Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-1998 Council PacketCOUNCIL MEETING JUN 8 1998 AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JUNE 8,1 ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA .H I i (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL 6:30 p.m. 1. Shoreline/Heritage and Edgewood Hills Sewer Project A. Declare Cost to be Assessed and Order Preparation of Proposed Assessment - Resolution B. Reschedule Assessment Hearing - Resolution ! ( ! ! ; i ; ! ( ( ! I * 6:45 p.m. 2. Saga Hill Park Access Information Meeting 3. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES ♦ 4. Regular Meelmi^ of May 26, 1998 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Sandy Smith, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 5. #2308 Brook Park Realty, 3760 Shoreline Drive - PRD & Class III Preliminary Subdivision 6. #2339 Jim Render, 1365 Tonkawa Road - Final Plat Approval - Resolution 7. #2340 Robert Wade, 3280/3290 North Shore Drive - Preliminary Plat Approval - Resolution 8. #2341 Dan Anderson, 905 Old Crystal Bay Road South - Final Plat Approval > Resolution 9. #2355 Susan & Douglas Van Moorlehem & Ken Tumham, 4490 Watertown Road - Preliminary Plat Approval - Resolution 10. #2363 William Bockmann, 1 130 Loma Linda Avenue - Variances - Resolution 11 . #2366 Peter Lanpher, 1 359 Park Drive - Variances • Resolution 12. #2372 Barry Haglund, 4590 North Arm Drive West - Preliminary Plat Approval - Resolution 13. #2373 Steve Beck. 2795 Shadywood Road - Variance - Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER REPORT 14. Safe Assure Safety Program AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1998,6:30 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA A CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 15. City Assessor’s Contract 16. Request for Contribution to Maple Plain Fire Department for the Purchase of an IRIS Rescue Mask 17. Multi-City Planning for Skateboard Park 18. Request for Payment - Long Lake Fire Department - Purchase of New Fire Vehicle 19. Extend Leave of Absence for Mark Thornton 20. Step Adjustment - Kris Knollenberg , 21. Special Assessment Deferral Renewal - Reapplication from Stubbs Bay Sanitary Sewer Project - Resolution I CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT ♦ 22. LICENSES * 23. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 1998 06/03 - Highway 12 Design Review Committee, 5:30 p.m. 06/06 - Leaf and Grass Disposal, 8:00 a.m. - Noon 06/08 - Assessment Hearing for Shoreline/Heritage and Edgewood Hills Sewer Project, 6.30 p.m. 06/08 - Council Meeting, 6:30 p.m. 06/09 - Highway 12 Informational Meeting, 6:30 p.m. 06/15 - Planning Commission Meeting, 6:30 p.m. 06/22 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 07/03 - Holiday 07/06 - Park Commission Meeting, 7:15 p.m. 07/08 - Highway 12 Design Review Committee, 5:30 p.m. 07/13 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 07/20 - Planning Commission Meeting, 6:30 p.m. 07/72 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. ♦ ' Public A ttendance meeting D ate v ! ‘i nS C ouncil □ Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other STfoORMAtiON., mmMmmiimsmmmm-.. mmssM. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER C- £. f T Ti. . L, Ch^ldSL^.^^ / i-9 'u/i< 'c/U ^ >r'/ I ( //L/y^ ^ \Q (^*7 V,N^.^^V-v Lc V-tCZ ^✓"Ci *x HtcM^ ^E^IClxOi n. e.. J.//;// I osft? >A^<.Z362> (1^0 ^<^HA Ll U b Av/t I « 8. CTTJX OA in. /K/<?/S /I d [I 'he ^Cy UJpC^ r^cxA-v 4/c/9^ UJ- M //,'/! 11.^ jkS^OV.vMv^ LJVryvx *nrcv-V»>-^{ f 5>j^ V\IU 12. ^>c<A-S kJL^ ^ 14. 15.. MU*M TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator May 15,1998 COUNCIL JUN 8 1998 J SUBJECT: Draft Work Plan for the Update of the City ’s Comprehensive Plan This memo is to provide a general guide to the Council for working through the process of updating the City's Comprehensive Plan. The memo includes a listing of the key issues related to each element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and potential action steps related to each issue. The Council may want to prioritize and determine the process and timeline for addressing each of the elements and issues. A number of issues require information and analysis, either by staff or by a consultant, to assist the Council in its decision making. The land use element and issues are listed first because the land use issues need to be addressed before issues related to other elements of the Comprehensive Plan can be addressed. For example, the types of land use plan for Highway 12 need to be determined before the amount of sewer capacity needed in the Hi^way 12 area can be determined. I.Land Use A. Clarify the future land use in the area on the north side of Highway 12 between Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road. 1.Commercial area. a. Clarify/confirm "commercial" land use as office vs. retail. b. Actions. 1) Obtain input from the property owners in the area. 2) Obtain market information regarding the feasibility of office development. 3) Clarify the City of Long Lake's plans regarding the redevelopment of both its industrial area and its downtown area. Draft Work Plan for the Update of the City's Comprehensive Plan May 15, 1998 Page 7 b. Actions. 1) Obtain input from the property owner. 2) Obtain market information related to the feasibility of, and , the need for, various housing types in this area. B. Southwest Quadrant of Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12 1. Determine future land use. 1 - ' -■ ■- . 6-V *! 4 ■ a.Light industrial. f ; ■ ip J \ b.Residential. ■ Tv '■'Av 1) Single family with a density greater than 2 acres. Iv4..2) Medium density residential. V . * •^ 1- :! M' ' : 2. Actions. a.Market analysis regarding the feasibility of light industrial Ip ; ■;development. i b.Obtain input from the property owners and from adjacent/affected property owners. V . *» V ^c.Market analysis including a needs analysis of various housing types .ik ■■■jf-in this area. V d.Review potential light industrial zoning district regulations to determine the level of control available to the Council in relation to light industrial development. C. Development in the rural area. 1. 2. Confirm the City’s main goals of protecting Lake Minnetonka and preserving the City's natural open rural character. Review whether there are housing options that can be done at current rural density that can better preserve the City's natural open rural character and that can better meet projected housing needs. V ‘ r: f Draft Work Plan for the Update of the City's Comprehensive Plan May 15,1998 Page 3 3.Actions. a. Obtain a housing market study and needs analysis that identifies the types of housing that will be demanded in Orono's rural area in the future. D. Lakeshore development/redevelopment. 1. Clarify the Council's vision and identify and prioritize the Council's objectives in relation to lakeshore development. a. Some objectives are as follows: 1) Protection of Lake Minnetonka. 2) Preservation of the current extent of the natural open uncrowded character of the shoreline (minimize the massing of houses as viewed from the lake). b. Maintain a range of lot and house sizes. c. Protect existing homes from negative impacts of development/ redevelopment, i.e. height and massing of new houses. £. Navarre commercial area. 1. Develop a vision and objectives related to the future of the Navarre commercial area. a. Clarify/determine the scale and character of commercial development desired. 2.Action. II. a. Obtain input fi-om the Navarre commercial area business/property owners regardii^ their views of the future of the Navarre commercial area. Housing. Determine whether there are opportunities for the City to address life cycle housing needs. A. There are three potential areas for different housing options. Draft Work Plan for the Update of the City's Comprehensive Plan May 15. 1998 Page 4 1. 3. The area north of the Highway 12 commercial area, cunently guided for medium density residential development. 2. The southwest quadrant of Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road. The marina areas. B. Action. 1.Obtain a housing market analysis/needs assessment to assist the Council in determining the types of housing tliat would meet the City's life cycle housing needs and would be economically feasible. HI. Sewer Plan. A. B. The 1987 Comprehensive Plan Amendment included a planned increase to sewer capacity. This increase will occur as part of the Highway 12 upgrade project. 1.The plan for increasing sewer capacity is to eliminate the three City sewer trunk line and increase the capacity of the Metro interceptor to serve the development planned for the Highway 12 area. a.The sewer capacity needed will be based on the types of land uses planned in the Highway 12 area. (See I. Land Use) Sewer policy issues. The City has received approval from the Metropolitan Council to extend sewer to "urban clusters" within the rural area, and the City is moving fairly rapidly to accomplish this. The City has received requests from neighborhoods with 2 acre density and non-conforming septic systems that are adjacent or in close proximity to a sewer line for sewer versus replacing septic systems. 1. 2. 3. Should the City extend sewer to existing rural subdivisions (with non- conforming septic systems) that are adjacent to sewer? Should the City allow the extension of sewer to new subdivisions that are in close proximity to sewer? Several Orono residents with properties in (hono's rural area that are adjacent either to the city of Long Lake or the city of Plymouth have proposed obtaining sewer service from the adjacent city. Staff has indicated this would be contrary to City policy. % -•# Draft Work Plan for the Update of the City's Comprehensive Plan May 15, 1998 Page 5 4. The City needs to ensure it can maintain control of density once sewer is made available. IV. Transportation. A. The transportation element of the current Comprehensive Plan focuses on pulling traffic away from County Road 15 to McCulley Road and Highway 12. The proposed upgrade of Highway 12 accomplishes this goal. 1. The proposed Highway 12 upgrade addresses a number of transportation issues. Sf. It c. Pulls traffic away from County Road 15. The County Road 6 overpass at Highway 12 improves east/west traffic flow on the north side of the City. The proposed new Highway 12 addresses the main east/west traffic flow problem. :ir. 2.Local traffic movement. i# a. Review the transportation system within Orono to determine if all local traffic needs are met. 1) Moving local traffic east and west of downtown Long Lake. 2) Impact of closing Stubbs Bay Road at Highway 12. 3) Impact of closing Townline Road at Highway 12. 4) Analysis regarding the request to cul-de-sac Orchard Park Road. V- '.--ir - M- Plan for "old" Highway 12. a.Local circulation. b. Significant east/west transportation route. c."Main Street". 3 Draft Work Plan for the Update of the City's Comprehensive Plan May 15, 1998 Page 6 V. Surface Water Management Plan A. Include analysis regarding the importance of rural development density to protecting Lake Minnetonka, both in terms of water quality and water quantity. B. The City needs to determine if there are to be any significant changes from the current land use plan that would affect the density of development, prior to finalizing the SWMP (this is particularly the case in the Highway 12 area) >v: ..-f C. Coordinate the City's surface water planning efforts with the MCWD. D. Coordinate Highway 12 area stormwater planning with Mn/DOT and Long Lake. VI. Parks, Open Space, and Trails. The parks element needs to reflect the resolution adopted by the City Council indicating the intent to acquiie additional land for parks and open space. The parks element also needs to include updated language regarding park dedication. '■ ■■ i DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator June 5,1998 OOUNCUIEETMQ JUN 8 1998 CnVOFORONO SUBJECT; Report from Chief Cheswick Regarding the Storm of May 15,1998 Attached is a memo from Chief Cheswick outlining the emergency response to the storm of May 15, 1998 and recommending actions needed to be better prepared for the next emergency situation. Chief Cheswick wUl attend the June 22 Council meeting to provide a verbal report. If there is additional information the Council would like Chief Cheswick to provide at the June 22 meetmg, please let me know. '.f ■k, PDsrroRM Date:June 3. 1998 To:Members of the Orono City Council From:Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police Subject:Storm of May 15, 1998 emergency team. This provided not only fire management, but communication with all fire departments in our jurisdiction. Hennepin County Emergency Preparedness Director Don Anderson was called to the Orono EOC which provided an avenue for assistance and resources such as emergency lights and barricades. Telephone contact and radio communications were established with Hennepin County Water Patrol for additional personnel and assistance with lake area concerns. As a picture of the affected areas became more clear, we were able to see where additional resources were needed. The following are recommendations for addressing most of these concerns: ► The additional need for two emergency sirens - Watertown Road and McCulley Road - area of Crystal Bay A representative from Public Works is needed in the EOC A contact person from City Administrative staff or Finance Department who can release funds when needed for emergency purchase of equipment, personnel needs (food, clothing, etc.) Additional radio equipment for communications (cell phones would not work) Determine "chain of command" within Public Works if director or assistant director not available (On-call supervisor?) Have predetermined brush sites ready in advance, to be reviewed on a yearly basis. Determine evacuation plan from the Council chambers in case of severe storm during a meeting. Install additional telephone lines and telephones in the EOC. Establish a "Hot Line" on a separate phone number for citizens to call in for information and/or complaints. (Recorded Message) Establish a Public Works equipment list to be maintained within Police Department for use within EOC (vehicles, barricades, warning lights, «tc.) Maintain a supply of warning lights, barricades, and portable stop signs A listing of all city employees to include address, telephone number, pager number (if available) and job position. r OOUNCLMEETINQ CITY OF ORONO NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING JUN B 1998 CRY OF ORONO The Orono City Council will hold an informational meeting at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 9, 1998 at the Orono CouncU Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway. The purpose of this meeting is to provide information regarding the preliminary design of new Highway 12, particularly as it relates to access to the Highway 12 commercial area. /s/ Linda S. Vee City Clerk Posted at: CityHaU Crystal Bay Post Office Long Lake Post OfiBce Navarre Post Office ■ft REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 8. 1998 ITEM NO.: | Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Item Description: Assessment Hearing for Edgewood Hills and Shoreline/Heritage Sanitary Sewer Project ;jUfi ST998 CITYOFOnOMO The assessment hearing for this project was based on the estimated project costs in the feasibility study. The project bids were opened Friday morning. The lowest bid received at $455,000 is $40,000 higher than the estimated cost in the feasibility study. The hearing has been canceled and the property owners were sent a letter Friday notifying them of the cancellation and need to schedule a new assessment hearing. Most of the cost increases were in the prices for directional boring of pipe. The estimated costs used for directional boring were based on discussions with boring contractors, and the prices for directional boring in the 1997 sewer projects. There are several factors that may have contributed to the increased boring costs. First is that the use of directional boring for gravity sanitary sewer is a new technology and contractors may have initially underestimated the difriculty in boring pipe at a specific grade. The other factor is that the directional boring contractors are all very busy. Even with the increased costs, directional boring is still more cost effective than open cut installation. Directional boring reduces the problems with access on dead end roads and results in substantially less restoration and loss of trees. The estimated assessment for the twenty units in the Shoreline/Heritage area will increase less than the Edgewood Hills assessment because the Shoreline area project has less directional boring. The estimated assessment increase for the Shoreline/Heritage area is from $19,100 to approximately $20,600. The estimated increase for the eight units in the Edgewood Hills area is from $21,140 to $24,140. This project had a large amount of directional boring. These numbers are preliminary as the bids will need to be tabulated to verify accuracy, and the cost increases prorated between the two project areas. Revised assessment costs will be presented at the Council meeting. Since the costs have increased from the assessment hearing notice, another assessment hearing will need to be scheduled and officially noticed. This requires publication in the newspaper a minimum of two weeks before the hearing date. The earliest possible hearing date is .Monday, June 29th. This is the fifth Monday of the month with no other regularly scheduled meetings. We are proposing an assessment hearing for 7:00 p.m. Monday, June 29th. The attached resolution scheduling the assessment hearing needs to be approved. The resolution ordering preparation of the proposed assessment also needs to be approved. The numbers need to be inserted in this resolution before approval by the Council. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of the resolution ordering preparation of the proposed assessment. The project cost numbers will need to be added before Council approval of the resolution Approval of the resolution scheduling an assessment hearing Monday, June 29th at 7:00 p.m. t;. 1. t If . f>.GlTYof ORONO Munld|Ml Offkcs StiHt Mints: 2750 Kalley Pntwty Orono, MN 55356 MtHIng Mdrttt: P.O. Box 66 Crystsl Bay, MN 55323*0066 June 5,1998 Dear Project Area Residents: Sanitary sewer project bids were received for the Edgewood Hills, and Shoreline/Heritage &i^* These bids were higher than anticipated which will result in increased project assessments. This requires scheduling and legally noticing a new assessment hearing. The assessment hearing scheduled for Monday, June 8,1998 has been cancelled. Notices for the new assessment hearing will be sent out the week of June 8th. The tentative date for this hearing is Monday, June 29th. This will need to be confirmed by the Council at the June 8th meeting. Revised assessment costs will be included in the assessment notice. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please contact us should you have any questions. Sincerelycv Gregory A. Gappa Director of Public Services GAG/ch cc: Tom Kellogg, Bonestroo Engineers Tetephoiie (612) 473-7357 • FAX 47341519 t A RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the improvement of sanitary sewer in the Edgewood Hills and Shoreline/Heritage areas and the estimated contract price for such improvement is $ and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvement amount to $ ___________ so that the total estimated cost of the improvement will be $ _____________________. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO, MINNESOTA: 1. The total cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $ 2.Assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1999, and shall bear interest at the rate of 8.0 per cent per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolution. 3.The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in the clerk s office for public inspection. 4.The Clerk shall upon completion of such proposed assessment, notify the Council thereof Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held June 8,1998, ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor I 1 4 1 V r A RESOLUTION FOR HEARmC ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT EDGEWOOD HILLS AND SHORELINE/HERITAGE AREA SANITARY SEWER WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council on June 8, 1998, the City Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of the Edgewood Hills and Shoreline/Heritage area sanitary sewer, and WHEREAS, the Clerk has notified the Council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in the Clerk's ofifice for public inspection. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO, MINNESOTA: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 29th day of June, 1998 in the Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. The clerk shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City, except that no interest may be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of the assessment. He may at anytime thereafter, pay to the City the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with the interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held June 8,1998. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk i C0UNCI-MEEnM3 jyW e 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO DATE: Junes, 1998 ITEM NO: ^ Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Rqx>rt Item Description: Saga Hill Park Access Options A condition placed on the City's sponsorship of the most recent grant application for acquisition of additional natural open space land in the Saga Hill area was that the issue of access to the pwk ^ resolved. There arc several potential options for providing access to the park area, each with advantages and disadvantages. The options are as follows. 1.Develop a road on the Garden Lane right-of-way that would provide vehicular access to a parking lot located on the park property. a. Advantages. 1) Uses existing right-of-way for the road and uses existing public land for the parking lot. b. Disadvantages. 1) 2) Requires the City to construct an expensive road, Changes the Garden Lane right-of-way from a narrow pedestrian trail to a public road. The construction of the road could encourage development of adjacent private properties in a way not desired by the City. 4) Requires the use of park land for the construction of a parking lot. c. Cost estimate for road: $100,000. 2. Use the existing 1 O' alleyway easement to provide access to the park, a. Advantages. 1) Uses existing public right-of-way. ' 1 •1 I r ' ■5f' f Request for Council Action continued Page 2 June S, 1998 Saga Hill Park Access Options_____ 3. Disadvantages. Unless the only access would be through the Valek property, this option would require the existing alleyway easement to be extended to the edge of the Church property to make a connection to a public right-of-way. 2) 3) It would be veiy diflScult to use the 10' easement for vehicular access. If the alleyway was used as a trail or roadway, it would substantially impact the useability of both the Valek property and the Church property. c. Cost estimate for road; $30,000. Reconfigure the access easement on the Church property to reduce its impact on the property and improve its useability as an access. There are two options for doing this. A.Relocate the easement to the eastern edge of the Church property with access to Tonkaview Lane, and enlarge the easement to provide a 50' right-of-way corridor fi’om Tonkaview Lane to the public park property to provide for vehicular access. Advantages. a) Substantially reduces the impact of the easement on the Church property. b) Provides a less expensive vehicular access to the park. Disadvantages. a) b) c) Requires the construction of a public roadway. Requires a new parking lot to be constructed. The new parking lot would require considerable space in the park. Cost estimate for road; $30,000. I . Request for Council Action continued Pages June S, 1998 S^a I£1I Park Access Options B. Expand the existing Church parking lot and provide a trail from the parking lot to the park area at a location that minimizes the impact on the Church property. 1) Advantages. a) Enables the construction of a trail into the park vs. a public roadway. b) Does not require a parking lot to be constructed on the park property. 2) Disadvantages. a) The parking lot would be a significant distance from the park facilities. b) An expanded parking lot on the Church property would have a significant impact on the Church property. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to provide direction regarding park access options to be further pursued. SAGAPAMC >2J r • 4. "—/'ll! r:^- •u •\1••11.••cfS^l / ^ MmpiTfpyn|g»^ w luww Vehicular Park Access Options _ / // V 030 V*Vvyvi J 4 / 1 ' i 1 V 1 O • 9 Jtioio.r^ llzo ^ 1029.5 X 1033.1 •TE/.E BLD6 xh 102 .2 xi3c;' PWST/W6 CIAUI2X PARHIW6 LOT X 1029.5 2 © X 1029.6 ZwBXIlo/, 3O\9PA05 X p J Jl--- —. P?/ ^/:d 4 W %1 Waiar | }1023.3 y 4 • ^ [• 1 1035.4 X 10< y X 1025.0 X 1024.6 V xk 000/N X 1029.6 1033.1 102 X 1029.5 1 /Watar V K 4 1023.3 a r 4 r* ^a f Vv r • '^2.8 U/lp£ R-OAlP X 1025.0 1024.8 1030.5 103:f //7/f /V ^ ^* 1 \ r 1/ ry \vAX 1024.S XVvw r f 06/0S/1993 07:20 6124725196 UAH niMEPFRGH PA'9E 01 SJune, 1998 To: Orono Ci ty Council Members Dear Council We understand the city of Orono is planning to make a city pork of the area at Tonka View and countv road 19. Some of the residents in the area seem to be less than enthusiastic about your plans As residents of the area, we want to offer you our full support for your plans. As do many area residents, we have small children and would welcome a nearby park for their enjoyment. We read that the plan is to make a park similar to the one at Stubbs Bay Road and the Luce Line Trail. That would be ideal, we believe, for the area on Saga Hill. Please know that although you always hear from those that oppose your plans, there are many, like us, who support your proposed park plans. Sincere regards. Marty and Nan Nimerfroh NIMEftFROH 999 WILDHURST TRAIL. ORONO. MN 5S364 (612)472-4944 FAX: (912)472-5196 r JUN-0T-98 SUN 01:13 PM Me I&h 6 1 24725663 Jjiffear Neighbors The City of Orono is proposing that the woods behind the large corner lot on County Rd 19 and Tonkaview Lane would be a great place for an actively scheduled little league ball field and playground. Your neighlwrs have some serious concerns. Some of those concerns are addressed below: 2, 3, 4, 3, 6. Location: The obscure location with virtually NO \isibility from any road around the proposed area. Traffic: This road would be expected to accommodate an additional 30 to 50 cars, all at the same time, three nights each week. (Coming and Going). There is, as you know, a sharp curve just south of the intersections with two nearly blind entrances from the two adjoining side streets. There is already traffic concerns without this proposed burden. Parking: No plans for adequate parking other than to share Fairview Covenant church’ parking lot which will safely hold only 20 cars at the very most, (where do you think the additional cars will park?) Wooded Open Space: The loss of valuable woodland, which is the last of it’s kind in this area of dense development. Also, the Saga Hill Preservation Society has worked so very hard to keep this land as opens space. bioise: Added noise, litter and a haven for out-of-sight/out-of-mind acti\itics(Iate night beer parties, bonfires). Currently, without calling attention to this area, wc have a small amount of this undesirable activity occurring. Now it is manageable. .A large out of sight park area will be a “Welcome” sign to undesirable dangerous situations and like activities. Condemnation: Last, but not least, the City of Orono may conduct condemnation proceedings against Fairview Covenant Church’ park area in order to fulfill their political desires. YOUR VOICE IS NEEDED**' PLE.ASE, ATEND THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY(JUNH 8) AT 6.45P.M.. AT THE CI IY HALL LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD AND HIGHWAY 12 LET YOUR CONCERNS 13E HEARD WHILE THE CITY A/^TSTILL BE LISTENING YOU MAY HAVE 01 HER CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PARK THAT ARE JUST AS IMPORTANT THAT MAY NOT BE MENTIONED HERE. (CUy of Oiuiio p!«one iiu'uber for directions to Ihcir facilities is 473-7357) P.02 T-yr-'**-ji I*" * V •'.v- ^ - • I J (ETj JUN-07-98 SUN 01:12 PM Me I s.h t6 1 24725SS3 P.0 1 COMMUNITY MEETING THVRSDA Y, JUNE 4™ w We are looking for community input regarding the city of Orono *s proposed park issue which directly affects each of us in this community. Orono desires to turn the 9-acre piece of land paralleling county rd. 19 into a ball field and recreation area. 14 This project will resemble the Bederwood Park at Stubbs Bay road and the Luce Line trail. The park will bring approximately 30 cars to the corner of county rd. 19 and Tonkaview three or more nights a week. If this issue concerns you or you have any kind of input in this community meeting, we are hoping that you will Join us on Thursday at 7:00 at Fairview Covenant church (1173 county rd. 191. Please come with an open mind and constructive ideas. Thank you, Your neighbors and friends COUNCILMEETV^ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING J U N 8 1998 MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 cmroFORONO ROLL The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor ^bnd Jabbour, Council Members Charles Kelley, Barbara Peterson and Richard Flint Council MembCT J. Diann Goetten was absent. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse City Attorney Tom Barrett, Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaf&on, Planner/Zoning Admimstrator Elizabeth Van Zomeren, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Engineer Tom Kellogg and Recorder Lin Vee. Mayor Jabbour called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (#1) CONSENT AGENDA Items 14, 16, 18, 20, 24 and 25 were added to the Consent Agenda. Kelley moved, Flint seconded, to appiove the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays APPROVAL OF MINUTES (*#2) RECONVENED BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING OF MAY 11,1998 Kelley moved, Flint seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Reconvened Board of Review Meeting of May 11, 1998. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#3) TOWNLINE ROAD INFORMATION MEETING OF MAY 11,1998 Kelley moved, Flint seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Townline Road Information Meeting of May 11, 1998. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#4) REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 11, 1998 Kelley moved, Flint seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting U May 11, 1998. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS (Follows Item #23) ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - LIZ HAWN, REPRESENTATIVE There were no Planning Commission comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mary Nicholl, 160 Smith Avenue, stated she was in favor of opening the Woodhill Golf Course access. She was imable to remain at the meeting until Item #21 would be discussed. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#5) #2308 BROOK PARK REALTY, 3760 SHORELINE DRIVE - PRD & CLASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION The applicant was not present. Moorse reported the applicants had requested a continuation of the review as they still have concerns about the ability to gain access to County Road 15. Barrett added that he had talked with the {q>plicant ’s attorney, Tim Keane, and they will continue to work on language regarding the County Road 15 access. Keane will provide a draft of the language as soon as available. Jabbour noted the City is not in a position to guarantee access but is encouraging access, and that Council was willing to act on the application at the current meeting. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application #2308 for Brook Park Realty at the 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. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#6) #2339 JIM RENDER, 1365 TONKAWA ROAD - FINAL PLAT APPROVAL The applicant was not present. Gaffron reported that the mylars for the subdivision were not available and requested tabling to the June 8 meeting. Gaffron confirmed there was no problem with deadline dates because the intent has been to approve the application. Peterson moved, Kelley seconded, to table Application #2339 for final plat approval for the property located at 1365 Tonkawa Road. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 1 i ' r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#7) ROBERT WAADE, 3280/3290 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL Mr. and Mrs. Waade were present. Gaffron explained that the proposal is for a conditional use permit for a duplex, a conditional use permit for grading within 5’ of the lot line for a berm, and a subdivision to create a lakeshore lot consisting of a back lot and a lot adjacent to the road proposed for duplex use. He noted the LR-lC-1 zoning district allows a duplex use within 200’ of commercial zoned property (Lakeside Marina to the west and portions of North Shore Marina on the east). Planning Commission recommended approval on a vote of 4 to 1. Lot 1 will be a lakeshore lot and meets the area and width standards. A variance is required for the proposed driveway which does not meet the 10’ setback from the west property line. Planning Commission recommended a policy be formalized that would allow the stormwater pond to be credited towards the extra 50% requirement for lot area in the back lot. Lot 2 is proposed for duplex use. Neither unit would have lake access. As a duplex, either one or both of the units must be rental units. The property is sewered. It is a comer lot surrounding a County lift station. By definition, the front side is the short side of the lot. The applicant is proposing that the east side, longer side, be considered the front so the lot would meet the width requirement. Outlot A is proposed as a 40’ wide private road with a 24’ paved road. It would serve an existing garage, three existing houses and the proposed three units. The City will require road and utility easements. Outlot B accesses the back lot. Three total units are served by driveways coming off of the outlot. Technically the code only allows two, therefore a variance is required for the third driveway. Outlot C is requested by Hennepin County for sight distance improvements. A plan showing how the area to be cut down should be submitted. A berm is proposed at the west property line which may be up to 5’ in height. If it is greater than 2-3’ as shown on the diagrams, additional review will be required. City sewer runs beneath the proposed berm and the City will require an easement over the sewer. It should be documented that sewer is beneath the berm and the City would have the right to disturb the berm and plantings to access the sewer. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#7) Robert Waade, 3280/3290 North Shore Drive - Preliminary Plat Approval - continued The following variances are required: Outlot A - proposed width = 40’, required = 50’ Outlot B - proposed width = 20’, required = 30’ - proposed driveway setback = O’, required = 10 ’ doesn’t extend to Lot 1 creating a ’flag lot’ only 2 residences allowed to access from driveway outlot, 3 proposed. Other issues to consider: Can the stormwater pond be credited toward the extra 50% area requirement for a back lot? Can the east line of Lot 2 be considered the front line, eliminating a width variance for the duplex? Gaffron summarized the staff recommendations on Page 5 of the May 21 memo noting that the same variances would be required \riiether or not a duplex was approved; a berm higher than 2-3 ’ would require a new plan, drainage issues need to be resolved, and the duplex use should be approved based on meeting the zoning criteria. Waade commented that he bought the property based on the information that a multi-family use is allowed. Because of the marina, lift station and busy road, multi-family housing best suits the lot. He plans to live in the lakeshore lot and would be improving the area. There were no public comments. Peterson asked for clarification on the front line issue for Lot 2. Gaffron explained that the width requirement for a duplex is 135’. For this comer lot, the short side is considered the front. Howeve.', if the longer side were considered the front side, a width variance would not be required. He noted the primary access will be from Outlot A even though the properties would be addressed off of North Shore Drive. Jabbour asked how many homes were on the property prior to the proposed subdivision. Gaffron responded that there were three homes with three sewer units. Kelley stated he was not in favor of the duplex and would prefer a single family residence for a total of two single family homes on two lots. sr< ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 r (#7) Robert Waade, 3280/3290 North Shore Drive - Preliminary Plat Approval - continued Jabbour complimented Waade for his proposed improvements this area. Waade responded that he works with high-end development and sees this as a positive improvement for the area. Jabbour stated that if three units had existed on this property, three should be allowed to remain. Peterson commented that the duplex use was appropriate for the area. Mrs. Waade noted that it would be extremely difficult to sell a single family home next to a marina and lift station. Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to direct staff to draft a resolution conceptually approving the proposed subdivision for the property located at 3280/3290 North Shore Drive and approving the conditional use permits for duplex credit and grading within 5’ of a lot line. Ayes 3, Nays 1. Kelley voted against the motion. Peterson asked if the applicant was still working with the marina on the berm. Waade confirmed that he was. (#8) #2355 DOUGLAS VAN MOORLEHEM, 4490 WATERTOWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL The applicant was not present. Gaffron explained that the applicant has requested that review of lus application be tabled to the June 8 meeting. He confirmed there w£s no problem with deadline dates. Peterson moved, Kelley seconded, to table Applicaii"*K #2355 for preliminary subdivision approval for the property located at 4490 Watertown Road. Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#9) #2358 RANDY & MARIE STAFFANSON, 1422 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCE Mr. and Mrs. Staffanson were present. Van Zomeren stated the neighbors had been le-notified of the public hearing. She explained that hardcover and side yard setback variances were granted in April to allow a new garage to e attached to the existing residence. The applicants have now requested hardcover and side yard setback variances to rebuild the garage that was destroyed by a fire in its previous location. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#9) #2358 Randy & Marie StafTanson, 1422 Park Drive - Variance - continued Mrs. Staffanson stated they were still working with builders to see if they could^ finance the attached garage as approved in the original variance application. If they can’t work out financing, they would like to rebuild the garage in its previous location. They would like to have approval to build whichever garage they receive financing for. Van Zomeren explained the changes in the current proposal. Less hardcover is proposed but there is a greater encroachment on the side yard setback. Kelley asked when the applicants would be able to make a decision about which plan to use. Mrs. Staffanson replied that they were meeting with the builder on Thursday. Kelley suggested tabling the application. There were no public comments. Jabbour stated that Council could not approve an open-ended situation. He requested that they appear before Council again if they want to rebuild the garage in its previous location. Notice would need to be given to the neighbors 10 days prior to the meeting. Council confirmed that if the attached garage was to be built, the applicants would not have to reappear before Council as the variances were already granted. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application #2358 for reconsideration of a variance for the property located at 1422 Park Drive. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#10) #2363 WILLIAM H. BOCKMANN, 1130 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - VARIANCES Mr. and Mrs. Bockmann and their son were present. Van Zomeren explained that the applicant is asking for variances to tear down the existing residence and rebuild. Variances are required for lot area, average lakeshore setback, hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone and a side yard setback. Planning Commission has considered the proposal twice and recommend approval of the current plan on a vote of 5 to 0. They noted that the applicant intends to care for an elderly relative in the home. The amount of excess hardcover is approximately 403 s.f. The proposed bedroom/closet/hall for the elderly relative is approximately 300 s.f., which is very close to the extra hardcover. I :3 r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#10) #2363 William H. Bockmann, 1130 Loma Linda Avenue - Variances - continued There were no public comments. Kelley stated the house was very ambitious for the lot. It would be much more massive than what currently exists and requires many variances. Bockmann noted that the total lot coverage was only at 11.5%. Kelley noted the 3-car garage added mass to the structure. Jabbour added that height was also an issue. As hardcover is limited, it forces structures to be built higher. Kelley stated there was nothing above the garage and it might be possible to use that area. Bockmann commented that the house at 1098 Loma Linda has 65% hardcover. Jabbour responded that the house was pulled back from its original location and was an improvement from what previously existed. Jabbour concurred with Ke'ley that the proposed house was not reasonable for the lot. Bockmann asked if eliminating one garage would get closer to what Council would approve. Jabbour responded that he was only proposing that and was trying to help get something that would be approved without redesigning the residence. Both Flint and Peterson agreed with Kelley and Jabbour that the house was too ambitious for the lot. Bockmann’s son designed the house and indicated he has reduced the footprint as much as possible and still be able to accommodate a bedroom for his grandfather. There will be four drivers so eliminating a stall leaves two cars in the driveway. Jabbour sympathized with the applicant in providing assistance for an elderly relative, but family and financial situations are not considered hardships according to State statute. The uniqueness of the land is a hardship. Bockmann referred again to the property at 1098 Loma Linda, noting they had a similar proposal that was proposed with an elderly relative. Jabbour responded that he gave no consideration to that part of the application. "• ,, - - II 11 III I I III ■ iifc h iiO Mii • r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#10) #2363 William H. Bockmann, 1130 Loma Linda Avenue - Variances - continued Kelley stated that he did not object to the lot area or 2 ’ average lakeshore variances, but did have concerns about the side yard and hardcover variances. Bockmann noted the hardcover variance was only for 3%. Jabbour commented that the side yard setback was a problem because the lot is adjacent to two roads. Kelley asked about moving the house to the north. Bockmann responded that the well is a problem. Jabbour noted that he had a call from a previous applicant who thought removing the driveway meant that he could add to the house, based on the resolution. Van Zomeren responded that site plans approved with hardcover could be added to the resolution as an exhibit but becomes cumbersome in filing the resolution on the Chain of Title. Jabbour suggested referring to slvoctural hardcover when writing the resolutiftZ- Gaffron added that he had further comments to make on this particular situation at a late: /ime. Bockmann asked if they need to reduce the ^ir^<lcover to 25% in order to get approval. Kelley responded that he would only vote for ap^-cw^iJl 25%. Jabbour stated he would support a resolution e^iQiinating one of the garage stalls. Bockmann’s son asked for suggestions for a driveway configuration that would allow for parking of four vehicles. Jabbour lef) that up to the applicant. Kelley noted that eliminating one stall would also eliminate some hardcover in the driveway. Jabbour reiterated that the lot is not capable of supporting the proposed house. Bockmann noted the structural coverage is actually less than the amount allowed. Van Zomeren confirmed with Council that hardcover is the issue. Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to approve Application #2363 for the property located at 1130 Loma Linda Avenue eliminating the third garage stall (19’ x 10’) and hardcover in the driveway in front of that garage stall; and directed staff to draft an amended resolution for Council approval at the June 8, 1998 meeting. Ayes 4, Nays 0. 8 r i L ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 2«, 1998 (#10) #2363 William H. Bockmann, 1130 Loma Linda Avenue - Variances - continued Bockmann asked if they could add 1' to the two-car garage if they have to eliminate one stall. The two-car garage would be 21’ wide. He stated that Mr. Gountanis had convinced Council that 22’ was a State standard. Peterson responded that she did not wish to amend her motion. (#11) #2365 CHRISTINE VALERIUS. 3750 BAYSIDE ROAD - SKETCH PLAN Christine and Gary Valerius were present. Gaf&on reviewed the proposal to create one additional lot from a parcel that contains 3.31 acres of dry buildable and 1.2 acres of wetland, and take advantage of the wetland credit. The applicant wanted to submit a preliminary plat application but staff suggested a sketch plan because of the following issues: 1) whether the prop>erty would be considered ’sewered’ since only one unit was assessed with the Stubbs Bay project, and 2) whether the City’s intent with the Stubbs Bay sewer project was to create the possibility for wetland credits in the two acre zone to allow subdivision if it were not possible without the wetland credit. Since the City is proposing to take away the wetland credit, it was difficult to advise the applicant how to proceed if the credit were taken away prior to preliminary subdivision approval. Gaffion indicated another issue is that a neighboring property on Landmark Drive was given the same credit that the applicant is proposing to use. An additional sewer unit was given to the second lot and a connection charge was paid. Planning Commission reviewed the {^plication and referred to Council noting concern about the width variance. The front lot lines proposed at the 50 ’ setback are 185’ and 214’ where 200 ’ is required. Options available to the applicant include acquiring additional dry buildable (but there is none available to make up two acres in each lot); asking Council to declare the lot sewered property, grant the wetland credit and lot width variance; requesting a rezoning; or selling a portion of the property to an adjacent owner to get the value out of the property. The applicant wants to proceed with the application as proposed and use the wetland credit. Valerius filed a formal plat application on May 21, 1998. Council needs to address the following issues: Is the property considered sewered, and if not, will Council allow it to be considered as sewered and grant the wetland credit: Should a moratorium be placed on the use of wetland credits, which would basically block the applicant ’s request? Is granting a lot width variance a possibility? ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#11) #2365 Christine Valerius, 3750 Bayside Road - Sketch Plan - continued Gaffron added that there would be park dedication fees and sewer connection fees totaling approximately $20,000. Gaffron confirmed that the entire property is within the MUSA boundary. Christine Valerius distributed a handout stating her position and a letter supporting the subdivision signed by the neighbors. She compared her proposed subdivision to that of Mr. Evans on Landmark Drive noting that he was only granted one sewer unit; both her lots have more dry buildable than his; he had one lakeshore lot and so does she; access is off Bayside Road for both subdivisions; standards of the LR-1A zoning district are met; and she had twice as large a buildable envelope as Evans. She referred to the 15’ width variance stating that the existing driveway was the reason for the configuration. She could redesign the lot lines so that only a 1* variance would be required, but it is aesthetically more pleasing to leave the driveway as it exists. She asked Council to declare the property as sewered and grant a variance for lot width. She expressed her concern that Council was changing the ordinance at the same time as her application. Jabbour commented that the applicant was proceeding with the thought that Council was against her proposal. He explained that the consideration to eliminate wetland credits was a result of the recent Carpenter subdivision. The City does not want to provide a vehicle to allow greater density in the two acre zones. The City was not aware that her application was coming before Council. Gaffron confirmed that discussions about the applicant’s proposed subdivision had taken place prior to Council’s request to look at eliminating wetland credits. Kelley asked about the hardship for the width variance. Valerius responded that she wants to be able to sell the property and not have to change the driveway. Kelley stated he was not in favor of the subdivision and was not on the Council when the Landmark drive subdivision was approved. He did not feel the present Council was bound by decisions of past Councils. Jabbour stated that the ^plicant has the right to proceed with the subdivision under the existing code and she should be allowed to proceed and get the wetland credit. He added that proceeding with the application did not mean the subdivision would be approved. Peterson agreed that the subdivision request should be considered as an application prior to any code changes. r r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#11) #2365 Christine Valerius, 3750 Bayside Road - Sketch Plan • continued Flint questioned if there were other subdivision applications in a similar situation. Gaffron responded that the only other application he was aware of is the Brook Park Realty proposal. Flint indicated he would not oppose this proposal but did not want to set a precedent if there were more applications before the City. Gaf&on reitoated that staff had advised the applicant to proceed with the subdivision as a sketch plan to provide direction to the applicant. A public hearing would be held to address the lot width vai iance as part of the subdivision process. Jabbour suggested that the applicant proceed with the proposal and attempt to do whatever is possible to have no variances. Valerius confirmed that the next step was to meet with Gaffron to continue with the preliminary plat application. (#12) #2367 LAWRENCE GLEASON, 140 HACKBERRY HILL - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4082 Mr. Gleason was present. Van Zomeren presented pictures of the house and reported that the property is in the R-IB, Vi acre district and conforms to the lot area. The applicant is requesting a side yard variance to add 6’ to the existing house on the north side, which encroaches 2’ into the 10 ’ side yard setback. She noted the house is on a slope, and the proposed addition is in a logical place. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a vote of 5 to 0. Flint asked if livuig close to the paric was a problem. Gleason responded that they love the park and enjoy the children and families who use it. They see the park as an asset. Peterson moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4082 granting a side yard variance of 2’ for the property located at 140 Hackberry Hill. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Gleason asked if he ever wanted to sell his property if the City was interested in purchasing it. Council confirmed that they were very interested. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#13) #2371 TIM AND LORI LINE, 4415 FOREST LAKE LAND - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4083 Mr. and Mrs. Line and Blake Bichanich were present. Van Zomeren distributed pictures of the property. She reported the application was for a conditional use permit to alter the lakeside yaitl ^\ilich is in a floodplain. They propose to scrape off 1" of topsoil and redeposit it in another area on the property. Approximately 55 yards of cut and fill is proposed. The applicant has been in touch with the appropriate agencies and received approvals. The Platming Commission recommended approval of the proposal on a vote of 5 to 0. Lori Line added that they were proposing to move fill to a low area where rip rap was. Flint asked if there were any similar previous applications or if this would be setting a precedence. Van Zomeren was not aware of anything similar. Bichanich added that the reason they were scraping is because the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District required the size of the basin to remain the same. 70* of shoreline is being rip rapped to be able to access the area where the dock is. Mitigation is basically taking place on site. Kelley moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4083 granting a conditional use permit to allow alteration of a lakeside yard in the floodplain and redistribute above the 934.5’ elevation for the property located at 4415 Forest Lake Landing. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#14) #2374 BUSSE CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF: A. GREG & MYRA KARLEN, 630 DEBORAH DRIVE - RESOLUTION NO. 4084 Kelley moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4084 granting a conditional use permit for construction of a berm on the property owned by Gregory T. and Myra J. Karlen located at 630 Deborah Drive. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. B. LARRY & JAN McCARTNEY, 755 HUNT FARM ROAD - RESOLUTION NO. 4085 Kelley moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4085 granting a conditional use permit for construction of a berm on the property owned by Larry and Jan McCartney located at 755 Hunt Farm Road. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. r 1 » ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (*#14) #2374 Busse Construction on Behalf of: - continued C. ROBERT & JULIE HANNING, 4220 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - RESOLUTION NO. 4086 Kelley moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4086 granting a conditional use permit for enlargement of a berm on the property owned by Robert and Julie Hanning located at 4220 Sixth Avenue North. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. D. BUSSE CONSTRUCTION, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ORONO, McCULLEY ROAD PARKING LOT NORTH OF THE LUCE LINE TRAIL - RESOLUTION NO. 4087 Kelley moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4087 granting a conditional use permit to raise the parking lot by adding fill on the property owned by the City of Orono located at the McCuIley Road parking lot north of the Luce Line Trail. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#15) #2375 PARK LAND CO., 2525/34/45 SHADYWOOD ROAD - SKETCH PLAN The applicant, Joshua Aaron, and Steve Young, architect, were present. Van Zomeren distributed pictures taken from the site. She explained that Park Land Company is interested in purchasing the property and proposed a 32 unit apartment building, with an optional 4 umts on the third floor. The property is zoned LR-IB in the rear along Kelly Avenue, and B-4, Office and Professional District, in the front along Shadywood Road. The property is three separate tax parcels and would require combination. The Planning Commission reviewed the application at their May meeting, and voted 5 to 0 to recommend that the existing zoning, B-4, is the most appropriate category for the property; and that 32 units is too much density as no zoning district exists that would allow 32 units. Van Zomeren added that the property is located in the urban service area along Shadywood Road. There are policies in the Comprehensive Plan regarding housing improvement in the urban density residential district which are relevant to the sketch plan. The zoning issue is that the Zoning Code does not have a zoning district that allows this number of dwelling units per acre. Planning Commission discussed options to allow this type of development but determined that a zoning amendment would be inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26,1998 (#15) #2375 Park Land Co., 2525/34/45 Shadywood Road - Sketch Plan - continued Aaron commented that they would address concerns raised by the Planning Commission. He noted that 6 sewer units are available on the site. Young stated he would briefly discuss the project and ask for direction as to what would be useable on the site. They looked at reasonable uses for tlie prope- ly when looking at development. They felt a residential project would have less impact on si^t coverage, disturbing vegetation and traffic than commerci^ development. It would also provide a transition be^een office and residential uses. The proposed density would be 14.2 units per acre, with 32 units on two floors, an underground parking garage and visitor parking above. The focus would be primarily for residents of Orono, both those who work in the area and tho^ who may want to stay in Orono but not keep up a home. A landscape plan would fit the building to the site. Jabbour opined that the proposal was foreign to anything proposed in Orono. Flint expressed concern about traffic and parking. Young responded that 7 stalls were proposed in front for visitors. Flint felt the proposal was overbuilt for the site. Kelley and Peterson agreed with Jabbour and Flint that the proposal was too much for the site. Flint asked how Council felt about the same concept of an "empty nest" type apartment unit with less density. Jabbour noted 6 sewer units are available. Flint added that it would still require rezoning from the B-4 district. Jabbour commented that a previous proposal had been approved for a high-end graphics business with a park-like environment in the back. It would have been very low impact with low profile activities, and was an excellent proposal. Young agreed that the proposal was not like anything Orono has seen but nothing commercial is happening on the site either. Jabbour responded that Orono was not in a hurry to develop the site. Young asked for direction as to what the City would consider for the site with 6 sewer umts. Jabbour responded that possibly three twin homes would work. Kelley agreed, adding that twin homes would make a nice transition. All Councilmembers agreed that an acceptable 6 unit design would be considered for development of the property. I. ! ‘ I ' i ' 4 .! 