Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-09-1998 Council Packeti City of Orono 2750 Kelle} Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: March 9, 1998 Mayor Jabbour and City Council Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: /J'2290, Tim Nelson on behalf of David Pomije ___________3120 North Shore Drive __________________________________ The applicant called today to ask that this item be tabled today. This is the second time this item has been placed on the agenda and then removed at the applicant's request. The Planning Commission recommended denial of their hardcover request. Staff is concerned that they have asked for a delay in order to prepare alternative plans. I have prepared a letter indicating that if their plan changes that they need to go back to the Planning Commission for consideration. The letter also requests that they agree to a 60-day extension because of their previous requests to table this item. CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To table item ^2290. r L City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 MEMORANDUM DA'TE:March 9, 1998 TO:Mayor Jabbour and City Council Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator Jlj^^ SUBJECT: #2290, Tim Nelson on behalf of David Pomije 3120 North Shore Drive The applicant called today to ask that this item be tabled today. This is the second time this item has been placed on the agenda and then removed at the applicant's request. The Planning Commission recommended denial of their hardcover request. Staff is concerned that they have asked for a delay in order to prepare alternative plans. I have prepared a letter indicating that if their plan changes that they need to go back to the Planning Commission for consideration. The letter also requests that they agree to a 60-day extension because of their previous requests to table this item. CITY COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To table item #2290. r TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM;Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:January 14, 199S SUBJECT: #2323 Tim Nelson, on behalf of David Pomije 3120 North Shore Drive Variance(s)-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:83,029 sq. ft. (1.906 acres) Application:The application that was filed by the applicant is for a hardcover variance in the 75-250 ’ setback to increase an existing residence to construct an addition. The addition, as proposed, includes a guest apartment on the second floor. The guest apartment requires a conditional use permit. The fees paid and notices sent referred to a hardcover variance only. A conditional use permit application and notice would need to prepared and sent if the applicant prevails in obtaining a hardcover variance. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.02, 27. (a) Definition of Guest Apartment Section 10.20, Subd. 3, G., 2, Conditional Use Permit for Non-rental Guest Apartment Section 10.24, LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Re.sidential District Section 10.22, Subd. 2., Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations ^2325 Tim Nelson m behalf of David Pomije 3120 North shore Drive Variance 1/20/98 page-1 COUNCLMHEnNQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MAR 9 1998 DATE: ITEM NO.: 5^ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2323 Tim Nelson, on behalf of David Pomije 3120 North Shore Drive Hardcover Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:83,029 sq. ft. (1.906 acres) Application:The applicant is requesting a hardcover variance in the 75'-250' setback to allow for an addition to the existing residence. The addition would include a lower level storage area, workshop, and guest area. The proposed plan included a guest apartment that would require a conditional use permit. No application was filed for the guest apartment. If the applicant desires to proceed with a guest apartment in the existing residence, a conditional uie permit is required. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission voted to deny the variance to increase hardcover in the '75-'250 setback COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To advise and direct staff regarding a resolution to deny the variance. Attachments m I 1 m iBiaai M'l- ^ w .J ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR 1-B District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard 1 acre 140’75’ minimum and average lakeshore setback 10'35’ Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 83,029 sq. ft. (1.906 acres) 151 ’315’ existing and proposed, approximately 17.8’ on the west side (existing and proposed) 43’ on east side existing 10’ proposed on east side 155.8 ’ existing no encroachment into existing lakeshore setback proposed The subject property meets al! setback requirements for the zoning district. The side yard on the east side currently exists at 43*. The proposed addition would build upon the existing side yard and reduce the cast side setback to 1 O’. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 83,029 sq. ft.12,454.35 sq. ft. allowed 6,472 sq. ft. proposed 15'5-o maximum 1.19% proposed Structural coverage measured as total lot area divided by total building area does not exceed the 15% maximum. if2323 Tim Nelson on behalf of David Pomlje 3120 North shore Drive Variance 1/20/98 page-2 r Hardcover Distance from Shoreline 0'-75' 75’-250* 250'-500' 500'-1,000' Total Area in Setback 11,660 sq. ft. 27,132 i',q. ft. 38,701 sq. ft. 5,788 sq. ft. Existing Hardcover none 6,950 sq. ft. (25.6Vo) 3,811 sq. ft, v9.8%) 400 sq. ft. f6.9%) Allowed Hardcover none 6,783 sq. ft. (25%) 11,610.3 sq. ft. (30%) 2,025.8 sq. ft. (35%) Proposed Hardcover none 9,552 sq. ft. (35.2%) 4,811 sq. ft. (12.43%) 600 sq. ft. (10.36%) Variance Requested none 2,769 sq. ft (7.2%) none none The applicant is requesting to increase hardcover in the 75'-250' setback to allow the residence to have an addition to the east, rather than to build an extension to the south. An addition to the south would require changes in the existing hardcover arrangement in the 75'-250' setback because the amount of hardcover in the 75'-250' setback exceeds the 25% maximum by 167 sq. ft. No further additions can be constructed without removing or changing existing hardcover. To extend to the south into the 250'-500' setback 167 sq. ft. in addition to the amount of building footprint to extend into that setback would have to be removed so that hardcover in the 75'-250' setback would be less than 25%. The proposed design would create a "U" shape house, with the bottom of the "U" on the lakefront and the top or open end facing the street. The proposed design include.? 2,769 sq. ft. more than what is allowed in the 75'-250' setback. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant's hardship statement is on the front of the application form. Criteria for Detennining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. i^2323 Tim Nelson on behalf of Da\id Pomije 3120 North shore Drive y'oriance t/20/98 page-'S r The current property can continue to be used as a residence without any further variances. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner is created by a design. No further additions can occur to this residence without changes to e.xisting hardcover amounts. Any future additions would need to rearrange existing hardcover to "bridge" the gap between the southern end of the residence an the 250’-500 ’ setback area. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance would reduce an existing 43’ side yard to 10 ’. The lakeshore view of the proposed structure would be approximately 123’ of 3 levels of structure, 44' from lakeside grade to the peak of the roof. 4. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. 5 The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in die zone where the affected person’s land is located. Residences are allowed uses in the LR-IB district. Guest apartments are conditional uses. A guest house would not be allowed because the property does not have the required lot area. 6. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. There are no special conditions that apply to this property. It curreritly meets all zoning requirements except that it exceeds hardcover in the 75 ’-250’ setback. 8. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. No more additions can be added to this property without either receiving a hardcover »2323 Tim Nelson on behalf of David Pomije 3120 North shore Drive Variance 1/20/98 page-0 r variance or reducing the current amount and redirecting it into the 250'-500' setback. 11.The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code, The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. However, the variance would allow for more visible structure from the lake and would significantly reduce a side yard that currently provides open space between the subject property and the adjacent property to the east. 12.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. No hardship has been demonstrated. Issues 1. 2. The existing lot meets all zoning district requirements, No further additions can be made to the property because it currently exceeds allowed hardcover amounts in the 75-250' setback. 3.The permit record shows that a demolition occurred in 1985. Additions and remodeling occurred in 1985,1988,1996, July 1997 and December 1997. 4.The applicant is proposing to swap allowed hardcover in one setback to another setback closer to the lake. If this approach became commonplace, property owners throughout Oronc may try to maximize the amount of structure as close to the lake as possible. \^ith 10’ setbacks in this zoning district, the massing along the lakeshore would negate the aesthetic benefit of the hardcover regulations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the hardcover variance. The conditional use permit for a guest apartment would not be needed. Attachments A B Application Plat Map ft2323 Tim Nelson on behalf of David Pomije 3120 North shore Drive Variance 1/20/98 page-S ! i MkiK-i*' u JL 1 r c D E F G H I J K Hardcover calculations Existing Survey Proposed Alternative Proposed plan Floor Plans Elevations Acknowledgement form Permit record 1980 survey : if2323 Tim Nelson on behalf of David Pomlje 3120 North shore Drive Variance 1/20/98 page-^ .4^. , .>Hr AppUcation » ^ Date Received"^2LSiZ2Z Amount Paid ^ 22 o . A O .O O CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) ^ Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress ^\%0 0 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to applicationl^ot included on required sur\-ey. Date Property Acquired . 1 ‘*115^ ^ ^ . I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land.----------------------------(month/year) Presentee of property: v^residential other (specify) Zomng District: U2 - < ^ APPLICANT Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_Address: 7 3'2. Q^y. 5/s^^rs/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Addres^e.1^ NU 0\r\\/^ 4^ 2- - g __Zip: I 2- 2 Phone (home) _____ _____ Phone (work ) 7^0' City:_ggig=>/N/o___________ Zip: D^CRff TION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ^ coo, ----------------If WITH Tftg > 50P'’g.^»J£. Pne -fo g,\A \z (attach additional sheets if necessary) ccHpiTiefJft \ P VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Setback:Front Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Side Rear Other (specify) Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing wrnpl^ce^th Zoning Code requirements:_PMg To cfe pooft IT " ^ua PL^Ns -fHg Nlgn appUi»J(imr ulg -Trigg TMg AW^. ^^Jg dAN Ag>Miv^g -Trig T^ne. -CNflghtr THg (attach additional sheets if necessary) WiTri^.»r (Si.vl ,ja«b. 9C^t, "fe ?t4rwwhli> thf iMce.. m ^pAiA’stic, 'Ptf-j-ipcwoe- 0 ^ / ^3- 75 * % %>% 7f',tra' 2*7^ \ >2. ■bol 25'P ’- 5^-''>8M^ —' 38,7oi S’flp' — foo^^CCP 5; 70^ D»eAvJ c-e 3)2.0 Nlf't*-'’^ swolce o o rs o ^ «(^ '^''x •‘^'■^'’^ “*’C Qv.^i' f<^ol€ |oo^ Ct>^pLiAf<iUL ‘1.8 ’Z , Oip^ 2> , 6 y» 2<=>. ^y l//»OE-ri— f"U> fo ^tP pCA^J N o %o ~ 1*S‘ »/ 7^" Z^6l' 2.r*>^ 00 /c36^ . “ £?i^r 2,761 !p (?) 48i; c,:«s<iAu«. — lEffSr*;/.^. &y. (3) uNPc"f2-&r I CE^ 4,^63 Ha<z?> 6ov/£ft— o4n*v^ o ^ \ ^ ^ ^ ® 3T%»' 3-7, »31- V" 38, 7oi 35’'/ " 5 750 zo, &ie 20^ 4/8 - 14'7^^ 5y4^ir(pi/Mt?^ ^Tr KA.AP c^JVtL • • . » ii z < LJ.■\ \ / vt I , —' * **■ I / / /■ If^ y- r—/ A iDVJt^ IJV M- (5 5&<^____,. . . -----------^ I (.7^ ?^CP Sfc^ ^Av-^ : o p ri-'jve t-oA r ^ . o P^ r ^ 2-t^< S'S>' 2^4 1 ^ ”* \ mm \ *- *•;' <4 *•• J • t • , Certificate of Survey k -. » / •&M« u n m to *•••to to ^•• IN to tl *tm •• • Ml to 0* iM mmm n •■•« i«MMM« toMM*••• «|l to •' mm4 t0*m >m« wnti ••••to '••• IM •tlC.M to •• • tfua uuLiiM VM* M« !•»• «| !•••• to* to »• n - iMi ••• •»; to •• fto «o»•M*to to «• to* MMMI» MMi cim.jiHf % -M to *1 I»«M k.« ■•Hkl rl •«to •• *t • m •• MM to •' •to MM to • •»• to '• laV MMM*« MM •MS to •• M«•*• !•» ^ -V <S®» *■ • ;:.;v^ David Pomije ucAi nrv«»»QM V . ***' •• :• I 'M- Hic# • l«l I »wfe « lot V mrn^ 1 t*T --------- «•»<%• im»K f *M I « • »• tm<9 •* •»• mt (»•«• v> <W M*« .. • *• :• • ' « AM «« *1Pw(« 1 IMI Mil •« !•« 7 «tor% t iM •. Cmui «* M Ciirsiki M* ^AMI. ( M«a*l m9*9t*t «•»**» •# fW* l*» J • I. ►M4# 4* M»« lot ? I* N<« S«Mi*»M«««'«r •* **••' 900mm 0t m4 1*1 r. •Itai^hl NM •€!••• MM mmrn mmrntm MtMW. »• »• «r «mM mM le« I m |k<ci • fc* mM €•*••* ••? •••»■••»•♦f * M «»4 lo4 « i« M« m %mmm*f e«rM» M Mi MM •! C«M«lr •»<«• ttmmm M. HtmIi Motm •• l«t«i0lt« < •MMvMlMlf M« IMiM^MlMlt MM M C«M*«r *••• «4MMM •!«••• ■M •• V«M M i»««f *• mmrnrn mimm mm w *00* rnmmmmtmip *«m m m mm ttmmmmlm*9 m*m •« IM >. U* 1. 2 • •■*< Om** ^ - — * • •M>»«MiMir •• • Mm *0 i»«i iMii iwtM«i wnwX 0* 0m^ ^ •m iMniMMiMf Mm M mm IM 1 iMM «. «M IM 1 mm» t ^^Cr^ mpf rrnK — MM •! IM 2. iMt* 2. anm m? ^m*. mmm* $MliMi>Mtf MMf im . Mm M mM LM 2 to mm Mtol «« «• •• •»■•* •• •*!Mm M mM LM 2 to mm MM 00 •(««< •4 iMMtf M »M OWkM W Mm W>|Mm M Pmm* •• mM *m mM **00n0p0> Cm^f. ¥—0000i0 iMb^i t« r«kl» Ml rMM4L H anf ><5f 5> t if.3 (J> Vv .. ifcrwD VJ'' MmmM MlA U«»>Ml— IM tut Mm rmM •» •MM §*00 •■Ml—>♦ M MMt tM MM IM* MM • P«MMM* M»a«M 00»0< D««l# FofMlH 3120 Notih 9h0fm 0r»v« Orona. Mlanaaola FOMMf fICOOCMCf CfNTI^lCATf•uRvev r . s. - lake minnetokka yi0-rr # O O Q i ••■•.• n: .'m i ‘It ■ .• r/'. '■:?• * %«.• r L MlNNE?b^KA^'"<^ ‘ C^-iv:' >».-r7 1 *. f u:^AM bU M «I I f I l^•v.'•^AA'lk . . » WJIM^-. »—lf W TB Wb «l ■■W* r-tiuia Iki i «*«C............ A • fw 4^* vu.^. *, ^,.. , .^r vr.^rjr$.Tv • \ • * • ••• • *. : • • .••**.• • • :s‘.• *•* • _____ t m — - •• /. '9< 9% } • .* : > ..'’. .‘Aj ..-^.V.r. • • •»•.% k • *• • 0 • • . ^ . r >^ \ ^ ^ <i/ 1- ho^J ^^ifioh L^'i3SjC5E, v<ev^ #2RS o3 View CUinr-cnH'3 pmpoScJ L miii^iiiii mmiiMn!!R«igli!lllll{|&i§Hir;|!’.ii'i1SlUiS mn^wmw^' >; # siaislii H “-^j- “r- ■ ~1 • .' »»t-|.« • ••*» *•' “)f i. «• •••< ••• I* ^'■:V‘ff, ■ • ■ ti •««•• f# S *»! *J^f. ^ j / It « ti X iiiilj■l|| r p:• S;. ■■ .t ).?A* A.I >f;>‘ Wf.it» JPaS 'rr^ - * ’ 0 door* ^»w rtr>«*p^Ii-..^1 l^|e.ifj^ ISitcr^ i i v^esT asuAtibK)a. . * I )di ,r-, < 7. • ^?» •Clj!'' 5H •y^3 E?^T ISUE^MIOkJ V': • * rSMijt ^ iti^r^rJ / •'. : J) 11.1-17 '■J' • I id UEN)£c I* • * rr*. W % y, •■*?. % r VK> rruk^ L6VS- -floov r Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we)CcThUfOuiir [print name(s)] 0[3iU [print address] I have reviewed ^e pjp\s for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located aiSllC sIaw/-also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plauis for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 2i za ,U c,/,rc,^ also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project Or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days pnor to the scheduled meeting date. r Permit No ¥b:io 6hi3 . "3 \90 N- QaJj^>- '^'i PERMIT RECORD Date Type of Permit /0^:y-7-'7£, li sSouJej^ lxoi^/£.a^ z:^-) -Bi ZlS/r9skJ^ (\oymrT 1 r f COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MAR 9 1998 f ITVDate: March 6,1998 Item No.; ^ Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning CoordinaT6r Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2326 Orono Development, LLC, 2380 Shadywood Road - Commercial Site Plan and Variance Approval - Resolution List of Exhibits A - Commercial Site Plan and Variance Resolution B - Vacation Intent Resolution #3830 On February 23 Council voted 3-1 to approve the commercial site plan and hardcover and setback variances for this project, and directed staff to draft the appropriate approval resolution. Such a resolution is attached for Council review and adoption. Staff has attempted to tie up as many 'loose ends' as possible with this resolution. Please review it carefully and advise staff of any revisions or additions you feel are appropriate. In relation to the intended vacation of Navarre Lane per Resolution #3830, the City agreed to vacate Navarre Lane at the time development of 2380 Shadywood Road is commenced. It would be appropriate to formally complete that vacation once the development of the site commences, and this intent is again formalized in the commercial site plan approval resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution as drafted or with revisions. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO ORONO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.56 SUBDIVISION 16(L) AND 10.61 SUBDIVISION 5(B) AND APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT TO ORONO DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.44, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE NO. 2326 WHEREAS, Thomas Dillon representing Orono Development, LLC (hereinafter the "applicant") has an interest in the property located at 2380 Shadywood Road located within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 19, 20, 21 and 22, Wiley's Navarre Addition, Lake Minnetonka; and that part of Lot 5, Block 3, Townsite of Langdon Park, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeasterly comer of said Lot 5; thence Northwesterly along the Northerly line of said Lot 5 to the Northeasterly line of the public highway running across said Lot 5 and known as Minnetonka Lake Park and Maple Plain Road (now County Road No. 19); thence Southeasterly along the Northeasterly line of said road to the Easterly line of Lot 5; thence Northerly along the Easterly line of said Lot 5 to the point of beginning. All in Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a building permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.44, Subd. 2 to permit the commercial dev'elopment of the property that includes the approval of the following variances: Page 1 of 11 1. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L) - Hardcover variance: A. 500-1000' (North portion of property): Zone area = 36,150 s.f. + Proposed Hardcover = 17,250 s.f. + = 47.7% Allowed Hardcover = 35% = 12,650 s.f. + Variance = 4,600 s.f = 12.7% B. 500-1000' (South portion of property): Zone area = 10,100 s.f + Proposed Hardcover = 7,810 s.f ± = 77.3% Allowed Hardcover = 35 % = 3,535 s.f + Variance = 4,275 s.f = 42.3% 2.Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (B) - Setback variance for parking (not allowed within required front yard): Required front yard = 20' (10.44 Subd. 6C) Proposed front setback to parking = 5' Proposed encroachment by parking = 15' Variance = 15' or 75% WHEREAS, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed this comprehensive application at a public hearing held on January 20, 1998, and again at a continued hearing held on February 17, 1998 and recommended unanimous approval of the development plans per the commercial site plan, building elevations, and landscape plan prepared by AMCON Design, Construction, Construction Management, Inc. dated 2/2/98, for Orono Development, LLC, subject to a recommendation that the City Council require a 15' setback for parking, granting only a 5 variance. The City Council on February 23, 1998 reviewed the recommendations of the staff. Planning Commission, City Engineer, consultants and the applicants comments and on a vote of 3-1 granted approval of the proposed variances and commercial site plan, directing staff to prepare a formal resolution for approval incorporating unique findings and hardships in support of such approval; and Page 2 of 11 i , V r 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. WHEREAS, the Orono City Council makes the following findings in regard to this application: FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2326. The property is located in the B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District requiring^2^000 s.f. in area. The property consists of 80,995 s.f. or 1.86 acres. The development plans include an 11,246 s.f. one-story commercial office/retail building, to include: - 3,150 s.f bank with dnve-thru window - 2,816 s.f commercial/office space - 5,280 s.f retail space The general uses proposed conform to the uses allowed in the B-5 Umited Neigteorhood District. Applicant has concurrently requested (Application #2327) an amendment of the B-5 District list of allowable conditional uses to include bagel and coffee retail stores, which amendment is pending. Per Section 10.61. Subd. 10. required off-street parking is approved as follows; A.Bank/commercial/office = 1 stall per each 200 s.f. of net Boor area. 5,200 s.f net floor area 200 = 26 spaces. B. Retail = 1 stall per each 150 s.f of net floor area 4,500 s.f net floor area ^ 150 s.f = 30 spaces Required = 56 spaces Proposed — 62 spaces (inch 3 handicap) C.If retail is restaurant uses = 1 stall per eaeh 80 s.f. of public floor area Assuming public floor area = 50% of 5.280 s.f. 2.6^0 2 640 + 80 s.f. = 33 spaces (Required would be 26 + 33 59 space ) ’ (Requirement would still be met) Page 3 of 11 r 6, 7. 8. 9. 10. II. 12. The stormwater retention pond located at the rear of the property will be expanded to accomodate surface runoff from this site. All surface runoff will be directed via underground storm sewers to this stormwater retention area before discharging to the designated wetland to the southeast of the property. David Zetterstrom, Entrance Permit Coordinator for the Hennepin County Department of Public Works in a letter dated February 2, 1998 approved the two curb cuts as shouTi on the site plan referenced above. Tom Kellogg of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. in his letter of January' 12, 1998 made a number of comments and recommendations regarding traffic, grading, drainage and utilities, easements and trail location. Kellogg's subsequent letter of February 13, 1998 regarding the revised plans noted a number oi minor engineering matters in regards to drainage system design, which will be addressed in the construction plan review process prior to issuance of a building permit. Wallace Case, Landscape Architect/Planner with DSU, Inc. in his letter of January 23, 1998 made a number of comments regarding the proposed site plan and landscaping, which comments were taken into account in the City’s review of this application. Applicants' development of the proposed site plan is dependent upon completion of the vacation of a portion of Navarre Lane as originally agreed to by the City via Resolution #3830 on January 13, 1997. Surface drainage from this site will not have any impact on adjacent properties as all surface runoff will be directed to a retention pond to the rear of the site. The property abuts the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District to the north and east. Adjacent and nearby property owTiers were legally notified of the public hearing for this project and were given opportunity to speak at that hearing. Page 4 of 11 13. The site is topographically difficult to develop and will require significant filling and grading to accomodate the proposed improvements. The proposed site grading plans have been reviewed by staff, the City Engineer, the Planning Commission and the City Council and have been found to be generally appropriate for development of this site, subject to adjustments to be made via a final grading plan which will have to be approved by the City prior to issuance of a building pemiit. 14. Structural coverage on the site is proposed at 14%, meeting the 15% limitation on lot coverage by structures. 15. The property has a unique shape and is a 'through' lot, abutting Olive Avenue to the rear and Shadywood Road (County Road 19) on the front. The orientation of the building is toward Shadywood Road, minimizing any commercial appearance or activity as viewed from Olive Avenue. 16. The variance to allow a parking setback of 5' along the front lot line where a 20' setback is normally required, is justified by the unique shape and topography of the site and the need to provide certain amenities for the development. The combination of front parking and driving lane needs; minimum functional depth of building; drive-thru exit lane and rear building delivery access; retaining wall design ^■’nd location as well as screening needs; and the location and design of the stor.; .witer retention pond, result in the need to allow encroachment of the parking lot to within 5 feet of the front lot line in order to accomodate the above noted features and concerns within the boundaries of the site, without creating the need for other variances. 17. The proposed hardcover variance is mitigated to a great extent by the fact that all surface runoff from the site will be directed to a stormwater retention (NURP) pond designed to enhance the quality of runoff waters prior to their discharge from the site. The magnitude of hardcover variance is further justified 19. 20. 21. The proposed site piEn, iQndscspe plsn snd building design incorporate features and elements which make this development appropriate for the B-5 District, especially in relation to its adjacency to an existing residential neighborhood. Such features and elements include orientation of the building toward Shadywood Road with no vehicular access to the site from Olive Avenue or Navarre Lane, eliminating neighborhood traffic concerns; sufficient setback and vegetative buffering along the Olive Avenue boundar> and the northerly boundary of the site; facade materials and design of a subdued character with design elements to break up the look of a long roofline, and consistent styling earned around all sides of the building; creation of a pedestrian pathway through the site to allow the neighborhood easy access to the Navarre business area; and other features. The Council finds that the proposed cedar-shake-over-brick facade proposed is acceptable per Zoning Code Section 10.45 Subd. 6G(le). The City Council has considered this application incluu.rg the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The 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 recjue.sted variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the commercial site plan, building elevations and landscape plan Page 6 of 11 n-. u.J rcierenced above and approves the variances as requested based on the unique findings and hardships noted above; and approves the City’s issuing a building permit for the proposed commercial/retail/office/bank building to Orono Development, LLC subject to the following conditions: Upon application for a building permit, applicant shall provide the following information for the review by the City Engineer: A. Plans and specifications for ser\'ice line connections, proposed new hydrants if any, etc. As-built plans shall be provided to the City upon completion. The Public Works Department shall review any potential problems associated with additional cover placed over existing water or sewer mains, especially in conjunction with the vacated portions of Navarre Lane, and applicant shall be responsible for making adjustments of City sewer and water lines, manholes, etc. in a permanent manner acceptable to the Public Works Department. B. Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan showing existing and proposed contours, building locations, elevations, stormwater pond and erosion control measures to be used during construction. Plans must include additional detail on the pond outlet structure which currently is not acceptable as a permanent installation. Final stormwater retention pond plans shall be submitted, and must include information regarding the method of sealing the pond bottom. Storm sewer calculations must be provided, and revisions to the plans completed per the City Engineer's February 13 comments. Applicant shall provide confirmation as to whether gutter runoff from Shadywood Road will be entering the site and if so, that it will be adequately handled. A building permit cannot be issued until the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has approved the stormwater plans. C. Engineering details and design must be provided for the proposed retaining wall. Due to steep slopes along the north boundary of the site arid north boundary of the pond, additional retaining walls may be required to result in slopes no greater than 3:1 to allow for landscaping viability. Page 7 of 11 2. 3. Upon commencement of building construction on the site, the City council will take formal action to vacate the portion of Navarre Lane as provided in City Council Resolution #3830. Applicant shall upon said vacation grant to the City utility and drainage easements over the entire width of right-of-way being vacated. Upon said vacation, applicant shall take all necessary action to legally combine the vacated roadway with the property. The sidewalk connection to Olive Avenue as shown on the approved site plan shall be constructed and maintained permanently by applicant/property owner to provide pedestrian access through the site between Shadywood Road and Olive Avenue. Applicant shall grant to the City the following easements: a. A 10' wide trail easement over the portion of said sidewalk located between the front facade of the building and Olive Avenue. b. it 4. 5. 6. A trail easement 10' in width along the easterly boundary of the property abutting Navarre Lane, It is the intent of the City that although the City is being granted such easements, the walkway within applicants property shall be mainatined by the property owner, not the City. All upkeep, maintenance and snow removal activity shall be the responsibility of the property owner. The parking lot shall be paved with concrete curb and gutter, driving lanes within parking lot shall have a 9-ton pavement section for trucks. A geotechnical evaluation of the soil shall be done in conjunction with the pavement design. Applicants' architect shall submit final development plans to the Metro Council Environmental Services to determine the exact number of SAC units to be charged at the time of the issuance of a building permit. The City will also determine if additional Sewer and Water Unit Adjustment Charges and'or system upgrade connection charges will be required for the new development, to be paid by applicant prior to issuance of the building permit. Appropriate traffic and parking signage shall be installed subject to the Orono staff and City Engineer's review'. Signage and cross hatching of crosswalk for the pedestrian walkway crossing of the drive-thru lane exit at the north end of the building will be required. Fire lanes shall be designated during the building plan review process and identified appropriately. Page 8 of 11 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. The landscape areas ^ shown on the above referenced site plan shall consist of grass wherever feasible and shall adhere to the above referenced Revised Landscape Plan dated 2/2/98 in regards to planting species, sizes and locations. Landscaping plan shall include placement of a minimum 6" depth of topsoil over all areas to be vegetated. Applicant shall permanently maintain all landscape areas as originally approved. Site frontage for commercial signage calculation will be limited to the frontage along Shadywood Road, being 381 feet in length. Signage for this site shall be regulated by the provisions of Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subd. 1, Subd. 3(A) and Subd. 3(D). No commercial signage will be allowed along the facade of the building facing Olive Avenue e.xcept as minimally needed to identify service entrances to buildings, and as needed for the bank drive-thru. Final lighting plan shall be subject to City staff approval and shall locate lighting so as to direct lights away from the adjacent residential neighborhood. No business shall have its primary entrance through the rear (Olive Avenue side) of the building. No formal approval for reciprocal parking agreements between this property and adjacent commercial properties has been requested or approved for this site. Erosion control shall adhere to "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas". All erosion controls as required by the City shall be in place prior to commencing excavation on the site. The stormwater pond constmetion shall be substantially completed and functional prior to construction of building footings. A De\elopers Agreement shall be executed by the applicant to assure that all required site improvements as shown on approved site plan will be completed to the Citys satisfacticii. The City Engineer has provided a preliminary' estimate of the cost of site improvements at $169,100. This amount does not include the cost of landscaping and plantings, which shall be in addition to the preliminary Page 9 of 11 # I I estimated amount. Applicant shall provide an estimate of the cost of landscaping and plantings, which amount shall be added to the site improvement estimate. A Letter of Credit in an amount 150% of the final combined estimate shall accompany the Developers Agreement. 14. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant shall provide suitable evidence of property ownership. 15. 16. 17. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owners, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit within one year of the date of Council’s approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (March 6, 1999). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of March, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 10 of II STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of March, 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 1998 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared -------------------------^^^^------ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 1998 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared ---------------------^^^^---------------- kno^vn to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the toregomg instrument, and acknowledued that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 11 of 11 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 8 8 0 A RESOLUTION AGREEING TO THE FUTURE VACATION OF AN UNUSED PORTION OF NAVARRE LANE IN SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 117 NORTH, RANGE 23 WEST IN THE CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA FILE NO. 2197 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on October 25, 1996, John O'Sullivan (hereinafter the "applicant") in conjunction with North Central Conser\ative Baptist Association filed a petition with the City of Orono requesting the vacation of a portion of Navarre Lane in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as follows: Beginning at the most easterly corner of Lot 21, "Wiley's Navarre Addition, Lake Minnetonka"; thence southeasterly along the northeasterly line of said Lot 21 extended to a point 33.0 feet northwesterly from the northwesterly line of Outlot C, "Lafayette Ridge", as measured perpendicularly from said northwesterly line; thence southwesterly parallel to the northwesterly line of said Outlot C to the most northerly comer of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1433; thence southwesterly to a point on the northwesterly line of said Tract A, 253.03 feet southwesterly of the most northerly comer of said Tract A; thence North 31 degrees 52 minutes 41 seconds West a distance of 43.82 feet more or less to a point on the southeasterly line of Lot 5, Block 3, "Townsite of Langdon Park"; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly line of said Lot 5, Block 3 to the most easterly comer of said Lot 5, Block 3; thence southeasterly along the southwesterly line of Lot 22, "Wiley's Navarre Addition, Lake Minnetonka" to the most southerly point of said Lot 22; thence nonheasterly along the southeasterly lines of Lots 22 and 21, "Wiley's Navarre Addition, Lake Minnetonka" to the point of beginning; and WHEREAS, after due published and posted notice, a public hearing was held before the Orono Planning Commission on November 18, 1996, regarding said vacation and all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and Page 1 of 3 'iir I' nrif ■! ■■ ■ —ii n CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 8 3 0 WHEREAS, after due standing and consideration, the Planning Commission recommended conditional approval of the requested vacation; and the City Council of the City of Orono finds that said vacation, as proposed and with suitable conditions, is in keeping with the public interest in consideration of the following findings: 1. 2. The vacation will not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve or use the dedicated right“Ot“Way as a road e.xcept for utilities, drainage and access purposes hereinafter described. 3. The unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it currently exists ser\es no public purposes which cannot be satisfied via the use of casements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the petition of John O’Sullivan and North Central Conservative Baptist Association is conditionally approved and that the City hereby agrees to take formal action to vacate said portion of Navarre Lane subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. The City will formally vacate Navarre Lane at the time development of the adjacent 2380 Shadywood Road site is commenced by the applicant. This agreement to complete the vacation shall be more formalized in the form of a Developer's Agreement. In conjunction with applicant’s development of the property located at 2380 Shadywood Road, applicant agrees to construct a sidewalk'.), .e path near the northwest boundar>' of the property, linking Olive Avenue an<.^ '’ a.-'Avood Road, the design of such sidewalkT^ike path subject to review by tk- Cw, Tngineer and approval by the City Council. Applicant shall grant utilities, access and drainage easements over the portion of Navarre Lane to be vacated. Page 2 of 3 r 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 8 8 0 Applicant shall grant to the City a 10' easement for future trail purposes along the northeasterly boundary of the 2380 Shadywood Road property adjacent to Olive Avenue. Applicant shall grant to the City a 10’ wide trail easement centered on the centerline of the sidewalk^ike path to be located near the northwesterly boundary of the 2380 Shadywood Road property. Although the City is being granted trail easements over the pedestrian and bike pathway, that path within applicant's property boundaries shall be maintained by the property owner, not by the City. It is the City’s intent that all upkeep, maintenance and snow removal activity will be the responsibility of the property owner, not of the City. Applicant shall legally combine the vacated portions of right-of-way with the adjacent 2380 Shadywood Road property. Applicant shall be responsible for executing the appropriate drainage, utility, access and pedestrian/bike trail easements as noted above. Such easements shall be filed at the time the vacation resolution is filed by the City Attorney's Office. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held January 13, 1997. ATTEST: •orothy M. /Hailin, City Clerk GabriN Jabbour, Ma Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION# 8 3 0 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF ORONO I, Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of the proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on January 13 . 19 97 and that the same is a true and correct copy of said resolution duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 14 th January_______________t 19_97—.day of (SEAL) j r CX)UNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MAR 9 1998 CITY Date: March 3, 1998 Item No.: Department Approval: ^ Name: Michael P. GafTron I' Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning **®*" Description: #2327 Orono Development, LLC - Proposed Zoning Code Amendment - ’ B-5 Conditional Uses; Bagel and Coffee Retail Stores - Ordinance Adoption Zoning District: B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District Application: Request to have 'coffee and bagel retail stores' added to the list of allowed conditional uses within the B-5 zoning district. List of Exhibits A - Draft Ordinance B - Notice of Council Action 3/2/98 C - Staff Memo of 2/20/98 Summary On February 23 the Coimcil tebled this item and directed staff to draft a zoning code amendment to allow 'coffee ^d bagel retail stores' as a conditional use within the B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District. Staff met with John O'Sullivan and applicant Tom Dillon on March 2 to review the initial draft of the amendment. That discussion resulted in staff revising the draft slightly to accomodate specific square footage needs of the applicant, and also resulted in some good discussion regarding the actual need for detailed restrictions in the B-5, given the limited size and small number of properties in this district. Staff initially suggested the following general conditions: 1. Coffee/bagel retail stores shall not be the primaiy tenant of a building. Coffee/bagel retail stores individually or as a joint use shall not exceed 40% of the gross floor area of an individual building. A coffee or bagel retail store shall not exceed 1,500 s.f. in gross floor area, and a combined coffee/bagel shop shall not exceed 3,000 s.f in gross floor area. Applicant shall demonstrate that the coffee/bagel uses will have adequate parking available per City codes. 2. 3. 4. .. at ^ ^ W . p r-^rm • R ■ r M2327 - B-5 Amendment March 3, 1998 Page 2 A question arose as to what was meant by 'primary tenant ’. Staffs intent was to limit these two restaurant uses by making them a secondary' use of any given building, the intent being to eliminate the possibility of a free-standing coffee or bagel shop. One concern is that once such a separate building IS constructed, if the coffee or bagel shop closes, the building is automatically attractive to (and perhaps only suitable for) other restaurant uses which are not approved in the B-5 district; while a leasable space in a building devoted primarily to a non-restaurant use, is likely more flexible* It was noted that a simple requirement that bagel/coffee shop uses cannot occupy more than 50% of an individual building's gross floor area, would accomplish the same purpose. Dillon also indicated that the square footages needed for such uses may be somewhat higher than than the limitations initially proposed. A maximum of2,000 s.f. for an individual coffee or bagel use and a 4,000 s.f. maximum for a combination of the two, w'as suggested. What Degree of Limitation is Necessary? Council should consider whether there are compelling reasons to establish size limits or other types of limitations specifically for these two new uses. The 'coffee and/or bagel retail stor^ use’ in itself is very limiting, in that ver>' few types of food seix’ing establishments would fall into this categor)'. Orono s zoning code sections regarding the 'B' districts are generally in need of an update. There are many types of commercial uses today that weren ’t contemplated when the current code was adopted. Rather than merely adding to or subtracting from the lists of specific uses on an 'as requested ’ basis, it may be most appropriate to clearly redefine and refine the general goals for each district, then establish and update specific performance standards that should apply to all uses in each district, and ultimately allow only those uses which can meet all the standards regardless of whether the use is specifically listed. Adding 'coffee and bagel shops’ to the B-5 is relatively low-risk in terms of potential impact to the surrounding neignborhoods. Council should consider whether rigorous limitations are actually needed on these tw o uses. Planning Commission lefl it up to staff and Council to determine what is appropriate. As time permits, staff would prefer to take a comprchc..sive look at the 'B' district standards rather than attach an exhaustive list of specific limits to each individual use. I Try 1 r—^T n nr r r~i ri m ~ r ~ ~~ti i w i ■ ■ m~ ■■ ■ na 11 ^ .. < ■ ■ «i. ii. • t k m . fffii—• '.n.kk.* . • ' m . j • ^2327 - B-5 Amendment March 3, 1998 Page 3 Staff Recommendation The attached ordinance adds 'coffee and bagel retail stores' to the lict r»fR s i i • . a. b. c. No more Aan 50% of the gross floor area of any single building shall be devoted to coffee and/or bagel retail store uses. tucuevoieaio No individual coffee or bagel retail store use shall exceed 2,000 s f of gross floor ^or ^’°00 s f of gross T^e number of incremental parking spaces required for the coffee and/or bagel retail store use shall be calculated using the zoning code parking requirement standard for wHrbTmer^"’ demonstrate that the total parking needs for the site COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED 'o accomplish the Council's objectives for the A» ZOV..C c„„, WITHIN THE B-S LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT The City Council of Orono ordains as foilows: ^ (A) is hereby amended by adding Limited Neighborhood Busiiess“ '=™<i,„onal uses allowed within the B-5 9.Coffee or bagel retail stores, subject to the following conditions: a. No more than 50% of the gross floor area of any single building shall be devoted to coffee and/or bagel retail store uses. b. No individual coffee or bagel retail store use shall exeeed 2,000 s.f. of gross A fZT/' f <=»«■“ and bagel retail store use shall not exeeed4,000 s.f. of gross floor area. "‘''f •'“'"'a' parking spaces required for the coffee and/or bagel retail store use shall be calculated using the zoning code parking requiremfm LTd s for •o'al parking -eer and The of_tt »?I^nays^ °™arch. 1998 by a vole ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Tom Dillon Orono Development, LLC 5000 Glenwood Ave, #225 Minneapolis MN 55445 ZONING FILE #2327 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: March 2, 1998 COPIES:led Christianson Adam Smith, Co. 700 Cedar St, #121 Alexandria MN 56308 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Zoning Amendment DATE OF MEETING:02/23/98 Motion #1 VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST To conceptually approve amendment of B-5 district to allow coffee and bagel retail sales as a conditional use; Motion #2 VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST To table the application to the March 9th meeting, directing staff to draft a zoning code amendment for adoption, containing appropriate CUP standards and conditions. This item will be brought to the Council for consideration on March 9, 1998. The meeting begin: at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Because review and adoption of the B-5 amendment cannot be completed within the original 60-day time frame due to Council meeting schedules, the review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to April 22, 1998. jig I. ' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: February 20, 1998 Item No.: ^ Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron (/i Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2327 - Orono Development, LLC, 2380 Shadywood Road - Proposed Zoning Code Amendment: B-5 District Conditional Uses Zoning District: B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District Application: Request for an amendment to the B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District to allow, as a conditional use, three specific additional uses including: 1. Coffee retail sales 2. Bagel retail sales 3. Pizza retail sales. Each of the proposed uses could be categorized as a restaurant. The B-5 District currently does not allow restaurants as such, but does include as a conditional use the following specific use: "candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drinks store." List of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 2/2/98 B - Memo and Exhibits of 1/12/98 C - Planning Commission Minutes 1/20/98 Summary of Request In conjunction with the proposed bank/oifice/rctail building proposed at 2380 Shadywood, applicant proposed to include certain restaurant uses such as a bagel, coffee or pizza shop. It was noted that these uses are not specifically allowed in the B-5 District. Staff concluded they are so dissimilar from any of the B-5 permitted or conditional uses that an amendment to the B-5 list of allowed uses is the only met’ od under which they could be considered, hence this application. Please review the memo and exhibits of January 12. The pro's and con's of adding bagel, coffee, and pizza retail sales are discussed, as well as the Cit>'’s goals and objectives for the B-5 District. ^2327 - B-5 Amendment February 20, 1998 Page 2 Planning Commission Recommendation 20 meeting, and on a vote of 4-1 retail sales, but naj pizza retail s^es (see touar^ 20 ^00^5) '"it w ' would be a high traffic generator, in conflict with the in(e„, „r .L o e “ <hat pizza sales.WU.U ^ a lugn iramc generator, in conflict with the intent of the R s aL. ■ , j have odor problems, late hours of operation, and other Dotpntiai and potentially could most other uses contemplated for the B-5 district, ^ negative impacts as compared to Commissioner Hawn was the minority opinion indicating that ^ . ^ Wid not contemplate restaurant uses, arid that such uses are rg"»®rair*a“ "o“t to than as something that would draw from a wid» resion in Ir ““‘®5*“®“'8hborhood use rather intent of the B-5 district. Such conditions might incLe" "" “‘shborhood services freestanding fast food operations) ^ ® buM.,. Strict adherence to signage limitations ag“r“‘tt"pta!ig^ “"“Ph-ally March 9 council meeting. ^ staff will draft ordinance language for the Staff Recommendation zoning distrfets) need to^be’^S^t^m reflect^^^^^^ <=" sales uses are appropriate in the context of a locT 8°"«- The coffee and bagel retail neighborhood, as long as controls are in place to av^MToIe u“To7a “vSeo^^^^^^^ ■m #2327 - B-5 Amendment February 20,1998 Page 3 nuisance to the neighborhood. Staff agrees that pizza retail sales may have certain aspects that are not as appropriate when in close proximity to a neighborhood. The applicant agreed to amend the application to include only coffee and bagels. k- I Council Action Requested Review the proposed amendment to allow coffee and bagel retail sales as a conditional use in the B-5 zone, and if it is agreed that this is appropriate, direct staff to draft a zoning code amendment with appropriate conditions and limitations. (jpO t ^ A CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2327 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: February 2, 1998 TO:Orono Development, LLC 5000 Glenwood Avenue #225 Mpls., MN 55442 ATTN: Tom Dillon COPIES TO:Adam Smith Co. 700 Cedar St. #121 Alexandria, MN 56308 ATTN: Ted Christianson TYPE OF APPLICATION:Zoning Amendment DATE OF MEETING: 1/20/98 VOTE:4 FOR 1 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. 2. Planning Commission recommends that the B-5 list of conditional uses be amended to include coffee retail sales and bagel retail sales, but not pizza retail sales. Staff to draft appropriate conditional use standards for the coffee and bagel uses and submit directly to Council for review. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council, Monday, February 23, 1998, 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. Note that once the B-5 zone is amended, you will have to formally apply for the CUP if you actually propose a coffee or bagel tenant. If you have questions, please contact Mike Gaffron at 473-7357. X:\APPSUVPWIN60\WPDOCS\CAROLE\PCACTION\2327-2 7 TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator DATE: SUBJECT: January 12,1998 #2327 Orono Development, L.L.C., 2380 Shadywood Road Amendment to B-5 District Allowed Uses - Public Hearing - Request for Zoning District: B-5 Application: Request for an amendment to the B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District to allow, as a conditional use, three specific additional uses including: 1. Coffee retail sales 2. Bagel retail sales 3. Pizza retail sales. Each of the proposed uses could be categorized as a restaurant. The B-5 District cimently does not allow restaurants as such, but does include as a conditional use the following specific use: candy, ice cr ram, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drinks store." List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map of Applicant's Proposed Development C - Navarre Area Map Depicting All Properties Zoned B-5. D - Letter of Request , E - Zoning Code Section 10.44: B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District F - Comprehensive Plan Excerpts Regarding Commercial Areas B-5 District Purpose The B-5 District is intended to "provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or per^rm a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, which businesses are not ig traffic genLtors £^id do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover. The distnct may adjoin resLntial districts or other business districts which are subject to more restnctive controls. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Because o the location of the B-5 District as contemplated in the area known as Navarre m the City, the uses L limited in order to limit the hardcover in that area and to limit the future generation of traffic for that property in that use district since there is already a traffic problem m Navarre . Zoning File #2327 January 12, 1998 Page 2 The permitted ust in the B-5 District include both service and retail businesses, the majority of which are typically low traffic volume and typically not 24 hour uses. (See Exhibit E) The current list of conditional uses in B-5 was last amended in October 1996 with the deletion of "home and garden equipment rental", which was concurrently made a permitted use in the B-1 District. The B-5 conditional uses include some which may involve higher traffic volumes, or somewhat more intensive use than the permitted uses. For instance, a "candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drinks store" such as the Dairy Queen, has a more intense use of the parking lot and drive thru, and has perhaps more lighting than most of the other allowed retail uses. B-5 also lists "kennels" as a conditional use, which has the poiential for disrupting a neighborhood due to noise levels and possibly odors. The "home and garden equipment rental" use was moved out of the B-5 District on the basis that such use could be noisy or create noxious odors, involving the operation of engines, as well as tending toward fenced storage areas which could be visually disruptive. % The B-5 District was primarily created in 1975 to accommodate existing businesses adjacent to existing single family residential areas. The intent was to limit the intensity of uses in the B-5 District to those which would not only be good neighbors, but provide a valuable service to the surrounding neighborhood. Consequently, the number of properties zoned B-5 is extremely limited, comprising approximately 5.9 acres in total, all of which is in Navarre (see Exhibit C). Nature of Proposed Uses The proposed uses appear to be primarily restaurant type uses. The zoning code defines two types of restaurants: 1. "Restaurants (Class 1)" - Food is served to the customer md consumed by him while seated at a counter or table and the restaurant does not serve intoxicating liquor or provide live entertainment. Food is selected by a customer while going through a serving line and taken to a table for consumption. : for 2. "Restaurants (Class 11)" - Fast food convenience, drive-in and liquor service restaurants, A restaurant where a majority of customers order and are served their food at a counter in packages prepared to leave the premises, or to be taken to a table, counter, automobile or off the premises to be consumed; or a drive-in where most customers consume their food in an automobile regardless of how it is served; or restaurants which serv e intoxicating liquor or have live entertainment. It is unclear whether the uses proposed by applicant fall strictly into a Class I or Class II category. This is partly due to the nature of the definiti'^n': and to ronie degree a function of the nature of res;aurants in today ’s world. Staff envisions a bagel shop or coffee shop to be of a Class II nature. Zoning File #2327 January 12, 1998 Page 3 where the customer would order items at a counter which are provided to him either packaged to leave the premises, or on a tray to be taken to a table within the store for consumption. A pizza retail operation could be veiy similar, or it could range from a sit-down restaurant where items are ordered via a waitress from a separated kitchen; or could be merely a takeout/delivery order base station with no food eaten on the premises. It is significant to note that the only other food service type operation in the B-5 District is the Navarre Dairy Queen. It operates as a conditional use under the "candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drink store" category. Note that the Dairy Queen continues to closely conform to the letter of this unique use, in that while it does have a drive thru window, it does not have any indoor seating, is only open seasonally, and has not become a "brazier" store where foods are fried; hot dogs/brats and barbecue are all heated on the site but no grilling occurs. The nature of this use has not, therefore, expanded to the classical restaurant type use, although it might fall under the definition of a Class II restaurant by virtue of the drive-up window. Are the Proposed Uses Appropriate in the B-5 District? Planning Commission should consider the following questions in determining whether certain limited restaurant uses might be approved within the B-5 District: 1. Are restaurants an appropriate use in the B-5 District given the intent of that district and its proximity to residential uses? 2. How will the proposed restaurant type uses impact the neighborhood? Traffic? Lighting? Odors or noises? Hours of operation? On-site parking? 3. Can the identified impacts be mitigated or avoided by limitations on the nature or type of restaurant uses allowed? 4.If the proposed uses are allowed, do sufficient controls exist to exclude other restaurant type uses which would be objectionable in the B-5 District? Analysis The B-5 District w'as created in 1975 to provide limited business activity compatible with the adjacent and surrounding residential uses. The B-5 was also intended to provide for businesses that serv'e "residents in the surrounding neighborhood" as opposed to a place for City-wide or regional oriented uses. Those uses w'ould be reserved for the B-1 or B-3 Districts The nature of existing uses in the B-5 to a great extent matches the B-5 goals, i.e. a Dairy Queen, an auto parts store, an animal hospital, low key retail, professional office, furniture store, and (albeit non-conforming) auto repair operation, all :end to serv'e the surrounding neighborhood. Likewise, the nature of the Zoning File #2327 January 12,1998 Page 4 proposed limited restaurant type uses would serve the same general neighborhood area, without being a major destination bringing in significant traffic. In that respect, the proposed uses might seem to be in keeping with the intent of the B-5 District. However, certain restaurant type uses would create potential problems in the context of the B-5 District. These problems might include: Exhaust venting of smoke/odors from baking, fr>dng, or grilling operation. The glare of lighting, traffic volumes, litter, and other nagative impacts often associated with individual free standing fast food operations. The impact on parking need for sit down restaurants such as the Culvers in the B-1 District adjacent to applicant's development site. Hours of operation potentially extending past normal business hours. If the proposed restaurant type uses are allowed in some limited fashion. Planning Commission should direct staff to develop conditional use standards that would limit those operations to a scope and level appropriate for the B-5 District. Such limitations might include, for example: That the restaurant use must be a non-primary tenant in a building used primarily for a permitted or conditional use that is not a restaurant (this could be a method to avoid freestanding fast food operation.s) Limitation on square footage, and/or percentage of total building, devoted to each individual restaurant use Limitations on the capacity of fans allowed for exhaust venting (i.e. do not allow operations which require exhaust venting above a certain cubic feet per minute) - Strict adherence to signage limitations Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should discuss whether an amendment to the B-5 district to allow limited restaurant type uses may be appropriate. If so, direct staff to draft standards for the level of use you feel may be appropriate, for review at your next meeting. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval of the proposed amendment with no specific conditions. 2. Table, direct staff to develop standards for some defined level of restaurant use. 3. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 4.Other. COUNCIL MEETINQ mar 9 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ctrvr-' DATE: 3/9/98 Department Approval: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Administrator Reviewed: Item Description:#2336 Bruce Newton 3580 Frederick Street Variance-Public Hearing ITEM NO.: Agenda Section: Zoning Zoning District: Lot Area: Application: LR-IC 14,lilt One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 acre) square feet (.32 acre) The applicant is requesting an after-the-fact variance to allow an existing deck that was • ""KS “ r S’” PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission Recommended by a 5 to 0 vote to: 1. Approve a rear setback variance of 7.5' to allow the deck to remain 22.5' from the rear lot line where 30' is required and 14.77' is existing. 2. As a condition of approval, the applicant has agreed to a provide a roadway and utility easement (Exhibit A) for the portion of the roadway crossing the property and the area 5' behind the curb as no legally described easement had been recorded. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. ROAD AND UTILITIES EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made ihis 9th day of March, 1998, by and between Bruce Newton hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", and the City of Orono, a municipal corporation, under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee". WITNESSETH, that Grantor, in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and for other good and valuable coasideration given by Grantee, the receipt of which is acknowledged by Grantor, does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey to Grantee, its successors and assigns, an easement for public ingress, egress, access, road and utilities purposes and uses, on, across and under the land in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, as follows: See Attachment A for the legal description of the easement. including, but not by way of limitation, a ftili and free right and authority to enter upon said land to construct, iastall, maintain, operate and repair a sanitary sewer interceptor, lift station, m'lin or line, a water main or line, gravel or paved road and any and all appurtenances, including drainage control structures, incidental and related thereto, (such are hereafter collectively referred to as the Improvement), and the Grantee shall have the right to make such use of said land as is reasonably necessary and advisable to the construction installation, maintenance, operation and repair of the Improvement. In addition to any other remedy the Grantee may have, the covenants and restrictions contained herein may be enforced by injunction. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said easement unto said Grantee, its successors and assigns, permanently. The Grantor(s) herein certify that the lands herein described are free and clear of all encumbrances except: written. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said Graiit jr has set their hands on the day and year first above GRANTOR Page 1 of 2 r LAND SURVEYORS C^utunt, ‘Pte4. 8713 DUPONT AVtNUE SOUTH 6LOOMINCTON. MINN 55420 888 2084 March 2, 1998 DESCRIPTION FOR STRRET EASEMENT ON THE BRUCE NEWTON PROPERTY That part of Lots 17 and 18, Block 2, NAVARRE which lies westerly and southerly of the following described line to wit; Commecning at the northwest corner of said Lot 18; thence South 0 degrees 37 minutes 36 seconds East, on and assumed bearing, along the westerly line of said Lot 18, a distance of 18.55 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 16 degrees 09 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 29.19 feet; thence southeasterly along a tangential curve to the left a distance of 87.08 feet and having a radius of 68.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 31 minutes 29 seconds East a distance of 67.95 feet to the Easterly line of said Lot 17 and there terminating. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6(B), FILE NO. #2336 WHEREAS, Bruce Newton (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3580 Frederick Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lots 17 and 18, Block 2, Navarre (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for an after-the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Coae Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to permit the retention of a deck replacement on the north side of the residence that encroaches into the required rear yard setback. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2336. 2.The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring .5 acre in area. The property consists of 14,000 s.f. or .32 acre. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 17, 1998 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: 1 . The deck was a replacement of a previously existing one of similar size. 2. The rear yard functionally serves as the side yard. Page 1 of 4 3. Allowing the deck to remain does not further encroach on the rear setback line. 4. The southwest portion of the property is used for public road purposes. While the City has prescriptive rights over this portion of the property, a permanent, legally described road easement has been drafted to clarify the situation. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Coinmission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants an after-the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to allow a rear setback variance of 7.5" where 30' is required and 14.77' is existing to permit the retention of a replacement of a previous deck subject to the following condition: 1. 2. Tile applicant must sign a road and utilities easement agreement granting the City an easement over the portion of the roadway crossing the property and an area 5' behind the curb. 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 Page 2 of 4 will expire on that date (March 9, 1999). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this vziriance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of March, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foiegoing instrument was aeicnowledged before me on this 9th day of March 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOT.\ ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HEW4EPIN ) On this____day of____ for said county, personally appeared 199_before me a Notary Public within and 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 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of__199_before rne 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 4 of 4 I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard LR-IC Requirements .5 acre 100'30'10' (15' abutting street) 30' subject property .32 acre 100'69'28.2'14.77 (22.5' for deck) The property does not meet the lot area or rear setback requirements. The lot is 100' by 140', or 14,000 s.f. in total area. The front of the property is the shortest dimension of the plat of Ae public street. The shortest dimension is on Casco Point Road, although the residence faces Frederick Street. The southwestern comer of the lot is paved roadway for the intersection of Casco Point Road and Frederick Street. The paved street uses 954 s.f or 6.81% of the lot area. If this amount is excluded from the lot area, the lot is 13,046 s.f or .29 acre. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 14,000 s.f 1,465.25 s.f 10.5% Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. 1^2356 Bruce Se'^ton 3580 Frederick Street Variances 2/17/98 Page! 1 ■ . n. -. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 250'-500'14,000 s.f 4,814 s.f (34.4%) with street *3,860 s.f (27.6%) excluding street 4,200 s.f (30%) 4,814 s.f (34.4%) with street *3,860 s.f (27.6%) excluding street 614 s.f (4.4.%) The subject property is located in the 250' to 500' setback from Lake Minnetonka. Approximately 954 s.f. of the southwest comer is paved street. The road represents 6.81% hardcover. Hardcover calculations that exclude the pave ’ road reduce the total lot area to 13,146 s.f. or .29 acre. Revised hardcover calculation are 3,860 s.f or 29.58% of the reduced lot area. A hardcover variance is not required for this application. However, the applicant should be advised that future variances that increase hardcover would not be viewed favorably. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant should be asked for his testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1 . The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The deck is in place and is the same size as the previous deck. This replacement could not be retained without a rear yard variance. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The definition of the front yard being the shortest dimension and the location of the residence on the lot creates a need for a rear yard variance. ! ! ^2336 Bruce XeMion 3580 Frederick Street Variances 2/17/98 Page 3 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. 5. 7. The variance for rear setback will not change the character of the area. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Decks are permitted in this zoning district. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The deck could have been reconstructed to meet setbacks. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The conditions applicable to this lot include the street over the southwest comer and the orientation of the house on the lot. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The deck is a replacement. Encroachment on the side lot line will not be increased beyond what previously existed. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Without the grunting of variances, the applicant would be required to remove the deck. Issues 1 . The residence faces what is technically the side yard. 2. The deck replacement does not affect hardcover. 3. The rebuilt deck does not encroach in to the rear yard setback more than the residence. H23J6 Bruce Sewton 3580 Frederick Street Variances 2/J7/9S Page 4 4. The City does not have a recorded easement over the portion of the property that is being used for public road purposes. This area has been used for many years for road purposes, so the City has prescriptive easement rights on this property. To clarify this situation, the Public Services Director has requested that the applicant provide a permanent road easement for the actual road and utility area and an additional five feet behind the curb for maintenance purposes. STAFF RECOMMENDAl *N Staff recommends the granting of the necessary variance to allow the applicant to retain the 203 s.f. deck subject to a condition. • Staff recommends approval of a rear setback variance of 7.5’ to allow the deck to remain 22.5' from the rear lot line where 30' is required and 14.77' is existing. • Staff recommends that as a condition of approval an easement for the street be obtained for the paved area and 5' from the curb. Attachments A B C D E F G H Application Plat Map Property Owners List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey As Built Diagram Application tf ^ Date Received Amount Paid ___ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION ^ i ,' -rA u O i \ Oi ^ Initial Application Fee $226:00 Z'iO oi i ($50.00 per each additional varianje^^ Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original applicatiCQ^ .,•-<?>- v .' Variance for non-conformine structures $220.00'^ After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)...V c iPROPERTY KsTORi\LATION Site Address U)0^ __________________ Property Identii'^<'ation Number (P.I.D.) 2^/^ 7** ^ /7‘ ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required surv'ey. Date Property Acquired ^^_______________^(month/year) I (do) (^Q noj ^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; /^Residential ___pother (specify)_______________________ Zoning District:____________________________________________________________ APPLICANT Name i)t^k ______ Address: k/^i^'SrfltukS_____ City:. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name V Phone (home ) V 0/^ 7 fT'P ^ Phone (work ) ^ ~~ ^ !? Zip:_j22£^^Z Phone (home ) V Phone (work). Address:City:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost $ uTZr -M'S fiar ^t/ /iu/97€’ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage >y Setback:Front Side y Rear Avera^Ke Ltdceshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^ I’fS (attach additional sheets if necessary) t 140 !- ■s 'f « .'■ HO U; . <-n 22)j 140 N i(Mi ^ 1 • 25■B - -Bi 140 N 140 3 g 4=^ 140 ^ (22): ^ ^ 4 ; (12) -------\--B \ - _ ^ 5 140 F y; ?2 S * -(21) <1 ^ , n ^ .(-13) - ^ , 140 ^ a ' 21 ^ jP . 20 * :(20) 1 '-^O 8 V X -(15) ^ X gx; '9 ^ g J 140 Ks 1^° J 140 10 „ V'(16) ® \ >1 140 ^ 91 ^DOC MO 1932423 (56)^(57) 91 55 125 41 V o FREDERICK ST /-4" 'O <o6) 42. •••:;■')'{? /30 EAST ' ■ -\ 5 c ’ '■%' -V 4 JJ z .A ■^o •- ■ji 1-•(37)- \ 6) ( 10)\ A.( 17)' \ 5) \ \ \ "^■'•40+ '3^ ^27+ .50 A ^ (.i8)r'^-’ S' ^ -‘b- ^ X, "(59)'’'/ 'oia ((91 IrA 5-'=^' (10) ,\ 1 1 \’ 21 l?i RUN DATE 01/29/98 BATCH 502 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TA>0’AYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 20-117-23 12 0013 02A43 CARMAN ST D M FISCHER 4 L K STRAIT DIANE FISCHER/LAURIE STRAIT 2A43 CARMEN ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0016 02669 CARMAN ST DANK OF AMERICA TRUSTEE B E DAL6AAR0 & C A BALGAARD 2669 CARMAN ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0019 03580 FREDERICK ST L Y NEWTON ET AL TRUSTEES BRUCE 0 NEWTON 3580 FREDERICK ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0025 03585 FREDERICK ST J D PUGH 4 J A JOHNSON J 0 PUGH 4 J A JOHNSON 3585 FREDERICK ST WAYZAT;. MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0036 02690 CASCO POINT RD H M 4 C 6 CLOUTIER JR HEATHER/CORTLEN CLOUTIER JR 2690 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0016 02667 CARMAN ST T A ANDERSON 4 S L ANDERSON TERRY A 4 SHARI L ANDERSON 2667 CARMAN ST ORONO MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0017 03555 FREDERICK ST PHYLLIS MARGARET ANDERSEN PHYLLIS M ANDERSEN 3555 FREDERICK ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0020 02676 CASCO POINT RD LYLE A BUERKLE ETAL LYLE A BUERKLE 2676 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0028 03605 SHORELINE DR N W BELL TELEPHONE CO US WEST INC TAX DEPT ATTN KLAUS COX 6300 S SYRACUSE WAY STE 700 ENGELWOOD CO 80I1I 38 20-117-23 21 0037 02680 CASCO POINT RD CORTLEN G CLOUTIER CORTLEN G CLOUTIER 2680 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI635601 PAGE 2 38 20-117-23 12 0015 02655 CARMAN ST J E SNELL 4 C E SNELL JOHN E 4 CLARA E SNELL 601 WOOSTER ST LODI OH 66256 38 20-117-23 12 0018 03565 FREDERICK ST JOHN S MCLEOD JOHN S MCLEOD 3565 FREDERICK ST WAYZATA MN 55391 in 38 20-117-23 12 0021 02656 CASCO POINT RO J C ROBERTS 4 J E ROBERTS JOHN C 4 JAf^T E ROBERTS 2656 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA m 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0033 03701 SHORELINE DR CASCO RUT4 LTD PTNRSHP CASCO RUN LTD PTNRSHP C/0 LISABETH C CREAR BOX 126 MINNETONKA BEACH m 55361 \ TOTAL BATCH 502 00016 8■ I -'^/7'cy 7 Q-/I-U9 Cij-£jLt 9-09-la^ //; V/ti-f ^7>3 XU JTZ A ^ /J 3-9S- —r^s^LJh ^ —^"rr------ COUNCIL MEETINQ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION I Department Approval: Name: Michael P. GafTron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator MAR 9 1998 f ! f\* ^ Date: March 3, 1998 Item No.: ^ Agenda Section: Zoning Item UescripM.,: Golf Coune. 405 Noth Am. Drive - Conditional U.e Permit Zoning District: RR-1B, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, unsewered. ofoubic yards for List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 3/2/98 C - Comments from MCWD 2/25/98 D - Memo & Exhibits of 2/12/98 Summary of February 12. Briefly, applicant is requesting approval for ^o radmg projects vvtthtn the golf course. The fimt is expansion of tees and creation ofTZd for hole # 8 near the northeasterly side of the gol f couree. The second is expansion of tees and^creation of a pond near the center of the course betw een the 4th green and 5th tee generahy nSs are part of the Lakeview Golf master plan which the City first reviewed in 1995. ^ Planning Commission Recommendation mllecK ’’‘“"'"8 Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the twoircr.;" rs:-St- ' ■ itnT .”1!'’' npplieant shall create a 3:1 or flatter sloped bench at the perimeter of each of the proposed wetlands. ^ Wme?On^rr°- following the Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas shall be in place prior to beginning excavation, and 2. #2338 - Lakeview Golf Course March 3, 1998 Page 2 3. shall remain in place until the site has been revegetated. Applicant shall obtain the required City land alteration permit prior to beginning construction. 4. Applicant shall provide any information requested by City Engineer prior to issuance of the land alteration permit. 5 . Applicant shall obtain any necessary' permits from MCWD or any other agencies with jurisdiction. MCWD Comments The Miimehaha Creek Watershed District has concluded that these projects will not require a MCWD permit, subject to the City requiring and enforcing erosion control measures (Exhibit C). City Engineer Comments The City Engineer has recommended a 10:1 perimeter bench slope around the ponds for safety purposes. Applicant has noted this is a problem for any golf course, since such a bench promotes vegetative growth which golf courses wish to avoid for a number of reasons including maintenance and impact on play. Planning Commission accepted applicant's agreement to a 3:1 slope. Additionally, the City Engineer requested additional information regarding outlet elevation and designs, which will be required prior to issuance of the land alteration permit. Stan* Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. A resolution for approval is attached for Council adoption. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution. Proposed Motion: Moved by ,seconded by to adopt Resolution No.granting a variance and conditional use permit :o Lakeview Golf Course for land alterations involving expansion of the 5th and 18th tees and creation of two ponds. Vote:___ayes,___nays. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.55 SUBDIVISION 8 AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTIONS 10.03 SUBDIVISION 19 AND 10.56 SUBDIVISION 16 (J) FILE NO. 2338 WHEREAS, Grant Wenkstem (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of Lakeview Golf Course Located at 405 North Arm Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A attached (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit per Section 10.03 Subdivision 19 and Section 10.56 Subdivision 16 (J) for land alteration to reconstruct two tees and create two ponds involving fill movement in excess of 500 cubic yards, and for a variance to Section 10.55 Subdivision 8 for land alteration within 26' of a City- designated wetland where no grading or filling is normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: 2. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2338. The property is located in the RR-IB Rural Residential Zoning District. The golf course operates as a conditional use in the RR-IB zone via a conditional use permit granted in September, 1968. The property is approximately 130 acres in area. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 17,1998 and recommended approval of the requested conditional use permit and variance based upon the following findings: Page 1 of 6 a. b. c. d. e. f. The proposal involves expansion of the 5th and 18th tees and creation of ponds in the adjacent lowlands. Both projects are part of the Lakevievv Golf master plan which the City first reviewed in 1995. The adjacency of the tee expansion and pond excavation results in an efficient land alteration process; materials from creation of the ponds will be used to create the tee boxes, resulting in a balancing of excavation work on the site and little (if any) importation/exportation of fill. The areas proposed for excavation to create new ponds are not Orono designated wetlands and do not appear on the National Wetland Inventory. The pond near the 5th tee expansion will be approximately 6' deep at the center, and somewhat triangular in shape, being approximately 100' in diameter and approximately 6,000 s.f. or 0.15 acre in area. This project involves the movement of approximately 1,000 cubic yards of material. The 18th hole improvements involve the excavation of a pond approximately 60' wide and 200' in length or 12,000 s.f. in area, expansion of the 18th hole tee boxes, and general filling in a low area near those tee boxes and adjacent to the 9 acre pond in the east central portion of the course. The 9 acre pond is listed in the City protected wetland inventory as a Type 5 wetland, and is primarily open water. While no filling of the 9 acre pond is proposed, the proposed grading will be within the 26' wetland setback, hence technically a variance is required. This portion of the course has been maintained in mowed grass, and the proposed filling will have no significant added impact on the quality or quantity of runoff to the 9 acre pond. Neither proposed pond excavation involves impacts to existing wetlands. The creation of ponds at these strategic locations on the course will potentially be of benefit to the watershed in general by creating more runoff storage, allowing sediments and nutrients to settle or assimilate prior to runoff discharging to dovsnstream areas in the watershed. Page 2 of 6 5. 6. g. The expansion of tee boxes is a normal and necessary improvement for golf courses, and at the locations proposed in this request, has no significant impact on the watershed or neighboring properties. 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 and conditional use permit 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 for filling within 26' of a wetland boundary and granting a conditional use permit for the proposed land alterations would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Section 10.03 Subdivision 19 and Section 10.56 Subdivision 16 (J) for land alteration to reconstruct two tees and create two ponds involving fill movement in excess of 500 cubic yards, and grants a variance to Section 10.55 Subdivision 8 for land alteration within 26' of a City-designated wetland where no grading or filling is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1.As part of the pond excavation process, applicant shall create a 3:1 or flatter sloped bench at the perimeter of each of the proposed wetlands. Erosion control measures following the Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas shall be in place prior to beginning excavation, and shall remain in place until the site has been revegetated. Page 3 of 6 r 3. Applicant shall obtain the required City land alteration permit prior to beginning construction. 4. Applicant shall provide any information requested by City Engineer prior to issuance of the land alteration permit. 5. 6. 7. 8. ATTEST: Applicant shall obtain any necessary permits from MCWD or any other agencies with jurisdiction. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but ^e permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance and conditional use permit will expire on that date (March 9, 1999). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of March, 1998. Linda S. Vee, Citv Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 4 of 6 .A ^ ■ r.-^ • I '.•II i Ti * « fn r-i“ rBTT ~I MS ill. ■ Mil Mil . k all A I iki Vk/.IIAakMkLA J r f ^ ‘ t STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) I0«« K„ r ^ acknowledged before me on this 9th day of March 1998, by Gabriel Jabbour & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of Ihe City of Orono. a Minnesoa municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. On this day of within and for said county, personally appeared 1998 before me a Notary Public L™ “ ‘=^<1 who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 6 r L CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2338 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMIVnSSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: 3/2/98 TO: Grant Wenkstern Lakeview Golf 405 North Arm Drive Mound MN 55364 COPIES: Mark Gronberg CofBn & Gronberg, Inc. 482 Tamarack Ave Long Lake MN 55356 type of APPLICATION: Variance/Condition Use Pe rmit DATE OF MEETING:02/17/98 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Create a 3:1 bench at perimeter of wetlands. 3. 4. Applicanl to obtain the required land alteration permit prior to beginning construction. X"d iT^ciUcto™"" P"- 'Ws item being * jS“tion'° P'®"' or any other agencies with •See attached sheet, especially starred items. Please contact staff with this info ASAP. Applicants next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council, Monday, March 9. 1998; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. from the Cilv RecordtT” Commission minutes, they are availableom the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commissilion. jig Ml P« MV* - k ^ ^ j/1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& ^ Associates Engineers & Architects Bonestroo. Rosene. AnOerlik snd Associates, inc. is an ArftrrrM.ve Action/Bquai Opportunity Employer f ^ Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo. PE. • Joseph C. Anderlik. P.E. • Marvin L. Sorvaia. PE • * Richard E Turner. P.E • Glenn R. Cook. PE • Robert G. Schunicht. PE. • Jerry A. Bourdon. PE. • ---------- Robert W. Rosene. P.E and Susan M. Eberli.i. C PA., Senior Consultants Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford. P£. • Keith A. Gordon. PE. • Robert R. Pfefferie, PE. • Richard W. Foster. P.E. • David O. Loskota. P.E • Robert C. Russek. A.I.A. • Mark A. Hansen. PE • Michael T. Rautmann. RE. • Ted K.Field. P.E. • Kenneth P. Anderson. P.E. • Mark R. Rolfs. PE • Sidney P. Williamson. P.E. LS. • Robert F. Ko I smith Offices: St. Paul. Rochester. WHImar and St. Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wl January 30, 1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 •o Re: Lakeview Golf Course Land Alteration File No. 139-2338 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the grading plan for the proposed two pond addition to the Lakeview Golf Course. The site is located east of C.R. 19, west of North Arm Drive and north of West Branch Road in the south half of Section 6. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. • We recommend that the ponds be graded to include a 10:1 aquatic bench at the normal water level. The bench should be at least 10 feet in width to provide a vegetated safety buffer. Emergency overflow elevations should be verified and their locations shown on the plan set. Rip rap or some other type of erosion control measures should be provided at the overflows. • Inverts for the existing 12 inch pipe under North Arm Drive should be included on the plans. • It is assumed that all excavated material will be used as fill on site. Spoil site locations and haul routes should be provided if any excavated material is to be hauled off site. • All temporary erosion control must be in place prior to the start of construction, Please contact me at (604-4863) if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono !l r r Minnehaha Creek - ji.'Watershed District Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life i Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19. Navarre . Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior. MN 55331-9578 Phone: (612) 471-0590 Fax: (612) 471-0682 Email: admin®minnehahacreek.org Web Site: vww.minnehahacreek.org Board of Managers: John E. Thomas President C. Woodrow Love Vice President Pamela G. Biixt Treasurer Monica Gross Secretary Thomas W. liBounty Thomas Maple, Jr. Malcolm Reid District Office: Diane P. Lynch District Administrator WhW on «itttt 30% pool WMu<n« Date: February 25,1998 To: Mike Gaffron, City of Orono From: Jim Hafner RE: Lakeview Golf Course f 2 7 Q\\^ Or OriONO On Thursday February 19,1998 Grant from Lakeview Golf Course came to o office inquiring on the possible need for a permit for a project at the ^ours ^ The plans he presented showed excavation to create and/or enhance Ponf areas o Si golf coursl Spoil material from the excavation would be used to build/repair tee boxes on the course. This oroiect does not create any impervious area, is not in a floodplain, md does not impact a wetland. Therefore it does not appear flat this project would requir a permit from the Watershed District. The only remaining concern would be erosion control. Based on the conversation you and I had on Friday, Febroaty , the City of Orono wilt be enforcing erosion control m«*ods ® inspecUons, pre- and post construction. This will satisfy the District and further eliminate any need for a permit. Please call me at 471-6282 if you have any further questions. r TO; FROM: DATE; Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator February 12, 1998 SUBJECT; #2338 Lakeview Golf Course, 405 North Arm Drive - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, unsewered. Application: Request for conditional use permit for land alteration in excess of 500 cubic yards for two separate areas of the golf course. The first is expansion of tees and creation of a pond for hole #18, near the northeasterly side of the golf course. Second is expansion of tees and creation of a pond near the center of the course between the 4th green and 5th tee generally. Both projects are part of the Lakeview Golf master plan which the City first reviewed in 1995. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Grading Plans for Both Projects F - Overall Master Plan G - Enlargement of Master Plan Sections H - City Engineer ’s Comments Discussion In the decade prior to 1995, applicant had requested a number of conditional use permits for land alterations within the golf course property. As part of the most recent request in 1995, applicant provided a course improvement master plan which involved numerous individual projects. Applicant has intended to accomplish these improvements over a number of years, and the currently proposed improvements are the next in what we expect to be a continuing series of requests as the master plan is brought nearer to completion. The current proposal includes expansion of tees for the 5th and 18th holes, with concurrent excavation in adjacent low lands. This adjacency results in an efficient land alteration process; materials from creation of the ponds can be used to create the tee boxes, resulting in a balancing of e.\cavation work on the site and little (if any) importation/exportation of fill. The golf course operates as a conditional use in the RR-IB zone, and continues to be a good neighbor to the surrounding area. r Zoning File #2338 February 12, 1998 Page 2 Fifth Tee Improvements Please review Exhibit E-1. Applicant proposes doubling the area of the existing 5th tee and creating a pond to the south side of it in an area that is low but not an Orono designated wetland and not appearing on the National Wetland Inventory. Applicant proposes a pond approximately 6' deep at the center, and somewhat triangular in shape, being approximately 100' in diameter and approximately 6,000 s.f. or 0.15 acre in area. This project involves the movement of approximately 1,000 cubic yards of material. Eighteenth Hole Improvements Please review Exhibit E-2. The 18th hole improvements are slightly more extensive, involve the excavation of a pond approximately 60' wide and 200' in length or 12,000 s.f. in area, expansion of the 18th hole tee boxes, and general filling in a low area near those tee boxes and adjacent to the 9 acre pond in the eas^ central portion of the course. The pond is listed in the City protected wetland inventory as a Type 5 wetland, and is primarily open water. While no filling of the pond is proposed, the proposed grading would appear to be within the 26' wetland setback, hence technically a variance is required. This portion of the course has been maintained in mowed grass, and the proposed filling will have no significant added impact on the quality or quantity of runoff to the pond. It appears that the proposed new 1/4 acre pond will overflow to the east, underneath North Arm and eventually to the wetland complex at the north end of North Arm Bay before reaching the lake. The existing 9 acre pond discharges generally to the south through a second wetland and under West Branch Road before reaching Forest Lake. General Comments Neither proposed pond excavation involves impacts to existing wetlands. The creation of ponds at these strategic locations on the course will potentially be of benefit to the watershed in general by creating more runoff storage, allowing sediments and nutrients to settle or assimilate prior to runoff discharging to downstream areas in the watershed. The expansion of tee boxes is a normal and necessary improvement for golf courses, and at the locations proposed in this request, has no significant impact on the watershed or neighboring properties. City Engineer's Comments Please review the Engineer's comments, Exhibit H. They include the following: t i Zoning File #2338 February 12, 1998 Page 3 1.The ponds should be graded to include a 10:1 aquatic bench at the normal water level. The bench should be at least 10' in width to provide a vegetative safety buffer. (Note that golf course ponds commonly do not have such a bench at the normal water level, but have relatively steep slopes to allow retrieval of errant balls. There are two potential reasons for the 10:1 bench. The first is clearly as a safety buffer. The second is that such construction more closely resembles the NURP pond design which allows the vegetated buffer to uptake nutrients and provide better water quality treatment). A potential but not thoroughly discussed benefit to either the applicant and/or the City would be the use of these newly created ponds for wetland credits towards other projects. If these are created as permanent wetlands, such wetland credit might be of value to offset wetland impacts elsewhere. 2.Emergency overflow elevations should be verified and their locations shown on the plans. Note that neither pond has an outlet structure proposed, and it is unclear on the pond near the 18th tees as to the absolute overflow direction. There may be some benefit in forcing that pond to overflow to the large pond rather than to the east, since no downstream residential properties would be impacted by super-storm type flows. The Engineer also notes that erosion control measures should be provided at the overflow points. 3.In conjunction with the above, applicant needs to identify the invert elevation for the 12" culvert heading eastward under North Arm Drive from the 18th hole pond. 4.The proposed plans do not indicate any intent to import or e.xport material from the site. If such hauling is expected to occur, spoil site locations and haul routes must be identified. 5. Erosion control measures must be in place prior to the start of construction. Conservation and Flowage Easements? The City has neither normally nor consistently required the dedication of conserv'ation and flowage easements over golf course ponds that are created in upland areas not identified as protected wetlands. The golf course ponds are generally decorative in nature, and, as in the current proposals, located in drainage ways or relatively low land areas where maintenance with mowing equipment is often hindered by soft ground. In both cases, the proposed wetlands have minimal wildlife value, and are relatively small as compared to most natural wetlands the City has intended to protect! Rather than requiring conservation and flowage easements over these two specific wetlands, staff would recommend that either no wetland easement be required at this time, or that wetland easements be granted over ever>' identifiable wetland on the golf course. J I Zoning File #2338 February 12,1998 Page 4 Issues for Discussion 1. Does applicant have any objections to creating the 10:1 bench at the perimeter of the two proposed wetlands? 2. Can applicant confirm that there will be no import/export of fill to or from the site? 3. Does Planning Commission have any other concerns regarding this proposal? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approN^af^lhe^two land alteration projects as proposed, subject to the followine conditions: / ^ * 1. Creatiort^ a 10:1 bench at the perimeter of each of the proposed wetlands. 2. Erosion control measures to be in place prior to beginning excavation, and remaining in place until the site has been revegetated. 3.Applicant to obtain the required land alteration permit prior to beginning construction. 4. Applicant to provide the information requested by City Engineer prior to this item being presented for Council action. 5. Applicant to obtain all necessary permits from MCWD or any other agencies with jurisdiction. S'OOptions for Action 1. Recommend approval per staff recommendation. 2. Table for further information (specify). 3. Recommend denial (state reasons). 4. Other. 001 J Application # CITY OF ORONO'^0 - GENERAL Lffl^ USE API Date Received / ' Amount Paid _^SV. USE APPLICATION - OOPDmOr^ UJC n32 Mj 7 PROPERTY LOCATION / Site Address —HP ^ A/crj'l Aka A Dy-. ■ L-aK<^iy’/<:*{/iy' ^^ri/ Type of Application to be Filed______ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Z APPLICAN Name <r Address Phone (home) oujr^<^ Phone (work) ^ City _ ~ Zip Phone (home)OWNER (if different Aan Mpli^^ Name Grcu^'t^. _________ Phone (work) % U iT(:^ Address, 7y<^.City _____Zip /T^C/ Date Property Acquired //(o,y^ / ^ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PEIUVDTS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use • $250.00 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 _____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month/year) OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacaiion _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$ 100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District______ Present Use of Property______Residential Other (specify) 32Mir REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. ____ Completed Application Form. 2. ____ Describe request in detail. 3. ____ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). 4. ____ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. 5. ____ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. 6. ____Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 7. ____ List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 8. ____ Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 9. ____ 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 COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be 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 SIC-NATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to p?.v ^ditional 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 trv^ and correct to^e besj^o^ his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature n Date / /. OWNER'S 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 jqt purposes of im^igatipri^d verification of this request. Jr\ f ^ M • ^ Jm ___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 advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. RUN DATE 01/22/98 BATCH 504 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 01-117-24 14 00325 CO RD NO JAMES A EHLERS & JAMES A EHLERS 325 COUNTY RD 19 MOUND MN 55364 0004 19 HIFE HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 36 01-117-24 14 0005 00425 CO RD NO 19 J C & D L MC CORMICK JOHN C MC CORMICK 425 CO RD NO 19 MOUND MN 55364 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 18 36 01-117-24 14 0006 04870 NORTH ARM DR J J a R M LUCKlt^G JEROME J LUCKING 4870 NORTH ARM DR HOUND MN 55364 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 01-117-24 41 0001 04801 NORTH ARM DR J L LINDER a C K GELINE JOSEPH LINDER a CAMI GELINE 4801 NORTH ARM DR HOUND MN 55364 36 01-117-24 41 0002 00505 CO RD NO 19 DOROTHY E NELSON SCOTT a PATRICIA NELSON 505 CO RD 19 MOUND MN 55364 36 01-117-24 41 0003 00036 ADDRESS UTMSSIGNEO M A SASS a C L SASS MARK a CHRISTINE SASS 22690 MURRAY ST SHOREHOOO MN 55331 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 01-117-24 41 00605 CO RD NO BONNIE K GRANT BONNIE K GRANT 605 CO RD NO 19 MOUND MN 55364 0009 19 36 01-117-24 41 0011 00635 CO RD NO 19 STEVEN R POSTHUMUS STEVEN a DEBBIE POSTHUMUS 635 COUNTY RD 19 MOUND MN 55364 36 01-117-24 41 0012 00665 CO RD NO 19 G M HEJNA a K M HEJNA GARY M a KATHLEEN M HEJNA 665 CO RD NO 19 MOUND m 55364 PROP ADDR ONNER NAra TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 3b 01-117-24 44 0001 00705 CO RD NO 19 GARY H GUTZKE GARY H GUTZKE 705 CO RD NO 19 HOUND MN 55364 36 01-117-24 44 0002 00605 CO RD NO 19 S G CHAPMAN a J K CHAPMAN STEPHEN G/JEANTIIE K CHAPMAN 805 COUNTY RD 19 MOUND MN 55364 36 01-117-24 44 0004 00695 CO RD NO 19 PAUL T SOBERG PAUL T SOBERG 695 CO RD NO 19 MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADDR ONTBER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 06-117-23 23 0005 04640 mRTH ARM DR N D a L IVERSON DANIEL a LINDA IVERSON 4640 NORTH ARM DR HOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 23 0006 04680 NORTH ARM OR W J A MYERS ET AL TRUSTEES MYERS REVOCABLE TRUST JAMES A MYERS 7850 E EL SENERO tl3 SCOTTSDALE AZ 85262 38 06-117-23 23 0007 04700 NORTH ARM DR H R a D MAIJALA RAYMOND G a DOROTHY MAIJAU 4700 NORTH ARM DR HOUND m 55364 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 06-117-23 23 0008 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO N F a L OESTREICH NORMAN F a LINDA OESTREICH 4760 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 23 0009 Oh740 NORTH ARM OR N J a J HEDBERG JOHN A a JANICE HEDBERG 4740 NORTH ARM DR H MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 23 0010 04760 NORTH ARM DR H N F a L OESTREICH NORMAN F a LINOA OESTREICH 4760 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 0 RUN DATE 01/22/98 BATCH 504 PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYEk NAME/ADDR PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR HENNEPIN COUfTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 06-117-23 23 0011 00350 A V A ANFIN 350 W MOUND NORTH SHORE DR S L BLAKSTVEDT V BLAKSTVEDT NORTH SHORE DR MN 55364 38 06-117-23 24 0006 04590 NORTH ARM DR W B L A J R HAGLUND BARRY L A JANICE R HAGLUND 4590 NORTH ARM DR N MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 31 0001 00420 NORTH ARM DR R N A M L SLADEK RICHARD N A MARY L SLADEK 420 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 31 0005 00520 NORTH ARM DR TIMOTHY PELLI22ER TIMOTHY PELLI22ER 520 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 31 0009 00500 NORTH ARM OR M D A H J HOY MATTHEW D A HEIDI J HOY 500 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 33 0002 04760 WEST BRANCH RD M K A C H ROOEWALD MICHAEL A CARMEN RCOENALD 4760 WEST BRANCH RD HOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 23 0012 04780 NORTH ARM DR W E FORCIER A K FORCIER ELLEN JOAN FORCIER 3109 DAKOTA AVE S ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 38 06-117-23 24 0008 00370 NORTH ARM LA RAH SMITH ROSCOE S A HARRIET C SMITH 370 NORTH ARM LANE MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 31 0003 00440 NORTH ARM DR RAP STERNAU RENE A PATRICIA STERNAU 440 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 31 0006 00540 NORTH ARM DR PAUL HANSSEN PAUL HANSSEN 540 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 32 0003 00405 NORTH ARM DR LAKEVIEW GOLF OF MTKA INC LAKEVIEW GOLF OF MTKA INC 855 RED OAK LA MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 33 0003 00710 G A V GRANT 710 N NORTH SHORE DR W WENKSTERN R WENKSTERN SHORE DR H MOUND MN 55364 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 19 38 06-117-23 24 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED R W ARMSTRONG ETAL JEAN T ARMSTRONG 235 NORTH ARM LANE MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 24 0011 00366 NORTH ARM U MAM LARSON MARK JAM LARSON 366 NORTH ARM LA MOUND MN 55364 58 06-H7-25 31 0004 00460 r^ORTH ARM DR T J A S J MANNER THOMAS J S SUSAN J HANT4ER 460 N ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 31 0007 00560 NORTH ARM OR T a S MAZER THOMAS D a SUSAN S MAZER 560 NORTH ARM DR MOUTR) MN 55364 38 06-117-23 33 0001 00660 NORTH SHORE DR N JAMES E BARUTH JAMES E BARUTH 660 NORTH SHORE DR H MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-25 33 0004 04700 NEST BRANCH RO JACK D a JUDY A KRAHL JACK 0 a JUDY A KRAHL 4700 NEST BRANCH RO MOUND MN 55364 RUN DATE 01/22/98 BATCH 504 PROP AODR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 06-117-23 33 0005 00038 AOORESS UNASSICNEO LAKEVIEH GOLF MTKA LAKEVIEH GOLF OF HTKA INC 855 RED OAK LANE HOUND m 55364 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 06-117-23 33 0006 04680 WEST BRANCH RD T R TENGEROY t R L TENGEROY T R 4 R L TENGEROY 3470 BIRCH LA HAY2ATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 20 38 06-117-23 33 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LAKEVIEH GOLF OF MTKA INC '.AKEVIEW GOLF OF MTKA INC 855 RED OAK LANE MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 06-117-23 33 0008 04640 WEST BRANCH RD M L A J F SCHULTE MICHAEL L SCHULTE 4640 H BRANCH RD MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 34 0001 04580 WEST BRANCH RD DONNA E HAGER DONNA E HAGER 4580 W BRANCH ROAD MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 34 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LAKEVIEH GOLF OF MINNETONKA LAKEVIEH GOLF OF MINNETONKA 855 RED OAK LA MOUND Mt4 55364 PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 06-117-23 34 0004 04520 WEST BRANCH RD MICHAEL AyTHERESA C EASTMAN MICHAEL A/1HERESA C EASTMAN 4520 WEST BRANCH RD MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 42 0005 00580 NORTH ARM DR B V JOHNSON 4 P R JOHNSON BRYCE V 4 PAULA R JOHNSON 580 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 42 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED VICTORIA ESTATES HOMEOWNERS VICTORIA ESTATES HOMEOI'WERS C/0 THOMAS MAZER 560 NORTH ARM OR MOUND W 55364 PROP AODR C»t€R NAME. TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 06-117-23 43 0001 00650 NORTH ARM DR J BRAUCHLE 4 E SCHOONOVER JEFFREY R BRAUCHLE AND ELISA M SCHOONOVER 650 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0002 00680 NORTH ARM DR DOUGLAS F WATSON DOUGLAS F WATSON 680 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0003 00700 NORTH ARM OR GREGORY M HARTY GREGORY M HARTY 700 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 06-117-23 43 0004 00720 NORTH ARM OR J S LEECH 4 V E LAIS-LEECH J S LEECH 4 V E LAIS-LEECH 720 NORTH ARM DR HOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0005 00710 NORTH ARM DR JERRY 0 OLSON ETAL JERRY 0 OLSON 710 NO ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0006 00740 NORTH ARM DR E G EINAR HAGOERG ET AL H/LE E 6 HAG8ER6 740 NO ARM DR MOUND FM 55364 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 06-117-23 43 0007 00750 NORTH ARM OR WILLIAM L SCHMITT W L SCHMITT 750 N ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0008 00760 NORTH ARM OR WALFRIO LARSON ETAL WILLIAM SCHMITT 750 FJORTH ARM OR MOUND m 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0009 00770 NORTH ARM OR CONNIE K PIEPHO CONNIE K PIEPHO 770 NORTH ARM OR MOUFO MN 55364 RUN DATE 01/22/98 BATCH 504 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONTCR NAHE TAXPAYER NA»C/AD0R PROP ADDR OMCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST S8 04-117-23 4S 0010 00760 NORTH ARM DR D A CARLSON A H C 0 A CARLSON A H C 780 NO ARM DR HOUND HN 55364 RAY RAY 38 06-117-23 44 0016 00800 NORTH ARM DR R H FRANZEL ET AL RICHARD M FRANZEL 800 NORTH ARM DR HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0004 00800 FOREST ARMS LA R H BONNEMA A J R BONNEHA ROBERT H A JANIS R BONNEMA 800 FOREST ARMS LA HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0007 00690 FOREST ARMS LA C A CLARK ABA SEGNER-CLARK C A CLARK ABA SEGNER-CLARK 890 FOREST ARMS LA HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0011 00625 FOREST ARMS LA H D PARKS A K L PARKS MATTHEW 0 A KAREN L PARKS 825 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0030 00875 WINDJAMMER LA B T A C A BROGHAHMER BRETT T/CAROLYN A BROGHAHMER B75 HINDJAHHER LA HOUND HN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0012 00645 NORTH ARM DR K H A B M SHIN KWAN6 H A BARBARA H SHIN 645 NORTH ARM DR MOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 11 0008 00835 WINDJAMMER LA MARGARET A BLAZEK MARGARET A BLAZEK 835 WINDJAMMER LAfJE MOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0005 00830 FOREST ARMS LA T K SAMUEL A A SAMUEL T K A A SAMUEL 830 FOREST ARMS LANE HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0009 00605 FOREST ARMS LA J A A E S FRETHAM JAMES A ELIZABETH FRETHAM 805 FOREST ARhtS LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0028 00865 WINDJAMMER LA GERALD R HELGREN A WIFE GERALD R HELGREN 865 WINDJAMMER LAME MOUND MN 55364 38 07-U7-23 21 0014 04505 WEST BRANCH RD DAVID LEVY DAVID LEVY 4505 WEST BRAr4CH RO ORONO MN 55364-8277 REPORT NO. PI43S401 PAGE 21 38 06-117-23 44 0001 00790 NORTH ARM DR C E ENGELER ACM ENGELER CHRISTOPER A CLAUDIA ENGELER 790 NORTH ARM OR MOUtm MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 OOOl 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO LAKEVIEW GOLF OF MTKA INC LAKEVIEW GOLF OF MTKA INC 855 RED OAK LANE HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0006 00860 FOREST ARMS LA R I A C S S»40W SR ROYETTA A CHARLES SNOW 860 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND Mr< 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0010 00815 FOREST ARMS LA M A M MC ELLIGOTT MICHAEL A MARY MC ELLIGOTT 815 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND MN 55364 3d 07-117-23 12 0029 00860 NORTH ARM OR RAJ DAVISSON RONALD A JUDITH DAVISSON 860 N ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 21 0015 04455 WEST BRANCH RD JANE E KLINE JANE E KLINE 4455 WEST BRANCH RO HOUND MN 55364 1 RUN DATE 01/22/98 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI^35401 PAGE 22 8ATCH 504 PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 38 07-117-23 22 0014 04625 NEST BRANCH RD S J RUCE A 1 E SILBER STEVEN RUCE A IRENE SILBER 4625 WEST BRANCH RD MOUND MN 55364 TOTAL BATCH 504 00073 3o'l “ of ' KlSSerONKA 855 RED mound MN »5364 38 07-117-23 12 0001 LAKEVItW GOLF OF MTKA INC 855 RED OAK LANE HOUND MN 55364 855 R£0 OAK LA •'lOUNO HN 5 536A 38 06-117-23 33 0007 LAKEVIEW GOLF OF MTKA INC 855 RED OAK LANE HOUND HN 55364 5 5^% I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUrfTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE /■zi 94v s'-'V' f/«4 •"4 •V/ * rr •.'‘V I 'i !•» I I.• • I 'i 'i$r I !? 1.1 r • •.! ?.. ________ . S \0%- •%*- iv ?I5 l‘. •‘ % h' t • ' 1 • . . * 44I* i 1 f Mi *9 i T'l 1 1 mJ ii$ /i*•Vs 1 ••. •1 4*4's o -> #• •• *\t • •• V ,w\*4*9t * <Zi fZ 114 j' 5^ M i> r* -I *'S *'15 if ►*t>2 • w •< f M M t> t* 1^ ?? ^ ff n t* i» » o 'S5<B Vl*V|\ AM 5k r ‘ I :r Jr * ** ^ «J n 1H M ^ ? ‘-r •*;? ^ i *< • ^ •*a’.: ••'?•*„ "J (! 2 « • ..‘A--;'M T 5 •’;fi" --^o:: it • t *' 9 '» “ i f! pj- ------ :/ ?5s **■'!!?------X?fJ o*% ofa• ^ r**♦ *»» ;r f ?••n fl ,» P!fh • J *’■ L J'v’ ** ?yrf *1 o •« I* ^ 2 V Jt i ;i ♦ r O C O•• |» C*% Br I*iii •4'f 15 ...i‘.•'i: ' a Y *(i •» 2 3 ' y »•> u ^ i ' •♦?«'«;mh o I vJ • p3 •4 U ST fj. • % ni >• to 'If<•fif ki I I •> o PROPOSED GRADING PLAN FOR LAKEVIEW GOLF COURSE IN SECTION 6-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ■€»- — — ce'c**! 3*;!.- --------- ce-o*ei o*;;ci«s -e. c»s.-«c ccv 5S ->\i i rcNc\fi>»i u*>»»N rt lun ____ ComN & Gron 'rfrc . l\r. l.iriLirjvL • I I .ikr \l\ I KnS .«rm •K.it |H». ns •<« Mip-t I J11\ !•’ I t jnJ \ «^} N4nr\»* tK .« rNf Nu*r 4rT4l4l \li»k N I r,; U%»^ \un»Nf irr^' *4 » \'>3Cf r^n II N4* 18-011 PROPOSED GRADING PLAN FOR LAKEVIEW GOLF COURSE IN SECTION 6-117-23 #233 fw-Nfr •»min*n K'CUTTHIX I . ......_ ORAWN n coraN & gronberg. Inc. i .'I- I*/; ! ' >• ••' (.I' J •'f'V.v. »- ‘' *1 l.iiiui.kL V\t MK • I t-tj4 I \|\ fii: rv4i4i iKrrtn irfW\ l»u: :h»% ^ P*rjv*r» J h «H «nj ih«l I jm J JuK iK* ct thr Suit r4 Mmiw^ou Mjri S C'<«QpNrK I N«*t»hrT 127^' 1 I II rt VJ 3 n r \ \ .i.;ora »•* ** o »ir.I. • • • • • •0 »/• . I •V W: iP'fit:'- Wa / ✓ 'v./' U D S'-L. 1-^ v-^'* i-.\ •I ^</i 1 -\U • • •• • • /( L »• 1 —mm ^ 1-- —— I « »• \xv! :. Cr- • '''*.-. .M;) .•,»* - •i.l' ' I L7 •* li mu:i- >. 1 >r • » \: « •. -c jk M 's / V /.<•, » • - *i -..• 4 rr-‘ • .• ••A • ' // V St',s ------A f. .? • 'A /■'•\> !« .-. ^ 4A \. 1.1 t / • V-lt^/, s //f • /. / *.» <i f / Ik i •^ •i' /' oo J ♦ >• 1i if iCl Cl II • 1N ! «* *i { ‘: iciE!i•:II:• • ► »a =“ H 2 5 1 i S H u» ^ li 1i iii'i'iuii11E i n = s i 5 2 •; * ^ :r ‘ ? i j1 jsl5Ei!:2s u H “ Is : : i E s u s '»t 3i?3yj«st 'i f’ 11 3 6 '« c 'J ^ i i *% f ________L “H :k' **• ' >• A- » \ \ )\ r K \ K- ‘ X i. \ ^ •/ iSr V ?. ft .-^>s»-\,'••'■•• t>o /« 4^ -nj^ ^ I Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & |\ I Associates Engineers & Architects January 30, 1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Bonestroo. Rosene. Andertik and Associates, inc is ^n Affirmative Action/Equ^U Opportunity Employer Principals Olio G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Anderlik. PE • Marvin L Sorvala. PE • Richard E. Turner. PE • Glenn R Cook. P^ • Robert G Schunicnt. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • ^ Robert W Rosene. PE and Susan M Ebenin. C PA . Senior Consultants Associate Principals Howard A Sanford. PC • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferle. PE • Richard W. Foster, PE • David O Loskota, PE • Robert C Russek. A I A. • Mark A Hanson, PE • Michael T Rautmann, PE • Ted K.Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE. • Mark R Rolfs. PE. • Sidney P. Williamson. PE. L.S • Robert F Kotsmith Offices St Paul. Rochester. Willmar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wi 2l9 y. Re; Lakeview Golf Course Land Alteration File No. 139-2338 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the grading plan for the proposed two pond addition to the Lakeview Golf Course. The site is located east of C.R. 19, west of North Arm Drive and north of West Branch Road in the south half of Section 6. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. • We recommend that the ponds be graded to include a 10:1 aquatic bench at the normal water level. The bench should be at least 10 feet in width to provide a vegetated safety buffer. • Emergency overflow elevations should be verified and their locations shown on the plan set. Rip rap or some other type of erosion control measures should be provided at the overflows. • Inverts for the existing 12 inch pipe under North Arm Drive should be included on the plans. • It is assumed that all excavated material will be used as fill on site. Spoil site locations and haul routes should be provided if any excavated material is to be hauled offsite. • All temporary erosion control must be in place prior to the start of construction. Please contact me at (604-4863) if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 • Fax: 612-636-1311 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETINQ MAR 9 CITY or ORONO Date: March 4,1998 Item No.10 Department Approval:Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning N.^me: .vlich.i«‘l P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Item Description: #2339, James Render , 1365 Tonkawa Road - Preliminary Plat Review Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre, sewered. Proposal: Subdivide this 1.9 acre parcel into three building sites. List of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 2/26/98 B - Planning Commission Minutes 2/17/98 C - Hennepin County Public Works Comments 2/12/98 D - Applicants Letter to Planning Commission 2/12/98 E - Revised Preliminary Plat Drawing 2/13/98 F - Memo and Exhibits of 2/13/98 Brief History of Application At the January 20 meeting, Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's three sketch plan concept drawings and some additional conceptual sketches by staff. Since all lots were proposed to meet the 1/2 acre/100' lot standards of the LR-IC zone, the primary issues surrounding the subdivision were related to access, as well as buildability of the lots in relation to hardcover allowance. Planning Commission expressed a concern that a full cul-de-sac as recommended by staff might be excessive to serve just these three units. Planning Commission suggested that use of a private driveway, with a "T" emergency vehicle turnaround and a shared driveway for Lots 2 and 3, is likely more appropriate than a cul-de-sac for this magnitude of development. The formal plat application was reviewed by Planning Commission at a public hearing on February' 17. At that time staff again recommended that a full private road and cul-de-sac be developed for these three lots, with additional right-of-way dedicated for a future public road connection to Birch Lane (see discussion in staff memo of Fcbruaiy' 13). Long Lake Fire Chief Mike Brown made a presentation to the Planning Commission regarding the need for adequate emergency vehicle access (see Planning Commission minutes). r L Zoning File #2339 March 4, 1998 Page 2 Planninx Commissior. i icoinmendation Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the following condition^; 1.Plat a 42' private road outlot along the length of the southerly property boundary (assuming that the City has a legitimate 8' road easement over the adjacent propert> ). z.Build a 28' paved width private road from Tonkawa Road to approximately the mid­ point of Lot 1, with a T emergency vehicle turnaround as proposed in revised plan. 3.Lots 1, 2 and 3 should be credited with 17' of the road outlot area for hardcover calculation purposes, based on the fact that applicant is providing 17' more than half oi a 50' road corridor that will serve the entire neighborhood. 4. Subject to items #5, 6,7 of Februar>^ 13, 1998 staff memo: (5) The applicant should address all grading and drainage issues, and develop a plan for a water quality pond on the site per the Engineer's recommendation (This is required before Council can grant formal preliminary plat approval). (6) The standard park dedication fee should be required. (7) The standard drainage and utility casements should be required. Staff Recommendation Regarding Future Access Staff concurs with the recommendation that this subdivider be required to plat a private road outlot along the southerly border for the entire width of the property, to accomodate potential future road needs. An underlying road and utility easement would be granted to the City. One way to minimize the impact cf this road outlot is to make use of the 8' access easement on the adjacent property to the south. That roadway easement appears to have been created in the 1950s or earli-r, and would need to be confirmed as legitimate and acceptable by the City Attorney. Assuming it is usable, only a 42' right-of-way need be platted from applicant's property. The applicant's revised plat drawing (E.xhibit E) depicts this arrangement. r Zoning File #2339 March 4, 1998 Page 3 Road Standards Planning Commission felt there are substantial reasons to not create a cul-de-sac on this property, relating to the site's proximity to the Maxwell Bay access. To reach a compromise between a driveway and a full-scale road plan, Planning Commission recommended that a private road of 28' paved width be constructed by the applicant to a point midway along Lot 1, with a "T" turnaround at the entrance to a shared driveway serving Lots 1 and 2. This would be less likely to cause traffic or parking problems for the residents, and Lots 2 and 3 could reduce hardcover impacts by sharing a driveway. Staff continues to recommend that a cul-de-sac be constructed rather than a "T" turnaround, based on the provision of suitable emergency access. The premise that we need a cul-de-sac purely because our code standard requires it for serving three or more lots, is secondary to the needs of the fire department for accessible properties. Lot Standards and Hardcover Impact Lot Standards . With Planning Commission's recommended layout, all 3 proposed lots will technically abut a private road and therefore will not require variances from the back lot ordinance. Each proposed lot meets the 100' LR-IC zoning district standard for lot width. However, extracting a 42' road outlet along the south boundaiy' of the property will reduce the total usable acreage from 1.9 acres to just over 1.6 acres. Lot lines as shown on applicants February 13 plan (Exhibit E) show that each lot will maintain the required 1/2 acre area and 100' width at the shoreline and at the 75' setback line. Hardcover. Planning Commission agreed with applicant's position that his property is taking a severe hardcover 'hit' by providing a 42’ right-of-way rather than having to only provide half (25') of the necessary 50' corridor to eventually serv'e the neighborhood. Based on this conclusion. Planning Commiss’on recommended that each of applicant's lots be granted the standard hardcover credit for the 17' additional right-of-way being platted for future public use. Staff is unaware of any precedent for such a conclusion, but it has some merit. Engineering Issues Please review the City Engineer's comments. Exhibit C of the 2/13 memo. His recommendation is that a grading and erosion control plan for the site should be required, and that a water quality pond should be located on *he site to provide for storm water treatment. No grading or drainage plan has been submitted as of this writing. r Zoning File #2339 March 4, 1998 Page 4 General Subdivision Comments 1. 2. Park dedication. This property does not abut any proposed City or County proposed trail system. The Park Commission has recommended payment of a park dedication fee. Access Location . Hennepin County Department of Public Works has indicated the proposed entrance location on Tonkavva is acceptable, and no additional right-of-way is needed. 3. Floodplain . Applicant’s surveyor has confirmed that the property is almost entirely above floodplain elevation except for a portion of the ditch along Tonkawa Road. No filling of the floodplain in conjunction with this project is anticipated. Issues for Discussion 1. 2. 3. 4. Does Council agree with the staff and Planning Commission's recommendations that a future through road connection to Birch Lane be provided for at this time? Does Council agree with Planning Commission's recommendations regarding construction of a 28' paved private road with T turnaround? Or, should a cul-de-sac be required per staffs recommendation? Does Council toncui ih the Planning Commission recommendation to grant 17' of hardcover credit to each lot based on the right-of-way dedication? Does Council concur that a water quality pond should be required for this site? What is the impact of such pond op lot areas? 5. Does Council have any other comments or concerns regarding this plat proposal? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends conceptual preliminary plat approval, as follows: 1.Platting of a private road outlot along the entire length of the south boundary. The outlot can be 42' in width if it can be confirmed by the City Attorney that the City has roadway rights over the 8' adjacent easement. 2. Applicant to grant City an underlying Road and futilities Easement tor the road outlot, r Zoning File #2339 March 4,1998 Page 5 3.Applicant to constmct a 28' paved roadway with a temporary 80’ diameter cul-de-sac located approximately between Lots 1 and 2. based on fire department needs and code standards. Note that if this was being proposed as a 2-lot plat, the need to provide a corridor for future through road would still exist, but code would not require the establishment of a road and cul-de-sac at this time, since the threshold for full road status is 3 or more lots. 4.No variances should be granted for lot area, lot width, setbacks, or hardcover (except that staff reluctantly recommends approval of the allowance of 17 of hardcover credit for each lot - this reluctance is due to the possible precedent-setting aspect as well as having to administer this site somewhat differently than all others in regards to hardcover). The hardcover associated with the cul-de-sac would not count against the hardcover allotment for the respective lots, if Council so chooses. 5.If a temporary cul-de-sac is required, it sh juld be on a separate easement which could be separately vacated in the future. 6.The applicant should address all grading and drainage issues, and develop a plan for a water quality pond on the site per the Engineer's recommendation. 7. 8. 9. The standard park dedication fee should be required. The standard drainage and utility easements should be required. Extension of the 60-day statutor>' review period to 60 days (to 5/23/98). COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Provide applicant conceptual direction regarding the road, hardcover and stormwater issues. Based on such direction, direct applicant to provide additional information, plan revisions, grading and stormwater plans, etc. as necessary and direct staff to prepare a resolution for preliminary plat approval for adoption at a future Council meeting. ■ ifVi CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2339 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: February 26, 1998 TO: James Render 9331 Yukon Ave. S. Bloomington, MN 55438 COPIES TO:Gale Putnam 1365 Tonkawa Rd. Long Lake, MN 55356 Mark Gronberg 482 Tamarack Ave. Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 2/17/98 VOTE:5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Plat a 42' private road outlot along the length of the southerly property boundary (assuming that the City has a legitimate 8' road easement over the adjacent property). 2.Build a 28' paved width private road from Tonkawa Road to approximately the mid­ point of Lot 1, with a'T emergency vehicle turnaround as proposed in revised plan (attached). 3.Lots 1, 2 and 3 should be credited with 17' of the road outlot area for hardcover calculation purposes, based on the fact that applicant is providing 17' more than half of a 50' road corridor that will sen'e the entire neighborhood. 4.Subject to items #5,6, 7 of February 13,1998 staff memo; 5. The applicant should address all grading and drainage issues, and develop a plan for a water quality pond on the site per the Engineer's recommendation (This is required before Council can grant formal preliminary plat approval). 6. The standard park dedication fee should be required. 7. The standard drainage and utility easements should be required. 5.Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as; City Council Monday, March 9, 1998, meeting starts at 7;00 p.m. /I 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. X:\APPS\WPWIN60\WPIXKS\CAROI.BPC ACTI()N\233'^ -ia» w. ^ - ’FEB-17-199S 15:40 FROM HEHN CTY PUBLIC DORKS 94730510 P.O: Hennepin County JL An Equal Oppor[unit.T Employer_________^ e February’ 12, 1998 NFike Gafifron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Proposed Plat - Jim Render 135 Section 8, Townsliip 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 2446 Review and Recommendations Nfike; Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require county review of proposed plats abutting county roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the followmg comments: • The 33 foot right of way is acceptable. • Access via an upgraded street entrance at outlet ‘A’ is acceptable. • All proposed construction within county right of way requires an approved Hennepin Counw permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to access drainage and utility construction, tran development and landscaping Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for the appropriate permit forms. • The developer must restore ail areas, within the county right of way, disturbed during construction. Please direct any response to Dave Zetterstrora at 930-2548. As a matter »^f procedure, we request that the City Clerk intonn us of the City Council s action on the right of way and access provisions. Sincerely, ------------------ Thomas P. Johmon, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ/DKZ/jrh cc: Pete Tulkki Dave Swenson 320 WwlumflMi Avwic Swiih Horiuu, .N&meou 3;343-W9r. (6i:r«0-y00 FAX:(612)S30-1313 TDD:(61.'S30-;6H r FEB-13-19?3 1T..-54 PE hLTY Hi:it.l-=E 615 844 13.10 P.02 05 2-12-98 James Render, the applicant proposing a three lot subdivision of the property located at 1365 Tonkawa Road is planning to build three architecturally unique “cottage” style homes, one of which wiU be his personal residence. These homes are proposed to be approximately 1800-2000 square feet on the main level with smaller finished aiea on the second level, and finishable area in the walkout lower level, and three car attached garages. The plan would be to build on lot 3 in 1998 while living in the existing house until the new one was complete, the existing home would be removed along with the existing detached garage within 24 months, prior to any construction Applicant proposes to either giant an easement for roadway purposes or dedicate right of way along tlie southeasterly 42 feet of the property for the future construction of a roadway to connect with Birch Lane. Applicant further agrees to accept the prorata share of special assessments relative to the cost of constructing this roadway when and if it is built. In the interim the owners shall have the right to construct and maintain a priv'ate road/driveway within this easement area. Applicant does not wish to see a city standard roadway with a temporary cul- de-sac at this time for the following reasons: 1) 1 see no need to create so much unnecessary' hardcover area when it will not be used for many years, if at all. 2) Would create a potential nuisance to the neighborhood as it would atti’act boat/trailer parking and tui naround traffic. 3) Would not conform to the style and feel of the existing neigliborhood. 4) Would require public maintenance , which would be an unnecessary City expense. Applicant requests City approval to subdivide the property along the above referenced guidelines. TOTAL P.05 V’ - J PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR JIM RENDER IN LOTS 13. 14 AND 15. LYDIARD'S PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA 50 SCALE \ \ \ \ \ \ \ m \ LEGAL OESCRPTION OF PREMISES: Thot port of Lots 13. 14 ond VS. "LYDIARD' S PARK" Loke Minnetonka lyir>9 northwesterly of o line described os follows: Beginning at ' o point on the sout>'westerlp^ line of soid Lot 15 distant 225 feet northwesterly \ from the point of intersection of the southwesterly line of soid Lot 15 with the bose line shown on the plot of soid "LYOIARC’ S PARK" Loke Minnetonka; thence northeosterly perpendicular to said southwesterly line of soid Lot 15 to the northeosterly line of said Lot 13. ond there ending o Iron marker Bearings shown ore bored upon on ossumed datum \ \ / OfSlClNin BY DAH nrNU.!i"hiN OtAWN BY COFFIN & GRONBERG, iNC I n\;nurf>, LniJ 4S2 Linur.kk Au’iuk* • lung I ,iki \I\ OI2-473-4141 I h*Tvbv i(*rtify Ihji ihiv suivik* pn^rvU by mt* i»f unJcr my direct super* visMin. and thil I jm j duly ryj^islfrwf Civil En^iruTr jchI L^d Surveyor urwirf the Ijws tt( the Slate of Minrursola Mark S Cronberg Minrtesota License Number 12755 »75/0 SLAU OATI iO§NOrrs/o I TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator February 13, 1998 SUBJECT: #2339 James Render, 1365 Tonkawa Road - 3 Lot Preliminary Plat - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre, sewered. Proposal: Subdivide this 1.9 acre parcel into three building sites. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey/Preliminary Plat Drawings E - Sketch Plan Review Memo 1/13/98 F - Planning Commission Minutes 1/20/98 G - City Engineer's Comments H - Staff Conceptual Sketch of Neighborhood Access 1 - Staff Conceptual Sketch of 42' Road Dedication J - Staff Sketch: Hardcover Impact of Through Road Brief Review of Sketch Plan Discussions At the January 20 meeting. Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's three concept drawings and some additional conceptual sketches by staff Since all lot^ are proposed t^ meet the 1/2 acre/100 ’ lot standards of the LR-IC zone, the primary issues surrounding the subdivision were access and buildability of the lots in relation to hardcover allowance. Planning Commission expressed a concern that a full cul-de-sac might be "overkill" to ser\'e just these three units. Planning Commission suggested that use of a private driveway, with a "T" emergency vehicle turnaround and a shared driveway for Lots 2 and 3, is likely more appropriate than a cul-de-sac for this magnitude of development. Given the late hour at which this review occurred, staff was certainly not eloquent in communicating a number of issues surrounding access to this site. However, staff continues to believe that the narrow outlot driveway proposed to ser\’e these three units may not be in the long-term best interests of the City for the following reasons: 1.A narrow driveway will provide inadequate emergency access. Due to the lack of City water in the neighborhood, fire fighting requires bringing tank trucks in and setting up tubs, requiring e.xtensive space for lire fighting equipment to operate and maneuver. F Zoning File #2339 February 13, 1998 Page 2 2. Does not provide for potential future 'through' road to Birch Lane. 3. Does not meet long-established City subdivision standards for serving 3 lots. 4. Does not provide public road frontage for the adjacent vacant lot to the west, which will undoubtedly be built on in the future, and which currently gains access via an easement. 5. Requires the granting of back lot area variances for Lots 1 and 2. Two factors which also support the idea of a through road to Birch Lane include: 1. Can be designed to have relatively minimal hardcover impact. 2. Has potential to eliminate a number of driveway accesses directly to County Road 51 . Discussion of Neighborhood Access Concern Please review Exhibit H, which depicts the access for the surrounding neighborhood. Birch Lane is a tiny City road extending eastward from Baldur Park Road. Birch Lane serves 11 existing homes, although its right-of-way is only 20' in width and the pavement is even narrower. Representatives of the Long Lake Fire Department have indicated to staff that Birch Lane in its current condition is a hazard for fire fighting. They indicated they did damage to a fire truck when responding to a gas leak on that street, due to the lack of maneuvering room. In essence, Birch Lane not only serves as the primary access to 7 homes that front on North Shore Drive, but also as the primary access for 4 additional homes which face North Arm Bay. Four additional homes directly east of the end of Birch Lane, are served by a single shared driveway extending northward from North Shore Drive. 1 he northeasterly of these 4 homes has been demolished, leaving a vacant lot directly adjacent to Render’s proposed Lot 1. In staffs opinion, the City would be best served in the future by extending Birch Lane eastward to Tonkawa Road. This would not only provide direct road frontage for the lakeshore lots, but would result in the elimination of long shared driveways seiving the center most lots, and would greatly enhance emergency vehicle access as well as City maintenance access. If sufficient right-of-way can be gained from the currently proposed subdivision, there still is a 300' gap to get to Birch Lane. Obviously, this right-of-way would have to be obtained at some future date in order to make the complete east-west connection. However, if the City does not take adequate right-of-way during the current plat process, such a connection will be that much more difficult in the future. r ' i Zoning File #2339 February 13, 1998 Page 3 There are, of course, certain trade-offs for the neighborhood. Extending Birch Lane to Tonkawa Road certainly would change the character of the neighborhood. Further, 7 additional lots abutting North Shore Drive would technically become through lots, requiring CUPs for construction of accessory buildings. But, direct access to North Shore Drive could ultimately be eliminated, which from a City and County perspective would enhance safety. Staff Recommendation Regarding Future Access Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that this subdivider be required to dedicate right-of- way along the southerly border for the entire width of .he property. The Comprehensive Plan would consider this road, which ultimately would serve as many as 22 residences, to be considered as a local street with a standard right-of-way width cT 50-60 ’. Therefore, staff recommends that a 50' corridor be dedicated as part of the current proposal. «3ne way to minimize the impact of this dedication is to make use of the 8' access easement on »he adjacent property to the south. This roadway easement appears to have been created in the 1950s or earlier, and would need to be confirmed as legitimate by an attorney. Assuming it is usable, only a 42' right-of-way need be platted from applicant's property. E.xhibit I reflects a 42' road dedication and relocated lot boundaries still resulting in conforming lots. Road Construction <& Temporary Cul-de-sac While the developer has indicated he is willing to plat the 42' right-of-way the entire length of the property, he is less interested in building a full scale road and cul-de-sac. In the normal situation, staff would recommend that this 300' segment of road be constructed as part of this subdivision proposal, and a temporary cul-de-sac be developed vvithin the property currently being subdivided. Paved width of the roadway would be at least 28’; the subdivision standards Section 11.33, Subd. 4 indicate that a public street serving more than 10 residences should be 32' wide. However, during the sketch plan review Planning Commission felt there were substantial reasons to not create a cul-de-sac or the appearance of a public street, all related to the site's proximity to the Maxwell Bay access. Planning Commission suggested that a driveway within a private outlot would be less likely to cause traffic or parking problems for the residents, and that Lots 2 and 3 could reduce hardcover impacts by sharing a driveway. Planning Commission also sugge.si J that a'T' turn'”’'' ind for emergency vehicles be considered. When our building inspectors disci ssed this with the Fire Chief in Januarj', his response was that a through road is the best solution, a cul-de-sac for now would be a good temporary situation, but a'T' turnaround is not acceptable. r Zoning File #2339 February 13, 1998 Page 4 Lot Standards and Hardcover Impact T nt Standards. Under staffs recommended layout, all 3 proposed lots wll technically abut a public road and therefore will not require variances from the back lot ordinance. Each proposed lot currently meets the 100 ’ LR-IC zoning district standard for lot width. However, extracting a 42 roa dedication along the south boundary of the property will reduce the total usable acreage frorn . acres to just over 1.6 acres. Lot lines would have to be slightly angled in order to ensure each lot maintains the required 1/2 acre area and 100 ’ width at the shoreline and at the 75’ setback line. Hardcover Impacts. Please review Exhibits F of the sketch plan memo. These ' reality checks indicate the hardcover impacts of applicant's proposal as compared to that of staff. Exhibit F.d does not reflect Planning Commission’s suggested sharing of the driveways for Lots 2 and 3, which provides them with additional hardcover allowance. However, Lot 1 still is e.xtremely liinited un er applicant's proposal due to the length of driveway needed, and by having a 75-250 hardcover allotment slightly smaller than that of Lots 2 and 3 due to the angle of the shoreline. Exhibit F-2 indicates that while the total hardcover attributed to the site increases from 19,600 s.f. to 21,100 s.f. with a short cul-de-sac. Lot 1 gains 75-250' area and can comfortably become conforming to the hardcover requirements. With a road extension to the west, an additional "reality check" drawing has been generated to show the hardcover impacts (see Exhibit J). There is no question that extending the road westward has a negative hardcover impact on Lot 1, but has a lesser impact on Lots 2 and 3 because they ^ larger due to the angle of the shoreline. A comparison of the applicant’s proposal and the "through option currently proposed by staff, is as follows: /Applicant*.