Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-26-1998 Council Packet'Hr' AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JANUARY 26,1998,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (♦) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available m the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL 1.CONSENT AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING JAN 2 6 1998 CITY OF ORONOAPPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. Regular Meeting of January 12, 1998 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS I Mx LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT - Rep. Lili McMillan PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Dale Lindquist Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 3 #2295 Conley Brooks, 980 West Femdale Road - Variances - Request for Reconsideration 4.#2308 Brook Park Realty, 3760 Shoreline Drive - PRD & Class III Preliminary Subdivision >5. #2310 Dick Bury, Classic Car Sales, 3850 Shoreline Drive , t • .^6.#2315 C. Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe, 1040 and 1056 Loma Linda Avenue - Lot Line Rearrangement and Variances - Resolution 7.#2316 Mike Hilbelink, 120 Golden View Drive - Preliminary Plat for Class III Subdivision - Resolution , „ . ,, r n#8.#2318 C.N. Ostrom& Sons, for Jeanne Mithun, 755 Femdale Road North-Conditional Use Permi Resolution 9.#2319 Ron Lauer, 1040 Tonkawa Road - Variances - Resolution 10.#2322 Steven N. Filips, 2570 Thoroughbred Lane - Variance - Resolution 11.#2330 Robert Beuller, 1331 North Arm Drive - Variance - Resolution 12.#2331 Mark Gillett, 2160 Wayzata Boulevard - Finding of Substantially Simile Use 13.#2338 Freshwater Foundation, 2500 Shady wood Road - Conditional Use Permit Amendment 14.Mooney Lake Elevation Control - Information Update 15.Gai y DeSantis, Sailors World Marina - Letter of Request RE: Slips MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER REPORT 16.Report on Femdale Road North Project 17.Winter Maintenance of Trails AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JANUARY 26,1998,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 18. US West - Antenna Lease on Navarre Water Tower 'Jr 19. Tax Forfeit Properties - Resolution 20. Purchase of Police Squad Cars 21. Animal Control Service Contracts with South Lake Cities CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT -r 22. LICENSES * 23. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS im 01/26 02/02 02/04 02/09 02/16 02/17 02/23 03/02 03/0^ 03/09 03/16 03/23 Council meeting 7:00 p.m. Park Commission meeting 7:15 p.m. Highway 12 Design Review Committee meeting 5:30 p.m. Council meeting 7:00 p.m. HOLIDAY - Office closed in observance of President's Day Tuesday, - Planning Commission meeting 6:30 p.m. Council meeting 7:00 p.m. Park Commission meeting 7:15 p.m Highway 12 Design Review Committee meeting 5:30 p.m. Council meeting 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission 6:30 p.m. Council meeting 7:00 p.m. Public A ttendance Meeting Date / / 2-C - / 1 ? Council Planning Commission Park Commission Other Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1.L? (i ra (?^f)rO)Yt / rq La ic r/Pi 6yu^<^ < /—---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2./fiAiU. Ca-',-Cv,iris ) /kf . (D^Lp 4^^ /i cr 3. 4.'-KO 1-^- ^?-J ’3' 7 0 Th cp-ouCv< v^to . 6.fee'll G'v^.W'-'A 7. \ V ^ ^7/ UiT. 8.^e^/^4*-----^ i' "<$ (TX'v x ^ -cT- /r^d 9.1th ^ . .................. er A^.inv ^ 10.'TotYi L-X^. vv*2 11*^ L .Bt;i'^-*l iCTotVC 11. f ,Ak.o q:lLi ^ ^ CJ )l f-» W’^ «_ v3"'^ /c. 12. 13. 14. 15. 5 rnim.4 r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 COUNCIL ML3TI:,'G JAN 2 6 1998 ROLL CITY OF ORONO The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Council Members J. Diann Goetten, Barbara Peterson, and Richard Flint. Charles Kelley was absent. Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, City Attorney Tom Barrett, Senior Planning Coordinator Michael Gaffron, Planning Intern Brad Bressler, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Engineers Glenn Cook and Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Mayor Jabbour called the meeting to order at 6:3 ’ p.m. (#1) FERNDALE ROAD NORTH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - PUBLIC HEARING 6:31-8:20 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Jabbour explained the proposed project is an answer to a request for maintenance of North Femdale Road by the residents. A portion of the right-of-way was annexed from the City of Wayzata in order to enable the City of Orono to use MSA funding for the project. The assumption had originally been for resurfacing of the roadway but the set of plans developed and reviewed recently, the Council feels is over ambitious. Coimcil would like to hear the input of the residents to aid in their decision regarding the road improvements. Jabbour asked to hear the alternatives presented by Staff and then allow for resident input. He noted that there are differences in philosophy between the Cities of Orono and Plymouth which may affect the outcome of the project. Gappa introduced Ron Quanbeck, City of Plymouth staff member, and Terry Schwalbe, City of Wayzata staff member. The draft feasibility study was conducted by Bonestroo Engineering for a conceptual 36' wide roadway with center turn lane. Since that time, discussions have ensued resulting in alternative options. City Engineer Tom Kellogg presented the alternatives. Kellogg reported that the report is a draft copy only in the comment stage. He indicated that alternate #1 calls for a 36’ wide road with two travel lanes and a center turn lane. The trail would be built on the Plymouth side of the road with a boulevard area at an 8’ width. This alternate pushes traffic to the outside lanes. There would be no disruption for through traffic. Kellogg was asked whether the three lanes would be at the intersections only. Kellogg said yes. He noted it would require 2' of extra width to have 3 lanes all along the roadway. Kellogg said the benefit to this option is safer left turns. Nancy Berg, 745 North Femdale Road, Orono, asked how wide is the staking currently in place. She was informed that it is 36' from curb to curb. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 (#1 Femdale Road North Road Improvement - Continued) Bill Westbrook, 139 Chevy Chase, Orono, asked if the 36' standard would be at the intersection only or throughout the length of the road. Kellogg said the road would be 36' entirely along the road. Alternate #2 calls for a 36' wide road with two travel lanes, face to face, with only a center line and no left turn lane. It moves through traffic closer to the center with room for bicycles and joggers to the outside. The advantage of this option is having space in which to make turns, but this would affect the biker and jogger traffic. Alternate #3 is at a reduced width of 32', face to face with a striped center line similar to alternate #2. The edge of the driving lane would also be striped. The 4' shoulder would be paved for use by bikers and joggers. Kellogg noted that there would be no parking allowed on the road in any of the options, Alternate #4 is for a 28' wide road, which is the minimum allowed to utilize State aid. The center line would be striped. There would be no turn lane or bike traffic. Turning vehicles could result in through traffic delays. Kellogg indicated that the City Staffs recommendation is for a 32' roadway with center line and edge striping. Kellogg informed Jabbour that State aid would indicate a 28' minimum width. Gappa noted that this would be similar to that of North Brow n Road. Goetten asked the current road width. She was informed by Kellogg that the road is in general 24' wide and considered a rural section. Brad Erickson, 775 Femdale Road North, Orono, asked what the basis is for alternate #1 with a turn lane. Kellogg said the road design is based on safety factors. Erickson said he drives this road 2-5 times a day and cannot remember having to stop for a left turn driver. Jabbour said the Council is aware that the road is a lesser traveled road with about 3,500 vehicles per day. He indicated that the recommendation made by Staff is not necessarily what the Council feels is appropriate. He acknowledged that the alternate developed by Staff should have been discussed sooner, and the Council does not prefer Alternate ^1. Flint asked Kellogg what the cost would be for Alternate #2 and what reduction in cost would occur from the other options. Kellogg said there would be an approximate 5% reduction in cost from a 36' wide to a 32' road and an additional 5% for a 28' wide road. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 (#1 Femdale Road North Road Improvement - Continued) Flint asked about the cost of repaving only. Kellogg said the cost would be about $250,000- $300,000 to reclaim the existing surface with an additional base and paving. This would not allow for any trail or improvements made to drainage, which are two of the goals of the project, Mr. Scanlon, 755 North Femdale Road, asked where the drainage problems exist. He indicated he lives near Edgcview Drive and has never noticed any problems noting the ditches along the way. Kellogg said a sub-surface moisture problem is evident by the condition of the surface. Scanlon noted a road bed problem on Hwy 101. Kellogg said a good base helps but would not enable drainage to flow away from the road. The sub-surface drainage needs to be pulled away from the road. Scanlon noted there were 33 power poles and feeder lines which, would have to be moved in order to accommodate a bike path. He asked who would pay the cost. Jabbour said the City of Plymouth would pay for it. Ron Quanbeck of the City' of Plymouth said if the power comply deems movement of the poles is necessary, they may also contribute to the cost. Kellogg did not know if the poles would have to be moved as it is currently staked at 36'. Scanlon, indicating the boulevard width of 4 ’ and 8' for the bike path, asked what excavation would occur to the east and west for the road bed. Kellogg said it would depend on the existing grades. He indicated a portion of the hill would have to be removed. Scanlon said if the bank was graded, h would cause problems at 755 Femdale with grading occurring near front doors of some homes, especially on the west side. Kellogg said this was preliminary data only and retaining walls were an option. Scanlon indicated problems that arise with maintenance of retaining walls. Kellogg said there should be no problems with walls less than 4' and some terracing would probably be necessary. Bill Westbrook, 139 Chevy Chase, asked what the speed limit would be for the road. Jabbour said the speed limit will be reduced to 30 mph, which usually is the opposite of what occurs when speed limits are questioned. Westbrook felt Alternate #2 was unsafe and is concerned with a wider width promoting speeding on the road. Donna Hanson, 100 Edgeview Drive, Wayzata, said she did not know of any safety issues related to turning traffic in the 15 years .‘^he has lived here. She says she has never stopped for a turning vehicle and drives the road about 10 times a day. She feels safety would be affected by increased speeds if a turn lane was added. Jabbour reported that it is Staffs responsibility to provide all solutions and to pertorm due diligence. 1 - Ml i~i f If I rtli I ’irm flii 'i i ■n~‘ - .. —■~^-injirTnrin*i ri'iMiifiiri-iiii~nll miii i ■ III ■! I til ■!! r II II II 11 Tmn II ■ WIM I ■miri ' n r i il r i rii i r ~ in—t i linrii ■■‘i------T iri rir iir .............. r- ^ - ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 (#1 Femdale Road North Road Improvement - Continued) Jabbour acknowledged the presence of Council Member Chris Morrison from the City of Wayzata. Diane Flatz, 795 Femdale Road N., Orono, asked if there was any history of accidents occurring on Femdale Road. Kellogg said he has no figures available. He said they review the number of vehicles driving the road daily (3500 currently) and look at the number of homes that access off of the road, along with design standards. Flatz felt more traffic would be drawn to the roadway if it was widened. Edwin Phelps, 211 Northgate Road, asked why anything would be done to the road if the history of accidents is unknown. Jabbour informed Phelps that road improvements are being considered because it was requested by the residents. He noted all would agree that the road in its current condition is unacceptable. A member of the audience said the road was unacceptable due to its surface condition. Jim Ogland, 525 Femdale Road North, said he is concerned with safety from increased traffic. He says major trees will be lost affecting both the character and screening of the neighborhood. Ogland is in favor of a narrow roadway. Laura Clapp, 475 North Femdale Road, felt it was an excellent idea to improve the road. She indicated most residents are not interested in a 36' wide road but the majority would like to have a trail. She noted there were many bikers using the road, which is extremely dangerous. Clapp asked what recommendation the Council was making. Jabbour said the Council has not yet determined that, noting the alternates were developed after a recent work session. Gappa confirmed that. Jabbour said the Council was asked to fix the potholes on the road and felt the road could be resurfaced. Staff had indicated the road was deteriorating due to the base conditions and needed to perform a more permanent solution by moving drainage away from the road to prevent heaving. Jabbour said the City of Plymouth has a plan for a trail. Staff came in with a recommendation that Council agrees is over-ambitious and costly. He said saving trees is of major importance to the City. Nancy Berg acknowledged the safety issues on the road indicating the danger in walking along it. Berg said the edge of the road is broken down requiring people to move to the center of the road. She supports the addition of a trail especially in light of the Luce Line being nearby. Berg said she has come close to hitting a pedestrian many times in evening hours. She does not believe the road should be widened, however, feeling it would increase speeds. Drainage was noted to be an important issue. An audience member indicated water ponds in the center of the road on N. Femdale on the north side of Chevy Chase throwing cars over to the side. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 (#1 Femdale Road North Road Improvement - Continued) Peggy Ogland, 525 Femdale, indicated she would not use the trail if it is used by bikers as speeds are too fast, but she would like to see the trail built. Jabbour asked if the trail is an issue for Orono and if any decisions made by Orono would affect the trail. Kellogg said, while Orono may make suggestions regarding the trail, it is a Plymouth decision as they are paying for it. A gentleman in the audience indicated that the road condition has deteriorated from the use by bus traffic and heavy equipment. He said the road is a major arterial road between CoRd 6 and old Hwy 12. He felt a good base is important and felt all of the residents want to see improvements made with no increase in width. Phil Hanson, 100 Edgeview, Wayzata, referenced the resident survey taken of 266 residents. He said only two options were outlined in the survey, 24' versus 36' wide. The survey showed the residents desire a narrow road. Hanson asked if the City has any discretion regarding where the mid point of the road is located. He asked where the mid point is in relation to the right of way and whether it is affected by the trail. Kellogg reported that the road is currently staked for a 36' wide road. The hardcover (including trail and road) is centered based on the center of the right of way resulting in the center being 4' to the west of the right-of-way center due to the trail. This is consistent the first 1000 meters of the road length and then shifts at the top of the hill, where it is reduced 1' (causing a 3' shift to the Plymouth side). This shift is due to tree preservation and topography issues. Kellogg said minor changes can be made. Jabbour asked where the boundary point between the two cities is located. The center line as it lays today (mid-point of the 66' right of way) is the boundary. Hanson asked if the width of the boulevard is set at 4'. Kellogg said it was not noting the width came from Plymouth staff and looked at as a minimum. Hanson asked if consideration has been given to reducing the 4' width. Kellogg said it can be considered. Cook indicated he spoke with Plymouth staff regarding a road shift. He indicated a lineal alignment could occur. Jabbour reported that the project is estimated at $1.5 million dollars; Orono's portion at about $750,000. Orono will be borrowing future funds from the MSA funding, which the City receives $255,000 a year. He reported that in order to qualify for the state aid, the road must be built to minimum standards (28' width). The City then needs to decide what is done within that 28' width, along with the trail needs. If a narrower road width was decided upon to be built without State aid funds, it would require an assessment to the residents. North Femdale Road qualifies for MSA funding as it is a city road located between two county roads. He noted that resurfacing the road only can be discussed as well. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 (#1 Femdale Road North Road Improvement - Continued) Flatz, 795 Femdale Road N., asked how the conceptual changes were developed from the 28' width. Kellogg said the changes begin at the center of the right-of-way and reviewed in its current configuration with the need to align with the bridge and CoRd 6. The 4’ offset was determined, staked, and adjustments are then made. Phelps asked if there were maps existing showing North Femdale between Hwy 12 and 6th Avenue North that would show the old and new configurations. Kellogg said the preliminary maps show the old and new on the drawings in an overlay fashion. Jabbour noted that the drawings are based on Alternate #1. Jim Ogland asked if the trail was eliminated, whether the road would be skewed back to center. Kellogg said that would be considered. Ogland asked where the storm sewer was located. Kellogg said it is located throughout the road on both sides. Catch basins are located in low points with drainage running to the Plymouth side. Donna Hanson asked how much additional land would be disturbed from building the road. Kellogg said the construction limits are based op a 36' wide road. Actual determinations would be made once an agreement is made on what option is followed. \Miile the dismption is generally within the right-of-way, indications are further disruptions will be made outside the right-of-way in same areas. Kellogg said the plans do not show retaining w'alls but there are plans to include such walls which will reduce the amount of dismption. Jabbour was informed that a worst case scenario for disruption with no retaining walls would be an additional 25-30’ beyond the 66' right-of-way of the 36 ’ width roadway and dependent on elevations and topography. Ann Caswell, 120 Chevy Chase, Orono, said she has lived here 25 years. She reported that the bus traffic is hard on the road. She feels a trail is necessary but does not want a wider road. Bill Westbrook asked about long term maintenance. He was informed that a larger share of the road portion is to the Orono side but maintenance will be requested at a 50/50 split between the cities with trail maintenance by Plymouth. Jabbour said the road should last 20 years if built correctly. Mr. Winthrop, 125 Chevy Chase, asked what affect would occur to the grade where Chevy Chase mns uphill from Femdale. Kellogg said the plans calls to match in with existing grade within the right-of-way. A cut would be made and restoration performed with some raising and lowering of the road in areas. Kellogg said the entry at Chev>’ Chase would match into existing streets and may affect 30' into Chevy Chase. Winthrop reported that the existing grade is dangerous in the winter months. He was informed that a road section would be presented for residents to review. ^ . ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 (#\ Femdale Road North Road Improvement - Continued) Lee Fredrickson, 245 North Femdale, asked how far the path would extend to the south. Kellogg said the trail would extend to the Luce Line and CoRd 6. Fredrickson said he would like to see the trail go to Wayzata Boulevard. Jabbour suggested he take the matter up with the Wayzata City Council. Phil Hanson asked about drainage on Edgeview Drive South to the Luce Line. He questioned whether the drainage would increase with the Luce Line being a barrier. Kellogg said the drainage would not increase. Hardcover would increase which would affect runoff slightly. There will be a manhole structure with piping leading water away from the area. Kellogg said he has received a memo from the DNR about drainage problems in the area, which will be reviewed. A possible culvert may be erected under the Luce Line during construction. The basins will catch mnoff from the streets but distribution of the drainage will remain about the same. Chloe Ackman, Northgate Road, asked why bikes and people are shown on two sides of the road in the drawings. Kellogg said the drawings are based on information provided by the City of Plymouth. There will be a bike/pedestrian trail but experienced bikers will likely use the road. Bikes are shown riding on the street for illustration purposes only. Ackman asked why the stakes aren't at 28'. Kellogg said the 36' is the proposed design from the face of the curb to the face of the curb, and staking is from back of curb for informing the residents where it may fall. Once the Council makes a determination on the width, the stakes can be changed. Jabbour asked if it was reasonable to assume that the center line would be in the middle of the right-of-way if the road is reduced 8' to 28'. Kellogg said he would have to review tree locations and cuts. He said the distance may be closer in areas to the middle of the right-of-way. If the trail was eliminated, the road would move closer to the Plymouth side. Jabbour said the trail itself is not skewing the road. Kellogg said that is correct as the alignment is at the center of the right-of-way. Flint indicated that the previous public hearing held during the summer mentioned burying power lines. He noted this was not being addressed and asked if it was feasible. Kellogg said there would pe a cost involved. Flint suggested following up on this idea. If the utility company wants their lines buried, they would share a burden of the cost; otherwise, the city would have to pay for such an expense. Gappa reported that higher voltage lines cannot be buried. He felt burying lines would be cost prohibitive. Jabbour reported that the gauge size would also have to increase. Jabbour asked that the cost of burying the lines be provided. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 (#1 Femdale Road North Road Improvement - Continued) Nancy Berg asked about funding for a road less than 28' in width. Jabbour said a narrower road would have to be assessed. He also reported that the two cities have to agree on the road design. Oappa noted that the new annual budget allows only $100,000 ° Jabbour indicated there is the option of repaving only at a cost of $200,000-$300,000. A gentleman in the audience asked how long the road construction would take. Kellogg said the construction would take about two months depending on weather conditions. Donna Hanson asked if there was a reason why the staking stopped on the east side of the L ice Line She indicated the toad is not staked in front of her home. Kellogg noted that between Hwy 12 and the Luce Line, the road is offset to the Orono side with the east edge pulled inward. There are paints marks along the roadway indicating the proposed road location but recent snowfall has covered it. Chloe Aekman was informed that MSA criteria would be used for building the toad at a 28’ width. Flint indicated that repaving the toad does not qualify for MSA funding. Goetten said discussions have been held for many years regarding road r Femdale. She feels it should he reconstrueted and a narrower width considered. She would 1 the road work to be done correctly and last for a longer time penod. Residents informed her of the need for a bike path. She is not in favor of the 36' width. Goetten feels quesuons needs to be addressed with the City of Plymouth. Peterson noted that the speed limit is proposed to be reduced from 40 mph to 30 mph. The citizen survey reflected a 35 mph speed. Kellogg said a 35 mph speedy discussed at th design meeting but due to the design of the road, the speed will be at 30 mph, regardless of th road width. Flint said he agreed with eliminating the 36 ’ wide possibility. He indicated, between “28' and S' width, a concern for increased traffic with a 32' wide road However he is concerned iHhe road is built at 28', the road may be inadequate. Kellogg indicated, based on co^ents rew«^^ with bikers using the toad, the 32' width would accomplish the needs ■ ■ asked why the road would be used for bikers and joggers if the trail was built. Kellogg said based off of the comments received. Goetten said she assumed a 28' wide road would eliminate the path. Gappa «id there wo^d be two P’ wide lanes with 4* on the outside of the road for bikers due to the P^k Commission members indicating that high speed bikers would not use the trail. The would o^ be placed on one side of the road. Flint indicated that bike trails are generally 8 wide The proposal would include a 4’ lane on the road for fast bicyclists and an 8 off-road trail. 8 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 (#1 Femdale Road North Road Improvement - Continued) Question was asked why a 30’ road was not being considered. Platz noted that the road is currently 24'. Jabbour said that road width is without the traveled shoulder. The shoulder will become blacktopped. Ogland noted the use of the road by bike clubs and buses traveling at a fast speed. Domia Hanson asked if the fast bicyclists use the 4' shoulder on the road, whether the trail could be less than 8' wide. Flint indicated that all trails should be at least 8' wide in order to pass going uve directions. He noted that Hennepin Parks recommends 10' widths. It was also noted that a b-.^levard less than 4' wide would make it difficult for grass to grow. A large swath of asphalt would be dangerous for children if they veered towards the road. Jabbour said it would also be difficult to maintain a narrower path with the equipment used. The matter of the trail will be considered by the City of Plymouth. Mike Kelly, 233 Northgate Road, asked if there would be another public forum to receive public comments before final Council recommendation and financing is made. Jabbour said it is Council's policy that meetings are informal and open to the public for their comments. He noted the need to have a good understanding before further drawings are made of the design. Jabbour said drawings will not be committed to without a decision made on the road. Kelly noted there were other options between the 28' and 36' widths. Jabbour said the CouTvil needs to hear the opinion of the City of Plymouth. He said an assumption also has to be made that not everyone will be satisfied with the design and easements may be difficult to obtain. Phelps asked how long it will be until the working drawings are made. Kellogg said the time is drawing closer. The design has to be determined and time allowed for the State to review the plans. The plans were scheduled for review in January with working drawings by March and start of construction at the end of May or early June. Changes would affect this time schedule. Peter Welles informed residents that North Brown Road is at a 28 ’ width with a separated trail. He suggested people review that road. Jabbour said the Councils will be making decisions and working with engineering of one proposal. Hanson was informed that the City of Plymouth has not yet scheduled a public hearing. Jabbour asked Ron Quanbeck of Plymouth about assessing properties. Quanbeck said properties with direct access to the road would be assessed. Jabbour asked City staff to review that procedure. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 (#1 Femdale Road North Road Improvement - Continued) Jabbour closed the public hearing. Jabbour asked for information on the cost of repaving and the life term of such maintenance. Goetten asked for information on accidents. Moorse said the City's records for the past year show no accidents on this section of Femdale, except at the intersection of Femdale Road and County Road 6. Gappa has ordered accident reports from the State. Jabbour asked that information be provided on both the 28' and 32' wide road designs and repaving the existing road with constmctions costs at the next Council meeting. Jabbour asked Quanbeck to brief the City of Plymouth on the information provided at this meeting. Moorse asked about installing the bike path at the same time as road construction. Jabbour noted a reclaimed/resurfaced road would have a 10 year life. Cook noted the cost would be without the bike path. Jabbour indicated that Orono was not considering a path. Flint agreed. Welles said the bike trails were being revised but did not believe such a path was included. Gappa said the assumption was made that the bike trail would be on the Plymouth side of the road. Goetten indicated that people were not asking for it but would hope it would be considered if the road was upgraded. Flint said it would be expensive to build on the Orono side with the need for drainage ditches and going onto private property or by the use of curb and gutter. Jabbour asked if the asphalt can be expanded and striped. He was informed that it was possible but would be difficult. Jabbour asked that costs be developed for this possibility. Welles noted that it might not meet standards. Jabbour noted the need to keep all of tlie costs and improvements in perspective to the City budget. Gappa indicated that the traffic usage also needs to be considered. He feels this road is a logical place to use State aid. Gappa said Femdale Road is one of the city's higher traveled roadways. Jabbour asked that Staff identify all State aid roads. He also asked for ar; accounting of aid with the improvements to CoRd 6 and CoRd 15. Gappa indicated that CoRd 6 was budgeted for $600,000. With Femdale Road, the budget would be at $30,000 to the negative. Moorse noted that this is assuming that the City is borrowing $500,000 from that fund and paying it back over two years. Jabbour said that results in the actual accounting of being $530,000 to the negative. (A ten minute recess was held.) J r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 (*#2) CONSENT AGENDA Items #7 and 8 were added to the Consent Agenda. Item #18 was removed. Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (*#3) REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,1997 Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting ofDecember 8,1997. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#4) SPECIAL MEETING OF JANUARY 6,1998 Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of January 6,1998. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS Peter Welles reported that the Park Commission is near to completing their work on the 5 and 10 year capital improvement plans for presentation to Council. The open space plan and bike route plan are in final revision stage. The open space plan is focusing on buffering zones and open space. The bike trail plan is identifying corridors and linkage with trails in other communities and separated into three categories: 1) separated trails, 2) bike routes for consideration if roads are improved in the future, and 3) popular biking corridors, such as Fox Street. This category contains roads which carry heavy bike traffic and are being considered for signage and speed limitations. Welles reported that plans are being developed for the golf course winter activities to include a future ice rink in addition to sledding. The Commission is considering the possibility of either enlarging the northern pond by flooding it during the winter. They are analyzing the possibility of turf damage. Another consideration is adding a small addition to the pump house and lighting. Goetten asked if cross country skiing has been discontinued at the golf course. Welles said it has due to people walking on the trails. He noted that the DNR has discontinued their grooming of the Luce Line. Flint noted the skiing activity at the golf course was discontinued due to the volunteers deciding they did not want to continue organizing the activity. Jabbour asked if consideration has been given to using Lake Minnetonka for cross country skiing. Welles noted that Long Lake has been utilized for skiing. r n .11' I a r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 (Park Commission Comments - Continued) Welles asked the Council to consider a replacement for David Beal as soon as possible. Jabbour reported that past applicants are being considered. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Sandra Smith had no comments at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no pubjic comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT (#5) Wins TED AND MYRNA WOLF, 900 WILLOW DRIVE NORTH - CLASS II FINAL SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION NO. 4017 The applicant was represented by Mike Hilbelink. Dressier reported that the applicant proposes the division of the parcel into two lots, front and back, with access to the back lot provided via an outlot. The developer has met the requirements for final plat approval as stated in the approved resolution for preliminary plat approval. A concern relates to a bike trail along the east side of Willow Drive in the Shadowood Subdivision to the north. An agreement was made in 1990 for a trail within the 10’ utility easement abutting Willow Drive and Sixth Avenue North of that subdivision. Dressier noted that the park dedication fee has been paid. Jabbour noted that the resolution does not reflect a trail. Flint said the issue was being raised whether consideration should be given to continuing the trail on the Wolf property. Barrett was informed by Dressier that the utility easement is in place on the Wolf property but an agreement would be required for the bike trail. Jabbour asked if the owner would be asked to construct the bike path within the utility easement. He was informed by Dressier that this would be the case. Mike Hilbelink said this was the first occasion where he has heard of this issue. He indicated the property owner was out of town. He questioned whether the City has compensated for such trails in the past. Flint informed him that in some cases that has occurred but in others, it has not, such as Shadowood, where many concessions were made. r jgj J A t ir ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 ih (#5 - #2275 Ted and Myma Wolf - Continued) Jabbour said he felt the City should pay for such an easement through credit of the park dedication fee or direct payment. Jabbour said the question was one of value of that property; if the utility easement exists and no additional requirements are necessary and the land is already designated for an easement, does it add any more value to enable this use to occur. Jabbour said the applicant needs to place a value on it and the City determine whether or not they agree with the value. Jabbour asked whether the City desires a trail in this location. Flint said the trail was part of the over-all trail plan for Willow Road. He believed it makes sense to continue the trail across the Wolf property once a value has been determined. Goetten informed Flint that while she appreciated his comments, she questioned why this issue was only being brought forward now. Jabbour also questioned whether a delay would add hardship to the applicant. Hilbelink indicated there is a financial concern for the applicant. Jabbour asked Barrett whether the resolution can move forward without this issue resolved. Barrett said he did not believe so. He felt the park dedication needs to be determined and questioned the time period of the application. He felt there was adequate time where the application could be tabled for two weeks in order that the park dedication could be determined and issue of an easement resolved. Moorse noted the indecision regarding the trail on Willow noting the land on the west side has not yet been developed. He indicated that the trail should extend to CoRd 6, and past plans have located the trail on the west side of Willow Drive. This would enable trail users to access the school from the trail system. A trail on the west side could be obtained when the property is platted. He questioned whether there was a need for a trail on both sides of the road. Flint reported that the restrictions on the use of the utility easement of Shadowood was dependent on the trail making a connection in the trail system. He questioned whether this would be accomplished if the trail was moved to the west side. Cook noted that south of this area is the wooded area of the Dickey Lake property, where there would be problems with the trail continuing on the east side. Goetten indicated there was also established commercial and residential properties on the east side. She felt it would be easier and to the City s advantage to continue the trail on the west side and obtain easements when the property is developed. r- 1 ! ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR lANUARY 12,1998 (#5 - #2275 Ted and Myma Wolf - Continued) Flint questioned whether the City would qualify for use of the utility easement without making the connection on the same side of the road. Barrett reviewed the easement agreement requirements. Moorse questioned whether the easement would be voided if the trail goes along CoRd 6. Peter Welles said the Park Commission’s position is one of continuing a trail on Willow Drive. The side of the road, however, has not been designated. The trail is also consistent with the Medina trail, which is also undesignated. Flint felt the language of the agreement does not stipulate the trail must continue on the east side, but he felt since the easement has been obtained on that side, it should continue. Gaffron questioned whether the trail was contiguous noting two lots owned by Mr. Cox separates the Shadowood Development from the Wolf property. Flint said it is typical to obtain land for trail in pieces and did not see this to be an issue. Jabbour said this situation emphasizes the need for thorough planning. He asked which side was best suited for the trail. Cook indicated the utility poles run on the west side. He added that the trail was designed for the west side of Willow when consideration was given to the issue five years ago. He noted that additional right-of-way would probably be required in order to place the trail to the back of the ditches. Moorse felt trail users would be headed to the west to the school or Baker Park making sense for the trail to be on the west side. Welles indicated that he believed the Park Commission’s preference is also for the west side. Jabbour asked about the use of the frontage road and crossing over it (Kelley Parkway). Moorse said when the property located on the comer of Willow and Hwy 12 was developed, the City would want a trail to CoRd 6 or Kelley Parkway. Jabbour asked Flint if he wanted to pursue the trail on the east side for this application. Flint said no. Peterson said the matter of park dedication fee was an issue. She questioned whether the City was being consistent or fair to the applicant noting the use of maximum fees in other cases. Moorse indicated the fee is based on the number of new lots and the ordinance stipulates 8% of the assessed market value. Jabbour informed Hilbelink of the issues involved noting the Council wants to ensure that the applicant is receiving the benefits of the guidelines established. The park dedication fee paid was $7,600. r .d<n Atk'r .k.-\ -j I r' IW KVKI'I r ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 (#5 - #2275 Ted and Myma Wolf - Continued) Gaffron indicated the park dedication fee is a two-part process, derived from the fair market value of the new lot as determined by the assessor, and the park fee is established as 8% of this value. An existing lot with an existing house is excluded. If no house exists, then the fee pertains to all lots. The value is on a pre-development basis. The question arose of whether there is a cap to the amount. Goetten voiced her feeling that the questions arising from park dedication should be resolved and the ordinance changed if changes are necessary. Goetten said her position, until the ordinance is officially changed, is to vote against applications where park dedication is an issue. Jabbour said the Council needs to operate as determined by the guidelines set and negotiate with the applicants until the ordinance changes have been made. Barrett said the current ordinance is satisfactory as long as an individual decision is made on the impact of rough proportionality. The flat 8% fee does not allow for this to occur resulting in the need to individually discuss each application. The guidelines need to be set with the land variations within the City and a cap established. Jabbour said he is satisfied with the City's proposed cap based on the information provided by Staff, discussions, and what has occurred in other applications. He feels the City's position can be justified. However, Jabbour said he does not wish to place an applicant in a hardship position. The lower amount should be agreed to or the applicant revisited regarding the amount of park dedication. Goetten said she would like the Council to make a decision as it would be unfair to the applicant to delay the application further and reflect on the Council's integrity. Jabbour acknowledged that the issue must be addressed in order for the Council to work as a team. Jabbour asked if the resolution can be passed and the park dedication fee amended. Barrett said the problem with that is the plat will have been filed creating difficulty in amending the park dedication fee. He suggested the park dedication fee could be placed in escrow with the final amount to be determined in the future. Goetten felt that would not be acceptable to her. Flint said, while waiting for the re-drafting of the ordinance, determination has been made as called for by the legislature, and the Council should apply the maximum. The lot's impact on the park system has been determined and would be satisfactory but Flint said he is unaware of wiiat is the maximum amount. 1 t\ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 (#5 - #2275 Ted and Myma Wolf - Continued) Jabbour explained that the CUy had to make a determination of what will occur when the City is fully developed and how this should apply to applications. It was determined that there were about 700 lots yet undevelo»/ed resulting in a impact cost to parks of $4,900 a lot based on today's money. Determination still is required to base the fee off of future dollars. The 8% fee would have to be based on an average lot size which is difficult due to the differences in land found in Orono. Peterson concurred with the use of the fee as outlined. Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4017 with the reduction in park dedication fee to $4,900 based on the study of park dedication. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 1, Goetten. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Jabbour reported receiving negative comments regarding the service provided by Triax Cable Company. Residents have indicated the company is not responding to problems and are behind in providing services. Jabbour asked that this be considered when the contract is renegotiated. He felt the problems should be discussed with the cable commission. Jabbour said Mr. Pesak, an Orono resident, has volunteered to assist in negotiating the franchise renewal with Triax. Jabbour reported that he is attempting to gain an understanding with the MCWD regarding the objectives of the City. He would like to see discussions held regarding the City's Comprehensive Plan, and specifically, the 5-acre dry buildable, and the impact on the Watershed if the criteria is not upheld. Goetten referenced the letter received from Carl Johnson regarding the new building on North Shore Drive. Moorse clarified what property was being discussed. The design includes a steep roof that is different from what the neighbors had expected. The sur\'eyor also made a mistake resulting in the residence being placed farther back from the lakeshore than what was approved. However, due to the lagoon, the setbacks are reduced from what was envisioned. Moorse said he will respond to Mr. Johnson informing him of the chronology of the application. Jabbour said he spoke with Mrs. Johnson and informed her that the residence met the height standards. He suggested the City consider an average height standard. Jabbour said, while the house may be over-ambitious for the lot, the Planning Commission had to make a choice between more hardcover or the height of the residence. He indicated the neighbor was at the first meeting where the application was discussed but did not attend any further meetings where it was discussed. ‘ k « . A ■n> inf r> -w - nrr-■ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 (Mayor/Council Report - Continued) Flint informed the Council of a conversation he had with a resident regarding the need to maintain better communication with the City of Medina, who shares a boundary with the City of Orono. Flint said the point was well taken of this need to extend communications with Medina as has taken place with other surrounding communities, such as Long Lake. Jabbour indicated that prior mayors have worked with the City of Medina's mayor in the past. Jabbour noted that relationships with other communities have been based on services provided, and discussions have been held with Medina regarding police protection. Flint noted that the Park Commission is also working with Medina. ENGINEER REPORT (#6) EDGEWOOD HILLS SANITARY SEWER PROJECT - ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ORDERING PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 4018 Gappa reported that the residents of Edgewood Hills Neighborhood have petitioned for sanitary sewer. The feasibility study has been completed. The neighbors are in agreement with a 100% assessment project. A public hearing was suggested to be scheduled for February 9 at 7:00 p.m. Peterson asked if the problems would arise with the project due to the County Road 15 project. Gappa replied to the negative noting that directional boring would take place. Jabbour extended his appreciation of Staff for the manner in which work has proceeded on sewer projects. Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4018 accepting the feasibility study for the Edgewood Hills sanitary sewer project and schedule a public hearing for 7:00 p.m, Monday, February 9,1998. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#7) REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 1 - COUNTY ROAD 6 IMPROVEMENT Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the Request for Payment No. 1 of $110,319.37 to Hennepin County for the County Road 6 reconstruction project. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. **^***~- * ■*• -vtnr BAfkv-hwii——tstli.O^f r r.nr . . ■■ r>—■—.wb>..i-'t‘ r-.. ft r ‘' ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (*#8) OPEN BURNING POLICY REVISIONS AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ORDINANCE NO. 167,2ND SERIES Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the proposed revisions to the City of Orono Open Burning Requirements per Ordinance No. 167,2nd Series, An Ordinance Regulating Open Burning within the City of Orono. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#9) PROMOTION OF LIN VEE TO CITY CLERK Moorse indicated items #9, #10, and #10a related to the upcoming retirement of City Clerk Dorothy Hallin. He informed the Council that the promotions have been accepted by the respective employees. Flint moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the promotion of Lin Vee to the position of City Clerk, and to increase her pay to Step 4 of Level 7, effective January 20, 1998. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Goetten noted that it is a pleasure to promote internally. (#10) APPOINTMENT OF CAROLE HASEMAN TO DEPUTY CLERK Flint moved, Goetten seconded, to appoint Carole Haseman to the position of Secretary/Deputy Clerkeffective January 20, 1998. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Flint indicated he has worked with Carole as past Chair of the Park Commission and reported that she has done an excellent job. v#10a) APPOINTMENT TO FULL TIME SECRETARY POSITION Flint moved, Goetten seconded, to appoint Jamie Gemar to the full time Secretary position at Step 3 of pay Level 4 effective January 20, 1998. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#11) APPOINTMENT TO ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR/MIS COORDINATOR POSITION Moorse recommended that Ron Olson, Management Analyst/Accountant be appointed to the Assistant Finance Director/MIS Coordinator position. Olson, who has performed exceptionally well in his current position, has successfully taken on a number of Assistant Finance Director duties since the position was vacated. Staff believes the City will benefit most from Ron's range of skills and abilities if he is in the Assistant Finance Director position. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 (9 ■: 1 (#11 Assi:>'ant Finance Director/MIS Co vdinator Position Appointment - Continued) The Management Analyst/Accountant position is being reconfigured. Staff is recommending returning to the Utility Billing/Payroll Specialist position to better meet the needs of the Finance Department. This position will be filled as soon as possible. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the appointment of Ron Olson to the position of Assistant Finance Director/MIS Coordinator effective Januar>' 13,1998. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#12) 1998 WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE BID AWARD Moorse indicated that the bid award is for workers compensation insurance, the cost of which is being reduced once again. The reduction is due to the favorable experience rating of the City and the decrease in the base rate for most job classifications from 1997. Peterson asked about the verbiage, "resulting in net initial premium", and what the actual amount will be. Moorse said the final amount may be less than indicated, which is the current premium being paid, but the amount of any adjustment is unknown at this time. Peterson moved, Flint seconded, to approve the 1998 Application for Coverage under the LMCIT Self-Insured Worker's Compensation Plan and award of the 1998 worker compensation insurance to the LMCIT for the initial net premium of $26,441, effective January 1,1998. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#13) ESTABLISH COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS A work session was scheduled for Thursday, January 22, at 8:00 a.m. Additional work sessions will be scheduled. Jabbour asked that the session be directed towards the update of the Comprehensive Plan, Shoreland Ordinance, and Transportation, to enable an overview of subjects for Council input. He asked that consideration also be given to rezoning to commercial property located between the proposed old and new Highway 12 corridors. Goetten asked that the work session include discussion on park dedication and Highway 12 design. She suggested Ed Callahan attend the meeting. (#14) ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS - RESOLUTION NO. 4019 Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4019 designating selected appointments for the year 1998. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Jabbour noted that the appointments exclude naming the chairs of the Planning and Park Commission, which change yearly. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 (#15) SELECTION OF DATE FOR 1998 LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to establish April-22, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time for the 1998 Local Board of Review meeting. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#16) 1998 FEE SCHEDULE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ORDINANCE NO. 168,2ND SERIES Moorse indicated that the amendment reflects the change in land alteration requirements. Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to approve the proposed amendment to the 1998 Fee Schedule per Ordinance No. 168, 2nd Series. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#17) SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERRAL RENEWAL - REAPPLICATION FROM STUBBS BAY SANITARY SEWER PROJECT - RESOLUTION NO. 4020 Moorse indicated that deferrals require review every five years. Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4020 approving the reapplication of special assessment deferment for Rose Madden. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Barrett had no report. (#18) LICENSES Mayor Jabbour abstained from voting. Goetten noted the reason being the relationship between the mayor and one of the applicants. Flint moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the following licenses: Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Special Event Permit: Residential Kennel Licenses: Piller Homes Steve Bohl Spring Parade of Homes February 28-March 22, 1998 at 480 Old Long Lake Road Colleen Jabbour 985 Tonkawa Road 1. Jacobs 1700 Shoreline Drive ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 12,1998 (#18 Licenses - Continued) Willi Hoyer and H. Zohara 565 Hanlon Avenue Greg and Nancy Truchinski 1580 Fox Street (*#19) BILLS Peterson moved, Goetten seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Jabbour informed the Council that he has been working with the Orono School District School Board regarding school needs. Consideration is being given for mediation and a citizen's jury for recommendations to the board. He noted the Park Commission will be hearing information from a group wanting a community center in the City. Goetten favored the individual group for discussing these needs and asked for further information. Jabbour informed the Council of an information meeting scheduled for January 27. Participation is being sought from Orono residents. Jabbour adjourned the meeting at 10:01 p.m. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk I * ) lESSr*^- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: January 23,1998 Item No.: 3 Department Approval: Adminbtrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description; #2295 Conley Brooks, 980 West Femdale Road - Variance - Request That Council Reconsider Resolution No. 3977 Application:Applicant requests that Council reconsider the limited garage approval granted on October 13. List of Exhibits A - Letter of Request B - Survey / sketch of revised proposal C - Letter from neighboring property owner D - Letter from builder E - Garage storage layout F - Council minutes 10/13/97 G - Planning Commission minutes 9/15/97 H - Resolution #3977 JAN 2 f rr\*• J9$s cnvcF ORono Summary of Request On October 13, Council approved variances to allow a 12 ’ x 15' garage within the defined front or street y^d, meeting the 26' wetland setback but with a 7 ’ street setback. The original request was for a 24' x 24' garage; Planning Commission had reduced it to 18' x 24'. Applicant now proposes a 16 ’ x 22 ’ garage located 1 ’ from the west side lot line, a 5’ street setback, and located 29' from the wetland. The basis for the request is that the 12 ’ x 15' garage is too small to hold the items needing storage, and is uneconomical to build. Procedure The City Attorney has advised that the Council's authority to reconsider comes from Robert's Rules of Order. He will further advise on this Monday night if necessary. In general, only a Council member who voted in the majority may move to reconsider, and a 2/3 vote (i.e. 4 of 5) is required for reconsideration to occur. CoxLEY Brooks, OTr. 980 WEST TERNOAUE ROAD •WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55301 December 23, 1997 “received ‘ DEC 3 0 1997 CITY OH OROl^o Orono City Council . ^ c/o Mr. Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Application No. 2295 Dear Council Members: This letter is a request for reconsideration of the action taken by the Council on the above-referenced Application at its meeting of October 13^ 1997. In that meeting, the Council approved the construction of a storage building at 980 West Ferndale Road, qualified by various setback variances and limitations on the dimensions of the new building. I am seeking Council approval of three modifications to the decisions made at the October 13 meeting: • Approval of a side setback variance to allow the ^ northwest corner of the new structure to come within one foot of the west property line (see attached Exhibit A for a diagram of the new proposed placement of the building on the lot). I did not originally request a side setback variance because it did not then seem to be necessary; in light or the Council’s discussion, movement of the building to the west should achieve better placement with regard to nearby wetlands and allow the building dimensions to e larger (as described below). The property to the immediate west of this site is woods; there are no structures of any kind nearby. The owners of the adjoining property at 1070 West Ferndale have no objection to the proposed setback variance or to the proposed structure (see attached Exhibit B). The other adjoining property owners both made comments of approval of the original proposal at the October 13 Council meeting. r Atpprcval of building dimensions of 16* x 22*. My original proposal was for a 24' x 24' structure; the Planning Commission approved an 18' x 24' structure; and the Council approved a 12' x 15' structure. The size which was finally approved is too small to serve the intended purpose, and is uneconomical to build (see attached Exhibit C, a letter from my contractor). A diagram of the intended use to which this storage building would be put is included as Exhibit D. The items indicated are almost all things which I presently have, or will have by next summer; currently, I have no good place to put them. The 16' x 22' dimensions of the structure will be just adequate in terms of practical storage capacity. Though it is still quite a bit smaller than that originally proposed, a 16' x 22' building will work as a compromise between what the Planning Commission approved and what the Council approved. With the side setback variance requested above, it also fits well on the site and should accommodate the wetlands setback which the Council required. Approval of a setback from the road right-of-way of five feet. At its October 13 meeting, the Council approved a seven foot setback from the right-of-way, instead of the requested one foot. Modifying this setback to five feet will allow the structure to be more comfortably distant from the wetlands. Also, note that this portion of West Ferndale Road has a very wide right-of-way (33' from center), and that for most of the length of the road in this area, trees, fences, or other vegetation come almost up to the roadway itself. I would intend to plant trees or other vegetative screening to visually separate the new structure from the road. All of the other reasons cited in my original application in support of this storage structure remain pertinent. This is the only structure to be built on the former Skarp property, which only a year ago had on it a house and a 19.5' x 24.5' garage, both of which have now been removed. I hereby respectfully request that the above modifications to the Council's original action be approved. Sincerely, Conley Brooks, Jr. St«4a4 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FORCONLEY BROOKS JR.LOT 5. NORTH SHORE COTTAGE ACRES HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA V(Hi6rTA Priori'S: / tNcM - ^0 n = ppcpostb hfevJ 6'roRfirjS srauc^vR^i 16' X 22' : S' Of 1' FRi)^ fRorefty Uml AT AIU/ OF U)7 \ << \ j \ r,'.'n \ \, Aj. V, >K OQ o ' 1^0^ ^0* /y\ \ \ \ \o /'“O \ \ ■\/. ••S. / / / 9r7y 0yHiBn vB C ,VCfJ'.V35;..... .... j Investment Management & Trust jj <j.j Dscenber 22, 1997 Norwest Bant Minnesota, N.A. Norwest Center SixtK and Marquette Minneapolis, Minnesota 55479 612/667-6851 Orono city Council ^ c/o Mr. Michael P. Gatfron, Senior Planning Coordinator 2750 Kelley Parkway p.o. Box 66 Crystal Bay« MN 55323 Re: Application No. 2295 Dear Council Menbers: As Trustee of the U)\joRv{ (name of the Trust for the benefit of Mrs. LoWTy), the owner of the 1 1 property at 1070 West Femdale Road, we are writing with regard to the application by Conley Brooks, Jr. to construct a storage building on his property adjoining ours. It is our understanding that Mr. Brooks wishes to construct a 16* X 22* storage building on his property (part of Lot 5, North Shore cottage Acres), and that he is requesting a side set-back variance to allow the structure to come within one foot of the property line, as shown on the attached diagram. Please be advised that the Trust has no objections to these plans, or to the proposed side set-back variance. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely yours. ^ W5- Vi Gi r SxW\i>\T C.'h AHS AL HIRSCH & SONS INC. Box 633 • Delano. MN • 55328 (612)972*2716 GENERAL CONTRACTOR & CUSTOM BUILOER/REMODELER December 22, 1997 Mr. Conley Brooks, Jr. 980 West Ferndale Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Mr. Brooks: Last summer we prepared for you some plans for a 24' x 24' storage building to be built on your property at 900 West Ferndale Road. We estimated the cost of this structure at about $20,000.00, or approximately $35 per square foot. You have subsequently advised us that the Orono City Council approved a structure measuring 12' x 15'. In our opinion, a building of this size would not cost appreciably less than that originally proposed. With an area of only 180 square feet, it is likely that this structure would cost in excess of $100 per square foot. We have expressed to you that, in our opinion, this smaller structure would not be economically viable to build. We can do it, of course, but from a cost standpoint, you would be paying very dearly for a very small space. ^ Please advise as to what you would like to do. Sincerely yours. df A1 Hlrsch & Sons, Inc. ■Mil' S/irtPte wtwTE(? 3TD/?/ie.e ii)' V STOfif^^f= STfiO<!^TU^fz CCHL^y JJ/^OOKS^CT/?. /fe' SCAi^: / - ih feer wokk66nc.H I^(l{^ : 3^^ X lY (.sro A/i^^e '**) |SKi?| K a ^AK - 6^/ 5»/>e 1 Seo: 7 ii.6> - <?>£a ; g£0 !. •A' X 2r' ‘4i Ck % V 1 . 52 cl >• c A mM Mo>»£f! /)ND TAflftlTfe f ^2 J) Pa RVR^- 0^ iX€f^S To STQReJ> -MW/sJ Aiowrtfs *6Aijsn curreA. -2 (JTiUT/ ’TlfAiL£k<t -Pi»»< /^wo tAA>L€K^ ' /(A/A\' - PA7/0 ffS»Mi^nPf. - ii)M6i(f -UiO/ti - SM5 - uffjACketS - (iA-5 <.V»A/J‘ - ;?.0Ac5 /^*J5 OT//€P SvATfAJ^ - Z-lKf:5.'AT - lyrotrAOB <‘fiA7BS (f^cT 5W«/a /) - T00t.i i4(c£ y»W/v^' <3r ^iOofirAOi// \ .^7Cr'S.A4irr>Y**v n^-nr^uf->f^«tn«T^i nr,-nn -tunr r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#7 - #2288 Jason Theis - Continued) Council and Staff discussed what setback area the recommendation for hardcover variance under #1 referred to. It was determined that the first 40' of the lot was in the 75-250' setback and the remainder in the 250-500' setback. The applicant may not need the side setback as requested. Theis noted that the property slopes to the rear which allows drainage to flow away from the lake. Jabbour informed Theis that the Council was in favor of the application but wanted to ensure the language in the resolution was correct and other issues are resolved. The applicant will need to work with Staff to verify hardcover calculations on an accurate survey. Theis said he would like to begin construction this fall. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to direct Staff to bring a revised resolution with appropriate language and corrections to the Council for approval. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#8) #2291 STEVEN SIGEL, 1399 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 3976 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3976. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#9) #2295 CONLEY BROOKS, JR., 980 WEST FERNDALE ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTIONS NO. 3977 AND 3978 Conley Brooks, Jr., and Attorney, Bob Mitchell, were present. Gaffron reported the application is a two-part request. One is for street and wetland setback variances for construction of a garage to replace an existing garage in poor condition located in Parcel H. The garage construction also requires a variance for an accessory structure located nearer to the street line than the house. The second part of the application is for variances and permit for reconstruction of a fence within the right- of-way and less than 75' from lake located between the paved road and the property line. Staff recommends if garage is approved, the lots be legally combined. Gaffron noted there is court action pending regarding ownership of 20' lakeshore parcel at the east end of Parcel F. Gaffron said the existing garage is located 2.8' within the right-of-way and new garage proposed 1' from the lot line. It would meet the 10' side setback and 20' from the wetland, where 26' separation is required. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed garage and voted 6;1 for approval of a street setback variance with location closer to street than house. They recommended the garage to be within a 18x24' F I !■ I I Mii^ VI !!■> nmill II *iniTi iir n an i n iTirfBiiifn r ii ■ i N MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#9 - #2295 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) footprint to maintain a 26' wetland separation. Gaffron said in Staffs opinion the only rationale for approving the garage is based on the fact there is an existing garage. Gaf&on said the negative visual impacts of the structure located 1' from street right-of- way should outweigh the convenience aspect of the structure. He indicated the doors would be located to the side rather than on the street side and the garage would not have a driveway. Gaffron indicated the code does allow for a 20 s.f lock box, 4' in height and within the 0-75' zone, but this would not provide the storage needs of the applicant. Staff questioned whether the garage could be located elsewhere on the property. Staff does not recommend approval of the garage based on the facts found. Gaf&on said Staff does not recommend location of a fence in the right-of-way. The existing fence is in poor condition. A conforming location would be 20' or more from the traveled road. Staffs opinion is a fence located 10’ from the road would have more of a visual impact and possibly create a problem with snow storage. The Planning Commission recommended approval of fence replacement with a height of 6' and located 10' from pavement. Staffs recommendation for the fence would be a location at least 15' from the road with existing shrubbery located in front of it for screening and additional screening planted to essentially make it disappear from view. A hold harmless agreement would be required. Gaf&on noted that a major portion of the fence would be within 75' of the shoreline. Jabbour asked about the location of the pavement on the right-of-way. Gaf&on said the 20' paved road is fairly centered within the 66' wide right-of-way. There have been survey markers placed in the past. It appears that the fence is in the used portion of the property due to the wide right-of-way. Jabbour asked Barrett to comment on locating a fence within the right-of-way. Barrett said if it was approved, it should be subject to the right to expand the right-of-way if necessary. Brooks indicated that the variance requests were part of his plan for improvements of the acquired Skarp property. He said he removed the house that was located on Lot 11 and eliminated hardcover. The proposed garage would be used for storage as the home is located on an island and has no good area for a storage structure to house seasonal equipment. Brooks noted many of the same problems would be encountered if he attempted to locate the garage on the main property. He is willing to add plantings where necessary. 8 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#9 - #2295 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) Regarding the fence, Brooks said he is attempting to prc-.;rve the natural look of the roadway. He would like to place the fence back behind the tree line to prevent trespassing and view of the narrow property. Brooks is also concerned with problems with snowmobilers. He feels the fence will blend in and discourage trespassing. As far as the 10' placement &om the road, Brooks thought the average distance would be about 13-15' with the closest distance at about 12'. He said the request could be amended to state a 12' distance instead of 10'. During public comments, Robert Floyd, 960 Femdale, reported living next door to the Brooks property with his dock on the south side of the road. He asked for a point of clarification regarding whether the approval would be contingent on the final subdivision approval of the Skarp property. Gaffron said he believed it would be affected by that outcome. Barrett indicated the fence would be related but the garage would not be as there is no ownership contention regarding that property and legal combination can occur. There would be two resolutions. Barrett said the parcels affected regeirding the garage are north of the roadway consisting of parcels H, E, and A. Floyd said he is in favor of both the garage and fence. He is concerned with the timing and relationship wdth regards to the Skaip property. He said he believed it would be difficult to locate a fence elsewhere, there are other buildings near the road along Femdale, and the existing garage is in poor condition. As to the fence, he noted trespassing and parking problems and would be consistent with other hedges and fences in the area. Floyd thought the fence request was reasonable and would be an asset to the area. He would like to see approval contingent on the determination regarding the relationship of his property to the Skarp property. Bob Mitchell displayed several maps dating back to the late 1800 ’s showing the location of Femdale Road. He said the applicant is attempting to improve the property. He noted the wide right-of-way was platted in 1902 but has never been used to that width. Mitch- i^ said the applicant would remove the fence if found to be necessary and would agree to a hold harmless agreement. Jabbour said he was not in favor of a fence located in the lakeshore preferring open space but understands the argument for some properties to need such a fence. He believes these rationales do not exist regarding this property as the marsh is located behind it. He believes there is a strong distinction between this property and other properties. Jabbour said the fence would not impact visually, and he would like to see a buffer. He supported the fence request. \f MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#9 - #2295 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) Goetten said she supported the fence located there but would like to see improvements made to the situation. Goetten said the fence should be built to code and standards. She is not in favor of a 6' height or a fence located in the right-of-way. Gaffiron indicated that the fence would have to be 20-23’ from the road to be out of the right-of-way, and the fence is proposed at 12-15'. Peterson concurred with Goetten. She does not believe this fence is unique from other fencing. Goetten added that this is true especially along lakeshore. Peterson said she did not support the proposed height or the fence. Goetten indicated she would support a height of 3-1/2' noting trees and shrubbery would be effective. • •. Brooks noted an alternative would be to cut down what is existing there now and put up a wall of arborvitae. Kelley asked what could be done in the 0-75' setback. He noted the adjacent lot to the west was vacant of any trees, and he was surprised to find a driveway tc the lake. Gaffron said he also was surprised ai'd disconcerted at the extent of removals. He noted some of the trees had been in poor condition. Kelley questioned whether this could happen on the Brooks property. Gaffron noted it happened next door when grading was performed. Brooks confirmed for Kelley that the fence would run east to west on the property with a gate, 6-8' wide. Kelley said he would support a fence located in th>: right-of-way but behind the tree line and less than 6' high. This would keep trespassers from entering. Jabbour said the ordinance allows a 42" high fence. Brooks said he would like to have at least a 5' high fence. The property is lower than that of the roadway and would expose the property to view if less than this height. Clarification was given to Goetten regarding the fence location in its relationship to the tree line and right-of-way. Mitchell showed a topographical map of the property. Jabbour asked Gaffron to explain where the existing fence and trees are located. Gaffron said the fence is 4-8' from the pavement with the trees another 5-10' or more past that. minutes of the regular orono city council meeting held on OCTOBER 13,1997 (#9 - #2295 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) tee line!^ ** of fence to be in front of Goetten asked if trees would have to be removed to place the fence. Brooks said some be removed but none larger than 6" in diameter. Mitchell said the taller trees would remain and shrubbery added. Robert Hoyd smd he tried planting hedges but people still trespassed and the hedges snowplows. Floyd said parking is a problem and vegetation is Sefa'Zr «“>S80d andbelieves a low fence would not be an impediment. wo^d ^ ^ proposed fence sectinn H*» f Property. They have thick vegetation and no lake view through that applicate ^ maintain views along CoRd 15 but not in this Jeny McCourtney, 1055 Ferndale, said he has lived in his home for 16 years. While he personally is not present during the winter months, he indicated Mr. Skarp kept a close the Le^ hI ^ ^ ^ detriment to those who attempt to enter reqted ^ ^ ^‘^tim of a snowmobile robbery and protccte is sno!Toi"f°r'^ '^ould prevent asno^obile from entenng the property elsewhere if so desired. Jabbour thought r w "T aWlity to use hisproperty allows him the nght to a fence but not for the purpose of eliminating vX'Zr die H questionedwhether the docks are encroaching the right-of-way. nrUtro concerned with fencing in the Citynoting only so many precautions can be taken. * ^ 1/2' There^T Property as well. Any fence outside the 0-75’ is limited to 3- fence would b^albwed *' ® Jabbour said he would support a 3-1/2' fence within the right-of-way. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#9 - #2295 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) Goetten said she would like to see an improved situation and the fence should be located outside of the right-of-way. Peterson agreed.- Kelley said he supported the fence behind the vegetation and in the right-of-way. He noted the height of arborvitae could extend beyond the proposed fence height. Flint said he would support the fence in the right-of-way at a 3-1/2' height. Kelley moved to approve a fence within the right-of-way at a height not to exceed 3-1/2' at a minimum distance of 12' from the traveled roadway. Motion failed for lack of second. Flint moved, Kelley seconded, to approve a 3-1/2' high fence located in the right-of-way but not closer than 15' from the traveled roadway. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Peterson, Goetten. (A short recess was held.) .‘•-V Jabbour noted that the Staff and Planning Comiris’^i m recom.nendations differed regarding the garage. Peterson asked Gaffron is there was any practical way the garage could be moved farther than r from the right-of-way. Gaffron said it would depend on the wetland separation variance or moving the garage elsewhere; changing the angle would not make any difference. •; , •. • Jabbour asked Brooks if he could accept a 18'x24 ’ garage. Brooks said it would be acceptable. Jabbour said he shared the concern with die location being so near the right-of-way. Kelley said he would support the garage 1' from right-of-way and 26' wetland separation. Goetten noted the current garage needs to be eliminated and does not want to see another garage at that location. She said the applicant does not have sufficient acreage for another accessory structure. If the applicant desired to have lakeshore storage, Goetten suggested he consider a lock box that is allowed in the 0-75' setback. Goetten does not want a garage to infringe on the wetland and her main concern is with the lack of adequate space. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#9 - #2295 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) 9 Bob Mitchell suggested the Council was forgetting that the prior owner had a substandard house located across the street with a garage and Brooks has improved the property by eliminating that structure. He indicated these buildings had existed; the land was not vacant. Mitchell noted the proposed garage is located farther from the road. Goetten questioned whether anyone else would be allowed so much building with a remodel application. She noted the existing house had been small. Mitchell responded that the hardcover has decreased while the residence has increased. Goetten aclmovyledged that noting the applicant was asking for more structure. Mitchell maintained that the garage was existing. Goetten said the garage would be new construction. Broote said the lock box would not aid in the storage of items unrelated to the lake, such as trailers and snowblower. Jabbour said the conversation taking place was inappropriate to the application at hand and should be concentrated on ordinances and hardship. He noted the property would be considered differently if the building had been eliminated. The request is for structure that would be allowed on larger properties. He noted a garage would not be denied for a residence. Mitchell responded that the issue was not the quantity of the lot but the unusual shape of the lot, its impact on the roadway, and having a swamp to the rear. Jabbour informed Mitchell that this was not a lot but the whole property is considered as the lot. Flint, in noting the previous situation on the property, sees the improvements as beneficial and said he would support the garage as proposed. Jabbour emphasized that the code requires a hardship to be shown. Mitchell indicated the Planning Commission did recommend approval. Robert Floyd said the Femdale area was not developed like a typical suburban subdivision and should not be viewed as such. He feels the garage would be an asset to the neighborhood and not unusual in this neighborhood. He said while the garage may be out of character elsewhere, the code was not designed for such areas. Jabbour countered that the code takes into consideration that all residences must be in compliance. Kelley referred to the plat map and on-site viewing. He indicated by walking up the driveway of the property, he realized the accessory structure would not be located behind the residence. There is no other location to place the garage behind the principal structure. He saw the question as being whether the residence is entitled to an accessory structure; and if so, where should it be located. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#9 - #2295 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) Goetten asked what the hardship would be. Kelley indicated the property itself was the hardship. Jabbour asked if the structure is an accessory structure or a garage. Brooks said it was a storage structure. Jabbour indicated that the storage needs with children would not be provided by a lock box but does not see the hardship required for an additional garage. He questioned whether a lO'xlO' structure would be adequate while minimizing the impact. Brooks indicated that at some point of decreasing the structure size, it becomes unusable. He said he is willing to reduce the original 24'x24' size to 24'xl8' to accommodate the concerns. He noted the front to front dimension was most sensitive and suggested a change to the side dimension while maintaining some sense of proportion. \ Flint was informed that the structure was not "grandfathered" in due to it being new construction. Brooks indicated that a small size would result in storing items outside during the winter and feels the size is fair considering the number of people residing in the residence and its size. Jabbour said he understood Brooks rationale but felt more land was required for that to occur. Peterson said she did not disagree with the accessory structure itself but with the setbacks and distance from the roadway. She sees a hardship with the distance between the house and the road. Jabbour said the distance to travel from the lake to the house is a hardship noting the applicant has the right for a riparian use of the lake. Goetten said she felt differently regarding hardship. Jabbour reported that the lakeshore should be able to be used in a reasonable manner and requires somewhere to house such belongings. He thought a structure smaller in size than would accommodate a car should be satisfactory. Brooks said while he does have an extra car that could utilize the space, it would not be necessary. I j Gaffron noted there is a 50' front setback in this zone. Brooks asked if a 3 or 4' setback from the right-of-way instead of 1' could be accommodated. Jabbour noted there is a 19' envelope between the wetland separation and the roadway. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13,1997 (#9 - #2295 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) Jabbour moved, Flint seconded, to approve a 12'xl2' accessory structure, located 7' from road and meeting the 26' wetland separation, based on hardship of location of house, configuration of lot, and need for convenient and safe place to provide reasonable use of lakeshore. Brooks noted the size was too small. Mitchell suggested a 26'xl6* to maintain square footage. Jabbour noted that would be too small for a car but the garage was to be used for storage anyways. Peterson said storage of a car was not the question involved. Mitchell questioned whether the size of the existing structure at 19’x24' could remain. Jabbour noted the Council was split in its decision. He indicated the need to keep the structure off the road and out of the wetland area. He would approve a 12'xl5' structure. Jabbour said he is concerned with setting a precedent. Jabbour amended his motion to include a 12'xl5' structure with a 12’ depth meeting the 26' wetland separation. Goetten said she would support that motion if the hardship as stated was not included. Jabbour said he believed there was a strong hardship. Peterson asked Brooks what the minimum size building could be. Brooks said the minimum would be the largest allowed, suggesting 12'xl8'. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Peterson, as she believed a 15’xl8' structure should be allowed. (#10) #2298 CONLEY BROOKS, JR., AND JOHN BROOKS, 980/905 WEST FERNDALE ROAD - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT The applicant and attorney were present. Gaffron reported that the application is a request to detach Lot 13, the peninsula segment, and combine it with Lots A, E, H, and F across the lagoon. The reasoning behind this request is to allow the applicant to have control over the views from his property at 980 West Femdale. Gaffron showed the relationship between the parcels. The applicant also wants to have control over what happens with the use of this property as it is the most swimmable area and provides extra recreational space. Gaffron noted that if such control is given, there is the possibility that all of the vegetation will be cleared. He noted the Planning Commission recommended approval but with a vote of 4:3. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#13 - #2292 Tom Okerstrom - Continued) Okerstrom acknowledged the hardcover issues. He said he revised his plan from recommendations made and decreased structural coverage to 14.98%. He said the garage could be reduced and moved forward reducing the amount of sidewalk and removing the shed. There were no public comments. Lindquist noted that the applicant had moved into the home this spring and questioned why the garage was not built at the same time as the house. Okerstrom indicated that no variances were required at that time and noted the lot is only 51' width. Lindquist voiced concern that the wait on the garage was to enable the applicant to gain more structure on the property. McMillan indicated that residents will reduce the size of the home in order to obtain a garage. Hawn noted that the walkway to the lake was not included in the calculations. Stone steps are included. Dressier said the survey only showed the existence of the shed, and he had been unaware of the steps. Hawn asked that accurate information be presented. Van Zomeren said steps are allowed to the lake and need to be reflected in the hardcover calculations. The survey had previously been done and reused for this application. Schroeder voiced concern with the inability to rely on the information provided by the applicant. Berg said the information should all be available at time of application. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2292 for a revised survey. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#14) #2295 CONLEY BROOKS, JR., 980 WEST FERNDALE ROAD - VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 12:27-12:56 A.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Gaffron reported that the application is two-fold, involving replacement of a garage and construction of a new fence. The triangular piece of property contains an existing garage. As part of the recent subdivision approval, the applicant was given 60-90 days in which to remove the garage. The replacement garage will be located in about the same footprint in the 75-250' setback. Hardcover exists at 14% and would increase to slightly over 15%. 1 I r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#14 - #2295 Conley Brooks, Jr. - Continued) The existing garage is located 2.8' into the right-of-way. The new garage would be 1' into the property and meet the 10' side setback. A variance is required for setback from the wetland for a 20' separation instead of the required 26'. The garage will also be located in front of the front line of the residence. It will be 24'x24' and have one garage door and used for storage of lake equipment. The door will be to the side. Gaffron reported that parcels H, E, and A could be legally combined. Gaffron asked for a statement why replacement will be in the particular location. He asked the Planning Commission if they wanted to see a larger setback from the street, whether they would accept a lesser wetland separation, or if the garage should be located on this parcel at all. Another issue is the replacement of the fence, which is located on the lake side of the road along the portion of land acquired by Brooks. The ro ad has 60' right-of-way width. The edge of the road is actually 30' away from the property boundary but the existing fence in the right-of-way is at the perceived boundary. Gaffron indicated that the poor condition of the fence is likely due to its proximity to the road. He reported that Chapter 6 of the Municipal Code requires a permit to allow this encroachment. A portion of the fence is located within the 0-75' setback. Gaffron said Staff recommends the fence not be allowed within the right-of-way and should be located at the property boundary. If it is located less than at the property boundary, it should be at least 15' from the paved roadway with screening between the fence and the road. Gaffron said the applicant would be asked to sign a hold-harmless agreement for .damage to and maintenance of the fence. He asked the Planmng Commission to review the hardship statement. Mr. Brooks said the garage is part of the old Skarp property, £ind its replacement is a step in the cle^-up process of the property. He intends to replace it with a storage gurage with no driveway. He indicated there is no other location on the property on which to place the garage. It will service the house and lakeshore. Brooks said Ae fence is necessary for privacy and to eliminate trespassing. He noted the property is narrow in its width. The fence is currently located on the road i.: Je of the tree line and could be located 6-8 back as opposed to 4-6'. If it was located behind tht e Uj\e at about 10-12', it would leave room for vegetation to grow and for snow plowing. He rerv ;aat most of the homes in the area have some sort of visible bamer within 6' of the road with fence:, or trees, and he feels this fence would be consistent with the neighborhood. JIM IIV PM MM fpC.-pi^.j J r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#14 - #2295 Conley Brooks, Jr. - Continued) Robert Floyd, 960 West Femdale Road, agreed with the removal of the garage, noting it to be an eyesore and haTardous. He felt the problems with parking and trespassing were good reasons to allow the fence to be located closer to the road. Floyd said the road has a blind curve in that area. He felt the distance of the fence from the road as proposed is a good idea, and the existing fence should be removed. Floyd questioned the relationship between this property and the 20' strip of land. He indicated that it was his feeling the subdivision and improvements should not be addressed until this relationship has been solved. He does not feel permits should be issued without the determination. Jerry McCourtney smd his property is in sight of the proposed garage, and he supports the improvements proposed. Hawn said if the fence and garage received approval, both would be subject to the legal approval of the subdivision with respect to the two lots. If pending legal action goes against it, she felt the applicant should be prepared to remove them. The combination with Brooks property must be solved. Brooks responded that the property to the north is not in dispute. He said he has no doubt about the ownership. The question is with the 20' strip of land. Brooks said he would remove the fence if he had to in the future. Lindquist was informed by Gaffron that no garage would be allowed in this location if proposed today. Lindquist noted the garage is hazardous but questioned approving it. Schroeder inquired about the proximity to the water. Gaffron said the garage had an issue with wetland separation. The lake is more than 75' away. Stoddard questioned if the garage could be built without the 10' front setback from the building to enable the 26' wetland separation. Gaffron noted the distances and said it could not be done. McMillan asked if the accessory structure was grandfathered in. The garage would be less than 26' from the wetland, subject to the same ordinances and would be non-conforming. Lindquist noted the problem with wetland on one side of the garage and the road on the other. Brooks said his hardship is the house located on an island with no additional room to place the garage. There is a main garage. He indicated a lakeside structure is important for storage. Lindquist informed him that the buildings as proposed could not be built new today. r ORONO PLANNING COIVKVnSSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15,1997 (#14- #2295 Conley Brooks, Jr. - Continued) Floyd said he was conceptually in support of the plan. Schroeder indicated that the only compelling reason for approval of the fence is the existence of the fence today. He felt the fence should ^ moved back. Brooks said he would amend the plan to place it 10-12' behind the tree line. Gaf&on said that distance would be better as it gives screening and a 10' clear zone for plowing and parking. Stoddard inquired about the 6' height. Gaffron said it would not normally be allowed. A county road is the only location where a fence of that height would be allowed. He questioned whether that height is appropriate. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the reconstruction of the fence at a minimum of 10' from the edge of the pavement behind the tree line. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 0. McMillan questioned whether the garage could be reduce to 18' to meet the 26' wetland separation with a street setback variance. Hawn noted it would be used for storage only. Brooks said he could reduce the size somewhat. Gaffron reported that the wetland edge has been delineated by the surveyor per the City map. The distance from the existing garage to the edge of the wetland has not been measured. The measurement may change where the garage should be located. 0 Stoddard moved, McMillan seconded, to approve a street setback variance and variance for an accessory structure nearer to the front of the street lot line than the existing residence. The garage is to be a maximum of 18'x24' and located 26' from the wetland boundary as per City map. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Lindquist, who felt the garage should not be built at that location at all. (#15) #2297 DARYL HANSEN FOR MRS. ROBERT KEITH, 1045 EDGEWOOD HILLS ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 12:56-12:59 A.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicant was represented by Daryl Hansen. Van Zomeren reported that the proposal is for an addition to the garage. Code requires that an accessory structure cannot be located closer than 10' from the principal structure. The reason for the location is to eliminate having an open area in which a person could fall into the pool. The approval of the variance would continue the existing encroachment. Van Zomeren said she supported the application as it makes the residence more accessible and is the least intrusive addition. I I '•'MM CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. S9 7 ^ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) AND 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9 (D) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AT 980 WEST FERNDALE ROAD FILE #2295 WHEREAS, Conley Brooks, Jr. (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 980 West Femdale Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) and 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) to construct a detached garage located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on the property where no accessory structures are normally allowed, and located 1' from the street lot line where the required front yard setback is 50'; and has requested a variance to allow such structure to encroach 6' into the required 26' setback from a City protected wetland where no structures are normally allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City ^ ^mcU of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2295. The property is located in the LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 15, 1997, and on a vote of 6 to 1 recommended conditional approval of the H Page 1 of 6 1 I tr .< a - aa.flk . yr .1 >nLk-aai rwik' ir r CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ,8 97? ^ 4. 5. 6. ■ proposed variance based upon the following findings: A.There is no hardship for granting the wetland setback variance, and the proposed structure should be reduced to 18'x24' and must meet the 26' wetland setback. B.The hardship for approval of the T street setback is that the pre-existing garage which has been located at this site for many years currently encroaches 2.8' into the right-of-way of Femdale Road, and the new garage will eliminate this encroachment. C.The hardship supporting the location nearer the street lot line than the existing residence structure is the orientation of the property and the proximity of the proposed garage location to the lakeshore, providing applicant with storage for lake oriented equipment at a location relatively nearer the lakeshore than the existing residence. The City Council has reviewed the proposal and finds that a garage no larger than 12' X 15' is appropriate given the severe limitations of the site, and that such garage should meet the 26' wetland setback and meet a 7' setback from the right- of-way. 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 w'elfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a coiivenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserv'e 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. Page 2 of 6 I Tiininmr-^'— r CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. R Q y y CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) and 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) to permit the construction of a detached accessory garage structure located 7 ’ from the street lot line where a 50' street setback is normally required, and located nearer the street lot line than the principal residence structure on the property where no accessory structures are normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1.The garage shall be limited to 12'xl5', one story in height, and shall meet the required 26' wetland setback and a 7' front setback. The requested wetland setback variance is hereby specifically denied. The garage door shall face to the side, and per applicant's proposal, shall not have a driveway leadin.* from West Femdale Road to the garage door. 2.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 13, 1998). 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4.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. 5.This variance approval shall not be effective until such time that applicant has provided to the City adequate evidence that the separate tax parcel on which the subject garage will be located has been legally combined with applicant’s homestead tax parcel at 980 West Femdale Road. Page 3 of 6 III t'l iin-------rn- i J I" m GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8977 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of October, 1997. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Gabri^Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) < i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of October, 1997, by Gabriel Jabbour & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota mumcipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ® ^ 7 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared________________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 _befor; 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 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 3977 ' D^cripUon • • >4 V -AM of Ihe folfowlng described Iract: Lot 24, Counby Club Estates. Heonepin County, ^..-.esoia, according to the plat thereof on file or of rword In ll^e office of.the Registrar of ^ and for saU Countiy, eitbept that part of said lot described as folldws: Commencing at the most Southerly comer of said Lot 24; thence Northwesterly along the Southweslertyline orwd Lot a distance of 26.6 feet; thjsnce Northeasterly deflecting to the right at an angle of' ® ^ ® minutes to the north llne.of Mid Lot 24; thence E^t along the Norfh.lir^ of Northerly comer of Lot 23 in said Country Club Ealales.'Hennepin County, therice Southwesterly atohg the line between said Lots 23 arrd.24 to the pbtntof. 5s , f 9;^^ 9f a line dra^ from a point on the West Kne of said lidt distant 205 f€?et South of the Northwest comw of said lot, through a point on the Southeasterly IWe of salt: Let diidanf 300 feel Southwe^rly of the Northeasterly comer of said lot. • ' •' (Torrens Propferty) ' We»terty at an anote if f 5®“"’ “'""S Ihe Easl.linte thafnf WiKtefIjrjine of said tiu- the.i» i 30 mmutes to the riaW. ta a pOW to lh«' Easlerty comer of i m a WMlehy line ot8aWLOt4,to>mepst Lot 4 to the most Westerly Oomer of bf.a^icf lirre of said tot 4 to the most North»Hu Northeaslcrfy along jfhed^ferihwestiis^ , Northerly line of said Lot d to o7btJtoitoJ So^ON-asterly along tha H. loj 5, North Shore Cottage Acres descn"bed as follows: 6egir>ninftal4he • ; COUNCIL JAN Z 6 1998 cir/orc-BO^'-^ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approvalt Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Administrator Reviewed: DATE: January 21, 1998 lI ITEM NO, • ^ Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2308 Brook Park Realty 3760 Shoreline Drive Class III Preliminary Subdivision Planned Residential Development Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: I ^ lC-1 One Family Lakeshore Residential Subdistrict (1/2 acre) Lot Area: Application: 9.93 acres total. 2.2 acres wet and 7.7 acres dry Brook Park Realty proposes construction of 30 towiAome units on the subiect property. A Class III preliminary subdivision and planned residential devetopLnt are required. The allowed density is 2 umts per acre. The applicants are requesting a 50% density credit to allow urn per acre. Planned Residential De’ elopment: 2. Counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony. 3. Provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design. 4 Offer recreational opportunities close to home. 5. Aid in improving the welfare, in general, of City residents. PRD - Explanation In reviewing the Brook Park Realty proposal, the Council should make a determination as to whether the proposal meets the purposes of the City's Planned Residential Development ordinance. A full listing of the regulations that apply to this application are contained at the end of this staff report. Background: r The application was reviewed as a sketch plan by the Plaiming Commission in July 1997. The preliminary plat was reviewed by the Planning Commission in October and November 1997. The City Council reviewed the application at the December 8, 1997 meeting and tabled the application because of following concerns: a. trail plan along Shoreline Drive b. county's intentions regarding 7' easement c. cul-de-sac design, bull-nose vs. full circle d. density of twinhome development to the east of site e. LR-lC-1 density credit f. hammerhead vs. cul-de-sac g. sprinklers vs. loop h. private road width i. access through garage/front door j. guest parking k. traffic l. homeowner's association agreement —outdoor storage Staff has met with the applicant to discuss the above issues. The applicant has provided another site plan that includes removing more significant trees to allow for a wider roadway and a cul-de- sac at the end of the private drive. The four more easterly townhomes were also reoriented. Trail Plan The City's Comprehensive Plan map regarding trails indicates that the trail system along Shoreline Drive is complete. A sidewalk is currently installed on the north side of the roadway in front of the subject site. With the current snow cover, it is difficult to determine if there is enough land between the roadway and the wetlands to increase the width of the trail. County's Request for Easement The County has asked for a 7* easement to increase the right of way distance to a total of 40 feet from the center line of CSAH 15. The County's bicycle transportation plan indicates that a 40' right of way is preferred for a "compatible roadway" design where the driving lane and shoulder are 20'. (See attachment). I I Street Design The subdivision ordinance discourages cul-de-sacs (Section 11.32, Subd. 2, B. 6). The subdivision regulations establish regulations for cul-de-sac design. The ordinance indicates that MNDOT recommends a minimum right of way radius of 50 feet. Permanent dead-end streets are to end in a cul-de-sac in accordance with the City ’s construction standards and specifications. Permanent dead-end roads shall normally have a terminus 50 feet from an adjoining property. (Section 11.32, Subd. 2, H.(2)). The applicants have developed a plan that included a hammerhead at the end of a private driveway in order to provide an emergency access turnaround and to protect trees. The applicants have also provided an alternative plan with a cul-de-sac that would remove more trees. Density The applicant is asking for a 50% increase in density. The City Council may allow a density credit if all of the standards in Section 10.26., Subd. 3 are met. The proposed density is 3.03 dwelling units per acre total or 3.89 dwelling units per dry acres. The density to the east contains approximately 7.658 acres with 24 dwelling units for a density of 3.13 dwellings per acre. The subdivision ordinance prohibits more than four dwelling units per acre of dry buildable land. The subject site is 9.9 acres in area with a 2.2 acre wetland, leaving 7.7 acres available for development. The design and site layout of the increased number of units provided by the density credit needs to be accomplished on a 7.7 acre site versus a 9.9 acre site. This limits the flexibility regarding the use of creative design and site layout to maximize the livability of the units and the preservation of open space and natural amenities. For example, the narrowness of the individual units (20* wide -18.5' from inside wall to inside wall) enables 30 units to be placed on the site while preserving a significant amount of trees and open space. It also enables the costs of the units to be kept at a lower level. However, the narrowness of the units also raises questions about the livability of the units in relation to thee usability of the garage area for two vehicles plus storage and the circulation through the various living spaces of the unit. With a PRD, there should not be a need to make a trade-off between livability of units and preservation of open space. It may be that a lower number of units would enable both of these goals to be accomplished more effectively. It is important that the development provide a quality living environment over the long term in order to continue to provide a benefit both to the City in general, in terms of providing a workable housing alternative, and in terms of the residents living in the development. The City has very little undeveloped land available in the Navarre area to provide alternative housing options. It is important the housing option developed on this site works. •'v I n i48fcimii .1 r Sprinklers vs. Looping The applicant previously indicated that they would do an analysis to determine whether the development should be looped or use a sprinkler system. Looping destroys more trees. The Public Services Director has indicated that water pressure is not the issue but rather capacity would be a concern. Road Width The applicants have proposed two plans that include a 22' private drive ending in a hammerhead and a 2S' private drive with a cul-de-sac to serve 11 units. The subdivision regulations indicate that a p'ivate street serving over 7 units should have a minimum paved width of 28’. The subdivisi in ordinance does not recognize right of way or minimum paved width standards for townhome developments. ' .. . > . , =V Unit Design & Access At both the City Council and Planning Commission meetings, concerns were raised about the design of the individual units. The applicants have indicated that guests to the units would either enter the unit through the garage or by walking around to the front of the unit to the deck. The City's landscape architect has discussed the design with staff and has concer«is about the functionality of the uruts. It is not desirable from either an aesthetic or security viewpoint to have the primary access to a unit be through a garage into a laundry room and then up a flight of stairs. The secondary access is around the building to a wooden stairway and deck into a dining room. The landscape architect has indicated that this design has serious implications for anyone who is disabled or temporarily unable to climb stairs. The courtyard access via a wooden deck and stair case is a high maintenance concern and is dangerous in typical winter conditions. A wooden deck and stairway has a typical lifecycle of 20 years. The consultant has also expressed concern about the effectual width of the garage and unit being approximately 18’. This does not provide much room for two vehicles and storage in the garage. Also, if the garages are not heated there will be problems with the bathroom located directly above the garages. The unit design is also peculiar with the kitchen separating the dining room from the living room. Guest Parking The ordinance requires planned residential developments to provide a minimum of two parking spaces. The Planning Commission and City Council have raised questions about guest parking. The applicant has indicated that in their other developments residents ask neighbors to allow guests to park in their driveways as no parking is allowed on the private roads. Traffic At the City Council meeting, concerns were raised about traffic through the existing residential neighborhood to the east. Increased traffic at Livingston and Casco were a concern. The applicant has informed staff that there average vehicle trips per day for other similar developments is 3.8 trips per day. This would generate approximately 114 trips ner day. The Public Services Director has stated that typical studies show that dwelling units generate 10 trips per day for 300 trips per day. Access to County Road 15 The underlying zoning district (LR-IC; of which LR-lC-1 is a subdistrict, requires direct access to a highway. Because the proposed development does not have direct access to a highway, traffic from the development will circulate through a residential neighborhood. It would be preferable for this development to have access to County Road 15 through the property to the west. This would both limit the amount of traffic circulation through the residential neighborhood and would provide two options for emergency vehicle access. Homeowner’s Association Agreement The City Council raised concerns about reviewing the homeowner's association agreement. The applicant has provided a copy of the articles, by-laws and declaration of covenants for another development, "Kemmetmuellers Brookside Meadows". The City Attorney is reviewing this document. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: The first step in the review of the PRD is to determine whether the general design and layout of the development meets the purpose of the PRD. The next step is to consider specific details of the PRD such as the width of the private road, the need for the cul-de-sac and setback. The Council needs to examine the proposed development to determine whether the general subdivision standards should apply to this PRD or def'*rmine if a departure from the general standards would be more suitable based on the purpose and goals of the PRD. The applicant is asking the City Council to review the two submitted plans to compare the plan with more trees, narrower paved roads, and the hammerhead design to the plan with fewer trees, wider road and cul-de-sac. The applicant is requesting that the Council consider the benefits of each plan to provide further direction to the developer. I Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.26, LR-lC-1, One Family Lakeshore Residential Subdistrict Subd. 3, of Section 10.26 provides for "additional permitted uses" in the LR-lC-1 district which allows a 50% credit for density provided all conditions are complied with: A. AH provisions of Section 10.32 Planned Residential Development are complied with; B. Public sanitary sewer is available; C. All dwelling units must be attached but not more than four dwelling units to any one structure with a maximum height of thirty (30) feet; D.Parcels of land lying beyond 100 feet from any shoreline shall not have more than 35% of the land area to be developed made impervious by buildings, blacktop, or other forms of hardcover; E. F. G. Building size and location meet Council approval; Vehicle ingress and egress meet Council approval; A minimum of two parking spaces are provided for each dwelling unit, one of the parking spaces sliall be enclosed and attached to the principal structure it serves; H. Density provisions under Section 10.60 are not exceeded. Section 10.32, Planned Residential Development Subd. 1. Purpose. This plan is available to land subdividers subject to Council approval, as alternative to standard mmimum lot size subdivision of land. The purpose of this plan is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony, to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design, to offer recreation opportunities close to home, and to aid in improving the welfare in general of City residents. --- , --- r Subd. 2. Submission of Plans. Land owners may submit land subdivision plans for any "R" District without adherence to minin.am lot size requirements for each building lot, provided that the total number of building lots, or dwelling units, shall not exceed the number of such lots or units permissible under the minimum lot size requirements of the zoning district or districts to which the land is situated. Subd. 3.Council Discretion. The dwelling units permitted may be, at the discretion of the Council and subject to the conditions set fortli by the Council, in detached, attached or multiple family dwelling structures; subject to the limitations provided for in each zoning district. Subd. 4.Open Space, Etc. The dedication, ownership, use and maintenance of open spaces created by the application of the Planned Residential Development shall be subject to conditions deemed necessary by the Council to assure the preservation of such open spaces for their intended purposes. Subd. 5. Dedication of Open Spaces. The dedication and ownership of such open spaces may be through; (1) Homeowner's association; (2) Landlord maintenance; (3) Special Service District; (4) Municipal Ownership; or (5) any other method deemed appropriate by the Council to accomplish the purposes of this plan. Subd. 6.Site Plan. The proposed site plan, including location, spacing and basic design of proposed buildings, street and parking plans, water and sewer (public or private) plans, and plans of open space available for park or recreational purposes, shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission and the Council. Subd. 7. Hearings. The Council may direct that a public hearing be held to review such plans. r ■AiWIirii Subd. 8. Final Approval. Final approval shall not be granted until all conditions set by the Council are met; and, further the Council shall not approve any such Planned Residential Development prior to the legally binding establishment of the open space dedication, ownership and maintenance provisions, such provisions to be guaranteed by bonding or other means satisfactory to the Council. Subd. 9. Subdivision Requirements. All provisions of subdivision procedure established by the City Code except as modified herein above, shall govern applications under this plan. Section 10.60. Performance Standards Subd. 2. Density. Permitted uses or application of the various provisions of this Chapter or other laws including provisions relating to conditional and accessory use, uses authorized by special permit, variance, the application of any credit, formula, or special planning procedure, whether singly or in combination, shall not result in a density greater than four dwelling units per acre of dry buildable land or air space used for construction in any zoning district. Section 11 Subdivision Regulations Attachments i w } f IIIiH f 11 nrtwI I iiii I H OP O 15 f <o X 2 LANE SUBURBAN nacim cus:c<v'FcnR i minoi wihais PMILUr VOKIMtS. IM) • lOiliai Ml sptatu-ttWH COMPATABLE ROADWAY FULL ACCOMMODATION omAUArjuAnr me REVISLOiJAflUXfiy l»7 RIGHT-OF-WAY m) LINE KOlItIF A finUK 4-IAIC URMN KUrnKt B MnOVAnD.ABHI OF WAV ACflMlim SHOWO Of BAUD ON UNAN MANE mcu SfcnoNS. omvni UNf m i'lg SO' *• H 10' 7> SHOMMA HiummB umi ASM CWNfO imUIBS MO (UlO OBJKIS 20' SMIf A» Otr«lf fflEf lOM FI0UICI.2 8 F; 3 s i fj] I :g U • • aa* 5 <dmm o H -< O H O tJD 4- O "D O L'J r Hennepin County JL An Equjl Oppor I luiily Employer ^ Ms. Elizabeth Van Zomeren City of Orono 27d 0 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 October 15,1997 Re: Proposed Plat - Lake Minnetonka Woods CSAH 15 Section 17,1'ownship 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 2431 Review and Recommendations r ECEWEO OCT 2 Dear Ms. Van Zomeren: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require county review of proposed plats abutting county roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: The developer should dedicate an additional seven feet of right of way along CSAH 15 for a total of 40 feet i'om centerline. Based umn Hennepin County ’s bikeway plan and/or any future roadway improvements, this action will accommodate utilities, snow storage, signage or other appropnate public uses. (See attached typical section) • The proposal indicates no access to CSAH 15 and none can be permitted. • Thanks for the timely submittal on this proposal. We at Hennepin County appreciate being included early in these activities to be sure all issues are appropriately aadressed. All proposed construction within county right of way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to access drainage and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for the appropriate permit forms. • The developer must restore all areas, within the county right of way, disturbed during construction. Please direct any response to Dave Zetterstrom at 930-2548. As a matter of procedure, we request that the City Clerk inform us of the City Council’s action on the right of way and access provisions. Thorns D. Johnson, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ/DKZ/jrh cc: PetcTulkki Dave Swenson Depiftment ofPiablc Wofts 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins. Minnesota 35.M3-S496 (612)930-2500 FAX (612)930-2513 TDD;(612)930-2696 tKfckdhfm 11 I ■ 111 11 r I I ExKibi+s A B t E F 6c lA T Cover UMe>r o.r\d Qajisect P(ar\ Ftxy -ficfn ArHt)»'Kvej AppliCA^ton /p\o^ Map DeJ*doprn6v\4 FVopos>A. \ T^ee. lAV^vA-fcyy PreW. Pla-4- ^k. Plan E.l€VC\4loA5 i Floor U^rdsrOfe iScKla^ Corm\c*4c ^Me4\0lV^c) Pci m + )W(X-fev CoiWcchcJ'^ WinurkJ '■'9^ • •r ' i'l Westwood Professional Services, Inc. January 14,1998 Liz Van Zomeren City Planner/Zoning Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 MU I 5 ,yyj CITyoFosoA,o 104 Mart/ Drive, Suite 3 Buffalo. MN 55313 Fhont: 612-682-2S87 fax; 612-682-2639 Toll Free; 1-888-682-2587 Email; wps0wesiwoodps.com Ref; #2308 Lake Minnetonka Woods Revised Site Plan Showing Impact of Public Right-of-way & Cul-de-sac for Private Driveway ’ Servicing Blocks 3 & 4. De''a* Liz: Please find enclo^ 8 sets full sizefwith additional trees to be removed, highlighted) and 1 set 11 ” x IT* reduced set of the’’ Revised Site Plan Showing Impact of Public Right-of-way & Cul-de-sac for Private Driveway Servicing Blocks 3 & 4 ’*, for Project #2308, LAKE MINNETONKA WOODS, for your review and approval. As we discussed at our meeting with your staff, we can redesign the site layout to add a cul- de-sac at the end of the private drive, widen the drive to 28’ and put it all in a public right-of-way, at the expense of a significant amount of additional trees. Specifically, the 13 large trees would be lost(18" oak, 19 oak, 20 oak, 2-23” oaks, 24” oak, 2-25” oaks, 15” basswood. 2-16” basswoods, 17 ” basswood & 20’ basswood). Hopefully, this drawing will assist the city council to understand the impact to this site in strict adherence to city roadway design standards. Should you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. Francis D. Hagen, II, P.E Enclosures cc: Bill Gleason, Brook Park Realty, LLP Joel Buttenhoff, Tonka Ventures ColWr LCrl4et^ Rcvis«J TtAN ‘44’jT ^ */ -.7 -r^.^4 y »T‘ : :fr ^,..}5 ^J Vj Application # $ Date Receive d Amount Paid e. ^</7.5~a CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION in PROPERTY LOCATION Siteaddress **^ Shoreline Drive, Orono. MN________ Property Identification Number (PIP) 17-117-23-34-0005 thruSoo? Please check one - Property____abstract or X torrens? Attach legal description to application. (See narrative) APPLICANT Name Brook Park Realty, (Bill Gleason Address 8525 Edinbrook Crossing S >.s Si s City Brooklyn Park. MN Phone (home) NA OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Tonka VentaiTe. LLf Zip55445 Phone (work)6 12/424-8525 Address 200 Coon Rapids Blvd.. jS>4QQ City Minneapolis, MN Phone (home) NA (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels De\elopment Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Zip55433 Phone (work) NA ^4^ NA 7.7 2.2 9.9 LR-lCl Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units___ Other (specify) Vacant _________Division for Tax Purposes -------------- Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) ____^ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites 0 Existing Units 30 New Units 30 Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) 3.0 Units per 1 Acres N.123 Sq. Ft. Dry BuildableLand X____Residential _______Other (specify)_________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELI^^NARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. Y APPLICATION 44, ^ (;■ ■=) I i 3. Preliminary plat information on Certificate of Survey. *5^"^ y " •? i ‘ - ) j ^ 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’ (you must obtain this^ist-from HSfeimep'in County Departmeflh)'fFin^ct'S!5^( 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 603 MLNIMUM 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 cr mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature_____________________________ _______ E)ate______ I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator lO check [X] those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) $250.00 _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 Totals X__ Preliminary Subdivision Application $375.00 + $25.00/lot (Class III &. all non-residential) ___ Final Plat Application (Class III) $200.00 ___Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $75.00 Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. $200.00 1125^10 X__ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) X Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) ___ Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) ___ Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) Renewal of Final Clars III Subdivision Application S150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: Proposed Private Roads $600.00 + $.50/lineal ft.;lin. ft. X .50 $_____ Proposed Public Roads $900.00 + $.50/lineai ft.; 445 lin. ft. x .50 = $ 222.50 Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $900.00 X Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $250.00 + $25/stub X__ Proposed Watermain Extension $250.00 + $25/stub X__ Proposed Storm Sewe- System (excluding culverts) $200.00 ___On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $50.00/per lot x new lots 1122.50 Inon.no innn.nn pnn.nn C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 X__ PRD Application with Subdivision $30.00/Dwelling Unit 900.00 5347.50>J \J~ ! 9 The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant’s Signature__________________________________________Date____________________________________ Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Plaiming 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. 09/22/97 10:25 0612 937 5822 WESTWOOD PRO SVS X m ty t >.eoi m i -Tuftr'tr» Jj/cri MNKSI1.4MR ’* j .1 j (?)< •* T «••••••••....,.»••.••••••........... '* 9 ♦oe lOO ne 50D ^ g US}ii M er L»c>» p»tm CI'^T 0? :uNbEvru>?£0> 0^ oTono 0^‘. : • (72) ' ••* * , </7v N r.t I -Tf-rtf'i# ! \ .K— •>S.....<f—.-K-^-^.- (i»9H (25): U»J-l: tJS) 152H 150) 5 ^ i *» (58) . l4.l M ki.f n cr If* ■ —, i (t?) lltUi (O) (4£) r i»i I 041 cm 5 .(47) sj , ' JWI0T ua) rt.n jS«3T) ■ : •( (5*);!52): •:;.•• i : ! .• * ■ (35) i (M) *•& ».%• : u) (l() I (14) ' . : w (17) ' • y mmm- ooc m mint T#i <»)\ (»)■ U4)g(4r'^(n)S (H)« TTrr ■ O (3) S 0DIMT7 U) (4C) l.r« » • • N. Jf7?^*^** s ! 1 f R|(N6 OTERO AVF * - 'U'JfoAwtei,.*':'’;- . I •U i» —* e H0* " BT B tS r• j i i^)(5) 0 1 B(7) '••1; r-... 1 ' 1 tiD tFCl CTf:'' 5ll .1 %* 9 til i».a* mup%n---(MCSAtr'W- <5. °PlA?'-06 )'ic'sir-si'i-------r e «• 9«7WS» 1 —1»-------- (?9) GOVT LOT 8 7251.10 acs (§)■/ ^ r~ I ‘^9 t t wi...*.# • I : • : I 111 !■ 11 r • ~ 11 n Ti irw "■rri 'mi ■..' r^'k^asM. «i I > "fct. MV^ytimjl J r Hf**N£PIN CCUNTr U) • «io a> ^>x:::x:xXJxX;§;;;;;:x;%rXv:vX ”^ x:x::::;x4>Wxv *•***•*•*•*•*<*•*«* *»*»*»*rf* • • • • f-x^XxXxlxx::.::;::;;;:: x::-::::::;:::-::::::*.................. • «■••••••••••••••• *1 x-;->>x:xi>;;X::x:::xji|:^|;X^^ •i'x •••••:v:-;Xx>:xX::x:x:?x:x:xXx;xX;:;:x< t:;:-xxXx-^;Xx:x:x:; ;Xx:;Yx^ijii;:ii,-Xx:^F . \ •* V-*. _____ V/4' (« (441 / .**/ I 4:-^^ 'v/ ^ ' o / f v:\il-" ■(36) ( ( \ i v?N cvd ih I iA«rvf I 24(r V BOr\Vt)i+r ’j r: I I 09/25*97 09:30 ®012 937 3322 WESTWOOD PRO SVS @1003 >00$ t I Development Summary Lake Minnetonka Woods Orono, Minnesota September, 1997 Submitted to: City of Orono V P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 5555323-0066 Submitted by: • Brook Park Realty, LLP 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Prepared by; 14180 West Trunk Highway 5 Eden Prairie, MN 55355 00-25.0 00:31 0612 937 5322 MEST'VOOD PRO S\ S ©OOS-OOS WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. INC. September 25,1997 Lake Minnetonka Woods PROJECT SUMMARY AND NARRATIVE Elk River, Minnesota Ref. No. 97729 PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT NAME Lake Minnetonka Woods : ‘ h \ LOCATION West off the terminus of Livingston Avenue, and north of County Highway 15 OWNER Tonka Venture, L.L.C. 200 Coon Rapids Blvd. Suite 400 Minneapolis. MN 55433-5894 DEVELOPER/APPLICANT Brook Park Realty. LLP 8525 Edinbrook Crossing Brooklyn Park. MN 55443 Contact; Bill Gleason (612)424-8525 SITE PLANNING. SURVEYING. ENGINEERING. ENVIRONMENTAL Westwood Professional Service, Inc. 14180 West Highway 5, Suite 220 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Contact; EdHasek (612)937-5150 DEVELOPMENT DATA Existing Zoning; Existing Land Use: Guide Plan; Proposed Zoning; Proposed Land Use; LR-ICI Undeveloped LA-2 (Residential) LR-lCl TowTihomes PROJECT NARRATIVE LAKE MINNETONKA WOODS 00'25.97 09:32 ©012 037 5322 "E.STUOOD PRO SVS WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. INC. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SIIMMapv Total Site Area; Total Units Proposed: Gross Density; Total Wetlands (2)- Net Upland Development Area: Net Density: 9.9 acres 30 Tovvnhome Units 3.0 units/acre 2.2 acres 7.7 acres 3.9 units/acre PROJECT PHASING requested AmoN The wtwn requested is for approvsl to develop 30 attached totvTthome units as a PRD Ae^itJ^of'orono* 8“‘<*«l'r.es and the subdivision regulations of PBOJECT NARRATIVE EXISTING CONDITION.t; The 9.9 acre site can be generally characterized as upland mixed oak/maple/basswood woodlands to the north, and wetlands to the south. The two separate wetlands total 2.2 acres in area. ITie southern wetland is a DNR protected cattail marsh. The northern as a forested wetland which was probably connected to the larger wetland area m the past. The remaining developable area of the property (approximately the northern 2/3) totals 7.7 acres and lies beyond the shoreland impact area of three bays of Lake Minnetonka. ABUTTING LAND USES Surrounding land uses include single family residential to the north and beyond the Burhnyon Northern rail line; duplex residential development to the east; church property ™ '■’‘“'’ation/landscape operation to the west. Slightly further to the west rre commercial developments and a Hennipen County maintenance facility. ACCESS Access to the property will come via the extension of Livingston Avenue from the east Thought the entire southern boundary of the site abuts Highway 15, existing wetlands and Sight distance preclude access from this collector roadwav. SOILS/SLO^F.S Upland soils generally consist of loam and coarse loam of the Hayden soils series (0 - -4 /o slopes). These soils are generally acceptable for die types of development being PROJECT NARRATIVE LAKE MINNETONKA WOODS i i r 09.'25'07 09:33 ©012 937 5S22 WEST'VOOl* PRO SVS (2)007 • 00$ WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. INC proposed. A large area of tlie norlheasl comer of the property has been disturbed by past cui^d nil operations. The larger wetland area to die south is classified as marsh in the county soils survey. An old driveway wliich once crossed this marsh has been largely reclaimed as wetland. PROPOSED DEVELOPMEI^T This proposal is for the development of 30 attached townhome umt.i on 9.9 acres o. property which can be generally characterized as wood and rolling with significant wetland areas. The living units have been chosen, and the project has been designed and laid out to respond to the cheracter and amenities found on the site. All living units are tuck-under in design, with garages on the lower level, and the main guest entry around and to the front of the building. This unique design will allow significant areas of the wooded portions of the site to be preserved, and provides the opportunity to tuck tlie structures into existing slopes to further reduce grading impacts to the site. Given the extensive wetland:; along Highway 15 to the south, the rail line to the north, and undeveloped property to the west, access to the site is left to a stub provide off Livingston Ave. through the multiple residential project to 'he cast. L‘vmgston Ave^ has been designed to extend across the project and to the western property line. While the ROW necessary to construct the entire road will be dedicated at this time, it is not yet cleju if this will ultimately be the best way to provide access to property to the west. In an effort to preserve as msiny trees and as much of the natural character of site as possible, a cul-de-sac will be constnicted mid-way tlirough the project providing an emergency and service vehicle turn around A 22 foot private drive will access units to the south and along the welhmd. This drive will have an inverted crown designed to collect and carry surface water run-off back through the storni sewer system and into the storm pond located on the western edge of the property. It is the intent of the developer of this project to prescr%’c and protect the natural character of the site to the greatest degree possible through the use of custom designed umts, quality construction and construction management practices. MVINC UNITS , As proposed, the townhomes are a Victorian Seaboard style unit with uvo bedrooms, two baths, Uvo decks, and a double garage. The umts are designed as tuck-unders, xvith the main entry to the rear. The gradual slopping terrain of the site allows the majority of the units to fit naturally into tht situ. Tha unique design of the units, with height windows to the front and rear, will provide for extraordinary views. The non wooded areas of the site will be sodded and landscaped to include an in ground irrigation system. The structures are designed to be maintenance with vinyl siding, and windows, and aluminum soffits and facia. The units will be priced to include central air, kitchen appliances, and garage door openers. PROJECT NARRATIVE lake MINNETONKA WOODS nr^MhTr.jMr aardtaan a ■ .Taaryw- ‘It Cofy^pa^S- -fhes«- 'huo piopc6als \\a\ 5Kk Wu\ •• I!WM/o«I4q. £xhili+ E I ■-■ ■ F ^1 r Westwood Professional Services, Inc DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION METHOD Project/Site: Applicant/Owner: ___________ lnvestigator(s): Westrt'oodProfessIonalServices,Inc. — . ~TT RaelnfAr^^ in. ----------------------------------7i---------——---------------------* rV)tJfrI ( m mZ mm a —------- ^ County; . Stale: MN Number of Flags: ^ SAMPLE POINT- U<g.f ^ftimbtCName .:u'Straturh'jc ,%'Covers Tnd/Stetu^ SAMPLE POINT- UP SAMPLE POINT- U/^-P / FjejdO^enralloM S^'xplelD: ______ Depth to Free Water Q in. Depth to Saturated Soil: q in. Sample ID: Depth to Free Water: Depth to Saturated Soil: HYDROLOGY ~E in. in. >*7 •• ^^||^^oesttjeAreaJiaveW^K^^^^^^2 Yes / No Assumed (Explain): U4|Vex « ♦" J» *7 f^a c ^ Primary Indicators \/ Inundated ^ Saturated^ 12' ___ Water Maries Drift Lines Secondary Indicators (2 Reg.) Oxidized Root Giannels Water-Stained Laaves \/ Loc_l Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other - Explain: Sample ID: ___£ Depth to Free Water — in Depth to Saturated Soil: __ in. Sample ID: Depth to Free Water Depth to Saturated Soil:in. ^:eDo — tho Araah avWotland H/drolofly?•. T. >r* ■" 77 Assumed (Explain): Inundated Saturated S 12" Water Marks Drift Lines Sediment E)eposits Drainage Patterns Secondary Indicators (2 Reg.) Oxidized Root Channels Water-Stained Leaves Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other - Explain: Ref. r L Project/Site: IJbofJf'wWestwood Professional Services. Inc. SAMPLE POINT • SOILS 1^ Sample ID: _l •t: (Muhsell Moist) V Mdttio t iTexturo/Concrotlons,- •^-*:h^:Structure'.'Gtc.*^**: Hydrlc Soil Indicators Histisol _ Histic Epipedon _ Sulfidic Odor On National Hydric Soils List Hydrlc Soli? y Yes n/ Concretions or mottling ___Gleycd or Low-Chroma Colors ___Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils On Local Hydric Soils List . Reducing Conditions . Aquic Moisture Regime . High Org. in Surface in Sandy Soils Other (Explain in Remarks) SAMPLE POINT • Papthjb -f HorizonSTln- . _. MatrlxjColor.(Munsali Munaell Molst)^ i’Abunaaril^/Colit?^^^^^^^LTeMure; Cdncritldns;v 9Struct^^c:^-fi Hydrlc Soil Indicators _____Histisol _____Histic Epipedon ____ Sulfidic Odor On National Hydric Soils List Concretions or mottling Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils On Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Aquic Moisture Regime High Org. in Surface in Sudy Soils Other (Explain in Remarks) SAMPLE POINT. W-C-4- HydfophyMc Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? /s the area a wetland? y Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No v' Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No 'Z Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No Z Yes No Remarks: * Has the area been altered sufficiently to render the presence of Hydrophytic VegetaMon, Welland Hydrology, or Hydric Soils not applicable? SAMPLE POINT - Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes Z No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No WeUand Hydrology Present?Yes . \/ No Does an Atypical SituaUon Exist?Yes*No Hydric Soils Present?Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No Is the area a wetland?Yes Z No Remarks: * Has Ihe area been altered suffidentiy to render the presence of Hydrophytic Vegetation. Wetland Hydrology, or Hydric Soils not applicable? COMMUNITY SUMMARY ‘iS. iSam Pl*-Polnt •; ;|a/ ''“S: I 1 Overall Community Type ApcJu0^Overall Community Type Overall Vegetation Overall Vegetation Mapped Soil Type(s)Mapped Soil Type(s) Revised 08/7/97 i.sj«UfULiaii'. n na laaai* Jir ■'yn imn ame ^yWestwood Professional Services, Inc. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION METHOD Project/Site: Applicant/Owner.Sr~cgfc. ln /estigator(s): Westwood Professional Services, Inc. - ^ / Basin/Area ID:______£3 __________________________________ Date: g/// jj-. County: State: NL\ Number of Flags: SAMPLE POINT- Wgf VEGETATION .'•Stratum '.v% Coveri :|nd.:Status;|| lOut/'^l’P. !aa <A hUk !ru /# V a !A //OAL 1 //AvfC.tv^ II % of Dominants FAC or wetter: | e>0 Remarks: SAMPLE POINT- \Jf Common NamolSsii^'.it.ig.v;^^ i;'SclenMc Name jx^: v^'i- ir ■.^Stratum i%Covur;lnd.^tatus 1 C.amiy*om ie^ckUtmA^CiL/i MNU4A i5 3> 3Lr*) <:/V<u6 t///rfce«r ff Fa-cia 1 kJWf A y/A-i u 5 ’c ^7 “■> l«ia/h4 <^uantr C/ro#-€4 T FAC,t4 “7 “//r#^ tTY^c^:<ro0e.a ~r FAO%A T._ r ITT ^ %ofDominants FAC or wetter: /7 Remarks: SAMPLE POINT HYDROLOGY Field Observations .i.' . ' - r .xiTr-i'Wetland Hydrology Indicators (Insert Sample'ID) ;i!l'v.';:v Sample ID: j Sample ID:Primary Indicators Secondary Indicators (2 Req,) Depth to Free Water: ^ in. Depth to Free Water in.y Inundated Oxidized Root Channels Depth to Saturated Soil: ^ in. Depth to Saturated Soil: in.^ Saturated^ 12 ”Water-Stained Leaves v" .7' T''yi’>Ji-Doies the Area have Wetland Hydroldgy?** • <Water Marks v/ Local Soil Survey Data Yes x/ No Drift Lines FAC-Neutial Test Assumed (Explain):Sediment Deposits Other-Explain: Drainage Patterns SAMPLE POINT- \Jfi Field Ot»ervatldn8^?:;irt-.^ri ‘*4':vvi^ •.•! Wetland Hydrology Indic ators (Insert Sample!|U)^SJ9rrcAj Sample ID: | Sample ID:Primary Indicators Secondary Indicators (2 Reg,) Depth to Free Water — in. Depth to Free Water in.Inundated Oxidized Root Channels Depth to Saturated Soil; ___in. Depth to Saturated Soil: in.Saturated $ 12 ”Water-Stained Leaves the'Area'have Wetland Hydrology?.'•■2 Water Marks Local Soil Survey Data Yes No A { Lines FAC-Neutral Test Assumed (Explain):Sediment Deposits Other-Explain: Drainage Patterns Ref. Project/Site: ByooU- Pack SAMPLE POINT ■ W<2-f wWestwood Professional Services. Ina SOILS Sample ID: J_ ?Hdnzon')l ^Matrlx'Cblc^Muns'ell ____________ Location: leJouj €,ei^£. ^ t /••ic-rri ,i‘' MoWe i Abundanco/Conirast *■’ T Texture/Concretions; •^~‘^4‘Structure.’etc>>^.-] A /V a./o —F—-------------------- / Histisol ____Histic Epipedon ____Sulfidic Odor / On National Hydric Soils List Concretions or mottling Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils On Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Aquic Moisture Regime High Org. in Surface in Sandy Soils Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil?\/ Yes Remarks; SAMPLE POINT* l/ Abundance/Contrast ^ i^Tekture; CdTifcretions/ji ^-^i^TStniicture/^^^^ Sample ID: I Location: lo^ aC,t,^ loi/l y/q Hydric Soil Indicators _____Histisol _____Histic Epipedon _____Sulfidic Cdor _____On National Hydric Soils List Concretions or mottling Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils On Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Aquic Moisture Regime High Org. in Surface in Sandy Soils Other (Explain in Remarks) Hydric Soil?.Yes / No Remarks: SAMPLE POINT -We:!' WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Is the area a wetland? ,/ Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No J Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No v/ Yes ' No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No t/ Yes No Remarks;« * Has the area been altered sufficiently to render the presence of Hydrophytic Vegetab'on, Wetland Hydrology, or Hydric Soils not applicable? SAMPLE POINT - Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Hydric Soils Present? Is the area a wetland? Yes ✓No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No Yes No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*tio Yes x/No Does an Atypical Situation Exist?Yes*No Yes t/No Remarks; * Has the area been altered suffidenOy to render the presence of Hydrophytic Vegetation, Wetland Hydrology, or Hydric Soils not applicable? COMMUNITY SUMMARY Overall Community Type Overall Community Type Overall Vegetation Overall Vegetation Mapped Soil Type(s)/VI Mapped Soil Type(s) 2 Revised 08/7/97 ■ S * f ^ 5-::® ’ll lii , «« t)? ii! ■! ?!« • ?i •. • ^ % : V f i * t 1 • ;- i Ji Is- 88>28h ’’1'^ 2®P a. 2 §e •0 r ' I f* 4 < 5 ^4 / Ji'. •: /! . • ! V‘ v'» • i '-^■^ ■/U/! ‘ / /; -.. •• ;**____ ' / •»'* / : Ah ^ . / t p-r---------------------------- i ■ ' ■■ .............................................::--------------------------------------- \: V • \ \ \ V —'. •-., ••*'i ^ / • *>• . P ’t V. •‘^ ___ s>y y /• / V' ." * 'av O ^ V- >>.:pV v--'''-''----*’’"'-- -.""^'.)|l \\ If. .;: \:~:.:.r.:\;::--:c ,y:';i/.^y.yw .■■--■■■ ■■,. V, ■ '■' -■'............................ -■ '-'/' ■■• ^ ' \r * • . . ' ■, \ ‘A ^.NOO^ieWE /// v75t.76* •' ' - - r — T — t .. V' .., ' Y r* ________ . .' • w** , '..........-H T ' * ■*• - —'T'X^ *^v "* '*■*•■.__________________ Jk "» . •/• :; U ■---JX: I •4-t7^- ■ IIS7 t/) C rd 85°o rn _ 4 y r :k' V vV. ___—<i«v^ I • I 7 7: / •/. 'V = \/ / V ^ V / :' \ '• V; ••. '7' 1.' V AW/y s s ^ R|. \A’’c^^ ^ ^ \ ?\ V ' ^ ? :^9 ■n *“ ■S. ___^ -----------------,\ t^ \ /. V ^ -V V. ^ '"---AZ i ' f/y/ZTyAA;- yAMl ryyHi'\ IS. V i't> Vt \; S \ “H y/y ^ii/m y / #W:7 v / / '•‘t « ,*,-,*« •'• fh‘ W//"A^ ^AM/-' #/; /" v; .« :..-e r—-'-t I),j V -r-------f / /' \% \i \ -V t' \^pi> \ \ T iYj' * - • h • • ' V' 1 •-••♦ ***' --'T': *-.. It* -u 14,; •: - •*•^io- C >VE*?* / / -‘Jf ^ >1’ Uf-p j5v: « \ V _ s* *♦ •I n.iil £y 6"|pT"vai * 1 ’66 -10 PVC ;^03 r> -i^^ wcp^ 3*)i*: : I I______‘ $ Vrn t It o «i> u> n* iis^f (?• u < <» t h • < kO () U> C-4 U » *«> Sk’ O N> iw fj ►J C. - OB ;o rn 5 x r» <f*1 X 5 2 ■ c » * o* < ktf 1 <«i «i> m ' • I ^ #. I. F V * V “T" > V- . = E • o *• — S'sS? .'J’-i * I *• 1 t) ki> <(• «> < ■) 4* 4> 4> 1* (fc z ? » ’ w ? r» • J \ I rt® ^ - I #•% * ^ iio ►»; fU iA;. a t rS !■; Hi iii 1^’ fil ^ <5* t j 12 f.! , I • > <i i % ' \ 1 •-^1 1 R I ! : \ , / /...........................‘/V V tA ..'-^V > --■..... \ \ ,' /. i............I',-.., ./X.'P--\~ = - ‘ ‘ V \' — • \ ^ * i^:.noo^i6*o6"e: . ^ \V. ^ •',^_________/ ..‘:n " ^ \ f* :i-/ / V'V? ' i I JflSV'/ / /,/1 ••' ,r,V-^ l^-/ /2§ ? / / ss /J \y •\ f / *N r C ? / y ^ / / . /■ / v\f? ^ //?' /i ''v. t t //. Ji l^ vj ‘:-.- V \ ,l \ -/ -S';/ {/ \ \ \ / / 7 \ / r /;7 '/ /''N / !!■ t /,V*/A V /7/1! v / *v / ,‘iS?// /:■ • /{; / / // 'i' '^Ul: i / ' oiT ^ % \ \ ---------'7 — ;-—<- X • \ , sob°i'rai5;;v^-^ ■7 \ mu ij \ \ ^ u*v. k ',. ' / V' c..\ t -> \'8 • a 5i »i "S-. V. ••*., » N • • r y r ' iM ft ¥/ ¥ * ' ■ * “ • ✓ • *x . i- . \ / *} I V\ 1 1.\ / is’aSo!! 3~r ^w» vv ^ 010*^ ‘ \ ■ \ I .-J' -k ^ '■ jliivfe ' i^ia ■T "' * V ^4 S \ \ /r-^ *v :;\\ V X “ ^ ^ LYRTC^ AVE. ^ \./ / • ♦ a u:- t 3 -1 1 . 1 0 , y. - T ------------------- 67 10* MIN.; 67 1 ■t — 1 w ■3— s 1; j 1 :i j1; _i . om UJ OB GD <;o u< ;o m O Q C 0^8% ^ m ^ m !/) K) ^ OE8?^»m w :33m d& o > !^QOO 0)> -< _ 8Kio5C r-m c I5 "*.i885 zQ^’mi Q >>Roo^ 522C2C?V? m o m i > (/) > B W U 1 W » 55i5Sp,; => 9:c;o > »8??§8 oooc o fi 5r-=^^ S:d m o?q55 |^sS2l 61 8S3>Si' §il‘i§s :?:?5 « S 3rS° !Gf5)z?3m o o ^si -^OZi i ! >-!?o ^ o» 2 c: <^4-<mz cn m m o >I I iV—' mo ^ ^ VJ >i Vi I I i I I NJ K) VJ VI VI Vi vl I I I I I lOKifOro N> UiUUUU i I i i I 3S 3 $ "sl 8-;:tss vl' vl UDSsac' 5^5 0 5 5 5?3^I I T I I 1§000 000 Pu o^r P S - > ^ p S^ Oi > 04 00 L/4 0» '>J O)$ o cn ® o^3iism -- Vi > VD > o> \ « O Q EkvahW V^\Ot>lr 'Pbus 4 ExhtbH-p tf'TIMt-l LAP TP- OBiK, .q.’FA<^ 6RICJS c*." tT.iH w| Tt eseH^^o ROOF VoJTj »F^ %po^ OF ^oop ZiO-J, tt* p^F 150% in ifCFFrr ia » ^ ^ S £ S S if mm §iiii iiniiiHinni 7I^AISCD Ml- PI**«L- 4 • •pfegMT=-B=£VK~p gyd-^r t .yi&'SiTE \JStnF^ NUMaa^oF UJrrs rc^ aLce> tuniM.'n njicN iic. ustMS hi 4^106-^ ifiiUTT rm amms m chissicms . ik cm-* > IMLUM HST VDirV ALL MinS. OUtMlOQ * mo onomcMs rticii td nc sngr or am- * invucnoR aw m nesroMiiBut rot tic m€ nmiiNC ciipiwcncw. lo ouMMffir arust im itn.itv w otfUAicE or iius rLAM vnu, ouHn/aifiiocnii am hms . • ' ^ vt ■ • .* I ji NoimiwftrMtioNMc*. * NEW Home. ; PU^w »4o; o/vte: ^-<^.*^7 /4 6*f* prFM.'M? FT i, SiCTIKkS ^iS <*»I06 ELEV ft'WBWWJ f «■LEHGTM Cfi BtSOj N«Tt««> Zk4»*HOPiP l.y Sto'F^^'iP O'-^ G^*«oe Vp»‘r»r^ umu. ^tsp^ pipe ^«m|» ^r^Vrj»' u 7 *iif'h?v.~'’'>*-^r tf-i •>M : □L£■ -m.P6t^^ pffOtJT'^cl-gX/ Vp*g|^^* Grwe F^urp ^lofe ei_EV 4*.; r / ^lou% I ML** \Zc.\Z.*Ce»*t,t^ g.€Wi!»QOMt*Fl i& F=i9UKJPPrnoU IC^FMiO^Fr *\10U^ VNtXVS SHOjJM A10&5 i«iK otf I iriui^im>. iirfti rrtllJlf ftiiAifT^ n n mi n ~ r n n im-iri i I'wMvtiiaMBiHaiik# jkA«iii«iiM.%r mi* v.ik‘l[*«if\.r^tii wk/>A>kiMtk«Ai/a[i«^iiyfeiit.'-^rv i*«%^.-.r^ni.i^ "M'-U*-■ZO ‘2* ZMO 1-4'?> ^w3i V-o*M-Z" , r ^k ivz*• ■■• zo'-r • |Zl6*.Y-u* OPT r^fV*^Tgl^..f^U^ iKMfw W/»HJU PT» «/6l*R.6MPtP»NE WWf) iS«RdOF FOX , Vz*^)ie«»fco 24*#^. EXr^'JRFltM Fs-H e>LtfMvi iMUA.Ksimx)e> P»U4 Ni-fe. P<^» GmP &KO P.= SB W P>iR. FU>| P>».G| |b' ^\A »V4^:JLIV- pnzx«4 # z%u ^lu 2x(p^Qb \(/0^. o ^ PfMM e. f^aslb VIUMV_ FfV(>44A VIUSU l>OFPtru//VEUTti iejcr AIR. fium f«.|7 S>«DIUIG Izejaz* <.HU» 1^«^.•{/ '£#*IKI«vUl_rt*t4-00 FtouM fc. :Vl,» GMP BTO R-.M6 HJT R».*A ZZ.Ift •W7-1xe>i, TP> 0.*,a> px»F |T'‘XtfZ.* FRO»X FI& 97«»3 01 V Arch'i*)^ is 10'20 97 17:51 0612 357 5601 HSU. INC.I2l 001.- 00.5 DAHLGREN SI lARDLOW AND UDAN CONSULTING PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 300 FIRST AVENUE NORTH SUITE 310 MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55401 612 3393300 PHONE 612-337-3601 FAX BATE: TO: 20 October 1907 Elizabeth Van Zomeren Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Orono FROM:Wallace L. Case, ASIA Landscape Architect/Planner RE:Class III Preliminary Subdivision and Planiicd Residential Development Brook Park Realty 3560 Shoreline Drive Application #2308 As we discussed on Wednesday, October 1 b, I have conducted a preliminary review of the applicants proposal and have visited the site. The following is a brief summary of my preliminary observations and concerns. My comments are directed primarily toward site planning, environmental and aesthetic issues. These comments are preliminary and do not address compliance with the zoning ordinance or the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. Background : The proposal is for the development of thirty town homes on approximately 9-9 acres located on the north side of County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive) in the Navarre district. The site abuts an existing duplex neighborhood along the east, the Burlington Northern Railroad along the North, and a large underdeveloped residential parcel with a excavation company or some type of commercial/light industrial operation to the west. A single family area is located to the north and is separated from the site by the railroad and Northern Avenue (north of the tracks) Vehicular access to the site is currently available from the east from Livingston Avenue, through the duplex development to the east. Access to County Road 15 is via Blaine Avenue along the east of this duplex area. A large wetland system effectively blocks direct vehicular access to County Road 16 to the south. OtUOBSM e09.4\1097MTKA.HOM Post-it* Fax Note 7671 ‘^•'•Ic/ZoZ/TT ^ Co Phona #Phona # Pax# , ■ --------------------, r 10 ‘20-97 17:51 ®612 337 5601 DSU. INC.0002 005 Woodlanri Imnacts: 1. Most the site Is either wooded or impacted by two wetlands. The two wetlands total approximately 2.2 acres or approximately 22% of the site. The wooded areas total 6.6 acres or approximately 67% of the overall (gross) site, or 87% of the net site excluding wetlands. The wooded areas generally Include both hardwood and softwood species. The central uplands and south facing wetland fringe are covered by a predominantly oak/maple/basswood woods with Individual trees ranging from saplings to mature specimens. 2. One of the primary issues regarding this proposal is the impact on the high quality woods present on the site, and the resultant loss of many large oak, maple end basswood trees. The largest trees are found throughout the central upland area and along the steep slopes that form the northern fringe of the largest wetland. These hardwood trees range In size from approximately 3 inches to more than 40 inches in diameter. There are 30 to 40 (or more) very large oaks and maples located in and around the central highland area. There are also several areas with significant densities of young oak/maple/basswood that are beginning to developing into nice hardwood stands. 3. Most of the larger trees have had adequate room to develop and are very well formed, and It appears that sometime in the past the site may have been grazed or mowed. These trees are exactly the type of large trees that home buyers/owners find most desirable. Preserving as many of the Individual specimens, and young wooded areas as possible will add a great deal of Interest and value to both the development and the surrounding area. The developer and their consultant have already shown an understanding of this potential by preserving a portion of the central wooded area, and by their choice of project name - Minnetonka Woods. 4. Unfortunately, the proposed disturbed area appears to coincide with the location of many of the best trees and woods, and it appears that many if not most of the large specimens and young oak/maple woods would be removed during the development process. This conflict leads to the following recommendation which I suggest would benefit both the developer and the Community. A. I recommend that a tree survey be submitted that identifies the location, size and species of all hardwood trees 12 caliper Inches or larger In diameter. This survey will allow the City to accurately assess the development impacts on the woods and visual character of the areas. It will also allow the project's planning consultant to evaluate and adjust the layout to preserve as many high value trees and wooded areas as possible. Some of the types of adjustments that could help retain significant trees and woods trees may include: • Reducing the street width to 28 feet. This width would still allow for parking on one side and would allow more layout and grading flexibility for avoiding desirable trees/woods. It mey also be possible to shift the road alignment to the north to preserve more of the desirable central woods. -2- ■■ h-TVAWbmr-J 10'20-£17 17:51 ©012 357 5001 DSU. INC.@ 003- 01 (.5 Reducing the front yard setbacic and shortening the driveways for all units along Livingston. This could have a dual effect of reducing the visual impact of the large (265 lineal foot of building and driveway frontage) amount of uninterrupted paving, and increasing the central woods to be preserved. Reconfiguring and shifting the storm pond as far to the south as possible, away from the existing south and east facing slopes. The south and east facing slopes include a number of larger trees of various species. Shifting and Reconfiguring the pond could also facilitate the development of a trail connection to Shoreline Drive. Cerefully considering the need, timing and consequences associated with the construction of the temporary/permanent cul-de-sac. The proposed location is in the vicinity of five or more large oaks. This cul-de-sac would in effect replace trees and green space with paving that may not be unnecessary. If in the future the road is extended to the west, the cul-de-sac will not be a desirable feature and may need to be removed. If the road is never extended It may be possible to create a large island and grade the road to save the trees within the island. This effort would also require a tree location survey. The advisability of creating a temporary turn around hammerhead, "T" or loop should be explored and will depend on the future development of the western parcel. Adjusting the overall project grading, and layout of the walk system surrounding the units. The town home units have tuck-under garages and a relatively compact footprint. However, the design of the proposed walks and driveways has negated much of the benefit of the smaller footprint. It may be possible to reduce the length of the driveways and weave the walk system in and amongst the trees to lessen the amount of disturbed land and removal. In addition, there are places where the grading plan can be adjusted to minimize disturbed areas to preserve significar»t trees. This effort will also require an accurate tree survey. The grading may further be minimized through the reasonable use of low retaining walls to save some high amenity value trees/woods. B. t.i the event that the project is approved. It is imperative that all trees and wooded a.evs to be preserved must be protected by fencing at the drip line prior to beginning construction. In addition, good construction management and arborist practices must be observed to minimize the potential for the infection and spread of oak wilt. Landscape Plan 1. Typically the minimum budget for an overall project landscape begins at approximately 1 % of the gross development costs. This number is often adjusted in response to the type and price range of the proposed units, the natural characteristics of the site and the market conditions and needs of the developer. As proposed, this project does not include a minimally acceptable landscape plan. This project proposes planting only 19 deciduous over story, 15 deciduous ornamental and 17 evergreen trees. We estimate that the development will be removing approximately -5- • 10'20 97 17:52 ®612 537 5601 DSU. INC.©004 005 30 to 50 mature oaks/maptes and acres of young high quality mixed woods with numerous young oaks, maples, and basswood. 2. On projects with tree removal such as this. I suggest that an even higher landscape investment may be needed to begin to mitigate the Impacts. Such projects generally require a more substantial investment in landscaping to adequately address the functional, screening and aesthetic impacts of the extensive tree removal. 3. I recommend that a landscape plan be prepared by a registered landscape architect. This plan should emphasize supplementing and restoring the natural characteristics of the existing woodlands, and providing an effective vegetative buffer along residential and public frontages. It should also include the selective placement of trees along the fronts of the town homes to interrupt the long expanses of building facade, paving and parking. The walk layout between units could easily be modified to accommodate a single large tree or group of trees to serve this purpose. Trail Connertinti! 1. It may be desirable to provide a pedestrian/bike trail to the south to connect to County Road 15. The most readily developed trail corridor would be in the area west of the large wetland system. If the such a trail would fit into the Community's trail objectives City, the developer should explore developing an 8-feet wide bituminous trail in that erea. The storm ponding should be designed to serve as an amenity feature and to incorporate a winding trail connection and landscaping. Junk. Trash. Old Foundation 1 . While inspecting the site, it was apparent that illegal dumping has occurred on the pioperty for some time. The site also has at least one demolished structure, slab and foundation. Most of the dumped materials appear to be household furnishings, trash, and junk dumped around the site of the footings and Into the wetlands. Prior to development, the developer should hire a qualified consultant to conduct a preliminary environmental audit to determine the apparent nature and extent of this dumping and to evaluate the need for additiei.al environmental review, and to determine that all known wells have been properly abandoned. Declaration of Restrictivp Cnvenantg 1. If this project is approved, the developer should prepare a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants that provides adequate aesthetic and operational constraints for the development. These covenants should restrict removal of additional trees or woods. The covenants should also prohibit outdoor and recreational vehicle storage, and limit the number and size of vehicles parked in drives in an ongoing basis. Tree Preservation/Mitigatlon 1 . The City currently doe not have a tree preservation or replacement ordinance. The City should review their comprehensive plan goals, objectives and policies, and address the .4- r L ' 10'2O.'97 17:52 0612 337 5601 DSU. INC.@ 005 005 merit and need for controls to facilitate the regulation of development and mitigation on heavily wooded sites such as this. If you have questions regarding these preliminary observations and concerns, or if I can be of further assistance, please call me at 339-3300. DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN, INC. Wallace L. Case, ASLA Landscape Architect/Planner - V VI -5- — ----------------------------- - --------- - — ... . r---. -- ' V^eH n i^ebieftKh r Westwood Professional Services, Inc. September 24, 1997 14180 West Highways Edtn Prairie. MN 553*34 Mr. Jim Hafner Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 612-937-5150 fax; 612-937-5822 Toll free: l•888•937•StS0 Email; wps^westwoodps com Ref; 97648 Re: Request for Written Wetland Boundary Confirmation for Wetland Delineation of Lake Minnetonka Woods Property, Lots 2 and 3, Block 9, SE1/4 SW1/4 of Section 17, T117N, R23W, City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota Dear Mr. Hafner: I am writing to request written confirmation from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District that the wetland boundaries delineated for the above referenced site are acceptable for local administration of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, as amended. The following text and attached data forms provide the required documentation for the delineation. WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY Wetland boundaries were delineated and flagged in the field by Westwood Professional Services on August 11, 1997 using the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, 1987). This manual is currently followed to delineate wetlands regulated under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 and Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act. The level two routine delineation method u'as used in which sampling transects were established in a representative transition zone of each identified wetland. Transects consisted of one sampling point in obvious upland and one in obvious wetland. Soils, vegetation, and hydrology information were recorded at each point on data forms. Species dominance for vegetation measurements was based on the percent aerial or basal coverage visually estimated within a 30-foot radius for the tree and shrub layers and a five-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type sampled. Prior to delineating the wetland boundaries in the field, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, the Soil Survey of Hennepin County. Minnesota (USDA, 1974), and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Protected Waters Mapping (1981) were reviewed. The soil survey shows the southern and western portions of the property mapped as Marsh with the remainder being Hayden loam and Cut and Fill Land. The NWI map shows nvo PEMF (Palustrine emergent, semipermanently flooded) wetlands in the southern portion of the site within the area designated as Marsh on the soil survey. The DNR Protected Wetlands Map for Hennepin County shows Protected Wetland 27- 014W on the southern half of the property roughly corresponding to the NWI-mapped wetlands. Wetland areas were classified according to Wetlands of the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 39; Shaw and Fredine, 1971) and Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS/OBS Publication 79/31: Cowardin et. al. 1979). Throughout the remainder of this report, wetland areas are identified first by their Circular 39 Classifications. Cowardin Classifications are included in Mr. Jim Hafner September 24,1997 Page 2 parentheses and written out only the first time they are cited. Common names for vegetation identified in this report and on the attached data sheets correspond with the nomenclature used in the National list of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: North Central (Region 3) (USFWS, Reed, 1988). RESULTS Wetland Descriptions The site contains 2 isolated wetlands that are regulated under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, as amended. In addition, the larger wetland at the south end of the parcel is a designated DNR Protected Wetland and is subject to DNR regulation below the ordinary high water level (OHWL). The remainder of the site is deciduous woodland consisting of sugar maple, American basswood, scattered oaks, eastern cottonwood and a large number of common buckthorn shrubs. Basin A is a Type 7 wooded swamp PF05C (Palustrine forested, dead, seasonally flooded) wetland in the northwest comer of the property. The basin appears to have been isolated from past disturbance. 