'i r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#*16) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - MUSA BOUNDARY EXPANSION Kelley moved, Flint seconded, to conditionally approve Comprehensive Plan Amendment #7 adding certain areas near Maxwell Bay, Lake Minnetonka to the defined Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) subject to review and comment by the Metropolitan Council, and direct staff to submit the amendment to the Metropolitan Council. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#17) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - ELIMINATE WETLAND CREDIT - ORDINANCE NO. 176, 2ND SERIES Discussed after Mayor/Council Report. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Discussed after Park Commission Comments. ENGINEER REPORT (*18) APPROVE ENGINEERING FOR HIGHWAY 12/OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD TRAFFIC SIGNAL Kelley moved, Flint seconded, to approve the proposal from Bonestroo Engineers for design engineering and construction monitoring services for $1,900 for installation of left turn arrows at the Old Crystal Bay Road/TH 12 Traffic Signal to be funded with Municipal Sate Aid funds. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (19) APPROVE ENGINEERING FOR HIGHWAY 12/OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD TRAFFIC SIGNAL Discussed after Item #17. (*20) REQUEST FOR PAYMENT - PUBLIC WORKS ENTRANCE CANOPY Kelley moved, Flint seconded, to approve the Request for Pa3mient in the amount of $19,480 to Flag Builders Inc. for construction of the Public Works Entrance Canopy. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. A short recess was held. r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 CITY ADMINISTRATOR ’S REPORT (#21) WOODHILL GOLF COURSE ALTERNATE ACCESS (Council Member Kelley did not participate in discussion of this issue.) Moorse reported that Woodhill Country Club is proposing to open an alternative access to the Country Club using Woodhill Avenue because traffic and construction on County Road 15 make it difficult and unsafe to exit onto County Road 15. The Woodhill Avenue access has been used at various times in the history of the Country Club, most recently from 1978-80. Concerns were raised by the residents of Woodhill Avenue the last time the access was open. Those concerns included speed, volume of traffic and how the access was controlled by the Country Club. Letters from the residents have been submitted in strong opposition to the plan to open the access. Concerns of the neighbors are focused on safety in relation to the increased volume and speed of the traffic that would use their road. Moorse gave a brief review of the legal background. Woodhill Country Club is a conditional use in a residential zone, which is permitted subject to conditions the City places on the use. The City Attorney has indicated that the addition of the alternative access should be dealt with through an amendment to the conditional use permit. If Council determines that the current access onto County Road 15 is a significant safety issue, it would be possible to temporarily address the problem outside of the conditional use permit. The Woodhill Country Club believes they have a continuing right to the Woodhill Avenue access based on their historical use of the access. The Woodhill Country Club has estimated use of the alternative access at 20 trips per day during the weekdays and 60 trips on weekend days. The traffic level on County Road 15 is approximately 20,000 cars per day, which is high in relation to the design of the road and is the reason for reconstruction. Moorse summarized that opening the Woodhill Avenue access would provide benefits to safety in exiting onto County Road 15, but those benefits need to be weighed against the impacts on Woodhill Avenue. Mr. Dayton, representative of Woodhill Country Club, stated the only reason they are before Council is because of the extremely dangerous condition of egress and ingress onto County Road 15. There are poor sight lines and the speed limit has changed from 35 mph to 40 mph. Numerous Club members have requested help with this situation. The simple solution was to open the back road onto Woodhill Avenue. He explained that the Country Club was built in 1917 and had full access to Woodhill Avenue via the back entrance until 1980, except for short periods of time. In 1980, because of vandalism from young people driving cars onto the golf course, the Woodhill Board voluntarily closed the back road. They did not give up their rights to the road, but closed the road by putting a chain across the entrance. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#21) Woodhill Golf Course Alternate Access - continued Mr. Dayton reiterated that the Country Club felt it was an easy decision to open the access because of safety issues for their members. They realize the neighbors also have safety concerns. These concerns have been addressed at a meeting held with the neighborhood. The Country Club has agreed to use the access only for their members and would police to that effect. The speed limit would be posted at 10 mph. During the day, maintenance people could be used to police the road for speed limit and outside usage. They also agreed to control dust by using water or other means; and to make no improvements to make it look like a permanent use. They have offered to put up signage including "No left turn". The Country Club feels it is a question of who is more at risk - a large number of elderly people on County Road 15 or a small number of children who live a substantial distance from the public road. They feel with the safety precautions they have offered, they can police the situation. They are asking for use of the access on a temporary basis until November 1. Peterson did not think opening the access was a simple solution. She questioned the traffic numbers and if Woodhill staff would use the access. Dayton replied that staff would not use the access, and it would only be open during the daylight hours until 8:00 p.m. She asked if 20 cars durinu ihe weekdays was a reasonable estimate as it seemed low. Dayton replied that he was unsure, but that Woodhill is not overly used. Mr. Albrecht added that during the week on a Tuesday there could be 15-40 golfers, many coming from the east. An average Wednesday would be 40 golfers. Thursday is Ladies Day and there may be some guests. Friday is an up and down day. Saturday and Sunday could have 130 - 180 golfers from the area. He noted that all the golfers would not use the Woodhill access. In 1978-79 the City did a traffic count indicating 25 - 60 golfers a day. Dayton added that the membership levels are the same today as in 1978. Jabbour asked why the road was opened in 1978. Moorse responded that historically the road had been opened and closed a number of times, the most recent being 1978-80. There was no action taken by the City, the road was just opened. Larry Ackman. counsel for Woodhill Country Club, commented that he had talked to n 92-year old member of the Club who stated the access had been open his entire life. Ackman also talked with Ralph Bagley and Bob Searles who also confirmed that the access has been open. Gates have been used to open and close the road for various reasons. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#21) Woodhill Golf Coune Alternate Access - continued Flint commented that it seemed there was too much usage proposed for the access road when the greatest problem was during rush hour. There may be ways to get around the problem, such as limiting the hours, to address the safety concerns that Woodhill perceives. Ackmaii responded that there wouldn’t be much usage of the Woodhill Avenue road during the week. H'J agreed that the afternoon, when traffic is coming out of the City, is a dangerous time. Flint expressed concern that leaving the Woodhill Avenue access open during the suggested hours could become a convenience factor rather than a safety factor. Ackman stated the reason the issue is before the Council is because Woodhill believes they have the right to use the access. Limiting the hours would be cumbersome. Jabbour commented that Council understands the Country Club’s belief that they have the right to use the access. He added that in the past year, the Cit>' has taken the position that major activities Aould be accessed using a major thoroughfare, i.e. Spring Hill Golf Course. Ackman re^nded that Spring Hill is being permitted while Woodhill already exists, and they are trying to meet the exigency of the current situation until November. Jabbour asked if the Country Club would consider a trial period where the City would request the County to repost the road at 30 mph. The Country Club could also supplement by policing. Lord Fletcher’s is in a similar situation and uses two off-duty police officers. This may help to alleviate the problem rather than transferring the traffic to another area. Jabbour expressed concern that once the access is opei^ed, it would become a permanent situation. Public safety is a major concern. Dayton noted that an additional problem will result when the County installs a culvert under the Woodhill driveway. Bruce Malkerson, 901 Marquette, representing the neighborhood group on Woodhill Avenue, highlighted some points from his letter of May 22, 1998. In 1968 the Club became a legal, non-confonning use. lire Club has applied to the City for a number of conditional use permits over the years for specific projects, but not for the whole club to become a conditional use. As a non-conforming use, the Club cannot intensify or enlarge its use. i • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#21) Woodhill Golf Course Alternate Access - continued Assuming the road was legal at one time, by closing it, even voluntarily, the Club lost its legal status to the road. The code states that once a non-confor nin- use is discontinued, legal rights are lost. Any use thereafter would have to be in conformance with the current zoning code. Orono ’s Comprehensive Plan protects residential areas in not allowing commercial traffic to go through residential areas. Orono ordinances require issuance of a driveway curb cut permit. Only one access for business development is allowed unless approved by Council. No part of any driveway shall be constructed within 100 ’ of a comer in a residential district. Code doesn’t provide for variances. Malkerson referred to his letter of May 26 and highlighted the following points; Woodhill Country Club has taken the position that it is not a business and is therefore not subject to the driveway regulations. Malkerson stated the Club is a business as defined by the Zoning Code. The Club closed the access to Woodhill Avenue and therefore abandoned the road. A traffic report done by James Benshoof, an expert in the field, concluded that the Woodhill Avenue access should not be open on a temporary or permanent basis. The Club’s use of Woodhill Avenue would be unsafe and there is no demonstrated need to use Woodhill Avenue. Malkerson stated there were other ways to address the traffic issues. There would be a few golfers who actually have to wait during msh hour. By adjusting their times, they could avoid some of the problems. - A report done by a residential appraiser with 20 years of experience indicates that a temporary or pemianent opening of the access will have an adverse affect on the property values along Woodhill Avenue and Oronc Orjliard Road. Malkerson summarized that the issue seemed to be a question of O Mivenience for a few members. He felt people could adjust to avoid msh hour which would be better than opening the road. It would sdso set an adverse precedent for taking a non-confirming use that has lost all legality to become legal. If Council approves a temporary access, he would like to suggest conditions. Jabbour commented that the Woodhill Country Club has been good for the commumty. Jane Delaney, 1315 Woodhill Avenue, canvassed the neighborhood including Orono Orchard Road and connecting roads, and submitted a petition opposing the opening of an access from the County Club to Woodhill Avenue. I* ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#21) Woodhill Golf Course Alternate Access - continued Charles Maille, 1260 Woodhill Avenue, stated he was a concerned parent with their only access onto Woodhill Avenue. He felt there was no d.bate that traffic would increase on Woodhill Avenue if the access were opened, threatening the safety of his children. He feels it is the duty of the Council to protect the children of Orono. He referred to a letter from the Woodhill Country Club in the packet indicating the Country Club wants tr* be a good neighbor, but good neighbors don ’t take actions that endanger children or reduce property values. He opposes even a temporary access. He has met with Chief Cheswick on the site. He requested that further study be done if there is any thought to opening the access. If the access is opened even temporarily, the Country Club should be forced to complete the normal planning process to ensure safety. Jerry Storch, 1245 Woodhill Avenue, stated that he moved to the neighborhood about 5 years ago from Boston and has three young children. He did not find it acceptable to solve one problem and create another. He presented a diagram suggesting an alternate exit from the Country Club by making right hand turns. He also expressed concern with alcohol being served at the Club, and then drivers using the road in a neighborhood with children. He felt the issue involved the rights of individuals vs. a large institution, individual homes vs. convenience for members, and property values vs. recreation. He also felt opening the access would fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood. He requested that Council look at limiting the hours the access would be open, if they decide to allow the Club to use the access. Shelly Storch, 1245 Woodhill Avenue, presented photos of the area. She noted a puddle that creates a drainage problem. She felt that traffic sight lines were significantly worse at Orono Orchard Road and County Road 15 than on County Road 15 and Woodhill Road. She expressed concern with the traffic numbers and felt they were significantly less than would be expected today. She commented on a 2% increase in traffic at Orono Orchard Road and County Road 15 that was mentioned in the staff report. There was no mention of a complementary reduction in traffic at the Country Club ’s entrance. She felt this may be just trading the traffic from one intersection to another. She was concerned about the safety of children and vandalism. She thought there may be more vandalism today than in 1978 because there may be more kids with cars that are out late at night. The City has indicated their concern to address an emergency. She stated that construction has been going on for more than a year with no emergency. Solutions she suggested include changing the barriers on County Road 15 to something permeable, using flag men, or telling members to only make right turns. A response that she received from the Country Club was that this is a convenience issue and that members didn ’t like waiting in traffic. She requested that the City table the issue so that further study can be done. r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#21) Woodhill Golf Course Alternate Access - continued If the access must be opened, she requested that it be done safely, use a gate that forces members to stop - possibly guarded 24 hours a day and limiting the nours of use. It would be her wish to see the access permanently closed and reforested rather than just using a chain. John Welsh, 1250 Woodhill Avenue, reiterated the concerns of his neighbors. He was impressed with Council and their desire to protect the City. He stated he bought his property for privacy and the wooded area and would like it to stay that way. He added that more traffic would harm his economic value, and he is concerned with child safety. Mike Wood, 1230 Woodhill Avenue, stated he and his wife Judy were sympathetic to the safety issue. They felt Woodhill’s intentions were well meant but they believe they were precipitous and further investigation should be done. They feel accessing County Road 15 from Orono Orchard Road is actually more hazardous. The major concern for Woodhill is the left turn out of Woodhill during rush hour. This limits the main problem to 4:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. Alternatives such as better signage and flagmen are good ideas. Unlike Spring Hill Golf Course, Woodhill is a social club as well, so the traffic will be higher on Woodhill Avenue than the suggested 20 cars per day. He counted 120 families who live north and west of the Country Club who could use the Woodhill Avenue access. Citing the golf use of the Club is not accurate as there are many social events as well. He felt the way the access was opened was outrageous with no notice to the Planning Commission, Council, Woodhill Board or to the members. This was contradictory to the spirit of being a good neighbor. Steven Webster, 500 Orono Orchard Road, stated that speed has been an issue on Orono Orchard Roacl and more traffic will create a greater impact. He would also feel extremely bad if someone weie killed on County Road 15 as a result of this situation. He suggested a stipulation that the road be vacated after the construction on County Road 15 is completed and returned to a natural environment. He does not want to see any increase in traffic, and the road needs more policir He added that intoxication is an issue and thought a guard at the exit might provide some additional policing. Jabbour noted that the road was the property of the Country Club and asked if Webster v/as suggesting it be given to the City. Webster responded that it should be divided among the properties that border the road. Ackman stated that the Country Club respects the concerns of the opposers, but there is a tendency to exaggerate. thought legal principles should be discussed in another place. He pointed out that part of tlie road accesses Woodhill Ridge. The owners of those properties knew of the access when they purchased their homes. There are actually only three houses on Woodhill Avenue, the other houses are up the hill even though they bear a Woodhill Avenue address. Ackman reiterated that the access is proposed as a temporary' opening. r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#21) Woodhill Golf Course Alternate Access - continued Malkerson responded to comments made by Ackman. He stated that he had 25 ye^s of specializing in municipal and zoning laws, and he had never been accused of being selective m Ws choice of legal arguments. Jabbci’r expressed his concern for the #1 issue of public safety. He would not yield zoning to public; ^j‘fety, nor would he count petitions or votes, or who could get hurt, when making a decisi,... There is nothing in Orono’s ordinances that would allow the City to require reforestation. He believes that opening the Woodhill access would not alleviate the problem, just shift it, and that it would not actually result in a safer environment for either the Club members or the neighbors. He stated he was committed to finding a better solution. He understood that once a non-confirming use was abandoned for 1 year or more, the use could not be reinstate . He was concerned that the temporary opening could become permanent. He also suggested slowing traffic on County Road 15 and policing during peak hours as possible solutions. Peterson reiterated that it was not an easy decision as to whether or not Woodhill Club members would be allowed to access off of Woodhill Avenue. Safety is a major issue for her as well. The entire strip of County Road 15 is a safety issue for the 20,000 c^s each day as well as the members of the Country Club. She questioned if opening Woodhill Avenue as a temporary access would solve the problem. She thought the City may be able to work with the County on the barricades to improve visibility. She stated she would not support the Woodhill Country Club in their decision to open the Woodhill Avenue access. Flint thanked the Woodhill Country Club for not filling the Council Chamber with Woo^ll supporters. He complimented both the Woodhill group and the residents on presentation. He agreed that access to County Road 15 is a difficult issue. He would be willing to have City staff work with Hennepin County to provide a safer ingress and egress both at Woodhill Road and Orono Orchard Road. He would also favor opening access to Woodhill Avenue f-om 4:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday thru Friday, if it did not prejudice the City’s legal position. Jabbour asked the Country Club if there was any benefit in limiting the hours. Dayton thought there would be since rush hour is the worst time. Barrett stated the City has both the inherent authority and right to make a decision regarding Ae access. As legal issue, he would suggest signing an agreement with the Club if the City decided to proceed with Flint’s suggestion, stating that the Club agrees not to asseit that the opening of the road on a temporary basis creates the legal right to access. r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#21) Woodhill Golf Course Alternate Access - continued Jabbour suggested the City work with Hennepin County to reduce the speed ™ CounV Road 15 to 35 mph, ask the Police Chief to increase patrol in the area, and work with the County on improving the barriers and signage. Davton asked what the cost per hour is to hire an off-duty police officer. Moo^ replied that it was $39/hour Dayton asked if it would take approval of the full Council to hire an officer. LZfrts^rlded tL it would not, and die Club could work the C iy Adnim^ Dayton noted that an officer may increase the problem because of the way they park, making sight lines worse and slowing traffic down. Peterson agreed. Jabbour suggested taking no formal action but working on the suggested solutions to see if there is any improvement. Peterson asked for clarification as to what would be done. Jabbour listed Administrator to talk with Hennepin County about changing the speed limit to 35 mph. . , , Ask the City Admimstrator to explore alternative ways to egress and ingress bo Woodhill Avenue and Orono Orchard Road. ^ u • The city Administrator will try to accommodate Woodhill Coun^ Club in providing police officers for the price the contract cities pay; and ask Orono officers to increase the police patrol of the area. The temporar>' acce;.s will remain closed. Jabbour commented that the present Couneihnembers were not in support of a " One member of the Council members would support a temporary access with limi Jabbour felt the fourth Council member should be present before formal action is taken. Dayton confiimed that the Country Club would try these measures for two weeks and see if there were any improvements. A resident asked who would evaluate the solutions, and if the Country Club comes back in two weeks and finds the situation has not improved, what would be the next step. Another resident asked why Council was not voting on the issue at the current meeting. I < r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#21) Woodhill Golf Course Alternate Access - continued Jabbour responded that Council was almost split. He wanted to have Council member Goetten present as she lives in the area. Flint indicated that if the issue comes up again, there will be a notice sent to the neighborhood. He suggested leaving the issue up to Woodhill to bring back to Council if they find the need to do so. Malkerson agreed that it would *oe best to provide notice to the neighborhood if Woodhill decides they need to have further consideration on the access issue. (#22) COUNTY ROAD 6 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AND ROBERT AND JULIE HANNING SUBDIVISION PLAN AT 4220 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH Moorse reported that the subject property is 10+ acres in the 5 acre zoning district. When the County Road 6 project begins, the County will acquire a portion of the property for right-of-way. The property will still be 10+ acres but the way the home is situated on the lot creates a problem in configuration for a subdivision. The issue came up early in the discussions of the County Road 6 project, and Council indicated they would consider some sort of approval of a second buildable lot on the property, if the right-of-way would reduce the property to less than 10 acres. The issue has become that the lot they want to create, because of the location of the existing house, is less than 5 acres even though Ae right-of-way does not reduce the property to less than 10 acres. Normally Council hasn’t approved lots less than 5 acres in a new subdivision. A survey showing a potential subdivision indicates that one lot would be 4.17 acres. The Hannings wish to keep a meadow with their existing home. Even without the right-of-way taking, the lot would be substandard. To create two 5 acre lots, gerrymandering the line is necessary, the meadow is lost, and the lot goes behind the existing buildings. Since Council had indicated a willingness to consider options, the Hannings are looking for direction as they are currently dealing with the County. Jabbour stated that Council took the position that the City would not cause the Hannings to have an unbuildable lot because of the right-of-way acquisition. He did not understand that the location of the building would be a problem. He asked about obtaining additional property from an adjacent parcel. Moorse resn.* ded that there is an NSP easement along the back of the property. Kelley asked how the property would have been subdivided without the County right-of-way. Hanning responded that he had the property surveyed 6-8 years ago by Coffin and Gronberg, but is unable to find the sur/ey that was done. Moorse confirmed that the property is 14 acres but only 10+ dry buildable acres. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#22) County Road 6 Right-Of-Way Acquisition and Robert and Julie Hanning Subdivision Plan at 4220 Sixth Avenue North - continued Hanning noted that this is the second time the County has taken a portion of this property. Jabbour felt the Council should take the position that anything the County has taken should not render the property as an unbuildable lot. Kelley agreed, giving the example that if the County takes 1/4 acre, only 4 3/4 acre should be required for a buildable lot. Hanning asked about driveway access. Kelley thought the County would appreciate one curb cut for both properties. Kelley suggested a small outlot on the larger parcel to serve both parcels. Flint asked why an outlot should be created rather than granting an easement. Kelley responded that it would be up to Hanning to decide which option w'ould be better. Jabbour noted three problems as follows: 1. If the County is taking part of the property, is there still a buildable lot? The consensus has been that whatever is taken out will be reduced from the required lot size. 2. How can the City make the assurance that there are two buildable lots to the Hannings? 3. How would the final subdivision be configured? Barrett asked if the concession of reducing the 5 acre minimum by the amount that the County takes is a form of compensation. Jabbour thought it would be. Flint asked why the Hannings did not w^t to proceed with the subdivision at this time. Hanning responded that if he did the subdivision now, it reduces his future options. He may choose not to ever do the subdivision, his property taxes are affected, and the value of his home may be lowered. Kelley felt the Hannings were taking a risk since the current Council could not bind future Councils. Barrett stated that to get some type of binding contract, an agreement would have to be made with the County. Jabbour added that the right-of-way was only 22,000 s.f. If that were divided between two lots, a reduction of 11,000 s.f. is very minimal. Hanning responded that it may not seem like much but could make a difference. Moorse added tliat the right-of-way is proposed at 1/4 acre, just over the top of the berm. - ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26,1998 (#22) County Road 6 Right-Of-Way Acqubition and Robert and Julie Hanning Subdivision Plan at 4220 Sixth Avenue North - continued Jabbour suggested Hanning work with staff and come back to the next Council nieeting on June 8 with a better plan. Gaffron should find out from the County exactly what will be taken for right-of-way. Hanning asked if a park fee would have to be paid if he subdivided now. Jabbour responded that the maximum would be $4,900 for the additional unit. Gaffron explained that if the value of the second parcel is $61,000 or more, the maximum amount is $4,900 for the park fee. (#23) REQUESTS BY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER RELATED TO THE ACQUISITION OF THE TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY AT 1960 SHORELINE DRIVE Moorse explained that Mr. Crear, owner of the property at 1980 Spates Avenue, would like to purchase the tax forfeit parcel at 1960 Shoreline Drive. Council waived the sewer assessment by resolution when the parcel was released for sale to adjacent property owners, based on the fact that the lot would not be buildable. An additional special assessment of approximately $5,000 was discovered that is related to legal fees incurred in the review of a planning application from a prior owner. The City was successful in fighting the application but v/as unable to collect the cost from the prior owner. Mr. Crear is asking to have Ais assessment forgiven. Crear added that he could not combine the tax forfeit parcel with his homestead property because the mortgage company wouldn ’t allow it. Moorse suggested a covenant be drawn up to address the issue. Kelley asked what Crear planned to do with the tax forfeit parcel. Crear respomled Aat he planned to plant trees. He added that the University of Minnesota was interested in using the property as a test site for bio-remediation and how chemicals react with the soil. Kelley asked how Crear intended to block the road noise as the building currently provides a buffer. Crear responded that the existing fence would net be removed until something w'as built to take its place. Kelley asked for a sketch plan from Crear and stakes showing the property lines. Crear noted that Hennepin County was going to take a portion of the property. r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#23) Requests by the Adjacent Property Owner Related to the Acquisition of the Tax Forfeit Property at 1960 Shoreline Drive - continued Kelley asked if the City has the right to have the Public Works Department tear down the existing building. Crear responded that according to Hennepin County the City can remove the building. Crear responded that he was willing to take the money that it would cost him to remove the building and make a tax deductible contribution to tlie hockey arena if the City would remove the building and asphalt. Jabbour thought this was a good idea. Moorse responded that the Public Works staff does not regularly do that type of work, most of the cost involved in removing the building has to do with disposing of the debris, and the Public Works staff has higher priorities at this time. Crear agreed, noting that Blackowiak had indicated the cost of dumping would be high. Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, to forgive the assessment owed to the City providing that an agreement is reached stating that the property will not be used for anything but a use in conjunction with the property owner’s homestead residence. A sketch of the proposed improvements should be submitted to the City. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Jabbour directed staff to look into the cost of removing the building, providing staff has time and there is no cost incurred by the City, and proceeds would go to the Orono Hockey group. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Irene Silber reminded Council members of the park tour scheduled for June 1 at 5:30 p.m. Silbur reported tree damage at Antoinne Park, but this will be cleaned up prior to the tour. A ribbon-cutting ceremony will be held during the tour to dedicate Antoinne Park. A crab apple tree was planted in honor of David Beal. MA^'OR/COUNCIL REPORT Jabbour updated the Council on Saga Hill. Flint and Jabbour met with the Church regarding the park concept and joint use of the parking lot. The Church wants to be a good neighbor to both the City and the neighborhood. The Church group toured Bederwood Park, Lee Carlson fields, French Creek Preserve so they have an idea of what the parks in Orono look like, and they liked the concepts with children playing. The City has some options such as obtaining a vacant lot that is for sale behind the Church or vacating an easement on the Church property. Flint added there was an area where the easemei-.t runs through the Church propert>’ that would be ideal for a ball park. This would suggest that buying the other property and trading would be a good option. Silbur responded that a neighborhood meeting was planned for Wednesday evening and she would pass along some ideas. ! — ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 Mayor/Council Report - continued Jabbour stated his vision for the land Orono has obtained from Hennepin County is an active park surrounded by a passive park. Flint added that an active park would be a concept similar to Bederwood park. Kelley asked if Minnetrista should be contacted to see if they have any interest in participating in this park as they have residents who would also use the park. Flint thought there were already niany players and it may be better to proceed without anyone new. Kelley thought some financial help might be a consideration if there was interest in buying the lot that is for sale. Jabbour added that the asking price of the lot (approximately 3/4 acre) is $79,000. Jabbour asked that Council take action to seek access to the park. All Council members agreed. Silbur agreed, both as a neighbor and Park Conmiissioner. Flint stated that a motion had been made regarding the approval of the grant application with the condition that satisfactory access is obtained. Jabbour suggested the next step as a public information meeting with the neighbors at the next Council meeting. Jabbour commented that during the meeting with the Church group, a member of the Mound City Council indicated that Hennepin Parks has a potential desire to take over the Dakota Rail line for a trail. He suggested talking to Spring Park, Mound and Minnetonka Beach about this possibility. Kelley questioned if the corridor should be left for light rail use. Flint confirmed that the rail runs from Wayzata to Hutchinson. Kelley distributed an article from the Sun Sailor showing how events of the past affect the future, Kelley asked for a rqport on the recent storm from the Police Chief indicating what worked, what didn’t work, and what changes would be recommended. He also questioned the location of the civil defense sirens. Jabbour complimented the Public Works Department on their work but was concerned about ^e number of generators available to handle lift stations. Kelley added his concern that priorities are established with NSP, possibly lift stations need to be considered, in his contacts with NSP, they indicated that the number of houses without pow'er and life threatening situations are how priorities are determined. r . i ! ! I ^ • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 Mayor/Council Report - continued Gappa reported that the City had at least 30 lift stations down at one time with only 5 generators available. The City is looking at purchasing additional generators. Kelley suggested a contingency plan be established to share or loan generators in emergency situations. Jabbour complemented the City Administrator on establishing a brush site for storm damage. It was helpful to citizens to have commercial contractors allowed to use the site ^ well as property owners so that contractors from outside the Metro area could work in the City. Flint suggested an early starting time when the Council agenda is difficult. Moorse responded that it would be possible as long as notice was posted. Council members suggested doing business other than land use applications prior to 7:00 p.m. (#17) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - ELIMINATE WETLAND CREDIT - ORDINANCE NO. 176, 2ND SERIES Gaffron explained that the proposed ordinance would eliminate the ability to credit wetland acreage toward development density in sewered areas. It would allow the flood fringe area that is not wetland to continue to be credited as a dry buildable area. It also formalizes the policy that in back lot situations, wetlands can be credited toward the extra 50% requirement. Council had suggested removing wetland credits from all zones, not just the 2 and 5 acre zones, since tieing sewered lots to the density credit didn’t make sense any longer. Jabbour asked for an explanation of how the manmade stormwater ponds were given credit. Gaffron responded that in the Waade plat it was for the 50% credit for a back lot situation. Gaffron explained that the existing developments that have used the density cre^t since 1970 sliall be considered legally non-conforming as to lot area or density per their original approval. A variance would not be required for an improvement to such properties. This ordinance would have eliminated the density credit for the Brook Park application. Flint moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Ordinance No. 176, 2nd Series, amending the City of Orono Zoning Code Section 10.55, Subdivision 15(A) regarding the use cf wetlands and flood fringe areas for development density credit. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 29 ORONO C^TY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 (#19) PURCHASE OF PATCH TRUCK Gappa explained the request for purchasing a pate*' truck. The City currently does street patching but inefficiently. Hennepin County has a patch truck with heated box and tack oil that works well. The truck is proposed for the 1999 budget. The minimum delivery time is 7 months and the City would like to place the order so the patch truck can be used in tne early spring of 1999. Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, to authorize the purchase of a new asphalt patching truck from Boyer Ford of Minneapolis for $42,079, and the purchase of a heated asphalt box from Ruffridge- Johns of Minneapolis for $38,959 with delivery in January 1999. Funding to be from the 1999 Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund. Flint questioned if the capital cost of this equipment could be shared with neighboring cities. Gappa responded that the day.« Orono was not using the truck, it could be rented to other cities. Flint agreed but noted that it didn’t help with the initial cost. Flint was not opposed to placing the order but thought other communities could be contacted. Gappa stated that equipment is often borrowed back and forth. Jabbour suggested that information be sent out that Orono is purchasing a patch truck so that other cities are aware they could borrow from Orono, and possibly allocate their money for a different purchase. Jabbour and Peterson agreed that it would be difficult to find another city who would \x willing to share the capital outlay, but many v/ould be interested in renting the equipment. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#24) EXTENSION OF LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR OFFICER THOMTON Kelley moved, Flint seconded, to extend the leave of absence for Officer Mark ITiomton through June 8, 1998. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#25) RESOLUTION COMMENDING EFFORTS OF CITY STAFF, ASSISTING AGENCIES AND CITIZEN VOl ’INTEERS IN RELATION TO THE DAMAGE FROM THE MAY 15 STORM - RESO! L FION NO. 4088 Kelley moved, Flint seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4088 commending efforts of City stall* assisting agencies and citizen volunteers in relation to the damage from the May 15, 1998 storm. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. i ■ i ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT Tom Barrett had no further report. (*#26) LICENSES Kelley moved, Flint seconded, to approve the following licenses. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Special Event Permits Boat Sales Inc., dba King’s Cove Boat Sales Boat Show 1449 Shoreline Drive, Minnetonka Boat Works May 29-31, 1998, 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Garbage & Refuse Collector’s License Douplae Hawkinson Clean >x ay Sanitation Donald Rachel Veit Container Corp., dba Veit Disposal Systems (*#27) BILLS Nays'o^'^^^’ Peterson seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes 4, ADJOURNMENT Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to adjourn at 11:58 P.M. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0 ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor { Linda S. Vee, City Clerk COUNC't meeting JUN 8 1998 request for council action CrrYOFOBONO DATE: June 5,1998 ITEM NO: 5 Department Approval: Name RonMoorsc THk City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description:irookP^k Really - Request for PRD and Class 111 Preliminao, Subd.v,s.on at 3760 Shoreline Drive As Bill Gleason indicated in his most recent of an access to regarding a settlement between the jq ^Qn Friday, June 4, the attorney for County Road 15 prior to the const^ ^ City Attorney for re^ew ^and the property owners faxed a by the City Attorney. The draft ‘ other triggers that do not address COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: FftOMC)\i 7-k CUIEIRT^ON :fri ) 6.U * J 93 3:1 i'T.3:10 NO. S700000416 F MU* m K ..*#•«« ^ »cou La t 04aALMS Upq^ 4 CKl'a** M«OM<k e. m»4an —-^T~ ir - * VOtt • *VltA«AM fAvj •«o*»^ om««» ^Au. f. *AC>A^ Aiaei^n «?a«TAO ft. vvtant* C*A*«fvt. I M>»«>p«r <■ i«M« AftAMM. DC»«»*LMQAA£JC fCMT ------>9.mHr§ ^.-SAL'ftAft. w.., OMV A. Ilt««»l o«r’^Vi<ft4. HAfU ft-nt* — - - •-«— Juno 4. 1998 KIN. Hoptman . D aly & LiNDOREN, Ltd . ATTORWGVe AT LAW 1*90 fiORlWEAT »1NANCIAI CENTER TtMXCRXSS AVENUE ROUTM BIOOMWO'IOH. MINNESOTA I6«M19« Tclephone (»u)»j»-jioe ^.v*A-v i^rrtrry. M. J^^ft aj. •T'V J QL'TII 0 «o>ni I a^A^ui w>:«ual^ rw MOi9v»f *^l(V*aA¥k «»|Kt4k (W^b W. ritftft •.iLftft. ft#4 A4«S M. ut^« II Va/I MAll^Vft r»»4T tXMft.4ft»< ftlAAjt •riHf •» # OAJAIUf M^J« A M«AC0ft|4 KLM yec^i JMl VC»»fft #JlTiTl1 ft. |l4mAld >IA*ftftU ftUftJft lirAM 'u^i ramkfiN QftCrftMMtJMi^T, OHY AAft#»4l ft fifti fc O *r«a«»CA« • ftxl^ aCkCrriD N vwftOr.A.'ftAS - »lLrftOMT7tCH Thomas BarroU Hinshaw & Culborteon Piper Jafftay Tower, Suite 320)} 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis. MN 55402 P.e; Lake Minnetonka Woo js - City of Orono Dear Tom: i li Please find enclosed a draft settlement agreement in the above-referenced project. Please review and call me with your thoughts. Timotny J. Keeinc» for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALV hma Enclosure c:Joe Sullivan Joel Buttenlioff «4o2i;r.oi & LINDOREN. Ltd. ~»-T-tit r-r ■■f ••iT-rk-» ^^-r• -• r r i r. FROM KIN.::nAW CULEZRT.?ON (FRi) 6. 5’93 3:11, 3T. 3:10 N'O. S700000416 P S SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT [DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION] This Agreement, dated this____day of June. 1998. reflects the mutual understandings ond seiilcmcnt of oil tlolr is by and between Tonka Ventures, LLC (the Developer) and the City of Orono. & Minnesota municipal corporation (the City). WHEREAS, the E legally described in the b: WHEREAS, the C cvclopcr did duly file and submit applications to the City for the planned residential dcvclcpment (PRD) and subdivision approval of the Property to be developed M ^'Lakd Minnetonka Wo WHEREAS, the E cvelopcr proposed to subdivide the Property into thiny (30) tovnihome residential lots; ond WHEREAS, subsi iniially after the 60 and 120 day review guidelines imposed upon the City by Minnesota Statute impacting the neighborho WHEREAS, in an (20) units on the Property Property accessing Count RECITALS eveloper Is the fee owner of certain real property withlit the City Qched Exhibit A (the Property); and and s $ 15.99, the City raised issues with regard to density and trafHc >d to the east; and effon to icsolvc differences and to avoid litigation, the Developer and City have undertaken meetings and discussions to resolve ditfereneas; and WHEREAS, the City has indicated a willingness to approve iho development of twenty at this time; and whereas, the City desires the construction of a public road p.'oviding access to the Road 15 prior to tho final platting of the additional ten (10) units; and FROM CULL-ERTJON :FRI) 6. 5'93 3:12 3T. $:i0 NO. :7000('04;6 F 4 WHEREAS, the Ocvclopor and the City agree to the approval of the subdivision of the Property subject to the tertns set fortlt below. NOW THERHF0|lC. BE IT RESOLVED, the City tnd the Developer do mutually agree as follows. 1. The City will, by duly adopted resolution, approve the Lake Minnesota Woods PKD consisting of thirty <30; tow-nhomc units as depicted on the attached Exhibit B. 2.The Crty v-ill, by duly ndopuJ resolution, approve the final plat of twenty (20) units of the Property gene 3. The City w 0. Tht ovi ally indicated as Phase I on the attached Exhibit B. ill be bound to final plat approval of the area depicted as Phase II on the attached Exhibit B at i uch time that one of the follow’ing events occurs. Tier or developer of the property located to the west of the Properly (the West Properly) enters into o development agrcerneni providing for the suMiv b. TheCi for use The above Setllen Sion or development of the West Property; or y enters into a contract to acquire a portion or all of the West Property as a city park or other publie facility; or c. Decern >cr 31,2001. ent Agreemom is for settlement purposes only witMn Rule 407 of the Rules of Evidence and is i ubjcci to the approval of tha Orono City Council TONKA VENTURES, LLC CITY 0? ORONO By: Its; By: Its: Uiti\iy(n r FROM HIKi'HAW ^ CULEERT20N (FRI) 6. 5'93 15:23 3T. 15:21 NO. S700000437 (5'.^ A W 4 1 ArrLCTOr#. vfisi^u.NilN bniXfiVILLF. fl.LLNOlik *‘CWMIN(;TOhf. ItXlNOIS • RfAiKHtXD. WISCONSIN CIIAMPAICN.ILUNOIS CHfCAGO, ILLINOIS c rystal lakh . ILLINOIJ5 rr. LALT»Ff(L>AL£. FLORIDA JALKSONVJU.F. FLORIDA JOurr. ILUNOK LAKE CCNkVA. WISCONMN l.l«f r. ILLINOK FU’US JAfl RAY TOW£R NtTTE.MiA^ SOUTVI NI.VTW STUtCT MIVNtAPOr 1$. MINNESWI A 3M02 FI2^J3.14\4 telefay MjAXfI. Kr opjoa m^lWaunm * WISCONSIN MmN?;tTR. f»/DL\NA FEOMa . ILLINOIS fhofniv a Ruoka firV'KrORD tLLINOl.'* 51 Loris. Mts^nvRi SAN rKASri-XO. CAI irOftN/A pi rino PIELO. ILLINOIS TAMI'A FLORIDA >^AVKEC;\N. ILLINOIS June 5, 1908 •*-Rri>3< soiRetTO'AJ .NO. 6I2.334.26V6 COUNCIL MEETING FILE NU Timoiliy J. Keane Ltirkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 1300 Norwesi Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington. Minnesota 55431-1194 JUfj 8 1998 CfTY OF ORONO Lake Minnetonka Wood.s-City of Orono Dear Tim: resolmJ.nTomhta.r’Jr.'/’ project is an accepi^k with the impact of the entire 30 units at propo'eT' *>« itlcmificd ten units whether wnot'a^olTcomecir «'e remaining In the Cily-5 view the con«n,rhn„!!J in ^“ 7.'""' " ■'''■'iopmcni to County Road 15 is built. 10 the construction of the last ten unh^. " “S'” changes « 7e«llpmer'of T nre ‘h<= 'iming or the nature of anyrli.ni- 1 u property to the west of th.it sought to be develoned hv vour directly. '“suago which will address these continneneies more The Council will discuss your proposid and its position at its meeting on Monday. Very truly yours. c:Ron Moorse Thomas J. Bai7 082/22159732 6/5/98 A PARTNERSltu. INCLLltlNC PKOFtlCIOSAL CORPC8AT10K.5 \ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING JUN 3 1998 CrrYOFORONO Department Approval: \ Name Michael P. GaPfron Title Senior Planning Coordinator Administrator Reviewed: DATE: June 4, 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 E - MCWD Permit Exemption 5/29/98 F - City Engim er Comments on Grading Plan 5/26/98 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 l^en 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 owTier of Lot I should the City ever wish to make the road connection to Birch Lane. Grading Plan Adjustments Required The grading plan provides for the excavation of a stormwater pond as noted in the preliminary plat ^proval, as well as filling to elevate the building pads as indicated on the preliminary grading plan, e 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 (See Exhibit F) to avoid any grade c anges within the 0-75' lakeshore protected zone, and to ensure that homes are located at correct e evations above the storm pond. Also, some revisions are needed to ensure that all drainage from c road reaches the pond, which may require that the proposed road be more centered in the defined right-of-way. r #2339 - James Render June 4,1998 Page 2 Stormwater Management Policies Staff and the City Engineers met with representatives of the MCWD and applicant’s sur\'eyor on June 2 to review and discuss stormwater management policies related to small subdivisions. This meeting was called by staff due to perceived inconsistencies in how the City and MCWD are dealing • with drainage for the current handftil of 2-lot and 3-lot subdivisions. MCWD's Rule B has not been revised as anticipated and may not be revised for some time, if at all. Rule B currently exempts certain categories of development from providing stormwater runoff quality treatment facilities. One of the exempt categories is "Residential developments where the total site area is less than tv\'o acres and contains four or fewer living units". Under this rule, the Render and Waade plats are exempt, but the Van Moorlehem and Haglund plats are not. The City in 1993 amended its Comprehensive Plan by adding language to the "Natural Resource Management General Policies" (Item 13, Page 3-21) stating that "National Urban Runoff Program rNURP) standards will be applied to the design of new stormwater ponds." No thresholds of development were adopted for exemption, hence it can be argued that NURP ponds are required for even the smallest developments. However, NURP ponds require s much larger land area than simple rate control ponds, in part due to the need for a 10:1 perimeter bench mainly for safety purposes, since Walker Model NURP ponds are always full of water. The standard Walker Model NURP pond design was developed to be most efficient for large contributing watersheds (say 20-40 acres or larger) and is relatively inefficient for small drainage areas in the 1-5 acre range. This begs the question of whether NURP ponds should be required for small subdivisions with small watershed areas. It can be shown that for small watersheds, rate control ponds coupled with grassy swales or vegetative buffers may accomplish the same degree of phosphorus removal as a NURP pond, which is the primary end goal of our stormwater quality management regulations. While the Render proposal is feasible and can be approved, the proposed NURP pond with a 1.2 acre contributing watershed may in fact be 'overkill' and it may be more appropriate to allow some alternative stomiwater management methods. Staff anticipates that applicants surveyor may propose such an alternative for this plat. Existing House/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. r #2339 - James Render June 4,1998 Page 3 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. Construction Staging .‘pplican^ has requested that a building foundation permit for Lot 3 be issued concurrently with the site grading and road construction due to the logistics of working around the proposed pond. While the City's normal practice is to not allow building permits for new developments until road base work is completed in order to ensure inspector and emergency vehicle access, Lot 3 is directly adjacent to Tonkawa Road and staff recommends that the request be granted, hence resolution condition # 2 has been modified to account for this request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the final plat of Tonkawa 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. ! ' • t J 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 fully 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 111 subdivision. Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. Creation of a private road shown on the plat as Outlet A. Concurrent with the creation of this private road in Outlet A, dedication to the City of road and utility easements granting to the City permanent access, improvement and utility easements over said Outlet; and the creation of non-exclusive ingress, egress, drainage and utility easements over said Outlet in favor of all abutting lOts %vithin 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 Outlet A whereby benefltting lot Page 1 of 4 1 ' ! 5. 6. oxvners 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, rad within Ite plat providing for limitations on the use of these areas rad shown on the plat as drainage easements. Execution of a Developer ’s Agreement providing for the installation of improvemrate reouired as a condition of subdivision approval, rad posung of secimty to ensme * approval of the City Engineer. Provided evidence of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval. Payment to the City of a park dedication fee for Lots 2 rad 3 in the amount of $9,800. Payment to the City for dte frnal plat review fee and fee for legal review rad f.ling of the plat, easements and covenants in the amount of $400.0 . ivirfcw thfrff ORE 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 o owing conditions: The final grading plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. No IlTdinr^min the 0-75 ’ lakeshore setback zone wili be allowed. Erosion control fhall be maintained over all disturbed areas until natural groundcover is restor . No building permits for Lots 1 or 2 will be issued until a all drainage improvements have been installed per approval ty "LTation permit for Lot 3 may be issued base work, due to the site limitations rad proximity to Tonkawa Road. The existing residence on Lot 1 and the existing detached garage on Lot 2 shall be removed wUhin 90 days of the date of final plat approval, rad no building permits 9. 1. 2. 3. Page 2 of 4 I » 6.Prior to for new homes on Lots 1.2 or 3 shall be issued until such time that said buildings . hJ'-'C been removed. Owners. Applicant shall grant a sewer connection easement over Lot 2 for the benefit of Lo 1, subject to approval of the City Engineer. . City release of the plat for ^ required by the City Anomey. 7 AoDlieant shall provide all documents noted in this resolution in a format acceptable to the City Attorney prior to release of the plat or i mg. g. The aforesaid plat shall be ftled by County Recorder’s Office or RegtsW copies of 1998 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and execut p the easements, deeds and covenants noted above. for subdivision review. Dated this 8th day of June, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Page 3 of 4 \ ' — CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 -5 P A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS III SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1365 TONKAWA ROAD - FILE NO. 2339 \VHEREAS, James Render (hereinafter the "subdivider") on Jan^ 23,1998, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a three lot residential plat of property legally described as: That part of Lots 13, 14 and 15, "LYDIARD’S PARK" Lake Minnetonka lying northwesterly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southwesterly line of said Lot 15 distant 225 feet northwesterly from the point of intersection of the southwesterly line of said Lot 15 with the base line shown on the 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, Minnesota. (hereinafter "the property"); and \VHEREAS, 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 wWch time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meetings held on M^ch 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 of7 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 ^ ^ ^------ 3. 5. 6. Tonkawa Road, the property is above the floodplain elevation of 931-5'. ^d homes can be developed without the need for filling or encroachment of the .. floodplain. the 75' lakeshore setback line. All three lots ate 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 ^ easterly lot boundary into Lot 2. Lot 2 contains an existing detached g«age which encroaches within the required 10' side yarf f ^ot 2. ^ house which encroach the 10' required side yard of Lot 1 and j into Lot 2. and the detached garage in Lot 2. shall be requited t w ithin a specified limited period of time after subdivision ™ ‘ removed prior to any sale of Lots 1 or 2 into Mo separate ownerships. All three Lots shall be served by a private road designated on the P'^t “ ^ A Said private toad Outlot shall be 25' in width, realizing a total 33 fimctionU width whL used in combination with an adjacent 8' j adiacent property to the south. Said road shall be constructed to a 16 paved width, with a T turnaround for emergency vehicle access. T'dMdr require the granting of a variance to City road width The basis for such variance is the negative visual and traffic ““ neighboring properties that would occur if such private road was 5 City standards at this location near the Maxwell Bay lake access. Sai shaft be subject to an underlying road, drainage and utility «sement to be grited to the City for possible future use. except that the westerly 5 feet of said Outlet shall not be subject to said easement. The City has no intent to continue said private road westward to Birch Lane at Page 2 of 7 8. 9. CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 Q 5 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. Lots 1 and 2 shall gain access to the private road via a shared driveway in order to minimize hardcover on those lots. 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 w'ay. 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 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 James Render at 1365 Tonkawa Road per preliminary 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 Outlot 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 width and 24' paved road width or 80' paved cul-de-sac standards for a private road serving 3 or more Page 3 of 7 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^0^^ - 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. residences. All Lots shall access to the private road in Out'ot A^No djr«t^=cess •» Tonkawa Road shall he allowed for any Lot. Lots 1 and 2 aha 1 access W private road outlot via a shared driveway as shown on the prelim ary p drawings. The private road in Outlot A and the stormwater pond located m 3 per the preliminary plat drawings shall be constructed Developers Agreement to be executed between the ity ^ Private road and stormwater pond construction can engineering plans for the road and pond have been approv y Developers Agreement has been executed. The private toad shall be allowed to access directly to Coun^ Road 84 su^ ect 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 owTied and maisitained per access easement/maintenance documents to be executed y t e ^ developer shall create a homeoxvners association for such owmership and maintenance. No building permits will be issued until the private road base work has been completed and been approved by the City. The developer shall grant to the City an underlying Road and Utilities Easement for all of Outlot A except the westerly 5 feet thereof. Subdivider to designate drainage easements over all drainageways and stormwater ponds within plat. Subdivide is hereby advised that the City will not allow road and pond construction to commence until the MCWD has app all grading and drainage improvements on the property. The portion of the existing house on Lot 1 that is within 10 of the east sid Page 4 of 7 r • • • CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ?4 0 fi 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 approv'al. Applicant shall execute a Special Lot Combination Resolution to be filed in the chain of title of Lots 1 and 2 which disallows 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. 