan includes a garage addition, a second story addition and deck, and a lakeside deck and covered porches. At the last Planning Commission meeting, the application was tabled to allow applicants time to revise their proposal In the 0-75’ se ‘" ack area and to provide a drainage and grading plan, which has ueen submitted. Chair Kelley asked how far the residence will actually be taken down. Mr. Johnson explained the first floor of the residence will be elevated by 3 to 4 blocks, the roof will be removed and a second story will be added. He noted, they were Informed by a contractor prior to purchasing the house that It hi-s 12" block around the perimeter of the foundation, adequate to support a second- story addition. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 21, 1992 ZONING FILE #1621 - CONT. Gaffron noted the run-off will continue to go around the house and onto the neighboring property, much as it does now. He stated he would like the City Engineer’s comments on this project, but felt It to be a sensible drainage plan. Gaffron noted Plan D shows all the first floor decks as originally proposed. Mrs. Johnson said the decks shown are existing now. Mr. Johnson added they did remove the upper story decks from the plan per the directives of the Planning Commission. Chair Kelley felt this property is a prime example why the City enforces hardcover ordinances. He noted the entire property slopes to the lake. He commented the neighbor to the north has a tuck- under garage In order to minimize hardcover. Mr. Johnson said at the last meeting they were at, one reason for not approving the request was the lack of hardship. He felt the tenor of the group had changed. Schroeder asked if there was room on the property to move the water around. Bellows noted all water still goes to the lake. Rowlette stated that is because of the topography of the lot. She felt they were improving the property. Johnson said he was in favor of the proposal as long as the footprint of the house did not encroach further into the 0-75’ setback area. He felt the City Engineer must look at the drainage plan proposed. Bellows felt the pro^)osal was making the run-off situation worse. Mrs. Johnson asked Bellows if she felt they would not be able to improve the drainage situation on the property. Bellows stated by adding the driveway, there was no way of improving the situation. Mrs. Johnson explained their plans are to have a gravel or cobblestone drive to the front of the house where It will bepaved. She noted they have ac'"ual ly reduced hardcover by removing the garage, and hardcover only increases siightly around the house. i \ 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 21, 1992 ZONING FILE #1621 - CONT. Bellows said the numbers speak for themselves, and reminded her that the hardcover they are discussing is in different zones, thus impacting the lake differently. Mr. Johnson asked If run-off is less crucial when absorbed in one area opposed to another. Bellows stated by removing the garage, the applicants are helping the run-off situation somewhat, but are making the situation worse In the zone nearer the lake. Chair Kelley asked Gaffron at what point the City will stop the project if it is determined that the foundation cannot be re-used. Gaffron stated the City has felt it is critical to determine what will happen to the foundation, and halt work if the foundation is found to be Inadequate. Chair Kelley asked if as long as the foundation remains. It Is policy to allow the entire first floor to be removed. Gaffron explained at a point when staff is dealing with foundation Issues, it will be brought back for Planning Commission’s review in relation to the location of the structure. Chair Kelley commented that he wanted the applicants to be aware of the City’s position. He added. If the foundation Is found to be inadequate, the City may require that the entire structure be moved further back on the lot to meet all requirements of the code. Bellows added, there Is a point when it Is not feasible to salvage a portion of an existing house. Schroeder asked about further removals In the 0-75’ zone. Cohen stated they have already removed hardcover In that zone. Johnson re-emphasized that the impact on the lake :s due to the drainage not the additional hardcover. He felt the City Engineer should suggest ways to alleviate the drainage problem. Mr. Johnson said they were wiI Iing to work with the City Engineer. Mrs. Johnson noted the house is not Iiveable In Its present- state, and wished to proceed with the process. ZONING FILE #1621 - CONT. ] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 21, 1992 Schroeder felt It was an acceptable Improvement. Chair Kelley asked the slope of the driveway. Gaffron reported it is a 14X grade. He added there is an Issue of average setback, but since the adjacent lot is vacant, staff can only estimate where a future house would be placed on the lot. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Schroeder, to recommend approval of Application m621 for Terry and Joneil Johnson, 1045 Linden Lane, for hardcover and setback variances for major remodeling of residence, conditioned on the remodeling not further encroaching the 0-75’ zone, and prior to Council review, the City Engineer to review the drainage pian and suggest ways to alleviate the drainage concerns. He noted the hardship is the existing features of the property. Ayes 4, nays 3. Chair Kelley, Bellows and Cohen voted nay. Motion carried. Chair Kelley asked if it is the applicants’ responsibility to provide the method for correcting issues of concern on the property. Gaffron said he will ask the City Engineer to review the plan for comments but the Engineer will not be making any formal changes to the plan. That will be the responsibility of the applicants. (#4) #1755 LEONARD NISKA, 2304 SHADYWOOD ROAD - AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING -7:50 - 8:08 P.M. The Affidavit of Pub Iicat ion and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Leonard Niska was present for this application. Gaffron stated the proposal requires setback variances, and the property has an excess of hardcover. The original garage to the rear of the property encroached the right-of-way, but that has removed. The applicant was advised to get a survey, which he “} • Sometime after it was discovered that the shed was placed in its present location. The shed is in line with the front of the house, which does not meet the requred setback from the street. Chair Kelley stated the shed could not be placed in house because that would create a sighting problem. front of the •To:Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator September 17, 1992 Subject #1621 Terry and Jonell Johnson, 1045 Linden Lane Variance - Continuation of Public Hearing Application: Hardcover and setback variances for major remodeling of residence List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Revised Survey with Grading Plan Plan "D" Floor Plan and East Elevation Notice of Planning Commission Action 3/21/91 Planning Commission Minutes 2/19/91 & 3/18/91 Memo and Exhibits 3/11/91 Note: The property owners list has been renotified. Discussion The applicants have again revised their plans, which were last reviewed by the Planning Commission in March 1991 and tabled for revision. A grading plan was also required. A grading plan has been submitted and appears to provide a swale and driveway apron slopes which are intended to intercept runoff coming down the driveway and move it around the garage, while maintaining the general runoff pattern as previously existed. Since the last floor plan review, the following revisions have been made (compare this with the Plan C changes on the March 11, 1991 memo): 1. Bumpout addition at northeast corner has been reduced. 2.The upper story decks on the lake side have been eliminated. 3.The garage and recreation area above it have been shortened slightly and pulled back to meet the required 10* side setback. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone appears to be identical to the 7.2% proposed with Plan C. In the 75-250* zone, the reductions in the garage and room additions amount to approximately 117 s.f., or 39.7%. The 250-500' zone still proposes significant removals leaving 23.3%. The table below summarizes the history of revisions to these plans. i Zoning File #1621 September 17, 1992 Page 2 Existing Plan A Plan B Plan C Plan D Allowed 0-75* 75-250' 250-500' Entire Lot 8.9% 22.1% 76.1% 21.9% 8.1% 38.9% 61.7% 28.4% 7.0% 38.9% 61.7% 28.0% 7.2% 40.6% 23.3% 25.2% 7.2% 39.7% 23.3% 24.8% 0% 25% 30% 15.2% Issues 1.Is the porch/portico with roof and pillars in the 0-75' zone necessary for aesthetic purposes, and does that justify the granting of a variance? 2.Should some of the proposed deck areas along the lake side in the 0-75' zone be eliminated? How necessary is the deck on the second level behind the garage? 3.Is removal of the detached garage and parking area near the road a reasonable tradeoff for the hardcover additions in the 75-250' zone? Action Requested 1. Make a recommendation regarding the hardcover Increases. 2.Make a recommendation regarding the additional structure (decks/porch/second story) in 0-75' zone. 3.If the current plan is not acceptable, give applicant specific direction as to necessary revisions to gain a recommendation for approval. Isv Plan D Allowed 7.2% 39.7% 23.3% 24.8% 0% 25% 30% 15.2% in the 0-75' zone that justify the ng the lake side ssary is the deck Lng area near the ver additions in ir increases. ional structure give applicant sions to gain a ImzzmV z oocz z zzm (/) O z ro H (/> U ih r zomz CDm >n X ►zo f“o CD S O X r* "n O 3)m(/) H r > Xm TJ > X X o • - o r% M 3 O 3 SSSS-RSSCS *a M ca M O »- <1 M *9 »•« O •* O ft ft «• Cftr^Oe'*1rtft3 3" n ft rr o ft r» o • (» ft s: ^ ft . O O rt ♦ »t ^ ^ I# „ H a. ft H IX (I *»ftOft#tD n 3* S’ ft u o ft ft s: ^ M ft i« ft a z f/} rr 3 o ^ M- o o b ^ ft3 3 n c < ^ o*'® ft ft ft cr o ^ tr 3- ft M, ^ < a ft (»ooi-«ftftCQr ^ H - ft ft ft ft o M 3 n 0 ft iDhftSftftri>|.,. ► ft M H a •» n •> u •j' ^ ^ ft O ft ft ft ft fj « f> n H »... 3 ^ O 3 «t fX d rt n n 3 ft a ft r- u a a o• *t 0 ft M ft ft U H C3 r o < H o a 0 »ti Jfc ft ^ P p, ^ 0 ft ft ft ift ft 4* 3 a ft rt r • a ft ft ft rto •% cx a w a CP ft Q| t- »- :r r* ft c r» *' 0 ft ft t M ft o o .1 -n ft .T O CA CX p Q. ft •I O ft M O - C 3 3 o ft • O ft (• p.. M. a I« o ft • |« r». jr o *t ^ :i <i ft ft ft O 3 ^ (A O ft »• ft 03 H* u» ft ft »t rt n ►.*a o C * f> :j w ►* oi ?r a ft tjo « *»• »t w ft a »- ft a f» »: r ft u ft ft fta n iiu ft 3 :i.!» IX 3^' O O ft ft 3•% »- i/t f» n •• :i ft ft ft ^ f) ft fl t*. ►- A n »• f ft :t :i ;i *1 u I I - *• O 'Af c • H 3 03 3 U • I > 3• d -zo z n 0 ftn a ft ft 3 ft M *— rt M ■» 3 »1 ft *< O ft ts» ft »* •> n •*> r M o I- ft :i It • ft tv !l ft ►-* O 3 03 O 3 ft p ft O S' o o o •o t- ft ft n 0 ft 3 ft a H I- O - ft 3 ^ ft o-g n ^ t- - W H O ft O ft 6 OB 3 3 3 a c ft ft Of rt f* ft rt ir O O oi* = H* ft ft C zs: 3 to 3 ft 0 cn ft «• a ft n ft. b ft ft ft »- ui . 9 o ft M a ^2 ft ftJ- l-OJ ft o 3 2 rt oft 3 ft 0 H ft *n ^ ft S' 3 O ft o H 3 tn tti 0 U • ft H ft ft ft o ft r ft H- ft t* 0 ft a a ft cx ft ft r* CA ft o r - a o 3 ft O KJ ft C l« O) ft ft ft n — ft O a H rt - ti ft a • MO M. H ft •• 3 pr H«OJ a OJ X 3 az ft ft a. ft ft o u J ft h o » ►- nt t- ft ti 3t-HllHaH n H 3 q 3 tr O D ft 3 ft ft ft (X z ft ft a 3 o a tf ft ft ft ft ft (X ft ft yi ft ft M- to a ft M in a c »- ft o 0 ft 3 ft c M M ft 3 rt M ft ft rt. o :r o »- o ft ft ft < 9 a M ft ft *- »t o ui ft I- <» n ? »» fo o »- ft rt 3 M 3 rt M ft ft CX 3 t* «o u a ft a ft •• o ^ ft r% ft u CX O rt a- ft , a ft ft ft i: ft ft ft a 4 ft 3 f in o <• o a Q ft ft c • ft 2 f' V* rt o »• 5 le c 3 z »• ft ft ft *? ^0 (ft ••M (Oil > Ci 3 If! j O tTI ft tt. ft ,« ft f • n Oft O I rt, ft • » ■ w v\ ‘V. -^4 « i •r*: L-i - A CITT OP ORONO ZONING FILE #1621 MN 55323 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 4T2-7251 Date of Notice: mARCH 21, 1991 TO: Terry & Jonell Johnson COPIES TO: 1045 Linden Lane Mound, MN 55364 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 3-18/20-81 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant to provide grading/drainage plan to confirm that runoff can be directed so as to not affect applicants proposed improvements nor neighboring properties. 2. Mixed direction regarding additional deck and portico in 0-75'; recommended to move bulk of deck additions to 75-250' zone. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the April 15 meeting xs Aprxl # 1991. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review an approval by the Planning Commission. Isv 1 I 4 ‘V ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 (13)ZONING FILE 11609-BROCK CONTINUED Hanson asked M;S. B:rock if she would Planning Commission table her application. prefer to have the 'Is. Brock stated that this problem has been causing her grief since it began and she wanted to resolve it. were no public comments on this application, with the exception of a letter dated November 17, 1990, fron Ken Roelofs, and K.^lley closed the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Bellows, to recommend approval of the after-the-fact hardcover Variance, provxded hardcover within the 75-250' zone does not exceed the exxsting hardcover percentage of 30.4%. This applies only to the deck. ^ ig further recommended that Council deny the Variance requested for the catwalk, based on a lack of hardship. Motion, Ayes-4, Rowlette anc Moos. Nay. Moos and Rowlette dxd not believe that the catwalk would interfere v/ith runoff and that xt complies v;ith the intent of the Hardcover Ordinance. Kelley added that if the aoplicant wishes to propose a plan showxng a staix '3V exiting the rear area of the second floor, that she would need to bring that back for Planning Commxssxon s consideration. (#4)ZONING FILE #1621-TERRY L JONELL JOHNSON 1045 LINDEN LANE PUBLIC HEARING-VARIANCES Terr^' Johnson was present. Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 8:38 p.m. and asked Gaffron to make his opening comments. Ga^fron summarized the issues pertaining to this application AS stated :.n his February 13, 1991 memo to the Plannxng Commission. Bellows stated that, in her opinion, the applicants' plan xs overly ambitious for the property. She also stated that the lake is low and makes it difficult to tell how far the xake f.-rmally comes on the property. Gaffron said, "There is no question that the lake is farther out. The 75' setback line is measured from the riprap." Bellows said, "If the applicants wish to undertake a remodeling project, it must occur within the existing confines or extend out ‘ in another location. I cannot allow this house to creep any closer to the lake than it does currently. Terry Johnson stated that he had explored other options, but due to the interior layout of the house, and other setack - 11 - I ORONo PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 (#4)ZONING FILE 11621-TERRY JOHNSON CONTINUED encroachments, the plan proposed represented the : ,5"? ,:iriri=d that the distance between the house and garage (250 eppioximafely ) posed a hardship. He my^wife to lug groceries that far, especially if it is raining, or really cold." Johnson stated that he would be willing to remove some of the gravel and the detached garage. Bellows noted that the detached garage and gravel area is outside of the 75-250’ setback area. Hanson said, "I v;ould consider that to be an improve-^ent to the property as a whole." Rowlette and Cohen agreed that they would look . favorably on an addition to the existing house if those two items ^^nre^T-er cSrifirtinr htus::^^- ineThi^gf^Tx^tend^n^^ the addition toward the lake is something else. Cohen asked Mr. Johnson if he would like the application tabled. Johnson stated that he would like an opportunity to revise his plan. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to table this application as requested by the applicant. (#5)PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING-CODE AMENDMENTS It was agreed by the Planning Commissicn to schedule a be ^'^ebJe \o ifrend? ^*^^^The Planning Commission agreed to review the Code Aiiendments in conjunction with the March 4, 1991 Public Hearing. (7) APPROl^^ OF ^MINUTES seconded by .Moos, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held January 2^, iy:»i. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE . ^ u ii It was agreed that Sara Moos would attend the March il. Council meeting as the Planning Commission Representative. 1991 - 12 - i t PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 (#3)ZONING FILE 11621-TERRY & JONELL JOHNSON 1045 LINDEN LANE VARIANCES-CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Terry Johnson was present. Kelley re-convened the Public Hearing on this matter at 7:40 p. in Gaffron briefly reviewed the Johnson's revised plan, as noted in his memo dated March 11, 1991. Terry Johnson noted that it was not hts intention to encroach into the side yard setback area, and that the deck behind the garage would meet that setback. Kell»^y stated that he would not deny the applicants' need for an attached garage. He said, "I am concerned that if we weigh t.he reduction in the 250-500' setback area against the increase proposed for the 75-250' area, that it would still be possible for' the applicants to request additional hardcover in the 250-500' at some l=»ter date. Hardcover n the 2o0-500 setback area would only be 23%, and 30% is allowed. Gaffron suggested that the resolution could state that hardcover on the entire lou cannot exceed 25.2%. Kelley asked Johnson if he would be amenable to entirely TGnioving the deck on the back of garage. Johnson replied, "If we could keep the deck along the front of the house, we would not mind excluding the deck on the back of the garage." Bellows asked G?ffron if he had received a grading plan from t.he applicant >. She said, "As I recall, the driveway will be like a waters oot. There is a very steep grade change from the road down to the house." Johnson stated that the previous owners had devised a method for diverting water around the side of the garage. Be lows said, "With the changes you are proposing to make to the driveway, it will become a water channel. It will all of the water ccming from the street, and dump it into your house. It is necessary to see the grading plan. Another reason this concerns me is that I foresee some elaborate grading plan coming being prepa’ i that will channel all t.hat water around t .e house and dump it .n the 0-75' setback area. Johnson stated that he would provide more information in accordance with Bellows' concerns. - 6 -•i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 proposal if the water channelization can be a r.ss Bellows replied, "I nor.ally^, do not like to see decks proposed for the front of the house. . 1-ha- there is a s.T.ail boathouse structure on ae=.s a„a ove..an,s. Ri:>nows and Kelley stated that it may be necessary for the boathLsi structure to be removed without any trade-or . Hanson indicated that p:«/.ia\'^,ater ppl’ple. compounds that situation." _ , ,.^a+. M’- Johnson come back before the Kelley ^tion reaarditc the contours and planning Commission wl.h^ in seems that Jim and drainage on the proper._y. . =ho*ic the develooment of the Maureen still have some = b-fection'rario^^^^ the decK er'’th7 ‘ garegr^nd® tL %ewly discovered shed/boathouse is removed.” Bellows said. "I would prefer to =^®'=he deck on^^the garage remain, in lieu of the deck on the .ron. of th- ho . Hanson agreed that he preferred the garage deck to the front deck on the house. The Public Hearing was continued. (#4)ZONING FILE #1622-JOHH F- HARDIN 1496 PARK DRIVE VARIANCE-PUBLIC HEARING John Hardin was present Kelley ooened the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m., and asked Gaffron to make his opening presentation- reviewed Mr. th«e :he-''’othe“T>Le% in ?Mr! Harden’s neighborhood are located in relation to the front yard setback. Kelley asked H.nrdin to state his hardship for the Variance he is requesting. - 7 - •1 Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson FrcHn: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:March 11, 1991 Subject: #1621 Terry & Jonell Johnson, 1045 Linden Lane Variance - Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Revised Site Plan Revised Hardcover Review & Summary Plan "C" Floor Plans & Elevations Planning Commission Action Notice 2/22/91 Memo & Exhibits of 2/13/91 Discussion - The applicants have revised their plan, and have provided a new plan, "Plan C". This plan exhibits the following changes from earlier plans A & B: 1. No new enclosed space in 0-75' zone (but there is a proposed roofed portico extending lakeward from the house)* 2. First story deck extended to full length of house. 3. Second story decks added. 4. Deck added behind garage (NEEDS SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE OF 2' ) . 5. Room additions to east of existing house wall, two stories high. 6. Driveway plan same as staff had indicated previously. 7. Remove detached garage and gravel parking area in 250- 500' zone. The new plan provides a slightly smaller decrease in 0-75* hardcover, and a slight increase in 75-250' hardcover over previous plans, but removes the detached garage and parking area in the 250-500' zone. Overall, the hardcover increases from an existing 21.9% of the entire lot to 25.2% of the entire lot. Hardcover percentages are summarized below (also see Exhibit B, which indicates the structural/non-structural breakdown): 1 Zoning File #1621 March 11, 1991 Page 2 of 2 0-75' 75-250’ 250-500' Entire Lot Existing 8.9 % 22.1% 76.1% Jl.9% Plan A Plan B Plan C Allowed 8.1% 38.9% 61.7% 28.4% 7.0% 38.9% 61.7% 28.0% 7.1% 40.6% 23.3% 25.2% 0% 25% 30% 15.2% In the 0-75' zone, the applicants are extending the 8' wide deck the entire length of the house, and, to break up the lakeshore wall of the house, proposing to install a 10'x8' portico roofed at the second story (see elevation views). While applicants would likely agree to resolution language that prohibits enclosure of this portico/porch, its intent c'nd function is still to be as structural detail in the 0-75' zon';. The additional deck behind the garage and the room expansions eastward from the existing house both yield an increase in 75-250' hardcover. Applicants have stated to stai:f that if the attached garage addition is approved, they could remove the existing detached garage and gravel parking area, yielding a significant hardcover decrease in the 250-500' zone. The new plan exhibits no change in the previously proposed driveway or sidewalk layout. In reviewing this application. Planning Commission may wish to consider the following issues: - Is the portico with roof and pillars in the 0-75' zone necessary for aesthetic purposes, and does that justify granting of a variance? - Can some of the deck area in the 0-75' zone be eliminated? - How necessary is the 75-250' deck behind the garage? - Is there any hardship to grant a 2' side setback variance for that deck? - Is the removal of the detached garage and parking areas a reasonable tradeoff for the hardcover additions in the 250- 500' zone? Staff Recooimendatlon - If Planning Commission finds that sufficient justification exists to recommend approval of Plan C, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. If Planning Commission so desires, approval could be conditioned on elimination of specific aspects of Plan C. If Planning Commission feels that Plan C is not appropriate and can't be easily revised to meet Planning Commission's goals for this property, then a recommendation for denial or a tabling of the application would be in order. If the request is tabled, Planning Commission should give applicants direction for revising their plan. .J 'w.'.rsr« % .1I I !i I A •I r 3^ !'? •/’ I« • I. I . • . 'i I. • 1 • :» /• ^ r • 1 *••%»■*,•* I * * .. I t* »: l I i • '* *%• • • • . Jb * I • » * . ' I * * . C IT '.^1 {*’ • * • ■ ■ * 1. • . •• ; ** ■ ‘•’i- **r* v: : ‘ U" : j ! au'-cr.- - ^--i $ •liU \2t ??n • • i; of .fU «« '. { n-‘ n' e'j i' ■ I 7i'ii'iH!■ •'! Mil '-»•'.< uiny..!..4!J4;it' il' .!■'¥ ■ i il;i ii 'I 1; '1----------- •• . I J•iHii-s l4!'■I*1' 1rl:i )h i1• ,1. x:• 1 ; ^! t\ {T i;___. ^tlA.!»re» ::U ,; • - r • •• *»% *1 ■ i\' •• •*.. j.x* • • — • .-1-* •*. . . •'.. .. ^ » 0 • • ••J - • . -V . . . . V ^ ^ . ‘ i . fi.* '‘•T ^ •.; . . ..•‘^. ',*7 0- r* !V *. * f* .• •* # * » * ’ • % «.# ', 7 «•’'*** ■*‘•.1^1^ **tj* * '** . ^ * .**.••.• • T^.-* . 9*m' ..* ••.Vr • . •-■> .» •••.'■»■•,<• »----------------«■•• ••% » « • »«% • #• •/ •« • ^ —•• ■ M —»- ^ • • 00>* • .**. »t •# . . »v* ♦. •• k*. • . *.•• • . • *. ,* ,• ■ . \»■ •••. <W m .»}• 9-*.'0^U*09m ....................-c. • . > %.« « .’. •*2 ^ I • .■t. * • • • - •■••• i-v. •* • • \v-t-' **4 ^ -.1 . • « ' . • • ’ • * <*• *'* / * *' * * * IIIIIIIU M A, , • • • l%$9d9m%mP9mfWm% i *t iiUtililiiHili ' 11 i I t i « • • » « I ■ t iiiliiiliii . r- — Cu rrrTTTT ill m iliiiil flitf«II liiiMIliiiiiiiHrmiiitiii l•li*l< 3i r >>aa«f ”'Wl"l|llllll c 11 ^ i « 9 i e IIS MK' *• • * « » •*, inil >1 3ii .-.« « ft >«»'•*•«A •* #' •.ft ••• •: ,V . -•ft—-ft- ^.4, •• ■—> —wi- «"** ’* " t f . V ft •> • < .* • - • • ^ • •ft- •»• • • ^ ft *« w • ••• • • ';vrr.v '-y'. ' • • • ■.•••' '•; . ; '-'vrvv- ^;\r. ■' vi* -■'. ........................................................■. - • • , .........p^rjrr:?^ pr-■ ► j-i • •• .••*. i* ■4 .; .• ’j •.*•<'»# i^ft -» '■ • -* *■. 4 • «lk; ^fti ' ./ '•' *X .ft . -»•*•> «• ^M •*» . •._. • *••-: • '.*•••* -----5* • t • ft ' i* V 'i ft A» • ^ - • ft-------- -• -*" -,i- •’ p v -r i-Vt*:'ft ftft^ V . • V-. .. • K • , . ^. *#>.. ., . ;* r ’ . - •• *V«’ •»•#• •• • *i^- i ^ .V > •, . ,. 4 . .. .. _ . . : iv> .1-4 ....V » % . • tf< % Vtr, J^jr.'^..-9sz'J09'^r^» -'-»•“» te. * \* •/ •*• .4 ^ # .14 •.. »- •<•«— •• •• •*»«<*«•'* 4 . . ^ ■ • • • *«^;,4'W t tjV r *<.r'r«^«^Vo*» ' r ** t ... * :t*fkO.» A* ki. A.di> ««•..# »•• - »• ... *.i^. •.•• •>»• •.— .m-,. ., ••• •. . : ♦ .. ^ w.jr ✓• •i W’. . V- 2# \ . • > ^ ...»- ■> -. - •. •-.'ti-.. .w »;r^.. ■ " . -■—-—.................. • ... . • •» V^* -VX* r-*\ It ■ •'**'■■-■■ ■''*■ ■*"?.-• ■ T -' *:v:..- cr.:^^ • *rr,.r.-'‘-r *---------------------------------- .., ........... ... . ..... ^ .—.......... . * MiliW ^muum #1 ■ ■ I4<MW. '#• •A****#.# •*<« «» . «t4-o ■» % • • .• 4^^^* « ..«wn« «A««i 1 • . ■•.%>« . *.1. k* V* #<kiC«i4> ■■B -y-t-s: i, * ■— ^»»-n. * ■ 11^ W ■ »' Iig ’ - » ■■ T^y ----- —r.Mi » ^ ^ *««« « MiMWiB «MUMI f l ■ • l4«kM. .. .« » — k «» . #«»•« ■» % • • .• 4^^^* « «A««M«MHM*'k>»^€inrV.'.'.Z. • i ~T~ r ’ Ilf* 1 1 ■ 11 ~niiHlJ f i \ruWW- ~ I '.F.^.f • 7 •'v'L'^/TV* * *:' ' ’.'* ■ ■ ■'* •" • *'* ^ ■* • •* ■ ■• • * .- ■ - . ........... .... • •• 2 •’•T .• •^.T'.V CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN ZONING PILE NO. 1621 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice: 2/22/91 TO: Terry & Jonell Johnson 1045 Linden Lane Mound, MN 55364 COPIES TO TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance DATE OP MEETING: 2/19/91 VOTE: 6 For 0 Against Planning Conniissxon reconmends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission advised applicants to submit a revised proposal excluding any additions in the 0-75' zone which are not above the existing house footprint, and to minimize hardcover to the greatest extent possible. Applicants' next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the March 18th meeting is March 8, 1991. To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members From: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator February 13, 1991 #1621 Terry and Jonell Johnson Variance - Public Hearing - 1045 Linden Lane - Zoning District - LR-3B, Single family iakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Requesting hardcover and Iakeshore setback variances for proposed structural additions and driveway relocation. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Preferred Site Plan and Building Plans (Plan A) Alternate Site Plan and Building Plans (Plan B) Staff Sketch, Lot Coverage/Driveway Concept Hardcover Calculations, Existing & Proposed Average Setback Sketch Pertinent Facts - 1, Applicants propose the following additions to the existing residence: a. b. Add second story over entire house. Extend room additions toward lake (two proposals submitted). c.Construct a two-stall attached garage with living space above. 2.A portion of the second story addition and all of the extension towards the lake will be located in the 0-75* setback zone. A portion of the existing house and all of the existing 8* wide deck is in the 0-75' zone. Setback information for this property is summarized below: I •'I' /. C V’ r f/J Zoning File #1621 February 13, 1991 Page 2 Lot area = 27,350 = 0.63 acres Setbacks ; N. Side S. Side Lake Street E. Corner Avg. Lkshr. Stbk, Existing HS;70' 13' 26' Deck:61' 200' 36' No Encroachment Proposed 13* 10.5 ’ (A) : 56' (B) : 61' 170' 10.0' * Required Variance 10' 10' 75 ’ 35' 10' * (A) 19' (B) 14 ’ * See Item 4 below 3. Existing lot coverage by structures is 8.6%. In either proposed Plans A or B, lot coverage will be less than 13%, meeting City requirements. 4. Because this property is on a concave shoreline, the average lakeshore setback works favorably for the proposed additions. Also, because the Prass property to the immediate south has no existing residence, staff estimated the probable location of that future house meeting the 75' lakeshore setback, and that location yielded no need for an average setback variance for Johnson. 5. Hardcover on the property is summarized in the following table: HARDCOVER SUMMARY Zone Zone Area Existing HC Proposed HC A1 lowed 0-75'11,220 996 s.f./8.9%(A) 904 s.f./8.1%0 s.f./0% 75-250'13,470 2983 s.f./22.1% (B) 784 s.f./7.0% 5235 s.f./38.9%3368 s.f./25% 250-500’2,660 2024 s.f./76.1%1640 s.f./61.7%798 s.f./30% Entire 27,350 6003 s.f./21.9%(A) 7779 s.f./28.4%4166 s.f./15.2% Lot (B) 7659 s.f./28.0% Please refer to Exhibits H-4, H-5 and H-6 regarding the breakdown between structural and non-structural hardcover. Planning Commission and applicant are advised that on February 11, 1991, the City Council unanimou£.ly adopted a clarification of policy regarding hardcover. The Council's intent is to no longer consider rock/plastic landscape areas in the 0-75' zone as "tradeable" hardcover in the 0-75' Zoning File #1621 February 13, 1991 Page 3 zone. Their intent is that all such hardcover be eliminated, and not considered during variance reviews. It is not clear whether Council also intends that other 0-75' non-structural items (concrete or block patios, sidewalks, etc.) are to be included in this policy. 6. A summary of the requested variances: a. Lakeshore setback variance of 19' (Plan A), b. Lakeshore setback variance of 14' (Plan B). c. Hardcover vs lances in 0-75', 75'250', and 250-500' zones . Discussion The applicants purchased this property last fall, and are proposing major renovation and additions to the existing one- story house. Also, they propose tc construct an attached garage, necessitating construction of a new driveway to the residence. A.Setbacks Because a portion of the existing residence is in the 0-75' zone, any additions upward or lakeward from the existing house cannot be allowed unless a setback variance is granted. The proposed garage addition and the existing house both meet street and side setback requirements. Because there is no residence on the Prass property, staff estimated the possible future location for that house. The concavity of the shoreline and the location of the house to the north, indicate that Johnson's proposed additions could be behind a future average setback line. The neighboring residence to the north was built in 1983, replacing a house formerly in the 0-75' zone. This residence was constructed with an angled wall to meet the 75' lakeshore setback requirement. To the south, the Prass residence, when it is built, will have to meet the minimum 75' setback requirement. Immediately south o^ ’’rass, a new residence constructed in 1989 was required to meet the 75' setback requirement. The only difference between Johnson's proposal and those projects is that Johnson apparently intends to build on the existing structure rather than removing it and starting over. (Applicant should verify this) . Zoning File #1621 February 13, 1991 Page 4 B.Hardcover Although applicant did not submit a specific driveway proposal, he had discussed with staff the intent for a single driveway and backup apron to serve the proposed two-stall attached garage. Staff has sketched and determined the area of a driveway which could feasi>/iy serve the property. (See Exhibit G). Both Planning Commission and Council in the last few years have discussed the issue of structural hardcover versus non- structural hardcover. While the current Code definition of hardcover does not differentiate between structural and non- structural hardcover, the City Council clearly is heading in the direction that non-structural hardcover in the 0-75' zone is not a reasonable trade-off for increasing structural hardcover in that zone. While both of applicants proposals yield a slight hardcover decrease in the 0-75* zone, both proposals would result in a significant increase in the 75-250' zone. Overall, even if the existing detached garage and its apron are removed, it appears questionable whether the driveway could be narrowed and other surface-functional hardcover decreased to yield no net increase in hardcover on the entire property. There is absolutely no way to meet the Code hardcover allowances if an attached garage is proposed. Lot area is approximately 0.63 acre in a 1.0 acre zone. C. Option A vs. Option B Regarding the two options presented, applicant initially proposed Plan A in discussions with staff. After those discussions, applicant chose to submit a plan which showed room additions extending no further lakeward than the existing 8' wide upper level deck in the 0-75' zone. If Planning Commission cannot accept Plan A, applicant would request consideration of Plan B. Staff Reconoiendation If Planning Commission feels that there is sufficient hardship and justification to allow Plan A or Plan B, a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. If Planning Commission feels that the structural additions in the 0-75' zone are too extensive, or that the hardcover increase in one or more zones is unacceptable. Planning Commission's options are to recommend denial or to table the request. If the application is tabled in order to allow the applicant to revise his proposal. Planning Commission should give applicant specific direction as to what magnitude of additions and hardcover percentages mignt be acceptable under specific conditions. Isv ^/6 ny- 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) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) // e) :/ -••V v ’r? S .* PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address /O /.i/xlr^vy Z/v/. ',11 (•'T vv rr r,rj-(in CrJl / f l.'f r.rrrrr f i iVk 1 * • ;*» T'» ll‘ X-'-'W'*- V V'VW f vr fV»i I ^.»«w V Vi J. I »-**TV! * LTTur .ui\ r» / f t.%i TlI u Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) c 2 7 J_ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Vv’i 1 f /1 f t L’{) i t i y •!r»^.vu*.tv uw'j. ftvAft'i/A r»i V 1 / ^rnyjt / APPLICANT Name >■ // iv»>/ Address : /V''-/P Phone (home) Phone (wor)c'1-Cl^C ^iSTrr^c*/City; ■ \ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (home) Phone (wor)c) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) /<^ not)/4lso own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY ^ Present Zoning District Z-/P " ! J') Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ /o o OJJ Describe request in detail; VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setbac)c Variances (Front Side Rear) Other ^ HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations • \“!^K:e1r.'.tfn ! iL'iyif / OiJf'r^i.A ly<-r^h,'A <-vt Z-t* ^ jS rt’i/V-><- DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Reguirements t i^ t .j aI P:t %.nni’ fit /^ti:^ tv.'n-riir r-i, b Lptx^f Pt- Zw/tl> 4t)/i/»r/»-. v'f »•/.<'/<■*■•'’v-'. (Alt 7 , a A. i/ / 0' < ...C.-. rlu'.t^ 2. 3. 4. REQUIRED SUBMITTALiS 1. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-^03 Govn Center 348-3271). 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 8Ji"xll" for reproduction). Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8%"xll"). Slcetches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8J5''xll"). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 5. 6. 7. 8. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your vari£mce application is nob complete if the above Information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) ani/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Date /-.or-9/Applicant's Signature OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga­ tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date ' V y-/-Applicant must have^ll 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 co attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an aut ">rized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Or ' of this change prior to the meeting. ’4- •N '•3/ 'I »• • \ -6) «y:-- ^ v£0) i ■ <M :s / J/' • • •- ► '. 2Cc ) •/•> ' *». •. • .* ..I, ?t 5T 'W...•• < m,-' %;' 'i/^^>e:¥ br i- • j ?f (20) ' ^ \i- \ ( '9)________ OiH. V •:3» ( ’«) V T^T *4 >• !4i ;§ (56)4 I C j' \ a 'x?•n 4 ) .i * .0^1 U 1 S41,. ^ L 9 C-I) IISCSN LA r-*e-«9 v.?cri LA ’ll n .•/r-5) #4C 4-A-)5 "(1)V "9 (21 IflU (3) "• / / \ -\ 3» 'J (23) * rTf / ra V ;3) 'L-Al \)A ;4 ^ tq r '15 u i- ^ -i- ^ / / X 2't) A >:63) I ’(29) --V . -If N <t • J • ■/ Is '1 Ua " **)(60)^ tr -n ■- Ks^ ’qX H. W-*'^ •» A TT JC9 ^ '« ( -51 59)s -1 11-:.'-■** 5 Vi » i 1* \-I »% • A • % RUN DAT*: 01/25/91 • BATCH 002 ... NEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 3PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 38 07-117-23 13 009201005 LINDEN LA ROBERT P KING ROBERT P KING 1005 LINDEN LANE * HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 13 009301015 LINDEN LAH C KALLBERG I E C KALLBERGHILLIAM C KALLBERG1015 L1NDE.>I LAHOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 13 009401027 LINDEN LAS L BRENNAN JR 2 C A BRENNANSIDNEY L BRENNAN JR1027 LINDEN LA SMOUND MN 55364 PROP ADDR Ol^flER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 07-117-23 13 0095 01045 LINDEN LA T C JOHNSON A J C P JOHNSON TERRANCE C JOHNSON ; 1045 LINDEN LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0015 01067 LINDEN LA L C KASPRICK 2 K M HESTBY L C KASPRICK 2 K M HESTBY 1D67 LINDEN LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0018 01055 NORTH ARM DR R 2 A DAHL RONALD 0 DAHL 1055 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 • • t i't I h V r PROP ADDR OmVi NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR . I PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR ‘38 07-117-23 14 0019 01045 NORTH ARM OR SALLY A RHYLICK ) SALLY A RHYLICK 1045 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 14 0066 LEAH RACKNER DAVID 2 SUZANNE PRASS 1774 FREMONT AVE S MPLS MN 55403 \ t*» )• • ; ' ■»; ii »/ r f f • • 38 07-117-23 14 0020 0'^15 NORTH ARM DR R 2 L CONRAD RONALD C CONRAD 1015 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 TOTAL BATCH 002 00010 38 07-117-23 14 0058 01065 NORTH ARM DR ROGER J ILLIES ROGER J ILLIES 1065 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 #1 1 CERTinr THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AT® TRl* REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE ;<ENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST OF MY KNUHLED6E AT® BELIEF. » I I f • 9 •’ f ■ I .« I : ■ :l ■ I .1 / •* r < « I , f. ! ♦ > I : \ ; •r • I 4 • I I ‘ > ■ ; .• * •k m IV i (g rf m rs oapirv • _ r • t f•• • ** r* 0 p ► ► a #• F r«i “2? .l_r,-lc «» —> dD^r JtS Of* ' • f M *•x> XmX Xm z r>ocz c Z Xm Ui O r O H </> •• N r* Xam X wm >Oz > Xo 5 H m § K O Xm </) "H X ft1 "O >a X 7 V r r % |^''nJL G'i |»nnl —• ^0 •»*rtrTs *• > r *“ * j ^ n •j « •/'■; 1 r/ '1. T ■'f "C^l I• 4Cl* • ' k" % Vf M*f 't. c .V*. •« i i,- I I I I i o\1 ♦ h 0 I ■p \ to z I (n if* *1r r.y1^ »1.c'Jj i *.i v;*• ■«1 j. ;•#$f J ^}•’•L : . • t * •: ii 7I I »;• •• j ‘ .•' ■ *■; •f . ♦ I • 1 . •I\#1621 > o Cl ^1 uo o ?) (p lA %r>o Z U I I i o t ft. mm • •----N-----------*f 'y------------- fl-i?=tfc M %« . n i- T5HARDCOVEP. CALC'JLVriC ’J WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIF.CLE O.NE)••'.7A '. -L if 1: "y ^r. •' i• — 1 - ExIST::;5 rlA?.DC:V£F Kl Zor.'E A. H^vEE X LENGTH w!0t;-! 2.1 X %/A X w • I • C.3 5^.3 ... '• t . I -»-*VHARDCCVIiR CALCULATICN KORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (C'.SCLE CNS) 0-?5' 250-^:;^ E.<r3Ti;;G H ap .dcove .--: :ti Zo .‘;e 7.<2 7^i. ^ * "• t • » * • * V .1 /« •hOUSE /9.I V # « X V# % y<r. 2 X y LENGTH w:dt;-; ?. 9 /y/AX4/j“ /79. 2 —/92 *. • • » «* • V ^ %• r* • «. * W 4 • W •- C DniVEifA';- ... V / % X /2SO w • • • c r• I • •? r*^« I t • '^. : • S i DEV i'ALK X = C.F. V « ft r— ^ • r • Ctuf. fr(/> iT.<f X ,*y.H ZS-.S . ., “" Jilt E.1 i r ^ — t A / \ V# % 1 = . . G . r . ^.4f. r/fs -. Lahdscaf '^ y X O.S = ■ _._5.=, ArvEAS UrioERLAlfi X W * • • FLAsr:-: SHEET If.’G */S X • o. s xs 2 2 • ^ , p , St ■ ^ X o. s 2 5*. S' = . . £.?• fidvf< sr6*^f( "t .^' ■* u c c 3tcf Y O.Si^ 5-d% >vv IJ.. /A« «. / ^ S . T . ICTAL *J A • p » f p f %••^ I .*Zc:;E 2W.3 j.f. 1 A ! Total P=CFETTY A hEA J N Zone /5. Yyo J.,. , m zfts.3 1 • ' r— ”' • • • , /3,Y70 X Ijj « 2 2. /•5 ‘ % HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET _ _ _ SETBACK ICNH: (CIRCLE ONS) jj Existing Har:cover in Zone D i' L* ^r.f-,nc:i 4 w w W LENGTH X X X X rt • r 2/. 3 X c. lr:/eway X D. Sidewalk __X E. FaTIO/ Deck X fj. Landscape AREAS UNOESUUM BY PLASTIC SHEETING X X C^A^, OMll G. Other 2r.2 X 2<5». ^_ X ^ %• V ; M,* ar:>.'«JL«a ■_ _ _ S.F. Total Harccover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone AL T^OZ^.S -0. W1 dth s •S.F. S.F. • • • S.F. S • S.F. 2^>. 3 VJ2. y S.F. •iS5?w • r •• • S.F. •S.F. .S.F. S 1 f* • •S 1F • •» • G 1 r 1 ' S.r . • S.F. O .S /z.e S.F, /■o zo. ^S. F • • Zone Z^Zi.?S.F. IN Zone 2CS0 S.F. B zi&o , X ino -os / i^’'/ '.r.'fiL An o'/ ! I H - (-^ A nz-nz- C>^<&N:=r Ai^OA^ /V>2jo o^ ‘2.•‘*2 •/ So 2.7? S ^ fS” '’^ / S VC. !tl>P i^'U^h^F'u,}<2>¥NA.V ^ jOi^/(i>2. 7E2_2_ /JOi^S < •^'rrP^/i/n'i^^. At /UtO Co^v?/^ op M y X S O / 2-^/2-0 ^ST2--73. 2 g, % y^, 2,S2_s: 2. M n ll zz-o S-1 % ^^/ST/NC^ ^ “*7 C S-/€c D><^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ,4^/D{?oy£:ffrD - S'.^Yc \j)k'>J,L\j^t^Z, jft^nDL •2®'?' ^.7 . “ 3. S 'Aoca^ 4 <9 ‘ ^/ 7S^ ^-:^. 7.0 •/ s*-/-*vc- <^ V ^^/r77/J<^ fo«’^rio/oi Oi- ic«ck r - ' 2,'SO ' , __ Cf^:^''^' ^ *-6? J ^X^T?/A<^ /Ayi /-?:.? ?/ ^X/r77/jC ‘^'^ ^ >: 20,2 -- 2~ %i. 2>^ / i/^s^voaV V"^ ^ —o UJir',UC % zf\, ■=• 6/.*?,^ ~*^*^'*‘- --«« *»>'^« jr%..u%c.*-i-*^»— l^y^ir7AjC» 04/ <• ‘P/-'’-'^^ 5^(2.p;CrC<< r-b *xV a z /SST2:> .-/. r -> • ^ z- /(i-, 2- /^ ^ */o -- /. 3 X 7<i./ /< # / V ^ r;r. * v ;Tr; \; . -j - \ 'crr;zy::T^ *.- H:v - \ ^ -w,^-r—t,?r::--. w ..^ 1. , S • .-■• — . - -• •-*. I- ^ ‘ . •• • '=- ! i!=v-.:. -A - •• - *- .. -. . ^ - - » WS. \ • • »'—0m \ Ki A#/ > */i- , /»Mttr t ' \ j\ *.\ \ -.1 • „ \ \ <( A-* \ / \ \ ^sv4*ia</£ L.*• . •, 0* $^04 J* 0 0*0* •/ • #», • • 0-0.., » ,00, ^0.0 « •# • • f\\imho^c <^tzack. luuzy J i Chairman Kelley md Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ro;. Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator October 8, 1992 Subject: #1743 Albert Hanser, 1685 Fox Street - Final Subdivision - Resjlution Tiist of Exhibits A - Resolution #3140, Prelim: nary Approval B - Proposed Final Resolution C “ Final Plat The applicant has fulfilled all conditions of preliminary subdivision approval as set forth in Resolution #3140. The accessory structure that was located adjacent to the shared lot lines of Lots 1 and 2 has been removed. The applicant continues to work with the on-site septic manager concerning status of the existing septic system that serves the guest house. At the time of Council's final review of the conditional use permit application, it was decided that the conditional use permit application shall be separate from the subdivision application. The original directives of the subdivision review only asked that the applicant file a separate conditional use permit and did not hinge finalization of the subdivision upon resolve of the conditional use permit. The enclosed resolution granting final approval of the 3-lot plat is presented for Council's review and action. Isv 1 T A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OP HANSER ADDITION APPLICATION NO. 1743 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota? and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City? and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the subdivision application for a 3 lot plat by S. Albert D. Hanser (also known as Albert D. Hanser) and Sally Dodge Hanser, husband and wife, (hereinafter "the subdividers"); WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the RR-IB Rural Residential zoning district, on-site septic ordinance of the City and Ordinance No. 101, Second Series, an ordinance establishing regulations for the management of shore lands within the City, finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow the continued use or the development of single family residential use without the need of any variances? and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including; 1. Completion of all the requirements of Resolution No. 3140, the resolution granting preliminary approval of the 3 lc<- plat. 2. Dedication on the plat of right-of-way for a public road shown as Fox Street. 3. Dedication to the City of a Flowage and Conservation easement providing for limitiations on the use of wetland areas and drainageways described therein and shown on the plat as drainage easements. 4. Dedication on the plat of Jl'ainage and utility easements. 5. The on-site septic manager has confirmed the removal of the accessory structure that was located betw^'on the shared lot lines of Lots 1 and 2. Page 1 of 3 6. Applicant has filed a separate conditional use permit to allow the continued guest house use of the second residential structure on Lot 1. 7. Payment to the City of a Park Dedication Fee in the amount of $16,388.00 and the dedication of a bike trail easement adjacent to the street lot lines of Lots 1, 3 and Outlot A taken over a 10' drainage and utility easement. 8. Payment to the City for the legal review and filing of the plat, easements and covenants in the amount of $200.00. 9. Payment to the City of the final plat application fee in the amount of $175.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Hanser Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 1. The following structures are recognized as non-conforming based on either their substandard setback to the shore of Tanager Lake, or to the designated wetland or to existing lot lines and are noted as follows; a. Guest house on Lot 1. b. Detached garage on Lot 1. c. Tennis court on Lot 1. All structural repairs to these non-conforming structures shall require approval of the City of Orono. 2. Lot 1 shall retain use of an existing separate access to the west of the future shared driveway and a secondary access off of the private driveway that shall also serve Lots 2 and 3. 3. Septic test areas on Lots 2 and 3 are to be staked prior to required land alterations for private driveway or drainage improvements. Applicant shall install a swale between Lots 2 and 3 to drain low retention area adjacent to proposed septic sites. 4. All drainage and diiveway improvements must be installed and approved by the City Engineer for safe use by municipal inspection vehicles before building permits shall be issued. Engineering plans for private driveway construction and drainage improvements must be rev'iewed and approved by the City Engineer and the MCWD before such improvements can be installed. Page 2 of 3 5. The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder's Office or the Registrar of Title's Office on or before April 12, 1993 together with a certified original copy of this Resolution and executed copies of the easements and/or covenants noted above. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of October, 1992. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of October, 1992, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 3 CITYof OROSTO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OP A THREE LOT PLAT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1685 FOX STREET PILE NO. 1743 WHEREAS, Albert D. Hanser (hereinafter "the applicant”) on May 27, 1992 filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of three lot residential plat of property legally described in Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Comniission held a public hearing on June 15, 1992 at which time all persons desiring to )'>e heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to spea)c thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on July 13, 1992 the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the applicant, noting the following findings of fact; 1. The property is located within the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2. The property contains a total of approximately 29.14 acres. All of the proposed residential lots meet the required 2 acre dry contiguous land area as follows: Lot 1 = 4.02 acres dry Lot 2 = 4.88 acres dry Lot 3 = 5.25 acres dry. 3. All lots have been found to have adequate area for both principal and alternate on-sice septic system. The applicant's consultants have provided septic test information to confirm these findings. 4. Lot 1, the lot with the existing residence sha 11 retain an existing secondary curb cut based on the following findings: a. West curb cut meets siting requirements for a road at a 35 mile per hour speed limit. Page 1 of 6 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3140_________ b. The access drive has existed on the property for many years and has never been a safety issue. c. The existing circular drive serves not only a functional purpose but helps to maintain the estate-like character of this unique property. 5. All newly created lots have been found to meet the standards of Ordinance #101, 2nd Series, an ordinance establishing regulations for the management of shorelands within the City. All proposed structures will meet the required 100' setback measure Tt the 929.4 elevation of Tanager Lake, designated by the . as a recreational development lake. All septic systems are to be located 75' from the 929.4 elevation. 6. All lots have been found to meet the standards of the RR-IB Rural Residential Zoning District. All proposed residential structures will need a 26' setback from the wetlands located at the 932.3 elevation and all septic systems will meet the required 75' from the 932.3 elevation. 7. There is no need to provide future road extensions to the south, east or west because of the location of the railroad to the south, Tanager Lake shoreline to the south and west, extensive wetland area to the east and north, and steep topographies and heavily treed areas to the immediate west. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat application of Albert D. Hanser per the survey dated October 1, 1991, revised May 21 , 1 992, by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin r, Gronberg, Inc. and grants a variance to Section 11.33, Subdivision 4 that would allow a driveway to serve a three lot subdivision where the code would require a private road based on the following findings; 1. The location, the proposed density at 3 unit per 30 acres and the fact that there is no need to acquire future road access or extensions to the east, south or west reduces need for private road installation. 2. The installation of a drivev;ay will minimize the impact on the removal of trees within this heavily wooded area of mature trees. Page 2 of 6 Ok CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3140_________ 3. The shared driveway is consistent with the pattern of development on the north and south sides of Fox Street where more than two estate-like residences are served from a private driveway. Approval of the preliminary subdivision is subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant to dedicate 33' of right-of-way for Fox Street, 2. Applicant to grant a flowage and conservation easement over all designated wetlands within the plat (wetlands within the north and east of the property to be designated at the 932.3 elevation). 3. Lot 1 shall retain use of an existing separate access to the west of the future shared driveway and a secondary access off the private driveway to serve Lots 2 and 3. 4. Septic test areas on Lots 2 and 3 are to be staked prior to required land alterations for private driveway or drainage improvement. 5. Structure located between shared lot lines of Lots 1 and 2 shall be removed prior to final plat approval. On-site septic manager shall be advised of time of removal to insure there is no damage done to the septic test sites on Lot 2, Applicant shall install a swale between Lots 2 and 3 to drain low retention area adjacent to proposed septic sites. 6. Applicant shall file a separate conditional use permit for guest house use as structure will continue to be used for non-rental# residential use. 7. The following improvements or structures are recognized as non- conforming based on either their substandard setback to the shore of Tanager Lake, or to the designated wetland or to existing lot lines and are listed as follows; a) guest house on Lot 1 b) detached garage on Lot 1 c) tennis court on Lot 1 All structural repairs to these non-conforming structures shall require approval of the City of Orono. Page 3 of 6 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3140 __________ 8. Applicant to grant a bike trail easement over 10' drainage and utility easement adjacent to Fox Street to be designated and dedicated on the final plat. The subdivision has been referred to the City Assessor for determination of the value of the property in its undeveloped state so that a park dedication fe€* can be determined. An adjustment in the fee will be made for acquisition of an easement for a 10' wide bike trail. Required improvements: Building permits will not be issued for new construction until the plat is granted final approval and filed with Hennepin County. In addition, all improvement plans involving private driveway and drainage improvements must be approved by the City Engineer before applicant can commence construction. All drainage and driveway improvements must be installed and approved by the City Engineer for safe use by municipal inspection vehicles before building permits will be issued. Applicant shall provide plans for private driveway construction and the installation of culverts, etc. for review by the City Engineer and such improvements shall meet standards of the MCWD. FINAL PIJST SUBMITTALS The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting oji the second and fourth Mondays of the month: A. RECORD PLAT drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1"=200'. Drawing to include: a) Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Coffin and Gronberg, Inc. dated October 1, 1991, revised May 21, 1992. b) Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' wide along all perimeter property lines and 5' each side of internal property lines - omit along the shoreline and wet lands. c) Designation and dedication of a drainage easement over wetlands and drainage ways within Lots 1, 2 and 3. Designation of Tanaqer Lake at the 929.4 contour and Browns Day wetlands at the 932.3 contour. Page 4 of 6 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.3140 d) Dedication of 33' right-of-way for Fox Street. B. LEGAL DOCUMENTS required; a) Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b) The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. c) Signed and executed Flowage & Conservation Easement over the wetland/drainage ways and lake. Please refer to easement enclosed. d) Signed and executed Drainage, Utility and Trail Easement to be taken over the 10' drainage and utility easement that is adjacent to Fox Street. C. FEES TO BE PAID: Total Due *$325.00 a) Final plat fee = $175.00 b) Legal review and filing fees of $150.00 c) *Park Commission shall accept park fee in lieu of lands. The City Assessor has been asked to determine the fair market value of the undeveloped lands within the subdivision so that a park dedication fee can be determined. This fee shall be adjusted based on the acquisition of a bike trail easement along Fox Street. Applicant will be advised as soon as Rolf Erickson, the City Assessor, has submitted his findings. Cfn OF ORQNO FTriANCE OFFICE UE0900000 Page 5 of 6 01 CEN 325, Oi 11 325.00 htCEIPl-rmK YOU H252040 CCOl ROl T05- 09/14/ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3140 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 13th day of July, 1992. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST; Bof^thy allin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of July, 1992, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor fit City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notarvf Public wowmiSurS^w* My Commission Expires Page 6 of 6 CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3140 EXHIBIT A The East half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, except the West 114 feet thereof, in Section 3, Township 117 North , Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian. ALSO That part of Government Lot 4, Section 2, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Government Lot 4; thence East along the North line of said Lot a distance of 494 feet; thence Southerly, deflecting to the right 88 degrees a distance of 656 .'9 feet; thence Easterly, deflecting to the left 88 degrees 05 minutes a distance of 123.^ feet; thence Southerly, .. 7 deflecting to the right 88 degrees 05 minutes a distance 23.4 feet; thence Southwesterly, deflecting to the right 57 degrees 05 minutes a distance of 98.5 feet; thence Southeasterly, deflcctinq to the left 90 degrees 06 minuted to the Northwesterly right-of-way line of the Great Northern Railway (now known as Dakota Rail, Inc.); thence.South- . westerly along said right-of-way line to the South line 7. of said Government Lot 4; thence West along said South lino to the West lino of said Government*Lot 4; thence North along said w-ist line to the point of beginning. ' .i • . i • • ‘ ^ - t •v.hl fiCC * • 72.r| \ i Oi A /= zoo Prom: Date 5' Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator October 6, 1992 Subject: #1755 Leonard Niska, 2304 Shadywocd Road - Variance/Conditional Use Permit (After-the-Fact) - Resolution Application: Request for after-the-fact variances and "through lot" CUP to construct a 140 s.f. storage shed. Zoning District: LR-IC, 1/2 acre. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Discussion Resolution Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/23/92 Planning Commission Minutes 9/21/92 Memo and Exhibits of 9/16/92 Please review the memo and exhibits of September 16th. Briefly, applicant requests after-the-fact variance and conditional use permxt approval for construction of a 10'xl4' storage shed in the side street yard of this very small "through lot". Applicant was advised of the requirement for demolitic.i and construction permits whi h could not be issued until a survey was obtained. The survey indicated the pre­ existing garage proposed to be rebuilt was actually over the lot lines. Applicant made application for variances to construct a new shed> then constructed the shed and demolished the garage without obtaining permits or variance approval. Planning Commission Recommendation At their September 21st meeting. Planning Cori^rdssion v. Led 7-0 to reconuTiend approval of setback, hardcover and lo;: coverage variances and a "through lot" conditional use pern.it to allow the shed to remain at its as-built location. Planning Commission noted for the record that the lot is so small that if a future Council grants approval for a garage on the site, the shed should be removed. Planning Commission conditioned their reconjnendation on: 1. Applicant must obtain the proper building permits and bring the shed into compliance with building codes. 