Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-12-1991 Council Packet
Planning Ccrr-issi:_ ^ ^ * • w ^ MmOA FOR COONCIL HBBTING SET FOR TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1991, 7:0f P.H. ■•S: (•)Asterisk items are considered to be lout’ne items to be enacted upon by one motion by the Cit> Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Discussion will be held upon request. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon ROLL CALL 4,^ request from the Recorder. ’C» 1. CONSENT AGENDA* MW9»0¥ML or NIMOTBS * 2* Regular Meeting of October 28, 1991 OA /j 9UUMIIIG C0HHIB8I0M COHHRIIT8 - Jeffrey Johnson Representative - (Llait 5 Nioutes Per Persoo) 80BIS0 A0H1H18TRATOR*8 RBPORT **ArrLlCART8** iHMdietely after the Council has reviewed yoor application please sign the three (3) original resolutions at the Recorder's desk. Applicants need not eseente resolutions for suMivisions# vacations and denials. 3. 4. 9. 8. 7. I. 9. If. 11. 12. 13. 14. #1682 Christine Brickley, 3262 North Shore Drive - Variance •1683 Robert F. Suess, 2590 Watertown Road - Preliminary Subidvision - Resolution #1687 Robert J. Bilger, 4005 North Shore Drive - Variances - Resolution #1689 Terry Sadler, 1396 Baldur Park Road - Variances - Resolution #1631 City of Long L *,e, 130 Orono Orchard Road North - Resoning - Resolution #1692 Bruce W. Engelsma, 990 Partenwood Road - Variances - Resolution #1699 Thosias and Alice Stuck and John M. Bowers, 4 34 5/4 365 North 8hore Drive - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Resolution #1696 Stephen 6 Joanne Ward, 4695 North Shore Drive - Veriencee - Resolution #781 Dregoi.fly Hill, 1410/1 420 Shoreline Drive • Request by Lend Owner - City to Fulfill Condition of fubdivision/Vacetion Approval - Resolution 91482 #1932 Fullerton Properties Inc, 2225 Sixth Avenue North - Request to Asend Declaration for Private Road Covenant e.) NoSMK>wner's Not Responsible for -uture Road Expansion - Outlet 8 b.) Release of Outlot A From Covenants #1991 Robert Naede, 998 Wildhurst Trail - Approval of Individual Entrance Mounment wildhurst Estates 3398 North Shore Drive - Issue of Zoning violstiont - Council Direction 7," i I ro* coomcil mbbtimg sbt for tobsday, November 12, I99i, 7:ff p.h NBTOB/CCOIICXL REPORT notmi BBPORT1«. Pay Raquest #1 Facilities Frontage Road 16. Pay Raquast #1 McCulley Road cm 17 IB * 19 2B 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 IOM»1STCBVOB*8 REPORT . fall Claan .Up Day TallyStubba Bay Sewer Area Information Packet - Including I 1se I^C^na Licenses Information Packet Proposed DNR Public Access •eechedullng Truth in Taxation Hearing Construction Manager Contract Mooney Lake Rules Information Packet Rescheduling of Bond Sale for New City Facilities Resolutiontfaivlng Bid Irregularities Part Tliae Police Officers Bederwood Skating Rink cm BTTORRRT'B RBPORT UCMBBf (28*) UUJ (29*) _ _ _ilRQ ItBOBi MO BVBTB H/l* • veterans Day - Woiiday li/12 - racllities Meeting - Council Chambers 5:00 p.m. 11/12 - Council Meeting - Tuesday Il/IB - Planning Coswlsaion ,, w -11/19 - Initial 1992 Budget Hearing 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers ^1^2# — Stubbs Bay Sewer Area Public Hearing 7;00 p.m Council Chambers 11/29 - Council Meeting 11/2B - Thanksgiving Day - Holiday 11/29 • Holiday 12/B3 * Park CosaiiosionI2/B4 - Reconvened 1992 Budget Hearing 7:00 p.m. (If Needed! 12/16 - Council Meeting (Last Meeting in 1991) 12/25 - Chrlsteas Day - Holiday I®;.,. i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING - OCTO0E 991 ROLL Th« Council met on the above date with the following nfeOjljP^ present: Mayor Barbara Peterson. Counc1Imembers J. OlaMU^ Qoetten. Gabriel Jabbour, Edward Callahan and Mary Butler. The following represented the City staff: City Admlnlstrator Ron Moorse. Public works Director John Gerhardson. Building & Zoning Adr^nlstrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning Zoning Adr »niStrator Michael Gaffron, City Attorney Tom Barrett. City Engineer Glenn Cook. Chief of Police Stephen Sullivan and City Recorder Teri Naab. Mayor Pwterson cal lad the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. (•1) CONSENT AGENDA Callahan removed Item #15. Butler noted one correction to the Minutes of October I4th. On page 1, second to the bottom paragraph, a word is missing on the eighth line. It was moved by Butler, seconded by Jabbour. to approve the Consent Agenda. which includes the following Items: approval of the Minutes of the Council meeting of October 14. 1991 with the correction as noted; Final payment Highway 12 ~ sewer mains and water Mains; Salary adjustment and change position title Stephan Weekman; Resolution ordering report and feasibility study for Stubbs Bay sewer; Resolution receiving feasibility study and calling for a public hearing for Stubbs Bay sanitary sewer area; and the bills. Ayes 5. nays 0. Motions for all items adopted by consent agenda will be Included In the Minutes in their respective numerical order. (*•2) ARRROVAL OF MINUTES It was Moved by Butler. seconded by Jabbour. to approve the Minutes of the regular Orono Council meeting held on October 14, 1991 with one correction on page 1 to be amended as noted. Ayes S. nays 0. UMCI MINNBTONAA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT JoClIen Hurr, representative. was present. She noted at the last Beard meeting, three new Board Members were introduced from the following locations: victoria. Tonka Bay and Wayzata. She OKplalned they voted to raise fees in stages so more income will be collected from the lake users. The next meeting of the Board It scheduled for December. Jabbour pointed out that he is under the impression that the additional fees raised from tne users will not directly impact the amount paid by the cities. Murr noted that has not been voted on yet. but the recommendation to readjust city fees has been passed from tn# Committee to tne Board. even though several on tn«t Committee are not of that opinion. r If h : ... Ife- ¥.I' kiibiiiia*t MlNUTik OF THi MEOULAM OFONO COUNCIL MEET!NO • OCTOIEN 31. 