Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-26-1998 Council Packet
^ <5 />fr ^y// o J?g3o o- ^4x OJ K) ^ * ■ ‘ :» o rr3 H <o O O V £.11 « H 2t?- n 3 **1 8^•z rt/5 PI*y n. ^ c. ia1 g^Q g n p; S g r-# 3 ^9^ tn ^“*3 3 0-1 *J 1 —4 o > ^ M o d o > O *»1s* ?o 2. V O o Mcr. P» CO > 3 0-0^(TO _4 p> ^a 2, i d > O PI 5: g. « e o 3 ^ « ^ S g 3 2 § £• 5-‘ O (-N Po O 52 a s.«« S g ?3 ^ cr. «*— o ^ r- 3 o* - 5: o > 5; h q; 2 s. 6i 3 5 S" p o' l2 gp VO rb »~r%ow c 3 g rr. 3 2 3 K» 00o ^ vO ^ CO " g,g 3 O OQ cr f> VOVO00 S' 3O o ^ Cu o H o „ ?3 H > a33 rn T. rrPI r □□□ Public A ttendanc Meeteso D ate A Ijtil 9 C C ouncil Planning C ommission PARK C ommission Other - • •: • . • ■ y \ ’ ' .■'!v ■ ■ " SliilASE - THE - INF<^^ XX **.Vj-iJ^qUESTED BELQW^pR P^tr NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER \ •‘-itOtLOt ^ ‘33 sg ^ . j y'f-y j ?i (1Hr~zy/^^n'>y \ U3r/-<l\; v\\ •^ V\A \\A ov\^ -_________ rlr..j C1w,lJ A j st S2^ 7C-K-C,f jtLkf^CicK. iJls TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator COUNCILMEETINQ may 2 6 1998 crryoFORONO DATE: May 22,1998 SUBJECT: Storm Damage Update Attachments 1. Memo from 0 Chief Cheswick Outlining the Areas of Heaviest Damage STaCSeT.0 the Areas with Heavies. Dantage U is staffs understanding d-a. power has been restored to ali areas of Ute City, p.m. through May 31. L_ iTtSi-f ^ - Date:May 22, 1998 To:Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police ,4^2 Subject:Storm Damage After the stomi of May 15,1998, a damage assessment had been made with an estimated loss in excess of one million dollars, as provided by Bruce Vang. The heaviest damage area was Casco Point Road and Casco Point Circle The damage then continued in to the Kelly Avenue and Shady wood Road areas Livingston and Lync, Carman, Concordia, North Shore Drive, Rest Point ’ Tonkaview, Wildhurst, Saga Hill, Baldur Park, Tonkawa, Bayside, Fox St by Gander, Webber Hills, Abingdon Way, and Cygnet. Additionally, there were pockets of trees down and roof damage in other areas. ^e majority of damage was due to trees hitting homes and tearing down power lines, as well as roads being by blocked by debris. r CITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 itelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 Some reminders in dealing with your storm related damage: Downed trees may be removed. Damaged trees within 75' of the lake must be inspected by City before removal. Storm repairs require pennits. Most permits wilD. be issued the same day as application. It may be difficult to find a contractor but, 1. Make sure your contractor has insurance 2. Make sure your contractor is licensed. The building inspectors are primarily interested in Ixelping you to get your storm damage repaired quickly and correctly. Please call Bruce or Lyle at 473-7357. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 I' n r BRUSH AND BRANCH DISPOSAL Brush and branch disposal site for the City of Orono, in cooperation with the City of Long Lake, has made arrangements for Orono residents to drop off brush and branches from storm-damaged trees at the old sewage plant property in Long Lake (off Orono Orchard Road adjacent to Orono Oaks) north of the Orono Golf Course and south of the Watertown Road/Highway 12 viaduct. Branches cannot exceed 10 feet in length. The site is open from 8 a.in. to 8 p.m. on both weekdays and weekends. The site will be open through Sunday, May 31. This time period may be extended if necessary. If you hive any questions, please call Orono City Hall at 473-7357. It is important that brush and branches dq I be placed adjacent to fire hydrants. The City will no! be picking up brush and branches from private properties thai have been placed at the edge of the roadway. These can be taken to the brush and branch disposal site. Wood chips are available at no w.3t at both the branch disposal site and at the Orono Public Works facility. ■n MINUTES OF THE RECOIWENED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING HELD MAY 11,1998 COUNCIL MEETING ROLL MAY 2 6 1998 The Orono Board of Review met on the above date with the following memfi^I^^fesefitr^ayor Gabriel Jabbour, Councilmembers J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley, Barbara Peterson a id Richard Flint. The following represented City staff; City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Assessor Rolf Erickson and Recorder Lin Vee. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Jabbour at 6:30 p.m. Mayor Jabbour asked if there was anyone who wished to speak at the Reconvened Board of Review. A. L. Kane, 2697 Casco Point, Road, PID #20-117-23 23 0004, addressed the Board. He stated he was not at the original Board of Review but had sent a letter. Erickson noted his information was on Page 10 of the Reconunendations. Kane explained that the 40% increase was only on the property. His property is 15' below Casco Point Road and receives all the runoff from the area. Exiting in the winter is not easy because of die elevation. A property three doors away is valued at $900 less per lineal foot than his. The elevation of the neighboring property is at street level making it more desirable. He felt he was being discriminated against when the neighbor’s property is a much better property but is valued less than his. Jabbour explained that State laws require property to be based on market value, not lineal feet. For the Council to make comparisons, criteria such as the number of acres, number of bedrooms or sale of neighboring properties should be used. The neighboring property may go up in value the following year. Kane asked why his property was raised 40% when other lakeshore properties on Casco Point only went up 15-20%. Erickson explained that his 60 ’ lot had been looked at a number of times. In the recommendation, an extra depreciation was giving fo.* consideration of drainage problems and lower elevation. The value was decreased from $270,000 to $254,000 in the recommendation. Jabbour suggested that Kane have an appraisal done as Council cannot arbitrarily change the staff recommendation. Kane questioned again the neighbor’s property being valued at $900 per neal foot less than his. Erickson responded that another assessor had done the review on the neighboring property and may have valued the property as a 60 ’ lot. This will be redone tor next year s valuation. Erickson explained that Kane’s 1999 ta.xes would be paid on the limited value, a 12% increase over the previous year’s value, which is at $203,000. If nothing else changed, in four years the taxes r MINUTES OF THE RECONVENED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING HELD MAY 11,1998 would be paid on the full valuation of $270,000. One-fourth of the difference between the new value and the old one is taken over four years. The full market value will be listed, but taxes will be paid on the limited value. The '10% increase is taken over four years, beginning at $203,000. Each year the increase is roughly 10%. Kane felt the 40% increase was out of line with the normal taxation in the County. Jabbour responded that there is not a normal amount in Orono as sales vary greatly. Erickson suggested that Kane contact the County Board of Equalization to do a more in-depth appraisal of the property. Jabbour cautioned Kane to be aware of all his options and implications in pi 'tceeding with further appeals. Erickson noted that any changes the County would make to the market value would not affect the limited value at $203,000. Erickson added that the legislature created the limited value as a protection for property owners so they wouldn't have large increases all in one year. Jabbour reiterated that the Council was not in a position to change the market value. He suggested Kane talk to Erickson if he had any further questions. COUNCIL ACTION ON ASSESSOR'S RECOMMENDATION Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to accept the City Assessor’s recommendations for the 1998 Board of Review. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to adjourn the Reconvened Board of Review adjourned at 6:44 p.m. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Lin Vee, City Clerk 3 TOWNLINE ROAD PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 11,1998 COUNCIL MESTINQ The Orono City Council held a public information meeting on the above menti^||p^(dat©!^litlhe following members present: Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley, Barbara Peterson and Richard Flint. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, City Engineers Glenn Cook and Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Lin Vee. Mayor Jabbour welcomed Jack Vigoren, Mayor of Maple Plain, and Marv Johnson, Mayor of Independence. Mayor Jabbour explained that approximately 1 Vi years ago, Mn/Dot and some neighboring cities requested that Orono consider moving County Road 19 to Townline Road. At that time, the City was involved in other major road projects and did not give in-depth consideration to the request. Maple Plain, Medina and Hennepin County have now requested consideration of a cul-de-sac at Townline Road. Jabbour suggested the City hold a public information meeting to receive input from affected citizens regarding the proposed closure of Townline Road prior to holding a Council work session. Moorse added that the intersection at Highway 12, County Road 19 and Townline Road is complicated because of where the boundaries lie for the cities of Medina, Orono and Independence. He projected maps showing the affected area and the intersection. He reiterated that the purpose of the meeting was to get reactions from affected property owners regarding the closure of Townline Road. Jabbour stated the small Medina area that is involved is zoned commercial. Medina may rezone that area to residential if Townline Road is closed. Moorse noted that Glenn Cook, City Engineer, was present to answer questions. He had done some work on the project for Maple Plain and Medina. Sue Jellison, 4750 Creekwood Trail, stated that they were told when they moved into their home 6'/2 years ago that an emergency route would be necessar>', and Townline Road would never be closed. She asked how emergency vehicles would respond if there were a train blocking County Road 6 or County Road 19. Moorse was unsure how the Maple Plain Fire Department currently responds to this area, but thought it may be via County Road 6. r TOWNLINE ROAD PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 11,1998 Jellison asked how ambulances would respond. Jabbour responded that there was not an answer at this point, but that would be resolved. At some time in the future, the train may go below County Road 6. Jane Slaughter, 4545 Wayzata Boulevard West, explained that their driveway would be closed. She questioned if the frontage road proposed yo serv’e her property was intended to be public or private. Jabbour responded that there was no current plan. Traditionally Orono would take underlying easements in the road and ask that the road be constructed to City standards. It would most likely be a private road maintained by the people who use it, based on present policies in the rural area. Since this section is in Medina, that may not be the vase. Slaughter asked if the City would force them to become part of an association. Jabbour responded that the City had not gotten that far in discussions. Kelley stated it would make sense to keep the extended section of the road a continuation of Townline Road. Jabbour noted that all roads that cul-de-sac in rural Orono are private according to the Comprei.ensive Plan. Slaughter asked how many property owners could be on a private road. Jabbour responded that when 3 or more homes are being serviced by a driveway, a private road built to public standards is required. She asked how many properties would be required for a public road. Jabbour responded that it would not be a public road unless it was in the urban part of Orono. Gaffron added that the Comprehensive Plan discusses 10-12 residences on a cul-de-sac, above which the City would look at a public road. However, the City has cul-de-sacs that serve as many as 18 or 19 residences. It would seem theie is some flexibility, but above 20 residences on a cul-de-sac there should be some further discussions about public roads. Mike Gorman, 4912 Broadmoor, Independence, reiterated c oncern about emergency service. He would be serviced by cither Townline Road or County Road I ? Since County Road 19 crosses over the train track, there could be problem. A house fire doubles m size every 3 seconds. Insurance companies ask how close the fire department is, and if there are any train crossings. Jabbour asked what reactions the residents have toward the original proposal to move County Road 19 and install a stoplight. Gorman asked if moving County Road 19 was in lieu of a traffic light at Townline Road and Highway 12. Jabbour responded that Orono had been asked to consider this solution but had not studied either proposal. This information meeting is the first time the Orono Council has met to consider the issues at that intersection. TOWNLINE ROAD PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 11,1998 Gorman stated that the letter he received indicated that a light at the intersection wouldn t work because tlie train viaduct wouldn't be wide enough. He suggested considering a limited access such as one way access for Townline Road. Jabbour asked about a gate for emergency vehicles only. Gorman responded that emergency access could be achieved with curbing on a cul-de-sac. He would prefer this to iiaving the viaduct filled in. Roger Diesen, 1100 Townline Road, referred to the four residences across the railroad tracks and the comer of Medina. He has heard Medina may develop their property into 3/4 acre residential lots which would increase the number of people requiring emergency services. He felt it was a major mistake to close Townline Road. He suggested increasing weight limits or prohibiting tmeks to help limit the road use. Emergency vehicles would still fit under the bridge. Jabbour asked Cook if Medina would rezone their property to residential if the road remained as it is. Cook did not know Medina's plans. Maple Plain Mayor Vigoren responded that it was his understanding that Medina would rezone that property only if Maple Plain sells them water. Linda Scalf, 4825 Broadmoor Drive, shared her concern about closing the underpass to emergency vehicles. She was also concerned about the number of vehicles using the road who are not from the area, and the failure to patrol the roads according to the speed limits. Jabbour commented that the proposed new Highway 12 and County Road 6/Highway 12 interchange could result in metering of traffic. Townline Road might be used as a shortcut. A similar situation existed in Navarre when Old Beach Road was closed. Mrs. Diesen, 1100 Townline Road, has lived at her residence for 66 years. For over 40 years she has heard that County Road 19 was going to go further. Lonny Underhill, 4785 Creekwood Trail, expressed his concern about signalizing the intersection. He has observed that when Highway 12 is closed because of an accident, j^ople take shortcuts down Townline Road. It no longer remains a quiet mral road. If the intersection were signalized, more traffic would use it from Independence. With County Road 6 being uppaded, more traffic will use that road also. He would like to see a cul-de-sac with emergency vehicle access. Jane Slaughter stated that 3/4 acre lots seemed like a lot of housing to share a private road. Jabbour responded that it was a Medina issue. Slaughter asked if Orono would consider rezoning their area to be less than 5 acre lots. Jabbour responded that it would be impossible with the current Council. Council is on record to develop as stated in the Comprehensive Plan. Slaughter asked if Orono would have any input as to changes in Medina. Jabbour responded that through the Comprehensive Plan update there would be an opportunity for input, and her comments would be taken into consideration. Slaughter slated she has a difficult'time being forced to maintain a 5 acre property and share a private road with 3/4 acre J TO\\T>ILlNE ROAD PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 11,1998 properties. Kelley asked if she was sharing her road now with Highway 12. She responded that she was, and none of the property owners had to tyke care of it. Kelley stated that the main reason for the meeting was to receive input from residents as to whether or not to close Townline Road. Issues related to specific properties could be discussed at other times. He asked Slaughter if she would prefer to come out onto Townline Road or stay on Highway 12. She responded that it would depend on what happens. Mr. Diesen asked for a summary of reasons for closing Townline Road. Maple Plain Mayor Vigoren responded that Mn/DOT had agreed to install a signal light in the year 2000. For Mn/DOT to do so, fUey need Federal funds to raise the railroad trestle. The project estimate has been $2.5 million. If Tr.v.nline Road w-ere closed, the signal project would only cost $.5 million. Mn/DOT would close To’.vnline Road and install a signal witli Medina and Maple Plain’s approval. Medina has agreed to approve, conditioned on Orono's position. Maple Plain is concerned that if Federal funds are used, it may be delayed up to 10 years, and they would like to see a signal installed sooner because of safety issues. Jim O'Neil, 4680 Creekwood Trait, supported closing Towuline Road with the stipulation that there be provision for emergency vehicle access. He asked for the definition of a cul-de-sac and private road, and if it would involve all of Townline Road. Jabbour responded that he was unsure where the border between cities was located. Policies of Orono may be in conflict with those of Independence. Independence Mayor Johnson thought the border was the center of the road. Jabbour thought the road would continue to be a public road. Kelley agreed. Terry Maass, 1 125 Townline Road, asked if Mn/DOT would consider a stoplight if there was limited access for through traffic. Maple Plain Mayor Vigoren responded that a proposal had been made to Mn/DOT to move the project up to 1999, and Maple Plain would pay for the installation of the signal. 'Vhen ftinds became available, Mn/DOT would repay Maple Plain. Townline Road would then be closed. Surmountable barriers have been discussed as an option for closing Townline Road. Maass asked about allowing only local traffic to use the road. Maple Plain Mayor Vigoren stated that Mn/DOT had indicated that even if a T were done at the intersection to make it right-in and right-out, local people would "sneak around" to use the intersection. Jabbour added thafonce there is a road, it becomes public, not Just for use by a select few. Linda Seal!, 4825 Broadmoor Drive, asked if the e.xpense of maintaining a private road was the responsibility of the property owners, and if emergency vehicles could use Townline Road if it were a private road. Jabbour responded that the answer to both questions would be yes. He added that it would seem the City would keep Townline Road as a public road because they only own half of the road. townline road public information meeting MINUTES FOR MAY 11,1998 Ann Hawkins, 865 Townline Road, was in favor of closing Townline Road but kept open to emergency vehicles. She asked that the information on maintenance be repeated. Jabbour explained that the portion of the road from the proposed cul-de-sac down to County Road 6 would be maintained as a city road. Kelley stated the three cities would need to come to an agreement as to who would maintain the road. It would not be practical to have all three cities plow the same road. The residents should know who to call if there is a problem. Slaughter stated she did not have a problem with closing the road as long as emergency vehicles would have access. Council confirmed that the proposed cul-de-sac is actually in Medina but serves Orono property. Slaughter asked if Orono would be interested in having the cul-de-sac in the City. Jabbour responded that the process had not gotten that far. Jabbom asked for a show of hands by those who would favor closing Townline Road with the provision for emergency access. 8 hands were raised. Jabbour asked for a show of hands by those who would favor not closing Townline Road. 5 hands were raised. Jabbour thanked those in attendance and closed the meeting at 10,5 p.m. ATTEST: Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Linda S. Vee, City Clerk 4^' ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 11,1998 COUNCIL MEETING may 2 6 1998 9 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, Barbara Peterson and Richard Flint. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, Planner/Zoning Administrator Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, Consulting Engineer Glenn Cook, City Engineer Tom Kellogg and Recorder Lauren Nordseth. Mayor Jabbour called the meeting to order at 7:29 p.m. (#1) CONSENT AGENDA Items 8,9,11,12,15,16,17 and 18 were added to the Consent Agenda. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (*#2) REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 27,1998 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of April 27, 1998. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#3) JOINT WORK SESSION WITH PARK COMMISSION OF MAY 4,1998 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Joint Work Session with Park Commission of May 4,1998. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS No representative present. •i- • ^ PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - DALE LINDQUIST, REPRESENTATIVE Dale Lindquist had no comments. 4^' ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 11,1998 PUBLIC COMMENTS Steve Katainen, Bay Furniture, 3850 Shoreline Dr., Navarre, requested the permitted use list be updated to include more types of businesses, as the current list inhibits business use. John Chenoweth is a prospective buyer of Bay Furniture, and the current permitted use list does not allow him to expand the furniture business to include lighting and accessories. Van Zomeren said the initial furniture use was through a determination that it was substantially similar to an art gallery about ten years ago, and adding accessories may be problematic. Kelley asked about the current zoning, and Van Zomeren replied it is a B-5. Moorse explained that B-5 is limited business, and the type of uses should be used to serve the neighborhood. He said it may require looking at the Comprehensive Plan. He responded to Goetten' s question that the accessories use is similar to the furniture use, but once you approve an expansion of a use, it may open the B-5 zone to other uses not currently contemplated. Rezoning it would be another solution. This particular B-5 zone consists of a service station, furniture store and one non-conforming residential house. Gaffron said staff is not comfortable with the way the zoning districts are laid out right now. If there is a business that appears to fit the zoning district, one option is to make a finding of “substantially similar use”, a process that may take two months. It is at the Council’s discretion once a potential business is brought before the Council whether or not to approve it. Jabbour feels there is enough consensus to direct staff to look at changing the zoning in this area. Gaffron asked for clarification as to whether Council w'anted to look at rezoning this area or change the list of permitted uses in the B-5 zone. Kelly asked that both options be considered. Jabbour noted that Council was not reacting to an applicant, but needs to consider changes that would be appropriate for current and future uses. Ted Rozeboom, 2967 Casco Point Road. He purchased the adjacent property with a carriage house for use by his mother-in-law and his son with special needs. He would also like to have his architectural business there and has discussed this with the Planning Commission, who recommended presenting it to the Council. His architectural practice specializes in school designs. Therefore, no vend<^rs, salesmen or clients come to the site. He wants to know how the Council feels about allowing this type of use in the carriage house. Jabbour and Kelley agree the home occupation needs to be in the principal resident, which is not the case here. Rozeboom does not wish to combine the parcels, as he feels they would be devalued, and also, his family would not be •'.ble to keep both paicels financially in the future. Jabbour recommended Rozeboom complete a formal application to the Planning Commission on the home occupation and participate in the Commission’s work session on home occupations. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 11,1998 PUBLIC COMMENTS Continued Charlie James, 2715 Maple Wood Circle West, Woodland. He has property in Orono, and asked if there were to be public forums on the issues of land use along Highway 12. He has not been informed of the Council work sessions on this topic, and is confused about the process. Jabbour explained that there are work sessions, mailings and newsletters, as well as articles in the local papers. He went on to add there will be a public hearing. Moorse explained the next step is to have meetings with property owners and at that time, input would be taken from property owners. Jabbour said the area from the apple orchard land to Brown Road along Highway 12 is becoming the focus of a lot of speculation and development. He said the Council is committed to the 1987 Comprehensive Plan Amendment. James said he supported the Comprehensive Plan and the development of a vision for the Highway 12 area. He also said he heard rumors about Council meeting in closed sessions. Jabbour exclaimed mat the Council could not meet in closed sessions, and that no members have ever met about these issues in violation of the open meeting law. James said he looked forward to the public sessions. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#4) #2308 BROOK PARK REALTY, 3760 SHORELINE DRIVE - PRD & CLASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Bill Gleason, representing Tonka Venture, said the property owners were looking favorably on the option of constructing 20 units now, and later adding 10 units when access to County Road 15 is provided. Jabbour said the Council is very willing to work with Mr. Gleason. The issue of egress and ingress to that neighborhood is a major concern. Within one or two years, the adjacent property could developed either by Gleason, another developer or through the City obtaining a park. At that time an access could be provided to County Road 15, and then Gleason could receive the other ten units. Gleason asked how they are to be assured of getting an access onto County Road 15. Jabbour replied the only assurance is if they provide the access themselves.« - ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 11,1998 (#4) #2308 BROOK PARK REALTY, 3760 SHORELINE DRIVE - Continued Jabbour indicated he met with Mr. Sohns to discuss the possibility of buying his land to provide a park for Orono, and he will brief the Council during his Mayor’s report. Kelley said if the next parcel to the west develops, he would mandate that the road be finished, as it is prudent planning. Jabbour said there is no assurance a road will be built to County Road 15, after those parcels are developed. He said Gleason felt assured he would get 30 units with that zoning, but public safety and welfare will never be given up by the City under any circumstances, even through litigation. The worst possible scenario, Jabbour believes, is the court will uphold the City’s position that the applicant will build the road. Jabbour said he would like to stand in front of a judge and explain to him or her that public safety and welfare, which is the number one issue at the City, would be sacrificed because the City took 60 days to send the applicant something in writing although the City publicly told the applicant what was needed. If the judge decides against the City, 30 units is the most the City would lose. Kelley asked what would the applicant like Council to do, to which Gleason replied either we both go to litigation, or to work with the City. The applicant says they attended all the meetings, and have done everything they were supposed to do. Van Zomeren said at the December 8th meeting, the Council directed the applicant to address the list of remaining issues at first meeting in January, and those things were not provided. Jabbour said the list of issues to be done were never given in January or up to now. Gleason said those are issues, if we go to court, the court will figure out. Gleason asked what the Council wanted him to do tonight. Kelley asked the City Attorney if there was anything the Council could do, to which the Attorney replied there may be some devices, but the Council needs to decide whether they like those devices. Jabbour suggested an Executive Session. The City Attorney said he was not aware that the Council can predict development or focus when or if this happens and what would be the City’s response. He asked Gleason if he was looking for some level of assurance. If the City obtains a piece of land for the park, and the road is developed, the applicant could be assessed for a part of the cost of the road to County Road 15. Jabbour continued that Council has tried to be part of the solution, and approached this problem from every direction. Jabbour explained the road \vill service the Brook Park development and the park, and if Gleason decides to build the road to County Road 15, the Council will approve the development. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 11,1998 (#4) #2308 BROOK PARK REALTY, 3760 SHORELINE DRIVE - Continued Gleason asked if the density credit is eliminated, how developers could afford the road? Jabbour said the City’s goal is to obtain the land for a park and that the road providing access to County Road 15 also provides access to the park. Gleason explained how the road would be built in his mind, and who would pay for it. Flint said Sohns proposed the City buy the whole piece for park. Flint asked Gleason why the original park concept disappeared with 30 units. Gleason explained it was land that was not going to be used, but would be owned by the association and would not be a park. Gleason suggested to Tonka Venture, owner of the property, the possibility of going to court and losing 10 units either way. He thinks Tonka Venture is agreeable to doing 20 units now and waiting for access to County Road 15. Jabbour said the City was motivated to make the road happen. Jabbour noted the current Council could not bind future Councils to force construction of a road to County Road 15. Flint asked about the unnecessary road and sewer to the western edge of the property from the cul- de-sac, and Gleason explained the sewer still has to be built and at some future time the road will be necessary. Gleason said the current footprint is good to accommodate trees and is a good development. The discussion continued to deliberate whether the cul-de-sac was necessary, especially when the road will continue through. The City Attorney said he wants to clarify Council’s position. Kelley moved to table this issue, and to have an Executive Session after the Administrator ’s report. Peterson seconded. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 9 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 11,1998 (#5) #2354 KONRAD KRUGER, 520 HANLON AVENUE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4075 Van Zomeren explained the applicant wants variances to side yard, given the 2 acre zoning with substantial setbacks, in order to add a second story. The Planning Commission voted to approve the requested variances. Kruger said he was also considering adding a garage. Jabbour said the Council will only act on what !S currently presented to Council. Van Zomeren said the existing structure does not meet requirements, and Kruger has a structural engineer that recommended new foundation improvements. The Council discussed if there should be a certain percentage of foundation that deems the entire foundation should be replaced, and if the entire foundation was replaced, should the house be moved. Van Zomeren said currently applicants are not required to do structural reports before applying for a variance. She went on to explain the variance will expire in one year and the building permits would have to be applied for in that year. She also e.xplained that 10 feet are needed between structures if he does build a garage, and that 35% could be in hardcover without a variance in the setback area within the shoreland setback. Jabbour moved to approved Resolution #4075, with applicant retaining appropriate structural engineer findings as appropriated. Kelley seconded. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2357 KENT WHITWORTH, 1425 BAY RIDGE ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE Van Zomeren reported the applicant is requesting a hardcover variance, lakeshore variance and conditional use permit to build a retaining wall adjacent to County Road 15. The conditional use permit IS required because it involves grading within 5 feet of the property line. The Planning Commission recommended this project with the following concerns: that the City would get an accurate survey, a drawing of the retaining wall, along with hardcover calculations, the materials used are similar to a wall existing adjacent to the property and consistent with the area, the trees over 6 inches be preserved, and appropriate approval needed by Hennepin County is obtained. The problem is there are no numbers available. Peterson asked how it got as far as it did without the necessary numbers. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 11,1998 (#6) #2357 KENT WHITWORTH, 1425 BAY RIDGE ROAD - Continued Whitworth explained the 10'3" height is shown in the variance request and it is a 3 tier wall, 10 1/2 feet above the road. He said the wall was needed for safety, and the existing retaining structure was damaged in 1987. Kelley questioned the eastbound sitelines, and the restrictions on vegetation. Whitworth explained the sitelines would not change, and he would present a landscape plan once the wall was built. Kelley moved to ask the staff to prepare a resolution in favor of the applicant with the needed numbers, and Peterson seconded. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #2358 RANDY & MARIE STAFFANSON, 1422 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCE - REQUEST TO GO DIRECTLY TO COUNCIL ON MAY 26,1998 The applicant was not present, and Van Zomeren explained they are planning not to proceed with the variance, due to the high cost of estimates. The applicant would like to replace the garage in its present location requiring a side yard variance, and it would come through the Planning Commission again. Van Zomeren asked if it was possible to re-notice in the newspapers immediately, to be considered at the next Council meeting for the side-yard variance, and the City Attorney replied if you have new variances, the public hearing could be held at the Council meeting. Short recess for Executive Session. (#4) #2308 BROOK PARK REALTY, 3760 SHORELINE DRIVE - Continued Jabbour moved to move off the table, and Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Jabbour suggested a draft of an agreement to go back to two options: 1) Applicant to do road, and receive 30 units, or 2) do 20 units, wait for road from other party, and when road is done get 10 more units. The City Attorney stated not all developments would necessarily support the road, but it should be extended as a policy matter. Jabbour said the assurances the applicant has are up to the applicant. Either the applicant puts the road through, or waits for the road to be put through. Gleason asked if properties 3 and 4 adjacent to tliese are residential. Jabbour replied yes, residential. The City would like to have a park there. He went on to say if the density credit is not granted by Council, the parcels could still have 10 units. Anything over 3 units, needs a road with a cul-de-sac. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 11,1998 (#4) U230S BROOK PARK REALTY, 3760 SHORELINE DRIVE - Continued Jabbour moved to have this matter tabled due to applicant ’s request, and that there would be a tolling of any time periods which would otherwise run against the City or the applicant during the continuance periods, and to have the City Attorney reflect the City’s position and send it to Gleason ' s attorney . Peterson seconded. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Flint asked for clarification on who would pay for the road, and it was agreed there was no settlement on this subject. (*#8) ADULT USE MORATORIUM - EXTENT TO SEPTEMBER 15,1998 - ORDINANCE NO. 174,2ND SERIES Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Ordinance No. 174,2nd Series extending the adult use moratorium to run concurrently with the industrial district moratorium which expires on September 15, 1998. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#9) PARTIAL REFUND OF APPLICATION FEES TO LGA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to authorize a partial application fee refund to LGA Investment Group, Inc. in the amount of $2,040.16. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#10) MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT IN THE LR-lC-1 ZONING DISTRICT - ORDINANCE NO. 175,2ND SERIES Flint said there was enough misunderstanding about when the moratorium applies, and Moorse explained the updated language gets more specific on the granting of credits. City Attorney stated the LR-lC-1 land could still be developed at LR-IC density. Flint moved, and Kelley seconded to adopt Ordinance No. 175,2nd Series enacting a moratorium on development in the LR-lC-1 zoning district, expiring on November 16, 1998. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 8 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 11,1998 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Jabbour indicated he already reported on the meeting with Sohns, owner of property adjacent to the Brook Park development. Jabbour mentioned a meeting with Saga Hill Church to explain the DNR grant to access the church property to a park, with easement available for ambulance or utilities. He went on to say he is going to meet with them May 21st and show them Orono. The City does not want to develop that road to accelerate development. Flint agreed it was a positive meeting and helped to understand the church’s position. Jabbour suggested, after the last meeting with Long Lake, that a brainstorming session be scheduled with some local residents to explain how they do development in their own businesses. Jabbour asked City Administrator to relay a message to the Long Lake Mayor and City Administrator about the two City Councils meeting with several developers regarding what they view as feasible along Highway 12. Jabbour and Moorse will discuss this further later. Goettcn questioned Gappa about Fox Street between Brown Road and Orono Orchard Road where there is sand in big potholes. Gappa replied that the blade patching should be complete by the end of the week. She also requested updates on County Roads 15 and 6 be provided to the Council. Gappa provided a brief update regarding the County Road 15 project and timeline. Goetten also questioned if Gappa answered Mrs. Murphy's questions on flat sewer rates, which he did. There is currently no senior citizen’s rate. Flint received information indicating Long Lake's engineering consultant is recommending against an access on new Highway 12 at Willow Drive. He asked if the Council needed to take any specific action because Orono has adopted ‘ no access on Willow” policy. Flint asked this item be put on the agenda for the next Council meeting. Kelley asked if Jabbour and Ed Callahan are in favor of moving the Meyer Brother’s Dairy and getting the ramp for emergency vehicles. Goetten said it appeared the full signal light would remain at that intersection. Jabbour suggested talking to Ed Callahan and taking it to the next step. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 11,1998 ENGINEER REPORT AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR NAVARRE WATER TREATMENT PLANT - RESOLUTION 4076 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4076 approving the plans and specifications and ordering the advertisement for bids for the Navarre Water Treatment Plant rehabilitation. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#12) AUTHORIZE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS AND SCHEDULE ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR SHORELINE/HERITAGE AND EDGEWOOD HILLS SEWER PROJECTS - RESOLUTIONS NO. 4077,4078 AND 4079 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4077 approving the plans and specifications and ordering the advertisement for bids for the Edgewood Hills and Shoreline/Heritage Sanitary Sewer Improvement Projects. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4078 declaring the cost to be assessed and ordering the preparation of proposed assessment for the Edgewood Hills and Shoreline/Heritage Sanitary Sewer Improvement Projects. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4079 establishing a hearing for the proposed assessment for the Edgewood Hills and Shoreline/Heritage Sanitary Sewer Improvement Projects. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#13) REQUEST MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT TO COMPLETE STUDY FOR MOONEY LAKE OUTLET - RESOLUTION 4080 The Engineer reported that Mooney Lake in Medina, Plymouth and Orono is experiencing a relatively high water level. Each City has been asked to pass a resolution for a feasibility study paid for by the Watershed District, and they will address cost study.— - - Peterson moved, Goetten seconded to adopt Resolution #4080, requesting the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to prepare a feasibility .study for the Mooney Lake outlet. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. I J ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 11,1998 ENGINEER REPORT Continued Jabbour reported he was fmstratod w^'h the recent Femdale Road public infonriation meeting. He said the City Council made a mistake allowing Plymouth to be the lead agency and allowing Staff and Engineers to take it from A to Z without Council direction. Plymouth is now frustrated that Orono has made a decision. Jabbour feels that Orono's consultant engineer is working against Orono. He s. .id the City was put in a position to be viewed as if safety was not important when it was. He thinks it should have been handled differently, with the engineering staff to be working with the City. Kellogg responded his intent was to explain the report, and it w'as the transportation engineer for Bonestroo who was talking about safety being the number one priority. Kelley said with the road in its cuTent condition, it is not possible to travel over 30 mph which currently makes it safe. Jabbour said he wants the road to retain the 30 mph speed limit. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#14) SCHEDULE MEETING WITH HIGHWAY 12 PROPERTY OWNERS AND BUSINESS OWNERS, AND SCHEDULE WORK SESSION RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE The Council selected May 27, 1998, in the early evening as a preferred date and time to meet with the Plymouth City Council regarding the Femdale Road project. A meeting with the Highway 12 property owners to review the Highway 12 preliminary design was scheduled for June 9, 1998 at 6:30 PM. Jabbour requested a letter be sent to Mr. James on this matter. (*#15) AUTHORIZATION OF THE INSTALLATION OF SIGNS PROHIBITING BOAT TRAILER PARKING ON BOHNS POINT ROAD AND BOHNS POINT" LANE - RESOLUTION 4081 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4081 authorizing the installation of a sign prohibiting boat trailer parking on Bolms Point Road and Bohns Point Lane. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. J ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 11,1998 (*#16) APPOINT CITY RECORDER Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to appoint Lauren Nordseth as the City Recorder at a fee of $150.00 per meeting, and to authorize staff to prepare a contract to reflect the appointment. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#17) APPOINT ASSISTANT ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the appointment of Paul Weinberger to the position of Assistant Zoning Administrator, effective May 20, 1998 at a salary of $30,000. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#18) BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the 1997 budget amendments for the General and Special Revenue Funds as presented in the staff memo; and to approve and authorize the cash advance of $4,000 from the PIR Fund to the Municipal State Aid Fund, to be effective December 31, 1997. Further, that the 1997 Building Outlay Fund budget amendment for the public works building entrance canopy project, approved 12/8/97, in the amount of $19,480, be transferred to the 1998 Outlay Fund budget. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY' S REPORT No further report at this time. (#19) LICENSES Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the following licenses. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Special Event Permits Gear West Ski & Bike Run Bike Run Event June 7, 1998 Zumbro Valley Bassmasters Bass Club Tournament October 10, 1998 12 LICENSES Continued Garbage & Refuse Collector’s License Craig Baldy Baldy Sanitation Home Occupation Licenses Allstar Electric Ben Meinhart 3585 Sixth Avenue North Kezar, Inc. Mitch Kezar 3050 Sixth Avenue North L. A. Pilgram, D. C. Ginger Scott 2620 Kelly Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 Norum <& Pearson, P.A. Russell Norum 3264 North Shore Drive Small Parts Manufacturing, Inc. Charles and Ann Anderson 1295 Loma Linda Avenue Waldron Law Offices, Ltd. John B. Waldron 1951 Concordia Street (#20) BILLS Goetten mov'ed, Peterson seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING may 2 6 1998 DATE; ITEM NO: S' Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Brook Park Realty, 3760 Shoreline Drive - PRD and Class III Preliminary Subdivision The Brook Park Realty application was continued from the May 11 Council meeting to provide an opportunity to resolve the County Road 15 access issues. At this time. Brook Park Realty still has concerns about the ability to gain access to County Road 15. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to continue action on the Brook Park Realty application for a PRD and Class III preliminary subdivision at 3760 Shoreline Drive. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: k Name Michael P. GafTron Title Senior Planning Coordinator Administrator Reviewed: DATE: May 22, 1998 ITEM NO.: ^ Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2339 James Render, 1365 Tonkawa Road - Final Subdivision - Resolution List of Exhibits A - Final Plat Resolution B - Resolution #4053 - Preliminary Plat Resolution C - Final Plat D - Grading and Drainage Plan COUNCIL MEETING MAY 2 6 1998 CrrYOFORONO The applicant has substantially fulfilled all conditions and will be providing all necessary submittals for final plat approval as set forth in preliminary plat approval Resolution #4053 for this three lot subdivision. A declaration of covenants to be filed with the plat will include the obligation of property owners to maintain all drainage facilities and define responsibility for the sharing in the cost of the maintenance of the private road. Outlot A has been platted to end 5' short of the west boundary of the property per Council's intent, such that it will be incumbent upon the City to deal with the owner of Lot 1 should the City ever wish to make the road connection to Birch Lane. Grading Plan Adjustments Required Tlie grading plan provides for the excavation of a stormwater pond as noted in the preliminary plat approval, as well as filling to elevate the building pads as indicated on the preliminary grading plan. The'T' type turnaround has been incorporated into the shared driveway between Lots 1 and 2. Some slight adjustments to the grading plan will be required to avoid any grade changes within the 0-75' lakeshore protected zone, and to ensure that homes are located at correct elevations above the storm pond. Also, some revisions may be needed to ensure that all drainage from the road reaches the pond, which may require that the proposed road be more ceneterd in the defined right-of-way. Existing Housc/Garage To Be Removed Applicant has concluded that the house on Lot 1 and garage on Lot 2 will be removed from the site, negating the need for a Special Lot Combination Agreement. A condition of final plat approval has been added requiring that these structures be removed within 90 days, and stipulating that no building permits will be issued for the subdivision until these buildings have been removed. #2339 - James Render May 22, 1998 Page 2 Park Dedication City Assessor Rolf Erickson has established the value of Lots 2 and 3 at $375,000. Since 8% of this amount is $30,000, the maximum park fee of $4,900 per lot will be collected. Staff recommends approval of the final plat of Tonkavva Shores subject to the findings and conditions of the resolution enclosed for Council's review and action. The plat will not be released for filing until all final documents have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney, and final grading plans have been approved by the City Engineer. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To either adopt or amend the enclosed approval resolution. NOTE: Applicant’s surveyor as of this writing expected that the County review process would be complete and mylars available for Tuesday's meeting. If they are not available, this item should be tabled to your June 8 meeting. w. — A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF TONKAWA SHORES FILE NO. 2339 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision of a three lot plat by James Render (hereinafter "the subdivider"); and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the LR-IC, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that would allow its use for a single family residence to be fiilly developed without the need of any variances; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has agreed to complete all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1. Completion of all the requirements of Resolution No. 4053, the resolution granting preliminary approval of the Class III subdivision. 2. Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. 3. Creation of a private road shown on the plat as Outlot A. 4. Conciurent with the creation of this private road in Outlot A, dedication to the City of road and utility easements granting to the City permanent access, improvement and utility easements over said Outlot; and the creation of non-exclusive ingress, egress, drainage and utility easements over said Outlot in favor of all abutting lots within the plat including a declaration of covenants, conditions, restrictions and private roadway easement wherein any lot shall be sold, transferred and conveyed together with an undivided one-third interest in Outlot A whereby benefitting lot Page 1 of 4 5. 6. ov Tiers covenant and agree to permanently maintain and pay cost of maintenance for said private road. Dedication to the City of drainage easements over all detention areas, wetlands, and drainageways within the plat providing for limitations on the use of these areas and shown on the plat as drainage easements. Execution of a Subdivider's Agreement providing for the installation of improvements required as a condition of subdivision approval, and posting of security to ensure that these required improvements are completed to the City’s satisfaction, subject to approval of the City Engineer. Payment to the City of a park dedication fee for Lots 2 and 3 in the amount of $9,800. Payment to the City for the final plat review fee and fee for legal review and filing of the plat, easements and covenants in the amount of $400.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Tonkawa Shores, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 7. 1. 3. The final grading plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. No grading within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone will be allowed. Erosion control shall be maintained over all disturbed areas until natural groundcover is restored. No building permits will be issued until a satisfactory road base and all drainage improvements have been installed per approval of the City Engineer. " ■ The existing residence on Lot 1 and the existing detached garage on Lot 2 shall be removed within 90 days of the date of final plat approval, and no building permits for new homes on Lots 1, 2 or 3 shall be issued until such time that said buildings have been removed. 4. Prior to City release of the plat for filing, applicant shall provide evidence of Page 2 of 4 5. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval. Subdivider shall grant drainage easements over the stormwater pond to benefit the Lot Owners and the City, and shall provide for maintenance thereof by the Lot Owners. 7. 9. Applicant shall grant a sewer connection easement over Lot 2 for the benefit of Lot 1, subject to approval of the City Engineer. Prior to City release of the plat for filing, applicant shall provide evidence of fee ownership of the property in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, and applicant shall meet any other title requirements as may be required by the City Attorney. Applicant shall provide all documents noted in this resolution in a format acceptable to the City Attorney prior to release of the plat for filing. The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder's Office or Registrar of Titles Office on or before November 26, 1998 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the easements, deeds and covenants noted above. fhe approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Dated this 26th day of May, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 3 of 4 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 '6 R A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS III SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1365 TONKAWA ROAD - FILE NO. 2339 1 AVHERE.A.S, James Render (hereinafter the "subdivider") on January 23, 1998, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a three lot residential plat of propert>' legally described as: That part of Lots 13, 14 and 15, "LYDIARD'S PARK" Lake Minnetonka lying riorthwesterly 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 plat of said "LYDIARD’S PARK" Lake Minnetonka; thence northeasterly perpendicular to said southwesterly line of said Lot 15 to the northeasterly line of said Lot 13, and there ending. All in Hennepin County, Miimesota. (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 \M-IEREAS, at '^ir regular meetings held on March 9, 1998 and March 23, 1998, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdivider noting the following findings of fact: 1. The property is located within the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of one-half acre of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2.The property contains a total of approximately 1.91 acres of land. There are no wetlands located on the property. Except for a portion of the road ditch along Page 1 of? 3. 4. 5. CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 Tonkawa Road, the property is above the floodplain elevation of 931.5', and homes can be developed without the need for filling or encroachment of the floodplain. The proposed plat consists of three residential lots each meeting the minimum lot standard requirements of the LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, each meeting the minimum 1/2 acre lot area requirement and each having 100' in defined width at the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and at the 75' lakeshore setback line. All three lots are served with municipal sewer and have been fully assessed for sewer. All three lots will be served by private wells. Lot 1 contains an existing residence structure which encroaches across the easterly lot boundary into Lot 2. Lot 2 contains an existing detached garage which encroaches within the required 1 O' side yard of Lot 2. The portions of the house which encroach the 10' required side yard of Lot 1 and which encroach into Lot 2, and the detached garage in Lot 2, shall be required to be removed within a specified limited period of time after subdivision approval and shall be removed prior to any sale of Lots 1 or 2 into two separate ownerships. All three Lots shall be setv'ed by a private road designated on the plat as Outlot A. Said private road Outlot shall be 25' in width, realizing a total 33' functional width when used in combination with an adjacent 8' City road easement on the adjacent property to the south. Said road shall be constructed to a 16' paved width, with a 'T' turnaround for emergency vehicle access. These dimensions require the granting of a variance to City road width and cul-de-sac standards. The basis for such variance is the negative visual and traffic jmpact on neighboring properties that would occur if such private road was constructed to City standards at this location near the Maxwell Bay lake access. Said Outlot shall be subject to an underlying road, drainage and utility easement to be granted to the City for possible future use, except that the westerly 5 feet of said Outlot shall not be subject to said easement. 7. The City has no intent to continue said private road westward to Birch Lane at 6. Page 2 of 7 V ' CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 5 3 this time. The intent of stopping the underlying road easement 5 feet short of the west boundary as noted above is to limit the likelyhood that a fiiture Council will make the future through road connection to Birch Lane. 8. Lots 1 and 2 shall gain access to the private road via a shared driveway in order to minimize hardcover on those lots. 9. A stormwater pond will be developed within Lot 3 and a drainage easement will be granted to the City over said pond. 10. 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 Tonkawa Road (County Road 135). 11. The Orono Park Commission has recommended that no additional right-of-way or trail easements are required from this developer since any future trail needs can be accommodated within the existing right of way. 12. The area of the stormwater pond shall not count towards lot area of Lot 3 for zoning purposes, but shall count towards lot area credit for hardcover calculation purposes only. The City intends that no hardcover variances will be granted for development of homes on Lots 1, 2 and 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL\TED, 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 James Render at 1365 Tonkawa Road per preliminar>' plat drawings by Mark S. Gronberg, a licensed surveyor of Coffin & Gronberg, Inc, dated March 18, 1998, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. Proposed Road (Birch Lane) on said preliminary plat drawing shall be platted as a private road outlot to be designated as Outlet A. A variance will be granted for the 25' width of Outlot A and for the 16' paved width of the private road which do not meet the 50' outlot w idth and 24' paved road width or 80' paved cul-de-sac standards for a private road ser\ing 3 or more Page 3 of7 > CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 5 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. residences. AH Lots shall access to the private road in Outlot A. No direct access to Tonkavva Road shall be allowed for any Lot. Lots 1 and 2 shall access the private road outlot via a shared driveway as shown on the preliminary plat drawings. The private road in Outlot A and the stormwater pond located in Lot 3 per the preliminary plat drawings shall be constructed by the developer subject to a Developers Agreement to be executed between the City and the developer. Private road and stormwater pond construction can begin as soon as the engineering plans for the road and pond 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. The private road shall be privately owned and maintained per the appropriate access easement/maintenance documents to be executed by the developer. The developer shall create a homeowners association for such ownership and maintenance. No building permits will be issued until the privcur • cise work has been completed and been approved by the City. The developer shall grant to the City an underlying Road and Utilities Easement for all of Outlot A except the westerly 5 feet thereof. Subdivider to designate drainage easements over all drainageways and stor'.r*ater ponds within plat. Subdivider is hereby advised that the City' will not grant final plat approval nor allow road and pond construction to commence until the MCWD has approved all grading and drainage improvements on the property. 11. The portion of the existing house on Lot 1 that is within 10' of the east side lot Page 4 of 7 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. • A o if; ^ line, as well as that portion which encroaches into Lot 2, and the detached garage on Lot 2, shall be removed by the applicant within one (1) year of final plat approval. Applicant shall execute a Special Lot Combination Resolution to be filed in the chain of title of Lots 1 and 2 which disallow's Lots 1 and 2 from being sold separately until such removals occur, and which would disallow any building permits for Lot 2 until the encroachments are removed. 12. Payment of standard Park Dedication Fee. 13. Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will expire within one year of the date of Council approval, March 23, 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 m.onth. 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 surv'ey by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. dated March 18, 1998. b. Private road to be designated on the plat as Outlet A. c. d. Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along the exterior boundaries of property and 5' along the internal lot lines. Designation and dedication of drainage easements over detention ponds and drainageways as shown on preliminary plat. The naming of plat. Page 5 of? H. ClTYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 5 S Legal documents required: b. d. f. 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. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. Signed and executed Developer's Agreement and letter of credit for approved site improvements and construction of private road (Outlot A), drainage facilities, etc. Signed and executed Drainage Easements to be taken over drainageway and detention areas within plat. Signed and executed Road, Drainage and Utilities Easement over Outlot A except the westerly 5 feet thereof. Signed and executed "Declaration of Private Road Easement and Declaration of Maintenance for Same". g. Completed "Application for Private Road Name", h.Special Lot Combination Resolution (to be drafted by City and adopted by Council at time of final plat approval). 3. Fees to be paid; Total due: $400.00*_ •. b. c. Final plat fee = $200.00 Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents = $200.00 *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. Page 6 of 7 oo•n-n 2 O X O O)m;do Mif32 2:d 3t/> n li O 01 O H • 5*e? 3: ? n ff 3 ?w crw = O /* 3 M •D^ O W Oo c 3 •7 02 PS m •* Z O)sqgf? 5- Olo Ul b M cr H 3" O ?o»« 5-2 0» o u (/> os; r* o2 M o 3 - 3 n O' 3 5la «0 • *_ Z c 3cr• o M 3 CL m 3<o 3 •* O JT 3 0 1•cxa•a •» 3a. O) :i5 K» • *S|^u« o kn -*•• 3 CL S’ (O 5* ?i 8 » •I I' l»3l ?fs^»• g 5 c 8 ?l =B* - (/» C O’a 0 1 ? 3T (O^2 5 5 y 2 i < = 3 2?n a 3 5 * - - 2 o s 73 5 i« ~ < 5 •* • 2?. - • • 3 a IlSflf? ??c ■D *3 ^ ?? § ClS.§ C«rt •U y X 32'S. 3a o -a » s a d O’• o 3 3 g w o S’2^5 |§ ^2* • 2 « - - 3 3 5. O' ^ 3•*>0 2 IJ^|5 g| 3 •3 or 2* a • 5 f 5 ^ O 3 y| 5 a yu 5 s •- 5 3 I “a ^ o. ^ *3 2. ? o ° 3 i zmi5 5 ? ^t cx • B o». *• J o X m O ^ n n oc 3<;r 3; ST 3•mo ff I?«• 3 X 0 O’ ff Ul•* 3 ?*• •* 1 3 l> W O O 0> c > t 9 ®S o3 c > O 02 31 a: 2 z m 09 O H > .8 *o 50 9 3a S m ^ o H O' M 3a O _ 31 •n 2 2 z m 0) O •H > ’•-.S’s a O’«< 3 2T 3 lO no 9 o 3a o 3 O 3 13 2. 3*<a 2 ? 3 3 •^fO C i?• 2 3 «• t»o S' M tJ i O’^ Q •s|n ••* fcfc— ** CX 5• oo Soats:o 3 CL cr• o 3 a |7 1 O z 9 • *22 - S’ "I a•a fd'l F w ’’ifs G cr M 3a u t 10 mn 7C 3 O ao & cr Sa a i* a K O ff . a M v< o a M • ^ al8 u> ul Ul ffio S3 M 03 o 33 O O O —m • I •'• rtmi&i MIIIK P.riTiRriTil MiT4\Hira •f ^■3 ■4 miin •JOJtIt i9Hm Bimra [O0ira siMninira g&mijiMtisira nrnriViTi^r« m 1 fJkssi M^ltU t tmWIil i9\m roraira ItlOltltKfsl [imiHiiroEro»iigiT»i¥inTii ^ir«Jilv:TiTtl OflPTi] r9muH\ [tJSira •iiiitni TOTiRTO nFn?i ^•■riTrn li^sWiTiRWI »iiTZin^ •rtjctrt] ^■•11 It]UCt^TivOiltl MtJt] [•rwj ^rmnr FTiiTi ft w V¥Tm ilGi] rtHMt]^nr«i RHirtii]•itiiMifl fLtllOiE rtmiist niK« ranct RIRKWiTTi rtraTiiTiTti [•W/4tVlilW ifyctii itifit] niiiiiAuriKi rtuii]niiu«i Fsriiiii«j #2340 - Robert & Iris Waade May 21,1998 Page 4 applicant noted he would like this berm to be as much as 5' in height. Applicant intends to plant trees or bushes atop this berm to provide screening from the marina. There have been some discussions between applicant and Lakeside regarding centering the berm on the lot line rather than east of it, which would also assist Lakeside in meeting the City's landscaping requirements for the marina; however, apparently no agreement has been reached. Utility impacts would have to be reviewed if this occurred. The berm will not have any appreciable effect on drainage to or from the marina. The berm is directly above an existing sewer trunk line, and the City will require an easement over the sewer if one is not already in effect. The berm and plantings will not impact die sewer, but applicant will be advised of the City's right to disturb it in order to access the sewer if necessary. A berm at 5' height would have to be centered 15' from the west lot line and be 30' in total width, in order to keep a sideslope no steeper than 3:1 for stability and maintainability. Staff will review this proposal on May 26. Summary of Variances Needed and Issues to be Resolved Variances required: 1. Outlot A. Proposed width = 40', required = 50' 2. Outlot B. a. Width of Outlot B (20' proposed, 30' req'd) b. Driveway setback in Lot B (and Loi 1);(0' proposed, 10' required) c. Outlot B does not extend to south line of Lot 1, creating a 'flag lot ’ (flag lots not allowed) d. Only 2 residences allowed to access from driveway outlot, 3 proposed Determinations requiring confirmation: 1. Conclusion that stormwater pond can be credited toward 'extra 50%area' reqm't for back lot 2. Determination that east line of Lot 2 is its front lot line, eliminating width variance for duplex 3. Reiterate that only Lot 1 has lake access. Issues to Resolve: 1. Need to revise grading and drainage plans to match changes to preliminary plat. 2. Further study of how this development will impact neighboring drainage is required, I WfltFT »Mr3i »(^inii«iv4«(«is i]i]M Oil iT!AVMM[tVt4 tKOiltWiTtl roam rtiii.^rird¥4rii raiili ^nc^ico rowror^i liJlJOVi^miTtlMltli] rtvsrii ^TlTlBl ^winuWiiiFirE Wwlslilt] OfVt] rrniira ^Hrifti roomro LiMuililE]r«T«rti ^[•vnira OHO RltHtlO OMilO lOlMACO i^lO OOfllVillMillO 9JQO RKiiftksacifno urao [llfiEmJBlMli] #2340 - Robert & Iris Waade May 21,1998 Page 6 In summary, staff recommends conceptual approval of the plat as it is currently proposed, A number of issues (grading, drainage, berm height) must be resolved prior to adoption of a preliminary plat approval resolution. % COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review the ['roposal and givt' aprUcant and staff conceptual direction regarding. 1. Approval ot n< >ied variances. 2. Approval of duplex CUP. 3. Approval of berm CUP, subject to further review. Conceptual approval, if granted, should direct that applicant resolve issues regarding drainage, grading and berm height, and direct staff to bring back a resolution for preliminary plat approval once those issues are suitably resolved. *• ] y :V 2,024 Sq. Ft 2,000 Sq. Ft 1.400 Sq. Ft 5,424 Sq. Ft 630 Sq. Ft 21,945 Sq. Ft 24.71% 2,475 Sq. Ft 25% South of 250’ Setback Line Facing Maxweil Bay Proposed Twin Home Driveway Totai Existing Area South of 250' Setback Facing Maxweii Bay = 8,865 Sq. Ft Percent Hardcover = 36% South of 250' Setback Facing Crystal Bay Proposed Twin Home Existing Area South of 250' Setback Line Facing Crystal Bay = 12,915 Sq. Ft Percent Hardcover = 8% 2.170 Sq. Ft 1.000 Sq. Ft 3.170 Sq. Ft 1,030 Sq. Ft SYiOA/VW^IlV JO . 3903 -y«3 \ 1/^ •90*1*3 J.03io^a '» Mn W /. WnX'i '13 ^ / lojs-dovd/-^ y • ’/ F f t^J y^’> ':>J \ ^ V— W? - - iii^yL, ■ • O'OS r-T^y i'H fy' i^6'/: / . K ' •' A .' ’^DAC *X3 H7XVW/ / / / • CdM) ^|vloJlA/0') "(3 ■ y ^'' TO r;* ■-=r bm^ 0 ‘05 vfi * .. .* ».. - f 7»z^ X (dKJ'JAWU^V .39v/vivyo CdKi') 37W3J iivs; • -lOUJA'03,.<^0'50y3 —------! • '•' .• ■ 4 ^ : ■ ■■ ■' X czrzif, X Si-'*)Zi,=wQiiog Si.’0£b-3/v\f/ 0/xod 0390doad >' V . {^•m * ■■■ jCssZ*eb), ><niw^o fit sf.oSI> •‘A/VI. **Uf‘L*0 ‘3 . •»a</,.'2i-,t»l ■ •oKb -3X . r^Olb ‘AM . <• . I '• • ^ /X"‘L.'•- sir M 3SnOH^^SOdOdd>^' .'••'A: '\- . v V3dV N3QdV9’N / JA •. • • .* -—■?l^zz'o ’d '■■■■. ■■•P'X'utI -,L0r :. ' c. \ U^i ./lit. r •V • % CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Robert & Iris Waade 5240 Nolan Drive Minnetonka, MN 55343 TYPE OF APPLICATION; Subdivision/CUP DATE OF MEETING: 05/18/98 ZONING FILE #2340 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 21, 1998 COPIES: VOTE: 5 FOR 1 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval as follows: 1. Approval of the plat and granting of variances related to Outlots A and B; 2. Approval of a CUP for the duplex use, finding that the criteria for duplex CUP ^e met, and that the LR-lC-1 zoning would generally allow this 3-unit density if this had been proposed as a PRD; 3. Recommended a conclusion that the east line of Lot 2 can be considered its front line; 4. Recommended a conclusion that the stormwater pond can be credited toward the 'extra 50%' lot area requirement for the back lot; 5. Noted that only Lot I has lake access; 6. The approval should be subject to applicant resolving grading and drainage issues With staff and City Engineer. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Tuesday, May 26, 1998; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desbe certified copies of the ofTicial Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Mike Gaffron at 473-7357. PETITION TO THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1998 WE THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF ORONO, REQUEST THAT THE COMMISSION DOES NOT GRANT ANY VARIANCES WITH REFERENCE TO A MULTI-FAMILY (DUPLEX) DWELLING PROPOSED FOR 3280/3290 NORTH SHORE DRIVE. (APP #2340) WE WOULD LIKE TO REAFFIRM THE COMMITMENT MADE BY DALE LINDQUIST THAT "IF ANY VARIANCES WERE REQUIRED, THE PROPOSED APPLICATION WOULD BE DENIED", LAST MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 17, 1998. ------- I6j S , . -1^ (jHD^si^PSD op" T^T"W^ COMHISS/onI CO=Si NoJ ofg\ swpkh . LOE- UJDOLO .7^ ..... IF V<3^FfeXS/lADE &>; -^^Up. )_|MD<au\S'l “ -^1 LJS/^E. R^dUJ\ASC>^ /lipfUCdmH LUPOLo B e . PErtiSO.^'g. ^I2£TIPiS| WS*, ______V______________ _________________ STJha ....... _3.?^P 'f^^pyrTyCC'-. —7— _ c> C, 3oyf/'y<^ ___. A9'>^XL&. - —. __"S k^^sqkj :l>o>o... M._ ----- / 5ah ..____________:>V5^ ^ sjoiAi......... . Q)\oy\MU. ‘^UD ^.hn^. fT'-.LA/. r M rOi^^ TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE; Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator May 15, 1998 SUBJECT: #2340 Robert and Iris Waade, 3280/3290 North Shore Drive - Preliminary Plat Review - CUP for Duplex Credit - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1C-1, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre. Sewered Total Site Area:1.503 acres Proposal: Two-lot residential plat to create a single family lakeshore lot and a duplex lot near the road. The lakeshore lot is a back lot and subject to the pertinent standards. List of Exhibits A - Revised preliminary plat drawing: Received 5-13-98 B - Preliminary grading and drainage plan: Received 4-21-98 C - City Engineer Comments 3-19-98 and 5-15-98 D - Notice of Planning Commission Action 4-20-98 E - Memo and Exhibits of 4-17-98 Note: Applicant has agreed in writing to extend the review period for this proposed plat to July 23. New Information Since March 16 / April 20 Meetings Applicant submitted grading plans on March 12, too late for the City Engineer to review them prior to the March 16 meeting. The City Engineer reviewed those plans on March 19 (See Exhibit E) and his comments were forwarded to the applicant on April 2. Staff met with the applicant_on April 2 and discussed options including the possibility of doing a PRD rather than the proposed standard plat; and how the plan might be revised if additional properti es wc e added to the mix. Revised plans were not submitted in time for the April 20 meeting, and the application was tabled at applicant s request. New grading plans were received on April 21, a i have been reviewed by the City Engineer (see May 15 comments). Also, applicant has as of May 13 submitted a revised preliminary plat drawing that addresses some of the concerns noted by Planning Commission on March 16. (The grading plans of April 21 do not reflect this revised plan). #2340 “ Robert & Iris Waade May 15. 1998 Page 2 March 16 Meeting Recap At the March 16 Planning Commission meeting, the following occurred: A neighborhood group submitted a petition opposing the duplex use Planning Commission noted that the lot coverage for the duplex lot is at 22% but cannot exceed 15%. Applicant noted he could reduce it to meet 15% (the latest preliminary plat drawing reduces the building to 3200 s.f. or 14.7% the 0.5 acre lot) Planning Commission agreed to the concept of allowing the storm pond to be credited toward the extra 50% acreage requirement for the back lot, which is proposed at 0.79 acres in the most recent plan. Plaiming Commission agreed that the proposal meets the intent of the hardcover ordinance with no variance needed Planning Commission expressed support for the site variances necessary to develop two single family homes, but not necessarily those for a single home plus a duplex New issues identified for applicant to address included proximiiy of road to neighboring homes; impacts on neighborhood drainage; and lack of time for review by City Engineer. On March 16 applicant requested tabling rather than a recommendation of denial. On April 20 at applicant ’s request the application was tabled without discussion since no new information was available at that time. Analysis of PRD Option - Benefits, Issues The benefits of and issues raised by the possible development of this property as a PRD are discussed m the April 17 memo. Applicant does not wish to pursue a PRD at tliis time. #2340 - Robert & Iris Waade May 15, 1998 Page 3 Analysis of Most Current Submittal Latl is a lakeshore lot that is proposed for a single family residence. As a back lot: It meets the "150% of 1/2 acre" back lot area standard when the stormwater pond easement is included per Planning Commission's direction on March 16 (0.75 acres required, 0.79 acre proposed). It meets the LR-1 C-1 100' minimum width standard (124' at the shoreline, at the 75' setback line, and at the street yard setback). It meets the required 45' street yard ^epth (150% of the 30' LR-lC-1 standard). It meets the required 15' side jad depth (150% of the 10' LR-lC-1 standard). It meets the required lake setback of 75'. Avergpg getbapk is not an issue, since the proposed residence is further from the lake than the residence to the east, and there is no residence to the west. The ac,ceg$ Qq(lQ( (Outlot B) at a 20' width requires a variance to the 30' minimum width requirement; the driveway m i .-. the required 10' setback from the east lot line per Section 10.03, Subd 27 (C) (3), but not from the west line abutting Lot 2, hence a variance is required here. Hardcover for Lot 1 is proposed at just under the 25% limit in the 75-250' zone and at 25% in the small portion in the 250-500' zone where 30% is allowed; but the narrow (10') driveway proposal still has a minimal apron at the garage which may be difficult to maneuver, suggesting that at final site planning a more flexible layout may be desired. is technically a "front lot" and in this case is proposed for construction of a duplex, i.e. a single building with two dwelling units, on a single lot. Under Orono's ordinances this duplex lot could not be split to have two separate owmers. The result is that at least one of the units will be a rental, and/or possibly both will be rental. Regarding lot standards: Lot 2 meets the 0.50 acre minimum lot size required for a non-riparian duplex lot, tlie same standard applicable for a single family lot. #2340 - Robert & Iris Waade May 15, 1998 Page 4 Lot 2 meets the 135' minimum width for a duplex (shoreland ordinance requirements) if measured along the east frontage of Lot 2 abutting Outlot A. [The Zoning Code identifies the shortest side of a corner lot such as this, as the front'. However, in this case the side abutting Outlot A will function as the front lot line and if the line abutting Outlot A is formally defined as the front lot line by City action, the lot could be considered as conform ing in width for a duplex lot. The intrusion of the MWCC lift station into the site suggests that this would be an appropriate conclusion, given the impacts that intrusion has on the building envelope for this site). The duplex proposed for Lot 2 meets the 15' required depth of the side yard adjacent to the back lot access outlot (OutH^ B). The 1 O' side and 30' rear yards are correctly shown on the drawings assuming the east lot line is defined as front. Section 10.03, Subd. 27 (C) (4) states that no more than two residences may be served via an access outlot (Outlot B) but applicant's plan has three units being served by Outlot B. The solution is to design a duplex with a separate access driveway coming off the road outlot, Outlot A. As drawn, this requires a variance. Hardcover for Lot 2 is now shown as 8% in the 75-250' zone where 25% would be allowed, and 36% in the 250-500' zone where 30% would be allowed. However, the 250-500' zone should be credited with unused hardcov^er allowance from the 75-250' zone, because an unused hardcover all •'jnce can be transferred to a zone further from the lake while still meeting the in- . the code. This is demonstrated below: Area of 75-250' zone in Lot 2 = 12,915 sf 25% * *>. . Proposed hardcover in 75-250' zones - 1,030 sf Excess available allowance = 3,229 sf - 1,030 sf = 2,149 sf (Credit to 250-500' zone) Total area of 250-500' zone in Lot 2 = 8,865 sf 30% = 2,660 sf Add credit f»om 75-250' zone: 2,660 sf + 2,149 sf = 4,809 sf Proposed 250-500' hardcover = 2,170 sf, which is ' :ss than 4,809 sf, hence the proposal should be considered as meeting the intent of the hardcover ordinance. Lot coverage bv structures was noti d to be excessive (22%) during the March 16 review. Applicant has reduced this to 3200 / 21,780 = 14.7%, meeting the 15% limit. #2340 - Rober & Iris Waade May 15, 1998 Page 5 Qlitlpf p does not meet the 30' width requirement and requires a variance, and use of Outlot B to serve as access to all three units does not meet code standards as noted above. At least one of the units must have its access other than Outlot B or a variance would be necessary. Also, Oultlot B does not extend to the defined rear (south) line of Lot 1, creating a 'flag' lot which requires a variance per Section 11.31 Subd. 5C. A is being platted as a 40' private road outlot, requiring a variance to the road width standard, but containing a 24' paved road which does meet the paved width standard. Outlot A currently contains a narrow' gravel driveway serving three residences to the east of this site, plus the garage for the adjacent house directly east of Outlot A. Since applicant does not control the remaining properties which would be served by the road, it may be unreasonable to force him to create a cul-de-sac, but it is reasonable in staffs opinion to require that a 24' paved road be constructed the length of Outlot A, and at the north end connect to the existing private driveway system. Note that in response to concerns raised by the neighboring property owner on March 16, the location of the road within Outlot A has been shifted to the west side of the Outlot, leaving a 17' setback to the adjacent garage structure. C is being provided at the reouest of Hennepin County Public Works for needed sight distance improvements and added right-of-way at this locafion. The hill along North Shore Drive needs to be cut down to provide adeq-iate sight distance. This excavation would be the responsibility of the developer. Grading & Drainage Plan A revised grading plan was submitted prior to the road relocation and twinhome size reduction, and does not reflect those changes. This most current grading plan has been reviewed by the City Engineer, and his comment: appear in Exhibit C, summarized as follows: 1. 2. If pond reaches overflow elevation (i.e. if normal outlet pipe is plugged or a huge storm hits) it will overflow eastward, affecting neighboring properties. This should (and probably can) be revised to avoid such routing. The grading plan reduces potential surface storm ponding for easterly lots, hence while total area draining to east is reduceu, its storage potential is also reduced. A greater coneem is that if stormwater from the east overflowed into this property prior to this development, it w-ill now be blocked. This issue needs further detailed review before the drainage plans can be approved. It is likely that an analysis of *he immediate watershed is necessary. #2340 - Robert & Iris Waade May 15,1998 Page 6 3.A revised grading and drainage plan reflecting the road and duplex changes should be submitted. Some pond outlet details are needed. Berm A berm approximately 2-3' above existing grades and 15' in width is proposed along the west lot line abutting Lakeside Marina. Applicant intends to plant trees or bushes atop this berm to provide screening from the marina. There have been some discussions between applicant and Lakeside regarding centering the berm on the lot line rather than east of it, which would also assist Lakeside in meeting the City's landscaping requirements for the marina; however, apparently no agreement has been reached. Utility impacts would have to be reviewed if this occurred. The berm will not have any appreciable effect on drainage to or from the marina. The berm is directly above an existing sewer trunk line, and the City will require an easement over the sewer if one is not already in effect. The berm and plantings will not impact the sewer, but applicant will be advised of the City's right to disturb it in order to access the sewer if necessary. Summary of Variances Needed and Issues to be Resolved Variances required: 1. Outlot B.a. Width of Outlot B (20' proposed, 30' req'd) b. Driveway setback in Lot B (O' proposed, 10' required) c. Outlot B does not extend to south line of Lot 1, creating a 'flag lot' (flag lots not allowed) d. Only 2 residences allowed to access from driveway outlot, 3 proposed 2. 'Outlot A. Proposed width = 40', required = 50' Determinations requiring confirmation: 1. Conclusion that stormwater pond can be credited toward 'extra 50%area' reqm't for back lot Determination that east line of Lot 2 is its front lot line, eliminating width variance for duplex 3. Reiterate that only Lot 1 has lake access. 4 r #2340 - Robert & Iris Waade May 15, 1998 Page 7 Issues to Resolve: I. 9 2. Need to revise grading and drainage plans to match changes to preliminary plat. Further study of how this development will impact neighboring drainage is required. Applicant's engineer. Public Services Director and City Engineer need to meet tc review this issue prior to Council action on preliminary plat. Need to address City Engineer's other comments in various review letters as part of final plat process. Staff Recommendation 1. The variances noted above are required regardless whether Lot 2 contains a single home or a duplex. These variances primarily relate to the size of the Outlets, and are a function of the site not having enough area to conform with the required standards. Planning Commission must make a recommendation as to whether the variances should be granted. In staffs opinion, the ne^ativ;> impacts of the specific required variances are relatively minor . 2* The CUP for the berm should be granted, subject to confirmation that a sewer easement is in effect. If something can be worked out between applicant and Lakeside, the City should allow the berm to be centered on the lot line. 3. The drainage issues seem to be a stumbling block, in that there appear to be potential impacts to offsite properties even though applicant can adequately deal with the runoff coming from the proposed development. Study is needed to resolve these concerns prior to preliminary plat approval bv Council. 