2. Applicant must pay after-the-fact investigation fees for the building permit and zoning application. Zoning Memo #1755 October 6, 1992 Page 2 Staff would further note that since applicant was advised of the need for a demolition permit, that permit must also be obtained and after-the-fact fee paid. Staff Recomnendation Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation, including after-the-fact investigation fees for zoning application and the building and demolition permits. A resolution is attached for Council adoption. i i A RESOLUTION GRANTING AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6 (B); 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L); 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C); 10.03, SUBDIVISION 12; AND A CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 10 - FILE #1755 WHEREAS, Leonard Niska (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2304 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit "A" attached (hereinafter the '-property"); and WHEREAS the applicant has made application to the City of Orono to permit the construction of a 140 s.f. storage shed which requires a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25 Subdivision 6 (B) to allow a 5' side street setback where a 15' setback is normally required, a variance per the same section to allow a front setback of 20* where a 30' setback is normally required, and a variance to Section 10.22, Suodivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to allow 41.1% hardcover where 35% hardcover is normally allowed, and a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) to allow lot coverage by structures of 25.8% where only 15% lot coverage is normally allowed, and a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 12 to allow a structure-to-structure setback of 3' where a 10' setback is normally required, and requesting a conditional use permit per Section 10.03, Subdivision 10 to allow an accessory structure on a through lot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota : FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1755. 2. The property is located in the LR—iC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The property is approximately 0.055 acre in area. Page 1 of 7 4. ”he Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 21, 1992, and on a vote of 7-0 recommended appro'”'a . ■■>£ the requested variances and conditional use permit: based on the following findings; a. The previously existing garage was located partially on the neighboring property, partially in the right-of-way of Olive Avenue, and partially within applicant's property. Said garage was in disrepair. Pemoval of the garage is an improvement to the neighborhood. b. Applicant has a reasonable need for storage for ya'*'d maintenance equipment and other items which need to oe secured. c. Any other location for a storage shed on the property would require a similar number and magnitude of variances due to the extremely small lot size. d. Placement of the storage shed to the rear of the house would eliminate the only vehicle parking area on the property. e. The proposed removal of existing gravel hardcover results in a slight decrease from 41.6% to 41.1% (500- 1,000' zone). f. One or more of the above findings constitute sufficient hardship for granting of the variances and conditional use permit. 5. Applicant commenced demolition of the pre-existing garage and construction of the new shed without obtaining the appropriate permits for such work after having been advised of the need for such permits, and commenced such work after making a varitfnce/conditiona 1 use permit application but prior ro variance/conditional use permit approval. 6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions. Page 2 of 7 light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; 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. 7. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a 140 s.f. storage shed on this through lot will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B); 10.22, Subdivision 2; 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L); 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C); 10.03, Subdivision 12 and a conditional use permit per Section 10,03, Subdivision 10 subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall obtain the appropriate demolition permit for the garage, construction permit for the shed, and pay after- the-fact investigation fees for the demolition permit, construction permit, and variance application. 2. Applicant shall make any changes deemed necessary by the Building Inspector to bring the storage shed into compliance with building codes, 3. Applicant is advised that any future request and approval for construction of a garage on the property will likely be conditioned on removal of the storage shed. Page 3 of 7 4. 5. 6. 7. Hardcover in the 250-500' zone is approved at a level of 41.1%. All existing and proposed hardcover approved with this variance approval is recorded in the calculation worksheet and diagram enclosed with this resolution as page 6. The current property owner and all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall not be increased above the currently approved level and any proposed improvements of this property that will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City, Such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for removal as a condition of this resolution must be removed within 30 days of the date of this resolution. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (October 12, 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 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 record’’ ng of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 4 of 7 Adopteci by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of October, 1992, ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day of October, 1992, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor 6 Ci^v Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation J said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) Notary Public ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 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. Notarv Public Page 7 of 7 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 24, Also that part of Lot 14 in Wiley's Navarre Addition Lake Minnetonka described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 14; thence Southeasterly 25 feet along the Northerly line of said Lot 14; thence Southwesterly to a point in the Southwestern boundary line of said Lot 14 distant 20 feet along said Southwestern line from the Southwest corner of said Lot 14, thence Northwesterly along said line to the Southwest corner of said Lot 14; thence Northeasterly along the Northwesterly line CITY OF ORONO ZONING PILE #1755 *”*°*_ _ TOr’LeonlrrNlska’ COPIES TO: 2304 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55319 ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ type op APPLICATION: VarianceConditional Use Permit (Through-Lot) DATE OP MEETING: 9/21/92 VOTE: 7 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following. Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Setback/hardcover/lot coverage variances and conditional use permit approved for shed at as-buxlt locat..on. 2. Applicant shall obtain a building permit and bring structure into compliance with building codes. 3. Applicant shall pay after-the-fact investigation fees for building permit and zoning application. 4. It is Planning Commission's intent that “P°" ®JP,Yte“’^the shed future Council grants approval for a garage on the site, the shea must be removed. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as. City Council Monday, October 12, 1992; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of ^^view^andminutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review ana approval by the Planning Commission, ch 1 Gaffron said he will ask the City Engineer to review the plan tor comments but the Engineer will not be making any formal changes to the plan. That will be the responsibility of the applicants. (#4) #1755 LEONARD NISKA, 2304 SHADYWOOD ROAD - AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING -7:50 - 8:08 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mai ling were noted. Leonard Niska was present for this aoplication. Gaffron stated the proposal require.^ setback variances, and the property has an excess of hardcover. The original garage to the rear of the property encroached the right-of-way, but that has been removed. The applicant was advised to get a survey, which he did. Sometime after it was discovered that the shed was placed In its present location. The shed is in line with the front of the house, which does not meet the required setback from the street. Chair Kelley stated the shed could not be placed in front, of the house because that would create a sighting problem. • Rowlette said that it cannot be placed In the rear of the house because that does not leave an area to park. Bellows reviewed the requirement for a 10’ separation setback, but felt that was not an issue here because the property has access from both Shadywood Road and Olive Avenue. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Bel lows, to recommend approval of Application #1755 for Leonard Niska, 2304 Shadywood Road, for after-the-fact conditlona' use permit and variances for a shed, conditioned on if a garage is proposed. It would have to be an attached garage, and it or any other structure to be built on the property wouId require the removaI of the shed, and the appIicant paying the required penalty fees. Ayes 7, nays 0. (#5) #1761 MARK A. HUNSLEY, 3464 EASTLAKE STREET - AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE - PUBLIC HFACING C:08 - 8:13 P.M. The AffidavIt of Publication and Certificate of Mai I Ing were noted. Mark Hunsley was present for thi. appI Ica 11 on. Gaffron explained with the plat of Baysl^e Beach, an outlet was created to accommodate the r-ay water mound septic systems for the three adjacent lots. All th.ee property owners technically own the outlot, but only one is listed as owner for tax purposes. The 12’x16’ shed is used by all the neighbors for the storage of I av;n equipment. The shed is set back 5.9’ from the street and encroaches in the 10’ drainage and utility easement. The Public Works Department has confirmed that this has not created a proolem with the installation of sanitary sewer. There is a fence near the shed and a large willow tree around It so It is not visible from the street. He explained that the code does not designate setbacks for outlots, but If it were ♦'o meet the setbacks of the 2 acre zoning district, it would need to meet a 50’ setback which would place It in the middle of the outlot, thus becoming more obvious. Bel lows asked how they address the issue of having an accessory structure without a principal structure. To:Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Prom: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: September 16, 1992 Subject: #1755 Leonard Niska, 2304 Shadywood Road - Variances/CUP Application: Request (now after-the-fact) for variances and "through lot" CUP to construct a 140 s.f. storage shed. Zoning District: LR-IC, 1/2 acre. Variances Required: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Allowed/Code Proposed Required Section 5’15'10.25 Subd.6(B) 20'30' 24'30'10.02,^’?10.^ 41.1%35%10.22, 10.56 25.8%15%*10.03 Subd.14(C) 3'10'10.03 Subd.12 Side Street Setback Front (Co.Rd.l9) Rear (Through Lot) Hardcover (500-1000') Lot Coverage (609 + 140) 2409 Structure-to-Structure ♦Shed may not fall within interpretation of the "garage" structure allowed as an exception to Subd. 14(C). Note: Lot area is 0.055 acre (1/20 acre). List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Summary Applications (Variance/CUP) Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Letter of Request Hardcover Calculations Neighbor Acknowledgment Construction Plans Chronology Please review the chronology provided by Jeanne Mabusth, Exhibit !• Briefly, the applicant initially proposed to his existing garage. After the survey work was completed, it was clear that the existing garage was located only partially within the property, partially on the neighboring property, and partially on City right-of-way. Applicant revised his application to include removal of tne garage and construction of the shed. Applicant was advised of the need for building permits to construct the shed, as well as the need for demolition permit to remove the existing garage. Zoning File #1755 September 16, 1992 Page 2 Applicant then proceeded to remove the garage without obtaining a demolition permit, and constructed the shed without a building permit. Please review his letter of request. Issues to Address 1. Is there some other more appropriate location for the shed than the constructed location? 2. Is there sufficient hardship/justification for granting the setback variances and hardcover variances for the shed? 3. Does this shed fall into the definition of a "garage" that would be allowed under the lot coverage ordinance? (Recall that up to 1,500 s.f. lot coverage is allowed for any property for the house and garage.) 4. Given that gravel around the old garage will be removed leaving a gravel parking area, is there any additional hardcover that could be removed? 5. Knowing that a tag is being issued to the applicant for doing vork without permits after being told those permits were necessary, is there any reason to not require after-the-fact fees for the building and demolition permits as well as the zoning application? 6. The Building Department notes that a 10'xl4' shed is subject to building code requirements to be attached to the ground in a manner acceptable to the Building Inspector. Discussion Only the applicant can explain his reasons for proceeding without tie necessary approvals. The issue before Planning Commisr>ion is whether *.h 5 proposed shed is in an appropriate location, or if there is a bv^t location, or if no shed should be allowed. Certainly, removal of the non­ conforming garage could be considered an improvement to the property and to the neighborhood. The location of the new shed and its incongruity with the code requirements for placement of such structures begs the question of finding a better location. Such location may not exist on the property, which is only about 65' deep and averaging 45* wide. Few smaller develc^^ed building sites exist in the City. Zoning File #1755 September 16» 1992 Page 3 If the *.40 s.f. building is allowed to remain on the property, it will need to meet ull building code requirements, which would include ground attachment acceptable to the Building Inspector. Also, if the structure remains on the property, does the Planning Commission wish to consider aesthetic issues associated with its location, i.e. screening or at least structura1/color compatibility with the existing house? These might be factors that could reduce the visual impact of the structure due to its location. Requested Action 1. Make recommendation as to granting setback, hardcover and lot coverage variances. 2. Recommend any actions to mitigate visual impact of the structure if it is allowed to remain. 3. Make recommendation regarding after-the-fact penalty fees. * / ^ IT ^ Ir^ • ‘xi' ■ n a 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) # is- % PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 7 ^HADVl^JoaP UJ^ZJnA !V\i^ n^ui-zz HH OOl/ Property Identif. Numbex* (P.I.D.) yV***//*?—o^tl Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired /77"7 (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. ,**r7 v ML LI I I Lir.I'Trirr Present use of property: V residential Zoning District: LR, — 1.C. other(specif^l i MM^ w V — ,•,'1 f u a f V'V — r*/' r •-c APPLICANT Name ML /o VC*/ *-i-*/ /fc Address: LJx^ D ^o*(P City: ZX^^A*/ Phone (home) ^ /-5;5. _ _ Phone (wor)c) *7 ^/~ I C>(^ Zip: ’*^539 / OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Phone (worlc) Address:City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ escribe request in detail; VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setbaclc:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average LaJceshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements : (attach additional sheets if necessary)REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitte by the application deadline date in order for yoiir application to be considered completer 1. _Completed Application Form 2. _ _Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. _Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. _Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8*5"xll" for reproduction). 5. _Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8i5"xll*’). 6. ___Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8*5"xll"). 7. _As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of 8. any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of )iis/her knowledge. Applicant's Signatur Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga­ tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month.* Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building S Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. CITY OF ORONl- - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address o-y j:77 /( A / I (/ / V 'f •JJTf AjO A r-'. •• •• '’■•/a * • J '] Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) H - II'J 00 7/ /‘-f-.//y-Z.5 VY Oo^/ Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT . Name / kj iSfZA / * V Phone (home) Phone (work) Address City Ia)Zip f OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone Address City Zip Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent paifcels of land. PEES - CONDITIONAL DSE 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 Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule Renewal Fee - $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS $200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation $175.00 Easement Vacation $ 75.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _ _ _ _ $300.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _ _ _ _ $300.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _________ $100.00 Appeals Other - see fee schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTYPresent Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request in detail: REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obta this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Governme Center 348~3271). 3. Plat Map. 4. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor). 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if lane 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 OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING 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. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required oi requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her )cnowledge. Applicant's signature^^^^^^-v^f^^-^Date An 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. Owner's signature n Date /S Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have ar authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Total Fee: S Entered 3y: CITY OF ORONU “ /i-L'jt'OjxL-rt-lxuh Cate Received: Date Aonroved: Permit #: ALL INFORMATION MUST BE SUBMITTED IN FULL BEFO^ P^^ REVIEW WILL BE STARTED (See Check-off List Enclosed) the APPLICA2TP IS: (circle one) /^0WNER^-<5r CONTRACTOR JOB SITE ADDRESS:ZIP: 6*r3‘f/ NAME OF OWNER: MAILING ADDRESS oa 11 (•. ’ork) Q H f (:>(=, PHONE: (heme) CITY:[AjfitU 1^'fA _____ ZIP:_6^^39_/____ CONTRACTOR: MAILING ADDRESS: ?TATE LICENSE: # PHONE CITY:ZIP; ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: MAILING ADDRESS:____ NAME: TYPE OF WORK: New__V Demo V Addition Remodel/Alter ation PHONE: CITY:ZIP; REGISTRATION # lire MoveAccessory Struc _ _ Renovate Land AlteratJLcn PROPOSED WORK (describe in det.all); (S^.<W6£ . i C.QU Sv {o OJ>o !to A>-T-r?.CHrg /g>X>4 STORIES:SQ. FEET OF EACH FLOOR: JO. OF BEDROOMS;GARAGE STALLS; ATT.DET. TGoo a<o> :STIMATED CONSTRUCTION VALwATION (ejccluding land): $ 4 ■ hereby aoply for a buildincr permit and I acknowledge that the :bove is complete and accurate; that the work will be in conformance wr^h ^he ordinances and codes of the City and with the State Building Coae; /tna<- x inderstand this is not a permit and work is not to start without a permit; an .hat the work will be in accordance with the approved plan. PPLICANT DATE 'A % r r r r RUN DATE 05/21/92BATCH 002 PROP ADDR OI«4ER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR r r PROP ADDR Olf4ER NAHE TAXPAYER • NAHE/ADDR r. HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY SYSTEMPROPERTY LIST58 17-117-25 0001 02195 DAYVIEN PL C T ROOD A L D ROOD CLAIR A LYft4 ROOD 2215 KErMOOO HAY HAYZATA HN 55591 58 17-117-25 45 0025 05414 LIVINGSTON AVE ROSEMARY P BURHASTER ROSEMARY P BURHASTER 5414 LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 44 0025 02205 DAYVIEH PL CLEMENT F BIRCH JR ET AL CLEMENT F BIRCH JR AND BARBARA J SIPPRELL-BIRCH 2205 BAYVIEH PL HAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 44 0067 02514 OLIVE AVE LOUISE B DAY LOUISE B DAY 2514 OLIVE AVE HAYZATA m 55591 58 17-117-25 44 0071 02504 SHADYHOOO RD LEONARD O NISKA LEOT4ARD 0 NISKA 2504 SHADYHOOO RO HAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 44 0074 02524 SHADYHOOO RD R J HAEFNER A C F HAEFNER RICHARD J/COLLEEN F HAEFNER 2524 SHAOYNOOO RO HAYZATA HN 55591 58 17-117-25 45 0002 02296 SHAOYHOOD RO ADM OF VETS AFFAIRS A H OTTEN AMP FRA^4ZEN 2296 SHADYHOOO RD HAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 45 0060 05405 LIVINGSTON AVE FRED A FARR FRED A FARR 2427 BANTAS PT LA HAYZATA m 55591 58 17-117-25 44 0065 02528 OLIVE AVE J T JACOBSON A L D J T JACOBSOT4 A L D 2528 OLIVE AVE HAYZATA MN 55591 JACOBSON JACOBSON 58 17-117-25 44 0068 02506 OLIVE AVE GLADYS HINOINGSTAD GLADYS HINOIfK^STAD 2506 OLIVE AVE HAYZATA MT4 55591 38 17-117-25 44 0072 02508 SHADYHOOO RO PHYLLIS HENDERSON PATRICK BRICKLEY 2508 SHADYHOOO ROAD HAYZATA m 55591 58 17-117-25 44 0079 02541 SHADYHOOO RD H R GROETSCH A C J GROETSCH LOUISE A GANGELHOFF 2541 SHAOYHOOD RD HAYZATA MN 55591 f /l)oTP REPORT NO. PI455401 PAGE 658 17-117-25 45 0022 05422 LIVINGSTON AVE R A SERNA ADA SERNA RAMON A SERNA 5422 LIVINGSTON AVE HAYZATA MN 55591 58 17-117-25 45 0061 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED FRED A FARR FRED A FARR 14501 BRANDBURY HALK MFKA MN 55545 58 17-117-23 4A 0066 02518 OLIVE AVE HIRAM B JACOBSON HIRAM B JACOBSON 2518 OLIVE AVE HAYZATA MN 55591 % i 58 17-117-25 44 0069 02500 OLIVE AVE MARGARET A HOOD MARGARET A HOOD 2500 OLIVE AVE HAYZATA MN 55591 • I • • i CU(. ' » I 58 17-117-25 44 0075 02514 SHADYHOOO RD E A KUGLIN ET AL H/L EST EOHIN A MABEL KUGlIN 2514 SHAOYHOOD ROAD HAYZATA MN 55591 Qk- m ■ ■: 58 17-117-25 44 0081 02504 SHADYHOOO RD LEONARD 0 NISKA LEONARD 0 NISKA 2504 SHADYHOOO RD HAYZATA MN 55591 k . '•* * *v t:'. ‘ . t i% A'- 4 / /^ / ^( !/^),,-/I “ I sni DAKOTA (/4)(^ ( I4CV 2 NGSTCN 1 50 1 '■^ j’I r* f^ID ” "5 .c 'r>( H){ JO)(ft) ✓.(;^r •0 !0 V •0 4S,r fn ?'5f 1/ll” Ili)( 14)✓...........y-•/ - j •jO V V *0 <4 30^ m •" 50**v »S4. • V t 1 iO &Vr ir (fto)t4») .2 (««) z'*.2 (47) s2 (4«) 4? (4ft) 1 “ (44)'T ;( I “ (41) 40 -JlJ ,.y _32_ftO ^•150 •r V) i M lA ^ Jt -St y|r y> —jg , •n li 153 14 •17 (4S)II (H) ^c-A /f (57) n? <4 1 /4? V V ✓ V / 50 'f -J£J_5C_50 1 3i) AVE ID 1150 ^ 'C * TV <•») yfv, lyric AVE ^ 50-1 6 ? ,'lif ~y^ 10 ■” s: i-‘ V I II a (a?)^ (<s> i:14/) (97' - \TC3»S1'TvM'' n ff(100) PivTlN, n ! [• -iCy / LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: Lot 24, Also that part of Lot 14 in Wiley's Navarre Addition Lake Minnetonka described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 14; thence Southeasterly 25 feet along the northerly line of said Lot 14; thence Southwesterly to a point in the Southwestern boundary line of said Lot 14 distant 20 feet along said Southwestern line from the Southwest corner of said Lot 14; thence North­ westerly along said line to the South­ west corner of said Lot 14; thence North­ easterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 14 to the point of beginning. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. 0 : Iron marker Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. Leonard Niska 2304 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 CfTYOFCRC.'K) ^ rr=* September 11, 1992 City Council City of Orono Crystal Bay, MN SEP 1 5 1992 To the Council: Last May, I began my attempts to get a building permit to remove my existing garage and build a replacement. Tha garage I wanted to replace was sitting on the road right-a-«ay and pi.?t on my neighbor's property. It was also built without ai.y foundatic and being held up only because it was leaning against a tree. The city office informed me that I would need a survey and probably a variance. Coffin and Gronberg took three weeks to do the survey. They finshed the survey on the date of the June deadline date for the July meeting, ^his survey showed lot line problems that caused problems with my initial plans. This item was tabled at the July meeting because of the lot line problem. I had a two week business trip from June 27 to July 14. Because the survey was so slow and my trip came at an inopportune time, I had no time to change anything before the July meeting. I looked into moving the lot lines, but this was too expensive and too much of a hassle. I decided to put up just a shed on the other side of the house. I was unable to get the survey drawing updated to make the July deadline for the August meeting. Again the Survey company took three weeks to do a 30-minute job. I work full time and take college classes parttime. I took the summer off from my classes so I could get the shed built and my house cleaned up. I am planning to sell my house and wanted to clean it up a little. I needed the storage to put some things from the house. My classes begin again at the end of September. I was finally able to get the finalized plan in to the city to make the August deadline for the September meeting. If I would have waited until after September 21 to start the shed, I would have a much more difficult: time to get done before starting class and before winter. The shed is a Menards building. The city has a copy of the building plans. The shed is setting on a couple inches of crushed limestone.(3/4's and smaller) The building is moveab)e. (If it has to be moved for setback variance.) I decided to go ahead and build and complete the permit paper work as the city's schedule permitted. Sincerely, Leonard 0. Niska HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' (^0-100^ E xisting Hardcover in Zon*: » • •• ^ . A. House 2o.V LENGTH* • » S’ 7. 5-3. Garage ____________ /A/ . ,r. T c. Drivevjay ______■ //✓ C'fn ry CiJifN X / V. 2. E.^ATIO/ )ECK . • «• X F. Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN 3Y ■ : _ PLASTIC- • ' SHEETING c/ry fr*(6r G. Other ___ Z2.Y WIDTH X ___2. / 7. O X _ D.. Sidewalk srf/^ __2.. x__V Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone u* r;-N IJw 53 S.F. S.F. S.F. m S.F, /••.Fv. . /<// ir /€ VS 57 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /J /^or yfC c _ S.F. _ S.F. 4^i^/^ ') ^ cau^r\\ -----^ S.F. AS /y/S ---------------- rj ryt(, ; /2o ?S.F. B 7^0 y X 100 - A* Z?OY S.F. UofA/fo -/SJ T//ryj f fA/tAS-f) = Sd.f^r. /^aAAArr) 7 tC/tAUtrc) - /OO '• " C/aJ AA-yA-fArt) I ' Z / 90 fa. Air. .............> ■) =r y/./sY, m* mm t • Vi • • Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we) L. -f [prUit name(s^t]^^ [pnnt address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposea use of the property located ^ also referred to as Land Use Application No. / 7 ru“'irsci„ the improvement plans and that the proposed nergnbor s project requires Council approval. ________________________________ Date Property Owner Date I (we) ************************************** of [print address][print name(s)] ^ 4-h^ ni;,nc; for the proDosed improvement or proposed use of the have reviewed the plans for tne p , . referred to as Land Use property loca':ed at - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - Application No. __ _ _• , ^ - 4.,.,^ in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) amI (we) understand that in execu^xny uhj. r,T-onerrv or use (are) Coun^^^^^^ I (««> am (a’re) aware of HI irroL^enr/l^rs ^°nd that tL pro .osed neighbor's p_^ect or^use requires Council approval. I tu ■3 li k?n *1.^. V o i Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any you^L^en'^^to^ the Building s ZoL^n^Office arieYst 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. -~T—*•menmrds V'.^ H^^5£i7i3S5BSS58^^^t^S»JS5wjiIu^55!S?^ n^m Ig^'-K^l 0J)_p U) D) VD g 0 3j DJ 1. GENERAL Prior to beginning construction, the area selected for the shed location must be leveled and cleared of obstructions. 2. INVENTORY Separate all lumber, hardware, etc. into individual stacks of like items. 3* I'll AME PJlKi'ARATION Unfold each frame, setting aside two frames to be used as end walls. From l"x4" Pine boards, cut Gusset plates 6" long.20 for a 10' building. 24 for a 12 ’ building or 28 for a 14 ’ building. Apply gusset plates on each side of the top and bottom fold locations. Frames to be used as end walls require only one gusset plate at top and bottom on the side opposite of the metal plates. Use four 8d nails on each gusset plate. See Figure 1.i-i/i . plat« at top fold location Sida Wan Frame M«> Treated Bottom Frame Mea X"x4"K*" tone C*** at bottom fold I • I t^eeio*«o •V*' EZ BUILD SHED FRAME TO: FROM: DATE: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator September 16, 1992 SUBJECT; #1755 Leonard Niska, 2304 Shadywood Road - Chronology of Events 6/26/92 8/15/92 8/31/92+ Niska filed a variance application to reconstruct detached garage located in street yard. Upon receipt of survey dated 6/26/92, we discovered that major portions of garage are located within City right-of-way and in adjacent private property. Niska was unable to revise plan for the July meeting because of out of town business commitments. Niska filed an amended proposal and submitted a revised site plan locating a detached accessory structure within the street yard. Staff republished legal notice as conditional use permit as property is a through lot. Proposed location of detached structure would require multiple setback variances. The Building Staff noted the new accessory structure had been installed on Niska's property. Mabusth contacted Niska to advise him of the obvious violation and the impact on his current land use application. In addition, Niska was advised to submit a written addendum that may provide some clarification as to his action. The Building Staff was advised to issue a citation. cc: Lyle Oman « ► ‘.I . m * ■ •»»<• »•.. •• -**•. •'» .M • • • ..,y -k • «» •• 4*’ *• * V ■- *• ,2 .• • ••• • • •A* KC 4S67 (9^1) UNIFORM CITATION NO. •» ••’1• • KAMIE - LAST. F INST. MiOOl.LSAAIOEN • 92-041966 ,<irypE^AMia<iHilnEO^e O O m state of Minnesota COUfTTY OF HENNEPIN OlSTRtCT COUNT The issuing officer sfatas thel the person . named below commined the offense described in vfoialion of the section irxJIceted. - I: □ §3 ORfVER-S LICENSE NUMBER state •! - « -r •- M 1 S k*|a L £0 M A f?D 0.• • • • • * -• •• ADDRESS a CITY Z,s\c>1 5 H A O V luJo o cD R 0 a!c w A N ZL A T A -.. STATf TIP COO€ mini 5 s S 5 1 CATE OF birth OAT YEAN EVES HEKIMT WEGKT VIOLATION INFORMATION date of offense TIME METER NUMBER | o!q| 111 «|!^f ^0 0 1 • •- 1 VEHICLE LICENSE PLATE state YEAR MAKE MODEL I 1 1 [color LOCATION A CITY | ^ ;>!o M 5 H A T OO O c5i R.I1,o A 0 1^1 O M 0 li^!A)s 3 j statute or oroinancs no DESCRIPTION 1 0 K 0 Im D_ ■ 1 !0,0a la.6>u 0 1c>* 1W(L 0 e e t?VA 1 *r ^ e • Com Code CT. OlV.Acnvmr Soec Agcvl f M 0 3*# n fnde LJ Or Pi nger Life n Accident f~l^”**** [“1 Commerctel r~|Mexerdoue.operiy LJ Accident LJcondmone U Vehicle t-iMeterlal : 1 BADGE NUMBER ORl NUMBER 1 ...• •^115 1 M N 0 Z /-5 o o — • — »•* : V b# a§90§§0d and a warrant may ba laauad for your arrast. If a warrant la laauad, a panalty of $30.00 will ba addad to tha flna. rvj 1 s Kk A C aj A !S 1 N irii4 c o c 3 0 A u A a.1 In m de irv A P U — , : i c^in-T* i(O lAl &o In b!u (V- !r —!—T- :K*^ 0 c O t i B c poiZS: o’vj ic.S CAW aj T^6 COURT COPY - DO NOT WRITE ON REVERSE •••• . • ••• . • • • t • $ '• *. • . . • •» . . . . /O O CITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Post Office Box 66 Cr)^ Minnesota 55315-^ July 14, 1992 Mr. Leonard Niska 2304 Shadyvood Road Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Dear Mr. Niska: I have received a copy of your recent survey drafted by Mark Gronberg. In light of the new information, I would advise you to schedule a meeting with me at your earliest convenience so that we may decide what your best approach will be in relocating a garage on your property. It may be that you would attempt a lot line rearrangement with an adjacent property owner or proceed with a new location for garage on your property. In any event, please contact my office at your earliest convenience so that we may decide on how you wish to proceed with the original variance application filed with the City. Sinj:erely, Joanne A. Mabusth Building 6 Zoning Administrator JAM/ch Enc. lH.H’llONK-47>7357 • F.VX • 473-0510 u R-‘ciC'£ 1$ h- Cof‘^ f’^(p05£i3 - % _ in<<i,..f\)e(<5^KP^'2- rru^iHi ri-’i.. [jJt^ % 4S -k m gr 'Tt^e_________ P10''^ Uf-'t-So ■paP-..4-HC_.5l:t€.C>-_Ofc^ -T-VV^ 0TVK<__S \P^----linJt' .__U*:'5- 9 - iU<^ . M'L-- y>\s. CvffA+- C/pu TH-iy^lk y\9a-^ 'fH;s __________l-=Siox ------ •>-J f i:"i_________!___________; t —: J JIJ! 3 0 1992 To:Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator From; Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:October 1, 1992 Subject; #1761 Mark Huns ley, 3464 East lake Street - Variance (After-the-Fact ) - Resolution Application: Request for after-the-fact variance to construct storage shed on Outlot B, Bayside Beach. Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acre. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Resolution Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/23/92 Exhibit C - Memo fit Exhibits of 9/16/92 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of September 16th. Briefly, the applicant requests after-the-fact approval for construction of an accessory storage shed on a property with no principal structure, and requesting a variance for a setback from the side street lot line of 5.9' where a 50' setback would normally be required. Planning Commission Recommendation At their September 21st meeting. Planning Commission voted 7-0 for approval of setback variances to allow the 12'xl6' shed to remain at its as-built location, and granting a variance to allow such accessory structure on this outlot with no principal structure. Planning Commission determined that one accessory structure on this outlot is appropriate but any additional accessory structures would not be looked at favorably. Planning Commission further suggested that the resolution reflect that this is a unique outlot situation in which three immediately adjacent property owners control the use of the outlot, providing sufficient control of the site to justify allowing an accessory structure without a principal structure in this specific case. Planning Commission recommended payment of after-the-fact investigation fees for the zoning application and building permit, and that the shed be brought into compliance with building code requirements for such a structure. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution is attached for Council adoption. A RESOLUTION GRANTING AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9 (A) AND SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) FILE #1761 WHEREAS, Mark Hunsley (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located adjacent to his residence at 3464 Eastlake Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City"). Said property is legally described as Outlet B, Bayside Beach, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property") and is owned jointly by the adjacent property owners at 3424, 3444, and 3464 Eastlake Street; and WHEREAS, the applicant has made an af ter-the-f let application to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code "ection 10.03, Subdivision 9 (A) to permit the construction of an accessory structure on a property with no principal structure where no such accessory structure is normally allowed, and a variance to Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) to allow the accessory structure to be located 5.9' from the side street lot line where a 50' side street setback would normally be required for an accessory structure. Minnesota ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1761. The property is located in the LR—lA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 21, 1992 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings; a)The applicant constructed the 12'xl6' storage shed without obtaining the necessary permit and variance approva1. Page 1 of 5 grantingFiances to codefSlON 9 (A) ANr ^VISION e' to Ms '’«« an lot°B ‘ -^3464 ^.stUtrtiL^,y ' 1 J f t e t -1 h e -Met construction o/an and?"var?an?"""""”-Sc? " .®'='=®ssorrs??u^‘'’ Section line Where a 50. be " ^°«esory structure = Zoning Pije Single PaMZy Lakeshore ^viewed thie ed approval ’^g findings: Proposed the i2'xl6* ch 4h P-Mt anrtrria^'f b) The storage shed is located on an outlot that was created within the plat of Bayside Beach for the purposes of providing road access and a site for a graywater sewage treatment system to serve the residences at 3424, 3444 and 3464 Eastlake Street. c) Although the resolution approving the subdivison of Bayside Beach and the creation of Outlot B does not specifically prohibit structures within said outlot, the municipal code prohibits placement of accessory structures on a property without a principal structure. d) In this specific case, the use of the outlot is sufficiently controlled by the three immediately adjacent property owners who jointly share in ownership of the outlot, such that the concerns of property maintenance and security are sufficiently satisfied to justify granting of a variance to allow an accessory structure on the property. e) The 12'xl6' storage shed as constructed is located 5.9' from the street lot line, but is suitably screened by existing vegetation and a nearby fence such that the shed is not out of character with the neighborhood nor does it constitute a visual encroachment. Further, moving the structure to meet the required 50' setback would place it in an area where sufficient screening does not exist and is not easily developed. Further, while the existing location of the shed is partially within the 10' drainage and utility easement along the street lot line, the temporary nature of the shed structure would allow it to be moved should it at some future date be in the way of any utility work. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 5 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 conditionsr lightr 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 the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants an after-the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (A) to a?low an accessory structure on property with no principal structure, and a variance to Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) to allow a side street lot line setback of 5.9' where a 50' setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions; 1. Applicant must obtain a building permit and bring the shed into compliance with the building code requirements. 2. The applicant shall pay after- :he-fact investigation fees for the zoning application and the building permit. 3. Applicant is advised that future proposals for additional accessory structures on the property may result in the requirement to remove the existing shed, it being the stated intent of the Planning Commission that no more than one accessory structure should ever be allowed on this outlot. 4. All persons with an interest in Outlot B shall sign this resolution. 5. 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 (October 12, 1993). Page 3 of 5 r 6.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. 7.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of October, 1992. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Cleric Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of October, 1992, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STAIE 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. CITY OF ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 473-7357 55323 ZONING PILE #1761 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 9/23/92 TO:Mark Hunsley COPIES TO: 3464 Eastlake St. Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 9/21/92 VOTE: 7 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Approval of setback variances to allow 12x16 shed to remain at present location, and variance to allow accessory structure without a principal structure. 2. 3. 4. 5. Applicant must obtain a building permit and bring shed into compliance with building code requirements. Applicant to pay after-the-fact investigation fees for zoning application and building permit. Intent of Planning Commission is to never allow more than one accessory structure on this outlot. Resolution to reflect that variance for accessory structure without principal structure is justified in this case by the immediate adjacency of the three owners of the outlot, which provides sufficient control of the site. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, October 12, 1992; meeting starts at 7:00 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. o,Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Prom; Date; Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator September 16, 1992 Subject: #1761 Mark Hunsley, 3464 Eastlake Street Variance (After-the-Fact) - Public Hearing Application: Request for after-the-fact variance to construct storage shed on Outlot B, Bayside Beach. Variances Requested 1. Accessory structure on property with no principal structure. (Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (A)) 2.Setback from side street lot line: 5.9 feet proposed, 50 feet required (using LR-IA standard, although no specific standards are given for outlots...) List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Letter of Request Letter of Agreement from Association Members Original Plat Resolution Covenants/Restrictions on Outlot Use Copy of Plat Stubbs Bay Sewer Plans - Lift Station Easement Summary In April 1992 it came to the attention of the Building Department that a 12' x 16' storage shed had been constructed near the right-of-way and without permits. Mr. Hunsley was advised of the need for a permit and potential problems with the shed location. Late in June he was further advised to make the appropriate variance application, which is now before you. Based on the survey, the shed is located within the outlot and 5.9 feet from the street property line, 48 feet from the west lot line, and 28 feet from the north lot line. While the shed is fairly near the graywater mound sewage :reatment system, municipal sewer will soon make that system unriecessary, hence the setback from it is of little consequence. The shed encroaches 4.1' into a 10' drainage and utility easement along the lot line, however, its location has not and will not affect the sewer project. L Zoning File #1761 September 16, 1992 Page 2 Status of Outlot Outlot B was created for the specific purpose of providing access and a site for the graywater mound system to serve the residences at 3424, 3444 and 3464 Eastlake Street. The main driveway serving all three residences is partially within the outlot. No specific references to construction of accessory buildings was placed in either the approval resolution for the plat nor within the covenants regarding the outlot. While the outlot appears to be owned by Dean and Nancy Monge at 3444, the covenants require that the owners of all three benefitted lots control the outlot as tenants in common. In allowing this subdivision to occur in 1981 under relaxed standards to the zoning area requirement of the two acre zone, the City clearly intended that the outlot serve not only as a private access road but for sewage system purposes. This lot could not be used for a principal residence. Discussion Please review the letter of request. Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (A), which states "no accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory ”, was intended to avoid situations where there is no tenant on the property to control the use of an accessory structure. Clearly, that is not the case with the Hunsley situation, since the three abutting property owners all control the outlot. It would therefore seem reasonable, in this case, to grant a variance to allow the accessory structure at some location on the outlot which will have little visual impact and not conflict with utilities, easements, etc. The code does not give specific setbacks for structures on outlots. If Outlot B is treated as the street yard of a lakeshore lot, the setback from the street for an accessory storage building would be 50'. A location 50' from the street would place the structure in the middle of the outlot where it would be highly visible. As constructed, it is hidden from view by fencing and a large willow tree. Also be advised that the property owners have granted to the City an easement for the lift station to be contained within the outlot, as part of the Stubbs Bay Sewer Project. This easement was granted to the City at no cost, and is located at the southeast corner of the property. Hardcover would appear to be a non-issue. While each of the three building lots is at or slightly above the hardcvoer limits as a result of past approvals, the outlot hardcover including driveway and shed appears to be minimal, approximately 5%. Zoning File #1761 September 16, 1992 Page 3 Issues to Address 1. Should the shed be allowed within this outlot? 2. Is it located where it has little visual impact, or is there a better location on the outlot for the shed? 3. Has the applicant provided sufficient justification for construction without the required permits so as to not be required to pay after-the-fact fees for the building permit and zoning application? Requested Action 1. Make recommendation as to granting of setback and hardcover variances, and shed location.^ 2. Make recommendation regarding placement of an accessory structure on the property without a principal structure. 3. Make recommendation regarding after-the-fact penalty fees. Isv ^L> / n L 2> C. ^ /CSLoi » . • • '"•j 4’ r ' CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLl ITION,/., h I 7 *. • '/ .^ • 0 1 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 (DouMe application fee) t-: 'AU ^ ci-';7 'G - I PROPERTY INFORMATION rTjy nr nonunLrl i / Lfl UnUltL.* OFFICE 1350200000 iiSite Address 3464 East La.e Str_e_^- - - - - - - - - - - - rucrir n J75 qq Property Identif. Number (P.I.D.) Eayside addition sub. # 20*3yoll . Attach legal description to application if not LVOl included on required survey. Date Property Acquired August 1983_ _(month/year) I (do) (SdXiCatO also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential X other(specify) Cutlot Zoning District: Residential (?) APPLICANT Phone (home) 475-»4036 Name Mark A. Hunsley Phone (work) 341-7247 Address:5464 Hast Lake St. city: Lake zip:55356 OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address:City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 500.00 „ Utility shed on outlet (see attached letterDescribe requesc in detail: j- - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore ^ Other (specify) Utili*;y slied on ou uxo k. HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:- - - - - •leeded storage of equipment to maintain property/outlot. Lo storage available on primary lots. I.o restriction was placed concerning sheds I (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete; 1. _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 GJ5"xll" for reproduction). 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8Js"xll"). 6. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8>5"xll"). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. __Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and joziect to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date <IA V OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga ­ tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature ^ ________________ Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Coimcil* If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. RUN DATE O9/0A/92 BATCH 005 l.cftlEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY Ott4ERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35A01 PAGE 13PROP AODR OI94ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 05-117-23 13 001203A20 BAYSIDE RORAN AN0ERS0t4ROBERT F & WENOY S ANDERSON3A20 BAYSIDE ROL0E4G LAKE 55356 38 05-117-23 13 0013 03AA0 BAYSIDE RD T M ZIESHER AMT 2IESMER TODD H A MARIE T ZIESMER 3A<40 BAYSIDE RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 13 OOIA 03A70 BAYSIDE RD MATTHEH E MANLEY MATTHEW E MANLEY 3A70 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 0 1/1 ' PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 05-117-23 13 0021 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED V H LARSON ETAL VINCENT H LARSON 1823 COLFAX AVE S MPLS MN 55<»03 38 05-117-23 13 0030 03A00 BAYSIDE RO DAS ESTERS DANIEL A SANDRA ESTERS 3A00 BAYSIDE RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 13 00A2 03A6A EASTLAKE ST HAN HUNSLEY MARK A HUNSLEY 3A64 E LAKE ST LOtJG LAKE MN 55356 ) i i. ’ ■# r‘‘ PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP AODR OI«IER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR r ,?• PROP ADOR Ot«4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR r r- r I mm • t • . - • I . , - ■i •1 38 05-117-23 13 00A3 03<«A<* EASTLAKE ST 0 A ttONGE SNA M0N6E DEAN A S NANCY A MONGE 3AAA EAST LAKE ST S LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 13 00A6 00038 ADDRESS UIJASSIGNEO • D A MONGE SNA M044GE DEAN A S NANCY A MONGE 3AAA E LAKE ST S LONG AKE (14 55356 TOTAL BATCH 005 00012 .1 'I t » 1 » • I 38 05-117-23 13 00A<* 03A2A EASTLAKE ST T E RAOKE S M A RAOKE THOMAS E S MARGARET A RAOKE 3««2A EASTLAKE ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 16 0039 00360 TONKA AVE KE(S4ETH M BOLLUM BRAD D PETERSON 360 TONKA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 13 0065 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MATTHEH E MANLEY MATTHEW E MANLEY 3670 BAYSIDE RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 16 0052 05390 BAYSIDE RO ROBT W S BARBARA HUBER ET AL ROBERT S BARBARA HUBER 3390 BAYSIDE RO LOf.-G LAKE MN 55356 ' I- . .• ' • % i • Cort. j C i cate of Survey for Mark A. Huns 1('V in fkitlot H, nayslclo Beach Hennepin County, Minnesota o-ro o 1 /I/ <5^ O y J • ■ r-- . ■ 1 O 2co,oo SArr ^yi^e Existing Lean I Poser i r>t ion Out lot B, Bayside Beach. This s«jrvoy shows the location of an existing she'd in relation to the houn(iari«^s of th«* above dcscriheci r rr 1\ July 30, 1992 G 3 1992 rear Planning Commission and Council Members, The purpose of this letter is to seek permission to locate a utility storage shed on the joint outlot shared by the three properties at 3464, 3424 and 3444 East Lake Street. The utility shed would be 12' x 16', cedar siding and properly shingled. Tt would be located on ground without a foundation or poured slab. No other improvements to the shed or surrounding area are requested or planned. The location was surveyed by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. to determine the exact easement locations and was reviewed with John Gerhardson of Orono Public Works during our on site discussions on construction easements for the Stubbs Bay Sewer Project. When this property was subdivided in 1981, no restrictions were placed on this property preventing such a utility storage shed as per the attached covenants and property documents. The shed will be used to store riding lawnmower, lawnmower, snowblowers, garden tools, wheelbarrows, etc. used to maintain these grounds. The planned location off County Road 84, is not near any other buildings or residence, is shielded from traffic by trees and a privacy fence. All three owners are in agreement and support of this request. The city is planning to request an easement to construct a lift station for the Stubbs Bay Sewer Project on one corner of this outlot. They must have determined this location offers minimal disruption and has acceptable separation to prevent problems with noise or smell. A shed has far less negative effect. Sincerely, Mark A. Hunsley ✓p* I i (• I ‘ A. IT-— N 4 2# r -s’ mSS'i-:..'..;:..'...: J /ff:::^tm' "O' EN' ■•n- L • - ^ fin . .A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF^^ DAYSZDE DEACh ■ WHEREAS* thtt City-of Oroitw •* municipal co.*poratio OF9Anixad and oxistincj under the lawu of the State of Minneoot .iv; r^VW •'.'tj:WHEREAS* the City Council of the City of Orono has,a aubdiviaion regulations -for the orderly* economic and safe da^ of land within tne City; and . WHEREAS* tho City Council has considered the applies a subdivision plat by James McClcary hereinafter referred to .ja subdivider; and ssj23*“ ^:u ■ . '*> * - -- t 'Xj, . V> -i-V - . m.. t } w WHEREAS* on Juno 27* 1980* the City of Orono togethe tns subdivider entered into an agreement in which one of the a upon conditions granted the following variances to the standardai^ the LK-IA zoning district* such variances aro valid through Juaii^ 1990; . V ' V* -* * • . . > •J y.r 7 '**2 C«t Aaaat Tho UI*1A soaiag district aema or 07* 12*1 sf uf area; the aufcdi t|(‘antvd an .(vero^pt mintauoi lot ata** 'i ur 21•780 Hi. Lot *i.t auiir.i<r* rt*e Li**lA r^tfutroO O Hit ?r«*v^ *at *tiv ea%o4e'liV8 ter Ir A granted a aimsMie lot wi-tu- ?; iu«tt. atrevt Xetboca; The :.r*IA /oniitg tistrict raqolF—** a 59 .'net oetLaca fee a.I sttuctafau; tne subdAVJ * «Ma granted a 20 f«*nt liirwwt •.••tisuck. 4l Sidoyard SetbacAs The LR*iA soninu district iwpiliipitf a Id foot aetlMca tor all. r. *e.; il utructuraoi twbiiviJer IMS *tranrea t ;c>t ..ia«*Yard VHIEKEAS* the uiibdtvide; ::a.. or.xj. let..-: .i I! r.•*juirooentO-.J0F« IJhO^ri'iTJEi.* I* i. A I , # 1 •••; • . *'•••'^T.v. . V ^ *platting regulations ot the 1) Dedication on i:v; plat or •iratnao-.* Hi-t urttit*; easements. 2) Dedication on tn*.* pla.* c; ngn: '•a? • **’ poLli'7 roaa ara>w:i a.. C Hi. • Sk s*;••••,• . • • 3) Dedication to the City o; an o|ien s{Mce fasemofit over Outlot A* a substandard lot lucatud in tho LR-IA buildable easement . the construction of one single tomily resitluafiai dock only if a rwsidancu vsists on tne buildabio lot described above. • •• 4 zoning district to be combined with a - Ole parcel of .an.i within 2.000 teet* said r*- >nt limits the ui«e uf the riparian oetiot to * “4 . * . i-• « • • ,* Mm ^ V»> I - 9.n • .1 1 1., • .*:“.•rsrt'-'T* -, ¥ •• V c 4. •rJ7^v . • . -/‘j. ISJ Su?‘ir<.ufi^^*!:“‘"‘.“““"*»»►hf *? ®«tlot B, said o'jtlot will contain the folloving iiaprovcncnta; won«4n ..„^v . .* *, t** t ' .» i i . .^ *f .-»* V «.’KrVrcK?-« IM ,':V#?i3 ;N» \a‘ ' iTH -••iyi tanks loc-tuo on individual lota I, 2 and oiOCK Im st..r-i''^M driveway wili b« constructed to ^dunces; a sinqlc. new curb cut will be created on Castiake Street, 5) Concurrent with the creation of this shared .:~^i!L coimns area, the subdividcr has created a non exclusive private sewaqc treataent systen ease- ’ ’*®f®**» Cutiot B for the mutual .-"I? benefit of Lots I, 2 and 3, Block I includine a decoration of certain maintenance covenants and*^***!! bonefitinq Irjt owners coveii^^f!acjrees -o ^•.•r;•tJ::vt;•: 1 y r;jinr..?r; .trs.i pay the coat'^^ private scwaqe treatment • *' uiTli Iso'oo ^ 'n?c-f ^ . r »! ^;r . w- Cit of Orona*"^h«3I!K*^*^^**^ RESOLVED that the City Council *'of^ Countv °MiHn«IlS3 approves the plat of BAYS me DEACH, SienM^P-^. County, Minnesota; subject to the following conditions: 1) The well/hdnd pump located on chu abov# dMcrllMd property must be rill:-ii and scalu^J prior tu ^Jio ijsuanco of tho rxrut iauilJin^f p^^rstita f. -^>V* ^ Thu uXiatin^i ucci.^\.*» Count;. Hosui H4 ouMt b# removed and ^frounu cov«*r r».*utoieii at thu tiiau ^ ion or »»rj.ir«*a •riv^way loooCOd . *k ^ V># •**• 4 f ■>«k. ,*• >s • - «• ■.•<>• • . . •% *d. .• • • *♦- * m ttWX» j: .»a‘, time in tnw :ut.ure, ..ny line ut vnw individual ;;cw.i.f..- dis;.n..ul -yntci... Out lot S .ailu f.o meet tho r^^l:uri.•(l utaiidur Is of the Orono *.n uite acjaio c*;.u-, thv City will rwtuire the lanu-diatt r..'pUcefr.ffit .in«{ installation of an «il>Iiro(i?*iatw ;ii«!cd liul%:intj r.a:i>s. ) • . w ------ •... ♦. «■• •» * * J . •. ♦1* • *• a 1 *, ,• • .rf. - r o .A.V ^«V. T^ v, ‘ * • * . S %• '•V■ ^. ^ " V»•» - *C *■ ' ' 4> ■ J fw.i ' ' — " ^ ----------- ^ --r ^ jT ; *’ w ' ’ * -4- ' J^*~</*»J >»AsXf " .-. • -^ -i > »-*.«-Vk.*, 4 •» .». S£L} «V •' • • •r • V tt|4 HW^>*^’«-»'->.» — '■ I * < ' -r •■ • * 1 R‘:r ■•* • • Nff.j ■• •.•' •' *' •ii*.. •••■ . ' . ’4} .Vhm Mifiifliun floor lovol • 'property shall bo 932.5 ' VI ___ T7. •* > ' • ^ v.‘ »• l,l.. IT ^*** Flood Plain Nananaiiiai npjiPA ^.v: ■ State Suildlr*9 Code. Aj end Additional iniprovcinc setback from the laKeshc K&T-i>\ 5) The aforesaid plat rhal^ do ciiec by the Cit< of Orono with tho lUnnupin County iZeltaet^ oJ'Jh? a certified oriSiwl cJpy * additii«!lT*S^“‘*^‘'" *"** executed copies of the^*:, additional documents noted above. • a V- . , Ai,- -a , - * •' “ / ^ •' '^T"' *. ‘ ^^ , \, • t • * > this .^day^of ®‘ Orono.1981. i .. 1 * • •■. • I _ V-. ,. »T*«»>^'’ • ---- ? ■ v:.:'«: -'^ * ... - - ^4 w - • -^ • Wiilioa 0. Van »cst. Mayor ^.-ei a ^ ATTEST: - •• *3 a **•/ I •.^<J - . .^4 t: - r -«‘ « *»fc p c 'V. '*1 *- — e^\ r:. •'A <' *v o ’•"S- '^ ■ -^' i"' ' Iv.ti I • •: • •**.•*••.As#..* •'.•h* • ••• .• •. •. .•••*- ••; • f ^r.:* : .. '* V r . . • • .J". .s •• a * • %a —*a»M • .8^ nr.Srj]rwAtipi»^ %t‘'n\T-:A'i^f!f.>f fcfl *s,.*r.:.v : •/» r*» V-----v..Nr-r ;..- ••-•* •.. : fr‘ > * • ' •c*^ .# . - ..J-, •—. >t //. • ./. . ‘ •: : -! * . ;.••• ........... . •• **•'.*, * ■• • • .'*' • tV^Tme PRBStiiTSi ► *«U'*vr,‘** •• ••.t*'*v' ■ iJ***. •* * •■ WHBNBASt Jams MeClMty ENTS I *\t ; tV" * •• V . V •>. . •‘— V* HeClMrymnd ^ • -■ ; '. ••• *-'r hMbu^ and vif«« (harainaftar •"tha-aubdividar'') ara tna'iaa^ ' - • • i.that eertain pareal of roal aatata loeatad in tha City of Ocb Of Hannapin, Stata of Minnaaota. lagally daaeribad aa folloaat according io tha"piac oc that naaa on ciia and oi racerd in tho^^ of tha County Recordart in and tor Hannopln County} and ■ * .• i«*. ‘ w.'*' WHCltChS# tha Sttbdividara now daairo to craata _ axeXuaiva privata aawaga txaataent syataa aaaaaant ovar.ai^^ Outlot •* ■ _ __ L t- - . •_ .(harainaftor "tha aaaaaant*) ror tna mutual banasit oc iota a# 3, Block 1* t .•.^*nan, TMChCFOlIC, in addition to any aaaaaanta craaj any other oaclaration of Covananta* conditiona, Raatrictieiia*.aii|i| Eaaananta« tha Subdividara do by thia Oaclaration for thaoaalvoa( thair haira* auccaaaora and aaaigna, haraby craata a non*axcl«al^ aaaaMnt for aawaga traataiant purpcaaa over and acroaa tha aaai aa daaeribad above for tha mutual benefit of tota 1# 2 and*3#.^l^, ^ (harainaftor "banofitad lota") I and •' * tT WHBBEhS# the Subdividara are tha aola owner of^Ou and all tha banafitad lota; and WHCItEAS* the Subdividara intend that Outlot • conveyed to tha ownara of tha benefited lota aa tananta in MOW, THERCPORC, the above ownara. thoir haisorfM^ aubjaet to thia Declarations NOW, THERCPORC, auccaaaora (harainaftor rafarrad to aa ownara or I •;%V , .>,covanant'. and agree na follows r .;3 . i.. .-t.. * • ♦ o « a«%a« *• . V- . rvvv:*fj:.. .--l,:^*Tha’almaro of each Wnafitad lot Bhall ^ Outlet B a aaparata Craywatar Mound Syataa in the raopoeu'^ auita locationa ahown on tha diagram attached hereto as *nhaalt .j^jnj 2. Each lot owner ahall ba raaponaibla far_kha , * f- * of conattuction, maintonanca, repair and operation •« tna awt^ Mound Svatam. and for any damage caused to the :c ■^ 8 ^ I. S.-*.* </ f*'.Wf 1 < t- - % ^-►ac' ♦ f . 1 l«t.■ .'« •• !• - **^ • • *. *. *v * ** •*-* •*’• ;■ ‘ • • •'r -•• • « • • ■ •• 1-« t. • •,»• • ji». V; • *■ ■•■»•' . • ",.•». ^•' • * • •• -.