1901 La U MXNNETOI^{a CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT - CONT. tIDOJabbour axplalntd that the Council was under the Impression the Incraasa in fees to users would reduce the cities’ fees. He notad that ha was happy to see the Board has made accommodations for lata faa adjustmants. Me also felt that perhaps a specific nunbar of inspactlons should be provided to the marinas to be Included in the fee charged, and Inspections made beyond that should be charged back to the marina. He noted that marinas currently taka approximately 80% of the LMCD’s time and should be charged accordingly. Hurr agreed, and noted that currently tfiere is no system to break down user related costs Incurred, ana they will be working on this In the future. Callahan brought up the property adjacent to Lakeside Marina. Hurr pointed out the City Administrator will be meeting with the ONR In the near future regarding this matter, and the LMCD will also be meet with the ONR. She noted that the property owner Initially went to the ONR with the request. Mayor Peterson asked what the intentions are of regarding this matter. the .MCD g^p^ten explained that they intend to build a boat landing. Oaffron noted that it would be necessary to rezone the property as It currently Is residentlai1y zoned. Hurr Indicated that they may proceed with condemnation. She hoped the DNR would follow their own rules when considering development of this property. Callahan noted there would be no condemnation as they already own the property. Callahan asked about the Lake Minnetonka Management Plan. Hurr explained that it has gone on to the Metropolitan Council pml p copy would be submitted to the City as soon as It became available. •arrett explained that he is preparing a memo which reviews the present ordinances and Jurlsdictions relating to the property ■ontloned above. Me noted that he would supply Hurr with a copy. PUittC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public. mrnm MINUTII or THI KEOULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETXNQ - OCTOBER 2S. 1991 (#3) #1S73 CAROL KELLY/JAMES MASSEY. 3020/3030 CASCO POINT ROAD FINAL SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION Th«r« was no ona present for this application. It was moved by Mayor Peterson. seconded by Jabbour, to table appllcaton #1573 for Carol Kelly and James Massey. requesting final plat approval until such time that the applicant can be present for this application. Ayes 5. nays 0. («4) «160B JAMES HARTZELL 29B7 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3032 Mrs. Martzell was present for this application. Moors# explained this is a request for variances to the average •otbacK and hardcover ordinances to construct a pool. Jabbour noted that he attended both meetings at which this application was presented, and explained that at first this proposal was very ambitious but the applicants reworked the plan at th# request of the Commission, and it was then approved by the Planning Commission. Ooetten asked what the applicants are stating as their hardship. Jabbour indicated driveway locatinn hardcover. that they own both adjacent properties. the and the appl'rants have tried to reduce jt was moved by Butler, seconded by Cal lanan, to adopt Resolution #3032 for Appllcatl #1600 for James Hartzell at 2907 Casco Point Road, for average setback and hardcover variances to construct a pool. Ayes 5. nays 0. (#8) #1828 ERIC WILSON/TIM TRAFF 2883 NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCE REVISION - RESOLUTION #3033 Eric Wilson was present for this application. Moors# explained the Council originally approved area and lot width variances for this property to allow construction of a new residence. The property since has been sold and the new owner is requesting e revision to that request, but not exceeding square footage encroachment approved for the Treff house. Butler noted that the request has been approved by the Planning Coemission and the neighbors have no objections. It was moved by Butler, seconded by Jabbour, to adopt Resolution #3033 for Application #1626 for Eric Wilson of 2603 North Shore Drive. requesting approval of a variance revision for construction of a new residence. Ayes 5. nays 0. MINUTII Of TMI maULA« OHONO COUNCIL MtITXNO - OCTOifN 2S. l»«l (•«) #1093 AL9CRT 0. HANSER. 