4. This subdivision has been before the Planning Commission as a sketch plan in January, and reviewed as a formal plat proposal at the February and March meetings. Members of the public have been vocal in their opposition to the duplex concept (especially the rental aspect) even though the zoning code would allow a duplex at this location as a CUP, which is part of the request. Other than the Outlet variances which will be required whether or not Lot 2 contains a duplex, the proposal meets the CUP standards established in the code for allowing a duple.x, i.e. it's sew'ered and within 200 of a commercial property (Section 10.20, Subd. 31). Staff recommends approval of the duplex Staff recommends that Planning Commission make a recommendation based on the information at hand and forward this application to the City Council f"/r review. ^ i Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects May 15, 1998 Bonestroo. Rosene. Anderhk A<soci^tes. tnc is jm AffirmMtve Action Equal Opportunity Errpicycr Principals Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C. Anderlik. PE • M.irvin L Sorvald. PE • RfCh.ird E Tu'"*er. PE • C enn R Cook, PE • Robert G Schuntcht. PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene, PE and Susan M Fberim. C PA . Senior Consultants c-/ Associate Principals Howard A Sanford. PE • Keith A. Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfcfferic. PE • Richard W. Foster PE • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. Al A • Vark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K F»efd. PE • Kenneth P Anderson PE • Mark R. Rolfs. P£ • Sidney P VL’iliia.'nson. PE.. L S • Robert F Kotsmiih • Agnes M. Ring • Michael P Rau. PE • Allan Rick Schmdt. PE Offices St Paul. Rochester Willmar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. W Website www bonestroo com Mr. Michael P. Gaffiron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box tt Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re:Waade Subdivision File No. 139-2340 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the revised plat, revised grading plan and drainage calculations for the proposed two lot Waade subdivision. The site is located at 3280 and 3290 Northshore Drive (C.R. 51) east of Tonkawa Road (C.R. 135) in the southeast quarter of Section 8. We have the following comments in regards m engineering matters. 1. Access: Please see our March 19.1998 comments as they still apply. 2. Udlities: Please see our March 19, 1998 comments as they still apply. 3. Grading r.nd Drainage: The revised grading plan shows a proposed 932.0 contour along the east lot line of the pro| •ci ty nonlieast of the future twinhome. If the pond reaches the overflow elevation of 932.5 shown on the grading pi.'’... storm water will be reuted through this low area towards the existing properties located cast of the site. We '•rciniimenu that (he ^.lading plan be revised so that flows are directed northerly towards the lake away from the existing homes. The drainage urea map indicates that approximately 0.5 acres of the site that previously drained easterly 'wil! tiow flow northerly to the lake. This will reduce off-site flows onto the properties to the east but may compound any existing drainage problems east of the site. Storm water to the east of the site may reach greater depllis beewse there will be less area to pond after a rainfall. The City should review any existing drainage problems east of the subject property as the proposed sitf grading may limit or restrict any future drainage solutions. A recently submitted revised plat does show the access road shifted westerly away from the existing home as previously reouested. A revised grading plan showing proposed grading along the existing home and street should be submitied for review. The drainage calculations appear acceptable. The pond outlet should provide 1 foot of skimming for waiei uuality purposes. An cutlet structure detail should be provided for review. It is assumed that both homes will be slab-op-grade construction so that the proposed lowest floor elevations (935.0) will be more than •he teuu'.r’cd rranimun ’ of 2 feet above the pond HWT., (931.66). 4. Tlie recently submitted revised plat appears to correctly show the 20 foot utility easemenl ^ong the existing sariitci v sev.er on the west side of the loi. 5. Finuricict Guarantee: V/hen the olans h.ivc been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvetnc.it- to determine the amount of tne 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 /<T^ Yom Kellogg Greg Gappe, City ot Orono 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 ■ Fax; 612-636-1311 r 1/ I Bonestroo Rosene ^5 Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects March 19. 1998 Mr Michael P. Gaft'ron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Waadc Subdivision File No. 139-2340 Ponvitroo Roscnf. Anderhk As$OCf»ites tnc IS • \ffirmMivc Actton, £qud! Opportunity Emo^c. cr Principals Olto G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Ande»^fik. PE • Vp'vm L Sorv^Ki. PE • Rich.<rd E Turner. PJ • Gicnn R. Cook. PC • Robert G Schunicht PE • Jerry A Bourdon. PE • Robert W Rosene. PE and Susan M Eherim. C PA . Senior Consultants Associate Principals Hov/ard A Sanford PE • Keith A Gordon, PE • Robert R. Pfcfferl*'. PE • Richard W Foster. PE • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C RusseK. A I A • Mark A Hansen. PE. • Michae* T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. P£ • Sidney P Wiii.amson. PE. L S • Robert F Kotsmitn Offices St ®aul. Rochester. Wiiimar ,»nd S* Cloud MN • Milwaukee. M l r.tNO 9 0 We have reviewed the preliminary grading plan and revised plat for the proposed two lot Waade subdivision. The site is located at 3280 and 3290 Northshore Drive (C.R 51) east of Tonkawa Road (C.R. 135) in the southeast quarter of Section 8. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access: The width of Outlot A is shown at 40 feet where City code requires a minimum width of 50 feet. The driveway shown north of Outlot B should be paved to a minimum of 12 feet in width; the driveway is currently shown at 10 feet in v/idili. 'Hie pa\ ement south of the proposed house should be enlarged to allow for turning movements. Tlie fi;e department should review the plans and provide comments. 2. Utilities: Please see our J:inuary 30,1998 comments as they still apply. 3. GraJiiig: The proposed grading and erosion control plan shows a ponding area located south of the proposed fwinliome. 1 he gi.iJing pl.in also shows an emergency overflow elevation of 933.20. If the pond outlet becomes plugged and the water rises to this overtlow elevation, the existing homes east of the site will experience some flooding. We recommend revising the giading plan so that in the event of a plugged pond outlet the water will be directed away from homes and toward the lake. The proposed grading in the southeast comer of the site is within 3 feel of an existing home witli slopes exceeding 3:1 . We recommend that the grading plan be revised so that slopes do nvl exceed 3:1 and jading is minimized near any existing structures. 4. Dramage: Wc recommend that storm sewer be no smaller than 12-inches in diameter. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations showing pre and post development conditions should be submitted for review. 5. Ca'.-.ucib. !. .vpca-.a:!.? prc;?o:,ed utility easement shown along the west lot line docs not cover the existing sanitary sewer. An easement 20 feet wide centered on the existing sewer should be shown on the plat. 6- Financial Guarantee: Wlicn the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to detcrinme 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. /O-T^ loir .•'.eilogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City uf Orono 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 - Fax: 612-636-1311 FPOn : Potert Uaade ? H-ajo. . CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Costal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 PHOHE f JO. : bl2-47I’7bTI‘>'?y. 01 l'??S 09:29PM ZONING FILE #2329 NOTICE OF PLANNING C OMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: April 29, 1998 TO; Robert Woade 5240 Nolan Drive Minnetonka MN 55343 COPIES; TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 04/20/98 VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commissiun recommends the following: Twblcd for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled per applicant's request. The revised piellminnry grading and drainaffe plans for (lie proposed subdivision were received April 21. A copy of that plan and the drainage calculations submitted with have been forwarded to the City Engineer for review, Tlie next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 18, 1998 at 6:30 p.m. Any new information or revised propo.sals you wish to .submit for (hat meeting must be received by Monday, May 11. Stale Stoiule and City Code requires the City to re.ich n conclusioji on preliminary plats within 120 days of the preliminary plat application unless tliat applicant agrees in writing to an extension. TIic 120 day peiiod will end May 23, 1998. Tliereforc, jjlease <<ign a copy of this notice in the space at tli; bottom, agreeing to a 60-day extension to .July 23, 1998. and return or fax it to the City by Wednesday, May 16. If wc do not receive your approval fir the extension, thi.s iiein would be placed on the Council's May 11 agenda for formal denial. If you desire certified copies of the ofTicial Planning Commission minutes, they arc available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. I hereby agree to extending the preliminary sttbdivision review period bv 60 days to .Inly 2.t, 1998. s-/- (Signature)(Date) r TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P, Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator DATE:April 17,1998 SUBJECT: #2340 Robert and Iris Waade, 3280/3290 North Shore Drive - Preliminar>* Plat Review - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-lC-1, Single Family Lakcshore Residential, 1/2 acre, Sewered Total Site Area:1.503 acres Proposal: Two-lot residential plat to create a single family lakeshore lot and a duplex lot near the road. The lakeshore lot is a back lot and subject to the pertinent standards. List of Exhibits A - Revised preliminary plat drawing (?) NOT RECEIVED AS OF 4-17 2:00 PM B - Preliminary grading and drainage plan (?) NOT RECEIVED AS OF 4-17 2:00 PM C - City Engineer Comments 3-19-98 D - Resident Petition Submitted 3-16-98 E - Notice of Planning Commission Action 3-17-98 F - Staff concept sketch of PRD incorporating adjacent Dunn lo. G - Memo and Exhibits of 3-13-98 New Information Since March 16 Meeting Applicant submitted grading plans on March 12, too late for the City Engineer to review them piior to the March 16 meeting. The City Engineer reviewed those plans on March 19 (See Exhibit C) and his comments w^'re forwarded to the applicant on April 2. Staff met with the applicant on April 2 and discussed options including the possibility of doing a PPJD rather than the proposed standard plat; and how the plan might be revised if additional properties were added to the mix._ ., Applicant also noted he may choose to combine the lots and begin constructing a single reside.nce on the site this spring (if all 4 lots are combined the result will be a conforming building site) and take his chances with a subdivision in the future. Revised plans were expected to be submitted today, Friday, April 17, but are not in hand as of this writing, and neither staff nor the City Engineer have had sufficient opportunity to react to them if they are included in the packet. J r #2340 - Robert & Iris Waade April 17, 1998 Page 2 March 16 Meeting Recap At the March 16 Planning Commission meeting, the following occurred; A neighborhood group submitted a petition opposing the duplex use (Exhibit D) Planning Commission noted that the lot coverage for the duplex lot is at 22% but cannot exceed 15%. Applicant noted he could reduce it to meet 15%. - Planning Commission agreed to the concept of allowing the storm pond to be credited toward »be extra 50% acreage requirement for the back lot - Planning Commission agreed that the proposal meets the intent of the hardcover ordinance with no variance needed - Planning Commission expressed support for the site variances necessary- to develop two single family homes, but not necessarily those for a single plus a duplex New issues identified for applicant to address include proximity of road to neighboring homes; impacts on neighborhood drainage; and lack of time for review by City Engineer. Applicant requested tabling rather than a reco.mmendation of denial. Analysis of PRD Option - Benefits, Issues The option of a Planned Residential Development (PRD) was briefly discussed at the sketch plan stage but applicant chose to go the standard plat route. However, the need for variances and the neighborhood opposition to a rental situation have resulted in new discussions about doing this as a PRD. Developing the site as a PRD subjects it to restrictive Shoreland requirements, but may also result in some benefits. Possible Benefits of PRD Zoning performance standards are 'thrown out' in favor of a negotiation process; i.e. things that don't meet code are not considered as variances, but City has total ability to accept or reject all facets of the development, including aesthetic issues. Some flexibility in unit placement. I #2340 - Robert & Iris Waade April 17,1998 Page 3 Adding Dunn lot could yield a 4-unit townhome complex, with individual ownership of units and common open space; this makes rental units less likely than if a duplex was built. Layout could potentially be expanded in future if additional adjacent lots acquired. Road location flexibility gained since entire area can be used as density credit, hence road can avoid impacting Norum's house without causing lot area problem for subdivision. No need to re-route existing sewer. Possible Issues Shoreland "tiering" requirements likely result in a maximum of 4 units located at a setback of 200' from the shoreline, if Dunn lot is added, and if Council and Planning Commission conclude that "the residential lot size standard of the underlying (LR-lC-1) zoning district" (Section 10.56 Subd. 19F) is 3 units per acre. If it's concluded to be 2 units per acre, then adding Dunn's lot still results in only 3 total units allowed. Stormwater management is still an issue to be resolved All units will need to be attached, hence a separate single family home next to the lake will not be allowed No change in status of riparian access; code still only allows 1 unit to have lake rights Staff Recommendation Given the (again) lateness of submittals, staff is as of this writing unable to recommend anything concrete, other than: - Applicant needs to address all issues raised by City Engineer as well as issues raised at the March 16 meeting. - If new plans are submitted for a PRD concept, we should treat this as an extended Sketch Plan review - Since this subdivision was initially submitted on January 23, the City has until May 23 to act on the preliminary subdivision application. If the item is tabled by Plaruiing Commission, applicant should be advised that he must agree in writing to extend the review period; without such extension, the application would have to be forwarded to the Council's May 11 meeting for denial. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Ciystal Bav, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2340 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: March 17, 1998 TO:Robert Waade 1006 Wildhurst Trail Mound, MN 55364 COPIES TO:Janie.s McKinnon 1055 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 DeMars-Gabriel Surveyors ATTN: Russ 3030 Harbor Lane Plymouth, MN 55441 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Preliminary Subdivision/Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: 3/16/98 VOTE:4 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Petition submitted by resident group (copy attached). Planning Commission identified as an additional issue not identified in staff report that the proposed duplex structure constitutes a lot coverage excess (22% oroDosed 15% allowed). ’ Applicant indicated a willingness to reduce the size of the duplex building to be in conformity. Plarming Commission members indicated support for crediting the area of stormwater pond toward the "extra 50% area requirement" for the back (lakeshore) lot. Planmng Commission concluded that the intent of the hardcover ordinance is met by the current plan with no variance needed. Planning Commission members generally expressed support for the site variances necessary if the south lot was to be a single family dwelling, but not if it is to be a duplex. Given the choice of a denial recommendation for the current proposal with duplex or tabling so he could consider his options, applicant requested tabling. Additional new issues identified related to the grading and drainage plan received 3/12/98 include: Proximity of proposed road to neighbor's home, impact of grade changes. - Impact on neighborhood drainage pattern. - Note thf/. City Engineer has not had time to review the plan. J Planning Commission Action Notice March 17,1998 Page 2 \pplicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission Monday, April 20, 1998; meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Applicant is advised that due to the request to table, the 60-day period mandated by State statute for review of zoning applications is hereby extended an additional 60 days to May 23, 1998. X:\APPS\WPWIN60\WPDOCS\CAROLE\PCACTION\2340 ► 'O-i^A'i-i' TO sr-it/t' 4-'7 C.'^T ^ p^/a. ;r>t^’n,\/i.'ii • pC^'PC ClL-T/^f'-'-'' ‘*4>rt>r?^ jTl i(MMr/i''>J^ • f^o ^.t?-*'* a ’Tf fiz^fio^'^- r^Ci, 'l- / V 101'- l/PKC • 0.31 'J. . GARDEN AREA , \ -9 • ' r ' '''' I'^ROPOSCO HOUSE N m\ \ 30 y. 342. J>S ~ -/-*- '-1M I- pftOfOSGO ^ ^ CourouR 7\ / " \ C6l/Or, AJ <5-'?C ' &yS’’2-^ A' 't>^‘"^*-* •T>'-;^<rJ>»V>>^<j Pin i '.. ^ I-...Vl. ■|!|\, h-v=.' Cr^^T V «' !.• \ >Rn«A/cnO sjf H 1 Xj.S^o r“ •f ' ro^ y 50.0 i\ V' M' f cS:?> A .^^7, ^'g><y»<r/~n / A. f/l ( '\- V >-; N \ \ .'O /HATCU Et. Ovuy. /) - 7 ^. u '■l-p ,4^ , C] / s't) 'J• X. - 2%Hro rS, J CO <2-- >c t«iM,.» /-c 7*<\ TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. GafTron, Senior Planning Coordinator March 13, 1998 SUBJECT: #2340 Robert and Iris \\ .jjfde, 3280/3290 North Shore Drive - Preliminary Plat Review - Continuation of Pu» 5:c Hearing X. ••X. Zoning District: LR-1 C*1, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre. Sewered Total Site Area:1.503 acres Proposal: Two-lot residential plat to create a single family lakeshore lot and a duplex lot near the road. The lakeshore lot is a back lot and subject to the pertinent standards. List of Exhibits A - Revised preliminary plat drawing B - Preliminary grading and drainage plan C - Notice of Planning Commission Action ca. 3-1 -98 D - Memo and Exhibits of 2-12-98 Revisions Since February Meeting Applicant has revised plans and provided addditional information as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. Incorporated stormwater rate control pond within the proposed lakeshore lot, and provided a preliminaiy’ grading and drainage plan. Provided Outlot C for dedication for County Road 51 right-of-way. Reduced private road outlot (Outlot A) to 40 ’ width from 50' standard, incorporating a 24' paved road to serve 7 dwellings, such pavement being about 10' from the adjacent residence structure to the east which is only 3' off the lot line. Reduced private driveway outlot (Outlot B) to 20' width from 30' standard, and ended it before it reaches the widened-out portion of the lakeshore lot (this constitutes two variances to the back lot ordinance). File #2340 March 13, 1998 Page 2 Provided revised hardcover calculations reflecting twinhome moved further south, slightly nearer the County Road, and reflecting revised lot areas due to lot line revisions. 6. 7. Showed a proposed berm along the west lot line as a buffer to Lakeside Marina, This berm is over the existing City sewer lines/easement and reflects grade changes within 5' of a lot line which requires a conditional use permit. The 55' X 35' stormwater pond has not been excluded from the area of the lakeshore lot. When excluded, this leaves the lakeshore lot at 0.748 acres, just a tad under the 0.75 acre back lot standard. Getting it this close was only accomplished by the substandard width and length of the driveway outlot and substandard width of the private road outlot. Revised Plan Conformity to Lot Standards Lpt.lL is a lakeshore lot that is proposed for a single family residence. As a back lot: - It nearly meets the " 150% of 1/2 acre" back lot standard when the stormwater pond casement is excluded (0.75 acres required, 0.748 acre proposed). It meets the LR-1C-1 100' width minimum (124'at the shoreline, at the 75'setback line, and at the street yard setback). It meets the required 45' street yard depth (150% of the 30' LR-1C-1 standard). It meets the required 15' side yard depth (150% of the 10' LR-1 C-1 standard). - It meets the required lake setback of 75'. Average setback is not an issue, since the proposed residence is further from the lake than the residence to the east, and there is no residence to the west. 'ITie access outlot (Outlot B) at a 20' width requires a variance to the 30' minimum width requirement; the driveway meets the required 1 O' setback from the east lot line per Section 10.03, Subd 27 (C) (3), but requires a variance because it is up against the lot line of the front lot. At least 5' is normally needed to provide for snow storage, etc. File #2340 March 13, 1998 Page 3 Hardcover for Lot 1 is proposed at just under the 25% limit in the 75-250' zone and at 25% in the small portion in the 250-500' zone; but the narrow driveway proposal still has a minimal apron at the garage wliich may be difficult to maneuver, suggesting that at final site planning a more flexible layout may be desired. ^ technically a front lot" and in this case is proposed for construction of a duplex, i.e. a single building with two dwelling units, on a single lot. Under Orono's ordinances this duplex lot could not be split to have two separate owners. The result is that at least one of the units will be a rental, and/or possibly both w'ill be rental. Regarding lot standards: Lot 2 meets the 0.5 acre minimum lot size required for a non-riparian duplex lot, the same standard applicable for a single family lot. Lot 2 meets the 135 ’ minimum width for a duplex (shoreland ordinance requirements) if measured along the east frontage of Lot 2 abutting Outlot A. {The Zoning Code identifies the shortest side of a corner lot such as this, as the 'front*. However, in this case the side abutting Outlot A will function as the front lut line and if the line abutting Outlot A is formally defined as the front lot line by City action, the lot could be considered as conforming in width for a duplex lot. The intrusion of the MWCC lift station into the site suggests that this would be an appropriate conclusion, given the impacts that intrusion has on the building envel 'ne for this site). The duplex proposed for Lot 2 meets the 15' required depth of the side yard adjacent to the back lot access outlot (Outlot B). The 10 side and 30' rear yards are correctly shown on the drawings assuming the east lot line is defined as front. Section 10.03, Subd. 27 (C) (4) states that no more than two residences may be serv'ed via an access outlot (Outlot B) but applicant's plan has three units being served by Outlot B. The solution is to design a duplex w'ith a separate access driveway coming off the road outlot, Outlot A. As drawn, tliis requires a variance. Hardcover for Lot 2 is now shown as 14% in the 75-250 ’ zone where 25% would be allow'ed, and 45% in the 250-500' zone where 30% w'ould be allowed. However, the 250-500 ’ zone should be credited with unused hardcover allowance from the 75-250' zone, because an unu.sed hardcover allowance can be transferred to a zone further from the lake while still meeting the intent of the code. This is demonstrated below: File ^'2340 March 13, 1998 Page 4 Area of 75-250' zone in Lot 2 = 12,915 sf 25%=3,229 sf Proposed hardcover in 75-250’ zones = 1,830 sf Excess available allowance = 3,229 sf - 1,830 sf = 1,399 sf (Credit to 250-500' zone) Total area of 250-500 ’ zone in Lot 2 = 8,865 sf 30% = 2,660 sf Add credit from 75-250’ zone: 2,660 sf + 1,399 sf = 4,059 sf Proposed 250-500 ’ hardcover = 3,970 sf, which is less than 4,059 sf, hence the proposal should be considered as meeting the intent of the hardcover ordinance. Qutl.ot 3 doss not meet the 30' width requirement and requires a variance, and use of Outlot B to seiwe as access to all three units does not meet code standards as noted above. At least one of the umts must have its access other than Outlot B or a variance would be necessar>'. ^ being platted as a 40’ private road outlot, requiring a variance to the road width standard, but containing a 24' paved road which does meet the paved width standard. Outlot A currently contains a narrow gravel driveway serving three residences to the east of this site, plus the garage for the adjacent house directly east of Outlot A. Since applicant does not control the remaining properties which would be served by the road, it may be unreasonable to force him to create a cul-de- sac, but it is reasonable in staffs opinion to require that a 24' paved road be constructed the length of Outlot A, and at the north end connect to the existing private driveway system. Dutlpl C is being provided at the request of Hennepin County Public Works for needed sight distance improvements and added righi-of -way at this location. The hill along North Shore Drive needs to be cut down to provide adequate sight distance. This excavation would be the responsibility of the developer. General Comments and Issues 1. 3. Both proposed buildings appear to avoid existing sewer lines by at least 15'. The survey must show all utility easements of record; no existing easements are shown on the current preliminary plat drawing. This group of four properties previously contained a total of three residences and was fully assessed for municipal sewer in 1963-64. No additional connection charges are required. The property has three SAC units credited from demolition of the pre-existing homes, hence no SAC charges will be required. Existing sewer stubs are available to serve all three proposed units. The site will be served with private wells. File #2340 March 13, 1998 Page 5 3.The Orono Trail System Plan includes a corridor along North Shore Drive. The Park Commission reviewed this plat on February 2 and recommended a cash dedication, noting that it appears sufficient right-of-way exists for any future trails along the County Road. Riparian Access Issue (See discussion in the Febnuary 12 memo) Only the lakeshore lot will have legal riparian access under City ordinances. Stormwater Ponding The preliminary drainage and grading plan was received late on March 12 and has yet to be reviewed by the City engineer. The City normally excludes the area of required stormwater ponding from the area calculation of individual lots, per Subdivision Code Section 11.41, Subdivision B (4). When the 35 ’ x 55' pond is excluded, the area of Lot 1 is very slightly under 0.75 acre. The City normally excludes stormwater ponds from calculable lot acreage. However, the City did allow wetland acreage to be used for the 'extra 50%' acreage requirement for unsewered back lots in the Old Crystal Bay Road Addition. Does Planning Commission feel that the goals of the back lot ordinance are met by crediting storm pond acreage toward the excess 50% area? Issues for Discussion 1. 2. 3. 4. Does Planning Commission support the concept that the lot line abutting the private road outlot, Outlot A, can be the front lot line, thereby making Lot 2 a conforming duplex lot? If not, w'll Planning Commission grant a lot width variance for the duplex lot? Will Planning Commission in favor of establishing a policy that stormwater ponding can be credited toward the 'extra 50% area’ required for a back lot?0^ Does Planning Commission concur that applicant should be responsible for constructing a 24' pa\ ed road the entire length of Outlot A, and granting easements over such road to all property owners that will make use of it? Does Planning Commission agree that this should be a private road, and not public? 0\^ 0\^ Will Planning Commission recommend approval of the width and length variances associated with Outlets A and B? ^ File #2340 March 13, 1998 Page 6 6. 7. Will Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to allow the driveway outlot to ser\'e three total dwellings?^/2o6^£^uy Does Planning Commission have any other cor^ems regarding access to this property or to adjacent properties? ~ Since the proposal for a duplex on Lot 2 appears to meet all the Conditional Use Permit standards listed in the code, does Planning Commission have any additional concerns or wish to place additional limitations on the use of Lot 2 for a duplex? 7. 8. 9. Does Planning Commission find any justification to grant special approval for lake access for the proposed duplex units? ^ q Will Planning Commission recommend approval of a CUP for land alterations to create a ^ berm within 5' of the lot line as part of this subdivision proposal? yvwtST" Does Planning Commission concur with staff that crediting unused 75-250' hardcover toward ^ the 250'-500' zone meets the intent of the hardcover ordinance without the need for a ^ variance? TO /JT/C staffR«ommenda«on >^0^/ Planning Commission should address each of the 9 issues noted above in any recommendation. If the conclusion is that the subdivision should be recommended for approval with certain variances and conditions of approval, staff would recommmend the following additional conditions:: 1. City Engineer to review preliminary grading and drainage plan prior to Council review. 2. Applicant shall construct a 24' paved width road within Outlot A and grant easements to all property owners who will make use of that road. 3.Applicant shall be responsible for making whatever changes are necessary to the grades adjacent to North Shore Drive to improve sight distance. The duplex lot shall not have riparian access, and the City shall require the filing of covenants in the chain of title of Lot 2, to document that Lot 2 shall have no access to the lake. Subject to the standard park dedication fee. IP \ • • y / y i / / • r ' ' / / .'e‘4^• ( 1: >■ V \ •> 1V ( /J \ GARDEN AREA V. / \ ;rPROPOSE0 HOUSE ;iw^y.' —~r 14^ LV V I 9J1.2J / X vj;’- / 55.0 7. m # 4 / - i\ .'b'^ / »f* * / m • i *i| ^ i mmmmmmammmmmtmmrnim ^9 • %9 % mm m rv »* l« ! 5 *%. *0 %•^i^ I \ f yf V / ; V . ; / h^sr ., • t ^ ^ ' a'*.A c;h%J \ ,1 / . ?ite / / r .V .,S \ \ - i* 4^7*2)t/, /\ ^UTLOT \o^ . 'i Vv ^i •i // / / •*H.. I y C , { ****^-. • VVO UL. /«ATCV« et. ovoi. JKff •IMiM Mitit ^I5IiT5njT*DW wra M»T«[tnimiE [•TiHmfW TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator February 12,1998 SUBJECT: #2340 Robert and Iris Waade, 3280/3290 North Shore Drive - Preliminary Plat Review - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-lC-1, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre. Sewered Total Site Area:1.503 acres. Proposal:Two-lot residential plat to create a single family lakeshore lot and a duplex lot near the road. The lakeshore lot is a back lot and subject to the pertinent standards. Per the sketch plan review, a 50' private road corridor is being platted, since the road will serve up to 7 total dwellings. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List v D - Survey/Proposed Site Plan E - Staff Sketch of Building Envelope and Hardcover Zones F - MCWD Comments 2/4/98 G - Hennepin County Public Works Comments (Not rcvd. as of 2/13) \{fS- Memo and Exhibits of January 13,1998 (Sketch Plan Review) Background This property is zoned LR-lC-1, which would allow a planned residential development (PRD) for attached dwellings as a Conditional Use Permit. Under the LR-lC-1 standards, with .a density allowance of three units per acre, the site could potentially accommodate up to four attached dwelling units. However, the PUD standards of the Shoreiand ordinance would severely limit the potential dwelling locations and still only allow three or four units on the site depending on an interpretation of the ordinance. As a result, applicant is not proposing this as a PRD. He is proposing a standard front lot/back lot plat to create a single family lakeshore back lot meeting 150% of the lot area and setback standards; and a front lot adjacent to the road for construction of a duplex. The duplex would be an allowed use because the site is within 200' of the B-2 Commercial Zoning District. File #2340 February 3, 1998 Page 2 Please review the sketch plan memo of January 13,1998 for discussion of: a.The context of this site in relation to its surrounding uses. b. More discussion about shoreland regulation implications and duplex credit implications, and back lot considerations. The applicant has proposed a revised plan since the sketch plan stage. The new plan is nearly identical to staffs Exhibit F-1 of the sketch plan review, and results in a proposal with few if any variances required. i , Conformity to Lot Standards Lot 1 is a lakeshore lot that is proposed for a single family residence (see Exhibit D). As a back lot: It meets the'' 150% of 1/2 acre” back lot standard (0.75 acres proposed). It meets the LR-1C-1 100 ’ width minimum (124* at the shoreline, at the 75' setback line, and at the street yard setback). - It meets the required 45' street yard depth (150% of the 30' LR-1 C-1 standard). - It meets the required 15' side yard depth (150% of the 10' LR-lC-1 standard). - It meets the required lake setback of 75'. Average setback is not an issue, since the proposed residence is further from the l^e than the residence to the east, and there is no residence to the west. The access outlot (Outlot B) meets the 30 ’ minimum width requirement, and the driveway meets the required 10' setback from the east lot line per Section 10.03, Subd 27 (C) (3). This is to provide for snow storage, etc. as well as separation from the neighboring house which is only 5' from the lot line. - Hardcover for Lot 1 is proposed at just under the 25% limit in the 75-250 zone and just under the 30% limit in the small portion in the 250-500 ’ zone; but the narrow driveway proposal with minimal apron may be difficult to maneuver, which suggests that at final site planning a more flexible layout may be desired. File #2340 February 3,1998 Page 3 Lq^ is technically a "front lot" and in this case is proposed for construction of a duplex, i.e. a single building with two dwelling units, on a single lot. Under Orono's ordinances this duplex lot could not be split to have two separate owners. The result is that at least one of the units will be a rental, and/or possibly both will be rental. Regarding lot standards: - Lot 2 meets the 0.5 acre minimum lot size required (Note that the duplex CUP Ordinance, Section 10.20, Subd. 3 (I), does not require additional lot area for a duplex: and Shoreland Ordinance Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (A) (1) requires area minimum of 17,500 sf (0.40 acre) for a duplex within 1,000' of a general development lake if not riparian, or 26.000 s.f. CO. 60 acre) if riparian This duplex lot does not meet the area standard for being riparian, i.e. this b a factor to account for in to determining whether the duplex lot could have lake access). Lot 2 meets the 135' minimum width for a duplex (shoreland ordinance requirements) as measured along the east frontage of Lot 2 abutting Outlot A. {The Zoning Code identifies the shortest side of a corner lot such as this, as the 'front'. However, in this case the side abutting Outlot A willfiinction as the front lot line and if the line abutting Outlot A is formally defined as the front lot line by City action, the lot could be considered as conforming in width for a duplex lot. The intrusion of the MWCC lift station into the site suggests that this would be an appropriate conclusion, given the impacts that intrusion has on the building envelope for this site). The duplex proposed for Lot 2 meets the 15' required depth of the side yard adjacent to the back lot access outlot (Outlot B), i.e. equal to the "side street yard" setback for the district, which in LR-lC-1 is 15'. The side and rear yards are correctly shown on the drawings (also see staff sketch. Exhibit E). - Section 10.03, Subd. 27 (C) (4) states that no more than two residences may be served via an access outlot (Outlot B) but applicant's plan has three units being served by Outlot B. The solution is to design a duplex with a separate access driveway coming off the road outlot, Outlot A. Hardcover for Lot 2 is shown as 7.3% in the 75-250' zone where 25% would be allowed, and 50% in the 250-500' zone where 30% would be allowed. However, the 250-500' zone should be credited with unused hardcover allowance from the 75-250' zone, because an unused hardcover allowance can be transferred to a zone further from the lake while still meeting the intent of the code. This is demonstrated below; File #2340 February 3,1998 Page 4 Total area of 75-250' zones in Lot 2 = 532 sf + 12,248 sf = 12,780 sf 25%-3,195 sf Sfav^rau ™ ^ sf (CsedU «o 250-500' zone) Total area of 250-500' zone in Lot 2 = 9,000 sf 30% = 2,700 sf Add credit from 75-250'zone: 2,700 sf+2,295 sf= 4,995 sf Cored 250-500' hardcover = 4,500 sf, which is less than 4,995 sf hence the proposal should be considered as meeting the intent of the hardcover ordinance. Outlot B meets the 30' width tequireraent; however, use of Outlot B to serve as access to all three Site^es not meet code standards as noted above. At least one of the umts must have its Other than Outlot B or a variance would be necessary. 0„tlnt A is being plaited as a private road. Outlot A currently contains a narrow gravel dnyeway Of Outlot A The City Engineer has correctly noted that the City's road stanaara app icamc lu A C 24 pC wTdth for up to seven units. Since applicant does not control the remammg properties whicii would be served b; sac, but it is reasonable in staffs opinion to require tn< „roCesv£7w::M it may be unreasonable to force him to create a cul-de- Hennepin County Public Works viewed the proposed private road Januar^ The hill along North Shore Drive needs to be cut down to provide adeqmte sigh *sUnc-^ This excavation would occur potentially within the County road nght-of-way ^d within Lot 2. ^*e res^Sility of the devdoper. Hennepin County's written comments had not been received as of this writing. General Comments and Issues 1 No Etading or drainage plans for the site has been submitted, but is requited, -me Ci^ ■ Engfnrer hL iked JstLwater ponding for this site, although MCWD has considered it to be exempt due to the size of the site 2.Both proposed buildings appear to avoid existing sewer lines by at least 15'. The survey must STurility JcJL of record-, no easement are shown on die current prehmin^. plat drawing. File #2340 February 3,1998 Page 5 3. This group of four properties previously contained a total of three residences and was fully assessed for municipal sewer in 1963-64. No additional connection charges are required. The property has three SAC units credited from demolition of the pre-existing homes, hence no SAC charges will be required. Existing sewer stubs are available to serve all three proposed units. The site will be served with private wells. 4. The Orono Trail System Plan includes a corridor along North Shore Drive. The Park Commission reviewed this plat on February 2 and recommended a cash dedication, noting that it appears sufficient right-of-way exists for any future trails along the County Road. Regarding the need for additional right-of-way for the County Road, Hennepin County comments have yet to be received. Riparian Access Issue Lot 1 abuts the lakeshore, with approximately 124' of shoreline. Lot 2 does not abut the lakeshore. Under the City’s code standards, only Lot 1 may have lake access. The applicant initially requested that the City consider whether the duplexc units on Lot 2 might gain access to the lake, via a joint use dock, an easement, or some other method. The City has a long history of denying such access for lots which do not abut the lake. In fact, the ordinances disallow subdivisions to create lakeshore lots which have less than the required width at the shoreline. Therefore, creation of an access corridor along one side of Lot 1 in favor of Lot 2 would not be allowed, regardless whether such access was via an extended leg of Lot 1, an outlot, or an easement. The classic case of this is the "Chapman Addition" on Shadywood Road near the Narrows, where a front lot/ back lot subdivision was created in the early 1980's. The City represented to the applicants during the subdivision process that the non-lakeshore lot would not have lake access, and then the property owner a few years later created an easement for the non-riparian lot to gain lake access. When the City eventually learned of this during a sale of the non-lakeshore lot, the City sued to have the easement declared invalid, but lost, because the court found there was inadequate documentation to prove that the easement was not valid, but did not get into the issue oT whether it was in conformity with Orono's ordinances. The Shoreland Ordinance Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (B) 2, specifically states: "the number of inland non-riparian lots which may gain access via (an) outlot shall not exceed the number obtained by dividing the outlot width measured at the shoreline by the required lot width, rounding down to the nearest whole number." If an outlot intending to create an access corridor to the lake was platted at a vridth of 20', 20' divided by 100' rounded down, still equals zero, i.e. no non-riparian lots could gain access. And, the width of such an outlot could be no more then 24' while still allowing the lakeshore ripanan lot to meet the File #2340 February 3, 1998 Page 6 100' width standard. In staffs opinion the code does not in any way support nor allow the creation of lake access for the proposed duplex lot. If this had been proposed as a PRD, the Shoreland ordinances note that "the allowable number of dock slips or moorings in the designation of which dwelling units or sites will have the right to use those slips or moorings shall be subject to Council approval and shall be defined in the covenants governing the PRD. In no case shall the number of slips or moorings exceed the number of allowed under the official controls of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. All docks serving three or more dwelling units shall be ^lyect to the joint use dock licensing requirements in Chapter 5 of the Orono Municipal However, applicant is not proposing this as a PRD and therefore it would be inconsistent with past City practice and policy to allow non-riparian lots to gain lake access at a density greater than one dwelling unit per minimum lot width increment of the Zoning District. Notwithstanding the above general discussion, applicant has noted that providing a single slip for each of the three dwelling units on the property, would perhaps have less impact than the possibly four slips that might be created to serve just the lakeshore lot. It is staffs understanding that a four slip dock would generally be allowed by LMCD on this site, as long as all four boats were licensed to the owner/occupant of the lakeshore lot. Stormwater Ponding The City normally excludes the area of required stormwater ponding from the area calculation of individual lots, per Subdivision Code Section 11.41, Subdivision B (4). The current proposal has just the bare minimum acreage in each of the two lots, and creation of stormwater ponding and the subsequent exclusion of the pond area from lot area calculations, will result in the need for lot area variances. The MCWD has indicated the site is small enough to be exempt from their ponding requirements. Since applicant has not submitted a grading and drainage plan nor plans for stormwater ponds, the impact of such facilities remains to be seen. However, it is likely that a lot area variance could be needed once such facilities are defined. The topography of the site indicates that most of the runoff from the private road and new homes would be to Maxwell Bay. This is also true of the runoff from the other homes to the east. A joint pond might be possible someday. Of greater concern is the runoff from the nearby marinas which are in the 90% hardcover range and which have no ponding facilities currently. File #2340 February 3,1998 Page 7 Issues for Discussion 1. Is there any reason why applicant should not provide the normal grading and drainage plans? Should a stormwater pond be required? 2. Does Plaiming Commission support the concept that the lot line abutting the private road outlot, Outlot A, can be the front lot line, therefore, making Lot 2 a conforming duplex lot? 3. Does Planning Commission concur that applicant should be responsible for constructing a 24' paved road the entire length of Outlot A, and granting easements over such road to all . property owners that will make use of it? Does Planning Commission agree that this should be a private road, and not public? 4. Since the proposal for a duplex on Lot 2 appears to meet all the Conditional Use Permit standards listed in the code, does Planning Commission have any additional concerns or wish to place additional limitations on the use of Lot 2 for a duplex? 5. Does Planning Commission have any other concerns regarding access to this property or to adjacent properties? 6. Does Planning Commission find any justification to grant special approval for lake access for the proposed duplex units? Staff Recommendation Although the proposed plan appears to meet most pertinent code standards, the lack of a grading and drainage plan and it's potential effect on lot areas, makes it difficult to reach a conclusion on this subdivision. Applicant was advised of the need for a grading/drainage/stormwater plan on February 3. Pending receipt of such a plan, staff recommends as follows: 1 . Approval of the conceptual front lot, back lot layout. 2. Designation of the east line of Lot 2 abutting Outlot A, as Lot 2's front line, making its frontage along North Shore Drive its side street lot line. 3. Applicant must provide a grading/drainage/stormwater plan prior to further Planning Commission review. 4. Applicant's surveyor shall re-calculate hardcover zones based on corrected zone definitions. File #2340 February 3, 1998 Page 8 5. Applicant shall construct a 24' paved width road within Outlot A and grant easements to all property owners who will make use of that road. 6. Applicant shall be responsible for making whatever changes are necessary to the grades adjacent to North Shore Drive to improve sight distance. 7. No variances will be granted for lot area/lot width/hardcover/setbacks. 8. The duplex lot shall not have riparian access, and the City shall require the filing of covenants in the chain of title of Lot 2, to document that Lot 2 shall have no access to the lake. 9. No more tht^p two total dwelling units may gain access via Outlot B, hence the driveway layout for the duplex must be revised. Pending receipt of a stormwater plan and knowing how it will impact the site, staff recommends tabling this application until the stormwater plan and revised hardcover calculations have been submitted. Options of Action 1. Table per staffs recommendation. 2. Recommend conceptual approval, send this along to Council after required submittals have been received. 3. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 4. Other. mm, f- o o ;..-yf". j ■<-srS- CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Sileaddress 7a -p//^:fXA Application# Z-ZUO f'n ^ Date Received A^3 g> Amount Paid ^BsrD A-I Property Identification Number (PID) Please check one - Property ____abstract or_____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT ^ Name PMk%% /(ji/i'C Phoneniomel aV ?> City ^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Zip^$^ Phone (work) Address City __Zip (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Phone (home) Phone (work) Number of Tax Parcels Development Size / .Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present use (check)v/Residential; no. of units f / Other (specify) Present Zoning District LrC-IC-l PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes _________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) xT Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Existing Units New Units Total Units 7^ A/ x: Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_________ MINIMUM \UTERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELLMLNARY APPLICATION 1. Pa>Tnent 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' (> ou must obtain this list fi-om 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 OfTicial's Signature _____________________________________ Date ________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if sppicable). 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 X Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class 111 & 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 Totals wo _____ 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 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) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.;___ _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal 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 Fecs/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/DwelIing Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. ^ Applicant's Signatu Date Owner's Signature _Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City’ Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. J r .1L 1 I \ I ‘ J V-, / .. -■ >'■•'r .. J Application if <^3^0 pTT 2 ^ Date Received /-i? *!>- 9g> ^ Amount Paid ^ 2-or>*^ ^ Z- CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION _ Site Address Type of Application to be Filed___________________________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^ 'v' APPLICANT, Phone (home) ^7^ Name Phone (work) Address/^/::^^ City Zip OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (\vork)_ Address City Zip. Date Property Acquired I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 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 _____SI50.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____S350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule (month/year) PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY , -fc-lPresent Zoning District /-A Present Use of Property ^Residential Other (specify). REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Describe request in detail. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. 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). v/ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer tc handout for survey information. vX Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ____Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). ____ 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). ____ Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ____ 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 tliat your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: Date _____ ___ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee pa)rment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signat 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 for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. r FROM : Robert 1-153 Je S. Assoc.PHONE NO. : 6124727652 Jan. 23 1993 Q4:49PN POl f ♦ ^ ' AiW. rr>Ao&- Od^?id iTWPi' ^1^0 ^' MHmi ]yd(2.adjLj PioEm w OLOiUh/ '^(Lpn u/t oajlj> pctAA/^MU^^ . ’ d/iyic^ ^Pki'pinnu,, /O^S S’ - ph\ (p7Sr~lS(^ •»>« ^ RIW DATE 10/24/97 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 24BATCH 507PROP ADOR ONT4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAMF/AODR 38 08-117-23 44 000903265 BOHNS POINT LA E J MC DONALD/C J MC DONALD EDGAR A CONSTANCE MC DONALD 3265 BOHNS POINT LANE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 001003225 BOHNS POINT LA H A V SWEATT HENRY L SWEATT 3225 BOHNS POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 001100038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JOSEPH J A MARY K DOOLir^G RICHARD D ALLEN 3220 BOHNS POINT LANE WAYZATA MN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 08-117-23 44 0018 03280 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155-4030 38 08-117-23 44 0019 03270 NORTH SHORE DR METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM METRO WASTE CONTROL COMM HEARS PARK CENTRE 230 E 5TH ST ST PAUL m 55101 TOTAL BATCH 507 00023 i J ■..-•-’•is- Vr«.- 'fi T "i rrj G I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATI(»4 OF INFORMATION ^ IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY O' •''TMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST % OF MY KN0NLED6E AND BEL DATE RUN DATE 10/2^/97 t h k BATCH 507 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOr*' PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 08-117-23 41 0004 03224 NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE MARINA INC NORTH SHORE MARINA INC 3222 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0007 03280 NORTH SHORE DR J TORBERG DANIEL J TORBERG NORTH SHORE DR NAvrAVA MN 55391 -0 08-117-23 41 0010 03290 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 UFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155-4030 38 08-117-23 41 0013 C3332 NORTH SHORE DR STATE OF MN DNR - REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155 38 08-117-23 44 0001 03264 NORTH SHORE DR RUSSELL A NORUM RUSSELL A NORUM 3264 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 0006 03220 BOHNS POINT LA * R A S ALLEN RICHARD D ALLEN 3220 BOHNS POINT LANE HAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST38 08-117-23 41 0005 03240 NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE MARINA INC NORTH SHORE MARINA INC 3222 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA MN 55301 38 08-117-23 41 0008 03262 NORTH SHORE Dk LAURA ZAUNER LAURA ZAUNER 3262 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0011 03286 IK)RTH SHORE DR STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL MN 55155-4030 38 08-117-23 41 0020 03342 NORTH SHORE OR STATE OF MINNESOTA DNR - REAL ESTATE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL Mf4 55155 38 08-117-23 44 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF MimESOTA DNR - REAL ES^taTE MGT ATTN TAX SPECIALIST 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155 38 08-117-23 44 0007 03230 BOHNS POINT LA 0 F 3 J A DALVEY DAVID F DALVEY 3250 BOHNS POINT LA HAYZATA m H5391 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 2338 08-117-23 41 0006 03250 NORTH SHORE DR NORTH SHORE MARINA INC NORTH SHORE MARINA INC 3222 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0009 03268 NORTH SHORE OR ROT4ALD 0 STAUFFER JAMES J DUNN 3324 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA MN 55391 '.^-117-23 41 0012 03324 NORTH SHORE OR MINt4ETONKA PROPERTIES INC JAMES J DUNN 3324 NORTH SHORE DR OROm MN 55391 38 08-117-23 41 0021 03324 NORTH SHORE DR MI!4f<ETONKA PROPERTIES It4C JAMES J DUNN 3324 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 0005 03300 NORTH SHORE OR MINNETONKA PROPERTIES INC JAMES J DUNT4 3324 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 38 08-117-23 44 0008 03260 BOHNS POINT LA F E CHURCHILL & L CHURCHILL F E CHURCHILL A L CHURCHILL 3260 BOHN'S POINT LA HAYZATA MN 55391 f•i • i \ 1 PRELIMf^ MAXWELL DCMAU-OAIllCL LAND IClVCYOtS. INC. y'(P* ^ r K7 I FPOM : Robert Uaacie Z h?.joc.PI-OIE no. : bl54727b':-2 Minnehaha Creek r-"Feb. 0? i?-?3 02:49PI I POi. Watershed llisiriit Gray Froshwater Canter Hv.vs. 15 & 19, Navarre Malt: 2500 Shadywood Road Fxwlslor. MN 55331-9578 'Hone: (612) 471-0590 tax; (612) 471-0682 email: adrriln®rpinnehdliacroak.org We!) Site; ivwvv.niinnel-ahacrcek org J' ^ iftiprovingQuality of \V(Uer, Quality of Life Prr^'- P Board 0l Managers: john E. Thomas Pf«sidet>t 0 Woodrow Love Vice Presideni Pamela G. Biixt Treasurer Monica Gross Secroiaiy Thomas W. UBounty Thomas Maple, Jr. Malcolm Reid DIsIrIct Oltice; Olano P. Lynch District Administrator 0 rfim# 4 ui»r!4‘nifig pi tout 30*e pofi conium** nwtf l'ebruary4, 1998 Mr. Robert Waadc R&l Construction, Inc. 1006 Wildhurst Trail Mound, MN 55364 • - ••m ■* RE: Plat Proposal, County Road 51, Maxwell Bay, City of Orono Dear Mr. Waadc: We have review'ed the plat for the above meniioncd proj^ei iy and have the following comment.^. 1. The site is le.ss than two acres in size and will have fewer tlian four Jiving units. MCWD Rule 13 (stormwater nianagcmenl) allows an exemption foi .sites which fit Ihi.s criteria. Therefore a MCWD permit will not be retjuired for treatment of stormwater runoff. 2. The MCWD docs have a coiKcrn that erosion control measures be properly installed and maintained until the site is restabilized. We urge you to follow the City of Orono ordinances which govern erosion control. 3. If the topographic study of this site indicates an impact to any area below elevation 931.5 (the 100 year flood elevation) the MCWD would consider this to be floodplain alteration and require a permit for that activity. The plat submitted had no elevation contour.s. Please .submit a plat with said contours when tlml iiiformulion is available. 4. The MCWD is the local government unit (I.G13) for administering the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in the City of Orono. If the site contains any vveiland.s, a plat should be submitted indicating their location with respect to the proposed activity on the site. If wetlands arc present a permit may be required. Please call me at 471-0590. e.xicnsion 282, with any questions. Sincerely, 1m Hafncr District Technician / K - GITYof ORONO Municipa] Ofllces Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 January 29, 1998 David Zetterstrom Hennepin County Public Works 320 Washington Avenue S, Hopkins, MN 55343 Re: Three subdivisions for February 17 Planning Commission Dear Dave: meeting Senior Planning Coordinator ,1^ tr Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 4734)510 r TO: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator January 13,1998 SUBJECT: #2329 Robert and Iris Waade, 3280/3290 North Shore Drive - Sketch Plan for Proposed 2 Lot Subdivision for Duplexes Zoning District: LR-lC-1, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre minimum lot size subdistrict Total Site Area: List of Exhibits 1.503 acres. A - Application B - Area Plat and Topography Maps C - Survey/Proposed Site Plan D - LR-lC-1 Code Standards E - Duplex Credit CUP Code Requirements F - Staff Sketches Indicating Various Development Possibilities/Pitfalls G - Staff Concept Plans of Area Between the Marinas H - Comments from City Engineer Tom Kellogg I - Excerpts from Zoning History of Site Overview This is a sketch plan for development of the property directly east of Lakeside Marina, also known as 'the Straley property', which was owned for a time by the DNR as a possible site for an access, then sold by the DNR when the Maxwell Bay access was built on the Gayle's Manna site. Applicant proposes to divide the property into two lots, each to contain a duplex. The property currently consists of 4 tax parcels, three of which formerly contained residence structures. Context of Site in Relation to Surrounding Uses The property in question has a unique history which may provide some comex^ f. r the current proposal. Historically, the property and the four adjacent residential properties to the east of it, have been located between two commercial marinas. The entire stretch of land between Tonkawa Road and the cast side of North Shore Marina (See Exhibit I) was first zoned m 1957, designated as a r Zoning File #2329 January 13, 1998 Page 2 'commercial district'. In 1966, all property east of Lakeside Marina, including the easterly approximately 60' of Lakeside, was rezoned residential. Shortly thereafter in 1967, the entire stretch was again rezoned commercial. With the 1975 City-wide rezoning, all property cast of Lakeside Manna including North Shore Marina, was rezoned to LR-lC-1, with the Gayle’s Marina and Lakeside Marina properties to the west remaining as B-2 commercial. In 1984, the Citv rezoned North Shore Marina back to B-2, leaving the residential properties between Lakeside mid North Shore marinas zoned LR-lC-1, which zoning is currently in effect. There has been much discussion through the years about what should happen with the residential properties betu'een the two marinas. City discussions that led to the 1984 rezoning of North Shore Marina from residential to commercial, included consideration whether the remaining residential properties between Lakeside and North Shore should be similarly rezoned commercial. The Planning Commission at that time recommended that future rezoning of the area be proved onlv when a foture applicant controls or owns a 2 acre parcel consistent with the minimum required acreage for a lot in the B-2 zone, and proposes a use consistent with the B-2 standards. City Council minutes subsequent to that recommendation indicate no fomial action was taken by the Council to adopt such a policy. However, Council discussions prior to the Planning Commission recommendation had indicated a concern that the City risks claims of spot zoning if merely North Shore Drive Marina is rezoned without a future intent to rezono the adjacent residential properties. The City never , .opted a formal policy for rezoning the properties between the marinas. They continue to be zoned LR-lC-1, a single family residential use district that would allow via a CUP & PRD, up to 3 units per acre density, with as many as 4 individual units attached per building. The only other properties the City has zoned in this manner are the twin homes in Navarre and the Brook ark/Sohns/Larson properties directly to the west of them; and a small tract just east of Carman Street near the Navarre business district. Shorcland Regulation Implications The Shoreland District standards adopted in 1992 place significant limitations on any PUD/PRD located in the shoreland, requiring the establishment of 'tiers' in order to determine acceptable development density in a PRD. An additional implication of the Shoreland Regulations is that anv dup ex parcel on the lakeshore must be no less than 135’ in defined width, which has an impact on applicant s site because it is only 123' in width at the shoreline and at the 75 ’ setback. Please review Exhibits F which define various subdivision schemes for developing the site and the vanous concerns or issues presented with each plan. These sketches were developed by staff at the time DNR was auctioning tlie site. Zoning File #2329 January 13, 1998 Page 3 Duplex Credit Implications Zoning Code Sec. 10.20, Subd. 3 (1) allows one duplex to be located on a single lot in the LR-lC-1 zone as a conditional use upon application therefore, provided that the following conditions are met. 1. Public sanitary sewer service is available. 2. The lot is adjacent to a commercial or industrial district. 3. The duplex is constructed within 200' of the commercial or industrial district. These standards would be met by the current proposal. A duplex is (briefly) defined as a single buildini ’ on a single lot containing two separate dwelling umts. The duplex CUP standards do require a duplex lot to meet double the area standards. The Shoreland District requirements specify that any lot approved for duplex use shall be at least 135' in width and at least 26,000 s.f. in area if riparian, and a‘ least 17,500 s.f. in area if non-riparian. Both proposed lots meet the minimum area as established in the zoning district and Shoreland standards. However, lot width and the 'back lot' status of the riparian lot stand out as potential additional issues. Back Lot Considerations Applicant's sketch plan proposes a 30' wide outlot over the existing shared driveway serving the four existing neighboring residences and the four proposed new dwelling units. This number of homes being served far exceeds the City's three-unit threshold for requiring development of a full-fledged roadway. Likewise, applicant's plan proposes a 12'-20’ easement driveway providing access to the proposed lakeshore duplex, which clearly is in conflict with many of the back lot ordinance requirements in regards to access, i.e.; 11.30 Subd. 5C does not allow the creation of back lots which are accessed by easement such as that proposed. 11.30 Subd. 5C(lc) disallows a front/back lot division when the residence structure on a neighboring lot adjacent to the back lot is less distant from the access outlt than the zoning district front setback standard. The adjacent residence to tlie east is within 3 feet of the proposed outlot, rather than the 30' required. Subd. 5C(2b) requires the lot width of a back lot to meet the zoning district standard r Zoning File #2329 January 13, 1998 Page 4 ^vhen measured at the defined locations. The standard for a duplex lot is 135'; the proposed back lot is only 123’-126 ’ at these locations. However, the back lot meets the 100' standards for a single family lot... Subd. 5(C)4d states that no more than two residences nay be sen'ed by a driveway located within an access outlot; the proposed plan would result in a total of 8 dwellins being served by a single driveway. Hardcover The applicant ’s proposal shows narrow driveways and garage apron widths which in staffs opinion are unlikely to function adequately, especially for the duplex on Lot 1, the lakeshore lot. The 75- 250' hardcover for Lot 1 is shown as using up its fiall 25%, i.e. just over 5600 s.f. Note also that for Lot 2 the 75-250' zone is not shown, but approximately half of Lot 2 is within the 75-250' zone as measured from Crystal Bay to the southwest. The hardcover zones will have to be accurately depicted on any formal plan that is submitted. Lake Access Implications Applicant proposes a duplex to be constructed on the riparian lot that is 125' in width. Under LMCD standards of 1 slip per 50' of shoreline, development of this site would presumably be allowed 2 slips. However, as a single family lot. Lot 1 would likely be allowed 4 slips as long as all 4 boats are titled to the owner of the riparian lot. The City has only one other lakeshore duplex situation that staff is aware of, that being the duplexes on Kelly Avenue in Navarre. In that situation, six dwelling units in three duplex buildings are located on propert>' that contains approximately 400' of shoreline, but 300' of width as measured in a straight line. Those duplexes are allowed a total of 6 slips via joint use dock license, such slips being located on an outlot in the southerly end of the site. The correlation to applicant's proposal would be that a duplex constructed on applicant's lakeshore lot might be allowed a 2 slip or 4-slip dock, allowing 1 or 2 boats for each of the two riparian dwelling units. This question remains to be resolved as to riparian access in slip numbers to serve a duplex on this site. It is clear however that the City would not allow riparian access to the duplex lot proposed which does not abut the lake. The Shoreland Ordinances indicate that lots intended to access to public waters for use by owners of non-riparian lots within a subdivision must meet or exceed the minimum standards set forth in Subdivision 16 for individual building lots. Therefore no ea.sement or outlot could be created that provides lake access to the lot adjacent to the road, and the duplex lot adjacent to the road shall not have riparian rights. J r Zoning File #2329 January 13, 1998 Page 5 How the Proposed Development Relates to the Adjacent Residential Uses Development of duplexes on this site may place it somewhat out of context with the adjacent single family residential development, and from a long temi perspective might be considered as ultimately leading to a disjointed rather than comprehensive plan for the area between the marinas, unless the entire area is redeveloped with multiple family units. The total area between the marinas is approximately 3 acres, which if developed comprehensively could result in a 9 unit townhome complex with significant open space areas. The applicant notes that to-date, he is unable to acquire the remaining properties at prices that justify such a development. That is what is forcing the issue of creating two duplex buildings. Exhibit G-1 is a staff concept sketch of how a comprehensive townhome complex might be developed. Exhibit G-2 is a staff concept sketch of how this area will look if the duplexes are constructed as proposed. Exhibit F-1 is staffs concept of how the current proposal should be revised to most closely meet all code requirements. Utilities The site is provided with (and limited by the locations of) municipal sewer lines. Since 3 residences previously existed on the property, it isunlikely that additional sewer connection charges will be required unless a total of 4 units is allowed, in which case staff will research whether charges are due. Applicant proposes to move an existing trunk sewer line, which the City Engineer has addressed in his comments. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should review the proposal and address the following issues so the applicant will have some direction how to proceed; 1. 2. 3. 4. Detemiine whether there is any justification to allow the large number of variances involved with development of a duplex on the lakeshore lot. Determine whether there is any justification to grant access tyne/width standards for this project, increasing the number of homes sharing a private driveway from 4 to 8. Discuss the option of a PRD (See Exhibit F-3) and whether the 'underlying zoning district' should be considered as having a density of 2 units per acre or 3 units per acre. Advise applicant that the standard grading, drainage, and stormwater considerations apply to development of this site (See City Engineer's comments), that access will neced to be approved by Hennepin County, that the property will be subject to park dedication fees, etc. #mm 1 ■Application # §] '< Date Received Amount Paid IZSQ ..4 CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION ( T CE‘ aJdA<L^o) PROPERTY LOCATION . ^ . \ { U Ki Siteaddress.^n ^ MDn^sKm’UV ♦ ^ .,'1-7. Propert>'Tden^ic^ionNuml^(PIP) (')nlQ J 0^ itlHi-----LL^ Please check one - Property____abstract or_____torrens? Attach legal description to application OY-in 06 0^ Jlev^ u]gd4e. Address City__ nnlf) /a )I ^ ]niJ A.i ______Phone (home) ZipQyj(^ Phone (workTSl^ c_ OWNER (if differejit than applic^t) ^ (LI^i PO or) Name ''^(Jur>\su:L ’ff\QJ Address //OgS* ^ Li}/)uc^-zuc(^ City iCJn ciZcL-fr^ ' Phone (home) (attach list if^ore than one) Zip gT3?/ Phone (work) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units ________Other (specify)________ ^«R'/d ' / -k-tffl — \4Uii«£_ PROPOSAL Number of Building Sites Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new bmldling sites) ^ X^jLp^-^ Subdivision for New Building Sites | ______Existing Units (pq [oJCJi ^ New Units 0*M<3t Total Units ^ Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) O'voiCil \ ' > ^ We+Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land ' Residential jpO^ihU, ' Units per___Acres Other (specify) J ^^N^VIUM 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 Suryey. 4. „ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance^ Govt. Center 348-3271^.___ ________________________________________ 5. As an addendum to this appHcMon-, please attach'a’s^arate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Zonirig 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 .-603 I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. ^ppIication Base Fees: A Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) S250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class Hi & all non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Claks lil) $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 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 application) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/Iineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 = $_____ ■ Proposed Pub’’- P.OuJs $900.00 + $.50/lineaI ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 = $_____ _____ Request for City . v Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 _____ Proposed S* ..iary 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 app!icatior.s) $50.00/per lot_____new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Ease;.ient Vacation Associated with Subdivision $ 100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/DwcMing Unit __.. Totals The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further r.grees to pay all additional f^es established by Applicant’s S ignature.^^^^^^^^^^-::^^ _____ Date______~*7 _____________________ Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on tlie 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. P-2 0^ m * w •* ' . m / V/ ? I / / / / / / / / r**» r , :*V. '-h.r7'W‘^ . , YC*' .. V. ..,; ’V! Utl.'. ■ ‘ '34^»Sq.Ft;.0.WAC;;r: : .• •.2!"r* •. <5J6IS4,.FL1^AC , .,. 1 I . Proposed llirdewr iJotl •■•?>• ’ ■ r • 0* • 75* *• 0% ^ • MtkrnCm C# ■ ■ V. ;•'. ■> •■ •.. . * • ■. _..* BitatlBC Art* is*-ssir r*ft**l*tH*rde«r*r . ^ » A , > \ • f • /i Erirttof ArwMO-.sdo'* - Driveway . Pereeo* of Hardcover ^ “ 15% f ^/0 ’*6a/^-^en/ V* >r3KSS^ =— --------v\ • • H ^i •o > •• •:-V . •■ ■ V .. .r .. X . •'/• • ’’jV ..• •.: V-; Pcfceot of Hardcover - A ‘ I htrtbv ct th« beu<w«' SBC. 10.26. SUBDISTRICTS. LR-lC-1 ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL Subd. 1. Lakeshore Set Back, Hard Cover and Tree Removal Regulations. (See Section 10.22). Uses. Subd, 2. Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses, and Accessory A. Any use as regulated in the "LR-IC District.(^/^j^<^ Subd. 3. Additional Permitted Use. Within any "LR-lC-1" One Family Lakeshore Residential Subdistrict a credit allowing a 50% increase in dwelling unit density over the "LR-lC" District may be obtained providing all conditions below are complied with: A. All provisions of Section 10.32 Planned • Residential Development are complied with; B. Public sanitary sewer is available; C. All dwelling units must be attached but hot more than four dwelling units to any one structure with a maximum height of thirty 30 feet; D. Parcels of land lying beyond 100 feet from any shoreline shall not have more than 35% of the land area to be developed made impervious by buildings, blacktop, or other forms of hard cover; E. Building size and location meet Council approval; F. Vehicle ingress and egress meet Council approval; G. A minimum of two parking spaces are provided for each dwelling unit, one of the p,*king spaces shall be enclosed and attached to the principal structure it serves; H. Deni.ity provisions under Section 10.60 are not exceeded. Subd. 4. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. (See Section 10.25, Subdivision 6) . SEC. 10.25. LR-IC ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "LR-lC One Family Lakeshore Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of medium density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Planned residential developments may be allowed by conditional use permits. The proposed land use may not endanger the quality of storm water runoff into Lake Minnetonka, Because of the location of the district near Lake Minnetonka, special regulations are necessary to protect that natural resource from the effects of intense development. The district shall have immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Lakeshore Set Back, Hard Cover and Tree Removal Regulations. (See Section 10.22). Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within the "LR-lC One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: District. A, Any permitted use as regulated in the "R-IA". Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within any ''LR-lC One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-lA" District except that a Planned Residential Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellings only. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "LR-lC" One Family Lakeshore Residentic.1 District, the following uses shall be permitted' accessory uses: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "R-IA" District any 'private docks' subject to the City Code and other applicable regulations, including boat storage density regulations. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard RequjL.rements . A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1,2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. be observed: B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street r/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 30 feet 15 feet § 10.20 SEC. 10.20. R-IA ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "R-IA" One Family Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of low density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Planned residential developments may be allowed by conditional use permit. The district shall have immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any "R-lA" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. One family detached dwellings. B. Public owned parks and playgrounds. C. Municipal buildings. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any ”R-1A" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: I. Duplex Credit. One duplex may be located on a single lot as a conditional use upon application therefor provided that public sanitary sewer service is available, and the lot is adjacent to a commercial or Industrial district, and the duplex is constructed within 200 feet of the commercial or industrial ^ duplex is defined as a two-family unit residentialDUilaing• mmm ^ ( . »; v; I ■ i ! ' » ■5^ I 1 ^ 2.^0 • 3ac* . gilWiTS -2HnO z-LC/ip- ^l/ZrlC-l r^T> • lO (rH-ZAJ bAJ^ TieT^. "2- , fMC^ ^ • sHApeb j?oOiT r rof’JC^T '4s p/2i,Posei^ r ^ J Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & \ Associates Engineers & Architects January 12,1998 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator Citv of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Bonestroo. Rosene AnJcrtik Associates. Inc is «<n Af/trmMive Action Equtil Opportunity Employer Principals Otro G Bonestroo P.E • Joseph C AncJerhic PS • Mt^rvin L Sorv^l.s. PE • RtChi^fd E Turner. PE • Glenn R Cook PE • Robert G Schunichl PE • Jerry A BocrOon. PE • Robert W. Rosene. PE Sus.^n M Efce'hn. C PA . Senior Consutr.ints Associate Principalis Howard A S«^nford PE • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfcfferle. PE • Richard W Foster. PE. • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. A IA • Mark A Hanson. PE • Michael T Rauimann. PC • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolls. PE • Sidney P. Williamson. PE. LS • Robert F Koismilh Offices St Paul. Rochester. Willmar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee. Wi H Re: Waade Subdivision File No. 139-2329 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the sketch plan for the proposed three to four lot Waade subdivision. The site is located at 3280 and 3290 Northshore Drive (C.R. 51) east of Tonkawa Road(C.R. 135) in the southeast quarter Section 8. Wc have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access: The private road on Outlot A does not meet the minimum width, design speed or right- of-way for a private road as outlined in the City Ordinance. The private road currently serves 4 homes and potentially would serv'e 7 or 8 homes. No more than two units may be served from a private driveway. Private streets serving three to seven units must be paved 24 feet wide, m.jic than seven units require 28 feet. Due to the existing hou.se locations it would be impossibk to meet all of the code requirements. We recommend a minimum pavement width of 24 feet and minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet across Outlot A. The two driveways shown to serve the site should be combined to form a single driveway at least 20 feet in width. The propo.sed pavement at Unit No. 2 should be enlarged to allow for emergency vehicle turning movements. The fire department should review the plans and provide comments. Plans should be submitted to Hennepin County for their review. 2. Utilities: The propo.sed easterly realignment of the sanitary sewer falls within 6 feet of an existing home. The propo.sed alignment may need to be shifted westerly to-allow for construction. The existing overhead power may need to be relocated to allow for construction. 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 and .septic systems. 4. Drainage: The draft version of the City ’s’ Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies within the Maxwell Bay drainage districts. The entire site 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636*4600 ■ Fax: 612-636-1311 Mr Michael P. Gaffron January 9, 1998 City of Orono Page 2 drains northerly to the lake. A water quality pond should be located on the site to provide for storm water treatment. A drainage area map with pre and post development calculations should be submitted for review. 5. Easements: 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. Utility easements will need to be revised based on the final sanitary design. 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, ANDERLK & ASSOCIATES, INC. ICTM Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono TD 5 7 — .^?^TI-----------------------------------____ S-'k.^. --------------------------------------- - ;-------- A ggno gwo s-ffC.S-i-^f . 6/^e*^. t<A.so«Bi>___'jtl1.-7.‘f. ' (T«vi:*«)/*6 MLe-J." • •• «»• • •• vueirap Tvtoi^M^k AA.fc> eAsi^^^PP__ __________ /:^lt>C!^l!!!f^.M.O^.j5^'^.------------ ----------- 3>//"S7 Q<g^ - Cjuft>fnf^ "C/9f\^i!/iaK. butue^l______ ...........fnu^iK3c». /uAr PfiX)(wn^. €^?rr.^5 ’- jLAiiCl\t>f /^AmAlAS e^/VKAlT ............6fi!a" tS^ut^N*^. 7T> /^aAjry _ )VU<Mr^.3_«s4aT. __ _ _ TP. ^JP:J^~\.- .... DRX>M^ 2.,SacAJt, IVe/f£__“ /^mtt*- ^NcUrhiUVir:, frJg^Tor A l^lh\e. J/SiJ^>^F- SeC*.^.----------- g ouMo>»it.y> (*co^^tu<vgfl^)rlt^j^3f-i^<>j^i ’»-SMa<tf__ ___ ........... ‘I'Z^-ipio neJb ^g r* ^ ^e^o ^lt?£>_-J5gp/Pe^^g —€dgrigjljl fTo iggsibg^mx. ------------— Z7/Ug' /.g /I AiO/ey?f S<)U7?f 27A3g rvq.^ /=gy7~ iP&r~e>p mff STTCAi-gv i^fefirrf . Z/yAJg k\;om4> e.€_ ASot^H /5l!fd e»^ruj4v«, or /Ait^vbtr Avw/v4.r _____________gU>tifcg<OT ~ rwAiO ■&u(LX>fu^_,_______________:------ .•••>• - —«• - •«• -• »r ••«.•#• f •• -r ,. .,•»■• •. f ,•♦ .,•••(. .^•- .V •< (maxwell BAY) lii; Ivfe!if. I • • ■;i<- 5. *1 J •j ■.{ 1 ■ • *v*.» 49 ^3 ; -; - -C Pi r 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 would 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 solut* • was, and he said that the owner is concerned with the use of the property by the publiv. 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 property. 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 amount as a cul-de-sac. Schroeder asked Gafffon 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. Gafiron 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. r \MLNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#22 - #2329 Bob Waade - Continued) A 30' wide outlot is proposed over the existing shared driveway serving the four existing neighboring residences and the four proposed new dwelling units. This far exceeds the City's three unit threshold for a driveway, requiring a road. The applicant is asking for an easement to serve the back lot, requiring 3/4 acre with 1/2 acre in front. 100' widths are required. One plans calls for the road to come across the north along the property line of Lot 1 to L6r2. A 50' outlot could be a road, and Gafiron questioned whether it would need to be developed without the neighboring properties. Once option according to Gaffron would be a development with 7-8 townhous' units. If a PRD, it would require a 200' setback with shared or private road. If the development is as proposed, <iriveway to serve 4 lots could continue to serve the houses in the neighborhood. This is however for the rest of the neighborhood. Gaffron said the duplex credit in the LR-lC-1 District requires a conditional use on a single lot. It meets the sewered requirement, being adjacent to commercial property, and construction within 200' of the district. The property does not meet the width requirement but does meet the area requirement. Gaffron said the backlot consideration is problematic for hardcover. It would use the full 25% of hardcover allowed in the 75-250' zone but have a minimal driveway and apron. More detail is required. A question of lake access is also a consideration. How many of the units would receive access. Gaffron questioned whether the plan would be approved for access by the LMCD. The code stipulates lake access to as many as have title. The ability to have 4 slips on 1 dock is not probable with requirement of having lakeshore. Lindquist asked the applicant what his intentions are for the property. Waade said he would like to have 4 slips and keep the units as rental units with two separate duplex units. Lindquist asked what determinations are needed. Gaffron said the plan would require Council and LMCD review. He said code allows only 4 slips on 1 property only. Hawn acknowledged that this problem is created with the lot owners^’ip and lakeshore as developed. Lindquist suggested for the duplex plan to create the ability for the road to serve all 7 properties with a 50' outlot rather than an easement. A decision has to be made regarding where the road is to be located, who is to build it, whether it be private or public, and if the road will be shared. . ..... . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#22 - #2329 Bob Waade - Continued) A width variance is required for Lot 2. If this cannot be granted, the question is whether the property can become a duplex and may require being a single family residence. The possibility is for a single family on the lakcshore lot with a duplex to the rear. Waade said he could follow that plan but would rather have two duplexes. Lindquist asked about slips. Waade said he would like a slip for each unit. Schroeder said he should discuss this with the LMCD. Gafiron did not believe the City would allow a corridor outlot. Conditions may also have to be placed on the property where slips could be lost. Mrs. Waade asked about the road. The owner's responsibility for the road would be through Lot 1 and should be at a 28' width and paved. An outlot must be 50. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#23) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 15,1997 Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 15, 1997. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#24) REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND COUNCIL MEETINGS January 23 - Lindquist February 9 - Hawn ADJOURNMENT Lindquist adjourned the meeting at 1:52 a.m. Dale Lindquist, Chair Person ✓*MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#5 - #2339 James Render - Continued) Gaflfron 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-de- 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. Gaf&on said the private road outlot would be dedicated the entire length. The City would take an underlying easement. The Commissioners were in agreement with Gafifron's recommendation for a 28' wide roadway. 'fhe 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 length of the property through the granting of 42' from the property owner in addition to the current 8' of easement. The road would be a 28' shared private road with a paved T 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 17' easement. Lindquist said it would have to be 50' platted through 42' fi’om 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 PEIUVUT - 8:15-8:39 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. \MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY i7, i99o (U6 - #2340 P.obert Waade - Continued) The Applicant was present. Gafiron reported that the subdivision was originally reviewed as a sketch plan. The property is located in tne LK-lC-l, 1/2 acre single tarruly zoning distnct. 1 ne 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 proiferty is within 200' of the B-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 corner. 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. Gaflfron 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' minimum 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 constructed the length of Outlot A and connect from the end of the lot to the County road to the north. Lot 1 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 lessihan the required 1/2 acre and necessitate a variance. Gafiron 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 PLAIvfNING COM^^SSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (#6 - #2340 R.obert Waade - Continued) s afiron indicated that a lot not abutting lakeshore does not get lake access. Previous discussion had suggested applicant would like both properties to have docks. Gafiron recommended that no variance be allowed. The City and County park plans suggest a trail along North Shore Drive. There is enough riglit-of-way already provided to accommodate a trail. Park dedication fee is recommended. • *9 ' Gafifron 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. Gafiron reviewed the Staff recommendation as noted in the information packet, #1-9. 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 duple.x 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 next 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 marina.. 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. Gaffiron said it would not if the entire property were single family. Lindquist noted the buildabiUty 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. Gaf&cn 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 application for a duplex. He noted the issues still requiring resolution. Marfield felt the property was being stretched to gain two lots. He reiterated his lack of support for a duplex. Lindquist said information will be required for stormwater and road rededication needs 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 cn 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. Gaflfron 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. s ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 16,1998 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, William Stoddard, and Alternate Jeanne Mabusth. Charles Schroeder, Dale Lindquist, Elizabeth Hawn, and Lili McMillan were absent. The following represented the City Staff: Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Planning Assistant Brad Bressler, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS OLD BUSINESS; CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS (#1) #2325 LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND CINDY OLSON, 950 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES Smith moved, Stoddard seconded, to table Application #2325 at the request of the applicant. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#2) #2340 ROBERT WAADE, 3280/3290 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERNHT - 6:30-7:49 P.M. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the Planning Commission previously reviewed the application once as a sketch plan and in February as a formal plat request. The 1-1/2 acr^ parcel is divided into four tax parcels in the LR-lCl zoning district. The single family backlot configuration requires 150% of the standard or 0.75 acre. The front lot is proposed for a duplex based on its proximity within 200 ’ of the commercial district. The application was tabled in February to allow the applicant to provide a stormwater plan and recalculate the lot areas. Outlot C will be dedicated for right of way. The applicant has changed the boundary between lots 1 and 2 by moving the lot line to the south. An access outlot will be provided for the lakeshore lot at a reduced width of 20' instead of the required 30'. A private road corridor is proposed at 40' instead of the required 50', with a 24' paved road. The lot line typically thought to be the front lot line is less than the required width. Gaffron indicated the applicant is also planmng to add berming with plantings along the property line abutting Lakeside Marina. NHNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION meeting held on march 16, 1998(#2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Gaffi-on reviewed the general comments in the memorandum, #1-3 He noted that no additional sewer charges are needed. The property will be served by pnvate wells. He concluded that only the back lot has riparian access. Covenants and restnctions ^^nll be placed on the chain of title to ensure that no riparian rights are given to the duplex property. The pond will be located north of the boundary line between lots 1 and 2. The applicant has asked to receive credit for the pond towards area for the back lot. Gaffron saidlhe intent of the code \z * o provide additional buffenng, and he believes this is being accomplished and supported uia credit. Gaffron reviewed the issues for uiscussion, #1-9 on pages 5 md 6 of the memo. He recommended the road be private. He noted the code only allows I"® ‘°f ® served by a driveway instead of three as requested. A CUP is required to fill ^ o the lot line. Gaffron asked if the Planning Commission agrees with Staff in recommending the credit of unused 75-250' hardcover towards the 250-500’ zone. Waade had no additional comments at this time. Russell Norum. 3264 North Shore Drive, noted the location of his property^ He said he has no philosophical objections to the application and is open to being ^ variancL and conditional use permits. He asked if the pnvate road existing land to access the homes from CoRd 5 1 . He is concerned with the road being cut in noting his own house has had problems with settling and the road will be Norum said he also is troubled with the ponding. A large pole building is located nearby that resulted in flooding in the area to the north of his property. effect the ponding would have to drainage. Norum also indicated there had been a access road to the west of the property at one time and questioned what happened to that access for the subject property. He noted there are water pipes running under lot three other lots; their location is unknown. While he believes the new construction aid property values, he is concerned with additional noise and lighting. Smith clarified the concerns voiced by Nonim, namely, 1) access to the additional erosion problems, and 3) why the previous access svil. not be utilized. .Norum said he does not object to the road itself but to further erosion. He felt the new road would be satisfactory if improvement was made to ponding. Gaffron remarked that the impact from the driveway location so near Norum’s property is significant due to the steep cuts and needs to be resolved. The reviewed this issue. Gaffron said retaining w?- may be required. Gaffron indicated the westerly access driveway never had any formal status Its location is poor due to sig^ lines along the hill. The County has concluded that the proposed access is best in te sight lines but suggested the hill be cut down. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM^^SSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Norum's garage is located less than 10' from the proposed paving of the road. Norum indicated that the easement road was never meant to be used for the subject property. Waade suggested building up the property to eliminate retaining walls. Gaffron agreed that changes are necessary and suggested the City Engineer review the plan. Gaffron responded to the flooding issue. He reported that it appears all drainage from applicant's site will go to the pond. It, however, will not solve the neighbor ’s problem. Staff felt a comprehensive review of the area's drainage should be conducted from the marina eastward. Gaffron noted that there are no plans affecting the water supply off the property and does not know if there are any water lines on the subject property. Gaflfron asked that a condition of Planning Commission approval include the City Engineer's review of grading. Dave Dalvey, 3230 Bohns Point Lane, said he has spoken with neighbors and presented a petition opposing the duplex and variances for the property. Smith read the petition and the undersigned names. She noted there were unsolved issues surrounding the application, which has been reviewed twice by the Commission. Mabusth asked if the code section regarding the issue relating to the front lot line was available. Stoddard indicated he also did not understand the front lot line issue. In discussion issue #2, Mabusth noted that wetlands and stormwater are all defined as drainage easements and the referenced example is for a rural property. She supported allowing the credit for stormwater ponding. Commissioners agreed with Mabusth. Stoddard felt the road should be private. Commissioners agreed. Gaffron explained that the code standard for a private road width serving 3-7 units is 24' wide. If the road is public, it would need to be wider. Mabusth asked if a road name would be required. Gaffron said this would normally occur but w'ith the existing access, the homeowners can retain the North Shore Drive addresses but may desire a sign board to direct people to their properties. Stoddard said he supported a 24' private road but would like the City Engineer to re^dew the preliminary grading plans prior to review by Council. Gaffron clarified the reasoning for the width and length variances necessary for Outlots A and B. He indicated that two outlots are necessary for access and for the road. The City will require easements over the outlots for underlying utilities and to grant easements to the other property owners to allow them to continue using the access. J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNOSSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Mabusth askel if the applicant would meet the area requirement if given credit for the ponding. Gaf&on indicated there would only be a very minor underage. Mabusth asked if the duplex would be served by Outlot B. Gaffron indicated it would and noted that the standard calls for no more than two units being accessed off the 30' corridor. The reason behind the standard is to limit the units as three units would require a road. There may be a hardcover issue if the access was changed. Stoddard felt the variances for the widths of Outlots A and B made se.ise as it would allow for smaller roadway and lessen the hardcover. He noted that the property is allowed a duplex under the code and felt the road issue was not substantial enough to show any opposition. Mabusth asked what the absent Commissioners felt about the issues. Smith indicated that Lindquist was concerned with the number of variances and did not want to encourage their need. Gaffron said the duplex requires a 135' minimum width. The lot width as defined by CoRd 51 does not meet the requirement. It is only met if the width is defined along the private road outlot. The upper lot has about 121' width and the lower lot has 122'. If the "exception" segment in the front of the lot is considered there would be about 140'. Mabusth noted there would be a hardcover problem if additional driveway was necessary for three dwellings on one driveway outlot. The driveway would be minimized with two dwellings on one access. Berg asked if the proposed units would be rental units. Waade said he would live in the single family home and rent out the duplex. Gaffron indicated the duplex would have to be rental units as the ownership of the duplex cannot be split into individual units under the City ordinances. Smith noted that all of the Commissioners at the last meeting were opposed to providing riparian rights for the duplex. Mabusth asked if the sewer locations have been reviewed. The issue of easements needs to be resolved as well. Mabusth noted the need for a hold harmless agreement for the City Gaffron said the manholes would have to be raised as well. Waade said the bermed area would be built up about 5', and he would like to plant a row of pine trees for screening. Commissioners voiced their support. Smith asked what type of landscaping would be planted. Waade said he would like to add about 8-10 arborvitae trees on top of the berm to make a hedge. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16, 1998 (#2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Stoddard asked for clarification of the hardcover variance requested. Gaffron said the northern lot would not require variances in the 0-75' or 75-250'. The problem lies in the 250-500' zone from Maxwell and Crystal Bays. The amount of hardcover allowed in the 75-250' setback will not be totally utilized, and the applicant would like to take the excess and add it to the 250-500' allowable. Staff supports that request as it meets the intent of the code and the massing would be pulled further back from the lake. Smith, Mabusth, and Stoddard agreed that this scenario meets the intent of the code. Sam Marfield, 2455 North Shore Drive, in noting the nice area along North Shore Drive, felt the use of rental or multi-housing would not be appropriate to the neighborhood. He asked that Lindquist's previous comments about not granting variances be carried through. Jack Swenson, 3020 North Shore Drive, said he felt the same as Marfield. He sees no reason to grant any variances and feels the character of North Shore Drive is one of single family residential. David Dalvey felt the application would result in cramming houses on a property and add to the busyness and crowding of the area. He did not believe the application was a good project. Mr. Henson, 3216 North Shore Drive, said his property was next to the subject property. He noted the problem comer with the pump house location. He felt the proposal was a good use for the property in keeping the majority of the area single family. He noted more of the properties could be twinhomes. Henson supported the application and felt it would maintain the neighborhood's character. Gaffron noted that the issue of structural coverage has not been dealt with regarding the duplex. The proposed structural coverage is 4800 s.f or 22% of the lot area where only 15% is allowed. Gaffron noted that if the applicant chose to withdraw the request for duplex and submitted a proposal for a single family residence, the lot width requirement would change to 100' and would likely have a smaller footprint. Jim DePetrow said he did not support the dup.ex proposal and felt the sentiment is for single family dwellings. Waade commented that if a single family residence was built, it would still be rental property. He felt the duplex would be better in quality than most of the area's homes. His targeted renter would be upper bracket. Waade said he plans on living in the single family residence and believes the project would clean up the area. He noted that a larger unit building could be built on the property. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNOSSION iVliLL^iiiNU JTLCjLU UlS AVlrUvCn lO. i>>0 (#2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Smith asked Waade about proposing a single family instead of a duplex and what effect it would have on variances and structural coverage. Waade said the issue was economics. The front lot has a pump station near it and is near the marina. Waade felt that lot would be best served bv a multi-family unit from a development standpoint. Smith asked if the road outlet was taken into consideration for the 22% structural coverage. Gaffron said the road outlet would not be considered part of the lot area. Berg asked about reducing the square footage of the duplex units. Waade indicated he could reduce the size. Berg asked what style cf building was being proposed. Waade said the duplex would be a two-story slab on grade. Gaffron said the footprint would need to be limited to 32'x40' to meet the standard. Sam Marfield asked why two duplex homes are needed on the property. He asked whatever is built that it be built within the code without any variances. Mabusth asked what variances would be required if a single family home was built on the lot. Gaffron said lot width variances for the outlets would be required unless the front lot line was changed. There would be no change to the credit for ponding. Smith asked for Waade ’s comments regarding moving in the direction of a single family residence to mitigate some variances. Waade said he would need to know what he would be allowed on the property. Stoddard felt the application fit in with providing residential between the marinas. He felt some of the variances would be eliminated. He supported the lot width and driveway access for three units instead of two. He noted the property is zoned for duplex and could be higher density than what is being proposed. He supported the stormwater pond credit towards the extra 50% lot area requirement. Stoddard said he had been unaware of the structural coverage. He noted the 24' driveway width is required for emergency vehicles. Stoddard said he would support the application if the structural coverage w'as reduced. Waade was informed that about one third of the square footage would need to be reduced to meet the structural coverage requirement for a 3300 s.f footprint. Gaffron explained for Mabusth that the lot width requirement would be eliminated for the front lot/back lot if the proposal was for single family instead of duplex. Waade indicated that he could reduce the size of the duplex. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MARCH 16,1998 (U2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) Mabusth asked what other variances would be required. Gaffron reported that lot width would be required unless the lot line along the road outlot was defined as the fi'ont lot line instead of CoRd 51. There would be no need for a hardcover variance if credit was given for the ponding. The variances necessary would be for the length and width of the outlot. Berg said it was important to note that the driveways would still be located there whether one unit or two. Jody Dalvey said she would like to r .e the area cleaned up She believes people would be less apt to buy property in the area if a duplex was allowed. She acknowledged that her primary concern is with the duplex. Berg felt the main issues have been addressed. Smith suggested tabling the application to allow the applicant to redesign the project. Waade asked if the Commission would support the duplex proposal if the footprint was reduced. Smith felt the main issue was with reducing the structural coverage. She noted support was voiced for the variance for the driveway. Smith informed Waade of the need to submit a drainage plan for review. She emphasized that lake access would only be allowed to the single family residence. Stoddard said he supported the Staff recommendations noted on page 6 of the memo noting the property is zoned for duplex. He supported the driveway and lot width variance and structural coverage of 15%. He suggested the applicant work with staff Smith noted the applicant also needs to protect the adjacent property in regards to drainage as part of the grading plan. Marfield reminded the Commission of Lindquist's comments. Smith informed Marfield that Lindquist was speaking for himself She noted that the plan as proposed would most likely be denied if a recommendation was made at this time. Smith informed the applicant that the Commission needs to see the revised plan before review by Council. Smith moved, Berg seconded, to table Application ##2340. Vole: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (Agenda item #3 follows item #5.) ' ^ COUNCIL MEETING MAY 2 6 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYCFCRONO Date: May 22, 1998 Item No.: ^ Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title; Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2355 Susan & Douglas Van Moorlehem and Ken Tumham, 4490 Watertown Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Resolution Zoning District: RR-1 A, Single Family Rural Residential, 5 acre, not sewered. Proposal: Requesting preliminary Class III Subdivision approval for a 3-lot residential plat of the property located at 4490 Watertown Road. The property consists of a single tax parcel which is separated into 3 distinct portions by existing public roads. The northerly portion is 22 acres in area, of which about 4.8 acres is dry buildable and contains the residence. The central 5 acres south of County Rd. 6 and west of McCulley Road is vacant and is proposed as a separate lot. The southeasterly 6 acres between McCulley Road and Tumham Road is proposed as a third separaic lot.. List of Exhibits A - Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 4-29-98 C - Revised Preliminary Plat Drawing D - Memo & Exnibits of April 13, 1998 Pertinent Facts Drv Buildable Wetland Total Area Lost To ROW Net Drv Area Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 1, Block 2 Lot 1, Block 3 4.8 ac.± 5.07 ac. 8.14 ac. 17.5 ac. ± 0.15 ac.* 0.0 ac. 22.29 ac. 5.22 ac. 8.14 ac. 0 ac. 0.13 ac. 2.09 ac. 4.8 ac.+ 5.09 ac. 6.05 ac. 18.01 ac.+17.65 ac.±35.65 ac.2.22 ac.15.94 ac.+ *This wetland is not on City-protected inventory, therefore is creditable toward lot area !J r Zoning File #2355 May 22,1998 Page 2 Brief History of Property Please review Exhibit L of the April 13 memo for an overview of the history of ^nis property as regards its zoning, development, and acquisition by public bodies for roadways. Impacts of Recent Right-of-Way Acquisition The County Road 6 improvements occurring this year resulted in the need for Hennepin County to acquire additional right-of-way, wliich impacts are reflected in the revised preliminary plat drawing (Exhibit C). The primary impact was in the area between Tumham Road and McCulley Road. Lot I, Block 3 was initially proposed as mo 4-acre lots which the City had an obligation to approve per the 1981 McCulley condemnation agreement. That 8 acre parcel has been reduced to about 6.05 acres due to right-of-way acquisitions by the County, and the County's acquisiton payment to the applicants reflected the loss of a building site. The remaining 6.05 acre parcel is now proposed as a single conforming lot. Although approximately 0.13 acre was given up for right-of-way in Lot I, Block 2, the area of Lot 1, Block 2 will remain at 5.07 acres. The wetland delineated by applicant's consultant is not protected on the City's inventory and is not on the NWl map, and would therefore be creditable towards dry buildable acreage per City policy. This wetland would, however, be subject to a covenant warning the property owner of the need for permits from other agencies before impacting that wetland. Septic Systems Each proposed lot has primary and alternate drainfield sites available. The existing residence has a nonconforming system which would have to be replaced by the end of 2007 under current code. The alternate sites for the existing residence are slightly limited and would require either a variance or driveway relocation if the house was expanded beyond its current 3-bedroom status. - LDry Buildable Acreage for Lot 1, Block 1 The submitted wetland report does not purport to exactly define the boundary of the wetland for proposed Lot 1, Block 1, but is an estimate of the approximate boundary. Staff has calculated the dry buildable area of Lot 1, Block 1 as 4.77 acres based on the submitted survey and approximate boundary. The zoning code requires that building lots in the RR-1A zone contain 5 acres of dry buildable land. Applicant ’s wetland consultant was to conflmi the boundary of the wetland and applicant ’s sur\’eyor was to determine whether Lot 1, Block 1 contains the required 5 acres of dry buildable land. This has not been confirmed as of this writing. Assuming it is slightly less than 5 acres. Planning Zoning File #2355 May 22,1998 Page 3 Commission recommended that a lot area variance be granted due to to extenuating circumstances which constitute a hardship, such as: - No additional land available, but septic needs met and lot is 22 acres total - Existing house was allowed to be built under current zoning standards - Location of existing roads - 'Ripple effect' of crediting property from across the road (area within Lot 1, Block 2 could be credited toward Lot I, Block 1 via an outlot with Special Lot Combination across the road, but this would likely have resulted in Lot 1, Block 2 then becoming substandard, and it did not make any sense to require such crediting) Planning Commission noted it is highly unusual for the City to allow the creation of a substantod lot in a new subdivision (staff is aware of only two such occurrences since 1975, one related to City easement acquisition and the other the result of a rezoning), but the circumstances surrounding Wus property are very unique in that few other tax parcels of this size in the City are split by public rights of way. Access Hennepin County has agreed to build a new access driveway for Lot 1, Block 2 onto McCulley I^ad at a location approximately 450-600’ from the new intersection. This location will require City approval. The County will also build a new driveway onto Tumham Road for Lot 1 Block 3. The existing driveway for Lot 1, Block 1 appears acceptable. Subdivision Classification - Relation to Park Dedication Per the curent subdivision code adopted in 1984, a proposal to create 3 or more lots from a single tax parcel is considered by definition as a Class 111 subdivision, requiring a formal plat, dedication of wetland easements, etc. Also, as a Class III subdivision the plat is subject to Park Dedication requirements (Zoning Code Section 11.62). This subdivision was reviewed by the Park Commission on May 4, at which time they recommended that a park fee should be required, noting that amp e right-of-way already exists for a future trail along McCulley Road. Storm Water, Grading and Drainage The City Engineer has commented on this subdivision regarding stormwater, grading and drainage (see Exhibit M of April 13 memo). The relatively large acreages in each lot result m only a minimal potential for impacts to nearby surface waters. With the likelyhood that only 2 new homes will be constructed on lots of 5 acres and 6 acres respectively, and no new roads being created to serve the subdivision, it is staffs expectation that MCWD would not require a permU nor any ponding, and no fee contribution. The City’s goal for this development, as noted by the City Engincer,^Uiat pre- development water quality and quantity p.irameters be maintained at post-development. This mig Zoning File #2355 May 22, 1998 Page 4 be accomplished by merely maintaining vegetated buffers along the property perimeters. Applicant is required to provide drainage area calculations and information as identified by the City Engineer, as w'ell as a grading plan for the site if any grading other than new driveway entrances is proposed. Note that erosion control using Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be needed during home construction, especially on steep slopes. Summary of Issues for Consideration 1. Confirmation of dry buildable acreage for Lot 1, Block 1; consideration of Planning Commisssion rcommendation for lot area variance if required. 2. Stormwater / drainage calculations required; may confirm no need for ponding. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, per the attached resolution, which contains a number of specific conditions including: 1.Applicant to confirm dry buildable acreage of Lot 1, Block 1; lot area variance to be granted if it's under 5 acres. Granting of lot width variance for Lot 1, Block 1. New driveway access locations will be subject to Public Services Director approval. Applicant to provide pre- and post-development drainage calculations per City Engineer comments, and grading and drainage plans as may be required. Park dedication fee required.. Standard plat conditions: a. Granting of standard perimeter drainage and utility easements b. Granting of Conservation and Flowage Easement over City protected wetland in Lot 1, Block 1. c. Creation of covenant for protection of non-City protected wetland in Lot 1, Block 2. A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS III SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4490 WATERTOWN ROAD - FILE NO. 2355 WHEREAS, Susan and Douglas Van Moorlehem and Kenneth Tumham (hereinafter the "subdividers") on March 24, 1998, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a four lot residential plat of property legally described as: (Exhibit A, Attached) (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono's Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 20, 1998, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at said April 20 meeting the Orono Planning Commission on a vote of 6-0 recommended approval of the proposed plat subject to a revision to a 3-lot plat rather than 4 lots, to which the subdividers agreed; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on May 26, 1998 the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdividers noting the following findings of fact: 1.The property is located within the RR-IA Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of five acres of dry buildable land within each newly created lot. The property contains a total of approximately 35.65 acres of land, of which approximately 18.01 acres is dry buildable land and approximately 17.65 acres is wetland. Page 1 of 10 3. 5. A. B. The proposed plat consists of three residential lots each meeting the minimum lot standard requirements of the RR-IA, Single Family Rural Residential Zomng District, except as follows: Lot 1 contains approximately 4.8 acres of dry buildable land and 17.5 acres of wetland. No additional adjacent land is available for purchase, and the only land additional land available to the subdividers is within the property but separated from Lot 1 by County Road 6. Lot 1 does not meet the defined minimum 300’ lot width requirement as measured at the rear line of the defined front yard. Lot 1 has a defined lot width of approximately 280 ’. No additional adjacent land is available to increase the lot width to a conforming status. The granting of lot area and width variances for Lot 1 is justified by the fact that Lot 1 contains contains an existing residence and accessory buildmg meeting all required lot line setbacks without the need for further variances, that Lot contains the necessary primary and alternate drainfield sites to siyport septic system needs, and the fact that the only additional lands available for inclusion with Lot 1 are across County Road 6. The Council notes further that the granting of a lot area variance for a new subdivision in Orono is highly unusud and in this case only justified by the unique geographic relationship be^een the existing underlying tax parcel and the County and City roadways which have been developed within it over many years. Lot 3 is a ’through’ lot subject to conditional use permit for placement of any accessory structures.— 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 three lots. Lot 1 has a nonconforming septic system which under current City code must be replaced by December 31, 2007. Page 2 of 10 7. 8. 9. All three Lots shall be ser\'ed by direct access to adjacent public roads. Lot 1 shall retain its existing access to County Road 6AVatertown Road. Lot 2 shall be served by a new access to be created along McCulley Road. Lot 3 shall be served by a new driveway access along Tumham Road. The applicant will be reqired to provide pre- and post-development drainage calculations indicating the extent to which stormwater facilities will be required, and if required, provide a stormwater management plan. Such plan may incorporate vegetated buffer areas to provide for stormwater quality and quantity management. Hennepin County and City of Orono road rights-of-way have recently been established in the area of the subdivision and no additional right-of-way are required from this plat. 10. The Orono Park Commission and City Council has reviewed the City's trail corridor needs along Watertown Road, County Road 6 and McCulley Road and have concluded that no trail easements will be required from this plat. 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 Susan and Douglas Van Moorlchem and Kenneth Tumham at 4490 Watertown Road per preliminary plat drawings by David E. Crook, a licensed surveyor of DeMars-Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc., dated March 20, 1998, as revised and attached to this resolution as Exhibit B, subject to the following conditions: 1. A variance w ill be granted for lot area and lot width of Lot 1 which do not meet the 5 acre and 300' width requirements of the RR-IA District. 2.. Setbacks for all principal residence construction shall be as depicted on the preliminary plat drawing. 3. Lot 1 shall retain its existing access to County Road 6AVatertown Road. Lot 2 shall be served by a new access to be created along McCulley Road. Lot 3 shall be served by a new driveway access along Tumliam Road. The location of Page 3 of 10 4. 5. 6. such new accesses for Lots 2 and 3 shall first be approved by the Director of Public Services. All other existing farm road accesses shall be eliminated upon construction of the new driveway accesses. Drainage calculations and a grading, drainage & erosion control plan must be submitted by applicant for approval by the City Engineer prior to final plat approval. Subdivider shall grant drainage easements over all drainagcways, buffer areas or stormwater ponds that meay be required within the plat. Sjubdivider is hereby advised that the City will not grant final plat approval until the MCWD has approved any permits that that body may require. All identified primar>' and alternate sewage system drainfield sites within the subdivision shall be fenced off prior to any land alterations, and such fencing shall 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 primary and alternate sites. 8. Owner of lot 1 shall be responsible for installing a new conforming septic system to serve existing residence on Lot 1 within the time frame established by City Ordinance. 9. Payment of standard Park Dedication Fee per City ordinance. 10. Subdivider shall grant a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the weUands occumng in Lot 1 . 7. 11. Subdivider shall develop a covenant for protection of the non-City protected wetland in Lot 1, Block 2. 12.Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminar>' subdivision approval will expire one year Irom ihe date of Council preliminary plat approval. Shouiu the subdivider fail to complete the filing of the final plat application within the year deadline, it shall be necessary for tlie subdivider to file a new preliminary subdivision application with the City. Page 4 of 10 Filial Plat Submittals: ! 1. weeks p™or to^Treguto;' “dut'cotcTl^Adn,inis,«.or Pvo the month. These submittals are as follows: ^ Mondays of Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one codv for the - £"7.^*ss siii: Ls'rt b. c. "of p^pTy “ Desigraiion and dedication of drainage easements over dtainagewavs as romrolVi^""""* «“ion 2. Legal documents required: a. b. c. d. e. Tdle opinion addressed to the City. All orvners, mortgage holders or hers with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. Ltjy'Xt ”r;hrr™t“^^ Signed Md executed Developer's Agreement and letter of credit for approved stormwater and drainage facilities if required. Signed and executed Drainage Easements to be taken over drainageway cad detention areas within plat if required. ainageway Sta “I* Easement over wetlands Page 5 of 10 r f.Completed private covenant for protection of non-City protecetd wetland in Lot 2. g<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. Covenants must be in a form suitable for filing. The City has samples of protective covenants used by former developers should the applicants wish a copy. 3. Fees to be paid: Total due: $400.00* a. Final plat fee = $200.00 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 in Lots 2 and 3, with a minimum per-lot fee of $2,900 and maximum per lot fee of $4,900 per City ordinance. ^ - z. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 26th day of May, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 6 of 10 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 1 nno L foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of May 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 7 of 10 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2355 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; April 29, 1998 TO: Susan & Douglas Van Moorlehem COPIES TO: 4490 Watertown Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 Ken Tumham 4501 Shoreline Dr., Apt. 231 Spring Park, MN 55384 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 4/20/98 VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST • •% . • Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Applicant to confirm drv buildable acreage of Lot 1. Block 1 prior to Council preliminary plat review: Planning Commission determined that if it is confirmed that it's under 5 acres, a variance would be appropriate. 2.Lots 1 and 2. Block 3 should be platted as a single 6-acre lot, reflecting the Countv right-of- wav acquisition. The preliminary plat drawing must be revised prior to Council preliminary plat review. 3. New driveway access locations will be subject to Public Services Director approval. 4. Applicant to provide pre- and post-development drainage calculations per City Engineer comments prior to Council preliminary plat review. 5. Park dedication (fee vs. land) to be reviewed by Park Commission on May 4. Applicants are welcome to attend. The meeting begins at 7:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers. 6. Standard plat conditions: a. Granting of standard perimeter drainage and utility easements b. Granting of Conservation and Flowage Easement over City protected wetland in Lot 1, Block 1. c. Creation of covenant for protection of non-City protected wetland in Lof f, Block 2. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of the information underlined above. Deadline for the May 11 meeting is Monday, May 4, or Monday May 18 for the May 26 meeting. If the applicant has trouble obtaining the additional information requested, please contact the Zoning Department (473-7357). 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\\VP\VIN60\WPDOCS\CAROLEVPCACnON\2355 TO:Chair Smith and Orono i lanning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Michael P, Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator April 13,1998 SUBJECT: #2355 Susan & Douglas Van Moorlehem and Ken Tumham, 4490 Watertown Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-1 A, Single Family Rural Residential, 5 acre, not sewered. Proposal: Requesting preliminary Class III Subdivision approval for a 4 lot residential plat of the property located at 4490 Watertown Road. The property consists of a single ta.x parcel which is separated into 3 distinct portions by existing public roads. The northerly portion is 22 acres in area, of which about 4.8 acres is dry buildable and contains the residence. The central 5 acres south of Co. Rd. 6 and west of McCulley Road is vacant and is proposed as a separate lot. The southeasterly 8 acres between McCulley Road and Tumham Road is proposed to be split into tw'o 4 acre lots. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Wetland Report F - 1981 McCulley Road Condemnation Court Documents G - Depiction of Current County Road 6AVatertown Road Condemnation Impacts H - Steve Weckman On-Site Systems Review I - Letter from Hennepin County Public Works An, or ^ J - 1998 Quit-claim deed to County; 1986 Deeds (Tumham & Van Moorlehem) K - Alan P. Olson Memo 3-13-81 L - Brief History of Property M - City Engineer comments Pertinent Facts 5^ Dry Buildable Wetland Total Area Lost To ROW Net Drv Area Lot 1 , Block 1 4.8 ac. +17.5 ac. +22.29 ac.0 ac.4.8 ac.+ Lot 1, Block 2 5.07 ac.0.15 ac.*5.22 ac.0.13 ac.5.09 ac. Lot 1, Block 3 4.07 ac.0.0 ac.4.07 ac.2.01 ac.2.06 ac. Lot 2, Block 3 4.07 ac.0.0 ac.4.07 ac.0.08 ac.3.99 ac. 18.01 ac.+17.65 ac.+35.65 ac.2.22 ac.15.94 ac.± *This wetland is not on City-protected inventory, therefore is creditable toward lot area - LcJi Zoning File #2355 April 13,1998 Page 2 l- \e is a, a. 8 a C iw.' Brief History of Property Please review Exhibit L for an overview of hre history of this property as regards its zoning, development, and acquisition by public bodies for roadways. in 1980. the City condensed a diagonal corridor of County Road 6. which could have been ° condemnation. As a result of the McCulley 5+ acre portion "e^t ®f cu?utotely agreed to the conditions established by the acre parcels in the future (Exhibit F). currently, the 8 acre portion of the property is ^ing a relocated connection between Watertown Road and McCulley ^ easement is not oai easement over 2 of the 8 acres. fu-tiona.l«^^ or^Izld reflected in the subdivision proposal subm.tted by the applicant, since it was omy lorm the last two weeks. Impacts of Current Right-of-Way Acquisition The County Road 6 improvements occurring this year residt in the need for Hennepin County to additional right-of-way. which impacts the proposed plat as follows. Lot 1, Block 1 as proposed will not be affected. Lot 1. Block 2 will lose approximately 0.13 acre according to staff calculation, reducing it to about 5.09 acres. . The 8 acre parcel proposed to become Lots 1 imd 2. Block 3. tvill lose about 2.09 acres per staff calculation, reducing it to about 6.05 acres. Lot 1 Block 3 as proposed will lose one of the two drainfield f buildable envelope left. This proposed lot is reduced to -.06 acres in ar . from the new roadway. acquire LUlEtitViM ^mm [tlViNil!]ni4:to«8iiimri [tliEtJ rOEsScfliTs^ Kiil<^WtHmWiTil MiiYt •JMt] gm [•Mifitj •Ml ifi rtBci^ liJOrtM •JtJO]•MiiiriRi •1111 rt •MIJitiN 4Wt SjWiEW^lUIUmijMHIiril raimnnii^i rannKi m\m Zoning File #2355 April 13, 1998 Page 4 3. then becoming substandard, does it make any sense to require such crediting? Should a lot area variance be granted due to to extenuating circumstances which may constitute a hardship, such as: ^ ~ No additional land available, but septic needs met and Lot is 22 acres total - Existing house allowed to be built under current zoning standards - Location of existing roads - 'Ripple effect' of crediting property from across the road It would be highly unusual for the City to allow the creation of a substandard lot in a new subdivision (staff is aware of only two such occurrences since 1975, one related to City easement cquisition and the other the result of a rezoning). The circumstances surrounding this property are ry unique in that few other tax parcels of this size in the City are split by public rights of Ly Access Hennepin County has agreed to build a new access drivew'ay for Lot 1, Block 2 onto McCulley Road at a location approximately 450-600' from the new intersection. This location will require City acmTrh Tumham Road for the southeasterly 8acres. The existing driveway for Lot I, Block 1 appears acceptable. ^ Subdivision Classification - Kclalion to Park Dedication Per the curent subdivision code adopted in 1984, a proposal to create 3 or more lots from a single h« parcel IS considered by delinition as a Class III subdivision, requiring a formal plat, dedieatfon of wetland easements, etc. Also, as a Class III subdivision the plat is subiect to Park Dedication requirements (Zoning Code Section 11.62). This subdivision will bc'presented to the Park nr n» tT'”' 'i!iT"''' meeting for a recommendation as to whether land dedication Kuey RMd ‘mil along Storm Water, Grading and Drainage F‘^ib?furT'r subdivision regarding stormwater, grading and drainage n m each lot result in only a minimal potential for impacts to nearby surface waters. With the likelyhood that only 2 new homes will be constructed ots Of 5acres and 6 acres respectively, and no new roads being created to ser\-e the subdivision IS s affs expectation that MCWD would not require a permit nor any ponding, and no fee contribution. The City's goal for this development, as noted by the City Engineer, is that pre- Zoning File #2355 April 13,1998 Page 5 development water quality and quantity parameters be maintained at post-development. This might be accomplished by merely maintaining vegetated buffers along the property perimeters. Applicant must provide the drainage area calculations and information as identified by the City Engineer, as well as a grading plan for the site if any grading other than new driveway entrances is proposed. Note that erosion control using Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be needed during home construction, especially on steep slopes. Summary of Issues for Consideration 1. Confirmation of dry buildable acreage for Lot 1, Block 1; consideration of basis for area variance if required. 2. Recommendation that Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 should be platted as a single 6-acre lot. 3. Stormwater / drainage calculations required; may confirm no need for ponding. Staff Recommendation 1 pfC/ . Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to: 1. Applicaiit to confirm dry buildable acreage of Lot 1, Block 1 prior to Council preliminary plat review; Planning Commission should address how this should be dealt with if it is confirmed that it's under 5 acres. Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 should be platted as a single 6-acre lot, reflecting the County right- of-way acquisition. The preliminary plat drawing should be revised prior to Council preliminary plat review. New driveway access locations will be subject to Public Services Director approval. Applicant to provide pre- and post-development drainage calculations per City Engineer comments prior to Council preliminary plat review. Park dedication (fee vs. land) to be reviewed by Park Commission on May 4. Standard plat conditions: a. Granting of standard perimeter drainage and utility easements b. Granting of Conservation and Flowage Easement over City protected wetland in Lot 1, Block 1. c. Creation of covenant for protection of non-City protected wetland in Lot 1, Block 2. yf'.: O 1) }3 Bfi A -— CITYt)!' ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION Application _______Date Received 3Amount Paid /2^. PROPERTY LOCATION Site address 4M:QD W/CHEIZTOVJ Ni 'RQ^^^\ Property Identification Number (PID) 31- A3^ 0>l QQOl_______________ Please check one - Property _____abstract or_____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT,, N \i C\^ \\ \ C I \M Name V( vet^\\ Ace rUWvrx ^ V^ucW<; \ . V c\vy» VoorUKiiVH Address ~~^oc-A._________________Phone (home) % City i'^CL r VOJ....S ( e; >> c .. ,• \ Zip Phone (work) 3V3-(qi5:3 4 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name fvCf »^\civ.w\ ;Address ^50f ^ Citv^O^C>...'^^vV ■ X<j>2d Phone (home) ^7/-VPSy (attach list if mbre than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Zip Phone (work) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ Present Zoning District 1^'g.- PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purpose*- _________ Lot Line Rearrangement 'Jiily fno new buildling sites) _________ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites I Existing Units Q New Units 1 Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_________ ,4 REQUI1U.D FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below.2. Completed application form.3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey ■^panmem of Finooc. A-eO, ^^NIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR C^LETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate ofSurvey or mylar copies of formal plat. ^3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature ____________ I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: -------- Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & HI) S250.00 i i -------- Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 S Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 +“ ^(jOo) Preltoinary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/Iot (Class HI & all non-residential) -------- Fmal 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)-S4afP- -b SeoJ “b ASiCMfiV- -------- Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) . -------- Renewal of Class I and H Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) -------- Renewa of Class HI, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) STs^IcW f™'" “"8'"^' -------- Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineaI ft.; lin. ft. x .50 = $ -------- Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.;_____Hn. 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 Dn-Sit#» ^vctAtn QJf® o-..:—.. /___. . Totals —^— On-Site System, Site E^luation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x 3 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/DweIling Unit ISO The applicant hereby agrees to provide all infoimation required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney ordinance^°'^'"*”'°'J^ Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by Applicant's Signature U j.,^ ___________ Date 3 -9 ^ Owner's Signature Vl V|Date place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. cs^ \Sv^ \ C-=>A..^-fc, (., v/Oti:t ,WM ^Vv\ rv r. n o j \S^ '''JL vt^ 0.(^VV r C>-v, , VxywvS^ \ Vj^ Vlfi5!_^'-'^^ ^ - ---------V v^.w-v_ .—v\ r ^ v;5WcV\ v\(rl' W,\ ^ X r RUN DATE 02/04/98 BATCH 501PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST58 30-118-23 34 000100038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED KIP A NELSON KIP NELSON 4580 WATERTOWN RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 12 OOlC 04340 SIXTH AVE N C S WILLIAMS A E R WILLIAMS CRAIG A ELIZABETH WILLIAMS 4340 6TH AVE M LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 12 0022 04300 SIXTH AVE N ROBERT A MARILYN GEHRMAN ROBERT S GEHRMAN 4300 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 13 0013 04300 WATERTOWN RD JAMES JAY JOHNSON A WIFE JAMES JAY JOHNSON 4300 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 21 0003 04580 WATERTOWN RD KIP A NELSON KIP A NELSON 4580 WATERTOWN ROAD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 24 0004 04545 WATERTOWN RD J L A M R DROLL JEFF BROLL 4545 WATERTOWN RO ORONO MN 55359 38 30-118-23 44 000600885 HUNT FARM RD HUNTINGTON FARM HOME OWNERS LARRY MCCARTNEY 755 HUNT FARM RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 12 0011 04360 SIXTH AVE N DAN FLIES JR DONALD A NAWAL FLIES 4360 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 13 0002 00420 TURNHAM RO L E BERG A K M DLRG LEONARD A KATHLEEN M DERG 420 TURNHAM RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 21 0001 04490 WATERTOWN RD KENt4ETH TURNHAM KENNETH TURNHAM 4490 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 24 0001 04480 WATERTOWN RD TAM SWEE20 TIMOTHY M SWEE20 4480 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 24 0006 04605 WATERT0WT4 RD J F SERENA A J M SERENA JOHN F A JOAN M SERENA 4605 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 REPORT hK). PI43540I PAGE 138 31-118-23 12 000904320 SIXTH AVE N F L DETERMAN ETAL FERDINAND L DETERMAN 4320 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 12 0018 04380 SIXTH AVE N J E A J E CARPENTER JAMES E A JAf4ET E CARPENTER 4380 CO RD MO 6 LONG LAKE MT4 55356 38 31-118-23 13 0003 04345 WATERTOWN RO DONALD K PEARSON A WIFE DONALD K PEARSON 4345 WATERTOWN ROAD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 1 . 38 31-118-23 21 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED NORBERT JOHNSON NORBERT JOHNSON 2245 PLATWOOD RO MINNETONKA MN 55305 I W* V 38 31-118-23 24 0003 00425 TURNHAM RD WILLIAM W STEMPEL ETAL TIMOTHY W A ANNA M OTTEN 425 TURNHAM RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 1 38 31-118-23 24 0007 00415 DEBORAH DR T A HALLQUIST/W A HAILQUIST TOM A HALLQUIST 415 DEBORAH DR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 o RUN DATE 02/04/98 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 2BATCH 501PROP ADDR 0>MER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 31-118-23 31 000504550 WOLVERTON PL J L HARSTAD A J R HARSTAD JAMES L HARSTAD 4550 NOLVERTON PL ORONO MN 55359 38 31-118-23 31 000600385 TURNHAM RO C E PHELPS A J C PHELPS CHARLES E/JENNIFER C PHELPS 385 TURNHAM RD ORONO MN 55359 38 31-118-23 42 0008 00380 TURNHAM RD D E A D F MERZ DOUGLAS E A DIANE F MERZ 380 TURNHAM RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 4 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 501 00021 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENT4EPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE 2S-58 C' m r eg V l\ \ [\ V & m r // *X -7 // ''» --**r^ \t - '-<;?::;$*i5.|^V,''V. . ■ V-- • fc. •\s X *x \ N. _ ! \ \\ ^ j W'^L f yp J /■ '■ n 1 \ . • • > vc^ X I ;\v*\vw \ I f \ xv'xV'' V/ 1,)M''v \ \ r4-«K.^l . »‘i /' \ \ V*, / N \ 'S- S ' - 5o \ <p^^: /w'^* 1 / \\ \BlT55 ’62 \ \ 582.00 / W0» -'rM X ■J /‘“S ■ / ^' L"" \ s V \ \ V \ \ -V. ^ X \X V « \X \L I____N ’!,r ^4 X. .*» “ ^ .•f. 5 (/) I y (/) f, .* < > . . •/. >' ' . *. ..- V : A-.' ■•• • ' tCh-‘ • / ! 'S \\ V 03/23/1998 15:56 612-472-1 C40 KJOLHAIJG ENVIROhtf-IENT PAGE 02e IQOLHAUG environmental services company Froi/idingSour.J, Bolcnetd, Compnhtnsni Natural Ftsourti Solutiont March 23, 1998 Me Douglas VanMoorlehem c/o David Crook Demars-Gabriel Land Surveyors, Tnc. 3030 Harbor Lane, No. Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Mr. VanMoorlehem: As you requested, I have completed a preliminary wetland determination on your property, with boundaries as shown on the preliminary plan provided to me by Mr. Crook. Wetlanc.s are located on the property as follows; Block 1 The majority of this block is wetland, located within the approximate northern 2/3 of the area Vegetation within the wetland is dominated by reed canary grass near the wetland border and cattails in the wetter and lower portions to the north. The wetland edge is located near the toe of the abrupt east-west bank. Block 2 The majority of this block is high and moderately sloped towards the west and north, with vegetation dominated by a mowed hayfield A wetland is located near the north-central portion. Water collects in the depression adjacent to Highway 6 and slowly flows under the road via a culvert. Vegetation witliin the wetland is dominated by reed canary grass. An additional wetland swale is located adjacent to and west of the northwest comer of the parcel. This wetland appears to be off of the subject property. Block 3 This entire block is moderately sloped ha^dield lacking wetland conditions. Wetland is located immediately south of the area but it does not extend onto the property. > fV ' • • ^ ' ‘ ■ 3 4*^ 1 am enclosing topography with the approximate wetland boundaries indicated. Please note that these boundaries do not repre.sent an official wetland delineation, rather an official determination of the presence of wetlands and an estimate of their approximate boundaries. *> k 4767 Richmond Road. Mound. Mtnnciotft .55361 • Phoni 613-472-4875 • Fiuj 612-47U-1040 03/23/1999 15:56 612-472-1940 KJOLHAIJG ENVIROf>IMENT or desire additional information please •I indicated number Sincerely, contact me at the Kjolhaug Envir^fmental Setyices Company, Inc, Mark S. Kjj ProfessionaLWe^d S^entiit enclosure PAGE 03 ! • ///nc.\ IL X\\; i \ \ \ Iy/\ gjC ' X, • // i * \■/t/ w V .-®!\ \ A V /; /.• //JL m \ .•'kJ ^ \ I \ c. W« A \ / &'t "' i -.V ■-;' jo.4d:^-=.-: \ S57W54"f \ mk ^/ ‘ M / \ A \ V \ V'V \ \ 0 / \ Z' ___J \ 037.88 /> V )M jt. .u.\ \ \ 159.26 •">' ____West liac cl the Beet S/8 ct lie EmbI J/8 of the NW / [jJlit |#-yseC ft .1 m STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT \ X \ N 512.00 City of Orono# a municipal corporation. Petitioner, vs.REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS Kenneth Turnham and Katherine Turnham and County of Hennepin, Respondents. TO THE COURT ABOVE-NAMED: The undersigned commissioners, appointed by the above- named Court, having qualified according to law, met as directed by the Order of Appointment, heard the allegations and proofs of all persons interested touching the matters to them committed, heard testimony publicly under oath in their presence, viewed the lands hereinafter described, completed hearing and conbideration with respect to said lands; hereby make the following assessments and awards of damages, which in their judgment will result to each of the owners of said land by reason of the taking of said lands by the Petitioner, the assessment and award in each case and the names of all persons or parties interested in each parcel of said lands, according to the best information and belief of the under- ’signed, being as set forth herein: A. Description of Property to be Taken 1) A fee ‘ simple interest in that part of the following described parcel located in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota: The North 44 acres of the East 5/8 of the East half of the Northwest quarter of Section 31, Townsnip 118, Rang 23, lyxng southerly of the centerline of County Road J • • No. G, hereinafter Tract li, being southeasterly, easterly and northeasterly of a line hereinafter referred to as Line 1 and which lies northwesterly and northerly of a line hereinafter referred to as Line 2. Line 1: Conunencing at the southwest corner of Section 31, Township 118, Range 23; thence on an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 40 minutes 43 seconds West along the west line of the Southv^est Quarter of said Section 31 a distance of 777.96 feet; thehoe north easterly 1313.29 feet along a tangential curve, con cave to the southeast, liaving a radius of 1532.80 feet and a central angle of 49 degrees 05 minutes 26 seconds; thence North 48 degrees 24 minutes 43 seconds East, tangent to the last described curve, 1500.00 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as Point A; thence North 41 degrees 35 minutes 17 seconds West, 50.00 feet to the point of beginning of the aforementioned Line 1; thence North 40 degrees 24 minutes 43 seconds East 880.20 feet; thence north westerly 112.17 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the west, having a radius of 59.71 feet and a central angle of 107 degrees 38 minutes 14 seconds; thence North 59 degrees 13 minutes 31 seconds West, tangent to the last described curve, 409.23 feet; thent7' North 30 degrees 46 minutes 29 seconds East, 50.00 feet to the centerline of County Road No. 6 and said line there terminating. Line 2: Commencing at aforementioned Point A; thence South 41 degrees 35 minutes 17 seconds East 50.00 feet to the point of beginning of the aforementioned Line 2; thence North 48 degrees 24 minutes 43 seconds East, 975.21 feet; thence South 76 degrees 35 minutes 18 seconds East, 200 feet, more or less, to the east line of the East half of the Northwest quarter of said Section 31.. and said line there terminating, 2.5 acres, more or less, hereinafter Tract D. 2) And in addition a temporary construction easement being 40.0 feet in width and lying northwesterly and southwesterly of and adjacent to the aforementioned Line 1 and also being 70.0 feet in width and lying southeasterly and southerly of and adjacent to the aforementioned Line 2, 2.59 acres, more or less. Said temporary construction easement expires May 15, 1980. 3) And in addition the fee simple interest in that part of the North 44 acres of the East five eights of the East half of the Northwest quarter of Section 31, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Southerly of the centerline of County Road Number 6 described as follo./s: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 31; thence on an assumed bearing of North 0* 40* 43** West along the West line of the Southwest quarter of said Section 31 a distance of 777.96 feet; thence North- .y •. — easterly 1313.29 feet along a tangential curve^ concave to the Southeast, having a radius of 1532,80 feet and a central angle of 49® 05' 26”; thence North 48® 24' 43” East, tangent to the last described curve, 1500.00 feet; thence North 41® 35' 17” West, 50.00 feet; thence North 48® 24' 43” East 880.20 feet; thence Northwesterly 112.17 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the West, having a radius of 59.71 feet and a central angle of 107® 38' 14"; thence North 59® 13' 31” West, tangent to the last described curve, 220 feet to the point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence South 30® 46' 29" West 15 feet; thence North 59® 13' 31” West 20 feet; thence North 30® 46' 29” East 15 feet; thence South 59® 13' 31" East 20 feet to the point of beginning. B. Description of Property Right to be Taken Tee simple and construction Easement. Name of Party Kenneth and Katherine Turnham Nature of Interest Fee and Construction Easement Award The above award is based upon the agreement of City of Orono to grant a variance to the now existing minimum lot size zoning requirement of five acres to allow the owner to subdivide the property remaining southeast of the property condemned into two >lots of approximately four acres each. \ In addition to the^above assessment and awc\r^, the respondents are allowed reasonable appraisal fees of $ 0 ^ ^ ^ The said award and payment thereof are conditioned upon the following: (a) First payment therefrom of the taxes levied and assessed for the year 1978 and payable in the year 1979 and prior years, with penalties, if any; (b) Also payment therefrom of all unpaid special assessments imposed upon the property prior to the date of the filing of the petition herein, including future installments thereof; and (c) Payment therefrom of all annual maintenance charges levied prior to the filing of this report or to deposits under K.S.A. 462.445 (Quick Taking) or to payments under stipu lation in lieu thereof, which ever is earliest. We further report that all of the undersigned were present at each of the meetings of the commissioners and hearings and that -: X. m all of the undersigned participa^od in'consideration of the allegations and proofs of the interested persons and in the ascertaining, determining, assessing and awarding of damages for the taking of the properties above described and that all of said commissioners viewed the above described premises. J Dated:1981. eraldlne Rerat Stan Larson - ^ u r 'East line of tha MT J/4 of Sec. 3], T. 118, E. ~ IfesL^ff^ of^Jti' East 6/8 of the Fust i/3 of the Nif 1/^ of Sec. 31. o ^ __________- —- 4r<Y^ '»v £li« 'r“a^“. VI \ ll ■\ "■"’r=290 \ N \ N \ V -v.*^ ' y\j toe- /✓ >V* N V \ k »• ’ / ^ ^ />S0 o vv MiDW'i%.ANCT t ’S.. y #>» ca >'j/\ 0 O/iTl' J &V.i ^»6pr ' i t 1 s / / < \J / / / \ / \ / % * /:\\ fe.\ \ ■\ -..,r- C W.I \ n TO:Michael P.Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator FROM: Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager DATE: April 8,1998 SUBJECT: Septic Review for Application #2355, Susan and Douglas Van Moorlehem Subdivision The proposed four lot subdivision requires the use of on-site sewage treatment systems. Soil borings and percolation tests were performed by S-P Testing, Inc. to identily primary and alternate drainfield sites on each lot. The existing three bedroom residence on lot 1, block 1 requires two future drainfield sites for the subdivision as the existing system is non-compliant. The existing system must be repaired by December 31, 2007 or within 90 days of failure, whichever comes first. The proposed primary site is located just down slope of the driveway and excavated soils and is designed for the existing three bedroom residence. Additional area is available for a total of five bedrooms, but the system would be seven feet from the driveway and the upslope side of the system would lie over excavated soils. If a five bedroom system Is installed in this location the driveway would need to be moved to provide adequate drainage around the system. The future drainfield site meets all current codes. Because the proposed primary drainfield site for this lot has some limitations, staff notes that another future site appears to be avaUable just east of the future site, but at slightly steeper slopes (between 6 and 8 percent). Staff considers this to be a better alternative than using a site across Watertown Rd. The remaining lots have primary and alternate drainfield sites designed for five bedroom residences wliich meet all current standards. No setback, drainage or other site problems appear to be a concern on these lots. Based on the above information, staff recommends approval of the subdivision. The City requires the drainfield sites be fenced off prior to any grading or land alteration on these lots. ---- bl S-I QUIT CLAIM DFFD STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ EXEMPT Date: “Aftf \ V ^______1998. r' ^ valuable consideration ,, Kenneth Turnham and Edith L. Turnham husband and wife. Grantors, hereby convey and quitclaim to the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, Grantee, a body politic and Minnesota, real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto. The real property is described on the reverse Side of this document. K Kenneth Turnham STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) }SS Edith L. Turnham The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of Aghi. 1998, by Kenneth Turnham and Edith L. Turnham. husband and wife. Grantors. ------------------------- HENHEnHCoSBy ............... Accepted: Assistant/County Administrator This Instrument was drafted by; Date Tax Statements for the real pioperty described in this Instrument should be sent to: Hennepin County Dept, of PubI c; Works Transit & Community Works Division 417 N. 5'^ St., Suite 320 Minneapolis, MN 55401*1362 Kenneth Turnham 4501 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 Page 1 of 4 HC 1031 fZ tCM i%Kt CERTIFICATE OF TITLE N9 849094 Transfer £roa Ko.(i) 6S3974 A. D. 1936 No. 8i909i CtS-acTCCv.BTKe„i 19162 Originally riglsierad cht 25:h day of July VoluneCs) 2295 PagtCs) 633974 REGISTRATION 4^ 6 drr2a&£> State ci Minnesou . C ounty ot H ennepit . This Is to Certily that Su>a:i K. Vis><oerltht3 tn4 Co'ujlis F. Va::>.isrl«>.«s, hasbanl <aj viJt <s Jol&c ctnantt. 449C Vaccrcowa %e»i, Kapit Plalo, Kinntsota 55359 art now the owner(s) of an estate In feu simple of and In following described land situated in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota* to wit: That part of the Eaa: Half of cha Horthwttt Quarter. Ststlon 31. lovnfht? 118. Ranga 23. datcrlbad t§ followi: Baginning at tha Narthaast cornar of tha Northwas: Quarter of said Section 31; thence South along the East line of said Borthwait Quarter a distance of 1137.00 feat; thence Wait at a r.ght anglt. 582.00 feet; chance South," «'a right angle to cha line designated "survey line" on the plat of Bannapin County State Aid Kighvay Nunb^’, r;*;Plat 5; [thanee3‘orchvastarly along said "survey line** to tha West line of cha East Flva-alghr * - - «- - i j -i. ^ . West line co cha Kerch line of said Korchwest Quirta;, over No -aight>sof paid Last Half of the TfortbvejtrQuartar;'thence North along said 'uirtat^ "theoce last along sald/North Tint co the point of beginning. Subject Co a power lire aaatoent in favor of U.nlted Power Associacloha'^'fome^ly,'Rural Cooperative Power Aisociatioas rth 35 fee: of above land as contained in CR Ooc No. 3723516;/'' t ^ V.’: - U. . - . 3644152; .n -* .4 . - Subject CO an aasaaenc for Rannapin County State Aid Highway no. 6, Plat 3, over part of above land filed la CR Doc No. Subject to the tncumbrancee. liena enri intar«tM(a) notnd by the mamorialfs) underwritten or endorsed hereon; and aub|ect to the following rights or encumbrances subsisting, as provided In the twenty-fourth section of "An act concerning the registration of land and the title thereto" of the General taws of the State of Minnesota for the year 1905. and the amendments thereof, namely: t Uans. claims. Qf fighu arising untfar Iha taws or tha Constitution of tha UniitO Sutas. which tha statutes ot this suit cs'^not raquira to appaar of rtcord: 2. Any raal property tas or spaeUI astasamant for which a sata of tha land has not baan had a* tha data of tha certiflcstt of titla; 3. Any laaaa for a paHoe not atcaading thrao ytars. when thtra is actual occupation of the premises uruler the tease: 4. Alt rights In public hi^“ways upon the land; 8. Such right of appeal or right to ap.raa/ and contest the application as it allowed by taw; I. Tha rights of any parson In poisar tion urtder daod or contract for daad from the ownar of ina ceMiricaia of title; 7. Any outstanding mecharries Uan riyhu tehich may aiiat under sections SU.Ol to 514.17. That cht said Susaa K. VaoMoorlahea and Douglas F. VanHoorlahea ara aach of cha aga of 18 yaart or older* art aarriad co tach ochar and ara unitr no lagal incapacity. IN WITNESS V/HEREOF, I h:ive hereunto subscribed my name end effixed the seel of my office thi. Thlrcl...h day Of u‘VT’ • .n Dacaabar 1996 R. Dan Carlson Registrar of Titles, In and tor tho County^ Hann^ln end State of Minnasota. By (i fO MEMORIAL OF ESTATES. EASEUENTS OR CHARGES ON THE LAND OESCR B£0 IN Vli CERTIFICATE OF TITLE HERETO ATTACHED. 7^OfFUTV documint KINO OF (•itTlluwt***^Tat T^f arniSTNATiON ^1 AMOUNT 1 1 ll hUNNINQ I.V FAVOR OF |••SNATURt OF ne»'.rv nvaieTSAB 2773652 ^jNSTBOMCN^)o«»t 1 ••••inj o**i Dac 30 1996 12 • • 8235000.00 Xannath Tumhaa 4490 Watartown Rd. JUple Plain. MSKorecsetDtc 6 1996 . j i k a a 1 1 f . A- .* - _1 •EC OVER HC 10^1 CERTIFICATE OF TITLE No. 849095 District court h«.Ci) 19162 Orlginilly TRslscered ch« 25sh d«y of July ?<St(s) 683974 No. 849095 J-5 IrAAsftr froaKo.(s) 683974 A. D. 1986 Volu-<(f) 2295 REGISTRATIONState Mxcoia , Coonr d HEMsm This is lo certify that Ktacach Turnhaa, 4S90 Wastttoua RsaC. lUpla Plaio, Klnntsaca SS359 'iT now tho owntKs) of in tstatt in feo simpit of ind in the following described land situated in the County of Hennepin and Sfift of Minnesota, to wih Par 1 ; Thac pace of the Case rivf-«l|hahi of th« Eat: Kalf of th« Korrhvtic Quarcer of SeecljDn.,<3l • Tovnshlp 118, Kenge 23 dtscclbtd at follovt:^ c.>7» U\ » V-o Cocaaoclng ae tha Southwasc coratr of said S^cclsn 31; chepcc. on et\^«jspat^-betrlftg o: Kerch 0 dtgrats 40 ainuett 43 ttcondt WtfC along the Wttc lias of tha Souchwttl; Quaritr of *said'S«cciba'li7 a diiiance of 777.96 fate; chenct Borchaaictrly 1313.29 fate along a canganclal curve, concave co the Sou:h«ait,‘ ha%^cg a radius ^rl53?*.80 fet:, and a central angle of 49 degrees 05 oinuces 26 seconds; chance Korch 48 degrees 24 ninuces >3 seconds\'Catc,l\cangcnc co ssld curve. 1300.00 feec; chance Borch 41 degreee 35 eioucee 17 seconds Vesc, 50.00 feec'; Cheace Kerch'^8^e^eas'*'24 oinutee 43 secondi Case, 880.20 fete CO Che polnc of beginning of Che crecc of land co be described; chance Kofcheascerly, Korchtrly and Borchwescerly 112.17 feec along a canganclal curve, concave co the Watt, having a radlueVf 39.71 feec end a ceneral angle of 107 degrees 38 minuets 14 seconds; thence Borch 59 degreee 13 minucet 31 eecondi Wesc. cengtc: co che leec-deecribed curve, 220.00 feec; chance South 30 degrees 46 minutes 29 seconds Vesc, 15.00 feec; chcnce North 39 degrees 13 minucee 31 eeconde Vase, 20.00 feec; thence Borch 30 degrees 46 minutes 29 seconds Ease, 15.00 fete; chence North 59 degrees 13 minutes 31 seconds Vest, 169.23 feec; thence Borch 30 degrees 46 minutes 29 seconds East co the line deslgnactd -survey llae** on che plat of Hennepiu County Scece Aid Highway Bulger 6, Plat 3, chence Borchwescerly along said ’'survey lint** co the Wtic line of che Ease Flvt-eighche of said Case Half of che Korchweee Quarcer; chence Southerly along aald Ust: line co its Incerscceion vich a line chae bears South 48 degrees 24 minucet 43 seconds Vest from che point of beginning; chence North 48 degrees 24 minutes 43 seconds Ease, 649.49 fast co Che point of beginning. Par 2t Thac pace of che Ease Five-elghehe of the Eaec Half of che Korchwesc Quarter of Section 31, Tovnehip 118, Range 23. lying Borch of che South 4 acres of eeld Case Five-eighths of che Ease Half of che Korchwesc Quarter, which lies Soucherly of ct.e following deecribed line: Coarenclug at che Souchuetc corner of said Seccion 31; Chence on an assxiaed bearing of Korch 0 degreee 40 eir'ices 43 yecondi Vesc along che Vesc line of che Southwest Qusrctr of said Section 31. e ditcance of 777.96 feet; chence Noreheescerly 1313.29 feec along a canganclal curve, concive co the Southsssc, having a radius of 1532.80 fett end e central angle of 49 degreee 05 minucee 26 eeconde; chence Korch 48 degreee 24 minucet 43 eeconds East, cengenc co said *urve. 1500.00 feec; chance .uch 41 degreee 35 adnucee 17 eeconde Ease, 50.00 feec co che beginning of che line co be described; chence Korch 48 degreee 24 minucet 43 aec.'nds East 975.21 feec; chence South 76 degrees 35 ninuces 18 seconds Ease to che Ease line of che Korchwerc Quarter of aald Seccioo 31 and Chert ceraineclng. 3844152; S-^.jecc CO an castacne for Hennepin County State Aid Highway .<o. 6, Plac 5, over pare of above Par I filed in CR Doc Ho. SIC OVl* ■'■mss' t ■fi % %■' '<1 ■ 0^ /4 T V > .V .1 Bfuco D. Kalkcrion* City Attorney Alan P. Olson, City Planner* * March 13, 1981 SUBJCCTi Kenneth Turnhaa Property Ring Route Condemnation jja-jsss; *97e: The northern .ection la moetly designated wetlands. All of the P|“"]|i'|uMivislons“^so“u^ tho*RR-lA°Zonlng regulrf !J:;;t;“'!5o“tJ tha% ?hc SciuS^^isesites ere spotted In identical locations roqardless of plan. plan 1 The southern portion <>f l^VVllp- ptior'to the right of ""'’^ted^ Because this part of the parcel is sep arate tax parcel oust ^ by roads, no aubdivision appllca- constitutes one building site. PLA.M 2 Prior to the new road, ^^.”®J*.^J?^J[„5”piatting*'wou^ created, a formal nnxiraun utilization would hove required. Under the RR-IA P^ri*^®acrcrc'T Kinimun lot width been 3 lots at «« this naxinum density. Per thJJ^cu^rent schcLie, platting ^ould have cost: Application Fee Park dedication Engineer a Legal fee Recording fee Surveyi^c costs Plotting costs $230 for 3 lota ($2?'' 'or $300 for 3 lots (5200 for $ SO. minlnun 7 7 $S80 to City 'or 3 lot? ($470 for 2 lots) 2 lots) 2 lots) PLAN 3 This plan 11 )ustratc.«v tho into two ratef^of way r. in place. Tho Property ha? b^cn s.Ul ^ Knr;,J^ K ST.2K.!; f««-i................- review. ^ o*. ,i .•>% - • ij ‘ i:I * •ij r’il au ^41 'vet tf 1 rfrV*' < ^ i /• * i ,PLAN 4, S t 6 These plans illustrate possible ways to subdivide the eastern parcel created by the new road. Since this parcel is less than 10.0 acres net, an area variance is necessary in order to subdivide. Plan 5 also requires a width variance for the south lot. All lots exceed the minimum 3.0 aerss of dry land neceaaary for on-site sewage treataient. Note that there are still 3 units possible just lilce sho%m on Plan 2. In fact, the house locations sho%m on Plans 2, 4, S & 6 are all identical. Also, only the eastern portion must l>e sul>divided. The western portion can be sold and used as a building site without awaiting completion of the formal platting procedure. ‘C^.\ •j'Ai Ci- I 7x LEfitWO ^OOTHERK) ^BTIOK) oP RttCEt > E^st Mat C*ry f^eowt-piw OsuAffx Puat A\ap ^cwiwo -» 217 SOO sr- F«i Min;. -s^aoi^ v«/it>TH PRofiT « Rtwi SeTiiACic - >o« ^«C»* <=,€-”(5A.Ci< - £TO FT Possible opJ fcAse. Map I* C<»rv <»r Heo»Jt.pw CbUArtv Puat M^P p-f________ . *D. .p* . • L Eg E-M O y///A Pf^CJRtKTy WIOC. ^CCTT^^CK. U-»*nJC p^V^HbLC UOCATIO'V-' SCAue r-*200''T rr\^ --------j 2RW10C. *-!» PJ.R-IA €.iocl» FiAAiLp *Ei/eAi. T?«<wt»fc'^IAi- ^ Miw. 5.0 Acftts • z\f,i<x> 5r- F«i Ltn- A\I>J. “SOOFT Uor Wit»TM PR*A/T « ROfi SCTRACK - too FT •S»ou *S«-T'=^A.c< - ^orx ■ preOP£R.TV UlOC. ______________________ '^oiTt^^c.tc P<?*«I5>l.e ^UILMWO L-OOATICAJ SCdLfc l"r7.£?<3fT RequiRES^ * Sow. Arri.uUT»w ♦ FLattims ^ 5ttflS ACC ZoOlOd /AAXV'O' I m r- w/m M* ' C.ory op Coui^ P’uat A\4.p 20M iCA <<V 4^- IA fiMU-p C«a*c»«^»jtial. Miiu. 5.0 Acttts • 217,500 sr- F«t Lm /aik)‘ ’hoorx Ufft wioTw PncAH- 2 Rfc*« Sb.t»ack - lOO FT SlOe -otTBA-Cic - 50 PT »-*i—■■ -- pt20Pe.KTV ulon. ---------------------- ^atTri,ACic u-i*ac y///7A ^VlLt>lKJC^ L.OC^IO/U SCALft r*r2L(Tc:?rT ’ g£e^aiRg& Jk Suw>. Application^ ^ Flattiajcs Uf( u;iPTw v4 loiA^ .jif Avl. t>eios.iTv Same 5Siic/^htf ^ * /!••/... • «A A ^ P*. A • • I L A Exist Map is (>ry or Heoospw Coopnv P'ua.t a\m» ZOWMOG ••& Rti-IA &IMOIA fAMICF ^ Miw. 5.0 Aco£S • 217,500 sr - P«R Lor Ml»J. ’hOO^ VI/IFTW Piwun- i Re>« S*TrsACio - »oo n* Sit7« i»tTOA.c< - 50 FT SCAL€, I ** r PR£?PCK-ty UlOli. ^OlTtV^CK V-IUC p<?s5i?»Le i^oiuoiw& uooATioxJ Peouittcs *^u»p. Amioq 4( T^attimO it Lot A«a V^' * Av6 T>*A«$rry • 5aaI(. 5.5 A« pUAJ N». i />• /f 4f/.....*» A»«* r L EXHIBIT L Brief Historj' of Property A. Was initially one 44+ acre tax parcel, lying on both sides of Watertown Road B. Zoning pre-1967 was "Residual District" with no lot area standards in effect C. Zoning from 1967-1974 was R-IC, Single Family, 1 acre minimum D. ±5-acre parcel with old farmhouse (4480 Watertown) sold off prior to 1975 E. Zoning from 1975 to present is RR-IA, Single Family, 5-acre minimum F. 1978 - Ken Tumham constructed new residence on portion of property north of Watertown Road; must have been credited for frontage along south side of Watertown Road, since north side of Watertown frontage was/is only 277' where 300’ is required; it’s not as obvious w'hether any credit was granted for dry buildable acreage across Watertown, and building pennit file has no indication on this G. 1980 City condemnation for McCulley Road reduced property to 35.6 acres; as part of condemnation settlement, City agreed to allow the 8-acre parcel to be split into two 4-acre lots in the future H. Subdivision regulations in effect in 1980 would have allowed creation of 3 separate tax parcels per road boundaries, without subdivision process I. 1984 - new subdivision code adopted (still in effect) which made such a division a Class III subdivision because it results in three or more lots J. 1986 - Tumham created tw'o separate deeds for (a) property with house north of Watertowm Road and (b) two property remnants south of Watertown Road; but did not do a subdivision to create 3 separate tax parcels K. Tumham quit-claim deeded house and land north of Watertown Road to Van Moorlehem L. February 1997 - City staff rejected County request for approval of division and advised Tumham family members of need to complete a formal subdivision process in order that the parcels be separated for tax purposes (and zoning purposes) M. 1997-98 - Hennepin County finalizing plans for Co. Rd. 6 improvements results in need for 2 acres of the 8 acre remnant between McCulley Road and Tumham Road to be acquired for right-of-way; Tumham being paid for this 2 acres based on losing one of the two buildable lots that could have been created from the 8-acre parcel. L if 1 Bonestroo Rosene mn|| Anderlik & I Associates Engineers & Architects April 13, 1998 MPorcsTroo Roicnc Anderhk ,*nj As^on ftc\ tnc ts ,tn A'rirry.tfivc Acnon tqu^l Opocrtumty Empk*>er Pnncipt^li Olto 0 Boncstrco. PT • Joseph C AncJcr'-k, P£ • Mtirv»n L Sorv^fi. PE • RiChrffd £ Turner. P». • Gienn f? Cook. PE • Robert G S:r?ur’»icht PE • Jerry A Bo.;rdcn PE • Robert U,' Rosene PE nnd M Ebernn. C PA . Sentcr ConuiUmts Associate Pnnop>^li Howard A. Sinford. PE • Ke«th A Gordon PF • Robert P Pfefferie. PE • Richard W foster. PE • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Ru,sc*. 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 Ko . mth Officci St '’aui. Rochester. Willmar and St Cloud. M.N • Milwaukee Wl Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: VanMoorlehem Subdivision File No. 139-2355 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the preliminary plat for the proposed four lot VanMoorlehem subdivision. The site is located at 4490 Watertown Road near the intersection of County Road 6, McCulley Road and Watertown Road in Section 31. We have the following comments in regards to engineering matters. 1. Access: The existing intersection of County Road 6 / Watertown Road and McCulley Road / 6*^ Avenue is controlled by stop signs in the easterly direction of County Road 6 and in the westerly direction of V/aiertowr, Road. McCulley Road / 6*^ Avenue is a through street with a high point located approx iinately 150 feet southwest of this intersection. The configuration and control of the intersection may change based on this summer ’s proposed intersection improvements by Hennepin County. Lot 1 , Block 2 fronts both McCulley Road and County Road 6. Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 abut McCulley Road, Watertown Road and Tumham Road. Steep slopes exist on McCulley Road along all three lots. The existing access to Lot 1, Block 1 appears acceptable. Access to Lot 1, Block 2 could be off of County Road 6 or McCulley Road provided the access is located at least 600 feet from the intersection. If the access is off of County Road 6, the location should be reviewed by Hennepin County. Access to Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 should be from Tumham Road. The plat may reed to be revised to provide access to Lot 2 from Tumham Road. 2. oti.Z'ics; lixisting and propo.sed well locations should be shown on the plan set. Utility oon^truelion rlans should be submitted for review. ~ * 3, Grading*. A grading and erosion control plan for the entire site should be submitted for review. Erosion control measure.s should be in place prior to any grading. Additional erosion control will be needed duiing construction of the homes. 4. Drainage: The draft version of the City ’s Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shows that the site lies within the drainage districts PC-29 and PC-37. Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 drain northerly to an existing ponding area identified as PC-P99 in the SWMP. Lots i and 2. Block 3 drain southwesterly to pond PC-P40. Water quality and quantity issues should be Ciddiessed as part cf the design in accordance with City standards. The post development runoff ICvV.ing the site should be maintained at predevelopment levels. Ponds PC-P99 and PC-P40 have A • • « Ahr-en classified as moderately susceptible wetlands. These wetlands will require that 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 ■ Fax: 612-636-1311 M phosphorus loadings entering tlie conds be reduced to 0.28 Ibs/ac/yr. A drainage area map with pre and post development calculations should be submitted for review. 5. Easements: Utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along all exterior lot lines. 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, ANDERUK & ASSOCIATES, INC. /cr?rt Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono - X T»i; p.lirticirii niwnnni •Jsl 4: l!isWliTt KI Rnwti nMiiltllMiMiK klriiUt SliliMikKhllK RTiTiKm^^ni^ MtfiUliJCi] • r A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) AND SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE #2358 WHEREAS, Randy Staffanson and Marie Staffansor- (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1422 Park Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 14, "Saga Hill Revised," Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zonin ad Planning Codes, the Orono City Council held a public hearing on May 26, 1998, at wnith times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of a new 24'x26' garage in the same location as a previous garage destroyed by fire. Variances for a side yard setback to allow the gaiage to be located 6.16' from the property line where 10’ is required and a hardcover variance to allow 31.75% hardcover in the 75-250' setback is required. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2358. The property is located in the LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District where 1 acre or 43,560 sq. ft. is the minimum lot area. The property consists of .33 acres. The City Council made the following findings of fact: ^KT¥5T«J ftTiiW i%mm mnm RIuRmiiiww Miumra RinriErs • f RI3 IliMim ^KWonriMQ mm ^FniM »c RsnuE RvnKc RTiTliTW^ Rwsiroj mm n riMii]t«t)iMiia 2. 