*; Pronosal ’Through* Option (42* Loi 1 4775 s.f 3725 s.f Lot 2 4900 s.f 4225 s.f Lot 3 5925 s.f 5330 s.f Hardcover within outlot:4000 s.f Hardcover within road:—8400 s.f 1 lardcover within cul-de-sac;—2600 s.f TOTAL HARDCOVER;19,600 s.f 24,280 s.f with cul-de-sac 21,680 s.f w/road, w/o cul-de-sac % of Total Site:23.7%29.4% with cul-de-sac 26.2% with road only, no cul-de-sac r V IT t.rfv J r Zoning File #2339 February 13, 1998 Page 5 Obviously, creating a road to serve the public interest has a somewhat greater hardcover impact than not providing such a road. In staffs opinion, the public benefits of a road outweigh the negative impact of the excess hardcover. Whether the hardcover associated with the cul-de-sac is excessive is an item for discussion. Engineering Issues Please review the City Engineer's comments, Exhibit G. His comments are summarized as follows: 1. 2. The through street extension should be provided, including a 50’ right-of-way across the southerly end of the property, Utilities include existing sanitary sewer and private wells. Any other utility construction plans should be submitted for review. 3. A grading and erosion control plan for the site is needed. 4. A water quality pond should be located on the site to provide for storm water treatment. No grading or drainage plan has been submitted as of this writing. 5. Standard drainage and utility easements are required. 6. A financial guarantee will be required. General Subdivision Comments 1. 2. 3. Park dedication . This property does not abut any proposed City or County proposed trail system. The Park Commission has recommended payment of a park dedication fee. Access Location . Hennepin County Department of Public Works has been asked to review this proposal. Preliminary discussions with Hennepin County staff indicate the existing/proposed entrance location on Tonkawa is an acceptable location. Floodplain . Applicant's surveyor has confirmed that the property is almost entirely above floodplain elevation except for a portion of the ditch along Tonkawa Road. No filling of the floodplain in conjunction with this project is anticipated. Issues for Discussion and Recommendation 1. Should provisions be made for a future through road connection to Birch Lane? r Zoning File #2339 February 13,1998 Page 6 2. Should the portion of such a road be constructed by the applicant at this time? With or without a temporary cul-de-sac? 3. 4. takes it over when the future connection is made? If this is platted as a public road and the City maintains it, what is Planning Cornmission s recommendation regarding parking restrictions or admitting access to local residents on y, given the proximity to the Maxwell Bay access? Staff Recommendation 1. 2. 5. 6. 7. Platting of a dedicated roadway along the entire length of the south bound^ ^ r requited. The dedicated roadway can be 42' in width if it is confirmed that the City has roadway rights over the 8' adjacent easement. The construction of a 28’ paved roadway with a temporary 80’ dimeter cul-de-sac located approximately between Lots 1 and 2 is recommended, based on fire department "^eds code standards. Note that if this was being proposed as a 2-lot plat, the need to corridor for future through road would still exist, but code would not require the establishment of a road and cul-de-sac at this time, since the threshold for full road status is 3 or more lots. staff recommends that this be maintained as public roadway by the City, but unique circumstance of proximity to the Maxw ell Bay access, limitations on parking an general use by car trailer traffic be considered. No variances should be granted for lot area, lot width, setbacks, or hardcover. If a tem^ cul-de-sac is required, it could be on an easement. Optionally, the hardcover associated with the cul-de-sac would not count against the hardcover allotment for the respective lots. -fhe applicant should address all grading and drainage issues, and develop a plan for a water quality pond on the site per the Engineer ’s recommendation. The standard park dedication fee should be required. The standard drainage and utility easements should be required. r ’ I Zoning File #2339 February 13, 1998 Page 7 Options for Action 1. Recommend approval or conceptual approval per staff lecommendation. 2. Recommend approval or conceptual approval other than staff recommendation. 3. Table for further information. 4. Recommend denial (state reasons). 5.Other. r Application H -^339 Date Received //jl ^ /yjp Amount Paid ^ CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLI PROPERTY location Siicaddress /?CS rOA^^<ii^A Aoji/) Property Identification Number (PID)___ A S Jy Q«5^ Please check one " Property 'X abstract or Attach leyul doscription to application. APPLICANT Name Qc\f»A ns,"X>.'^^Kvc&t< Address jf33J. /ukou Ao S Cit)' _________ torrens? ________Phone (home) ^VV» tpOJz, .. Zip^vjA Phone (work) 8 VV» fSS^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name__Qrov.U,?ujvia>^ Address l3(osr 7?c>i»eL City O/osf to__________________ (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size ____Zip Phone (home) ^(»V I Phone (work)____ ___ Present use (check) Present Zoning District X Acres Dry Land .^cres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units__[_ Other (specify)_________ PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes _____ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Site.s _____/ Existing Units 2. New Units 3 Total Units Number of Building Sites Proposed Gross Densit Minimum Lot Size Proposed L*sc check) Units pel Z Acres 2/y7<p<? Sq. Ft. Dr>' Buildablc Land O.S**c. X Residential _______Other (spe''ify) __ _____ [ v> ■ ’. »• « \ ; - * * ’ > i ' i ..-. ;:! " ’ V. .• •■/ V ■ ^-v* MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLE1 E PUELl 1. of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat informatloD on Certificai.-* of Sur\-ey. -.•» , v . / 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350 ’ (you must outain this li^ffom I-ieilK^in Co^i^b’epaxtoSHfof Finance A-( Govt. Center 348*3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 2 oning Official’s Signature_______________________________________Dale______________________________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLE1 E FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Aj nroval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formri plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature_______________________________ Date I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to ct-cck (XI those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class 1,11 & 111) $250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 X Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/Iot (Class III &. all non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200 00 _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) _____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) _____ Renewal '.f Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) Iq1£ lin. ft. X .50 *= $. lin. ft.x.50 “$ B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; Proposed Public R ads $900.00 $.50/lineal ft.: ____ _____ Request for City »cccpt Existing Private Road $900.00 ____ J____ Proposed Sank j>ewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub ____ _____ Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub ____ _____ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 ____ _____ On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x _____new lots ____ C. Flexible Application Fecs/MIsc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) ____ _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 ____ _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00.T)wslling Unit ____ The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attomt Planning Comm.issicn and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all addit'onal fees established ordinance. (^X " ^ Applicant's SieuatureX(7 13, ) Owner's Signatur Date Date L <2.^- Applicant must have all submittals into tlie City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meeiii are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commissi and Council. If an applicant Is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in yt place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. RUN DATE 01/23/98 BATCH 501 PROP ADOR 0M4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR <MCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 13 0018 01205 TONKAHA RD THOMAS H SMITH A WIFE THOMAS H SMITH 1205 TONKAHA RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 A2 0003 03366 NORTH SHORE OR STATE OF MINNESOTA ONR - REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155 38 08-117-23 A3 0016 03A00 NORTH SHORE OR G J YARNES JR A R L YARNES KENATH R A DONNA J STEIN 3A00 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 AS 0019 03AA0 NORTH SHORE DR DAVID J LINDBER6 OAVIO J LINOBERG 3AA0 NORTH SHORE OR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 A3 0022 03AAA NORTH SHORE DR WILLIAM 0 ROBINSON W 0 ROBINSON 3AAA NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 08-117-23 A2 0001 01220 TONKAHA RD F E GUTTORMSON/C J B DWIGHT F E GUTTORMSON/C J B DWIGHT 1220 TONKAHA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 A2 OOOA 01365 TONKAHA RO G A J PUTNAM GALE L PUTNAM 1365 TONKAHA ROAD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 A3 0017 03A10 NORTH SHORE DR DANIEL F REGAN A WIFE DANIEL F REGAN 3A10 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 A3 0020 03AA2 NORTH SHORE OR GERALD J RAY ETAL GERALD J RAY 3AA2 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 A3 0023 03A50 BIRCH LA E R ENGLER A B ENGLER EDWARD R A DONNIE ENGLER 3AS0 BIRCH LA WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PIA35A01 PAGE I 38 08-117-23 A2 0002 03398 NORTH SHORE OR STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR - REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL MN 55155 38 08-117-23 A2 0005 03A30 NORTH SHORE OR S J A A C TRANICK STEVEN A ALICIA TRAHICK HIROO VISTA HOMES 8301 3-9-16 HIROO, SHIBUYA-KU TOKYO JAPAN 150 38 08-117-23 63 0018 03620 NORTH SHORE OR A A KIVUS ET AL W/L EST AMBROSE A A ALICE J KIVUS 3620 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 63 0021 03<i5J NORTH SHORE DR WILLIAM C OOOEN WILLIAM C OOOEN 3650 NO SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 63 0026 03668 NORTH SHORE DR JAM ERLER JAMES A MARY ERLER 3668 NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 f - Jr» * * V,".- r-r* AS. '•••I #• • • PROP ADOR OWiaR NA»C TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 08-117-23 63 0025 03658 NORTH SHORE OR P E BOWMAN A B D BLAOER PAUL BOIflAN/BARBARA 0 BUDER 3658 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 63 0026 03660 NORTH SHORE DR JOHN G NELSON ETAL JOHN NELSON 3660 NO SHORE OR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 63 0027 03660 BIRCH LA 0 S A 0 K irX^ALSON DOUGLAS A DEBORAH INGVALSON 3660 BIRCH LA NAYZATA MN 55391 \ P RUN DATE 01/2S/9B HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST repo:'.’* no. PI935401 PAGE a BATCH 501 PROP AOOR CM4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 3B 08-117-23 43 0028 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 TOTAL BATCH 501 00019 Cv'L9 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 COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST P OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DAT’iTh), i i 0 50 SCALE \ \ \ \ \ \ \ V \ \ \ \ legal OESCRPTJON Of PREMISES: Thol port of Lots 13. 14 ond 1*5. ‘'LYOIARO* S PARK” Loko Minnetonka \ lytnq northwesterly of o line described os foEows: Beginning ot * 0 point on the southwesterly line of soid Lot 15 distoot 225 feel norIhwesterly \ from the point of intersection of the southwesterly line of soid Lot 15 with the bose line shown on the plot of soid "LYCHARO* S PARK” Loke Lfinnetonko: thence northeosterly perpendiaMy to soid southwesterly line of soid Lot 15 to the northeosterly line of soid Lot 13, ond there ending. V \ \ a \ •A \ \ \ o Iron fnofker Beorings shown ore bosed upon Oh ossumed dotum \ uesJCNtiis^ttl VIMI IN I'AII IWS4 «IM'IN)^ OKAWNSV TiMN & grqnberg. Inc. ■ Coihtiltiiw Lfirii Smrn/tus. Site Plmici:> Tiiniiuack ^Ucnuc • Unig Like, nil612-473-4 m 1 h% fi‘bv uf lilv that ihis \uiva *v w I'frpanU by me or umlrr mv kliriM Mip^^r- .inil llul 1 am a duly Civil tnninrt'f ami I and burvrvor imdvf llu' lau > III Ihi* Stale i»f Minmhkila. SCALI OATT /'23-9a KM NO f7$!0Mark S. Crunbvfg MinnewU Lkmse Ntfmiief 12755 SCA legal de That part lying nort a point 0 from the ^ith the Minnetonk' I V V 50 SCALE /"^\- m.\ . V. \ ■ A'\ \N 7 />/ oW / w /5'W'\\ A > '^OO. , <v'\ .V,V> . \V\'N7 7 7 atir * 7 3 vVKv 28680+- S.F. V \\\0.65+- ACRES V a ^%A\ ^ \ *s 2. 23740+- S.F. 0.54+- ACRtS I\<\$? ■ ■■>n\a ?•■••:• ••...• 2508b+- S.F. \ 0.57+“^ ACRES \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ 100 200 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ V \\ \ \ \ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: That port of Lots 13. 14 and 1’5, "LYDIARD' S PARK" Lake Minnetonka lying northwesterly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southwesterly line of said Lot 15 distant 225 feet northwesterly \ from the point of intersection of the southwesterly line of said Lot 15 with the base line shown on the plot of said "LYDIARD' S PARK" Lake . Minnetonka; thence northeasterly perpendicular to soid southwesterly 'A line of said Lot 15 to the northeasterly line of said Lot 13, und »here ending. V \ Vi«f' \ \ t* \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ V It ? Al- B TO;Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator TROM; DATE; Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator January 13,1998 SUBJECT: #2324 Gale Putnam/James Render, 1365 Tonkawa Road - Sketch Plan for 3 Lot Subdivision Zoning District; LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre, sewered, Site Area: 2.03 acres. Site Width at Lakeshore: 310' ± Site Width at 75' Setback: 306’ ± Site Frontage along Tonkawa Road: 284' ± Proposed Subdivision: 3 single family lots each meeting 100' width at shoreline in 75 ’ setback, and each being approximately 2/3 of an acre in area. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Area Plat Map C - Proposal Option 'A' (Applicant ’s preferred layout with driveway outlot) D" Proposal Option ’B’ (Modified version of A) E - Proposal Option 'C (With cul-de-sac) F - Hardcover ’Reality Check' for Options A and C G - Sewer As-Builts H - Back Lot Ordinance Site Characteristics This 2 acre tax parcel contains a single family residence. The property was originally platted by Livingston A. Lydiard in 1907, and the property is a combination of parts of Lots 13, 14 and 15, "Lydiard's Park". The existing house was built in approximately 1956, and the property has existed as a single tax parcel apparently since the house was constructed. The entire lot has generally been maintained as lawn area. The easterly 1/3 of the property is relatively low, and applicant ’s surveyor will have to confirm whether a portion of the property is Zoning File #2324 January 13, 1998 Page 2 below the 931.5' floodplain elevation. There are no apparent wetlands on the property. The site is fairly open, with some woci^d area along the west side near the house. The surrounding neighborhood contains single family residences on lots of similar area and width as those proposed. 'I he creation of two additional single family building sites as proposed would be in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan and generally would appear to meet the LR-IC zoning district standards. Se.w£L The property was provided with three sewer stubs and fully assessed for sewer in 1963. Subdivision to crc?>te two additional building sites will not require any further sewer connection assessments or charges, other than the standard permit fee and sewer availability (SAC) charge when each new home is constructed. This area of the City does not have City water available, hence private wells will be used. A&fiSSS.^ The site gains access from Tonkawa Road, which is a County Road. Any upgrade of the driveway to serve tw-o additional homes will require review by Hennepin County Department of Public Works. Tonkawa Road contains 66' of right-of-way, which is the correct width for its "scenic parkway" collector status as indicated in the Orono Comprehensive Plan. Tonkawa Road is not included in either the City of Orono or Hennepin County bike/hike trail plans, and there appears to be no indicated need for dedication of additional County Road right-of-way. Lot layout and access to the County Road are the two most significant issues for discussion. The applicant has provided three potential layouts which will be reviewed as to their merits, in order of applicant's highest preference to lowest preference. Proposal A: Three Rectangular Lots with 30' Outlot Access Drive I his proposal results in the most uniform lot layout, with three lots ranging from 0.59 to 0.73 acres. Each lot meets the 100' minimum width standard as well as the 0.5 acre LR-IC minimum lot size requirement. Howe\er, the westerly two lots would be considered as "back lots" when only accessed via a 30’ corridor, and therefore would technically be required to meet 150% of the lot area and side/tront setback standards, which would not be met by this proposal; i.e. back lot area variances would be needed for Lots 1 and 2, and side setbacks would be raised to 15', somewhat limiting the flexibility for house construction. Proposal B: Modified Plan With Lots 2 3 Abutting Tonkawa In order to address the problem of creating two back lots, applicant has devised a modified layout which has both Lots 2 and 3 abutting the County Road, with Lot 1 therefore becoming a back lot whici. meets the 0.75 acre standard. Lots 2 and 3, by virtue of being lakeshore lots, only have to meet the 100' width standard at the lakeshore and at the 75' setback, but are not required to meet it Zoning File #2324 January 13, 1998 Page 3 at the road. While this plan technically meets code standards, it creates the need for an additional driveway access serving Lot 3 directly onto the County Road. The subdivision code indicates that development of new single family residences on major roads should be served by interior road systems and direct driveway access to the major roads should be limited. Also, under this layout Lot 3 is just 0.50 acre and therefore maybe somewhat more limited in development flexibility than Proposals A or C. Proposal C: Cul-de-sac Serving All 3 Lots Proposal C results in 3 lots that meet all City requirements and which are served by a short cul-de- sac. While this plan would appear to be the most conforming of the three proposals, applicant notes that creation of a cul-de-sac adds a significant amount of hardcover as compared to Proposals A or B. In Plan C, Lot 2 is the most limited in acreage and hardcover potential, but still would be allowed as much as 3,570 s.f. of hardcover. See Exhibit F-2. For example, the existing house (e.xcluding the detached garage) has a footprint of approximately 2,250 s.f A similar house could be built on proposed Lot 2, and adding a 200 s.f deck and 100 s.f for sidewalks, could have appro umately a 1,000 s.f driveway. At a nominal 16' width, the driveway could be approximately 62' in length. The result is that the house would have to be set back approximately 100-110’ from the lake in order to minimize driveway length to meet the hardcover standards. Lot 3 at 0.60 acre is slightly less limiting, however. Lot 1, even w'ith 0.68 acre, would probably use up the extra hardcover allow'ance in additional driveway length. Each of the three lot proposals results in lots that are somewhat limited by the 25% hardcover allowance for the 75-250 zone. By contrast, a 2 lot subdivision w'ith each lot being appro.ximately 1 acre, could result in much greater flexibility for new' home construction with relatively greater ability to meet the hardcover standards. Cul-de-sac Pros and Cons Note that the cul-de-sac as shown in Concept Plan C would be only 150 ’ in total length, being the shortest cul-de-sac road developed to-date in the City. We have many other cul-de-sac roads seiz ing just three homes, but virtually all others are much greater in length' Because this is an urban density zone, the Comprehensive Plan suggests thai this cul-de-sac road would be dedicated i public and maintained by the City. By code, the minimum paved width foi- the str.iight segment s ould be 24, with an 80' diameter cul-de-sac, resulting in total hard surface for the entire site, including road, of 21,000 s.f (assuming all three lots are conforming to the 75- 250 zone 25% limit). This translates to about 24% of the entire property ending up hardcover, or r Zoning File #2324 January 13, 1998 Page 4 about 32% of the 75-250' zone. The creation of a conforming cul-de-sac actually would result in more hardcover than the City's development standard for lakeshore lots. This impact could be reduced by making the cul-de-sac diameter smaller, or eliminating it all together. The question then is whether cul-de-sac is strictly necessary. The code would require such cul-de-sac for public safety purposes primarily, i.e. for emergency vehicle ingress and egress, for ease of access for residents, perhaps to provide additional neighborhood parking, and for ease of maintenance. However, without the cul-de-sac the most distant home (Lot 1) would have a driveway 250' in length, which is not extremely unusual in rural Orono, not as common in the urban area of the City. The cul-de-sac likely would be desirable from a fire fighting staging standpoint. The public cul-de- sac layout also eliminates the need for homeowners' association and concerns about road maintenance. On the down side, though, such a large cul-de-sac will unquestionably change the visual character of the immediate neighborhood, and if this is a public road, there may be concerns about its use as a turnaround by boat trailer traffic when the Maxwell Bay access across the road is full. If this is a public road, the City should not restrict its use by the public. If it becom.ee a private road, the property owners would have greater control of its use in exchange for assuming maintenance responsibility. Staff Recommendation The intent of this sketch plan review is to provide the applicant with direction as to what type and magnitude of variances might be granted for development of this property, and to provide direction regarding how the road access should oe developed. Staff recommends as follows: 1.Option C most clearly meets the City's standards for providing access to urban density properties. Option C with a 24' private road with 80' diameter private cul-de-sac preserves the emergency access needs at the expense of eating up slightly more hardcover, and limiting the development capability of each lot due to hardcover. Making the cul-de-sac a private road preserv es the property owners' rights to control the use of that road, especially given the probable pressure on it by boating traffic. 2.Option A is less attractive from the public safety standpoint, but provides each lot somewhat greater flexibility. Option A requires variances to the City's road standard (3 lots requires a developed road) and also requires back lot area variances for Lots 1 and 2. Also. Lots 1 and 2 would have somewhat less flexible building envelopes due to the 15' side setbacks required because they are both back lots. The angle of the shoreline suggests that the houses will also be angled as compared to the side lot lines. 3.Option B is the least attractive to staff because it forces the creation of a separate access driveway onto the County Road for Lot 3. Lot! vnder Option B is still a backlot and subject to the 15' side setbacks which limit the shape of any house to be developed. Lots ! 'd 2 r Zoning File #2324 January 13, 1998 Page 5 would presumably share a driveway access via the Outlot, which is permissible, but the real tradeoff is the addition of a new driveway onto Tonkawa Road which should be avoided. Note that the building envelope for Lot 3 would be quite restrictive since the lot line along Tonkawa Road becomes a front lot line requiring a 30' setback, and with a 10' west side setback, leaves only 66' in functional width. Of greater concern is that Lot 3 would have only 1,600 s.f, of available hardcover allowance, certainly not enough to develop a residence with amenities such as sidewalks, driveways and decks. 4. As part of the normal subdivision process, a grading/drainage/stormwater management plan will have to be developed; the standard easements granted; park dedication fees paid; and if a public/private road is constructed, a developers agreement and financial guarantee will be required. Action Requested Provide applicant with direction as to how this property should develop, addressing the following issues; 1. 2. 3. 4. Which layout is most appropriate? Of the layouts which require variances to certain City code standards, which, if any, could be granted variances? Are there hardships or unique site conditions that justify variances? If the road with cul-de-sac is the preferred layout, should that road be public or private? Should the cul uc sac dimensional standards be relaxed to some extent to minimize the impact on the neighborhood while preserving the public safety interest (for instance if this is a private cul-de-sac, could it be developed with a small landscape area in the middle, to maintain the continuous loop for emergency vehicle access but minimize the expanse of asphalt)? This would be a bad idea from a Public Works maintenance perspective, is not as good from a public safety standpoint, but may be quite helpful from a neighborhood view- standpoint. , Would hardcover variances be allowed for any of the lots? Assuming the answer is no, under Planning Commission's preferred layout can all three lots be suitably developed within the hardcover standards? Or should this be a two-lot plat? r F-l V IK VVC /'^•‘S /VfLeAof HC == /5,(,0 0 t>o^ Ti,^ 7;-/rC? ' p^T'O U&usc zsTSo Decf^ ;.ooo L'^c.vKS /if 2BC>0 ir^isV' /5AjrA=|^^i?oO ^ow<.c' = 2.2.SI> l/jOtv'.^s - "^/nv^e^tc^- ?.lQO _ t/BS^ 7r'?r6 ’A.W^ i 23,700 (V0t4-ie =r 2,5D0 DeC^e- r 37,C W^McSr- 1-2,5^ pmuo^J«si r 2SC>C> 5t/ST:> »,r/F^.-r/^ '»»A.«'i£rt'« «•><.,.«.2B.0 •/ ' / nr^p'■^K ' i r 0<?no^'cJ rtc ,A. ^s >-^- '/ . Aizirft (5F AC /►J w#'- * /"-a h/2^% r*.‘ r*» •—'•*■*■•«• •''%-• / UT I V^vv- •2e,'c>C) /.rr 2. i Z,f*T -5 * 7S - V cc:»' A»:< Ar~H,ijr^o */'-2V0 /P(Cx^^ House' 75^0 DecK- yDc?<p 10A;.»;5 jzr Ta-«-i zoo It- ‘ t v'*‘ ^ l)n"jt/.fsM /^^c^ Prv«',v >roo yOt'c ^fHI P ^ <'5' c? •ZZ^IDO •/ ^S5. .- 24.8. X «V5'C>C» ' 2^S/•■''/• L -' ^.jianikk-^pf«.*=xr-nr« a ^kausnu jtikkMrn<<3<n»fi k.:£T.^ ivwiu^u.^ / / / MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#20 - #2321 Dan Anderson - Continued) Schroeder stated the septic regulations govern the planning of development and no exceptions would be made in regards to septic. McMillan indicated the difficulty in obtaining two septic sites for 2 acre lots. Otto said the slopes are also a concern as well as the 6% restriction. Otto indicated that the Lot 3 septic sites are 6% for the primary side on the north side and 8% for the alternate. Lindquist informed him that all septic sites must be conforming. Gaffron said sewering w'ould make it easier for building sites, but then; is no plan for sewering and the property is not within the MUSA. He noted the Council is reviewing expansion of 2 acre zoning but it is difficult to predict what will occur in the future. Plans for alternate sites are required but they may not be needed in the future. »There w'ere no public comments. (#21) #2324 JAMES RENDER, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 1365 TONKAWA ROAD - to subdivide the parcel into three lots for residential development Mark Gronberg represented the applicant. Gaffron reported that the sketch plan is for a two acre site located across from Maxwell Bay in the 1/2 acre zoning. The 3-lot subdivision will meet the width requirements in the LR-IC Zoning District. Three options are being provided for the development. Option A is the preferred layout. It would include an outlot driveway at a 30' width. A private road is required for the three lots. Lots 1 and 2 require back lot area variances where 3/4 acres is required. Option B is a modified plan with two lots abutting the County road. An outlot would serve the back lot and meet the 3/4 acre standard. Lot 3 becomes somewhat limited in its development flexibility in this scenario and would creates the need for an additional driveway access. Option C includes a short cul-de-sac and is the most conforming of the three proposals. No width variance is required but there w ould be alot of hardcover due to the road. There are also potential changes to the character of the neighborhood in this proposal. Gaffron reviewed the pros and cons for a cul-de-sac. This would be the shortest cul-de- sac developed to date in the City. The minimum paved width for a private road is 24' and 20' for a public driveway. The total hard surface for the entire site, including the road, would be 21,000 s.f. or 24% of the property. This assumes that all three lots are conforming to the 25% hardcover limitation in the 75-250' zone. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#21 - #2324 James Render - Continued) Staff sees both good and bad points to having a cul-de-sac. A cul-de-sac wou. J meet code and not significant add to hardcover. A road could be developed if made private for maintenance control by the residents. Gronberg was asked what the best solution was, and he said that the owner is concerned with the use of the property by the public. The character of the neighborhood is also a concern. He felt Option A is a simpler plan with the three lots and a County road on one side. He felt there was a need for three lots. A shared driveway, however, is a possibility. McMillan was informed that Lot 1 exceeded hardcover limitations as drawn. The three lots would be limited and have similar homes. Gronberg said the owner understands that no variances are allowed. The plan is to leave the existing house on the properly. Gaflfron said if a cul-de-sac was built, it could be made smaller. The fire department would prefer this option for staging purposes. McMillan questioned how it could be made smaller, citing example of an island. An island would make it difficult to plow. Hawn asked what effect a shared driveway would have for the fire department. Gronberg asked whether an approved fire turn, or Y shape, could be used. Gaffron said the hardcover would be about half the amouiu as a cul-de-sac. Schroeder asked Gaffron to review the fire turn or Y with the fire department Smith said she would like to see all three driveways from a single driveway and submitted or review or with a variation of a cul-de-sac. (#22) #2329 BOB WAADE, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 3280 AND 3290 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - to develop townhouses in the LR-lC-1 District Robert and Iris Waade were present. Gaflfron reported the sketch plan is for development of property directly east of Lakeside Marina, also known as the Straley property, which was owned for a time by the DNR for a possible access site. The proposal is to divide the property into two lots, each containing a duplex. The property is in the LR-lC-1 Zoning District and is within 200 of commercial zoning. This creates some options for the property with either duplexes or a PRD, attached units with a 3 unit per acre density. The sketch plan presented is for duplexes. This property has gone through several rezonings. The Shoreland regulations affect the property as a PRD requiring a tiering concept regarding the number of units on site, with less development, and located further back on the lot. The plan is for the duplex concept and meeting code. \ ^ m Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & |\J| Associates Engineers & Architects January 30, 1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Render Subdivision File No. 139-2339 Dear Mike: Boneuroo. Rosene. Anderlik ^nd Associates. Inc is *in Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer Principals Olio Q Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Andcfbk. PE • Miwm L Sorvala. PE • Richard E Turner. PE • Glersn R Coon. PE. • Robert G Schunichi. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene. PE. and Susan M Eberiin. C PA. Senior Consultants Assocuite Principals Howard A Sanford, PC • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferfe. PE • Richard W Foster. PE • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C. Russek. AIA • Mark A Hanson. PE Michael T Rauimann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P. Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Williamson. PE . L S • Robert F Kotsmith Offices St Paul. Rochester Willmar and St Cloud. MN* • Milwaukee. Wl '"^8 2 m CITVO?oso,vo We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the proposed three lot subdivision for James Render. The site is located at 1365 Tonkawa Drive (C.R.135) north of North Shore Drive (C.R.51) in the southeast quarter of Section 8. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access: Outlet A as shown on the plat does not provide adequate width for a public or private street as outlined in the City Ordinance. A minimum right-of-way of 50 feet should be provided for cither public or private streets. Private streets .serving three to seven units must be paved 24 feet wide. Public streets should be paved to 28 feet in width. We recommend that the shared driveway to .serve Lots 2 and 3 be reconsidered. A cul-de-sac would provide more room for emergency vehicle turning movements than the proposed shared driveway / hammer handle design. Outlot A should be extended to the westerly property lire of Lot 1 if the City is considering a future easterly extension of Birch Lane. The construction of Birch Lane to Tonkawa Road could eliminate a substandard shared driveway and reduce the number of accesses onto C.R. 51. The fire department should review the plans and provide comments. Plans should be submitted to Hennepin County for their review. 2. Utilities: Sanitary sewer exists along the southerly lot line of the property. Sewer stubs have been provided to the 3 proposed lots. The well location for the existing house should be shown on the final plans. Utility construction plans should be submitted for review. 3. Grading: A grading and erosion control plan for the entire site should be submitted for review. Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any grading, particularly along the lakeshore. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the houses. 4. Drainage: The draft version of the City ’s Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies within the North Arm drainage district. The entire site drains northerly to the lake. A water quality pond should be located on the site to provide for stonn water treatment. A drainage area map w ith pre and post development calculations should be submitted for review. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612*636*4600 ■ Fax: 612*636*1311 r i » I Mr. Michael P. Gaffron City of Orono Page 2 January 30. 1998 RCCciV.' f’tB 2hyo ClTYOrOac. j 5. Easements: The utility easements shown appear acceptable. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetlands and drainage ways. 6. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (604-4863) if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLTK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono : J HENNEPIN COUNTY \ o ; Iron morkcr Scorings shown ore bosed upon on assumed dolum \ *t^'- ■ ' n-L-'. - .A' V/f«£)U6H' OfT70M AtXGuJet^ f'C- . ,i'rt5(j ii- Anet^eFhc i>^ ■7> f<acfti»b^ BD«.V. I 7?'25t>' AA' A'*/V,9^ Houser '2r®c» DecK- 5^)0 bJ/vt-KS '^Piwv /c ^I'Ja V )foC> 2- •7if' ? A^t'ft- “ /fot^Sf 72-S^ t)ecte. 2oo /6D r^rfiurwAV /Oc>q__ 32rrO 4. 3 4^*r ^ 7f,^?C>' AU’t. ' 2^110 2-500 WC^k- -2-5^ l/i/vcvi-t \2-^ V)v^^utl^»fe*^^|^^0 ^^30 or . ^730 t?i,’?o = 23.1 % P'r/tveti fPP REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION r, 9 C,TV c onoMO Date: March 6, 1998 Item No ' // Department Approval:Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Item Description: #2341 Dan Anderson, 905 Old Crvstal Bay Road - Preliminary' Plat Approval Resolution Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Unsevvered Site Area: Proposal: 17.5 Acres ± 7 Lot Residential Subdivision (Single Family Homes) List of Exhibits A - Draft Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 3/2/98 C - Comments from Hennepin County Public Works 2/12/98 D - Draft Tree, Woodland and Vegetation Preservation Easement E - Memo and Exhibits of 2/12/98 Overview This is a preliminary' plat for the 17.5 acre Carpenter property located just north of Norenberg Park on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road. Seven single family lots will be created, three of which will abut Maxwell Bay. This property is outside the MUSA and will be serv’ed by septic systems and wells. Applicant proposes to provide access to all lots via a 700' cul-de-sac private road. 1 he property contains some woodland, and a bluff feature along most of the shoreline wliich will impact lake setbacks. Please review the memo and exhibits of February 12! Major Aspects of Proposal Important aspects of the p. ^posal as reviewed by the Planning Commission include: Lot width variances required for Lots 2 & 3 which are on the cul-de-sac #2341 - Dan Anderson March 6, 1998 Page 2 Private road horizontal curve radius variance from 275' to 125' requested, based on protection of drainfield sites, especially in Lot 1 Existing residence on Lot 1 will remain, meets all setback requirements but needs a new septic system Lots 1 and 2 technically are 'through' lots, any future accessor>’ structures need CUP Lots 4,5 and 6 are the only riparian lots, and have buildable envelopes very restricted by septic sites, lake setbacks and bluff impact zone setbacks. Staff is recommending that these three lots be exempt from average lakeshore setback requirements which would have little or no positive protective impacts given the size, orientation, and restrictions inherent in these lots. Grading is proposed in Lot 6 to create a walkout building pad about 150’ from lake Neighborhood comments at Public Hearing resulted in PC recommendation to require a 1 5' trail easement along east property boundary abutting Old Crystal Bay Road, to leave this as a potential trail corridor option even though it could negatively impact septic sites and require significant retaining walls Planning Commission recommended that a Tree, Woodland and Vegetation Preservation Easement be required to protect the unique wooded shoreline. Applicant has conceptually agreeed to grant such an casement. Such an casement has been drafted by staff for Council and applicant review and comment (Exhibit D) Hennepin County has requested additional 7' of right-of-way for Old Crystal Bay Road. The official Hennepin County Bike Trail Plan docs not show a trail here, and the Orono Comp Plan only calls out the need for the existing 66' of R.O.W. Staff recommends no added R.O.W. be required. No stormwater ponding has been proposed. This is the single critical shortcoming of the current proposal, in staffs opinion. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission first reviewed this in January as an 8-lot sketch plan with two private roads and a driveway. Applicant was advised to make a number of revisions to that plan prior to formal plat application submittal. The plan was revised to 7 lots ser\ed by a single private road, and r I 3 i I it . r #2341 - Dan Anderson March 6, 1998 Page 3 reviewed by Planning Commission at a public hearing on Februaiy' 17. Planning Commission recommended as follows: 1. Approval of lot width variances for Lots 2 & 3. Acceptance of proposed access for Lot 7; all existing accesses to Old Crystal Bay Road shall be eliminated. 3.Approve private road radius of 125' as proposed due to septic site impacts if a conforming radius is required. 4. 5. Applicant to grant a 15' trail easement along easterly boundary of property, Applicant to develop stormwater ponding or provide a letter from MCWD re: ponding. 6.No bluff impact variances will be granted; revise grading, etc. for Lots 5 & 6 to be conforming. 7.Applicant to grant a tree/woodland/natural vegetation preservation easement specifically for the areas abutting Maxwell Bay. 8. Adherence to normal development requirements. Stormwater/Drainage/Grading Plan At this time, applicant has not proposed any stormwater ponding on site. The City Engineer has recommended that stormwater ponding be provided for this site. This also needs MCWD review. The City has consistently required stormwater ponds for this type and magnitude of residential development, and developer has provided staff with virtually no strong basis to suggest that it is not needed for this site. It appears to staff that drainage from the private road and a portion of the east half of the property could be directed to a pond that could be developed near the entamce of the private road. Development of such a pond might result in lot areas being somewhat smaller, since the City does not credit stormwater ponding easements toward dr>’ buildable lot area. 1-1 r #2341 - Dan Anderson March 6, 1998 Page 4 Septic Testing and Site Availability Steve Weekman has confirmed that all lots have viable primary and alternate sites, and that future testing would be needed to confirm whether less costly trench systems can be used on certain sites where mounds are now acceptable. Actual system designs for each lot have not been submitted, and they will be required prior to final plat approval. Bluff Impacts Lots 5 and 6 contain a bluff, and the 'top of bluff was defined by staff during the sketch plan review. A 30 ’ setback from top of bluff is required for any structures, and fill or excavated material is not allowed to be placed within the bluff impact zone. The top of bluff as depicted in the preliminary plat for Lot 5 does not match the top of bluff location identified by staff, and top of bluff actually is very near the proposed house location on Lot 5. Lot 5 has a very restrictive building site due to the street setback and top of bluff setback requirements. This lot appears to be the least flexible of the lots in regards to house placement. The top of bluff needs to be accurately depicted for Lot 5 on a revised version of the final plat drawings, for future reference. Tree and Woodland Impacts: Easement Proposed Tree lines and wooded areas are shown on the topographic background map (See Exhibit 1 of Sketch Plan memo). Most of the wooded areas are near the shoreline or along the west property boundary. The dense woods along the shoreline will be under tremendous pressure. We could expect that individual homeowTiers will want to establish views of the lake from their new homes, by thinning the woods or creating open corridors to the lake. Such changes in the nature of the shoreline landscape would be unfortunate in the context of this virtually untouched arm of Maxwell Bay. The tree preser\'ation ordinances currently in place would disallow cutting any 6" or larger diameter tree within 75' of the shoreline, and prohibit 'intensive vegetation clearing' within 75' of the shoreline, on steep slopes and in the bluff impact zone. During the sketch plan review. Planning Commission agreed that it would be appropriate to require that some type of 'tree conservation easement’ be specifically developed for this site. This would appear to be possible under the provisions of Section 11 .60, Subd. 1 . The developer should also be required to plant boulevard trce.s along all roads per the subdivision code requirements. A draft Tree, Woodland and Vegetation Preservation Easement is attached for council review and comment. #2341 - Dan Anderson March 6, 1998 Page 5 Issues for Discussion 1. 2. 3. 4. Will Council approve lot width variances for the two cul-de-sac lots? Will Council approve a variance for the 125' road radius? Does Council concur with Planning Commission in requiring granting of the 15' trail easement along Old Crystal Bay Road? Should the value of such easement be subtracted from the park dedication fee? Does Council see any reason applicant should not be required to provide stormwater ponding for this development? 5. Does Council have any specific concerns, comments or suggestions regarding the trec/woodland/vegetation preservation easement? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends conceptual approval of this preliminary plat, subject to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Applicant to develop a stormwater management plan for the site to include water quantity and quality ponding (this may have an impact on lot layout). Applicant to address other street and storm sewer design and site drainage issues raised by City Engineer in letter of 2/12/98. If changes to the road design, grading plan or stormwater pond development will cause significant changes to the lot layout. Council may wish to refer this back to Planning Commission for further review. Applicant to revise preliminary plat drawings and grading plans to correctly depict the top of bluff and bluff impact zones and eliminate any grading encroachments of same. Applicant advised that final septic system designs for each lot will be required prior to final plat approval. 6. Extension of the 60-day statutory review period to 120 days (to 5/23/98). The attached Resolution for Preliminary Plat Approval is presented for review purposes only and will likely require revision based on Council's action. Staff recommends that the applicant be given conceptual direction as noted above, and the application tabled until the remaining issues are addressed. #2341 - Dan Anderson March 6, 1998 Page 6 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Give applicant conceptual direction on issues of note, and table the application for additional information. iJW**JO*v;* 1J V ■. aff Wf i > AUkitua aian wi mti «Bai.i^7~rLr. i A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS III SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 905 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH - FILE NO. 2341 WHEREAS, Dan Anderson (hereinafter the "subdivider") on January 23,1998, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a seven lot residential plat of property legally described as: Beginning at a point on the East line of Lot 7, Section 9, Township 117, Range 23, 17.14 rods South of the Northeast comer of said Lot 7; thence West parallel with the North line of said Lot 7, 28 rods; thence South parallel with and 28 rods from East line of said Lot 7 to shore of Lake; thence Southeasterly along said lake shore to East line of said Lot 7; thence North on said East line of Lot 7 to point of beginning; except that part thereof described as follows: Beginning at a point on East line of said Lot 7, 17.14 rods South of the Northeast comer of said Lot 7; thence West parallel with North line of said Lot 7, 28 rods; thence South parallel with and 28 rods from East line of said Lot 7, 20 feet; thence East at right angles to said last mentioned line 28 rods to East line of said Lot; thence North 20 feet to point of beginning. AND Commencing at the Southwest comer of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 117, Range 23; thence North 6.57 chains to the center line of the Crystal Bay Road (so called), thence Southeasterly along the center line of said road 11.89 chains to the South line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 9, thence West along said South line 10 chains to the place of beginning, all according to the United States Government survey thereof. AND All that part of Government Lot Seven (7), Section Nine (9). Township One Hundred Seventeen (117) North, Range Twenty-three (23) West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point on a line drawn parallel with and twenty-eight (28) rods distant from the East line of said Government Lot Seven (7), Which said point is three hundred two and eighty-one hundreds (302.81) feet South of the North line of said Government Lot Seven (7); thence Southwesterly along a line which makes an angle of twelve degrees, fiftj-four minutes, and forty seconds with said line which is pan<;iel with and twenty-eight (28) rods distant from the East line of said Government Lot Seven (7), a distance of seven hundred sLxty-sLx and seventy-six hundreds (766.76) feet; thence Southerly parallel with the East line of said Government Lot Seven (7) to the Page 1 of 10 shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence Southeasterly along said shore of Lake Minnetonka to a point in a line drawn parallel with and nventy-eight (28) rods distant from the East line of said Lot Seven (7); thence North along said line parallel with and twenty-eight (28) rods distant from the East line of said Lot Seven (7) to the point of beginning. All in Hennepin County, Minnesota. (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's Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 17, 1998, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meetings held on March 9, 1998, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdivider noting the following findings of fact: 1. 3. The property is located within the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. The property contains a total of approximately 17.5 acres of land. The only wetlands located on the property include two wetlands adjacent to and within the floodplain of Lake Minnetonka, comprising less than 0.1 acre in total area. All portions of such wetlands located above the 929.4 OHWL shall be subject to a Flowage and Conservation Easement. The proposed plat consists of seven residential lots each meeting the minimum lot standard requirements of the LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, except as follows: Lots 2 and 3 front on the proposed cul-de- sac and do not meet the defined minimum 200' lot width requirement as measured at the rear line of the defined front yard. Lot 2 has a defined width of 110' and Lot 3 has a defined width of 170 ’. However, the granting of a lot width variance for these lots is justified by the fact that each of Lots 2 and 3 contains a suitable building site meeting all required lot line setbacks without the need for further variances. Page 2 of 10 r 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Lots 1 and 2 are 'through' lots subject to a conditional use permit requirement for placement of any accessory structures. Lots 4, 5 and 6 have ver>' restrictive building envelopes due to topography, bluff impact zones, and drainfield sites, which in combination leave little flexibility for the location of the homes to be constructed. Each of these three Lots contains sufficient width, and each is oriented in a manner in relation to the shoreline such that application of the average lakeshore setback ordinance to these Lots will not serve its intended purpose of preserving adjacent Lots' views. Therefore it is appropriate to exempt said three Lots from having to meet 'average lakeshore setback' standards. The property contains approximately 800' of relatively undisturbed, heavily wooded Lake Minnetonka bluff shoreline abutting Maxwell Bay, located across said Bay from Norenberg Park. As one of the relatively few such undisturbed areas left on Lake Minnetonka, this unique natural feature is of such value to the public, especially as viewed from the lake, that special protection measures are warranted in order to preserv'e such features in as natural a state as possible. All lots have been found to have adequate and suitable soils for on-site septic treatment facilities providing both a primary and alternate site for each of the seven lots. Final septic system designs are required for each lot. Lot 1 contains an existing residence structure which meets all n' juired setbacks for the LR-IA district. However, said residence is serv^ed by a septic system which has not been located and which is likely non-conforming and which is likely to be located outside the boundaries of Lot 1 . All seven Lots shall be served by a private road designated on the plat as Outlet A. The private road proposed to be constructed in Outlet A is proposed with a horizontal curve radius of 125' where City code standards require a 275' radius. The 125' radius will be approved based on the short length of the road (700') Page 3 of 10 and because the 125’ radius allows a design speed of 20-25 mph which is not inappropriate for this length road. The variance is further justified in order to protect drainfield sites which would otherwise be eliminated if the road was designed to meet the 275' radius standard. 11. THE CITY ENGINEER HAS RECOMMENDED THAT STORMWATER PONDING FACILITIES BE DEVELOPED FOR THE SITE AND SUCH PONDING HAS NOT BEEN PROPOSED, HENCE THE PLAT LAYOUT MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGES WHICH AFFECT THIS APPROVAL!!!! 12. Thomas D. Johnson, Transportation Planning Engineer for the Hennepin County Department of Transportation, in his letter of February 12, 1998, approved the proposed curb cut location to Old Crystal Bay Road (County Road 84). 13. The City will nfit require that an additional 7 feet of right-of-way as requested by Hennepin County be granted for Old Crystal Bay Road , because the Orono Comprehensive Plan categorizes County Road 84 as a 'scenic parkway' requiring only a 66' right-of-way width, and any future trail needs can be accomodated via a 15' easement along the right of way which the developer has agreed to grant. The Hennepin County Bicycle Trail System Plan dated Septemebr 1996 does not include a trail at this location along County Road 84. 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 Dan Anderson at 905 Old Crystal Bay Road South per preliminary plat drawings by Edward J. Otto, a licensed surveyor of Otto Associates Engineers and Land Sur\eyors, Inc., dated January 23, 1998, most revised date January 29, 1998, subject to the following conditions; 1. A variance will be granted for width of Lots 2 and 3 which do not meet the 200' width requirement of the LR-IA District. 2. A variance will be granted to allow a horizontal curve radius of 125' for the private road in order to preserve identified drainfield sites. Page 4 of 10 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 3 Lots 4, 5 and 6 shall be exempt from meeting the 'average lakeshore setback standards of the Orono Zoning Code. 4. Lots 4, 5 and 6 are subject to City Shoreland regulations regarding protection of the bluff located on said Lots. Setbacks for all principal residence construction shall be as depicted on the preliminary plat drawing. All Lots shall access to the private road in Outlot A. No direct access to Old Crystal Bay Road shall be allowed for any Lot. All existing accesses to Old Crystal Bay Road shall be removed prior to City final approval of the private road construction. The private road in Outlot A shall be constructed to City private road requirements, subject to a Developers Agreement to be executed between the City and the developer. Private road construction can begin as soon as the engineering plans for the road have been approved by the City and the Developers Agreement has been executed. The private road shall be allowed to access directly to County Road 84 subject to conditions for such access as imposed by the Hennepin County Department of Public Works in their required access permit. 10. 11. 12. Driveway to serve Lot 7 shall extend from the private road in Outlot A within the portion of said Outlot extending along Old Crystal Bay Road. The private road shall be privately owned and maintained per the approprwte access easemcnt/maintcnance documents to be executed by the developer. e developer shall create a homeowners association for such ownership an maintenance. No building permits will be issued until the private road base work has been completed and been approved by the City. The developer shall grant to the City an underlying Road and Utilities Easement for Outlot A. Page 5 of 10 . Ill I iii'iiiir~iiTiiiiiiin‘—^**“^ 4J 17. 18. 13. The proposed grading plan for creation of a building pad within Lot 6 shall be revised to result in no encroachment of the bluff impact zone. 14. Subdivider shall plant boulevard trees along the pri\'ate road per the requirements of Section 1 1.60 Sub. 2. 15. SUBDIVIDER TO DESIGNATE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS OVER ALL DRAINAGEWAYS AND STORMWATER PONDS WITHIN PLAT. 16. Subdivider is hereby advised that the City will not grant final plat approval until the MCWD has approved for all grading and drainage improvements on the property. All identified primary and alternate sewage system drainfield sites within the subdivision shall be fenced off prior to any land alterations, and such fencing remain in place until such time that each Lot is developed. Subdivider shall develop covenants for each lot for protection of drainfield sites within each Lot. Covenants shall include protective language for alternate septic sites along with site plans locating both primaiy and alternative sites. Applicant shall include language alerting future property owners of need to protect sites on adjacent properties. 19. Applicant shall submit complete and acceptable septic system designs for each lot prior to final plat approval. 20. Subdivider shall be responsible for installing a new conforming septic system to serve existing residence on Lot 1 within 1 year of the date of final plat approval. 21. Subdivider shall grant a Flowage and Conservation over those portions of wetland located above the 929.4 OHVVL. 22. Subdivider shall grant a Tree, Woodland and Vegetation Preser\ation easement over the shoreline and bluff impact areas within Lots 4, 5 and 6. Page 6 of 10 L - nrr-i^- 23. Subdivider to grant a Bike Trail, Drainage and Utility easement 15' wide adjacent to Old Crystal Bay Road (County Road 84). 24. Payment of standard Park Dedication Fee, in addition to the granting of an easement for the trail. 25. Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminary subdivision s’^proval will e.xpire within one year of the date of Council approval,__________, 1999. Should the subdivider fail to complete the filing of the final plat application within the year deadline, it shall be necessary for the subdivider to file a new preliminary subdivision application with the City. Final Plat Submittals: The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 1. Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City ’s records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: a.Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Edward J. Otto of Otto Associates Engineers and Land Sur\eyors, Inc. dated January 23, 1998, most recent revision January 29, 1998. Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along the exterior boundaries of property and 5' along the internal lot lines. 15' drainage and utility easement adjacent to County Road 84 to include trail easement in favor of City (refer to special form attached). c. Dedication of right-of-way for County Road 84 at 33'. Page 7 of 10 r d.Designation and dedication of drainage easements over detention ponds and drainageways as shown on preliminary plat.. e. f. Designation of Outlot A to sen^e as a private roadway. The naming of plat. 2. 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 Developer's Agreement and letter of credit for approved site improvements and construction of private road (Outlot A), drainage facilities, etc. d.Signed and executed Tree, Woodland and Vegetation Preservation Easement. e.Signed and executed Drainage Easements to be taken over drainageway and detention areas within plat. f.Signed and executed Drainage, Utilities and Trail easement over 15' wide drainage and utility easements adjacent to County Roads (sec sample enclosed). Signed and executed Flowage and Conser\ation Easement over w’etlands located above the 929.4' OIIWL. h. Signed and executed Road and Utilities Easement over Outlot A. i. Signed and executed "Declaration of Private Road Easement and Declaration of Maintenance for Same". Page 8 of 10 r 3. J Completed private covenant for all Lots regarding protection of drainfield sites. Covenants to include protective language for primary and alternate drainfield sites and to include the site plans locating both the primary and alternate sites. Subdivider to develop language alerting future owners of need to protect sites on adjacent properties. Covenants must be in a form suitable for filing. The City has samples of protective covenants used by former developers. Subdivider may wish copies and should notify City. k. Completed "Application for Private Road Name" Fees to be paid: Total due: S400.00* Final plat fee = $200.00a. b. Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents $200.00 c.♦Park Dedication Fee: amount shall be determined as soon as City Assessor has placed a fair market value on the undeveloped land at the time of preliminary plat approval. The subdivider shall be advised as soon as Assessor's report has been filed with City. Park dedication fee shall be based on 8% of the fair market value of land within Lots 2 through 7. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this__day of March, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) Page 9 of 10 - — - r s> 44 ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this ___ day of March, 1998, by Gabriel Jabbour & Linda S. Vee, 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 10 of 10 L ‘L •• kV y.* L r 6 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Dan Anderson 3540 Montgomerie Ave Deephaven MN 55391 ZONING FILE #2341 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: March 2, 1998 COPIES: Ed Otto, Surveyor 9 West Division St Buffalo MN 55313 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF MEETING; 02/17/98 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Approval of lot width variances for Lots 2 & 3. 2. Acceptance of proposed access for Lot 7; all existing accesses to Old Crystal Bay Road shall be eliminated. 3. Approve private road radius of 125' as proposed due to septic site impacts if a conforming radius is required. 4. 5. 6. 7. Applicant to grant a 15' trail easement along easterly boundary of property. Applicant to develop stormwater ponding or provide a letter from MCWD re; ponding. No bluff impact variances will be granted; revise grading, etc. for Lots 5 & 6 to be conforming. Applicant to grant a tree/woodland/natural vegetation preservation easement specifically for the areas abutting Maxwell Bay. 8. Adherence to normal development requirements. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council, Monday, March 9, 1998; 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. jig ilMiiililltellffiiSpfWMS Hennepin County® ®" 1. An E(|udl OpporI unil.T Employer N< February 12, 1998 Mike GafFron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 6^ Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Proposed Plat - Little Orchard CSAH 84 Section 9, Township 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 2445 Review and Recommendations Mike: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require county review of proposed plats abutting county roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: The developer should dedicate an additional 7 feet of road right of way, for a total of 40 feet frorn centerline. This dedication will accommodate future utilities, snow storage, ditch maintenance, etc. Access via a street entrance at outlet ‘A’ is acceptable. All existing driveways must be removed and no other access will be permitted. T development and landscaping appropriate permit forms. • The developer must restore all areas, within the county right of way, disturbed during construction. Please direct any response to Dave Zetterstrom at 930-2548. As a matter of procedure, we request that the City Clerk inform us of the City Council's action on the right of way and access provisions. Sincerely, Thomas D. Jotmson, P E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ/DKZ/jrh cc: Pete Tulkki Dave Swenson DepailiDent of Public Worit 320 VVuhirgtcn Avmuc South Hopkins, MinneioU 53343-8496 (612)930-2500 FAX:(612)930-2513 TDD;(6l2)930-2696 SBcyz^edFiper TREE, WOODLAND AND VEGETATION PRESERVATION EASEMENT AGREEMENT AND WAIVER OF DAMAGES Tins INDENTURE, made and entered into this and between __________ day of , 19___, by and its heirs, assigns, and successors [hereinafter collectively referred to as the Grantor(s)] and the City of Orono, its successors and assigns, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as the Grantee.) WITNESSETH, Grantor(s), for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration, hereby covenant, grant, gift, quit claim and convey to grantee the right to restrict and grantor(s) agree to limit and preclude the use, improvement and development, under the conditions and covenants herein contained, the following described Land in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota: as follows: 1. Grantor(s) hereby covenant(s) and agree(s): A.No structures shall be constructed, erected, or placed upon, above, or beneath the Land except the following: 1) one lakeshore access stairway per Lot, such stairway being nor more than 4 feet in width, subject to City approval; 2) one dock structure extending from the shoreline; if such structure includes a canopy-covered slip, such canopy to be green or brown in color; 3) one lockbu.< limited to 20 s.f. area and 4 feet maximum height, finished in natural earthtones; 4) one mechanized lift device for transporting persons up and dowTi the bluff. All such structures or devices shall be designed, located and finished to be consistent with the natural state of the land and screened from view as viewed from the lake to the greatest extent possible. Where feasible, tairways and lifts may be designed to run diagonally across the slope in ’•dci to maximize natural vegetative screening and avoid vertical cuts in the ,r-V landscape. B.No trees, shrubs or other vegetation shall be destroyed, cut or removed from the Land except as authorized by written consent of Grantee. Clearcu’.ting of vegetation shall not occur except to the minimal extent necessar}' to accomplish one of the improvements in (A) above. Selective Page 1 of 3 J vegetation removal within a narrow corridor to gain views of the lake shall be limited to a width of 50 feet per Lot, and such removal shall not occur within 75 feet of the shoreline, and shall be limited to the minimal extent necessary to gain a partially obstructed lake view. C.There shall be no change of the topography of the Land without the written consent of Grantee. D.There shall be no fences, play structures, decks, accessory buildings or other temporary or permanent structures placed on the Land. E.Except as herein provided, no use shall be made of the Land except uses, if any, which will not change or alter the natural condition of the Land, and no use which would tend to change natural visual characteristics shall be made of the Land.. F.Grantee may enter upon the Land for the purposes of inspection and enforcement of the covenants contained herein and to cause to be removed from the Land without any liability any structures, uses, materials, substances, or unnatural matter inconsistent with the covenants contained herein and the natural state of the Land. In addition to any other remedy the grantee may have, the covenants and restrictions contained herein may be enforced by injunction. Grantor(s) do not intend that the public should have any interest in the above land by virtue of this indenture or otherwise, except as hereinabove set forth. The Grantor(s) herein certify that the land herein described are free and clear of all encumbrances except: All provisions hereof shall run with the land and shall extend to and bind the heirs, successors, representatives, grantees or assigns of the respective parties hereto. Page 2 of 3 L10 » • 1 —r r. fv n-»-i r 1 i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this __________,19 ___,by__________________ day of NOTARY PUBLIC STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: This instrument is drafted by: City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Page 3 of 3 M 1 rwimMiTm^ 1 yrrwrrii n To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Lindquist and Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordin February 12, 1998 rdinator #2341 Dan Anderson, 905 Old Cr>'stal Bay Rd. S. - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Unsewered Site Area: Proposal: 17.5 Acres ± 7 Lot Residential Subdivision (Single Family Homes) List of Exhibits A - Application B - Area Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Preliminary Plat Drawing ^ E - Preliminary Grading Drainage & Erosion Control Plan F - Comments from Steve Weckman, Septic System Inspector G - Comments from Hennepin County Public Works ArT H - Draft Planning Commission Minutes from Sketch Plan Review ^ rvtjws. /-r-? 