1 observed mounds of soil surrounding the basin, a pioneer plant community on recently disturbed soils located on the west side of the basin, and soil mapping that shows the entire northwest comer of the property as marsh. Dominant plant species observed in the wetland include purple loosestrife, spotted touch-me-not, reed canary grass, water plantain, and bittersweet nightshade as well as dead elm and ash trees. The northern, western, and southern boundaries of the basin are bordered by deciduous woodland consisting of species such as common buckthorn, thicket creeper, box elder, wild grapevine, garlic mustard, bedstraw, wood violet, white ash, poison ivy, enchanter’s nightshade, and hog peanut. The western boundary is bordered by disturbed, open field of primarily pioneer, weedy plant species including sow thistle, curly dock, Canada thistle, horsetail, Canada goldenrod, aster, common mullein, yellow sweetclover, yellow wood sorrel, smooth brome, Kentucky bluegrass, common dandelion, quackgrass, common plantain, common ragweed, leafy spurge, giant goldenrod, red clover, and bull thistle. Soils and hydrology information above and below the wetland boundary were recorded for one representative transect in the northeast comer of the basin and can be found on the attached data form for Basin A. The delineated edge primarily follows an abrupt change in topography and a transition in plant communities as described above. Basin B is a Type 3 shallow marsh PEMIF (Palustrine emergent, persistent, semipermanently flooded) wetland occupying most of the southern half of the property. Vegetation observed in the wetland includes purple loosestrife, narrow-leaved cattail, sedge, willow, spotted touch-me-not, clearweed, reed canary grass, American elder, red-osier dogwood, sensitive fern, green ash, green bulrush, giant goldenrod, boneset, broad-leaved cattail, water parsnip, and giant ragweed. A dirt trail partially bisects the center of the wetland and an additional dirt trail runs along a portion of the north edge. The slope up to County Highway 15 forms the southern boundary. The remainder of the wetland is bordered by deciduous woodland consisting of species including common buckthorn, thicket creeper, hog peanut, ash, wild grapevine, poison ivy, sugar maple, American elm, box elder, garlic Westwood Professional Services, Inc.w r Mr. Jim Hafner September 24,1997 Pages mustard, wood violet, staghorn sumac, American basswood, bedstraw, honeysuckle, currant, red oak, lopseed, enchanter ’s nightshade, bluegrass, and creeping bellflower. Soils and hydrology information above and below the wetland boundary were recorded for one representative transect along the northern border of the basin and can be found on the attached data form for Basin B. The wetland boundary primarily follows a change in topography and a change from reed canary grass, willow, and purple loosestrife in the wetland to deciduous woodland on the adjacent upland. CONCLUSIONS The wetland boundary staked in the Held for Basin B generally corresponds to NWI mapping, however. Basin A does not show up on the NWI map. Both basins occur within the same mapped hydric soil area (marsh). The OHWL for Basin B (DNR Protected Water 914W) has not been set by the DNR, but the DNR lists the basin as a 2.5 acre Type 3 wetland with a 100 year flood elevation of 935.5 and a 10 year flood elevation of 934.8. The wetland boundaries were marked using pink "wetland delineation ” pin flags. Alt flags were located by professional surveyors and are recorded on the attached Existing Conditions Map. Approximate transect sampling points are recorded on the map as well. Note that preliminary site plans do not involve wetland encroachment. Please call me at 937-5150 if you have any questions regarding this delineation. Otherwise please send the requested written confirmation that the wetland boundaries delineated for this site are acceptable (for local administration of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act) to my attention at Westwood Professional Services. Sincerely, WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. Ken Powell Environmental Scientist Enclosures cc:Mike Gaffron, City of Orono, P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Bill Gleason, Brook Park Realty, LLP., 8525 Edinbrook Crossing, Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Fran Hagan, Westwood Professional Services, Buffalo Office c larroocuMiMTTAfArs sn^^#f^o«rrMffrocuN tfT7iiraaMv»oooto<K>woii^i>oc Westwood Professional Services, Inc. iiniwaaiiiiiiiii — i4ii iT>Minr ir~i l■r■T^l■llll■l S^wer VslikW-r Conf>^frh^*^ [f n is 1. m # £xhiki4* To: From: Date: Subject: File §2263 Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator August 5,1997 Sewer & Water Connection Fees Analysis #2263 Brook Park Realty - 3700-3760 Shoreline Drive - PRD Proposal Legal Description: Lots 2 and 3, Block 9, Townsite of Langdon Park Parcel Identification: Lot/Block West 1/2 Lot 2, Bl. 9 East 1/2 Lot 2, Bl. 9 North 2/3 Lot 3, Bl. 9 South 1/3 Lot 3, Bl. 9 PINS 17-117-23 34 0005 17-117-23 34 0006 17-117-23 34 0007 17-117-23 34 0008 Plat/Parcel 42420 - 4300 42420 - 4350 42420 - 4410 42420 - 4420 I.Basis for Review: Although sewer (1963) and water (1970) were previously assessed to this property to some extent, the assessed-for facilities do not provide readily accessible service to the rear of the property where development will occur. However, easily accessible sewer and water lines were constructed in 1982 as part of the Schlee Builders twinhome project. The Brook Park property was assessed an area sewer trunk charge for this 1982 project (as did all properties in the defined trunk service area), but no unit, bypass, plant or lateral charges. Per Council Resolution #1412 adopted September 13,1982, these 1982 facilities were intended to serve the development on the Brook Park properties and it is reasonable that Brook Park pay the current (1997) sewer and water connection charges for the 1982 facilities, less credit for the 'current value' of assessments paid for the portions of the 1963 mid J970 projects that will not be used. II. Summary of Connection Charges Due (Based on a 30-unit development) Sewer: Water: Total: $40,995. 4.020. $45,015. Note: The property was assessed for road improvements in 1982, for the portions of Livingston Avenue which will serv e the property, per Resolution #1412. The property was not assessed for storm sewer constructed in that 1982 project, and will only be required to pay a storm sewer connection charge if it makes use of that system. Following b an analysis of the sewer and water connection charges. Page 1 of 4 * • r III. Sewer Connection Charge Analysis 1 963 Sewer Assessment: 1. Trunk Sewer TS 63-lB (Levy #3302) Assessed at $110.00 per acre Plat/Parcel Area Total Ass< 42420-4300:2.36 ac $259.60 42420-4350:-- 42420-4410 1.51 ac 166.10 42420-4420 3.59 ac 394.90 7.46 ac $820.60 (Note: This assessment was for the main sewer trunk in County Roads 19 and 51 which serves the entire southwest portion of the City) 2. Lateral sewer LS-63-1B (Levy #3307) Assessed at $8.00 per front foot Plat/Parcel 42420-4300 42420-4350 42420-4410 42420-4420 Footage 132.0' Total assessed $ 1,056.00 50.0’400.00 182.0'S 1,456.00 Total Assessment for 1963 Sewer = $820.60 + $1,456.00 = $2,276.60 Current Value for 1963 Sewer Lateral per 1997 Fee Schedule: $37.20/front foot 1963 Sewer Current Value: 182.0'x $37.20= $ 6,770.40 = Total Creditable Value 1982 Sewer Assessments: Original Project Assessments Amounts: Trunk Area Charge (82-1B, Levy # 9086): $2,000.00 per acre Trunk Unit Charge (82-1 A, Levy # 9085): $ 760.00 per unit Trunk Bypass Charge (82-1 A, Levy #9085): $ 150.00 per unit Sewer Lateral Charge (82-1 A, Levy #9085): $1,851.82 per unit Actual Assessed Amounts: PINS#Trunk Area Trunk Unit Bvpass Lateral 17-117-23 34 0005 1.34 ac = $2,680.-0--0-NA 17-117-23 34 0006 1.43 ac= 2,860.-0--0-NA 17-117-23 34 0007 -0--0--0-NA 17-117-23 34 0008 3.13 ac= 6.260.-0-^0-NA 5.90 ac = $11,800. Page 2 of 4 in^ r Development of the subject property is not responsible for the 1982 Sewer Lateral Charge, since the cost of the laterals constructed in 1982 was spread over the properties they directly served. The Trunk Unit charge of $760. per unit has inflated to $1,095. per unit in the 1997 fee schedule and is due for tWs new development, as is the $150. per unit Bypass charge. Also, because the proposed development density uses credit for the wetland area (allowable because it is sewered property), an incremental Trunk Area charge of ± 9.8 ac- 5.9 ac= 3.6 acres should be charged at an inflated 1997 rate of (1095/760)x $2,000 = $2,882. per acre, or a total of $10,375. <?pwer Connection Charges Summary (Sample calculation based on 30 units) Trunk Unit & Bypass: $1,095. + $150. = $1,245. per unit x 30 units = Trunk Area: $2,882./acre x 3.6 acres = Less credit for LS-63-1B lateral sewer Total sewer Connection Charges Due $37,350. 10.375. $47,725. ( 6.770.1 $40,955. IV. Water Connection Charge Analysis 1970 Water Assessment: Project 1970 LW-1 (Levy # 5383) Original Project Asessment Amounts:$580.00 per residential unit $870.00 per commercial unit $ 5.80 per residential front foot $ 8.70 per <'ommercial front foot 1970 Property Assessment; Ilfim Parce Assessed footage: Assessed units: Footage amount: Units amount: Oversize Service @ $225. Total assessed by parcel Total 1970 Water Assessment: $ 22,443.60 4300 4350 4410 4420 132.00’ 5 comm'l 132.00' 5 conun'l 264.00’ 3 conun’l 7 conun’l $ 1,148.40 $ 4,350.00 $ 1,148.40 $ 4,350.00 S 225.00 $ 5,723.40 $ 2,296.80 $2,610.00 $ 225.00 $ 6,090.00 $ 5,498.40 $5,131.80 $ 6,090.00 Note that the value of conunercial units was 1.5 times the value of residential units, so the 20 total conunercial units assessed is equal to 30 residential units. Therefore, if the water system in Shoreline Drive is used, there will be no water connection charge -ce the property has been fully assessed for 30 residential units. Page 3 of 4 • I ■a • -w...■ MB « -1 Vi t*.~ ri¥ imrt ^ irn > iii ifhi 11~ riiirtf i>r in i J 1970 LW-1 Water Current Value (per 1997 fee schedule): 30 residential units x $2,039.00 per residential unit = $ 61,170.00 528 front feet x $ 20.35 per front foot = 10.744.80 $71,914.80 1982-1A Navarro Water Project Original Charge (1982): $ 1,566.51 per unit (Subject property was not assessed for 1982 water project) Current Charge (per 1997 fee schedule): 1982-1A Navarro Water connection charge: $ 2,173.00 per unit Sample Water Connection Charge Calculation (If Navarro Water is Used): 30 units x$ 2,173.00 per unit =$65,190.00 Credit for 1970 units paid = 61.170.00 Due for water units $ 4,020.00 Since the laterail system in Co. Rd. 15 provides value to the property for fire protection, etc., no credit for the 19 “70 lateral charge is granted. Water Connection Charge Due (Based on a 30 unit development) = $4,020. ! ! Page 4 of 4 r f k AdSta .» ku n ■! I III ■ ■ ifll il'i^ I I H ~l M I ll f PI ■■ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Dale Lindquist, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Janice Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, and Lili McMillan. William Stoddard was absent. The following represented the City Staff: Assistant Zoning and Planning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, City Planner Elizabeth Van Zomeren, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Council Member Goetten was present. Vice Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. (The meeting began with Agenda Item #23. Items #1 and following continue after discussion of this item.) SKETCH PLAN (#23) #2263 BROOK PARK REALTY 3560-3700 SHORELINE DRIVE SKETCH PLAN REVIEW The applicant was represented by Bill Gleason of Brook Park Realty and John Gleason of Eagle Crest Builders. Gaffron reported that the 9.8078 acre property is located west of the twin homes in Navarre, which are the only multi-family dwellings in Orono. The property abuts Shoreline Drive on the south and the Dakota Rail to the north. West of the property is a gravel and landscaping business, which is non-conforming in its use. The subject property is located in the LR-lCl, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. The LR-IC allows for two units per acre. The ICl allows for a PRD with a 50% increase to 3 units per acre. The proposed development would be four units per building. There are wetlands located to the front of the property and the northwest. Runoff drains to the south into Carman's Bay from Casco Point to the east. The concept plan results in a development density of 4.6 units per acre. Per the zoning requirements, the 9.8 acre property would allow for 29 units where 45 are proposed. Gaffron reviewed the code sections that apply to the development plan. Section 10.30 Subdivision 16(1) disallows rezoning of the site to M-6 Multiple Family PRD because the site is adjacent to an LR district. M-6 is the only zoning district wh-ch would allow densities such as that proposed. Section 10.55 Subdivision 15(A)(3) allows credit for wetlands for density purposes for sewered residential property. Section 10.60 Subdivision 2 disallows density in excess of 4 units per acre of dry buildable land. The property in que'^tion has about 7 acres of dry buildable allowing for about 28 units. Section 11.10 Subdivision 14 prohibits the granting of variances to the density provisions of the code. This results in the proposed 45 units being too many to consider under the current code standards. 1 t . f. I I tmif I TTi it I IIi Mm ■ r niTi^Mf II it mm. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#23 - #2263 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Gaffron reviewed the memo regarding wetlands, hardcover limitations, engineering issues, and sewer and water connection charges. There is a concern about possible wetland encroachment along the west side. The wetlands require confirmation and may require some restoration. There is a 35®/o hardcover limit for a PRD in the LR-IC District. A letter is .ncluded from the City engineer regarding the proposal. The preliminary determination for sewer and water connection charges is approximately $3800 per unit. The memo also outlines PRD standards for consideration. Gaffron informed the Commissioners that under a PRD they have the opportunity to create what they would like to see for such a development and give direction to the developer. The applicants were asked to comment. Bill Gleason indicated that they had been unaware of the limitations on the property being adjacent to the LR District. It is their plan to develop affordable housing through higher density. A portion of the development plan is laid out on neighboring property not yet acquired or part of this proposal. He noted there is a driveway currently crossing over wetlands. The wetlands will be preserved. Entry into the property would be from Livingston Avenue. Gleason said his goal is to provide a lower unit cost through higher density. He proposes a umt would cost about $135,000 or less if the 48 unit density was allowed. Gleason said they would redo the plan if the 48 unit plan was not allowed. Each unit will include two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a double garage, central air conditioning, and appliances. There will be a front entry with garage entry on the other side. There will be four units per building. There were no public comments. Smith asked if the applicant had reviewed the letter from the City Engineer. Gleason said he had no issue with the contents of the letter. He said he thought the driveway may be a problem. John Gleason asked what would be involved with restoration. Gaffron said it would likely include reexcavation and revegetation. Gaffron said the driveway has been a long standing issue for the City as it encroaches on property being developed and needs to be resolved. He felt it was resolvable. Hawn asked what the cost figures are for affordable housing. Gaffron said the top of the affordable range is a $120,000 valuation, which results in the estimated $135,000 cost per unit not meeting the affordable criteria. More density would be required to reduce the cost. i ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#23 - #2263 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Berg indicated that the land value attributes to the cost. She felt the proposal was too high density. Smith said the plans are an improvement over what is on the property now but saw a problem with resolving the density issue. Hawn questioned whether the same size units would limit the type of residents who would purchase the property. She asked whether the developer has considered building some units bigger to allow for more of a mix of residents. Bill Gleason said the main issue was with keeping costs down. They are gearing their development to young couples or singles. They originally considered providing housing for empty nesters but there is not enough room for one level housing. The acreage would only allow for 16 one-level units, and Gleason felt empty nesters would desire a housing cost less than $130,000. Berg asked if the interior units in the building would be smaller. The applicants said they were all the same size at just under 1500 s.f. finished. Berg asked what market analysis the developer has done to determine who their buyers would be. Bill Gleason said he thought $ 150,000 per unit would be too high for townhome buyers. He acknowledged that land costs were high but felt the street and infrastructure costs were the main concern. Berg inquired what the development cost per unit would be. John Gleason said it would be about $30,000 with the lot. He noted that access to the property would be through an existing neighborhood which sets the tempo for the housing. Gleason said the homes would have maintenance free siding. He also indicated that an association would be formed. The entry cost would be $120,000 with options available that would increase the cost. The homes would include a set package. Gleason said building two level townhomes is more affordable. Bill Gleason said the unit development cost would be about $15,000 to $16,000 not including the land. Berg noted that the cost would increase for the premium lots. McMillan questioned the road access to CoRd 15. Gaf&on said it is shown in concept orJy if the adjacent property is similarly developed in the future. (Schroeder arrived at this time.) ■ ! i ; r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#23- #2263 Brook Park Realty - Continued) McMillan asked about guest parking. Bill Gleason said each unit would have room for two cars in the garage and two cars in front of the units. There will be room elsewhere for parking and a public road going through the development. Green spaces will be provided. Hawn asked if it was impossible to rezone the area. Hawn indicated that the property is the last area available for affordable housing. The proposal is way over the density that can be allowed but Hawi. said she favors the effort. Bill Gleason reiterated that they misunderstood the zomng. Gaffron said any higher density would require rezoning. He informed the Commissioners that m order to allow more than three units per acre, a new zone would have to be created. Hawn aske if there were any other area where low cost housing could be built. Gaffron said he did not think so, this is the only area zoned for multiple family in Navarre. Hawn said she would like to pursue rezoning of this property. Berg said she would consider reviewing it but not for the number of units as proposed. McMillan agreed vnih Berg. Berg said she understood the ncem but felt the number proposed was too dense. Smith agreed with Berg. McMillan noted that any density between 29 and 45 units would still require rezoning. 9^^ said this would require changing the LR-lC-1 zone standards or creating a new zone which takes time. Smith also indicated that the unit price would not necessarily come down much in cost. Smith said she overall supports the proposal but does not favor rezoning to the extent needed for the density requested. She said the other issues are probably solvable. Berg said she liked the look of the proposal. John Gleason said they would try to maintain the price. He ^ked what the time frame was or rezoning. Gaffron said the Council would likely want to review all of Navarre on a comprehensive level and estimated a minimum of six months. John Gleason asked if the Commission thought the proposal with less density was favorable. Berg concurred noting the desire for affordable housing while still meeting the benchmark density. Gleason asked how they could come up with a density level. Smith informed him that any density level over 28 or 29 units would require rezoning. G^on reiterated that aensity over Z units would require at least six months for review of the zoning. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#23 - #2263 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Bill Gleason asked how the determination of 28 units was made. Gaffron said it was determined by the dry buildable and would result in 28-30 units. Berg said the applicant also has to consider the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal will increase the trafHc which has to be considered. She noted that the addition of the adjacent parcel would re.sult in the County reviewing the traffic as well. McMillan indicated that with no code allowing density over 28 units, the density level cannot be determined at this point. Bill Gleason said they could review and re-tool the plan if rezoning was a possibility. Gaffron said if the Commission would like to consider rezoning, the Council should review the sketch plan first to see if they support the idea of rezoning. John Gleason clarified the water and sewer connection charge of $3800 per unit. Gaffron said density level would not change the unit cost. (Dale Lindquist arrived at this time.) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS (#1)#2187 DONALD ANT) ROBIN HELGAGER 3265 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 7:12-7:24 P.M. The Applicant, Robin Helgager, along with Neil Heupel, were present. Gaffron reported that the application is a continuation of a public hearing for remodeling of the residence. The applicant received approval for a 5' east lot line setback in 1996 and removal of the existing detached garage and addition of an attached garage, a family room, and a change in the driveway. A revised proposal was reviewed early in 1997. Gaffron indicated that the property requires a 50’ setback from CoRd 6,150' setback from Lake Classen, a 30' side setback, all of which leaves little room for expansion of the footprint. The lakeshure setback requirement has increased since the original residence was built. —-"I*. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#1 - #2187 Donald and Robing Helgager - Continued) The original 1997 proposal included a mother-in-law apartment. The current proposal does not include an apartment. A second story is planned over the garage area. This would result in the second story being located within the 30' setback with the proposed 5' setback. Gaffron asked Commission to consider this proposal and how it might affect the adjacent property’s view of the lake. He noted that the Planning Commission had found it difficult to allow additions to the residence towards the street. There will still be an encroachment of the lakeshore setback but less than that with the existing garage that will be removed under the proposed plan. Heupel said the front entrance is now established. He said while the suggestion by Hawn for an addition to the rear was appreciated, they had forgotten about the septic tanks being located in that area. Other alternatives were not possible resulting in the request for the second story above the garage. The current entrances to the home are from the porches on the front and side. Hawn said she saw the driveway in front of the home as being a problem. Heupel said it serves as a turnaround only. Robin Helgager said it is dangerous to attempt to turn around any where else. Hawn questioned whether the driveway has to be extended across the whole front of the residence. Helgager said they are losing their parking currently used and are not able to park side by side. Smith noted that there is no p’ace to park off of the property. McMillan asked how large the driveway area will be. Heupel said it is about 25' wide and the length of the home. Helgager said she has three small children and the property drops off to the side and would like the area for the children to play basketball. Smith said the proposal is an improvement over the last application. While she does not like to see adding to the mass of4he structure, she prefers this proposal. Hawn asked if the driveway would be blacktopped. Helgager said she would like it to be as it is the only flat part of the yard. McMillan asked if the next door neighbor approved of the plan. Heupel said he lived next door and was in support of the plan. Hawn inquired about trees being affected by the proposed plan. Helgager said one tree was lost, but they plan on planting more trees. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2187 for the hardships noted. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 (#1 - Tree Preservation - Continued) Lindquist asked if any member of the audience would like to comment on tree preservation. No public comments were made. Park Commissioner McDermott did ask to comment. He said the review done by the Park Commission was mainly based on looking at adjacent communities and paring it down to fit in with the philosophy of Orono. He noted the City of Minnetonka is reviewing protection of slopes. McDermott said the Park Commission looked at stands of trees or masses in the issue of woodlands. Regarding the type of plant material that should be used, they looked at what trees and plants were native to the area. McDermott agreed with the Planning Commission that an addendum to the ordinance should be used instead of incorporating a list within the ordinance as changes do occur. Regarding the size of trees to maintain, he noted there are substandard trees, and evergreens result in the need for a separate parameter due to the differences in the tree types. He said the Park Commission felt it was important to protect some trees in the City noting if a house was positioned anywhere on a property instead of repositioning the house to protect the area. McMillan reiterated that the Planning Commission must discuss what manhours are available to oversee the tree preservation ordinance and what costs would be associated with it. Gaffron reported that the Council would like to see a tree ordinance adopted. He noted staff has been unable to review the topic to the degree it requires, and in his opinion, the City should involve a consultant in its review. Lindquist suggested a work session be held with Planning Commission, members of Park Commission, and consultant. Berg noted information provided from other cities can be utilized in the review. McMillan suggested the topic be discussed with Council at the upcoming scheduled work session. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the minutes from the Planning Commission Work Session of September 12,1997. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Smith had not yet arrived at the meeting.) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS (#2) #2308 BROOK PARK REALTY, 3560 SHORELINE DRIVE, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CLASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 7:02-7:46 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 21,1997 (#1-^2187 Donald and Robing Helgager - Continued) TTie original 1997 proposal included a mother-in-law apartment. The current proposal does not include an apartment. A second story is planned over the garage area. This would result in the second story being located within the 30' setback with the proposed 5' setback. Gaffron asked Commission to consider this proposal and how it might affect the adjacent property's view of the lake. He noted that the Planning Commission had found it difficult to allow additions to the residence towards the street. There will still be an encroachment of the lakeshore setback but less than that with the existing garage that will be removed under the proposed plan. Heupel said the front entrance is now established. He said while the suggestion by Hawn for an addition to the rear was appreciated, they had forgotten about the septic tanks being located in that area. Other alternatives were not possible resulting in the request for the second story above the garage. The current entrances to the home are from the porches on the front and side. Hawn said she saw the driveway in front of the home as being a problem. Heupel said it serves as a turnaround ody. Robin Helgager said it is dangerous to attempt to turn around any where else. Hawn questioned whether the driveway has to be extended across the whole front of the residence. Helgager said they are losing their parking currently used and are not able to park side by side. Smith noted that there is no place to park off of die property. McMillan asked how large the driveway area will be. Heupel said it is about 25' wide and the length of the home. Helgager said she has three small children and the property drops off to the side and would like the area for the children to play basketball. Smith said the proposal is an improvement over the last application. While she does not like to see adding to the mass of4he structure she prefers this proposal. Hawn asked if the driveway would be blacktopped. Helgager said she would like it to be as it is the only flat part of the yard. McMillan asked if the next door neighbor approved of the plan. Heupel said he lived next door and was in support of the plan. Hawn inquired about trees being affected by the proposed plan. Helgager said one tree was lost, but they plan on planting more trees. Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2187 for the hardships noted. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 (#2 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Bill Gleason represented Brook Park Realty. Gleason said the plan has been revised to reflect a lesser density than originally proposed. The density is based on 4 per buildable acre or 30 units. Van Zomeren reported that the comments made by the landscape architect, Mr. Case, was received today and were briefly reviewed with him over the phone. Van Zomeren said the proposal is for the construction of 30 townhomes on a 9.93 acre site requiring a preliminary plat and planned residential development review. Outlots A and B will be held in a development agreement for maintenance and restrictions will be placed on vehicle storage. Review is required. Tom Kellogg was present to answer questions. The alignment of Livingston is proposed to extend to the west through the site if the developer is able to acquire the property to the west for future coordinated development. The cul-de-sac would be eliminated at that time and connection made to the street. Van Zomeren said an issue arises regarding no more than 10 residences be allowed access from a cul-de-sac. She asked Commission to consider whether 18 units should be allowed use of the temporary cul-de-sac. The plan will be reviewed by the Mound Fire Department. Van Zomeren also noted that the curve radius of250' is less than what is required by the standards. The 12 ^mits in the southern portion are to be accessed from a driveway, which does not have the right-of-way or paved width for the size allowed. The landscape architect has recommended less paving be allowed for tree preservation. Van Zomeren asked the Commission to consider this option. Van Zomeren noted that a drainage control would be required before the wetland. A 10:1 benchmark would be used for slopes. A loop has been recommended on the 6" water main. 3' is required downstream for the sanitary sewer. The County has asked for 7' along Shoreline Drive in the same easement as the phone company. Van Zomeren said landscaping plans have been submitted. There is a question whether a trail or path should be established to Shoreline Drive and asked if it should include a sidewalk. Trash receptacles must be maintained in garages. Lighting is to be hooded. Mechanical equipment is to be screened and not intrusive. When improvements are made, it may require a letter of credit. Van Zomeren informed the Commission that the Park Dedication fee is $19,064. Questions were directed to Kellogg. . . I- I . ."..ir _.*1 . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#2 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Hawn asked about moving the water main. Kellogg said the proper alignment would be to extend the ma ,i to the west and south down to CoRd 15 in order to improve the flows. Based on the sketch plan review for future expansion plans, it would make sense, according to Kellogg. Hawn asked if this was possible to do. Kellogg said it could be extended with the future proposal. The water main is stubbed out. Hawn informed Kellogg that the developer does not currently own the property. Kellogg said he had been under the impression that they did but noted the improvement could occur when that purchase is made. Van Zomeren concurred that the water main could be extended in the future. Hawn said that request could be required when that property is purchased but would not affect this current plan. Van Zomeren asked the Commission to consider the pavement width and the number of units on the cul-de-sac, noting 12 units would be served by the driveway without a cul- de-sac. The cul-de-sac does not meet all of the standards. Van Zomeren read through the letter of comments from the landscape architect. The architect noted the well formed trees and the desirability to preserve them. He suggested a tree survey be conducted for assessment and evaluation to include a layout. Case suggested adjustments be made to the 28' road width, a reduction in the front yard setback, shift of the pond, grading, and fencing during construction. Van Zomeren reviewed items 1-3 of the landscaping plan noting the trail, removal of trash, and the need for a restrictive covenant that is compatible with the staff report. Van Zomeren said she concurred with the contents in the letter recognizing the conflict with the road width and pavement versus the preservation of trees. Bill Gleason said he just received the report and has not had the time to review the contents. He noted a certain amount of trees vvill be lost with the construction. He has experienced an approximate 50% salvage and utilizes a replacement program. Gleason does not believe a 1:1 replacement ratio is realistic. Gleason said the plan calls for the road to run into the development and ends there until such time it can be expanded into the future proposed development to the west. Gleason said he showed that development to allow the City to view possibilities for the future. The land has not been purchased as of this date. The cul-de-sac will be constructed, meanwhile, with no other means of egress. County Road 15 cannot be reached until such time the road is expanded. A drivew'ay will be utilized to service units. While it does not meet the standard requirements, it is not meant to go anywhere else but to these units. Gleason said he is willing to reduce the size of the road to preserve trees. As to a shift of the water retention pond, Gleason said he does not see any viable alternate location. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#2 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Hawn asked for Gleason's response to a path to CoRd 15. Gleason said he supported a trail system but questioned whether it should be constructed with a bituminous surface. He noted there may be another location on the future western development. Gleason noted an existing driveway encroachment that will be rectified by an easement to allow the neighbor access. McMillan said she thought there was an existing path on the property. Gleason said there may be by the wetland but he has personally never walked it. Lindquist inquired how the police department and emergency vehicles can access the 12 units served hv a driveway. Van Zomeren said Moorse had voiced concern with this issue if a temporary cul-de-sac was not established for a turnaround. Gleason said he was willing to make that accommodation. Van Zomeren e.xplained for Schroeder how the temporary cul-de-sac would be laid out She noted it would be smaller in diameter than a typical cul-de-sac but large enough for vehicles to turnaround. The slope of the land was questioned as it regards the garages facing to the south. Gleason explained the topography of the land and why the garages were located as plaimed. It is tj'pical to a walk-out type scenario. Hawn suggested the use of a circle instead of a cul-de-sac in order to preserve trees in that location. Gleason said it could be considered. He thought it was possible but may present an odd appearance when the road is continued. During public comments, Andrew McDermott, 2702 Walters Port, said he is sad to see the last wooded area in Navarre being developed. He said he agrees with the recommendations made by the landscape architect. McDermott noted the significant trees located on the property, its pleasant views, and would like to see the area around the wetlands preserved. Berg questioned the path being bituminous. Van Zomeren said that suggestion was made by the landscape architect. Berg said it may present a cost concern. Gleason said he has ne t had the time to evaluate it. Van Zomeren said she had thought the path would best be located by the end of the driveway to the shoreline on the east. The landscape architect had thought elsev. here. Gleason said there was an extra piece of land located on the eastern portion of the 'vetland where a trail could be located but it might interfere with buffering. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 (#2 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Berg asked if the trail maintenance would be conducted by the homeowners association. Gleason said it would. Gleason reported he preferred to use a wood chip base instead of blacktop. Hawn suggested a limestone base. Van Zomeren said she would like the location of the trees noted. Berg asked if a letter of credit would be required. Van Zomeren said it would and would include the road improvement, driveway, sidewalk, and landscaping. Lindquist asked the applicant if he has reviewed the staff recommendations. Gleason said he had but questioned the o:’tcome of the park dedication. Van Zomeren said the Park Commission had recommendeu ” fee in lieu of land. Gleason questioned whether the sewer connection cost was based on the number of units. Van Zomeren said the information came out of the sketch plan review. Gleason said he supported the recommendations made by staff. Lindquist reported that review is required of the landscape architect's recommendations and the review by the Mound Fire Department regarding the private road. Va:i Zomeren asked the Plamiing Commission to direc. he applicant to review the landscape architect's comments and produce a tree inventory. She asked that a meeting be scheduled with staff, applicant, and engineer before another review by Planning Commission. Berg asked that a final landscape plan be submitted by the applicant as well. Gleason indicated it was in his plan to save the majority of trees, and he was willing to submit the tree inventory. Van Zomeren noted the 13 recommendations would be included with a change to #12 regarding the loop of the water main not be included until the additional land is acquired, McMillan asked about guest parking. Parking will be allowed in the two parking spaces by the building and in each driveway. Gleason said parking is usually not allowed along private driveways; though, sometimes allowed on one side of a narrow roadway. McMillan asked that this be addressed. She also asked that the size of the sidewalk be reduced and designed in a more natural grid. Gleason agreed. He said his only concern was with the lack of a guideline regarding trees. Lindquist noted this related to the uniqueness of Orono. Gleason said he would contact the landscape architect. Schroeder was informed that the townhome units would sell for $132,000. Planning Commission will again review the application at the November 17 meeting. 8 »-. .. -r - I . k t_J.tr * "f L. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 (#2 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to direct Staff to proceed with a meeting between Staff, C t£> Engineer, Brook Park Realty, and Landscape Architect. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#3) #2306 DENNIS PLATTETER, 809 BROWN ROAD NORTH, RENEWAL OF CLASS in PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 7:46-7:54 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the applicant is requesting a renewal of a Class III Subdivision to allow the existing zoning lot to be divided into two parcels creating a front lot and back lot. Approval was received earlier and expired. The property meets the zoning for the RR-IB standard for width, front yard, and setback from Environmental Lakeshore. Van Zoiacfcn said she received a phone call regarding the yard light, a manure compost pit, and the existence of a pole bam. These issues, however, are not related to subdivision regulations. Van Zomeren said staff recommends approval of the application. Dennis Platteter noted the existing problem with the 80' wide roadway for creation of three lots resulting in the two lot configuration. He said he attempted to meet all zoning requirements. Platteter said he asked the yard light be eliminated last year. The compost pit is made up of yard clippmgs only and used in landscaping. It does not include manure. Platteter said he has hired three different contractors for the removal of the pole bam. He was informed by his current contractor it would be removed the first part of November. Platteter thought it would have been removed before final plat but that was not the case. Lindquist asked Platteter for a reasonable time limit for removal of the pole bam and for him to recontact NSP regarding the yard light. Platteter agreed. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2306 with the understanding that the pole bam would be removed by January 1,1998 and a call be placed to NSP regarding the yard light. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ■ lllliMTimriMi V mm Ml i ■ ■■■ J-iil rJTmi ■- Mfcr— -—-n—Ma II ^—nn—*ti—■■ ai Ml mil ■ i ■ ■ i i ■ i r«i i h'miI-i ifiM r-fciTi n r I i ' i I 1 t i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 construction, he would not be allowed any structure in the 0-75' setback. Olsen a^nowledged that the home would not have been able to be built to meet toddy's stanohrds. Alexander no^d that the patio consists of pavers and asked if pft^rs with drainage holes is still deemed hardcover. Lindquist said they were. Ale>jaMer said eliminating 1.5% of hardcover would cor^st of497 s.f. When asked by Hawn what u^ms are necesMfy, it was noted that the dog kennel could be gravel and the patio could be reu^«d ir^ze. This would amount to less than the decrease being required. The patio 10 s.f. and could be reduced. / / There were no public comments. / / Stoddard moved, Ha<vn seconded, to approve Application #2305 for lakeshore setback, 9 hardcover variaj;ice in 0-75' setback, subject to revised recommendation including a /41' lakesh^e setback variance for structure to remain at 34'Ae OHW, hardcover varian^for a maximum of 4415 s.f. in the 0-75' setback, and pikstic under landscaping mo^ in the 0-75' setback. The reduction in hardcover in the 0-75*^ack will be ^ided by applicant subject to staff approval. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 31^ (#4) #2308 BROOK PARK REALTY,^0 SHORELINE DRIVE - PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CLASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 7:03-7:39 P.M. Bill Gleason was present representing Brook Park Realty. T) ‘ c- , r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 Van Zomeren reported that the application was tabled at the last meeting to allow time for the applicant to meet with Staff, City Engineer, and landscape architect consultant from DSU. A revision was provided last week by the applicant. Engineering comments have been received. Van Zomeren did not receive comments from the landscaping consultant. She did speak with a representative of the fire department. The revised plan includes construction of 30 townhomes on 9.93 acre site with access from Livingston Avenue. The units are connected with four per building. The northerly umts will be served by a road. The southern units will be served by a driveway. The Mound Fire Department would like to see the 6" water main looped, which will increase the unit cost by $1.50-$2.00 per square foot, or the units sprinkled. The 22' road width was recommended by the landscape architect in order to maintain trees. The City Engineer has agreed to that width, while noting it does not meet City standards. The issue involved is fire safety v'ersus saving trees. The City Engineer supports the sanitary sewer and water design, which conflicts with the opinion of the fire department. Details will be required for final plan. City Engineer Kellogg recommended Livingston Avenue be extended to the west and sanitary and water main stubs be extended as well. The drainage area map was thought to show high calculations at 20 minute concentration and recommendation is made for a ma.\imum time of concentration of 15 minutes. Pipe grading or sizes may need to be revised. A paved swale or erosion control should be provided downstream from the piping. Details of the pond outlet control and weir should be provided for review. The timber weir may present a future maintenance problem and an alternate outlet structure may be desired. The 19 umts served by temporar\‘ cul-de-sac exceeds the maximum of 10 allow’ed. Van MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 Zomeren noted there is no history in Orono of similar townhouse development and questioned whether this should be maintained or changed. Livingston Avenue design is not built to a 30 mph speed and the radius should be increased to 275 ft. or reduced speed warning signs installed, which Staff recommends. The City Engineer also asks that a typical street section be provided to verify the proposed pavement design. Van Zomeren said the landscape consultant has indicated that the revised plan is an improvement and noted the identification has been provided for the larger stands of trees. The preservation level of trees is at about 50%. Van Zomeren said it was her opinion that the application be tabled to the January meeting in order for review of fire department and engineering recommendations. Since there is a two month span of time. Van Zomeren said a recommendation could be based by the Planning Commission ba5ed on the comments received by the City Engineer and landscape consultant. Mr. Gleason said he received a letter dated November 13 from the landscape architect. Van Zomeren reported that she had not received it. A copy was given to Van Zomeren for her immediate review. Gleason said the 6" water line will come to the property line and there had been concern over the amount of water flow. As far as looping the main or sprinkling the units. Gleason said he would do what is required and asked if there was a way that the system could be looped. Gappa said he was unfamiliar with it and would have to review the layout to see if enough water could get to the location. 8 • - \ ! ' ! i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 f' >y f ; ^ : Lindquist asked for comments from the applicant regarding the road width. Gleason said the fire marshal thought a 20' width was satisfactory and 22' is proposed. He thought there was no other option for the dead-end cul-de-sac. Gleason said the owner of the property to the west is currently not interested in selling. Van Zomeren said the road would not be extended to the end of the property, only the sewer and water improvements would be located there. The driveway would dead-end at the cul-de-sac. Lindquist agreed that whatever occurs with the property to the west does not factor into this application. Hawn asked if the driveway could e.xtend to CoRd 15. Gleason said no. Concern was voiced regarding the inability to turnaround at the dead-end. Lindquist questioned whether a cul-de-sac could be built there. Hawn was informed that the driveways would be two car lengths. No parking would be allowed along the side of the road. Guests would have to park in the driveway of the units or gain permission from other residents to park in their driveways. There were no public comments. Lindquist asked about the time schedule. Gleason said he was beginning to enter a time crunch due to having to redesign the subdivision. He noted that he was uninformed of any problem with the driveway until now. The fire department had not indicated that having to back into a driveway to turnaround would be a problem. Gleason said it is not a through street, only a private driveway, and access can be gained. Gleason did not believe there was room for a cul-de-sac and additional trees would be lost. ^ n. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 Lindquist noted that three residences are allowed on private driveways for single family residences and in this proposal, there are 11 units. Gleason noted there were no guidelines for townhomes in Orono and as a result, new issues are continually being raised. Stoddard indicated that the Comn-’ssion was attempting to balance safety with tree preservation. He supported having a turnaround. He did not envision a problem regarding the looped water main or sprinkler system since the applicant was willing to do what is necessary. Gleason suggested the possibility of constructing a hammerhead at the end of the driveway instead of a turnaround. Gappa thought that was feasible noting it has been done elsewhere. Gleason said this would solve the problem of inadequate room for a complete turnaround. Gleason said he would mark the driveway as a private drive. Lindquist asked if there were any problems with the landscape report. Gleason indicated there were no problems as far as he was concerned. He said he is in favor of adding landscaping and reducing the setback for saving trees. He questioned the need for a buffer from the garages facing CoRd 15 as there is a considerable distance separating the two. He said landscaping is beneficial for marketing. Gleason thought the landscape plan could be approved when the final plat is presented. McMillan noted the design for the front doors being in the middle of the units. She asked if this was advantageous for those in the middle units having to walk all around. She asked if this was a question of providing a common area versus losing privacy. Gleason thought the residents will use their garage entries. Guests may walk around or possibly MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 use the garage entry as well. Gleason feels the courtyards will be attractive and be private with the trees surrounding them. Any problem would be more for guests than for the residents. Gleason said there was the possibility of moving the two middle units forward and placing a service door on the side of the garage. Gleason did not believe this was an issue, however, with only four units per building. McMillan said some privacy would be lost by the middle units with walking traffic going back and forth. McMillan asked about snow plowing. Gleason said the shoveling will be provided by the homeowners association. He added that the area would be very wooded and walkways will wind around the treed areas. Gleason thought the courtyards will be used by the residents noting there are patios by the front doors as well. Lindquist noted the issues of the 6" loop or sprinkler, hammerhead, landscaping reconunendations, and fire chief report have been reviewed. Van Zomeren said she would like to know what the applicant is required to do regarding the road. Lindquist indicated the 22' width and hammerhead would be a sufficient tradeoff for preserving trees and was satisfactory with the fire chief. Hawn asked if a 22' width was the maximum that could be provided. Gleason did not know if any wider road could be provided and did not see any reason to expand that width. The length is more of a concern but is solved with the use of a hanunerhead. Gappa noted the difference between single family and townhome units and the ordinance applying to single family residences. He thought the shorter length was a trade-off. Van Zomeren said the preliminary plat and PRD will move forward to the Council for their review. Conformity to subdivision regulations will be reviewed. A letter of credit MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17, 1997 will be necessary or public improvements installed. Lindquist thought a letter of credit would be satisfactory. The ne.xt step after Council review will then be final plat. Hawn asked about the center island suggested by the landscape architect. Van Zomeren said the reasoning was to lessen the amount of pavement made by a cul-de-sac. Gleason said he thought the decision was made to eliminate a circle. Van Zomeren said the City Engineer did not favor the circle but the recommendation was made by the architect. Gappa reported that a circle is not desirable for effective snowplowing. Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve Application #2308 for preliminary plat. Before final plat review, the water loop or sprinkler system will require verification, plan revised for hammerhead turnaround, inclusion of landscape architect recommendations of November 13 excluding the center island, incorporation of City Engineer's comments, park dedication, and other recommendations listed by Staff. Vote: A.yes 5, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS - PUBLIC HEARINGS (#5) #2311 LOREN FRITZ, 3845 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE - 7:39- 7:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Bressler reported that the applicant is proposing a total of 914 s.f. of additions to the existing residence. The existing residence is located T from the rear lot line. The ALA M.W IP»»' MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCILMEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 Gaf&on reported that the applicant has substantiated the conditions required in the final plat and Staff is in receipt of the mylars and documents listed as required lor the final approval. The park dedication fee issue has also been resolved. Staff recommends approval of the resolution of the final plat. The applicant had no additional comments. Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. . Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1 Goetten. (*#8) #2306 DENNIS PLATTETER, 809 BROWN ROAD NORTH - FINAL PLAT CLASS HI SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION NO. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. . Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0, (#9) #2308 BROOK PARK REALTY, 3760 SHORELINE DRIVE - PRD AND CLASS III PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION NO. Bill Gleason of Brook Park Realty was present. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCILMEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 ^ Van Zomeren referenced the plans for the Class III Subdivision and PRD. The propei is located on CoRd 15. Van Zomeren reviewed the discussions held on the application at two Planning Commission meetings. The Planning Commission reconunended approval of the preliminary plat. Van Zomeren indicated that before final plat approval, the issue of a water loop or sprinkler system needs to be decided. Van Zomeren reviewed the concerns and resolution draft. Van Zomeren said the property is heavily wooded. The applicant has attempted to maximize tree preservation. Access will be from Livingston Avenue with a private driveway to access tlie townhomes to the south. A hammerhead will be added for a turnaround for cars and emergency vehicles. She noted that the property underneath the townhomes will be privately owned and the other areas will be left in common ownership. Van Zomeren reviewed the conditions of the resolution. Under #16, Van Zomeren said the landscape plan will be done prior to final plat approval and will need to be changed if Council agrees. Jabbour asked if there was any hazardous materials found on the property. Van Zomeren said she is not sure what is there noting the property is a 10 acre site. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCILMEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 Van Zomeren noted the typical submittals being required. The park dedication fee is $19,464. Sewer and water fees were noted. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat and PRD. Bill Gleason had no comments at this time. Flint questioned the 7 easement of right-of-way dedication to Kelly Avenue. He noted the Hennepin County bike trail plan and questioned whether this easement is the place for a bike trail. It is currently noted for use by utilities only. He questioned whether there is room for a bike trail on the southern edge of the property. Van Zomeren said it can be reviewed by the City Engineer and resolution can be amended for a trail if requested. She indicated the Hennepin County right-of-way agent is requesting the same amount of easement as utilities companies have. Jabbour asked if the City wants a 7 or 10' trail. He noted the park dedication fee would have to be adjusted if that was the case. He asked if Gleason understood. Gleason said he was working through it. Flint noted the trail would have to be 10' or 12' questioning whether the location was feasible for a trail without getting into wetlands. Gleason said he did not believe there was adequate room for a trail in that location. I ■ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCILMEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 Flint questioned the determination of 30 units in the zoning district. Van Zomeren said the property is in the LR-lCl District and the applicant is able to increase the density by 50% if items A-F are met on pages 1 and 2 of the resolution. Barrett suggested the resolution be .amended to note the addition of the proposed plat meeting those requirements. Kelley asked if the application meets those requirements, if the City has to allow the .50% increase in density. Barrett said he would review the matter but believed it is mandatory. Kelley felt too much structure was being squeezed in but would comply if required. Kelley asked how many townhomes were located to the east of this subdivision. Van Zomeren did not have that number. Kelley said he would like to know as the subdivision would add traffic through a lower density neighborhood. He suspected the property to the east has more dry buildable and has as many as 24-26 townhomes. Jabbour noted that a credit is received for the wetland. Kelley said he understood that noting that was the reason for asking Barrett the question on allowing an increased density. Jabbour noted that sewer areas are reviewed differently from non-sewered areas. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCILMEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 Kelley questioned the use of a hammerhead noting he has never seen this done in the City. He asked if the City was taking the position that this is to be allowed. Jabbour said he feels the use of a hammerhead ir ..:ead of a cul-de-sac is in conflict with the ordinance. Barrett reported that the language provided within the LR-lCl, one family lakeshore. Zoning District allows for a 50% density increase. The language says this "may** be provided and gives leave of discretion but since there are no standards by which this is to be judged, he feels the applicant would have the right to the density increase. Flint questioned whether there is the discretion to round up. Kelley asked if the number can be rounded down. Barrett said, by policy, what has been down in the past should be applied in order to be consistent. Jabbour noted that they were talking about one unit only. He sees the main issues as that of a hammerhead versus a cul-de-sac, and the guideline of certain agencies to say whether a sprinkler system is required. Van Zomeren reported that the resolution did not require the sprinkler system. Gleason said if the water main could not be looped, the alternative would be to sprinkler but he has not done an analysis of it as yet. Gleason said he is attempting to save trees. Gleason said the system can be looped but tree loss is a consideration. It was noted that ! . ! ‘ I: i ; MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCILMEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 water pressure could be affected if all townhome residents were drawing water at the same time. Jabbour asked Gappa about the water pressure. Gappa said he did not believe water pressure was a problem as there was capacity to pull from two different directions. Gappa thought it would be nice to have a loop. Jabbour asked if it was nice or if it was required. He noted the code does not say the plan must be approved by a landscape architect. Gleason said he was going to submit a landscape plan. If it is found there would be a loss of more trees, a plan could be provided to show the addition of more trees. Jabbour agreed noting the applicant should not be forced to have the landscape architect produce the plan. Kelley asked what the standard is for width of private roads in the City. He was informed 20'. He asked if the minimum of two enclosed parking spaces is included in that. Gleason said there are tuck-under garages being provided. Kelley asked where the front door is for the dwellings located in the middle. Gleason referred to page 5 of the plans noting the doors are on the walkways facing toward the woods. Kelley clarified that the door is not on the same side of the building as the garage. Kelley asked where guests park. Gleason said they could park in the driveway but would have to walk all the way around to access the door. I ■ --T- jr-A-» ^ .-A IT-----111 -| I in r ■! I f ■ > f I »*V- -J«» . ■* MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCILMEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 Jabbour asked if the project meets the Livable Community Act. Gleason said he was unsure what that limit is but noted he was required to eliminate some units. The current market price is $134,000. Moorse reported that under the act, the maximum limit is $120,000 for 1997. Flint voiced interest in knowing how traffic will be affected in the neighborhood and if there were any requirements pertaining to this issue. Van Zomeren said there was not but could be added as a condition. Flint questioned whether it is fair to add that much traffic to a lower density housing area. Gleason said a water tower is located in the area where the road comes out. The number of units is low on that road and traffic would not affect many units. He said the goal is to extend the road to the west if he can acquire the land. The owner is not interested at this time, however. Kelley said a point that the Could should be made aware of if the subdivision may facilitate the need for a traffic light to be installed at Casco Point and Livingston Avenue. He noted the difficulty that would result in making left turns to go east during the morning rush hour. Kelley said the CoRd IS and Livingston intersection will be used more and is a bad intersection to begin with. \ J MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCILMEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 Moorse said the Council may want to ask the applicant to provide traffic information since this is the only way out of the subdivision and is of major concern. Jabbour said the majority of the application meets the code, though, he would like to have seen the project meeting the affordable housing criteria. He indicated the cul-de- sac requirement would not be met but noted the plan is for saving trees. Jabbour said the applicant must demonstrate the hardship to deviate from the cul-de-sac requirement. ir Gleason said the drive is meant to be a private drive, will be marked and made to appear as such. The hammerhead was considered to provide room for a turnaround. Jabbour noted that most of the roads in the City are private roads. Jabbour said he sees no hardship demonstrated. Gleason asked if trees were considered a hardship. Jabbour said the problem could be satisfied by eliminating two homes and installing a cul-de-sac noting the requirement is law. Kelley said he had questioned whether the Council was considering not requiring the applicant to adhere to the law. Peterson said she also was concerned with the issue of the cul-de-sac. She asked Barrett to look into the use of the word, "may ”. Barrett said he would do so. He feels there is reason for plausible discretion by the applicant with the language, "may obtain". r 1 • MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCILMEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 Jabbour asked for Council direction. Goetten asked Barrett is it was fairly conclusive that approval should be granted as meeting conditions. Barrett said that was true as far as density is concerned. Gleason noted that the goal was for affordability and cost would increase if two buildings were eliminated and a cul*de-sac added. He felt the private driveway aids affordability. He noted the encumbrance of trees as well noting he was trying to meet alot of criteria with the plan. Jabbour said the code is specific in its regard to cul-de-sacs. He noted the market price is already over the limit of affordable housing. Jabbour indicated no hardship was shown. Jabbour said either the code should be adhered to or the code changed. Jabbour concluded that because of the density allowed by code and with the cul-de-sac, it would result in a loss of trees. Gleason said he would not word it as such but because the landscape architect gave specific directions. Kelley noted the cul-de-sac would be located at the end of the private driveway. If unit W1 was eliminated, there would be room for a cul-de-sac. Gleason said he understood that but was trying to accommodate several trees but would support the cul-de-sac. - muii.-•r ■ < .1* ! ^1 IkJ 11 k UA a —..... MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCILMEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 ^ Flint asked how the traffic flow worked. The road and paved walkways were not9^^ Gleason said if the units were staggered, a service door could be provided. He said h^JjV normally builds courtyards into the project. Gleason said two separated walkways are being provided where one would normally be shown. This is being done in order to save trees. Kelley was informed that there would be a homeowners association. He asked about outdoor storage. Gleason said no outdoor storage would be allowed. No boats could be placed in the driveway and cars would be allowed in the driveways only temporarily. Van Zomeren referenced the restrictive covenant document noted under #7 on page 6 of the resolution. Kelley questioned whether the Council should review that document. Gleason said the homeowners association document would be submitted with the final plat. Kelley said he would not want to wait until that point and have the Council deny it. Jabbour said it would be more appropriate to give direction now on what is expected. Jabbour informed Goetten that the Council can make conditions on a homeowners association. Gleason said he would submit the document to staff. It was questioned how that would assist enforcement since the document can be modified. Jabbour said modifications would have to be part of the resolution. Gleason said a modification would also require 100% approval, one denial would totally deny it, and would require •* .5 ■i I kr., i L*l/ ' NHNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCILMEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 Council approval. While there is a time limit to the document, it is for 30 years. Jabbour noted the document can be renewed for an additional six years. Jabbour noted that there was a very limited street side to the units. He would like to ensure that there is adequate parking. Kelley asked if this was a PRD. Barrett said the increase is pursuant to the zoning district and not a PRD. Kelley asked if there was no parking on the street. Gleason said no parking would be allowed on the 22’ wide street. Kelley asked what occurs when there is a party. Gleason can permission can be sought for parking. Flint said he was not prepared to vote on the preliminary plat at this time as he would like an answer on traffic flow. He is less concerned with the issue of the cul-de-sac. Flint thought the use of a hammerhead made sense. Flint would like to see the impact of the density and is bothered by the use of the word "may". Van Zomeren said it is listed under additional permitted uses. js...“*“■**- p ----r-iifr» iri MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCILMEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 Barrett suggested the Council under Subdivision III ask the applicant to be required to meet these provisions, A through F in the resolution but others as well that give Council discretion. Under E, for building size and location, and F, vehicle egress and ingress. Council approval could be required. This may need further discussion. Jabbour said he was not concerned with the cul-de-sac itself but with randoming ignoring the need for demonstrating hardship. He noted the Planning Commission unanimously rejected the need for the cul-de-sac and should not continue to make decisions in this manner. He said if the Council wants to make changes on egress and ingress it should do so or the application should be moved forward. The application would be discussed at the January 12 Council Meeting and January 19 Planning Commission Meeting. Van Zomeren asked if the Planning Commission needs to reconsider the application. Jabbour said once the preliminary plat is passed, the City is committing to the project but some members of the Council are not comfortable with the plan as currently proposed. Gleason said he can ascertain the traffic impacts. He noted the subdivision is not designed for families but for singles and couples. He is unsure what can be done as far as CoRd 15 is concerned. 1 ■ ^ iirriTWiHii'JiBini nni ii n ~t hi Ajiwaif MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCILMEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 Flint said he would like the applicant to present the information and have staff review it. He feels staff needs to be more proactive and look at development of the property to the west. Kelley said he would not like to see only one way out of the subdivision. Jabbour asked that guidelines be given to the applicant. Kelley asked the applicant to determine how this subdivision would correspond to the neighborhood to the east as far as density; what is proposed to the west, and roadway to CoRd IS. He suggested the use of a cul-de-sac. He wants to see the 22* private road meet the standards for private roads and review the homeowners agreement. Gappa noted the standard width for private roads is 28*. Van Zomeren said the reduction in width is to save trees. Kelley said if the issue is trees or safety, safety is more important as additional trees can be planted. As far as traffic impact, Kelley suggested that Livingston and Lilac could possibly be one way streets. Goetten said she had considered that as well noting residents will find other alternatives when they see a problem using CoRd 15. r MESUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCILMEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to table Application #2308 to the January 12 Council Meeting. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#10) #2314 JOHN BESSESEN, HOYT DEVELOPMENT, 2505-2507 KELLY AVENUE - ZONING AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND VARIANCE - RESOLUTIONS NO. Van Zomeren explained how the existing duplex credit works. She noted it is a moving target as it is tied to the commercial and industrial zones. The properties within the allowed proximity to the industrial zone are eligible as they are not adjacent as required due to the location of the roadways and railroad. In the commercial zoning, the only area eligible is that in the Orono Mall area. The areas within 200' of that zone and adjacent to it were shown. Van Zomeren said in actuality, the duplex credit would not occur where allowed as it is not practical. She showed the Navarre area where eligibility for duplex credit could occur noting its haphazard schematics. Van Zomeren indicated that the purpose of the duplex credit is to buffer the single family housing from the commercial areas. It is her opinion that this is not a good scheme. The proposed property could be added by using the B3 District and establishing additional eligibility within 250*. This would add the property in question I ...rWB? REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL ^/EETi^JG JAN 2 6 DATE: January 21, 1 8 ITEM NO CITY^^“'•O Department Approval: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2310, Dick bury. Classic Car Sales, Inc. 3850 Shoreline Drive Request for Finding of Substantially Similar Use Tabled from the November 10, 1997 City Council meeting Zoning District: B-S, Limited Neighborhood Business District Application: The applicant had requested that the City Council find that a classic car sales operation is similar to an antique store or a museum to allow his business to relocate from St. Louis Park to the Bay Furniture location. The City Council voted to deny the request and in lieu thereof, direct staff to prepare a text amendment for consideration at the January 20, 1998 Planning Commission meeting and to table this item until January 26, 1998. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To accept withdrawal of the application. Attachments: A Letter from Mr. Dick Bury r-mcrrrTSfc •; £t? , CLASSIC SALES INC. CLASSIC AND LATE MODEL AUTOS PHONE-612-922-8711 FAX - 612-922-8730 f. ! ! January 19, 1998 Ms. Liz Van Zomeren Orono City Planner/Zoning Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minn 55323 Dear Ms. Van Zomeren, BEceweo C\l'< O'* ;ORONO As per our discussion last week over the phone, I’d like to confirm with this letter the withdrawal of our proposal to occupy the Bay Furniture Building located at 3850 Shoreline Drive. The apparent time delay from our original proposal, plus the probable restrictions that are being discussed caused us to make other plans for the future. We're truly sorry the City feels that a business such as ours occupying the Bay Furniture building should be so highly regulated, particularly when one reviews the other businesses within a three block area in either direction. We really felt we were offering an excellent use for that building, that would have done nothing but enhance the building and the area. I also want to thank you for your assistance with this proposal.. We found you very courteous and helpful in our approach to getting this matter handled properly. Wishing you the best in Improving this areas zoning problems, I remain, ;/e?y truly yours ^ X. Richard B. Bury Copyto: Mr. Steve Katalnen Bay Furniture 3840 EDGEWOOD AVENUE. ST. LOUIS PARK. MN 55426 COUKC: ' >Mrs>>- i<___I UHva JAN 2 3 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY or OROMO DATE: 1/26/98 ITEM NO Department Approval: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: /i^2315 C. Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe 1040/1056 Loma Linda Avenue Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement-Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential (1 acre) Address Current Proposed 1040 Loma Linda Avenue 31,733 square feet (.73 acre)29,736 square feet (.68 acre) 1056 Loma Linda Avenue 10,207 square feet (.23 acre)12,204 square feet (.28 acre) Application: The applicants own the properties at 1040 and 1056 Loma Linda Avenue. A lot line rearrangement is proposed that would eliminate peculiarities in the current side lot line arrangement separating the two lots. The rearrangement will result in the 1040 property becoming slightly less conforming, but would improve the conformance of the 1056 property. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommended by a 5 to 0 vote to: 1. Approve the lot line rearrangement as submitted 2. Urge the applicant to cooperate with other property owners in the area in resolving lot dimension discrepancies. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. i « • ; -9 i. A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1040 AND 1056 LOMA LINDA AVENUE FILE NO. 2315 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 lot line rearrangement by C. Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe (hereinafter "the subdividers"); of propert’es legally described on the survey and attached to this resolution (hereinafter "the properties"); and WHEREAS, the subdividers have completed all requirements of the City for a Class I subdivision of a lot line rearrangement involving the division and combination of properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the Class I subdivision and combination of above referenced properties by the subdividers as shown on the Certificate of Survey by David E Crook, a licensed surveyor of Demars-Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc., dated November 7, 1997 and attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: 1.C. Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe, owners of the aforesaid properties will be responsible for amending the legal description on the deed of their property as follows: See Exhibit B for existing and proposed legal descriptions of the properties and affected easements. Page 1 of 7 r 2.The aforesaid division shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder's office or Registrar of Titles office on or before January 26, 1999 together with a certified original copy of this resolution. 3.The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the division has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of January, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of January, 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 2 of 7 »... I f 4 * STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of and for said counQr, 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 (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) 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 (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 3 of 7 §rni0uimmmtm e i I® tooco M 5a.U -.i' 70 IV i a—m—31 ? Ut 3 *MP m ffi vs V < C*»5f«ng l»qo> Cfscriptic^t Afi€A m JI.7JJ sort fhot poft of Lot 36 including tno acerotions thereto, \omo Linde* tymg easterly and Southerly of the following described line Begmntng at a pomt on the South hne of sold Lot 36 dlstont 200 feet Cost from the Seuthmest corner of said Let 36, thence North of o r*ght angle to $otd Soufh hne o distonce of 106 feet; thence Northeosteriy deflecting to the rtght Sd degrees 00 minutes to the South line of the North 40 feet of said Lot 36, thence Cast along the lost mentioned South Ime a distance of 15/ feet, thence Noeiheasteriy, deflecting to the left 70 degrees 00 mmutes to the shore of Lr y Ninnetonho and theie terminating, sotd Lot 36 being estoblished • judgement entered In Hennepin County District Court Cose tiumi 4 49127 ond recorded in Bcoh 550 of V^scehoneous **»cer is. p.2gt 41.'I f?