4. u honties granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a bui dmg permit withm one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (May 26, 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 teminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. T^e undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and ^signs, hereby agree to the recording of tWs resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 26th day of May, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) ' ---------------------------- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 1 oo» K r- !'°;*80ing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of May 2esom • f *• “f 'h* Ci‘y of Orono, aMinnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City Notary Public Page 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 ___before me for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in a Notary Public within and 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 ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 ___, before me for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in a Notary Public within and 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 / .f AL On ■J 71 /: \ /V / '':-n^ 2,;/ /(O'K ^ ' \ to//••V V ''0 fxf \ ^X86)'y>\v.""^ ^e e X |?\/ ^ y. "-V y V u-1 \V \ ^'/ /i:7- • i / 4 / i-,'\ \4‘ \ V ‘'^N a \ Nfc?;^ \''” ;^-^\ '•■ \ '\7< X^. -K -x/x" / x^ X "/feX (SO) 9 /'i X A 'v -^4\ '?'^ X/^e?' y V' \ & |\ X~\ X'isX \ '-/ ( PARK \^ N- X''-;’H'sV'>v'X'’'ZX/ ■'''• fi. __•” ■" '*i \' N -s-^ A^s \ /<s .'-^4:^ V \ T \ \ I'fiv \- \ \ "v--'. ' V \ Xb AC"\y\ \ y;V^\ V\|7=\ \_' 31! 'io'. \ , \ e V tV. \nq\;/ X^'AA-f .. ,\ 4.^.y.'A XXx:;-:1yy4-Am:;t ,\ '?S4".XXX iSiXi ‘,(74)\. I /X i4X ’’XX.<r5- /• '7 ^ '■ 2'< \ ^■'■- X'4f>-X X'«,,./X >c — ^X 4 V '^'CxT X. X',X \,^05) ‘‘■’*' ' X® i:5 (3) ^ , 00- I - <1 .5co'"''l^ '"■''^T OF / Qr rX'-'-^AGA ^IlL PARK I <g;;| 1X->X'X>'-'^’'' ■'X«)'' ;\ V ^ /<A X ■■^•5 :R •s. . (14) X«5 ,'• / Cs (2) (3) ' zi-W'-.. t2 55 /> ,'■(47)/ ^',f/55. '■^!A '■■ # /' 2 /-/<f^ / ( / /y .. /* c' ^ • f «7, 'f/®' (50^,: /'•7 / "^'">76: |5 | X5)7^'X:c/ / y hcjus*'1,0(1. shoi iZo COUNCIL MEETING MAY 2 6 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION crn^oroHONO DATE: May 21, 1998 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner/Zoning Administrator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Resolution #2363 William H. Bockmann, 1130 Loma Linda Avenue - Variances - Zoning District:LR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District Lot Area:19,065 sq. ft. (.44 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing to construct a new residence on the subject property. Variances for lot area, average lakeshore setback, hardcover in the 75-250’ setback and side yard setback are required. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to approve the variances requested as proposed. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C, 6) FILE #2363 WHEREAS, William H. Bockmann (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 1130 Loma Linda Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 11 and 12, Loma Linda, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Coi^ission held a public hearing on April 20 and May 18, 1998, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B), and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C, 6) to permit construction of a new residence where variances to encroach 8' forward of the average lakeshore setback at the southeast comer, to encroach 13' into the required side yard adjacent to a street where a 22’ setback is proposed arid 35 ’ is required; to allow 3,033 sq. ft. (28.32%) of hardcover in the 75-250' setback where 2,630 sq. ft. (25%) is allowed on a lot that is 19,065 sq. ft. (.44 acres) where 1 acre is required. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Page 1 of 5 r 1. 2. 3. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2363. The property is located in the LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore ResidenUal Zoning District where 1 acre or 43,560 sq. ft. is the minimum lot area. The property consists of .44 acres or 19,065 sq. ft. The Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 20 and May 18, 1998, and recommended approval of a vote of 5 to 0. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The subject property does not meet the minimum lot area requirement for the LR-IB zoning district. B.The property is bounded by a service road on the west side that technically is the front yard and Loma Linda Avenue on the north that is the side yard adjacent to a street. C. D. A well on the property limits the location of new construction. The proposed residence is less than the allowed structural coverage permitted. F.Fhe proposed residence complies with the 75' lakeshore setback and will not interfere with lakeviews of adjacent residences. The proposed design includes approximately 300 sq. ft. for a bedroom, bathroom and closet for an elderly family member who needs a handicap accessible space on the main floor. The Planning Commission considered this as a sufficient hardship to allow the hardcover variance. Page 2 of5 5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger lO neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B); and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C, 6) to permit the proposed residence to encroach 8' forward of the average lakeshore setback at the southeast comer, to allow the new residence to be located 22' from Loma Linda Avenue where 35' is required, to allow 3,033 sq. ft. (28.32%) hardcover in the 75-250' setback where 2,630 sq. ft. (25%) is allowed on a lot that is 19,065 sq. ft. (.44 acres) where 1 acre is required. Approval was subject to the following conditions: No hardcover variances to be granted in the future. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (May 26, 1999). Page 3 of 5 yt 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 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 26th day of May, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of May, 1998, by Gabriel Jabbour & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Miimesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 mrrrrm-m-« STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of .» 199 _before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared __________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) jfree act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of Notary Public 199 _before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared _________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 "•wt; TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM; Liz Van Zomeren, City Plaimer/Zoning Administrator DATE: May 11,1998 SUBJECT; #2363 William Bockmann, 1130 Loma Linda Avenue Variance(s) - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:19,065 sq. ft. (.44 acres) Application:The applicant is proposing to remove the existing residence to coristruct a new residence. Variances for lot area, average lakeshore setback, side yard adjacent to street and hardcover in the 75-250' setback are requested. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.22, Subd. 2, Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B), LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District Section 10.56, Shoreland Management, Subd. 16(C,6), Average Lakeshore Setback #2363 William Bockmann 1130 Loma Linda Avenue Date of PC, May 18. 1998 page—1 I I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Front 1 acre 100'75'10' 35' adjacent to street 35' Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Lake Side Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street Front .44 acre 125'atOHWL 1 IT at 75' setback 80' approx.22' proposed 47' from service road The subject property does not meet lot area requirements. The street side setback is proposed at 22' where 35' is required. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Structural Coverage Allowed Proposed Structural Coverage 19,065 sq. ft.4,766.25 sq. ft. (15%) 2,193 sq. ft. (11.50%) Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'8,542 none none none none 75'-250’10,523 sq. ft.not calculated 2,630 sq.ft. (25%) 3,033 sq.ft. (28.32%) 403 (3.8%) The applicant is proposing to remove the existing residence to construct a new residence. The proposed residence is designed to include space for the applicant's father. The plan includes a triple garage. U2363 William Bockmam 1130 Loma Linda Avenue Date of PC, May 18, 1998 page —2 STATEMENT OF HARDSHIPThe applicant has designed the proposed residence to accommodate his family and provide space on the main floor for his elderly father. The applicant has indicated that there are 4 drivers in the household and that they desire a 3 car garage. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. 2. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. A new residence cannot be constructed without a lot area variance. A residence can be built that meets the hardcover requirements. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. The lot is unusual with the north property line next to Loma Linda Avenue. The need for a hardcover variance is created by the house design to provide accessible living space 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for hardcover and side yard adjacent to the street will change the character of the area by replacing a smaller residence. The current residence is closer to the road. 4. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Many of the properties in this neighborhood do not meet the minimum lot area requirements. Some of the existing residence exceed hardcover requirements and have hardcover in the lakeshore setback. 5.The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 6. The side yard adjacent to a street is not typical for other properties in the area.- - ‘ The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjo>Tnent of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant believes they need to obtain variances to build the residence as designed. U2363 William Bockmann 1130 Loma Linda Avenue Date of PC. May 18. 1998 page —3 7. 8. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrarj' to the intent of the Zoning Code.The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. There is a lot area hardship for this property. The side yard adjacent to the street could be moved father south, but would likely increase hardcover Hardcover, could be reduced by 403 sq. ft., by eliminating the deck and 1 garage stall. The bedroom, closet and bath for the applicant's father adds approximately 300 sq.ft, to the main floor plan. Issues 1. The existing structure is proposed to be removed. The lot does not meet lot area requirements. New construction on this lot requires a lot area variance. 2. The front yard is technically next to the service road. Loma Linda Avenue is the side yard. There is a well on the property that limits the location of a new building. 3. The size of the lot in the 75'-250' setback limits hardcover to a 2,630 sq. ft. footprint. This would allow a 2,000 sq. ft. house with a double garage. The desired floor plan with a driveway and deck exceeds this footprint. 4. The permit history does not indicate that previous variances were granted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To grant the lot area and side yard adjacent to a street variances. To discuss whether the need for a main floor bedroom/bath that is accessible justifies an increase in hardcover of 403 sq. ft. given the size of the deck and garage. Attachments Application Plat Map Building Pad Survey Topo Map Permit Record Hardcover Elevation and Plan Notice #2565 William Bockmann 1130 Loma Linda Avenue Date of PC, May 18. 1998 page—4 (l ' -5 O ■ ')•. • *=^'v V*'-ViJ v.j— rri'ooCITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming stnictures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION t Site Address //jVl A\/G. PrnnprK' THpntifir;itinn TSJnmhpr fP T n ^ //"7 Application if ^ f ^Date Received T/Z7/^^ Amount Paid it >ro.oo Propert>’ Identification Number (P.I.D.) -2 3 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquire d A/cV. 19 9X_________________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent pa’^cels of land. Present use of property: ' ' residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District:________\fj________________________ Phone (home) ^7 X c> ___ ____Phone (work) </7 3 q-g-ScT Address: (^oU\a L.ta Avc> City: _____Zip: APPLICANT Name //■ fSoC OWNER (if different than applicant) Name SA h^ Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address:City:._ Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Constmction Cost $ ^ 0(^u^a J S^/VT/a J^ - ^UfLO A/^kJ *vTc>£.Y (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED y Lot Area ^ Setback: ___Lot Width ^ Front Side Hardcover LorCbverage 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: _____ 3 ^yjAt-L Lot AidT 2^cutfiH(£Mr3 /46T/A16- pACluTy^ Q/J AocA, (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 r ^2 ( / 1 2-3 OO REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3.>< 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. X Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels^jmd-map^from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Cente^348-3271), Certificate of Survey (sign^ "by iTTicensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy SYi" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/z" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8!4" x 11"). 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). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date 3 OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and. Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Ov\Tier'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 scheauled 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. 8 r V «-/ (1) m '6 1.5 6) (]) \ b \ (55)C: ~ -33a.9 / «NJ \r- <7). (/ / O< o > ^ OJr -• C*. \ \ \ 157 Kjy 30\ id' * . * > ^ ■"...•\(25) (FCR(.'£R l Y lots 1,2.*.32.33; _ 34.35 & PART Or VAC STREET) ,---------------2:^ ' 2C0 : (24) -T^ ? L rMTTTTVt / / 50 50 50 30-A u. ^3!30 (23) 'X 29 28^•27 'o•26.^• N . .-'n cr-(22T \jy 40'x'50 50 50 40 V' A (19;(20)...........• ■:>' '-‘20 21 225 23 S•24.^•25*• tn o>(2iT IP All 1 50 50 50 50 40 <cm 4 (5) ? ■•r' s\ a 5 (6) 210 a 6 (7) 215 s ..........a .••••• • 7 (8) 213 a 1 a 3 (9) 203 s , . ....../ a 9 ( 10) !70. 5 0 /S/ X (68) A -’ > 58?’04^5" 1» ___1 32.92_______ LOMA If I MCA AVE \i(87) 2 % 1 7 S'^‘ 0 1 190 .. 0 ID 0 • la? 165 (5! g ^ (0). FILED 146*..*. Vr\f^ 6 \ \ \ \ \ \ ^ \ • • • • • •• • « • %HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA f\ z: < io . i(5:■■‘s / t0MyV--yNBA—AVENUE^/ & z. o r f '1 Pro^erj-^7 < /.\r iCJS-SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ w Ci / - I f\ c- I hJ Ohardcover calculation WORKSHEE ITs-2S0‘) 250-500’ 500-1000' f.yiSTlNG hardcover in zone A. House Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/.Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -r B X 100 = ppoposed hardcover TN zone A. House ________ - ^ Lxn^th Widih B.Garaee'X C.Driveway X X D. • • Sidewalk X ,X E.Paiio/Dcck 'X • •X F.Landscaoe X Underlain X Bv Plastic X Q.Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE, TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B- 106 Z3 X 100 630 2SO 3033 I0&Z3 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. __S.F. _________S.F. 2g. srz % : • > ’ . :. •• ' y;J ■'■ ;■ ■■ •:• !;• •;■ •• •’•. ■• •• • .■ •■•'■. ■■•. 1;..' : * . ; • .• • • ■ - . : ■ ■h'!• ’■. ? , “r “ u — iiLi ft PIooT F^oc-fp^» LIVING AREA 12S2(qn vu 41* is I ‘I • i Jii^n jtt: r I CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2363 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: April 21, 1998 TO:WILLIAM H. BOCKMANN 1090 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 04/20/98 VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant to have surveyor prepare sur\’ey that locates the well and shows the setbacks for the proposed residence. Surveyor is also to prepare revised hardcover calculations . Applicant is encouraged to revise the proposal to keep hardcover less than 25% in the 75-'250 setback. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is depeiident upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the May 18 meeting is May 6. In all cases, the application must be continued with the submittal of requested information by May 6 or the City will consider the application as formally withdrawn. 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 I J § o : denotes iron marker Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the proposed location of a proposed house thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. O r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL Meeting 2 6 1998 Date: May 21, 1998 Item No.: ] j Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2365 Christine Valerius, 3750 Bayside Road - Sketch Plan Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre Application: Sketch Plan Review of proposed subdivision to create one additional building site from this parcel containing 3.31 acres of dry buildable land plus 1.20 acres of wetland. Each of the 2 resulting lots are proposed to take advantage of the wetland credit per Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.55, Subd. 15(A)(3). List of Exhibits A - Memo and Exhibits of May 11, 1998 B - Plat of Bayside Landing Second Addition (1992) C - Petition of Support Submitted By Applicant 5-18-98 Please review the memo and exhibits of May 11. Applicant was advised by staff in early April to proceed with this proposal as a sketch plan rather than as a formal preliminary plat, given the issues of: 1. 2. Whether the property is considered as 'sewered' given the fact that only one unit was assessed as part of the Stubbs Bay project, for the existing house; and Whether the City's intent in sewering Stubbs Bay was to create the possibility for wetland credits in the 2 acre zone to allow subdivision of properties which are not subdividable without the w'etland credit. The fact that the Council is concurrently reviewing a zoning code amendment to eliminate the wetland credit makes it difficult to advise the applicant on whether she should proceed with a formal plat application. Staff does not wish to be in tlie position of having potentially usurped an applicants rights to come in und^^ an existing code section by our recommendation to start the process with a sketch plan rather than a formal plat application. The issues noted above are perhaps somewhat muddied by the fact that virtually the same type of r #2365 - Valerius May 21, 1998 Page 2 request was approved for a property in this neighborhood in the same zoning district in 1992, for a property which was only assessed a sewer unit for the existing house as part of the Stubbs Bay project. The only difference between that application and the current application is that the current application requires a lot width variance, although the proposed division line could be moved eastward to make the width variance very minimal. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this as a sketch plan on May 18. They referred it to Council for consideration in light of the concurrently proposed ordinance amendment. Some members expressed concern about the width variance, noting that we attempt to avoid these where possible but do grant them occasionally for cul-de-sac lots and in unique situations. At the Planning Commission meeting applicant presented a petition of support signed by neighboring property owners. Staff Recommendation Approval of a lot area variance is not recommended due to the precedent that would set. The applicant's options absent such a variance include: 1. Acquiring additional dry buildable (none appears available); 2. Prevailing upon the Council to declare this to be sewered property and grant the wetland credit and lot width variance (as requested); 3. Requesting a rezoning of the site; 4. Selling a portion of the property to an adjacent owner (lot line rearrangement). Applicant wishes to proceed with the subdivision as proposed and on May 21 filed a formal application for preliminary' plat approval. Council is requested to provide direction regarding whether this subdivision should proceed. City Attorney Tom Barrett has been requested to review the legal issues surrounding the concurrent and conflicting requests for use of / elimination of the wetland credit. Council should address: whether the property is considered as sewered and if not, will Council allow it to be sewered and the wetland credit granted. whether the issue of granting wetland credits is so critical that a moratorium should be placed on use of the credit. A moratorium would have the effect of blocking approval of the applicant's request if Council feels that is appropriate. whether the granting of a lot w idth variance is likely. r To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator May 11, 1998 Subject: #2365 Christine Valerius, 3750 Bayside Road - Sketch Plan Review Zoning District:LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre Application:Sketch Plan Review of proposed subdivision to create an additional building site from this parcel containing 3.31 acres of dry buildable land plus 1.20 acres of wetland. Pertinent Code Sections: 1.Section 10.55, Flood Plain and Wetlands Management - Subd. 15: Land Development and Platting - A. Minimum Lot Area Requirements - (3) Area credit for 'flood fringe' in sewered areas: This code section allows the City Council to grant a credit for use of wetland toward the dry buildable area area requirement for "residential properties served by municipal sanitary sewer". Staff interprets this to mean properties which have been assessed for and provided with sewer. Mere inclusion of a property in the MUSA does not necessarily mean it is "served by municipal sanitary sewer". A large property assessed for one sewer unit is not necessarily 'served by sewer' to accomodate a subdivision unless the City Council chooses to grant additional sewer units to that property. 2.Section 10.23, Subd. 6B: LR-1A District Minimum Lot Requirements: Minimum Lot Width = 200' Minimum Lot Area = 2.0 acres 3.Section 11.03, Subd.2.24: Subdivision Code Definition of Minimum Lot Area (Excludes 'wetlands' and 'vehicular or pedestrian easements' from inclusion as credit toward calculated minimum lot area) List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Preliminary Plat (Sketch Plan) Drawing D - Sketch Plan with Staff Notes E - Pertinent Code Sections miTn mm r*mY«ivr«i wmiA mm ^Iii¥tl8ira Rumxs\ mm Mtjnj mm ^■CtHiTiTi #2365 - Sketch Plan May 11, 1998 Page 3 these area variance cases were quite unique and the Council found them to be justified. In virtually all other residential subdivisions since 1975, the City has held strictly to the minimum lot area requirements. The use of the wetland credit for sewered properties has been used in only a relatively small number of residential subdivisions since the credit came into effect in 1970. It has also been used for at least one identifiable 'existing lot of record’ (West Femdale Road). However, the City Council has indicated that the provision of sewer to existing residences in the LR-1A district to solve pre-existing septic system problems, must no! be construed as an intent to suddenly allow the subdivision of otherwise unsubdividable parcels in the 2-acre zone. In fact, staff has been able to identify no such approvals occurring since the 2-acre zones were created in 1975. Applicant's property contains only 3.31 acres of dry buildable land, of which 0.10 acres is a driveway easement serving homes at 3770-3780 Bayside and is not creditable toward minimum lot area. The property clearly does not not contain enough creditable area to be subdivided under the LR-IA standards, unless one of the following occurs: 1. 3. 4. Applicant acquires additional adjacent contiguous dr>' buildable land {however, there does not appear to be excess dry buildable in any adjacent property). Council agrees to grant a second sewer unit and grants the wetland credit {which Council has indicated is not their general intent for newly-sewered 2-acre zones; note that Council has directed that a hearing be held for a zoning amendment to eliminate the wetland credit entirely, which is scheduled for the May 18 meeting).). 'fhe Council finds there is sufficient justification to grant a lot area variance {which is unlikely because there is nothing unique about this situation as compared to the two cases noted earlier). The property and surrounding area is rezoned for smaller lot sizes {the Council has consistently indicated over the last 20 years that zoning of the 2-acre districts will not be changed just because sewer is provided). Other Subdivision Issucs/Factors The site is served by a single driveway within proposed Lot 2, which could function as a shared driveway for both Lots. The access situation would require review and approval by Hennepin County since Bayside Road is County Road 84. Bringing a third user to the existing easement driveway serving 3770-3780 is also an option for consideration, but brings up the issue of the need for improving that to a private road standard. #2365 - Sketch Plan May 11, 1998 Page 4 An existing shed on Lot 1 would have to be removed as a condition of subdivision approval since it becomes an accessory structure without a principal structure. Only Lot 2 would have lake access via Outlot B of Burger’s Bayside Addition. Lot 1 would not be allowed lake access because Outlot B is only 122' in width. A covenant would be filed with this subdivision indicating no lake access easement can be created in favor of Lot 1. The subdivision would be subject to park dedication of either 8% of the land or a park fee of 8% of the fair market value of Lot 1. If the value of Lot 1 exceeds $61,250, the park fee would be capped at $4,900 per City ordinance. If the City ultimately approved this proposal, a sewer connection charge of $14,665 (1998 fee schedule) would be due at final plat approval. Staff Recommendation Approval of the lot area variance for this new subdivision would be inconsistent with the City s past practice and is not recommended. There arc no unique circumstances here, and no hardship making it impossible to use the land, since the land is being used for an existing residence. Approval of the lot width variance is a secondary issue. The City has granted lot width variances for subdivisions where additional land is lacking but a home can be built that meets all setback requirements. If the lot area issue could be resolved, a lot width variance might be justifiable. One option for applirant to consider is to sell a portion of the proDertV to an abutting pvvT^gr, whiqh would require a T ot T.ine Rearrangement. This might allow applicant to retrieve.Sp me valup frQm the excess land while making an adjacent property more conforming to lot area Standards^ Planning Commission Direction Requested This is a sketch plan request which doesn't require formal action, but the applicant does need direction as to whether Plamiing Commission will recommend the granting of a lot area variance in order for this subdivision to occur. If not, would you recommend the alternative of a lot line rearrangement with a neighboring property? This item will be presented to Council on May 26 if applicant so requests, or if Plamiing Commission recommends in favor of the area variance. ^ Completed applicaUonfo™, Jrf^ ftellmin^ plat mrormation on CartificaK of Survey ' „ , ,(. ru --------- Zoning Official ’s Signalure ^ Wlii^alion, plea se attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ---------------------------------------- Date ngSSSSr -= 4. Easements, covenants, etc. ; 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature --------------—___________________ '■ 1'’ApplfcaTn^sTp^^^^^^ Adntinisnator to check (XJ those which apply) -------- Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & lH) $250.00 -------- Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 --------- ^“‘’“‘''ision Application (Class I dt II) $350 00 =Z fSpp““ ^ "residential) , -------- Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 ^ - ^“^'viston w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 -------- Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) -------- Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) ------ Renewal ofci'S lirPre'limtti^'sr^^^^^ 1200.00 (Np change front original application) ___ of Final Ctellirbd?vifio"SB. Special Improvement Fees: Application $150.00 (No change from original application) -------- Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineal ft.-' PiantiAcf A _ . . ** Totals lin. ft. X .50 = $ lin. ft. X .50 = $-------- Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 -------- Proposed Sanifa^f Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $'>5/stub --------- Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub -------- Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200 00 ------ S?0.oK x'“ •“-PP'-i-) C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees -------- Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) -------- Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 -------- PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit The applicant hereby agi Planning Commission, ordinance. Applicant's Signati Owner's Signature ■ - <r/ Date ./5/ are held onTfthhd'Mmday of days before the Planning Conunlssion meeting. Planning Commission meetings and Councii. If an applicant is unaWerauendfS^ of the Planning Commisston place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this chTg^priSl-Tat^lK^.®'"’'"'""S'"' “"d in your l-603 tall 2 uc C t LFGAL nr^CRlPTiON OF PR^MIS^S : Lot 2. Block 1. BURGERS BAYSlOE SECOND ADDITION f o : denotes iron morker Deorings shown ore based upon on assumed doiun^. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, ond the location of on existing house, shed, orid gravel driveway thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroochments. ^^ .S t f jcdfj / = 77't O^SIMO REVlSiON DATE OeSCRPTDN bRAWN aCCKEO COFFIN k GRONBERG, INC. 482 TAMARACK AVENUE. LONG LAKE, MN, 5W86 612-473-4141 I HEREBY CERTFY THAT THS PLAH SPECnCATDM, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR l^CER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION that I am a duly licensed PROfESSOKAL ENCfCER UBER T»€ LAWS or T^C state OF MteCSOTA. DATE - J'Xi'Ja LW UCENSE NUMBER scale 1--X DATE 3-25-98 ocSS JOB NO. 98-097 DRAW OCCXJ ==77- JOB NO. 9a-0®7 S 89*48'35" E 176.76 o • toro io CM o O L/nr\io MiNC. VMi_c.r;iuo OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, BURGERS BAYSIDE SECOND ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA rr e T I I. N 89*44' 16" W 149.05 oo ON u o UT)S 89*44' 16" E 148.50 \. ^ CDCC Of VCTLAfrt)N,/' \ L t-.-r i- DM /.?.S^c / . -2_ 0 ( A<- /.yT, /t,^ l/otTr-0.3,< , 2- »'2,^ Ac 2- . / 3> 2.2-g> At=. \ * \ J.ZJtJC, /• 3i tdt. dtr ^ l/ocu. ifASMT. ^Ase^n^yr /s, TThr ^ / S' ’ piio^o}^ L^r I • c>F i’ZooV/t.s'^ yz^o - i!?. Arf:. C3i:s3 tAJ'T h z’■" N B9/5' 4f W 236.7J 54^ T 7BAYSIDE POAn) gO Cl-V0Ct^ C^Sb»\T" ^mcuLA^ LrCA\L DfSCRiPTIQN OF PRfMISfS : Lot 2. Block 1. BURGERS BAYSiOE SECOND ADDITION o : denotes iron morker Beorings shown ore bosed upon on assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, ond the locot’on of on existing house, shed, and grovel driveway thereon. It does not purport to show ony other improvements Of encroachments. r^TAi A/fA 3 A.SitjfdfS X \I s I', 71 \. DCSOCO OiUWN OCCKEO revision DATE OESCRFTCN • COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. CONSULTnC ENGNEERS, LAND SURVEYORS. STTE PLAhtCRS 482 TAMARACK AVENUE. LONG LAKE, Ul 55556 612-47>-4141 I HCR£BY CERTFY T>UT T>«S PLAH SPCCTICATION, OR REPORT WAS Pf?£PARE0 BY ME OR ItCER MY DflECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY UCENSEO PROfESSWNAL ENCfCER UM)ER IX LAWS or T^c state of UNNESOTA date kM UCCNSE NUIAER scal T date 5-25-98 JOB NO. 98-097 ADDITION2- 2 • 2-^ ArC- j^AS»u7“. TAS.<^T~. o^r/s »S’ * Piic^x>y (^’•A d>F ' Hz<^o ^ •v \ [‘ T- aCK OR R£7>0Rr SUPCRV6CN AMD [MC9CER UMXR /^rrs joe NO. W-097 to 1p. 3 § 10.55 area requirements o*t this'"chttttr minimum lot nno required land area for each land'"rithin°“L^ °r ^lood Frfngl^ and no o£ mini^un, lot area, except as specifi=\\iV%Vo^taed%°r^h^L'?n “°" sanitary sewer, the minimum lot°arJam\v be‘di^®"5'^Kmunicipal lands provided at least 2.0 a-res of divioed by Flood Fringe area is included in one oorTt-in.,,^ land not within the protected available to that building sfte^withonf^ legal access isprotected area. ^ site without encroachment on the sewer, the minimum lot ^area^*'marbi^div17^'^ municipal sanitarv provided at least one half acre ^ ar-.a is included in one contiguous o-rrcfi the protected and legal access is available to*^th3h municipal sew«r encroachment on the protected area wilding site without municipal sanitary sl'wer ^°a*^ limi^^?rf ^ served by eor inclusion of Flood Fringe landl as Dar\^of''?h‘^''^ allowed lot area for purposes of complying witlf th\ f minimum space, building unit to land ar^a density, open requirements of the land development other similar owner or developer of such proper^tTwill L provisions. The oC his land within the Flood Fringe ea^^f credited with an amount the amount of his adjacent land ^wh i ,?h exceeding, development under this Chapter '?nr'h otherwise qualified for upon dedication of peroetuar coph <fo. conditioned the City over all protected areas so utTlizpd easements toateas so utilized for density credit. /lood ?larn^^nd\Vetl®ards'Vonse “”^^^^^ The land area in developed and is not used for rrp^?^ which is not to be or Subdivision 15, and which is dedicated^p Subparagraph A, Item 3 oe subject to special assessments easement shall not municipal improvement projects includi nn cost of other sanitary sewer and water mains and storm sewer 'improtemenL'° construction or ar t if icial ^obs^rur'A"'' filling, alteration. Wetlands Conservation Area is declared r °k flood Plain and public nuisance unless a oermi? constitute a obstruction has been obtaine'd i‘n the ma'n°ner pro^ide"d‘^ herei^'" artificial obstruct ion Ts''^fL°d%fter ^inUst Iorder shall be issued to the owne'r notice and hearing thereon, for tervk'°l^\7n ‘:^^L"ona\^l^e Yi^t^L- l I ORONO CC 371 (4-1-84) f t i r f I I I i i i I I I 3 I I a 3 3 3 a a €'2 S 10.23 Removal T 1 ,- Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within the» "rp-ia” r. -iLakeshore Residential niQi-ri^f. i i^R-lA One Familyexcenf- fr>r District, no land or structures shall be usedexcept for one or more of the following uses: District.A. Any permitted use as regulated in the "R-IA" for the following uses except by conditional use permit: District.A. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-lA" ^ j accessory use as regulated in the **R —ia” applicable "egulatloni, ^°nc\uding"ioit s"?orag\ '"dinLty"r%gl"la “ioll" Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot width and Yard Requii-ments. 2-1/2 stories or thirtv feet '"• "'kbuilding shall exceedSection 10.75. thirty feet in height except as provided in m be observed: following minimum requirements shall Lot Area Lot Width 2 acres 200 feet Front Yard 50 feet Side Yard 30 feet Side Yard Adjacent to Street 50 feet Rear Yard 50 feet SBC. 10.24. LR-IB ONE FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. • innetonka or Long Lake. Because of the loca^^nn nf f-hn • ■. near Lake Minnetonka or Long L^ke snecial r^^„i i dlnlp^d"^ Pt°tect these natural resourLs fJorn the e^/ts^of s™nitar^^“^^^ -c^rs t' ORONO CC 284 (4-1-84) •JM •im [•Hmi Mill*] •H*] [fiir*]r«fsi*] •JAX¥1 Mlll¥l •IM r*i«i roAX*rs] ■ ■ iMi •1«H*MtW* [•li«»] r*X;X* ^1«1*1A] ^ V J .■) .J I I- v\ ‘-.V- -V .*** \ I v.::C:s/ \ V'' May 18, 1998 City of Orono Enclosed you will find a signed petition from all of the neighbors that would be affected by a subdivision of our property giving us support in our endeavors. Only one person on the list of properties within 350 ’ feet did not sign. The person who did not wish to sign is not an owner of an abutting property, they simply were not happy with the variances you granted to other new homes in the area. The two newest homes that both abut our property do not have two acre lots, they also do not have 200’ ft width. You will find that this subdivision would be consistent with the other properties in the area- actually our lots each would be bigger than both of the lots of the two new homes. Thank You Christine & Gary Valerius This letter is regarding the property we own at 3750 Bayside Rd. We purehased this property in 1992 with the intent of subdividing after the sewer was put in. At the time of purchase, we spoke with Jean at the city and were told we had to wait until the sewer was in. We have hired a surveyor and have divided the property in a manner consistent with other properties in the area. We are asking for your support in our subdivision. Thank You _____ 3770 U u,,\cX Ori‘^. i STD L<3u/^ 3-7"0 O ^ /i- ioA. Jl773' /cLl./^c^6. /V. 7. D 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Thank you for your support Christine & Gary Valerius ITmIL •TiE :Ljnin •ymu :oiku «B imii TIVE r.T« ■ 77^lit ritLiiiiAiL innfD m^irnaK ItTiTiDTTiT^OTsmriK CTiimi aniTinK rDHiIiTVE aniTiiMi roniiiiMi^ imwE fijniiiBQj r?3Tirir»lL rLMTIilC [iT^ViiL mPTiT* rLaiTiTriTii OTiinriBE ^nrirnTiESE lYM*:iTun: imoj JUMiAlii •T^QlIa rwipniTv mlilL T^rrt^TimtWKV liT^WJtXQi •nriETL # # This letter is regarding the property we own at 3750 Bayside Rd. We purchased this property in 1992 with the intent of subdividing after the sewer was put in. At the time of purchase, we spoke with Jean at the city and were told we had to wait until the sewer was in. We have hired a surveyor and have divided the property in a manner consistent with other properties in the area. We are asking for your support in our subdivision. Thank You ^.^ignature 1. -____ 3. Tcdcj 8. 5 ^ A Or I . Syo O ^77jT {iojLfxJjuRJl * ft- I •« > amt j5* *MT %« • / N 89“ v35‘ ^l“ W (70 ^ (/^iV/Vy £aser*^^^ '' // • T\T-i)- • ^ 375J6^ I y / W*i?T^y X-/ . \\ \ \ \ \ \ 1 '^l. f V wV"' V \ VA^ \ ,\ \ I_____ W '0 >-' \ A V ,\ / \ __y. IVa/ziag^e. Eo£>emejrh % \ \' N X /\ w / z' A MlvM / l 80'’ •• _■ - *-' ' \ % ■j;' \'t \\ ^ (9i!5i^' ■ A \ \ \ 2 l5± ac.Y6^-hiaf '' \ ,A - \ \ / '''■ \ \ \ <i'‘<iinane easerpent / 2Ki Y a tret % •/V / z^° 1 7 M' / P» i\-'7 ■ ^V' ^ y'/ -•> / <»i4' / ^ ■» /%'i' // V ■’ ,.,--">lo- y 4 A x' vJ II1S»-*'’^J,'^4>-0°'A' - - " ■,„;v‘ ri*'r M* BLOCK 1, BURGERS BAYSIDE SECON nniINTY MMMF«;nTA / i '» •. NNESOTA f ■ » . F.'» >’ ,{» ••r. •f ' ^ f (/) • >4i ^ V* TT--.' fJ2 --------- 8 176.76 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR CHRISTINE VALERIUS OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, BURGERS BAYSIDE SECOND ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA l^r I (r-o-r ^ T I 149.05 \. ^ rocc Of Vetlano / / ''fj \ /• \/ / /■ > ‘a- / t>M /. z. 0 1 A<- /r 3> \jocrr o.s<. TTTpAi,Z' * Ac x> 2 • 2-^ A«- Vv TV JAJC6.. V'^74.tTASlu^T". r X 1 1 / >eASWA-T-. V \* \ \ 1 i.lJiAC. /• JHdt, 0tr y. . f • /' ,' 7/<’^ 1 ?Y 4 •' r 'glurrfMAf. ;1^ . h! /; ?/ ^AS€=^CN)T" /S ^ P/io^o: ^2L>&H2^0 5 - As(^ t\ jrrrr^ US \ / / ' \ / \ \ (a4*€. U0r/4ff \ t t*‘*'*i^ ilH *i* -r \r. E 148.50 %'^/yA <5'41" W 236.71 — »»* f/»-------- V**.TBAYSIDE ROAD) . Ui^VT irr.Ai nrscRPTioN of pffrMi<:r<! • Lot 2. Block 1, BURGERS BAYSlOE SECOND ADDITION o : denotes Iron marker •\ ^ • .J « Date: Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning S Zoning Administrator October 9, 1992 Subject: #1764 Austin Evans, 255 Landmark Drive - Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Revised Survey Planning Commision Action Notice 9-23-92 Planning Commission Minutes 9-21—92 Memo and Exhibits of 9-18-92 Discussion After discussions with the DNR, applicant's engineer, and the City Engineer, staff has concluded that it would be appropriate in this case to credit as "flood fringe" area portions of the wetland above the 929.4' elevation contour. Also, DNR staff indicated that they would not consider that the shoreline of Stubbs Bay , culvert, and left it to the City's discretion as to whether treat it as such. I have taken the conservative approach and asked the surveyor to define a 75' setback from the 929.4 contour line on both Lots 1 and 2. Based on the above, proposed Lot 1 contains 2.06 dry buildable acres; proposed Lot 2 contains 1.20 acres above the 931.5 elevation, with an additional 0.92 acres creditable above the 929.4 contour, for Ttota^ lot area of 2.12 acres above the 929.4' elevation. This would appear to meet the intent of Section 10.55, Subd. 15 (A-3) regarding credit for flood fringe lands. The resulting building envelope for Lot 2 ranges from 60' in width and 120' in depth, ample room for development of a residence. Additional Factors Following are additional points noted in the September 18th memo: 1. The property is served with sewer but was assessed onl,3r one unit as part of th: Bayside Noiyth pro ject, and'this assessment would logically be assigned to Lot 1. > A sewer stub can easily be provided to .serve Lot. 2.* Note ^ that the sewer unit for Lot 2 would be charged the full unit price not the reduced price, since the lot is not buildable without sewer. This connection charge would be collected a the time a building permit'is issued for Lot 2. Council •MW Mill My L«VfTi^ •J«T^ •Sil •X«Til [•T«7« LO«y • ^ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3201 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 Q plat application of Austin Evans per the survey dated 8-28-92, revised 9-18-92 and 10-8-92, by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin and Inc. subject to the following conditions: 1. shall gain ajcess via Landmark Drive and shall remain subject to the covenants and obligations associated with that private road. The existing driveway access from Lot 1 onto Bayside Road shall be regraded to the satisfaction of the City to eliminate all future access at that location before a building permit will be issued for Lot 1. Lot 2 shall gain access to County Road 84 subject to submission to the City of an approved Hennepin County driveway access permit prior to final plat approval. ^ 2. The underlying conservation and flowage easment shown as drainage easement" on the plat of Bayside Landing shall remain in effect over both Lots 1 and 2. 3. 4. 5. -i- IE granted lakeshcj.3 access via Outlet A of Bayside Landing anc shall be subject to the existing covenants and restriction regarding said outlot. Lot _2 shall have no lake access via Outlet A. Applicant is advised that Outlet A may not be used for parking of motoi* vehicles per the conditions of the outletspecial lot combination documents governing said The existjnjbuildinc foundations on proposed Lot 1 shall be removed within 6 rnoat/'S of the date of final plat approval, or issuance oi a Certificate of Occupancy for a new residence on Lot 1, whichever comes first. shall be within the building envelopes defined on the preliminary plat drawing dated 8-28-92/revised 10* 8-92. The extent of grading and filling that will be allowed for any residence developed on Lot 2 shall be regulated by the pertinent requirements of Municipal Code Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19, 20 d.nci 2JL • Page 3 of 6 CITYof ORONO 7. 8. 9. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ 3201 Both lots are served with municipal sewer. The property was assessed one sewer unit as part of the Bayside North sub-area within the Stubbs Bay Sewer Project. A second sewer unit will be collected as a connection charge at the time of construction on Lot 2. Proposed Lot 1 is intended to be accessed via a driveway from Landmark Drive. Proposed Lot 2 is intended to be accessed via a driveway directly onto Bayside Road (County Road 84). The existing direct driveway access from Lot 1 to Bayside Road is intended to be eliminated. No additional right-of-way is required for Bayside Road. The existing conservation and flowage/drainage easement over the designated wetlands on the property will remain in effect. The City will require granting of a continuous 10' bike trail easement over the south 10' of the property adjacent to Bayside Roadr in addition to the standard park fee less the value of said trai1 easement. Both newly created lots have been found to meeu the standards of Ordinance No. 101, 2nd Series, An Ordinance Establishing Regulations for the Management of Shorelands within the City. All proposed structures shall meet the required 75' setback from the 929.4 creek elevation, said creek being considered for setback and hardcover purposes as contiguous with Stubbs Bay. ^11 proposed structures shall further meet the required 26* setback from the wetlands, the boundary of said wetlands defined as coincident with the boundary of the existing conservation and flowage easement, shown as a drainage easement cn the underlying plat of Bayside Landing. «■ Both lots have been found to meet the minimum standards of the LR-IA Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, and a single family residence can be constructed on each lot without the need for variances. Only Lot __1_ shall be granted lakeshore access via Outlet A of Bayside Landing. Lot 2 shall have no riparian access rights via Outlet A. Page 2 -of 6 the for I ' r ’ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3201 grant the standard drainage and utility easements LterVr lot lines"!" ‘ lines, 5- along *■ thrsou^h lo"if ® easement overadddi^rTrllii ^ the property adjacent to Bayside Road, and shall unit sewer assessment as part of the Bayside to Lot^l of the Stubbs Bay Sewer Project shall be assigned Northwest su^b-area charge as part of the Stubbs Bay permiris . o® ^ at the time building fee schedule at thlt timl ' "" according to the City FINAL PLAT SUBMITTALS Adminis!rf?or°twrwe4"s" o/ioi"to^ ®“t>mitted to the Zoning the second and fourth Mondays of the mon^thl^^^ scheduled Council meeting on *■ s" sir ■“ “• <3rainage and utility easements 10* wide along propJ^tV ’^in^Q property lines and 5' each side of internal P P ^ lines - omit along the creek and wetlands. wetl^^d*s dedication of a drainage easement over the nn^ov-it • ^ drainageways within Lots 1 arid' 2 per the the flowage easement dedicated with easements K ’^^e conservation and flowage dJcfilent^ t-h^^ carried on and documented in anydocuments that transfer title to the property. B Page 4 of 6 COMMUNICATIONS.MEDIA DIVISION ORIGINAL DOCUMRNT IS OP POOR QUALITY *• >U CITYr RESOLUTIC *. • % ■ -•*■. _ ♦ • • t^.. 'i '^> V' ■5. • I ••J .' • c* *"■•7o 'C.V Tv -‘J’J '*i‘‘ 2. LEGAL DOCUMENTS required: A. A •C-. V* Title opinion addre holders or others wic. shall sign the plat and a. interest. •=•■5... V-.', 'T'; oj ! C <* t f 'ga »' '--••.‘5 jre I su I B. The applicant must provide certitx yies of all record easements currently affecting the pro^ rty. C.Executed bike trail easements, City to provide document A. *B. 3. FEES TO BE PAID: Total Due $200.00* Legal review and filing fees of $200.00 Park commission has determined that a required in addition to dedication of l easement. The City Assessor has been f^^^^hin 1 fair market value of the undeveloped lands within i subdivision so that a park dedication j’® The park fee shall be adjusted to exclude the value of i bike trail easement. Applicant wrll |a°",, Rolf Erickson, the City Assessor, has submitted h findings. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota a' ,lar meeting held this 23rd day of November, 1992. }• h i c A I Barbara"a. Peterson, Mayor ciry CF ofiQHO 13mm -t. tr f - rJ C-, '•i r?I ;!c.rr! '■ -n 52=i S=> 55 V Page 5 of 6 — .. . cii:s g r request for council action COUNCLMEETINQ MAY 2 6 1998 CnVOFORONO Department Approval: Name Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren Title Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE: May 21,1998 ITEM NO.: / ^ Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:^2367 Lawrence Gleason 140 Hackberry Hill Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LotArea: 23.100 sq. ft. (.53 acres) R-IB One Family Residential District (1/2 acre) Application: 2' into the required 10’ side yard. ^ required to allow the addition to encroach planning commission RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission voted 5-0 in approve the variance request as proposed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve the enclosed resolution. r A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.21 SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE NO. #2367 WHEREAS, Lawrence E. and Rosemary C. Gleason(hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 140 Hackberry Hill within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 3, Block 1, "Daniels Long Lake Heights, Hennepin County, MN" (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public heariiig on May 18, 1998, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WTIEREAS, the applicants ha\e applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.21, Subdivision 5 (B), to permit a side yard setback of 8’ where 14.0’ is existing and 10' is required. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, 2. 3. FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2367. The property is located in the R-IB, One Family Residential District where 1/2 acre or 21,780 is the minimum lot area. The property consists of .53 acre or 23,100 sq.ft. The Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 18, 1998 and recommended approval on a vote of 5 to 0. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: Page 1 of 4 A.The subject propertj' conforms to the zoning district.minimum standards for the R-IB B. 5. 6. V*. E. The property is surrounded by Hackberiy Park on three sides. TOe existing master bedroom is 10' x 10'. The addition will extend it by '» ">= walkout design of the side 3 ’ f bedroom is most practicfi into the existing desjn ‘"rehitecturally compatible with the 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 a‘*f'*''h'™T“ 'T'** •‘■‘‘flic conditions, light, air nor serve as'^1 cmlen” property; would not’ merely aZI ? M 'h« applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a prertfril onhe " °r "ial fnTent?f the L ^Pfwould be in keeping with the spirit and e Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the fii^dincs and reconunendattons of dte Planning Commission, reports by Chy s alT comLnts Page 2 of 4 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.21 Subdivision 5 (B) to allow a side yard variance of 2' to a master bedroom expansion. The existing setback is 14.0', the proposed setback is 8' where 10' is required. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Authorities granted by this variance am with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (May 26, 1999). 2. Violation of or non-com.pliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 3. 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 26th day of May, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) Page 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of May, 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. ' STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of Notary Public .» 199_before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of NOTARY PUBLIC - .» 199_before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument.and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 4 TO; FROM: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:May 11,1998 SUBJECT: #2367 Lawrence Gleason 140 Hackberry Hill Variance(s)-Public Hearing Zoning District: Rl-B One Family Residential District (1/2 Acre) Lot Area:23,100 square feet (.53 acres) Application: The applicant is requesting a side yard variance to add 6' to an existing residence to expand a master bedroom and closet to 16' x 15'. A side yard variance is required to allow the addition to encroach into the required 10' side yard. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.21, Rl-B One Family Residential District Section 10.03, Subd. 15, Non-Encroadunents ( i U2367 Lawrence Gleason 140 Hackberry Hill Date ofP.C. May 18. 1998 page—I Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Allowed Total Structural Coverage 23,100 sq. ft. Proposed 3,465 sq. ft.2,238.06 sq. ft.(15%)(9.6%) 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 existing residence can continue to be used, however, the applicant has indicated that the bedroom is small. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The situation is created by the location of the existing residence, the topography of the lot and the proposed design. 3. 5. 6. 8. The varianee, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for side yard setback will not change the character of the area. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic factors may be a consideration with this application. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property is surrounded by Hackberry Park The variance would not negatively impact the park Tlie conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The side yard setback requirement of 10' applies to all residences in this zoning district. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has indicated that the master bedroom is small. The addition will increase the size of the room. The applicant shall provide testimony about the ability to use the existing residence. 1 he 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. M2367 Lawrence Gleason 140 Hackberry Hill Date of P.C. May IS, 1998 page—3 9. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The topography of the site and design of the house create a difficult situation for the applicant to expand the bedroom. Issues 1. The zoning lot meets all other zoning requirements. 2. The topography of the lot slopes to allow for a walk-out rambler. The proposed addition follows the main floor level. 3. The residence is surrounded by Hackberry Park. 4. The residence was constructed in 1958. 5. The proposed addition is architecturally consistent with the house. The overhang is considered a non-encroachment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To approve a side yard variance to allow the addition to encroach 2’ into the 10 ’ required side yard. Attachments A Application B Plat Map C Topo Map D Front Elevation E Floor Plan F Permit Record G Survey §2367 Lawrence Gleason 140 Hackberry Hill DateofP.C. May IS. 1998 page—4 ■. CiOOW'#fOO)S TR % m \ [TouBjry C>3sm ^/Trtllf Co lOkrMoat Mil W /i nmn litIV 1AP: AppUcation # ^3C^'7 Date Received ^ Paid - A ■ 'VARIANCE APPLICATIONInitial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no ch^ge from original application) Jion-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) property information ^ Da.rp^r,S”— i;(5 Pre«i?r^ O'™ <ha adjacent parcels of land:---------------------------(month/year) __oAer (specify),___________ applicant Name Lf^wr^e,A/cLP r r^i ^ ^ ^ . Phone (home) ¥ZS- different than applicant) Address: description OF REQUEST Describe rfniKAct . City; Phone (home) Phone (work) { > ^ i)'-o Estimated Construction Cost $ il^ncccssa^r" iWMAL VARIANCES REQUIRED /s ,3FT.^,1,n. TvOfT: - __LofArca __ Lo. WidO. _ Hardcover _Lo. Coverage S/' Setback:Front l^Sid( Other (specify) Rear Average Lakeshore ”^crir®d^ufSp°or°'' rV dT^ property CONDITIONS compliance with Zoning Code^^^^ ifficulty or unusual propertv conditi( ext ,.s;o^txra^>s,0N OF On A Hoose tc Tfieloarn q.dbJsv (>n. 245 ^ a\y ■.VEN Tin*n D ^ iojK;;s R.\ 3!S. 63 3'9.66 EAST 4!. 52 •• WEST 245 / T / 175 / 309.99 310. 56 311. 12 245. 92 348 2!4 (5) •* 33 wr ♦ 346 8j ELM...LA ^ \ 2: CD 217 (r^ .30 '3 (4^ocr O» ' j€ \i----iiWii iiiiiii i*t*»*** • •*•*•*#*•*« pi?.o105 :3 -tifTT--------- !39. 22 PARK (34) !39. 22 3 7 _ ° (13 ) ^ 8 _______217 MAPLE LA I—I SO SO 89. 22 •^23) <£. _ tn 3 •>r^. *-• (22) " t/i U-* "(2!) * <13 '"(20)^ 90 90 69. 22 ( 15) 217 10 (16) 217 fl (17) 217 (24) ^ 6to 0 (25) 180 • r .Ic S '3 (32) 179. 22 CO 7 ^ (26) leo (31) 179. 22 lei.oi . f' >81.01 fvni <k^ '£ 18!.01 /, r ^I ^ OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, DANIELS LONG LAKE HEIGHTS X 01 01u CD o < X HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA . t O uio LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES r Lot 3. Block 1, DANIELS LONG LAKE HEIGHTS o : denotes iron marker Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of an existing house, garage, and shed thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. . • • • • o too V ■ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCR.MEETINQ MAY 2 6 1P"3 DATE; May 21, 1998 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren Title Planner/Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2371 Tim and Lori Line 4415 Forest Lake Landing Conditional Use - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area: 55,500 sq. ft. (1.27 acres) Application: The applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to alter their lakeside yard which is located in a floodplain. The applicants propose to scrape 1" of soil from the lawn below the 931.5 elevation. The removed soil will be redistributed above the 934.5 elevation. Approximately 50 cubic yards of cut and fill is proposed. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to approve the condition use permit as proposed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19-21 AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 4 (B) FILE NO. 2371 the numerc J. Line and Lori Line (hereinafter the "applicants") are (t^inlL^openy")’; ... WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Co^irsion Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning he^oZm f. desiring to hiheard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and t. lu. • • I applicants have applied to the City for a conditional use permit B) ,7n?™if:r. '’-2' Secion 10.55, subdivisb™ fIoodpla?7 " ^ 50 cubic yards of cut and fill in the Minnesota:NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, 3. FINDINGS ^ % This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2371. The property is located in the LR-IB Zoning District, One Family Lakeshoie Residential Distnct where I acre or 43,560 sq. ft, is the minimum lot area. The property consists of 1.27 acres or 55,500 sq. ft. The Planning Commission reviewed the application on May 18, 1998 and recommended approval on a vote of 5 to 0. Page 1 of 4 5. 6. E. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The lot conforms to the minimum zoning requirements for the LR-IB district. B. The property is located on a peninsula. C. The property contains unique topographical constraints. D. Surface runoff from 25.2% of the total hardcover is treated in a drainfield area. The land alteration will balance the cut and fill in the floodplain. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the redistribution of 50 cubic yards on the property will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of me property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of me City. The City Council has considered mis application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by me applicant and the effect of die proposed conditional use permit on me heaim, 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 a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19-21 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 4 (B) to permit alteration of a lakeside yard located on a peninsula m the floodplain by scraping 1" from the lawn and redistributing above the 934.5' elevation. Approval was subject to me following conditions: Page 2 of 4 1. 2. 4. 5. Review and approval by the MCWD. Land Alteration not to exceed 50 cubic yards as proposed in Exhibit A. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council approval or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (May 26,1999). 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 26th day of May, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 4 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 1 ooo u u instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of May, 998 by Gabnel 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 ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. On this day of 199_ before me a Notaiy Public withinand for said county, personally appeared . I ’STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. On this day of NOTARY PUBLIC .* 199 _before me a Notary Public withinand for said county, personally appeared ‘?h ‘? described in and who executed the foregoing instmment.and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 4 ^ip ^Oj* I .o\ ^yjC t^ftfC, “JO >t ^i^9ftl*^t to iJ* fid ro^lA V/nMT {uiaia^C tM\itfi.liuw ciurat (<v^ir 5ti*\c ^ r * i H4>.'lfpr i^rX ta 04 yV^^<J Tib( ir Qw\ ;iiif>-^ u jci>ib)<. A MtAre. / (,urt4cstOP[l»wir N\. /IMW /ilifi IM»« . .vte Vo.f'i'li^o't # • y >Tmv^-c VXL\Z’\a\\(m^ fLind«^4Afc^JJ / /-----Siri^i '41JI > JH .iUA /^ -------______*.;■ —— iil ! \y J^/ /')// y,' .-• / / V. <.or -,i- : 'f \/ / y / /' >« * 1 ' ' ’ ^ C A wife ' |^*Cb|o<lTu ((iii*r: fllUM/l^5?J I 4l f?) ■ *1 /l‘( . I.«• l^%./ I ; d •, f J yy^U' fl3(S ^.c SckiillK( ''7^1 y ja \ ±JrUiu^‘^ *4j'll kUttf h 7if)lif 7,ic (ttf li /.lij 'ill lull'llitV/iM/J C4t(C *Hii ^S^vLuUXitJ, i.yin;*0.11 U /: tiaf TrdA n;< v:j i ^"yviu /*" filTki f( fbtf|Ui1rd 3U\/9.4 r f* 'iiv.c'it*< Ti*! «•« 'IIk ?l<?ct,jka^y y / .®- y y y /y ^ y /' //.'•'^ ycy j^y y '' ✓/ ' / y . / / y /•' y ^Ui iCi,j i((y lW iv ;yfrwJiyS^ilk pplU* H ikioj A v of Onuift J y- LAM <iafl.^- —ir-e?^y- y / y / -y^' • ■ ylf ■X/ ^ V ^ /y / ty -5 y « V ^'• y -Q \ . yy / LAi^r- /y ________ -t*_______»« ./ / i!i: #K O . \ $ / y.y-VJIl 1 rti f , u?-U \ i L mi $ / 'C / V_yJ( \ ‘f* ^ M .• ,!j o»\ VA V- / y •••*v \jf‘4 A HiV *“tti .A* wfTtlc 'ixtt.w y 2.M<*wiy ::.voffo4 :.r^iC5ft*^.'cc H^.u\jfc.'^ i^‘5 ^u’orT s%to.\ Ircc £• M^fo/TK "^ii.iyir ' F. -V.W' :.!cX)u» C^’irisi I/^ Z# Cot^OyajoOl^ ^ z,U<^ X*Gri/.^ ^^iu.V Ook ^\.:)•J5ar /Cnn\<r,co^ b\c1(^ 1 . i5*i(tc( OoL V’t<B't*rf|^\~\ i’./-l].'4<«'ii| Arbvvilni u»vlRWbac( ^ 0.,)«xlioaKt 3ufai A/'bor/ilM V^iiiKa '/lACd lUoOict^ V#£o^J ‘^a 3»0a ^ ^Corc.^Oi\ y,K6^3^1i(Vj^ Ho A I4 Hoi^^ iToI»2r ^»i1i'ioi wlaiOD<\ .-Ukillta ^ £t 6O0S iCfll'.t AfU^CiD Jd. fiacl\j:b^s>\ nji|lbt Aitiloc. f%f!bj..<lo.vl n»ii(c« 05^'JftAu\jdAstiW l^.^\oc^cal^ ^'to^nio''' BcKtAdttoc '• Xb4 3f»(Mjflob oupao^ila Lt. At Hi^rxollifl I' j /^.Iccwira iiiirtKr ju !l!A,Co^l^HJuII3J^k.^wlv Oo|U/C;^d^r' OJilbaiioi \ ]^ptZoa^\ir oxusM rJiou<\ y |(r, 5tn/>^ai€r U1 hi *a \ X’ 5s. SofcK 6cAvKordt wa n 1^. Wa . ioy ftnv itia W Mu./AVva /^lox vV£rt; CuI^/^U a fc*j Zl» AJ-ti - J ,-kia liliii Ai\^t ici: c-iii.’.iM ».ciii/0^ v!Ooi *•^e CC(3;‘'.^<ct 1'*^ iu;^a UjJ»{^i ^•^U£CtK«o #< \' . N \ Kii *»ikO ,^4 *.rrtit y 2.M<-co/y ::.\oco4 \ :,Pcc5u"^.'cc H^.uvjic-'y i,’) Ju’o^'t •S3b^\ Ircc £• -\jA‘'/tv ”J:i.ii^’if F. -vw.*** C^'rjii o.Jo^iCa '.L/ijHt ’-itu) Z# *o!V>^oo<^ ^ £i ^ V* I.*f3u.v OoK Uvd^v^ Cb|(ed OaL Arlw/V«fm D./)ood(oQ«t oleb A^ba*«ri!M If I i^cr% Jkooictij ^Udc f^VTai-c. ^oiU 2« Hoi^c; Iq^c J H(tV« * ' .-WKillta » ^ 6ootv ^cy\ ArwkCjA if ji fW\i:bii>\ A* V "t,5ji,*«tc Aitilct ;* 5^KKiiAla*vi hitiUe jc' O^.0ft*W\AtlAstlVo€. JI ;^K.H5t u'jjo llubt ii’ ’h^\cfi^CfOf\l^sfJ^"^ ^ *11 T^^'oyvu EcKiAatto. '• 5i XK%3fi(MrtlAi Aupse^iVx ^ Ll. ritb\§ >\i fWoulli* I :i /tiv.CcQaarj liojftr iiUr^lrby* lJAfOQri;iiiuiLk)flA\«lv Oo,La/Ci\dfin(jJjlwrtMii \ n i^p*:ioaVijur L3ArtdrtN«f^‘ou a§' CrouiM V iV, 5tun^i€r L|liu*«\ K 6crAKji/tttfti)io n* Soy finvikifl W Mu.AlfM » VirCrt: v ^ktk 71 ’ Kx. ^ivia r«‘ C3A>M\ (c^JuAl Z l » t\o:A^' iliw\J ,-Via lilui Art^cj icij Hc.ijs t^:ti’-^i^ etc s< MidDra^ r'*»> UW^ca UjJitf^ iOl4kt/*iu^ it ' \ lira ■• 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: www.minnehahacreek.org Board of Managers Pamela G. Blixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Monica Gross Thomas W. LaBounty Thomas Maple. Jr. Malcolm Reid District Office: Diane P. Lynch District Administrator Pnmtd cn r«cydtd ptptr contaMng II tMSt 30% post oontumir «uti. Miiiiutlialia I'ttHik -iM'Walt't'.slinl Dislt'iil Improving Qiiality of Water, Quality of Life May 5, 1998 Timoiliy J. Line 4415 Forest Lake Landing Orono, MN 55364 RE: MCVVD Permit Application No. 98-44 Dear Mr. Line: The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers reviewed the above mentioned permit application at their Board meeting on April 30, 1998. It was the action ot the Board to approve this application with the following conditions; • Payment of Rule J fees in the amount of $75.00 • Submit a performance bond in compliance with MCWD Rule K Applicant understands that the 100 year flood elevation on Lake Minnetonka (including Forest Lake) is elevation 93 1.5 and accepts full responsibilitv for anv property damage (erosion, etc.) which may occur on their shoreline due'to wave action, ice pressure, or other causes. Due to the size and comple.\it>' of certain projects, the Board, by Rule J, requires that site mspections be conducted. In these cases, the applicant is required to pay to the District a tee equal to the actual costs of analysis of the project. field inspection, engineering sei^ices, legal services, and any subsequent monitoring of the work. These costs are referred to as Rule J fees. Once the above conditions have been met staff will issue the permit. You are reminded that work on the project cannot begin until the permit has been issued. Please call me at 471-0590, e.xtension 282, with any questions. Sincerely, im Hafner District Technician c:Mike Gaffron, City of Orono Daryl Melquist, Bachman’s, Inc. Blake Bichanich, Keith Waters & Associates Steve Schmunk, Wenck Associates l i iV (j f Oil i' .V. TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator May 13, 1998 SUBJECT: #2371 Tim & Lori Line 4415 Forest Lake Landing Conditional Use-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B Single Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Size:55,500 sq. ft. (1.27 acres) Application: The applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to alter their lakeside yard which is located in a floodplain. The applicants propose to scrape 1" off of the lawn below the 931.5' elevation. Approximately 40 yards would be used to top the last 6" of fill. The 50 cubic yards would be redistributed above the 934.5' to balance the cut and fill in the floodplain. Pertinent Ordinances • Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 19. Land Alteration, Prohibition. Subd 20. Permit Subd. 21. Land Alteration, Exception • Section 10.55, Subd. 4. Definition and Establishment of Protected Areas. B. Flood Fringe District Findings: 1.That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan; The proposed alteration ofcut andfill in the flood plain will not alter the surface and ground water supplies or interfere with safe and sanitary drainage. The alteration will not impede the flow offloodwater or cause danger to life or property. The alteration will not destroy or reduce the areas of natural vegetation as the rate of water flow will not he altered. U237l Tim Lori Lina 4415 Forest Lake Landing Date ofP.C. May 18. 1998 page-1 The watershed District must review and approve the plan. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The alteration will not cause loss of life, property, or violate health and safety standards. The cut and fill will not adversely affect public health, safely or general welfare. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. The zoning code requires that the City consider these following factor s. 1. The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. 2. The danger of materials being swept away causing dangers to others. 3. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and future development. Staff Recommendation To approve the conditional use permit to allow cut and fill of the subject property as shown on the attached plan subject to the applicant obtaining the appropriate permits from other regulating agencies and installing silt fences along the edge of the wetland during the alteration process. Attachments Application Plat Map resolution #3375 Resolution #3559 Engineer's Letter - 1996 Permit Record Landscaping/Land Alteration Plan Surv'ey U237I Tim & Lori Line 4415 Forest Lake Landing Date ofP.C. May 18. 1998 page~2 2J7; Application # Date Received Amount Paid D<1-^_____ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Drcy^-^ 55-^ Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Ql — 1----00*^~Z APPLICANTJt A , it ^ y Name 'Tim ^nd k^n€^ Address mi< Hr^Jr Uid^t Phone (home ) 7 ~77J^ Phone (work ) ^7*-/' I Od 0 rjrfmrt Zip OWNER than applicant) Name Address Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Date Froj I (do) Acquired (month/year) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - __ $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application ^ $175.00 Residential Accessor}' Use $.250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ' i225.00 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 - 501 cu. yd. ot more y Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' ol lakeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (V --Cgn) OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$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 :>r 4. REQU^D SUBMITTALS -fr Completed Application Form. 2* —Describe request in detail. ----muf otairtL? rrio'^He • '^r y. Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271) °f ------- refer to handout for survey T7~ 'T' “ application if not included on required survey changes'in elevmb^, fgmd«® krl List of the legd names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in Constnrf*^’ name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s) Q ----- Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ^ ‘ ------- As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of anv other persons you wish notified of this application. ^ ^ ^ FOR 1^^Du??iON ‘’rMV.'’^vDOCUMENTS OR COPY d?cLr pfan^r ‘---------------- Date APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE IdmS'?"‘ "" required or requested by the Zoninn Admtmstrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fefpa™e„t) SlZ”..ppiw i. ,p, „„ uh^mi<n(L^Applicant's signature OWNER’S SIGNATURE The hereb} acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized ^d Could! 3S«nts, commission members^and Council .membersl^utposes of investigation and verification of this request Owner's signature p h>,Date_ j.jT 6C i r5i 1 • '1 -».; ---------__________ 1 ft 1 •34)<i1!_ » ~ t-^ •— -1 — or » 1 - 1*^ \« *\ i:'! trr • y TTH 4 PI CITY of ORONO KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES SECTION 10.22, SU^S?(?is^ioi^ ^^DTo^24,^S^DmSIO^ 5 (A) FILE NO. 1892 property loca as follows: <=“>' °f 0™"° “d l=gally described X'ertyoMr"''*™ (hereinafter >.he Seclion 10.24 Su™Mo ^5 fll Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and of a new residence that will be at th approval of a height variance for a portion hardcover variance within L 75 25^'ytbacrn'' "h*' “ 4 462 s f or 57 SS' ° ‘P® eonstniction will result in4,462 s.f. or 32.5% hardcover where only 3,425 s.f. or 25% is allowed Minnesota:NOW, THEREFORE, DE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File y?1892. The property is iocated in the LR-IB Singie Family Lakeshore Residential Zonine acre^' ■'dOd'fU'g One acre in area. The property consists of 55,500 s.f, or 1.27 Commission reviewed this application on November 15 993 and recommended approval of the variances as proposed based upon the following unique findings and hardships: A. Total lot area is 55,500 s.f. where only 13,700 s.f. lies within the 75-250’ setuacK area. Page 1 of 5 CITY of ORONO KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 S *;• A B. 10, 4. E. A standard lakeshore lot with 55,500 s.f. in area would have yielded much higher hardcover allowances within the 75-250’ setback zone. The property is located on a peninsula. The property contains unique topographical constraints. The house has been specifically designed to limit the need for horizontal expansion beyond building footprint to provide additional outdoor recreational space. F. Surface runoff from 25.2% of the total 32.5% of hardcover improvements will be treated within a drainfield area and will not run directly into lake. G. A small wing of the new residence will be at a tlirec-story height. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 granting a hardcover variance within the 75-250’ setback area of 1,037 s.f. or 7.5% and per Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (A) grants a height variance for a small portion of the residence that will be at a three-story height instead of at 2 Vi stories, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 \j -> CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Q Q r.' rNO. O O i ' 1. B. 3. 6. Prior to the filing of an application for new construction, applicant must apply for the legal combination of the five separate parcels that make up the building site. Upon application for a permit, applicant will make payment for a sewer connection charge at $11,331 per 1993 fee schedule and a SAC payment of $750 based on MWCC’s 1993 fee schedule. The City shall require permits for the installation of the drainfield and extension of municipal sewer to residence. Applicant’s consultant/contractor shall provide all design and spec information for the review of the City Engineer. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (December 13, 1994). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. - 1. Page 3 of 5 ftrmVOi l ( CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 S 7 K___ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of December, 1993. ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Edward J, Callaha^ Jr., Mayor The foregoing instrumer' was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of December, 1993 by Edward J. Callahf. , Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. HENNEPIN COUNTY Mr COMUISSON EJiPinES •■is.ga—......................Z i Page 4 of 5 > STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. JS5 ^blic within fo —^Ai^r______, 199.3 before me a NotaryPublic within and for said county, personally appeared ___l^k ecuted personally appeared ------ known lo me to be the person(s) described in and who e^ Mt Md dee'd acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free CAROLE A. HASEMAN notary PUOLIO-MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY MV CCUMl*;CN EXPIRES 6-»« NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of Public witliin and for said county, personally appeared . 199__before me a Notaiy —-— -----^— --------------------known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed e foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as hts (their) free act and deed. ' NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 5 oh *o^ f . CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO 3 5 5 9 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 ANT) SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (A) file /?2011 WHEREAS, Timolhy J. Line and Lori Line (hereinafter ”lhe applicants ) have an interest in the property located at 4415 Forest Lake Landing within the City (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 13 through 17. Tonkaview Gardens. Hennepin County, Minnesou (hereinafter "the property"); and vtTreREAS per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22. Subdivision 2 and section 10.24 Subdivison 5^ tower defined at a legal height of 35 where JU is a s 618 s f or 29 2% where only 75-250’ setback area where the new construction will result m 5,628 s.t. or zy. / J' 4,803 s.f. or 25% is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File »r2011. The property is located in the LR-IB. Single Family La^shore Residential Zoning District requiring 1 ac.e in area. The property consists o . 1.4 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 17. ^ Ld recommended approval of the variances as proposed based upon the follow mg unic^ue findings and hardships: Pase 1 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^^59_____ 4. 5. A. Total lot area is 62.660 s.f. but only 19,210 s.f. lies within the 75-250’ setback area. B. F. H. A standard lakeshore lot with 62,660 s.f. in area would have yielded much higher hardcover allowances within the 75-250’ setback zone. The property is located on a pensinsula. The property contains unique topographic constraints. The house has been designed to limit horizontal expansion utilizing the building footprint to provide additional outdoor recreational space. Surface runoff from 20% + of the total 29.2% of hardcover improvements will be treated within a drainfield area and will not run directly into lake. The major portions of the roof strucmre will meet the allowed 30’ legal height. A small obervation tower located within the central portion of the building will be at a 35’ height. The majority of the strucmre will be located beneath the tree line of the property. The City Council fmds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that gr?nting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a ftre hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serv'e 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. 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 5 Nni»05 yUkOvm CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 5 fl J. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of ilie a^:>ove findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 2 granting a hardcover variance within the 75-250 ’ setback area of 825 s.f. or 4.29% and per Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (A) grants a height variance for an observation tower that will be 35 in height subject to the following conditions; 1. Prior to filing an application for new construction, applicants must apply for the legal combination of the five separate parcels that make up the budding site. 2 Upon application for a building permit, applicants will make payment for a sewer connection charge at $11,744.50 per the 1995 fee schedule and a Sewer Availability Charge of S85C.00 based on the NfVVCC’s 1995 fee schedule. The City shall require permits for the installation of the drainfield and extension of municipal sewer to residence. Applicants’ consultant/contractor shall provide engineering plans with appropriate design and spec information for the review of the City Engineer. 4. Upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the completion of the residence structure, applicants may apply for a permit to install a residential dock. Applicants shall install dock at the eastern shoreline so as not to encroach wetlands at the southern shoreline. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the propert>' 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 tWs variance will expire on that date (May 8, 1996). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of tWs resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 3 of 5 5005 Bonestroo. Rosenc Anacrhk ,ind Asiocuitei. tnc is .m At firm,ntve Action £qu,if Oppc-:nn>t\ ^rptoy Principals Ono G Bonesiroo. PE • Joseph C Anderlik. PF • v »rvm L SofvaM. PE • Richard E Turner, PE • Glenn P Cook. PE • Thomas E Noyes !'E • RoPer: G Schur,cht. PE • Jerry A Bou'don PE • Robert W R'-n-ne. PE and Susan M Eberlin. C PA. Senior Consultants Assocufte Pnncipiils Howard A Sanford. PE • Keith A Gordon, PE • Robert R Pfefferle. PE • Richard W Foster. PE • David O Loskota, PE • Robert C Russek. A A • Mark A Hanson, PE • Michael T. Rautmann, PE • Ted K F»eid. PE • Kenneth P Anderson, PE • Va.'k R. Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Williamson. PE . L S • Robert F Kotsmiih Offices St Paul. Rochester. Willmar and St Cloud. MN • Mequon. Wl » ji/j I rrrsa /n* m 1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & |\|| Associates Engineers & Architects October?, 1996 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Attn: Lyle Oman Re: File No. 139 Line Residence 4415 Forest Lake Landing Dear Lyle: We have reviewed the plan for handling the excess storm water runoff on the Line Residence. The Plan accomplishes the City goal of minimizing direct storm water runoff to the Lake as a result of hardcover. The design criteria provides for handling tns flow from a two incli rainfall event which is reasonable. The system design will require maintenance to insure that it operates as designed. We would recommend that the system be included with our on-site systems for regular inspections. We would recommend approval of the storm water system. If you have any questions, please call this office. Very Truly Yours, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook cc: Blake Bichanich OCT 9 3T fiffftr, ^ siliftliM to iM t\^ fPplit jianitiY. i>u4i/4. Liuw tiifii ti!o<ii(v^ir • i ■' “Hip-ippr u/orJi \u o* v\c^<J ?ibi a«l u ;jin»iWc. (uncit^u vit r^O/r' tUf^\ **»l w» jl*4 I. y ix\i. :v;.lui *i «v “V •---------Ul ^ flilir n\^ ,. . / . // |^(:^0iLn4 tfif ,«rr miUmA^ SSj l••'l. ufr>tHcT 'ijji -: L‘ *1 /c(^*...irK^ i . ;oo^»J / lAM( -?//. Ul J|a A J;(4> 'tli ^ . / ^ Lf ftUiifJf ii‘jj,f‘^to>^l /> “ / ^ ilHiifif rmiv nx :cra/i^ /** , ^ ^ ^rW ''i fbfrju itfcf jtn J^.4 f t k^-^/' ' \ ’ / '»5c.c».t'< r»«l ‘.I rfcol^jia-y ."Tc^ Ku lW iw of On^O f ' 6tWa l/a'tlvx. , i’.Kj.'J/'iiidl/trbaryitiij UI\dCMU/|boC^ 'i i3./Jooiioflfrf olobi A^bor/ii UtM MttTi V.A« wfTtIc 5pVoi i 3,*;oriov^ J^A^)co4 \ :^r^c:cc£ vcf H:\ n-. -j^u'orT •^td.\ Ircc -Vt £• f-Udcra i^iro.( "j'i.ii,Jir F. -’aJO/' :.\xi^ C^-rud Z« £ot^?V3 00l^ 'J £1 K^Grti.y Ufd^.T Ook Mo4»c. fLnr\ffiC3^ b\d^^ -CwiCed OoIl. twid^ ryrop— Vl^C.\ iJLooictij f\^ V ^’(^Carc. roiV \ ho)\ \ 2i Hoi^u la^t iToliS AcHlllta \ :* 6oot\ ica/1 Afu<dJo ^ riflcl\ ::b^>\ niiiibc Asf llc4 KKbti-lo.vi nsti(o« jc' 25*0eiht\i«iAitiibt 9' L»jjo !•* Echinattoc Sf’ Ai%5f)o^hici X Ll. rircbf\§ )\i j i ;|»*^,:cQ5Qra jj, k!n,Oor'f*fl!i'iOJfiitiily V 00, Lfl/c<v5«n j;ii«v \ li i'*p»:!oa'/tiur ly^driNci^fo^ u* (^•^clu C^iisu tieofUc( V ]V* Slbi^Qicr LiliuX :c is*53rti\ 6f/>\Kord+/ioia k y^f liuJ iQf\ Soy finv Jjo W f^lox JO vV£rt; GjIIu**\/^1^ y vfb3,S\ai Py\\i Watjcato\ H ,U. Salvia n* Zu - .^'.IimIj lilui An^tj Jt* icb Hc.ijs 'c^cii'aH <:!iC ix 1. cll Irct^ OooJ *•<« Ocofclfct 1**1* wo*'fa lijJii-rt iUV»«»^4. . •■^* ‘'n;^ t "iw:*j ipVcft \ \ Jw'x^joocJ c 'ac H^.u\jC<k.\ •i Ircc -Ki iCJ '-IciJ ' \ •'i'\ Oak r Moflic ^•\ U\de^^ )qL ^tik\ /Irbcwirq jorci o{obi A^bor^'ila^ ^Core. roiV lant iTo\i2r \ Hak rUkdlta C3^t kcwUJA ::b^i>\ isiilbc t. Aililot QAi nstijoc % It ti* JO I'.\cii:%t M EchwOCtOC B Hi Hi^focallifl j a/3 riiffttvr lU Jt ;l !•’ tt 31* .V u j«r jJjiuA * V '^» I v^rOaSM /tiur liArtdre. \ 6c/VNKo/ttt HgJIfA Orv5oy ftrtyjki A /^lox jjHu-^ /^lox ' fttk ^W'a ^ fb^:lii.iV| S ^ JU'.lu.d j ti, liluj Art^4 1'0«a/Ci> )« «# (f4^ru u4»*'to!( L'O ioI1^tru<^ % 39 3t 7i n y; HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA lAKESHORE & WETLANDS < .1 i •» Vf> AT 10 N F • »•. ‘, I • ,• I # *» f. • i It.. . II «. ,.^. ,• ...... • M.*.. • • ****^» % '">" Jr-Iinfi 029.4'^**^^*^^.<y29.4^o«/^r ?:i^ t9 E & WETLANDS A T i O M E ; * r •• • I OOUNClCMeETINQ MAY 7 ^ 1998 c.iv or .nor^:oREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: ^1998 _______________________ITEM NO.: H Department Approval: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2374 Busse Construction, on behalf of; 1. Greg and Myra Karlen,630 Deborah Drive 2. Larry and Jan McCartney, 755 Hunt Farm Road 3. Robert and Julie Hanning, 4220 Sixth Avenue North 4. City of Orono, McCulley Road parking lot near Luce Line Trail Conditional Use Permit for Lard Alteration ' :«Application: Bus«:e Construction is working on the County Road 6 project. The company needs to find areas to store and relocate the fill from the road construction project. Several property owners in the area have indicated that they want to either have a berm constructed or existing berms enlarged. The Zoning Code requires that land alteration requires a conditional use permit. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: To approve the conditional use permit for all four locations, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report for the City of Orono's lot. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Tc amend or approve the four separate resolutions for each property. Attachments 7-94 rtiiii Miltlt r«mit liJtJILW wiwniit] r«Kt [•WMw»nra r»)ctitj mum [ilM9 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The proposed 6'-9' will screen the residential property from Watertown Road. B. The proposed berm will not interfere with drainage patterns, on-site septic systems, or wetlands. 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives 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 Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed conditional use permit 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 a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19-21 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8-14 to permit the Construction of a 6-9 ’ berm approximately 265 feet in length, parallel to Watertown Road requiring 3,000 cubic yards of fill. Approval was subject to the following conditions: 1.The construction company, Busse Construction, on behalf of the property owners will adhere to an erosion control plan and revegetation of the berm. Applieants shalladhere to the construction plans as submitted with the application. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a land Page 2 of 4 8. 9. alteration permit within one year of the date of Council approval or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (May 26, 1999). Violation of or non-compliance with any c.' 