* .* I • ir , *% •» « • r?».*5'firiiiii'lifll fi'i'* ,•• •'■e **• ^ I :i.; :\V;::=*3 ** • H f aetlvitlas Includat but «ro not lltnitod to tho followlngt .; . ;"JL ’ ^ "'•r' ' a) b) e) d) Vohlcular traffic... . X. '- ..* Cardenln9. - Construction and iaalntonanes of or buildings of any kind.inprovo«ont04^ . - ..*-«k' s) Parking HA# «..«K4K4..^.; W*****® ®Y"«” "«y «■• Outlet B for and otbsr pureoMorMSl^ - *V3!B . Without thJ-co^:.irn’'jjj"o'? sr ssnSr'^srSo^^is^s‘:ni;*oT.s?'bS:s?tu* >- p*« ?/iTSs: V-^ if r-W . ^ • :. ' .r P> % DsvahiA A» *il owner’s share of ouch costs shall bo ^ s:r2?:rr SSleSf P*rcantVJ*aS™“fJoT:2h*S “d!jrti"' -srs.’.siys.ts.s S'Sijast^st . ^ 7*^0 Owner may exempt himself from iia^iii^IL-SSSSi? S? Si'St!' ““ " « SSiitriJ •.‘•fit h...in *.« A# nf^nn*^*^ for herein, it is agreed by ail porB4oa thoB ( tSIJv^af'2**®*’*^-"®^® ®®*^ incurred by tho clBy of*^days of tho receipt of such ehacfoo# or oloo shall become a lien upon each Lot at the proportion on iAr- :. "iL ^_ _ _•- ' •-'t i." *>!'«* •#!mvrI % f • i;** ■ h ■v*^ t >rr—/'c. -7'"-- ' ^ ^V4w ft i«TS&5£ « 4^1-. •■>.=>r'';-J nKT^>. 'I • - ^ j St; V i * V ; *» Y 4«^ • • • .M r."":-?;-T^ ,r.nit . »v ’ Li^ ^ ^ ■vi* . v^ ' * , , vw ’•« V . •, fiOr;. ■' '•■ , ^.1^ - ■» » • -. r. ^ <•>■• ■ !,.<■■ vr-: hS-'i-iy '-'---' ■ ' ■ r.Vi.- - - - - • • l^'^T ? -r- 9 -J Hot*ry iPooiic 4 A A-. *•••'* ' ■*•••■ J «rw« * “• f ' ' . 'V » . *! , ■ . ' V. ’ • ', ' 4 1 * * • ■ ‘ . •' i * . . - •* • . ) • , -t.'. ^^ - *v ^ ,’ •<''•* ^ ‘ ' v '/^, '' ' r. c*^ ' • * • • "• - ' .*« / ’ .’ *^ - . ^ _________ ^ f V xA^A-> *r' </• , ^ •'4-^ 1 * ' * T* -r ^ ^ - rn.. ^ :-----A ■ . ----■> • T k^m ,«• y —. ■ ^ It. -rairtrtl i S/ifM Wrtt hue •fit/ V’J • COUMT^ Hf'ip NO. fi4- ,fU8 mkihr 0f% J^tjr M9, t9$e. mmt fip.n Utf /9^y£> /f/p d l*iiT wms f3^ ¥<3yC^ If If mecordfmy At Hn^ PtfA #r SmnjerHtfts^ |C2 hmnt iff f*® .*?! €Sb-. /) 3f»cAmprk t€ 9 ^ sf hWepTf^ ^ Pvmm Mi t f\5/r<E" ^^DDrriOr^ to L.^i\T •• 0 dpnthi irpn AU kp^nnaf 3he*^r% pn nhf prp t>rmm*a^ mr^ uhtfAy emtPm^rtfi prp tA*«v#t (4vf •* I I i‘ i //'/o N '» •> X'K^ V'C \L' -*'. \v^ ' ^ ;‘•^ ,W >; CITY of ORONO Munx'ipa] OfTicfS Pn-;t Office Box 66 Crjvtal Ba>, MinncviUi 55323-0066 June 29, 1992 Mr. Mark Husley 3464 Eastlake Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Re: Storage Shed Dear Mr. Ilusley: On April 13, 1992, this office notified you of permit requirements and zoning violations regarding a shed constructed on your property. As of this date a building permit or variance application has not been received. This letter is to inform you that if an application is not received by July 13, 1992, the City will issue citations and refer the matter to the City Attorney for further legal action. If you have any questions or if I can assist you in any way, please feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lj0}e Oman Building Official LO/ch cc; Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator Bruce Vang, Field Inspector % ♦ IT.LmiONE - 473-7357 • F\X • 473-0510 CITY of OUONO Municipal OrTiccs l\>st OlHcc Ik)x 66 Crystal Dry, MiiuicsoU 55323-0066 April 13, 199?. Mr. Mark Husley 3464 East Lake Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Re: Storage Shed Dear Mr. Husley: It has come to the attention of this department that a storage shed has been constructed or placed on your property. This letter is to inform you that a building permit is required for storage shed construction in the City of Orono. This shed's placement causes several problems. 1) The shed does not appear to meet the required property line and septic system setbacks. A) 10' side lot line setback B) 5' rear lot line setback C) 20' mound septic system setback. 2) Addition of shed causes property to exceed hardcover limitations. Records show property was at 25% hardcover maximum when house was built in 1984. TELKIMIONK-473*7357 • KAX-473-0510 CITY of ORONO MuiikiiXil Offices Post Ornce Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 April 13, 1992 Mr. Mark Husley 3464 East Lake Street Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Re: Storage Shed Dear Mr. Husley: It has come to the attention of this department that a storage shed has been constructed or placed on your property. This letter is to inform you that a building permit is required for storage shed construction in the City of Orono. This shed's placement causes several problems. 1) The shed does not appear to meet the required property line and septic system setbacks. A)10'side lot line setback B)5'rear lot line setback c)20'mound septic system setback. Addition of shed causes property ti exceed hardcover limitations. Records show property was at 25% hardcover maximum when house was built i."*. 1984. TELEI’MONF. - 47JI-7357 • K\X -473-0fl0 Mr. Mark Husley April 13, 1992 Page 2 Therefore the City must require you to remove the shed or call this department and discuss other options before April 27, 1992. If you have any questions or if I can be of assistance, please contact me at my office. Sincerely, , 6 Lyle Oman Building Official A'Wo—' LO/ch Enc. - Permit Application cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Adm. Bruce Vang, Field Inspector Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager I llllliil From: Date: 1 Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator October 7, 1992 Subject: #1765 John E. Moore^ 801 Tonkawa Road - Variance - Resolution Application: Request for hardcover and setback variances to construct additions to existing residence. Zoning District: LR-lB Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Resolution Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/23/92 Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 9/17/92 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of »ptomber 17th. Briefly, applicant requests a 0-75' hardcover increase from 10.0% to 10.3% for the construction of a kitchen addition to the existing residence. This specific addition creates an additional 90 s.f. of hardcover located 49' from the shoreline, although other existing portions of the house are as close as 44' from the shoreline. Additionally, applicant proposes a new second story above the existing master bedroom, which is located mostly within the 0-75' setback zone. Planning Connoission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this application at their September 21st meeting and voted 6 in favor, 1 against to recommend approval as submitted, finding that the hardship in this case was the present location of the house, of which approximately half is in the 0 — 75' setback area. Planning Commission members who viewed the site agreed with the applicant that there is virtually no extraneous hardcover in the 0-75' zone which could be removed to result in no hardcover increase in that zone. It was noted that the 75-250' and 250-500' zones are significantly below their hardcover allotments. Commissioner Cohen voted nay on the general principal that there should no net hardcover increases in the 0-75' zone. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution is attached for adoption by Council. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) PILE #1765 WHEREAS, John E, Moore (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 801 Tonkawa Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City’’^ and legally described as follows: Ex)iibit "A" attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence, surh additions constituting additional structure and hardcover in the O- /5* lakeshore setback zone where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED bv the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1765. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3.The Orono Planning Commissioa reviewe«; this application on September 21, 1992 and tecon .lendcd ap^.^oval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: a) Approximately 60% of tiie existing house and deck is located in the 0-75' setback zone. A proposed kitchen addition is proposed to extend an exterior wall approximately 5' nearer the shoreline than that existing wall of the house, yielding a 4?' lakeshore setback instead of the existing 54' setback Page 1 of 7 I ■llWMlIil 4. 5. at that location. Adjacent portions of the house currently exist as near as 44' to the shoreline. The interior layout of the house makes it difficult to expand the kitchen area without encroaching into the 0- 75' setback. c)The proposed second story addition above the existing master bedroom, which is 60' from the shoreline, will create no additional hardcover and will merely create new structure above the existing footprint. The increase in 0-75' hardcover as a result of the kitchen addition is 90 s.f. or an increase from 10,0% to 10.3% hardcover in the 0-75* zone. There is no extraneous hardcover in the 0-75' zone that could be removed to result in no net hardcover increase. The City Counc. 1 has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 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. CONCLDSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to permit the construction of a 90 s.f. kitchen addition located 49' from the shoreline and a second story above the existing master bedroom located Page 2 of 7 4 60' from the shoreline, constituting a structure and hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where structure and hardcover is normally not allowed, subject to the following conditions; 1. 2. 3. 4. October, ATTEST; Hardcover in the 0-75' zone is limited to 10.3% as shown on the site plan (Exhibit "B" attached). The current property owner and all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall not be increased above the cui'rently approved level in the 0-75' zone, and any proposed improvements on the property that will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City. Such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of existing hardcover. 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 (October 12, 1993). 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. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and ereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of 1992. Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(sT Page 3 of 7 1 ji STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss . COUNTY '.P HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of October, 1992, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal cor'ioration ar;f*. said instrument wao executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 7 ' Yrt ................... . - - - . i. > —^ m ^ rtlrrt rVi I I *t- Ulii^M . M . ^Tn STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ciay of 199 before me a Notary PubJic within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described In and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 7 t EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. tEGAL DESCRIPTION •. • . * . . ■ , . ' ’ ■ . * , • Parajgrapl^: • thac part, of Lot Auditor *5 Subdivision Nuiiber 217/ He.i^epl^ County, Minnesota lying Southeasterly of a line parallel * with and 300,fe^t southeasterly, measured at right angles from the northwesterly line of said Lot 1 and lying northerly of the following described line* tow;f; Beginning at' a point In the northeasterly, line of sald'Lot- 1 distant 12Q feet northwesterly, measured at right angles from the southeasterly line of said Lot: •thence.southwesterly parallel witH'Che southeaste-ly line of said Lot,. 251 feet rithence southwesterly deflecting to the left at an angle of 24 ‘‘ZS* • to.the shore of Lake Minnetonka and there terminating, according to the plat thereof on file ot of record in the office of the Register of Deeds In and for said County. f • • ' 0 • ,• Para£ra£h_2: All that part of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision Number 217, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying Northwesterly of a line parallel with and 300 feet Soutlieasterly measured at right angles from the north westerly line of Lot 1 and l>lng Southeasterly of a line drawn parallel with and 200 feet Southeasterly measured r*" right angles from the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1, accord. to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of Che * Registrar of Deeds in and for said County. 1 Nuiiber.2l'7, Lne parallel es from the : the In the jwesterly, said Lot; .ne of said eft at an' lere •f record In inty Sion Number a line ght angles sterly of a sured r*- accord of the r CITY OP ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MM 473-7357 ZONING FILE #1765 55323 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 9/23/92 TOs John E. Moore 801 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES TO:James B. Credit & Assoc. 67 8th Ave. NE Mpls., MN 55413 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF TING: 9/21/92 VOTE: 6 For 1 Against Planning Connission recoamends the following: Approval as submitted. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, October 12, 1992; meeting starts at 7:00 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. • J 1 i •5 i f' Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Pr<»: Date: Michael P. Gaffron^ Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator September 17, 1992 Subjects #1765 John E. Moore/James B. Cradit & Associates, 801 Tonkawa Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre minimum lot size Application: Request for hardcover and setback variances to construct additions to existing residence Variances Requested: 1.Hardcover variance in 0-75* zone to increase from 10.0% to 10.3%. 2.0-75* setback variance to allow construction of second story over existing master bedroom and 90 s.f. room addition over existing ground. Existing Proposed Required OR Allowed Variance Required 0-75* hardcover 10.0% 10.3%0%10.3% 75-250* hardcover 15.7%16.1%25% 250-500* hardcover 21.5%21.5%30%— Lake Setbacks: Dinette area 54*49*75*26* Adj. existing 2nd 44* +(no change)75*— story bedrooms New 2nd story 60*60*i n 15* above MBR List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Application Letter of Request Photos Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Site Plan Construction Plans Hardcover Worksheets Zoning File #1765 September 17, 1992 Page 2 Applicant proposes to construct a number of small additions to the existing residence. A portion of the existing residence is in the 0-75' zone, and two of the additions are less than 75' from the shoreline. The room addition labeled A on the site plan is a 5' x 14' dinette addition with 4' x 5' stoop, all on the main floor level. This bumpout is approximately 49' from the shorelin'^, although it is further from the shoreline than the adjacent second story overhanging bedrooms. Additionally, a second story excercise/office addition of approximately 16' x 24' is proposed above the footprint of the existing main floor master bedroom. This addition is 60' from the shoreline. Issues 1.Is there sufficient hardship/justification for the granting of hardcover and setback variances as requested? 2.Is there additional hardcover area in the 0-75' zone that could be reduced or removed to yie..d a net hardcover reduction or no net increase in the 0-75' zone? 3.Are there other locations in which the proposed additions cculd be accomplished outside the 0-75' zone? Action Requested 1.Make a recommendation regarding the hardcover and setback variances in the 0-75' zone. r. f 1 ' / A>f c- Aim. Miar. 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 tt fee) t .•*^7 f*®'# o O PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address <5<s> f ’nfjjcAujA Property Identif. Number (P.I.D.) Q3 H*7 OOP I Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey, ^ Date Property Acquired 'S3_ _ _ _(month/yoar) I (^■t)(do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land Present use of property; X residential Zoning District:_ _ _ _ _/_4_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ other (specifj^j(^2t]MK) era OF £?r« nmii OFFICE APPLICANT _________ Oi 225. OQ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phone (home) fOU ^250800 Codr m TOSt: Name t ASt>oc. x:i<c. (work) Address: ^*7 Au®.City; »»»*J . zip; OWNER (if different than applicant) Name nJq^(k> E. _ _ _ _ Phone (home) ___ Phone (work) V7/^78ZI Address: 7^*iigAuyA A.oa/c» CA^Ut Zip: ^S39C DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $. Describe request in detail A OAgiAwc® g«r tfc) f S^T- 04CK. lO 0»7g'A»C4 f gp AgR4_________-_____________________ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width X Hardcover Lot Coverage X Setback;Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:_ __ **5®c _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (attach additional sheets if necessary) information «ust be submitted by the application. deadline date in order for voar applicatxon to be consxdered comple_e^ l.V Completed Application Form 2:^Certi^ Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-60 Govt Cen er 348-3271). 3 V*Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). certificate of survey (-^ned by a licensed surveyor) hardcover calculations ,as required . (provide one (1) copy 8, xll for r#»nroduction) . Ufwrc pi**"-' 5. T^^raphio survey .(existing ar.d in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8H xll ). 6 X Sketches or plans . of floor. & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8% xli ). .t! afaddendL to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ‘S. ~ Additional items as may be requested by City staff 4nP#%-pnijit:lon has not been inclnded. APPLICANT'S SIGNATORB • ^ The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff Hme not c^ered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred irreview of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her. knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date Th^wne^r^er!^y ackowledges and agrees to this application and further ^lu^hori^es reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Conunission members,' and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this request Owner * s Signature E __________Date — Applicant must ha^ all submittals into the City offices 25 Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission ^ ^ third Monday of each month. Appl nts must be present at all review meetings of tbe Planning CooBu^sslon and Council. If an applicant i unable to attend a heduled meeting, please make , zoninq authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Buildi g Office of this change prior to the meeting. «•- - V ‘ rr;- t « ; • r \ A V I Twe- OF pn^jerr is Tfie Lo<^-rrc,^ o'r A-Pfpoyi r>7Arfcy (^o ^?F +4ooSfL A^c> ofec^c, ik ) t-M€- O-79 '-SCrBiveic- At^O T'rtt. -4o % Op +1ooSG^ f SUJi pc)6C tM-AT *3 L-o CA-r^^ /o *7 5 2 fo ' Ait-£v4 ^ Iaj A ich . »3 A lu — I^OCA-TMUP \vJ T+i& STL. Cot^rufiAL. Of -THE. 5. 5A«i|2.fcS. "TWE- Mous^ iS Bcr6c»e^ 3^-Vo yvc^s c/c A <a-^ A\-o fA06 f/iOC7 3i6o/g/Ci»<_ AO(?/7^04 j5 iO^o ft-f^ot:>6^^, O T^-C. (AJ0/UCSlr7 FycT€Aj’5fOCtY off cw F o/Z'T^/^ -2. 7^ F^Cr>?Q£?^ //Urjff^-osoccy' f ry?/ ^ i/m fZ.€. A/uy F-O 0 IT^0»/fzzyiTFAU o a. ^OuArUc. poo-r-xKi^^. JT aJ 0-7S ^ -SETf^ACIC. VA»e AOpffO <^Tk JLV ^0> ZJS /V<> •SWocun J |m A(LC<^ X Ivj -n4e- 7^ ’-^9o' U»e. l+A<J€^ 400£o okjuy ^06 , c>ui7li 7Z «*J 1*7 2 A(l«#a c" A^o “2Z. Aa^ D . A0D iT/ovja <- Uo.KJd. Ait,«c^ /3c:<loK*^J0Cl /by/ /U/»^Oiea^c, f^o Zbu/co/iud A 2-/^ ouAf2. TAt. f^ttoruxi^ ^K/'S'r/^C. (S>AH^e. MfcUJ /t/^o pc-oort- -r^+ze- l^ae 0 7< L /-I CT'ia F-f C>'7S^ ^oo,-r.o_ /'A " ■ >1* j# t -* t j -i ,*W» ..VJ / i' M ■#-.i.. » .• - *• * ’r*■f^ '^.’Ov^iT' T’ .4aa*^ • --'^BSlL^-——n■« iBi^iKCUiJtiu- ?.':, i.i. )■awBJKiun. -. 5.^ li I I >•.'/ V 1 j. ^^i* k .. M * -4 W .•■f- : - P» : , I :^ -^ / mbi !*V .^i''*-; •A.-'..' • • . z '• • % ‘ IT^i'v,-^ • f • ; ▼ l- _ •** #• *■•.vT ■ r .. V N \ N ^•T» 0^. • •» V»:«* i,\ '/^» . ..• i'r 1 V yMtvv ’^t^.'tp or T-M/s pa^jecr is TfiE. p(ic^fsr^ Lodx^-r/o^ o’r Aff povi "»^ricy C»o®/ <s>F +4ooS<L A^«> 0-75'‘S€TBi\c4C- ^ttftA Awo T'rtt. O-e-A/’A^/u/oC. -4o % Op +^'jS6, ^a,<^vc.€ f ^cui p06C TM./VT *5 L^oa-r/g^ |0 75'-2 fo ' ^ UjHiCiA »i> AL-<_ I jO(LA~^mu? \vj T+it St- Of THE. TVE- oa«0/^/A<^ Mouse- iS Bcrtue^ 3<=>-<»^ VfC^« A<s»£- fA06 f/iO^ S^e^CiOC- AOC>/7?Oaj^ Af^o /2.e^0/pec5, /^?.«3^AyO T/V^ p(i(ifi<^ uiBicv Vfp^^^our ^ -th^, < oe.ycAJA<^ IAJ0^UC*U7 PycTeiU ’ifoecY ofF CW -r/^/e ^^st" -2. 'YFM.S 7® P4ir>7on£C fAJ-re/e^^c-Y i ^/^/^/Z_€. A/U/ P~OVirAOnlt^ ^)C77^o^ SouArLE foo-r-A-<ifc-. JT/U r?/e C^^7S ■SGTf^ACIC- VA»e AODffO 0»JLV ^ AS *S4JooJ|0 | *J AfL€<^ A Ivj TT46- 75 -^90' -$6rft>A€<4:- U»e t^€- AtJOCo okjly '2.06 , TZ t/l i*J Art.^ ?>'j 1*12 A<Ik^ C." a^cj 22- Ijfi f^(LtcA D • AoPiT/ooa^ uo.^d. Aru«CA /3^0DK^fci5«it^ /bv^ /2^/*w^/g4/^c fbU/L^/JuC, A 2-'^ S-nJtUY Z€:'^sr'//uc. OUF>t. /S-K/Sr-zAyC 6Ait^£. 0* c^/r*A^ ^ /i^ A/LfeA% 'T'*-M«- E'<:/5‘»"<'xiC. A»7 -<^3 //Syf- -^g. peuj p<-oo^ aaaa O-TC .. oLop 5£TPPA^ TH.3^ O'-T?' ^o- AtXA 7eZs7Tr //. t^^rrrZ-^C^ pcArr 12^P. C rt #r*i I »n I? —lUMt-'llLlfitr / .7 ’ t '0) 17'23- .-■4?I7'A3 N 4^^ \ MEKWKA nortm arm ^ S & i •• .<' IV.-., u^in-93- ^0 / (?) .-*:7 7^ 'AT ' 10)PART 2 Ho 3\r PA>«TT\fOaO lA JiSf W^ ‘: 7 Ml) i \\\ ! PARTE SOTCO ns ^ ^*1' ^4kW '/3 /i v ♦ V 8 • -7 " ( *0J /... C2; »4» It 1 rt‘kV^ 1 -* J • ^» H OS-llt-^i • 'IJ RUN DATE Oa/26/925ATCH OOAPROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADDR , OHNER NAME * TAXPAYER NAME/AODR i t PROP ADDR OHNER NAME 'TAXPAYER NAME/AODR ‘ . PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR t I ■'ll t .1 . I i 4 * h •f'- 58 05-117-25 55 000500755 TOfKAWA RDJ A L ROGERSJOHN E S LOIS A ROGERS755 TOroCAHA ROLONG LAKE MN 55556 58 05-117-25 5<* 0007 00760 TONKAWA RO CHARLES A BERTELSON CHARLES A BERTELSON 760 TOr«(AMA RD LOtJG LAKE HN 55556 58 05-117-25 5<i 0010 00780 TONKAHA RD T R A T J HAUGAN TODD R A TERESA J HAUGAN 780 TONKAHA RO LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 08-117-23 21 0002 008A5 TONKAWA RD M ADELSHEIM JR ETAL M ADELSHEIM JR 825 TOr«<AHA RO LONG LAKE MN 55556 ♦.) \ , • ^ ♦ •: ; . f HENT4EPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST58 05-117-25 56 000500766 TONKAHA RDE A CALDWELL AMT CALDWELLEDWARD A A MARY T CALDWELL766 TONKAWA ROLOfJG LAKE MN 55556 58 05-117-25 36 0008 00770 TONKAWA RO MAUREEN LOUISE LAJOY MAUREEN LOUISE LAJOY 770 TO^A(AWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 58 05-117-23 36 0013 00875 PARTENWOOt ;.A J B MCELHANEY/J B MCELHANEY JACK B A JUDY B MCELHANEY 875 PARTENFOOD LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI655601 *: • 1',^! '■ :: »• ::: F I ; V ■ •• II: ■I •. I ^ s • PAGE38 05-117-23 36 000600750 TONKAWA RO HENRY E BENSON ETAL • HENRY E BENSON 750 TONKAHA RD LOfJG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 36 0009 00776 TONKAWA RD ANN C FISHER ANN C FISHER 776 TO^KAWA RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 58 08-117-23 21 0001 00801 TOtKAHA RO J E A L B MOORE JOHN E A LOURDES B MOORE 801 TONKAWA RO L0^4G LAKE MN 55356 i' i• • Ft ‘ ^■Si "y‘: <. i • 1 ' ^ i I ■ rL 4 t 38 08-117-23 21 0003 00867 TONKAWA RD G A C COLLINS III GEORGE/CHARLOTTE COLLINS III 867 TOWAWA RD LOr<G LAKE m 55356 TOTAL BATCH 006 00011 I -t i ■I. 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUtNY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. * i i DATI *1 *« p , f I ' J:' ' •' j \ ir'-#r '■ ■ • if ; . ; . f i; ...I ' t • \ .• • *1 M :?•! • ;•!•I »: y I • f I t. .'M V «•• ? U I:’ * [*• .• V:4. ‘ V fv ».* I’ • 't-j' ! . 1 •' .h:'. ,, ,5!* •I!i' -ii. ^ » .. • * N- n * » l\W I f f :l . . ^ ' . ..M l f i.:i ■ f { * t I ‘ ! I I * • ♦ II '4* REPORT NO. PX4B5401 PAGE 9 05-117-23 39 0006 50 TONKANA RD RY E DENSON ETAL RY E BENSON TONKANA RD 5 LAKE MN 55356 05-117-23 39 0009 79 TONKANA RD C FISHER C FISHER TONKANA RD S LAKE NN 55356 Oa-117-23 21 0001 n TONKANA RD ALB NOORE 1 E A LOURDES B HOORE TONKANA RD BATCH 1 t *1 MA O H* *1 n 09 M 9 O n xrf l» ••• :Xrt ‘ r? 19 Q. m 3 1 19 1 arit <« »9 » o a 'I c 3 o n • O •**T> *1 n♦- rt ft :r 9 •a;- r» ft • arft •1 ft •i*», © #-.• * ft fH ^ «i9 ft r»»ft O ^ ft ft a r ift 95T * © •- O • n irnriirr •• ' O 9" y ft ft n ft ft 0> ►- € 9 b ►-ft-10^f9b^ aftSr^ft&C^ft O ft ft 9 ^ ft rt tJ r». r# TH* 9* ft QV< 9» 3 O ft c *1 0» ft,9 ft* I— rt ft *ftvc Miac • • • 9 ftiO 9* .ft e*-© a «t. ^ft 9 ft ^ ft ft ♦-* ft 9 *1 ►*»ft 3r9 9 ft ft O C CL ft ^ M •1 O ft 6 O O * t ft MO C ft ft»* ft ft o ft» ft ft • • ft o ft 5 sr r ft» »i r- ft o CL o ft H* ft »< ft ft ftS< . - Oft ft ft ►-*. o O i-*ft«-*ft9» C O *109 9 *1 9 ft ^ >ft aft o 9>< «e ■ c a o a ►- o 9 ftO ft it ^ ?S““S2Sr?5j:5' 2" 8 -V* •15515.-5-.. O ft 9 ft • ft ft ft ft ft cv ft r- i-,a •• ft* Oft 1 mar»-i ft ft ft >< ft :r o ft ft ft ft ft C ft 9*ft ft 9 c ft - ft ft ftit *1 ft ft aft ft rf am s|-trr* s-jc e L-9 ft ft ft rt ft ft'ft C ft ft . i I«t * '*• 98^ *'•ft fT rt ft Mfi *. ft rt tft ftOrtftyfto- ^ rt ft* •* 0 9Q0ftp|l^ft 5 n tft 1 9 II ftftH|i7«l*tftC. mjr. ft«4 ft ' rt jjf . • ft ft m *-O ft ft ot • M mft C r^ 9*ft •- ft t ft f» O r» O ft »1 »-• 3 7 0 a »- ft ft t X 9 9 2 aft It ft c M*ri o *- A 3 m ft . O' Qt ft ft to »i rt . O O It r* O' ^ Mift gift artft ft g; C O _9 m ft rt. NC*lftft mm Cf- '• * ft 0 »«• rt ft ft o ft maft T «1 ft O ft ^ ft ' •t *1 f- ^ . .V. a ft ft ose 9r “ft« 4» #t^fs| %. • -!r • C^** • 7 ft m , ^ 3 \ ft •■i** <*^ * JP r» »t •- «piTJ M •• M ;) o n *1 ft 7i» a «i PI ar ft rt • ft •-• xn 1 a 1 ya • •a *1 =>9 n • O M a<» a ac •- Ml o • «i S ^ ••I ft ►- ft t-» n. ft T b tk t^ft »«ft un.rt tr • 3*ai o • c t o* *.3 •• •— ft a *fti4 »tix • 3 wio a* • f XIat- *ic a m »- ft • ft 3 *1 ►t»# ya 3 It rt O C » • V* *<**1 O • O O O * X»#oOCftf<i‘ m ft Q Ml ft a •m o m o y r- ^8S':‘5a-u« :, • o PC a r * c**n T’n »-f«iaft aa a f«k o _>%a S8 .•-• »t» 1 r* a o o. •— *^ 6 a ^ ft PIS< a fe •■I. a *<> -a a »t ^ •, t'X o #^c#t • * i-« la a X •-; P ' a ft a — . a i< a o a a ft f* oOf-ftfc*ap» 3 n 9 M • 2-^ > •t t, I % O ft f H f* g^Sjf RiSta^is ?r^a?lS9i;:SgS/* ft w a »-• a c aTa a 3 c a - a !T 5 • • »«ft ft ftva ^ I ?• ® f» ? ^ 2 y® ^ «5i*^ ■ " a » a a f- ft|o a mm ' a »t»a c f* ar a •- a ^ a ft o ft o f a •- 3 sro 4f-*a a.'•52?•—ft Of— 1 3 9%m, fm' m a a ft a a flf •O — ft ft a Mi% a ftiaa ]T . a a a a a*' Q -a si t€ *1*•* an _ ^ .o a *1 4*' o 3 f C** * i a .. ft • |i ft ***Ma«« . .. x a M .3 * a • •*. » JL.•tfnuffthfiiii Vi HARDCOVER CALCULATIOH WORKSHEET SETBACK lofie: (circle omc ) 75-2-0 E xisting Hardc3ver in Zone 25Q-5G0' EOC-IC'CO' A. House length B« (lAR^E c. D riveway D. Sidewalk . PA74( F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY PLASTIC sheeting G, Other X X Tctal Hardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone S.F. WIDTH S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F, HjO S.F. •A S.F. S.F, ar 44'Z-^S.F. s S.F. S.F. S • F • •S.F. S.F. * ,S.F. S.F. S.F. 1 Zone S.F. N Zone 2% O(o(r^S.F. B X 100 - A B % >- HARDCOVER CALCULATICfl W(3RKSHEET__ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE OME) 0-75' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. House B. Garage c. Driveway Di Sidewalk e. Patio / DECK F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY PLASTIC SHEETING G. OMR LENGTH X X X X WIDTH X . Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone /O4-a] 71^ !50-;C0' 500-1000' ^ooo S.F. 174 S.F. /£>0 • S,F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^357 _S.F.• S.F. '^4'2_4 S.F. S.F. S.F. •S.F. •S.F. S.F. • • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. # k°! n<^4 S.P. ) ion - /6 • • • #,•» • • •*•• • EHft* % L HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (ctRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' ^250-5005C0-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. Houflc /Cnh//$> ■/ '‘P’- LENGTH X X '/-Co WIDTH gg-Z- ■ S.F. S.F. S.P S.F. B. Garage c. D riveway 3 0 7 2.0 7^0 3 9 S.F. S.P. S.F D. Sidewalk ^ E. fA«o/ F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , . PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other 5 _ X - X /2^ Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone 90 7 rr. //. Co4 S.F. S a ^ . S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. S.P S.F B go.. X 100 'PJ. 5 A S.F. 2 f To:Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorser City Administrator Fron: Michael P. Gaffron^ Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Date October 8, 1992 Subject: Status Update - Lake Minnetonka Shoreland Ordinances The following is a table indicating the status of Shoreland Ordinance review for each of the fourteen Lake Minnetonka cities. Seven of the fourteen cities, including Orono, have submitted ordinances to the DNR, and DNR has mailed formal notification of flexibility requests to the fourteen mayors. PRELIM.ORONO ORONO FORMAL DNR ORONO ORONO REQUEST COUNCIL RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY COUNCIL RESPONSE CITY RECEIVED REVIEW IP ANY NOTIFICATION REVIEW IP ANY Orono Deephaven Excelsior Greenwood Minnetonka 3/11/92 7/20/92 Mtka. Beach - - —10/8/92 CC7/17/92Minnetrista Mound 6/11/92 7/13/92 7/17/92 7/18/92 8/10/92 Shorewood Spring Park 7/21/92 8/10/92 10/8/92 Tonka Bay Victoria 9/1/92 **10/8/92 Wayzata 7/31/92 8/10/92 -10/8/92 Woodland --—10/5/92 While the City has only made a written response to the formal flexibility request from Minnetrista, Council has chosen to not respond formally to any of the preliminary requests. We now have the formal flexibility requests from each of the cities who sent a preliminary request, and also formal requests from Minnetonka Beach and Woodland who did not send a preliminary request. Council has until mid-November to formally respond to the flexibility requests from Minnetonka Beach, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Wayzata, and Woodland. Their flexibility requests are attached as a separate memo. Staff is advised that at the next LMCD technical review committee on October 20th, presentations of proposed shoreland ordinances will be made by Excelsior, Victoria, Minnetonka and Greenwood. To:Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator October 9» 1992 Subject: Formal Flexibility Requests - Spring Park, Wayzata, Tonka Bay, Minnetonka Beach, Woodland Attached are formal flexibility requests from the Department of Natural Resources for the above noted cities. The following table provides a comparison of their requests. Lot Ar«a Lot Width Residential Density Ivpervioas Surface Coverage Onaet#ered structure Lakeshore Height Setback Lake Lot Lockbox Road Allowance Setback Spring Park waysata X X X X X X Tonka Bay Minnetonka Beach Woodland Orono X X X X X X X Please review the information submitted with each request. The City has forty-five days in which to respond. Navarre Coma^rcial Zone Hardcover You will note that a number of cities are proposing to grant excess hardcover allowances in their commercial zones via a "Shoreland Impact Plan/Condltlonal Use Permit rather than through a variance process which would be necessary under Orono's adopted Shoreland Ordinance. Prior to the Shoreland Ordinance, Orono's B-1, B-3, B-4, and B-5 zones were not subject to hardcover regulations. The acreage and approximate impervious surface percentages of these zones in Navarre are shown in the table below. Commercial areas (including the B-2 zones) constitute approximately 1% of Orono's area that is subject to Shoreland Ordinances. The remaining 99% is zoned Single Family Residential. Council may wish to consider whether use of a Shoreland Impact Plan/CUP would be more appropriate for commercial shoreland development than the variance process, only from the standpoint that DNR may object to the hardcover variances we likely will have to grant as Navarre redevelops. ACREAGE IN APPROXIMATE ZONE SHORELAND DISTRICT HARDCOVER % B-1 13.8 ac.75% B-3 2.6 ac.85% B-4 16.3 ac.30% B-5 4•2 ac»75% B-2 14.3 ac.60% All LR- and RR-4,820 ac.12.4% Distrlcts Weighted in Shoreland Average: 12.9% All Conun'1 51 ac.57%\ in Shoreland ) Total 4,871 ac._ _ _ _^ / Shoreland RESIDENTIAL ZONES HARDCOVER ANALYSIS: Avg. HS. Footprint 3,000 s.f.# of Residences in Avg. Acc. Bldg.750 s.f.Shoreland District: 2,130 Avg. Driveway 15x150 2,250 s.f. Avg. Mlsc. Hardcover 2,000 s.f.2,130 X 8,000 -391 ac. 8,000 s.f.43,560 Roads: 225,000 lin. ft. of roads in Shoreland District at an avg. hardcovered width of 40' « 40 x 225.000 » 207 ac. 43,560 207 + 391 ■ 12.4% Hardcover 4,820 ? r II J ill PHONE NO. STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATUR^r-^Se^pCES WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. HOT*' ni (612) 772-7916 FILE NO. October 5, 1992 [OCX I • ^ • » S iG9? The Honorable Skip Johnson Mayor, City of Mound 3018 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor Johnson: REVIEW AND COMMENT ON CITI SPRING PARK'S ^QUEST FOR FLEXIBILITY FROM STATE OF MINNESOTA'S SHORELAMg STANDARDS As required by the statewide shoreland management standards, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DITR) and the City of Spring Park are hereby notifying your city of Spring Park's request for flexibility from the statewide standards as outlined below, and in the enclosure prepared by the city's consultant. In accordance with the rules, the Commissioner and the city must solicit the input and approval of other governmental bodies that could be affected or impacted by the alternate controls. The city and the DNR are asking that your city provide its review and comments, if any, to either DNR or the city within 45 days of the date of this letter. If no response is received prior to then, we will assume that your city has no concerns with the neighboring city's proposal. The City of Spring Park is requesting flexibility from the following statewide standards: 1. Lot size, 2. Residential density, 3. Impervious surface coverage, and 4. Building height. Since the city'o request is complex, a thorough discussion of this request is attached for you and/or your staff to review. Spring Park has presented the above requests for review and discussion by DNR and representatives of 11 Lake Minnetonka cities who are working together as a Technical Review Committee for the purpose of reviewing and discussing individual city's flexibility requests affecting Lake Minnetonka. No problems with the city's request have been noted at any of those meetings. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER L. comments to me at the address listed above within 45 days* If ^ri”us^”s|?Lg"Taric°r'planni^^^^ ^^niul^an^ at°ilf-96^\, “ceil Strauss of this office at 772-7910, or me at 772-7916. Sincerely, Edward L. Pick Shoreland Hydrologist Enclosure cc:John Line Stine, Regional Hydrologist Ogbazghi Sium, Sjipervisor, Land Use Management Unit City Administrator/Clerk I [TTA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. C URBAN PLANNING DESIGN MARKET RESEARCH MEMORANDUM TO; FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO; LMCD Technical Review Committee Alan Brixius 16 September 1992 Spring Park - Shoreland Flexibility Request 175.01 - 92.01 Spring Park is a nearly fully developed community having only 13.8 acres'of developable vacant land remaining. The City has developed with a diverse lana mix including single family, multiple family, commercial and manufacturing uses over its history. Future development is anticipated to be primarily infill development. Based on the historical development of the City, the^ direct application of the shoreland standards would result in non- conforming status for uses in all zones. The potential for much pr all of the City to become non-conforming complicates landowners rights, inhibits development, and affects the City's tax base. • In this regard, the City of Spring Park is requesting flexibility from the shoreland standards in the following areas: 1. 2. 3. 4. Lot Size Residential Density Impervious Surface Coverage Building Height The request for flexibility is based on background technical data that has been physically inventoried and which is used to specify areas in the standards which the City will reqfuire flexibility. The request will also demonstrate how Spring Park will address each flexibility item through its Zoning Ordinance. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.- Suite 555 • St. Louis Park. MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636-Fax. 595-9837 L-.... 1. LOT SIZE Kxiafclnq rnnditlons. Due to the historical development of Spring Park with small lot lake cottages, over two-thirds of the lots in Spring Park are under 15,000 square feet. Table 1 illustrates existing City lot sizes. The historical development of the shoreline with small lots has also created a housing density which is higher than allowed by shoreland standards. Current City policy controls development on substandard lots and encourages lot consolidation. TABLE 1 EXISTING R-1, R-2, R-3 LOT SIZES Lot Size in Square Feet Total Number of Lots 9,999 or Less 10.000 - 14,999 15.000 - 19,999 20.000 or More 102 61 35 55 253 TABLE 2 EXISTING R-1, R-2, R-3 LOT WIDTHS Lot Width Total Number of Lots 50 -Under 109 51 -60 62 61 -75 33 76 -100 30 100 - Above 19 253 Table 2 represents the existing condition of lot widths for parcels within the R-l, R-2, and R-3 Districts. One hundred seventy-one lots or 68 percent of the lots are 60 feet wide or less. Only 19 lots are 100 feet wide or greater. As can be seen from the exis-ing lot size and width tables, the majority of the lots are 15,000 square feet or less and under 75 f®®*: wide. The potential to divide existing lots is extremely limited due to the small amount of existing lots large enough to divide. <pj^0 city* s curxBnt bas6 minimum lot sizB is 10,000 sguars fset. The current Zoning Ordinance limits development on substandard lots to single family only provided that: 1. 2. The lot has been assessed for sewer and water. Setback and yard requirements shall be in compliance. Spring Park believes reliance on setbacks and impervious surface limits control the environmental factors of development on small lots, while protecting the development rights of the property owners. Spring ParK also currently has policies, which will be part of the shoreland regulations, which requires consolidation of substandard lots when reconstruction is proposed. Through this policy of lot consolidation, single family density will actually decrease over time. Spring Park hopes to continue this means of implementation to promote private redevelopment of the substandard lots. Tnmi^ngntatlon. Spring Park's implementation will consist of retaining the existing minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet which currently conform to the DNR model standards for non-riparian lots and require that where applicable, substandard lots be required to be consolidated when redevelopment is proposed. Any development on substandard lots will be required to comply will all setback and impervious surface standards. The City currently does not have minimum lot width standards in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. The City will impose a 50 foot minimum lot width in response to the DNR's request for a lot width standard in Spring Park's R-l and R-2 Zoning Districts. provision will not be imposed on existing lots of record under single ownership. There is currently a 100 foot minimum lot width in the R-3 District. 2. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY Existing Conditions. In order to determine overall compliance with the DNR density standards, a density calculation was performed. The purpose of the residential development density calculation is to determine the maximum allowed by the DNR model and compare t is to the existing development conditions in Spring Park. To determine the level of density increase that may be allowe , theoretical maximum development scenario was calculated based upon the residential density standards of the DNR. This exercise was recommended by the DNR in other studies as a method to compare City's existing shoreland development with what could be considerea to be a msLximum "development cap". The exercise include calculation ot the gross residential zoning district acreage within Tier I and Tier II-V properties of the Shoreland District. Tier I properties are those which are riparian to the lake to a depth of 200 feet from the ordinary high water level (OHWL) . Tier II-V properties include the non-riparian properties 200-1,000 feet from the OHWL. Table 3 illustrates this exercise; TABLE 3 SPRING PARK MAXIMOM SHORELAND DENSITIES Mciximum Standard Density MaximumAllowedIncrease Tier Net Area Units Multiolier Allowed Units I 1,415,997 94 50%141 II 1,089,098 109 100%218 III 460,998 46 200%184 IV 244,000 24 200%96 V 100,000 10 200%40 3,310,093 283 679 Existing Housing Units:937 As can be seen from Table 3, there is over development in the number of residential units allowed in the shoreland area based upon the DNR density standards. There are currently 937 housxng units (252 single units and 681 units in multiple family structures) in Spring Park while the model ordinance would only allow 283 single family units. Even with the provision of the density increase multiplier, which allows for 679 units, Spring Park is still 258 units aibove this limit. Due to the number of existing multiple family buildings, Spring Park cannot comply with the density standards in the DNR Ordinance. Multiple family accounts for 73 percent of Spring Park's total housing, while single family accounts for only 27 percent. The loss of these existing multiple faunily \mits to Spring Park, if they were not allowed to rebuild to their existing density, would be detrimental to the City's population base a-’ tax base. A loss in population would affect Spring Park througn reduced State and local aid. The current population is also necessary to support the local economy. The City's tax base would be affected through the loss of these revenue generating properties which are needed to cover the City's debt structure of municipal services. I i j The City has historically viewed high density residential in a positive light and as a result, would not adopt an Ordinance which would make these multiple faiTiily units non-conforming and thus limit their redevelopment potential. The multiple family housing provides a unique opportunity for people who cannot afford single family homes on the lake, these housing alternatives do not readily exist in other communities around the lake. Spring Park has historically promoted high density residential development as an alternative to single^ family housing which is mostly unobtainable to many people wishing to live by the lake. This philosophy of providing different types of housing^ is consistent with the regional housing objectives of the Metropolitan Council. TtfipT^TTu»nt:atlon. In general terms, density is to be restricted to DNR requirements or less in areas designed for low density development. In areas characterized by high density developments such as the multiple family structures that exist in the R-3 District along Shorerine Drive, residential densities may be allowed to the existing R-3 density of 13 units per acre. The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide for diversity of types of residential development in order to continue the vitality and strength of Spring Park. The existing multiple family buildings that currently exceed the DNR's max.i*mum density shall not be deemed non-conforming in regards to setbacks, density and height and may be re-established provided the setbacks, density, and height are not increased. The following Zoning Ordinance excerpt addresses existing multiple family buildings; 1.Multiple family buildings within the R-3 District existing prior to the enactment of this Ordinance shall not be deemed to be non-conforming in regards to density, setbacks, and height and may be re-established if partially or totally destroyed by fire, wind,earthquake, explosion, flood, or other casualty provided the density, setbacks or height of the buildings will not be otherwise increased. 2.Multiple family buildings which do not meet the required 50 foot shoreland setback within the R-3 District destroyed to 100 percent or their total value may be re-established at the same height and density. The City Council may impose greater shoreland setbacks than existed previously if determined that the site is capable of accommodating the equivalent density in an alternative building design. . i i In order to control the multiple faunily densities on any redevelopment plan for the vacant sites within Spring Park, the City will implement open space and centralization requirements which will control the amount of green space on the lot and require the centralization or clustering of development on the lot. These requirements will also control the visual impact of the development. Densities will be controlled through the following requirements; 1. Lot Area: Density a. b. The ma:cimum density for multiple family dwellings will be determined based on the following criteria: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Minimum base lot size of 15,000 square feet. Compliance with required parking setbacks Compliance with required parking standards. Compliance with required building height restrictions. Compliance with the impervious surface standards for the respective district. Provisions for on-site storm water retention and/or compliance with City storm water management plan. Compliance with docking standards of the Lake Minnesota Conservation District. Multiple family developments shall contain open space meeting the following criteria; (1) At least twenty-five (25) percent of the total development area shall be preserved as open space; (2>Dwelling units or sites, land covered by road surfaces, parking areas, or structures are developed areas and shall not be included in the computation of minimum open space; (3)Open space shall include areas with physical characteristics unsuitable for development in their natural state, and areas containing significant historic sites or unplatted cemeteries; (4)The shore impact zone, based on normal structure setbacks, shall be included as opon space. At least fifty (50 percent of the shore impact zone area of existing developments or at least seventy (70) percent of the shore impact zone area of new developments shall be preserved in its natural or existing state. I c. Centralization and design of facilities and structures shall be done according to the following standards: (1) Dwelling units or sites shall be clustered into one or more groups and located on suitable areas of the development. They shall be designed and located to meet or exceed the following dimensional standards for the relevant shoreland classification: setback from the ordinary high water level, elevation above the surface water features, and maximum height. (2) Structures, parking areas, and other facilities shall be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, or color, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. Vegetative and topographic screening shall be preserved, if existing, or may be required to be provided; (3) Accessory structures and facilities shall meet the require'd principal structure setback and shall be centralized. Density will further be controlled by requiring any new development redevelopment to comply with specific standards in^ the ordinance which address maocimxim density, lot size, impervious surface, compliance with the Storm Water Management Plan. In summary. Spring Park will maintain a density it can live with by maintaining conformance with setback, storm water management practices and vegetative screening. 3. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE Conditions. The purpose of the lot coverage inventory is to determine by zoning district, the areas of the City which contain lot coverage below and above the maximum allowed by the DNR shoreland standards. The City was broken down into its zoning districts and the net area of each district was calculated. Using aerial photographs superimposed on section maps, lot coverage was determined for each zoning district by calculating the footprint area of all structures, accessory structures, and driveways. This total provided the amount of impervious surface coverage per zoning district. Table 4 provides the total area and impervious surface covered in each zoning district. » w*. -I TABLE 4 SPRING PARK SHORELAND TOTAL AREA AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE BY ZONING DISTRICT Zoning District R-1 R-2 R-3 P C-1 C-2 C-3 M Total Area Impervious Allowed Surface Impervious 2,938, 346, 1,227, 314, 1,626, 387, 85, 783, 100 800 000 300 766 200 000 666 477,600 49,450 522,625 65,950 1,398,636 320,000 79,000 656,100 734,525 86,700 306,750 78,575 406,691 96,800 21,250 195,916 Percent Covered 16 14 42 21 86 82 93 83 As can be seen in Table 4, the amount of lot coverage within the R- 3 District exceeds the DNR maximum impervious surface standards, yet because the R-1 and R-2 districts are developed below thxs standard, as a whole, residential development within Spring Park is developed below the DNR impervious surface standard of 25 percent. There is a surplus of 78,300 square feet in the Residential District which could be covered by impervious surface. Commercial and industrial zoned land has, however, exceeded the allowed lot coverage by 1,733,079 feet. This over coverage is due to the historic development of the City which includes extensive commercial . and industrial development within the Shoreland District. To accommodate redevelopment in the City, Spring Park proposes the following regulations on impervious surface coverage. Single family development within the R-1 and R-2 Districts on legal lots of record that fall below the minimum lot size and width standards will not be restricted by i^ervious surface standards, but will be allowed to build only within the required setbacks. The setback limits on these small lots will greatly reduce the available impervious surface on these lots. Development within the R-l District will be ^®stroxted to 25 percent impervious surface. Development within the R-2, R-3 ana e Districts will be held to the following restrictions: a. An existing site which is being altered, remodeled, or expanded without exnanding the existing impervious surface may be allowed through the plan review process established in Section 17 of this Ordinance. b. An existing site being altered, remodeled, or expanded which expands the existing impervious surface coverage ^y t»e allowed through the plan review process established in Section 8 17 of this Ordinance provided the .impervious surface coverage does not exceed seventy-five (75) percent of the total lot and provided the following stipulations are met: 1. the lot shall be an existing lot of record. 2.All structures, additions, or expansions shall meet setback and other requirements of this Ordinance. 3. 4. The lot shall be served by municipal sewer and water. The lot shall provide for the collection and treatment of stormwater in compliance with the City Storm Water Management Plan if determined that the improvements will result in increased runoff directly entering a public water. All development plans shall require review and approval by the City Engineer and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Development within the C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4 and M Districts will be held to the same regulations as the R-2 and R-3 Districts, however, commercial and industrial development may be allowed to exceed 75 percent impervious surface by conditional use permit provided the following criteria are met: a.Impervious surface coverage may be allowed to exceed seventy- five (75) percent of the total lot or exceed existing conditions on the lot which are over seventy-five (75) percent provided the following stipulations are met: 1.Improvements that will result in an increased rate of runoff directly entering a public water stell have all structures and practices in compliance with the City Storm Water Management Plan in place for the collection and treatment of storm water runoff or will be constructed in conjunction with a conditional use permit application. 2.A conditional use permit is submitted and approved as provided for in section 18 of this Ordinance. c.All the conditions in l.b. (1-4) above are satisfactorily met. b.Measures for the treatment of storm water runoff and/or prevention of storm water from directly entering a public water include such appurtenances as sediment basins (debrxs basins, desilting basins, or silt traps), installation of debris guards and microsilt basins on storm sewer inlets, oil skimming devices, etc. I1 i. 4.BUILDING HEIGHT Existing Conditions. An inventory of building heights within the R-3 District was conducted to determine the maximum and average height of the existing buildings. Tmnlementation♦ The City is requesting that the building height in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Zoning Districts be three stories or 36 feet. City Efforts to Control Shoreland Development. In light of the City^s request for flexibility, the City has also adopted policies and plans which help establish consistency with the Shoreland Ordinance. The City's adopted Comprehensive Plan creates policies and goals to improve the impacts of its existing development on Lake Minnetonka. The City is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan so that its storm water measures will be consistent with the DNR shoreland regulations. The draft Shoreland Ordinance proposed is more restrictive than the model in that no water oriented accessory structures are allowed including boathouses. This will help Spring Park maintain a waterfront development less cluttered with buildings and boathouses. The City has also established policies which have eliminated tandem lot splits which were occurring in deep waterfront lots. STATE OF I^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONENO. (612) 772-7916 October 6, 1992 FILE NO. cmrcf CRONO The Honorable Jerry Rockvam Mayor, City of Spring Park ft 29^4 P.O. Box 335 n ^ Spring Park, MN 55384 Dear Mayor Rockvam: REVIEW AND COMMENT ON CITY WAYZATA^S R^t)EST FOR FLEXIBILITY FROM STATE OF MINNESOTA'S SHORELAND MANAGEMENT STANDARDS As required by the statewide shoreland management standards, the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the City of Wayzata are hereby notifying your city of Wayzata s request for flexibility from the statewide standards as outlined below, and in the enclosure prepared by the city's consultant. In accordance with the rules, the Commissioner and the city must solicit the input and approval of other governmental bodies that could be affected or impacted by the alternate controls. The city and the DNR are asking that your city provide its review and comments, if any, to either DNR or the city within 45 days of the date if this letter. If no response is received prior to then, we will assume that your city has no concerns with the neighboring city's proposal. The City of Wayzata is requesting flexibility from the following statewide standards: 1. Lot width, 2. Residential density, 3. Impervious surface coverage, and 4. Building height. Since the city's request is complex, a thorough discussion of this request is attached for you and/or your staff to presented the above requests for review representatives of 11 Lake Minnetonka cities who a - together as a Technical Review Committee for reviewing and discussing individual city s flexibil y affecting Lake Minnetonka. No problems with the ci y qu have been noted at any of those meetings. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER WAYZATA SHORELAND FLEXEBELITY REQUEST AUn 1992 RECz...^ REGION' 2 WATERS INTRODUCTION The City of Wayzata has developed adjacent to two major bodies of water, Lake Minnetonka and Gleason Lake. These natural amenities add significant aesthetic, recreational and economic value to the community. Shoreland in Wayzata and Lake Minnetonka has historically developed with a productive commercial and residential base in its downtown area and very low density single family development in the remaining area. Gleason Lake shoreland has developed with a variety of single and multiple family uses. The potential for additional new residential development exists on Gleason Lake, while Lake Minnetonka has potential sites for commercial and residential development/redevelopment. Therefore, flexibility in shoreland standaras which protect the shoreland areas and quality of the water, while allowing controlled development and redevelopment is of highest importance to Wayzata. Based on the historical development of the City, the direct application of the shoreland standards would result in nonconforming status for uses primarily in the commercial areas, but also in residential areas throughout the shoreland area. The potential for a large ^irea of the City to become nonconforming complicates landowners' rights, inhibits development, and affects the City's tax base. In this regard, the City of Wayzata, as part of its implementation of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' St^tQ-W^d? Standards for "Management of Shoreland Areas" is _ requesting flexibility from portions of the shoreland standards in order to carry out the intent of the shoreland standards while recognizing and accommodating the urban development character of the City and its continued development/redevelopment. The issues and analysis are based on background technical data that has been physically inventoried and included within a ghoirgl^hd Management: Plan for the Wavzata Shoreland District.., The Shoreland Plan has been adopted as an amendment to the 1980 Wayzata Comprehensive Plan. The plan is the basis for and functions with the Shoreland Ordinance in providing the necessary regulation for the shoreland areas. The plan specifies areas in the shoreland which require flexibility and how Wayzata will address eac.n flexibility request item. The background technical information on density, lot coverage and lot width have been compared to the DNR shoreland management standards where applicable, and tne C-ty Zoning Ordinance to determine the level of development capacity or the City. L The City o£ Wayzata is requesting flexibility from the shoreland Standards in the following areas: 1. 2. 3. 4. Lot Width Residential Density Impervious Surface Coverage Building Height Ah analysis of each flexibility request is as follows: 1. LOT WIDTH cue to the historical development .-«-^rin pSuy residential properties with de^loped with lot the R-3, R-4A, less than allowed by DNR shoreland widths that are substantially non-confonSities, the City standards. So as hot to create allowed in the base has proposed lot J'^r^ than the DNR zoning district acquirements ^ in the Ordinance are Shoreland standards. The lot the City and DNRinsistent with the DTO standards in that the^^^^ standards are not ®"^®tantially differenc.^^^^^^^ y tf/^/.4=kstric/is^s follows: TABLE 1 LOT WIDTH STANDARDS Riparian (P.4 nistrictl City Base Zoning District City Proposed Shoreland DNR Single Duplex Triplex Quad 60 100 100 100 75 100 125 150 75 135 195 255 Non- Riparian fp-4 Districtl City Base Zoning District City Proposed Shoreland DNR Single Duplex Triplex Quad 60 100 100 100 75 100 125 150 75 135 190 245 in chat all lots within the Sho«land^ ®the ® c7ty‘^ is 3ubsti??iallT"l«s'than^lhat would be allowed un ter the DNR requirements, and the lot size requirements are not to vary from the DNR standards, flexibility is being requested. 2. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY In order to determine overall compliance with the DNR density standards, a density calculation was performed. The purpose of the residential development density calculation is to determine the uiaximum allowed by the DNR model and compare this to the existing development conditions in Wayzata. Tables 2 and 3 illustrate this exercise: Section 1 Tier I Tier II-V Section 2 Tier I Tier II-V Section 12 Tier I Tier II-V Section 5 Tier I Tier II-V Section 6 Tier I Tier II-V Section 8 Tier I Tier II-V TOTALS Tier I Tier II-V TABLE 2 LAKE MINNETONKA SHORELAND DISTRICT EXISTING AND ALLOWABLE UNITS Net Area Existing Units Allowed Units 703,000 3,357,000 IJ 93 (42) 47 336 148,000 75,000 4 3 10 8 1.157.000 2.086.000 15 21 77 209 70,000 1,038,000 2 52 (16) 5 104 588,000 1,431,000 17 140 f82) 39 143 1,295,000 899,000 16 2 86 90 3.961.000 8.886.000 69 311 12,847,000 380 (140) (140) 264 890 1,154 Surplus/ Deficit + 32 + 243 + + 6 5 + + 62 188 + + 3 52 + + 22 3 ► + 70 88 + + 195 579 774 1 GLEASON EXISTING TABLE 3 LAKE SHORELAND AND ALLOWABLE AREA UNITS Section Net Area Existing Units Allowed Units Surplus/ Deficit Section 5 Tier I Tier II-V 1,029,332 3,135,999 96 (86) 116 (95) 51 209 - 45 + 93 4,165,331 212 (181)260 48 (00) Represents number of multiple family units of the total units indicated. As can be seen from Tables 2 and 2, a significant surplus exists (792) in the number of residential units allowed in the Shoreland District, based upon the DNR density standards. Lake Minnetonka has a surplus of 774 units and Gleason Lake 48 units. This surplus exists due to the majority of the residential Shoreland District being designated as very low density residential in the Comorehensive Plan and as R-lA on the zoning map, which requires a minimum 80,000 square foot lot size. The surplus would supposedly accommodate numerous and significant future residential development within the City's Shoreland District. It is very doubtful, however, whether the City would desire, or could even facilitate, 792 additional residential units, given the limited lands available for development/redevelopment. A process to allow for the transfer of surplus development capacity and to provide for the flexibility has been developed utilizing a shoreland impact plan/conditional use permit (CUP) process. ^ A shoreland impact plan requires a CUP, as regulated by the Zoning Ordinance and a submittal of a plan that provides a deta-led summary of the changes to be made and how the efforts ^ the development are to be minimized. T. ' process is outlined in Section 801.91.19 of the Shoreland District, as attached separately. Transfer of the development capacity from one area to another may allow for development and redevelopment in areas indicated in the City's Comprehensive Plan and West Lake Street Plan for residential developments. In addition, mid to high density residential developments approved through the PUD process may require flexibility to allow for transfer of surplus units to these areas as is necessary. Mid to high density projects that exceed Shoreland Ordinance requirements are proposed to be allowed with a Shoreland Impact Plan but would not exceed the m^imum allowed density of the base zoning district of the subject property. Approval of flexibility would reflect t.he intent of the Comprehensive Plan to provide for very low density development in 4 most areas in the shoreland areas, but would make allowances for higher densities in areas identified in the plan. 3. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE The purpose of the lot coverage inventory in the Shoreland Management Plan was to determine, by zoning district, the areas of the City which contain lot coverage below and above the maximum allowed by the DNR shoreland standards. The City was broken down into separate shoreland areas; Lake Minnetonka and Gleason Lake. These differentiations were made because of the different classification of the water bodies and because of the differing intensity of development. Each separate area was further divided into separate zoning districts for the lot calculations to determine lot coverage and open space. City records were used to identify each parcel and its lot size. Using aerial photographs and section maps with superimposed buildings, lot coverage was calculated by measuring the footprint area of structures, accessory structures and driveways. Subtracting this calculation from total lot size provides the re.maining open st^ace. The amount of surplus/deficit lot coverage is determined by computing the maximum allowable impervious surface coverage by DNfi standards. Actual lot coverage was subtracted from the allowable coverage to determine each lots surplus or deficit lot coverage. Table 4 indicates the amount and percentage of impervious surface coverage for each zoning district. TABLE 4 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE IN SQUARE FEET AMD PERCENT LAKE MINNETONKA Zonincr Lot Area Impervious Surface Percent Covered R-IA 23,504,684 520,500 2 R-1 686,511 73,900 10 R-2 941,226 56,400 6 R-3 231,799 26,800 12 R-5 471,872 61,000 13 C-1 419,450 233,604 56 C-2 855,747 772,578 90 C-3 168,747 163,562 97 C-4 399,420 294,413 74 C-4A 78,408 34,848 44 C-4B 27,007 27,007 100 INST 364,924 112,500 31 28,149,795 2,376,662 8 TABLE 5 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE IN SQUARE FEET AND PERCENT GLEASON LAKE Zoning R-1 R-3 R-4 R-5 C-3 INST TOTAL Lot Area Impervious Surface Percent Covered 1,607,959 79,300 5 257,628 29,000 11 952,937 16,400 2 899,872 246,800 27 297,068 223,764 75 1,305,199 360,000 28 5,320,663 955,264 18 33,470,458 3,331,926 10 Comparing the shoreland areas as a whole to the DNR model with regard to impeirv’ious surface coverage, the City is well within the surface coverage allowed and has a reserve of 5,851,803 square feet. The low densities and large open space figures are a result of current zoning controls which are for the most more restrictive than the DNR model shoreland regulations and act to preserve the shoreland areas of Wayzata. The significant disparity between lot coverage in residential and commercial areas provides the City an opportunity to utilize residential surplus for further development/redevelopment. Development which proposes to exceed the lot requirements of the Shoreland Overlay District shall be s^^ect to a conditional use pemit and Shoreland Impact Plan, which will emphasize storm water management and quality of runoff. The DNR requirement for impervious surface coverage (25 percent) will be too restrictive to allow for development and redevelopment within some areas of the Shoreland Overlay District. Average .ot coverage for commercial uses indicates that on average, most lots site parfeing is fundamental in this highly developed area. developments are proposed to be allowed to exceed 25 storm 75 percent if structures and practices ?^® ?00 water runoff from directly entering tne lake. percent will be allov'ed with the su-^ittal ^d PP , that Shoreland Impact Plan/:onditional use permit. exceed the Shoreland Ordinance requirements and meet the objectives of the City's Storm Water Manag provide the added physical protection fcr preserving water quality. .fl 4. BUILDING HEIGHT The current Zoning Ordinance allows building height for development in its zoning districts of between 30 to 40 feet. The City is requesting flexibility in building height to allow for a maximum of 35 feet. Building heights of over 35 feet would be allowed through aoproval of a shoreland impact plan/conditional use permit and would be required to meet criteria for screening and building appearance. The City requests flexibility so that all zoning districts may retain the existing building height and so that development/ redevelopment can take place in an equitable fashion. CITY EFFORTS TO MANAGE SHORELAND DEVELOPMENTS In light of the City's request for flexibility, the City has adopted the following which promote the quality of the water bodies and enhance the aesthetics from the lake surface. 1. The City has adopted the Shoreland Management Plan as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which establishes goals and policies to improve the quality of the water and enhance aesthetics. 2. The City has developed a Storm Water Management Plan in 1388 to provide the framework for upgrades to the existing systems. The storm water plan has identified systems to better accommodate runoff and also to improve the quality of storm water runoff. The City is currently in the process of implementing many aspects of the storm water plan. 3. The City has developed a policy in the Shoreland Management Plan to imolement the development capacity transfer. Approvals of“ flexibility which exceed Shoreland Ordinance requirements shall be monitored by the City of Wayzata. An accounting shall be made to determine the number of dwelling units or amount of lot coverage for each project and. the amount of surplus to be transferred to each project. The reductions to the surplus c 744 residential units on Lake Minnetonka, and 48 units on Gieason Lake, or reductions in the excess lot coverage of 5,701,03 6 scfuare feet on Lake Minnetonka and 150,767 square feet or. Gleason Lake shall be documented so that the City will have a current accounting of the developed density and lot coverage and not exceed the maximum development capacity as has been established i i the Inventory of the Plan. I I ft m phone no. STATE OF ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 (612) 772-7916 October 5, 1992 The Honorable Barb Brancel Mayor, City of Shorewood 25785 Sunnyvale Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mayor Brancel: D U'li 'j -- - -N f I FILE NO. OCL 8 1992 REVIEW AND COMMENT ON CITY OP TONKA BAY'S^EQUEST FOR FLEXIBILITY FROM STATE OF MINNESOTA'S SHORELAHU-MANAG&IENT STANDARDS As required by the statewide shoreland management standards, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the City of Tonka Bay are hereby notifying your city of Tonka Bay's request for flexibility from the statewide standards as outlined below. In acpordance with the rules, the Commissioner and the city must solicit the input and approval of other governmental bodies that could be affected or impacted by the alternate controls. The city and the DNR are asking that your city provide its review and comments, if any, to either DNR or the city within 45 days of the date of this letter. If no response is received prior to then, we will assume that your city has nr -»ncerns with the neighboring city's proposal. The City of Tonka Bay is requesting flexibility from the following statewide standards: 1. 2. Reduction of the DNR standard lot width of 135 feet for duplexes, 195 feet for triplexes, and 255 feet for quadruplexes for new riparian and nonriparian lots on General Development lakes to 100 feet, 125 feet, and 150 feet respectively. Nearly all of Tonka Bay's land area is locared within the shoreland of Lake Minnetonka and many of the existing lots in the city have been previously platted at widths less than the DNR minimums. Tonka Bay is increasing the lot width of new single residential lots from the city's current width requirement of 65 feet to che minimum DNR standard width of 75 feet. Relaxation of the statewide standards requiring that impervious cover in the shoreland area be limited to 25%. The city is proposing that impervious cover be allowed to exceed 25% in a limited area of the city zoned as commercial districts, C-1 and C-2. The city will require all proposed developments which exceed the 25% impervious cover/open space requirements to apply for a AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER conditional use permit. This will allow the DNR and other interests to comment as there will be a 10 day notification period before the conditional use permit can be acted upon. Since the residential districts within the city do not approach the 25% impervious limit and the commercial districts do not cover a very substantial area of Tonka Bay, the city will never average above 25% impervious cover in its shoreland area. The maximum allowable impervious surface coverage under the "old” state shoreland rules was 30%. 3. Increase in the structure height limit. ^ The statewide standards require that a 25 foot height limit be applied to all new structures in residential land use districts in cities. The city is requesting the use of flexibility to allow structures a height limit of 30 feet in residential land use districts to keep many currently existing residences already constructed beyond the 25 foot limit from becoming nonconforming structures. The city is proposing a conditional use permit for structure that exceed 30 feet in height. The maximum allowable structure Height under the "old" state shoreland rules was 35 feet. Tonka Bay has presented the above requests for review and discussion by DNR and representatives of 11 Lake Minnetonka cities who are working together as a Technical Review Committee for the purpose of reviewing and discussing individual city's flexibility requests affecting Lake Minnetonka . No problems with the city's request have been noted at any of those meetings. As stated earlier, please have appropriate staff review the proposed flexibility request and, if necessary, provide your comments to me at the address listed above within 45 days. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to contact either Dave Canister, Tonka Bay's City Administrator at 474-7994, Ceil Strauss of this office at 772-7910, or me at 772-7916. Sincerely, Edward L. Pick Shoreland Hydrologist cc: John Line Stine, Regional Hydrologist Ogbazghi Sium, Supervisor, Land Use Management Unit City Administrator/Clerk 4901 Manitcu Road. Tonka Bay. Minnesota 55331 Tel. 474-7994 MAYOR L. H. Haug COUNCIL Ralph Bandjebar Steven Johnson Oougias Keller John Senescail ADMINISTRATOR David Caiiister August 28, 1992 SEP 1 Honorable Barbara Peterson Mayor, City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Dear Mayor Peterson: Enclosed please find Section 17, the Shoreland District of the Tonka Bay Zoning Ordinance, adopted by the City Council on August 25, 1992. We have also enclosed a request for flexibility from the State of Minnesota's Shoreland Management Standards. Drafts of the Shoreland District have been sent to the Department of Natural Resources but final approval has not been given. The City has based the Shoreland District regulations and its request for flexibility on a shoreland Management Plan, which provided a physical inventory of all lots within the Shoreland District and an analysis of background information on lot size and width, lot coverage, and density. The plan has been adopted as an amendment to the Tonka Bay Comprehensive Plan, and functions with the Shoreland District in providing the regulation for shoreland areas. Copies of the Plan are available upon request. In that flexibility is being requested, we solicit your input on the Ordinance. Please direct any questions to me. Comments can also be*directed to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Waters, Shoreland Management Program, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55106, to the attention of Ed Pick, Shoreland Hydrologist (772-7910). Sincerely, CITY OF TONKA BAY Caiiister City Administrator TONKA BAY SHORELAND FLEXIBILITY REQUEST Introduction The City of Tonka Bay has developed on a strip of land surrounded by Lake Minnetonka and is almost con^letely within the shoreland area. The significant natural auienity of the lake adds to the aesthetic, recreational and economic value to the community. Shoreland in Tonka Bay has historically developed as cad>ins and single family homes which reflect its earliest development as a resort community. Due to the limitations caused by large wetland areas, and the fully developed character of the land, there is little opportunity for additional new development. Also due to the density of existing commercial development and the limited potential for expanded opportunity, flexibility of shoreland standards which protect the shoreland areas and quality of the water, while allowing controlled development and redevelopment is of the highest importance in Tonka Bay. Based on the existing development of the City, the direct application of the DNR shoreland standards would result in non- conforming status for uses in the commercial and residential areas throughout the shoreland district. The potential for areas of the City to become non-conforming complicates landowner's rights, inhibits development, amd affects the City's tax base. In this regard, the City of Tonka Bay, as part of its implementation of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' State-Wide Standards for "Management of Shoreland Areas* is requesting flexibility from portions of the shoreland standards, while recognizing and accommodating the urban development character of the City and its continued development/redevelopment. The shoreland issues are based on background technical data that has been physically inventoried and included within the Shoreland Management Plan for Tonka Bay. The Shoreland Plan has been adopted as an amendment to the 1980 Tonka Bay Comprehensive Plan. The plan is the basis for and functions with the Shoreland Ordinance in providing the necessary regulation for the shoreland area. The plan specifies areas in the shoreland which require flexibility and how Tonka Bay will address each request item. The background technical information on density, lot coverage, and lot width has been compared to the DNR shoreland management standards where applicadDle, and the City Zoning Ordinance to determine the level of development capacity of the City. The City of Tonka Bay is requesting flexibility from the shoreland standards in the following areas: 1. 2. 3. Lot Width Impervious Surface Coverage Building Height An analysis of each flexibility request is as follows: 1. Lot Width Due to the historical development of Tonka Bay, with its original cottage development and single family residences, many homes within the residential district have developed with lot widths that are substantially less than allowed by DNR shoreland standards. So as not to create numerous non-conformities, the City has proposed lot widths wider than what is allowed in the base zoning district requirements of the City but less than the DNR shoreland standards. The lot sizes proposed in the Ordinance are consistent with the DNR standards in that the City and DNR standards are not substantially different. A comparison of the existing City base zoning district, the proposed, and the DNR standards for lot width in the R-2B District is as follows: TABLE 1 LOT WIDTH STANDARDS R-2B District Ripariant Single Duplex Triplex Quad Non-Riparian t Single Duplex Triplex Quad City Base Zoning District City Proposed Shoreland DNR 65 feet 75 feet 75 feet 90 feet 100 feet 135 feet 90 feet 125 feet 195 feet 90 feet 150 feet 255 feet €5 feet 75 feet 75 feet 90 feet 100 feet 135 feet 90 feet 125 feet 190 feet 90 feet 150 feet 245 feet In that all lots within the Shoreland District are served by municipal sewer, the residential density is substantially less than what would be allowed under DNR requirements, and the lot size requirements are proposed not to vary from the DNR standards, flexibility is being requested. 2. Impervious Surface Coverage In the Shorelamd Plan, a lot coverage Inventory was done to Identify by zoning district the area within each zone cmd the actual lot coverage of each zone. The City was broken down into its zoning districts and the net area of each district was calculated. Using aerial photog: iphs superinqposed on section maps, lot coverage was determined for ach zoning district by calculating the footprint area of all structures, accessory structures, driveways, and other hardcover areas. This total provided the amount of inpervious surface coverage per zoning district. Table 2 provides the total area and impervious surface covered in each zoning district. TABUS 2 TONKA BAY SBORBLAND DISTRICT TOTAL AREA AND ZMPBRVIOUS SURFACB C0VBRA6B BY ZONING DISTRICT Zoning District Total Area Impervious Surface Allowed Percent Covered R-IA 12,288,000 882,668 3,072,000 7.0 R-IB 4,949,350 328,845 1,237,337 6.6 R-2A 853,300 72,600 213,325 8.5 R-3 661,300 60,750 165,325 .9 C-1 341,325 270,250 85,331 79.0 C-2 530,160 137,600 132,540 26.5 19,623,435 1,752,713 4,905,858 8.9 As can be seen in Table 2, the amount of lot coverage in all residential zones is below the maximum inpezvious surface allowed. There is a reserve of approximately 3,153,145 square feet of land which could be covered by impervious surface and still meet the DNR's overall impervious surface coverage. Much of the surplus inqpervlous surface is a result of low density development on large lots. Since most of the shoreland area is zoned R-lA, which requires 20,000 square foot minimum lots, and that the City is virtually all developed, build out to the DNR's maximum impervious surface limit is highly unlikely. t The commercially zoned land, however, has surpassed the allowed coverage by 189,979 square feet. The majority of the over coverage District, which has three boat repair/marinas, ^ch of the lot area on these sites is used for boat storage. The C-2 District consists of primarily non-water oriented commercial properties which include a shopping center, bowling alley, and liquor store. Some of this C-2 District lies vacant and has development potential. The significant disparity between lot coverage in residential and commercial areas provides the City an opportunity to utilize residential surplus for further development/redevelopment in the commercial areas. Development which proposes to exceed the lot space requirements of the Shoreland Overlay District shall be s\ibject to a conditional use permit and Shoreland Impact Plan which will emphasize storm water management and quality runoff. The DNR requirement for impervious surface coverage (25 percent) ^6 too restrictive to allow for development and redevelopment within some areas of the Shoreland Overlay District. Average lot coverage for commercial uses indicates that many lots are developed to or close to 100 percent with in^ervious surface coverage. For development/redevelopment to be successful in Tonka Bay, allo%^ance flexibility is essential in this area. In the proposed Ordinance, development/redevelopment is allowed to exceed 25 percent in both residential and commercial districts if structures and practices are in place to treat storm water runoff from directly entering the lake and with the submittal euid approval of a Shoreland Impact Plan/conditional use permit. All proposals that exceed the Shoreland District requirements will be required to provide the physical verification for preserving water quality. 3. Building Height The current Zoning Ordinance allows building height for development in its zoning districts of between 30 to 36 feet. In that the D^'s requirement is 25 feet, the City is requesting flexibility to allow for a znaxiznum of 30 feet. Building heights of over 30 feet would be allowed through approval of a Shoreland Impact Plan/ conditional use permit and would be required to meet the criteria screening and building appearance. The City requests flexibility so that all zoning districts may retain the existing building height and so that development/redevelopment can take place in an equitable fashion. SECTION 17 S SHORELAND DISTRICT AND SEC ION 2 aaORELAND RELATED DEFINITIONS TONKA BAY, MINNESOTA AUGUST, 1992 SECTION 17. "S” SHORELAND DISTRICT Subd. A Subd. B Subd. C Subd. D Subd. L PurpQge. The intent of this Section is to reduce the effects of overcrowding, to prevent pollution of waters of the community, to minimize flood damages, to maintain property values and to maintain natural characteristics of shorelands and adjacent water areas by controlling lot sizes, placement of structures on lots and alteration of shoreland. Statutory Authorization. This Section is adopted pursuant to the authorization and policies contained in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105, Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500 - 6120.3900, and the planning and zoning enabling legislation in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. ^shftyaiand Districts. The shorelands within the City of Tonka Bay are hereby designated as shoreland districts and the requirements set forth in this Section shall govern development and other activities within ti.ese districts. The classification of the shoreland areas shall govern the use, alteration and development of these areas according to said classification as oer Minnesota Regulations NR 82-84. The "S" District shall be applied to and superimposed upon all base zoning districts as contained herein as existing or amended by the Zoning Ordinance text and official?. Zoning Map. For the purpose of this Ordinance, base zoning district mecuis the zoning districts listed in Section 4 of this Ordinance. The regulations and requirements imposed by the "S" District shall be in addition to those establisht^d for the base zoning districts which jointly apply. Under the joint application of standards, the more restrictive requirements shall apply. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The boundaries of the Shorelaind District are established within the following distances from the ordinary high water mark of the surfaca water depending on the 8i*ie of the surface water as indicated on the Tonka Bay Shoreland District Map. SURFACE WATER DISTANCE (FEET)* Greater than ten (10) acres 1,000 Rivers and Streams (draining an area greater than two (2) square miles)300** The practical distance may be less whenever the «raters involved are bounded by topographical divides which extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and prevent flowage toward the surface water. The distance requirement shall be increased to the limit of the floodplain when the floodplain is greater than three hundred (300) feet. Subd. F Shorclaod Clasaifleat*Qn The surface waters affected by this Section and which require controlled development of their shoreland ^Shoreland District) are shown on the map designated as the official "Zoning Map of the City of Tonka Bay" which is properly approved and made a part of this Section and filed with the Zoning Administrator. Surface waters generally greater than ten (10) acres and given an identification number by the State of Minnesota are defined in Section 2 of this Ordinance and listed below. 1. Lake Classification System GENERAL DEVELOPMENT LAKES: DNR Identification Number_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Ncune 27-133 Lake Minnetonka Subd. O Allowable Land Uses. The land uses allowable for the Shoreland Overlay District shall follow the permitted, accessory, and conditional use designations as defined amd outlined in the base zoni 7 districts, found in Sections 5-13 of this Ordinance, as may be amended, referred to as the Tonka Bay Zoning Ordinance and shall be properly delineated on the Official Zoning Map for the shorelands of Tonka Bay. These land use districts are in conformauice with the criteria specified in Minnesota Regulations, Part 6120.3200, Subd. 3. Subd. H Lot Size and Width. 1. Lot and Setback Standards. Sxabject tc the other more restrictive limitations which may be inqposed by this Ordinauice, the following minimum requirements shall be observed in the following zoning districts which are overlaid by the Shoreland District. a.Residential (R-lA, R-IB,R-2A, R-2B, R-3, Riparian Area Width Single 15,000 75 Duple:26,000 100 Triplex 38,000 125 Quad 49,000 150 Non Riparian Area Width 75Single10,000 Duplex 17,500 100 Triplex 25,000 125 Quad 32,500 150 Only land above the ordinary high water level of prblic waters can be used to meet lot area 8«ndards. 2) Lot width standards shall be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line. Lots developed with five (5) or more dwelling units require approval of a planned unit development conditional use in accordance with Subd. O. of this Section. b.Commercial (C-1, C-2). See Sections 11-12 of this Ordinance. Subd. I Rcouir*™*"** - The following chart sets forth the minimum setback standards within the Shoreland Overlay District. Subd. J Subd. K 1. Ordinary Hioh Water Mark. Fifty (50) Feet 2.Side Yard Setbacks. requirements.) (Subject to individual district 3. ^ditional Structure Setbacks. a. b. 30 Feet c. d. Top of Bluff Right-Of-Way Line of Federal, State or County Hignway 30 Feet Right-Of-Way Line of £^lic (Subject to Individual Base Street or Other Roads Zoning District or Streets Requirements) Bluff Intact Zones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and landings, shall not be placed within bluff in^ct zones. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _No structure shall exceed two and one-half (2-1/2) stories or thirty (30) feet, whichever is less. >ce Coverage. 1.Inpervious surface coverage for lots in all zoning districts shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the lot area, except as provided below: a.In^ervious surface coverage may be allowed to exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the total lot area in all zoning districts when the following stipulations are met: (1)Measures are taken to treat storm water runoff and/or prevent storm water from directly entering a public water as appro'^ed by the City Engineer. ^ •rij» lalcia* •1 «#P9f ' •it: •ItH# [•3mw9] •IT:(nFI7 •77:1 I •!«•]••l^lflfTzJ* c.Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings; d.Stairways, lifts, and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings, or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion; e.Stairways, lifts, and landings shall be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, whenever practical; and f.Facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons are also allowed for achieving access to shore areas, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of sub-items (a) to (e) are complied with in addition to the requirements of Minnesota Regulations, Chapter 1340. 3.Steep Slopes. The Zoning Administrator shall evaluate possible soil erosion in^acts and development visibility from public waters before issuing a permit for construction of roads, driveways, structures, or other Inprovements on steep slopes cf twelve (12) percent or greater. When determined necessary, conditions shall be attached to Issued permits to prevent erosion auid to preserve existing vegetation, screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public iiraters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. Subd. M _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Alterations of vegetation amd topography shall be regulated to prevent erosion Into public waters, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slunplng, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. 1. Vegetation Alterations. a.Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by Section 17, Subd. M.3 of this Ordinance are exempt from the vegetation alteration stauidards that follow. b.Removal or alteration of vegetation is allowed subject to the following standards: (1) Interflive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff intact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed. *C1 1 (2)In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, and access paths provided that: (a)the screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced; (b)the above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards. 2. Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling. a. b. c. d. Grading and filling and excavations necessary for the construction of structures and driveways iinder construction permits for these facilities shall not require the issuance of a separate grading and filling permit. However, the grading and filling standards in this Section shall be incorporated into the issuance of permits for construction of structures cuid driveways. Public roads and parking areas are regulated by Section 17, Subd. M.3 of this Ordinance. Notwithstanding Items (a) and (b) above, a grading and filling permit shall be required for: (1)the movement of more than ten (10) cubic yards of material on steep slopes or within shore or bluff inpact zones; and (2)the movement of more than fifty (50) cxibic yards of material outside of steep slopes and shore and bluff impact zones. The following considerations and conditions shall be adhered to during the issuance of construction permits, grading and filling permits, conditional use permits, variances and sxibdivision approvals: (1)Grading or filling in any type 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 wetland shall be in accordance with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, Minnesota Laws, Chapter 354 and shall be evaluated to determine how extensively the I I proposed activity would affect the following functional qualities of the wetland*: (a) sediment and pollutant trapping and retention; (b)storage of surface runoff to prevent or reduce flood damage; (c) fish and wildlife habitat; (d) recreational use; (e) shoreline or bank stad>ilization; and (f)noteworthiness, including special qualities such as historic significance, critical had>itat for endangered plants and animals, or others. *This evaluation shall require the applicamt to provide appropriate docxomentation of whether the wetland alteration being proposed requires permits, reviews, or approvals by other local, state, or federal agencies such as the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. (2)Alterations shall be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest eunoiint of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time possible; (3)Mulches or similar materials shall be used, whrre nece.ssary, for tenq>orary bare soil coverage, and a permanent vegetation cover shall be esteUblished as soon as possible; (4)Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water features shall be used; (5)Altered areas shall be stabilized to acceptable erosion control standards consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation districts and the United States Soil Conservation Service; (6) Fill or excavated material shall not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope; e. (7)Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes shall be reviewed by qualified professionals for continued slope stability and shall not create finished slopes of thirty (30) percent or greater; (8)Fill or excavated material shall not be placed in bluff impact zones; (9)Any alterations below the ordinary high water level of public waters shall first be authorized by the Ccxnmissioner under Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.245 and 103G.405. (10) Alterations of topography shall only be allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby properties; and (11) Placement of natural roc)c riprap, including associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, is permitted if the finished slope does not exceed three (3) feet horizontal to one (1) foot vertical, the landward extent of the riprap is within ten (10) feet of the ordinary high water level, and the height of the riprap above the ordinary high water level does not exceed three (3) feet. Connections to Public Waters. Excavations where the Intended purpose is connection to a public nirater, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors, shall be controlled by local shoreland controls. Permission for excavations may be given only after the Commissioner has approved the proposed connection to public waters. 3. Placement and Design of Roads. Driveways and Parking Areas. a.Public and private roads and parking areas shall be designed to take advemtage of natural vegetation emd topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. Documentation shall be provided by a (qualified individual that all roads and parking areas are designed and constructed to minimize amd control erosion to public waters consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation district, or other applicable technical materials. b.Roads, driveways, and parking areas shall meet structure setbacks and shall not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones. If no reasonadsle replacement exists, they may be placed within these 8 i areas, and shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts. c.Public and private watercraft access ramps, approach roads, and access-related parking areas may be placed within shore impact zones provided the vegetative screening and erosion control conditions of this sub­ part are met. For private facilities, the grading and filling provisions of Section 17, Subd. M.2 of this Ordinance shall be met. 4.Storm Water Management. All development within the Shoreland Overlay District shall be consistent with the following general and specific standards: a. General Standards: (1)When possible, existing natural drainageways, wetlands, and vegetated soil surfaces shall be used to convey, store, filter, and retain storm water runoff before discharge to public waters. (2)Development shall be planned and conducted in a manner that will minimize the extent of disturbed areas, runoff velocities, erosion potential, and reduce and delay runoff volumes. Disturbed areas shall be stabilized and protected as soon as possible with facilities or methods used to retain sediment on the site. (3)When development density, topography features, and soil and vegetation conditions are not sufficient to adequately handle storm water runoff using natural features and vegetation, various types of constructed facilities such as diversions, settling basins, skimming devices, dikes, waterways, and ponds may be used. Preference shall be given to designs using surface drainage, vegetation, and infiltration rather than buried pipes and man-made materials and facilities. b. Specific Standards: (1)When constructed facilities are used for storm water managemenc, documentation shall be provided by a qualified registered engineer ttot they are designed emd installed consistent with the field office technical guide of the local soil and water conservation districts. (2)New constructed storm water outfalls to public waters shall provide for filtering or settling of suspended solids and skimming of surface debris before discharge. Subd. N Non-Conformities. All legally established non-conformities as of the date of this Section may continue, but they shall be managed according to appliceUole state statutes and Section 3, Subd. A and Section 3, Subd. B.3 of this Ordinance for the subjects of alterations and additions, repair after damage, discontinuance of use, and intensification of use; except that the following standards shall also apply in shoreland areas: 1.Construction on Non-conforming Lota of Record. Lots of record in the office of the County Recorder on the date of enactment of this section that do not meet the requireme its of Sections 5-13 and Section 17, Subd. H of this Ordinance shall be authorized only in conformance with Section 3, Subd. B.3.C. of this Ordinance. 2. Additions/Expanaiona to Non-conforming Structures a.All additions or expansions to the outside dimensions of an existing non-conforming structure must meet the setback, height, and other requirements of Section 3, Subd. A and Section 17, Subd. I euid J of this Ordinance. Any deviation from these requirements may be authorized by a variance pursuant to Section 19 of this Ordinance. b.Deck additions not meeting the required secback from the ordinary high water level shall be authorized only by variance pursuant to Section 19 of this Ordinance. Subd. O Residential Residential plaumed unit development conditional uses are allowed for new projects on undeveloped land, redevelopment of previous built sites or conversion of existing buildings and land. Residential plaumed unit development shall con^ly with the following criteria: 1.Residential planned unit development shall be processed as a conditional use in accordcuice with Section 20 of this Ordinance. 2./^plication for a residential planned unit development shall follow the guidelines in Section 20, Subd. C of this Ordinance. 3.Site "Suitable Area" evaluation. Proposed residential planned unit developments shall be evaluated using the following procedures and standards to determine the suitable area for the dwelling unit/dwelling site density evaluation in Section 17, Subd. 0.4, 5, 6 of this Ordinance. 4. 5. a.The development parcel shall be divided into tiers by locating one or more lines approximately parallel to a line that identifies the ordinary high water level at the following intervals, proceeding landward; Shoreland Tier Dimensions Feet General Development Lakes- First Tier General Development Lakes- Second and Additional Tiers 200 200 b.The suitable area within each tier is next calculated by excluding from the tier area all wetlands, bluffs, or land before the ordinary high water level of public waters. This suitable area and the proposed development are then subjected to the plaimed \mit development density evaluation steps to arrive at an allowable number of dwelling units or sites. PUD Density Evaluation. The procedures for determining the "base" density of a PUD and density increase multipliers are as follows. Allowable densities may be transferred from any tier to any other tier further from the waterbody, but shall not be transferred to any other tier closer. PUD "Base" Density Evaluation. The suitable area within each tier is divided by the single residential lot size standard for lakes. Proposed locations and numbers of dwelling units or sites for the residential plauined \init developments are then conqpared with the tier, density, and suitability analyses herein and the design criteria in Section 17, Subd. 0.7 of this Ordinance. 6. Density Increase Multipliers a.Increases to the dwelling unit or dwelling site base densities previously determined are allowed if the dimensional standards in Section 17, Subd. H of this Ordinance are met or exceeded and the design criteria in Section 17, Sxibd. 0.7 of this Ordinance are satisfied. The allowable density increases in item (b) below will only be allowed if structure setbacks from the ordinary high water level are increased to at least fifty (50) percent greater than the minimum setback, or the impact on the waterbody is reduced an equivalent amount through vegetative management, topography, or additional means acceptable to the local unit of government amd the setback is at least twenty-five (25) percent greater than the minimum setback. b.Allowable dwelling unit or dwelling site density increases for residential planned unit ievelopment: Density Evaluation Tiers Maximum Density Increase within Each Tier (Percent) First Second Third Fourth Fifth 50 100 200 200 200 7. Maintenance and Design Criteria. a.Before final approval of a residential planned unit development, adequate provisions shall be developed for preservation and maintenance in perpetuity of open spaces and for the continued existence and functioning of the development. b.Open space preservation. Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements, piiblic dedication and acceptance, or other ecnially effective aind permanent means shall be provided to ensure long-term preservation aind maintencmce of open space. The instruments shall include all of the following protections: (1) Commercial use prohibited; (2) Vegetation and topographic alterations other than routine maintenance prohibited; (3) Construction of additional buildings or storage of vehicles and other materials prohibited; and (4) Uncontrolled beaching of watercraft prohibited. 8.Open Space Requirements. Pl2uined unit developments shall contain open space meeti./«/ the following criteria: a.At least thirty (30) percent of the total development area shall be pr'.j^erved as open space; b.Dwelling units or sites, .d rights-of-way, or land covered by road surface'i, driveways, parking areas, or structures are developed areas and shall not be included in the confutation of minimum open space; c.Open space shall include areas with physical characteristics unsuitable for development in their natural state and areas containing significant historic sites. 9. d. The appearance of open space areas, including topography, vegetation, and allowable uses, shall be preserved by use of restrictive deed covenants, permanent easements, public dedication and acceptance, or other equal effective and permanent means; and e. The shore impact zone, based on normal structure setbacks, shall be included as open space. For residential PUD'S, at least fifty (50) percent of the shore impact zone area of existing developments or at least seventy (70) percent of the shore impact area of new developments shall re preserved in its natural or existing state. Erosion Control and Storm Water Management. Erosion control and storm water management for the PUD shall be in compliance with Subd. M.2. and 4 of this Section. 10.Centralization and Design of Facilities. and design of facilities and structures according to the following standards: Centralization shall be done a. Dwelling units or sites shall be clustered into one or more groups and located on suitable areas of the development. They shall be designed and located to meet or exceed the following dimensional standards for the relevant shoreland classification: setbac)c from the ordinary high water level, elevation adDove the surface water features, and maximum height. Setbacks from the ordinary high water level shall be increased in accordance with Section 17, Subd. P.6 of this Ordinance for developments with density increases; b. Structures, parking areas, and other facilities shall be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, or color, assxaming summer, leaf-on conditions. Vegetative and topographic screening shall be preserved, if existing, or may be required to be provided; c. Accessory structures and facilities shall meet the required principal structure setback and shall be centralized. Subd. P Shoreland Iiroact Plao/Condltlonal Use Permit. 1. Shoreland Impact Plan, Except for situations listed below, landowners or developers desiring to develop land or construct any dwelling or any other artificial obstruction on land located within the Shoreland District within the City of Tonka Bay shall first submit a conditional use permit application as regulated by Section 18 of this Ordinance and a plan of development, hereinafter referred to as "Shoreland Impact Plan", which shall set forth proposed provisions for sediment control, water management, maintenance of landscaped features, and any additional matters intended to set forth proposed changes requested by the applicant and affirmatively disclose what, if any, change will be made in the natural condition of the earth, including loss of change of earth ground cover, destruction of trees, grade courses and marshes. The plan shall minimize tree removal, ground cover change, loss of natural vegetation, and grade changes as much as possible, and shall affirmatively provide for the relocation or replanting of as many trees as possible which are proposed to be removed. The purpose of the Shoreland Impact Plan shall be to eliminate potential pollution, erosion and siltation. 2. Exceptions. a. No conditional use permit or shoreland impact plan shall be required for the development of permitted principal uses contained within all districts, provided that such uses are constructed on standard lots in compliance with dimensional standards of this Ordinance and that impervious surface lot coverage does not exceed twenty-five (25) percent. b. No conditional use permit or shoreland impact plan shall be required for the development of permitted accessory uses contained within the R-A, R-lB, R-2A, R-2B, R-3 and R-4 Districts. 3. Flexibility. Where strict conformity with provisions of this Section is not po.'^'^ible, the r^^quii mients specified herein may be exceeded Rubject to a cond-wional use permit and shoreland impact plan set forth in this Section and with approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District euid the City Engineer were applicable. 4. Conditions. All conditional use permi* for consideration under this Section shall be subject to the following conditions; a. The projects shall be analyzed to determine the impact of impervious surfaces, storm water runoff, floodplain, and water quality implications. Only those projects shall be allowed where the adverse impacts have been mitigated through approved means to the extent possible. b. Storm water treatment measures including, but not limited to, sediment basins (debris basins) , desilting basins or silt traps, installation of debris guards. c. d. e. f. h. and microsilt basins on storm water inlets, oil skimm.ing devices, etc. shall be required subject to the review of the City Engineer and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District on projects where applicable. Projects shall be analyzed by the City in terms of provisions for maintenance and enhancement of landscape features, change in the natural condition of the soil, removal of trees, grade courses and marshes. The plan shall also minimize tree removal, ground r. )ver change, loss of natural vegetation, and grade Ci’anges as much as possible. It shall further provide TLjr the relocation or replanting as many trees as possible which are proposed to be removed. Projects shall be analyzed by the City in terms of the appearance of the structure when viewed from the lake's surface. Building materials, and color shall be analyzed to determine which facade and roof materials minimize the appearance and blend the structure into the shoreland and vegetation. Lot coverage on a project basis shall be restricted to the provisions for mciximum impervious surface coverage as provided for in this Ordinance. Residential densities on a project basis shall not be allowed to exceed the maximum allowed density of the base zoning district for which the project is proposed. All projects shall be in conformance with the Shoreland Management Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances of the City of Tonka Bay. All projects shall be subject to the review by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City Engineer. Subd. Q Variances. 1.Provisions. Variances shall only be granted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462, as applicable and with Section 19 of this Ordinance. 2.Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Thu Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall hear and decide requests for variances in accordance with the rules that it has adopted for the conduct of business. When a variance is approved after the Department of Natural Resources has formally recommended denial in the hearing record, the notification of the approved variance required in Section 17, Subd. T of this Ordinance shall also include the Board of Adjustment and « Appeals' summary of the public record/testimony and the findings of facts and conclusions which supported the issuance of the variance. Subd. R Subdlvlslon/Plattlna Provisions. 1. Land Suitability. Each lot created through subdivision, including planned unit developments authorized under Section 17, Subd. 0 of this Ordinance, must be suitable in its natural state for the proposed use with minimal alteration. Suitability analysis by TonJca Bay shall consider susceptibility to flooding, existence of wetlands, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, steep topography, inadequate water supply, near shore aquatic conditions unsuitable for water based recreation, important fish and wildlife habitat, presence of significant historic sites, or any other feature of the natural land likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. 2. Consistency with Other Controls. Subdivisions must conform to all provisions for subdivision, as found in the Tonka Bay Subdivision Ordinance. A subu.vision will not be approved where a later variance from one or more standards in official controls would be needed to use the lots for their intended purpose. 3. Information Requirements. Sufficient information must be submitted by the applicant for the City to make a determination of land suitability. The information shall include the provisions found as Subd. B, Subdivision Regulations, and the following: a. Topographic contours from survey itiaps showing limiting site characteristics; b. The surface water features required in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.02, Subd. 1, to be shown on plats; c. Information regarding adequacy of domestic water supply, extent of anticipated vegetation and topographic alterations; near-shore aquatic conditions, including depths, types of bottom sediments, and aquatic vegetation; and proposed methods for controlling storm water runoff and erosion, both during and after construction activities; d. Location of 100 year floodplain areas and floodway districts from existing adopted maps or data; and e. A line or contour representing the ordinary high water level, the "toe" and the "top" of bluffs, and the minimum building setback distances from the top of the bluff and the lake or strecim. 4. Dedications. When a Ir^nd or easement dedication is a condition of subdivision approval, the approval must provide easements over natural drainage or ponding areas for management of stonv water and significant wetlands. Subd. S Notification to the DAp»-r^ment of Natural Resources. 1. Copies of all notices of any public hearings to consider variances, amendments, or conditional uses resulting from controls of Section 17 of this Ordinance must be sent to the Commissioner or th^ Commissioner's designated representative and postmarked at least ten (10) days before the hearings. Notices of hearings to consider proposed subdivisions/plans must include copies of the subdivision/plat. 2. A copy of approved amendments and subdivisions/plats, and final decisions granting variances or conditional uses under this Shoreland Ordinance must be sent to the Commissioner or the Commissioner's designated representative and postmarked within ten (10) days of final action. SHORELAKTD DEFINITIONS A list of definitions is included that the City must adopt as a part of the Shoreland Ordinance. These definitions are in addition to the existing definitions in Section 2 and will be incorporated into Section 2. SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS Section 2 of the Tonka Bay Zoning Ordinance will be amended to include the following: Subd. B Subd. D Subd. I Bluff. A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than eighteen (18) percent over a distance for fi'.cy (50) feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): 1. 2. Part or all of shoreland area; the feature is located in a The slope rises at least twenty-five (25) feet above the ordinary high water level of the waterbody; 3. The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point twenty-five (25) feet or more above the ordinary high water level averages thirty (30) percent or greater; and 4. The slope must drain toward the waterbody. Bluff Zone. A bluff and land located within twenty (20) feet from the top of a bluff. Subd. C Comml SB loner. The Commissioner of ^he Department of Natural Resources. Development. The division of a parcel of land into two or more parcels; the construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation or erlargement of any structure; any land disturbance, and ary use or extension of the use of lind. Impervious Surface. Any structure or surface which interferes to any degree with the direct absorption of water into the ground, including but not limited to roofs, sidewalks, paved driveways and parking areas, patios, tennis courts, swimming pools, or any other similar surface. Subd. N Subd. S Subd. T Subd. W Intensive Vegetation Clearing. The complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block. Non-Conformity. Any legal use, structure or parcel of land already in existence, recorded, or authorized before the adoption of official controls or amendments thereto that would not have been permitted to become established under the terms of the official controls as now written, if the official controls had been in effect prior to the date it was established, recorded, or authorized. Shore Impact Zone. Land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of fifty (50) percent of the structure setback. Shoreland. Land located within the following distances from public waters: One thousand (1,000) feet from the ordinary high water level of a laike, pond, or flowage; and three hundred (300) feet from a river or stream, or the landward extent of a floodplain designated by ordinance on a river or stream, whichever is greater. The limits of shorelands may be reduced whenever the waters involved arc bounded by topographic divides which extend landward from the waters for lesse.- distances and when approved by the Commissioner. Steep Slope. Land where agricultural activity or development is either not recommended or described as poorly suited due to slope steepness and the site's soil characteristics, as mapped and described in available county soil surveys or other technical reports, unless appropriate design and construction techniques and farming practices are used in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. Where specific information is not availadDle, steep slopes are lands having average slopes over twelve (12) percent, as measured over horizontal distances of fifty (50) feet or more that are not bluffs. Toe of the Bluff. The lower point of a fifty (50) foot segment with an average slope exceeding eighteen (10) percent. Top of the Bluff. The higher point of a fifty (50) foot segment with an average slope exceeding eighteen (10) percent. Wetland. A surface water feature classified as a wetland in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39 (1971 edition). STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WATERS, 1200 WARllER ROAD, ST. P.AUL, l-fl 55106 (612) 772-7916phone no. October 6, 1992 The Honorable L.H. Haug Mayor, City of Tonka Bay 485 Lakeview Avenue Tonka Bay, MN 55331 Dear Mayor Haug: REVIEW AND COMMENT ON CITY FLEXIBILITY FROM STATE OF STANDARDS d crrtcr 1 C / ,v IJ file no OCL 8 1922 MIITNETONKA BEACH :NES0TA"S SHORELAim I'S R^U LAND.-.-MAJ UEST FOR TAGEMENT 1. As required by tno statewide snoreland management standards, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the City of Minnetonka Beach are hereby notifying your city of Minnetonka Beach's r-equest for flexibility from the statewide standards as outlined below. In accordance with the rules, the Commissioner and the city must solicit the input and approval of other governmental bodies that could be affected or impacted by the alternate controls. The city and the DNR are asking that your city provide its review and comments, if any, to either DNR or the city within 45 days of the date of this letter. If no response is received prior to then, we will assume that your city has no concerns with the neighboring city's proposal. The City of Minnetonka Beach is requesting flexibility from the following statewide standards: Increase in the structure height limit. Statewide standards require that a 25 foot height limit be applied to all new structures in residential land use districts in cities. The city is requesting the use of flexibility to allow structures a height limit of 30 feet in residential land use districts to keep many existing residences already constructed above the 25 foot limit from becoming nonconforming structures. The maximum allowable structure height under the "old" state shorelc'nd rules was 35 feet. Elimination of the setback requirement for a specific type of water oriented accessory structure. The city is asking for flexibility to allow lock boxes (used to store boat and beach equipment) which are limited to 20 square feet in area and 48 inches in height to be setback anywhere within the shore Impact zone. The statewide standards require that any water oriented accessory structures located within the shore impact zone ^ be setback at least 10 feet landward of the ordinary high wate'- level of any public waters. 2. AN EQUAL opportunity E.MPLOYER 3 .Relaxation of the statewide standards requiring that impervious cover in the shoreland area be limited to 25%. The city currently allows 30% coverage on the one acre minimum lot size required and a large number of existing lots would become nonconforming with the new requirement of 25%. The overall city average coverage is below 25% due to the large area of open space contained on the Lafayette Club property. The maximum allowable impervious surface coverage under the "old" state shoreland rules was 30%. Minnetonka Beach has presented the above requests for review and discussion by DNR and representatives of 11 Lake Minnetonka cities who are working together as a Technical Review Committee for the purpose of reviewing and discussing individual city^s flexibility requests affecting Lake Minnetonka. No problems with the city's request have been noted at any of those meetings. As stated earlier, please have appropriate staff review the proposed flexibility request and, if necessary, provide your comments to me at the address listed above within 45 days. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to contact either JoEllen Hurr, Minnetonka Beach's planning consul'.:ant at 471-9801, Ceil Strauss of this office at 772-7910, or me at 772-7916. Sincerely, Edward L. Pick Shoreland Hydrologist Enclosure cc:John Line Stine, Regional Hydrologist Ogbazghi Sium, Supervisor, Land Use Management Unit City Administrator/Clerk A STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOtt^GESiTn WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, lj^Ws5106-' pmoneno. (612) 772-7916 October 1, 1992 The Honorable Barbara Peterson Mayor, City of Orono P.O. Box 164 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mayor Peterson: FILE NO, OCT c; V.' •SR^lREVIEW AND COMMENT ON CITY bF WOODLAl^D'S REQUEST FOR FLEXIBILITY FROM STATE OF MINNESOTA'S SHtJRELAND-'MAliJAGEMENT STANDARDS As required by the statewide shoreland management standards, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the City of Woodland are hereby notifying your city of Woodland's request for flexibility from the statewide standards as outlined below. In accordance with the rules, the Commissioner and the city must solicit the input and approval of other governmental bodies that could be affected or impacted by the alternate controls. The city and the DNR are asking that your city provide its review and comments, if any, to either DNR or the city within 45 days of the date of this letter. If no response is received prior to then. will assume that your city has no concerns with the neighboring uxcy's proposal. The City of Woodland is requesting flexibility from the following statewide stanJards: 1. Reduction of the DNR requirement that structures be setback 75 feet from the ordinary high water level on lots not served by community sewer systems (DNR requires 50 foot setbacks, if community sewer is available). Woodland is not served by a community sewer system but the city requires that all new lots contain a minimum of 87,120 square feet in area. The city exceeds DNR's minimum lot sizes of 20,000 and 40,000 square foot areas for riparian and nonriparian lots respectively for lakes similar to Lake Minnetonka. Furthermore, Woodland requires that all onsite sanitar*/ s'wer systems must be setback a minimum of 7 5 feet which exceeds the DNR standard setback of 50 feet. 2. Reduction of the DNR standard lot width of 150 feet at the building lot for nonriparian lots to 100 feet. Nearly all of Woodland's land area is located within the shoreland of Lake Minnetonka and the city desires a AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER uniform lot width as this will affect all existing lots in the city which have been previously platted at 100 feet in width. Since the DNR requirement affects only nonriparian lot widths, Woodland is seeking relief from this requirement. If this flexibility is not allowed, many existing residential lots would become nonconforming in terms of complying with this requirement. 3.Relaxation of the statewide standards requiring that impervious cover in the shoreland area be limited to 25%. The city is proposing that impervious cover be allowed to approach 30% in a limited area of the city known as the Groveland Assembly Grounds. This area has been previously developed at 28% impervious cover which makes the existing development within this area nonconforming unless flexibility is allowed to increase impervious cover up to 30%. As stated earlier, the city requires all new lots to contain 87,120 square feet which exceeds the DNR standard lot size requirements for unsewered areas. Also, the maximum allowable impervious surface coverage under the "old” state shoreland rules was 30%. 4 .Increase in the structure height limit. The statewide standards require that a 25 foot height limit be applied to all new structures in residential land use districts in cities. The city is requesting the use of flexibility to allow structures a height limit of 35 feet in residential land use districts to keep many currently existing residences already constructed beyond the 25 foot limit from becoming nonconforming structures. The maximum allowable structure height under the "old" state shoreland rules was 35 feet. Woodland has presented the above requests for review ^nd discussion by DNR and representatives of 11 Lake Minnetonka cities who are working together as a Technical Review Committee for the purpose of reviewing and discussing individual city's flexibility requests affecting Lake Minnetonka . No problems with the city's request have been noted at any of those meetings. As stated earlier, please have appropriate staff review the proposed flexibility request and, if necessary, provide your comments to me at the address listed above within 45 days. If are any questions, do not hesitate to contact either Nick Duff, Woodland's Mayor at 473-9189, Ceil Strauss of this office at 772-7910, or me at 772-7916. Sincerely, Edward L. Pick Shoreland Hydrologist cc: John Line Stine, Regional Hydrologist Ogbazghi Sium, Supervisor, Land Use Management Unit City Administrator/Clerk m TO: FROM: DATE: Ron Moorse, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director October 2, 1992 SUBJECT: Pay Request #1 Pump and Meter Service Attached for review and approval is pay request #1 froiri Pump and Meter Service for the installation of the hoists at the new Public Works facility. The work has ’een complev**d according to specifications and I recommend payment for the request, d amount of $24,967,47. Enc. ch ^OAPMAN KHOOS mSTCR ASSOCtATiS A*LMfnCTUW If^RjOt DtSiGN tV JSU‘J‘.C 222 No»»>» 7r\6 Sn««« • Minn#opo*i» MN 5!*40l f(kM 339^212 • 612339 3752 P:LiJl CITY Oe ORONC ETTlEIfc ®[F¥®^^K!§ffit]DT:rA ’Ir'l'-l ■3^5 ’ S-’-owM -fu-vr*, SuTvv. ^ A------ OATf ATTCSTION, S-Y/T' ZS JOB NO ^ WE ARE SENDING YOU Attached □ Under separate cover via _. fTl'gb^^CYy^fc-^ G Shop drawings □ Prints □ Plans G Samples the following items: □ Specifications □ Copy of letter □ Change order d(-i2aii COPIES DATE NO.DESCRIPTION |i£fv."Wiefi'" SDlvi6e 6o- - ' 4'hS-r U'T'fT^C^Tv't^ THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below; □ For approval □ Approved as submitted G For your use Approved as noted □ Resubmit_____copies for approval □ Submit_____copies for distribution □ Return_____corrected printsG As requested □ Returned for corrections □ For review and commertt G___________________________________________________________ □ FOR Bids DUE_______________________19_______□ PRINTS RETURNED ARER LOAN TO US REMARKS r /K u^s J fa^TVg ___fi£/^e f4^L<ss 1^ (hhOTi^ Anf\^ir: prs^ ___^CK^. - Olti OffN2> .____________ __ba^v ^ mw\p \ COPY TO ^VlO]‘ V^O\C^ ________________ SIGNED: V # •• »•# «««•* es APPIK Ari» )N NO J ' ------'«">!> <0: 8_f,-92ARciiim I S -’“OIICI NO: ,124 „DisJribiiiion lo;I I OWNtR Cl ARQlMEcr IJ CONIRACTOR Cl □CONTRAcrpATf: ^AIA OocumeilJ Wilh .ho Conirac,.tACT SUMtACT SUM •nge Orders $ 305iXj>|_ i----=Q=LtO date (Lino I -* 2) .........^ r——-_____> A STORED TO DATF...................... 30513 .fl|--------------I>n c;?0 1) * ----- ^Mjleridl < ;70i) * ------------------ lofC7(H) RfTAINACt .............................. —Hi»r^ * Total) .............................* DflCATES FOR ' JJ..m p„„, c.-,Mica,el.............. ___ •“lUS miainaci.................\ "- _______________________________* I..I I..'.,;.., ,h‘'.' IZ7,T"’ ---- --- G702-I98.I CONTINUATION SHEET AIA DOdJMLNr C703 (Instruclions on reverse side) i’A(.t PAGISAIA Document C702, APPLICATION AND CERTiriCATE FOR PAYMENT, (onl.iining Contractor's signed Certification is iittached.In tabulations below, amounts arc stated to the nearest dollar.Use Column I on Contracts where variable retainage lor line items may apply.APPLICATION NUMBER APPLICATION DATE PERIOD TOarcmtiect's project noITEMNO.DESCRIPTION OF WORKSECTl DESCRIPTION ESCHtDUIED VAI Ul WORK COMPIETEDFROM PREVIOUS APPIKAtKJN (J) t 1)14450 Rotary DT028H Liftu/factory Fiberglajss 14450 Rotary RT10120SE truck lift 31 14450 Labor14450 Materials 15483 Concrete Pit ♦4,820.9A $14,880.0? $6,474.03$2,035,721 $2,302.2^1 •ZL$30,513.0^ THIS PLKIOD$47579789$Mrl56re7^ ^oinc$6r'lS0^ X ,^4>ZZf $2;1G7:14 FMATE RIALS PRESENTLY STORED (NOt IN D OR E) %C i'ZSi 2 :fe?R,9Q7>35 (;TOTALCOMPILTEO AND STORED TO DATE(D 4 E ♦ I$4,9/y.'OT17.. Mi ^ $14, 130 -.-0 75.5bl^.^o$8,ibU.J3|,71b.6o^H-83«n^ 'i.y>xzs $2 ..187.44 BALANCE TO MNISH (C G)iWTioo$323:^-$101:79 $115rfl ot. $2879S7Tk c/K IRITAINACE^^32.4o$7eor«r$96,78 //^. tt «lVsa6T65 ♦*;449.37 AIA DOCUMENT G7W * APtTItAllON AND CERtinCATl tOR rAYStlM • SVAV 1983 IDlIiON • ,MA* • i 19H1 Tin AMIRICAN INSIITUrr (3r ARdllllt lS I7t; NIW SORk V.!-.l ! V'W W\S!!INC.It»M nr H.iiif. m / J To: Prom: Date: Mayor Peterson and -ono City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator ji October 1, 199? Subject: Public vs. Private Responsibility for the Maintenance of Briar Street At the September 28 Council meeting, a resident of Briar Street expressed a concern about Briar Street not being maintained by the City as a public roadway. The Council directed staff to investigate his concern. The issue of responsibility for maintenance relates to the City's policy concerning public ^vs. private roads. In general, the City has not taken on responsibility for new roadways developed since the 1970's. The current City policy provides that new development is served by private roads that are maintained by a Homeowners Association. One reason for this is that it would be very inefficient for the Public Works staff to drive to the widely scattered private roads to do maintenance. In past discussions concerning public vs. private responsibility for road maintenance, it has been pointed out that the maintenance issue is larger than simply snow plowing. Maintenance includes repairing potholes, handling storm drainage, patching and overlaying worn pavement and reconstructing roadways. This wide range of maintenance responsibilities could have a significant financial impact. A key condition of the City considering taking over the maintenance of a private road is that the roadway be constructed to City standards. This enables the City to avoid "inheriting" responsiblity for major repair or reconstruction of roadways that were original]'/ installed as driveways to serve a specific subdivision. If a roadway does not currently meet City standards, it must be upgraded. Briar street is one of those streets that was installed as a gravel driveway to serve a small number of homes and does not meet City standards. In order for the City to consider^ taking on responsibility for the maintenance of the street. Briar Street would have to be upgraded to City standards. The costs of the upgrade would be borne by the property owners adjacent to the road. There are a number of streets similar to Briar Street that are maintained by the City and a number that are not maintainec by the City. The decisions related to the maintenance of those streets were made in the 1960's and 1970's. The decisions were not consistently related to whether the roads were pxatted or to whether the City had easements over them. However, the City has been consistent in recent years in not adding streets similar to Briar Street to its maintenance responsibilities. II To: From: Date: Ron Moorse# City Administrator Tom Kuehn, Finance Director October 8, 1992 Subject: Adoption of Assessment Roll for Hazardous Buildings Actions Attachments:A. B. C. Resolution Adopting Assessment Roll Proposed Assessment Roll Memo Dated 9/10/92 to Set Public Hearing Date Discussion The attached proposed resolution and assessment roll are derived from the settlement agreements for costs as noted in the memo for setting the public hearing on the hazardous buildings action. As also noted, the costs are to be collected over three years at an interest rate of 8%. It is requested that Council adopt the resolution and assessment roll as presented. PROPOSED MOTIONS: Moved by adopt Resolution #_ buildings actions - , seconded by _ adopting the assessment roll for hazardous 1992. Ayes _ _, Nays _ _. i r” A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR HAZARDOUS BUILDING ACTIONS - 1992 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper legal notice given as required by law, the City Council has on October 12, 1992, held a public hearing on the proposed assessment of costs incurred regarding hazardous buildings located on properties as named and described on the attached assessment roll; and WHEREAS, the City and Owners of the subject properties have entered Settlement Agreements on January 27, 1992 or April 2, 1992 regarding collection of the amounts described on the attached assessment roll as reimbursement to the City for expenses incurred in these hazardous buildings proceedings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota: 1. The Assessment Roll is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against each tract of land as named and attached thereto. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in three installments and shall bear interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum from October 12, 1992. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may pay the entire amount of the assessment as follows: a.) If the assessment is paid within 30 days (through November 11, 1992) after the Council adopts the assessment there is no interest added; b.) If the assessment is paid after October 12, 1992 but before certification to the Councy Auditor (which certification can occur at any time after this resolution is passed but no later that November 27, 1992) accrued interest is added through the date of payment; c.) If the assessment remains unpaid as of November 27, 1992 the City cannot accept payment and the assessment plus interest through December 31, 1993 will be collected by the County Auditor. A ■ ^'v 4. The City Clerk shall transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the propety tax lists of the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held October 12, 1992. ATTEST: Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATION ROLLS .PAQEmunic code no, /6 TO: FROM: DATE Ron Moorse, City Administrator Tom Kuehn, Finance Director September 10, 1992 SUBJECT: Set Public Hearing Date for Hazardous Building Assessments Attachment: A, Public Hearing Notice The City has settlement agreements for hazardous building actions on 1949 Eagerness Point Road, 2405 Dunwoody Avenue, 3865-75 Shoreline Drive, and 3877 Shoreline Drive. The settlement agreements resolve the outstanding hazardous conditions on the buildings and provide that the legal fees incurred by the City to enforce the hazardous building actions be paid one-half by the property owners and one-half by the City. The settlements provide for collection of the principal amounts over three years at 8% interest per year. The property owners have waived their rights to appeal the special assessments, however the City still must set a public hearing date to consider adoption of the proposed special assessment roll for the subject properties. The properties and costs to be assessed are: 1949 Eagerness Point Road 3865 & 3875 Shoreline Drive 3877 Shoreline Drive 2405 Dunwoody Avenue TOTAL $ 4,575.00 2,825.50 1,412.75 1,412.75 $10,226.00 SSSS=3S=:=SS3S I have attached a copy of the public hearing notice for your information. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by _ to set a pub] ic hearing for October 12, 1992 at 7:00 P.M. at the Council Chambers to consider the special assessmsne roll for the 1992 hazardous buildings. Ayes , Nay CITY OF ORONO PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The City Council will hold a Public Hearing in the Council Chambers at 1275 Brown Road South on Monday, October 12, 1992 at 7:00 P.M. on the proposed assessment in the total amount of $10,226.00 for hazardous buildings actions on properties legally described as follows. 1 949 Fagerness Point Road - Lots 23 and 24, Fagerness $4,575.00 P.I.D. 18-117- 23 14 0016, Addition 42220 3865 and 3875 Shoreline Drive - Part Lots 1 and 2, Townsite of Langdon Park $2,825.50 P.I.D. 20-117-23 22 0007, Addition 42420 3877 Shoreline Drive - Part Lots 1 and 2, Townsite of Langdon Park $1,412.75 P.I.D. 20-117-23 22 0006, addition 42420 2405 Dunwoody Avenue - Part Lot 2, Townsite of Langdon Park $1,412.75 P.I.D. 20-117-23 22 0008, Addition 42420 The proposed assessment roll is on file with the City Clerk at the Administrative Offices, 1335 Brown Road South. Written or oral objections will be considered. No appeal may be taken as to the amount of any assessment unless a signed, written objection is filed with the City Clerk prior to the hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing. An appeal to the District Court may be made by serving notice upon the Mayor or the City Clerk within 30 days after adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or City Clerk. The City has adopted a special assessment deferment ordinance based on the applicant meeting age, ownership, occupancy, and income guidelines. By Order of the City Council /s/ Dorothy M. Hallin City Clerk Publish the weeks of September 28 and October Lak«r/Pioneer newspaper. j 1992 in the /‘i To: Prom: Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator I//A Date October 9, 1992 Subject: Establishment of a Process to Review the Future Use of the Current City Hall Site After the new City facilities are built and the current City Hall buildings are demolished, the current City Hall site will be available for other uses. Residents of the area have suggested it be converted to park use. The Council may want to establish a piocess for determining the future use of the City Hall site. The process could include a review by the Park Commission. Isv A ' A' i' lio ill 1 WESTERN HENNEPIN COUNTY PIONEERS ASSOCIATION, INC. FOUNDED 1907 1953 W. Wayzata Blvd. P.O. Box 332 Lx>ng Lake. MN 55356 City of Crono Council Cct. 12, 1992 Ve at the .-/eftern H.3nn. Co. Pioneer Assn, realize the historical significance of the Crono Council Chambers and are interested in the possibility of preserving the building. If the city council would like to explore the options, do not hesitate to contact us. Thank ypu. 7^1 \m THllmflJim Dillman President t. /3 TO: FROM: Ron Moorse, City Administrator Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk DATE:September 29, 1992 SUBJECT: Establish Date of Canvassing Board Meeting The City Council must select a date and time to convene as the Canvassing Board to certify the results of the municipal election being held in conjunction with the General Election. It is required by State Statute that this meeting be held within two days of the election. In the past, the Canvassing Board has met the day after the election and has completed its work and adjourned in 15 to 20 minutes. Requested Action - Establish a date and time for the Canvassing Board to meet. ■ jix. wi To: From: Date: Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator October 8, 1992 /A Subject City Administrator One Year Anniversary Salary Adjustment The City Administrator’s one year anniversary was September 9, 1992. The City's Compensation Plan calls for a salary adjustment to Step 2 of the salary range at the one year anniversary. The 1992 Step 2 amount is $58,498.00. The Compensation Plan also calls for a salary adjustment at the first of the year commensurate with the annual increase made to the salary range. This increase maintains the salary at Step 2 of the salary range. Isv L, r ' / To: From: Date: Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator October 8, 1992 Subject: Rescheduling of 1993 Budget Work Session The Budget Work Session scheduled for October 8 was cancelled and needs to be rescheduled to a time and date convenient for the council. Isv To: From: Date: Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator October 9, 1992 Subject: City Facilities Furniture Purchase The furniture purchase for the new facilities has been prepared for Council approval. The furniture order was developed within the following parameters; 1, Take all existing useable furniture to the new facilities. 2, Provide new furniture in open office areas to ensure a professional image is presented to the public. 3, The first priority for new furniture was the office staff work stations. The vendors for the furniture purchase were selected from the joint purchasing contract for the State of Minnesota and Hennepin County. The majority of the furniture is recommended to be purchased from General Office Products Company^ which is a Steelcase vendor. A smaller portion is recommended to be purchased from Metro Systems, which is an Allsteel vendor. The furniture order includes the following major areas; 1. Council Chcunbers chairs and meeting room furniture. 2. Office staff work stations and chairs. 3. Department head office furniture and chairs. 4. Conference room furniture. 5. Lobby seating. 6. Additional file cabinets. 7. Modular office panels. The cost of the furniture purchase is as follows; General Office Products Metro Systems TOTAL $74,946.65 5,116.90 $80,063.55 Isv VAL2 YTD CURRENTDPTGROSSGROSS3335880.23 1795.853117248.76 1141.12932763.75 242.001242568.00 2038.403133440.57 1497.84353913.29 186.65931561.16 132.254221488.54 948.889223439.16 1222.353328650.96 1434.014221108.32 1001.6013175.00 85.001385.00 85.001387.50 87.509227939.30 1329.769223180.16 1064.190 13 177.50 87.5093451.00 33.00315518.74 638.601386.25 86.2513175.00 85.004222690.27 1203.180 93 24681.65 1235.2913183.50 93.503138761.13 2004.083129622.30 1469.28F 31 31012.85 1579.483130301.75 1497.84 13 86.25 86.25 33 24680.41 1235.28 12 18788.68 1078.79 15 22389.26 1145.28 33 20881.01 1088.00 62.223.23 AT &T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROC 01-4340-059-14AT&T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROG 01-4340-069-15AT&T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROC 01-4340-129-31AT&T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROC 01-4340-129-31AT&T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROC 01-4340-174-33AT&T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROC 01-4340-249-42 286074 10/06/92 so. 00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENG RETAINER AUG 01-4304-200-4128607410/06/62 77.75 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN COMP PLAN AMEND 01-4305-200-4128607410/06/92 155.50 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN DNR LAKE ACCESS 01-4305-200-4128607410/06/92 314.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN FOX ST PERMIT APPLIC 01-4305-249-4228607410/06/92 129.75 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN MSA GEN AUG 01-4305-249-4228607410/06/92 641.56 1,368.56 •BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENG-APPLIC AUG 01-4305-840-7128611410/06/92 895.00 895.00 *CITYVIEW PLMBG & HTG FURNACE REPAIR 74-4343-590-9328614310/06/92 1.95 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP OCT INS 01-3872-000-0028614310/06/92 16.99 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP OCT INS 01-4152-039-1228614310/06/92 32.05 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP OCT INS 01-4152-069-1528614310/06/92 59.78 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP OCT INS 01-4152-129-3128614310/06/92 7.00 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP OCT INS 01-4152-129-3128614310/06/92 6.99 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP OCT INS 01-4152-174-3328614310/06/92 20.19 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP OCT INS 01-4152-249-4228614310/06/92 2.02 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP OCT INS 72-4152-549-9128614310/06/92 2.63 COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP OCT INS 73-4152-569-9228614310/06/92 .85150.45 *COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP OCT INS 74-4152-590-93 123.10 n10/06/92 34.03 GENUINE PARTS CO PARTS10/06/92 14.59 GENUINE PARTS CO PARTS10/06/92 28.19 GENUINE PARTS CO PARTS10/06/92 17.14 GENUINE PARTS CO PARTS10/06/92 125.43 GENUINE PARTS CO PARTS10/06/92 22.13 GENUINE PARTS CO PARTS10/06/92 6.69248.20 GENUINE PARTS CO PARTS10/06/92 82.90 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD CUPS10/06/92 25.75 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD WATER10/06/92 52.40161.05 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD CUPS10/06/92 1,000.001,000.00 n GOLF CAR MIDWEST CART 10-12-92 PAGE 3^ account no. INV. • P.O. i MESSAGE•••-CKS01-4370-249-4201-4232-01-4232-01-423272- 423473- 42J273- 423474- 4232■249-42-249-42-790-61-549-91-569-92-569-92-590-9301-4324-099-1701-4324-099-1701-4382-129-3174-4331-590-9301-422101-434301-434301-434373- 4221 74- 4221 -249-42-129-31-129-31-129-31-569-92-590-93 74-4802-591-94 01-4356-080-16 01-4356-080-16 01-4358-080-16 01-4356-069-15 01-4381-069-15 (.(.•-CKS•**-CKS ••••-CKS 1992 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE286397286397286397286397286397286397286404286404286404 • A gk « il H 286498 286498 10/06/9210/06/9210/06/9210/06/9210/06/9210/06/9210/06/9210/06/9210/06/92 CHECK REGISTERAMOUNTVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 10/06/92 10/06/92 49.11 •6.30 75.70 44.32 2.10 2.10 11.55 142.07 *39.42 8.76 37.96 86.14 •KUEHNKUEHNKUEHNKUEHNKUEHNKUEHN THOMASTHOMASTHOMASTHOMASTHOMASTHOMAS MILEAGE LABELS GFOA CONE MILEAGE MILEAGE SEPT MILEAGE SEPT MILEAGE SEPT MILEAGE SEPTTHE LAKER THE LAKER THE LAKER ADADAD 205.69 25.66 231.35 • CELLULARONE CELLULARONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE 10-12-92 PAGE 4 ACCOUNT NO. INV. i P.O. i MESSAGE01-350001-438101-438101-438101-438173-4381 000-00069-15069-15174-33295-65569-9201-4323-039-1201-4323-040-1301-4323-174-3328640710/06/92 32.2632.26 A LANO EQUIP CO PART 01-4232-249-4228643710/06/92 16.37 CITY OF LONG LAKE FLASHER 01-4325-249-4228643710/06/92 69.1785.54 A CITY OF LONG LAKE LS 73-4344-569-9228647710/06/92 14.63 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-039-1228647710/06/92 14.63 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-059-1428647710/06/92 14.63 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-069-1528647710/06/92 14 62 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-129-3128647710/06/92 39.58 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-174-33 286477 10/06/92 14.62 112.71 A MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-249-42 286480 10/06/92 1.917.63 1.917.63 A MIDWEST ASPHALT ASPHALT 01-4233-249-42 286485 10/06/92 31.50 31.50 A MPLS OXYGEN CO DEMURRAGE 01-4232-249-42 01-4320-129-31 01-4320-249-42 ***-CKS»»--CKS*»*-CKS***-CKS***-CKS AAA -CKS ••--CKS •••-CKS 1992 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE286562280562 2r,6562 2i6S62 286562 286562 286562 286562 286562 286562 286562 286562 286562 286562 10/06/9210/06/92 10/06/92 10/06/92 10/06/92 10/06/92 10/06/92 10/06/92 10/06/92 10/06/92 10/06/92 10/06/92 10/06/92 10/06/92 CHECK REGISTER 10-12-92 PAGEAMOUNTVENDORITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. i P.O. # MESSAGE39347 304 3 180 7 7 143 1.869 52 128 762 94 8 3,948 .53 .90 .24 .14 .74 .03 .03 .07 .32 .25 .91 .60 .77 .41 .94 • NSPNSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP UTILITIESUTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES 01-432401-4324 01-4324 01-4324 01-4324 01-432401-4324 72-4324 72- 4324 73- 4324 73-4324 73- 4324 74- 4324 74-4324 099-17099-17 129-31 175-34 249-42 290-61 290-61 549-91 549-91 569-92 569-92 569-92 590-93 •590-93 286565 10/06/92 2.153.16 NSP ST LIGHTS 01-4325-249-42 2.153.16 ‘ 286597 10/06/92 4.426.40 PUBLIC EMPL RET ASSN PERA 9/14-9/27 01-2031-000-00 4.426.40 » 286628 10/06/92 1.112.85 POPHAM HAIK &ASSOC LEGAL RETAINER-JUL 01-4301-080-16 286638 10/06/92 378.50 POPHAM HAIK &ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT-JUL 01-4303-080-16 286628 10/06/92 72.00 POPHAM HAIK 4 ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT-JUL 01-4303-129-31 286628 10/06/92 1.182.10 POPHAM HAIK &ASSOC LEGAL APPLIC-JUL 01-4303-840-7128662810/08/92 567.00 POPHAM HAIK &ASSOr HWY 12 COORIDOR 01-4306-299-72 286628 10/06/92 1,040.95 POPHAM HAIK &ASSOl LEGAL CONSULT-JUL 24-4399-455-00 286628 10/06/92 317.00 POPHAM HAIK &ASSOC LEGAL-CITY HALL LAND 25-4303-480-00 288628 10/06/92 1.872.70 POPHAM HAIK A ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT-JUL 26-4303-408-00 286628 10/06/92 188.70 POPHAM HAIK A ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT-JUL 72-4303-436-84 286628 10/06/92 209.60 POPHAM HAIK A ASSOC NAV TOWER COMM LEASE 72-4303-549-91 286628 10/06/92 188.70 POPHAM HAIK A ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT-JUL 73-4303-434-827.130.10 • 286658 10/06/92 3.50 R C INDENTIFICATIONS ID CARD 01 4210-129-313.50 • 286661 10/06/92 >1.97 SCHARBER & oONS INC PARTS 74-4232-590-93 11.97 • 286662 ■ 10/06/92 26.40 REED VENDING CANDY 4 GIGS 74-4802-591-94 *»*-CKS ***-CKS »**-CKS •**-CKS •»»-CKS •**-CKS N f 286662 10/06/92 45.60 72.00 •REED VENDING CANDY & CIGS 74-4802-591-9428866810/06/92 167.24 167.24 •RED RAJ KENNELS IMPOUND FEES 01-4360-185-35•‘•>6669j669a«6669 10/06/9210/06/9210/06/92 18.86 6.08 6.49 31.43 *RITZ CAMERA RITZ CAMERA RITZ CAMERA FILM DEVELOP DEVELOP FILM FILM DEVELOP 01-4210-129-3101-4210-129-3101-4210-174-33286G9710/06/92 33.25 33.25 *SCHARBER & SONS PARTS 01-4232-249-4228675610/06/92 22.99 22.99 •STEPHEN SULLIVAN CONF 01-4356-175-3428676810/06/92 168.34 168.34 •TELEPHONE SPECIALIST MAINT 01-4340-099-1728677610/06/92 20.80 20.80 •THORPE DIST CO BEER 74-4815-591-94 AMOUNT CHECK REGISTERVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 10-12ACCOUNT NO. INV. i P.C•••-CKS•••-CKS*»*-CKS***-CKS•■•-CKS •••-CKS -CKS •Fill. 9292 6.3512.3718.72 ft VEE LIN VEE LIN MTGMILEAGE 01-4356-040-1301-4381-039-129284.1484.14 ft WATERPRO FENCE 01-4232-249-4292397.50397.50 ft WAY2ATA BAY CAR WASH CAR WASH TICKETS 01-4341-129-31’92 63.8063.80 ft WECKMAN STEPHEN MILEAGE 01-4381-174-33'92 8.758.75 ft WRIGHT HENN ELECTRIC UTILITY 01-4324-249-42^92 105.83105.83 ft LIFETECH CORP KITS 01-4232-129-31^92 295.00295.00 ft CITY OF ST PAUL CONF 01-4356-129-31 /92 /92 13.31 13.32 26.63 ft FISHER ENTERPRISES FISHER ENTERPRISES DIRT DIRT 01-4231-290-61 01-4233-249-42 /92 12.16 12.16 ft KROMER CO PART 74-4232-590-93 /92 15.OC 15.00 ft MGCSA MTG 74-4356-590-93 /92 15.00 15.00 ft MR MOVIES COPY TAPE 01-4210-129-31 /92 /92 529.65 6.42 536.07 ft CASH REGISTER SERV CASH REGISTER SERV CASH REG TAPE 74-1500-000-00 74-4210-590-93 /92 /92 6.00 9.00 15.00 ft BARRY RATHBUN BARRY RATHBUN CERTIFICATE CERTIFICATE 72- 4383-549-91 73- 4383-569-92 ft * ft -CKS 1992 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTERCHECK NO . DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV28691610/06/92 535.71535.71*RYAN FORD REPAIR 01-4341-129-3128691710/06/92 182.00182.00 ft GOLF CARTS UNLIMITED GOLF CART RENTAL 74-4331-590-S328691810/06/92 148.00148.00ft MBNA AMERICA CONF 01-4356-129-31 286919 286919 10/06/92 10/06/92 1.063.00 20.098.00 21.161.00 ft NSP NSP LS83 POWER LINE CONS LS81 POWER LINECONS 26-4530-408-00 26-4530-408-00 286920 286920 286920 286920 10/06/92 10/06/92 10/06/92 10/06/92 10.00 11.00 31.00 1.197.00 1.249.00 ft MN DEPT OF REVENUE MN DEPT OF REVENUE MN DEPT OF REVENUE MN DEPT OF REVENUE SEPT SALES TAX SEPT SALES TAX SEPT SALES TAX SEPT SALES TAX 01-3500-000-00 01-3516-000-00 72-2222-000-00 74-2222-000-00 286921 10/06/92 600.00 600.00 ft DAHLKE TREE SERVICE TRFE REMOVAL 01-4391-249-42 286922 286922 286922 10/06/92 10/06/92 10/06/92 95.85- 95.85 95.85 95.85 ft EULLS MANF EULLS MANF EULLS MANF PARTS PARTS PARTS 73-4232-569-92 73-4232-569-92 73-4234-569-92 286923 10/06/92 348.74 348.74ft PRODUCTIVE SOFTWARE REFLECTION SOFTWARE 14-4540-629-00 286924 10/06/92 24,987.47 OCT JT *PUMP & METER SERV VEHICLE LIFTS 25-4520-484-00 10-12-92 PAGE 8 27.194.42 348.74 1.040.95 25.284.47 23.033.70 250.00 2,537.08 1.730.44 4,559.33 85,979.13 FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND TOTA 01 14 24 25 26 46 72 73 74 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL GENERAL FUND IMPROVE & EQUIP OUTLAY F PERM IMPROVE REVOLVING F 91 PUBLIC FACIL CONSTR F 92 STUBBS BAY SWR CONS F 1992 IMP BONO D/S FUND WATER OPERATING FUND SEWER OPERATING FUND GOLF COURSE OPERATING FD "*»-CKS .u it.,1 y..y ill I m LEON R. FRSTAD RICHARD RIEMER JEFFREY B. NELSON L\U1?E.NCEJ. SKOGU ND GEORGE C. HOni.NCER JIFF M. Z.VLA5KA' JON K. IVERSON MICHAEL J. K05HMRL STEVIN F. MAmiNI ERSTAD & RlEMIiR, PA. October 1, 1992 1000 iN'ortliland Plaza 3S00 Wot 80th Street Minneapolis. Minnesota 55 »31 Telephone (612) 896-3700 Fa.\(6l2)S96-3"17 C.TV 0= CaCNC ______________ DVMFl .e intLY DU.M 1. BKE.S.SA.N THOM.\S L F.'IMER.JR.' KELLY JO BRLSi Mr. Mark Rossow 8 GAB BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. 9531 West 78th Street, Suite 320 Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 RE: Richard Stodola and Merritt Peterson v. City of Orono Your Claim No: 56527-19355 Our File No: 10008.0008 Dear Mr. Rossow: As you know from prior correspondence, the last time we were before the judge on this matter, he asked us to explore settlement possibilities further. He asked first of all, that I contact the City of Orono and find out whether they are interested in pursuing some type of settlement which allows the use of a shared dock on the premises. Jeanne Mabusth has advised me that the City is not. Ms. Mabusth took the matter up with the City Council after my August 4 letter, and subsequently called me to advise me that the City Council has previously explored such arrangements, and is not interested in renewing that process. I conveyed this information to Attorney Carson. The judge had requested that if some future utilization of the property would not be feasible, then we should explore settlement strictly on a monetary basis. Mr. Carson has now advised me that his clients are willing to settle for $53,500.00. Considering the fact that his clients paid about $11,000.00 for the property in question, I consider the $53,000.00 demand to be absolutely outrageous. His basis for the claim is he claims he has an appraiser who will testify that if his clients are allowed to build and utilize a dock on the property, they could sell that to someone else for $40,000.00. For some reason, then he wants to recover that full $40,000.00 plus the cost of the land plus all of his expenses. This will be a moderately expensive case to defend, since the plaintiff is raising a host of constitutional allegations which are never easy to deal with. I believe the City has a good defense to this case, and I will lay out in greater detail in the remainder of this letter my analysis of the specific plaintiffs claims, and where I believe the law stands on those issues. Given the complexity of the case, however, I believe a settlement in the $5,000.00 to $7,000.00 range would not be unreasonable. If you GAB BUSINESS SERVICES October 1, 1992 Page 2 would like me to proceed to attempt to settle it within that range, please let me know. I cannot, however, be optimistic given the size of plaintiffs monetary demand. Let me review, theory by theory, the major aspects of plaintiffs claim. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES Plaintiffs must first prove they have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance. This will be difficult for them because the ordinance was in place when they bought the property. A person who purchases property after a zoning ordinance is in effect is presumed to have full knowledge of the zoning. The plaintiffs also claim that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. Minnesota courts have stated that an ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague if it gives citizens reasonable notice of what the law permits. Plaintiffs claim that the ordinance, and the denial of the variance, result in an unconstitutional taking. Mere diminution in value or barring of primary use of land is not enough to establish an unconstitutional taking. The land owner must be deprived of all reasonable use. Plaintiffs have an expert who will testify that without the dock, the land is useless. But in Minnesota, if an ordinance is enacted pursuant to valid police power, it is not an unconstitutional taking unless it is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. Before a taking can be found, plaintiffs must show that they have had vested rights. In the present situation, plaintiffs should have no vested right to a variance to erect a dock. When a land owner does not properly check applicable zoning ordinances before the purchase of property, his prediccunent is self-imposed, and is not a taking. Plaintiffs claims of unconstitutional discriminatory treatment and equal protection violation are very weak. Equal protection only applies to discrimination based on race, gender or other suspect classes of which residency is not included. Also, plaintiffs cannot show there treatment was different from other "similarly situated" individuals. To be "similarly situated" for denial of a variance, plaintiffs must show they were denied a variance when variances of the same type were granted at the same time. Variances granted in the past cannot be used to show disparate treatment. i GAB BUSINESS SERVICES October 1, 1992 Page 3 ESTOPPEL Plaintiffs claim that representations by the City should estop the City from denying the variance. Generally, claims for estoppel must rely on representations made before the land was purchased or the dock erected. Estoppel occurs when individuals reasonably rely on a misrepresentation. In this case, any representations by the City came after the fact. JUDICIAI. REVIEW OF THE CITY^S DECISIONS The court's ability to review the constitutionality of the ordinance and the Board's decision to deny the variance is very limited. The decision by the board can only be changed if it was unreasonable or arbitrary and capricious. When a decision is factually based on a fully developed record in good faith (as I believe it is in this case), the courts generally must uphold it. The ordinance itself is presumed constitutional, and can only be challenged if it is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious and has no relation to the public health, safety or welfare. The City will present testimony that the ordinance in question is based on concern for the public safety and welfare. In both of these challenges, plaintiff bears a heavy burden of proof. ^ In my opinion, it will be difficult in this situation for plaintiffs to meet that burden. ENFORCEMENT OF THE VARIANCE While the court should afford great difference to the decision of the city council, the plaintiff will attempt to get the court or a jury to second guess the City. The fact that there was a dock on the property, and plaintiff oeeks to have a dock, does give the court some reason to find some compromise solution. I believe it is significant that in their depositions, plaintiffs indicated that they intended to build a new dock and never intended to utilize the existing dock. It is also to our benefit that the City was unaware that the dock used by Tillotson was the lot line. ^ A prior erroneous application of a zoning ordinance should not bind a city to grant a variance. The City had a right to enforce its ordinances and demand that Tillotson remove the dock because municipalities are given the police power to enforce their ordinances. An undue hardship is necessary to warrant a variance. One of the major factors in determining whether an undue hardship exists rs that it cannot be self-created. The plaintiffs should have known that the proposed use may not be allowed. Additionally, to show an GAB BUSINESS SERVICES October 1, 1992 Page 4 undue hardship, plaintiffs must show that the hardship was unique to the property and plaintiffs must also show that there is no reasonable use for the land. They have an expert who will testify that the land is worthless without a dock. However, there is still a reasonable use of the land if it is combined with the adjacent property. MUNICIPAL IMMUNITY The City of Orono should have a good defense of immunity under Minn. Stat. § 466.03 on the basis of discretionary acts. A decision by a municipal government should fall within discretionary immunity protection if it is a policy based decision, since the purpose of immunity is to prevent the impairment of effective government. A decision is determined to be discretionary if it involves the balancing of policy objectives in social, political or economic considerations. Orono's decision in tl*-is case was based on this type of balancing. STATUS AND FUTURE HANDLING A pretrial has been scheduled for October 26 before Judge Stanoch. At that time, the judge will explore settlement options and set a schedule for the remainder of the case. I recommend that I be given authority up to $7,000.00 to settle the case, otherwise we move forward. Please let me know your thoughts and recommendations. Yours truly. ERSTAD & RIEMER, P.A. # Leon R. Erstad LRE:dd cc: Bob Weisbrod, Berkley Risk Services League of Ml^ Cities Insurance Trust Tom Felcyn, GAB - Eden Prairie Jeanne Mabusth, City of Orono TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator October If 1992 SUBJECT: Screening of Trash Containers and Dumpsters Discussion at the September 28th Council meeting prompted a review of the code sections dealing with screening of trash storage containers. The following are the pertinent code sections: I. M-6 Zoning District (no property in Orono is yet zoned M-6) page 296 Section 10.30, Subd. 16 (G); "...any (trash) storage shall be completely enclosed by walls and roof”. II. B-1, B-3, B-4, B-5, I, and Highway 12 Zones; page 335 Section 10.40, Subd. 6 (G) Bui Iding Design and Construction; "...2. All subsequent additions and outbuildings... shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance”. III. B-6 Zone. Page 351-3, Section 10.45, Subd. 6 (D: I* trash and trash handling equipment shall be stored within the principal structure, within an attached structure accessible from within the principal structure, or totally screened from eye level view from public streets and adjacent residential properties. If accessory structures are proposed, they shall be constructed of the same building material as the principal structure and be readily served through swinging doors. IV. Pertinent to all districts. Page 378—379, Section 10.60, Subds. 11 and 14, Screening; Waste Materials: Subd. 11. Screening, type of. The screening required herein shall consist of a solid fence or wall at least 50% open, not less than 4' or more than 5' in height but shall not extend within 15' of any street or driveway opening onto a street. The screening shall be placed along the property lines or in case of screening along a street, 15' from the street right-of-way with landscaping (trees, shrubs, grass and other planting) between the screening and the pavement. A lou'^ered fence shall be considered solid if it bloclcs direct vision. Planting of a type approved by the Planning Commission may also be required in addition to, or in lieu of, fencing. Memo October 1, 1992 Page 2 Subd. 14. Waste Materials. Waste material shall not be washed into the public storm sewer system nor the sanitary sewer system without first having received a permit to do so from the City. If said permit is not granted, a method of disposal shall be devised which will not require continuous land requisition for permanent operation and will not cause a detrimental effect to the adjacent land. Should the waste be of solid form rather than fluid, the storage area shall be so located and fenced as to be removed from public view. In all districts, all waste material, debris, refuse, garbage, materials not currently in use for construction or otherwise regulated herein shall be kept in an enclosed building or properly contained in a closed container for such purposes. The owner of vacant land shall be responsible for keeping such vacant land free of waste material and noxious weeds. V. General. Section 9.01, Subd. 2. Storage. A. It is unlawful for any person to store refuse on residential dwelling premises for more than one week. All such storage shall be in five to thirty gallon metal or plastic containers with tight-fitting covers, which shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition; provided, that tree leaves, weeds and grass clippings may be stored in plastic bags and tree limbs must be stored in bundles weighing no more than seventy-five pounds and no longer than four feet. B. It is unlawful for any person to store refuse on multiple dwelling premises for more than one week. Such storage shall be in containers as for residential dwelling premises, except that containers, sometimes referred to as "dumpsters”, with close- fitting covers may be substituted. C. It is unlawful for any person to store refuse on coramercial establishment premises for more than forty-eight hours. Such storage shall be in containers as for residential dwelling premises, except that containers, sometimes referred to as "dumpsters", with close-fitting covers may be substituted. D. It is unlawful to store organic refuse unless it is drained and wrapped. Summary/Interpretation/Conclusion The above noted code sections are the only ones found which directly or indirectly pertain to trash storage. I would offer the following conclusions; Memo October 1, 1992 Page 3 1.In Single Family Residential Zones, trash and garbage must be stored in closed garbage cans or dumpsters, but are not specifically required to be screened. Screening standards do exist should the Council wish to consider adoption of an ordinance requiring screening. 2.In the M-6 District, which is a Multiple Family District currently not in place anywhere in the City, trash storage must be enclosed by walls and a roof. 3.In most of the Business Districts, any additions or accessory buildings must be architecturally compatible with the original building. This could certainly be interpreted that an attached wall system for screening trash must be architectually compatible with the original building, but does not specifically require screening of trash containers. 4.B-6 is the c ily zone which specifically requires screening of trash con ainers. If Council wishes to onsider trash container screening for other zones, this would be a candidate topic for discussion at the next Planning Commission work session. 1 J.AA.iA A A metropolitan council Mflirs Park Ccnirr. 2M) hiM I'lnh Strcvi, St PiPaul. A/.V S510I16.U 612 29I-6J.^9'Xlm-6£^^4>£>:=r^ iivi’ 612 2910904 ciri c=!nl OCT 3 i03C October 1, 1992 Local Government Key Contacts The Metropolitan Council has begun to reexamine and revise the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDIF), the Council’s regional growth management strategy. The Council’s staff has prepared the attached background paper that summarizes many of the issues that it believes should be examined and addressed as the Ml.TF is revised. This background paper will be used by the Council to stimulate public discussion and comments on issues affecting the MDIF and its review process. The report will be the subject of a Planning Forum to be held in the Council Chambers from 9:00 a.m. to noon on Oct. 22. Under separate cover, we ve mailed notices of this forum and a copy of ‘he report to local planners and planning officials. If you have any questions about th'^ background paper or the upcoming forum, ple?se call Anne Hurlburt of the Council’s staff at 291-6501. Sincerely, Mary E. Anderson Chair MEA/kp Enclosure Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework Staff Report: Background and Issues Metropolitan Council Mcars P;;rk Centre. 2.i0 E. Fifth St St. Paul. Minnesota 55101 612 291-6.'159 TDD 2910904 Publication No. 640-92-097 Sept. 25. 1992 For more in‘‘ormation about this report or about the Council ’s process and schedule for the MDIF update, please contact: Anne Hurlburt, Manager Comprehensive Planning and Local Assistance, 612 291-6501 If you would like additional copies of this report, please contact: Introduction The Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDIF) is the keystone chapter of the Metropolitan Council ’s Metropolitan Development Guide, the Council ’s plan for the orderly and economic development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Adopted in 1986, the MDIF is now being revised to reflect current goals for the region ’s future. The Council intends to complete the MDIF revision by the end of 1993. This report summarizes many of the issues that the Council staff believes should be addressed as the MDIF is revised. It is intended to help frame the Council ’s discussion of issues affecting the MDIF. As part of the revision process, the Council has developed with the help of many organizations and individuals a set of goals for the region that describe what this region should be and offer its citizens by the year 2015. These goals, contained in Metro 2Q15: Vision and Coals, will guide the policies developed as part of the new .MDIF. Articulating the Council ’s vision for the region in a revh- i MDIF is the first step in implementing that vision in all of the planning that the Council undertakes. The main reasons for updating the MDIF arc; o Tlie Council ’s growth management strategy needs to be examined to determine if it is helping the region achieve the development pattern, physical form and living environment as described in the Metro 2015 goals. The region faces significant issues linked to its development pattern, such as the possibility of a new major airport and transit and highway needs. Growing physical and socioeconomic disparities among the different areas of the region need to be addressed, along with the role of the Council in dealing with these issues. The MDIF’s economic criteria for regional investments must be considered in light of the changing, global economic environment. Governments have been challenged to “reinvent" themselves to better meet the challenges of the coming decade. There is more awareness of the relationship of the region ’s growth to environr^' opportunities and constraints. Local and regk nal long-range planning requires that we look beyond the year-2000 time frame of the current MDIF to the year 2020. o o o o This report contains three major sections: o "The Framework ’s History and Evoiution"-a brief background on the creation of the Council and the first Metropolitan Development Framework. o "Existing MDIF Polit7 Conccpts"--a summary of the 1986 framework and its basic concepts, o "Major Issues"-a summary of major issues for the MDIF revision. The report will be used by the Metropolitan Council to guide and promote its discussion of issues, as well as encourage discussion and comment from otner groups and individuals in the MDIF revision process. he Framework ’s History and Evolution Seed for a Development Guide The origii.al 1967 legislation creating the Metropolitan Council recognized the need for a comprehensive metropolitan plan (Minn. Stat. 473.145). It called for the Council to prepare a metropolitan development guide that... ...shall consist of a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, programs, and maps prescribing guides for an orderly and economic development, public and private, of the metropolitan area. The comprehensive development guide shall recognize and encompa.ss phv-sical, social, or economic needs of the metropolitan area and those future developments which 'vill have an impact on the entire area including but not limited to such matters as land use, parlts and open space land needs, the nece.vsity for and location of airports, highways, transit facilities, public hospitals, libraries, schools and other public buildings. By the early 1970s, the Council’s Metropolitan Development Guide included 11 chapters, each describing policies, plans and programs for a single functional area. Plans that had been developed only one or two years apart were based on different population projections, time spans and development concepts. For example, transit proposals a.ssumed a densely concentrated urban area, while sewer proposals assumed a low-density scattered pattern of development. Local plans were also being developed without a regional context to sort out the areas that must grow from those that would not become growth areas in the foreseeable future. Also, the Council needed to state clearly beforehand the policies it would apply in its legislatively assigned review and comment on local plans. The Metropolitan Development Framework (MDF), adopted in 1975, was intended to provide central goals or organizing principles for the single-function plans and policies. It also provided the regional background for local growth management decisions. The philosophy underpinning the 1975 MDF was that: o o o o o It would be a general framework to link regional systems planning and local development. Local land use issues were to remain within the control of local governments. The framework was to accommodate, not limit, the total amount of development in the region. The framework was to allow market forces to determine the distribution of development within the area designated to be served by a full range of regional and local services. It would save money. A Council study had documented that the region could save S2 billion by limiting the size of the urban service area. Implementation Measures Following the 1975 adoption of the MDF. the Council embarked on a series of major implementation efforts, including: o Passage of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act in 1976, which required all local governments to prepare plans consistent with regional system plans (sewers, parks, transportation and airports). o Impleme;itation of the Land Planning Act through review of local government plans and schoo' district capital improvement programs, o Legislation giving the Council authority to review all public and private projects of metropolitan significance. An Investment Framework With the Council ’s vision of orderly development of the region outlined in the MDF, the Council began work on the Metropolitan Investment Framework (MIF), which was adopted in 1977. The Council had some authority to guide the capital expenditures of regional agencies to implement the MDF, but there was a concern about how much the region could afford to spend. How much regional debt was reasonable? Where would the revenues come from? The r4IF examined the cost and aflordability of regional and local investments in infrastructure. It contained criteria for evaluating regional investments and determining whether the region could afford them or not. Criteria were used primarily for reviews of regional agency capital budgets and development programs. Existing MDIF Policy Concepts An Updated Framework In 19S6, the Council updated the MDF and combined it with the MIF to create the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework. In the MDIF, the Council reaffirmed the basic goals of the original development framework. However, because of expectations for slower growth, less funding for infrastructure and an emerging need to update e.xisting infrastructure, the MDIF placed greater emphasis on managing regional facilities and investment in those facilities, rather than managing growth as such. When the Council incorporated the Metropolitan Investment Framework into the MDIF, it broadened the investment framework concepts to emphasize managing public funds used to maintain or e.xpand regional facilities. Since the MDIF’s adoption, the Council undertook a thorough study of its policies for the rural area of the region. The basic policy concepts of the original MDF and the 19S6 MDIF were retained but refined and clarified in MDIF amendments that were adopted in 1991. Key Development Policies The MDIF retained the following policies from the original framework: • Direct growth within an urban service area. The region is divided into urban and rural service areas. Facilities and services needed to support urban development can be provided at less public cost if land area available for urban development is defined and reasonably limited in supply. However, market forces, not the framework, determine the distribution of development within the urban service area; the Council does not have any policy for limiting growth in one area and promoting it in another. • Accommodate all trend-based forecasted regional growth. The Council does not set a limit on total amount of growth in the region. In the developing areas of the region, new development is supported with regional facilities in line with the Council’s forecasts of population, households and employment. The urban service area is expanded to provide a large enough supply of land with public services to avoid undue increases in land prices. • Give top priority to the two .Metro Centers. The Council gives highest priority for regional investments to maintain two strong metro centers (the Minneapolis and St. Paul downtowns). Secondary importance is given to regional business concentrations (which replaced the MDF concept of "major diversified centers"). Next in priority is reinvestment for maintenance and replacement of metropolitan systems serving the fully developed area, with a goal of retaining middle- and upper-income housing and people in those areas. Last priority is for investments for urban expansion in the developing area. Outlying communities (freestanding growth centers) are seen as microcosnts of the region as a whole. Figure 1 ENEKALlZEIM^ECXiK \IMIIC POI lO \KE \S FuIK \r*M Frr^»vtanfl«n^ Growlli ^y\ Commerc ill ^/a -\k;rK ulrur.ii CitMHTiii Kur.^l L \rt*j Mi*?n )pnlitjn Ct*nft*rs Roi:if)nal Bu'»ini»vs Lorn enlMtion Kur.il Nnu* I' ’» ^ ^ . ,f ifh.m »riM •«)• .ir., . ^mn^un>t^ 1 .u..uahU- M>m NV!nhh ,MJ-' C..ur. , \.f.l I*>i: J'*’ HI4n •..* tin........ .Itri J'HJ !»•«• ufA J'» J ' .............. •' •'••-•O'* <♦• tfv.t t>ow»M}.'