( lutject lo or easement fer the oeneht of Let 4. \omo L>nda* os contained in Bock 2197 of Deeds, page 332. Document No 3156554 oeer that port of the above described land located wth>n the following description Beginning ot the most thesterty corner of sdtd Lot 4, thence easterly on the Northerly Ime of said Lot 4 a aistonce of 25 86 feet, tnence Southed} to the pomt of mterseclicn of the Northerly Iwye of Lomo Lmdo Avenue wdh the Southwesterly luie of sad Lo* 4, thence Wesledy on the Northedy hne ot Lomo Linda Avenue 26.68 fee*, thence Northerly to the point of beginning: Su^/ocf *0 an easement for utility purposes gronted to Northern States Power Company f./ed m the affice of the Reaister of Deeds of Hennepm County. Uuwesoto os Doc No 4023453 Proposed Legal Description ARCAm 29.736 ZOfT That port of Lot 4. Lomo Linda and the property described os Mows: That port of tof 36 including the accretions thereto, lomo Lindd^ which lies easterly and southedy of the fobowlng described line: Beginning ot o point on the South line of said Lot 36 distant 200 feet eostedy of the southwest com«r of said Lot 36. tbence northed/, ot a right angle to sold south hne, o distance of 106 feet; thertce northeosteriy, defecting to the right 53 degrees 00 minutes to the south line of the north 40 fe^t cf soid lot 36; th^ce eostedy, along the lost mentioned south hne. a distonce of 157 feet, thence northeostedy. defecting to the left 70 degrees 00 minuses to in# shore of Lake fdirtnetonka and there terminating. I t 'Ahich lies northmeslerly of o hne described os follows Commencing ot the soufnmesf comer of said Lot 36; thence easterly oiorg the Scuth hne of said lot 36 o distance of 304.43 feet to an angle point in said South line ond the point of beginning of tne line to be described, thence dedecting left 29 degree 26 minutes 50 70 feet to the south line of sotd Lot 36. thence defecting right 13 degrees 37 minutes 30 seconds 139 feet, more or less, to the shore of Lake khnnetonko ond there terminating, soid Lot 36 being established by judgment entered m Hennepin County District Court Cose Number 449127 ond recorded in Book 550 of kttsceHoneous Records, page 410. £4iSr>riC LIZ4L DESCRIPTION Lcl 4. Lomo Linda ARCAw 10.207 son Together with on easement for ihe benefit of Lot 4, *Lomo Lmdo* as contained in Book 2197 of Deeds, page 332. Document No. 3156554 ovet that port of the above described land located within the foiiomtng descfiphon. Beginnmg ot tfie most \Rester1y corner of said Let 4. thence Costerly on the Northerly Ime of said Lot 4 o distance of 26 83 feet, thence Southerly to the point of mtersection of the Northerly line of lomo Linda Avenue with the Southwesterly tine of soid Lot 4. thence Westerly on the Northerly •me of lomo Linda Avenue 26 63 feet, thence Northerly to the point of tegmnmg. t s ! PROPOSID L6GAL D€SCRtP710N ARCS w 12.204 son I I *hot port ot Lot 4. Lomo Lmdo ond the propertv describej as follows That port of Lot 36 hctuding the occret»or>s thereto, \omo Lmdo* which hes easterly ond southerly of the fofowmg described line Beg'nning ot o point on the South line of said Lot 36 distant 200 feet eosterfy of the southwest comer ot sod Lot 36. thence northerly, ot o right angle to said south line, o distance of 106 feet, thence northeasterly, deflecting to the right 53 degrees 00 mmutes to the south Ime of the north 40 feet of said Lot 36. thence easterly, along the lost mentioned south hne, u distance of 157 feet; thence northeusteny. dedectmg to the left 70 degrees 00 mmutes to the shore of Lake Aimnelonka ond there termmatng. lAhich hes souihejsleHy of a Ime described os fo«c»i Commencing ot the southwest comer of said lot 36. thence easterly along the South Ime of said Lot 36 o distonce of 3C4 43 fee* to on ongie point in so*d South fine end the point cl beginnmg of the Ime to be descried, thence defecting left 29 degrees 26 mmutes *0 70 feet to the south fine of soid Lot 36. thence dehectmg r$ght 13 degrees 37 mmutes 30 seconds 139 feet, more or less, tc the shore of Lake Umnetonko ond there termmotmg, said Lot 36 bemg estobhshed by judgement entered m Hennepm County District Court Case Number 449127 ond recorded in Book 550 of Misctiianeous Records, page 410 r , .r { Existing Legal Description i-1 j‘> yf Tj/ iThat part of Lot 36 including the accretions thereto, ”Loma Linda ” lying Easterly and Southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the South tine of said Lot 36 distant 200 feet East from the Southwest corner of said Lot 36; thence North at a right angle to said South line a distance of 106 feet; thence Northeasterly deflecting to the right 58 degrees 00 minutes to the South line of the North 40 feet of said Lot 36; thence East along the last mentioned South line a distance of 157 feet; thence Northeasterly, deflecting to the left 70 degrees 00 minutes to the shore of Lake Minnetonka and there terminating, said Lot 36 being established by judgement entered in Hennepin County District Court Case Number 449127 and recorded in Book 550 of Miscellaneous Records, page 410. Subject to an easement for the benefit of Lot 4, ”Loma Linda ” as contained in Book 2197 of Deeds, page 382, Document No. 3156554 over that part of the above described land located within the following description: Beginning at the most Westerly comer of said Lot 4; thence Easterly on the Northerly line of said Lot 4 a distance of26.88 feet; thence Southerly to the point of intersection of the Northerly line of Loma Linda Avenue with the Southwesterly line of said Lot 4; thence Westerly on the Northerly line of Loma Linda Avenue 26.88 feet; thence Northerly to the point of beginning: Subject to an easement for utility purposes granted to Northern States Power Company filed in the office of the Register of Deeds of Hennepin County, Minnesota as Doc. No. 4023453. Proposed Legal Description That part of Lot 4, Loma Linda and the property described as follows: That part of Lot 36 including the accretions thereto, "Loma Linda ” which lies easterly and southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the South tine of said Lot 36 distant 200 feet easterly of the southwest comer of said Lot 36; thence northerly, at a right angle to said south line, a distance of 106 feet; thence northeasterly, deflecting to the right 58 degrees 00 minutes to the south line of the north 40 feet of said Lot 36; thence easterly, along the last mentioned south line, a distance of 157 feet; thence northeasterly, deflecting to the left 70 degrees 00 minutes to the shore of Lake Minnetonka and there terminating. Which lies northwesterly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 36; thence easterly along the South line of said Lot 36 a distance of304.48 feet to an angle point in said South line and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflecting left 29 degrees 26 minutes 50.70 feet to the south line of said Lot 36; thence deflecting right 13 degrees 37 minutes 30 seconds 139 feet, more or less, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka and there terminating, said Lot 36 being established by judgement entered in Hennepin County District Court Case Number 449127 and recorded in Book 550 o f Miscellaneous Records, page 410. (?i ‘3 n EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 4, Loma Linda •r //?>a ’ •» k'--.*i ;4.v . ci i> i j/ •i*»l * • Together with an easement for the benefit of Lot 4, "Loma Linda" as contained In Book 2197 of Deeds, page 382, Document No, 3156554 over that part of the above described land located within the following description: Beginning at the most Westerly comer of said Lot 4; thence Easterly on the Northerly line of said Lot 4 a distance of26.88 feet; thence Southerly to the point of intersection of the Northerly line of Loma Linda Avenue with the Southwesterly line of said Lot 4; thence Westerly on the Northerly line of Loma Linda Avenue 26.88 feet; thence Northerly to the point of beginning: PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPVON That part of Lot 4, Loma Linda and the property described as follows: That part of Lot 36 including the accretions thereto, "Loma Linda" which lies easterly and southerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Lot 36 distant 200 feet easterly of the southwest comer of said Lot 36; thence northerly, at a right angle to said south line, a distance of 106 feet; thence northeasteriy, defecting to the right 58 degrees 00 minutes to the south line of the north 40 feet of said Lot 36; thence easterly, along the last mentioned south line, a distance of 157 feet; thence northeasterly, deflecting to the left 70 degrees 00 minutes to the shore of Lake Minnetonka and there terminating. Which lies southeasterly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Lot 36; thence easterly along the South line of said Lot 36 a distance of304.48 feet to an angle point in said South line and the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence deflecting left 29 degrees 26 minutes 50.70 feet to the south line of said Lot 36; dience defiecting right 13 degrees 37 minutes 30 secot.ds 139 feet, more or less, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka and there terminating, said Lot 36 being established by judgement entered in Hennepin County District Court Case Number 449127 and recorded in Book 550 of MisceUaneous Records, page 410. 4 I I L TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant Januar>’ 6,1998 SUBJECT: #23 15 C. Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe 1040/1056 Loma Linda Avenue Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement-Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Address Current Proposed 1040 Loma Linda Avenue 31,733 square feet (.73 acre)29,736 square feet (.68 acre) 1056 Loma Linda Avenue 10,207 square feet (.23 acre)12,204 square feet (.28 acre) Application: The applicants own both properties and propose the rearrangement of the side lot line dividing the properties at 1040 and 1056 Loma Linda Avenue. The northerly property at 1040 currently does not meet the lot size requirement, but does meet the lot width requirement. The property at 1056 currently does not meet the lot area or w idth requirements. The southerly 1056 property also exceeds hardcover and structural coverage requirements. While the rearrangement will result in 1040 becoming less conforming and 1056 becoming more conforming, peculiarities in the current lot line configuration will be eliminated._________ - Pertinent Ordinances: . Section 10.24, Subdivision 5(B): LR-IB Lot Requirements . Section 11.03 Definition 66(A): Class I Subdivision Definition H23I5 C. Douglas and Manlyn Holcombe 1040/1056 Loma Linda Avenue Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangemeni January 20, / 993 Page I .% 4 n mr ANALYSIS Lot Configurations: LR-IB Lot Requirements: Lol Area Lot Width Lakeshore Yard Side Yard Street Yard 1 acre 140*15'10* 35' (adjacent to street) 30’ Current Lot Configurations : Proposed Lot Configurations : C Douglas and Sfarilyn Holcombe 1040/1056 Loma Linda Avenue Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement January 20. 1998 Page! Lot Number Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard 1040 .73 acre 141'at OHWL 143’ at 75' setback 131'12.3’n/a 1056 .23 acre 54' at OHWL and 75' setback 78’9 ’IT Lot Number Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Street Yard 1040 .68 acre lll'at OHWL 124 ’at 75’ setback 131’12.3*n/a 1056 .28 acre 94 ’ at OHWL 74’ at 75’ setback 78’17’27’ f } ! i P*’.<yerty meets the lot area requirement of 1 acre. The lot at 1040 currently meets the 140 lot width requirement, but the lot at 1056 does not. Under this proposal, neither lot would meet this requirement, although the lot at 1056 would come closer to compliance. All setbacks are met as existing and proposed for the lot at 1040, while the lot at 1056 currently does not meet t e side or rear setback requirements. With the lot line rearrangement, the side setback would be met. Variances are not required for this application. Hardcover 1040 Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback (existing) Total Area in Setback (proposed) Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0’-75'11,670 s.f 9,375 s.f.341 s.f (2.92%) none 341 s.f. (3.64%) 75 ’-250'19,050.5 s.f.18,752.5 s.f.3,739.35 s.f. (19.63%) (25%)3,939.35 s.f. (21%) 250'-500'1,012.5 s.f.1,012.5 s.f none (30%)none im Distance Total Area in TotvJ. Area in Existing Allowed Proposedfrom Shoreline Setback (existing) Setback (proposes; Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover 0-75'4,000 s.f.6,295 s.f.562.75 s.f (14.07%) none 562.75 s.f. (8.94%) 75'-250’6,207 s.f.5,909 s.f 3,539.3 s.f.(25%)3,739.3 s.f. (60.24%)(59.9%) #23! 5 C Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe /040/1056 Lomu Linda Avenue Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement January 20. !99S Page 5 ------- ------------------------------------------------------------- -■ Both lots have hardcover in the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. While the amount would stay the same, with the rearrangement the percentage would increase slightly on the lot at 1040, while decreasing markedly at 1056. The lot at 1040 meets all other hardcover requirements as existing and proposed. The lot at 1056 does not meet the 25% hardcover requirement in the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback as existing or proposed. This situation will improve slightly with the lot line rearrangement. These hardcover calculations have been estimated by staff as hardcover calculation submittals were not required for this type of application. Variances are not required for this application. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 1040=31,733 s.f. (existing) 29JZ6 s.f. (proposed) 2,779.51 s.f 8.76% (existing) 9.35% (proposed) 1056=10,207 s.f. (existing) 12,204 s.f. (proposed) 1,959.55 s.f 1 9.2% (existing) 16.06% (proposed) The lot at 1040 meets the structural coverage requirement as existing and proposed. The lot at 1056 exceeds the 15% maximum allowable structural coverage as existing and proposed. The percentage as proposed more closely meets the requirement. Description of Application: The applicants are proposing a lot line rearrangement between the properties at 1040 and 1056 Loma Linda Avenue. The current arrangement results in part of the lots being used by the other property. The most notable peculiarity is the driveway for 1040 crossing a portion of 1056. The reairangement would only make the lot area slightly less conforming and width non-conforming, while the southerly lot would meet the side setback requirement and come closer to conformance for lot area, lot width, hardcover in the 0’ to 75' and 75' to 250' lakeshore setbacks and structural coverage. The applicant s proposal statement (Attachment H) and survey depicting the property lines as existing and proposed (Attachment G) are included. Residences currently exist on the properties, both owned by the applicants. It is their intent to maintain both these residences and possibly move to 1056 at a later date and sell their current place of residence at 1040. ^2315 C. Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe 1040/1056 Loma Linda Avenue Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement January 20, 1998 Page 4 Issues: The applicants have purchased an additional property in order to correct an odd lot line rearrangement that impacts their residence. The southerly property has experienced years of neglect and may be considered blight. Staff notes that both lots combined would be less than the minimum lot area requirement. Because this is lakeshore property, it is unlikely that one residence would be removed to provide more yard area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted. Attachments: A Application B Plat Map C Adjacent Property Owner's List D Location Map E Topographic Map F Permit Record G Survey H Applicant's Proposal Statement I Tax Information for the Subject Properties 9^2315 C. Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe 1040/1056 Loma Linda venue Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement January 20, 1998 Page 5 i AppUcation^ r^3^S' ' \ Date Received fsl^V ~? ^ 1^00 rf- . s •1 Amount Paid v-^c^. CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION S PROPERTY LOCATION Site address \C^4o 4> loS^ W-om A U)MDA AVto---------------- — Property Identification Number rPIDTieMo> Hog m o«^ (--------- Please check one - Property lo^<»/abstract or torrens? 6 Attach legal description to application. & i 8 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name S^A aa ^ Address City__ (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Zip Phone (home) Phone (work) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)__________ o > • • PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites 3l Existing Units ________ New Units A. Total Units Number of Building Sites Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)________ RUN DATE 11/03/97 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LISTBATCH 501 30 07-117-23 lA 0001 PROP AOOR OAOIS DAHL RO ONNER NAME R t B HAAPALA TAXPAYER ROBERT J t BONITA L HAAPALA NAME/AOOR « A015 DAHL RO HOUND m 5536A PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AOOR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 30 00-117-23 23 03900 DAHL RD THOMAS P HC6LYNN THOMAS P MC6LYNN 7350 COMMERCE LA N MPLS MN 55A32 0001 30 00-117-23 23 0007 01066 LOMA LINDA AVE CAROL H RADUNZ CAROL M RADUNZ 5505 RIVER BLUFF CIR BLOOMINOTON HN 55437 30 00-117-23 23 0010 01090 LOMA LINDA AVE H H BOCKMANN A N L DOCKMANN HILLIAM H BOCKMANN 1090 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND NN 55364 30 00-117-23 23 0019 01135 LOMA LINDA AVE M C THURLO ADS THURLO MARK THURLO A DEBRA THURLO 1135 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 30 00-117-23 23 0022 01045 LOMA LINDA AVE T 6 OSTERBERG/K J OSTERBERO TIMOTHY 6/KRISTI J 0STERBER6 1045 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND HN 55364 3B 07-117-23 14 0006 01029 LOMA LINDA AVE R A R KNOX RALPH 0 KNOX 1029 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 30 00-117-23 23 0005 01056 LOMA LINDA AVE DONALD D EKEBER6 A HIFE DONALD D EKEBER6 1056 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 30 00-117-23 23 0000 01074 LOMA LINDA AVE MARGARET E MATTSON MARGARET E MATTSON 1074 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND HN 55364 30 00-117-23 23 0011 01090 LOMA LINDA AVE ROBERT J GOUNTANIS ROBERT J GOUNTANIS 1090 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 30 00-117-23 23 0020 01127 LOMA LINDA AVE DALE F ROTH DALE F ROTH 1127 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 30 00-117-23 23 0023 01035 LOMA LINDA AVE R C BROHN A M A BROW ROSS C A »CLIN0A A BROHN 1035 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 130 07-117-23 14 0055 01034 LOMA LINDA AVE RAJ HEGG ROGER A HEGG 1034 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 30 00-117-23 23 0006 01050 LOMA LINDA AVE R F 00RL06 A K J 00RL06 • RICHARD F A KAREN J 00RL06 1050 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND HN 55364 30 00-117-23 23 0009 01002 LOMA LINDA AVE K H A F DAIVARI KHOSROH A FATEHEH DAIVARI 2354 CHERRYHOOD RD MINNETONKA MN 55305 30 00-117-23 23 0012 01130 LOMA LINDA AVE H H .BOCKMANN ET AL N/L EST NILLIAM A BOCKMANN 1130 LOMA LINDA AV MOUND m 55364 30 00-117-23 23 0021 01119 LOMA LINDA AVE N J A C J POLLARD HILLIAM J A CAROL J POLLARD 1119 LO»tA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 30 00-117-23 23 0024 01030 LOMA LINDA AVE ROBERT B ANDERSON ROBERT B ANDERSON 1030 LOMA LI»«)A AVE MOUND MN 55364 /! * • • mmoicmikm 0 M^*>1 iT> l~I r *. ■ y- • J. i »y~ r ft —•« - (T7K^ PERMIT RECORD Permit No Date 3QkL ?p}u 3qy ^97 ^96W io'4n ni4 S'i»o \ \ [; i A-//- /r-n-Sh /b - V- 7 A /-£i^-R'a //- ^-9-96, Type of Permit ^es/o/e/icjf k>i ^ Tx>/c/ /f t yyi hi ryC '/ /uijLilojyi hfir>k<^ Qjiti '^bLL T ^Ajh QuA-JL^hLA^ t f TI ■iifliifiMa /os /cmnck. /in c/CL /^-uf PERMIT RECORD -Z Permit No. (n^S Date Type of Permit /^s/c/enCc /07L Jjnid- /^-/4?-7-=r Jizggr.^-/P-77 ^7^ t>-1 I ( 6 3 ^ f ^ 6 ri t V . ' I >t r>' Re; Lot line rearrangement between 1040 and 1056 Loma Linda Ave. Both properties are now owned by C. Douglas and Marilyn J. Holcombe. We presently reside at 1040 Loma Linda Ave. We have purchased 1056 Loma Linda Ave. which needs renovation. We plan to improve it to beautify the whole neighborhood. We may move to 1056 when the work is done, but we have not made a final decision. Our Proposal: We would like to rearrange the lot lines between 1040 and 1056 Loma Linda Avenue to make both properties more attractive and more usable. Presently there are some peculiar easements that have little value and only cause confusion. We would like to eliminate those that occur near the entrances to the houses. Secondly the lawn area closest to the road has almost no value to the 1056 property as it sits up and away from any view from the house. However this same piece of property is in constant view of 1040 as it is directly in front of the main dining area of the house. Some nice trees and lawn would make this much more appealing and appears to belong to 1040 because of the peculiarity of the easement. We propose to angle the property line toward the lake in a northeasterly direction to add 40 feet of shoreline that would enhance the best side of the 1056 lot. 1040 is set back to give 1056 a substantial amount of privacy on that side of its lot. In the renovation of 1056 that extra shoreline would guaranty an excellent view without the 1040 owner being able to disturb It. 1040 will still have 130 feet of excellent shoreline and it will not suffer In value by this change. However 1056 will now have 90 feet of shoreline instead of its previous 50 which will enhance Its value. There will now be a greater separation between the lot lines and the structures and both lots will still maintain approximately the same square footage in a much more logical and attractive way. The rearranged lot line will minimally add or subtract land that is not within the required setback from the lake. FT TH OEFLECliUU LbM /u utu lu TAXABLf HARKET 265*000 GROSS TAX CAPACITY 5,‘♦22 NET TAX CAPACITY ‘V,580 RENTAL TAX ■“IP PROJ ANT QUALIFYING AHT FO SHARED TC FD AREA RATE IP PROJECT NO. 5*236.‘^0 00000000 DIVISION NO DIVISION DATE SEE ID S EARLIEST OELQ YR - 1995 d TMC LCW/MSCmmON HARKET VALUE TAX STATE PAID AZO HACA . 80UD HASTE FEE HKSTSPIITVP RATE .07677 30.0020 TOTAL TAX TOTAL PAID AHOUNT 203.66 1*376.09CR 925.27CR 50.60 5*286.60' .00 HACN C»*« 8ASE1 SASEt MI8ASE MOM-WIST AHT UNPAID 5*286.80 ONNER TAXPAYER NANE/ADDRESS HETES AND BOUNDS C 0 HOLCOMBE A N J HOLCOMBE C DOUGLAS HOLCOMBE 1060 LOMA LINDA AVE HOUND MN S5S66 THAT PART OF LOT 56 LYING E AND S OF OF LOT 36 OIS 200 FT E FROM SN COR DEFLECTING RIGHT 56 DEO DIS 51 9A10 157 FT TH DEFLECTING LEFT 70 DEG TO TERMINATING HORT COOE/LOAN • ESCRON NAME/ADORE^ 265 0013926233 ADDITION NAME LOT BLK ACREAGE SCH NTR SEN PROPERTY ADDRESS OST SHD DST PLAT PARCEL PROPERTY I.D. THP RG GQ SUFX “LOHA LINDA** 000.00 277 3 STATUS: CURRENT 036 62660 8060 08-117-23 23 0025 1060 LOMA LINDA AVE CONSTRUCTION YEAR 1956 FOL OESC LINE COM AT A PT THEREOF TH N AT RT ANGLES FT TH DEFLECTING RIGHT 32 SHORE OF LAKE MTKA AND IN S LINE 106 FT TH DEG DIS THERE TAXABLE MARKET 256*000 GROSS TAX CAPACITY 5*202 NET TAX CAPACITY 6*360 RENTAL TAX IF PROJ AHT QUALIFYING AMT FD SHARED TC FD AREA RATE IF PROJECT NO. 6*986.19 00000000 DIVISION NO DIVISION DATE SEE ID S TAX LEVY/DESCRIPTION HHSTDPRTYP RATE GROSS TAX M RL 109.8900 NARKET VALUE TAX .07677 STATE PAID AID 30.0020 HACA SOLID NASTE FEE TOTAL TAX TOTAL PAID * AMOUNT 7*219.56 196.99 1*308.08CR 925.27CR 68.31 5*036.50 .00 LAND 132*000 BLOG 122*000 MACH OHNZ BASEl BASE2 FWdASE NON-HMST 1 00 720 860 2*780 AHT UNPAID 5*036.50 m TAXPAYER NAME/ADDRESS ■“ netes and bounds ROGER L NILLIAHS ROGER L NILLIAHS BIB SN 16TH ST NILLHAR MN 56201 LOTS 17 AND 18 TAXABLE HARKET ■^OSS TAX CAPACITY NET TAX CAPACITY RENTAL TAX IF PROJ AMT HORT CODE/LOAN ESCRON NAHE/AODRESS 16*600 386 386 QUALIFYING AMT FD SHARED TC FO AREA RATE IF PROJECT NO. ADDITION NAME . ACREAGE SCH NTR SEN DST SHD OST •*LOMA LINDA** 000.00 277 3 STATUS: CURRENT LOT BLK PROPERTY ADDRESS PLAT PARCEL PROPERTY 1.0. SN THP RG qq SUFX 62660 3610 08-117-23 25 0026 1122 LOMA LINDA AVE CONSTRUCTION YEAR .00 00000000 DIVISION NO DIVISION DATE SEE ID S o t I H£1b:> AMU tMANIU^M A » E C HXTCHELL HAMC A/ELZZABETH C MITCHELL U»0 LOMA LXNOA AVE hound It! 555E4 N 50 FT OF S 100taxable marketGROSS TAX CAPACITY net TAX CAPACITY rental TAX IF PROJ AMT 398 3541376 UNPLATTED 08 117 23 000.19 277 3current 41308 6100 08-117-23 23 00031190 LOMA LINDA AVE CONSTRUCTION YEAR 1972FT OF THAT PART 181»000 3,742 2,900 OF LOT 4 LYINC IN THE NH 144QUALIFYING AMT FO SHARED TC FO AREA RATE IF PROJECT NO.3,325.7600000000 TAX LEVY/OESCRIPTION HMSTOPRTYP RATE—... H RLGROSS TAX market value tax STATE PAID AID SOLID HASTE FEE 109.8900 .07677 30.0020 TOTAL TAX total paid AMOUNT 5,121.08 138.95 870.05CR 925.27CR 34.42 3,360.18 .00 DIVISION NO DIVISION DATE SEE ID S BLDG 81,500 MACH OHN^ BASEl BASE2 NHBASE1 00 720 860 NON-HMST1,320 amt IWPAIO 3,360.18 OHNER TAXPAYER NAME/AOORESS metes AND BOUNDS DONALD D EKEBERG 4 NXFE DONALD D EKEBERG 1056 LOMA LXNOA AVE mound m 55364 taxable market GROSS TAX CAPACITY net tax capacity RENTAL TAX IF PROJ ANT 096 000000011073379 "LOMA LINDA- 000.00 277 3 STATUS: CURRENT 1056 004 42460 0800 08-117-23 23 0005 LOMA LINDA AVE 225,000 4,622 3,780 QUALIFYING AMT FO SHARED TC FO AREA RATE IF PROJECT NO. 4,326.57 00000000 S}KMSl?*«r HACA ■"SOLID NASTE FEE 13082 1996 DELINQUENT UTIL TOTAL TAX TOTAL PAID AMOUNT 6,385.91 172.73 1,134.07CR 925.27CR 42.79 371.38 4,740.74 DIVISION NO DIVISION DATE SEE ID S LAND 99,500 BLDG 125,500 CONSTRUCTION YEAR 1975 MACH OVINZ BASEl BASE2 NHBASE 1 00 720 860 ZtW9 amt UNPAID 4,740.74 I rtT RIK PLAT PARCEL PROPERTY X.O. —. . ... . . . . . . . .-- - - 264 bRONO R F 00RL06 4 K J OORLOG RICHARD F 4 KAREN J OORLOG 1058 LOMA LXNOA AVE HOUND W 55364 J^'^TaITcAPACITY 4! 122 IF PROJ AMT If project no. TAX LEVY/OESCRIPTION HMSTOPRTYP RATE_ 0000479147 "LOMA LINDA- 000. 00 277 3 STATUS: CURRENT 1058 3,757.92 00000000 AMOUNT r / / 'pr division no division date SEE ID S LAND oQ.Rnn BLDG 100.500 OCS 42460 1000 08-117-23 25 0006 LOMA LINDA AVE CONSTRUCTION YEAR 1971 ‘’1IJ ’T« COUNCIL!. . -4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JAN 2 o 1998 CITY or ORCNO DATE: 1/26/98 ITEM NO.7 Department Approval: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2316 Mike Hilbelink having an interest in 120 Golden View Drive Class III Preliminary Subdivision-Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB Lot Area:347,173.2 s.f. One Fan?'iy Rural Residential District (2 acres) square feet (7.97 acres)_________________ Application: The applicant is proposing the division of the existing parcel into three lots. The existing building site will consist of 3.97 acres, while the two new lots will be 2 acres each. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Plamnikt- Commission recommended by a 4 to 0 vote to: 1. Approve tiie application as submitted. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A PLAT AT 120 GOLDEN VIEW DRIVE FILE NO. 2316 WHEREAS, Mike Hilbelink, (hereinafter the "subdivider") on November 20,1997, filed a formal subdivision application v/ith the City for approval of a three lot residential plat of property legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, Hallson Estates, Hennepin County, Miimesota WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Miimesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono's Zoning, Platting and On-Site Septic Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 20, 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 meeting held on January 26, 1998, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of Theodore F. and Myma T. Wolf noting the following findings of fact: 1. 2. 3. The property is located within the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2 acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. The property contains a total of approximately 7.97 acres, all considered dry buildable. The proposed plat contains three residential lots that each meet the 2 acre minimum. Lots 1 and 2, the newly created lots, contains 2 acres. Lot 3, the existing building site, contains 3.97 acres. Access to all lots shall be provided access by the existing Golden View Drive. A primary and secondary septic area have been located for Lots 1 and 2. Page 1 of 5 ! I r * NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon either one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat application for Mike Hilbelink for the property located at 120 Golden View Drive per the survey dated December 16, 1997, by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc. attached as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions; 1.Prior to new construction, future owners shall be responsible for staking and protecting the primary and alternate septic sites. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Planner/Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of each month. 1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: A. Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Mark S. Gronberg dated December 16, 1997. B Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' wide along all perimeter property lines and 5' each side of internal property lines. C. Name of plat (Hallson Estates Second Addition). 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 shall provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. 3. Fees to be paid: Total due: $ 200.00* Page 2 of 5 ■i h t A. Legal review and filing fees = $ 200.00 B. Park dedication fee of 8% to be paid upon the filing of the final plat and associated documents. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Mirmesota at a regular meeting held this 26th day of January, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowl<»dged before me on this 26th day of January, 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 3 of 5 >* STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of ^ 199_before me a Notary Public within and in »d who executed .he « u.Uua...1:1^3 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 aNotary Public within and in and who executed the tomgoing .nstiuiiieiiTina acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. « ‘1 notary PUBLIC Page 4 of 5 TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant DATE:January 6,1998 m SUBJECT: #2316 Mike Hilbelink having an interest in 120 Golden View Drive Class III Preliminary Subdivision--Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acres) • . Lot Area:347,173 2 square feet (7.97 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing the subdivision of the existing parcel into three lots. The existing building site would consist of 3.97 acres, while the two new lots would be two acres each. The applicants previously presented this as a sketch plan at the October Planning Commission meeting._____________________________________________________ Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.28, Subd. 5(B): RR-IB Lot Requirements Section 11.03, Subd. 2, Definition 66(c): Class III Subdivision Section 11.31, Subd. 2: Lot Dimensions Mike Hilbelink having an interest in 120 Golden ^iew Drive Class HI preliminary Subdivision January 20, 1998 Page 1 ANALYSIS i Lot Configurations: RR-IB Lot Requirements: Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 2 acres 200'50'30'50' Proposed Lot Configurations: Lot Number Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard 1 2 acres 252.03' n/a n/a n/a 2 2 acres 222.03'nidi n/a n/a 3 3.97 acres 247.5'179'65'80' i! The proposed lots meet all requirements of the RR-IB zoning district. Lot 3, the existing building site would continue to meet all building setback requirements. Lots 1 and 2 will not require variances to build residences. The side lot line dividing Lots 2 and 3 has been modified to meet the required 20' septic site setback for the alternate septic site location on Lot 3. Access: Access to Lots 1 and 2 will be provided by Golden View Drive. Access to Lot 3 will continue to be provided from Golden View Drive. Septic: The septic inspector has reviewed septic tests for each of the three proposed lots eind does not see any problems. His findings are included as Attachment F. Each primary and alternate site meets the required setbacks from lot lines. Mike Hilbelink having an interest in 120 Golden Hew Drive Class /// Preliminary Subdivision January 20, 1098 Page! • ■’.•fid-,; Drainage: The topography of the subject property is fairly level with a gentle slope away from the approximate center of Lots 1 and 2. There are no wetlands or apparent ponding areas located on or immediately adjacent to the property. Park Dedication: The city assessor is currently determining the value of the proposed subdivision. The Park Commission will require the 8% dedication fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted. Attachments: A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Preliminary Plat Septic Inspector's Report Minutes from Sketch Plan Review Sfike Hilbelink having an interest in 120 Golden View Drive Class III Preliminary Subdivision January 20, 1998 Page 3 i ^ I i4 i: #23 -I ^plication tf IfeteReceiyed ||/lO/<?7 Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^ Siteaddress I Zp \J\t^ LkXlA^ UR qn JD Property IdentificationN* mber (TIP) 33 U S* ^3 OOOS~~ Please check one - Property abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application. 0 1 ocM, ^ ^ i_o T 2^ hi^ LLS SsTT^CSAPPLICANT .. . Name {V\\\L ( Address City 6j:> (ool o4^aJ V yi<C>(i<rvu:> m*; u*J HeiX. Phone (home) Zip.«5^~^jLsiPhone (work) OWNER (if different than applicant). Name 4 L KUO A-(A a (JLS(A^ Address V 2-0 G> W Phone (home) ¥7S ‘- City Zip Phone (work)S3^-S~Zos~ (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size I 7.f7 Present use (check) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL fes Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units__/ Other (specify)_________ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New l^uilding Sites Existing UnitsNumber of Building Sites T New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) I___Units per Acres ^ A-C Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land X! Residential Other (specify) ^QJ2,cA^ _ n r 10 ____• ^ -5 |20 GgI^ D)riM2. mm 1 ri HALLSON ESTATES SECOND ADDITION PRELIMWARY PLAT FOR JOHN T. HALLSON Of LOT 2. BLOCK 1. HALLSON ESTATES HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA MOIt I l4 •• Cur •« —=*^)- & \ ! r TO:Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator FROM:Stephen Weckman, On-Site Systems Manager DATE:January 5,1998 SUBJECT: Septic Review for Application #2316, Hallson Estates - Subdivision The proposed three lot subdivision requires the use of on-site sewage treatment systems. Site evaluation/design has been completed for primary and alternate drainfteld sites for five bedroom residences on each lot. All proposed septic systems meet both City and State standards. Based on the above information, staff recommends approval of the application. The city requires the dndnfield sites to be fenced off prior to any grading or land alteration. ! 5 ? I I I 'V .. r I I rI MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20,1997 (#15 - #2308 Paul Larson - Continued) There were no public comments. Smith informed Larson that with new construction, the 25% hardcover allowance should be met. She noted that the applicant was aware of the lot size prior to purchase. Larson suggested eliminating the turnaround and removing I' off the deck. Dressier said it was not advised to reduce the turnaround size. Larson said he was concerned with theft of items left out on the property. Larson reported the proposed house is less than 1100 s.f. and the lot is of record. He says he needs space for storage. Smith said the Commission recognizes the difficulties with the small lot by allowing lot width and lot area variances. Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2309 for lot area and lot width variances. The proposal is to meet the 25% hardcover allowance without elimination of the turnaround. Van Zomeren suggested Gappa review the turnaround. Gaffron suggested the house be pulled back on the lot to reduce the amount of driveway and meet the hardcover requirement. Larson was concerned with the neighboring house being located in front of the residence and having to look out and see the side of the neighboring house. Berg noted the lot was substandard and concessions will be required, Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (#16) #2299 MIKE HILBELINK, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 120 GOLDEN VIEW DRIVE - SKETCH REVIEW FOR TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION Dressier reported that the applicant is proposing a 3-lot subdivision of a 7.97 acre parcel Two lots will be about 2 acres and the other will be 3.97 acres. Septic testing is being conducted but Dressier does not anticipate a problem. Drainage is satisfactory. The topography of the lots was reviewed. No information is available on Park Dedication. Access will be provided on Golden View Drive. Planning Commissioners voiced support of the plan as proposed. ' i ii i i i >11 11 niiJUii ii l^l■■ll■lll mi r •r- -TCOUNCIL 6 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION crrv Of DATE: 1/26/98 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#2318 C.N. Ostrom on behalf of Jeanne Mithun 755 Femdale Road Conditional Use Permit-Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB Lot Area:96,525 One Family Rural Residential District (2 acres) square feet (2.26 acres) Application: The applicant is in the process of converting the basement of their client's home into a guest apartment for a relative. An exterior door has been added to provide egress as there had previously been no windows or exits other than the staircase through the garage. A second kitchen with a bath and bedroom constitutes a second dwelling unit. A conditional use permit is required for a guest apartment. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission recommended by a 5 to 0 vote to: 1.Approve the conditional use permit to allow a guest apartment in the lower level of the residence. 2. 3. A restrictive covenant that will run with the property must be signed by the owner prohibiting rental use of the guest apartment. The construction driveway leading to the exterior of the guest apartment must be removed after the completion of construction. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. ww*..1...win.. • > : ^ i A RESC »LUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 3(G2) FILE NO. 2318 WHEREAS, C.N. Ostrom on behalf of Jeanne Mithun (hereinafter the "applicant") representing the owner of the property located at 755 Femdale Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as: Lot 3, Block 1, Lydiard Hills, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a conditional use permit to permit the construction of a guest apartment in the lower level of the existing residence per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3(G2). Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. 3. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2318. The property is located in the RR-IB Zoning District requiring two acres. The property consists of 2.26 acres. On January 20, 1998 the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application as proposed and recommended approval based on the following findings: a.The primary entrance to the guest apartment will be via the exisitng door and stairway in the garage. The residence was originally designed with a stairway to the basement through the garage. No other access to the basement from the main unit is available. b. The exterior exit from the second unit is needed for emergency egress. Page 1 of 5 ki 4. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a guest apartment in the lower level of the existing residence will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed conditional use permit on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3(G2) to permit the construction of a guest apartment in the lower level of the existing residence, subject to the following conditions; 1. 2. 3. 4. The owner shall sign the restrictive covenant (Exhibit A) to prevent rental use of the guest apartment. The construction driveway leading to the exterior door to the guest apartment must be removed upon completion of construction. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council approval or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (January 26, 1999). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 2 of 5 s. H > * ► ;• 5.The undei^igned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 26th day of January, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of January, 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 5 •f' •*' STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On thus____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____ for said county, personally appeared ,, 199_before me a Notary Public within and known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 5 RESTRICTIVE COVENANT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Jeanne Mithun, owner, does hereby expressly covenant and agree to not use the guest apartment on the real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as Lot 3, Block 1, Lydiard Hills, Hennepin County, Minnesota attached hereto and made part hereof, as a rental unit. This restrictive covenant shall run with the land, shall be binding upon Owners, their respective heirs, successors and assigns and may be terminated only upon written agreement of the City of Orono. IN WITNESS THEREOF, Owner has hereunto set their hands this _____, 1998. day of . t STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) TO: FROM: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Brad Bressler, Planning Assistant DATE:January 15,1998 SUBJECT: #2318 C.N. Ostrom on behalf of Jeanne Mithun 755 Femdale Road Conditional Use Permit-Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-1B Lot Area 96,525 One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acres) square feet (2.26 acres)_________________ Application: The applicant is in the process of converting the basement of their client’s home into a guest £^artment for a relative. An exterior door has been added to provide egress. The basement previously had no windows or exits, other than the staircase to the garage. Historically, a second kitchen in a residence has alerted staff to a possible second unit inside a dwelling. A second kitchen with a bath and sleeping room constitutes a second unit. A conditional use permit is required for non-rental guest apartments. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.02, Definition 27(a): Guest Apartment Section 10.20, Subd. 3(G2): Non-Rental Guest Apartments i I ^ i\ C.N Ostrom on behalf of Jeanne Mithun 755 Ferndale Avenue North Conditional Use Permit 1/15/93 Page I Findings: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan. Non-rental guest apartments are allowed by conditional use permit in residential zoning districts provided they meet the necessary criteria of having the primary means of access to the apji’tment directly through the residence. 2. That the propose;^ location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed guest apartment would not negatively affect the health safety or welfare of the vicinity. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. The living quarters under construction do not have the primary entrance directly through the principal living area. The primary entrance is through the garage, with a secondary point of ingress and egress provided directly to the outside. While a driveway currently leads to this door, it is in place for the duration of construction only. When the guest apartment is completed, both occupants will share the existing driveway leading to the garage. The entrance to the guest apartment is at the south end of the garage. The entrance to the principal living space is at the north end. This arrangement is conducive to creating a completely separate apartment in the future if a wall is constructed separating the south garage stall from the rest of the garage. Attachment H shows the general layout of the garage. If this ever occurs for the purposes of renting the guest apartment, it is grounds for revoking the conditional use permit Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Plaiming Commission discuss issues involved in approval of denial of the conditional use permit. C.V. Oitrom on behalf of Jeanne Miihun 755 Femdale Avenue Sorth Conditional Use Permit 1/15/98 Page! Staff recommends Planning Commission consider the following if they wish to approve the application: • There is an entrance to the guest apartment through the garage which would be shared by both occupants. This access is not through the living quarters of the main unit. • The exit from the second unit is needed for emergency egress. • Currently there is a construction driveway to the second unit that the applicant intends to remove. • Construction has already begun on the basement remodeling. Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the following if they wish to deny the application: Since there is no direct access to the guest apartment through the principal living quarters, as the full intent of the zoning code has not been met. The location of the staircase entrance to the guest apartment lends itself to the possibility of a barrier being constructed to separate this part of the garage from the rest of the residence and being used as an entirely separate dwelling unit. However, the main unit would most likely continue need storage space in the existing basement. If the conditional use permit is denied, state law allows the granting of a variance to allow the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two family dwelling. This provision under state statutes has not been used in Orono to the best of Staffs knowledge. The state law does not include criteria for unit design and does not define "temporary". Attachments: Application Plat Map Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Property Owners List Survey Staff Sketch of Garage Layout Guest Apartment Floor Plan Elevation Drawing-North Side of Residence Applicant's Conditional Use Permit Request C N Ostrom on behalf of Jeanne Mithun 755 Ferndale Avenue Sorih Conditional Use Permit 1/15/98 Page} r Date ReceiTcd JJi'/s- <=? 7 Amount Paid ■«*■' CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address '756' M. Type of Application to be Filed _ ^ i«n c<4 Aw 0<,l- vt- Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) f(R // Qp APPLICANT Name ^ i ^ o, ) e. Address 6nt ^5^City Phone (home) -1*? g* */ Phone (work) C(Szt^ic.tZ, Zip 3/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address ~Tf5g~ m. Phone (home) *-n 5* W ( ______^ Phone (work) City V/J>4vrAT7»- Date Pro I (do Acquired !7yLp also own the adjacent parcels of land. Z\y<js:3^j __(month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$ 100.00 Appeals _____Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District ~ I ^ Present Use of Property Residential . Odier (specify) r .! * r #AffO «0«ft •lAVti ftAli rAffo rAMiM •UAffOiAU tAlilOAO ^Alli SlMvAit VIIOCC POC« eulfftt Mil • Pliwc * ? li I I • I Mii • Mt|tr r i ■■Aiaifit UH Vtjp'-'' I iHcr tMi eoff* CZ P (00^^ !i I ,h ri nn r—“ L..—I [i ttHTi L__I I____I O t A o A CZD SliA.A Maci t«f| VAlt •wtlOta* ■MUtiM • tlMtlMt csacafic tiM taivviiae a<XK. ■catAfiai caua* Aii«.|ric fiCiO ■fcaCAtiOi AiiCA tie«s lASt aoiC tfKCf !!€«•« Utliltr Ml tAliftA^ tltMi •AiiatAt •niicii IWI coatow* |•f|■i«•IATf e«TOl^ mrngnim om^mm V«f tilfAllOa i . i I r ! 1 Ji f. ? r» : IJ ! ii I' too too NP 1 /4 SFC 36 I.. r /Ocruf^ PERMIT RECORD b Permit Ko. S74-I Date Type of Permit K;jiO /l)/v\/v //o-;f^-R?s TV.u\A\acW _......n- H-^5 TS6>p 'Vvc>J ■ 5^501'__ ' “?55~Plrocx ■?rdo^ uOoW NiCie.ll ________________(N\QjCK£3Uatt/* /V 0 ________________G.(). LOn >^-AS'q4 OJJUtu^ mu DATE 11/21/97 BATCH 501 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AOOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST 38 25-116-23 A4 0002 006A5 FERNOALE RD N ST EDNAROS EPISCL CH ST EDNAROS EPISCOPAL CHUR P 0 BOX 71 NAYZATA MN 55391 36 36-116-23 11 0003 00665 FERNOALE RD N F 6 BASTIAENS/L M BASTIAENS FRANCISCUS 6 BASTIAENS 625 FERNOALE RD N NAYZATA MN 55391 36 36-116-23 11 0019 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED B A A 1C J ERICKSON BRADLEY A I KAREN J ERICKSON 775 FERNOALE RD N NAYZATA MN. 55391 36 36-116-23 11 0026 00763 FERNOALE RD N E F JR I J C KAMM ERVIN F JR A JENNY C KAMM 763 NORTH FERNOALE RD NAYZATA MN 55391 60 30-116-22 33 0006 00040 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED L R ELNELL ETAL L R ELNELL JR 6125 HNY 101 NO HAHEL MN 55340 40 31-116-22 22 0005 01200 FERNOALE RD G R LINDBERO A G Z LINOGERG GARY R LINDBERG 1200 FERNOALE RD PLYHOUTH MN 55447 36 25-116-23 44 0012 00099 SIXTH AVE N D L BRISCOE A P L BRISCOE D L BRISCOE A P L BRISCOE 99 6TH AVE N NAYZATA MN 55391 36 36-116-23 11 0014 00765 FERNOALE RD N S V A R SHANEDLIN6 STANLEY V SHANEDLING 765 NO FERNOALE RD NAYZATA MN 55391 36 36-116-23 11 0020 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED KAREN BELDEN FREY NILLIAM R COBB 793 FERNOALE DR N NAYZATA MN 55391 0027 RD N 36 36-116-23 11 00601 FERNOALE G A A D L NELSON GREG A A DIANE L NELSON 2355 YUMA LA N PLYMOUTH MN 55447 40 31-118-22 22 0001 01220 FERNOALE RD H J A G M LAZNIARZ HENRY J A GINA M LAZNIARZ 6620 CO RD NO 6 PLYMOUTH MN 55447 40 31-116-22 22 0006 19005 12TH AVE N JAMES S FISH ET AL TRUSTEES JAMES S FISH 19005 12TH AVE N PLYMOUTH MN 55447 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1 36 36-118-23 11 0002 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 36 36-118-23 11 0016 00775 FERNOALE RD N B A A K J ERICKSON BRADLEY A A KAREN J ERICKSON 775 FERNOALE RD N NAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-116-23 11 0021 00625 FERNOALE RD N FRANCISCUS G BASTIAENS FRANCISCUS G BASTIAENS 625 NORTH FERf6)ALE RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-116-23 11 0026 00755 FERNOALE RD N L M A J M MITHUN LEWIS M A JENNE MITHUN 900 NAYZATA BLVD E NAYZATA IM 55391 40 31-118-22 22 0003 01120 FERNOALE RD S SKRONACZENSKI ET AL KRYSTYNA SKRONACZENSKI PO BOX 700 NAYZATA MN 55391 40 31-116-22 22 0020 OHIO FERNOALE RD H J A S S MORKRID NILLIAM J MORKRID 1110 FERNOALE RD PLYMOUTH MN 55447 n #2318 Z . •eiu< I' ^0 f • atm tit«»Tl *«.« .%' • t , 70^tmft U.%a. •!•«« I. tf4t»,4 ■III*. 9»mm0,tm tmmmtf z0 3)H 1 KM A.NUIM: fWVCYll wJUiSSlSui CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY /GRADING PLAN u >•» ^ 2V ^ * *4 fWfP • •« 1 ? ••f •» 4 »; *W4 <*«»*# 9t*t9 *4«H : 'cttirv T»%T ?n!% ur»r». :o» »irr«t 441 IAD#» •» omct ti'^c«iisie4 %\f : a'l A »•.% rt3:sri*r9 l»\^ r\Mt T4t 1^4 Of T»» • •4*1 «f wiwttr**. /ZZ-^7 • ••. \o. *•,; (T^ • m i**' ,. ,1 M »•* 1UEVl5«OM& •n •pa*t P*»*« 04***tl |h«. A %»T. fV^«etC IrtJl ^ c««*t 9u»* ritsf«^f •Mk i«4 nmm. ci**r •«# cm %CT IftfVWC •»*%«*« ••»<«€ •»n >OD SKiyio 9i«^% wMi%c«. ^vrfiR « mATti A90 Mm»4««*x» IV t » ^ / WP»Pt.f I . fAA %« rr* ci^<c »■##»*»<» r**vv rf- '»• %v»4 mtMMCfft WA'rlAv* »•• l$3A'>••M«•• • •17 rvMi«..rvAM ^7o- tMi t M 0«1«4^ . ^ p» M - ||>ft p* »«> 7S« tPCMJiAA.11. 7 t f «■"’ r*' IwnvT- -1 : 1 •— 1^- 1 ■ ___Z.* MA«<« .«(«M r-i liM / • r ■ ^ r rr ?! ^ # '2 is 1 « % ^•X . i 'Vi d k •■ :«i -••M«•• 1 K>-»^un WMT ««M BwVV^tm 4<|w. IM 4>* g>%T<»n Ii« fto to f^7SB 9fm-*7«II-0 f.t>> t • m^mk •• 1 ■mJ ?»»i7 -*, "***• »*M •• ,«»tM ‘JOn.ZT i • : ■ E f* V Kt‘siift*nti.il I )<‘si>;n ^•v iiV.( Vuistnu fitwi ®470 f(i'n is -^ . »i’itr *• v'v, /r ■S^ *r • V ***'• • I#" ? A ‘> ?S>' '•' . R;-l,’.(),nox 7SS t’iv'/'. ■ ^'V" 1^, Kxt tTsior -*. ■ M.V S5.ll Ii _ . X* I.it riiso # K’(MM)in07 .‘c: .. f^'i"'' Ostrom & Son 1 December 4,1997 City of Orono Planning Commission City Council Dear Members, C.N. Ostrom & Son, Inc. is applying for a conditional use permit, as required by the Building Inspection Department, for finishing the lower level of Mrs. Jeanne Mithuns* home located at 755 Femdale Rd. N. The space is to be used as guest quarters. Currently the home has only two bedrooms. This is an inadequate situation when her five children and ten grandchildren come to visit, she has to put them up in a hotel Mrs. Mithun would prefer having them stay in her home yet maintain her privacy. Instead of adding an addition to the home, finishing the lower level as guest quarters would solve this concern. The home has a pool, so a lower level laundry is planned for washing and drying the pool towels. A kitchenette is planned so children can have snacks without imposing on the homes main kitchen. I believe these are the concerns of the Building Department and the reason they are asking for a conditional use permit. Her brother is now’ visiting to help care for their elderly parents. Privacy has been compromised in the two-bedroom home. Finishing the lower level would also solve this concern. The project includes making the new space a walkout lower level with an exterior entry, like many homes in the Orono area, for safety reasons, privacy and natural light. We do not see the reason for a conditional use pemit but respect your request. The space is not to be used as rental property. Sincerely, Kathe Ostrom C.N. Ostrom & Son, Inc. k CQUNOiL f.r:_ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JAN 2 6 1998 CITY cr ORor-jo Date: January 22, 1998 Item No Department Approval: Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Zoning Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Item Description: #2319 Lauer Homes, Inc., 1040 Tonkawa Road-Variance-Resolution Zoning District: Application: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, Sewered, 1-acre Request for 75-250' hardcover variance for construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Memo & Exhibits of January 14,1998 C - Applicant’s Revised Plan at 30% Hardcover Summary Please review the memo and exhibits of January 14. Briefly, applicant requests a hardcover variance in the 75-250' zone for construction of a new residence on this 1.85 acre lot. Pre-existing 75-250 ’ hardcover is 39.4%, including a pool which has recently been removed Initially proposed hardcover was 34.5% where only 25% is normally allowed. At the Planning Commission meeting, members suggested that for new construction it is difficult to justify granting of any hardcover variance. Applicant then distributed a revised concept plan showing how the site plan could be revised to reduce hardcover to 30%. Planning Commission Recommendation At their January 20 meeting. Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval subject to 75- 250' hardcover not exceeding 30%. The majority vote apparently was based on acceptance of the applicant s position that moving the house further from the lake (so greater portions are in the 250- 500' zone) would be difficult due to topography and potential loss of trees; reduction from 39.4% to 30 “/o was apparently also a plus in the eyes of the majority, given that if no variance is granted, the c,xisting house might only be remodeled and no hardcover reduction would occur. The neighboring property owner to the north suggested that it would potentially have a negative J r : ■ ! : #2319 - Lauer Homes, Inc. January 22, 1998 Page 2 impact on drainage if the house is moved back into the hill. The intended owner of the home, Mr. Buxton, noted that meeting the 25% limit would force grading into the hill and that the driveway becomes awkward. The minority vote appeared to be based on the opinion that no hardship exists on this lot to support a hardcover variance for new construction, and the house could be reduced in size or redesigned to meet the 25% standard. Staff Recommendation Staff agrees with the minority opinion in this case. The only persuasive argument to justify the variance is the opportunity to bring a non-conforming hardcover situation nearer conformity. The house could undoubtedly be redesigned and reoriented to meet hardcover standards. Applicants argument is that the value of the lot demands a home of commensurate value; that placing the home further from the lake does not take advantage of the existing flat building site and would limit its views of the lake due to the location of the home to the south; and that the shape of the shoreline and the topography worked in favor of the property owners to the north (due to the location of the building sites in relation to the 250' setback line) but not to the advantage of this lot. Council must determine whether granting of the variance at a 30% level of hardcover is supported by adequate hardship, and whether the City ’s long term interests are best served by accepting a reduction in hardcover from 39.4% to 30% or by denying the variance altogether. Staff has prepared a resolution for approval based on Planning Commission's majority recommendation. If Council concludes that denial is appropriate, direct staff to draft a denial resolution, or table if applicant requests tabling. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Determine whether the variance should be granted and either adopt/amend the attached resolution or direct staff to draft a denial resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2; SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8; AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(L) - FILE #2319 WHEREAS, Ronald Lauer of Lauer Homes, Inc. (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 1040 Tonkawa Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City ”) and legally described as follows: Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 10.56, Subdivision 16(L) to permit the construction of a new residence constituting hardcover in the 75-250' zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed in that zone. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2319. The property is 1.85 acres in area and is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 20, 1998 and on a vote of 3-2 recommended approval of the proposed variance at a hardcover level of 30% in the 75-250' hardcover zone based upon the following findings: Page 1 of 6 -> > vy a. b. c. d. e. f. The property currently contains a residence structure, driveways, etc. which constitute 39.4% pre-existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone, none of which is fabric or plastic weed barrier. The lot is by definition 127* in width where 140' is normally required and therefore meets the "80% standard" for construction on an existing lot of record. The lot width is sufficient to allow construction of a single family residence which meets the required 75' lakeshore setback, required 10 ’ side setbacks, and which will not encroach the average lakeshore setback. At 1.85 acres in area, the lot meets the 1.0 acre minimum lot area standard. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone under applicants revised proposal will decrease from the pre-existing level of 39.4% to 30.0% where only 25% is normally allowed. This level of hardcover is similar in magnitude to levels approved for other lots in the LR-IB zone, although not necessarily for similarly sized lots in the immediate area. Adherence to the 25% limitation would not allow for construction of the residence as proposed unless the driveway or residence were either redesigned or reduced in size, which is not appropriate given the essential character of the property and surrounding properties. Moving the proposed residence further from the lake to take advantage of the 250-500' hardcover zone allowance would result in grading into an existing slope L .d have potential adverse impacts on site drainage. A hardcover reduction on this property from 39.4% to 30.0% is a positive step in meeting the long term environmental goals of the City. The only hardcover that will be located in the 0-75' zone is an existing 74 s.f stairway to the lake. The residence will be constructed at a distance of 119' from the lake, more than meeting the 75' minimum setback requirement. Page 2 of 6 r ! t; 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. Hie City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Cede and Comprehensive Plan of the City, CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 10.56, Subdivision 16(L) to permit the construction of a new residence constituting hardcover in the 75-250' zone of 30,0%, subject to the following conditions: 1.The only hardcover allowed in the 0-75' zone will be the existing 74 s.f. stairway. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone shall not exceed 30.0% per the site plan and hardcover worksheet attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. Applicant is advised that hardcover on the property based on this approval will exceed the normal limits, and any future proposal to increase hardcover on the propierty will likely not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with the concurrent removal of pre-existing hardcover, resulting in no increase or a net decrease in hardcover on the property. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (January 26, 1999). Page 3 of 6 j 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 26th day of January, 1998. Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 4 of 6 i i 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 ) 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of January, 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 6 of 6 \/3. To:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. GafFron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator January 14, 1998 Subject: #2319 Lauer Homes, Inc., 1040 Tonkavva Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 Acre, Sewered Summary of Request: Applicant proposes to remove the existing house, swimming pool and garages, and construct a new home on this 1.85 acre lot. The only variance requested is for 75-250 ’ hardcover, proposed at 34.53% where 25% is allowed, and 39.4% exists per a 1986 variance approval. List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Site Plan Elevation Views Hardcover Calculations Survey and Resolution No. 1914 from 1986 Variance Application Area home layout (Compilation of surveys) Area topographic map Site Characteristics and Background 1.Lot area is 1.85 acres, meeting the 1 acre LR-IB requirement. Lot width is approximately 127' by definition (measured at the shoreline and at the 75' setback). This width meets the "80%" minimum for construction on an existing lot of record. The functional width at the proposed building site is approximately 112’. The proposed new construction meets the minimum 10' side setback requirements. 2.This property contains an existing residence at the location of the proposed residence. TTie existing house was last remodeled and enlarged in 1985-86, when major additions and a pool were added per Resolution No. 1914. The 1985-86 approvals resulted in the construction of a 1,700 s.f. attached garage and 800 s.f. attached pool building. All remaining plastic landscape underlayment w'as required to be removed at that time, and the resulting 75-250' hard .over was approved at 39.4%. 4 r #2319 Lauer Homes, Inc., 1040 Tonkawa Road January 14, 1998 Page 2 4. A permit was recently issued for removal of the pool, and the applicant proposes removal of the remaining structure to replace it with a new residence. The new construction will be located 119' from the lake, slightly further from the lake than the existing residence, in order to conform to the average lakeshore setback. 5. The only hardcover in the 0-75' zone is a 74 s.f. stairway to the lake, which is allowed by code. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is proposed to decrease from 39.4% to 34.5%. Approximately 4,815 s.f. or 20.8% is structural hardcover, the remaining 13.7% is sidewalks, patio and driveway area. Grading and Drainage Applicant has provided a grading and drainage plan for the property which proposes swales within the property boundaries on either side of the house to provide adequate site drainage and eliminate impact on neighboring properties. This plan potentially improves the impact of drainage to the two neighboring properties. Applicant's Hardship Statement "The lot is very long and narrow. To build a house on it and keep the resale value in keeping with the other new houses in the neighborhood, it is very difficult to meet the 25% hardcover rule. There will be a reduction in existing hardcover." Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. 2. The property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. • A residence could be placed on this property without the need for hardcover variances. Applicant suggests that such a limitation would result in a residence not in keeping with the neighborhood and therefore would not be reasonable. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. • The circumstances leading to the hard‘"i\er variance are not unique to the property, since the same 'resale value' issues arise for most lots on our high- value lakeshore. r tm #2319 Lauer Homes, Inc., 1040 Tonkawa Road January 14, 1998 Page 3 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The essential character of the neighborhood is single family residential. The proposed house, while being slightly larger than neighboring homes, will not be out of character with the neighborhood. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. Economic consideration is the primary factor noted by the applicant in the hardship statement. Other factors which may constitute hardship include the narrowness of the lot (although it is as wide or wider than many other neighboring lots) and steep topography to the rear. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. This is not known to be an issue with any impacted neighboring residence. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. There are no known special conditions that apply to this property that are peculiar to it, excepi jxrrhaps the topography to the rear of the proposed house. The conditions do not apply gent-jily to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The conditions allowed by the official controls apply to all other land or stmcturcs in the LR-IB district. The granting of the application is necessary for the preser\'ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Since a residence meeting zoning codes could be constructed on this property, and since the existing house could remain as is, the variance is not necessary to preserve applicant ’s rights. •V . A ^ #2319 Lauer Homes, Inc., 1040 Tonkawa Road January 14, 1998 Page 4 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. • Hardcover variances are not normally granted for new construction where a substantial residence could be built without the need for a variance. Therefore granting the variance might be considered as contrary to the intent of the zoning code. 10. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. • Planning Commission must conclude whether there are adequate hardships demonstrated. Discussion Five of the six properties to tlie immediate north of this proposal have undergone demolition/reconstruction projects over the last decade, resulting in a significant change to the character of the neighborhood via a transition from modest lakeshore homes and cabins to substantial upper bracket homes. To the south, where lots have significantly lesser depth, most homes were constructed or reconstructed prior to the early 1980's, of a size and magnit ide which generally didn't put them in hardcover jeopardy. None of the five new homes to the north required a hardcover variance. Those property owners took advantage of various means and site factors to eliminate the need for variance, including limiting the footprint of the house and decks/patios, minimizing the area of driveway, locating the house and driveway partially in the 250-500' zone, and in the case of the most northerly property, enjoying a large 75-250' area due to the shape of the lakeshore. In most cases, the new house was set back further from the lake than the pre-existing house or cabin, to avoid an average setback variance or minimize hardcover. Those new houses range from as near as 80' to the shoreline, to as far as 210' to the shoreline. Applicant proposes a structure that meets the average lakeshore setback defined by the homes to either side, but note that the residence to the south is only 65' from the lake. Issues for Discussion 1.Does sufilcient hardship exist for the granting of a hardcover variance, or is the proposal simply of a greater magnitude than is appropriate for this site? #2319 Lauer Homes, Inc., 1040 Tonkawa Road January 14,1998 Page 5 2.Can the proposed residence be reduced, reconfigured, or relocated such that a hardcover variance would not be required, similar to other properties in the neighborhood which have been recently reconstructed? Staff Recommendation In staffs opinion, there is rarely sufficient justification to grant a hardcover variance, especially when, as in this case, a substantial residence could be constructed on the site without the need for variances. There is little that is unique about this lot as compared to all those to the north which were able to reconstruct without a hardcover variance. Options for Action Recommend approval, clearly define the hardships that support approval. Recommend denial, clearly stating reasons why the hardship is inadequate. Table, perhaps to allow applicant to redesign or to provide additional information (specify). 4.Other. X\APPS\WPWIN60VWPDOCS\LrNWnKE'.NtEM023l9 ^ 11 j 1111 i^H utlHrmiti *is1Vi Wir^iTtTii •BiF^t] v^uy. wayzaca OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address:City: Phc.jit {}i3irhcX Phone (work) Zip:.DDjy 1 Zip:. DE^CRpXION OF REQUEST Estimated Constmction Cost $ Descnbe request in detail: Remove existing house, swimming nnni . and garages Construct a new home. (attach additionail sheets if necessary) V VARIANCES REQUIRED -----Lot Area ___Lot Width x Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakesbore^ r* r* • Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Descnbe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: th. l.^ i. i„n. .na ..rr.., t„ a h<?M?e on it and keep the re-sale value In keeping with the other new (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 RUN DATE 12/04/97 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LISTBATCH 502 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR DNNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 08-117-23 13 0001 01065 TONKAHA RD J R A C K 6ABRIELS0N JOHN R 6ABRIELS0N 1065 TONKAHA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 13 0014 01020 TONKANA RD DOUGLAS J NILLIAMS DOUGLAS J NILLIAMS 1020 TONKAHA RD LONG LAKE MN 5535A 38 08-117-23 13 0020 01070 TONKAHA RD J D HATSON A J F HATSON JOHN D A JANET F HATSON 1070 TONKAHA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 24 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED DANIEL A RUTH PARTEN DANIEL A RUTH PARTEN 1015 TONKAHA RD ORONO MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 438 08-117-23 13 0002 01075 TONKAHA RD M L A M T GUILLAUME MARNIX A MARY GUILLAUME 1075 TONKANA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 13 0013 01040 TONKAHA RD R D LAUER A D K LAUER R D LAUER A D K UUER 1040 TONKAHA RD ORONO MN 55356 38 08-117-23 13 0015 01030 TONKANA RD R S EDMUNDS A D K EDMUNDS ROBERT S A DEBRA K EDMUNDS 1030 TONKAHA RD ORONO MN 55356 38 08-117-23 13 0019 01060 TONKAHA RD ALLAN K PRAY ALLAN K PRAY 1060 TONKAHA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 24 0002 01015 TONKAHA RD DANIEL C A RUTH M PARTEN DANIEL C A RUTH M PARTEN 1015 TONKAHA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 24 0004 01035 TONKANA RD BARBARA A HIGLEY BARBARA A HIGLEY 1035 TONKAHA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 502 00010 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE H/5/31. If V ni •k «■ J, u v|l i r ^ Q §H DR35r m -i s c3 Q CO h__A_____9n_____Vk___^_______ftk______ftk____________________________ ft (■'/•S’- \. 2 CN Z3Z 3; 4 >• T> Cs ' 1 V“ >• c Z I z: ^ *KIs VTf ^ . 71 > t* ^ .A .J V X Z2 Z CN < P j ;. ,»■ I® O A O e \T\ \ O C^ i k V“VA -T} >-0 - \\\ 3 y. in \h 0 nj A^'T'\wr^ j: It -5? \ i 1 'i \ X z: 7*5 75 tr^ “T^ C7 V^ m 'k -JiZ I % -\ n \ > m ji C\ I Kir. H'7^ I ir jT £ > 1 O !jd Jb Y X \o ! ■ —. ., - ~ZL Cn V^ It V!\ % F § o 1 1 1 — — n T M ^'fi M i ■ sz: ! 'j' 3 > n vv^ ^._ T z: <Tn _pi 2T.I V® X 5 X o *".T^. / S’,zz Cnrn If >•XI o 21 , ♦ .Vf / . I- SETBACK ZO.S-E: (Cm^NE^ .EXISTING HARDCOMER Ps' 7.nVF A, House Y _ Lcneih Widih B. Garage C. Driveway# D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ __________________ -5- B PROPOSED HARDCQVF.R r?st 7nN.Tr A. House _______________ Length Width r* »-'.V B. Garage C. Driveway D. -Sidewalk .E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY ,\REA IN ZONE A "7^ + B S.F. S.F. S.F. S=S.F.• < S.F. S.F. ¥ S.F. ss S.F. -S ••• ■< •; S.F. S.F. =*S.F. 1 S.F. •S.F. S.F. X 100 ss % 'S • • « S.F. -3 S.F. =S.F. =S.F. S.F. SS S.F. ss S.F. ss y4-S.F. S3 S.F. S3 S.F. SS S.F. S3 %• # S.F. =S.F =s S.F. xs • , ,S.F. '• #S.F. S.F. 100 C8 ____^ •3^9 __ _■ a '-a «• ry-TTsA I ► o 1 r c.Driveway X ss S.F.• [ X =_ S.F. 1 , 1 D.Sidewalk X S.F. r 'X —_ S.F, 1 . ;E.Patio/.Dcck X S.F. 1 X A - S.F. i '1 ' F.Landscape X M S.F. . ?Underlain X a S.F.i i '•By Plastic X s _ S.F.« ; 1 G.Other • X s _ S.F. \ r. ' TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F.A :TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -S.F.B \A •B _ X 100 s • PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X Zi _ S.F. ! • i %Length X Width S.F. X s S.F. \X s:_ S.F. 1 L-B.Garage 31 X ^5 =9ZS ^ S.F. f' 1 Y r C.Driveway X 3^/0 S.F. 'X _ S.F. • 1 J %[D,Sidewalk X S.F. !X =:_ S.F. !' f E.Patio/Deek*»« o^/lk X S3 //4-0 S.F.• X •_ S.F. •F.Landscape X • S.F. Underlain X A “s.F. L By Plastic X &_ S.F.• 1 G. Other X 8 „ S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE •BO/Z S.F.A • TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE m " S.F.B ! J A BO/^•r B X 100 *=34-.% Zon* Qfti hardco'ftf' Oreo 0-15 // 15'Z50 2S.2O0* OtSOt morm/AofZSO ^$,600*. *eoOt % hardeoyier o/r* J9.4 9.0 T* 0 “ S0 9>J.//. nlwdevitf '*In the 15 250 /«*»' «««. pn>pee€<i odff^rts coHr l77Ci*f.//. uitekrlay Ac removed’ ^sota accord - >t 10 la Kj-Wi..•• V,. . -.•Vi-mm,5131;® *?"i^***^ » __.• ».* * r .• : t • f ^ ♦ T , ^ iN OT^ROIXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1914 -*2 r t T' 0* 30 9^J^- - (rmdj •4»/c nlwdeirttf A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 & 2 FILE #987 WHEREAS, Robert J. Bauman (hereinafter "the applicant”) is the owner of the property located at 1040 Tonkawa Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City ”) and legally described as follows: Lot 10 and that part of Lot 9 lying Northerly of the following described line and its Easterly and Westerly extensions: Beginning at the point of intersection of the Westerly line of said Lot 9 with a line drawn parallel with and 140 feet South, measured at right angles, from the North line of said Lot 10; thence East along said parallel line 35 feet; thence deflecting left 4 degrees to an intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 111 feet South, measured at right angles, from said North line of Lot 10; thence East along said last-described parallel line to the Easterly line of said Lot 9, and there ending, all in Auditor's Subdivision Number 217, Hennepin County, Minnesota according to the recorded plat thereof: the Northerly line of said Lot 10 is marked by Judicial Landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 17306, (hereinafter "property ”); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit the construction of an attached enclosed pool which will en­ croach 15' into the average lakeshore setback, and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow 39.4% hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone where only 25% hardcover is normally all .wed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #987. 2. The property is located in the LR-lB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 18 and December 16, 1985, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) Applicant has a hardship in that there feasible location for the pool addition. Page 1 of 4 is no other r I ; ^iMiS IM IlipIlESFM'Uy of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 19J4 B) The addition as designed will not substantially encroach or. the lake views of neighboring property owners. C) The applicant has shown that he can remove existing hardcover so that there is no net resulting increase in hardcover, maintaining the pre-existing hardcover of 9,150 s.f. or 39.4% in the 75-250' setback zone. D) The proposed pool structure meets all other side and lakeshore setbacks of the LR-IB zoning district. 4. In approving this variance. Council finds that in this unique case the higher elevation of the adjacent house to the north and the relationship of the front lines and view lines of the adjacent houses is such that the encroachment on lake views is minimal or non-existent. 5. The proposed pool structure is located substantially back from the 75' setback line, with the most lakeward projection at 96' from the shoreline. 6. The average setback line to which variances are granted in this resolution refers to a straight line connecting the points closest to the lakeshore of each of the adjacent residence structures. 7. 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. 8. 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 applciant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based on the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit the construction of an attached enclosed pool which will encroach 15' into the average lakeshore setback, and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow 39.4% hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, subject to the following condicions; Page 2 of 4 b'R®' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _1914 _l.l_lApplleant shall remove 205 square feet of plastic sheeting from underneath the rock on the north side of the house in addition to the 623 square feet of blacktop already removed in order to compensate for the 828 square feet of additional hard­ cover created by the pool structure. Such plastic sheeting removal shall occur prior to final inspection of the pool structure. 2. Applicant shall submit revised pool structure plans coin­ ciding with the survey showing an 18'x46* addition, prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. This approval is specifically for a one story structure extending from the basement level of the house, and any future addition of a story above the pool level will require a new variance application. This condition does not prohibit applicant from using the roof of the pool structure as a deck with standard 36" railing, but does prohibit enclosing of such deck. 4. Excavated material from the pool addition shall not be spread 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, and grading around the pool addition shall be limited to that necessary for the construction. 5. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (January 27, 1987). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 27th day of January, 1986. ^ t \ ATTEST: -bthy M./^llin, City Clerk Property 'ners QVka ^ M^ry C. Bu^e Page 3 ayor m iH'iI»j NOi ilO^OFilMEi H/i: Of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1914 t-. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) } ss. On this •ft-day of ’A/L^1986 before me a No^ry Public within and for said county# personally appeared Ko&ct^ ^____________ 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 // /f^7 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES - V STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ^3^day of , 1986, before me a Notary Publi^within and for said County, personally appeared 0<o4y0 C2-. ______________ 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. fliJLO NOTARY PUBLIC //. /?B7 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 i\ * ■ **. - VJ*RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1914 -l.^IApplleant shall remove 205 square feet of plastic sheeting underneath the rock on the north side of the house in addition to the 623 square feet of blacktop already removed in order to compensate for the 828 square feet of additional hard­ cover created by the pool structure. Such plastic sheeting removal shall occur prior to final inspection of the pool structure. ^ Applicant shall submit revised pool structure plans coin ­ ciding with the survey showing an 18'x46' addition, prior to issuance of a building permit. approval is specifically for a one story structure from the basement level of the house, and any future addition of a story above the pool level will require a new variance application. This condition does not prohibit applicant from using the roof of the pool structure as a deck with standard 3d railing, but does prohibit enclosing of such deck. 4. Excavated material from the pool addition shall not be spread setback zone, and grading around the pool addition shall be limited to that necessary for the construction. 5. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (January 27, 1987). non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 27th day of January, 1986. ' ATTEST: -bthy M./^llin, City Clerk ry C. Butler ayor Property ners Page 3 ofl/4 '// !. / ' ' I 929.4 ORC ,07 O \j u- lOW /i\\ Xn<xoo ' 1' 1 ' '/I ,'l" I //,' 1 /■J,,L!-.l./.. ///, !ii|j ■[/•i 1 T^' Ts> , / i («f / / ; !j I *' V ** 4^ ' ?1 ifrS V #1;!^ : I // I fH I I " f»'» iT I r - -H"3* - I4«— £■5^ / ■• —.•■ “ 'Air L' V*-of V W««i# -.a. •'H^_-:.-Xi •-/ <1 — —CcS‘•s!v' / ' M»|*««t9 // ;■ / ' \/» /»y' F/"' '\/ ' /:• .V /■■y 7/ / / / / y /•/'< * » / /• » ft:- 3 I M«la* t2f.§ sir^ i : •-5: H'*:w COUNC’L • JAN 2 6 1538 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY CF OBOKO Date: January 22,1998 Item No.IC' Department Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaflron Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Item Description: #2322 Steven N. Filips, 2570 Thoroughbred Lane - Variance - Resolution Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acre, unsewered Application: Requesting temporary variance for 6' privacy fence along Watertown Road lot frontage. List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Memo and Exhibits of January 14,1998 Summary Please review the memo and exhibits of January 14. Briefly, applicant requests after-the fact limited-term approval to maintain a 6' fence along the rear of his property to provide a barrier to vehicle headlights from Truffala Trail. Applicant indicates that his planting program should provide a sufficient vegetative barrier after two growing seasons, following which he would remove the fence or reduce its height to the 3-1/2’ limit. His intent is to establish a stand of coniferous vegetation that would provide a year-round barrier. Applicant noted he is aware of the potential limitations imposed by the non-City protected wetland on the property, and has made initial contact with the Corps (and will contact MCWD) regarding the location of the fence within that Type 1 wetland. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this request at their January 20 meeting and on a vote of 5-0 recommended approval, finding that the orientation of the property in relation to Truffala Trail is a unique situation, and that a temporary fence would provide applicant the requested relief while having only a short term effect on the visual appearance of the neighborhood. Planning Commission reconfirmed it is the City's vision that our roadways not present a 'tunnel* effect, and that this fence is only appropriate in a short-term context. Approval was subject to a 2-1/2 year window, i.e. the fence must be removed by the end of June, 2000. Planning Commission did not require that the ! 1 . / \ #2322 - Steven N. Filips January 22,1998 Page 2 applicant provide a detailed planting plan, but rather would leave it to the applicant to determine what is needed. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a temporary variance per the Planning Commission recommendation. While it is unusual to grant a temporary variance, it is appropriate given the unique situation and the fact that applicant has agreed to the temporary timeframe. The attached resolution establishes a date certain by which the fence must become conforming, and this resolution must be signed by applicant and will be filed in the chain of title. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt or amend the attached resolution. Proposed Motion: Moved by___, seconded by___, to adopt Resolution No.-----granting a temporary variance to Steve Filips of 2570 Thoroughbred Lane for a 6' privacy fence along his Watertown Road frontage, such fence to be made conforming no later than June 30,2000, Vote: — ayes,__nays, il r « i i ' A RESOLUTION GRANTING A TEMPORARY VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 15(C) - FILE #2322 WHEREAS, Steven N. Filips (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 2570 Thoroughbred Lane within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 4, Block 1, Old Crystal Bay Road 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a temporaiy after-the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03 Subdivision 15(C) to permit construction of a 6-foot height privacy fence along the Watertown Road frontage of the property, sucli fence located within the rear yard of this through lot where such fence would normally not be allowed to exceed 3-1/2 feet in height. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2322. The property is located in the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 20, 1998, and on a vote of 5-0 recommended approval of the proposed temporary variance based upon the following findings: Page 1 of 6 r fv > a. b. c. d. e. f. g- The relationship between applicant's property and the orientation of Truffula Trail is unique to applicant's property, because headlights from traffic exiting Truffula Trail aim directly at applicant's residence, and his rear yard is relatively open and not vegetated at this time. The City has maintained a character of open spaces, not hemmed in by privacy fences, along collector roads. Very few 6-foot fences along road frontages can be found within the rural area. A 6' fence at the intended location alters the essential character of the locality, is not in keeping with the normal practice within Orono's rural area, and is not appropriate on a permanent basis. The peculiarities of this property which contrast it with other properties, is that it lines up directly across from a road access where the elevations of the property and said road access result in headlights shining directly at the applicant's residence. Only a limited number of properties in the RR-IB Zoning District are similarly situated so as to be affected by headlights from traffic exiting a nearby road. The applicant has demonstrated specific scr»*ening needs which would preserve his enjoyment of his propert>', and Planning Commission agrees that such screening needs are legitimate but cannot be immediately met by a vegetative screen which will take a period of time to establish. While the variance wilt serve as a convenience to the applicant, applicant has demonstrated hardships and difficulties which suggest that until a vegetative barrier is established, headlights will continue to be a problem. The granting of a limited-term variance allowing tw'o growing seasons for establishment of a suitable vegetative barrier, will accomplish the property owner's screening goals while having only a short-term visual impact on Page 2 of 6 M r p the surrounding neighborhood. h. The applicant ccrsiructed said fence after contacting the City and being told no permit was required, and that a 6-foot fence was allowed in a rear yard. The fact that this is a through lot was not a part of that communication, hence applicant was unfortunately provided with incomplete information as to code standards. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the temporary variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a temporary after-the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03 Subdivision 15(C) to permit construction of a 6-foot height privacy fence along the Watertown Road frontage of the property, such fence located within the rear yard of this through lot where such fence would normally not be allowed to exceed 3-1/2 feet in height., subject to the following conditions: 1.The fence as it currently exists may remain in place until June 30, 2000, at which time it shall be made conforming by either removing it entirely or by reducing its height to be no higher dian 3-1/2 feet above the pre-existing grade. Page 3 of 6 ti ! ! ■■ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ATTEST: It is the intent of the City that said fence be made conforming no later than June 30, 2000 regardless whether applicant has successfully established a vegetative barrier to his satisfaction. By signing this resolution applicant hereby agrees to remove the fence in accordance with the timeframe established herein. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, and are permissive only to the extent indicated herein. 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 cerminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 26th day of January, 1998. Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Propjerty Owner(s) Page 4 of 6 r IfHm '4 b' vf “i' r STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _day of 1998 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 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 ) Januan. 1008 was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of Ja^, 1998, by Gabnel 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 6 of 6 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator January 14, 1998 SUBJECT: #2322 Steven N. Filips, 2570 Thoroughbred Lane - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, unsewered. Application: Applicant requests after-the-fact approval to construct a 6' high privacy fence along the rear of this through lot. Pertinent Code Sections 1. 10.03, Subd. 15 (C) - Fences which exceed 3'/2 in height are considered an encroachment within a front yard area. 2. 10.02, Definition 42 - "Lot - through": A lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two substantial parallel streets and which is not a comer lot. On a through lot, both street lines shall be front lot lines for applying the zoning chapter. 3. 10.02, Definition 77 - "Yard, ftont": A yard extending across the front of a lot between the side yard lines and lying between the street line of the lot and the required front yard setback line, which front yard shall be provided on both the street frontages of comer lots and double frontage lots. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Letter of Request E - Survey F - Site Plan/Fence Layout G - Staff Memo and Exhibits of 11/6/97 Background Please review the applicant's letter of request. Briefly, a new residence was constricted on this through lot in 1995/96. In 1996 the owner apparently contacted the City and asked if he could construct a fence near his rear lot line. Apparently the fact that this was a through lot was not part • ■ Zoning File #2322 January 14, 1998 Page 2 of that conversation, hence the answer provided was that a 6 ’ fence is allowed. In fall 1997 staff was advised by a Councilmember that it appeared a privacy fence was going to be constructed along Watertown Road, and w'hen this was investigated a 6' fence was in place. The property owner was notified of the V/i limit and the potential issues regarding the Type 1 non-City protected wetland status of that part of his property. Applicant appeared before Council on November 10 requesting relief, and was advised to make a formal application for a variance, or perhaps a "temporary" variance. Applicant's intent is to maintain the 6' screening fence until a vegetative screen can be established that will provide a barrier to the headlights from traffic leaving Trufftila Trail, which exits directly north of the property onto Watertown Road. Hardship Statement Please review applicant ’s letter of request, which indicates concerns about the noise and headlight glare from Watertown Road and Truffrila Trail. In staffs opinion traffic noise is a relatively minor issue, being no different for this property than dozens (if not hundreds) of other properties in Orono which abut a collector road. However, the headlight impact from Truffiila Trail is somewhat unique to this property given the house location and elevation, as well as the location and elevation of Truffula Trail. I i In relation to the specific criteria for determining undue hardship: 1. 2. The property in question cannot be put to reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property is being put to a reasonable use because it contains a single family residence. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The relationship between applicant's property and the orientation ofTruffiila Trail is unique to applicant's property, because headlights from traffic exiting Truffiila Trail aim directly at applicant's residence, and his rear yard is relatively open and not vegetated at this time. 3. The variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. The City has maintained a character of open spaces, not hemmed in by privacy fences, along collector roads. Very few similar fences can be found within the rural area. A 6' fence at the intended location alters the essential character of the locality, is not in keeping with the normal practice within Orono's rural area, and is not appropriate on a permanent basis in staffs opinion. ' ^1 lii. Zoning File #2322 January 14,1998 Page 3 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The peculiarities of this property which contrast it with other properties, is that it lines up directly across from a road access where the elevations of the property and said road access res id in headlights shining directly at the applicant’s residence. 5. The ccr.ditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Only a limited number of properties in the RR-IB Zoning District are similarly situated so as to be affected by headlights from traffic exiting a nearby road. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has indicated specific screening needs which would preserve the enjoyment of his property, and has suggested that such screening needs cannot be immediately met by a vegetative screen which will take some time to establish. 7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any respect be contrary to the intent of the zoning code. Granting the variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or morals. 8. Tlie granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The variance will serve as a convenience to the applicant, but applicant has defined the hardships and difficulties which suggest that until a vegetative barrier is established, headlights will continue to be a problem for him. Issues for Discussion 1.Are the hardships and difficulties expressed by the applicant sufficient to justify his request for a "temporary" variance? 2. If a temporary' variance is granted, how long should the fence be allowed to remain in its current location? V..„ Zoning File #2322 January 14, 1998 Page 4 3. Has applicant provided sufficient information to allow Planning Commission to conclude that a vegetative barrier will in fact be established, or should some specific vegetation plan be submitted with plant species, locations, and a professional nurseryman's estimate of the estimated duration needed to establish a suitable barrier? Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission determines that the hardships presented by applicant justify the granting of a variance on either a permanent or temporary basis, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. Any recommendation for a temporary variance should include the following conditions of approval: 1. 2. 3. Applicant to provide a landscaping/screening plan defining the vegetation types, locations, and estimated time frame for establishment of a vegetative screen that will replace the fence. The approval resolution should include language requiring the fence be brought into conformity by a date certain. Conformity may mean one of the following: A. Complete removal. B. Reducing its overall height to 3'/2. C. Relocating it to a location at least 50' from the northerly lot line. Advise applicant of his obligation to meet any standards established by other government agencies which have jurisdiction over the non-City protected wetland. Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommend approval of a permanent variance, defining the hardships. Recommend approval for a temporary variance, defining the hardships and specifying conditions under which the fence can be temporarily approved. Table for further information. 2- Recommend denial, stating reasons. j - *. ^ i, ~ Other. Application # ^2^ Date Receiyed /22./*r 7 Amount Paid z?n • (/t? CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal V’ariance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.0 Afker-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORi\LATION Site Address ^SlO “T'\k3^ou<ciA^flgt> L-.v^. ________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) WoT *4 ^ ^ Oca Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date PropertyAcquired ____________4cCcASr 1^9 ____________^(month/year) I (do)<f3o n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: y. residential Zoning District: other (specify) APPLICANT Name OT£3£i-^ M. Phone (horned _____ Phone (work") 411? 9 cy-fCo City: Oilc>oCi ____Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constniction Cost $ Describe request in detail: G>* (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front t Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) (s? Fsot g u3»T>hK> £“0* Ler LtvC HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or wusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Arrr^U^^^f-T **______ (attach additional sheets if necessary) i S RUN DATE 12/22/97 BATCH SIO PROP ADDR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 36 09-117-23 11 OOlS 02520 THOROUGHBRED LA TONY EIOEN CONPANY TONY EIOEN COMPANY 9100 BERKSHIRE LA PLYMOUTH HN 55996 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST 36 09-117-23 11 0016 02570 THOROUGHBRED LA S N A B J FILIPS STEVEN N A BETTY FILIPS 2570 THOROUGHBRED LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI935901 PACE 32 38 09-117-23 11 0017 02600 THOROUGHBRED LA S C A A J HANKEY STEVEN C A AMY J HATKEY 2600 THOROUGHBRED LA LONG LAKE rtl 55356 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 09-117-23 11 0020 02525 THOROUGHBRED lA LE6RAN HOMES INC LE6RAN HOMES INC 1521 99TH LA N E BUINE MN 55999 38 09-117-23 11 0021 02575 THOROUGHBRED LA ANDREH 6 ESTOCLET ANOREH G ESTOCLET 2575 THOROUGHBRED LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 09-117-23 11 0022 02605 THOROUGHBRED LA TONY EIDEN CONPMIY TONY EIOEN COMPANY 9100 BERKSHIRE LA PLYMOUTH MN 55996 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OM«R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 09-117-23 11 0023 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ORONO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TONY EIDEN COMPANY 9100 BERKSHIRE LA PLYMOUTH MN 55996 38 33-116-23 99 0092 02590 NATERTONN RO ROBERT F JR 6 JANICE SIKSS ROBERT F JR A JANICE SUESS 2590 NATERTONN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 33-11B-23 93 0005 00120 GOLDEN VIEH OR JOHN HALLSON JOHN T HALLSON P 0 BOX 171 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 33-116-23 99 0093 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ROBERT F SUESS ET AL CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 33-118-23 99 0035 00090 TRUFFUU TR ROBERT F SUESS ET AL ROBERT F SUESS 2590 lUTERTOHN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 510 00011 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF r,") ^ 9 .. : - V * ’i J “CO r \ ' c:-,1 & (;. j ATTACHMENT "A" The primary need for the fence in question is to partially block the noise and headlight glare from Watertown Road and Truffula Tr. Of particular nuisance is the direct headlight glare from Truffula Tr., which approaches my property at a 90 degree angle, shining in all of my rear windows. The fence was erected to give temporary relief until the vegetation along the property line matures to naturally block the nuisances. I am therefore requesting a temporary variance ( 2yrs- June 2000) at which time I will remove the fence. At the time of purchase of the property, August 1996,1 was assured by both the realtor and builder that it would be no problem building either a berm or fence across the rear of the property. In early summer of 1997,1 called the City of Orono, giving my name and address, and ask if there were any restrictions or permits required to put a privacy fence across the rear line of my property. I was told that there were no permits required and the only restriction was on the height, six foot maximum in the rear and three feet in the front. I also called the builder, Tony Eiden and inquired as to any homeowners restrictions concerning the proposed fence, and was told there were none. In October 1997 1 had the fence installed at a cost of $3,500 only to be informed by the city a few days later that the fence was in violation of city code. In light of the circumstance that Truffula Tr. runs directly at my house and the fact that I used reasonable care in planning the installation of the fence in advance, I request your consideration of a temporary variance. \ A 'uriitpor^ Certificati EIDEN CONSTRUCTION Proposed grades arc subject to n of soils tests. :u1ti CTj Danotvi Prepottd CItvotta ^ • Otnofit Surfoeo Droinogt Proposed Top of Block lO^n Proposed Goroge Floor .3,2 IOZ.T.4 \A/ATBiirrowK Road > Type of Building - ZlLhZ' * •'. > (oi«>.4 -- ZSZ.C>c:>-~ ... ......I- Df2AfKlA6)E-(EA«5>EMGM~T > lyH.. ^IV Tf* I “1 CITY OF CRONO jt SITE P'AN__ GRADING PLAN ^iiPFHOVED ♦ I ♦ P v\ fvJ Y L-F approved with revisions MO *.’iOSAPaaovED DATE. ^jd^ntazL ■' 15 •. o------ \^JO ■ X y>, i 54& Ter w >} i4o* - ^A< «»inv' ! -Z.55.56> — loll.Sf ElXit Cf - ^57^ ■THol^.06^HE?T2-eo Lot 4, Block 1. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD 2ND ADDITION Propo8#d building inlormalion must be checked with approved building plan »• »*^Kisr*’v<*i I 0 ^ To;Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator Date:November 6,1997 Subject: Fence at 2570 Thoroughbred Lane Attached is a letter from Steve FUips of 2570 Thoroughbred Lane regarding the fence which recently was constructed. Also attached are my letters of October 22 and 31. I met with Mr. FiUps on October 27 and advised him that a variance is unlikely, given that the fence was brought to staffs attention by the Council. However, I also advised that he could discuss this with the Council under Public Comments at the November 10 meeting. His November 4th letter suggests a temporary variance, for which he could potentially apply for review by Planning Commission in January. I indicated the fence can remain as-is for the moment pending further Council direction on November 10. ! : ■ *A ni*wwv« ri 1 TT-i «i ir ■vMrrvft mm m ,i 4i 11 fn lll■■nll^ I 1^11 a I r November 4,1997 Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323-0066 G\<'< OnOi'lO Re: Fence ~ 2570 Thoroughbred Ln. Dear Mr. Gaffron: I am writing in response to your request for a summary of the reasons I would like to propose for consideration of a variance at the upcoming council meeting. The primary reason for the fence is to partially block the road noise and headlights from Watertown Road and Truffula Tr. Of particular nuisance is the direct headlight glare from Truffula Tr., which approaches my property at a 90 degree angle, shining in all of my rear windows. The fence was erected to give temporary relief while the vegetation along my rear property line matures. At that future time I would prefer not having a fence. OTUld be a maximum height of 6 feet and front fences could be 3 feet maximum, md no permit requirement. I then contacted Tony Eiden to check on any homeowners restnctions and was told there were none. CITYofORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Partway Orono, MN 55356 Malllni Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 October 31,1997 Steven N. Filips 2570 Thorou^bred Lane Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear Mr. Filips: Thank you for meeting with me on October 27 to discuss your fence. This letter is to confirm that you may appear at the City Council meeting on Monday, November 10,1997 to review this matter briefly with the Council. The goal of such a discussion would be to gain some insist as to whether quest for a variance (or perhaps a temporary variance) would have any Council support.are It would be helpful if you could provide a short letter to the Council describing the reasons Ae fence is needed at its current location and height. If we receive this by Thursday, November 6 it can be included in their meeting information packet and give them some background poor to the meetmg. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 473-7357. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffrbn Senior Planning Coordinator Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 4734510 J r GITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Malllni Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 October 22,1997 Steven N. Filips 2570 Thoroughbred Lane Long Lake, MN 55356 Re: Illegal Fence Dear Mr. Filips: It has come to the attention of the City that you have constructed a fence approximately 6 feet in height along your north property boundary. This fence as constructed is in violation of Orono Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 which limits the height of fences to 3-1/2 feet within both street yards of'through lots' (lots that abut streets at both the front and rear). Additionally, it appears that this fence may be located within a wetland protected by the State of Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, and if so, is in violation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit which was issued for this subdivision, per the attached covenants. The fence must be brought into compliance within 30 days. Correction of all violations may require one or more of the following actions: 1.Remove it from the defined wetland area and reduce the height to 3-1/2 feet if it is to be located less than 50 feet from your north lot line. 2. Remove it from the defined wetland and place it at a location at least 50 feet from your north lot line if it is to remain at its current height of approximately 6 feet. The pertinent sections of the zoning code are attached, along with a copy of the covenant restrictions. Please contact me at 473-7357 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Senior Planning Coordinator end. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 4734)510 J r STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF ^Sn/hfGFifJ ) )ss. COVENANT OF DF.mrATTOiV ^ undersigned, Orono Limited Pannership, a Minnesota Limited Partnership, and Cotfin Corners Pannership, a Minnesota Partnership now stipulates to the following statement of facts; and the undersigned further agrees to restrict the use and title of the realty described in Exhibit A to this document (hereinafter referred to as Exhibit A) in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein. stipulations of fact I. That the undersigned Orono Limited Partnership is the applicant for a Corps of Engineers permit number 94^2434 NW JJY, 33 CFR 330 - App. A. Nationwide permit numoer (.6) to develop wetland; and that the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has regulator>-junsaiction of said wetland pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 use 1344). . “■ the undersigned Coffin Comers Partnership is the Contract for Deed Venaor or Lots 1 - 6 iiiclusive, Block 3, and; Lots I - 4 inclusive, Block 4, Old Crystal Bay Roaa Second Addition, Hennepin County, MN and the undersigned Orono Limited Pannersnip is the owner in fee of the real estate described as Lots I - 5 inclusive, Block I, and Lots I - 6 inclusive. Block 2, Old Crystal Bay Road Second Addition Hennepin County, MN and is the Contract for Deed purchaser of Lots 1 - 6 inclusive. Block 3, and Lots I - 4. inclusive, Block 4 Old Crystal Bay Road Second Addition, Hennepin County, j.. . ^ pprtion of the real estate described above is a wetland under the regulatory- junsdiction of the St. Paul District of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. undersigned applicant and the St. Paul District of th.e U. S. Army Corps or Engineers have reached an agreement whereby the undersigned applicant will be permitted to develop a portion of the wetland n accordance with the terms and conditions of Corps of Engineers Permit number 94-02434 NW JJY, 33 CFR 330 - App. A. Nationwide permit number (26); Md, that in consideration for the permittee to develop the wetland, the undersigned will mitigate the adverse envirr.'mental effects resulting from the development by dedicating the easements as defined in the attached Exhibit A for perpetual use as a conserx-ancy area in accordance with the terms and conditions of this document and the above mentioned permit. Pave I of-i BIM m r^l (W* I r i I i I L • * document bv consist of the execution of this d“e a« c ed E 1 ib^r^TZ'^““ ““ “ “cfmed in conservancy o?ea‘and «" Exltibi. A for use as in the Office of the County^ecorder fw Engineer of the St. Paul District of the US A Minnesota, the District permit, number 94-02434 NW JJY 33 rpR i?n °*a^ ° ^ validated (26). to the undersigned applicant- and that w’rt ' i^u number the execution of this Covenant ’ ^ consideration for date of execution of this docu^nt^ bbd*th^^ of this Covenant of Dedication shall, as of the equitable interest in the property described in^F^^hv"!? «^etit or their legal and/ors ;s.s=“"" expiiciilv included in any transfer convevanc^ Covenant shall be both implicitly and Exhibit A or anv pait thereof and that a “cumbrance of the property described in encumbrance affecting all or any part of the inslmment of transfer, conveyance or the terms and conditions of this document elih descnbed m Exhibit A shall set forth in mil text. reference to this document or set forth DEED AND USE RESTRICTIONS Deed \lndora''sZchrfa*bo« ^ Panhership warrants that it is the Contract for :he Owner in fee and ContL rZri''?J‘',lff hereby warrants that they ^escZedTlxhlt a; a^d thanr/ ab-o^TtiTm;;;; pe.'pe:uiiy for use as a conservancy arZ""'"'* dedicated in restnct the use and title of the easement area as recited in Exhibit A as folios: except t!s provided^u^tn.«^^^^^^ Nationwide permit number (26). " ^PP- structures or buildinesThTirb'e^lowe^or residential 'developments,oc aiioweo or permitted in the easement area of Exhibit A. P.TL'O ill'i • • 3. No lumbering, mowing, drainage, burning, plowing or filling shall be allowed or conducted on the easement area of Exhibit A. No domestic cattle, horses, sheep or other livestock shall be kept or grazed on the easement area of Exhibit A. 4. No filling, dumping, burning, grading, excavation, direct introduction of untreated storm water, and mowing or other vegetation removal shall be allowed without written approval from the Corps of Engineers: 5. That any unauthorized prohibited'activity in the conservation areas by the permittee, subsequent property owners, or other parties shall be considered a permit violation, and that the property owner and responsible parties may be the subject of administrative, civil or criminal action. 6. This Covenant of Dedication may be changed, modified or revoked only upon written approval of the District Engineer of the St. Paul District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. To be effective such approval must be witnessed, authenticated and recorded pursuant to the law of the State of Minnesota. /.This Covenant is made in perpetuity such that the present owner and its heirs and assigns forever shall be bound by the terms and conditions set forth herein. ORONO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Presid :nt of James Development Corporation, Minnesota Corporation, a General Partner of Orono Limited Pannership ST.ATE OF .\tINNESOTA ) y COLTsTY OF HENNEPIN ) N The foregoing instrument was ackijovirt^ged before me this llmday of C<XcVx.W > .1994, by M'y'i h CWTXh . President of 0 ,, a Minnesota Corporation, a General Panner of■ /.-wfilV. (,t=v.y;ui.|______ ORONO LIMITED PAR*h4ERSHIP, a Limited PartnersjK^^*'^®*^ Minnesota, on behalf of the Limited Partnership. m n___' • COFFIN CORNERS PARTNERSHIP •is /Kiyr>‘/ii/rtti td/’■/ht'^ J hi STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) )SS ) The foregoing instrument was acknawledgcd before oie this 11 tr^ day of , 1994, by Q,. General Partner of ehalfof the pai^Ueuhtb. CcJiVW COFFIN CORNERS PARTNERSHIP, on behalf of the pa This instrument was drafted by: SAHR. KUNERT & TAMBORNINO ISUU Soo Line Building Minneapolis. .MN 55402 i6i:o33-:-2:5i LARRY BERG NOTARY PUaUC - MINNBOTA RAMSEY COUNTY My commiulon «tplrei l-aW » ) ---------- !^'L±. A*;r prior taxes paid - * .* r ^ ^ c^VlC S5 TF;.^i:S'*I7r£r;TEP.£D 'OCT Cl. 1S94 rn'jNTv v.'N’n. A. OcPv'TY *>.........• • -~'—*** ~ - f I CRYSTAL ROAD M[-:adow wood pcwd 'TOW,\' ^^*2$0.00 *^Q\J ” —rr: ^----------234.4Z 316.32 -------5A.95 5; 7“//") A// / (->'/ V $ v> • ^ ° A^SyJV 8 1 J S8flV5*£D 323.3; 3^. 1 1^ 17S.6Q1 ^>250.00 l|!14- * 1 * il ,1 • 1 3 1 1! II 11 ^ s ► ?|B • r < ; ! i 1- 1 I I s 10.02 dimensions of a corner lot are equal, the front lot line shall be ' designated by the owner and filed in the office of the Building Inspector. 40. "Lot Line-Rear" - That boundary of a lot which is opposite the front lot line. If the rear lot line is less than ten feet in length, or if the lot forms a point at the rear, the rear lot line shall be a line ten feet in length within the lot, parallel to, and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. 41. "Lot Line-Side" - Any boundary of a lot which is not a front lot line or a rear lot line. 42. "Lot-Through" - A lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two substantially parallel streets, and which is not a corner lot. On a through lot, both street lines shall be front lot lines for applying the Zoning Chapter. 43. "Lot Width" - The maximum horizontal distance between the side lot line of a lot measured parallel to the front lot line and at the rear of the required front yard. 44. "Mobile Home" - Any type of structure or vehicle which can be readily adapted to or does provide facilities for a person or persons to eat or sleep which is mounted on wheels, has provisions for wheels, or may be loaded on an ordinary flatbed truck, such as a house trailer, converted bus or truck, tent or small building. 45. "Motor Court, Motor Hotel, or Motel" - A building or group of buildings other than a hotel used primarily as a temporary residence. 46. "Motor Freight Terminal" - A building or area in which freight brought by motor truck or railroad is transferred and/or stored for movement in intra-state shipment by motor truck. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 47. "Non-Conforming Structures" - Any structure which is legally existing upon January 1, 1975, which would not conform to the applicable regulations if the structure were to be erected under the provisions of this Zoning Chapter. 48. "Non-Conforming Use" - Use of land, buildings or structures legally existing on January 1, 1975, which does not comply with all the regulations of this Zoning Chapter or any amendments to it governing the zoning district in which such use is located. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 ORONO CC 246 (4-1-84) 4:S 10.03 EXCEPTION. Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. D, Tennis courts, pools and paddocks or arenas, when such accessory structures exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint area, shall be subject to the following special setback restrictions: Front “ 30' minimum and not within the required front yard nor between the front lot line and the principal structure on the property Side - 30' minimum and not within the required side yard area Rear -30' minimum and not within the required rear yard area Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89_ _ __ Subd. 15. Non-Encroachments. The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on yard requirements: A. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not extend more than 1-1/2 feet, off-street parking except as hereinafter regulated. B, Name plate signs for one family dwellings; lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety snd^ security purposes, provided the direct source of licht is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property may be located to within five feet of the front lot line. C. Fences which do not exceed 3-1/2 feet in height, fences not over 6 feet in height along the street lot line of lake frontage lots which front on a major thoroughfare, if fill is required, the total combined height of both fence and fill shall not exceed 6 feet above the height of the crown of the road, terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures, which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than 2 feet from any lot line. D. In side or rear yards only, bays not to exceed a depth of 2 feet nor to contain an area of more than 20 square feet, fire escapes not to exceed a width of 3 feet, fences and walls not to exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade and open off~ street parking except for lakeshore lots, no fence or wall over 42 inches but not in excess of 72 inches in height above original grade may be located closer to the shoreline than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, such fences shall not be constructed within 75 feet of the shoreline. Source: Ordinance 9, 2nd Series Adopted: 1-28-85 ORONO CC 256-1 (4-1-84) I I I I I t I I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ IS ■ a m § 10.03 E. Rear yard only; balconies# breezeways# detached outdoor picnic shelters and recreational equipment except as regulated hereinafter; no accessory structure shall be closer than 5 feet from a rear lot line nor shall a fence or wall constructed within a rear yard exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade. F. Side yards only; no accessory structure shall be closer than 10 feet from any side lot line nor shall a fence or wall constructed within a side yard exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade. Source; Ordinance 9, 2nd Series Adopted: 1-28-85 _ Subd. 16. Traffic Visibility. No fences# structures or planting more than three feet high in the "R" District on corner lots shall be permitted to obstruct traffic visibility within a triangular area defined as follows: "Beginning at the intersection of the projected curb lines of two intersecting streets# thence thirty feet along one curb line thence diagonally to ^ point thirty feet from the point of beginning on the other curb line# thence to the point of beginning. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date; 9-14-67 Subd. 17. Essential Services. This Zoning Chapter shall require a permit for all structures including utility poles, and right-of-ways which are an integral part of a system for public transportation# as for transmitting power# water# heat# communica­ tions# gas or sewage by any public utility. The Council shall grant a conditional use permit only after a showing that the public safety# health and welfare will not be harmed by the essential services. Subd. 18. Farming. A? T farms in existence on January 1# 1975 shall be permitted to continue operation subject to the following conditions: A. No new "stock farms" shall be created or existing stock farms enlarged more than twenty-five percent (25%) over the total number of animals that existed on the farm as of January 1# 1975 with animals over one year old except under tne provisions of a conditional use permit. In considering any permit# the maximum number and type of animals to be kept shall be determined by the Council. The site design and method of operation shall be reviewed and the Council shall find that the proposed or existing "stock farm" will not in its opinion be detrimental to the public safety and the general welfare. ORONO CC 257 (4-1-84) IWW. ....1 11 I -liTMTTiriiii mil >iirf in' i r COUNCIL r/.. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JAN 2 6 1998 DATE; 1/26/9§'TYO^^RONO ITEM NO.; / / Department Approval; Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: ^2330 Robert Beutler 1331 North Arm Drive Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District Lot Area:49,200 square feet (1.13 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing the construction of a new residence on a lot of record not meeting the lot width requirement. A variance for lot with is required. The applicant also wishes to retain the existing residence as an accessory structure. This is a renewal of an elapsed variance. The proposal had previously been approved by the City Council as application ^192 in November 1996 with the stipulation that all plumbing and heating facilities be removed from the current principal structure prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new principal structure. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The applicants appeared at the Planning Commission meting and objected to the conditions of the previous resolution regarding the removal of the heating system. Planning Commission recommended by a 4 to 0 vote to renew the elapsed variance to: 1.Approve a lot width variance allowing the lot to remain at 74.89’ at the OHWL and 83' at the 75' setback where 140' is required. 2.Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the new residence, all plumbing and heating facilities must be removed from the current principal structure. A restrictive covenant must also be signed to prevent the future use of the current residence as living space. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. .4k •- t arrj—I ^ ^rrrrrv COUNCIL ^/■:. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JAN 2 6 1998 DATE; l/26/9§nYOFORONO ITEM NO.: / / Department Approval: Name Brad Bressler Title Planning Assistant Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: ^2330 Robert Beutler 1331 North Arm Drive Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District Lot Area:49,200 square feet (1.13 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing the construction of a new residence on a lot of record not meeting the lot width requirement. A variance for lot with is required. The applicant also wishes to retain the existing residence as an accessory structure. This is a renewal of an elapsed variance. The proposal had previously been approved by the City Council as application il^l92 in November 1996 with the stipulation that all plumbing and heating facilities be removed from the current principal structure prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new principal structure. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The applicants appeared at the Planning Commission meting and objected to the conditions of the previous resolution regarding the removal of the heating system. Planning Commission recommended by a 4 to 0 vote to renew the elapsed variance to: 1.Approve a lot width variance allowing the lot to remain at 74.89' at the OHWL and 83' at the 75' setback where 140' is required. 2.Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the new residence, all plumbing and heating facilities must be removed from the current principal structure. A restrictive covenant must also be signed to prevent the future use of the current residence as living space. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GR>»iNTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE NO. 2330 WHEREAS, Robert E. Beutler (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1331 North Arm Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 4, and that part of Lot 5 lying northeasterly of a straight line runmng from the midpoint of the northwesterly line of said Lot 5 to the midpoint of the southeasterly line of said Lot 5, Block 6; vacated Oak Placej also Lots 5 and 6, Block 7 all in Saga Hill revised, Hennepin County, Minnesota., attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a new residence on a property that does not meet the required lot width of 140’ measured at the shoreline at 74.89' and 83' at the 75' setback. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2192. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The subject lot is 1.13 acres. 3.The Orono Plaiming Commission reviewed this application on November 18, 1996 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following unique findings or hardships: ti ~ ■■----------------------* -------------------- iMiTfl 1 r i 4. 5. A. The lot contains 49,200. s.f. or 1.13 acres where one acre is required by the zoning district. B. The property is served with sewer. C. There is no additional land available to expand the lot width of the property. D. No other variances are required as a result of this improvement. E. The City has received no negative comments from the adjacent property owners notified of the variance application. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 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 a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit construction of a new residence on a property that does not meet the required lot width and grants a variance of 65.11’ to allow the lot width to remain 74.89' at the OHWL and 83 ’ at the 75' lakeshore setback where 140' is required to allow the construction of a new residence on the property subject to the following conditions, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 4. Prior to the City issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for the new principal structure, the applicants contractor shall be responsible for removing all heating and plumbing facilities within former residence structure to be converted to an accessory structure. A restrictive covenant that will run with the property (Attachment A) must be signed by the applicant restricting the use of the current principal structure as living space. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property, not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (January 26, 1999). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instriment was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of ^uary, 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. 'i 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 ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) 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 ^ * ->1- t A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that (collectively, "Owners'')i do hereby expressly covenant and agree to not use the on the real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, as an alternative living space, including but not limited to, a guest house, secondary residential unit, mother-in-law apartment, rental of structure, or the like. This Restrictive Covenant shall run with the land, shall be binding upon Owners, their respective heirs, successors and assigns, and may be terminated only upon written agreement of the City of Orono. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owners have hereunto set their hands this___day of ______, 199^. I 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF_________ ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this____day of .199 Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY AND PLEASE RETURN TO: POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN, LTD. 3300 Piper Jaffiray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 333-4800 TO:Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Brad Dressier, Planning Assistant January 5,1998 SUBJECT:#2330 Robert Beutler 1331 North Arm Drive Variance-Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre-Sewered) Lot Area:49,200 square feet (1.13 acres) Application: The applicant is proposing construction of a new residence on a lot of record not meeting the lot width requirement. A variance for lot width is required. The applicant would also like to retain the existing principal structure. The City Council had previously approved allowing the current principal structure remain as an accessory structure with the stipulation that all plumbing and heating facilities be removed upon completion of the new residence. The owners plan to live in the current residence until the new residence is completed. This is a renewal of an elapsed variance, #2192, which was granted in November, 1996. No other variances are necessary. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.03, Subd. 9(C-2): Maximum Allowable Accessory Structure Footprint Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot Coverage Section 10.20, Subd. 3(0-1): Guest Houses Section 10.22, Subd. 1: Lakeshore Setback Regulations Section 10.22, Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover Regulations Section 10.25, Subd. 5(B): LR-IC Lot Requirements i^2330 Robert Btullir 1331 North Arm Drive Variance U20/98 Page I 1 .ir .Air PT«'. r ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-IB Requirements Subject Property Lot Area 1 acre 1.13 acres Lot Width 140' 74.89' at OHWL 83' at 75' Setback Lakeside Yard 75' 162' Side Yard 10' (15'for Accessory Structure >750 s.f.) 7' Rear Yard 30' 69' A lot width variance is required as the subject property does not meet the 140' requirement at the OHWL or 75' setback. The proposed residence will meet all setback requirements. The existing shed is located 7' from the side lot line where 10' is required. The existing garage is located 11.7' from the side lot line where 15' is required for an accessory structure greater than 750 s.f. Side yard variances are not required for this application. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 49,200 s.f.3,322 s.f.6.8% Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. None of the accessory structures exceed the 1,000 s.f. maximum allowed footprint on lots less than 2 acres. The combined footprint of all accessory structures will be 1,960 s.f. which is less than the maximum allowed on lots less than 2 acres in size. it23S0 Robert Beutler 1331 North Arm Drive Variance 1/20/98 Page! |if| Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'5,775 s.f.267 s.f.none 267 s.f. (4.62%) none (4.62%) 75'-250'15,925 s.f 1.12 s.f.3,981.25 s.f. (25%) 1904 s.f. (11.95%) none 250'-500' 27,500 s.f.5,964 s.f.8250 s.f. (30%) 5,964 s.f. (21.69%) none The lot meets all hardcover requirements as existing and proposed. An existing wood stairway leading to the lakeshore and a boulder retaining wall are located ion the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. A hardcover variance is not required for this application. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Attachment K is the applicant's statement of hardship. He should also be asked for his testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property could continue to be put to a reasonable use in its current state. The construction of a new residence is not possible without a lot width variance, however. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The property is a lot of record that was platted prior to current zoning requirements. The existing residence will not be used as a guest aparrv.cnt, additional living unit or commercial use because all heating and plumbing facilitiif • v. ‘P be removed upon completion of the new residence. M2330 Robert Beutler 1331 Sorth Arm Drive Variance 1/20/98 Page 3 r r* -■•V'- ^r .ri Hardcover Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Variance Requested 0'-75'5,775 s.f.267 s.f none 267 s.f. (4.62%) none (4.62%) 75'-250'15,925 s.f.1.12 s.f.3,981.25 s.f. (25%) 1904 s.f. (11.95%) none 250'-500' 27,500 s.f.5,964 s.f.8250 s.f. (30%) 5,964 s.f. (21.69%) none The lot meets all hardcover requirements as existing and proposed. An existing wood stairway leading to the lakeshore and a boulder retaining wall are located ion the O' to 75' lakeshore setback. A hardcover variance is not required for this application. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP Attachment K is the applicant's statement of hardship. He should also be asked for his testimony regarding this issue. Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property could continue to be put to a reasonable use in its current state. The construction of a new residence is not possible without a lot width variance, however. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The property is a lot of record that was platted prior to current zoning requirements. The existing residence will not be used as a guest apartment, additional living unit or commercial use because all heating and plumbing facilities will be removed upon completion of the new residence. 92330 Robert Beutter 1331 North Arm Drive Variance 1/20/98 Page 3 5 ♦ ‘ f ANALYSIS T.ot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Lakeside Yard Side Yard Rear Yard LR-IB Requirements 1 acre 140'75’10’ (15’for Accessory Structure >750 s.f.) 30’ Subject Property 1.13 acres 74.89’ at OHWL 83 ’ at 75’ Setback 162’7’69' A lot width variance is required as the subject property does not meet the 140' requirement at the OHWL or 75’ setback. The proposed residence will meet all setback requirements. The existing shed is located T from the side lot line where 10’ is required. The existing garage is located 11.7’ from the side lot line where 15’ is required for an accessory structure greater than 750 s.f. Side yard variances are not required for this application. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 49,200 s.f.3,322 s.f.6.8% Structural coverage is not an issue with this application. None of the accessory structures exceed the 1,000 s.f. maximum allowed footprint on lots less than 2 acres. The combined footprint of all accessory structures will be 1,960 s.f. which is less than the maximum allowed on lots less than 2 acres in size. U2330 Robert Beutkr miSorthArnDrtvt VarUmct 1/20/98 Page! r 4. 5. 6. 7. W * . .1 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for lot width will not change the character of the area as many of the lots in the area are of a similar width. A restrictive covenant that will run with the land has been drafted by the City Attorney to assure the current residence does not become a guest apartment. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. A single family residence is permitted in this zoning district. A guest apartment is not allowed on a lot of less than 2 acres. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Most lots in the area were platted prior to current zoning requirements and do not meet the lot width requirement. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The lots in the area were platted at lot widths of 50' to 75' where 140' is currently required. Some of the residences in the area are located on lots that have been legally combined into one tax parcel. The subject lot represents 3.5 lots that were combined. Additional land is not available at this time to increase the lot width. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. .\ new residence could not be constructed upon the property without the granting rf a variance for lot area. U2330 Robert Beutler 1351 Sorth Arm Drive Variance 1/20/93 Page 4 8.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The City Council has previously found that an adequate hardship exists for the granting of a variance due to the lack of adjacent property to combine with the subject property to conform to zoning requirements and the ability of the property and proposed residence to meet all other zoning requirements. The City Council minutes of November 25, 1996 and the approval resolution are included as Attachments M and N. Issues 1.The lot widths of 74.89' at the OHWL and 83' at the 75' setback do not meet the 140' requirement. All other zoning requirements will be met. 2.The shed and garage do not meet the required side setback on tl:-' north side lot line. The shed is 7' from the lot line where 10' is required and the garage is 11.7' from ihe lot line where 15' is required for structures exceeding 750' s.f. but less than 1000 s.f. The proposed residence will meet all zoning requirements. 3.With the current principal structure remaining as an accessory structure, the total footprint of all accessory structures on the lot will be 1,960 s.f., which is less than the 2,000 s.f. maximum allowed. None of the accessory structures will have a footprint greater than the 1,000 s.f. maximum allowed. 4.A restrictive covenant drafted by the City Attorney will prohibit the future use of the current residence. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a lot width variance of 65.11' to allow the construction of a new residence on a lot of record having widths of 74.89' at the OHWL and 83' at the 75" setback subject to the conditions noted below: Staff recommends that prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new principal structure, all plumbing and heating facilities be removed from the current principal structure. Staff recommends the applicant sign a restrictive covenant drafted by the City Attorney that prohibits the future use of the existing principal structure. »2330 Robert Btutbr 1331 North Arm Drive Variance 1/20/98 Pages ^ ^. .. . ■ - m in 111 la If iiiiniim mumii■■ ^...................................................... iii irif r Attachments A B C w -•i F Q H I J K L M N Application Plat Map Property Owner's List Location Map Topographic Map Permit Record Survey Hardcover Worksheet (O' to 75') Hardcover Worksheet (75' to 250') Elevation Drawings Applicant's Statement of Hardship Restrictive Covenant Minutes of November 25,1996 City Council Meeting Resolution #3806 Approved November 25,1996 U2330 Robtrt Biutlir 133 i Sorth Arm Dhvtt yariattce 1/20/98 Pagi 6 ! I Application # ^3SO Date Receiyed V s."' CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 C$50.00 per each additional variance) Fvci.ewai Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORiVLATIO] SiteAddress_ I S3 1 ^ o A (Z/vy gTv/g. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) O”) 11 "7 7. a-» o o a \ Attach legal description to applicationTf not included on required survey ----------------- _________________!l_(month/year)1*0*^ (<lQji2t^so own the adjacent parcels of land ^ ^ ^ Presoit use of property: presidential other (specily) ZomngDistrict: i_ g - ip^______----------------------------------—---------------- APPLICANT Name ^___________ Address:, | \ ^ Phone (home) _____ Phone (work) •4-'~71. onz.'S. City:_Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ______fc_____________ Address: Phone (home). Phone (work) - Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ l”I ODescribe request in detail: ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED -----Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear ,Lot Coverage P Other (specily) pp iL.rc- . Average Lakeshore... ^ rO STtg o o-p O HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficult)' or unusual pijperty conditions preventing comphance with Zoning Code requirements:_____ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 1 0 :+|i__£5\ (61, \-W. ^ RUN DATE 10/24/96 BATCH 510 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY (»»IERS LIST REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 27PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR r'v ZB 07-117-23 41 0021 01310 ELMHOOD AVE GORDON N NELSON ETAL GORDON N NELSON 1310 ELItlOOO HOUND NN 55344 36 07-117-23 41 002901301 NORTH ARH DR P R I E A ROBERTS PAUL R A ELIZABETH A ROBERTS 1301 NORTH ARH DR HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0030 01305 ELMHOOD AVE CHARLES E CARLSON CHARLES E CARLSON 2346 CYPRESS LA HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0031 01305 NORTH ARM DR N P SXMNIONIN A C N P SIMNIONIH A C 1305 NORTH ARM DR HOUND MN 55364 KENNEDY KENNEDY 38 07-117-23 41 0032 01317 NORTH ARH DR ANN L CARSON ANN L DERBY 1317 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 553^4 38 07-117-23 41 0081 01331 NORTH ARM DR R E BEUTLER A N BEUTLER ROBERT E A HENDY K BEUTLER 1331 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 36 07-117-23 41 0082 01359 PARK DR PETER H LANPHER ET AL PETER A DIANE LArO>HER 1359 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0083 01300 LOMA LINDA AVE HAN KULENKAMP HARK A A NANCY L KULENKAMP 1300 LOMA LINDA AVE HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0084 01350 NORTH ARM DR A P MEXSEL A P A MEISEL RICHARD D A CAROL A TODD 1350 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 41 008f 01345 NORTH ARM OR H SHEKELS A L SHEKELS TRSTES H 0 SHEKELS 8619 NORTH CARDINAL DR PHOENIX AZ 85028 38 07-117-23 41 0068 01304 ELMHOOD AVE RICHARD J JOHNSON ET AL RICHARD J JOHNSON 1304 EUBIOOO HOUND MN 55364 TOTAL BATCH 510 00011 , Y, 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE .VWlW ICO 2MH 7^ 400C Stl... 1*^ •«*V-^ N»2-0 fS4V— r t f’ ■) h jo\2uj Apn»2.p HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ (jS-25^ 250-500’500-1000’ f yiCTINC. HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House_____________ S.F. ’S’!??.. Length Width 7 X X X S.F. S.F. S.F./. (. B. Garage C. Driveway S.F. X X s.f/ S.FS;, *:.’N D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X s.r. s.Rcr' r- S.F. S*^’ . • N F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X S S S ) G. Other S.F. e •• TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ B X 100. S.F. S.F. % A B ppnPOSEP HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F. A. House Length Jii-X X X Width 2. ft__\\l<m iil t "L, ^S.F. I o £9 O__S.F.7 S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X I ^S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X I 4 S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE tqo 4 + B 1S _ X 100 I ^ <3*4 S.F. S.F. TT. ^S ~ % 15 ^ US A B ; wmi • ;. * •• *.t * • .• ■ .*• .; • • •••■•■ r..v:.;•• x> . . • 1*1 • • • • ^• • . • ' •'A f '’\ •A . ' • ■m Ei * ’-* ■ * » *% ro *v»»* •*V*.'«!■.«* r O Q Q.?.,3'v \ Cit>- of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Post Office Box 66 Crx'stal Bay, MN 55323 Building and Zoning Department. We are requesting an extension to our variance to build a new home on our propert>' at 1331 North Arm Drive. We are requesting a variance as we do not have the required lake frontage. We meet all the other requirements (i.e.t hard cover, set back). We are ^o requesting that if the variance is extended at the Jan 20**' planning meeting that this request be allowed to be heard at the next city council meeting. Thank you for your considerations. Robert and Wendy Beutler J rt ■ HF.STRICTTVF. rOVENANT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that ^ iiv « f_______r*r\'fcollectively, "Owners"), do hereby expressly covenant and agree to not use the ^ on the real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, ieeallv described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, as an alternative living spaced including but not limited to, a guest house, secondary residential umt, mother-m- aw apartment, rental of structure, or the like. City of Orono. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owners have hereunto set their hanas this _____199_. day of STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF )ss. ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this ------- day of , 199 Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY AND PLEASE RETURN TO: POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN, LTD. 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 333-4800 mrmM n 11 rm n riiar ■I'li'iMT ■r a .-i .t . L.J r f. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CIT\' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 25,1996 (#5) #2192 ROBERT AND WENDY BEUTLER, 1331 NORTH ARM DRTV^^''' VARIANC’; S - RESOLUTION #3806 JAN 2 0 1998 The applicant was present. CITY OF OnONO Mabusth reported that the property is located on North Arm Drive. The applicant seeks app"Oval of a lot width variance as it does not meet the 140' width at the shoreline or at the 75' setback. All other setback requirements are met by the new residence. An issue for discussion is the applicant's desire to maintain the current principal structure and to maintain heating and plumbing facilities. Mabusth informed the Council that the Planning Commission approved the application 3:1 with the condition that the plumbing in the kitchen be removed and only the sink and stool remain in the bathroom. The minority vote's opinion noted the difficulty in reaching a decision when there are no clear standards for such a use. Mabusth cited a previous application with expanded living area within an upper level of a newly constructed detached garage and restricting use as an independent dwelling unit with the use of a restricted covenant. The property in that application did not meet the area requirement for a guest house. This property is 1.13 acres in size and does not meet area standard for a guest house. A variance application on last month's agenda was approved for maintaining the principal structure as an r-cessory structure with additional living space via a restrictive covenant. The variance for that application was for the accessory structure being in front of the principal structure. Mabusth said the Plaruring Commission struggled with the issue of ease to convert an accessory structure into a guest house or apartment with heating and plumbing. They felt it would be difficult to police even with the restrictive covenant. The minority vote asked the City to develop standards as similar cases have come before the Commission on a more frequent basis. Mabusth noted the application was only being reviewed due to the lo^ •• idth variance requfred. She asked the Council if the application should be reviewed as separate item or if the code should be revisited. Callahan noted the applicant's plan to use the structure as a workshop and office with bathroom facilities. Hurr added that it could be slept in. Goetten said her concern was w i ;\ the lack of any designation for such use. She questioned what might happen in the future with other applications. Jabbour noted it was not only a problem for the zoning district but also a problem for other applicants. He said he is sympathetic to the need to provide for relatives and would like to revisit the housing code. He saw this application as set aside from other scenarios questioning why others would apply for a guest house CUP if this could be done. Jabbour cited an example where SAC charges were applied for a guest hou.,e use. 8 r MINUTES OF TEIE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 25,1996 (#5 - #2192 Robert and Wendy Beutler - Continued) Mr. Beutler s^d it was not their intent to use the structure as living space for others but only for additional space for workshop. He noted the building is in e.\cellent shape and there is no problem with hardcover on the property. Beutler said he and his neighbors feel it would be a shame to remove such a building. Beutler said the 120' separation from house and accessory structure was a reason to request the bathroom facility remain. He indicated the sewer line could be hooked up to for the new house as well as old. He volunteered to place limitations on the property on the abstract itself noting the restrictive covenant would run with the property on the chain of title. Goetten was informed the proposed size of the new residence is 1200 s.f. Jabbour explained to the applicant how Orono is seen as a bedroom community and only allows guest houses if there is adequate room for future subdivision and an additional sewer access charge is paid. It is Ws opinion that this application is in direct conflict with the objectives of the City. He noted concern with what could happen in the future and sees a solution with the removal of plumbing and heating. Jabbour indicated that approval of the accessory structure usage with plumbing and heating would have a domino effect on a policy beyond this proposal. Hurt was informed the current garage would be utilized by the new residence also. There were no public comments. Hurr noted that the cost of enforcement would be bom by the applicant. Mabusth indicated the current resolution does not stipulate that but could be amended. Callahan informed that this would not protect the City. Kelley moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve Resolution #3806 for the lot width variance only. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Hurr asked for an explanation on previous applications. She inquired if a CUP for a ^est house could be obtained. Mabusth noted the lack of appropriate acreage as found in the other applications. She said she would like to see standards developed. Hurr said she would be in support of the proposal if the plumbing was removed. Mabusth did note the applicants intend to live in the structure while the new residence is being built. Kelley indicated if the lot was vacant and a new structure was built and the applicant desired an accessory structure, he could do so. He informed the applicant if the heating and plumbing were removed, the structure could remain without requiring the City's approval. Jabbour asked the applicant to work with Staff on what makes a structure an accessory structure. r r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 25,1996 (#5 - #2192 Robert and Wendy Beutler - Continued) Goetten suggested the Council review the code regarding such situations. The Council members agreed. (City Attorney Radio arrived at this time.) (*#6) #2194 DAVID ALAN SUTHERLAND, 1365 ARBOR STREET VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3807 Jabbour moved, Hurr seconded, to approve Resolution #3807. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCH. REPORT Mayor Callahan asked Moorse to extend his appreciation to the Office Staff, Dorothy Hallin, Lin Vee, Carole Haseman, and Jamie Gemar. Jabbour reported that an applicant at a recent LMCD meeting requested the ordinance be changed to allow vending on Lake Minnetonka, specifically Big Island, as he would like to sell items from a pontoon. The LMCD members said they would consider it. The Water Patrol is against the idea. Jabbour informed them that the only areas of commercial activity in Orono are in Navarre and the Hwy 12 area, and commercial activity is not allowed to occur on docks. Jabbour said he was asked what his opinion was about cruise boats. Jabbour informed them they were regulated. Jabbour asked Gaffron to review the matter of the City's authority to regulate activity occurring on the lake near the lakeshore. Callahan suggested a resolution be drafted in opposition to the proposed commercial activity. Jabbour said he informed the LMCD they should speak with the other 14 cities. Jabbour would like to inform those cities of Orono's position. Both Callahan and Kelley agreed that such activity should not be encouraged. Callahan moved, Goetten seconded, that Staff be directed to draft a resolution in opposition to the concept of allowing products be sold from boat crafts on Lake Minnetonka in the area of Orono and to direct Staff to convey the Council's opposition to the concept to the LMCD. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Goetten reported that the Land Use Planning Committee of the Met Council discussed the opportunity for the cities to amend their comprehensive plans, and discussed changes being made by the Met Council. The Met Council will be visiting a number of cities to e.xplain their position. ! . K GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 8 0 6 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE NO. 2192 WHEREAS, Robert E. Beutler and Wendy K. Beutler (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1331 North Arm Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: refer to Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision (B) to permit the construction of a new residence on a property that does not meet the required lot width of 140' measured at the shoreline at 74.89' and 83' at the 75' setback. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. FINDES^GS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2192. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 18, 1996 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following unique findings or hardships: A. The lot contains 49,200 s.f or 1.13 acres where one acre is required by the zoning district. B. The property is served with sewer. Page 1 of 5 Bib naaiiiMI ■lltllB I rill !■ Ultii III r CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF NO. CITY COUNCIL o o 0 O C. There is no additional land available to expand the lot width of the property. D.No other variances are required as a result of this improvement. The City has received no negative comments from the adjacent property owners notified of the variance application. 4.The City Counal 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 grantmg the vanances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, Ught, 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 nght of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Pian of the City. 5.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recoi^endations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safetv and welfare of the commuruty. ^ CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a van^ce to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit construction of a new residence on a property that does not meet the required let width and oXe! su^^c^.o^fe foilo^Sng ^ 1 Prior to the City issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for the new principal stmemre, applic^ts' contractor shall be responsible for removing all heating and plumbing facilities within former residence staicture to be converted to an accessory structure. Page 2 of 5 f GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF NO. ___ CITY COUNCILTHECITY 8806 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (November 25, 1997). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 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 Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of November, 1996. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Cjjkman, Jr., Mayor r CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 8 0 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 25th day of February, 1996 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public 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 Page 4 of 5 * i. I,MB UilP . r CSHCL CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ R 0 R______ EXmBIT A Lot 4, and that part of Lot 5 lying northeasterly of a straight line running from the midpoint of the northwesterly line of said Lot 5 to the midpoint of the southeasterly line of said Lot 5, Block 6; vacated Oak Place; also Lots 5 and 6, Block 7 all in Saga Hill revised, Hennepin County, Miimesota. h I Page 5 of 5 •’I r r ■r i. r< > RESOLUTION j? 88_0j6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF ORONO ) ) I. Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk of the City of Orono, M?nn«ota do hereby certify that I have compared the foregomg copy of a resolution of the City Si of’ to S Stith to origM record of such resolmtan in to Mmu^ of to Of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on proceedmgs^^f r ^ the same is a true and correct copy of said resolution duly adopted by said City Council at said meetmg, day of In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this---27^ November___19^” • Doteiy M. Ha^ UCity Clerk (SEAL) A r 1^' ^ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: Januar ITEM NO.: JAN 2 6 1998 />- Department Approval: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2331Mark Gillet 2160 Wayzata Boulevard Request for Finding of Substantially Similar Use Public Hearing Zoning District: B-1 Retail Sales Business District Application:The applicant is proposing to lease approximately 840 square feet of commercial space at 2160 Wayzata Boulevard, commonly known as the Orono mall. The applicant is proposing to use the space that was once used as the library to operate a retail business to sell go carts, parts and accessories. The Zoning Code does not list the sell of go carts as either a permitted or conditional use in any commercial section of the ordinance. The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to consider it similar to a hobby shop and bicycle shop. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission on a 4-1 vote recommended that the proposed go-cart business is not substantially similar to either a hobby shop or bicycle sales and repair shop because of the concern about noise issues regarding engines and engine repair and possible conflicts with existing retail businesses in the proposed location. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To deny the request for finding that a go-cart operation is a substantially similar use to a hobby shop or bicycle sales and repair shop. Attachments TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator January 2,1998 SUBJECT: #2331 Mark Gillet, having an interest in 2160 Wayzata Boulevard Request for Finding of Substantially Similar Use Zoning District: B-1 Retail Sales Business District Application:The applicant is proposing to lease approximately 840 square feet of commercial space at 2160 Wayzata Boulevard, commonly known as the Orono mall. The applicant is proposing to use the space that was once used as the library to operate a retail business to sell go carts, parts and accessories. The Zoning Code does not list the sell of go carts as either a pemutted or conditional use in any commercial section of the ordinance. The applic^t is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to consider it similar to a hobby shop and bicycle shop. Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.40. B-1, Retail Sales Business District., Subd. 3. The purpose of the B-1 district is to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service pnm^ly for residents in the surrounding neighborhood. The Zoning Code is very specific about the permitted retail and service businesses to be allowed. This list is very narrow and IS not uHo-^te for services offered today. For example, video stores, tanning salons, nail salons. quick pnm shops, and coffee shops are not listed but would be expected to be found in this zoning district. The uses in the district are as follows: »223l Mark Gitkl 2160 Wayzata BM. Rtqutitfor Finding of Substantially Similar Vst 1/20/98 pag*~l Permitted I A. Retail and Service Businesses: Arts and school supplies stores Banks and insurance companies Barber and beauty shops Bicycle sales and repair Books, magazines, record shop D™*cSng »d T E;irden supplies, noristSiop including incidental pressing and repair, gift or antique shops hardware store, paint store Laundromats locksmith music, radio, TV, appliance sales and repair stores newsstands ^ office supply store, office machine store pet shop pipe and tobacco shops plumbing, electrical, heating, housewares, furniture, postal substation real estate sales retail food of all varieties and home supplies sewing center and yard goods sporting goods store tailor shops temporary sales such as Christmas tree lots travel bureau variety store wearing apparel store, shoe store off-sale liquor store B. Municipal Buildings carpet store tf22J/ MarkCillei 2160 Wm-zata Btvd. ^2W98^°'^ of SubstantialfySimilar Use pagt-2 i Conditional Uses A. Garages for servicing and repair of automobiles provided repair functions are totally enclosed in a building. B. Motor Fuel Stations, (subject to conditions) C. Class I and Class II Restaurants D. Public Services Day Nurseries ANALYSIS The proposed go cart business is not a use listed in the zoning ordinance. The City Council has the authority to deem uses similar to the uses listed in the Zoning District. The Planning Commission shall consider whether the proposed go cart business is substantially similar to the other retail and service businesses allowed in the B-1 District. If the Commission finds that the proposed use is similar to a hobby shop, bicycle sales and repair shop or any other listed use, the Planning Conunission should recommend that the City Council find that it is similar and recommend allowing the use as a permitted use. If the Planning Commission does not believe that it is substantially similar but finds that the use is appropriate for the zoning district, the Commission should reconrmiend that the City Council direct staff to prepare a zoning amendment to add it to either the permitted or conditional use list in the B-1 District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION To hear testimony from the applicant regarding the proposed use and its operation, including hours of operation, signage and need for off-street parking for customers. Staff does not recommend any outdoor storage, repair or parking of go-carts outside, if the Commission finds that it is substantially similar to a hobby shop or bicycle sales and repair shop. Attachments Application Survey Floor Plan Letter Logo 02231 Mark Clllei 2160 Wayzata Biyd. Request for Finding of Substantially Similar Use i/20/98 pap~3 j 1 'iSs Application # ^33 I Date Received ______ Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION / Site Address 'll CO U/. Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)__ APPLICANT Name Phone tnome ) ^ >9^G.: i- OWNER (if. different than applicant) Name_Wi(/iA»Ti W. Addres s^ U<>o,tcU«>rrc^ U;\ Phone Qiome ) Phone ^on^ L. Phone (work) AnTi-lnASJ City Lon<^LaiC i>Zip. Date Property Acquired I (do) (d »a^ also ow _3 u/L^_ (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - --------$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _______ $175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ------- Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ------- Grading and fllling - 101 cu. yd. or more ------- Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule --------$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) --------After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS --------$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule RE(SU©7 of 6Ufi>TANT(AcCLv./ PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District I_________ Present Use of Property______Residential Other (specify) CnTYwy^j^/"^^P t » m CCRTFCATC OF SURVEY FORWILLIAM WEAR M THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 34-1 ^'23 HENNEPM COUNTY. MMNESOTA • r From ^^arc Gillel To Liz V Date: 12/22/97 Time 8 15 24 Af^ To; Zoning'PKinning, attn; Eheabeth V. From: Marc A J. Oillet Re Commercial property located at 2160 Wayzata Blvd 1 have discussed with the prc'perly owner. Bill Ware my desire to lease approximately 12*>0-15i>0 square feet ot commercial space in the properly located at 2160 Wayzata Blvd. The business that 1 would like to put in the space would be selling Go Karts, and parts and accessories for them In our meeting on Tuesday. December 16'*‘ 1997 we looked at some of the Karting magazines I brouglil in to try to give you a better feel of the Karting industry and the business that I would like to bring to Orono In companng what we saw in the trade magazines and our discussions, to the town codes, we both felt that isn't a direct listing for Karts, but that it would be ver>* similar to two other approved uses of Bicycle shop and Hobby shop. The Karls come two frames to a bo.x. There is some assembly required, including seat, tires and engine, and gauges The Karts are designed for sanctioned tracks that are open to ages 6 to 65 years old. There is a local test course at the Dakota County Technical t!’ollege There will be no Karts driven in the parking lot Other tracks are located in Hulchinsv»n. Brainerd. and Eau Claire, along with Other events throughout the metro area, such as Cantebury dowas The sanctioning body has strict safety requirements and licensing that must be adhered to. in order to operate on the course. After attending a couple of different types of races this year as spectators with my two sons, I found that the sporting events are \ family oriented. As a Den Leader for Cub Scouts, and the lather ot two sons, I am always k»^»king for constructive w ays for us to spend time together, even as we get older. I thinl: that a Karting business would be an asset to the community of Orono. Than!: you. Marc Oillct P.S I dropped off the application with Bill Ware over the weekend, we discas.sed what needs to be done on Friday the 19**V I will lr\* to make sure that vou cet evervthinz \ ou requested todav It’ you have any tiuestions. concerns, or comments you can reach me at Home 479-672S. or work at 9360169. or tax 9360145 Page 1 of ^ -POWERED BY KARL 2160 west wayzata Boulevard, Long Lake, MN 55359 call 612-479-6728 or Fax 612-KAR-TSCO or KARTSCO.COm M,T,W 10-6, TH,F 9-9, Weekends at the TRACKS I ) 1 COUNCIL MLETi: !0 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JAN 2 6 1998 DATE: JanSJRf 8 ITEM NO /3 Department Approval: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:ftiyiZ Freshwater Foundation 2500 Shadywood Road Conditional Use Permit Amendment-Public Hearing Zoning District: B-4, Office and Professional District Application: The applicant is requesting approval to proceed with negotiations to lease the lower level of the existing building to a corporation for research. The existing conditional use permit was issued to the Freshwater Foundation in May 1995 for continued use as a research and educational facility. (Resolution #3561). Since the Freshwater Foundation received the building back from the University of Minnesota in the early 1990's, the Foundation has tried to find other tenants to locate in the building. They are currently negotiating with a corporation to conduct biological research including treatment of water. Representatives from the Freshwater Foundation have met with City staff to discuss the change in occupancy. Staff advised the applicant to amend or provide new information to the Planning Commission and City Council to update the conditional use permit. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission discussed the application and was concerned about the type of research that would be conducted and the agencies that would be involved in permitting. They discussed asking the tenant to provide a listing of all permitting agencies. The applicants raised concerns about security, confidentiality of the type of research, and industrial espionage. After discussion, the Planning Commission decided to take no action. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To provide direction to the applicant regarding the status of their conditional use permit for a research and educational facility. fl r TO: r FROM: DATE: Liz Van Zomeren. City Planner/Zoning Administrator January 7, 1998 SUBJECT:#2328 Freshwater Foundation 2500 Shadywood Road Conditional IJse Permit Amendment-Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Size: B4, Office and Professional District 221,214 sq. ft. (5.078 acres) Application:«“.KjiS’ir S'szr'"" s,—• Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.09, Conditional Use; Section 10.43, B-4, Office & Professional Business District Findings: Comprehensive Municipal Plan; which the site is located and S:a^rR:se“crc“ar"l::^^^ ■'> conduct P-an .and use pian desisnates .is a^attstS^ celfe^^ra^^e if2328 Freshwater Foundation 2500 Shadywood Road CUP Amendment I/20/9S page-I page-1 J i use in this land use classification. 2.That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The research center would conduct biological research. The type of research would be compatible with other uses in the building and the surrounding area. The building was designed to be used for research so that health and safety issues were addressed through design. Production would not occur in the facility. Adequate parking is place to serve the building, see the site plan. 3.That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. The proposed tenant will comply with the zoning controls regulating research centers. Staff Recommendation To approve the conditional use permit as amended, Attachments A B C D E F G H Plat Map Site Plan Application Applicant's letter Floor Plan Permit Record Minutes from PC on May 15,1995 Resolution #3561 ^328 Freshwater Foundation 2500 Shadyyvood Road CUP Amendment 1/20/93 page-2 page-2 --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -—^ .1 —-- - -- ... .. » I 1 'I SKvDdvjMoooi JW// siiosK^^v / ^ ^ yI ■ w ' y / (90) V I .V . •vuoi c (94) n\ (wj) BlC,^tTTir / X (as)!i ,,.„ V, ♦. y*/ (8J) '»»>•'(100) i “O'J V. ' /hJ . j-- y«:i;J'!: _w /•0 —---------\ S’ 7 /^ oec»« 100)101-« V \^y/ •'»/ .‘/^ /^ ' \ \ ■'***•'»•€ Jk*. /ay Ai<;«y o«tior • (30) ))i » ?-sH VH i/^3/4)*Z ."i7 •"-••*// • V • (» ll«l (») /X / .N>-. / X» yC f-v > ’• <..........yr........yO^/ » / ' -N/X ^/ (19) / -•• iX'X (») ,i • p (1) / /X (3)"^ A SURVEY FOR; FRESHWATER BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE ’^CT- mum \ 3 lOfTi \ ■\ VMMOU O AffSr^ooof UOMTI • DDtOm FItOFEMTY COKfftR. all UAMOiCM SHOWfi AMM ASSUMED DATUM. FAMCtL COMTAWS SQVAM£ FtET OR 5.07$ ACR£S. RASMMOm, IF AMY, AMR MOT SHOWN.___ UrtUTY SatYKES AMR NOT SHOWN ON THE DR4..ING. THERE MAY BR UNDERGROUND UTTUTiRS CROSSING THE SUBJECT RRORERTY. IF DEfELOFMENT OR CONSTRUCTION tS PLANNED, ALL UNDERGROUND UmtTtES MUST BR LOCATED. CALL THE , GOFBER ONE-CALL SYSTEM AT (M) 454-000$ FOR LOCATIONS} PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. the edge OP the wet area shown a not an OmCIAL DNR DESIOMATED WETIAND DEUNUT10N, BUT AN APPROXIMATE LOCATION ONLY, LEGAL DEKRtPnON: tract B, RmgisUrmi tmmi Sufwwp No. 1830, flleo of tho R*il§tror of TiUet, kt om4 for Hoooopim Coualj, Miao —oUi . fMli/Mt U oowomrotM omd r«»tr<cUon» of record, if on/. '' f htrthr *9rUfr Ukal Ukf« •mrrmr. or nport hf mtm •€ uoAar 4ir*ct •jul tkmt I »m • rtgimimrmO Lmm4 Surftjmr !••• mt U« $UU if l(rW^ % AJOm A mmwPSI oScSumlurm SnuiSSf’uu. me. OATt:KMC. NO \ r r TAittTrD ^ wc ■ML f . mW- L- CUUL»Ln dt mm um.•mm mm» * 0 • I*' TEE C4TK a mrr rum nmr amd luim seal im M SOCMTIS. MC • » mm ttjB m m 'J ^. :‘- •• * •. . • W. -L'* Application H J13^ ^ Date Received jp Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2500 Shadywood Road, Navarre, MN 55331 Type of Application to be Filed C.U.P Amendment Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 20-117-23 11 0034 APPLICANT Name Freshwater Foundation Phone (home)_ Addres s 2500 Shadywood Road OWNER (if different than applicant) Name,______________(gamo)_________ ____Phone (work) (612)471-977 3_____ 2 CUyNavarre___________Zip55331_______ g Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address City Zip. Date Property Acquired September 1995 _ (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ____$225.00 Guest Housc/Gucst Apartments ______$200.00 Duplex Credit/DIdg _____$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore _____PRD/PI D - see Fee Schedule _____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____Aftcr-thc-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (i- consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____ $200.00 nn.scmcnl Vncnlion $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ' $350.00 Rc/oning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals X Other - see Fee Schedule - c.u.P Amendment PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District ________ Present Use of Property______Residential Otlicr (specify). Li- kll ADDENDUM City of Orono Freshwater Foundation ^3 o December 22, 1997 APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT No. 3561 Brief History of the Freshwater Foundation and the Gray Freshwater Center Ownership of the Gray Freshwater Center (GFC), previously named the Gray Freshwater Biological Institute, was returned to the Freshwater Foundation by the University of Minnesota on September 15, 1995. In April of that year in anticipation of the event, the Freshwater Foundation Hied an application for a Conditional Use Permit with the City of Orono. At its May 22 meeting, the Orono City Council approved the application and Permit No. 3561 was issued. While the return of the GFC offers significant long-term benefits to the Foundation, the cost of operation coupled with the operational demands required by the facility distracts the Foundation from serving its fresh water mission as efficiently and effectively as intended. To offset these distractions, the Foundation is seeking long-term tenants to fund the operation of the facility. Present Status Since the return of GFC, the Freshwater Foundation has been exploring a variety of direct uses of the facility in support of various fresh water program activities. At the same time, we ha\T been searching for potential rental candidates whose activities fit within the scope of the Foundation's Conditional Use Permit. Within the last two years, the Foundation has added two new newsletters • "ANS Digest" in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the national Task Force on Aquatic Nuisance Species and "National Water Quality News" in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey. These newsletters are distributed around the country and have been very well received by both professionals and lay subscribers. A Teacher Resource Center has been established within GFC to provide instruction, reference materials, equipment and laboratory facilities to assist K-12 teachers in water-related 1 •f . A pro®c^. The Foundation continues to receive and respond to about 150 inquirin'from femrieforc TfJ «'rfe«'KeBn A J I. V ******®* ^ ideal focilily for the seminars and symposia for which the FounSrim warehouse and distribution center for akiriS includmg the veiy popular "Minnesota Weatherguide Environment Wat^tLS'.S^iu?'””! •>y Creekfo/v-r* n Minnetonka Conservation District are headquartered in the to T ?T'' Wednesday evening services o^inj'r ^tmg TMhnology (a company qrecializing in biodegradable paper (» «a«-«P company developing new chemical «n.in>^n. *1^ *" And. of course, tli Inundation is a tenTT* aMiUon the continuing search for tenants continues with negotiations underway with a maior Mumesote company needing research facilities. If these negotiations are succeraful, GFC willbe fully occupied. • T - ■-_____^_____> W*- Permit Wo, ^~?5Ta -?g'y7 H ssoo PERMIT RECORD Date V- 7-^ U;^OOcy Type of Permit LftO>oRAVtsgy Pcg4> <LC_ I < f MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15, 1995 (#6 - #2007 Tony Eiden Company - Continued) Nolan moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2007 for the installation of an L- shaped berm on lots 1 and 2, block 2 subject to the berm maintaining a 20' setback separation from the drainfields. The Applicant must provide site drainage plans satisfactoty to the City Engineer along with an integrated drainage plan along the shared property lines and between the residence and drainfield for lot 1 with an easement accompanying agreed swale. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #2013 FRESHWATER FOUNDATION, 2500 SHADYWOOD ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:54-8:12 P.M. Boyd Burton, Vice Chair of the Freshwater Foundation, and Board of Director members, Robert Searles and JoElIen Hurr, were present. Burton relayed the groundwork on the history of the institute, which was formed by Dick Gray in 1968 to do research on preservation of fresh water, and who then built the iristitute. An agreement was made with the University of Minnesota in 1974 and was given over to the university in 1976 as a research institute and named the Gray Freshwater Biological Institute. Burton said the university has concluded, that due to budget restraints, they are unable to continue to afford operating the foundation. Two options were available; one, to put the foundation on stand-by, or two, give the foundation back. The intent is to not change the purpose but to be more of an educational organization informing the public on fresh water issues. The original construction cost paid by private contributions was 4 million dollars. Since then, another 3-1/2 million has been spent on research. The building sits on five acres, with an additional 2-1/2 acres south of the building, as well as two outlots. It was found that no conditional use permit was ever issued to either the foundation or the university. The foundation *s application is to correct that mistake at this time. Peterson reported his pleasure in seeing the institute back in the community and would like to see school tours of the institute. Peterson is in favor of the CUP and asked Burton if he was aware of Staffs recommendation for the CUP. Peterson is concerned that no CUP be issued without written documentation that the university has removed all hazardous wastes, and that ^y hazardous waste be taken care of and disposed of in a proper manner. The Applicant said the formal decommissioning will take place by the end of July. Smith asked who the regulatory agencies involved were and if they concur with these decisions. The PCA is the agency involved. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 15. 1995 (#7 - #2013 Freshwater Foundation - Continued) There were no public comments. Lindquist inquired of the ADA requirements for the building. Burton said an inspection has occurred. Only small differences were found and few modiEcations needed. The plan is to comply but no time schedule has been decided. There are two levels to the building. The elevator is not ADA approved at this time but would only be necessary if the public were to be exposed to the lower floor in the future. Smith asked that a time frame be part of the recommendation. Mabusth said the institute acts as a polling place and could work out the details with the City on compliance. Appropriate Braille signage on bathroom doors were needed as soon as possible. Hurt asked when next election use would occur. Mabusth advised in fall of 1996. Berg asked about parking and any plans for paving or expansion o.*“the parking lot. The Applicant says there are no plans to expand, and the occasional wet conditions of the lot are the only complaints received. Hurr replied that any additional parking would require a CUP. Nolan asked if any conferences were held that would incur problems with parking. It was found that there were no guidelines in place for this situation, and Mabusth said no problems have been reported. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2013 for a CUP for continued use as a research facility as the Freshwater Institute. The Applicant will bring the building up to ADA codes within a year of their receiving the property, July, 1996. Proper certification will be needed from the MPCA. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#8) #2015 MARK HARRINGTON, 4080 BAYSIDE ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMnyVARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:43-9:54 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. John Amot represented the applicant. Mabusth reported that the application is for a 35'x44', 3-story addition, which will double the size of the existing structure. A variance setback was granted for a detached garage in 1984. The detached garage will be removed when the attached garage, which is part of the application, is built. ■SMI J r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CllY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MAY 22,1995 (U6) #2013 FRESHWATER FOUNDATION, 2500 SHADYWOOD ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMTT - RESOLUTION #3561 Hurt asked for an addition to the resolution. On page 3. fcst paragraph undCT Conclusions. Order and Conditions, add the word education, to permit continued education and research center use of the facility...". Jabbour moved, Kellev seconded, to approve Resolution #3561 as Nays 0,1 Abstain, Huir, who is a board member of the Freshwater Foundat (*#7) #2019 LEISEL COX, 3445 SHORELINE DRIVE - CONDIHONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION #3562 Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution #3562. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#8) 1995 MARINA LICENSES . MINNETONKA BOAT WORKS • WINDWARD MARINA • SAILORS WORLD • NORTH SHORE MARINA Hurr inquired about the regulation on the use of bead-type Xd W Marina. Minn^nka Boat Works replaced this matenal maS and is now in compliance with the regulaUon. Lakeside has replaced matenal but has not been reinspected. Gafiron said Windward is using a non-bead type of foam matend but tS^type that the owner plans to replace with encased. The ordinance refers specifically to the bead-type and not the solid foam. A deadline of mid-May was pven to Windward to complete the process. Hurr asked that their license not be issued until compliance is complete. Hurr moved, Kelley seconded, to approve 1995 manna hcenscs Minnetonka subject to compliance with the elinrination of bead-type flotation ma * .. . Boat Works, Sailors World, and North Shore Marina. Ayes N^ys . fliat a^on be started to ensure complete compUance along with imposing a penalty if necessary. J Wm CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 56 1 . A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.43, SUBDIVISION 4(C) FILE #2013 WHEREAS, M. Boyd Burton, Vice-Chairman and CEO of the Freshwater Foundation (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the propeny located at 2500 Shadywood Road located within the City of Oroiio (hereinafter "City") and legally described as: Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1630, Files of the Registrar of Titles, in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit to permit the continued use of the facility as a research and educational center per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.43, Subdivision 4(C). Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. The application was reviewed as Zoning File #2013. The property is located in the B-4, Office and Professional Business Zoning District requiring a minimum of 20.000 s.f. in area. The property consists of 5.078 acres. 3.On May 15, 1995 the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application as amended and recommended unanimous approval based on the following findings: A) The Gray Freshwater Biological Institute was founded by the applicant in 1974. Page 1 of 5 J r 4. P (E) (F) (H) CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. JlilJlI In December of 1976 the Institute was gifted to the University and has continued under its ownership and management through to the present time. The City has no record of issuing a conditional use permit to either the Freshwater Foundation or the University of Minnesota for the research center. In July of 1995, the Freshwater Foundation will once again own and manage the Institute and has agreed to file the required conditional use permit. The Foundation proposes no changes in use but will continue to provide conferencing facilities, laboratories and office space. The Institute will continue to provide a polling place for Navarre residents. (G) There is no intensification in use proposed. The Institute will operate at the approximate use level as was provided under the management of the University of Minnesota. The Instimte owns an adjacent parcel to the immediate west, Lot 8, the Marsh of Lafayette. The additional area may be used to serve future parking needs if necessary . The applicant has agreed to install certain required improvements under the Americans withloisability Act prior to the 1996 general election. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow t e continued use of the facility as a research center will not be detrunental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect lieht. air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring propemes, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zonmg Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 ^ ■■fi'rfiWf itflHBir mrrtiiiirni fTH-iif fihruniimni-i mg r'Mtn^K r i Ti—TfTr ir ■ n i-niiniii irTrir ir H i ti i mi i 'rtl i ai i i —-n f-m -nrtwt'i [lifB I rt t* 1l«i T-r-m>TTrrrimTi^*n ~^i 1nur i ii ~ ra i ~ r ' i CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. S 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicant and the affect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.43, Subdivision 4(C) to permit the continued use of the facility located at 2500 Shady wood Road as a research and educational center and to continue to be known as the Gray Freshwater Biological Institute, subject to the following conditions; Upon occupancy applicant shall be responsible for installing fully compliant raised and Braille signage on ail doors of toilet rooms in close proximity to the polling 1. areas. 2. 3. Applicant has agreed to make the following improvements within the Institute by July of 1996: A. Provide a van accessible parking stall within the parking and pedestrian crossing and to crosshatch the pedestrian crossing to warn motorists. B. Ensure that a curb cut/ramp be provided leading to the sidewalk. C. Reduce the tension of the main entrance and vestibule doors. D. Bevel the abrupt rise at the main entrance doors. E. Toilet rooms in close proximity to the polling areas to be upgraded. Lower coat hooks provided in close proximity to polling area. F. Assessable drinking fountain be provided in close proximity to the polling ■ area. Upon occupancy of applicant but no later than July 31, 1995, applicant shall provide copies to City of MPCA report certifying removal of hazardous wastes from facility. Page 3 of 5 o,. o CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. S 5 6 1 ^ 4. 6. Applicant is advised that the City will reserve its right to recall or reconsider this conditional use permit as it relates to additional parking needs or paving improvements. 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. M. Boyd Burton, Vice Chairman & CEO of the Freshwater Foundation has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Freshwater Foundation, its 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 22nd day of May, 1995. ATT EST: Dorothy M. /HSm, City Clerk ?< M. Burton, Vice Chairman & CEO of the Freshwater Foundation STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of May, 1995, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notar}' Public . LINDA S.VEE notary pubuc-minnesota KHNNEPIN COUNTY Ny Commission Expires Jaa 31.2000 Page 4 of 5 s - ei CITY of OROXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 561 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this 1^-^ day of ® the foreg^g instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. . LINDA S. VEE NOmpUBUC-MlNNESOW hennewn county^ Cyn/nisslon Explfes Jan. 3t NOTARY PUBUC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared ---------^#»YPcutedknown to me to be the person(s) descnbed m and who executed the foregoing instrument, at^d lcknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (then) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Pase 5 of 5 COUNCIL T.--- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JAN 2 6 1998 Date: Item No. Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coordinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Update - Mooney Lake Elevation Control Lbt of Attachments A - Staff memo 7/23/96 B - Lakeshore Weekly News article 1/15/98 C - Background Information from MCWD - incl. Excerpts from 'Mooney Lake Water Level Evaluation* Background Mooney Lake is located at the extreme northeast comer of Orono, the majority of its basin being in Plymouth with a portion in Medina and a small comer in Orono. The lake has no outlet. Overflow elevation would likely be about 10' above the current lake level, and would apparently flow naturally southwestward either to Lydiard Lake or Long Lake via Spring Hill. A group of Mooney Lake homeowners, including E)ouglas Dayton, the only resident of Orono with property on the lake, have been working with the MCWD to find a solution to concerns about high water elevations that are impacting trees on the shoreline. MCWD studies indicate that no homes are in immediate jeopardy, but the higher density development within the watershed in recent years may create enough runoff to cause the lake to rise to a level that concerns lakeshore residents. This issue has been around for at least 20 years. Both Barr Engineering and Hickock &. Associates studied it in the mid 1 970's. Bonestroo looked into it as part of their work on Plymouth's Storm Drainage Plan in 1980. MCWD established a 100-year flood elevation for Mooney Lake in 1988. A meeting was held in 1996 by MCWD with representative homeowners, City staffs and DNR to discuss the issue. The apparent solution is a pumping station that would be run as needed to maintain the lake level below some threshold elevation. Mr. Dayton is requesting City support for such a project, and MCWD boardmember Tom Maple has suggested the starting point may be a petition of support from all three involved cities. I have requested that Maple provide a format for such a petition. It is my expectation that Mr. Dayton will be available Monday evening to discuss this proposal. •• -** ft. Mooney Lake Level January 23,1998 Page 2 Identified Issues m 1. Will the pumping program involve discharges to Orono drainageways or facilities? What will be the impact on Orono facilities or downstream properties, if any? 2. How will the initial costs and ongoing operations and maintenance be paid for? 3. Who will be responsible for monitoring water levels and deciding when the system should operate? COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Review the issues noted and identify any others not noted, and indicate whether the Council will conceptually support this proposal. Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P, Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator July 23, 1996 Subject: Mooney Lake High Water Problem I attended a meeting on July 22 at the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) offices which was in res^n^ to concerns of the Mooney Lake Homeowners Association about its current high water level They would like MCWD to approve a plan for lowering the lake level by pumping which would presumably need to be an ongoing activity. Mooney Lake is at the northeast tip of Orono and mostly contained within the boundaries of Mooney Lake has an Ordinary High Water Level established by the DNR at 988.0 feet Its highest Mooney Lake has no outlet at the OHW elevation, however, and MCWD believes the natural overflow would be to the southwest ou^ Orono. This would require the lake to reach an elevation of approximately 997 feet or 10 feet above the OHW and 8 feet above its current level. At elevation 997, apparently a Sber of homes around Mooney Lake would be flooded. It IS possible that Aere is a lower overflow point at the southeast side of the lake, flowing to Hadley Lake in Plymouth (south of Co. Rd. 6, east of West Femdale Road). This should be further investigated by the MCWD. The Homeowners AssociaUon believes the current high water problem is due to the residential development of the shoreland in Plymouth, with no thought given to the impact the added ^or^ater would have on this landlocked basin. The Homeowners Association has asked the MCWD to consider a plan to control the lake level by pumping. The two possible outlets for this 2) overland ^e MCWD’s next s^ is to do some engineering to determine if either option is feasible and what Ae mpacts will be. They will then call for another meeting. I would anticipate we will want to have the City Engineer involved if the Orono option is still proposed at that time ^ to deteimine what overland route the Mooney Lake pumpage would follow if it w^ discharged through Orono at the Da>lon property. The two likely routes are shown on the attached sketch, one southwesterly through the Hollander Road neighborhood to Lydiard Lake ^d eventually to Long Lake, the other heading westward north of Co. Rd. 6 then south through the Spring Hill property and along Spring Hill Road to Long Lake. Which of these two routes the discharge water would follow depends on actual elevations of the culvert under Co. Rd. 6 just west of Dayton’s driveway. The potential impacts appear to be much greater through the southerly route, since many ponds and low areas historically containing little or no flow would be inundated or have much higher levels than previously experienced. While some drainage easements exist through the Hollander Road area, they do not appear to be continuous to Long Lake via either route. Adding water to Lydiard Lake might also be a concern, since it apparently has no defined aboveground outlet and would appear to overflow at elevation 978 (about 7' above the 970.9 OHW) which would potentially flood some Lydiard Lake riparian properties. Easements would be needed downstream from Lydiard Lake. The northerly route would cut across mostly undeveloped acreages, but might have an impact on drainageways along Spring Hill Road. There is certainly an argument to be made that water problems presumably caused by development in Plymouth should be addressed and resolved through the City of Plymouth, without causing possible problems "downstream" in Orono. mm i W- S: f* pm.:k wm— ' 'll ■'SP" 1^1 ‘--=ir **'ii:J > ^1 ^ -.Vv-l Eni 1 m 1 V i>^y •V.:- :•» - ‘»1 w'V.;-'.: •*...•: ‘. .■ • .*;■•••■ ‘‘V.-•:**.*. .Wr %? mi^ lilf Mm ^mmm % W* ,*;w I '•>* •* '* **.'^ . *‘iY’'-^*A»'-*f ailliil^ /■•■x^cr.> Sisi&s* r“ -• •.. *’.“Iv *.V- \ ..M'tVviWV ,5k .•.^»>;*:* *./■<..'MS o :i (^ ^ I & ^ 5 c: ?i ^o r 0 ? ^ H^ a January 15,-19!MCWD board to send cities petition for Mooney LakeBy John Costello FTTlhe Minnehaha Creek I Wn lershed Disl rict's Bon rd JL of Managers spent part of their Jan. 8 meeting discussing how to respond to a letter from an Orono man who believes Mooney Lake has a high-water problem. Tlie letter, dated Dec. 9, was written by Douglas Dayton to Orono Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, and a copy of it was then sent to the district. Mooney Lake is a landlocked lake located on the borders of the dties of Orono, Plymouth and Medina. The largest part of the lake is in Plymouth. "Mooney Lake has had a high- water problem for several years due to the fact that there is no outlet for the lake, and because the increased development around the lake has accelerated runoff into it," Dayton, the only Orono resident on the lake, writes in the letter. As a solution to tine problem, installation of a pumped outlet has been suggested, as part of the reconstruction of North Ferndalc Road, to feed the excess water into a storm drain. The recon­ struction a joint project between th' cities of Orono and Plymouth that will take place this summer. Tire pumped outlet project's cost is roughly estimated at about $30,000. The board directed MCWD Attorney Louis Smith to draft a petition for the pumped outlet that will be sent to all three cities. Plymouth has included a sec­ tion in the city's propo.sed water resources management plan to work with llu- ilistrict to complete a feasibility study for the con­ struction of an outlet for Mooney Lake. Dayton claims that the lake has risen about five feet in recent years, and "that many (perhaps 200) mature trees have been drowned out. More will suffer a similar fate unless corrective action is taken." The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources determined in 1976 that the ordinary high-water elevation level for the lake as 988 feet, which was reconfirmed by the DNR in 19%. Homeowners have questioned since then whether the OHW arrived at by the DNR is correct. In an interview Monday, Dayton said that the homeowners have been discu:- .ing the situa­tion with the MCWD for a year- aml-a-half. According to Dayton's letter, there are approx­ imately sixty family units around Mo>mey Like. .Dayton also wrote that MCWD Manager Tom Maple "suggested that if one or more of the cities around the lake petitioned the district to correct the high-water problem, the watershed district tlien has to act." At the meeting. Maple denied that he made the suggestion. "1 didn't promise anything," he said. In an interview after the meet­ ing, Maple made additional com­ ments about the petition. "If they (cities) petition us to do it, we have to prove that there's some­ thing feasible to do," he said. "If there is a problem, and there is a feasible solution, then the water­ shed district would come up with that kind of a finding." MCWD Manager Tom LnDounty feels that the district should receive a consensus from ail three cities before it takes action of any kind on Mooney Lake. "Tliis involves three cities. We need to have all three cities," LaBounty said during the meet­ing. "It's like a stool with only one or two of the three legs; it falls over." Jabbour talked briefly about the letter in an interview after the meeting. "1 haven't yet sat down and figured out the exact dynam ­ ics of it, nor is it appropriate for me to do that until staff does all their work on it," he said. "If I have an opinion prior to that, then the proper process is rot followed," Jabbour contin­ ued. "1 think I need the benefit of our engineers and staff, and the implications of the pros and cons for everything he (Dayton) is requesting, and I don't know what those are." In an interview Monday, Plymouth City Manager Dwight Johnson said that the city has received several letters in the past year from Mooney Lake homeowners, voicing the same concerns as Dayton's letter. At tliis point, the city of Medina hasn't delved into the Mooney Lake issue very deeply. "It's never been brought to the coun- cil's attention," Medina Councilmember Phil Zietlow remarked Monday. Ridgedale servk center still openHennepin County is rcmii ing citizens that its Ridged Ser\'ice Center in Minnctoi remains open for busin despite the closing of the a< cent Ridged a le-Hennepin A Library for construction. Service center hours an a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday throi Friday, and 9 a.m. to 2 p Saturdays. The center provii more than 25 licensing servk including motor vchi licenses, driver licenses, ga and fishing licenses, propc tax collection, voter registrati passport photos, notarizatk and park permits. Business has dropped sigi icantly at the service cer since the closing of Ridged Library in September beca( residents think the center I also closed, according County officials. Tlie library is undergoin] two-year, $22 million expans and renovation project. Hennepin also operates s vice centers at Brookdi Southdale, Maple Grove i the Government Center downtown Minneapolis. nwing—EBB ‘‘Mr. Lakes! United Way HRST CAIX FOH0HELP, januaiy 15, .19! MCWD board to send cities petition for Mooney Lake By John Costello r l"lhe Minnehaha Creek I Watershed District's Board ^ of Managers spent part of their Jan. 8 meeting discussing how to a*spond to a letter from an Orono man who believes Mooney Lake has a high-water problem. Tlie letter, dated Dec. 9, was written by Douglas Dayton to Orono Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, and a copy of it was then sent to the district. Mooney Lake is a landlocked lake located on the borders of the cities of Orono, Plymouth and Medina. *rhe largc>st part of the lake is in Plymouth. "Mooney Like has had a high- water problem for several years due to the fact that there is no outlet for the lake, and because the increased development around the lake has accelerated runoff into it," Dayton, the only Orono resident on the lake, writes in the letter. As a solution to tlie problem, installation of a pumped outlet has been suggested, as part of the reconstruction of North Femdale Road, to feed the excess water into a storm drain. 'The recon­ struction is a joint project between the cities of Orono and Plymouth that will take place this summer. Tlw pumped outlet project's cost is roughly estimated at about $30,000. The board directed MCWD Attorney Louis Smith to draft a petition for the pumped outlet that will be sent to all three cities. Plymouth has included a sec­ tion in the city's proposed water resources management plan to work with the ilistrict to complete a feasibility study for the con­ struction of an outlet for Mooney Lake. Dayton claims that the lake has risen about five feet in recent years, and "that many (perhaps 200) mature trees have been drowned out. More will suffer a similar fate unless corrective action is taken." The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources determined in 1976 that the ordinary high-water elevation level for the lake as 988 feet, which was reconfirmed by the DNR In 1996. Homeowners have questioned since then whether the OHW arrived at by the DNR is correct. In an interview Monday, "Mr. Lakes] Dayton said tliat the homeowners have been dlscu:- .ing the situa­ tion with the MCWD for a year- and-a-half. According to Dayton's letter, there are approx­ imately sixty family units around Motiney Like. .Dayton also wrote that MCWD Manager Tom Maple "suggested that if one or more of the cities around the lake petitioned the district to correct the high-water problem, the watershed district tlien has to act." At the meeting, Maple denied that he made the suggestion. "1 didn't promise anything," he said. In an interview after the meet­ ing, Maple made additional com­ ments about the petition. "If they (cities) petition us to do it, we have to prove that there's some­ thing feasible to do," he said. "If there is a problem, and there is a feas’ble solution, then the water­ shed district would come up with that kind of a finding." MCWD Manager Tom LaBounty feels that the district should receive a consensus from all three cities before it takt*s action of any kind on Mooney Lake. "Tliis involves three cities. We ‘;T . 4iak '' 1 need to have all three cities," LiBounty said during the meet­ ing. "It's like a stool with only one or two of the three legs; it falls over." Jabbour talked briefly about the letter in an interview after the meeting. "1 haven't yet sat down and figured out the exact dynam ­ ics of it, nor is it appropriate for me to do that until staff does all their work on it," he said. "If I have an opinion prior to that, then the proper process is not followed," jabbour contin­ ued. "I think I need the benefit of our engineers and staff, and the implications of the pros and cons for everything he (Dayton) is requesting, and I don't know what those are." In an interview Monday, Plymouth City Manager Dwight Johnson said that the city has received several letters in the past year from Mooney Lake liomeowners, voicing the same concerns as Dayton's letter. At this point, the city of Medina hasn't delved into the Mooney Lake issue very deeply. "It's never been brought to the coun­ ci I's attention," Medina Councilmember Phil Zietlow remarked Monday. Ridgedale servu center still open Hennepin County is remit ing citizens that its Ridged Service Center in Minnetoi remains open for busin despite the closing of the ac cent Ridgedale-Hennepin A Library for construction. Service center hours an a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday throi Friday, and 9 a.m. to 2 p Saturdays. The center provii moa* than 25 licensing servi< including motor vchi licenses, driver licenses, ga and fishing licenses, prope tax collection, voter registrati passport photos, notarizatii and park permits. Business has dropped sigi icantly at the service cer since the closing of Ridged Library in September becai residents think the center I also closed, according County officials. Hie library is undergoin; two-year, $22 million expans and renovation project. Hennepin also operates s vice centers at Brookda Southdale, Maple Grove the Government Center downtown Minneapolis. United Way HRST CALL FOHgHELP, r r Ol'lO 98 14:09 FAX 612 479 4242 WENCK ASSOC. INC ©iinl 01.8 InvlrQnmenul Engineers Wenck Wenck Associates, Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Ctr. PO. Bo« 423 Maple Plain. MN 55159-04; (612) 479-4200 Fa* (fil2) 479-t242 E-mail wenckmp.'Jv.enck cnnr WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC, FACSIMTI,,E COVER PAGE Facsimile No. (612) 479-4242 Date: _ /??* Time: __, Our Job ff: Client Name: From Facsimile transmittal to the following persons; _____/k<^ Name Cr4.Qf'O'^O Firm FAX NUMBER Name Firm FAX NUNffiER ‘V Name Firm FAX NUMBER Name Firm FAX NUMBER COMMENTS^ A- yr- W,>.- ^ r,u^r^r..rto>Z/Z Number of pages to each of the above, includin^this cover;a gJBOPVEiVt$ OCCUR IN TRANSmSSION PLEASF. rAT I. f«12) 47,.4^f><l N :\0000\0! VFORNtS'5AX-TRAN.SHT ‘{A .roiirr^ 010 •f'f 01'13/9S 14:10 FAX 612 479 4242 WENCK ASSOC. IN'C @004 013 Section I Introduction I. TNTROPUCTTON Mooney Lake is a landlocked lake located on the borders of Plymouth, Medina, and Orono (Figure 1) within the Minnehaha Creek Watershea District (MCWD). The area has seen a significant increase in development within the past 20 years which may have increased the volume of runoff received by the lake. This concern prompted the Mooney Lake Association to request that the MCWD perform a water level evaluation for the lake. r N .'01 U»- CT-iJ»1 V1^ '"Tj X7 <>rtw ^ W-’* H2..e) I. Inc., 11/4/97 age 1 of 1 6) 01'13 99 14:12 FAX 612 479 4242 «ENCK ASSOC. INC J'JS-27-l3siS 13SC57 HIHr4SH=lHA C‘?€5’'< UATE ‘?H:h £D 0006 01.9 6124710S32 M C W D 6/27/96 FAX TO Andy Syverson nsiFOTO Tom Maple Monica Gross John Thonia5 FROM SUBJECT Gene Strommen Mooney Lake Citizens Review of 10:00 am, Moa , 7/1/96, to discuss the Lake Level Problem Further reviewl the Mooney Lake water level problem called to our attention 6/24 by Dave Mcllen, a i osident and homeowner on Mooney Lake, 1 looked up the Mooney Lake Water Level Evaluation report and checked the action taken by tlte board on it at its 12/28/95 meeting. The report was received by the board from Syverson withoui action except to receive it for tlie files No discussion of the presentation was noted in the minutes. The Conclusions of the evaluation are attached. The conclusions state that there will not be a flood problem for the homes at the low home elevation of 992.85, starring at the 988.0 elevation. However, the conclusions do not address the potential loss of nature trees which are in one to two-plus feet of water, this appearing to be the immediate concern of Mooney Lake residents. Is the remedial action to lower the lake level directed primaiily at saving tlie mature trees? Perhaps we should know how many trees by size and type are involved, and on a property-by property basis. Can we ask Dave Vfellcn to gather thi.s information for us to have available for our discussion Monday, 7/1? The Mooney Lake Water Level Evaluation report vva.s distributed to all managers in December If you do not have yours at hand, we have a copy in the office. Let's discuss this at the board meeting prior to or as part of the discussion agenda if tliat is appropriate. r; <.hn. 16 013 01-.»3-'03 14:13 FAX 612 470 4242 WENCK ASSOC. INC JiJN-27-1996 15:38 t1lNN=H=)rHA CREEX UlPlTERSHcO ©007 013 8154713=32 =.3202 Section VTI Conclusions 1.Although recent lake elevations have exceeded the Ordinary High Water (OHW) cievaiion of 988.0, the probability of a lO-day storm causing Mooney Lake to exceed the low home elevation of 992.85, from a starting elevation of 58S.O, is less than 0.01 (1%). 2.The OHW was determined by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in 1976. Based on recent lake elevations • ceeding the OHW for an extended period of time and recent development in the vicinity of Mooney Lake, the current OHW may be higher than 988.0. Land use within the Mooney Lake drainage area should not change significantly from current conditions. Therefore, the results presented in this document should be consistent with future conditions. 4.Assuming the precipitation recorded in Plymouth was representative of the Mooney Lake drainage area, the TR20 model provided a consen'aiive estimate of runoff for the August 1995 event analyzed. K^.KCT-'r TOTRL P.02 4)1 '13 98 14:13 FAX 612 479 4242 WENXK ASSOC. INC @008 013 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 7/10/96 Board of Managers / Manager Tom Maple. District Director Gene Strommen SUBJECT Progress on Mooney Lake High Water Level Discussions The attached DRAFT memo to city administrators and DNR reviews discussions held with Mooney Lake citizens 7/1/96 regarding the increase m lake levels. A follow-up meeting with city staff of the three bordenng cities - Orono, Medina and Plymouth, was suggested Plymouth's assistant city engineer was presenC7/l due to citiaen Pl^uth residential properties impact the luti-offbemg expeneiiccd by the l^e. ano poLble solutions to the high rvater level might rest within Plymouth s city limits. • The follow-up meeting is proposed for 10:00 am. Mon, 7/22 pet the attached agenda. <»>■ ir-* 4 3 01.13-99 14:13 FAX 612 479 4242 WENCK ASSOC. I.N’C ©(•lift 013 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT 471-0590 July 10, 1996 TO Ron Moorse, Orono City Manager Paul Robinson, Medina City Clerk/Treasurer ^ Ron Quanbeck, Plymouth Assistant City Engineer INFO TO CeU Strauss, MN DXR Division of Waters FROM Gene Strommen, District Director SUBJECT Mooney Lake High Water Level Citizens living on Mooney Lake from each of the three cities sharing shoreline ^th Board of Managers, Andrew Syverson, Wenek Associates consultrng engineers tor the MCWD and District Director Gene Strorrunen agreed to hear their concents on Monday. July t Persons representing Mooney Lake were Charlie Crosby, Medina; Doug Dayton olo; Dave Mellen, Plymouth and Joyce Pokomy, Plymouth. Ron Quanbeck, t^ymouth Assistant City Engineer also attended due to a possible solution the citizens have been discussing involving the City of Plymouth. Mr. Mellen reviewed the problem, noting that the DNR determined the ordinary high water level to be 988.0’ in 1976. The OHW was reconfirmed by the DNR m 1996. The lake elevation on July 1, 1996 was 989.13’. The lake has been aboveOHW continuously for over one year. The homeowners are quesiioning if the OHW arrived at by the DNR is correct, the citizens’ understanding that the DNR used water evel m^k evidence during high water years. It was noted that the citizens could appes t e determination. A residential development in Plymouth was suggested as contributing to the run-off causing Mooney Lake to rise. A citizens’ report presented by Mr Mellen stated that. I Continuous rising water is a threat to numerous homes. 2. The lake ecology has changed from the increased run-off. a. Over 1 1 5 six-inch diameter trees are now under water and arc either dying or dead. b Over 65 twelve-inch diameter trees and ten 24-36 inch diameter trees are now under water. i ,u c. The lake shoreline drops off to 3 to 4 feet deep at three feet From the shore along 90% of its shoreline. d. Planl and fish life are adversely affected ai'13'98 14:14 FAX 612 479 4242 wenck assoc. INC ® 010 01.8 MOONEY LAKE HIGH WATER LEVEL, pag« 2 , •• , M nut that trees over one foot in diameter eventually fall in the water PHotos were circulated hy the cltiaens illustrating samplings of the shoreline condtiton. TheMinnehahaCreeKWa.ershedDistricfMooneyLaheWaterLcvelEvaluat.on o 12/95 offered the following conclubions^ gvceeded the OHW elevation of 9S8.0 , 1. Although recem lake eldvattonshav^^^^^ 5' ftont a starting elevation of 9SS.0 is less than one CoVwasdetetnnned^theDmm^^^^^ 5s“u“ document Luld be consistent representative of the of nm-offfor the August 1995 event. SOLUTION EXELOR-ATIONS. A pumped ^ situation. next STEP. The citizens b' im V .. , '^■4 [5i ■) r«y.\tf»K«] RTiWiTiTMTOWC !• ilI^M M»K«] 10 . Oi'13'9S 14:15 FAX 612 479 4242 WENCK ASSOC. INC @012 01.3 S£P-17-1936 13;41 CR£E«5124710532 P.32/05 ! I July 23. 1996 Mr. Eugene, Strommen Mr. Tom Maple.., jV. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 37 Excelsior. MN 55331 Dear Gene and Tom; fK« . express our appreciation, for organizing uy . 96 meeting with your stafv and the village engineers and Tor pushing a solution to our high water problem. As I understand it . the MCWD with inputs from the affected villages will pul together a tentative solution for pumping Mooney Lake down to the 997 level. If \^e can help in any way, let me know. The current lack of rain has helped to alleviate the danger to homes. Maybe some of the trees currently alive but in the water can be saved if we can resolve this situation before next Spring. Thanks again for your help! CC: Douglas J. Dayton Charles Crosby Dale Ladwig Joyce Pokorny Sincerely,. Dave Mellen, Chairman MLA 4 i9se RECE/ved TDT5- P.35 aawii. cour;c:L meeting JAN 2 6 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFORONO Date: January 23, 1998 Item No • / ^ Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Senior Planning Coortlinator Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Gary DeSantis, Sailor's World - 1960 Shoreline Drive - Request for Discussion re: Business Plan and re: 10 Slip Reduction by LMCD Attachments A - Letter of Request B - 1998 Marina License Application C - Resolutions Potentially Pertinent to Discussion: #2193 - Original approval for boat sales at gas station site - June 1987 #2194 - Original approval for marina redevelopment > June 1987 #3478 - Relocate storage module - October 1994 #3582 - Boat club CUP - July 1995 D - LMCD letter re: 10 slips - 6/18/97 Background Mr. DeSantis has requested that Council provide a letter of support for his position regarding the potential loss of 10 existing boat slips by LMCD action. His concern is that loss of these slips will have a significant financial impact on his operation, necessitating a change in his business plan that would require additional land-based activity. In 1987 the City granted then-owner Gerald Toberman approval to redevelop the marina site, and at the same time move all sales operations to the gas station property across the road. In 1988, LMCD granted Sailors World variance approval for some dock revisions which resulted in removal of 20 buoys located more than 200' from the shore, but allowed 10 additional dock slips 100-200' from the shore for a period of 10 years. The 10 year period has now expired, and LMCD is forcing the issue of slip removal. It is staffs view that the City agreed to moving the sales operation across the road in 1987 based on the expected decrease in intensity of activity at the marina site that would result The boat sales operation e\ entualiy failed, and Tobem.an lost both properties. DeSantis ended up with the marina and did the redevelopment of it himself in the early I990’s. He has completed all work on it except landscaping, which we have allowed to be delayed pending resolution of the soil contamination irnrrrmimiTrrTTi m ri ■ I 11 111 n I III ITMI li II 1^1 !■■■ I iiai I ■ iiM 1 iM A r V Sailors World January 23,1998 Page 2 issues which have 'spilled over* onto the marina property from the gas station. In 1993-94 the City approved a storage module for the marina, and in 1995 approved a boat club CUP for the site. The City has never sanctioned boat sales at the marina, although DeSantis indicates off-season brokerage activity has been ongoing for a number of years. He indicates this activity involves no more than 3-5 used boats stored on site for sale. In staffs opinion, boat brokerage is a ch^ge to the business plan for this site, for which the B-2 code requires additional parking. This marina already has parking variances, with an agreement for off-site parking with the Art Center. Staff Recommendation Revisions to the business plan to allow boat sales to occur on the property will, in staffs opinion, trigger the need for a new parking variance review and an amendment to commercial site plan, since all prior approvals have not accounted for the 8 extra spaces the code would require for a sales operation. The Citv does not have its own dock regulations but refers to the LMCD code for dock standards. The City in the past (1970's and 80’s) has strongly supported LMCD efforts to reduce the length of nonconforming docks. Staff is unaware whether the City had any input to LMCD regarding the temporary slip issue in 1988. Finally, despite DNR’s input regarding the location of the storage module in 1993-94 (DNR wanted it at least 50 ’ from the lake), staff would support a revised location for it that does not abut the road, wheie it currently sticks out like a sore thumb. This would require a new variance application and amendment to commercial site plan. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Please review Mr. DeSantis' concerns, and take whatever action you feel is appropriate regarding support for his position on the 10 slips, and advise of the need for variances and commercial site plan amendments for a change to allow boat sales or storage module relocation. f J r A SAILORS UJORLD MARINA & BOAT CLUB /V/C/C/CA/VA 'SvtvtH^ & Sad " January 13, 1998 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota 55323 isneivso Ur OP.ONO Re: Sailors World Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members: This letter is to give you background information regarding Sailors World. Sailors World would like to request a letter indicating the City’s approval of our business operations since 1994. We continue to work towards a mutually agreed plan for landscaping completion and a new road sign upon completion of soil clean up with the Hennepin County property on the west side of County Road 15. This soil clean up started in 1992. We have endured the business interruption and financial hardship during this process related to soil problems we have inherited from previous owners and the old gas station across the road. At our expense, we have even had our environmental engineers bring high tech, expensive toxic vapor detection equipment into the basement of our neighboring property owners to confirm positive results from our clean up ifforts. Unfortunately, much of our problem (and neighbors’) has been related to leeching of the petroleum waste from the 75 year old, abandoned gas station. We sought legal counsel to force the issue with the Hennepin County and the MPCA. As you also know, these problems were aggravated when in 1988, a 300 gallon gas spill occurred when the old tanks were illegally dug up and removed by the owner. We are requesting from you a letter to show support so that we can continue our operations as we have since 1994. 'ITiis includes dock slip rentals, boat club and off season brokerage with our main revenue source being dock slip rental. Wc have voluntarily reduced our boat club from 50 power boat members in 1996 to 35 ill 1997. (We are currently approved for 100 members.) Our sailboat members were 15 and our plans are to stay at 35 power and increase the sail to no more than 30. Wc will reploce this income with small boat brokerage and will continue this way as it reduces activity and this vital balance of dock slip income, boat club income and brokerage income is achieved with less intense use of the Marina P.O. Box 176, CicysTAl Bay, MN PhoNE (612)475-J44J Fax(612)475-1517 'SMiihs Bay, LaIie MiNMioNliA* J SFIILORS WORLD marina & boat club /vyc/c/CAycyv, "Sviuiit^ ^ttuvi & Stul " Mr. Mayor and Council Members Page 2 In particular at the present time, we are concerned with trying to keep 10 slips that the LMCD is trying to have removed based on an old agreement with the previous owner of our property. These slips are vital to keeping our operations status quo. We have and will work closely with the City to achieve a lower intensity of use and ample income basis to support the 1/2 million dollars in improvements we have in place. It is impossible to not drastically change business operations if these slips are removed. We have two overflow parking areas in place to accommodate increased activity. If the LMCD does not grant a variance to us, as they have done to most other marinas on the lake, we would unfortunately have to pursue other activities to make up the income loss. The removal of these slips will also jeopardize the integrity of the entire dock complex. Removal of these slips is specifically required in the areas of the outer property line site backs. We would have to remove all the slips attached to the dock complex that provide the natural break water protection to the rest of the dock slips. Bigger boats are parked in these slips to counter the excessive waves the prevailing summer breezes bring. Additional economic hardship is created as people will not pay as much for the smaller unprotected slips. So, in summation, removal of these ten slips significantly reduces income in all our other slips and dock integrity, exposing boats and decks to damage and difficult in and out maneuvering. Please consider our long-standing efforts to improve this Marina, environmental and neighboring city property owners. A draft of a proposed letter specific to our request is attached for your review and implementation. We would also request your permission to move our portable storage shed to a more aesthetically pleasing location of the City ’s choice. Thank you very much. P.O.Box 176, CirysTAlBAy, MN 55J2J PhoNE(612)475'J445 Fax(612)475-'J51^ 'Swiihs Bay, La1(e MiNNnoNltA* r J CITY OF ORONO 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY ORONO, MINNESOTA 55323 December 13. 1998 Mr. Gar> DeSantis Sailors world P O. Box 176 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Sir: This letter is to confirm that the City of Orono is most pleased with the way in which Sailors World has operated since you took o\ er in 1994. We would not want to sec any changes in the wa>' the business is operated. We understand that the LMCD is considering removal of sc\ oral of your boat slips, which would cause hardship to you. We would not like to see this happen and we would urge that you take such steps ncccssaiy to avoid this because we understand that the lost rc\ cnuc from the slips would have to be made up from other business operations. We would not want to see any significant changes, and we would hope that the LMCD would not remove those slips, so that you continue to operate in the manner in which you have operated since October of 1994. Yours very truly, cm' OF ORONO r 1: CITY OF ORONO 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY ORONO, MINNESOTA 55323 December 13, 1998 Mr. Gar>' DeSantis Sailors world P.O. Box 176 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Sir: This letter is to confirm that the City of Orono is most pleased with the way in which Sailors World has operated since you took over in 1994. We would not want to see any chmges in the way the business is operated. We understand that the LMCD is considering removal of several of your boat slips, which would cause hardship to you. We would not like to see this happen and we would urge that you take such steps necessary to avoid this because we understand that the lost revenue from the slips would have to be made up from other business operations. We would not want to sec any significant changes, and we would hope that the LMCD would not remove those slips, so that you continue to operate in the manner in which you have operated since October of 1994. Yours very truly. CITY OF ORONO ^ % « '♦i« \mm r CITY OF ORONO License Year 1998 B P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 ^ Phone 473-7357 - o?0^^ Date application sent to Marin a 1/12/98 Date application returned to City J_________ ANNUAL COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APPLICATION - Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.43, Subdivision 2 - Licensed Required. It is unlawful for any persons to engage or participate in business use without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPLICATION, REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY FEBRUARY 15 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. BUSINESS INFORMATION ^ i / \ 1. BUSINESS OR TRADE NAME ^f\-\L00.S vA-^c9(/2.LP . Street Address / A-^ /S/7 fV S"~^ ^ Mailing Address i'7(^ C, 2. Marina Phone ^ "7^~~ 3 5 OWNERSHIP/OPERATION Office Phone c4 ’ys'-S^YYS Fee Owner (if different than above)^^^ f 1^(2^ Address gO OOe/^/Z. C/hV^ S'o. / /a /cj L Phone (o ^ S~^ ^ 3.BUSINESS ORGANIZATION; (Check applicable item) ____ individual ownership ____ partnership corporation List the name of eagfi^^partner or (mrporate of ficer and their title: J)<S^rffl- Vrc£ ^ Name of the marina manager responsible for daily operation;lame of the manna manager responsible tor daily operation; ^ pkgr 7^/^/ \0(^ S/^TXS List the minimum number of employees on duty when the marina is open to the public during the boating season; 3 dock attendants /repair or service personnel others available for sales/public information, etc. Page 1 of 5 . ---- ^ ,J t noted abo^ , • m List ^ry short or long term business occupant of the property other than the Business ibovd: 4. PRINCIPAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY (Check all services offered): Eriatf pal - .^^n-water slip rental _ sales of boats/motors/trailers/ manne accessories boat repair and servicing on-land boat storage ^ winter __summer marine fuel sales ____ sale of bait and fishing tackle Conditional Uses ^Conditional TTsc Permit is Required^ __ lat club /___ public boat launching, on-demand ____public boat launching, transient ____charter boat port-of-call ____caretaker dwelling unit Accessory Uses head pumpout ____ fishing tournament site sale of pre-packaged food ^ dive shop clubhouse (for slip or boat club customers) lessons/teaching boat rental ____ sailboard sales/rental ____iceboat sales/rental icc fishing tackle sales cross-country ski sale/rental 5. 6. BUSINESS SCHEDULE (Check appropriate items): open all year ____ open during boating season only List proposed hours of operation: dock access ^ AM to ^ PM — retail sales & service ^ AM to MARIT^A SECURITY is provided by: OlUn<A------ ------- CARETAKER living on site? fl/Q PM SLIPS AND BOAT TTNTTR List the maximum number of boats in each category. Each slip, mooring or other space actually used for storage or keeping of boats or watercraft must be indicated and numbered on AI. _____1 —t • .a ... ^ M ^ i Company n must oe u Rental Rt 7.BOATS STORED IN THE WATER (for lake use) a. At dock slips Total Boats in Water Owned Boats Spaces Boats / f (fCe ^ If 7- ^19 Page 2 of 5 r 8.BOATS STORED ON LAND FOR LAKE USE Inside Buildings ____ Outside on Racks ____ Outside - other means ____ Total Boats Stored on Land for Lake Use ____ /t// a. b. c. 9. TOTAL BOATS FOR LAKE USE (Add 7 and 8)7^ 10. A VA • w % • » ww• w m 1 boats for s^e (in^ntor^ . >. Hist: MihiiuCL \6tM aU 11. OTHER BOATS ON PREMISES (SUMMER) Inside Building a. Trarjsient boats (repair/service) ____ b. New boats for sale (inventory) c. Used boats foi d. Othei ^ OTHER BOATS ON PREMISES (MNTER) Inside Building a. Transient boats (repair/service) ____ b. Contract storage (customer's boats) ____ c. Inventory (new & used boats) ____ d. Other (list:____________^_____) ____ Total ____ Outside Buildint^ .'i Total Outside Binlding i Total OFF-STREET PAWKTNO RFOUIRF.MF.NTS 12.SUMMER PARKING a. Retail sales/service customei-s 8 spaces minimum (+1 per each 800 s.f. over 1,000 s.f) Boating customers 6 spaces per 10 boats for lake use [.6 x__(line 9)} Launching ramp customers (day use) 10 spaces minimum per ramp = Charter boat port-of-call f spaces b. c. d. irj_ spaces spaces e. 1 space per each 3 seats of gross charter boat capacity [gross chaiier capacity x 0.33] => Total spaces required (add a, b, c. & d) Total spaces available per attached parking plan 7 ^spact spaces spaces ^ spaces 13. WINTER PARKING REQUIRED 0.20 X (line 12e)a.spaces me. TdT>^C, I tp (StM^ 0^ ^ ^ ^ ^ \ ^0 >CK CONSTRiirrinx 14.CH^K ALL THAT APPLY: Permanent ____ Seasonal >I*»lings: Xl^ood ^><C Concrete Metal Foam 'ilings: Decking: De-icing normally used Metd Other „ ___ Wood Flotation^Method (if used): Other Barrels Other LICENSE STANDARDS ADVIsnRV Businesses required to be licensed under Section 5.43 shall be subject to the requirements and performance standards of the B-2 Zoning District and per the following business use license standards: A. Insurance Required. Each business shall provide certification of liability insurance coverage for the duration of the license period. B. C. Liggnseholdgrt The primary business operator on the property shall be the licenseholder, and shall be responsible for notifying the City of any and all businesses subleased on the premises. Such secondary businesses shall not be separately licensed but shall be allowed only when in conformance with the provisions of the B-2 zoning district standards. Operation Standards. Each business licensee shall adhere to the following minimum operation standards: 1) Parking facilities on the site shall be managed so as to eliminate traffic or parking congestion, eliminate illegal on-street parking, and avoid pedestrian traffic through neighboring property. Boat engine testing and charging shall be limited to the hours 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 3) Retail sales and service shall be limited to the hours 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. except as necessary to accommodate normal fishing activity or private use of premises stored boats. 4) 5) The site shall be kept neat and orderly, and free of garbage. On land storage of boats shall be managed so as to eliminate any view obstructions for traffic entering and leaving the site. Parking and on-land storage of boats, trailers, materials and equipment shall be limited to those locations shown on an approved site operation plan, which plan shall be submitted or updated as part of the annual license application. Such site operation plan shall also indicate seasonally variable uses. 7) Lights shall be shielded from the road, the lake, and adjacent properties. Page 4 of 5 !■ T rrtt r Business Use Licenses Limited to B-2 Zone. No business use shall be licensed in any zoning district other than B-2, except that when a business use is allowed by ordinance in another zoning district, such use conducted in said district shall not be required to obtain a license. • T.icense Revocation. Failure to adhere to the above business use license standards shall be cause for license suspension or revocation per the provisions of this chapter. ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application: 1. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY/SITE PLAN/PARKING PLAN indicating the boundaries of the marina property and the authorized dock use area, the location of all structures, storage areas, docks, slips, buoys, launching ramps, gas pumps and tanks, parking areas, access areas, fencing and landscaping features. The drawing shall be updated each year to show all existing facilities, all changes from the previous season, and any changes proposed for the duration of the current application. The drawing shall also indicate the locations of winter storage and required winter parking spaces. 2. 3. 4. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE for the duration of the license period. Copy of your LMCD LICENSE APPLICATION. COMMERCIAL MARINA LICENSE APPLICATION FEE according to the current City fee schedule. Initial Application @ $300.00 $. -------- Renewal Application @ $200.00 Late Fee (if not postmarked by February 15) $100.00 TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION $ MO REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, the City Council will review the license application and will thereafter pass upon the application per the licensing procedures of Chapter 5. THE MARINA MAY OPEN FOR PUBLIC USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.43 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Marina License application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City’s designed employees oy'hgents to enter upon the marina property at any reasonable time to perfon%g^ety and cj^pli^cejnsnections. Authoriz^ri^gnature Tide; Relationship to Ovmer Page 5 of 5 leasees sinr 1 • ' XU JufJ^ /?^7 7;- %;• •• -. • V ? 4* »\*.•• • . V •»*. • <• *|V*y • _ •• • « • • .*• -• t . % • . */••• . »• ‘.r . / . !'<■ CITY ■ OF . ORONOi City or ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2193 A BBSOLDnOH 6MUITZK A OOniTZOML 08B PIBiaT WA MOMICIFAL IGMIM 0001 8KTZ0B 10.03, 80BO1VZ8Z0H 5 (J)oKoao mounrzoa lofi - rzu fiiia has an 4 SiBlth'* Bfty MarlDA, Znc. (haralnaftar *tha applicant*) Slthl^ th. /iV. }®'**.*f “ SkoMlin. Orl». loe«t.ds ‘ Orono (h.t.in«£t.r "City") mni legally daserlbad aa Lot2, Block Ig Toura.ngaau Addition: ----- A Condltio*S??^a City of Orono for s £?s'.ss — Ninneaota1 BO«r Ti ** i* B180LV10 by the City Council of Orono, . ♦ 1. Thla application waa roTiowod aa Zoning Fllo #1112a ?i.l”*DYat^*tU? '-'■••fcora .aaldantial ?• i** i>*7, tha Orono Planning Coauaiaaion roviawod thaJSfwnVfiMt.s ”*’"*" ‘pprotri biiins til *i«ltid ?lta®**^ 4»»»nd. on tha aavaraly b) Tha aatarnal appaaranca and principal uaa of tha DrnB*f•^«* raaldantlal nalghboSoSd rnsrinm i««Al lakaahora comnarclal uaaa of adjacent eh*fiifnalghbora hava baan notlfiad of tha propoaad changa In u^a and nona hava aubnittad written objactiona. ^ Page 1 of 5 * a -I > I-Wi ■hlIrMhfc ■ a---------------------a ..-a...“ ^ . ■ -a- ..... . ^ SWWB ' \ . I s . CITY c ,0^ ORONO City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2193 e •r<* d' The surrounding property owners support the less Intense use as Icing as boat repairs are not perforned on site nor excessive storage of boats allowed in open yard areas.' e) The approved site plan for the use will preserve adequate sighting distance at the adjacent intersection. f) The proposed use and concurrent site iuprovements will have a positive effect on the property values of surrounding residences. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission# reports by the staff and comments of the applicant and the effect of the proposed use on the health# safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that granting a Conditional Ose Permit to allow a change in the existing use of the property to a boat sales/nautical shop use will not be detrimental to the health# safety or general welfare of the public# would not adversely affect light# air nor pose a fire hasard or other danger to neighboring properties# nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will bs in keeping with the intent and objectives of Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. COHCLOSIOMS# ORDSn AMD 00HDXTZ0H8 Based upon one or more of the above findings# the Orono City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use Permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03# Subdivision 5 (J) and Orono Resolution 1961 to allow a boat sales/nautical shop use that would replace the existing service statlon/transmisaion shop subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant/owner to execute a developer's agreement and post a letter of credit by June 30# 1987 to ensure completion of the following items: a) Surface drainage plan - all surface water (runoff) to be treated on site and allowed to enter catch basin on County right-of-way at tho same rate runoff would leave property if it was undeveloped. Plan to be reviewed by the Hennepin County Highway Department and City. Page 2 of 5 m frM/, '•v;. •V>‘, kiJ'V I m} SHBBIilBIBSBBfflSSBIiBHBffiSMB ■1 • J^‘, c*'- {.r-v':i A!'V ?:.?aV «' •. •■ •••■ ■•' • .1.y. • ••*< .T •• •. v*;: : ; • Y-iY,:.: I. Of : ^OftONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2193_________ b) Landacape Inprovementa as fo^ lowst 1) The aide yard adjacent t ' 950 Shoreline Drive to be buffered by 5 feet of landacaping and privacy fencing up to 30 feet atreet aetback at which point a f”*/* fence ahall continue to atreet right-of-way. Bxiating l>rivacy fence to be repaired* 2) Ko plantinga within County right-of-way nor graaaed buffer area adjacent to Spatea Avenue and Shoreline Drive . 3) Connect privacy fence to exiating fence along rear lot line along northeaat portion of property line - do not extend fence to Spates Avenue. 4) Applicant to work with City to provide appropriate natural acreening adjacent to lift atation and within rear yard green. c) Inatallation of approved parking plan providing 8 paaaenger vehicle parking atalla and 7 apacea for boata aa followat 1) Spacea 1 through 4 lialted to larger boata not in exceaa of 25 feet - no maata to be inatalled. 2) Spacea 5 through 7 llaiited to aealler boata not In exceaa of 20 feet - no luaata to be Inatalled. d) Reaoval of underground gaa tanka per standards of Onifoni Fire Code and undergr-'>und tank to east of building store oil# etc.# wastes fron transadsslon repair operation. Permit froai City required. j e) Removal of pump island. Permit from City required. 2. A single access ahall serve the proposed use# the Orono ahall make the final determination regarding the location of tne access. 3. Signage to be limited to existing building shall be shielded from all lot lines - post fire lane with signage on east side of building# 4. The change in use will not require ®****^^“ against the property. Applicant/owner is hereby advised that per orono Resolution #1778 if a full service •t«tAfn the property that one additional sewer unit will be assessed •that the deferred assessment will be spread over the same amount of time as all other units”.Page 3 of 5_ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ i3 V-h / emigiiii09 [;'c,r; I City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2193 5. Authorities granted by this conditional use permit run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and application for a permit'^tuhin one yw the date of Council approval, or this conditional use permit will expire on that date (June 8, 1988). petwic wi.ix non-compliance with any of the terms and resolution shall constltuJ a violati” of ?he hJJel? terminate any authority granted6rein# ana ahall be punishable as a nisdemeanore understood and hereby agrees and on behalf of himself, his •••Igna, hereby agrees to the recording of thim.jmholttt^hrdn the chain of title of the property. ^ 1987 ATT] 2 ’ - Of, . ' ^ C;^cf9 - - (1) Property Owner Orono City Council on this 8th day of June, Jamei^. OrabeX>-Me^r - - - - / % .• Page 4 of 5 •r.w;* ■ ^ •*’ -I, Ba»i ••• CITY' Of ORONO City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2193 STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) 88.COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) I On^ this ., __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of ioa b^r.^e-TTiStSJrF3EII5 within .iTd lor ..Id i^rsonilly th. p.r.on<.) d..crlhed In and who .x.cutJd'^’^e^^for.oolM hJJ (“lu! Am m\" Md*'d.M.‘'“‘ *" « KY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OP MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OP BEMMEPIN )**’ On this _ _ _ a Jlptary Pubr _ day of inland tOm known to aa to (Sh.lr) frM^:«’*iSd iilSl.''* '*”•>" «>5 •«... m. NOTARY PU^^C MYO IISMON Pagt 5 of 5 .< .•.» *. i v.'f •* • X J .• . •# • .. *.# V**;* ^ T mi t*~: i, txv ■• frih :\{ fe wW Wl]yfli'S . .. i.. >r^Zi}s- I * ••I *.»?:■!‘•<7''..li».-,'iX.V55;V.:; •k‘ V V' ! • ^!v'; . * r *__________________JL A ' ^ ^ ^ • . ‘ i . • • • - i . ' '• fAv ‘•, i. •.' • - .\l; T’r.'i' V ;Cf. il V : •• :* • • •*» . • *• ^ • V ‘f • -%'*.•• # . I ••‘V • - %• X Dorothy M* Hallio, City Clark of tbo City of Orana Haiinanin ilth‘thIVM^i?f/ roaolutloB of tho city Couaoil of tho City of Orooo with tho original rtoord of auoh raaolutlon In tha Minutaa ar att* * that tha aaaa la a trua 11^. 4anaa a .. 30th Hi*'*'*'* * •>•'■«»"»• Mt mj hind and atal thtajucn , dny of______July xg g? rV 4.: cO • « • • • «• thy N.^miln. city cTClark ^ t *•• . •• • riT- fiivmmm kiV c ^r.*• '• ,i/ft ' «a .,% . ■ ‘ * >• 'A' : r't tT'. * * t * ‘.... . r •••, •,■•.r •■ -mii187D061kciSTERCDV0l<^);2^' OkCT •'-‘“14142.: • OFFICeOFTWEREGISTW«' OF Tints COU-n V. MiN'MEsOTA CHRTtFiao FJlEDON SEP 91987 <5?. 0*^3P ‘ »■ Tints OEPUTY V. •<' .• *.«• . *••. • :.. ■ -‘i. ; • • f, •4 ' f • » y • '.. • ;• T ’* V* • ! . V . *• *.< l*! r . • T *•I' * jf1/ f „ 6 U * *•1' : .• U* • ft • • • «*^ ••• < ,i} •* • • #. • i!, • • • ••• • • ft ■^ITY -I •,\%*'Va)''.v^ tORONO^ City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2194 A RBSOLOTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.41f SUBDIVISION 10 (A)(B)(D)f SUBDIVISION 9, SUBDIVISION 5 (A) AND SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 AND PER SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 2 APPROVES THE COMHERICAL SITE PLAN FOR SMITH'S BAY c-z \Y MJ«T [ AND FILE #1142 T CLUB, INC. WHEREAS, Smith's Bay Marina, Inc. (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 1955 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Commencing at the intersection of the North line of Central Avenue extended Easterly with Easterly right-of-way line of County Road No. 7 thence Northeasterly 42 degrees 15 minutes East 120.05 feet to actual point of beginning thence South 57 degrees 45 minutes East 29.04 feet thence North 37 degrees 50 minutes East 130 feet to the of North line of Grand Avenue extended Easterly thence North by degrees 45 minutes West 18 feet thence Southwesterly 42 “ minutes West 131.05 feet to beginning including accretions, ORA parr ON LAKE MINNETONKA", Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter tne property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes the construction of a principal structure and major restoration of the marina property ®PP. ® ° the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit fencing 10 feet from the lalceshore instead of the feet, 10.41, Subdivision 5 (A) to permit parlcing stalls for 42 instead of the required 48 stalls. Section 10.41, Subdivision P® parlcing 10 feet from the street lot line instead of the required 30 e , Section 10.41, Subdivision 10 (A) to permit the principal . built 50 feet from the shoreline instead of the required 75 Subdivision 10 (B) to permit the principal structure to be from the side lot line adjacent to a residential zone required 50 feet. Subdivision 10 (D) to permit 15,862 hardcover (actual reduction of 10% over existing hardcover at 73.6%) witnin 75 feet of the lalce where no hardcover is allowed and to permit har ® to remain at 5,100 s.f. or 300% over the allowed amount of hardcover at 1,275 s.f. or 25% and per Section 10.41, Subdivision 2 seeks approva commerical site plan for the complete restoration of a marina property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: Page 1 of 5 City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COPNCIL NO. 2194 FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1142. 2. The property is located in the B-2 Lakeshore Business Zonino District. ^ 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application listed above and the commercial site plan for the complete restoration of the subject property on May 18, 1987, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings; A) The lot is not deep or large enough to allow structures to meet required setbacks. B) The majority of the property is located within the lakeshore protected area where no hardcover or structure is allowed. C) The property has been used as a commercial marina for over 40 years and was recently rezoned to B-2 in 1975. D) The proposed improvements provide a reduction of 10% in overall hardcover in addition to improving quality of storm water runoff prior to entering lake. E) The majority of improvements provide for a major reduction in hardcover immediately adjacent to shoreline. F) Access to site and parking areas have l^een greatly improved with a proposed single structure making for a more efficient use of the severely limited land area. 4. The City Council has considered this appli'cation including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 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 co 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. Page 2 of 5 wtr._J city of OROINO • •. • • • RESOLUTION OF THE CtTY COUNCIL NO. 2194 __________ CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Council hereby ^in'^ings. the Orono City for Smith's Bay Marina s yiifhV ri ,,h *V R.L. Wuornos and Associatesconditions! "atma S Yacht Club, Inc., subject to the following crediri'ith” th*f°r* Developer's Agreement and post a letter of i^Jt^Ue^^^, August V/, r988r"“" following improvements are water treatment improvements per final plans approved by the M.C.W.D. and City of Orono - the City would a^k reviewed“«®D«rol l°<=ated and its usezreviewea as part of that improvement. of orasied lighting, signage, and installation 4/20/87. ^ Wuornos and Associates dated adjacent to shoreline in conjunction restoration - areas of dock located above the 929.4 elevation not to exceed a 6 feet width. ^ privacy fence along the westside lot line adjacent to the public access. be 1504 Developer's Agreement and letter of credit (amount to tL Citv orlor of req^^renient improvements) must be submitted to struetuL^^Sfd. °r. ^ building permit for new principal costs Drier to Shall review total estimate of improvementcosts prior to submittal of letter of credit. the shall be employed at all times on the site during sh^reA”. res?crVi°on!'