13. Payment of standard Park Dedication Fee. Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will expire within one year o^ 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 month. These submittals are as follows: 1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City's records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: a.Lot lines platted per preliminary' suA-ey by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. dated March 18, 1998. b. Private road to be designated on the plat as Outlot A. c.Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along the exterior boundaries of property and 5' along the inteinal lot lines. Designation and dedication of drainage easements over detention ponds and drainageways as shown on preliminary plat. f. The naming of plat. Pages of? r CITY of ORONO Legal documents required; RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A 0 5 2. a.Title opinion addressed to the City. All otvners. inortgage holders or Others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b.The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. c.Signed and executed Developer’s Agreement and letter of credit for approved site improvements and construction of private road (Outlot A). drainage facilities, etc. d.Signed and executed Drainage Easements to be taken over drainageway and detention areas within plat. e.Signed and executed Road, Drainage and Utilities Easement over Outlot A except the westerly 5 feet thereof. f.Signed and executed "Declaration of Private Road Easement and Declaration of Maintenance for Same". g- h. Completed "Application for Private Road Name", 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* a. b. Final plat fee = $200.00 Legal review and filing fees for subdivision and associated documents $200.00 c.♦Park Dedication Fee: amount shall be determined as soon w 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 r t 1 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 5 ^ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular.. meeting held this 23rd day of March, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk , i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) , i The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of March, 1998, by Gabriel Jabboiu & 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. __________CAROLE a. HASEMAN ««IncWNtriN tUUNi I « My Commission Expires j«*\ 31.2000 ^ Notary Public Page 7 of 7 r Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15& 19. Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone:(612)471-0590 Fax: (612)471-0682 Email: adminOminnehahacreek.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 Oistnct Administrator Pmtd on rocydid papir oorUnng at laast 30% conaumr twast# .Miiiiielialia Cmi Ualerslieil lli.slrirl Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life May 29, I99S 0 I Mr. James D. Render 9331 Yukon Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55438 I RE: MCWD Permit Application No. 98-51 Dear Mr. Render: The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers rev iewed the above mentioned permit application at their Board meeting on May 28, 1998. It was the action of the Board to move that your project did not require a permit from the MCWD. The District’s Rule B requires water quality treatment for stormwater runoff. However the following exemption from the rule is provided: “Residential developments where the total site area is less than nvo acres and contains four or fewer living units, and where the total off-site area contributing runoff to the site improvements is less than one acre, do not require a permit under this rule. Approved erosion control measures must be properly installed, however, and maintained throughout the construction process and until all disturbed areas are fully stabilized.” Your proposed project is covered by this exemption and therefore does not require a permit from the MCWD. Please call me at 471-0590 with any questions. Sincerely, District Technician c:Mark Gronberg, Coffin & Gronberg Mike Gaffron, City of Orono Steve Schmunk, Wenck Associates J Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers & Architects Mav 26, lyys Bo* uroo. Rosene. Anaerhk jtnd AssocuUes. Inc is ^ Atttrm^i:;\e Action Equ,*t Opportunity Employer Pr pWs Otto G Bonestroo. PE • Joseph C Anderlik. PE. • Mdrvin L Sofv«il«i. PE • RichardE Turre . PE • Glenn R Cook. PE • Robert G Schunicht. PE • Jerry A Bourdon PE • Robert W Rosene, PE ^nd Susan M Eberlm. C PA Senior Consultants Afjoc/Pfe Pr/nr/pa/s Howard A. Sanford. PE • Keith A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferle. PE • Richard W Foster. PE • David O Loskota. PE • Robert C Russek. A I A • Mark A Hanson. PE • M'Chael T Rauimann. PE • Ted K Field. P£ • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs. PE • Sidney P Williamson. PE . I S • Robert F. Kotsmirh • Agnes M Ring • Michael P Rau. PE • Allan Rick Schmidt. PE Offices St Paul. Rochester. Wiiimar and St Cloud. MN • Milwaukee W» Website wwwbonestroo com F Mr. Michael T. Gaffron Ssnior Plannir.c Coordina'or City of Oion.-> Post on ice *3 or. 60 Crvsta* Bay, MN .S5.^23 Re:Render Subdivision File No. 139-2339 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the revised plat and grading plan for the proposed ihrce-Iot .subdivision for James Render. Tlie site IS located at 1365 Tonkawa Drive (C.R.135) north of North Shore Dr:vc (C.R.51) in the southeast quarter of Section 8. We have the following comments in regards to enginceiing matters: The revised plat appears to correctly show all previously requested easements. The grading plan shows a berm along the east side of the pond. The HWL elevation of the pond is shown at 932.5. We recommend that the proposed berm elevation be set at an elevation of 933.0 and include a riprapped emergency spillway at an elevation equal to the HWL (932.5). The plan set should include a detail of the outlet control structurc/baffled weir. The outlet structure should provide one foot of skimming to remove floatables and debris. The proposed road is centered in the right-of-way at the west end and shifted to the southerly edge of the right-of- wa> at the east end. We recommend that the road be centered in the right-of-way for the entire length to provide adequate room for construction a.nd snow storage. The purpose of the pond is to provide water quality for storm drainage from the site, especially drainage due to hardcover. 1 he proposed street section is a rural section with ditches on both sides. It appears that storm drainage oi* the sou<’n of the roadway will shed to the south ditch, travel easterly to the 15-inch CMP, and then flow nordicr’iv to tire l'!ce, completely bypassing the pond. The street should be designed so that, at a minimum, all flows from m:- io?.dv/ay are directed to the pond. A revised drainage area map and drainage calculations should be subir.i:i«*.d fof review. Iiascr.v.T.1 e'e^'eticn? shown on Lots 2 and 3 provide less than the minimum recommended freeboard of 2 feet above tht*. Do.r.d HWL. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District should review and comment on the proposed grading (;r;ifi;n^ 2 2nd 3 should be revi.sed so that runoff from Lot 3 is directed away from the proposed basement o.n Let 2. We ha ,-.«. Miiis-tc.'. die total cost for site improvements at $43,500. The cost estimate is attached for your review. A tinarciu! su.nr,'’.ntee of 150 percent of the estimate or $65,250 should be provided to the City. Please contact me at 60c-'»a63 if you have any questions. Yours very t.'"jly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIu & ASSOCIATES, INC. CC- Greg Gappa, City of Orcnc 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 • Fax: 612-636-1311 CITY OF ORONO RENDER SUBDIVISION RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAT FILE NO. 2339 SITE IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE EST. Mobilization Site grading Common Excavation Aggregate base, Cl. 5,100% crushed Type 31 bit. base course Type 41 bit. wear course Bituminous material for tack coat 15" CMP culvert 15" CMP F.E.S. Outlet control structure Riprap Retaining wall Silt fence Seeding with 4" topsoil Sod v,ith 4" topsoil Estimated Construction Cost +50% Security Deposit Total Security Deposit Required LS LS CY TN TN TN GL LF EA EA CY SF LF AC SY QUANTITY 1 1 220 280 60 45 50 25 2 1 12 300 800 0.2 • •• 2339RENDER UNIT PRICE $5,000.00 10,000.00 6.00 10.00 35.00 40.00 1.00 18.00 150.00 3.000. 00 40.00 14.00 3.00 3.000. 00 3.00 ■' i EST. COST $5,000 10,000 1,320 2,800 2,100 1,800 50 450 300 3.000 480 4,200 2,400 600 9.000 $43,500 21,750 $65,250 ■m COUNCILMErnNS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION J'ON 8 1998 on'.' 0^ Date; June 4, 1998 Item No 7 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2340 Robert & Iris Waade, 3280/3290 North Shore Drive - Preliminary Plat Approval - Resolution List of Exhibits A - Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution B - Preliminary Plat Drawing C - Draft Council Minutes 5-26-98 D- Staff memo of 5-21-98 On May 26 Council voted 3-1 io grant conceptual approval of this proposed subdivision including a number of variances, CUP for duplex use, and CUP for berm construction. Council directed staff to draft a resolution for preliminary plat approval, incorporating appropriate findings and conditions. A resolution for preliminary plat approval is attached for Council review and adoption. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution for preliminary plat approval. A A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS III SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3280/3290 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - FILE NO. 2340 WHEREAS, Robert and Iris Waade (hereinafter the "subdividers") on January 23, 1998, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a two 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 February 17, 1998 (continued to March 16, 1998, and concluded 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, at their regular meeting held on May 26, 1998 the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdivider and voted 3-1 to grant conceptual approval and direct staff to draft a preliminary plat approval ’■esolution noting the following findings of fact: 1.The property is located within the LR-lC-1 Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of one-half acre of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. The property contains a total of approximately 1,503 acres of land. There are no wetlands located on the property. 3,The proposed plat consists of two residential lots each meeting the minimum lot area and width requirements of the LR-lC-1, Single Family Lakeshore Page 1 of 8 4. 5. 6. Residential Zoning District. Lot 1 is by definition a 'back lot’ and meets the required 150% (0.75 acre) lot area requirement of Section 11.31 Subd. 5C. The 'extra 50% area' requirement of said Subd. 5C is partially met by crediting the area of the proposed stormwater pond in Lot 1. Lot 1 also meets the required 100' LR-lC-1 minimum lot width standard as measured at the shoreline and at the 75' lakeshore setback. Lot 2 is proposed for use as a duplex lot and meets the minimum 0.50 acre lot area requirement and 135' defined width as measured at the 30' front setback line. Lot 2 is considered as a comer lot and the east lot line of lot 2 abutting Outlot A shall be considered as its front lot line for zoning purposes. Outlot A is a proposed private road corridor which will serve this proposed 3- unit development and an additional 3-4 existing residential units to the east. Outlot A requires a variance due to its 40' width where a 50' private road corridor is normally required. The variance is justified by the limited lot area available and the long, narrow configuration of the site coupled with the need to provide access to a limited number of additional residences outside the property. Outlot B is a proposed access corridor to serv'e the back lot (Lot 1). Outlot B requires the following variances; a. Outlot width (30' required, 20' proposed) b. Driveway setback to west lot line (O’ proposed, 10’ required) c. Lack of extension to souith line of Lot 1, creating a 'flag lot' (flag lots are not allowed) d. Only 2 residences allowed to access from driveway outlot, 3 proposed The above variances are justified by the narrow width of the property, the limited lot area, and the need to provide for minimum required area within each building lot. The unique location and orientation of this site makes these variances appropriate in this case where they likely would not be appropriate in other cases. TTie variance to allow 3 dwelling units to be served from Outlot B allows a shared driveway to serve both duplex units resulting in minimization of hardcover. Page 2 of 8 7. 8. 9. 11. Both lots are served with municipal sewer and have been fully assessed for sewer to accommodate the 3 dwelling units proposed. All 3 units will be served by private wells. Both Lots shall be served by a private road designated on the plat as Outlot A. Said private road Outlot shall be 40' in width, and shall connect at the northerly end of Outlot A to the existing private driveway serving 3 additional existing dwelling units to the east of the property. Said private road shall be constructed to a 24' paved width within Outlot A. No cul-de-sac will be required since the private driveway serving the adjacent properties has a loop which will serve as an emergency vehicle turnaround. These dimensions require the granting of a variance to City road width and cul-de-sac standards. The basis for such variance is the limited number of properties which will ultimately be served, the limited area available for access roads, and the configuration of the property in relation to adjacent existing properties which will ultimately benefit from this private road. Said Outlot shall be subject to an underlying road, drainage and utility easement to be granted to the City. However, the private road shall be privately owned and maintained. A stormwater pond will be developed within Lot 1 and a drainage easement will be granted to the City over said pond and the necessary drainageways serving it. The City Engineer has reviewed the preliminary' site grading and drainage plan andflnds it acceptable subject to minor revisions. 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 North Shore Drive (County Road 51) subject to dedication of additional right-of-way (shown as Outlot C on the preliminary plat drawings) and regrading of the roadway banks in this location. The Orono Park Commission has recommended that no additional right-of-way or trail easements are required from this development since any future trail needs can be accommodated within the existing right-of-way. Page 3 of 8 12. The area of the stormwater pond shall count towards lot area of Lot 1 for zoning purposes as noted above, and shall count towards lot area credit for hardcover calculation purposes. The City intends that no hardcover variances will be granted for development of dwelling units on Lots 1 and 2. 12. The preliminary grading plan includes a 2-3' high berm along the west lot line, said berm extending to the west lot line and being located over an existing sanitary sewer main. The City Engineer has determined that the proposed berm will have no negative impacts on the sewer, but that adequate easements for the existing sewer will be required if they do not exist, and that the devloper and future owners be advised that the berm may be removed if sanitary sewer work is required at some future time. The berm design (height, location) may be amended subject to City approval as plans are finalized. A Conditional Use Permit shall be granted for the construction of this berm. 13. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit for duplex use of Lot 2 will be the subject of a separate City Council resolution which will be adopted at the time of final plat approval. 14. Lot 1 shall have riparian access to Lake Minnetonka because it is adjacent to the shoreline. Lot 2 shall not have riparian access to Lake Minnetonka, and a covenant shall be filed in the titles of Lots 1 and 2 to prohibit the granting of lake access easements over Lot 1 in favor of Lot 2. 15. The Council finds that both Lots 1 and 2 are suitable for the construction of residential dwelling units as proposed without the need for further variances. 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 Robert and Iris Waade at 3280/3290 North Shore Drive per preliminar>' plat drawings by David E. Crook, a licensed surv'eyor of DeMars-Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc, dated January 26, 1998, most recent revision May 13, 1998, subject to the following conditions: 1.The proposed private road on said preliminary' plat drawing shall bf' platted as a private road outlot to be designated as Outlot A. The proposed back lot access corridor shall be platted as Outlot B. The proposed right-of-way for Page 4 of 8 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. North Shore Drive (County Road 51) shown on the preliminary plat drawings as Outlot C shall be platted as dedicated public roadway. A variance will be granted for the 40' width of Outlot A which does not meet the 50 ’ required outlot width. A variance will be granted for the width of Outlot B, the driveway setback in Outlot B, the creation of a flag lot, and to allow 3 dwelling units to gain access via Outlot B. Lots 1 and 2 shall access to the private road in Outlot A. No direct access to North Shore Drive shall be allowed for any Lot. All dwelling units on Lots 1 and 2 may access Outlot A via Outlot B. The private road in Outlot A and the stormwater pond located in Lot 1, plus all required drainage improvements and site grading per the preliminary plat drawings and preliminary grading and drainage plan 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 and private driveway and respective outlots shall be privately owned and maintained per the appropriate access easement/maintenance documents to be executed by the developer, including easements in favor of the off-site users of said road. The developer shall create a homeowners association or other appropriate vehicle for such ownership and maintenance. No building permits will be issued until the private road base work has been completed and been approved by the City. The developer shall grant to the City an underlying Road, Drainage and Utilities Easement over Outlot A. 9.Subdivider to designate drainage easements over all drainageways and stormwater ponds within plat, and shall grant utility easements within the plat for existing Page 5 of 8 r I I sewer lines if it is determined that such lines are not covered under existing easements. 10. A conditional use permit will be granted for the berm including grading within 5’ of lot lines, subject to City Engineer review and approval of final grading plans. 11. 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, or developer provides evidence that no MCWD approval is required. 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, June 8, 1999. Should the subdivider fail to complete the filing of the final plat application within the year deadline, it shall be necessary for the subdivider to file a new preliminary subdivision application with the City. Final Plat Submittals: The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 1. Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City's records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200’. Drawing to include: a. Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by David E. Crook of DeMars- Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc. dated January 26, 1998, revised May 13, 1998. b. Private road to be designated on the plat as Outlot A. c.Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along the exterior boundaries of property and 5' along the internal lot lines. Page 6 of 8 d. Designation and dedication of drainage easements over detention ponds and drainageways as shown on preliminary plat and preliminary grading plan. e. The naming of plat. 2. Legal documents required: a.Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b.The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. c.Signed and executed Developer's Agreement and letter of credit for approved site improvements and construction of private road (Outlot A), drainage facilities, etc. d.Signed and executed Drainage Easements to be taken over drainageway and detention areas within plat. e. Signed and executed Road, Drainage and Utilities Easement over Outlot A. f. Signed and executed Utility and Access Easements over existing sewer or other utility lines as may be identified. g-Signed and executed "Declaration of Private Road Easement and Declaration of Maintenance for Same". 3. Fees to be paid: Total due: $400.00* a. Final plat fee = $200.00 Page 7 of 8 1^ i i I 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. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 8th day of June, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of June, 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 8 of 8 1 r . Proposed Lot Areas Lot 1 Lot 2 Outlot A Outlot B Outlot C Total Area 34,500 21,780 6,708 1,089 1.394 Sq. Ft 0.79 Acres Sq. Ft 0.50 Acres Sq. Ft 0.154 Acres Sq. Ft 0.025 Acres Sq. Ft 0.032 Acres 65,471 Sq. Ft 1.503 Acres Proposed Hardcover Lot 1 0’ - 75' 75'-250 ’. 250'-500' Existing Area 75' • 250' Percent of Hardcover Existing Area 250' - 500' Percent of Hardcover 0% Proposed House Driveway Garden Area Total Driveway 21,945 Sq. Ft 24.71% 2,475 Sq. Ft 25% 2,024 Sq. Ft 2,000 Sq. Ft 1.400 Sa. Ft 5,424 Sq. Ft 630 Sq. Ft Lot 2 South of 250' Setback Line Facing Maxwell Bay Proposed Twin Home Driveway Total Existing Area South of 250' Setback Facing Maxwell 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 Sa. Ft 3.170 Sq. Ft 1,030 Sq. Ft ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 The applicant was not mesent. Moorse reported the applic^ts had requested a continuation of the review as they still have/ concerns about the ability toVain access to County Road 15. Barrett added that he had tall^ / with the applicant’s attorney, Tim Keane, and they will continue to work on language reg^ing the County Road 15 access. Keane will provide a draft of the language as soon as av^able. Jabbour noted the City is not in a posuion to guarantee access but is encouraging^cess, and that Council was willing to act on the applttation at the current meeting. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to tab^e Application #2308 fop^rook Park Realty at the applicant’s request, and that there would be aVolling of any time o^ods which would otherwise run against the City or the applicant during tlife! continuance^riods. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. i (#6) #2339 JIM RENDER, 1365 TONKAWA RpXb - FINAL PLAT APPROVAL The applicant was not present. Gaffton reported that the mylars fopdfie subdivision were n^^vailable and requested tabling to the June 8 meeting. Gaffron confirmed there was no problerti^with deadline dates because the intent has been to approv^-tlie application. Peterson moved^^XcHey seconded, to table Application #2339 for m\al plat approval for the property lowte^ at 1365 Tonkawa Road. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#7) ROBERT WAADE, 3280/3290 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - PRELIMINARY PLAT ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 Outlet B accesses the back lot. Three total units are served by driveways coming off of the outlet. Technically the code only allows two, therefore a variance is required for the third driveway. « Outlot C is requested by Hennepin County for sight distance improvements. A plan showing how the area to be cut down should be submitted. A berm is proposed at the west property line which may be up to 5* in height, if it is greater than 2-3 ’ as shown on the diagrams, additional review will be required. City sewer runs beheath the proposed berm and the City will require an easement over the sewer. It should be documented that sewer is beneath the berm and the City would have the right to disturb die berm and plantings to access the sewer. The following variances are required: - • Outlot A - proposed width = 40’, required = 50’ Outlot B - proposed width = 20’, required = 30 ’ - proposed driveway setback = O’, required =10 ’ doesn’t extend to Lot 1 creating a ’flag lot’ .. - only 2 residences allowed to access from driveway outlot, 3 proposed. it ii Other issues to consider: Can the stormwater pond be credited toward the extra 50% area requirement for a back \ ORONO CIT\ COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 lot? Can the east line of Lot 2 be considered the front line, eliminating a width variance for the duplex? Gaffron summarized the staff recommendations on Page 5 of the May 21 memo noting that the same variances would be required whether or not a duplex was approved; a berm higher than 2-3’ would require a new plan, drainage issues need to be resolved, and the duplex use should be approved based on meeting frie zoning criteria. Waade commented that he bought the property based on the information that a multi-family use is allowed. Because of the marina, lift station and busy road, multi-family housing best suits the lot. He plans to live in the lakeshore lot and would be improving the area. There were no public comments. Peterson asked for clarification on the front line issue for Lot 2. Gaffron explained that the width requirement for a duplex is 135’. For this comer lot, the short side is considered the front. However, if the longer side were considered the front side, a width variance would not be required. He noted the primary access will be from Outlot A even though the properties would be addressed off of North Shore Drive. Jabbour asked how many homes were on frie property prior to the proposed subdivision.. .Gaffron responded that there were three homes with three sewer units. Kelley stated he was not in favor of the duplex and would prefer a single family residence for a total of two single family homes on two lots. r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 Jabbour complimented Waade for his proposed improvements this area. Waade responded that he works with high-end development and sees this as a positive improvement for the area. Jabbour stated that if three units had existed on this property, three should be allowed to remain. Peterson commented that the duplex use was appropriate for the area. Mrs. Waade noted that it would be extremely difficult to sell a single family home next to a marina and lift station. Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to direct staff to draft a resolution conceptually approving the proposed subdivision for the property located at 3280/3290 North Shore Drive and approving the conditional use permits for duplex credit and grading within 5’ of a lot line. Ayes 3, Nays 1. Kelley voted against the motion. Peterson asked if the applicant was still working with the marina on the berm. Waade confirmed that he was. (#8) #2355 DOIK^AS VAN MOORLEHEM, 4490 WATERTOWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDm^ON APPROVAL Tht applicant was not present. Gaffron explained that the applicant has requested that review of his application be tabled to the June 8 meeting. He confirmed thereflvas no pro^tn^with deadline dates. / L REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: May 21, 1998 Item No Department Approval: = 7 Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Adminbtrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning 3280/3290 North Shore Drive - Preliminary Plat - CUP for Duplex Credit - CUP for Grading Within 5' of Lot Line (proposed berm) ^ Zoning District: LR-lC-1, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Subdistrict, 1/2 ac., Sewered Total Site Area: 1.503 acres Summary of Request: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. Use of the proposed front lot for a duplex requires a CUP. The proposed berm along the west lot line also requires a CUP. Lbt of Exhibits A - Preliminaiy Plat Drawing B - Preliminary Grading Plan C - Notice of Planning Commission Action 5-21-98 D - Supplemental Neighborhood Petition Received 5-18-98 E - Memo and Exhibits of May 15, 1998 F - Planning Commission Minutes (Jan/Feb/Mar '98) primarily regarding the rental nature of the proposed duplex. #2340 - Rober & Iris Waade May 21,1998 Page 2 Brief Summary of Proposed Layout Lot 1 is the proposed lakeshore lot, which would have lake access. Lot 1 meets the area and width standards for a back lot, and the proposal shows a conceptual residence which meets all required setbacks and hardcover standards. The only variance involved with Lot 1 is in relation to the location of the proposed driveway, which does not meet the required 10’ setback from the east line of Lot 2. Planning Commission recommended a policy determination that would allow the stormwater pond in Lot 1 to be credited toward the 'extra 50%' area requirement for the back lot, similar to the use of wetlands for such credit in past plat approvals. Without such a credit. Lot 1 would need a lot area variance. Lot 2 is the proposed duplex lot, which would not have lake access (a covenant would be filed in the titles of Lots 1 and 2 prohibiting the provision of such access). Lot 2 meets the 0.5 acre area requirement for a duplex lot. Lot 2 meets the criteria established in the Zoning Code for a duplex CUP: it is located within 200' of a commercial zone, and is provided with City sewer. The proposed duplex structure on Lot 2 has been reduced to meet the 15% lot coverage limit, and the proposal meets the intent of the hardcover ordinance (some hardcover allowance transfer to areas further from the lake will occur, hence no variance is required). The required lot wddth for a duplex lot in the Shoreland District is 135'. Lot 2 only meets this standard if its east lot line abutting Outlot A is considered as front . Lot 2 is technically a comer lot whose short side would normally be considered its front; but Lot 2 is impacted by the lift station exception, and the east line of lot 2 will function as its front line. The total distance from the SW comer of Lot 2 to its SE comer, i.e. its total length along its south side, is about 150'. Its total abutment of Outlot A is about 145'. Staff and Planning Commission both feel that there is ample justification to consider the east line of Lot 2 as its front for zoning purposes. Outlot A is being platted as a 40' private road outlot, requiring a variance to the road width standard, but containing a proposed 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 constmcted the length of Outlot A, and at the north end connect to the existing private driveway system. All properties served by this road would continue with North Shore Drive addresses, and although this is an Urban area of the City, it seems appropriate that this continue as a private rather than public road at this time. The City w'ould require an underlying road and utility easement for Outlot A. Note that in response to concerns raised by the neighboring property owner on March 16, the < • f #2340 - Robert & Iris Waade May 21,1998 Page 3 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. Outlot B 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. At least one of the units must have its access other than Outlot B or a variance would be necessary. It appears that this can be accomplished without causing a hardcover overage. 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. Outlot C is being provided at the request of Hennepin County Public Works for needed sight distance improvements and added right-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. Grading & Drainage Plan The revised grading plan was submitted prior to the road relocation and duplex size reduction, and does not reflect those changes. This most current grading plan has been reviewed by the City Engineer, and his comments appear in Exhibit C, summarized as follows: 1. 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. 2. The grading plan reduces potential surface storm ponding for easterly lots, hence while total area draining to east is reduced, its storage potential is also reduced. A greater concern is that if stormwater from the east overflowed into this property prior to this development, it will now be blocked. This issue needs further detailed review before the drainage plans can be approved. It is likely that an analysis of the immediate watershed is necessary. t 3. A revised grading and drainage plan reflecting the road nnd duplex changes should be submitted. Some pond outlet details are needed. Staff and the city Engineer are scheduled to meet with the applicant on V .y 26 to review grading and drainage issues. Berm The grading plan proposes a berm approximately 2-3' above existing grades and 15' in vddth along the west lot line abutting Lakeside Marina. At the Planning Commis.«ic" meeting on May 18, HIM il #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 bet^\’een 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. 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. 2. Outlot B. Proposed width = 40', required = 50 ’ a. Width of Outlot B (20’ proposed, 30’ req ’d) b. Driveway setback in Lot B (and Lot 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 li f /r2340 - Robert & Iris Waade May 21,1998 Page 5 Applic^t's engineer, Public Services Director and City Engineer to meet to review this issue prior to Council action on preliminary plat. 3.Need to address City Engineer's other comments in various review letters as part of final plat process. f 5X Planning Commission Recommendation On May 18 Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the plat and grant the variances noted above; to approve a CUP for the duplex use, finding that the :riteria for duplex CUP are met, and that the LR-lC-1 zoning would generally allow this 3-unit density if this had been proposed as a PRD; recommended a conclusion that the east line of Lot 2 can be considered its fi-ont line; recommended a conclusion that the stormwater pond can be credited toward the 'extra 50%' lot area requirement for the back lot; noted that only Lot 1 has lake access; and the approval should be subject to applicant resolving grading and drainage issues with staff and City Engineer. 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 outlet width standards. In staffs opinion, the impacts of the specific required variances are relatively minor . Ihg -C.UP for tb? bgrm at a 2-3* height sh ould 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. Staff will advise on May 26 whether a berm of greater height is feasible or advisable. 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 pro^^^^^velopment. Study is needed to resolve these concerns prior to preliminary plat approval 4. This subdivision has been before the Planning Commission as a sketch plan in January, and reviewed as a forrnal 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 - see Exhibit D) even though the zoning code would allow a duplex at this location as a CUP, which is part of the request. Other than the Outlot variances which 11 be required whether or not Lot 2 contains a duplex, the proposal meets the CUP standards estL '■'.ed in the code for allowing a duplex, i.e. it's sewered and within 200' of a commercial property (Section 10.20, Subd. 31). Staff recommends approval of the duplex CUP. #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 proposal and give applicant and staff conceptual direction regarding: 1. Approval of noted variances. 2. Approval of duplex CUP. 3 . Approval of berm CUP, subj ect 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. mi III flWi^'.lOlWiVmTYr MlUfTtl r.rtmTtsyRi Ul 4 « l-J rtriTiiv/sin^raiiurt] r*iiMvr«KV«iiiiyirii sytTOiw^itWiViCiC^I OTTilirHSI 111 MlflilMIMlVt] ^TilTiTL miiau •»t liltjiTtKtTiSiril il #2341 - Dan Anderson June 5,1998 Page 2 Runoff from the west-sloping portions of Lots 4-5-6 will be sufficiently handled via the natural vegetated buffer provided for and retained via the Tree, Woodland and Vegetation Preservation Easement. Runoff from portions of Lots 1, 2 and 3 will be directed to the stormwater pond. A vegetated buffer strip is being preserved via covenants along the north boundary of Lots 2 and 3. - Temporarj' sedimentation ponds and silt fencing will be established during construction of each residence to reduce the impact of runoff reaching the lake. This will be a requirement at the time of site plan review for each home. Final pond and drainage system design details pertinent to stormwater quality and quantity will be needed by the City Engineer before the plat will be releasd for filing. Park Fee City Assessor Rolf Erickson has established a pre-development fair market value for the property at just over $3 million. The park fee is due for Lots 2 thru 7; Lot 1 contains an existing residence and is not subject to the park fee. Since the value of each of Lots 2 thru 7 is well in excess of $61,250 per lot, the $4900 per lot maximum park fee is required for a total park dedication fee of $29,400. Status of Municipal Sewer; MUSA Amendment A public hearing for the proposed MUSA amendment for the Maxwell Bay area was held at the Planning Commission on May 18 and received a recommendation for approval. On May 26 the City Council conditionally approved the amendment subject to Metropolitan Council approval, ^d directed staff to submit a formal MUSA amendment to the Metropolitan Council. The application is expected to be submitted the week of June 8. Tom Caswell, our Met Council staff Sector Represemative, was asked to indicate the approximate timeframe for approval, but I have hot heard back from him as of this writing. Applicant in April noted the road construction could be held off until at least June in order that sewer and road construction be coordinated, and that the current subdivision layout would not change regardless of whether sewer is provided. Applicant has provided preliminary sewer and road plans which indicates the road and sewer are feasible, but has not provided final detailed road and sewer construction plans as of this writing. Applicant heu indicated that it is his intent to design and build the sewer as part of the development. r #2341 - Dan Anderson June 5,1998 Page 3 and incorporating the costs into the lot pricing. The City will not be involved in an assessment process, but will own and maintain the sewer (on easements) once it is completed subject to City acceptance. Staff Recommendation Council may adopt the attached resolution granting Final Plat Approval subject to applicant completing all punchlist items to the satisfaction of staff. City Engineer and City Attorney prior to releasing the plat for filing. Prior to adoption. Council should review any remaining concerns or questions related to stormwater management, site improvements, tree/woodland preservation or any other pertinent topics. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution for Final Plat Approval, subject to all remaining conditions as outlined on the May 22, 1998 list being completed to the satisfaction of staff, City Engineer and City Attorney prior to release of the final plat for filing by the City Attorney. •• • w A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF LITTLE ORCHARD FILE NO. 2341 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 seven lot plat by Dan Anderson (hereinafter "the stibdivider"); and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of die LR-IA, 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 fully developed without the need of any variances other than those granted herein; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1.Completion of all the requirements of Resolution No. 4061, the resolution granting preliminary approval of the Class 111 subdivision. 2. 3. Dedication on the plat of standard perimeter drainage and utility easements. Dedication to the City of a Flowage *ind Conservation Easement over those portions of wetland located above the 929.4 OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. 4. Dedication to the City of a Tree, Woodland and Vegetation Preservation Easement over designated shoreline and bluff impact areas within Lots 4, 5 and 6; and establishment of covenants for preservation of a vegetated buffer strip along tlie north Page 1 of 6 5. 6. 7. 8. boundary- of Lots 2 and 3 to provide treatment of runoff. Establishment of a private road outlot shown on the plat as Outlot A, and design of stormwater and drainage improvements and facilities. Concurrent with the creation of this private road in Outlot A, dedication to the City of road, drainage 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-seventh interest in Outlot A whereby benefitting lot owt\ers covenant and agree to permanently maintain and pay cost of maintenance for said private road. Dedication to the City and to the owners of Lots 1 through 7 drainage easements over all detention areas and drainageways within the plat providing for limitations on the use of these areas and a.) vvn on the plat as drainage easements, and providing for the maintenance thereof by the owners of Lots 1 through 7. Provision of evidence of stormwater management plan approval from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 9. 10. Creation of covenants for each lot for protection of drainfield sites within each Lot, including protecti^’e language for alternate septic sites along with site plans locating both primary and alternative sites, and alerting future property owners of the need to protect sites on adjacent properties. Execution of a Subdivider's Agreement providing for the installation of improvements required as a condition of subdivision approval, including roads and boulevards, drainage and stormwater facilities and sanitary' sewer, and posting of security to ensure that these required improvements are completed to the City's satisfaction, the design of said mprovements subject to approval of the City' Engineer. Page 2 of 6 r 11. Payment to the City of a park dedication fee for Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in the amount of $29,400. 12. 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 Little Orchard, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. A lot width variance is hereby granted for Lots 2 and 3 which front on a cul-de-sac and which do not meet the required 200' width at the 50’ front setback. A lot width variance is hereby granted for Lot 7 which as a comer lot has a defined width of approximately 51' at the 50' front setback line. A variance is hereby granted to allow a horizontal curve radius of 125' for the private road in order to preserve identified drainfield sites. Minimum standard setbacks and yard designations for all principal residence construction shall be as depicted on the preliminary plat drawing referenced in Resolution No. 4061. Lots 4, 5 and 6 shall be exempt from meeting the 'average lakeshore setback ’ standards of the Orono Zoning Code.i ■ Lots 4, 5 and 6 are subject to City Shoreland regulations regarding protection of the bluff located on said Lots. All Lots shall access to the private road to be constructed by the developer in Outlot A. No direct access to Old Crystal Bay Road shall be allowed for any Lot. All existing accesses to Old Cr>'stal Bay Road shall be removed prior to City final approval of the private road construction. 7. The private road shall bt allowed to access directly to County Road 84 subject to Page 3 of 6 8. 9. conditions for such access as imposed by the Hennepin County Department of Public Works in their required access permit. The private road in Outlot A shall henceforth be known as The private road shall be privately owned and maintained per the appropriate access easemenL'maintenance documents to be executed by the developer. The developer shall create a homeowners association for ownership and maintenance of the road. Subdivider shall concurrent with road construction, construct stormwater management improvements generally as shovMi on the Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan dated March 15,1998 subject to any revisions of said plan as may be required by the City Engineer. A final Grading. Drainage & Erosion Control Plan must be approved bv the City Engineer prior to release of final plat for filing. Erosion control shall be maintained over all disturbed areas until natural groundcover is restored, adhering to guidelines found in 'Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas'. The private road in Outlot A and required drainage and stormwater improvements shall be constructed to City requirements, subject to a Developers Agreement executed between the City and the developei. Road, drainage and stormwater improvement construction can begin as soon as the final plans have been formally approved by the City Engineer and the Developers Agreement has been executed. No building permits will be issued until the private road base work and all stormwater management improvements have been completed by the developer and approved by the Ciiy. Subdivider shall plant boulevard trees along the private road per the requirements of Section 11.60, Subd. 2. No building permits will be issued until a satisfactory road base and all stormwater and drainage improvements have been installed per approval of the City Engineer. Page 4 of 6 r 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. It is the expectation of the City and the developer that the Metropolitan Council will approve incorporation of the property within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and allow the extension of sanitary sewer to serve the plat. In this event, the developer shall construct said sewer to City standards, the design and construction of said sewer shall be covered under the Developers Agreement, and the Developer shall upon satisfactory completion of construction and acceptance by the City, transfer ownership of said sewer facilities to the City, and shall grant to the City appropriate easements over said facilities; and City shall henceforth maintain said sewer lines. All identified primary 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, or until such time that the development has been provided with municipal sanitary sewer, whichever comes first. In the event that municipal sewer is not provided to the development, subdivider shall submit complete and acceptable septic system designs for each lot prior to the issuance of individual residence structure building permits. Subdivider shall be responsible for installing a new conforming septic system to serve existing residence on Lot 1 within 1 year of the date of final plat approval if municipal sewer is not available, or shall abandon the existing nonconforming septic system and connect to municipal sewer if sewer is available. Applicant shall grant a sew'er connection easement over Lot 5 for the benefit of Lot 4, 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. Page 5 of 6 , I 22. 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 December 8, 1998 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the easements, deeds and covenants noted above. The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Dated this 8th day of June, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of June, 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 6 of 6 J *-o I» I -* m % ^ 9 8 Ml C. C» »'» »/»o 9; 2o 2i r.> < h 5 s •o U» * r? *1 «•«< •• ^ - u •a?5| ;sc'•* • 5^“ i;'<21a4i ■sNil P* u HZ 3d : ?^5;«!p sit o 00ozo Wl o O O O Z CO •H 30 Co H t-i O 2 O O n 2:o C/) X V « f « i fm<CDM(Nl CO»-< "T|mzom o m -H > I—I MIN • 1 •*l K 2 <•) o‘t n !•> y .• (D "D :d -4 X 4^%. n o ^ rn c Ui « o h Z Q 5Spsg-o *< 5 ^ ^S!?? ®o oSc*S » ? 5 M rS Si!! •A V. V ® .D CD 04 O' — ;r c 0 1/4 \)• ^> V iM0 o CD f- mto V r* 0 zo0 0 —a o5oH »t/> 4 c V, Jk "D 0 1 ~a V, ►J cno 4. » -n > Ps. flJk 0 r “«in ni {/) M ♦>»0 CJ •-i /: >58o r 1 YJ ^ 5 ' i ‘ ^CJ 5 ,!!b i! f g«iu..;mO S?.i5^2$3s S^"oS3P§3 r';-j'^bzQ^„>«r. z^- -< I *41 H O ? aj ^'^uTCp VO OJ^ ^9 Sr: Jo .«m L-. C ^ CD O 5 0 5? J. • 1 ft ^ ^ / 6* T L -< V 4 f“ pE*®" f- it r«« V o O o ^ o C tL fy c r “* y 4*..•* «• • 4 f # 't \ P® n m 4-4 1 ^fO • . • 1 • \: tN 60 . IP j'#- A ^VIo Vi , •; N \ t • I !>.,4- *” !• if^i I i*'* - ..*.*\ \ u»^ .f ^ • * ' 4 •:•*•• •••? ’• •••• —--. -ir;::^-! ^, .--Z---- f«- M» ii I tAot Zr^-r^r • ^9txno KTSTrZ^r__• rtxt tm % 1 • SSOCUTtJ tXL^^ »rvry»^, t ^9tX Dt«ls^ . UiM *771ua *' ANCO CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. • •' oronoV'mn ■■ ' ■ - PRE SHf ^r*rini rtRWin •llfli rtirti rtiHt HTtUW%\ Rlili n<M ikSOlIi KW [tJllHUlWtl VO ea»t rtiip-iwi rtivvfsit r« • VA Wki r« I I liliWcili Grantor(s) hereby covenant(s) and agree(s): B. No structures shall be constructed, erected, or placed upon, above, or beneath the Land except the following: 1) One lakeshore access stairway per Lot, such stairway being no more than 4 feet in width, subject to City approval; 2) One dock structure extending from the shoreline; if such . structure includes a canopy-covered slip, such canopy to be dark green or brown in color; 3) One lockbox limited to 20 s.f. footprint area and 4 feet maximum height, finished in natural earthtones; and 4) One mechanized lift device for transporting persons up and down the bluff. All such structures or devices shall be designed, located and finished to be consistent with the natural i;*ate of the land and screened from view as viewed from the lake to the greatest extent possible. Where feasible, stairways and lifts may be designed to run diagonally across tfie slope in order to maximize natural \ egetative screening and avoid vertical cuts in the shore landscape. No trees, shrubs or other vegetation shall be destroyed, cut or removed from the 'Preserv ation Easement Area* except as authorized by written consent of Grantee. Such consent may be granted under the following guidelines: 1) Removal of »rees and understory shall not be allowed except to the minimal extent necessary to accomplish one of the improvements allowed in (A) above. 2) Trimming of trees and understory shall be allowed, but shall be limited to merely the minimal extent necessary to gain a partially obstructed lake view, and such trimming shall not be so extensive as to jeopardize the vitality of the plant materials. 3) To pp ing of trees to gain an unobstructed view of the lake shall not be allowed. Natural vegetative groundcover shall be maintained to minimize erosion of the steep slopes within the 'Preservation Easement Area'. Page 2 of 4 c.Vegetation maintenance, trimming or removal within the 'Protected Area' shall be subject to the following: D. E. F. G. H. 1) No tree of diameter 6" or greater shall be removed except by . specific approval of Grantee. 2) Trimming or topping of trees and trimming of understory shall be allowed without requiring approval of Grantee, Natural vegetative groundcover shall be maintained to minimize erosion of the steep slopes within the 'Protected Area'. There shall be no change of the topography of the Land without the written consent of Grantee. There shall be no fences, play structures, decks, accessory buildings or other temporary or permanent structures placed on the Land, Except for the improvements provided for in (A) above, no hardcover shall be allowed within 75 feet of the shoreline. Except as herein provided, no use shall be made of the Land except uses, if any, which will not change or alter the natural condition of the Land, and no use which would tend to change natural visual characteristics shall be made of the Land.. Grantee may enter upon the Land for the purposes of inspection and enforcement of the covenants contained herein and to cause to be removed from the Land without any liability any structures, uses, materials, substances, or unnatural matter inconsistent with the covenants contained herein and the natural state of the Land. In addition to any other remedy the grantee may have, the covenants and restrictions contained herein may be enforced by injunction. Grantor(s) do not intend that the public should have any interest in the above land by virtue of this indenture or otherwise, except as hereinabove set forth. Page 3 of 4 i The Grantor(s) herein certify that the land herein described are free and clear of all encumbrances except: All provisions hereof shall run with the land and shall extend to and bind the heirs, successors, representatives, grantees or assigns of the respective parties hereto. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )1 This instrument was acknowledged before me this _____________, 19 ___,by__________________ day of NOTARY PUBLIC STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: This instrument is drafted by: City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Page 4 of 4 •* \ V V \V\'\ *• • '.5 ; 1 *. \ « • ' \ ‘I : \ ' I \ •' \ \1 M ‘ \ \ . \\ • • • > \ * . . . IV l / ^ * € /• *T 9 ’/••Ik-V.*’ N X ------ ' /■ :ti •';x A'<v\ V X ••-'ex— ?%S5K mm m ’3r^ • r‘324 z jP^^na^llon Eo#e7?wrr^ mms.CeVef)' ."‘A ,298 -----------------\h^•-—--\\v IW.A . . j IS :; X:;a ----- gLoirr /k-iAPAcr BoMfJti-AA;''?' 75 ' S,^STSf\CK •——— 'Y6/-M3W (P\BfcC>A)'’ (^Af'/’-zecX-^ leub /MAC. ('ftfrADy'.') I 1 fpi>rp cun:;. /\i?£'A /" ' /OD CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 APPLICATION NO. #2341 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: April 14,1998 TO; DAN ANDERSON 3540 MONTGOMERIE AVENUE DEEPHAVEN MN 55391 COPIES: ED OTTO, SURVEYOR 9 WEST DIVISION STREET BUFFALO MN 55313 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: April 13,1998 VOTE; 5 FOR 0 AGAINST COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: To approve per the findings and conditions of the preliminary plat approval resolution previously mailed to you. Council also confirmed their approval of the tree preservation easement language. Preliminary Subdivision Plat Approval - Applicant must provide to the City all information and/or improvements required for final plat approval as noted in the preliminary plat approval resolution. Preliminary plat approval expires 1 year after the date of the resolution. Note that prior to filing of the final plat after final subdivision approval, all taxes for the current year must be paid. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. jig mm-"Mi Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19. Navarre Mail; 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior. MN 55331-9578 Phone:(612)471-0590 Fax: (612) 471-0682 Email: adminOminnehahacreek.org Web Site: www.minnehahacreek.org Board ol Managers Pamela G. Blixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Monica Grcss Thomas W.LaBounty Thomas Mapk . Jr. Malcolm Reid District Ofl-ce: Diane P. Lynch District Administrator PnrOid on rocycltd pipr conlfcring it iMSt 30S post consumer wasti Minneliaha I'lcck Walitr.sliitil llislrirt Improving Qtiality of Water, Quality of Life May 15, 1998 Mr. Dan Anderson Anco Construction 3540 Montgomerie Avenue Deephaven, MN 55391 / ! 'wit. RE: MCVVD Permit Application No. 98-52 Dear Mr. Anderson: The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers reviewed the above mentioned permit application at their Board meeting on May 14, 1998. It was the action of the Board to approve this application with the following conditions: • Payment of Rule J fees in the amount of $138.00. • Reimbursement of mailing costs in the amount of $ 17.36 Due to the size and comple.xity of certain projects, the Board, by Rule J, requires that site inspections be conducted. In these cases, the applicant is required to pay to the District, a fee equal to the actual costs of analysis of the project, field inspection, engineering services, 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. : 1 II Please call me at 471-0590 with any questions. Sincerely, JiiprHafner District Technician c:Marty Campion, Otto Ai.jcciates, Inc. Mike Gaffron, City of Orono Steve Schmunk, Wenck Associates Gr CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 n F? j A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELI^UNARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS III SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 905 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH - FILE NO. 2341 WHEREAS, Dan Anderson (hereinafter the "subdivider") on January 23, 1998, filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a seven lot residential plat of property legally described as: Beginning at a point on the East line of Lot 7, Section 9, Township 117, Range 23, 17.H rods South of the Northeast comer of said Lot 7; thence West parallel with the North line of said Lot 7, 28 lods; thence South parallel with and 28 rods from East line of said Lot 7 to shore of Lake; thence Southeasterly along said lake shore to East line of said Lot 7; thence North on said East line of Lot 7 to point of beginning; except that part thereof described as follows: Beginning at a point on East line of said Lot 7, 17.14 rods South of the Northeast comer of said Lot 7; thence West parallel with North line of said Lot 7, 28 rods; thence South paraUfl with and 28 rods from East line of said Lot 7, 20 feet; thence East at right angles to said last mentioned line 28 rods to East line of said Lot; ♦hence North 20 feet to point of beginning. AND Commencing at tlie Southwest comer of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 117, Range 23; thence North 6.57 chains to the center line of the Crystal Bay Road (so called), thence Southcaiiurly along the center line of said road 11.89 chains to the South line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 9, thence West along said South line 10 chains to the place of beginning, all according to the United States Government survey thereof. AND All that part of Government Lot Seven (7), Section Nine (9), Township One Hundred Seventeen (117) North, Range Twenty-three (23) West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point on a line drawn parallel with and rtverity-eight (28) rods distant from the East line of said Government Lot Seven (7), Which said point is three hundred two and eighty-one hundreds (302.81) feet South of the North line of said Government Lot Seven (7); thence Southwesterly along a line which makes an angle of twelve degrees, fifty-four minutes, and forty seconds with said line which is parallel with and twenty-eight (28) rods distant from the East line of said Government Lot Seven (7), a distance of seven hundred sixt>'-sL\ and seventy-six hundreds (766.76) feet; thence Southerly parallel with the East line of said Government Lot Seven (7) to the Page 1 of 10 . •• •• , •• CITYof ORONO esHO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 6 1 _____ shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence Southeasterly along said shore of Lake Minnetonka to a point in a line drawn parallel with and twenty-eight (28) rods distant from the East line of said Lot Seven (7); thence North along said line parallel with and twenty-eight (28) rods distant from the East line of said Lot Seven (7) to the point of beginning. All in Hennepin County, Minnesota. (hereinafter "the property'*); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono's Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Cormnission held a public hearing on February 17, 1998, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meetings held on March 9, 1998; March 23, 1998; and April 13, 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-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2.The property .itains a total of approximately 17.5 acres of land. The only wetlands located on the property include two wetlands adjacent to and within the floodplain of Lake Minnetonka, comprising less than 0.1 acre in total area. All portions of such wetlands located above the 929.4 OHWL shall be subject to a Flowage and Conservation Easement. 