1695 FOX STREE’r moratorium variance M«r«dith Howell and Mark Gronberg were present to represent the •pplleant. Moorse explained this is a request for a variance t.' the subdivision moratorium to permit subdivision of this property. Jabbour felt they should not allow this request because the Council currently does not know the outcome of the shoreland Management regulations. Qronberg noted that it would only affect the setbacks from the shoreline to the proposed residences. Qootten felt this request should be denied and noted that Council hopes to have the regulations finalized by February/March of 1992. She felt that this application is a prime example of why the moratorium was adopted. bronberg explained that they have used the strictest possible S<'tbacks when determining lot configuration. Jabbour noted that those setbacks have not yet been determined and they are currently working on those setbacks. He noted that after the Committee comes up with the final proposal, the DNR th#n tpprovt th# ordinanc®. He noted that by allowing t a subdivision. It may create substandard lots and would be unfair to future buyers. Callahan advised that the committee is currently going through tha ordinance for the first tlwe and has yet to deterelne future setbacks. Ha noted that the Council indicated they would review requests for variances to the moratorium. but woulw. not necessarily approve all requests. Howell noted that their intention was not to be adversarial. She noted that their subdivision application and the adoption of the moratorium happened simultaneously. She had understood the Counci 1*6 Intentions that those who follow the most restrictive would be allowed a variance to the moratorium. She hoped that the Council would deal quickly with the proposed ordinance change so that the subdivision could proceed. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to table Application #1693 for Albert 0. Manser of 1685 Fox Street, for i f>Ogyost for a variance to the subdivision moratorium. Ayes 5, nays 0. I MINUTIS OF TMl KtOULAR ORONO COUNCIL MIITXNO • OCTOilR 2§i 1091 (#7) #1694 DOUGLAS HERZ. 3196 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION #3034 Douglas Mtrz was prasent for this application. Hoorsa axplalnad this is a request for a side/street setback variance to construct a two-story addition to the existing residence which encroaches the required setback. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution #3034. Application #1694 for Douglas Merz of 3195 Watertown Road, to allow construction of a two-story addUion to the rear or south side of the current residence. Ayes 5, nays 0. (••) #1699 THOMAS AND ALICE STUCK AND JOAN M. BAUER. 4348/4305 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - MORATORIUM VARIANCE Thomas and Alice Stuck were present for this application. Moorse explained this is a recuest for a variance to tne subdivision moratorium to allow a lot line rearrangement. that would place the Stucks' garage within their property boundaries, and would increase their property size. moved by Jabbour. seconded by Goetten. to conceptually approve a variance to the subdivision moratorium to allow the proposed lot line rearrangement for Application #1695. Thomas and Alice Stuck and John M. Bauer to proceed. Ayes 5. nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT A) Jabbour noted that at the last meeting of the LMCD that he attended, he was adamant with them that they should try and make It more advantageous for those who abide by the ordinance to continue to do so. Me felt that the late penalty fee should be raised from $100.00 to reflect length of time that payment is overdue. Jabbour noted that LMCD members were very critical of Orono s land management of the marinas within Orono. Me stated that LMCD Is currently spending 90% of their staff time on marina related Issues. Jabbour reiterated that Orono is currently not issuing nni^lna licenses, even though money has been collected for the licenses. Me also reviewed that commercial activities are being allowed to continue on residentla 11y zoned property, and advised that one such property next to Gayle’s Marina hes had an outstanding variance/sketch plan review since 1985. but has continued to conduct commercial operations without approval. ■ , r b-:' K It:-. MINUTES OE THE NEttULAN ONONO COUNCIL MEETIN# • OCTOiEN SSi lift MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT - CONT. Gaffron stated that this application is indeed r^.jtstandlng. He notad It has gone through the Planning Commission review. at which time they requested a survey of the property which was never provided by the applicant. Since that time the property has been sold at least once, and has been vacant or rented. He advised that there has been boat storage on the property periodically. A letter will be sent this week asking the applicant once again to supply the City with a survey so the review can continue. He noted that the neighboring oroperty owner has complained about the activities. Jabbour reported that the people that . ve near subject property have always complained about the activities allowed on the subject property. Qoatten asked what the City has for recourse as far outstanding application Is concerned. tne Qaffron explained this has been a sporadic problem In that boat storage problem has mainly occurred when Dunn has been owner. the the Callahan reluctantly brought up the issue of spot zoning for the property. Mabusth advised of an application which will be submitted which win request that three adjacent properties be rezoned from B-2 to LR-resIdentlal district. because as with the subject property, the adjacent three properties are all as residential. She stated that the vacant residence at 3340 North Shore Drive has been bought by an adjoining nelghbo**, Mrs. Spraoue. and she will be seeking approval of continued accessory use of that structure. Mabusth has advised Sprague that staff win recommend that the properties be rezoned to residential to eliminate the piece-meal, quasi-commercial use of the properties until a legitimate B-2 user can aqcuire all of the property. She noted this reronlng p-oposal would be similar