Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-14-1991 Council Packet---------------Planning Cornmissi � Cou::y ------ CITY OF ORONO PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORJ.1ATIO RE ES�E� BELOW FOR (/ R CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print) 1.A, �-r ; ,6 ,. ... ..ll.f /!,; .. � ...... /.r -J 2. , 1 {A_�-�-. 3.\0 0.JJ, "JC� 4. s. 6. 7. 8. 9. o. 1. 2. 3. 4. s. 6. 7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 8. 9. o. r "II Du 1/,� lj 0 I "A11E OR NUMB.cR ADORES.:, PRESET FOR (from agenda) �..,. .... • , r �I.·'--I� (.., \,..c.1 f """"" q.,.. � I ✓I l � L, /4\. ·, ,. ,,.., ,( ()(. .//-_/ _) '-\./ � < ·1 l ,,. � I I', K: t: \\ IV: ‘-r u- te•>. r j..- j.v:.*■■•■'■ Hvv.'- ;;■ vt fe-!;’ W:i -■■■!--•• K-V ;r-.- ‘ 1’. iii. ^Sr ■ k|'‘ |v' Iri":- V- < /; . 'xV^V'- ■ ft'' |i'. ^C’ft[i'ft'ft '?•*•».'.■ A•- ^ ■T' v.j- AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1991, 7:00 P.M. (*)Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Discussion will be held upon request. Memos regarding each of the Agea^ items are available in the Public Packet which may be upon request from the Recorder. ROLL CALL 1.CONSENT AGENDA* APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 2. Regular Meeting of September 23, 1991 IMp ui ■‘-wro PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Richard Flint Representative 3.Sewer Plant Property Plan PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Sara Moos Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) XONIHG ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT **APPLICANTS**laaediately after the Council has reviewed your application please sign the three (3) original resolutions at the Recorder's desk. Applicants need not execute resolutions for subdivisions, vacations and denials. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. #1573 Carol Kelly/James Massey, 3020/3030 Casco Point Road a.) Request for special consideration regarding park fee - report by City Attorney b.) Final subdivision - Resolution #1629 Duncan MacMillan, 1"00 Fox Street - Variance - Resolution #1679 William Miller, 2691 Casco Point Road - Variance #1684 David and Anne Graham, 2745 Shadywood Road - Variance -Resolution #1685 Edward Baker, 3059 Farview Lane - Variance - Resolution Tree Removal within 0-75' Lakeshore Setback Area - Discussion MATOR/COONCIL REPORT 10.Park Commission Appointment BNGIMBBR RBPORT 11.Change Order #1 City Facilities Frontage Road 13. CITT ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 12.Selection of a Firm to Provide Prosectuion Services Proposed Language Changes for the 1992 Police Service Contract with the City of Long Lake Stubbs Bay Sanitary Sewer Improvement Additional Deferred Compensation Plan - Resolution Certification of Delinquent Septic Inspection Fees, Sewer and Water Utility Accounts and Recycling Program Fee - Resolution 14. 15. 16. 'V'- ii r‘i rrl 11 ^lAa'iit' i .j __' AGBHDA FOR COONCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1991, 7:00 P.M 18. 19. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Continued 17.Lucia Morison Request for a Second Curb Cut 1992 Cable Commission Budget Resolution Indicating the City of Orono's Willingness to Cooperate With MnDot Annual Performance and Salary Review for Maintenance Worker -Scott Oberaigner 21.Amendment to Owner/Architect Contract Adoption of Resolution Calling for Sale of Bonds 20. 22. 23. 24.Contract with Kraus-Anderson for Construction Manager Services CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (25*) BILLS (26*) AOJOORNHBMT OPCOMING ISSDBS AND EVENTS 10/10 ~ 19^i Budget Workshop 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers 10/14 • Council Meeting 10/16 - Lake Use Committee 7:45 a.m. Council Chambers 10/16 - Hwy 12 Policy Committee - 5:30 p.m. Maple Plain City Hall 10/17 - Reception 4-6:00 p.m. Council Chambers 10/19 - Saturday - Fall Clean-Up 8:00-4:30 p.m. 10/21 - Planning Commission - 7:00 p.m. 10/22 - Hwy 12 Technical Committee - 1:00 p.m. Delano City Hall 10/22 - Hwy 12 Citizen Committee - 4:00 p.m. Maple Plain City Hall 10/22 - Facilities Committee 5:00 p.m. Room 107L Education Link 10/28 - Council Meeting — h.■ ►I- k Co,h.1. On*, ^MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER'S. H^SQ ROLL The Council met on the above date with the following members present:Mayor Barbara Peterson,CounciImembers J. Diann Goetten, Gabriel Jabbour and Mary Butler.Edward Callahan was absent.The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Ron Moorse, Building & Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth,Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, City Attorney Tom Barrett. City Engineer Glenn Cook, Chief of Police Stephen Sullivan and City Recorder Terl Naab. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ^0,’ %s® (#1) CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Peterson requested one change in the minutes of September 9, 1991.She noted that under the public comments section on Page 3, Ann Cosgrove mentioned the meeting between the Orono and Long Lake Councils held on September 3. 1991 which was actually held on September 4, 1991. It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Butlor, to approve the Consent Agenda, which Includes the following items: approval of the minutes of the Council meeting of September 9, 1991 with the correction on Page 3 as noted; and the bills. Ayes 4, nays 0. Motions for all Items adopted by consent agenda will Included In the minutes In their respective numerical order. (#2) PARK COMMISSION CANDIDATE INTERVIEWS Mayor Peterson noted that they will be Interviewing three candidates. )4>erokee Use, 3630 Eileen Street, explained that she has been a resident of Orono for the past 10 years and has a great concern for Orono and maintaining Its rural atmosphere.She noted that she has young children and uses the park system a lot. She Is excited about the future bike/hike trail system.She noted that she and her sons have s: ;rted a "Kids to Save the Earth" fund. Mayor Peterson asked what Ilse felt Is Orono's greatest deficiency In the park system. Ilse felt that a community park Is needed and felt that Orono should work with other communities and share resources. She noted the equipment In Orono parks Is very outdated. Jabbour asked If she felt she could remain unbiased her recent stance opposing the Bederwood ball diamond. given ■r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 PARK COMMISSION INTERVIEWS - CONT. Use noted that she has been very Involved in many issues concerning Orono and even if they do not directly affect her. she still has taken a stance and worked toward a common goal.She felt that she can remain fair, rational and non-emotional when dealing with Issues Involving Orono. Li 11 McMillan, 1275 Lyman Avenue, explained that she has livsd In Orono for three years and has two small children.She Is Interested In both active and passive type recreational facilities She felt that Orono must plan for both current and future recreational needs.She noted the golf course should be reviewed by the Commission.She noted that both park use and development both have a right to exist, and one must look at this Issue impartially.She volunteered her photographic skills if appointed. Jabbour asked McMillan if she had free time to commit to this appointment. McMillan noted that she Is a very organized person and her youngest child Is now in kindergarten which allows her more free time. Tim Pattrin. 1360 Railroad Avenue, noted that he has lived In Orono for five years and has two children.He noted that he has a special interest in helping develop the Crystal Bay facility site into a park.He also noted that if appointed, he would still remain on the Cable Commission. Mayor Peterson noted that the Council would be making their decision and It would be announced at the next Council meeting. She thanked the applicants for applying for the position and urged If they are not chosen to try for future position openings. (#3*) APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Butler, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Council held on September 9, 1991 with Page 3 corrected as noted. Ayes 4, nays 0. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION OISTRICT JoEllen Hurr, City representative, explained that the LMCD, at their next meeting to be held on Wednesday,will be considering the last draft of the management plan for Lake Minnetonka.She noted that it incorporates some of the changes brought up by Mayors and Individuals In attendance at the last meeting. r h I? V L. ,. i> w. r r*.■■" ►C. ■ ;-Vv‘.f Kv MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT - CONT. Jabbour felt that they were successful at the last meeting in getting their point across.He pointed out that this Is the LMCO's plan, not Orono's, and noted that Orono has not actwd proactive with them regarding this plan, but rather reactive. Orono does not like the plan, however It is better than the one that would become ratified if this second plan Is not adopted. He felt that the Orono Council should not act In favor of the plan, nor against It. Mr. Callahan thought the Council should vote against It.Jabbour had difficulty adding one extra layer of government to control the lake. Hurr explained that since user fees were to be raised for marinas, she moved to return 10% of each city's assessment, back to the cities. Jabbour noted there Is a coalition of marina owners opposed to the increase In fees. Hurr stated that If the LMCD Is disbanded and Lake Minnetonka becomes a Hennepin County Lake District, there is reason for concern. Jabbour Instructed Hurr to vote for the plan as submitted. He explained that he believed In the LMCD In its original capacity. Goetten supported Jabbour*s direction as alternative Is worse than the proposal. she felt the Hurr noted that the other lake cities conservative as Orono, and she has no 'oblem ordinances and the direction which Oro ’’k Involving the lake. are not as with t>'ono's ori issues PUBLIC COMMENTS Leo Melash, Jim Ogland and B. Simonson were present to represent the Minnesota Transportation Museum. Melash explained that as a member of that organization. Bob Dumas has offered to store two street cars on his property on Highway 12 until such time that they can be restored.He noted that the organization has a very large building In Excelsior which currently Is used to restore a stroetcar/steamboat. He noted that after that restoration, there would be room In the building to start the restoration of the street cars and added that may take from 3—5 years. Ogland explained that the street cars were sold for cabins. Currently two street cars have been offered to the organization free of charge for restoration.He noted that Mr. Dumas has 54 acres and the cars would look liko little sheds on the property. r1i ii.li 'V MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 PUBLIC COMMENTS - CONT. Mabusth replied that there Is nothing in the code which addresses this type of storage. She asked about screening. Simonson noted that he has visited the site where they will be stored and felt it was very well screened from the public. Barrett felt that this Is a permitted use. the cars were abandoned the City could proceed proceedings to have them removed. He felt that If with hazardous Mabusth asked that the organization contact the Building Department for appropriate permits. (#4) #1573 CAROL KELLY/JAMES MASSEY 3020 & 3030 CASCO POINT ROAD REQUEST FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION REGARDING PARK FEE FINAL SUBDIVISION Carol Kelly was present for this application. Moorse explained that this is an application for final subdivision to create three lots. He noted that the applicant is disputing the valuation place on the property In regard^ to the park dedication fee and when that fee Is to be paid. Mabusth explained that the first subdivision request Involved creation of a non-riparian lot.The applicant then combined property with Mr. Massey to gain a riparian lot. She noted that when the park dedication ordinance went Into effect, It noted that all applications not filed by May 1st were to be calculated under the new ordinance.Ms. Kelly's application made the deadline but the second application did not. Kelly feels the valuation Is too high and wants to know If she should go ahead and have a now appraisal.Kelly Is also asking that the park dedication foe be paid at the time of Issuance of the building permit. Barrett noted that the memo suggests that the assessor thinks the vaulatlon may bo too high. Mabusth questioned the assessor and ho reported that If the applicant fools It Is too high, the applicant should come back with a second appraisal. Jabbour noted that If the market value Is reduced, the applicant would have to go through the abatement process to reduce that value. .•1 r' 'I1: i;'- I: i: i^v ft MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 lONXNQ FILE #1573 - CONT. Barrett cited that it appears that a different appraisal waj: done for the purpose of determining park dedication fees. Barrett noted that the assessor will have to be the judge as to whether this value is linked to the taxable market value.He noted that per Part C of Subdivision 5, it appears to allow the Council to extend the time in which to make ayment on the condition that the valuation be taken from the date at which payment is made.He advised that the problem with waiting for payment until the permit is issued is that it may be difficult to collect from a property owner.He suggested that he prepare a memo regarding choices the Council has regarding this issue.He felt both the request for consideration and the final plat be tabled as the park dedication fee payment is a condition of final approval. Mabusth advised that the applicant has worked very hard to be able to bring this application before the Council for final approval. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to table application #1573 for Carol Kelly and James Massey, for a request for special consideration regarding park fee and final subdivision approval, allowing the City Attorney time to research the park dedication fee payment issue. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#5) #1608 JAMES R. HARTZELL 2987 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES James Hartzell was not present for this application. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to table application #1608 for James R. Hartzell of 2987 Casco Point Road until such time that he or a representative can be present to answer questions by the Council. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#6) #1626 TIM TRAFF/ERXC WILSON 2683 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - REVISED SITE PLAN - REVIEW FOR CONSISTENCY WITH RECENT VARIANCE APPROVAL Eric Wilson and Martha Yunker, architect, were present for this application. Moorse explained that Council originally approved variances for a now house on this property.The applicant has sold the property and the now owner has a now house design. Butler felt that it should go to the Planning Commission for review and the neighbors should be renotified as there was opposition to the original plan. V' 1:^'' •t^: • r,.._ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 23. 1991 ZONING FILE #1826 - CONT. Ms. Yunker askad why It would have to be reviewed setback* requested has not changed. there Is just more residence within that encroachment of the setback. as of the the Gaffron asked If this should be treated as a new application or as a revision to the original application. Jabbour felt that is should be treated as a new application and noted that the Mitchells (neighbors) were vocal against the original application. Wilson asked that It be considered as a revision neighbors are not opposed to the plan as proposed. the Qaffron noted the difference will be the fee charged.He advised that the application as a revision would have to be charged for staff time as opposed to the flat variance application fee. It was moved by Butler, seconded by Peterson, to refer to the Planning Commission application #1626 for Tim Traff and Eric Wilson for property at 2603 North Shore Drive, as a revision to the originally approved variance application for a new residence, noting that all affected property owners must be renotified of revised application. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#7) #1660 CITv OF ORONO 700 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - FINAL SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION #3020 Moorse explained that this is a final subdivision for the property proposed for the new City facilities. It was moved by Butler, seconded by Peterson, to adopt Resolution #3020 approving final subdivision for application #1668 City of Orono for property located at 700 Old Crystal Bay Road. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#8) #1669 JOHN WALKER 1310 SPRUCE PLACE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3021 Mrs. Walker and her representative, Dick Schieffer, were present. Moorse explained this is an application requesting hardcover varlancns to construct a second story addition and deck addition. It was moved by Butler, seconded by Peterson, to adopt Resolution #3021 approving hardcover variances for application #1669 for John Walker of 1310 Spruce Place. Ayes 4. nays 0. ..f.l ■L. )>■ m- i' ■ • V;i mi MINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMGER 23. 1991 (#9) #1676 CITY OF ORONO 700 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION #3022 Moorse explained this application Is for a conditional use permit to .onstruct a water tower on City owned property. Butler asked If the tower will mean that Orono will no longer be buying water from Long Lake. Cook agreed that all property owners on the west side of Orono who are currently buying water from Long Lake will then be buying from Orono.He showed a sketch of three proposed tower designs and noted that the third design Is about 10% cheaper because of the use of less steel. Jabbour also noted that design is the most dangerous. Cook advised that the tower location has been moved 10' further south leaving a 60' setback from the north lot line, and a 25* setback from the 26' wetland setback. He also noted that these tower designs would allow for placement of an antenna on them. Mabusth noted that the 26' wetland setback has been built into the drainage easements for the property.She also noted that the church representative has been In attendance at all the meetings and has not commented.She reported the school has asked about safety issues but has not raised any objection. It was moved by Butler, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution #3022, application #1676 for the City of Orono for property at 700 Old Crystal Bay Road North to permit the Installation of a water tower on the property. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#10) #1677 CEDRIC DETTLOFF 1255 DICKENSON STREET - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3023 Mr. & Mrs. Cedric Dettloff were present. Moorse explained that the applicant 1s proposing to remove a workshop and replace It with a two story addition within the same footprint which requires a front street setback variance and lot coverage variance. It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Peterson, to adopt Resolution #3023, application #1677 for Cedric Dettloff at 1255 Dickenson Street to allow the construction of a two story addition requiring front street setback variance and lot coverage variance. Ayes 4, nays 0. '■?. ftiif-' if .......................laVB .At.‘•Mm Aikkklf. r.-i • F r-- ,v'•■ .v ■ k-kx'^rr §>■ •\k «*V .-■. K"- i-c-’ •. HXNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 (#11) PAUL AND MARCIA MIRLO 2142 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3024 Marda Merlo was present for this application. Moorse advised that this Is an application to hardcover requirements to construct a two story addition. Mabusth explained that the applicants have revised their plan as requested by the Planning Commission. The applicants have submitted twc. proposals, one of which they feel Is not viable because of a severe drop and a tree In the way. She noted that the hardcover from the spillway has been removed from the calculation as requested by Planning Commission. Goetten felt the second option was a more workable solution. Butler asked If there would be room for a truck around with the second proposal. to turn Merlo noted that they would have to use the Joint driveway more and It would bo very tight. Jabbour stated that the applicants have worked very hard to comply with the ordinances. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Peterson, to adopt Resolution #3024, application #1678 for Paul and Marcia Merlo of 2142 Shadywood Road, approving hardcover variances to construct a two story addition. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#12) MORATORIUM DISCUSSION Gaffron asked how the Council felt regarding lot line rearrangements, which are considered by code to be a subdivision, in relation to the recent moratorium.And If this type of subdivision Is subject to the moratorium, can a concurrent variance application be filed with the subdivision application. He noted that the moratorium stated that anything that did not have preliminary plat approval prior to the adoption date of the moratorium Is subject to that moratorium.Gaffron asked If the lot sizes created by the lot line rearrangement do not meet code and require variances, are they subject to the moratorium. Jabbour felt that the concurrently. applications could be handled Butler stated that she rearrangement Is not actually create a new lot and both lots prescribed use. If a lot line of those lots being vacant, subdivision as you are creating always felt that a lot line a subdivision because Is does not are currently occupied by their rearrangement Is proposed with one then it would be considered as a a bulIdable lot. 8 ■w. a- i i.; % •iTf 4;.i- r!'" NINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 MORATORIUM DISCUSSION > CONT. Gaffron asked what 1f both lots meet the requirements but they are vacant. Jabbour noted that the Intent of the protect property owners from future rules development of that property. moratorium was to which may Inhibit Barrett noted that the deflr-ltlon of a subdivision for the moratorium should be taken from the municipal code, which would Include lot I'^ne rearrangements where variances would be needed, and would not Include those that do not require variance approva1. Gaffron asked about the variance fee. Mabusth noted that there will be legal and publishing fees. Council left lx up to staff to charge at their discretion. Gaffron advised that Paul Boyke on Lydiard Lake Is proposing to subdivide his property which Includes designated wetlands. However the ordinary high water mark Is not available at this time,but depending upon that and the future setback requirements, the property may end up not being subdividable. Boyke was present and explained that the property was previously th^' subject of a metes and bounds subdivision In which a portion of the property was inaccurately combined with another parcel. He explained that the property was sold and Boyke has had to negotiate with the new owner to change the property boundaries to what they were approved as.Boyke wanted to know if It should become an unbuildable lot because of the new requirements, would It fall under condemnation proceedings. Barrett noted that this may be considered as a taking or temporary taking. He felt that this is definitely an application which would need to apply for a variance to the moratorium If the owner wished to proceed.He advised that the variance approval would allow the subdivision and if the building permit for the new residence were Issued before the new regulations were ratified, the current requirements would be followed.If the permit was not to be Issued until after the new regulations were to be adopted, the lot may become unbuildable again under the new regulations. Butler felt that this was a classic example why there was moratorium. a Boyke explained he Is trying to buy a new business and needs to act right away. Butler suggested that he wait until the new regulations are adopted. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 MORATORIUM DISCUSSION - CONT Gaffron reiterated that If applicant makes the variance and subdivision application, it would be his risk that it may not be approved. Jabbour noted that applicant can hear the tone of the Council on this matter. Gaffron cited another example.that being the Hanser property on Fox Street which they Intend to subdivide.Council concurred that they could submit a sketch plan and variance to the moratorium at the same time. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Mayor Peterson announced that she had received a request for donation for the Octoberfest. Last year the City donated $350 towards the purchase of the sign which can be used over again. She felt that Orono should not contribute to a specific class in a specific school district when C>Yono has many school district*" within its boundaries. Council concurred. Mayor Peterson tentatively scheduled a reception for both Ron Moorse, City Administrator and Stephen Sullivan, Chief of Police for October 17, 1991 from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. In the Council Chambers. Jabbour announced that there is a possibility of changing the comprehensive Plan to reflect the current use of Big Island. He noted that they convinced the LMCD to take Big Island totally out of their proposed management plan.He explained the change can be concurrent with another plan change such as Stubbs Bay sewer. (#13) BID AWARD - FACILITIES FRONTAGE ROAD Cook explained that bids had been received for the frontage road near the proposed City facilities and B 4 D Underground, Inc. came <n the low bidder. He noted that they have worked with this company in the past with good results. Mayor Peterson asked why this was partially being funded by the HRA when this figure was not Included In the original cost of the facilities. Jabbour noted that he could understand the portion of the road being paid for by the HRA but not the remainder. Barrett announced to the Council that Council shouldn t approve the bid If they felt they could not pay for the balance that is currently being proposed to be paid by the HRA If they choose to not have the HRA pay for this. :'r —f If* MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL NcETING - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 IXD AWARD - FACILITIES FRONTAGE ROAD - CONT. It was niov0d by Sutlsr, sscondsd by Jabbour, to award th© bid for the frontage road and Installation of utilities to B a D Underground, Inc. for an amount of $188,786 and to begin construction on September 27, 1991, or the day following the closing date. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#14) 1992 LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION BUDGET Moorse Introduced Tim Pattrin as the City’ to the Cable Commission. representative Pattrin explained that the budget has not been voted on yet. He noted that other cities have denied the budget because of the 17% increase In salary for the administrator and several other high Increases for other employees.He noted that the current administrator Is doing a good job, but felt that a 2—5% increase was more appropriate. Butler noted that the cost of cable continues to go up therefore subscriptions go down. and Pattrin also noted the money budgeted for employees to attend conventions.He explained the Commission could not regulate fees to users, but could regulate unneeded charges to the organization. Butler noted that she would like the Commission to look not charging property owners for hook-up and shut-off when extended leaves. at on Pattrin cited that currently they do not have the type of equipment that would allow such a process in-house.Ho also noted that they are asking the cable company to open drop sites for special events paid reviews and will be supplementing another show In place of the paid review on that channel. It was moved by Butler, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to direct Tim Pattrin, City Representative to the Cable Commission, to vote against the 1992 Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission's Budget because of the reasons noted previously. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#1S) (#16) CONTRACT BARR ENGINEERING Moorse explained that Shardlow has recommended contracting with Barr Engineering to provide the Ordinary High Water Mark for for French, Classen, Dickey and Lydiard Lakes. free. Jabbour asked how the City could get the DNR to do it for . 'S' - )'«., ,, 11 ■rtilfriMiilii I eiirjUrtf Ml lir#l nim ^iil'ifc diJl fe­te. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 CONTRACT BARRR ENGINEERING - CONT. Gaffron noted that when there Is a subdivision pending, the City could approach the DNR for help, however he did not know what kind of timely response would be received.He also felt the City may charge back to the applicant some of the cost 1 '.volved. Gcetten felt that Orono must go forward and find this informatinn to continue their work. It was isoved by Butler, seconded by Goetten, to contract for engineering services for the determination of the ordinary high water levels for French, Classen, Dickey and Lydiard Lakes to Barr Engineering for an amount not to exceed $4,100.00. Ayes 4, nays 0. Jabbour asked If it could be included in the contract that If an application comes In, and the work hasn't been done for a particular lake at that point, it could be dropped from the contract price. Butler felt that the contract should state that the work be done by the end of Ncvember.She noted If they can't live with that deadline, they can ask for an extension. Gaffron noted that the RFP may not suffice as a contract. Barrett felt that a contract is a wise device to ■•mplement. (#17) REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PROSECUTION SERVICE Council directed City Administrator Moorse to send out RFPs for prosecution service.Moorse Indicated that it may bo possible to have a recommendation for the Council's October 14th meeting. (#lft) POLICE SCHEDULE/TEMPORARY INVESTIGATOR ASSIGNMENT Moorse explained the Police Chief has submitted a plan to provide a plain-clothes Investigator on a part-time, temporary basis to review the need and viability of such an Investigator. Butler asked about the selection process. Sullivan explained that the process was informal because It was only temporary. He felt If this position becomes permanent. It should be an appointed position on an annual basis. Butler asked If this position required special talents. Sullivan advised that as one works In a field, one develops an expertise for that position. Council directed Sullivan to proceed with his plan to assign a temporary Investigator. ir> j .> MIXUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 23. 1991 (#19) POLICE SERVICE CONTRACT WITH LONG LAKE Moorse Gxpldlned ^■hat aftor the last meeting, he wrote a letter to Long Lake requesting payment for past due contract police service fees.He noted that he did gat a response from their City Attorney and had received payment for the third quarter service that very day.He explained that this payment did not Include the 1989 disputed amount.Moorse explained that we did not get the full amount for 1991 services as Long Lake failed to budget the full amount of the contract.They have asked Orono to change the schedule to make up for the difference. •He noted they have a credit from 1990 that offsets most of the difference, and at the end of the year, will produce a zero balance Jabbour asked the City Attorney to clarify how often Orono Is allowed to review the contract. Barrett advised that both cities can mutually agree to change the terms of the contract, but unilaterally it can only be changed once a year. Jabbour noted that If the City of Long Lake chose not to pay for the next year. It would put the City in a negative cash flow. Barrett noted that Orono could consider Long Inability to pay as broach of contract and discontinue because of that breach. Lake's service Butler noted that the language of the contract needs to be revised to reflect late payments.She felt that a deadline must be set. and If payment has not b<jen received by that date, service would be discontinued.She felt a provision that set an escalating late fee might help the situation. Jabbour stated that staff should bill for the next quarter Immediately, and If payment is not received on time, the contract should be cancelled. Goetten felt that this Is a very disturbing situation, but noted that the Council has no choice but to cancel due to lack of payment. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Butler, to cancel the police protection service contract with Long Lake if the fourth quarter payment Is not In—housa by October 10, 1991. If payment Is received by that date, staff should proceed with 1992 budget negotiations. Butler remarked that she had checked into past payments and 1 ,••' found the following* i *\ ¥ i'r* ■ Qua January 1. 1991 April 1, 1991 July 1. 1991 B11 led End of January Late In March July 11. 1991 Paid Late Apri1 June 21. 1991 September 23, 1991 : 1 -: •^ /;■%13 (t-4i. r..:.iTTk •i* ... i= I j MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 POLICE SERVICE CONTRACT WITH LONG LAKE - CONT. Due Paid 1990 January 1, 1990 April 1. 1990 July 1, 1990 October 1, 1990 Late January May 23, 1990 August 23. 1990 January 5, 1991 1989 January 1, 1989 April 1, 1989 July 7, 1989 October 1. 1989 Late March 1989 July 7, 1989 Late November 1989 December 27, 1989 Butler felt It unfair to expect the citizens of Orono to carry the charge for police services for the City of Long Lake. She noted that this has not just occurred within the last year, but they have an estabTlshed record of late payment.She felt it was time to take action. Goetten thanked Butler for checking the past record as she "had no idea this had gone on for this long. Mayor Peterson Informed the Council that Long Lake has set up a meeting to discuss the situation.She also noted that they have honored Moorse's request and paid the third quarter payment. Jabbour noted that in no way could he approve any form of Joint powers as previously brought up by Long Lake. Butler announced she would be happy to visit the Mayors of other contract cities and explain to them past administrative problems Orono has had with Long Lake and explain the reason for changing the contract with Long Lake to address such problems. She felt the cost sharing formula should remain the same. Moorse noted that to renegotiate the contract for 1992, the City of Orono must notify Long Lake by October 1, 1991, so that would mean a decision would have to be made that evening.He explained he would rather not renegotiate the penalty clause because there is an opportunity for Orono to cancel the contract for breach of contract if needed, and if the contract were to be renegotiated. Long Lake may have many contract items they wish to renegotiate. Butler expressed her desire to let the officers know that they do not have to worry about being layed off because of cancellation of this contract. Jabbour asked Barrett what type of notice would have to be given If payment was not received. Barrett advised it would have to be determined when cover­ age would cease. i-.i i L--- -V KHNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 PdkICI SERVICE CONTRACT WITH LONG LAKE - CONT. Jabbour fait they chould cancel the contract as of October 1st and renegotiate the contract to Include late payment and lack of payment clause. Barrett noted that to cancel the contract at this point and renegotiate would take an enormous amount of time by staff. Jabbour felt It had to be done. Moorse asked what type of cancellation clause the Council was looking at. Barrett noted that the City, at its sole discretion, could cancel the contract and discontinue ser’<lce In three months. Goetten stated that we must be sure that the citizens of Long Lake have adequate police coverage.She felt that wo are entering the contract for next year's service thinking they are going to live up to their end of the contract. Jabbour stated that if Long Lake retaliates it could end up holding payment for any number of reasons. He felt that even If the contract were cancelled, the police department would not need to layoff people as wo are currently understaffed. Ho stated that If the contract Is reinstated for 1992, two more persons should be added to the police department.There currently Is a lot of overtime paid In that department. Sullivan noted that the department is currently running one person under authorized strength. Jabbour asked how many persons would have to bo added to maintain adequate coverage under the contract. Sullivan felt by adding one patrol officer, one investigator and three part time persons to cover vacations and sick leave he would have adequate coverage. Jabbour withdrew his motion. j't was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Butler, to cancel the contract with Long Lake as of October l, 1991 and renegotiation of that contract to add a cancellation clause if payment for the fourth quarter police service Is received by October 10, 1991.If payment Is not received by the deadline date, service will discontinue as of January 1, 1992.Ayes 3, nays 1. Mayor Peterson opposed the motion. . V. r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 23, 1391 POLICE SERVICE CONTRACT WITH LONG LAKE - CONT. Candace Rowlette,3775 Bayside Road,and a Planning Commission member, commented as a business owner of Long Lake she was not happy with the motion, and as a citizen of Orono she was not happy about carrying Long Lake's portion of the service. She did note that Orono has let this go on for a long time and thereby has set a precedent of Long Lake being able to pay late. She felt that the Council already has many issues before them that require much time and felt that adding another at this time was not a good Idea.She noted that she Is concerned about what this will do with the relationship between the two cities on work'ng on Highway 12. Butler noted that at the last meeting she attended with the two cities, she noted absolutely no headway at all In working towards a common goal and explained that currently the administrative task Involved In keeping this contract has become so cumbersome that nothing else Is getting done. Rowlette felt that perhaps Long Lake would then retaliate by cancelling fire protection for Orono. Butler noted that police and fire services are under a legal binding contract and since the City of Orono Is holding up their end of the deal with the fir*a contract, we should have no problem. Rowlette asked If other contract cities are late In payments. the 1 r Jabbour noted they are always cn time. Goetten declared this Issue has gone on far too long and felt that the Council has made their decision based on facts and professional advice. (#20) FIRE SERVICE PROVISION ALTERNATIVES Moorse explained that he had submitted to the Council a memo that laid out the alternatives for fire protection for the City. Mayor Peterson asked If all the City’s fire contracts are the same. Moorse indicated that they are not. Goetten felt that we should be prepared In case the need to change fire protection service arises. Butler* directed the City Administrator to provide an In- depth analysis of fire protection alternatives at the October 28th Council meeting. I \ tt' m p:^r' •r ■,' ^ . ^rv- •ri; H- $ !i,.i if . - r;: - ^•• W:.. Ll^ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 (#ai) lONOXNQ FOR THE CITY FACILITIES THROUGH iHE HRA - RESOLUTION #3025 Barrett explained that regulations requiring the resolution for the HRA have been changed and the resolution Is no longer required. He also noted that Callahan had originally objected to the additional funds listed In the resolution. Jabbour affirmed that to be 110% sure they should pass the resolution. Barrett noted that Is correct. It was moved by Butler, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to adopt Resolution #3025, regarding bonding for the City facilities through the HRA. Ayes 4, nays 0. (#22) FINANCING FOR THE NEW CITY FACILITIES Moorse explained that preparing for the bond sale, tentative. this is a preliminary schedule He noted that these dates are only (#23) AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION #3009 Barrett explained that the applicant is requesting the Council to reduce the fees as most of the fees were incurred In tracking down a former contract for deed holder and also the fees have not been broken out so the applicant 1s proposing payment of half of the legal fees. Goetten noted that the City did all the work In tracking the former contract for deed holder for the applicant. Butler felt that the City should be reimbursed as staff and counsel have spent a lot of time for the applicant proposing the variance. Jabbour noted that the applicant used the City Attorney at the City's contract rate to do his work. It was moved by Jabbour. seconded by Goetten, to Resolution #3009 as adopted previously. Ayes 4, nays 0. leave (#24) COUNCIL WORK SESSON CONCERNING THE STUBBS BAY SEWER PROJECT Moorse stated that a public meeting Is set for October 14th concerning the Stubbs Bay Sewer Project. He felt a workshop held prior to that meeting would bo helpful and Is proposing October 7th. iViiift i ll M - ^ ^^ t ■ R;\V'te.n V :• ;v *‘■'} i ,:pV^ ".i'- "fn;' r" MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 COUNCIL WORK SESSION CONCERNING THE STUBBS BAY S^” PROJECT - CONT. Gaffron asked if it was the Council's intent to aiscucs the draft briefly at the Council meeting of October 14th and set future dates for public hearings.He advised that the Council should invite the Committee working towards this project. Gaffron asked if the Council considered this third draft of the project as public information. Goetten felt that the Committee members should be provided with a copy and anyone else can come into the City office and review the proposal but must pay for a copy of it. Council agreed to meet on October 7, 1991 at 5:00 for workshop to discuss the Stubbs Bay Sewer Project and to hold public meeting on October 14, 1991. a a (#25*) LICENSES There were no licenses. (#26*) BILLS It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Butler, payment of the All funds Account. Ayes 4, nays 0. to approve ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor adjourn the Regular Council meeting at 10:50 p.m. Peterson, to Ayes 4, nays 0. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk IS -ft-1 —,ai ^—kr.4r>f -| m- .i-i- % 0^ ^ TO; PROM: DATE: Ron Moorse, City Administrator C/^o^ V-v^Ms. John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director October 10, 1991 o SUBJECT: Planning Assistance - Park Commission Orono Sewer Plant Property On August 12, 1991, Alex Vongries, Park Commission's Co-Chair, appeared before the Council to request funding for planning assistance for the Orono sewage treatment plant property. Due to circumstances, the request was tabled for further consideration. The Park Commission Chair would like to discuss the matter again on October 14, 1991, and will be at the meeting on that date. JRG/ch ............... nt ._. 'r-t .TosTrcmt Mayor Peterson C Orono Council Members 8791.2John R Gerhardson# Acting City Administrator e:August It 1991 t* Planning Assistance -Orono Treatment Plant Site Property Recently the Park Commission was directed to properties that nay possibly be sold as a result of the City facility being relocated to Old Crystal Bay Road, "“fth Hiahwav 12. One of the properties under review is the old Oro seSage^treatment plant on Old Crystal Bay Road adjacent to Ff®nch Lake. The Park Commissi •>n feels that all or parts of the p should be kept for wixdlife preservation or a very passive- recreational use. In order to determine a reasonable amount to Park Commission feels that they need the assistance of a professional planner. On August 6, 1991, Dahlaren Shardlow k Oban, who has assisted the City on several occasions, appeared before the Park Commission and Park Commission on how he could assist them and the cost for that service (see attached letter). Mr. Alex Vongrles, Vice Chair of the Park Commission, v;ill be in attendance on August 12th to discuss this matter. JRG/tln " OfciilU UOJ •*«I*,*raMv taoWidfcy -&SIO —t>hon»* ^^^-33 li.c;k}-.