. t. I' Figure 2 Support a low level of development outside the urban service area. The Council ’s growth management straieg)’ that directs growth within an urban service area requires a parallel strategy to limit growth in the rural parts of the region. Limited growth in the rural area can prevent premature expansion of local and regional services and allows the region to take advantage of investments already made in the urban service area. Preserve agricultural lands. The Council has long held that the highest and best use for much of the region’s land is agriculture. Good farm land is an important natural resource that, once lost, can never be reclaimed. The MDIF gave increased emphasis to the following • Maintain existing ser>ices and facill.ies as a number one priority; use existing public facilities before building new ones. The potential benefit of this policy is that the region can limit unnecessary investment in regional facilities. The region has already made a substantial investment in infrastructure and this investment should not be wasted. In addition, less federal funding has been available to support facility construction. • Be proactive in planning for area-wide "uriique" facilities. This policy reasserts the need for the Council to be involved in decisions that determine the location for major special facilities. ITie Council ’s role is to ensure such decisions are consistent with regional system plans and to consider the regional need for the facility and where it might function best. The Council had previously been circumvented in a number of siting decisions, including those involving the racetrack and world trade center. • Establish rules for the Council and local units of government to follow when making changes to their pians. The rules clearly explain how and when the Council will make changes to regional pjans. In addition, they establish clear procedures for local units to follow in responding to regional issues and directives. Having the^e rules or procedure., nelps avoid misunderstandings and l.?ads to predictability of actions. General Fiscal Guidelines In the MDIF. the Council incorporated some general fisc ’ guidelines for Council decisions about regional investments. • Plan and set priorities bused on regional costs and benefits. The purpose is to set priorities for regional investments in a comprehensive, region-wade context. The Council first assesses regional needs, then the costs and benefits of investment projects. Financing is considered after all these factors so that any available revenuCo do not drive the decision about a project and distort regional priorities. For large projects the Council also evaluates the proposal’s impacts on the economy. • Use economic criteria to evaluate impacts of agency development programs and large private projects. The criteria established in this policy (equity, efficiency, use of external funds, use of public financing mechanisms and use of public .'cvenue sources) simply state some ot the factors the Council thinks arc important in making a decision. These criteria are used in reviewing the service and fiscal implications of implementation plans, major public projects (like light rail transit) and large private proposals. • Monitor regional investment decisions. The Council steps back from time to time to look at the investment decisions that have been made and how they influence the region. The metropolitan investment review report evaluates regional system investments. The regional fiscal profile tracks the e.xpend ’tures. revenues and debt of all governments :n the region: Al.so, a number of economic indicators were developed to monitor the fiscal health of the region, including metro agency revenues and debt. Direction for System Plans The MDIF includes a process to ensure that the Council ’s development framework plan is implemented through the regional systems and that it is done in a cost-effective manner. The following are the key elements ot the process: • Establish the basic principles and policies for growth that the systems will serve, then incorporate those principles and policies into individual system plans that give direction to the regional agencies. In the MDIF, the Council determines the size, timing, location and priority of the systems based on its regional forecasts and the boundaries of the metropolitan urban service area. The policy plans for airports, transportation, sewers and parks are revised to reflect the MDIF. Th< n the agencies responsible for their respective regional system implement the Counc'i ’s policies as provided by metropolitan governance statutes: • Prepare implementation plans, comprehensive plans or capital programs, and adopt agency- capital and operating budgets. The implementation plans, comprehensive plans or capital programs of the metropolitan agencies must be consistent with the Council ’s policy plan for the system. The budgets of the metropolitan agencies carry out their plans and programs. Major Issues The major issues to be addressed in the update of the MDIF can be categorized into five overall themes: * o Regional growth management strategy o The environment o Economic development strategy o Regional governance o Implemci.tation of the MDIF These issues arc drawn from many suutces. Many of the issues were identified during public discussion of Sietro J0J5: Vision and Goals as central to developing a strategy for achieving the Council ’s vision of what the region can and should be in the future. Discussion of these issues will continue the debate begun during the visioning process. Some of the issues were identified by the Council during the 1986 revision of the MDIF and have not yet been addressed, or issues the Council indicated at that time would be addre.ssed in subsequent revisions. Brainstorming sessions with Council members and staff, and Council reviews of local comprehensive plan amendments were also used to identify issues. Some of the issues have been identified as other Council plans have been developed (including the CouncH ’s recent water-related planning efforts, transit facilities and airports planning). Others have been raised by other governmental bodies: for example, the Minnesota .^gislature has directed the Metropolitan Council to study the effect of the region ’s development patterns on the fully cveloped area. The issues do not exist in a vacuum. How the region has grown and changed over time and the demographic and development patterns that exist today provide the context for understanding and responding to these issues. Consequently, as *he Council begins to collect data and analyze key issues, it will also consider and analyze the following contexts: historic development patterns and land use, regional economic development patterns, housing, infrastructure and governmental boundaries. This report does not provide answers to the issues outlined here; most are complex and interrelated. No attempt has been made to set priorities. That will be done as the issues are discussed by the Council and ‘‘s stakeholders. Although the Metropolitan Council may not be able to fvJily address e%er> .ue in the MDIF update, most of them will receive extensive discussion and considerai.on as new policies a.'e developed. Regional Groulh ,\ianagemen' Strategy The issues grouoed under the * itegory of growth management are broad and encompass the land use. physical -elopment and mfras:ructure needs of the region. They also include "people' issues that are related to the geographic distribution of jobs t.nd the aging infrastructure and housing stock. The Urban Service Area: The Concept in Practice TTie Council determines the boundary of the metropolitan urban serx'ice area (MUSA) based on it.s forecasts, guidelines contained in the MDIF and market demand. The MDIF enables the the Council to generally coordinate the timing of development with the capavity of the sewer and highway systems. However, the MDIh does not restrain the total amount of growth in the region. Nor does it set development densities at the urbanizing fringe. The private market, not the MDIF, determines the specific timing and direction of growth within the MUSA. The MUSA provides a sufficient amount of land to accommodate deve'opment to the year 2000, plus a five-year "overage.’* This policy is to avoid unduly restricting the supply of developable land and driving up its cost. However, in some areas the MUSA may now be out of scale with the real needs for urban land. More serviced land is available for urbanization than .'an reasonably be developed in the next several decades. In addition, very low-density development is occurring at the fringe of the MUSA. When land is added to the MUSA, the local government and the region make a commitment to providing the full range of services needed for urban development. An oversized urban servxe area results in excess service investments and insufficient households and jobs to pay the taxes and fees needed to retire the proportionally higher costs of these services. There is little incentive to stage development within the MUSA, making it difficult to program local and regional infrastructuic i.r'?”'iments. Moreover, the way the MUSA concept has been carried out may have provided a disincentive for infill and redevelopment in the central cities and first-ring suburbs. Many of the Metro 2015 goals would encourage greater density and a more compact urban form. Development would be oriented along transportation corridors with concentrated nodes of higher- density land uses, including connections to residential areas. Does the Council want to continue the growth management concept of expanding the region's urban area as needed to accommodate development based on low-density market trends? Or does the Council want to be more directive in its policies to create a more compact urban form, as suggested by the Metro 2015 goals? How large can the MUSA be and still promote "orderly and economic" development and the reasonable extension of local and regional services? Should the Council continue to agree to outward urban expansion, or is there an ultimate outer limit to the urban service area? The 1990 average density, slightly under two single-family units per acre in developing communities, is too low to efficiently provide some urban services (such as transit) and works against achieving economies of scale for other services (such as sewers). Should the form of the urban area be more compact and have a higher density? If so, how should density be increased and bv how much? Can transportation corridors (transit and highways) be used to a greater extent to focus development? I iJfcr i ■* Distribution of Development Historically the western half of the region has experienced substantially more growth in population, number of households and jobs than the eastern half. The disparity in the amount of growth between the northern and southern halves of the region has been much less, but is expected to increase somewhat in tavor of the south in future years. Is the difference in the amount of development between various parts of the region a question of "equity” or "balance ” that warrants directing growth to one side of the region or another? ihiat would it take to achieve such equity or balance, and what would be the advantages and disadvantages of doing so? Have the Council's policies or investment decisions contributed to the disparities in the amount of development? • Should regional systems be expanded in one area to serve development when capacity may be available elsewhere in the region? Is it more efficient or cheaper to serve development in one area of the region than another? The llousing/Jobs Link Residential land use is dominated by very low-density single-family housing in many pans of the region. Two-thirds of jobs are located in Minneapolis, the west and southwest. A growing number of service jobs are located along the outlying beltway system. The low-density area with strong concentrations of jobs to the west is highly dependent on the automobile. Low-density land use is difficult and costly to serve with transit. Many workers and prospective workers, particularly those with low incomes, live a long distance from jobs. • Can the region ’s growth management strategy help move people closer to their jobs, or move jobs closer to people? • How can we plan for a better relationship between place of work and place of residence, when people are changing jobs more often and many households have more than one full­ time worker? • How can available jobs, affordable housing and people with low incomes be matched up? Is this a regional responsibility? Reassessing Roles and Definitions of the Geographic Policy Areas The Council divides the region into two main geographic policy areas with corresponding development and investment policies—the urban service area and the rural service area. Because the Council revised its policies for the rural service area and adopted MDIF amendments in 1991, the upcoming revision of the MDIF will locus on the policies areas within the urban service area. The urban policy areas vary in their density and diversity of development, their accessibility within the urban area, and the variety and level of services they afford. TTie policy areas are: o The metro centers-downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul. o o o The regional business concenlrations-clusicrs of economic development, like shopping malls and office centers along major highways. The fully developed area--the older, built-up portion of the region. The developing area-thc growing communities within the urban service area. Freestanding growth centers-medium-sized cities in the rural pact of the region that function as detached parts of the urban service area. With the process for revising the MDIF under way, it is timely to consider whether these definitions are still appropriate, or if designations need to be changed to respond to changing development patterns and policy objectives. Are the criteria defining the current geographic poi: ^ areas the most useful way to describe areas of similar physical and socioeconomic characteristics, or should demographics and other factors play a greater role in defining such areas? Have too many of freestanding growth centers been "swallowed up" in the MUSA to maintain them as distinct policy areas, despite the Metro 2015 goal of retaining them? If a green belt is established encircling the urban area, should it be maintained between the urban area and the freestanding growth centers to maintain their identity? In the last decade, the metro centers have experienced extensive commercial redevelopment and revitalization. At the same time, this development has substantially increased the amount of traffic in the downtowns. The Metro 2015 goals envision that the two downtowns will remain viable commercial centers. The goals also envision higher-den.^ity major retail and office concentrations, with a mix of residential and commercial uses, in areas highly accessible via the transportation system. • Is the role of the two metro centers changing? What infrastructure b needed (such as transportation improvements) to accommodate more development? Are there any negative impacts to continued concentration of development in downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul? Should the concept of the metro centers be limited to downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul? What about the "Edge City" along 1-494? Are there any other development concentrations around the region that should be designated "metro centers"? How can we plan for these areas? IVhat are their boundaries? • ll'hat will it take to transform existing regional business concenirations into the Metro 2015 vision for these areas? Should the MDIF identify emerging business concentrations? Priorities for Policy Areas The Council’s categories of policy areas provide a basis for setting priorities for regional investments to maintain, replace or build nev/ regional systems. Maintaining regional systems serving the metro centers and the regional business concentrations have the highest and second- highest priorities, respectively. Also, reinvestment in regional systems in the fully developed area 12 has priority over investment in facilities for expansion in the de%'eloping area. In addition, preserving agriculture in the region is a key priority. • Is it important to keep these priorities? Have they made a difference? Or will market forces determine the success of these policy anas regardless of Council policies on regional infrastructure decisions? • Should the priorities be broadened to include more than just regional systems? Should the Council more actively encourage other public and private investment and reinvestment in high-priority areas? • How do we determine geographic priorities for "linear” development that crosses boundaries of the existing policy areas-for example, development along major highways that extend from the metro centers through the fully developed area to the developing area? Disparities Between the Fully Developed Area and Developing Suburbs A major objective of MDIF policies was to preserve and strengthen the social and economic health of the fully developed area. However, the past decade has seen a widening disparity between the central cities and first-ring suburbs, on one hand, and the newer, second- and third- ring developing communities, on the other. These disparities are rooted in an aging population and infrastructure in older communities, along with pockets of severe poverty, slower job growth than in the newer suburbs, and the shifting of the economy from a manufacturing to a service base. Conversely, the developing suburbs continue to experience residential, commercial and industrial growth. Many of them are benefiting from new job creation and tax-base expansion. At the same time, however, many growing communities are paying for public infrastructure like roads, sewers and schools to support their new development. The Council’s Metro 2015 goals envision a Metropolitan Area where these emerging disparities, both social and economic, have beei. >ecognized and addressed. The goals describe a strong, successful Metropolitan Area with a greatly improved livability, especially in the mature portions of the region. • How should the Council address the disparities between the fully developed area and the developing portions of the region? • Does the continued expansion of the developing area divert resources and investment away from-and to the detriment of-the fully developed area? Can we continue the present low- density development pattern on the edge of the region, and still hope to encourage development and redevelopment in older areas? The MDIF emphasizes working through the four regional systems to carry out regional policies. However, the preservation and improvement of the fully developed area will likely require dealing with a broad approach that includes human service and investment issues. • How can the Council use the MDIF and its authority over regional systems (sewers, roads, parks and airports) to affect social problems? How can social and human investment considerations be more fully integrated into the MDIF? 13 Should the Council do more to strengthen the fully developed are'' than merely supporting reinvestment in the regional facilities serving the area? How can the Council be more active in encouraging redevelopment and reinvestment? • How can the MDIF be more creative in dealing with the problems of the fully developed area, particularly the central cities? Should the Council consider what contributes to the vitality of neighborhoods and foster strategies to strengthen them? • How important are regional tax and fiscal policies to dealing with the impacts of these disparities? To what extent does the fiscal disparities law address the problem? A Possible New Major Airport The Council is participating in a planning process to determine how best to meet the region’s future airport capacity needs--whether the region should expand the current major airport or build a new one in Dakota County. The airport is a major employer and generates a great deal of highway traffic. In addition, over time, a new airport would produce a significant amount of spin-off development. What would the relocation of the region’s major airport do to Council efforts to manage or direct growth within the region? What approach should the MDIF take in managing the growth spawned by a new airport? What direction can the MDIF give that will help in making a decision? If a new airport is built, the existing airport site will need to be put to some other use. The existing airport site may have some things in common with other large sites within the urban area that may be difficult to redevelop because they are polluted or because of other factors, such as the FMC/Army Arsenal site in Arden Hills, Are there regionally significant redevelopment sites besides the airport that should be recognized by MDIF policy? How should decisions about their reuse and redevelopment be made? The "NIMBr Phenomenon The "NIMBY" ("not in my back yard") phenomenon makes it almost Impossible to site any land use that is deemed undesirable by a potential host community. Often, NIMBYs can be social service facilities like a group home or a correctional center: they are not just landfills, highways or airports. • lUiat incentives might the Council consider to encourage communities to accept land uses and facilities that are considered undesirable? The Environment Environmental Features as Development Shapers In general, the region has too often looked at its environmental resources as an impediment to economic development rather than as a positive economic benefit that can return a value to the region. While it is true that some of those resources have been pre "Tved for future generations (the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes is a good example), it Is also true that, in many cases, the region's stewardship of its resources has not been so exemplary. Development needs to be designed in a way that makes environmental fca ures a valuable and integrated part of the development and makes their natural functions an asset to the project. In addition, the link between local governments’ development policies and the environment is critical. Most local comprehensive plans, however, focus on the location of development and supporting infrastructure and rarely on the relationship of the project to the environment. Environmental issues are often not addressed until after a project has been reviewed, when there are often no alternatives available or the developer is not willing lo redesign the project. Should the Council take the lead in promoting the benefits of using the environment to shape and g^ve identity to development within the region? Could the Council develop urban design principles that address how communities could better integrate area rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, bluffs and other natural features into development in the region? • Should the Council lead in pushing for comprehensive plans that call for d 'velopment to be designed wuh environmental resources as an integral feature? Would the Council need additional authority to carry out this kind of a change in direction? Water Quality and Quantity In the last year, the Council has focused substantial attention on the issue of nonpoint-source pollution of the Minnesota River and is now looking at this issue as it affects other rivers in the region. The protection of wetlands has also emerged as a significant issue at the state and federal level. The Council has already adopted policies calling for the protection of all wetlands. How will the region's development pattern be affected by the need to address nonpoint pollution of the region’s rivers and lakes and the need to protect wetlands? Stringent federal water quality standards could potentially affect the availability of central sewer service to support additional growth in the future. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) is currently studying how decentralizing or centralizing treatment plant operations could offer ways of expanding sewer capacity while improving or maintaining water quality. How will the results of the AflVCC’s study on centralization and decentralization affect prospects for future growth in certain areas of the region? Water supply enters into the discussion as well. Developing suburbs in the north and northwest are already growing beyond the limits of the Prairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer. Several communities are already pumpi.ng water out of t ie glacial drift, which has a great potential for contamination because of its shallow depth. The Mississippi River offers a primary alternative water source. However, there ’s an increased potential for chemical and other spills into the river because of growing rail and truck traffic and r from petroleum pipeline flows. In addition, low flows in the river during dry periods raise serious doubts that future development should rely on the Mississippi as a primary water source. Should water supplies be considered in the region's development policy? Should urban development continue in areas that lack the necessary water supplies? Or could a 'emative supplies of water be identified to serve these areas? At what cost? Air Quality and Energy Growing highway traffic and congestion over the past two decades have seriously reduced air quality in many portions of the region, while increasing the amount of energy consumed in the form of fossil fuels. How can the Council alter current development patterns and travel behavior, particularly the use of single-occupant vehicles, to minimize air quality problems and reduce energy consumption? Should the Council look at the air quality question in the larger arena of global warming and consider whether this region can take positive steps to help reduce the effects of global warming? Economic Development Strategy The Council ’s Metro 2015 goals emphasize the importance of a strong, competitive economy. There are a number of issues related to government ’s role in the economy that can be examined in the MDIF update. What is the appropriate role of the Council with respect to the private sector? Specifically, how does the Council want to interact with the private sector —control growth, direct growth, make things happen or let things happen? Should the Council-in conjunction with cities, counties and the private sector-develop a coordinated regional economic development strategy? What kind of economic growth should the regjon be seeking? t How can government contribute to or encourage a strong dynamic private sector? Investment Policies The Council ’s current investment policies and economic evaluation criteria are designed to be used in reviewing public investments, like the implementation plans of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and major regional projects like the Mall of America or the Target Center basketball arena. The purpose for the policies and criteria is to have the Council evaluate, from an economic perspective, the "value” of the projects to the region and then to use that Information as it reviews, comments or makes decisions that may be necessary. • How effective have the investment policies and economic evaluation criteria been in helping the Council implement its plans? [ Public Subsidies for Projects Council policies discourage the use of public subsidies (such as lax-increment financing) for major private projects that wiii compete with other public or private facilities. The issue is not simple, however. Almost no projects are undertaken without some public subsidy, so the question becomes a matter of what amount of public subsidy is appropriate and who provides it. In the case of the Mall of America, the Council said Bloomington could proceed with the project but that there should be no state or regional public subsidy because the benefits accrued primarily to the citv and not to the region or state as a whole. In its visioning discussion, the Council expressed the need to take a hard look at all public subsidies and how they are used. Under what conditions is public mbsidy of private projects appropriate? How much subsidy is appropriate, and from what level of government? The way the region, the state and the federal government finance public improvements may r<»ntr«n fnv nrnviHp ciihcirliM fnisubsidize certain areas of the region. State and federal tax policies also provide subsidies for certain areas. • How extensive are these subsidies, and whom do they favor? Are they consistent with Council priorities? fs this an issue the MDIF should try to address? Local/Regional Cost-Sharing The MDIF's cost-sharing policy is designed to allow local governments to request a change in regional plans (timing, sizing, location of facilities) by paying for the change themselves. This is a difficult policy to use because it can subvert regional goals by changing priorities established in a long-range plan. On the other hand, it can add needed revenues to regional capital programs if local officials believe a project is worth the money. • Do the regional benefits of the cost-sharing option warrant continuing this policy? Special Regional Facilities These are large, often one-of-a-kind projects with a specific function or focus, such as sports or international trade. The Council intends to look both at the impact on regional systems such facilities may have, and consider the regional need and the best location for them. For a number of past decisions on such facilities, the Cou.ncil was not asked to discuss the issues of need or location in a significant way. The Council has since reasserted its intention to be involved in resolving these issues. • llTiat b the best way for the Council to play a role in determining need and location of special regional facilities, along with its traditional role of assessing regional system impacts? Regional Governance The major governance challenge facing the Council is to reassert itself as the region s leader on critical issues facing the region. That challenge requires that the Council identify issues and act as a catal)'St for action to be taken at the approp.’’iaie 'evel to resolve the issues. At the same lime. I ^ I 4 a regional leadership role must recognize the need for public participation in the process of identifying issues and solutions. T!ie Council needs to be able to recognize when regional leadership requires moving forward without a consensus on an issue and then rallying support for the Council’s position. Can the Council use the MDIF revision to demonstrate its leadership and define its role on regional issues? With the potential for slow economic growth and public reluctance to pay more taxes, there are going to be fewer government revenues available to provide public services. At the same time, the number and structure of governmental units has changed very little in the 25 years since the Minnesota Legislature recognized the need to have a Metropolitan Council plan and coordinate the growth and dc .lopment of the region. Opportunities exist to cooperate more, consolidate and contract with others to perform services to save public funds. The Council’s vision of governance for the future includes a desire that government be "close to the people." On the other hand, to be more efficient and economical, some governmental functions may require more centralization. The current MDIF provides little guidance in addressing the changing foundations of governance. Can the Council develop governance principles in the revised MDIF that will foster the creation of more effective and accountable governmental institutions? To what extent should the MDIF deal with restructuring and reorganizing government to make it work better and to meet the needs of the region in the future? Should the MDIF lay the groundwork for a more proactive Metropolitan Council role in local government annexations or consolidations? Are corresponding changes in the tax structure also needed? For example, should fiscal disparities be changed or expanded? IVhat is the relationship of the seven-county Metropolitan Area to the rest of the state? Does the need for planning and coordination extend beyond our current boundaries? What demands or needs for government services can be predicted and how is government, at whatever level, going to meet those demands? Implementation of the MDIF The Metropolitan Land Planning Act The Land Planning Act is a decade and half old, and, although it has been amended since it was passed, its basic provisions are still intact. The act requires local communities to prepare comprehensive plans that reflect the Council’s regional systems plans. Communities must review their plans when the Council informs them of changes in the metropolitan systems plans (sewers, transportation, airports and parks), and then make amendments if necessary. They must aLo submit plan amendments to the Council for review if they update their plans, but there is no mechanism to ensure that this occurs. Nor does the Land Planning Act require communities to update their comprehensive plans on a regular basis. I ! The Council can require a local governmental unit to modify a comprehensive plan or amendment submitted for review if it would have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans. At one time or another, there have been suggestions to make housing, solid waste or water supply regional systems to strengthen the link between regional policy and local implementation efforts. Is there a need for the legislature to designate additional metropolitan systems, or redefine the existing metropolitan systems? • Will the Council need to seek changes to the Land Planning Act to help implement the revised MDIF? Has the Council used the full extent of its existing authority under the act? • Are the content requirements for local comprehensive plans still adequate? Do all local plans meet the required plan contents? Is there a need to add new plan elements? • Is there a need to refocus the law so it is a better vehicle for maintaining the regional comprehensive planning process? Should the law require periodic revision of local comprehensive plans? Linking Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Once the Council has approved a local community ’s comprehensive plan, the community is then supposed to enact zoning regulations and other official controls to carry out its plan. However, the plans of some communities are still not consistent with their respective official land use controls, including zoning ordinances. It means that I.cj*; de velopment may not fully reflect MDIF and other Council policies. Should the process for reviewing local comprehensive plans and amendments be changed to ensure greater consistency between regional and local plans, and between local plans and zoning? Metropolitan Significance Under state law, the Council can use itr "metropolitan significance" criteria and procedures to determine the impacts of development proposals and respond accordingly. To be of metro significance, a project must have a major impact on regional sewer, transportation, airport or park systems. Or the project must have a "substantial effect" on an existing or planned land use of another local government. The Council can 1) decide the project is of metropolitan significance and take no further action, 2) decide to amend regional system plans to accommodate the project, or .1) suspend the project up to one year or until changes are made in the project. To date, the Council has used the review nine times to help differing communities agree on changes In development projects that satisfy both parties. Tne Council has never used the one year suspension authority, however. What is the .role of the metropolitan significance process in implementing Council policies and mediating land use issues ben^'een local governments? ! Other Implementation Issues The state legislation that created the Council contained broad language authorizing the Council to plan for the orderly and economic development of the region. Implementation authority, however, was not specifically provided for all the areas for which the Council was authorized to plan--for example, schools, hospitals, libraries and other public buildings. The Metro 2015 goals imply that regional planning and leadership may be needed for a wider range of issues (such as telecommunications), which in turn may require additional authority. Should the Council use its legislative authorization to plan for a broad range of public facilities by seeking authority to implement plans for such facilities? Or should the Council continue its current, narrower focus to be effective in achieving its vision for the region? In addition to its authority under the Land Planning Act, the Council has some control over public-facility decisions and other authority to review and influence decisions that affect land use and development. How can Council authority in other areas, such as approval of highway interchanges, be better intep-ated with planning by the Council and local governments under the authority of the Land Planning Act? • How can the Council better use its regional system plans and its oversight of the regional agencies to implement MDIF policies? What influence does the Council have to implement its policies through advisory review of agency permits, environmental reviews, housing proposals and elements of local plans not related to regional systems? MD!F.<5.DFT DISTRICT-WIDE ALL PARENT MEETING Sponsored by the Orono Parent Communication Network (PCN) Tuesday, Oct. 6 Orono High School Cafeteria ^Dinner ^Speakers *Workshops ‘Great chance to meet & get to know other parentsl Parents of preschoolers through Senior High will benefit. This special evening is a must lor ail parents! Helping your children and all yo jth in this community grow up in a safe, caring environment is important to all of us. Even with the busiest of schedules, making time to come together twice per year to learn, communicate and support each other as parents is critical to making this community the best it can be ^jr youth and families. The Orono Parent Communication Network is sponsoring two district-wide parent me':^''ngs on Oct. 6 and Jan. 28 to do just that. Whether or not your family is a PCN memoer. please join us for this evening. Creating A Safe Community In a Changing World" 6:00 • 6:45 6:30 - 7:00 7:00-7:15 7:15-0:00 8:15-9:00 Dinner Served (Please Preregister) Orono Police Chief, Steve Sullivan "Community Values: Family / School / Police Partnership" Questions & Announcements Workshops (Repeated • Chose two topics to attend) "Safe Not Sorry" • Peg Overturf. Patty Wetterling Foundation Chemicals of Choice: Impact, Warning Signs, Identification • Orono Police Investigator, Jim Morowczynski Contracts & Consequences • Ellen Rusin. MSW - Samaritan Counceling Center How to Teach Kids What ’s Really Important! - Mitzi Overland, EC.-E Coordinator & Melanie Deluca, Community Education Director Tips for Managing the Angry Child • Julie Ohman & Julie Railsbeck • Orono Sch. Social Workers Laws Affecting Youth & Parents • Orono Police Officer, Chip English PCN District-Wide Parent Meeting YES. please reserve # of dinner & workshop reservations. $4/person is enclosed. NO, I can not attend the dinner but wish to attend the speaker and workshops. _____if will be attending. S2/person is enclosed. CHECKS PAYABLE TO PCN • ORONO COMMUNITY EDUCATION NOTE: Any person wishing to come who can not afford the lee should return the slip with no $ included • no questions will be asked. This is importa.nt for your children, olease attend. Name (s) Phone #Return to the Community Education Office by Oct. 2. Send to school with your Child in an envelope marked Com. Ed. Office or mail to 705 Old Crystal Bay Rd. Long Lake MN 55356. Phone 473-4879 for more Information. j u crv o~ C iC'iC « / • *^ .i U.Li-iJ= -:-Li '>•>O 1. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT September 30, 1992 OCT 1 i092 TO:Lake Access Task Force Members (per attached roster) FROM:Task Force Chair Jim Grathwol SUBJECT: Spokesperson Designation Among Lake Access Task Force Members in Preparation for October 21 Task Force Meeting The enclosed material, starting with the 7:30 pm, Wednesday, October 21 Lake Access Task Force meeting notice and agenda, introduces recommendations being made by the Data and Standards Subcommittee. These recommendations are the result of meetings held June 18, July 15, August 12 and September 9. Please review this material in advance to prepare you for the discussions planned for the 21st. You should be aware that a facilitator, Don Buckhout, has been engaged to help move the pubcommittee meetings through its deliberations. Mr. BucUhout will also serve that role at the Lake Access Task Forc'^ meeting. Buckhout recomnended as part of his facilitating process during our first meeting with him June 18 that the final product of the subcommittee, as veil as the Lake Access Task Force, would be based on three ground rules: 1. Consensus decision making 2. Designated members 3. Good faith negotiating We are therefore requesting by telephone to LHCO secretary Joan Nansk, 473-7033, prior to the October 21 meeting, your organization's confirmation of who will be the designated spokesperson for addressing a call for consensus on a decision. If we do not hear from you prior to October 21, i ^f^Xl assume the person on the enclosed roster is the designated spokesperson. In the event that person is unable to attend the 21st meeting an alternate would be appropriate to assure your organization's Input is included in the decision making. The alternate should also be provided the information sent to the designated spokesperson. If neither a designated spokesperson nor alternate is able to attend, then other members of your community or organization may participate in discussion, but will be excluded from decision making. Thank you for preparing for and being in attendance at this significant meeting. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ; -r: LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE ROSTER r-. . > * s 4 .X/Vlfs-nalUkven*' ' ^*ak •..•''.Ml -m^^*^** %-**•> -T •••. <ik 'k- •' ■ .%.-■« - »... • . ,—mmm •. - «•-* - »--'■>- Doug Bryant,^Superintendent Parks--- - - —i -— -- -1-- Don Gernanson« President Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners i««PKj!w»—yk.kr•-■.ir.r'-'-:.wt"■-3 *v■•?•■••—■ • • Association (L»M«L«0»A<) — -- —-. _____ . . .„_ Tad Jude, Commissioner . . . Hennepin County ___ —■'■-"■ .1^'TTtoj Maple, Bd of- Managers ——Minnehaha -Creek-Watershed District . . I ■ L ■ L ■ I . r ■ ■ -n--n __ VM* C • W# D* 7^_ ^ .. ^ __ _. _ . . Richard Nelson, President Fishermen Advocating Intelligent . . . . Regulation (F.A.I^R.l r" FJ Schnei'deri Pres. MN Sportflshing'Congress (M.S.C.) ’ ^ Conservation DlstVict^^^- ^^'"^^^ (Information only)..v. . ■.- . •-*' • - " ~ Richard Engebretson, .mayor. . ;. City of Deephaven :' ' • •'• -r . Lucille Crow, mayor City of Excelsior - Alan M. Albrecht, mayor City of Greenwood •X. . -Ann Perry, planning director. City of Minnetonka.. . . . . . . .-...•—;.- , , -. . .Tom Markle, city council _ _ _ _ City of Minnetonka Beach_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Wally Clevenger, mayor City of Minnetrista Skip Johnson, mayor City of Mound \ .Ron Moorse, city admin. City of Orono - *» - . Barb' Brancelp'siayor city of • Shorevood V.. * Ro^kYSIII |^WSyOr-^“ ~ - C11y o£ -Spring .PSTk .. .V.:^ Vem Haug, mayor City of Tonka Bay ' Jerry Schmieg,“'siayor .. . . . . City of Victoria " ■ r~-—'—Barry Petit ,'~'‘clty.council ,i:.-lrf“^':r^ City of - Way za ta --—-.v.---r;r.—-- >r—r-— Nick Duff, mayor — - - -City of Woodland - - - - - - ••. - .--. ... ,. ' -.. 1,*.^ ...... . .*'«» . .. . .. - .kk... _ k k . . .k k V ~«a—»M«ki ..4 k. .k.4...k«w k. .. ■• = ■;- ■: ,.-cDoug- Babcock ,c.8pringcPark...c.c.-i.^y LMCD.Board ....-c^,... c^.„„ . " .-■■-■.. i'. - “-Mike Bloom, Minnetonka Beach . ' ” .*■..". :..'TL'17 . ik...'.jr.wiy..k,n..jj.v'yScot t * .Car Isoo, cMinnctris ta..y^-kg:...^cf-.^.^.k.......^^j;i...j. •k*.^..gk.kk^..i^ji..i..^^.»...ic.ik..r^kkwki ■iy.k.;i.n ,. .„.k._.... David'Cochran •'-Greenwood "m'-r'.—■trr;'r;r*-......."■—t-' ■ - - r--i‘ rTsr----':.vnnrTr.r:r:-'r:Tr2rss5ra’* J. ... ‘ . If . i-v;.kW. •*.yu»w.—' • *. i ........ .rvA-Bert Poster, ..Deepnaven ,. ...w- ■• -.• -•e.. ? vx-1 •- ■,.^ ------r^j4TO,'CrathwoirExcelsior ” -77^-.... ——n-r—.' ■■■■"■ ■™“'“joEllen'Hurr^“Orohd“'’ ' - ...— -7; ' k.-.' . . _ _ _ ^ . .-k ^2 m ^ « !'X-/ ,. . : It .Til.’ _‘T-- ”k _ __ .. " A. •■". ■ —’|i/i 11 'jaw•*Jotinstope,•^Minnetonka n— w,,>••>*'••1^ ■ *M»wi« . . . . . ..^.George Owen, Victoria _ _ _■• _■ - -- *■ -. -'-crkr-.V-T-rvi-z. V—J :'.-rj—rr-t'-xu-rr-t^• ^ »enn ,''XOniwAx!! ®®y ■*’^‘?''3T7TTr'‘!*.‘''’’3l.v “'t. • - • ■ '*-^"*"*-*-!*"**y - • — -- ^ II ^ r Jrr r:r ^lias cop I ♦’nnorewoou ............... • Tom Reese, Mound. —--- -'■ -•■• _ Robert Slocum, Woodland " Ik. *■ V • . # • , ' -.f 4 . • I ... - * * I -• *.-..4. AGENCY STAFF; Dennis Asmussen, Director DNR Tralls^^A Waterways Mike Markell, Supv Water Rec |* - - Gordon Kimball, Regional Supv _ _ *_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _; Brad Thompson. Acting Area Supv ■• k : • _ ■ «r. . . .. —• _ *'*“»'•%• ^ ^ v.'yT**—r—W — •■% yyn-t^'i r ■■ -mt --' i ■■■<» ■ Wl' ■4,-.^—,>—•g-y— ■y-—j »iP" j/vr'.• k ‘ VftAAfiA R - C»yo—i^n Bxec >Plr ** *^"^-^ lanvl/ — — » I ■5^ ®»ugcnc fbe i , .rT*:;.!* rrv?^T»-^:'r r*EaiS . ..k^ . k- . . .It . •*. '.r r ■ v-yT x-—r. 9-29-92 • k *• •• X !• k • •* ; #k k • '••• ^ •«. ,.J.:* . . «. kj - • ' .••■ <•»..». . . » —• - - » f t, Lake Minnetonka Conservation DistrictLAKE MINNETONKA LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE • 1992 MEETING AGENDA October 21, 1992 ~ 7t30 p.m. Location! Minnetonka Cominunity Room, 14600 Minnetonka Blvd, Minnetonka City Hall 1. Opening Remarks and Introductions - Jim Grathwol, Chair 2. Meeting Format and Groundrules - Don Buckhout, Facilitator 3.Discuss and Approve Data/Parking Standards Subcommittees' Recommended Objectives (Discussion/Decision Item): A. Approve (car/trailei1 parking standards and inventory (See attach ment 1) B. Verify (car/trailer) parking sites [spaces] and pursue agreements [with cities/agencies I C. Implement [car/trailer) parking standards 0, Pursue e<)uitable distribution of [car/trailer) parking sites throughout [lake] zones. [NOTE: Words in brackets not in original subcommittee recommended objectives.] 4.Discuss and Approve Data/Parking Standards Subcommittees' Supplemental Recossnendations [Discussion/Decision item] (See attachmeat 2) 5. 6. 7. Status Report on Maxwell Bay Access Development [Information item] Report on Other Access Site Acquisition [Information item] Discuss and Approve Steering Committee Recommendations [Discussion/ Decision item] (See attachment 3) 8. Next Steps [Dlscussion/Declslon item] 9. Adjournment [PLEASE NOTEt Only designated spokespeople or alternates will be polled on decision items. Other participants will be offered opportunities to speak during discussion periods.) 9-30-92 \ Jl n Lake Minnetonka Conservation District PROPOSED PARKING STANDARDS LAKE MINNETONKA . UBLIC ACCESSES (Recommended by Subcommittee 9/9/92} The Lake Minnetonka Lake Access Task Force Data Gathering/Standards Subcom­ mittee recommends the goal of 700 long-term reliable spaces for car/trailer parking in the vicinity of present and future access sites at Lake Minne­ tonka. The Subcommittee further recommends that the lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) establish an acceptable set of standards for identifying and counting of these spaces and monitor progress toward the goal on a continuing basis. The following set of standards is recommended by the Subcommittee for application to Lake Minnetonka: 1. parking spaces must be provided. 2.All parking locations away from the access site should be provided with t lo^J-tefm agreement, \hree year minimum with desirable, on file with the LMCD. Within that time any designated spaces need to be removed, they must be replaced with comparable spaces. 3.The location of parking space., either off-.treet or :!i:.ou%%" ;.“^’p:r oV .r^^rpeVaiviir upraUrnrgiiie*""'^ 4.All off-street spaces must be illustrated on a plan on file jjj* LMCD. The plan shall clearly indicate each car/trailer ^ quate ingress, egress and maneuvering space. Parking space minimum else standards (in feet): Vehicle only 9 X 19 (HDCP 12 X 19) Car/trailer 10 * ^0 4a. On-lot designated trailer parking on gras. 1. acceptable If .ehlcle 1. parked on graded/paved surface. on holidays, from April 15 to October 15. (continued) / I ! ■ -f •! ir •I m S-: ; r- _ *. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District PROPOSED PARKING STANDARDS LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC ACCESSES - Continued - 5a. Vehicle-only spaces (no trailer) on public access parking lots can be counted toward the total goal of 700 car/trailer spaces provided that the number of such spaces counted for any given lot does not exceed 10% of the total number of spaces on that lot. (Examplet Out of 50 total parking spaces on a lot, seven are for vehicle only. Only five of the seven may be counted toward the goal of 700 [i.e., 10% of 50 ■ 5].) 6. All on-street spaces should meet the following additional standardsi 6.1 Minimum length of 50 feet per space. 6,2 Adequate shoulder width to preclude door opening into a traffic lane and to provide a safe route to the access point. 6.3 Of the total non-deslgnated (non-signed) on-street parking spaces, only 75% are considered to be reliable in order to account for non- access related public parking. 6.4 Designated «nd signed on-street car/trailer parking spaces will be counted 100% for car/trailer use. 6.5 On-street car/trailer parking spaces must be illustrated on a plan by street naiue on file with the LMCD. 9-18-92 i 4 A i 1 North Ann 96 63 31 0 2Subtotal96633102Grays Bay Causeway 37 17 0 20 0Grays Bay Dam 20 (2)20 0 0 0Wayzata Bay 101 0 64 0 37Subtotal15837642037Carsons Bay 93 0 30 0 63Subtotal93030063Spring Park Bay 1A8 16 70 (3)0 62 Phelps Bay 10 0 4 0 6 Subtotal 158 16 74 0 68 Kings Point 32 32 0 0 0 Williams Street 40 0 28 0 12 Reg Parkt W Upper Lake 28 0 0 40 0 Halsteds Bay 0 0 28 0 Cooks Bay 110 0 73 0 37 Subtotal 250 32 40 68 49 TOTAL 755 146 300 88 219 tbCOHHITTEEARKINGandardsl.ddltional Spaces lurrently Used on a Regular Basis2^000* (U Lake Minnetonka Conservation District DATA GATHERING AND STANDARDS SUBCOMMITTEE 9/10/92 SUBJECTI Resolution to the Lake Access Task Force In light of the car/trailer parking space data gathering and analysis prepared by the Data Gathering and Standards Subcoimiit'~' tees of the Lake Access Task Force for Lake Minnetonka, the following supplemental recommendations are offered in which the Subcommittee finds and recommends: a. Continuing the goal of 700 car/trailer spaces and the allocation of those spaces by zone. b. The current allocation and distribution of car/trailer parking spaces for the lake is not equitable. c. All cities are urged to make a concerted effort to pro­ vide their shares of lake access car/trailer parking spaces. The Subcommittee further encourages coordination and cooperation among cities to meet zone goals. LAKE MINMETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Lake Access Task Force Steering Committee Meeting Report 3:30 pm, Friday, September 18, 1992 LKCD Conference Room Present: Absent: Task Force Chair Jim Grathvol, Lucille Crow, Excelsior; Don Germanson, LMLOA; Dave Cochran Doug Babcock, LMCD The Steering committee considered Issues relating to cup/^rallex' parking for boat launch access to Lake Minnetonka •nd recommends the Task Force consider the following Issues and whether to appoint additional committees to further study them: 1. Promote agreements for confirming additional car/traller parking spaces currently used on a regular basis to meet 1992 car/traller parking standards. 2. Coordinate site acquisition for Maxwell Bay and closing of Gray's Bay Dam access. 3. Coordinate development planned for car/traller parking at Cray's Bay Causeway and Hennepin County Regional Park. 4. Investigate private marinas for public car/traller parking and boat launching. The committee further recommends the Task Force review and attempt to verify the car/traller parking Inventory data provided by the Data Gatherlng/Standards Subcommittee as recommended at Its September 9, 1992 meeting. The committee also believes there may be a need for a car/traller parking engineering study of the Identified available and potential car/traller parking for public boat launching. League of Minnesota Cities 3490 l^exington Avenue North St Paul, MN 55126 (612) 490-5600 October 1, 1992 TO: Mayors, Managers, and Clerks SUBJECT: LMC Administrative Changes FROM: Larry Bakken, LbiC President Donald Slater, executive director of the League since 1977, has resigned his position and Camille Andre has been ncuned interim director. Don came to the LMC from the National League of Cities where he had served as director of congressional and federal relations since 1972. He had been with the NLC since i960 as an editorial associate prior to being promoted to a position as legislative representative. He was Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare from 1966 to 1968, before leaving to head up the model cities program for Norfolk, Virginia. Don then returned to the NLC where he served from 1972 to 1977. Camille Andre, former city manager of St. Louis Park will serve as interim director of the LMC while a search is started to find a permanent replacement. Cam also served as chief administrator of the Metropolitan Transit Authority in the Twin Cities, and as city manager in Oak Lawn, Illinois. He was deputy city manager in Kansas City and assistant city coordinator in Minneapolis. He has been a consultant for various public agencies in the United States and for Ethiopia, Ghana, and Malaysia. The board of directors has started a search process to find a permanent replacement and will keep you advised as developments take place. C Ti C'-' CaONC LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT - - OCT 5 1992WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE AGENDA 7:30 AM Saturday, October 10, 1992 Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Blvd. Rm 135 (Elevator access for handicapped, use west entrance, Wayzata Blvd) 1. /• . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. License Pee Review for 1993; tabled to committee at 9/23/92 Board meeting Pheasant Lawn Homeowners Association, Carmans Bay, Orono; Public Hearing Report for new multiple dock license application for 6 boat storage units. Minnetonka Dock Services, Inc. for Chapman Place Marina, Cooks Bay, Mound; Public Hearing Report for variance application for additional 26', for a total dock length of 155' - tabled by committee 9/12/92 Lakeside Marina, Maxwell Bay, Orono; new as-built survey for committee review Clay Cliffe Homeowners Association, Old Channel Bay, Tonka Bay; anended site plan for cowmittee review Second reading of draft ordinance relating to deicing equipment on Lake Minnetonka, amending Section 2.09; as amended by the Board 9/23/92 Staff report on subcommittee recommendation for non-restricted watercraft and off-lake storage at multiple docks Draft ordinance amending definitions of permanent and seasonal docks, adopting DNR definition; tabled by committee 9/12/92 9. Additional business recommended by the committee ^. l.AKK MINNIiTONKA CONSIiKVATION Ol.SIKlCT Public Hearing: New Multiple Dock License Application from Pheasant Lawn Homeowners Association for t> boat storage units. Lot 14, Pheasant Lawn. Orono, in a lagoon off Car­ men’s Bay Meeting: 7 PM.. Wetinesday. September 2j. 19*^2. Tonka Bay City Hall Members Present:David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood: Bert Foster, Deephaven; James Orathwol, Excelsior: Win. Johnstone. Minnetonka; Mike Bloom. Minnetonka Beach: Scott Carlson, Minnetrista; Thomas Reese,-Mound; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; Robert Rascop. Shorewood; Douglas Babcock, Spring Park; Tom Penn. Tonka Bay: Georce C. Owen. Victoria; Duane Markus. Wayzata. Also Present: Charles LeFevere. Counsel; Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff’s Water Patrol; Rachel Thibault. Administrative Technician: Eugene Strommen. Executive Director. Chair Cochran convened a Public Hearing at 7:20 PM to con­ sider a new multiple dock license application from Pheasant Lawn Homeowners Association for a pre-exisIina six slip dock inn lagoon off Carmen’s Bay. Orono. The Board received an LMCD staff report detailing the cir­ cumstances of the dock, accompanied by a cony of the new Multiple Dock License application, surveys of the dock and Lot 14,and a letter from Carol Burgess. 2800 Pheasant Road. Burgess states she has no objection to the location the dock which is within the setback adjacent to her property, nor any objection to any of the other existing docks. , . . • Joe Forrer, 2655 Pheasant Road. President of the Associa­ tion, stated the docks have been in this location for many years. They have checked the shoreline footage and everything seems to fall within the LMCD ordinance guide 1ines. One of his questions was whether the Association would be subject to grandfathering and back licensing. , „ Thibault explained that the Pheasant Lawn Homeowners Associ­ ation, consisting of II members, has the n-slip dock on its Outlot. Lot 14. Lot 14 was originally a wetland, but now. as a result of dredging in the 40’s, is most ly'water-and an ri s I and .- Six off-shore property owners have used the dock on Lot 14 since the 50’s. The Association will also need a dock 1 icense from t le City of Orono. The members have applied to the LMCD clarify their situation. The owner of slip Eel tween Pheasant Road. has an easement over Lot 14, lor the land his lot. Lot 15, and the Lake. Thibault has measured the shore­ line contiguous to the dock at approximately 2S0 of 928.9’. which is enough shoreline to meet the \y ment. The applicant Joes not have to tus. The Association had not been aware of the need for a multi pie dock license from the LMCD. PUHLIC IIKAKINCi - PHEASANT EAWN HOMEOWNERS ASS()CIAI H)N Sep I ember P”*- 1992 Ed Mahoney said he was President of the Association when the Association was formed. A problenj was created when the layoon was dredged and certain lots no longer had shoreline. At that time the affected lots were given permarient easements o\er I.t>l l4 for access to the lagoon. He. as owner of l.ot 15. is includeti in the application because his lot has no shoreline, ami his dock is on his easement over Lot 14. His dock is a free standing dock, next to but not connected to the Association <lock. Mahoney explained that the other five members of the Association have Lake access through their own lots. Grathwol asked Thibault if there is any rcasotj why the license should not granted. Thibault said there is an encroach­ ment into the 10* setback on the south side f>f the dock. The dock was put in before there were setback requirements. The ilock does not cross over the extended property lines. The neighbor to the south. cur(»l Burgess, has furnished a letter staling .she has no objection to the setback encroachment. Thi-'aull said LeFevere has advised her a variance is not needed for r setback encroach­ ment ns long as there is approval of the neighb.-'r. LeFevere said original ly it was thou eht I he re would he a problem bec«iuse t>f the way the shorelitie iiieandeis Ihrouuh Lot 14. It was thought the Association may have to prove e i and fa t he red lights. IU» said that problem was solved when it was determined there is 2;>0* of shoreline contiguous to the dock. Rascop asked how many boats were kept a< the 50' dock along slip #2. Foirer said there is one boat per dock. He docks a 22* boat there. The 50’ length is primarily for walkway purposes. Thibault exjilained it is a wooden dock which is located in a sheltered .area and not removed in the winter. Babcock noted the application indicates 925’ of shoreline. It was explained that included the shoreline on the island. The application will be corrected to show 280’ of shoreline. There being no further testimony the Public Henrine was c 1 osed at 7:33 PM. The Water Structures Committee will consider the testimony at their meeting on Saturday. October It), at 7:30 AM nt the I.MCD of fices. Findings: 2 ) 3 ) Joe Forier. Prt ; dent of Pheasant Lawn Hoi.icouncrs Associa­ tion. has submitt*'! a new multiple tlock license application for a six slip multiple do .x on lot 14. Lot 14 is an out lot owned by the eleven iiieml'ers Pheasant Lawn Ho'-)cowners Assccialion. t he Si\ off-lake property ownei . members of the as soc i a t i t»n . each h .'I V e a slip at the doc!* <» i; 1.1> t 14. I h c o t h e i five members of the .association have lakeshore lots. PHEASANT LAWN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION September 23* 1992 4) One of the six olf-iake property owners. Ed Mahoney, has an easement over Lot 14. for the land between his lot #15 and the lakeshore. He haj a separate dock, next to the other five connected slips, which is part of the 6 slip multiple dock 1icense. 5) The-:e is approximately 280’ of shoreline at that portion of Lot 14 contiguous to the multiple dock, which includes the shoreline on Mahoney’s easement. This would provide a boat density of 1:47’, meeting the LMCD Code requirements. 6) The dock has existed at this site, in its present configu­ ration. since the 1950’s. The Pheasant Lawn Homeowners Association was formed in 1979. They could be subject to back licensing to 1978 which would involve the following fee obligations: 1978 to 1980 at $28 per year. 1981 to 1984 at $40 per year. 1985 to 1987 at $110 per year. 1988 to 1991 at $175 per year, and 1992 at $200. for a total of $1474. 7) There is an encroachment into the 10’ setback on the south side of the dock use area. 8) The neighbor to the south, Carol Burgess. 2800 Pheasant Road, has submitted a letter that she does not object to the docks or the setback encroachment. 91 The dock is wood construction and is not generally removed in the winter due to its sheltered location in the lagoon. 10) If a multiple dock license is granted, the applicant will need to apply for a joint use dock license from the City of Orono, and amend a previous permit with the DNR to include the multiple dock. LI « lino t«iihis .lot #15 and ext to the other 6 slip multiplet that portion of lich includes the d provide a boat Liirements.present confijsu- Lawn Homeowners Id be subject to the foI lowing fee 1981 to 1984 at . 1988 to 1991 at 1 of $1474.ack on the south5. 