to zoning of properties between North Shore Drive Marina and Lakeside Marina. Jabbour asked the Council to consider directing staff to look Into this matter and noted Orono needs to approve all activities on a property as well as enforce ordinances. Gaffron noted that it is zoned B-2 with a historic residential uaa of the property, but the owner does have a right to store boats If the cosMserdal site plan Is approved. Callahan felt that perhaps the outstanding application should be ravlawad by Council end perhaps be denied because tn# requested InforsMtlon was never submlttad. g^ffron asked what should be done with the money collected past marina licenses which were never issued. for MINUTIi OF THI fUOULAF ORONO COUNCIL NEETXNQ - OCTOIER 2t. 1991 HAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT - CONT. C«n-han axplainad that when a marina does not pay tne licerise fee, it is very expensive to make them pay. ordinances cannot be enforced in a practical way. requ 1 red and our Gaffron felt the Lake Use Committee should commit to look at licenses for the last couple of years. Jabbour felt that money collected for 1991 licenses should be refunded, and that all marinas should be licensed for 1992. Gaffron noted that one marina did not pay the 1991 fee as they noted on the application to use the credit from the previous license fee; and one marina paid the base fee but not the slip fee. suGGested that the money not be refunded but rather the City Issue a credit for future licenses. Jabbour noted that still leaves the '.sue of tne commercial use of the property. Gaffron stated that staff would be following up on this Issue this eaak to eliminate the illegal use of the property Callahan noted that since the Planning Commission has already the application, it should be brought directly to Council at their November 12th meeting. G) Mayor Peterson asked if any of the Counci 1 Members had questions regarding the AMM Legislative Policy and noted that comments should be submitted to her by November 7. 1991. C) Sutler asked staff to look Into construction of a shed at the Prommel property on Casco Point Road, which may being done elthout the benefit of a permit. (•#9) FINAL PAYMENT HIGHWAY 12 -MAINS It was moved by Butler. seconded by Jabbour. to approve the fourth and final pay request for the highway 12 sewer and water main project to Otten Brothers Nursery In the amount of fl.7ee.39. Ayes 5. nays 0. Ir Ik HIMUTtS or THt WQULAH OrONO COUNCIL MIITINO - OCTOIIN 2i. Iffl (#10) AUTM0NX2ATX0N TO INITIATE HIRING PROCESS FOR FULL TIME AND PART TIME POLICE OFFICERS Hoorss •xpla1n«d this Is a request to initiate a selection process for both full tiine and part time officers. He noted tHat the full time officer would fill the vacant lieutenant position, but as a patrol officer instead. He noted the part time officers would be user* to allow more flexibility within the department and to Minimize overtime costs. Peterson asked how many part time positions are being requested and when the positions could expect to be filled. Sullivan noted that they would like to proceea with the hiring process as soon as possible, with full initiation by the first of ^he year. Me stated that they would like authorization to nine up to four part time officers. Butler asked where one finds part time officers. Sullivan explained they could come from another department seeking full time employment, a retired officer, person employed full time elsewhere that wish to be a part time otficer. Callahan asked Sullivan what is his overall p-an for department the Sullivan noted that he does have a goal that he is working towards. but stated that he has to work within budget constraints. Me noted that the current department is working under a oare-bones structure. He felt that a full time Invest 1gator is necessary. Sui ivan also fe t that it wouid be pne^mature to lay out an eritire p an as he has only been with the department for two months. Callahan noted thi^t he would like to see some sort of plan. Jabbour asked if the line item wit in the budget established for overtime could be converted to be used for part time off leers. Sullivan explained that it could partially be used, however he noted that in past years the department has exceeded overtime budget amounts and he is not sure there is even enough budgeted for the part time officers h# noted that o^ertirs wni never totally be eliminated because of tne nature of the Job. Jebbour felt that perhaps we should consider customized services for contract cities. He directed Sullivan not to spend alot of Itme trying to convince conl-act cities of the need for additional tarvicat. Sullivan agreed, but reiterated that an invastigator it common to any police departaent. MXNUTII Of THI fUaULAR ORONO COUNCIL MCITINO - OCTOtlR 2$, 19fl AUTHORIZATION TO INITIATE MIRING PROCESS FOR P^Lw TIME & PAR' TIMt OFFICER - CONT. Moort« •xpla1n«d that thay are currently trying to stay wi'.in tha budgat laval and are not asking to add additional salar.es, but rathar raallocata dollars. Qoattan askad that the Council be provided with the cost of these naw positions, to giva them a bottom line as far as the budget. It was aovad by Callahan, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to authorize the initiation of the hiring process for a full time officer, and to authorize Initiation of an eligibility list for part time officers to be authorized to hire at a later date. Ayes 5, nays 0. Mayor Paterson askad whan they could expect the report requested, and askad