\':^D[nw k :1v \n ^ • •t-j—• ► t »• *iV - Trit I -IV.^ * !?€CO ■ »01tA-rrp. CO.N5ULTTNG PLANNERS :.ANDSC a PE ARCiUTECTl^ . 30C FIRST a \^ni ;£ XORTK SUITE 21C ‘ . MINNE.APOLIS. MX T5 ;CI, - ^I2-559-5>uO 7 August 1991 Jolm Gechardson, Aoing Administrator CityofOrono F.OB0166 Crystal Bi^; MN55323 I ^ RE: Estimate of Cost of Services to Assist the Faiics Commission in the Evaluation of the Firic Development Potential of ilie.Fonntr Sewage Treatment Property- DearJohn: T at the Pa^ Commissioa inect^ we discossed the need for the CommLnon to review a more complete ana^Ms of »hi« praper^s development potential in order to make a reasoned recninmendationrtO'theCl^ GounciL .1 described an approadi that would involve having one of p^-young^ Iandscape architects-prepare a base map, complete an anal^s of the andprq>are a sumjnaiy of analy^ eodubit, and-then from this information, prepare yhematie alfatch^ that wonld explore some development altemairves. m •m • IpropONWd nii]^ that we would by Slnstrating the optimuin sdieme for deve die entire padc as a passive, natural amenity,-and thdn'^illnAihte how-some of the area mig^t be developed for stngle>£unily residmrdal lots and how this might alter the park I havc^K^Eea to Mike Gaffron since last ni|^t, andl nawanderstandth^itwilltaike. about a day to Ibcate'andassefflble all of the pertinent baseinfonnation ^d prepare s bashing. I was assuming that there alrea<^ was a ba% map dmtcotdd be u^. This adds $200JX) to my rough estimate that I made n^t.' 'We will prepare, a-s6i^ base map, assemble and anri^eTtbe development potential of the propectyv^d prepm a summary of analysis exhOuL We ^ also pr^iare a plan that xetahis thw entirn property for park pnrposes apd af least two addhional-alternatxves that wwilH aiiffi one Qp moielots on-thepiopeity. This >x4:yk will be done \fv one of our youqgvIandKi^andifrects, workiDgja&der the supervision of oitr senior park planners. We wijQ.deve^ padeets for Parks C^mmibsion,and Chy Council review. These wCDi be a standard page size (to.be deteemine^ which pould langefim tol1*xl7* dqiendingon'thebase m^- The^odbrnite will be prepared in fillLoolor.. We win complete diis work for S950.00. • • • •• Shicae^. DAHLOREN; SEARDLOW, AND'uBAN, INC. •I I «• V. 5; I ' K iy L^“V •• August 8, 1991 Mayor Barbara A. Peterson Orono City Councilmembers P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: Park Commission Matters Dear Mayor Peterson & Councilmembers: I had hoped to be at the Council meeting scheduled for next Monday, Augu8tl2th, but a recently scheduled business trip prevents my being there. Alex Vongries has agreed to be present on the 12th, but I wanted to give you a written update on several other matters as well. 1.Bike Trail. I am pleased to report that at the Park Commission's request, Hennepin County has agreed to cooperate with the City and to pay a major portion of the cost of a bike/hike trail to extend from Baker Park along the east side of Old Crystal Bay Road tc "'hei Luce Line. The County has indicated that it will alloca^ce $132,000 to this project in addition to the improvements tc be constructed within Baker Park itself. Representatives of Hennepin County Parks and I will appear at your meeting on August 26th to brief you on this project and to request conceptual approval. It is important that the trail be provided for in planning and funding for the new City facilities since the trail can provide an excellent link from the facilities to the rest of the community. 2.Park Planning for the Old Sewer Pond Property. We have now considered the appropriate use of the old sewer pond property at three meetings of the Parks Commission. It is the view of the majority of the Commission that the sewer pond and a portion of the adjacent area should be set aside as a pond, wetland and natural area. A portion of the land owned by the City can be developed if proper planning is provided to protect this extraordinary natural resource. Accordingly, we ask that you take the following two actions: 05-V \ V -V.:.-.W F Park Conimission MattersAugust 7, 1991Page 2 of 2 A.That you instruct the City staff to apply for a permit from the DNR to restore the sewer pond to an appropriate water level. This was approved unanimously at our meeting on July 2. B.That you authorize us to retain a cc isultant at a cost of approximately $950. It appears tc us that if we are to accommodate a suitable park and natural area on the property, as well as compatible development of a portion of the property, a consultant should be retained to assist you and us in our planning. We reviewed several conceptual plans at our meeting on August 6 but were unable to agree upon the most deslreable plan without professional assistance. Mr. John Shardlow of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban was at our meeting and advised us that the planning assistance which we envision can be accomplished for approximately $950 and can be available for the next Park Commission meeting on September 3. 3. Other Available City Property. We reviewed the McCulley Road parcel at our June 3 meeting and concluded that we should retain a bike trail corridor of approximately 30 feet width along the west side of McCulley Road and we should also retain a parking area to serve the Luce Line. Aside from this, we concluded that there is no need to retain this property for park purposes. Wa are continuing to evaluate the Crystal Bay property where the present municipal facilities are located. We have evaluated several alternatives, but have not yet reached a definitive conclusion. I am sorry that I will be unable to attend next Monday's meeting, but I look forward to seeing you and answering any questions you might have on the 26th. Sincerely yours, / '2. J'Cl<d Z”''. ''I ^ Richard N. Flint f RMF/ers m I'"*' Vo /// Tds Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse» City Administrator rroBz Oatez Subjactz Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator October 11, 1991 % #1573 Carol J. Kelly and James Massey, 3020 and 3030 Casco Point Road - Request for Special Consideration Regarding Park Fee Payment The City Attorney will be prepared to respond to any questions members may have concerning the issues raised by Ms. Kelly in relation to the directives of the Park Dedication Fee Ordinance. Since our last Council meeting, the City Administrator and Building and Zoning Administrator met with Ms. Kelly to discuss realistic options concerning her original request. I think it has been made apparent to Ms. Kelly that the current Fee Ordinance can only apply in this subdivision application. In light of the preliminary comments made by the City Attorney at our last meeting, the Assessor has been advised '-0 reconsider the original appraisal because of changes in the real estate market since the first estimate. Review the Assessor's current appraisal attached to this memo. The undeveloped market value of the property is now shown at $72,000. The Park Dedication Fee would be $5,760. The issue remaining for the Council is the time of payment. The City Attorney will provide direction reg'.xding this matter. Attachment: Appraisal Isv Jffrt.ti’i ji‘4At'flif a.?. t*-v 1r i CITYof ORONO *:. if- ^r^Q- 0m, mM-'i ,,..,->.-=\j ■, Wrm L.1 V OF^ONO Post Oflice Box 66*CryaUi Bay, MinneaoU 55323 • Municipal Officea On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka TO:Orono Zoning Department FROM:Rolf Erickson, City Assessor DATE:10-10 - 9/_________ RE:Park dedication fee of: 7" A;i»J T~q.(^g<A -Fro Sio •m - 23 ~ 002,0 ^2 pool I 2»4*e,^ Awes.@ ^IZ.OQO 72 ,(3 5* i>0, 00 •UILOING a ZONING - 473-73S7 ASSESSING ADMINISTRA'nON A FINANCE - 473-7338 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 a.‘a^^'.‘>,_P.r li rULkf'MltAt a ^— .k^_• « ,« -.‘lUfcka^... ,arA.n-ra.-«A—.t*~r •—4-____j :■f.:-^ tl; Jv ■IV y W i:::<‘y. ■ •■■: ■. . t rr- ■ r t-; <• '. • ■■ ■ m ^ T • f-% H-'-mi- '■:>■ ... l&i' •1: n^' •r. p-Iflv. Tot Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse# City Administrator C/t.% %v Jeanne A. Mabusth« Building & Zoning Administrator Dates October 9, 1991 -5 % Subjects #1573 Carol J. Kelly and James Massey^ 3020 and 3030 Casco Point Road - Final Subdivision - Resolution List of Bxhibits - A - Resolution #2869 Granting Preliminary Plat Approval B - Final Plat of Kelly 2nd Addition C - Preliminary Grading Plan D ** Hardcover Removal Plan E - Page 5 of Staff Memo Dtd 9/6/91 P - Council Action Notice 9/23/91 Meeting Application #1573 was tabled at your last Council meeting in order to provide the City Attorney additional time to further review the Park Fee Ordinance as it relates to Ms. Kelly's special request. Ms. Kelly's request dealt with reconsideration of the amount of the park fet^ determined by the Assessor and payment of the park fee at time of issuance of building permit rather than at the time of final subdivision approval. Ms. Kelly has since been advised by the Zoning staff that an additional 40 s.f. of existing hardcover is still to be removed. Review Exhibit D. 129 s.f. of hardcover removed was located outside of the boundaries of the property. Both applicant and applicant's consultants were advised of this at the time of preliminary subdivision approval (review Page 2 of Preliminary Approval Resolution and Exhibit E, Page 5 of Staff Memo). Ms. Kelly contacted my office on October 8th to advise that to remove the additional 40 s.f. will cost additional hundreds of dollars and that she would ask Council to allow final hardcover on Lot 1 to remain at 4^395 s.f. or 25.2%. If Council concurs staff will amend the approval resolution to confirm final inventory of hardcover on Lot 1 at 25.2% hardcover. The enclosed approval resolution is once again presented for Council's action and will be amended to include Council's final decision concerning the Park Dedication Fee and the hardcover issue for Lot 1. Isv A RBSOLOTIOH APPROYING THE PLAT OF KELLY 2ND ADDITION APPLICATKNI NO. 1573 NHBEBAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and NBBRBAS^ 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 IIHBRBAS# the City Council has considered the application for a Class III subdivision of a 3 lot plat by Carol J. Kelly and James Massey, (hereinafter "the subdividers”); WBBBBASr the subdivision has been found to meet all standards of the LR-*1C lakeshore residential zoning district finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow the continued use of Lots 1 and 3 for single family residential use without the need of any variances and Lot 2 to be fully developed without the need of any variances; and NHBRBASr the subdivider has completed all requirements of the [r platting regulations of the City, Including: It? 1. 2. 3. Completion of all the requirements of Resolution No. 2869 Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. Subdividers have completed the realignment of the drainage ditch along the shared lot lines of Lots 2 and 3. Drainage easements have been granted over the realigned drainage ditch on the plat. 4. ¥ Applicant has completed the removal of 398 s.f. of existing hardcover on Lot 1. 5.Payment to the City of a Park Dedication Fee in the amount of 6.Payment to the City for the legal review and filing of the plat in the amount of $150.00. NOW, THBRBPORB, BB IT RBSOLVBD. that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Kelly 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: Page 1 of 3 i* • [ f N-v Current and future owner of Lot 1 is hereby advised that hardcover within the 75-250' setback area is at a maximum allowed level at 25% or 4,355 s.f.. Any additional improvements to this property resulting in increases in hardcover must be approved by the City of Orono and may result in equal or greater removal of existing hardcover. Current o%mer of Lot 3 is advised that present dock location will have to be altered next season to meet the required setback from final approved lot lines. Future dock to serve newly created riparian Lot 2 shall meet the pertinent LMCD standards that determine the allowed boat density units at the dock based on 75-85* of lineal footage of shoreline. Owner is further advised that in consideration of the marsh-like lands adjacent to the potential dock si^e that no structure or improvments may be placed or installed above the 929.4 elevation without appropriate variance approvals from the City. Upon application for a building permit for new construction on Lot 2, the future owner shall pay the following: ’\ A.Sewer Unit Charge - $1,513.86 (based on 1990 rate to be amended to meet current Fee Schedule at time of application for permit) B.Water Unit Charge - $1,691.78 (based on 1990 rate to be amended to meet current Fee Schedule at time of application for permit) 5.The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Bennepin County Recorder's Office or the Registrar of Title's Office on or before March 23, 1992 together with a certified original copy of this Resolution. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Page 2 of 3 6^ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of October, 1991. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STATE OP MINNESOTA ) )88. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing inetrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day of October, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson 6 Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 3 t I-•■ femv A •• • Li^il^ City of ORONO CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2869 ORONO A RESOLDTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OP A PLAT AT 3020/3030 CASCO POINT ROAD PILE NO. 1573 WHEREAS, Carol J. Kelly and James Massey on July 26, 1990 filed a formal subdivision application with the City for approval of a 3-lot residential plat of property legally described a.: follows: Tract T and Tract U, Registered Land Survey #461, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property") and; WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statues 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 20, 1990 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to spea)c thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on September 10, 1990 the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of Carol J. Kelly and James Massey (hereinafter “the subdividers"), noting the following findings of fact: 1.The property is located within the LR—1C Single Family La)ceshore Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 1/2 acre of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. 2.The property contains a total of approximately l*®^ acres. Portions of the property are intersected by a public drainageway, yet all lots are able to be platted such that each lot maintains 1/2 acre dry contiguous building envelope. 3.Each lot meets the required lot width to the rear of the front yard setbac)c line and at the 75' la)ceshore setbacic line measured from the 929.4 elevation. 4.Lots 1 and 3 can continue to be residentially developed without the need for variances to the LR-IC zoning standards. Lot 2, the undeveloped lot, can be residentially developed without the need for variances to the LR-IC standards. Page 1 of 4 4- wJ •. r^.^1, ¥ •.r V-X iii- I- l; City of ORONO Cl r Y RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. __________ ORONO 5, Tbs existing structural improvements on Lots 1 and 3 meet the required setback from the newly proposed division lines. 6m Existing hardcover on Lots 1 and 2 shall be maintained at either 25% or less. Lot T shall be allowed 4,732 s.f. or 25% hardcover within the 75-4.50' setback area. NOW, THBRBPORB BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat application ° J.Kelly and James Massey for the properties located at 3020/3030 Casco Point Road per the survey originally dated May 21, l^^O, most recently revised September 4, 1990 by Pete J. Knabb of Ron Krueger & Associates Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1.The following improvements must be completed prior to final plat approval: A)Realignment of drainage ditch as shown on survey noted above. . 40 B)Removal of 398 s.f. of existing hardc.6ver on proposed Lot 1 as shown on the survey noted above (revise date 9/4/90). Prior to final plat approval, applicant's surveyor to submit revised plan showing existing hardcover removals at 398 s.f., the current plan shows 330 s.f. 2.Upon application for a building permit for construction on Lot 2,the future owner shall pay ® following sewer and water fees: Sewer Unit Charge Water Unit Charge $1,513.86 1,691.78 It should also be noted that this rate is based on the 1990 Pee Schedule and will be adjusted based on the inflationary rate for each annual fee schedule. Page 2 of 4 ■ m City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2869_________ ) M O N O 3.Current and future owner of Lot 1 is hereby advised that hardcover within the 75-250* setbaioll area id at a maximum allowed level at 25%. Any additioMl imptoWmenta to this property resulting in increases ia hardcover must be approved by the City of Orono and MSI ruaOlt in equal or greater removal of existing hardcover. 4.Riparian/dock rights. The current owner of Lot 3 is hereby advised that present dock location will have to be altered next season to meet the required setback from final approved lot lines. The future dock to serve newly cree- riDarlan.parlan Lot 2 shall meet the pertinent LMCD standards t determine the allowed boat density units at the dock bated on 75-85* of lineal footage of shoreline. Applicant is further advised that in consideration of the marsh-like lands adjacent to the potential dock site, that no structure or improvements may be placed or installed above the 929.4 elevation without appropriate variance approvals from the C^.vy. 5.City Assessor to determine fair market value of 1 acre of land in order to assist the Park Commission in detersdning Park Fee for newly created lot 2. FINAL PLAT SUBMITTALS The following list of finalr*Sul»iittals must be submitted to Zoning Administrator two weeks prior ^:o the regularly sc..^doled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. The subdivider is hereby advised that a preliminary approval will expire one year from the date of Council's approval of the preliminary plat (September 10, 1991). A.RECORD PLAT drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to l'*«200'. Drawing to include: a)Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Peter J.Knabb of Ron Krueger c Associates, Inc., revised date September 4, 1990. b)Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10* wide along all perimeter property lines and 5* each aide of internal property lines - omit at lakeshore. Page 3 of 4 4 -lifTiil':. £ ir fc * A City of ORONO Cl I Y RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL UF ORONO NO.2869 c)Designation snd dedication of a drainag® easement within Lot 2 and Lot 3 as shown on the plat drawings. Drainage easement to be shown 5* either side of drain*" age ditch as it approaches the shared lot lines of Lots 2 and 3 can be incorporated within drainage and utility easements and should be designated no less than 10 as it extends lakeward through the remaining portion of Lot 2. d)Designation and dedication of right-of-way of Casco Point Road. e)Name plat B.LEGAL DOCUMENTS required: a)Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. ^ b)The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the propej ‘-y. C.PEES TO BE PAID: Total Due $300.00* a)Pinal plat fee = $150.00 b)Iagal review and filing fees of $150.00 *c) Park fee to be determined by the C.i’ y Assessor at a later date, to be paid prior to final plat approval. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 10th day of September, 1990. UjulA ATT^T: Jar.«3yR. Grabek, Mayor JJjMzh-yiri . /Am yOoTothy allin, Citv c. J:^rl Page 4 of 4 v:i ■r I ir. r ' |.'v 's'' '.. .5 ^ r' .V RESOLUTION #2869 STATE OF HINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) CITY OF ORONO ) I Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin County. Minnesota, do ’ ereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of the proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on Septernber 10 . 19 90 . 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 11th , day my hand and seal this (SEAL) ,.J y'Mc--■ vi.v., ,v.:> '-.fe- ; - ■ • ■.'•■ •••■ >■ •« ■■•AV ••••• • ■(•■..*.L' i . . •VVS•• "Sri-'t.•,.*r vN’'#- .; ^.f3V- •• • *<*. ••.' '•‘U'/v;‘ • ••••••‘ %5r •;• . ■?!(% \ * ' \ • '.o .»‘.••( •;. **i\ • • • ^ ».1 mi liL. V-- • ^•v• *■' :•* •' • • -.:>iK V • .V• * •. vK.::g #• •J , •♦ ■s I *i' . f ; i /D .1 ton' vvvvv VN.v N.nV 4/^0 CdUE^ lCly«0 t. R*«ixova I m ^oco I k, f.:w--r-::.'..'' * ■’ V ^Vf^OK/o( - I Zoning File #1573 September 6r 1990 Page 5 Additional Ccmnents and Planning Commission Recommendation - Additional Exhibits - Exhibit G - Revised Preliminary Plan Review of Revised Preliminary Plan - Prior to scheduling the preliminary subdivision application before Counci1« applicant was required to submit an amended plan that showed Lot 2’s building envelope at 1/2 acre dry contiguous west of the drainageway (review Exhibit E). Lot 1 « 23^620 s.f. or .54 acres 75-250' Setback Area = 17,420 s.f. Total Hardcover Allowed = 4,355 s.f. or 25% Existing Hardcover 4,735 s.f. or 27.18% Total Hardcover to be Removed = 398 s.f. Proposed on Current Plan = 330 s.f. Applicant shall be required to designate 68 s.f. additional existing hardcover to be removed. Lot 2 ■« 26,630 s.f. or .62 acres 75-250' Setback Area * 18,930 i .f. Total Hardcover Allowed = 4,122 s.f. or 25% Dry Contiguous Buildable Area West of Drainageway Confirmed at 21,800 s.f. Lot 3 29,770 s.f. or .71 acres 75-250' Setback Area » 20,170 s.f. Existing Hardcover * 4,463 s.f. or 22.1% The applicant has submitted a revised plan that satisfies all directives of the Planning Commission except that hardcover scheduled for removal does not meet the 398 s.f. amount. Applicant must designate 68 s.f. of additional existing hardcover area to be removed. Applicant shall be required to provide an updated survey of Lot 1 showing all scheduled hardcover to be removed and completed prior to final plat approval. • •APPLICATION NO. 1573• K’CITT OP OR< P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay» MN 55323 473-7357 NOTICE OF COtmCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 9/23/91 TOs Carol J. Kelly 3020 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES:James L. Massey 3030 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 TIPS OP APPLICATIOHt Subdivision DATE OP !TIN6s 9/23/91 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against »i 4 . t MCIL ACTION - NOTION: To table all action on your special request to waive the requirements of the park dedication fee ordinance until the City Attorney has provided the Council with further direction so that both the City's interest and your interests are protected. All action on the final plat will also be tabled until resolve of the park dedication fee issue. The City must ask that an additional 40 s.f. of existing hardcover be removed to meet the allowed amount of hardcover at 4,355 s.f. or 25%. You have removed 340 s.f. of bituminous drive within your property's boundaries. An additional 40 s.f. must be removed - see sketch attached. Your application will be rescheduled before the Council at their October 14th meeting. iV- ,Sr: fe;'® ■ ¥ I-' V'' Toi Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorse# City Administrator FroBs Dates Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning s Zoning AdndLni^raWr^ October 10, 1991 Subjects #1629 W. D. MacMillan, 1700 Fox Street - Variance - Revision to Previous Approval Oa ❖ % Applications Request to construct open carport in lieu of approved garage List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit £ Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Letter of Request Construction Plans Elevation Views Site Plan Squash Court Building Permit Permit Application Survey/Footprint Approved with Resolution #2961 Resolution #2961 and Exhibits Discussion On May 13, 1991 the City Council approved Resolution #2961 granting variances for an oversized accessory structure addition to the MacMillan tennis court building. The approved addition was for a squash court and two-stall garage. Applicants subsequently requested a permit for the squash court and a carport with a slightly different footprint than the approved garage. They were advised by staff that the carport was so significant a deviation from the approved plan that it would require Council review. Applicants then dropped the carport from their permit request and were issued a permit merely for the squash court. Construction of that addition is underway. Applicants are now requesting Council approval of the revised site plan in order to obtain a permit for the carport. The two-car attached garage approved in Resolution #2961 was approximately 26* x 33* or 858 s.f. which included an enclosed stairway system. The actual squash court addition for which a permit was issued included an interior stairway, hence the dimensions of the carport within the posts is approximately 25* x 28* or 700 s.f. Overall, the carport appears to be a less intense addition than the originally proposed garage. The ca**port is offset approximately 6* northward of the original site plan, and reduces the side setback fr^i 254' to 250*. ITtfin41 jit iiw i>v ’ py % jI'V'-* ■ • ■^•< ■,'i ■■ Zoning File #1629 October 10, 1991 Page 2 In staff's opinion, this revision has no significant impact on neighboring properties, and it constitutes less square footage than the garage originally approved. Staff RecoHBendation Staff would recommend approval of the revised proposal under the following conditions: 1.Future enclosure of the carport within its footprint defined by the pillars will not require further Council approval. 2.Any future additions outside the footprint of the tennis court/squash court/carport footprint requested after May 13, 1992 will require a new variance application. 3.Adoption of the attached resolution stating the above conditions and approving a revision to Resolution #2961. A resolution is attached should Council wish to approve the requested revisions. Isv aw.i If ' *. biS' A RBSQLOTION AMENDING RBSOLOTION #2961 PILE #1629 WHEREAS, Cralgbank Associates represented by W. Duncan MacMillan (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1700 Pox Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, on May 13, 1991 the City Council adopted Resolution #2961 granting variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivisions 9 (C) and (D) to allow the applicant to contruct additions to an existing oversized accessory structure; and WHEREAS, the approval granted in Resolution 12961 allowed construction of additions increasing the footprint of that structure to 14,090 s.f., in excess of the 6,000 s. f. normal allowance for accessory structure footprints on the property, and allowed the proposed additions to be located closer to the road than the principal residence structure on the property* and WHEREAS, Condition #1 of Resolution #2961 referenced the additions shown on the site plan attached to that resolution as Exhibit B, and required that any changes in plans resulting in relocation of the additions or which resulted in a footprint exceeding 14,090 s.f. to be further reviewed by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the applicants were issued a building permit on August 13, 1991 for the approved squash court addition bit omitting the attached garage addition. Applicants subsequently proposed an open carport addition in a location 4* closer to the west property line and offset approximately 6* from the line of the northwest wall of the originally approved site plan; and Page 1 of 4 'M-'.-y . k. i . [f:: %;rr,. f ■ I- fe;v .^, *?i ■;'^-fcK- h: :H H-: f'_ l^'/I' AT i *•' ;> & WHBRBAS, the City Council finds that the revised proposal to substitute an open ccrport of defined footprint 700 s.f. In place of the previously approved garage addition of 858 s.f.f and being one-story in height and being located 250' from the west lot line rather than 254* from the west lot line, is not considered an intensification of the approval granted in Resolution #2961, will have no significant impact on neighoring properties, and meets the intent of the approval granted in Resolution #2961. MOir, THBRBPORB, BB IT RBSOLVBD by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota that Resolution #2961 of the City Council is hereby amended to allow construction of a 700 s.f. carport per the site plan attached as Exhibit B, in lieu of the previously approved 858 s.f. enclosed attached garage, subject to the following conditions: 1.Future enclosure of this carport with walls shall not exceed the 700 s.f. footprint approved with this resolution. Such enclosure shall not require further City Council review and approval, but will require a separate building permit. 2.Any future proposed additions for which an application is made before May 13, 1992 shall adhere to the footprint and floor area limitations of Resolution #2961. Any proposal occurring after May 13, 1992 that requests further increases in footprint area or floor area shall require a new variance application. 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 applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 2 of 4 ■’•* r-’ ». ' '■ W'■■>:, V Ll/» *>■■ ; :';^,. i .■.■..." I>ir'f5" U* • ■' ' ' ■;a7'!-: :•. :’i <' i; :n- i * '..is" •* •. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of Octoberr 1991. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson^ Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day of October* 1991* by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M.Rallin* Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono* a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instriunent was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 4 4.' STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 before roe a Notary Public within and for said countyr personally appeared known to roe to be the person(8) described in and who executed the foregoing instruroentr and acknowledged that he (they) executed the saroe as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )S8. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 . before roe a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the personCs) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 4 i ■ ' tt:- t-j- i ^:,• f.* •'• jW- %■ ► U:' **.'■ «;V * /„.• ; -s, ; - . L-<' KS- & Sr k:;' (- S't^-.A.- ‘I |£i r^'“; ■■'" - •=t . £'/{.’. AMcNULTY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY400 SCCONO AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOUS, MINNESOTA 55401 012*330-0674 FAX 340-2904 u cnv :r OP^'NO jUSEEGVSiiJ [SEE 1 ti 1991 Septenber 16. 1991 Nike Gaffron City of Oron’’; P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. NN 55323 MacMillan Tennis Court Addition Dear Mike: I request the City review the enclosed plans for construction of the squash court and carport additions to the MacMillan Tennis Court building at 1700 Pox Street. As you are aware, the building permit has been Issued for the squash court only and we are now under construction with that portion of the project. It was understood that a separate permit would be issued for the garage :,r carport at the tine that decision was made. The owners would like to build a carport as shown on the plans itvvlead of the garage which was part of the variance approved by the City. I understand tL . you aay wish to have the City Council review the change from a garage to a carport. Please let ae Kiiotv if you have any questions Sincerely, McNULTY CONSTRUCT TON /L 7^ R.McNulty.\ Prfsidqnt '| Enclosure u I 1 I ;; • I f I I I I I I I I ICI court :@-- --- I . I l �. l I �-1 J__.l't U ll l I I I I l I1 I I I I I I I _j, . . . ,,, ---.. '. . � . • • .. i .. '' ... .•• .. ' : �:·. . I I � t .. .. ,, .'. '' I • • I • • • • : .;, _!·, : ' I ., . . . • I ' ' . . ' t .,• • ' sr hi ;• : '-i h k S: .1 ■ - c •%* akkcttitdiiM. \ \ \ \ I . •. '■ »N Ne5«j^ tf'v'•■...' r •I -I •«r fi* « • 1* 'mi ■H ^ i» * ' '• \ V 4^'S'PI®JM .W'i , •, I »'•< 1 ^ •*. > ■• •!.''Iw ’./ / / TOP «/ ■w\i ‘r \ •*./ >' X \ voo'01*57/1 *1 f.\ i . /< Mi /. i i ' ' rr^ ^■ V— ■pf^5#- FoxStreet_ o®0 ESPY K CITY OF OP^NO (t SITE PLAN —grading PLAtj ^mSAFFROVEO, >1 (D a? (N «* ^ u.e* -J CITY OF ORONO 1335 Brown Rd. South • PO. Box 6‘. Crystal Bay. Minnesota 53323 (612)473-7357 _____ PERMIT TYPE: Permit Number Date Issued eiJiLoiHs ..;.yu .“t / ■« -1 • 4Uc*/ 1 -•/ Dl TE ADDRESS 17C FOX ST 03-117-23-41-0003 ISCRIPnON I.. SQUASH COURT Building Permit Type . . SF-ACC STRUCTURE Building Work Type ./r', ACCESSORY STRUCT UBC Occupancy Construction Type ^ » Zoning ' i- w'' • \ RR-IB ■ •^ # ^ I. r-‘ 5 P' iT'r Lv I'N ...-.rfei i •Tt- CARPORT NOT INCLUDED IN THIS PERMIT - OCCUPANT LOAD SIGNS MUST BE POSTED E SUMMARY VALUATION -^.$150,000 Base Fee Plan Review Surcharge Total Fee $314.50 $629.43 ___SI5^QQ $1,413.93 HfflA??iP?bNSTRUCT I ON ^ 1.3390374 CITY OF FINANCE OFFICE 1313100000 01 CEN 814.50 1350100000 01 CEN 529.43 122220000q_, _01 -----TSrOO- 400 2ND AVENUE SOUTH HINNEAPOLIS MN 55401 <612) 339-0674 ^^aIg^ank ASsociATEis^^ipriw^^yai/^^ ------- - N2momf>R01..-- MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440 03/13/9 THE UNDERSIGNEDS SPEClFIEO'iAND 3:i: V ‘•If.•./ ;otal Fee: $ CITY OP ORONO /Qlf^ BOILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Date Received: F batered By: Date Approved: \ m.I»FORMATIOH HOST »« ^!HB APPLICAMT IS: (circle one)OWNER or CONTRACTOR 1700 Fox Street3B SITE ADDRESS ZIP:55391 (work) 475-7500 ^MB ni> nwwTO. graiobank Associates, W. Duncan MacMi 1 Ian ^HONB: (home)--------- pa ATT.TMg annng«;s.nf.ot. 28. P.O. Box 9300 ^ CITY; Minneapolis- - ZIP:.?^4A2 DETRACTOR: McNultv Construction CompanY_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ILIMG ADDRESS; 400 Second Ave. South CITY: Minneapolis PHONE: 339-0674 ZIP: 55401 PE OF WORK:New Addition__X Pfi>tno RemodeX/Alteration_____ Accessory Structure_ _ Move Renovate Land Alteration_ ?OSBI WOBIC (describe in ii.Add squash court and Port. LIES; 2 SO. PF7T OF EACH FLOOR:_______ OP mwiROOMS; 0 GARAGE STALLS; ATT. 1st - 1.058 sq.ft.. 2nd - 296 SQ.-f DET. Tn»nfn COBSZBOCXION VALOATIOS (excluding land) s $ J^OOO.OO-1^0,00^ ereby apply forVC is complete and accurate; that the wor* wixx m ^ i?:S«d 4t.rs"«t ‘’a%rr;i“a\"dt«ic’'ifno\ to start without a permit, and b the work will be in accordance with the approved plan. vXiZaurr's sighatorb : •I DATE: I I III Ah nil* I • I t- 0Ws espy fio-r cm OF OMHO'grading PLA(|Bt,SITE PLAN I S*foS«!TH REVISIONS 4>< COi ^^ V s9\J. '* ** • r ..• 0 ?r r|- y.ff ' M' ?:••; r' |t Wkr k ?• K-: f:-:- ‘10.-• ¥■fc CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION CF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. -961 ________ A RBSOLUnON GRAHTIHG A VARIAHCB TO MOHICIPAL 20HING CODE SECTION 10.03* SOBDiVISIONS 9 (C) * (D) file no. 1629 HHBHKAS. craigbank of“"the MacMillan o'V’ox St«U within the City of Orono ?h«^Yn?£ttr■th\^ity■I ani le^^aescribed as fellows: Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property), and MHERZAS, the “tVan^^existing'^sports L" «%ec?ea?io»^^^^^^^^bulia\ng. Such additions reguire the foll'^wing variances: iraividua 1 ^accessor. ^ =;J-«-\,irp?o%«\y";el lection” 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C). . of all accessory structure footprint areas ^ceedf^g thi 6,000 s.f, allowed for this property per Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C.. C.Additions to accessory structure are located^^^^^^^ of Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D). NOW, THBREPORB BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1.This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1629. 2.The property is. locV^ea in the RR-IB single family rural residential zoning disu^ic... The property contains approximately 13.5 dry buildable £ -rres in area. Page 1 of 10 A.. .A •aUxA .aIA. . ..._________ '..u. h" CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2961_______ 4.Th« Orono Planning ii“hi at a public hearing on J*® f? interested parties. The approval of the requested variances. 5. The Orono City ” j“”®toSctptuIlly aely the April e, 1991 ana ^ to “laft a r^proposed variances and dxrected start to arai lJ denial. 6.The Orono City Council 22, 19 91 variances, directing staff to draft a resox approval. 7.The To^ o ” t“e^ cily“”c‘o'unSl7%^“ 11°« ISn%t"rVctt“oS'lf a \i675 center/recreational on the o«»«W ”Re%o^"tio"'#22C4 ^^r'eS^d-va^i-ances to Section fSffa. Udivision 9 tC) to allow a narxmun^a.10.03, Subdivision » iti to .";T"'a“va?ianlo‘’t^ i^lS?:nofc^3?'.u\”ivi%ion 9 J. ^ ;l5?'he"ight “o/Vo- where^only a 30; de^ed^buildij.g ^.!„?!:?%^Vreir4V o ‘f s%^«io^ and a variance to Sectx^nearer the fJ2«t”:t u‘ne\U'rhr;SncSarP».. -^-*7 »« the property. 8.The following hardships and areas of pract^ difficulty for justification of the requesteo granted in 1987 are as follows: A.AS evidenced by the soil ®®”P^®^igh.’'*''siveral propertVf the wa-uer table is % only 4-5* sanples indicate that theiWa j height of the ?:inTs‘/a'cimy could b. rei ped hy pla|i„"|,iP deeper the location of th«_ facxlxty. would recuire from the Present oesxgned loca^^^^^^composition and w'a‘-Jr table level are out of control of the ape! < ca-r.ts. p»„ Z .? !0 r f--. -/■ I K CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2961________ B. the main residential structure or To deelan TO move the tennis facility =1®?®''° ^ i?tf?h it to the main residence would severely affert S??uJu%”e\“‘rs”ucra^M^s U ron%hre?r^orrVx%\%rertrn\"t“^^^ be in its pj^oposcd locstion• Dnder the City ordinances, the construction c^ considered an for a total of 7?2?t%."“’it“s®iSp«^ible to enclos^ i‘f"“Sfterta” ng ’fntS*cinsidaration perimeter area n;edelar/und tie"-curt, changing areas and storage. house normally fac e+*T-<a<»'t The ordinance isshort distance from the street. Th oral intended to help Pfos^X accs - slrurtures suchneighborhood as to now allow acce . .fx iC yard" which can ia%rillr*£;en%\7 Vact to ih, jeighborhcod. ^He«^the I5?rYo"o\iigTs”ST pU , the residence J>.s i« bacK $he definition of "front yard", ^he caretaker^house ???.-Tghr/hto^d" s? Street has been incorporated into t.ie design. size of t.-e property and_ _______rrer C *f.ndLV;iiV/e;ifnr tiresse^ neighborhooc will now be ex-ereu . Page 3 of 10 the the the variances. 1' ■ !1 CITY of ORONO /// / *Et p RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2961________ 9.Based on the June 22, 1987 ad- granting the abov conditions : ■voted findings, t:he City Council on -solution #2204 on a vote of 3 to 2, variancesf subject to the following A. This approval is for the °°"®^^^^-J°?erencedstructuresand driveway as shown on reference exhibits. Any changes in plans relocation of structures or driveway, or which Jesuit in an increase to the floor area .^e; ght of either oroDosed structure, or which result in .% reduction in the degree of screening proposed^ shall be required o be approved by the City Council . covenant to be agreed to by the property owner. Th. purpose of such covenant is to ensure the Citv rhe following: Hi'ir'Srs paying guests. commerc.iai-tyi te structure. access from the private driveway. iv.The sports center shall never be sole sep*arately from the maiai resides .ial structure the property. residential struc-cu.e -r------- facility shall remain on a parcel of property that maintains at least 13.5 aces area and rnalntainV at least a ISO' sethaeV. between the !!ne%'f anr;a"nttlL \Uro"pVuL VerUning'”or 'tii sports center. Pace 4 cf o //O 0 \ y H CITY of ORONO RESOLU' ION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2961 10.The applicants t in the chaxn of title of the property a 2,989 s.f. 1989. «^1QPQ t*hp Citiv Council adooted Ordinance ^r-1°”sec<fn^aof accessory structures. Ordinance / 2, Second Seri tT at: construction ^of accessory f,^“=“’;Vo4^i^^a^'ef iVcre°asing“ use, .-est-ictive setback requirements, ant llllltl :: t”he“proper;rowner executing a covenant that stipulates; A.NO future subdivision ftluc\re?“e^ce“p\‘\\"a/ Atin its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the S^ersized accessory structure ”®y ? oerir-“ he oversized accessory structure ^ust be Removed if no principal strucrure has been constructed. Be If the property is g' located within a lot that meets ^xnimum lot . ea requirement for the given size of the accessory building. C.In subdivision approval, the setback required f* the oversized accessory structure as shall remain. Such covenants ^ha 11 b^e b.n^din ^ current and future property ov-tieir and shall in the chain of title. Pace 5 of 1C iL -kMjll... .S -I,... //o WbSM. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COU^ICIL NO. 2961_________ The further effect of ordlnaj^ce revision ,wes^ the property to 6^000 s.f. 12.AS of the aete of issuance^^of^t^ SnTISnlltfo°n% o"/ Resolution at structure hec^- existing etruoture to any ordinances th®tJ'a „ith somewhat smaller square lS"e"^U“or??Lal^ly P«gsed^or stluo'tu/e “fermi’nated any ;®^®t®‘^„4tlerby °Resllution construction within the ^PP ^ of that structure #2204. in the building as it mini ls%T\h; d^ate of the Certificate of Occupancy^ requires a new variance application. 13.The applicant contends that *^and \VaT^thl building of 16,875 s.f. total was only building constructed pursuant that ^ 13,886 s.f. With the ?5°g^^®gf^Qf total floor area, still s/TeVs fl oof aria than allowed in Resolution being 1,039 s.f. tha*" the unique nature of #2204. The applicants ting future use of Resolution 12204 and ‘h%covenants the property are sufficient ^us .ificatio^^approved building to increase to suggest that while in that resolution. ^PP^if^Vf buildini a^«ith le^%lS'V2^20fwari^^£V^4;&?h\^"%'h\=\'ddi\?onrRi990 s f. the footprint of the original variance larger than the ^ime P^esolution #2204 was K7,^the^b°uril!ng /o^tp^^ntVaTno^t a regulated standard in the Orono Zoning Code. Pace 6 cf 10 /■o o AjS^-j . I CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2961________ 14 Applicant has stated for the record that one of the primary^reasons for the enclosed tennis facility on the is for the security of family Sif p^r”vU'd T^reater^Lasure "of security by a Private facility rather than having to use one cf the available public recreation facilities. 15 The applicants have invested substantially in vitiSlllf eSinltrsubliv^^^^acre parcel as long as the tennis court building exists. 16.The proposed additions meet or exceed the requi^red ISO' srtbach w"hic\would be -cuired betwee th sports canter “S^d^^^deTin^^ This is three times the most restrictive lot line seubacK in the 2 acre zone. 17. The Council finds that the sports has created no adverse impact on the neighborhood. The applicants have complied with the letter and intent of a^ co^dit^ composed V Resolution #2204 -n^ the sports center. The Council finds that additions to the existing V .nd^will^not c-eateincrease the traffic in the n®^9hborhoo^^ and will not c.eate any new visual impact on the neighborhood due to rslatiimVe location of the additions. 18 The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this nropertv are peculiar to it and do not apply generally S otKroper ” in this coning district, ^at grantrn, the “riancel wfuld"not adversely affect llaht air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to ieijhborina properties; would not merely serve as a convenieL^” 'to'the"applicant “ecisllry t^demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary w.o a «demonstrable narasiiJ-F - uV ♦.ksx anr»i-f cants* andDreserve a substantial property right of the applicants, an Eould be in keeping with the spirt and intent cf the zoning code and comprehensive plan of whe CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Citv Co Based upon one or more of uhe above findings, the Orono --•1 herebv grants the fcllcwir.g variances.