6 I - Wetlands Assessment J - City Engineer Comments K - Memo & Exhibits of January 14, 1998 (Sketch Plan Review) Summary The applicant has addressed most of the issues identified during the sketch plan review, and has submitted a preliminary plat that creates seven lots rather than eight, three of which are lakeshore lots. All access is now proposed via a single private road entering Old Crystal Bay Road at a location that Hennepin County finds acceptable. The applicant and his consultants have completed additional soils analysis for septic systems, and Steve Weckman indicates that each proposed lot now has suitable primary and alternate drainfield sites. Conformit}' to Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Standards The proposed subdivision creates a residential development of 2+ acre lots ser\ ed by septic system and wells, conforming to the LR-1 A Zoning District and Comprehensive Plan rural residential standards. r File #2341 February 12, 1998 Page 2 t ft Relationship to Surrounding Development Noerenberg Park abuts this property on the southeast. To the west, north, and east of the site exist similar low density residential developments. The proposed subdivision is in keeping with the general character of its surrounding neighborhood. Lot Layout and Lot Standards Each lot meets or exceeds the 2.0 acre minimum lot standard for the LR-1A district. Lots 2 and 3 are cul-de-sac lots, being approximately 110' and 170' in defined w idth respectively. However, each of these tw o lots e.xceeds 200' in functional width and the City has commonly granted lot w idth for cul-de-sac lots. Due to the unusual shape of the site, the topography, and the location of septic sites, the lots in this *;uodivision are uniquely shaped. However, each lot appears to accommodate a suitable house location that is somewhat flexible with out encroaching into septic drainfield sites which must be preserved. Applicant's surveyor has depicted the required setbacks on the preliminary plat drawing. The setbacks shown by dashed lines appear to be correctly depicted. Lot 1 is technically a 'through' lot having roads on three sides, surrounding the existing house which w ill remain. Lot 1 will accommodate the existing house without the need for any setback variances. All other buildings on the properly are intended to be removed, so that Lots 2 through 7 will become new building sites. Lots 4,5, and 6 arc lakcshore lots, and each meet the 200' minimum w idth requirement as measured at the shoreline and at the 75' setback line. Note that Lot 6 has an hourglass shape that leaves a functional width of 165' at the proposed building site. The road outlot, Outlot A, has been extended to the southeast to provide a driveway corridor for Lot 7 without requiring direct access to Old Ciy'stal Bay Road. Staff sees this as a positive improvement, and recommends that this layout be accepted as providing suitable access to Lot 7. Note that while Lot 7 has 600' of frontage on Old Cr>'stal Bay Road, the City will require that all existing direct road accesses to Old Cr>stal Bay Road be eliminated. This likely will also be required by the County. Because of the 50 ’ proposed width of the access for Lot 7, staff does not consider Lot 7 as being a back lot, and it therefore does not have to meet the higher standards associated with back lots. In general the proposed lot layout appears to provide for sufficient building en\ elopes for each lot. and the only varian-es apparent would be for the width of the tw o cul-de-sac lots. r File #2341 February 12, 1998 Page 3 Road Layout and Standards City Engineer has reviewed the road layout and his comments are attached as Exhibit J. The horizontal curve for the private road at 125' radius does not meet the City’s 275' standard for a 30 mph road, but would for a 20-25 mph posting. We normally don't post speed limits on private roads. Revising the road to meet the 275' radius will likely impact septic sites on one or more lots. The Engineer has also noted additional information which is required for submittal. Park/Trail Easements/Or Dedication Applicant has shown a 10' bike easement along Old Crystal Bay Road, based on the Park Commission recommendation. Because such easement is concurrent with the 10' drainage and utility easement along that east boundary, the easement has not been subtracted from the calculated lot areas. Staff does have a concern that actual construction of the trail might have significant impact on the future use of the alternate septic sites on Lots 2 and 7, with the toe of the alternate mound site of Lot 2 being only 10' from the trail easement, and that on Lot 7 being only 15' from the trail easement. Also, on Lot 2 the shoulder rises steeply above the road, above which the septic site is perched. Staff would not want to see a bike trail developed so close to a septic site, which would actually put that site out of conformity because a 20' setback to any hard surface is required from the down hill toe of the mound. For the reasons noted above, staff hesitates to recommend granting of 10' bike way easement in Lots 2 and 7 at this time, given that no definite trail construction plan has been developed by the City as of this date. While it might be appropriate and consistent with City's past practice to require this developer to construct a segment of trail along the road, note that the City also gained an easement from the French Creek Woods Plat to the east for trail use. If the intent of the City (and the County?) is to connect the Luce Line to Noerenberg Park, careful planning is need to ensure proper siting of the trail. Given that the existing house is intended to remain on Lot 1, only Lots 2 thru 7 are subject to the Park Dedication requirements. Per the City's current ordinance, the City Assessor will be asked to provide a pre-development fair market value for Lots 2-7, with an 8% park fee. The City Council w ill detemhne w hether the value of the easement and/or any trails constructed by applicant should be deducted from the park dedication fee. The City Council has indicated an intent to establish a cap on per-lot park dedication fees which may apply to this property. r File #2341 February 12, 1998 Page 4 Road Improvements and/or Easements Needed Hennepin County is likely to indicate that additional County Road right-of-way should be granted for ftiture needs. The Comprehensive Plan categorizes this segment of Old Crystal Bav Road as a 'scenic parkway’ which requires a right-of-way width no greater then 66'. Since 66' exists, and since no additional right-of-way was granted or required from the French Creek Woods plat across from this proposed subdivision, the City would be consistent in cm requiring the dedication of additional right-of-way for Oid Crystal Bay Road. Applicant has provided a grading plan for construction of the road in Outlot A, with the intent that the future owner of Lot 7 would construct a driveway within the portion of Outlot A dedicated for that use. Note that the length of the proposed road and cul-de-sac is approximately 700’, meeting the City’s cul-de-sac length limitation. Stormwater/Drainage/Grading Plan Exhibit E is the applicant's preliminary grading/drainage and erosion control plan. At this time, applicant is not proposing any stormwater ponding on site. The City Engineer has recommended that stormwater ponding be provided for this site. This also needs MCWD review. The City has consistently required stormwater ponds for this type of residential development, hence the developer will have to make a strong case to convince staff that it is not needed for this site. Note that most proposed grading stays within the right-of-way of Outlot A, a portion of the grading extends into the adjacent lots. It is especially critical to maintain the grading limits within Lot 4, where fill will be needed directly adjacent to the primary septic site, as is also the case in Lot 5. In Lot 1, the grading also is very close to both the primary and alternative trench drainficld sites and extreme caution must be taken to avoid disturbing those sites during the road construction process. For Lot 6, proposed grading to create a walkout site is proposed near the middle of the lot. That grading appears to extend slightly into the bluff impact zone (20 ’ from top of blufO and should be revised slightly to avoid .<^uch cncroaclimenl. All other lots appear to have suitable building sites for the intended house types, % ith no grading proposed for the building locations on those lots. Utilities Since there are no City utilities seiz ing this part of the City, there are no assessment or connection fees required. I he applicant is responsible for arranging necessary electric/gas/phone/cable utility lines as needed *.o ser\e the plat. File #2341 February 12, 1998 Page 5 Septic Testing and Site Availability Steve Weekman has confirmed that all lots have viable primary and alternate sites, and that future testing would be needed to confirm whether less costly trench systems can be used on certain sites where mounds are now acceptable. Bluff Impacts Lots 5 and 6 contain a bluff, and the 'top of bluff was defined by stall during the sketch plan review. A 30' setback from top of bluff is required for any structures, and fill or excavated material is not allowed to be placed within the bluff impact zone. The top of blufl'as depicted in the preliminary plat for Lot 5 does not match the top of bluff location identified by staff, and top of bluff actually is vcia ' near the proposed house location on Lot 5. Lot 5 has a very restrictive building site due to the street setback and top of bluff setback requirements. A more thorough analysis of the allowable building site should be considered for Lot 5, since that lot appears to be the least flexible of the lots in regards to house placement. Tree and Woodland Impacts: Eusement Proposed Tree lines and wooded areas are shown on the topographic background map (See Exhibit 1 of Sketch Plan memo). Most of the wooded areas are near the shoreline or along the west property boundary. The dense woods along the shoreline will be under tremendous pressure. We could expect that individual homeowners will want to establish views of the lake from their new homes, by thinning the woods or creating open corridors to the lake. Such changes in the nature of the shoreline landscape would be unfortunate in the context oftliis virtually untouched arm of Maxwell Bay. ITie tree preservation ordinances currently in place would disallow cutting any 6" or larger diameter tree within 75' of the shoreline, and prohibit 'intensive vegetation clearing' within 75' of the shoreline, on steep slopes and in the bluff impact zone. During the sketch plan review. Planning Commission agreed that it would be appropriate to require that some type of 'tree consen ation ea.sement’ be specifically developed for this site. This would appear to be possible under the provisions of Section 11.60, Subd. 1. The developer should also be required to plant boulevard trees along all roads per the subdivision code requirements. Issues for Discussion 1. Will Planning Commis.<:ion accept the two cul-de-sac lots which require width variances? File #2341 February 12, 1998 Page 6 n 5. 6. 8. Does Planning Commission accept the proposed method of access to Lot 7? How does Planning Commission view the road radius issue, especially if making sr conform to the City standard will have an impact on septic sites? Should the trail element be granted at this time? Can it be relocated around the potentially impacted septic sites on Lots 2 and 7? If so, will this have an impact on the area calculation for those lots? Is there any reason applicant should not be required to provide stormwater ponding for this development? Is there any reason why the grading of the building pad on Lot 6 should be allowed to encroach the bluff impact zone? The bluff impact zone should be correctly depicted for Lot 5, although this will show to an even greater extent how limited the building envelope is for this Lot. h ! Does Planning Commission have any specific guidelines to propose for a tree preservati easement to be developed for the lakeshore lots? ion Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the applicant addressing issues noted by the City Engineer prior to presenting this proposal to Council for preliminary plat approval. If changes to the road layout, grading plan or stormwater pond development will significantly change the lot layout, stafi' would want to first bring this back to Planning Commission for further review. 2. Any recommendation for approval should include or address the following: 1. Approval of lot width variances for Lots 2 & 3. Acceptance of access method for Lot 7, including a requirement that all existing accesst^s to the county road be eliminated. Road radius issue. Trail easement and location. Stormwater ponding. Bluff impact variances or adherence to standards for Lots 5 and 6. Tree preservation easement. Adherence to normal development requirements, including perimeter drainage and utility easements, private road easements and covenants, dev'elopers aereement, park ^INIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIAONARY APPLICATION Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. Completed application form. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-503 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application Zoning Official's Signature______________________________________ patg MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature____________________________________ Date I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) $250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 ______ Subdivision Application (Class I «S: II) $350.00 X Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 --------------------------------------------------- _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Se*" ..on 11.62) _____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) _____ Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original applica**> -.) B. Special Improvement Fees: X Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.;^^_ lin. ft. x .50 = $33^~^~^ _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 = $______ _____ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Roa^ $900.00 _____ Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____ Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 _____ On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with SubdivisiM $30.00/Dwelling Unit Totals 3 SO "CK? Q9.7S2 The applicant hereby agrees to provi( Planning Commission and CounciJ ordinance. Applicant's Signature_______ letf/ssi »n required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, 'process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by Date J/A^ j ^ Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 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 & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. f , • •'N ^ .*1 1*: • "*♦ V’. •. .• • •!^i - -V , \ »•*.* • CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Siteaddress ___QpS ^ PrODertV Identifirptinn rorrw Application if Ul Date Received / - d? 3 ^/ y Amount Paid ) ^'6 A’ Property Identification Number (PID) 3 jd / / Please check one - Property abstaSTS^ toens'V Attach legal description to application. U') f—rn applicant ma. an CTl focu --------- ■ >1^---------r ^ Address __ MV\Ovx-Yg,nL^^{Llf=:- City j. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address ________ City Phone (home) -----Zip^-tt Phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Zip Phone (home) . Phone (work) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ PROPOSA _ Division for Tax Purposes --------Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) ------iZ___ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites i Existing Units *7 Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) New Units Total Units Units per___Acres C> Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)____ r RUN DATE 01/26/98 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST BATCH 501 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 04-117-23 43 0008 00820 OLD CRYSTAL BAY GAD HOST GEORGE A BUST 820 OLO CRYSTAL BAY RD HAYZATA MN 55391 RD S 38 09-117-23 11 0007 00898 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO 335 BROWN RD CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 09-117-23 12 0002 00840 ' OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S A J ELLIS A J ELLIS 840 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 12 0005 00850 OLO CRYSTAL BAY RD RAYMOND 0 HALE RAYMOND D HALE 850 OLO CRYSTAL BAY RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 09-117-23 12 0007 00880 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S GERALD G JOHNSON JR GERALD G JOHNSON JR 880 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 12 0008 00890 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S J A A M W TROUP JOHN A A MARGARET W TROUP 890 OLD CRYSTAL DAY RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 09-117-23 13 0006 01020 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S KENDALL ELLIS KENDALL ELLIS 1020 OLD CRYSTAL DAY RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 S 38 09-117-23 14 0001 01100 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD R J GUMNIT A F H GRAHAM ROBERT GUirJIT/FRAK*CES GRAHAM 1100 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OltlER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 09-117-23 21 0004 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED J M DAYTON A E J DAYTON JUDSON A ELISABETH DAYTON TCF TOWER I860 121 8TH ST S MPLS MN 55402 38 09-117-23 21 0005 00825 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD J M A E J DAYTON JUDSON M DAYTON TCF TOWER 1860 MPLS MN S54C2 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 09-117-23 24 0001 02865 NORTH SHORE DR HENN CO PARK RESERVE DIST HENN CO PARK RESERVE DIST RTE 1 BOX 296 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 TOTAL BATCH 501 00016 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 4 38 09-117-23 12 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED GAD BUST GEORGE A MUST 820 OLO CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 12 0006 00870 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD C S A S H LANT40M CHARLES S A SUSAN H LANNOM 870 OLO CRYSTAL BAY RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 12 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 09-117-23 21 0001 00825 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S J M A E J DAYTON JUDSON M DAYTON TCF TOWER #860 MPLS MN 55402 38 09-117-23 21 0006 CO90S OLO CRYSTAL BAY RD AhK^O LAND DEVELOPMENT IfiC ANCO LAND DEVELOPMENT INC 3540 MOfTTGOMERIE AVE DEEPHAVEN MN 55391 y '•■jy *s. V V i 0 f j f TJ H 3D H rn H 3 D ■> C > D 3 > 3D TJ > ?5y!ii *1 CD IH f- H -nmzom >! 1-4 « lilN W7 CyBCDuCNT c z •ouS Sgss»o £ im 1 to 5S $?» |si ^uu >s “* o5 >► H -30* yw-^i ?> <m o ^ • A Hill “M»sS wB (A Sg>«5-of|g ^ 58 s*?|5 x;^«,n o iiii RS?" U>Sk'S3m^®3'® I«o Tf 30mr* m KH LIMl^'^1 M VI t - ■t*i i h4^-;Ofio.a •• ' W • /.»^ V ■-♦ - - •A .* *•••#•■yjp'? •-_. i4|j 5* ■I ~^n .. './ m 0) o os Qi§ Oi-® 5iioom r■'^ V ✓ - »— • I ' . U - f ^ y y \ y • • C iC 7 ^ i - i s / I I I I > I r;j^ V j /'*“•>% t I I I I ^ I I t \___i r I i ? TO:Michael P.Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator FROM: Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager DATE:Februaiy' 7,1998 SUBJECT : Septic Review for Application #2321, Dan Anderson - Subdivision The proposed seven lot subdivision requires the use of on-site sewage treatment systems. Soil borings and percolation tests were performed by Otto Associates to identify primary and alternate drainfield sites on each lot. The early information provided conflicted with septic inspection information on file at the City and additional information was requested before the soil testing report could be approved. On January 27, 1998 1 was present when several pits were excavated with a backhoe to confirm the information provided to us. The proposed drainfield sites on lot 1 were located in filled soils and could not be used for the subdivision and two additional sites were located. Additional testing and design work will be required on this lot in spring, but two trench drainfield sites are available. The remaining lots all had suitable area and slopes for mound systems. Additional testing will need to be performed this spring and may prove that some areas are suitable for trench drainfields, but most will likely require mound systems. Based on the above information, staff recommends approval of the subdivision on the condition that additional testing will be performed and designs submitted for each lot before any permits are issued within this subdivision. The city requires the drainfield sites to be fenced off prio.»- to any grading or land alteration. n la ^ ra ar- mrr i • la atik r f j I I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO\LMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20,1998 bluff located on 3 of 4 lots forces the setback to an average 150', where normally the setback is 75'. Gaffron indicated the issues for discussion include access, lot area/width standards, on ­ site sewage treatment, bluff impacts, tree preservation, park dedication, archaeological sites, wetlands, and stormwater drainage. Gaffron said the code would generally limit individual access to major roadways. A change will be necessary for access to Lot 8, possibly by an outlot road. Hennepin County will also need to review access. Gaffron said the best plan would be for all lots to access from one road, but with circumstances being as they are, two roads would make sense. Gaffron reported that the lots meet the 2 acre zoning. Lot 3 does not meet the 200 ’ width requirement. The four lakeshore lots are narrow, and the angle of the existing property boundaries with the shoreline makes it difficult to lay out the lots. The setbacks are 50 ’ front, 30' side, 50' rear, and 75' setback from the bluff. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20,1998 Septic sites have been tested. There is limited building flexibility, especially for Lot 6. Steve Weckman has reviewed the sites and is concerned that the 6% slope is not being met. More mound systems may be necessary and additional review required. The bluff affects 3 of 4 lakeshore lots. Gaffron indicated that the tree line follows the shoreline presenting pristine views from the bay, which should be preserved. He is concerned with building a corridor to the lake and suggests some limitations within the corridor to ensure that trees are not cut down to the lake. He suggested a tree conservation easement. Gaffron said a trail corridor is laid out for the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road. Hennepin Parks has a long term intent for a trail system connecting the Luce Line to Noerenberg. Difficulty in continuing the east side trail is due to topography problems and preference has been shown for the trail continuation on the west side of the road. The subdivision will be subject to park dedication, whether by fee or land. r r \ i y / MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20,1998 There are no apparent wetlands on the properly but confirmation will be required. A site grading plan will also be required when the preliminary plat application is filed, Issues for consideration include access and number of access points. Gaffron said Staff will scrutinize the viability of the building envelopes of specific lots noting the septic system feasibility is key to determining the number and layout of lots. The applicant will be asked for tree or woodland preser\'ation methods as well. The applicant said Ed Otto of Otto Associates did the plan and soil testing. Anderson said he appreciates the beauty of the area and tree preservation is vital to maintaining the value of the property. Anderson said the areas most appropriate for building sites are not in the wooded areas. Smith indicated that the problem with tree and woods preservation would most likely arise once the residences are built and resided in. Lindquist suggested the use of a restrictive covenant. Smith agreed. Anderson felt the property owners will want to maintain the trees. Scliroeder asked for a plan regarding this issue, , J r I i \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20,1998 Otto responded to the issue of access. He said consideration was given to a horseshoe type connection, but the property lacked the depth and hardcover would increase. He felt the outlot option would be best for site distance. He suggested an option for Lot 8's driveway. Otto understood that the County would have to review access. Otto did not believe a frontage road would be a good option to serve Lot 8. Gaffron suggested a driveway run across the road. Otto was concerned with being too close to Old Crystal Bay Road. It was indicated that the applicant is not adverse to a bike path or easement. McMillan suggested that the only way to solve the access issue for Lot 8 may be to eliminate a lot altogether, noting Lot 7 would have a difficult building envelope. Gaffron noted that this would decrease the number of lakeshore lots to three. Schroeder stated the septic regulations govern the planning of development and no e.xccptions would be made in regards to septic. McMillan indicated the difficulty in obtaining two septic sites for 2 acre lots. Otto said the slopes are also a concern as well . i-iittM a a I ■ I .11. tr-ir* r . k tl MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20,1998 as the 6% restriction. Otto indicated that the Lot 3 septic sites are 6% for the primary side on the north side and %% for the alternate. Lindquist informed him that all septic sites must be conforming. Gaffron said sewering would make it easier for building sites, but there is no plan for sewering and the property is not within the MUSA. He noted the Council is reviewing e,xpansion of 2 acre zoning but it is difficult to predict what will occur in the future. Plans for alternate sites are required but they may not be needed in the future. There were no public comments. (U21) #2324 JAMES RENDER, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 1365 TONKAWA ROAD - to subdivide the parcel into three iots for residential development Mark Gronberg represented the applicant. J r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 5,1998 (#3 Bike Routes - Continued) McDermott felt the list of bike routes with separated trails and widened shoulders should be maintained only. Wilson felt it was the job of the Commission to flag bike routes and leave the detemunav.^n up to the City whether to add cautionary signs on bike routes before these roads me<;t the standards. Wilson suggested the changes be made to the bike trail maps, reviewed, and a recommendation made at that time to enable the Commission to ^ee the maps in their final form. Use asked that tne changes be reflected in the master plan. Use and McDermott suggested the motion be tabled. Wilson disagreed. WeUes felt the speeds should be kept at a minimum and signage encouraged. The thkd category was changed to "Popular Bike Routes" in order to maintain the list while not designating the roads for widening. Erickson will provide updated list and map for all Commissioners. Bike Routes will be discussed again at the Februar>- meeting. Wilson will discuss this topic with Mayor Jabbour and Council Member Flint prior to that meeting to get their feed back. The motion was withdrawn. (U4) SKETCH PLAN (CARPENTER PROPERTY) - GAPPA Gappa presented a sketch of the plan for the Carpenter Property. He indicated it appears that the layout of 8 lots is problematic and will most likely result in a lower number of lots. The Planning Commission will review the sketch plan at their January meeting. The bike route is currently located on the opposite side of the road from the Carpenter property. Wilson said she had been opposed to the route location on that side of the road as the route has to ultimaiely end up on the same .side as the Carpenter property. It is desired that the route will be added to the Hennepin Parks system. The telephone poles are located on the west side (Carpenter side), but it was felt that this was not a problem. Gappa did believe it would cost more to build the route on the Carpenter side. Wilson noted, however, there were 8 homes that would be affected on the east side while only three on the wes* side. White indicated a four-way stop might be necessary; Gappa agreed. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 5, 1998 draft (#4 Carpenter Property Sketch Plan • Continued) Discussion was held regarding the retaining walls. The fence currently located on the property could be placed on top of the retaining walls. The stone gates can be moved. McDermott asked about the pond. Welles said the route could come back in from the pond. Wilson voiced opposition to retaining walls suggesting the grade be taken down. She thought lilac bushes would be attractive. G?ppa said some retaining walls would be necessary. Wilson questioned whether the use of retaining walls would hinder the rural character of the area. Erickson questioned whether the new large homes would also affect the rural feel. Wilson asked if any of the Commissioners were interested in taking land for a buffer on the lake. Problems with access, marshy conditions, and acquiring lakeshore were noted. It was determined that with the lineal footage on Old Crystal Bay Road, a width of about 40' could be obtained. A bike route would require between 20-30 ’. Welles felt it would make sense to take the minimal amount of land and the remainder in cash. If land was taken for buffering only, less land would be required. The current trail on the east side has been cleared and gravel has been added. There are several large trees on this side. The terrain is better for a bike route on the west side. Wilson suggested recommending the bike route for the west side, even though the bike route currently exists on the east side. If the Council determines they do not desire a change to the bike route, she suggested money be taken in lieu of land for park dedication. The Park Commission would like to see the bike route be completed to Noerenbcrg Park and is concerned with completion of the bike route on the east sicie due to the location of existing homes. McDermott felt the bike route could cross to the west side in another area and prefemed cash be taken for park dedication. Wilson indicated this scenario would cause the bike route to cross the roadway twice. Wilson voiced concern with being able to complete the trail to Noerenberg if this land was not taken for park dedication. Gappa agreed that it is important for the trail to continue and be completed. Welles moved, Use seconded, to recommend park dedication be taken in the minimum amount of land necessary for the design of a bike route to maintain the character of the property with the remainder taken in cash. Welles amended his motion to recommend that as the Planning Commission evaluates the project, they consider taking land for a bike route and review the problem with continuing the current bike route on the east side owned by the City. The Park Commission needs to analyze whether the need is shown for the trail on the west side. r I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO PARK COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 5, 1998 RA.n (#4 Carpenter Property Sketch Plan - Continued) Wilsoii agreed that the route location cannot be determined at this time. McDermott said the entire roadway should be reviewed in order to make the decision. The Park Commission would like to recommend the consideration of whether the route would be more appropriate on the west side before any decision is made due to the possible problems existing for a bike route on the east side. All Commissioners agreed. (U5) REPORT OF WHITEHEAD PARK DEDICATION - GAPPA Gappa reported that the park dedication for the two-lot Whitehead subdivision was $7,000. (A short recess occurred.) (#6) REVIEW AND AMEND TW'O YEAR PLAN It was noted that the master plan is basically completed and will be presented this spring to the Council. It will be reviewed with Mayor Jabbour. •• Gappa reported that the development is the northern portion of Saga Hill is not being pursued at this time. The developer is in the process of determining the economics of developing the southern portion. Wilson reported that the Park Commission had not received all vital infom^ation when the recommendation was made to take money instead of land for the southern development. The Planning Commission decided to take land based on the information they were provided. Wilson informed Staff that the Park Commission needs to be provided with all information in the future in order to make their recommendations. McDermott asked if the Commission needs to consider access to the park land. Gappa indicated that they need to wait to determine what development takes place. It was reported that the developer of Spring Hill Golf Course is determining whether a direct agreement can be reached between the County and themselves without involving the City for construction of the tunnel under County Road 6. No agreement has been reached. Gappa reported that the bike route to Baker Park will be completed by the County in 1998. Hennepin Parks is in possession of the plans and are putting together bids at this time. An agreement for future maintenance will be necessary, but Hennepin County is taking over all of the development according to Gappa. Wilson asked that Gappa follow through to see that the oike route is completed. r L 0_V 04/1938 0,';40 S12-471-1040 ►•JOLH«l.l5 EWIRQUicr.T OJ OLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL SER\aCES COMPAM\' prii'iiirgSojni, Buhntid, C«'n»'«iniu» V. fynW ian'irct SoliVvn: Februar>'4, 1993 Mr. .Dan Andersen ANCO Land Development Company 995 Old Cry stal Bay Road South Orono, MN 55391 P.iiCE'jVSD ttb 5 ^995 CUV OnOMO Rc: Little Orchard Site assessment for wetlands 905 Did Crystal Bay Road South, Orono Dear Mr. /Vndersen: As you requested. I completed an evaluation of the described site for the presence of jurisdictional wetland.s The site assessment was completed on February 3, 199S. Review of Available Infoi~matior Before visiting the site I rcviewcxl the National Wetland IrjvcnUiry Map (Excelsior Quadrangle), the Heonepiu County Soil Survey, and the topographic map wliich you provided to identify potential wetland areas. The NWI map showed no wetlands on the property. The soil surv ey .shewed the majority of the site as Hayden and Lester .soils, with slopes typically from 6 to 18 percent. Tlicse soil types arc not associated with wetland conditions Small units of Hamel soils extend onto the property in the northca.st and southeast comers Hamel soils are commonly associated with wetlands when unaltered by drainage. A nanow fringe of sandy lake beach soils are shown adjacent to Lake MinnetonJea. Sandy ' il c beach soils may be associated with lake fringe wetland or shallow lake beaches The topographic map indicates no depressional areas capable of developing wetland conditions The site is steeply sloped and w-ell drained Apart from the lake shoreline, the topographic map indicates no surface water on the site. Evaluation of Site Coriditiofis The piimary land uses on the property include a building site and associated mowed lawn, and open grassy Geld (abandoned pasture), and steeply sloped wooded hillside adjacent to Lake Mi.nnetoDka The lawn is mowed and has been planted with conunonJy used trees and slirubs Vn wetlands were assoduied with the buildinev; *ml lawn s 'i vf V' V* 4*5? Rich.-nond Mound. Minrca^u 5^64 • Phone &l2-4T^-4fl75 • Fix. tilZ-47i-i04L* I ( *I t n ■ • t m la ■ .a • I it > ..I. lifti M f ^ r • 02/04/l?38 07:40 612-472-1040 KJOLH«a3 E^^aRC?^^1£^'T PA<3E 03 The abandoned pasture was dominated by upland grasses such as brome, orchard grass, and timothy grass. No wetlands were associated with the abandoned pasture. The wooded hillside was dominated by red, white, and bur oak, sugar maple, and basswood trees, and with buckthorn and eastern hophombeam shrubs. No wetlands were associated with tlic steeply sloped wooded hillside. The preUminary grading plan prepared by Otto Associates (dated 1/23/98) nill not result in impact to tretlands within areas indicated for roads, house pad.., or septic treatment systems. Two small lake fnngc wetland areas were identified within Lots 4 and 6. The wetland in Lot 4 is less than 15 feet deep and 20 feet wide, while the wetland is Lot 6 is approximately 40 feet deep and 60 feet wide These areas should be considered when fiiture property' owners decide on locations for the placement of docks and other lake shore improvements. The preUminary grading plan indicates no impacts to these wetlands. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at the indicated number. Sincerely, lOolhaug Environmental Serv ices Company, Inc. Mark S ^ojlywg ProfesMorSTWetland Scientist r BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^612 6361311 02/12/98 12:59 0 :02/0A NO:957 : I if I Bonestroo Rosene Andertik & Associates Engineers & Architects ••ij /i'f'xr fu- i .if • f»i, •. »•» •!••• fi / »•, * .•*! •! I j ^ .I < ••• t*t • . f. . i.» I I • II . . I . • ii.« • I • (Cl* h.ii.1 f Tii» iir*i r f • »*?» (»i I !•* I. -t I ’I • f* I♦ I *,i r I »i II• f •? *'► • I. »• j t, I •• I f*• vV f i.'.r ni r» \i * vT V ! f»* t • f* » % • r*iiH •••»5 4»*«!• i.ir** V/1/'*//»,»;* N•^A »i I 'v i.t'ift.t.l 1*1 • •% • ■ » | • * i% ’**• I i • 1*1.'n Mtf VI.' TL • D.i% III O I \nii • f» • • i .\ • M,« • A »lii*»i.»' *• • V»rr..n/» I PI • Vii K I .-Iff rf • •.-. f.. •». M fl f ..,i| i*i • •*».*fii ^ M a Ht I s • Ti. L« 'I f .»MI»»' *.• *.|» f U iru.ii .»iij ji t. Iciivl ’■ *A ' Fcbiiuiry 12. 1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron St'nior Planning Coorilinalor City of Orono Po>t Office Box 66 Cry.stiil Bay. MN 55.123 Re: Andersen Subdivision File No. 139-2.M1 Dear .Mike: We have reviewed the preliniinury plat for the propo.sed .seven lot Andersen subdivision. The site is located west of Old Crystal Bay Ro.td South (C.R. 84) in the northwest quarter of .Section 0. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters 1. Access: The sight dtstance.s at this l(x:aiion appear to be adequate. A rock constmetion entrance to the site should be installed and maintained throughout the construction period until the Class 5 is in place. The proposed access onto County Ro.id 84 should be reviewed by Hennepin County. Streets: The proposed .street design meets City requircincnis for street width and cul-de-sac length for a private road serving 7 or more units. Tlie propo.sed 125 fool horizontal curve across Oiiiloi A should be a minimum of 275 feet to meet a 30 mph design speed as set forth hy City code. Geotechnical recommeiulations should lx: submitted to verify the proposed typical street section. Final plans and specifications, including street and storm sewer dc.sign and profilc.s, should be submitted to the City prior to construction. .Street and utility record plans should be provided to the City after project completion. 3. Grnding: The grading plan appe.iis accept.ihle. Fxisting driveway remoxal and excavation for the street will result in ciosmn concerns during construction Additional ertrsion contiol measures should be installed along Conniy Road 84 prior to construction and remain in place until the street has been pa-»*tl and vegetation is e.slabli.shed Home and septic system construction will require additional erosion control measures 4. Drainage: In accordance with the draft version ot the City’s Comprehensive Storm W'ater Management Plan (SWMP). 've recommend that a storm water tiualiiy pond to treat mnoff prior to discharging into tlic lake be constructed on site. A drainage area map and drainage culculations .should be provided with the final plan .set Plans should be submiued to the Minnehaha Creek Waler.shed District and Henneptn County for their review. 5. Iva.sement.s: niusciiienis shown appear to be acceplahle. Drain.ige easeniL*nis should be piovided across all wetland, drainage way and pond areas._____________________________________ 2335 VX/e$t Highway 36 • 5t. P^^ul, MN SS113 • 612-636-4600 • Fax: 612-636*1311 J BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ©612 6361311 02/12/98 12:59 0 :03/04 N0:957 6. Financial Guarantee: Wc have esiimatcd the total cost for site iniprovenv:’ M', at $78 300 The cost estimate is attache<l for your review. If .Morni .sewer and a ponding area are added to the project t'.ic co.st estimate .sluiuld be rcvi.sed. A financial guarantee of 150 peicom of the e.stima'c- or $117,450 should be provided to the City. Please contact me at (604-4863) if you have any questions regarding thi.s matter. Yours very truly, BONnSTROO. ROSENn. ANDCRLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Cireg fiappa. City of Orono BONESTROO AND ASSOCIATES ^ 612 6361311 02/12/98 12:59 0 :04/04 NO:957 CITY OF ORONO LITTLE ORCHARD RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAT FILE NO. 2341 SITE IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE ITEM UNIT EST. QUANTITY UNIT PRICE EST. COST Mobilization LS 1 $5,000.00 $5,000 Site grading LS 1 10,000.00 10,000 Common Excavation CY 1200 6.00 7,200 Aggregate base. Cl. 5, 100% crushed TN 1800 10.00 18,000 Type 31 bit. base course TN 250 32.00 8,000 Type 41 bit. wear course TN 200 35.00 7,000 Surmountable concrete curb and gutter LF 1350 6.00 8,100 18" CMP culvert LF 50 18.00 900 18"CMPF.E.S.EA 2 150.00 300 Silt fence LF 1500 300 4,500 Seeding with 4" topsoil AC 1.5 3.000.00 4,500 Sod with 4" topsoil SY 1600 3.00 4,800 Estimated Construction Cost +50% Security Deposit Total Security Deposit Required $78,300 39,150 $117,450 2341littldorchard xls ti Members •dinator suit Mil itlf I llliilffl iIIJMHli] mm iiXl ay Rd. S. - Sketch Plan Residential, 2 Acre, Unsewered igle Family Homes) located just north of Norenberg Park on at all existing buildings are intended for would abut Maxwell Bay. This property and wells. Applicant proposes to provide fhe property contains some woodland, and ipact lake setbacks and tree preservation. il-de-sacs ser\’ing 7 lots; Lot 8 apparently directly to Old Crystal Bay Rd. in 11.32) and in the Transportation element dual lot access to major City roads. Nearly id in the last 20 years has been required to #2321- Sketch Plan January 14, 1998 Page 2 2. provide private intereior road access for all new lots created. Shared driveways serving two lots have sometimes ben allowed. The currently proposed subdivision should ideally be serv ed by one access point. There may be justification for allowing the two cul-de-sacs from a hardcover and ftinctionality standpoint; a single access road may be difficult to develop due to the depth of the property and the intended creation of four relatively long and narrow lakeshore lots. Access will also need a Hennepin County Dept, of Public Works permit. Lot 8 should not be allowed a separate driveway access to Old Ciy'stal Bay Road but should be served by an interior road. Also see City Engineer's comments, Exhibit J. Lot AreaAVidth Standards: All lots as proposed meet the 2.0 acre minimum lot area standard of the LR-1A District. All lots except Lot 3 meet the required 200' width, measured by definition in a straight line at the shoreline and at the 75' setback line. Lot 3 is only 168' at the shoreline and just meets the 200' width at the 75' setback. Total shoreline width is 870', allowing just four lakeshore lots to be created from this site. While Lots 4 and 7 meet the 200' width at shoreline and at 75' setback. Lot 4 has a 'functional width' at the probable building site of only 150', and that of Lot 7 is only 145'. This may be limiting for house placement when the 30' side setbacks are accounted for. The angle of the existing property boundaries with the shoreline makes it difficult to lay out 4 lakeshore lots that have any flexibility, and topographically the tendency may be to place homes overlooking the neighbor's yard to gain the best lake views, similar to what we see along the east side of Tonkawa Road. Exhibit H depicts the buildable envelopes for each lot, taking into account the lot line setbacks and bluff or lakeshore setbacks. The septic sites have not yet been laid out for each lot. 3.On-Site Sewage Treatment: Septic site locations will be very limiting. The septic testing information provided to date is inadequate to define individual system types and locations. Based on the Hayden and Lester loam soils mapped for this property, typically at least 80% of the systems will have to be mounds. According to Septic System Inspector Steve Weekman, a number of sites which will likely need mound systems do not meet the 6% slope limitation (See Exhibit C). The applicant's site evaluator did not contact the City prior to starting work, which could have avoided this problem. More septic testing detail is needed to confirm usefulness of sites tested. It is likely that some lot lines will need to be revised, and possible that 8 lots may not he feasible. For instance, the tested sites for Lot 6 leave very little useful area within the allowable buildable envelope when bluff setback is accounted for. #2321 - Sketch Plan January 14, 1998 Page 3 4. 5. 6. BlufT Impacts: Lots 4,6 and 7 contain a bluff which will reduce the area of the buildable envelope and result in required setbacks from the lake ranging from 130-160' rather than the 75' standard. The bluff impact zone is also an area where intensive vegetation clearing is prohibited (See Exhibit F). The buildable envelope of Lot 6 will be impacted by the required bluff setback. Tree Preservation: Tree lines and wooded areas are shown on the topographic background map (See Exhibit I). The site is mainly open, only about 15-20% wooded. Most of the wooded areas are near the shoreline or along the west property boundary. Of great concern is that the dense woods along the shoreline will be under tremendous pressure. We could expect that individual homeowners will want to establish views of the lake from their new homes, by thinning the woods or creating open corridors to the lake. Such changes in the nature of the shoreline landscape would be unfortunate in the context of this virtually untouched arm of Maxwell Bay. The tree preservation ordinances currently in place would disallow cutting any 6" or larger diameter tree within 75' of the shoreline, and prohibit 'intensive vegetation clearing' within 75' of the shoreline, on steep slopes and in the bluff impact zone. If preservation of this wooded shoreline in its current state is critical, the City may wish to require that some type of 'tree conservation easement' be specifically developed for this site. This would appear to be possible under the provisions of Section 1 1.60, Subd. 1. The developer should also be required to plant boulevard trees along all roads per the subdivision code requirements. Park Dedication: The Park Commission has indicated that a bike/liike trail corridor should be prescr\ ed along the west side of Old Ciystal Bay Road, for future extension of trails from the Luce Line to Noerenberg Park. Althought the City has not attempted to design this segment of trail, and although a similar corridor already exists directly across from this property on the east side of the road, it may be appropriate to obtain a 20'-30' easement along the right-of way, with the value of said easement being deducted from the 8% park fee requirement. Hennepin County Parks staff has indicated a long-term intent to establish a connector trail between the Luce Line and Noerenberg Park, but has no plans for trails within the park; they would only be at its perimeter if developed. However, this portion of Old Crystal Bay Road is not delineated on the official County Bike Trail Plan. It is unknown whether Hennepin County Public Works will request additional right-of-way for the road itself (currently Old Ciy stal Bay Road has 66'). #2321 - Sketch Plan January 14, 1998 Page 4 7. Archaeological Sites: The developer should check with the State Historic Preservation Office to determine if any archaeologically significant sites are within the property. 8. Wetlands: There are no wetlands apparent on the property, and none mapped. The developer should have a wetlands consultant confirm whether any wetlands exist on the site. 9. Stormwater, Drainage: A site grading plan will be required when the preliminary plat application is filed. Stormwater ponding will potentially be required The developer should contact the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding stormwater facility needs. The topography indicates that most drainage on this site runs away from the site, either directly to the lake or to neighboring properties Also note that the topography used for the submittals was created by Horizons, Inc., not Mark Hurd as noted on the submittals. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should review with the applicant each of the above noted topics related to the development of this site. While this i 'velopment does not appear to involve any issues which require significant land use decisions, certain facets of the proposal need further work by the applicant to confirm the viability of the plan. Specific issues the Planning Commission may wish to address for the benefit of the applicant include: 1 . Access, number of access points 2. Viability of building envelope of specific lots 3. Confirm that septic system feasibility is key to determining number and layout of lots 4. Tree or woodlot presen'ation methods r \ ■i f MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUiRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. > Zoning Official's Signature ______________________________________ Date-------------------------------------------- MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature_______________________________________Date------------------- I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) $250.(Jb _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III & all non-residcntial) _____ Final Plat Application (Class 111) $200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: Subdivision only $75.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 Totals Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) ~ Renewal of Class 111, Preliminar> Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/IineaI ft.; lin. ft. X .50 = $. 'lin. ft. X .50 = $ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/DwelIing Unit The applicant hereby agrees to pro Planning Commission and Co ordinance. Applicant's Signature • • Owner's Signature ion required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attomej, process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by Date /Z^1 Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are heldon the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. lun J r di*'A Application ff Date Received //^ - ~7 Amount Paid , * * CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION sPROPERTY LOCATION Site address________^nS q LQ ^.g.yS4>AL, ._____ fr Property Identification Number (P^ ^%7^\ nO^Cz> * Please check one - Property alabstract or toirens?>. 3, Attach legal description to application.r^.cn APPLICANT Name ^iA.Ae^S-e>_3 Address 3>9~4o VW^*a*UnOiw€rH.g-^ Phone (home) City ]/vii^ Zip <^^V Phone (work) ^2^2. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address ^ City S ^ (attach list if more than one) Phone (homi _^^ionetwOTk) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size II Present use (check) Present Zoning District 1^, 0 2s" Acres Dry Land ________ Acres Wet Land ________ Acres Total, all parcels __ Residential; no. of units __ Other (specify)______ L1L\^ PROPOSAL _____ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites _ Existing Units _New Units Total Units Number of Building Sites J8_L & Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per ^ Acres •7- Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential _________Other (specify)_________ ^ ^** — --------mn —- ----------------------------- .- ■’itfr fchiAA A*.M rtJ^ . - I - * f - .-V •V'S ■• -J /' kV \/ n \ Mn '' \ \\ \ s 'V N' \ N * » /j N 4\o '’i'.; \ \.'3,'\ N •, \ \ V. \ \ \ \ / N \ \ \ V •' \\\* A\\ \\\ 'v\\% -yy<\ M.WX -m'\\'.^ / N '% \ »\\ \ V y.X'\ A-Vx-vV' ■■ ' p /-. fV\ '•■ \ \ \ V l-\ \ \\\\ '-y ! o-^\ ■-' +/ i\\^-y: N ‘v \ \ ■■>yxN'- '->y ■■ \\ ■'■ '■■ / s'? ^'' \ ■ 3T jT%. \ ••.-•. ^ \ . : V / I; ' i y ^4? I'♦ Ok>/ • \iV9 /V WvJ;X / /■/ » t / /' / m /// / %'* /'^e/i ■■ •'>/ /:-ni \ •ST'7'-“•7 / .' j ' i'J / /V/’ 'i<s>/v-‘ X// f/ s / // /// //^/ / //?• ->> y /4 '-'in;/ //7 ^. 5?;r # . / y y C' /‘V 1?' l/%4I| ii •' / / / ll^M 5T \ S'/;// |v/ V*'/ t' ;p'fi/,l' / ^ . '■«■''/ X fv^ \ a?» 0.' 7 f/y //y \-\i (iy / /y y ~,^Pr>rry'y y I a KI N,, ' • ^ ^«x:. ®v^; V <9 4 \ / VwA. ./: /r'V r‘ / 4 / VK v/R=50'bOfi: \■'i y V '' rw , f / .1 ■ ; I "i /;u ;• ' ? “L ' ;:;■/• 'S-. y X ^v\ \ ^ . ,14- I I • * « ; . ■,<br'. • \ f V?.K<t ■ ■'k ' .' s> m // ,y C / fI I \ / / / { ' \ Ai > / /' i‘\ y \ •'■ 4 7 , I / / c / •> \_______ ‘V . ■/ 4%' -' yKr v''! V i \\\ u>\' \ ^\ ■ \\A' \\ \w'iVJ«W''\ WV'/ / /• / If• • i \ \ 1 'O - / ilij I ! ( N V Z /' r t-i'f-'i'b TO:Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator FROM: Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager DATE:January 9, 1998 SUBJECT: Septic Review for application #2321, Don Anderson 905 Old Crystal Bay Rd. S. Sketch Plan Review The proposed eight lot subdivision requires the use of on-site sewage treat nent systems. The information submitted to us by Otto Associates is incomplete and will not be acceptable for a final subdivision approval, however, the following is a review of each lot and its potential to have suitable drainfield sites: Lot 1 Soil borings performed by Otto Associates indicates a seasonal water table at 40 to 47 inches, but my soil borings from 1993 indicate a seasonal water table at 30 to 36 inches. Their soil borings indicate that trench systems may be feasible while mine show that a mound system is the only alternative. The soil borings arc iucated in areas where the slope is too steep for the installation of mound systems meeting City Standards. Additional testing would be required to verify whether two mound sites are possible on this lot. 14212 Soil borings performed on this lot by Otto Associates indicate a seasonal water table at 38 inches or less and would require the use of mound systems. The slopes on these areas is too steep to allow the use of mound system. Additional testing would be required to determine whether suitable drainfield sites exist on this lot. Lot 3 Soil borings performed by Otto Associates on this lot indicate that mound systems would be required, but slopes throughout the lot are too steep for mound systems. It does not appear that this lot can meet our standards for septic systems. Lot 4 Soil borings by Otto Associates indicate that mound systems must be used on this lot, but the slope direction and narrow lot shape are not favorable for any drainfield site. This lot will not be suitable for septic systems. I ; r Lot 5 The soil borings performed by Otto Associates bring up more questions than answers. One soil log indicates that a sandy clay texture was found at 40 inches, but mottled soil was observed at 47 inches. Soil boring number 6 had a seasonal water table at 34 inches while soil boring number 7 had a seasonal water table at 45 inches, yet these borings were performed within 20 feet of each other It IS very likely that mound drainfields would be required for this lot and the slopes are too steep to meet City Standards. Additional testing will be required to determine whether suitable drainfield sites exist on this lot. Lot 6 This lot looks good for locating drainfield sites. Lot 7 Soil borings by Otto Associates indicate that trench systems will work on this lot. There appears to be sufficient area on this lot for drainfield sites. Lots This lot appears to have sufficient area for two drainfield sites, but the building pad would be forced into an area with steep slopes. B^ed on the above information, staff recommends that several of the lots be altered to provide suitable drainfield sites. At this time much more information must be provided before we can approve any subdivision plan. Each lot must have two drainfield sites which are suitable for a five bedroom residence completely designed and located on the survey. Special concerns on this parcel include assuring that the mound sites are located on slo^.es less than six percent, identifying potential building sites and providing driveway locations on difficult lots. TTO SSOCIATES JL. ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS, INC. December 15, 1997 Dan Anderson ANCO Construction Company, Inc. 3540 Montgomerie Avenue Deephaven, MN 55391 RE: SoU Tests on “LITTLE ORCHARD” Otto Job No. 97503 Dear Dan: As you arc aware, we have finished the soil tests for on-site septic system suitability on the Orono site. I enclose three sets of the soil boring logs and the percolation test sheets. As you look these over, some critical points are that in order to put the shallowest trench system in, we need at least 42 inches to the mottled soil in the soil borings. A mound system can be installed if there is at least 12 inches to the mottled soil. Soil borings 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19,20,21,22,24 and 26 have a depth of 42 inches or more to the mottled soil. All the soil borings have more than 12 inches to the mottling. In the perc tests, we are looking for a perc rate from 5 to 60 minutes per inch for a standard system (with 5 being fast and 60 being slow). The majority of the tests indicate a perc rate between 8 and 40 m p i. The only two tests that I am concerned about are THs 27 and 28 which had a per rate of 79. These holes were tested in what I would think would be the alternate site on Lot 3 and a mound system could be installed on this type of soil but the basal area of the mound would need to be enlarged. So, in conclusion, these tests were good and do indicate that all the lots are buildable using on-site septic systems. If you have any questions, call me. Sincerely, Otto Associates Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc. Edward J. Ott^L.S. MPCA No. 964 Enclosures s / / + I 9 y ‘v \ \ / / / \ • y ## ( ■ \ r> JL 0 / U m Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Ivll Associates Engineers & Architects January 12, 1998 Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderhk t^nd AssocuUes. Inc is an Affirm.itive Action Bqu^l Opportunity Employe Principals Otto G Bonestroo. P£ • Joseph C Anderlik PE • M.irvin L Sorv.il.^ PE • Richard E Turner. PE • Glenn R Cook. PE • Robert G Schun/cht. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene. PE and Susan M Ebcrim. C PA . Senior Consultants Assocuite Pnncip.iis Howard A. Saniord. PE • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferfe. PE • Richard W Foster. PE • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. A 1 A • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Williamson. PE . L S • Robe-t F Kotsmcn Offices St Paul. Rochester. Willmar and St Cloud MN • Milwaukee. Wl Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Bo.x 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re:Andersen Subdivision File No. 139-2321 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the sketch plan for the proposed eight lot Andersen subdivision. The site is located west of Old Crystal Bay Road South (C.R. 84) in the northwest quarter of Section 9. We have the following comments in regards to engineering mailers. 1. Access: Access to Lot 8 is unclear. We would recommend moving Outlet B approximately 150 feet souti.cast to provide access to Lot 8 and eliminate private driveways onto C.R. 84. How will future access be provided to the Lots immediately west of the site? Will the existing buildings on Lots 1. 2,4 and 5 remain or be removed? The existing grades on Outlot A exceed 10 percent. City code allows up to a 12 percent grade on private streets, however, we would recommend that grades not exceed 2 percent for the first 50 feet off of C.R. 84. It does not appear that adequate sight distances exist for either cul-de-sac. Plans should be submitted to Hennepin County for their review. 2. Grading: A grading and erosion control plan for the entire site should be submitted for review. Erosion control measures should be in place prior to any grading, particularly along the lakeshore. Additional erosion control will be needed during construction of the houses and septic systems. 3. Drainage: The draft version of the City’s’ Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies within two major drainage districts, half draining easterly and half draining southwesterly. We recommend that storm sewer be included as part the project to direct flows in accordance with the SWMP. The final plans should include a storm water quality pond to treat runoff prior to discharging into the lake. A drainage area map. storm sewer and ponding calculations should be provided with the final plan set. 4. Easements: Final platting should include 33 feet of dedicated right-of-way for C.R. 84. Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of- ways. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetland, drainage way and pond areas. 5. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (604-4863) if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. /cry*^ Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 233S West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 5SII3 ■ 612-636-4600 ■ Fax: 6)2-636-1311 V COUNCIL MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MAR 9 199 DATE: Marcher iW ITEM NO.: /X Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer’s Report Item Description: Request for Payment m. North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project We have reviewed the information submitted by the City’s engineering firm and recommend approval of this Request for Payment. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Request for Payment #8, North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project to Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of $26,746.30 Owner City of Orono. P.O. Box 66. Crvstal Bay. MN 53323-0066 Date: March 2. 1998 For Period:February 18.1998 to March 2.1998 Request No: 8 Contractor:Barbarossa & Sons. P.O. Box 367. Osseo. MN 55369 r t No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Item 8“ PVC, SDR 35.0‘- 8' deep in place 8“ PVC. SDR 35. 8*. 10’ deep in place 8" PVC, SDR 35. 10'- 12' deep in place 8“ PVC, SDR 35, 12'- 14’ deep in place 8 PVC, SDR 35, 14’-16’ deep in place 8" PVC, SDR 35, 16’-18’ deep in place 8" PVC, SDR 26,14’-16’deep in place 8" PVC, SDR 26, 16’- 18’ deep in place 8'* DIP, 10’- 12’ deep in place 8 ” DIP, 16’- 18’ deep in place Std. MH 8’ dp.. 4’ dia.. W/R1642B cstg. MH depth greater than 8’ deep Directional bore 4" HDPESDR 17 4- HDPE. SDR 17 Air release manhole 1-1/2" curb stop and box Connect 4" HDPE into existing manhole 4•’ 45 degree HDPE bend 4" tee with cap 4" X 2“ HDPE tec 4- X 4" HDPE tee 2" X 1-1/2 ” HDPE reducer 2" X 45 degree HDPE bend 4" X 2" wye 8" X 4”; PVC service wye branch 8" X 2" wye 2" X 1-1/2" reducer 4" PVC service pipe in place. SDR 26 4" PVC service riser pipe in place. SDR 26 4" HDPE service pipe directional bore 1-1/2" HDPE service pipe directional bore Improved pipe fdn. in 6" increment depth .NIechanical trench compaction Insulation Sanitary sewer television inspection Submersible Pump Lift Station 1 Submersible Pump Lift Station 2 Total Part 1 - Long Lake Sanitary Unit contract Quantity Unit Price Quantity to Date Amount to Date LF 232 28.00 139 3.892.00 LF 752 29.00 1.071 31.059.00 LF 1.303 30.00 974 29.220.00 LF 981 31.00 1,309 40.579.00 LF 1,024 32.00 968 30.976.00 LF 63 33.00 185 6.105.00 LF 220 35.00 138 4.830.00 LF 188 36.00 LF 40 38.00 40 1.520.00 LF 20 41.00 20 820.00 EA 24 1,440.00 24 34.560.00 LF 97 100.00 102.7 10.270.00 LF 140 20.00 140 2.800.00 LF 5.812 8.40 5.716 48,014.40 EA 2 1,900.00 2 3.800.00 EA 3 350.00 3 1.050.00 EA 1 1,000.00 1 1.000.00 EA 16 50.00 10 500.00 EA 1 55.00 2 110.00 EA 3 50.00 3 150.00 EA 1 50.00 EA 3 35.00 3 105.00 EA 3 30.00 4 120.00 EA 2 30.00 1 30.00 EA 48 50.00 55 2.750.00 EA 5 50.00 2 100.00 EA 7 30.00 7 210.00 LF 1,465 18.00 1,285 23.130.00 LF 35 18.00 44 792.00 LF 225 20.00 197.5 3.950.00 LF 225 10.00 561 5.610.00 LF 6,500 0.01 6,500 65.00 LF 6.500 1.00 4,844 4.844.00 SY 50 10.00 22 220.00 LF 4,808 0.42 LS 1 44,200.00 0.98 43.316.00 LS 1 44,700.00 0.98 43.806.00 S3S0.303.40 l:\139\139MV1EQUEST8.WB2 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Part 2 - Water Main 8- DIP. Class 52 12" DIP, Class 52 6" DIP. Class 52 Cut into existing 8" CIP Cut into existing 6" DIP Hydrant 6" gate valve and box 8" gate valve and box 12" butterfly valve and box Fittings Mechanical trench compaction Improved pipe foundation in 6" increments Total Part 2 - Watermain Part 3 - Restoration Clear and grub 2' X 3’ sump catch basin 4' diameter sump catch basin manhole Catch basin manhole overdepth Bituminous surfacing removal Common excavation Class 5 aggregate base (100% crushed) Type 31 bituminous base course Type 41A bituminous - ig course Geotextile fabric Bituminous material for tack coat Bituminous street patching Sawcut concrete driveway Sawcut bituminous Bituminous driveway restoration Concrete driveway restoration 12-RCP in place 15" RCP in place 15" RCP, over 8' deep 15" RCP flared end in place with trash guard Mechanical trench compaction Improved pipe fnd. in 6" increment depth Remove existing CMP culvert LF 95 20.00 46 920.00 LF 490 26.00 583 15.158.00 LP 5 19.00 10 190.00 EA 1 1.000.00 1 1.000.00 EA 1 800.00 1 800.00 EA I ZOOO.OO 1 2.000.00 EA 1 600.00 1 600.00 EA 2 750.00 2 1.500.00 EA 1 1.000.00 1 1.000.00 LB 1.370 1.00 850 850.00 LF 590 1.00 639 639.00 LF 595 0.01 100 1.00 S24.658.00 EA 20 300.00 51 15.300.00 EA 2 1.000.00 2 2.000.00 EA 5 1.200.00 5 6.000.00 LF 17 125.00 5 625.00 SY 11.600 1.00 11.500 11.500.00 CY 3.700 3.25 4,532 14.729.00 TN 8.000 9.20 9.206 84.695.20 TN 1.200 23.50 1.496 >5.156.00 TN 900 27.50 SY 11.000 1.00 10.819 10.819.00 GL 550 1.00 SY 300 6.50 LF 100 5.00 LF 650 1.50 SY 1.550 6.50 1.453 9.444.50 SF 3.200 3.50 169 591.50 LF 233 22.00 86 1.892.00 LF 141 24.00 121 2.904.00 LF 20 26.00 EA 2 900.00 1 900.00 LF 595 1.00 207 207.00 LF 595 0.01 LF 450 2.00 100 200.00 l:\139\139e8\nEQUEST6.WB2 r 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 Furnish and install 15" CMP culvert 15" CMP flared end Riprap, Class in hand placed Sod with 4" topsoil Seed with topsoil, mulch and fertilizer Erosion control fence Wood fiber blanket Furnish and plant Evergreen Tree (Blue Spruce) 6' high Furnish and plant shade uee (Sugar Maple) 4‘ diameter Remove and replace wood or chain link fence Remove and uansplant bushes Remove and transplant tree - Desiduous Remove and transplant tree - Coniferous Salvage and reirisiall wood guard post Total Part 3 - Restoration LF 450 12.00 367 4,404.00 EA 30 100.00 16 1.600.00 CY 12 30.00 8 240.00 SY 28.000 2.25 AC 2 1,550.00 LF 1,000 2.50 1,000 2.500.00 SY 750 1.50 329 493.50 EA 6 225.00 EA 6 500.00 1 500.00 LF 600 15.00 EA 12 75.00 EA 12 150.00 EA 15 150.00 • EA 11 50.00 5.50 275.00 87 88 89 90 Part 4 • Ice Arena Duplex Grinder Station Duplex submersible grinder station 2" HOPE. SDR 11 Connect to existing manhole 2" HDPE 45 degree bends Total Part 4 - Ice Arena Duplex Grinder Station 92 93 95 96 97 Pact 5 - Lift Station 6 Renovation Temporary controls, pumps and piping for Interim conveyance Lift station demolition New pumps, piping, valves, top hatch and slab New control panel, base slab, dialer, and miscellaneous electrical Sod 8" Class 5 aggregate base 3 “ thick bituminous driveway Total Part 5 - Lift Station 6 Renovation 98 Part 6 - Lift Station 12 Modifications Remove existing impellers and wear rings l:\139\1 398S\REQUEST0.WB2 5206,975.70 LS 1 18.600.00 0.98 18.228.00 LF 1,160 6.00 1,105 6.630.00 EA 1 1,000.00 1 1,000.00 2 50.00 2 100.00 EA 525.958.00 LS 1 2.000.00 1 2.000.00 LS 1 5.000.00 1 5.000.00 LS 1 35.000.00 1 31.500.00 LS 1 24.000.00 1 21.600.00 SY 50 2.25 TN 75 12.00 73 876.00 TN 30 45.00 560.976.00 L and place new impellers and wear rings Total Part 6 • Lift Station 12 Modifications 2.052.00 SO.OO Part 7 • Forcemain Alignment Deduct! 