that it be submitted for review at the next meeting. (ftJ) REQUEST FROM THE NAVARRE BUSINESS A PROFESSIONAL COUNCIL REQAROXNO HOLIDAY DECORATIONS John O’Sullivan and Janet Symons were present to represent the business connunlty. O'Sullivan noted that In recent years both Spring Park and Mound have added Christmas decorations and the Navarro business district has decided they would like to also purchase decorations. Me noted that to date they have received COMltteants of $4,000 for the purchase. O'Sullivan stated that are asking the Council for assistance in initial Installation of the brackets, seasona* installation and removal of the brackets, and storage of the decorations. Syeons noted there would be 40 poles decorated and 4 angels to be located at the intersection of County Roads 15 and 19. Ooetten asked what the cost of installation would be. Oarnardson noted that hasn't been determined yet, but he has one OStiMte for Installation at |85/hour. Me noted It would be best to contract for the labor as the Public Works Department Is uneouipped to do such a Job. O'Sullivan noted that the business community has committed to all updates and repairs to the decorations. goetten suggested the City •neck with surrounding communities to see how they have their decorations installec. Sutler noted that she wished the sign said Orono Instead of Navarre. 9 i MXNUTiS OP THI MOULAH OWNO COUNCIL MIITXNO - OCTOilN ai. Itil HOLIDAY OICOHATIONS - CONT. It was novsd by Jabbour, seconded Butler, to instruct staff to assist the Navarre Business Community In Installation and storage of Christmas decorations. and to obtain the lowest most reasonable bid for installa: on not to exceed $1,000. Ayes 5, nays 0. Symons explained that there Is a Shoreline Beautification Fund of which one-third of the money can be used If the parent C ty matches the dollar amount used. She noted that Orono s portion of the fund Is $425.00. Bytier noted they may consider this after they installation cost is going to be. see what the Jabbour directed staff to get the installation bid within the S600 range so as to allow the additional $400 to be given to the business community to use for the purchase of the decorations. (#11) SID AHAHO - CITY FACILITIIS - SITE PA 'ARATION - PARTIAL PUtLXC WORKS FACILl'i r Noorse introduced John uav^es of Kraus Anderson Davies submitted to the Council a bid tabulation for the Public works* portion of the project. He noted it Included overall grading of the site, foundation, purchase of the building, utility work, and masonry work. The remainder of the building would be bid at a later date. Davies explained the cover sheet as ’•'oiiows: the contract for the city hall and police department has not yet been bid so the dollar amount estimated by Boarman has been carried over. The public works construction was budgeted for $1,176,000, of which only a portion has been bid and the rest has been taken from an estimate by Kreus Anderson, which totals to $1,175,891. unheated storage has yet to be bid. Me noted that under site development, site utilities $15,000 has been estimated to complete stormwater drainage. »oil correction was budgeted for $160,000 and was bid at $202,000. He noted they received two bids, which indicates a bid spread. Me noted that both excavators felt there soils than anticipated. Davies noted that of the bid, $52,000 pwgn distributed to the Public works building. the remainder is under the soil correction column. All other items on the Shoot are Just estimates at this point. Davies noted that they are overbudgeted Just in the bids noted that from the initial budget, they are $31,891 over. Jabbour esked what dollar amount they were to award at th^s time Davies stated that if it were awarded as recommended it would total $713,133. r; •- ■. c' I-.- !•H' NINUTtS OF THI FIOULAF OFONO COUNCIL MEITXNO - OCTOIIN 2t, 1091 •ID AWARD - CITY FACILITIES - CONT. Davits notad that the four items listed at the bottom of the sheet are listed as add Items and are not Included in the numbers above, which Include the retaining walls for the Public Works, the lealn culvert and weir, culverts under berms and the site fence for the Public works building. He noted these Items were Included In the drawings but were not Included In the budget. Boaraan explained that these items were added as they went through the design process or as the surveyor went through the approval process with the City Engineer. He noted that those Iteas are thcjght of as being needed. Jabbour asked If the Items could be eliminated by allowing the water to drain naturally. Boaraan felt the retaining wall could oe reworked, the culvert and the berm are the most realistic and the fence could be Installed at a later date. He noted that the culvert and berm are functional Items and should be addressed at this time. Davies felt that section «2 on the last page of the bid tabulation should be tabled at this time to allow review of the four additional items. Jabbour noted that the Design committee did look at adding berms to the property. He noted there are members that feel that the Public Works building should be sheltered from everyone at any cost. Me felt the most Important Issue at this time Is to make sure that all items approved are functlohol and necessary. Callahan asked if the retaining walls supplied inside storage for the Public Works Department. Qerhardson noted the retaining walls are used for the storage of materials that require a wall to push the bucket against In the loading of such materials. Callahan reiterated that with the Inclusion of the four additional items, we are over budget by $100,000 and felt It was a bad start. Boarman noted that items should not be approved until they fit Into the budget. Davies noted that one bidder supplied the bid later or beyond dosing time, which happens to be the low bid. Barrett noted that approval shoulo be subject to submittal of the attorney's opinion, to follow the next day. It was moved by Butler. seconded by Jabbour. to approve Kraus Anderson's recommended bid award for Items #1. 