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 26th day of May, 1998. ATTEST; Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Ovvner(s) ' ------------------------ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) looo u u instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of May, 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 MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 ___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personaUy appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 ___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the , mg instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and c Notary Public Pat;e 4 of 4 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONLNG CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19-21 AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8-14 FILE NO. 2374 Gregory T. and Myra J, Karlen (hereinafter the "applicants") are of the property located at 630 Deborah Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter City ) and legally described as: Lot 1, Block 2, McCulley Farm, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "property"); and ^her due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Con^ssion held a public hearing on May 18, 1998, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concermng this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and * XX . . , whereas, the applicant has applied to the City for a conditional use permit to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19-21 and Section 10.55, Subdivision - 4 to permit the construction of a 6'-9' high berm approximately 265 ft. in length to be located along the north property line parallel to Watertown Road, as noted in Exhibit A as a permanent easement. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2374. The property is located in the RR-IA Zoning Districts, One Family Rural Residential District where 5 acres is the minimum lot area. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 18, 1998 and reeommendeci approval on a vote of 5 to 0. Page 1 of 4 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The proposed 6'-9' will screen the residential property from Watertown Road. B. The proposed berm will not interfere with drainage patterns, on-site septic systems, or w'etlands. 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor wi!’ use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 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 conditional use permit on the health, safety and welfare of the commimity. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19-21 ^d Section 10.55, Subdivision 8-14 to permit the Construction of a 6 ‘-9 ’ berm approximately 265 feet in length, parallel to Watertown Road requiring 3,000 cubic yards of fill. Approval was subject to the following conditions: 5. 1. 2. 3. The construction company, Busse Construction, on behalf of the property owners will adhere to an erosion control plan and revegetation of the berm. Applicants shalladhere to the construction pians as submitted with the application. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a land Page 2 of 4 8. 9. conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (May 26. 1999). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the tenns 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 26th day of May, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property 0\vner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of May, 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 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY-OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of____, 199 _before me a Notary Public uithin and for said county, personally appeared _________________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of____, 199 _before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared___________________________^^----------------- known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 5 Parcel No. 35 (CSAH No. 6, Project No. 9444) Abstract Property BKRIBIT a PID No. 31-118-23-22-0008 A permanent easement for highway purposes over all that part of Lot 1, Block 2, MCCULLEY FARM, according to the duly recorded plat thereof, which lies northeasterly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 44.62 feet (13.600 meters) southwesterly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 118, Range 23; thence run north along the east line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter on an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 10 minutes 45 seconds West for a distance of 328.51 feet (100.132 meters); thence North 61 degrees 52 minutes 24 seconds West for 492.54 feet (150.127 meters) to the actual point of beginning of the line being described; thence deflect right along a tangential curve, concave to the northeast having a radius of 1427.17 feet (435.000 meters) and a central angle of 11 degrees 51 minutes 02 seconds for a distance of 295.18 feet (89.972 meters) and said line there terminating. Also a temporary easement for construction purposes over all that part of Lot 1, Block 2, MCCULLEY FARM, according to the duly recorded plat thereof, described as follows: Commencing at the most northerly corner of said Lot 1; thence run southeasterly along the northeasterly line thereof for a distance of 81.09 feet (24.715 meters) to the actual point of beginning; thence South 37 degrees 41 minutes 36 seconds West for 6.53 feet (1.990 meters); thence South 56 degrees 18 minutes 53 seconds East for 180.32 feet (54.961 meters); thence South 32 degrees 30 minutes 14 seconds East for 36.05 feet (10.987 meters); thence South 18 degrees 20 minutes 40 seconds West for 34.15 feet (10.409 meters); thence South 6 degrees 27 minutes 50 seconds East to the southeasterly line of said Lot 1; thence northeasterly along said southeasterly line to the northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence northwesterly along the northeasterly line of said Lot 1 to the point of beginning. Said temporary construction easement to expire July 31, 1999. Names of parties interested in said land and nature of interest. Name Gregory T. Karlen Myra J. Karlen Norwest Mortgage, N.A. Norwest Bank, Minnesota, N.A. Long Island Savings Bank, F.S.B. City of Orono County of Hennepin Nature of Intere st Fee Fee Mortgagee Mortgagee Mortgagee Assessments Tax Lien ({ : j / • ^ .T V ‘V .U- V ' 7X t/ m ^ J r A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19-21 AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8-14 FILE NO. 2374 WHEREAS, Julie and Robert C. Hanning (hereinafter the "applicants") are owners of the property located at 4220 Sixth Avenue North within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legal*' described as: Lot 1, Block 1, Winters Plentywood, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 18, 1998, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a conditional use permit to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19-21 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8-14 to permit enlargement of an existing berm by adding 3,000 cubic yards to the back side of the berm. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File ^2374. The properly is located in the RR-IA Zoning Districts, One Family Rural Residential Distric* where 5 acres is the minimum lot area. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 18, 1998 and recommended approval on a vote of 5 to 0. Page 1 of 5 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The berm was constructed in 1987. B.The added fill will widen the back side of .he existing berm and will connect to a new berm being constructed on the adjacent property to the north. C.The proposed expansion will not interfere with on-site septic systems, wetlands or drainage patterns. 5.The City Council finds that granting a conditional use pertiiit will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping wif *he intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6.The City Council has considered this application including the findings anJ recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City .staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed conditional use permit 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 a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19-21 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8-14 to permit expansion of an existing berm by adding 3,000 cubic yards to be located in the area as noted in Exhibit A. Approval was subject to the following conditions; 1.An erosion control plan including revegetation has been established in conjunction with improvements to County Road 6. 2.Applicants shall adhere to the construction plans as submitted with the application. Page 2 of 5 L L 3.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council approval or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (May 26, 1999;. 4.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. 5.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 26th day of May, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of May, 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 5 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 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. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) 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. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 5 eicHiBir k Robert C. Hanning 4220 County Rd. 6 Long Lake, MN 55356 476-1383 I^al Describtion of above address: ^rch\^st quarter of the northeast quarter of section 31, to\>/nship 118, range 23, described as follows: b^inning at the NE corner of said Nli? quarter of the ME quarter, thereof, a distance of 170 feet .-thence, west 265 feet, thence south to the center line of County Rd. 6; thence southwesterly along said center line to the southeasterly comer of the plat of Sharon Hills; thence northwesterly to the most northerly corner thereof; thence north parallel with the west line of said northwest quarter of the northeast quarter to the north line of said northwest quarter of the northeasi- quarter; thence east along said north line to the point of beginning. Except the north 50 feet thereof and except that part taken for road. Tlie west 390 feet of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 31, township 118, range 23, lying northerly of CbuntyState Aid Highway tfS (formerly State Hwy )5(110).Except the north feet thereof. That part of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 31, township 118, range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said northwest quarter of the northeast quarter thence south along the east line, thereof, a distance of 170 feet to the point ofbeginning of the tract of land to be described: thence ^vest 265 feet; thence south to the centerline of Cbunty Road #6; thence northeasterly along said center line to the east line of said north^vest quarter of the northeast quarter: thence north along said east line to the point of beginning. Except that ‘‘part taken for road. 'the end. A RESOLLTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION iO.03, SUBDIVISION 19-21 AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8-14 FILE NO. 2374 WHEREAS, Busse Construction, on behalf of the City of Orono (hereinafter the "applicants") for the property located west of the McCulley Road and north of the Luce Line Trail within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as: That part of the Northwest one-quarter of the Southwest one-quarter. Sec. 31, T 118, R 23, that lies northwest of McCulley Road, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Plaiming Commission held a public hearing on May 18, 1998, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a conditional use permit to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19-21 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8-14 to permit raising the grade of the parking lot 10' by adding 23,200 cubic yards of fill. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS . t. 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2374. 2. The property is located in the RR-IA Zoning Districts, One Family Rural Residential District where 5 acres is the minimum lot area. 3. 'Hie Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 18, 1998 and recommended approval on a vote of 5 to 0. Page 1 of 4 rtriXiniTi^ rtHiiT^ OMiIi Riling Mikirird-Mt remi!^ •lWUi[iniU4 gurawfirmiiiTinfii^ r^mm r«Mi»iirii SKtWia rmm 4. The maintenance vehicle and walking access to the Luce Line Trail shall be 12' in width and limited to a 5% maximum slope. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. The fill shall be compacted and graded to provide adequate drainage and to allow for heavy vehicle movenivnts The top 3' of material shall be com;vv:ted to 100% of standard proctor density. The material below the top 3' will be compacted to 95% of standard proctor density. The applicant shall be responsible for payment of costs to an independent testing laboratory for density testing. Top soil shall be placed on the bcnii and the bemi shall be planted with grass seed for erosion control. The proposed fill area shall have a 20' wide buffer strip around the edge with 4" topsoil and seed. The slopes shall be top soiled and seeoed to prevent erosion. Authorities granted by this re.«:olution run with the property not with the owner but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a land alteration permit witliin one year of the date of Council approval or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (May 26, 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. Page 3 of 4 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 26th day of May, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. 1 he foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of May, 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 e.xecuted on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:May 12,1998 SUBJECT: #2374 Busse Construction, on behalf of; 1. Greg and Myra Karlen, 630 Deborah Drive 2. Larry and Jan McCartney, 755 Hunt Farm Road 3. Robert and Julie Hanning, 4220 Sixth Avenue N. 4. City of Orono, McCulley Road parking lot near the Luce LineTrail Conditional Use Permits-Public Hearing AopUcation: Busse Construction is in the process of working on the Cty. Rd. 6 project. The construction company needs to remove fill from the road. Several property owners in the area have indicated that they want to either have a berm consmicted or existing berms expanded. The Zoning Code requires that any land alteration that involves moving more than 500 cubic yards or changing the grade within 5 of the property line requires a conditional use permit. Pertinent Ordinances . Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 19-21 Land Alteration and Permits _ _ t. L r Findings: 1.That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan; a.630 Deborah Drive {Karlen) The applicant is proposing to build a berm along the south side of Watertown Road. The proposed berm would be 6’-9’ high and 265 ft. long. The purpose of the berm is to screen the residential property from the roadway. The berm will not interfere with drainage or on site septic systems. b. 4220 6th Ave. N. (Hanning) The applicant is proposing enlarging an existing berm by increasing the width on back side of the berm to tie the existing berm to the new berm proposed at 755 Hunt Farm Road. Approximately 3,000 cubic yards of fill are needed to alter the existing berm. c.755 Hunt Farm Road (McCartney) The applicant is proposing constructing a berm along the County Rd. 6 in the McCartney s side yard to tie into the existing berm on Hanning ’s property at 4220 6th Avenue. The proposed berm will require 5,000 cubic yards of fill. It will screen the McCartney's residence from the County Road. The bemi will not interfere with drainage or septic systems. d. McCulley Road (City of Orono parking lot) The applicant has proposed raising the parking lot with 23,200 yards of fill. This parking lot' is used for snow storage by the City. A wetland is located on the edge of the area. The applicant will need to install a silt fence to protect the wetland. The wetland will need to be delineated and the required 26 ’ buffer shall be maintained from the wetland. The existing parking lot ranges from 14' to 4' below McCulley Road. The parking area will be filled 10' above the existing ground level. The fill height at the southern end of the parking lot will be 4’ below the road and will increase to 6’ above the road at the northern end of the parking lot. The existing driveway slopes down to the pa’-king lot The proposed driveway will slope up from the road to the lot and will be limited to a maximum 4% slope. The maintenance vehicle and walking access to the Luce Line trail will be 12 wide and limited to a maximum 5% slope. 2. 3. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed berms will not be detrimental to public health and safety. They will provide screening from the road for the residential properties. They will not interfere with any sight lines for vehicular visibility and will not interfere with any existing or future septic sites. The proposed fill in the McCulley Road parking lot will not be detrimental to public health and safety. The fill will not alter the existing drainage pattern on the site. The existing parking lot surface is firmly compacted soil suitable for driving large trucks on for hauling of snow and DNR use for maintenance vehicles. The fill material Wi.. be compacted and graded to provide adequate drainage and to allow for heav>’ vehicle movements. The material will be compacted to the standard density used for typical road construction projects. The top 3 ’ of material will be compacted to 100% of standard proctor density. The material below the top 3' will be compacted to 95% of standard proctor density. The applicant will be responsible for payment of costs to an independent testing laboratory for density testing. Top soil will be placed on the berms and berms will be planted with grass seed for erosion control. The existing parking lot surface is firmly compacted with minimal ground cover. The existing slopes at the edge are vegetated. The proposed fill area will have a 20' wide buffer strip around the edge with 4" topsoil and seed. The slopes will be topsoiled and seeded and other protective measures as required to prevent erosion. The proposed parking lot surface will be firmly compacted and graded to allow for heavy vehicle movement. This area will be seeded to provide for a minimal ground cover. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. The proposed berms comply with all of the other regulatory ’ controls in the Zoning Code. Staff Recommendation To approve the conditional use permit for the proposed berms on the residential properties at the size and height shown on the plans subject to: 1. Installation of silt fencing for erosion control and wetland protection. 2.Establishing and maintain natural vegetation on the berms after final grading of the berms. 3. Applicant to provide the City with the proposed berm design for the parking lot before May 20,1998, that meets all of the requirements listed in this report. Attachments a-d by address of each individual property 1 •" ■■ r '.'»:■ '. r:w * Ir- ST ? «• Q. O fi ;X' I F i®!?5 Applicntioii ff Date Received ^/jzz. /9 ^ Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPUCATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Pe b Qk proir>Oy MjJ___ _______^ ^ a ^ ^ ^ KT__________ Type of Application to be Filed L^A mD A-^7^/^ Atzo aJ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 3/- ? | g ~ OoOSf Date Property Acquired V 9 9 I (do) (do not) also owti the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - ______S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application ______$175.00 Residential Accessory Use ______$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ______$225.00 Guest Ilousc/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 OTHER APPLICATIONS ______$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ______$300.00 Vacation ______$200.00 Easement Vacation ______$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 (month/ycar) V. 4!/ ■« ..1 * ** ' /3 I •O ^ % Other (specify) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. 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). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. 'I'his would iticludc namc(s) of applicantfs) if not current owner(.s). Construction plan, if applicable (.sec staff for requirements). 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 (II" 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. Plca.se remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: Date APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all infomiation required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is tm^^^d correct to the best of his/lier knowledge. Applicant's signature s. OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable cntr>- onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature 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. L iic 5220 Road No.(o Owners:—/2/y.r?6i. Kurlet^ S-fll* I - : _..2<2Q.___ft. ‘^0CJ0|;fA;;hic information required; Lot lines and dimensions. S’.'o^t o^ fiijhv/ay froniajje P'cposed R 'W line and access takmg. HENNEPIN COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 3iU V/.tsliin)*.loii A.ciinf St’ulli Hopkins, Minncsoin LAND AND BUILDING ACQUISITION DATA Parcel 35 Adilfcss:(o 30 Vc,l?oCA h„ Dil SIlOw North Arrov/ Uiitliiii* .unl InCAlion of aH Uiildmj^S and improvements |nl••flr•r nrraiif.cmrnts of biiildinj^s and equipment if ♦ ^niinnyrnifin is ncccssnry duC to R W taking. PERMIT RECORD Permit No. ^CPlh ^i$l 3-1 Date ^■^5-Si n-!^sn ^’jd •/ 7 Type of Permit yiLuj f^u) 13^ njK! 9 ^333^ c. /6 ■ 96" S'I p-^~7 / --------------T UVA j C . o • fcHy-f • s> -V - ' t •• f/ .•• / ................' 'd • / / V/, / • • l//// \ * ^ r N, ■s I ^ rJ «D CP I I \ I I I 1 > I ^ I ' ' I * I I X V / • li t If / I'l »/• ' • ' $ t •» ! i Wa'-'-'-- \ '■ •' •■' ■' •V# /./* « ' * » » • • Vk ^ M i'' VA '. 5 • : 5.'^ .3 : •'. \ . \ *•.. '....... ;\ I: I • I • I '-i 11 l'. C n \\ '^ • I I \ • «#. \[II • III "s hii " •__________1/ » I ............ 1/ ^ ^ ^ ^ •^ • 2<i6 'ui| 9p^( ll •■■■It’^ '■■. .'.:^^5feJ5.'-;--V/' ■//-. •■■........................, \----------- /" J. Iy/fi • • ^ f A»ll 1I ^ A' \ / . - ^ '■% ' ✓ I t I . • ( J, ';U. ■^~ '<t^3l —____^.Mi R62 -" ( t I ; -..............'\ f / ' *-• In _->-y ; - Vs ' *..i • ^ ...•••• i' t* ft).^ 1 Application f! ___ Date Received Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address______1 ‘f ^ __________ Type of Application to be Filed R F Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) <?/ — /I "/1 — 000 7 APPLICANT Name ^ Phone (home) Address OWNER (if^ifferent than a^Iicant^ ^j7\A, _____ Address '7S~^ City ____ Phone (work) 7^ 777 City^/4^^^ Zip 3n ~7 Phone (home) ^^"i- Phone (work)__________________ <0£Oi'^cp -yuyL^. ^ FDate Property Acquired ____ I (do) (do not) also own the {t&jaccnt parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - Zip ~3 ^ __(month/year) Pobei^V 14 M/I ('n s V2 3-0 Co $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application G’5“3 $175.00 Residential Accessory Use ^ . $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) y ^ ^ / 3 ^ 3 $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments /O I a $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg rrop<irV hc-c^JireJ | ^ gV $300.00 Conimercial/Industrial Use - -rr Z-—- $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 OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation ______$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 Apptals Other - see Fee Schedule I PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District_______ Present Use of Property_Rcsid ‘'ntial Other (specify) REQUIRED SUDMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within .'^50', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center. 348-3271). Certificate of Sur\ey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to liandout for survey infon".ation. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic sur\ey (e.xisting and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). Ust of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property, fliis would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE 1«:QUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COP\' 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.) Ihe Applicant and Properly 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 U.se Applieation is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: Date APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is tru^nd correct to the best of his/lier knowledge. Applicant’s signature a, ________I3nte ^//^ /9S^ 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 for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Date 4-/6, - 9f 9-7.) - “rV cinys before the Plnnning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings arc 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. SURVEY FOR: G.A.CflBLSOA/ HOME £1080^015411^ -ISS N Prepared By: TTSKTJT JU6L SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Soils Testing 10550 Wayzata Boulevard Minnetonka, Mn. 55343 Top of Iron pipt «t jhovn. ClivittOA • JS.M (A»ua«d Dltua). ■ ^ • 'V * r*,'. ADDRESS }r<OLrty\ ^o ctn^ PERMIT RECORD Permit No lira JM Date Type of Permit PnOi^ . S -5.' ^fl-.-ix HL^ S OQ-Z 'Hhib 5-/9 ■ j/f 4 -,2 L-i9-9^ Li' /^ '^C' 17]^ ^ .(T. ~ _Jyfi/i. r-W.--18- i993 19:03 FROt 1 94730510 F.02 Hennepin County jL An. Squ OpporiumlT Xaiploycr May 18,199S Mr. Ron Morse City Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Cry'stal Bay, Minnesota 55323 CSAH 6 FROM TOW'NLINE ROAD TO Vv^ST OF TH 12 FILE NO. 2374 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Dear Mr. Morse: Toniglit, the Orono City Planning Commission will consider approval of the Conditional Use Permit for land alteration at four locations submitted as pait of tile No. 2374. This is to infonn you that 1 specifically acknowledge my support for construction of the berm at 755 Hunt Farm Road. Tlie McCartney’s are deserving of the berm and if not for some misunderstanding as the project developed, a berm paralleling the roadway would have been included in the original construction plan. Sincerely, Bruce M. Polaczyk, Design Engineer BMP'.mak Dtpartm«nl orPubllc Wotb 52(1 Wishinsjon .\\-«nue South Ho^UD5,^rln^CS0U 55345-S496 («lt)W0-2500 FAX.(«i:)9JO-^.Ml TDD.<« TOThL P.02 \ 'v» k * ' \ *• \ I \ t ^ * « « r No•N CD <D cn o \ c/1 r ^ / - X ^ A — Zlf,t f) ■~h'i / fflJ -1 >oO / X- -X \ X r » 500 £ X - X\\ IXA ) ) - X / W £ Application ff Date Received 9^ Amount Paid C CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 4^^a. Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 3 // ^ B ^ /g? — OO /3S'3APPLICANT ^ A j (home). Name____________________________________ Phone (work)_ Address /05^ ^y City (Xi'yJjrr'^^Ltx'^ : ^o.Zip _^^ ^~7. OWNTR (if different than applicant) Name ^ Address y^Sl.0 (/ Phone (home)_________________ ______ Phone (work)______;__________ City Qy^r^ur] n]n Zip SS^Sjo Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 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 - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore .. « a:/ PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule SI50.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____S200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule /;c...) I T* rA « T I " * ^ *•» I ' * ^ / • * * # I M/i^®' ■ >.'■ ■■; '■ ''- '■ '■ '■ ■ \ ■ J 00i)+ » » I 1' I • •' • I I» ' ' ' I '. I ' cs ’ ' *» I • ' ' / 5 ; r;V.v>^v . w. \ A -----/—r-^ • ' ^'^WxV'*-' vs • ' ' '*.' I •'•*•. ^ . ’. #1 <7 » , ' # |/ i » * / , '• ! ‘ y >* 'i '* ' ‘ ' y' / V'^' '' / '' /' / I ■•' ^ ; X <? ’, . . . >' ' 2 f I* \ . I » » T *•&.''>' ' \ \ \ ' \ '> \’ »• / <?• ? / ,•-r—H—— > • ^ •• ' .*'■ / / / A' - ' '' / / /' ^ X ' f I '«'**'* * * l! ‘\l\ ‘ • : I i * 1 % * ' * * . * • ^ 'I . • 1 * ' • • I ' ' ^ ^ ' ♦ 1 ' « » •••»»/ -vQ ♦1» • \ % . * » * ! . ^ I * Jf « (I • t V‘ _r I I • I ii' ii / > '/ / / ^Qp ffi. .' px ^0' •. i ■'V.'f:'.V;'. : ; V- • 1m % u * • l« f • ll / *• * / » • #/ »/ J t • t t / * I I « • t / ^0' ^ • • » - " m,..g- ♦ » * I I' ^ 0 •M.ir \ • • I I * •• n» t ; •'* / Ml* I G1 I. ij; o • .1 • I ** • ' : t . N'l HiI y' I,’ I • E' J: 'H- ■ - ' > V:; .';y. : •l;i:i 'Pl' ■• rv^V ! / * / I / \/' V./ • * I I * / ■.X.H s ^ * I J w lOf % ^ <?0f . ^ ^ k N ^ •/ / / / / ---------- \ *S> ^ Application ^ Ar Date Received ^ /2:Z/^^ Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address i\Ti C V T Type of Application to be Filed C • C^- r ♦ /)L Voru^TUf'A Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_______________________________________ APPLICANT Name G ^0^\-C>P Phone (home) __ Phone (work) 6 \ L ' 2''! 3 • 6 3"7J Address I ^ S E T UbtWL\ 'fl City /)fLL| M Ml\i Zip S3l>^7 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Of 0/L^K^(} AddresTi^t?. ^ <( Phone (home) Phone (work) City IKby ZivG^323 Date Property Acquired ^7^ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL Lo.r PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Resid> iUi>l Accessory Use _____S250.00 Institution ■!' 'viiurch, school, etc.) _____S225.00 Guest Hoi Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use i—^ $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 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 OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$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 (month/year) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 7. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. 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). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for sur\'ey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 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). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). 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 SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is tm^^d correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Date j>hj! /Applicant's signature 0 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 for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. ^ vv—> kA .C Date ^Owner's signature ^vv —> /I'A h .O Ovi:P___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. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCILMEETINQ MAY 2 6 1998 CITYCFOnQNO DATE: May 21, 1998 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren Title Planner/Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zc-’ing Item Description: #2375 Park Land Company, having an interest in 2525-2535-2545 Shadywood Road Sketch Plan for Proposed 32 Unit Apartment Building Zoning District:LR-IB B4 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Office and Professional District Lot Area: 2.2 acres dry buildable Application: The applicant has requested a sketch plan review for a 32 unit apartment building on 3 parcels that have B4 in the front along Shadywood Road and LR-IB zoning along Kelly Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the current zoning, B4, is appropriate and that 32 units is too much density as no zoning districts exist that would allow the number of units proposed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To direct applicant regarding the existing zoning classification and the Council's view regarding residential development on this parcel. TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator May 14, 1998 SUBJECT: #2375 2525-2535-2545 Shady ’wood Road Sketch Plan for Proposed 32 Unit Apartment Building Application:Park Land Company has submitted a proposal to build a 32 unit apartment building on 3 parcels located at 2525,2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road. The applicant is requesting sketch plan review. Description Zoning District Lot Size Acres Loti B-4 31,231 sq. ft..71 acres Lot 2 B-4 31,205 sq. ft..71 acres Lots LR-IB 35,090 sq. ft. dry buildable .805 acres ‘There is a wetland on Lot 3, the rear of the parcel which is zoned residential, (acreage based on previous staff memo from 1977) Total Size: 2.2 acres dry buildable Proposed Density: 14.5 units per acre Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.24.5 (B) LR-IB, One Family I akeshorc Residential, 1 acre Section 10.43 B4, Office and Professional District page-1 Description of Project The applicant is proposing a 32 unit, two-story apartment building with an optional 4 units located in a third floor. Underground parking is proposed to have 47 spaces and a surface parking lot would have 7 spaces for a total of 54 spaces or 1.7 stalls per unit. The apartments would be rental units. The size of the units would include 20% more space than average market rate units. The units would be 1 bedroom, 1 bedroom + den, and 2 bedroom units. Each unit would include laundry facilities, storage areas, and pantry closets. They would rent for $1,20 J to $1,500 per month. The market niche is empty nesters from the local area and childless work ’ug couples or singles. The units would include a larger master bath than other styles of apartments and decks or roof terraces. The hallways in the building are designed to be 8 feet wide. The building would include a community room that would have a small kitchen and it would be located in the rear of the building to overlook the wetland. The architect has states that the building was designed to take advantage of the natural characteristics of the site and to keep massing to the north side of the lot next to the office building. From the south side (Kelly Avenue) the narrow end of the building would face the wetland. The architect has indicated that the runoff would be reviewed and no additional runoff into the wetland would be added. The building is proposed to be approximately 80' from the wetland and 36 -40 from the front street property line. romprehensive Plan The subject property is located in the urban service area and commercial district on the land use plan. According to the Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan, (CMP5-4) "the urban area will see new residential development on the existing vacant lots and undeveloped parcels similar to the forms of development projected for the closer-in suburbs. Opportunities exist for substantial rehabilitation projects in the older urban neighborhoods....Overall urban density will remain relatively low because of the ecological considerations of proximity to Lake Mitmetonka." Housing Improvement Goals 1. To improve the housing conditions of persons residing in substandard housing, 2. 3. To provide safe, healtliful, and blight-free residences and neighborhoods. To provide opportunities for a mix of housing types, locations, and cost ranges which will meet the needs and provide adequate housing for all ages and family groups. page-2 4.To provide housing types and residential densities consistent with environmental and land use plans and with the availability of public services and facilities. 5.To provide immediately beneficial housing programs for the greatest number of needy Orono residents. Urban Housing Policies The urban housing policies are stated in section CMP 5-12 of the Comprehensive Plan. Policies #2 through #4 are applicable to this application. Policy #2 Alternative Housing Types will be provided by planned residential developments. A limited amount of land is available within the Urban Service Area for planned developments of attached townhomes, garden type apartments or mixed residential and limited commercial land uses. These housing clusters or multiple family developments will be acceptable only where full urban services are available and only where the proposed density is compatible with the neighborhood and wil local environmental constraints. Multiple family developments generally will not be considered appropriate for lands within 1,000 ft. of Lake Minnetonka nor for areas such as Navarre that have limited transportation access to outside employment or shopping facilities. Policy U3 Urban Density Residential Development must occur within the existing Urban Service Area Orono's Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan. The Urban Service Area will not be expanded into the rural area and urban services and facilities will not be extended into the rural area for purposes of fostering or allowing increased development in those areas. Policy #•/ Urban Density Residential Development will utilize the capacity of existing public services and facilities. New residential development will be allowed to infill existing vacant properties within the Urban Service Area consistent with environmental limitations and with the existing capacities of water, sewer, drainage, transportation, and recreational facilities. New development will not be permitted to overburden the services at the expense of the existing users. New urban development will not be permitted if it requires additional unplanned local or regional facilities capacity. page--} L Zoning District Minimum Lot Size 20,000 sq. ft. Lot Width 100 ft. Front Yard 20 ft. Rear Yard 30 ft. Building setback requirement: No building shall be nearer than feet to any front lot line. Zoning Issues The subject site consists of three separate tax parcels. The two front parcels are zoned B-4, Office and Professional District. Residential apartment buildings are not listed as either a permitted or conditional use in this district. The permitted uses are limited to municipal buildings, clinics, and banks and insurance offices. The conditional uses include nursing homes, rest homes, hospitals, schools, research centers, veterinary clinics, kennels, libraries, museums, galleries, and restaurants in an office building. The proposed use does is not listed in the zoning district. The proposed use is not allowed in any zoning district in Orono. This proposed development cannot be constructed under the current Zoning Code. Analysis of several possible options follow. Amendment to the B4 District The current purpose statement of the B4 district indicates that this district is for office uses that have limited contact with the public. The purpose statement for this district does not refer to residential uses. In order for this project to be allowed in this zoning district, the purpose statement would need to be amended. The conditional use list would also need to be amended and an appropriate amount of density would need to be determined. The proposed density exceeds current density standards in every zoning district. 1.Should the function of the commercial district be expanded to include residential development or should commercially zoned land be preserved for future commercial use? 2.Should the purpose statement be revised to include apartment buildings or townhomes as a compatible use in the business/professional office district? 3. 4. Should the conditional use list be amended to include apartment buildings or townhomes? Is expanding the purpose statement and use list consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use map and policies? page--4 New Zoninp District and Rezoning As an alternative to amending the B4 District, creating a new zoning district may be another option. The highest density that is currently allowed is m the LR-lC-1 district where 2 units per acre are allowed and a 50% density increase is allowed at the discretion of the City Council. The City Council is considering an amendment that would eliminate the density credit. Another zoning district, M-6, is also in the Zoning Code that allows a mix of dwelling units types. However, it has never been used and was drafted for possible future development along Highway 12. It also does not address the type of development the applicant has proposed. A new ■'oning district would have to be written that bridged the gap between the highest density currently allowed in the Zoning Code and the proposed density of this development. Rezoning a parcel to a higher residential district in the middle of a B4 district would not be consistent. It would be a spot zoning. The City Council at their May 11,1998 meeting asked staff to review the B5 zoning district and the commercial zoning districts in Navarre. Staff will also ‘.i’. > iew the B1 district. Overlay District Another zoning technique that may be considered is called an "overlay district". This is a floating district that is not mapped but is allowed as another layer cf standards over an underlying district, such as the B4 district. Boundaries are established where an overlay zoning district may be placed and standards a-^d criteria are enumerated to meet performance objectives. A multiple-family overlay could be drafted that states that apartment buildings are allowed in some commercial districts subject to a list of objectives and criteria. Applicants could then ask for a rezoning to the overlay zone. The need and use for an overlay zone would require an amendmen* to Comprehensive Plan policies and an amendment to the Zoning Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The sketch plan process allows the Planning Commission, staff and tlie applicant to ciscuss the project without the applicant incurring significant costs. By ordinance, t!ie Planning Commission is to consider the subject property and the best use of the land. Attention should be given lo location, arrangement and size of the lot, proposed use, and surrounding development. /page- -5 Attachments A B C D E F G H I J K Application Plat Map Legal description Traffic study Trip Distribution Letter from surveyor Urban Service area map Land Use Plan Zoning Map B4 district standards Historical record from microfiche page-6 Application # ^____ Date Received M— Z-'Z^^l‘3 Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION 8 Please check one - Property X _ abstract torrens . g Attach legal description to application. g applicant^, ^ Nam e Lkk>1> LomP Address P.r>.*SoX 7.(oll'S> 'JPS.HU City Sri Loj.<.T^vC. ■ MiOKieacT*. AM20M________ Phone (h©na«) Zip SSilZfa Phone (w^) Sfl.■5-^S^S _ Address ‘S'Z.SO ritv \KJKMz^»mK, (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Phone (home) Zip56^ Phone (work) Present use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units ------- Other (specify) Present Zoning District ^B PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes —---------- Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildlmg sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites N^li^SeT^uilding Sites --------------Existing Units _________New Umts Total Units - V Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land X Residential ’ Other (specify) ^It'OCOO MIaa^UM ^UTERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMLNARY APPLICATION I." of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. ^■^nleted application form, j.^rre^inary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owTiers within 350' (>'ou 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__________________________ ^^NIMUM 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 aw i..etter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature ‘^('2^ \ll\^Pat. <4-22--^ 9- I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: X Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) S250.00 ____^ 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-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 nd Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) _____ Renew al 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 orig'mal 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.;_____lin. ft. x .50 = S _____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineaI ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 = $ _____ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 Totals _____Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____ Proposed Watennain 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 S30.00/Dwelling Unit — Z. The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney. Planning Commission and Council nwsMQ’ to process thisapplication and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by DateOwner's Signature Applicant must have all^bmittals 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. :y. by »gs ion jur I BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 7301 OHMS LANE. SUITE 500/ EDINA. MN 55439/(612) 832-9858 / FAX (612) 832-9564 May 7, 1998 REFER TO FILE:98-32 MEMORANDUM Joshua Aaron, Park ]^d Company James A. Benshoof and Peter A. Hultgren RE:Traffic Study for Shadywood Road Residential Development in the City of Orono BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Park Land Company has proposed construction of an apartment buildir.j? development located along Shadywood Road in the City of Orono. As shown in Figure 1, the proposed development site is located south of the intersection of Shadywood Road (CSAH 19) and Shoreline Drive (CSAH 15). The development would consist of 32 rental apartment units. Three land parcels form the proposed site. The two parcels abutting Shadywood Road each have a street fi’ontage of about 125 feet with a back property line 250 feet fi’om the street. These land parcels are currently zoned by the City of Orono as Commercial B-4. The permitted land uses for this zoning designation are offices (municipal, professional, insurance, and general) and banks. The third parcel is in back of the fi"ont two and is about 250 feet by 390 feet in size. Tliis parcel is not zoned for commercial use. More than half of the land area in this parcel is wetland. Thus, the total land area available for commercial development on the site is 62,500 sq. ft. The two purposes of this memorandum are: a) to compare the expected amount of trafiic generated by the proposed apartment building land use with the amount of traffic likely to be generated if the land parcels were developed commercially b) to determine the extent to which the proposed development would increase traffic volumes on the adjacent roadways. i I Mr. Joshua Aaron -3-May7, 1998 TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON The first traffic issue to address is the number of trips that the proposed development is expected to generate, and how this compares with the trip generation that would be expected if the site were developed commercially according to current zoning. Realistic commercial development alternatives were formulated in order to provide a basis for meaningful comparisons. An examination of the zoning ordinances resulted in three candidate alternative commercial development scenarios. Current zoning permits an office building up to two stories in height on this site. Based on the commercial land available and a typical site coverage of 30%, a two story general office building of 37,500 sq. ft. could be accommodated on this site as one alternative. A second alternative is a 37,500 sq. ft. medical-dental office building. A third alternative is a bank with three drive-in windows. Trip generation rales published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) have been used to compare the number of trips that the proposed development is expected to generate with the number of trips each of the three alternative land uses would be expected to generate*. The rates examined in this study are for three weekday time periods: daily, a.m. peak hour of street traffic, and p.m. peak hour of street traffic. Table 1 shows a comparison between the anticipated trip generation of the apartment building and the three commercial development alternatives. TABLE 1 Weekday Trip Generation Comparison Commercial Development Alternatives 32 Unit Apartment Buildine 37,500 sq. ft. General Office Buildine 37,500 sq. ft. Medical-Dental Office Buildine Bank with 3 Drive- In Teller Windows A.M. Peak Hour Trips 16 58 91 71 P.M. Peak Hour Trips 20 56 137 190 Daily Trips 212 413 1,355 1,234 The data of Table 1 indicate that the proposed apartment building development would generate much less traffic during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours and on a daily basis than would any of the three commercial alternatives. * Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997. The rates used arc expressed as the number of trips generated per d elling unit for the apartment land use, the number of trips generated per thousand square feet of floor area for the office land uses, and the number of trips generated per drive-in wndow for the drive-in bank land use. r Mr, Joshua Aaron -4-May 7, 1998 EFFECTS RE:GARDEVG TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON NEARBY ROADWAYS The trafiSc generated by the proposed development is expected to be distributed on the local street system as shown in Figure 2. This distribution reflects the traffic draw of Highway 7 to the south on CSAH 19 and Highway 12 to the northeast on CSAH 15. This distribution results in 60% of the development traffic passing through the intersection of CSAH 19 and CSAH 15 ana the remaining 40% of development traffic traveling to and from the south on CSAH 19. The 1996 Hennepin County traffic flow map indicates that 26,000 vehicles per day (ypd) pass through the CSAH 19 and CSAH 15 intersection. The proposed development is expected to add 127 trips daily through this intersection. Ihis represents an increase of about 0.5%. A similar percentage increase is expected during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours based on the expected trip generation, the expected trip distribution, and peak hour turn movement counts collected by Hennepin County at this intersection in 1994. The 1996 Hennepin County traffic flow map indicates an average daily traffic volume of 11,900 vpd on CSAH 19 south of CSAH 15. The proposed development is expected to add 85 trips daily to this segment of CSAH 19. This represents an increase of0.7"/o. The percentage increases of traffic through the CSAH 19 and CSAH 15 intersection and on the segment of CSAH 19 south of the intersection are so small that the new development trips likely would have an imperceptible effect. CONCLUSIONS A comparison between the expected trip generation of the proposed apartment land use and three alternative commercial land uses for the development site indicates that the^ proposed apartment land use will generate much less traffic than any of three alternative developments on the subject property that would conform with existing zoning. The amount of traffic added by the proposed apartment building development to the local roadway system is negligible compared to the existing traffic volumes on CSAH 19 (Shadywocd Road) and CSAH 15. r r __' •.* .uj—7~^ 'V ^ \ i "•x- . ‘ SCALE 2000' ■•7—‘O \\t15%.< > 'x ■;! _\c. •Cl. •/ . ' X • ^ / -------------— -* -lA .' ' ^ • * ' - * ^ - / /;‘v v\ ; l:CP*; -V' sl\_.•-C "»*•■‘•IS > — \ ,\ . .p*rr: -'*! 5 — .- - '__- !-• . ■^•.,'<^.r::. ^5-w.r.—•' ., / ■ ■ =• .i ,., ■•;'/..• \ ^ ‘Vt./ /.-;•SITE '-r»*r I r/ >•; • > * ’*\‘ i >✓ / -1 ' ' >' /- "■J / A I j. ; ‘)iiv V /A / -'/ ^ •■ •*. ^*" J , •; .^/ /->/'/ V / i *V • • ■\l ’( I^'-2 ’• / • i ' '' •• - .-^T ,** Ci*/ ■ •’ •.V' A. . •/ * V. • • • 5^: - «.. - •*'..- f >j 1 • /.. •'^ V/.-..A V -v.\ .*» \'W - llx t-* ‘ r.‘ -=.r 1__J-^vS-N'" - ?*• *• •• . "‘•V:—-—\\^r * ; •*----------------------* \ V \ y v/4* WC—vVci ,v^-; / . 'V —•^V> V '■-:^.-< r.':'.j-;r; .'., rV^* .-i * V’*» -C3*. ■ • V 4^ // • V - iX^ "^ >'... . .• ••• *A^ J. '\J>i^ \’A ■ -V W. •.. f '•.lo •«»<2 \ t-CO^dr-yA^: a-lr- . ' i X *• - “5 H?TCN'felA •,./ fe,. / - -•; i. % »V-:AV:^. BA : :•* v j- ‘=:.-^^-: - -ri* =;:= _ \ ;•*,• . ) ,j.^. J* «t I • -i •; ,~r- '-.■»■••■“ .•■'% 1--CnV ;; '. ‘ -:s I . i _Vl* < Ar.<!C '• i>a .v*l ’">• •',X ■• ;.'v.'<'-->>'x PARK LAND COMPANY BENSH00F& ASSOCIATES. INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINCERSANOPUNHERSXs. TRAFFIC STUDY FOR SHADYWOOD ROAD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 2 ANTiaPATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION 1 05/03/1938 09:43 473-4435 COFFIN t 6R0NBERG PAGE 02 COFFIN ft CRONBERC. INC. •UHVIYIHO. BH«IH€WWN« AHO I MO PLAHNWIO 4«t-ATAMAAACK AVVMUV LOMQ LAKt. MINM. 471-4141 May 7,1998 Park Land Compan% P.O. Box 26773 St. Louis Park. MN 55420 Attn: Joshua Aaron Dear Mr Aaron: I have looked at your propo.sed building and parking areas on the Navarre site in Leach Addition for drainage impacts, f am familiar with this site because of my work for Clair Rood and Waters & Associates on previou.'* plans for this site. In the previous plan.s I tried to send as much drainage toward County Road IV as possible where storage could be provided while reducing the runoff to Kelly Avenue. Your proposed concept plan would allow us (o direct the runoff in a similar manner with less runoif going to Kelly Aveiiuc after your dewlopment because of the reduction in contributing drainage area.. The runoff rate to County R.o;id 19 would also be reduced after development because of the construction of a siom waicr pond in that location. Sincerely, COFFIN & GRONBFRCi. (NC. Mark S. Gronb IM <Sr I..S. MSG/cr >onDf/) wmcnrn gaps" S?>S o V V \ Ci) 4i^sn .. M f \ •i« !-::m*. /•:*.% ...m MM ,iii ,I y.y. : :iMM • S ^ • f*i ✓ .^'V m I jlilii#' ^***ar*‘r^ \ />% . *••-■ -I ) ’.r\ ^Ns:^ / M' .•x$iiii ^ip ; ! wig5»il i# -Jipii n \ \w / r 4^ / liif ! »«» Ipii^ jm y 4ilMiii(L r /r-T , i V;> % > ■. ‘ . * • ;’ 1'>'* '* i‘ i* •: ‘ « •. > 4 ■s \•\' ") Kf / f on • A i ../ P \ r2^> \rV 'V ;r-^ > i I p ■*<«»»• ■ ■ arwip ■ I !• »-,N*^ M nc%«»» • »-•»• ■ • r»^«* »x-»jp 4 <?' ''A- ^ ■ □II /'v ' G 1.:; vn frc: r-rn II rzT'i ifrr:i CPe«» 2. 0} ''"^jiiiiilggiiliBiBiM^ ...i ij—. />Ji' '-iIM* •» f >Q5c/)c/^imcoc/)rnc/in Or^ira —-1» OrlfSC,r/1 r.'> 7* '/ Tj^rr- :;rtl C/J>''^ • » ti • . I M m w' ^............... > M • • 1« .. I « / »• }; m^mm m ' ■ '?:W' .’>?V4 > > • .A VA-% • ». r ....... <•x<•:•x•:^:;:;:::::::^^:<•^x•:<w^^:•W•:•x<;:w^^^^ WiiisWiW^^^ .::;::x:;::;;:x::v:::v^^ Jiliiiiilil* / ./■^ 1 •^§\ " ' /mm MM m^-Q w \ \ iiiilip,—'Mi \ ,JPPJ«^v^ii 1/:t>- • *"' / y ! ) m i I/: A ' o> 'W3!s^ /w^y y 1' ^ *-• # '-■H“ . 1,1 1// i'i . ,1 I 1 \\ ?ii [)1 m ,i» I L ■i.fr- > y I miPy^A. ! t * v&Ui'S*' .•*?CD Su/ V i \ Xiy ;i- y \ \' vy-\ y, ^r‘ \ w \ ^ m « «!■«*■ ^ ‘ Ju, ‘ ■ nu^ « MAM m Mte-v ■ MM « Mf 1^ I y Uaji* • (: ’ • - •! • •jL ,'i) A -v-;a^ S ; ■••U s Hi i;^ ' ’s A. \' ./KSA'.ytv;4' n<yy^A /A k 9 £r. H ICM IfM__ y/ Kcpmj ?rV.'- > . '•f:'// !?; ::■; ^fj •o,'.- /.-X' I m m M 1^'1Wlv?ACKfcTTS ^Wf WWlWi iliM I Iffl ■BaBK^. mI ■ I ■ I■ I■ I■ I■ I■I 6ab(^2.^C)0D 1 fVf^y^Jir^&aV Official Zoning Map City of Orono, Minnesota R-1A R-1B LR-1A ® LR-IB LR-1C ' LR-1C-1 * RR-1A RR-1B • RR-1B-1 RS One Family Residential District i Acre One Family Residential District t/2Acre One Family Lakeshore Hesidentiat District 2Acres One Family Lakeshore Residential District lAcre One Family Lakeshore Residential District 1/2 Acre’ One Family Lakeshore Residential Subdistrici 1/2 Acre One Family Rural Residoniial District 5 Acres One Family Rural Residential District 2 Acres One Family Rural Residential Subdistrici 2Acres Seosonoi Recreofionol 5 Acres Retail Sales Business District Lakeshore Business District Shopping Center Business District Office And Professional Business District Ncghburhood Business D.stncI UM)on D?/#iopmenf Industrial District January 1. I971, As .immclcd hy; Ordinanu* iHS, Junp 14, OrUindfirc* KM9, '»;» lQ7f. Ordinance ?m. October H 'ynj, Ordinanri* Zm,, January 9. 1978 Ordinance 213, Oclol«T ?6. 19/fl Ordinance .’14, Nov<.mber 14, iq/fl Ordinance 22rl, Fobfuory ||' (980 0.d«o..co ?3G. Jonuory t, i^“l Ordinance Of d?n 0,'c 0 Or dinonce Ordinance 246 249* 2iiO, 33, -R-IC-I IN^RI NAVARRE AREA DETAIL MAP 5000 ft. iWiMyrr NC. north REVISED: NOV I, 1980 FEB 15, 1981 SEPT 15, 1903 Al'G 28, I98‘4 Road Key C «0ads **r*vaft ISBERG RIESENBERG CHELSETH and ASSOCIATES INC. JUNE 30, 1936 JULY 13, 1907 MAR. 17, 1989 JUNE 5, 1991 JAN 16, 1995 sota :re ^•cl ?Acres ict lAcre •ct 1/2 Acre listrid 1/2 Acre 5 Acres 2 Acres > 2Acres ct si nci :tfnbor luary 1974 1. 1976 1976 Ord^nonce 246 Decemt 0» d no.'C #249| 2 50, Apr 1.177 Or dinonce •luly 1 Morch•78 9/8 980 Ordinance 33, § 10.42 L. Fencing. V7herever a "B-3'' Shopping Center Business District abuts or is across the street from an ”R" District, an adequate fence or compac^^iift^^^n hedge not less than 50% opaque nor less than six feet^!n heigr^S^^H t>e erected. V7hen adjacent to a street, it shall no^be less thar^three feet nor more than four feet in height. ilding Design ani Construction. Se’Bk.Section 10.40, Subdivision 6, ^>^araqraph G. N. Height. TT^^iitf^bture or building shall e'^eed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. SEC. 10.43. B-4 OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The ”B-4" Office and Professional Business is intended to provide a district which is related to and may adjoin residential districts or other business districts for the location of administrative office buildings and related offices. The office uses allowed in this district are those in which there is limited contact with the public and no exterior display or selling of merchandise to the general public. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any ”B-4'' Office and Professional District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "3-4" Office and Professional Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. Municipal Buildings. Municipal buildings where the use conducted is customarily considered to be an office use. B. Offices. Professional offices and offices or the general nature. .C. Clinics. Clinics for human care'bn an out patient basis only. D. Banks and Insurance Offices. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within the "B-4" O^fjee and Professional B isiness District no structure or land shall be use for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Nursing Homes, Hospitals. hospitals, rest homes or retirement homes, provided the site contain not less than 600 square feet of lot area for each pers to be accommodated and that no building be located less than feet from the side lot line. . ORONO CC •345 (4-1-84) ).42 t ion ^eed 1 * i in r lor The and Lding 1 be ining and used out- e and used oraes# shall person ian 35 -1-84) § 10.43 E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet to any rear lot line, 15 feet to any side lot line, 35 feet to any side lot line adjacent to street; except v;hen abutting or across the street from an ”R" District, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. F. Fencing. Wherever a "B-4" Office and Professional Business District abuts an *'R” District along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge not less than 50% opaque^ nor less than six feet in height (no less than three feet nor higher^ than four feet adjacent to street) shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. G. Building Design and Construction. See Section 10.40, Subdivision 6, Subparagraph G, H. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. I. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. SBC. 10.44. B-5 LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The ”B-5'' Limited Neighborhood Business District is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, which businesses are not high traffic generators and do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover. The district may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive controls. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Because of the location of the ''B-5" District as contemplated in the area known as Navarre in the City, the uses are 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 in Navarre, npnMH rn -iAn Mtr# im .:r sum of four square feet per front foot of building, plus one square foot per front foot of property not occupied by a building.* No individual sign surface shall exceed 100 square feet. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 D. "B-1", and "B-4": Height. Within the "B-1", "B-2" and "B-4" Districts, no sign shall extend in height more than two feet above the highest outside wall or parapet of anv principal building nor shall any sign be located closer* than ten feet from any property line except that any sign over ten square feet may project two feet into any required yard area from the principal building. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 E. "B-3" and "I": Height. Within any "B-3" or "I" District, no sign shall extend in height more than six feet in height above the highest outside wall or parapet of any principal building. No sign shall be located closer than ten feet from any property line except that any sign exceeding ten square feet may project only two feet into the yard area from any building. Subd. 4. Purpose of Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements. Regulation of off-street parking and loading spaces in this Chapter is to alleviate or prevent congestion of the public right-of-way and so to promote the safety and general welfare of the public by establishing minimum requirements for off-street parking, loading and unloadir.g from motor vehicles in accordance with the utili7ation of various parcels of land and structures. All applications for an occupancy certificate in all districts shall be accompcinied by a site plan drawn to scale and dimensioned indicating the location of off-street parking and loading spaces in compliance with the following requirements: Source: M nicipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 A. Application of Parking Rules All Districts. In addition to the regulations and requirements set forth elsewhere in this Chapter, the following regulations and requirements regarding off-street parking shall apply to the required and non-required off-street parking facilities in all use districts: Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 B. Parking Requirements Waived for Building Under Construction on September 14, 1967. Structure or uses for which a building permit has been issued prior to September 14, 1967, but ORONO CC 382 (4-1-84) § 10.61 for which work has not been completed shall be exempt from the hereinafter stated parking requirements if the structure is started within six months after September 16, 1967, and continues to completion. C. Existing Parking Not to be Reduced. Off-street parking spaces and loading spaces existing on September 14, 1967, shall not be reduced in number unless said number exceeds the requirements set forth herein for a similar new use. D. Floor Area. The term "floor area" for the purpose of calculating the number of off-street parking spaces shall be the net usable floor area of the various floors, devoted to retail sales, services, office spaces, processing and fabrication exclusive of hallways, utility space, storage areas other than warehousing. E. Seat. In stadiums, churches and other places of public assembly in which patrons or spectators occupy benches, pews or other similar seating facilities, each 22 inches of such seating facility shall be counted as one seat for the purpose of determining required parking. F. Size of Parking Spaces. Each parking space shall be not less than nine feet wide and twenty feet in length and each space shall be served adequately by access drives. For purposes of calculating parking space requirements, one parking space for one vehicle shall equal 300 square feet of storage and maneuvering area including access drives. G. Commercial Vehicle Parking. Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of passenger automobiles. No motor vehicle over 7,000 pounds gross capacity and no commercially licensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a residential district except when loading, unloading or rendering a service, except that one such vehicle may be parked at the residence of the owner or operator of said vehicle. Under no circumstances shall parking facilities accessory to residential structures be used for open area storage of commercial vehicles nor for open air parking for business purposes of automobiles belonging to the employees, ov/ner, tenant or customers of business or manufacturing establishments other than the home occupation permitted for that property. H. Location of Parking, parking in the "R" Districts shall be on principal building. Required off-street the same lot as the Subd. 5. Setbacks for Parking. Required off-street parking in all districts shall meet the following setback requirements: ORONO CC 383 (4-1-84) 51 84) § 10.61 A. "R" Districts. Within all "R*' Districts all vehicles normally owned or kept by the occupants on the premises must have a garage stall or open parking space on the same lot as the principal use served. Garage stalls accessory to residential structures may be located anywhere on the lot other than a required yard area except that such garages may be located to within ten feet of an interior sice lot line and to within ten feet of a rear lot line subject to Section 10.03. Open parking spaces on lots must have a location other than a required yard except that such parking may be located in a rear yard to within ten feet of an interior side lot line and to within ten feet of a rear lot line. * Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 B. "B" Districts. Within the "B-2" District parking may not be allowed in any required yard or landscaping area. Within the "B-l”, *'B-3" and "B-4" Districts parking spaces and/or garages shall be located in areas other than a required yard except that parking may be located in a rear yard to within three feet of the rear or side lot line unless the rear or side lot line is in common with an "R" District; then the setback distance shall be the same as required for the "R" District. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 C. "I" Districts. Within "I" Districts, off-street parking spaces shall be not less than twenty feet from any street right-of-way line nor less than five feet from any interior side lot line or rear lot line, except when a side or rear lot line is abutting an "R" District. Then, off-street parking shall be not less than ten feet from said lot lines. Subd. 6. Joint Parking. Required parking facilities serving two or more uses in the "B" or "I" Districts may be located on the same lot provided that the total number of parking spaces so furnished shall be not less than the sum total of the separate requirements for each use and provided: -- A. The proposed joint parking space is within thirty feet of the use it will serve. B. The applicant(s) shall show that there is no substantial conflict in the principal operating hours of the two or more buildings or uses for which joint use of off-street parking facilities is proposed; and, C. A properly drawn legal instrument approved by the City Attorney, executed by the parties concerned for joint use of off-street parking facilities shall be filed with the City Clerk. Said instrument may be a three or more party agreement including the City. ORONO CC 384 (4-1-84) § 10.61 Subd, 7. Control of Parking Facilities. When required accessory off-street parking facilities are provided elsewhere than on the lot on which the principal use served is located, written authority for using such property for off-street parking shall be filed with the City so as to maintain the required number of off- street parking spaces during the existence of said principal use. No such parking facilities at its closest point shall be located more than 100 feet from the premises nor more than 300 feet from the principal use or building served. Subd. 8. Storage Prohibited. Required off-street parking space in all districts shall not be utilized fo.. open storage of goods or for the storage of vehicles which are inoperable, for lease, rent or sale. Subd. 9. Design and Maintenance of Parking Areas. A. Access. Parking areas shall be designed so as to provide an adequate means of access to a public alley or street. Said driveway access shall not exceed thirty feet in widt a public walk center line and shall be so located as to least interference with traffic movement. All off-street parking spaces shall have access off driveways and not directly o public street. B. Fractional Spaces. When the determining of the number of required off-street parking spaces results iu a raction, each fraction of one-half or more shall constitute another spac C. Signs. Signs located in any parking area necessary for orderly operation of traffic movement sha e in addition to accessory signs otherwise permitted. D. Surfacing. All of the area intended tp be utilized for parking space and driveways for four or more vehicle shall be surfaced with material to control dust and drainage. E. Lighting. If lighting is provided it shall be accomplished in such a manner as to have no direct source o ig visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent land. F. Curbing. All open off-street parking designed to have head-in parking along any lot line sha tire bumper or curb of adequate height and romiired ensure that no part of any car will project beyond q setbacks. Subd. 10. Required Off-Street Parking. . principal use of the structure served is as listed, the minim parking facilities (open or enclosed) shall be as shown. A. Single Family Dwelling. Two per dwelling unit. B. Multiple Dwelling. Two per dwelling unit. ORONO CC 385 (4-1-84) B4) § 10.61 C. Motel, Motor Hotel, Motor Court or Hotel. Four spaces plus at least one parking space for each guest room provided in the design of the building, D. School, High School Through College. At least one parking space for each seven students based on design capacity plus one for each three classrooms. E. Churches, Auditoriums, Undertaking Establishments. At least one parking space for each four seats based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall. F. Theater, Athletic Field. At least one parking space for each six seats of design capacity. G. Community Center, Post Office, YMCA, YWCA, Physical Cultural Studio, Pool Halls, Libraries, Private Clubs, Lodges, Museums. Ten spaces plus one for each 300 square feet of floor area in excess of 2,000 square feet of floor space in the principal structure. H. Hospital. At least one parking space for each three hospital beds. I. Golf Courses, Country Clubs, Tennis Club, Public Swimming Pools. Twenty spaces plus one for each 300 square feet in excess of 1,000 square feet of floor space in the principal structure. _ , J. Day Nurseries. Four plus one for each 500 square feet in excess of 1,000 square feet of floor space in the principal structure. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 K. Office Buildings and Professional Offices, Banks, Savings Institutions. At least one parking space for eac 200 square feet of floor area. Source: Ordinance_No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 L. Drive-In Establishments. At least one parking space for each fifteen square feet of floor area in the building. M. Bowling Alley. At least six parking spaces for each alley. N. Motor Service Stations. At least three off- street parking spaces plus two additional off-street parking spaces for each service stall. .j.O. Retail Sales and Service Establishments. At least one off-street parking sp^ce for each 150 square feet o ne floor area. ORONO CC 386 (3-1-84) § 10.61 0.61 Four ided .east icity king ;eats eking fWCA, lubs, Bt of 1 the ublic set in cipal ti 500 n the : ices, : each arking ing es for B off- spaces s. At of net 3-1-84) P. Restaurants, Cafes, Bars, Taverns, Night Clubs. At least one for each 80 square feet of public floor area. Q. Furniture Store, Appliance Store, Warehouse Under 15,000 Square Feet of Floor Area, Auto Sales, Grainhouses, Kennels and Studios. At least one parking space for each 500 square feet in excess of the first 500 square feet of floor area in the principal structure. R. Auto Repair-Major, Bus Terminals, Taxi Terminals, Boat and Marine Sales and Service, Bottling Companies, Shop for Trade (employing six people or less). Garden Supply Stores, Building Materials Sales. At least eight off-street parking spaces, plus one additional space for each 800 square feet of floor area over 1,000 feet, including warehousing and all outside sales and storage area related to the sales and service functions. S. Skating Rinks, Ski Areas, Dance Hall, Public Auction House, and Similar Recreational Uses. At least fifteen eff-street parking spaces, plus one additional space for each 300 square feet of floor area over 1,000 square feet. T. Manufacturing, Fabrication or Processing of a Product or Material. At least four off-street parking spaces, plus one additional space for each 800 square feet of building. One additional of^-street parking space shall be provided for each 2,500 square feet or fraction thereof of land devoted to outside storage. Subd. 11. Application of Loading Rules to All Districts. The regulations and requirements regarding off-street loading and unloading shall apply to the required and non-required loading and unloading facilities in all the districts. In the application of these requirements, a fractional number is obtained, one loading space shall be provided for a fraction of one-half or more, and no loading space shall be required for a fraction of less than one- half. Subd. 12. Location of Loading Berths. _A11 loading berths shall be 25 feet or more from the intersection of two street right-of-way lines. Loading berths shall not occupy any yard requirement bordering a street. Subd. 13. Size of Loading Berths. Unless otherwise specified the first berth required shall not be less than 12 feet in width, and 25 feet in length. Additional berths shall be as specified, but not less than 12 feet in width and 25 feet in length, all loading berths shall maintain a height of 14 feet or more. Subd. 14. Access to.Loading Berths. Each loading berth shall be located with appropriate means of access to public street or a- i.ey in a manner which will least interfere with traffic. ORONO CC 387 (4-1-84) Villafo Councill Administrator June 6, 1968 Conditional Use Permit • Unity Investment Corporation Permit^is requesting a Conditional UseJn3 constructing s 6S-unit townhouse complex on 3 -/q /o ^ o (2 o 'ro / H1 SIDE I d A t_ ££OROS ■fitxtt } I •' V-.: . • ki$ »*•■>»> ! V.f-'JfriH. if fmi i -ix? -V-> !i:4' .. /.I # -.“Vi w li til ^i/ki # ■^1r 1 fei? m m !? ^v-‘ im VILLAGE OP ORONO Regular Meeting of the Village Council. June 10, 1968 The Village Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Ross. Councllmen Butterfield, Pranzel, Searles, and Stubbs. Searles moved, Stubbs seconded, that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 27, 1968, be approved. Motion, Ayes (S) - Nays (0). The following appeared: G. Faber, L. Hork, H. Renner, R. Gasch, W. Parten, H, Willis, Mrs. H. Willis, Mrs. A, Purvey, and Mrs. A. Kuehn concerning Marinas. 0. Koiran concerning Stubbs Bay Resort setup license. W. Wear concerning 68SR-1. D. Tuthill concerning a Town House project. . Searles moved, Franzel seconded, that the request of E. H. Hennings for a division at 4475 Bayside Road, be referred to the Planning Commission, with consideration given for a SO* easement beyond the present 30* easement. Motion, Ayes (S) - Nays (0). Stubbs moved, Butterfield seconded, that the request of Percy Duehn for a division at 1160 North Arm Drive, bo referred to the Planning Commission, with the request that this division meet Villaiqe requirements. Motion, Ayes (5) - N&ys (0). m Franzel moved, Searles seconded, that the / request^ of the Unity Investment Corporation I for a conditional use permit to construct I a 65-unit townhouso at 2535 Shadywood Road, I be referred to the Planning Commission for \ review and recommendation. Motion, Ayes (5) yNays C0)» Stubbs moved, Butterfield seconded, that the request of Adam Huzio at 712 Tonkaw.i Road for a 3' setback variance for a boat shelter, be referred to the Planning Commission. Motion, Ayes (S) - Nays (0). w< 7:30 P. M. MINUTES DIVISION 4475 Bayside Road DIVISION 1160 North Arm Drive DIVISION 2535 Shadywood B#ad VARIANCE 712 Tonkawa Rond i iM ‘I '.A 1 ■Iwcsy- 11;-• ■'i- ' VILLAGE OP ORONO minutes of the regular meeting of the planning commission, village ORONO, JULY IS, 1968 Acting Chairman, Robert Searles, cAllad the Meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. Present were Rice, ?iichoiis, McCarthy, and Dongoske. Councilman Stubbs representing the Council and Councilman Butterfield also sat in at the Meeting. Absent wore Russell and Bartig. UNIIT INVESTMENT C0R.°0RAYJ0N Mr, Tuthill and Mr. Angelikis appeared representing the Unity Investment, to answer questions by interested citizens. The following of a large group appeared to ask questions of thorn. In order of appearance: King Tristuni, John Birch, Mr. 8 Mrs. B. J. Schroeder, Mrs. T. R. O’Malley, Robert Warren, Pat Swenson, D. C. Messer, Steve Anbuhl, Ed. Stanke, Roger Dolliff, Sheldon Kaplan, Walter Massengale, Tom Nelson, Mrs. Val Elliot, Jack Wenger, Cy DeCosse, and Gladys Olson. Discussion was held on traffic count; credentials of Unity Investment Corp.; price of rentals; setbacks; the taxes derived from the project in comparison to number of children added to the school system; the comparison between having commercial in the area or townhouses; problems of pollution and water; on hcj the area became zoned as it is; on the spirit of zoning. After discussion, Sheldon Kaplan asked the Planning Commission if he could take a standing vote of, for or against the project, which was granted. Of the estimated 60 people in the hall, all were against e> *nt 6. A petition of 10 names was presenteu opposing the complex. Dongoske moved, Nicholls seconded, that the project ns presented be denied, with a recommendation that the future density of these projects should be limited to 6 units per acre and the quality of these projects bo commensurate with the area of tne project. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARING I*.rH ^ >• ■jkZ%]fVS-»VX'M >••; :' •' • • ^ V f-\ '-vV\'-r- iW'P *>'-I. •-■•. I, * .- .' - * V ^-■•- ’ f . ^ if* w- iflI » A y IT icir a< j *^r ''*S MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION, VILLAGB OF ORONO, JUNE 17, 196E Cbairnan D. J. Russell called the Meting to order at 7:30 P. M. Present were Rice and Nlcholls. Absent were Bartig, Dongotke, McCarthy, and Stubbs. ••P UNITY INVESTMcNT COP.?. Mr. Dick TutUill appeared in behalf of the above corporation to answer questions regarding their proposed 65-unit townhouse complex at 2535 Shadywood Road. Rice asked how they could put 65 units in this area and Mr. Tuthill exhibited diagrans of the site plan, showing the layout. Russell asked where accesses were and this was ansv;ered. Discussion was held on what kind o£ pool, answer being outdoor; what kind of community house an .answer more or less, for pool users and picnickers; use of trees already on site, answer, planned retention of all trees. Nicholls asked about how the water supply problem would bo solved and Mr. Tuthill had no ready answer for this. Russell suggested it would be a ^ood time to start public water. Nicholl« moved, Rice seconded, that a Public Hearing be held. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). 30ATP0RT SETBACK; Adam Huzio Rice moved, Nicholls seconded, that the setback variance on the boatport be allowed to conform with present earage. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). VARIANCE ON SETBACK; Sigrid Johnson .Variance on setback and variance on moving 'an accessory building in prior to a residence. CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT VARIANCE VARIANCE m Rice moved, Nicholls seconded, that the setback variance for the house bo granted but the moving of the garage to lot be issued only on a conditional use permit and permission be given by owners of adjoining properties. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). '1 •. ^%y •K ,f «,4«. ,, ItliNi .t.:5£:,t»*^ <*■ - ' VV. t-'a ■>> -.«:, T.y ,1?: x¥;m4 • -V: y XjjjiiMA. mmdLD, VILLAGE OF ORONO jSi5!^22,"JS68"* *'“ ''“'**• ‘=»“”'=“. 3i?h''jii*l!i?®“"'“ "*i ®" *’’* »'»«''• <*»»•rii^!l..Ji following members present; F^anzel, Searles, and Stubbs, Mayor Ross absent. Butterfield late. Stubbs moved Franzel seconded, that the I96a^^h#*°^ RoRular Meeting of July 8, Nay^(OK- Tristani,The following appeared; KingFisrsw^ concerning building permit, ^s T. Halloran and Mrs. J. Rosengren concerning Old Crystal Bay Road. proposal of the Unity InvcstmcAt CoJpimion permit at 2535 Shady- Nays (OK^ ® Ayesj(4) - i ii IK-. ■ Franzel moved, Stubbs seconded, that the r of Albert Addison for a variance^*' »iotion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). feQueL"'nr?i/*’^S"®^ seconded, that the 3990 che?rv ® division at by the Plannino^rAm^^ approved as recommended NayreOK ^ Commission. Motion. Ayes (3) Franzel moved, Stubbs seconded, that the D?wrfo?Vdiiisr^^°Surive tor a division, be approved as Iye°Tj) ! NaJ^s'Co™iss ion. 7:30 P.M, MINUTES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2535 Shadywood Road VARIANCE 3382 Bayside Read DIVISION 3990 Cherry Place DIVISION 3845 North Shore Drive m-:: V ■ ■ i Ife r^Vv'«• ^P-1 ♦ ; ki . 1 ri *v .. .' w'V ii ifi; A .• ' i f:--'- ■ I S' ' i ^r., / ;«r, :m^Wi ps- f..’•^1 w*. pjj; • ■ '1 ■%/■ ■ 1 [i?t(!' ■' ■' i /Vl»^ *:* ■ ■ fa *>o' ♦ 4£Ti' - j •^y - '■ fci \n i'w:-. ^ -3 ; 'I ■; ’ - in’-'- ■ ^}r?» , -j mm as i t- V- .: Me :•- „;i » k- - mi n |Sv| ■ '.. '•’ lA ? • 'sr ‘ i! ‘ . t i /i/ TO: PROM: DAT2: SUBJECT: Villsge Council Inspector Miirch 7, 1969 Conditional Use Penit - T^thill Mr. Richard Tuthill. dba Unity Investnentf has made an application for a conditional use permit to construct ten double units on Lot 5, Block 4, Lan^on Park. He had an application in last year for 64 units on a lariter property and 44 units on the Lot Block 4 above, both which were denied. He has complied with the sir-month waitini; period^ and is now submitting application for the 20 units. The design Is primarily the same as previous designs submitted. The square footage for each unit is roughly 1,500; which is substantial If substantiated by an adequate print. I r vl 0 . I (• % \ * I i < u .M if^ r-r* 4 »b V.//VzA te;i h:,. .'*? i ( « • i’. !! 1 .’ VILUGE OF ORONO Ha«h‘‘Io''"969* “* ’'“‘•*® Council, The Village Council met on the above date With the following members present: Mayor Ross Councilmen Butterfield, Searles, and Stubbs. Councilman Franzel absent. Stubbs moved, Searles seconded, that the Minutes of the Regular ^teeting of February 24, 1969, be approved. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (C). ' ^ ' The following appeared: P. Fahlin, R. Kempf, L. Hork, J. Lehtinen, 0. Kicran, and R. Holm gren concerning marinas. I. Mckown and J. young concerning weed inspection. Searles moved, Stubbs seconded, that the request of George Scherven, dba North Star rezoning from R-ID to R-IB, 3260 Navarre Lane, be referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). Stubbs moved, Searles seconded, that txe request of Stanley Rudd, 650 Park Lanel for a division for the purpose of constructing a garage only be approved. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0), ♦ •I * Butterfield moved, Searles seconded, that the request of Robert Oongoske, 4320 Forest ” «liv«ion, be referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Motion, Ayes (<») - N?ys (0), Stubbs moved, Searles seconded, that the request of Helen Dalton, 3760 Watei;own Road for a conditional use permit, be approved. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). Searles moved, Butterfield seconded. r‘-.at the request o£ Richard Tuthill, dba Unity Investment, for a conditional use neimit, r. ^ ShadywooJ Road, be referred to the * I-^tining Commission for review and recommen a. tion. '’otion, Ayes (4) • Nays (0). 7:30 P.M. MINUTES REZONING 3260 Navarre Lane DIVISION 630 Park Lane DIVISION 4230 Forest Arms Lane CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3760 Watertown Road CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2S35 Snadywood Rood f - .r\ t.' /> I V---mv ’•ii ' /: ■.1 J -s • . - . \\x . ^ . ' m ii". p' r: i V ' • f • '. A K*. r Vv •• iv ■B •••■' vVf ? B0 ^ -» \ V- / ij X' -../- tW - IV' . . m’Z-te^:'; ■p':<'-- •m-' t*r^ r>- '{ttsuTBS Of A RECUMR MEETIRc HELD MARCH 17, 1169 ?i^.!I«.®'i.'’*'’*U** «PPllc«tlon5 for dock MlnnehBhi CrcH 5»t!rjhi(d*D*strlet*lod"thS* Minnetonka Conaorvation Diawili h Sfi? I. roconmendation before any final i«U i, A lively discussion followed, and it wae brought out that in view of an idv^s^ “ W?s dOTblfulAt Orono could legally stoo Mr Hork fm* 5osi?:b!s»tr^'i‘.'“’ p“"« *“«desirable to allow construction of a thorouahlv docking comSo? ’^niid set a high standard upon which to base ** tightened restrictions on existii.K and future installations, and that by far the niosu serious problem was really the unsuoer- l^nncpin CoSn{?“"'“"* "“‘I* Oongoske moved, McCarthy seconded, that the Hork building permit be recommended subject to conformity with all Chairman shouldcoi.tnct Hennepin County and all other interested parties concerning the oroblems !lnvs^(0)'^ discussed. Motion,‘Ayes (3) - Page 2 i ** * ‘ I 1:^* 4. ■ • uoorno Scherven, representing himself, picsented a topographical map of the area ^5-52.® Addition to Minnetonka Beach,.>.,00 Navarre Lane, for purposes of constructing a telephone storaee garage for 24 company cars. -or '•cCarthy moved, Dongoske seconded, that Uu- approval of the rozoning bo recommended.• if'tion. Ayes (3) - Nays (0). McCarthy moved, Stubbs seconded, that the division of Robert Dongoske, Lot S. Block 2 l-'orcst Arms, 4230 Forest Ari^s Lane, be ’ divided into three parcels and conihinod with adjacent properties, ^fotion, Ayes (3) ■ Nays (0). • 7 \ j dic.hard Tuthill, dba Unity Investment represented himself, in a request for a conditional use permit to construct 20 (louole units on Lot 5, Block 4, L.angdon Park, 2535 Shadywood Road. Heard ucre esrers. Van Lierrc and Hanson, *i’cs l.ancs Anln.hi and hlliott. Mr. Tuthill cxplainc.l REZONING 3260 Navarre Lane DIVISION 4230 Forest Arms Lane CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2535 Shadywood Ro.id A m >v r. V m ■ I '. t I '» \^*t •—■»» i*. i’*i 'kj'-i’'"V V. >■ L A *'m Ri ^ * * / :f <■• ^' mV»'irf^*r-^ ' ' 3-*'Mh hV^’ --AW:;-t ii '^i *'V w ■■- '>'v, .‘Ipi WINUTES OF A REGUUR MEETING HELD MARCH 17 1969 AA. 1_ _ - ^ ri?hi^nS2 III that the though? neighboring rcsidenr?'^w!I^“^*’ only. Several that the revi?ld^BiJ« Pf«*®nt agreed they had had to objectionsX naa nad to the plans previously submitted. Page 3 Aaing plans. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). The following marina licenses *(ese considered: Gayle's Marina License; James Grathwoi recoiroended that there be no expanaiS" MARINA LICENSES Paul Fahlin - Paul's Landing it wa< approaching ^funicipal servicee parking. ®till would not be adequate 1 S* H^k'J^iik! JPPjioations, including and i? was llrl ''®»‘o considerld P nsion from last years standards . ( ‘Respectfully submitted, i'fichael Sc he Her Secretary .a ar-r &v'>.ni •-Visi ii iiii i.'^v : ;^5s- w' i -' V a * ■‘ w }Wj r .•! VILLAGE OF ORONO March^31^/*1969^ Village Council, 3ith'^the“fSuowiSg^mJ!Je?s fegSe1t'"grRlcL“5'?gtM??"‘'gS' *''« *»«Corporation, for f condition^?® Investment given Prelii^inary awJoili? permit, be withheld until final^n?rni’i.^ ^ approval to Council. Motion, Aye? (sr® llys meetings and'*the°LvLtigations** recenting the question of liJin^'i- conducted regard- the facts as found^bv thi marinas and of concerning the n?oh?^ ^^e Council to exist pollutioS^JS ^®J® «?«««* lake Orono, and the i^orma^*^ the Village of these problems th*» *’®‘l'^ired to control action on the pendine inni^ ^^® ^®Howinglicenses: ^ applications for marina 1 marinf licenU^apJiication^of*^? be aporoved for 8 oine Y* ^pates that Council receives^wri?^^^ stipulation the adjacent T^aco staJt^i®Jv ”4/®"®® - clientele may us^Jh!?.^ Spates' . ,Motion. Ay.r(?r-*ligxs .V ‘'• ; A •-{ • . r. • anongL*’’«t the ■ Bure Oil braJpJgg^g'IJi'’? “‘."orth Shore ute only. Hotfon. Ay^r(5)'^ marina license aoDligiJr*°'^°'’r°‘*’ '^et the Marina be Ipp?o?gS igr 3?\?- Council. Mocg": i;;gg*l5r-’’Sgyrnt.‘“ license °PPl^cat^^i°of*Ca?^c's^lari^a'b' -"Motions kept available be granted for sidolnt **”' ^ J a variance 7:30 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE PEP.'.fiT ^fARINA LICENSES * Je V, Spates north SHORE PURE OIL STUBBS BAY MARINA GAYLE"S r'ARINA '•f '#• -9 [/►'ll’; 'A Kl i. E X H 1 . i' Sir CITY Or or,3;.’o ^ppl'c. . J 15:27. December 13, 1977 #34 i . •. :• city Of Orono Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 . •. .••• . • • .»,• •• V ' . / V • . ' ,-ii , .vM ,v • •-.-. ■ '.■■• •■ ■■ .• ■' ..- . 'i'' ■ . ' .'■ •■I'. ,V ••• . . ■■■•:•/■•■••■•.>•. r'.'V' Dear Sira:' V • •* . Encloaed 1, Lend uae «ppUe.ii« „ <l«crlbed proparty Into t«o 8-<, ’“'’‘“''‘"Iw of the " residential lot. Ky piB„, , eo™"erclal lota and one Sending on lot 1 end 1 have en 1 * "“""I sUnlc site plan for thla building Tha “j®" °T a propoaad . “rested on a seialler beairthen 1 "t'‘ ""V be coni then 1, aho« ^^e aite plan. “ e.™ .. ' -Id........... be toT “‘«"- Psmlt for conatructlon of a deolT"‘ " •«* srslnonce acctlon 3<,.0J9 relating to'd T ^ -=sd lot 1 fron and 10 oeer pro- -=>saod a conditional ea„ VlZu r ^ application for thin r,.ui- inis purpose, r* t t -- - -‘sslt’LVrrr -•> andnc,gno„„,„,, ,, “sing one cnm„g ‘ ‘n UC ' .........'’-suon i„ r;.u sincr. i ; ,r.. s, hortlr.hip “^-•iulicd for .1 .........'"T uoulc] PC "■ Th.ir,;- ynu for yrur • • • * t. ; f > ,• • <wm' •• S f*l Mi M ^ ^ 1 ■ m I'v^ ' 1 .•! .'rf* \ :V • »'A .* /•C;R i'X -•’iV •i > “• >• ^ k 1 j ‘*vi 'fc*'. '• \ \ \ -• j' ‘ ■ .?-tP: i■4''{•A'} ■ -'j9 * A ' v;‘. ., ■ 1 1; 1 ry 4 'W ■ • .W,V•v. M ■"< >'**»%« -?w.- ■oa* . '.<;v \i /1- '. ■.•W' - • V.’ i> •. XV A\T. 't*:-4' • #• * ,«v *• r -• :•% > • ^4 ▼ / * * • * Planning Commission and Council Henry F. Muhich, Zoning Administrator December 14, 1977 ’ "i' ■•'i^Biy jV! • ■ ■: v-i-■ ’■ JK.r?. . ■ J9' -S‘' • C- '"a• ■ ■■ • ;,■' •■ • ' . '-f .' ■ ■ J . ■ s ■• '‘.-■-’•iVi . A..' / SUBJECT* Ti-im T 1- / ’. . *■■' ■ ^ -A/i -A ' " 2535 Shadywood ' •'' • < ' •.• V V^^. Subdivision and Conditional Use Benoit . ' * , .. p«V‘/ %•' * • ^ J * 4* jT^CK ••:.■••■■■.," • •■ ■ ; . > ' ■• ■ •• ';\ rnmm t____m: • . * . • ? » Enclosed are enn-rax ->< . A: ' ' .Vi:’A?va P . of a proposal submitted todiy by ;Th«aa' ‘ ' The oroDOflAi _• ' SUbdlvfd^A Ta««. e' i /".\v'V/'S Conditional Use Permit foj duplei‘’o«S?r to commercially zoned property ^ The original (B-4) and ant is proposing to divide the re«^r^o«..4--,,„ . ' '■’vv.? All ^n^c - •*-•'^-‘-csaionajL use. ^Ots would comply With the code. - Kahlblt A - Preliminary Plat T -I 4 ‘ _ .Lot 1 - b-4 - 31,231 sq. L^c T ■ ?;*V' *’• *':•-IB - 35,090 sq. ft. dry bulldable i *? > '^^7 uuii.oauj.e «™c^ureriMcr:;u?‘‘h «S’ and for future°storm*^drat^'^^^ drainage easement along the south nscoiTn drain construction. ^ south property line Leach also has provided , 2^0 -,. ft. of -qulreSont -®i sp\™fp^r tn the future" ‘■''“^1^1,.t- for some B-4 use to bo detonr.lned sometime Exhibit C - letter froni *.'r , u Lot J to the City. “ * ‘ prr.posine. t<* flon.,t..- tho resM, .;„! '•‘MUi-stt.:./ , '^y, ''‘t.iniri,- i|... ,.,,-...1 ... <! i ■ r— ; ,. . ^ ^ ~ ^ A t I t ■.•■! ..■•:tlii;i /;, ' ^ _____A !.. :. ‘ ■1^ '•< *2 - .* '•* 1 t ii M V • * j ‘ f /; sjSv-m '.vT; / !A ?i j*. -. ■% ' m • - t'V •W '“i Tom Leach - 2535 Shadywood Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit for Duplex Page 2 ^ *'••**' •* r >•* .,. - . . .* . , - • •* » >•*•• • ;v- ^ •• ••:' •■ :." • ;v ;•:• vv-.-^tv:^- • . * • ♦ “ ‘ ♦ •? > •; \ - * 4" • I •.’ _ N.* *’ i ^. . • ,/ • . ' * •• . * *. • ' • t A flowage and conservation easement shoixld be required over 'the wetlands. * *• ■ * ^ % i-.' :\ Our park dedication fee schedule applies only to residential subdivision. We should, therefore, consider whether we should access the property^as- one building site or for two units when we apply the duplex. credltw^i^:’.v / A Public Hearing has been scheduled for 8:00 P.M. on January 16,-^^ Copies of the proposed subdivision have been forwarded to the foliowiiag*' with requests for comaents: D.N.R., M.C.W.D., County Public Works ’ Dept., City Engineer, City Attorney, City Administrator, and the City ' Public Works Director. , y,- ; , n!* . - • > PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING - January 16, 1978 Dr. Tom Leach was present. Building & Zoning Administrator, Henry F. Muhich, informed the Commission that Doug Mattson, of the Hennepin County Public Works Depaxl^ent, had called che afternoon of January 16, 1978 in response to staff's earlier request for comments regarding this subdivision proposal* The County recommendations included: 1) Seven additional feet of right-of-way easement along County Road #19 2) Change location of driveway approach from north property line to single approach located in vicinity of common lot line between lots i and 2 - thereby reducing traffic hazards that may result from several driveway approaches. Suggested all three parcels use one single common approach. Dr. Loach explained the problems with relocation of approach because of the topography of the land in the area of the common lot line. Steep slope makes this location objectionable. Co^ission rcvicwoci C:c\ trank's reports. Second report dated Januarv 6, 19/S suggested redurinst roquirc’mc nt it>r \itility casement (storm sever) from 30 feet to only J5 lert because of existing 20' sanitarv sower easement located sout'i ind |>arallel to south propertv line of entire original parcel. I 1 ann ing i ss 11‘m ..''MitI.'*| ip?•<'v* 1 of pre 1 i•” (i'..irv pI > * ■•!•!» ii ’ . fo I Icv.’ing .-ondi t iotft • I . ♦ , «I » 'I ^ I 5* ^ ' I' !* ! «' ' M i '' * ' 4 I and : 'Ufitv I ; . ■ • ........... ■ ■! •vj: Wiy- it': r.« * 2535 ShadTWood “ v^ ^ ‘ ubdlvislon and CondltionaX Page 3 , ■'. K*:^- ’• ' * y >V^ . /^ '<TCnncrJvW ^ ^residential lot Engineer (15' alon» approved bv ^ ?>;*’• :fm ■'M‘iS feski!.iSVS'fSi^ City Attorney^ *® ** by and approve condlttoS*use'^peS?^J® offer to donate lot 3 td'the' c''^ to structure meeting - lot ^os^?«™raSeft!le'c»dl?r''^°^ «“ """tlonal use permit tHe ' ' .*.! ‘.‘t S^ 2£ •4. * -A? 0‘\;• •• ,v^ ym STAFF - January 18, 1978 ac “thf anHOT^nced hto''tha ““|o "® informed me of the sI“p"aXope^«®thlf iocattiS"'* be'objStlonabL^beca^^ the County would recommend a 26* rold "^*»y a lao informed me that ment as Indicated on ehrolL n! ? *«»*“ent rather than the 24' ease- at the time of developmenf ahiuld bf ?o *“*5*®*®'* that access t“lot 2 of lot 2 to reduce traffL conSsUon A re '“r'='’f bounder^ Jtoe ,-s“ill be coming shortly. "«estlon. A report with these recommendatiohidS CITY COUNCIL - January 23, I973 | .ItMO L'PDATK - AL'CrST 23, 1973 All J^C'Ouircmonts n»- i • The p.-cposnl included consideration'' have been completed ■•- - been •rie • . ^ • • f..e .'f. mw«S ServF',ivew.y „„.| ..tllUy ensem-.u over l.ot 1 f- .,t.,te in.,tn,;n'™';rs;v;tne.',.;;^''’‘-' '"■■lo &!’>v iS: b -« I.' r. kir^, x\rxS>i< * 2535 Sha<tywood - ^VV . ••v A^v'^‘ Subdivision and Conditional Use^Perttt''£o?: Page 3 PV^'*‘'r ‘ Af rt'Cs . •iMJb»lr< ^fev p!^v lr!\5???>• /-iWefJa'S iirfa*r2r<^^“ (description and agreeraent^o designated as wetlands City Attorney). be approved by City Enginee^nd ^P-.«*JSSlISrrp22:1« - — lot 3 to'tba ‘ CO .trnctur, meeting ilHaSS'^S^SSSSr » lot SaSSiSSlSSaS^SatnSSrV* «“ conditional use permit .be STAFF - January 18, 1978 ' !‘ ■<--rm-.- ■ *• > •- r*?o^'-V •*' •'■ W CvVlT ..’■•dic^c Dr. Leach”Sd®met and"con^nccd hto'^^har’'’'"’ “*' loformed me o. c: :rrsio°'e“r?b?f Fr “Ltci^s^ the County would recoinnend a 26' road ^- Murphy a Iso Informed me that ">ont es Indiueted on throUn u! ? **»“>«>« «ther than the 24' mso. ot the time of developmenf^AuW h! ?° »"8gested that access to loH a of lot 2 to reduce traffic Ion«a« '=’"o «outh boundary line ' "k Wil- be coming ehortly. ® , ’ *'eport with these recomendatloha'iS I • * - "h I V'i ■"''-ji k eV J'W ■'At 4 CITY COUNCIL - J/muary 23, 1978 f. Planning Co^issiDn^recol^endatl^^^^ according to review and conser\ration easemP^J°"®' J^equire standard f^tle oolnlon MUMO UPDATK . AUGUST 23, 1973 ^ irefTionts nr •! jr • The rircpose! included 'tPPtoval have been completed Because final planning h"s“0^ 1 , " duplex unit on Lot 11. ' ".^ProMl of ,ne cendlAon., ‘'"P'--. final pa.k lee has been paid on ,|„. b,Ils'„r f 'delayed. The |>*SIS of tun-jre dupLc-.< approv;.!. r ^ I l»j** nl it iii'tii* t "i/s• » I V I I I » H :» I » f J . , a| ,. I aerve ;,..( J at.d i K) ft nUliLU'^ ' '"-'[‘ty easeaa lu over Lot ] f■■'■ '-.1.,. ta..tn,;,,io;\:rs™“.; t 'I m■■’fc I •■; L t . ’' ^ r .• .‘i Wm^ m 97jw * f * •lt9V«H» Mj fe'ii;?5 It’ h'^4- • w<f« ftUv^lir mfTrBi] tKBdii; pi: <•' ro«firii«i [•r«riw»i r»i^t •104C9 ro^«i»Ts^ r ^ [•xmiwtua^^ra [•luTiira >**. i ■■■ »iMF» Kftt AlM^*Vw^iVU 'Mil [•^«iia%ar^ ^VlRlkTil >llT:Yr«Uii;;mTJ [•JtWil [•1I«>M1 COMMUNICATIONS.MEDIA DIVISION ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS or DOOR OUALITV IHHII^32QQJ2IOI^X3S3CnZbEX[Il33XIZC!E9HiHii 'Ktm iimv^-'. #4-!r ••■ • r-^' • - ■ V*» P.M. . • - t i^..*'^ V-* -t r;* I-•/ i •*. »i*-.■*•/'*' -V-’.*: ... .. i# ------- ■ ' I I 1 ‘ I'l ';-■ I i1 a^iSr*-^ - - - , - . -^•*—- giftf .IrttLiittrtiVix ' Jaaurnry 6, 1978, ho suf^^icsted. that a 15 .oasonicnt probably would be aufficient is a 20 fc. wide sanitary sewer. cascnenC centered on the storm sower cascoont. ' > • '..7 ' # • * ♦ . • • V ‘ ■ Or. Leach stated lie was not a\</are’of the suggestions by the County. '/ 'rhe Conwnission addressed Lot 3 being dedicated to the City and the request for a conditional use permit for the duplex. After all the public were heard the Public Hearing was closed at 9:27 P.M. .• - .:.-V- :/•uig f j. The Zoning Administrator informed Dr. Leach that : % the City would require a conservation and flowage casement for the conditional use permit if Lot 3 was not dedicated to the City.«- The Commission addressed the access for Ixit 2. Dr, Coach stated that the natural topography favors the access where it is shown on the map along the nortiiwescerly property line. He added that it would be a problem to have an access between I^ts 1 and 2 because the slope there is about A5° and bcticcen Lots 1 and 2 there are a few spruces which block traffic on the road as it comes up the hill. He also stated the division lino is where it is to meet the minimum lot area requirements and the .iccess for Lot 3 will be along the north part of Lot 1 which is perfectly level. He .nldetl that he is prepared to begin itrumedia tely. Mavor Van Nest common led that because of the topography it •.'•('uld bo liiificult to have a common tir ivov IV. Tne Zoning .\d..i i n i s t I'.t Loi* lot l (be eeiui i ( i om I vr^e p«*rnlt should bi"* i.‘dre-''‘i<d it’ (he :‘'»'LS the a rcM i I'd lot i d ! b r« • |i • i 1 • . »I < , I if' (ole ( bt • on 1 V . • •< .O?:* 11 - 4 . ' v*^ ' • V ' proM ♦ *»*' 1 ^ t *Pi- ro ’»• iiv^ '*M* Ail<i'n .'Vi'd, f o di / : ii/n »•?:*: : *1-1 I ' f . ; 1 I . ^ (' f \* »• > •i‘>. 1 • r IV. 1:1 ! i c'l< ( p >i%l SI w. i ‘ : * t .' •• ; : rOMMIINICATlONS.MEDlA DIVISION ORIGINAL DOCUMGNT l« OR POOR QUALITY O? A PIAN^ikc Cl/ Tho r1nn1 -f A. ^ , V- • •• .• (2) IJe applicant vork v» th i-i,« > ' ^ ' ’ • Ac issue of acooss;'a^d , Msemonc-'and « «°«ase and wetland aoithfast“rop«^^\P''"J^^ «1°"8 the for drairase anJ^tJuti« 3 ^ the City Engineer; al5d ’ : ° for «as^ent fer access • - r l*KC>Va;-i r .'^?344 .. (con*t) ; r?‘\ "'M .1 » (4) •a. ‘ ' 4 \V ■ .- *v •••■ '■'K .. '•>.: :i.:v /v ‘ ■:r The Commission did ««♦- r"''' . ; ‘ to the City and approved the r^*^d? donated ' f"® <*“Plox including a park permit; ?2,000 - $1,000 for efch Snit ^ee of #% , i -V 'I* »■ - •! *4- \$ *' PI;' ;V-VV. . ,- 's r U! ■ ‘ . ■•: ...Vi i'-.-rj«a .*• •. • • •- r /* * %■ \4 •:- V-. •* .• <1): Hessel.■’•?: was P’^esent^^'^CoimissLnerKrr^i Properties, from the Commission during the^dJ ^°wn item because he had a confli'ct of^'nL'r^st?^ '•'V'.- . •f’.'-i'•• tom • ■•* •.'> •>’;j '•. ........... u - CP.OSSTCVa? FP.OtJvi'mT ’rc '. ' O^^TTS “PplLs onl^^t^rte porti^"®‘’f'''’®'^ *’’* fhat nothing has changed ?roS fte "* «Pl«f"ed6 rrora the past plat. ____j • FI^L ?LAr A??a^ow. va :66 . ..• :'.:.r>^ .. .-.vvl^ a i* *:.. v>i'. •,^V-. --IvVv'l, tonka'"L'acrhaf done^fbout'^a^f* Ritter replied that th^« lake, sidered by the LMCD. Also hf>^ ®*^1H being con- Or^o bocnuse there are two^'Lf^® ^rom betu-oen Minnetonka Beach and A systems intercnnectod. uTadZa-e private. that the roads will < l'**' O^ the Articles of ;V ■- ^ • K i I f I. ’ ■ • ••'U .i; ..„: ,., i, J • •; / .. I ■ < 'll iiiv It i ,-.,^ ”• • ‘—>t 1..,-., { .,, ‘ • I c , - , , 1 ' N f u-r c? 1* . .• ■ » •.*; -a ,• . ‘ ‘ ■ S I f Hi I' • '.I* r • <:s . . t . . .. * • ■ • • • 1 1 . V • • . S .•' •• / I ? ..( , V.. ;• i.f » <«''-------------1^ iii ■■II '■ -y:- • ^ ''\*'”rr'yyymF^rrmf < . <l '*•• < '• M. WA COMMUNICATIONS.MEDIA DIVISION ORIGINAL DOCUMRNT IS OP POOR OUALITV DOCUMENT COMMUNICATIONS Mv>s m ;-v II :.^i| .#! « t *,< »2GULWV MEETING OE Tim-om^' 1. ' City Attor^-v^ ‘’’”*^“'”=“v:^A»UAW.:53. isy,; ^-greetientf^ S--»PProvai o« enciosea easeaent TprovAl of title opiiiioa. 3. No park dedication fee. ' ’ ’ council - V BlOVeda ^ "• / > . ' «^t?o«2y.esssxf,:,. ... . ... - jC- st^r^sxou. • • • • ccontinv.^? ;. : ^ ning Comission*SinJtes^”^° a^ecord the Plan. reque«“‘|V°"fr’?"9 ? “ood Road, dated Januai^'ig TaSf*®''/ 2«5 S.ha^. -• - ieacH ua, pteseTt ' infoSa th^^SisSoU^IJ ”*" “®"*y >’• Wuhich along lowti°toad'n|.°' '^^ht-of-way easenient '• dPP^^acH itoi. nctta ^cinity of common lot located in ^ereby reducing traffli^J between Lots 1 & 2 from several driveJa^ that nay renu^ all three, parce.ruee oTlf^^r' •Mr. Leach explained the ^ approach. Che area oi=?h^e^°L'^^'?PT ’-PHy;?^^f rtie location ohjectionibL '•■• “‘"PP =1°?® "axes Corrvnission reviewod Tr.r r, report dated January ' = reports. Second -eguirenent for utility aP'Jhostod reducing IJ faet to only IS oaseoent (stem uevier) -'••uiitarv ______ . oeceuso r><r t'f ron ^-•^tary scwor%..ast.¥.ont 'locT"- -aouth propc-rty line of e-.t i^cr-arallol ‘-•'tiro oriqinal parcel. • « •■•• • k . RBSOLCTIC?; sLs ■■.••■-.; Sornerd Poi.\i3.<:i > I f ‘ ■ •.,V .V •r ••:- n;9r>' ,,**.•■ •■•/,'hr - *•■* .. • *j hiK?» 0 . • ♦ •// 2PKVIS \3 o35 Shadjn ^^344 Tom Leach •' *’W ■y•^ ^ •■ V itj K {Cl i:, • • • ’ .. • I > 1 •Jilt L«JUPC*i teiiiiiira7riCT;i L«)fTi NPiiTS^ f 1 f PsMrW* ^nil# I'Vi/'Jw"-' V ^tV/ • V| a.. •f ■ • • J f V »* / ' 'Mrp'iMxy^ ■<-•3,^4 * • > * y>> iM' ■tisr* : .;* • . ,y't.,» • ■ ^ ' •• :vt;' ' -.•■:> ^ • 'V i -•• -■■'?:? V: .• ■:;:?r - IC Lve Drr.pany IV w COMMUNICATIONS.MEDIA DIVISION ORIGINAL DOCUMRNT IG OP POOR OMALITV ? • • \ . •'* ' *> p:. i 'i J-jt m •'''. ^i n‘ f -. ‘ 1 • • i ?o«t Off!r?rp*‘66^Cryt^A! Bo:% ^Mn'^crc^r f I ‘ • ♦^ * 4 On JVbrtA Sfiore of Lche MinnetorJir. * August 9* 7.973 *.r T ^—I .•■ T . ■ v.i>Jyi •/ . •' i l*'- ■ ' : :^f. . ‘V- V ■-'■•,'•%;.7 • .••>'.*•15 Dr. Ihomas Leach . 2710 HelstMd Lane Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: d344 Subdivision Application Dear Dr. Leach: •••■.• •■‘;.-A.i • • r- r To folloir up xny letter of August 7, 1978 as per our te7,cphonc conversation today. »■•-.■ 1 The duplex approval can be conditioned upon sl,te plan rcvlctc by Council prior to issuance of a bul7.dlng pertpit, but the approval will expire if no building permit is lo.sued within one (1) year.s. .• «f-l' he park de'^lcatlon fee will be $600.00 for lot 3 without duplex approval o^$l. 572.00_wlth duplex approval. ^CcB'S^ .Tbe drainage easement along the south east side of lots 1/ 2 and 3 must;be at least 15 ft. wide. This can be done by completion of/the attached utilities easement. *>incerely'i 0 A^ 0% ^ r. Alan P. Olson Village Planner '■■mM ...r V ■ t'-. ^> W A r :r CITY or or.6V:o • •'.'t-i Regular I-Cceting of. the Orono Council, August 29, 1978 The Orono Council net on tho above date with the following members present: f*ayor Van Nest, Councilmenbers Masscngalc, TauruC, and Peso'<, CounciImenbor Butler arrived at 7:23 Also present: City Administrator Benson, City Planner Olson, and City Attorney lial^erron. Absent: City Rngincor Olson. Paurus moved, Pesek seconded, to approve the Consent /Agenda*, cxce »t item #22, with all staff data and supportive information to be included in tho Minutes in tho sequence they occur. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). Lake M.i notonka Conservation District representative !.’ornan Paurus discussed t?: proposed LMCD policies and actions. Mayor Van Nest commented that the City Council and Planning Coimnission will hold a joint meeting at 7:30 P.M., September 21, 1978 and that the City Planners should attend. At that time, it would be appropriate to plan our future joint meetings. ; t No eonnents from the Park Commission. Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, .'entered into the record a nemo update on the request of Ton Leach, 2555 Shadywood Road, for a subdivision and conditional u..(j j)ernit, dated August 23, 1978, which states: A’.; leciuiren--:nts of preliminary plat approval have conpl-.-ted. The proposal included consideration oi rt duplex unvt ori l.ot 3. because final planning hes rtot u- •. n t:orpivr‘-d. for the duplex, final “ the conditional use oernit will . n n r* *.t • r *. ‘ ‘ • • ' »* ‘ ■ • : . ’ • . '• '• > . • 'r'V/ij. ..-im CONSENT ■.-A'ti I.MCD REPORT '■K'A " 'A'/- • • . ? ?.LA>T?:riC. CO.'tMJSSION'l # PARK CO!«ISSION SUBDIVISION & A \ CONDITIONAL USE •1 •* 2535 Shadywood Road •' #344 *♦ Tom Leach >Vc! 1 J i * • t • . • ave ho park fee hns been paid on the duplex rav.i 1. • '5G •'* . i':ri\ .. :v .«r. . . ; 1 i *_y • • ’■ ’• ■ ■ > ■ . .<-• lot y .:,l; .1 -'t, ' •- ,• .• .11, I. II iJi .. •/., - * - . 1 • \ \ -• ‘Vj * ' 'r'V’ . -Si.rrv;-; Vv Road '* S^l^smioN 2£»l»»c: •* •* *.*■•• • ■ • . , >v i . ■:•••; >:‘VtTV.; MINUTES OF A PLA^TNIKG COMMISSION MEETING RELU AVGUST 23, I?73 ' •‘•.V,■ :\v. i»‘;^ Hassel announced this was the tine and place for a Public Infomation Meet5.n5 on Popov/Poisson subdivision request. Olson expla5.ned the request and stated he had the Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of yail5.ng. Mr, Poisson was present. No public comments were heard. The Planning Commission was concerned about the driveway surface and an existing erosion problem. There was lengthy discussion regard5.ng the roadway as a private driveway and the need for easements and/or platt5.ng as an outlot. It was decided that platting was definitely required and that the road should be an outlot up to the point where it veers west across the Poisson property. The City engineer has reviewed the engineering drawings, but we have not received any written comments from him, Olson stated he had received a letter from the MCV7D (dated 8-24-78) stating they had no apparent problems with this subdivision, however, it is subject to formal review by the MCWD at which time drainage details would be required including justification for the proposed pipe size on the driveway. There was concern that the lot lines could be relocated somewhat to omit or reduce lot portions isolated by the road from the other properties. McDonald moved to table the application pending possible revision of the lot lines, receipt of additional drainage infotTnation, and receipt of reports from the City engineer and County Highway Departme;nt, Mocion seconded by Hammerel. Vote: Ayes (7), Nays (0). Motion passed unauimously. ■ - - popov/poiJ^fo:'' 40SC/4010 r..T.3'35.d.> Sin.Dr-^T.SlC'.-’ ?ub?.ic ’•r.'it'li 7?410 7:40 ?.M. - 7;4f. . .. m '.I* r ,» . . 'fM f # A i V^ m Hassel stepped douTi a.s Dr. Leach is a client of his firm. A[>plictint was not present. Olson stated that all requirements of the preliminary plat approval have been co.mpleced. iTie proposal did include consideration of a duplex on Lot 3, hut final planning has not been co::ipleted an(! ipprovai of the conditional use permit will have to he delayed. 'fhe park lee has been paid on the bar, f.s of future duple.x approval. Hannah ntoved to reco::::end appr(»val of the final nlat as per the ctttaci eci resolut:t,n. Motion sew%i..ded bv THO.MAS I3\CH 2535 Sh3dy\;ood Rd FINViL PLAT f-3^A *- . .• Haiiuneri-l . Vc le Motion passed. .\Vi‘S < b > , A*Is t.I in»*(!t j I ^ >; e V- COMMUNICATiONS.MEDIA DIVISION ORIGINAL DOCUMENT OP POOR OUALITV : - -r^m .: ■. IfSm \m: ^ ■ ■ ,'ffe r .■. : /Av/AJ? %Mj mI#V/y ■p-TGULA?. ?'*£ETING OP THE ORONO COWCIL," AUGUST 2J5, 137?. Mayor Van Nest moved, Pcse?: seconded, to adopt Kesolution 5932, A Resolution Approving The Loach Addition, subject to modifying the r^ssolution to show a 15* easement for drainage ournoscs on the plat. .Votion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0), * ' ■ .. Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, informed the City Council that all roguirements of the oroliminary plat approval have been completed for American Re— builders, 2400 Sixth Avenue North. All sites have acceptable septic system locations, al^ouah mound type systems are required due to the high' table. Conservation easements have been provided over the pond on Lot 1 and a low area on Lot 2. Hennepin County recuires common access for Lots 2 fit 3. I reco.mmend final plat approval according to the attached resolution. Council Meeting - August 29, 1978 Mayor Van Nest moved, Mofjsengale seconded, to adopt Resolution 5933, A Resolution Approvinc ihe Plat Of Willow Run, subject to all easements being shown on plat. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). Mr. Alan Olson, City Planner, informed the City Council that the preliminary subdivision for Lloyd Kelley, 125 Brown Roai South, was approved on June 28, 1978, subject to the conditions not..d on the attached list. The-Citv Engineer is reviewing the driveway plans.; All other items have been completed to the satisfaction of the staff. rrTf.*' 3. ^•'^'soLU ’iMcc; -r p •Leach .hr'r:.vb.;cm ' *. • • if-'*sa3Divi.<?io>i . '7AOO. Sixth .Ave.nva' ^V';^^ '’•353 i • .ajr.orr..cce •• . • 4 RESOLUTION #933 Wi7.1ov Run *'■' •-’V' • M • .‘A SUBDIVISION 125 Brown Road Sout)\5?i 5372 • 11^ Lloyd Kelley \'A‘> f I rticonun^nd final plat approval according to the attocli^'d resolution. I'lcir'.n ing Co.'jni ss ion f'.coting - Aug use 14, 1978 j’.-:rinUi'; Co."jii..ss : on re::o. j'i..ncleri final olist .::e.’Ov.il oer t.he r-.^olut •. on. M,.. -!rri - Av.«iust I'j, 1973 P. 1 1- r u i3 ' vV s* * 1 ir \ v.M - 0 '5 , /. > A;>;a r*. V i I: i J • • • *. • r, ... ,. I. * V . •. r .» I'll M.it 11 1 i 1 * 'i ' •:)• '■'; :o‘: -'j s y f? ‘ V * * * • • ri .1 ■ » f * V- SSiL^ d£fOi Mo -^b: ^m- ■ * — >-i-t ■'*! '• •ri rt : *.’i f ^^ • •••'.‘>VX* .i •■ -> ‘.-t; %• * ’» r •• * ..’*■• \ \ I ■ t ■ •« . !5nt s, }'i>; *s, r>-‘^Lvv<*; 5^' I: 'i 4**. • y-i.'fjrt • i M ■v^ .•W-Ti; >568 # f '•« DATE: SUBJECT Plannin9 Conunission Jeanne A. Mabusth July 16, 1981 ^o^«ln ‘S!trwaJ°"' ““ Road - Location Lots 1 i 2 of the Leach Addition List of Exhibifra Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Building Permit Application Leach Plat Building Elevations Access Easement Site*^Plan”**”"^^^” County Highway Department (2-9-78) oifice building «•!- S In JL ?"f o” ^ the residential lot 3 bl vil t ^ that access to north boundary of Lot l ih ^4 driveway easeront alono the of Lot 3. This eawlei; but note the plantings and designated on the site plan easement area, i have enr?io designated within the easement for ^ouJ Alltel Sllf original copy of the access limitations within the easemelt Irta^ ^Staff mprovemonts against the placement of nia«Vj» ' w- would recommend within the easeuent?^ The*^^HenVil?!n' parking stalls in the procew of revieSlSI K Highway Department location of the access for access location and the will also respond to Engineer - Plan June 30, 198) 2 nnH ■» *?'°*'9|the south property line of lots Tho cif-A _ _ _ _ %2 and 3 should be 15’ wide. Wide casemonte The site plan shows only a 10* <1. Tho pror«9o(l 41 '• 4nd of 3B.150 . not area 7?930 «f Parking standards l-a.ldtngs rcnuiro 200 "f a,oJ 1 s^aH. re(juircd liarkincj latall:. j>ropost.a park;n<j t,?...!!:.•; 1 ■;-rt I’ •r’"mm <-:^4 ?; • i'i\m;• vAVf i'. -.g 'Jl |,i.>r.ji| pi rm R'tfe t 'c \ iVi.;:? " tTn'T] ■%'i • V • ' •** . 4 #♦ V* *^v»! ? . • .' •• A^-*r ir .c-v't ,i»;f 1i Ktef •il fel IW * •« * ft aIpN''* k * WV *. c COMMUNICATIONSjMEDI^DIVI^^ ORIGINAL DOCUMGNT DOCUftftENT COftftMUNICATIONS -:V *■•■•<:;'*■. « • ^‘►■.r’lTi-rf v/v .,^. *. - V ii 'r^.rS .'. «4 .,• \ . »' » ‘C*** • .;X t- ■ •- ^>;-. :\X>:1 Lorraine Nordbloni Page 2 Landscape plan notes sugar naples planted along Shadywood Road taincd^at^2*^o*^3*”h*i h° lying shrubs that can be nain- A loading berth, 12* x 25* must be designated on the plan. The crash pick up area or dumpster should also be designated. Applicant should submit a signage plan for the office building will respond to the same issue and also review the proposed cl C« O Cl aJ 3 • 't'4 . ■ . i ' • . ^ r. V*-^ *,*'-* '• * 'mm.- X.- '•• • -v-r - r . . if V‘\iW ! V ^‘ - !* , • ’ * . V V '*• *•” ■: * is### ‘mm• • vj.S*;-•mm ‘Tri'.ifjSv *r‘‘* >. J ;o''i ■■ C V.. ipi li, is'llSi .'5‘'- ;• mm ., ,.:h ,'*.kv 'f. , »•,s- • . ;r : ’ f. , > COMMUNICATIONS.MEDIA DIVISION ORIGINAL DOCUMRNT IQ OP POOR OUALITV l-'.Vil/’'''.;' ■ >/> *^* I -rv'-v^ >■ ■•.tv%'r- r- . if a. \ V •it?’* •: j *: M,.VJ;i:-. «S- T.1E I>LA!;S1N0 COMMISSION MEETING OF JOEY 20, 1981 Page 5 AUDREY OCLAND 2601 Casco Pt. RdAnrUcw.t waii ^resent along with some family nembers. ;=£“■" srst s Srjs-JS.'SWSES.* io C=0U1 =o.as:-y lOo .;y ji; icqui rc.T»onts . ;:c.rmisi.ion r.ccting. No action was required. >. . ii-.'ir was -ircsent. The Planning Co.tunisstor. reviewed 2-lot ">Ut. All standards have been satis- •.iv:V .Xabusth noted that the . a-’ review was that the front setback should =C/5 ‘Z* instv... o: 3S ft. A public hearing was sc.icdulov. .o. V;.; a :'.oada/> Mi-. : .rrainc Nordblon was present. Mabusth noted the t,v. . cono-.-rns :or the site plan; : - uJ.ijMcnal 20 ft. of parking turnaround for the end . t -1: l a j / - ;. <• x.-.-ile question of proposed access and need to re*..«K. a clearly defined access driveway to r -ii :-.;ntial lot 3 to the road. j ; -. 1 --a-'' r<’-view done by the Heniepir. County Highway ;\i' ‘sugqcaUd that tL 2A ft. driveway easement coal : t,..- relocated along the mutual :iot lines o: 1 anc . •.>1 ..2l'.n w.is ag.iin>;t this suggestion because . cr.txnini m consideration of future ... .xn.l they inay :.ell off ur.c o: ‘hf Lot:,. :ij-.:..t.. V.-.:.M IS .lo; asKcd lor more- cJ ar i r icat .o:. c'.nu..r.. .-. <d selling off lot 2 >*infu tno o..ic-D ^ :ro...cf. i-arri:,-, r-ga i re: .ent:' an- ., ... t.i:r.L:*i .> i .::.a*.t.-a or. lot J. •.I*..: *.!. i* . Jit ion ot ..• lot J i»l ioJ t,0 i.. . i t J * - * *. .; -tn lo::. u i r • V''/ • I ^ D.AVID STEARNS 2171 Shadywood Rd. Work Session Subdivision >638 l,/f!oRRAINE NORDBLOM 2S3: Shadywood Rd. Site Plan Review *637 mM ipsp1^1I rv.\/i yP^ 1^1 f'rv^ ' tt V - is ■i f^.-r ' , fJB ■. ^' (' ■-.N t i = tei ' . I!, > I , .V;.[ •> I :.* '-‘.i • . • I • .. o . . ■ • •iT J .. ;... : <. 4 I . . (* '. .•! 4k» rst€ illW ■jz. *^*'Si.«m.mk r« m m - ■ '** •' V ■• J.^ » 'a* t i•iip mm II®Wmh mv <f "•«’v». .•• I • or.vi' ORIGINAL DOCUMENT DUALITYEISESlil?•I 7.1.'. 111:1 r i-J . Sy V.Vl-.r H .f"- ■ -f.fy *k.^ • ■,'. *: i ■ r I* Planning Cononission Jeanne A. Habusth DATE;August 12, 1981 SUBJECT: #637 Nordblom & Asrociates, 2535 Shadyvood Road - Conunez'cial Site Plan P.eview Review of Application since last review A revised plan has been submitted by the applicant reflecting all the changes requested by the City Engineer. A meeting was held at the r’tc with the developer, engineer, public works administratoi, Hennepin County Highway Department the Zoning Administrator. Cooks' letter or July 29, 1981, notes the changes requested at that meeting 1 -drainage from the parking lot and office bui..ding has been directed to the southeast corner of Lot 2. No drainage from the proposed improvements will flow into the wetlands to the west on residential Lot 3. A ponding area has been designated and a 12 inch culvert to take drainage to catch basin on Fabric Shop lot then under Shadywood to drainage area on east S JluC • 2 - Access - Access to the residential lot to roar will be located along the south property line and use a shared access with Fabric Shop. Owner of Lot 2 must grant a 24 wide driveway and utilities easement in favor of Lot 3. Owner should take necessary steps to remove existing driveway easement at the time the new ease ment is filed. The County has approved the use of the snatei access. I i - Parking ^t * Parking lot has beer, extended to afford the required turnaround. f T * LOAdln^ Berths • Loading Droa has not boon designated* { I 5 - landscaping - Landscnj'ing has been approved by the City Lnglneer and the Menr.epin CounLy Highway Department. Ihe proi^osed tree piant. mgs ea.i ..- i< ss vi;;uai probleras ci;jn low lyifKj bhirubs. - Applicant i.. alb»w».<I .i r.a.xirnujn of 2'jO sf or bitjnagc - ohl - u i.ji, r.,,. . xc 00 :;f ir ar ea. lOur rocofjjnendation o: .ip:.i riri.iinijs and condition..:. I i c'in ram the rcllowim ■i0 ” Wm lifl ?>*T: r' S'** ' -tsT* I V -1 ' Xv % plimm ::V. >Y [• t V oyv.jj * '--V\ *; • * • V mtm »l\- i ■■*i » v,\-. H**>*;‘ ^vrv:v,,. n ► »/ •*/••► ' » ' * 4^ • * i I • , ' kT I' ’'« r . V . V COMMUNIC^IONSjMEDI^l^ ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS OS OOOROUALITV^^CT^^i^nn^'^rTTr^nfM^s^E»1»HI1.M J.'t iV;^ ;Vi ' V--‘ ' '?r-.‘ tih--W'£I > . .\4 r:c..- ^.: ■ -s.- '■'i; •’VA~i I ^.y< - r/'-, I ^i:’■ ‘ i'/:'is/rCT*^ ? -' b^ • '- mi ■>• MiSL ^ m- ) Nordblom 6 Associates Page 2 Findings * ' uViTily^^" “>« proposed ^ ■ bDI ^ ““9" ‘h* co«»arcl.l Conditions of Apprr>v>i resident!“l Sr?. expanded «or driveway to ^eJInf ii°L5ori? 2JrS.“ “’' “"'* “«li‘ie» ‘fli“'’p?l„1r£e “preseniel ““0^^"* 5 - Landscape plan approved per plan dated August 6. 1981. se?b2cks''aJd ?l%arking TaltV' e I ’ ■ cor«JucLo”‘‘°" pians; required durin. thc^iecorS? “"“'“"io" ^ate for • >•vVV; :V I a ‘ a ' • ^m^: fip i^;'v W--•••« • •• ti. #1m •r«c •V.3? P'fe ■;S? ' I ..:r:r v.7 e^V.J^ Mli.UTLS oJ T*li: PLANNING COLMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 1981 Paco 5 i* Application was referred back to «ruc clarificatxon o!"he «c«sSry^rr^e;!y «f«*=tur. to b* considered problem in moving the loca^-rn -V "stni setbacks. In fact ho had considered cjt*fuj .,1.. sauna inside the existing garage. Hurr^.uggcsted that a building permit be taken out for the “siit'i: tj« ?>as=io"std'JrrcL “d"““ ^abj^c't canclitSnsf variance application 1 - Relocating o: gar. line at the applicants expense ^ only be fro.m Rest Point ^ ol!]y!’■■'■' car garage to remain for storage purposes ' ■ "'•:raVr..ab;Ss:''' to move S - £5-iiaing permit to be taken cJut for siuna. ■ t - !'..:i.ravcd existing shed closestj to RestjPoint Lane. JwwiLojr -.econdcd. Vote; RICHARD P. y.ICH 1373 Rest Point Rd Variance «631 P t, he record that the *^o.1BLOM s ASSOc. ^‘? 25 35 Shadywood P.d. *t was noted for ih Mab.^.h rioted that'ti'iraS'"® via a :.hared access with '^he^fabr^c^shon^^?^ Lot 3 will bo Commerciai Site property line. A'.nl i^T south Plan way c.KrW.cnt anl -i n? li 24 V wide drive- ,637am utilities oasemoht in faVor of Lot 3. ^^^*^****^'* w,ii> »• • to n.,-.. ror... trai-i'^ th,; ccr.merciali use will tend me-.i 'he . o i • ■■ ,”>ou t 1 h ^ resicOntial use. Also improve-'........‘0'^‘ » be limited to 1 access. Coet ’-.;, a... ........... st.Ftvi a, aoor j • •" ^ '. ' started. Applicant j- ••••.' ■ •• ‘.''f ri-va 1 . JaLitr- ;r -■">;.c‘_r••. f , . .. , ,,tl-- r. .Id..;.. ; ..: -- - - - . • '•‘•^ =• • t.,-co.jr..z..d :or ' •■ ■.•■ Ir ir. l >r. ;t »• :..,sf P..- ,I J ! I • • • Mcbi.:. .1 . ,1 _ .... ... •. *. L»,;. • • ^ •*. 4.i .i',' * •' • *; r • • .•I . : 'i‘ • ! :' Mr. * ‘ I . ' J- i . • *'i. •’ ?.* r»l ^^JMJ^jl^TIONSjMEDI^DIVISI^ ORIGINAL DOCUMGNT j jJL J I *♦. t f ' ' P ■■i- •h - :r>: ' ‘T"* No COMMISSION’ MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 1981 Pane G ovo the corrxiercial site plan of NORDBLCM (CCN’T.) > subject to the following findings: ;d water to serve the proposed )ts 1 & 2 align wit! the cotronercial all proposed conanercial improvements the rovjuired setbacks from the ig district to the west. allowing conditions: 11 be required by the Uenrepin County It for access to comraercial situ and s to be c;<pundcd for driveway to res- of building permit - Lots L S.2 must Tiust grant a new driveway and utilities o: Lot 3. or loading area must be designated on presented to Council. •proved per plan dated August 6, 1981. ti dated August 6, .1981, noting all parking stalls. | I n control plans required during serve commercial \jse. area to residentia Vote: t. ication. - There was no^o i I K ^ property to . • » • / T"* *»• ‘ ,**'• » * r e ’from^t »e'audience BRUCE CURTISS .jbbo,.i : >• ; application would bring about a far ...tt«.t • nviro:..;,*::ual condition since tno old garage and 11- •Jurti ... : ror * >. iV « • w* I ».*«i » • •i > »•* ir.^j »\j*: rcrtovi.-J is located closer to the Th'- ::*.w r ir iMe will locitod closer to the road i'rovitl'j a-iv t. »r :..i rrjvind on the property. t.na*. ♦ I.*; ^r.r. ; i r i : 1-: :^j.\n IS 3 7 5l. from t^;c ‘I ^ I r 1 i :.ir.'» .\j . 1 1 n * • * ) I rhiil the actual rit^hr c : woal'i 5#' ii, • ' --r i.:v;!• fi-.. ;> ‘T v-‘-v.** *.■**'Vi iV'i 1920 Fagorness Pt. Variance *6.13 • r- '‘y •'''■> ,. isi ' • • * * ’ V <.. r»Ti7¥iniT:U«l utraT rtrmi]RImTi ] niiiutj rtvsiiiuu TORIiliiJiJ rtititi tiii^rtvtiutj rtitit] ii MKt]rtura [ijiIiWlij tv^oirtnnt^ WAm ^nnn^ riWiliiillira R9K rilTSTslira IkTaintTiHli^wSi mm MIKU •IHW r>iCTiro™j MflllU roiu»i^i RTTluM&^ rirniiam^ Process The public hearing is .he firs, s.ep in .he process to revise the MUSA. Once Planning council for conditional adoption rpromnicnded approval, a Resolution will be pre ___ ___. , . enbmitted to rtMtit] FsiiTil^l smrii •lilsTiril CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (612)473-7357 Fax 473-0510 NOTICE The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday, May 18, 1998 on the matter of a proposed amendment of the Orono Community Management Plan (Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan) to include certain properties within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Such inclusion will allow the provision of municipal sewer to the included properties in the future. No schedule has been established for the actual provision of municipal sewers, and no assessments are proposed or pending at this time. The affected properties are generally located along the northeast shore of Maxwell Bay and the southeast shore of Stubbs Bay, Lake Minnetonka, bounded on the east and north by County Road 84 (Old Crystal Bay Road South and Fox Street). The meeting begins at 6:30. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this meeting. Written comments are solicited. A map of the area proposed for inclusion in the MUSA is available in the City offices for review. City of Orono By: Planning Commission Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator To be published the week of May 2,1998. . ■ _ i April 7,1998 CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley ParVway Orono, MN 55356 Aiailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Tom Caswell, Senior Plaimer Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: Potential MUSA Amendment Dear Mr. Caswell: We recently discussed a potential MUSA amendment to allow the provision of sewer to on additional area in Orono. As you know, since 1962 Orono has made a concerted e o ° | sewer to its nearly 40 miles of Lake Minnetonka shoreline. The many bays of Lake Minneto^a ar separated bv w’ooded hills which historically have developed residentially, ^d a high percentage of Orono's population resides in the defined Shoreland district, within 1000 feet of the Lake. One of the few shoreland areas remaining to be sewered is the nortl.east shore of Mawell Bay. This stretch of shoreline, including the southeast comer of Stubbs Bay, is approximately 1.2 miles i length. This area has to date developed at relatively low densities, ranging 1 unit 2 to 1 unit per 10 acres. The current average lot \vidth along the shoreline is alwut 400. The entire stretch is zoned for 2-acre minimum lot size and is not currently within the MUSA. There is an existing residential subdivision that takes up a significant portion The subdivision was developed at 2-acre density in the late 1970's. At Aat tune the s sep c system management program was just getting started, and the level of expertise in on-sl e industry- regarding soil conditions as they relate to septic sites was not well developed. The septi systems installed %vithin this subdivision may not have the longevity of current mo^md sy^ms,^ the adequacy of the alternate drainfield sites is not assured. It would be pru en o p the potential need to provide this subdivision with sewer. The Citv is currently reviewing a proposed 7-lot residential plat of a pmcel ^ of Maxwell Bay. This portion of the Bay, which includes the Park, is one of the most pristine areas on the lake. Jhe parcel to be subdivided has retamed •0066 i. c e c d )r id rg ts Tom Caswell April 7, 1998 Page 2 natural character with an undisturbed wooded shoreline. The developer is committed to preserving this natural character and is proposing a 7-lot subdivision served by on-site septic systems. As the City Council reviewed this subdivision proposal, discussion focused on preservation and protection of the natural features of the site and the bay, and on the City ’s ongoing plan to protect the lake by providing sewer to the lakeshore area. This discussion lead to the sugpstion that, as sewer is available in the road adjacent to the property, it would moke sense to provide this subdivision with sewer to minimize the impact of the development on the property, and to fully protect the lakeshore. The first step in providing sewer to serve the proposed subdivision is for the City to pursue a MUSA amendment for this property. The City Council also suggested that staff explore whether Met Council would consider allowing the remaining shoreline of Maxwell Bay to be brought into the MUSA (see attached maps A and B). While we currently have no plans or schedule for expansion of the sewer system to serve this area, the ability to provide sewer to existing and future lakeshore development would seem to make sense. Please discuss this with the appropriate staff people and let me know what the Met Co^cil’s response would be to providing sewer to the currently proposed development, and whether expansion of the MUSA in the area outlined on map B is feasible. The MUSA exp^sion would not change the City ’s overall vision for development in this lakeshore area. The availability of sewer would facilitate the protection and preservation of the lake and the lakeshore. Thank you for your consideration of this request. If this appears to be reasonable, please forward the current MUSA amendment application format and we will proceed accordingly. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator end. cc: Ron Moorse, City Administrator Greg Gappa, Public Services Director Mayor and City Council h i:r. •• i k •.. le.AFT'f \4 Information Summary for Comprehensive Plan Revisions and Plan Amendments This completed form should accompany each comprehensive plan revision or plan amendment submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review. The information submitted on this form is reviewed by Council staff within 10 working days to determine if the comprehensive plan or amendment is sufficiently com- plete for Council review purposes. NOTE: Plan amendments that are simply "housekeeping" changes, need only supply the information m Section 1 of this form. This form is also available in alternative formats: Word Perfect 5.1 or 6.1, Microsoft Word and ASCII, or a reasonable facsimi'e of this form can be produced on most word processing systems. P'pase send plan revision or amendment to: Lynda Voge, Referrals Coordinator Metropolitan Council Meats Park CenU.<^ 230 E. Fifth Street; St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 .>1iTPIS SECTION I: GENERAL INFORMATION A.Sponsoring Governmental Unit: Name of Local Contact Person: Address: Telephone Number: FAX Number: Date of Preparation: City of Orono Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (612) 473-7357 (612) 473-0510 May 21,1998 B.Type of submittal: [] Overall plan revision or update or [X] Plan amendment Name of amendment/brief description: Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 7: MUSA Boundary Revision Land use change (describe): Expand MUSA to allow provision of municipal sewer to properties near and adjacent to Maxwell Bay, Lake Minnetonka. Size of affected area (in acres):155 acres ± MUSA Expansion? [] No [X] Yes. If yes, size of expansion (in acres): 155 acres ± C. Please find attached seven (7) copies of the following: 1.Completed Infomiation Summary for Comprehensive Plan Revisions and Plan Amendments (this form) 3. A city-wide map showing the location of the proposed change. 4. The current plan map, indicating areas affected by the MUSA amendment, 5. The proposed plan map, indicating the subject areas of the amendment. D. What is the official local stauis of the proposed plan revision or amendment? (Check all that apply.) [X] Acted upon by planning commission on May 18, 1998. [X] Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review on May 26,1998. [] Considered, but not approved by governing body on date. [] Other (please describe) A report regarding this plan revision or amendment was prepared for the Planning Commission and City Council and one (1) copy of that report is included in the submittal package. E.List adjacent local governmental units and other jurisdictions (school districts, watershed districts, etc.) to which copies of the plan revision or amendment have been sent, and the date the copies were sent to them. (Required by Minn. Stat. 473.858, Subd. 2). Copy of proposed amendment was sent to the following jurisdictions on May 27,1998: Cities of Long Lake, Medina, Plymouth, Wayzata, Minnetonka Beach, Tonka Bay, Spring Park, Mound, Minnetrista, Independence, Maple Plain Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Orono School District No. 278 SECTION 11: CONFORMITY WITH METROPOLITAN SYSTEM PLANS A. Transportation 2. 1. Does this plan revision or amendment potentially increase existing trip generation (use Institute of Transportation Engineers trip-generation manual)? [X]No.. if no. Skip to #5. [] Yes., if yes, What is the estimated average daily traffic increase? i What is the estimated peak hour traffic increase? Does the existing local and regional road network (including metropolitan interchanges) have the capac- ity to accommodate planned land use(s) .'^ [] Yes [1 * no, briefly describe the improvements to local or regional roads or inter- changes that will be required to accommodate the planned use(s): 3. 4. Are these improvements included in a Capital Improvements Program? [] Yes., briefly describe who will pay for improvements [] No.. Please explain Does this plan amendment impact transit service or facilities-either positively or negatively? [] No [] Yes., briefly describe Can the potential traffic impacts of the land use be mitigated by implementing Traffic Demand Management (TDM) strategies or through land use and urban design measures that encourage alternatives to single occupancy vehicles (SOV)? [] No [] Yes., please describe (e.g., park & rides, flexible work hours, mixed land uses) 6. Is this proposed land use change located adjacent to a principal arterial or "A" minor arterial? [X] No [] Yes., please describe site access to the arterial, and whether location and spacing of the access is consistent with Access Spacing Guidelines Does the proposed plan revision or amendment positively or negatively affect pedestrian or bike systems? [X] No [] Yes., please describe the effects B. Wastewater Treatment 1. Total flow for community based on existing plan: year 2000: 0.68 million gallons/day (mgd) year 2010: 0.72 million gallons/day (mgd) 2. 3. Total proposed flow ior community, based on plan revision or amendment: year 2000: 0.70 million gallons/day (mgd) year 2010: 0.74 million gallons/day (mgd) If community discharges to more than one metropolitan interceptor, indicate which interceptor will be affected by the revision or amendment. All added flows are intended to flow directly to Metro L.S. 59 4.Will flows be diverted from one interceptor service area to another? [] Yes., if yes, describe the change and volumes (mgd) involved [X] No Is any wastewater flow an intercommunity flow to an adjoining community's sanitary sewer system? [X] No [] Yes., if yes, enclose a copy of the inter-community agreement. None of the proposed additional flows are subject to intercommunity agreements. 6. Has ihe community adopted a comprehensive program for the management of on-site septic systems? [] No [X] Yes [] Not Applicable., please explain I.C. Aviation 1 . Has the community adopted (in local codes/ordinances) a "notification" element to protect regional air-space? ????? [] No [] Yes 2. Do the proposed changes in the plan revision or amendment involve areas within an airport influence area or airport search area? [XJ No (If no, skip to D. Recreation Open Space) [] Yes., if yes, please answer "a" and "b" a. Do the proposed changes affect the function...g of the airport(s) as defined in the approved airport Long-Term Comprehensive Plan? [] Yes (If yes, please refer to the local plan content requirements as identified in the Aviation Policy Plan.) [] No, (If no, go to 2.b.) b. Are the proposed changes in the plan revision or plan amendment consistent with guidelines for land use compatibility and aircraft noise guidelines in the Aviation Policy Plan? [] Yes [] No (If no, please explain) D. Recreation Open Space 1. Does the plan revision or proposed amendment affect existing or future federal, state or regional parks, park reserves or trails? [] No p(] Yes., please describe; The proposed revision incorporates a portion of Hennepin County's Noerenberg Memorial Park within the MUSA boundar 'vever, this is not expected to have any impact on the Park. 2.Does the plan revision or amendment include a trail segm; trail or park? (X] No [] Yes n . d connection to a regional Hi. IMPACT ON LAND USE A. Overall Comprehensive Plan Update/Revision If you are submitting a plan revision and you are using your own community's land use data, pleasi attach copies of Worksheets A and B Tab 9 in the Handbook B. Plan Amendment Questions 1, 2 and 3 below apply to plan amendments involving a land use change and/or MUSA expansion area. rir^nnvi [trills UilRl m mwi]gRllJMti 3irnTR [ijMiuRntjivt] Rill 3.Will the plan revision or amendment potentially affect the quality of any surface water body? [] No pC] Yes., if yes, identify water bodies affected and describe the impacts and planned efforts to protect the water body: The expansion of the MUSA will allow for the installation of municipal sewers, thereby removing potentially nc '-conforming septic systems from operation near the Lake Minnetonka. 4.Does the plan revision or amendment affect any land in the Mississippi River Critical Area? p(] No [] Yes., if yes, briefly describe relationship to the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan 5.If the community has a municipal water supply system, does the local water supply plan meet the requirements of Chapter 186 of 1993 Session Laws? ??????? [] Not Applicable [] No [] Yes., if yes, will the proposed plan revision or plan amendment affect your water supply plan? [X] No [] Yes... If yes, how? 6.Has the community adopted a local surface water management plan? [X] No., if no, has the . n-munity adopted the Council's Interim Strategy to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution to all Metropolitan Water Bodies? [] No [X] Yes ] Yes., if yes, will the proposed plan revision or plan amendment affect your local surface water management plan? [X] No [] Yes if yes, how? IV. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM A.Will the plan revision or amendment require changes in zoning, subdivision, on-site sewer ordinances or other official controls? [X] No [] Yes If yes, when? Describe proposed changes: B.Has your community adopted a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to implement the initial stages of the proposed plan or plan amendment? [X] No [] Yes If yes, what changes will he needed in your community's Capital Improvement Program to implement the plan revision or amendment? ---- r Worksheet A ■ Existing Land Use (in acres) Category No. of Acres Total Acreage Within the Current Urban Service Area Existing land uses within the urban service area (in acres) Single-family residential Multi family residential Commercial Industrial Mining/exiractions Public and semipublic Airports Parks and recreation Roadways Open water • Land within the urban service area that is restricted for development Environmental protection: e.g., wetlands, hydric soils, shoreland setbacks, bluffs/slopes, forests, floodplains, mitigation commitments, etc. Public/semipublic use: e.g., parks and trails, highway/street rights-of-way, airports, utility easements, etc. Historic preservation: e.g., historic sites, cemeteries/burial grounds, etc. Vacant developable land within the current urban service area (not restricted) Single-family residential Multilamily residential ................. Commercial Industrial Public and semipublic Total Land Acreage Outside the Current Urban Service Area (if applicable) Existing land uses outside the urban service area (in acres) Single-familv residential Rural estati Multifamily residential Commercial/industrial Agriculture Green Acres Agricultural Preserves Unprotected agriculture Land outside the urban service area that is restricted for development by ordinance or other legal means Total Land Area of Community 9.8 May 1997 Local Planning Handbook Worksheet B ■ Projecting Future Land Use A. Future Development Within the Current Urban Service Area Forecasted Househ!)lds 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Forecasted Employment 1990 1995 2000 Projected Household Density (acres/household) Single-family Multi-family 2005 2010 Projected Household Density (acres/household) Acres Vacant Developable Land Acres Vacant Developable Land Future Development in Urban Service Area Expansions (If applicable) Forecasted Households Acres InfiUl & Redevelopment Acres Infilll & Redevelopment 1990 1995 2000 Projected Household Density (acres/households) Acres Sinele-famil'Mulli-famil' [2005 mat. ^ t 1 [2010 ------- [2015----------------- r^rnn ------------------ Forecasted I Employment Projected Housel (acres/household lold Density s) Acres [1990 [1995 ^ [2000 2005 “ Local Planning Handbook May 1997 9.11 Worksheet B - Projecting Future Land Use 2010 2015 2020 2020 C. Future Rural Development Forecasted Households Projected Household Density (acres/households) Acres Single-family Multi-family 1990 1995 2000 “2005 2010 2015 2020 Forecasted Employment Projected Household Density (acres/households) Acres 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 •W-- ■*- 9.12 May 1997 Local Planning Handbook OOUNCICMEEn may ? 6 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: May 21, 1998 Item No.: Department Approval: Administrator Approvah Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: ^oposed Zoning Code Amendment, Section 10.55 Subd. I5A(3) Code Section:Section 10.55, Flood Plain and Wetlands Management - Subd. 15: Land Development and Platting - A. Minimum Lot Area Requirements - (3) Area credit for 'flood fringe' in sewered areas roposed Amendment. Eliminate the ability to credit wetland acreage toward development density in sewered areas. List of Exhibits A - Proposed Amendment as revised 5-18-98 B - Memo and e.\hibits of 5-7-98 Please carefully review the memo and exhibits of May 7. meiibefof Ihe'nulT'’"® " P“>>lic hearing on .his ordinance amendnier.. One reconimended approval per .I.e 'revised 5-!8-<)8' version of the proposed ;rdiZce® r^ecdwd::iMl;r3T:rl“ssi™ "■ '? CO"'"'*-™ — fo"! “ property containing 0.6 acres of land above the 100-year flood u'k" j of land (not wetland) between the OHW and the 100-year flood Wetland Credit Amendment May 21, 1998 Page 2 However, a lakeshore lot in the I-acre zone containing 0.4 acres of land above the 100-year flood elevation and 0.6 acres of Flood Fringe, would only be able to credit 0.4 acres of Flood Fringe and would only have 0.8 acres creditable as dry buildable. An existing lot of record would meet the 80% standard under this scenario, but a new lot being created would not be approved. The wording of the ordinance as proposed is in part a result of the City ’s past melding of the floodplain and wetland ordinances, which, has long created difficulties for staff (see May 7th memo and Exh. H). The proposed amendment will not necessarily alleviate these difficulties, and an update of the Floodplain Ordinance should be considered in the future. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the proposed amendment per the 5-18-98 revision. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Ordinance (5-18-98 version). Proposed motion: Moved by __, seconded by ___, to adopt Ordinance No.____Second Scries Amending the City of Orono Zoning Code Section 10.55, Subdivision 15(A) Regarding Use of Wetlands And Flood Fringe Areas For Development Density Credit. Vote:__^ayes,__^nays. ^V‘v‘ 4 ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 15(A) REGARDING USE OF WETLANDS AND FLOOD FRINGE AREAS FOR DEVELOPMENT DENSITY CREDIT 0/0 5-15-') 5 The City Council of the City of Orono ordains; Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.55, Subdivision 15, is hereby amended as follows: A. Minimum Lot Area Requirements. The minimum lot area requirements of this Chapter shall be interpreted to mean that all of the required land area for each building site shall be in one contiguous parcel undivided by Floodvvay or Flood Fringe and no land within the protected area shall be included in determination of minimum lot area, except as specifically provided for herein: 1. For propenies not served by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least 2.0 acres of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area. 2. For properties serv ed by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least one half acre of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and both municipal sewer and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area. —For residcfitial p rop erties served -by municipal sanitary' sewer a limited density-credit may be allowed for inclusion of Flood Fringe lands as of th e requi red minimum lot area for pur p oses of complying with the land use density, ope n space, build ing-unit to land area ratios or other similar requirements of the land development and zoning pro% isions. The owner or dcvclopc r of such property wtR be credited with an amount of his land within the Flood Fringe equal to, but-not execeding, the amount of his adjacent land whieh othe rwise quoliflcd for development under th is Ghapte r. Such credit shall be conditioned upon dedication of perpetual op en-space and-flowage easements to the City over all protected areas so ut ilized for density credit: Page 1 of2 i—For properties abutting a classified Public Water as identified elsewhere in the Zoning Code, for purposes of complying with minimum lot area requirements. an area credit will be allowed for land within the Flood Frinpp ahnttinp the Public Water when such Flood Fringe land is not wetland. The owner or developer oFsiich Bropertv will be credited with an amount of his land within the non-wetland FInnH Fringe equal to. but not exceeding, the amount of his adjacent land which other\vi!se qualifies for development under this Chapter 4. All properties which were granted lot area credit or development density credit for_wetlands as part of a subdivision, lot area variance, building permit approval or other Citv approval process under prior City considered as legally nonconforming as to lot area or density per sii^h original approval. After the effective date of this Ordinance wetlands shall nnt hp towardminimum lot area requirements or for purposes of complying with anv land use density, open space, building unit to land area ratios, or other similar requirements of the land development and zoning provisions, excent that wetlands may be allowed as area credit for meeting the 150% back lot area requirement as long as the back lot contains sufficient dry buildable land to satisfy the minimum acreage requirement of the underlying zoning district. Section 2. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and The Laker newspapers and shall become effective immediately upon publication. a vote of Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 26th day of May, 1998 by _ayes and_____nays. ATTEST Linda S. Vce, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 2 of 2 Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator May 7, 1998 Subject: Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Section 10.55 Subd. 15A(3) Code Section:Section 10.55, Flood Plain and Wetlands Management - Subd. 15: Land Development and Platting A. Minimum Lot Area Requirements - (3) Area credit for 'flood fringe’ in sewered areas Proposed Amendment:Eliminate the ability to credit wetland acreage toward development density in sewered areas. Background In early April Council requested that staff provide background on the current Code standards allowing use of wetlands as creditable lot area for developing sewered properties. This credit has apparently come into play in a relatively small number of past zoning applications; two very recent ones (Brook Park Realty and Touve/Olsen); and an upcoming sketch plan review (Valerius, re: former John Burger property on Stubbs Bay). The basic premise is that for sewered property, the Zoning Code has allowed some wetland to be credited toward the minimum lot area and/or density requirements. 1 his credit has apparently been applied to a relatively small number of new subdivisions and perhaps to a few existing lots of record. This credit has not been widely used since it came into effect in 1970, and staff has not attempted to identi fy which subdivisions or properties have been granted the credit in the past. The primary concern bringing this issue to the forefront at this time is that properties in the newly sewered (mostly since 1980) portions of the 2-acre zone might want to claim the wetland credit for density purposes. For example, a now-sewered 4 acre lot with 3 acres dry and 1 acre vvet, under the normal 2-acre zone standards would not be subdividable, could now claim eligibility for a 1-acre wetland credit and propose a subdivision to create two lots, each with 1-1/2 acre of dry and 1/2 acre of wetland. This was not the Council's intent when providing sewer to the 2-acre zone to solve septic problems. Council has also indicated that the use of the wetland credit in the 1/2 and 1-acre zones does not seem to match their current view on the subject of development density, and has directed staff to prepaie a zoning code amendment to eliminate tlie wetland credit entirely. Wetland Credit Zoning Amendment May 7,1998 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Draft Amendment B - Subdivision Code: Definitions of "Dry Buildable Land" and "Minimum Lot Area" C - Subdivision Code: Section 11.31, Subd. 3 "Lot Area, Minimum" D - Zoning Code: Floodplain and Wetlands Management: Section 10.55, Subd. 15: "Land Development and Platting: A. Minimum Lot Area Requirements" E - Section 10.55: Definitions of "Flood Fringe", "Floodplain" and "Floodway"; and Definitions of "Floodway District", "Flood Fringe District" and "General Floodplain District". F - Zoning Code: Definition of "Lot Area" G - Sections 31.840 and 31.841 of 1970 Wetland Ordinance #125 H - Discussion of Related Code Issues Authorizing Code Section The current authority for granting wetland credit is in the Floodplain and Wetlands Management ordinance, adopted as Ordinance #213 in 1979 and recodified in 1984 as Section 10.55, Subdivision 15 (Exhibit D). However, similar language granting such a credit is found in Orono's 1970 wetland ordinance, Ordinance #125 (Exhibit G). Current Wetland Credit Provisions The provisions regarding use of the wetland credit are in Section 10.55, Subd. 15 (A)(3), which limits the credit as follows: limited to "residential properties served by municipal sanitary sewer" (staff interprets this to mean properties which have been assessed for and provided with sewer; inclusion in the MUSA does not necessarily mean a property is served by sewer; a large property assessed for one sewer unit is not necessarily 'served by sewer' to accomodate a subdivisior^unless the City chooses to grant additional units) limits it to credit for Flood Fringe lands, which include: a. The area between the OHWL and the 100-year flood elevation on all lakes, ponds and streams (for Lake Minnetonka the flood fiinge would be all areas between the 929.4' and 931.5' contours); and All designated sheet flow areas, intermittent streams, and ponding areas; and All lands containing soil types classified as wetlands soils, whether or not there is water standing on them at any given time. b. c. Wetland Credit Zoning Amendment May 7, 1998 Page 3 credited area may be used as part of the required minimum lot area for purposes of complying with the land use density, open space, building-unit-to-land-area ratios or similar requirements of the land development and zoning code provisions creditable Flood Fringe area shall not exceed the ar ,*a of land which 'othenvise qualified for development' (i.e. if site has 3/4 acre of dry buildable, can only take credit for 3/4 acre of wetland) granting of credit conditioned on dedication of the appropriate Conservation and Flowage or Open Space easements over the areas used for credit. It should be noted that we have historically credited the Flood Fringe area between the 929.4' and 931.5' for lakeshore lots on Lake Minnetonka, perhaps without acknowledging this credit specifically. This becomes critical when wording a revision of the current ordinance. Original Justifications for Wetland Credit A review of Council and Planning Commission minutes from 1970 provides no clues as to the reason the credit was originally established. However, the 1980 Comprehensive Plan in the Land Use section, p. CMP 4-28, under the heading "Rural Land Use" states in part that "Orono's rural residential density will not be increased to less than one dwelling per two dry-buildable acres because of the potentially adverse environmental impact and because of the increased need for costly urban services." The crediting of wetland acreage toward the 2-acre dry buildable standard would appear to be in conflict with this Comprehensive Plan statement. A direct connection between wetland credit and availability of sewer is somewhat difficult to understand. If one acre of wetland and one acre of dr>’ land in a 1-acre zone can constitute two building sites, why shouldn't two acres of wetland and two acres of dry land in a 2-acre zone constitute two building sites? If the City's goal in 1970 was to ensure that septic needs are met, that goal is to a great extent satisfied by merely requiring that primary and alternate drainfield sites be provided. If the goal was to preserve more open space in the defined rural zones (2-acre and 5-acre), the credit should only be applicable to the 1/2-acre and 1-acre zones, which were redefined in 1975 to include primarily the areas near Lake Minnetonka which were historically developed at 'urban' densities. If the goal of granting credit for wetlands was to provide some incentives for their preservation, the regulatory climate of the 1990's has made wetland preservation the norm rather than an oddity. Wetland Credit Zoning Amendment May 7, 1998 Page 4 If the goal was to allow a higher degree of development on sewered properties with wetlands to help justify urban single family lot size minimums of 1/2 acre and 1 acre when the urban norm was 1/4 or 1/3 acre, then the credit may provide some relief to a property that might otherwise be unbuildable or not subdividable. Yet, this would in some cases conflict with the subdivision code definition of Minimum Lot Area as noted above. Will this am?,- 4ment result in fiirther density limitations that inake it even more difficult for any developer to provide a range of housing alternatives (affordable, life-cycle, etc.) in Orono ’s environment of high-price-.’ land? Conformity Status of Previously Credited Properties Some properties which are conforming as to lot area under the current code will become non- conforming under the proposed revision. The amendment is worded such that all properties which have been granted wetland credit towards lot area or density in the past would henceforth be considered as legal nonconforming'. However, new subdivisions created after adoption of this amendment shall not be granted the wetland credit, and only those existing undeveloped lots of record which were specifically granted the wetland credit previously, may use the wetland credit henceforth. It is possible that vacant lots created using the wetland credit are still remaining to be built on; the intent is that those lots do not require a lot area variance merely as a result of this ordinance. Note that staff has not attempted to search through the nearly 30 years worth of subdivisions and building permits which might have taken advantage of the credit, as this would take a significant amount of effort. Proposed Amendment The attached proposed amendment eliminates the crediting of wetlands toward density credit, but continues to allow the crediting of flood fnnge lands for lakeshore properties when such flood fiinge is not wetland. This would then allow the continued lot area credit for the area between the 929.4' OHWL. and the 931.5' 100-year Flood Elevation on Lake Minnetonka, for instance, but only if that area does not meet the definition of wetland. The proposed amendment also accomplishes the following: 1.Declares that all properties that were formally granted the wetland credit in the past will henceforth be considered as legally nonconforming. Allows wetlands to be credited toward the extra 50% area requirement for back lots. Wetland Credit Zoning Amendment May 7,1998 Page 5 Staff Recommendation W^ng Commission should review the reasoning behind the eunent wetland eredit, and determine Commiss' as proposed will have any unwanted impacts. If Planning definable City goals, then a recommendation for adoption would be in order. ^ VO " ftCA./•7 / 'D~ O ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 15(A) REGARDING USE OF WETLANDS FOR DEVELOPMENT DENSITY CREDIT The City Council of the City of Orono ordains: Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.55, Subdivision 15, is hereby amended as follows: A. Minimum Lot Area Requirements. The minimum lot area requirements of this Chapter shall be interpreted to mean that all of the required land area for each building site shall be in one contiguous parcel undivided by Floodway or Flood Fringe and no land within the protected area shall be included in determination of minimum lot area, except as specifically provided for herein: 1. For properties not served by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least 2.0 acres of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area. 2. For properties served by municipal sanitary sewer, the minimum lot area may be divided by Flood Fringe lands provided at least one half acre of land not within the protected area is included in one contiguous parcel and both municipal sewer and legal access is available to that building site without encroachment on the protected area. —For residential properties 8cr%‘cd by municipal san itary sewer a limited density credit may be allowed for-inclusion of Flood Fringe lands as pa rt of the required minimum-lot area for purposes of complying with the land use density, open space, building unit to land area ratios or other simila r requirements of the land development and -goning-provisions. The owner or developer of such property wtH be credited with on amount of his land within the Flood Fringe equal to, but net exceeding, the amount of his adjacen t-land which othet^vise qua lified for development under this Chapter. Such credit shall be conditioned upon-dedication of perpetua l open space and flowage casements to the City over all protected areas so utilized for density credit. Page 1 of2 3t For properti?? abutting a classiHed Public Water a«; identified elsewhere mlhg Zonmg Code, for purposes of comniving with minimum lot area remiirpmpntc ^. .area <;rgdit vv}H allpwed for land within the Flood Fringe abutting the Puhlic Water when such Flood Fringe land is not wetland All prQPertie? which were granted lot area credit or development density £Igdlt for wetlands .as part Qf a subdivision, lot area variance, building permit Minance°#r2Va4QPted Decem^^^ Ordinanc^ U 7 \ 1178: and Ordinance No 1, -Sgcpnd Series adopted March 12. 1984^ he a?^Aft *r the pfr^^ density ppr such nripinal shall OQt bg ergdited toward minimum lot area requirements nr fnr pnrpngp^ >^f £C>mplvmg with anv land use density, ope n space. hiiHHing unit to land area rating QT Oth?r SirPlIar reqmrernents of the land develo pment and zoning provisions. g2t<?ept that wetlands ntav be allowed as area credit for meeting the 1 Sn% hack lot area I^.yirgmgm as l<?Pg as the ba<?k lot contains sufficient drv buildable land to satisfy mgJPtnimym aereaee requirement of the underlvinp zoning fti«;tript Section 2. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and The Laker newspapers and shall become effective immediately upon publication. a vote of Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 26th day of May, 1998 by _ayes and_____nays. ATTEST Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 2 of 2 J r e> ^Sec.f70»^ //' 03^ 14. "Dry Buildable Land" - Land area occurring within the property lines of a parcel or lot, excluding; drainageways, flowage areas, floodplains, wetlands, marshland or slopes of 18% or greater. 24. "Lot Area, Minimum" - Each lot shall contain the minimum area required for each proposed lot as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. In rural zones not served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain a minimum of two acres of. contiguous dry buildable land exclusive of wetlands, public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements, surface . areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water or areas at or below the flood plain elevation for a specific property. All rural lots must comply with the City's on-site septic system provisions of the City Code. In urban areas served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain contiguous dry buildable land equal to the minimum areas as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code or half-acre, whichever is less, (exclusive-of public and private rights-of-way, , vehicular or pedestrian ease ments, surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water wetlands or areas at or below the flood plain eleva tion for a specific property) and have legal access to the building site without encroachment of a wetland or flood plain area. mm ^ > n <1 • i I ' • /-e>^Art^A SsrAt^bA^S:^ (^S^Tlot^ //. 5 ^ reouiremenf^^fnr^l Area, Minimum. The minimum area ChaDter of prescribed in the Zoning on-site s^eoWo area must also comply with the D?ivatV provisions of the City Code. Public and lurflll ariL pedestrian easements, Sr SStSS L wS?la^d% or fi® high-water mark of any surface meet any oortion of plain areas may not be used in order toy P ion of the minimum lot area requirements. c 4 Lc’ervu^Ci^ iVt^ A&^yt/i^AJ (Serc-rroAi- lot within the Flood Plain and^ WetTand^ platted for residential occuoanci or shall be increase the danger to health welfare. All lots containina i^na P»^operty or the public shall contain a building site above'^th^^” districts elevation. All subdivi^sions ^haii h= “regulatory flood protection facilities that comply with the nmtri water and sewage disposal road access no lower than twn^ f=o \ Section and have protection elevation. Whenever regulatory flood Wetlands Conservation Area is the Flood Plain and that is being subdivided the '^^thin or adjoins a land area an adequate perpetual easement-shall dedicate to the City area and along each side of such^a^ea for^th'^ within the protected or protecting the area for drainaor^/ purpose of improving this Section and other recreational^ other purposes expressed in Council. Public or private strVetcf^ determined by the and culverts shall no^t b« construc-pA ^“^^veways, drainage openings been approved by the City, and such ci- design thereof has as not to restrict the fliw of later Subdi®- be designed so provide all certified engineerila* .^'jj^^^'^^sion applicants shall flowage calculations and other infnr^mJl-^ ' surveys, site plans, in order to determine the affected land and water areas. ^ ^ development on the area requirements of this*”ch°pter ^sh^ri minimum lot all of the required lani aref for ppoH k f^^erpreted to mean that one contiguous parcel undivided bv building site shall be in land within the protected areaof minimum lot area, exceot as snpni f i determinationcitea, except as specifically provided for herein: sanitary sewer t-hp properties not served by municipal lands P^ovided's^leas? 2 (Ta-As®'o? by ^Flood Fringearea is included in LI '"^*^bin the protected available to that buildina legal access is sewer, the minimum lot ^^rea municipal sanitary provided at least one half V//of by Flood Fringe lands area is included in <-mo . . land not within the protected and legal access is availabTe^^to^l^h^a\ municipal sewer encroachment on the protected area. building site without municipal sanitary sewer ^°a*^ *■ served by for inclusion of F^od rVinoe la^df ^e allowed lot area for ourpoS of required minimum space, building unit tT^AVd^ the land use density, open requirements of ^h^ iLd develoompn^ °*^ber similar owner or developer of such orooir^t-l i provisions. The of his land within thrilood%/i^^^^ credited with an amount the amount of his adiacent- ^ct not exceeding, development under this^ Chanhpr '^bich otherwise qualified for the City over all pcOtOgtOrLO^^Oriln%00;^cTe"dYt/° : pLOdtsRu^K^ 4 ^wAAJA<5^4^fe^7-^5w*ib.-3.^>^F/^J^7^0^>S bJST7J.\Crs^ 3. "Flood Fringe" - That portion of the flood plain outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term "floodway fringe" used in the Flood Insurance Study. 4. "Flood Plain" - The areas adjoining a watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. 6. "Floodway" - The channel of the watercourse and those portions of the adjoining flood plains which are reasonably required to carry and discharge the regional flood. ngs has Subd. 4. Definition and Establishment of Protected Areas. The "Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area", hereinafter referred to as the protected area, is defined and established to be the low areas and flood plain adjoining and including any watercourse or drainage way or body of water subject to periodic flooding or overflow. These areas are divided into the following three protected area districts: A. Floodway District (FW) - The Floodway District shall include those areas designated as floodway in the Flood Insurance Study, including without limitation the surface and shoreline of Lake Minnetonka below elevation 929.4 MSL, the surface and shoreline of other lakes, ponds and wetlands below the ordinary highwater elevation, and the designated floodway of all streams and flowage areas. B. Flood Fringe District (FFD) - The Flood Fringe District shall include those areas designated as floodway fringe in the Flood Insurance Study, including without limitation the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka between elevations 929.4 MSL and 931.5 MSL, the area between the floodway and the edge of the 100-year flood on all other lakes, ponds and streams, all designated sheet flow areas, all intermittent streams, and ponding areas and all lands containing soil types classified as wetlands soil^ (defined herein), whether or not there is water standing on those soils at any given time. C. General Flood Plain District (GFP) - The General Flood Plain District shall include those areas studied by approximate methods and designated as unnumbered A Zones by the Flood Insurance Rate Map. GFP areas may include both Flood Way and Flood Fringe areas. Development of lands containing designated GFP areas shall be contingent upon submittal by the developer of topographic data (at contour intervals of no greater than two feet) and/or other engineering analysis sufficient for the City to determine the actual extent of the Flood Way and/or the Flood Fringe. Upon such determination, the restrictions of the FW and FFD Districts shall apply. Ce>t^0 : t>ePlA}lT7oS<SS 34. "Lot Area" - The area of a lot in a horizontal plane bounded by the lot lines, but not including any area occupied by the waters of a duly recorded lake or river or area frequently under water which serves as a watercourse draining higher land on which sustains emergent aquatic growth or area which has been dedicated as public right-of-way. 1^70 LASeTXA(t\M>S 0€iA^t'<iic VO c^tes^n^ & ”31.840. Land Developnent and Platting. No part of any lot within the Flood Plain and Netlands Conservation Area shall be platted for residential occupancy or for other uses v;hich will increase the danger to health, life, property or the public wel fare. V7henever a portion of the Flood Plain and Wet lands Conservation Area is located v;ithin or adjoins a land area that is being subdivided, the subdivider shall dedicate an adequate easement over the land • v/ithin the protected area and along each side of such area for the purpose of improving or protecting- the area for drainage or other purposes expressed in this ordinance and other recreational uses. Public or private streets, driveways, drainage openings and culverts shall not be constructed unless the design thereof has been approved by the Village, and such structures shall be designed so as not to restrict ^ the flow of w’ater. ”31.841. Limited Credit Allowed. V7hen land to be developed is connected to a public sanitary s.ewer line and includes land v;ithin the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area, the ov/ner or developer thereof will be credited v;ith an amount of his land within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area equal to but not exceeding the amount of his adjacent l^and v;hich otherwise Qualifies for development under these ordinances for purposes of complying v/ith the land use density, open space, building unit to land area ratios or other similar requirements of the land develoom.ent and zoning ordinances of the Village except^ for requirements for recreational uses. Discussion - Related Code Section - Dry Buildable ContiguitySection 10.55 Subd. 15 (A)(2) allows the noofF^inge^ret Fringe land, i.e. toat'uLt | n acre of conti fr"^ oihenvise buildable Iwd and This example begs the following question. Q. Under the current code, if m U4 Mre^orwetland, and the dry i"o?s U ft “w«l-d is in the middle with dry land all around it)... does this lot meet the 1/2 acre area requirement? A. With the current zoning wording, 1 think it ?'t''dd'wl1l^tS''not1a*Ueto^^^ rcm'for™ conforming lot. This is because the ll^rlt c^ition of Minimum Lot Area (Exhibit C) states that: ...n urban areas served by sanitary sewer, buildable land equal to the minimum areas City Code or half-acre, whichever is ess. (ex ^ of any surface „ay,vehicu.arorHes.ri»e — « encroachment of a wetland or floodplain area". This wording points out a condict noted below, but "" subdivision could not have less than a half-acre of dry ui t.Conflict Between Code Sections o • 11 <n 3 "Lot Area Minimum" states distinctly that "surface 'fhe subdivision code. Section 11.3 , • . . ’ fioQ^^piain areas may not be used in order areas below the OHWof any surface water suggests that the Flood to meet any portion of theurea between its OHW and its 100-year flood Fringe portion of a wetland is ercditable, i.e. the area oe elevation. This conflicts with the wording in 10.55 which ftJ'o W not just the portion of it below its OHW elevat.om urea when using r --I" i flood elevation. In fact the 100-year flood elevation around a wetland might in some cases include lands that are dry buildable in every other definition of the word, due to surrounding topography. This inconsistency in staffs opinion is a result of the City incorporating its wetland ordinance into the new floodplain ordinance in 1978. Trying to interpret these dual definitions for wetland and floodplain concepts has always been difficult. A few years ago when staff drafted an updated floodplain ordinance to meet revised State and Federal requirements, we attempted to separate the two concepts. That floodplain ordinance update has never ben adopted, and it's on my list of items needing future attention... REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name Gree^ry A. Gappa Title Dircaor of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: DATE: May 22, 1998 ITEM NO.: Agenda Section: Publ c Services Item Description: TH12/OId Crystal Bay Road Traffic Signal Modifications Installation of left turn arrows from southbound Old Crystal Bay Road to eastbound TH 12 was previously approved by the City Council. The original plan was that MNDOT would complete the design and construction engineering work for this signal. Since this time, the person who made the commitment has been transferred to a different office. We have contacted the new person in the position, he is extremely busy in learning the new position. Also, the staff person who was assigned to complete the work has retired. MNDOT has no staff available to complete the engineering work for this project before 1999. Installation of this left turn arrow is important because there is significant congestion and a safety concern with vehicles backing up and blocking the middle school driveway. Drivers are also becoming impatient and making unsafe turns on the red light. Our recommendation is to have Bonestroo Engineers complete the engineering design and construction monitoring work for this project, so the signal installation can be completed this summer. This project is eligible for Municipal State Aid funding. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of the proposal from Bonestroo Engineers for design engineering and construction itoring services for $1,900, for installation of left turn arrows at the Old Crystal Bay Road/mom TH 12 Traffic Signal to be ftmded with Municipal State Aid funds r Memo Project Name: TH 12/Old Crystal Bay Road Signal Revision To: Glenn R. Cook. Tom P. Kellogg From: Michael P. Spack Client: Orono File No: 139gen Date: April 23. 1998 U i Boneitroo RDsene Andert/k & I'Jl Auod<«tes Re: Progress Report Remarks: After two and a half weeks of calling every other day, I finally got through to Mike Gerbensky at Mn/DOT. He said he will let me know within a week if Mn/DOT has the record plan for this signal on CAD. In any event, the design was in English.aJsjaid we will have to draw the signal layout in metric. U r.l h c. Thrs IS ridiculous to change 2 signal heads. (We will need to talk with Sue Mulvihill about our situation. I don’t think anyone below her will say that it is OK to do this plan In English.) Also, a letter has to be written justifying the phase change. This will lake the place of a lull signal justification report, but it will have a block for all of the appropriate signatures. Following is my estimate for the project. It includes redrawing the signal layout and wiring diagram. $150Signal Justification Letter fviUCioT ^ Design Construction Inspection TOTAL $1000 $750 $1900 BY Bonestroo, Rosene, AnderUk end Associates, Inc. D St. Paul Office: 2335 Wesi Highway 36 Si. Paul. MN55I13 Phone: 612-636-4600 Fax: 612-636-1311 □ Milwaukee Office: 1516 West Mequon Road Mequon, Wl 53092 Phone:414-241-4466 Fax: 414-241-4901 Rochester Office: 2222 Hwy 52 North Rochester, MN 55901 Phone: 507-282-2100 Fax; 507-262-3100 O Willmar Office: 205 5th Street SW Wilmar. MN 56201 Phono: 320-214-9557 Far 320-214-9458 □ SL Cloud Office: 2006 8th St. North SL Cloud, MN 56303 Phone:320-251-4553 Far 320-251-6252 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCiLM££TlNG |y^AV 2 6 1998 CIT>-0f0P.0N!0 ITEM NO DATE: May 22, 1998 n Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Services Item Description: Purchase of New Asphalt Patching Truck As workload and service demands continue to increase in the Public Works maintenance area, as in other areas of City services, staff is continuously trying to find ways to increase productivity to enable the Public Works staff to meet the new demands. One area of Public Works maintenance where productivity could be substantially increased is street patching. Currently, patching is done by a crew with a dump truck load of hot mix asphalt. The shortcomings of this method are as follows: 1. The regular dump truck cannot keep the asphalt warm for a very long period. Because of this, the amount of hot mix in a load is relatively small so that the mix can be used before it gets too cold to work with. This requires more trips to the asphalt plant, located in Eden Prairie, which reduces productivity. 