3.The proposed plat consists of seven residential lots each meeting the minimum lot standard requirements of the LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, except as follows: A.Lots 2 and 3 front on the proposed cul-de-sac and do not meet the defined minimum 200 ’ lot width requirement as measured at the rear line of the defined front yard. Lot 2 has a defined width of 110 ’ and Lot 3 has a defined width of 170 ’. However, the granting of a lot width variance for these lots is justified by the fact that each of Lots 2 and 3 Page 2 of 10 ( I o. o m 4. 7. 6. ClTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 61 contains a suitable building site meeting all required lot line setbacks without the need for further variances. Lot 7 is a comer lot abutting Old Crystal Bay Road and the private road outlot. By definition, the boundary abutting the private road is the front lot line, and the defined lot width at the rear of the defined front yard of Lot 7 is approximately 60’ where 200 ’ is required. A variance to lot width is justified based on the configuration of Lot 7, because it has far in excess of 200 ’ of frontage on Old Crystal Bay Road; because the location of septic sites and the stormwater pond still allow for a suitable buildable envelope; and because of the unique shape of the property. Lots 1 and 2 are ’through’ lots subject to a conditional use permit requirement for placement of any accessory ’ structures. Lots 4, 5 and 6 have very restrictive building envelopes due to topography, bluff impact zones, and drainfield sites, which in combination leave little flexibility for the location of the homes to be constructed. Each of these three Lots contains sufficient width, and each is oriented in a manner m relauon to the shoreline such that application of the average lakeshore setback ordinance to these Lots will not serve its intended purpose of preserving adjacent Lots views. Therefore it is appropriate to exempt said three Lots from having to meet 'average lakeshore setback' standards. The property contains approximately 800 ’ of relatively undisturbed, heavily wooded Lake Minnetonka bluff shoreline abutting Maxwell Bay, located across said Bay from Noerenberg Park. As one of the relatively few such undistobed areas left on Lake Minnetonka, this unique natural feature is of such value to the public, especially as viewed from the lake, that special protection measles are warranted in order to preserve such features in as natural a state as possible. All lots have been found to have adequate and suitable soils for on-site septic treatment facilities providing both a primary and alternate site for each ot the seven lots. Final septic system designs are required for each lot. Wlule the City is pursuing the possibility of providing municipal sewer o is Page 3 of 10 . •• • CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A 0 6 1 9. 10. 11. 12. development, the property can be developed as proposed with septic systems and without the need for municipal sewer, ^ •• ’ « Lot 1 contains an existing residence structure which meets all required setbacks for the LR-IA district. However, said residence is served by a septic system which has not been located and which is likely non-conforming and which is likely to be located outside the boundaries of Lot 1. All seven Lots shall be served by a private road designated on the plat as Outlet A. The private road proposed to be constructed in Outlet A is proposed with a horizontal curve radius of 125' where City code standards require a 275' radius. The 125' radius will be approved based on the short length of the road (700') and because the 125' radius allows a design speed of 20-25 mph which is not inappropriate for this length road. The variance is further justified in order to protect drainfield sites which would otherwise be eliminated if the road was designed to meet the 275' radius standard. The applicant has proposed a stormwater management plan which will include stormwater ponding, stonn sewers where appropriate, and vegetated buffer areas, to provide for stormwater quality and quantity management. Thomas D. Joluison, Transportation Planning Engineer for the Hennepin County Department of Transportation, in his letter of February 12, 1998, approved the proposed curb cut location to Old Crystal Bay Road (County Road 84). The City will dqI require that an additional 7 feet of right-of-way as requested by Hennepin County be granted for Old Crystal Bay Road, because the Orono Comprehensive Plan categorizes County Road 84 as a 'scenic parkway' requiring only a 66' right-of-way width. The Hennepin County Bicycle Trail System Plan dated September 1996 does not include a trail at this location along County Road 84. The City Council has reviewed the City's trail corridor needs along Old Crystal Bay Road and has concluded that no trail easements will be required from this plat. Page 4 of 10 /o» o CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 61 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- Z\S plat applicati;n of Dan Anderson at 905 Old Crystal Bay Road South per prelLmna^ plai dravvings by Edward J. Otto, a licensed surveyor of 0«° Engmeera Ld Land Surveyors. Inc., dated January 23. 1998. most revised date Apnl 8. 1998. subject to the following conditions: 1 . A variance will be granted for width of Lots 2, 3 and 7 which do not meet th 200' width requirement of the LR-IA District. 2. A variance will be granted to allow a horizontal curve radius of 125' for the private road in order to preserve identified drainfield sites. 3. Lots 4. 5 and 6 shall be exempt from meeting the 'average lakeshore setback- standards of the Orono Zoning Code. 4. Lots 4, 5 and 6 are subject to City Shoreland regulations regarding protection of the bluff located on said Lots. 5. Setbacks for all principal residence construction shall be as depicted on the preliminary plat drawing. 6. All Lots shall access to the private road in Outlot A. No direct access to Old Crystal Bay Road shall be allowed for any Lot. All existing accesses to O c Crystal Bay Road shall be removed prior to City final approval o e pri road construction. 7. The private road in Outlot A shall be constructed to City private road requirements, subject to a Developers Agreement to be executed beUveen the City and the developer. Private road construction can begm as soon as the engineering plans for the road as well as stormwater managem^snt plans have beL approved by the City and the Developers Agreement has been executed. 8. The private road shall be allowed to access directly to County Road 84 to conditions for such access as imposed by the Hennepin County ep of Public Works in their required access permit. 9. Driveway to serve Lot 7 shall extend from the private road in Outlot A within Page 5 of 10 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 6 1 the portion of said Outlot extending along Old Crystal Bay Road. Subdivider shall confirm that the area of Lot 7 excluding the stormwater pond easement is at least 2.0 acres. ' 4 10. 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 ownershio and maintenance. 11. No building permits will be issued until the private road base work and all stormwater management improvements have been completed by the developer and approved by the City. 12. The developer shall grant to the City an underlying Road and Utilities Easement for Outlot A. 13. The proposed grading plan for creation of a building pad within Lot 6 shall be designed to result in no encroachment of the bluff impact zone. 14. Subdivider shall plant boulevard trees along the private road per the requirements of Section 11.60, Subd. 2. 15. 16. Subdivider shall construct stormwater management improvements generally as shown on the Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan dated March 15, 1998 subject to any revisions of said plan as may be required by the City Engineer. A final Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan must be approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat approval. Subdivider shall grant drainage easements over all drainageways and stormwater ponds within the plat. Subdivider is hereby advised that the City will not grant final plat approval until the MCWD has approved all grading and drainage improvements on the property. 17. All identified primary 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. Page 6 of 10 // CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 6 1 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 alternative sites. Applicant shall include language alerting future property owiiers of need to protect sites on adjacent properties. 19. Applicant shall submit complete and acceptable septic system designs for each lot prior to final plat approval. 20. Subdivider shall be responsible for installing a new confomiing septic system to serve existing residence on Lot 1 within 1 year of the date of final plat approval. 21. Subdivider shall grant a Flowage and Conservation Easement over those portions of wetland located above the 929.4 OHWL. 22. Subdivider shall grant a Tree, Woodland and Vegetation Preservation easement over the shoreline and bluff impact areas within Lots 4, 5 and 6. 23. Payment of standard Park Dedication Fee per City ordinance. 24. Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will expire one year from the date of Council preliminary plat approval. Should the subdivider fail to complete the filing of the final plat application within the year deadline, it shall be necessary for the subdivider to file a new preliminary subdivision application with the City. Final Plat Submittals: The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the-month. These submittals are as follows; 1. Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City's records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy Page? of 10 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 61 ■ reduced to 1 ” = 200'. Drawing to include: a. . • Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Edward J. Otto of Otto Associates Engineers and Land Surveyors, Inc. dated January 23, 1998, most recent revision April 8, 1998. b. Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along the exterior boundaries of property and 5' along the internal lot lines. c. Dedication of right-of-way for County Road 84 at 33'. d. Designation and dedication of drainage easements over detention ponds and drainageways as shown on preliminary grading, drainage and erosion control plan. e. Designation of Outlot A to serve as a private roadway. f. The naming of plat. 2. Legal documents required: a. Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b. c. d. 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), stormwater and drainage facilities, etc. Signed and executed Tree, Woodland and Vegetation Preservation Easement. e. Signed and executed Drainage Easements to be taken over drainageway and detention areas within plat. Page 8 of 10 ^ t CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 fcj }. g- h. Signed and executed Road and Utilities Easement over Outlot A. Signed and executed "Declaration of Private Road Easement and Declaration of Maintenance for Same**, 1.Complied private covenant for all Lots regarding protection of drainfield sites. Covenants to include protective language for primary and alternate drainfield sites and to include the site plans locating both the primary and alternate sites. Subdivider to develop language alerting future owners of need to protect sites on adjacent properties. Covenants must be in a forin suitable for filing. The City has samples of protective covenants used by former developers. Subdivider may wish copies and should notify City. j. Completed "Application for Private Road Name". 3. Fees to be paid: Total due: S400.00* a. Final plat fee = $200.00 ^ conn for subdivision and associated documents vbzOO.OO c.Park Dedication Fee: amount shall be determined as soon as City Assessor has placed a fair market value on the undeveloped land at the time of preliminary plat approval. The subdivider shall be advised as soon as Assessor ’s report has been filed with City. Park dedication fee shall be based on 8% of the fair market value of land within Lots through 7. mestino 0™"°- Minnesota at a regularmeeting held this 13th day of April, 1998. Page 9 of 10 • • • • » . GITYof ORONO CSHO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0 6)'______ ATTEST: l.AJLZ^ Linda S. Vee, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of April, 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. CAROLE A. HASEMAN notary Pueuc-MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY „ Notary Public Page 10 of 10 To: From: Date: Subject: Dan Anderson Mike Gaf&on May 22,1998 Punchlist of Items Requiring Completion, File #2341 Note: Entries in (parentheses) refer to location in Resolution #4061 I. Documents □ Mylars - 2 copies plus 1 paper copy at l'=200' scale (Page 7, item la-f) Title opinion with certified copies of existing easements (Page 8, item 2a-b) Developers Agreement (Standard format attacheH'i (Page 8, item 2c) Letter of Credit (Standard format attached^ (Page 8, item 2c) Tree, Woodland and Vegetation Preservation Easement (Attached'^rPagp g, item 2d) (NEEDS LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS MATCHING ATTACHED COLORED SKETCH - DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED ON APRIL 7 MERELY DEFINE THE 75' SETBACK LINE BUT NOT THE INTENDED EASEMENT AREAS) por Discussion) Drainage Easement over drainageways and detention areas (Page 8, item 2e) (Standard format attarhpH^ □ Flowage & Conservation Easement over wetlands located above 929.4 lake elevation if any exist, plat drawing suggests they are below 929.4... (Page 9, item 2f) (Standard format attached ’^ □ Road, Drainage and Utilities Easement over Outlot A (Page 9, item 2g) (Standard format attached^ Declaration of Private Road Easement and Declaration of Maintenance for Same* (Should be modified by your attorney to also cover maintenance of drainage facilities) (Page 9 item 2h) (Standard format attachedi Private Covenants for protection of drainfield sites (May be part of your subdivision covenants) (Page 9, item 2i) Subdivision Covenants (City Attorney will file with plat) 1 I # 1 . <, H r ‘ i Application for Private Road Name (Page 9. item 2j) (Form atteched-> II. Confirmations/Permits Written confirmation from surveyor that Lot 7 area exclusive of pond is at least 2.0 acres Minnehaha Creek Watershed District plan approval/permit Hennepin County road access permit m. Fees Final Plat Fee $400.00 (Page 9, items 3a, 3b) □ Park Dedication Fee $29,400.0 (Page 9, item 3c) (Since each of lots 2 thru 7 exceeds a valuation of $61,250 per City Assessor, the maximum per-lot park dedication fee of $4,900 is required; 6 x $4,900 = $29,400) IV. Plans Final grading, drainage and erosion control plans including storm sewer plan and profile Complete final road design including plan and profile Complete sanitary sewer design including plan and profile ii { 1 1 COUNCILMEEnMO JUN 8 1998 REQIJEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION C ,-rv c r ONO Date: June 4,1998 Item No.1 Department Approval:Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Name: Michael P. GafTron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Item Description: #2355 Susan & Douglas Van Moorlehem and Ken Tumham, 4490 Watertown Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Resolution Zoning Dbtrict: 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 separate lot.. List of Exhibits A - Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 4-29-98 C - Revised Preliminary Plat Drawing D - Excerpts and Map - Drainage Analysis, Vegetative Buffer Plan E - Memo & Exhibits of April 13,1998 Pertinent Facts Dry Buildable Wetland Total Area Lost To ROW Net Dry Area Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 1, Block 2 Lot 1, Block 3 4.8 ac. ± 5.07 ac. 8.14 ac. 18.01 ac.+ 17.5 ac. + 0.15 ac.* 0.0 ac. 17.65 ac.+ 22.29 ac. 5.22 ac. 8.14 ac. 35.65 ac. Oac. 0.13 ac. 2.09 ac. 2.22 ac. 4.8 ac.± 5.09 ac. 6.05 ac. 15.94 ac.± *This wetland is not on City-protected inventory, therefore is creditable toward lot area Zoning File #2355 June 4, 1998 Page 2 Brief History of Property Please review Exhibit L of the April 13 memo for an overview of the history of this 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, which 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 1, Block 3 was initially proposed as two 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 1, 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 NWI 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. Dry Buildable Acreage, Width Variance 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 confirm the boundary of the wetland and applicant's surveyor 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 June 4,1998 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 1, 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 substand^d 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 this property are very unique in that few other tax parcels of this size in the City are split by public rights of way. Also note that the defined width of Lot 1 Block 1 is approximately 280' where 300' of width is required. No additional land is available to meet the width requirement, and the existing residence was constructed on the property under 5 acre standards in 1978. Staff recommends granting of this width variance. Access Hennepin County has agreed to build a new access driveway for Lot 1, Block 2 onto McCulley Road 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 III 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 ample 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 in only a minimal i I i ! Zoning File #2355 June 4,1998 Page 4 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 was staffs expectation that MCWD would not require a permit nor any ponding, and no fee contribution. However, in a recent discussion with MCWD representatives, it was noted that this plat would likely not be exempt from a permit under the current Rule B requirements, and may . in fact require a stormwater management plan. Applicant is advised to contact the MCWD to determine whether a permit and/or plan will be required. The City's goal for this development, as noted by the City Engineer, is that pre-development water quality and quantity parameters be maintained at post-development. This may be accomplished by merely maintaining vegetated buffers along the property perimeters. Applicant has provide drainage area calculations and information as requested by the City Engineer, based on assumptions about future house and driveway locations. The vegetative buffer proposal (Exhibit D) includes preservation ov vegetated strips along and across the major drainage routes, which would be subject to covenants requiring their maintenance in a vegetated condition. Subject to confirmation by the City Engineer, it is staffs opinion that this plan is very appropriate for this subdivision given the layout of the proposed plat. Erosion control using Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required 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 recommendation for lot area variance if required; consideration of lot width variance for Lot 1, Block 1. 2. Review drainage analysis and vegetative buffer proposal, identify any concerns. 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. 2. Granting of lot width variance for Lot 1, Block 1. 3. New driveway access locations will be subject to Public Services Director approval. A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS III SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4490 WATERTOWN ROAD - FILE NO. 2355 I WHEREAS, Susan and Douglas Van Moorleheni 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 "tlie 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. 2. 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 7 1 3. The proposed plat consists of three residential lots each meeting the minimum lot st^mdard requirements of the RR-IA, Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District, except as follows: A. 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 additional land available to the subdividers is within the property but separated from Lot 1 by County Road 6. B. Lot 1 does not meet the defined minimum 300' lot width requirement as measured at the rear line of the defined firont 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 an existing residence and accessory building meeting all required lot line setbacks without the need for further variances, that Lot 1 contains the necessary primary and alternate drainfield sites to support 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 unusual and in this case only justified by the unique geographic relationship between the existing underlying tax parcel and the County and City roadways which have been developed within it over many years. 4. Lot 3 is a 'through' lot subject to conditional use permit for placement of any accessory stmctures. 5. 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. 6. Lot 1 has a nonconforming septic system which under current City code must be replaced by December 31, 2007. Page 2 of 7 s 1 7. 8. 9. 10. All three Lots shall be served by direct access to adjacent public roads. Lot 1 shall retain its existing access to County Road 6/Watertown 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 has provided pre- and post-development drainage calculations indicating that vegetated buffer areas at selected locations on the property will provide for adequate stormwater quality and quantity management, subject to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Approval. 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. The Orono Park Commission and City Council have 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 Moorlehem 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 will 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 6/Watertown 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 location of such new accesses for Lots 2 and 3 shall first be approved by the Director of Page 3 of 7 Public Services. All other existing farm road accesses shall be eliminated upon construction of the new driveway accesses. 4. The subdivider must obtain Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval for the proposed stormwater management plan prior to final plat approval. Subdivider shall grant drainage easements over all drainageways, buffer areas or stormwater ponds that may be required within the plat, as well as establishing covenants for the protection of such areas. 5. All identified primary 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. 7. 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. Subdivider shall grant a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetlands occurring in Lot 1. 10. Subdivider shall develop a covenant for protection of the non-City protected wetland in Lot 1, Block 2. 11. Payment of standard Park Dedication Fee per City ordinance. 12. Subdivider is hereby advised that preliminary subdivision approval will expire one year from the date of Council preliminary plat approval. 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. Page 4 of? Final Plat Submittals: The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City’s records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: a.Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by David E. Crook of DeMars- Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc. dated March 20, 1998, attached hereto as Exhibit B. b.Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along the exterior boundaries of property. c.Designation and dedication of drainage easements over drainageways as may be identified or shown on the grading, drainage and erosion control plan. 2.Legal documents required: a.Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or odiers with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. b. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. c.Signed and executed Developer ’s Agreement and letter of credit for Page 5 of 7 approved stormwater and drainage facilities if required. d.Signed and executed Drainage Easements to be taken over drainageway and detention areas within plat if required. Covenants for protection of vegetative buffer areas shall additionally be required. e.Signed and executed Flowage and Conservation Easement over wetlands within Lot 1. f.Completed private covenant for protection of non-City protected 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. b. Final plat fee = $200.00 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. Page 6 of 7 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 8th day of June, 1998. ATTEST; Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of June 1998, by Gabnel Jabbour & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. a Notary Public Page 7 of? r 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 Commbsion 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- way acquisition. The preliminary plat dra\\dng 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 Lot T, 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 Plarming Commission. X:\APPS\WPWIN60\WPDOCS\CAROLEVPCACnON\2355 3 V V \ \ Sv v2^/ ' X )5S ^t,^l'Prif^. -e=-V -.-U ^&r-'XXX :v„. '■•'v5 \Nr- ?. »»*’ > •- • ------Vi r- rtijs:*-^ !.*T*_ O ii // \vN w %.f^r&3 \e \ ■a I % ' ^<0 ///*^/ / /ic--r‘A>. ■w\ri 9 / -^. - '7 / / //. X // / / / 7 /. / / —+• - --- ^ <// 7/>/ '' x*^" ) ✓ /h', •• , »» / 7^'y / / / ry / AV :<iA'' y / / y « / / .,'>.7 '/■/ /' '‘^■A // // / / 4 / / fi. 'k / y y /1 /yJ^jyX'.^ZW VX.<( .......................... f // /< / W':’/ fX' y "X ^y yXy^. y//-'' ■' <V'? //yy-'/Xs •'■ ^•• /./xy /X X •* ’'X. ,• y XX /.• X / / h' yl> , •' '' y'X'yyxx' }p / x < X'X •’' X'y X ^ - \\\ / N i/ i/' y yX XX' / y X'X xxk V ^ :7’7 /ty\ ■^/A ■''■'.xAX/i 4.9 >.:>r7/'»7- ;•<•/'■■.( ' X^'XX\XX X- .-y / - X l/'A? ;7v:' I A \« V V \ N A'yx rN' .y; V [X A /. / U/X>~L •4? -X' X) '\ yx■' / / / / > ■,' .4/ ; / tf-H-.Xi />n ;/■/1! .j'7i a si ■?7 . V >'x''V;7-^^^4-' xy /1 yiA r^-X /7 /• {■ ,f I / /'/ /// 3 / / /'i ^/ »«’■ &fMc*Ouii^—•' X^/ \ ^/ j X\ •‘ A "• ' X ^ f 1 / »>:..-yAu f---- A / 2. & a; »» •m O!»l 17 •■ ^'.\ ( t,ts laanf/ \ X ’■ .......L-r \ X ''\ '■ X/y' ^ / // » \y y . \ y ^ T t • I \ ^ \;/ 47 i.M 11 i\y • '-.I ...''. \ . --^- * X \\ \ \ V/ X ■ 30' >7Urt«rd SmthMck l2if. *x A ^ .gc, is ^1 I X ^ w 4clf Llom, ^ \^ ^ ^-IJ _;.. i -4- ) ' '' \. r\ S a£h28^ff^ir^fl^.03-S»V-:*';.; 4 w •h C ,y' ■--------north Jiitr of the notilh 4 ocres of Uie Enstl fl/fl of th>' East 1/2 of thtt ftff 1/4 of Sec, 21. 10 • *•'•• * •. ** g #, - ••^ H * *. • ^ ^ '?• ••■.. ^ - _ ■ - - . —.. - ■ **. • -• , « • ' ■ « I " I •. •. ■» ^ j. • ■%»• V : • •» 5 \' I *• *1 ‘‘ • *, ' . % ‘ *‘» *.* .. jf 1 ^ % o Denotes iron naonumenl OWyER/DEVELOPER: Susan ie Pouglas Vani/oorJebetn 4490 Watertawn Rd. Maple Plain, MS 55359 (612) 404-0348 SURVEYOR; Demars- Gabriel Land Survejon, toe. 3030 Harbor Lane, Suite 111 PIjmoutb, MS 55447 (612) 559-0908 I i WETLASD:KJolhaug Environmental Mark KJolaug 4767 Richmond Rd. Mound, MS 55384 ' (612) 472-4875 TESTISG it SEPTIC: S-P TesUng, Inc. Steven Sebirmers 951 Katjdid Lane SE St. Michael. MS 55376 (812) 497-3566 AREA; Lot i, Block /-071,085.75 Sq. Ft.22.29 acres Lot /. Block 2-227,503.86 Sq. Ft.6,22 meres Lot L Block 3-26t.507.2l Sq. Ft.0.00 acres (excludes road) . ZO.MSG; Rural ResidenUaJ (RRl-A) SETBACKS; . Front Yards lOO feel Side Yards SO feet Rear Yards 50 feet Wetlands 26 feet ,. • Septic to Wells. 75 feeX • . > . • • •• •• • V-.* . ,t. • a .*• WS" 5l * • s •• : ^ n ^ ’ ;‘v«i -r . f • » 7, ♦V A ; •.* V • ... ■ . *•» • 's V*T~u;-- * * . -I * j. •* * • ' m. • ; v>V- . • . ■•••■. %• . % \ • - . • * • • • o:; ;** %.*• \ • • I 0* • • < • • • t'. . ^ • • ; <•; • *. I • ' •* •. T. .. % ; . . 1/.*' • • ' V. . . : • • • * • • * . r.. •-v:* •v- • • ‘ ‘ * * * *• • . • f t: ■» . i • .*• - • • • t• • -v-- •••■1. . ..: • •• ‘ •!| . • . *■ * *1 . 4 »• . • ?' • • •i ; . ^ . • -. *• -,| ••. * • • :* I _ •. \\>bou % . *• : • • »• * *» • • ^ • - /i -rV ,.r-/4?>M.‘ K * *v. «*. * V « '.^ • »V ► ' • >•* •- ♦ IW • •*• . / < r-. •* • » tJ’» v-f . . Vtr;.-.--. •:^ . ** < •; :• \-*C. VA ^ *• ,, >:.V4 V.*' V. May 29, 1998 • J . »m..^ •i’Ji'i 01 r-*Tv " .....^1, • V. ^ VanDoren Hazard Stallings,Inc. Architects ■ Engineers ■ Planners Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55323 Re: Preliminaiy Drainage Analysis Tumham Toll Addition Orono, MN VHSJobNo. 98-302 Dear Mr, Gaffiron: Van Doren - Hazard - Stallings, Inc. has completed the Preliminary Drainage Analysis in accordance with the Notice of Planning Commission Action dated April 29,1998. As per discussions with Mr, Tom Kellogg of Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates, the enclosed drainage analysis demonstrates that post development runoff can be maintained at predevelopment levels via vegetated buffering. Since the property owner is not proposing to develop any of the three lots at the present time, Mr. Kellogg has indicated that utility and grading plans are not required at this time. Our drainage analysis of each lot required that assumptions be made regarding the future development of each lot. These assumptions are summarized as follows: 1.11,/VO sf is assumed as the area of developed impermeable surface (home, driveway, etc.) for Block 1, Lot 1. 2. 7,000 sf is assumed as the area of developed impermeable surface (home, driveway, etc.) for Block 2, Lot 1 and Block 3, Lot 1. 3. Block 1, Lot 1 has one drainage area which flows into the existing wetland. 4. Block 2, Lot 1 has one drainage area which flows to two existing wetlands. 5. Block 3, Lot 1 has two separate drainage areas, each of which flows to existing drainage and utility easements. The enclosed drainage analysis calculations demonstrates that post development runoff can be maintained at predevelopment levels via vegetated buffering at the time of development. Additionally, vegetated buffers will allow maintaining or reducing phosphorus loading into existing ponds or wetlands. ! , 3030 Harbor Lane North (612)553-1950 Suite 102 Minneapolis, MN 55447-2175 Fax:(612)553-1967 # •§?< <BLOCK D.A. # D.A. #BLOCK D.A. #BLOCK D.A. #EGETATE[AREAS T UTION RATOJ OJ 04 MN4 —3 mo 03>03 II il 11 1 os: 03 ■n> c 4^ K)04 73Z "T]"nOJ 0)04 « CD 9>.m 8§__\ o N). o . •gz 7] (/)°O O ■q (/)• •U)(/)•C/3 ■q H •••Z 0 <0m73 0 > S z > H 0m 0 m 03 >.c -< mm m 73 • \. I o 7) > Z >om 03 7) 5 7s rmomzo TO;Chair Smith and Orono Planning 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 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 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 two 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 e/^ H 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 Dry Buildable Wetland Total Area Lost To ROW Net Drv Area Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 1, Block 2 Lot 1, Block 3 Lot 2, Block 3 4.8 ac.+ 5.07 ac. 4.07 ac. 4.07 ac. 18.01 ac.+ 17.5 ac. + 0.15 ac.* 0.0 ac. 0.0 ac. 22.29 ac. 5.22 ac. 4.07 ac. 4.07 ac. 0 ac. 0.13 ac. 2.01 ac. 0.08 ac. 4.8 ac.+ 5.09 ac. 2.06 ac. 3.99 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 zrAfF ,ec.c 3- Ler- ^ Zoning File #2355 April 13,1998 Page 2 Brief History of Property Please review Exhibit L for an overview of the history of this property as regards its zoning, development, and acquisition by public bodies for roadways. In 1980, the City condemned a diagonal corridor for McCulley Road through the 16.5 acres south of County Road 6, which could have been subdivided into three 5+ acre lots prior to the condemnation. As a result of the condemnation proceedings, the 16.5 acres was segmented into a 5+ acre portion located west of the intersection, and an 8+ acre portion located between McCulley Road and Tumham Road. The City ultimately agreed to the conditions established by the condemnation commission which required that the 8 acre parcel be allowed to be split into two 4 acre parcels in the future (Exhibit F). Currently, the 8 acre portion of the property is being reduced by 2 acres in order to accommodate a relocated connection between Watertown Road and McCulley Road. The County has acquired a road easement over 2 of the 8 acres, functionally leaving a 6 acre parcel. This easement is not reflected in the subdivision proposal submitted by the applicant, since it was only formalized within the last two weeks. Impacts of Current Right-of-Way Acquisition •0 The County Road 6 improvements occurring this year result in the need for Hennepin County to acquire 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 and 2, Block 3, will lose about 2.09 acres per staff calculation, reducing it to about 6.05 acres. Lot 1, Block 3 as proposed \vill lose one of the two drainfield sites identified by applicant's site ev^uator. Further, once the 100' street yard and side street yard setbacks as well as septic system setbacks are accommodated, there is virtually no buildable envelope left. This proposed lot is reduced to 2.06 acres in area. Lot 2, Block 3 as proposed will be slightly reduced in area from 4.07 acres to 3.99 acres, and the buildable envelope is slightly reduced due to the 100' required setback from the new roadway. Zoning File #2355 April 13,1998 Page 3 The current County right-of-way acquisition obviously has the greatest impact on the development potential of the southeasterly 8 acres. Reducing it to 6 acres in a 5-acre zone and leaving Lot 1, Block 3 without a second drainfield site, makes it impossible to meet City standards for creation of two conforming lots from this portion of the property. The solution that staff has concluded is most appropriate, is to acknowledge the apparent loss of a building site, and allow the platting of a single 6 acre lot from what remains of the 8 acre parcel. The County reached the same conclusions in determining the value of the 2-acre easement acquisition. Although approximately 0.13 acre will be lost to right-of-way in Lot 1, 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 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 Please review Steve Weekman's comments (Exhibit H). 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. As noted above, the northwesterly site for Lot 1 , Block 3 will be eliminated by road construction. Dry Buildable Acreage for Lot 1, Block 1 The submitted wetland report does not purport to exactly defme 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 las 4.77 acres based on the submitted survey and approximate uoundary. The zoning code requires that building lots in the RR-1A zone contain 5 acres of dry buildable land. Applicant's wetland consultant must confirm the boundary of the wetland and applicant's surveyor must determine whether Lot 1, Block 1 contains the required 5 acres of dry buildable land. If not. Planning Commission should consider whether any of the following options is appropriate: 1. Can applicant acquire additional land from a neighboring property? 2. Should area within Lot 1, Block 2 be credited toward Lot 1, Block 1 via an outlet with Special Lot Combination across the road? If tliis results in Lot 1, Block 2, 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 acquisition and the other the result of a rezoning). The circumstances surrounding this property are very unique in that few other tax parcels of this size in the City are split by public rights of way. More con^on is the lakeshore lot with a County road between the house and the lake, where acreage on both sides of the road is credited... Access Hennepin County has agreed to build a new access driveway for Lot 1 , Block 2 onto McCulley Road 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 the southeasterly 8 acres. The existing driveway for Lot 1, Block 1 appears acceptable. Subdivision Classiflcation - 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 III 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 will be presented to the Park Commission for review at their May 4 meeting for a recommendation as to whether land dedication or park fee should be required. Note that the Orono trait plan does indicate a future trail along McCulley Road. Storm Water, Grading and Drainage The City Engineer has commented on tliis subdivision regarding stormwater, grading and drainage (see Exhibit M). The relatively large acreages in 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 on lots of 5acres and 6 acres respectively, and no new roads being created to serve the subdivision, it is staffs 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- IjNWtf- S' 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 Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to: f i 1.Applicant 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. 2.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. 3. 4. 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. 5. 6. 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. ■ 5 I T I ! i; // C% (T% CITYO^* ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION g ... ‘'i*' Application # ,4 Date Received Amount Paid >C “/2^. </ PROPERTY LOCATION 'ite address 44PlD \r\/^(^J >k;n Property Identification Number (PID) 31-A3^ QQQI Please check one - Property____abstract or_____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT _ \ \ 1 C\^ \\ \ r Name ~f\ V/n^A Am rUWvrv ^ N^ucWc \ . Vriv\'A Address Voj^uv^or.-v^ o.V City VW^ r e;,-c ,..• \ZipPhone (work) 3V3-6 »S3 Oo r U.V\S v^i Phone (home) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name h>-i IvCf Address iS0( SK>^,.Vx.^ City . yv\ Kj^Phone (home) ^7y-V0Sy (attach fist 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 PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes _________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) _________ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites t_____Existing Units O New Units Total UnitsI Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per ___A • u Sq. Ft. Dry Buil'labl? Land Residential Other (specify)________ r ^ I - /•. '. .• '.V ••'s (.' ■ff Jj i f • >* CITYX)F 0R6N0 - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION Application U ^'3S^ Date Received A Amount Paid PROPERTY LOCATWN —»- > -----1 VI wwvM-<i rv>->r~vi \ Property Identification Number (PID) 3i-* at I Please check one - Property _____abstract or_____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Name Address T Voo_^ c~,«• .Zip Phone (work) J^|V3-6l53 Phone (home) OWNER (if different than applicant) <Vlo )vrrf\\hw\ Address ^50 f SK^,. U . ^ vu-.^ City Spv... ~7^.k rv^ (attach fist if mWe than one) Phone (home) ^17/- V DSy Zip Phone (woric) 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)______ PROPOSAL ____Division for Tax Purposes -------------- Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) _________ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites ____|____Existing Units ____O___New Units Total Units( Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per ___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELLMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4. Certified Property 0\\-ners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature __________________________________Date I* APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) S250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 ^ Totals ^elim^inary 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 -K. Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) — 4o Se^ -1^ ____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) . ^ -----Renewal of Class I and 11 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 111 Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) I I I MM 9 m a ^ a aB. Special Improvement Fees: Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.; Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/IineaI ft.; lin. ft. X .50 = $ lin. ft. X .50 = $ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub _____ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $200.00 —^ On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x 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/Dwelling Unit ISO 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. V..; V 1 fV\ / Applicant's Signature L>- V> Owner's Signature -k< >i >. V Date V ^ Dale Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days t 'e the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must K *ent at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, lease make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change p.nor to the meeting. r c.' ^:Skk ^ v>^ •• ^ O'N W^Vcv^ ^ . X- I NM'fO '"'5'^^, s;:w \ ^ ^ o\>:'N \ \S . l!I r RIJN DATE 02/0V98BATCH 501PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 30-118-23 34 000100038 ADDRESS UNASSI6NEDKIP A NELSONKIP NELSON4580 NATERTONN RDMAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST38 30-118-23 44 000600885 HUNT FARM RD HUNTINGTON FARM HOME ONNERS LARRY MCCARTNEY 755 MUNT FARM RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 138 31-118-23 12 0009 04320 SIXTH AVE N F L DETERMAN ETAL FERDINAND L DETERMAN 4320 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 31-118-23 12 0010 04340 SIXTH AVE N C S HILLIAMS A E R NILLIAMS CRAIG I ELIZABETH HILLIAMS 4340 6TH AVE N LONG UKE 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 12 0011 04360 SIXTH AVE N DAN FLIES JR DONALD A NAHAL FLIES 4360 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-116-23 13 0002 00420 TURNHAM RD L E BERG A K M BERG LEONARD A KATHLEEN M BERG 420 TURNHAM RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 12 0018 04380 SIXTH AVE N J E A J E CARPENTER JAMES E A JANET E CARPENTER 4380 CO RD NO 6 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 13 0003 04345 HATERTOHN RD DONALD K PEARSON A NIFE DONALD K PEARSON 4345 HATERTOHN ROAD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 % PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 31-118-23 13 0013 04300 HATERTOHN RD JAMES JAY JOHNSON A NIFE JAMES JAY JOHNSON 4300 HATERTOHN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 21 0001 04490 HATERTOHN RD KENNETH TURNHAM KENNETH TUW4HAM 4490 HATERTOHN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 21 0002 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED NORBERT JOHNSON NORBERT JOmtSQH 2245 PLATHOOD RD MINNETONKA MN 55305 y ^ \\ i PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 31-118-23 21 0003 04580 NATERTONN RD KIP A NELSON KIP A NELSON 4580 HATERTOHN ROAD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 24 0001 04480 HATERTOHN RD TAM SHEEZO TIMOTHY M SHEEZO 4480 HATERTOHN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 24 0003 00425 TURNHAM RD HILLIAM H STEMPEL ETAL TIMOTHY H A ANNA M OTTEN 425 TURNHAM RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 31-118-23 24 0004 04545 HATERTOHN RD J L A M R BROLL JEFF BROLL 4545 HATERTOHN RD ORONO MN 55359 38 31-118-23 24 0006 04605 HATERTOHN RD J F SERENA A J M SERENA JOHN F A JOAN M SERENA 4605 HATERTOHN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 24 0007 00415 DEBORAH DR T A HALLQUIST/H A HALLQUIST TOM A HALLQUIST 415 DEBORAH DR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 r> -vt t, •. * * * • *■ / S’ OJ 9 a , —j; cS e (» -H. m 5 •:::□ CB ki*t l«Q •n r-• $m ki*P ■“ T CA .•H CA •k* N N .H :Eo .0 In* •1*0 5^c:) ?«C3 S vcia-' . ;'! \V<S -•.'» . 'tt ■ 7) 03/23/1398 15:56 612-472-1040 KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENT PAGE 02 Kjolhaug ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY Froliding Sound, Balanad, Ccfnprthtnsm Kaiural Riscurct Solutions March 23, 1998 Me Douglas VanMoorlehem c/o David Crook Demars-Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc. 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. Wetlands arc 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 i.s located adjacent to and west of the northwest comer of the parcel. This wetland appears to be off of the subject property. B'ock 3 This entire block is moderately sloped haj'field lacking wetland conditions. Wetland is located immediately south of the area but it docs not extend onto the property. I am enclosing topography with the approximate wetland boundaries indicated. Please note that these boundaries do not represent an official wetland delineation, rather an official determination of the presence of wetlands and an estimate of their approximate boundaries. .>• . ■■ a 4767 Richmond Road, Mound. Minne»ot» * Fhont: 6lS-47‘i*4875 • 6l2-47U-J040 k M STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT City of Orono, a municipal corporation. Petitioner, vs. Kenneth Turnham and Katherine Turnham and County of Hennepin, Respondents. REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS ^•1*. V}icy)\rc7 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 consideration 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 £>aid 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 ^art 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, Township 118, Range 23, lying southerly of the centerline of County Road J r Line 1: Line 2: No. G, hereinafter Tract A, Lxiing 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. Commencing 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 Southwest 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, having 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; thence North 30 degrees 46 minutes 29 seconds East, 50.00 feet to the centerline of County Road No. 6 and said line there terminating. Commencing at aforementioned Point A; thence South 41 degrees 35 minutes 17 seconds East 50.00 feet to the point of beginning of the aforenentioned 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 Nortliwest quarter of said Section 31, and said line there terminating, 2.5 acres, more or less, hereinafter Tract B. 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. JT # 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 jthe Northwest quarter of Section 31, Township 118, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Southerly of the centerline of County Road Number G described as follows: 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- J r 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 Fee simple and construction Easement. Name of Party Nature of Interest Award Kenneth and Katherine Turnham Fee and Construction Easement - •. The above award is based upon the agreement of City of Orono to grant a variance to the nov. 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 ots of approximately four acres each. In addition to the*above assessment and award, the^ __ respondents are allowed reasonable appraisal fees of $ ^ d 0.* P—, The said award and payment thereof are conditioned upon \ the following; (a) First paymen- w for the yeeur 197^ years, with penalt *rnr of the taxes levied and assessed V • ' ■ le in the year 1979 and prior • . any; 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 Payment therefrom of all annual maintenance charges levied prior to the filing of this report or to deposits under M.S.A. 462.145 (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 i : r • • • V fm • • East line of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 3], T. 118, R. 23. -“aA*n3 ” E R2d.7Cl ’1^ Li". ' ’ V ’V N. , ■, ^'/ \ '-• \ V N# J / ^ ,K ."Ifg/ / 51 /| '•,/ R 7 ^ ■'C .' • } 1L \ V‘' / • «* V''- W ^CQp^v ' /a \ '>v> \ \\ X > \ . CT)\ \ - We3l„eif^ o /Jt^ East 5/8 of the Eual 1/2 of the A’W ;// of Sec. 31. o •—• CJ ^ I I I \\v \ 'N.'' v.o n TO:Michael P.Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator FROM Stephen Weckrnan, 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 p<^rformed by S-P Testing, Inc. to identity primary and alternate drainfield sites on each lot. The existing tliree 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 locaud just down slope of the driveway and excavated soils and is designed for the existing three bedrooDi 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 neea 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 lirmtations, 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 which 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 appioval of the subdivision. The City requires the drainfield sites be fenced off prior to any grading or land alteration on these lots. J-l QUIT CLAIM DEED STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ EXEMPT, . Apft’V . 1998.Date FOR VALUABLE rONSinPRATIQN. Kenneth Turnham and Edith L. Turnham, husband and wife, Grantors, hereby convey and quitclaim to the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, Grantee, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of 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. KKenneth Turnham STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS Edith L. Turnham COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of April, 1998, by Kenneth.Turnham and Pdith L. Turnham. husband and wife. Grantors. JOeVAMNCMA NOTARY HIMJO • MMNtMTA HENNEPIN COUNTY Notary Pvrolic Accepted:. Assistant/County Administrator Date This Instrument was drafted by: Hennepin County Dept, of Public Works Transit & Community Works Division 417 N. S* St., Suite 320 Minneapolis, MN 55401-1362 Tax Statements for the real property described in this instrument should be sent to: Kenneth Turnham 4501 Shoreline Drive Spring Park, MN 55384 Page 1 of 4 HC lOJi CERTIFICATE OF TITLE N9 849094 Triaiftt Icaa Fo.(i) 681974 A. D. 1986 No. gi9096 o«s*>»rr ccv^T No (ti 19162 Originally rtsisrtrtd cht 25eh day of July Volunt(i) 2293 Fagt(i) 6S3974 REGISTRATION TfStati oI Minnesota , C ounty oi H ennepin . This Is to certify that Susan K. VaaHocrltbfs and Douglas F. Van^torrlahan, husband and vlft as Joint canancs, 449C Vatcrcovn Road, Maplt Flalo, Kinotsota 53339 «rt now the owner(s) of an estate In fee simple of and In the following described land situated In the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, to wit: That part of tha East Half of ths Horthuas: Quarcar, Sacclon 31, Township 118, Rangt 23, dascrlbad as follows: Baglnnlng at tha Norchtast comar of tha Northwast Qvarcar of said Sactlon 31; thanca South alo^jg^^ha East Itna of said Morthvasc Quartar a distanca of 1137.00 faat; thanca Vast at a right angla, 382.00 fast; thanca Southp^^*a^ right angla to cha lina daslgoatad **survay lina" on tha plat of Hannapin County Stata Aid Highway 6^‘;Tl4t l5; [thancy.jJorthwastarly along said "survay lina" to cha Vast line of cha East Fivt-aightha of paid last Ea^ of chw p!ortkvy|Cr^«arcar; thanca North along said Vast lint to tha North lina of said Northwast Quarts^.'thanca Easc\aiong sald.Nbrch lina to cha point of baginniog. ■ ••• • . _ iu ^ -nr’i’/* Subjacc to a powtr lint aasaatnt in favor of Unicad Pouar Associatl*'hi*rforstrly*' Rural Cooptrativa Power Association, ovar North 33 fats of abova land as containad in CR Doc No. 3723616; X*' L ^ ‘ I r ' ■ • •SubJ-rt to an aasasant for Hannapin County Stata Aid Highway lio. 6. Plat 5. ovar part of abova land filtd in CR Dov No. 3844152; S'jbJtcl to the tncurr.brRnces. Hens irH lnl-»mpf(s) not^ri hy the memorlal(s) underwritten or endorsed hereon; and subject to the following rights or encumbrances subsisting, as provided In the twenhy-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. Ua«TS. claims, or Hghu arising uruJtr tha laws or ina Constitution of lha Unitad Statas. which tha statutaa of this auta cannot rtquirt to appaar of racord; 2. Any raal proparty tai or spacial assaaamant for which a tala of tha land haa not baan had a* tha data of tha etrtiflcata of litta; X Any taaaa tor a parfod not axctadlng throa ytars, whan thara Is actusl occupation of tha pra*nisas undar tha laaaa: 4. Alt rlghla In public highways upon tha land; 9. Such right of appaal or right to ap.raar and contast tha application as it abowad by law; 8. Tha rights of any parson In p^ssat sion undar daad or contract for daad from tha ownar of tn# ctriificala of titla; * 7. Any outstanding machanles Han rtjhts which may atist undar saebens S14.01 to SU.17. That cht said Susan VaoNoorlthaa and Douglas F. VanXoorlahea art aach of tha aga of 18 yaara or older, ara earriad to aach othar and ara undar no lagal Incipaeicy. u Tl ^ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I ftive hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seat of my office this Thirci«ich day of Dactsbor 1996 R. Jan Carlson Registrar of Titles, In and for tha County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota.for the County^ Henn^in MEMORIAL OF ESTATES. EASEMENTS OR CHARGES ON THE LAND DESCR BED IN THE CERTIFICATE OF TTTL1 HERETO ATTACHEC. OEWTY r ICINO OF inftTafJc'NT || rati of RCOISTRATION AMOUNT j 1 ] .............. _ _________ i t'GNATURI OF II NUMetR 1 tNSTRUMINT |1 lOA'i 'i:i!3LifTn^77>a tSSSBB^S^S 12 1 1 _ _ 277365:KorttsBs Dtc 6 U96 Dtc 30 1996 1 « $235300.00 Kan.nach Turchaa 4490 Vatartrv-. Rd. Mania Plain. MN i 1 » i 1 { i \ I \1 i ail OVER HC 1091 CERTIFICATE OF TITLE No. 849095 Transfer froa Bo.(s) 683974 A. D. 1986 No. 849095 OISTPICT count 19162 Originally raslsstrcd the 25th day of July VoluoeCf) 2295 Pait(i) 683974 J-5 REGISTRATIONStah d UKmk Cowrr d Hoostm. Thit Is Jo Mrtify ih«J K*ac*eh Turahia, 4*90 Witsreovra »3*4. tUylt Pl«<n. hicntist* J53J9 jj- o. ^ ^ ^ D now Iho owneKs) of an aslalo In fea ilmpl# of and 1- the following describad land situated i.i the County of Hannapin and StJto or Minnosora, to wit: 5fh7lb.r:: or *... ,-,rch«..t 0u.r». .* Tov^hip U8. U„,. 2J CoaMoetnt •« Southuaat eornat of tiU Stctlon Jlritht'oci on>d* Vast alona tbt V..e lU. of cha Southwa.'t Ou.,..; -a ?North 0 degrees 40 minutes*J .aeood. Vast aloo, tba Ua.e lUa of tba South-..'; p„.„ar if >.n-;s.=t2.i“t”:H?:nic"fof 777.96 f.aJ; th.ae."iio"r’ih.'.,t.rl- intlsl curve* conesve to the Southeast,> having s radius of cl532^80 - ------ ■ ^ lecoods: thence Mnreh 48 9/. *9 . \i > •> thaoc. north *l do,roa. 3S loutM 17 ,.e”drwa.e. *i SS f«^ “ A ****' is ss:::: “ s:::: ii !i:ssK;;j n j;!!;:: i> north of tha South 4 acraa of aald Eatt‘rivt-al|htl^ef tha'Eaae'lalf^f’tha'N^-s'** *L**"^“" ***• *»"•• 23. lyingdtaerlbad lino: iino» oi tna caae Bair of th. Quart.r, vhleh liaa South.rly of tba follo-lnj Bait tloa, tha Waft lUa of^hS“s“th«n^ir"J'*-f'Mirs«aoa*3l* ® ‘‘•*^*** *° “Inut.a *3 ..cond. alon, a t.a,.otl.l eurva. conc.v. to th. S^th.a.t, b“ln, .“.dlu! i* 1»5 M Ill >*orch...t.rl, 1317.29 f.at JS tacondt; thaaca north 48 dairaat 2* L.nutat *3 aaeond>*L»c **"'^*3 ansi, of 49 dasraaa 05 alnutat 35 Blaut.a 17 a.eond. Ea.t. 50^0 f.at to -’•*=>=• *«“'!> '» "Mf.* Ease 975.21 f.at; thane. South 76 d.tr... 35 nli!«S U «eonS. E«t -o '’T'* ** '**»'*'* *’ “*““***and thara tamlnatlnp. ■mu:., u a.eond. Ea.t to tha Ua. ii.t. of th. Kcrth-aat Quatt.r of aald Saetlon 31 384*152:*“^^*“ '* So. 6. Pl.t 5. ov.r part of abova Par I fllad In C* Doe No. <r c Sit ovie » r ■• -. V I. % 'lA % % .»j r: \>i ;*i Bruce 0. MalKcrson, City Attorney Alan P. Olson, City Planner* Karch 13, 1981 SODJECT. Compronensive rxa« — , , , tm bSiirrSo* !!■»• « »„.h....... p!-.';:»5K iS“e.s”p25 s;‘,K;r5oK sjssi: rocrardless of plan.Wl. plan 1 Th, WUthorn portion Of the^^rnh»^^rc«l^contaiM^ prIoF*t« the right of way bScouso this part of the parcel Is sep­ arate .ax parcel must _ -j^col by roads, no subdivision appllca'~,r‘ssivi2,, ^.s,««>. «>■ constitutes one building site.1^69 V#tiw -- - - - - - - - -. PU^ 2 Prior to the new road, ^^,*?°’^*r^!j*2nd^olattinQ”woul^ have beena formal subdivision application would have required. Under the RR-IA Po^^'s's^ocros each. Minimum lot width bein 3 lot. at an f'^?^us;rat^ this naxinum density. Per ^S:^2u^%ntTer llV^lio. TirttinS^would have cost: Application Fee Park dedication Engineer s Legal Recording fee Surveying costs Platting costs $2:0 for 3 lots <$220 $or 2 lots) $3’1C for 3 lots <$200 for 2 lots! $ 50. mlninur. $580 to City for 3 lot? ($470 for 2 lots) PLAN 3 This plan Illustrates the into*^tw"W'»ratc VUhT^os wav is in tlacc. Tho property bf" fi,'*.. pi...-os wore tf h- plLcs.* AS per ol-<n No. 1. u-*J but’se r-ii'.Uv>sio-> ipp’. ic.it l>-n built ooon, now tax parcel.- “ -ii.-s aro fully .•.«i;ctniii'i to or rcvliw 19 necessary. ‘ > • -I-' . . .. ••"-sonlnq rcqulrcnents a-id c.i l« sc.u review. i 1 i I ’Mi PLAM 4, S s 6 Those plans illustrate possible ways to subdivide the eastern parcel created by the new road. Since this parcel is less than 10.0 acres net, an area variance is necessary in order to subdivide. Plan S also requires a width variance for the south lot. All lots exceed the minimum 2.0 acres of dry land necessary for on-site sewage treatment. Note that there are still 3 units possible just like sho%m on Plan 2. Xn fact, the house locations shown on Plons 2, 4, 5 & 6 are all identical. Also, only the eastern portion must be subdivided. The western portion can be sold and used as a building sice without awaiting completion of the formal platting procedure. 1.-VVWS. SOOTHERIO y^RTlOtO OP RttC£L"LE<Ste.MO____________________________________ fcASB. Mai * Oery or HtoOt-pw CoVAIty T>uaj A\«.P Zot>j%iO& »<> RR-IA &IOOL* CsMiwy X?<!Ait>t*JTiAL. Miw. S.O Acttes • 2\7,80O sr- Faa Lor ASiio. -stfo rr UTT wi&th f^nofrr S tZ£JJt ScT&AjCif - ^ ^«-TBA.c< - s-a FT - - P(2£>i>c.Tc.*rv' uloe. -------------------------------- '$acTR>ACK L-\kie P£?*«|IE»LE. l-aCi^lOKJy/Mf Possible Sue>t>w>^>go ofL E«SE.MP &A^e. Maj» 1* Cory or Hfto»Jt.piw Cou/iny Pi-at A\ap ZokJlK>a *•!» R.R-IA €»I«0GL» fAMM-P T?*.«4t>«t»JTIAL. Miw. S^.o Acttes • Z\7,80O sr- Far . 3^00 rT Ucrr wipth pRowT X tZejJt Sgti»acu : - KSofT ^ipc «3«.T»AC< - ft’ S£Aue r*2oo^T SdiiLE. r‘rzt:;c?rr P^^pr»EKTy uioii. ^dTC^ACK. U-»oG ^\JtLt>lK)Cp^ UOC^SJ’torJ REQUIRES, * SofcD. ArrtiCAJKW * R-attim <3 ik 3urrs ARE 200106 AMortMW* LE<SE.MD E.yisTW 6 S>Tt>AmoiU - WITH KJa>»; T^oa&' &Ase. M*-r» i« C«ry ev Gsuiv/iv 'Puat _ TLOM xJCb RR-IA GkAAlty •^UBAL Ce.'HWt'/TIAl. tiPAJliOCt Miw. S.O t<C9£.s ’ Z\y,800 sr- Fa* L ot ^cq uiK&S A\ii«j. *500 rr UoT v^/iOTW .PRONTT ^ Rt** SeTRACitf - loo PT ^«»c ^••TBA.c< - 50 PT d^PTIOAJAL. ^OfelSlUl^lOtO - PR^f>C.n.TV UMOt. ^OC.Tf»>XCK U-lfcOC p^^||c,LE. l^UtLt>l^O l-OCdTiO/U KJo * ^ t^o Pi-Arr/KJ6 ♦ Uns Arze R;u-y &ASC. Mai» C^fy CbuA/rv “Puat A\ap ZOhJltJC^ RR-IA €>l«oe5t^ P«*^t>«WTIAL. MiAi* ffoO ActL£S • Z\7jSOO Far. A\iu. rr u«yr vi/iotm PROATT S KCAR SCTftAXiC - PT Sioti -»tTt3A^c< • 5*0 rr ■ li iM,,— .............. pR^oPETvry uioe- ---------------------------------- 5«c-TrbACK. u-iKJc: P55^J^LE. ^i;iLOIAJO UOCAT/OM SCilt.6. l"r25c5rT geouiRgs iK Sy»c», AfPtKAfi* ♦ FtVTTIWS Jfe Lo^ AecA \^ei£ ^Ave.x>eM(ny i5 Swt ifs**c/i>». As Plau AJa.jL AA EXfflBIT L Brief History of Property H. I. J. L. M. 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 por*.