♦ Pace o: -t- I 1 CITY of ORONO »lf ■ s:RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2961 A.A variance to sports^ceiier ?e°cr«tTontl" a==esfL“\uilding, such aaditions increasing the footprint of that structure to 14,090 s.£., wiun floor area of 15,836 s.f. \\*1 “"ora\°l"rcctrsoV;°s;rrt1^^^^^ p«perV«<^*>6 6,000 s.f. normal allowance. Structure. Approval is subject to the following conditions; on the" at\S*Ute pTan?"Exh^^^^ EElSK^irr c\\°rcorA^i ^sso^ilteVanrthe^ttroToron^ remain in effect. and must be exercised by J° approval, or thiswithin one year of the date of ^ouncx 1 approva ^, variance will expire on that date (May 13, 1992). A Violation of or non-compliance with any of the teras and conditions of this variance g?InteS^SIre?n^and^tLlfbr^^^^^as a misdemeanor. 5 The undersigned applicants have read, f h«ehy%gree%o\he teTms of this resolutron end^on beh^alj fo t\rrVco7dinfof"thrs «sri" in the^chain of title of the properry. Page 6 of 10 J • • Fi K h ^A3>: CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2961________ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 13th day of May, 1991. TTh./la >o3?bthyM.lin, 'City Cierjc \iwwliL- Barbara A. Petersen, Mayor Pxoperty'^Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA )) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of May, ^ a M^nnes'^ta mS^iclpal^co^oration^and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. HENNEPIN COUNTY Page 9 cf 10 ■•fei !;#• -P CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2961_ _ _ __ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) } ss. r I'. EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION #2961 DESCRIPTION; Part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NE 1/4, SE 1/4) of Section Three (3), Township One Hundred Seventeen (117), North of Range Twenty-three (23) West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, according to the U.S. Government Survey as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NE 1/4, SE 1/4), thence East along the South line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NE 1/4, SE 1/4), Nine Hundred One (901) feet more or less to a point Pour Hundred Twenty-nine and five tenths (429.5) feet West of the Southeast Corner of raid Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NE 1/4, SE 1/4), thence deflecting to the left at an angle of 124® 58' from the last described course One Hundred Two (102)feet; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 11® f'^'oin the last described course Fifty (50) feet; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 15® 30' from the last described course Fifty (50) feet; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 11® 45* from the last described course One Hundred (100) feet; thence deflecting to the right at an angle of 3® 50' from th® last described course One Hundred (100) feet; thence defle ing to the right at an angle of 4® 58' from the last described cc>0 Hundred (100) feet; thence deflecting to %ne right at an angle of 1® 41* from the last described course K*r’tc:y-two (92) feet; thence deflecting to the left at an angle of 13® 31' from the last described course One Hundred Eighty and Five tenths (180.5) feet to a point in the la)ce on said property; thence Westerly on a line parallel with said South line of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NE 1/4, SE 1/4), Eight Hundred Seventy-two and Seventy-five Hundredths (872.75) feet more or less to the West line thereof, thence South along the West line thereof Seven Hundred Forty-four and Eighty-five Hundredths (744.85) feet tc the point of beginning. Also Jcnown as PINS #03-117-23 41 0003 RESOLUTION #2961 4 iJti i 1 —1 -i.! 7 . J Bliwi .1^1 lj(H. 13 “»; ^ Tt hV—' d«jT?»^i*;iii-b b> -I \ rf < —# — , ♦••^M^rcar I *tUi r / t j 1%•;--r- ■*'iii^ f ’»r*» fflrr.■iTO A i.i ci ?llii II1 M s If !|i vr« 1 J 3 To; Date: Subject: Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Afl^nifi^ra October 9, 1991 #1679 Williaun Miller, 2691 Casco Point Road - Variance - Partial Review Zoning District: LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residen '.al, 1/2 acre, sewered Application: Request for variances for structural maintenance of existing gazebo/bathhouse in 0-75' zone. List of Bjchlblts A - Planning Commission Action Notice 9/17/91 B - Planning Commission Minutes 9/16/91 C - Building Inspector's Photos D - Memo & Exhibits of 9/11/91 Hote: Application #1679 also includes a hardcover variance request in the 75-250' zone for construction of a detached garage. That portion of the application was tabled by Planning Commssion at their September 16, meeting. Planning Commission indicated they would prefer that this application be reviewed as two separate items, and Indicated to applicant that the gazebo/bathhouse issue would be sent on for Council action. Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of September 11. Briefly, the Building Inspection staff found a gazebo/bathhouse being reconstructed in the 0-75' zone while they were reviewing the garage building permit application. Applicant was advised to stop construction on the gazebo/bathhouse. He continued that construction to completion without benefit of City approval or a building permit. The discussion section in Page 2 of the September 11 memo details staff's interpretation of this construction and the issues involved. Planning Coanission Recconendation Planning Commission voted 3 in favor, 2 against a motion to approve an after-the-fact variance and building permit for the gazebo/bathhouse as constructed. The Planning Commission minutes are attached for Council review. 6 Zoning File #1679 October 9f 1991 Page 2 Staff Recoomendatlon Staff has not drafted a resolution because of the split Planning Commission recommendation. Council may wish to consider the following options: 1.Grant conceptual approval majority recommendation, resolution. per Planning Commission direct staff to draft 2.Table for concurrent review with garage request once Planning Commission recommendation is received. r CITY OF ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, NN 473-7357 ZONING PILE #1679 55323 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 9/17/91 TO:William Miller 2691 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO: TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variances DATE OP MEETING: 9/16/91 NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: I.Hardcover, 75-250': Vote 5 for, 0 against to table, pending applicants submittal of a revised plan that further reduces hardcover in the 75-250' zone. In order to have this item scheduled for the October 21 Planning Commission meeting, a revised plan must be submitted by October 11. II.Gazebo/bathhouse reconstruction; Vote 3 for 2 against to approve as constructed. This item will be scheduled for the City Council meeting of October 14, 1991; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please contact the Zoning Department (473-7357). If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. Isv MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16, (#9) #1679 WILLIAM F. MILLER 2691 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:15 - 9:30 P.M. noted. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was William Miller was present for this application. Gaffron briefly reviewed that the applicant Is proposing to remove an existing single car garage and a portion of the parking area, and install a larger garago with side opening doors.He noted that the second part of this application ' Involves structural maintenance of an existing 8'x8' bathhouse.He explained that the building inspectors were on the site to f'evlew the garage proposal and noticed the work being done on the bath­ house.They noted that the entire lower level had been -removed apart and new posts were Installed In the corners and a new slab was Installed or at least new footings.The applicant was told to stop work on the project, but he continued to finish the pro'v’ct regardless. . Gaffron noted that the code states that a non-cjnformlng structure within the 0-75’ zone cannot be Improved more than 50% of Its value.It was the building Inspector s contention that the Improvements exceeded the 50% of the valuation. Johnson asked If the platform and stairs are new. Miller stated that they pre-date his ownership and that he has recently washed and stained them so they may look-newer -than they really are.He noted that since he Is a new owner, he was unaware of the restrictions on the bathhouse. He-also noted^that he has expended $359 for the repairs to the boathouse and did not feel that It exceeded 50% of the value. 'He explained that the Inspector told the contractor to stop work on all structural work.He noted that at that time the siding was not on but all other work was done and because of high winds, he went ahead and put the siding on to prevent collapse of the entire structure. He also felt that putting the siding on did not constitute structural work. Cohen asked If the hardcover could be further reduced. Miller Instructed that the patio could be taken out by the back door which results In 70 s.f., and he could taka out all the .sidewalks from the house to the garage and put In stepping-stones Jr* ^hlch wou 1 d result In reduction of 56 s. f. ^i,He inoted that It. Is a ■'■'inatter of practicality, as If stepping stones are Installed, you cannot shovel snow. Rowlette asked about the dog run. Miller noted that It was not added In the calculation because It has a dirt floor. 12 -H 11 II mWiWWPiBiWPWP •IV MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 rI*.r lONXNQ FILE #1679 - CONT. Gaffron reported that the proposed garage leaves about a 3* area of the existing gravel parking area behind the garage which will not be able to be used as parking in the future.However, It has been driven on before and It may be compacted and there­ fore has been classified as hardcover. Rowlette asked what normal two-car garage dimensions are. Gaffron noted that It Is about 20 x24 . Miller explained that the normal two-car garage Is 22*x24', and ho 1s proposing a three car garage with a 20' depth. He felt that It is necessar, to have a three car garage for storage of cars, boats, etc. Ho also stated that the cost factor would not Justify building a two-car garage. Schroedor felt that the garage Is too large, concurred. Moos also Miller felt that he has reduced the hardcover down as as possible.He also noted the other variances which approved with excesses of hardcover. much were Schroeder responded that each application Is different with different merits. Johnson felt there Is a large amount of hardcover on the property and felt that the hardcover should be reduced. Miller expl:ined that If It Is tabled or denied ■ and the garage Is not built, then the hardcover stays at 37%, opposed to the 30% proposed.With respect to the bathhouse. Miller pointed out tnat only the bottom half of the structure was replaced. Johnson asked about the new slab. Miller stressed that only the foundation for the posts on the lake side were replaced. Rowlette concurred that If the deck/stairway/bathhouse Is alone. . - . Gaffron advised that they could. It was" moved by Coheri, seconded by " Moos, to recommend approval of the structural maintenance of the bathhouse. Ayes 3, nays 2. Johnson voted nay because he felt It was basically replaced and Schroeder concurred with that feeling. ♦ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ZONING FILE #1679 - CONT. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to table application #1679 William Miller of 2691 Casco Point Road, to allow applicant time to redesign his proposal to reduce the hardcover percentage. Ayes 5, nays 0. Cohen noted that the bathhouse Issue will go directly to the Council for review at their October 14 meeting. (#10) #1682 CHRISTINE BRICKLEY 3262 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:30 - 10:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Christine Brickley was present for this application. Brickley noted that the pre-existing hardcover shown on the sketch included is shown at 20’x24’, which really should be 20'x31' because the garage was back furth<r. Gaffron noted that there are not accurv.te records of where the garage actually was.He noted that the property Is located between the marinas on North Shore Drive and this Is a lakeshore property.He explained that there are a number of variances being requested. Applicant is replacing a number of accessory structures used for storage with one large garage.He noted the inspector came upon the site when the slab was half poured and a stop work order was Issued, but because concrete was on the way and could not be cancelled, he allowed the owner to proceed with the knowledge that it was at her own • risk and may not be approved. The garage has a footprint of'1,056 s.f. where the largest accessory building that could be put on a lot of this size is 1,000 s.f. A garage over 1,000 s.f. would require 30 setbacks from all lot lines. This garage Is poured at about 2-3* setbacks. With a footprint of 750-1000’ s.f., a 15' setback would still be required, and anything smaller would require 10 setbacks. In the 75-250* zone, pre-existing hardcover is at 46.5%.In the 0-75* zone, hardcover is at 15.6%. Lot coverage Is proposed at 19.8%.Ho told the Commission that they must determine what size garage is appropriate and where should it be located. “ — Donald Stauffer, 3268 North Shore Drive, concurred that the • ^garage Is important to froo‘.the shared drive of parked.cars. .u- Brickley noted that four properties share the drive. Cohen felt that the application should be tabled to give the applicant time to redraw the plans. He noted that a footprint of more than 1,000 s.f. cannot be allowed. Rowlette agreed. r,\: .. ■iii- . •«< ?a:>'2 ir- ^ 4 hsi: «. O' .• c •>* 5ffe . k ' \' \ ' N, k!^.its i r:Ji ‘ ■'; '4 .:-. i.. -: --•. •:/ r. *'«*». _-v, -» 4 , > • ..—“*. .--■•••* •■♦, L,j-^*^ *. * i-' *•^•r»*4 «‘«H -.I n. w\ -‘^-'1 - • ■■ w* M r*{' " . x; -.C ^,-r. IBI?^' \1 ‘' IBf.W vf-*■ >ks& ti j ■- ^»*: a .t .. . •. '*■ *». ’•* •;:iSSSSjSa5£ .***', • ^ ‘ . 'i *1 . •••, . '*« •>'- t-V- * . •. ., .. •. . ^-'Vv i-*’*-. Vv5-v'• •• ?.* ; ' • • •. • -'. *•*.•.-■''•. ____________________________..A/-^ r :,f"- v-vU-*-• ' ■• t-.' ■- •- ■.V-,*'’ 'V*-.4^^ ‘,.. V-.. •’: —. • \ • . I't r.*.*. ’.. .'•', #■*'^>V,*»*.■*•••. •■/■'.••,..•tv*; • •f • *♦*. Si ;n** "rt-^****^*" •* ■ ' *v O •-•WW ✓ ••’:■“. .' ■■■ •.*."o ;• “ * . • -V***# •'r * • • • V.-.- ., . . -• •*;, ., • •» rf ’ • • . •^•■ *• ■ ••; • .■■ ^ _ •. *tir ■.•v^v;4'v r, I-•• 'W > -fc •'■■• .'W >» ^ k. Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: September 11,1991 #1679 William Miller, 2691 ^asco Point Road - Variance - Public Hearing ✓ X' Soning District: LR-IC, Single family lakeshore residential, 1/2 acre, unsewered Application: Request for hardcover variance to construct a new 20* X 34* garage. Variance for structural maintenance of existing "bathhouse" in 0-75* zone. Pertinent Code Sections 1.Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 limits hardcover in the 0-75* and 75-250* zones. 2.Section 10.55, Subdivision 26 (B) states: "No structural alteration or addition to any non-conforming structure over the life of the structure shall exceed 50% of its value at the time of its becoming a non-conforming use, unless the structure is permanently changed to a conforming use or unless the alteration or addition would substantially reduce potential flood damages for the entire structure." List of Exhibits Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit A B C D E F G H I J Application Plat Map Property Owners List Hardship Statement Survey Site Plan/Hardcover Calculations, Existing Site Plan/Hardcover Calculations, Proposed Garage Construction Plan Staff Sketches of Gazebo Inspector*s Notes 0^ Pertinent Facts 1.The existing and proposed hardcover follows: Existing Proposed 0-75*5.5%571% 75-250*37.0%30.2% 250-500*4.4%4.4% is summarized as Allowed 0% 25% 30% 2.Applicant proposes to remove existing 14* x 22* garage and revert that area to grass. Construction of a new 20* x 36* garage will be over existing gravel driveway area. A 156 s.f. portion of the gravel area will also be removed. — f - .* V .r. ••••^ .•• ***.4^**M.^•m ■: )- •’•■*^.* •-•• •'k.' *•’ -*-.'» • • •^ liV.,*'-••:• •• . ^ .' • .’ • '*' A *;•,•*•. • *'•*.- •»‘‘‘*''■•*. •/%«..»-.•*'*’/•.*'’•*' »*f •_*• *•■. .’*»—• •.' -..^.-'-i,,-■♦'+C -: V.. .V ^•>■ • -. .**•’• -*».!/#*>V \ »* if*'* «J ****1 ;•% .\ •.:..; .V - ,rj •‘..**'.. \.v.;-,/•. .V-’.* *•.^.. ,•..-■*7 .. * ^•.*- >•■•' *■'. /*-a!''V .' r •■...• ■■'■^••'•;.■'-v'-fV-•■':•••■ r' I, * !■■. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' Zoning File #1679 September 11#1991 Page 2 of 3 3.The applicant had applied for a garage construction permit in mid-August. When the Building Inspectors visited this site as part of their hardcover review# they found major work being done on the "bathhouse". While applicant states that the work was merely replacement of siding# the Building Inspectors found that virtually all structural members and the foundation were in the process of being replaced. The second story gazebo structure was supported by 4 new posts on top of new footings# and these posts were open rather than enclosed. The applicant was advised by the Building Inspectors and the Zoning staff that this work could not continue and that a variance would be needed to do anything other than replacement of siding# but that the work the Building Inspectors found far exceeded that cosmetic work. Three weeks later# Inspector Lyle Oman found that the structure had been completely enclosed with no approval to do so. Diacussion Given the requirements of Section 10.55# Subdivision 26 (B)# staff feels that this work was in direct violation of the letter and intent of that section in that virtually every structural aspect of this 8* x 8* building (i.e. replacement of foundation# beams# posts plus new siding and a door unit) constitute a structural alteration certainly in excess of 50% of the original value of the structure. The Assessor's records do not acknowledge the existence of this 8* x 8* structure although it shows up on the 1968 survey# hence it likely was never assumed by the Assessor to have a significant value. In the past City staff's position on structures such as this has been that mere cosmetic repairs such as re-siding or re-roofing have been permitted only to the extent that such work does not include repair to structural members (i.e. one can re-side or re-roof# but replacement of posts# foundations#joists or roof boards requires variance approval for continuing a non-conforming structure in the 0-75' zone).This interpretation evolved because Sectior 10.55#Subdivision 26 relies on having baseline valuation data which is often not available for this type of lakeshore structure. In the past# the City has in virtually identical situations# required the removal of such structures as they deteriorated. Given the total replacement of the first floor of the structure in question# staff feels that there is no question that the current work far exceeds the 50% allowance for structural maintenance based on a 1975 value. (1975 is the date in which the current Code containing a 75' setback requirement for principal and accessory structures# was adopted. In fact# a 75' setback ordinance was first adopted in October of 1973.) i- - I.:;.. 't / • • K . . ^ >. •: - . . , ' *1/ ■ ' ‘ , ‘ li-' • • '■■■ V -V : r s -* ;■■ %*• V - •. *••'^^ ” *^7 ^^ • *N « *i • ';■ V • ' • '..; ,. >'* • •-• -•1 ■»*’,;«.'•••»'•■•I. *V* •'•.-••* ■ '***'**4 * ^ T t •• . * • • -^ •* •••..••• • • ■V • ‘*■*■••* ;•■-■ *■’.?•;■•; S .,■**<'.' r*’.#. r ••.■ •■• *•' *••.*4**•-,►•• V....-•• • •- . •. . ' • #. • k v''..V’r:- •'•'■ '•■(:•■ .■•,'''• . :■r •’•^ r •• •..'■•• *•.' •" ■•■••■’‘' •’• rL*.' • •'t *• •** */•-.••..•♦• . ‘V .s y •;•• •'•. ; . ^'■ ; ■ ^;rv‘• ■ ‘•I r-’ • **, •- (* t ,4»- =** >W./" f**-' V* *I Zoning File #1G79 September 11#1991 Page 3 of 3 Issues to Consider 1.Does the removal of an existing one-stall garage and a portion of gravel driveway# resulting in a net decrease in hardcover from 37% to 30.2% in the 75-250’ zone# justify granting of a hardcover variance for construction of the garage? 2.Are there any additional areas of hardcover that could be removed to reasonably further reduce the hardcover percentage? 3.Given the clear intent of Section 10.55# Subdivision 26 (B) that non-confirming structures in the 0-75* zone should eventually disappear# is there any justification to (after- the-fact) grant a variance for virtual replacement of this 8* X 8* bathhouse/gazebo structure? Options for Recosoiendation 1.Approval as proposed. Partial approval# specifying conditions or limitations. Denial. 2. 3. 4. Isv 5‘(>' Other. '4fff/t rfiji -4-f-T-Co')rr?/-'2- -f-AoLC C-O -LlJ ' b-' tA. c -,2 ^" ( t- 6 r r »• ?'• •-•.V .♦'• ^i:V* I?. ’*-' ‘T »,t ?*■" • • ..•. • •I •*;•'♦,,• i'■- *.,■.• .A*...A*.«« cf-' • :-.*/" •. c • tV-»;'•. V.-- '^. .•■*■■- ■“ '■:Tn.; •*' -‘. *..^.••.*•••••*•. P •m '-* • ^ T ..^\V • t**4 • •'*'•I.*. ••'r . ...., * •*•• •^v- •. /• ■•• Si.--• ...... r' . I M .»••«.#•',Ml .*••.■»m 'a-. H l(^ CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION # Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Doable application fee) i p .<o /v ‘j cw DF am) property location Site Address XC^9/CI.'PSC-C /h/J^rjCrJp Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) ^-.a.3 •^_coot Attach legal description to application if not included on 1350._ _««"f m YOU It:^9i0~mi Ml 703:: C3/2l'r required survey. APPLICANT ///iName ^c/^ //• C, Phone (home)V?/- —Phone (work)^^ :lA9I ^^4. Cityt - -Zip:_£^^3^^_ OWHZR (if different than applicant) Name _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- Phone (heme) Phone (work) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired 1 (do) ^do^n^) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) PRESENT USE O? PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property -^-Residential Other (specify) OBSCRIPTIOH OP RBQOBST Estimated Construction Cost $ ^ OOO_ Describe request in i ?Auy^£> j£‘J *?*l VARIANCES REQOZSBD ~^iyjil?z:^c3r"S7^:nr-Ts-^ ST^rv^ 'ULot Area Lot Width Hardcover _x CJ*J Side _ _ _Rear)Setbac)t Variances (Front other *^7iy - - - - - - --- - *77^ M>usf 'yyo £*<'iry Aluc O Ou.r e-cc^o Mrhe£>Cxx/x^S , A/U^oSCC> CM^ir^ (J^o 74i^ ASl<i£iJT^^. f- l««* • HARDSniP Describe undue hardship or practijcal difficulty resulting froa^ strict enforce.T.ent of toning reculationgr *S *4 * ' ;•!'"V % I' • •*:*.• *•** • ^ • . • V •*.*•*;••' *• * ^--... DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Reouirepents;A'77/^C,A^SjH^_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 2. 3. 4. .'.•*•»•. -^r..“ i W>■»<->J.e : -.- _•*.’•i'‘^*.'•.! required submittals 1.Completed Application rora^ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8*i"xll" for reproduction). Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes/ in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8«;"xll"). Sketches or plans of floor a elevation views (provide 1 copy 8>«"xil").'^ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list^f any other persons you wish notified of this application. ^ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 5. 6. 7. 8. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above Information has not been included. APPLICART'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide ail information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenres incurred in review of this appLication^,-.aad certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of hi^/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature i;'A. -A Date / ONHERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants# agents, Commi8il.^^on members, and Counci Ijftfiiabers for purposes of investiga­ tion and verification of this rsques Owner's Signature Date 9/ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all achednled review meetings of the Planning Crwi salon 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 k Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. i* r*.. ‘- I l t.; P ft .'NI?, T f' 11 DI • I ,>•RUN DATE 08/2E/91BATCH OOaPROP ADDR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR CMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR II PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAMS/ADDR PROP ADDR C»MER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR •V PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR Hfclt^EPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEMPROPERTY OltlERS LISTSB 20-117-2S 2S 00010266S CASCO POINT RD BEVERLY SHERLINQ BEVERLY SMERLING 2552 H LAKE OF ISLES PKHY MPLS m 55405 SB 20-117-2S 2S 0004 02697 CASCO POINT RO A I C KANE A LANRENCE KANE 2697 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA MN 55391 SB 20-117-23 23,0021 02665 CASCO POINT RO BENNETT C DQHNEY t NIFE BENNETT C DONNEY 2665 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA MN 55391 SB 20-117-23 24 0003 026B4 CASCO POINT RD THEODORE C OANTIS DAVID RUNKLE 2664 CASCO PT RD SO HAYZATA m 55391 « •, f TOTAL BATCH 008 00012 I « >1* *. • . . fa % .>■ . « *' .. • . V'^ t ♦ L *' • , V* ; ^ J ■ V I ■ '• » >1. .*4 I 38 20-117-23 23 000202691CASCO POINT RD HILLIAH F HILLER HILLIAH F HILLER 2691 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA HN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0005 02715 CASCO POINT RD TAD ERHIN TERRY A A DOROTHY L ERHIN 2715 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA HN 55591 38 20-117-25 29 0001 02689 CASCO POINT RC THEODORE C OANTIS DAVID RUNKLE 26C9 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA HN 55391 38 20-117-23 29 0021 02710 CASCO POINT RD C H A B J PALHER CURTIS H A BARBARA J PALHER 2710 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA HN 55391 REPORT NO. PI935901PAGE 3538 20-117-23 23 000302695CASCO POINT RO D A P LEE PATRICIA R LEE 2695 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA HN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0020 02677 CASCO POINT RO TYRONE A BUCEY A HILA BUCEY TYRONE A A HILA BUCEY 2677 CASCO PT RD HAYZATA FM 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0002 02660 CASCO POINT RD V A 6 DULLER VERNON J DULLER 2660 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA MN 55391 3B 20-117-23 29 0022 02700 CASCO POINT RD D P BUSSING A L R RUNNING DANIEL BUESIN6/LIN0A RUNNING 2700 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA . 55391 *>l > » ■r 'r’/ .i i • flMt RKIi•Jii #V/:i rtMf [•St tVMi «ir.i ilift]t riKTS 7^^ •I(%.• !*. icc/5 / 1^ 4 it r7 ' »J R'SS •»-3- 1 15 7S'' -/ /o' ,X •5: ;•>' /py/PiL A.o/'Z 0~ 7^'-(7f< 6o0 y^Oo lS'-^^0'=(n/A(^/^ ^.orooj^' ^(/o'iCco') =coo sr -(U) ^,<(.o)r I ~ ^too ^ 7 yoo -3- o-y^*z Ji/^/P /Pco^^ (s'/^f) -fcV'^ bcc/<, (zj'’/^//')^//3 3 ■i>y>y//^S, (/f" X 3 0 ZZ *^x.3- 3.V^ 7C-tx.<rD^i /^r/o ^/AoJ/^Kjfs'ji ViO ^ /y \ j ^ AtOAtK^ cTJrA/?Jca^^ ^A>a% ■Pi'i'x/j,')z f*4Peo bAnJ^ul^jP C'O.sks-j') = -^O ^-> g /^co b/cttjcj^y C /0/5' ^/o) =: Ux(o /f7i> ^ jS'C^ 3- -IlL^ 3.y yp /oC J>- /o^ ^K/sr^j'P‘m(jicc,7&.yy-& C 6'k/ST/JO' -^s /ScL'i. T' P^AP') 7V~p/>e A?^-*y^yy^ ^pyoo s* x»c j**. o-‘7p^ ~xyj r vs'^o - ^.S’y* ~'-^^0 ^-~3yfO /'e^Soo j: 37 ^V —/©r-r 3 pu> * /» ^^,»-M W r ..a' y C> y'^ur ^ /-9 rr f.:X V nS 3 jz ) * A<fcA ?n a- « N /O' Ato ' 72>7:%i >cor z o-7/'~ ^?r<6o0 = y^ooss- ~JS - '-(t fS"X (oO -/t> j'ojE^ z(/oyco') =^oo sr -^^^X4o)rl =JtOo •fir' /? P^oFc>s£^ ^^Abco*f€t ^J*7W */m<J ^_____ /o-TT^g ^ /y^r/y//ou,^£' <^yxy^- 6y" ir/9/^}>c/rAiP :=■yjL.j9- ^y9 ^ -^/A4 ^//oa,^^' Cn^.Sxyx.s") /^T^cOy'^S')i:7^ ifC>^J-4-LK^ (sx*Mj')._^ /S’h V^(t/f-.^c^^(i6*x3yy^r~ ^fQ (-Z6' KSV') Cyo.j'x.r?) ajro^- =: syy o = syy ^ C*o,Sk jo "^ 7o/>y^ /y^Ocout'^ Mo/^osS'O 2.ny ^ lO^ Apr M^<OCoi/^^ k Cy9Acci/j<9 77g *45V -^n/CP --io 3^% ^ — z/? -f ysoo !n S*^ -^xSo --r/O/SOO X-30. ->-‘5'. y-- /dT ~ X.VOO ^/.y ^ ,> cP. 0. c To -^/>g >J^J A^jy^rl_________ 3// ST^a/^ 7*0 ^ j ^__________ '^i''-i.^O ' T.nJC — /(COuX-Tio^J fJ ?> /v<0^£X/Sr/J^6r 37% TO'2cti%.M^ 'XGff % HARDCOVB aLCUWTION WORKSHEET T'/J^ £ AgAa;,ra Q/o S2T3AC:< ZONE! (ciRCLS ONS)75-2S0' 250-SC0' 500-1000' Yi'-: r C Existing H.ardcove -? in Zone • • A House # X 3 • S.F. •% M7W /^nS(f LENGTH X WIDTH a .6/S.i oeit^/3 X //s /t'3 S.F. ST4/j€iJAy ■ 'i " X ■ 3>"3 ya S.F. X a S.F. B. C. Ga RAG c X a S t r • D riveway X s S.F. X .S.F. 0.SlDEWALX X S.F. X s S.F. X .S.F. E.1 ’at 10/D eck X S.F. F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY < m X a •S.F. X a S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING•X 3 • S.F. X -■, S• Ft • 6.Other -x""'— a .. . S.F.• Total '*Hardcover in Zone ■3-/? I*": / V.V S.F. Total Propmty A rea in Zone ' i^SOd S.F. fi “4[T1 jTioo - S~.^ '% ? i^mn iiLmi ------1. HARDCOVER CALCULATION WQRKSHEEL-,— ScT3Ac:< ZONE: (circle one ) 0-?5( 75-250 'yZEO-SCO' 5u0-iC00' Existing Hardcover in Zone r •A.House B.Garage c.Driveway V ~0 D.Sidewalk I' E.Patio/ Deck r* p.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY PLASTIC SHEETING LENGTH I2_r) 3Q=> /■S s.Other -X -X -r' WIDTH // /o V/ /2_ 3 S.F. Hardcover in Zone ___________ S.F. 3j?0 S.F. Total Property Area in Zone yS.F. s j]-3-S?c> i fT] y^foo ' noo J7-.0//o , 7/ /J~<^S.F. •1^.’ ^'l S.F. S.F. ‘^ - S.F. .... J I.L >% S.F.‘ 7 H. 3C?S.F.i-rt S.F. ^ /.y 74 7.T4 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. - 70 S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F. f ? . j • ■S: !* S;vh i-; 3-fe’?/, C^S'^o /^ayjT' HARDCOVEH aLCULATIOfI wnpycs^ ^AO/hl,£'0 S£T3AC:< ZONE: (ciHCLS ONE) 0-75' (T^ESOy 250-500' 500-1000' E'asTiNG Hardcover? in Z one • • a .House X _3 7 S.F. • •length WIDTH • X _9 . S.F. . • _ X . . S.F. •• S.F. -X 3 S.F. B.Garage jy - X ■2^0 S t r t • D riveway -T7 _ X w» S.F. /ycAj^ncu/^ic>c,^^c^- X /4> 3 ,.r. Q. • Sidewalk . X 3 S.F. . X S S.F. •. X _ S.F. E.’atio / D eck //, X S.F. F.Landscape • • X S.F. areas UNDERLAIN BY .X S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X • S.F. •• ••... . X S.F. • 6.Other • X — S.F. "T otal 'Hardcover in Z one -^— s.f. T otal Property Area in Z one -/Os.f. 1 /rw B -m -3-/ 7/ - {T] ?tx5^6' noo -■% !: c^5c:oHARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET dEW/J T/J^ S /^r'OyOoSa:/c/^&6 SETBACK ZONE: (CIPCLE ONE) 0-75' Existing H ardcover in Zone A Hnii5?p X a S.F. LE.NGTH WIDTH • X a •S.F. • X S.F, . * ■X -—- S.F. X S.F. B. C. (?APAr;p X S 1 r • HprVPWAY j/C^X yo. S'/or S.F.>• # X , • S.F. D«f^rnPWALK X a - S.F. km 9 X S.F. X S.F. E.’at 10/ D eck X S.F. e.t ANnsrAPP X .• S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN «v X —S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING •X S.F. •■ ••••X • S.F, • • 6.Other x" ... S.F. • ""Total 'H ardcover IN • Zone 4 »«*•/oS"S.F. Total Property Area in Zone -m-y^o-T" .t[T} ■D_voo I loo I i 4 / .1 .;t • .N n*.• » i •\ iv)-~;r i i ' ''.I •v<~»r •> ii ! itf iriiii ifcnnnfifc imi •r..: . . 0 I I 0 C I 'I . • ..:2 0 II ' --.__ - ...__ lo--- - f I I <.... I I I •-,, :Z. -� :?!· --✓ .:2 ",(' '- -//1 I I}0 ( C 1, -"--�lo-- ..__ --...--,_ i,...__.. .,__ --- � �r ..-.:I. .. It, • . � ·-� /{,. - ,I _, I J. '' � -- I ,---i-------r-- '� ---- ' -----------,_ -I -t �o . " - • r -.. 0 I 41" • J , - *• * » ' *•.' , r"* • h. TO FILE: 2691 Casco Poire Road PROM: DATE: RE: Lyle Oman, Building Official September 12, 1991 Work after a Stop Work Order ■: f c in •' ( \l 8/14/91 8/20/91 8/21/91 9/11/91 Received permit application Bruce Vang and I visited site to review hardcover calculations. Found carpenters working on gazebo on lakeshore. New foundation and 4 new corner support posts were installed. The garage slab forms wer« also in place. We explained to the carpenters that they were in violation of City ordinances and the building code because they were working within 75' of the lake without a building permit. A stop work order was posted and they were informed they were to stop work on the gazebo and the garage^^ The homeowner Bill Miller came to the office first thing in the morining. I spoke to him about the need for variances to continue work on the gazebo and hardcover problems relating to the garage. I soon brought Jeanne Mabusth and Michael Gaffron into the conversation, and it was made very clear to Mr. Miller that variances would be required to work on the gazebo. Michael Gaffron requested photo's of the gazebo. When I arrived on site, I found the lower section of the gazebo had been completed, stud walls, siding and a door had been installed. ,% • L»*: * .-n**. -4*. ^I*'•» “. i;i:.v*.»:.‘^<*v ~‘ *•.*; . V-i'i'/.'." •• vV'^ .'^ '** ’ •• \*../ •*; ' J.» »>f •> v; •i*-^ J*» • •*^*- -J i-*. ^* ’ • • •••»'.'- •?•*..•'.y' *'-*’*;•- •*s- /'.: ' f, • .r» « • C'?.* t*. •* *'r.rfuz^'rtlK.'^ * J.-W r.V-J-> • i* V O.V -*'• -• i.•.* ^-.^ Vv ^::/* • •':r^* ;/'\v-"••■• -*r/vz-nr-. *-.!''•/*:>■ -.n-* -.;.—• ••'*••■. . • '•'• •.r • . .•. •-.•..-%•riV »'••• -• •• •^,, ^T •r*..■•••,;»r •. ••.*-;•••.;■••••••. —--•:. ...-;x^ ^*^v **^‘ ^^•.,.«••••f •••9 4.*A ■*•-^^ ' .L*’ '•! *•' ••*;»:, .Vv.», :->,^*. .J»'. 'i.-J*'** , . '••- -•..-• • - ^ :.x.i >t.••: -.• t - .^ .-.-•••• :-. »•■0’ • |i: — Aim f^X'xy V 7f^“— I r 5? PRCPETTV Or^3i23tiJL_l ?jcxxt9 f 1. 282>Cuaeo ?3lat« 3crljsg ?ir*s, '.*i3s«aota_______^------------------- J * -, r I - ■ ■■ , .. ,n,.,.r. I- -«'• ^Tf'-.. irft W.t-rjiitt 117 . ?J=r» 23asacaiata A« rou.ow«,-------------. * 'Jia* b.»ra«i Cr^M iTi. ql '.j Im y.iaB«tonitm. nd two lia«» Jr»m J«nx^. I 3«uth«l7 Of 1:4 L 3prla« ?«*. ^.ipaetl-ral7 30,3 >ol 30.3 fwt. ilso aowi •*2, JJJdi.or» Snhdliiil« ' 3». 265, 3«»a0pli Oooaty Ui >«,kr3 r<j l , C2BTIPICATB OF LOCATIOM OP BUlLDtNC bviUlBcitl 5* tmrntir ab«w^« «A« *b^ p«A2-v«. cucrmcATZ of sumvir /'/jcMN A *rr»N. »»€aisTt^-0 floavrrcw. no.-*-48» •. •- •*• V • . »•* ^ I'v' /‘•-un f '5. To;Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Moorse From: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning ^administrator September 12, 1991 7 \ #1684 David and Anne Graham, 2745 Shadywood Road ^ Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Required ^ 1 acre or 43,560 s.f. Existing = .75 acres or 32,500 s.f. 98% of the area of this property is located within the 0 to 75' lakeshore protected area. Review has considered the entire j;Toperty within the lakeshore protected area. Pertinent Ordinances A.Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 - Lakeshore setback variance required for construction of upper and lower deck along west side of residence. Allowed = 0 Existing = 30* Proposed * 17' B.Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover variance approval required within 0 to 75' setback area. Allowed = 0 s.f. Existing per Applicant's Review = 7,837 s.f. or 24.1% Existing per Staff's Survey = 8,079.95 s.f. or 24.8% [Review Exhibit GJ Proposed per Applicant * 7,707 s.f. or 23.7% Proposed per Staff » 7,930.2 s.f. or 24.4% Total Reduction Based on Applicant's Findings = 130 s.f. or .4% Per Staff's Findings = 149.75 s.f. or .46% Hardcover/Structure below 929.4 Elevation Boathouse “ 24x30 totaling 720 s.f. Attached Deck 12x20 » 144 s.f. C.Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C) - Lot coverage Total Area « 32,500 Allowed " 4,875 s.f. or 15% Existing ■ 3,085.95 s.f. or 9.49% Information on lot coverage has been provided merely as a comparison as entire property is located within the lakeshore protected area. Zoning File #1684 September 12, 1991 Page 2 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibi^- E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Exhibit K “ Exhibit L - Exhibit M - Application Property Owners List Plat Map 1 through 2 Applicant's Hardcover Fact Sheets [Existing/Proposed] Existing Survey Proposed Survey Staff Sketch of Existing Hardcover Existing Floor Plan 1 through 2 Elevations Boathouse Floor Plan and Elevations Proposed Floor Plan 1 through 2 Proposed Elevations 1 through 2 Photos Description of Request Please refer to information on application form. Applicant proposes a 700 s f. addition above the single story portion of the existing residence. No expansion of building footprint is proposed. Applicant does propose removal of three season porch and second story deck addition to south side of residence and replacing with 8x16' upper and lower deck structure to the west side of the exi ting residence. Expansion of the second story and the deck addition requires setback and hardcover variances. Note three-season porch/deck addition will be replaced with a sun trellis. The grade level will be restored to natural vegetation. No hardcover results with improvement. Review Exhibits K and L - 1 through 2. The second floor addition involves the expansion of a master bedroom and bath area. The exterior will be resided with cedar shingles and complete reroofing. Existing boathouse structure shall not be structually altered but shall be resided with the »cedar shingles as house. Hardship ^'tatenent 1.Strict enforcement of zoning would not allow existing house. 2.98% of property is located within 0 to 75’ setback zone. 3.The property is a narrow peninsula surrounded by Lake Minnetonka on three sides. j ■:--- Zoning File #1684 September 12, 1991 Page 3 4.The improvement project recults in .46% reduction in hardcover. Circular drive resulting in some 4,200 s.f. of hardcover serves as the only turnaround area for emergency vehicles entering the severally limited peninsula area. ADDITIONAL O t :t:i eNTS AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Additional Exhibits Exhibit N - Revised Hardcover Fact Sheet and Exhibit 0 - Revised Site Plan. Exhibit P - Letters from Adjacent Property Owners The Planning Commission accepted the hardship statement of the applicant approving the improvement project as proposed by applicant. Members concurred that existing paving improvements could be reduced and recommended that the cul-de-s c roadway be trimmed back to a 14' width. The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the Graham improvement project as proposed subject to the existing cul-de-sac being trimmed back to a 14' width. The enclosed resolution has been drafted based on the hardships cited by applicant and the condition of approval set forth by the Planning Commission. Applicant has submitted the revised hardcover facts and revised site plan. Please note the hardcover facts were adjusted based on staff's findings as shown on Exhibit G. The amended hardcover facts are as follows: Existing Hardcover = 8079.95 s.f. or 24.8% Amended per Revised Plan = 6,940.2 s.f. or 21.35% Net Reduction of 3.1% of Non-structural Hardcover ch t h A RESOLOTIOM GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2 FILE #1684 NHBRBAS, David and Anne Graham (hereinafter "the applicants") have an interest in the property located at 2745 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Tracts C and D, Registered Land Survey No. 500, files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHBRBAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permit the improvement of an existing residence structure involving the expansion of a second story and the installation of a two tiered deck at 8'xl6* relocated 17' from the lakeshore instead of the required 75* resulting in an overall reduction of hardcover with existing at 8,079.95 s.f. or 24.8% and final hardcover at 6,940.2 s.f. or 21.35% resulting in a net reduction of 1,139.75 s.f. or 3.5% hardcover. Minnesota : NON, THBRBPORB, BB IT RBSOLVBD by ♦he City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zonint* ViJi 11684. The property is located in the LR-IB Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. 3.The property consists of 32,500 s.f., the majority of which is located within the 0 to 75' lakeshore protected area. 4.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 16, 1991 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following hardships and findings: Page 1 of 6 r•V; r-. P ■ I-.. f' • 5. 6. a)The property is a narrow peninsula surrounded by Lake Minnetonka on three sides. b)98% of property is located within the 0 to 75' setback area. c)The existing residence was constructed prior to cu lakeshore standards adopted as of January 1, 1975. current The comprehensive improvement of the property results in a 3.5% reduction in total hardcover. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permit the construction jf a second story partial addition and a two tiered open deck at 8x16 to the east side of the residence subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 6 1. 2. 3. 4. Hardcover removals shall be completed per the site plan enclosed as page 6 of this resolution. All hardcover scheduled for removal must be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit. Applicants shall arrange for the necessary site inspection to confirm the required removal of hardcover. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the < ate of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 14, 1992). 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. Page 3 of 6 Li:.- Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of October, 1991. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day of October, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 ■tr*kit l&ir**k .I iin t .rnuaHti PIPE S£T EK f^AIL •JAt^tTARr N1 ak JWc ?l.E Fc?unp i'l!' ir £>n Pipe TCLEPHCtjE FfeCESTAL CBKTtFICATE OP SUKV bV PC?K PAVIP C^RAMAM TR/^c-iir c:. ip, RE(3IstERED LA^4c? SUpVfeV^ fk>. 5<^, FIL£S rue REGlirRAR cf" TYt< <g-^ HEMrJer/Kj c :c 7umt Y/ nr JH£s<3pc STRE£rr address : 27^5 SI/ALYlvKCt) Rt> PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SET IRioM hfcfJPMEt'tr'<y Y€.OL CP m ^ V'C hVflUmO ■vce. h. cm OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION ffT 'iyi- '3 Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional vai^juarc^ Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 ^ ff oai»“ (no change from original application) After—the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) M/' \-U350200COO 01 CtH 175.00 '^CHl CK TL 175.00RECEIPT-THAriKWU , H222000 cool ROl Tlj:(._03/23/9 PROPERTY LOCATION Site Ar^^ress 2745 Shadywood Road, Orono, Minnesota 21 117 23 31 0003Property Identification Number (P.I.D., oi — Attach legal description to application if not include on required survey. APPLICANT Name David and Anne Granam Phone (home) 612 729-1712_ Phone (work^ 612 370-0700 4219 19th Avenue South Citvt Minneapolis------ Zip:_55407 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name __________________ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address:City;Zip ; August 1991Date Property Acquired _ _ _ _ _ j (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) present use OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District LR IB Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) Estimated Construction Cost $ 75.000.00DESCRIPTIONOF REQUEST Describe request in Request approval to add partial upper level within, existing footprint; demolish 138 s.F. porch: add sun trellace and deck, resideexisting footprint -----------------------------------------exterTor"waTTr'wlth ”«da^ shingles; partial renovation of existing VARIANCES REQUIRED interiors; re-roof. Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Setback Variances (Front X Side*Rear) Variance to add approximately 700 GSF ot; partial new upper level Other completely within footprint of existing structure^— *98% of existing site is within 0-75' area; e-.t v .?xisting structure is non-conforming. I 11 ib-iijti HARDSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations: strict enforcement of zoning would not allow existing house_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Ppqiiirements: 98% of existing site is in 0-75* zone._______________________ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1.Completed Application Form 2.Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3.Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4*Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8%"xll" for reproduction). 5.Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8i«"xll"). 6.SJcetches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8J5"xll"). 7.As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8.Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the_above ^nfo^Bation has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to t^e best of his/her Jcnowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agentsr Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga­ tion and verification of this^re^est. 0«„.r . Signature — Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review aeetlngs of the Planning Comiiiission 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 fi Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. O. fD 3o o 3 O -h X in n* 3 iO -sn>n> I in Qt in O 3 T3 O n fD to c 3 3 «/) (O 3" rt CD O. O O -h 3T Q. inc-s CDn fD -so 3 fD X v^e in rt* •at. 3 CQ O O 3 O. O 3 in 1RUN DATE Oa/26/91OATCN 001 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEMPROPERTY OWERS LIST REPORT NO. PI^35401PAGE 1PROP ADDRONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR S8 21-117-2302725 SHADYIEVA S JACOB EVA S JACOB 2725 SNADYHOO EXCELSIOR MN 24 0004ROA•• RD 55331 38 21-117-23 24 000502735SHADYHOOO RDPAUL C CARLSON ETAL PAUL C CARLSON 2735 SHADYHOOD RD EXCELSIOR m 55331 38 21-117-23 24 002900038ADDRESS UNASSIGNEDPAUL C CARLSON ETAL PAUL C CARLSON 2735 SHADYHOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 21-117-23 24 0059 02771 SHADYHOOD RD R 6 A M J OGLE RICHARD G A MARLYS J OGLE 2922 OAKLAND AVE SO MPLS MN 55407 38 21-117-23 24 0060 02765 SHADYHOOD RO B L NILHELM ADI NILHELM BURNIS L A DORIS I NILHELM 2765 SHADYHOOD RO EXCELSIOR m 55331 38 21-117-23 31 0003 02745 SHADYHOOD RD FIRST DANK NATIONAL ASSOC FIRST BANKS - MPFE0707 120 6TH ST S MPLS MN 55480 PROP ADDR ONTCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 0004 RO 38 21-117-23 32 02800 PHEASANT CAROL H BURGESS CAROL H BURGESS 2800 PHEASANT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 TOTAL BATCH 001 00007 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEftlEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPEiy^T TAXATigN, TO THE BEST OF MY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE ' OF PROPER TAXATim, Tl m W j M J ' ( 5) , •. I • .••• .J • • • I•-. • . , *i i * ri zr 4 • :KARECOV”. CALCULATIQII WCRKSH saiBAc;'. zoiis: (c:ac'-E c»s)/ E xisting Hardcover in Zonh 75-250' 2SG-5CQ' 5GC-i000' A.H ouse Bt Garage c.D riveway 0.S idewalk e.Patio / 3ecx 54 •X 28 1512 LENGTH WIDTH 1 9.5 X 14.5 133- X S3 ««X sa X s 22 X 21 426 Circular X Drive rs 4200 46 X 24 s 1104 26 X 3 sss 78 54 X 4.5 243 10 X 12 -.120 Sir. S . ? I S.F. r* ^S •r* • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. F.Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY , . PLASTIC SHEETING S.F X . S.F. ^ S.F. -•Y •S.F. • X ^ .=16 S.F. V Barbeque "Total Hardcover ••A IN Zone 7387 S.F.A 325U0 S.F.B 0-/ 7837 8 32500 X 100 24.1 *Since 98? of the site '• withi' 0-75'. 1 simply included the entire aree. ^ HARDCOVER CALCOLAi iC.’l mr‘-EJSc73AC:< ZONE: (CIRCLE ONc) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1GCO' Li<{.gTiHC-MAftD'S0VE.?-H( I Mr 1 C.IV rr^uru^cu i nr r\u¥ tnuii i v • • A, KcUSc .54 :< 23 «1512 S • f* ( • « LENGTH WIDTH X •S.F. . :<S.F.• • . X _ • __ S.F. •• X m zs • __ S.F. 3.Garage 22 X .21 426 S.F. c.D riveway .Circular X .Drive 4200 _ S.F. 46 __ X .24 1104 • _ S.F. • • □Sidewalk .26 — X .1IICO_ S.F. 54 X _4.5 243 _ S.F. — X __ S.F. 16 — X _8 128 •, S.F. • '.Landscape _ •^ -X _sr f. . S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY 1 _ X _ . • , S.F. PLASTIC SHEERING X _ • SI • S.F. •-X • s •• S.F. • , Other 4 -X • 4 16 S.. Barbeque Total Harocover in Zone 7707 Total Property Area in Zone 32500 C/ . S.F. S.F.B 7707 B 32500 X IQO - __23J, f LUI -«.'■ ••» ;iai • ' . ^ »» ri. •C ; -»V •> v-i •f */ < /■%rr' -' 'i ^SH4rri''^^ i$'2'‘ll fv\ '' Lit —»T *t.4k I. AK - HI 6>H$TiNfai I v \ - V \ - -HARDCOVER CALCDLATIOf! WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ome )0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000 HAng€sv en-fN Zone after proposed improvements * —— - - - - - - - - - - - Updated per Planning Commission approval condition 9/23/91. A.H ouse T X 28 1512 s.e. LENGTH• •WIDTH X S.F • • X S.F • • • X • S.F.» • X -• S..'^. 22B.Garage X 21 426 S.F. • C.' D riveway Circular X Dri ve ^*3210 S.F. 46 X 24 =1104 • S.F. • D.Sidewalk 'X 3"'=• 78 S.F. 54 X 4.5 ^243 S.F. X • S.F. X 8 a .128 •S.F.• • « F.Landscape X • S.F. AREAS underlain BY .X S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X •• a • S.F. ’ X •• S.F. • • • fi. Other ^X • 4 a 16 S.F. V Barbeque Total H ardcover ••’*• Total P rope .rty Area • IN Zone •« 6717 S.F.A IN Zone 32500 :.F.B 6717 ^B 32500 X 100 20.6 :h^ DATE:September 10,1991 TO;City of Orono Planning CoKimission City of Orono City Council FROM:RG and MJ Ogle 2771 Shadywood Road Orono, MN 55331 R£: Proposed Improvements to 2745 Shadywood Road We have reviewed the proposed improvements for 2745 Shaaywood Road prepared by David Graham and illustrated on the drawings dated August 23, 1991. We support the proposed improvements. ) j ^/ c r L To:Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator % % Fron: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Adn]^i^5at^^ October 9, 1991 Subject:#1685 Edward F. Baker, 3059 Farview Lane Variance - Resolution % Zoning District: LR-IA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2 acre, unsewered Application: Request for hardcover and setback variances to reconstruct deck area and stairway List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Resolution Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/17/91 Planning Commission Minutes 9/16/91 Memo fit Exhibits of 9/12/91 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of September 12. Briefly, the applicant proposes to replace portions of an existing deck and brick patio with a larger deck, partially in the 0-75* setback zone. Additionally requested is a wetland .jetback variance to construct safe walkways around the existing pool and a stairway leading to the ground floor level. Portions of the proposed walkway extensions and stairway will be 16* from the wetland. The existing deck, patio and hardcover walkways in the 0-75* zone were constructed by a previous owner absent any permits or approvals. The deck is in disrepair. Applicant proposes to increase the amount of deck in the 0-75’ zone while decreasing the •'mount of brick patio and removing all plastic-lined landscaped beds. Pre-existing 0-75* hardcover is 14,2% including the plastic-lined landscape beds; or 7.3% if the beds are excluded from the existing hardcover calculation. Applicant proposes a reduction to 6.5%. In the 75-250* zone, hardcover is below the 25% limit. Pliuming Coamd-ssion Recoamendation The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their September 16 meeting and recommended on a vote of 5 to 0 to approve the request as submitted. Zoning File #1685 October 9, 1991 Page 2 The Planning Conunission discussion focused on the safety and logical desjrelation to the pool and The proposed reduction ii hardcover percentage and the the current owner bought the property with the existing in place» apparently were swaying factors in the Commission recommendation for approval. issues of stairway, fact that aunenities Planning A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, AND 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 FILE #1685 WHEREAS, Edward F. Baker (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 3059 Farview Lane within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 6, Block 1, Farview, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit the construction of decks and stairways in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed, and encroaching on the 26' wetland setback line where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed. MOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1685. ' property is local id in the LR-IA, Single Family Le...eshore Residential Zoning District. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 16, 1991, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A.The existing pool already encroaches into the 26' required wetland setback and has only a minimal l'-2' walkway around 3 slides. The decking around the pool and associated stairway to the lower level are necessary for safety and convenience. The proposed 10' encroachment of the normally required 26' wetland setback is not of significant magnitude to outweigh the safety issues. Page 1 of 6 B.A hardcover decrease from 14.2% to 6.5% in the 0- 75' setback zone supports a recommendation to allow construction of a new 647 s.f. deck to replace a pre-existing 315 s.f. deck in conjunction with removing portions of an existing wood patio. The existing deck, patio area, and plastic-lined landscape beds were constructed by a previous property owner without any apparent City approval. 4, The City Council has considered this application Including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Cciranission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the 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 variance would not adversely aff-^jt 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 h‘*dship or difficulty; is necessary to preserv ^ s jstantial property right of the applicant; i would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 1C.55, Subdivision 8 and 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permit the construction of wood decks, walkways, and stairway, such work constituting structure and hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone and 0-26' wetland setback zone where no such structure or hardcover is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1.Construction shall adhere to the site plan attached to this resolution as Page 3. Any revisions to that plan shall be subject to further City review. Page 2 of 6 uisj<3« 75 seisack 1755 SF 2.74 9 SF n4*;i C .n *' D6CK5 Total Arta within 0'*7S* Shoralint Solback •19.300 SF Existing CondlUons • (taken from SlroeH & Madson survey dated 8/6/S1) A Stairs from lawn to lake $ Stalls from deck to driveway t Brtck Patio / Wood dock wHiiln 75* setback /*Wood deck boyornl 75* setback ^ Pool C Boulder walls //Bllumlnous driveway X Planting beds w/ plastic within 75* setback Ptantif>g bads w/ plastic outside 75 ‘ setback Total: 327 627 no 109 takeshore 245 west of deck 21B south of deck 373 east of deck 511 1,755 SF 160 SF 202 506 315 SFSP -rb fx SF SF SF SF sr SF '"'I?- 2.749 SF (14%) *.?// ff"/;i fi! I,' U i inlii.!!,l! ll!lliimjlil ^ prtoPoset) Pfopos«U •(t^«n tiom S&M turkey S IvyCicil pUn dalod 6/22/91) 675 SF 563 SF 160 SF (unct^angedl 230 SF 0 SF 647 SF 4 Slmrs from lawn to taiit 5 Stalls liom tJacJi to 0«ivs««ay Biick Palio j Wood d«cH within 75* samaefc f^ood deck b«yo4id 75 ’ ^tback ^ Pool CBouldor walls tIO SF (unctianged) Otiumlnous drtvaway 109 SF junchangadi xPlanilng bads wsh tasuc (f0tXjcm3 f.755 SF ovtSH30 757 0 SF Toui: (^0-75* 20»jO ' Ptopoiad Oavalcpm.nt/Wtllind Stiback JO SF (unchdngad) Wood dock (30 Mnda) canlilavarad alxiva lawn baiow 100 SF - Proposad Slatiway w»thin 26* wsUartd ssiback 7$ SF A Planring bads with piatiic wiihin 26 ’woiland saUMck 0 SF Toial:410 SF Page 3 of 6 I 2. 3. 4. 5. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone is approved at a level of 6.5%. All existing and proposed hardcover approved with this variance approval is recorded in the calculation worksheet and diagram enclosed with this resolution as Page 3. The current property owner and all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall not be increased abcve the currently approved level and any proposed improvements of this property that will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City. Such approval mo/ result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for re'^oval as a condition of this resolution must be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 14, 1992). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of t' is resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 4 of 6 r-• tF- Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono# Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of Oc:ober, 1991. ATTEST Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OP MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 14th day of Octooer 1991, by Barbara A, Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor 6 City Clerk of th City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said insti '^ent was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 akLMMiM I- riKft V(fc- k:? CZTT OP OROHO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bayr MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING PILE #1685 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 9/17/91 TOt Edward P. Baker COPIES TO: JoEllen Hurr 19720 Lakeview 930 Partenwood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Variance r h 4'- DATS OP MBBTINGs 9/16/91 VOTE: 5 For 0 A9dinst Planning GoBBisslcm recoanends the following: Approval as submitted ■OTBS ABD SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as City Council on Monday» October 14, 1991; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. lav i: j'-f: ' r, ¥ r*k. f. r f : ()■ L ¥-! 'S ■ ! ty- minutes of the orono planning commission meeting -SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 (#12) #1685 EDWARD F. BAKER 3059 FARVIEW LANE VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING ‘““°T;.“’i??1d;vn of publication ana Certlflcato of Mailing uaa notsd. Edward Baker and JoEllen Hurr ,ero present for this app11 cation. Gaffron explained that this |one. There is also variance and a setback ^ encroached upon. He noted a 26* wetland setback wh ch .^® ®"^^°?here to gain access, that the walkway to the ^jeck and patio areas The house and -fLck I^el is in poor condition. Applicant were built later. The deck ® P that deck. Applicant went* to replece end increase noteS that proposes removal of plastic nnoi and applicant Is ?he?e U no ‘"?f;rs?a:rSa;’.hych SSSld run to SrSSr ?2vJl iS: «cond"story pool area would encroach into the wetland setback 10‘. Hurr noted g^®5ll?5o?°2one^" U®is actually lower than reduced to 7% and in the 75 ^ since plastic is counted as JSlidcSiir'' th”; sh^^ld not te a differentiation between structural and non—structural hardcover. home. Johnson asked if variances were granted for the original encroach the wetlands. Gaffron noted that in 1979 decks were likely not considered when hardcover was calculated. schroeder noted «at there is a reduction^in tjonocoven.^^but only of non-structursl, P'J®* yp .hg^g^ore should not be ?r«i?t.3*''« 3*p3s1?i". % asked if the, Patio/deck .r« ^ is proposed a^ a minimum* Hurr noted that it 1s^not*that*b1g. Hurr necessity. I?r ■; !!■* MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ZONING FILE #1685 - CONT. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Mocs, to recommend approval of application #1685, Edward F. Baker. for property located at 3059 Farview Lane, for hardcover and setback variances to reconstruct deck area and stairway. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#13) #1686 JOHN BURGER 3750 BAYSIDE ROAD SKETCH PLAN REVIEW ^ _John Burger and Dan Johnson of Burnett Realty were for this application. present Mabusth explained that Mr. Burger proposes a three lot subdivision.Lots A and B are within the LR-IA, 2 acre zoning district and Lots C plus Cl are within the RR-IA, 5 acre zoning district.Lot C is located on the north side of the Luce Lot Cl Is proposed as the building site, using Lot C for credit to Beet the 5 acre requirement. Lot Cl is 2 acres+, which meets the 2 acre contiguous standard for rural lots. Mr. Burger would execute a special lot combination to combine both lots. Lot C on the north side would never be built upon. Within -the last several years, Mr. Burger has tried to gain access to his northern lot, but to no avail. Lot Cl will need a width variance as the lot only measures 210'. She went on to explain that the subdivision as proposed is iiaaiiiSil sewered district. Rowlette moratorium. asked If this property - Included In the Mabusth agreed that the southern portion of the property Is has not been able to obtain any type of access easement. Cohen felt that the southern portion should be put o” until sewer Is approved for the area, but had no problem with the northern lots. Johnson' noted that the moratorium restricts doing anything at this point. Mabusth explained that people can apply for a variance to the moratorium If they can prove that the subdivision areas. r i' ni-: $ .V" i V V. 4"*: ?:■ f: IV; • Tos Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Dates September 12# 1991 Subjects #1665 Edward P. Baker, 3059 Farview Lane Variance - Public Hearing V Sonlag Districts LR-IA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2 acre, unsewered Applications Request for hardcover and setback variances to reconstruct deck area and stairway List of Bxhlblts Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey/Site Plan Existing Hardcover Conditions Proposed Hardcover Conditions 1979 Approved Site Plan 1979 House Plan Permit Record Portinent Ordinances 1.Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 - No hardcover or structure allowed within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. 2.Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 - No hardcover or structure allowed within 26' of wetlands, nor within 75' of the shoreline. Portinent Facts 1.Hardcover on this property is summarized as follows: 0-75 75-250* Existing l4% ’''.-L 23.1% Proposed 7 % 23.2% — Allowed 0% 25% 2.A portion of the existing pool walkway is 18* from the defined wetland boundary. Walkway extensions and a stairway are proposed of which some portions will be 16* from the wetland. 3.The house and pool were constructed in 1979 to meet the 75' lakeshore setback. Since that ^ime, a previous owner constructed wood decks and a brick patio within the 75' setback area. No permits were issued for these improvements, and they do not show up on the survey completed in 1989 during the review of an encroachment of the drainage easement by a portion of the house. r f- ', . >r , p ';*■ '•V k’ (' Zoning File #1685 September 12, 1991 Page 2 4.Current property owner proposes to remove about half of the currently existing hardcover in the 0-75* zone, and rebuild the existing deck system which appears to have some significant structural problems. 5.About half of the existing 0-75' hardcover consists of planting beds with a plastic liner. All of that plastic in the 0-75' zone is proposed to be removed. The other 0-75' changes amount to replacing a portion of the removed brick patio with wooden deck. J^ipllcant's Statement of Bardship Please read the notes on the submitted application form. DlSCDSSiOO It can certainly be argued that since this residence was constructed under the current zoning code, there should be no hardcover in the 0-75' zone, oth-r than the stairway system near the shoreline to provide lake access. The poor condition of the existing deck structures indicate they have been in place for quite some time, certainly proceeding the current or immediate past owners. While the 0-75' hardcover is proposed to be reduced by half, the net effect of the application is that the "constructed" portion of 0-75' hardcover will increase from a 315 s.f. deck to a 647 s.f. deck. The "existing/proposed" 0-75* hardcover is as follows: Existing (sf)Proposed (sf) Stairs to Lake 160 160 Stairs to Driveway 202 238 Brick Patio 506 0 Wood Deck 315 647 Boulder Walls 110 110 Driveway Portion 109 109 Plastic-lined Beds 1347 0 2749 s.f.i:.<4 s.f. A 7 19,300 = 14.2%7 19,300 = 6.5% In the 75-250' zone.additional decks and railing around perimeter of the pool seem to be a prudent improvement for safety's sake. The stairway proposed adjacent to the existing pool and corner deck provides access to the lower level, but encroaches into the 26' setback from the wetland as defined by the 930* contour. There also will be an encroachment across the platted drainage easement boundary, which is not concurrent with the actual edge of the wetland. Technically City approval is required for encroachment into the easement. •f'TT CITY OP OROHO - VARXANCB APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $173.OC ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.0C (no change from original application) A£ter-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ■^4 CITY OF ORDNO n^ARCE OFFICE 1350200000 PROPERTY LOCATION SOS^Site Address 01 CES 225,00 CHECK TL 225,00 RECEIRT-THA}^ YOU H222010 cool ROl T16:C 03/23/9 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 0^'^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home ) ^^7^ /^/^ _ Name £^Jt4jgrJ P.Phone (work) ^5?" , /9')2_d ^ ^^'^\£^>ce/s/ar zip:v£5^SZ-Address mfHfH* (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address:City:Zip: fi’.. Date Property Acquired Ju/^ .2 2. /?1Lf (month/year) F' i. I (^) (<3o not) also own the adjace.nt parcels of land PRBSBNT use of PROPERTY Present Zoning District L/e^/A Present Use of Property Residential r. Other (specify) OBSCRIPTIOH OF R Estimated Construction Cost $_/^^_£^£, Descr 4 '/ie request in 1 = feL.U ro Atj {/<’g ^ joiot/u /Fi/d/ -------------------------- variances required Lot Area Lot Width rv Setback Variances ( ^Front Other _ _ _ Hardcover Sice _ _ _ Rear) Am !■_..jfcw HARDSHIPDescribe undue hardship or practical difficulty ting from strictenf o^cemen^ <^z^ni^ r^ulations r <?r DESCRIPTION ONOOTAL PROPERTO CONDITIONS ^ ^ ^ Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance witn zoning Code Requirements ;—------------------------- 2. 3. 4. BBQOIRED submittals CMtmed Prlpirty^’clnerT' List of owners within ISO' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Depart.ment of Finance A-60 3 Govt Center 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list).... C.rtificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 0ij xll for reproduction) • . . ^ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8W xll ). Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8ij xll ). As an addendum to this application, please attac* a separate list o any- other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. S. €. 7. 8. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. resieiiiber that vour variance application is not complete if the ------ h«a not been included. lllisisSiSiiSS! supplied is true end o^^ct to ^th^ ^t ol his/her Icnowledge. 9/? f /<?// V 'Applicant's Signatun Date f / OMHBRS SIGHATDRB The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and euthorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants^ agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verificat4^of thi^ revest. Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at zewieir Beetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If enable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make ^Zonina authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building Office of this change prior to the meeting. sv- ■a.^ I ·- .. . . . : • : • . • . . . .....• • • • • • ♦ : . . . .. . l � ) � I I I �♦ ·�� �)-7ft,; I I :6J I I 2 I •.... ( 5) h *•.mm OATC Ot/22/91 VBATCH 00*:.HEftCPIN . « PW AOM ommn name TA)9AYCII NAME/A^M S8 04-117-21 SS 0006 0S07S FARVIEN U r A I L J TAYtOO PAUL A A LUCIEmE J TAYLOR 1075 EARVIEN LANE LONB LAICE NN 55S56 PROP AOOR ammn nahe TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR , M 04-117-2S 5S 0004 i 0S051 EARVIEN LA 0 0 NXLLIAMS I E 0 C NILLIAHS RONALD J BURGER S051 EARVIEN LANE LONG LAKE MN 55S56 PROP ADOR (MCR NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR TOTAL BATON 006 00006 r* >• . '.1 ••< i > V.» I r’ *i ♦• •/ f V:•‘v. •.•• Vi.:..•/ .*1 ' • ••* «*' \ J * ^5 •s'i; • * • •' COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEHPROPERTY 0»tCRS LIST 38 04-117-23 33 0007 03067 FARVIEH LA PHILLIP A DABILL PHILLIP A OABILL 3067 FARVIEN LONB LAKE FM 55356 38 04-117-23 34 OOIT 03070 FARVIEH LA 0 A 8 SILUS DAVID A BARBARA SILUS 3070 FARVIEH LA LONB LAKE MN SS3S6 REPORT NO. PI43S401PAGE 25 38 04-li'-23 33 0008 03059 FARVIEN LA E F BAKER A R J HYDE BAKER E F BAKER A K J HYDE BAKER 3D59 FARVIEN LA LONB LAKE (04 SS3S6 38 04-117-23 34 0014 03060 FARVIEN LA (URY JAYNE EVA(6 HARY JAYNE EVAI6 3060 FARVIEH LA 10(48 LAKE (04 55356 ^^0 2 e X99X B •% . : X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF XNFORFttTION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HE(04EPIN COUNTY DEPARINENT/OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO BEST OF HY KNOHLEOGE A(40 BELIEF DATE ;;:v •.• t ; 4 t A '1 • V,*F«'-‘n!»6*^ . i «, f ■i'-iiv.-B ‘J •V *, ••Hi-s';*/. '..“I* •' ■'■: 'V; •» ' t « ‘; ■». .) • 6 .i auini A •UKOH CITY ^s^S^jsSSSSsev• _____ ; »».► r^o PROTECT DWy»j^»^ y^ SnSTiJSrU ^&£iJL“£!5!f^ T “KEER off OMrtVIfLO AHEM !l il r' ••V* t ^ •| f»i*; ................ >■■■ "‘V-- . I . * i'^iBiCiSX :;i \ V • r» T . V- -1 •^ .!n •t»••- •.•-?; .• -r- ^jtr»MMii I m ?'t ■S'!': ^i'>Wri'«S^Siili'lT.aurrCM ^k-4'5r-.-V ' -M ifet ■ ■ ' ■ ■ ■ ■;■ jvi®f:Ilf StSiiSfe; a'/ r: i. f. 'f?; / ^ » :: ;i? ***-.•'V*- V •/. » • • -, X*- .s> ....••>•.*•• V."^. f ’•-< .- i !>.%. • w//fY*.r ' w* “•* •*\t' , ••;,v-7 ’ . . r j-*:' / ^ ^-•• • ^ i . • N •— 4*- ..-J. /-.'••■••.- ■^ ♦ ^ 'V *•.»(“ -- -.%• .V *’4 •*''“--^' •***• **A • r'' !'• r j ,,,. P IT 0 Type O e�rmit ,,I-LU • .. _ .. �, .... ....,..,__,_...:..ti'! _J.-;. -.. �� .. . ., ... _____ �.......-.--...-........ -•,� .....-·-..,� ---. . � � - I' I i.i' % Tb: Proa: Date: 0>V 70^^ Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator '* Mayor Peterson Orono City Council City Administrator Moorse Site October 9, 1991 Subject: Tree Removal within 0 to 75' Lakeshore Setback Area Pertinent Ordinance Section 10.22, Subdivision 3 - Tree Removal Regulations. No live tree within 75' of the shoreline with a diameter of 6" or more shall be removed without first obtaining a permit from the City. Such permit shall be issued by the City staff provided that at least a like number of replacement trees of a size and nature found acceptable to the staff are planted. Any questions involving the number of trees o be replaced will require approval. It is the current practice of the Building Department to require no permit for the removal of dead trees. The staff merely inspects the property to confirm that the trees are dead and issues an inspection notice confirming the right to remove. A copy of the inspection notice is placed in the file. A permit is required for the removal of live trees. [Permit price $30.50] Removal of live trees usually involves types such as cottonwood or willow trees. Very often the age or physical condition of live trees can present a hazard and liability for a prooerty owner and at other times trees may be removed to provide growing space for unique or more valuable trees on a property. When a live tree is removed, staff will usually ask for the same number of replacements at a 3” or 4* diameter. Trees are usually required to be replanted in the general vicinity of the site where trees were removed. In a recent after-the-fact violation that involved the removal of seven to eight trees in excess of €” in diameter, the owner provided a landscape plan providing replantings to the side of the lakeshore yard and not in the general area where the originals were removed. Lacking clear direction in the code, staff's request was disputed. The specific code section referenced above does not state that trees have to be replaced in the general area of the removals. Was or is it the Council's intention to require replantings in the same general area of the removals? Another issue related to tree removal is the issue of the replant size. Many cities with reforestation programs ask for cumulative replacements: n-: V. ,v.- 1Memo - Tree Removal October 9, 1991 Page 2 i.e.f removal of a 20" diameter tree# City would approve the following replanting schedule: No. 1-6" No. 2-4" No. 2-3" Total Inches of cumulative replacement = 20" The Orono staff has required merely replacement of any size tree with a 3" to 4" diameter replant. ^ f; I IMCIL IS ASKBD TO PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION Issue of replanting location A.Should staff continue to require replantings in the general area where trees are removed or B.Accept owners* replanting schedule as long as type and size of the trees are acceptable to staff and that trees are to be replanted in the 0 to 75' lakeshore protected area. Issue of size of trees to be replaced. A.Continue practice of staff by asking for 3" to 4" diameter replantings or B.Adopt accumulative replanting replacement practice, (Staff would recommend that the above referenced code section be amended to include this as a standard for the staff permitting system.) uw I, V f.: Hr !^j TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator October 11, 1991 SUBJECT: Park Commission Appointment The Council at its September 23rd meeting interviewed three candidates for the vacant position on the Park Commission. Those candidates were; Sherokee Ilse, Tim Pattrin and Lili McMillan. The Council had indicated to the cadidates that a selection decision would be made at the October 14th meetitig. -O'.-’.*' ■■ Jj/^ I Bonestroo BIB Rosene Anderlik & fylj Associates Engmctrs & ArcMtects OHO 9 twao tt tf MctW. %af«. JiKP^C AWWiPi ^4ifVflFi L Pt I.V:^. . c NQ«1 ^1. 0.$ru«CX «i. ktr M. Ibvj'i c^A A GOfdoAH ^SRf M. Se^ClMri^ M ;«fvy A liyifvi. M M*(t A Hinsoni U ^Cfie4& if MiCf^Nf r if *B6CA f. mkm. if Om O iMoca if. ^ Anmoa. m MiCMJCi c ii. •• Mjtana At ftnncfw i AT.fefsoa Pi < JbH if ^OCA C Ruurt A A T^OTMII Angulif A.SinM. At Cin« JL Ifgew. AC vjm A feta A| a*vJ j5 i CjsMn Af •r^ vijrMf' if Mart a viaci Af 7A®«4I a. Aw*p, a Gyy A A! Mi«s I jtrMtr. Af L A?»i,i(0 Qr9w« at Al AiA Afl«« M fcrg. A.iCP ApfttiCfi. Al CeenBC»v«r A( *»t« t Dwrw A| Gary \Ar Morvf*. Af aktt c wiemin ac A ^ Al C^Jf^n A inussn ««o M PMmmy M CXlC»^ October 10, 1991 City of Orono Box 66 Oysttl Bty, MN 55323 Attn: Mr. John Cerhardson % *<7 Re: File No. 13951 T.H. 12 Frontage Road Water A Sewer Project Dear John, Enclosed please find Change Order No. 1 for the T.H. 12 Frontage Road Water and Sewer Project The change order provides for relocating the irunlr line to the new elevated water reservoir. The origioal plan provided for placing the reservoir trunk line cdnnection along the church property north of the City site. The church was not willing to provide easements for the line. This change order provides for relocating the trunk line along the east property line of the City property. The City would have been required to extend a water line to the north end of the pubUe works building as a part of the City facility plans. The change order will satisfy this requirement The enclosed plan indicates the location for the trunk water line. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook CRC:li 1395 l.cor 2335 Vbbst Highway I6 • $c. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 6I2-636-4600 • 35th Anniversary -1- I ' I D ' 11&10 I 5 s •·u -. 0 -' 0 ., □ C 0 C C ' [J ........ ••• ,o • -..... .. -- - -u,,,,,., .,,i•...,-------------�t&) .,. '" uu, STAT£ HWY. -r.,;,---__,_ ..... ____________ _. ..... Ml:Tall MANlt • l '--------L--------:!..--...,__.. __ :,__ ________ �----- ___ ..... _________ _ ----· __ ,,.GREAT NORTH(RN 1-- fv 0«Mr Ciiy at Oroao. 1335 Brown Rotd, Cryttil B«y. MN S5232 DtU Oa. 10, BAD Underground. Inc, 1351 Co. RA 83. Mtple Plain, MN 53359 Chanto Order No. 1 CHANCE ORDER NO. 1 Trunk Midway 12 Ftoatnge Road Sc^cr, Water, A Street Improvements Project No. 91-2 FUb No. 13951 nil order provides for various adjustment* in quantities to the Water Main portion of this project. Chanf Order No. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 13 13 or DIP» Clasi 52 water main f DIF, Clatt S3 water main ly DIP. Clau 53 water main 16” DIP, Class 52 water main 6* reailkai wedfn OV and box I* resilient wedge GV and box 12” butterfly valve and box 16* butterfly valve and box r valve hydrant Connect to exist, water line (wet tap) Cl. fktbgs Mechanical trench eompacrion bmrovad pipe foundation per 6* depth increments in place rating for IT DIF Total Change Order No. 1 OSSI.CHA CO-1 CoDimcl UbH Total I'oll Quonlity Prk*AaooM m LF 50 15.60 780.00 LF (35)15.60 (546.00) LF 410 20.85 8,54830 LF 250 28.00 7,000.00 EA 2 340.00 680.00 EA (1)440.00 (440.00) EA 2 795.00 1390.00 EA 2 1,660.00 3320X0 EA 2 1,100.00 EA (1)1,440.00 (L440X0) LB 2,000 0.85 1.700.00 LF 670 030 134.00 LF 130 0.80 104X0 LF (60)118.00 S16450i0 fc'-,•* ii?;' Orifiiial Contract Areouat Firtvioni Change Orders Thk Change Order Na 1 • ADD Itft^ed Contract Aaiount (iadudlag this Change Order) 188,786.00 0.00 165S0J0 20S336i0 laonouBended for Approval by:iONesntoo,iu)as^ ANDEU^ assogiates^inc Approved by Contractor: SAD UNDERGIU>UMD.1MC. Approved by Owner: CTTY OF ORONO, MN aVr iV.v. Date: 1 t 1 1 t HtiOB Ovnscf Cowiraciof dCa V‘f r-'-i'fe tv'l'' UPitCHA CO-2 r I ‘i- y- 10991.2 TO: Mayor and City Council FRCm: Ron Moorse, City Administrator / % DATE:October 9, 1991 SUBJECT: Selection of a Firm to Provide Prosecution Services In an effort to ensure the most cost effective prosecution services the City requested proposals for prosecution services. 15 proposals were received. Based on these proposals it appears the City can save approximately $85,000 per year by changing prosecution service providers. A recommendation concerning the firm to be selected will be made at the Council meeting, based on interviews to be held on Friday, October 11, 1991. r- T: I t >■ f"'V. ■ TO; Mayor and City Council FRON: Ron Moorse, City Administrator ' " DATE: October 9, 1991 X/' Oa %0 SUBJECT: Proposed Language Changes for the 1992 Police Service Contract with the City of Long Lake At the September 23rd meeting the City Council directed that the police service contract with the City of Long Lake be cancelled and that the contract be reinstated for 1992 only if the City of Long Lake paid the 4th quarter billing by October 10th. Additional conditions placed on the reinstatement were the inclusion of an interest penalty and an option to terminate for late payment were included in the contract. Assuming timely payment of the 4th quarter billing by the City of Long Lake I have met with Long Lake's representatives to negotiate the contract language as directed. The Long Lake representatives accepted Orono's proposed changes and proposed three additional changes: 1. Add a sentence under the contract administration paragraph providing that the Police Chief is responsible for the day to day operations of the police department. 2.Add language to the termination paragraph indicating that if Orono initiates termination of the contract for non-payment# the termination would not trigger the requirement that the City of Long Lake pay any extra ordinary cost related to the termination. 3.Add similar language regarding late payment to the fire contract. Representatives of each city accepted the proposed changes and indicated they would recommend the changes to their respective City Councils. The specific late payment language is as follows: 1.Beginning on the 11th day past due# interest will accrue on the past due balance. The rate of interest on the past due balance will be the statutory rate of interest on judgements as set by the Minnesota Supreme Court. 2.If an unpaid balance becomes 30 days past due# the City of Orono has the option of terminating the contract after providing a 30 day notice of termination. If the unpaid balance is paid in full including accrued interest within the 30 day notice period# the contract shall remain in effect. ¥ ifVK' Mi yi rIf ft.' v>r' S‘‘'-i:!-" 1989 Debit Amount: The disputed 1989 debit amount was also discussed. It was agreed that a reasonable resolution of the dispute would be for the City of Long Lake to pay 1/2 of the disputed amount. The disputed amount is $13,408, 1/2 of this amount is $6,704. Both parties agreed that they would recommend t •» their respective Councils that the 1989 debit dispute be resolved by Long Lake's payment of $6,704. TO; FROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator October 9, 1991 nj %uV' ^ > SUBJECT: Stubbs Bay Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project * W ' The Council at its October 7th work session reviewed the Stubbs Bay Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project feasibility report. The next step in the process is to schedule a public hearing concerning the project. The date selected for the public hearing is Wednesday^ November 20» 1991f at 7;00 p.m. r'v V 101091.5 <3i \ } TO:Mayor and City Council Ron J. Moorse, City Administrator Tom Kuehn, Finance Director'7^^' October 10, 1991 SUBJECT: Additional Deferred Compensation Plan - Resolution Attachment A; Resolution Adding the USCM Deferred Compensation Program ISSUE - Request for authorization to add the USCM Deferred Compensation Program. DISCUSSION - We have received an employee request to include the deferred compensation program established by the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) with those programs already authorized for deferred compensation for Orono City employees. The USCM program provides up to 13 different fixed and variable investment choices. The variable option consists of up to 9 different common stock funds, 2 bond funds and one money-market fund. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council authorize the addition of the USCM deferred compensation program for all city employees. seconded by to adoptPROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, _ resolution # authorizing the addition of the U.S. Conference of Mayors Deferred Compensation Pr.^-jram to the City of Oorno Deferred Compensation Plan. Ayes , Nays K RESOLOTION TO ADOPT THE D.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS DEFERRED COMPENSATION PROGRAM AS AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ORONO DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN WHEREAS, the City has considered the establishment of a Deferred Compensation Plan to be made available to all eligible city employees, elected officials, and independent contractors pursuant to Federal legislation permitting such Plans; and WHEREAS, certain substantial tax benefits could accrue to employees, elected officials, and independent contractors participating in said Deferred Compensation Plans; and WHEREAS, such benefits will act as incentives to City employees to v^'luntarily set aside and invest portions of the current income to meet their future financial requirements and supplement their City retirement and Social Security (if applicable), at no cost to the Cit\ jnd WHEREAS, The U.S. Conference of Mayors has established a master prototype deferred compensation program for cities and political subdivisions permitting its member cities and their employees to enjoy the advantages of this program; WHEREAS, The U.S. Conference of Mayors, as Plan Administrator, agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the City, its appointed and elected officers and participating employees from any loss resulting from The U.S. Conference of Mayors or its Agent's failure to perform its duties and services pursuant to The U.S. Conference of Mayors Program; MOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORONO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: The City Council hereby adopts the U.S. Conference of Mayors Deferred Compensation Program and its attendant investment options and hereby establishes the City of Orono Deferred Compensation Plan for the voluntary participation of all eligible city employees, elected officials and independent contractors. The Finance Director or his/her representative is hereby authorized to execute for the City, individual participation agreements with each said employee requesting same, and to act as the "Administrator" of the Plan representing the City, and to execute such agreements and contracts as are necessary to implement the Program. It is implicitly understood that other than the incidental expenses of collecting and disbursing the employee's deferrals and other minor administrative matters, that there is to be no cost to the City for the Program. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held October 14, 1991 Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Us, ?'■V-■ 10891.5 TO: FROM; DATS: Mayor and City Council Ron J. Moorse, City Administrator Di rectorToro Kuehn, Finance October 8, 1991 % % ^ %\ % /l SUBJECT: Certification of Delinquent Septic Inspection Fees, Sewer and Water Utility Accounts and Recycling Program Fee Attachments;A. Resolution Providing for Collection of Delinquent Sewer, Water and Septic Accounts and Recycling Program Fee B.Assessment Roll DISCUSSION - Each year the City certifies to the County all unpaid annual service charges for the septic inspection program, the annual recycling program fee, and all delinquent sewer and water accounts of $18.00 or more, to be collected with the following year's taxes. In addition to the outstanding amounts delinquent the City adds 8% interest to all accounts and an administrative fee to the septic accounts. At this time the total to be assessed is $55,042.42 including administrative charges. These amounts are expected to be decreased before the final payment date of November 15, 1991. A copy of the assessment roll is attached for your review. seconded by to adoptPROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _ _ Resolution # providing for the collection of delinquent charges for 1991 sewer and water utility services and annual septic inspection and recycling program fees. Ayes __, Nays __. r- IT" t it ft R 1^.. r-v' > »» bii w;-...' .' -r • 10391.6 A RESOLDTION PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF DBLINQDENT 1991 SEWER AND WATER OTILITY SERVICE CHARGES, RECYCLING PROGRAM FEES AND AHMOAL SERVICE CHARGES FOR THE ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT (SEPTIC) INSPECTION PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota has enacted certain ordinances under the Minnesota statutes, therefore pursuant to Chapter 3 and Chapter 12, Orono City Code pertaining to payment and collection of sewer and water charges and annual service charges for the On-Site Sewage Treatment (septic) Inspection Program, the following properties are delinquent in nature. 1, WHEREAS, the City has obtained from Hennepin County Auditor Levy Number 12309 for the delinquent accounts. 2, That the Hennepin County Auditor be and is hereby authorized and directed to extend upon property tax lists of the County and further collect said assessments thereon in the manner provided by law. 3.That eight percent (8%) be added to the amounts due. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesot -i a regular meeting held October 14, 1991. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk kI--;. . } REPORT NIR.DATE OP RUN MUNICIPAL CODE 3t 31 3t 31 31 3t 31 3t 31 31 31 31 31 . 