2. Installation of good patches requires the application of hot tack oil to effectively glue the patch material into the hole. Currently hot tack oil is not available. This results in patches breaking out of potholes more quickly requiring the patch crew to return to the same pothole for additional repairs. The City has over 50 miles of public streets, many of which were either not well built originally and/or have not had substantial rehabilitation. This means the City has many miles of roads requiring substantial patching every year. Examples are Spring Hill Road, Stubbs Bay Road, South Willow Drive, Townline Road, and Ferndale Road. Street patching is a substantial workload item and a substantial service demand for the Public Works department. A substantial increase in productivity and quality in the street patching program would be a major benefit to ^he overall productivity of the Public Works Department. New Asphalt Patching Truck, 1999 Capital Outlay Budget The proposed 1999 Capital Outlay Budget is planned to include $82,000 for purchase of a new truck with a iKdted box for asphalt patching. This truck and box are the same unit that is currently being used by Mn/DOT and Hennepin County for asphalt patching. This unit contains a heated box for asphalt and a tank for heated tack oil that will allow for installation of better asphalt patches. We have met with Public Works personnel from Hennepin County, and they are very satisfied with their patch truck. They arc going to purchase two more units this year. MnDOT is also planning to purchase several more of these trucks this year. Request for Council Action continued Page 2 May 22, 1998 Purchase of New Asphalt Patching Truck Public Works has been involved in cooperative equipment »cntal with area cities. This asphalt patching truck could be made available for rental by other cities. The equipment rental agreements we have with surrounding cities are for the operation of equipment with employees from the city that owns the equipment. We are requesting approval to order the asphalt patching truck for delivery in January of 1999, to be paid for with Capital Outlay funds from the 1999 budget. This will allow having the truck and box ready for use in the spring of 1999. The minimum waiting time for delivery of these trucks is seven months. Waiting until 1999 to order this unit will not allow for use until late summer of 1999. Although the truck will be used all year, the spring season is the busiest for patching. The truck will be purchased from Boyer Ford Tnick of Minneapolis. Bids were obtained through the State of Minnesota cooperative bidding process. The bid amount is $42,079. The heated asphalt box will be purchased from Ruffridge-Johnson Co. of Minneapolis. Bids were obtained through the State of Minnesota cooperative bidding process. The bid price is $38,959. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: r C1M—— f MAY 2 6 1998 CITYOFORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 26, 1998 ITEM NO.: ^ Q Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Request for Payment Public Works Entrance Canopy 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 this Request for Payment in the amount of $19,480 to Flag Builders Inc. for construction of the Public Works Entrance Canopy. Owner:City of Orono, P.O. Box 6. Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Date:May 5. 1998 For Period:Start to May 1, 1998 Request No:1 & Final Contractor:Flag Builders. Inc.. 715 Florida Avenue S. Ste. 100. Golden Valiev. MN 55426 APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMEN l AIA document G702 (instructions on reverse side) i»agu one oi - pacesTO owNiiK; City of Orono I’KOjEt.i: !\4jnicipal Garage EntranceCanopy AI»l*UCATION NO.: PERIOD TO: PROJECT NOS.:PROM CON TRACIOR:Flag BuiIders, Inc. CONTRACT FOR:VIA ARCIIITECT: CONTRACT DATE:Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlick A Assoc. * 1/6/98 Distribution to:□ OWNER□ ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR□□CONTRACTOR ’S APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT Application i.s made for payment, as shown below, in connection with the Contract Continuation Sheet, AIA Document G703, Is attached. 1. ORIGINAL CONTRACT SUM..............................$___19...48.Q.uQD________ 2. Net change by Change Orders ..........................S------------------------------------ 3. CONTRACT SUM TO DATE (Line I ±2).............$___19.48Q.Q0________ 4 . TOTAL COMPLETED & STORED TO DATE.........S_____________________ (Column G on G703) 5 . RETAINAGE: a. ______% of Completed Work I_________________ (Columns D + E on G703) b.______% of Stored Material I_______ (Column F on G703) Total Rctainagc (Line 5a + 5b or Total in Column 1 of G703)................................ 6. TOTAL EARNED LESS RETAINAGE....................I (Line 4 less Line 5 Total) 7 . LESS PREVIOUS CERTIFICATES FOR PAYMENT (Line 6 from prior Certificate)................................S, 8 . CURRENT PAYMENT DUE 19.48a J)() 9. BALANCE TO FINISH, INCLUDING RETAINAGE (Line 3 less Line 6) I____ CHANGH ORDER SUMMARY ADDITIONS DI DUCTIONS Touil change.s aj^proved in previous month.s hy Owner 1 1 Total apprised ihi.s Month TOIALS NET CIIANGE.S hy Change Order The undersigned Contractor certifies that to the best of the Contractor’s knowledge, Information and belief the Work covered by this Application for Payment hxs been completed in accordance with the Contract Documents, that all amounts have been paid by the Contractor for Work for which previous Certificates for I’ayment were issued and pay ments received from tlie Owner, and that current payment shown herein is now due. CONTR.XCTOR: i>y .si;iie of: Minnesota County of; Hennepin Sub.scribed and sworn to before me this 9 th «^>;'yof April, 1998 Notary Public: —■ My Commission expires: 1/31 /2000 Date: 4/9/98 CAROLINE J. OLSON NOTARY PUBUC-MINNESOTA uv COMMISSION ExnRES i-ai-aaoo ARCHITECT ’S CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT In accordance with the Contract Documents, ha.scd on on-site observatioas and the data comprising this application, the Architect certifies tt> the Owner that to the best of the Architect ’s knowledge, information and belief the Work has progre.s.sed as indicated, the quality of the Work is in accordance with the Contract Document.s, and the Contractor i.s entitled to payment of the AMOUNT CERTIFIED. AMOUNT CERTIFIED.......................................................S------— (AlUtch cxplcniation ij amount certified differs from the amount applied for Initial all figures on this Application and on the Onttinuation Sheet that are changed to conform to tin* am()Ufn^erliJit/t0) ............/- 1 ‘hificait; riot^cgotiubic. The AMOUNT CI-KTIFIHD i.s |i:iy;iblc only lo !hc Con tractor namcc^crein. I.ssuancc, payment and acceptance of payment are without prejuilice to any ri>;his of ilic Owner or Coniracior under tliis Contract. liSii DOCUMENT G702 • AITI.KAHON AND CIlUTIHCAn: roU IVWMl’NT • vy)l UOniON • AIA* • (^)V>^)2 • Till: AMi:i<IG\N INSHTim: OI Aiuaillhcix I7AS Nl’AV YOltK AVl’NlM’. NW. WAMIIN(VIX)N. DC. • WARNING: Unlicensed photocopying violates US. copyright laws and will subject the violator to legal prosecution.G702-1992 CAUTION: You should use an original AIA document which has this caution printed In red. An original assures that changes will not be obscured as may occur when documents are reproduced. 1^0. 1 ?. 3 Total Change Orders till Aim] TlfTT RlHi ^UTivnri nnn Hmtuui riiiTti M4Wt Ufltlt] rtxtTt] Liiivra rtKvc iinTn MiTinira Request for Council Action continued Page 2 May 22, 1998 Woodhill Countiy' Club Desire to Open an Alternative Access at Woodhill Avenue should be dealt with through an amendment to the conditional use permit. If the Council determines the current access at County Road 15 is a significant safety problem requiring immediate attention, the Council may take action to address this problem on a temporary basis outside of the conditional use permit process. The V/oodhill Country Club has indicated they believe they have a continuing right to the Woodhill Avenue access due to the historical use of the access by the Country Club. Traffic Impacts Woodhill Avenue is currently a dead end road serving six homes. Assuming the traffic generated by these homes is at the suburban average of 10 trips per day, the volume of traffic is approximately 60 trips per day. The Woodhill Country Club has estimated the number of trips that would use the new access on Woodhill Avenue would be approximately 20 on weekdays and 60 on weekend days. This would be a 100% increase in traffic on the weekends and a 33% increase in traffic on weekdays. Although these are large percentage increases, and changing a dead end road to a through road would certainly change the character of the road, this is not a high level of traffic for a residential road. The current traffic volume on Orono Orchard Road near Woodhill Avenue is approximately 500 cars per day. If 50% of the 60 trips generated by the Woodhill Countiy- Club traveled south on Orono Orchard Road from Woodhill Avenue and 50% traveled north, this would result in a traffic increase of approximately 6%. The traffic level on Orono Orchard Road is currently approximately 1400 cars per day at the intersection of Fox Street and Orono Orchard Road. Approximately 1100 of these trips are using Orono Orchard Road as a connection between County Road 15 and Fo,-: Street. Assuming that 50% of the 60 trips generated by the Woodhill Country Club on a weekend day would travel south on Orono Orchard Road and 50% would travel north, this would result in an increase in traffic of approximately 2% at the intersection of Orono Orchard Road and County Road 15. Timing of Alternative Access The planned improvements to County Road 15 have been designed to address access problems at the Woodhill Countiy- Club entrance. However in the interim, the road construction is making the access problems worse. The greatest need for an alternative access for the Country Club is during the next tliree to four months, which is both the period of road construction and the highest use period for the golf course. Request for Council Action continued Page 3May 22, 1998 Woodhill Country Club Desire to Open an Alternative Access at Woodhill Avenue Balancing of Safety Concerns Due to the high volume of traffic, there are safety concerns related to all accesses onto County Road 15 in the area of the road construction. In terms of traffic safety on County Road 15, there are significant benefits to reducing the number of traffic conflicts in the construction area. However, the benefits of eliminating access onto County Road 15 need to be weighed against the impacts of the rerouted traffic on the alternate routes. In this case, the safety benefits of providing an alternative to the County Road 15 access for Woodhill Country Club need to be weighed against the safety issues of opening the access to Woodhill Avenue. The safety impacts on Woodhill Avenue depend on the volume of traffic generated by Woodhill Country Club and the speed of the traffic, and how these relate to the existing vehicular and pedestrian use of Woodhill Avenue. Although it is preferable for a golf course use to have its access on a collector road vs. a residential road, staff believes that during the period of construction on County Road 15 a secondary access could provide safer access to the Woodhill Country Club without causing safety problems on Woodhill Avenue if the access is used within the following conditions: 1, The level of traffic generated by the alternate access does not exceed the level projected by the Woodhill Country Club. (This could be monitored by a traffic counter or by the Police Department's SMART Trailer.) 2. Woodhill Country Club very closely polices the way its members use the access including enforcing the 10 m.p.h. speed limit on Woodhill Country Club property, and enforcing a 30 m.p.h. maximum speed by its members on Woodhill Avenue. (This could be monitored periodically by the City's SMART Trailer.) 3. 4. The Woodhill Country Club controls the gate to the access to ensure it is closed between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. _ . The Woodhill Country Club closely monitors the use of the access to prevent use by non-members. If any of these conditions are not met, the City has the authority to close the access with a 72 hour notice. Request for Council Action continued Page 4 May 22,1998 Woodhill Country Club Desire to Open an Alternative Access at Woodhill Avenue_____ Determination Regarding the Need to Use an Expedited Decision Process The City Attorney has indicated the opening of an alternative access using Woodhill Avenue would normally require a process of amending the Woodhill Country Club's conditional use permit. At this point, a conditional use permit amendment process could not be completed until July 27 given the City's normal timeline. The City Attorney has also indicated the Council does have the authority to approve the opening of an alternative access on a temporary basis without a conditional use permit amendment process, if the Council finds the safety issues are serious enough to warrant an expedited decision process. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion regarding the Council's determination as to whether the safety issues related to the Woodhill Country Club's access at County Road 15 are serious enough to warrant expedited consideration of a temporary access to the Country Club using Woodhill Avenue. WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB200 WOODHILL ROAD WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 473-7333 May 21, 1998 ilinilH mill*] [•W\ r Woodhill's property has always adjoined Woodhill Avenue. It may be that the avenue was so named because it was the back entrance to Woodhill. The access from Woodhill Avenue was open since the Club was opened in 1917. The access was closed by Woodhill in 1980. This was at a time when vandalism resulted in vehicles running over greens, etc. At the same time as the closing, the Club also constructed a gatehouse at the main entrance to add controls. The prospect of vandalism now seems to have lessened, and in any event, the dangers of entering/exiting County Road 15 are a much more dominant factor. The method of closing the use of access in 1980 was by Woodhill constructing a small berm on top of the driveway. The berm has been graded away, and the driveway IS now as it was before the berm. A meeting was held with owners of property adjacent to or near Woodhill Avenue on May 20, 1998 so they would be informed of the need to open the access and the restrictions on the usage. Woodhill requests the Council indicate its consent to the above plan, on a basis which will currently be temporary and revisited in November of 1998. In any event, Woodhill's driveway and the access would be closed during the winter months, and in November the subject of the access can be viewed in light of the circumstances then known. We appreciate your attention to our plan. Woodhill always expects to be a good neighbor, but it should be understood that our proposal to you IS without prejudice to our rights legally to access Woodhill Avenue. Respectfully, Edward N. Dayton President Woodhill Country Club END:sa r FROM HIKi'HAW i CULBERTSON (V;ED) 5. 20’93 IS: 16 ST. IS: 13 NO. S7:;:0000072 F : © M A L K E R S O N GILLILAND M A R T I N llf SUfC 1500 AT<aT To^cn 601 Ma HOUCTTG A veh'^G MINHC ap OUIS. M*KME50Ta 5S-4C2-32 0S rACaiHiLE 6IZ«3«IA«14IU Brucc D. Malkerson Direct Dial; 612/344-1699 May 20, lOQS Mr. Thomas Barrett Hinshaw $: Culbertson 222 S. 9t> StT<jet Suite 320w' Mimicapo'i?, biN S5402 \1A FACSIMILE AND D.S. MAIL Citj' of Orono — WoodhiJl Country Club Access Road Dear Mr. D arren: This letter will confirm my telephone discussion witli you on May 19,199S during which I noted that 1 represent Shelly and Jerry Siorch, who live at 124i Woodliill Avenue, Orono. Minnesota, 55391. Mr. and Mrs. Storch and Uieir neighbors arc ver>’ concerned about the fact that Woodhill Cotmtry Club has built an access road that connects to the City sired in their neighborhood. Apparently, the Club built the road without prior noiicc to the neighborhood, and most importantly without obtaining the appropriate permits from the City of Orono to construct that road. The Club historically has had vehicular access onto County Road 15. I imderatand approximately 20 years ago the Club sought permission from the City of Orono to build an access road at the location W'here they recently have built an acccs.* road and was denied. Notwithstariding that fact and the fact that the Club obviously knew that permits wxre hccessar>’, the Club proceeded to build this access road without obtaining the permits required from the City. I understand that you have not had an opportunity' to review this matter in detail, nor have I, but as discussed, most likely, the City ordinances that might apply would be any curb cut ordinance requiring a curb cut penmt before obtaining access to n public road, an ordinance i<35iBr,M r Fk OM HiNJHAW k CULEERTciON (WED) 5. 20‘93 IS: 16 ET. iS;IS F : TlK'i-nM B:htcu May 20, 199S Page ?. relating to any grading vf tlib magniludc tha: rcvijuircs a permit V>-rfor« gradirs »o that thf grading would not cuuse problems for Oth;;i properties, the envirotvnent, etc. 1 understand that the City doc3 not have a tree presen'aiion ordinance at this point. I stated that 1 believe that the Club was issued a conditional use permit at some point, and I doubted that the conditiotv^l us? permit and the plans tliat had been submitted and approved by Uie Cirv- oi that time would have provided for an access road at this new location. It would also he relevajjt to r«\'iew the prior application made by the Club 20 years ago. any staff reporis and Plaiui’uig Commisoion or Council minutes related thereto. 1 understand that you are willing to obtain copies of all of the above information and send it to m« a.s soon as possible. I undcisiand that this niaUcr will be reviewed by the City Council o»i May 2o, 1993. Because of the short time period available, and the need to review all of the above inforaiation. I ask that the meeting on May 26 not be a meeting at which any final decisions aie made, since all parties would benefit from a prior review of Uie above information. Moreover, I assume that if an amendntent to the conclirion3l use pemi.\T Is nccessaiy to show such an accc.ss road as a possibility, that amendment must proceed firr.t tlirougli a public hearing process in fror.t of the Planning Commission and then on to the City Council. My clients object strongly to any use of this access road on a permanent or on 3 temporary' basis. Tlic use of that road would have an adverse et'fect on the safety of the adults and cluldren in the area and would have a dramatic adverse effect on the values of their homes. My clients do not believe that the present access road lirom the Club onto Coiuity Road 15 is impaired by the construction activities in that area to the extent that a temporary access road is necessary'. If the Club proves that the present access is not safe because of the construction activities, then the Club can work with the County ’s contractor to make sure it ts safe during constniciion. It is the County ’s duty to make the accesr. safe during construction. packet. Thank you for your cooperation. Please include a copy of tJris letter in the City Council ’s Very truly yours. Bruce D. Malkerson cc: Shelly and Jerry Storch 05-22-9^> FRI 13:42 FAX G123441366 MALKERSON GILLI LAND Malkhrson Gilliland Martin LLP 6) Suite 1500 AT^T TqwCR 901 Marouctte A venue Minneapolis . Minnesota 55-»02*ozo» T E u E P H O N E 6I2-344-:III Facsimile ei2*344-l^i4 Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq. Direct Dial (612) 344-1699 May 22, 1998 Mayor and City Council City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Re: Woodhill Country Club — Residents on WoodWll Avenue To be Heard on May 26, 1998 Dear Mayor Jabbour and City Council. A. Introduction I represent Shelly and Jerry Slorch, Ginny and John Welsh, Jane Delaney, Reed Larson, Judy and Mike \Vood, and Charles and Marla Maile. They are Orono residents who live on exits upon the quiet, dead-end residential street that provides tlie only access to their homes. The purpose of this letter is to protide an overview of the relevant facts and applicable law related to the issues presented by the Club’s proposed use of this proposed aeeess road. My clients just received notice yesterday that the City Council will review theseissues next Tuesday, May 16,1998. Because of this short notice period, 1 have just been retained by my clients so I have not had an opportunity to complete iny factual and legal analysis. My clients had been seckmg representation at several law fiims but those firms did not want to become involved in a matter involving the Club because of business and personal relationships that attorneys m those firms 16601BDM J r 05-22 9S FRI 13:42 FAX 612344136G .'ULKERSON GILLI LAND 12] 'M13 Mayor and City Council May 22, 1998 Page 2 had witli members of the Club. My clients have similar relationships with members of the Club, as do I. lam sure that one or more of you have friends at the Club. Needless to say, this fact makes these issues in some respects more difficult for ever>'one. However, my clients have no choice but to try to protect their children, themselves and the neighborhood from the proposed use of the quiet, narrow, poorly paved road ser\'ing their homes, by numerous veliicles coming to and from the Club. B. Preliminary Review of the Facts 1. The Club was built in approximately 1915 to 1917. 2. The access to the Club was provided by a road constnicied to County Road 15. 3. Tliat road has adequately sensed the Club since then. 4. I do not know what the zoning was for the Club's propcrt>' at the time of construction. For now I will assume that there was no zoning ordinance then or that the zoning ordinance permitted construction of the Club. 5. At some point, a narrow dirt way was established by the Club which led to Woodhill Avenue. No one seems to know when it was first used or whether the necessary zoning pemiits were obtained. The way w'a.<5 used rarely through the years. 6. In 1968, the Village of Orono approved a conditional use permit for non- conforming uses for 150 acres of the Club. See Exhibit A. I am not^ure where the property lines were for that permit. The fact that the Club was recognized as a non-conforming use meant that the Club was not allowed in that residential use district, but since it was already there, it could continue as long as there were no changes or intensification in use thereafter. Although I have not seerrthc ordinances in effect in 1968, most likely they required a conditional use permit to be issued in order to allow the continuation of a non-conforming use in a w'ay similar to the Cit>'’s present zoning ordinance, Section 10.09, Subdivision 10. I recall the intent of that section was to make sure the City knew the extent of a non-conforming use so that the City could thereafter make sure that the use was not changed, or intensified, etc. 7. Appai ently at some point the zoning ordinance w.'»s amended to allow golf courses 16601BD.M r •0o'22.9S FRI 13:43 FAX 6123441366 MALKER.SON GILLILAND Mayor and City Council May 22,1998 Page 3 as a conditional use permit in this district. However, the Club has never applied for a conditional use permit for the entire site, including use of any proposed access road to Woodhill Avenue. Therefore, the Club continues to be, at best, a legal non-conforming use. 8. The Club has from time to time applied for conditional use permits for specific new buildings and/or uses on the property which were processed as conditional use permits by the City. However, the Club has not sought a conditional use permit for the property as a whole or for this proposed access road. 9. Prior to 1978 the Club had closed and not used Ute way mentioned above. In May, 1975, the Club opened the gate to that way and there were numerous problems in my clients’ neighborhood relating to speeding cars, noise and safety. The City Council review'ed the issues on November 14,1978 (see Exhibit B). The Club tliereafter locked off the w'ay from further use in the fall of 1978. In 1980, the Club decided to keep the way closed (sec Exhibit C) and I believe it has been closed since 1980. 10. In early May, 1998, the Club expanded the way into a wider gravel road, removing trees and vegetation. No permits were sought by llie Club prior to the work. The Club did not apply for a conditional use permit for the construction of the gravel road or a permit to extend the gravel road onto a public street. c.The City’s 1980 Comprehensive Management Plan Prohibits a Temporary^ or Permanent Commercial Access Road to Woodhill Avenue . 1. 2. The Woodhill Avenue area is in the rural residential area (see Exhibit D). Page 2-7 states: Rural neighborhoods will be reserved for low-density residential uses ... No new commercial... activities will be pennitted ..._ I. 3. Page 4-12 states a land use goal is: 4.to protect neighborhoods from encroachment of incompatible land uses. 4. Page 4-20 slates as to rural areas: 16601BDM 0UU4 r 05.'22 99 FRI 13:43 FAX 6123441366 MALKERSON GILLILAND Mayor and City Coyii\tW May 22, 1998 Page 4 Urban sendees are not compatible with rural land use. ... extensive public road maintenance ... cannot be economically justified or easily provided 5.Page 5-13 states; No new development will be permitted to conflict with or adversely affect the established neighborhood character. 6. Page 7-2 states: . a street system must be provided for safe access to all developed properties with sufficient capacity to accommodate the expected number of trips generated by the planned land use. 7. Page 7-16 states; Local streets arc public streets that function to provHde direct access to abutting properties. Local streets cany traffic within neighborhoods rather than through traffic bet\\'een neighborhoods. 8. Page 7-17 states: Private driveways shall be subject to access permits according to the classification of the abutting street. Maximum service: 1 residence typical 9.Orono Orchard Road, wWch ser%ices Woodhill Avenue, is a scenic parkway. Page 7-16 states: High volume through traffic and commercial traffic is not appropnate on scenicparkv.'ays... ©IMf.5 .Sninmarv The above sections of the CMP clearly do not support, and in fact oppose, any or permanent use of Woodhill Avenue to provide access to the Club. A recent change law makes it illegal for a city to grant any permits for a use that is contrar>' to a ci y compr^ensivc municipal plan. I understai^d the Cit>* Council recently domed an access lo a 16601BDM r 05-22.99 FRI 13:43 FAX 6123441366 MALKERSON GILLI LAND Q 111.16 Mayor and City Council May 22,1998 Page 5 residential street for another golf course. D. Applicable City Ordinances 1. As discussed above, in order lo use Woodliill Avenue to provide vehicular access to the Club, the Club must first apply for and obtain a conditional use permit (“CUP*’). As part thereof, the Club must provide information required of all CUP applicants for commercial uses such as site plan, estimated traffic counts per day, etc. None of that has ocemred. The Club must prove, among other things, that (he i.ssuance of the CUP: A. Is in conformance \%ith the City’s Comprehensive Municipal Plan and the objectives of the zoning chapter; B. The use of the road would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. I know of no provision in the City’s zoning code which allows the Club to escape its responsibilities to obtain a CUP, regardless of alleged time constraints. The process is mandatory and cannot be changed by the Club, the neighbors or the City. 2. The Club must also obtain a permit from the City before it can construct or reconstruct any driveway, or any driveway approaches, or curb cubs (Section 6.05). To do so without a permit is a misdemeanor. The Club has p ceeded to do so without such a permit. The City has correctly served the Club with a stop work order. The ordinance provides that a permit may be issued if the resulting u.se would not impose an unreasonable hazard to the public and if the other requirements are met. The Club is clearly a business. Section 6.05, Subd. lOA states: Only one business driveway shall be allowed per development unless a greater number of driveways are approved by the City, or approved as part of the site plan review. Paragraph D states: No portion of a driveway approach ... shall be con.structed ... within 100 feet of a comer in a residential district. My clients believe that any temporary use or permanent use of Woodhill Avenue by I6601BDM 0006 05'22-9S FRI 13:43 FAX 6123441366 MALKERSON GILLILAND ■0007 Mayor and City Council May 22, 1998 Page 6 commercial traffic from the Club would create such a hazard and would not comply with the above standards. Summary The Club must first apply for and obtain a CUP to allow the proposed use. Only then can the Club apply for and possibly be issued the permit for access to the public street. E.The Factual Reasons for Denying the Temporary or Permanent Use of Woodhill Avenue as an Access to the Chib Are as Important as the Legal Reasons 1. Woodhill Avenue is imlighted, narrow, poorly maintained, with blind intersections. It is not suitable for commercial traffic. 2. The use of the road by commercial traffic will endanger the children, homeowners and their invitees in the area. 3. The commercial traffic will include some patrons of the Club who have been consuming liquor before using the road. 4. Any traffic in the evening will be more hazardous because Woodhill Avenue is not lighted. 5. Orono Orchard Road, a scenic parkway, is not constructed or maintained to handle more conmtercial traffic. 6. Tlie intersection at Orono Orchard Road and County Road 15 is already dangerous, and will become more dangerous with more traffic fi'om the Club, because of the curve in the road to the west, limiting visibilit>’. 7. The Club’s access onto County Road 15 is safer than the use of Woodhill Avenue and/or the intersection of Orono Orchard Road and County Road 15 because: A. The Club members are familiar with its use. B. County Road 15 at that location is straight and there is better visibility. C. There are no children in the immediate area or homes facing upon that intersection. 16601BDM 0007 03-22-9$ FRI 13:44 FAX 6123441366 MALKERSON GILLI LAND 0OOS Mayor and City Council May 22, 1998 Page? D. Woodhill Avenue is inadequate for such use for reasons discussed above. 8. Any perceived problem at County Road 15 for the Club luenibcrs or others using County Road 15 can be addressed in several ways, including but not limited to: A. Moving the temporary visual barriers; B. Lowering speed limit on County Road 15 during construction; C. Club’s hiring of a flag person or off-duty policy officer; D. Members learning to access Club during non-rush hour. E. Adding cautionary' signage. E. Any Action to Consider Approving Anything is Premature 1. The Club as a matter of law must proceed through the CUP process. The law allow's no exceptions. 2. The Club needs to provide at its cost, like all developers, a detailed analysis of existing and future traffic patterns, traffic counts, direction of approach, etc., for all days of the week, during all hours of use. 3. The Club must prove that a temporary second access is needed for the hours and days claimed it is needed and that such use would not adversely affect niy clients’ neighborhood. 4. The Club must prove that the continued use at only County Road 15 is dangerous at all hours and on all days the Club claims it needs temporary' access to Woodhill Avenue. As part thereof, the County should explain the details of construction changes over the next several months.— - 5. The Club needs to prove by sur\'ey and title work that its property abuts the publicly opened part of Woodhill Avenue. 6. The Club must prove that its proposed driveway meets the standards in the City’s curb cut ordinance. 16601BDM 05 22-9S FRI 13:44 F.\X 6123441366 MALKERSON GILLILAND 13 009 Mayor and City Council May 22,1998 Page 8 Conclusion All parties should be afforded procedural due process by having enough Ume to analyze the issues presented. We ask the City Council to continue this matter until all of the above issues have been addressed. Only then should the City Council make a decision. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this very important issue. I apologize for sending this letter to your homes, but because of the lack of prior notice, 1 could not finish this preliminary analysis in time to have it sent in your Council packet. Please call me or my clients with any questions or if you need any additional information. If you can, please inspect Woodhill Avenue. Very truly yours, Bnice D. Malkcrson Enclosures Ronald Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police Tom Barrett, City Attorney Shelly and Jerry Storch (476 1273) Ginny and John Welsh (404-9408) Jane Delaney (473-4666) Reed Larson (473-1696) Judy and Mike Wood (473-9084) Charles and Marla Mailc (475-1885) •05-22 FRI 13:44 FAX 612344l3t>e_Lilt Ul- UKUNW @ o i/cnr iwMALKERSON GILLILAND\JJf fc I f f'* I I • 'IW i_r t ' •-BoioVILLAGE OP ORONORegularlMobtlng of the Village Council, Septembers, 1968 The Village Council met on the above date with the following members present; Mayor Ross, Councilman Butterfield, Pranzel, Searles, and Stubbs. Soerles moved. Stubbs seconded, that the f4inutes of the Regular Meeting of August . 1968, bo approved. Motion, Ayes (S) Nays (0). The following appeared: K. Andrus concerning Review Publications. V. B. Bdwerds concerning Pure Oil Building Permit. R. Dunn concerning variance. Butterfield moved, Stubbs seconded, that an amendment to the Non •'Conforming use Permit Section of the Village Code setting application date at November 1, . 1968 * be approved. Roll Call, Ayes (2) *■ Nays (S). (Franael, Scarles, and Mayor Ross voting Nay), Searles moved Fronsel seconded, that the Conditional Use Permits for Non-Conforming Uses. Administrative memo of September s, 1968 as excepted, be approved. Roll Call, Ayes (3) ' Nays (Z). (Butterfield and Stubbs voting N.ay), Searles moved, Stubbs seconded, that a Public Hearing, October 14, 1968, at 7:30 P.M., CDT, concerning the renaming of certains streets that extend into tn Y£]_Xage of Medina, be ordered. Motion, Ayes (5) ' Nays (0), e Frentel moved, Searles seconded, that the request of H, Johnson for a Registered Land Survey including a cul-de-sac at 1635 Concordia Street, be approved. Motion, Ayes (S) - Nays (0). /r7j30 P. M. MINUTES «®RHIN0 USE ORDj. NANCE CONDITIONAL NON-CONFORMING USE permits PUBLIC HEARING Renaming of Streets registered land survey 16SS Concordia Street <i5'22-'9S FRI 13:44 FAX 6l2344l36l> M-\LKER.St’i\" GILLILANDCITY OF ORONO________ ________o Wiu - ,/ . !■;■;■ :'-I: r'" ■ • ■■ • ' • •■" ■ ■■' ■ ;*.!/■ . ,y. . * ~ ' • - ^ . • I • ■ ,t\ , - . . . _________#___________ . • '• flECULAA tlCCTIilC Of THE OnONO CnutfClL, IIOVEKBUI K, 1978 Pag* 27 Propoaad roles and atandarda eoncartiing, the 911 CMsaacNCy Nui«npB 911 etnerganay telephone eervice w«a praaanted to tha City*Council, Butler moved, Peeak seconded, to adopt Resolution I9S8, A Resolution Concerning 17\e Impounding Of Dogs At H«AfP,0,I, liotlon, Ayes (5) ” Naya (0)« tf The mutual aid resolution was tabled until the meeting of November 28, 1978 for more information. A momo from John Gerhardson, Public Werka Coordinator, concerning a petition for silent polieamen on Woodhlll Avenue was prasented to the City Council, dated November 8, 1978, which statest e On October 2S, 1978, the City of Orono reoeived a petition from residents on Woodhlll Avenue and the surrounding area requeatlrg the installation . of ''silent policemen'* on Woodhlll Avenue. Since July of 1978, there has been several dlS“ cussions with the residents of Woodhlll Avenue end the Woodhlll Country Club about thet atreat. seems thsc because of trsffio congestion on County Rnsd 15 at the entrance to Woodhlll Country Club, the country club chose to open the rear ontran je to the club from Woodhi* 1 Avenue. This has increased the amount o*^ traffic on Woodhlll Avenue and the realdanta feel that the country club had no le^ai right to use that straet as an alternate entrance. I have received j^orrespondenco from one of the Wood'* resident’s attorney and also from the Woodhlll Country Club, i have attached that correspondence for your rev.^ewai. The Public Works DtpartJnent is In the process of conducting traffic counts now to determine the amount of traffic on that road. council Mooting <* November 14, 1978 Mrs, Hauruce Wrtt/one.'r, 3^30 ond her attorney, fr. Kosa Thorfinnson were preae/,t. After discupiion, It was docidrd thnt Mr. Thorfinnson, Mr. Charier lollowa, woodhi ll covmtry Clun, ,intl M.-ivor Van Noot have a nceting to doterminr fchp rtppro.M'h to aolving the siewation. RE5OLU7Z0N 1958* M.A.P.S.X. MUTUAL AID PSTXTIOM Woodhlll Avenue i "'5 »-A ■i msm t . * ^ T. - 7 7 . II5 -22.-FRI l.‘):45 FAX (J12.344130C MALKERSON GILLI LAND V. WOODXIILL CODHT&T CLUB tOAO ' >»iti 4n>T»i m . £5?aoQ ^ 6Rom ; ^)4)f?,rra Juft« IS, 1»0 HonortbU Irad V«n NMt M«yor of tM CIV 9f Omw Pott Offlu B«i M Cry>VI Vyt HiriMiov MttI Ot«r Brad ; i It > 1 At Its Boit rteifit sMtlng, Vt IddPd of TrvsVot of MoodhUI dKlowl to kmp tha -toek ontrdiico* to tKa UoodMIl Club prop^ty clOltd tt «U tiots toctpi In —ra initlot^ Thi« action mn Ukon for tMo roaiona — first, •• a Mttoe of aocurlty V tho Club proporty Itsalf. and aocondt bocouit of tho strong dtsiros of tho City of Orono V Holt publu tfifflo On Uoodhlll A»ad through Uoodhin proporty V Mitan of tho gonon) public. It Is con- tanplatod that a tacuro goto oirbnfMnt vill bt con a true tod; on tha bi» oniraneo which will ortvont con ind trucks f«« using tho antrsneo, but will oilw bicycto troffU. At you know, by taking this action wo da not In any ^ay want to Unit our right to uso tho back ontroneo should futuro elreunsVness warrant a chan^ in this docislon. Sincoraly, U. norriionProsldant cc:Mr. Waliar Parry, Jr. hr. Charlas S. Pallows Mr. Thoaias M. Crosby, Jr. Nr. Anthony ullat •V f'O r 05-22-9J» FRI 13:45 FAX 6123441366 MAU\ERSON GILL1 LAND ( 12 It 13' MEDINA II I A /JXWlfei'T' O 1 \ i___^ ^ I, ____—**^r*’^*“"*"^’ /■ . 'I f. T VO *• 't Ti (f^. • M - •■‘V ‘ " U--'. i " • O-" • ■; ••* - < f \ - •a- - jpLYNK)lJTH SrA>’: ! infiG lake . 18 •"vAo, .OrV -•Vrl A'/. *' \m ‘‘ - ii y. j. ^ --M' *.*• •'• iC> C*-^ land use PLftl^ .RBAK residential urban residential rural residential Q rural residential COMMERCIAL institutional - • industrial PARRS 1 ACRE 1/2 ACRE 5 ACRES 2 ACRES ^ Q looc City of Orono, Minnesota (S) the mayor and city COIJiNCIL OF ORQNO FROM: YOUR CITIZENS ON WOOnHii i a vrv.,r "fw ■C'l/•*’ “ '■'> «‘l«'na„l opposition to theopemng of the roati winch Wcodhill Country Club cut through the woods emptvirJ out onto our residential street As you probably know by now, the Club cut tltis^road heZt: r' r V? ,iLot l the aubZZoZZthe safety of our families and the character of our neighborhood. ' *"'uie Ia>v whcn'i' curUiis rojdll' '"'T ''"I* ” '• 'ras breaking Men ^U«inn ^ r ^ “<* 'wng in an '“,r^ “bit even bnck (licir ^ constniction of our homes), and « as denied that permit use .s ludicrous on *ts face. We live here. We uould know. No vehicles have drhvrrLh hose w^oods into the Club. The Club’s claim is so preposterous as to illustm e to u^ IntTev simply do not want to deal with this matter on the merits, but are trving to “sprn’’ the / ct i^a :^r he* roT; rn'rc'H -it frorthe cU wooded and^mpassabk was Ihe road is dnnoerotts . it dumps out into our residential subdivision. Our kids will no longer be ne\ii.ibl> head out the c.xit blissfully unfocussed on the rcalitv that thev are eStJring an area of priVaTe dub to h" ""possible to enforce or even expect the pahonsof thi p club to obsene a reasonable speed limit when they hit the straightaway on our street r There have been no studies done of the trafllc patterns or safety of the road they have cut into our neighborhood. The road they eut through eunes, and it does not align well witli the straightaway on tlie c.xisting street, so there will be little warning to people or cars on the street below the e.xit. Additionally, for those of us leaving our homes and headed to the "intersection” fonned by Utc c.xisting road and the one the Club cut through, there is a blind intersection, with little opportunity to see what will be coining down their road. The intersection is also unmarked and unregulated in any fashion. Additionally, we were originally assured that the Club wanted the e.xit road to be one way "out”, but this would then dump into a street which is two ways, but has no line do\ ,n the middle, creating inevitable confusion and a situation ripe for head-on collisions. The e.xisting road is narrow, leaving little room for such errors. Now, the Club has changed their position, sa>ing the new road will be two-ways, but again no traffic studies have been done concerning how Uiis will increase traffic on the road, or what would be done to prevent accidents at the intersection of the e.xisting roads and the one they have cut through. Additionally, at the other end of tlie street, where VVoodhill Avenue and Orono Orchard intersect, there is another curve, and with the increased traffic, the possibility of an accident here is magnified. Tliis problem is e.xacerbated by the fact tliat our mailbo.xes are all lined up at this intersection, creating another conflict; between people trying to get mail and the cars e.xiting the private club. Environmental nnd drninaoe issues have not been studied or addressed . Every time it rains, tlicre are large pools of water fonning at the base of the new road. To our knowledge, the Club has done nothing whatsoever to study or engineer the road to ensure good drainage. Apparently, the Club just assumed somehow the water would run off into our street and take care of itself. This adds to the safet>’ problems as we ha\e to veer into the w rong lane to avoid the washed out e.xisting road. Additionally it looks awful. The area is replete with wetlands, some of these a few feet from tJie e.xit road, and wc have seen no environmental study. In fact, we cannot be sure that the Club hasn ’t already damaged wetlands with the hasty construction. The road is unsightly. The road is about as ugly and shoddy as we have e\er seen. It was ripped through in one day, as mentioned above, apparently with speed and cost savings as the primaiy motivations, and no attei tion whatsoever to appearance. Apparently, the Club’s goal was to strike fast and get the road cut through before we could stop it. It is a dirt/gravel construction and this is already washing into the e.xisting street when it rains. With any kind of use, this dust and gravel w ill spread over our street as cars carry it down the incline, and it will gel even uglier. At the same lime, our cars w ill have to traverse an area of dirt and gravel at the base of the road, stirring up dust and potentially damaging the finishes on our cars. And again, whc.v .cr it rains, it floods at the foot of the road they cut. The road chanecs the character of our nciehborhood. We all bought our homes here because the neighborhood is quiet, wooded, and secluded. It is a cul-de-sac. not a through street. An e.xit from Woodhill into our neighborhood would increase traffic on our street 20-fold, or more. And there is nothing quaint about the road the Club built; it is crude, unlandscapcd, and instead of the woods which used to be there, wc now have a more clear view of the Club’s industrial-looking ser\ ice building. The club talks about an "historic" exit located where it built the road. E.xactly how long such an exit was open and how long ago is an academic question, but it is clear that the situation is \ery difTcrcu now from what it was decades ago. This is now a populated residential neighborhood, and an inappropriate place for a heasily traveled road into and out of a counirv club. The Club’s safety nreumeiit is unsubstniitinted nnd frankly >ve believe disiii2Cnuoiis. Some club members have wanted to open up a road through our neighborhood for years, as you know and as wc know. For those members who live to the north and west of the club, entering and exiting through the back of the club would save them a minute or two on their drive home. The club manager/administrator told one of us. when wc complained on the day the road niTciub shouldn ’t have to wait at County Road 15" to leave the club. Basically the Club appears uilhng to compromise the real safeh concerns of our children and our horaS n-embers of their private club. Please do not be fooled bv the Club’s "1-ovcr ,s '0 be using it to trv' to get what has been den.ed .n the past. For those of us who live here, this is verv obvious. We'a re m4re o cU's e!f' by the club and we doubt one e.vists. Let’s e.xa.Le tl5^ Club safety conteimon in more dcpUi. Entering the Club off of Highway 15 is not a problem as a simple turn off a nvo-lane road. Leaving the Club, patrons today could either want to mke '^gbt turn or a left onto County Road 15. The right turn is pretty siraightfonvard. even with the off omrono n T r difficult, but we all make an even tougher left turn Although there is congestion on County Road 15. we know from direct e.vpcrience that this is^a uT/nn? ".r'n have a little pLenee aid wait v^r Club should not be allowed to compromise the character and safety of our children and homes just so It s members don ’t have to wait their turn just like evetyone else to get onto County Road £ven |here I.S n safety issue, the Club’s self-hein remedy is wroii}> This doesn ’t entitle with the^Coimlv r' "‘^'Shborhood. or to build roads without permits. The Club should work nild ac • ‘s responsible for the constniction to pursue other alternatives It .ould be as simp e as replacing the barriers which restrict some of the view upon egress onto c. 3,cd° p.l"'tJri n v' • ^ haps some regulation with signing, lights, or ftagpeople would be possible l^'^r -T*making a rieht turn o„t of the club onto CoiiL RmH ^i^-lL tli! ulk ■■ .T Orch.ird to Highway 12 when they want to ho.H .net •I ^ h‘S "banner IS a tned-and-true way of dealing w ith a tough left turn and nZv, “j""'J “"8Crand would uol add appreciably lo lliciririp. bul it ,Lld be slieluly not lot "c beli^eve this is the real issue—member convenience, not safety. Please do s.are,y aud “IftrcXur" ,0^^'•'*= »«' We c.lnnot trusl any nsyiiratiros the Cluh nrnvirfes. given ile nnci .li.eregnr(l frrr ite Sft'fiM !"/*'•* intentionally gave us no notice about this road r^nondod h "Shunto our neighborhood one morning. When we called to ask about it. the Club •olHt ic n ^ - ' ^"hude being it was none of our business. We were 0 d It IS our land (the Club s) and we can do whatever we want with it". The Club did at last nrpTl nf hn« ^^c understand this is only at the urging of the city-. The letter noticing us about the meeting had the incorrect date, and while we ili'irih^r°'^ ' r* r*** uitcntional. it did take our calling to get that straightened cut. and even riiiVof nVunk' ^ 'h»c of day when it would be impossible for elTi m f also made seemingly deceptive statements to us. m,I ^^d n ° "‘"ghbors was in agreement with the road, when this was absolutely not l^roid'lf'i! T' *’ ‘h'^ "a- only an e.xit road, and now. at the last second before the town meeting, they have said it will be two wavs. And. especially unsettling they swore to us ’on their honor" that this road would be only temporary during the'Highway 15 constr^iction. and now they are s.nvi„g ,i,e road would be open through t'hc summer and ftill until Noyember and then they will reevaluate the situation for next spring, summer, and fall. Thus they ha\e been tol.illy willing to change their position on very important matters concerning this road in a matter of days. In our noinion. the Club’s past behavior also illustrates a similar ^ogance and disregard for its neiglibors. The Ciub put bright halogen lights on their scraice building wlurh glare into our neighborhood, with no discussion with us. The Club had a gas tank on the side of a building abutting our properties which was dripping gas onto the ground wit 1 no containment, and to our knowledge they addressed this only after environmental ofTiciaJs were involved. The Club sets oif loud and home-shuddering fireworks witJiout warning or discussion witii our neighborhood. Without going on and on. suffice it to say Uiat the Club has given us im rwson to believe tliat I is a good neighbor, or Uiat our neighborhood is considered when Uie Club makes decisions which inevitably impact us. ■-------re very’ concerned there is no such thing ns a temporary rond Initially, the Club to d us in no uncertain terms that the road would be a temporaiy solution to deal with Highway 15 construction. This was consistent with their safety argument. Already, less than a week after telling us ilus, they have changed their position. We know some of Club members have wanted this convenience road built for many years, and we are frightened it wilt never close once opened We are convinced that if the Club is allowed to use this road for any period of Ume, the Club will Kek to e.xtend tius penod indefinitely. We believe the road is totally inapDronriate ever, even for a little white, and we are concerned th at the Club might Pet the rn:wi nnon.,? temporarily as a “bounty" for having built it without permits. ------ Please do not let the Club open this road It yvas built illegally by the Club, we believe intentionally so. It is unsafe, unsightly, changes the character of our neighborhood, and is based on faulty premises. At the most base level, this road is about a Club which does not want to be inconvenienced and which seems to feel it is above playing by the rules. This is about the convenience of members of a private club versus the safety and well-being of our homes, our children, our guests and ourselves. Please help us. r May 21,1998 Members of the Orono City Council Mr. Richard Flint 1405 County Road Six Orono, Minnesota 55356 Dear Dick: i * We are writing to you in regard to the request from Woodhill Country Club to open a back entrance into the Club from Woodhill Avenue in Orono. We reside at 1230 Woodhill Avenue, directly at the base of the proposed new entrance. We are strongly opposed to this request for the following reasons: 1. This road would have a severe negative impact on the lovely, quiet residential nature of Woodhill Avenue. Orono has always preserved and protected the unique nature of its residential areas from commercial entities, and we are sure that you will want to continue this policy. 2. We are gravely concerned about the issues of safety, greatly increased traffic flow(both automobile and commercial), noise, security and vandalism. Woodhill Avenue is certainly not fit for heavy traffic and the safety concerns of a road intersecting it at the proposed juncture are numerous. We know that the issues of noise, security and — vandalism were all involved in the decision to close the road in 1980 and feel they would be of even greater concern in 1998. 3. We feel that the issue of safety during the temporary construction at the Club's main entrance onto County Road 15 is not resolved by the proposed new entrance. The most difficult turn is East onto County Road 15 and the proposed entrance has no bearing on this traffic. All other traffic turning West onto County Road 15 or into the Club may be r somewhat inconvenienced by delays, but this is certainly not sufficient reason to destroy a residential neighborhood. All of us in this neighborhood, and everyone along this stretch of County Road 15, deal with these turns and delays every day. 4. The residents are extremely concerned over the lack of proper process used by Woodhill Country Club, i.e. no request to The Orono Council for permission to bulldoze the road, no notification of neighbors etc. It is our understanding that the club operates under a conditional use permit and must ask Orono, its Planning Commission and City Council for permission for all changes of this nature. Their disregard for the proper process has been very disturbing to the entire neighborhood. We look forward to the opportunity to express our point of view at the Orono Council meeting on May 26 and hope you will give very thoughtful consideration to this matter. r L i'\:U i I I • ■ 1260 Woodhill Avenue Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 j • 4 ^ May 22,1998 Dear Mayor Jabbour and Members of the Orono City Council, We are writing to ask that you deny Woodhill Country Club’s request to open an access to the Club off Woodhill Avenue. As residents of Woodhill Avenue, we have very strong concerns for the safety of our children who bicycle, rollerblade and play on that street. Moreover, our mailboxes are located at the corner of Woodhill Avenue and Orono Orchard Road, and our children often bicycle to the corner to pick up mail. We feel that the increased traffic on Woodhill Avenue, as a result of the Club’s entrance, would put our children at a serious risk of injury when they play or travel on the road. Any Increase in the traffic on Woodhill Avenue, even on a temporary basis, vs endanger the lives of our children. As residents of Orono, we look to you to p.utect our neighborhood and most Importantly, to protect the safety of our children. We urge you to say “No" to the request of Woodhill Country Club to open this road for even a short time. Respectfully, QA cU u - k'. ]A\acJL Charles W. Maile, M.D. Marla C. Maile r TUE 15:51 FAX 6123441414 MALKERSON GILLI LAND ©002 MALKERSON Gilliland Martin L L R Suite 1500 ATaT Tower OOI Marookttc Avenue Minneapolis , Minnesota S5-402-3205 TelEF^hcne Facsimile 6I2-344-i-4»a J .fi • .* J J H *^ • 4 4 o Biucc D. MalkcrsonTfe^t | Direct Dial (612) 344-I699| May 26, 1998 Mayor and City Council City of Orono PO. Box 66 Cr^'stal Bay, MN 55323*0066 Re: Woodhill Country Club -* Residents on Woodhill Avenue To be Heard on May 26, 199S Dear Mayor Jabbour and City Council: I. The ritib is a Business I understand Woodhill Country Club (the “Club”) believes it is not a busii.ess and therefore is not subject to the code restriction of one driveway (section 6.05, subd. lOA) prohibition of drivew'ay approach within 100 feet of a comer in a residential district. The City ’s zoning code does not define “business,” but it does define “commercial operations” as “operations where business is conducted by a sale or exchange of goods and/or services on site for money or oth -r valuable consideration.” The Club is clearly a business and commercial operation for one Or more of the following reasons; 1. The Club sells goods and services to its members, including the right to play golf, food and beverage, golf and tennis equipment. 2. The Club sells the same goods and services to guests of the members. 16653BOM 05-26 {IS TUE 15:26 FAX 6125441566 MALKERSON GILLILAND 0 002 Mayor and CiW Council May 26,1998 Page 2 3 The Club allows members and friends of non-members to hold parties and special events aVthe Club and as a part thereof the Club sells food and beverages to non-members. 4 The Club periodically allows golf tournaments of non-members to be conducted at the Club. 5. The Club allows non-members to have golf outings at the Club for a fee, as long as one member plays in each foursome. There is no definition in the City ’s zoning code related to a golf club or pnvate club which would allow one arguably to call the activities at the Club non-business or non- commercial activities. Therefore, the code limitation of one access and 100 foot separation from a residential street clearly applies. II Jhp riiih’s of the Old Access is Lost From Nonjj gg The Club closed down the access to Woodhill Avenue in 1980. Sine , the Club does not have a conditional use permit allowing the access, the old access was at best anon-conformng use that cannot be expanded. Whatever the status was of the old access, n lost all legal rahdjV as a non-conforming use because it was closed over 12 months. Section 10.03, Subd. 5. E states. Wl'cncver a lawful non-conforming use of a structure or land is discontinued and remains discontinued for a period of twelve (12) months, any future use of said structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of the zoning chapter. ni. ^ Traffic, stiidyi^ First Needed Before- AnyTT;;e of Wp^dhill Avenus Ettclosed h a traffic report by Jim Benshoof, a respected traffic engineer. He concludes: The Woodhill Avenue access should not be opened on a tcmporar>' or permanent basis. 1. 2. The Club’s use of Woodliill Avenue would be unsafe. 3. There is no demonstrated need for the Club to use Woodliill Avenue. 4. Tlie Club needs to prove a need and prove there would be no adverse effect on those presently using Woodhill Avenue, r 05*:i6 99 TIE 15:27 FAX C129441366 MALKERSON GILLIUNH OP BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC transportation engineers and plannersTRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 73(51 OHMS LANE. SUITE 500 / E01NA. MN 65430 / (612) 832-9858 / FAX {612) 632-9564 • •• W* ••@|'m5 May 26, 1998 REFER TO FILE;98-39 Woodhill Avcsnue Residents c/o Mr. Charles Moile 1260 Woodhill Avenue Orono.MN 55391 RE: Traffic Review of Possible Access Connection to Woodhill Avenue from Woodhill Country Club Dear Residents; PIWOSE In response to your request, I have reviewed the basic traffic implications of the access connection that the Woodhill Country Club has begun to construct between their Country Chib and Woodhill Avenue. The fundamental question that t have addressed is whether that access connection could be accommodated without causing any significant adverse impacts on Woodhill Avenue or other nearby streets. To accomplish this review, I have completed the following steps: • Observed characteristics of Woodhill Avenue and Orono Orchard Road, the two streets that would be moat impacted by the proposed Country Club access connection • Observed characteristics at the intersection of County Highway 15 and the access to the Woodhill Country Club • Observed characteristics at the intersection of County Highway 15 and Orono Orchard Road • Learned about the .schedule and plans for the current construction project on County Highway 15 • Reviewed the letter from Bnice Malkerson to the Orono City Council members dated May 22. 1998 • Applied pertinent traffic engineering principles and experiences gained from my 28 years of practice as a traffic engineer The results of this traffic review are presented under the following headings: • Lack of study regarding issues, needs, and candidate solutions • Negative impacts caused by Country Club use of Woodhill Avenue • Other possible access improvements for Country Club • Conclusions 05-26 OS TIE 15:27 FAX 6l2.34 41.')Ot5 MaLKERSON GILLILAND titNtiMUUt- & HtvbLf.:. © IHiO Woodhill Avenue Residents -2”May 26,1998 LACK OF STUDY R£GAIU>1NG ISSUES, NEEDS, AND CANDIDATE SOLUTIONS As I understand, the Country Club recently constructed the possible access connection to Woodhill Avenue without submitting an application or study report to the City. In my judgment as a traffic engineer, the lack of a study report is particularly appalling. As expressed later in this letter, the proposed access connection likely would cause major negative traffic impacts. One reason for such impacts is that the Country Club generates a substantial amount of traffic. In addition to the trips generated by its approximate 400 family jnembers, additional traffic is generated by guests, employees, and trucks servicing the Club. In my experience, whenever a major traffic generating land use is contemplating a change in access, it is important to complete a study to address the following points: • What are the principal issues and needs influencing the potential change in access? • What are the possible solutions to fulfill the needs? • In evaluating the candidate solutions, what factors arc particularly important to address in terms of potential impacts on users of the development, on nearby property owners, and on the public roadway system? • What arc the advantages and disadvantages of the candidate solutions in terms of the previously identifled factors? • Can any of the candidate solutions be implemented in a manner to benefit users of the development and to avoid significant negative impacts on neaiby property owners and/or the public roadway system? If so, what is the preferred solution? NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY COUNTRY CLUB USE OF WOODHILL AVEIOFE If the Country Club hds access to Woodhill Avenue, I would expect a s?gmficant increase in the traffic use of Woodhill Avenue and Orono Orchard Road. From my observations of these roadways, it is my judgment that such increased traffic use would cause significant safety problems. Particular reasons for these increased accident hazards include: a) Woodhill Avenue and Orono Orchard Road both quite narrow (about 22 to 28 feet wide) and have no shoulders or sidewalks. b) Several driveways on Woodhill Avenue have limited sight distances where they intersect Woodhill Avenue. c) The Lmcf section of Woodhill Avenue and Orono Orchard Road has several major safety limitations, including: • Stop sign on the south side of Woodhill Avenue approaching Orono Orchard Road, but not on the north side. This is contrary to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. A stop sign should also be added on the north side. 05:26 .TIE 15j27^FAX 612344U66._. .. Woodhill Avenue Residents malkerson G I lli lam > -3- 0IIM7 Mav 26, 1998 restricted by tr • The presence of the maUboxes in the northeast comer of the inter section reqafres motorists to stop and perfom wttniordlnaiy mansovers m the intersection. d) The iotersection ach^^Roed rd*^“ by rite eutve on County Highway Access to Woodhill Avenue. CTetSryffi^ my obsiivations, it is evident that both of th«e wens na e silable for limited volume, residmf.^ use. ° Jfte trip^nclude mick facility than is the cuneni access on County Highway 15. CCESS IMPROVEMENTS FOR COUNTRY CLUBOTHER POSSIBLE A r“oTor«:!;ro^dt7r^^^^^ traffic periods. Several mnBures also are available to improve traffic conditions at this access location during the current construction period. Such options include. . r.rP-ry-'-'-f barricades «id other traffic control davicM to l-rprave «he ristd dirance bewern tbe Country Club access roadway and *^®bway 15 . Repositioning the stop sign for southbound traffic to the slop locati^^^ • signs and possible pavement markings to denote two southbound Ian the intersection, one each for left and right turns • Using pohcc officers to control traffic at ptrticvilafly bu.sy peno s r 05'26 os TIE 15: 2S FAX 6125441.')CG Woodhlll Avenue Residents MA LI\ER S ON GILLI LAND May 26,1998 CONCLUSIONS Based on 5'ne traffic review that I have petformed and the poirts presented in this letter, I have establishes the following two corclustons regarding the Woodhill Country Club's proposed access to Woodhill Avenue: a) The access to Woodhill Avenue should not be opened at this time for Country Club use for two principal reasons: The Country Club has not presented a report which demonstrates the needs for this access, that such n^s could not reasonably be met through other solutions, and that such access would not cause significant adverse impacts on the nearby neighborhood and public roadways We have determined that Country Club access on Woodhill Avenue likely would cause significant negative impacts on Woodhill Avenue and Orono Orchard Road b) If the Country Club is concerned about their current access situation, they should retain a competent traffic engmeer to address their issues on a comprehensive, professional basis to seek an outcome that meets the needs of the Country Club without causing adverse impacts on nearby neighborhoods or on the public roadway system. I appreciate the opportunity to assist in reviewing this important traffic issue. Let me Icnow if any questions arise about points addressed in this letter or if further assistance is needed. Sincerely, BENSHQpF d: ASSOCIATES. INC. j,mes A. Ben^hoof j • •• 01 1 O '! TOTAL P.05 05-2C-9S _'n.E. 15:2S_FAX 6123141366.MaLKERSON GILLILANI*oi.c; OxiAc; 0 nnO r. to/ kjj LTi V.___ L BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 7301 OHMS LANE. SUITE 500/EDINA, MN B5439/(6l?) 032*9858/ FAX (012) 832-9564 JAMES A. BENSHOOF, PX. Education: University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, England, M.S., Traffic En^nearing, 1969 NorthwestcmUnivefBty,M.S , Transportation Engineering, 1968 University of Minnesota, B.S.. CivU Engineering, 1966 Experience : 1982 to date - President of Benshoof & Associates, Inc. with overall responsibility foi services provided by the firm. Has managed transportation projects fior the University of Minnesota, for Minnesota and South Dakota Departments of Transportation, for 20 communities in the State of Minnesota, for several communities in the States of Iowa, South Dakota, and Wisconsin, and for numerous private organizations. 1981 to 1982 - Principal with Strgar-Rjoscoe, Inc., Minneapolis. Responsible for all traffic engineering, transportation planning, and transit planning projects performed by the firm- 1980 to 1981 - Vice-President with Westwood Planning & Engineering Company, Minneapolis. Responsible for all transportation services provided by the firm. 1971 to 1980 - Project Manager and Associate with BRW, Inc., Minneapolis. Responsible for a variety of transportation projects. 1969 to 1971 - Traffic Engineer with Alan M. Voorhees and Assoc., Inc., Buffalo, N.Y. Panicipated in various transportation projects. Professional Involvements: Presentations conferences: "Traffic and Parking for Downtown Areas," Missouri Downtown Conference, November 1996 and Iowa Downtown Conference, August 1995 "Transportation Elements for Mall of America," Institute of Tranqiortation En^neers District 4 Meeting, June 1993 • "Traffic Plans for Major Sports Arena and Outdoor Amphitheater," Institute of Transportation Engineers Annual Meeting, Sept. 1988 "Framework for Traffic Forecasts in Miruieapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area," Real Estate Development, Minnesota Institute of Legal Education, April 1988 - "Municipal Traffic En^eering and Planning." Third Annual Municipal Engineering Conference, University of Minnesota, March 1988 Member of Transportation Committees, Twin West and Eden Prairie Chambers of Commerce Past Board Member, Eden Prairie Chamber of Commerce Affiliations: Institute of Transportation Engineers Registrations: Minnesota (P.E ), South Dakota (P E ), Iowa (P.E.) TOTAL P.P3 1 \ no-20-Tl'E 15:25 FAX 6123441366 MALKERSClN GILLI LAND 0 001 Fax Transmission MALKERSON GILLILAND MARTIN LLP I 500 ATSTTOWtR OO I MAROUEJ It AVENUE MlNWCAPOi-ta, MN 55402 BRUCE D. mau K erson D irect D ial : 6 I 2-344* I 699 fax : e I 2-344-14 14 To;Ronald Moorse Mike GafTron Gary Chcswick Tim Barrett Date;May 26,1998 Fax ff:473-0510 334-8888 Pages:(d, including this cover sheet, From: Subject: Bruce D. Malkerson Woodhill Avenue Residents Oar File No. 1258-001 rOMMENTS- For your Infurmution, euclosed is . reporl from the trafnc consultant T“7th. molhill Avenue Residents and . letter from me.retai THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS toISoSsaGE IS NOT THE^ D ividual or entity named above . DiynuBimoN or copying ofvon are hereby aw disse ^ ^ for council actionDATE: May 22, 1998 may 2 G 1998 crPi-'oroROMO ITEM NO: ^ Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title Citv Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Robert and Julie Hanning Request Related to Future Subdivision at 4220 Sixth Avenue Nvrth When the County Road 6 project was being planned, the Hannings had expressed concern that the right-of-way needed by the County would reduce the area of their property below the amount needed to be able to create a second lot in the future. The Council had indicated that if the right-of-way acquisition would reduce the lot area below the required amount, the Council would consider entering into an agreement to niaintain the ability to create a second lot. Staff has recently clarified the current status and post-right-of-way acquisition status of the property, and the Hannings' plans for subdividing the property. Maps showing these are attached. According to staffs calculations, the property includes 10+ acres of dry buildable land, both before and after the right-of-way acquisition. However, because of the location of the current home and the desire of liie Hannings to retain an open meadow area, their plan for the future lot to the east includes a S' lewhat gerrymandered lot line to maintain the 5 acre lot area. The County right-of-way acquisition creates a further problem for the Hannings in that even though the total dry buildable area of the property continues to exceed 10 acres, creating a second lot with the full 5 acres would require the lot line to be run closer to the existing structures on the homestead site, and would require a significant portion of the new lot to be behind the existing structures. This would create concerns regarding privacy, and creates the potential for conflict between the owners of the two lots in relation to boundary lines and use of the rear portions of both properties. To avoid this situation, the Hannings are requesting that the City support the Hannings' initial subdivision plan even though the second lot would not meet the minimum lot standard of 5 acres. Policy The City's policy regarding land subdivision is that the City does not grant variances to lot area for new lots. In the Hannings case, it is possible to create a lot that meets the lot area requir_ement, but the lot configuration necessary to do this is not acceptable to the Hannings. Legal Issues The City Attorney has expressed concern regarding the City entering into a contractual agreement to approve a lot area variance at some point in the future. This is contraiy to the public process normally involved in the City's consideration of a variance application. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to indicate the Council's position regarding the Hannings' request, and to direct staff accordingly. r COUNCIL M££TiNG MAY 2 6 199 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 20, 1998 ITEM NO: ^3 Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Requests from the Property Owner at 1980 Spates Avenue Regarding the Purchase of the Adjacent Tax Forfeit Parcel Dan Crcar. who owns the property adjacent to the tax forfeit parcel at 1960 Shoreline Drive, is proposing to purchase the tax forfeit parcel. The City Council has authorized the purchase of the tax forfeit parcel by an adjacent property owner through a resolution. This resolution included the waiver of the sewer assessment on the ta.\ forfeit parcel due to the requirement that the parcel be combined with the adjacent property so that it would not be a buildable lot. The resolution also requires the tax forfeit parcel be combined with the adjacent property. Two obstacles have occurred since Mr. Crear began to move ahead with the purchase of the tax forfeit parcel. 1.It was discovered that in addition to the sewer assessment there is a $5,727.63 assessment on the property' related to costs incurred by the City in its review and processing of a land use application related to the property. Mr. Crear is requesting that the assessment related to the land use application costs be waived. (Please see the attached letter.) 2.Although the MPCA has made a finding that the cleanup of the petroleum contamination on the site appears to be complete, this is not a guarantee that there is no contamination remaining on the site. Mr. Crear does not want to assume the risk of the cost of an expensive cleanup at some point in the future. His solution is to purchase the property as a separate legal entity so that his personal property and finances would not be subject to future cleanup costs. To do this, he needs to keep the tax forfeit parcel separate from his homestead parcel. This is contrary to the City’s resolution which requires the two parcels to be combined. Mr. Crear is requesting that the City consider other alternatives for achieving the City's objective in relation to the combining of the two parcels. In reviewing the history of the land use application in which the City incurred considerable expense, it appears the majority of the expense of the City was related to fees for legal work to assist the City in opposing the land use application. Although the City was successful in opposing the land use application, the City was not successful in recovering its costs from the applicant. The costs were then levied against the property. Request for Council Action continued Page 2 the Property Owner at 1980 Spates Avenue Regarding the Purchase of the Adjaeent Tax Forfeit Parcel «« Ute parcel to be contbined with the adjacent If ‘hts acceptable option to the Council, staff tvill work with Mr. Crear to accomplish that.IS an COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: property. 4/19/98 Ron Moorsc City Administrator City of Orono RO. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Dear Ron: This letter concerns the property at 1960 Shoreline Dr. and the special assessments that are still outstanding on this properly. I’m writing to request that all special assessments outstanding on this property be removed prior to my acquisition. I’m writing in response to our conversation last week on the phone about a portion of the special assessments that the city still wishes to collect on the above named property. As you are aw-are I am doing my best to acquire this property for the purpose of returning it to its original state of grass, trees and flowers...hopefully at a cost to me of no more i.ian $ 10,000-15,<•nil At my first meeting with Hennepin County it was brought to my attention that there was outstanding special assessments totaling $ 12,813.36. The city of Orono says the number is $ 10,494.21 of which $ 4766.58 is the Crystal Bay sewer project. Your letter to Hennepin County on November 4,1997 says that all special assessments shall be paid with the e.xception of the Crystal Bay Sew'er Project. This would leave rm amount of $ 5727.63 that the City of Orono still wishes to be paid. According to you, in our conversation, this money was used to fund some land use application that never materialized. As stated above I’m asking you and the City Council of Orono to relieve these assessments. At the council meeting on October 27,1997 when the city council released this property for sale to the adjacent property owners I had no idea that any assessments were pending on the property. My assumption w'as that there would be no expenses other than demolition, legal fees, closing costs and finally landscaping costs. My request is simple and realistic, I would like the City Council of Orono to release this property to the adjacent property owners free of any outstanding special assessments and any pending special assessments. My reasons for this are as follows: 1. I’m spending personal money to clean up a major problem for the City of Orono. 2. Hennepin County is taking a significant portion of this property for hi-way right of way, possibly 25%. 3. This is not a buildable lot and any value it has is being spent to clean it up and restore it to it’s original state. 4. If I am not successful in reclaiming this property and remo\ ing all the problems at a reasonable cost it will fall back on the City of Orono and Hennepin County. 5. I have lived with the many mistakes made at this properly and don’t feel it is myjDbligalion to pay for someone else’s mistakes that add no value to the property. 6. As a community we have already suffered a great deal in lost tax revenue and poor property management of this site, I am trying to put an end to this once an for all. I’m still pushing very hard to acquire and clean up this property. I’m hoping that you can see in your ways to help me further in this pursuit. I appreciate the support I have received to date and will be looking forward to your favorable reply, as I doubt w hether I can afford or want to spend any more money on this properly. If I need to come before the city Council once again I w'ould be glad to do so. Thank you for you lime and consideration of my request. Sincerely iiUi •* ■ *. ♦ y / / I I» Dan ary Crear L/l i I ^ iWl •>J 1980 Spates Avc.. Wayzata. MN 55391 476-1010 or 922-8890 Xll9 r council MtiTlNQ MAY ^ ^ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CrrYOFORONO DATE: May 22,1998 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Extension of Leave of Absence for Mark Thornton Mark Thornton has been on leave from his police officer position with the City since , > 1998. Due to a medical condition, Officer Thornton's physician has not at this time authorized him to return to his police officer duties. It is staffs understanding that Officer Thon^on will unde^o an evaluation on May 27 to determine his physical fimess to perform his police officer duties. The City's personnel policy requires that a leave of absence beyond 20 days be approved by the City Council The City Council did approve a leave of absence at its Apnl 13 meeting extending May 25,1998. Staff recommends Council now approve an extension of the leave of absence through June 8,1998. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to extend the leave of absence for Officer Mark Thornton through June 8,1998. 1 ! '\ , i» I I ♦ I I COUNCIL m££T!NO MAY 2 6 1998 CITYC-ORO^iO A RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE EFFORTS OF CITY STAFF, ASSISTING AGENCIES, AND VOLUNTEERS DURING AND AFTER THE STORM OF MAY 15,1998 WHEREAS, late afternoon on May 15, 1998 a violent storm caused major damage throughout Orono and the Metro area; and WHEREAS, many roads were impassable due to downed Uees and power lines; and WHEREAS, many homes w'ere without electricity for several days; and WHEREAS, Orono Police and Public Works Staff; with assistance from the Volunteer Fire Departments of Long Lake, Mound, Maple Plain and Wayzata, the Hennepin County Sheriffs Department and Department of Emergency Preparedness, and many volunteers; worked into and through the night to provide emergency communications, to open roads obstructed by downed trees and power lines, to reroute and direct traffic away from downed power lines, and to maintain the City's system of sewer lift stations; and WHEREAS, the Police Department Support Staff fielded numerous emergency service calls on Friday evening and Saturday; and WHEREAS, the Administrative Office Support Staff handled a continuous stream of calls and in-person inquiries during the week following the storm; and WHEREAS, the City's Public Works Staff worked around-the-clock for several days to keep the City's lift stations running during the power outage; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspections staff focused their efforts on expediting repairs to damaged homes, providing advice to homeowners, and documenting the damage in the worst hit areas; and WHEREAS, all of these efforts were outstanding examples of public employees, assisting agencies, and citizens stepping forward to meet emergency needs. Page 1 of2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council does hereby commend the dedicated efforts of City Staff, Police Reserves, Volunteer Firefighters, Hennepin County Sheriffs Department Staff, Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness Department Staff, and Citizen Volunteers in meeting the emergency needs caused by the storm of May 15, 1998. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 26th day of May, 1998. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Page 2 of 2 COUNCIL MEETiNQ may 2 6 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CiT»^ C-' ORONO DATE: May 21,1998 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Lin Vee Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed: #1 Agenda Section: Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT 1.Boat Sales Inc., dba King's Cove Boat Sales Boat Show Location: 1449 Shoreline Drive, Minnetonka Boat Works May 29-31, 1998 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. GARBAGE & REFUSE COLLECTOR ’S LICENSE 1.Douglas Hawkinson Clcanway Sanitation P.O. Box 220 Long Lake, MN 55356 2.Donald Rachel Veit Container Corp dba Veit Disposal Systems 14n00 Veit Place Rogers, MN 55374 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed licenses. CITY OF 0’.0'i0 ^ c124730510 04/50/i^S 10:^7 i2> : J1 02 nO:--35 PARADES & SPECIAL EVENTS PER.VnT APPLICATION CITV OF ORONO, MENNESO f A Permit Phone Numbfir; 6>y7^~‘~/~?3~ 730S Pee: 550.00 ^ / , / Date Resgived: ri Name:—ki-^^'s Clu. S.U- Address: City, State, Zip: Oro - iH^9 .. S/^O re/fne J?K! t/c ory p_^S^39/ Location of Parade or Event;_ Date of Event:, 5/^^ - 3hi Hours of Evant: c^A/ - ^ />t TypBolCvenl: Shcuj p<rkr.'; ^re I'lsuinrceCompany: Amaupf /J L /; (Copy of ln,u„r.c» co.-mooto mat, to VutmilFed^ ,his oppl!^^;,f--~- I am aware of all applieablo State and other la ws regardins parades and from the parade cf spec:al event approved by tne granting of this permit I understand some events may require off-duty or reserve officers and a fee may be re-quuecJ for these services. Signature W30/9S. Date Approved: □ Denied: fj By; Remarks: OtOSJt 3 Date:May 11,1998 To:Lin Vee, City Clerk From:Gary Cheswick, Chief of Polic Subject:Special Event Permit k ORONO . Box 66^rystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 License Year Date Received Fee Paid 1998Initials V. -1 ! 1 .’ • » GARBAGE & REFUSE COLLECTOR'S LICENSE APPLICATION The undersigned wishes to operate the indicated business in the City of Orono and herewith makes application for a license to do so. Business/Firm CLEANWAY STATION INQ Address MN (Street) Business Phone Number (City) 612-479-2003 1 n \> Applicant ' s Name DOUGLAS HA^'JKINSON Address (Street) Phone Number _____612-479-2003 (City) Check One:Individual Partnership Corporation Number of Vehicles to be used in Orono Description of Vehicles (attached list if more): Loaded Loaded Year Mfgr. Gross Wt. Rear Axle Wt. Size/Yards 1994 FORD 48,000 34,000 (2 axles)20 yd License Number YM 91220 General area of City served FAR EAST, SUGARWOQDS------------------------ Schedule of Collection charges/ dates_________thrusday PICKUP 38 gal 13.00/60 gal 15.00 / 90 oal 17.00 per mo _______________ Approximate number of customers in Orono ______50-------------------- ------------- Location of dumping area BROOKLYN PAR TRANSFER STATION ______________________ IN ORDER FOR THIS APPLICATION TO BE COMPLETE, YOU MUST ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING: Surety bond in the amount of $1,000. Proof of insurance in th_e amount of $100,000-$300,000-$50,000, and 10-day cancellation clause. ,I» $30.00 flat rate fee, plus $15/truck, and a $30.00 transfer fee (if app ____* I am the owner and operator of the above business and I have paid all license fees and ti^es requi^dlaw. The above information is correct. . „ - -- - - - „ p- /i?- - - - - Applicaht Date. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FOR CITY USB ONLY: After review of application, staff recommends: ^ Approval _ _ _ _ _ Denial __ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) _ _ _-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _yez- - - -X- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - -- SignaTturie of ^^ty Officia]/^^,^^^ j Date (• ,/38 Pay 30.00 . • •CITT OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 License Year Date Received Fee Paid GARBAGE & REFUSE COLLECTOR'S LICENSE APPLICATION The undersigned wishes to operate the indicated business in the C^l*^ of Orono and herewith makes application for a license to do so. Business/Fina Veit Container Corp dba Veit Disposal Systems Address 140(JO Veit t»lace Rogers MN (Street) Business Phone Number (City)(State) 55374 (Zip Code) 612-428-2242 Applicant's Name __^Donald Rachel, Address 10492 Bice Aye *Rw President Monticello (Street) Phone Number -6i2-963-3098 (City)(State) (Zip Code) Check One:Individual Partnership Corporation Number of Vehicles to be used in Orono Description of Vehicles (attached list if more): See Attached List Loaded Loaded Year Mfgr. Gross Wt. Rear Axle Wt. Size/Yards License Number SEE ATTACHED LIST General area of City served As requested by customers Schedule of Collection charges/ dates As requested Approximate number of customers in Orono Varies Location of dumping area Vonco Landfill, 19000 COUnty Road C Big Lake Township 35309 IN ORDER FOR THIS APPLICATION TO BE COMPLETE, YOU MUST ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING: Surety bond 'in the amount of $1,000. Proof of insurance in the "amount of $100,000-$300,000-$50,000, and 10-day cancellation clause. Annual fee is a $30.00 flat rate fee, plus $15/truck, and a $30.00 transfer fee (if applicable) . I am the owner and operator of the above business and I have paid all license fees and taxes by law. The above information is correct. _ _y-fy' Applicant Date. FOR C^2TY USB ONLY: After review of application, staff recommends: Approval _ _ _ _ _ Denial ^_ _ _ _ _/I_ _ _ _1 sig^tuire of^^Oity OfficialQ^*^Date Other (specify) 22 May 1998 Fri 12:38 PM Check Register City of Orcno Check Number Date Name Check Number 56277 56277 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION 20-May-98 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UJJION Totals Check Number 56277 CITY COU?rTY CREDIT UNION Check Number 56278 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 56278 56278 56278 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Totals Check Number 56278 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Check Number 56279 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CU. 56279 20-May-98 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. Totals Check Number 56279 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO, Check Number 56280 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT & COLL 56280 20-May-98 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT & COLL Totals Check Number 56280 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT & COLL Check Number 56281 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT & COLL 56281 20-May-98 HEiWEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT & COLL Totals Check Number 56281 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT & COLL Check Number 56282 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 56282 20-M.ay-98 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Totals Check Nurber 56282 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Check Number 56283 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 56283 20-May-98 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Totals Check Number 56283 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Check Number 50284 KN DEPT OF REVENUE 56284 20-May-98 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Totals Check Number 56284 MN DEPT OF REVENUE Check Number 56285 MN MUTUAL LIFE 56285 20-May-98 Ki MUTUAI, LIFE Totals Check Number 56285 KN MUTUAL LIFE Transaction Amount 5.714.00 5.714.00 3«855.64 3.855.64 9.106.44 16.817.72 950.68 950.68 0.00 0.00 179.51 179.51 225.00 225.00 391.08 391.08 3.844.66 3.844.66 475.30 475.30 rOUNCCMeSTINQ cPy WAV r r Page 1 Cofwnents SAVINGS W/H 6 TRANSFERRED FICA & MEDICARE W/H FICA.MEDCR CITY SHARE FEDERAL WITHHOLDING DEFERRED COMP W/H THOMTON 8C0266780 SKREEN 80010755723 DEFERRED COMP W/H UNION DUES WH STATE TAX W/H DEFERRED COMP W/H 22 Kay 1998 Fri 12:30 PM Chech Nxiifher Check Number Check Number S62B6 Check Register City of Crono Date Name 56205 ICi MvJTUAL LIFE 56206 hZl STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COM? 2O-May-90 Totals Check Number m STATE RETIREMENT-DEF CCM? 56286 KN STATE RETIREI-IENT-DEF CCM? Check Number 56207 56207 PEBSCO/OBRA 2O-May-90 Totals Check Number PEBSCO/OBRA 56207 PEBSCO/OBRA Check Number 56200 56200 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS 2O-May-90 Totals Check Number PE9SC0/US CONF OF MAYORS 56200 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS Check Number 56209 56209 56209 PERA 2O-May-90 2O-May-90 Totals Check Number PERA PERA 56289 PERA Check Number 56290 56290 UNITED WAY 2O-May-90 Totals Check Nuinber UNITED WAY 56290 UNITED WAY Transaction Amount 177.00 177.00 275.00 275.00 1.087.65 1.907.65 4.666.15 €.080.16 10.746.31 30.00 30.00 Page 2 Comrents DEFERRED COMP W/H OBRA DEFERRED COMP W/H USCM DEFERRED COMP W/H PERA EMPLOYEE W/H PE.RA CITY SHARE CHARITY DONATIONS W/H Grand Total 41.714.71 22 May 1998 Fri 12:27 PM Check Number Date Name Check Register City of Orono Transaction Amount Page 1 Comments Check Number 56292 56292 56292 A-1 REiriAL 22-May-98 A-1 RENTAL 22-May-98 A-1 REfJTAL Totals Check Number 56292 A-1 RENTAL 4.50 67.50 72.00 HAND TOOLS COMPRESSOR Check Number 56293 56293 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR 22-May-98 Totals Check Number AIRTOUCH CELLULAR 56293 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR 0.24 0.24 FINAL PAYMENT ON ACCT Check Number 56294 56294 ANCHOR PAPER 22-May-98 Totals Check Number ANCHOR PAPER 56294 ANCHOR PAPER 417.48 417.48 COPY PAPER Check Number 56295 56295 56295 AT 4 T - 22-May-98 22-May-98 AT ii T AT fc T Totals Check Number 56295 AT & T - 38.27 6.33 44.60 LD SERVICE LD SERVICE Check Number 56296 56296 AT fcT CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV 05-Peb-98 Totals Check Number AT 6 T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV 56296 AT & T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV 19.55 19.55 1ST QUARTER PAYMENT Check Number 56297 56297 56297 56297 AT 6 T WIRELESS SERVICES 19-Feb-98 19-Feb-98 19-Feb-98 Totals Check Number AT 6 T WIRELESS SERVICES AT 6 T WIRELESS SERVICES AT t T WIRELESS SERVICES 56297 AT 6 T WIRELESS SERVICES 7.12 7.12 146.76 161.00 CELLULAR CHAGS CELLULAR CHAGS CELLULAR CHAGS Check Number 56298 56298 BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB 22-May-98 Totals Check Nun^r BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB 56298 BCA/FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB Check Number 56299 56299 BCA/TRAININO L DEVELOPMENT 22-May-98 Totals Check Number BCA/TRAINING k DEVELOPMENT 56299 BCA/TRAINING & DEVELOPI^IT 200.00 200.00 80.00 80.00 INTOX OPERATOR LAW ENF:CURRENT & FUTURE Check Number 56300 BLACKOWIAK k SON 56300 22-May-98 BLACKOWIAK L SON 78.90 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 22 May 1998 Fri 12:27 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 56300 56300 BLACKOWIAX & SON 22-May-98 BLACKCWIAK & SON Totals Check Number 56300 BLACKCWIAK & SON Check Number 56301 BUDGET PRINTING 56301 22-May-98 BUDGET PRINTING Totals Check Number 56301 BUDGET PRINTING Check Number 56302 BUSINESS FORMS & ACCOUNTING 56302 56302 56302 56302 22-May-98 22-May-98 22-y^y-98 22-M^y-98 BUSINESS FORM^ & ACCOUNTING BUSINESS FORMS 6 ACCOUNTING BUSINESS FORMS & ACCOUiniNG BUSINESS FORMS 6 ACCOUNTING Totals Check Number 56302 BUSINESS FORM^ & ACCOUimNG Check Number 56303 CASH REGISTER SERVICE fit SALES 56303 22-May-98 CASH REGISTER SERVICE & SALES Totals Check Number 56303 CASH REGISTER SERVICE & SALES Check Number 56304 CHESWICK, GARY Check Number 56307 CITY OF WAYZATA 56307 09-Apr-98 CITY OF WAYZATA L Transaction Amount 160.85 239.75 549.40 549.40 377.28 125.76 329.14 246.25 1,078.43 224.75 224.75 295.50 Page 2 Comments SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL TICKETS UTILITY BILLS UTILITY BILLS AP CHECKS PR CHECKS REPLACE LOGIC BOARD 56304 22-Kay-98 CHESWICK. GARY 25.40 EXPQISB REIfS Totals Check Number 56304 CHESWICK, GARY 25.40 Check Number 56306 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 56306 22-M.ay-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 274.70 TUNE UP, MOUNT TIRES 56306 22-May-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 28.45 MOUNT TIRES 56306 22-M.ay-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 176.72 OIL, BATTERY 56306 22-May-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 149.90 BATTERY 56306 22-Kay-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 28.99 EXHAUSE, MOUNT TIRES 56306 22-May-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 36.31 HEADLIGHT 56306 22-.May-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 144.51 BATTERY 56306 22-M.ay-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 60.43 OIL, TIRES, _ _ 56306 22-May-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 78.21 REPAIRS STROBE SYST 56306 22-May-98 CHUNKS lAKESHORE AUTO 74.86 OIL CHANGE,ROTATE 56306 22-M.ay-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 130.08 ROTATE & REPAIR TIRE 56306 22-May-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 59.79 SIREN SPEAKER 56305 22-M.ay-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 72.77 TIRES, LIGHTS 56306 22-Kay-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 68.88 OIL CHG, TIRES 56306 22-May-98 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 136.21 OIL CHG, TRAIJSMISSION Totals Check Number 56306 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 1,520.81 SECURITY - PAULUCCI BLDG 22 May 1998 Fri 12:27 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 56307 CITY OF WAYZATA Totals Check Number 56307 CITY OF WAYZATA 56300 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE COCheck Number 56308 22-May-98 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO, Totals Check Number S6308 COLONIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. Check Number S6309 CUMMINS ALLISON 56309 22-May-98 CUWINS ALLISON Totals Check Number 56309 CUmiNS ALLISON 56310 CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPANY INC. 56310 22-May-98 CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPA.NY INC, Check Number Totals Check Number 56310 CUSHMAN MOTOR CCMAIIY INC, Check Number 55311 FAST SIGNS 56311 22-May-98 FAST SIGNS Totals Check Number 56311 fast signs Check Number 56312 FLAG BUILDERS 56312 22-May-98 FLAG BUILDERS Totals Check Number 56312 FLAG BUILDERS Check Number 56313 OAK SERVICES 56313 56313 56313 26-May-98 26-May-98 26-Hay-98 G A K SERVICES G A K SERVICES G A K SERVICES Totals Check Number 56313 G fc K SERVICES Check Number 56315 GE.NUINE PARTS CO. 56315 22-May-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 56315 22-May-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 56315 22-May-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 56315 22-May-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 56315 22-May-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 56315 22-May-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 56315 22-May-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. 56315 22-May-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. Transaction Amount 295.50 836.06 836.06 270.57 270.57 13.93 13.93 135.79 135.79 19*480.00 19*480.00 5.93 87.63 12.15 105.71 25.43 7.98 2.90 29.80 6.65 8.91 4.24 22.88 Page 3 Comments MAY INSURANCE MAINT CONTRACT-SHREDDER MANUAL SINO PW BUILDING-81&FINAL UNIFORM - STEFFENHAGEN UNIFORMS UNIFORMS VELCRO DUCT FUSE HOLD GOJO MICS SUPPLIES STRAPS, SCREWDRIVER DRILL BIT RIVETS 22 May 1998 Fri 12:27 PM Check Number Date Name Check Register City of Orono Transaction Amount Comments Page 4 Check Number 56315 56315 56315 56315 56315 56315 56315 56315 56315 GENUINE PARTS CO. 22-May-98 22-May-98 22-May-98 22-May-98 22-May-98 22-May-90 22-May-98 22-May-98 GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE GENUINE PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO. PARTS CO, PARTS CO Totals Check Number 56315 GENUINE PARTS CO 7.87 0.73 5.81 7.35 3.93 3.72 11.89 46.09 196.18 MISC SUPPLIES GASKET CIRCUIT BREAKER BULB LIGHT CREESE U-BOLT FUNNEL, HOSE SHOP SUPPLIES Check Number 56316 56316 GERRING'S CAR WASH 26-May-98 Totals Check Number GERRING'S CAR WASH 56316 GERRING'S CAR WASH 7.00 7.00 CAR WASH Check Number 56317 56317 GRAND VIEW LODGE 27-Apr-98 Totals Check Number GRAND VIEW LODGE 56317 GRAND VIEW LODGE 210.50 210.50 MPWA CONFERENCE Check Number 56318 56318 56318 56318 HEALTHPARTNERS 22-May-98 22-May-98 22-May-98 Totals Check Number HEALTHPARTNERS HEALTHPARTNERS HEALTHPARTNERS 56318 IffiALTHPARTNERS Check Number 56319 56319 56319 56319 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE 22-May-98 22-May-98 22-May-98 Totals Check Number HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE 56319 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE Check Number 56320 56320 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 22-May-98 Totals Check Number HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 56320 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF Check Number 56321 56321 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREAS. 22-May-98 Totals Check Number HENNEPIN COUNTY TREAS 56321 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREAS Check Number 56323 56323 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 22-May-98 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 328.50 163.77 6,879.05 7,371.32 62.25 144.79 3.46 210.50 129.80 129.80 40.00 40.00 26.68 JUNE INSURANCE JUNE INSURANCE JUNE INSURANCE SEED k STRAW CABIN MIX SEEDS STAW RADIO REPAIR PROPERTY LIST - HERITAGE NOVEMBER 1997 SERVICE 22 May 1998 Fri 12:27 FM Check Number Check Number Check Register City of Orono Page 5 Cate Name 56323 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON Check Number 56324 HUDBRLE, JOSEPH 56324 22-May-98 HUDERLE, JOSEPH Totals Check Number 56324 HUDERLE, JOSEPH Check Number 56325 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 56325 22-May-90 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS Totals Check Number 56325 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS Check Number 56326 KENNETH N. POTTS. PA 56326 22-May-98 KENNETH N. POTTS. PA Totals Check Number 56326 KENNETH N. POTTS. PA Check Number 56327 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC 56327 22-May-90 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC Totals Check Number 56327 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC Check Number 56320 KWOM 56320 22-May-90 KWOM Totals Check Number 56328 KWOM Check Number 56329 LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS 56329 22-May-98 LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS Totals Check Number 56329 LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS Check Number 56330 LGA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC Transaction Amount 109.54 109.54 1.272.68 1.272.68 2,291.66 2,291.66 30.30 30.30 534.00 534.00 72.50 72.50 Comments 56323 22-May-98 HINSHAH 6 CULBERTSON 1,100.00 NOVEMBER 1997 SERVICE 56323 22-May-98 HINSHAW &CULBERTSON 1,804.46 NOVEMBER 1997 SERVICE 56323 22-May-98 HINSHAW &CULBERTSON 220.00 NOVEMBER 1997 SERVICE 56323 22-May-98 HINSHAW &CULBERTSON 721.17 NOVEMBER 1997 SERVICE 56323 22-May-98 HINSHAW &CULBERTSON 269.00 NOVEMBER 1997 SERVICE 56323 22-May-98 HINSHAW &CULBERTSON 197.57 NOVEMBER 1997 SERVICES 56323 22-May-90 HINSHAW &CULBERTSON 1.935.25 NOVEMBER 1997 SERVICE 56323 22-May-90 HINSHAW &CULBERTSON 1.100.00 LEGAL SERVICE - MARCH 56323 22-May-90 HINSHAW 6 CULBERTSON 440.00 LEGAL SERVICE - MARCH 56323 22-May-98 HINSHAW &CULBERTSON 64.00 EASEMErrrs MARCH 56323 22-May-98 HINSHAW &CULBERTSON 40.00 EASEMENTS MARCH 56323 22-May-98 HINSHAW &CULBERTSON 300.00 GORDON NELSON - MARCH 56323 22-May-98 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 1,089.00 GORDON NELSON - MARCH Totals Check Number 56323 HINSHAW k CULBERTSON 9.307.13 REFUND-OVERPAYMENT CANON CFX4000 FAX APRIL PROSECUTIONS CABLE OUTLET ASSY RADIO ADVERTISING 4/30/98 ADV 22 May 1998 Fri 12:27 FM Check Number Qieck Number 56330 Check Register City of OroRO Date Name 56330 LGA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC 22-May-98 U3A INVESTMENT GROUP, INC Totals Check Number 56330 LGA INVEST^NT GROUP. INC Check Number 56331 LOGIS 56331 22-May-98 LOGIS Totals Check Number 56331 LOGIS Check Number 56332 LONG LAKE BIG A ACTO PARTS 56332 22-May-98 LONG LAKE BIG 56332 22-May-98 LONG LAKE BIG 56332 22-May-98 LONG LAKE BIG 56332 22-May-98 LONG LAKE BIG 56332 22-May-98 LONG LAKE BIG Totals Check Number 56332 LONG LAKE BIG Check Number 56333 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 56333 22-May-98 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT Totals Check Number 56333 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT Check Number 56334 MEDICA CHOICE 56334 56334 26-May-98 26-May-98 MEDICA CTOICE MEDICA CHOICE Totals Check Number 56334 MEDICA CHOICE Check Number 56335 MET COUNCIL ENVIRCIIMENTAL SVCS 56335 22-May-98 MET COLT.’CIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS Totals Check Number 56335 ^ffiT COU:;CIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS Check Number 56336 MGCSA 56336 22-May-98 MGCSA Totals Check Number 56336 MGCSA Check Number 56337 MID-CONTINENT BOTTLERS 56337 22-May-98 MID-CONTINENT BOTTLERS Totals Check Number 56337 MID-CONTINENT BOTTLERS Check Number 56338 MIDWEST ASPHALT 56338 22-May-98 MIDWEST ASPHALT Transaction Amount 2.040.16 2.040.16 900.00 900.00 3.64 2.24 4.38 5.42 9.51 25.19 291.34 291.34 202.25 11.270.50 11.472.75 17.946.16 17.946.16 80.00 80.00 88.00 88.00 26.63 Page 6 Comments LGA IN'/EST APPLIC REFUND PIMS APPLIC MA.RCH LUGS BATTERY BOLT OIL FILTER OIL FILTER BLO-GUN, NIPPLE BACKHOE W/IMPACTOR JUNE HEALTH INS JUNE HEALTH INS SEWER SERVICE DUES - STEFFENHAGEN SPRNG WATER HOT MIX 22 May 1998 Check Register Fri 12:27 PM City of Orono Check Transaction Number Date Name Amount Comments Check Number 56347 PIONEER 56347 22-May-98 PIONEER 32.36 COMMUNITY MAGT PLAN 56347 22-May-98 PIONEER 28.76 APPLICATION 56347 22-May-98 PIONEER 25.17 ZONING CODE 56347 22-May-98 PIONEER 68.31 LAND USE APPLIC 56347 22-May-98 PIONEER 192.33 ORDINANCE 173 56347 22-May-98 PIONEER 77.29 ORDINANCE 172 56347 22-May-98 PIONEER 21.57 ASSESSMENT NOTICE 56347 22-May-98 PIONEER 43.14 ORDINANCE 170 56347 22-May-98 PIONEER 107.85 ORDINANCE 171 56347 22-May-98 PIONEER 50.33 LAND USE APPLICATION 56347 22-May-98 PIONEER 23.37 APPLICATION Totals Check Number 56347 PIONEER 670.48 Check Number 56367 WM MUELLER &SONS 56367 26-May-98 WM MUELLER &SONS 56367 26-May-98 WM MUELLER k SONS 56367 26-May-98 WM MUELLER k SONS 56367 26-May-98 WM MUELLER k SONS 56367 26-May-98 WM MUELLER k SONS 56367 26-May-98 WM MUELLER k SONS 56367 26-May-98 WM MUELLER k SONS 56367 26-May-98 WM MUELLER k SONS Totals Check Number 56367 WM MUELLER k SONS 22 May 1998 Pri 12:27 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 11 Finance User Initials RJO Friday 22 May 1998 12:25 PM Start 12:27 PM Finish Buffer Name History Records Read 1879 Records Selected 162 Number of Pages 11 Selected by Check/receipt Date Equal To 26-May-98 I Sorted by Check Number Totals No Page Breaks ^ ^ L. L, 19 May 1998 Tue 11:22 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 044390 044390 JOHNSON, MARY ANN Totals Check Number 044390 Check Number 044391 044391 GEMAR, JAMIE L Totals Check Number C44391 Check Number 044392 044392 HASEMAN, CAROLE A. Totals Check Number 044392 Check Number 044393 044393 MOORSE, RONALD J Totals Check Number 044393 Check Number 044394 044394 VEE, LINDA S. Totals Check Number 044394 Check Number 044395 044395 KUEHN, THOMAS M Totals Check Number 044395 Check Number 044396 044396 OLSON, RONALD J Totals Check Nundser 044 396 Check Number 044397 044397 PETTIT, SANDRA K. Totals Check Number 044397 Check Number 044398 044398 ANDERSON, BRUCE L Totals Check Number 044398 Check Date 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 Page 1 Check Amount 465.63 465.63 470.03 470.03 709.73 709.73 1,470.03 1,470.03 1,005.33 1,0. 33 950.79 950.79 664.96 664.96 781.95 781.95 525.65 535.65 . Lr'V'n_ r ! f 19 May 1998 Tue 11:22 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Kumber Employee Name Check Number 044399 044399 BOBZIEN* SUE A. Totals Check Number 044399 Check Number 044400 044400 CARLSON, MICHAEL B. Totals Check Number 044400 Check Number 044401 044401 CHESWICK. GARY B Totals Check Number 044401 Check Number 044402 044402 CORNICK, JAMBS L Totals Check Number 044402 Check Number 044403 044403 DEMBOUSKI, JAY C. Totals Check Number 044403 r.eck Number 044404 044404 ERICKSON, KURT R Totals Check Number 044404 Check Number 044405 044405 FARNIOK, CO’Tr^Y L. Totals Check Number 044405 Check Number 044406 0 044406 FISCHENICH, DAN T Totals Check Number 044406 Check Number 044407 044407 FISCHER, CHRISTOPHER K Totals Check Number 044407 Check Number 044408 Check Date 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 Page 2 Check Amount 714.79 714.79 718.30 718.30 1,532.67 1,532.67 1,978.58 1,978.58 1,188.28 1,188.28 1,250.82 1,250.82 1,411.29 1,411.29 1,438.35 1,438.35 655.37 655.37 1 r 19 May 1998 Tue 11:22 AM Check Number Check Register City of Orono Employee Name Check Number 044408 044408 HANSING, CAROL J. Totals Check Number 044408 Check Number 044409 044409 JOHNSON, BRADLEY P Totals Check Number 044409 Check Number 044410 044410 KNOLLENBERG, KRISTIN L Totals Check Number 044410 Check Number 044411 044411 MCNALLY, STEVEN A. Totals Check Number 044411 Check Number 044412 044412 MCNICHOLS, DAVID L Totals Check Number 044412 Check Number 044413 044413 MOROWCZYNSKI, JAMES Totals Check Number 044413 Check Number 044414 044414 PERSELL, WILLIAM R Totals Check Number 044414 Check Number 044415 044415 SCHv.£NHOFF, JOHN B Totals Check Number 044415 Check Number 044416 344416 TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F. Total4^ Check Number 044416 Check Date 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May>98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 Page 3 Check Amount 378.79 378.79 1.281.74 1.261.74 632.13 632.13 1,011.78 1,011.78 869.68 869.68 1,773.49 1,773.49 646.00 646.00 1,178.66 1,178.66 435.92 435.92 Check Number 044417 r 19 May 1998 Tue 11:22 AM Check Number Check Register City of Orono Employee Name Check Number 044417 044417 TOMCZYK, MARK W. Totals Check Number 044417 Check Number 044418 044418 JOHNSON, JEFFREY D Totals Check Number 044418 Check Number 044419 044419 WITTKE. ANTHONY A. Totals Check Number 044419 Check Number 044420 044420 GAFFRON, MICHAEL P. Totals Check Number 044420 Check Number 044421 044421 GAPPA, GREGORY A Totals Check Number 044421 Check Number 044422 044422 OMAN, LYLE E. Totals Check Number 044422 Check Number 044423 044423 VAN 20MEREN, ELIZABETH Totals Check Number 044423 Check Number 044424. 044424 VANG, BRUCE L Totals Check Number 044424 Check Number 044425 044425 WECKMAN, STEPHEN J Totals Check Number 044425 Check Number 044426 Check Date 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 Page 4 Check Amount 1,235.37 1,235.37 617.86 617.86 234.88 234.88 1,116.97 1,116.97 1,513.87 1,513.87 1,057.15 1,057.15 1,114.04 1,114.04 976.33 976.33 40.56 40.56 19 May 1998 Tue 11:22 AM Check Number Check Register City of Orono Employee Name Check Number 044426 044426 BRINKHAUS, JOHN F Totals Check Number 044426 Check Number 044427 044427 DEBAERE, DONALD L Totals Check Number 044427 Check Number 044428 044428 GREGORY. JAMES D Totals Check Number 044428 Check Number 044429 044429 HANSEN, STEVEN C Totals Check Number 044429 Check Number 044430 044430 OBERAIGNER, SCOTT G Totals Check Number 044430 Check Number 044431 044431 OBRIEN, RANDY L. Totals Check Number 044431 Check Number 044432 044432 PALMER, GREGORY A Totals Check Number 044432 Check Number 044433. 044433 RATHBUN. BARRY J Totals Check Number 044433 Check Number 044434 044434 SKREEN, DALE S. Totals Check Number 044434 Check Number 044435 Check Date 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 2O-May-90 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 Page S Check Amount 1,055.63 1,055.63 1,266.06 1,266.06 1,290.93 1,290.93 1,001.22 1,001.22 1,390.55 1,390.55 724.63 724.63 1,141.03 1,141.03 941.47 941.47 985.41 985.41 19 May 1999 Tue 11:22 AM Check Number Check Register City of Orono Employee Name Check Number 044435 044435 BLAIR, JANIS A. Totals Check Number 044435 Check Number 044436 044436 DELANEY, JANE Totals Check Number 044436 Check Number 044437 044437 DOCKEN, THOMAS W. Totals Check Number 044437 ;eck Number 044438 044438 MCINTYRE, WILLIAM E Totals Check Number 044438 Check Number 044439 044439 OAS, DANIEL 0. Totals Check Number 044439 Check Number 044440 044440 PETERSON, JACK W, Totals Check Number 044440 Check Number 044441 044441 ROSS, JOHN A Totals Check Number 044441 Check Number 044442 044442 STEFFENHAGEN, RONALD E. Totals Check Number 044442 Check Number 044443 044443 YEAGER, DONALD C Totals Check Number 044443 Check Date 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 20-May-98 Page 6 Check Amount 124.28 124.28 103.57 103.57 475.59 475.59 331.42 331.42 183.97 183.97 446.89 446.89 110.11 110.11 1«054.36 1,054.36 101.63 101.63 r 19 May 1998 Tue 11:22 AM Check Number Check Register City of Orono Employee Name Check Date Page 7 Check Amount Check Number 044443 Grand Total 46,786.52 M COUNCIL may 2 G 1998 CTTYOFORONO INFORMATION ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL MEETING MAY 2 6 1998 OF cmroFORONO ; ! , I • ■»r» non *t rL~«&~7imiiv ^.imj fWY 15 '98 ei!0c;pn lepc-ue mn cities coirNCVL.Mtiiiw.- m 7 1^98 Bf MiMfMMla OHb$ CiikB ffMmBting BMJhmcB FridayFax A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities Vol. 3. No. 17 May 15,1998 Nominations stili open for LMC Board Nolo: PleasB distribute this reminder to the mayor, city council members and the city manager, administrator or clerk as soon as possible. May 29 Is the deadline for city officlais interested in serving on the League of Minnesota Cities Board of Directors to submit their nomina tions. Forms and Information about the process can be obtained by ceiling Jim Miller at (612) 281-1206 or Sharon Klumpp at (612) 281-1203 or by using our toll-free number, (800) 926-1122. "With maior issues such as property tax reform and electric deregulation dominating the legisla tive agenda, the League of Minnesota Cities must continue to be an effective, unified voice for cities and their residents.” said LMC President Bob Long. "The Board will play a pivotal role in these and other policy discussions.” League members will elect a president, a first vice president, and a second vice president and four directors. Officers are elected to one-year terms while board members serve for three years. Open officer positions could be filled by current Board members, resulting in addltiqrial openings. The board terms of Rochester Mayor Chuck Canfield: Worthington Mayor Robert Demuth; and Plymouth Mayor Joy Tierney expire In June. The seat held by former St. Paul Councllmember Bobbi Megard has been vacant since January. Nomination proeese Candidates must complete a nomination form and submit a brief resume. The nomination form asks candidates to list previous experleficc on LMC committees, conferences, and affiliate organiza tions. Local service In city government is also an Important aspect that will be considered. The League will only accept nominations until May 29. Walk-ln candidates will not be interviewed. The nominating committee appointed by the LMC Board will interview candidates In a meeting open to all city officials on Wednesday, June 17 at the LMC Annual Conference in Duluth. The recom mended candidates will be presented to member cities at the LMC business meeting on June 18. • .......................... ll _ f 9ntmr<fftvernmenUst RiikiHoilS PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED YEAR-TO-DATEREPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OP RUN 05/01/98 PERMIT TYPE Building SGL FAMILY-NEW SP-ADD/REMODEL SP-ACC STRUCTURE DBMO/PRINCIPAL COMMERCIAL-NEW COM-ADD/REMODEL COM-ACC STRUCTUR DEMO INST-ADD/REMODEL DEMO-ACCESSORY ACC/GARAGES Sub-total Mechanical HEATING SYSTEMS AIR CONDITIONING WOOD STOVE/ILUE FIREPLACE VENTILATION GAS LINE INSPECT DUCT WORK QNLY REMOVE OIL T7VNK QTY 10 94 4 6 0 3 2 0 1 2 4 126* 33 4 1 32 3 3 9 1 ***** PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO-- CURRENT R7VNGE - 01/01/98 - 04/30/98 BASE FEE 21,347 27,294 3,294 300 0 359 870 0 0 60 832 54,359 .50 .75 .00 .00 .00 .50 .50 .00 .00 .00 .75 .00* 5,618.38 321.82 35.00 1,263.31 105.00 105.00 328.75 35.00 VALUATION 3,492,774.00 2,676,239.84 448,300.00 0.00 0 00 22.075.00 69,000.00 0.00 19.480.00 0.00 56.500.00 6,784,368.84* 443,415.00 25,745.52 2,000.00 68.565.00 5.150.00 1.875.00 15.333.00 500.00 Sub-total 86*7,812.26*562,583.52* Plumbing pixtut.es 59 5,247.14 380,744.00 SPRINKLER 0 0.00 0.00 HATER METER 4 932.00 0.00 Sub-total 63*6,179.14*380,744.00* Sewer & Water SEWER CONNECTION 12 420.00 0.00 NEW SEPTIC SYSTE 8 800.00 0.00 DRNFLD «t/OR TANK 1 50.00 0.00 SAC ONLY 10 8,250.00 0.00 SEWER & WATER 0 0.00 0.00 UNDEFINED 0 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 31*9,520.00*0.00* Sign PER./FREE STANDG 0 t *0.00 0.00 TEMPORARY 1 35.00 0.00 Sub-total 1*35.00*0.00* Fire FIRE SPRINKLER 0 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 0*0.00*0.00* User Defined LAND ALTERATION 4 225.00 500.00 COUNCIL MEETINGMAY 2 6 1998 page:REQUESTER: CAROLE01/01/97 - 04/30/97 PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW 13,875.85 6 13,411.00 2,239,725.:6 8,717.14 12,593.24 63 21,418.00 2,147,165.50 10,400.66 2,141.10 3 699.25 47,000.00 454.51 0.00 1 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 887.25 100,000.00 576.71 15.44 2 1,197.00 142,746.00 81.09 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 60.00 0.00 0.00 541.28 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 29,166.91*79*37,772.50*4,676,636.96*20,230.11' 0.00 42 3,633.59 278,160.88 0.00 0.00 2 187.50 15,000.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 25 911.71 45,582.55 0.00 0.00 2 70.00 2,200.00 0.00 0.00 9 315.00 3,625.00 0.00 0.00 3 105.00 4,000.00 0.00 0.00 3 105.00 3,400.00 0.00 0.00*0 9C\5,327.80*351,968.43*0.00* 0.00 61 4,268.77 271,035.83 0.00 0.00 2 161.69 12,935.00 0.00 0.00 4 740.99 0.00 0.00 0.00*67*5,171.45*283,970.83*0.00* 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 950.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 140.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 35.00 0.00 0.00 0.00*9*1,425.00*0.00*0.00* 0.00 2 97.25 2,800.00 0.00 0.00 2 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00*4*157.25*2,800.00*0.00* 0.00 1 140.00 11,200.00 0.00 0.00*1*140.00*11,200.00*0.00* 0.00 1 75.no 0.00 0.00 YEAR-TO-DATEREPORT NBR. BFEERPT2-1 DATE OF RUN 05/01/98 »*♦** PERMIT FEE CITY OF PROM 01/01/98 REPORT ***** ORONOTO 04/30/98 REQUESTER; CAROLE BUILDING MECHANICAL PLUMBING SEWER St WATER USER SIGN FIRE BASE PBS 54,359.00 7,812.26 6,179.14 9,520.00 260.00 35.00 0.00 PLAN REVIEW 29,166.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 3,396.75 283.27 192.76 10.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 Lie. SEARCH FEE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SAC 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 574.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MAIL IN 70.50 24.00 1.50 ESCROW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 87,496.66 8,166.03 6,395.90 14,530.50 262.00 35.00 0.00 YEAR-TO-DATEREPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OF RUN 05/01/98 PERMIT TYPE User Defined SUBDIVISION VARIANCE CUP SKETCH PLAN VARIANCE/COP REZONING RQST SIMILAR USE Sub-total Grand-total ***** PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO » * * * *PAGE: 1REQUESTER: CAROLE-- CURRENT RANGE - 01/01/98 - 04/30/98 -- PREVIOUS RANGE - 01/01/97 - 04/30/97 QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW 7 4,487.50 0.00 0.00 3 2,245.00 0.00 0.00246,660.00 0.00 0.00 22 4,940.00 0.00 0.0061,275.00 0.00 O.OC 7 1,700.00 0.00 0.001250.00 0.00 0.00 3 750.00 0.00 0.002500.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.0000.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 0.00 0.0010.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.0041*13,172.50*0.00*0.00*37*9,635.00*0.00*0.00* 41**13,172.50**0.00**0.00**37**9,635.00**0.00**0.00** REPORT NBR. BFEERPT2-1 DATE OF RUN 05/01/98 h It t ii t PERMIT FEE REPORT ***** CITY OF ORONO FROM 01/01/98 TO 04/30/98 USER REPORT TOTAL BASE FES 13,172.50 13,172.50 PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 ^IC. 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 13,172.50 13,172.50 PAGE: 1 REQUESTER; CAROLE 1998 RECAP OF CONTRACT CITIESJanuary February March Apri I May June July August September October November Deceinber YTD TotalsSpring Park Plan Review Inspections Retainer TOTAL No. Plan Reviews No. Inspections 0.0015.0025.0040.00 0 1 0.0045.0025.0070.00 0 3 0.0060.0025.0085.00 0 4 414.2145.0025.00484.21 1 3 414.21165.00100.00679.21 1 11 Minnetonka Beach Plan Review 7,206.05 2,133.30 2,493.88 170.46 Inspections 195.00 285.00 225.00 540.00 Retainer 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 TOTAL 7,426.05 2,443.30 2,743.88 735.46 No. Plan Reviews 0 2 3 1 No. Inspections 13 19 15 36 7,466.05 2,513.30 2,828.88 1,219.67 12.003.69 1,245.00 100.00 13.348.69 6 83 14,027.90 REPORT NBR. BI'RMTISS-l DATE OP RUN 05/01/98 PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED*•••* PEPJ^IT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO « * * * *APRIL 1998__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _PRPVTOUS -'-'ONUL PAGE: 1L: CAROLEPERMIT TYPE QTY 04/01/98 - BASE FEE - - - -- - -04/30/98VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY 04/01/97 - BASE FEB ovJoT^^RONOVALUATION PLAN REVIEW Building SGL FAMILY-NEW 2 3,974.50 640,000.00 2,583.42 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 SP-ADD/REMODEL 38 9,353.25 869,011.84 3,482.87 26 6,889.75 613,678.00 3,059.07 SF-ACC STRUCTURE 1 394.75 30,COO.00 256.59 2 412.00 27,000.00 267.80 DEMO/PRINCIPAL 2 100.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 COM-ADD/REMODEL 2 72.25 2,075.00 15.44 1 1,072.25 136,246.00 0.00 COM-ACC STRUCTUR 1 394.75 30,000.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 DEMO-ACCESSORY 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 30.00 0.00 0.00 ACC/GARAGBS 3 545.50 36,500.00 354.57 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 49*14,845.00*1,607,586.84*6,692.89*30*8,404.00*776,924.00*3,326.87* Mechanical HEATING SYSTEMS 6 693.94 54,160.00 0.00 9 834.27 66,501.00 0.00 AIR CONDITIONING 2 135.57 10,845.52 0.00 1 50.00 4,000.00 0.00 FIREPLACE 6 210.00 11,700.00 0.00 3 105.00 5,500.00 0.00 GAS LINE INSPECT 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 70.00 725.00 0.00 DUCT WORK ONLY 2 70.00 3,133.00 0.00 1 35.00 1,000.00 0.00 REMOVE OIL TANK 1 35.00 500.00 0.00 2 70.00 2,400.00 0.00 Sub-total 17*1,144.51*80,338.52*0.00*18*1,164.27*80,126.00*0.00* Plumbing FIXTURES 15 892.50 56,275.00 0.00 14 750.63 41,055.47 0.00 WATER METER 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 108.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 15*892.50*56,275.00*0.00*15*858.63*41,055.47*0.00* Sewer & Water SEWER CONNECTION 4 140.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 NEW SEPTIC SYSTE 5 500.00 0.00 0.00 2 200.00 0.00 0.00 DRNPLD i/OR TANK 1 50.00 0.00 0.00 2 100.00 0.00 0.00 SAC ONLY 3 2,250.00 0.00 0.00 1 950.00 0.00 0.00 SEWER & WATER 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 70.00 0.00 0.00 UNDEFINED 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 35.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 13*2,940.00*0.00*0.00*7*1,355.00*0.00*0.00* Sign PER./FREE STANDG 0 0 00 0.00 0.00 2 97.25 2,800.00 0.00 Sub-total 0*0.00*0.00*0.00*2*97.25*2,800.00*0.00* User Defined LAND ALTERATION 2 100.00 500.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 DOCKS 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 30.00 500.00 0.00 LAWN SPRINKLER 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 70.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 2*100.00*500.00*0.00*^ *100.00*500.00*0.00* Grand-total 96**19,922.01**1,744,700.36**6,692.89**75**11,979.15**901,405.47**3,326.87** REPORT NBR. BFEERPTl-1 DATE OF RUN 05/01/98 PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTEDt * t * *FROM PERMIT FEE CITY OF 04/01/98 REPORT ♦* *♦t ORONOTO J4/30/98 APRIL 1998 PAGE;REQUESTER: CAROLEBUILDINGMECHANICALPLUMBINGSEWER fie WATER USER SIGN FIRE BASE FEB 14,845.00 1,144.51 892.50 2,940.00 • 100.QO 0.00 0.00 PLAN REVIEW 6,692.89 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 805.26 40.67 29.54 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lie. SEARCH FEE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SAC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 174.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MAIL IN 15.00 7.50 ESCROW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 22,517.90 1,200.18 929.54 2,945.00 100.00 0.00 .. 0.00 REPORT NBR. BFEERPTl-1 DATE OF RUN 05/01/98 » » * « *PERMIT r» E REPORT **»•» CITY C.F ORONO FROM 04/01/98 TO 04/30/98 PAGE: 3 2 REQUESTER: CAROLE REPORT TOTAL BASE FEB PLAN REVIEW SURCHARGE Lie. SEARCH FEE SAC INVESTIGATION DEPOSIT MAIL IN ESCROW PERMIT tOTAL 19,922.01 6,692.89 8S0.47 0.00 0.00 174.75 0.00 22.50 0.00 27,692.62 FRI, MAY 1, 1998, 2:04 PMNUMERICAL LISTING APRIL 1998 PAGE 1PERMIT NBR ISSUED CANCEL ADDR NBR STREET WORK ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATIONOR-008767OR-010028OR-010053OR-010054 OR-010066 OR-010068 OR-010069 OR-010070 OR-010071 OR-010072 OR-010073 OR-010074 OR-010075 OR-010076 OR-010077 OR-010078 OR-010079 OR-010080 OR-010081 OR-010082 OP-010083 OR-010084 OR-010085 OR-010086 OR-010087 OR-010088 OR-010089 OR-010090 OR-010091 OR-010092 OR-010093 OR-010094 OR-010095 OR-010096 OR-010097 OR-010098 OR-010099 OR-010102 OR-010103 OR-010104 OR-010105 OR-010106 OR-010107 OR-010109 OR-010110 OR-010111 OR-010112 OR-010113 OR-010114 OR-010115 OR-010116 OR-010117 OR-010118 OR-01011.9 98/04/09 N 98/04/02 N 98/04/02 N 98/04/20 N 98/04/01 N 98/04/01 N 98/04/01 N 98/04/01 N 98/04/01 N 98/04/02 N 98/04/02 N 98/04/02 N 98/04/02 N 98/04/02 N 98/04/03 N 98/04/13 N 98/04/06 N 98/04/15 N 98/04/06 N 98/04/06 N 98/04/06 N 98/04/07 N 98/04/07 N 98/04/08 N 98/04/09 N .98/04/09 N 98/04/09 N 98/04/09 Y 98/04/10 N 98/04/10 N 98/04/13 N 98/04/13 N 98/04/14 N 98/04/14 N 98/04/15 N 98/04/20 N 98/04/29 N 98/04/16 N 98/04/24 N 98/04/15 N 98/04/16 N 98/04/16 N 98/04/16 N 98/04/16 N 98/04/17 N 98/04/17 N 98/04/23 N 98/04/17 N 98/04/17 N 98/04/17 N 98/04/22 N 98/04/20 N 98/04/20 N 98/04/20 N 290346636502874 385 3400 3473 3415 3473 2850 3415 884 1600 1056 3535 75 4640 3038 2460 2480 1120 2435 3620 801 3580 4725 2480 2480 4705 2435 2900 440 1005 3400 1945 85 80 94 0 2755 1120 3559 3620 2900 3 G50 725 1337 1725 84 0 4520 2225 100 500 200 200 WOODHILL RD IVY PL CASCO AVE CASCO POINT RD ORONO ORCHARD RD SHORELINE DR CRYSTAL PL EASTLAKE ST CRYSTAL PL SOMERSET LA EASTLAKE ST DAKOTA AVE LONG LAKE BLVD LOMA LINDA AVE CHRISTINE DR CRYSTAL CREEK RD TONKAVIEW LA CASCO POINT RD THOROUGHBRED LA OLD BEACH RD TONKAWA RD NORTH SHORE DR EILEEN ST FERNDALE RD N FREDERICK ST BAYSIDE RD OLD BEACH RD OLD BEACH RD WATERTOWN RD NORTH SHORE DR WATERTOWN RD BROWN RD S HERITAGE LA BAYSIDE RD CONCORDIA ST CRISTOFORI CIR CYGNET PL BROWN RD S COPPER VIEW DR TONKAWA RD LIVINGSTON AVE EILEEN ST WEAR CIR CASCO AVE FERNDALE RD N ORONO LA BOHNS PT RD OLD LONG LAKE RD WEST BRANCH RD DEVIN LA BIG ISLAND HUNTER PASS WAYZATA BLVD WAYZATA BLVD 29 0000000029 0000000002 1471053218 00000000 16 14765999 19 00000000 29 00000000 01 00000000 29 00000000 01 36332561 01 54461495 01 54775649 01 54775649 05 14727581 01 34432819 04 19449499 04 00000000 02 00000000 01 36332561 24 25510555 11 14208628 01 36332561 02 36332561 01 24340445 06 00000000 01 14361617 29 25510555 29 25510555 11 00000000 01 27533373 11 00000000 29 14725499 02 13742583 10 14793259 02 29.'>,94975 09 15429000 02 00000000 02 19062585 06 00000000 02 35421166 29 24735349 02 27863951 01 29337717 24 24521565 29 34791600 29 39203800 22 17313153 16 14789529 02 14723216 01 54734300 06 14745044 01 14040600 19 57237155 19 57237155 DANBERRY COMPANYHUNT KYLE St PARTNERS, INC FIRESIDE CORNER WIDMER BROS INC RITTER EXCAVATING RITTER EXCAVATING ROEGLIN BART NARKIE HTG St AC INC LECY CONST INC FIRESIDE CORNER MR ROOTER BERRY DAVE CONSTRUCTION FIRESIDE CORNER FIRESIDE CORNER CLEARWATER SYSTEMS MORGAN HOMES INC MR ROOTER MR ROOTER NORTH ANOKA PLUMBING TERRY THOMAS J ARKHITEKTON LTD NORDSTROME DONALD JOYCE PLUMBING, INC DALPHIN POOL & SPA SUNNYBROOK HOMES INC FLARE HTG & AC DAY HAROLD E & SON GRABOW PLUMBING INC THOMPSON PLBG WENZEL PLUMBING & HEATING COUNTRYSIDE HTG A/C CKONSTROMS HTG & AC INC CHARLES CtIDD CO G L CONTRACTING INC STEFFENSON CARPENTRY SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE EXCELSIOR VFW JYLAND DEVELOPMENT CLOVER HILL COMPANY INC CLOVER HILL COMPANY INC O'MALLEYTUCKERGERSOVITSSAIKIBLANCH GOULET JARNIG GOULET JARNIG GASNER CAJACOB HOLCOMBE RYAN SUMMERS HICKEY CANNISTRACI WILT SMITH BENDT WHITMAN NEWTON MORGAN SMITH SMITH BUTTERFIELD GUIMOND MASSOPUST LARSON ESTERS RAGATZ KNAPP SMITH JOHNSTON VOGT BENDT QWHEMNN WHITMAN GERSOVITZ SOWADA MOEN HOE FT DAYTON EASTMAN HARTFIEL 30.000. 004.200.0090.000. 00500.00 .00 1.475.00 4.000. 00 .00 400.00 1.100.00 .00 .00 .00 9.000. 00 500.00 20.000. 00 16,000.00 7.000. 00 2.400.00 1.800.00 7.000. 00 2,200.00 ■ 2,200.00 3.100.00 3.500.00 240.000. 00 500.00 500.00 1.700.00 13.000. 00 1.250.00 4.500.00 4.200.00 4.720.00 4.600.00 30.000. 00 13.800.00 200.000. 00 3.500.00 5.700.00 1.300.00 6.500.00 11.800.00 3.000. 00 5.400.00 2.000. 00 500.00 .00 50,831.20 .00 7.775.00 400,000.00 .00 .00 FRI, MAY 1, 1998, 2:05 PMPERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 1998 PAGE 1PERMIT WORK ADDR NBR STREET ISSUED PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION 49C ME 01010202 02 02 02 02 02 04 04 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 09 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 16 16 10 19 19 19 24 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 49C 01 01 01 472550036503038 1005 80 940 4520 970 75 4640 1056 3580 2755 100 3505 2420 425 85 3400 3400 1045 1120 4705 2900 133 1966 1066 3229A 692 1400 1555 385 840 2874 3400 2347 2160 1045 290 3466 3473 440 2114 3559 1160 1408 110 1180 2850 3535 2460 BAYSIDE RD HUNTER PASS CASCO AVE CASCO POINT RD HERITAGE LA CYGNET PL BROWN RD S WEST BRANCH RD WAYZATA BLVD CRYSTAL CREEK RD TONKAVIEW LA LOMA LINDA AVE FREDERICK ST COPPER VIEW DR BIG ISLAND LIVINGSTON AVE OLD BEACH RD OXFORD RD CRISTOFORI CIR BAYSIDE RD BAYSIDE HD LOMA LINDA AVE TONKAWA RD WATERTOWN RD WATERTOWN RD CHEVY CHASE DR SHADYWOOD RD LOMA LINDA AVE CASCO CIR TONKAWA RD BRACKETTS POINT RD ORCHARD BEACH PL ORONO ORCHARD RD OLD LONG LAKE RD CASCO POINT RD SHORELINE DR BLAINE AVE WAYZATA BLVD LOMA LINDA AVE WOODHILL RD IVY PL CRYSTAL PL BROWN RD S SUGARWOOD DR LIVINGSTON AVE TONKAWA RD BALDUR PARK RD CHEVY CHASE DR ELMWOOD AVE SOMERSET LA CHRISTINE DR THOROUGHBRED LA 90/04/09 OR 98/04/20 OR 90/04/02 OR 98/04/15 OR 90/04/14 OR 90/04/29 OR 98/04/16 OR 90/04/17 OR- 98/04/24 OR 98/04/13 OR 98/04/06 OR 90/04/02 OR 98/04/09 OR 98/04/24 OR 98/04/22 OR 90/04/22 OR 90/04/29 OR 98/04/30 98/04/20 98/04/14 98/04/24 90/04/28 90/04/06 98/04/10 OR 98/04/13 OR 98/04/21 98/04/21 90/04/21 OR 98/04/21 OR 90/04/22 98/04/28 90/04/29 93/04/01 OR 90/04/17 OR 90/04/20 OR 98/04/01 OR 98/04/23 OR 90/04/30 OR 90/04/24 OR 98/04/09 OR 98/04/02 OR 98/04/01 OR 98/04/13 OR 90/04/20 OR 90/04/21 OR 98/04/24 OR 98/04/29 OR 98/04/30 OR 98/04/29 OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR 010G88010117010053010080 010095 010099 010102 010114 010139 010070 010079 010076 010007 010103 010116 010121 010159 010168 010090 010096 010130 010154 010083 010091 010093 010123 010124 010125 010130 010134 010155 010166 010066 010113 010054 010060 010132 010160 010140 000767 010020 010069 010094 010122 010127 010135 010156 010150 010165 90/04/02 OR-010072 98/04/03 OR-010077 98/04/06 OR-010001 14361617140406001471053200000000 13742503 00000000 19062585 14723216 00000000 19449499 00000000 1^727581 00000000 00000000 14745044 00000000 00000000 14735291 15429000 14793259 14792032 14254737 14208628 00000000 00000000 19333536 14726539 10012907 14725052 17984970 17227129 15410304 14765999 14789529 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 19336300 00000000 00000000 00000000 14725499 14327601 00000000 14760874 00000000 19721922 15910246 36332561 34432019 36332561 MORGAN HOMES INC JYLAND DEVELOPMENT DANBERRY COMPANY ARKHITEKTON LTD SUNNYBROOK HOMES INC STEFFENSON CARPENTRY LECY CONST INC ROEGLIN BART EXCELSIOR VFW JOHNSON CO^ST DALPHIN POOL & SPA NORDSTROME DONALD AL HACKBAPTH TWIN CITY EXTERIORS BERRY DAVE CONSTRUCTION COTY CONSTRUCTION SMITH WF ROOFING LAUER MAINTENANCE & CONST RAYMOND BAYLOR BANNER ROOFING CORP GARLOCK FRECH ROOFING CO WESTERN CEDAR SUPPLY HUNT KYLE & PARTNERS, INC G L CONTRACTING INC WELLINGTON WINDOW TERRY THOMAS J MCDONALD CONSTRUCTION CRAFTSMAN'S TOUCH EVERGREEN REMODELING ABBOTT GORDON EXTERIORS FIRESIDE CORNER NARKIE HTG U AC INC FIRESIDE CORNER MORGANGERSOVITSCANNISTRACI LARSON SMITH JOHNSTON EASTMAN BALES SUMMERS HICKEY HOLCOMBE NEWTON VOGT LATTERELLE ROHMANN KEIL KNAPP ESTERS ESTERS OSTERBERG BENDT BUTTERFIELD GUIMOND STEWART WEILAND RADUNZ PAROPSKY PUGH JUNDT WYSOCKY BLANCH DAYTON SAIKI WEAR OSTERBERG O'MALLEY TUCKER GOULET MASSOPUST WEHRMANN STEVENS ANDERSON HIGGINS WELSH 240,400,90,7, 4, 13, 200, 50, 33, 20, 16, 9, 3, 3, 7, 2, 5, 5, 30, 4, 7, . 9, • 7, 1. 1, 7, 4, 7, 6, 4, 73, 2, 1, 30, 10, 30, 4, 4, 4, 200, 7, 2, 2, 27, 3, 000.00000.00000.00000.00 200.00 800.00 000.00 831.20 466.64 000.00 000.00 000.00 500.00 500.00 775.00 000.00 500.00 100.00 000.00 720.00 000.00 000.00 000.00 700.00 250.00 654.00 500.00 000.00 885.00 700.00 459.07 700.00 .00 .00 500.00 475.00 000.00 600.00 780 000 200 000 500 00 00 00 00 00 000.00 000.00 500 500 000 291 00 00 00 00 RYAN WILT 1,100.00 500.00 2,400.00 FRI, MAY 1, 1998, 2:05 PMPERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF PAGE 2APRIL 1998PERMIT WORK ADDR NBR STREET ISSUED PERMIT KBR ID NUMBER COMPANYME 17C PL 16C SW 13C UD 2C 97C 01010101020202 02 24 29 29 29 29 29 17C Cl 01 01 01 02 02 24 24 24 24 29 29 B9- 29 29 29 16C 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 19 19 13C 243522501272900362011203620 4520 700 725 1387 4160 575 2420 801 2435 2900 1205 1945 3620 2480 3650 2500 110 3473 2480 ■2460- 3559 985 2195 3415 3415 884 1600 2225 1845 480 1050 580 580 3067 200 200 NORTH SHORE DR FRENCH CREEK CIR CHEVY CHASE DR WEAR CIR EILEEN ST TONKAWA RD EILEEN ST WEST BRANCH RD 6TH AVE N FERNDALE RD N ORONO LA FOREST LAKE DR SUSSEX CIR FOX ST FERNDALE RD N NORTH SHORE DR WEAR CIR TONKAWA RD CONCORDIA ST EILEEN ST OLD BEACH RD CASCO AVE WOODHAVEN DR CHEVY CHASE DR CRYSTAL PL OLD BEACH RD 98/04/0798/04/2498/04/2798/04/2898/04/0798/04/1598/04/21 98/04/22 98/04/27 98/04/17 98/04/17 98/04/24 98/04/28 98/04/28 98/04/08 98/04/10 98/04/16 98/04/27 98/04/15 98/04/16 98/04/06 98/04/16 98/04/27 98/04/29 98/04/01 98/04/09 OR-010084OR-010142OR-010144OR-010146OR-010085OR-010104OR-010129 OR-010133 OR-010145 OR-010110 OR-010111 OR-010143 OR-010163 OR-010164 OR-010086 OR-010092 OR-010107 OR-010149 OR-010097 OR-010106 OR-010082 OR-010109 OR-010150 OR-010167 OR-010071 OR-010089 22 1725 22 2350 2C OLD DBAC41 RD LIVINGSTON AVE EDGEWOOD HILLS RD SHADYWOOD RD EASTLAKE ST EASTLAKE ST DAKOTA AVE LONG LAKE BLVD DEVIN LA LAKEVIEW TER STUBBS BAY RD ] TAMARACK DR OXFORD RD OXFORD RD FARVIEW LA WAYZATA BLVD WAYZATA BLVD BOHNS PT RD WAYZATA BLVD 36332561388190003894000534789558363325613542116634789558 00000000 38711491 34791600 392038C0 34791600 35453797 38711491 24340445 27533373 29337717 27852202 29294975 27863951 25510555 24521565 37295646 25911550 00000000 25510555 00/0^/00 OR‘010090-R5510Q 98/04/16 98/04/24 98/04/24 OR-010105 OR-010136 OR-010141 98/04/01 OR- 98/04/02 OR- 98/04/02 OR- 98/04/02 OR- 98/04/17 OR- 98/04/21 OR 98/04/29 OR- 98/04/29 OR 98/04/28 OR 98/04/28 OR 98/04/28 OR 98/04/20 CR 98/04/20 OR 010070 010073 010074 010075 010115 010131 010147 010148 010151 010152 010153 OlOlie 010119 98/04/23 OR-010112 98/04/24 OR-010137 24735349 24733680 28274033 00000000 54461495 54775649 54775649 54734300 00000000 54287393 54287393 00000000 54988702 54791762 57237155 572?7155 17313153 54461495 FIRESIDE CORNER SEDGWICK HTG & AC CO BURNSVILLE HEATING CO DITTER INC FIRESIDE CORNER FLARE HTG & AC DITTER INC A-ABC APPLIANCE & HEATING COUNTRYSIDE HTG A/C CRONSTROMS HTG & AC INC COUNTRYSIDE HTG A/C FIREPLACE CENTER A-ABC APPLIANCE 6 HEATING CLEARWATER SYSTEMS NORTH ANOKA PLUMBING THOMPSON PLBG MINNESOTA WATER TREATMENT JOYCE PLUMBING, INC GRABOW PLUMBING INC MR ROOTER WENZEL PLUMBING & HEATING TEAM MECHANICAL, INC. NORTHRIDGE PLBG CO MR ROOTER ■MR ROOTCR- - - - - - - - - - - - OWNER LAST NMHANSONWHITMANB2NDTWHITMAN EASTMAN ATEINER SOWADA MOEN GOLDEN RINGER VALUATION SMITH RAGATZ WHITMAN SMITH GERSOVITZ HYDE HIGGINS GOULET SMITH ■CMCTH- - - LAY HAROLD E & SON SCHMIT STEVE PLBG NORBLOM PLUMBING CO WIDMER BROS INC RITTFP EXOVATING RITTER EXt/^VATING SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE PATNODE BROTHERS PATNODE BRO^^ERS KOTIIRADE SEWER 6 WATER HAYES EXCAVATING CLOVER HILL COMPANY INC CLOVER HILL COMPANY INC CHARLES CUDD CO WIDMER BROS INC QWHEMNN BOWEN ANDERSON JARNIG JARNIG GASNER CAJACOB HARTFIEL ASKE GAUSE STARK STARK RAPPAPORT HOEFT OTTEN ♦ * 2,200.002.245.00 11,000.009.315.002.200.005.700.002.633.00 500.00 24,200.00 5.400.00 2,000.00 2.800.00 1,000.00 5,145.52 3.100.00 13,000.00 11,800.00 500.00 4.600.00 6.500.00 1,800.00 3,000.00 300.00 1,975.00 400.00 500.00 - -500. 1,300.00 7,000.00 500.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 500.00 .00 1,745,200.36* FRI, MAY 1, 1998, 2:04 PMNUMERICAL LISTING APRIL 1998PERMIT NBR ISSUED CANCEL ADDR NBR STREET PAGE 2WORK ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATIONOR-010121OR-010122OR-010123 OR-010124 OR-010125 OR-010127 OR-010129 OR-010130 OR-010131 OR-010132 OR-010133 OR-010134 OR-010135 OR-010136 OR-01013*/ OR-010130 OR-010139 OR-010140 OR-010141 OR-010142 OR-010143 OR-010144 OR-010145 OR-010146 OR-010147 OR-010148 OR-010149 OR-010150 OR-01'' OR-010152 OR-010153 OR-010154 OR-010155 OR-010156 OR-010158 OR-010159 OR-010160 OR-010163 OR-010164 OR-01U165 OR-010166 OR-010167 OR-0101G8 97C 98/04/22 N 98/04/20 N 98/04/21 N 98/04/21 N 98/04/21 N 98/04/21 N 98/04/21 N 98/04/21 N 98/04/21 N 98/04/23 N 98/04/22 N 98/04/22 N 98/04/24 N 98/04/24 N 98/04/24 N 98/04/24 N 98/04/24 N 98/04/24 N 98/04/24 N 98/04/24 N 90/04/24 N 98/04/27 N 98/04/27 N 98/04/20 N 90/04/29 N .90/04/29 N 98/04/27 N 98/04/27 N 90/04/20 N 90/04/20 N 98/04/20 N 90/04/20 N 90/04/28 N 98/04/29 N 90/04/30 N 90/04/29 N 90/04/30 N 98/04/28 N 98/04/20 N 98/04/29 N 98/04/29 N 98/04/29 N 90/04/30 N 3505 LIVINGSTON AVE 06 2114 SUGARWOOD DR 29 133 CHEVY CHASE DR 11 1966 SHADYWOOD RD 11 1066 LOMA LINDA AVE 11 3559 LIVINGSTON AVE 29 3620 EILEEN ST 02 3229A CASCO CIR 11 1045 LAKEVISW TER 01 2347 BLAINE AVE 19 4520 WEST BRANCH RD 02 692 TONKAWA RD 11 1160 TONKAWA RD 29 985 EDGEWOOD HILLS RD 29 2350 WAYZATA BLVD 22 3400 BAYSIDE RD 10 970 WAYZATA BLVD 02 1045 LOMA LINDA AVE 24 2195 SHADYWOOD RD 29 2250 FRENCH CREEK CIR 01 4160 FOREST LAKE DR 29 127 CHEVY CHASE DR 01 700 6TH AVE N 24 2900 WEAR CIR 01 480 STUBBS BAY RD N 01 1050 TAMARACK DR 01 1205 TONKAWA RD 01 2500 WOODHAVEN DR 24 500 OXFORD RD 01 500 OXFORD RD 01 3067 FARVIEW LA 01 1045 LOMA LINDA AVE 10 1400 BRACKETTS POINT RD 11 1400 BALDUR PARK RD 29 110 CHEVY CHASE DR 29 2420 OLD BEACH RD 06 2160 WAYZATA BLVD 19 575 SUSSEX CIR 29 2420 FOX ST 29 1100 ELMWOOD AVE 29 1555 ORCHARD BEACH PL 11 110 CHEVY CHASE DR 24 425 OXFORD RD 06 000000001432760119333536 14726539 18812907 00000000 34789558 14725052 00000000 00000000 00000000 17984970 14760874 24733680 54461495 14792032 00000000 19336300 28274033 38819000 34791600 38940005 38711491 34789558 54287393 54287393 27852202 37295646 00000000 54988702 54791762 14254737 17227129 00000000 19721922 00000000 00000000 35453797 38711491 15910246 15410304 25911550 14735291 MCDONALD CONSTRUCTION COTY CONSTRUCTION SMITH WF ROOFING LAUER MAINTENANCE k CONST DITTER INC RAYMOND BAYLOR BANNER ROOFING CORP CRAFTSMAN'S TOUCH SCHMIT STEVE PLBG WIDMER BROS INC AL HACKBARTH WELLINGTON WINDOW NORBLOM PLUMBING CO SEDGWICK HTG k AC CO COUNTRYSIDE HTG A/C BURNSVILLE HEATING CO A-ABC APPLIANCE k HEATING DITTER INC PATNODE BROTHjRS PATNODE BROTHERS MINNESOTA WATER TREATMENT TEAM MECHANICAL, INC. KOTHRADE SEWER k WATER HAYES EXCAVATING TWIN CITY EXTERIORS GARLOCK FRECH ROOFING CO EVERGREEN REMODELING FIREPLACE CENTER A-ABC APPLIANCE k HEATING ABBOTT GORDON EXTERIORS WESTERN CEDAR SUPPLY NORTHRIDGE PLBG CO JOHNSON CONST LATTERELLBSTEWART WEILAND RADUNZ WEHRMANN WHITMAN PAROPSKY ASKE EASTMAN PUGH STEVENS BOWEN OTTEN ESTERS BALES OSTERBERG ANDERSON HANSON GOLDEN ATEINER GAUSE SMITH HYDE STARK STARK RAPPAPORT OSTERBERG JUNDT ANDERSON HIGGINS ROHMANN WEAR RINGER WELSH WYSOCKY HIGGINS KEIL 2,000.00 200,000.007.654.00 4.500.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 2.633.00 6.885.00 .00 30.000. 00 500.00 4.700.00 2.500.00 7,000.00 .00 7.000. 00 33,466.64 10.780.00 500.00 2.245.00 2.800.00 11.000. 00 24.200.00 9.315.00 .00 .00 500.00 300.00 .00 .00 .00 9.000. 00 73.459.00 2.500.00 27,000.00 5.500.00 600.00 1.000. 00 5,145.52 3.291.00 2.700.00 1.975.00 5.100.00 01 Residence 24 Replacing Existing 02 Addition 25 Lifting Principal R 03 Garage/Attached 26 Well Abandonment04Garage/Detached 27 Foundation Only 05 Porch 20 Temporary Trailer06Deck29Renovate/Remodel07Fence30Accessory Structure 08 Gazebo 31 Stairway to Lake 09 A A Pool 32 Retaining Wall10Re-side 33 Entrance Monuments 11 Re-roof 34 Tree Removal 12 Tennis Court 13 Sign 14 Dock 15 Shed 16 Demo-Principal Structure 17 Demo-Accessory Structure 18 Move 19 Commercial 20 Institutional 21 Storm Damage Repair 22 1-100 Cubic Yards 23 101 Cubic Yards or More 99 Undefined 9999 LOCAL USB CODES Undefined I I IP liH I ■ n J I REPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OF RUN 05/01/98 PERMIT TYPE User Defined SUBDIVISION VARIANCE CUP SKETCH PLAN VARIANCE/CUP Sub-total Grand-total QTY ****» permit ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO APRIL 1998* « « * * -- CURRENT RANGE - 04/01/98 - 04/30/98 BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY 1 425.00 0.00 0.00 051,300.00 0.00 0.00 83475.00 0.00 0.00 11•250.00 0.00 0.00 21250.00 0.00 0.00 011*2,700.00*0.00*0.00*11* 11**2,700.00**0.00**0.00**11** PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: CAROLE -- PREVIOUS RANGE - 04/01/97 - 04/30/97 BASE FEE 0.00 1,810.00 150.00 500.00 0.00 2,460.00* 2,460.00** VALUATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00* 0 00** PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00** REPORT NBR. BFEERPT2-1 DATE OF RUN 05/01/98 **♦♦* PERMIT FEE REPO’ • CITY OF ORONO FROM 04/01/98 TO 0^,j0/ r * * * USER REPORT TOTAL BASE FEE 2,700.00 2,700.00 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 2,700.00 2,700.00 PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: CI-ROLE r Clinton A. Miller 375 Silver Meadow Drive Long Lake, MN SS3S6 MAY 2 6 1998 crrv or orono May 14,1998 Mr. Thomas O’Keefe, P.E. MN/DOT Metro Division Ms. Patti Token, P.E. MN/DOT Metro Division Pre-Design Water Edge Building 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Mr. O’Keefe and Ms. Token: TOs letter is to request, per my discussion with Patti Loken at the Long Uke open toi^n April 27,1998, tolSnletghboAood youp in which I res.de meet v.r-J, represenUttives of MN/TOT to mvje^ U design speeifications, as they affect our neighborhood. I spoke recently with Deraits Moline of MN/DOT and authorized his access to our property for photography in the visualization study. We would be particularly interested to see the results of the sight line visualizarion work that is currently underway, as well as options for retaining wall, berming, and landscaping relating to noise and visual mitigation of the TH 12 project. Please advise me when these issues may be able to be reviewed with our neighbors. 1 would be hap^ to work with you on a date and to host this neighborhood meeting for the residents of Silver Meadow Drive and Silver View Drive in Orono. Sincerely, Clinton A. Miller Home: 475-1092 Office: 912-8585 ext. 235 cc: Mr. Ron Moorse, Administrator - City of Orono \i^. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor - City of Orono ^ Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville. MN 55113 May 18, 1998 [vIaY ^ 6 , I CITY Of 0 r6*^0 Mr, Edward J. Callahan, Chair Orono Highway 12 Design Review Advisory Committee City of Orono P,0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Dear Mr. Callahan: This letter will serve as Mn/DOT’s response to your letter of March 24,1998 on behalf of the Orono Highway 12 Design Review Advisory Committee. As your letter indicates, many of the issues raised require more investigation. In this letter I will respond as best I can given the infonnation at hand. In the attachment I’ve reproduced the numbered section of your letter in italics with Mn/DOT’s responses following, item by item. 7. East Interchange Starting at the eastern end of the proposed highway, it appears to us that a general design layout and location has received acceptance from the Advisory Committee members of the three cities and Mn/DOT. But, we do understand that further information will be presented refining and clarifying some of the additional details. In connection with this interchange, it is Orono's view that, to a considerable extent, the opinion of the City of Wayzata should be given the greatest weight since the proposed structures are almost entirely within that city. Howex'er, it is immediately adjacent to, and in some cases, impinges upon Orono as well. The City of Orono seriously objects to and opposes the placing ofa semaphore at the intersection of Wayzata Boulevard and Highway 12. Further, although the matter has not been discussed at the Committee meetings, we are hopeful that it will prove unnecessary to move the Meyer Brothers parking lot at state taxpayers' expense. However, the Orono Police Department has raised the question of whether it would be possible to incorporate an entrance for emergency vehicles only, to permit them to obtain access to the Highway on the east end without the necessity of going all of the way to 1 01. If this is done, the Dairy parking lot will have to be moved. Based on traffic forecasts, the intersection of Wayzata Boulevard and “old Highway 12" will meet the most important traffic signal warrants. In an unsignalized condition the right turn from Wayzata Boulevard to westbound “old Highway 12" will operate at level of service F in the afternoon peak hour. Whether a signal is justified at the time of construction has yet to be determined. Several factors w'ill w'eigh in the decision. Mn/DOT certainly prefers not to relocate Meyer Brothers Dairy, both because of the cost of doing so and the disruption to the Dairy. In the event that Meyer Brothers Dairy does not move, the intersection of Wayzata Boulevard and “old Highway 12" is more likely to be signalized immediately. A‘. you indicate, emergency chicle access ramps to "new Highway 12" in that area may require the relocation of the Dairy. In the event the dairy does move, that area becomes even more attractive as a park and ride lot location. This, also increases the likelihood of signalizing the intersection immediately. An equal opportunity employer Mr. Edward J. Callahan, Chair Page 2 May 18,1998 2./V/^/cg and Vi<:unl Mitigation A The Orono residents directly south of the corridor uould like to have MnDOT start with the objective of ■ them "siehtline" relief from the top of the trains, thereby minimizing the combined sound of trams. ^ VnI7rultrZ"spm^^ anymore than is absolutely necessary. These residents understand Zre ai probleisll^^^^ and their requests may initially create barrier heights that esceed tnM^ZdZ^ However, the point they continually make is that we'll never know until we gel accurate efe^afon^foss^ctions Zhind Jeh property that portray the impact this "sightline' relief would cause. Mn®OT will consider this. We will have to evaluate the cost of higher walls versus the benefit provided. B Moving easterly along the south side of the nesv corridor beginning at the Orono easterly TkLZmsZZLon appears lobe true in the section where the Highway is below grade becoi^e of the saZiy/Zorfor persons wZ might fall from or climb over the edge onto the new corridor from the rear of surrounding lots if walls are not in place. in this type of location could be place at a distance of 35 feet from the track centerline. rve also enclosed an illustrative cross-section for the Silver Meadow neighborhood with our concept for the retaining wall, berm and barrier fence/ noiscwall. r However we understand that the Department is working with the Railroad with the hope of placing the Many of the citizens have expressed preferences for the use of a berm for t te Long Uke report has suggested a accommodation of these wishes may be practical it is also desirable. railroad track centerline. MiVDOT (and the city) are and will continue providing ample oppo ty input into the decisionmaking process. r Mr. Edward J. Callahan, Chair Page 3 May 18.1998 D. To a considerable extent, the retaining wall/barrier problem on the north side is identical and Orono opinions about it are identical. But a major portion of the north side faces the business district ofLong Lake and we assume that the opinions and wishes of Long Lake in that regard will be receiving considerable attention from the Department. The suggestions of that City in their recent report and in connection with the barriers seems sensible. I believe this refers to the request to reflect noise preferentially toward the north side of the corridor from Brown Road to Willow Drive. Mn/DOT ’s response was that this is consistent with Federal and State noise policy and Mn/DOT will attempt to meet this request. 3. Trails We oppose the concept of a trail on the south side of the newly aligned railroad on the portion of the corridor easterly of the Fleming Addition. The City is concerned about minimizing the impact of the, Highway 12 project on the wetlands in the area. If a trail requires additional space, the wetland impacts would be increased. Also, the trail would be in the now very much reduced baefyard areas of the residential properties, requiring additional condemnation. It is strongly opposed by the citizens of the area. Mn/DOT is not developing this trail as a part of our project. 4 Brown Road Bridge Although both ends of this bridge are technically in the City of Long Lake, the southerly end is a major entrance to Orono. Ws believe, that serious consideration should be given to whether there is a need for side M alks on both sides of the bridge, and to the lighting proposal on the bridge. While we see that the proposed construction of the City Hall and the Fire Station immediately on the south side of the new corridor will be likely to increase greatly the lighting on the south side around those public buildings, and see that for that reason the lighting on the bridge will not necessarily add a great amount of additional intrusive lighting into a neighborhood which is presently private and residential, it does seem that it might be a good idea to keep the intrusion of the lights as limited as possible, i.e. decorative. The corridor, itself, after all makes a complete separation between the actual business district of Long Lake and the residential area, to the south. Mn/DOT ’s understanding is that the lighting proposed by the City of Long Lake for the bridge is decorative. Mn/DOT has agreed to provide sidewalks on both sides of the bridge because sidewalks to exist on both sides of Brown Road at the railroad crossing today. 5. Willow Drive Bridge This bridge is essentially on the town line between Orono and Long Lake and no construction of public buildings is proposed in this location on the south side of 'the track, or on the north side for that matter. So our objection to lighting of that bridge is considerably stronger and the necessity of more than one side walk is also much less apparent. Your concerns are noted, we will insure this becomes a topic for the Design Review Committee. Mr. Edward J. Callahan. Chair Page 4 May 18, 1998 6.Emergency Vehicle Accexx On the subject of the ff illow Drive Bridge area, the placing of an emergency vehicle access at or about this point in the corridor has received serious consideration. We believe that the consideration should continue and that, unless compelling reasons are advanced, the proposed access should he abandoned. Objections to an emergency access ramp include the cost and feasibility of constructing a ramp at that location, the problems of maneuverability of fire vehicles from the ramp to the roadway in both directions, and the problems of acquiring additional right-of-way for the ramp. The Orono Police Department has indicated that police emergency response to the new highway would be adequately provided by access at each end of the roadway (at each of the interchanges). The proposed County Road 6/Highway 12 interchange design includes this movement. The proposed Wayzata Boulevard/Highway 12 interchange design does not currently include this movement. The City of Orono has requested Mn/DOTpursue the inclusion of an emergency vehicle access ramp at this interchange to enable emergency vehicles to enter west bound new Highway 12 at approximately the current location of the Wayzata Public Works facility. Your concerns are noted and will be addressed in the development of this project. 7. No Additional Points of Access to New Highway \2 iVhile we are discussing the Willow Drive bridge area, we wish to repeat Orono's rejection of any exit, interchange, entrance, or anything similar at that location for the general public. Orono's concept of the agreement to the current corridor was dial when traffic entered at the Wayzata interchange, it would be on the new highway without the possibility of e.xiting until it reached the intersection of 6 and 12. And no additional traffic could intrude. The prohibition of access points is a key factor in the effective functioning of the roadway, and in protecting the residential neighborhoods along the north/south roadways. Mn/DOT is generally opposed to any additional access along this corridor. Your points about impacts xo adjacent neighborhoods are well taken. The proposal to add an exit ramp at Willow has been around for some time and Mn/DOT is gathering traffic forecast information. However, Mn/DOT has not been asked to consider any such proposal, and we will not unless specifically asked by the City of Long Lake. 8.Luce Line Bridge Little discussion about the Luce Line Bridge over the new corridor has occurred. We believe additional discussion is necessary. There have been queries concerning preserving the current bridge "desi^ " so that the aesthetic integrity of the trail be preserved. The bridge will have to be reconstructed and lengthened, however. Further, we believe provisions for safe passage among walkers, bikers, and horse riders across the lengthened bridge still need to be clearly provided for. Increased high ipeed hiker traffic on the trail is already causing difficult safe passing along the trail and, particularly, the bridges. Your points are well taken, Mn/DOT will insure that the DNR (the Lucs Line Trail owner) is aware of your concerns as we develop plans for the replacement bridge. 9. West Interchange The Department has submitted drawings of a proposed preliminary design for the interchange at 6 and 12 which have been approved in concept by the City Council although they have some concerns and suggestions for improvement. These include the following: r Mr. Edward J. Callahan, Chair Pages May 18,1998 A. Provide a median barrier at the location of the acceleration lane for traffic from east bound County Road 6 merging with east bound new Highway 12 traffic. This is an important safety feature on this two lane roadway to prevent east bound new Highway 12 traffic from mistakenly moving into the west bound traffic lane when traffic is merging. Median barrier is being incorporated into the design as requested. B Provide a free right turn at the intersection of County Road 6 and new Highway 12 for traffic flowing from east bound County Road 6 to east bound new Highway 12. Mn/DOT is investigating this change. Because the widening required for a free-right-tum- lane will be largely on the County Road 6 bridge over the BNSF railroad, this free-right-tum- lane may be cost prohibited. C. Provide a free right turn and an acceleration lane for traffic coming off the loop from west bound Highway 12 to go west on County Road 6. Given the close proximity of the intersection of the south ramps and County Road 6 an acceleration lane is not advisable. Even without the requested free-right-tum and acceleration lane, the operation of the north ramp intersection in the year 2015 is forecast at a Level-of- Service B, which is quite high. D. Provide for proper alignment of all necessary lanes to serve all traffic movements at the intersection of County Road 6 and Old Highway 12. The proposed layout has been changed to include turn lanes for all movements. 10. Independent Noise and Vibration Study In recent neighborhood meetings, concern is escalating regarding the potential noise and vibration increase that will result from a corridor that will include, not only car and truck traffic, but more, faster, heavier, longer, and taller trains. Some citizens are already reporting intolerable increases in vibrations and noise, due to increased train traffic. Tney, and we, are wondering ifMNDOT truly has a handle on what will be created in this new corridor. Therefore, we are strongly in favor of having independent studies made on this issue. These studies should include a nationwide search for similar existing corridor configurations, and tests conducted along these corridors to determine the actual sound and vibration impact on the environment and livability, as well as information regarding the most effective methods of mitigating the noise and vibration impacts. Our studies and monitoring are continuing. If the city has additional sites they would like monitored please let me know. If when we publi-h our Environmental Assessment, the issues are r'»t resolved to the cities satisfaction. I’d entourage th"^ city to make comments to that effect. Further studies can be initiated at that time. Sincerely, Tom O’Keefe, P.E. Preliminary Design Engineer Ptvmomh/W»yMtWOfonoa.ong Uk> Sun^^ilorAlVtdn^sdav. NAay 13. t998 Is the future of Wayzata determined by past events? j By Thomas Jeffreys Gum CoM*v«si R^rnt ncwB coverafte of 20 er.l and mori» property tax *ncrease& In Wayzaln has caused many to wonde. whore our toAm is headed, and wno will ho part of its future. To look ahead In where Wayzata will be in 10 to 15 years, we need to start with the thrre most in- Puential events in Wayzata's last 50 years • The 1991 widening of Highway 12 from Wayzata to Minneapolis, making Wayzata an easily accessible part of the metro area thereby raising demand for Wayzata homes and ofTices. • The 1986 Wayzata City Council vot ing 3*2 to allow the 445 lake .Street three- story oflice building to be built where re tailing activities were doing well. • T^e 19.^2 Wayzata City Council re- ctMving money from Hennepin County for parking spaces token to widen Lake Street (os County Rond 15) nd not ac quiring replacement parking lot land with that money. The.se three major events occurred during the time the typical one-car sub urban family grew to be a three-car fam ily. and while Pljfmouth, Orono and Med ina went from rural to uparn.'e residen tial, making for more cars, and more vis its. to downtown Wayzata. During this time period Woyzata ’s willingness to convert retail to office use has not gone unnoticed, creating demand from office developers on non-office prop erties. and i.M followed by even greater de mand for upscale, clane-in homes as the cycle repeats. When this intensified use of our downtown is met by a reluctance of It is now clear a lot of damage done to Wayzata from buildings approved by the City Council during 1986 to 1995; we are paying for it in the view of our cityscape, the loss of the view we had at our library/city hall, the loss of many charming downtown shops and now in our property taxes. city government to provide parking for the retailers who remain, the result is re tailers who are less accessible for their customers (customers arrive in the city later each morning than do office em ployees). and consequently cannot pay aa much in rent aa do offices Sine# 445 like office buildings can be built i 'jail a story up from street level (not relod friendly), over n hnlf iindorground guriige to pro vide most of the required by-city parking, must we expect to see more of these going up where retailors arc today? The Hennepin County tax assessor ap parently has taken the 445 style ofbuild- ing as their definition of the highest and best use which they must apply (by state law) to each property. When they see a one-story retail shop along Lake Street in Wayzata, they appraise it as a site for a 445-type building and it gets taxed on its potential rather than its present use. The assessor can justify this by saying the city of WayzaU has approved this type of office building in other retail areas, so this should he the standard for all retail Wayzata The resulting high cost of prop erty taxes for the existing retail tenant combin-d with limited parking for cus tomers ull but insure these retailers will leave, ^-erhups putting on pressure to ex pand Colonial Square. Then we gat more offices for downtown Wayzata. just as the assessor forecast. Another result is i****ng home prices, as these new office workers in Ws'-zata are often the best and brightest in Jieir company, and were transferred to Wayza ta as a reward for job performance. Soon enough, they want a home in Wayzata. putti'ig more upward pressure on home prices: rising sales in turn cause evigting residents to get higher tax bills from the same H«;nnepin County Assessor bring ing their hrme up to this new ma/ket value. Thus, the recently enacted dty of Wayzata ordinance to prohibit combining residential lots attempting to prevent the construction of a monster home where two modest family homes formerly exist ed did not protect anyone from getting a higher Ux bill The .is.se.s.sor already has the Arleigh Street Standard to apply to resident**»l areas near oftices* four years ag i the c converted a residciit:al street into a park- 1 ing lot for the Medical Center This allows * the assessor to say the city can upvalue ; other homes near commercial areas and * they ought to now be Uxtd on their sim ilar potential Is this type of progress unavoidable? Are all these results of the three forces cited above ineviUble? Who wtni from these higher taxes? What can citizens do? The path of progress can he changed. WayzaU can save its downtown by becom ing retail friendly. If 50th and France can thrive as a retml area just 16 blocks from Southdale. then so can downtown Wayza- U. Edina built 812 parking places in three ramps nidden behind the stores. IfWayza- U can build a smaller Mill Street ramp at no cost to homeowners, and it saved down town WayzaU from Incoming an office park by the lake, then e\*eryone wins ex cept the county assessor and his pnncipal beneficianes, the Hennepin County bud get and the Ptymo ’ith-WsylsU school dis trict (11.5 percent of the distnct s property t®x revenues come from WsyzaU. but onlv 6 percent oi the students do). It is now clear a lot of damage was done to WayzaU from buildings approved by the City Council dunng 1986 U 1995; we are paying for it in the view of our cityscape, the loss of the view we had at our hbrary/city hall, the loss of many charming downtown shops and now in our property taxes. We can make a small sUrt toward reversing some of this dam age if we can get rcUilini; back inU the space the aty allowed offievs lo Uke from retail shops 10 years avo Downtown Wayzata should be mure than a major revenue stream for government budgets. Thomas Jeffreys ts a former Wayzata res ident. n saving violets: Reader questions Harrington project By Nanqf Bemeking OutHCoUnrot A few years ago, a man from a lawn care company was soliciting business in our neighborhood. He stopped at our house to vrge us to improve our turf by buying his servires. Even though 1 assured him that we didn i believe in using chemicals on our yard, he insisted upon doing an estimate Later, when I retrieved the estimate from our doorknob, I gnmaced, In his zeal lo moke money, the turf builder promised U do many things, including eliminating the violets in our yard. \Vhat the lawn man didn't know was that when I was a child, I had a kitchen garden next lo .ur back door In it I grow strawbernes and violeU. I have never stopped loving the delicaU little spnng blooms with their heart-shaped leaves. When I moved to WayzaU I began col- lectmif violets. Friends have shared the .noro common varieties from their yards, and I have purchased rarer species from wildftower nursenes around the sUte. Now this man wanted to spray his poison and kill them To him, my violets were a blight, an opportunity U make money. To me and to others who watch them bloom each spnng. their delightful diversity and sweet simplicity are signs of a good life. I was reminded of the lawn care fellow when I md developer PeUr Harrington's comment about the 700 block of Wayzata’s Rice Street: *Appearance- wise. the project will replace a blighted area with a condominium community that will hlend in with the Widslen prop erties.” iSun Snihr Airil 29) Harnngton ..^mi his partners in Bayp^.t Properties see an oppor*.unity to m&k*> mone; b/ building more thon 50 conc^ miniuma on this block, whicn curreiiily is home lo several delightfully diverse single family homes In 19/4, os a member of the Housing Task Force appointed by the Wayzata City Council. I participated in a study of the housing stock of Wayzata. One of the conclu.sion.s reached in that study was that if WayzaU wanted to remain a com munity with a small-Unrn horacter. it was essential to preserve the small, old single family homes, homes which were far more affordable than the newer hous • es in surrounding suburbs. WayzaU has always had 'arge esUtes for wealthier citizens, but it was the smaller homes to which the city employees. Uachers. li- branans. postal workers, volunteer fire fighters and others with more modest in comes looked for a place to call home. The study recognized that the often celebrat ed charm of WayzaU was due. not to cute storefronts, but to the diversity of hous- t.ng in Wayzata that enables people of dif fering income levels to reside here. I VIOLETS: To Next Pigej Th^ fmest Lighting and Acccssnricj for your home Ltirgcu Sclvctifin nf LiruLcal>c Lighting m Minnesoid LIGHTING The Twin Cities premier lighting showroom! COME GOLF Crow No waiiinf II MuicItmvin tCrow Rivrr Cotinoy Hub The f»S2n y.wd IX hn*c jtnlf crxirv. *iih gtn^r^ of mjiwrc • Ifcct luth fai/wayt ami ihk peer- wilt chjilenze .my fnlfcf Rairti 71 2 hv ihe Mirmeio»a G»»lf Atuxiaiiim. ihe ^ COMCK has an eicelleni PCA Golf Pmfevtmnal. grwJ ^ crew and clubhnvvr staff • Year rnumi Ranqtiet Reception A Mf-etmf Facilmci • Pro Shop • Raeoueittall Cemm • Bar. Resiawara • Junior Membenhtp Availahle • Dnvint Ranze open lo the public New l.sl Year Trial Offer $C/1A or U5 M2 in Stariribune Neighbors of country club in Orono teed off over access road By Mark Brunswick Star Tribune Staff Writer This certainly isn’t a case of the hoi vs. the polloi. More like the hoily against tite toity. Concerned about access to County Rd. 15 during extended road construction, the Woodhill Country Club in Orono recently opened a less-traveled gravel road for its members, who have included some of the metro area’s most famous families — the Rillsburys, the Daytons and tloncywell ’s Sweatt family. Problem is. the new gravel entrance is at the end of Woodhill Avenue, home to $700,000 properties and some irritated neigh bors accustonic*d to tin* tranquility of wooded lots and the safety of a dead-end street. Residents say the country club began work on the gravel road without obtaining the proper permits. Officials at the country club, whose parking lot is often lined with four-wheel-drive vehicles designed to navi gate the Screngeti. say the current access road off County Rd. 15 is too difficult to drive on and is unsafe. The club, which has been operating since 1917, has been ordered not to con tinue construction of the gravel road until the city decides a course of action. On Tues day, the City Council took on the debate but declined to make a decision, leaving club officials and neighborhood residents shak ing their heads afterward. The issue sprung up overnight for son Woodhill Avenue resident Shelly Storch sa she left her home one morning and whi she returned trees had been cleared, gra^ laid and the access road had been cot pleted. Turn to ROAD on B4 fon — Club officials say no permit was needec since the road already existed. • * f f- PACE84(W)-STARTUIBUNE RQAD^ffiBl Residents say club began work without right permits She called City Hall to inquire about the work. The city, appar ently, was unaware of the coun try club’s plans. Orono ’s com prehensive plan prohibits a com mercial property from dumping its traffic unto a residential street. “We are being railroaded by a group of people who are used to taking what they want,’’ Storch said. “If 1 can’t build a deck on my house without a permit in this town, they can’t build a road without a permit, no matter who they are.” Officials of the country club say that no permits were needed because they cleared an existing road. The road had been used until 1980 but was closed after complaints about vandalism to the club. In a letter to the City Council, club president Ned Dayton said the club would agree to close the access road between 8 p.m. and 7 a.m. and limit speeds to 10 miles per hour. The club said the road would be open only through Nov. 1. “We are looking at it strictly as a safety issue for our members," Dayton told the council Tuesday. “We think this is a question of which is more at risk, a large number of elderly passengers on County Road 15 or is it a .safety i.ssue of a number of kids who arc situated above us?” Countered Woodhill Avenue resident Charles Mailc: "Good neighbors don’t take actions tiiat reduce the property valuei of their neighbors. Good neighbors don't take actions that endanger the safety of their neighbors’ children." While the closest houses on Woodhill Avenue arc about 100 feet from the access road, resi dents say they are concerned about safety from cars traveling downhill at high speeds, partic ularly after late-night parties. Influential neighbor The issue has become heated, with rumors afoot of elected offi cials being invited up to the club house — with its bleached oak Woodhi Av. ll*|i @ Orono ' - Woodhi Rd Woyzata FerndaleRd Stdf TrOune map by Jane Frictimann woodwork and Chesterfield sofas — to be dined and discreetly ofl'ered the club’s side of the story. Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, in fact, addressed the infiuence of the club by assuring those in the audience of Tuesday’s City Council meeting that he hail been in the club only once — for a retirement partyand that he had no friends or family who arc members. He did praise the club, however, as a “great corporate citizen in the community.”- "My concerns arc for (the) Woodhill [club]. I want to a.ssurc them that we arc not going to leave them high and drj' one way or another,” he said. With two members of the five- member council unavailable to vote, the council recommended that the city administrator work to lower the speed limit along County Rd. 15, talk to Hennepin County officials about improving the barriers that might block sightlincs at the Woodhill Road intersection, and consider work ing with the club to hire an off duty Orono police officer to con trol traffic, particularly during weekday rush hour. Club j)resi dent Da>lon said the club would consider the options but proba bly would return to the council if conditions don’t improve. Before the issue came to a close. Council Member Richard Flint addressed the contingent from the club: “Everyone knows you could have packed this place with all kinds of people — but you didn’t. 1 want to thank you for that.” Randy Johnson CHAIR oV*- PHONE: 6I2-34I-7MS FAX:6l2-34l-5295 1DD:34P-770I '^'vTso Board of Hennepin C ounty commissioners A-2400 G overnment Center MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 65487-0840 May 19, 1998 ,! 6 Gabriel Jabbour Mayor City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55323 Dear Mayor Jabbour: On May 12, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners approved the 1998 Hennepin County Consolidated Plan. The plan has been submitted to HUD for consideration. This plan includes activities proposed by the cities of Orono and Spring Park in the amount of 3128,800 to provide targeted rehabilitation assistance to eligible homeowners in the Navarre neighborhood. Thai^ you for your involvement in this effort and for your contribution in addressing the housing and community development needs of low-income residents of Hennepin County. Sincerely, Randy Johnson, Chair Hennepin County Board of Commissioners E-MAIL ADDRESS; rMkfv.ifthnann^m h— i WEBPACZ: hmiV^nmn- rn mn iiiAoiliitl blml PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER J r iiiciVEsr May 12. 1998 To: U S WEST Business Customers , Re: Implementation of 612/651 Area Code Split nn Anril 15 1998 the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission issued its final order reoardlne fhe "612' area code split. The Commission has ordered the area code split to foUow municipal boundaries. The 612 area code will continue to serve customers located in Min^neapolis and the communities of Apple Valley, Burnsville, Columbia Heights, Fridley. Lakeville, Mounds View, Richfield and other communities to the west. The 651 area code will serve St. Paul and the communities of Arden Hills. Eagan Forest Ste Fartrtngt^ Ro^ville, Lindslrom, Lino Lakes, Mendota Heighls, New Bnghlon North Branch Rosemount, Shoreview and other communities to the east -- me udmg Red Wing and Wabasha. If your business has locations m these communities, the area code for W telephone numbers at those locations should be changed to 651. ^nua.^Vo."l9l! )rable°o%'^ch you unless [hey use the appropriate area code. SSfrt.. .... renroerammed to recognize the new area code and comply with the Commission s area code spMt along municipal boundary lines. Your business may also face issues if your tllecommunications system serves locations on both sides of the area code split. Business customers in the new area code will also need to update stationery. busineM cards labels signs, advertisements, promotional items, brochures, catatogs and other ?ems\hat ^'ow a telephone number You should also take steps to nobly customers, clients and vendors of the new area code and tell them they may need to update or reprogram their telephone equipment. If unii have auestions reearding this letter or the implementation of the area code split, plLse contact your U S WEST sales representative or the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. MN NPA BUS 0S98 WWW uswest com r CTEV.COMMUNICATIONS.MEDIA DIVISION DOCUMEHT COMMUNICATIONS jmtk •.inW xnaniraitoi^ M'V ?. 9^ •«' • Q>M 1 WWUHWMIM womaak jiot mkhvi 5i\3t r *«at W9j I Jl<' ------BBW*. -—H <«---!?S— ^r- i« «•!«>» i« ..H tw«o *«>..•- 11 I