* jn 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 whether any credit was granted for dry buildable acreage across Watertown, and building permit 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 tw'O 4-acre lots in the future Subdivision regulations in effect in 1980 would have allowed creation of 3 separate tax parcels per road boundaries, without subdivision process 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 1986 - Tumham created two separate deeds for (a) property with house north of Watertown 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 Watertowm Road to Van Moorlehem 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) 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 m J Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & f[ I Associates Engineers & Architects April 13,1998 Mr, Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 6o Crystal Bay, MN Re: VanMoorlehem Subdivision File No. 139-2355 Poresfroo. Rosenv. Andt'fhk A$sotuit*-s Inc is €*n Affirm.unc Aatcn Bqu,ti Opoortunny Bmptc*>er Princtptil'. Olto G Bonestroo, PC • Joseph C AnderiiV, PC • L SorvoJo. PE • Richard E Turner. P*. • rwenn R Cook. PE • Robert G Scnur^ichi. PE • Jerry A Ccurdon. PE • Robert W Rosene P£ and Susan .V Eberlm, C PA . Senior Consultants Ajsot/afe Prrnc'pPls Howard A Sanford. PE • Ke*th A Gordon. PE • Robert R Pfefferle. PE • Richard W Poster. PE . David O Loskoia. PE - Robert C Ru^st^.r^lA • Mark A. Hanson. PE • Michael T Cautmann. PE • led K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rods. PE. • Sidney P Williamson. PE . L S • Robert F Ko • mth P^ffices St "aui. Rochester. Willmar and St Cloud MN • Milwaukee. Wl 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 Wcuerlowf. Road. McCulley Road / 6*^ Avenue is a through street with a high point h.'cared appi o/ imately 150 feet southwest of this intersection. The configuration and control of the Miterseciion 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 ol 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 Turnham Road. The plat may reed to be revised to provide access to Lot 2 from Tumliam Road. ». Existing and proposed well locations should be shown on the plan set. Utility con^truclion clans 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 during 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 •:idd:essed as part of tl:e design in accordance with City standards. The post development runoff leaving the site ihould be maintained at prcdevelopment levels. Ponds PC-P99 and PC-P40 have ■ itni. been classihed as moderately susceptible wetlands. These wetlands will require that 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 55113 ■ 612-636-4600 ■ Fax: 612-636-1311 phosphorus loadings entering the ponds 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, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. /CTM Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono ! f I COUNCIL MESTINQ JUN 8 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION r !TY r' ORONiO DATE: June 2, 1998 ITEM NO.: IG Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2363 William Bockmann 1130 Loma Linda Avenue Variance-Resolution Zoning District:LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:19,065 sq. ft. (.44 acres) Application:The City Council reviewed this application on May 26,1998. The applicant requested a lot area variance, side yard adjacent to sUreet variance, average lakeshore setback variance, and hardcover variance of 3.8% in the '75 to '250 setback. The City Council reviewed the application and recommended approval of the lot area variance and average lakeshore setback variance and denied the hardcover variance and the side yard adjacent to street variance. The City Council further instructed the applicant to reduce hardcover by eliminating the third stall of the garage and the driveway leading to the third stall. The enclosed resolution grants the average lakeshore setback variance and the lot area variance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To amend or approve the enclosed resolution Attachments 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 Commission 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 are required 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 and 35’ is required, and 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: Page 1 of 5 1 1. 2. 3. i ■ FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2363. 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 .44 acres or 19,065 sq. ft. The Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 20 and May 18, 1998, and recommended approval on a vote of 5 to 0 for all variances requested. 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. A well on the property limits the location of new construction. D. The proposed residence is less than the allowed structural coverage permitted. F. The proposed residence complies %vith the 75' lakeshore setback and will not interfere with lakeviews of adjacent residences. Page 2 of 5 6. 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 to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants y^iances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C, 6) to permit the proposed residence to encroach 8' forward of the a\erage lakeshore setback at the southeast comer, to allow the new residence to be located 35' from Loma Linda Avenue where 35' is required, to allow 2,630 sq. ft. (25%) 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: 1 . Hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback not to exceed 2,630 sq. ft. (25%). 2. 3. Proposed residence to meet the 35' street yard setback from the service road on the west and Loma Linda Avenue on the north. Authorities granted by this variance mn 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 ^ ! 4. 5. ATTEST: 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 8th day of June, 1998. Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Notary Public Page 4 of 5 •M4e4 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FORWILLIAM BOCKMANN m ill OF LOTS AND 12, LOMA L HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ^|1 IV f ^i If»j ? ^ 40 ^ t •• • LOMA LINDA EAST AVENUE^ 216.00 / 7 55* 3^* \ AO SURVEY , LINE ''Y ^ -♦•isb *7#----------'A'/' „<» i*«An in- /A I"''F ■ /f WEST / ___________ 128.50 42^ / 1 V r TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE:May 11,1998 SUBJECT: #2363 William Bockmann, 1130 Loma Linda Avenue Variance(s) - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, 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 construct 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 aAMSllStf COHMI^SIOK) ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Front 1 acre 100'IS'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' at OHWL 11 r at 75' setback 80' approx.IT 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 Bockmann 1130 Loma Linda Avenue Dale of PC, May 18, 1998 page —2 ■1 STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The 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. r.riteria for Determining I Indue Hardship 1 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. 2. 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. 5. 6. 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. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 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 enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant believes they need to obtain variances to build the residence as designed. U2363 William Bockmatm 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 contrary 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 th’s 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 I 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 A B C D E F G II I Application Plat Map Building Pad Survey Topo Map Permit Record Hardcover Elevation and Plan Notice U2363 IVilliam Buckmann 1130 Loma Linda Avenue Dale of PC, May 18. 1998 page —4 / Application # ^ 3 Date Received 1 Jz 7/f ^ Amount Paid ^ >ro.ooCITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION i Site Address—^/3c*) >4 \/q Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) -------------------- n« t “PPHcationlfnot included on requLd survey!-------------------Date Property Acquired A/cV. (99'! ^ ^ , I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land----------------------------.(month/year) Presentee of property: _:£residential other (specify) Zomng District:________LZ' ‘ ‘ //. Phone (honr.e)_j /7a ___ Addres77/ot7^, ----- Phone(work)_</7g XVVV9Aaaress.j^./<;:> C^^^rfn Avr City: Zio: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _________ Address:City:. Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Estimated Constmction Cost $ /S^0,0(rr\ ^ ^TcZY DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail:________ _7gd.e A>oc^.^ £Cy.,^TMr- - (iuun A/pro I (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area -----Lot Width .^Hardcover ___Lot Coverage Setback: Front Other (specify) Side Rear Average Lakeshore Hy^SHIP/DESCRIPTION OF WVUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS ygA xi^T-zrfyr- ^oAj/a T2---------- ^ ^ PACIuTy<=, r,ki /$?• /?coR, (attach additional sheets if necessary) I / ^3 .P 3 0O / REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you ^ must obtain this list, labels,aBd>«»p^rom Hennepin County Department of . , Finance, A-603, Govt CenteL^8-327^ 3. o Certificate of Survey (signkt ■bya'Ticensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy ZVi" x 11" for reproduction. 4. ___ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 81/2" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8*/2" 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 Properly 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 ^<^7 - 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. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Plarming 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. GD • • • • • •• • • # •• • V • s HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA f I h11 m / / beMA—UNBA—AVENUE^— EAST 216.00 4^-SERViCE ENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA I LOMA LINDA EAST AVENUE/^ 216.00 8 SERVICE I FOAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lots 11 and 12, LOMA LINDA 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 I tSJ. 4 9 V«f«# tilt Proper^^ / I u E i 1130 LOMA LINDA AVE PERMIT RECORD Permit No Date Type of Permit I oLp 9 6- sS 0 .^yioJn 3 AC h?^5'^frtQS/ fj h j^4> t'cnrp CJ I i . ‘^/2,5/ / hardcov er ''CA LCLLA 1 lU.N VVUKK5M-bh,l ^ j_ ^setback ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) Co^ 75-250* 250-500’ EXISTING HARDCO\TR IN ZONE A. House X Length X X X B. Garage - C: Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONF A. House _____________ X Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ -i- B WidOj X 100 = Widih / * •✓.i A 500-1000' X 100 Cr S.F. S.F.; S.F. ' S.F. I I S.F. S.F. S.F." S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. > -4 '4 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F; . S.F. « It S.F. A B O - S.F."' A S.F.. B % .1 YV fo tfi/ S- 6S’ SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* •Jr,^ (—o/'Jr, hardcover calculation worksheet 75-250’) 250-500’ 500-1000' FYT5T1NO hardcover in zone A. House Lenjih Width * 1 * I B. Garage •C. Driveway P. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X 0. Other X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _________ -J- B ____X 100 = PROPOSEn HARDCOVER IN ZONE House 1^43 Len|ih Width B. Garage ’ C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Oihcr X X X X X X X X X X X ^40 zso TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 3033 H- B I06Z3 So33 J06Z3 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. X 100 __S.F. __S.F. IS. SZ % A B A B ’'•■•? siVi '■■•’» '■ •' •.-• ii: ' ; ; xv ■;«•:■ ■ f:v Vvv ••:'•• • - % V. . .' S •' f‘ ■ ’ ' H \'i - y^sr ........' . \..V. • «■ ;■ : ;‘ •• « ■ '■• S%' •■ ^■ /^Pfrox'\<f^a\t U)tH ^oc<t4ioA pflc.U-T C'-'J^-5T — /2cvlo) Ir. BA ST etG^OM\o^ \ 1 ■J 1 i SovjT-\ ■ coT LIVING AREA 1252 sqfl .i JW [•JlHiWiI p.riTmiTc »i^iTiirRnil itlOltlt]niHTTim mmKrtnnirc riTTMT'ailt] ^ mx ii r«ir • ipa r m im>] WiVfTi Rnvi r« I a«w'« ■ r«' rtvsiirtirti R'tV/lSeJ Pl(X^ - 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 Commission 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 are required to encroach 5' forward of the average lakeshore setback at the southeast comer, to encroach 8.5' into the required side yard adjacent to a street where a 26.5' setback is proposed and 35' is required on a lot that is 19,065 sq. ft. (.44 acres) where 1 acre is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: Page 1 of 5 3. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2363. 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 .44 acres or 19,065 sq. ft. The Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 20 and May 18, 1998, and recommended approval on a vote of 5 to 0 for all variances requested. 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 ser\'ice 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. A well on the property limits the location of new construction. D. The proposed residence is less than the allowed structural coverage permitted. F. The proposed residence complies with the 75' lakeshore setback and will not interfere with lakeviews of adjacent residences. Page 2 of 5 5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6.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; and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C, 6) to permit the proposed residence to encroach 5' forward of the average lakeshore setback at the southeast comer, to allow the new residence to be located 26.5' from Loma Linda Avenue where 35' is required on a lot that is 19,065 sq. fi. (.44 acres) where 1 acre is required. Approval was subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. Hardcover in the 75-250’ setback not to exceed 2,630 sq. ft. (25%). Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be e.xercised by application for a building permit within one year of the dale vf Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (June 8, 1999) Page 3 of 1 ► V 3. 4. ATTEST: 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 8th day of June, 1998 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 8th day of June, 1998, by Gabriel Jabbour & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk ot the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 r L CITY OF ORONO ZONING APPLICATION WORKSHEET BUILDING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATION Application number Zoning Classification Ul'lU Zo/ iS/ze Table Lo/ Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard 5/t/e Yard 5Vree/ Tart/ LR-IB Required 1 acve.loo'n<;' 10' 3^* (i<lj. 4®35' Proposed IZS' A-1 OHWL In' a4 ns’jcibacjc So’ afpioK.HT Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage C44 acre.)(\^Y.) l,8lo.«l i^pi. L<\ M %] Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0 ’-75'None KJor\c N®nc 75'-250'l0,SZ3 l{3 -------------------Norte.* 250 ’-500' Notes; Tc> gippligg/vf ir SeMMck \jfXY\nAtA, Lorv^^ Aiervu^____ St84t«CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYWILLIAM BOCKMANN© ® OF LOTS 11 AND 12, LOMA LINDA ■ HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINN A 5 3! LOMA LINDA EAST 20' AVENUE 216.00 7 / 32 SURVEY /o^ LINE ''Y 'B-W I I I 1 r ^ li.// i / if y 128.50 42? / 41* fo-S'lS Biiiii !ii mis Siilpiitfe'is H 1 L* ^U.- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCILMEETWQ jyN 8 1998 ; V ••• J9.0MO. DATE: June 4, 1998 ITEM NO.: // Department Approval: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner/Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2366 Peter H. Lanpher, 1359 Park Drive - Variances - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area:26,261 sq. ft. (.60 acres) Application: The applicant is requesting multiple variances to allow a deck, pool and shed to remain after being replaced following storm damage in July 1997. The deck and pool require an average lakeshore setback variance, a hardcover variance and oversized accessory setback variance from the side yard. The shed requires a side yard setback variance. The deck, pool and shed also require a structural lot coverage variance, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to approve the variances requested as proposed, subject to no future hardcover additions/improvements other than a stairway to the lake that meets the zoning code requirements. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To amend or adopt the enclosed resolution. Attachments m A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO municipal zoning code SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2; SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9 (E); AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C) FILE #2366 WHEREAS, Peter H. Lanpher and Diane Lanpher (hereinafter "the applicants") Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and 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 bf heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and 7 • r’ .1 WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Wo® Subdivis%-r.s 1 and 2, Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (E), ^d IthlT Subdivision 16 (C) to permit after-the-fact variances for average lakeshore a rebuilt structural coverage, and side yard setback to allow a rebuil deck and pool to remain in a lakeside yard forward of the average lakeshore setback and on the side yard property line where a 30’ setback for an oversized accessory structure is required. A side yard variance is required for a shed which is 3’ from the propertv line where 4 606 ?n T n7 coverage variance is required for the pool, deck and shed to allow , sq. tt. (17.5/o) of lot coverage to remain where 3,939.15 sq. ft. (15%) is allowed A TT' ", f'- of hardcover to remain in the 75-250 setback where 3,735 sq. ft. (25%) is allowed. Minnesota: IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Page 1 of 6 . ^ ‘ FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2366. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB, Zoning District, where 1 acre or 43,560 sq. ft. is the minimum lot area. The property consists of .60 acres or 26,261 sq. ft. 3. 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: A. The lot does not meet lot area or lot width requirements. B. The original swimming pool was constructed in 1972 and side yard variances were granted in 1976 for the house, deck, and pool. C. D. E. The swimming pool was damaged in July 1997 and the applicants proceeded to work with the pool contractor and insurance company in repairing the pool. The pool contractor and insurance company determined that the pool needed to be completely replaced. The deck and swimming pool do not infringe on lake views from adjacent properties. 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 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. Page 2 of 6 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed 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, Subdivisions 1 and 2, Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (E), and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) to permit after-thc-fact variances for a deck, pool and shed to remain after being damaged by storm in July 1997 and replaced where variances for average lakeshore setback are required for the deck and pool, where a side yard setback variance of 30' is required for the oversized deck and pool, where a side yard variance is required to allow the shed to remain 3' from the property line where 10' is requir'jd, to allow a structural coverage variance to allow 4,606 sq. ft. (17.5%) lot coverage where 3,939.15 sq. ft. is allowed. Approval was subject to the following conditions: 1. 3. No further hardcover improvements other than a future stairway to the lakeshore that complies with the zoning code. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (June 8, 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. 4.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the ehain of title of the property. Page 3 of 6 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of June, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN j lOOR hv “istnunent was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of June 98, by Gabriel Jabbour & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono a Minnesota muniupal contoration and said instrument was executed on behalf of the CitJ Notary PuHic Pace 4 of 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of within and for said county, personally appeared 1998 before me a Notary Public 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 _, 1997 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 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of____, 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of____, 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of____, 199 _before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) e.cecuted the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 6 of 6 TO: FROM: DATE; SUBJECT; Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Pianner/Zoning Administrator May II, 1998 #2366 Peter Lanpher 1359 Park Drive Variance(s)-Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LK-IB 26,261 One family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) square feet (.60 acres) pp icahon. applicant ,s requesting an average lakeshore setback variance structural lot overage, hardcover variance and side yard setback to allow a shed d“J pool re^acement to remain The shed, pool and deck were damagerby atl “' variLIt prior to applying for Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.24, LR-IB One family Lak,»r . .■ Residential District Section 10.03, General Provisions Subd. 5,1- . ,rming Uses, D. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 and 2, Average Lakeshore Setback and Hardcover Section 10.03, Subd. 9. (E) Setbacks Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (D) Yards and Open Spaces ion 10.56, Subd. 16 (C) Placement of Structures and Additional Structure Setbacks 55 Pe/er Lanpher 1359 Park Drive Date of P.C. May 18, 1998 poge~l ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 1 acre 140'35'10'75' and ALS Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 26,261 sq. ft. .60 acres 50'185' to house 75' to garage Pool is on property line. Shed is 3' off from north property line. 110' to pool The existing residence was built in 1968. At that time, the building permit did not reference any swimming pool. The residence was constructed at 6.35' from the south property line. The timber window well also encroaches into the required side yard. There is a ravine along the south property line that may qualify as a bluff. The City’s topographical map shows significant change in elevation The house was built prior to the adoption of the shorelnnd ordinance. The pool and deck may be located in the top of bluff setback. In May 1976 a 24' x 40' i 960 sq. fl.) garage was constructed on the property, 10' from the north property line. According to the current zoning code, an accessory structure that exceeds 750 sq. ft. shall be located no less than 15' from the property line. The street file and permit record do not indicate when the shed was built. The shed does not meet the side yard setback requirement. In 1976 it was determined that the swimming pool was constructed in 1972 and was built without a permit. At that time, the survey indicated that the setback was 1.1' for the deck and 8' for the house. The owners were required to obtain a side yard variance. The current swimming pool does not meet the required 30' setback for oversized accessor}' structures that e.xceed 1,000 sq. ft. The applicant requested a vacation of Forest Boulevard in 1988. The applicant was required to combine the lots into one parcel. In 1996 the applicant applied for permits to build a retaining wall in the lakeshore yard and along the north property line. The current survey shows a portion of the retaining wall on the adjacent property. However, the applicant has provided information that indicates that the vacated portion of Oak Place has been reconfigured by court action in 1994. U2366 Peter Lartpher 1359 Park Drive Date ofP.C. May 18. 1998 page—2 Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Allowed Existing Structural Coverage 26,261 sq. ft.3,939.15 sq. ft. (15%) 4,606 sq. ft. (17.5%) The pool, deck, house and garage exceed structural coverage limits by 2.5% or 666.85 sq. ft. Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0 ’-75’3,850 sq. ft.15 sq. ft. (.39%) none none none 75 ’-250’14,940 sq. ft.7,732 sq. ft. (52%) 3,735 sq. ft. (25%) 7,732 sq. ft. (52%) 3,99V sq. ft. (26.7o%) 250’-500'7,471 sq. ft.1,501 sq. ft. (20%) 2,241.3 sq. ft. (30%) 1,501 sq. ft. (20%) nvine 1 The subject property exceeds the 25% maximum anr.ount of hardcover allowed in the 75'-250' setback. A variance is requested to allow 3,997 sq. ft. or 26.75 % additional hardcover. - STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP The pool, deck and shed were damaged by falling trees as the result of a severe storm. A variance is requested to replace the structures that were present when the home was purchased. The applicant is not proposing expanding hardcover, setback or alignments in any way. The lot is composed of two narrow lots and two vacated streets. Thus lot dimensions are peculiar to the property and do not meet zoning district requirements in area and width. Adhering to defined setback restrictions makes the property unusable. Lot width is narrow and below the grade of neighbors lot preventing a change to pool, deck and shed orientation. Usable space on property is limited due to significant hill in the 75' - 250' setback range. M2366 Peter Lanphcr 1559 Park Drive Date o/P.C. May 18. 1998 page—5 Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Without the requested variances, the deck, px. A and shed would have to be removed or relocated. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The situation was caused by the size of the lot and the location of the structures on the lot. The landowner proceeded to repair the damaged property before obtaining variances. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for hardcover, average lakeshore setback, side yard setback, and structural coverage will not change the character of the area, as the deck, pool and shed have been replaced. 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 code requires structures that are 75% or more damaged to meet Code requirements when replaced. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. This lot is narrow and overbuilt for hardcover and structural coverage. The swimming pool and deck were rebuilt to encroach on the side yard. The storm damage destroyed more than 75% of the pool and deck. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The zoning lots in this area do not meet lot area or lot width requirements. The storm did significant damage to the property. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Without the variance, the pool, deck and shed would have to be removed or relocated. #2366 Peter Lanpher 1359 Park Dri\e Date ofP.C. May 18. 1998 page—4 8.The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The granting of variances for the pool and deck is contrary to the zoning code. 9.The granting of such variance will not merely ser\'e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Although the storm damaged the shed, deck and pool, the code requires that new structures comply with minimum requirements. The shed would need to be eliminated because of hardcover or relocated because of the setback. The pool could have been reduced to under 1,000 sq.ft, and located at least 10'from each lot line. Granting the variances would be a convenience to the landowner. Issues 1.The lot does not meet lot area or lot width requirements. The deck and pool do not meet a 30' side yard setback. The house encroaches into a required side yard. The shed encroaches into a required side yard. The garage encroaches into a 15' required side yard. The lot exceeds the allowed hardcover in the 75'-250' setback. 2.The deck, pool and shed were replaced due to storm damage prior to obtaining any variances. The deck and pool were more than 75% destroyed. Because the pool, deck and shed were replaced without variances, the City was deprived of any opportunity to correct the problem. 3. The deck and pool encroach into the average lakeshore setback. 4.The design of the driveway and orientation of the garage increases hardcover. The existing structures exceed structural coverage allowance. 5.The file indicates that the pool was built in 1972 without permits. A side yard variance was granted for the pool in 1976. The house and pool were constmcted before the shoreland ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. 2. 3. 4. City staff cannot recommend approval of these variances, To deny after-the-fact variances for side yard setback tor the swimming pool and deck, To deny an average lakeshore setback for the swimming pool and deck. To deny the hardcover variance in the 75'-250' setback. U2366 Peter Lanpher 1359 Park Drive Date ofP.C. May 18. 1998 page—5 5. To deny the structural coverage variance. 6. To deny the side yard setback variance for the shed. The zoning code specifically states that non-conforming structures that are damaged shall be rebuilt to comply with the requirements of the code. This property does not meet structural coverage hardcover, side setbacks, lot area or lot width requirements. This property may also not meet bluff setbacks. As the shed was originally built without a permit, it should not have been reconstructed. A smaller pool with less deck located at least 10' from the property line would have been preferred. The City has been deprived of the opportunity to correct zoning non-conformities on the lot because of the replacement prior to receiving the appropriate variances. City staff does not want to encourage other contractors and propert>' owners in the future to replace/rebuild non-conforming structures without proper permits or variances. Attachments A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R Application Plat Map Topo Map Neighbor's Letter Acknowledgement Form Hardcover Acknowledgement Form Hardcover Pool Plan 1967 Memo 1976 Memo (May) 1976 Memo (July) 8/2/76 Minutes 8/9/76 Minutes 9 Vacation Resolution Retaining Walls 1989 Survey Current Survey U2366 Peter Lanpher 1359 Park Drive Date ofP.C. May 18, 1998 page—6 1 f BE! .CMHOVltWA*' Ba\ North ^Uixwell Skogsberg Point %. West %K cwHwwr >> J:0C ORCNO Arm 2 MOttOA 2S2i^ WDCCROU MMTNBttl MM ood Point DEERING ISLAND = Crystal Bohns Point Bay Pagerness Point i!Lg;!3C\f aesg?gi>t<IIWtfait BLat? ^'^iOlCKSB SH05£t7^£ j eiono Lake 5i£«l4Vf u ■ fATTKS ; OIL OTMO KXl ~ AVE 0 RO gLOCOUwrr wKW imiioAmt-Ieii —no 5su>f0lK , ^IfOFORofi no OOKKOllJI IEE2M3I" nroiq rar onuAmi nrCIIUCKEN RBI Spring 3 Park ;i V Bay aa .. «wa< it^TTp^ p^PeUliin PiiiiitV yvl^ GOOSE•=^5:^ ISLAND SHORELINE ^ CRTSTAl •iGSToii 5*vrv*t LTRIC S All OKictsr Carman \ 2-BIAS60W RO 3 CAMTERBURT RO 41CN.,RKR0 SHADY ^.highland ?>JSLAND Boy ^ORONO IlCtO' ika Howards Poin ENCH .ANTED ISLAND SHOREWOO© EDGEWOOO \VA\VATOSA\ —^ISLAND !ig-^VANOVLEW/p^ 2 RO : / WOOD SIDE RO ***\ 5/AATMlltll O/CT B rV^ c>’‘ NOBLE MWWPaAITASCW n: vIaUITWOOO U o ^ > 1^1 SURRmiG ^ R0SES2 1 »», SMITNTOnil U ORptARO OR NELSINE ----DR v> inC!m . sr; v.„ ,'i ivii ii ,1 f :i - s Application # Date Received t -A o- Amount Paid ” VARIANCE APPLICATION ImUal Application Fee S220W”' 2-'$^*^ (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI20.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 *^fter-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)" PROPERTY INFORMATION SiieAddress Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 7^ —i 77. (Tf /ySAo' if noUncluded on required survey. I (do) ^T^SO owTSe adjocnt ^3,4 if laid. --------------------------(month/year) ^ ' ^ _____r— I' O k t J APPLICANT Name W \ Address:. \-5S^ ^lAgjc T->p Phone (home)_<i52iU^ Phone (work ) 2. M \ ^ City:___QBQ^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Zip: Address:City: Phone (home) Phone (work)_ v; • i Zip:. DESCRffTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmction Cc.st $ 77 ~z < VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area -----Lot Width Hardcover ___^Lot Coverage is Setback:,I2L Side Rear Average Lakeshore Wvv ^es r WWCmA^ IL^S^/DESCRIPTION of imSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS complia^crwilfr ZoSI'g C^de^re^^^^^^ conditions prevendrg (attach additional sheets if necessary) required submittals All th, fnllnwina informatj.'n n..Kt he subniiWfd hv me applir'.tion «i.^a<)|ine da^ Jn nrHer for v»nr anplication to be considered complete: y 2 Misled Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels ^ ^ must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepm County Department Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). s . • hardcover 3 ^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and mclude hardcover ■ ^ calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8/2 x ll 4 ^'^^^Topo^pW^^ (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes i" ^ ^ grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i x 11 5. y Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) "oPy^ Ky List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with ■ ^ the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current 7. AS In adTendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. • ^ 8 ___ : Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application, .^..liAAlinn is nnl enmnlrte if the above information has not been mclutua. Thf aJS^ Lte^^^re^Tw provide all information required or requested by the ZonmgHSz™ dr information supplied is true and cofr^to tV 1 -st of hi er 0 Jk'Date 3 • SCiiApplicant’s Signature Sl^Ther’eby Sedges and agrees to to appUcation and X onto the prkrty by City staff, consultants, agents Conumss.on members, and Councu mmbers for purposes ^ investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature TO m. M Date 3 • Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices tWr^Monday of each Commission Meeting. Planning mc*tin»s of the Planning maTe arrangements to have an authorized agent anend in your place and to adv.se to Butldm. & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 Peter & Diane Lanpher 1359 Park Drive Orono, MN 55364 5 Situation: Pool--Deck--Shed -were damaged by falling trees as the result of a severe storm (see photo's of damage) -varience request is to replace the structures that were Present when the home was purchased...not expanding hardcover,setbacks o alignments in any way Unusual Property Conditions: Lot is comoosed of 2 narrow lots and 2 vacated streets. Thus lot dimensions are peculiar to the property and do not meet zoning district requirements in area^and width. Adhereing to defined setback restrictions makes the property unusable. Lot width is narrow and below the grade of neighbors lot preventing a change to pool--deck--shed orientation, (see photo) Usuable space on property is limited due to significant hill in the 75' - 250- setback range. P- 1 r. • L'. .« . JHW' APRIL 13,1998 CITY OF ORONO TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We are residents of Orono, having lived at 1365 Park Drive for the past four ye^s. We are writing this letter regarding our neighbors at 13 59 Park Dnve, Peter H. and Diane Lanpher, who are experiencing difficulties with the City after replacing their deck and pool which were destroyed by felled trees from a storm last summer. In regard to the issue of thei?deck encroachment (not in compUance with setback requirements) we state that we do not have a problem with the location of their deck^ We were aware when we purchased our house that the deck encroached upon the setback requirement and that a variance had been given by previous owners of our honie to previous owners of their home. We would be willing to grant such a vanance if a subsequent one would be required of the Lanphers. Jil-' John K. Young Terry L. Young JX O O :€5 1345 North Arm Drive Orono, MN 55364 City of Orono 2710 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN April 17,1998 Dear Sirs; This letter is in regard to our neighbors Pete and Diane Lanpher. We are writing lettr in support of the repairs they recently did on their property, both on the.r deck/pool and the shed. My wife and I have two young girls, and while we were about the proximity of the Lanpher's pool, it is a welcome addition to have it mcely fenced. It fs less accessible, and certainly much safer. We also feel . quaUty of their deck was been upgraded, and only improves the overall character of our neighborhood. We also know that there was been some discussion that the deck may somehow impede neighbor's views of the lake. We would Uke to assure you that this is not the case, and we have no objections to it. As for the small shed in the driveway, we were very happy to see it be "dressed-up" with new siding, showing it to better blend in with their house. Pete and Diane have always been wonderful neighbors, and we have the utmost confidence that any project they embark on will not adversely impact our property, and will only benefit us. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. / Laurie Shekels i Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we) !Ainr(e _____of }3*^S~ /) ------- [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No. ________• I (we) imderstand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires Council approval. Proi iwner Date Property Owner Date 1 (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at __________________also referred to as Land Use Application No.________— I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confum for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 9jxXf j a hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) /^5' EXISTINC HARDCOVER IN Z.nvp; A. House Length 75-250*250-500*500-1000' Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other / total HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _{£__ _ _ + B X 100 » PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONir A. House Length B, Garage C. Drivewav D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X Width X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA fN ZONE ______________ + B zr /r _ S.F. _ S.F. _ S.F. . S.F. . S.F. S.F. . S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B . S.F. S.F. S.F. , S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. CO f nl S.F. '*^9 S.F. S.F. S.F. X 100 - ' S.F. A S.F. B •/« hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ /e?, 500-1000' fYlSTINC HARDC^V^ IN ZONE A. House ZC^.^ Length 7 Wid'Ji X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. ^atio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic /c*.4- X X X X X X X X ^7 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -775Z _ - B pr OPOSF^ hardcover in ZQNE A. House Length Wlc'.h B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plasric G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE *■ B_____ X 100 s X 100 - S3 /4^< S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. I S.F. S.F. ■ S.F. ZZB S.F. S.F. " S.F. 5-4 n'^^2. % S.F. S.F. S.F. A B t O _ S.F. S.F. .S.F. _ S.F. _ S.F. S.F. ” S.F. S.F. ” S.F. _ S.F. - S.F. .'j*’** •.*. »•V • ' \ ■ • ■ * S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ■ ij - J •S.F. ' S.F. A B t 9 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*75-:50*250-500*500-1000* EXISTING HARDCOVER TN ZONE A. House ______________ Length Width X X X B. Garage ___ C. Driveway T4-3^ X X /M/ D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plasiic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE /5b/_______ - B lAnt /52>/ n4ni X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ Length X X X B. Garage C Driveway X X 0. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plasric X X X G. Ocher TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B / O m S.F. S.F.« •*- • «-S.F. B S.F. S.F. * X . S3 S.F. B S.F.1 “ S.F. e S.F. B S.F. a ■ S.F. S.F. B S.F. B S.F. B S.F. m •S.F.A .S.F.B •/o /• TO: FROM; ^ 0 }jAic: >l.BJECT: Administrator Inspector October 30, 1967 Doug Johnson Lot on North Arm Drive issif lip HmMk through the draw which goes through his property. ;';r Johnson wishes to keep the^ile open until a decision is made whether he can build or not «y this is contingent on ms purchase o the lot. ’ with him last week aXd he staked out approximately where his ;vjuss wouid be, also his 7eptic systen. He also bv Kr. Mills* decision ^to going over the draw. Bill has alreac/ made that, as he is aw^e of the problem. ■■ that this be ro^rred again to Planning Commission, I will <• < out Kith ^hei^d give Mr. Johnson a definite ruling on whet/.* this lot is build^le or not. « / 'V I' t :' i • * t'n ; -* V *• ( vi 1Henry F. Muhich, Zoning* Administrator Allan P. Olsen, Building Inspector May 6, 1976 SUan-CT: 1359 Park Drive Complaint on 4/16/76 from neighbors alleges that swimming pool adlition was built on this property without a building permit and that pool is to close to property line. Files contain original building permits *2032 and 2043 dated 4/17/68 and 5/2/68 for a 26 ft. X 72 ft. residence only. Permits do not include pool. Final inspection made 9/19/68, Permit approval was given by Council 4/8/68. Xo permit is on file for the pool construction On site inspection confirms that an above ground aluninun ^ vinyl pool with wood deck is in place. Survey done 11/5/75 shows setbacks of 1,1 ft. from south property line (house is 8 ft,^), approximately 15 ft. from north line, and well over 100 ft, from lake. Mjacent property to south had deep drainage ravine passing near to this lot line effectively blocking any major structural construction near this sulistandard setback. ) I Current owner Kayne Peterson ^rchased property on 5/6/75 from Mclyyii and Shirley Ott. The Peterson'S'deed shows the pool as being included in the transaction and their knowledge is that it was constructed in 1072. . i ^‘>.5 '4',' • , V'--, w- ■ • ;V; •. A:/ 'V.• ■ ’* ■ *•** ’ - - V • -M * - » Dick Benson, City Adainistrator Hank Mihich, Zoning Adainistrator July 9, 1976 Ka)*nc Peterson - 1S59 Park Drive Variance - Side Yard Setback for Existing Pool haH this property about a year ago. The previous owners ' ^*'*^*^^*^ * Without first obtainin ’ a permit. The location of this existing pool does not meet tiie required 10* .ide^rd setback. It was built about 1«, ft. from the side lot line. seroaot. it The Peterson's are now requesting a variance of 8>j' from the required 10*. riAv.TNT. OYMI.'^iON MiTINC - August 2, 1976 present at meeting, lie explained tliat he purclvised the property thV* undcrstootl tlwrc had been misunderstandings, o'aJ' ow tl'us Cocnission rcconwidcd^ becaasc it is after tJic fact and the pool lus been there »vioi^in^ " to i^h^rit an property only,one year ago. They wore unfortunate the attention of the staff! situation which was .'.ever before brought to (.'YJ\cn. . .August 9, 1976 \i'proved not PVl has b^ there for tliree a violation by the Peterson'- who punJated the property r & •. • ^ - ^ t . *. ■ .*' • • 1 . r* * • ^ V. * i - • : yi •- r-A v-; y.' , '.!?•< ■*. v'.; :;i.- *v;v*' ' iv. years and it was only one year ago. ■> > r •i-s ( V :-i ... . •.:.. ' ■•- ■' ■ ‘ V• IlLVUTES OF A PLA'KE.'G C»friSSICN JESTING HELD AUGUST 2, 1976 - PAGE 2 Chaiivorsin IXmlap called to order the Regular Jteeting o£ the Orono Planning Connission. Pesek moved, Qjthrie seconded, that the ndnutes of the Planning CorjPission meeting of July 19, 1976, be approved. .Motion - Ayes (S), .Nays (0). .Ir. Peterson explained to the Planning Connission that he had purdiased tJiis property about 1 year ago. He mder- stood there uere misunderstandings, but felt that the problems had been solved. The Peterson's purchased this property in good faith. I’csck iroved, Van ii'est seconded, to approve this variance l.ecause it is after the fact and the pool has been there for tl'.c past three years. Pesek felt that this was not a violation by tire Peterson's who purchased the property only one year ago. They were unfortunate to inherit an existing non-confon.iing situation which was never before brought to Che attention of staff. Motion - Ayes (8), Nays (0). .Ir. Curtis ua^ in attendance and presented pictures of his jiroperty. After a short discussion, McDonald moved, Pesek seconded, to grant approval of this variance because the proposed addition would be replacing the substandard leanto •jortion of the house and it would in no vay encroach on the e.asting setbacks. Motion - Ayes (8), Nays (0), ‘ •' •: . • :v:.. Tue Zoning .Atlninistrator presented the building piaS’ io t!.e Comission. Mr. Ryan was present to explain his plans • .or tins audition. Van infest moved, Guthrie seconded, to locorrond approval subject to providing fire •separations * - .1^ required by t!ic State Code and the combijuition of all V nic individual parcels and vacated street. The sublet • . of tlie vacated street slujuld be referred to tiie attorniy to resolve its actual status. . ‘ t'Vrw.'attendance. Mrs. Smith explained to t.be Locmssion that at tlie start of the construction t.icy instmeted tne contractor not to disturb the trees n.at were on the property in order to build the house. iiK- loc.ition of the nouse was then moved over to avoid .e.iovir.g tlie trees. Vac inspector was never informed 01 the oixi:-e in location. Urry Shaiv, a nciglibor to also present at itlic meeting. e.cp.ebsed ..IS disapix)intmcnt with tlie building of tliis !.e.£. Le ...entioncd tii.it lie complained several tunes to regarding tlic building location. ‘ f'e Smith's hone blocks his view • t.^.t. .:.v i'.a;vur;;<, Coi.anission felt that the only - -.wion ..ere ...i< t:..- rear yard setb.ick nr. tlie new .'P.' /*., si^-yard setbiick requircr^ints.. . .. ...ovi.o, .,u..e M.x-oiA.eu, approv.il of this variance ‘iv'.r'i":’‘‘ai-l.ed. iioueuM grant ing this .e.iMitute app.roval for a nriv.-.te dock »• t .r:iT) directly ;icru'S tlu- ‘-troct. t lU] , CALL TO ORDER - 8:20 P.M. REGULAR ^EIm^!G APPROVAL OB MLWTES MEETING JULY 19, 1976 WAYNE PBTERSCN 1359 PARK DRIVE VARIANCE - SIDE YAPD SETBACK jaaiAEL CURTIS 4200 :^RTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE - LOT AREA 8 mum FRED RYAN 1345 NORni ARM DRIVE VARIANCE - SETBACK BbTT.EE^ STRUCTURES TRAVIS SMITH - 1945 FAGERNESS POLsT ROAD VARIANa - REAR YARD SETBACK fM M 4-4 1:4 " ^ 'f* f •*i ^ }': Henry Muhich, Building & Zoning Adnin:.8tratorf stated that Wayne Peterson, 1359 Park Drive, purchased this property about|a year ago. The ' • previous owners had evidentlyjinstalled a pool without first obtaining a permit. The location of this existing pool does not meet the required 10' side yard setback. It was built about 1% ft. from the side lot line. The Petersons are now requesting a variance of 8Jj ft. from the reauired 10 ft. The alternatives here are to grant the variance or deny and reauiro moving or removing the existing pool. Planning Commission Ileeting - August 2, 1976 ttr. Peterson was tirosont at the meeting. He explained that he purchased the property in nood faith about one yiar ago. He understood there had been misunderstandings, but felt that the problems had been solved. The Planning Commission recommended to approve this variance because it is after ;ho fact and the pool has been there for three years. VARIANCE 1359 Park Drive AUCt P 1-^lb (C<’.ntir.u ,:d', ... ^ ue vjA ft / i i *« OROtIO COUNCIL MEETING BELD AUGUST 9, 1976 The Comnimslon felt that this was «.ituation which «as never before brought to the attention or the staff. Searles moved, Welsh seconded, to Variance for Wayno PotorsoHf 1359 Park Drivef per the Planning Cosmiission recommendation of August 2, 1976. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). / n ' / n City off OFtONO resolution of the city council NO. ________ A resolution vacating an unused portion o? WITHIN THE PLAT OP SAGA ' section 7. township 1A7, RANG^23 IN THE CITY OP ORONO# MINNESOTA WHEREAS, on Ur.rs';nUn/".escL-i.oC .s ^ «.-.L part Cf vacated Fcrcat Pou^ «„ho piJt oi ,^;V,.‘i-.etvocn i.he Nor t bwen t c r 2 y r-:innoso ‘-a" wh^-ch 1 - southwesvtor 2 y o/.ternions oerv^rs 1 Hw 1 ;;:;^LTH^o;no^pA "count;, "'nnosota-: and ■ a-d -o'.tcd notice, a public he.i.. WHEREAS, alter cue y.^rch 21, 15S?- ro^.-.r-.. >-ald before the City Planning oiven an opportunity to r.n.: vncation and all interecteo persons ucre , r '»r c-; the P**^rir. ^ WHEREAS, after ate stanvling and cona,^ the Coun- •...nsinn rcccTiMinded anprovai OI the requ^^^^ pioposed, if. ^r ^rp f- -cteU''1n: e'e^ViaVr^ation of the foDouinn finoings. the access or the use of ao:e.r Cc o 1 w;. "••'icr. CCC3 r.ct r f octc. I ^ • • • • . , s . ...,,»• * ' • , -. ^ F• ♦ i 21 *"c ! • ,»»•♦ .*»• ' -. » •* ••*', • • • • ' • % • • *•if I ::' I •1 * • City of OK-ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ _ _ _ _ _ NOW, THBREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the petition of Peter H. .r ar.d Diane Lanpher is hereby granted and that th^ portion of Forest . ^urd legally described above is hereby vacated. The granting of the ion IS subject to the condition that upon vocation, applicants must . ...c vacated adjacent portion of Forest Boulevard with their property .. .idy ccciLir.erJ Lot 8, Block 6, Lot 9, Block 7, and a portion of vacated .laco. Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin County, Minnesota). Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a r r.eotir.g held on March 2H, 196B. . HD b'i< ■ )'n. • • S ;.v it.'.llir., City Clerk h ■.■ •:<i.-m l¥?fj ITYof i i'omt Office I>»* 6fi«Cr><iUil Bay. MinneauU TAW • Munidpal Omcaa On Ihf North Shore of Lake Minnrtonha August 31/ 1909 • w c w * .i^Ar*w4»c^ ...i'i Park Drive ..w.-nd/ Mr.^ A * 9 . u: P.etair.ir.g Walls at 1259 Park Drive .....r .Mr. Lar.phc- T.^e Building i Zo.ning Department in in roc<?ipt of your .;•...iicatio.“. to construct retaining walls on your lakeshore ronertv. The retaining walls may be built as chow-', providing reta.ir.i.-.c wail on the lakeshore yard is .no hig.her tnen 3 . j'. 11 you wish to const.ruct the retaining walls higher then 2 the wall would have to meet an average lakeshore setback. .would bv required to sh:A^ on a survey the houses on the left : right cf your property to verify this setback. Please advise .. -tif if you wish proceed with i 3 1/2' high wall or provide the .-: vey shewing the houses on either side of your property. i > If you ha^e any questions please feel free to contact we at office (473-7357). 1 :Sincerely/ L'/le Onar./ Building Inspector :d Jea.'-i.'ie A. .Mabusch, Building & Zoning Administrator .Micnael ?. Gaffron/ Asst Planning & Zoning Adm.inistrator a!.’ I .1. Ii« \ J:>/. X M'- VN* I *‘{ ! : |i ‘.•tiKr. . r 980048 7/117/23 LANPHER. PETE ___________________________________________________AD VANCE SUR VEYING & ENGINEERING CO. ‘5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka. MN 55345 Phone (612) 474-7964 Fox (612) 474 8267 SURVEY FOR: PETE LANPHER ^URVFYED: March 5. 1996 DRAFTED: March 9. 1998 1 FGAL DESCRIPTION l . _ .... Lot 9. Block 7. and Lot 8, Block 6. SAGA HILLS REVISED. Hennepin County, Minnesota t 1 IMITATIONS: es of the lego, description which you furnished. 2 Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important. 3, Setting new monuments or verifying existing monuments to mark the corners of the property. Here are some important matters that ore not in the scope of our services but which you may r^^s^°the'^above\egal description your correct legal description and have important matters of record, such as easements, been communicated, in writing, to your surveyor, so that they can be shown on this survey? A title insurance company can issue a title policy and can fax us a copy so that we are aware of these matters. c ;TANDARD symbols & CONVENTIONS: „ „ . . "o" Denotes 1 /2 ” ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, if o is f e in then denotes found iron monument. Proposed elevations are shown with a box around them, while existing elevations are shown without a box. Arrows indicate the proposed flow of storm water on the site. I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that am a Professional Engineer and a Professional Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. ( JaMes H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235 SCALE: ONE INCH EQUALS 30 FEET i COUNClLMeSTlNQrequest for council action Jl)N 8 1998 CITYOFOHONO Date: June 3,1998 Item No.: } ^ Department Approval:Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Item Description:#2372 Baiiy & Janiece Haglund, 4590 North Arm Drive West - Peliminaiy Subdivision Approval - Resolution Zontog District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential. 2 acre, unsewered Application: Proposed 2-lot plat of this 5.5 acre parcel to create one new building site. List of Exhibits ^ o «^ci ♦ i, A - Preliminary Plat Drawing and Stan Sketch B - Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution _ C - Notice of Planning Commission Action 5/27/98 D - Memo and Exhibits of May 14,1998 Lot Dimensional Standards Both proposed lots meet the required lot area and width standards of the LR-1 A District: Area (2.0 acres min. req.) Width (200* mm. req.) 427 25' (proposed new building site) 280.00’ (existing house) (excl. r.o.w. for North Arm Dr. W.) (North Arm Drive West at sw comer of site) Lot 1: Lot 2: ROW: Total: 2.74 acres 2.67 acres 0.08 acres 5.49 acres Note that Lot 2 is a comer \oX and by definition the short (south) side is the front. Pertinent Facts and Issues f^pptic Testimi. Lot 1 has tested primary and alternate drainfield sites, which are shown on the dralg Lo 2 h^ a mlatively new conforming system with an alternate sue md.cated near the s~d of the lot. See Steve Weckman's report. Exhibit F of May 14 memo. #2372 - Haglund - Preliminary Subdivision Junes, 1998 Page 2 Setbacks . The existing house will meet the required setback from all existing and proposed lot lines. The existing garage was granted location variances prior to its remodeling in 1991, and its relation to lot lines does not change as a result of the subdivision. The proposed setbacks for Lot 1 appear to be • correctly oriented per City code requirements. Wetlands No wetland delineation report has been submitted. There are no_wetlands mapped in either the City inventory or the National Wetland Inventory for this property. The only potential weUand is a small (less than 0.1 acre) low spot in the SE comer of Lot 1. This area is not expected to be impacted by any development of the site, but might be improved to serve as a sedimentation or runoff rate control basin for the site. A wetland delineation report should be required of the applicant and if in fact a wetland is delineated, a covenant should be filed in the chain of title wa^g future owners of approvals needed if that wetland is will be impacted by development. Stormwater Plan . No grading/drainage/stormwater plan has been proposed at this time, but will be required. The City Engineer has reviewed this plat, and his comments are attached. Under MCWD's proposed Rule B changes, it is likely no stormwater ponding would be required for this subdivision; however, in a recent meeting involving Orono and MCWD staff and consultants, it became clear that under the current Rule B, unless MCWD grants a variance, this site would be required to have a NURP pond because it is a proposed subdivision that involves more than 2 acres of land. The City Engineer is recommending that some stormwater facilities be provided. Drainage calculations are needed to demonstrate that Phosphorus loadings leaving the site can be hrnited to a maximum of 0.28 lbs. per acre per year. It may be possible to develop a small pond in the depressional area at the southeast comer of Lot 1. RInffAVondland Impacts . No part of the property i'. eonsidered as bluff. No significant woodland will be irapaeted by the proposed subdivision. Most of the north half of the site was formerly an open field which has partially revegetated. park or Trail Needs. The Park Commission at their May 4 meeting recommended that a park dedication fee be required rather than land dedication. #2372 - Haglund - Preliminary Subdivision June 3, 1998 Page 3 Road Access. Access to the public/private road is an issue which applicants have been attempting to resolve. North Arm Lane is a 33' privately owned corridor upon which exists a gravel road averaging 15 in width. The owner of record is Jean T. Armstrong. The Armstrong family owns the property to the north. Curiously, the City has maintained this 'private' road for many years, at least back to the 1960 s, although the City has no apparent documented easement over it, only a prescriptive easement over the traveled and maintained portion by virtue of the history of City maintenance. The City Attorney has indicated it is unlikely the City can claim an easement over the entire 33', but probably has a good claim over the portions maintained and/or used for public purposes (i.e. the gravel surface and some portion of the shoulder). The applicants have been advised they must obtain an easement for access from the Armstrongs (or provide evidence that such an easement exists) in order for the lot to be considered as fronting on a public or private road. Applicant has made this contact and appears to be able to provide this documentation. Without such an easement, access would have to be from the south, forcing this into a from back lot situation and significantly affecting the proposed plat layout. The traveled road crosses applicants' property and the neighboring property to the south near the entrance to North Arm Drive. Note that the portion of traveled road on the neighboring property to the south is near the new mound septic system on that property. It is unknown whether the City has formal easements for the portions of road existing on applicants property and on neighboring properties, although these are also likely only prescriptive. Road Standards . are two that come to mind) where additional use on a • r upgrades. In each case, staff has recommended that the road be upgraded to be more m conformity with City standards, and that additional right-of-way be dedicated. In this case, staff recommends that 8.5' of roadway be dedicated along the east side of Pjoperty adjacent to the 33 ’ corridor; also that additional right-of-way be dedicated at the south end of the propel ly where the existing traveled road crosses it; and that a portion of cul-de-sac be dedicated at the northeast end of the property (See the staff sketch). Note that the City has required dedication of 17' and 8.5' of additional right-of-way fro^^st subdivisions along the east side of the 33' corridor. During the Markoe Addition platting m 1992, the City concluded that both sides of the road should give up additional right-of-way to eventually result in a 50' corridor. #2372 - Haglund - Preliminary Subdivision Junes, 1998 Page 4 How or when the road should be upgraded, or whether the road should be upgraded at all, is a topic for discussion. The gravel road averages 15' wide and will serve as the only access for 7 homes, with the potential for a number of additional homes if the Armstrong property is developed in the future. This road could potentially be continued westward to connect with Co. Rd. 19 or north to Bayside. The City standard for such a road is a 50* corridor with a 28' paved road width, ending in a paved cul-de-sac. With the ambiguous road ownership situation, it would be in the best interests of all parties if the City acquires title to the entire 33’ corridor as well as additional r.o.w. on each side of it from adjacent properties as necessary. The City could then make a determination as to the degree of upgrade which would be completed by the City and an appropriate portion of the costs assessed back to the benefitting property ovmers. A more radical option would be for the City to discontinue maintenance of the road and let the road users form an association to decide what level of road service is acceptable. Staff is not recommending this, given the anticipated additional use this road may have in the future. In order that the current subdivision process be allowed to move forward, staff is recommending that the applicants not be held up while the City determines the future of North Arm Lane. Access for Existing Residence. The existing residence is served by a driveway directly to North Arm Drive West, which is a local City road with many direct driveway accesses. Because this is a local road with relatively low traffic levels, it may be appropriate to allow the continuation of this driveway location rather than force its relocation to North Ami Lane. Applicants note they may wish to move the driveway to North Arm Lane in the future to eliminate a problem with the grade where the driveway exits onto the road. Summary' of Issues for Discussion 1 . To what extent should the applicants be required to dedicate additional right-of-way? Does Council agree with staffs sketch for dedicating added right-of-way as well as an an easement for a portion of a cul-de-sac? Is there any reason to take the entire cul-de-sac from this subdivision, as opposed to centering it on the existing road corridor? 