^"°“°'' structure and the for ® building permit with penalty fee property? constructed prior to his ownership of the ate required for all buildings to be removed. is^Md for n»w *i® obtained by applicant at the time a permit is issued for rh construction. A certificate of occupancy will not be iemoval have beerrased?^°‘“"® buildings designated for for b^i Id'Afo V hereby advised that at the time an application evalil^f*?^i^h is submitted to the City, the Orono staff shall proposed improvement and uses of the property per deterainlitlon^^f Metropolitan Waste Control Commission in the issuMc2 of 2 Availability Charges to be collected with theissuance of a building permit. Page 3 of 5 r Cityof OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2194 7. Owner shall reimburse the City of Orono for the cost of the installation of a striped crosswalk within the right-of-way of County Road 15. 8. Authorities granted with this resolution run with the property not with the applicant^ but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this approval will expire on that date (June 8, 1988). 9. 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. 10. 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, 1987. orothy M<^/Hallin, City Clerk Jamas R.Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) Smith's Bay Marina, Inc. lA>Ji t ' Page 4 of 5 IJ r i\>i ClTY vH, l^ORONO':| City of OROINO » RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2194 STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 198 before me a Notary Public within anT1foF^aidr^urvtyr^^pe«ona 1 ly 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 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this »tary Publia l^ta ^_________ day of Cou , 198^ before me personally appeared known to me to be the M"r^n(s) d^^ibed in and "^whoexecuted the foregoing ins trum^t, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUHjI/ic 7^/sA. MY COMMISSION^EXPJLBES.,^------------ < i Page 5 of 5 notary :Uf*JC - ^.MNISOTA ____ -PIM CC‘wV4TY My coTLTusslOfi tApiffiOct. 7, 1989 .1 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO ) ) ) ) ) I Dorothy M, Hallin, City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin County* Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have oonpared the foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution In the Minutes of the proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held _ _ _ _ _ _ _^ne 8 , 19 87 , and that the same Is a true and correct copy of said resolution was duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 15th . day of _ _ _July_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _, 1987 allln. City Clerk (SEAL) .• a* • • • ^ j[L£pLOCATT^ !*f^Y CITY of ORONO • .*• RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 4 78 c-3 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2, SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 5 (A), SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 9 (B), SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 10 (D), SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) AND SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 2 AND APPROVES A SECOND AMENDMENT OF COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN FOR SAILORS WORLD, INC. FILE #1947 WHEREAS, Gary DeSantis of Sailors World Marina and Yacht Club, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 1955 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A. attached (hereinafter "the property"); and ^VHEREAS, on Septeifiber 13,1993 the City council approved Resolution #3371 that granted variances to allow me installation of an 8 ’x20’ accessory storage module to be located within parking stall 34; and WHEREAS, the applicant has filed an amended variance application that would seek to relocate the storage module within anomer acceptable parking stall located out of the lakeshore protected area that would require approval of me following variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) and Section 10.41, Subdivision 10 (D) to permit a change in me nature of existing hardcover in the 75-250’ zone which contains 5,100 s.f. or 83.6% hardcover as approved in Resolution No. 2891 of me City Council, where only 1,525 s.f. or 25 % hardcover would normally be allowed, and for a variance to Section 10.41, Subdivision 5 (A) to allow a ftiither reduction of one parking stall from me 42 stalls approved in Resolution No. 2891 which granted a variance to me 48 stalls required for this site, and for a variance to Section 10.41, Subdivision 9 (B) to allow a 10’ street yard setback for a storage structure where a 50’ street setback would normally be required (original Application #1874 proposed 28’ setback); and per Section 10.41, Subdivision 2 seeks approval of an amended commercial site plan to allow the installation of said storage module. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by me City Council of Orono, Miimesota: Page 1 of 9 CITY of ORONO • • RESOLUTION OF THE CnY COUNCIL NO 3 4 78 3. 4. 5. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File ^1947. The Orono City Council granted variances and approved an amended commercial site plan for the applicant (Zoning Application ^1874) per Resolution #3371 on December 13, 1993. Pursuant to that resolution, the storage module has been temporarily placed within stall 34 but applicant has received complaints from property owner to the west noting visual impact upon lake views. The applicant has filed the current application in order to seek approval of an amended variance application with the purpose of relocating the storage module in another parking stall that would lessen the visual impact upon the lake views of the property owner to the west. At the Council meeting of August 22, 1994 Council approved the use of either stalls 37 or 38 because of their alignment behind the principal structure on the property. Council ’s recommendation was based on the following findings: A. Placement of the structure within either stalls 37 or 38 will mimmize impact upon lake views of residence to the immediate west. B. Structure will be located out of the lakeshore setback area. C. Relocation to either stall 37 or 38 will not result in the loss of additional stalls. D. Less visual impact upon users of adjacent County Road as only 8’ side would be exposed to roadway. E. There will be no sighting problems at intersection. Noted in the earlier review for Application #1874, in order to compensate for the loss of the single parking stall which reduces the number of spaces to 41 where 42 were approved, the applicant has provided a letter from the Minnetonka Center located approximately 1/4 miles west of the marina for overflow parking use. Page 2 of 9 # CITY of ORONO • • * resolution of the city council NO. ..^ ^ j--------- 7. 9. . , .•«« f«r crnrage module Within either parking stalls 37 or 38 « o« of U.0 la^eshoro setback zones of bod, the City of Orono and the DNR. where a 50' setback is f of the module by use of :rgr“ n t^l is taP«ative to reduce the negative visual impacts. Based ondte intent ofMunicipalC^eSecdonW^^^ landscape areas shall . ^ ^ provfde storage such that none of encumbered with storage of any kind. The City Council has considered this ^ycity's^^^^ welfare of the community. 10. The City Council finds that pro^°fii te^’zoS' to it and do not apply generally traffic conditions, light, air nor granting the variance would not adversely oronerty would not merely pose a fire hazard or other danger alleviate a Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings am^ hereby grants the variances ^s set wSo’ storage module within parking either stalls 37 or 38, subject to the followmg conditions; Page 3 of 9 ^«0C1 CITY of ORONO • • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 8478NO. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. One 8’x8’x20’ storage module may be relocated within either parking stalls 37 or 38 per the site plan attached to this resolution as page number 8. The City Council reserves the right to reconsider and revise this approval at a future time if the storage module becomes a nuisance. The storage module shall be free standing and shall have no foundation in order to preserve its mobility. The storage module shall be screened from street view by an integrated landscape plan, page 9 of this resolution, and that shall include evergreen plantings of a size and spacing to provide at least a 50% screening of the module in the first year, with potential in three years to be 100% screened along the County Road 15 side (west) and the north side. Screening shall not be allowed to interfere with required sighting distance for vehicles entering and exiting the property. The module shall remain on the site only as long as an off-street parking agreement with the Art Center or other entity remains in effect. In conjunction with the approval of this storage module, no storage of materials, equipment, or boats shall occur in any of the non-hardcover landscape areas indicated on the site plan. 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 amended resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirf., successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the. Chain of Title of the property. Page 4 of 9 WM e.ik T' ' i . -.r-* 'nii.r.'u > r .k-.* t, ^ - CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 4 7 8 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of October, 1994. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of October, 1994 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. l'7'i /. i/imUNDA S. VEE NOTARY PUaUC • MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTS My ccmrr.ission wpirts S-IS-M Notary Public Page 5 of 9 rv^MQSOHi': • V- r STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss, COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) \ CITY of ORONO. . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 y « On this_____^ ^______day of Od cetr\ 19 9 ^ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared be Sat\-h's /ef , __ _______________________known to me to be the person(s) described m and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. LIHDA S. VEE “NOTARY PUBUC - MINN3SOTA HENNEPIN COUNr^My eemmiulon axplrts e-12-se i NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this______________ Public within and for said county, personally appeared , 199 __before me a Notary __________^ _________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 PUBUC Page 6 of 9 Nm!0n CiiC • • • * • • • r.*. 847S exhibit a •••• >*lt»**»"*' » *-1c uuM-—/-.......... '..Iff rstunii<jU\^3\imT /r IA 1 lei’, /> * ^ • \ \ * * ---15—,;. r 'i '^1^- *:{iLJ.'*r.,BB-. .* .*•• ••r • • • »'V ' » % 4^ PtJ % *4/ ^ •»• «4 • % • • i4* * ' • « ••* */ • # iSS*^* « * *-• , ' - • 0 -.•• •. i • • •• • * • . • • •* • .• \ •••• * *. •• • ••• • *,’ • ** •c**. • *• ••%’ • ;.^ .*• •• :. ••• • • -• ••. •• % * •#%-•'• » . •• • ..p• • *•>.•%. • ^ *••_•.■ ••• 4 • E£a«^ 0 .• » • • • *. .. • * •' • • .• • • • •• •• •• • 0 :(^p) • • • * • • •• % 4*•.. .4 \r:• • , •• •• •• •• . •* • • • • •. — f • % . • • V* • • • .• • • I r • .i’-• . • . .**• - • •• * • . % • • ^ • • . 1 • • • s • • • «• •• • •• • • • • « V^rfPi O of 9 . . ... |. .►• r • >Cu\xe> cui^ jt/i-'/ > • CITYofORONO C-*- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 582 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.41, SUBDIVISION 7 (A) FILE NO. 2005 \MIEREAS, Gar>' DeSantis of Sailors World Marina and Yacht Club, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter the "applicant") has an interest in the property located at 1955 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a conditional use permit to permit a boat club use at 100 members per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.41, Subdivision 7 (A). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1.This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2005. The property is located in the B-2 Lakeshore Business District. The property consists of 31.217 s.f. 3.On June 19, 1995 the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application as proposed and recommended approval based on the following findings: a.There are 41 parking stalls on site. In the past year, applicant has had to provide 8 stalls for~ a boat sales use. The only retail operation at the facility is a ship’s store, that serves slip rental customers and boat club members. Page 1 of 4 CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 5 8 2 rental or Doat ciuo uses iusscaia uic v» -------- easier to handle the limited parking facilities with a boat club operation. c.For the past three years, applicant has made arrangements for additional off-site parking on weekends to serve the needs of the marina. d. e. 4. The City has received no complaints from adjacent residents concerning parking problems within the immediate neighborhood. Applicant has operated a 50-55 member boat club for the past three years without any report of parking problems. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow a boat club use at the marina will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding prope^ values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed 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 a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.41, Subdivision 7 (^) to permit a boat club use with a maximum of 100 members at Sailors World Marina and Yacht Club. Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1.Upon application for the annual commercial marina license, applicant shall orovide written confirmation that marina has 25 off-site parking stalls. The City further reserves the right to reconsider this parking arrangement if the City staff finds or receives reports from residents of parking inadequacies at the marina or Pace 2 of 4 r CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 5 8 2 ‘ I 2. 3. at an approved facilit}>' within the City of Orono that provides the 25 off site parking stalls for the exclusive use of the marina on weekends from May through September. 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 10th day of July, 1995. A TEST: Dofahy M.^ linyjCity Clerk IMMLjUr-ope/ty STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this lOih day of July, 1995 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the Citv. AT-rrTs-Pi LINDA S. VEB NOTAflYPUBLIC-MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY MyCc.nnijsion£xpife$Jift.31.2000 Notarv' Public Pace 3 of 4 ► ^ .Am r CITYof ORONO fV.C' £7SHO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _S_58 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ^of Alay______________, 199 before me a Notar>' Public within and for said county, personally at^peared ^personally aj^peared Cr-Jry known to me to be the pers6n(s) describea in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. mi LINDA S.VEE NOTARY PUBLIMMINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY M)r Commissien E)9>ns J«t 31.2000 ■L x/ ^'J2JL/ NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of Public within and for said county, personally appeared , 199__before me a Notary known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 4 ‘ ------------A. _ ; m hsUiXf GITYof QRONO s*»RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 5 8 2 rV-T3-T ON:;ro?erty.'’); anc i If n rtifc tfru .rmiiOT^tifk ■ Mr* -i'**-*-"*"-i irr»«iiai fir tb I J i ! LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT V n 2500 SHAOYWOOO ROAD. SUITE 19 • EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331 • TELEPHONE . pax «i9/A7t.Mn9MINNESOTA 55331 • TELEPHONE 612/471-9588 • FAX 612/471-0632 Gregory S. Nybeck. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ! . BOARD MEMBERS Douglas E. Babcock Chair, Tonka Bay Tom Reese Vice Chair, Mound Bert Foster Secretary, Deephaven Craig Nelson Treasurer. Spring Park Bob Ambrose Wayzata Kent Dahlen Minnetonka Beach Tom Gilman Excelsior Gretchen Maglich Minnetonka Eug^Partyka Minnetrista Robert Rascop Shorewood Herb J. Suerth Woodland Sheldon Wert Greenwood Orono Victoria June 18. 1997 Mr. Gary DeSantis Sailor's World Marina & Yacht Club P.O. Box 176 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Gary: .juu 1 9 iSSl The LMCD Board of Directors approved four side setback variances on 4/27/88 for Sailor’s World Yacht Club & Marina, formerly known as Smith’s Bay Marina & Yacht Club. The Board approval of these variances addressed the conversion of a 20 space district mooring area (DMA) facility. Further details of these variances are outlined in the attached Memorandum and Variance Order. ’ You will note in this correspondence that the Board granted two side setback variances within 100 ’ from the 929.4 ’ lake elevation and two temporary side setback variances between 100 ’ and 200 ’ from the 929.4 ’ lake elevation. Slips 1-10 and 66-69, currently slips 65-68, were approved for a side setback variance within the 100 ’ contour line of the authorized -lock use area. In addition, temporary side setback variances were granted between the 100 ’ and 200 ’ contour line for slips 11-16 and slips 51-54, currently slips 50-53. The 10 slips approved through the temporary side setback variances were approved with the condition that they be removed after the 1997 boating season. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that that the LMCD fully intends in enforcing the removal of these 10 slips prior to the 1998 boating season. As noted on page 3 in the attached memorandum, you may attempt to reconfigure these 10 slips within 100 ’ from the 929.4 ’ lake elevation. This reconfiguration would require a LMCD permit and would need to comply with current LMCD Code. Please call me at your earliest convenience to let me know what your plans are to comply with the conditions outlined in the 4/27/88 Variance Order. •OS Rtcydid CofiiBfti 30S Pott Contumof Wbsib Web Page Address: hnp://www.wintefnel.com/-lmcd/ e-mail Address: lmcd@winternet.com LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2500 SMAOYWOOO ROAD. SUITE 19 • EXCCLSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331 • TELEPHONE 612/471-9508 • FAX 612/471-0632 Qrogory 8. Nyboek. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBERS Douglas E. Babcock Chair, Tonka Bay Tom Reas* Vice Chair. Mound Bert Foster Seaeiary, Oeephaven Craig Nelson Treasurer. Spring Park Bob Ambrose Wayzaia Kent Dahlen Minnetonka Beach Tom Oilman Excelsior Oretchen MagUch Minnetonka Eugene Partyka Minnetrista Robert Rascop Shorewood Herb J. Suerth Woodland Sheldon Wert Greenwood Your prompt attention in this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Gregory S. Nybeck Executive Director end: Memorandum, Variance Order, Site Plan Orono Victoria cc: LMCD Board of Directors Mike Gaffron, City of Orono Ceil Strauss- MN DNR *SubJect to Variance Order of 4/27/88* which Includes; temt^t fm»i m ? ««»CI SWITId* k CWIMICHNC CO. e * ^ • • •• •••«•«■• ? i SMITH'S lAY mitlM ! M iKi iMMii w rm II. iMO fmVfM flp 9TZ cmcm cn »ft« </»/v >««T7S SAILORS WORLD Warina * Yacht CLUf #4) Sllp8lll<-16 are to be #5) Sllps#50>53 are to be removed after 1997 season removed after 1997 season SMmri UT NuiM KsaiRfitt Svv^SlS tosev eC Selie It. «• ^••sssMS #•<«•'• s»f amtiM IMSIOS M Ut« It MS II. tm MW •• UM eiwtwsmi. MS ui I. sfsM I. swwmww Mstris*. mm—i« «sm«». siMSSsis. M tmmt im issmmmms imm is osmIsi sIi e. •ti Mis SHH St IT llssi SOS f••IS• saS SMSS8 ks ast* SlllflS etW tss • »M SSfSM. IM kMM StSISSSW MS MS SWUW OffO sM SM swnsnss M kas msmm. ms sms* ssmsm ** M eslws Sw MOISS 1 2 jrxjr^^ JO M I ^rmw «M SlllMO MS S«I*M Isos Ms loss ItSSI. MS UfSSS IlMI SOS !•••#• •••I/O* f**IS* !• SssstM «S tM •••lassos sIM I* SMMlI •«a« la •!•••. • »*•«* IS ssssSM •• Ms « •M SOIaSM M ISkS Ms IM WMlM^saS IM* «M* e« MS* SMSMs! SM sST^M^mSs •SMISJM MS SHM. MS sMSiSMSl W SSSSMS SSMM !• assalsio SSMls« St • S«sl*sS* MSMS SMit ____ _ _ _ • IIS Mil M sassM imimshsi sosssM. Ms sbsss lias MMias sMss SM ewM IS v«* smsim piss* IBM smses •ssaisa IS WO* ss««l MSB SMWM M S pMIst «M M • MISSS SIM • MMSS S»*eM M SS*. MS MB IMS MSI* I/I* SSMI sMS asMMlM • SSSMS«e OSOMIMS SM I—-W •M SSSIMlf SaS SO IM SSSMSSII •••• SBM. • OSM Mil MS SUIT.••l—a IMS •— !••• IkMS. MM StSS SBM MSMiM M •oisoaaS •• »M Mia SaoS MIlMO MW S*sl/S« Mf SSSSSS •as !• SMPSMSS M • 0*«IS* Ssse»i SSMSM %S Ms SM slllass. fM SMSIS SSOIMS M IM MM •• SMSSSSM If kaia ■OOMlI MMIOS MW •*•!»•* IM SSSSM M SM W ISS ■WMaS Slliass. esssMlM M sMS SMI ISSSM. Ms SSi S« •^ SM* •• iwsoikio OS • •*•••• saosss ewssM mm •*••/«* IM w«SM •• • aslMM SlllM« MB SWS MS •• «• NIISS alM MSWS* MS MOSM• OWMS • I*sis* sMsomsS Is SM saM M SM l*Sll* Sftiasws tM ••••• saoSiM IS liMOll M Ms SMiMStS •l«a I* s«wsil Msaw •*• •••las Itm • •• • law W a«eos. S •*••• «• sawsaa oa iw ••••• ss**lsa st Ms olSIWoi *S ••la la* «•• a*««iM volliiias. •l•a«•l••• ••# assso. ••• as ssaatlaas •* !•• mi* Saw SMIia* al SMs M«ta«**** taa *•/«• •— isiia** *i Sw« sllss oasa* ••• •sss*«<aa«s. ••a *•• ••••• *•••!••• a*s *M >••—• SM M ••• aas •«••• Maaaa. . (( LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT RE: APPLICATION OF SMITH'S BAY MARINA MEMORANDUM The Applicant • Smith's Bay Marina and Yacht Club, or It a predecessors in interest, have long operated a boat rental and storage marina which Includes boat storage at docks which extend some 200 feet into the Lake and at sioorings located in excess of 200 feet from the shore at a district mooring area licensed under the LMCD Code. To understand the Justification for granting the variances described in the attached Order requires some knowledge of the history of dock regulation by the LMCD. Not long after the creation of the LMCD, it adopted an ordinance which limited the length of docks to 200 feet. Those docks which extended more than 200 feet into the Lake were required to be brought into compliance % with the Code in a specified period of time. At that time, the Code allowed the storage of as many watercraft as could be safely stored within the 200-foot line. Therefore, in most cases, it was possible to so reconfigure these docks within 200 feet from shore that there was not a significant reduction in the number of watercraft that could be stored at the marina. This required reduction in length did not, however, apply to moorings licensed as district mooring areas under the LMCD Code. If it had. Sailor's World would probably have been able to eliminate the district mooring area and place an equal, or greater, number of watercraft within 200 feet from the shore in a reconfigured dock structure. The LMCD Code has since been amended to prohibit new construction or expansion of existing docks beyond 100 feet from shore. If the district -- - - - - - - -— *AAi ■ HiTine iww ■ I ■■ wmTW* ain wbmii liMMi amrtamiiffir r ? f r mooring area la to ba allmlnatadf the application of this provision will result In the Imposition of a greater hardship than was imposed on commercial marinas which had docks extending more than 200 feet Into the Lake because It does not seem to be possible to provide storage space to replace all of the Applicants* moorings presently located more than 200 feet from the shore with slips within the 100-foot zone. The Board has determined that* In the best Interest of the public and of the protection and preservation of the Lake* district mooring sreas such as that operated by the Applicant should be eliminated to reduce the Intrusion of such facilities into the Lake and to make more of the lake surface area available for use by the public. Although the Applicant has no vested rights to continue to store boats at a district mooring area* the Board does not wish to Impose unreasonable or unnecessary hardships In connection with the Implementation of Its policy to discontinue district mooring areas. However* the Board has also determined that it Is in the Interest of protecting the public health* safety and welfare that no new docks should be built beyond 100 feet from the shoreline. To the extent existing facilities extend more than 100 feet from the shore* they sre non-conforming and are not allowed to be reconfigured to Increase boat storage beyond 100 feet. It should also be noted that this marina has enjoyed the advantages of being allowed to store boats beyond 200 feet from shore for well over 10 years beyond the period allowed for other marinas to bring their docks into compliance. The Board has balanced the hardship Imposed on the applicant by the converging lot lines of Its authorized dock use area and the economic hardship which would be Imposed by the mere elimination of the district mooring area* which is a lawful use under the Code at this time* and the advantage to the public of the elimination of the district mooring area against the need to r « • (( protect and preserve the area of the Lake beyond 100 feet from shore and to p«*event overutlllzation of dock use areas. In so doing, the Board has determined that no permanent additional watercraft atorage should be allowed beyond 100 feet, but that variances should be granted to increase watercraft storage within 100 feet and that temporary storage between 100 and 200 feet should be allowed for a limited period of time. If prior to the expiration of the period of time specified in the variance Order for temporary variances, the Applicant wishes to attempt to reconfigure its facilities within 100 feet from the ahore to accommodate those slips which must be discontinued, it may apply to the LMCD for a permit to do ao. However, it must be understood that whether such an approval is granted will depend upon ordinances in effect at that time and factors to be considered under those ordinances for multiple or connnerclal dock licenses, and there can be no guarantee or assurance that such an application will be approved. Given the facte that moorings have allowed Applicant to increase its boat atorage beyond 200 feet for a number of years, that substantial variances are granted in the attached Order within 100 feet, and that temporary variances granted for watercraft storage between 100 and 200 feet for 10 additional years provide, at least for that period of time, that the • ••• • i '! ■ Applicant will be able to store the same number of watercraft as in past years, the Board has concluded that the effect of the elimination of the district mooring area will not impose an unreasonable hardship on the Applicant. This memorandum is approved by the Board of Directors as a part of its Order dated the ^^^h day ©f 1988. Frank Mixa % !r LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT RE: APPLICATION OF SMITH'S BAY MARINA FINDINGS The natter of the application for varlancea for Smith's Bay Marina and Yacht Club was the subject of a public hearing on December 10, 1986, at 7:00 p.n. at the Tonka Bay Village Hall. John Vogt appeared on behalf of the Applicant, which at that time was Sailor's World. Applicant owns and operates a commercial marina at Its property In LMCD area 26 on Smith's Bay. The Applicant was seeking approval of a setback variance on the east side of the property to provide 12 slips and a lot-line adjustment and setback variance on the vest side to provide 8 slips, all to replace 20 mooring spaces. Mr. Vogt presented letters of agreement from the abutting owners, the City of Orono on the vest and Alan Nettles on the east. The grounds stated for the request are converging lot lines and discontinuance of a district mooring area. The Board finds that It Is In the best Interest of the public and of the protection and preservation of the Lake that the 20 space district mooring area of Sailor's World be discontinued. The discontinuance of the district mooring area will Impose sose hardship on the Applicant as Is more fully described In the attached memorandum which Is made a part of this Order. The Board further finds that the converging lot lines of the applicant's authorized dock use area constitutes a hardship within the meaning of LMCD Code Sectlrn 3.04. ORDER On the basis of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED: That variances, some of which arc temporary, for construction In the setback area and beyond 100 feet from the shoreline of a dock as shown on the ' : t J I attached Exhibit A, which Is hereby nade a part hereof, are granted subject to the following conditions and limitations: 1. 2. 3. 4. p»e 20 district mooring area Is to be discontinued prior to the 1988 boating season. A setback variance Is granted on the north side of the dock use area for ®^^ or in part withinthe 100-foot contour. This variance applies to slip numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, b, 7, 8, 9 and 10 on Exhibit A. The dock construction shall not extend beyond the north extended lot line of Applicant's property. A setback variance on the south of the dock use area Is granted for slips (numbered 66 through 69^on Exhibit A) each of ^ka.Lf ^Ich falls all or partly within the 100-foot contour. Said slips within an al«vi the setback area on the south side of the Applicant's property are to be /alSiEal seasonally removed from the Lake and shall not extend beyond the south extended lot line of Applicant's property. A temporary setback variance Is granted within the 100- to 200-foot contour on the north side of the Applicant's dock use area for six slips (numbers II9 12» 13, 14f 15 and 16 on Exhibit A)# All of these slips are to be removed after the 1997 boating season. A temporary setback variance Is granted within the 100- to 200-foot contour on the south side of the Applicant's dock use area for four slips (numbered 51, 52, 53 and 54^n Exhibit A), all of which are to be removed ^•^So-53 •ftsr the 1997 boating season. am plairv A total of 79 slips are authorized at the Applicant's facility for 1988, Applicant shall provide the District with an as-bullt survey within 90 days of completion of reconstruction of the docks. The variances Issued hereby shall grant no vested rights to the use of Lake Minnetonka. Such use shall at all times remain subject to regulation by the District to ensure the public of reasonable and equitable access to the Lake. By Order of the Board of Directors of the Lake v.;ic-'.ivtonka Conservation 5. 6. 7. District this 27th day of April , kMi. 1986. rector • • • • SMITH’S MARINA r ! COUNCIL M- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JAN 2 6 1998 CITYOFORONO DATE: January 26, 1998 ITEM NO.: / ^ Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Administrator's Report Item Description: Femdale Road North Reconstruction A public hearing for this project was held at the January 12th Council meeting. Four options were presented for consideration at this meeting, two different striping options for a 36 ’ wide road, a 32' wide road with a striped lane for bicycles for and joggers along each side, and a 28’ wide road with centerline striping only. The public comments received were all in favor of a narrow road, so the 36 ’ wide options were dropped from further consideration. The Council directed City staff and the project engineers to provide estimated costs for 32’ and 28’ wide roads and costs for reclaiming and overlaying the existing road. Staff was also directed to review the Capital Improvements Plan for State aid roads to determine if the Ferndale Road project is the best use of State Aid Funds. Estimated Project Costs Bonestroo Engineers has provided estimated costs for three additional options. Costs for these three options and the original option of a 36 ’ wide road are listed below. The cost split for these options is the same cost split proposed in the draft feasibility study that was prepared for the cities of Orono and Plymouth. The City of Plymouth has been sent a letter requesting consideration of a cost split closer to 50/50. No formal response has been received from the City of Plymouth regarding a revised cost split. The costs listed below are based on the feasibility study and are based on the following assumptions. The Cities of Orono and Plymouth would split the costs for the street reconstruction and storm sewer improvements along the border between Orono and Plymouth. The City of Plymouth would pay for the trail along the east side of the road. The City of Orono would pay for all of the improvements along the section of road between the Cities of Orono and Wayzata. The City of Orono recently annexed the Femdale Road right of way from the City of Wayzata to allow State Aid funding eligibility for the entire project. I (Not Eligible for State Aid) 32* Wide Road Orono Plymouth A. Street Improvements Orono/PIymouth $403,950 $403,950 B. Street Improvements OronoAVayzata $209,097 C. Trail Improvements $77,742 D. Storm Sewer Improvements Orono/Plymouth $60,777 $60,777 E. Storm Sewer Improvements OronoAVayzata $69,376 — Total Estimated Project Costs, 32' Road $743,200 $542,469 (State Aid Eligible) 28' Wide Road Orono Plymouth A. Street Improvements Orono/Plymouth $376,860 $376,860 B. Street Improvements OronoAVayzata $194,065 — C. Trail Improvements $77,742 D. Storm Sewer Improvements Orono/Plymouth $60,583 $60,583 E. Storm Sewer Improvements Orono/Wayzata $69,255 — Total Estimated Project Costs, 28' Road $700,763 $515,185 (State Aid EUgible) Reclaim and Pave Orono Plymouth A. Street Improvements Orono/Plymouth $151,983 $151,983 B. Street Improvements Orono/Wayzata $80,491 C. Trail Improvements D. Draintile Improvements Orono/Plymouth $7,500 $7,500 E. Draintile Improvements Orono/Wayzata $3,000 — Total Estimated Project Costs, Reclaim & Pave $242,974 $159,483 ! I 'ii < ' ; ,4i A Pk.mAJ 1-Allf i ------- ^ . — ^ ^ ^ ^ s, . .^■. ^ . ...a.11 A >■! in^4l A .Aik f* .S ^i.Jr.n i-irri ■ ■ i iiii~<if ii ~i .«rwrwM j V ‘j 1«iv «r flu ». Ak ~r >• i A nidUM««^ n M .•itf ff nUi4Wf1>irm<AA«.i4iakM*C«MTW/i><V.«~W>k4MMC»i^dC»r.'T-bU. .*. -M 1 ‘ ? r Reclaim and Repave Option The reclaim and repave option is not recommended for several teasons. Number one is that this option will not correct the subgrade drainage problems that are currenUy causing deterioration of the road. This option wffl cost Orotio an estimated $242,000 in local funds with no specific funding source available or planned. A similar situation exists in Plymouth, as this project is programmed m their capitEl improvement plan for State Aid Funds. This option docs not include a bike trial. Construction of a bike trail without reconstructing the road to an urban section would be very difficult and expensive to complete. Also, coi^truction of a bike trail adjacent to the rural section road would require more space and result m greater impacts on adjacent properties. State Aid Road Summary Below is a tabulation of Orono's current State Aid System with road widths and pavement conditions shown. Brown Road North- TH 12 Cr Rd 6. 0.7 miles Traffic 1.500 ADT. Average Daily traffic 28* Wide with Concrete C&G, Condition is Excellent. Reconstructed in 1994 Ferndale Road North- TH 12 to Cr Rd 6, 1.6 miles Traffic 3,500 ^T 22' Pavement, 3’ Shoulders, Condition is Poor, Overlay and Grading Dates Unknown Fox Street- Old Crystal Bay Road to Brown Road, 1.0 miles Traffic 1,100 ADT 24’ Pavement, 3' Shoulders, Condition is Fair, Overlay and Grading Dates Unknown Fox Street- Brown Road to Orono Orchard Road, 0.8 miles Traffic 1,600 ADT 22’ Pavement, 2’ Shoulders, Condition is Poor, Overlay and Grading Dates Unknown Orono Orchard Road- Fox Street to Cr Rd 15. 0.1 miles Traffic 2,500 ADT 22’ Pavement, 1' Shoulders, Condition is Fair, Overlay and Grading Dates Unknown Leaf Street- Cr Rd 84 to Watertown Road, 0.5 miles Traffic 1,000 ADT 22’ Wide with Bituminous Curb, Condition is Excellent, Reconstructed in 1992 McCuUey Road- Cr Rd 19 to Cr Rd 6. 1.0 mile Traffic 4.600 ADT 24* Pavement, 10* Shoulders, Condition is Good, Constructed in 1979 Old Crystal Bay Road- Cr Rd 84 to TH 12, 1.5 miles _ 26 ‘ Pavement, 6 ’ Shoulders, Condition is Good, Graded in 1968, Overlaid m 1985 Old Crystal Bay Road- TH 12 to Cr Rd 6, 0.6 miles Traffic 2,200 ADT 24' Pavement, 10 ’ Shoulders, Condition is Good, Graded in 1962, Overlaid in 1985 Stubbs Bay Road- Cr Rd 84 to TH 12, 1.0 mile Traffic 800 ADT 22' Pavement, 2' Shoulders, Condition is Poor, Overlay and Grading Dates unknown Watertown Road- McCulley Road to Willow Drive, 2.7 miles Traffic 1,100 ADT 22' Paverne.ii 2' Shoulders, Condition is Fair to Good, Partial Overlay in 1994 Willow Drive- Fo.k Street to Watertown Road, 0.8 miles Traffic 1,400 ADT 24' Pavement, 6' Paved Shoulders, Condition is Good; Graded in 1972, Overlaid in 1985 Willow Drive- Watertown Road to RR Bridge, 0.5 miles Traffic 1,400 ADT 26' Pavement, 7' Paved Shoulders, Condition is Good, Graded in 1970, Overlaid in 1985 Willow Drive- TH 12 to Cr Rd 6, 0.7 miles Traffic 2,000 ADT 24' Pavement, 3' shoulders. Condition is Good, Graded in 1950, Overlaid in 1994 Discussion on State Aid Funded Projects To be eligible for State Aid funding projects must meet State Aid standards. There are two sets of applicable standards. One set of standards applies to reconstruction of roads, and the second set applies to pavement overlays. The minimum standard for reconstruction of a rural section with a projected traffic volume greater than 1,500 vehicles per day is for 12' travel lanes and 8' shoulders fro a total roadway width of 40'. The minimum standard for reconstruction to an urban section, with curb and gutter and storm sewer is 28 ’. For pavement overlays to be eligible for State Aid funding the existing pavement section must meet a 9-ton design standard, and the total shoulder to shoulder road width must be at least 30' wide for a rural section. Urban sections require a minimum 28' width to be eligible for overlays. The majority of our State Aid routes including Fox Street, Leaf Street, Stubbs Bay Road, and Watertown Road do not meet minimum State Aid standards and would require widening to be eligible for State Aid funding. These roads all have current traffic counts of less than 2,000 vpd. The philosophy of Orono is to maintain a rural character, and wider or urban design roads are not compatible with this philosophy. Use of state aid funds for widening of Leaf street when the Stubbs Bay sewer project was completed was discussed. This road widening was not wanted by the project area residents, so the road was pul back to its original width. This same desire to retain the existing rural character on other roads in the City is prevalent. Based on the relatively low traffic counts of most of our state aid roads, and the desire to retain i Reclaim and Repave Option The reclaim and repave option is not recommended for several reasons. Number one is that this option wdl not correct the subgrade drainage probiems that are currently causing deterioration of v’he road. sourceThis option will cost Orono an estimated $242,000 in locai funds with no specific funding This option does not include a bike trial. Construction of a bike trail without rt constructing the “ urban section would be very difficult and expensive to complete. Also, construction 0 a bike trail adjacent to the rural section road would require more space and result in greater impacts on adjacent properties. “ State Aid Road Summary Below is a tabulation of Orono's current State Aid System with road widths and pavement conditions shown. ^ Average Daily traffic 28 Wide with Concrete C&G, Condition is Excellent, Reconstructed in 1994 Ferndale Road North- TH 12 to Cr Rd 6, 1.6 miles Traffic 3,500 ADT 22 Pavement, 3' Shoulders, Condition is Poor, Overlay and Grading Dates Unknown isw Street- Old Crystal Bay Road to Brown Road, 1.0 miles Traffic 1,100 ADT 24’ Pavement, 3’ Shoulders, Condition is Fair, Overlay and Grading Dates Unknown Fox Street- Brown Road to Orono Orchard Road, 0.8 miles Traffic 1,600 ADT 22 Pavement, 2’ Shoulders, Condition is Poor, Overlay and Grading Dates Unknown Orono Orchard Road- Fox Street to Cr Rd 15, 0.1 miles Traffic 2,500 ADT 22’ Pavement, 1 ’ Shoulders, Condition is Fair, Overlay and Grading Dates Unknown Leaf Street- Cr Rd 84 to Watertown Road, 0.5 miles Traffic 1,000 ADT 22 Wide with Bituminous Curb, Condition is Excellent, Reconstructed in 1992 McCulIey Road- Cr Rd 19 to Cr Rd 6, 1.0 mile Traffic 4,600 ADT 24’ Pavement, 10 ’ Shoulders, Condition is Good, Constructed in 1979 Old Crystal Bay Road- Cr Rd 84 to TH 12, 1.5 miles Traffic 2,200 ADT 26' Pavement, 6’ Shoulders, Condition is Good, Graded in 1968, Overlaid in 1985 i r Old Crystal Bay Road- TH 12 to Cr Rd 6, 0.6 miles Traffic 2,200 ADT 24' Pavement, 10' Shoulders, Condition is Good, Graded in 1962, Overlaid in 1985 Stubbs Bay Road- Cr Rd 84 to TH 12, 1.0 mile Traffic 800 ADT 22' Pavement, 2' Shoulders, Condition is Poor, Overlay and Grading Dates unknown Watertown Road- McCulley Road to Willow Drive, 2.7 miles Traffic 1,100 ADT 22 Pavement, 2' Shoulders, Condition is Fair to Good, Partial Overlay in 1994 Willow Drive- Fox Street to Watertown Road, 0.8 miles Traffic 1,400 ADT 24' Pavement, 6' Paved Shoulders, Condition is Good; Graded in 1972, Overlaid in 1985 WiUow Drive- Watertown Road to RR Bridge, 0.5 miles Traffic 1,400 ADT 26' Pavement, 7' Paved Shoulders, Condition is Good, Graded in 1970, Overlaid in 1985 Widow Drive- TH 12 to Cr Rd 6, 0.7 miles Traffic 2,000 ADT 24 Pavement, 3' shoulders. Condition is Good, Graded in 1950, Overlaid in 1994 Discussion on State Aid Funded Projects To be eligible for State Aid funding projects must meet State Aid standards. There are two sets of applicable standards. One set of standards applies to reconstruction of roads, and the second set applies to pavement overlays. m mi^um standard for reconstniciion of a mral section with a projected traffic volume greater 12' travel lanes and 8' shoulders fro a total roadway width of 40 . The minimum standard for reconstruction to an urban section, with curb and gutter and Storm sewer is 28'. ® For pavement overlays to be eligible for Stale Aid fiinding the existing pavement section must meet a 9-ton design standard, and the total shoulder to shoulder road width must be at least 30' wide for a rural section. Urban sections require a minimum 28' width to be eligible for overlays. The majority of our State Aid routes including Fox Street, Leaf Street, Stubbs Bay Road, and Watertown Road do not meet minimum State Aid standards and would require widening to be eligible for State Aid funding. These roads all have current traffic counts of less than 2,000 vpd. The philosophy of Orono is to maintain a rural character, and wider or urban design roads are not compatible with this philosophy. Use of state aid funds for widening of Leaf street when the Stubbs Bay sewer project was completed was discussed. This road widening was not wanted by the project area residents, so the road was put back to its original width. This same desire to retain the existing rural character on other roads in the City is prevalent. Based on the relatively low traffic counts of most of our stats aid roads, and the desire to retain i r the rural character, reconstruction projects to meet State Aid standards are probably not appropriate or feasible for many roads in Orono. The amount of State Aid funding tnat is received is based on population and construction needs, Having these roads that require reconstruction increases the city’s needs for State Aid funding, and results in higher fui.ding. The City receives approximately $320,000 per year in State Aid funding. 25% of this amount, $80,000, goes directly into the City's general street maintenance budget. The remaining $255,000 goes into the State Aid construction fund. This construction fund money can than be used for improvement of State Aid roads or for cost sharing on cooperative projects with MNDOT or Hennepin County. The average daily count for the City’s State aid routes ranges from a high of 4,600 vehicles per day (vpd) for McCulley road to 800 vpd for Stubbs Bay Road. Femdale Road North is the second highest traffic count at 3,500 vpd. Based on traffic counts and road condition Femdale Road would be the first priority for use of State Aid funding. Although McCulley has more traffic than Femdale Road, this road was constructed in 1979 and meets State Aid standards. As previously indicated the reconstruction of the City’s lower traffic count State Aid roads to meet the required standards may not be feasible in Orono. Several the higher traveled State Aid roads, McCulley Road, Old Crystal Bay Road, and Willow Drive, south of TH 12 have already been graded to State Aid standards. North Femdale Road and Willow Drive, between TH 12 and County Road 6, are two higher traffic State Aid Roads that are the most appropriate roads for upgrading. The area west of Willow Drive is currently within the MUSA, is close to exiting commercial development, ai».l lias been defined in the comprehensive plan for possible higher density development. Willow Drive is currently in reasonable shape. A future State Aid project for reconstruction of Willow Drive, between TH 12 and County Road 6, would be appropriate North Femdale Road is in poor shape and is in need of immediate repair or reconstruction. The staff recommendation is that Femdale Road is the most appropriate road for reconstruction to State Aid standards. This would be a joint project with the City of Plymouth. The City of Plymouth has this project in Their Capital Improvement Plan for this year, a joint project to share the cost of this project with the City of Plymouth will provide a method to leverage the use of our State Aid funds to complete this larger project. Summary of State Aid Fund Balances A summary of our projected State Aid fund balance is shown below. These cost projections are based on completion of the Hennepin County cooperative projects on County Roads 6 and 15 and spending $745,000 to reconstruct Femdale Road to a 32’ wide urban section road. This cost projection also assumes that the City will advance encumber $473,000 of State Aid funds. This . «T.tvv' rkj I4*r advance encumbrance is without interest and will be paid back with future State Aid fund allocations 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 * ($473,000) ($218,000) $37,000 $292,000 $547,000 $802,000 * Reconstruction of Willow Drive $800,' Between TH 12 and Cr Rd 6 * Reconstruction of Willow Drive Could be completed earlier if State Aid funds are advance encumbered. Project Schedule and Staff Recommendation The City of Plymouth would like to schedule a joint public meeting for this project the week of February 16th. This meeting will be held at Redeemer Lutheran Church on Femdale Road. Citizens from Orono, P' louth and Wayzata will be invited to attend this meeting. The feasibility report will be .;sented to the Plymouth City Council for approval in early March. The staff recommendation is that North Femdale Road is Orono's highest priority road for State Aid funding, and that a joint State Aid funded project be completed with the City of Plymouth. Reclaiming and repaving of the road would not be eligible for state aid funding and the City of Plymouth is not interested in a City funded project. Femdale Road is programmed as a State Aid funded project in their capital improvement plan. Our previous staff recommendation for a 32' wide road is still valid. The Staff memo from the previous council meeting is attached for your review. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to designate the use of State Aid funds for the reconstmction of North Femdale Road in a joint project with the City of Plymouth. Consideration of the staff recommendation for road width. Council recommendation on a road width to be forwarded to the City of Plymouth for consideration. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 12, 1998 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Adraiiusirator's Report Iv. 1 Description: Ferndale Road North Public Hearing A work session was held this past week with the City Council to discuss the draft feasibility report for this project prepared by Bonestroo Engineers for the Cities of Orono and Plymouth. This is a draft report that ^s not been approved by either City at this time. This report is currently being reviewed by Plymouth City Staff and has not been presented to the City Council. This project will require the approval of both City Councils. The proposed concept presented in the feasibility report is for a 36' wide road with concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer, and a path on the east side of the road. The City Council expressed concerns about both the width of the proposed road and the State Aid funding split for this project. Solutions acceptable to both Cities will need to be reached on both the layout of the road and project funding. Our recommendation is to focus on obtaining an agreement on the road layout then discussing funding next, as the selected layout will impact the project costs. Several letters and a survey of project area residents have been received and are attached for your review. This information will also be forwarded to the City of Plymouth for their review. Mr. Fred Moore, Director of Public Works for the city of Plymouth will be out of town and unable to attend the public hearing. He will send a representative lo the meeting. Based on the Council's concerns i?g'Muing the road layout and the written citizen comments received, we have discussed possible options for tWs project with Bonestroo Engineers and Plymouth City Staff. We have listed several possible options below for the road layout. All these options are for an urban design typical section with a bituminous path along the east side of the road. All of these options would be posted for no parking on both sides. Alt. 1: Draft Feasibility Report, 36' Wide Road With Two Travel Lanes and a Center Turn Lane The advantage of this option is that left turns are separated from the through traffic. This provides additional safety for left turning vehicles that need lo stop before making their turn. This road has numerous driveways and access points resulting in numerous turning movements. The disadvantages of this option are that right turning movements have to be made from the through traffic lane, and the through traffic will be at the edges of the road. This results in less room for bicycles and joggers along the edge of the road. Previous experience has shown that the more experienced higher speed bike riders, and some joggers will use the road instead of the pedestrian oriented path. Alt. 2: 36' Wide Road with Two Travel Lanes This option would have centerline striping with two travel lanes. This is the same layout used on Dunkirk Lane in Plymouth. This option provides width for both left and right turning vehicles to move out of the through traffic flow when turning. The advantage is that turning vehicles have enough space to be separated from the through traffic. Width for bicyclists is also provided, but through traffic may conflict with bikes when passing left turning vehicles. • • Alt. 3: 32' Wide Road with Two Travel Lanes and Striped Bicycle Lane This option has two 12’ wide travel lanes with a 4’ wide striped bicycle lane along each side. This option does not provide space for turning vehicles to move out of the through traffic. The advantage of this option is increased safety for bicyclists and joggers using the dedicated lane. Femdale Road North has a current average daily traffic count of 3,500 vehicles per day (vpd) with a 20-year projected volume of 5,000 vpd. This road is defined as a collector road, and the recommended state aid standard with parking on one side is for a 32’ wide road. This concept has been used such that the road is posted for no parking both sides and the 8’ parking lane is split into two 4’ bicycle lanes. Alt. 4: 28' Wide Road with Two Travel Lanes The recommended state aid standard for a road posted for no parking on both sides is 28’ wide. The disadvantage of this option is that there is not room for a bicycle lane. Previous experience has shown that trails tend to be used by pedestrians and younger children on bicycles. Joggers and more experienced bicyclists will still use roads. Discussion with Plymouth City staff indicates that this option would not be viewed favorably by the city of Plymouth. They use a 32’ width standard for residential streets and only reduce the width for low traffic residential streets in difficult reconstruction situations. Femdale Road is a collector road and has considerably more traffic than the average residential street. This option is not recommended. Staff Recommendation At this time, we are proposing that the City Council provide a recommendation on ‘he proposed layout for this road. This recommendation can then be forwarded to the City of Plymouth for consideration. CXir staff recommendation is for a 32’ wide road w.ui a 4’ striped bicycle lane on each side of the roadway. This option provides increased safety for bicyclists and joggers. The r I I f ' 12' wide striped travel lanes will make the road appear narrower to drivers and should help to reduce the concern about higher speed traffic on this road. This concept emphasizes the recreational nature of the road and decreases the perception of a high speed road. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve a proposed concept for the layout of Femdale Road North, t kS L Ma II .1 ■«. Vx.tel.k-V^a-la !« n. ^J r COUNCIL MEiZTi:; 3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ,IAN 2 6 1998 DATE: Januao^ ITEM NO.: / 7 Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Engineer's Report Item Description: Winter Maintenance of North Brown Road Trail Mr. Tom Lane, a resident at 915 North Brown Road, has contacted the City several times requesting that the trail along North Brown Road be maintained in the winter. I have told him that the City's policy is not to maintain trails in the winter. He has requested to be placed on the Council agenda regarding this issue. Attached you will fmd a letter from Mr. Lane, and a letter sent to area residents for their signature. Thirty-one signed letters from area residents were submitted to the City. For your information, I have also attached meeting minutes ’ from two Council meetings at which this project was discussed. I have discussed this issue with the Public Worlds maintenance personnel. We do not have the appropriate equipment to efficiently complete trail maintenance activities. 11 may be possible to perform this work, but it would be time consuming and the results may not be satisfactory. The City does have a small bobcat with a broom for sidewalk maintenance. This equipment would be difficult to use for trail maintenance, as it is too small, and as the snow banks develop it vould be difficult to get the snow off the trail. Plowing of the trails with a pickup truck is difficult because the units are too big and tear up the edge of the trails. Also, in some areas it is difficult to plow the snow off the trail because of fences and retaining walls. I have contacted maintenance personnel at the City of Plymouth and observed trail maintenance in the City of Maple Grove. These cities use a track type or wheel type MT or Bombadier unit with either a small V plow or snow blower for trail maintenance. Thc*f>e units are specifically made for trail maintenance, and the interchange sble plow or snow blower units are used dependent on snow conditions and trail location. The City of Plymouth occasionally plows some trails with pickup trucks, but indicated that is not the most desirable method. The City of Plymouth has several MT units. One unit is seven years old and is scheduled for replacement next year. The budgeted amount for replacement of this unit is $70,<III COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion on City's policy for winter maintenance of trials J I Orono City Council Re: Snow removal along North Brown Road North Brown Road serves the residents of West Farm road, Sugar Woods, Lakeview Terrace, Salem Court, Country Club Road, the condos that enter north of the bank as well as the residents along north Brown Road. There are approximately 80 + families who have access to its walking trail and who use the trail, some on a daily basis some on an occasional basis. The road is narrow and not suited for walkers, that is why we have the trail. Many of the people walk just for exercise but there are a number who walk because of health reasons, i.e. needed exercise due to heart bye-pass surgery. Our families are in danger as they walk along N.Brown today because we have improved the road and now, thou the speed limit is only 30mph, the cars seem to be going even faster, because we flattened it out so the drivers can see farther. Submitted by. Tom Lane 915 N. Brown i ■-mr*F?rTTmniiJifgnrwiTmi nr-,.,r. . , • TO THE FAMILIES ALONG NORTH BROWN ROAD ' » A Petition to have Orono live up to it promises tfic people of North Brown Roar* having been told that the walking trail WOULD be maintained in the winter, request that the City of Orono live up to the promise that was made during the preliminary meetings on redueing the road. The question was asked at two different meetings, once by Judy Lane and at another meeting by Barb Lohmann;" Who will be maintaining the walking trail and will it be maintained in the winter” the answer was: ” Orono will maintain the trail.” 1 don ’t believe that this was just a ploy to get us to go along with the project, but 1 do believe that the City of Orono should live up to their word. I have asked Greg Gappa repeatedly that the trail be plowed and it has been discussed by the city council, but now they are telling me that it isn’t city policy to plow the walking trails. I feel we should have been told before we gave them our OK and we gave up our property, the trail is now only 20 ’ from my front door. Now the traffic is moving faster on our improved road and the people who enjoy the walking trail for their health and exercise are forced to walk in the street. Last spring I saw a jogger, who I had seen many times before, now forced to jog in the roadway, slip and nearly fall in front on an oncoming car. Its only a matter of time until someone falls and is run over or perhaps one of our pets, which we so enjoy walking with, is killed. Perhaps you enjoy the trail or one of your children use it to get to their friends, maybe its even concern for one of your neighbors who you value as a friend and you know that they use the trail. I would ask you to please put your name and address at the bottom of this letter and as I collect the returned letters I will gather them together and take them to the council and ask them to live up to the promise that was made and maintain our walking trail. Thank you for your participation In this effort. Please just sign this letter and drop it off in my mail box at 915 North Brown Road, or call our mayor Gabriel jabbourat 471-9256 and tell him of your concerns. Sincerely. Tom Lane 473-1799 NAME ADDRESS /?/ 31 of Tw\s tniei2- S6(BMlT\fK) lo THE env r-B« ■!> - ■■■■ *f i IBM- ■ I Wl I r TO THE FAMILIES ALONG NORTH BROWN ROAD • A Petition to have Orono live up to it promises tfic people of North Brown Road, having been told that the walking trail WOULD be maintained in the winter, request that the City of Orono live up to the promise that was made during the preliminary meetings on redueing the road. The question was asked at two different meetings, once by )udy Lane and at another meeting by Barb Lohmann;" Who will be maintaining the walking trail and will it be maintained in the winter" the answer was;" Orono will maintain the trail," i don ’t believe that this was just a ploy to get us to go along with the project, but I do believe that the City of Orono should live up to their word. I have asked Greg Gappa repeatedly that the trail be plowed and it has been discussed by the city council, but now they are telling me that it isn’t city policy to plow the walking trails. I feel we should have been told before we gave them our OK and we gave up our property, the trail Is now only 20 ’ from my front :Ioor. Now the traffic is moving faster on our improved road and the people who enjoy the walking trail for their health and exercise are forced to walk in the street. Last spring I saw a jogger, who I had seen many times before, now forced to jog in the roadway, slip and nearly ^11 in front on an oncoming car. Its only a matter of time until someone falls and is run over or perhaps one of our pets, which we so enjoy walking with, is killed. Perhaps you enjoy the trail or one of your children use it to get to their friends, maybe its even concern for one of your neighbors who you value as a friend and you know that they use the trail. I would ask you to please put your name and address at the bottom of this letter and as I collect the returned letters 1 will gather them together and take them to the council and ask them to live up to the promise that was made and maintain our walking trail. Thank you for your participation in this effort. Please just sign this letter and drop it off in my mail box at 915 North Brown Road, or call our mayor Gabriel labbour at 471-9256 and tell him of your concerns. Sincerely, Tom Lane 473-1799 NAME a h\^ ADDRESS 9rdU^ pj. I\l. fS>n h h hoi , is-fer '/h, T-G. rnr i ~frtnl iii i ii iii iinii ■rirMliTni > -lA-'.. TO THE FAMILIES ALONG NORTH BROWN ROAD A Petition to have Orono live up to it promises tflCpeopleo\ North Brown Road, having been told that the walking trail WOULD be maintained in the winter, request that the City of Orono live up to the promise that was made during the preliminary meetings on redueing the road. The question was asked at two different meetings, once by Judy Lane and at another meeting by Barb Lohmann;" Who will be maintaining the walking trail and will it be maintained in the winter" the answer was;" Orono will maintain the trail." I don't believe that this was just a ploy to get us to go along with the project, but I do believe that the City of Orono should live up to their word. I have asked Greg Gappa repeatedly that the trail be plowed and it has been discussed by the city council, but now they are telling me that it isn’t city policy to plow the walking trails. 1 feel we should have been told before we gave them our OK and we gave up c ur property, the trail is now only 20 from my front door. Now the traffic is moving faster on our . mproved road and the people who enjoy the walking trail for their health and exercise are forced to walk in the street. Last spring I saw a jogger, who 1 had seen many times before, now forced to jog in the roadway, slip and nearly fall in front on an oncoming car. Its only a matter of time until someone falls and is run over or perhaps one of our pets, which we so enjoy walking with, is killed. Perhaps you enjoy the trail or one of your children use it to get to their friends, maybe its even concern for one of your neighbors who you value as a friend and you know that they use the trail. 1 would ask you to please put your name and address at the bottom of this letter and as I collect the returned letters I will gather them together and take them to the council and ask them to live up to the promise that was made and maintain our walking trail. Thank you for your participation in this effort. Please just sign this letter and drop it off in my mail box at 915 North Brown Road, or call our mayor Gabriel Jabbour at 471-9256 and tell him of your concerns. Sincerely, Tom Lane 473-1799 NAME Dm LJ ADDRESS 0£>KO ^ \jj\ in C^{/\ UoT 0^ f <Jjz, n TO THE FAMILIES ALONG NORTH BROWN ROAD • A Petition have Orono live up to it promises I f/l€ people of North Brown Road, having been told that the walking trail WOULD be maintained in the winter, request that the City of Orono live up to the promise that was made during the preliminary meetings on redueing the road. The question was asked at two different meetings, once by Judy Lane and at another meeting by Barb Lohmann;" Who will be maintaining the walking trail and will it be maintained in the winter" the answer was;" Orono will maintain the trail." 1 don ’t believe that this was just a ploy to get us to go along with the project, but I do believe that the City of Orono should live up to their word. 1 have asked Greg Gappa repeatedly that the trail be plowed and it has been discussed by the city council, but now they are telling me that it isn't city policy to plow the walking trails. 1 feel we should have been told before we gave them our OK and we gave up our property, the trail is now only 20' from my front door. Now the traffic is moving faster on our improved road and the people who enjoy the walking trail for their health and exercise are forced to walk in the street. Last spring I saw a jogger, who I had seen many times before, now forced to jog in the roadway, slip and nearly fell in front on an oncoming car. Its only a matter of time until someone falls and is run over or perhaps one of our pets, which we so enjoy walking with, is killed. Perhaps you enjoy the trail or one of your children use it to get to their friends, maybe its even concern for one of your neighbors who you value as a friend and you know that they use the trail. I would ask you to please put your name and address at the bottom of this letter and as I collect the returned letters I will gather them together and take them to the council and ask them to live up to the promise that was made and maintain our walking trail. Thank you for your participation in this effort. Please just sign this letter and drop it off in my mail box at 915 North Brown Road, or call our mayor Gabriel Jabbour at 471-9256 and tell him of your concerns. Sincerely, Tom Lane 473-1799 NAME I'l n I s ADDRFSS fgAl c/1 5 ^ f'l lA fin ^ -hh- sfh^' TO THE FAMILIES ALONG NORTH BROWN ROAD A Petition to have Orono live up to it promises North Brown Road, having been told that the walking trail WOULD be maintained in the winter, request that the City of Orono live up to the promise that was made during the preliminary meetings on redueing the road. The question was asked at two different meetings, once by Judy Lane and at another meeting by Barb Lohmann;" Who will be maintaining the walking trail and will it be maintained in the winter" the answer was;" Orono will maintain the trail." 1 don’t believe that this was just a ploy to get us to go along with the project, but I do believe that the City of Orono should live up to their word. I have asked Greg Gappa repeatedly that the trail be plowed and it has been discussed by the city council, but now they are telling me that it isn’t city policy to plow the walking trails. I feel we should have been told before we gave them our OK and we gave up our property, the trail is now only 20’ from my front door. Now the traffic is moving faster on our improved road and the people who enjoy the walking trail for their health and exercise are forced to walk in the street. Last spring I saw a jogger, who I had seen many times before, now forced to jog in the roadway, slip and nearly fall in front on an oncoming car. Its only a matter of time until someone falls and is run over or perhaps one of our pets, which we so enjoy walking with, is killed. Perhaps you enjoy the trail or one of your children use it to get to their friends, maybe •♦^s even concern for one of your neighbors who you value as a friend and you know that they use the trail. I would ask you to please put your name and address at the bottom of this letter and as I collect the returned letters I will gather them together and take them to the council and ask them to live up to the promise that was made and maintain our walking trail. Thank you for your participation in this effort. Please just sign this letter and drop It off in my mail box at 915 North Brown Road, or call our mayor Gabriel Jabbour at 471-9256 and tell him of your concerns. Sincerely, Tom Lane 473-1799 NAMeL:^^^Ir / j ■ • ^ TO THE FAMILIES ALONG NORTH BROWN ROAD A Petition to have Orono live up to it promises t/lCpeopleo\ North Brown Road, having been told that the walking trail WOULD be maintained in the winter, request that the City of Orono iive up to the promise that was made during the preliminary meetings on redueing the road. The question was asked at two different meetings, once by ludy Lane and at another meeting by Barb Lohmann; ” Who will be maintaining the walking trail and will It be maintained in the winter" the answer was;" Orono will maintain the trail." I don’t believe that this was just a ploy to get us to go along with the project, but I do believe that the City of Orono should live up to their word. I have asked Greg Gappa repeatedly that the trail be plowed and it has been discussed by the city council, but now they are telling me that it isn't city policy to plow the walking trails. I feel we should have been told before we gave them our OK and we gave up our property, the trail is now only 20 ’ from my front door. Now the traffic is moving fester on our improved road and the people who enjoy the walking trail for their health and exercise are forced to walk in the street. Last spring I saw a jogger, who I had seen many times before, now forced to jog in the roadway, slip and nearly fell in front on an oncoming car. Its only a matter of time until someone falls and is run over or perhaps one of our pets, which we so enjoy walking with, is killed. Perhaps you enjoy the trail or one of your children use it to get to their hiends, maybe its even concern for one of your neighbors who you value as a friend and you know that they use the trail. I would ask you to please put your name and address at the bottom of this letter and as I collect the returned letters I will gather them together and take them to the council and ask them to live up to the promise that was made and maintain our walking trail. Thank you for your participation in this effort. Please just sign this letter and drop it off in my mail box at 915 North Brown Road, or call our mayor Gabriel jabbour at 471-9256 and tell him of your concerns. Sincerely, Tom Lane 473-1799 r i I I« TO THE FAMILIES ALONG NORTH BROWN ROAD A Petition to have Orono live up to it promises peopleo\ North Brown Road, having been told that the walking trail WOULD be maintained in the winter, request that the City of Orono live up to the promise that was made during the preliminary meetings on redueing the road. The question was asked at two different meetings, once by Judy Lane and at another meeting by Barb Lohmann;" Who will be maintaining the walking trail and will it be maintained in the winter" the answer was:" Orono will maintain the trail." 1 don ’t believe that this was just a ploy to get us to go along with the project, but I do believe that the City of Orono should live up to their word. I have asked Greg Gappa repeatedly that the trail be plowed and it has been discussed by the city council, but now they are telling me that it isn’t city policy to plow the walking trails. 1 feel we should have been told before we gave them our OK and we gave up our property, the trail is now only 20 ’ from my front door. Now the traffic is moving faster on our improved road and the people who enjoy the walking trail for their health and exercise are forced to walk in the street. Last spring I saw a jogger, who 1 had seen many times before, now forced to jog in the roadway, slip and nearly fall in front on an oncoming car. Its only a matter of time until someone falls and is run over or perhaps one of our pets, which we so enjoy walking with, is killed. Perhaps you enjoy the trail or one of your children use it to get to their friends, maybe its even concern for one of your neighbors who you value as a friend and you Icnow that they use the trail. 1 would ask you to please put your name and address at the bottom of this letter and as I collect the returned letters I will gather them together and take them to the council and ask them to live up to the premise that was made and maintain our walking trail. Thank you for your participation in this effort. Please just sign this letter and drop it off in my mail box at 915 North Brown Road, or call our mayor Gabriel jabbour at 471-9256 and tell him of your concerns. Sincerely, Tom Lane 473-1799 NAME ADDRESS (9 c'^cc/- /« A XT / / C‘ ft i C C 1 THE S ”“™° i*fn) MINNETONKA POWER SQUADRON - 1994 JOINT USE DOCK LI resolution no. 3418 It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Hurr to adopt ^ ^ Jo^uTe Dock License to the Minnetonka Power Squadron. Ayes 5. nays U. MAYOR/COUNCBL REPORT Kelley stated he was very concerned Tny d"e^e°opment resulting from Highway 12. m MNDOT AGREEMENT - OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD BRIDGE the agreement as submitted. Ayes 5, nays 0. PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING im RECONSTRUCTION OF BRO^ NORTH ^ Gusufson reviewed *e plans .or the (Minnesota State Aid) funds. He iscus - affected He reviewed the tree improvements and discussed the drainage areas th construction. He noted that replacement program which will will be ninety-three percent (93%) of the . /-Quncil approved the plans, constructionreimbursed from MSA funds He smjed to 'f Counc.l wove^^ could begin shortly, and wou e p j^ggded before consttuction can begin, and Tmt^e latTferper will be neeoed cnee fmal roadway plans are developed. Jabbour inquired if the ''''T'S,“e nZeTa-^aillto S^dson^uS to Gustafson responded that he did not they would be able to different roadway widths ® signs which would permit parking on eliminate die parking on n^ted M considering the feasibility smdy one side of the roadway »"'y- ^ actually be reconstructed. Goetten “d X‘‘lmZvTrn^would reduce the potential for accidents and Gerhardson ;"e?;onded to ’h?dTd nm “ve any statistics available on to issue. ♦4 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 25, 1994 (#9) RECONSTRUCTION OF BROVVN ROAD NORTH (CONTINUED) Dennis Kirby, 1020 Brown Road, stated that he believed Brown Road homeowners would support a road that was 28 feet wide. Denny Platteter, 809 Brown Road North, commented that elimination of four feet for parking was incorrect, since vehicles were more than four feet wide. Gustafson responded that me minimum width they can make the road would be 28’ since that is the current state standard, and if they don’t construct it to that width, they will not receive any MSA funding for the project. Gerhardson stated I’.at the roadway is presently 22 feet wide. George Johnson, 879 Brown Road, stated they had all signed a petition requesting a 28 foot wide roadway. He noted that he did not see cars parked along B”Own Road now unless !t was a special occasion. He felt that the parking lane could be eliminated. He stated the roa needs something done, but it does not need more traffic. He stated that at the rate the^ea was developing, the traffic would increase, and speed was a problem now. He ir.quired it sewer would be installed when the roadway was upgraded. He also commente djhayie would like to see the bike path installed, as it was in Sugarwood^ Jo Corneal, 2101 Sugarwood, stated that presently the road was very dangerous, particul^ly during the winter months when everyone would drive down the center of the road. She felt something needed to be done to make the road wider, ^h? supported the bike path and si: jnppiflp trail, and believed the neighbors suppongd-iLalso. She stated that the intersection of ^ North Brown Road with Highway 12 was hazardous and traffic is dangerous there. Mayor Callahan commented it is not yet known how that intersection will be configured. Tnm l^ne- 915 Brown Road, stated that the widening of th e road will bring the traijaiid.. ^ waTkway within 25 feet of his fron t door. He requested that some ot the construction be donjon the ea't side of the road^y to reduce the impacts on his property as much as possible He stated he felt that a parking lane was not needed. Gustafson stated that the roadway was going to be centered within the City’s right-of-way but they will be looking at how it impacts adjacent properties. Mr. Schultz, 744 Brown Road, stated he supported the upgrading of the roadway but was opposed to the parking lane.. He felt the trail should be located up again stjhe road bed and ^ Pliminate the grass median separation between jhe road a_n_d trail to_reducgjhejggg^ ^lor^onsmicnom Mayor Callahan responded that the safety factor was higher if the trail was separated from the roadway by a median. Schultz was concerned about the drainage and whether the new roadway would increase the problems in the area. Gerhardson responded that they are reviewing the drainage plans and will meet with the homeowners to discuss the plans. Joe Lucas, 1060 North Brown Road, stated he supported upgrading the roadway but was opposed to the parking lane. minutes of the regular orono city council meeting HELD APRIL 25, 1994 (#9) RECONSTRUCTION OF BROWN ROAD NORTH (CONTINUED) Dale Lindquist, 780 Brown Road, concurred with Mr. Lucas. Irma Alvord, 960 Brown Road, also concurred. Charles Schroeder stated he supported the upgrade for the roadway, ^ a rural section"ratfier than^n urban section to reduce costs. Carolyn Parrish, 1995 West Farm Road, stated she supported the upgrade, but was opposed to the parking lane. Dennis Plntte«r inquired if there would be any ^P"ToT93%T.rfdnds^^^^^^^^ from the roadway upgrade. Mayor f be acquired reimbursed from MSA funds, and the remainder of the money would have to q from other sources. Mayor Caliahan closed the public meeting. Goetten commented she felt that a feasibility study should be done t° P“'' ^ fipures together. Kelley stated that he was opposed to placing no parking g vS'rem7“eVuTS^^^^ iiss; rr.ir5;.”55 s-s.. 5, nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#10) CITY OF WAYZATA PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY Robert Gisvold. Mayor of municii revenues by allowing it to be annexed into Wayzata. t minutes of the regular orono council meeting held JULY 25, 1994 engineer report (#8) BID AWARD NORTH BROWN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION Eneineer Cook explained that after receiving bids staff met with the property owners to discuss the oroiect There was overall approval of the protect with concenigjSy-eLwhe^rjhe^^^ chnniH he *fi”or 8’ and Questions about the storm sewer which has an impact on Homestead ^ traU. City Adifestrator Moorse added the issue of assessments of project costs to property owners. Mavor Callahan stated that there were MSA funds available for the road constmction. Council had^not decided if there would be an assessment for any additional momes nwded. Smce there ha^e not been any similar projects recently, no policy has been established. There are a num^r of other projects facing the City in the near future, such as a stormwater project on Kelly Avenue and septic upgrades, with limited availability of funds to be considered. Heinz Hutter 770 North Brown Road, questioned the necessity of widening, sttaightening and SvdLg Brown Road when all it really needs is resurfacing. He felt that as HjgJjway 12 w« upgraded. Brown Road would not provide access to the highway. He thought there may be other needs of the City that were more important. Many other residents agreed. Mayor Callahan stated that there was no Highway 12 plan at this time that excluded access from North Brown Road. Kelley asked for clarification since he thought the citizens were in favor of upgrading Brown Road and now there seemed to be disagreement. Other councilmembers agreed. Charles Schroeder, 1925 West Farm Road, explained that if the project were to be done, Aen the innut from the citizens at previous meetings should be considered. Smce is a Of ^bstaSdard road, if it were resurfaced, it would have to be widened. 1" ^ would be incUi^_^tJ he residents wished to keep it more like a countryJang\ Goetten noted that it was decided to make a minimal road of 28 ’, which is the City’s mi^um ftSS rlto than the 32 ’ or 36’ as suggested by ±e Engineer. She “ked those present had been at the previous informational meetmg. Many had attended but the several who had not. Jabbour stated that for Orono to get MSA Ending. ™°hnum santo^^^ Cook confirmed that if the road were to be repaved at its current width, the City would have to p y for the entire project. MSA funding would cover 93 % of the project if built to MSA standar . City Administrator Moorse explained that there are MSA funds available but not enough to do all future road projects in the City. Highway 12, not just those residents along the road. minvtes of the bid AWAKD north brown road reconstruction (CONTINUED) , • M »Kot if thpre were to be assessments considered on this SSe«‘‘"CbrwoSlJ& held before Ure bid could be awarded. Deruus’Kirby. 