31 31 31 31 31 3t 31 31 31 31 31 3t 31 3S 31 31 3S 38 38 38 31 31 3t 31 3t 31 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 31 38 38 38 38 38 tUMRPT-110/04/81 ORONO CERTIFICATION SYSTEMSPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS LEVY NUMBER 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012308 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 PROPERTY ID ADDITION PAGE: 1DISTRICT: ALL CERTIFIED 02-117- 02-117- 02-117- 02-117- 02-117- 02-117- 02-117- 02-117- 02-117- 03-117- 03-117- 03-117- 03-117- 03-117- 03-117- 04-117- 04-117- 04-117- 04-117- 04-117- 04-117- 04-117- 04-117- 04-117- 04-117- 04-117- 05-117- 05-117- 05-117- 05-117- 05-117- 05-117- 05-117- 05-117- 05-117 05-117 05-117 05-117 05-117 05-117 05-117 05-117 06-117 06-117 06-117 06-117 07-117 07-117 07-117 07-117 07-117 07-117 07-117 23-21- 23-22- 23-24- 23-31- 23-31- 23-31- 23-31- 23-34- 23-43- 23-12- 23-21- 23-31- 23-33- 23-34- 23-34- 23-11- •23-12- •23-12- -23-21- -23-22- -23-22- -23-23- -23-23- -23-34- -23-42- -23-43- -23-12- -23-12- -23-12- -23-13- -23-13- -23-14- -23-14- -23-14- -23-14- -23-14 -23-14 -23-23 -23-23 -23-23 -23-33 -23-41 -23-14 -23-41 -23-41 -23-41 -23-11 -23-13 -23-14 -23-14 -23-14 -23-14 -23-21 0022 0002 0003 0002 0006 0011 0018 0007 0026 0010 0003 0003 0006 0019 0029 0011 0002 •0005 •0007 •0011 -0027 -0004 -0022 -0013 -0014 -0007 -0012 -0017 -0018 -0036 -0040 -0020 -0021 -0024 -0028 -0031 -0035 -0018 -0021 -0029 -0012 -0010 -0022 -0060 -0094 -0099 -0015 -0095 -0018 -002G -0056 -0062 -0003 NUMBER AMOUNT 42840 62.00 41302 62.00 41640 62.00 41640 249 08 42560 58 82 42560 249 08 42560 249 08 42340 58 82 42760 131 41 42395 62 00 41303 62.00 41303 62 00 43570 62 00 43570 62.00 43570 62.00 02550 62.00 43134 62.00 02550 62.00 02499 62.00 43450 62.00 41520 62.00 41520 62 00 00954 62.00 42227 62.004317462.00 41500 62.00 41440 62.00 41440 62.00 41440 62.00 41900 62 00 41900 62.004190062.00 41900 62.00 41900 62 00 41900 62.004190062.00 41900 62.00 42320 62.004232062.0042320620042880190.260036262.00 43094 62.0042620131.44 42620 58.8242620249.0842950249.08 42440 151.4842440249.0842440131.44 41307 27.154130768.2941307131.44 %. - /• uREPORT NBR. DATE OP RUN tUHRPT-110/04/RlMUNICIPALCODE 31 31 31 3t 3t 31 31 3t 38 31 31 38 38 38 31 38 31 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 '■ii LEVYNUMBER 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 ^'12309 i 2309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 ORONO CERTIFICATION SYSTEMSPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLLSPROPERTY ID 07-117-23-22-0016 07-117-23-24-0029 07-117-23-31-0023 07-117-23-32-0003 07-117-23-32-0010 07-117-23-32-0021 07-117-23-32-0027 07-117-23-32-0030 07-117-23-33-0004 07-117-23-34-0003 07-117-23-41-0006 07-117-23-41-0008 07-117-23-41-0013 07-117-23-41-0016 07-117-23-41-0030 07-117-23-41-0054 07-117-23-41-0074 07-117-23-41-0084 07-117-23-43-0014 07-117-23-44-0003 07-117-23-44-0014 07-117-23-44-0020 07-117-23-44-0021 07-117-23-44-0026 07-117-23-44-0027 07-117-23-44-0030 07-117-23-44-0033 07-117-23-44-0052 07-117-23-44-0062 07-117-23-44-0073 08-117-23-21-0009 08-117-23-23-0003 08-117-23-23-0020 08-117-23-31-0015 08-117-23-33-0066 08-117-23-33-0075 08-117-23-33-0079 08-117-23-34-0008 08-117-23-34-0010 08-117-23-41-0004 08-117-23-41-0006 08-117-23-41-0012 08-117-23-41-0014 08-117-23-42-0003 08-117-23-43-0016 08-117-23-44-0002 08-117-23-44-0008 08-117-23-44-0014 09-117-23-32-0006 09-117-23-33-0009 09-117-23-44-0005 10-117-23-23-0001 10-117-23-24-0002 ADDITIONNUMBER 03487 43500 43080 42000 42000 42000 43132 43080 43360 41940 43120 43120 43120 43120 43120 43120 43120 00365 43120 42300 42300 42300 42300 42300 42300 42300 42300 42300 42300 42300 42890 41308 42460 41860 42280 42280 42280 41600 41600 41308 41308 41308 42500 42500 42500 41308 42005 03276 42160 43075 42215 02558 41310 PAGE: 2DISTRICT: ALLCERTIFIEDAMOUNT62.00 249.08 249.08 131.44 249 08 249.08 471 04 249.08 33.61 249.08 68.29 249 58 249 249 249 58 249 131 249 249 08 82 08 08 08 82 08 44 08 08 249.08 249 08 249 58 58 249 160 08 82 82 08 31 249.08 249.08 58.82 249.08 139.11 311 249 138 249 249 249 1.066 249 901 249 701 58 249 131 249 58 190 249 08 08 74 08 08 08 38 08 14 08 14 82 08 44 08 82 26 .08 62.00 62.00 'i 1 fatiSlf rtiai i.Ti -In .. 1'' I k.^V REPOKT NBR.DATE OF RUN SUHRPT-110/04/91MUNICIPALCODE31 31 31 3t 31 31 31 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 '439 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 LEVYNUMBER012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 ORONO CERTIFICATION SYSTEMSPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLLSPROPERTY ID10-117- 10-117- 10-117- 10-117- 10-117- 10-117- 10-117- 10-117- 10-117- 10-117- 10-117- 10-117- 10-117- 10-117- 10-117- 10-117- 11-117- 11-117- 15-117- 17-117- 17-117- 17-117- 17-117- 17-117- 17-117- 17-117- 17-117- 17-117- 17-117- 17-117- 17-117- 17-117- 17-117 17-117 17-117 17-117 17-117 17-117 17-117 17-117 17-117 17-117 17-117 17-117 17-117 17-117 17-117 17-117 17-117 17-117 17-117 17-117 17-117 23-24-0008 23-24-0017 23-24-0021 23-31-0004 23-31-0013 23-31-0022 23-31-0036 23-31-0039 23-31-0048 23-31-0057 23-31-0058 23-31-0072 23-32-0014 23-34-0002 23-42-0012 23-42-0022 ■23-23-0016 -23-32-0001 -23-21-OOOi -23-22-0019 -23-22-0023 -23-22-0028 -23-22-0029 -23-22-*0035 -23-23-0016 -23-23-0032 -23-24-0002 -23-24-0007 -23-24-0027 -23-31-0012 -23-31-0017 -23-31-0032 -23-31-0033 -23-31-0041 -23-34-0012 -23-34-0023 -23-34-0024 -23-34-0026 -23-34-0032 -23-41-0003 -23-41-0004 -23-41-0009 -23-41-0011 -23-41-0014 -23-41-0016 -23-41-0019 -23-41-0021 -23-41-0023 -23-41-0028 -23-42-0021 -23-43-0006 -23-43-0010 -23-43-0016 r, ADDITIONNUMBER41310 41310 42540 41310 41310 42140 42140 42140 42520 42520 42520 42540 02558 43072 42780 00499 01128 43020 42273 42060 42060 42060 42060 42510 42220 01866 41317 43101 43180 42360 43111 42420 42420 43620 42420 01777 01777 01777 01777 43040 43040 42420 42420 42420 43540 43540 43540 43540 43540 01398 42740: 42740 42740 PAGE; 3DISTRICT ALLCERTIFIEDAMOUNT51.15 24.69 249.08 249.08 249.08 58.82 249 197 119 249 33 08 93 11 08 84 249.08 71 00 62 99 58 62 62 62 373 187 00 40 82 00 00 00 90 08 307 96 307 96 13 286 119 384 345 253 17 29 67 64 72 321 48 209.90 368 101 480 187 272 52 49 20 85 56 138.82 379.29 82.73 368.51 654.95 427.71 529.92 369.87 396.79 307.96 116.80 349 314 325 205 121 207 37 27 46 29 19 20 ‘iltiniifliiirii T[rii'i'i rnii P». i f • \I 15/04/91 M«M ORONO CERTIFICATION SPECIAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEMROLLS PAQ|: 4DISTRICT: ALLMUNICIPALLEVYPROPERTY ID ADDITION CERTIFIEDCODENUMBERNUMBERAMOUNT3t01230917-11/-23-43-0017 42740 348.33 31 012309 17-117-23-43-0046 42740 78.92 31 012309 17-117-23-43-0056 42740 321 43 31 012309 17-117-23-43-0062 42740 458 67 31 012309 17-117-23-43-0075 42740 104.49 31 012309 17-117-23-43-0076 42740 197 21 3t 012309 17-117-23-43-0087 42740 278 83 31 012309 17-117-23-43-0095 42740 346 98 3t 012309 17-117-23-43-0098 42740 1,517 81 31 012309 17-117-23-43-0104 42740 402 17 31 012309 17-117-23-43-0106 42740 454 63 31 012309 17-117-23-43-0120 43620 63 03 38 012309 17-117-23-43-0121 43620 210 67 3t 012309 17-117-23-43-0134 43620 360 44 31 012309 17-117-23-43-0148 42740 438.48 38 012309 17-117-23-44-0026 43540 415.62 3t 012309 17-117-23-44-0029 43540 395.43 31 012309 17-117-23-44-0041 43540 403.51 31 012309 17-117-23-44-0059 43600 80.27 3t 012309 17-117-23-44-0060 43600 300.54 31 012309 17-117-23-44-0083 43540 435.78 31 012309 17 117-23-44-0102 42420 341.60 31 012309 18-117-23-14-0005 42220 394.10 31 1 012309 18-117-23-31-0001 4131S 50.00 3t 012309 20-117-23-12-0016 42720 496.34 31 8 012309 20-117-23-12-0021 42720 375.24 3t 012309 20-117-23-12-0028 42420 82.96 39 012309 20-117-23-12-0054 02278 105.83 38 012309 20-117-23-21-0003 43102 225.473101230920-117-23-21-0009 43490 191.83 38 012309 20-117-23-21-0020 42420 427.72 38 012309 20-117-23-21-0024 42420 384.67 38 012309 20-117-23-21-0035 01415 322.82 38 012309 20-117-23-22-0002 42420 345.65 38 012309 20-117-23-22-0003 42420 265.46 38 012309 20-117-23-22-0006 42420 986.10 38 012309 20-117-23-24-0009 42020 337.58 38 012309 20-117-23-24-0013 42020 99.113801230920-117-23-24-0015 42020 253.72 38 012309 20-117-23-24-0040 42020 107.76 38 012309 20-117-23-31-0033 43088 333.53 38 012309 20-117-23-31-0067 42020 400.82 38 012309 20-117-23-32-0010 43100 92.38 38 012309 20-117-23-32-0015 43300 474.82 38 012309 20-117-23-34-0002 43041 478.84 38 012309 20-117-23-34-0007 43300 412.923801230920-117-23-34-0020 43088 255.07 38 012309 20-117-23-42-0015 43300 82.96 38 012309 20-117-23-42-0029 42350 104.49 38 012309 20-117-23-42-0032 4330C 73.54 38 •012309 20-117-23-42-0033 43480 292.283801230920-117-23-43-0022 43300 454.63 38 012309 20-117-23-43-0035 43640 329.51 fwj]^’.^:- >•i(. I' ■' t y-. • Si' REPORT NBR. DATE Of RUN SUMRPT-110/04/91MUNICIPALCODE V V -r;>- 31 39 39 31 3t 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 31 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 LEVYNUMBER 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 C12309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 ORONO CERTIFICATION SYSTEMSPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLLSPROPERTY ID 20-117-23-43-0043 21-117-23-21-0007 21-117-23-22-0008 21-117-23-23-0024 21-117-23-23-0032 21-117-23-23-0033 21-117-23-24-0040 21-117-23-24-0065 22-117-23-24-0001 22-117-23-31-0010 22-117-23-31-0015 23-117-23-22-0009 23-117-23-22-0018 23-117-23-23-0020 23-117-23-23-0031 23-117-23-23-0033 23-117-23-32-0002 23-117-23-32-0039 23-117-23-32-0060 23-117-23-32-0065 29-118-23-34-0009 29-119-23-43-0011 30-118-23-32-0001 30-118-23-33-0005 31-118-23-11-0003 31-118-23-11-0004 31-118-23-12-0007 31-118-23-12-0011 31-118-23-12-0012 31-118-23-12-0018 31-118-23-21-0003 31-118-23-23-0009 31-118-23-24-0001 31-118-23-33-0007 31-118-23-41-0005 31-118-23-42-0002 31-118-23-42-0003 32-118-23-13-0001 ADDITIONNUMBER 43640 43220 43220 42940 43530 43530 43149 43085 42400 42960 42960 42660 42660 42660 42660 42660 42660 42680 42680 43140 U'38 012309 23-117-23-32-0070 42660 39 012309 25-118-23-43-0026 01730 38 012309 25-118-23-44-0007 01730 39 012309 25-118-23-44-0015 03735 38 012309 26-118-23-31-0004 41326 38 012309 26-118-23-31-0007 43510 38 012309 26-118-23-33-0006 41360 38 012309 26-118-23-33-0024 42390 38 012309 26-118-23-33-0026 42390 38 012309 27-118-23-31-0005 41327 .-T a ■39 012309 27-118-23-42-0008 42470 38 012309 27-118-23-42-0013 42470 . -39 012309 27-118-23-42-0015 42470 39 012309 28-118-23-41-0002 00392 38 012309 28-118-23-41-0004 00392 42580 00851 41330 04183 41331 41331 43210 43210 41331 41331 41331 00721 41331 41331 41331 41331 41331 41332 DISTR 5ALLCERTIFIEDAMOUNT 414 95 303 98 291 437 352 307 27 37 57 80 19 13 25 96 50.00 50.00 50 00 50 00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 62 00 62.00 62.00 62.00 62.00 62 62 62 62 62 62 00 00 00 00 00 00 62.00 62.00 62.00 50.00 62.00 62 00 62.00 62 62 62 62 00 00 00 00 62.00 62.00 124 62 62 62 62 62 62 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 112.00 w _ "S'RCPOMT NBR. DATE OF RUN SUMRPT-110/04/81NUNICIFALCXE •y ■ 38 31 31 38 38 3838 38 38 383838 38 38 38 38 38 38 31 31 38 38 38 38 38 •- i i » LEVYNUMBER012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309012309 012309012309012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 012309 ••^ W ■JSfefcte TOTAL u•ORONO CERTIFICATION SYSTEM PAGE; 6SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS DISTRICT: ALLPROPERTY ID ADDITION CERTIFIEDNUMBERAMOUNT32-118-23-13-0002 41332 62.00 32-118-23-21-0005 41332 62.00 32-118-23-23-0003 42820 62.00 32-118-23-33-0002 41332 62.00 32-118-23-34-0005 41332 62.00 32-118-23-42-0002 41332 62.00 32-118-23-43-0008 41332 62.00 33-118-23-13-0011 43515 520.32 33-118-23-22-0001 41333 62.00 33-118-23-31-0007 41333 62.0033-118-23-31-0012 02362 62.00 33-118-23-34-0002 41333 62.00 33-118-23-41-0008 42435 62.00 33-118-23-41-0016 03171 62 00 33-118-23-43-0006 03369 62.00 33-118-23-44-0024 42210 2^3.08 34-118-23-33-0058 00435 62.00 35-118-23-22-0003 41360 62.00 36-118-23-11-0009 41336 62.00 36-118-23-14-0013 04332 62.0036-118-23-33-0009 42710 62.00 36-118-23-41-0001 41336 62.00 36-118-23-41-0003 41336 363.68 36-118-23-41-0026 42310 452.43 36-118-23-44-0006 41370 465.31 55,056.40 H > .1.'. E-v:K - V-‘(r a \'Sy r -K »-^:- <7.;u ii'-‘ ff m f»l-"iy'-. ^ ■ '}.m. pr ep-mm ift fkr:v' 10991.4%n^04 TO: FROH: DATS: Mayor and City Council Ron Noorse, City Administrator October 9» 1991 '*'0’% «te, 80BJBCT: Lucia Morison Request for a Second Curb Cut at 1960 Fox Ridge Road I have attached a memo from John ^erhardson regarding Lucia Nocison'a appeal of a staff decisio*: to deny a request for a second curb cut at 1960 Fox Ridge R au. Ms, Morison will attend the October 14, 1991 Council meeting. ..a.U........................-VAlMU •i. 't '■ r--'k' 'r- TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Ron Moorse, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director October 8, 1991 Driveway Curb Cut - Appeal Staff Decision Recently Lucia Morison requested a second curb cut at her residence at 1960 Fox .idge Road. ger request was denied as it is my opinion that a back arou.id can be accomplished on the interior of the lot as per options #2 and 3 (attached). Ms. Morison is appealing my decision and is therefore requesting the Council to allow a second curb cut. JRG/ch J % ■‘f. J!- n::r, ^■'i I?:r h ■ >1'^ ■‘•'i u.wW- fi'fe ,.:. i'I; r’ ‘^?- t\yU- m Lucia Mori son 1960 Fox Ridi^e Rd Orono Existing Drlvewav: Pros: -None Cons:-No room to turn car around on site -Backing into street so close to the intersection (S Brown Rd A Fox Ridge Hd) primarily is a hazard when another car is turning onto Fox Riilge Rd. Driveway Ontion »1; Pros: -A car can back out of garage, turn onto portion of drive in front of house and enter Fox Ridge Rd going forward .-A car enters Fox Ridge Rd 80' further away from South Brown Rd than the existing driveway. Cons:-Must still use existing drive way for entering site, but entering site on existi,.a drive* y is not the hazard whl» h exiting is. K DrivewaytePros: * r t Cons: r Drlvewav Pros: t.v‘rr /• '■i:* Cons: -A car c HT,into turn around and exit site forward -Exiting site so close to the intersection IS Brown Rd It Fox Ridge Rd) is a hazard -A car can back into turn around and exit site forward -Exiting site so close to the intersection IS Brown Rd It Fox Ridge Rd) is a hazard -Building a space to back into on the West side of driveway ruts into existing vegetation and hill which both screen traffic from the site •fytcrr I Hc, i'*' -V k*-f *• f ■re i 4 *' ' ‘•?s' * •' ' *'*• • ��WA-Y O'PT1o :Ji I JI ♦ � • i I\ IC r "--- ---,_ ' ---C''---- I I I -- , -4 -r , I t I ./ ,, \ / , f o• \ , ·l\•••a.�O"O IO t>aA MA t.!.Ai .. �t-NT t t • I • • '------�,L----------� --r• I • --- � �, •. f4 l,. A.,� f .._,, • 1 • ,, �t p 11(..4- -"'1 I --------- • �\�VA'-1' . op,or; �2-- r t· � ,, A IC • • 0 • • '-.I �--�1 --------- -- ..... flN (a At ..,.�At'9A.t!. LA t.11 :'\ t ·1 ., I \ \r ... l· J 0 \ )' ,,, � rit:,-,t c:> -... _,. , I ••� t L- PIL--4'- -·- ,..... -- t I I I _ __J 4t 0 -" � T , ' , ( ! a;-' . ?.- 10991.3 // TO: FROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator ///'^ October 9, 1991 % ^c- SUBJECT: Cable Commission Budget <0 I have attached a letter from Jennifer Watts, LMCCC Administrator, indicating the Commission's interest in scheduling a Director to attend a City Council meeting to answer questions and clarify issues regarding the Cable Commission's 1992 Budget. If the Council is interested in this, I will contact Jennifer Watts to arrange for a Director to attend the next Council meeting. iLrirrtnitKi- n Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission 443 OAK STREET • EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331 • {612) 474-5539 CV'.D .aUlSOiU'^tl31 J, October 4, 1991 Ron Moorse City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN Dear Ron: OCT 7 1991 55323 As of October 4, the majority of members of the Lake Minnetonka Cable Commission (Deephaven, Greenwood, Excelsior, Medina, Minnetonka Beach, St. Bonifacius, Shorewood, Victoria) have ap­ proved the 1992 budget; however, the Commission remains con­ cerned by the objections expressed by those members who did n ,t approve the budget. The Budget Planning Committee members have directed me to notify those cities who rejected the budget, and express their interest in answering questiors about the budget and their hope of clear­ ing up any misunderstandings that might exist. The Commission is open to suggestions to developing better lines of communica­ tion between the organization and its member cities. If you would like to have a representative from the Commission appear before your council to discuss these issues, please call me prior to October 15 The Executive Committee meets Tuesday, October 15, at which time we would schedule a director to be present at an upcoming city-council meeting. Thank you. r.iJ urs truly. fnnif^ Watts Administrator cc:Barb Brancel, LMCCC Chair Jim Olds, LMCCC Vice Chair/Budget Planning Committee Otto Wilczek, LMCCC Treasurer/Budget Planning Committee TO; FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator October 9, 1991 1099^C, % % Sh SOBJBCT: Resolution Indicating the City of Orono’s willingness to Cooperate With MnDOT in Mitigating Impacts Related to Upgrading Highway 12 Using the Existing Corridor The Council has directed staff to draft a resolution indicating the City's willingness to cooperate with MnDOT in mitigating the impacts of upgrading Highway 12 using the existing corridor. The resolution is attached for Council adoption. '’■I c t' t- i.-', ■ A RBSOLOTION INDICATIliG THB CITT OP OROBO'S IflLLIIIGHBSS TO COOPBRATB WITH MHDOT IW ITS EFFORTS TO MITIGATE THB IMPACT OF UPGRADIHG HIGHWAY 12 OSIMG THB BXISTIIIG CORRIDOR WHBRBASf each of the alternate corridors for the upgrading of Highway 12 will affect existing and planned land uses; and WHBRBASf the City of Orono feels strongly that upgrading Highway 12 using the existing corridor would have the least overall impact on existing and planned land uses; and WHBRBA8» the impacts related to using the existing Highway 12 corridor can be significantly mitigated; and WHBRBAS, MnDOT is the responsible agency for mitigation of these impacts; and WHBRBAS« the City of Orono understands that the ability of MnDOT to effectively mitigate the impacts may depend on Orono*s cooperation. HOW, THBRBFORB, BB IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono is willing to cooperate with MnDOT and the City of Long Lake to enhance the abill*-y of MnDOT to mitigate the impacts of upgrading Highway 12 usd ig the existing corridor. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of October, 1991. ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 1 of 1 TO:FROM:DATE:Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse# City Administrator /v October 9, 1991 >VSUBJECT: Annual Performance and Salary Review for Maintenarjce Worker Scott Oberaigner he nd at he I have attached a memo from John Gerhardson concerning a performance and salary review for maintenance worker Scott Oberaigner. It is staff's recommendation that Scott Oberaigner be placed on full time permanent status and that his Sv'lary be adjusted to Level 5, Step 2 of the Compensation Plan. ty on of ty he 1 ■: ■N-:- • . r. .*• is;^ :Vr ’• i ■;V . •v.■' TO; FROM: DATE: RE: Ron Moorse, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director October 8, 1991 Annual Performance and Salary Review Maintenance Worker Scott Oberaigner On October 22, 1991, Scott Oberaigner began employment with the City of Orono as a maintenance worker. Scott has performed very well and has done that which is required of him. Recommendation that Scott Oberaigner be placed on full time permanent status and to adjust his salary to Level 5, Step II of the Compensation Plan. Proposed motion moved 2nd that Scott Oberaigner be placed on full time permanent status and to adjust his salary to Level 5, Step II of the Compensation Plan effective October 21, 1991. JRG/ch ■f'~-. m-- iff-' >- •‘Li-'" «V ■l|k mi" fe' 101091.7 /•1/ /IMayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrat<^ c /. October 10» 1991 80BJKCT: Admendment to Owner/Architect Contract TO$FROHX MTB: *• y% % Jack Boarman has submitted an amendment to t>>e basic compensation portion of the architect contract £or toe new city facilities. The ..laeodnent updates the fixed fee maxi:r»am b sad on an updated project budget amount. The amendment a iso clarifies the relationship between the fees for schematic design related to the previous city facilities site and the schematic design related to the current site. In the amendment the architect agrees to crsdit the city foe $8,000 of the previous $22,770 of schematic design work. As of August of 1991 Boarman and Associates has been paid $72,084 for all work performed over the past 5 years. This includes the following items: Space Study 1987-1989 $ 20,000 Schematic Design 1990 22,770 Community Outreach 1990 1,S00 City Hall Schematic Design 1991 13,833 Public Works Schematic Design 1991 13,004 Community Outreach 1991 976 mmmm •,vr* hi I 5^^ f:'ri p >• u I.-' i V \ '' * 1 A ; ASSOCIAI ■ i D .M. ., >• \ k { 'i • ' i k r V !*,:»*. *>.1 *r '•* •' * •'■• ' . \ September 17.1991 Mr. Ron Moorse Cty Administrator CtyofOrono P.O.Box 66 1335 Soutti BroMm Road CrystM Bay. MN 55323 ARCHITECT FEE MAXIMUM Dear Mr. Moorse: The attached amendment to our contract establishes the fee maximum for our hourly billings. These fees are baseed on the councI approved budget costs and would fix our fee for the project We wH bB against the maximum each month based on the hourly charges of the staff to accomplish the work. It Is our responsiblity to complete the work within the allowable fee. This establishes our fee for the current project work as defined by the current councfl on the new site. We began to acttvsiy work on the project on about February 1.1991. The work prior to 6idt point consisted of the initial study, which was a separate contract. The current contract 'uvcived a schematic design phase on the site southwest of Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road which was abandcned. From the former work we can credit the city $8,000 towards the currant schematic work, which b reflected In the amendment This was discussed wfth Mark prior to Ms leaving with the int f^nt that the final fee be defined when it was more dear as to the final project cost XMatcl approval and signature. Give me a cail to discuss this for your review, ippreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City of Orono. Boarman Kroos Pfister A Associates, Inc. Attached:Contract Amendment Fie Name: OM4\b\2-JBl 2 2 2 Nn'-’h 2nti v • n n e .i u») I. ^ S > 4 ; 6 i 2 i j ' t U ii a I * • 1/ 0 O r * u *1 l C •' i ' . 1? ' *•;: f t i: : ] >u:;: 1^ L r. r^ * \ \\ THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS Mfli Amendment to Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect This document is lor use with previous editions oi Standard Forms ot Agreement between Owner and Architect, when construction is to be performed under the 1970 Edition o< AlA Document A201. General Conditions oi the Contract for Construction. THIS OOCUM£HT has important LtCAL CONSCQUENCES; CONSULTATION Wh H AN ATTORNEY IS ENCOUR aCED WITH RESPECT TO ITS COMPLETION OR MOOIfICATlON AGREEMENT made as of the Eleventh (ii) Hundred and Ninety-One day of September in the yea of Nineteen BETWEEN the Owner: and the Architect: City of Orono P.0. Box 66 1335 South Brown Road Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Boannan Kroos Pfister & Associates, Inc. 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 For the foMow'nr Project: (Include detailed dc:ol projea locMion and scope) Design of the Orono Municipal Facilities located at East of Old Crystal Bay Road North of Highway 12. To amend the Owner-Architect Agreement dated: Tenth (lOth) of January, Nineteen (fniert djce or duts ol eifsrmg Owner-Architect Agrccirent jfcovcj Hundred Ninety (1990) r/<, s# « AU OOCUMIWT iin • AMCMOMCNT TO OWNCt-AfOnTCCT a CRCCMCNT • AfKIL 1177 Cr)mOM • AIA^ 1W7 • TMI AAtCRiCAN tNSTITUTC AlCMlTCrTS. U3S NCW VOtK AV£.. N.W.. Wa SJUNCTON -Q.C 2rmi B142-1977 ^ •^ ' •*CfTYOFORONO PRELIMINARY COSTS STATEMENT CRY HALL/ PUBLIC WORKS e^11/90 R9vis«d 6/20/91,8/10/91 Revised 8/20/91,8/21/91 •A--’.> 1.BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CITY HALL POLICE CONSTRUCTION 16.500 GtSO/S-F. PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION 24.500 8.F. • $48/S.F. UNHEATED STORAGE 5,000 &F. e S30/S.F. COST $1,320,000 $1,176,000 $150,000 SUBTOTAL 2.SITE DEVELOPMENT STTEUnunES SOILS CORRECTIONS LANOSCAPINQ/SCREENINQ BITUMINOUS/CURB & GUTTER OEMOLTnON (EXISTING CITY BLOGS) SUBTOTAL 3.OTHER COST IMPACTS *LANOCOST ‘SALE OF EXIST. MUNIOPAL SITE •SALE OF PORTION OF SEWER POND SITE SUBTOTAL 4.CONSULTANT COSTS ARCH/ENQ. FEECOSTS BONOINQFEES DISCOUNTCOSTS SUBTOTAL 6, CONTINGENCY 7.COST SAVINGS 8.FURNISHINGS & EQUIPMENT •C.H. ALLOWANCE 9 $10 SF. •P.W. EQUIPMB4T AUOWANCE •SAND A SALT STORAGE •MOVING COSTS •PROFESSIONAL FEES SUBTOTAL m $2,646,000 $25,000 $160,000 $60,000 $90,000 $35,000 $370,( Deduct Deduct $292,000 ($34,500) ($150,000) $107,500 $215,000 $60,000 $60,00' $335,000 $150,1 ($339,000) $175,000 $175,000 $75,000 $15,000 $27,000 $467,1 L,1 AMFNDMENT TO BASIC CQ^PENSATICNThe architects compensation shall be a fixed fee maximum based on the Council approved projectbudget amount for building, sitework. equipment and furniture The fixed fee is based on a percentage as set forth in Section 11 .2.1 . The current fee projection is based on the attached schedule as follows: Project Protect Cost Fee %Fee Amount 1.City Hall/Police A.Building B.Site C.Furniture D.Schematic fee amount $1,320,000 $168,000 $175,000 7.5 $124,725 $18,709 r- 2.Public Works A.Building B.Site C.Equipment 0.Schematic fee amount $1.326,000 $167,000 $250,000 7.0 $122,010 $18,302 All fees will be paid based on hourly charges not to exceed the fixed fee maximum. The council Shan set the final project budget amount at the completion of schematic design. til,k- h p V. Attached is the most current project budget statement dated 6/i i/90, revised 6/20/91 . The architect agrees to credit the City $8,000 for all work performed prior to February 1,1991 . This is approximately the date that the Council initiated the site purchase and design process currently in process. The fixed fee for schematics shall be $37,01 1 less a credit of $8,000, or $29,011. This Amendment entered into as of the day and year first written above. architect Xrnng pf^g^or k -1 ^ r p -—InC . OWNER City of Orono rhara Pglreraon. Mavor t BY B & T.: . I-' & V- -y . •» i ir{ 101091.3 C'cP- TO: ?ROM: DATS: Mayor, City Council and HRA % Ron Moorse, City Administrator October 10, 1991 SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Calling For the Sale of Bonds to Finance the New City Facilities Carolyn Drude has developed a preliminary schedule of tasks related to the bond sale for the new city facility. The schedule calls for the City Council to determine the bond sale amount on October 10th and for the HRA to adopt a resolution calling for the sale of the bonds on October 14th. The resolution needs to be adopted on the 14th in order to meet the tentative bond sale date of November 12th. a e-'•.• & ■■ v'.-: a': P' r I:."'W: P: ■'■ % r..fc. 101091.6 %<>d TO:Mayor and City Council PROM:Ron Moorse, City Administrator DATE:October10,1991 SUBJECT:Contract With Kraus-Anderson Services for Construction V %> % As directed by Council, staff is in the process of negotiating a contract and fee arrangement with Kraus-Anderson for the provision of Construction Manager services for the new city facilities project. Sta?f is meeting a representative from Kraus-Anderson and the City Attorney on Friday, October 11th to finalize the contract and fee arrangement. These will be presented to the Council at the October 14, 1991 Council meeting for review and approval. r t- V ■:J '»■ 'V..; •. * ji !•* j i II C'-.t, r\ A.%4s. LIST 0? LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MEETING OF October 14, 1991 One Day Set Up Permit -Minnetonka Center for the Arts 2240 North Shore Drive Holiday House November 20, 1991 6-10:00 p m. % fV-:r>; u. ■''ih F!. E/^ ■:'•■?:, .-v. interot-f 1 ce Memo Date: To: From: Re: October 7.1991 City Administrator Ron Moorse Chie-f o-f Police Steohen X. Sullivan One Day Liquor License This Department has researched the records in which the Minnetonka Art Center has been issued a permit to serve alcohol in the past. There have been no complaints or violations as a result o+ these past permits. Therefore, I do recommend issuance of this permit It ■ ' ir.- h PHONE 612-296 6159 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFET ^VENT:A^V333 SIBLEY • ST PAUL. MN 55101 f DATE: I*-<»( APPLICATION FOR CONSUMPTION AND DISPLAY (SET UP) PE^RMh " ’‘ ONE DAY PERMIT FEE $25.00 MINNETONKA CENTER FOR THE ARTS 2240 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WAYZATA MN 55391 If NAMt and Aoomss SMO*VN ARE NO? CORRtCt. MAKE CHANCES IN SPACES BE low NOTE: ALL 'ON-SALE' INTOXICATING LIQUOB LICENSEE S ARE EXEMPT FROM APFUTINQ. If All* ritiiia o( niiA 1 BltMoqtl SttMl AddiCtI 04 Bom H uiii Om Skoiri^ TVil. f ------------------------V H ic. Count f U, % »~Ff BMIT l^W----------------------------------— —— --------------——------*1._( f ( * *A suit *^ fh lOAt id f CKlb Opu MIc Bmlntii ol Of ctuft C ck H- fa- f«am« ol ayMBinf 6wn«f ----t r $>hon« ~ OXWT}> lALl /Ip Coat ^539/ .--------VIV I ■— A»/a ^Ihc 'n Aliv W 1 I A . ^ if a ^licaiion Aaoftu uf a ; / ^ Addi«tl ol OMn«r r-/ A OWIOINA lS WtNEVXALn TRANArEllQ • L ^nis acs^NtsrFL;H'',V.:rLoVA¥.g;;}-* 1:!^^WnilKUtB Uvtl H no MAS 0(1 lo >f IIIANSriH. FOIIMEM LICtHSnS NAME Af.O BCISiNCSS I RAoi HA mI------------------------- _________ roil A 1‘^UtlC UUSINESS Ikitlnpu r«ilt««i/o'|»cpf . wii r wuviw UVJ.'»ir4C>S --------------------- ” ................................ >fp-n. .ml ............ol t«l. Px..n.. II . C»,..o.H.o. ..............................a A.,0.... ol E.ch OIII». »J //» iki»lu«i» V^«i|ri««/OlflCM ■wuntu P««ln*f/Ollk«f fO) M//* b«l« ClwB A«f4Mt4a4l , 1150 s of 1im« CluST AdUl vti /U //i AUdivii P-2//4 Addf «it eiTY Of Nwinbdi of M«iMb«(r ____}J0D At PidMnI Location I ^ j ^ CU'>i otncM^UlfdOo* FOR A PniVATE CLUB FmiC£ OFFia ll Club llulldliif AniounI ol Outi fulfil Mtfiibviihlo n«t|ult««rE«nt«ni rctj 'yf, Oi^ntd Ol Mtnitdl i^JF> bsMB CI mB Olllcdf/DlfactM N«m« Adds: It Additti CHECK TL Club M«inl«ln Lotkcn y f ot M«(ttt>tii I o Slot* LIquol r Lvvi nOl /|l 10. Addict* Lam or local ordfoances ; H so. give -leie e: iw .ipeoclcd or been convicEed for any violation ol Stala coNMiiMu. cxu lo. .t.oc.iio«‘oT;Ni."^?,'.:rA'^ r^M*iTs*su‘c pT^nruiiuV n oos s no \* vi\ ow'i7.e"Ta 7 e Of 7n ; VM^cA^?yo'lTQuoy the business is LOCATED IN A COUNTY: ABBtovqB - Cn«lfpqfMn County Bo«td cr R«prot«rstaii»c IF THE BUSINESS IS LOCATED IN A MUNICIPALITY 0«it ABBTOPCd “ CBtincU ot RfpuMnfi.is;;" fl §601 13/ill 0«t« St^rroiuif - Aullioiftcd Apitliccni Odii mfmbers . CASH CHECK cv ft? O: D32- • 09/29/91 PR CB PRREGOR NAME 108 DPT ABRAHAMSON, FREDERIC 93 ANDERSON, BRUCE L 31 BOBZIEN. su� A 31 BOSMA, JAMIE L 12 BRINKHAUS. JOHN F 42 CHESWICK. GARY B Jl CORNICK. JAMES L 31 DELANEY. JANEE 9J DEMBOUSKI, J�Y C 31 ENGLISH III. IRVING 31 ERICKSON KURT R 31 FISCHENICH. DAN T 31 FRITZLER. JOhN M 31 GAFFRON. MICHAEL P 33 GERHAROSON. JOHN R 42 GOM.AN. DAVID J 35 GREGORY. JAMES D 42 HALLIN, DOR�THY M 12 HANSEN, STEVEN C 42 HANStNG, CAROL J 31 HASEMAN, CAROLE 12 JOHNSON, BRADLEY P 31 JOST r OM, FOREST J 93 KAf .ITZ. RICKY D 31 KENNEN. JANICE M :l KNUTSON, CHARLOTTE A 15 KUEHN, THOMAS M 15 MABUSTH. JEANNE A 33 MCINTYRE, WILLIAM E 93 MILLS JR . WALTER H 93 MOORSE, RONALD j 12 MOROWCZYNSKI, JAMES 31 NELSON. DAVID D 35 OAS, DANIEL O 93 OBERAIGNER. SCOTT G 42 OBRIEN, RANDY L 92 OMAN, LY LE E 3 3 PALMER. GREGORY A 42 QUAST, WAYNE A 92 RATHBUN, BARRY J 92 ROSS. JOHN A 93 SKREEN. DALES 42 STEF -�HAGEN. RONALD 93 STE .. BETTY G 93 SUL �TEPHEN X 31 THOM. MARK R 31 TOMCH�-�. LAWRENCE F 31 TOMCZYK, MARK W VANG. BRUCE LVEE. LINDA S WALTERS, LINDA G WECKMAN, STE�HEN J 31 33 12 ts 33 YTD GROSS 987 50 35327 19 19233 16 11634 82 30422 51 32936 00 35301 22 915 00 13397 91 34074 15 29786 53 31754 34 31781 05 27812.74 "18766 71 1052 73 26439.4 5 23958 02 22095.87 11011 441222 4432393.9S 1887.SO 8063 92 1070 31 19152.2S 40855 27 35502.22 545.00 2312 66 3457 60 33310.20 3621 75 19 4 7 .00 19162.98 22732 75 28047.05 19740 17 27307 4923197.58 546.02 22823 81 23991 39 2439 00 5653.68 29642.13 32916 85 29�J2.6S 23449 41 16915.7 0 21815.89 18222.20 CURREt\ GROS� 52 50 2371 20 95 8 7 2 548 55 1522 88 1648 00 2308 39 145 00 1253.33 181.t 47 1523 31 1479 97 1599 04 1392.25 2240 03 132 59 1128 80 1199.29 1013.20 524 63 814 961631 48170.00 411.72 218 85 9S8.72 2048 07 1743.52 70 .00 170 63 2238 4U 181G.58 187 47 112 75 870 07 1177.1S 1392.24 1163.13 1290.97 1S22.62 34.13 lj19 46 1200.�� 213.00 1884.56 1640.45 1871.54 1757.18 . �99.29 �62 8& 1111.92 945.12 ------··----· 58,900 65 .. . . l i ‘ ■ r I, : ) 1891 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO.DATE 89S657 S9S657 895657 895657 895657 895657 895657 89S657 E95657 895657 HC8944 HC8944 HC8944 HC8944 HC8944 HC8944 HC8944 HC8944 HC8944 HC8944 HC8944 HC8944 HC8947 HCS947 HC8948 HC8949 HC8950 HC89S1 HC8952 HC8952 HCS952 HC8952 HC8952 HC8vS2 HC89S2 HC8952 HC8952 -Si'-t::;;: 1C. /91 lO/c/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/9« 10/0*' 10/01 10/04 10/04/ 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/9! 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 ■.■a- AMOUNT 1.507 525 462 294 420 966 378 1.155 210 315 6.232 00 00 00 00 32 16 00 00 00 00 48 • 211 298 67 126 22 494 21 669 73 94 141 194 415 32 28 85 37 21 70 41 07 44 64 95 12 36 180.61 270.92 451.53 ‘ 35 00 35.00 • 900.00 900.00 • 150.00 150.00 • 170.00 170.00 • 96.87 326.04 302.53 69.20 131 20 33.22 494.71 23.62 698.58 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR MEDTCA MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA MEDICA ITEM DESCRIPTION OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT ocr OCT ACCOUNT NO INV 01-3872 Jl-4151 01-4151 01-4151 01-4151 01 4151 01-4151 01-4151 72-4151 73-4151 000-00 039-i? 069-15 121-31 126-31 129-31 174-33 249-42 549-91 569-92 1ST NATL FICA 9/1 01-4142-03^421STNATLFICA9/1 01-M42-069 151STNATLFICA9/1 01-ha42-111-311STNATLFICA9/1 01-4142-115-311STNATLFICA9/1 Ul-4142-121-311STNATLFICA9/1 01-4142-174-331STNATLFICA9/1 01-4142-185-351STNATLFICA9/1 01-4142-249-421STNATLFICA9/1 01-4142-290* 611STNATLFICA9/1 72 4142-549-911STNATLFICA9/1 73-4142-569-921STNATLFICA9/1 74-4142-590-93 POSTMASTER ‘'OSTAGE RATE LTR 72-4321-549-91 POSTMASTER POSTAGE RATE Lift 73-4:21-569-92 CHIEF POLICE MTG -4382-129-31 POSTMASTER POSTAGE -12f-0-00 MN DEPT HEALTH HWY 12 rXT 72-43P3 ‘ MN POLLUTION HWY 12 EXT 72-4383-436-84 1ST NATL FICA 9,'15 01-4142-020-111STNATLFICA9/15 01-4142-039-121STNATL‘^^ICA 9/15 01-4142-069-151STNATLFICA9/15 01-4142-111-311STNATLFICA9/15 01-4142-115 311STNATLFICA9/15 01-4142-121*311STNATLFICA9/15 Jl-4142-174-331STNATLFICA9/15 01-4142-i35-351ST NATL FICA 9/15 01-4142-249-42 ) 09-20-91 PAGE • P 0 •MESSAGE MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL •••-CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL manual •••-CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MAf M MANUAL MANUAL MAN!J4L MANUAL MANUAL MANuAi 9 >))laat CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER Oe-30-91 PAGE 2CHECK NO.DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV.• P 0. • HESSAQEHCIR52NCtfS2 NCIRS2 HCIRS2 10/04/9110/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 24.48115.27 172.91 163.17 2.651 80 • 1ST NATL 1ST NATL 1ST NATL 1ST NATL FICA 9/15 FICA 9/15 FICA 9/15 FICA 9/15 01-4142-290-61 72-4142-549-91 73-4142-589-92 74-4142-590-93 MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL HCt»S3 HCIRS3 10/04/91 10/04/tl 17.02 12 99 30.01 • 1ST NATL 1ST NATL FICA 9/18 FICA 9/18 01-4142-111-31 01-4142-121-31 MANUAL MANUAL HCI9S4 HCI9S4 10/04/91 10/04/91 1.439 55 143.00 1.582.55 m SAFE BEN SAFE BEN OCT OCT 01-1050-000-00 01-4306-299-72 MANUAL MANUAL HCI9SS 10/04/91 40 00 40.00 HCCPA DUES SULLIVAN 01-4380-129-31 MANUAL "••-CKS HCIf5l NCI99I NCI95I HCItSI HC89SI 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 210.16 420.32 466 6 4 117 82 231 00 1.445.94 • GROUP health GROUP HEALTH GROUP HEALTH GROUP HEALTH GROUP HEALTH OCT OCT OCT OCT OCT 01-4151-121-31 01-4151-126-31 01-4151-129-31 01-4151-174-33 74-4151-590-93 MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL HCt9FS 10/04/91 1.106 48 1.106 48 m PERA POLICE RETRO 01-2031-000-00 MANUAL HCtteo 10/04/91 32 60 32 60 • M THOMTON INS REFUND 01-4152-121-31 MANUAL Ncim 10/04/91 85.00 85 00 A GOVT TRAING CONF PETERSON 01-4356-022-11 MANUAL NCIte2 10/04/91 47.93 47 93 A HOLIDAY INN CONF 01-4356-022-11 MANUAL NCIM3 10/04/91 154.239.84 154.239.84 A COMM TITLE LAND PURCHASE 15-4510-651-00 MANUAL HCItl4 10/04/91 29.595 30 29.595 30 A COMM TITLE LAND PURCHASE 15-4510-851-00 MANUAL NCIMS NCIMS NCItfS NCII9S NCiNS HCIttS NCIM5 HCIttS 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 6.73 13 72 5 82 .23 56.18 3.75 1.82- 22 38 99.97 A ORONO PC ORONO PC ORONO PC ORONO PC ORONO PC ORONO PC ORONO PC ORONO PC SUPPLIES PART SUPPLIES POSTAGE POSTAGE PARKING REFUND DRINKS 01-4210-039-12 01-4232-290-81 01-4282-039-12 01-4321-039-12 01-4321-129-31 01-4381-249-42 01-4382-020-11 01-4382-020-11 MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL HCtttt 10/04/91 120 00 SAFE BENE SPECIAL BILLING 01-1050-000-00 MANUAL ••^ W'h o1191 CITV OF ORONOe CHtCK NO. DATE AMOUNT CHECK REGISTERVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO 09*30-91 PAGE INV. • P 0 • l«SSAQE ife;--; j ffc: " . s K'fa»* 120.00 •15 .187.06 FUND 01 TOTAL GENERAL FUND183.835 14 920.52 FUND 15 TOTAL BUILONG CAPITAL OUTLAY F FUND 72 TOTAL WATER OPERATING FUND900.78 FUND 73 TOTAL SEWER OPERATING FUND588.29 FUND 74 TOTAL GOLF COURSE OPERATING FD 201 .431.79 TOTAL •••-cxs O f.?'-V cIMl CITY OF OHONO CHECK NO. DATE CHECK REGISTER 217015 217030 217030 217030 217030 217030 217030 217031 217031 217037 217037 •700S lf70fS !l70fS •700S 217001 207000 217070 207070 207070 207070 207070 207074 207074 207074 207074 207074 207074 207074 10/01/91 10/00/91 10/09/91 10/09/91 10/09/91 10/09/91 10/09/01 AMOUNT 22 37 22.37 VENDOR AT&T ITEM DESCRIPTION TELEPHONE 24 24 24 40 24 24 164 89 89 99 39 89 89 84 • AT & T INFO SYSTEM AT & T INFO SYSTEM AT & T INFO SYSTEM AT & T INFO SYSTEM AT * T INFO SYSTEM AT & T INFO SYSTEM DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA PROC PROC PROC PROC PROC PROC ACCOUNT NO. INV 74-4320-590-93 01-4340 01-4340 01-4340 01-4340 01-4340 01-4340 059-14 069-15 129-31 129-31 174-33 249-42 10/09/91 1.72 AT & T COMM TELEPHONE 01-4320-039-12 10/01/91 9.32 11.04 • AT & T COMM TELEPHONE 01-4320-129-31 10/09/91 67.72 AUOIES MOBILE CHEF COFFEE/SANDWICH 74-4802-591-9410/08/91 43.90 111.62 • AUQIES MOBILE CHEF SANDWICHS 74-4802-591-94 10/01/91 146.97 BLACKOWIAK & SONS TRASH HAUL 01-4343-099-17 10/08/91 53.25 BLACKOWIAK & SONS TRASH HAUL 01-4343-129-3110/08/91 175.73 BLACKOWIAK & SONS TRASH HAUL 01-4343-290-61 10/08/91 53.25 429.20 • BLACKOWIAK A SONS TRASH HAUL 74-4343-590-93 10/08/91 246.00 BIFFS INC 6 BIFFS 01-4331-290-8110/08/91 41.00 217.00 • BIFFS INC 1 BIFFS 74-4331-590-93 10/09/91 $.746.54-BOARMAN A ASSOCIATES PUBLIC WKS SCHEMATIC 15-4306-6S1-0010/08/91 2.873 27 BOARMAN A ASSOCIATES PUBLIC WKS SCHEMATIC 15-4309-651-0010/08/91 2.873.27 BOARMAN A ASSOCIATES PUBLIC WKS SCHEMATIC 15-4306-651 00 10/08/91 2.647.49 BOARMAN A ASSOCIATES CITY HALL SCHEMATIC 15-4306-651-0010/08/91 2.783.27 $.430.76 • BOARMAN A ASSOCIATES PUBLIC WKS SCHEMATIC 15-4306-651-00 10/08/91 100.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENQ RETAINER JULY 01-4304-200-4110/08/91 $0.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENG RETAINER JUNE 01-4304-200-41 10/08/91 57.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN UPDATE ST/ZNG MAPS 01-4305-174-33 10/08/91 226.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN COMP PLAN AMEND 3 01-4305-200-41 10/08/91 1,025.60 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENG CONSULT JULY 01-4305-249-4210/08/91 882.28 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN SEAL COAT ENQ 01-4305-249-42 10/08/91 171.86 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENQ CONSULT JUNE 01-4305-249-42 10-14-91 PAGE 1 9 P 0 9 MESSAGE •**-CKS •••-CKS •**-CKS -CKS *»»-CKS •••-CKS sI #* t 1 IMl CITY OP ORONO CHECK NO.DATE 217074 217074 217074 217074 217074 217074 217074 217074 247074 247011 247041 247043 247040 247100 247114 47114 24712S ■i ii H ft H ft ft t-. ■ I 247142 247144 •••••• %' .U.;. 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 AMOUNT 1.281.69 1.241.69 • 330.00 330.00 * 20.01 20.01 * 32.84 664.75 96.61 74.01 872.21 414.90 414.90 * 97.26 97.26 S.220.00 S.220.00 • CHECK REQZSTER VENDOR 10/08/91 57 00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN10/08/91 75.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN10/04/91 673.87 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN10/04/91 970.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN10/04/91 75.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN10/08/91 3.435 12 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN116.66 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN10/04/91 470.71 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN10/04/91 5.393.76 13.789.86 •BONESTROO ROSENE ASN 10/04/91 222.30 BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY10/04/91 14.78 237.08 • BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS BUREAU CRIMINAL APPR CASE POWER & EQUIP CITYVIEW PLMBG A HTG CITYVIEW PLMBG & HTG CITYVIEW PLMBG A HTG CITYVIEW PLMBG A HTG CONNELLY INDUSTRIAL COPY OUP PR INC CRYSTEEL DIST INC ITEM DESCRIPTION UPDATE ST/ZNO MAPS MONITOR WELL NAVARRE ENG APPLC JUNE ENG APPLC JULY HWY 12 SAFETY IMP MCCULLY RD IMP ENG PUMPHSE 3 INSP PUMPHSE 3 JULY ENG LS I 11 RENOV FILM DEVELOP FILM DEVELOP ROCK CJDN CHG PART PARTS FURNACE REPR PO PLUMBING PARTS REPR LIFT 19 TRANSP UNDERPLOW ACCOUNT NO. INV 01-4305 01-4305 01-4305 01-4305 01-4306 23-4305 72-4305 72-4306 73-4531 249-42 840-71 840-71 840-71 299-72 354-00 437-85 437-85 569-92 01-4210-129-31 01-4210-174-33 01-4233-249-42 01-4355-129-31 01-4232-249-42 01-4210-174-33 01-4343-099-17 01-4343-099-17 74-4232-590-93 73-4344-569-92 01-1261-000-00 14-4550-633-00 10-14-91 PAGE 2 8 P.O. 9 MESSAGE ••a -CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS -CKS a a a -CKS -CKS •**-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS I'i- I' ‘%19tl CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER CNCCN NO .OATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV 2I71S0 10/09/91 41.50 41.50 • CULLIGAN WTR SOFTNER 01-4343-099-17 2I71S4 10/09/91 70.90 70.90 • CYS UNIFORMS UNIFORMS 01-4221-121-31 217199 10/09/91 170.00 170.00 • ELMER J PETERSON CO PUMP SEPTIC 01-4343-099-17 217203 10/09/91 49.60 ERICKSON/KURT INS REFUND 01-4152-129-31 '49.60 • •ft ft ft Aft i!n)2 10/01/91 11.25 EXPRESS MESSENGER POSTAGE 01-4321-174-3329721210/01/91 11.25 22.50 • EXPRESS MESSENGER POSTAGE 01-4321-174-33 297240 10/09/91 72.49 72 48 • FRITZLER J MARK CONF 01-4356-129-31 297244 10/09/91 14.51 14.51 • BUSINESS RECROS CORP FORMS 01-4210-039-12 2972Sr 10/09/91 5 29 r-NUINE PARTS CO PARTS 01 4232-129-31M72SU10/09/91 93.19 GENUINE PARTS CO PARTS 01-4232-249-4229729910/09/91 16.56 GENUINE PARTS CO PARTS 01-4232-290-61 297299 10/09/91 9.10 114 23 * GENUINE PARTS CO PARTS 73-4232-569-92 297299 10/09/91 70 85 70 95 • QLENWOOO INGLEWOOD WATER 01-4231-099-17 297299 10/09/91 37.91 37.91 • GOPHER OIL CO LUBE 01-4220-249-42 297297 10/09/91 920.00 920.00 • GOLF CAR MIDWEST GOLF CARTS 74-4331-590-93 § 10-14-91 PAGE •« •-CKS -CKS -CKS ■ ■ •-CKS •• •-CKS -CKS M t _CKS •••-CKS ft • •-CKS r.■rV lift CXTv OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 10-14-81 PAGE 4 CHECK NO.DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV.4 P.O. 4 MESSAGE «*••AH ••*-CKS i 217272 10/04/31 281.26 281.26 •Q i K SERVICES UNIFORMS 01-4221-248-42 1 ***-CKS 217271 217271 10/01/41 10/01/81 54.0081.00 135.00 • GOPHER STATE ONECALL GOPHER STATE ONECAU SEPT FEE SEPT FEE 72-4306-548-81 73-4306-569-92 •••-CKS 217210 10/01/81 50.00 50.00 • HACH CHEMICAL CO FLOUR IDE 72-4234-548-91 'v •••-CKS V 217214 10/04/81 12.65 12.65 • HAPPYS POTATO CHIP CHIPS 74-4802-591-94 ***-CKS 2t72tS 10/01/81 210.00 210.00 • HENNEPIN CO-OP SEED GRASS SEED 01-4233-249-42 % •••••••**-CKS 'I: ? 247303 10/01/81 255.00 255.00 • HENN CTV FIN DIV AUG ROOM/BOARD 01-4358-010-16 :t. '■} 'i-■' i»is:10/04/81 10/04/31 25.44 85.05 110.48 * HENN CTY SHERIFF DPT HENN CTY SHERIFF DPT REPIAR AUG BOOKINGS 01-4342-128-31 01-4358-080-16 •••-CKS ». •1 •••-CKS•1 217377 10/04/31 38.30 38.30 « JOHNSON/BRADLEY INS REFUND 01-4152-128-31 c •••«•••••-CKS :k: . 247337 247337ii?i» 10/04/81 10/01/81 10/04/31 10/04/31 88.37 44.20 2.88 4.83 125.48 • KUEHN-THOHAS KUEHN-THOMAS KUEHN-THOMAS KUEHN-THOHAS MILEAGE GFOA CONF MILEAGE SEPT MILEAGE SEPT MILEAGE SEPT 01-4381-069-15 01-4381-069-15 01-4311-174-33 73-4381-568-92 •••-CKS I’ 237400 10/01/81 185.02 185.02 •KUSTOM SIGNALS INC REPAIR 01-4342-129-31 h;: &' ^ k Pi Vv,,'.r*, ‘•■VR'aiMiaiiiii..: Llltl CITY OF ORONO ,•.CHECK REGISTERCHECK NO.DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV 217402 10/02/91 7.293.25 LAKEMTKA CONS DIST 47H QTR 01-4380-020-11 7.293.25 * 227404 lU/02/91 194.54 THE LAKER ADS 01-4323-174-33194.54 • 227407 10/01/91 149.99 LANO EQUIP CO PARTS 01-4232-249-42149.99 • 227435 10/02/91 23.23 LOGIS - SUITE 300 LABELS FOR RESALE 01-3500-000-0010/09/91 39.00 LOQIS - SUITE 300 MNT TERMINAL 01-4340-069-1522743510/02/91 92.25 LOGIS - SUITE 300 MNT PRINTER 01-4340-129-31i!H2S 10/02/91 791.13 LOGIS - SI' ’E 300 LOQI^ APPL SUPP SEP 01-4352-069-1522743510/01/91 459.60 LOQIS - SI.