2. Should the City pursue formal acquisition of the 33' corridor? 3. To what extent should North Arm Lane be upgraded, if at all? By whom? At whose expense? 4. Does Council have any other concerns or comments? #2372 - Haglund - Preliminary Subdivision June 3,1998 Page 5 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the follovving: 1. Applicant must make application to the MCWD for stormwater plan approval. Drainage calculations should be provided per the City Engineer's recommendations. If warranted based on drainage calculations or if required by MCWD, stormwater, grading and drainage plans should be required. A wetland delineation report should be submitted. Applicants to provide evidence of easements for use of portions of North Arm Lane that are potentially not within City's jurisdiction. Right-of-way to be dedicated on the plat as follows: a. 8.5' along east property boundary b. Portion of 100' diameter cul-de-sac at northeast comer of property c. 33' along North Arm Drive West as shown on preliminary plat drawing d. Area at southeast comer for existing/future road alignment per staff sketch. City should pursue a formal acquisition of North Arm Lane. Road and cul-de-sac should be upgraded by City to a level commensurate with the number of homes being served, with an appropriate portion of said costs assessed to the benefitting property owners, at some point in time to be determined by City Council, but not necessarily related to approval of this plat. Standard park dedication fee required. Standard drainage and utility easements to be granted along lot boundaries. Other conditions as noted in attached Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution. Discuss the issues related to road access and upgrades, review the stormwater issues, and adopt or amend the attached preliminary plat approval resolution. •/ / / ///////-' ^ olI i/i,/In/ I I / / >^ /i7 / v7'////./Ml . ,/// / /L.^> / / ' I ^ #• / / •f( ..V \ / / / \ \ \ / / . \ \ l19.62»-*50. n. -744 i , s \ IN \ / / /\ / / \ "^s'.>RppWD,V\W \ '\ni\/iniMr^\j \k\c. \ \ \'\ s \ \ ________\ X \vi>RopW[; , . ''D mding Xine \ \ N \ \ C;j\ //># 9^ S€*A 9 \ \ 1 laof — 1 / / / / vx \ \ \ \ ^ « \ nSTNO / / / !/ 225J \ X n9.629tS0. FT. i AC. \ \ VAAtt! 4t / / /y / / / / I X. —:..—::!zig r PZRC HOLES / » /I ALTERNATE SITE , M j f /* / ■vb. / // y PRELIMINARY PLAT CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR BARRY HAGLUND THE SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 OF SEC. 6-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LFr.Ai nFsrRiPTtOKi nr PRFui<Nr<; ? The South 854.50 feet of the Weal 280.00 feet of the Southeost Quarter of the Northwest Quorter of Section 6, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian. 0 : denotes iron morker Bearings shown ore bosed upon on assumed datum. f‘r0^ C//y 0raysA0 This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of on existing house ond garage, and the proposed location of a proposed dividing line thereon. It does not purport to show ony other improvements or encroachments. north 10" w 2800(7 S*44^i /„f tf fe‘/i -77 ■ HT^ B (if •/- ^ it] O <1 J K TT^^a. Cv/ -“lA-r.-f •'fO 0^0Pj^tJT foe^i^ VP cMiS>e'SM^ c:e<urT«- 33' . - V TOO . eyiir/t'<> /^ti. ))Ax + /c>o ’ COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. VTft^ e**^»»"*‘“ • t**' ^ ^ e •• •■ ' A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY approval of a subdivision FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4590 NORTH ARM DRIVE WEST - FILE NO. 2372 WHEREAS, Barry and Janiece Haglund Oiereinafter the "subdividers") on Apnl 22, 1998, filed a fo^ subdivision application tvith the City for approval of a two lot residential p of property legally described as: Principal Meridian; Hennepin County, Minnesota. ^ (hereinafter "the property ); and WHEREAS after due published and mailed notice in accordance wth Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono's and WHEREAS at their regular meeting held on June 8, 1998 the Orono City council cor^idirSilt applfcation of the subdivider noting the foliowing findings of fact: The property is located within the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Sning Set requiring a minimum of nvo acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. The property contains a total of approximately 5,41 acres of land exclusive of right-of-way of North Arm Drive West. 1. 2. Page 1 of 7 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 There are no City-protected wetlands located on the property. A wetland delineation shall be completed for the small depressional area at the southeast comer of Lot 1 to determine whether that area qualifies as a protected wetland under WCA regulations. The proposed plat consists of two residential lots each meeting the minimum lot standard requirements of the LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, each meeting the minimum 2.0 acre lot area requirement and each meeting the minimum 200' lot width requirement as measured at the rear of the defined front yard. Both lots will be served by private wells and individual onsite sewage treatment systems. Septic system site evaluation and design information has been submitted confirming that each lot contains suitable primary and alternate drainfield sites to serve the existing and proposed residences. Lot 2 contains an existing residence stmcture and detached garage, both of which will continue to meet the required setbacks from existing and proposed lot lines. The detached garage will remain nearer the front lot line than the residence structure as allowed via variances granted by the City in 1991. Lot 2 will continue to access directly south to North Arm Drive West via the existing private driveway. Lot 1 will access directly east onto North Arm Lane, a gravel public road maintained by the City. North Arm Lane exists mostly within a 33' wide, privately owned parcel abutting the applicant's property and owned by the adjacent property owner to the north. The City claims a prescriptive easement right to the entire width of the maintained road and shoulders, but may not have rights to the entire 33' corridor. For this reason, applicant shall obtain an access easement from the owner of the 33' corridor to allow applicant the right to access the City road from applicant's property. The City expects that in the future North Arm Lane will be upgraded to be more in confomiity with public road design standards than the existing narrow gravel roadway. In order to accommodate such future upgrade the City will require the dedication of additional right-of-way from this subdivision including 8.5' along Page 2 of 7 9. the east boundary and additional area near the intersection of North Arm Lane and North Arm Drive West, as shown in the sketch attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Additionally, to potentially accommodate a future cul-de-sac at the current terminus of North Arm Lane, applicant will be required to grant a road and utility easement for a portion of a cul-de-sac within the northeast comer of Lot 1, such easement subject to potential vacation or extinguishment should a cul-de-sac at some future date no longer be required due to the northward extension of North Arm Lane or other factors, at the discretion of the City. Applicant will be required to provide drainage calculations to determine whether stormwater management facilities will be required. Applicant will also be required to obtain the approprite permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 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. 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 Barry and Janiece Haglund per preliminary plat drawings by Mark S. Gronberg, a licensed surveyor of Coffin & Gronberg, Inc, dated April 22, 1998, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. Applicant shall dedicate on the 33' of public right-of-way for North Arm Drive West per the above-referenced preliminary plat drawing. Additionally, applicant shall dedicate public right-of-way for North Arm Lane on the plat as depicted in Exhibit A attached. Applicant shall provide to the City evidence of an access easement in favor of applicant's property over the 33' privately o\\Tied corridor adjacent to the east side of the property. Lot 2 shall continue to access to North Arm Drive West via the e.xisting private driveway. Lot 1 shall directly access North Arm Lane via a private driveway as Page 3 of7 ^TiTiKt ^ui] WiTmiH •lOfltKKU mt] ^ITt] OTtTi] RIUlTi LtHHU •lilViLtJ CT>mTt»nirfif¥miKYM ^rratj rtvniainmM^ niraii MiVOm^ nui rtC4Ki riT»p.iiiip^iIilliWf>] nartStiM Rnira •IWW PSTSCTTT71 frSZil if£i iTil¥9II^ Final Plat Submittals: The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 1. Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City's records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: a. Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. dated April 22, 1998, except as modified below. b. Dedication on the plat of additional right-of-way for North Arm Lane per Exhibit A attached. c. Dedication of drainage and utility easements 10' wide along the exterior boundaries of property and 5' along the internal lot lines. d. Designation and dedication of drainage easements over detention ponds and drainageways as may be required. e. Naming of the plat. 2. Legal documents required: a.Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated tlierein 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 site drainage improvements if required. Signed and executed Drainage Easements to be taken over drainageway and detention areas within plat. Page 5 of 7 rtKirni MP.lVfl nriVTiTiKl [•Vira •iwtl • KVKfiTiTIVsl •itmrii •IV.Til rtTiftfriTsi roaira [iBil ^rajwnitii 9m STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 __before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared_____________________________ _ ________________known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public 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 (Aeir) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 7 of 7 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Barry & Janiece Haglund 4590 North Arm Drive West Orono, MN 55364 e ZONING FILE #2372 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 27, 1998 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision Y DATE OF MEETING: 05/18/98 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval as follows: 1. Stormwater, grading and drainage plans should be required per City Engineer's comments. A wetland delineation report should be submitted. 2. Applicants to provide evidence of easements for use of portions of North Arm Lane that are potentially not within City's jurisdiction, i.e. not between the shoulders of the gravel roadway as traveled. (It would be best if you get an easement over Armstrong’s entire 33' corridor) 3. 4. Right-of-way to be dedicated on the plat as follows: a. 8.5' along east property boundary b. 33' along North Arm Drive West as shown on preliminary plat drawing c. Area at southeast comer for existing/future road alignment as shown on attached sketch, to allow for a 200' centerline curve radius within 50' corridor, and a perpendicular abutment with North Ami Lane. d. In the same area at southeast comer, a triangular area within 25' of the existing traveled road centerline. Road and utility easement should be granted to City for portion of cul-de-sac as shown on the attached sketch. As an easement rather than a road dedication, this could be used by City if needed but would be readily vacated at such future time that North A,m Lane continues northward and the cul-de-sac is no longer needed. City should pursue a formal acquisition of North Arm Lane. Road and cul-de- sac should be upgraded by City to a level commensurate with the number of homes being served, with an appropriate portion of said costs assessed to the benefitting property owners, at some point in time to be determined by City Council. Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator May 14,1998 # 2372 Barry & Janiece Haglund, 4590 North Araa Drive West - Pelimirrary Subdivision - Public Hearing Zontog District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acre, unsewered Application: Proposed Mot plat of this 5.5 acre parcel to create one new building site. .3 Lbt of Exhibits A" Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey/Preliminary Plat Drawing E - Staff Sketch F - Septic Testing Review (Weckman) G - City Engineer Comments H - Area Subdivision History Sketch I - Status of North Arm Lane; Various Documents Proposed Lot Area & Width Both proposed lots meet the required lot area and width standards of the LR-1 A District: Area (2.0 acres min. req.) Lot 1: Lot 2; ROW; Total; 2.74 acres 2.67 acres 0.08 acres 5.49 acres for North Arm Drive Wgst) (North Arm Drive West at sw comer of site) Width (200* min. req.) Lot 1; Lot 2; moo' (Lot 1 is a comer lot and by defmition the short side is the front) #2372 - Haglund May 14, 1998 Page 2 Pertinent Facts and Issues Septic Testing . Lot 1 has tested primary and alternate drainfield sites, which are shown on the preliminary plat drawing. Lot 2 has a relatively new conforming system with an alternate site indicated near the south end of the lot. See Steve Weckman's report. Exhibit F. Setbacks . The existing house will meet the required setback from all existing and proposed lot lines. The existing garage was granted location variances prior to its remodeling in 1991, and its relation to lot lines does not change as a result of the subdivision. The proposed setbacks for Lot 1 appear to be correctly oriented per City code requirements. Wetlands . No wetland delineation report has been submitted. There are no wetlands mapped in either the City inventory or the National Wetland Inventory for this property. The only potential wetland is a small (less than 0.1 acre) low spot in the SE comer of Lot 1. This area is not expected to be impacted by any development of the site, but might be improved to serve as a sedimentation or mnoff rate control basin for the site. A wetland delineation report should be required of the applicant and if in fact a wetland is delineated, a covenant should be filed in the chain of title warning future owners of approvals needed if that wetland is will be impacted by development. Stormwater Plan . No gradirtg/drainage/stormwater plan has been proposed at this time, but will be required. The City Engineer has been asked to review this plat, and his comments are attached as Exhibit G. Under MCWD's proposed Rule B changes, it is likely no stormwater ponding would be required for this subdivision; however, the City engineer is recommending that some stormwater facilities be provided. Bluff/Woodland Impacts . No part of the property is considered as bluff. No significant woodland will be impacted by the proposed subdivision. Most of the north half of the site was fonnerly an open field which ha.s partially revegetated. Park or Trail Needs. The Park Commission at their May 4 meeting recommended that a park dedication fee be required rather than land dedication. #2372 - Haglund May 14,1998 Page 3 Road Access. Access to the public/private road is an issue. North Arm Lane is a 33 ’ privately o^ed comdor upon S exi ts a gravel road averaging 15’ in width. The otvner of record is Jean T. A.™/ ' "o^ owns the property to the north. Curiously, the City has mamtamed this pnvate C for many yLs, at least back to the I960's, although the City has no apparent documented easement over it, other than a prescriptive easement over the traveled and ^ ^ virtue of the history of City maintenance. The City Attorney has indicated it is unlikely the Ci^ cm claim an easement over the entire 33', but probably has a good claim over the portions rnamtam and/or used for public purposes (i.e. the gravel surface and some portion of the shoulder). The applicant has been advised he must obtain an easement for access from the ;^s“ongs (or pmv.rSnce that such an easement exists) in order for the lot to be considered as fronhng on rZlic m Private road. Applicant has made this contact and appears to be able to provide tins documentation. Without such an easement, access would have to te from the rout , orcing is m a frontriiack lot situation and significantly affecting the proposed plat layout. The traveled road crosses applicants property and the neighboring entrance to North Atm Drive. Note that the portion of traveled road on the neightoring p P ^ the south is neat the new mound septic system on that property. It is unknown whether the City has “elements for the portions of road existing on applicants property and on neighboring properties, although these are also likely only prescriptive. Rnad Standards . The nlat results in a seventh residence accessing via North Arm Lane. This is similar to other nropo^sals the City has reviewed in the past (Lyman Avenue and 'Lydiard Road' off of North Fern a L two that come to mind) where additional use on a substandard to^ beg^ the upgrades. In each case, staff has recommended that the toad be upgraded to be more in conform y with City standards, and that additional right-of-way be dedicated. In this case staff recommends that 8.5' of roadway be dedicated along the east side of the P^P®^ adiacent to’the 33' corridor; also that additional rightof-way be dedicated at the south end of th property where the existing traveled road crosses it; and that a portion of cul-de-sac be dedicated the northeast end of the property. Note that the City has required dedication of 17' and 8.5' of additional right-of-way f™™ P“' subdivisions along the east side of the 33' corridor. During the Markoe Addition platting in 19 , the City concluded that both sides of the road should give up additional right-of-way to eventua y result in a 50' corridor. 9 r L #2372 - Haglund May 14, 1998 Page 4 How or when the road should be upgraded, or whether the road should be upgraded at all, is a topic for discussion. The gravel road averages 15' wide and will serve as the only access for 7 homes, with the potential for a number of additional homes if the Armstrong property is developed in the future. This road could potentially be continued westward to connect with Co. Rd. 19 or north to Bayside. The City standard for such a road is a 50' corridor with a 28' paved road width, ending in a paved cul-de-sac. With the ambiguous road ownership situation, it would be in the best interests of all parties if the City acquires title to the entire 33' corridor as well as additional r.o.w. on each side of it from adjacent properties as necessary. The City could then make a determination as to the degree of upgrade which would be completed by the City and an appropriate portion of the costs assessed back to the benefitting property owners. A more radical option would be for the City to discontinue maintenance of the road and let the road users form an association to decide what level of road service is acceptable. Staff is not recommending this, given the anticipated additional use this road may have in the future. Access for Existing Residence. The existing residence is served by a driveway directly to North Arm Drive West, which is a local City road with many direct driveway accesses. Because this is a local road with relatively low traffic levels, it may be appropriate to allow the continuation of this driveway location rather than force its relocation to North Arm Lane, Applicant notes he may wish to move the driveway to North Arm Lane in the future to eliminate a problem with the grade where the driveway exits onto the road. Summary of Issues for Discussion 1.To what extent should the applicants be required to dedicate additional right-of-way? Does Planning Commission agree with staffs sketch for platting of a partial cul-de-sac? Is there any reason to take the entire cul-de-sac from this subdivision, as opposed to centering it on the existing road corridor? 2. 3. Should the City pursue formal acquisition of the 33' corridor? To w'hat extent should North Arm Lane be upgraded, if at all? By whom? At whose expense? 4. 5. Should the driveway serving the existing house be allowed to rei ''in in its current location? Does Planning Commission have any other concerns or coments .- #2372 - Haglund May 14, 1998 Page 5 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval subject to the following: 1. Stormwater, grading and drainage plans should be required per City Engineer's comments. A wetland delineation report should be submitted. 2. Applicants to provide evidence of easements for use of portions of North Arm Lane that are potentially not within City’s jurisdiction. 3. Right-of-way to be dedicated on the plat as follows: a. 8.5' along east property boundary b. Portion of 100' diameter cul-de-sac at northeast comer of property c. 33' along North Arm Drive West as shown on preliminary plat drawing d. To-be-determined area at southeast comer for existing/future road alignment 4. City should pursue a formal acquisition of North Arm Lane. Road and cul-de-sac should be upgraded by City to a level commensurate with tlie number of homes being served, with an appropriate portion of said costs assessed to the bcnefitting property owners, at some point in time to be determined by City Council. 5. Standard park dedication fee required. 6. Standard drainage and utility easements to be granted along lot boundaries. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval with appropriate conditions. 2. Table for further information or revisions. 3. Recommend denial (state reasons). 4.Other. r L Application # ^30 “Z-. Date Received 4-^ Amount Paid -^2,^ pj A CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address V5^/9 A/OflThi- heH/^ ^ OflONO^fQ^ Property Identification Number ffID) X ^ ^ ^ jd Please check one - Property ^ abstract or____torrens? Attach legal description to application.sen APPLICANT S ■ City r:>/e^/\/0 ^ A/fAJ-C Phone (homel ^ - 3 ^ yphone (work) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ^ Address City__Zip Phone (home) _Phone (work) (attach list if more than one).-.V V- EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size I «'4 22S Present use (check) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL uz\-i\ Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ /-W V J ■.'a.. V Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites ____/ Existing Units / New Units I ;c *■ ^ Total Units • • •* Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size ^ Proposed Use (check) Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_________ Application # Date Received 4-- Z7, Amount Paid ^2-S pj 4 CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Siteaddress A/Of2Jrki- A^t O/ZQ/'JO ft/AJ. ^ Property Identification Number q>ID) —? X g? C/ ^ id Please check one - Property abstract or____torrens? ^ Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT >s SL g; §i1 ^ y e>^'91 , f _____________ Address A.brU'cf /l/CKi PhoneQiome) Q> City O/e^WO A/fAJ._______________Zip 5S3^VPhone (work) y OWNER (if different than applicant) Name -------------- Address City o (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Zip Phone (home) _ Phone (work) / 3779 uz /- /-) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)______ / ‘ NS.. I Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) _________ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites / Existing Units / New Units •• • • I z ■? • • Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) ZdciM 7 Total Units / Units per ^^^^^c Ft. Dry Builds -------Residential ____Other (specify)__ €’acl9 MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PR£LL\UNARY APPLICATION Q.' Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below.V2'. Completed application form. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. • ‘I) Certified Property O’vners List of owners within 350' (you must obta’n 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________________________________ ^^NI^^UM 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 Sun ey 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) S250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement S350.00 Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/Iot (Class III & all non-residential) _____ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (tgjje^determined per Section 11.62) _____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) _____ Renewal of Class 1 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 OC (No change from original application) Totals 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 I new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variarce $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivi^..r . .vtOO.OO _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00A ' veiling Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information requii ed or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission andCow^l neces^^ t^orfbeesr^is application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by oralr,„«. //r^lL/nnd, n...Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature r in Applicant must have all submittals into the Cily^ffice 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on th . third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Cominisslon 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. V RUN DATE 04/04/98BATCH 504PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 38 04-117-25 25 000100058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED C A PASS ET AL TRUSTEES CAROL PASS 2556 18TH AVE S MPLS MN 55404 D£|ifi4£PXN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST38 04-117-23 25 000204620 NORTH ARM OR H 0 A A M H HINTER DON A HINTER 4620 NO ARM DR MEST MOUND MN 55344 P.EPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1038 04-117-23 25 000504640 NORTH ARM DR H D A L IVERSON DANIEL A LINDA IVERSON 4640 NORTH ARM OR hound MN 55364 PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 06-117-25 24 0001 00215 NORTH ARM LA C A PASS ET AL TRUSTEES CAROL ANN PASS 2556 18TH AVE S MPLS MN 55404 38 06-117-23 24 0002 00215 NORTH ARM LA C A PASS ET AL TRUSTEES CAROL ANN PASS 2536 18TH AVE S MPLS MN SSttO^ 38 06-117-23 24 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED R H ARMSTRONG ETAL JEAN T ARMSTRONG 235 NORTH ARM LANE hound MN 55364 PROP ADDR 0»tlER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 06-117-25 24 0006 04590 NORTH ARM OR H B L A J R HAGLUND BARRY L A JANICE R HAGLUND 4590 NORTH ARM DR H mound .’N 55364 38 06-117-23 24 0008 00370 NORTH ARM LA RAH SMITH ROSCOE S A HARRIET C SMITH 370 NORTH ARM LANE hound MN 55364 38 06-117-23 24 0011 00366 NORTH ARM LA mam LARSON MARK JAM LARSON 366 NORTH ARM LA hound MN 55364 a •5 0^ PROP add:< OHNER N/tME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 06-117-23 24 0012 00360 NORTH ARM LA R 0 BACKERUO AOS BACKERUD RODNEY 0 A DIANE S BACKERUO 360 ARM LN N HOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 24 0013 00340 NORTH ARM LA JAMES R A ADRIENNE M NEILSON JAMES R NEILSON 340 NORTH ARM LA MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 24 0014 00350 NORTH ARM LA JON M PENDLETON JON M PENDLETON 350 NORTH ARM LA mound MN 55364 PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 06-117-23 31 0001 00420 NORTH ARM OR R H A M L SLAOEK RICHARD M A MARY L SLADEK 420 NORTH ARM OR mound W 55364 38 06-117-23 31 0003 00440 NORTH ARM DR RAP STERNAU RENE A PATRICIA STERNAU 440 NORTH ARM DR mound MN 55364 38 06-117-23 32 0003 00405 NORTH ARM OR LAKEVIEH GOLF OF MTKA INC LAKEVIEH GOLF OF MTKA INC 855 RED OAK LA hound MN 55364 ( •'OP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 504 00015 \ \ U O rt I J t 11 ! I I i A ''''/M/U''J- '’/'/fl / ,' ' / '{', I \' I \ I 1 \ \ , N fl9*58' 30r E / I till t f 4 280.00 V\ n\. \\ \ nV\' V'"\'' '\\ K \ \ \\\\\w /#/» 0f r^-m I' .<■; a: i>( PR CERTIFI BAf SE 1/4 HENNEF TO: DATE: Michael P.Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator FROM: Stephen Weekman, On-Site Systems Manager May 13,1998 SUBJECT: Septic Review for Application #2372, Barry Haglund - Subdivision The proposed two lot subdivision requires the use of on-site sewage treatment systems. Soil bormgs and percolation tests were performed by S-P Testing, Inc. to identify primary anil alternate drai^ield sites on each lot. The information provided indicates that all drainfield sites meet all Orono standards for design and location. The primary drainfield site for lot 1 meets a 20 foot setback to the existing East property line. Should the road right of way be widened, the function of the drainfield site will not be effected and would still meet the minimum State standards. Based on the above information, staff recommends approval of the subdivision. The City requires the drainfield sites to be fenced off prior to any grading or land alteration. . , f:<^c ActfOr EquM Opportum:/ Brrpfc crPorcitroo. Pcs.-r^ ■^ruU^r',k .,nd Asioom^^ me .» .••>ZlZ^'l T°"n.* ^c<r'y A Bo-.-Con. PE • Rith.ifdE lurn»f Pborlin CPA Ser.=r Consult.mts Robvr! W Rcscne PE «»nd Susan M Eb ri . u . or , M nc . i^n.rh A rordon PE • Robert R Pfefferle ^E • AsiOCtAte PnncT^^fi Howard A Sar *>r . r R ,c • r^\A • Vark A Hanson. *>E • S.dncy P Witiiamson. PE . L S • Robert P Ko r^itn .Pfnees i. -.u,, Rochester. W,::^.r and St Coud. MN . V l.v.su.ee, W1 I ^ , . ■*' . . J 1/ J Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik &. ^ ^ Associates Engineers & Architects May 11,1998 Mr. Michael P Gafii'on Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono Post OlTiee Box 6o Ci^stal Bay. MN' *55323 . Re: Barry liaglund Subdivision Wn. 139-237 ? Dear Mike: following comments in regards to engineenng matters. 1. Access: North Arm Lane prov^es the 8 dead end pnvam hueet, 18 lo 20 feet ®PP . j. North Ann Drive to approximately 300 feet prepenics. nie southerly etiu ^ ^orth Arm Lane lies east of the subject property an onto R.L.S. No. 924. N«J. h*r:t ^•.•aches eosteily onto Lot z,, Block l. iNonn a current City standards Arm U,m should be recons.ruc.ed to a mm.mum f end of Lo. 1 to for a orivate slree. serving 3 to 10 units. A f ,ha, the southerly end of North provide room for emergency vehicle turning ‘ „ies The intersection of Arm -Lume be realigned so the roadway d«s ™ dlsMO perpendicular as possible. North Arm Drive and North Ann Lone should ^ i a„d 2. Right-of- An additional 8.5 feet of right-of-way should be “^u'ted ^“"8 ^ ^ imereeclion v.ay should :i!so bs acquired to a low j. ^ „ imorovements should be re-*.ngi:mem on u:e so«uu« cul .. r.a.sA a..« g.pcv.a,.ev-....o .......ui oio^l'jcd *0i 2. Giodi igt A grading and erosion control fand north property systeiu. Drainage: The draft version oHhe City's- C-P^"^ S^hTeSrA^^^^ that the site drains easterly to on cxistin^ we ai inndincs leaving the site should be limited to a as a m.odcracely susceptible Zetland Phosphorou^^^^^^^^^ maximum of 0.28 pounds/acre/year, e a water leavin" the site. An existing depression water quality, mte conb ul and numea. ''“jf "^rXaTontr ^ a pond. A majority of the site -- - - --- --— - - - - -^—-—, ««M cciia ■ 612-636*4600 • Fax: 612-636-1311 2335 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 551 4. Easements; Final platting should include 33 feet of dedicated right-of-way for North Arm Drive. Drainage and utility easements should be provided 5 feet wide along all interior lot lines and 10 feet wide along the roadway right-of -ways. Drainage easements should be provided across all wetland, drainage way and pond areas. 5. Financial Guarantee: When the plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (604-4863) if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg'^ Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono |4 1 • i i. i .! i i ! i c<\. mi' ' f4>rrvt> /2.0. <0, i;...:_ t:-::..r:;:-;ir._;*;."-.;i ■: •: Oa. /f?2- Ba**m^aa^&aa£zS2;sa^e^ f RUN DATE 02/2^/90OWNERTAXPAYER NAHE/ADDRESS HETES AND BOUNDS HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM 1998 TAX BOOK 38 ORONO REPORT NO. PI<*33^01MORT CODE/LOAN 8 ESCROW NAME/ADORESS ADDITION NAME LOT BLK PUT PARCEL PROPERTY I.D.ACREAGE SCH WTR SEW PROPERTY ADDRESS SN TWP RG QQ SUFXDST SHD DST R H ARMSTRONG ETAL JEAf< T ARMSTRONG 235 NORHr ARM LANE HOUND MN 55364 E 33 FT OF N 313 FT OF S 854.5 FT OF SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 400 QUALIFYING AMT .00 7 FD SHARED TC FD AREA RATE 00000000 IF PROJECT NO. TAXABLE MARKET NET TAX CAPACITY . IF PROJ AlfiT UNPLATTED 06 117 23 000.65 277 3 38 STATUS: CURRENT SEC-HMSTD REF ID 06-117-23 24 0001 DIVISION NO DIVISION DATE SEE ID S 41306 7400 06-117-23 24 0003 ADDRESS UNASSICr4E0 CONSTRUCTION YEAR TAX LEVY/DESCRIPTION HMSTDPRTYP RATE OVER-IO-AC GROSS TAX H LR 120.9460 MARKET VALUE TAX STATE PAID AID SOLID HASTE FEE .08564 38.1490 TOTAL TAX TOTAL PAID AMOUNT 11.46 .34 2.67CR .07 8.86 .00 LAND 400 BLDG MACH OWNX 1 00 BASEl BASE2 NHBASE NON-HMST 7 AMT UNPAID 8.86 . • OWNER TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDRESS METES AND BOUNDS B L t J R HA6LUND BARRY L A JANICE R HAGLUND 4590 NORTH ARM OR N HOUND MN 55364 H 280 FT OF S TAXABLE MARKET MORT CODE/LOAN t ESCROW NAHE/ADDRESS ADDITION NAME ACREAGE SCH WTR SEN DST SHD DST UNPLATTED 06 117 23 005.35 277 3 STATUS: CURRENT LOT BLK PROPERTY ADDRESS PLAT PARCEL PROPERTY I.D. SN THP RG QQ SUFX 854.5 FT OF THE 148>000 SE 1/4 OF NW 1/4 EXCEPT ROAD ••1306 4810 06-117-23 24 0006 4590 NORTH ARM DR W CONSTRUCTION YEAR 1926 NET TAX CAPACITY IF PROJ AMT IMPROVE AMT TAX LEVY/OESCRIPTION GROSS TAX MARKET VALUE TAX •STATE PAID AID EDUC HMSTD CR SOLID WASTE FEE QUALIFYING AMT 2,101 FD SHARED TC FD AREA RATE IF PROJECT NO. QUAL IMPROVE AMT RATEHMSTDPRTYP H R 2,442.81 00000000 25,000 120.9460 .08564 38.1490 12.2330 TOTAL TAX TOTAL PAID AMOUNT 3,469.32 126.74 801.51CR 225.00CR 27.23 2,470.04 .00 DIVISION NO DIVISION DATE SEE ID S LAND 88,500 BLDG 84,500 MACH OWN/ BASEl BASE2 NHBASE* NON-HMST 1 00 750 740 611 AMT UNPAID 2,470.04 OltfHER TAXPAYER NAME/ADORESS METES AND BOUNDS MORT COOE/LOAN 8 ESCROW NAHE/ADDRESS ADDITION NAME ACREAGE SCH WTR SEW DST SHD DST LOT BLK PROPERTY ADDRESS PLAT PARCEL PROPERTY I.D. SN TWP RG QQ SUFX MINUTES OP THE PLACING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 1990 ^ 2- ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning^€oininissi9n met on the above date with the following members pres^t^ Chairman Kelley; Planning Commissioners Cohen, HansoI^^ellows and Brown. The following represented the City stafIding & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Plann^g & Zeroing Administrator Gaffron and City Recorder Scheffler. ^council Representative Goetten attended and Councilmember Calla^n was also present. #1490 K-P PROPERTIES ^ 340/350 NORTH ARM LANE ' * I PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT OT riOd-YH PUBLIC HEARING 7:04 P.M. - 7:30 P.M. ^ 0 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Don Peterson and his partner was present for this Public Hearing. Mr. Peterson said that he had a purchase agreement for Lot 1 contingent upon there being a satisfactory solution for the septic system. He said that this is a one-time opportunity to develop both lots to the full potential. He requested that the lot line rearrangement be approved without the additional 17' of right-of-way being dedicated. He said there was already 33* granted by the property owner to the north in 1925. No further right-of-way was reserved and he understands that the City would like to have 50' of right-of-way. Mr. Peterson said that he would have no objection to the additional right-of-way, but it will interfere with the septic system. Peterson said he, had talked with the property owners on the west side of North Arm Lane regarding subdivision of their property. They could dedicate 17' of right-of-way when they subdivide, but they are not interested in subdividing at this time. Chairman Kelley asked how far down North Arm Drive City sewer extends. Mabusth indicated the location on the map. is? Planning Commissioner Cohen asked how wide North Arm Lane Mabusth replied that it is 33' wide and the City is maintaining the roadway. Planning Commissioner Hanson asked how a determination is made in regard to which roads the City maintains. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 1990 #1490 K-P PROPERTIES CONT. Mabusth said that she was not aware of a policy regarding public maintenance of roads privately owned. Mabusth noted that at the sketch plan review of this matter, it was suggested that the right-of-way shown came from the east property. That theory has been disproved by the City Attorney. The road was previously known as County Road 43 or Town Road, and was vacated. The specific road corridor was created by former owner, who owned all of the land in the area, for access to North Arm Drive. Mabusth also informed the Planning Commision that North Arm Lane does not directly intersect with North Arm Drive. There is a private property area over which everyone must have an easement in order to access their properties. The City, by maintaining the road for many years, would now define the road as a public road. Kelley asked whether the City would take right-of-way from the west side at the time of subdivision if it obtains additional right-of-way from the east side? m Mabusth replied that the City will acquire enough width to make up a 50' right-of-way. Bellows noted that taking the right-of-way from the east side will not render the lot unbuildable, it will only limit the size of house that can be built. Kelley noted that the Planning Commission is also being asked to recommend approval of a 62% lot width variance for Lot 2. Bellows asked if taking 8.5' of right-of-way from the east side would still impact the septic site? Gaffron replied that there is no leeway at all. Hanson asked whether it would be possible for ’’-'^ ^rson to obtain additional property? Mabusth replied that Mr. Peterson has tried to work with an adjacent property owner to no avail. Mr. Peterson explained that s’ u. d ~ h property owner agree to provide additional land to hin. ?•. may jeopardize their potential future septic sites. Mr. Mark Larson, 366 North Arm Lane, asked how the City came to own North Arm Lane? r MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 1990 #1490 K-P PROPERTIES CONT. Mr. Peterson replied that there was a legal opinion that stated if the City maintains a road for more than six years, it is considered City right-of-way. He said that the City Public Works Director had indicated that the City has maintained North Arm Lane for 21 years. Mr. Laverne Dunsmore, 420 North Arm Drive, was concerned about the City's claim to the road. He said that he has the smallest lot along that road and does not want to see the road widened because it will severely impact his property. Mabusth replied that more than likely the City will not ask for any additional right-of-way from his property. Mr. Dunsmore said that due to the Lakeview Golf Course Clubhouse being located at that intersection, cars currently park on the road. He is afraid that parking will increase if the road is widened. He said he is not opposed to the building of new homes, but objects to the widening of the road. Mr. Rod Backerud, 360 North Arm Lane, concurred with Mr. Dunsmore. Kelley asked Mr. Backerud if he would like to have the City continue to maintain North Arm Lane? Mr. Backerud replied that he did not think that the land owners along North Arm Lane would object to maintaining the road themselves. Mr. Roscoe Smith, 370 North Arm Lane, said that he is opposed to the additional right-of-way because it will have an impact on the mature maple trees and landscaping on his property. Cohen asked whether North Arm Lane would have to be 50' if the City continues to maintain it. Mabusth said there had been informal discussions regarding the maximum of rxght-of—way that would be needed to maintain the publ;.c roadway and whether the 33' would be sufficient. She sa: \ however, that would not be in keeping with City policy. Sha added that North Arm Lane may be an important link when looking at an overall transportation system. Bellows said that the City has to initiate a strict policy regarding roads. Mr. Dick Armstrong, said that his mother owns North Arm Lane. He said thar he would not object to the additional right- of-way being taken provided that it is taken from both sides of the road. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 1990 #1490 K-P PROPERTIES CONT. Mr. Paul Larson, realtor for Katherine Axel, seller of Lot 1, hoped that the Council would approve the present proposal because taking the additional right-of-way from the east would reduce the value of Lot 1 substantially. There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Hansen, to recommend denial of the lot line rearrangement because of the severe lot width variance being requested. Hanson asked what a possible solution to this situation may be? Kelley replied that the northern lot can only sustain a two bedroom homo. Mr. Peterson said if the lot line rearrangement is approved with the taking of the 17 additional feet of right-of-way, he will with­ draw his application. Motion, Ayes-4, Brown-Nay. Motion passed. #1495 ROD JOHNSON 3740 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD PRELIMINARY ^;{'3DIVISI0N PUBLIC HEARING 7:37 P.M. TO 7:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Johnson was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided information to the Planning Commission regarding this application for a preliminary subdivision. Mabusth noted that she has not received confirmation from the State Highway Department regarding Highway 12 right-of-way. Kelley said Parcel B would have a conditional use permit with no principal structure. Mabusth said that is correct, a principal structure is not required. The Conditional Use is permitted for property owners of vacant lands. Mabusth said the only concern she has with Parcel B is that an access has not been defined. Mr. Johnson said that Parcel B is not accessed from Highway 12, but rather County Road 6 where there is an existing farm exit. Mabusth said that Hennepin County should review that access. Kelley said that he would prefer to table this application so that he can review the proposed access. r COUNCLMEETINQ JUN 8 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CUYOfORONO DATE: June 2, 1998 item no.: 13 Department Approval: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2373 Steven and Peggy Beck 2795 Shadywood Road —------------------------Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore District. 1 acre 34.500 sq. ft. (.79 acres) Application: 0-75- and 75' to 0 -75 setback is measured from the lake and the channel. The house is i^om the channel, therefore, most of the house is in the 0'-75' setback The applicant wants to construct a deck as far away from the cha^l« possible because of the noise generated by boat traffic PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: sut clTthf app“mJ« spon court tSe 0'%5 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To amend or approve the enclosed resolution. Attachments r A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22 SUED. 2 AND SECTION 10.56 SUBD 16 (L) 1 AND 2 FILE NO. #2373 WHEREAS, Steven R. and Peggy A. Beck (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 2795 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 500, files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, MN" (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published 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 time 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 a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L) 1 and 2 to permit construction of a lakeside deck as proposed in Exhibit A as prepared by Coffin and Gronberg on August 27, 1997 and revised October 30, 1997 and April 22, 1998, where 4,818 sq. ft. (19.08%) hardcover exists in the 0-75' setback where none is allowed and 4,855 sq. ft. (19.23%) was proposed and where 3,672 sq. ft. (39.70%) exisis in the 75-250' setback where 2,312.5 sq. ft. (25%) is allowed and 4,022 sq. ft. (43.48%) is proposed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2373. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, where 1 acre or 43,560 sq. ft. minimum lot area is required. The property consists of .79 acre or 34,500 sq. ft. Page 1 of 5 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 18, 1998 and recommended approval by a vote of 3 to 2. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The zoning lot does not meet the minimum lot area or let width requirements for the LR-IB district. B. The existing house is 160' from Shad3nvood Road and is located in both the 0-75' and 75-250' setback. C. The existing residence is 87' from the 929.4' elevation for Lake Minnetonka and 8' from the channel. D. The proximity to the channel is a hardship due to boat traffic noise. 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 advers ,*ly affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessaiy 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. 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed 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 Subd. 2 and Section 10.56 Subd 16 (L) 1 and 2 to permit the construction of a lakeside deck as proposed in Exhibit A where 4,818 sq. ft. of hardcover exists in the 0-75' setback where none is allowed and 4,855 sq. ft. was proposed and to allow 4,022 sq. ft. (43.48%) of hardcover in the 75-250' setback where 3,672 sq. ft. (39.70%) is existing and 2,312.5 sq. ft. (25%) is allowed. Approval is subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. To remove 40 sq. ft. from the sport court for a total of 4,815 sq. ft. (19 06%) of hardcover in the 0-75' setback. To advise the applicants and all future property owners that future requests for hardcover variances will not receive favorable consideration. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (June 8, 1999). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this vari^ce shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of June, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) Page 3 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of June, 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINTMESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of and for said county, personally appeared . 199_before me a Notary Public within known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (Aey) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC SI ATE 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 »*'**-' — --J STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) I •ss. On this day of , 199 ___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared___________________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of 199 ___, before me a N* <4iy 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 MM i**X 1 ryw •MM*o*fi 1J-/4 tl 1 KB MX 1 9r-ff4 1 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeshore Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1 acre 140'75' and ALS 10'35' Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 34,500 124'160'16.1' to house 11.0 proposed to steps 8' from channel 87' from lake The subject property does not meet the minimum lot area or lot width requirements. The proposed addition would meet side yard requirements. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 34,500 5,175 sq. ft.15% The house, accessory structure and proposed addition would not exceed the lot coverage requirement. Hardcov'er Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback » Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0-75'25,250 sq. ft.4,818 sq. ft. (19.08%) None 4,855 sq. ft. (19.23%) 19.23% 75-250’9,250 sq. ft.3,672 sq. ft. (39.70%) 2,312.5 sq.ft. (25%) 4,022 sq. ft. (43.48%) 1,709.5 sq. ft. (18.48%) The applicant is requesting variances to add 37 sq. ft. of hardcover in the 0-75' setback and 350 sq. ft. in the 75-250' setback to build a deck on the west lakeside of the residence. The existing property exceeds the maximum hardcover limits in both setbacks. U 2373 Steven Beck 2795 Shady wood Rd. May 18, 1998 page--‘2 [•inn Mtiiiin itrort]•roit •xtictvjni rillTi^TiTtr»?-lfW Criteria for Determining Undue Hard«;hip '■ IlLTbrthe The residence can continue to be used as a residence. 3. 6. todo™er'“‘'°'™" “ P™l«rty "ot created "’ “ did not creme these The variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for hardcover 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 are not 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 subject property has unique circumstances because of the channel, highway and access. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. ^Tb'afkauMslm. """0-7^' The grating of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant is seeking relief from the traffic and noise next to the channel. H 2373 Steven Beck 2795 Shadywood Rd May 18. 1998 page-^4 8. 9. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. The granting of such variance wilt not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The applicant needs to provide testimony regarding his hardship. Issues 1.The lot does not meet the minimum lot area or lot width requirements. The house is 8' from the channel. The house is set back 160' from the street and encroaches into the 0-75' and 75- 250' setback. 2. The property exceeds the hardcover allowed in both setbacks. The applicant could reduce hardcover on the property to accommodate the proposed deck. 3. Previous variances were requested for hardcover and setbacks in April 1993. The application was tabled at the Planning Commission and did not proceed to City Council. (File #1817). STAFF RECOMMENDATION To direct the applicant to remove hardcover in the amount of the proposed deck in either setback. Attachments A B C D E F Application Plat Map Survey Hardcover Cals. Topo Permit Record turn Smtn Beck 2795 ShadfyM'oodRd, May !8. 1998 page-S V Iraig^y^^'ilfe^W'^ -?:#^ /vi- -.aj^affiMSaagCRieffi g^^ >:••!»;. t 2Tl(\< fhodv/vicysdl K«j TTTTT^ ♦ • ' ,». • Bracketts Point Huntington Point \ __^sland _ Point Charmins Echo Bay 1-MmiMtU DR 24U0E AVI vmUCRUT OR Crown Point -rr •-‘V—■.*1 «Trr V* «r (\lsland Point // Comfort Sunrise Point MCfTWOOO RU **• Gideon Bay Solberg Point excelsior Frog ^Ailsland 19) Excelsior Bay Application it 95H3 Date Received Amount Paid A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renevval Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address iei>. w m A A ^ __Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) J-J/ Ooo2-. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired iojis" j4*f. I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: K residential ___^other (specify) Zoning District: L.£ ±&___________________ .(month/year) fy APPLICANT Name ^TTSt/SA/ R^cic Mdxss: In^S" SUAntuocCi igb.City: Phone (home) *f 7/ -o s~/S~ Phone (wnrk )a OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address:City:. ^----------------------Zip: s-:^33j (^cxcS4x<«A Aoentasxp Phone (home)________________ Phone (work) ____________ . Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmction Cost $ Describe request in detail: 77. .Jj.. ^ J..J __J stp----- -■ j- - ^ „ (attach additional sheets if necessary) \ I'f. r.) ' , V VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage 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: ^^ JUul^ (attach additional sheets if neoftsary) tftt S ^ ^’lA' gvc^-v Tu..^. r REQUIRED SUBi\nTTALS AlLQf.the following information must be submitted hv the applimtion deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: __ Completed Application Form i.i Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map fi’om Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). __ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations, as required. In addition, provide oiie (1) copy 8V2" x 11" for reproduction. __ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide onfe (1) copy 8'/a" x 11" for reproduction. __ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8’/a" 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 applicaht(s) if not current owTier(s). __ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other ’ persons‘you wish notified of this application. ■ Addition^ items as may be requested by City staff. * • 4. • • • • \ The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour ^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 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. 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 steheduled 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/X L U<jf> \ / _^40;V. r // c^^, V ./4" 1 \ J U /c • •/ / 'V '\\ /. V''x: i / Os '•v. V / \;r// / /B ’O'-X V,. \ V V N a \i \ / X C* Oi 7 / /x.v.%r\’.*.'. ;.j / \ / \. \ X %y*'^ X \ \ • •/ / * 36 57 •T/i / 7 / <‘v 2l-|i7'2i'3l A o)/‘''^o / ' / . <• ' ' '\4;» V \ ' •4terz^-^^zt ■) ri STEVE AND PEGGY BECK f%' ■ OF TRACTS A&B. R.LS.NO. 500 ; HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA • -k • ' :-.Tv ?r< Ip LEGAL DESCkIPTION Or PREMISES SURVEYED: Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 500, files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin. This sui vey intends to sliow the boundaries of ttie above described property, and the location of an existing house, shed, and all visible '‘hardcover" thereon. It does not purport to show any other Improvements or encroachments. • : Iron marker found o Iron marker set Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. OeSICMDIY OKAWNBY RCVtSlON DATE i>escKinioN d)•*Xl*f7 Pnp^igo ouM a>4-UU 5* COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. ~ Ijiiht Siinri/i'i>. ^ilc I’hiwhiy 4S2 r.imiU.Kk Avenue • »Lonj; Uk-,MN ~ ’(■)12-473-4l4i..-. ■ I hiTi'bv ci rlifv Ihji this sunry was prepared by me or under my direct super* viium. jnd that I am a duly fegistfn*d Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws ul Ihe Suie of Minncviia Mark S. Crunberg Minnesota License Number 12 SCAU r-X' DATE KXINO. fPE66V BecX HARDCOVER CALCULATION HOgKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE'ONE) ^^75^75“! Existing Hardcover in Zone g-Z.7'^7 Aeu -^77 • • A. ' H ouse /3-9 X /^•o S3 ‘ 2^6,.S S.F.' ► • •• . • LENSTH ^s./ ■X WIDTH * , 63 /39o .9 % \ IG42 S.F. \ ••» X .. Z.5-30 •3S.F^• > * V\/ooci wijlks .3.7 • 5.4.X '* 10*^ 4.0 • 3J • yy S.F. :\/a/ks Hn ■ 4-.0 X ^/O 4.0 S . 73 • m • • •• • • S.F. Bi GAnAuh *k. • *. » 1^.3 X • ITJ.Z -• S3 • S.F. . •• • c. D riveway • ♦ tr* • • •• •X ••• • Jl&o S.F. • ' •X S3 S.F. • blocM. D ..SIDEWALK ' S'.o... i>,o X 7.0 fS.S3 .. 56^ • 90 i #< V. • j. / ' S.F.' V iL ./ r '^id<d.^our't" E. Patio/ Deck /<f.^ F.Landscape _ AREAS UNDERLAIN BY ■ , _ _ _ PLASTIC- - - - SHEETING « -• t • G. Other X X X Qoo ^5 6 S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. ^ S • F • ^ S.F. _ S.Fi Total Hardcover in Zone - Total Property Area in Zone m ‘/f/S • -^[b ] iSZSo_ . . • yy/g S.F. %S,7.SC> S.F. X 100 - — B % .vr>.V if y 'vi ; 'L-- : '• A . r f ^ C IT -f i 7 r ^ S’SS ~ /?, 23 % M .•••• * r-w »• • • r • S tBv B f PfiS&V S MC HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK zone:' (CIRCLE- ONE) 0-75' QS-7^ 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone • • a . r * “• \ ‘ ■ House X 30.4- • '32Z.-2. LENGTH• •WIDTH « 24.7 X 3i,.4- • ^ s S99J %• 1 • X a ■-------------- • • • • • A /£, -P ad 'X S a • •• BI0C.L ’Suoilt (,X 10.(,a B. 1 « *«. • • S arage ___ • • X * • • • • • • C, 1 • • •••?-» • • • Driveway X ••• • ZZ,eo • • • X a ^f«M6.u/ALC ■ ^ D.. SiDEWAL-K X / • • St AS ^ % > X 9 • a Zo • "0AD. Cotxiir z.^ • X 41 E. • ;atio / . ........ . Deck • • X •• • • a » » • •• • • • •• F.Landscape X a • AREAS UNDERLAIN % BY • .X • •• • * PLASTIC**---------- • • SHEETING * ’ •*' X • • •• •(B •••• #X 1 a • ••m •• G. Other X •a *• • Total Hardcover IN Zone Jar7Z . Total Property Area in Zone S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. i* S.F. S.F.’ S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /2Z/ r . V V'.- Vi.'* >.jjf S.F. S.F. IX • -ITI fego X 100 - S9.7i> % = / Jso - y^22 T /r j • ••• • • M .•••* •• • • • • I iiTtLrx Permit No.Date ' • — Tvpe'of•• Permit ' ............................................................ i 1031 # S. HooK-or® _ _ /\r^cuf' nbCLL<' H}5! • • • / •? '<^02^ ^---------------------------- *4hi h'2^yiL^/vyX ----------------------------------------------------------------U • ’ • - ^ \ • • t • • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 8, 1998 ITEM NO Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Administrator ’s Report Item Description: Safe Assure Proposal for Cooperative Safety Training The fourteen Lake Minnetonka Area Cooperating Cities (LMACC) Group has been working over the past several years to develop joint programs and promote sharing of services. One of these areas is safety training and the development of the manuals and programs required by numerous Federal and State regulations. The area Cities are having a difficult time remaining informed of, and in compliance with many of these regulations. This is extremely difficult for the smaller Lake Area Cities. However, even Minnetonka the largest city in the group is having difficulties, and is interested in a cooperative program in this area. We have already had several area wide safety training sessions at the City of Minnetonka. The LMACC group has had several meetings with Safe Assure Consultants and conducted reference checks with other clients. The consensus of the group has been extremely positive regarding this proposed program. Safe Assure Consultants will provide the required safety training and develop the required training manuals and program documentation for each City. Each City will receive their own individual manuals and programs specific to their unique situation. The safety training sessions will be conducted every other month in a group setting. Safe Assure also completes simulated OSHA inspections and provides written recommendations on areas that need correction. One of the Lake Area Cities recently had an OSHA inspection and problems were found that resulted in citations. This proposal is for an annual program. The cost for this program is reduced based on the cooperation of the area Cities. The cost for individual Cities to conduct this program would be higher. The cost to each City is based on the size and operation of the City. Safe Assure Consultants has met with staff and toured the facilities of all the area Cities. The consensus of the Cities is that this price is reasonable for the program provided. It may be possible to attend different training sessions and use consultants to prepare various segments of the program, but this would be more expensive and less convenient for the Cities. The main benefit of this program is that Safe Assure Consultants provides a comprehensive program for the area Cities, and the multi City cooperation results in a cost-effective program. This program is mainly for Public Works personnel, but also includes the office personnel for the general hazard awareness training and emergency action plan training requirements. The police officers are not included in this program, as there are very specific training requirements and certifications required for law enforcement officers. The $3,325.50 annual cost for this program can be funded from the training and development budgets for the various City departments. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of the proposal from Safe Assure Consultants for conducting safety training and preparation of the related written programs and documentation at an annual cost of $3,325.50 to be funded from the Training and Development budget line items. ^ voposal #r^ ■ jgafeitssure The Umled States Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health HeZl^m- TV''" Division of OccuTationfSafety andHetUth Admtmstration require employers to have documented nro.f of emlvertrS and The required standards that apply to The City of Orono are listed below: A.W.A.I.R. MN Statute 182.653 Workplace Accident &Injury program that promotes safe & healthful working conditions ” EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN 29 CFR 1910.35 THRU .38 lmZTr7&ZZ‘^Z V ‘^“ons eZZZef’. f^o ”' <* other CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS ENERGY- 29 CFR 1910.147 & MN Statute 5207.0600 "Procedures shall be dey.eloped, documented A milh^d ,/,e control of potentiallv hazardous energy when employees are engaged in the activities ravereA h„ L. HAZARD COMMUNICATIONS engaged in the activities covered by this section 29 CFR 1910.1200 & MN Statute 5206.0100 thru 5206.1200 ‘tot'communicating information concerning trp^viZn tr-X T'’"‘’‘"T" ““ " » oot limited the workplace " maintaining a written hazard communication program for ^O^ING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ttLNESSES Each employer shall maintain in each establishment a log and summarv of all occupational injuries and illnesses for that establishment........ ^ ^ r POWERED INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS 29 CFR 1910.178 "Only trained and authorized operators shall be permitted to operate a powered itjdustrial truck. Methods shall be devised to train operators in the safe operation of Powered Industrial Trucks CONFINED SPACE 29 CFR 1910.146 If the employer decides that its employees will enter permit spaces, the employer shall develop and implement a written permit space program......... RESPIRATORY PROTECTION 29 CFR 1910.134 Written standard operating procedures governing the selection and use of respirators shall be established. OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE 29 CFR 1910.95 The employer shall institute a training program for all employees who are exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time weighted average of 85 decibels, and shall ensure employee participation in such a program. BLOODBORNE PATHOGENS 29 CFR 1910.1030 Each employer having an employee(s) with occupational exposure as defined by paragraph (b) of this section shall establish a written Exposure Control Plan designed to eliminate or minimize employee exposure. GENER.\L DUTY ClAUSE PL91-596 "Hazardous conditions or practices not covered in an O.S.H.A. Standard may be covered under section 5(a)(i) of the act, which states: Each employer shall furnish to each of (their) employees employment and a place of employment which is free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to (their) employees." In the interest of Quality Safety Management, it is recommended that employee training also be provided for the following Subparts. (Subparts represent inultiple standards) 1926 Subpart C 1926 Subpart D 1926 Subpart £ 1926 Subpart F 1926 Subpart G 1926 Subpart H 1926 Subpart I - 1926 Subpart J - 1926 Subpart O 1926 Subpart P - 1926 Subpart T - 1926 Subpart W 1926 Subpart X - 1926 Subpart Z - " General Safety and Health Provisions - Occupational Health and Environmental Controls ■ Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment - Fire Protection and Prevention - Signs, Signals, and Barricades - Materials Handling, Storage, Use, and Disposal Tools - Hand and Power Welding and Cutting " Motor Vehicles, Mechanized Equipment, and Marine Operations Excavations Demolition - Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead Protection Ladders Toxic and Hazardous Substances 1910 Subpart A 1910 Subpart D 1910 Subpart F 1910 Subpart G 1910 Subpart H 1910 Subpart I - 1910 Subpart J - 1910 Subpart K 1910 Subpart L 1910 Subpart M 1910 Subpart N 1910 Subpart O 1910 Subpart P • 1910 Subpart Q 1910 Subpart R 1910 Subpart Z - General - Walking-Working Surfaces - Powered Platforms, Manlifts, and Vehicle-Mounted Work Platforms ’ Occupational Health and Environmental Control - Hazardous Materials Personal Protective Equipment General Environmental Controls - Medical and First Aid • Fire Protection - Compressed Gas and Compressed Air Equipment - Materials Handling and Storage - Machinery and Machine Guarding • Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment - Welding, Cutting, and Brazing > Special Industries ■ Toxic and Hazardous Substances **Subpart K Medical and First Aid SafeAssure Consultants employs certified First Aid/CPR instructors and will provide First Aid/CPR training to The City of Orono employees in accordance with the standards required by the American Heart Assoc., the American Red Cross and the National Safety Council. Rates for the program will be quoted and agreed upon under sepaiatg coyer. All training will meet or exceed all State and/or Federal OSHA requirements. f These programs/policies and procedures listed on the addendum do flgl include the cost of hardware such as laWs signs, etc. and wiU be tlie responsibUity of The City of Orono to obtain as required to comply with OSHA standards. AU documents produced by SafeAssure Consultants for The City of Orono are for the sole and It is always the practice of SafeAssure Consultants to make modifications and/or additions to v, program when necessaiy to comply with changing OSHA standards/statutes. These changes or addiuons, when made during a contract year, will be made at no additional cost to The City of our or SafeAssure consultants does not take responsibility for financial loss due to OSHA fines or any other factors within The City of Orono ^ ADDENDUM SAFETY PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS City of Orono Written Programs & Training A.W.A.LR, (A Workplace Accident and Injury Reduction Act) • write site specific program • documented training of all personnel • accident investigation • two documented simulated OSHA inspections • safety committee advisor Employee Right to Know/Hazard Communication • write site specific program • documented training of all personnel (general and specific training) • various labeling requirements • create and maintain hazardous substance list • create and maintain MSDS manual Lock Out/Tag Out (Control of Hazardous Energy) • write site specific program • documented training of all personnel • write and post procedures for all applicable machinery Emergency Action Plan • write site specific program • documented training of all personnel • develop and promote procedures and maps • conduct documented practice drills Blood borne Pathogens • write site specific program • documented training of all E.R.T. personnel • conduct documented practice trauma drills Powered Industrial Trucks • write site specific program • documented training of all personnel • required licensing Respiratory Protection • write site specific program • documented training of all personnel • required fit tests Hearing Conservation (Occupational Noise Exposure) • >\Tite site specific program • documented training of all personnel • decibel testing and documentation Cranes-Chains-Slings • write site specific program • documented training of all personnel Personal Protective Equipment • write site specific program • documented training of all personnel Confined Space • write site specific program • documented training of all personal General Safety Requirements • write site specific program • documented training of all personnel r Miscellaneous • Workplace Hazard Assessment • training manual maintenance • documented foot-candle readings • OSHA recordkeeping • General Duty Clause • assistance during an actual OSHA inspection • general safety recommendations r V r 1998 TENTATIVE TRAINING SCHEDULE May June July August September October November December January 1999 February March OSHA RECORDKEEPING MONITORING SIMULATED OSHA INSPECTION PROGRAM WRITING/ECORDKEEPING A.W.A.I.R. EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN CONFINED SPACE PROGRAM VVRITING/ECORDKEEPING EMPLOYEE RIGHT TO KNOW (GENERAL) EMPLOYEE RIGHT TO KNOW (SPECIFIC) HEARING CONSERVATION PROGRAM VVRITING/ECORDKEEPING P.P.E. L.O.T.O. RESPIRATORS PROGRAM WRITING/ECORDKEEPING CRANES-CHAINS-SLINGS MOTOR VEHICLES SIMULATED OSHA INSPECTION PROGRAM WRITING/ECORDKEEPING GENERAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS QUIZ SAFEASSURE SAFEASSURE SAFEASSURE SAFEASSURE ALL PERSONNEL ALL PERSONNEL AS REQUIRED SAFEASSURE ALL PERSONNEL AS REQUIRED SAFEASSURE ALL PERSONNEL AS REQUIRED AS REQUIRED SAFEASSURE AS REQUIRED AS REQUIRED SAFEASSURE SAFEASSURE ALL PERSONNEL ALL PERSONNEL Classes:Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Thursday 8;00A.M. and 1:00P.M. (Scheduled) 8:00A.M. and 1:00P.M. (Scheduled) 8:00 A.M. (scheduled) 1:00 P.M. (Make-up from last month) During the twelve-month duration of this program, SafeAssure Consultants will act as a consultant to, and/or perform the function of Safety Manager for The City of Orono The options of payment for all required programs and procedures are listed below. ■ □ Option One Total cost Discount if paid on signing Total if paid on signing 10% $3695.00 -$369.50 $3,325.50 The City of Orono Date SafeAssure Consultants Date SafeAssure Consultants Date □ Option Two The total cost without discount is $3,695.00 payable in four quarterly payments of $923.75. The first payment due on the signing of this proposal. The City of Orono Date SafeAssure Consultants Date SafeAssure Consultants Date The above options and cost analysis are valid through 30 days of proposal date. "Stffely Wise We Specialize REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION (X)UNCiL M££T1NQ 8 1998 crrv o- ORONO DATE: Junes, 1998 ITEM NO: /5^ Department Approval: Name RonMcx>rse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: City Assessor Contractor Rolf Erickson, who provides the City with property assessment services on a contractual basis, has indicated he will not renew his contract with the City when it expires in September of 1998. He has also notified the City of Shorewood that he will not renew Ws contract with them. These non­ renewals are due to the difficulty in retaining sufficient staff to adequately provide services to Orono and Shorewood. Apparently, with the strong economy, there are plenty of opportunities available for property appraisers. The City needs to begin the process of obtaining a new property assessment service provider as soon as possible. Recommended steps in this process are as follows: 1. Clarify the requirements and expectations for the property assessment service. 2. Identify options for the provision of property assessment services. a. Contract with a new provider. b. Hire in-house property assessment staff. c.Exploic a cooperative arrangement with the City of Shorewood for either a contracted jTovider or in-house staff. d. Request the County to provide property assessment services to the City. 3. Determine option(s) to pursue. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize staff to begin the process of obtaining a new provider for property assessment services. ASSBSSOR.COM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL WESTINGJUN S 1998 crrYoroRONO DATE; Junes, 1998 ITEM NO: 1^ Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Request for Contribution to the Maple Plain Volunteer Fire Department for the Purchase of an IRIS Rescue Mask Attached is a letter from the Chair of the group raising funds for the purchase of an IRIS rescue mask for the Maple Plain Volunteer Fire Department. This mask enables a firefighter to see through smoke and darkness to rescue people in a fire situation. The letter requests each of the five cities in the Maple Plain Volunteer Fire Department ’s service area to contribute $1,800 toward the purchase of the rescue mask. The City has contributed $2,500 to the Mound Volunteer Fire Department for the purchase of a similar piece of equipment. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to indicate whether the City will contribute $1,800 to the Maple Plain Volunteer Fire Department for the purchase of an IRIS rescue mask. MAPLE PLAIN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT 1645 PIONEER AVE. MAPLE PLAIN, MN 55359 612-479-0500 FOR EMERGENCY DIAL 911 June 1,1998 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Pkwy. Orono. MN 55356-9387 Dear Mr. M.nyor and Council Members As you are surely aware, a group of ‘concerned citizens* have put forth a tremendous effort in fundraising to benefit the service area of the Maple Plain Volunteer Fire Department with an IRIS Rescue Mask. So far to date with their efforts, our own. as well as other organizations like the Lions, have raised $16000.00. This is still short of the $25000.00 needed and Is why I am appealing to each of you. We would like to see this project through to fruition and would like each of your cities to help out. The shortfall is $9000.00, which divided equally, would amount to $1800.00 from each of your cities to make this incredible piece of technology ours! We are extremely grateful for all of your past support and your continued supports for the safety of our communities. Again we extend our thanks for your generosity. At your service. ^undraisi Cc: City of Independence City of Maple Plain City of Medina Ci*v of Minnetrista City of Orono I •' . * . -• • r COUNCIL MEETINQ JUN 8 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CTTYOFORONO DATE: June 5, 1998 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Multi-City Collaborative Effort Regarding a Skateboard Park Attached is a letter from Jim Hurm, Shorewood City Administrator, asjdng if Orono would be interested in participating in a collaborative effort with other cities regarding a skateboard park. Orono has received requests for a skateboard park; however, it is not clear what the level of demand for such a park is. If a skateboard park is to be developed, it would make sense to develop it jointly vs. each city developing a park independently. It would be beneficial for Orono to be involved in at least the planning phase of a collaborative effort related to a skateboard park. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize the City to participate in the planning phase of a rr ‘'i-city cc iiaborative effort regarding a skateboard park. To: From: D^e: Re: i;'iV t •% X « r • ♦ Lake Area Cooperative Cities’ Administrators: Don Ashworth, Chanhassen Bob Larson, Deephaven Sandra Langley, Greenwood & Woodland Craig Dawson, Excelsior Joe Lynch, Long Lake Dave Childs, Minnetonka Joan Ellis, Minnetonka Beach Tim Cruikshank, Minnetrista Edward Shulke, Jr., Mound Ron Moorse, Orono Patricia Higus, Spring Park Patrick Wussow, Tonka Bay Joanne Kopet, Victoria Allan Orsen, Wazyata James C. Hurm, City Administrator May 13,1998 Skateboarding / Roller Blading It seems more and more cities are attempting to address the growing requests for a place for youth to skateboard or roller blade. Several newspaper articles are enclosed about a joint effort to the east and north of r.s. The Shorewood City Council, by Resolution No. 98-042, is asking other area cities that might be interested in a collaborative effort, and MCES, to appoint a representative to meet with us to delve into the subject in detail. If your City is interested in working with other cities on this issue, please call me with information about the appropriate contact from your city so an initial meeting can be called sometime in June. Thank you for guiding this request through your organization. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 98-—2i± WHEREAS, Shorcwood Pfthe Community requesting assisumce to build a skate park m the soum laite WHEREAS, the cities of C^s^. S°fcM^t&“°y'’coniS^ WHFREAS the City of Chanhassen is scheduled to i^n m unsuper/ised park behind their City Hall for skateboarding and toUer bladets this tall; an WHEREAS, such a faciUty could to skateboard, in-line skate and potenuaUy nde BMX bicycles, an WHEREAS, the south Lake hrmnetonka rammumn^ have a long history of working together to joindy address issues on a cost effective basis. NOW IT IS Jo“s Sy COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOR^O representatives o<" XtoerL“eTsollSTaj^taco.^^^» analyze the feasibility of a skate park and to make recommendauons back to each city. encouraged to appoint a reptesemauve to said joint committee. BE IT FURTHER.RESOLVED thm Sho^^^^ “ueTsS§-^S “o^ and MCES to accompUsh April 30. 1998 •. N •« . Hopkins city councii hears skate park proposai By Suzanne P. Campbell SUff Reporter r I Ihe Hopkin's City Council I listened with interest to a JL proposal from Park Board Liaison Ray Vogtman regarding a skate park during its April 21 meeting. Representatives of the Hopkins Jaycees had approached City staff with ihe idea of funding such a parkup toa total of $125,000 plus an additional $2,000 for a feasi­ bility study and/or design. According to Vogtman, staff has been gathering information from other cities such as Plymouth, which opened their slute park in March. Several nearby suburbs such as New Hope, Minnetonka, Robbinsdalc and Golden Valley are also work­ ing on a proposal for a portable skate park to be shared through­ out the summer months. Principle areas of concern are liability and location. Jaycee's President Julie Howard told council members that they were willing to wait until studies had been completed and meetings had been held with interested parties. If approved, the park could be open by Spring of 1999. A committee of city staff, park board members and Jaycce rep­ resentatives has been formed and Vogtman said that they were seeking at least two skaters to serve also. "1 think it's great that you're having skaters on the com­ mittee," said Councilmember Fran Hesch. Council member Karen Jensen was also enthusiastic. She spoke of a resident who had told her of the need for a skate park last year because the kids had nowhere to go at the present time. "If (the park) also addresses some self­ esteem issues," she said, citing the fact that kids who want to practice this sport will see that the city respects their needs. The Operations Board for the Hopkins Center for the Arts pro­ posed expanding that board from nine to 12 members. Linda Flynn, Board Chair, said, "Additional members would help to support our goals and help to get the work done." All of the council members expressed support and Hesch suggested that, within limits, the ’ Board should have the option of expanding as needed. Council also approved the appointment of Marjorie Hance to the Board at this time. A search is being conducted for other board members. The new owners of Archies Bar and Lounge applied for and received a liquor license. Kenneth Plunkett and Don Peterson were present at the council meeting and told those assembled that they look forward to doing busi­ ness in the city. Peterson, who is also involved in the operation of Joe Sensor's Sports Bar, said that they anticipate no major changes at present. *TVe think in the future we might add a little food to the menu," he said. The council approved award­ ing the bid for work on the Sixth Avenue Storm Sewer and Hopkins Plaza/Home Center Storm Sewer Projects to Northdale Construction. This project is complicated by the fact that work must be accomplished almost simultaneously on the Oakridge Golf Course where new ponding will affect the opera­ tions. Oakridge will .select their own contractor but the city will pay for the work there as part of the orig­ inal plan. Golf Course Superintendent Keith Scott said, "I would like to push this along as fast as 1 can—it's going to be a thrce-and-a-half-week project and wilt cause a lot of disturbance (to the golf course)". Because of necessary redesign, the project could have a $50,000 worst-case shortfall which would have to be covered by an addi- tiotul interfund loan from the sanitary sewer utility fund. Council members expressed the hope that the golf course would bear part of the cost. Work on the project is scheduled to begin by mid-May. A proposal to approve alley reconstruction plans and autho­ rize the bid process for work behind the Hopkins Center for the Arts was approved by the council. Special assessments against U.S. West, which abuts the alley also, were waived in return for their sale of part of their land to the city at a normal cost. That 2307-foot parcel will be used for easement At the close of the meeting. City Manager Steve Mielke and Mayor Chuck Redepenning expressed their condolences to the family of Hopkins Police Officer Jamie Infanger, who died accidentally on April 19 at the age of 24. April 30. 1998 Hopkins city councii hears skate park proposal By Suzanne P. Campbell Staff Reporter nnihe Hopkin's City Council I listened with interest to a ^ proposal from Park Board Liaison Ray Voghnan regarding a skate park during its April 21 meeting. Representatives of the Hopkins Jaycees had approached City staff with (he idea of funding such a park up to a total of $^25,000 plus an additional $2,000 for a feasi­ bility study and/or design. According to Vogtman, staff has been gathering information from other cities such as Plymouth, which opened their slute park in March. Several nearby suburbs such as New Hope, Mirmetonka, Robbinsdale and Golden Valley are also work­ ing on a proposal for a portable skate park to be shared through­ out the summer months. Principle areas of concern are liability and location. Jaycee's President Julie Howard told council members that they were willing to wait until studies had been completed and meetings had been held with interested parties. If approved, the park could be open by Spring of 1999. A committee of city staff, park board members and Jaycce rep­ resentatives has been formed and Vogtman said that they were seeking at least two skaters to serve also. "I think it's great that you're having skaters on the com­ mittee," said Councilmember Fran Hesch. Council member Karen Jensen was also enthusiastic. She spoke of a resident who had told her of the need for a skate park last year because the kids had nowhere to go at the present time. "It‘ (the park) also addresses some self­ esteem issues," she said, citing the fact that kids who want to practice this sport will see that the city respects their needs. The Operations Board for the Hopkins Center for the Arts pro­ posed expanding that board from nine to 12 members. Linda Flynn, Board Chair, said, "Additional members would help to support our goals and help to get the work done." All of the council members expressed support and Hesch suggested that, within limits, the ' Board should have the option of expanding as needed. Council also approved the appointment of Marjorie Hance to the Board at this time. A search is being conducted for other board members. The new owners of Archies Bar and Lounge applied for and received a liquor license. Kenneth Plunkett and Don Peterson were present at the council meeting and told those assembled that they look forward to doing busi­ ness in the city. Peterson, who is also involved in the operation of Joe Sensor's Sports Bar, said that they anticipate no major changes at present. *TAte think in the future we might add a little food to the menu," he said. The council approved award­ ing the bid for work on the Sixth Avenue Storm Sewer and Hopkins Plaza/Home Center Storm Sewer Projects to Northdale Construction. This project is complicated by the fact that work must be accomplished almost simultaneously on the Oakridge Golf Course where new ponding will affect the opera­ tions. Oakridge will .select their own contractor but the city will pay for the work there as part of the orig- inal plan. Golf Course Superintendent Keith Scott said, "I would like to push this along as fast as I can—it's going to be a thrce-and-a-half-week project and will cause a lot of disturbance (to the golf course)". Because of necessary redesign, the project could have a $50,000 worst-case shortfall which would have to be covered by an addi­ tional interfund loan from the sanitary sewer utility fund. Council members expressed the hope that the golf course would bear part of the cost. Work on the project is scheduled to begin by mid-May. A proposal to approve alley reconstruction plans and autho­ rize the bid process for work behind the Hopkins Center for the Arts was approved by the council. Special assessments against U.S. West, which abuts the alley also, were waived in return for their sale of part of their land to the city at a normal cost That 2,307-foot parcel will be used for easement At the close of the meeting. City Manager Steve Mielke and Mayor Chuck Redepenning expressed their condolences to the family of Hopkins Police Officer Jamie Infanger, who died accidentally on April 19 at the age of 24. Exceloior/Shorowood Sun»SoIlor/Wodnosdny. April 15,1998Local cities share costs of proposed skate park facilityBy Carin Garaghty MntMsola Sun PuUcations sko^eboards ond bicycles.The cities of Crystnl, New Hope, Gold- Attention extreme sports fnnn: n skntc park with quarter pipes, wedge ramps, a pyramid and a fun box is coming soon to a city near you. Requests by youths for a facility to skateboard, in-line skate and ride BMX bicycles have increased along with the number of youths who enjoy the sports, said Russ Fawbush, Rob- binsdale's director of parks, recreation and forestry. The kids have been told they can ’t skate in public places,” Fawbush said, adding that many cities have ordinances prohibiting skateboards on sidewalks and other pedestrian surfaces. While many cities’ recreation depart ­ ments want to accommodate the increas­ ingly popular activities, the high costs of equipment and insurance has prevented most from doing so, Fawbush said. A joint venture by eight northwest suburban cities this summer will help re­ solve the dilemma. A committee of city and school district representatives has contracted with an independent company called True Ride based in Hamel, Minn., to build ond op­ erate a portable facility for in-line skates. en Valley, Hopkins, Maple Grove, Min­ netonka, Robbinsdalo ond St. Louis Park will contribute funds and take turns being host to the skate park for about one month each. *We probably had 12 or 15 jurisdic­ tions represented when we first started talking about this thing,” Fawbush said. "As it came down, only eight decided to stay involved.” Leasing the services and equipment was the most feasible option at this point, Fawbush said. This summer’s venture will cost about $20,000 to $30,000 total, ho added. A one- year trial periotl will help cities gauge the popularity and usage of the facility. Two sets of equipment will be used so each site can keep the park for about one month, he added. The skate parks will include: • a 6-foot quarter pipe, which is a ramp of about one-fourth of a circle with a flat surface at the top; • a 3-foot wedge ramp, which is simi­ lar to a quarter pipe except the ramp is not curved; • a 2-foot, 6-inch beef box, which has two arced ramps and a flat top; • a 2-foot rollover; I from site to site, Fawbush said. Each city will be host to the park for about one month; Crystal and Mew Hope ; will share a site and Hopkins and Min­ netonka will share a site. The schedules and locations for the portable skate parks arc: • Robbinsdalo — May 30 to June_28 at ! • a 4-foot quarter pipe; • a 6-foot tr ini ramp, which has a flat surface between two arced ramps and flat surfaces on each ond; • a 2-foot pyramid ramp; • a 4-foot wedge ramp; • a fun box, which is similar to two steps. 'Hie individual pieces will be arranged differently ns the skate park is moved Sanborn Park; • St. Louis Park — June 6 to July 6 at the new recreation facility on 36th Street; ' • Crystal-New Hope — July 3 to Aug. ' 2 nt Lions Volley Pork; • Golden Valley —-July 10 to Aug. 9 on site of old post office in the 700 block of Winnetkn Avenue; • Maplo Grove — Aug. 7 to Sept. 7 in the parking lot of the community center; • Hopkins — Aug. 13 to Sept. 13 in the indoor ice arena. Crystnl City Council last week ap­ proved a $3,000 contribution toward the project, the same amount that New Hope ofncialn must still approve. Other participating cities will con­ tribute $5,000 each. True Ride will provide staff and secu­ rity for the parks, which will be open doily from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. Participants will be required to wear full protective gear, and rental equipment will be avail ­ able. Parents must sign a waiver in view of True Ride officials, for youths under 18. Skaters will pay $8 per day to use the park; a iO-day pass will be available for about $65. For more information, call the Park and Itecreation Department of the par- tieijjating cities: Crystal, 631-0052; liobbinsdale, 637-4534; New Hope, 631- 6152; Golden Valley, 612-2345; St. i/Ottis Park, 924-2540; Maple Grove, •f34-G500; Hopkins, 935-8474; Min- «•- ;ka, 939-8203. jf COUNCIL MEETiNQ JUN 8 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION cnvoroRONO DATE: June 5, 1998 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Payment of the City's Share of the Cost of a Pickup Truck for the Long Lake Volunteer Fire Department Attached are a letter from the City of Long Lake providing information regarding the purchase of four door pickup truck for the Long Lake Fire Department, and an invoice in the amount of $19,725.00 as Orono's share of the cost of the truck. There will be additional costs of approximately $20,000.00 for outfitting the truck with sirens, radios and other equipment. These costs will be shared among the cities in the Long Lake fire service district. The pickup truck replaces a 20-year old pickup truck that is used as a grass fire rig. The new four door pickup will allow additional firefighters to be transported to fire incidents. A letter outlming the need for and use of the new vehicle is attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize payment of the invoice for the pickup truck in the amount of $19,725.00 from the Fire Vehicle account of the City's Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund, and to amend the 1998 budget to reflect this expenditure. PlOtUP J r April 16, 1998 CITY OF LONG LAKE Mr. Ron Moorse City Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Ron: In July and August of 1997 the Long Lake Fire Department approached the contract cities of Orono and Medina regarding the purchase of two new vehicles. At that time, a cost scenario was laid out showing your city’s share of the purchase of these two vehicles valued at a total of $100,000. The cities of Orono and Medina authorized the City of Long Lake to go ahead with the purchase of a new or used Suburban to act as the new medical response vehicle for the LLVFD. The second vehicle, a replacement pick-up truck, was put on hold pending the outcome of the purchase of the suburban and receipt of information on actual cost for the vehicle. In February of 1998, the Volunteer Fire Department held a meeting with the contract cities and during the course of that meeting advised them that the City of Long Lake and Fire Department intended to go ahead with the purchase of a new vehicle to replace the current grass rig. Representatives from each of the contract cities were in attendance at that meeting and agreed to go ahead with the purchase of the vehicle. Recently, the City Council of Long Lake authorized the Long Lake Fire Department to receive bids on a new 4 door. Crew Cab 1998 Pick-up Truck for replacement of a vehicle that is now 20 years old. The city received six bids, the lowest apparent bid was in the amount of $28,082.00. This is the purchase price of the vehicle alone. The city does intend to completely outfit the truck with radios, sirens and equipment at a cost not to exceed $50,000, which is the number you were given in 1997 as your city’s share of the expense of two vehicles. Al thf.s based on your city’s percentage (70.2 ') your cost share of the vehicle is $19,725.00. The City Council has authorized the .rchase of this vehicle from the apparent low bidder and we expect delivery within 90 days. The Fire Department has 1964 Park Avenue • Long Lake. Minnesota 55356 • 612-47.3-6961 612-476-9622 (fax) r Ron Moorse April 16.1998 Page 2 been charged with putting together a bid list of equipment, including the sirens and radios, and we will be forwarding information to you as soon as that list is prepared. At that time you will receive information about your cost share of those items based on current percentages. At this time we have completed the purchase and have fully outfitted the suburban . vehicle which will serve as the new primary medical response vehicle for the Fire Department. Shortly I will prepare an accounting for the expenses on that truck and will send you information detailing the closure of the purchase of that vehicle. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely yours. Jos^h P. Lynch City Administrator cc:M. Brown J. Cox LLVFD File K. Wiese ,r nil III ■ III ■III ■ ^ III I I I I CITYOF LONG LAKE 1964 PARK AVENUE P.O. BOX 606 LONG LAKE, MN 55356 To; City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 TERMS Upon Receipt DESCRIPTION 1999 Ford Model # F350 Crew Cab Pickup City Percentage = 70.24% KfwDiiDg INVOICE NO: 98-18 DATE: May 1,1998 V i I • * • * • • * ,»• SUBTOTAL MISC. TOTAL AMOUNT $19,725.00 $ 19,725.00 $ 19,725.00 Make all checks payable to: CITY OF LONG LAKE If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: Katherine, 473-6961 i ' 18-18 1998 CITY OF LONG LAKE May 14, 199S 'x . •V * 5.00 5.00 5.00 Ron Moorse, City Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN Dear Ron: This is in response to your letter requesting further information on the purchase of a new pick-up truck by the Long Lake Fire Department. At our Fire Committee meeting on May 11, 1998, you heard briefly a response by the Long Lake Fire Department on the current use of the pick-up truck, the proposed use of a new pick-up truck, as well as information on potential future purchases. ; Enclosed within for your review and information is a memorandum from Jim Cox, Assistant Fire Chief of the Long Lake Fire Department in response to your request for information on the use of the current pick-up truck and the proposed use of the new pick-up truck. As well, enclosed within is a revised copy of the information reviewed at that meeting on May 11, 1998 on the proposed equipment needs of the Long Lake Fire Department for the next 15 years. As we discussed at that meeting, at this time it is difficult for the City of Long Lake to estimate what the potential cost for a new Fire Department building would be outside of the cost that would be paid for by MnDOT as a result of the movement of the Long Lake City Hall. However, I have placed a column in the spreadsheet to indicate that the cities of Long Lake, Orono, and Medina do need to take into consideration that there is a possibility that there will be costs above and beyond what will be paid for by MnDOT for the construction of a new Fire Department building. 1964 Paik Avenue • Long Lake. Minnesota 55356 • 612-473-6961 612-476-9622 (fax) MEMORANDUM May 11,1998 i To: From: Subj: Joe Lynch, City Administrator Jim Cox, Assistant Fire Chief New Utility Truck d^tedVIl 9®8 information you need to respond to Ron Moorse’s letterdated 4-21-98 regarding the purchase of the new pick-up truck. Hi! replacing the existing utility pick-up truck. The truck is used for f^hting grass fires, hauling hose from a fire, ice rescue and traffic control at fire and 2 tot fire Shtere tniscelianeous jobs. The existing truck can carry only addifionai equipment wili be added to the unit^i e a ger^erator and flood lights, back-up Hurst tool for car accidents firs ato eq ^Dmenf doors on borsw^^^ >’®^® ® If you need additional information, please don't hesitate to call me. i ■ CITY OF LONG LAKE FIRE DEPARTMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN limai LIMITS PRIRORITY lYRS TO REPUCEMENT | COSTS COMMENTS 19B7RESCUE 19 age,safety A ■ 10 $40,000 shift burtlen from present vehicle 1696umjTY 19 crew size, age A 20 $50,000 respond to great variety 1999ENGINE 26 age,crewsize B 25 replace third engine 2000 $62,500 2001 m •$62,500 2002 $62,500 2003 RESCUE 25 age,safety A 20 heavy rescue,replace bread tnx:k 2004 $26,000 2006 $28,000 2006 $28,000 2007 RESCUE 10 age, safety B 10 1 i^,dbo| $82,000 • 2006 TANKER 30 age,safety, response A 25 replace oldesi Engine 2000 1 $25,000 2010 1 $25,000 2011 $25,000 2012 ■ 2013 2014 2015 1 1'% 1 $544,000 $634,000 BLOG. ?7?7 7?77 Page 1 COUNCIL M£STINQ JUN 8 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFCRO n O DATE: Junes, 1998 ITEM NO:( Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Thie City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Extension of Officer Mark Thornton Leave of Absence Office Thornton has been on a leave of absence due to a health condition that has prevented him from performing his police officer duties. The Family and Medical Leave Act provides for up to a 12 week leave of absence in this situation. Officer Thornton's FMLA leave ends on June 30, 1998. The Council is requested to authorize the City Administrator to extend Officer Thornton's current leave of absence without pay to coincide with the FMLA leave. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize the City Admiriistrator to extend Officer Thornton's current leave of absence without pay to coincide with his Family and Medical Leave Act leave. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL meeting JUN 8 1998 CriYOFORONO Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: Kris KnoUenberg Step Adjustment DATE: Junes, 1998 ITEM NO: Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: of'”* City's pay r COUNCIL MesnNQ JUN 8 1998 OTVREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 4, 1998 ITEM NO: 2 I Depaitment Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name LinVce ^ til/u Title City Clerk* V ^ 7 Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description:Special Assessment Deferral Renewal - Sanitary Sewer Project - Resolution Reapplication From Stubbs Bay Attachment: A.Resolution No. 3894 B.Proposed Deferral Resolution Patty Lou Clapp, 290 Crestview Avenue, is applying for renewal of the Senior Citizen Deferral of the sanitaiy Sewer special assessment on her property. Ms. Clapp qualifies under the income and asset guidelines. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt Resolution #__approving the reapplication of special assessment deferment for Patty Lou Clapp. Ayes_, Nays_. r CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ 8 9 4 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PROGRAM FOR DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PERSONS 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono is the official governing body of the City of Orono; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute Section 435.193 through Section 425.195 authorizes the City of Orono, upon proper application, to defer the payment of special assessments against any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older on January 1 of the payment year and for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments; and ^^^^EREAS, Section 425.194 authorizes tlie municipality to establish an interest rate to be added to the deferred assessment which shall be payable in addition to the deferred assessment; and thj'.t Orono had adopted such a program under Ordinance 2.62 (1984 recodified), Resolution 1093 (dated November 13, 1979), Resolution 1779 (dated June 10, 1985) and Resolution 2864 (dated August 27,1990). WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the deferral of assessments should be granted to any person otherwise qualified who makes proper application to the City of Orono on forms prescribed by the County Assessor of Hennepin County and by the Orono City Council and for whom tlie City Council determines that it would be a hardship to make the payments, based upon tlie following criteria: NUMBER OF PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD ^UXIMUM INCOME 1 Person $29,100 2 Person $33,300 3 Person $37,450 4 Person $41,600 5 Person $44,950 6 Person $48,250 7 Person $51,600 8 Person $54,900 1 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L NO. ^ ^ ______ Assets not including homesteaded property of $25,000, income and assets as defined in Hennepin County's Utility Connection Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORONO IN A REGULAR MEETING ASSEMBLED, that the assessments against any homestead property owned by a penon 65 years of age or older and for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments, be deferred for a period of time not to exceed five years subjec aforementioned financial criteria, upon submission of an appropnate application ^ oualified person, and which may upon expiration of initial or any subsequent renewal deferments may be reapplied for, and subject to the applicant meeting all the necessary catena upon reapplication be deferred for an additional period not to exceed 5 years; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the right of deferment is automatically terminated under Section 435.195 ifi 1. 2. 3. 4. The owner dies and the spouse is not otherwise eligible; The property or any part thereof is sold, transferred or subdivided. The property should lose its homestead status; or If for any reason the City determines that there would be no hardsliip to require immediate or partial payment. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held April 28,1997. ATTEST: mrothy M(Hallin, City Clerk A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REAPPLICATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERMENT FOR PATTY LOU CLAPP WHEREAS, the City Council has ordered a local improvement project known as Stubbs Bay 1992 Sanitary Sewer Improvement for which special assessments have been levied against the benefited properties; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution No. 1093, Resolution No. 1779, Resolution No. 2864, Resolution No. 3175, and Resolution No. 3894 which established a policy and procedure for deferring such special assessments for persons 65 years of age or older who have limited income and assets and for whom payment of such special assessment would constitute a financial hardship; and WHEREAS, Patty Lou Clapp has made reapplication for deferment of the above noted special assessment pursuant to the provisions of Resolution Numbers, 1093, 1779, 2864, 3175 and 3894, the original deferment was approved by the City Council on July 26, 1993. Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby finds that the applicant has demonstrated a hardship consistent with the provisions of Resoluilon 3894, and hereby orders deferral of the payment for the levied special assessments as follows; APPLICANT: ADDRESS; Patty Lou Chpp 290 Crestview Avenue LEVY NO PROPERTY I D NIPVfRF.R LEVIED AMOUNT AMOUNTDEFERRED 12554 05-117-23 14 0018 $8,840.00 $8,840.00 Deferral of payment for principal and interest shall be for a period of time not to exceed five (5) years with the first payment of principal and interest due in collection year 2002. Interest at the rate of 6.5% per annum shall be added to the deferred assessment. Deferred principal and interest shall be payable at the time of the first payment due in collection year 2002. The remainder of the principal and interest shall thereafter be payable in accordance with the adopted assessment roll. I This right of deferment is automatically terminated in collection year 2002 or upon the occurrence oi any one or more of the following conditions, whichever may occur first; The owner dies and the spouse is not otherwise eligible. 2. The property or any part thereof is sold, transferred, or subdivided; 3. The property should lose its homestead status; or 4. If for any reason the City determines that there would be no hardship to require immediate or partial payment. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota on the 8th day of June, 1998. ATTEST:Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Signature of Applicant Date SPECASMTCLAPPRES COUNCIL M££TiNQ JUN B 1998REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June ^ ITEM NO: r 5 Jun 199B Frl 12:05 PH Check Register City of Orono Totals Check Number 5Sn28 VANG* BRUCE Check Nunvber 55429 POSTT^ASTER 55429 28-May-90 POSTMASTER Totals Check Number 55429 POSTMASTER Check Number 55998 BKINKHAUS* JACK 55998 28-May-98 DRIKKHAUS* JACK Totals Check Number 55998 BRINKHAUS* JACK Check Number 56082 OBBRAIGNER. SCOTT 56062 20-May-98 OBERAIGNER, SCOTT Totals Check Number 56062 OBERAIGNER* SCOTT Check Number 56069 RATHBUN* BARRY 56069 28-May-98 RATHBUN* BARRY Totals Check Number 56069 RATHBUN* BARRY Check Number 5C141 GRAND VIEW LODGE 56141 28-Hay-98 GRAND VIEW LODGE Totals Qieck Number 56141 GRAND VIEW LODGE Check Number 56189 RED APRON CATERING 56189 28-May-98 RED APRON CATLING Totals Check Number 56189 RED APRON CATERING Check Number 56190 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 56190 28-May-90 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Totals Check Number 56190 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 2,087.75 944.00 944.00 44.00 4<.00 •78.72 78.72 -86.00 -86.00 •470.00 470.00 97.50 97.50 231.00 231.00 ^3 Page 1 COUNCIL MEETING Check Transaction Number Date Name Amount Comments Check Number 44189 VANG,BRUCE 44188 28-May-98 VANG, BRUCE -976.33 VOID CK 44188 28-May-98 VANG, BRUCE -1*111.42 VOID CK Totals Check Number 44188 VANG* BRU^-2*087.75 Check Number 55428 VANG.BRUCE 55428 20-:4ay-98 VANG* BRUCE 976.33 REPLACE CK 55428 28-May-98 VANG* BRUCE 1*111.42 REPLACE CK JUN 8 1998 CITY or ORO^'O POSTAGE - NEWSLETTER VOID CK 855998 VOID CK 56062 VOID CK 856069 VOID CK 56141 BOX LUNCHES 2ND HALF - UNION DUES » I i i I 1 - ' i I ! i - r : ■ j r 5 Jun 1998 Fri 1:01 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 1 Check Number Date Name Check Number 55430 55430 POSTMASTER 31-May-90 POSTMASTER Totals Check Number 55430 POSTMASTER Check NuifOber 55433 ILSE, SHEROKEE 55433 02-Jun-98 ILSB, SHEROKEE Totals Check Number 55433 ILSB, SHEROKEE -heck Number 56248 MN DEPT OP PUBLIC SAFETY 56248 31-May-98 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Totals Check Number 56248 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY .•heck Number 56271 VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH 56271 31-May-98 VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH Totals Check Number 56271 VAN ZOMEREN. ELIZABETH Grand Total Transaction Amount Comments 900.00 900.00 POSTAGE FOR METER 120.00 120.00 CASH PRISES 200.00 >200.00 VOID CK 856248 -35.00 -35.00 VOID CK 56271 i' i 785.00 5 Jun 1990 Fri 11:54 AM Check Register City of Orcr.o Check Number Date Name Qieck Number 56385 56385 56385 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR 09-Jun-90 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR 09-Jun-90 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR Totals Check Number 56385 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR Check Number 56386 ALL STAR PRO GOLF 56386 09-JUn-98 ALL STAR PRO GOLF Totals Check Number 56386 ALL STAR PRO GOLF Check Number 56387 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY 56387 09-Jun-98 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY Totals Check Number 56307 AMERICAN MEDICAL SECURITY Check Number 56388 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC. 56388 O9-Jun-90 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC. Totals Check Number 56380 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC. Check Number 56389 AMERICAN RED CROSS 56389 O9-Jun-90 AMERICAN RED CROSS Totals Check Number 56389 AMERICAN RED CROSS Check Number 56390 ANCHOR PAPER 56390 09-Jun-98 ANCHOR PAPER Totals Check Number 56390 ANCHOR PAPER Check Number 56391 AT 6 T - 56391 O5-Feb-90 AT a T - Totals Check Number 56391 AT a T - Check Number 56392 AT a T WIRELESS SERVICES 56392 56392 56392 19-Feb-98 19-Feb-98 19-Fcb-90 AT a T WIRELESS SERVICES AT a T WIRELESS SERVICES AT a T WIRELESS SERVICES Totals Check Number 56392 AT a T WIRELESS SERVICES Check Number 56393 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF 56393 09-Jun-98 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF Transact i'^n Amount 18.15 10.15 36.30 361.10 361.10 701.42 701.42 ISd.OO 155.00 114.44 114.44 340.80 340.80 57.57 57.57 6.86 .86 203.44 217.16 48.88 Page 1 Comments CELLULAR SERVICE SERVICE 4/15-5/15 PENCILS JUNE DENTAL DUES - VAN ZOMEREN BROUCHERS COPY PAPER LONG DISTANCE CELI ULAR CHAOS CELLULAR CHAOS CELLULAR CHAGS HOT DOGS. HAMBURGER 5 Jun 1998 Fri 11:54 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 56393 56393 56393 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF 09-Jun-98 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF 09-Jun-98 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF Totals Check Number 56393 AUGIES MOBILE CHEF Qieck Number 56394 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP 56394 09-Jon-98 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP Totals Check Number 56394 BENEFITS DESIGN GROUP Check Number 56395 BIFFS INC. 56395 O9-Jun-90 BIFFS INC, Totals Check Number 56395 BIFFS INC. ^eck Number 56396 BLACKOWIAK & SON 56396 09-Jun-98 BLACKOHIAK 6 SON Totals Check Number 56396 BLACKOHIAK & SON Check Nut^r 56397 BUCHEN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 56397 09-Jun-98 BUCHEN ENVIR TAL SERVICES Totals Check Number 56397 BUCHEN ENVIR •K'!wl3<C TAL SERVICES Check Number 56398 BUDGET PRINTING 56398 56398 56398 56398 09-Jun-98 09-JUX1-98 09-Jun-98 09-Jun-98 BUDGET PRINTING BUDGET PRINTING BUDGET PRINTING BUDGET PRINTING Totals Check Number 56398 BUDGET PRINTING Check Number 56399 BUREAU OF ATF 56399 09-Jun-98 BUREAU OF ATF Totals Check Number 56399 BUREAU OP ATP Check Number 56400 CASH REGISTER SERVICE k SALES 56400 09-Jun-9B CASH REGISTER SERVICE k SALES Totals Check Number 56400 CASH REGISTER SERVICE k SALES 4 Check Number E6401 CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 56401 09-Jun-9e CITY OP ORONO PETTY CASH Transaction Amount 55.52 48.88 153.28 1,428.25 1,428.25 80.25 80.25 36.16 36.16 4,995.00 4,995.00 29.39 151.87 74.57 46.34 302.17 250.00 250.00 19.50 19.50 2.00 Page 2 Comments HOT DOGS, HA.MBURGER HOT DOGS/HAMBURGERS ADM CHARGE PORTABLE, MARCH FOR PARKS APRIL SERVICE MANHOLE GROUTING INITIAL COMPLAINT FORMS LETTERHEAD - PD ACTIVITY LOGS CALANDER DEALER TAX - 41-6008585 INK ROLLPO STAMPS I I ; I f . f 5 Jun 1998 Fri 11:54 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 56401 56401 CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 09-Jun-98 CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH Totals Check Number 56401 CITY OP ORONO PETTY CASH Check Number 56402 CITY OF WAYZATA 56402 O9-Jun-90 CITY OF WAYZATA Totals Check Number 56402 CITY OF WAYZATA Check Number 56403 CITYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATING 56403 56403 56403 09-Jun-98 09-Jun-98 09-Jun-98 CITYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATING CITYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATING CITYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATING Totals Check Number 56403 CITYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATING Check Humber 56404 COMPETITION ELECTRONICS 56404 O9-Jun-90 COMPETITION ELECTRONICS Totals Check Number 56404 COMPETITION ELECTRONICS Check Number 56405 CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPANY INC. 56405 09-Jun-98 CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPANY INC, Totals Check Number 56405 CUSHMAN MOTOR COMPANY INC, Check Number 56406 CYS UNIFORMS 56406 56406 56406 56406 09-Jun-98 09-Jun-98 09-Jun-98 09-Jun-98 CYS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS CYS UNIFORMS Totals Check NVmber 56406 CYS UNIFORMS Check Number 56407 DAHLGREN SHARDLOW a UBAN 56407 56407 09-Jun-90 09-Jun-98 DAHLGREN SHARDLOW k UBAN DAHLGREN SHARDLOW k UBAN Totals Check Number 56407 DAHLGREN SHARDLOW & UBAN Check Number 56400 DYNAMED 56408 09-Jun-98 DYNAMED Totals Check Number S64U8 DYNAMED Check Number 56409 E-Z RECYCLING Transaction Amount 99.13 101.13 1,908.62 1,908.62 131.99 2,100.00 8.14 2,240.13 136.45 136.45 11.80 11.80 7.34 46.95 31.95 102.70 188.94 1,002.18 245.00 1,247.18 76.30 76.30 Page 3 Comments POSTAGE PURCH WATER 01/97 COOLEY CAP NLL SEWR - WEYES PROJECT PVC PIPE YIMER SEAL, GASKET, MANUAL FISCHER UNIFORM JOHNSON FOLEY PROJ 1609.5 LLC DEVEL PROJ 016C9.4 LGA PROP MED SUPPLIES 5 Jun 1998 Fri 11:54 AM Qieck Register City of Orono Check Nuii^er Date Name Check Number 5€409 56409 E-2 RECYCLING 09-Jun-9B E-Z RECYOilNG Totals Check Number 56409 £ Z RECYCLING Check Number 56410 EARL F. ANDERSON & ASSOC. 56410 09-Jun-98 EARL F. ANDERSON 6 ASSOC. Totals Check Number 56410 EARL F. ANDERSON k ASSOC. Check Number 56411 FAST SIGNS 56411 09-JUn-9d FAST SIGNS Totals Check Number 56411 FAST SIGNS Check Number 56412 FSRGUSON-KELLER ASSOC. INC. 56412 09-Jun-98 FERGUSON-KELLER ASSOC. INC. Totals Check Number 56412 FERGUSON-KELLER ASSOC. INC. Check Number 56413 FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS 56413 09-Jun-98 FRONTIE.i COWUNICATIONS Totals Check Number 56413 FRONTIER COWUNICATIONS Check Number 56415 GALL'S INC. 56415 09* ’un-9« GALL'S INC. Totals Check Nurf0> r 56415 GALL'S INC. Check Number 56416 GANGELHOFF« DONNA 56416 09-Jun-98 GANGELHOFP, DONNA Transaction Amount 5,583.48 5,583.48 621": 621.73 1,245.62 1,245.62 182.50 182.50 53.82 53.82 35.98 35.98 50.00 Page 4 Comments MAY RECYCLING SERVICE STREET SIGNS LIFT STATION SIGNS MAG PEPLAC PARTS VOICE MAIL BOXES Check Number 56414 5641^ 3 a 09-JUn-98 K SERVICES G & K SERVICES 5.93 STEPFENHAGEN 56414 09-Jun-98 G k K SERVICES 113.69 MATS 56414 09-JUTV-98 G k K SERVICES 54.69 MATS 56414 09-Jun-98 G k K SERVICES 54.69 MATS 56414 09-Jun-98 G k K SERVICES 62.55 UNIFORMS 56414 0'»-Jun-98 G k K SERVICES 70.07 MATS 56414 09-Jun-98 G k K SERVICES 5.93 STEFFENHAGEN 56414 09-Jun-98 G k K SERVICES 90.61 UNIFORMS 56414 09-Jun-98 G k K SERVICES 12.15 UNIFORM RATHBUN 56414 09-Jun-98 G k K SERVICES 5.93 STHFFENHAGEN 56414 09-Jun-98 G k K SERVICES 80.55 urn FORMS 56414 09-Jun-98 *3 k K SERVICES 12.15 UNIFORM RATHBUN Totals Check Number 56414 G k K SERVICES 568.94 CO-PILOT LIGHR DEER REMOVAL r 5 Jun 1990 Frl 11;54 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check lumber 56416 GANGELHOFF, DONNA lotals Check Number 56416 GANGELHOFF, DONNA Check Number 56417 GE CAPITAL 56417 09-Jun-98 GE CAPITAL Totals Check Number 56417 GE CAPITAL Check Number 56418 GOLF CAR MIDWEST 56418 09-Jun-98 C^LF CAR MIDWEST Totals Check Number 56410 GOLF CAR MIDWEST Check Number 56419 GOLF COURSE SUPT ASSN OF AMEk 56419 09-Jun-98 GOLF COURSE SUPT ASSN OF AMER, Totals Check Number 56419 GOLF COURSE SUPT ASSN OF AMER. Check Number 56420 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. 