3. 4. 5 and 6 of Page 4 of the bid tabulation submitted. Ayes 5. nays 0. i i ' ■ . L kW:a- rm MSNUTII OF TMI WOULAF ORONO COUNCIL HttTXNO - OCTOSIR 2C« 1901 BIO AWARD - CITY FACILITIES - CONT. Bojrm».n noted that the soil conditions were always question regarding this property. the biggest (#18) ARCHITECT CONTRACT AMENDMENT Callahan asked why the architect’s contract Included furniture, fixtures, and equipment. Boarnan noted that his contract is now a fixed sum which includes those Items. He stated that Is typically how It Is done, and noted that the City needs someone to coordinate the purchase of all furnltura at the lowest price. He stated that it is also his Job to bring Council and the Design Committee to a concensus on all purchases. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Jabbour, to accept the contract amendment for Jack Baorman and Associates. Ayes 5. nays 0. (#11) CONSTRUCTION MANAGER CONTRACT MoorsG reported that the contract language has almost been flnai^’ed and the final draft will be submitted to Council at a latttf d te. He noted that Tom Sacket of Kraus Anderson has Indicated that since they have started work without a contract, he would like a letter from the Council expressing their inte >t to hire Kraus Anderson. Jabbour noted that the Council has already voted to hire Kraus Anderson. Callahan siuggested that language from Section 15, 16 and 17 of the memo of October 23rd be included within the letter to Kraus Anderson. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Jabbour, to authorize the hiring of Kraus Anderson for the city facilities project, with the Inclusion of language as noted In the memo dated October 23, 1991 by the City Administrator. Ayes 5, nays 0. - CLEAN WATER(#14) MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT RRMTIiERSHIP GRANT APPLICATION - RESOLUTION #3035 #4Ul Nelson of James Montgomery Engineering and Woody Love, Vice Chair of the District, were present. Moorse explained that the Minnehaha Creek watershed District Is •Implying for a grant to improve water quality of Long Lake. Nolaon explained they have conducted a two year study on water iMMlity of Long Lake. They are asking for a 509 grant and are requesting Orono to be a co-sponsor to Implement the proposed plan. He noted they are asking tor Orono’s part1c1pat ion in the public informatIona 1 area. r-“ MINUTES OF THE REaULAN ORONO COUNCIL MEETINO - OCTOIER 21. 1991 MCHO - GRANT APPLICATION - CONT. Jabbour askad how many meetings they would have to attend. Na.son noted there would be 6 per year public 1nformatIona 1 maatlngs held over a 5 year period. He noted that a single person would not have to be named at this time. Just agreement to participate with the project. It was moved by Jabbour. seconded by Council. to authorize submittal of a clean water partnership grant application for Long Lake, and to agree to participate with the public Informational meetings, and to adopt the Resolution #3035 as submitted. Ayes 9. nays 0. Moorsa asked who the other participants would be. Nelson noted they are asking for help from the DNR, Madina and Hennepin Conservation Distrl .. City of Qoatten asked why they chose Long Lake. Love explained that It was the worst lake In the area as far as quality, and they felt there were factors which could be changed that were causing the problems. Nelcon stated they hoped to start this project In the spring of 1992. Callahan felt this is one example of how the watershed Is becoming more involved and felt that a representative of the City should become more familiar with their operation. (••It) SALARY ADJUSTMENT 4 CHANGE ROSITION TITLE - STSRNEN HECKMAN It was moved by Butler, seconded by Jabbour. to change Stephen Hackman's title to Manager of the Sewage Treatment Program or On- Site Septic Manager, and to increase his salary to Level 6. Step 2. at an hourly rate of $12,909 to be effective as of September l. 1992 with a salary review In July. 1992. Ayes 5. nays 0. (•#17) RESOLUTION •S0S6 - ORDERING REPORT 4 FEASItILlTY STUDY FOR STUMS GAY SEHER It was moved by Butler, seconded by Jabbour. to adopt Resolution #3036 ordering a feasibility report for the Stubbs Bay sewar Ayes 9. nays 0. (■#!•) RESOLUTION #3037 - RECEIVING FEASItILITY STUDY 4 CALLING FOR A FUOLIC NEARING FOR STUttS 9AY SANITARY SEHER AREA It was moved by Butler, seconded by Jabbour, to adopt Resolution #3037 accepting the feasibility study and calling for a public hearing on Wednesday. November 20. 