•300 L03*? APPL SUPP SEP 01-4352-129-31 227435 10/02/91 240.77 LOGIS - SL 3''0 1APPL SUPP SEP 01-4352-174-3321743510/09/91 50.19 LOQIS - SUi.w LA 4 PROC SEPT 01-4355-039-12 227435 10/09/91 469.53 LOQIS • SUITE 30u DATA PROC SEPT 01-4355-069-15 227435 10/09/91 797.9.>-SUITE 300 DATA PROC SEPT 01-4355-129-3122743510/09/91 337.1,LOQIS • SUITE 300 DATA PROC SEPT 01-4355-174-332!!!23 10/09/91 19.00 LOGIS - SUITE 300 MNT TERMINAL 72-4340-549-912!!!h 10/09/91 144.49 LOQIS - SUITE 300 LOQIS APPL SUPP SEP 72-4352-549-9122743510/09/91 36.99 LOQIS - SUITE 300 DATA PROC SEPT 72-4355-549-9122743510/09/91 30.00 LOGIS - SUITE 300 MNT TERMINAL 73-4340-569-9222743510/09/91 337.07 LOQIS - SUITE 300 LOQIS APPL SUPP SEP 73-4352-569-9222743510/09/91 199.76 LOGIS - SUITE 300 DATA PROC SEPT 73-4355-568-924,044.90 • •«•••• 227437 10/09/91 25,909.75 CITY OF LONC LAKE 4TH QTR FIRE 01-4315-130-3222743710/09/91 16.99 CITY OF LONG LAKE FLASHER 01-4325-249-4222743710/09/91 2.534.40 CITY OF LONG LAKE 4TH QTR RENT 01-4332-129-3122743710/09/91 74.51 CITY OF LONG LAKE LIFT STAT 73-4344-569-9229.535.54 • 227439 10/09/91 54 70 LONG LK FORD TRACTOR PARTS 01-4232-249-4222743910/09/91 111.24 LONG LK FORD TRACTOR REPAIR 01-4342-249-42 227439 10/09/91 196.30 LONG LK FORD TRAv.TOR RENTAL 01-4343-099-17 227439 10/09/91 27.40 LONQ LK FORD TRACTOR PARTS 74-4232-590-93399 64 • 227441 10/01/91 60 50 LONG LAKE TIRE SERV REPAIR 01-4341-249-42 10-14-91 PAGE 5 •P.O. • MESSAGE ***-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS $ t» m m -CKS •**-CKS •••-CKS CITY OF ORONO 217441 217462 217474 217477217477 217477 217477 267477 267477 267477267477 2674T7267477 267477 267477267477267477 267477 267477267477 267477 CHECK REGISTERATEAMOUNTVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV 10/08/91 16.50 77.00 • LONG LAKE TIRE SERV TIRE REPAIR 01-4342*249-42 10/01/91 13.00 13.00 • MARTINS NAVARRE 66 TIRE REPAIR 74-4J41-590-93 10/06/91 643.50 643.50 • METRO WASTE SAC CHRG 01-2226-000-00 10/09/91 3.63 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-039-12 10/06/91 103.92 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-039-12 10/06/91 44.05 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-039-12 10/06/91 15.95 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-059-14 10/06/91 3.63 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-059-14 10/06/91 7.07 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-059-14 10/06/91 23.99 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-099-15 10/09/91 3.63 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-069-15 10/09/91 7.07 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-089-15 10/09/91 49.89 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-129-31 10/06/91 96.45 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-129-31 10/08/91 7.07 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-129-31 10/06/91 7.08 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-174-33 10/06/91 7.95 MIDWEST BSNS PROO OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-174-33 10/09/91 34.62 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-174-33 10/06/91 106.06 MIDWEST BSNS PROO OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-249-42 10/09/91 41.23 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-249-42 10/09/91 3.63 558.79 • MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-249-42 287665 10/06/91 9.00 MPLS OXYGEN CO DEMURRAGE 01-4232-129-31 267465 10/09/91 19.38 MPLS OXYGEN CO OXYGEN 01-4232-129-31 267465 10/09/91 31.50 59.88 • MPLS OXYGEN CO DEMURRAGE 01-4232*249-42 267495 10/09/91 24.98 24.98 • MN BENEFIT ASSN OCT INS 01-4152-129-31 267496 10/09/91 172.85 MN CELLULAR TELE TELEPHONE 01-4320-129-31 267496 10/09/91 19 15 192.00 • MN CELLULAR TELE TELEPHONE 01-4320-249-42 267535 10/09/91 15.238.75 CITY OF MOUND 4TH QTR FIRE 01-4317-132-32 10-14-81 PAGE 6 t P.O. 6 MESSAGE •«»-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS r-'IMl CITY OF OKONO CHICK NO. DATE CHECK REGISTER 2I7S37 2I7S4S 2I7S4I 2I7S4I 2l7S4t 217544 2I7S4I 217544 217544 247544 247544 247544 247544 247544 247542 247542 247552 247512 :|7552 47552 47552 247552 247552 247552 247552 247555 247542 247547 >.■ %k.. 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/41 10/04/41 10/04/91 10/04/41 10/04/41 10/04/41 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/41 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/41 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/41 10/04/41 10/04/41 10/04/41 10/04/91 10/01/91 10/04/41 AMOUNT 15,234.75 • 57.60 57.60 • 12.50 12.50 • 75. 61. 13. 4. 114. 12! 52. 4. 52.37. 24. 456. 77 09 55 99 44 50 20 56 08 05 17 17 97 • 400 319 2 166 111 26 1.431 107 4 1,252 128 4,353 .54 40 .91 .08 .06 .96 .41 . 19 .71 .48 .78 .56 1,090.08 1,090 08 * 31 20 31.20 * 4.450 39 VENDOR MORAN HARK NSP N5P NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP OMAN/LVLE ITEM DESCRIPTION RACHAl CASE UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES ST LITES mileage PUBLIC EMPL RET ASSN PERA 9/16-9/29 ACCOUNT NO. INV 01-4306-129-31 NAVARRE AUTO REPAIR REPAIR 74-4341-590-93 NAVARRE HARDWARE SUPPLIES 01-4210-129-31 NAVARRE HARDWARE SUPPLIES 01-4210-174-33 NAVARRE HARDWARE SUPPLIES 01-4210-249-42 NAVARRE HARDWARE SUPPLIES 01-4231-099-17 NAVARRE HARDWARE SUPPLIES 01-4231-290-61 NAVARRE HARDWARE SUPPLIES 01-4232-290-61 NAVARRE HARDWARE SUPPLIES 01-4233-249-42NAVARRE HARDWARE SUPPLIES 01-4342-290-61NAVARREHARDWARESUPPLIES72-4234-549-91 NAVARRE HARDWARE SUPPLIES 73-4232-569-92NAVARRE HARDWARE SUPPLIES 73-4234-569-92 NAVARRE HARDWARE SUPPLIES 74-4232-590-93 01-4324 01-4324 01-4324 01-4324 31-4324 v.1-4324 72-4324 72-4324 73-4324 73-4324 74-4324 099-17 129-31 175-34 249-42 249-42 290-81 549-91 549-91 569-92 569-92 590-93 01-4325-249-42 01-4381-174-33 01-2031-000-00 10-14-91 PAGE 7 9 P.O 9 MESSAGE ••*-CKS A 81 •-CKS -CKS •**-CKS -CKS •••-CKS -CKS im CITY OF OROMO CHECK NO. DATE 2l7tlSasms 2l7t2l 2I7K2I2l7«2t 2I7C2I 2t7t2l 2l7t2l iiltii 2l7t2l 217021 217031 207030207031 207000 207001 207002 207002 207002 207070 I 207724 I- ■ ■ iftiBtfiiiiftriiViiii 10/00/01 10/00/01 10/00/01 10/00/01 19/00/01 10/00/01 10/00/01 io/oa/01 10/00/01 CHECK NEQISTERAMOUNT 4.«50 39 • VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 10 OO 0 20 20.00 ■ PERRYS VENTURES INC PERRYS VENTURES INC CAR WASH CAR WASH 0.00 6 00 R C INDENTIFICATIONS 109 50 • 1,893 00 1,893 00 *ROLLINS OIL CO GASOLINE 1,026.90 ST TREA-ST BOG INSP 3RD OTR SURCHQ 110-14*91 FADE I ACCOUNT NO. INV. IPO. • MESSAGE 01-4342-249-42 73-4342-569-92 10/08/91 1,129.53 POPHAH HAIK & ASSOC LEGAL RETAINER-AUQ 01-4301-080-16 10/01/91 12,696.27 POPHAM HAIK A ASSOC LQAL PROSECTNS-AUG 01-4302-080-1610/06/91 663.00 POPHAM HAIK 4 ASSOC LEGAL HRA FORMATION 01-4303-080-1610/06/91 S13 50 POPHAM HAIK A ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT AUG 01-4303-080-1610/06/9t 17 00 POPHAM HAIK A ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT-AUG 01-4303-129-31:0/05/91 t5.60 POPHAM HAIK A ASSOC LEGAL SEALCOAT PROJ 01-4303-249-42lb/09/91 127 50 POPHAM HAIK A ASSOC LEGAL WOOOHILL SWR 01-4303-640-71 10/09/91 540.92 POPHAM HAIK A ASSOC LEGAL APPLICATN AUG 01-4303-640-71 10/06/91 2,720 36 POPHAH HAIK A ASSOC CITY HALL LAND ACQ 15-4303-651-0010/08/91 624 00 19,317,66 ■ POPHAM HAIK A ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT-AUG 24-4399-461-00 10/08/91 3,390.00 3,390.00 * POLKA DOT RECYCLING SEPT FEE 01-4392-295-65 10/06/91 48.95 PRAIRIE OFFSET MOORSE BSNS CRD 01-4322-039-1210/01/91 34.50 63 45 * PRAIRIE OFFSET DR/CR FORM 01-4322-039-12 01-4210-129-31 8 80 8 80 ■ SCHARBER A SONS INC PART 74-4232-590-93 109 50 REED VENDING CANDY A CIO 74-4802-590-93109.50-REED VENDING CANDY A CIG 74-4602-590-93109 50 REED VENDING CANDY A CIGS 74-4602-591-94 01-1260-000-00 01-2222-000-00 -CKS -CK8 -CKS ••ft -CKS -CKS -CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS s tttl CITY OF OKONO CHICK NO. OATI 217740 217740 217740 247740 2I777S 247770 247744 247744 24741S 24741S!?{» 24741S 2474i4 24741S i741l !4741i !47415 4741S 247421 247424 ?, I- 10/01/91 10/01/91 10/04/91 10/01/91 10/01/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 10/04/91 AMOUNT 1,026.90 • 45.40 177.05 10.95 5.00 234.40 * 60.03 60.03 • 450.92 450.92 • 69.20 69.20 * 4.45 4.45 * 74.35 74.35 39.17 173.21 74.36 57 74 65 27 74 124 474 09 35 39 4257 20 46 29.16 29.16 * 1.372.40 1.372.40 • CHECK REGISTERVENDOR STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS STREICHERS TOWN A COUNTRY TRACY OIL CO TRI STATE PUMP UNIFORMS UNLIMITED WALDOR PUMP ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIFORM 2 DOME LOTS CLEANER CUFF KEY LINERS DIESEL PART UNIFORMS REPAIR LS 621 10-14-91 PAGE 9 ACCOUNT NO. INV. 9 P.O. 9 MESSAGE 01-4221-129-31 01-4232-129-31 01-4232-129-31 01-4232-129-31, 01-4242-099-17 01-4220-249-42 73-4232-569-92 01-4221-129-31 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-039-12USWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONE01-4320-059-14USWESTCOHHUNTELEPHONE01-4320-069-15USWESTCOHMUNTELEPHONE01-4320-129-31USWEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-174-33USWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONE01-4320-175-34USWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONE01-4320-249-42USWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONE72-4320-549-91USWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONE73-4320-569-92USWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONE74-4320-590-93USWESTCOMMUNADV74-4323-590-93 VILLAGE CHEVROLET PART 01-4232-249-42 73-4344-569-92 •••-CKS N * N -CKS -CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS ••*-c •••-CKS •••-CKS IMl CITY OF OROMO CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT CHECK REQISTERVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 10-14-81 FAQE 10 ACCOUNT NO. INV. • P.O. • MESSAGE 217131 lO/Ot/91 12.84 12.84 • WALTERS LINDA MILEAGE 01-4381-069-15 2I7I3S 10/08/91 441.34 441.34 •WARNING LITES OF MN FLASHERS 01-4331-249-42 217140 10/08/91 17.50 17.50 •WAYZATA AUTO SERV REPAIRS 01-4342-249-42 287141 10/01/91 290.00 290.00 • WATER PRODUCTS CO HYDRANT 01-4231-290-61 28784S 10/08/81 47.32 47.32 • WECKMAN STEPHEN MILEAGE 01-4381-174-33 2R787S 10/08/91 8.40 WRIGHT HENN ELECTRIC UTILlTlESt 01-4324-249-428.40 • X- t.287801 10/08/91 128.00 128.00 • ESS BROTHERS A SONS GRATE 73-4344-569-92 287802 10/08/81 110.00 110.00 • WESTSIDE REDI MIX CEMENT 01-4342-290 *;i !:217003 10/08/91 38.50 38.50 • PALM CONSTRUCTION REPAIR DOOR 01-4343-129-31 287004 10/08/81 195.73 riSHER MINGER DIRT 01-4233-249-42 '*4 • .»*r 195.73 • •V ,1 1 207000 10/08/91 375.00 375.00 • BLACKOWIAK A SON LEAF REMOVAL 01-4348-295-65 b 287007 10/08/81 728.00 CHIPPEWA TOP SOIL DIRT 01-4233-249-4228700710/08/81 88.00 782.00 • CHIPPEWA TOP SOIL DIRT 01-4233-280-81 ■r 287008 10/01/81 53 50 53 50 •LONG LAKE VET MEO/OFFICE CALL 01-4244-129-31 287808 10/04/81 55E 00 555.00 • DAHLKE TREE TREE REMOVAL 01-4390-249-42 »A N -CKS •••-CKS N N •-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS N N •-CKS ..\ItSl CITY OF 0«ONO CHECK HO. DATE AMOUNT CHECK REGISTERVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV 10-14-91 PAGE 11 •P.O. • MESSAGE f- 217910 297910 297911 297911 297912 297912 297912297912 10/0«/91 30.00-STATE OF HH10/01/91 60.00 30.00 • STATE OF MN 10/04/91 16 00 SUSA l(/09/9t 24.00 40.00 • SUSA 10/06/91 7 00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE10/09/91 13.00 HN DEPT OF REVENUE10/09/91 10.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE10/09/91 961.00 991.00 *MN DEPT OF REVENUE AIR TANK Lie AIR TANK Lie CONF CONF SEPT SAL. . TAX SEPT SALES TAX SEPT SALES TAX SEPT SALES TAX Ol-4313-.t 19-42 01-4313 240-42 72-4356-549-91 73-4356-569-92 01-3500-000-00 01-3516-000-0072-2222-000-0074-2222-000-00 tI 100,441.45 FUND 01 TOTAL5,220.00 FUND 14 TOTAL9,151 12 FUND 15 TOTAL3,435.12 FUND 23 TOTAL 624.00 FUND 24 TOTAL2,924.79 FUND 72 TOTAL9,529.15 FUND 73 TOTAL2.729.92 FUND 74 TOTAL 133,054.45 TOTAL GENERAL FUND IMPROVE A EQUIP OUTLAY F BUILDNG CAPITAL OUTLAY F MUNIC STATE AID CONS FUN PERM IMPROVE REVOLVING F WATER OPERATING FUND SEWER OPERATING FUND GOLF COURSE OPERATING FD *‘»-CKS QEMUNIS FINANCIAL SYSTEM 10/01/01 PAGE I ACCOUNTING REPORT USER 00 1991 CITY OF ORONONUMBER OF REPORTS NUMBER OF UPDATES NUMBER OF RECORDS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 6 LEVEL 7 LEVEL I LEVEL 9 LEVEL 0 TOTAL 640 1.026 0 0 0 34 0 0 1 0 2 1,065 UPDATE DESCRIPTIONS 0SUM4ARY FILE 0 PAYROLL A BENEFIT ACCRUAL ACTIVITY REPORT 0 CHECK REGISTER 3 TRIAL BALANCE 0 BALANCE SHEET 0 REVENUE STATEMENT 0 OPERATING STATEMENT 0 BUDGET WORKSHEETS 0 CLEAR-CURR-MONTH 0 CITY FILE OPTION 0 PROJECT DEPARTMENT X CHART OF ACCOUNTS MO. CHECK RECONCILE 0 YEAR TO DATE PERIOD 09 BUDGET RECORDS CREATED FINANCIAL REPORTSSCHEDULED RUN DATE 000000 REPORT DATE 000000 ACTIVITY REPORTS SCHEDULED RUN DATE 100091 REPORT DATE 101491 PAYROLL POSTING DATES 000000 000000 000000 000000 I. f: i- i: I S; i' rA^ COUNCIL MEEHNO OCT 1 4 1991 CITY OF ORONO #♦ V . v''*( MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEP"^EMBER 16, 1991 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. The Orono Planning commission met on the above date with the following members present:Acting Planning Commission Chair Ed Cohen, and Planning Commission Members Jeff Johnson, Sara Moos, Charles Schroeder and Candace Rowlette. Charles Kelley and Maureen Bellows were absent.The following represented City staff:Jeanne Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator; Michael Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator; Glenn Cook, City Engineer; and Terl Naab, City Recorder. Council Representative Gabriel Jabbour was also present. (#1) #1676 CITY OF ORONO 700 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 - 7:20 P.M. City Engineer Cook explained the proposal Is for an elevated water reservoir on property owned by the City. The well is locar.ed east of the Otten property on Highway 12. and a water main hTs been constructed along Highway 12 and along Old Crystal Bay Ro.'d.He noted that they wanted a separate location for the towc' lor fire fighting purposes.They also wanted a site other than rear chj well as the area directly behind the well property Is resiuaiitlal.Cook showed three common styles of water tower, and 'lOted that the Public Works Department favors the hydropillar design. The tower will be located on the City property. 50' from the north line to the face of the bowl of the tower, or 80' to the center of the tower; and approximately 240’ from the east lot line. Cook noted there Is vegetation on the north and west sides of the proposed location but there Is very little cover on the east side. Mabusth noted that a conditional use permit is needed as the tower exceeds the allowed 30’ height and that tower is considered a public service structure. Peg Swanson, Orono School Board, noted basically be considered an attractive nuisance, the access stairs shown on the sketch. that this can She asked about Cook noted that on the two preferred designs, the stairway Is on the Interior, with the base being locked at all times. Nell Lawson, Business Manager of the Orono School District, asked about access to the tower. Cook explained that access will be provided on the east side of the lot, and there will be no access on the north and west sides of the site. Swanson asked if other sites were considered. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ZONING FILE #1676 - CONT. Cook explained since the City owns this land. It Is the recommended site.This site also gets the tower as far away as possible from the well site and provides better fire protection as It provides two sources of water for fire fighting. Johnson felt that this Is an appropriate site and It Is nice to have all public facilities and the tower together. Moos agreed with Johnson and noted that she would like to see the sleekest design built. Cook noted that the preferred two styles will be bid on and the lowest priced style will be constructed. Cohen asked about the feasibility of adding an antenna to the tower design. Mabusth Indicated that It could potentially be added, and she noted that the amendment to the code regarding this very Issue will be scheduled at an upcoming Planning Commission meeting. Schroeder asked what the anticipated cost of the tower Is. Cook noted that It is between $550,000 and $600,000. Johnson advised that trees can easily be used for screening a structure as this. Mabusth asked the Planning Commission to comment on the setback of the tower.She asked If the setback should be from the base, which Is thirty feet In diameter, or should the setback be from the bowl at a 70* diameter.The Commission voted 3-2 In favor of the setback being measured from the base of th'j tower. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Schroeder, to recommend approval of application #1676 City of Orono for property located at 700 Old Crystal Bay Road North to construct a water tower on the site. Ayes 5. nays 0. (#2) #1680 DANIEL 6 ROBERT VAUGHAN/TOOO A MARIE ZIESMER 208 TONKA AVENUE A 3440 BAYSIDE ROAO LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - PUBLIC HEARING 7:20 - 7:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Both Daniel Vaughan and Todd Ziesmer were present for this application. MINUTIS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ZONING FILE #1IH - Gaffron noted that this is essentially a two-part request, starting with a lot line rearrangement which by definition is a subdivision.He asked if the Commission felt that this type of subdivision was subject to the moratorium.Gaffron went on to explain that the property is located on Bayside Road, south of the Luce Line and west of Tonka Avenue.He noted the Ziesmer residence is on a parcel of 2.35 acres and there Is a vacant lot of 1.56 acres. They are proposing to change the present lot line to a north/south lot line, and leaving a 2.0 acre parcel with the Ziesmer residence and the vacant lot would bo 1.91 acres. Gaffron noted that a lot area variance of .09 acre would have to be granted for the vacant lot, and a lot width variance would have to be granted as it measures 130' instead of the required 200'.Ho noted that this property is within the Stubb's Bay study area. However, at this time primary and alternate septic systems sites have been required. Both sites have been located, but the septic system area available would only support a three bedroom house for both lots and the Ziesmer septic system would encroach the setback required from the vacant lot. He noted that sewer may be available to this property in the future, but at this point there is no guarantee. Daniel Vaughan noted that the big problem with this application is the septic system, however he feels positive that the sewer will be available In the future.He noted that although the Ziesmer house has a potential for five bedrooms, both ho and Mr. Ziesmer would be willing to covenant that there will not be more than three bedrooms in either home until city sewer is available to the property. Gaffron noted that the City design standards consider 2 persons per bedroom when determining septic size. Johnson asked Mr. Vaughan how ha felt about investing money into a septic system and then looking at assessments for a sewer project in addition. Vaughan explained that he would install a tank and pump that tank Instead of a full septic system. Gaffron noted that the Ziesmers were allowed a holding tank for 2-3 years, and recently allowed the installation of a temporary drainfield in the front yard anticipating the sewer project.Me noted that the best case scenario for the Installation of sower would be hook-up by fall of 1992. Cohen said they should address the first issue, that being the moratorium. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ZONING FILE #1681 - CONT. Jabbour noted that the applicants applied for the lot line rearrangement prior to the adoption of the moratorium, therefore It can proceed.He also noted that the Council Is Intent to sewering the Stubbs Bay area, however exact properties to be Included and when It will be Installed still has not been resolved. Vaughan noted that the lot was originally Included In the study and per the letter sent would be assessed for one unit. Rowlette asked about access to the site. Gaffron explained acctss would be achieved from the north end of Tonka Avenue, then going Just south of the Luce Line and finally south to the property. He noted the DNR does not require any setback from the Luce Line.He also explained that when doing the Stubbs Bay Study, the City looked at all properties with the potential for a building, and assigned a proposed sewer unit.If they are assessed a sewer unit, it does not guarantee that the lot Is bulldable and It would still have to go through the variance process If needed.He noted that If th variance were to be denied, money might be refunded for the non-bulIdable lot. Johnson noted that he Is not opposed to the lot area variance, but Is opposed to the creation of a substandard lot and adding questionable septic sites. He felt they should wait until the sewer project has been approved. Rowlette agreed with the septic concerns and felt that they should not be approving a new lot which Is substandard. Gaffron reiterated that they are not creating a new lot. Just expanding a substandard, existing lot. Rowlette noted that the proposed lot size does fit in with the surrounding area.She noted that the public hearing for the sewer project will bo held In November. Moos felt that the septic Issue Is the major concern. Cohen noted that ho nas trouble approving anything loss than 2 acre lots. Gaffron noted that there are 2 lots on Tonka Avenue which are going tax forfeit, and may be aval'’able for purchase by Vaughan at a later date. Vaughan requested the Commission to table the application until the Stubb's Bay sewer Issue Is resolved. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 leNZNCI PILE #1681 - CONT. It was moved by Rowlette. seconded by Moos, to table application #1680 Daniel and Roberta Vaughan and Todd and Marie Ziesmer, 205 Tonka Avenue and 3440 Bayside Road, for a lot line poarrangemont, until a definite decision on city sewer has been made for the Stubbs Bay area, or until applicant has a chance to revise his proposal so that the septic sites are deemed suitable with no variances needed, and relocating or redesigning the house so that no setback variances are necessary. Ayes 5, nays 0. >. * »• r (#8) #1608 JAMES HARTZELL 2987 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:47 - 7:55 P.M. Mrs. Hartzell and Erick Swanson of Baker Pools were present for this application. Gaffron explained that the applicants have revised their plans from a request for 35.9% hardcover 1n the 75-250' zone to 27.3%.There Is a water tower which could be removed to further reduce hardcover, out It probably Is a major undertaking to remove It and Jt wouldn't decrease the percentage much. Applicants are titending to keep the fence around the grass^'d areas adjacent to the pool to a height of less than 6', thus leaving the final lot coverage at 13.1%.Applicants^ are also requesting an average lakeshore setback variance of 25'. Johnson asked how tall the retaining wall will bo. Swanson noted 3' and Gaffron corrected that to 3 1/2'. Cohen asked If there was any way to get to the required 25% hardcover limit. Gaffron noted that the only way would be to make the pool smaller. He noted that l% represents 180 s.f. Johnson felt that this was a roasonble reworking of the proposal. Cohen asked what the applicants felt the hardships for this request are. Gaffron stated the applicants' hardships, as stated In their application, are the pool area encroaches average setback line because neighboring homes are sited far from lakeshore and neighboring homes are setback from lakeshore and distanced considerably from pool area, thus creating no negative Impact. There were no public comments regarding this application. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16. 1991 ZONING FILE #1608 - CONT It wds moved by Johnson, seconded by Rowlette, to recommend approval for application #1606 James Hartzell of 2987 Casco Point Road, approving a hardcover variance to allow 27.3% hardcover In the 75-250' zone, and an average setback variance of 25' for the proposed pool. Schroeder asked If the pcol could be downsized. Swanson noted that by scaling down the pool. It would not be as usable. It would also change the feeling of openness that the property projects.He noted that the pool Is proposed at 684 s.f. and an average pool Is 700-800 s.f. Gaffron noted that the 27.3% hardcover does not Include the water tower. Rowlette felt that the tower should remain for historical reasons. Johnson revised his motion to approval of 27.0% hardcover In the 75-250' zone. Ayes 4, nays 1. Cohen opposed the motion because he felt they should not approve hardcover above the 25% limitation. (#4) #1683 ROBERT F. SUESS 2590 WATERTOWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 - 8:15 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. T.J. Halslet was present to represent the applicant. Gaffron explained this Is a request for a subdivision of a parcel of 19.7 acres, which is currently two tax parcels, to create two new building sites. The subdivision creates lots next to the Hackberry neighborhood, and will create a 50' outlet along the western edge of the new lots. The sites have been tested for septic systems. He noted that the applicants would prefer to consider the outlet as a private driveway. Gaffron asked how the Commission would Intrepret this subdivision, as a two*or three lot subdivision. He noted the code requires a private road If it serves three residences. He explained the current residence accesses to Watertown Road. He also noted that the outlet in placed so It will accommodate future subdivision of the remaining property to the north. Halslet noted the applicant has no present plans to further subdivide. Gaffron noted the drainage concerns of the City Engineer. Cook has requested topographic maps for the entire property. ¥MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 I6NINQ FILE #1683 - CONT. Cohen road a petition submitted by a group of neighboring residents which requested that no septic tank drainfleld be constructed within a reasonable distance from each boundary of the newly created lots as most homes on Hackberry have their wells on their western lot line and the drainage from the property proposed for development runs across the back yards of the Hackberry homes, and requesting that the ’•cartway" that runs along the eastern lot line to remain for use by the Hackberry neighbors. Dunwreath Peasley, 98 Hackberry Hill, explained the Mr. Suess Installed a fence 21* to the west of his eastern lot line to be used as a cartway by himself and neighbors.He noted that cartway has existed for as long as he has lived there, 27 years. He also explained that drainage does run off the property Into the Hackberry Hill neighborhood.He said he currently has 3" of standing water In his back yard. Richard Wagner, 35 Hackberry Hill, felt that Mr. Suess put the cartway 1n for his own use and should be able to develop his property without restrictions on that cartway by the neighboring property owners.He said there Is a natural flow that runs down Watertown Road Into the neighborhood. Dave Fisher, 141 Hackberry H111, noted If the cartway wore to remain It wouia oe nice, but felt It would be up to the new owners to set up. Wagner said his wells are far enough away from the proposed subdivision and there should be no problem. The owner, 119 Hackberry Hill, noted that he lives directly on the other side of the proposed subdivision and explained that run off from the field does end up In his back yard. Peasley noted that 30* from his present well water. Is standing Rowlette noted that site grading and drainage plans have not been submitted. Halslet noted that they are willing to supply those, but were notified too late for Inclusion in the Commission's packets. Johnson felt that they are creating two addition lots, not three, and should be allowed to use the outlot as a private drive. Rowlette felt that more Information Is needed.She noted that the property to the north will more than likely be developed at some point, but it Isn't necessary to Install the private road or cul'-de-sac at this point.She also felt It was a terrible waste and expense to have the current owner move his driveway. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION .MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ZONING FILE #1683 - CONT. Schroeder felt the drainage concerns should be addressed. Moos felt the outlot should be developed as a private drive. It was moved by Jo' ison, seconded by Moos, to table application #1683 for Robert Suess for preliminary subdivision of property located at 2590 Watertown Road to allow the applicant time to submit drainage plans for the property. Ayes 5. nays 0. (#6) #1669 JOHN WALKER 1310 SPRUCE PLACE VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:22 - 8:27 P.M. Mr. & Mrs. John Walker and their representative, Dick Schleffer, were present. Schleffer explained that the applicants have reduced their request to 22% hardcover of the entire lot. They have also reduced the amount of hardcover to below the pre-1975 level as requested by the Commission.He noted that the request Is for a variance for hardcover In the 75-250’ zone to be at 30.4%, however the 0-75’ zone has been reduced to 7.2% from 14.1%. Cohen asked staff how hardcover went from 30% pre-1975 t.o 50%’*' presently. Gaffron noted that most of that percentage Is In plastic or fabric lined landscaping and patio blocks, both of which do not require permits. Schroeder felt the Increase was almost solely In landscaping. Cohen asked If the 0-75’ zone could be reduced to the 0% limitation. Gaffron felt that the stairway and retaining walls are needed.He noted that there Is a pre-existing shed, and they would have to determine If they wish to require the removal of that shed. Cohen then asked If the 75-250’ hardcover could further reduced. Gaffron noted that some of the driveway could be taken out which would reduce parking area for boats and cars. He also noted the drive, as Is, Is rather tight. He felt that the drive should not be reduced and It would be tough to further reduce the percentage In that zone. 8 fe'. i- I iii MIWUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 IdNINa FXLI #1069 -CONT. Rowletto noted that this type of application Is hard bef'iuse the entire house is within the 75-250' zone. She also felt there Is very little green space on this lot. Gaffron noted that lot coverage on this property Is less than the 15% limitation. Schroeder asked when plastic was hardcover. first considered Gaffron affirmed that plai.tlc and decks considered hardcover sometime In the early 1980s. were first Rowlette noted that the total reduction In hardcover Is non- structural. Johnson noted there Is a patio being t -rnoved. Rowlette Indicated that there Is a deck being added on the other side of the house. She also asked that the Council Include Information regarding hardcover and permits required In their next newsletter. Schroeder concurred that the removals are all Illegal non- structural hardcover, which makes the reduction '‘igures look good, but In reality it shouldn't have been there In the first place. There were no public comments. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval for application #1669 for John Walker of 1310 Spruce Place, to approve 30.4% hardcover In the 75-250* zone and approval of the reduction In hardcover to a level of 7.2% In the 0-75* zone. Ayes 3. nays 2. Johnson felt that the applicants have made a serious attempt to reduce proposed hordcover. Both Cohen and Schroeder voted nay because they felt that applicants should try to further reduce hardcover percentages. Schroeder also noted that reduction In hardcover Is all from removal of non-structural hardoever. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Cohen, to recommend that applicants pay the after-the-fact zoning application fee. Ayes nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ~ SEPTEMBER 16. 1991 I ^ 1&, ♦m- I (#7) #1677 CEDRIC DETTLOFF 1255 DICKENSON STREET VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:50 - 8:55 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Mr.Dettloff, application. applicant’s son,present for the 1 sMabusth summarized at I0’x32’ that the applicant requesting to remove a workshop area and replace it within the sane footprint with a two—story storage area and a three season porch on top of it.The setback from the right-of-way will be 41* where a 50' setback is required.Lot coverage is not an issue as the improvement will not expand upon the present foot­ print. There wure no comments from the public. Cohen clarified that the proposed structure will be usinr the existing footprint, which is already over the lot coveraye allowance, but was pre-existing prior to the lot coverage ordinance. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Johnson, to recommend approval for application #1677 Cedric Dettloff of 1255 Dickenson Street, approving variances for setback and lot coverage to construct a two—story storage area and three season porch within the existing footprint. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#6) #1678 PAUL 8 MARCIA MERLO 2142 SNAOYNOOD ROAD VARIANCES * PUBLIC HEARING 8:55 • 9:15 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Mr, 8 Mrs. Paul Merlo were present for the application. Mabusth explained that the Merlos are proposing a 24*x22* two~story addition to the east side of their residence which would extend along the same setback on the lakeshore side of their hoee. They also propose a second story deck, 22*xl5'. There Is no encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line. She explained that they will be removing the slab In front of the structure, everything around the proposed addition, and trimming back the drive. ^he county has a drainageway that runs through the property on the east side and goes through a catchbasin and pcurs out over the spillway and empties Into the lake. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 ZONING FILE #1671 - CONT. Mr. Merlo advised the Commission that they need to retain the looped portion of the drive because of parking problems with the shared portion of the drive and because of his Invalid parents which live with them 6-7 months out of the year. He noted that the drive Is Difficult to manuvuer. Mabusth noted that the structure Is 100' back from the lake and there Is no hardcover In the 0-75' zone. Schroeder asked the applicant If It was necessary to have two drives. He felt that It would be more pleasing aesthetically with less driveway. Johnson asked currently. the turnaround worked the way It Is Merlo emphasized that it does work. He noted that the house was built in the 1970s by a contractor who put a slab and extra drive to facilitate his construction equipment. Rowlette Indicated that If the application is denied, then the hardcover will remain at 50.7%, however she felt that 40.9% was still too high to recommend approval. Merlo bxplalned that they need to have an answer immediately and move quickly as their heating system has failed in the house and they need to know how they i:^n proceed with the addition. If at all, and the new furnace. Johnson asked If they had considered a total new drive with one access and a loop near the house. Merlo explained that there are retaining walls from the front door down to the garage entrance which would prohibit a loop In that area. Mabusth noted that a major portion of the entrance at the east curb cut Is being eliminated, partly because it Is unusable 1.1 the winter because the spillway at the entrance freezes over. Rowlette felt that part of the turnaround near the house should remain, but a larger portion of the drive should be eliminated which would take out a lot of hardcover. She felt the spillway should also be taken out of the hardcover calculation figures. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Schroeder, to recommend approval for application #1678 Paul and Marcia Merlo of 2142 Shadywood Road, for variances not according to the plan submitted to date, but according to a plan to be submitted by applicants to the City Council with the removal of the middle dr've, and In addition, with the removal of the spillway figures out of the hardcover calculation, to construct a two story addition to their existing residence. Ayes 5, nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 (#9) #1679 WILLIAM F. MILLER 2691 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:16 - 9:30 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication noted. 'd Certificate of Mailing was William Miller was present for this application. Gaffron briefly reviewed that the applicant Is proposing to remove an existing single car garage and a portion of the parking aroa, and Install a larger garage witn side opening doors.He noted that the second part of this application ' Involves structural maintenance of an existing 8’x8' bathhouse. He explained that the building Inspectors were on the site to review the garage proposal and noticed the work being done on the bath­ house.They noted that the entire lower level had been removed apart and new posts were Installed In the corners and a new slab was Installed or at least new footings.The applicant was told to stop work on the project, but he continued to finish the project regardless. Gaffron noted that the code states that a non-conforming structure within the 0-75' zone cannot be Improved more than 50% of Its value.It was the building Inspector's contention that the inprovements exceeded the 50% of the valuation. Johnson asked If the platform and stairs are new. Miller stated that they pre-date his ownership and that he has recently washed and stained them so they may look newer than they really are.He noted that since he !s a new owner, he was unaware of the restrictions on the bathhouse. He also noted that he has expended $359 for the repairs to the boathouse and did not feel that It exceeded 50% of the value.He explained that the Inspector told the contractor to stop work on all structural work.He noted that at that time the siding was not on but all other work was done and because of high winds, he went ahead and put the siding on to prevent collapse of the entire structure. He also felt that putting the siding on did not constitute structural work. Cohen asked If the hardcover could be further reduced. Miller Instructed that the patio could be taken out by the back door which results In 70 s.f., and ho could take out all the sidewalks from the house to the garage and put In stepping stones which would result In reduction of 56 s.f. He noted that It Is a matter of practicality, as If stepping stones are Installed, you cannot shovel snow. Rowlette asked about the dog run. Miller noted that It was not added In the calculation because It has a dirt floor. F >- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 lONZNQ FILE #1679 - CONT. Gaffron reported that the proposed garage leaves about a 3‘ area of the existing gravel parking area behind the garage which will not be able to be used as parking In the future.However, It has been driven on before and It may be compacted and there­ fore has been classified as hardcover. Rowlette asked what normal two-car garage dimensions are. Ga»' *on noted that 1t Is about 20*x24‘. Mil i&r explained that the normal two-car garage Is 22*x24', and he Is proposing a three car garage with a 20* depth. He felt that It Is necessary to have a three car garage for storage of cars, boats, etc. He also stated that the cost factor would not Justify building a two-car garage. Schroeder felt that the garage Is too large, concurred. Moos also Miller felt that he has reduced the hardcover down as as possible.He also noted the other variances which approved with excesses of hardcover. much were Schroeder responded that each application Is different with different merits. Johnson felt there Is a l«rge amount of hardcover on property and felt that the hardcover should be reduced. the Miller explained that If It Is tabled or denied and the garage Is not built, then the hardcover stays at 37%, opposed to the 30% proposed. With respect to the bathhouse. Miller pointed out that only the bottom half of the structure was replaced. Johnson asked about the new slab. Miller stressed that only the foundation for the posts on the lake side were replaced. Rowlette concurred that If the deck/stairway/bathhouse Is considered as one unit, then the value Is probably far more than what was repaired.She asked If the deck and stairs could stand alone. Gaffron advised that they could. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of the structural maintenance of the bathhouse. Ayes 3, nays 2. Johnson voted nay because he fwlt It was basically replaced and Schroeder concurred with that fej'ing. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16. 1991 ZONING FILE #1679 - CONT. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos,to table application #1679 William Miller of 2691 Casco Point Road, to allow applicant time to redesign his proposal to reduce the hardcover percentage. Ayes 5, nays 0. Cohen noted that the bathhouse Issue will go directly to the Council for review at their October 14 meeting. (#10) #1682 CHRISTINE BRICKLEY 3262 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 9:30 - 10:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Christine Brickley was present for this application. Brickley noted that the pre-existing hardcover shown on the sketch Included Is shown at 20'x24‘, which really should be 20*x31' because the garage was back further. Gaffpon noted that there are not accurate records of where the garage actually was.He noted that the property Is located between the marinas on North Shore Drive and this Is a lakeshore property.Ho explained that there are a number of variances being requested.Applicant Is replacing a number of accessory structures used for storage with one large garage.He noted the Inspector came upon the site when the slab was half poured and a stop work order was Issued, but because concrete was on the way and could not be cancelled, he allowed the owner to proceed with the knowledge that It was at her own risk and may not be ar roved. The garage has a footprint of 1,056 s.f. where the I? ^«st accessory building that could be put on a lot of this size Is 1,000 s.f.A garage over 1,000 s.f. would require 30* setbacks from all lot lines. This garage is poured at about 2-3* setbacks. with a *'ootpr1nt of 750-1000* s.f., a 15* setback would still be required, and anything smaller would require 10* setbacks. In the 75-250* zone, pre-existing hardcover Is at 46.5%.In the 0-75’ zone, hardcover Is at 15.6%. Lot coverage Is proposed at 19.8%. He told the Commission that they must determine what size garage Is appropriate and where should It be located. Donald Stauffer, 3268 North Shore Drive, concurred that the garage Is Important to free the shared drive of parked cars. Brickley noted that four properties share the drive. Cohen felt that the application should be tabled to give the applicant time to redraw the plans. He noted that a footprint of more than 1,000 s.f. cannot be allowed. Rowlette agreed. I-.V- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16. 1991 20NINQ FILE #16S2 • CONT. Brinkley noted that the hardcover percentages ha^e relatively stayed the same. She proposed getting rid of the deck in the 0-75' zone She also noted that to move the garage to meet setbacks would destroy all the trees In her yard. Johnson agreed that the applicant should scale back the plan and felt the deck was a good start.He felt that a 10' setback must be maintained. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Rowlette, to table application #1682 for Christine Brickley of 3262 North Shore Drive, to allow applicant time to redesign her proposal to further reduce hardcover percentages. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#11) #1684 DAVID & ANNE GRAHAM 2748 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 10:00 - 10:10 P.M. noted. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was David and Anne Graham were present. Mabusth explained the entire residence is located within the 0-75' setback area.The applicants are proposing no major additions. Applicants propose an addition above the single story portion of the existing residence with no expansion to the existing footprint.They are planning to build a 6'xl6' deck to the west side of the existing residence and remove the two-story sun porch/deck along the south side of the property and replace that with a trellis area.There is a slight reduction in hardcover. They plan to reside the boathouse with cedar to match the siding of the house. Graham concurred with Mabusth that that is what they propose.He explained that the property is currently in a state of deterioration.He noted the addition will match in with the existing truss portion, adding the new portion in the form of a gabled massing. Rowlette asked if the driveway could be reduced. Graham noted that the turnaround was something that they really liked on the property, but felt that it is too wide and they plan to resurface it and it could bo reduced at that point. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of application #1684, David and Anne Graham, 2745 Shadywood Road, to construct a second story addition, an 8'xl6' deck, removal of a sunporch/deck ar and subject to the applicants reducing the turnaround to ..o more than 14* wide. Ayes 5, nays 0. lit' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 (#12) #1685 EDWARD F. BAKER 3059 FARVIEW LANE VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 10:10 - 10:20 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Edward Baker and JoEllen Hurr were present for this application. Gaffron explained that this is a request for a hardcover variance and a setback variance in the 0-75’ zone. There is also a 26' wetland S'*tback which will be encroached upon.He noted that the walkway to the lake needs to be there to gain access. The house and pool were built in 1979; the deck and patio areas wore built later. The deck area is In poor condition. Applicant wants to replace and Increase the size of that deck.Applicant proposes removal of plastic In the 0—75* zone.He noted that there is no adequate walkway around the pool and applicant is proposi a 3-4* wide walkway.The stairway which would run to grade level from the second story pool area would encroach into the wetland setback 10'. Hurr noted that the hardcover in the 0-75’ zone has been reduced to 7% and in the 75-250’ zone, it Is actually lower than the allowed 25%.She felt that since plastic is counted as hardcover.there should not be a differentiation between structural and non-structural hardcover. Johnson asked If variances were granted for the original home. Gaffron noted that the original building plans did not show any decks and there were no variances granted. Baker advised that the builder digressed from the original plans.He noted that they now Just wanted to make It right and correct. He advised that only the bottom step will actually encroach the wetlands. Gaffron noted that In 1979 docks were likely not considered when hardcover was calculated. Schroeder noted that there Is a reduction in hardcover, but only of non—structure 1, plastic-type hardcover. He felt that It should never have been there and therefore should n» t be presented as a positive.He asked If the patio/deck area Is proposed at a minimum. Hurr noted that It Is proposed at 647 s.f., and Is about the same size as the pool.She noted that It Is not that big. Hurr added that a pool without access to a bathroom other than through the living room Is not a very good design feature. An open stairway down to the lower level to a bath and bedroom Is a necessity. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16. 1991 ZONING FILE #1665 • CONT. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of application #1685, Edward F. Baker,for property located at 3059 Farvlew Lane, for hardcover and setback variances to reconstruct deck area and stairway. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#13) #1686 JOHN BURGER 3750 BAYSIDE ROAO SKETCH PLAN REVIEW John Burger and Dan Johnson of Burnett Realty were for this application. present Mabusth explained that Mr. Burger proposes a three lot subdivision.Lots A and B are within the LR-lA, 2 acre zoning district and Lots C plus Cl are within the RR-lA, 5 acre zoning district.Lot C is located on the north side of the Luce Line. Lot Cl Is proposed as the building site, using Lot C for credit to meet the 5 acre requirement. Lot Cl is 2 acres'*-, which meets the 2 acre coritiguous standard for rural lots.Mr. Burger would execute a special lot combination to combine both lots. Lot C on the north side would never be built upon.within the last several years, Mr. Burger has tried to gain access to his northern lot, but to no avail. Lot Cl will need a width variance as the lot only measures 210'. She went on to explain that the subdivision as presented as If It were a sewered property. Mr seeking credit of the wetland area.She asked the they would consider the subdivision based on density a sewered property, and condition the preliminary approval subject to availability of sewer In the noted that this property has always been Included In sewered district. proposed Is Burger Is Commission 1f credits for subdivision future. She the proposed Rowlette moratorium. asked If this property - Is Included the Mabusth agreed that the southern portion of the property Is Included within the moratorium.She noted that Mr. Burger has Just received consent of an owner within Bayside Landing to sell an access easement to his proposed Lot Cl a C. Up until now. he has not been able to obtain any type of access easement. Cohen felt that the southern portion should be put on hold until sewer Is approved for the area, but had no problem with the northern lots. Johnson noted that the moratorium restricts doing anything at this point. Mabusth explained that people can apply for a variance to the moratorium If they can prove that the subdivision will not be Impacted by the shoreland regulations proposed, and at this point, we would be dealing with the property located In the rural areas. >'rv MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16. 1991 ZONING FILE #1686 - CONT. Rowlette asked how we would deal with the future owner who wants access to the northern lot. Mabusth noted that legal access to Lot Cl would have to be approved prior to final plat approval, and Lot Cl would be the building envelope with no access available to Lot C. Dan Johnson felt that it would be the future owners of Lot Cl and C*s responsibility to determine prior to purchase their abilities to gain access over the Luce Line. Cohen had a problem approving the use of Lot C for credit for Lot Cl as you could never use that portion of property for anything. Johnson asked about rezoning Lot Cl. Mabusth noted that they originally did not rezone this portion because they did not want to create higher density In this area. Schroeder suggested that Lot Cl be rezoned to 2 acre zoning with the provision that Lot C be given to the park.Ho felt Lot C has very little value to anyone buying the property. Burger noted that the market value on that piece Is $16,000 and he pays about $800 per year In taxes.He noted that he originally bought the property with the Intent of a PUD. however that never materialized.Ho also had thought Lot C may be used for the septic system for Lot Cl If the ONR would grant a temporary building easement over the Luce Line.Burger noted that he could dedicate Lot C for park use, but he would rather do something else. Mabusth noted that the access easement from the property on Bayside Landing would be through the homeowners private drive, which would eliminate the need for a drive across the wetlands. Cohen noted that he would not approve a subdivision contingent upon the availability of sewer. Burger noted that If he cannot go ahead and purchase the access easement which Is now available to him, he would have to build a drive across the wetland In the future, and he would rather not do that. Johnson felt that density credit shculd be gi^en to Lot Cl for Lot C. Mabusth asked If the Commission would approve variance for Lot Cl If approved. Cohen noted that he would grant such a variance, noted that two members of the Commission were absent. a width He also « ■i.- :.r* I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 lONXNQ FILE #1686 - CONT. 0. Johnson asked the Commission to enlighten their feelings on subdividing Lots A and B. them about Cohen felt that even If sewer Is available, each lot should have 2 acres dry bulldable. Rowlette advised that when sewer Is available, wetla.<o be used as credit for lot area. Cohen noted that he would approve the subdivision If the sewer became available. Rowlette agreed with Cohen and noted that she would agree to Lots Cl and C being developed as one lot. If It were put In writing that they can never, never be subdivided, the zoning must always remain 5 acres, and building must never be allowed on the northern portion. D. Johnson repeated that the Commission would consider a subdivision of Lots A and B, subject to sewer availability. The Commission agreed. D.Johnson went on to note they would agree to of Lots Cl and C to become one developable lot. combination The Commission agreed and they noted the building envelope has to be on the south side of the tracks. (#14) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE Mr. Cohen attended the meeting and had nothing to report. (#15) LAKE USE COMMITTEE REPORT Schroeder noted they have continued to have meetings and Invited anyone to attend. (#16) REPORT BY FACILITIES COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE Mabusth Invited everyone to the Design Committee meetings held on Tuesdays at 5:00 in the Orono Education Link Building, Room 107L. (#17) OTHER ISSUES Gaffron asked the Commission how they would feel about granting an additional variance to the Traff property on North Shore Drive. He explained Traff sold the property to a new owner. •• MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16. 1991 OTHER ISSUES - CONT. Rowlette noted that the Commission disapproved the original request to be wider and felt that the house should be built within the setbacks.She felt that they should not grant any further variances.The rest of the Commission agreed. Rowlette noted that the Council did grant the 6' setback variance and she felt that shouldn’t even have been approved. Gaffron noted that the variance approval would have to bo clarified, was it granted for that specific house or was It for a house that met that setback. Cohen noted that if the house requires any other variances they would have to come back. Gaffron also Informed the Commission that Paul Boyke on Lydiard Lake wants to subdivide his property which would need a variance to the morltorium. He could also be affected by the new shoreland regulations. The Commission noted that he would have to come In for the variance. (#18) APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Johnson, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 19, 1991 as submitted. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#l«) PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE Moos agreed to go to th*j next Council meeting t be held on October 14, 1991. ADJOURNMENT Cohen adjourned the September 16, 1991 meeting at 11:10 p.re. Edward Cohen, Acting Chair Person CITY OF WAYZATA la .ti- -K)Riel srR^;^r. \e^vzArA. misn 55341 PHONE 4-}.o:34 oct 1931 October 3, 1991 Mr. Gene Strominen, Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 E. Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Gene: The City received the final draft of the LMCD Lake Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka on September 30th and copies were distributed to Council Members at the October 1st Council meeting. However, due to a busy agenda and lack of time to review the document, no action was taken. An October 11th deadline was suggested for the cities to comment on the draft Management Plan so that the Board could hold a special meeting on October 16th. Unfortunately, the Council will not be able to meet prior to this deadline. Because of the great deal of time spent this last year on the Management Plan, the Wayzata Council feels very strongly that the Board should not consider the plan on the 16th, but should delay consideration to the regular Board meeting of October 23rd. This should alJow time for all cities to respond in a responsible manner and possibly avoid a repeat occurrence of past miscommunications. In addition, the Council feels strongly that the newly appointed LMCD Board Members should be able to vote on the Plan with direction frem their respective City Counci?s. Sincere Rob«(^t Mayor cc:LMCD Member Cities Mary Anderson, Metropolitan Council Dirk DeVries, Metropolitan Council Jim Uttley, Metropolitan Council LAKE MINNETONKA COrRSERWro 160 WAYZATA,900 EAST WAr?ATA BOUlfVAnO, SU1 DISTRICT TELEPIIONC %i2t47%rtm October 7, 19^1 CUOtNC n. STROUMEN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MMOMnWAt ANfiar«Mr.VlQ»CM MwiilonMiMtfi N. la LMuff "OCT 9 The Honorable Robert Gisvold Mayor, City of Wayzata 1515 Birch Bend Lane Wayzata Mn 55391 Dear Mayor Gisvold: Your October 3, 1991 letter, suggesting the LMGU board delay its consideration of the Management Plan for Lake Mnnetonka from Its October 16 special board meeting to the October 23 regular board meeting, has been reviewed in light of all the circumstances leading to this decision. We see the City of Wayzata’s concern at being that of having thn opportunity to respond by the special board meeting of October 16.Since the timing of your next council meeting If October 15, the board would remain open to the suggestions your council may have as a result of its October 15 meeting. These comments miy then be presented to the LMCD board at the October 16 meeting. Since the final review and adoption of the management plan is the only purpose of that meeting, the board will have the opportunity to give your response full and thorough consideration at th«' time. We trust this will meet your council's objectives. It also serves the LMCD board's eoal to have the board members who have been Instru* mental in developing this plan the pas. :hree years, be the board members as the group to ratify its newl^ revised content. The timing of the review and adoption procedures was presented to the city representatives at the September 18 management plan review meeting with the cltl<'s, and the consensus was reached to C3rry It out In that cnannei . We sincerely look forward c • .f Wayzata City Council being among the lA lake communities .onc ur'.ng that the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka now serves the La'^e's best interest through co­ operative effort of the agencies and cities. The enclosed agenda outlines the order of proceedings which will be held during this special boird meeting on October 16. Thank you for presenting your city's position at that time. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT ivid H. Cochran, Chair Cl Wayzata Council, Al Orsen LMCD Municipalities Duane Markus Mary Andersor Metropolitan Council Dirk deVries, Metropolitan Council Jim Uttley, Metropolitan Council •••Lake Minnetonka Conservation District f A.Response from Lake Minnetonka clties--comments and recommendations B.Response from affected agencies II If ft C.Response from citizen lake groups If It If D.Comments from Interested individuals If ft p BOARD OF DIRECTORS NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING AND AGENDA 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 16, 1991 Tonka Bay City Hall 4901 Manitou Road (Co. Rd. 19) 1.Call to Order, Approval of Agenda 2.Discussion of final draft, Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka 3.Comments from LMCD Management Plan Consultant Dr. Da'^ld Arndorfer 4.LMCD board .evlew and recommendation for subt .tal to the Metropolitan Counci1 5.Other business related to the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka 6.Adjournment 10-7-91 Lake Minnetonka Conservat- n Di 473-7033 an CF C«CN0ST! [lEdu^'•j L.M.C.D. MEETING SCHEDULE October 1991 'SEP 2 ^ 1991 Thursday Technical Review Committee 8:00 a.m., //135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Tuesday 8 Advisory Committee Agency Comment Review, Long-Term Management Plan Study 5:30 p.m., LMCD office, Wayzata (Please use west entrance, Wayzata Blvd) Wednesday Subcommittee on LMCD Policies and Procedures Study 8:00 a.m., LMCD office, Wayzata Saturday 12 Water Structures & Environment Committee 7:30 a.m., #133 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Monday 14 Columbus Day Holiday - LMCD office closed Wednesday 16 LMCD Board of Directors Special Meeting for final approval of Long-Term Management 7:30 p.m.. Tonka Bay City Hall Friday 18 Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force 8:30 a.m., #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata it Monday 21 Lake Use Committee 4:30 p.m., #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Wednesday 23 LMCD Board of Directors Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m.. Tonka Bay City Hall 9-26-91 i 9-26-91 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 473-7033 EVENTS SCHEDULE October 1991 Saturday 5 10:00 am Sunday 6 7:00 am Saturday 12 10:00 am Saturday 19 10:00 am Saturday 26 10:00 am WYC Commodore Course, 1st Commodore Cup Viking Bassmasters of Minnesota, bass fishing tournament. North Shore Drive Marina vnfc Commodore Course,2nd Commodore Cup WYC Commodore Course,3rd Commodore Cup WYC Main Lake , Frostbite Race September 21» 1991 0L_ j'uais CTYOfC'CVO i>I' \ To: Orono City Staff Uo .’SEP 2 4 1991 Orono Council Re: Stubbs Bay Sewer Over the past two years we have attended meetings and have had conversations withMarKBernhardsen, Mike Gaffix)n, John Gehardson and the City Council regarding the Stubbs Bay Sewer Project. We have asked to be taken out of this project. Our main concerns are: 1.Our home is on a 2 acre lot with adequate sewer backup sites; 2.We are not on the trunk line or any lateral line. A special line has been drawn on the map to include our property. In addition* our property is not lakeshore property; 3.We do not need this sewer and have had no problems. Our home was built in 1981, so the system is approximately 10 years old. In addition, we believe there would be minim al, if any, increase in value to our property if the trunk line were to be put in on Bayside, or even ii the line were to be extended to our home on Eileen Street. At the April 9,1990 Council meeting, the City Council voted to pass a resolution US know if we need to nrovioe any documentation to insure tlus Know if we need to provide any documentation to insure that we stay exempt from this project. We respectfully request that you continue to exempt our property and others with ■imilar characteristics. Thank you. Sincerely, David and Sherokee Ilse 3630 Eileen Street Maple Plain, MN 56359 enc. minutes of ORONO council meeting held APRIL 9, 1990 STUBBS BAY SEWER CONTINUED nionev just to include it.th« City i» .pending a gre»t daa. o£ ,35 i:T\tr:r.ul lata^ax ia^.e« to ,«vo iS., it would also serve 175 Landmark Drive. j ^4.^1 vh/»«- i*- would not make sense to includeBernhardson is not extended up Stubbs BayChristine Drive if the lateral Road. aH > norrion of a memo frora Mike Gaffron to MS. Whitman read « stated that the Whitman the Council, functional trench drainfield systems ;Sd totl re7to°rVlo=» sane, U soil teating finds suitable conditions for trenches. Mayor Grabefc pJoLJtierihould''be He felt «.t*c“nci *%bould have" an option to 9^^-rTor"in'=° u^?on! :^*2id°tb« VbV «tte"\”tn«":s“b«reUabiisbed seens GrabeK said willing to naKe a decision this prividertbat adiustnents can be made pending the receipt of further information. counci inenbet Vo»“ns^“*Go.« tSarth* to allow exclusions may P where tne project stands. ISr nit".d raf tne« Te p°r"pert°ies 'around Stubbs say that need to be sewered immediately. tsVoU“the areas to be excluded. council wm ^ basis. ??“• he/^Wtlles* quHuSned wnether council would use crlteri. eucb a. Mayoracreage, etc. when considering case oy ca j considered. Grabek stated that those sent to MS. Barren Road.Bernhardson stated that properties to e^^^on Oxford to see if there Is :S5'JS?.r«“t MotlX A^es-4, Lllanan. Nay. Motion passed. S«C«A.. -XXXOM - -“=iimember Caiiana„.^_^se^o„d^_Oy isr^tb^ir t"n; b\ring%7\ person to" fill the .ecretary -16 - i' a're 4490.4 TO:Mayor and City Council 9-r).t FROM: Mack E. Bccnhacdson, City Administrator sV OATS: April 4, 1990 SUBJECT: Stubus Bay Sewer Project Attachments: A.Stubbs Bay Sewer Project Memo Dated 3/14/90 B.Series of Maps Labeled A Through F ISSUE - 1.Consideration of: A.Inclusion of properties presently not included. B.Consideration for excluding selected properties which are currently being considered in the Stubbs Bay area. introduction - At the Council's March 26, 1990 meeting Council requested sTaff to provide criteria and provide recommendation for inclusion of selected areas and exclusion of others in the Stubbs Bay project. The original study area boundary criteria was: A.AS Shown of map 12 of Comp Plan/Sewer Plan. (See Attached Map A.} B.Refined by staff in 1986 to coincide with existing roads and physical boundaries: C.Map A and staff revisions purposely avoided north of Luce^Line, west of Tonkawa, and south of Baysid. (eastend) since these properties were all after the 1975 tezoning at greater than 2 acre density, with proven septic sites available and were relatively far from the lake. D.Areas east of Leaf and north of Luce Line were also due to distance from the Xdke« DISCUSSION - In response to the Council's request, the following recommendations are made: Required Inclusion: Staff feels the criteria for r-'quired inclusion in this project should be: A.Within the study area as originally defined or B.Abuttihg the study area but under 2 acres. ri r* »•These peoperties are defined on Map 'C optional Inclusion; Additional properties which could be optionally included unde all the following recommended criteria are shown on Map D: A, Abut either gravity force main or possible lateral. B.At request of majority of affected owners. C.Provision of sewer will not allow rezoning. Total Exclusions: - Properties proposed for inclusion on Map C but requesting to be totally excluded are recommended to be excluded only if all the following criteria are met: A.Lot area is over 2 dry buildable acres. B.The property docs not abut a gravity trunk or lateral (see Map E) C.Adequate primary and alternate septic sites have been proven to exist 'formal site evaluation required at owners expense). D.Applicant agrees to formally preserve the alternate sites by deed restrictions and actual practice. Map F is areas which ate at least 2 acres of dry buildable and not abutting a trunk. Partial Exclusions: Properties that meet all requirements for total exclusion except that they abut a gravity service into which they can directly connect, might be excluded required timely connection by paying merely the 56,500 charge over the term of assessment, with a conneetion fee to te paid at the time of connection. This includes properties that meet all requirements tor total exclusion but “he lateral to serve them would be required to serve adjacent and nearby properties which do not meet exclusion criteria. In these areas of partial exclusion in which all sepfe systems in that lateral service area are functioni_r non**polluting systems, could be given the leeway to pay for !^unk now and install the neighborhood lateral if any one of the systems fails and can't be repaired to meet the code requirements. This should be a last resort attempt if the project appears to be grinding to a halt. f Bicvtii properties within the recommended "required inclusion •..V h. »1... • • area miqht meet the total exclusion criteria {Map F). Of these, 3 are vacant lots. Of the 11, 8 could be served by gravity laterals leading to gravity mains that wouldy^need to have a lift station constructed. All properties which pay a trunk charge would be included in a MUSA line Comprehensive Plan adjustment. Those total exclusions should they desire sewer in the future would need to be part of a separate Comprehensive Plan amendment. The following residents have generally expressed that they wish to be excluded : Based on criteria the following would qualify for : Full Exclusion Par tial Exclusion 175 Landmark - Barren - Letter 185 Landmark - Lyle - Letter 3620 Eileen Street - Whitman - Letter 3620 Eileen Street - Use - Letter 3965 Baysidc - Blanch - Letter 3640 Baysidc - Olson - Letter No No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No Yes The following have generally expressed support for the project: 3845 Bayside - Thiessc - Letter 3750 Bayside - Burger - Verbal ■3480" Baysidc - Larson - Numerous phone calls The following is an indication of the possible sway in the number of units for the project, based on potential exclusions and optional inclusions. This would indicate that the number of units could range up or down as much as 10 to 15%. Required original Additional Design Inclusion Potential Per 2 Acre Map C Exclusion Oxford & Christine If all Potential Potential Optional Participate Inclusions Plus Optional Inclusions -6-8 » 77-79 13 b Lots -2-3 * 10-U taL itM 98 a-11 » 87-90 13 100-103 111 ALTEBHATIVES - A.Inclusions ........................■lI“Adopt the Map C criteria for required inclusions '■fc. r- CCI 2.Select alternate required inclusion criteria. 3.Adopt proposed "optional inclusion" criteria per Map D. 4.Select alternate "optional inclusion" criteria. 5.Table. 6.Take no action. 7.Not include any additional properties B.Exclusions 1.Adopt proposed criteria and allow total exclusion of those properties on Map F that meet the criteria. 2.Adopt alternate criteria. 3.Adopt some or all of "partial exclusion" criteria, items 1, 2 or 3. 4.Table. 5, Do not exclude any properties from the original. BBCONMENDATION - It is recommended that the criteria presented by •tall Toe 'inclusions and exclusions be adopted and that the propecties listed be given notice if they arc to be included, a *;w%aC^' to the optional ones as to the availability if they desire to be included and a letter to the ones for exclusion. It not anticipated that the exclusions would have a detrimental effect on the total project of approximately 90-100 properties. PBOPOSEO MOTION - Moved by , seconded by _, that the Council direct staff to include the “Following properties in the project and further direct that notice be sent to the following locations to determine the desire for optional inclusion and further that staff be directed to exclude the following properties and that the following properties be informed that they will not be excluded from the project at this time.Ayes __, Nays —. Inclusions: Map C East of Leaf Optional Inclusions: Oxford Road Exclusions Allowed if Criteria Met: Christine Exclusions Not Allowed: (if criteria for exclusion not met) partial exclusion :...—.— Michael Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator HENNEPIN DATE: TO: FROM: September 16. 1991 Commissioner Tad Jude Robert H. Rohlf^'^*^ SUBJECT: long lake library - orono school I have had a conversation with Tom Misch, Orono School Superintendent, regarding the possibility of school and liorary cooperation rega^ng library facilities either in the Orono school or on the County-owned library site on Highway 12. The conversation wai very positive and cordial and we agreed that at the moment there are no particular plans th.at either one of us has in mind, nor are financially possible, in relationship to either library expai 'on or school expansion. We .greed that as time goes on, when the library is placing a .y libra^ dcvel pment or building in or on the Orono site, we will be in touch with him and he in turn will inform us when the school may begin any thoughts of expansion or development. We both agree that libniy cooperation would be highly desirable but that there arc many elements that have to be considered including that of timing in order for something to progress. We will be in touch with each other on a regular basis and I will keep you informed of any developments. It would simply appear that it is far too early for anything to be planned at this stage, given Mth the uncertainties of library funding and of school expansion or growth plans. The issue is on the Library Board agenda on September 26. :cs c: Hennepin County Library Board r !■ j?.- c m cfMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL OISTRICt HELD ON SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 QPpNO ] SEPi 2 5 1991 The rc„ lar meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Monday, September 9, 1991. Present: David McKown Don Anderson James Franklin John Maresh Peg Swanson Martha Van de Ven Thomas Mich Neal Lawson UPON MOTION by John Maresh, seconded by Jim Franklin, tne consent agenda was approved as follows: -approved the minutes of the August 12, 1991 regular meeting; -approved the appointment of Marcia Behring as a part-time gifted teacher at Orono Primary School for the 1991-92 school year; -approved the appointment of Kathy Grundei as a part-time art teacher at the Orono Primary School for tne 1991-92 school year; -approved the appointment of Jacky Anderson as part-time guidance office receptiooist/clerk at the high school; -approved the appointment of Kelli McKown as an instructional parapro- fessional for the swimming pool area; -approved the appointment of Bette Perl as part-time Community Education receptionist/clerk; -accepted the resignation of Georgia Hawkinson, short hour cook at the middle school, effective August 1, 1991; -accepted the resignation of Susan Anderson, high school custodian, effec­ tive August 15, 1991; -accepted the resignation of Phyllis Simon, paraprofessional at Orono Prima School, effective August 26, 1991; -approved the continued use of the Community Resource Pool for 1991-92, costs to be shared by the Orono Education Fund and Orono Community Education; -approved the Treasurer's Report for June, 1991; -approved the bills as covered by vouchers 070830 through 071229. Motion carried. Board member McKown abstained. Or. Mich reported that the suiwier worker's picnic in August was a success and that he wanted to thank the Board members for their attendance; that he wanted to express appreciation to Sue Sjekloch . Evy Zacher, Neal Lawson, Norma Franklin and the administrators for their work/efforts for the new teacher orientation day on August 23; that the start of the school year was excellent with very few problems that workshop week went well beginning with an excellent presentation by Warren Nelson; that the middle school held an orientation program this August which was well attended; that he wanted to express appre­ ciation to the high school parents who sponsored the street dance for students after the football game last Friday; that he had contacted Doug Erickson regarding the student Board member and is waiting for a re..pon‘•^e; that he wanted to draw their attention to the annual ^^aff development FjCL'S '91 which tney had received in their packets; that the annual tenure cerer’jny wi' I be held at the second meeting in October; that on September 12 he wculr ittending a sym­ posium regarding Governor Carlson's program "Minnesota 20^ wnich is the state level answer to President Bush's educational initiative, tn-it he was distri­ buting Boarii meeting dates, committee assignments. Boa; 'dmi' -strative respon­ sibilities, curriculum review cycle committees and the N - review cycle. Dave McKowr- informed the Board that Neal Lawson is partir ipt'ting in the Bush Program and stated that it is an honor for Orono to have mother adm’nist'-ator involved in this program. Dr. Mich provided the Board with an update on the pi .'gress the 1991-92 Imprrvement Goal’’ h h were approved by the Board of Eoucai ^. >t 12, 1991. He reviewer each goal and noted the act. vi ties that h.^^ > -n ^.^mpleted or have been scheduled in meeting each of these goa s. •. • . '*'icn answered questions from the Board for clarification purposes. Or. Mich addressed the District leve’ goal for the 1991-92 school year regarding long-range planning and the process by which sucr planning should be developed. Discussion ensued and Board members provided Dr. Mich with suggestions for target areas/areas of concentration. Accordingly, Dr. Mich will develop a list from which Board members will develop a workable number of long-'^ange planning committees. Dr. Mich provided the Board with a brief model of how the District co.'tinually moves toward improvement in both cur<^iculum and instructi-’n. He stated that ’n order for a school district to be truly effective in providing for student learning, attention must be given not only to the curriculum (tne content) but also to the nstruction (the actual teaching) and ihat work must b-? continually done in order lo strike the right balance between !■ ; two. The Boa. u neard a report from Martha Klem anc Cindy Conger, teachers at Schumann Elementary, regarding their scr->ol's theme this year - "The Clympics”. Ms. KIt’n stated that this theme was chosen mainly because the philosophy behind the Olympics focuses on many of the areas tnat teachers work to develop and enrich in their students every day such as; cooperation, participation, sportsmanship, the development of the whole child do;h ohysically and mentally, promoting resf*.‘Cf for others as well as individually, and working to be the best person the student can be. In addition, each classroom will study a specific cou.Iry during ‘he year. Ms. Conger provided th« ^'ard with a synopsis of the all school activities that have been planned fr ine year and e/tended an invi- t? on to the Board fc 'sit the school dur* t^e year and attend any >< *he planned a:* • ,ities. Connie Fladeland, 'Principal of C’ ono Primary School, reported to the Board on the opening of th^ school year at ^he primary school covering such areas as enrollment, staffing, and the theme for this yea*' v ’'h is "Ororio Primary Flight 1991-92*. Ms. Fladeland stated that the areas of roc-s of t»e theme are "Friendship", "The World", and "Our Heritage" ard that using a theme provides an opportunity to ''tegrate 1. e cur'-lc.'lum and help students see the connections h F • V: j* i. 'F ' l- between different subject areas. One of the highlights of the theme this year will be a field trip for students to the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. She expressed appreciation to the Maple Plain and Orono Lions Clubs for the funds whicf they have provided which have enabled the use of outside instructors/speakers. Board members were impressed with both programs that were presented and expressed appreciation to those who have put forth so much time/effort in order to bring such excitement to education which results in fostering a very positive atr.K)sphere in our schco’*^. UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by John Maresh, the meeting was adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. Appro' id: (y John Maresh, Clerk hD^ve McKown, Chairman LAWN ORDINANCE WORKSHOP November 1991 Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge, Bloomington Announcing a one-day, metro-area workshop for municipal-decision makers interested in the issue of lawn ordinances. The city of Bloomington and the National Wildflower Research Center • Midwest Office will cO'Sponsor a day of background information on the lawn ordinance issue. The goal of the day Is to jointly define a draft ordinance (or cities in our area. To the best of our knowledge, this cooperative process has not been attempted anywhere else in the country. Let's work together on this issue! From this workshop you ’ll gather the pieces you need to review your own ordinance puzzle. The tentative agenda is as follows: 8:30 9:30 10:30 11:00 11:30 Comparing existi'*' local ordinances. Bonnie Harper-Lore, National Wildflower Research Center - Midwest Office. Wayzata Background • case studies, legalities, design trends, and benefits of natural lawns. John Diekelman, Madison. Wl Keeping the neighbors happy; weed definitions, permit use, management needs, and pesky plants/pesky critters misconceptions. Jay Rendalt, White Bear Lake Native plants on roadsides. Bob Jacobson, Minnesota Department of Transportation Native plants in parks. Larry Gillette, Hennepin County 12:00 Box lunch ($6.00) 12:30 1:00 1:30 2:30 Planting natural lawns. Ron Bowen, Prairie Retoration, Inc., Princeton Planting natural gardens. Roy Robison, Landscape Alternatives, St. Paul The Chicago story: a current case study. Bret Rappaport. Chicago, IL !?r^’nstorming the process, guidelines, definitions, etc. L-.jr\ Jensen, City of Bloomington. The meeting room has been scheduled. Please call to confirm who will represent your city. Register through the city of Bloomington 687>9636 or the Wildflower Center 479-0045 bv October 15. Donald Jer^n Associate Planner City of Bloomington Bonnie Harper-Lore Program Coordinator National Wildflower Research Center DTYCfOPCNOLiiaedo^^ N ational Wildflowtr R esearch Center -----Midwest R egional Office nP, [SER 2 .4 1991 Mission The Midwest Office of the National VVildflower J^esearch Center promotes the preserv'a tion and use of native trees, shrubs, wildflowers, and grasses throughout the midwest. This office serves as a source of information on native flora for homeowners, landscape architects, municipalities, developers, county extension agents, state agencies, garden dubs, and others. First-Year Plans----------------------- •Host a midwest native plant research colloquium •Host a midwest conference on landscaping with native plants •Organize an advisory committee •Set up a database of regional information •Develop a reference and slide library of regional native plants Services ---------------------------------- In 1991 and the future, the Midwest Regional Office will provide a variety of services. Staff members will: •create fact sheets, •organize workshops, •write articles for a variety of publications, •enco ’irage children's native plant projects, •suppor t other organizations involved with native plants, •develop a regional fa ‘ booklet and travel ing (hsplay, •establish native plant demonstrations, •organize a volunteer training workshop, and •coordinate a midwest research network to identify native plant research needs. Requests ----------------------------------- Since the Midwest Regional Office op ened, various groups and individuals have requested assistance. Staff members have been asked to: •speak at native plant conferences and other meetings, •testify on city lawn ordinances, •advise the environmental group Kids for Saving Earth, •work with citv/countv roadside managers, •publish a prairie bibliography, and •guide Arbor Day and other special events. Response ----------------------------------- Public response to the Wildflower Center's Midw ’est Regional Office has been gratifying. Numerous groups have offered to collaborate on various projects with the Mid west Office staff. Several businesses have donated seeds, equipment, and services to the ofiice. Two photographers, a landscape artist, and vari ous others have volunteered their time and services to the Midwest Regional Office. 725 Spring Hill Road ^^ayzafa, Minnesota 5559! f6t2) 473^0045 kV I. n. V. VI. vn. TH 12 CORIUDOR STUDY TH 101 - TH 25 1 c~ z- c~c* :> POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE 1)CT' 11 1991 Wednesday, October 16, 1991 Orono Schools - Education Link Building Room 107-L 705 Old Crystal Bay Road N. 5:30 p.m. AGENDA Call to Order Approval of August 21 and September 18, 1991 Minutes Status of Alternative Layouts IV.TH12/CR6/TH55 Limited Upgrade Forecast Discussion of Impact Evaluation Criteria and Results (as revised) Other Business Comments from the Audience Vin.Next Meeting IX.Adjournment DRAFT TH U CORRIDOR STUDY Policy Cominittee Meeting Maple Plain City Hall September IS, 1991 Memhera Pre8''ntt T. Humbert, B. Bauman, B. Swartwood, D. Poss, M. Johnson, M. Alger, B.Peterson Alternatea Present! D. Harmon, M. Butler nthmn L Dallam, R. Harris, S. Hay, P. Zietlow, R. Moorse, J.D. Goetten, R. Peterson, A. Cosgrove, M. Swan, P. Swanson, S. Luse, J. Waight, K. Richardson, D. Plugner, D.Stenson, J. Jensen, J. Hoeft, J. Bems, B. Griffith, J. Reuter, E. Moriarty, M. Larson, D. Painter, L. Olson, P. Pittel, S. Pittel, K. Madson, A. Reckner, F. Haug, M. Underhill, A, Pederson, L. Scalt M. Hartfiel, B. Nowak, K. Wenger, B. Alexander, L. Drawert, D. Molin, J, Pederson, A. Behmer, B. Becker, B. Hentges, D. Belimer, R. Holm, J. James, P. Schoon rTtair Johiison called the meeting to order at 5:37 p.m. He explained that the previous month’s meeting minutes would be distributed at this meeting for committee review. He also ^irplalni^t the typical TH 12 Corridor Study meeting schedule and policy of the agenda for the benefit of the audience. Status of Lavonts S.Hay explained that all layouts were mailed out except 2E (available tonight) and Alt 2 for Long Lake (and Maple Plain). Cntnmgnt< nn T .avniits’ B.Swartwood requested to have the original South Bj^ass Corridor restudied (Mn/DOT*s 1960’s layout) because cities have based Comprehensive Plans on it Hay/L. Dallam said that the currem South Bypass alternatives are very similar to the 1960*s layout Hay said that Mn/DOT would look at it individually and discuss the possibility of restudying it with the City of Long Lake. B. Peterson said that Orono removed the original South Bypass Corridor from their Comprehensive Plan Update in 1980. Impact Evaluation Criteria Dallam distributed a revised impact evaluation criteria sheet for the project and said that each criterion was developed with respect to the goals, issues, and concerns previously identified by each municipality, the counties, and the State to measure the potential impacts of each alternative with the most objective evaluation possible, with the available information. Dallam asked the Committee if the evaluation criteria were adequate. The Chair asked that cemeteries be added to evaluation criteria (as a social impact). TH 12 Policy Committee Meeting September 18, 1991 Page 2 There was discussion about residences within a corridor as a social economic impact Dallam said that residential impacts are also considered economic impacts, but is only listed once. The Chair asked what the impaa is within the corridor to properties/land during the period of time before the project is actually built and whether it should be included as a criterion. (Nobody will want to buy a home, for example, if it is identified within the corridor.) Dallam said funds are made available through the Right-of-way Acquisition Loan Fund program (RALF) administered by the Metropolitan Council at the timg of the preliminary layout and final EIS for economic hardships caused by the project. The Chair said that this is an issue which warrants further attention. P.21ietlow asked if the criterion which identifies the number of units and businesses includes property valuations. Dallam said that the EIS w ould cover the impact to property valuations, and that it was hoped that the projea scoping could be completed without this element. Dallam also explained that properties identified in the scoping within a corridor does not necessarily mean they will be "taken". T. Humbert added that one of the purposes of project scoping is to use available qualitative information to narrow the number of viable alternatives, and that quantitative information will be used extensively in the EIS. The Chair asked if under the traffic impact criteria that sight distancing was included. Dallam said that it was included within # 13. B.Bauman agreed that cemeteries should be added to the impact criteria. He also asked that aerial photography be used to cover the remaining western portion of the study area in Franklin Township, and suggested that the ASCS in Wright County would be able to assist. D.Harmon stated Wayzata’s Public Works facility is planned, but not committed (as a potential impaa in Criterion #1). P.Zietlow asked if each evaluation criteria would receive equal weight. Dallam said yes, so they can be ranked for assistance to municipalities and Mn/DOT to drop alternatives or to recommend an alternative for fi'rther study. D.Poss asked that traffic criterion #14 be explained. Dallam explained that safety and convenience of movement of local traffic (auto, pedestrian and bicycles) along and aaoss existing TH 12 are the major considerations. B.Peterson asked what would be included in the estimated constniciion costs. Dallam said that only construction costs (rounded off to nearest $5 milhon) and not ROW or other acquisition/relocation expenses, are included. The EIS will detail the costs of each alternative. TH 12 Policy Committee Meeting September 18,1991 Page 3 B.Swartwood asked if the economic impacts to businesses/residences would also consider tax base losses? Dailam said that this would be examined in the EIS and that it is hopeful that the girixting evaluation criteria can be used to narrow alternatives. Dallam then distributed a preliminary impact evaluation summary (by community/county) and said that revisions will (hopefully) be mailed out prior to the next meeting. He explained the impacts to Wayzata as an example to go over each criterion. The Committee requested the drafts be sent out with agendas to the other study committees for their reaction and input. Dallam also explained some judgements made to evaluate the impacts - •for example, if a significant portion of a property was located within a corridor, but not the residential unit, then it was counted). For Orono ’s wetlands, he said that due to the need for data consistency between communities, the acreage from the Mn/DNR - USF&W maps would probably understate the number of wetlands identified, in addition, by the City of Orono. This would be true for other portions of the study area. Dallam asked the Committee for their comments on the draft material one week after the Technical/Citizens’s Committees ha'-’e met (on October 1st). For the next Policy Committee meeting, it is desired to have all correct information for each alternative. Dallam said that the requested T.112/CR 6/TH 55 limited u/^adc traffic forecast would be mailed to the Policy Committee and presented to the Technical and Citizens Committees. The Chair stated that the neA.i meeting w''’Ud be :ld October 16lh. The Committee discussed changing the location of the Pi Comi.i:ttee Meeting to a larger facility accommodate the growing attendance - possibly one of Orono ’s schools? Hay will investigate. Other Business The draft minutes for the August 21, 1991 Policy Committee meeting were distributed for review for the next meeting. B.Peterson said that former Transportation Commissioner Riley ’s Dec. 31st deadline for T/\ng Lake/Orono to come to agreement could be difficult for them to reach and asked if an extension would be possible. Hay said that an extension would be possible. (Peterson said it was Orono ’s understanding that the impact evaluation would be discussed in detail at tonight ’s meeting). Humbert said MuDOT would not go ahead without allowing the communities to jointly study the issue. TH 12 Polky Committee Meeting September 18,1991 Page 4 Comments from the Audience The Chair opened the meeting to members of the Audience. Questions and ^mments were received from the following individuals^ responses were provided by Hay, Dallam, and Humbert Brian Nowak (Independence)! If hard economic issues are not gomg to be in the scopmg do <*»imf»nt, he plans to ask his City Council to appropriate funds to pay for additional economic study. Response: Scoping is supposed to be a process that qualitatively looks at issues and alternatives to be studied in an EIS. Q: A; Is the upgrade of existing TH 12 considered to be a "build" alternative? Yes Finn Haug (Medina): Has anyone approached BNRR to use the railroad tracks; to reroute the BNRR, bury it or abandon it? Response: Yes ~ but it is a main route for them.Why does BN have more "rights" than a property owner? Response: They don’t — but it is veiy difficult to relocate RR’s - and it usually isn’t a viable option. Discussion: Use same ROW for RR and roadway? Response: Ver\ ’.