56420 56420 09-Jun-98 09-Jun-98 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL INC. Totals Check Number 56420 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INc Check Number 56421 HASEMA:4, CAROTX 56421 09-J-in-9B HASEMAN, CAROLE Totals Check Number 56421 HASEMAN. CAROLE Check Number 56422 HAWKINS CHEMICAL INC. 56422 09-Jun-98 HAWKINS CHEMICAL INC, Totals Check Number 56422 HAWKINS CHEMICAL INC Check Number 56423 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE 56423 09-Jun* 90 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE Totals Check Number 56423 HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCHANGE Check Number 56424 HENNEPIN COtOTY SHERIFF 56424 09-Jun-98 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF Totals Check Number 56424 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF Check Nuinber 56425 HINZE BUSI^^ESS MACHI^^ES Transaction Amount 50.00 58.00 58 00 1.426.25 1.426.25 275.00 275.00 81.38 81.37 162.75 32.00 32.00 30.00 30.00 10.38 10.38 241.11 241.11 Page 5 Comments INSTAL RUMBA SEASON LEASE - CARTS ANNUAL DUES-STEFFOmAGBN LOCATES APRIL 90 LOCATES APRIL 98 MILEAGE REIMS DEMURRAGE STRAW APRIL BOOKINGS S Jim 1998 Fri 11:54 AM Check Register City cf Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 56425 56425 HINZB BUSINESS MACHINES 09-Jun-9B HINZE BUSINESS MACHINES Totals Check Number 56425 HINZE BUSINESS MACHINES Check Number 56426 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 56426 09-Jun-98 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS Totals Check Number 56426 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS Check Number 56427 INDUSTRIAL SAM 56427 56427 09-Jun-98 09-Jun-98 INDUSTRIAL SAM INDUSTRIAL SAM Totals Check Number 56427 INDUSTRIAL SAM Jheck Number 56428 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 56428 09-Jun-98 INTERSTATE BATTERIES Totals Check Number 56428 INTERSTATE BATTERIES Check Number 56429 JOHNSON* BRAD 56429 09-Jun-98 JOHNSON, BRAD Totals Check Number 56429 JOHNSON, BRAD Cneck Numbe- 56430 KENNETH N. POTTS, PA 56430 09-Jun-98 KFNNETH N. POTTS, PA Totals Check Nvuaber 56430 KQJNETH N. POTTS, PA Cn^ck Number 56431 LOGIS 56431 09-Jun-98 LOGIS Totals Check Number 56431 LOGIS Check Number 56432 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS 56432 09-Jun-98 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS 56432 09-Jun-98 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS 56432 09-Jun-98 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS 56432 09-Jun-98 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS 56432 09-Jun-98 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS Totals Check Number 56432 LONG LAKE BIG A AUTO PARTS Check Number 56433 56433 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT 09-Jun-98 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT « • Transaction Amount 109.16 109.16 6,135.08 6,135.08 20.39 10.48 30.87 568.39 568.39 78.00 78.00 2,291.66 2,291.66 903.88 903.88 15.24 7.86 3.21 45.08 0.68 72.07 191.79 Page 6 Comments TONER - PD FAX COPIER MAINTENANCE CONT BALL BEARING WASHERS, SPRING GENERATOR BATTERIES UNIFORMS MAY PROSECUTIONS APRIL DAT^. PROC SOCKET ADAPTER SEAFOAM MISC SUPPLIES OIL & FUEL FILTER SERVICE CHRG CHAPS, GREASE GUN r 5 Jun 1998 Fri 11:54 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 56433 56433 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT 09-Jun-98 long LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT Totals Check Number 56433 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT Check Number 56434 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT 56434 56434 56434 09-Jun-96 09-Jun-98 0o-jun-9B LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT Totals Check Number 56434 LONG LAKE TRACTOR EQUIPMENT Qieck Number 56435 LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES 56435 09-Jun-98 LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES Totals Chec. Number 56435 LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES Check Number 56436 MAGIC CLEANERS 56436 56436 09-Jun-98 09-Jun-98 MAGIC CLEANERS MAGIC CLEANERS Totals Check Number 56436 MAGIC CLEANERS Check Number 56437 KEDICA CHOICE 56437 09-Jun-98 MBDICA CHOICE Totals Check Number 56437 MBDICA CHOICE Check Number 56438 MEDTOX LABORATORIES 56438 09-Jun-98 MEDTOX LABORATORIES Totals Check Number 56438 MEDTOX LABORATORIES Check Number 56439 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER 56439 09-Jun-98 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER Totals Check Number 56439 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SER Check Number 56440 METRO SYSTEMS 56440 09-Jun-98 METRO SYSTEMS Totals Check Number 56440 METRO SYSTEMS Check Number 56441 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 56441 09-JUn-98 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Totals Qieck Number 56441 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Transaction Amount 53.53 245.32 282.23 21.32 12.01 315.56 224.76 224.76 21.30 10.65 31.95 187.16 187.16 70.00 70.00 2,970.00 2,970.00 402.53 402.53 8.52 8.52 Page 7 Comments OIL. SAFETY CHAIN BACK HOE-CTY RD 15 BREAK FILTERS AIR FILTER 15/40 OIL, FILTER BLANKETS 5/6/98 BLANKETS 5/1/98 BURMASTER-DUP DEDUCTION DRUG TESTING APRIL SAC CHGS CHAIR - KUEim CREATING SUCCESSFUL COMM : t * f *1 > f i 19.00 GAS SERVICE 264.29 GAS SERVICE 243.96 GAS SERVICE 527.25 Amount Comments 30.44 43.07 53.01 COUPLING DISC ROLLER BRACKET ROLLER BRACKETS 126.52 1,171.87 114.05 267.92 1,068.52 2,165.46 1,894.58 STREET LIGHTING 4/98 HWY 12 & WILLOW ELECTICAL SERVICE ELEC SERVICE ELEC SERVICE ELEC SERVICE 6,682.40 475.77 534.93 MISC SUPPLIES MISC SUPPLIES 1,010.70 19.25 10.01 13.86 CHIPS CHIPS CHIPS 43.12 127.48 NUTS & BOLTS 127.48 81.96 RESOLUTION FORMS 81.96 77.80 43.40 CANDY, ROLLS CANDY, ROLLS 121.20 11.00 DIESEL STREICHERS 42.49 BATTERY. SWIT( STREICHERS 45.26 BARRIER TAPE STREICHERS 15.44 BUMPER KITS STREICHERS 78.60 DRUG TEST KIT 56471 STREICHERS 181.79 r 5 Jun 1998 Fri 11:54 .W Check Register City of Orono Check Number Check Number 56473 Date Name Oicck Number 56472 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS Totals Check Number 56472 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS 56473 SUBURBAN TIRE INC. 09-Jun-99 -SUBURBAN TIRE INC. Totals Check Number 56473 SUBURBAN TIRE INC. Check Number 56474 THE LAHN FIRM 56474 09-Jun-98 THE LAWN FIRM Totals Check Number 56474 THE LAWN FIRM 56475 TRI STATE PUMP 09-Jun-98 TRI STATE PUMP Totals Check Number 56475 TRI STATE PUMP Cneck Number 56476 TRI-K SERVICES 09-JUn-98 TRI-K SERVICES Check Number 56475 56476 Totals Check Number 56476 TRI-K SERVICES Ciisck Number 56477 56477 THIN CITY STRIPING 09-Jun-98 TWIN CITY STRIPING Totals Check Number 56477 TWIN CITY STRIPING ! Check Number 56479 56478 UNIV OF MINNESOTA 09-Jun-98 UNIV OF MINNESOTA Transaction Amount 391.59 651.27 651.27 2,343.00 2,343.00 194.53 194.53 260.87 260.87 5,780.00 5,780.00 325.00 Page 12 Comments TIRES SOIL PREP & SEED REPAIRS PULVERIZED BLACK DIRT STREET STRIPING MUNICIPAL CLBUCS INST Totals Check Number 56478 UNIV OP MINNESOTA 325.00 Check Number 56479 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE 56479 09-Jun-98 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE 0.70 MAY LIFE INSURANCE 56479 09-Jun-98 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE 12.34 MAY LIFE INSURANCE 56479 09-Jun-98 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE 5.29 MAY LIFE INSURANCE 56479 09-Jun-98 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE 365.05 MAY LIFE INSURANCE Totals Check Number 56479 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE 383.38 Check Number 56480 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - AD a D 56480 09-Jun-98 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - AD & D 0.15 MAY AD k D 5 Jun 1998 Fri 11:54 AM Check Register City of Orono Page 13 Check Number Date Name Check Number 56480 56480 56480 56480 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - AD 4 D 09-Jun-98 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE 09-Jun-98 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE 09-Jun-98 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE AD 4 D AD 4 D AD 4 D Totals Check Number 56480 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - AD 4 D Check Number 56482 VAN Z0MEREN« ELIZABETH 56482 09-Jun-98 VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH Totals Check Number 56482 VAN ZOMEREN. ELIZABETH Check Number 56483 WALDOR PUMP 56483 09-Jun-98 WALDOR PUMP Totals Check Number 56483 WALDOR PUMP Check Number 56484 WARNING LITES OF KN 56484 09-Jun-98 WARNING LITES OF KN Totals Check Number 56484 WARNING LITES OF MN Check Number 56485 WEST PHOTO 56485 09-Jun-98 WEST PHOTO Totals Check Number 56485 WEST PHOTO Check Number 56486 WIDMER INC 56486 09-Jun-98 WIDMER INC Totals Check Number 56486 WIDMER INC Check Number 56487 56487 WILLIAMS LAWN SERVICE 09-Jun-98 WILLIAMS LAWN SERVICE Transaction Amount 2.64 1.13 78.25 82.17 31.92 31.92 136.14 136.14 140.44 140.44 169.87 169.87 1,216.00 1,216.00 1,300.00 Comments KAf AD a D MAY AD a D KAY AD a D Check Number 56481 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 56481 22-Jan-98 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 45.94 DECEMBER 56481 22-Jan-98 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 88.75 DECEMBER 56481 19-Feb-98 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 59.34 CIVIL DEFENSE 5f481 04-Feb-98 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 249.94 PHONE SERVICE 56481 04-Feb-98 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 268.49 PHONE SERVICE 56481 04-Feb-98 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 30.59 PHONE SERVICE 56481 04-Feb-98 US WEST COMMITNICATIONS 13.11 PHONE SERVICE 56481 04-Feb-98 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 393.29 PHONE SERVICE 56481 04-Feb-98 US WEST COMMUNICATION*;59.64 PHONE SERVICE 56481 22-Jan-98 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS •il.43 DECEMBER Totals Qieck Nund^r 56481 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 1,250.52 MAP BOOK REPAIRS LS 3 BARRICADE^ PHOTOS SEWER KAIN-HXTA HGHLND LN APRIL SERVICE 5 Jun 1998 Fri 11:54 AM Check Register City of Orono Page 14 Check Number Date Name Check Number 56487 WILLIAMS LAWN SERVICE Totals Check Number 5^^487 WILLIAMS LAWN SERVICE Check Number 56488 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 56488 56488 09-Jun-98 09-Jun-98 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIi*! Totals Check Number 56488 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC Check Number 56489 YOCUM OIL CO INC. 56489 09-Jun-98 YOCUM OIL CO INC. Totals Check Number 56489 YOCUM OIL CO INC. Grand Tdtal Transaction Amount Comments 1.300.00 9.00 19.36 ELEC SERVICE ELEC SERVICE 28.36 1,172.26 1,172.26 DIESEL 78,991.84 I 2 Jun 1998 Tue 12:10 PM Check Number Check Number 56369 Check Register City of Orono Date Name 56369 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION 03-Jun-98 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Totals Check Number 56369 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION Check Number 56370 56370 56370 56370 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 03-Jun-98 03-Jun-98 03-Jun-98 Totals Check Number FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 56370 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES Check Number 56371 56371 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO. 03-Jun-98 Totals Check Number GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO 56371 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO Check Number 56372 56372 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT & COLL 03-Jun-98 Totals Check Number HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT & COLL 56372 HENNEPIN CO. SUPPORT & COLL Check Number 56373 56373 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT & COLL O3-Jun-90 Totals Check Number HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT & COLL 56373 HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPORT & COLL Check Number 56374 56374 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 03-Jun-98 Totals Check Number ICMA RETIREMErrr TRUST - 457 56374 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 457 Check Number 56375 56375 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 03-Jun-98 Totals Check Number LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 56375 LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE Check Number 56376 56376 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 03-Jun-98 Totals Check Number MN DEPT OF REVENUE 56376 MN DEPT Or REVENUE Check Number 56377 56377 MN MUTUAL LIFE 03-Jun-98 Totals Check Number MN MUTUAL LIFE 56377 MN MUTUAL LIFE Transaction Amount 6«434.00 6«434.00 3,647.39 3,647.39 8,556.44 15,851.22 980.68 980.68 0.00 0.00 179.51 179.51 225.00 225.00 0.00 0.00 3,694.15 3,694.15 625.30 625.30 Page 1 Comments SAVINGS W/H k TRANSFERRED FICA k MEDICARE W/H FICA,MSDCR CITY SHARE FEDERAL WITHHOLDING DEFERRED COMP W/H THOMTON 8C0266780 SKREEN #0010755723 DEFERRED COMP W/H UNION DUES WH STATE TAX W/H DEFERRED COMP W/K r r 2 Jun 1998 Tue 12:10 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Humber Date Name Check Number 56377 MN MUTUAL LIFE Check Number 56378 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP 56378 03-Jun-98 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP Totals Check Number 56378 MN STATE RETIREMENT-DEF COMP Check Number 56379 PEBSCO/OBRA 56379 03-JUA-98 PEBSCO/OBRA Totals Check Number 5C379 PEBSCO/OBRA Check Number 56380 PEBSCO/US CONP OF MAYORS 56380 03-Jun-98 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS Totalf^ Check Number 56380 PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYORS Check lumber 56381 PERA 5>381 bCiSl 03-Jun-98 03-Jun-98 PERA PERA Totals Check Number 56381 PERA Check Number 56382 UNITED HAY 56382 03-Jun-98 UNITED HAY Totals Check Number 56382 UNITED HAY Grand Total Transaction Amount 227.00 227.00 280.57 280.57 1,887.65 1,887.65 4,674.00 6,132.27 10,606.27 30.00 30.00 41,221.35 Page 2 Comments DEFERRED COMP W/H OBRA DEFERRED COMP H/H USCM DEFERRED COMP H/H PERA EMPLOYEE H/H PERA CITY SHARE CHARITY DONATIONS H/H I i t REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: Junes, 1998 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Ron Moorsc Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Temporary Appointmewf of Officer Chris Fischer to a Full-Time Police Officer Schedule Officer Mark Thornton has been on a leave from his police officer position since March 19, 1998 due to a medical condition that prohibits him from performing his police officer duties. Officer Thornton s work shifts have been filled during this time through overtime, compensatory time, part- time officers, etc. Officer Chris Fischer, who was appointed to a part-time police officer position effective February 23, 1998, has now completed his field training program and is ready to begin police officer duties. It is recommended that Officer Fischer be assigned, on a temporary basis, to a full-time police officer schedule to enable him to work Officer Thornton's shifts. The recommendation includes placing Officer Fischer into the Step 1, Full-Time Police Officer pay rate of $13.72 per hour with full benefits. This temporary appointment is to be effective June 8, 1998 through October 1, 1998, subject to review based on the employment status of Officer Thornton. This temporary appoimment is being recommended under the authority of Section 204 of the City's Personnel Policy titled Temporary Appointments. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the temporary appointment of Officer Chris Fischer to a full-time police officer schedule at the Step 1, Full-Time Police Officer pay rate of $13.72 per hour with full benefits effective June 8, 1998 through October 1, 1998, subject to review based on the employment status of Officer Mark Thornton. ■aSUaSSSSffiSSBAS. COUNCIL MEETINQ JUN 8 1998 L'i ^ INFORMATION ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL MEERNO JUN 8 1998 cmroFonoNO OF t' i, I LINDQUIST & VENNUM p.ulp. 4200IDSCENTER In Oenver M South EiG^ Street l-Mtx)uiST,VENNUM a C hristensen p.l.l.p. Mn «apou 8.Mnnesota 55402-2205 50017th Street .Swte2125 Denver . C olorado 80202-5401 FAX:612-371-3207 QQy|vjQjL f^cOfUrf^fciNE:303-573-5000 Attorneys AT LAW L V. Adcman (612)371-3283 JUN 8 1998 CHY o-' - • June 3, 1998 « . .1 I • L..U • Mayor and City Council City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Ciystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Woodhill Country Club: Access to Woodhill Avenue Dear Mayor Jabbour and City Council: Dayton, Woodhill s President, is away from town and has asked us to advise you that Woodhill has not changed its position, that it is legally entitled to open its access to Woodhill Avenue The comment in Attorney Malkerson’s letter of May 27, that Woodhill has asked the City CouncU to t^e no further action is a mischaracterization of Woodhill’s position at the last Council Meeting onMay 26, 1998. * It may be that the City’s approval of the opening is not necessary, but Woodhill recognizes that the immediate challenge is to assure that new safety precautions be put into place at the int^ion of WoodhiM Road and Country Rd. 15. The City’s continuing attention to this urgent need is most appreciated. R^ectfully / / LVA/nm cc: Mr. Ronald Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police Tom Barrett, City Attorney Bruce D. Malkerson, Attorney Ned Dayton, President of Woodhill Country Club Doc# 1026978M r D. ELDREDGE JACKSON III 1055 Edgewood Hill Road Wayzata, MN 55391 .••• ............., ij;. » COUNCIL MEETING JUN 8 1998 CITY O'* GHONO June 2,1998 The Honorable Gabriel Jabbour Mayor, City of Orono Members of the City Council 2750 Kellogg Parkway Orono, MN 55356 RE: County Road 15 Dear Mayor Jabbour, Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter is addressed to you as a 29 year resident of Orono, 18 at my current address, who has become increasingly concerned about the safety issues relating to entering and exiting Woodhill Road onto County Road 1 5. As you are aware the issue has been made signiflcantly worse as a result of the construction currently in progress. I also anticipate that even after the construction is completed, there will continue to be significant safety Issues due to the speed of traffic on that stretch of highway. There are two issues relating to access and egress. First is during the rush-hour periods. The Issue here is more the frustration of not being able to exit due to continuous traffic flow than a true safety issue since traffic is moving quite slowly. It only becomes a safety issue when one’s frustration results in taking a risk to get onto to 1 5. The second is during the times of day when traffic moves at the posted (or higher) speed. This was an issue before the construction started and has only become worse because of the poor si^t lines to view traffic on 1 The road east of Orono Orchard Road (going both ways) lends itself to higher speeds because it is straight and flat. I have noticed that people also tend to be less attentive based on the number of close calls I have seen that would have resulted in rear-end accidents. (1 have been a witness to two such accidents over the past 10 years.) Unfortunately I don’t believe that the issue is a short term problem. Safe access to County Road 15 is likely to be an ongoing problem for, not only Woodhill Members but, all residents who live along the highway east of Orono Orchard Road. (I am a Woodhill Member as well as a resident). IM very hopeful that the Orono City Administrator will be able to have some influence in his discussions with the County, and that Wayzata and Orono police will be more visible on the roadway. Most importantly, I hope that those empowered to make change will look for longer term solutions to the problem and not just tl.'» inimediate issues resulting from the current construction. Sincerely, m Malke rson Gilliland M a r t i, Suite i500 ATaT Tower 901 Marquette Avenue M I N N E A P O L I S, M I N N E S O T A 55402-3205 Telephone 6i2-344-iiil Ta CSIMILE 612-344-1414 JUN 8 1998 CITY OF ORONO Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq. Direct Dial (612)344-1699 MiU May 27, 1998 ..O Mayor and City Council City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Re: Woodhill Country Club ~ Residents on VVoodhill Avenue Dear Mayor Jabbour and City Council: On behalf of my clients and myself, thank you for having listened carefully to the presentation by all parties on May 26, 1998 concerning the possible permanent and/or temporary opening of an access by Woodhill Country Club (the “Club”) onto Woodhill Avenue. My clients and I would also like to thank the City staff for having been courteous and responsive to our requests for imormation in the City files relating to the history of this issue, applicable ordinances. etc. While my clients were hopeful that final action would be taken by the City Council to put the issue of possible temporary access to rest, my clients do appreciate the fact that it was clear from the comments from the Mayor and two Council Members that you were concerned about the issues and you read and understood the information we had sent to you. In any event, Mr. Dayton, as President of the Club, stated that he could see the direction that this matter was going and asked that the City Council take no further action. He stated that the Club would proceed to try other traffic control measures at the intersection of County Road 15 and Woodhill Road, which is the access to the Club. As part thereof, the Mayor and City Council staled that they would do what they could do to convince the County to do such things as move the signage, lower the speed limit during the construction period, move and/or lower the barricades, use a temporary turn lane into the Club, etc. The Mayor and City Council also stated that the Club could hire an off-duty police officer at the Orono rate for other cities, which is approximately $39 per hour, and that the City would have a police officer there on its own from time to time. Mr. Dayton stated that the Club would proceed with the hiring of an off-duty police officer during the rush hour period. I understand that the City Administrator will be talking to the County concerning the above. I suggest that if the County staff person with whom he speaks is not responsive to the 16677DDM *m*‘»'-**»»*«'*«****^"‘^ " ■! I urn Till! I t Mayor and City Council May 27, 1998 Page 2 „ ** '■' convincing ihe Counlv to take thoseteps necessary to ensure a safer access at the Club entrance, please a^ise UuuKst there may be members of the Club who can assist in facilitating those communicSs “th the .he city'cotrrrwS:ro;^:rb: - appropnate to prepare for that Council meeting, if in fact one is ever ncc«saragair fhP r aJ^A^ — meeting, I noted to my clients that instead of having six or seven of them callino the City Administrator periodically to find out what has occurred with reuard to i^^rnviHinT I u accessdunngtherushhourduringtheweekdaysthatoneofthembeappointedbythe ^neighborhood group to communicate periodically with the City Administrator concerning that Again, thank you very much for your consideration of these very important issues. Very truly yours. Bruce D. Malkerson cc:Ronald Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron Gary Cheswick, Chief of Police Tom Barrett, City Attorney Shelly and Jerry Storch Ginny and John Welsh Jane Delaney Reed Larson Judy and Mike Wood Charles and Marla Maile Mr. Ned Dayton, President of Woodhill Country Club Larry Ackman, attorney for Woodhill Country Club I6677UDM Memo COUNCIL MEETINQJUM B 1998 cm^oroROKiO .1 •; ; ^ « I l' . May 29. 1998 West Hennepin City I (lanagers/City Administrators/City Clerks Rei^lSzemer ♦ Attached materials The West Hennepin Human Services Planning/Coordination Working Group would appreciate your assistance in forwarding the enclosed materials to each of your City Council menibers. These materials are being mailed out to a mailing list of approximately 225 people in the West Hennepin area, .and City Council members who participated in the interview and focus group process are on that mailing list. However, we want to make sure that the Focus Group Report and invitation to the upcoming community meetings are forwarded to all City Council members, not just those that have been involved to date. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 348-3456. r Hennepin County An Equal Opfxjrmnicy Emphyer Jeff Span:, County Administrator May 29,1998 Dear Community Colleague, We have listened to you and ws’re moving ahead! Enclosed is a report on the five focus groups recently conducted on human services planning and coordination in the West Hennepin area. This report outlines the major themes that emerged from the focus groups, recommendations for a community-based approach to human services planning and -.coordination, and steps for implementation. Please help us once again! Attend one of the community meetings listed below to: • Refine the recommendations and implementation steps • Consider the commitment required to become a pilot project • Explore your interest in joining an oversight group for the pilot projects Tuesday, June 23,1998 - 7:30 am to 9:00 am Minnetonka City Hall, Lower Level Board & Commission Room 14600 Minnetonka Blvd., Minnetonka (Just north of Minnetonka Blvd. & Williston Rd.) OR Wednesday, June 24,1998 - 7:30 am to 9:00 am Orono City Council Chambers 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono (Just north of Highway 12 & Old Crystal Bay Road) We appreciate the time and efforts so many of you have put into the interview and focus group process over the past nine months. Please RSVP to Rex Holzemer at 348-3456 by Thursday, June 18,1998, regarding which meeting you plan f ' attend. Thanks! Sincerely, Kathy Lueckert Asst. City Manager City of Plymouth Patrick Wussow City Manager City of Tonka Bay Steve Mielke City Manager City of Hopkins James Hurm City Manager City of Shorewood Rex Holzemer Principal Administrative Assistant Hennepin County Admii.'*'tration Hennepin County Administration A 2303 Hennepin County Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0233 (612) 348-7574 FAX (612) 348-8228 TDD (612) 348-7367 Recycled Puper r REPORT ON FOCUS GROUPS CONDUCTED Coordinating Western Hennepin County Human Services . . . today’s urban leadership demands advanced skills: inventive collaborations, regional alliances, outreach to neighborhoods and sensitivity in such complex areas as police and schools. —Neal R. Peirce, national columnist on state and local affairs BACKGROUND The purpose of this project is to discover how to best assess needs and coordinate human services that effectively and efficiently serve the residents in the 25 communities of western Hennepin County. Also, the purpose Is to build community ownership of a structure for meeting those needs. The project evolved from informal discussions involving Hennepin County administration and officials from the cities of Hopkins, Plymouth, Shorewood, St. Louis Park and Tonka Bay. They became a city-county working on how human services needs could be met appropriately following the demise of Suburban Alliance, one of three suburban human services councils in Hennepin County. The first step in the project was to learn about approaches for coordinating and delivering human services. More than 120 telephone interviews were conducted. The interviews were with Hennepin County commissioners representing the western suburbs, elected and appointed officials from the municipalities, staff from the cities, staff of provider agencies, school district officials, members of faith communities, citizen volunteers and recipients. In the second step, the city-county working group reviewed the data and developed a draft model that would assess current and future human service needs, promote coordination of services, improve communications, maintain accountability, and encourage joint decision-making. This model was presented to five focus groups. The third step was to conduct five focus groups. Seventy-one people participated. With some differences, the information gathered was quite consistent. Eleven major themes emerged from this information and they are summarized below, as are recommendations from the city-county working group on how to develop this effort. MAJOR THEMES Suburban Alliance There was concern that this might be another Suburban Alliance, where citizen participation was lost. As one participant put it: same old. same old. Suburban Alliance, however, could step back and see the bigger picture, it could advocate for emergency service dollars, and it could make comments to the County. These aspects are still needed. J Collaboration The focus on collaboration concerned many. Some were concerned that the answer for a specific structure was being prescribed before the goals of planning and coordination were really clear. Overall planning needs to come first. Collaborations are time consuming and it is difficult to bring people together. Collaboration is hard and ambiguous. In addition, most collaborations are school based, focus on specific issues and do not serve overall human service needs in their communities. At the same time, people emphasized the need for grass-roots decision-making and agencies working together to serve needs and reduce turf. The framework for collaboration was good although the word "collaboration" is problematic. Support for skill development in bringing people together, strengthening and broadening participation, and resolving conflicts was encouraged. Funding Committed dollar support for this effort over time was acknowledged as crucial. Answers on how to make that happen were not as strong. An overall plan, however, is needed to prevent splintering. Incentives, however they might happen, should not become a “stick." But credit needs to be given to make this work. And the reasons why certain agencies are funded should be made clear. Many felt money should go to the communities for maximum application to needed services. Local money (e.g. from municipalities) should stay in the community and not go to support a regional office. And the money should be spent as the local community believes it should to best meet the needs of that area. Existing Efforts Very strongly, many reported there was little recognition of existing efforts. Examples were cited repeatedly as models: Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency, Day One, Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners, WeCan, Prism, Interfaith Community Association. The Alliance for Families and Children (School Redesign), in development for six years, was seen by many as a possible vehicle to deliver the planning and coordination. It was recognized, however, that the present mission does not cover the broader issues of seniors, transportation, mental health, etc. It was also recognized that the Alliance is very much school-based. Regardless of what develops, many stressed the need to build upon existing collaborations and structures to foster local ownership. Don ’t re-invent and don’t add layers, many said. Leverage existing efforts. Focus The focus needs to be on all of the western region. Transportation, for example, is a major issue. Those areas west of 494 often feel left out. And the consumers should not be forgotten. While the focus does need to be on the broader issues of transportation, housing, etc., meeting the human service needs of residents in the area is what this is all about. Consumers need to be represented. Geography of the Area Many recognized the need to keep a regional focus. When it comes to organizing, however, smaller geographical areas were stressed by many. It was recognized that municipal boundaries don't match school districts, and that makes organizing difficult. Similarly, providers have overlapping territories. Many saw the need for perhaps more than one planning effort because people identify on a sub-region basis. The needs are different in different areas. In addition, parts of the region, such as the smaller municipalities bordering Wright County, go unrecognized to the point where Wright county provides services in Hennepin County. Role of the Countv There are very strong feelings that this could be too County-centered. Flexibility might, therefore, be lost as the County focuses on accountability within planning, contracting, etc. Having clout with the County would be difficult also. Some felt planning and coordination have historically not been well supported. At the same time, the county has the greatest access to data and is in the best position to do data gathering and analysis as well as coordinate planning and technical assistance. This assistance, however, should not be located downtown. Measurement/Accountabilitv Some said they were tired of outcome-based services, especially when trying to measure something like information and referral. At the same time, many responded that the outcomes are needed; greater accountability is wanted. A clear mission is crucial. Outcomes must focus on the needs of the recipients and not make agencies look good. How services are organized should follow the desired measurable goals. The collaborations and the providers should serve the outcomes based on community needs. The whole emphasis should be on being responsive to individuals and families. The data should show the impact on the people. Too many people fall though the cracks. Have providers be responsible for what they’re given and what they do, but not for demonstrating need. Accountability for meeting needs and providing services should rest with the community. Right now, providers are responsible to the County, and what Is expected varies based on what different commissioners want. Participation Many people are worn out. Different and expanded players are needed. Greater representation from recipients, communities of color, and low income people is needed. Participation by local communities and school districts is very important, as is by agencies. Both citizen input and agency cooperation are crucial, but perhaps they are separate efforts. Functions Needed Regional planning, research and coordination is very important. All of this needs to come together in one visible access point for information. What’s out there, including needs and best practices, should be known and communicated, communicated, communicated in user friendly ways. Other functions are needed: technical assistance, organizing, convening, advocacy, and fostering the creation of efforts for which there is little capacity in communities. In addition, a system that links providers would be very helpful. All of this needs to support the provision of services. Structure Don't add layers and bureaucracy and meetings!! Don’t duplicate local efforts. Keep it simple and small; grow as needed. The emphasis should be on meshing what is here because successful efforts are ad hoc. Keep things fluid. People come together when they have a reason to come together; structures evolve to respond. Use County resources for planning, research and coordination. Keep control local. Hire people for special needs and then have them move on. RECOMMENDATIONS With input from the telephone interviews and the five focus groups, the city-county working group concluded that overall functions of on-going planning, technical assistance and regional advocacy contained in the draft model are still needed. Relying on local collaborations is still the best vehicle for delivery, as they are to the greater extent community/citizen based and most in-tune with local needs. And the need for municipalities as well as school districts to become more involved remains important, because the trends are increasingly to localize recogniticn of need and delivery of services. Beyond those conclusions, the working group saw the need to focus on the purpose of this project— to discover how to best assess needs and coordinate human services that effectively and efficiently serve the residents in the 25 municipalities of western Hennepin County and to build community ownership of a structure for meeting those heeds. In addition, the working group realized that the data from the focus groups showed that community must be central, efforts need to build on what exists, and the project should proceed by starting small and then expand as everyone learns. Recommended Community-based approach Given the stated purpose and the input from the focus groups, the following recommendations are being made as the basis for further community input: Process 1. Research and report community indices on assets and liabilities. Responsibility County: staff provides demographic, trend, service and utilization data from county and state sources; Community: augments data by local community information gathering. Results Each community has tailored information applicable to its needs and assets. r 2. Community collaborative uses data to prioritize needs, establish outcomes, and determine measures. 3. Community collaborative determines action plan to allocate resources that meet community needs Countv: provides technical assistance to refocus or form collaboratives as needed in a community; Community: existing collaboratives expand focus and broaden membership, or new collaboratives are formed to look at broader community issues. County; works in partnership with the community: Community: establishes broad base support in partnership with the County. Each community has broad representation from the municipality, school district[s], service providers, faith communities, businesses, service recipients and the County. The focus in each community is on outcomes. Greater likelihood of community support since community determines what are its highest priority needs and focuses resources toward meeting those needs. 4. Community implements plans 5. Community evaluates outcomes and revises community indices, priorities, outcomes and measures Countv: contracts with service providers in concert with community-set outcomes and priorities, channeling resources to the greatest extent possible: Community: integrates services and oversees providers according to community plan and County contracts. Countv: sen/ices provided are measured against community- established outcomes and measures for accountability reports and best practices analysis; Community: community determines effectiveness in partnership with county and quickly makes adjustments to meet community needs; community reports to all community constituencies including cities and school districts. Better utilization of resources given ever increasing demand, making best use of County and community strengths Greater assurance that community residents benefit from the services, and that the community, overall, will be a better place to live and work; learnings can be shared between communities to strengthen cost/benefit analysis of programs and services. Steps toward implementation of the community-based approach 1. Send this summary report and recommendations to everyone who participated in the interviews and focus groups, and include the County Board and all municipalities in the Western region. 2. Invite participation in additional community forums to develop the recommendations in this report and create an oversight group who will advise in the pilot projects. 3. Select two communities to develop this approach — one larger, one smaller; one inner ring and one further west — and learn from the pilot efforts. 4. Investigate what data exist and how to make them readily available to communities. 5. Gain support from key officials in County government. 6. Organize County support to deliver research, technical assistance, revised contracting and County participation in the collaborations. 7. Learn from the two pilot projects and revise process and support as needed to expand efforts into additional communities. 8. Develop regional approach to coordinate efforts toward major outcomes of housing, transportation, child care and jobs, and to advocate for and leverage resources on behalf of the region. Eventually, this might include searching for grants and outside funding, coordination of sub-regional and regional implementation and accountability efforts; dissemination of community learnings to constituencies throughout the local communities. r-'r ' if • COUNCiL MEETING JUN 8 1998 CIT>-' OF OnONO POB 274 Moorhead, Minnesota 56561-0274 31 May 1998 Chamber of Commerce Orono, Minnesota 55356 Dear Madam or Sir: 1 do wish to tell you of my appreciation for two citizens of your corn- community, who were most kind and helpful to me during a stressful period when my car was stranded on the highway, pulled off by an anonymous passer­ by. Corporal Jay Dembouski of the Orono Police Department stopped, called Mike Petrosonius of Chunk's Garage, who came out to look at the car, and to confirm that indeed, the clutch had gone out. Corporal Dembouski was particularly kind in putting on a perspective to the whole ordeal by saying that the car "is only property," that there are more Important things. He gave assistance in other ways as well. Mike Personius was agreeable to a down payment for the expenses incur­ red, with payments after that. A very pleasant young man. And no doubt a capable young man in his business. You are fortunate to have these people in your community. They are fine citizens, both attributes to your city. Perhaps they are representative of the citizenry? How fortunate for Orono to have them. Thank you. Sincerely, Phyjdis Lahti JUN 0 \m ^ i i t W i ) *■ < « 0 I imart Tr I • % w ■ r COUNCIL meeting Dana M. Wclla 1397 Orono Lane Wayzata, Alinnesota 55391 JUN 8 1998 CITY or May 27, 1998 To:Vem Gelzinger Hennepin Co. Engineer Henn. Co. Govt. Center 302 S. 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 - 1370 Dear Mr. Genzlinger, I am writing to you as a concerned neighbor at the fishing site nt Co. Rd. #15 and Brown’s Bay. It is frightening to watch the near misses of acrious accidents at this comer. There are so many people enjoying the lake area without regard to the safety of traffic or themselves. The elimination of garbage cans and satellites has created a monster. The site needs to be open and controlled or totally closed. It is compounded by the parking in the area just east of our intersection. This was a no parking zone prior to constmction upgrade of Co. Rd. U15. Those signs have been removed, along with our right turn lane access. Now the assumed parking blocks our vision coming in and out of Orono Lane. There are various designated lakeshore areas provided by Orono and fine other lakeshore communities in addition to the wonderful new Hennepin County park at Co. Rd. #44. These are well planned and safe areas designed specifically for the public. The encouragement of their use and elimination of unsafe areas, such as Brown’s Bay, can only improve the safety and enjoyment for everyone. Please feel free to respond to me at the above address or by phone at 473-4449. Sincerely, Dana M. Wells cc: Penny Steele, Hennepin Co. Commissioner Greg Gappa, City of Orono OrofiU C\\\y I'i.-il 0 0 , Aun ..\.Tn: r^a-r. i •.rvTf -1 METRO RLP.tlNIt-115 3 •••OUTH Fax :ei:‘-3>:j-13':'::: « Minnesota Department of Transportation ft ________________________________— Jun c- • •j-:-7:43 P. 01 Metropolitan Division •' Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville. MN 55113 May 20.199S Post-it ’Fax Note 7671 Date (^/C payc-j^ (s'- Fiom /} 'X&-y.€ CodC.'et.ivO 1 fs ih t'', /j 1 Phone »Phone e fSTZ- Few « William E. ©i-uning 315 Silver Meadow Drive Orono. Minnesota 55356 Dear Mr. Binning: Hiis letter is in response to your recent leHers of April 24, snd May 7,1998 concerning Mn^OT’s proposal for Highway 12 in Orono. In this letter I’ll reproduce each of the questions you raised lu italics with Mii/DOT’s responses following. 1. Js mv property taxes increase, why do Realtors stale that due to die 12 proposal ite mouIJ never get the money 've pi4t into our homes should we decide to sell? I can only speculate at to why realtors might make sucli statements. MnlSOT is aw-are of several smdies of the effects of hlglnvays on adjacent land values. In light of those smdiesit can a major roadway e-xerts mixed effects upon adjacent property. The value ot res.denna! propecry abumng the right-of-wav is sttbjeci to the negative inliuences of noise and aesthenc intrusion. It is also subj ect to the positive influence of aecessihility intptovemems. Relarive to other ptopemes tn thevtcmtty those located directly adjacent to the right-of-way may experience flatter rates inin^^^^ area because of the depressed conidor, the bartier/feoce and proposed 'andsoaping. the wall be mitigated to a very great extent. Even though residents of your neighborhood w-il ilUlj not u.e the new Highway 12 corridor on a daily basis, there wall be increases m access arid mobility because o the decreases in traffic on the current Highway 12 corridor. These sMdies have shown that m areas where access and mobiliw aie improved, property value-s wall likely increase. 2. liltv have neighhorhoods fought this highway for 30 years: Again, 1 can only specol ate that they feared a negative impact on their property or neighborhood. I IKe V look /onrmaf ro the ncx, MvVOT meeting a. Wi photo-rcolislic images mid perhaps Mcurale property' lines. As of the date of tills letter, the meeting has been held and ihe images presented. M.y tmderstanding is dial die images presented did not show landscaping, but that landscaping will he added to the ■'’“te‘“f die June meeting. Out esriraates of die right-of-way necessaty to build this refined, accuraev is improved through each design phase. One of die key decs.ous ,s wheU.et to depress the corridor by way of slopes or retaining waU. Ihis greatly effects the anionm of nght-of-wa> nccessarv. An equal opportunity employer r I,V HETRO RLHMNItHS 3 >OJTH Fa • :Kl>3>:j-130>: Minnesota Department of Transportation RiB5 Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville. MN 55113 liji't • IT I F-. 01 May 20. 199S Post-it ’ Fax Note 7671 Ac Kns-J From A)'XaPf.€ co.c.'ct. nP D:>r^s-j!)Ao'T Phone n F-a.x It William E. Bruning 315 Silver Meadow Drive Orono, Minnesota 55556 Dear Mr. Bruning: This letter is in response to your recent letters of April 24, and May 7, 1998 concerning Mn^OT’s proposal for Highway 12 in Orono. In this letter I’ll reproduce each of the questions you raised m italics with Mn.'DOT’s responses follov/ing. 1. As mv property taxes increase, why do Realtors state that due to the new Hwy. J2 proposal ^ve moiuJ never get the money've put into our homes should ^ve decide to sell? I can only speculate at to why realtors might make such statemeiiLs. MnT)OT is aware of several snipes of the effects of highwavs on adjacent land values. In light of those studies it can best be concluded hat a major roadway exerts mixed effects upon adjacent property. The value or residennx property the ri*iht-of-way is subject to the negative influences of noise and aesthetic intrusion. It is al.o subject to the positive influence of accessibility improvements. Relative to other properties in the vicinity, tliose located directly adjacent to the rifihl-of-way may expenence Qatter rates area because of the depressed corridor, the barrier/fence and proposed landscaping, the adverse impacts V ;11 be mitigated to a verv great extent. Even though residents of your neighborhood will likely not u.e ihe new Highwav 12 corrid''’- on a daily basis, there will be increases in access and mobdity because of the decreases in traffic on ti- current Highway 12 corridor. These studies have shown that in areas where access and mobility aie improved, property values will likely increase. 2. JI7jy have neighborhoods fought this highway for 30 years-. Again, 1 can only speculate that they feared a negative impact on their property' or neighborhood. 5. ire II look forward to the next Mtt/DOT meeting with phoio-rcahstic images and perhaps accurate property lines. As of il« date of Uiis letter, the meeting has been held and Ihe images presented. My Oml llie im-tces presented did not show landscaping, but that landscaping will he added to the iniate tor t June me'ring. Out esnmaie.s of ilie right-of-way necessaiy to build di.s refined accuracy is improved through each design phase. One of die key dccsio^ is whetl.er to depress the corridor by way of slopes or retaining w.iU. This greatly effects the amount of nghi-of-way nccessarv An equal opportunity' employer r HETFO FtHl^lIM'3 ? SOiJTH lun •'?$ 7:4~.p. 0 :• Wm.liaw E. Bfuning May 20,1998 Page 2 4. / trust retaining ualh ml! be o/\iOod to combat the echo chamber infect of cement. If retaininv4 walls are built, they will be concrete. Given the height of the walls, wood )s not a practical material. For tlie banier/feace on top of the slope or retaining witll, wood is an alternative. However the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is encouraging Mu/DOT to avoid die use of wood barriers as at the time of their disposal diev are considered a haitardous waste due to tlie chenucals used in their creanon. 5. No streetlights. WTiedier or not streetlights are placed on the local roads crossing over Highway 12 wdl be ^ locd decision. Nfn/DOT is evaluating the need for lighting of Highway 12 m this area. At this nme it does not appear warranted. However if an accident problem ensues that could be improved by the addition ot Ugliting Mn/DOT wiU ensure tiiat tliat option is available. 6. Roads of asphalt not cement. Mil''DOT has not yet made the determination of suiface type. There are many considerations in this decision. 7. Many mature trees to be planted. As stated in my most recent letter, MnOOT mil cousidet working with the community to sttin landscaping early for tire project We wUl work with the community in a consensus bn. ding process to deteimine aesthetic treatments, including landscaping, to be applied on and along die comdoi. d. /« genem/ 7 hope you niW he able lo preseu, idea, and desigm u!,h ,he neighhorhoad in mind and not just a precursor for the future C-lane 394. 1 fed we have been doing this and will conunue. The corridor proposal of just 2-lanes on only 80 feet ot 9. One request for the upcoming meeting in May, Mould beforMtdDOT to pi o\ kh a realtor ofy our choosing, to illustrotc ho^va truck route enhances a neighborhood As an altcra=itivc, upon vour request. Mn/DOT can furnish information on the studies I’ve above. If you are aware of any studies with conclusions inconsistent with what our research has sho . I woidd appreciate your sharing tliem v/ith us METRO PLfHMI'IINb 3 sQiJTH Fax:ei2-E~::2-13i:ix Tun $ ’MX 7:43 F'. 03 William E. Bnming May 20, 1998 Page 3 10. miat I ask M)v'DOT is lo hivcn the process fora momem and address ihe concerr^ of affected property o miersfirst. '' Mn/pOT is to'ing to address tbc concerns of all affected interests simultaneously. We have had and will continue to have much more contact with tlic communities than all of the resource, agencies combined. JJ. Pilmt / ask ofMnfDOT is to rdocate our family, build a more economic retaining wall and resell our home to someone aware of the elements. Mn/DOT camiot legally purchase property such as yours that is not required for a transportation purpose. TTia]^ you for your interest. Please contact Tom O’Keefe C5S2-] 296) or Patti Loken (582-1293) to obtam the information mentioned abov.i or if you have additional questions. Sincerely, ,f {> jchard A. Stehr Division Engineer be: Dick Stehr/Division Files, \V£ Julie Skallman, Dick Elasky, WTi Mike Christensen, WI^ Tom O’Keefe, IVE Patti Loken, WE Keith Slater, WE TCO/PJL/am Re; TH 12 in Orono METRO RLPtlMIMiS 3 30IJTH Fax:612-3x2-130:::.Tjn :i: ’y:;: 7:44 P. 04 William E. Bruning 315 Silver Meadow Dr. Oroiio, MN. 55356 Mr. Richard A. Stcbr MnDot 1500 W. Comity Rd. B2 Roseville, MN. 56113 Dear Mr. Stehr, 5,v>- '4 >A-.. • ^ % r • • * April 24,1998 2 U ” Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns about the new Hwy. 12 on behalf of Governor Carlson and Senator Grams. In pursuit of justice, their ^^isdom amazes me. The sole purpose of contacting them was to negotiate the rights of a property owner vs. the ^^^ll of MnDoT. I did appreciate your straightfonvard approach to my letter. Mr. O’Keefe has- made himself available over the years for which we appreciate his time and efforts. OiT neighborhood had another meeting at our house recently concerning Hwy. 1'*' Hearing from those who still attend the MnDoT meetings, reviewing an Orop{. ictter and your letter, not much has changed from a year ago. Your StatinR increase in passing trains did confirm my suspicions though. As my;;^^pertj' taxes increase, why do realtors state that due to the neiv V'wy. 12 propo .i-we would never get the money we put into our homes should v decide lo sell. Why have neighborhoods fought this highway for 30 years. vVe 11 look forward to the next MuDoT meeting with photo realistic images and perhaps accurate j>roperty lines. 1 trust retaining walls will be of wood to combat the echo chamber effect of cement. No streetlights. Roads of asphalt not cement. Many mature trees to be planted. In general I hope you will be able to present ideas and designs with the neighborhood in mind and not just a precursor for the future 6 laue 394. One request for the upcoming meeting in May, would be for MnDoT to provide a I'ealtor, of your choosing, to illustrate how a truck route enhances a neighborhood. We’re a small group of property owners trying to protect our investments and quality of life. If your home was to be affected in such a negative manner I trust you w'ould do no less. Sincerelj',-- • tl' William E. Bruning ( J METRO PLfil lNIMG 3 cOJTH Fa <:t:-12-3>::’-13uo lijn X *9x 7:44 F-. u4 William E. Bruning 315 Silver Meadow Dr. Orono, MN. 55356 Mr. Richard A. Stebr MnDol 1500 W. County Rd. B2 Roseville, MN. 56113 Dear Mr. Stehr, y April 24,1998 Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns about the new Hwy. 12 on behalf of Governor Carlson and Senator Grams. In pursuit of justice, their %visdom amazes me. The sole purpose of contacting them was to negotiate the rights of a property owner vs. the wll of MnDoT. I did appreciate your straightfonvard approach to my letter. Mr. O’Keefe has- made himself available over the years for which we appreciate his time and efforts. Our neighborhood had another meeting at our house recently concerning Hwy. 12. Hearing from those who still attend the MnDoT meetings, re\dewing an Orono letter and your letter, not much has changed from a year ago. Your stating an increase in passing trains did confirm my suspicious though. As my property taxes increase, why do realtors state that due to the new H^v\^ 12 proposal we tvould never get the money we put into our homes should we decide to sell. Why have neighborhoods fought this highway for $0 years. We’ll look forward to the next MnDoT meeting with photo realistic images and perhaps accurate property lines. I trust retaining walls will be of wood to combat the echo chamber effect of cement. No streetlights. Roads of asphalt not cement. Many mature trees to be planted. In general I hope you ^^^ll be able to present ideas and designs with the neighborhood in mind and not just a precursor for the future 6 lane 394. One request for the upcoming meeting in May, would be for MnDoT to provide a realtor, of your choosing, to illustrate how a tnick route euhauces a neighborhood. We’re a small group of property owners trying to protect our investments and quality of life. If your home was to be affected in such a negative manner I trust you w'ould do no less. Sincerely, William E. Bruning ^ J i ! ICTFO FLWnM'3 3 iCi'.iTH F.y I'jn 3 ’y??:44 F'.i:e *.r. ^.V/.? I, < .. ’' 'n, .. t- iv-: Vv. /• Or *• .;-:C v,'^^ ”-.v r?’ •Cii. •" ^ V ,• -7 s . % May 7.1998 William E. Bruning 315 Silver Meadow Dr. Orono, MN. 55356 Mr. Riciiard A. Stehr MnDoT 1500 W. County Rd. B2 Roseville. MN. 56113 Dear Mr. Stehr, I was able to attend part of MnDoT’s May 6th meeting addressing the proposed Hwy. 12 through Orono. Again I commend MnDoT for choosing Ms. Patti Loken and Mr. Tom O'Keefe as spokespersons, both of whom have shown a great deal of patience, civility and graciousness. I can. only try to understand the daunting task of trying to engineer a safe, efficient route for moving traffic. Let alone physics, I know MnDoT must address big government and little government guidelines. Wetlands, park land, bird sanctuaries, cemeteries, burial grounds all have their mandates. As a private property owner my concerns probably rate behind those of a six legged frog. What I ask of MnDoT is to invert the process for a moment and address the concerns of the affected property owners first. I’ve seen the proposed view taken from my neighbor's yard. Cutting down trees and putting up a wall does not Impress me. For what MnDoT would like to implant next to our neighborhood, building an 8’ wall is equivalent to sandbagging Atlantis. The noise level from the existing Hwy 12 and current train route can be intolerable but that was reflected in the purchase price of our home. What I ask of MnDoT is to relocate our family, build a more economic retaining wall and resell our home to someone aware of the elements. I cannot challenge MnDoT financially. I wish I could pay myself what I inevitably pay MnDoT. All I have is a word processor and some time between little league games to protect a quality of life that I struggle to maintain. Please take an honorable approach and enable u$ to work with you. Thank you. Sincerely, William E. Bruning June 4, 1998 CITV Of PLYMOUTH Tom Kellogg BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK AND ASSOC., INC. 2335 W. Trunk Highway 36 St. Paul, MN 55113 SUBJECT: FERNDALE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 6007 iilM U .)1 \ Dear Tom: Attached is a copy of a resolution adopted by the Plymouth City Council on June 3, 1998, approving the design concepts for the Femdale Road Improvement Project. If items are not mentioned in this resolution, they are to be in accordance with the recommendations in the Preliminary Engineering Report. I do not believe any of these design concepts approved by the Plymouth City Council conflict with the concepts previously approved by the Orono Council, You are authorized to proceed with the preparation of the final plans and specifications for these improvements using these design concepts. As you are aware, this will be a project which will be funded through state aid and therefore the plan must meet the MSA requirements. "Also, the roadway is to have a curvilinear alignment in order to promote traffic calming and help to maintain the rural character of this neighborhood. The final curvilinear alignment should be based upon doing the minimal impact to the adjacent properties. I am requesting a schedule when the Preliminary Plans would be available for review by Plymouth and Orono. Please let me know if there are any questions. Sincerely, Fred G. Moore, P.E. Director of Public Works enclosure cc: Greg Gappa, Director of Public Service City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 C:Vpw\Eit|ineermf\PROJECT5\607\LTRSUCeik>fS.2.doe PLYMOUTH S{ ^Beautiful*£[act Tu Live 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD • PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447-1482 • TELEPHONE (612) 509-5000 www.ci.plymouth.mn.us r June 4, 1998 Roger Knutson, City Attorney CAMPBELL KNUTSON, PA Suite 317, Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 CITY Of PLYMOUW i' •• . • SUBJECT: JOINT AGREEMENT FERNDALE ROAD IMPROVEMENT CITY PROJECT NO. 6007 Dear Roger: Attached is a copy of the resolution adopted by the Plymouth City Council on the design concepts for the Femdale Road Improvement Project. This is a joint project between Orono and Plymouth with Plymouth acting as the lead agency to have the plans prepared and to award and administer the contract. I am requesting that you prepare an agreement for approval by both City Councils for this project. The resolution gives the general design perimeters with other details included in the Preliminary Engineering Report. Although Plymouth will be administering the contract, the agreement should provide that each city will be responsible for acquiring and paying for any permanent or temporary easements within their city. There is a possibility that some easements may be required within the City of Wayzata. The cost of any of these easements should be shared equally with both cities by Plymouth responsible for obtaining the easements. Please let me know if you need any further details to prepare an agreement. Sincerely, Fred G. Moore, P.E. Director of Public Works enclosure cc: Greg Gappa, Director of Public Service City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 G:Vpw\Engineering\PROJECTS\607NLT1tS\Kmiaon^6007.doc PLYMOUTH ^Vtauti/uC'J’CaceTo Live 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD • PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55447-1482 • TELEPHONE (612) 509-5000 www.ci.plymouth.mn.us CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 98 - FERNDALE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS COUNTY ROAD 6 AND TO HIGHWAY 12 APPROVAL OF DESIGN CONCEPTS CITY PROJECT NO. 6007 I VnEREAS, the City Council on April 15, 1998, received a Preliminary Engineering Keport tor the Femdale Road Improvement Project; and VTIEREAS, this will be a joint project between Plymouth and Orono since a portion of the project is within each city; and WHEREAS, a joint meeting to discuss the design concepts was held between these city councils on May 27, 1998; and WffiREAS, the Orono City Council has adopted a motion recommending a 28 foot wide MSA road, with urban curb, and cost being split 50/50 between the cities of Orono and Plymouth; and WHEREAS, the Plymouth City Council needs to make a determination of the design concept for the road improvement project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA: That the following is approved as the design concepts for the Femdale Road Improvement Project: • Street Width: 28 feet wide with only an additional turn lane at County Road 6. • Walk: 8 feet wide immediately adjacent and along the east curb. • Curb: Vertical curb. • Cost Sharing: Equal sharing of the project costs with Orono including street, storm sewer, water quality treatment, trail, and engineering. Any sanitary sewer or watermain improvements and easement acquisition would be paid tor by the City that these improvements serve. FURTHER BE IT ^SOLVED that the consulting engineer, Bonestroo, Rosene, AnderlUc and Assoc., Inc., is authorized to proceed with the preparation of the final plans an d specifications for the improvements using these design concepts. \\Ply.m\mdukl\pw\Efl|uimin|\pROJECTS\607Ml£SOL\App^Oeiiin_Coactpc.doc A ,, ^ 4. ■:i *»c-- RESOLUTION NO. 98 - FERNDALE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Page 2 FURTHER, that the City Attorney is directed to prepare an agreement for execution by both cities for this project. Plymouth will be designed as the lead agency to coordinate the work as requested by the City of Orono. Adopted by the City Council on June 3,1998, STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and ^pointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that 1 compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on_________________with the original fhereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this __________day of_________________ City Clerk * * nfty,«faadbkl\»w^EagiiiegitigVPRO/ECTSV607\R£SOL\App,Omiia,Coaca»ieoc