1991 at 7:00 p.m. for the Stubbs Bay Area Sanitary Sewer. Ayes 5. nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REQULAN ONONO COUNCIL MEETXNO - OCTOtBN 2lt 1911 (•#20) BILLS It was movtd by Butler, seconded by Jabbour, paynant of the All Funds Account. Ayes 5. nays C. to approve AOJOUNNMENT J ■:1= j' Toi Mayor Peterson t Orono Council Members City Administrator Moorse % V VroBt Omtmt SubjectI Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning i Zoning Admi November 4, 1991 •1682» Christine Brickley, 3262 North Shore Drive - Variance - Resolution % SoaiB9 Dietrict ~ LR-1C>1» Single family lakeshore residential, 1/2 acre, unsewered Spplieetioa ~ Request for variances to construct detached garage List of libita Sxhibit A Exhibit B Bxhlbit C Exhibit D Resolution Notice of Planning Commission Action 10/23/91 Sketch by Staff Memo and Exhibits of 10/14/91 ■otot This application unfortunately has changed to an after-the-fact situation. The weekend after the Planning Commission meeting, construction was commenced on the proposed garage without final Oouncil action nor a building permit. This came to staff's attention on Monday, October 28th and a stop work order was posted. The applicant was advised that work could not continue until such time tnat the Council approves the necessary variances and a building permit is issued. To make matters worse, the garage was not coaatructad per the revised plan approved by the Planning Commission. Tho roof was pitched such that half its runoff is directed to the side lot line where only a 3' setback was proposed, and this will potentially direct runoff to the neighboring property. iom Pleare review the memos and exhibits of October 14th and •optambor 6th. Briefly, the applicant poured a slab without oemtacting the City nor obtaining any approval for her intended garage construction. The inspection staff found the slab belnc poured in lato August, and advised the owner of the apparent problems that would bo encountered in constructing a garage at that location. The subaaguont survey found that the slab was poured 3.3* from the west lot line and 2.6* from the south lot line. Applicant intended to coaatruct a 1,0S6 s.f. garage on this 32'x32* slab. She was advised of the need for a number of variances and made application. After the initial flaaning Commission review in Septemberat which tabl^iji^ occurred, applicant revised her proposal to a 768 s.f. (24*x32 garage riu 11602 lk>irttiib«r 4» Fa9« 2 1991 nidation At thair October meeting, Planning Commission recommended •ppi^oval of a 760 s*f« garage to be located on the northerly 3/4 s of tha slab aa poured. On a vote of 6 to 0, the Planning Commission raconnandad approval for the following variancesi Allowed or Required Proposed (As Revised)Variance Naat 8ida Setback South (Rear) Setback Bardcovar, 75-250* Lot Coverage ly*^ 15* 25% 15% 3.3* 10.6* 46.9% 17.5% 11.7* 4.4* 21.9% 2.5% The Planning CoBunlsslon recommended that the 8*x32* remaining portion of slab be removed, as well as the 9*x9' shed. This results in a decrease in 75-250* hardcover on the property from a pre-existing level of 50.6% down to 46.9%. Note that when the applicant commenced construction on the garage without a p-*rmit, she had not removed the t*x32* portion of sVab. to Oooaider 1.Planning Commission In their Initial review only touched briefly on the issue of the use of this garage for storage of masonry business equipment and materials. Does placing this garage in the context of a home occupation impact the VBi^iance request? No home occupation license has been applied for. 2.In order to make use of the 32* roof trusses ordered and delivered prior to approvals or permits, applicant pitched the roof so that it may negatively impact the neighboring properties due to runoff. If a garage is approved for this site, does the roof have to be reoriented? 3.The building inspectors have indicated that a garage meeting 10* or 15* setbacks could be constructed using the existing slab, as long as the extraneous portions of slab are removed and the remaining perimeter is reinforced with a poured underpinning. The fact that the slab was poured too close to the lot line may not be a reasonable justification to allow a garage to be constructed at substandard setbacks. Are there legitimate hardships to allow this totally new to be located 3.3* from the side lot line where a 15 setback is required? F Film tieta llov«nb«r 4, P«9« 3 1991 4.Given that actual construction of the garage cosonenced with neither final action on the variance nor a building pernit* staff requests Council's direction as to whether the zoning application, building permit, or both, should be assessed the Density fee. •teff tiem A resolution reflecting the Planning Commission recommendation has been drafted for Council consideration. That resolution can easily be revised based on whatever action is taken by the Council. , a. Ita.l ■ A RBSOLDTIOa GKAMTIVG ▼AAIAKBS TO MMICIPAL WmiWa COOB CT10H8 10.03, oinoivioioa 14 (C) 10.03, tmonrisioa 9 (b), and 8BCT10B 10.22, 8HBDIVI8I0H 2 PILB 91002 AMD S ■S'. i I I «nBBA8, Christine Brickley (hereinafter "the applicant") la owB^r of the property located at 3262 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described r.s follows: Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"): and W8BBBA8, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03» Subdivision 9 (E) to allow a proposed detached garage of 768 s.f. to be constructed 10.5' froM the south lot line and 3.3' from the west lot line where a aatback of 15* is normally required from said lot lines* and a wariance to Section 10.03, Gubdivision 14 (C) to allow lot coverage of 17.9% where only 15% lot ccverage is normally allowed* and a varlan^ to Section 10.22* Subdivision 2 to allow hardcover in the 75-250 Xakaahore setback tone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed. MMf, TBBBBPOIIX* 88 IT BB80LVBD by the City Council of Orono* Minnesota I 1. 