2800 Pheasantnot object to thelenerally removed in the lagoon.e applicant will from the City of e DNR to include LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICI CHECK LIST FOR NEW MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE APPLICAIION Business Name ond Address: Pheasant Lawn Homeowner's Assoc. , 2655 Pheasant Rd., Excelsior, MN 55331 Property is located in the city of: orono Boy/Areo: carman's Sect. 2.03. Multiple Docks. Commerciol Docks. Mooring Areos, Lounching Romps. . Subd. 3. Issuance of License. Licenses required by this section moy be issued offer a public heonng ond review by the Boord. Proceedings for the issuonce of o license and the gronting of o vorionce under Sect. 1.07 moy be combined and conducted os one proceeding. The Boord moy impose conditions on the gronting of o license, which conditions sholl be in writing, o) Review Criterio. In exercising its discretion in gronting or denying licenses, the Boord moy consider, omong other things, whether the proposed focility: yes 1) is compolible with the LMCO wotercroft density dossificotion criteria, yes 2) will be struclurolly so.e for use by the intended users. * ’j will comply with the regulations contained in this ordinonce. ,. , , no 4) will Cfeole 0 volume ol Itollic which will lend to be unsole, ot which will cause on undue * burden on troffic, in the vicinity of the focility. ves 5) will be compolible with the odjocent development. ., l yes 6) will br* compolible with the mointenonce of the nolurol beouty of the Loke. L* 7 win ailed the quolily ol the woter ond the ecoloqy of the Loke no 8 by leoson ol .loise, lumes ot othei nuisance chotodetisbcs, will lend to be o source ol nuisonce or onnoyonce to persons in the vicinity of the focHty. ... .• mi ii yes 9) will hove odequote sonilory ond poikinq locililies which will be provided m connection wilh Ibe no* 10) wM the qew'Ol public os opposed lo o limited segment ol Ihe public or o limited 11)^wSslruct ot'wcupy loo qteol on oieo ol the public woter in telolionsbip lo its ulilily lo Ihe generol public. b) Foclors Not Considered. Ihe use of multiple dock or mooring oreos or Punching romps on Ihe Loke lor the purpose ol increosing non-tipotion properly volues is nol o valid consideration licensing such focllities. Comments: 3) There is an encroachment into the 10' setback on the south.' The neighbor to the south has submitted a letter stating that she has no objection to the encroachm. or the dock. (Sect. 2.01,Subd.3 allows 2 neighboring sites, that are not commercial, to waive the setbacks between the two sites.) 7) no additional affect on the weter and ecology of the lake since the dock has been there for years i.s lO)This dock will not serve the general public. It wliixha restricted to the members - the homeowners association. 1 ,1 s»Signed: L f R.irhel Thibault. Administrative Technician Dote:10/1/92 DOCK - HEW RECEIVED Lake Minnetonka Conservation District JUN 29 199? Receipt # 5 y V City response due |_M.C.D. received_ _ _ _ _ (for LMCD use) Because this form is I to be copied, please ! use black ink or type.I License Year No. of Boats^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ beat Density Index_ _ _ __ Can be readied at phone # APPLICATION? NEW MULTIPLE DOCK, LAUNCHING RAMP, AND/OR MOORING LICENSE Pursuant to LMCD Code S2.0J, a new multiple dock license is requested, in accordance with all data and other information submitted herewith and made a part hereof. Phone; if no answer, calltPrint or type owner's name /^fj A(D^2 Sr (Oner's /ddress Business name (if different from owner) Oofc. f^fCtCeiC Phone; if no answer, call: Phone No(s).Property located in the City of ^(2- - - - --—-- - - - - - Property is riparian to LMCD bav/area(s)OAfuC'y)!e)A. 1. Classification of use per §2.11, Subd. 2 (please check one): a) commercial marina_ _ _ _ d) transient- - - - -8 pr vate b) private club^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _e) outlet association ^ h) other (explain)— c) municipal_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ f) multiple dwelling- — 2.Type of dock construction, describe and attach to-scale drawing: 3. A. Please submit names and mailing addresses of cunera oi of other affected sites. Such owners may be verified by checking with Hennep Count? property description offices, 348-3271, uhleh esn provide actual mailing atTco7t of Sl.OO per tan parcel. This service usually take. and you must have your tax parcel Identification number ready when calling for this assistance. Documents listed below are required; check that they are Locator map /____ Scaled drawing showing — County plat map X Scaled drawing showing proposed dockage—^ Certified land survey, legal description y Scaled drawing of docks on abutting properties, and other affected dockage_______________________ Absence of significant data requested above could result in a processing delay. (over) New Dock License Application Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ; 2 C'fL'/v</zk (Name) 5.All required permits, licenses and approvals have been obtained from the MN DNR and from the city in which the multiple dock, ramp, and/or mooring is located. No, explain; 6l>jC‘riA/f> *'S. 6. copies attached: ( )Yes ( )No: If Public liability insurance: Coverage $ Bj-C, VOC Company r fr All cfMioerclal applicants, and others where applicable, must provide the following additional information 7, 8 and 9: 7. Check the nature of services and parking required by the city: a) Boat storage. . . . . . . . . . . “ number of parking spaces b) Launching ramps. . . . . . . . 0 ‘ number of parking spaces Times ramp is open for public use: c) Sales. . . . d) Service. . . e) Boat rentals f) Restaurant O Cl O - number of parking spaces - number of parking spaces - number of parking spaces - number of parking spaces g) Other (explain) aV ofk<.ic 7 - numbernumber of parking spaces TOTAL parking spaces CLc Ca c B. Rest room facilities provided: Indoor, Outdoor portable (number),_0^ 9. Boat toilet pumping service provided? Yes t I ' J ^" ALL APPLICATIONS: p<?D* ' k’->/ / iC't'JTx i) • • • 10. Lake frontage of site: feet. Total square footage of dock area includl, maneuvering space - _ _ _ _ _ sq.ft. If 20.000 sq.ft, or over, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (BAW) Is required. 11. Boat Storage Units (DSU) computation: Frontage > . ^ K X C ^ mm ^ C ^•lli 9ZfS ~ 50 » i/j ' /•'/■: BSU's Density License Is required per Code §2.05. 12. Number of BSU's applied for: bv Location by Use slips. . . . . . . . . . . si Ides. . . . . . . . . . lifts. . . . . . . . . . . t le-ons. . . . . . . . . at moorings. . . . . . . . at off-Lake rack storage other __ _ _ _ _ _ _ at at at at (^ bSU BSU BSU BSU BSU BSU BSU for rent, lease, etc.. for service work. . . for company .. . . . . . for private use. . . . for transient use. . . otlier___________________ ___BSU ___BSU ___BSU BSU BSU TOTAL BSU applied for;(f BSU TOTAL BSU applied for: _ _BSU 4,- BSU (continued) Lake Minnetonka Conservation District New Dock License Application 14. (Name) 0 13. Watercraft Storage Units (WSU) computation schedule: ], BSU 9 1 WSU (each slip / BSU (? Ih WSU (each slip BSU 0 2 WSU (each slip ^ BSU 0 2h WSU (each slip _ _ BSU 0 3 WSU (each slip _ _ BSU 0 4 WSU (each slip up to 20* long and/or up 20*+ to 24* long and/or up 24*+ to 32* long and/or up 32*+ to 40’ long and/or up 40*+ to 48* long and/or up over 48* long and/or over to to to to CO 10’ 11* 12' 14* 16’ 16’ wide) wide ) wide ) wide ) wide) wide) I___WSU T^WSU WSU /O WSU ____WSU WSU C? BSU Total Watercraft Storage Units (WSU) WSU Fee calculation: Base fee. . . . . 500 Plus number of Watercraft Storage Units (WSU) 0 $15 as 0<rn <fj determined from WSU computation and schedule shown in No. 13 above- - Total fee enclosed (this fee is for processing of the application . and does not entitle the applicant to a license). . . . . . . . . . . ^ ^ *— surveyins. engineering• inspection, maintenance or other expenses Incurre y in erews «»u«t c( the .ppllc.tlon fee. I consent to permitting officers and agents of the District to enter the premises at all reasonable UveHIgate - J to determine whether or not the Code of the District is being complied with. I agree to submit a certified, as-built survey upon completion of the docks. Date Return this application and attachments tot Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 E. Waysata Blvd., Suite 160 Wayzata MN 55391 Phone (612) 473-7033 10/91 Pheasant Lawn Homeowners'Association Member JyOt Interest Common Dock Area 1.Forrer Part of Lots 2 and 3, Pheasant Lawn Off Lake 2 2.Hoffman Lot 6, Pheasant Lawn Off Lake 4 3.Reddick • Lot 8, Pheasant Lawn Off Lake ] 4.Whitworth N. part of Lot 10, Pheasant Lawn Off Lake 3 5.Bakke S. part of Lot 10, Pheasant Lawn Off Lake 5 Dock Location 6.Martin Tract A, R.L.S. 1453 Lake Lot Tract B, 7.Brown Tract B, R.L.S. 1453 Lake Lot Tract B, 8.Cullen Part of Lot 17 and Lot 18 Pheasant Lawn , Lake Lot Lot 14 easement 9.Smiley Lot 1, Block 1, Yale Smiley Addn. Lake Lot Lot 14 easement 10.Smiley III Lot 2, Block 1, Yale Smiley Addn. Lake Lot Lot 14 easement 11.Mahoney Lot 15, Pheasant Lawn Lake Lot Lot 14 easement Exhibit E LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRIC ...i bwt _ hOUit i'iat ol Survey for David E. Carlson in Lot 14» Pheasant Lawn Hennepin County, Minnesota dn\ewoy eoitmenf Scold I"’100 C«rUflcnU Of Survey: , Minnetonka I hsrehy cartliy that this is a LO^c true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of all of Lot 14f "Pheasant !>aun", except that part described as follows! Bsfianing at the Southeastern or Ljst Easterly comer of Lot 13 in said "Pheasant Lawn"; thence Northwesterly along the dividing line between Lots 13 end 14 to the Northea^erly or ■Dct Northerly comer of said Lot 13; thence Easterly deflecting at an angle of 127^15' to the right froB last described course, a distance of 120 feet) thence Southeasterly parallel with the dividing line between said Lots 13 and 14 a distance of 208 feet; thence Easterly deClactlng at an angle of 54®00* to the left fron last described course a distance of 385 feet; thence at a right angle Southerly 75 feet more or less to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence USsUrly along the shore of said lake to the point of beginning) only the Northeasterly boun­ dary of the above-described pro.perty has been surveyed and aontaients set only as shown. KtCtivL-. Scale; 1" - 100* Oats t 7’^26-77 Q t Iron marker JUL . IV/ Ij Gordon R. Coffin Reg. No. 6064 Land Surveyor and Planner Long Lake, Minnesota I M.C.D. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT September 30, 1992 To: Water Structures Committee From: Rachel Thibault Subj; Lakeside Marina's as-built survey Lakeb.de is licensed for 77 Boat Storage Units (BSU). and the new site plan shows 77. There are two changes in BSU locations on the survey from the previously approved site plan. 1. 2. One BSU was moved from the wet well, which is not a storage slip, to the end of the first wing on the east. Xhere are now two BSU on the end instea. of one. A BSU was moved from the space next to slip //20 on the outer east wing to the end of the wing, next to slip #18, again making two BSU on the end instead of one. Mr. Dunn said that this first slip is unusable because of the angle and location near the gas dock. Staff suggests this slip be signed "no boat parking". /I / Also, the setbacks have changed from what was granted in the variance order of t*l22lZl. The setback variance granted on the east side, between 50 and 100', was from 15' to 13' plus space necessary to store one watercraft. There is now a 10* setback from the extended property line, according to the scale drawing. The setback variance granted between 100 and 200' was from 20' to 17' plus space needed to store one watercraft. There is now 15', according to the scale drawing. Because of the reconstruction of the docks, and the difficulty in making to the exact foot, staff recommends approval of the new site plan as being sufficiently close to the original configuration. ReCE.tVbU OCT 11992 I.M.C.O. LAKESIDE MARINA PROPERTIES ». •• • CSKTiriCATS Cf SLIWn rc.^ sTA^ KAic^A. rrc. In Govrrnatnt Lot l» Snetlon &-11*' 7}^v»’//vr-# «-*• • if «i It**# -n /IacA 1 bnm^ ^rti/y thtt thtt It • trip •ad eofTPPt fporptpr.uticn of • tu^o/ of Ui4 to\ndorloa of oil cf lei h Vm Soit 90 foot of lat 7« ;#tflor^*o Nriif Ofii that »ri of Gevorraont Lot I, Sactiofi S, Toonohi; 117 l^orth, lUnro ZJ •Oft of tho 9tH Prlncloal >%rldita, dooeritod ta foLlowoi CoccaanelAc ot • pDiat 724 foot on 0 bvorliif of Wot fraa a eolnt on tfio toot lino of oold rmaiint Lot 1 diotart foot Sautfe of aoandor No. 97 oa Soatft Ohara of K «ail 9ox« Looo rinno- teoWfl oold toot lino bolng oituaod to teoa a toorlac of North f^r o*j.—»^-«o of thio doflorfottans tbonca Vr 2^01' Soot o dlfUnco of 19^.4 fo^t; thoaco South P7*92' ttot o dlstonco of TO foot ta tho oo'.nt of hotlnnlrt of tho otaciart/ bala| doocritod: thonca r.artli a*Cf • Soot to tho st.zn of haaaall lof; thonco SouthvotUrl.7 ataaf ooid ohero V> o Uao drown larollai wtt!i ond 199 foot ot rlrht anfloo boot of Iho Sott lino of told Gooarr^nt Lot l< Ihor^-o So-jth narolLol vl(h oold Slot Uat to tho rarthorlr llAO of Count/ lead to. 91* *>.*nr# Soathoootorlf olonr tald N'jrthorlj llaa to • lino drown South 2^C9* *ott fiaa tho point of b9rlr^*;lBff; thor.co Ibrth 2^09* Uot to tho To'nt of boflBntne» Aod of tho locotlrn of all tullflr.ft thorooa. !t dooo not our sort to onaw othar lawooonaato or oncrcoch- aoatp. Goronii A, Col fir '■**» tc. Lnr.d Sunrojrof irt ^lirnfr ^o« Loto» hirr.oocto Scolo: I" * IJ* Dito : 4-1-^ I <5 : Irsn -wr'#r APOSOISSI /O//- 79 P /stT’-NO Ciry c' ncvc •/ w . ^ 7 i09? LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Environment Committee OCT AGENDA 8:00 am, Tuesday. October 13, 1992 PLEASE NOTE T J. II E CHANGE TO 8j_00 ^ MORWEST BANK BLDG ROOM 13S 900 E. Wayzata Blvd 1. Welcome and introductions. Committee Chair JoEllen Hurr. 2. Review to amend or accept 9/15/92 minutes as mailed. 3. Water Quality Monitoring 10/10/92 organizational meeting progress report. 4. Re-examination of Water Quality Objectives based upon LMCD Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka, to Identify objectives for further near-term study to move toward implementation: (as detailed in 5/12 minutes attached) a. City programs for managing existing on-site septic systems; (update committee on progress of various cities involved with on-site septic systems) b. Place, service trash containers at public accesses by 11/92; (DNR does not recommend trash containers. Recycling is encouraged through special containers.) c. Develop a water quality goal for Lake Minnetonka as discussed by the committee by evaluating data available from MCWD, taking into account new Water Quality Monitoring data. Osgood to also address 50 ug/1 water quality goal for the entire lake os to how realistic this goal actually is. d. Independent evaluation of Eurasian water milfoil harvesting program, final draft report to be ready for the Nov. 10 Environment Committee meeting. e. Reduce or tie up phosphorus in sediments to prevent use by aquatic vegetation, objective held for 1. ter discussion, MCWD being lead agency, ongoing star.Ing 1/93. f. Complete comprehensive survey of wetlands by 11/93 in shoreland zones, MCWD being lead agency. Hennepin Conservation District proceeding on its survey of Lake Minnetonka wetlands . . . MCWr is lead agency. 5. Progress on regulating use by ordinance of unprotected styrofoam for all water structures on Lake Minnetonka. 6. Additional business. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Environment Committee Minutes 8:40 am, Tuesday. September 15. 1992 Norvest Bank Bldg. Wayzata Conference Room 135 PRESENT: ABSENT: Committee Chair JoEllen Hurr, LMCD Board member Dave Cochran, Fred Bruntjen, City of Excelsior, Carolyn Dindorf, Hennepin Conservation District; Frank Kelly, City of Greenwood; guests John Erdman, Mike Panzer, Wenck Associates, Inc., Engineering Consultants to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District LMCD Board members Doug Babcock, Scott Carlson Jim Grathwol, George Owen, Tom Penn, Bob Rascop, Tom Reese; John Barten, Hennepin Parks; Tom Maple, MCWD Board of Managers; Dick Osgood, Freshwater Foundation; Paul Neumann, Carver Soil A Water Conservation District; Gray Freshwater Biological Institute; MN PCA, MN Board of Water A Soil Resources. INTRODUCTIONS. John Erdman and Nike Panzer were welcomed as presenters for the MCWD as its recently-appointed (July) consulting engineering firm. MCWD/WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. PRESENTATION. Erdman and Wenck, former employees of Hickock engineering at the time it served as NCWD's consulting engineers, bring previous experience with its perspectives for handling the lake and stream environmental and monitoring program. Erdman stated Ellen Klanderman has been hired as the District's administrative coordinator. She has a biology background and previously conducted wetland research for MCWD The office is in Minnetonka City Hall, 939-8320. Popham-Haik still represents the District as legal counsel with Louis Smith. Kelly opened an early Inquiry as to the procedure for developers filing subdivisions and when the District enters into its review role. Panzer responded rules were adopted in 1966 requiring a subdivision permit. The District looks to a city to have reviewed the preliminary subdivision before the District will hear it as stated in i’s rules. The discussion continued between Kelly, Panzer and other members as to MCWD proct <ures for notifying affected property Environment Committee. Minutes. 9/15/92. P. 2 owners and public bodies. MCWD presently does not make an.' direct outside party notifications. He acknowledged this would be valuable to interested parties. Present communication is between the develop and District engineers. Kelly noted that cities generally do not act upon environmental impacts because they or often their staff does not have the expertise. Therefore the District should have the obligation to inform affected parties. He adds that a 30 day notice should be allowed for a response. Cochran supports establishing a time notification standard among cities and the MCWD for notifying affected parties, including the distance of affected property owners from the site being developed, such as 300' or on up to 500'. Hurr concurs that cities should look to the MCWD for its response on environmental Issues. The developer should also be required to pay for the review. Panzer acknowledged that developers are not now being charged for this service. It becomes a cost borne by taxpayers. Panzer noted that the lav governing MCWD's funding allows an administrative fee, presently $15. It can also charge an applicant for site inspections and data analysis. Strommen pointed out that MCWD Rule E. adopted 4/20/09, requires that "prior to review by the District, all dredging proposals that involve docking shall be submitted to and approved by the MN DNR, and in the case of Lake Minnetonka, to the LMCD. Kelly reminded LMCD of this rule in August. Hurr offered to look at including a provision regarding subdivisions in the nev Shoreland Rules now under consideration by the 14 Lake Hinnetonka communities. Kelly expressed concern that there is no lakeshore regulation which regulates lake environment at the present time. Cochran said many agencies address lakeshore development. Public agency costs for conducting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) were questioned. Strc^men noted that the Environmental Quality Board which governs them has ruled that the responsible governing unit must provide the staff and administrative support without charge to the applicant. In LMCD's experience, while there are some 30 agsncies/groups which require notification, the research to develop them is generally moderate. Mo doubt some can get complicated. The outcome is for a reccnmendation based on the findings to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement <EIS) is required for the project. An EIS does Involve cost sharing by the developer. Environment Committee, Minutes, 9/15/92, P. 3 Hurr thanked Mike Panzer and John Crdman for fielding such a variety of questions. The exchange was roost valuable. A roater of the Board of Managers and staff was requested for the cosaittee. EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL GRANT PROGRESS. Carolyn Dindorf reported that about 20 applications were received by the Hennepin Conservation District totaling some $160,000 for the $150,000 in available funds. All but $7,500 of the funds were offered grant applicants. LMCD qualified for $73,693, of which $57,280 is for the Weed Harvesting annual program including additional aerial surveying; $14,524 for the proposed Sonar treatment in St. Albans Bay; $750 for Deephaven's 2.4d treatment in Carsons A St. Louis Bays and $1,139 for Wayzata's city docks. HCWD recently expressed interest in doing a milfoil treatment in Minnehaha Creek. Carolyn added no administrative costs have been taken by HCD from the $150,000 grant program, even though their District's administrative tx e as been noteable. Strommen recommended HCD ask all recipients express their appreciation to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners as well as county administrators Vern Genzlinger and Janet Leick. This will help encourage future support. WATER QUALITY MONITORING. Dindorf reported on Osgood's behalf that the training program is set for 10:00 am, Saturday, October 10, at Lord Fletchers to demonstrate sampling techniques. A minimum of 10 samplings oP®" water season is the base goal, compared to 3 presently being taken. The subcommittee will be resolving more on the monitoring specifics before October 10. Panzer noted MCWD has a 1993 budget of $30,000 analytical budget for the entire watershed, including the upper watershed (lakes out of the watershed which feed MCWD). Inputs to Lake Minnetonka are monitored, although not frequently per Erdman, perhaps 3 times a year and not ® significant precipitation event. MCWD will coordinate with the subcommittee on its Water Quality Monitoring Program. Kelly questioned the prospect of MCWD setting up a special assessment district to pay for large-scale environment program. txamples were re-directing direct storm water runoff from streets, and whole-lake treatment of Eurasian water milfoil with an herbicide like Sonar. The MCWD storm water runoff control/treatment requirements fol the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club building development xn Spring Park were suggested as being minimal if no n q Environment Committee, Minutes, 9/15/92, P. 4 Panzer that the permit time would have run out on that project and would require a resubmlttal. That would allow the District to readdress these requirements. The committee was supportive of that being done. EWn EVALUATION REPORT. Strommen noted a review draft has been received from Consultant Pierce. It Is not yet complete, pending the results of a questionnaire dealing with the program's effectiveness, aesthetic and recreation impact. NEXT MEETING AND ADJOURNMENT. The next meeting was confirmed for Tuesday, October 13, at the Norwest Bank Bldg, conference room, Wayzata. Respectfully submitted. (EuMne R. G£rommen Escicutlve Director LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Environment Committee Minutes 0:30 am, Tuesday, May 12, 1992 City of Wayzata Council Chambers PRESENT: ABSENT: Committee Chair JoEllen Hurr, LMCD Chair Dave Cochran, Jim Grathwol, LMCD Board: Jay Blake, Mlnnetrista: Bill Engelhard!, Deephaven; Dave Canister, Tonka Bay; Frank Kelly, Greenwood; Ed Shukle, Mound; Greg Rye, Wayzata; John Barten and Tom McDowell, Hennepin Parks; Carolyn Dindorl, Hennepin Conservation District; Tom Maple, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District; Paul Neumann, Carver Soil & Water Conservation District; Dick Osgood, Freshwater Foundation; Cities of Excelsior, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Orono, Shorewood, Spring Park, Victoria, Woodland; MN PCA, MN DNR, MN Board of Soil A Water REsources, Gray Freshwater Biological Institute; LMCD Board members Doug Babcock, Scott Carlson, lorn Penn, George Owen, Robert Rascop; WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS. Chair Hurr expressed appreciation to the agency, city and board members present. ENVIRONMENT PURPOSE. Citing the purpose from the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka, Hurr stated it to be that successfully balancing environmental and human needs which influence Lake Minnetonka. That balance is dependent upon responsible managing authorities effectively regulating the impact of development around the lake. GOAL is to maintain the lake as on open, freshwater lake, capable of supporting year-round recreational activities. OVERALL WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES were noted to be: Establish benchmark water quality assessment criteria. Assess water quality in the 42 lake management bay areas. Adopt updated water quality objectives based on studies. Independently evaluate LMCD's Eurasian water milfoil control program. ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVES deal with the management of: a. Stormwater runoff b. Wetland identification and protection c. Fisheries monitoring, protection, influences d Consistency in shoreland regulations t: Eurastan -Ler allfoll control, spread P---" f. Influence of other exotic species on lake quality b. c. d. Environment Committee, Minutes, 5/12/92, P. 2 SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES FOR IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH JANUARY, 1994: 1. Expand city programs for managing existing on-sito septic systems: lead agency cities; target date -- oi going; DISCUSSION. Septic systems were identified in the lorth area of Stubbs Bay, Orono, Assembly Grounds area of Woodland, small lots on Halsted's Bay, Minnetrista. All are subject to on-going city monitoring. Orono is developing a plan for a city sanitary sewer system. 2. Program for placement, servicing of trash containers at public accesses; lead agency — cities; target date 11/92; DISCUSSION. This objective was recommended for reconsideration upon the advice of MM DNR which no longer places trash containers at public accesses. Their plan is to prompt people to take their trash home for proper disposal. Experience at many access trash containers does demonstrate that home waste is being left at such containers, including costly disposal items such as car tires. The committee concurred that this objective should be evaluated to incorporate a similar piactice. Recycling is to be encouraged. Hennepin Parks agrees "leave behind" trash is a major problem in public areas. 3. Establish benchmark water quality assessment crl »rla & standards for surface waters tributary to the lake. Lead agency -- MCWD and LMCD; target date Jan., '93; DISCUSSION. Mapxe noted that the MCWD 509 Plan oddresses this need. He added that it is still under review by several state agencies. The 509 Plan was submitted for review some two years ago. It has received early high marks. It was noted a number of cities are in the process of preparing storm water management plans. Osgood reports cities typically ore required to adopt their plans within a year after the MCWD plan is adopted. Osgood also noted that establishing water quality standards for waters tributary to the lake must Ji^st be preceded by determining the standards for the lake. He recommends the objective shoult' be to maintain water quality in the lake, and then work ?rlLitary streams. This information should be developed by trained technlcal/sclentifIc specialists. on or ng of Lake Minnetonka water quality is the firs s ep this process. D' ta is limited on Lake Minnetonka water quality through ..onltorlng over the years. Environment Committee* Minutes* 5/X2/S2* P* 3 4. 5. 6. Cochran agreed what is needed is a water quality goal. A Bub-committee could begin this process by evaluating data MCWD already has from its on-going monitoring program. Osgood agreed to chair such a sub-committee with Barten* Dindorf and Maple agreeing to participate. The committee concurred with this arrangement, the LMCD executive director to confirm Osgood's participation in a confirming letter. Osgood added he will also address the Management Plan reference to 50 UG/L as an unrealistic goal for the lake (per P. 53 of the Plan). Complete independent evaluation of LMCD's Eurasian water milfoil harvesting and control program; lead agency LMCD; target date -- Jan.* '93; DISCUSSION. Hurr and Strommen confirmed a final proposal is ready for review with a candidate prepared to contract for this task. This has been budgeted for 1992 and is expected to be adopted at the May LMCD board meeting. Details of the evaluation outline were circulated. Reduce or tie up phosphorus in sediments of lake areas where needed to prevent reuse in aquatic vegetative growth cycle. Lead agency -- MCWD; target date ongoing after Jan. '93; DISCUSSION.This objective was held for later discussion Complete comprehensive survey of all wetlands in shoreland zones. Lead agency -- MCWD; target date Nov., '93 DISCUSSION. Engelhardt questioned the committee's role in wetlands Inventory and identification J"®® cities and the MCWD are already doing it. Grathwol responded LMCD took its own initiative miles of review wetlands from aerial photos along the 121 miles of shoreline. LMCD's role is with wetlands below the 929. OHW, and it does recognize cities and MCWD . wetland data. Kelly questioned the cities above 929.4' OHW. which are the and agencies* and wetlands below the 929.4 OHW. Both are of concern to the Environment Committee Hurr noted. Blake pointed out the USGS National Wetland Inventory ond Metro Council surveys are available to identify wetlands. Dindorf added that the HCD has wetland ^y litlands among the cities around Lake Minnetonka [rn^mn.* r»II1b€2 Hr •1 :< •Biffalt •17^ liim •1 iTar<I«l- [UWi] I \ r ;jji^j>js>i^\>u\ a^£ i/:V;ATS7JSMSD D1STT’!CT 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345-1597 offic*: (612) 939-8320 fax: (612) 939-6244 DiST9ICTC00R0IN«T09: Ellen B Klanderman BOARD OF MANAGERS; James fl Spensley. Pres •JoftnE Hiotnas * Thorrras W LaBounty Robert 0 Erickson • C Wxidw Love • Clarkson Linaiey • Thomas Maple. Jr F»iTEASK£3 ^ J ^£0 Ov lilt IIINNCfON«A MOTZCI or CHKNOB Of ADDRPaSS Please note that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has officially changed their mailing address and telephone number to the following: Miaiiehelie Creek Water shed District 14600 Miimeteaks Boulevard Niaaeteaka, Niaaesota 95345<»1507 (612) 939-6320 The regularly scheduled Board Meeting will now be conducted on the fourth Thursday of each month, beginning at 7:30 p.m. at the City of Miaaetoaka Council Chambers. Please refer to the enclosed rule amendments regarding these changes and the resolution to amend Rule B.4(a). fnir C.T-. ' =I OCX Q '( CEBTIFIED COPT OF BBSOLOTIOH TO AMEHD RULE B.4(«) OF THE RULES OF TUB MISHEHAHA HATBRSHED DISTRICT Manager Thomas offered the following resolution and moved its adoption* seconded by Manager LaBounty: RESOLVED that Rule B.4(a) (Required Exhibits) is hereby aronded by adding the following subsection: (11.) Delineation of any flowage easements or other property interests dedicated to stormwater management purposes* including* but not limited to* county or judicial' ditches. The question was on the adoption of the resolution and there were 5 yeas and 0 nays as follows: XfiilR ERICKSON X LABOUNTY X LIHDLEY LOVE X MAPLE SPENSLET X THOMAS X Haxa X X upon vote* the Chairman declared the resolution adopted. DATED: September 17* 1992 I* JOHM E. THOMAS* Secretary of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District* do hereby certify that I have compared the above {•solution with the original thereof as the sasie appears of record and on file with the District and find the same to be a true and correct transcript thereof. IH TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto Mt my hand and affixed the Seal of said Watershed District this^g,*^^ day of September* 1992. John E T^homas,Secretary (SEAL) LNMat«l CERTIFIED COPY OF RESOLUTION TO AHBIID RULE A OF THE RULES OF THE MIimEHAHA CREEK MATERSHED DISTRICT Manager Thomas offered the following resolution and moved its adoption, seconded by Manager LaBounty: RESOLVED that Rule A (Procedural Requirements) is hereby amended by adding the following subsection: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Application Required. Any person undertaking any activity for which a permit is required by these rules shall first submit for review a permit application, engineering design data and such other information to the District as may be required by these rules to determine whether the improvements are in compliance with the criteria established by these rules. Forms. Permit applications shall be submitted using forms provided by the District. Forms are available from the District's Asseeiatesr>§46>indiaii--MeuRdr-WayBa%ar-Niiiiieseta B§391—4SAai4ga>4aa4. 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard. Minnetonka. Minnesota SS34S-1597—f612)939-6320. Permit cpplxcations shall be addressed to:.^ Minnehaha Creek Watershed District^ Board of Managers, at the same address. Px-OT>Bes-387 Waysatar-Minneaeta-SSSPl Action by Board of Managers. The managers shall act within 45 days of receipt of an applicatio/- and complete set of required exhibits. Conformity with Municipal Plan. The managers will review applications for permits involving land development only after the applicant demonstrates that the plan has received preliminary approval from the municipality indicating compliance with the municipal plans. Time for Submittal. The permit application and all completed exhibits shall be received by the District at least 10 full days prior to the scheduled meeting date of the Board of Managers. Late submittals or submittals with incomplete exhibits will be scheduled to a subsequent meeting date. 6. Regular Meetings. Scheduled meetings are conducted on the fourththird Thursday of each month, beginning at 7:30 p.m. ^^J[jQ(Neetings~Beheduled-fec>edd~nusibe»ed nenths* are held at the City of Minnetonka St-r~fceuiB-Park Council Chambers, Minnetonka Boulevard, Mlnnetonka Sh-r-LeuiB-PaskT Minnesota . —All>etkeff Beheduled«Mii%kly-iaeet4ngB-aBe»keld-at-%he>'€4%y-ef MayBBtB-<5eune41>Gkaiiibersr-600~BT-R4ee~6treetr-WayBater M4nneee%a<r The question was on the adoption of the resolution and there were 5 yeas and 0 nays as follows: S Yeas Abafiot ERICKSON X LABOUNTY X LINDLET X LOVE X MAPLE X SPENSLEY X THOMAS X upon vote, the Chairman declared the resolution adopted. DATED: September 17, 1992 1, JOHIf E. THOMAS, Secretary of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, do hereby certify that I have compared the abrve resolution with the original thereof as the same appears of record and on file with the District and find the same to be a true and correct transcript thereof. XH TESTIMOHY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Seal of said Watershed District this,^i£^ day of September, 1992. John E (SEAL) E/ythomas,Secretary lilMUSI BOARD MEMBERS David H Coc^ran. Chatr Grearwirood Tom Raesa. Vica Chair Mound D0U9MS E. Babcock. Sacratary Spnng Park J. P. Boswinkaf. Traasurar Mirinatonka Baach ScoflCartton Minnainsia Alban fBan)Eostar Daaphavan Jamas N. Graihwoi Excaisrof JcE Han L Hurr Orono WtBam A. Johnston# Mmoatooka Ouana Markus Wayzaia Saorga C Cwen Victoria Tom Pann Tonka Bay Robart Rascop Shorawood Robart E Slocum Woootand LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAY2ATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 160 • WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55J91 • TELEHONE 61Z473-7033 EUGENI , ORONC ^lul IIRECTOR SEP 2 4 i99p September 22, 1992 ~ CERTIFIED MAIL Jacquelynn Kelly 2056 Shadywood Road Wayzata MN 55391 Dear Ms. Kellyt Inspection this summer disclosed that there were seven restricted watercraft at your property on Crystal Bay, a violation o^ LMCD boat storage regulations. t:,. LMCD Code Sect. 2.02. allow, two restricted watercraft at a residential site. There is a further provision, under Subd. 3. that i ra.tricted watercraft, if they are all owned by and registered to the residents of the site. (A restricted watercralt is one that is over 10 hp or over 16’ long, including personal watercraft.; It is necessary to remove five of the seven watercraft immediately, unless three ^ watercraft belong to you or other residents at thi Vdlim in this case, please ,, numbers as evidence that all '•'ra. or four watercraft are owned by and registered to residents Then, the other watercraft not owned by reside will nead to be removed. Please call within three business days Jo confirm how you will bring boat storage at your dock into conformance with LMCD regulations. Your cooperation in working to bring storage your dock into compliance is appreciated. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRIC^^ q'kw- -) 1 /O ,1 -r-/ ■ /L.. /< JL. ' niflEOu^iy-' Rachel Thibault Administrative Technician Enel. Code excerpt 5HP 2 4 1992 Mike Gaffron J . Hurr Orono LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION UI STRICT Action Report: Meeting: Lake Use and Recreation Committee 4:30 PM., Monday. September 21. 1992 Norwest Bank. Wayzata. Community Room Members Present: Bert Foster, Chair. Deephaven: James Grath- wol. Excelsior: David Cochran, Greenwood: Mike Bloom. Minnetonka Beach: Scott Carlson. Minnetrista: Thomas Reese. Mound; JoEllen Hurr, Orono: Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Douglas Babcock. Spring Park: Tom Penn. Tonka Bay. Also Present: Charles LeFevere. Counsel; Sgt. Wm. Chandler. Sheriff’s Water Patrol: Rachel Thi- bault. Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen. Executive Di rector. The meeting was called to order at 4:37 PM by c;hair Foster. 1. Special Events A. New Event Application: Ice Fishing Excursions The committee received an application from Georse Stoco .a and Art Bollman. Excelsior, for a Winter Special Event License to operate I ^ Fisliin? Excursions. Foster described Ice Fishing Excursions as a new and unusual tvpe of event. The proposal is to offer the public bv providing ice houses and a vehicle to access the houses. The vehicle will be an S' x 20’ 4-wheel drive. The application contained a sketch of the sled and a description of the proposed activity. w-icht of Chandler said his immediate concern would be the the vehicle on the ice. George Stodola said he Deputv Schmidt and has assured the Water Patrol it would ha opportunity tc inspect the sled before beginning " ‘ °^_ Penn said he views this as a commercial operation rather than an event. There was discussion about the does not differentiate ^ K \uyruiure. on the $100 base fee which includes four days. $10 per day for an estimated 30 days over the first ^i^fee thev fundable $100 license deposit. Stodola agreed that the fee tney have paid is for the first 34 days ® ^ ‘ ® *■. ^ will renew for the additional days they intend to response to questions from the committee, they do not intend to move the fish houses ' ^^cceslf u I plan to start the operation in Excelsior ‘ ^ sleds will be niav expand to other locations. The fish houses a -itticbed stored in Shorewood and Chaska. The bathrooms which a. e to the sleds, will be serviced off the '"J Hi'] houses are licensed and have a rental * site with There will be Ice Fishing Excursions the occupants for cleanup. Their oujecii^e users. 26 and they use the li~ Stodola said LAKIi USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE Sept ember 21. 1992 MOriONj Penn moved. Grathwol seconded, to recoitiincnd the Board approve a one time Winter Special Event License for Ice Fishine Excursions, the LMCD staff to draw up the stipulations for Board consideration based on the dis.,ussion. provided the Sheriff’s Water Patrol approves the sleds. VOlE: Motion carried. Rascop voting nay because the ice is never safe. B. Request for Waiver of Late Fee Ted Kowalski. Viking Bass Masters, requested waiver late fee for the October 4th tournament. The reasons request and details of the tournament were submitted committee. During the presentation Thibault informed the tee that Viking Bass Masters has been subject to a late the past three years. Kowalski .sail! he was not awa;e of that and wiifuircw request . of the for the to t lie commit- fee for t he C. Citizen Complaints The committee received copies of letters addressed to the LMCD from Keith Stuessi. Greenwood and James Wyer. Deephaven. The e.xecutive director submitted a memo commenting on the Stuessi complaint about boat noise at the 8/16 Brighte.'' Light Bass Open. Stuessi was present and stated his belief that there should be a Water Patrol boat in attendance when the boats leave the starting point to be sure the speed and noise controls are en­ forced. He also expressed concern about the possibility of a collision. Chandler responded that there were plans to have Water Patrol presence at the start of the tournament l>ut the personnel wc.e involved in a drowning in Gray’s Bay. a matter which took precedence. Rascop asked about the possibility of charging an extra fee to cover the cost incurred by the Water Patrol in pa:rolling the starts of the tournaments. LeFeveie said it could be done but it is unlikely the Sheriff would accept compensation for special services. Hurr added this has been suggested in the past and Hennepin County cannot dedicate the fees to the Water Patrol, the money collected would be allocated to the (5eneral Fund. Denny Nelson. Brighter Light Bass Open Tournament Director, said this was the only complaint received. It was a very quiet morning and sound traveled well. He sussested in the future he would have the boats start about lUO yards further hevoiul the slow buoys afid the f>a r t i c i pan t s could be asked to hegifi away from the Greenwot>d shore. Nelson said any participant cited lor speeding is disauali- fied from the tournament tor that day. Babcock suecested that be a requirement for a fishing tournament event license. Babc«>ck also suggested the tournaments be slarteiJ in sm.aller fliglits. Foster said the LMCD is studying the poss-ibility of reducing the permitted decibel level for motors. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE September 21, 1992 The letter from James Wyer complained that the Water Patrol was directing its enforcement at the more accessible targets of small boat owners, sailors and their tenders. Wyer specifically mentioned an incident during the Don Shelby Tournament. t hatidler responded that they are not selective in their enforcement. The incident referred to was a legitimate stop. Water Patrol policy does not allow a deputy to leave one violator to go after another one. Chandler said the deputy in charge of the Shelby Tournament did talk to the director of the tournament about speed. Five citations were issued that day and 13 warnings but there is no way to determine if t!iey were related to the tournament. Chan­ dler suggested Wyer address his complaint to the Water Patrol. Rascop asked that staff respond to the two letters and include the suggestion that Wyer discuss his complaint with the Water Patrol. Penn asked for a full discussion of the whole tournament licensing at the ne.xt meeting. 2. Shoreline Boat County Summary Report The committee received the shoreline boat counts from 19~*» through 1992. There was no action. 3. Water Patrol Report A. Monthly Activity Report Chandler reported as follows: * There were 3 boating accidents since the last committee meeting. One was a personal injury accident ir Wayzata Bay. Two wert propertv damage incidents. One of the two property damage incidents involved the E.xcelsior Park Tavern citarter boat which was disabled and towed to its dock. Chandler expressed apprecia­ tion to the other boaters, charter boats and emergency vehicles which responded. . * 9 BWIs were i.ssued since the last lueciiiie. Inis is a total of 58 in Hennepin County. 56 of which were on Lake Minne­ tonka. * Thefts from boats and vandalism continues, is working on an onsoins li.asis. The activity lias lower lake. * On 9/5 the Water Patrol held a saturation resulted in 1.1 citations and I BWI . * The Water Patrol observed itie aclivilv »*ul Point Access in Halsted’s Bay. The only contact was sk i ier. A detective •uovetl to the patrol I t I I otn Kina ’s with a water Snowmobile Registration Numbers The executive director said the DNR continues the size of the snowmobile registration numbers, problems in developing a sticker which will contain information reuuired by law ami I lie registration nurii'cr ot to evaluate There are all of the a sticker that will fit the newly desisned snowmobile body conlipu- rations. It does not look like there will be a change for the coining season. 5. License Fee Schedule for 1992 and 1993. Foster turned the meeting ovei tc Carlson. LMt.'U Treasurer, to address the 1992 and 1993 Multiple Dock License fees. Carlson said concerns have been raised by the Multiple Dock License holders a’out the fee schedule. During the past month some license holder representatives and LMCD staff have discussed the license fees and relative costs incurred in handling multiple dock licensing, milfoil control and implementation of the Manage­ ment Plan. Concerns have been raised about the fees collected vs. the budget and expenses incurred by the District, as well as the LMCD reserve funds. With reference to the $725,000 total Fund Balance. Carlson pointed out that S290.000 is in the General Fund. SJ50.000 in the Eurasian Water Milfoil Funds and SS3.000 in the Save the Lake Fund. Carlson presented a review of LMCD licensing fees compared with expenses/budgets for Multiple Dock Related Activities (MDRA). dated ^72 1/*^ 2. Me pointed out tliat the fisures are retrospective and estimates because the District does not have at this time, the staffing to do detailed cost accounting. Carlson proceeded to go over the review item by item. Revenue (MDKA) In 199 1 a committee examined the fees in response to a mandate that fees be charged to the people using the Lake. The review of the 1992 preliminary estimates showed the Fees Prior to the Change, the Projected Fees with the Adopted Change and the Actual 1992 MDRA Revenue. The 1992 budget was determined prior to the change in the fee schedule. Expenses Estimated (MDRA) The personnel expenses of the executive director arid the administrative technician were estimated on a percentage basis. The same percentage was applied to the administrative costs. Ninety per cent of the legal costs were allocated to MDR.A. but none of the prosecuting costs were included. One-tfiiril of the cost of the Lake Use Density Study. Public Information Study and Pu blic Access Study have been allocated from Total ConsuIting/Studies. 1990 Comparison Carlson said the 1990 figures reflect a low water year. The executive director spent a majority of his time on MDRA before the Administrative Technician was hired. Gabriel Jabbour stated the LMCD never informed the cities of the change in the 199 2 budget when the revised lee schedule was adopted. Carlson noted that in 1993 the LMCD reduced the amounts to be collected from t lie cities. Carlson read the Kindings wfiich led up to t >K- j ecommemla- tions to be presented to the Board. LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE September 21, 1992 1 i- t he t he i s i V- l he Recommendations , 1. To Delay the multiple dock license fee increase from $12 to $15 per WSU with no increase in 1993. a $1.00 increase per WSU each vear in 199*1. 1995 and 1996. 2. Modify the 1993 LMCD budset. chaneiiip Licenses & Permits Revenue to $134,000. and increasing the Reserve Fund Allocation from $15,732 to $26,732. 3. Implement accounting procedures, usine available solt- ware, to keep more detailed tracking of e.xpenses. This will involve time keeping by the staff and attorney. Rascop questioned billing applicants for e.xtra time spent on their applications. Carlson sai’. that could be considered. Babcock pointed out that separate fees are charged for new dock license applications to defray their costs. James Gilbert, attorney representing 19 multiple dock cense holders, stated his client’s objection is both to amount and nature of the fees being charged here. They feel fees are e.xcessive and unconstitutional. He believes L.iCD using the license fees as a revenue producer to fund other i.ct ities. He cited Carlson’s openine comments nlxnit eoing to users who utilize the lake to pay for the organization’s budget is contrary to statutory authority. Gilbert cited LMCD s statute 103b631. Subd. 2, stating the municipalities’ responsibility for bearing the district’s expenses. k » inn«t Gilbert continued that it looks like there has been a 3 increase in license fees sine 1987. He submits that the corre­ sponding costs have not been nearly that. He also believes the time spent on multiple docks is not close to what is charged. The executive director's time ‘ was also questioned, citing other areas of activity requires his time. Records to substantiate how staff time is spent is necessary. rhnrState statute does not allow LMCD to get any fees over that time, because then LMCD is using police power of this t>ody to extract general revenue. That is where the ^ ‘^ T ‘ ^ ‘ come to a factual question, it may come to a lawsuit. His cli ents do not want that. They would like to avoid ’ possibly could. He sees the cost summary as a justifv what LMCD has been doing over the last number of - ® ^ • Looking at the budget figures. Gilbert notes he see what has been going on with the fees. LMCD has * Vor t h i s what Treasurer Carlson said, to get the users to pay for this organization, rather than the municipalities which are suppo e to^Jun^the organization. He thinks the reason . .s municipal­ ities have run out of money too and they do not want organization to the extent the Board wants it funded. The> shifted the burden over to the users. r,,.rrinn of the Looking at the budget he notes the ‘ ^• , .Q92. and budget has gone from $103,000 in 1991. to $ . time the in 1 993 it was dropped down to $60,000. .At budget- license and permit fees have reversed that. ‘J ‘ t ed ed $65 000 ,‘evenue for licenses .ind permit- • niol MPDcd $65,000 -even^ budgeted SS5.000 and he u nde r s t and s LMCD 10 I .000 I n LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE September 21, l‘)92 has already collected this year SI JO.000 with more money to come in this fiscal year. And now in 1993. LMCD proposes $145,000 of the total budget be allocated to multiple dock users. Licenses have increased by $80,000 in three years, a 120" increase. The cities at the same time have gone down $4j.000 which results in a 5S% decrease during the same period ol time. He repeats LMCD is abusing its power to fund the organization. Gilbert offered his suggestions. They would like to settle the issue going forward. He does think there is ample legal authority to go back up to six years to try and recoup monies that were wrongfully paid. These monies were involun'ary paid to keep their licenses and businesses operating. He believes there is a case in the 1940’s which indicates that is involuntary pay­ ment and that they can go back and recoup the overpayments six years if necessary. They would like to avoid that if cou1d. His client.s would also like to study the fee orocess carefully, recognizing the good recommendations oi the committee. Some of his clients would like to be directly VO Ived in that input. Gilbert suggests that this crisis can be resolved by adjust­ ing the $145,000 allocated to the 1993 budget by civing credit for the excesses that were made on the 1991 and 1992 budgets. In 1991 LMCD budgeted $65,000 and collcctetl $101,000. That $36,000 ove r t he V very LMCD i n- should be applied against the $145,000 for the next liuduet year He also thinks the $85,000 budgeted for 1992 with $130,000 or more to be collected, resulting in a $45,000 amount which should be credited against the 3993 budget on the license issue. Gilbert then asked that LMCD sit down with his clients to establish a formula that evervLody agrees on and tliat within legal compliance of statutory requirements and police power to raise funds. Carlson responded concerning his opening remarks said LMCD is allowed to collect fees which costs with dock related activity. The L.'ICD LMCD conies not useto in which he are con*^istent with attornev can addres.s that in more detail. Regarding the dro,/ in fees for the cities in 1993. that was a one-time drop in fees (based on lowering the reserve fund to a one year's operating level 1. Vou must recog­ nize that cities pay substantially more in addition to that ($63,000 each of the last three years). The milfoil issue i.s being addressed separate from the multiple dock program. This one-time drop was a 30% decrease, not a 58% decrease. In addressing budget vs. actual revenue/expense. Carlson notes LMCD ha.s a small staff. LMCD did collect more In some years chan projected. Low water in earlier years res Ited in heavy staff time process i tig temporary low wai er v;i r i ances. in­ creasing LM(.7D costs. Fees from new dock licenses, special density licenses and variances bring in revenue which is not budgeted, as it is not prediccable, resulting in fiieher license fee revenue than budgeted. It is not a budget vs. actual ^ les- tion. The real question is LMCD ’ s actu.sl cost iif administering the license program vs. the revenue we collect. Revenue is generated to cover the costs of administering those n rog r .im.s. J LAKK USE AND RECKEATION COMMITTEE Septcml)or 21, 1992 LeFevere said he does not disagree in principle* with what Mr. Gilbert said. The authority to levy license fees is limited to the amount that has some reasonable basis of administering the costs of the District. We mav interpret that a little <lifferent- ly as to what expenses are properly allocable to that part of the program. It is a question of whether the numbers that staff has put together are accurate or not. Mr. Gilbert thinks they are not and there is not much I can say to satisfy him on that score. LeFevere assumes staff used their best effort to come up with a reasonable estimate of the time they spend on multiple <locks and multiple dock programs. To the extent that the costs are accu­ rate. the fees are legally defensible. Hun caMed Gilbert’s attention to the provision in the LMCD statute regarding service fees. Gilbert does not l>elie'’’e these are service fees at all. Babcock pointed out that no milfoil revenue to .ulm i n i s t e r the overall program was included in the license tee costs. Gilbert responded that if LMCD had and improper. Rascop stated that the milfoil mu Itiple docks. Gilbert sciid it selectively, it must be charged to the people who use the lake. Carlson further points out that the homeowners .are charged for the program because all the cities pay a substantial sum each year to control milfoil This is in issue which requires further discussion, but none of those costs have been charged to the multiple dock licensees. Gilbert continued that he believes of the $145,000 (budgeted for 1992 license revenue). $119,000 is from multiple dock use charges, not just marinas, but everyone on the lake with multiple dock. His adjustment of SSI.000 is based on the last two years of inaccurate budget calculations. If tfuit $81,000 is credited against the $145,000 for just this one year, as a one time deal. LMCD license fees would I>e about 364.000. That would l>e about $ it would be totally illegal control t)rosMnm bcnelits the it is going to be charged everybody, homeowners and all per WSU as opposed to the 5 1.*' per W.SU wanted to do that on a one-time basis (for I I . If the board it could wiUi SJOO.DOO in reserves. This would avoid an important emotional ant. crisis- tvpe issue. . Carlson again repeated that the budget is not the important issue. I.i rather what LMCD collected and what it expended. Because ..MCD collected more than it budgeted does not mean it collected them improperly. LMCD could also eo hack on |>revious years )n<l adjust I i jeiise fees so tliat license Ices I n I I v covered the cost of th'se programs. Sheet one of the VTndout shows i^'at license tees 1990 covered only 5^" of those programs. Even though LMC’' coilected more tlian it budgeted, it .’as within its ights to no 50. Gilbert questioned eoinc h.ick into tiisiorv ii* trv .imi lusti- fy what LMCD has done here. This organization Mn.s .also a 20 year operating history charging for permits. Hopeiully all of the budgets it submitted the municipalities w.re not iust ouI.cd out of the air. He thinks LMCD would have some son of eniDiric.il LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE September 21, 19*12 basis to assess what LMCD would like to come out with for license fees. Figuring for 1991. 92 and 93. if there is no l)nsis in fact for those years, then there are some other kiruls of problems. His point is for this meet in? ntid this cons i de la t i on. if those budgets were presented as reasonable at the time for this kind of service, now to go back and effectively double it after the fact, he does not think is going to hold any water. Gilbert respectfully requests that LMCD consider an adjust­ ment along the lines he has talked about. • Babcock asked what the fees would be for 19*)3 bv leavina them the same as 1992. Carlson responded about S134.000 would be collected this year, that at $50 application fee plus $12/WSU. Babcock asked for clarification on the SI22.000 in expenses on the hand-out. Carlson explained that represented expenses relat­ ed to multiple dock activities. The SI 14.000 above that is the multiple dock related revenue. Total licenses fees are in addi­ tion to the $114,000 higher, which include special event, charter and liquor license fees, br iris ins it to SI 34.000. MOTION: Hurr moved. Foster seconded, that the Board hold .an executive .ses.sion before the Septemlier 23. I‘>'>2 Bo.ard meeting because of the threat of litigation. DISCUSSION: Rascop asked about time needs for an executive session meeting notice. LeFevere explained that the Board can enter into executive session on the basis of attorney client privilege on matters of litigation or pending litigation by amending the agenda. In the matter of actual or penditig litiga­ tion there is no question of going into executive session. In the matter of threatened litigation, the law is not ns clear. In this case, the message is that the District is going to be sued if they do not reduce the fees. MOTION: Hurr and Foster agreed to change the motion to read: Recommend that the Board amend the agenda to hold ;in executive session at the Board meeting on September 23. 1992 because of the threat of litigation. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Foster said he is not comfortable with the f.eures. He would like to see a meeting between Gilbert, representatives of his client group. LMCD staff and Carlson, Foster would like to be sure there is a factual basis for the figures ijefore going into executive session. He would like to ufiderstand v^h<•lt both sides are talking about. Rascop said he has no problem if the staff can justify their numbers. He commented that the cities hiive been subsidizing the District for y»;ars. LeFevere commented that the information was I’ul together by the staff without the benefit of detailed time or ct»st accounting records. Mr. Gilbert points out that because the records were put together after the fact, he questions the accuracy. LeFevere does not believe there is a legal requirement to do that kind of study I) e f o r e the fact. The question is are the fees set on a level where there ;a reasonable relationship to the costs of administering t.bf n> .'Lrain. Staff may have guesseil. and if that guess prove-? to have keen an accurate one it is lawful. i LAKli USI-: ANU KliCREATlON COMMITTKR September 21, 1992 Foster concluded there is no interest in a pe I -1 ope l lie r • He then asked Gilbert to prepare more detail of what he verbally present­ ed to the committee, where he got the numbers, how he arrived at it. Gilbert said he will have the information by Wednesday afternoon. Babcock expressed concern about what will lie done for this year as it is almost time to send out the 1993 aF>P 1 i ca t i ons. It was noted that this will be discussed at the executive session. Carlson said that is the reason this fee review was expedited to the Lake Use Committee. Jabbour asked that rules of an executive session are followed and that the tapes of the executive session be kept for review. LeFevere responded that if the Board concludes that there is a lawful requirement that tapes be made and they are entitled to it after the fact, then tapes can be provided. LeFevere will advise the Board on this reciuircment by Weiincsday. Carlson returned the meeting to Committee Chair Josler. Gilbert requested a copy of the minutes. Rascop suggested letters be sent to the cities regarding the fee and budget discussion s<» pulilic officials and citizens know what is going on. The executive director said a letter could be faxed to the cities informing them of the fee study and advising them of the possible action on 9/23. Carlson agreed to faxing the information because of the short time period. 