4" forcemain directional bore (Item No. 13) ML 4” HDPE forcemain. SDR 17 4" HDPE forcemain, SDR 17, directional bore .Air release manhole Sod with 4” topsoil Bituminous driveway restoration Total Part 7 - Forcemain Alignment LF (140)20.00 (140)(2.800.00) LF 643 8.40 643 5.401.20 LF 45 20.00 45 900.00 EA 1 1.900.00 1 1.900.00 SY 1.367 2.25 1.245 2.801.25 SY 33 15.50 S8.202.45 Part 8 • Residental Submersible Grinder Stations 105 Residental simplex grinder pump stations EA Total Part 8 - Residental Submersible Grinder Stations 3.290.00 32.900.00 S32.900.00 Alternate No. 1 - MH 22 to MH 22A 8" PVC, SDR 35. 10' - 12' deep in place Auger or directional bore 8" PVC Std. MH 8' dp.. 4' dia.. w/R1642B cstg. MH depth greater than 8' deep Remove & transplant tree - coniferous Total Alternate No. 1 • MH 22 to MH 22A LF 193 30.00 172 5.160.00 LF 55 75.00 84 6.300.00 EA 1 1.440.00 1 1.440.00 LF 2 100.00 5.20 520.00 EA 10 150.00 0 513.420.00 Change Order No. 1 Furnish & plant shade tree (Sugar Maple) Std MH 8 ’ dp.. 4’ dia., w/R1642B cstg. MH depth greater than 8' deep Total Change Order No. I EA 15 500.00 15 7.500.00 EA 3 1.440.00 3.00 4.320.00 LF 6 100.00 6.00 600.00 SI 2.420.00 Change Order No. 2 4 ■ riser pipe e.xtension Total Change Order No. 2 845.00 SO.OO Change Order No. 3 Add 12" corrugated PE pipe 12" PE F.E.S. with trash guard 154 19.00 1 625.00 147.00 1.00 2.793.00 625.00 l;\139\13988V1EQUEST8.WB2 Total Part 4 • Ice Arena Duplex Grinder Station Total Part S - Lift Station 6 Renovation Total Part 6 • Lift Station 12 Modifications Total Part 7 - Forcemain Alignment Total Part 8 • Residental Submersible Grinder Stations Alternate No. I • MH 22 to MH 22A Total Change Order No. 1 Total Change Order No. 2 Total Change Order No. 3 Total Change Order No. 4 Total Change Order No. 5 Total Change Order No. 6 Total Change Order No. 7 Total Change Order No. 8 Total Work Completed to Date 25.958.00 60.976.00 0.00 8.202.45 32.900.00 13.420.00 12.420.00 0.00 (870.00) 31.450.00 10.208.00 6.973.60 993.60 28.154.00 $842,722.75 l;\139\139e8\nEQUEST8.WB2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: DATE: March 6, 1998 ITEM NO: / 3 Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report 'Stal The 1.™ De,crip«.a: Old Crystal Bay Road Bike/Hikc Trail Agreement wi.h Hem.epi„ Parks Bar^kemM ^ «g-<ling .he Old Oy agreemem “a • .o^*e B^d rT''' “ "T”" agreement is acceptable. ^ity determines the The main elements of the agreement are as follows: A. The Park Mstrict will construct the remainder of the trail on Old Crystal Bav Rosd and along County Road 6 and into Baker Park (Paragraph 2, Page [) Wstriaff^grap^^^ by hie Park The license enabling the Park District to use the trail is perpetual and irtevocable ime license isterminated, the City will reimburse the Pmk District for~ for gmeering and constructing the trail from Baker Park to the point on Old Crystal Bay Road where the Park District’s construction began (Paragraph 5 Pa^e 2k The trail will be used exclusively for pedestrian and bicycle uses. Pedestrian uses eauest^’ limited to walking jogging and in-line skating. Motorized and the P Jk^Districrfor^°M*^*^^^ motorized vehicles used by the City orPark District for trail maintenance and security (Paragraph 6, Page 2). The Pyk District will maintain the trail to the same standard at which the Park District maintains other typical trails (Paragraph 7, Page 2). C. D. Staff Recommendation COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: oi7c°;irBTR:^d;iLXk:‘.::^ of .he bikchike agr SMililfl ftfWslwi WltScfil [trwRi LUiggurtgHtiiUiftig? ii^irc WiKlitUHf ItilKUjRlT mm vmm REtKTiTi insiirti HMUtiin m 4. 5. 6. Cost sharing. The City will bear the costs cf the portion of the trail constructed by the City. The Park District will bear the costs of the portion of the trail constructed by the Park District. This includes engineering and construction costs. The City and the Park District will share the trail design costs in the same ratio as the portions of the trail they each construct. Termination. Notwithstanding the perpetual and irrevocable nature of the license created herein, should Licensor, its successors or assigns, terminate, cancel or fail to recognize the License and Licensee's rights created herein, or should Licensee be unable to exercise its rights created because of the widening, relocation or other alteration of Old Crystal Bay Road, Licensor shall immediately upon demand reimburse the Park District's construction and daign costs for the trail from the boundary of Baker Park Reserve to the point where the Parle District commenced construction. Trail Uses and Purposes. a. The Trail shall be open to the general public, and shall be used exclusively for pedestrian uses including but not limited to walking, jogging, and in-line skating, and bicycle uses. Motorized and equestrian uses shall be prohibited, except those motorized vehicles used by the City or Park District for maintenance or enforcement activities. b. If the City has a concern about a specific type of use allowed on the trail, the City will notify the Hennepin Parks Superintendent who will develop and implement a solution. If the problems related to the specific use remain, they will be addressed by a committee made up of the Orono City Administrator, the Hennepin Parks Superintendent, one (1 ) Orono Council Member or Orono Park Commission Member and one (1) Hennepin Parks Commissioner selected by the Park District. If this committee can not agree on a solution the issue will be submitted to an arbitration process. The arbitrator's decision will be binding on both parties. Maintenance of Trail. The Licensee shall maintain the Trail in such manner and to such extent as Licensee shall, in its sole discretion, deem necessary. However, at minimum, the trail must be maintained to the same standard at w'hich the Park District maintains other typical trails. The Licensee may, at its sole election, conduct nomial maintenance activities on the Trail including without limitation snow removal, trash removal, policing, or repairing the Trail, provided that the conduct of such activities by the Licensee with respect to the Trail shall not impose any obligation upon the Licensee for similar or other types of maintenance with respect to the Trail at any time. The Licensee may also erect and maintain, in such manner and to such extent as Licensee shall, in its sole discretion, deem necessary-, all signage relating to the Licensee's use of, and interest in, the Trail. raci raniiasULOiMOiig RIMOG MiTiilulJ [mm [t)tfCllKjld3 ^KT¥i •IWUJtJ firaiTgnaCTiTTtyiMlOikttJ RTiTimUJ [^13 •lOlEtJ iL«l •lAiiiii niniiifsvitwtra " W' tliMAffi RVTiTi P«ViTtr. 0s1 [ijatium tit 12. Duration of License. The License granted herein is perpetual and irrevocable and may not be revoked, cancelled, terminated or amended in any way at any time except by written agreement of Licensor and Licensee. The License granted herein may not be terminated, except in accordance with paragraph 4 herein, and the Trail may not be destroyed in connection with widening relocation, or other alteration of Old Crystal Bay Road or any street or thoroughfare for which Licensor has the partial or total obligation of maintenance. 13. Successor and Assigns The Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, provided, however, that neitlier the Licensor nor Licensee shall have the right to assign its rights, obligations and interests in or under this Agreement to any other party without the prior written consent of the other party hereto. 14. Amendment. Modification or Waivpr, No amendment, modification or waiver of any condition, provision or term of this Agreement shall be valid or of any effect unless made in writing and signed by the party or parties to be bound, or its duly authorized representative. No waiver by either party shall be effective only with respect to the subject matter thereof and the particular occurrence descnbed therem, and shall not effect the rights of either party with respect to any similar or dissimilar occurrences in the future. 15. Savin2 Provision. If any provision of the Agreement shall be found invalid or unenforceable with respect to any entity or in any jurisdiction, remaining provision of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby, and such provisions found to be unlawful or unenforceable shall not be affected as to their enforcement or la^vfulness as to any other entity or in any other jurisdiction, and to such extend the terms and provisions of this Agreement are intended to be severable. 16. Notices. Any notice given under this Agreement shall be deemed given on the first business day following the date the same is deposited in the United States Mail (registered or certified) postage prepaid, addressed as follows: If to the Licensee: Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District 12615 County Road 9 Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 If to the Licensor:City Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 17. Rntire Agreement, This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings between the parties with respect thereto. No representations, warranties, undertakings or promises, whether oral, implied, written or otherwise have been made by either party hereto to the other unless expressly stated in th’’’ Agreement, or as mutually agreed to in writing between the parties hereto after the date of this Agreement, and neither party has relied upon any verbal representations, agreements, or understandings not expressly set forth herein. 18. Choice of Law, This Agreement is entered into, and shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of Minnesota. 19. Prior AporovaL This Agreement is contingent upon approval and execution by the Board of Commissioners of the Licensee and of the City Council of Licensor. 20. Headings. The various headings of this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement of any Provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. LICENSOR:CITY OF ORONO BY: ITS: C0UNCILME£TINQ MAR ^ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION crrY cf c- DATE: March 6, 1998 ■^:0 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: C *' Ani-ni-trator's ‘Ifiport Item Description: Interim Ordinance Enacting a Moratorium Suspending Certain Uses as Permitted or Conditional Uses in the City's Industrial Zone The City Council recently adopted a resolution setting out a general concept plan for land use along Highway 12. The focus of the land use concept plan is to preserv'e the City's natural rural character, particularly in areas currently serving as gateway points to the City's rural residential areas, and to fachi:?te high quality development and employment opportunities. T he concept plan indicates the types of uses envisioned for the City's industrial zoned area are high tech manufacturing, medical, office/service, and similar uses. The City's Zoning Code currently allows uses in the industrial zone that are substantially contrary to the general concept plan and the Council's vision reflected in the concept plan. Therefore, it is recommended that the City conduct a study to determine the types of uses that are compatible with the general concept plan for land use along Highway 12, and the conditions under which these uses would be compatible with the general concept plan. To prevent incompatible uses from being introduced into the industrial zone during the period of the study, it is recommended that a moratorium be enacted which suspends certain uses as permitted or conditional uses in the City's industrial zone. These uses are as follows: 1. 7. Automobile and truck painting, major repair, body and fender work, upholstering, tire recapping, sales and storage. Storage repair and wholesaling of boats and marine products. Bus, truck and contractors terminals and maintenance yards. Lumber yards and mill works. Warehousing. Farm equipment sales, repair and storage. Motor fuel stations. Request for Council Action continued Page 2 March 6, 1998 Ordinance Adopting a Moratorium Suspending Certaii> Uses as Permit* City's Industrial Zone 8. Open sales lots. or Conditional Uses in the 9. Outside storage. 10. Railroad switch yards. Staff believes the study can be completed, and the ordinance amended to reflect the results of the study within a period of six months. Therefore, staff recommends the moratorium be enacted, effective March 9, 1998 and terminated on September 15, 1*^98. A moratorium ordinance will be provided for Council approval at the March 9 meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve an interim ordinance enacting a moratorium suspending certair uses as permitted or conditional uses in the City's industrial zone, effective March 9, 1998 and terminating September 15, 1998. MORATORl IHD iT riTCt] OilOM SUITE wTiTilTi ftgKv.urn#^ifia#;u)TtnnwtlRliiI^tItMliWiE>J ItlSMHJ im Mini A III FT mWT •ifroT AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, MARCH 9,1998,7:0Q P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public •Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL 1. CONSENT AGENDA ..r do i- rj' 0 ^ APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Regular Meeting of February 23,1998 COUNCIL MEEUNQ MAR 9 199* CITY OF ORONO PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Andrew McDermott, Representative 3. March for Parks Proposal PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Sandy Smith, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 4. #2317 Khasrow Daivari, 1082 Loma Linda Avenue - After-the-Fact Variances - Resolution 5. #2323 Tim Nelson on behalf of David Pomije, 3120 North Shore Drive - Variances 6. #2326 Orono Development, LLC, 2380 Shady wood Road - Commercial Site Plan Review and Variances - Resolution 7. #2327 Orono Development, LLC - B-5 Ordinance Amendment 8. #2336 Bruce Newton, 3580 Frederick Street- After-the-Fact Variances - Resolution 9. #2338 Grant Wenkstem/Lakeview Golf, 405 North Arm Drive - Conditional Use Permit and Variance - Resolution 10. #2339 James D. Render, 1365 Tonkawa Road - Preliminary Plat 11. #2341 Daniel J. Anderson, 905 Old Crystal Bay Road North - Preliminary Plat - Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT • Discussion Regarding Park Commission Appointment ENGINEER REPORT Al2. Request for Payment #8 - North Long Lake/Long Lake Countiy Club Sewer Project CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 13. Old Crystal Bay Road Bike Trail Agreement 14. Interim Ordinance Enacting a Moratorium Suspending Certain Uses in the City's Industrial Zone 15. Appointment of Payroll/Utility Billing Specialist 16. Pay Increase for Planning Intern .^17. Approve CDBG Grant Application 18. Schedule HRA Meeting to Approve Refunding Bond Sale CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ♦ 19. LICENSES * 20. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 03/04 03/09 03/12 03/16 03/23 04/01 04/06 04/13 04/20 04/22 04/25 04/27 05/02 05/09 Highway 12 Design Review Committee meeting, 5:30 p.m. Council meeting, 7:00 p.m. Council Work Session, 8:00 a.m. Planning Commission, 6:30 p.m. Council meeting, 7:00 p.m. Highway 12 Design Review Committee meeting, 5:30 p.m. Park Commission meeting, 7:15 p.m. Council meeting, 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission, 6:30 p.m. Board of Review, 7:00 p.m. Joint Orono/Long Lake Cleanup Day, 8:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Council meeting, 7:00 p.m. Goodwill Collection Day, 9:00 a.m. -1:00 p.m. Joint Orono/Long Lake Cleanup Day-Construction Debris Only, 8:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. Public A ttendance Meeting D ate Council Planning Commission □ Park Commission Other Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER I.Acs.;-VVi 2.^ y ^ tr . As A- gr ^ /V c> / /c / oL >w N ~ *---------------------------------------—i:::-------- 3. M >^<<! A. ,l. /, |t55 im BIS MS?1*3 SS 55 »S2- !► ill C/> >g.-o -------------------------H oo ON yi ui a 2§S Q. J23-0 o a3, a. 5* ts> S ei f> /Om o 3 O « &• 3c < r»<» a: n w a ;r os.^3 ?4 O S *TJ >•s| 5- ^ O *1 KO 3 3 3 *-♦> 15 2^ ^ IOQ H•—« •—» 3 3; 03 V. (/)H O >3 gL ^ a ® 2 s'” M X ?:2 •nI5is •-*1 *T3 S o 3n» 3 5:— — NO 00 ^ O — o ON UN 1.5 KJ r>j UJ UJ 4^ uj — NO ^ iK It t>j to ro UJ Oi u» Ui CO to 00 O n -o % % ^ f to to U* CO UJ to to ^ ON u.* *o No o OQ p» 2 s?. Ho 3 > It: CO I o §• 2 O PO <k ! 2 ^ S 3 2 OQ pd •O H no ^ p o l/> <; o CD o § 3 H ^ S' - „ V- P S 5: X? a > ?o • '’ 3 r* ^ Sc ?0r* 3rxoj-1 PO r>*-n 3 OQ o *3 ?■ ™_E___•-I r*o 3 OQ (/I to O 3 CX#» 3 o 3 ^ O n H o g- tu o ^ o Xr»^1 _ ia 3 O rfc - *0 g 3^ u. o< 0 o 3 o cx n f-^ 60 g. 2 sr$ 5?3. < o §.3 S § S D«/» fV I < 15- T3- 3*= C5 -• 3o ^ r- r* o 3 f> ?T-- V s ^3 ? HC o C/) r «-4n o :r^ 5 R3 C/) *-dr >; o oo V V V5 C/) p a Qg-?to CO Co 00 > to ,2 r* ^ 2 W (X 1—1 r: S 2 5 •T3o ?3 H Oy oo V ►-• V >!d 0 W 3 00 CL'^ UJ 2 n to 1^ po 0 rr n ?r 0 ^r» ^ »TE* ia• 3* t% — 3.2 0 0 ^ P3 <0 0 r 2 n tl> 0 ^ 5 -;■ =■ a 1 (/) *'0 s a 2 C/) t*i 0. o U 0 3 3 r* ^ P C2. •-»aj MR 9 ?. 5 >rt 3 ? .'T ^ ^ n 0 H am 0 0 2E 3 S - • C. cx iv ^ Cj _ 3 5 •3 B a ^ C/) ncr > D C r» M -1 V, H (y^ CO I 3 o to CO S-H 5T I Jf_ NO NO 00 m ffiIlf Mm*-*gj? t> o ;► 5*^ 2O ^ V.2s> 5»Oo5n F V 3 H m:? ‘ c U) n Pn I 5 PI 5 00o i ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23, 1998 COUNCIL MEEtS q MAR 9 1998 ROLL CITY OF ORONO The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present; Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley, and Barbara Peterson. Richard Flint was absent. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gatfron, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, Planning Intern Brad Bressler, City Engineer Glenn Cook, Building Inspector Bruce Vang, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Jabbour called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (m) CONSENT AGENDA Items U5, 6, 7, 10, 1 1, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, and 29 were added to the Consent Agenda. Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (Agenda item U2 follows Public Comments.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES (*#3) REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9,1998 Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of February 9, 1998. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS The Park Commission was not represented. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner McMillan had no comments at this time. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Lili McMillan presented the Council with a LMCD update. She reviewed the information provided in the packet regarding an application submission by the LMCD for a $5 million grant from the LCMR for additional public boat accesses, water quality report conducted by John Barton, and the proposed personal watercraft legislation. 1 98 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 (LMCD Report - Continued) McMillan said discussions regarding the grant application have resulted in an understanding that city governments are to be consulted and involved in the review and approval process of any proposed public access site. The DNR is in agreement. McMillan noted that the Ma.Kwell Bay public access is being used as a model for future access points. The grant money outcome will be determined this summer. The DNR is presently reviewing potential access sites. A Memorandum of Understanding between the DNR and LMCD was created with the assistance of Mayor Jabbour. McMillan said the mayors of the lake cities were informed of this matter at their recent Mayors Breakfast Meeting. Kelley was informed by McMillan that the chances of getting the grant will be decided in part by whether an access site has been determined. Jabbour said there is $30 million in grant money available and $500 million in requests made for the grant money. Goetten questioned why the change in leadership regarding the grant money requested by the LMCD. McMillan said the LMCD is working with the DNR. It is her hope that the DNR oversees the grant. Goetten was informed that the LMCD took the lead in applying for the grant money. McMillan said the LMCD is only to check on the site from a surface water point of view'. She feels city involvement will be helpful. Jabbour indicated that the grant submission was approved at the LMCD meeting without notification of the cities. He understood two sites were being considered and asked that the LMCD involve the particular cities, which did not occur. Jabbour said he informed the cities of what w as happening. Jabbour said the DNR then withdrew their application. The cities felt public input was important for the process but decided to move forward with the application with guidelines developed. Jabbour said the DNR Trails and Waterways have accepted the position taken by the cities. Jabbour said the grant money would be distributed in 1999. Unanimous approval w’as given for submission of the grant application. It will be reviewed at the May meeting of the LMCD. Jabbour said he attempted to include the LMOA, who felt it is easier to control the influx of exotic plants by limiting the number of access points. McMillan said the process was to be followed that was developed by the Lake Access Task Force. McMillan said she would keep the Council updated. The goal is to provide a quality access point. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 (LMCD Report - Continued) McMillan reviewed the water quality report. This is the third year that Hennepin Parks has tested the lake water. Poor water quality was mainly found in the western bays of the lake, which tend to be shallower. Phosphorus exists in these bays. McMillan said she would like to know how the phosphorus initially became present in the water. She noted that the chloride content, which is the salt level, was found in high quantities in Wayzata Bay. McMillan said Banon reported that salt content is important to the stormwater management as the lake water will not turn over properly if it is too salty. McMillan felt the testing was important and water quality should be monitored closely. McMillan reported that the LMCD wrote a letter regarding the pending legislation on personal watercraft. McMillan said the ban of personal watercraft in lakes of less than 200 acres does not solve the problems for Lake Minnetonka with its many bays that are also small in size. She did not believe the approach being taken was necessarily the correct one. She felt education and licensing were important. Jabbour said the Board now understands the importance of licensing, which is not available at this time. He reported having asked Senator Gen Olson to spearhead legislation for licensing for the metro area. Kelley clarified with Jabbcur that his desire is to have all operators of boats be licensed. Jabbour confirmed that citing examples of where problems have occurred. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. (U2) ADVANCE REFUNDING OF CITY FACILITIES BONDS - RESOLUTION NO. 4032 CALLING FOR BOND SALE Carolyn Drude, the City's bond consultant, reported that the 1991 Public Facilities Revenue Bonds have been reviewed and found to quality for a "crossover advance" refunding at this time. She clarified what this means noting the bond issue has a call date and several options are available for refinancing. There is a time period in advance of the call date where bonds can be replaced with new bonds. The money is placed in escrow and interest is paid from that account on the new bonds until that call date. Drude reviewed the Exhibits 1.00, 2.00, 3.00, and 4.00 of her report. She noted the principal amount in Exhibit 2.00 is higher due to issuance costs and underwriters cost. Drude explained the savings noted in Exhibit 3.00. Drude said Minnesota law requires that the debt service savings for a crossover advance reftinding be at least 3.00% on a present value basis. She has computed the City's savings to be 4 20%. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 (#2 - Advance Refunding of City Facilities Bonds - Continued) Jabbour noted the bond is an HR A Bond He asked if there would be any savings for the City if they accumulate this bond with others, such as those used for sewering projects. Drude said the financing needs to be separated but if done within a short period of time, there would be savings on some fees as some information would remain the same. In response to a cjuestion from Kelley, Drude explained how the process works. The $2.4 million in cash would be placed in escrow. She recommended the escrow be invested in SLGS and issued to coincide with the payment date and carrying the maximum interest rates available at that time. Kelley was informed that the money in escrow would be invested with an interest rate similar to that of the bonds. Drude reviewed the process taken for making this decision. Bids are taken and rates are calculated and reviewed by a CPA and Bond Counsel. The escrow agent used is the City’s decision but would be a major bank. Drude indicated the rates are locked in when the award is made. Moorse indicated the HRA has to take action on March 23 along with the Council. Jabbour asked Drude if she felt this action was appropriate. Drude said she would inform the Council if any changes occur in interest rates prior to the bid date. If so, the matter can be placed on hold. Drude indicated that if the sale was held and bids were rejected, the only cost incurred would be that from Moody Investors Service of 60% of the cost or about $2500. Drude said she would not recommend the refunding if the present value savings were barely over 3% but feels the 4% savings is respectable. She noted that it is impossible to determine what will occur to the interest rates in the future. Council agreed to move forward with the advance refunding of the City facilities bond sale. Jabbour asked Staff to review what other bonds are being considered for possible savings. Kelley moveo, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4032 calling for an advance refunding bond sale ofthe HRA City facilities'bonds on March 23, 1998. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#4) #2290 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3225 CASCO CIRCLE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO GRADE WITHIN 5 ’ OF THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE TO ALLOW A DRIVEWAY AND RETAINING WALI The Applicants were present. mm lil^riTsTi {•moa rtiw^ iJi Ml tranri r>nm\y.CTKiraig{ririT¥iWaJiBii MiS^tj^i^itWiiirigtl iinirt mm [•JllitfS] MlVsi [lEiMiilgCTniliTg iltlliri mwuli]siEmuFiinniTa iiacc Miiriiii^ mm MaiM mmEEwmBsmts ^mm LilllllnsWiTiliTi LtJOitiHI MimlRl niin^ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCII MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 {U4 - #2290 Eluine and Stevt >ilus - Continued) Jabbour reported that during his visit to the site, he asked the applicant to have another alternative available to the retaining wall. Jabbour said the neighbors are being aflected Silus responded that when the original plan was designed, it was shown to the neighbors, who did not voice any objection at that time Gaffron commented that the neighbors signed an acknowledgment letter, which does not indicate their agreement to the plan. Silus countered that if there was an objection, it should have been voiced at that time Silus felt with the error in the topographical map and 2 ’ change in elevation, the issues should have been brought forward sooner. Jabbour confirmed with Silus that the plan design approved by the Council and Planning Commission did not include a retaining wall. The plan with the retaining wall was signed by the building inspector. Jabbour clarified that the applicant is able to have his driveway up to the property line. Silus said he would leave the decision to the neighbors on what option to follow, the retaining wall or driveway to the property line Kelley asked if Silus has spoken w ith the Spilseths. Silus said the neighbors did not wish to communicate with him. Kelley referenced the comment by the Spilseths in their letter regarding concern with snow removal. Kelley felt this issue could be resolved. Silus said there has been no problem in the past with snow removal and was not presented as an issue until the retaining wall objection arose. He noted this issue was discussed at the Planning Commission. Jabbour questioned where the City's position currently lays. He noted that Lyle Oman signed the site plan with changes that had not received approval. Vang confinned that Oman missed the detail of the boulder retaining wall in the plan Vang noted no distance was shown for the retaining wall from the property line either. Silus said it was not shown as he was unaware of the 5 ’ setback requirement. Vang said the builder was informed of the 5* setback at the lime the footings were laid. Jabbour asked that such information be presented in writing in the future. This would enable an applicant to be placed on notice immediately. Goetten .suggested information should be given to applicants notifying them that any changes to plans would trigger further review Vang indicated that their department is considering the need for plans to be signed by all involved staft*. ► L MINUTES Of THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 (#4 - #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) Peterson asked if the garage was built up higher from the original plans. Vang said the change in elevation occurred because of the use of the aerial, topographical maps instead of being done by a surveyor on site. Vang said discussions were held on site regarding the problems. The builder was informed that retaining walls higher than 4' are not allowed and cannot be nearer than 5' to the property line. The applicant then took action to drop the garage elevation so any retaining wall would be less than 4' high. Vang said the builder does not remember the remainder of the conversation regarding the 5' setback Vang said it was suggested at the time of framing that the garage be changed to a front- load. He was informed at that time the applicant preferred the side-loading garage. Silus said he was not personally informed of the 5’ setback requirement for the retaining wall. He said he i". not in the position to change the entry into the garage at this time, adding that the opportunity to make that change has passed. Vang informed the Council that the Planning Department has incorporated the policy of requiring both the homeowner and builder be on site to discuss any conflicts that arise. Jabbour said it should also be in writing. Pat Spilseth reported that the applicant was told from the beginning of the application process that the garage should be front loading. She indicated this would be similar to other homes on Casco Circle. Spilseth noted the small lot sizes in the area Spilseth said she had never seen the elevation drawings before. She also noted that letters of concern were sent in by many of the neighbors. Jabbour said it would help if the applicant and neighbors met to discuss the alternatives. He felt the decision should not be made by the Council. It was noted that a front loading garage door would require the removal of a large tree. Jabbour confirmed with Barrett that the approval or denied of the application must be completed within a 60-day time period. Jabbour said the applicant would not be able to bring the issue forward again for six months if the application was now denied. Spilseth said she was unaware that the option existed for front loading doors with the removal of a tree Silus said that was not an option that he would explore. Jabbour noted the two options available. Silus indicated the retaining wall tapers from O' at the garage to 2-1/2' at its highest elevation. Jabbour asked if the driveway can be elevated without requiring retaining walls Vang said no. Peterson asked what the slope of the driveway would be without a retaining wall. Vang said the maximum slope would be at 12% where 10% is normally allowed. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL iM/- uri n nisi FrRRITARY 23. 1998 Kelley indicated he would be concerned with water Howage oft'the slope to the soutk nol be to her best interest to have a sloping driveway neighboring her property as it may net catch all the water He suggested that plantings could be used to screen the retaining wall if the neighbor does not like the look of it. Kelley said the neighbor and applicant need to work through the problem. Spilseth said the properties have always been at the same elevation. She does nrtt feel she should have been placed in this position. Jabbour acknowledged her concern but said the City would like her input. Problems with delaying any action were noted it the application was denied. Jabbour asked Silus for permission to table the application in order to allow the applicant and neighbors to meet to resolve the issues. Silus gave his consent. Jabbour said Staff would be willing to review the options with the Spilseths. Bairett indicated that since Silus has given his oral agreement to tabling the application, the City can prepare a letter for Silus ’ signature indicating tliis agreement. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application 2290. Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*m #2312 CLAUS WEILER AND RENEE MEERKINS» 1135 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4033 Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4033. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. i*H6) #2316 MIKE HILBELINK, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 120 GOLDEN VIEW D^ CLASS HI FINAL SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION NO. 4034 Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4034. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#7) #2320 MITCHELL AND ASTA GERSOVITZ, 3650 CASCO AVENUE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4035 Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4035. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (Agenda items #8 and 9 follow item #12 as agreed to by Applicant, John O’Sullivan.) (#12) #2342 MARK L. CASEY, 255 LANDMARK DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4038 The Applicant was present. 8 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL mtii:. 111^0 nti^u tyyo (#12 - #2342 Mark Casey - Continued) Jabbour proposed the applicant be refunded his application fee due to the Council's intent to consider an ordinance for administrative approval of small amounts of excavation. Council agreed this would be appropriate. Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4038 and instruct Staff to retund the application tee. Start was instructed to amend the ordinance to allow administrative approval of excavation up to 5 cubic yards Gaffron said the amendment to the ordina.ice would be drafted for presentation at a public hearing. Voie; Ayes 4, Nays 0. Casey extended his appreciation of the work done by the Council. (#8) #2326 ORONO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 2380 SHADYVVOOD ROAD - VARIANCE/COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW Tom Dillon, John O'Sullivan, and Mike Sepena were present. Gaffron reported that the proposal is for a combined oftlce/retail building including a bank with a drive-through and oftice space. Variances are required for 500-1000' zone hardcover, parking setback from front lot line, and building facade material. The property is a conforming site in the B-5 District. Gaffron reported there were a number of issues reviewed by the Planning Commission. He reviewed the site plan. The traffic flow is proposed to be in a counter-clockwise circulation. Access is near the intersection of CoRds 15 and 19. Hennepin County Public Works and the Planning Commission e satisfied with the access and recommended two access points to the pr erty. Gaffron said, while Staff does not disagree, an issue was raised at the time of the Culver's application regarding the access The curb cut distance requirement from the intersection is met, but the City Engineer had voiced concern at it may become a problem in the future, particularly if a full right turn is added at the intersection. Gaffron noted the applicant has addressed many of the comments made by the City Engineer and Planning Consultant, Wally Case. Suggestions were made by the Planning Commission resulting in a revised plan Gaffron reviewed the 5 recommendations made as noted on page 2 of the memo The Commission recommended a 5' variance instead of the requested 15* variance for front parking setback. They would like to see more green space along Shadywood. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 (#8 - U2326 Orono Development Continued) Jabboui asked about the public easement for the pedestrian connection to Olive Avenue. GatTron noted the conceptual approval for vacation of a portion of Navarre Lane required public easements for a trail connection. It was concluded that a pedestnan tran would not be appropriate but a walking path would travel across the parking Olive Avenue to the sidewalk Gaflron questioned whether a public easement should be taken, noting the question would arise ot who w'ould maintain it. Gaffron said the Planning Commission ’s primar>' concern was for the front parking setback along Shadywood Gaffron reviewed the specific problems in ch^ging the setback resulting from the difficult site, stormwater ponding, retaining wa 1 and driving lane for drive-through e.Cit and rear deliveries The applicants feel the building depth is at its optimum The two rows of parking are necessary. While the Planning Comi.nission asked that the plan be reviewed to see if an additional 10' could be found lor the setback, they were otherwise satisfied with the revised plan Gaffron reviewed the topics discussed at the Planning Commission level. Grading and drainage plan indicates grading within 5’ of the property line. The plan was reviewed by the adjacent property owner to the north The slope along the north lot line has been flattened to a 2:1 ratio and the building raised in order to accomplish this resulting in a 4% maximum slope for the parking lot as recommended by the City Engineer. Gaffron indicated follow-up is necessary for the conceptual vacation of Navarre Lane, which can be accomplished in the resolution draft. The remaining concern is again with the 5’ front setback and its impact on the future look of the Navarre area. Tom Dillon said the bu!’ u was a one-story design with a brick base and cedar shake i; above,with four entry • ts The building is designed for 6-7 tenants The plan calls for a bank building of 4500 a.f with corporate bank offices The pitched roof w.ll be of asphalt shingling. There will be three driving lanes to the rear for traffic circulation, drive-through access, and deliveries The building includes many windows to allow for light to flow into the building Dillon believes the building design and materials will compliment tlie lake area He has received good comments from the tenants and neighbors. Dillon reported that the elevation changes on the site from 942 to 970. The site is hemmed in by the pond, which will be upg. aded to handle runoff for the two sites. The parking stalls are 9\20 ’. There will be a 20' driving lane and double loading to allow for drive-through traffic and deliveries The S’-12 ’ high retaining wall will aid in handling the change in grade Room is required to accommodate this change in grade effectively. Dillon noted the trash enclosure is located outside and would be screened. All of the existing trees will be removed Dillon said they have worked closely w ith Staff and consultants to address issues of concern Possible outdoor seating area will be provided in the front to gain a neighborhood feel MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 (#8 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Jabbour asked Staffs opinion on the 5 ’ parking setback. He questioned if there was any other commercial district where a 20' setback e.xists. He asked if the 20' setback was reasonable. Gaffron said there are likely no commercial properties w ith a full 20' setback Gaffron said he has concluded, however, that to gain the setback it must be obtained now. Gatlron said the Planning Commission has recommended a 15' setback. Jabbour noted the many standards being required today that reduce useable site area, citing the e.xample of ponding. He indicated priorities have to be review ed. Gaffron noted the code suggests the importance of reviewing the visual aspect ( f the site. He is also concerned if the county road is widened in the future, w ith the City sidewalk abutting the property and only 5' of green space, road e.xpansion could be up to the parking space. Gaffron agreed with Jabbour that it may be an issue of policy. Moorse was of the opinion that it would be difficult to grow any grass or shrubbery within the 5' of green space. Goetten asked what effect the Planning Commission recommendation would have on parking. Gaffron indicated the plan would not be teasible if a row of parking was eliminated. Gaffron said the initial reaction was to make the building less deep. Dillon said the options were reviewed. The building had originally been proposed at a much larger size. He indicated the bumpouts for trees on the front of the building did not satisfy the Planning Commission Dillon said the building depth w as standard as well as the parking space. The 20' drive clearance to the rear is necessary to handle the traffic flow. John O'Sullivan said his adjacent property has a 5' green space. He has been able to maintain a hedge with flower gardens each year. He also referenced the additional landscaping planned around the building. Dillon said green space is provided at the corner of CoRds 15 and 19 as well as surrounding the pond area. Dillon indicated the vacated portion of Navarre Lane could be an area for additional green space. Kelley asked if there would be a raili;.g on the retaining wall. Mike Sepena, the building contractor, informed Kelley that thw highest point of the wall is 14'. A condition of the Planning Commission review was the placement of a fence along the wall. The type of fencing has not yet been studied. Kelley indicated the need to create a pleasan* view and a safe environment. Kelley w as informed that a substantial amount of fill would be brought onto the property. The amount was not known. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 Kellev asked about drainage. He noted the pond elevation is lower than that of the Lld-mg. He was informed that tiling would be installed “"'‘'^sroun.^to coll^ water and transport it to the pond. Sepena indicated where the p.ping w ould be located Kelley asked about lighting He is concerned with its impact on the neighboring properties GaHVon displayed the lighting plan. Dillon said they "'“I’ to satisfy the needs of the businesses and neighborhood. Kelley asked that directional Srh us^to reflect away from the neighbors. Kelley was informed that wble their insuraL company may desire exterior lighting 24 hours a day, the issue would be studied Dillon no'ted that the expense of lighting is also a concern. Dillon indicated the light choices made meet standard requirements. Sepena showed the locations of the tour lithl poles on the site plan. Additional lights would be placed over the doonvays Kelley asked what type of poles would be used for the lighting. He was informed that the Lie i a 20' shoebox with a single head bulb. Kelley asked the applicatit to ““"J" putting the light pole indicated on the other side of the building and ang.e it towards the Lilding to shelter the light away from the residential area Dillon agreed to study the lighting issue noting the same concerns were expressed at the Planning Comrmssion leyel. Kelley asked the hours of operation Dillon said the bank wouW haye typical banking hours. The coffee shop would open around 6:30-7:00 a m and close between 10-11.00 p m The bagc! shop would open somewhat later There would be limited hours of operation on Sundays. Kelley asked if the applicant would allow a 24 hour operation Dillon said he did not believe that type of business w ould be attracted to this site. Kelley asked about snow storage. Dillon said some snow could be moved to the pond area but the majority would be hauled off site. Jabbour indicated that the landscape architect asked that the applicant proceed carefully with their lighting plan. Jabbour asked if there was a glare ordinance on lighting. Gaffron said the ordinance requires that the source of the light not be visible outside of the property. 1 le believed the shoe-box style would address that concern Peterson said she continued to have reservations about the minimal parking setback. Goetten said she appreciated the concerns for a possible upgrade of CoRd 19 in the future but was concerned with the loss of parking if the Planning Contmission recommendation was approved Peterson noted the amount of parking cannot be reduced Gaflron indicated the parking allotment was three spaces over the requirement He saw no area where the driving space could be reduced A change in parking would change the marketability of the building and require a totally new set of plans Jabbour said a plan for a taller building would not be preferred 12 I MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 (#8 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Kelley asked what the elevation difference was between the driving lane and the gas station. Sepena said the difference was about 3'. Jabbour did not believe the green space along the parking to the rear could be reduced. Goetten said she would like to see improvements made in Navarre and supported the development. Goetten based her support of the 5' setback on the importance of providing the parking space required. She felt any improvements to CoRu 19 would likely be far in the future. Cook suggested a possible reduction in the green space by the retaining wall. However, the retaining wall would have to be designed stronger to accommodate the reduction resulting in a costly expense to the applicant. Gaffron noted that the applicant has been requested to design the area to include green space in order to disguise the retaining wall Sepena added that any reduction in green space would add to the height of the retaining wall as there would be less area to accommodate the slope of the land. Jabbour said he felt it was a good project and agreed with concerns and opinions given. Peterson asked if there were other B-5 District areas affected by this front parking setback. Gaffron showed the three B-5 locations. There is also a 20' setback requirement for the B-1 District located across the street from the subject property. Peterson asked if any of the properties have a 20' setback. Gaffron noted that Lowells Auto Parts approached the 20' requirement, other sites probably did not. Barrett asked how a building material facade variance can be accomplished. He asked what the hardship would be for the variance. Gaffron read the code. It stipulated that building material could be approved by Council. He said it could be argued that a variance was not necessary if Council approval was granted. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Application #2326 for commercial site plan review and variances for 500-1000' zone hardcover and parking setback. The building material as indicated is approved by Council and falls within the stated code section. Staff was directed to d. ift the resolution detailing all conditions and findings for presentation at the March 9 Council meeting. Staff was directed to follow through on the vacation of Navarre Lane. Vote; Ayes 3, Nays 1, Peterson 13 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITl’ COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 (H9) U2321 ORONO DEVELOPMENT, LLC - ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, B-5, CONDITIONAL USES Gaffron indicated that the zoning code amendment is in conjunction with agenda item #8. The amendment requested was for allowing as a conditional use in the B-5 district three specific uses: 1) coffee shop, 2) bagel shop, and 3) pizza. Gaffron indicated that each of these are typical of restaurants but do not tit into the two categories of restaurants in the code. He noted that the B-5 code includes a Dairy Queen. The Planning Commission recommended 4; 1 to include bagel and coffee shops in the B-5. They did not recommend the pizza restaurant due to the odors it generally emits, hours of operations, and general potential problems with the business. The applicant agreed to amend their application to exclude the pizza restaurant. The dissenting Commission vote was based on an opinion that restaurants are not appropriate in the B-5. Gaffron said if the Council agrees \vith the coffee and bagel shops as appropriate uses. Staff should be directed to draft a zoning code amendment to include conditions to keep the nature of the uses at a level commensurate with the B-5 district. Such conditions might include the restaurant not being the primary tenant, and Gaffron suggested a limited percentage of building space be allow ed for the coffee and bagel use. Goetten, Peterson, and Kelley felt the uses were appropriate to the district as a conditional use. Barrett asked for applicant's agreement to extend the time allotment of the application in order for the amendment process to occur. A letter of agreement is to be submitted. Dillon agreed to tabling the application clarifying that the resolution draft could not occur without the amendment of the code. Jabbour asked the record show that the applicant authorized the City to table the application. Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to table Application U2327. Vote. Ayes 4, Nays 0. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to direct Staff to draft language to amend the code to accommodate the coffee shop and bagel shop use as a conditional use in the B-5 District Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#I0) M334 LECY CONSTRUCTION FOR JEFF JACOBSEN, 127 CHEVY CHASE DRIVE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4036 Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No 4036 Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#ll) #2337 SCOIT YOUNG, 3359 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUHON NO. 4037 Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No 4037. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 Kelley said he met with the Long Lake Fire Commission along with Moorse and representatives of Long Lake and Medina regarding the needs of the fire department They also discussed the formula for allocating costs. It was decided lo leave the discussion of that topic to the City Administrators. He noted the importance of being aware of the cost of a new fire barn, which he believes would be significant. Kelley said he spoke with Chief Brow n about the problems with providing emergency services to propert-es with narrow private drives. He felt standards should be established for new pnvate drives, such as how close a large tree can be to a drive. Kelley said with the difiiculty in obtaining access to such properties, the Council needs to consider this when reviewing new development. Goellen reported having met with the Long Lake Highway 12 Steering Commiliee along With past-Mayor Callahan, Jim Murphy, and Ron Moorse. The plan was reviewed fron^ east to west and discussion occurred regarding Long Lake's direction to Ma''DOT Goetten said everyone supported the need to review the plans with the Long Lake Council. Goetten said another meeting will be held in the near future. Jabbour reported an excellent turnout at the Mayors Breakfast. The DNR was present along with the Trails and Waterways representative. Jabbour felt concerns were heard and the DNR respected the viewpoints represented. Jabbour said he had planned to address the MCWD Board at their next meeting but their agenda was ftill. Moorse said a suggestion was made for Jabbour to attend the follov/ing MCWD meeting. ® Goetten reported that the Orono Design Review Committee is scheduled to meet with the east and west neighborhood representatives and residents and will be drafting a report for submission to Mn/DOT. Kelley asked about the status of the pond on CoRd 6. Gaftron said the grading is being completed along with the outlet structure. The driveway and landscaping will be created next. Kelley asked the status of the CoRd 6 road improvement. Moorse said the project should occur sometime this summer. Jabbour said that was his understanding as well. He unclear of the status of right-of-way acquisitions. was Jabbour also noted that he was discussing the trail with Hennepin Parks representatives who indicated they were diligently working on the Old Ciy stal Bay Road trail He intoiroed the County of the need for a second tunnel for the trail similar to the Spring I iill Golf Course tunnel. 15 II I iufi III iTK TMTrarrirrr tm [•iWJllHij r«nir« kUiWjmA WUfi riKtii] RWWWi W1U« Miiiin«VKnri] nice [•TllTi] r»nu«i 40;UiniT«J nmrTiiiiYim^ Vo fTmfSIiTSlcvtmtiHtiCtJtJ RTVi ^TiIiFR5W RTiim •mciis RTililMi iltroj RHinU ^mr^i RMH p-Miintj RTfTirTiMQEm!^ MlT!L?«lI&kl]!i!iISJ RiriTilwaiK RTira MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23,1998 (*#18) CHANGE ORDER NO. 8 - NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB SEWER PROJECT Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Change Order No. 8, North Long Lake/Long Lake Counuy Club Sanitary Sewer project, in the amount of $8,354.00, Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#19) REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 7 - NORTH LONG LAKE/LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB SEWER PROJECT Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Request for Payment No. 7, North Long Lake Sanitary Sewer Project to Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of $69,632.38. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#20) REQUEST FOR PAYMENT #6 - BAY RIDGE/BRACKETTS POINT SEWER PROJECT Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Request for Payment No. 6, Bracketts Point/Bay Ridge Sanitary Sewer Project to Barbarossa & Sons in the amount of $8,899.60. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#21) 1998 ENGINEER FEES Moorse reported that the request is for approval of the engineering fees for 1998, Kelley asked what the 4 % increase for 1998 included. Cook said the amount was $60,000 for general engineering. Jabbour said the amount is confusing as it does not include the water plant and sewer projects. Kelley asked what percent of the 1998 fees were not approved. Moorse said about $15,000-20,000 was for non-applications. Kelley clarified that the engineering fees for sewer projects was not recouped but assessed and bonded. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the 1998 fee schedule for services provided by the City’s consultant engineer. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#22) HIGHWAY 12 LAND USE CONCEPT POLICY - RESOLUTION NO. 4041 Moorse reported that a general concept plan for land use along Highway 12 was reviewed at the work session. Staff was asked to draft a resolution reflecting the Council consensus MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23,1998 (#22 - Highway 12 Land Use Concept Policy - Continued) Kelley indicated his absence at that meeting but agreed with the Council recommendation, especially with the need to coordinate with the City of Long Lake. He felt this reflects the City's desire to work with and cooperate with the City of Long Lake. He asked if the CoRd 6/Hwy 12 area should remain residential. Jabbour informed Kelley that was the intention and will be reflected in the Comprehensive Plan update. Goetten said the area noted by Kelley was not included as the Council was concentrating on one area. Jabbour asked Gaffron if Staff understood the Council's views. Gaffron said he believed so and would consult with Moorse. Moorse said language could be added noting the area north of CoRd 6 and Hwy 12 remain residential. Goetten questioned how this area is affected by the new proposed highway. Jabbour suggested the plan be passed as presented to enable discussions with Council Member Flint. He noted the language could be added later if need be. The information is to aid developers who have questions regarding properties along Highway 12.. Kelley clarified that the area between Kelley Parkway and Hwy 12 is medical/office, then medium density housing north of that area, nnd single family beyond that. Council agreed. Goetten noted the Highway 12 Design Review Committee conveyed this concept plan to the Long Lake Highway 12 Steering Committee. Moorse said he did not see the comer of Old Crystal Bay Road and Hwy 12 as being retail but unclear what it will become. The leaning at this time is towards high- technology and light industrial. Kelley noted the need to keep lighting to a minimum. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the adoption of Resolution No. 4041 reflecting the Council consensus regarding the Council's vision for development along Highway 12. Kelley noted this motion does not bind the future Council's but given for Staffs use and direction. Moorse indicated that the Comprehensive Plan amendment public input process will have to be followed when the Comprehensive Plan is amended regarding the Highway 12 land use. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 (#23) PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - UPDATE Moorse updat^ Council on the park dedication ordinance draft, which is being brought fo^ard to address items related to the cap on the amount of park dedication Three^ additional chiuiges to the ordinance were cited and reviewed by Moorse as noted in the Jabbour asked if the amendment satisfied City Attorney Barrett. Barrett said the amendment is an improvement but he has yet to review it completely. Goetten asked when the final draft would be available. Moorse said it would be completed by the end of the week for presentation at the next Planning Comm meeting as a zoning change.ission »“">orized to proceed to draft the amended park dedication ordinance r»U) PARK PLAN ELEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - CONCEPTUAI CHANGES - RESOLUTION NO. 4042 LUNCEPTUAL Jabbour moved Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4042 reflecting the consensus POSITION**^'^''™” ENGUSH FROM POLICE OFHCER Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to accept the resignation of Irving English from his Police Officer position, effective March 1, 1998 Vote; Ayes 4, Nays 0. OmCER MCNALLY TO FULLTIME POLICE Jabbour mov^, Kelley seconded, to approve the hiring of Steven McNally for the •R year salaO' level of$2,926.72 per month (SI6.89/hourly), with benefits. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. omCTR rosmo'l^ ™ part -time police Peterson questioned how the employment change would affecl the aoreement recently made for ammal control services iviih neighboring cities. Moorse said Chris Fischer would remain in the CSO position until the position is filled. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23,1998 (#27 - Police Officer Appointment - Continued) Jabbour asked Moorse to inform Planning Intern Dressier that he is do'mg an exceptional job for the City. Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the hiring of Christopher Fischer as a part-time police officer with an hourly rate of $11.89 per hour. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#28) SCHEDULING OF A COUNCIL WORK SESSION A work session was scheduled for March 12 at 8:00 a m. Kelley suggested a joint meeting with the Long Lake City Council. He asked Moorse to send the resolution regarding the Highway 12 land use to Long Lake. Moorse said he would review the meeting date with Long Lake. Moorse noted that he has met with Brook Park Realty regarding their subdivision application. An attempt is being made to develop a plan that would satisfy the City. Jabbour suggested the plan be presented at a Council meeting. (*#29) REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF OLD SQUAD CARS Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the sale of squad cars as noted in the memorandum to highest bidders as per City ordinance. Vote: Ayes 4. Nays 0. (#30) CONCEPrUAL APPROVAL OF HENNEPIN COUNTY ELECTION EQUIPMENT PURCHASE Moorse reported that conceptual approval is required to enable Hennepin County to purchase new election equipment. The equipment will aid in transmission of election results. The equipment will be paid for by the County, and the City will enter into a maintenance agreement with the County. Council agreed to conceptually approve the general concept of Hennepin County purchase of new election equipment. Jabbour asked Moorse to inform the public that the only notice received for land use applications is for the Planning Commission public hearing. 1 he public needs to follow the process forward to the Council level Gaffion suggested this occur when the initial notification is sent and included on the agenda at the meeting. Jabbour also noted the need to maintain the 60-day ruling for application completion. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23,1998 CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT City Attorney Barrett reported that a favorable decision was reached for the cities in the MPRS litigation. This occurred at the Appellate Court level. (•#31) LICENSES Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve the following licenses. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Residential Kennel License Rene' & Patricia Stemau 440 North Arm Drive Special Event Permit Clyde Gates Foot Race on Luce Line April 18, 1998, 8:30 am-10:30 am (*#32) BELLS Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Jabbour adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Lin Vee, City Clerk L COUNCIL MEETING MAR 9 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFORONO DATE: March 6, 1998 ITEM NO: 3 Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse City Administrator's Title City Administrator Report Item Description: March for Parks Proposal The Park Commission has proposed that the City, along with a number of adjacent cities, participate in national "March for Parks" day. 'fhe purpose is to increase awareness of parks and recreation in our communities while at the same time raising funds to improve our parks. The general plan for the March for Parks day is to hold an event involving residents soliciting pledges for walking or biking on the Luce Line Trail. These pledges would be used to fund or assist in funding specific improvements to the City's parks. This event will require considerable preparation and coordination efforts. The Park Commission is proposing that the bulk of these efforts be provided by Park Commission members and volunteers. The March for Parks event is being planned for either April 25 or 26. The Park Commission is requesting Council approval of the proposed March for Parks event. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the Park Commission's proposal for a March for Parks event. MARCHPK MARCHERS PLEDCE FORM Sote: Phase see step if 6 fur irntnu thm on i. ritmg cbeds Marcher's nar.ic, Mailing Address, •_win____________ .Ap;.<^ State .Zip Code. Area Code and Phone Numher Age Gender; .MD FD Supponcr's Name (Supporter ’s Address Amount Collected 1. .\lv oun plcdcc Sameasalunt j 2^ i. ' 1 s: ...... 1 1 ...1 6. /. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 1.^. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. If necessan*. please attach a separate sheet with additional supporters. Total Dollars Coilected {extra space for local sponsor lopos. etc.)ARCH FOR PARKS! CK«C\tS -VO*. n LOfoG- Lk<€ D Holbrooe-bastbal/ Ci 0^r0>>^O_ , P ^y^orf 60 - O^l M 0»i ” D □ Ot^ Mouop n C\iv^ of M'^vve+yisia a___ a------- U \:MR TTk herrh% Lno%.mfK inJ .. rc,ri^%. rtm jrJ forr^rf ^ ^ Park* *ftd Corwnifion r APCA . it» U^al M rch Pjrtnm. <-ffutr* trj.un, ip.ni*. *pr»nmr». and fKfm.nrd Uo irtiue > .NFCA ). <nm a!! Uia*r* lub.iit.r^ fincfuJiny liat»ilir\ fur $uorr.rv% ftt*} <Uim» da^ri^t. and cu»i» (In. ^n <nllecn»cl>. that ma» ».»• c»i*t of ma» hefcanr an»< m cur.ncrt.or *.tk o' a« a rr%ult of .mn or m. ch.ld a pamcipat.on ,r ihc Mar.k for Parka fterpi to the eatem that an> auih Lo arc a J.'nt re^jh ..f th^ neetiacmc or recl'ca* bchJMOf of'vPCS IMPORTANT \lARCHtRSL*NDLR AGE Ih MIST ALSO HAM I lllS FORM SIGM D BS A PARENT OR Cl AROIAN Signed______________________________________________________________ Af y\/vvv I mmn. «TV National Parks and ^ Conserv'ation Association SuU-, Api^'l 2b,lQ^5 BiVC^l or WotV: 4Ki LuCi U aa, meU- Ob Or S+obbS ©Oj<<y iiA orono MoYt.Vo'Pc tftU-' C\4^ UaUs cf — Lotn ^ Lcntf ______MO'A'.o Oy OkO—_ rv>iA».4+rl 54a Fii^TUSA. <0, A MARCH FOR PARKS NATIONAL IN SCOPE. LOCAL IN REWARPS National Parks and Conscn a- I lion Association (NPCA) is proud ■ to announce its eighth annual March for Parks—.\merica’s largest nati^^n! walk even: for parks. Organized since 1990 to celebrate Earth Day, March for Parks raises awareness and funds for Americans national, state, and local public parks and public lands. NPCA would like to thank you for participating in your local March for Parks. The proceeds you raise will go to a park project that will benefit your local communirv\ BE PART OF THE SOLUTION... PART OF OUR SUCCESS! Thousands participate in .March for Parks e\ er>- year and help protect .America's outdoor heritage—its parks, natural spaces, and historical sites. You can help in several wavs:« ♦ Recruit family, friends, and neighbors to join your local .March for Parks. ♦ Team up with co-workers and ask your employer to get involved by sponsoring your team. Your company may even match the donations vou raise. m MARCH FOR PARKS STEPS: 1. Complete and sign the .Marcher's Pledge Form on the reverse side and save it to record the names, addresses, and dollar amounts your supporters donate. Marchers under age 18 must also have this form signed by a parent or guardian. 2. Begin collectim: donations from supporters. Supporters may be friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, or others interested in natural areas such as your local park. 3. Record each supporter’s name, address, and donation amount in the spaces provided on the Marcher's Pledge Form. If you need more space to record additional supporters, use a plain piece of paper and attach it to this form. 4. Collect vour donations at the same time you sign up your supporters. 5. Briug dll contributions to the tnunb. 6. Make checks payable to: (pldce tumc of local park or park support group here) (place local information here)ABOUTTHE NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION The National Parks and Consenation .Association (NPC.A) is .America's only private nonprofit citizen organization dedicated solely to protecting, presen ing, and enhancing the L’.S. National Park System. .An association of “Citizens Protecting .America’s Parks,'’ .NPC.A was founded in 1919. and today has 500,000 members. In order to continue our success, the parks urgently need the help of citizens like you. Your NPC.A membership is an investment in the future of our National Parks. By becoming a member, you play a vital role in presen ing .America’s natural and cultural heritage. Help NPCA protect your parks! If you would like to become a member, please send a check for S25 to: National Parks and Consenation .Association Dept. .MFP/.Membership 1776 .Massachusetts .Ave., N.W. W’ashington. DC 200.>6 .Members receive NPC.A's award-winning bimonthly magazine, Sational Parks. For more information: 1-800-NAT-PARK http;//wv\-\v.npcj.org r I I I COUNCIL MEETING MAR 9 1998REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: ITEM NO.:. L- Department Approval: N.u.ie Brad Dressier Title Planning Assistant Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2317 Khosrow Daivari 1082 Loma Linda Avenue Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:10,350 square feet (.24 acre) Application: The applicant is requesting after-the-fact variances to allow the retention and completion of a screen porch constructed over an existing deck. The porch was built without a permit and requires after-the-fact variances for average lakeshore setback and structural coverage. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended by a 5 to 0 vote to: 1. Deny an average lakeshore setback variance allowing 6.5 ’ encroachment where no encroachment is allowed. 2. Deny a structural coverage variance of 1.4% to allow 16.4% structural coverage where 15% is allowed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed denial resolution. Ul.lLUUJ.k I. M A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14(C) AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(C6), FILE NO. #2317 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Minnesota. WHEREAS, pursuant to state statutes 412 et, seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Khosrow Daivari (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1082 Loma Linda Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 8, Loma Linda (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for after-the-fact variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to permit the retention and completion of a screen porch on the lake side oi the residence that encroaches into the average lakeshore setback and exceeds the allowable 15% structural coverage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2317. 2.The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 1 acre in area. The property consists of 10,350 s.f. or .24 acre. Page 1 of 3 T k Hat r 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The porch encroaches 6.5' ahead of the average lakeshore setback where no encroachment is allowed. The porch increases the percentage of structural coverage on the lot to 16.4% where 15% is allowed. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 17, 1998 and recommended denial of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: 1. 2. Adequate hardship has not been demonstrated by the applicant. Allowing the screen porch to remain and be completed may have a negative impact on views. 3.The porch was constructed over an existing deck. If the necessary variances were approved, significant retrofitting of the structure would have to take place to bring the structure into compliance with city code. 4.While not enclosed with a solid roof or windows, the porch is considered structure. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are not peculiar to it and apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, it is not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; it is not necessary to preser\ e a substantial property right of the applicant; and would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 3 w ■ CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby denies after-the-fact variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C6) to deny an average lakeshore setback variance 6.5' encroachment is requested where no encroachment is allowed and to deny a structural coverage variance of 1.4% to allow 16.4% where 15% is allowed to retain and complete the 207 s.f. screen porch. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of March, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of March 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant February 2, 1998 SUBJECT:#2317 Khosrow Daivari 1082 Loma Linda Avenue Variances-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area:10,350 square feet (.24 acres) Application:The applicant added screening and supports over an existing deck in the summer of 1997. No building permits were obtained for the enclosure. After the fact variances are needed for average lakeshore setback and structural coverage in order to complete and retain the enclosure. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Structural Coverage Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B): Average Lakeshore Setback Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C6): Average Lakeshore Setback U2317 Khosrow Daivari 1082 Loma Linda /Ivenue Variance 117/98 Page 1 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard LR-IB requirements 1 acre 140'75'10'35' subject property .24 acre 51'at OHWL 50' at 75' setback 111'with porch 121.5' without deck 9.55'15.15' The zoning lot does not meet lot area or width requirements. Recently in this area there have been lot line disputes regarding lot width. The existing residence does not meet side or street setbacks. The screened area that was added is not located in either of these setbacks. The enclosed area is located in the lakeside yard and encroaches in the average lakeshore setback. Average Lakeshore Setback No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, except that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings or lock boxes. Decks that are less than 30" above grade and do not have guardrails are considered a non-encroachment. Converting the deck which was considered a non ­ encroachment in the average lakeshore setback to an enclosed area requires a variance. The screened area encroaches approximately T in front of the average lakeshore setback. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage i 0,350 s.f 1,698 s.f-with porch 1,490 s.f-without porch 16.4% 14.4% A structural coverage variance is required. The deck that had not been enclosed did not contribute to structural coverage because it did not have railings or walls that extended more than 6' above ground level (Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C2)). The enclosed deck becomes structure and exceeds the 15% lot coverage requirement on lots that are less than 2 acres in area. The total maximum allowed lot coverage for the subject property is 1,552.5 s.f. or 15%. ^2517 Khosro\¥ Dat\an 1032 Loma Linda Avenue I'ariancf 217/93 Pogel Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'3,841 s.f.987 s.f (25.7%) (643 s.f, 16.7% w/o plastic) none 987 s.f (25.7%) none 75'-250 ’6,509 s.f.3,840 s.f (59%) (2,330 s.f, 35.8% w/out plastic) 1,627.25 s.f (25%) 3,840 s.f (59%) none The subject property does not meet hardcover requirements in the O' to 75' or 75' to 250' lakeshore setbacks. Hardcover variances are not required for this application as the structure was built over an existing deck. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The applicant's statement of hardship is included as Attachment J. The minutes from the July 28 City Council meeting including the testimony of the applicant in regard to hardships is also included as Attachment K. He should also be asked for his testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can be put to a reasonable use without screening over the deck. However the applicant previously indicated to staff that he wanted to screen the deck because of mosquitoes. Khosro^ff Dalvari 1082 Loma Undo Avenue Variance 2//795 Page 3 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. While the property does not meet the lot area requirement, it is still allowed 1,500 s.f. or 15% of structural coverage, whichever is greater. In this case, 15% allows for the greater amount of structural coverage. The enclosure exceeds the structural coverage limits. 3. Tilt variances, if granted, may alter the essential character of the locality. The variances for average lakeshore setback and structural coverage may change the character of the area. 4. 5. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Screened porches for residential purposes are allowed in this zoning district. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The subject property is near the maximum allowable 15% of structural coverage. There is no hardship for increasing beyond this limit. The location of the residence on the lot is also consistent with adjacent properties. Allowing the structure to encroach ahead of the average lakeshore setback line may have a negative impact on neighboring views. 6. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The adjacent properties are aligned in a relatively straight line along the lakeshore. These properties have decks, rather than enclosed porches. The deck on the property to the south is considered a structure because it is more than 6' above ground level. It is not an enclosed stmcture and is located lower than the subject property. It is not detrimental to views. Most other properties in the area are similar in size and subject to the same stmctural coverage regulations. Khosrou Dahari 10S2 Loma Linda Avenue Variance 2/17/98 Page 4 r 7.The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The deck as previously existing is in character with the neighborhood. The applicant will not be deprived of use or enjoyment of the property by requiring the removal of the screening over the deck. 8.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Allowing the applicant to enclose the deck would serve as a convenience to the owner and is not unique in its configuration or physical layout. Issues I. The property does not meet lot area or width requirements. 2. There is a significant amount of rock over plastic on the property in both the O' to 75' and 75' to 250' lakeshore setbacks. 3. 4. There is a non-confomiing deck near the lakeshore. The subject property is situated significantly higher than the property to the south. Screening over the deck may interfere with the views 5.The screening was added to the existing deck without a building permit. The Building Inspector has indicated that if the variances are approved to retain and complete the porch, the applicant needs to provide plans indicating how' the porch will meet building code requirements, particularly deficiencies in the roof and base. According ,o the building code, structures require enclosed roofs. 6.The screened porch does not have either a solid roof or windows. The screens can be removed. The screening and supports are considered structure. #.?i/ 7 Khosro\¥ Datvan 1032 Loma Linda Avenue Variance 2/I7/9S Page 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the necessary after-the-fact variances to complete and retain screening over the deck. • Staff recommends denial of an average lakeshore setback variance to allow the screened area to encroach 6.5’ ahead of the average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is allowed and there had previously been no encroachment. • Staff recommends denial of a structural coverage variance of 1.4% to allow 16.4% structural coverage on the property where 15% is allowed. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J K Application Plat Map Property Owners List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Hardcover Worksheets Elevation Drawing Statement of Hardship City Council Minutes of July 28,1997 Regarding Mr. Daivari's Testimony If23!7 Khosrow Daivan 1082 Loma Linda Avenue Variance 2/17/98 Page 6 Application ff Jl Z ! 7 Date Received iif /-i/<fy Amount Paid c ,c c h CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORx\LATION / / / Site Address /O 12 !lO hi n / V, (/a ' 5’LC'7 V/ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Qf 2.^ 7V)^ Attach legal description to applicationJ^ot included on required survey.ication . if qqi Date Property Acquired /j i / ^ 4 I (do) (do not) also own the^djac^m parcels of l^d.^ Present use of property: /^Residential other! .(month/year) Zoning District: other (specify) APPLICANT Name UST/ /ou Address: p </ r Phone (home) / --------------- Phor^work ) ^ C>^06o L(?o L City: Zip:^e.v'ryUiU .Jd/'i OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address:City: Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: y, Estimatpi^^Constn^ction Cost $ ^^ -Priyicj\ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQinRED ____Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage i Setback:Front Side « Rear Average Lakeshore _ Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements! (attach additional sheets if necessary) RUN OATf 12/02/97 BATCH 501 HENI^EPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST PROP ADOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAKE/AOOR 38 08-117-23 23 0005 01056 LQMA LINDA AVE C 0 t M J HOLCOMBE C 0 A H J HOLCOMBE 1056 LOMA LINOA AVE mound MN 55366 ►PROP ADDR OttCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 08-117-23 25 0008 01076 LOMA LINOA AVE MARGARET E MATTSON MARGARET E MATTSON 1076 LOMA LINOA AVE mound MN 55366 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 08-117-25 25 0011 01098 LOMA LINOA AVE ROBERT J GOUNTANIS ROBERT J GOUNTANIS 1098 LOMA LINOA AVE MOUND MN 55366 PROP ADDR OltlER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 08-117-25 23 0022 01065 LOMA LINOA AVE T 0 OSTERBERG/K J OSTERDERG TIMOTHY G/KRISTI J OSTERDERG 1065 LOMA LINDA AVE mound MN 55366 38 08-117-23 23 0006 01058 LOMA LINOA AVE R F OORLOG A K J OORLOG RICHARD F A KAREN J OORLOG 1058 LOMA LINOA AVE MOUND MN 55366 38 08-117-23 23 0009 01082 LOMA LINOA AVE K H A F DAIVARI KHOSROW A FATEMEH DAIVARI 2356 CHERRYHOOD RD MINNETONKA MN 55305 38 08-117-25 23 0012 01130 LOMA LINDA AVE H H BOCKMANN ET AL M/L EST WILLIAM A BOCKMANN 1130 LOMA LINOA AV mound MN 55566 TOTAL BATCH SOI 00010 REPORT NO. PI635601 PAGE 1 38 08-117-23 23 0007 01066 LOMA LINDA AVE CAROL M RADUNZ CAROL M RADUNZ 5505 RIVER BLUFF CIR BLOOMINGTON MN 55637 38 08-117-23 23 0010 01090 LOMA LINDA AVE H H BOCKMANN A N L BOCKMANN WILLIAM H BOCKMANN 1090 LOMA LINOA AVE MOUND MN 55366 38 08-117-23 23 0021 01119 LOMA LINDA AVE W J X C J POLLARD WILLIAM J A CAROL J POLLARD 1119 LOMA LINDA AVE mound MN 55366 OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. C) DATE r r 1 JLdinria /hf. F PERMIT RECORD Permit No Date Type of Permit /m <3^09 //-V- 7/ Myir/nZ 3/^U> ni^ yiL^sP /jp CL c Q^^j -ht'rr^ /-3-uj<JL r * ROCK? / / LC* l>'o ^00 1_ // / m o 1 LU 1 l X 2 HOUSE X ^3 GARAGE ix 4lI SHED X 5 WALK X 6 - iIi X 7 DRIVE X 8 ROCKPLASTIC1 X # f m i <L,y ■/tJ ■4 r . j Khosrow Daivari 2354 Cheny Wood Minetonka Mn 55305 January 27, 1998 City of Orono Planning Commission Re: Variance Application #2317 Dear Planning Committee: ♦u* requesting an approval of a variance for screen porch for my house located at this address 1082 Loma linda . I use my house mostly in summer time. Because of excessive mosquitoes we can’t use and enjoy our outside deck after sun set. This screen porch hopefully will help us to get a better use of our house. This is a screen porch with screen roof and removable screen. ■ nuf «■ Mil I !!■ ill" Tni nrr n ■ i n TTm n r ......... ■ • * • minutes of the regular orono city council MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 /T PUBLIC COMMENTS Mike Barrett Continued understanding that the City has not maintained the road but will follow up on the issue. Jabb^ mstructed Staff to review the facts and make a recommendation. He asked that be notified prior to the August 11 meeting if the issue can be Khosrow Daivar, 1082 Loraa Linda, informed the Council he had added a screened in wea on his deck md fte work was stopped by the building inspector, who infoimed him e need for^ buildmg permit and a variance fi-om the average lakeshore setback requirement. The screened area is complete except for painting. Daivar said his property is on a peninsula. Daivar said he spoke with Van Zomeren of the need to make an application for a vanance and provide a survey of the property. Daivar feels the law should be changed. He indicated he feels he has a hardship regarding the screened area. Jabbom informed Daivar that only the building inspector can make the determination regarding the need for a building permit. to foe Co^cil ^ permit cannot be waived, but if denied, it can be appealed rocessis ahi^Wp°*^^^ concern with the cost of foe application. He feels the p Jabbour noted foe purpose of the law and his support of it. Goetten reiterated that the work was begun without obtaining a permit, and Daivar was notified of his need for a variance. Daivar said he did not think he needed to have a building permit. * ! . t r mNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 28,1997 PUBLIC COMMENTS Khosrow Daivar Continued Jabbour told Daivar that all similar cases require going through the variance process. Kelley related the importance of the law. He informed Daivar that with the hardship as noted, he should probably be able to receive the variance for the screened area. Van Zomeren indicated that there is no survey on file. She said the need to acquire one would involve a time issue for Daivar. Jabbour said staff would have to review the history of the conformity of the property. He asked Van Zomeren to work with the building inspector in the variance process. .Allan Engleman, 315 Old Crystal Bay Road, voiced his outrage with the defacing of the City property by landscape workers using a skid loader. He informed Council that the damage must be corrected. Council indicated the matter would be addressed. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (*#4) #2187 DONALD AND ROBIN HELGAGER, 3265 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 3931 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3931, granting side setback, average lakeshore setback and lakeshore setback variances for construction of additions to the residence at 3265 Sixth Avenue North for Donald and Robin Helgager. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 1 C- r V r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 3/9/9.' ITEM NO.: (7 Department Approval: Name Brad Brassier Title Planning Assistant Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Application for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding As identified in the Navarre Housing Study, there is a substantial need for housing rehabilitation in Navarre. One funding source available for housing rehabilitation is the CDBG program. This is federal grant money that will be applied to the identified properties in the defined Navarre area and administered by Hennepin County. Orono must compete with other cities in western Hennepin County for $213,300 of available funding. The amount being requested is $107,500. The amount allocated to Orono depends on the number of applications received from other competing communities. A copy of the grant application is attached (Exhibit A). The total proposed budget for rehabilitating the properties identified as showing the greatest need is $390,(XX). Of this amount, $215,000 is needed to rehabilitate the properties identified as being in poor or dilapidated condition according to the housing snidy. These are the properties that will be targeted for rehabilitation assistance in 1998. The $107,500 in CDBG funding will cover half of the needed amount, while Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) assistance will likely be acquired by Hennepin County as a match to the grant funding. The MHFA funding is assistance in the form of low interest loans. The remaining $175,(XX) is needed to rehabilitate those properties exhibiting one or more deficient characteristics as identified in the housing study. In 1999, $87,500 in CDBG funding will be requested with a similar match in MHFA funding being sought. While properties exhibiting the greatest need have been identified, the order of allocating assistance will be contingent on income guidelines. If this two year effort is successful, the properties in greatest need of repair in the Navarre area will be rehabilitated. The grant application is due March 13, 1998. Its acceptance is contingent on the approval of the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution 1 /) 1998 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG CONSOLIDATED POOL REQUEST FOR FUNDING (Use one form per project) Applications are due by March 13,1998 at the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development. Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Jim Ford at 541 -7091 . GENERAL INFORMATION 1, CommunityCs):. 2. Project Name;. 3. CDBG funding request: $. 4. Total project cost; £ 5. Contact person:.Phone; PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Provide a brief description of the project. fLumt one pa_gg) 2. Describe any unique features of the proposal. 3. Describe project area/location. PROJECT FEASIBILITY 1. Provide a detailed project budget. Identify major project components, e g., planning, administration, construction costs, and possible funding source. 2. Explain why CDBG funds are needed to implement this project. 3. Provide a list of all funding sources which have been considered, amounts and the status of each source. 4. For the time period 7-1-98 to 6-30-00, proude an implementation schedule, idcntif>Tng major project tasks and when they will occur. Describe applicant's expertise and financial capacity to implement the proposed activity. PROJECT BENEFIT 1. Describe how the project principally benefits low and modcrate-mcome residents. 2. Estimate the number of low/modcrate-income households/persons to be served by the project. . jt«iI rn ■ra~iiMirnT~Tiirmi 3. Describe how the project aids in the prevention or elimination of bUght. 4. Describe how the project expands or preserv’es the existing tax base. 5. Describe how the project provides expanded opportunities for residents or preserv es existing resources. COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH 1. Describe the multi-community or multi-agency nature of the project. 2. Describe how the project meets one of the high priority needs, as identified in the Hennepin County Consolidated Plan. . Describe how the project meets locally identified housing and community development needs. 4 Describe how the project is consistent \vith the cit>'*s comprehensive and land use plans and. if appropriate, how the project addresses the city’s Livable Commumues Act goals. 5. Letters of support may be included with the application. Applications should be submitted to:Jim Ford Hennepin county Office of Planning and Development 10709 WayzataBlvd., Suite 260 Minnetonka MN 55305 Tel: 541-7091 Fax: 541-7090 TDD/TTY: 541-7981 Applications are due by March 13,1998 at the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development. U VtoJb^rCooPooI App 1998 r A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBMITTAL OF A REQUEST FOR PROJECT FUNDING FOR THE 1998 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CONSOLIDATED POOL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Orono, through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Consolidated Pool Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Orono developed a proposal for the u^e of 1998 Urban Hennepin County Consolidated Pool CDBG funds consistent with identified housing and community development needs. BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Orono authorizes submittal of the following proposal to the Urban Hennepin County Consolidated Pool Selection Committee and recommends inclusion of this proposed project in the 1998 Urban Hennepin County Community- Development Block Grant Program. Project Navarre Housing Rehabilitation Project Funding Request $107,500 BE IT FURTHER RESOLV^ED, That the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and City Administrator to execute the Subrecipient Agreement and any required Third Party Agreement on behalf of the City to implement the 1998 CDBG Program. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Miimesota at a regular meeting held on this 9th day of March, 1998. ATTEST: Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Linda S. Vce. City Clerk 1 • ‘ i ! < i I? e, March 10, 1998 GITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Jim Ford Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development 10709 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 260 Minnetonka, MN 5535 Dear Mr. Ford: Attached is the application for the Hennepin County CDBG Consolidated Pool Request for Funding. The City of Orono has identified the Navarre area as having a substantial portion of the City's affordable housing stock. Many homes in this area are in need of varying degrees of repair as identified in a two-part sur\'ey conducted in July, 1997. The mail-out portion identified a prevalence of substandard housing by residents of the area and a desire for gram money to conduct necessary repairs. Staff conducted a visual survey to identify specific deficiencies of housing in the area, which further revealed the need for rehabilitation. As many residents in the area cannot afford repairs to their homes without assistance, CDBG grant funding is necessary to rehabilitate and preserve this significant element in Orono’s affordable housing stock. Following this letter you will find the completed grant application and resolution of the City Council authorizing the application at the March 9, 1998 meeting. Sincerely, Brad Bressler Planning Assistant Enclosure Tekphonc (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 '.V r 1998 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG CONSOLIDATED POOL REQUEST FOR FUNDING GENERAL INFORMATION 1. CityofOrono 2. Navarre Housing Rehabilitation Project 3.$107,500 4. $390,000 5. Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Ph. (612) 473-7357 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. 2. for rehab.lilal,on by the residents of the area. The study ret ealed that there is a pereeption among m^y residents of the area that housing is not in good condition. The visual survey conducted hy City stafl in coryunction «ith the mail survey determined a substantial number of homes are m fair to oilapidated condition, indicating a need for rehabilitation As an addendiim to the housing study, the amount of affordable housing in the area was »fT a m Ihe Metropolitan Council uses to determine if housing aflordahle. The primary concern is that if houses are further allowed to dilapidate, they will nethh h'"'i ^ "^‘Shborhood leading to additional blighted th?a“ty7Sltae:.^ liih ™r!“ f 'his project is to provide a way for residents of the area with substandard housing to be able to afford repairs. This is a concern as 28 percent of the survc> respondents indicated H at either they could not or did not know if they could afford house repairs. Furthermore, appro.vimately 40 percent of respondents indicated their total household income is less than $45,300, which is considered low income for a familv of four SUidelines. The fur 'ir.g would be used to repair such identified stmctural concerns as dilapidated roofs and foundations. I hc unique feature of this project is that it will provide affordable housing through in enantc of existing housing, rather than new construction. Orono's comprehensive plan cites this strategy as the means for providing affordable housing in the City. Appro.ximately 24% of Orono's housing stock is considered affordable according to the Mctrooolitin Sva"^c'arel "■ '">“^'"8 the 3. The project ^a is located immediately north of the Navarre business district at the m ersectton of Coun^ Roads 15 and 19. The Navarre area was developed at a higher denshv the majority of Orono. The typical lot in Navarre is 6,725 square feet or 15 acre affordable than the majority found in Orono. Exhibit A shows the projecf area »d *e location of properties in need of repair. ^ PROJECT FEASIBILITY 1. The following tables identify the targeted properties in poor or dilapidated condition ih^i appear repatrable, and those properties with one or more notable structural defictncTes Table 1 Ekhabililalion Cosls for Fropepjps in Poor or nilanidn,.a r'»na|.|-n street Bayview Place Kenwood Way Navarre Lane Shadywood Road Ciy stal Place Bayview Place Crystal Bay Road Olive Avenue Togo Road Address 2305 2160 3320 2227 3593 2275 3445 2318 3675 Totals Approximate Rehabilitation Cost $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $215,000 Of the 13 properties identified in poor or dilapidated condition, 9 appear renairable with m -geted in Table 2 Total Rehabilitation Costs for Properties With One or More Notable Deficienciejs Street Address Roof Siding Foundation Rehabilitation Cost Crystal Bay Road 3385 $5,000 $10,000 n/a $15,000 Livingston Avenue 3520 $5,000 $10,000 n/a $15,000 Togo Road 3635 $5,000 n/a $10,000 $15,000 Togo Road 3637 $5,000 $10,000 n/a $15,000 Northern Avenue 3700 $5,000 n/a $10,000 $15,000 Crystal Place 3473 n/a n/a $10,000 $10,000 Lyric Avenue 3554 n/a n/a $10,000 $10,000 Shady wood Road 2314 n/a n/a $10,000 $10,000 Bayview Place 2225 $5,000 n/a n/a $5,000 Crystal Bay Road 3329 $5,000 n/a n/a $5,000 Crystal Bay Road 3285 $5,000 n/a n/a $5,000 Livingston Avenue 3435 $5,000 n/a n/a $5,000 Livingston Avenue 3422 $5,000 n/a n/a $5,000 Livingston Avenue 3508 $5,000 n/a n/a $5,000 Livingston Avenue 3477 $5,000 n/a n/a $5,000 Livingston Avenue 3444 $5,000 n/a n/a $5,000 Livingston Avenue 3443 $5,000 n/a n/a $5,000 Lyric Avenue 3499 $5,000 n/a n/a $5,000 Olive Avenue 2314 $5,000 n/a n/a $5,000 Shady wood Road 2118 $5,000 n/a n/a $5,000 Togo Road 3720 $5,000 n/a n/a $5,000 Togo Road 3670 $5,000 n/a n/a $5,000 Totals 22 $95,000 $30,000 $50,000 Amoiw Needed for Poor and Dilapidated Residences: $175,000 $215,000 Total Needed: $390,000 These properties require repair of one or more structural deficiencies in the near future to prevent further decay. The $390,000 reflects the total cost of rehabilitation that needs to „ike place in the Navarre area foj the properties identified. For 1998, $107,500 is being requested in CDBG funding. This amount covers one half the cost of rehabilitating those properties determined as being in poor or dilapidated condition. The City will request the remainder of the $215,000 be provided through MHFA low' interest loans, which will be administered through the Hennepin County HRA in conjunction with the CDBG funding. All funding is earmarked for the construction costs incurred with rehabilitation. r 2. 3. 4. The City will apply for $87,500 in CDBG finding in 1999 to cover one half of the costs for rehabilitating the properties identified as having one or more major structural deficiencies. The remaining $87,500 of the anticipated cost would be funded through MI IFA loans once again. CDBG funds are necessary as many, if not most residents owning homes in need of rehabilitation cannot afford sufficient repairs. Without the CDBG funds, the general trend of deterioration would likely continue. By using CDBG funds in conjunction with MHFA loans, home, wners will be enabled to undertake repairs to improve the safety and livability of their homes. Without the requested amount of CDBG funding, such necessary repairs could not be made. The two primar>’ funding sources considered for this project are CDBG and MHFA. The amount requested in CDBG funding for 1998 is $107,500. This covers one half of the anticipated costs in rehabilitating houses in most urgent need of repair. The other $107,500 needed to make the required $215,000 in rehabilitation will be requested in MHFA funding to provide low interest loans to homeowners. Once the amount of CDBG funding the City has been awarded is determined, Hennepin County has indicated it will assist the City in acquiring a matching amount of MHFA funding. The same funding sources will be considered in 1999 to rehabilitate residences exhibiting one or more major structural deficiencies. Of the $175,000 needed, half will be requested in CDBG funding and half will be requested in MHFA funding. Table 3 on the following page contains the appro.ximate time schedule for implementing the components of the project. ! Table 3 Implementation Schedule Date Task 7/1/98 7/2/98 7/2/98 10/1/98 10/15/98 1/1/99 1/15/99 3/13/99 4/30/99 6/1/99 7/1/99 7/2/99 7/2/99 8/1/79 10/1/99 10/15/99 12/1/99 l/l/OO 1/15/00 4/15/00 6/1/00 6/30/00 City notified of grant amount received residents of targeted properties notified of grant availability/may ^PP*>' . ^matching MHFA funding requested from Hennepin County moderate income residents in target properties notified/may apply for remaining funding low income properties have found contractors/construction begins other properties in project area notified/may apply for remaining funding moderate income properties have found contractors/construction begins City will apply for CDBG funding for remainder of identified properties other properties have found contractors/construction begins rehabilitation of low income homes completed City notified of grant amount received residents of targeted properties notified of grant availability/may appl •• matching MHFA funding requested from Hennepin County rehabilitation of moderate income homes completed moderate income resident may apply for remaining funding low income properties have found contractors/construction begins rehabilitation of other homes completed other properties in project area notified/may apply for remaining funding moderate income properties have found contractors/construction begins other properties have found contractors/construction begins rehabilitation of low income homes completed construction on moderate ineome/other households still underway- all projects completed by 12/1/00 The ovMiers of the targeted properties that are considered to be low income as determined by the County will have the first opportunity to apply for the grant funding. After thiee months, properly owners of moderate income will have the opportunity to apply for funding. After another three months, any property owner of low or moderate income from within the designated Navarre area may apply for remaining funding. When the amount of MHFA assistance aw arded is detemiined, the eligible homeowners will be notified of this additional assistance available. This process would be repeated for 1999. The goal is to have all targeted prope.-tie.'-, rehabilitated or have construction underway by June 30, 2000. 5. In recent years, several residences in the Navarre area have been rehabilitated through assistance from both CDBG funding and MHFA low interest loans. This rehabilitation assistance has been provided on a case by case basis by Hennepin County. The Navarre Housing Rehabilitation Project is an attempt to realize similar success throughout the neighborhood as a comprehensive effort and will also be administered through Hennepin County. Provided the required funding is secured over the two year period, the necessary deficiencies identified could be remedied. Such a result will be a success in reversing a negative trend in housing conditions in the neighborhood. PROJECT BENEFIT 1. 2. 3. 4. Residents within the project area will have to meet income guidelines to be eligible for funding. Those households making less than 80% of the median household income per year (adjusted according to number in household) will be most eligible for funding. These are the homeowners that arc least able to undertake necessar>- home repairs without assistance. The properties designated as being in poor or dilapidated condition will be given first priority in the housing rehabilitation efforts in 1998. This will allow Orono to retain its affordable housing stock and assist those residents in need of housing repairs. Approximately 100 people would be eligible to participate in the program based on income guidelines. This figure is based on the surv'ey findings that roughly 50 respondents indicated they fit into the low to moderate income categoiy as defined. There was approximately 50 percent response to the survey. Based on this figure, the 50 respondents prorates into approximately 100 households in the defined study area that would be eligible. There are 31 properties that have been identified as being in greatest need of repair and these will be given preference. Approximately nine households will benefit directly from the initial phase of the program. In addition, a large number of households in the area would benefit indirectly. The elimination of dilapidated homes would improve the neighborhoods in which they are located and provide incentive for others in the area to improve the maintenance of their homes. The project would eliminate or prevent olight by rehabilitating homes with one or more significant structural deficiencies as identified in the visual inspection portion of the Navarre Housing Study. Without CDBG funding, these structural deficiencies are expected to worsen and become more prc\ alent throughout the neighborhood as many homeowners cannot afford to remedy these problems. The project will presen e the existing tax base by emphasizing the retention of existing residences, rather than allowing them to become ''urther dilapidated and/or be tom dowm. If many of the residences in the area are allowed to become further dilapidated, their ta.\able value will be diminished and will also have a negative effect on values of neighboring houses. Preventing and eliminating substandard structural conditions of residences will therefore preserve the existing tax base and enhance the value of the neighborhood, > e/ the values will still he considered affordable. 5. The project provides the opportunity for homeowners to repair their residences to preserv’e their integrity. In many cases, if such repairs are not made, houses will become less livable or unlivable. By implementing this program, this substantial area of affordable housing can be preseiA'ed by preventing and eliminating such substandard conditions. COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH 1. 2. 3. 4. This project is being undertaken in conjunction with a housing plan currently being conducted by the Lake Minnetonka Area Cooperative Communities (LMACC), which includes Orono. A primary ar^ ‘ of concern is the amount of affordable housing available in the Lake Minnetonka area. Preservation of the housing stock in Navarre is one way Orono can do its part in the region to provide affordable housing, which has been identified as one of the primary goals of the plan. Addressing substandard housing for very low and low income groups is identified as a high priority according to the Hennepin County Consolidated Plan. Addressing substandard housing for moderate income households is identified as a medium priority. The CDBG funding for this program would be primarily earmarked for the low income groups, with funding available to moderate income homeowners in cases where an exceptional amount of repair is needed or sufficient funding is available for them as well. City staff conducted a mail and visual survey of the Navarre area in July, 1997 to determine the extent of substandard housing conditions in the area. Both portions of the survey revealed that there is a substantial amount of housing in the Navarre area with one or more notable structural deficiencies and a concern by the residents. The use of CDBG funding would be used to address these deficiencies. Orono's comprehensive plan has identified this concentration of affordable housing and the need for rehabilitation. The inadequate supply of affordable housing in Orono is also recognized. The City has cited as one of its housing policies the promotion of rehabilitation of substandard homes as a means of providing and retaining low and moderate income housing. / (26) I-.— M4T or vtl It ST’UtU itn ;(25): mero^ (X)'‘‘waa? “5’^' f (M) ^. A2.Yn-' *ife ;^';i 3. £.__^ TT lc/= :« is: y>- -X ^l3Mi (D-s2, AV« S - I>'\pji'T?>'^ 1...#••••••#••••> ? (fl4<V■^cV-j nr II ^It PM a an.3L I fptc « — / ^ / n I ii II n i*‘ ■^ic'" W 'M,i...'»jj. ^1 A (ni n :< III Cl/I ’Xa' . .* • -^ 1 ^5)' fa),.,- $ (0?) o.nir c (SO I • \ i w^'TV/r JvV \ ^1 ;.;:(?f)i! ^ Y \ K ■3e<'»aJW?^I i. feLSLXl.*'^li^ ;;2, "IT:;:.'; 1 r-v^^^ienariN^- Poor or Dilapidated One or More Deficiencies r : i ] ‘ I 1 COUNCIL ME5'''NQ MAR 9 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY C DATE: March 6, 1998 998 ITEM NOfO: /g Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Scheduling of a Meeting of the City's HRA at the March 23 City Council Meeting Both the Council and City's HRA will need to take action concerning the bond sale for the ad\ ance refunding of the City's facilities' bonds. In order for the HRA to take action, a meeting of the HRA must be scheduled. Because the City's bond consultant will be presenting the results of the bond sale for action by both the Council and the HR.\, it is recommended an HRA meeting be scheduled for 7:05 p.m. on March 23, 1998. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to schedule a meetirig of the City's HRA for 7:05 p.m. on Monday, March 23, 1998. HRAMTG COUNCIL MEETIN' REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 9 199b DATE: ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Lin Vee Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE D. Brian Fulmer 3505 Wayzata Boulevard SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT Tony Eiden Company Spring Preview of Homes 2425 Thoroughbred Lane February 28, 1998 - March 18, 1998 3:00 - 7:00 p.m., Monday - Friday Noon - 6:00 p.m., Saturday & Sunday COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed licenses, KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1,19^*^ to December 31. Owner; FEB .+ 7,993 CITY Op t Property Address: 3^^ \JA-><21iyrP» &C40 U^v^L-Prt-^ mA (include city and zip) Mailing Address (if different): _________________________________________ Phone: (home) (bt'^4~TCe. •-\*3r2_0_______fwork’l<l>t':^A'^'3 - RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: S25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time; (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: Purpose for more than 2 dogs:___ Dogs normally kept: ____inside kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: S150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business:i 1 Business Activities: £fcrftv,p gr -s’:*jRR,?t (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours: N\ *~F* & tZ.fr<A4 53»<VT Hw,. I After Hours Contact: (name) FOu^wOw____________________________ (phone) cjycnc-'^’i^tA- Dog runs/exercise areas are: ______inside _____^outside V both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kemiel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigend hereby grants the City permiss-^on to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. Applicant Date l-Qf City Use Only Kennel inspt cted by ^ P.ecnmrnends Approval Denial Date jZ /2 c/^i^ m3-0 S/O PARADES & SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA Permit #: Fee: $50.00 Date Received: Phone Number: ^ I Name: lA-tCtK 5534L>: s Location of Parade or Event: YkoO ■f^jp 0, Event: 3~ 7 f)./h. ^ \ - r 1 a Vf-€^ 16^^ KA)y7^-p <Typeof Event: Insurance Company:____________________________Amount: (Copy of insurance certificate must be submitted with this application) \ am aware of all applicable State and other laws regarding parades and special events and will abide by same. I also agree to hold the City of Orono harmless from all liabilities that may arise directly or Indirectly from the parade of special event approved by the graming of this permit. j \ understand so^e events may require off-duty or reserve officers and a fee may be^ulred for these services. _____________________________ Signature Date Approved: □ Denied: □ By: Remarks: 03/04/53 Pay 5i?. CO 010396.3 I I Date: To: From: March 4, 1998 Lin Vee, City Clerk Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police Subject: Special Event Permit I have reviewed the application for Special Event Permit for the Spring Preview of Homes at 2425 Thoroughbred Lane. I have no objection to the issuance of the permit, nor are there any restrictions. L. COUNCIL MLE.TING MAR 9 CITY or ohono 7-^ A : 20 Feb 1998 Fri 11:30 W Check Register City of Orono Check Humber Date Name Check Number 54334 54334 CITY OF ORONO 20-Feb-98 CITY OP ORONO Totals Check Number 54334 CITY OF ORONO check Number 54335 MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOC. 54335 20-Feb-98 MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOC, Totals Check Number 54335 MN COUNTY ATTORNEYS ASSOC, Check Number 54336 JUBILEE FOODS 54336 20-Feb-98 JUBILEE FOODS Totals Check Number 54336 JUBILEE POODS Check Number 54337 CUB FOODS 54337 20-Feb-98 CUB FOODS Totals Check Number 54337 CUB FOODS Check Number 54338 54338 MILE 20-Feb-98 MILE Totals Check Number 54338 MILE Qieck Number 54339 POSTMASTER 54339 20-Feb-98 POSTMASTER Totals Check Number 54339 POSTMASTER Check Number 54340 DEPUTY REGISTRAR 54340 20-Feb-98 DEPUTY REGISTRAR Totals Check Number 54340 DEPUTY REGISTRAR Check Number 55308 HEWLETT PACKARD 5530S 20-Ftb-98 HEWLETT PACKARD Totals Check Humber 55308 HEWLETT PACKARD Check Number 55511 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY 55511 20-Feb-98 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY Totals Check Number 55511 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY Transaction Amount 100.00 100.00 13.40 13.40 37.00 37.00 102.22 102.22 585.00 585.00 900.00 900.00 36.00 36.00 19.17 19.17 25.00 25.00 Page 1 Comments SET UP CHANGE FUND VEHICLE FORFITURE FORM RETIREMENT CAKE BAKERY k CHEESE TRAY REG FOR DRUNK DRIVING 98 POSTAGE FOR METER REGISTRATION - NEW SQUADS VOID CK 55308 - REISSUED REINSTATEKfENT FEE 20 Feb 1998 Fri 11:30 AM Check Register City of Orono Page 2 Check Number Date Name Transaction Amount Comments Check Number 55512 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY 55512 20-Feb-98 AMERICAN :-SL XCAL SECURITY 39..•'0 JANUARY 1998 PREMIUM 5551?20-Feb-98 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY 101.83 JANUARY 1998 PREMIUM 55512 2O-Feb-90 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY 31.48 JANUARY 1998 PREMIW 55512 20-Feb-98 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY 46.20 JANUARY 1998 PREMIUM 55512 20-Feb-98 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY 291.76 JANUARY 1998 PREMIUM 55512 20-Feb-98 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY 15.00 JANUARY 1998 PREMIUM Totals Che c NutTiber 55512 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY 526.17 Grand Total 2.305.62 24 Feb 1996 TUe 4:55 rn Check number Check Kuuiber 55746 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 55746 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION 24-Feb-90 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Totals Check Numr*'r 55746 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Check Numoer 55747 55747 55747 55/47 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 24 Feb-9P 24-Feb-98 24-Feb-98 Totals Check Number FIRST NATION.VL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 55747 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Check Number 55748 55740 GREAT NEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. 24-Feb-98 Totals Check Number OTEAT WEFT LIFE ASSURANCE CO, 55748 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO, Check Number 55749 55749 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL 24-Feb-9P Totals Hieck Number HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL 55749 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT k COLL Check Number 55750 55750 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT & COLL 24-Feb-90 Totals Check Number HErJNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL 55750 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT k COLL Check Number 55751 55751 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 24-Feb-90 Totals Check Number ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 55751 ICMA RETIREJffiNT TRUST - 457 Check Number 55752 55752 LAW ENIORCMENT IJVBOR SE.WICE 24-Feb-98 Totals Check N»imber LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 55752 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Check Number 55753 55753 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 24-Feb-98 Totals Check Number MN DEPT OF REVENUE 55753 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Check Number 55754 55754 MN MUTUAL LIFE 24-Feb-98 Totals Check Number MN MUTUAL LIFE 55754 MN MUTUAL LIFE Transaction \mount 6,459.00 6,459.00 3,133.10 3,133.10 7,695.00 13,961.70 1,J79.68 1,079.68 174.50 174.50 184.50 184.50 225.00 225.00 462.00 462.00 3,292.15 3,292.15 455.30 455.30 Page 1 Comments SAVINGS W/H k TRANSFERRED FICA k MEDICARE W/H FICA.MEDCR CITY SHARE FEDERAL WITHHOLDING DEFERRED COMP W/H THOMTON 0CO26670O SKREEN 8C0262310 DEFERRED COMP W/H UNION DUES WH STATE TAX W/H DEFERRED COMP W/H r i I 24 Feb 1996 Tue 4:55 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 55755 55755 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP 24-Feb-98 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP Totals Check Number 55755 MN STATE RETIRE*1ENT-DEF COMP Check Number 55756 PEBSCO/OBRA 55756 24-Feb-98 PEBSCO/OBRA Totals Check Number 55756 PEBSCO/OBRA Check Number 55757 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS 55757 24-Feb-98 PEBSCO/US CC!fF OF MAYORS Totals Check Number 55757 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS Qieck Number 55758 PERA 55758 55758 24-Fet 90 24-Peb-9€ PERA PERA Totals Check Number 55:59 PERA Check Number 55759 UNITED WAY 55759 24-Feb-98 imirtt) WAY Totals Check Number 55759 UNITED MAY Trand Total Transaction Amount 315.00 315.00 26.41 26.41 1,877.65 1,877.65 4«315.06 5,697.72 10,012.78 30.00 30.00 38,555.17 Page 2 Comments DEFERRE. COMP M/H OBRA DEFERRED COMP W/H USCM DEFERRED COMP W/H PERA EMPLOYES W/H PERA CITY SHARE CHARITY DONATIONS W/H r 4 Mar 1998 Ned 10:30 AN Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 55400 55400 55400 POSTMASTER 04>Mar-98 POSTMASTER 04-Mar-98 POSTMASTER Totals Check Number 55400 POSTMASTER Check Kumber 55401 KELLY INN S5401 04-Mar-98 KELLY INN Totals Check Number 55401 KELLY INN Check Number 55402 PERA 55402 04-Mar-98 PERA Totals Check Number 55402 PERA Check Number 55403 POST BOARD 55403 04-Mar-98 POST BOARD Totals Check Number 55403 POST BOARD Check Number 55660 RADISSON SUITES 55660 04-Mar-98 RADISSON SUITES Totals Check Number 55660 RADISSON SUITES Check Number 55679 MILE 55679 04-Mar-98 MILE Totals Check Number 55679 MILE Check Number 55692 PERA 55692 04-Mar-98 PERA Totals Check NUn^r 55692 PERA Grand Total Transaction Amount 92.40 277.20 369.60 301.96 301.96 9«800.45 9.800.45 15.00 15.00 -297.71 -297.71 195.00 195.00 -9.757.56 -9.757.56 626.74 Page 1 Comments 4TH QUARTER UB 4TH QUARTER UB ROOM - CHIEFS CONFERENCE REPLACE CK #55692 LICENSE FEB - FISCHER VOID CHECK 55660 DWI TRAINING VOID CHECK #55692 I f ; i f. Il^.t "MTkt J r 24 Feb 1998 Tue 5:10 PM Check Register City of Orono Check HUnber Employee Name Qieck Number 044043 044043 JOHNSON. MARY ANN I Totals Check Number 044043 Check Number 044044 044044 GBMAR, JAMIE L. Totals Check Number 044044 Check Number 044945 044045 HASEMAN, CAROLE A Totals Check Number 044045 Check Number 044046 044046 MOORSB, RONALD J. Totals Check NunOber 044046 Check Number 044047 044047 VEE, LINDA S. Totals Check Number 044047 Ch^'::k Number 044048 044048 KUEHN, THOMAS M Totals Check Number 044048 Check Number 044049 044049 CTCON, RONALD J. Totals Check Number 044049 Check Number 044050 044050 ANDERSON. BRUCE L. Totals Check Number 044050 Check Number 044051 044051 BOB2IEN. SUE A Totals Check Number 044051 Check Date 25-Feb-90 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Feb>98 25-Feb-98 25-Peb-98 Page I Check Amount 196.60 196.60 516.23 516.23 761.58 761.58 1.470.03 1.470.03 1.012.13 1.012.13 1.251.43 1.251.43 844.12 844.12 445.56 445.56 691.70 691.70 1 k 24 reb 1998 Tue 5:10 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 044052 044052 BORIS, SCOTT W. Totals Check Number 044052 Check Number 044053 044053 CARLSON, MICHAEL B Totals Check Number 044053 Check Number 044054 044054 CHESWICK, GARY B Totals Check Number 044054 Check Number 044055 044055 CORNICK, JAMES L. Totals Check Number 044055 Check Number 044056 044056 DBMBOUSKI. JAY C. Totals Check Number 044056 Check Number 044057 044057 ENGLISH III, IRVING H. Totals Check Number 044057 Check Nusiber 044 058 044058 ERICKSON, KURT R Totals Check Number 044058 Check Number 044059 044059 PARNIOK, CORREY L, Totals Check Number 044059 Check Number 044060 044060 FISCHENICH. DAN T Totals Check Number 044060 Check Number 044061 Check Date 2S-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-93 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Feb>98 25-Feb-98 Page 2 Check Amount 833.39 833.39 409.77 409.77 1,532.67 1,532.67 1,207.73 1,207.73 1,152.83 1,152.83 232.11 232.11 1,175.67 1,175.67 1.235.90 1.235.90 1,144.21 1,144.21 r 24 Feb 1998 Tue 5:10 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 044061 044061 HANSING, CAROL J Totals Qieck Number 044061 rheck Number 044062 044062 JOHNSON, BRADLEY P. Totals Check Number 044062 Check Number 044063 044063 MCNALLY. STEVEN A, Totals Check Number 044063 Check NUR^r 044064 044064 MCNICHOLS, DAVID L. Totals Check Number 044064 Check Number 04406S 044065 MOROWCZYNSKI, JAMES Totals Check Number 044065 Check Number 044066 044066 PERSELL. WILLIAM R Totals Check Number 044066 Check Number 044067 044067 SCHOBNHOFF, JOHN B Totals Q\eck Number 044067 Check Number 044068 044068 THOMTON. MARK R Totals Check Number 044068 Check Number 044069 044069 TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F Totals Check Number 044069 Check Number 044070 Check Date 25-Feb-90 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 2S-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 Page 3 Check Amount 376.25 376.25 1.085.29 1.085.29 538.16 538.16 440.73 440.73 1.508.29 1.508.29 566.97 566.97 1.201.45 1.201.45 984.26 984.26 240.14 240.14 1 f i 1 , s i i i ; j i' \ i 24 Feb 1998 Tue 5:10 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 044070 044070 TOMCZYK. MARK W Totals Check Number 044070 Check Number 044071 044071 FISCHER, CHRISTOPHER K Totals Check Number 044071 Check Number 044072 044072 WITTI®. ANTHONY A, Totals Check Number 044072 Check Number 044073 044073 BRBSSLBR. BRADLEY J Totals Check Number 044073 Check NuBiber 044074 044074 GAFFRON, MICHAEL P Totals Check Number 044074 Check Number 044075 044075 QAPPA* GREG RY A Totals Check Number 044075 Check Number 044076 044076 OMAN. LYLE B Totals Check Number 044076 Check Number 044077 04407”» VAN ZOMBREN, ELIZABETH Totals Check Number 044077 Check Number 044070 044078 VANG. BRUCE L Totals Check Humber 044070 Check Number 044079 Check Date 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 2S-Fcb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Ftb-98 25-Feb-98 Page 4 Check Amount 1,235.37 1,235.37 578.80 578.80 252.66 252.86 463.08 463.08 1,127.54 1,127.!)4 1,513.87 1,513.87 1,088.75 1,088.75 1,085.93 1,085.93 976.33 976.33 r I I 24 Peb 1998 Tue 5:10 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 044079 044079 WECKMAN, STEPHEN J. Totals Check Number 044079 Check Number 044080 044080 BRINKHAUS, JOHN F Totals Check Number 044080 Check Number 044081 044081 DEBAERE, DONALD L. Totals Check Number 044061 Check Number 044082 044082 GREGORY. JAMES D Totals Check Number 044082 Check Number 044083 044083 HANSEN, STEVEN C Totals Check Number 044083 Check Number 044084 044084 OBERAIGNER, SCOTT G Totals Check Number 044084 Check Number 044085 044085 OBRIEN, RANDY L Totals Check Number 044085 Check Number 044086 044086 PA1A1ER. GREGORY A. Totals Check Number 044086 Check Number 044087 044087 RATHBUN, BARRY J Totals Check Number 044087 Check Number 044088 Check Date 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Fcb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 25-Feb-98 Page 5 Check Amount 40.56 40.56 1,093.53 1,093.53 763.82 763.82 500.23 500.23 708.06 708.06 734.04 734.04 493.32 493.32 859.89 659.89 862.53 862.53 24 Feb 199S Tue 5:10 PH Check Register City of Orono Page 6 Check Number Employee Name Check Date Check Amount Check Number 044088 044088 SKREEN, VPdS S 25-Feb-98 Totals Check Number 044066 620.66 620.86 Oitck Number 044089 044089 ROSS, jom A.25-Feb-98 Totals Check Number 044089 49.17 49.17 Check Number 044090 044090 STEFFBNHAGEN, RONALD B.25-Feb-98 1,054.36 Totals Check Number 044090 1,054.36 Grand Total 39.157.70 5 Mar 1998 Thu 4:33 PM Check Number Check Number 55762 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 55762 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR 04-Mar-98 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR Totals Check Number 55762 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR Check Number 55763 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY 55763 04-Mar-98 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY Totals Check Number 55763 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY Check Number 55764 55764 55764 55764 55764 ASPLUNDH COFFEE 05-Mar-9B 04- Mar-98 05- Mar-98 OS-Mar-98 Totals Check Number ASPLUNDH COFFEE ASPLUNDH COFFEE ASPLUNDH COFFEE ASPLUNDH COFFEE 55764 ASPLUNDH COFFEE Check Number 55765 AT 6 T WIRELESS - MN EQUIP 55765 05-Mar-98 AT 6 T WIRELESS - MN EQUIP Totals Check Number 55765 AT a T WIRELESS - MN EQUIP Check Number 55766 55766 AT8T - KC 05-Mar-98 AT8T - KC Totals Check Number 55766 AT8T - KC Check Number 55767 55767 55767 BARBAROSSA k SONS 05-Mar-98 05-Mar-98 Totals Check Number BARBAROSSA k SONS BARBAROSSA k SONS 55767 BARBAROSSA k SONS Check Number 55768 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP 04-Mar-98 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP55768 Totals Check Number 55768 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP Check Number 55769 55769 CARGILL SALT 04-Mar-98 Totals Check Number CARGILL SALT 55769 CARGILL SALT Check Number 55770 55770 CASEY. MARK 04-Mar-98 CASEY. MARK Transaction Amount 418.34 418.34 701.42 701.42 127.00 127.00 137.00 152.00 543.00 53.23 53.23 38.70 38.70 26.746.30 8.354.00 35.100.30 1.514.25 1.514.25 1.399.06 1.399.06 250.00 Page 1 Comments CELL PHONES MARCH DENTAL PREMIUM COFFEE COFFEE COFFEE. FILTERS. CREAMER COFFEE. FILTERS BELT CLIP. CHARGER LD PHONE CHARGES NLL/LLCC RFP 88 NLL/LLCC CO 18 MARCH ADM FEB SOFTENER SALT LAND USB APPLICATION-REF Totals Check Number 55774 CITYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATING Check Number 55775 55775 CROWN MARKING INC. 04-Mar>98 Totals Check Number CROWN MARKING INC, 55775 CROWN MARKING INC Check Number 55776 55776 DAHLKE TREE SERVICE 05-Mar-9B Totals Check Number DAHLKE TREE SERVICE 55776 DAHLKE TREE SERVICE Check Number 55777 55777 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT 05-Mar-98 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPhSNT 5 Mar 1998 Check Register Pag Thu 4)33 PM City of Orono Check Transaction Number Date Name Amount Comments Check Number 55770 CASEY. MARK Totals Check Number 55770 CASEY.MARK 250.00 Check Number 55772 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 55772 05-Mar-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 26.70 REMOVE SNOW TIRES 55772 05-Mar-99 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 165.66 OIL CHANGE. TRANS FLUID 55772 05-Mar-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 31.98 OIL CHANGE 55772 05-Mar-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 135.77 OIL CHANGE 55772 05-Mar-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 60.43 OIL CHANGE 55772 05-Mar-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 31.98 OIL CHANGE 55772 05-Mar-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 151.21 OIL CHANGE,TRANSMISSION 55772 05-Mar-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 46.22 OIL CHANGE 55772 05-Mar-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 631.73 BRAKES. OIL 55772 05-Mar-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 17.93 REMOVE SNOW TIRES 55772 05-Mar-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 17.93 INSTALL SNOW TIRES 55772 05-Mar-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 46.22 OIL CHANGE 55772 05-Mar-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 17.93 REMOVE SNOW TILES 55772 05-Mar-96 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 26.05 REPLACE HEADLIGHTS 55772 05-Mar-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 23.91 SPOT LIGHT MAINT 55772 05-Mar-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 481.30 FUEL PUMP Totals Check Number 55772 CHUNKS LAKESHO’ 3 AUTO 1,912.95 Check Number 55773 CITY OF WAYZATA 55773 05-Mar-98 CITY OF WAYZATA 13.50 LICENSE TABS 55773 OS-Mar-98 CITY OF WAYZATA 13.50 LICENSE TABS 55773 05-Mar-98 CITY OF WAYZATA 256.50 LICENSE TABS 55773 04-Mar-98 CITY OF WAYZATA 1,012.50 RENTAL-SEWER VAC Totals Check Number 55773 CITY OF WAYZATA 1,296.00 Check Number 55774 CITYVIEW PLUMBING k HEATING 55774 04-Mar-98 CITYVIEW PLUMBING k HEATING 84.95 CLUBHOUSE LEAK 64.95 24.24 24.24 DESK SIGN - KELLOGG 245.00 245.00 REMOVE DECORATIONS 174.40 HIGH PRESSURE TEST 5 Har 1938 Thu 4:33 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 55777 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT Total- Check Number 55777 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT Check Number 55778 DRIVERS LICENSE GUIDE CO. 55778 05-Mar-98 DRIVERS LICENSE GUIDE CO Totals Check Number S5778 DRIVERS LICENSE GUIDE CO, Check Number 55779 B-Z RECYCLING 55779 05-Feb-Sa E-Z RECYCLING Totals Check Number 55775 E-Z RECYCLING Check Number 55780 EARL F. ANDERSON & ASSOC. 55780 55780 04-Mar-98 04-Mar-98 EARL F. ANDERSON 6 ASSOC. earl F. ANDERSON 6 ASSOC. Totals Check Number 55780 EARL F. ANDERSON k ASSOC Check Number 55781 FEDEX 55781 05-Mar-98 FEDEX Totals Check Number 55731 FEDEX Check Number 55782 FIRSTAR TRUST CO, 55782 55782 55782 04-Mar-98 04- Mar-98 05- Mar-98 FIRSTAR TRUST CO FIRSTAR TRUST CO, FIRSTAR TRUST CO. Totals Check Number 55702 FIRSTAR TRUST CO.. Check Number 55783 FROST. SiffiRRY R. 55783 04-Mar-98 FROST, SHERRY R Totals Check Number 55783 FROST, SHERRY R Check Number 55784 G & K SERVICES 55784 55784 55784 55784 55784 55784 55784 O4-Mar-90 04-Mar-98 04- Mar-98 05- Mar-98 05-Mar-98 05-Mar-98 05-Mar-98 O & K SERVICES G 4 X SERVICES G 4 K SERVICES G 4 K SERVICES G 4 K SERVICES G 4 K SERVICES G 4 K SERVICES Transaction Amount 174.40 22.95 22.95 5.583.48 5.583.48 1.069.37 2.595.66 4.465.03 15.50 15.50 161.50 222.81 1.067.50 1.451.01 570.00 570.00 5.93 65.58 12.15 62.55 12.15 70.07 54.69 Page 3 CofTifents ID CHECKING GUIDE JANUARY RECYCLING POSTS SICNS-NO PARK. WGHT LIMIT FLINT-PACKET AGENT FEE-97 GO BOND 92GO BAND AGENT FEE BOND AGENT FEE HRA PARK COMMISION 2/2/98 STEFFENHAGEN UNIFROMS RATHBUN UNIFORMS-PW RATHBUN MATS-PD MATS-COUNCIL CHAMBERS r 5 Mar 1998 Thu 4:33 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number S5784 55784 55784 55784 G a K SERVICES 05-Mar-98 G a K SERVICES O5-Mar-90 G a K SERVICES 05-Mar-98 G a K services Totals Check Number 55784 G a K SERVICES Check Number 55785 GALL'S INC. 55785 04-Mar-98 GALL'S INC. Totals Check Number 5S785 GALL'S INC. Check Number 55786 GEMAR, JAMIE 55786 05-Mar-98 GEMAR, JAMIE Totals Check Number 55786 GEMAR. JAMIE Transaction Amount Comments 54.69 95.37 5.93 MATS-ADM MATS-PW STEFFHAGEN 439.11 53.98 53.98 map LIGHT 27.89 27.89 MILEAGE Check Number 65707 GENUINE PARTS CO. 22.28 WIPER BLADE 55787 05-Mar-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 49.93 WIPER BLADE 55787 05-Mar-98 GENUINE PARTS CO.24.96 WIPER BLADE 55787 05-Mar-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 12.42 MISC SUPPLIE 55787 05-Mar-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 5.31 HAMMER 55787 05-Mar-98 GENUINE PARTS CO.5.60 HYDRAULIC 55787 05-Mar-98 genuine parts CO.7.60 WW WASHER 55787 05-Mar-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 10.74 SWITCH 55787 05-Mar-98 GENUINE PARTS CO.3.02 MAC ST FLUID 55787 05-Mar-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 9.12 BOBCAT HOSE 55787 05-Mar-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 150.98 Totals caieck Hufflber 55787 GENUINE PARTS CO. Check Number 55788 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. 4.38 JANUARY LOCATES 55788 04-Mar-98 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. 4.37 JANUARY LOCATES 55788 04-Mar-98 gopher state one-call INC. Totals Check Number 55788 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC.8.75 Check Number 55789 GTE DIRECTORIES 64.80 MOUND DIRECTORY 55789 04-Mar-98 GTE DIRECTORIES 64.00 Totals Check Number 55789 GTE DIRECTORIES Check Number 55790 H a L MESABI 634.45 BLADES 55790 04-Mar-98 H a L MESABI 634.45 Totals Check Number 55790 H a L MESABI Check Number 55791 HAWKINS CHEMICAL INC. Page 4 > • 5 Mar 1998 Thu 4:33 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 55791 55791 HAWKINS CHEMICAL INC. 04-Mar-98 HAWKINS CHEMICAL INC, Totals Check Number 55791 HAWKINS CHEMICAL INC, Check Number 55792 HEALTHPARTNERS 55792 55792 55792 04-Mar-98 04-Mar-98 04-Mar-98 HEALTHPARTNERS HEALTHPARTNERS HEALTHPARTNERS Totals Check Number 55792 HEALTHPARTNERS Check Number 55793 HENN CO CHIEFS OF POL. ASSOC 55793 04-Mar-98 HENN CO CHIEFS OF POL. ASSOC, Totals Check Number 55793 HENN CO CHIEFS OF POL. ASSOC, Check Number 55794 ISNNEPIN COUNTY TREAS. 55794 55794 05-Mar-98 05-Mar-98 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREAS. HENNEPIN COUNTY TREAS. Totals Check Number 55794 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREAS. Check Number 55795 HEWLETT PACKARD 55795 04-Mar-98 HEWLETT PACKARD Totals Check Number 55795 HEWLETT PACKARD Check Number 55796 ICMA MEMBERSHIP RENEWALS 55796 05-Mar-98 ICMA MEMBERSHIP RENEWALS Totals Check Number 55796 I01A MEFCERSHIP RENEWALS Check Number 55797 IMS/MN 55797 05-Mar-98 IMS/MN Totals Check Number 55797 IMS/MN Check Number 55798 INT'L CONF. OF BLDG OFFICIALS 55798 04-Mar-98 INT'L CONF. OF BLDG OFFICIALS Totals Check Number 55798 INT'L CONF. OF BLDG OFFICIALS Check Number 55799 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 55799 04-Mar-98 INTERSTATE BATTERIES Totals Check Number 55799 INTERSTATE BATTERIES Transaction Amount 40.00 40.00 328.50 163.77 6«041.33 6.533.60 331.74 331.74 25.00 25.00 50.00 19.17 19.17 298.00 298.00 20.59 20.59 85.00 85.00 65.98 65.98 Page 5 Comments DEMURRAGE MARCH PREMIUMS MARCH PREMIUMS MARCH PREMIUMS JANUARY 98 BOOKINGS PROP LIST-EDGWOOD PROP LIST-HERITAGE CABLE MEMBERSHIP - MOORSC INK ROLLER 1988 ANNUAL DUES BATTERY FOR 710 5 Mar 1998 Thu 4:33 PM Check Reg >• ^ r City of Oroi - Check Number Date Name Check Number 55800 55800 JOHN E. REID & ASSOC 05-Mar>98 JOHN E. REID & ASSOC Totals Check Number 55800 JOHN E. REID & ASSOC Check Number 55801 JOHNSON, KIM 55801 04-Mar-98 JOHNSON, KIM Totals Check Humber 55801 jorarsoN, KIM Check Number 55802 KENNETH N. POTTS, PA 55802 05>Mar-98 KENNETH N. POTTS. PA Totals Check Number 55802 KENNETH N. POTTS, PA Check Number 55803 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC 55803 05-Mar-98 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC Totals Check Hunger 55803 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC Check Number 55804 LAKE BUSINESS SUPPLY 55804 04-Mar-98 LAKE BUSINESS SUPPLY Totals Check Number 55804 LAKE BUSINESS SUPPLY Check Number 55805 LANO EQUIPKENT 55805 05-Mar-98 LANO EQUIPMENT Totals Check Number 55805 LANO EQUIPMENT Check Number 55806 LARSON PUBLICATIONS 55806 05-Mar-98 LARSON PUBLICATIONS Totals Check Number 55806 LARSON PUBLICATIONS Check Number 55807 LEAOUB OF MN CITIES 55807 55807 lO-Mar-97 05-Mar-98 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES LEAGUE OF MN CITIES Totals Check Number 55807 LEAGUE OF KN CITIES Check Number 55808 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 5580b 05>Mar>98 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT Totals Check Number 55808 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT Transaction Amount 350.00 350.00 69.50 69.50 2,291.66 2,291.66 110.57 110.57 20.54 20.54 78.13 78.13 23.30 23.30 182.92 36.00 218.92 18.28 18.28 Page 6 Comments SEMINAR - DEC 10-11 1998 SHIRTS 1/98 PROSECUTION 4 POWER OUTLETS-NEW SQDS ORGANIZER WINDOW-BOBCAT PR UB SPECIALIST *97 DIRECTORY BULLETIN SUBSCRIPTION CHAIN LINK 5 Mar 1998 Thu 4:33 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 5S809 55809 Map UTILITIES INC. 04-Mar-98 M & P UTILITIES INC Totals Check Number 55809 M & P UTILITIES INC, Check Number 55810 MARK ERICKSON 55810 55810 05-Mar-98 05-Mar-98 MARK ERICKSON MARK ERICKSON Totals Check Number 55810 MARK ERICKSON Check Number 55811 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMElfTAL SVCS 55811 04-Mar-98 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS Totals Check Number 55811 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS Check Number 55812 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER 55812 05-Mar-98 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER Totals Check Number 55812 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER Check NunO^er 55813 MGCSA 55613 04-Mar-98 MGCSA Totals Check Number 55813 MGCSA Check Number 55814 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 55814 55814 04-Mar*96 04-Mar-98 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Totals Check Number 55814 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY Check Number 55815 MINNEGASCO 55815 55815 SS^xS 05-Mar-98 05-Mar-98 05-Mar-98 MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO Totals Check Number 55815 MINNEGASCO Qieck Number 55816 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICATIONS 55816 55816 05-Mar-98 05-Mar-96 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICATIONS MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICATIONS Totals Check Number 55816 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICATIONS Oieck Number 55817 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION 55817 05-Mar<98 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION Transaction Amount 47.50 47.50 637.62 585.75 1.223.37 75.00 75.00 7.920.00 7.920.00 60.00 60.00 90.10 27.00 117.10 54.14 400.38 3.047.14 3.501.66 43.40 136.40 179.80 74.32 Page 7 Comments UG LOCATE - PW ENTRANCE CHANGE OUT 172 TO 181 CHANGE OUT 174 TO 179 IND DISCHARGE PERMIT SAC CHARGE 1/98 REGISTRATION-STEFFENHAGEN MEDICAL OXYGEN ACETYLENE, OXYGEN GAS 2/98 GAS 2/98 GAS 2/98 87 FORD ECONOLINB PR UB SPECIALIST BORIS 3/98 - 5 Mar 1998 Thu 4:33 PM Check Regiater City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 55817 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION Totals Check Number 55817 MN BENEFIT ASSOCIATION Check Number 55818 MN COMMERCE DEPARTMENT 55818 05-Mar-98 MN COhWERCE DEPART>SNT Totals Check Number 55818 MN COMMERCE DEPARTMENT Check Number 55819 MM HEIGHTS & MEASURES 55819 04-Mar-9S MN WEIGHTS & MEASURES Totals Check Number 55819 MN WEIGHTS a MEASURES Qieck Number 55820 MUNICI-PALS 55820 05-Mar-98 MUNICI-PALS Totals Check Number 55820 MUNICI-PALS Check Number 55821 NATIONAL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER 55821 04-Mar-98 NATIOIJAL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER Totals Check Number 55821 NATIONAL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER Check Number 55824 55024 O'SULLIVANS AUTO REPAIR 05-Mar-90 O'SULLIVANS AUTO REPAIR Transaction Amount 74.32 40.00 40.00 400.00 400.00 10.00 10.00 193.00 193.00 149.50 Page 8 Comments NOTARY-MARY ANN JOraiSON CALIB a CERT- SCALES 1998 DUES SPRINKLER INSPECTION Check Number 55822 NAVARRE HARDWARE 55822 05-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 1.90 SINGLE CUT KEY 55822 05-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 3.18 THREADLOCKER 55022 05-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 7.36 SIGN BOLTS 55822 05-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 1.90 KEY 55822 05-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 11.14 BULK WASHERS 55822 05-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 28.72 ICE MELT 55822 05-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 12.74 BATTERY 55822 05-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 15.27 SANDPAPER,ENAMIL 55822 05-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 24.46 POLf SCOOP 55822 05-Mar-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 7.86 MAGNETIC STRIP Totals Check Number 55822 NAVARRE HARDWARE 114.55 Check Number 55823 NSP 55823 05-Mar-9B NSP 91.70 FEBRUARY ELEC 55823 05-Mar-98 NSP 910.19 FEBRUARY ELEC 55823 05-Mar-98 NSP 470.93 FEBRUARY ELEC 55823 05-Mar-98 NSP 1.903.88 FEBRUARY ELEC Totals Check Humber 55623 NSP 3.376.70 50 WASHES .