1020 Norm Brown Road, did nor feel .here was opposition to me road but mere was a problem with assessments. Armand Brachman. 1990 West Fann wo‘‘teu« SlTre^bS for assessnrents should also be ^IJiar^e'd wim no assessment to me restdents. and 592,892.50 for the waienowu i^uau ........................ IvISA funds could not be used. ^ * i,* ov Tom Lane 915 North Brown Road, expressed his concern with ^M^forCalla^n residence. . excited about minutes of the regular orono council meeting held JULY 25, 1994 WARD NORTH BROWN ROAD RECONSTRUCTION (CONTINUED) ____ . _______/ BID A------------ xyfavnr rallahan confinned there will be no assessment to the neighboring residents, (^r^dson S comwMion wOTld begin in mid-August. Individual landowners w.ll be contacted. Aimand Brachman and George Johnson commented that staff ^ the residents and had been working with them to address their concerns. Mayor Callahan called a recess frmn 8:58 p.m.^9:12 p.m. KELLY AVENUE DRAINAGE exist on Highland and Livingston. Kelly and Jabbour felt this was a very dangerous area and preliminary discussions should continue with property owners in the area. Goetten felt there was a responsibility to the citizens of Orono to address this problem. Hurr did not feel the proposed schedule was realistic with construction proposed for September 19, 1994. property owners to further discuss the project. MAYOR/COUNCDL REPORT Hurt reported that she had anended the Minnehaha Creek Wa^edW^cm^^^^^ to the water quality of Long L^e. Aeration participate. Hurr indicated The MCWD would assume the major costs but could commit to to the MCWD that she would need more mformation beiore y participation. Mayor Callahan commented on the LMCD report regarfing septic tank problems. He noted the State Statutes supersede the Shoreland Regulations of the DNR. 8 COUNCil ' -.r-TiNGJAN 2 6 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ciTYOFOBONO DATE: January 23,1998 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name RonMoorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator ’s Report iotioii: Lease Agreement with US West for PCS Antennas on the Navarre Water Tower antennas will be located on the tower are attached. If the City and US West are able to come to an ag meeting, Council will be requested to approve the lease agreement. reement on the lease terms prior to the Council r L COU.\CiL f/LttiWS JAN 2 6 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION cmroFORONO DATE; January 23, 1998 ITEM NO: / 7 Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Request for Acquisition of Tax Forfeit Parcels - Resolution Four tax forfeit parcels in the Minnetonka Bluffs area, on Hanlon and Keene Avenues, have been tax forfeited and are available to the City for public use. The parcels are shown on the attached map. Three of the parcels are 80-100% wetland and one is 10% wetland and 50% steep slope. The City acquired a parcel in this area in 1989 as a tax forfeit lot for use for drainage and conservation. Staff recommends acquiring the four currently available lots for the same use at this time. A resolution requesting the conveyance of these lots for public use by the City is attached for Council consideration. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt a resolution requesting conveyance of tax forfeit lands for public use by the City of Orono. • > - •% ■1^ . V* r REQUESTING CONVEYANCE OF TAX FORFEIT LAND FOR PUBLIC USE BY THE CITY OF ORONO WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 282, the City has received from Hennepin County a list of lands within the City which have become the property of the State of Minnesota for non-payment of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners have classified said lands as non-conservation land and have authorized the sale of each such parcel of land subject to review and release by the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said lands for compliance with local zoning ordinances, for the amount of outstanding special assessment remaining unpaid to the City, and/or for possible public use by the City as authorized by the statutes. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono, pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 282.01, Subdivision 1, hereby applies to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners and to the Commissioner of Revenue for conveyance of the following tax forfeited land to the City for public use by the City of Orono. PARCELS RETAINED FOR USE BY THE CITY District Em Public Purpose 38 02-117-23-31-0029 drainage and conservation 38 02-117-23-31-0032 drainage and conservation 38 02-117-23-31-0035 drainage and conservation 38 02-117-23-31-0036 drainage and conservation Page 1 of2 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held the 26th day of January, 1998, by a vote of____ayes and_____nays. Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk it'. Page 2 of2 v*C ••• Ite KK— 57*4.4 - r ri____11 ^ rv 4 K fc N ^ (8) irr.y^ . — 1 i«.*A (13) <Gn a ”\y v(M) H a' « ^ J 1 ^ 1 (X)i^ • a 19 >■11 4 ■3 '0 1 V^L Of ^ (23)1 [n^ n Q IT . ^ (22)1 'i « d1 4lfi) 1 : ®^^i) I 7 aII : * (Jo)11 N '0 ? *^>(19)il V'®^ „ l».*4 (39) i«.*i jj (27) arwS ’OxSni.f 4 a(37i'f U T(S) J ‘: *vm m ■m 1 ! (»).* •r 5‘B^ « iH.«^ - Id »» *0-111 pM ; '0 »! ••__ffi h N* ^ H 1 4,^1(C552<'*^ ^ ^'n‘-s ft" jj>^3• 7 2^ •(42)^. V A \l : ^'V* > «\ ••••••iR ___ 0>°S ) V*4*? X f*4i or lOI I v\ 11>*-^«— ff If <2> (101^(a) *m»o* OBI V<BC Ll*C 10 )CCOBO KEY Yellow Pink Orange Green Theodore & Gertrude Fischer Jack & Marlon Burch Marlon Dettloff, 1255 Dickenson Street City of Orono - drainage & conservation I L JAN 2 6 1998 CITY OF ORONOREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: January 23, 1998 ITEM NO: Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name Ron Moorse /a ^City Administrator's Title City Administrator Report Item Description: Purchase of Police Squad C^s In 1997, the Orono Police Department experienced very high maintenance costs for its police squad cars, due to high mileage and transmission problems on recent models of the squad cars. The 1998 budget includes funding for two new squads. This would leave the Department with three squads at or near 100,000 miles. This creates a potential for even higher squad maintenance costs in 1998. The availability of four used police squads from the Champlin Police Department, each with 28,000 miles, provides an opportunity to substantially reduce the overall mileage on the police squad fleet at a cost that should be within the amount of projected 1998 expenditures. The cost of the used squads is $14,900 versus $20,500 for a new squad. Because the City needed to confirm its intent to purchase the used squads prior to the Januar>' 26 Council meeting, staff polled the Council and received authorization to proceed with the purchase. This action needs to be confirmed for the City's official records and for an audit trail regarding the authorization of expenditures. Additional Efforts to Control Maintenance Costs The Police Department has made uTitten requests to the manufacturer of the police squads to cover the costs of replacement of transmissions that have occurred at relatively low mileage levels. The manufacturer has denied these requests. The Police Department has used the same local maintenance garage for the past 3‘/2 years for both preventive maintenance and major maintenance on the squads. In conjunction with the maintenance garage, the Police Department keeps detailed records of all squad maintenance. When the transmission problem was identified as an ongoing tendency of the recent models of the squad cars, the maintenance garage began to add an additive at every oil change that is intended to prevent the transmission problems. Because this was begun in 1997, we do not yet know if this will be effective. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to confirm the authorization to purchase four used 1996 police squads from the City of Champlin at a cost of $14,900 per squad. COUNCIL JAN 2 6 1998 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITYOFORONO DATE: January 23, 1998 ITEM NO: Department Approval: Name Ron Moorse Title City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: /* Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Contracts to Provide Animal Control Services to the South Lake Cities The Orono Police Department currently provides animal control services to the cities of Long Lake, Minnetonka Beach and Spring Park. The City of Chanhassen has provided animal control services to the south lake cities of Excelsior, Shorewood, Tonka Bay and Greenwood. In mid-1997, the City of Chanhassen informed the four south lake cities that they would no longer provide animal control service to them effective January 1, 1998. The four cities have been scrambling to find an animal control service provider for 1998. They requested Orono consider extending animal control services to them through 1998 so that they could have a year to identify viable alternatives. At this time, Orono is the only viable alternative available to them. Staff has updated the Council periodically regarding the possibility of providing animal control services to the four cities. It has been staffs position from the start that if the Police Department could assist the cities in this difficult situation without increasing Orono's net cost or decreasing the current level of service provided to Orono, Long Lake, Minnetonka Beach and Spring Park, we should extend service to them on at least an interim basis. Staff has indicated to the south lake cities that they should not consider this arrangement as a permanent solution. The contract calls for a reopener for review of service and fee levels on June 1 or September 1 if the animal impound activity is significantly greater than is anticipated. Staff has determined it is possible to provide the south lake cities with service and fee levels that are similar to those under the Chanhassen arrangement while meeting the conditions indicated above. The current staffing level for the provision of animal control services is two part-time Community Service Officers. The proposed staffing level is one full-time Community Service Officer and one part-time Community Service Officer. All additional costs of the increased staffing level will be borne by the south lake cities. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the contracts with the cities of Excelsior, Shorewood and Tonka Bay for the provision of animal control serv ices for 1998. r ^ » ANIMAL CONTROL CONTRACT This agreement made this day of , 1998, by and between the City of Orono, hereinafter referred to as "ORONO"; and 'lie City of SHOREWOOD, hereinafter referred to as SHOREWOOD, witnesseth: In consideration of the covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, it is mutually agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. This agreement shall be effective as of February 1, 1998, and shall continue in effect until December 31, 1998, unless cancelled pursuant to this agreement. 2. ORONO agrees to patrol the public streets of SHOREWOOD, in accordance with a schedule provided by ORONO, agreed upon by SHOREWOOD. If necessary, ORONO agrees to transport animals as it deems appropriate. ORONO will, at the completion of each regular patrol or as soon as reasonably possible, in the City of SHOREWOOD, give a written statement to the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department setting forth a description of all animals impounded including breed, color, weight, name of owner, name of animal, if known, and point of collection by the patrol officer. ORONO will also attempt to notify South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department prior to impounding any animal. 3. ORONO agrees to provide personnel and equipment to provide animal control services. Said employees shall perform their duties in proper attire, utilizing a marked Orono Public Safety vehicle whenever available. These employees shall be in uniform or have City of Orono identification. 4. SHOREWOOD shall authorize ORONO to apprehend and retain domestic animals and/or issue citations or warnings for violations of city ordinances. Wild animals shall only be dealt with pursuant to ORONO'S policy regarding wild animals if the animal is presenting dangers of personal injury or significant property damage. However, ORONO shall not invade private property contrary to the wishes of the owner of said property, nor forcibly take an animal from any person without the approval and assistance of a peace officer having jurisdiction in that city. 5. ORONO agrees to patrol the public streets of SHOREWOOD and respond to animal control calls in SHOREWOOD. Orono shall also conduct annual kennel and stable inspections. These shall be scheduled during regular patrol hours in Shorewood. Orono will provide an average of 22 hours per week of animal control ser\ ice to the four participating cities. 6. In addition to regular patrol, ORONO agrees to respond to "emergency call-outs" from SHOREWOOD. ORONO will have an officer scheduled to respond to such call-outs. ORONO shall respond at the earliest opportunity to such requests, including bite cases or injured animals, as deemed appropriate by ORONO. There may be occasions when an animal 1 r • ^ ANIMAL CONTROL CONTRACT Continued control officer will not be immediately available, in which event the response will occur at the earliest opportunity. An "emergency call-out" is defmed as a specific request for animal control service during times that an officer is not on duty. If an Orono Animal Control Officer is on duty, even though not patrolling in SHOREWOOD, said officer will lespond. If deemed appropriate by the Orono officer on call, a situation may be dealt with over the phone. ORONO agrees to coordinate services with the Paws, Claws, and Hooves, 10500 Great Plains Boulevard, Chaska, MN, 55318, which will serve as the impound facility, as long as this arrangement is agreeable with Paws, Claws and Hooves. SHOREWOOD agrees to be billed directly by Paws, Claws and Hooves, and to pay for impound, boarding, euthanasia, disposal, or any other veterinary fee as charged by the impound facility. When requested, the Animal Control Officer will review these bills to determine if the charges appear proper. 7. ORONO shall furnish monthly reports to SHOREWOOD reflecting the charges for animal control services, which each city agrees to pay ORONO within 30 days of being billed. 8. When an animal is impounded pursuant to this animal control contract, said animal shall be held in accordance with Minnesota Statute 35.71. In the event that an impounded animal is unclaimed, the animal becomes the sole responsibility of Paws, Claws and Hooves to be placed or disposed of at their discretion. 9. ORONO shall maintain reports on Orono forms, or utilize specific forms as requested by SHOREWOOD. A monthly report of activity, including number of hours by activity, shall be provided to SHOREWOOD. 10. The City of ORONO will indemnify and hold harmless SHOREWOOD for claims, suits, actions, damages and loss arising out of the negligence or misconduct of the City of ORONO in conjunction with this agreement. 11. SHOREWOOD agrees to pay ORONO for services in the performance of this contract, pursuant to Paragraph 15 of this contract, as follows: A) Annual Fee for patrol and emergency pick-ups (based on eleven month term).......................$14,804.00 B) Price per deceased animal disposed of by the City of ORONO (does not include deer)....................,$35.00 --------W * . K i, k --- - ■ — —-* * — ------............................................................................... mii I i w it hi Ml i ■ iMiiMT ,,t, I >i mat iTirTl*irfHff ITI i*T a.tMi. > . ' i 13. 14. ANIMAL CONTROL CONTRACT Continued It is aereed that if the designated boarding facility or euthanasia/disposal serWce is r'toged the veterinao- bill in its entirety, including impound fees. All payments shall be made by SHOREWOOD upon receipt of monthly statements from ORONO within 30 days. l^rO^ENWOOD" sSchansMncludmg this Paragraph, for the remainder of the year. SHOREWOOD further agrees that the fee reflected in this contract is in effect only for the calendar year 1998. Under no circumstances O-^O^O be obhg^^^^^^^ Tgagcd elsewhere, (2) when road or weather conditions consutute a hazard, (3) when providing assistance would expose any person to unreasonable risks. The time and manner in which service is rendered, the ^^DRONO let-rtr^i:r:;tdXg\t:^rct^^^^ -oimg, nmess, vacation, etc.). 15. 16. 17. 18. basedl the historical total of 60 impounds per year for the participating cities. COUNCIL request FOR COUNCIL ACTION JAN ^ ^ DATE: ITEM NO: --------------- , Administrator Reviewea:Department Approval: Name LinVee Title City Clerk Item Description: List of T for Council Approval Agenda Section: Licenses residential kennel LICENSE 1. Wayne E. and Gayle D. Carrier 1376 North Arm Dr 2. Jane Kline and Steve Bell 4455 West Branch Road 3. Tracey Morrow 3026 Casco Point Road 4. John Redmond 2695 Casco Point Road 5. Kenneth B. and Karen S. Rolland 4119 Oak Street 6. Judith A. Spinner 940 North Arm Drive CIGARETTE LICENSE 1. Richard Bloomquist Rick’s Super Valu 3333 Shoreline Drive 2. Steven Corl Navarre Liquors, Inc. 3421 Shoreline Drive 3. Jimmie Holtz Jimmie's Lounge 3380 Shoreline Drive 4. LeRoyKoehnen Navarre Amoco 3360 Shoreline Drive 5. Richard Kohn Wayzata Country Club 200 Wayzata Boulevard COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed licenses. 6. John O'Sullivan O'Sullivans 1 (Convenience Store) 2420 Shadywood Road 7. John O'Sullivan O’Sullivans II (Convenience Store-Culvers) 3340 Shoreline Drive 8. William Wear Orono Self Service 2160 Wayzata Boulevard 9. Grant Wenkstem Lakeview Golf of Orono, Inc, 405 North Arm Drive «rr .L--". - - . f KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Efifective January 1,19f5 to December 31,19 .N# O^ir? lA'i^VKJc B > ^ 6/yy^e_2Z—--- Property Address: /3'V . . /Vc^u/^p , (include city and zip) Mailing Address (if different):------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phone: («»*)_____----------------------------------- RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: S25.00 (payment must accompany application)14V —-----------------^ Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: ^------------------------— ---------— (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: /iPy^<^ >l 7^/.g /Purpose for more than 2 dogs: Dogs normally kept: inside____^kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: SI50.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business :. Business Activities: 4- ch.L*r*> inside outside both Normal Business Hours:. After Hours Contact: (name). (phone). Dog runs/exercise areas are: _______ _____ — The undersigned hereby makes appUcalion to the Orono City CouncU for a Kennel License m specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel hcense is P*™”"® does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City OrdinMce or '»* ° regulation" the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the f ®™®®* P"°J^“ license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel Ucense approval. Applicant / / h Date For C.itv Use Only JKennel inspected by Recommends Approva l ly' Denial^ Date .J’n KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective Januaiy 1,19 to December 31.19 iJAN 6 1998 Owner;J/4A/S Kt-iA/e ^aJP ST£i/e 6ei-L Ororx> Property Address: VV^-^ P / 4i,i /-fAy. SS's (include city and zip) • Mailing Address (if different): ^SS~ uv (lA____Cf\nor>\. Phone: (horrg) ________(work) So^'SoS/_________ RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: S2S.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: ~\_____________________________ (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: \NNkVcX Purpose for more than 2 dogs: \<s-t<v\LA Dogs normally kept: ^ inside____^kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: S150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: Business Activities: (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours: After Hours Contact: (name). (phone). Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 inc’uding any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. /t'lvy /|^plicant li'. For City Use Only Kennel inspected by Recommends Approval Denial Date / /<? /<9 / r ciT'^ rr ' 1.1 > pr'. ' • I . • I ; ^ . . ll • kennel license application ^ Effective January 1,19 ^9^ to December 31,19J1?,-JAN 6 1998 Owner: T'rade^ x^or>fo^C> Property Address; 3»ba.Lg CftSto -ft M (include city and zip) Mailing Address (if different)---------------------------------------------------- Phone: (home) 47)-QI _____(«ork)------ residential Kennel License F<ee: S25.00 ;> (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time;_____^--------------------------- (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed:._________^ A / Purpose for more than 2 dogs;_____ ____^kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business:^__________ Business Activities;. Normal Business Hours: (example; boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) After Hours Contact; (name). (phone). Dog runs/excrcise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as speeded on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is perrmssive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the premises pnor to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. Applicant ^Date For City Use Only Kennel injectedhy A, fT Date Recommends Approva l 4^ Denial^ r KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Efifective January 1,19___to December 31,19. Own«r To M _________________ D] flM Property Address: 2 ^ ^ ^ C.ASCC> Pf" J ^ ^ ^ (include city and zfp) Mailing Address (if different);_____________ 3 0 1997 Phone; fhomel ___________(work) L> RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: $25.00 (payment must accompany application) . Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: _______________ (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: S Purpose for more than 2 dogs: Dogs normally kept: inside____^kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business;__________________ Business Activities; (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours: After Hours Contact: (name). (phone). Dog runs/exercise areas are: _inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special Recommends Approva l ^ Denial^ I ----------------------------‘ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- g ----------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------........h.Aj Aiaa 11*1111. « a. A a •*«««« ^aiia r KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1,1 9iV to December 31. 1 9^^ n*"CCIVCD Owner: Q tr ^Larein S (Xollo«vM / Property Address: OCltL Sir 2 1997 Mailing Address (if different): (include city and zip) same Phone: (home)17{» Clixurt^ RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: S2S.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time:___4 (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: 3 \Spanx.( Purpose for more than 2 dogs:.Pejh3 Chisi^kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: S150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: Business Activities: (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours: After Hours Contact: (name). (phone) Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any. special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. Applicant \^' t‘1 - Date For City Use Only Kennel inspected by Recommends Approval Denial Date Owner: KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION ^ Effective January 1,19 to December 31,19 9? l)pn > . '^^99? • Q£-q Property Address: 9*io l^^xoc. ^ fy\ou./^ci ^ At i <oogscf~A (include city and zip) Mailing Address (if different):____________________________________^_____________ Phone: (home) -V7J-.A/r >>(work) 37^/So RESIDENTIAL Kennel License Fee: S25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: (over 6 months of age) Principal Breed: « Coci^e.< ^ sM«h >z»4-S Purpose for more than 2 dogs:__£|£££ Dogs normally kept: ^ inside____^kennel structure COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: SI50.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: Business Activities: (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) Normal Business Hours: After Hours Contact: (name) (phone) Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any. special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. lA jjc X.oA plicant Date For City Use Only Kennel inspected by Date /h/^y Recommends Approva l Denial^ I t » '>■I r I 1 r APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES (Ordinance No. 164, Second Series - Adopted 12/08/97) I m Make check payable to: City of Orono 8 8 Mailing address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 >S i2 G3cn FEE: $100.00 (February 1-January 31)/- DATE 1. Applicant's Full Name FIRST DOLE LAS^ 2. Applicant's Home Address N zn Qh/ Qh ;r . /HOUSE.NUMBER -----H------- ff CITY V STREET HOME PHONE STATE 3.^/a~^7l-S^73Applicant's Business . TYPE OF BUSINESS /) / ( BUSINESS PHONE ^/) J -/) -R-nm-s t T^r. .nRO A.u^/Uln 3 ??? BUSINESS NAME ' ^ STFSTREET ADDRESS 3332 /V/0 MAILING ADDRESS CITY 4.Describe how the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device between the customer and the licensee oremployee takes y /fe>rO Detween tne cu^ place. Ph0/vlfi.r (F^^rry^ 3Cj A ^ c ^_rz5. U/J<Amfi^j^ I HEREBY MAKE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO. TOBACCO PRODUCTS. OR TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES AT THE ABOVE LOCATION SUBJECT THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY Z Date The issuance of a license under this ordinance shall be considered a privilege and not an absolute right of the applicant and shall not entitle the holder to an automatic renewal of the license. 121tS7.3 on iuiirnxT^ 1. 2. 3. ‘ » 4. Ok O iKt *■ ^ APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES (Ordinance No. 164, Second Series - A'dopted 12/08/97) o?5CHiVED Make check payable to: Citj- of Orono J&N 0 8 W98 Mailing address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, 5532X'‘»'^ ORONO FEE: $100.00 (February 1-January 31) DATE FIRST isant's Full Name MIDDLE C LAST Applicant's Home Address 'ov V VO cS >^USe NUMBER STREET C'TY hAJE ziP^ HOME PHONE Applicant's Business . TYPE OF tion,iiic BUSINESS 4716800 Vk . ^ ^ BUSINESS PHONE STREET ADDRESS iS;^Lss^'^CITY Doscribo how tho actual physical oxchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or __________At.. ________n ..... . ’ / HEREBY MAKE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO. TOBACCO PRODUCTS, OR TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES AT THE ABOVE LOCATION SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ORONO. v/ 6 At Dfte f 77ie Issuance of a license ur^er this ordinance shall be considered a privilege and not an absolute right of the applicant snd shsll not entiUo tho holder to en eutometic renewef of the ttcense. 1211973 V t ' K- 1. 3. 4. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES m (Ordinance No. 164, Second Scries • Adopted 12/08/97) Make check payable to: City of Orono Mailing address: P.O.Box 66 ^ Crystal Bay, MN 55323 w»r FEE: $100.00 (February 1-January 31)/- 7-?y DATE Apolicant's Full Name J fii //p//t:- FIRST MIDDLE LAST 2. Applicant's Home Address '7dii/z:n^a'rrH\!C>. HOUSE NUMBER STREET HOME PHONE CITY STATE Applicant's Business TYPE OF BUSINESS BUSINESS PHONE S/^^>K€U aI^ D/i. BUSINESS NAME STREET ADDRESS DR.^A)/Ap:it£ /lM MAILING ADDRESS CITY Describe how the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device between the customer and the licensee or employee takes place, kfCu'^s^^fs tfJMkyrf: P (;ur.:r/C. K€pyji:'^^:>Phi}-06€^ /AlScPjT'^ rUAKiCrF IA< /l1Ac4l/hie ly}f4tcH r>j j<€<::r/.y //U f/^F Tyhi^Xt^NDP^iL AMD VENDS rHE-AtCA'PJt TrS ,____________________ / HEREBY MAKE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO. TOBACCO PRODUCTS. OR TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES AT THE ABOVE LOCATION SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ORONO. Signatare-f *Date The Issuance of a license under this ordinance shaO be considered a privilege and not an absr^ute right of the applicant and shall not entitle the holder to an automatic renewtJ of the license. 121197 3 1 I i APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES Wi (Ordinance No. IM, Second Series - Adopted 12/08/97) , 'TiP -rO?40 Mailing address: P.O. Box 66 . Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Make check payable to: City of Orono FEE: $100,00 (February 1-January 31)DATE Applicant's Full Name f Irst Z Applicant's Home Address MIDDLE HOUSE NUMBER STREET h6me phone CITY STATE Applicant's Business TYPE OF BUSINESS BUSINESS PHONE ^ fSINESS NAME STREET ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS CITY ZIP Describe how the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco ?I tobacco related dovi^betwe^ thec^mer and the licensee or employee takes place. t ---------------------------------------------------- / HEREBY MAKE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE ^ELL TOEAC^^ OF ORQ Signature Date 121107.3 2. 4. m iSAWt APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES (Ordinance No. 164, Second Series - A'dopted 12/08/97) Make check payable to: City of Orono Mailing address; r.u. dox oo Crystal Bay, MN 553233*^'^ C\''< or AFEE: $100.00 (February 1-January 31)DATE 1. Applicant’s Full Name tChft-A FIRST Applicant’s Home Address Nl.in ^ JiL MIDDLE LAST HOUSE NUMBER fi\Jr>t0uTt_ STREET HOME PHONE CITY STATE 3. Applicant's Business luA^ ^C.Lul> TYPE OF BUSINESS lL)a.\)3juffi’ (L.'Uf'ftj Q.Lu.1} business name (p.(T^. /a BUSINESS PHONE M}() (n, STREET ADDRESS rrj 9/ MAILING ADDRESS CITY Describe how the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device between the customer and tlw licensee or employee takes place. Ss, Qk, />•//' —vJtfco /i kuft — / HEREBY MAKE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO, PRODUCTS. OR TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES AT THE ABOVE LOCATIC^ TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ORONO. /uM^k. Signature Date 77>e Issuance of a license under this ordinance shall be considered a privilege arid not an absolute right of the applicant and Shan not entitle the holder to an automatic renewal of the license. 121197 3 2. 3. 4. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES (Ordinance No. 164, Second Series - A^dopted 12IQSI97) Make check payable to: City of Orono 0 Mailing address: P.O. Box 66 '' - Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ^ FEE: $100.00 (February 1-January 31) 1. AppIjest's Full Name FIRST s l-uil OkCA i)A-p LAST Applicant's Home Address JMSiR *HOUSE NUMBER * STREET \f(^ M aJ (f OTATc r *yio V home phone ' STATE Applicant's Business __ TYPE OF BUSINESS O ^ Sull UJA aJS BUSINESS NAME 'eUSINESS^HONE f\ V STREET ADDRESS 9oX 6^ i^jyf/Z -- FILING ADDRESS ' / ^ CTTY (^ > ' ' ilP Describe how the actual physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device between the customer and the licensee or employ^ takes place. DJLAAJ^^yfynyOj r I HEREBY MAKE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO. TOBACCO PRODUCTS. OR TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES AT THE ABOVE LOCATION SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND THE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF ORONO. Signature Vv^iVVv. Date ‘I r The issuance of a license under this ordinance shaJi be considered a privilege and not an absolute right of the appftcant and shall not entitle the holder to an automatic renemi of the license. 121197.3 rrmtii i ■ APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES (Ordinance No. 164. Second Series - A'dopted U/08/97) Make check payable to: City of Orono s O -m-* Mailing address: ^ „ ,™ jCrystal Bay, MN 55323 « FEE: $100.00 (February 1-January 31) 14- J~/a/ 3^ _ DATE Applicant’s Full Name i(JL( FIRST MIDDLE LAST Applicant’s Home Address, i . \ A/- AnnKWA-rU Hilj.iia- ^13-Aozo HOUSE NUMBER ■053545 HOME PHONE CITY STATE Applicant’s Business 7>oAvjiejuc TYPE OF BUSINESS ' \ H n-rnho ^i-t* BUSINESS NAME ?.r>.\^oY ^045 business phone , aUsQW V STREET ADDRESS 65354. mailing ADDRESS ’ j ♦ or Describe how the actual physical takes place ____f)/L Tiiim i«a I HEREBY MAKE THEfBOVE°i^Av6NSU^E3 OF ORONO. 'ifjiJyMO 'Ilf’/iL Im/ 'Ylntth ifMMMuli jj. ^a.^3 S Date 77,0 /«uan'ce 1J1197.3 r ^1- 21 Jan 1998 Hed 9:32 AN Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 043831 043831 BORIS, SCOTT W. Totals Check Number 043831 Check Number 043832 043832 CARLSON, MICHAEL &, Totals Check Number 043832 Check Number 043833 043833 CHESHICK, GARY B Totals Check Number 043833 Check Number 043834 043834 CORNICK, JAMES L. Totals Check Number 043834 Check Number 043835 043835 SKI, JAY C. Totals Check Number 04383S Check Number 043836 043836 ENGLISH III, IRVING H. Totals Check Number 043836 Check Number 043837 043837 ERICKSON, KURT R Totals Check Number 043837 Check Number 043838 043838 PARNIOK, CORREY L. Totals Check Number 043838 Check Number 043839 043839 FISCHENICH, DAN T Totals Check Number 043839 Check Number 043840 Check Date 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 Page 2 Check Amount 886.68 886.68 99.61 99.61 1,538.72 1,538.72 1,160.89 1,160.89 1,195.37 1,195.37 80.04 80.04 1,220.58 1,220.58 825.58 825.58 1,121.97 1,121.97 II !!■■■ II 111 L.ntwf V'-k J 21 Jan 1998 Med 9:32 AM Check Register City of Orono Hieck Number Employee Name Oieck NUs^r 043840 043840 HANSING, CAROL J. Totals Check Number 043840 Check Number 043841 043841 JOHNSON, BRADLEY P Totals Check Number 043841 Check Number 043842 043842 KNOLLENBERG, KRISTIN L. Totals Check Number 043842 Cheek Number 043843 043843 LLY« STEVEN A. Totals Check Number 043843 Check Number 043844 043844 MCNICHOLS. DAVID L, Totals Check Number 043844 Check Number 043845 043845 MOROWCZYNSKI* JAMES Totals Check Number 043845 Check Number 043846 043846 PERSELL, WILLIAM R. Totals Check Number 043846 Check Number 043847 043847 SCHOENHOFF, JOHN B Totals Check Number 043847 Qltck NUiiher 043848 043848 THOKTON, MARK R. Totals Check Number 043848 Check Number 043849 Check Date 14-Jan-98 l4-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 Page 3 Check Amount 375.05 375.05 976.13 976.13 629.85 629.85 255.64 255.64 437.21 437.21 1,589.86 1,589.86 251.53 251.53 1,163.43 1,163.43 836.38 836.38 t I 21 Jan 1998 Ned 9:32 AM Checic Ragistar City of Orono ChacR Munbar Employee Name Check Number 043849 043849 TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F, Totals Check Number 043849 Check Number 043850 043850 TOMCZYK« HMK N. Totals Check Number 043850 Oieck Number 043851 043851 FISCHER. CHRISTOPHER K. Totals Check Number 043851 Check Number 043852 043852 NITTKE, ANTHONY A. Totals Check Number 043852 Check Nui*0>er 043853 043853 BRESSLER, BRADLEY J. Totals Check Number 043853 Check Number 043854 043854 OAFFRON. MICHAEL P Totals Check Number 043854 Check Number 043855 043855 OAPPA. GREGORY A. Totals Check Number 043855 Check Number 043854 043854 OMAN. LYLE E Totals Check Number 043854 Check Number 043857 043857 Z : ELIZABETH Totals Check Number 043857 Check N^anber 0438S8 Check Date 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 Page 4 Check Amounc 312.89 312.89 1.316.35 1.316.36 111.78 111.78 282.18 282.18 351.77 351.77 1.122.49 1.122.49 1.503.46 1.503.46 1.085.52 1.085.52 1.102.48 1.102.48 ■ a 21 Jan 1998 Had 9x32 AM Check Register City of Orono Chack Number Efiqployee Name Check Number 043858 043858 VANG* BRUCE L. Totals Check Number 043858 Check Number 043859 043859 HECKMAN* STEPHEN J. Totals Check Number 043859 Chadc Number 043860 043860 BRINKHAOS, JOHN P Totals Check Number 043860 Check Number 043861 043861 DEBAERB* DONALD L. Totals Check Number 043861 Check Number 043862 043862 GREGORY* JAMES D Totals Check Number 043862 Check Number 043863 043863 HANSEN* STEVEN C. Totals Check Number 043863 Check Number 043864 043864 OBERAICDIER* SCOTT 0. Totals Check Number 043864 Check Number 043865 043865 OBRIEN* RANDY L. Totals Check Number 043865 Check Number 043866 043866 PALMER* GREGORY A. Totals Check Number 043866 Check Number 043867 Check Date 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 l4-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 14-Jan-98 . l4-Jan-98 Page 5 Check Amount 973.76 973.76 58.12 58.12 1*052.38 1*052.38 827.27 827.27 647.60 647.60 705.83 705.83 668.60 668.60 231.83 231.83 595.85 595.85 ' t 1 21 Jan 1998 Wad 9:32 AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 043867 043867 RATHBUN. BARRY J. Totals Check Number 043867 Qltck Number 043868 043868 SKREBN, DALE S. Totals Check Number 043868 Check Number 043869 043869 ROSS, JOHN A. Totals Check Number 043869 Check Number 043870 043870 STEFFBNRAGSN, RONALD E. Totals Check Number 043870 Grand Total Page 6 Check Date Check Amount 14-Jan-98 *1,012.85 1,012.85 14 u-98 618.70 61S.70 14-Jan-98 95.91 95.91 14-Jan-98 1,051.12 1,051.12 37,658.00 ^ e J r I: Ned 9i3S AM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Employee Name Check Number 043815 043815 PETERSON, BARBARA A. Totals Check Number 043815 Check Number 043816 043816 NOORSE, RONALD J. Totals Check Number 043816 Check Number 043817 043817 FLINT, RICHARD Totals Check Number 043817 Check Number 043818 043818 GOETTEN, J. DIANN Totals Check Number 043818 Check Number 043819 043819 JABBOUR, GABRIEL E. Totals Check Number 043819 Check Number 043820 043820 KELLEY, CHARLES Totals Check Number 043820 Grand Total Check Date 12-Jan-98 12-Jan-98 12-Jan-98 12-Jan-98 12-Jan-98 12-Jan-98 Page 1 Check Amount 269.36 269.36 184.70 184.70 269.36 269.36 269.36 269.36 323.22 323.22 269.36 269.36 1,585.36 22 Jan 1998 rhu 5 :04 PM Check Number Check NuirO^r 55514 55514 Check Register City of Orono Page 1 Date Name 55514 A fc T UPHOLSTERY CO 22-Jan-98 A & T UPHOLSTERY CO •?' *ar 3 A T UPHOLSTERY CO Totals Check Humber 55514 A fc T UPHOLSTERY CO Check Numoer 55515 ALL STAR ELECTRIC 55515 2.'».-Jan-98 ALL STAR ELECTRIC 55515 22-Jan-98 ALL STAR ELECTRIC 55515 22-Jan-98 ALL STAR ELECTRIC 55515 22-Jan-98 ALL STAR ELECTRIC 55515 22-Jan-98 ALL STAR ELECTRIC 55515 22-Jan-98 ALL STAR ELECTRIC 55515 21-Jan-98 ALL STAR ELECTRIC 55515 21-Jan-98 ALL STAR ELECTRIC 55515 22-Jan-98 ALL STAR ELECTRIC Totals Check Nuinber 55515 ALL STAR ELECTRIC Check Number 55516 55516 55516 AMEM ll-Jul-96 22-Jan-98 AMEM AMEM Totals Check Number 55516 AMEM 55517 ASSOC OF METRO MUNICIPALITIES 22-Jan-96 ASSOC OF METRO MUNICIPALITIES T^/nls Check Number 55517 ASSOC OF METRO MUNICIPALITIES nieck Number 55518 AT 6 T • Check Number 55517 55518 22-uan-98 AT & T - Totals Check Number 55518 AT & T - Check Number 55519 BONESTROO ROS^ k ASSOC. 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-:»8 22-Jan-9l 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTRO'^ ROLENS ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE ROSENE k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. k ASSOC. Transaction Amount 85.00 85.00 170.00 30.00 277.03 164.07 2,664.00 166.00 197.86 174.13 185.02 178.82 4,036.93 20.00 20.00 40.00 Totals Check Number 55519 BONESTRCX) ROSENE k ASSOC 11,614.94 80.00 248.04 4.834.26 613.98 6.065.26 320.00 560.00 55.00 24,411.48 Comments REBUILD DRIVERS SEAT REBUILD DRIVERS SEAT PERMIT LS #1AGE WIRING - GARAGE SOUND SYSTEM UG WIRING PD/GARAGE GARAGE LAMPS FLAG POLE LIGHT REPAIRS CTY 6, WILLOW FLAG POLE LIGHT REPAIR RODENT DAMAGE TOMCHECK-AMa< CONFERENCE 1998 DUES DUES 1998 DEC LONG DISTANCE WETLAND INVENTORY 82 WELL «2 ADMIN NOV BYRDG/BRKT RFP 84 BYRDG/BRKT NOV ADDL RFP 85 NLL/LLCC NLL/LLCC NOV ADDL I/I NAVARRE-CASCO PT 1/1 SAGA HILLS-FOREST LK MISC MSA NOV n *Ti> 22 Jan 1990 Thu 5:04 PM Check Number Check Number 55529 Check Register City of Orono Page 3 Date Name 55529 ESI COMMUNICATIONS 22-Jan-98 ESI COMMUNICATIONS Totals Check Number 55529 ESI COMMUNICATIONS Check Number 55530 FEDEX 55530 55530 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 FEDEX FEDEX Totals Check Number 55530 FEDEX Check Number 55531 FIRSTAR TRUST CO.. 22-Jaii-98 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 Totals Check Number FIRSTAR TRUST CO.. FIRSTAR TRUST CO.. FIRSTAR TRUST CO.. FIRSTAR TRUST CO.. FIRSTAR TRUST CO.. 55531 FIRSTAR TRUST CO.. Transaction Amount 21.97 49,159.70 150,787.50 129,264.78 132,350.84 81,084.38 542,647.20 Comments TRAVAL & LABOR PACKAGE TO FLINT PACKAGE TO FLINT INTEREST DUE 2/1/90 PRINCIPAL DUE 2/1/98 DEBT DUE 2/1/98 DEBT DUE 2/1/98 DEBT DUE 2/1/98 [V Check Number 55532 Q &K SERVICES 55532 22-Jan-98 G & K SERVICES 93.27 UNIFORMS 55532 22-Jan-98 G 1 K SERVICES 12.15 UNIFORM RENTAL 55532 22-Jan-98 G « K SERVICES 5.93 UNIFORM RENTAL 55532 22-Jan-98 G a K SERVICES 62.55 UNIFORM RENTAL 55532 22-Jan-98 G a K SERVICES 12.15 UNIFORM RENTAL 55532 22-Jan-98 G a K SERVICES 5.93 UNIFORM RENTAL Totals Check Number >5532 G a K SERVICES 191.98 Check Number 55533 GALL'S INC. 55533 22-Jan-98 GALL'S INC.134.98 BATES BOOTS Totals Check Number 55533 GALL'S INC.134.98 Check Number 55534 GARY'S DIESEL SERVICE INC. 55534 21-Jtn-98 GARY'S DIESEL SERVICE INC.61.66 REPAIR Totals Check Number 55534 GARY'S DIESEL SERVICE INC.61.66 Check Number 55536 GENUINE PARTS CO. 55536 22-Jan-98 GENUINE PARTS CO. *1.24 PRESTO 55536 22-Jan-98 GENUINE PARTS CO.9.44 HEADLIGHT 55536 22-Jan-9fl GENUINE PARTS CO.16.48 MISC SUPPLIES 55536 22-Jan-98 GENUINE -PARTS CO.12.65 OIL 55536 22-Jan-98 GENUINE PARTS CO.6.37 ADAPTER a CHUCK r 22 Jan 1998 Thu 5:04 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 55552 55552 55552 55552 55552 55552 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 22-Jan-90 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 22-Jan-98 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 22-Jan-98 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 22-Jan-90 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 22-Jan-98 MN DEPT OF HEALTH Totals Check Number 55552 MN dept of health Check Number 55553 MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 22-Jan-98 MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY55553 Totals Check Number 55553 MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Check Number 55554 MN/SCIA 55554 22-Jan-98 MN/SCIA Totals Check Number 55554 MN/SCIA Check Number 55555 MPLS DEPT OF HEALTH fc FAMILY 55555 21-Jan-98 MPLS DEPT OF HEALTH & FAMILY Totals Check Number 55555 MPLS DEPT OP HEALTH k FAMILY Transaction Amount 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 425.00 24.00 24.00 18.00 18.00 174.50 174.50 Page 6 Comments REGISTRATION HATER SCHOOL REGISTRATION HATER SCHOOL REGISTRATION HATER SCHOOL REGISTRATION HATER SCHOOL REGISTRATION HATER SCHOOL EMISSION TEST FEE 1998 DUES LAB ANALYSES Check Number 55558 NAVARRE HARDHARE 55558 22-Jan-90 NAVARRE HARDHARE 6.78 REFLECTIVE LETTERS 55558 22-Jan-98 NAVARRE HARDHARE 6.07 BOLTS 55558 22-Jan-98 NAVARRE HARDHARE 46.64 EXT CORD 55550 22-Ja *1-98 NAVARRE HARDHARE 0.95 KEY 55558 22-Jan-98 NAVARRE HARDHARE 2.44 BATTERY 55558 22-Jan-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE -19.16 MISC SUPPLIES 55550 22-Jan-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 82.54 MISC SUPPLIES 55558 22-Jan-90 NAVARRE HARDWARE 24.48 ENAMEL 55550 22-Jan-90 NAVARRE HARDWARE 6.54 KEYS 55550 22-Jan>98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 14.70 FUEL ISLAND DECKING 55558 22-Jan-90 NAVARRE HARDWARE 15.96 LIGHT BULBS 55558 22-Jan-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 32.56 FUEL ISLAND DECKING 55558 22-Jan-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 3.96 SCREWS k WASHERS 55558 22-Jan-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 7.22 REFLECTIVE TAPE 55558 22-Jan-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 2.51 BATTERY 55558 22-Jan-98 NAVARRE HARDHARE 10.05 BATTERY 55558 22-Jan-98 NAVARRE HARDHARE 1.28 CAPS 55558 22-Jan-96 NAVARRE HARDHARE 11.74 POLICE GEN T 55550 22-Jan-98 NAVARRE HARDHARE 23.40 SOCKETS t RACHET 55558 22-Jan-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 45.26 BULK WIRE 55558 22-Jan-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 9.07 MISC SUPPLIES 55550 22-Jan-98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 16.52 ELECT SUPPLIES 55558 22-Jan-98 NAVARRE HARDHARE 0.84 STREET ' I . . ■ • « 22 Jan 199B Thu 5:04 PM • Check Number Date Check Number 5E558 NAVARRE 55558 22-Jan-98 55558 22-Jan-98 55558 22-Jan-98 55558 22-Jan-98 55558 22-Jan-98 55558 22-Jan-98 55558 22-Jan-98 55558 22-Jan-98 55558 21 Jan-98 55558 22 Jan-98 55558 22- *an-98 55558 22-wan-98 Check Register City of Orono Name HARDWARE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE Totals Check Number 5555R NAVARRE HARDWARE Check Number 55559 NORTH S'fAR CHAPTER I.C.B.O. 55559 22.J«n-98 NORTH STAR CHAPTER I.C.B.O Totals Check Number 55559 NORTH STAR CHAPTER I.C.B.O. Check NUfi^r 55560 NSP 55560 55560 55560 55560 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 NSP NSP NSP NSP Totals Check Number 55560 NSP Check Number 55561 OFFICE DEPOT 55561 55561 55561 21-Jan-98 21-Jan-98 21-Jan-98 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT Totals Check NiWiber 55561 OFFICE DEPOT Check Number 55562 PERA LIFE INSURANCE 55562 22-Jan-98 PERA LIFE INSURANCE Totals Check Number 55562 PERA LIFE INSURANCE r Check Number 55563 POSTMASTER 55563 22-Jan-98 POSTMASTER ^ Totals Check Number 55563 POSTMASTER Jheck Number 55564 PRECISION TURF 55564 22-Jan-98 PRECISION TURF Transaction Amount 2.69 7.00 36.09 18.70 9.15 26.57 75.60 32.80 11.16 1.59 14.02 49.71 638.43 45.00 45.00 1,177.50 28.58 76.92 135.28 1,418.28 156.00 156.00 36.00 36.00 1,096.73 Page 7 Comments BOLTDS SUPPLIES MISC SUPPLIES MISC SLT>PLIES LACQUER THINNER POLICE GEN SHOP SUPPLIES POLICE GEN CABLE TIES CONNECTORS MAINT SUPPLIES MISC PAINT k ELECT 1998 DUES STREET LIGHTING DEC DEC BLBC DEC ELEC HIWAY 12/WILLOW 12.77 OFFICE SUPPLIES 7.72 OFFICE SUPPLIES 204.38 OFFICE SUPPLIES 224.87 JANUARY LIFE INS ANNUAL BOX RENTAL CHEMICALS k TOWELS 1 i • ¥l t ■■ 1 I ■r ...A ■. 22 Jan 1998 Thu 5:04 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name Check Number 55564 PRECISION TURF Totals Check Number 55564 PRECISION TURF Check Number 55565 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES 55565 22-Jan-98 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES Totals Check Number 55565 ROLF ERICKSON ENTERPRISES Check Number 55566 RON OLSON 55566 2l-Jan-98 RON OLSON Totals Check Number 55566 RON OLSON Check Number 55567 SCHARBER k SONS 55567 21-Jan-98 SCHARBER k SONS Totals Check Number 55567 SCHARBER k SONS Check Number 55568 SEARS 55568 22-Jan-98 SEARS Totals Check Number 55568 SEARS Check Number 55569 SEW LIKE NEW 55569 21-Jan-98 SEW LIKE NEW Totals Check Number 55569 SEW LIKE NEW Check Number 55570 STATE OF MINNESOTA 55570 22-Jan-96 STATE OF MINNESOTA Totals Check Number 55570 STATE OF MINNESOTA Check Number 55571 STATE OF MINNESOTA - BCA 55571 22-Jan-98 STATE OF MINNESOTA - BCA Totals Check Number 55571 STATE OF MINNESOTA - BCA Check Number 55572 STREICHERS 55572 22-Jan-98 STREICHERS Totals Check Number 55572 STREICHERS Check Number 55573 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 55573 22-Jan-98 UNIFORMS ’’VI IMirt-n Transaction Amount 1.096.73 6.843.30 6.843.30 0.54 0.54 1.665.66 1.665.66 87.76 87.76 65.00 65.00 510.00 510.00 253.45 253.45 196.40 Page 8 Comments FEBRUARY ASSESSING FEE 6.82 MILEAGE 6.82 WASHER TOOLS STATE REGISTER TRIAL STATE CCMPUTOR TRAINING AMMO FL'SHLIGHT k HOLDER r y > ! ' > I 1 1. :2 Jan 1998 rhu S!04 PM Check Register City of Orono Check Number Date Name rheck Number 55573 55573 55573 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 22-Jan-98 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 22-Jan-98 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Totals Check Number 55573 uniforms unlimited Check Number 55574 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE 55574 55574 55574 55574 22-Jan-9S 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE UNUM LIFE INSURANCE UNUM LIFE INSURANCE UNUM LIFE INSURANCE LIFE LIFE LIFE LIFE Totals Check Number 55574 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - LIFE Check Number 55575 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - AD fc D 55575 55575 55575 55575 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE UNUM LIFE INSURANCE UNUM LIFE INSURANCE UNUM LIFE INSURANCE AD a D AD 4 D AD 4 D AD 4 D Totals Check Number 55575 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE - AD 4 D Check Number 55576 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 55576 55576 55576 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COfWUNICATIONS US WEST CO^«UNICATIONS Totals Checic Number 55576 US WEST CO^«UNICATIONS Check Humber 55577 VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH 55577 22-J«n-98 VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH Totals Check Humber 55577 VAN ZOMEREN, ELIZABETH Check Number 55578 VHR SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS 55578 22-Jan-98 VHR SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS Totals Check Number 5557B VHR SCIEKTIPIC PRODUCTS Check Number 55579 HIDMER INC 55579 22-Jan-98 HIDMER INC Totals Check Number 55579 HIDMER INC Number 55580 WOLF, TED AND MYRNA 55580 22-Jan*98 WOLF, TED AND MYRNA Transaction Amount 12.46 10.49 219.35 0.15 2.64 1.13 78.40 82.32 45.94 88.75 39.35 174.w4 27.20 27.20 95.95 95.95 503.00 503.00 2,700.00 Page 9 Comments WONDER BUTTONS COLLAR LETTERS - MCNALLY 0.70 LIFE INS 12.34 LIFE INS 5.29 LIFE INS 365.75 LIFE INS 384.08 DECEMBER DECEMBER DECQOBER MILEAGE 4 PARKING BOTL WM HDPE 11/21 REPLACED CURB STOP REFUND - ASSESSMENT RED 1: 22 Jan 1998 Thu 5:04 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 10 Check Number Date Name Transaction Amount Comments Check Number 55580 55580 WOLF, TED AND MYRNA 22-Jan-98 WOLF, TED AND MYRNA Totals Check Number 55580 WOLF, TED AND MYRNA 200.00 2,900.00 REFUND - OVERPAYMENT Check Number 55581 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 55581 55581 22-Jan-98 22-Jan-98 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 487.50 27.15 ICE ARENA tX5 CABLE LS ELEC DECEMBER Totals Check Number 55581 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 514.65 Grand Total 687.421.58 I 22 Jan 1998 Thu 5:04 PM Check Register City of Orono Page 11 Finance User Initials RJO Thursday 22 January 1998 5:03 PM Start 5:04 PM Finish Buffer Name History Records Read Records Selected Number of Pages 1959 169 11 Selected by Check/receipt Date Greater Than 25-Jan-98 And Check/receipt Date Less Than 27-Jan-98 Sorted by Check RumL'sr Totals No Page Breaks r 1 INFORMATION ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING i i COUNCIL f/i££TlNG JAN 2 6 1998 OF CnVOFORONO J i Quest Real Estate. Inc. Quest Development, Inc. COu.\ 2 5 Cnvof ORONO Wednesday, January 14,1998 Mike Gaffron Orono City Offices 2750 Kelley Parkwway P.O. Box 66 Orono. MN 55323 Dear Mike: After considerable review on the subject. It has bec^e apparent projects In Orono are not economically viable, under ^e present *^**'***^*^‘]®'’®^^*^^ drawing both applications as of this date. Please refund to us any unused portion of the fees already collected by the city for these project applications. While the process has been difficult at times, it has been good working ^h you and other city staff, as we were s'vvays treated fairly and courteously. Good luck In the future. Sincerely, Jim Waters COO ^)S { 10700 Old County Road IS • Suit# ISO • Plymouth. MinnesoU 55441 • Tel. OU-SOS-OSl I • Fax 6I2-505-05I2 r January 13,1998 4:08 PM From: AMM Fax#: Page 2 of 2 AMM FAX NEWS COUNCIL JAM 2 0 1998 cn y ci uRONo 0mm Aiiociation of Metropolitan Municipalities January 12-16.1998 AHtifaHm H ^ci iei$ii(alf t$ aty Btu$m Mi iMtiMm Ihe $n, cmaluti it iffis $ria t$ hap tffdffi if nopittiBt atm dtp Hsaa (^it( iggSAhH ipfltaimutpAmeffat it. PM nilipofiim ykplmtiii40oo fix iSiugg [am MMefttm^M m Legislators want more contact with local officials I egislators would like more Lcontact with their local elected officials, according to a recent survey conducted on behalf of the AMM. JMS Communications & Re­ search conducted a survey this fall of 18 legislators to learn how the relationship betweer, local officials and their legislators can be improved. One factor prompting the AMM to conduct the survey was a perceived shift of legislators’ view of local government as being a partner in problem solving to being "just another special interest group." It seems legislators would agree that reiotior...hipi have atrophied, but that communica­ tion would help the situation. According to one legislator, "As a whole, I think relationships have deteriorated. People are not getting together and talking • legislators ond local officials. There ought to be a lot more dialogue." Another legislator said, "The mayor and city manager should visit their legislators. If elected officiols worked together better, it would help." Two oth ^r themes which emerged from the survey are: ♦ AMM should spend more energy fostering relationships with legislators. ♦ AMM should be more proac­ tive, rather than reactive. As far as AMM’s role, the legisla­ tive responses indicated that the AMM should "serve as a common communicator or bridge be­ tween legislators and local officials," and that the AMM needs to continue er.couraging more local officials to direcMy contact their representatives concerning the key issues of the city and the AMM organization as a whole. An executive summary of the survey report v'i!l be distributed to the membership in the next fe'.v weeks. In the meantime, the AMM will be gearing up its Legislative Contact System. A seminar highlighting key legislative issues and lobbying tips will be held at the AMM office on Tuesday. Feb. 3 from 4-6 p.m. More information will be mailed to you. Managers/administrators are encouraged to share this fa.< with your mayors and councilmembers. We believe it is vital to the interest of all cities to improve the relationship between legisla­ tors and local officials. PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED YEAR-TO-DATE REP(«T NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATS OF RUN 01/08/98 PERMIT TYPE Building SOL PAMILY-NEH SP-ADD/REMODEL SP-ACC STRUCTURE DEMO/PRINCIPAL COMMERCIAL-NBN COM-ADD/REMODBL COM-ACC STRUCTUR DEMO INST-ADD/REMODBL INST-ACC STRUCT PLAN RBVIBN ONLY DEMO-ACCESSORY ACC/OARAOES Sub-total Machanical HBATINO SYSTEMS AIR CONDITIONING WOOD STOVB/PLUB QTY 35 312 27 18 2 9 2 2 3 1 0 11 12 434* 132 13 •• 1 PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO JAN 2 6 1998 -- CURRENT RANGE - 01/01/97 - 12/31/97 BASE FEE VALUATION 70,147 87,489 5,660 990 3,024 3,329 575 100 2,010 29 0 360 2,731 176,446 .50 .22 .25 .00 .50 .00 .00 .00 .25 .25 .00 .00 .50 .47* 11,339 8,734 452 450 363 42 228 180 21,792 ,890 ,784 ,641 0 ,000 ,646 ,000 0 ,310 775 0 0 ,047 ,095 .65 .92 .60 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .80 .97* 12,427.10 661.01 35.00 958,303.38 47,045.00 2,500.00 FIREPLACE 68 2,601.06 132,608.55 VENTILATION 7 245.00 11,060.00 FUEL STORAGE 1 125.00 10,000.00 GAS LINE INSPECT 22 770.00 10,935.00 DUCT WORK ONLY 9 320.00 12,411.00 RBFRID/COMtBRCL 0 0.00 0.00 REMOVE OIL TANK 13 1,270.00 81,450.00 UNDEFINED 2 70.00 1,700.00 Sub-total 268*18,524.17*1,268,012.93* Pluabing FIXTURES 181 13,517.92 875,222.52 SPRINKLER 4 231.69 14,535.00 NATBR METER 11 2,058.99 0.00 VACUUM BREAKER 6 210.00 1,700.00 UNDEFINED 7 246.25 8,650.00 Sub-total 209*16,264.85*900,107.52* Sowar k Nator SBNBR CCMNBCTION 47 1,645.00 0.00 NATLR CONNECTION 4 140.00 0.00 NEW SEPTIC SYSTB 38 3,800.00 0.00 DRNFLD fc/OR TANK 4 250.00 0.00 SAC ONLY 34 30,400.00 0.00 SBNBR DISCONNECT 0 0.00 0.00 8BNER k NATBR 5 350.00 0.00 UNDEFINED 5 175.00 0.00 Sub-total 137*36,760.00*0.00* Sign PBRMAimiT/POSTED 0 oo•o0.00 PLAN REVIEW 45,595 43,575 3,644 0 1,965 494 105 0 499 19 0 0 1,775 97,676 .80 .86 .73 .00 .92 .81 .46 .00 .20 .01 .00 .00 .48 .27* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 CTY 43 261 29 12 2 7 0 2 3 0 1 3 PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: CAROLE -- PREVIOUS 01/01/96 - 12/31/96 BASE FEE 83.299.25 57.765.25 4,066.75 800.00 13,139.75 1,876.00 0.00 110.00 2,349.25 0.00 0.00 90.00 VALUATION 13,369,121.58 4,679,992.00 248.982.00 0.00 3,140,631.20 179.026.00 0.00 0.00 252.720.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21 4,364.75 302,592.00 384*167,861.00*22,173,064.78* 114 10,180.88 785,097.28 16 772.40 53,051.00 4 167.01 7,760.43 64 2,657.59 150,555.44 5 175.00 5,375.00 2 347.50 26,000.00 13 645.00 27,200.00 12 462.94 16,820.00 1 189.25 15,140.00 11 405.00 16,105.00 0 0.00 0.00 242*16,002.57*1,103,104.15* 163 11,653.89 739,868.47 0 0.00 0.00 11 2,457.90 2,750.00 0 0.00 0.00 4 140.00 1,150.00 170*14,251.79*743,768.47* 21 735.00 0.00 2 70.00 0.00 55 5,450.00 0.00 8 400.00 0.00 11 6,550.00 0.00 1 35.00 0.00 10 700.on 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 108*13,940.00*0.00* 1 35.00 0.00 PLAN REVIEW 54,144 28,575 2,410 0 8,540 496 0 0 0 0 1,714 0 2,650 98,532 .41 .49 .55 .00 .84 .60 .00 .00 .00 .00 .21 .00 .71 .81* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED YEAR-TO-DATE REPORT MBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OP RUH 01/08/98 PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OP OROIK> PAOBi 2 REQUESTER: CAROLE -- CURRENT RANGE - 01/01/97 - 12/31/97 -- PREVIOUS RANGE - 01/01/96 - 12/31/96 PBPMIT TYPE QTY BASS FBB VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FBB VALUATION PLAN REVIEN PER./FREE STAMDQ 3 118.25 3,300.00 0.00 2 366.50 24,305.00 0.00 TBMPCmARY 8 260.00 0.00 0.00 8 240.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 11*378.25*3,300.00*0.00*11*641.50*24,305.00*0.00* Fire _ __ FIRE SPRINKLER 1 140.00 11,200.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 FIRE SPRINKLER X 187.50 15,000.00 0.00 1 170.64 13,651.00 0.00 Sub-total 2*327.50*26,200.00*0.00*1*170.64*13,651.00*0.00* Uaar Defined LAND ALTERATION 21 1,075.00 0.00 0.00 23 1,300.00 0.00 0.00 TREE REMOVAL 4 120.00 0.00 0.00 5 150.00 0.00 0.00 RETAINING NALLS 1 62.25 2,000.00 0.00 4 396.00 29,790.00 0.00 DOCKS 3 90.00 2,500.00 0.00 2 60.00 0.00 0.00 LANN SPRINKLER 34 1,190.00 0.00 0.00 26 910.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 63*2,537.25^4,500.00*0.00*60*2,816.00*29,790.00*0.00* Grand-total 1,124**251,238.49**23,994,216.42**97,676.27**984**215,683.50**24,087,683.40**98,532.81** Hi PAERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED YEAR-TO-DATE RBP<»T NBR. BFBBRPT2-1 DATE OP RON 01/08/98 *• PERMIT FEB REPORT **’ CITY OF ORONO FROM 01/01/97 TO 12/31/97 BUILDING MECHANICAL PLUMBING SBNER t> WATER BASE FEB 176,446.47 18,524.17 16,264.85 36,760.00 PLAN RBVIBir 97,676.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 10,916.66 641.71 471.78 51.50 Lie. SEARCH FEB 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SAC 6,650.00 0.00 0.00 14,550.00 INVESTIGATION 2,801.00 35.00 225.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MAIL IN SBNER CONNECTION MAILING FEE MAIL IN 225.00 228.99 1.50 113.21 1.50 4.50 B8CROH 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL • •• • =94,715.40 19,431.37 17,076.34 51,366.00 REPORT NBR. BFEBRPT2- DATE OF RUN 01/08/98 1 • **•* PERMIT FEE REPORT ***** CITY OF ORONO FROM 01/01/97 TO 12/31/97 report total BASE FEB 251,238.49 PLAN REVIEW 97,676.27 SURCHARGE 12,112.25 Lie. SEARCH FEB 0.00 SAC 21.203.00 investigation 3,306.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 MAIL IN SEWER CCniNECTION HAILING FEB MAIL IN 353.70 225.00 1.50 1.50 ESCROW 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 386,114.71 USER 2,537.25 0.00 17.00 0.00 0.00 245.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 2,802.25 PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: CAROLE SIGN 378.25 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 FIRE 327.50 0.00 13.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 379.75 0.00 343.80 PAGE: 2 REQUESTER: CAROLE V PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED YEAR-TO-DATE REPORT KBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OP RUN 01/08/98 *•••* PERMIT ISSUED REPOP.P Ciiy OF ORONO PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: CAROLE -- CURRENT RANGE - 01/01/97 - 12/31/97 -- PREVIOUS RANGE - 01/01/96 - 12/31/96 PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW User Defined _ SUBDIVISION 15 17,935.00 0.00 O.no 13 8,420.00 0.00 0.00 VARIANCE 77 17,370.00 0.00 0.00 54 12,435.00 0.00 0.00 CUP 17 3,700.00 0.00 0.00 13 3,100.00 0.00 0.00 SKETCH PLAN 8 2,000.00 0.00 0.00 5 1,300.00 0.00 0.00 VARIANCE/CUP 3 795.00 0.00 0.00 7 1,940.00 0.00 0.00 VACATION 3 800.00 0.00 0.00 5 1,450.00 0.00 0.00 REZONINO 3 250.00 0.00 0.00 2 350.00 0.00 • 0.00 APPEAL 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 350.00 0.00 0.00 Sub-total 126*42,850.00*0.00*0.00*100*29,345.00*0.00*0.00* Grand-total 126^*42,850.00**0.00**0.00**100**29,345.00**0.00**0.00** REPORT HER. BFBBRPT2-1 DATE OP RUN 01/08/98 PERMIT FEE REPORT CITY OF ORONO FROM 01/01/97 TO 12/31/97 USER REPORT TOTAL BASE FEE 42,850.00 42,850.00 PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 Lie. SEARCH FEE 0.00 0.00 SAC 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 ESCROW 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 42,850.00 42,850.00 PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: CAROLE 1997 R^CAP OF COUTRACT CITIES jgnwy February March April Plan Review Inspections Retainer TOTAL Mo. Plan Reviews Mo. Inspections Minnetonka Beach Plan Review Inspections Retainer TOTAL Mo. Plan Reviews Mo. Inspections August Septeeber October Noveoter 422.34 135.00 25.00 582.34 1 9 0.00 45.00 25.00 70.00 0.00 165.00 25.00 190.00 0 11 0.00 180.00 25.00 205.00 0 0 3______12 89.21 270.00 25.00 384.21 1 18 105.30 210.00 25.00 340.30 2 14 94.74 165.00 25.00 284.74 2 11 48.59 195.00 25.00 268.59 1 13 1.622.24 120.00 25.00 1.767.24 7 8 518.05 30.00 25.00 573.05 2 2 (40729 209.96 195.00 25.00 429.96 3 13 0.00 90.00 25.00 115.00 0 6 746.‘52 90.00 25.00 861.52 6 6 141.37 150.00 25.00 316.37 3 10 19.01 1,400.89 3,856.78 1,529.93 75.00 180.00 150.00 105.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 119.01 1,605.89 4,031.78 1,659.93 14 6 5 36.89 1,391.81 150.00 25.00 211.89 2 10 621.24 195.00 25.00 841.24 2 __ 13 ,053.i: 225.00 25.00 1,641.81 4 15 334.43 90.00 25.00 449.43 2 6 367.74 90.00 25.00 482.74 1 6 7.206.05 195.00 25.00 7.426.05 5 13 YTO Totals 3,694.12 1,525.00 300.00 7,267.82 30 123 15.640.27 1,650.00 300.00 17.590.27 30 110 2*°’1.24 ^9o4.^ 24,854.6^ iif 35.00 0.00 0.00 A A A 100.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 185.00*0.00*0.00* 120.00 0.00 0.00 120.00*0.00*0.00* 75.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 75.00* 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00* DATS OP RUN 01/08/98 BUILDINGBASS PBB 6,833.00 PLAN RBVIBN 3,809.16 SURCHAROB 350.47 LZC. SBARCH PBB 0.00 8AC 0.00 ZNVBSTIOATICBI 0.00 DEPOSIT MAIL IN 0,00 BSORON 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 10,992.63 REPORT NBR. BPBBRPTl- DATB OP RUN 01/08/98 1 REPORT TOTAL BA8B PBB 19,705.54 PLAN RBVIBN 3,809.16 SURCHAROB 448.42 Lie. SBAROI PBB 0.00 SAC 0.00 INVBSTIOATZON 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 MAIL IN 32.98 BSCRfpf # ^0.00 PERMIT TOTAT.7^ '>'^6 10 ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION14750548JENSEN HOMES HARRISON 175,000.0014830518W P BAUER HOMES ROBERTS 60,000.0014701693C N OSTROM k SON MITHUN 138,000.0000000000STEFFENSON5,300.0015250625INSIDE & OUT REMODELORS FRITZ 90,000.0014733397PLYMOUTH ROOFING HUST 7,430.0014723216STEFFENSON CARPENTRY RASMUSSAN 1,500.0015935325ALLSTAR CONSTRUCTION INC KASTENS 3,600.0014495771SUBURBAN EXTERIORS INC KECH 4,000.00 14750548 JENSEN HOMES HARRISON .00 16279908 00000000 THOMAS CONTRACTING JACOBSEN .00 32,000.00 14768403 LUCAS DESIGN WORKS ST LAWRENCE 6,000.00 00000000 POMIJE 75,000.00 14710532 DANBERRY COMPANY BUCEY 5,000.00 19722716 HIRSCH AL CONST SLOCUM 56,100.00 14751229 KEENAN fit SVEIVEN INC NELSON 40,000.00 36332561 FIRESIDE CORNER CUDD 1,100.00 24796715 KINGSWAY PLUMBING 11,900.00 34791600 COUNTRYSIDE HTG A/C SHAUGHNESSY 3,100.00 35421166 FLARE HTG fit AC 600.00 35360667 MARSH HEATING fit AIR COND STAFFORD 9,500.00 36332561 FIRESIDE CORNER HIRSCH 1,100.00 39296767 VOGT FRED fit CO HARRISON 8,600.00 35712525 AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO 2,400.00 35421166 FLARE HTG fit AC 9,000.00 34789558 DITTER INC WINSLOW 3,200.00 34791600 COUNTRYSIDE HTG A/C MCMANUS 11,124.00 00000000 MEAKINS 1,000.00 34461449 WATERTOWN SHEET METAL INC KEITH 9,880.00 39296767 VOGT FRED fit CO MCCOURTNEY 2,500.00 37241899 RESIDENTIAL HTG fit AIR INC RBGNIER 4,601.00 35378491 SUPERIOR CONTR INC OPEIM 800.00 34451900 ADVANTAGE AIR LARSON 5,000.00 34741725 MERIT HVC INC HUMPHREY 846.00 24738793 CITYVIEW PLBG fit HTG 10,000.00 24738793 CITYVIEW PLBG fit HTG LINDELL 7,000.00 39296767 VOGT FRED fit CO WOODHOUSE 5,600.00 24340445 CLEARWATER SYSTEMS 1,100.00 29337200 CULLIQAN HUNT 218.15 29337200 CULLIGAN LARSON 441.52 28947600 LAKESIDE PLBG & HTG INC ANDREA 13,398.00 29337717 THOMPSON PLBG 16,500.00 24248455 MACK PLUMBING PETERSON 525.00 28904868 KLAMM MECHANICAL CONT STAFFORD 17,000.00 24733680 SCHMIT STEVE PLBG KEITH 5,800.00 24725306 SUPERIOR PLUMBING BUCEY 1,000.00 24422618 SULLIVAN BOB PLBG MITHUN 4,000.00 24792097 NIEMAN PLBG fit HTG INC SLOCUM 5,000.00 28274033 NORBLOM PLUMBING CO PEARSON 400.00 THU, JAN 8, 1998, 11:35 AMPERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 1997 PAGE 2PERMIT NORK ADDR NBR STREET2135146515952700 2395 3333 3465 1801 1801 1491 1491 1860 1860 3225 819 819 1465 930 930 1461 1461 425 425 1540 1540 1425 1485 1501 1485 1501 1425 1905 2216 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE BLVD BOHNS PT RD KELLEY PKWY BLAINE AVE SHORELINE DR SHORELINE DR LAKEVIEH TER LAKEVIEW TER SHORELINE DR SHORELINE DR LAKEVIH!? TER LAKEViEW TER BAYSIDE RD BROWN RD N BROWN RD N LONG LAKE BLVD DAKOTA AVE DAKOTA AVE BAY RIDGE RD BAY RIDGE RD OXFORD RD OXFORD RD LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE BLVD BAY RIDGE RD BAY RIDGE RD BAY RIDGE RD BAY RIDGE RD BAY RIDGE RD BAY RIDGE RD HERITAGE DR SHADYWOOD RD WEAR LA SHADYWOOD RD ISSUED PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION97/12/04 OR-009779 97/12/16 OR-009808 97/12/01 OR-009761 97/12/16 OR-009812 97/12/02 OR-009769 97/12/11 OR-009803 97/12/18 OR-009823 97/12/02 97/12/02 97/12/03 97/12/04 97/12/04 97/12/04 97/12/09 97/12/11 97/12/11 97/12/11 97/12/11 97/12/11 97/12/16 97/12/16 97/12/18 97/12/18 97/12/19 97/12/19 97/12/22 97/12/22 97/12/22 97/12/22 97/12/22 97/12/22 97/12/31 97/12/02 OR-009770 OR-009774 OR-009775 OR-009776 OR-009781 OR-009782 OR-009795 OR-009798 OR-009799 OR-009800 OR-009801 OR-009802 OR-009809 OR-009810 OR-009814 OR-009824 OR-009827 OR-009828 OR-009829 OR-009830 OR-009831 OR-009832 OR-009833 OR-009834 OR-009844 OR-009771 97/12/29 OR-009841 97/12/08 OR-009785 28274033244901472479209724738793 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 24722316 00000000 24461495 00000000 00000000 24461495 54734300 54734300 54734300 54734300 54734300 54734300 54734300 00000000 54791869 54775649 54775649 54734300 54734300 54734300 54734300 54734300 54734300 54734300 25593522 14759515 00000000 NORBLOM PLUMBING CO CUSTOM PLUMBING, INC. NIEMAN PLBG & HTG INC CITYVIEW PLBG & HTG VALITONLUNDWINSLOW WEEKS BLOOMQUIST COX COPPIN PLBG WIDMER INC WIDMER INC SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S UTILITY UTILITY UTILITY UTILITY UTILITY UTILITY UTILITY SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE INGELSIDE ENGINEERING RITTER EXCAVATING RITTER EXCAVATING SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S ROTO-ROOTER UTILITY UTILITY UTILITY UTILITY UTILITY UTILITY SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE CO THEIS THEIS KIERNAN KIERNAN LOHMAN LOHMANN SHELDON GRAY GRAY LUND ODEAN ODEAN JOHNSON JOHNSON KEIL KEIL CRAWFORD CRAWFORD WHITWORTH KERBER SCHAPER KERBER SCHAPER WHITWORTH SMITH KEEFE A fc T DEVELOPMENT WEILAND 400.00 1,500.00 1,000.00250.00 876,313.67^ THU, JAN 8, 15 NUMERICAL list:PERMIT NBR ISSlOR-009748 OR-009752 OR-009761 OR-009762 OR-009763 OR-009764 OR-009765 OR-009766 OR-009768 OR-009769 OR-009770 OR-009771 OR-009772 OR-009773 OR-009774 OR-009775 OR-009776 OR-009777 OR-009778 OR-009779 OR-009780 OR-009781 OR-009782 OR-009783 OR-009784 OR-009785 OR-009786 OR-009789 OR-009790 OR-009791 OR-009792 OR-009793 OR-009794 OR-009795 OR-009796 OR-009797 OR-009798 OR-009799 OR-009800 OR-009801 OR-009802 OR-009803 OR-009804 OR-009805 OR-009806 OR-009807 OR-009808 OR-009809 OR-009810 OR-009811 OR-009812 OR-009813 CXl-009814 OR-009815 97/:97/:97/:97/:97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/: 97/] 97/] 97/] 97/] 97/] 97/] 97/] 97/] 97/] 97/] 97/1 97/] 97/] 97/] 97/] 97/] 97/] 97/] 97/] 97/] 97/] 97/] 97/] 97/] 97/] THU, JAN 0, 1998, 11:24 AM NUMERICAL LISTING DECEMBER 1997 PERMIT NBR ISSUED CANCEL ADDR NBR STREETOR-009748 OR-009752 OR-009761 OR-009762 OR-009763 OR-009764 OR-009765 OR-009766 OR-009768 OR-009769 OR-009770 OR-009771 OR-009772 OR-009773 OR-009774 OR-009775 OR-009776 OR-009777 OR-009778 OR-009779 OR-009780 OR-009781 OR-009782 OR-009783 OR-009784 OR-009785 OR-009788 OR-009789 OR-009790 OR-009791 OR-009792 OR-009793 OR-009794 OR-009795 OR-009796 OR-009797 OR-009798 OR-009799 OR-009800 OR-009801 OR-009802 OR-009803 OR-009804 OR-009805 OR-009808 OR-009807 OR-009808 OR-009809 OR-009810 OR-009811 OR-009812 OR-009813 OR-009814 OR-009815 97/12/0197/12/0397/12/0197/12/0197/12/0597/12/0197/12/0297/12/01 97/12/01 97/12/02 97/12/02 97/12/02 97/12/03 97/12/03 97/12/02 97/12/03 97/12/04 97/12/04 97/12/04 97/12/04 97/12/04 97/12/04 97/12/04 97/12/04 97/12/08 97/12/00 97/12/08 97/12/08 97/12/08 97/12/08 97/12/00 97/12/00 97/12/08 97/12/09 97/12/09 97/12/09 97/12/11 97/12/11 97/12/11 97/12/11 97/12/11 97/12/11 97/12/12 97/12/15 97/12/15 97/12/16 97/12/16 97/12/16 97/12/16 97/12/16 97/12/16 97/12/17 97/12/18 97/12/18 14102340159545253141031201045 790 2395 1801 2216 755 1595 1801 1491 1491 1910 1250 2135 1320 1860 1860 500 3235 1966 2677 2106 140 366 25 1055 1205 3225 1525 2850 019 819 1465 930 930 3333 1186 3115 3045 2702 1465 1461 1461 2677 2700 1125 425 3300 SHORELINE DR FOX ST BOHNS PT RD SMITH AVE CYGNET PL SHORELINE DR NORTH SHORE DR EDGEWOOD HILLS NORTH ARM DR BLAINE AVE LAKEVIEW TER SHADYWOOD RD FERNDALE RD N BOHNS PT RD LAKEVIEW TER SHORELINE DR SHORELINE DR SHADYWOOD RD BRIAR ST 6TH AVE N REST PT CIR LAKEVIEW TER LAKEVIEW TER TONKAWA RD CASCO CIR SHADYWOOD RD CASCO POINT RD SUGARWOOD DR SMITH AVE NORTH ARM LA CYGNET PL FERNDALE RD W ELMWOOD AVE BAYSIDE RD 6TH AVE N SOMERSET LA BROWN RD N BROWN RD N LONG LAKE BLVD DAKOTA AVE DAKOTA AVE SHORELINE DR WILDHURST TR NORTH SHORE DR CASCO POINT RD KELLEY PKWY LONG LAKE BLVD BAY RIDGE RD BAY RIDGE RD CASCO POINT RD KELLEY PKWY NORTH ARM DR OXFORD RD BAYSIDE RD PAGE 1•>0RK ID NUMBER COMPANY1475054814830518247920971473339714768403147505480000000024733680 36332561 00000000 00000000 25593522 14701693 34789558 24722316 00000000 24461495 34791600 20274033 20274033 00000000 00000000 00000000 14751229 24340445 00000000 14710532 24796715 29337200 29337200 34791600 39296767 37241899 24461495 35421166 28947600 54734300 54734300 54734300 54734300 54734300 00000000 14723216 29337717 15935325 00000000 24490147 54734300 54734300 24725306 24730793 24248455 00000000 34741725 JENSEN HOMES W F BAUER HOMES NIEMAN PLBG & HTG INC PLYMOUTH ROOFING LUCAS DESIGN WORKS JENSEN HOMESSCHMIT STEVE PLBG FIRESIDE CORNER ROTO-ROOTER SERVICE CC C N OSTROM U SON DITTER INC COPPIN PLBG WIDMER INC COUNTRYSIDE HTG A/C NORBLOM PLUMBING CO NORBLOM PLUMBING CO KEENAN fit SVEIVEN INC CLEARWATER SYSTEMS DANBERRY COMPANY KINGSWAY PLUMBING CULLIGAN CULLIGAN COUNTRYSIDE HTG A/C VOGT FRED fit CO RESIDENTIAL HTG fit AIR INC WIDMER INC FLARE HTG fit AC LAKESIDE PLBG fit SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S SULLIVAN'S HTG INC UTILITY SERVICE UTILITY SERVICE UTILITY SERVICE UTILITY SERVICE SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE STEFFENSON CARPENTRY THOMPSON PLBG ALLSTAR CONSTRUCTION INC CUSTOM PLUMBING, INC. SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE SUPERIOR PLUMBING CITYVIEW PLBG fit HTG MACK PLUMBING MERIT HVC INC OWNER LAST NMHARRISONROBERTSWINSLOWHUSTST LAWRENCEHARRISONPOMIJEKEITHCUDD WEEKS THEIS KEEFE MITHUN WINSLOW THEIS KIERNAN KIERNAN MCMANUS PEARSON VALITON MEAKINS LOHMAN LOHMANN NELSON WEILAND BUCEY HUNT LARSON SHAUGHNESSY MCCOURTNEY REGNIER SHELDON ANDREA GRAY GRAY LUND ODEAN ODEAN BLOOMQUIST RASMUSSAN KASTENS LUND JOHNSON JOHNSON BUCEY PETERSON KEIL HUMPHREY VALUATION175.000. 00 60,000.001,000.007.430.00 6,000.00.0075.000. 005.800.001.100.00 .00 .00 .00 138.000. 00 3.200.00 .00 .00 .00 11.124.00 400.00 400.00 1,000.00 .00 .00 40.000. 00 1.100.00 .00 5.000. 00 11.900.00 218.15 441.52 3.100.00 2.500.00 4.601.00 .00 600.00 13.398.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1.500.00 16.500.00 3.600.00 32.000. 00 1.500.00 .00 .00 1.000. 00 250.00 525.00 .00 846.00 THU, JAN 8, 1998, 11:24 AM PAGE 2NUMERICAL LISTING PERMIT NBR ISSUED DECEMBER 1997 CANCEL ADDR NBR STREET WORK ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATIONOR-009816 97/12/18 N 3034 CASCO POINT RD 01 35360667 MARSH HEATING k AIR COND STAFFORD 9,500.00OR-009817 97/12/18 N 1045 EDGEWOOD HILLS RD 03 34461449 WATERTOWN SHEET METAL INC KEITH 9,880.00OR-009818 97/12/18 N 2325 WATERTOWN RD 29 24738793 CITYVIEW PLBG k HTG 10,000.00OR-009819 97/12/18 N 2655 NORTH SHORE DR 29 24730793 CITYVIEW PLBG k HTG LINDELL 7,000.00OR-009821 97/12/18 N 2625 NORTH SHORE DR 29 39296767 VOGT FRED fit CO WOODHOUSE 5,600.00OR-009822 97/12/18 N 2092 SHADYWOOD RD 11 14495771 SUBURBAN EXTERIORS INC KECH 4,000.00OR-009823 97/12/18 N 3465 SHORELINE DR 13 00000000 COX .00OR-009824 97/12/18 N 425 OXFORD RD 01 54791869 INGELSIDE ENGINEERING KEIL .00OR-009825 97/12/19 N 1230 SPRUCE PL 01 36332561 FIRESIDE CORNER HIRSCH 1,100.00OR-009826 97/12/22 N 2675 FOX ST 29 19722716 HIRSCH AL CONST SLOCUM 56,100.00OR-009827 97/12/19 N 1540 LONG LAKE BLVD 01 54775649 RITTER EXCAVATING CRAWFORD .00OR-009828 97/12/19 N 1540 LONG LAKE BLVD 01 54775649 RITTER EXCAVATING CRAWFORD • 00OR-009829 97/12/22 N 1425 BAY RIDGE RD 01 54734300 SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE WHITWORTH .00OR-009830 97/12/22 N 1485 DAY RIDGE RD 01 54734300 SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE KERBER .00OR-009831 97/12/22 N 1501 BAY RIDGE RD 01 54734300 SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE SCHAPER .00OR-009832 97/12/22 N 1485 BAY RIDGE RD 01 54734300 SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE KERBER • 00 OR-009833 97/12/22 N 1501 BAY RIDGE RD 01 54734300 SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE SCHAPER .00 OR-009834 97/12/22 N 1425 BAY RIDGE RD 01 54734300 SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE WHITWORTH • 00 OR-009835 97/12/23 N 3034 CASCO POINT RD 01 28904868 KLAMM MECHANICAL CONT STAFFORD 17,000.00 OR-009836 97/12/23 N 755 FERNDALB RD N 02 24422618 SULLIVAN BOB PLBG MITHUN 4,000.00 OR-009837 97/12/24 N 1410 SHORELINE DR 01 39296767 VOGT FRED fit CO HARRISON 8,600.00 OR-009838 97/12/24 N 1985 EAGERNESS POINT RD 24 35378491 SUPERIOR CONTR INC OPEIM 800.00 OR-009839 97/12/29 N 480 OLD LONG LAKE RD 01 35712525 AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO 2,400.00 OR-009840 97/12/29 N 127 CHEVY CHASE DR 16 16279900 THOMAS CONTRACTING JACOBSEN .00 OR-009841 97/12/29 N 90 WEAR LA 22 14759515 A fit T DEVELOPMENT • 00 OR-009842 97/12/30 N 2675 FOX ST 02 24792097 NIEMAN PLBG fit HTG INC SLOCUM 5,000.00 OR-009844 97/12/31 N 1905 HERITAGE DR 01 54734300 SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE SMITH .00 OR-009845 97/12/31 N 3115 NORTH SHORE DR 01 35421166 FLARE HTG fit AC 9,000.00 OR-009846 97/12/31 N 2405 DUNWOODY AVE 24 34451900 ADVANTAGE AIR LARSON 5,000.00 OR-009848 97/12/31 N 4665 WEST BRANCH RD 02 00000000 STEFPENSON 5,300.00 OR-009849 97/12/31 N 3845 NORTH SHORE DR 02 15250625 INSIDE fit OUT REMODELORS FRITZ 90,000.00 0102 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 99 9999 WORK TYPE CODE Residence Addition Garage/Attached Garage/Detached .. Porch Deck Fence Gazebo Pool Re-side Re-roof Tennis Court Sign Dock Shed Demo-Principal Structure Demo-Accessory Structure Move Commercial Institutional Storm Damage Repair 1-100 Cubic Yards 101 Cubic Yards or More Undefined LOCAL USB CODES Undefined 24 Replacing Existing25 Lifting Principal Residence 26 Well Abandonment 27 Foundation Only 28 Temporary Trailer 29 Renovate/Remodel 30 Accessory Structure 31 Stairway to Lake 32 Retaining Wall 33 Entrance Monuments 3 4 Tree Removal ' REPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OF RON 01/08/98 PERMIT TYPE User Defined SUBDIVISION VARIANCE CUP SKETCH PLAN VACATION REZONING Sub-total Grand-total QTY 3 8 2 2 0 1 16* 16** ***** PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO DECEMBER 1997 ***** -- CURRENT RANGE - 12/01/97 - 12/31/97 BASE FEE 1.050.00 1.690.00 225.00 500.00 0.00 250.00 3,715.00* 3,715.00** VALUATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00** PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00** QTY 1 1 1 1 1 0 5* 5** PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: CAROLE -- PREVIOUS RANGE - 12/01/96 - 12/31/96 BASE FEE 1,525.00 320.00 0.00 300.00 300.00 0.00 2,445.00* 2,445.00** VALUATION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00** PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00** REPORT NBR. BFEERPT2-1 DATE OP RUN 01/08/98 ***** permit fee REPORT ***** CITY OF CRONO from 12/01/97 TO 12/31/97 USER REPORT TOTAL BASE res 3,715.00 3,715.00 PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 Lie. SEARCH PEE 0.00 0.00 SAC 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 ESCROW 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL f • -3,715.00 3,715.00 PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: CAROLE r AnOHmd JlmOgland fiZSFtondaleRoadN Wanata.MN6sa9i Phone: 4764218 meeting Thursday, January 22,1998 Mayor Gabriel Jabbour CityoTOrono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ..'i-b JAN 2 6 1998 CITYOFORON'O O'' o< RE: Fentdale Road upgrade, January 12,1998 PnbUc ham H iij The January I2th Qrono Public Hearing on the Femdale Road project was very well conducted and we were glad to have the <q>portunity to convey our thoughts to the City CounciL We came away from the hearing with the feeling that the CouncU favors the 28 ft roadway option. It does seem to make the most sense and not only does it cost less flnancially, but supports what the majority of the neighborhood residents (according to the survey) prefer. Areas of concern: It was indicated at the hearing that the centerline of the road was skewed Ibur foet to the West to partially offset the proposed trail on the East This results in taking four feet away from the frontage property of the Orono residents on the West side of Femdale Road. In our case, this four feet mi^t mean the loss of some meJor trees and the ironwork entry way to our driveway. It means a severe loss of property and foliage all along the Orono side of Femdale Road. After driving and looking at North Brown Road (whidi is 28 ft and is also a connector road from County Rd 6 to Highway 12) twenty eight feet seems very adequate and certainly appears that it would meet the requirements of Femdale Rd. We would prefer a 28 Ibot roadway with no tralL This option would provide a wider road than we now have with minimum damage and disraption to the existing trees, shmbs and frontage property. If a 82 ft roadway la decided upon with striped 4 ft blcycle-Jogger lanes. It then seems redundant to also have a walking trail on the Bast side. Elimination of the East side trail would allow the skew to go back to the centerline thereby picking up 4 ft on the Orono side. This coupled with the reduction from the 36 R proposed and staked roadway to 32 ft means a total gain of 6ft on the Orono side. This is very significant, makes sense and Just might be satlsfiictory to aU. Thank you for your continued interest in this outcome. Sincerely, cc: Orono Council, Greg Gappa _ >1/ docuiwient communications i u^rv^ A'^A'^vr \ • \.‘ ft n n nnriv-j*i t'xrm tm^m i^itni u u. t t.i^n* d'~.tT >^in iiHir 11 r«i ikj. n *' REVISIONS 11/10/97 revised site plan 11/25/97 added hammer HEAD J/14/98 ADDED CUL-DE-SAC Westwood P'olrMwna Sar«M. me « certify (Not (Na pidr VO* (if«»4V«4 bf mi «r um4« tt'Kt <in« Ihot I am 3 ouiv r*9i«l«r«4 ^WQFESStONAl. CHCMCEF ur<itr tn* ta«f of (h» Sl«lt of MmnMota ^DATE .. REG NO._iIl!i_ 0A*M m/GO ocewp tM MOOK PAM MALTY, LLP ■■M ■mmaocmc cmmmm ■ROOH.VN PAML HMMnOTil H4M LAKE MMMTONKA WOOM ORONO. MM. PMLMNAT aira PLAN MIOWM MPACT OP PUBLIC ROW A CUL-M-OAC poA piwvATB tmm 1 SHT. NO. . 1a«1.