6. Decibel study Foster re[)orted tlie watercraft deciliel leview process will start in October with the Lake Use Committee serving as Mi -Uidy group. The committee approved by acclamation. 7. Adjournment Foster declared the meeting adjourned at 0:20 PM. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Slrommcn. Executive Director Bert Foster. Chair V1 .a 1I1 r BOARD MEMBERS OavW H. Cochran. Chair Greenwood lorn Reese. Vice Chair Mound Douglas E. Babcock. Seaelary Spring Park J. P. Boswinkel. Treasurer Minnetonka Beach Scott Carlson Minnetrlsla Albert (Bert) Foster Oeephaven James N. Graihwol Excelsior JoElIen I Hurt Orono William A. Johnstone Minnetonka Duane Maikus Wayzaia George C. Owen Victoria Tom Penn Tonka Bay Robert Rascop Shorewood Robert E. Slocum Woodland LAKE MINNETONKA CONSER)fgrFt©N-&ISfffilCT 900 EAST WAVZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 • WAYZATA. MINNE: > TELEHONE 6j;/473-7033 EUGENE W SIROMMEN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR September 25, 1992 SEP H 8 1992 Mr. Mark Breneman North Shore Chartered 4014 Sunset Dr Spring Park MN 55384 Dear Mark: In reference to our letter of 9/24/92, it was our misunderstanding that you had operated your speedboat, the Bad Habit II, for hire this summer due to receipt of the charter boat inspection report from the Water Patrol on 8/31/92. In light of the fact that you did not operate this boat for hire, we withdraw our violation letter . Our intention was to remind you that even sn. "*11 boats that are for hire do need to be registered with the LMCD per Section 3.07. I apologize for this misunderstanding. Thank you for your continuing cooperr^r in the LMCD "Save the Lake" program. Sincerely, LAKE. MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Rachel Thibault Administrative Technician Water Patrol City of Orono City of Spring Park Doug Babcock JoEllen Hurr nsfmicTHONEi^i/473-7033cutive'-wrectobi992dueFrom oats le for |K«-W M !FISCHERWS&A •‘r i .1 <w%tr' ij r' ' 'fel;l(f;! Isf-i iiaiiy]lYOU>ARE INVITED TO ^EET’flSi^^CANDibAfES - ^ • j . I ' . • * iHjI H1;00 a.m: to 4:00 p.m. 1|' • <4r. •■ 850 County.Road 110 North * ’■ *!•' ^ •. I Parents 'AVcIcomei ,i a^Slfcandy Coffeellj; ,, , . ..,Jif!l'. \ Paid for by'Cheryl Fischer Vo u'-toer Co.Tir.ir.eo, Do'o“ . H.x-s>.-\ • • > Co) RcTjllO N.^ K*i"'ro;r'5!aMN 55364 ' '* t : (' < ■ \ ■ imtA. SOARO MEMBERS David H. Cochran. Ch«if Graarrwood Tom fltoao. VIca Chair Mound OouglaaE. Babcock, Sacraiary Spring Park X P. BotwMial. Traasurar Minnatonka BaacA SeoM Cartoon Mkmoifiaia AMatt (BarUPoMr Oaaphavan Jamaa N. Gradmol EieaHlor JoEaanL. Hurr Orono wnMiA. Johnatona Mmnawnka OuanaMaikua Wayxaia Qaorga C. Owan Vwiorta Tot.. Pann Tonka Bay RobartRaacop Shorawood RobartE. Slocum WoodMnd lake MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 160* WAYZATA. MINNESOTA SM91 • TELEHONrl 612/473-7033 ■R. S^^MEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR September 24, 1992 tfi\r Nark Breneman North Shore Charters 4014 Sunset Dr Spring Park MN 55384 SEP 2 5 Dear Mark: It has come to our attention that you are and/or have been operating a speedboat for hire, the Bad Habit II, without having it registered with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD). This is in violaL*.on of LMCD Code 53.07. Please call me within three business days to set up an appointment to discuss the violation. A form is enclosed should you wlnh to make application for rcgis* taring the boat. The LMCD will then take no further action on the matter for this boating season. Your cooperation in working to bring this charter boat into compliance is appreciated. Sincerely, IINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT lachel Thibault Administrative Technician RT t J lfn enc: Code S3.07, charter app. Water Patrol Insp. Report c: Hennepin County^heriff's Water Patrol City of Orono City of Spring Park , Doug Babcock JoEllen Hurr VIA CERTIFIED MAIL -i Thursday Saturday Honday Tuesday Friday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Monday Wednesday 9-24-92 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District _900 E. Wayzata Blvd, //160, Wayzata MN SSOifl cn. 12 13 473-7033 I one.USSOV^il L.M.C.D. MEETING SCHEDULE October 1992 SEP 2 5 1992 EWM St Albans Bay Sonar Technical Progress Reports Noon (luncheon reservations), Excelsior Park Tavern 683 Excelsior Blvd. Water Structures Committee 7:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata Legal Holiday, office closed Environment Committee 8;00 am, #135 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force 8:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata Lake Use and Recreation Committee A:30 pm, #135 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata Technical Review Committee 8:00 am, Norwest Bank Bldg, Board Ro( (Please use west entrance) , Mezzanine I Lake Access Task Force 7:30 pm, Minnetonka Community Room 14600 Minnetonka Blvd. Subcommittee on Facilities Licensed/Not Constructed 8:30 am, LMCD office, Wayzata .1 Lake Use Subcommittee on Decibel Level 3:00 pm, #135 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata 7:00 pm. Public Hearing: LMCD's Adoption of Orono's Ordinance on Styrofoam Docks 7:30 pm, LMCD Board of Directors Regular Meeting Tonka Bay City Hall r-Lake Minnetonka Conservation District •I - f • • '473-7033 • * A.• ••. •»'V. • 1* • ” • r* • t • i ' y- M' Pi m * ••••• • •• • EVENTS SCB.DULE 1 * • October 1992 « a • ^ Sat Sun 4 Sat 17 9-24-92 Jrti I latmi r I f -*• • 10:00 am WYC, Commodore Cup Course 5 am to 3 pm Viking Bassmasters of MN, North Shore Drive Marina Sat 10 10:00 am WYC, Commodore Cup Course 10:00 WYC, Commodore Cup Course Sat 24 . 10:00 an WYC, Commodore Cup Course i ] MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 Th« regular aaeting of tha Board of Education of Orono Indepandant School District No. 278 was hald on Monday, Saptaabar 14, 1992. Present:Dave McKown James Franlilin John Maresh Peg Swanson Thomas Mich Martha Van de Ven Neal Lawson Absent: Don Anderson UPON NOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by John Narash, tha consant aganda was approved as follows: approved the minutes of the August 10, 1992; approved the appointment of Nary Holmgren as part-time art teacher and librarian at Orono Primary School for the 1992-93 school year; accept the resignation of Sandra Sievers as a short hour cook at the middle school effective August 25, 1992; approve the appointment of Jill Loomis as a short ho*", cook at the middle school for the 1992-93 school year; approve the appointment of Joseph Heyman as a part-time custodian at the high school for the 1992-93 school year; approve the appointment of Stephanie Ditter as a paraprofessional at the Orono Primary School for the 1992-93 school year; approve the appointment of Jan Narr as a paraprofessional at the orono Primary School for the 1992-93 school year; approve the appointment of Judy Carlson-Parupsky as a paraprofessional at the Orono Primary School for the 1992-93 school year; approved the appointment of Vicki Baldry as a paraprofessional in the swimming pool area for the 1992-93 school year; approved the bills as covered by vouchers 075049 through 075432 and office checks as covered by vouchers 2365 through 2429; approved the Treasurer's Report for April, 1992. Motion carried. Dr. Mich expressed sympathy to the family of Gary Meyer, a former Orono teacher, who passed away last week and stated that flowers were sent on behclf of the Board of Education. Dr. Mich stated that the city of Orono has requested a meeting with the Orono Board of Education and their planning coBsiseion to be held on Septeaber 28 in regard to the school's land and the hockey association. Dr. Mich will try to schedule this neeting for late afternoon on the 28th. Dr. Mich expressed congratulations to the following four National Merit Semi-Finalists from the 1993 graduating class: Michael Blodgett, Christopher Martin, Alyssa Purdy and Angela House. Dr. Mich stated that Martha Van de Ven has been appointed by Mr. McKown to serve on the ECFE space needs committee; that official enrollment and class size figures will be available to the Board in October; that the Preschool Workshop week went well with Kevin Armstrong as the faculty speaker and Dr. James Benson, President of Dunwoody Institute as a guest speaker regarding technology; that he wanted to express appreciation to the Technology Committee members, especially Dave Sohn, and all the other faculty/staff who worked on the Tech Fair which was held during workshop week; that installation of the sprinkler system is complete; that the purchase/lease agreement with the church across the street is in process; that good progress is being made on the long-range planning process; that the NCA visitation this year will cover general areas and the Executive Secretary of Minnesota NCA, Phil LeBeau, was here during workshop week to speak to those who are serving on the various committees; that he wanted to compliment the middle school on their orientation program for new students this year and also the high school for their new orientation program for freshman students and their parents; that he was distributing a current list of committee and administrative assignments; that with consensus from the Board, he would %n:ite to legislators requesting their support to reinstate school districts with the authority to establish the school year start for their district; that the first meeting with the Student Advisory group will be held on September 28; that he planned to meet individually with each Board member within the next month. Peg Swanson stated that the staff development brochure FOCUS looks excellent and she expressed appreciation to that committee for their work. Jim Franklin stated that he has heard good comments regarding the summer staff and the work that they have done in preparing the school buildings and grounds. Martha Van de Ven stated that she was impressed with the Tech Fair and that she wanted to commend the Technology Committee and all of those who worked on the Fair. Dr. Mich provided information regarding the 1992 Reorganization Legislation which would require a reorganization of service agencies to schools throughout the State of Minnesota intending to deal with overlap in responsibilities and to streamline the services provided to local school districts. The Orono Board of Education is in agreement with other metropolitan school districts •* that tha current service a9encies are not in overlap and are providing vital and valuable services to our school districts at affordable costs. Dr. Mich will convey the Board's reaffirmation of the current system to the Metro Area Education Coordinating Council. Dr. Mich provided background information on open enrollment students who attend the Orono Schools. He provided an overview of the process by which open enrollment takes place, the legislation which now mandates open enrollment for all school districts and the tremendous financial gain that we receive as a School District because of open enrollment. He stated that 300 open enrollment students are served by the Orono Schools generating over $1,000,000 in revenue with direct expense for these students being $444,832, therefore, generating an excess general fund revenue of $560,804 which benefits all Orono students. These funds are very important at a time in which the State of Minnesota has put a freeze on foundation aid. Without the financial benefit of these open enrollment students, class size would increase by four to five students with approximately twenty-three teacher reductions. Dr. Mich stated that administration continues to watch class size/classroom facilities working to maintain the quality education that has always been provided by this District. Dr. Mich answered questions from the ^>.mrd for clarification purposes. UPON MOTION BY Martha Van de Ven, seconded by Jim Franklin, the Board of Education approved the proposed 1992 payable 1993 property tax levy of $11,644,812.63. Motion carried. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Martha Van de Ven, the Board of Education approved the custodial contract for 1992-94. Motion carried. 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 goals/objectives, activities, as well as areas of involvement for parents, that are being developed/planned for this school year. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Peg Swanson, the meeting was adjourned. Notion carried. ohn Maresh, Clerk Dave NcKown, Chairman !r. h I- I' r' I . Lake Minnetonka Cable Con^munlcations Commission 443 OAK STREET • EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474-5539 Mayor raroara Peceraon and Oxcy Oouncxi City or Orono Box 66 Crystal Bav, MN BtOCC Bear Mayor l'ot*5rson aiio ».oiui'.'iim*rfinD'irs: L^t m" D^qxn oy t a.i mk i r:ci y:vj tor wot‘'im r-ur '.■oR*..'ni&-sxon stair ana tn-i* istvo Caoie Comroi,s‘:ixoii ou-vqet into your ousy council aqenoa. The com&inatxon ot prodxccxnu Trxax Cat'levision's irancnise tees and determxnino niie most la’-'orabie manner in which to spend those dollars, is cr'ii'.e an ex'i.ensxve pi e.is . *o nave tfjxs unu-rt ;.tmxnci culminate with your approval, is a successtul conclusion to a lonq and productive eitott. Wt» looK tor ward to an excet* c lonax ly';'o ana tne activation or our Oovernmenc Access Channel. oincereiy, LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Barbara Brancel Chair BB/cl cc: Commissioner Butler Commissioner Battrin rt 1^-fulfil r r v» . .f 3 0 15)9? 1 ; •s ' Brimeyer Group's .•arch Assignment ilent List rent: S<tndstone- C ity Avlminstralor Nlinncapolis— Qufliity Coordinator Minnetonka — City Assessor Chisago County— Countv Administra­ tor Co’iploted: • Hugo- City Administrator • Robbinsdaic— City Manager Denson — City Manager Edina— School Super- . otendent Decker — Citv Administrator Nordquist Signs— Design Engineer Crooklyn Park— Deputy City Man- agcr/Dirccto* of Finance Hrooklyn Center — i’oiice Chief Arden Hilis— City Administrator 'Trystal — — i inance Directoe-' MN Chiefs of POttce Assn.—Executive' Director Ramsey-W ashington Cable Commission— Executive Director New Offices Located On ‘Mainstreet ’ The Brimeyer Croup is enjoying new offices, located at Orw Tenth Avenue South In Hopkins, Minnt'sota—right on the "Main- street for the Twin Cities." The office is comfortably furnished with a combination of modern oak furniture and a few antiques. The office walls are covered with appropri­ ate quotable quotes, golf memr'ab'lia and original artwork provided by Dt.'h Padgett. Hopefully you will stop by sometime. The Brimeyer Group is planning to have an open house in December and invites you to attend. ‘Unbundied ’ > oachm Available for Searches The Brimeyer Croup has conducted assign­ ments using the full-search process as well as using the "unbundled" approach; where The Brimeyt.' Group is retained to conduct specified portions of the process. The "unbundled" searches in 1992 have ^ included a Sewer Supervisor for New ly Brighton, a School Superintendent for the Edina Schools, an Administrator for Arden Hills, and a Chief of Police for Brooklyn Center. he Brim Report tc Brimeyer Group, inc. rxECUTIVE SEARCH CONSULTANTS ne Tenth Ave. South opkins, MN 55343 (612) 945-0246 !o)CIT'^O’ C Public Speaking Engagements As part of The Brimeyer Group's mission to provide consulting in the areas of executive search, strategic planning and team build­ ing, Jim Brimeyer has been busy with public speaking engagements throughout the country. Following is a list of these presenta ­ tions: "What are City Councils Locking for?" Durango, CO; Colorado City Managers Annual Conference, February, 1992. "How to Hire a Successful City Man­ ager" Bloomington, MN; League of MN Cities Conference, June, 1992. "Conducting a Performance Evaluation" Brainard, MN; MN Municipal Utilities Annual Conference, June, 1992. "How to Land the Perfect Job" Reno, NV; International City and County Manage­ ment Association, September, 1992. "How to Prepare for the Right Job" Rochester, MN; MN Recreation and Parks Association, November, 1992. "Resumes and Interviewing: Job Search Strategics" Hamline University, St. Paul, MN; a one-session clas» as part of the Personnel Administration course, 1988- 1992. Jim is also available to speak on the follow­ ing topics: "Employee Recruitment and Selection —Potiuck or Process," "Interview ­ ing—Art or Science," "Employee Evalu­ ation—Motivate or Threaten," "Team Building~Productive or Protective;* and "Strategic Planning/Goal Setting —Proactive or Reactive." Cali (612) 945-0246. PM n 'A .1 “I _ < SPECIAL: First Issue! c r kJ * __Colleagues __File in notebook - o City Council c. 8 -i^y^City of Orooo Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Thg Brim Report ’IIk Brime>vr Group, in. UCUTlVf SCAMCM CONSULTANI S 0n« Tenth Ave. South Hopkins. MN 55343 (612) 945-0245 (612) 933-1153 fax U O Oh CU cu H Fall Issue September 1992 Vel. 1. Issue 1 Collector’s Item: First Edition By fames Brimeyer—President Welcome to the first edition of The Brim Report. The idea of producing a newsletter from The Brimeyer Group Executive Search Consultants is the brainchild of our Advi ­ sory Board (see related article). The mem­ bers of this Board suggested we make a greater effort in advising our past and present clients about the services offered by The Brimeyer Group. I hope you will enjoy this newsletter and that you will look forward to future editions of The Brim Report. We expect to publish it about four times a year. Our Beginning The Elrimeyer Group Executive Search Consultants will soon be celebrating its first anniversary. The company was incorporated in Noveml^r of 1991 and opened official* for business in January, 1992. We have since enjoyed consistent and steady growth. Services to Clients Currently, we have co:npleted —or are in the process of completing —over a dozen assignments in the executive search area. In addition, we have participated in well over a half dozen team-building, strategic plan­ ning, and goal-setting sessions for a variety of organizations —including the City of Hopkins, 3M Corporation and the Cold Weather Resource Center. Professional Staff The Brimeyer Group is currently staffed with two full-time employees: Pam Wun ­ derlich and me, with over 20 years of expe­ rience in public sector management and in the executive search business since July, 1988. Prior to joining The Brimeyer Group, Pam was with another executive search firm for over 15 years In addition. The Brimeyer Group has several part-time employees: Deb Padgett (who has over 10 years of ex­ ecutive search experience). Bob Schaefer (formerly the City Administrator for Inver Grove Heights), Gail Merritt (who has worked with several executive search firms) and Bob Carlson (a Research Spc<ialist with his own company). Again, welcome to the first issue of The Brim Report I hope you enjoy reading it. You may also want to route it to your colleagues. Public Service Management Advisory Board Established The Brimeyer Group recently established the Public Service Management Advisory Board (PSMAB). Similar to a board of directors, the purpose of this Board is to examine the public sector executive search process, advise The Bri­ meyer Group of trends in the industry and provide information about professionals in the field. Jim Brimeyer likes to be able to "pick the brains" of members of the PSMAB. "This helps me determine what new serv ­ ices should be offered to public sector man ­ agers and how we might improve our existing services," he said. The PSMAB consists of professionals in leadership positions in associations, repre­ sentatives from the metropolitan area and Greater Minnesota, those interested in local government, and representatives from small and large cities. Following is the current list of members: • Jim Wright—City Coordinator, City of Minneapolis • Dave Childs —President, Minnesota City Managers Association • Dan Donahue —President, Metropolitan Area Managers Association • Kay Schmudlach —President, Metropoli­ tan Assistants Urban Management Association • Helene Johnson —Director, Government Training Service • Bill Joynes —City Manager, City of Golden Valley • Bill Bassett—City Manager, City of Mankato • Karl Nollenberger —City Administrator, City of Duluth • Sharon Klumpp—Executive Director, Metropolitan Council • Linda Barton —Commissioner, Depart­ ment of Employee Relations • Tom Watson —CounciImember, City of North Oaks Established in early 1992, the PSMAB meets quarterly. "One of the positive results that has already come out of this group is The Brim Report newsletter." said Brimeyer. • ! I I f I I r • Tot Front Datet Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorse# City Administrator October 2, 1992 Subjectt City Administrator One Year Salary Adjustment The one year performance review of the City Administrator was conducted by the Council at a work session on September 10# 1992. Although the Council completed the performance review# it did not discuss the one year salary adjustment for the City Administrator. I have put together some information to guide the Council in its determination concerning a one year salary adjustment. The City's Compensation Plan calls for new staff to begin at Step 1 of che Salary Range and to move through the pay steps on an annual basis assuming acceptable performance. The City Administrator's starting salary on September 9, 1991 was $53#000. The 1991 and 1992 City Administrator pay ranges are shown below. CITY ADMINISTRATOR SALARY RANGE 1991 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 $53#639 $56#794 $59#949 $63,105 1992 55,248 58,498 61,747 64,998 The Compensation Plan calls for a pay adjustment to Step 2 on the one year anniversary. The 1992 Step 2 amount is $58,498. Because the pay range will again be adjusted as of January 1, 1993, the Council may consider providing for an additional salary adjustment at January 1, 1993 to match the amount by which the pay range is adjusted. If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please call roe. Isv 1 % '1 A ■*= J 4. I ; —■ A.. r- V 5; Tot Pros: Dates Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator October 2, 1992 Subjects Public vs. Private Roads The issue of public vs. private roads will be discussed in relation to a specific roadway (Briar Street) at the October 12 Council meeting. To provide the Council with additional time to aet up to speed on the issue, I have attached background information concerning the public/private road issue. If you have any questions, please call me. Isv i j A 1:l i A I ■ i TOs FHOM: DATE: 11690.3 Mayor and city Council E. Bernhardson, .:ty Administrator January 12, 1990 SOBJBCT, Public/Private Roads Attachment; b‘ «^^'^®*^e/County Turn Baet m C Ci? «igftt-of.Way Memo 10/16/89 Private Road Dat^AO. Extension Of Pubwi'"*^®10/16/89 Private Road Dated Sano^2!?le"p:,"®'''* H. '^“blic/Private)***vencory ISSUE - Determ* toVblirst?eJ?f. rM^D/lr>pT^M»« ___ wis^«s*tab.'=?“prehensi»e Plan private roads in encouraoe th«^' noted in *““« ®* concern as noted'li "**• 'OiS/’hoteve/ Sn%"".e7®l*cVi"/x ^rV=:?‘* l"pirtf r^^^*/‘tr?bl%" ?hoJ?“« «<S thit Of thVstMM i!j*£ro2tto oav »v4>t.. a.- _ . «thSi; i? the plowed for the»f‘l>e OIScufiSTnM _*.._ reets- -wARseca OISCUSSIOM • <T«»... extension of a prVVffc2“®***5 vision! ln®?h^“*^ *® “ay these areas. These need fS? 1" creation o? months: include the following'////®® in «ome of A. Carlson - Indian Credit Deborah Driv./speed bu^ps The issues, in part ^•rdMaaawMiMr^-■*- ^ J l^ee r> -- the number a roads as pobl^^ .ath o£ the pave^ f/sUV a.) ''ihicb can be taoc served, streets- » 0 ^ V ^ ^ ';tteets. cight-o£'«ays. b. ) roads rl9bt-o£-v.ay c. ) *g"W“ch»«n _.^gas an a-> ‘'•^„".Vcrand ulteep. ,, en£orce tra££ic.alntenance ability , , ,he speed U»i« ,pon those l-eUatio- ^,,.o„nel to : a speed U«its and the personnel to ente '•'. /ate^\o*&a “'«-P' . r subdivisibh ^°b'ose covenants 5-’aocrations* to. connecting -2.%«ry ,„er associations on hi bi£«a'*/a^sTo :::, ing o£ ho«eo-hVi*r 1' , .iiM«' nti.) The y please on P^°*itery to do as they P ^,^-tion ot some o%^^on an , B gl^a* ‘ '“irSltipl* ^^''Vttrcbiaent B tepr« inventory . The -eet city street standar capital »»»”xoting »ai»t«»»;f patching ^h. OMoing »"®2t aaintenance . „ ,„a calib«‘ 'J't m Ongoirx^ * - the ot did street ........ ...........i! Lk^ ii .......... il utter 5 or 10 years there J ’® ^°he*addttion of a n°;ew subdivisions “a*\h"at the “-Uw'SI *®®rth«“ streets and being »'’l® '"fJfvidSil etforts of the °uSstantlally l«« than thy organizational costs. homeowner, without calcula ______uuiu'=>'—----- -ei^ifcion it is estimated rftafclna/Patching^ Maintenance ~ n taken over publicly^ Frail the currgnrprivatrTtreets per year to fa?‘ta^'i;Ja^»;i*:rg«^^^^ standards. (In fact, yse such maintenance for 5 to au y 'rT,"u:Should the C y ._«^«ted.that it require a would accept them. _ the road would eliminate cnar rs>'”^s iS-:“sH-r.siit is untnown what impact this would ha the P'«s®"^ ,V"h. involved in each upgrade and whetn.^r^^^^ how much to assess those Pt“2®°5® s^ based on bond 2!fy^olld “.sta%lishyy^evol^^^^^^^^^ the property owners^ ?SrsVo uw'’«t “rff»“tstantial VonVVo* stch projects based * u- undertaken. Tne .««o««ment. __^ j ^A/*«omfn^n( ................................and construction or y id . -___Pi imi translate into bill to undertake this. r' 'i' *• Comprehensive Plan Direction - If there is a policy change to allow conversion of private streets to public and that any new subdivisions would have the option of either being public or private when constructed (or the City could require all new subdivision streets to be public) that it would be appropriate that the Comprehensive Plan be amended together with any appropriate amendments to implement that in the zoning and subdivision chapters. This eunendment could be done as part of the City review of its comprehensive Plan amendment in relationship to the transportation and sewer chapters sent out by Metropolitan Council. ALTERNATIVES 1. Further explore the conversion. 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Take no action. 4. Choose not to undertake. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the City undertake a proposal for conversion of private streets to public streets and that staff bring back a proposal based on any further discussion the Council may have. Once a general outline of the plan has been considered this would be submitted as part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Planning Commission to initiate the necessary amendment. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by _, that the Council direct staff to do further worTc for the proposal of conversion of private streets to public streets. Ayes _, Nays cc: All Department Heads 121: TO;Mayor and City Council Planning Commission FROM Mark Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE:December 16r 1986 SUBJECT; A. Private Roads/County Turn Back B. City Attorney Opinion Dated 12/30/86 ISSUE - Presentation of information relative to potential addTtions to City owned road system. DISCUSSION - The City has for a number of years, as noted in its ^mpreh^nsive Plan, limited the City expenses by utilization of a series of private roads to service new developments. Additionally for a number of years the County has maintained a fsirly extensive road system in the City of Orono in relation to the amount of City streets. The following information is provided to give you the scope of possibly upcoming issue over the next three to five years. The present breakdown as follows: - State Highways - County Roads - City Streets MSA - 10.91 Other - 36.44 - Private Roads 3.16 30.09 47.35 8.9 (This could grow by another 8—10 miles at full development under current zoning standards) Private Roads Backgtound OC'^asional ly there has been discussion of the City taking over various private roads, however except for certain circumstances such as -through roads" (i.e. Countryside (when completed) or Dickey Lake Drive) this has not been done. Public street plowing and maintenance is the one service all residents receive direct and demonstrable benefit from their taxes on a regular basis - not only from transportation movement and safety but also from the aesthetic appearances of the neighborhood. The City has, in recent years, been upgrading the standards by which private roads are developed together with having some control over activities on these roads. It is anticipated that as persons from higher serviced, more urbanized communities (ana even areas in Orono) move into the rural areas, there will be an increased demand for service in exchange for their -high taxes*. While the Orono taxes would increase, it is probably a consideraole cost savings to these residents to have the City do this. (For privacy purposes some may continue to desire the private road at the additional cost.) The cost of snowplowing will be relatively higher as there are cul de sacs which are difficult and time consuming to plow. If brought up to standards before turnover# the other maintenance due to low traffic volume should be relatively lower than other local thru streets. The total could increase City mileage by 17- 33s and could possibly require 1-2 additional people at a ninimun. County Roads , ^ ^ .. ..u-As you may also be aware there also has been a study done at the State level# starting about three or four years ago# regarding the turn back of certain roads to other levels of government. The State has numerous roads that they do not feel fit the criteria for being State Roads and should be appropriately turned back to Counties. The Counties in turn feel that there are roads that either should be given to the State (such as the Crosstown 62 and County 18) and others that really serve only local community needs. Based on a study done in 1976# Hennepin County has designated the following as ones that they feel should be turned back to Orono. Tonkawa Road - 135 Morth Arm Drive - 151 Bayside-Fox - 84 South Brown Road - 146 1.76 2.78 4.03 2.00 In addition it is anticipated that North Shore Drive (County 51) between 15 and 19 may also be turned back to Orono (North Shore Drive - 51 2.5)# with possibly the County taking McCully and possibly Old Crystal Bay or Willow. The total mileage of these add up to about 13 miles# which would increase the City’s maintenance responsibilities by at least 20%. It is that this would necessitate the hiring of at least one additional person in the Street Department together with the addition of another vehicle for plowing or contract with an outside firm. The current issue is the amount of funding that will come as part of the turnbacks together with the standards to which streets would have to meet prior to turn back. It is anticipated during 1987 some of these issues will be addressed and that action on these may be taken in the *88 Legislature. However, the City apart from being a member of municipal lobbying organisations or having contact with legislators# may have litule to say ab°“t it. (The City may be able to more efficiently maintain the roads than the County.) RECOMMENDATION: While the impetus for City takeover of these is not great# it~Ts recommended that the City begin discussion of how to address such issues should the demand become demonstrably Greater. It Is suggested that a more complete analysis of takeover costs be analyzed should this issue be raised together with requiring any turnback to meet standards and the appropriate level of funding for County turnbacks. » I A i n *3R0?0SSD MOTION - Movetl by __, seconded by __, to accept staff's infornation regarding upcoming road issues and to direct staff^ to wort to develop more accurate cost estimates at the point requests for turnbacks are made. Ayes __, Nays . ■ r ■■••'V „ j"l A i *■ «' 12. ItnlafHlicw- TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mack Becnhardson, City Administrator! December 17, 1987 SOBJBCTS private Access Over Public Right-Cf-Way Attachment A. Wendy Weihe Letter Dated 12/3/87 n Qrono Dftt6d X/7/88 ^ r* Baldur Part Road Memo Dated V. Itldur park Road Meno Dated 8/4/86 E. Graohics of Selected Streets F. Map*of public/private Streets ISSUE B Determining City policy, regarding handling o£ t.hese matters INTR0DU^I0N_ . _ _ D»rts Maintained Priv ately - As noted a7 PtuatrofPon“Ba 1^ur Park has over the in the for the property owners. The situation has years caused including a development proposal been reviewed s«veral ' ,3^ that^the City undertake rip-review in the 1970*sj a request cna recent capping protect its rewer^li^ of private access on or near request. 'J'*?® ®tiay hLever! is not entirely unique. As noted on ?S“«ps“?t .'pVxia* to th. following locations: : sss;:.;':s;: i VA?r[% u : SlwHurst ??iu .-“i^tviaw tan. - N 1/2 S.c. 7 - feo-.-- ,, Biaht of Wav - The reverse of the th. street but ha. So right-of-way or public easement. sile«id®«."rtn casco Point Circle and Road Vine Place Long Lake Boulevard Elmwood Grandview Tonkaview f M ■ii- iiisaiM . • Birch Lane - Ivy Place - Chippewa - Bayview r Private to Public - The City does have right-of-way under the “"aVnrivafce Streets . for road and utility "°«em«nts” In selected cases it has been indicated by the City ft Jhrtiie of subdivision that wh.n it becomes a ffceet the City “ill take over the private street as a public one and maintain publically. These include. Countryside Drive Devon-Kelly Woodhaven Drive {together with numerous others). work based on a 1984 approval. ;?;«%V.v.Jfped in'idvan'ce of current private road regulations. - Jamestown Road - woodhill Road/Edgewood - "pence Lane" - Hollander - Walters Port a. where orivate easements are serving f«e-t“a“n-'^o ‘pr‘;perties but which have no name, or formal association . mr T.an« {the rosd off North Fetndale where the ■ eiti nf figStfo^way. In this situation the cif? cSSnf?l “ls directed staff to work on - .p?f"»Ji«-‘«sement off Shoreline serving 2950 to - off Morth Brown I Mft^Sff'spJlfg''H*ll serving 745 to 765 - z^lfM^sloM off North Perndale serving 625 to 763 - JrS?f^fox between «Ulo« and Old Crystal Bay Bay serving 2620 to 2650 Fox Street • 7) . L DISCUSSION - The initial alternatives regarding Baldur Park Road are~outlTned in the letter sent to Ms. Weihe. it is expected that a voluntary association, given the tenor of the neighborhood, will not accomplish the desired objectives, it is possible that the City would not even receive a 100% petition. The City currently is reviewing its reguirement to provide access to certain properties where it has right-of-way. (This becomes a variation on the Slaughter case as to the mandate to provide "legal access" when a building permit has been issued.) ALTERNATIVE - Policy Alternatives - These are outlined in the letter to Ms. Weihe, but~Tn TTght of the other situations other alternatives may come to light. MEETING ACTION - 17 “Acceptance of staff information and directing staff to discuss at a future date. 2. Establishment of City direction on the matter based on this information. 3. Table entire matter until future meeting. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council initially STscuss therr“"concerns related to this item and based on that staff will bring it back for discussion at the February 8, 1988 Council meeting. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by _, that the Council having discussed the matter table the issue until its February 8, 1988 meeting at which time Council will give staff general direction in relationship to these issues. Ayes , Nays • ifB. ■ a ■ u Mi. 'a. / TrtCt(^l€WT C POBLIC/PRIVATE ROADS - A number of residents from the Hollander Roa5'’arealTave ‘ b*een”T.nquiring about the possibility of conversion of their private road to a public street. Staff has indicated that presently the City's direction has been to keep the private streets private, however, that should they desire to convert the street to public that perhaps they should get into contact with the other homeowner associations of private streets to approach the City Council as a group, rather than as individual streets. They have inquired as to whether the fact their street is not a cul-de-sac but more of a circle route, woulo .«ve any impact on their being differentiated from the others and have a greater possibility of a conversion to a public street. Our indication to them has been at this point is that this would not be a significant factor in any staff recommendation regarding this matter. It was also indicated to them that based on previous discussions by Council in this matter, that should the Council ever consider conversion of private streets to public streets that the private streets would have to brought up to City standards. A preliminary review on the Hollander Road case would indicate that they would have to spend approximately $20,000- 25,000 to meet those standards. j 1 3 i I I To: ^ wek & orono Council Members Atotntstrator Berahardson /I Trott* Date: Subject :ir rr: r:-. •— July 21» 19®^July 21, 1989 „,ivaways. Roadways (Public criteria/standards for Driveway private) Intent of Memo Counci 1» n n 1989 meeting ordinances empl®y®^ y«4> ♦•he July 1®' policies and orcinan j««te roads s^iv .a'JA-v ■ Co„,rob*n«ivo Management Plan - •____ ^ !!!« X °of s^'divisio» »•“£“* Hi-serve development in would be ;irf;r«d'ov.r direct „ SO feet The CMP define. l»«i/u ‘”-*dea“ ended/with^aj^^^^^^^^^^ in width and may functioning as * °^i*s. The gu^is'l^Md to serving^^’toVo "^MorS ;|ir.^te*drivetly is 8‘“n^ h^'-.otuv^ttr:irU- -- • « ! >■ .• H J : i J Criteria/Standards for DrivewaysPage 2 of 4 iveways. Roadways (Public & Private)Subdivision Regulations — tli^ P^Tcvious This section wotiif?=^ssS“4 i;xs'?i ”"- / v,”E:".«.:f!; Si V-’- «•* Current; p«-.«^4_. unxe^?5««^“/»oI1c7 of city -In the Dss^ 7 n ee-T_ _ . .In or City - with*©!?*!? ***• as soo7as lt"*la*a *** and win b*CMB -fj? 5'y***i-aay Road. BaVsi „i * connsctlaj throagh road 2T »;%sr-r..5-rS.‘"aS w Criteria/Standards for Driveways, Roadways (Public « Private) July 21, 1989 Page 3 of 4 The City is currently reviewing a 14-lot subdivision in the rural areas. The lots will be served by a cul-de-sac of 1,500+ feet in length. The developer will also provide future road "extension" outlets through property. This road will be classified as a pjjivate road. Another division of 18 lots in the rural area will t be served by a through road and that road will also be classified as private road. Consistent with subdivision regulation standards but not consistent with the policies of the CMP. h In the Stronghold plat (rural 3-lot plat) and the recent Colwell plat (3-lot rural) accesses were approved at private driveway levels based on configuration of land and/or physical topography limitations. At a 3 lot level, the City for the most pajft encourages private roads with single curb cuts onto adjacent public streets. A single or 2-lot division may be also served by individual curb cuts. In 2-lot divisions, the City strongly encourages joint-shared driveways in order to reduce curb cuts onto public roads. Staff's Current Pol icy/Practices Regarding Classification of Roadways - In the rural areas, subdivisions of 3 or more lots shall continue to be served by roads classified as private^ roads in either through, loop or with cul-de-sac configurations with future road outlot extensions if deemed necessary. Urban subdivisions of 3 or more lots where sewer and water are also provided, the City will ask for a dedicated public road. In the past 10 years, the only public roadway accepted for public maintenance in the urban area was the extension of Livingston and Lyric Avenues. To staff's knowledge, a cul-de-sac road providing sewer and water has not been dedicated or accepted for public maintenance purposes such as Lafayette Ridge Court in the Navarre area (plat approved in 1979 - road is maintained). Both CMP and subdivision regulations would define such roads as potential public roads. Standards for Private Driveway Installation - The City has yet to establish a formal driveway permitting system. Currently the Public Works Department reviews all new access/curb cuts onto Orono roads or private roads to assure t.ie following minimal standards have been satisfied: 1. 12' maximum width curb cut at intersection with public or private road; 2. 90 de roadway ; angle at entrance to public or private 1 I ■A—----- • • Criteria/Standards for Driveways, Roadways (Public & Private) July 21, 1989 Page 4 of 4 3. 20* flat area for stopping purposes at entrance to public roadway; 4« Sighting distance based on speed limit; 5. Check for drainage/size of culvert if culvert is required• Standards for Private Road Installation - In the past 2 years, a developer has been offered 2 options for the installation of roadways, either the urban section which requires a 28* paved width measured from the inside edge of the curb with bituminous or concrete curbing, or a rural section providing a 24* minimum paved width with 3->6* shoulders. The Sugar Woods and French Creek plats were developed under the urban standards once again at the developers choice. Countryside Drive, Bunt Farm Road, and Luce Line Ridge were developed under the rural standards. Public Road Standards - In recent years, where a public road is to be extended or improved, similar or slightly improved standards have been used. The majority of public roadways in the City do not meet the standards currently set forth in the subdivision regulations at a 28-32* minimum paved width. Public roads in the urban areas of the City are recommended to be constructed per standards for an urban section requiring curb and gutter. ’’1 / 1 4,- ^ i 1 [s 'i M I A 7ANSPQRTATTQN JUNE, 1980 THE CITY WILL PURSUE ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE-HIKE TRAIL FACILITIES. Th« completion of an interconnected biJce-hiJce trail system is important to the further­ ance of alternative transportation incentives. The City will encourage Hennepin County to speedily implement the planned bike-hike trail system along several county roads. The separation of bicycle and pedestrian traffic from vehicular traffic is of the utmost importance in accident prevention. THE CITY WILL PROMOTE IMPROVED MASS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS. Orono has established a Park and Ride Transit System. Orono encourages improved bus scheduling and improved service, especially at off-peak hours. Orono strongly supports the "Tonkamobile" program and encourages expansion to provide improved Excelsior-Wayzata.service via Orono*s North Shore neighborhoods. A1 TRANSPORTATION PQLrCT£5 I PUBLIC STREETS IN THE RURAL AREA WILL BE PRIMARILY LIMITED TO THE EXISTING COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL GRID SYSTEM. The low rural land use density does not require nor can it economically support an extensive public street system. Rural lot arrangements have always been served by the existing grid streets and are capable of subdivision to the planned rural density without requiring additional public street investments. THE RING ROUTE CONCEPT UTILIZES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THE EXISTING RURAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM. The principal corridor for traffic from Minnetrista and points west utilires Hennepin County Roads Mo. 6 and 19 and State Highway 12. The City of Orono has constructed a key link between County Roads 6 and 19. Additional ring route traffic uses the existing north-south collector roads to travel away from the Lake toward these principal travel routes. CITY OF ORONO WILL ENCOURAGE ALL NECESSARY ROAD SURFACE AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE AND TO FACILITATE THROUGH TRAFFIC ON THE RING ROUTE. This will include cooperation with the City of Long Lake in accommodating traffic on Highway 12. CMP 7-11 4 j -y TRANSPQRIMIM JUNE, 1 B RURAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL UTILIZE PRIVATE ROAD FEEDERS TO SUPPLEMENT THE EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD GRID. Bttcausa o£ topographical limitations, the historic shape of rural land divisions, and the low density of rural land use, most new rural residential lots best preserved by short dead-end roads running off the existing street system. The low number of dwellings on each road, the dead-end configuration and the scattered road locations make public roadway maintenance excessively costly compared to any public benefit. Therefore, most new rural lots will be directly served by privately owned and maintaxned roadways. New public streets will be accepted a "through" configuration provides a general public benefit and/or where the number of residences justifies public maintenance expense.-h PRIVATE RURAL ROADWAYS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO RURAL DESIGN STAHOAJ Xhe City will regulate private road design standards to ensure environmental protection and adequate all- weather access to all properties. The type and width of road surface required will vary with the number of residences to be served and hence the amount of expected vehicle usage. The length of dead-end roads will be limited for public safety purposes. THE CITY WILL GUARANTEE REASONABLE MAINTENANCE LEVELS AND PUBLIC ACCESS ON ALL PRIVATE ROADS. In the process of approving rural subdivisions, the City will acquxre underlying public ingress, egress, and access easements over all private roads. These easements will ensure legal access of the public to all properties served by the private road. Development contracts backed by acceptable forms of financial responsibility will assure that *^J^*^^^*^* are designed and constructed according approved standards and specifications. **** ^^^^, will further guarantee that all * maintained to reasonable standards at all times through required maintenance agreemen.s homeowner's associations, and that **^^“^* ® . * private group to so maintain their ...^ad will be cause for the City to accomplish needed maintenance and to asses, the benefitted properties for ths direct cost of such maintenance. » • •3 H JUNE, 1980 ^^^pnRTATIQ^t ] « ortBiiT ctrfft or private road INTERSECTIONS irin, , Irltlxril .=«.. onto public hi,h«ay. from ••pmrato propertios.from .opara p M.TERNATE TRANSFORATION rural trails are ^ access to the Hennepin Rural trails offer ^ City will encourage and bicycle \ive-hike trail system and eomplation of the p a rural trails connecting the the private individual rural properties.?ssn^r:tix-c:rjn:i‘ o « S::tc%:rpoi: nr:, ^co-^-ibl. adjacnu residential properties. A resident a pro ' TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR RURAL ORONO. the city will not *^nsity cannot economically The planned rural Ian Existing bus routes support public trans t anroute between Long Lake, pass through the rural ar routes are sufficient ^aysata and urban 0'°“®; J will in fact provide to serve Orono's ^^**^ " * the need for additional additional rural service a . route locations are urban service Spiring to use transit re::ic:rwril'u::\Se established park and rid. locations in Navarre and Wayzata.'^ri ■n A CMP :r rr» m JUNE, 1980 ^pnPTATIQK V <La a designation and classification used f IC PARKWAY scenic and applied by Orono to those i: ITe CitiiT^f scenic and environmentally significant *. s which traverse __j.^ay is typically a narrow, curvy, slow , of the City. The ‘^creational areas and special vistas d road which through traffic and commercial traffic cenic attractions. High b.cluse these users do not benefit • on appropriate on scenic ical nature o£ the roadway is not , r.hm attraction movement. Because of environmental^ ucive to efficient „built into higher capacity ttlrrity, .c.Bic adv.f.ly atf.ctin, ectors or minor arteria i and/or the property rights ofsctors or minor road and/or the property rights of ing, the scenic quality natural topography of the area, ting landowners. cf the traffic and local accessting landowners. She traffic and local access .>e romsDicTioK ! rooNiY or city «6«T-0r-WAY WlOtS: 50-66 FEET ui i ..cs thaft iuBCtioB to peovida . . . . . . . . . . . . . "u:ct:^*:t«rtrar.%ontrolI.d by .topping th. local atr set ie. BRISDXCTIOM: CITY liXeWwiO aaee j i M nrivately owned and privately RTg ROAOJ A private f®**^^* ‘ Sithin a^planned development,in the rural area or within P that pri^sf be constructed and “‘^“'^‘tSSren ig«*« *®®®” ^ Jo:anr«‘pt”ti;“o:”ot: “t..d.d *or Jol»t .nd ....ral own ^ the benefitted property owners. PXEDICTIOK. HCMEOWHERS AESOCIAXXOH^WITH^aH^^^^^ vTMfTM SERVICE: QXIMOM SERVIO _ _ , opoM HDMBER OF OSERS GBT-OF-WAY WIDTH: 30-50 FEET COBSIDERATIOWS XB-HHO. tEHOTH WILD BE LIMITED BY PUBLIC CMP 7-16 j j (Hr 'STATION JUNE, 1980 : DRIVEWAY\A driveway is a privately owned and privately maintained e path between' the street and private property. Private driveways be subject to access permits according to the classification of the .ag street. Private driveways will not be subject to any public jat or access right, but do require recorded private easements where /ays cross an intervening private lot between the residence served 3 street. .’ISDICTIONj property owner :IMUM SERVICE; 1 RESIDENCE TYPICAL; JOINT DRIVEWAYS ALLOWED WITH MAj^IMbM~TriR£E RESIDENTS PER DRIVEWAY IN _RORAL AREAS - - - - - STANDARDS 'IVSWAY WIDTH: WILL BE REGULATED WHERE MORE THAN ONE USER IS INVOLVED OR FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES WHERE THERE IS EXCESSIVE LENGTH BETWEEN THE RESIDENCE AND THE PUBLIC ROAD .'G ROADWAY MAINTENANCE JURISDICTIONS ARE REASONABLE AS THEY RELATE CLASSIFICATION PLAN. The State of Minnesota has appropriate ■ 5tion over the only Intermediate Arterial in the City. aepin County Department of Transportation has jurisdiction over y Minor Arterial designated in the Plan. It is anticipated that 1 County will assume jurisdiction in the future over the City- .ng route link between County Road 19 and County Road 6, j County has jurisdiction over most of the designated scenic s which is appropriate in that these roads serve as access to nnetonka 4nd to County maintained landings for many County rs who do not reside in Orono. The City has jurisdiction over tenic parkways that are away from the immediate lakeshore, .ng the access road to the orono Golf Course. » has appropriat‘d ^‘urisdiction of most of the Collector and all eeal streets wkioh serve all Orono residents. Certain key street have been desi'^n««ed for Municipal State Aid construction ce, includingt CRYSTAL BAY ROAD from County Road 6 to Fox Street, County Road 84 Ott DRIVE from County Road 6 to State Highway 12 and from the Long Lake border to Fox Street >TREST from Willow Drive to County Road 146 MeCulley Road ; Route link) between County Road 6 and County Road 19 individual property owners have appropriate private jurisdiction e Private Roads serving only their individual properties. CMP 7-17 "i''' ,•'* B JUNE, 1980 TptN«;P OnTftT1011 n f > r ; I . • f II ^tt.t. be owned BHD MAINTAINED BT THE local the land “»® ‘“telaUvely high, the CITY. “ n-ighborhoods is to all urban of^^*** “f;%"Id2 public ?«”* *5:rproper ».i»t.n»n=« city responsibili y ' streets v.bi=i.. ..d 4 1 At aXI ti® . eCTASSe f='r 2" Sn nlr«w « ”*th “ rut. »-• i“appropri* • t exceptions o commercial *^®*‘^*‘ . tl a Planned resid«ntxal or^^ personnel. the case of private two homes developmen lakeshore ^ivate driveway to could b. ica topo,r.pbxc.l pr _ _ __ rudttCO _„--mt/-rEO TO CUBAN X- 3. r.lic. hurdcou.* .nd «»»’ J STANDABDS OKBAN MvSd .f llirved. According designed **2ring safety ge*ixisting natural accepted engi ^.^igaed "^t^tct runoff into the Lake. 4.,^11 new ®"*^-®£ormance intersections subject P*'5idth and will be allowed distance, lot P*®P*^^ooints and the or otb.r dri». TUui b. libi**'* tor .eeo««. but un .ce««9 "il^ ° ___..«• e*p«t 5. ................... ■». ii ] i f ( rMP 7-10 jt. s 11.03 fchA entire City as well as a specialized plan showing specific the enti types of land uses, such as residential, indtstrill, public or semi-public uses or any combination of such uses. "Transportation Plan" which means a . .__ M statements, goals, standards, naps and action compilation future development of the various modes ofprograms for guiding tne r^ environs such as streets and transportation of the City ana I ^ transportation, trucking aifwltM «ansportation,'and Includes a major thoroughfare plan. d. "Community Facilities Plan" which means a 4 1,rtf ortiicv Statements, goals, standards, maps and action compilation of policy staw^ development of the public or semi- ISblirialilitie's o7 the Ci“ty ?uch as r'ecreational, educational and cultural facilities. e. "Capital Improvement Program" which means with their estimated =osV»„raein«ts 5ui have on thf current Sp5ra^"inV‘axp«na.*of‘ the City, «!><J capital improvements as may be pertinent. and proposed future atreets, «\sting streets, roads, SrSUh«ay% V/Ve^fty Ccu-y Jand . isting and ?JlL%a ‘i"»S^^S:?=^:isr»h-%;he location o* e« J-ture public land and '«*i„„isota Statutes 473.121, Metropolitan area as fiv“yl^^^ designate the Official maps may for a conservation, boundaries of areas ? eontr*^ and surface water drainage water supply construction, -tions protecting such areas and removal including ^other physical structures oragainst encroacf rrrent by buildings, otner pnyaxc facilities. a compilation of Po’uoyjjtl^^^ h"yd«o*lc action programs for guiding the future y water storage development of the watersheds filtration systems of the City areas, ^^drainageways, «damage and to control outface water runoff, fl ^ environs including general water Mturtl '^ater courses and stormlakes, streams, wetlands, marsnes, sewer systems or facilities. ORONO CC 417 (4-1-84) m S 11.03 a. "Principal Arterial" - A roadway intended to connect urban subregions with one another, connect urban and rural service areas with metro centers, to connect outstate cities. b. "Intermediate Arterial" - A roadway intended to connect two or more subregions; provide secondary connections outstate; complements principal arterials in high volume corridors. , ^ ^c. "Minor Arterial" - A roadway intended to connect adjacent subregions and activity centers within subregions. d. "Collector" - A roadway intended to connect neighborhoods within and between subregions. e. "Local" “ A roadway intended to connect blocks within neighborhoods and specific activities wii.hin homogeneous land use areas.£. "Parkway" - A roadway intended to provide low speed and low volume vehicular or bicycle access to or through recreational areas, parks, and lakeshore. g. "Roadway-Deadend" - A roadway with only one <1, vehicular-traffic ^ 1 subdthe City or other political subdTvTsToJnfhall not be responsible for its maintenance and operation.i, "Roadway. Public" - Any roadway for which the City or other policicai suodivision is or expects to be responsible for its maintenance and operation. 52. "Roadway Right-of-Way Width" - The distance between property lines measured at right angles to the center line of the roadway. or Lease" - Any immediate or future or any possessory interest in land.53. -Sale building is excluded. unincorporated association. 55. "Setback" - The shortest distance between a structure and a natural feature, property line or right-of-way line nearest thereto. ORONO CC 422 (4-1-84) r I ' I I . .. -tiAM] i I * U 5^ S 11.10 ^ lred"brthe“a"tV to be tolpleVed by"the sublivYde* All public ana/ot -f^er Final Plat approval shall becompleted by the subdivi t^ ^^^^^ executed prior to fully set forth in a i streets in subdivisionsFinal Subdivision approval^ All 1^^^ private unless where sewer and water are nor preliminary subdivision approval. re^fervet* Vd.V.r-in. wh'eth.r . road i, to be pSSlic or Vrlvate In all Ireaa of the City. teouired to be^ p'latted, the^reoonmendationa of the required by the sta« and the Sstablished City Planning Commission ^©ublic roads shall be completed practices and design satis"factory completion by the Ci-y Snd issued a llaraoprov^^^^^ specifically Engineer prior to shall be subject to the conditions of a authorized by the to Final Plat approval,subdivider's agreement to be execur eo pciwt When the Preliminary Plat has been approved on cne oasis oi. y private road shall be only access to three ,^®*Veoarttroutlot. The private identified on the Final »* i£ the toad serves four or mote toad shall be "5 “a„tlot is ptooosed, the subdivider lots. ' „?de f or a pl?«anent hcneo«ner;s shall be j^_A^f>fnane« aareement acceptable to the City in association or road maintenance of the road outlot.order to insure ownership and maintenance o^ amgntS^ Sv«“riv.tV^oVd? asT«'u??on^ of Final Subdivision approval. V "'‘??oVVhall ba'VnclSded'ln*id'conteyU authorized, the required outlot standard City form, in a toad and utilities easenent i t *’*.^1 aside for public f“- ?S!rshti"^^'’c*lu1r,‘Vrtrs^*hotn‘’•o"n^rerord plat drawinqs as -drainaqe and utilities easement.^ «"^,Ji^i\\Vr*^o*FinTlli? required, the easement shall *•* Vf**the Pinal Plat and shall ?feter “^"b'e ‘f^n “*• concurrent with the filing of the Final Pia ORONO CC 442 (4-1-84) i^-1 3 5 11.31 A. Double Frontage Lots. Double frontage and reversed frontage lots shall be avoided except where necessary to provide separation of residential development from traffic arterials or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. Acce_3s_From_Aiiy_A£tArLiaX-RQadwav!^ Lots shall not, in generai, aeriveaccess^excTusTvelyrrSf^ran arterial roadway. Where driveway access from any arterial roadway may be necessary for several adjoining lots, the Council may require that such lots be served by a combined access drive in order to limit possible traffic hazard on such roadway. Where possible, driveways shall be designed and arranged so as to avoid requiring vehicles to back into traffic on any arterial roadway. Subd. 6. Soil Preservation, Grading and Seeding. A. Soil Preservation and Final Grading. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued until final grading has been completed in accordance with the approved final subdivision and the lot precovered with soil with an average depth of at least six (6) inches which shall contain no particles over two (2) inches in diameter over the entire area of the lot, except that portion covered by buildings or included in streets, or where the grade has not been changed or natural vegetation seriously damaged. Topsoil shall not be removed from residential lots or used as spoil, but shall be redistributed so as to provide at least three (3) inches of cover on the lots and boulevards. B. Lawn*-Grass Seed and Sod. Lawn<-grass seed shall be sown at not less than four (4) pounds to each one-thousand (1,000) square feet of land area. The seed shall consist of a maximum of ten percent (10%) rye grass by weight and a minimum of ninety percent (90%) of permanent bluegrass and/or fescue grass by weight. All seed shall have been tested for germination within one (1) year of the date of seeding, and the date of testing shall be on the label containing the sred analysis. All lots shall be seeded from the roadside edge :: the unpaved right-of-way back to a distance of twenty-five (25) feet behind the principal residence on the lot. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued until respreading of soil and seeding of lawn has been completed; except that during* the period of the year when seed cannot be sown, the property owner and/or developer shall submit an agreement in writing to assure that respreading of soil and seeding of lawn will be done during the immediate following planting season, vnd shall leave a security in a form acceptable to the City for performance in such an amount as shall be determined by the .City. The developer may choose to include final lot grading and required lawn grass seeding improvements in a subdividers agreement and shall leave a security in a form acceptable to the City for performance in such an amount as shall be determined by the City. Sod may - be used to comply with any requirements of seeding set forth herein. ORONO CC 455 (4-1-84) \» / ■r