-'I 1 5 Mfir 1998 Thu 4:33 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number ss824 O'Sir aoto REPAIR Totals Check Number 55824 O'SULLIVANS AUTO REPAIR Check Number 55825 OFFICE DEPOT 55825 55825 55825 55825 55825 55825 05-Mar-98 05-Mar-98 05-Mar-98 05-Mar-98 05-Mar-98 05-Mar-98 OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE DEPOT DEPOT DEPOT DEPOT DEPOT DEPOT Totals Check Number 55825 OFFICE DEPOT Check Number 55826 OMAN, LYLE 55826 05-Mar-98 OMAN, LYLE Totals Check Number 55826 OMAN. LYLE Oiack Number 55827 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 55827 55827 05-Mar-98 05-Mar-98 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR Totals Check Number 55827 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR Check Number 55928 PIONEER 55828 55828 55828 05-Mar-98 05-Mar-98 05-Mar-98 PIONEER PIONEER PIONEER Totals Check Number 55828 PIONrrj{ Check Number 55829 POST BOARD 55829 05-Mar-98 POST BOARD Totals Check Number 55829 POST BOARD Check Number 55930 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC 55830 55830 0S-Meu:-98 05-Mar-98 POHERCLEAN COMPANY INC. POHERCLEAN COMPANY INC. Totals Check Number 55830 POWERCLEAN COMPANY INC. Check Number 55831 STA-SAFB LOCKSMITH 5583X 04-Mar-98 STA-SAFB LOCKSMITH Totals Check Number 55831 STA-SAFB LOCKSMITH Transaction 28.80 28.80 35.00 £2.84 97.84 22.00 99.35 64.50 185.85 90.00 90.00 1.712.39 3.204.28 4.916.67 172.06 172.06 Page 9 Amount Comments 149.50 -209.01 duplicate payment 195.40 MISC SUPPLIES 159.75 shelfs 662.47 MISC SUPPLIES -4.24 return -4.25 800.12 return MILEAGE 2/98 SQUAD 175 TOW-FORD VAN 1987 FORD ECONOLINE PR UB CLERK CS ASSISTANT LICENSE FISCHER FEBRUARY JANITORIAL CARPET CLEANING FORD KEYS r 5 Mar 1990 Thu 4:33 PM Check Number Date Check Number 55832 STREICHERS 55832 O5-Mar-90 55832 05-Mar-98 55832 05-Mar-98 55832 OS-Mar-98 55832 O5-Mar-90 55832 04-Mar-98 Check Register City of Orono Page 10 Name STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS Totals Check Number 55832 STREICHERS Check Number 55033 TRACY TRIPP FUELS 55833 05-Mar-98 TRACY TRIPP FUELS Totals Check KUfnber 55833 TRACY TRIPP FUELS Check Number 55034 TOOY AND CATHERINE ANDERSON 55034 OS-Mar-98 TROY AND CATHERINE ANDERSON Totals Check Number 55034 TROY AND CATHERINE ANDERSON Check Number 55835 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC INC. 55035 04-Mar-98 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC INC. Totals Check Number 55835 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC INC. Check Number 55836 ULTRAMMC 55036 04-Mar-90 ULTRAMAX Totals Check Number 55836 ULTRAMAX Check Number 55037 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Transaction Amount Comments 342.00 127.53 -102.03 111.98 45.74 449.00 EQUIP - NEW SQUADS BATTERY, BATON HOLDER BATTERY,BATON HOLDER BATTERY, BATON HOLDER BATTERY, BATON HOLDER VEST - DONATION 975.02 2,638.08 2,638.08 3500 GAL UNLEADED 3,400.00 3,400.00 EASEPteNT 1490 LL BLVD 02.00 82.00 WATER TESTING 891.00 891.00 TRAINING A^f10 55837 05-Har-98 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 125.95 BOOTS - MOROWCZYNSKI 55837 05-Har-98 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 37.75 SHIRT - FISCHER 55837 05-Mar-98 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 31.05 SHIRT - REED 55837 05-Har-98 TJNIFORMS UNLIMITED 10.59 CLUTCH - REED 55837 O5-Mar-90 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 57.76 HAT-MCNALLY 55837 05-Mar-98 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 95.46 BELT Totals Check Number 55837 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 358.56 Check Number 55838 UNIV OF MINNESOTA 55838 OS-Mar-98 UNIV OF MINNESOTA 135.00 REG-LARGE SYSTEM DESIGN 55838 OS-Mar-98 UNIV OF MINNESOTA 40.00 MUNICIPALS-GEMAR 55830 OS-Mar-98 UNIV OF MINNESOTA 40.00 MUNICI PALS - HASEMAN 55838 OS-Mar-98 UNIV OF MINNESOTA 40.00 MUNICIPALS-VEE Totals Check Number 55838 UNIV OF MINNESOTA 255.00 5 Mar 1998 Thu 4j33 pm Check Register City of Orono Check Check Number 55840 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 55840 55840 55840 55840 05-Mar-98 05-Mar-98 05-Mar-98 O5-Mar-90 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Totals Check Number 55040 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS Check Number 55041 WARNING LITES OF MN 55841 04-Mar-98 WARNING LITES OF MN Totals Check Number 55841 WARNING LITES OF MN deck Nuiflber 55842 WEST PHOTO 55842 05-Mar-98 WEST PHOTO Totals Check Number 55842 WEST PHOTO Check Number 55843 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 55043 55043 05-Mar-98 05-Mar-98 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC Totals Check Number 55843 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC Grand Total Transaction 313.98 80.89 70.96 722.67 1,188.50 108.95 108.95 151.60 151.60 30.19 9.00 39.19 102,171.99 Page 11 Number Date Name Amount Comments sck Number 55839 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE 55839 05-Mar-98 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE 0.85 MARCH LIFE 55839 05-Mar-98 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE 3.61 MARCH LIFE 55839 05-Mar-98 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE 1.54 MARCH LIFE 55839 05-Mar-98 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE 434.70 MARCH LIFE Totals Check Number 55839 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE 440.70 JAN PHONE CHGS JATJ PHONE CHGS JAN PHONE CHGS JAN PHONE CHGS EARRICADE RENTAL FILM LIFT STATION SECURITY LIGH _ _ _ _d ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCILMEETINQ MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 17, 1998 mar 9 1998 ROLL cnnr'CF ORONO The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, William Stoddard, and Lili McMillan. Charles Schroeder and Elizabeth Hawn were absent. Mayor Jabbour and Council Member Peterson were present. The following represented the City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Planning Intern Brad Dressier, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Chair Lindquist called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. OLD BUSINESS; CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS (#1) #2312 CLAUS WEILER AND RENEE MEERKINS, 1135 NORTH ARM DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT \M FH VARIANCES - 6:34-6:41 P.M. The Applicants were present. Dressier reported that the application is for variances to rebuild a previously existing deck and an additional garage. The application was tabled at the January meeting to enable to the applicants to determine the size of the previous decks. Staff had been unaware that decks had previously existed on the residence. The variances and a CUP are required due to the accessory structure being placed in front of the principal structure and the lot being considered a through lot. The proposed decks require street and bluff setback variances. The Planning Commission had requested the accessory structure be reduced in size to meet the 1000 s f maximum footprint allowed. I he structure is now proposed at 968 s.f. The proposed accessory structure meets the side setback of 10’ as requested by the Commission and will be located 33' from the side lot line. The decks are proposed to extend 8' from the rear of the residence towards Elmwood Avenue and the bluff The proposed decks are smaller in size that had existed. Another change to the plan is the proposal that the garage be 1-1/2 stories, rather than one story. The structure would meet height requirements. Dressier said Staff recommended approval of the CUP for locating an accessory structure on a through lot and locating an accessory structure in front of the principal stnicture for the garage Staff also recommens approval of bluff setback and street setback variances for the decks. Staff recommended the shed be located to a conforming location or removed. The applicants have agreed to remove the shed if approval is received for the accessory structure. The applicant said he agreed with Staff’s recommendation. There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#I - #2312 Claus Weiler and Renee Meerkins - Continued) Smith was informed by the applicant that the additional garage would be used for an extra car, boat, and storage ot bikes and lawn equipment. A 3-car garage currently exists on the property. Smith asked Staff about the policy to allow a deck to be replaced. She questioned the time limit once the deck has been removed. It was noted that the previously existing decks were removed about one year ago. Smith said the application would be viewed differently if the decks had been removed farther in the past. Smith moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2312 per Staff recommendations. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#2) #2320 MITCHELL AND ASTA GERSOVITZ, 3650 CASCO AVENUE - VARIANCES - 6:41-6:46 P.M. The Applicants were present. Bressler distributed pictures of the property. He reported the proposal is to install a bay window over a portion of the existing deck and building a dormer over the existing garage. These improvements require an average lakeshore setback variance as the entire residence is ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. Bressler reviewed the issues as presented in the information packet. He recommended approval of the application as submitted. The applicant had no additional comments. There were no public comments. Stoddard asked if the neighbors had any comments regarding the proposed improvements noting the neighbors are generally asked for their opinion when the plans involve a variance to the average lakeshore setback. Gersovitz said he recently purchased the property and has yet to move there. Van Zomeren indicated the neighbors were notified and no comments were received. The applicant asked if the Council review could take place at the February 23 meeting. Bressler agreed. Stoddard asked that the applicant submit a letter noting that request. Stoddard moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2320 per Staff recommendations. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Agenda item #3 was moved to the end of the agenda due to absence of applicants.) r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#4) «326 ORONO DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 2380 SHADWVOOD ROAD - COMMERCUL SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCES - 6:47-7:30 P.M. Tom Dillon and Mike Sepena were present. Gaffron reported that revisions have been made to the plans since the sketch review in January. The revisions include a site plan with building elevations, landscaping, drainage and grading plan. Galfron reviewed the revisions as noted in the information packet, pages 2 through 4. He questioned whether the full 60' depth of the building was needed given the site limitations created by the parking in front and pond and driving lane to the rear. The general traffic flow continues to be a counterclockwise movement as previously shown. Gaffron noted that a pedestrian walkway on the northern boundary of the property was considered but found to be difficult with the slopes. The planned green space adjacent to Shadywood Road is less than the required 20'. Gaffron indicated that the number of required parking spaces will be met. Gaffron reported that the City h.-1 requested additional design features to break up the large expanse of the roof, and these have been added. The cedar shake over brick wall facade will require a variance. The comments by the DSU mainly relate to the need for additional landscaping. The 12-14' retaining wall height w'ill be screened with plantings. Stoddard inquired what the black bumpouts were that are noted on the plans in front of the building. Gaffron indicated they were spaces to accommodate trees. Smith questioned whether the trees would remain alive after being planted with basically no green clearance and so near the roadw'ay receiving dirt, snow, and salt debris. Gaffron said the plan has not been reviewed again by Mr. Case of DSU, but Gaffron did not believe the proposed landscaping along Shadywood is as requested by Case. Gaffron said the applicant feels the design as presented is critical in realizing the site plan. Gaffron indicated that the slopes in the parking area will be 4% or less as requested by the City Engineer. The north end slope has been decreased. Curb and gutter will be included in the parking lot area. Gaffron reviewed issues 1-11 noted for discussion. He noted this is a difficult site for planning and indicated the applicant has addressed concerns expressed by the City. Gaffron requested that Planning Commission make a recommendation regarding approval of the site plan for v ariances for hardcover, building facade, and parking setback along the front. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUAP.Y 17, !998 (U4 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Tom Dillon felt the majority of the issues have been satisfactorily worked out with Staff. He feels the 5 ’ setback to Shady^vood is critical in maintaining two rows of parking while maintaining the required size of the pond. There is a sidewalk planned for the front of the building. He also is unsure of the viability of the proposed trees. Dillon felt the cedar shake design would create a transition between the commercial, residential, and lakeshore areas. The other half of the building will be brick. Smith was informed by Dillon that the main reason for the cedar shake facade is aesthedcs. Other choices include lapsiding or all brick, which would be more expensive. Dillon said the building use is moving more towards service type businesses rather than retail. The building will include a bank corporate office and a conservation district office. He has received some letters of intent on the building space. Dillon noted the additional use approved for a bagel and coffee restaurant. There were no public comments. Mike Sepena, architect, highlighted the areas of landscaping. Lindquist expressed concern with the landscaping for the front of the building along CoRd 19. I he plan currently calls for 6-8’ of sidewalk and 5 ’ of green space. Stoddard said he would like to see more green space noting safety is a concern with the building being along the county roadway. He asked if the building could be moved back 5' to accommodate more green space Dillon indicated that this would have a domino effect back to the 20' drive lane to the rear of the building. Stoddard suggested if the concern was for the pond to take 5' from the green space in the rear and add to the front. Sepena said this would affect the retaining wall height. The green space to the rear is also sloping down from the retaining wall. Loss of this would give the effect of a higher wall. Dillon said this could be review ed Gaffron reported that this issue had been discussed. He noted the problem with rnoving the driving lane closer to the retaining wall is the possible concern with structural integrity. He also questioned whether cars should be driving so close to a wall with a 14' drop. Gaffron agreed with the concern tor green space in front but questioned where the trade off should come from Two driving lanes are necessary in the rear and space is required between the building and the road. Gaffron suggested the building may be too big for the space. He said the applicant had informed him that losing 10 in depth would change the building length, affecting the entire site plan. Smith suggested the building be shrunk 5 ’ and 5' taken from the rear green space to increase the green space in front 10 ’. This would result in 15' of green space in front instead of 5 ’ as proposed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (U4 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Lindquist said his concern is also with what will be within the 5' of green space in the front. Sepena said the plan calls for trees with plantings and sod inbetween. Lindquist did not feel this landscaping would survive having snow and salt on it. John O'Sullivan reported that his hedge landscaping in a strip of 5-6' has been maintained for over 10 years. He felt this amount of space is adequate. O’Sullivan also indicated that this area of CoRd 19 has the least amount of traffic on it as compared to the other three quadrants. Smith said she was still concerned with the need for more green space to the front. Berg said she would support a hedge instead of grass along the front green space. The Commissioners continued discussing the other issues noted and voiced approval. Additional comments by Commissioners include agreement with the cedar shake over brick facade. McMillan felt the end bump out islands to the parking area were a negative feature. GaftVon indicated that he has found them to be a necessity for a parking lot. McMillan was informed that the access for Culver’s would be in the same location as it is presently. The applicant will be required to submit a lighting plan and will work with Staff. The Commissioners were generally in agreement with the landscaping plan, e.xcept as noted in the front of the building. Dillon informed Stoddard that a crosswalk could be painted in to indicate the sidewalk location at the rear northerly corner of the building. McMillan was informed that the garbage pick-up would require a truck backing up to the dumpster. Berg questioned the signage in front of the building and its size. She did not feel it was in keeping with the character of the building. Dillon said the signage is in compliance with code area limitations. Sepena said the lighting plan is yet to be submitted. Direction was given to the applicant for a uniform look to the signage in keeping with the architectural design of the building Gafrron indicated that the signage code does not give clear direction regarding this issue and suggested a condition be included regarding signage. Dillon noted that the tenants will want lighted signs. The applicants were informed that the Commissioners were in agreement with the site plan except for signage and green space. Commissioners were in agreement in sending the application on to Council with the stipulation that an additional 10' of green space be found for the front of the building. Dillon said he hoped they have shown the ability to work with Staff. He indicated he has not studied how the building can be moved and will address it with Council Berg informed Dillon that she lives in the neighborhood, and the neighborhood needs the building to set the tone for more green space 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#4 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) by Staff. Dillon asked what will occur if the study finds that they are unable to get a 15 Stoddard said the Council will discuss it and use the Planning Commission recommendation in their consideration. McMillan should consider that they have not demonstrated a hardship for this variance. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS: SUBDIVISIONS (M) #2339 JAMES D. RENDER. 1365 TONKAWA ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 7:31-8:15 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. James Render and Mark Gronberg were present. Gafiron reported that the proposal is to subdivide a 1.9 acre parcel into three building sites The original plan had proposed three lots with an outlot that “ntmues only o t Hrd lot The revised plan would expand the outlot to a 42 ’ total width. Along vnth the g easement already in piL, it would result in 50' for a future road connecting Birch Lane to Tonkawa The plan includes issues of concern for a cul-de-sac and its impact on hardcover. The plan also does not address the need to serve the neighbors in the future, especially in emergency situations. Birch Lane is presently a 20' corridor that seiwes about 10 homes. The property between Birch Lane and Tonkawa is presently by » OaffL MkL the Commission to consider the need to expand Birch Lane over to ?o^Za He quesrioned whether the road needs to be developed now or provide the a! for fiViure exoansion The issue also involves whether to require a private road and ^bde-sac to serve 3 or more lots. T lie subdivision would provide the land 'b« ^ may eventually need access as well. MfNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 {U5 - #2339 James Render - Continued) GafFron reviewed the engineering issues as noted in the information packet, #1-6. The future street extension is provided for in the current plan. He noted no information has been received from the MCWD. A developer ’s agreement would be required including a financial guarantee. Gaffron reviewed the general subdivision comments noted. He indicated that the existing 33' right-of-way is satisfactory for Tonkawa Road. Gafifon said the issues for discussion center around access. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan for an urban area looks at the need for a public road. If that is the case and a cul-de-sac is built, there would be an issue with traffic and proximity to Maxwell Bay access. He questioned whether the road could be restricted in its use or if it should be posted as private. Gaffron reviewed the Staff recommendations #1-7 as noted on page 6 of the packet information. Long Lake Fire Chief, Mike Brown, was present. He indicated that his immediate reaction to the plan was to ask that the road be extended across to Birch Lane. Brown said this area is difficult to access. He relayed difficulties that recently occurred from a tire on West Farm Road. The situation is similar to that found in this area for emergencies. Brown said he discourages cul-de-sacs as they are difficult to get to and maneuver in. If a cul-de-sac is built, it should be larger according to Brown. He would like to see cul-de-sacs that are large enough to drive into and turn around and wide enough for trucks to pass each other. Brown was informed that the standard for a cul-de-sac is paving 80’ in diameter. Brown felt this was sufficient for emergency needs. McMillan noted the problem with having private wells and no hydrants. Brown said water is trucked in. Brown said at least one engine has to get into a property when fighting a fire. James Render agreed that good planning calls for the continuation of the two roadways. He had informed Gaffron that he would contribute his share to that cause. While there would normally be an even share for right-of-way. Render agreed to provide 42' on his side of the property for the future road. Render noted that this results in a large loss of area that is necessar)’ to meet hardcover allowances. He requested a credit be given for the property taken towards hardcover. He is concerned with building that roadway at this time Render does not believe the road should be built until it leads somewhere. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (U5 - #2339 James Render - Continued) Render felt a cul-de-sac would negatively affect the subdivision as it would only serve three properties. He noted that the property is less than 300* from a public launch and is concerned with the use of a cul-de-sac by boat trailers and public access users, increase in traffic, increase in paved area, and additional hardcover. The meeting was opened to public comments. Daniel Reagan said he lives two lots in from the comer on North Shore Drive. He voiced concern with the road extension. Reagan believes fire trucks should be more environmentally friendly and made of a size that corresponds to the typical roadways. Lindquist noted that the Commission has no control over the size of fire trucks. He informed Reagan that the standard width of right-of-way for public and private roads is 50'. Gaflfron added that the road itself would be 28' wide, which is typical in rural areas. Reagan was informed that the easement is currently 8' and the applicant proposes to add 42’ to the 8 ’. Reagan questioned how this would affect the 1/2 acre requirement. Gafffon informed him that the 42’ would be taken from the new subdivision and would not affect current property owners. 1 he 8 ’ easement has been in place tor about 30 years and includes the sewer line. Reagan said he is also concerned with the flood plain and additional drainage from new development. Lindquist noted that this is considered in the review process. Gerald Ray, 3442 North Shore Drive, said his house is accessed by the end of a private driveway. Ray said his property would be impacted by the continuation of the roadway by loss of his 3-car garage. He did not support the road extension. Dave Lindbergh, 3440 North Shore Drive, said he would also lose part of his property if the road is continued. He indicated that his property fronts CoRd 51. If the road is continued, his children would be limited where they could play. He suggested homeowners plow their driveways wider to provide access for emergency equipment. He does not support the road e.xtension. There were no other public comments. McMillan noted that the new plan calls for a T-shaped blacktopped area, instead of the cul-de-sac. Gaffron said the applicant is attempting to strike a compromise by providing for the future without affecting the existing neighbors. The T-shape is about 50' long. Gronberg said the T shape has been approved by other cities for use as a fire truck turnaround. ! ) 1 ! I ! I I ! MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (U5 - #2339 James Render - Continued) GafFron confirmed for Lindquist that the other two options were a cul-de-sac or just a road. Lindquist felt the 50' road should be dedicated and remain private until such time that the road is extended. Lindquist noted the need to determine whether a T or cul-'^e- sac should be built. Render informed McMillan that he would ask for an additional 17' to credit hardcover in return for providing the dedicated roadway. Gaffron informed McMillan that the typical setbacks would be required. Gaffron said the private road outlot would be dedicated the entire length. The City would take an underlying easement. The Commissioners were in agreement with Gaffron's recommendation for a 28’ wide roadway. The question remained of when the road should be extended and whether a T or cul-de- sac. Lindquist said he preferred the cul-de-sac but understood the concerns of the applicant if one was built. Smith suggested a shared driveway be allowed for two lots. She recommended two driveways instead of the cul-de-sac. Render clarified that the 28' wide private road would extend only to where the turnaround would be located. Commissioners agreed. Berg agreed with Smith in preferring no cul-de-sac. Gaffron asked if the shared driveway would be between lots 2 and 3. Render said the shared driveway would be located between lots 1 and 2 for future access. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2339 with the understanding that the 50' right-of-way would extend the complete* krrgth of the property through the granting of 42' from the property owner in additionti>£ ;urrent 8' of easement. The road would be a 28' shared private road with a pa. C turnaround. The applicant would be allowed a credit of a 17’ strip of land for hardcover allotment. Gronberg asked if the road could be platted as a 25' outlot with an additional IT easement. Lindquist said it would have to be 50' platted through 42 ’ from property owner and 8’ from other properties. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2340 ROBERT WAADE, 3280 AND 3290 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 8:15-8:39 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION McETiInG HELD OIn FEBRUAR'i' i7, i99o P.ob<?rt ■ Con!ini*6*^) The Applicant was present. Gaftron reported that the subdivision was originally reviewed as a sketch plan. The property is located in the LK-IL-I, 1/2 acre single tamily zoning distnct. l he proposal is to subdivide the property into two lots, one lakeshore lot with a single family residence and one non-lakeshore, non-riparian, with duplex. The code requires 1/2 acre. The duplex would require a conditional use permit. A duplex is allowed on the property as the property is within 200' ot the h-2 Commercial District to the west. The proposal includes a 50' platted road corridor to serve these properties and three existing homes to the north as well as the garage of the home on the comer. A 30' wide outlot would serve the backlot, which requires 150% of lot area and setback standards. This requires the lakeshore lot to be 3/4 acres in size, which it is Gaffron indicated that by crediting the 75-250' hardcover in the 250-500' setback, the property would meet the intent of the hardcover regulation Gaffron reviewed the lot standard requirements. He noted Lot 2 is technically a front lot. The duplex lot does not meet the area standard for being riparian, and as such, would be a factor to account for in determining whether the duplex lot could have lake access. Lot 2 meets the 135' minmium width for a duplex if the front lot line is defined as the east frontage of Lot 2 abutting Outlot A. This would eliminate the need for a variance. The side and rear yards are conforming. Gaffron noted that the code calls for no more than two residences being served via an access outlot but the plan calls for three units served by Outlot B Gaffron indicated a solution would be to design a duplex with a separate access driveway coming off the road outlot. Outlot A. Outlot A is being platted as a private road. Staff'believes it is reasonable to require a 24' paved road be constmcted the length of Outlot A and connect from the end of the lot to the County road to the north. Lot I meets the requirements for a backlot as noted in the information packet on page 2 Gaffron said Hennepin County Public Works has suggested in their comments that a triangular piece of right-of-way be dedicated to deal with the slope and sight distance concern along North Shore Drive This presents a problem because dedicated right-of- way is subtracted from the calculation of lot area. The result would be a lot less than the required 1/2 acre and necessitate a variance Gaff'ron reported that a grading and drainage plan has not yet been submitted. He also noted that the MCWD suggests a payment towards ponding in lieu of constructing a pond on the property. The City Engineer, however, suggests a pond be constructed. If this occurs, the lakeshore lot would then be less than the required 3/4 acres. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 - #2340 Robert VVaade - Continued) Gaffron indicated that a lot not abutting lakeshore does not get lake access. Previous discussion had suggested applicant would like both properties to have docks. Gaftron recommended that no variance be allowed. The City and County park plans suggest a trail along North Shore Drive. There is enough right-of-way already provided to accommodate a trail. Park dedication fee is recommended. Gaffron suggested tabling the application until the pond and stormwater plans have been received. He recommended approval of the front/back lot layout. He noted hardcover zones have been recalculated. Gaffron reviewed the Staff recommendation as noted in the information packet, # I -9. Mr. Waade had no comments at this time. During public comments, Sam Marfield, 2455 North Shore Drive, indicated that a duplex in this area would be out-of-character. Jim DePietro, another resident of North Shore Drive, agreed. David Dalvey, 3230 Bohns Point Lane, agreed with Marfield. He believes the neighborhood of nice homes should not include a duplex. He asked the purpose of the proposed duplex. Waade said the upscale units would be rental. Dalvey said he has had problems with other rental properties and submitted a letter requesting that the duplex not be rental property. Lindquist acknowledged receipt of the letter. Richard D. Allen, 3220 Bohns Point Lane, said he shares the opinion of Dalvey regarding a duplex. He does not feel a duplex is consistent with the neighborhood and would be squeezed in on the property. He is concerned with setting a precedent by allowing the building of a duplex on this property. Mr. Waade noted the property is ne.xt to a marina and felt the location was ideal for a duplex. He indicated the plan calls for an upscale design and be an improvement to the neighborhood Waade said he would create a berm between his site and the manna He did not believe buyers would want a big house next to a marina. Gaffron clarified the zoning for the public. He indicated the marina is in the B-2 Commercial District. The LR-lC-1, 1/2 acre, residential zoning allows for a duplex to be located within 200’ of the commercial or marina area. To the east and south of North Shore Marina is one acre single family residential zoning. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#6 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Stoddard asked what variances would be required if the property were single family. Gaftron said the same issues exist except only a 100’ width requirement for the south lot. Right-of-way would still be required for the road and stormwater ponding, which is difficult for this site, unless the outlot is narrower than 50'. Smith asked if a conditional use permit would be required. Gaffron said it would not if the entire property were single family. Lindquist noted the buildability of the property is in question if a pond is required. Marfield asked if it was at the City’s discretion to allow a duplex. Gaffron indicated that it requires a CUP and the City may add conditions to it, but if other requirements are met, it would be difficult to deny an applicat's'A for a duplex. He noted the issues still requiring resolution. Marfield felt the property was being stretched to gain two lots. He reiterated his of support for a duplex. Lindquist said information will be required for stormwater and road rededication nec.;^ of the County before any decisions can be made. He indicated that he would not support additional variances. Smith asked what the County was requiring for the road. Gaffron said the County is asking for 66' of right-of-way. Smith moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2340 pending a report on stormwater ponding and grading and drainage plan. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #2341 DANIEL J. ANDERSON, 905 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 8:399-9:26 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Ed Otto and Daniel Anderson were present. Gaffron reported that the sketch plan was reviewed for the subdivision in January. He received comments on this date from Hennepin County Public Works. Septic sites have been confirmed. There are suitable sites on all 7 lots for both primary and alternate sites. Additional testing will be conducted in the spring to determine whether a trench system can be used instead of mound systems for some lots. Design work is still needed for all septic systems. . .. . ..... ... ■ rr-t ..rm. ^ ...-r.-rri 1 ■ i —/ k —I -rT-Mr'T\^.Tk»a ku il MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION ^ ^ w •• ^ivIEETIiNG HELD ON FEoi\.u/\iv x i /, i yyo (#7 - #2341 Daniel Anderson - Continued) Gaffron reported that all lots meet the 2 acre requirement and width requirement at the siioiciine. Lois 2 and 5 aie cul-ue-sac iois. Vv iiiie liiey aie iOO’ and i70' in denned widdi, the lots are rectangular in shape and functional. The lots are uniquely shaped but appear to De somewhat riexiDle without encroaching into septic draintield sites. Lot I is technically a through lot and will accommodate the existing house without the need for any setback variances. All other buildings on the property are intended to be removed resulting in Lots 2 through 7 becoming new building sites. Lots 4, 5, and 6 are lakeshore iois and meet the 200' minimum width requirement. Lot 6 has an hourgiass shape that leaves a functional width of 165' at the proposed building site meeting side setback requirements. The road outlot has changed from the sketch plan. The proposal calls for a single private road with a wing to serve Lot 7. I here will be only one access to the County road, which is satisfactory to the County. The County and City require that all other accesses to Old crystal oay ivoau oe eiiminaieu. The City Engineer reviewed the road layout. The horizontal curve for the private road at 125’ radius does not meet the City's 275’ standard for a 30 mph road. It would, however, meet it for a 20-25 mph posting, but this is usually not done for private roads. Revising the road to meet the 275' radius would most likely impact the septic sites. A future trail from the Luce Line on the east side of Old Crystal Bay Road through French Creek Woods would not require trail dedication on this property. There would be a problem with lots 2 and 7 if the trail were to come on this west side of the road. The 6 new lots would be subject to park dedication. Hennepin County has asked for an additional 7' of right-of-way as they are of the opinion that provision U>. .he trail should be made. The City would be consistent with past practice in not requiring the dedication of additional right-of-way for Old Crystal Bay Road. Gaffron noted that the proposed length of the road and cul-de-sac is about 700' and meets the length limitation. Gaffron indicated that the applicant is not proposing any stormwater ponding on site. The City Engineer has recommended that stormwater ponding be provided on site. Once ponds are developed, one or more lots may become smaller Proposed grading is planned for Lot 6 to create a better walkout site. It will need revision to avoid encroachment of the bluff impact zone. Gaffron noted that grading must be limited to preserve the septic sites with the road being close by. Building plans for lots 5 and 6 require further review. Gaffron reported that there are no City utilities serving this part of the City. He also indicated that the applicant has agreed to a tree preservation easement to maintain the significant woods on the property. 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY l7, 1998 (#7 - #2341 Daniel Anderson - Continued) Gaffron reviewed the issues for discussion, #1-8, as noted on pages 5 and 6 of the memo. Surveyor, Ed Otto, responded to Gaffron’s comments. He felt lots 2 and 3 were functional and adequately served by the cul-de-sac to allow for variance approval. Lot 2 has frontage on Old Crystal Bay Road. Lot 7 is preferred to utilize the 50 ’ wing as planned in order to better control traffic. Otto said the road radius was designed to protect the septic sites on Lot 1. He indicated that the area east of the house contains fill and cannot be used for a septic site. Otto said Dan Anderson and Marty Campion met with MCVVD representatives regarding stormwater ponding and runoff. They conceptually approved a cash donation in lieu of ponding due to the septic sites. With the site being sloped and containing a bluff impact area, the MCWD would like to maintain that area for water treatment as the only functional place for a pond is on the top of the hill. Otto said the City Engineer had suggested the use of catch basins. Otto said only a minimal amount of grading would occur on Lot 6. He would adjust the grading to eliminate any encroachment of the bluff'impact zone. Otto noted that there is also room to pull the house back on I ot 5. Stoddard asked if an average lakeshore setback variance is required. Gaffron said it depends on what house is built first. He suggested defining house locations and approving the average lakeshore setbacks now to avoid the need for future variances. Lindquist agreed. Otto said *’’e building pads are determined based to the septic sites. Otto said he would be willing to grant a conservation easement to protect 6" or larger trees on the bluff Lindquist ask^ to see a vegetation plan. Anderson indicated there were no trees on the building pad locations and only a few where the road is located. Smith indicated her concern is what happens once people move into the homes She would like to see the land protected. Otto agreed. During public comments, Duke Hust, 820 Old Crystal Bay Road, voiced concern "^th the bike trail He noted the trail has to cross the road at some point His home was built in 1909 and is only 52' from the road. A trail on Hust's side of the road would severely impact his property Hust indicated that the Blair property to the north of his is closer yet to the road 1 lust felt the location for the trail crossing should be at Fox Street. McMillan informed Hust that an easement has already been granted for the trail on the east side of the road. Hust said the decision by Council differed from that recommended by the Planning Commission at the time the easement was granted. minutes of the orono planning commission MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#7 - #2341 Daniel Anderson - Continued) GalTron reported that members of the Park Commission and Staff walked the area to “ne fhe best location for the trail^ They determined that the best 'o^t.on was on the east side due to the topographical conditions and septic sites on the e^^ said the Park Commission is aware of the issues presented by Must GalTron *^'1 ^ "S rarem^n'on .he subject property on the west would firture on the west side if the properties were to be sewered He aol"' "'a' >ah'"S ^ilnt now does not determine where the trail will eventually be burlt. • rr,hum I tno Old Crystal Bay Road, indicated there were topographical issues on lo deci;.on was made at this time to preclude the trail being located on the west side. Lindouist informed the public that the Commission makes a recommendation to Council W Council makes the final decisions He suggested the public attend the Counci meeting when this topic is again discussed. Efwitr - top of a bluff The proposal meets that setback. Dallas asked about the loss of tree . “ t «ty‘“ a ^ re lat rdtaveTwalkL; to“ JL within the 0-75' setback. I AA navtnn 825 Old Crvstal Bay Road, asked about dock usage noting there were only 3 lakeSe^r He que^r the other lots would be able to have doc age as well GalTron said the lakeshore property owners cannot means for dockage other than for the owners themsrilves. ^ —r:r“o^rr a^d ,..0^ does not allow this to occur. options open until a decision is made on the trail, would be written prior to review by Council. 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (tn - #2341 Daniel Anderson - Continued) McMillan asked where the existing septic site is for the existing home. Gaffron said there are two proposed septic sites. Anderson clarified that the existing septic has to be removed as it is non-conforming. McMillan asked if any of the septic sites are more than 6% slope. Gaffron said all sites meet the 6% slope requirement. Additional testing for possible trench systems will be conducted this spring. Trench drainfields would require less land than the mound system sites that have been selected. Otto confirmed that there is more than adequate room for all septic sites. McMillan asked if Staff received comments from Hennepin County regarding Lots 6 and 7 being adjacent to the park. Gaffron said he had discussed the issue with Del Miller, who had no concerns. Brad Bressler reported having gone on the walking tour with the Park Commissioners. He said they determined that a 10’ easement would not be sufficient \vith the grades found on the west side and would require retaining walls. There are also power poles close to the road that would have to be relocated. These reasons, along with the fact that an easement already exists on the east side, resulted in Park Commission's determination that the east side was the best location for a trail. Bressler identified the area determined to be the best location for the trail to cross over to the west. Bridget Hust, 820 Old Crystal Bay Road, noted that they hear cars driving down the road since their home is so close to the road. With the speeding cars, Hust felt an intersection would be required for crossover of the trail. She did not believe cars would be able to stop in the location noted by Bressler if people are crossing the road. Hust said they were not informed of the meeting when the Council decided the trail should be located on the east side. Another member of the audience indicated that it would be wise to resolve the trail location soon. This gentleman felt it would be difficult to cross the road at the location noted by Bressler as cars are traveling 40-50 mph. Francis Graham emphasized the need to protect the trees on the subject property noting the uniqueness of the woodlands. Dan .Anderson said he was willing to work out a trail easement for the west side. He indicated that the 6% slope requirement for mound drainfields is not mandated by the State and felt there were alternatives available. Stoddard informed the public that the Commission will inform the police department of the speeding problem on Old Ciy'stal Bay Road. He indicated that a decision will not be made at this time regarding the bike trail location. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#7 - #2341 Daniel Anderson - Continued) McMillan noted that there are difficulties with the trail on both the east and west sides of the road from the Luce Line to Noerenberg Park. She indicated the details of the trail have not been planned out but consideration is being given for long range planning. Anderson reaffirmed that he would try to make it easy to provide an easement for a trail on the west side while being fair to septic site needs on Lot 2. Otto said the major concern is adherence to the 6% slope requirement. He is concerned with having an alternate site for Lot 6. Anderson said another site would be about an 8% slope. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2341 with lot width variances for Lots 2 and 7, acceptance of access method as noted for Lot 7, all existing accesses to the county road be eliminated, road radius of 125', trail easement of 15’, stormwater ponding or letter from MCWD on acceptable ponding, no bluff impact variance allowed for Lots 5 and 6, tree, woodland, and natural vegetation preservation program, and adherence to normal development requirements, including perimeter drainage and utility easements, private road easements and covenants, developers agreement, and park dedication. Lindquist informed McMillan that he is requesting the applicant develop a plan for woodland preservation. Smith cited an example of criteria developed on the Spencer property that could be used as a guideline. Gaffron said it would be drafted for the Council to review. Smith said she would like to see the plan. It was determined that the applicant will work with Staff'on developing the plan. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (A short break was taken.) NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS (#8) #2338 GRANT WENKSTERN, OWNER OF LAKEVIEW GOLF COURSE, 405 NORTH ARM DRIVE - CONDI I lONAL USE PERMIT - 9:34-9:42 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaft'ron reponcd that the request for conditional use permit is for land alteration in excess of 500 cubic yards for two separate areas of the golf course. One is the expansion of tees and creation of a pond for pole # 18. The second is for expansion of tees and creation of a pond near the center of the course between the 4th and 5th tees, A variance is required for grading within 26' of a pond near #18. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION l\mci IINVJ nCLU UlN rCDKUAKl I/, IVVO (#8 - #2338 Grant VVenkstern - Continued) Gaffron showed the grading plan. He indicated that once the vegetation is reestablished, it shouid nor change rhe stormwater patterns. Erosion controi is necessary during construction. Neither pond is in wetland areas. Gaffron did not believe a conservation and tiowage easement was necessary at this time. He teit it such an easement was required, it should be done for ail the ponds on the course. There will be no negative visual or environmental impacts from the excavation. Gaffron questioned whether the improvements could be done outside of the 26' wetland separation. vVenksiern said the purpose is to reinforce the dike. He noted the large pond flows to Forest Lake, while the other pond flows to North Arm. Gaffron said Staff recommends approval of the land alteration permit subject to the creation of a 10; 1 bench at the wetland perimeters. VVenkstern said the bench would result in the creation of cat-tails, which is net acceptable on a golf course. He said the pond wouid not be created if the bench is required. Gaffron said the issue is one of safety. Gaffron said the City Engineer did say he understood the issue a bench creates for a golf course and would not insist on its creation. W'enkstern noted that one of the ponds being worked on was originally a pond that had been drained. There were no public comments. McMillan moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2338 for a CUP for land alteration and variance for working within 26 ’ of a wetland per conditions recommended by Staff with the exception of condition # 1 where a 3; 1 slope would be allowed in lieu of the bench. Conditions #2-5 still apply. VVenkstern indicated he would create a bench for the pond on the north side, if possible. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) #2317 KHASROW DAIVARI, 1082 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - AFTER-THE- FACT VARIANCES - 9:42-9:55 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEE' ING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 j t (#9 - #2317 Khasrow Daivari - Continued) Brassier distributed pictures of the property. He reported that the application is for an after-the-fact variance for structural coverage and average lakeshore setback for a screened porch over an existing deck Bressler indicated the porch may impact the views for the property to the south as this property is significantly higher in elevation. The porch was constructed w ithout a building permit. If approved, the building inspector said the porch would have to be retrofitted to meet code by improving the structural soundness, adding required frost footings, and include a solid enclosed roof Bressler noted the applicant takes exception to this requirement. Bressler said Staff recommends denial of the variances as the porch would encroach 6' ahead of the average lakeshore setback and increase structural coverage to 16.4% where 15% is allowed. Daivari said the home is a summer home only. He constructed the porch due to problems incurred with mosquitoes. He did not want to enclose the roof, except with screening, to allow the sky to be viewed. Daivari said the porch would be painted and the screen is removable. : I In response to Lindquist's comment that the porch does not meet building code, Daivari s^d he did not design the porch as a building. Bressler noted that the applicant would be allowed to put a tent up on the property. Berg informed Daivari that once framing is done, it becomes a structure. Smith noted that Daivari requested approval of the porch from Council last summer and was denied. She indicated denial would show consistency amongst the Council, Planning Commission, and Staff. Bill Bockman, a neighbor of Daivari’s, supported the porch. Smith informed him of the purpose of the code regarding safely McMillan added that if the property is sold, further problems could occur with additions to the porch. Daivari asked if he removed the porch and submitted an application, if a variance would be approved. Bressler indicated that it would require average lakeshore setback and structural coverage variances, which necessitate the need for showing hardship. He did not feel the situation was unique to this property. Lindquist informed Daivari that he did not believe the application would be approved. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to deny Application #2317. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Smith asked if there was room between the residence and average lakeshore setback for a porch. Bressler said there was about a 5-6* space to work within. Bockman questioned why other average lakeshore setback variances were approved in the neighborhood. Smith suggested he contact Staff to discuss the matter. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#10) #2334 I.ECY CONSTRUCTION FOR JEFF JACOBSEN, 127 CHEVY CHASE DRIVE - VARIANCE - 9:55-9:59 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Bressler reported that the owner removed the existing house on a lot that does not meet zoning requirements. Construction of a new house requires lot area variance. All other setbacks will be met. The applicant said he was frustrated by the problem that arose. A permit had been issued for removal of the existing house. Smith was informed that the property is consistent in size to other lots in the area. There were no public comments. GafFron said the application would be heard at the February 23 Council meeting. Smith moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2334 for lot area variance. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) #2335 LAWRENCE MOLSATUER AND LINDA SALLEE, 3285 CARMEN ROAD - VARIANCES - 9:59-10:41 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicants were present. Bressler distributed pictures of the property. The application is a request to rebuild and expand the existing deck on the lakeside of the residence requiring variances for structural coverage, 0-75' hardcover, lakeshore setback, and average lakeshore setback. The current deck is 2'5" wide and located underneath the existing 3.4' overhang. Bressler indicated the deck could be expanded to a 3.4' width without increasing the structural coverage, hardcover, or encroachment on setbacks. Bressler noted that the hardcover calculations by surveyor did not include the overhang and calculations w ere adjusted by staff to reflect the overhang in structural coverage and hardcover amounts. Bressler said the proposed deck would be 6'7" beyond the roof line. The deck may impact the views for the neighboring property. Staff recommended the deck be scaled back to the width of the overhang. The deck as it exists is not functional. Bressler reviewed Staffs recommendation as outlined in the information packet. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#11- #2335 Lawrence Molsather and Linda Sallee - Continued) Mr. Molsather said the recommendation is unreasonable. He noted the home to the east extends closer to the lake. His property is on a gradual point of land along the lakeshore and the average lakeshore setback is deceiving. He feels the main issues for the proposed deck are safety, practicality, and enjoyment. He noted the current difficulty in moving past an open window or doorway. In order to clean his gutters, it requires using the deck or climbing on the roof, which is no longer feasible for he and his wife. Molsather said due to trees on the wooded property, it necessitates cleaning the gutters every other week during the summer months. He feels having enough room to have chairs on the deck is a reasonable request. Molsather, who is an engineer and hydrologist, says the deck will have openings through which water would run. The drainage patterns would not change. He indicated rock over plastic is placed 7-8' out from the house. Molsather said he and his neighbors currently maintain the nearby City cul-de-sac. He also changed a hard surface area used for parking into green space on his front yard. There is plastic underneath the rock on his property, and he would be willing to change it to sod. The amount of rock with plastic is about 382 s.f The deck would be 316 s.f Molsather said he would make changes to the flagstone walkway if necessary as well. Bressler indicated that Stafl'was not aware of the plastic under the rock, and the plastic was not included in the hardcover calculations. Lindquist said the plastic would have to be removed. Berg inquired about the average lakeshore setback. Molsather presented letters from his neighbors supporting his request. Lindquist noted that the current code would not allow this house to be built today. McMillan suggested reconfiguring the deck to allow the deck to extend further out in one area by eliminating a portion of its length elsewhere. Molsather questioned how he would then maintain cleaning of the gutters. Stoddard felt the request for variances was similar to other approvals made, and with the neighbors support of the proposal, Stoddard said he would support the applicant's request. He asked if there was other hardcover that could be removed besides the plastic. Sallee said she would be willing to remove the gravel over plastic under the deck. She was informed that it was a moot point as the gravel should not be there now. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#11- #2335 Lawrence Molsather and Linda Sallee - Continued) Lindquist informed the applicants that he did not believe “ddWonal hardcover in the 0-7y would be approved noting removal of plastic was not an option and be removed^^He said from comments made, the Commission was wdhng to trade a portion of the deck in one area for estension in another without adding , Average Bressler noted that any trade would add to hardcover because ^^ extend beyond the overhang McMillan said the attempt was to gam “ Lildquis' said he could no. support a request for addinonal hardcover in the 0-75 setback. Stoddard said he would approve the application as submitted. Molsather ouestioned whether exceptions can be made as that is the purpose of variances. McMillan informed him that since a deck existed, he would be allowed to reconstruct the tok ulgamount of decking. Stoddard noted that the code requirements not allowfng structure in the 0-75' setback did not exist at the time the was constructed. He felt the deck is very nano ■ and not functional as it exis s. applicant had the right to replace the deck and recom.gure it. Stoddard moved to approve Application #2335 to add a deck subject to including average lakeshore setback. 0-75’ hardcover, structural coverage, and 'ake^e setback with hLing.he additional deck to 221 s f Theapphcantwou^ld be required to remove’all plastic under rock in the two areas under the house and by the lakeshore. T motion would allow a deck 8' wide along the length of the house. The motion failed for lack of a second. Molsather said he would have agreed to Stoddard's motion. Sallee would not change the look of the house but only add to its usehilness McMillan informed them that she d^d not second the motion as she would have needed to see the deck oesign. Lindquist said the applicant may be able to take the same amount of deck as reconfigure it. He felt no additional amount of deck would be approved. He asked if the applicant would like to table the application for further review or move the application forward to Council. McMillan said she would agree to allowing some additional square footage to gam a functional deck for the applicants. Smith questioned how much of an increase would be supported The proposal is for 3% increase. Lindquist said he would not favor that increase. Uerg was informed that the purpose of the deck is to enjoy the lake and enable the applicants to clean the gutters . .....—.umia MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#11- #2335 Lawrence Molsather and Linda Sallee - Continued) Stoddard noted that his motion decreased the percentage of structural coverage increase by one-half. Lindquist said he would like to see another drawing, He said the Commissioners felt a 1 or 2% increase in hardcover would be approved with removal of plastic under rock and decreasing the length of the deck. Lindquist noted he was in the minority, not supportive of any additional hardcover Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2335 to allow the applicants to redraw the deck design reducing the amount of additional hardcover to under 3% to gain a more functional deck. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#12) #2336 BRUCE NEWTON, 3580 FREDERICK STREET - AFTER-THE- FACT VARIANCE - 10:41-10:46 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Bressler distributed pictures of the property. The application is a request for after-the-fact rear setback variance to replace a deck. The residence faces the side street. The deck would not adversely affect hardcover amounts and would not encroach the rear yard beyond what is existing. Bressler indicated that the City only has a prescriptive casement over the southwest comer of the lot. The City would like to have a permanent easement for the paved area and 5' from the curb. Staff recommended approval of the variance subject to this condition. Mr. Newton said the deck existed for 23 years. He replaced the deck as it stood as it had become rotten. There were no public comments McMillan moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2336 for rear setback variance with the condition that a permanent easement be obtained as noted in the Staff' recommendation. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. The application will be heard at the March 9 Council meeting. r ■ . t'atAa MFNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY i7, 1998 (#13) #2337 SCOTT YOUNG, 3359 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VARIANCES - 10:47- 10:51 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Dressier reported that the application is a request ^or a second story addition over a portion of the residence, which encroaches on the side and lakeshore setbacks. The addition will meet the height requirement. The elevation drawings were shown. The improvements would not further any encroachment. Staff recommended approval of the application. The applicant had no additional comments. There were no public comments. Smith noted that the homes on the street were approaching a massiveness beyond what is satisfactory. Lindquist moved, Bc^g seconded, to approve Application #2337 per Staff recommendation. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. The appliciuion will be heard at the February 23 Council meeting. (#14) #2342 MARK CASEY, 255 LANDMARK DRIVE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 10:51-10:54 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is a request for land alteration requiring a conditional use permit and variance for excavating 2.2 cubic yards at the shoreline to create a beach area. The location of the beach was shown. The applicant is also riprapping other areas along the beach. 1 he beach would be 24' wide and extend 7.5’ shoreward of the 929.4 contour. There were no issues involved or impact on engineering or views. Gaflron noted that the Council ha*: suggested the code be amended to allow such proposals to be considered at the Staff level. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2342. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAI n NING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#14 - #2342 Mark Casey - Continued) Stoddard noted that the MCWD does not permit sand laid from the water line forward. Gaftron noted that the applicant has the necessary permits for the riprapping and sand blanket. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. The application will be heard at the February 23 Council meeting. Gaffron said he felt with strict guidelines, Staft' would be supportiv e of having authority to approve excavation up to 10 cubic yards, which is one truck load. (#3) #2325 LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND CINDY OLSON, 950 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES The Applicants recjuested the application be tabled to the March meeting. Berg moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2325 for review at the March meeting of the Planning Commission. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#14) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JANUARY 26,1998 AND FEBRUARY 9, 1998 No additional comments were given. (#15) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Smith was congratulated on her appointment as Chair of the Planning Commission. Hawn will be Vice Chair. Smith extended accolades to Lindquist on his performance as Chair of the Planning Commission this past year. Commissioners extended appreciation to Lindquist. McMillan suggested the City provide magnetic signs for Planning Commissioners to place on their vehicles during property review to identify their presence. Lindquist felt a picture identification would be a good idea as well. Gaffron will explore the possibility of providing identification. Smith was informed that the Home Occupation report will be given to Council for farther direction No further work has been done on the Tree Preservation Ordinance. 25 I I » I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#16) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 20,1998 On page 39, under agenda item #20, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence was changed to read, "All existing buildings will be removed." Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve lihe //jtes of the January 20, 1998 Meeting as amended. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#17) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY' COUNCIL MEETINGS ON FEBRUARY 23 AND MARCH 9, 19<>8 February 23 - McMillan March 9 - Smith ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 p.m. Dale Lindquist, Chair Person r March 3,1998 Mayor & City Councilmembers City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Re: Renovation of Westonka Community Center Dear Mayor & City Councilmembers: As you know, the Westonka School District and the City of Mound have been working together since April, 1997, to study the feasibility of renovating the existing Westonka Community Center located at 5600 Lynwood Blvd., in Mound. The joint study was initiated by the two governing bodies to see if such a renovation made sense from a practical as well as a financial standpoint. Through the past several months, a preliminary design and cost estimate were developed. In addition, a professional survey was performed to determine the "pulse" of the Westonka area regarding a renovated facility. The design calls for renovating both the 1939 building and the 1965 building (pods). Included in that renovation is the restoration of the auditorium. The cost estimate used in the feasibility study has been $9.2 million. The School District will be applying $1.3 million from the 1993 bond issue towards the project. The Senior Center is also contributing $200,000 which brings the total amount of a bond issue to $7.7 million. This is the amount that was stated in the referendum held December 4, 1 997. Enclosed is a copy of the brochure used for informing voters prior to the December referendum. As stated above. Decision Resources, Inc., performed a random sample survey last summer. The survey indicated that of the persons contacted, there was definitely support for the renovation of the facility. As you know, the referendum passed in December and the School Board and the City Council of Mound have been meeting to develop a joint powers agreement which would spell out the duties and responsibilities of a joint powers beard who would oversee the construction project and the continuing operations of the facility. The two governing bodies have considered a draft of the agreement and will be continuing to meet to finalize that agreement and subsequent implementation. Mj pr$nted on recycled p^per \0 54.1687 Letter to Mayor & City Councilmeinbers March 3,1998 Page 2 The agreement has provisions contained within it for other entities to directly or indirectly participate in the project. Although you have not been involved in this project to this point, the P“n>«se of our letter is to formally invite you to participate. We would ask that you consider tks invitation seriously and think about your interest in the project. To begin project we would ask you to attend the next meeting of the City of Mound and the Westonka Schoo Board where both bodies will be continuing their discussion regarding the joint powers agreement and other issues related to the renovation project. If you are unable to make a commitment at this point in time but want to learn more about what has occurred since last Apnl on tlus subject an what the two governing bodies are actually considering, you are welcome to attend the meeting for that purpose as well. The meeting will be held on Thursday, March 12,1998,7:30 p.m., Westor^a Comity Center, 5600 Lynwood Blvd. Enter the doors on the north side of the building (side facing the Pond ^^na). The meeting will be held in the School Board meeting room which is to yoi^ left as you enter the north doors or in the Conference Room which is to your right as you enter the north doors. Signs will direct you to the room which will be used for the meeting. If you have any questions, please contact either one of us. We would love to have you and your city join our collaborative effort. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Bob Polston Mayor of Mound 472-2718 Work 472-5520 Home Sincerel’ Bill Pinegar Chair, Westonka School Board 471- 8536, Ext. 10 Work 472- 5261 Home COUNCIL MLCTfN! March 2,1998 Gabriel Jabbour Mayor Orono City Hall 2950 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mar s J998 CITY OF ORONO Dear Mr. Mayor: At the February 10th meeting at the Orono Planning Commission we heard Mr, Anderson and his associates describe their plans to develop the Carpenter property on Old Crystal Bay Road. By and large we were very pleased with what we heard. Obviously, we would like to have the property remain as it is, but we are realistic and know that a single house on 17 plus acres is not possible in this day and ag" "^e thought the objections brought up by our neighbor Judd Dayton were well thought out and reasonable and that the Planning Commission’s solution to his objections were ex«..dlent. Our concern is about where a bike trail along Old Crystal Bay Road would run if and when it is put in. Mike Gaflfron just assumed it would be on the east side of the road. We object to that in the strongest terms. Our house and our neighbor’s house to the north (Arthur Blair) are only 50 to 53 feet from the edge of the road. A bike trail on the east side would do irreparable damage to both properties. When we made our objections known, Mr. Anderson indicated he would not object to a 15 foot easement on the west side through the Carpenter property. We applaud this suggestion. Prior to purchasing, people buying the new homes would know in advance that there is a possibility that the trail would be on their side. They therefore shouldn’t object if later it does come on the west side. We know that the March 9* meeting of the council will not decide where the trail will ultimately run. What wc are asking you is not to shut the door on Mr. Anderson’s offer. Please take the 15 foot easement on the west side. Whether it is laid out and constructed is up to the council and the developer, all we ask is to not lose what in the future maybe our best choice. Sincerely, Duke Hust 820 Old Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE OF MEETING CITY OF ORONO MAR 9 199 CITY O’* ORONO Notice is hereby given that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota will hold a public hearing in the Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, at 8:00 p.m. on Monday, March 23, 1998 to consider the installation of municipal sanitary sewer trunks and laterals pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 429.011 to 429.111. The area proposed to be assessed for the improvement is generally known as the "Shoreline Drive, Heritage Drive/Heritage Lane" area described as follows: The following property in Hennepin County, Minnesota: A. 13 Lots in Foxhill Subdivision, Section 10, Township 117 North, Range 23 West. B. C. Lots 1,2,3 and 5, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 356, Section 10, Township 117 North, Range 23 West. Lots A, C, E, G, I, Registered Land Survey No. 96, Section 10, Township 117 North, Range 23 West. The properties proposed to be assessed are alternatively described by the following property identification numbers: 10-117-23 13 0022 10-117-23 14 0005 10-117-23 42 0003 10-117-23 42 0006 10-117-23 42 0018 10-117-23 42 0001 10-117-23 42 0004 10-117-23 42 0016 10-117-23 42 0019 ' 10-117-23 42 0002 10-117-23 42 0005 10-117-23 42 0017 10-117-23 12 0005 10-117-23 13 0004 10-117-23 13 0002 10-117-23 13 0005 10-117-23 13 0008 10-117-23 13 0013 10-117-23 13 000? 10-117-23 13 0009 10-117-23 13 0014 10-117-23 13 0021 The esilrf ated cc"* of such improvements is $382,000.00. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvements will be heard at this meeting. (To be published in the Laker/Pioneer on February 28,1998 and March 7, 1998) I CITY of ORONO Municipal OfTices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkwey Orono. MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 February 26, 1998 Dear Project Area Residents. The Ocoho Crty Courhil «i11 be Chambers. Introduction • 1 .hpH in the recent MUSA expansion for sanitary sewer installation. TheThis area was included m the recent m ^ . ^ouestine complet-on of a sewer project residents along Shoreline Drive have e ^ ^ ® j neighborhood surveys have in their area. In the Heritage Drive and Heritage project. The Council shown that approximately half of the residents jhis area. The intent of previously ordered a feasibility study ^ ^ ^ ^^test number of interested residents this process is to develop a sewer project that will serve tn g at the lowest cost. On Februao- 12lh. a twenty” wo ’for sewer. Residents ate n^^-^nerSur s~ in the mail, from an additional three P/®P J i„fon„ation was obtained from sanitary sewer project is shown »" There is uncertainty in Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 4734)510 Public Hearing Resident Input The intent of the formal Council public hearing is to solicit public input to finalize a decision on ordering preparation of plans and specifications for this project. Please plan to attend the public hearing. Your input is important. The City needs to obtain a firm commitment of the number of residents interested in this project. The responses of several property owners are still unknown. After the public hearing, the City Council will need to make a decision on how to proceed with this project. This decision will be based on the resident interest in this project. Therefore, it is very important the Council receive input from all of the project residents. Resident comments will be solicited at the public hearing or written comments can be provided to the City prior to the meeting. All written comments received will be included in the Council packets for the public hearing. All of the comments received regarding the neighborhood informational meeting will be provided to the Council, so it is hot necessary to resubmit written comments. Project description The attached map shows the preferred option to serve the greatest number of residents at the lowest cost. This is a difficult area to serve with sewer because of the differences in elevations. The project area consists of three separate subareas separated by high points. Based on resident comments, the subarea on the western side of the project will be dropped from further consideration. This is a separate project that could be requested by the residents at a future date. There are fifteen parcels in the middle subarea that can be served by gravity sewer for an estimated $19,100/ unit cost. Property owners for all fifteen of these parcels are being notified of the public hearing. Eight of the ten parcels in the downstream s. gmenu of the system have indicated interest in the project. Project interest in the upstream segment of the area is less certain. The most feasible option for the properties in the eastern subarea would be to provide service with individual grinder pumps that would be owned and operated by property owners. Any or al' of these properties could connect to the system, with a grinder pump, at an estimated unit cost of $19,100 per unit. Two of the five properties have expressed an interest in sewer. The estimated costs for gravity flow from each parcel to a City owned lift station would be $42,800/ unit, and would require the participation of all five property owners. This option is clearly not feasible. The grinder pump option provides flexibility for sewer hook up in this area, at a more reasonable cost. All five of these :>roperty owners are being notified of the public hearing. Project Assessments and Costs This will be a fully assessed sewer project. No City contribution toward the assessments will be provided. The proposed project assessment is $19,100/unit payable over a fifteen year period. Options for prepayment of the assessment are also available. Based on several projects completed in 1997, the estimated interest rate is 6.25%. Based on a 15 year assessment at 6.25% interest, the annual assessment payments will average approximately $2,000. The first assessment payment would be added to the 1999 property tax bill. The property owner is also responsible for payment of a $1,000 SAC (Sewer Availability Charge) at the time the permit for connection is issued. This money is collected by the City and then forwarded to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Division. This money is used to pay for the additional capacity built in to the MCES sewer interceptor pipes for future connections to the sewer system. This is a standard charge per new sewer unit for the entire MCES system in the metro area. The sewer service pipes will be stubbed out to the property line. The property owner is then responsible for hiring a licensed plumber to complete the hook up to the new sewer and to properly abandon the existing septic system. The estimated cost for this work is approximately $1,000 to $2,000. The City fee for the cormection permit is $35.00 The quarterly sewer rate for the entire City is a flat fee of $76.85 Exclusion From The Project The ideal situation is that all of the property owners will be included in the project. It is difficult to have all of the owners in a project area agree to an assessment sewer project. Recognizing this fact, the City has adopted a policy that allows property owners to request exclusion from the project if they have a conforming septic system. If a property is excluded from the project and requests a sewer connection at future date, a connection fee will be charged. This connection fee will be the full project assessment, increased each year according to the annual inflation rate. This entire fee will be payable upon connection without the benefit of the fifteen-year assessment option for repayment. Currently, property owners have a seven year period, from when notified their septic system is determined to be non-confonning, within which to replace the system. The property owner will be required to connect to sewer if the existing septic system becomes non-conforming due to any future septic system regulations. Major repairs or replacement of an existing septic system will not be allowed in an area v ;r»re sanitary sewer is available. Because the City will be covering the debt service charges for any properties excluded from the project, the number of properties that can be excluded without making the project economically unviable is limited. If a substantial majority of the properties are not included in the project, the project will not be financially feasible and will not be completed or will be reduced in size. The proposed project is of reasonable size to solicit good bids for construction. Splitting the project into several segments may result in higher construction costs and higher interest rates on assessments. Interest rates are very favorable at this time, resulting in lower assessment payments. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely; a Gregory A. Gappa Director of Public Services Copy: Orono City Council Tom Kellog, Bonestroo Engineers liiiai (^0 mjmix / excLUbE \v fp-OM PdoJlay ^lAjooiun x^/ium^ <JftWP£R PuMf ISy c/w/ju^lL >/ tt> 5rpii/' 1^,100/6iA.in Fi?il 6tLb\nv SHvt\l hPSiV OU iS UMlfi HERITAGE DRIVE ORONO. MINNESOTA SANITARY SEWER 1391004.0WG 2/20/98 FIGURE 4 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene ^1^1 Anderlik & ill I Associates Engineers s Architects COX<M. 139 00 REPORT KBR. DATE OF RUN BPRMTISS-1 03/02/98 PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED * DATE PERMIT TYPE Building SGL FAMILY-NEW SF-ADD/REMODEL SF-ACC STRUCTURE DEMO/PRINCIPAL COM-ADD/REMODEL INST-ADD/REMODEL DEMO-ACCESSORY Sub-total Mechanical HEATING SYSTEMS AIR CONDITIONING WOOD STOVE/FLUE FIREPLACE VENTILATION GAS LINE INSPECT DUCT WORK ONLY Sub-total Plumbing FIXTURES SPRINKLER WATER METER Sub-total Sewer & Water SEWER CONNECTION NEW SEPTIC SYSTB SAC ONLY Sub-total Sign TEMPORARY Sub-total User Defined LAND ALTERATION LAWN SPRINKLER Sub-total Grand-total QTY 4 34 3 » 1 2 47* PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO «***« 9 1998 PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: CAROLE -- CURRENT RANGE - 01/01/98 - 02/28/98 BASE FEE 9,819.00 12,533.25 2,899.25 150.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 25,461.50* C/TYOFORONO PREVIOUS RANGE - 01/01/97 - 02/28/97 VALUATION 1.653.160.00 1.354.095.00 418,300.00 0.00 0.00 19,480.00 0.00 3,445,035.00* PLAN REVIEW QTY 14,784.06* BASE FEE 3,944.50 11,234.00 0.00 50.00 124.75 0.00 30.00 15,383.25* VALUATION 633,805.46 1,276,937.50 0.00 0.00 6,500.00 0.00 0.00 1,917,242.96* PLAN REVIEW 2,563.92 6,052.47 0.00 0.00 81.09 0.00 0.00 8,697.48* 17 2,310.69 182,355.00 0.00 25 2,087.95 155,950.88 0.00150.00 4,000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00135.00 2,000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.0016583.75 29,600.00 0.00 14 517.67 23,559.00 0.003105.00 5,150.00 0.00 2 70.00 2,200.00 0.003105.00 1,875.00 0.00 5 175.00 2,075.00 0.006223.75 11,700.00 0.00 2 70.00 3,000.00 0.0047*3,413.19*236,680.00*0.00*48*2,920.62*186,784.88*0.00* 28 2,834.07 208,674.00 0.00 37 2,746.89 179,’480.36 0.0000.00 0.00 0.00 1 75.00 6,000.00 0.002438.00 0.00 0.00 3 632.99 0.00 0.0030*3,272.07*208,674.00*0.00*41*3,454.88*185,480.36*0.00* 5 175.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.002200.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.0043,000.00 0.00 o.co 1 0.00 0.00 0.0011*3,375.00*0.00*0.00*1*0.00*0.00*0.00* 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 30.00 0.00 0.000*0.00*0.00*0.00*1*30.00*0.00*0.00* 1 50.00 0.00 0.00 1 75.00 0.00 0.00135.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.002*85.00*0.00*0.00*1*75.00*0.00*0.00* 137**35,606.76**3,890,389.00**14,784.06**121**21,863.75**2,289,508.20**8,697.48** REPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OF RUN 03/02/98 r*TTDDT?M'T ***** PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO ***** DRPVTnriQ REQUESTER: PAGE: 1 CAROLE PERMIT TYPE QTY 01/01/98 - BASE PEE - - - - - - 02/28/98 VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY 01/01/97 - BASE FEE 02/28/97 VALUATION PLAN REVIEW User Defined SUBDIVISION 5 3,437.50 0.00 0.00 2 2,025.00 0.00 0.00 VARIANCE 9 2,470.00 0.00 0.00 10 2,350.00 0.00 0.00 CUP 2 500.00 0.00 0.00 5 1,300.00 0.00 0.00 SKETCH PLAN 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 250.00 0.00 0.00 VARIANCE/CUP 1 250.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 REZONING 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 RQST SIMILAR USE 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 10*6,657.50*0.00*0.00*20*5,925.00*0.00*0.00* Grand-total 10**6,657.50**0.00**0.00**20**5,925.00**0.00**0.00** \GE: 1 :arole [lEVIEW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* o.oo*^ B: 1 CAROLE 1998 RECAP OF COIITRACT CITIES January February March April May June July August September October November December YTO Totals Spring Park Plan Review O.OC O.Ci.0.00 Inspections 15.Cu 45.00 60.00 Retainer 25.00 25.00 50.00 TOTAL 40.00 70.00 110.00 No. Plan Reviews 0 0 0 No. Inspections 1 3 4 Minnetonka Beach Plan Review 7,206.05 2,133.30 9,339.35 Inspections 195.00 285.00 480.00 Retainer 25.00 25.00 50.00 TOTAL 7,426.05 2,443.30 9,869.35 No. Plan Reviews 0 2 2 No. Inspections 13 19 32 7,466.05 2,513.30 9,979.35 • ^ i 4 REPORT NBR. DATE OP R\Jh PERMIT TYPE Building SGL FAMILY- SF-ADD/REMC SP-ACC STRU DEMO/PRINCI COM-ADD/REM DEMO-ACCESS Sub-total Mechanical HEATING SYS AIR CONDITI FIREPLACE VENTILATION GAS LINE IN DUCT WORK 0 Sub-total Plumbing FIXTURES SPRINKLER WATiSR METER Sub-total Sewer k Wat NEW SEPTIC Sub-total User Define LAND AIiTERA LAWN SPRINK Sub-total Grauid-total « <4 PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED FEBRUARY 199JT REPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OF RUN 03/02/98 *****PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO *****PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: CAROLE -- CURRENT RANGE - 02/01/98 - 02/28/98 PREVIOUS RANGE - 02/01/97 - 02/28/97 PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW Building SGL FAMILY-NEW 1 2,337.25 390,000.00 1,519.21 1 1,912.25 305,000.00 1,242.96 SF-ADD/REMODEL 21 8,665.00 991,520.00 4,564.29 11 6,654.75 811,508.55 3,489.53 SP-ACC STRUCTURE 2 2,237.00 354,300.00 1,454.05 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 DEMO/PRINCIPAL 3 150.00 0.00 0.00 0 C.OO 0.00 0.00 CCM1-ADD/REMODBL 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 124.75 6,500.00 81.09 DEMO-ACCESSORY 1 30.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 28*13,419.25*1,735,820.00*7,537.55*13*8,691.75*1,123,008.55*4,813.58* Mechanical HEATING SYSTEMS 12 1,803.19 144,255.00 0.00 14 859.07 64,610.88 0.00 AIR CONDITIONING 1 50.00 4,000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 FIREPLACE 6 210.00 9,500.00 0.00 5 194.56 10,065.00 0.00 VENTILATION 3 105.00 5,150.00 0.00 1 35.00 1,850.00 0.00 GAS LINE INSPECT 2 70.00 1,725.00 0.00 5 175.00 2,075.00 0.00 DUCT WORK ONLY 4 153.75 7,100.00 0.00 e X 35.00 2,000.00 0.00 Sub-total 28*2,391.94*171,730.00*0.00*26*1,298.63*80,630.88*0.00* Plumbing FIXTURES 15 1,650.58 124,945.00 0.00 19 1,612.88 110,512.64 0.00 SPRINKLER 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 75.00 6,000.00 0.00 HATER METER 1 247.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 16*1,897.58*124,945.00*0.00*20*1,687.88*116,512.64*0.00* Sewer & Hater NEW SEPTIC SYSTE 1 100.00 0.00 0. uo 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 1*100.00*0.00*0.00*0*0.00*0.00*0.00* User Defined LAND M.TERATION 1 50.00 0.00 o.co 0 0.00 • 0.00 0.00 LAHN SPRINKLER 1 35.00 0.00 0.00 C 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 2*85.00*0.00*c.oo*0*0.00*0.00*0.00* Grand-total 75**17,893.77**2,032,495.00**7,537.55**59**11,678.26**1,320,152.07**4,813.58** T :t REPORT NB: DATE OP R> BASE PEE PLAN REVIl SURCHARGE Lie. SEAR( SAC INVESTIGAl DEPOSIT MAIL IN ESCROW PERMIT TO! REPORT NBR DATE OP RU BASE PEE PLAN REVIE SURCHARGE Lie. SEARC. SAC invbstigat: DEPOSIT MAIL IN ESCROV , PERMIT TOTi PA !Rs C .AN R 1.2 3,4 I 4,8 ■ 4,8 PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED FEBRUARY 1998 EERPTl-1 3/02/98 ERPTl-l /02/98 REPORT TOTAL * * * * *perk.it fee report CITY OF ORONO FROM 02/01/90 TO 02/28/98 * * • * * * *#♦*PERMIT FEE REPORT CITY OF ORONO FROM 02/01/98 TO 02/28/98 PAGE: 28 REQUESTER: CAROLE BUILDING MECh/\NICAL PLUMBING SEWER & WATER USER SIGN FIRE 13,419.25 2,391.94 1,097.50 100.00 05.00 0.00 0.00 7,537.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 869.99 86.67 62.72 0.50 0.50 . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 399.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.50 6.00 1.50 o.c:3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22,226.04 2,501.11 1,966 30 100.50 87.00 o.ou 0.00 PAGE: 29 REQUESTER: CAROLE MON, MAR PERMITS PERMIT W BL 0 H t r K 1 ■•1 d 1 HB]•,:1 E d «Hig 9m •I* ►Hj02i 1 1 kE E %•E EE •4 1 1 t 9EI 1 02 J J B1 ^^BB 9 1 B E :•E 1 B 1 1 1 1 •9E1 1 m ^K 1 1 K 2 B 1 E s d 1 E 1 ?:•^9E 1 S ••j^BK s n 2 E •?1 1 E 1 ;1 1 «^9E 0 ■ C E T •■j E 1 j E s e 1 E i i 1 1 9E s i J 1 1 m 1 n E s d 1 B 1 1 1 1 9E1 1 T ! J ^B ••s E ••1H (••\:1 1 9E m 1 •! 2 ^E ?;E E n1 1 s «1 E 1 1 1•1 1 1 9E1 1 1 1 1 S1u91fl1!1 •1 E 1 f 1 1 1 9E1 1 1 ! S^BB c E j^B^HS s 1 B fl 1 J s 1 E 1 !t s c *9EmmE • •13 •■ I 9 5 I*]•••1 E 1 (1 1 9E1 I »•! • B ;1 ^B9[^I 1 1 S •••n 1 E ;;d ^■•1 mB 11 ^p •;s 1 fl 2BS 1 ••I 1 E i 1 m ■ ;;9ESRj ^9 ■• • ^B 1 ■j^B^Bi s hjjk 1 fl 2c j ••f 1 E ■»•e [9^■»i S ■m S •101 2 3 1 ^^E 2K;1 I j •1 E 1 •1 1 1 1 9Enn m S ^E •1 j^B u E 1 r ^^E 2 1 d !!mB i 1 1 '\9Emn !:T SB '1 5 E fl 1 1 1 s d 1 1 B E !1 1 m {1 9Ein • 1 ® ^B •jj^B !E fl ^^E:1"1 • •1 1 B E i •:9E 29B 1 •m ^B •^B Jg5 Mg fl :li EO 1 ••"mB I ■ m 1 •^^9E 2I m • •® ^B 1 B2 \B 2 ^^E :1 1 1 ••1 B :•5 1 f.9 1 a • f m ^B •■i 1 2 •1 ”1 i •1■mB !i 1 !9E 1 sM ® ^BBnj [^B In||B^^B :1 !•1 B 1 e 9 9^H^1 s E • •m I B !R 1 0 B EO 1 ••1 iB 1 ►1 Z 9 m•s m 1 •m ^E 1 «s R 1 nI^B^^E BB 1 •t•S iB y •I \!9^B^1 !« •• ! ^p 1 •B R 1 g ^^B 3 B E3 1 d •1 B i 1 1 ••^^9E ;1 s •• • Hi m B M B R■^^B S 1 d i•••1 B j1 R •I 9E i£1 I •• t ^E *•I^B s 1 1 B]1 •••5 mB E i R •!9BS ft'•9 f 1 • 1 ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION 34282026 PRACTICAL SYSTEMS JACKSON 525.00 38940005 BURNSVILLE HEATING CO 1,900.00 24972031 M fit D PLBG fit HTG INC BERSCHEID 575.00 32266220 GAS LINE PLUS MITHUN 2,000.00 25334357 PLYMOUTH PLUMBING 10,046.00 24738793 CITYVIEW PLBG fit HTG HARRISON 9,100.00 29383589 STANDARD PLBG fit APPL CO 26,700.00 24432921 SOUTHWEST METRO PLBG 12,900.00 27852202 MINNESOTA WATER TREATMENT BERSCHEID 499.00 24796715 KINGSWAY PLUMBING .00 24972290 B fit D PLUMBING fit HEATING KELLY 9,500.00 27063951 GRABOW PLUMBING INC SHOLL 16,000.00 24432275 FORCIER PLBG KENNEFICK 13,600.00 25334357 PLYMOUTH PLUMBING 7,400.00 28274033 NORBLOM PLUMBING CO WOOD 1,000.00 24521565 WENZEL PLUMBING fit HEATING LARSON 4,000.00 20028681 WELTER fit BLAYLOCK INC CAJACOB 1,600.00 24422618 SULT '^'VAN BOB PLBG OTTO 6,500.00 24549297 JAM'':KY PLBG 1,000.00 24972031 M fit D PLBG fit HTG INC BERSCHEID 5,100.00 54287393 PATNODE BROTHERS oo•85377570 EVERGREEN SPK INC .00 00000000 SONSTEGARD .00 AGE 2 525.00 900.00 575.00 000.00 046.00 100.00 700.00 900.00 499.00 .00 500.00 000.00 600.00 400.00 000.00 000.00 600.00 500.00 000.00 100.00 .00 495.00* MON, MAR 2, 1998, 1:46 PM FEBRUARY 1998NUMERICAL LISTING PERMIT NBR ISSUED CANCEL ADDR NBR STREET OR-009297 OR-009899 OR-009906 OR-009911 OR-009912 OR-009913 OR-009914 OR-009915 OR-009916 OR-009917 OR-009918 OR-009919 OR-009920 OR-009921 OR-009922 OR-009923 OR-009924 OR-009925 OR-009926 OR-009928 OR-009929 OR-009930 OR-009931 OR-009932 OR-009933 OR-009934 OR-009935 OR-009936 OR-009937 OR-009938 OR-009939 OR-009940 OR-009941 OR-009942 OR-009944 OR-009945 OR-009946 OR-009947 OR-009948 OR-009949 OR-009950 OR-009951 OR-009952 OR-009953 OR-009954 OR-009955 OR-009956 OR-009957 OR-009958 OR-009959 OR-009960 OR-009961 OR-009962 98/02/19 98/02/19 98/02/03 98/02/11 98/02/02 98/02/02 98/02/02 98/02/03 98/02/04 98/02/05 98/02/05 98/02/05 98/02/09 98/02/11 98/02/06 98/02/09 98/02/05 98/02/06 98/02/06 98/02/09 98/02/09 98/02/09 98/02/10 98/02/09 98/02/09 98/02/09 98/02/09 98/02/09 98/02/09 98/02/10 98/02/12 98/02/11 98/02/11 98/02/11 98/02/11 98/02/11 98/02/12 98/02/13 98/02/13 98/02/17 98/02/17 98/02/18 98/02/18 98/02/18 98/02/18 98/02/17 98/02/18 98/02/18 98/02/18 98/02/18 90/02/18 98/02/10 98/02/10 98/02/19 990 990 500 2505 2735 1395 2735 2092 3095 4100 75 3211 430 75 180 3895 1410 75 4685 2975 2070 2185 4575 2625 3300 255 3241 4460 2185 1410 1600 2600 3620 2106 3120 1040 2320 215 50 1045 1005 3241 1285 2600 2600 940 500 2520 3011 2605 395 1365 1365 395 LOMA LINDA AVE LOMA LINDA AVE TONKAWA RD KELLY AVE COUNTRYSIDE DR W ORONO LA COUNTRYSIDE DR W SHADYWOOD RD BAYSIDE RD WATERTOWN RD CRYSTAL CREEK RD BAYSIDE RD BROWN RD S CRYSTAL CREEK RD BIG ISLAND BAYSIDE RD SHORELINE DR CRYSTAL CREEK RD TONKAVIEW LA SOMERSET LA SHORELINE DR WATERTOWN RD WAYZATA BLVD NORTH SHORE DR BAYSIDE RD LANDMARK DR CASCO CIR NORTH SHORE DR WATERTOWN RD SHORELINE DR LONG LAKE BLVD THOROUGHBRED LA EILEEN ST SUGARWOOD DR NORTH SHORE DR TONKAWA RD DEVIN LA TONKA AVE MYRTLEWOOD RD EDGEWOOD HILLS RD heritage la CASCO CIR ARBOR ST THOROUGHBRED LA THOROUGHBRED LA BROWN RD S TONKAWA RD THOROUGHBRED LA SUSSEX RD THOROUGHBRED LA FERNDALE RD N REST PT RD REST PT RD FERNDALE RD N WORK ID NUMBER COMPANY 02 19372809 19372809 19240043 15514944 00000000 34212419 34283677 16826400 24972290 27863951 25334357 25334357 14751160 54207393 00000000 17509476 36332561 38940005 36025295 38940005 30819000 34283677 39300825 28663057 35453797 35453797 39296767 36332561 24422618 24738793 18882225 19449499 18610188 14732588 00000000 14753330 00000000 15225235 14733397 34282826 13742583 24432275 28274033 24549297 38940005 35421166 39296767 34283677 34203677 34283677 39414211 24972031 24972031 29383509 HESTIA HOMES INC. HESTIA HOMES INC. CHOICE WOOD COMPANY BAC INC KALMES MECHANICAL INC HEATING fit COOLING TWO CEDARLOK B fit D PLUMBING fi^ HEATING GRABOW PLUMBING INC PLYMOUTH PLUMBING PLYMOUTH PLUMBING TAYLOR KATHERINE PATNODE BROTHERS DZURIK CONST INC FIRESIDE CORNER BURNSVILLE HEATING CO VARNER SHEET METAL BURNSVILLE HEATING CO SEDGWICK HTG fit AC CO HEATING fit COOLING TWO 3-D HTG CO SOUTHTOWN PLBG FIREPLACE CENTER FIREPLACE CENTER VOGT FRED fit CO FIRESIDE CORNER SULLIVAN BOB PLBG CITYVIEW PLBG fit HTG PLEKKENPOL BUILDERS INC LECY CONST INC SYLVESTRE CONSTRUCTION LAKEWOOD DEVELOPMENT LAUER HOMES, INC. ROMEO LAWN PLYMOUTH ROOFING PRACTICAL SYSTEMS ARKHITEKTON LTD FORCIER PLBG NORBLOM PLUMBING CO JANECKY PLBG BURNSVILLE HEATING CO FLARE HTG fit AC fit CO COOLING TWO COOLING TWO COOLING TWO fit AC fit D PLBG fit HTG INC fit D PLBG fit HTG INC VOGT FRED HEATING fit HEATING fit HEATING fit KLEVE HTG M M PAGE 1 OWNER LAST NM VALUATION NELSON HOYT RUTLEDGE NOLAND RUTLEDGE KIEFFER KELLY SHOLL BREHM WALSH KELLEY MEYER ANDREA GRINDAHL OTTO RUDD WOODHOUSE HUMPHREY CASEY KENNEFICK LORENCE OTTO HARRISON CAJACOB HANKEY WHITMAN POMIJE LAUER SONSTEGARD CHAMPLIN JACKSON LARSON KENNEFICK WOOD JOHNSTON NELSON BERSCHEID BERSCHEID STANDARD PLBG k APPL CO 3,640.00 3.640.00 350.000. 00 .00 2,000.00 300.00 1.775.00 15.000. 00 9.500.00 16.000. 00 10.046.00 7.400.00 15.000. 00 .00 4,3 00.0V 62.000. 00 1.100.00 20,000.00 29.695.00 18,000.00 4.760.00 8,000.00 2.800.00 3.000. 00 1.000. 00 1,100.00 2,800.00 2,100.00 6.500.00 9.100.00 20,000.00 9.500.00 175.000. 00 15.000. 00 450.000. 00 .00 .00 .00 14.500.00 525.00 32.000. 00 13.600.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 1.900.00 3.900.00 4.000. 00 7.500.00 9.500.00 8.000. 00 24.000. 00 575.00 5.100.00 26.700.00 MON, MAR NUMERICAL PERMIT NBF OR-009963 OR-009964 OR-009965 OR-009966 OR-009967 OR-009968 OR-009969 OR-009971 OR-009973 OR-009974 OR-009975 OR-009976 OR-009977 OR-009978 OR-009979 OR-009980 OR-009981 OR-009982 OR-009983 OR-009984 OR-009985 75C PAGE 1 ON ,640.00 ,640.00 ,000.00 .00 ,000.00 300.00 ,775.00 ,000.00 ,500.00 ,000.00 ,046.00 ,400.00 ,000.00 .00 ,300.00 ,000.00 ,100.00 ,000.00 ,695.00 ,000.00 ,760.00 ,000.00 ,800.00 ,000.00 ,000.00 ,100.00 i, 800.00 !,100.00 ,500.00 MOO.00 I, 000.00 f,500.00 », 000.00 I, 000.00 I, 000.00 MON, MAR 2, 1998, 1:46 PM NUMERICAL LISTING PAGE 2 FEBRUARY 1998 PERMIT NBR ISSUED CANCEL ADDR NBR STREET OR-009963 OR-009964 OR-009965 OR-009966 OR-009967 OR-009968 OR-009969 OR-009971 OR-009973 OR-009974 OR-009975 OR-009976 OR-009977 OR-009978 OR-009979 OR-009980 OR-009981 OR-009982 OR-009983 OR-009984 OR-009985 75C 98/02/19 98/02/19 98/02/20 98/02/20 98/02/20 98/02/20 98/02/20 98/02/23 98/02/23 98/02/24 98/02/24 98/02/24 98/02/25 98/02/25 98/02/25 98/02/25 98/02/25 98/02/26 98/02/26 98/02/27 98/02/27 2605 75 1056 3067 3262 4100 3895 2649 1365 1005 265 2106 127 4605 1066 1815 137 755 2920 3925 1600 THOROUGHBRED LA CRYSTAL CREEK RD LOMA LINDA AVE FARVIEW LA NORTH SHORE DR WATERTOWN RD BAYSIDE RD CASCO POINT RD REST PT RD HERITAGE LA ORONO ORCHARD RD S SUGARWOOD DR CHEVY CHASE DR WATERTOWN RD LOMA LINDA AVE FAGERNESS POINT RD CHEVY CHASE DR FERNDALE RD N CASCO POINT RD SHORELINE DR LONG LAKE BLVD WORK ID NUMBER COMPANY 24432921 36332561 14727581 19693391 00000000 24738403 34972290 00000000 27852202 24521565 85377570 24796715 19449499 00000000 15717816 39296767 15935325 32266220 14710532 00000000 28826681 SOUTHWEST METRO PLBG FIRESIDE CORNER ROEGLIN BART ADVANCED BUILDERS DAY E7VRL W & SONS B & D PLUMBING k HEATING MINNESOTA WATER TREATMENT WENZEL PLUMBING k HEATING EVERGREEN SPK INC KINGSWAY PLUMBING LECY CONST INC RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN VOGT FRED k CO ALLST7VR CONSTRUCTION INC GAS LINE PLUS DANBERRY COMPANY WELTER £t BLAYLOCK INC OWNER LAST NM HOLCOMBE RAPPAPORT ZAUNER SHOLL KELLEY SCHERVEN BERSCHEID LARSON JACOBSEN SERENA RADUNZ SATTERVALL MITHUN PICHELMAN OVADIA CAJACOB VALUATION 4, 390, 900.00 200.00 000.00 000.00 840.00 000.00 200.00 000.00 499.00 000.00 .00 .00 000.00 .00 000.00 000.00 500.00 000.00 500.00 400.00 600.00 i, 500.00 525.00 I, 000.00 1,600.00 .,000.00 ., 000.00 .,900.00 1.900.00 i, 000.00 ^500.00 1.500.00 I, 000.00 i, 000.00 575.00 ;,100.00 ;,7oo.oo L 01 Residence 2402Addition2503Garaf^e/Attached 2604Garaije/Detached .2705Porch2806Deck2907Fence3008Gazebo3109Pool3210Re-side 3311Re-roof 3412Tennis Court13Sign 14 Dock 15 Shed 16 Demo-Principal Structure17Demo-Accessory Structure18Move 19 Commercial20Institutional21Storm Damage Repair221-100 Cubic Yards 23 101 Cubic Yards or More99Undefined -yy REPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OF RUN 03/02/98 PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO FEBRUARY 1998 «* * t #PAGE : 1 REQUESTER; CAROLE PERMIT TYPE User Defined SUBDIVISION VARIANCE CUP VARIANCB/CUP REZONING RQST SIMILAR USE Sub>total Grand-total QTY 9** CURRENT RANGE . . . . . . . . . . . PREVIOUS RANGE . . . . . /01/98 -02/20/90 02/01/97 -02/28/97 FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW .00 0.00 0.00 2 2,025.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00 7 1,690.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0,00 0.00 3 500.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00*0.00*0.00*13*4,215.00*0.00*0.00* .00**0.00** 0.00**13**4,215.00**0.00**0.00** REPORT NBR. BPEERPT2-1 DATE OF RUN 03/02/90 PERMIT FEE REPORT CITY OF ORONO FROM 02/01/90 TO 02/28/90 PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: CAROLS USER REPORT TOTAL BASE PEE 2,250.00 2,250.00 PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 Lie. SEARCH FEE 0.00 0.00 SAC 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 ESCROW 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 2,250.00 2,250.00 COUNCIL MEETING MAR •V 9 1998 . €ITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 March 6, 1998 Mr. Bill Jaeger, President Kraus -Anderson Construction Inc. 525 South Eight Street Minneapolis, MN 55404 Subject: Roof Leakage at Orono Municipal Facilities Dear Mr. Jaeger: The new Orono City Hall complex and Public Works building, located along Old Crystal Bay Road, were constructed in 1992. The buildings were designed by Borman & Associates. The project was coi^tructed using multiple contracts with Kraus Anderson as Construction Manager for the project. This letter is being sent to the Architect, Construction Manager, and all of the Contractors involved in the roof construction portions of the buildings. We have been e,xperiencing major problems with roof leaks on both buildings. Roof leaks have been an ongoing problem since the buildings were constructed, initially in the Public Works Building, but more recently in the City Council Chambers and Administration Building. These roof leaks are causing major damage to the soffits, and in several places the soffits have sustained considerable water damage and have fallen down. The City has retained Bonestroo Rosene Anderlick & Associates to investigate this problem. An architect from Bonestroo has prepared a report documenting the existing conditions. Information from this report is enclosed with this letter for your review. 1 his roof leakage problem is becoming progressively worse and has already caused substantial damage to the soffits and some roof insulation. The City of Orono is ver>’ concerned about this problem and the potential for more damages. These buildings are only six years old and are a major Imancial investment for the City. The current situation with the leaking roofs is totally unacceptable and needs to be corrected before even more costly damages occur. 1 Tdephone (612) 473-7357 ♦ FAX 473-0510 Mr. Bill Jaeger March 6, 1998 Page 2 The City is evaluating possible courses of action to correct this problem. The intent of this letter is to notify all of the companies that have a potential involvement in this problem. We would greatly appreciate a prompt written response from these firms regarding their participation in finding a solution to this problem. My understanding is that there were several past meetings and site visits among various parties to discuss this situation, but no resolution to this problem resulted from these meetings. This problem continues to worsen and we need to seek a solution to correct this problem in a timely manner before any more damages occur. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. We look forward to your prompt response. Please contact us should you have any questions. Sincerely, Gregory A. Gappa Director of Public Services Copy: Ronald Moorse, City Administrator Thomas Barrett, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Orono City Attorney Mayor Gabriel Jabbour and City Council Members. Gary Larson, Bonestroo & Associates F m Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Boneuroo. Rosene. Anderhk 9nd Associates, fnc. is ar Aff.rmati^e Act on/EQuaf Opportunity Employer Rrincipats Oxio G Bonestroo PE • Joseph C. Anderlik. PE • Marvin L Sorvala. PE • Richard E Turner. PE • Glenn R Cook. PE. • RoOer: G Schunicht. P.E. • Jerry A Bourdon. PE. • Robert W. Rosene. PE and Susan M. Eberiin. C PA . Senior Consultants Assocfate Pr/nctpa/s Howard A. Sanfo-d. PE. • Keith A. Gordon, PE • Robert R. Pfefferfe. PS • Richard W. Poster. PE. • David O Loskota. RE. • Robert C R-:se<. A I.A. • Mark A. Hanson. RE. • Michael T. Rautmann. R£. • Ted K.Field. RE. • Kenneth R Anderson. PE • Mark R. Rolfs. PE. • Sidr^ey R Williamson. RE.. L.S • Robert P. Kotsmitn Engineers & Architects February 9,1998 Of/ices St Paul. Rochester. Wiiimar and St. Cloud. MN • Milwaukee, wr Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Report on Roof Leakage Problems at City Hall and Municipal Garage Building Orono, MN BRA File No. 139-Gen Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council: Attached is our report on the Roofing problems at City Hall and the Municipal Garage. We hope the findings of this report will be helpful in making the decision necessary to properly maintain the existing facilities and to ensure cost effective operation in the years to come. Respectfully submitted, ROO, RQSJENE, ANMRLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. rton I hereby certify that this Report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Architect yndpr the laws of the State oE^nnesotar Date: February 9. 1998 Reg. No: 17455 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612*636-4600 ■ Fax: 612-636-1311 introduction Since the buiWin°gs ZfSnsh^^ter "" The City of Orono chose Bonestroo to evaluate the roof to: ► identify the reason for the leaks ► assess damage caused by the leaks “ determine possible solutions Jhua'it^'etLlu^ren photographed andevaluated from the interior and exterior. This report outlines prSn sSn'™ □ City Hall The visual Inspections indicated the current conditions: South Elevation and Roof ► There Is visible damage to the building's exterior. Two gable roofs project from the face of the building. Roof valleys at each side of these ip :V-_" ’ .■s^v^r5s^;'-:-\-,-rr • *• .1,. •. .• *:,•• Citj’ HaU sofTit damage. prqjeaions drain Into small flat roof areas. The small flat roof sections are cover-ed with flat metal roofing material. The roofs are covered with raof"strum,rn“n 'rl"® ^"°'""9 water to leal^to the to W«e^?nrlr,f *’^™9e makes the roofs vulnerable inn^«rert?h ' ' '’“"P® 'P' months. Water that has Glaa^td ^ weakened and delaminated the Dens substrate material, causing the soffits to collapse. pedesthan^ ^ Cfy of Orono r □ Municipal Garage V'isual Inspection indicated the following conditions: South Elevation and Roof * There is visible damage to the building's exterior. Water has infiltrated the roofing system into the soffit, and v/eakened and delaminated the Dens Glass Board substrate, causing the soffit collapse. The gutter has separated and is allowing water into the soffit area at the roof valley. Rust tracks at roof valley locations indicate water back up. From inside the building, direct sunlight can be seen out the soffit and gutter area. There is a lack of closure to the elements and insufficient insulation in this edge of the roof. At right: Collapsed soffit at entrj-.XT’*, ,^* *1 West Elevation and Roof The existing roof has two dormers. At the dormer roof valley connection to the main roof, the metal roof edge caps have been torn back by the movement of ice trapped in the roof valleys. The metal standing seam roofs ribs form Vs that trap snow in the valleys. These ice build-ups create extreme loads that open the metal roofing at valley edges and end caps. Insulation on the inside of the building at the dormer locations collea water that leaks into the building. d‘: r.- Dormer roof damage. V 'jatyofOrono ^.Roof Report ^C/cyofOrono \^/^0of/fcpon Worth Elevation and Roof •> Snow comes off the north roof and lands In the parking area. There are no valleys or dormers on this side of the roof. East Elevation and Roof ► The standing seam metal roofs slope into a centra! flat roof area that drains to the east through perimeter downspouts. The flat roof is covered by a ballasted EPDM roofing system. The rock ballast has broken down and filled the open area within the ballast with sediment. This sediment reduces the roof's ability to drain and dry out. The sediment retains moisture, which adds weight to the roof struaure. The Interior wall of the shop (the northwest corner of the flat roof) leaks. Leaks on the flat roof have also occurred at the sign room and along the east wall of the shop (the west side of the flat roof above). There is evidence that leaks have occurred at the roof valleys on the east side of the roof. Additional sealant and screws have been Installed to close areas that leaked. It appears that Ice builds up at the roofs' valley corners, building ice and water dams at these locations. >rV 4i - r .Vi r - • I Valiev at flat roof. f L ri #1-^^ t CITY of ORONO .iy^<y Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 March 6,1998 Mr. Frank Boarman, President Boarman, Kross, Pfister and Associates 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 Subject: Roof Leakage at Orono Municipal Facilities Dear Mr. Boarman: The new Orono City Hall complex and Public Works building, located along Old Crystal Bay Road, were constructed in 1992. The buildings were designed by Borman & Associates. The project w’as constructed using multiple contracts with Kraus Anderson as Construction Manager for the project. This letter is being sent to the Architect, Construction Manager, and all of the Contractors involved in the roof construction portions of the buildings. We have been experiencing major problems w ith roof leaks on both buildings. Roof leaks have been an ongoing problem since the buildings were constructed, initially in the Public Works Building, but more recently in the City Council Chambers and Administration Building. These roof leaks are causing major damage to the sotlits, and in several places the soffits have sustained considerable water damage and have fallen down. The City has retained Bonestroo Rosene Anderlick & Associates to investigate this problem. An architect from Bonestroo has prepared a report documenting the existing conditions. Information from this report is enclosed with this letter for your review. This roof leakage problem is becoming progressively worse and has already caused substantial damage to the soffits and some roof insulation. The City of Orono is ver\' concerned about this problem and the potential for more damages. These buildings are only six years old and are a major financial investment for the City. The current situation with the leaking roofs is totally unacceptable and needs to be corrected before even more costly damages occur. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Mr. Frank Boamian March 6, 1998 Page 2 The City is evaluating possible courses of action to correct this problem. The intent of this letter is to notify all of the companies that have a potential involvement in this problem. We would greatly appreciate a prompt written response from these firms regarding their participation in finding a solution to this problem. My understanding is that there were several past meetings and site visits among various parties to discuss this situation, but no resolution to this problem resulted from these meetings. This problem continues to worsen and we need to seek a solution to correct this problem in a timely manner before any more damages occur. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. We look forward to your prompt response. Please contact us should you hav'e any Questions. Sincerely, Gregory A. Gappa Director of Public Services Copy: Ronald Moorse, City Administrator Thomas Barrett, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Orono City Attorney Mayor Gabriel Jabbour and City Council Members. Gary Larson, Bonestroo & Associates GITYofORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Mr. Brad Mannstedt, President Ted Mannstedt and Son 1722 Miner Street LaCross, Wisconsin 54601 Subject: Roof Leakage at Orono Municipal Facilities Dear Mr. Mannstedt: The new Orono City Hall complex and Public Works building, located along Old Crystal Bay Road, were constructed in 1992. The buildings were designed by Borman & Associates. The project was constructed using multiple contracts with Kraus Anderson as Construction Manager for the project. This letter is being sent to the Architect, Construction Manager, and all of the Contractors involved in the roof construction portions of the buildings. We have been experiencing major problems with roof leaks on both buildings. Roof leaks have been an ongoing problem since the buildings were constructed, initially in the Public Works Building, but more recently in the City Council Chambers and Administration Building. These roof leaks are causing major damage to the soffits, and in several places the soffits have sustained considerable water damage and have fallen down. The City has retained Boncstroo Rosene Anderlick & Associates to investigate this problem. An architect from Boncstroo has prepared a report documenting the existing conditions. Information from this report is enclosed with this letter for your re\'iew. This roof leakage problem is becoming progressively worse and has already caused substantial damage to the sofilts and some roof insulation. The City of Orono is very concerned about this problem and the potential for more damages. These buildings are only six years old and are a major financial in\estment for the City, The current situation with the leaking roofs is totallv unacceptable and needs to be corrected before even more costly damages occur. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Mr. Brad Mannstedt March 6,1998 Page 2 The City is evaluating possible courses of action to correct this problem. The intent of this letter is to notify all of the companies that have a potential involvement in this problem. We would greatly appreciate a prompt written response from these firms regarding their participation m finding a solution to this problem. My understanding is that there were several past meetings and site visits among various parties to discuss this situation, but no resolution to this problem resulted from these meetings. This problem continues to worsen and we need to seek a solution to correct this problem in a tirnely before any more damages occur. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. We lookmanner forward to your prompt response. Please contact us should you have any questions. Sincerely, Gregory A. Gappa Director of Public Services Copy: Ronald Moorse, City Administrator Thomas Barrett, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Orono City Attorney Mayor Gabriel Jabbour and City Council Members. Gary Larson, Bonestroo & Associates GITYofORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 Mr. Tom McDonough, President Met-Con Construction 3107 Industrial Drive Faribault, MN 55021 Subject: Roof Leakage at Orono Municipal Facilities Dear M.*. McDonough: The new Orono City Hall complex and Public Works building, located along Old Cry stal Bay Road, were constructed in 1992. The buildings were designed by Borman & Associates. The project was constructed using multiple contracts with Kraus Anderson as Constmetion Manager for the project. This letter is being sent to the Architect, Construction Manager, and all of the Contractors involved in the roof construction portions of the buildinns. We have been experiencing major problems with roof leaks on both buildings. Roof leaks have been an ongoing problem since the buildings were constructed, initially in the Public Works Building, but more recently in the City Council Chambers and Administration Building. These roof leaks are causing major damage to the soffits, and in several places the soffits have sustained considerable water damage and have fallen down. The City has retained Boneslroo Rosene Anderlick & Associates to investigate this problem. An architect from Boncstroo has prepared a report documenting the existing conditions. Information from this report is enclosed with this letter for your review. This roof leakage problem is becoming progressively worse and has already caused substantial damage to ihe soffits and some roof insulation. The City of Orono is veiy' concerned about this problem and the potential for more damages. These buildings are only six years old and are a major financial in\estment for the City. The current situation with the leaking roofs is totally unacceptable and needs to be corrected before even more costly damages occur. Tdephonc (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-<^10 Mr. Tom McDonough March 6, 1998 Page 2 The City is evaluating possible courses of action to correct this problem. The intent of this letter is to notify all of the companies that have a potential involvement in this problem. We would greatly appreciate a prompt written response from these firms regarding their participation in finding a solution to this problem. My understanding is that there were several past meetings and site visits among various parties to discuss this situation, but no resolution to this problem resulted from these meetings. This problem continues to worsen and we need to seek a solution to correct this problem in a timely manner before any more damages occur. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. We look forward to your prompt response. Please contact us should you have any questions. Sincerely, a Gregory A. Gappa Director of Public Services Copy: Ronald Moorse, City Administrator Thomas Barrett, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Orono City Attorney Mayor Gabriel Jabbour and City Council Members. Gary’ Larson, Bonestroo & Associates ^'ii.CITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 March 6, 1998 Mr. Mike Pratt, Vice-President Kremer and Davis, Inc. P.O. Box 21031 Minneapolis, MN 55421 Subject; Roof Leakage at Orono Municipal Facilities Dear Mr. Pratt; The new Orono City Hall complex and Public Works building, located along Old Crystal Bay Road, were constructed in 1992. The buildings were designed by Borman & Associates. The project was consimeted using multiple contracts with Kraus Anderson as Construction Manager for the project. This letter is being sent to the Architect, Construction Manager, and all of the Contractors involved in the roof construction portions of the buildings. We have been experiencing major problems with roof leaks on both buildings. R«of leaks have been an ongoing problem since the buildings were constructed, initially in the Pubhe Works Bui mg, but more recently in the City Council Chambers and Administration Building. These roof le^s ^e causing major damage to the soffits, and in several places the soffits have sustained corisiderabk water damage and have fallen down. The City has retained Bonestroo Rosene Anderlick & Associates to investigate this problem. An architect from Bonestroo has prepared a report documenting the existing conditions. Information from this report is enclosed with this letter for your review. This roof leakaite problem is becoming progressively worse and has already caused subst^tial damage to the soffits and some roof insulation. The City of Orono is very concerned about this problem and the potential for more damages. These buildings are only six years old and are a rnajor financial investment for the City. The current situation with the leaking mofs is totallj unacceptab and needs to be corrected before even more costly damages occur. Tdc|dK>ne (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 r k ^aM CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 March 6, 1998 Mr. Mike Pratt, Vice-President Kremer and Davis, Inc. P.O. Box 21031 Minneapolis, MN 55421 Subject: Roof Leakage at Orono Municipal Facilities Dear Mr. Pratt; The new Orono City Hall complex and Public Works building, located along Old Co stal Bay Road, were constructed in 1992. The buildings were designed by Borman & Associates. The project was constructed using multiple contracts with Kraus Anderson as Construction Manager for the project This letter is being sent to the Architect, Consiruction Manager, and all of the Contractors intohed in the roof construction portions of the buildings. water Lmage .and have fallen down. The City has retained Bonestroo Rosene Anderlick & Associates to investigate this problem. An architect from Bonestroo has prepared a report documenting the existing conditions. Information from this report is enclosed with this letter for your review. and needs to be corrected before even more costly damages occur. Tdephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 4734)510 r Mr. Mike Pratt March 6, 1998 Page 2 The City is evaluating possible courses of action to correct thi^ nrr>m -n, • t- , to notify all of the companies that have a potential involvement^ ti 3 ™„ .u .Sr ;r ssr:;"r“z;“ ” s z“ s™" “r"“ - •^ p,ssr.r;;:s“T —"""your assistance in this matter. We look uestions. Sincerely, ^. Gregory A. Gappa Director of Public Services Copy: Ronald Moorse, City Administrator & Culbertson, Orono City Attorney Mayor Gabriel Jabbour and City Council Members.' Gary Larson, Bonestroo & Associates GITYofORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address.- P.O. Box 66 Ci7Stal Bay, MN 55323 0066 Mr. Peter Taubenberger, President Amerect, Inc. 1110 7th Avenue Newport, MN 55055 Subject: Roof Leakage at Orono Municipal Facilities Dear Mr. Taubenberger: The new Orono City Hall complex and Public Works building, located along Old Crystal Bay Road, were constructed in 1992. The buildings were designed by Borman & Associates. The project was constructed using multiple contracts with Kraus Anderson as Construction Manager for the project. This letter is being sent to the Architect, Construction Manager, and all of the Contractors involved in the roof construction portions of the buildings. We have been experiencing major problems with roof leaks on both buildings. Roof leaks have been an ongoing problem since the buildings were constructed, initially in the Public Works Building, but more recently in the City Council Chambers and Administration Building. These roof leaks are causing major damage to the soffits, and in several places the soffits have sustained considerable water damage and have fallen down. The City has retained Bonestroo Rosene Anderlick & Associates to investigate this problem. An architect from Bonestroo has prepared a report documenting the existing conditions. Information from this report is enclosed with this letter for your review. This roof leakage problem is becoming progressively worse and has already caused substantial damage to the soffits and some roof insulation. The City of Orono is very concerned about this problem and the potential for more damages. ITiese buildings are only six years old and are a major financial investment for the City. The current situation with the leaking roofs is totally unacceptable and needs to be corrected before even more costly damages occur. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 4734)510 Mr. Peter Taubenberger March 6, 1998 Page 2 The City is evaluating possible courses of action to correct this problem. The intent of this letter is to notify all of the companies that have a potential involvement in this problem. We would ereatlv appreciate a prompt written response from these firms regarding their participation in finding a solwion to this problem. My understanding is that there were several past meetings and site visits among vanous parties to discuss this situation, but no resolution to this problem resulted from these meetings. This problem continues to worsen and we need to seek a solution to coirect this proble„i in a timely manner before any more damages occur. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. We look forward to your prompt response. Please contact us should you have any questions Sincerely, w Gregory A. Gappa Director of Public Services Copy: Ronald Moorse, City Administrator Thomas Barrett, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Orono City Attorney Mayor Gabriel Jabbour and City Council Members. Gary Larson, Bonestroo & Associates r r.’^T GITYof OROXO Municipal OfHces Street Address; 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Vohnoulka Roofing and Sheet Metal Company, Inc. 8541 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Subject: Roof Leakage at Orono Municipal Facilities Dear Sir: The new Orono City Hall complex and Public Works building, located along Old Crystal Bay Road, were constructed in 1992. The buildings were designed by Borman & Associates. The project was constructed using multiple contracts with Kraus Anderson as Construction Manager for the project. This letter is being sent to the Architect, Construction Manager, and all of the Contractors involved in the roof construction portions of the buildings. We have been experiencing major problems with roof leaks on both buildings. Roof leaks have been an ongoing problem since the buildings were constructed, initially in the Public Works Building, but more recently in the City Council Chambers and Administration Building. These roof leaks are causing major damage to the soffits, and in several places the soffits have sustained considerable water damage and have fallen down. The City has retained Bonestroo Rosene Anderlick & Associates to investigate this problem. An architect from Bonestroo has prepared a report documenting the existing conditions. Information from this report is enclosed with this letter for your review. This roof leakage problem is becoming progressively worse and has already caused substantial damage to the soffits and some roof insulation. The City of Orono is very concerned about this problem and the potential for more damages. These buildings are only six years old and are a maior financial investment for the City. The current situation with the leaking roofs is totally unacceptable and needs to be corrected before even more costly damages occur. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Vohnoutka Roofing and Sheet Metal Company Inc March 6, 1998 ^ Page 2 so,Ion .0 :rf ^ T ^^ meetings. forward ,o your prompt response. Please eontac, us should you have any quJLT Sincerely, Gregory A. Gappa Director of Public Services Copy: Ronald Moorse, City Administrator Thomas Barrett, Hinshaw & Culbertson, Orono City Attorney Mayor Gabnel Jabbour and City Council Members. Gary Larson, Bonestroo & Associates I u- >CITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 March 6, 1998 President Mulcahv, Inc. 5232 North Glenbrook Oakdale, MN 55128 Subject: Roof Leakage at Orono Municipal Facilities Dear Sir: The new Orono City Hall complex and Public Works building, located along Old Crystal Bay Road, were constructed in 1992. The buildings were designed by Borman & Associates. The project was constructed using multiple contracts with Kraus Anderson as Construction Manager for the project. This letter is being sent to the Aichitect, Construction Manager, and all of the Contractors involved in the roof construction portions of the buildings. We have been experiencing major problems with roof leaks on both buildings. Roof leaks have been an ongoing problem since the buildings were constructed, initially in the Public Works Building, but more recently in the City Council Chambers and Administration Building. These roof leaks are causing major damage to the soffits, and in several places the soffits have sustained considerable water damage and have fallen down. The City has retained Bonestroo Rosene Anderlick & Associates to investipte this problem. An architect from Bonestroo has prepared a report documenting the existing conditions. Information from this report is enclosed with this letter for your review. This roof leakage problem is becoming progressively worse and has already caused substantial damage to the soffits and some roof insulation. The City of Orono is very concerned about this problem and the potential for more damages. These buildings are only six years old and are a major financial investment for the City. The current situation with the leaking roofs is totally unacceptable and needs to be corrected before even more costly damages occur. Tdephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 nvKr« f Vi. ^ • t I •. I u Mulcahy, Inc. March 6, 1998 Page 2 The City is evaluating possible courses of action to correct this problem. The intent of this letter is to notify all of the companies that have a potential involvement in this problem. We would greatly appreciate a prompt written response from these firms regarding their participation in finding a solution to this problem. My understanding is that there were several past meetings and site visits among various parties to discuss this situation, but no resolution to this problem resulted from these meetings. This problem continues to worsen iind we need to seek a solution to correct this problem in a timely manner before any more damages occur. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. We look forward to your prompt response. Please contact us should you have any questions. Sincerely, 5) Gregory A. Gappa Director of Public Services Copy: Ronald Moorse, City Administrator Thomas Barrett, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Orono City Attorney Mayor Gabriel Jabbour and City Council Members. Gar>’ Larson, Bonestroo & Associates I ^ Ilf ruiiMif m ■ ■ irw COUNCIL MEETINQ mar 9 i998 OOOISS resolution NO. 98-2-157 The following Resolution was offered by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Steele: WHEREAS, two manager terms on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District expire on March 8, 1998; and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. 103.D.311, avJbd.3 provides that county commissioners shall appoint watershed district managers from a list of persons nominated by one or more of the township and municipalities located within the district; and WHEREAS, each list submitted jointly or severally by the towns and municipalities within the district must contain at least three nominees for each manager's position to be filled; and WHEREAS, the lists must be submitted to the coTinty at least 60 days before the managers*s term of office expires;and WHEREAS, Hennepin County received several city council resolutions with the names of nominees for the two manager positions; and WHERAS, none of the lists submitted contained the statutorily mandated minimum of three nominees for each manager's position to be filled; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin Covmty Board adopted Resolution 94-2-115A (Open ^pointments Policy) which provides for appointments to various committees. BE IT RESOLVED, that the County Board will essentially follow the Open Appointments Policy for the appointment of the two Minnehaha Creek Watershed District managers; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners is directed to publish notice that persons interested in being appointed to serve as a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District manager may submit their names to the county board for consideration and directly invite all persons nominated by any municipality to apply; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that interested parties must submit their names to the Clerk of the Board on or before March 8, 1998; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Board will conduct interviews of those individuals who have not previously interviewed for these positions on March 10 and that the appointment by the County Board will be scheduled on March 17, 1998. MAR 0 4 Kvb Q'.'i Y Ur Oi'.ONO 000186 '*• lOolution «d th.» ».r. 7 «d , COUNTY OF HENNBPIN SOARD OF COUNTY COMfISSZONBSS YEA NAY OTHER Miktt Opat Mark Stanglain Mark Andraw Fa tar McLaughlin Hmxy Taabomlne Fanny Staali X X Randy Johnson, Chair RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON 02/24/98 ATTEST: Clara* ot /^*a County Board J COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 maR HELD ON EEBRUARY 9, 1998 ^ 9 1998 to the start of the Board meeting, the Board members met vTith the high school Student Advisory Council in order to provide the high school student population the opportunity for communication/discussion with the Board of Education. The regular meeting of the Board of Education of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Monday, February 9, 1998. Present: Jack Veach Peg Swanson Martha Van de Ven Dick Lewis David McKown Thomas Mich Neal Lawson Absent: John Maresh UPON MOTION by Martha Van de Ven, seconded by Peg Swanson, the consent agenda was approved as follows: approved the minutes of the December 2, 1997 regular meeting; accepted the resignation of Sandy Clark, Orono High School teacher, effective at the end of the 1997-98 school year; accepted the resignation of Donna Hager, Orono High School teacher, effective at the end of the 1997-98 school year; accepted the resignation of Henry Hunke, Orono Middle School teacher, effective at the end of the 1997-98 school year; acx>-pted the resignation of George Johnson, Orono Middle School teacher, effective at the end of the 1997“ S'3 school year; accepted the resignation of Wayne Johnson, Orono Middle School teacher, effective at the end of the 1997-98 school year; accepted the resignation of Jean Wright, Orono Middle School teacher, effective at the end of the 1997-98 school year; approved the request of Nathan Eklund, Orono High School teacher, for a leave of absence for the 1998-99 school year; ~ approved the appointment of the following coaches for winter sports: Bob Komma - gymnastics, Kelly Shaughnessy - wrestling, Eric Peterson - assistant wrestling, John McAlpin - skiing, Barbara Moeller - assistant skiing, Patrick Furlong - girls hockey, Keith Radloff - assistant girls hockey. Matt Laue - Nordic ski team, Tracy Bergo - boys swimming; approved the Aquatics and Fitness Coordinator/Instructor's contract for 1997-98; approved entering into contracts with Hennepin County to receive grant funds awarded to the Healthy Communities * Healthy Youth Collaborative; approved the Activity Fund Quarterly Report - 2nd quarter; approved the bills as covered by vouchers 102450 through 102838 and office checks as covered by vouchers 6222 through 6263, Motion carried unanimously. Dr. Mich reported that the Recognition Luncheon for staff was held on January 19 and he expressed appreciation to everyone who worked to organize the luncheon; that in the Consent Agenda the Board had approved the resignations of Sandy Clark, Donna Hager, Henry Hunke, George Johnson, Wayne Johnson and Jean Wright and he congratulated each of them on their retirement and thanked them for their years of service to the District; that the 1998-99 calendar will be reviewed by the Teacher Meet and Confer nex*: wee.k and will be brought to the Board at the February 23 meeting; that the North Central Visitation Accreditation team will be in the District on February 17, 18 and 19 with a dinner to be held on the 17th to which the Board is invited to attend; that Dr. Ernie Stachowski will be in the District on February 19 and 20 to work with curriculum chairs and he invited Board members to stop by and visit the session is possible; that he would be conducting training for Peer Review on February 23 and 24; that the elementary Fun Fest was held last Saturday and was well attended; that on Saturday, February 14, the annual Spartan fundraising event will take place at the Lafayette Club. Heidi Foley, along with the administrators, addressed the Board on the various components of the graduation rule and the effort that has been made over the past three years to comply with the intent of the proposed new regulation. Dr. Mich provided an update for the Board on the progress being made by the Jefferson Center. He stated that the Advisory Committee has been selected and they are as follows: Ann Brilley, Shirley Billigmeier, Sherokee Use, Cheryl Monroe, Pat UPON MOTION by Dave McKown, seconded by Martha Van de Ven, the 2. ^<^^cation approved the recommendation of the School fo^%he Iwe-sf schooi'y«rt*"“""'°" anticipated budget Dick Lewis reviewed the study/recommendation of the School Start follows^^ Force stating that the three basic components were as a two tier bussing system the high school would start at approximately 8:05 a.m. elementary schools would continue to have start time approximate to current times. Mr, Lewis stated that in January the Board received a firm transportation cost of $61,000 for the change to the two tier system and at that time the Board directed that the Task Force should be canvassed to see if the cost factor would alter their reco^endation, the result being that the committee was fairly matter. Therefore, Mr. Lewis stated that the resolution before the Board tonight asks that the Board approve the recommendation of the School Day Start Time Task the preferred start times for the School District but that the implementation for the start times would be considered at a later time when additional information about the 1998-99 available and the impact of the proposed additional transportation cost can be discussed in greater detail. Discussion ensued concerning neighboring districts start times, bussing issues/costs, benefits/affordability of a half- versus increased transportation costs, etc. By ^ y of further explanation, Mr. Lewis capsulized the essence of -he resolution by stating that the Board would be telling the im^22in? time^but thatimplementation may not be affordable at this time. Peg Swanson seated that her concern in approving the recommendation as presented centers around financial/budget information as well as being given to the community. The question was called. Aye: Lewis, Van de Ven, Veach, McKown. Nay: Peg Swanson. Motion carried. J Dr. Mich presented the administrative recommendation regarding open enrollment. He stated that this recommendation has been built on the following policies/procedures that have been established by the Board of Education and that have been used for several years regarding open enrollment and its impact on our School District: 1. The maintenance of an ideal enrollment range for each of of the grades. 2. The anticipation that we will continue to witness a decline in the total number of open enrollment students as the number of resident students increase. 3. The desire to achieve balance among the thirteen grades. 4. The management of open enrollment to secure financial benefit for the School District. 5. The management of open enrollment for the curricular and instructional advantage of all of our students. He presented the following information regarding eligible students in the District, 1998-99 estimate of open enrollment students in the District/ and grade level comparisons a^ of January, 1998. r CRITERIA IDEAL ENROLLMENT RANGE (185-225) INCREASED RESIDENT ENROLLMENT BALANCE AMONG GRADE LEVELS * FINANCIAL BENEFITS * CURRICULAR / INSTRUCTIONAL ADVANTAGES January *98 Orono School District Eligible Students 2856 Eligible Students 421 Non-Public School Students 44 Home Schooled 77 Open Enrollment Students 34 ALC, Special Ed. Tuition, etc. 2,280 Resident Students Attending January '98 Orono School District Open Enrollment Students 1998-99 Estimate 306 Open Enrollment Students at Orono -77 Open Enrollment Students Leaving Orono 229 Net Open Enrollment Students I ^ I r 1998-99 Estimate as of Januaiy, 1998 Grade Resident PTotal Requests 12 161 30 191 0 11 179 23 202 2 10 196 19 215 2 9 193 26 219 4 8 203 22 225 0 7 202 36 238 2 6 174 19 193 2 5 195 21 216 2 4 180 26 206 1 3 144 29 173 0 2 164 21 185 0 1 154 21 175 3 K _ _162 0 167 32 2,312 293 2,605 57 [Recommendation 2,312 306 2,618 11997-98(1/1/98) 2,280 316 2,5^ 2S (17 have siblings here) ' I f ^ recommend the following for the 1998-99 school year: That the Board of Education authorize a<^inistration to accept ten kindergartners under the provisions enrollment law and in conformity with the est^lished priorities of the Board of Education. We have applications for thirty-nine kindergartners for open enrollment for the 1998-99 school year. Seventeen of those students have siblings already in the school system and have priority. We are recommending the acceptance of ten students who would be chosen by lot from among the seventeen students who have siblings in the School District. That the Board of Education authorize administration to accept three first grade students from among the three applicants in accordance with the provisions of the .open enrollment law and in conformity with the established priorities of the Board of Education. Dr, Mich answered questions for clarification purposes. policies and procedures as follows; authorized administration to accept ten kindergartners as outlined in the recommendation above; authorized administration to accept three first grade students as outlined in the recommendation above. Motion carried unanimously. UPON MOTION by Martha Van de Ven# seconded by Dick LewiS/ the meeting was adjourned. Motion carried. MargaretJ C. Clerk ohn Maresh/ Chair TO: FROM; DATE: Mayor Jabbour and Orono City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator ^ March 6,1998 COUNCIL MEETING MAR 9 1998 • CITY cr ORONO SUBJECT : Highway 12 and County Road 6 Interchange Design Options Developed by Mn/DOT Based on the initial design for the Highway 12 and County Road 6 interchange developed by the City, Mn/DOT has developed additional design options for the interchange. These are attached for Council's information. Option A is Mn/DOT's preferred option. Option C is the preferred option pushed west, somewhat into Baker Park, to avoid impacts to two properties on County Road 6 on the north side of the interchange. Option B provides a more direct connection from eastbound Highway 12 to eastbound old Highwaw 12, using a bridge over new Highaw 12 to old Highway 12. The major difference between Mn/DOPs Option A and the City's design relates to traffic movements on old Highway 12. The City's design has westbound old Highway 12 merging with new Highway 12 east of the interchange bridge, allowing for this traffic to use the loop to go on westbound County Road 6 or to go directly west on new Highway 12. Mn/DOT's option brings all of the old Highway 12 traffic to an intersection at County Road 6 on the north side of Highway 12. All traffic movements must then go through that intersection. These design options have been forwarded to the City's consultant engineer for review and comment. If you have any questions regarding these design options, please call me. I2-«INTE uJr