-.’nensive plus would still have to relocate numerous residences. Peter Seboon (Long Lake): Percent of tax base lost - to pull information is not difficult. Real estate tax data touched within the corridor should be included in impact. Response: Probably won ’t be done at this stage (not appropriate) - but it is an issue and is very important Mary Butler (Orono): Explain condemnation and ROW acquisition procedure? Response: Mn/DOT can acquire ROW for use for roadway — generally — if property is touched it is acquired. Pete Pittel (Long Lake): An alternative roughly paralleling the old RR route -- Luce Line - . should be reconsidered, because of engineering considerations and fewer environmental constraints. Response: The Luce Line’s former status as a RR does not mean a route near it will provide an environmentally less-sensitive facility. Rick Holmes (Long Lake): How is the value of property in tuture ROW determined? Response: A certified appraiser (or two) from Mn/DOT is dispatched to appraise (plus funds are made available to pay a property owner to get his/her own appraisal done) ~ to provide a value for acceptance/rejection. in 12 Policy Committee Meeting September 18,1991 Pages Keenan Ridiardson (Orono): If a property (residence) is not in ROW but is near, are any options available to property owners? Response: Yes — usually Mn/DOT needs to obtain ami a determination is made to determine livability of the remaining property. John James (Maple Plain): When will scoping be done/decision on corridors be made? Response: Scoping completion — late fall/winter — then public hearing, and a decision in earfy spring 19^ Pat Kitler (Independence): What is driving the need for the facility? Response: Lots of histoiy to project - began in 1958 to expand TH 12. Now fadlity is way over capacity, substandard, dangerous and in need of improvements. Brett Alexander (Independence): What body makes the decision on the corridor? Response: Hie Commissioner of Transportation. Ann Peterson (Independence): What is EIS — is it being done now? Response: No ~ comes after the scoping — will probably begin next year. EIS is a full disclosure document which states ali social, economic, and environmental impacts associated with the project. Steve Wood (Orono): What is the Scoping Process? Response: Identify issues and potentially feasible route alternatives, narrow list down to 2, 3 or 4 alternatives for further study ~ and try to identify a preferred corridor. Tindfl Scalf (Independence): Is there anything that prevents "kicked-out ” alternatives from being reconsidered? Response: No, this is what scoping is for. Elizabeth Moriarty (Long lake): When will construction take place? Response: Soonest would be around Year 2000. Brian Nowak (Independence): \Miat body • the preferred solution? Response: The Cbmmissioner of Transportation but bases d,'<:V:on on staff and local government recommendations. Suzanne Pittel (Long Lake): Commissioner Riley said Long Lake/Orono have been going at this seven years and that he will make decision for them. Response: The deadline statement is accurate ~ but he can’t speak for former Commissioner Riley. Darrell Plugner (Orono): In the traffic counts - why was trend based on 1988? Response: Forecast year is 2010 ~ most recent traffic data was 1988 and Metro Council demographic projections. Metro Council model for 1988 was compared w/actual count*: ~ model was TH 12 Policy Conunittee Meeting September 18« 199t Page 6 then calibrated (decreased the number of trips, for example) to more closely represent ground — but only in Hennepin County. In Wright County, inear regression of hi!ttnrii*ai was used to compare with 1990 actual da«a. Q. Wert lorecasts also done for TH 55? Response: Yes, also CR 11. A1 Rettinger (Long Lake): When would condemnation start? Response: 2-3 years prior to construction (19977). Q: Is an adjustment available to recoup value lost on property before condemnation? Response: No mechanism in place to address this. Once a corridor is mapped, RALF can be used to help willing sellers. Poss: But what about Wright County? Response: There is nothing in place for WripJit Co. similar to RALF at the present time. Q: Why is *hiK process being done so far ahead of design of facility? Why does it have to take so long? Response: This projea is not umque; this (lengthy process) happens in all projects (scoping fint, then EIS). Pete Pittel (Long Lake): Why is Brown Road the main access point iuio Long Lake? Why not use Willow Road as a feeder road (for interchange on S. Bypass freeway) Response: The interchange was provided as one possibility - wiil probably change as alternatives are narrowed ana as smdy continues. Comment: Accesses need to be provided on east and west ends of a city, rather .m in the middle. Response: City does have "a say" as to where interchanges would be ph: i. Q: Prior planning for extension t.; 1 12 - what is the status of this? Response: The current scoping process restarted the planning for TH 12. Brett Alexander (Independence): Scoping will tinue. even if construction will not be done again (i.e. selection oi Alternative 1, "No Bi .’.esponse: Correct. Have to decide if and where facility is to go before can ge» consin*-iion funding. Suzanne Pittel (Long Lake): Who is protecting the drop in property values or if realtou do not disclose? Response: The law states that realtors must disclose knowledge of the projert based on available data. AdiournmeiU The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. RDH/vw DRAFTTH 12 CORRIDOR STUDYCitizen’s Committee Meeting Maple Plain City Hall September 24, 1991 Members Preseit.. S. Hay, G. Cook, K. Nordin, L. Olson, R. Gnitka, G. Johnson, J. Massopust Alteniatw Preggpi*.'.on Others Present: L.R. Harris, L. Scal£, M. Underhill, M. Volkewart, K. Wenger. M, Wenger, J, Mans, J. ^son, M. Miller, D. Molin, G. BoUis, D Lewis, C. Rowleite, A. Paster, L. Drawert, B. Alexander, J. Pederson, S. Rettinger, A. Streir. J. Streir, R. Volkenant, M. Leutkner, B. Dulin, C. Meyers, A. Pederson S.Hay called the meeting to order at approximately 4:05 p.m. The minutes of the August 27, 1991 meeting were amended to clarify the alternatives that Mn/DOT is considering through Long Lake (Alt 2 and 2E), and then approved with the correction. Hay theii updated the Committee on the status of the alternative layout' for TH 12. He said Alternatives 2 and 2E are being completed and will be mailed out shortly. There were no comments from the Committee on the layouts as received. L.Dallam then discussed the results of the applir - rton of impact evalua »n criteria to each alternative, using the summary prepared for Hennepin County as an example. He stressed that the data received is still preliminary, is awaiting Mn/DOT and Committee review, and that modifications arc ciut^u.'v being made. (Several changes made by HNTB were read at the meeting). DaUam expiamed the judgement' that were applied in counting residences and businesses in the corridor and within 4(X) ft. of a highway lane, and the elements considered in the costs of building an urban roadway rection, which increases the construction cost of Alternative 2 and its subaltematives. Comments by the Cjuimittee included the need to include I..ong Lake as a naturtd resource (lake) within th'a corridor for Alternatives 2,2A, 2B, and 2C, Dallam said final r evisions to the evaluation criteria will be mailed to the Committees and, as requested by the Techmtai Committee, assumptions and descriptions applied to measure the evaluation cnteria would be supplied to assist reviewers in assessing the differences between the altemaiives and to screen the number for further study. Hay also commented that HNTB u-ill rank the alternatives for the next meeting, giving each of the evaluation criteria weight. Dallam then discussed a handout showing the 2010 Daily Traffic Forecasts that were prepared for 4-lane expansions of TH 12, TH 55, and CR 6, as requested at a prc c,ous meeting. Dallam said, in summai;, that such an upgrade does little to alleviate the traffic on the TH 12 corridor. It would require an umu eded a'grade of CR 6, and as such, it would not be cost effective and does not solve the transportation need caused by the TH r TH 12 CORRIDOR STUDY Citizen’s Committee Meet>ug September 24,1991 Page 2 12 bottleneck in Long Lake. Comments from the Audience were then received. Questions and comments received and addressed included the following: -location of the park in Orono impaaed by Alternatives 2 and 2A (Baker Park) ~ request to consider maintenance costs on new roadway as an evaluation factor -consideration of frontage road development in Long Lake for Alternatives 2A and 2B -location of the "original" south bypass alternative compared with the location of the current south bypass alignment in Orono -interchange locations (local access) for Long Lake i;'; I , r-\' ■j t: I -upgrade of CR 116 in Medina ~ effect/impaa of new transportation commissioner on the commitment to continue EIS for project -- the time at which the costs of the alternative begin to drive the decision-making process -differences in impacts between Alternatives 2 and 2A project mapping stams -cost comparisons betAeen the alternatives (why are the Alternative 2 ’s so much more) ~ non-linkage at the western terminus of the project with TH 55 ~ upgrade of CR 6 through Orono (as a separate Hennepin County issue) The next meeting was set for October 22, 1991. A draft of the Draft Scoping Decision Document (DSDD) will hopefully be available at this meeting. The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:20 p.m. RDH/rdh 14170/cttiiitii.sep V ' r* * DRAFT TH 12 CORRIDOR STUDY Technical Committee Meeting Delano City Hall September 24, 1991 Members Present; S. Hay, T. Loucks, J. Sweeney, D. Dudinsky, J. Dillman, M. Wurzer Alternates Present! T. Johnson, J.D. Goetten Others Present! L. Dallam, R. Harris, L. Scalf, M. Underhill, C. Zimmer, G. Bollis, D. Lewis, R. Hengtes S.Hay called the meeting to order at approximately 1:15 p.m. The minutes of the August 27, IWl meeting were amended to clarify the alternatives that Mn/DOT is considering through Long L^e (Alt. 2 and 2E), and then approved with the correction. Hay then updated the Committee on the status of the alternative layouts for TH 12. He said that Alternatives 2 and 2E are being completed and will be mailed out shortly. There were no comments from the Committee on the layouts as received. L.Dallam then discussed the results of the application of impact evaluation criteria to each alternative, using the summary prepared for Hennepin County as an example. He stressed that the data received is still preliminary, is awaiting Mn/DOT and Committee review, and that modifications are currently being made. (Several changes made by HNTB were read at the meeting). Dallam explained the judgements that were applied in counting residences and businesses in the corridor and within 400 ft. of a highway lane, and the elements considered in the costs of building an urban roadway section, which increases the construction cost of Alternative 2 and its subaltematives. Questions about the subjective nature of some evaluation criteria were raised by the Committee (level of service assumptions, for example) and the need for a criteria evaluation key was addressed. It was decided that a description of the assumptions and judgements applied to the evaluation criteria would be provided with the final evaluation results to assist reviewers in assessing the differences between the alternatives and to screen the number for further study. Hay also commented that HNTB will rank the alternatives for the next meeting, giving each of the evaluation criteria equal weight. The Committee discussed the possibility of having a separate economic impact analysis prepared to evaluate economic considerations (affects on property valuations, lost tax base, school district impacts, etc.) which would otherwise not be provided for by the current evaluation criteria as a measure to screen the alternatives. Hay said that although the economic impacts of the alternatives are very important, it is preferred by Mn/DOT not to do this level of study at this stage of the project because of additional projea delays and resources needed, and that the EIS will thoroughly investigate all project economic impacts. It would be considered by Mn/DOT, however. i; I’" } I. b t‘r ■ k-^ ’ ■A’ I*' % *--i: TH 12 CORRIDOR STUDY Technical Committee Meeting September 24, 1991 Page 2 In Other Business, Dallam discussed a handout showing the 2010 Daily Traffic Forecasts that were prepared for 4-lane expansions of TH 12, TH 55, and CR 6, as requested at a previous meeting. Dallam said, in summary, that such an upgrade does little to alleviate the traffic on the TH 12 corridor. It would require an uimeeded upgrade of CR 6, and as such, it would not be cost effective and does not solve the transportation need caused by the TH 12 bottleneck in Long Lake. The Committee discussed the local roads that would require probable improvements as a result of upgrading these major roadways. Comments from the Audience were then received. Questions and comments received and addressed included the following: -potential impact to a nursing home in Long Lake -affect of project on adjacent (but not inclusive) property value effects ~ consideration of existing and planned development in judging accessibility by alternative -farmland in Orono -school district potential tax losses -preliminary layouts illustrating roadway alternative rights-of-way in the EIS (as a measuring factor, rather than the currently identified corridor. ~ the adequacy of the qualitative data to make project determinations and the proposed ranking system (i.e. equal weight to all alternatives) The next meeting was set for October 22, 1991. A draft of the Draft Scoping Decision Document (DSDD) will hopefully be available at this meeting. The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:20 p.m. RDH/rdh 14170/ieciiinin4ep 7 k':.. - K It 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING THE IMPACT CRITERIA Number of hunun resources in the corridor - the school, church, day care center, library, historic structure, municipal facility and cemetery property that is wholly or partially within the estimated right-of-way of each alternative. The estiinated maximum ROW is as follows: Urban Expressway with access control (Alt 2,2C,2D) - varies, 120 to 250 ft. Urban Expressway with limited access control (Alt 2A,2B,D1,D2) - 120 ft. Suburban Expressway (north and south corridors in Orono) - 350 ft. Rurri Expressway (south corridors in Independence and Franklin Township) - 400 ft. Number of recreation resources in corridor • the park, lake, golf course, trail and playfield property that is wholly or partially within the csdmated right-of-way of each alternative. Number of residential units/properties in corridor - the residential units on property that is substantively within the estimated right-of-way of each alternative. Number of businesses/properties in corridor - the businesses on property that is adversely affected by the estimated right-of-way of each alternative. RrtimatpH right-of-way and construction cost - the county assessor’s market value of the properties identified in criteria 3 and 4 (generally assuming total taking) and the affected land from Criteria 10, 11 and 12; and the construction cost estimated for each alternative. The estimated construction cost is based on the following: urban limited access expressway - $7 million per mile urban access control expressway - $7 million per mile plus frontage roads urban freeway - $10 million per mile suburban freeway - $3 million per mile suburban expressway - S2.75 inillion per mile rural expressway - $2.5 million per mile overpass for each alternative - $1.25 million per overpass Accessibility (travel time) to Metro Area - based on speed limit, number of traffic signals and level of service of TH 12 alternatives. Appropriate highway access for local development - based on convenience of access from TR12 alternative to existing and plaimed development. r If Ift c*.'. ■ , If. r’ fh 4%“ '$■ i-'.- V'.: i-- 8.Number of residenlial units/properUes within 400 feet of highway, outside the corridor • the residentiai units on property that is substant’vcly within 400 feet of the outside edge of highway pavement, and located outside fhe estimaied right-of-way. Apartment units without outside decks facing the highway ?jc not included (no noise impact). 9. 10. 11. 12. Numbtf of wetland and floodplain acres in corridor - Number of woodland acres in corridor • Number of acres of agricultural land in corridor - Number of acres of Ag. Preserves farmland in corridor - the acreage located within the estimated right-of-way. Wetland, woodland and floodplain acres are deducted hrom agricultural and Ag. Preserves land. 13.Safety and efficiency of traffic on existing TH12 - the roadway geometries (horizontal and vertical curvature, sight distance, intersection layout, etc.) and number, location and spacing of driveway access, intersection and median openings. 14.f traffic movement across/adjacent to existing TH 12 - the convenience of local traffic movement/circulation in the city — as determined by access to residential and business properties abutting existing TH 12 and convenience of access from one side of TH 12 to the other. 15.Level of service on existing TH 12 in peak hour - 16.Level of service on TH 12 alternative in peak hour - determined by 2010 traffic forecasts. 17.Number of county/local ruad segments likely to need capacity improvements - the roadway segments in the selected roadway network that would have a level of service E or F from the year 2010 traffic forecasts. HIWMEmODOLXHD ir TH 12 CORRIDOR STUDY TH 101 - TH 25 IMPACT EVALUATION CRITERIA AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS BY ALTERNATIVE cues of WayzUa, Orono, Long Lake, Medina, Independence, Plymouth, Delano Franklin Township ***,jm *** DRAFT .- IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE IN WAYZA! A OCTOBER 110, 1991,CRITERION 1 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F 2G 3 3A 3B 3C 4 4A 4B1.Number of human resourcca within the ’corridor. • 0 0 0 0 0 0 IM ICM IM ICM IM ICM IMICM IMICM IMICM IMICM IS IS IS 2.No. of recreation resourcei in corridor. (P«Park, L»Lake, G«GoIf Coune, PF = Play field, T“Tnil) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IG 2PP IG 2PF IG 2PF 3.No. of rcfidential units/properties in corridor.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.No. of butbestea in corridor.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.Eat. conatruction coat (milliona of 1990 $).N o T A p p L 1 C A B L E 6.Acceaaibility (travel time) to Metro Area. •(VG =» Very Good) VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG 7.Appropriate highway acceaa for local development? (Y = Yes) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y . S.No. of retidencea within 400 feet of highway, outaide the corridor. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 9.No. of wetland and floodplain acres in corridor.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 10. No. of woodland acrea in corridor.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 11.No. of acres of agricultural Ivtd in coiridn.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.No. of acres of Preserves farmland in corridor. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.Safely and cmciency of Iraffic on exist. TM 12. (0 “ Good. VO ■ Very Good) VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VG VO 14.Local trank movement acrott/adja. to existing TH 12. (G - Good) G 0 G G G G G G 0 G G G G G G G 1 15. Level of service on eaiat. TH 12 in peak hour.**B B B B B B B B C c C C C B B B 16.Level of service on TH 12 alternative in peak hour.** B B B B B B B B C c C C C B B B 17.No. of county/local road aegmenta likely to need capacity improvementa. 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 0 I I I 1 1 2 Wont LOS in iny location for a given Altcmalive.•S “School, DC “Day Care Center, M “Municipal, C “Church, H“Hiiloric Structure, CM “Cemetery, LB “Library imjum IMPACT OP ALTERNATIVE IN ORONO OCTOBER 10, 1991 CRITERION 1 2 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F 2G 3 3A 3B 3C 4 4A 4B 1.Number of human rctourcca within the 0 ILB IDC IDC ILB ILB 1C 1C 1C 111 IH 0 0 N.IS.N:1S N:1S. corridor. •ICM 1C 1C ICM ICM ICIDC*ICID''iqiDC IDC.IC IDC,1C IDC.IC S:IS S:1S CStlS 2.No. of recreation rctourcei in corridor.0 2P IP IP 2P 2P IP 0 0 0 0 0 0 N:2P,N;2P,N:2P, (P»Park, L-Lake, QsGolf Coune,IL IL iL lO.lT IG.IT iqiT PF»Ptayfield. T-TniiU S:1P,S:1P,S:1P, IG.IT IG.IT iqiT 3.No. of reaid^tial uniU/propcrtiea in 0 18 17 19 31 31 17 30 30 43 43 48 48 N:58 N;53 N:58 corridor.S:50 S;45 S:50 4.No. of busineaaef in corridor.0 1 4 4 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N:2 N:l N:2 •S:2 S:1 S:2 S.Eli. const, cost (millions of 1990 $).N O T A p P L 1 C A B L E 6.Acccfiibility (trav. time) to Metro Area.F G F F G G VG VG VG G G VG VG G G 0 (F=»Fair, G=*Good, VG = Vcry Good) 1 7.Appropriate highway access for local Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y development? (Y«Yes) 1 8.No. of residences within 400 feet of 13 13 13 60 12 12 17 28 28 50 50 46 46 N:45 N;38 N:45 highway, outside the corridor.S:61 S;54 S:61 9.No. of wetland and floodplain acres 0 18 18 18 25 25 22 30 30 9 9 24 24 N:37 N:31 N:37 in corridor.S:34 S:28 S;34 10.No. of woodland acres in corridor.0 2 1 7 17 17 24 24 24 49 49 50 SO N:56 N:56 N:56 S:52 S:52 S;52 11.No. of acres of agri. land in corridor.0 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 20 20 18 18 0 0 0 12.No. of acres of Ag. Preserves farmland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b corridor. 13.Safety ft efficiency of traf. on cxis. TH F G F F F F VG VO VO Q 0 G G F VG 0 12.(F»Fair,G*Good,VG=»Very Good) 14.Local traf. movemoU across/adja. to P F F F F F 0 G G G o G G G G G exi. TH.12. (P*Poor.F«Fair.G«Good) 15.Lev. of serv. on exi. TH 12 m pk hr.^^E c D c D D B B B C c C c D B c 16.Level of service on TH 12 ahemative E c D C(TH12)D c B C C B E C C D D D b peak hour.^^B(CR6) 17.No. of county/local road segments likely 7 8 8 7 7 7 8 7 7 7 8 6 6 6 7 7 to need capacity improvetnents. Hm ll Wo givciTAllemaUvc.urch, H«Historic Slruclurc, Lli = L IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE IN LONG LAKE OCTOBER 10. 1991 CRITERION•1 2 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F 2G 3 3A 3B 3C 4 4A 4B 1.Number of human resources within the 0 1C 1C IC 1C 1C 2M 2M 2M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 corridor.^IDC IDC IDC IDC me 3H 211 211 311 311 IM IM IM IM IM 2.No. of recreation resources in corridor.0 IL IL IL IL IL IP IP IP IP IP 0 0 0 0 0 (PsParfc, L^Lake, G^Golf Counc, PF-Playfield, T=Tnil) IP IP IP 3.No. of residential units/propertics in corridor.0 60 56 56 60 60 80 80 80 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 4.No. of businesses in corridor.0 27 29 29 27 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.Ett. construction cost (millions of 1990 $).N o T A P p L 1 C A B L B 6.Accessibility (travel time) to Metro Area.p G F F F F G G G G F G F F F F (VO = Very Good, F = Fair, P = Poor) 7.Appropriate highway access for local Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y development? (Y *= Yes) 8.No. of rctkkncca within 400 fe^ of highway.138 118 124 124 118 118 128 128 128 22 22 18 18 0 0 0 outaide the corridor. 9.No. of wetland and floodplain acres in corridor.0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 10.No. of woodland acres in corridor.0 5 4 4 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.No. of acres of agricultural land in corridor.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.No. of acres of Ag. Preserves farmland in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 corridor. 13.Stfay and cfTiciency of IrafTc on existing TH VP G F F G G F F F p F F F F p F 12.(F « Fair, P = Poor, VP « Very Pdor) 14.Local traffic movement acrois/adja. to exist. TH VP p VP VP F F F F P F F p F F F P 12.(F a Fair, P » Poor, VP « Very Poor) 15.Level of service on exist. TH 12 in peak hour.^®F D E D E E E E E D E D E E E E 16.Level of service on TH 12 alternative in peak P D B D E E B C c N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A hour.^®(THI2) 17.No. of oounly/local road segments likely to need 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 capacity improvements. Mmn«wcMLiiw.T(* ** Wont LOS in any location h' a given Alternative.•S=Schooli, DC = Day Care Center, M ^Municipal. C*Church. H>=ntttork Structure, CM=Cemetery, LB•>Library IMPACT OH ALTERNATIVE IN MEDINA OCTOBER 10, 1991 CRITERION •1 2 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 2F 2G 3 3A 3B 3C 4 4A 4B 1.Number of human resources within the corrkior.* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.No. of recreation resources in corridor. (P“Park, L»Lake, G=:Golf Coune, PF-Playfield, T-Trail) 0 IP IP IP 0 0 IP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IP 0 3.No. of restdential units/propcities in corridor.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.No. of businesiea in corridor.0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 S.EsI. construction cost (millions of 1990 S).N 0 T A p p L 1 c A B L F 6.>:.;eaiibik*v (travel time) to Metro Area. . (0 « Good, VO w Very Good) G 0 G G G G G G G G G G G G G G 7.Appropriate highvay access for local d^clopmcnt? (Y » Yci) Y Y Y Y Y Y y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8.No. of residences within 400 feet of highway, outside the corridor.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.No. of svclland and floodplain acres in corridor.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.No. of woodland acres in corridor.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.No. of acres of agricultural land in corridor.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.No. of acres of Ag. Preserves farmland in corridor. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.Safely and cfTicicncy of trafTic on existing TH 12.(P » Poor) N 0 T A p p L I c A B L E 14.Local trafTic movement across/adjacent to existing TH 12. (P ■ Poor) N o T A p p L 1 c A B L E IS. Level of service on existing TH 12 in peak hour.N 0 T A p p L I c A B L E 16.Level of service on TH 12 ahemative in peak hour. N o T A p p L 1 c A B L E 17.No. of county/local road Kgmoits likely to need capacity improvements. 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 3 •S<= School. DC>=Day Care Cenler, M«Municipal, C = Church, H«Hiitoric Sinicture, CM=Ccme<ory, LB-Libniy r h 2. 7 9 I . ( Ian 0 r. r. r. rOBBR 10, 1991 N/A 1 ’ n ry, LB^Libniry CRITERION IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE IN INDEPENDENCK OCTOBER 10, 1991122A2B2C2D2E2F2G33A3B3a .4 4A 4B1 1.Number of human resources within thecorridor.*0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; 2.,No. of recreation resources in corridor.(P«Park, L»Lake, G=Golf Course,PF«PUyftcld, T=Trail)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 13.No. of residential units/propefties in corridor.0 9 9 9 19 18 9 19 18 18 19 18 19 18 9 194.No. of buiinesset in corridor.0 4 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 S.Est. construction cost (millions of 1990 $).N O T A p p L I c A B i L E 6.Aocesiibility (travel time) to Metro Area. *(VG ** Very Good, G = Good, P *= Poor) p G F F 0 G VG VG VG 0 G VG 1 r G G G 7.Appropriate highway access for local development? (Y = Yes) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ^V Y Y Y S.No. of residence* within 400 feet of highway, outside the corridor. 13 12 12 12 12 22 12 12 22 22 12 22 12 22 12 12 9.No. of wetland and floodplain acres in corridor.0 27 27 27 36 18 27 36 18 18 36 18 36 18 28 36 10.No. of woodland acres in corridor.0 14 14 14 41 47 14 41 47 47 41 47 41 47 14 41 II.No. of acres of agricultural land in corridor.0 36 36 36 36 92 36 36 92 92 36 92 36 92 36 36 12.No. of acres of Ag. Preserves farmland in corridor. 0 39 39 39 64 28 39 64 2li 28 64 28 64 28 39 64 13.Safety and efTiciency of traflic on cxbting TH 12.(VO = Very Good, G = Good, P = Poor ) p VG VG VG VG G VG VG 0 G VG G * VG VG VG VG 14.Local traffle movement acrois/adjt. to existing TH 12. (G«Good, P»Poor, VG=Vcry Good) p G G G o G G G Q G F G t------- ^ p G F F 15.Level of service on exist. TH 12 in peak hour.**E B B B B C B B C C B c B B B B 16.Level of service on TH 12 alternative in peak hour.** E B B B B B B c C c C c C B B B 17.No. of county/local road aegments l^rc*y to need capacity improvemenU. 1 C 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 I 0 1 3 0 1 ^ 1 ••Worst LOS tn any location for i ^»ven Alternative.•S«School, DC«Day Care Center. M«Municipal. C=*Church, H«Hi» ric Structure, CM^Ccmdcry, LBsLibrary \l IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE IN PLYMOimi OCTOBER 10, 1991CRITERION12A2B2C2D2E2F2G33A3B3C44A4B1.Number of human resources within the,corridor.^0 IC 2.No. of rocrcAtion resources in corridor. (P=*Ptrk, L=Lakc, G=Golf Course, PF^Playficld. T=Tnil) 0 Q 3.No. of residential units/propertics in corridor.0 2 4.No. of businesses in corridor.0 0 5.Bit. construction coit (millions of 1990 $). i 6.Accessibility (travel time) to Metro Area. (G = Good) 7.Appropriate highway access for local development? (Y *= Yes) 8.No. of residences within 400 feet of highway, outside the corridor. 61 69 9.No. of wetland and floodplain acres in corridor.0 1 10.No. of woodland acres in corridor.0 0 11.No. of acres of agricultural land in corridor.0 0 12.No. of acres of Ag. Preserves farmland in corridor. 0 0 13.Safety and efrictcncy of trafTic on existing TH 12. 14.Local trafTic movement across/adjacent to existing TH 12. 15.Level of service on existing TH 12 in peak hour. y 16. Level of service on TH 12 alternative in peak hour. 17.No. of eounty/local road segments likely to need capacity improvements. •S^SchoO', DC = D«y Care Center, M -Municipn', C»Church, H ” Historic Structure, CM “Cemetery, LB“Libnry 8BBIMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE IN DELANO OCTOBER 10, 1991CRITERIONr-1 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 1.Number of human resources within the corridor.* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.No. of recreation resources in corriJor. (P=Park, L*=Lakc, G==Golf Course, PF*Playfield. T=Trail) 0 IP IP 2P 2P 0 0 1 3.No. of residential unils/properties in corridor.0 8 8 n 13 5 — 4.No. of businesses in corridor.0 20 13 21 21 0 0 5.Esl. construction cost (millions of 1990 S).NOT AP PL ic AB L E 6.Accessibility (travel time) to Metro Area. •(VG » Very Good, G = Good, VP = Very Poor) VP G G G G VG VG 7.Appropriate highway accesa for local 1 development? (Y « Yes) Y Y Y Y Y N Y 8.No. of residences within 400 feet of highway, outside the corridor. 62 61 57 55 45 3 16 9.No. of wetland and floodplain acres in corridor.0 21 21 10 10 0 0 1 10. No. of woodland acres in corridor.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11. No. of acres of agricultural land in corridor.0 <1 <i 0 0 0 0 1 12. No. of acres of Ag. Preserves farmland in coiaridor. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.Safety and efficiency of traffic on existing TH 12.(0*Good, F*Fair, P = Poor) p G G F F F F 14.Local traffic movement across/adjacent to existing TH 12. (F = Fair, P « Poor) p F F p F F F 15.Level of service on exist. TH 12 in peak hour.**E B B E E E E 16.Level of lervice on TH 12 ahemative in poUc 1 hour.** E B B B B N/A N/A 1 17. No. of county/local road segments likely to need 1 capacity improvements. 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 ** Wont LOS in any location for a given Alternative.•S = School. DC = Day Care Center, M“Municipal, C**Church, H = Hiitoric Structure, CM “Cemetery, LB“Library IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE IN FRANKUN TOWNSHIP OCTOBER 10, 1091CRITERION».1 DI D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 i1.Number of human rcsourcci wiihin the •corridor. • 0 1H(M)1H(M)1M(M)0 0 IH(M) 2.No. of recreation resourcci in corridor. (P*Ptrk, L^Lake, G=Golf Course, PF^Playficld, T=TraiI) 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.No. of residential units/propeities in corridor (including farmsteads). 0 10 10 13 7 10 !2 4.No. of businesses in corridor.0 3 3 1 0 0 1 3.Est. construction cost (millions of 1990 $).NOT AP PL 1C AB L E 6.*Accessibility (travel time) to Metro Area. (VG s» Very Good, G = Good, VP = Very Poor) VP G Q G G VG VO 7.Appropriate highway access for local development? (Y = Yes) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8.No. of residences within 4(X) feet of highway, outside the corridor. 24 19 19 22 11 7 20 9.No. of wetland and floodplain acres in corridor.0 9 9 13 26 41 30 10.No. of woodland acres in corridor.0 1 1 S 4 23 27 11.No. of acres of agricultural land in corridor.0 136 136 149 157 173 177 1 12. No. of acres of Ag. Preserves farmland in corridor. 0 6 6 6 44 44 6 13.Safety and efficiency of traffic on existing TII 12.(VO * Very Good. G * Good, F = Fair) F VG VG VG G G VO 14.Local traffic movement acrosi/adjaccnt to existing TH 12. (F = Fsir, 0 « Good) F F F F C G p 15.Level of service on exist. TH 12 in peak hour.*^E A A A C C A 16.Level of service on TH 12 sltcmalivc in peak hour.*^ u A A A A A A 17.No. of county/kKal road segments likely to need capacity improvements. 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 ** Wont LOS in any location for a (ivcn Alternative.•S = School, DC = Day Care Center, M^Mjnicipal, C*»Churvh, H>=Historic Structure, CM “Cemetery, LB==Libnry r •> October 11# 1991 To: Orono City Council Merr.berK From: Sherokee Use On behalf of Orono citizens and the various comiittees and individuals who have been working on the Highwa^ 12 issue I would like to thank you for your efforts. Y *'U have boen steady and firm in your resolve that the corridor stay on the current corridor through Orono and willing to work with Long Lake to help resolve its placement through their community. We all appreciate your persistence and patience in these matters. We urge you to continue on this course in spite of the likely obstacles that will arise. Your resolution to offer Long Lake some assistance is a gesture that will go a long v;ay in helping us feel pride in the leadership of Orono, as wo already do. Please consider reminding MN DOT in your correspondence that the currant corridor,through Orono rr is the only acceptable .^ute. We are sacrificing land,and thx base in addition to providing a role in the solution. It doesn't hurt for them and our community to be reminded of that. Thank you for your dedication and fine work on this matter and thb.many other issues you spend so much time on. Pew understand the energy and work that goes into being a dedicatee Council Member. Sincerely, sherokee Use 3630 Eileen St. Maple Plain, MN 55359 -i r * ■ ' I hi. i'-“km- m .Xjs±£:^ •* r 5* ■j| ' -i'" LI"-* 4-X ■■ ■: ,1 n;l4 i ' i /■/>';.- b. TMcTt C |p« iMk> WKim' H« »«». nuui^ nm «r mun^ tMPWMMBaPIVi r#uMP i%*mcMifiMi pic»^ ttcf f40t>IUC».9 ¥0vip DC tm* Pmt rwoDm fMcfia. I ««>f t*i MM »<«mt «i m » mm* m •*' «« mm****m «m mm > m • •»•# •MitMM trnm m IMM mm* m» Um M <■• *mm M Mm«>mi (aciMMltM M» Mi •- it mi I I I PIIOfWl'J• IMIWJVDl�N:.! CBKTiriCATe SUKv'fcV Pern. C^VfP OICAIMM tttAc-n c-ip, KB^rwMmp wMip rnm^ tk> b^* >, TH« WiiAtiiAR <r tm#>, srwter Apoiess ms aiutirMti>M .■n.,.^L.;..- r ’^;S.. -SM *#i<; r' M r^oMp w«»cMtPi«)i |sfT Fic »lMt MA*J»4rH« MJHP V Fn WMim. Hr«j|JHrHr pticumtuf. ^ - f»n^H »• •aT M« M.« «« •« » « ■A* « •»•••« •-•^••■— M «M •«•.«.•, I4HI WTMr» «■». Mb taM •« Ua M«M ^ »■ ««>«■!.* «• tWW •— I ,\iJv I I »£ ; .^1 j m V { 2745 SHADYWOOD ROAD ORONO Mir NESOTA i/i3.*i I I m tTW oi^Twh# -/ EXISTING ELEVATIONS mi. mM , nifV'.jihiei • i-k^uNtASntii^’ ■-•►'i' <i.,: ' A ; S;-lia - I.: *11 ■:mi ^,:t m ■J^'- mi lL="l]E!SfHlSm=i ■A uii^^^iiS 4M--i mM \\i' g;#-: ■m0 Jiil*: i: ' . V '. ' .# i' :";: ':i-^ vt' <sr^ . 11 '«i> * T ' •> * FIF m PROPOSED ELEVATIONS fm m-:rn ; '-f r:% y,: ^ ' :^:t ; ;;r :y '■■•':is' \"Vv 'K ' ,- ■Cfiimimm )r----___,.,. ________________ _ C-ER.Tlf'ICA-rE OF SURVEY F� o 10 1D IO -- c:::'AV l D • GRA�AM "TPAC� C,. • DI RE!dlSTl!IUit, UNO S\J"\.t!.Y f'b. 5Gt:1, t='IU!S OF' 'OtS �IS°"'� Clfl' TlTJ..E� UEN�BPI t-1 �NTY, Mt�ESc,r .. \ St"RSf?r AP�SSI �745 S"-U:Jr'� RP. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS trARY MAJ-IUOL.E= UNO So!&." IRON Pl� UiF'ffOl-llS �GSfi'L �� .. ,..�+� (J \h9 se-r � �UMEN-r ,,.t�.1 ·?/t>,•f V/7 (l..•"'°' .-IIJE'(,_ � •• �� t hereby certify that thh survey was prepared hy me or under '1111 direct super•lslon ind that I 1111 1 duly Registered Lind Surveyor under the laws or the Stat: of Hlnn soh. �d/ Hlnnesot1 Reglstrau '" No. 18418 Date Av:,os,· 2z /'}'JI »• ;;rv: db' SURVEY FOR; ePU/flgO _______ Ismo oof-wo 66 0 M «ep Prtpartd By: SCALE FEET SCHOELL A MAD80N, INC. ■ NRINIINt • •UHVITON6 • PLANNINt •OIL TltTlHO • INVIliaHMINTAL tlRVICIt ■•Alt WAflATA tlVD. UINNIIONNA, MM. lIMt mil 141-rtii pAii Mt-Mii BEMEIIAL HOTtS; 1.• - Dsnotss iron mnuiwnt found. 2."Plantings* - Donotos various shrubs in woodchip budding. 3."Brick k tiadiur walk and stairs* - Denotes a brick walk/stairs trinaed with wooden landscapetiBbers. / // A ' r‘ '■{ D% y ' X 6fO»* .Bi' \ V-Shof'",^A BPf' I hereby certify that this survey was prepared under ay supervision and that I •■a Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. This drawing hat bttn checked and :hltreviewed th A SyT day of 19 V . CsHeer z of2 sheets ')Date: PMjc,. ft,License No. 20260 01 I-■ H I' yi w ■"■ jjF. m "1 5"' \ h1Ii\v-.\\'-wr ^k.lf m *■.■■\.•'. ■-.u-v ^■^'/^^J^ffrvitu\ku ^ ■■■ ' .'1 m^iMi r ' ........... :1-5M4 o:v J : '■•■■f‘'''>ili^*'’^Vi. i^'.-1. ■■-V - :’V V>’'^ . ^'<!. • /:'r,-’■ i.ii.y'-. ■ ■;. '■ K'llnV-:' -M'S'!'#'!' *» ; ’ ^gsf /agsA' v\ PrepoMd D«v*lepnwnt • (talwn from S&M survoy & IvyCrest plan dated 8/22/91) A Stairs from lawn to lake S Stairs from deck to driveway ^Brick Patio ^Wood deck within 75’MitMck fWood deck beyond 75* setback ^Pool C Boulder walls H BitumitHMJS driveway 847 SF 675 SF 563 SF , 110 SF (unchanged) 109 SF (unchanged), 160 SF (unchanged) \ 238 SF A 0 SF \ ;rPlanttng beds with plaatic(rvdbcodf,755SFoutsMe 75? 0 SF Total:1,264 SF (7%) Propoaed Dovelepmentnitretland Setbaek • TBuiWing/Pool/Deck wtthin 26* weUand setback Wood deck (30’ wide) cankievered above lawn below Proposed ^akviray wkhin 26' wetland sattMck /(Planting bods with plastic within 26'wetland setback 232 SF (unchanged) too SF-/041-«!>*.«, 78 SF 0 SF Total:410 SF loo /M /ess ; ■• ''H ' r:; 'fa*'-' ^ •' i !•!>■{,{;■ mmipm: ’m--' SURVEY FOR: SOWf^QD BAfeTgg ISniO-OOf^eo 66 ^49 4S') >0 Pr«par«d By: SCALE FEET r Part of Lot 6. Heck I, fmm, Kcordt rocordod plat thoroof. 8CHOELL A MA080N, INC. PMIMIIP»ft6 • 6«I«V«V<>66 • •( 8MMPa« ToM Araa wHHtoi V-7W 8horaNiM 8tbach • If,300 8F Eilfllng CondWom • (takan from Shoal A Mad a on tuivay dalad 8/8/91) 4 Staira from lawn to laka 180 8F 4 Stairs from dack to drtvaway 202 SF e Brick PaHu 508 SP / Wood dock wMhin 75'saltMCk 315 SF A^Mood dock bayond 75'satback 327 SP A Pool 827 SF dBouldarwaHs no SF Af Bituminous drivaway 109 SF jr Plantifig bads w/ pliudle within 75’ satback • • Mkashora 245 SF' wastofdack 218 SF south of dsck 373 SF oastofdack 511SF. PtanHngbodsw/plasticoutskfa 75'satback i,7S5 SF 2,748 8F (14%) y Vshor*’"'* , K-tf'eS-V* I hereby certify that this survey was prepared t >der aiy supervision and that I aa a Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. reviewed day af f e't ir-r-v- ** <* «< ,n ^DecKS r^to’ inji ^ pfioeo^€t> t>ecKs r-zo’ ■^A ' ma^imjM' H i W % ’ ■'•rw^w CSHCer t OF 2 SHAFTS) I hereby certify thet this survey was prepared under my supervision end that 1 an I licensed land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Hlnetsota. -Theodore D, Kent. Date: t Mlcense Ho. 17006 s ■R m m kd^rfiStas i^M WM y\--: d.: %'■‘Hm." ■ ®''^’ -A ’>■,%: ,hU