2. PIBDI868 This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1682. The pioperty is located in the LF-IC—1 Single Family Lakeahore Beaidential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Coanission reviewed this application on September 16* 1991 and tabled the request to allow the applicant to subaiit a revised plan. The Planning Conmission raviewed the revised proposal on October 21* 1991 and on a vote of 6 to 0 recommended approval of variances to construct a 24*x32' garage located 3.3* from the west lot line and 10.5* from the south lot line* based on the folowing findings: Page 1 of 7 Jk a) c) The proposed 766 s.f. detached garage replaces a pre existing 48C s.f. garage, 200 s.f. barn and 80 s.f. storage stied with a single structure of approximately the sane square footage as the three pre-existing buildings. Applicant has agreed to remove the three snaller buildings in exchange for the new detached garage. The pre-existing 75-250* hardcover was 50.6%. If an 8'x32* portion of the concrete garage slab which was poured without prior approvals is removed, hardcover on the property will be reduced to 46.9% in the 75-250* sons. Lot coverage by structures will remain at the pre existing level of 17.5%. The small lot size constitutes a hardship to the property. Consolidation of three storage buildings on the property into a single building will reduce the visual density and clutter in the neighborhood. Locating the garage 10.5* from the south lot line is justified from the standpoint that if the garage was 18 s.f. smaller, only a 10* setback would be required. The 3.3* setback from the west lot line is justified by the need to maintain the full 32* depth of the garage without encroaching on the loop driveway which s< the Immediate neighborhood. 4.The revised garage proposal shotted a roof peak running east- west, which would discharge storm water runoff to applicant*s yard rather than the neightxiring property. 5.After the Planning Commission meeting, applicant proceeded to construct a garage without final Council approval or the necessary building permit. During that construction, the roof line was reversed so that runoff will be directed towards the neighboring property which is only 3* from the garage wall and less than 2* from the roof overhang. Page 2 of 7 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recosunendations of the Planning Coininission, reports by City staff# comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 7. 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 soning 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. OOSCLOSIOHS# OHDIK AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings# the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22# Subdivision I, taction 10.03# Subdivision 9 (£)# and Section 10.03# Subdivfsion 14 (C) to permit the construction of a 24 ’x32* detached garage located 3.3* from the west lot line and 10.5* from the south lot line where normally IS' lot line setbacks would be required# and allowing lot ooTorage to increase to 17.5% where only 15% lot coverage is normally allowed, and allowing 4i.9% hardcover in the 75-250’ tone where only 2S% hardcover is normally allowed# subject to the following conditional 1. Bardcover in the 75-250* sone is approved at level of 44.9%. 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 the property ere placed on notice that hardcover shall not be increased above the currently approved level and any proposed iagrovomsnts of the property that would result in additional hardcover in either the 0-75' or 75-250* tone must be approved by the City. Such approval nay resuU in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of Pa^fj' 4 of 7 f?:: % 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. i. existing hardcover. All exlatlng hardcover scheduled for resioval as a condition of this resolution must be removed and inspected prior to recommer ement of construction. The garage roof shall be reconstructed with the peak running in an east^west direction, to direct runoff onto applicant’s property rather than onto the neighboring property. Prior to recommencement of construction, applicant shall provide the building inspector with suitable construction plans conforming to the conditions of this resolution, and shall obtain the appropriate permit for such construction. In addition to the normal building permit fee, applicant ahall pay the after-the-fact investigation fee for the building permit because construction was cosunenced prior to issuance of a building permit. Applicant shall pay the after-the-facv investigation fee for the toning application because construction was commenced without the proper variance approvals being obtained. Applicant shall remove the 8*x32‘ excess slab pric*' to commencement of construction, and shall take whatever measures are required by the Inspections Department in order to make the remaining slab viable for supporting the proposed garage. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (Novemhil« 12, 1992). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terns and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the soninq code, shall automatically terminate any a* horlty 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 herself, her heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to toe recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 5 of 7 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of ■ovevber, 1991. ATTESTi r Dorothy N. Rellin, City clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor froporty Owner(•) if-r STATE or NIMIIBSOTA ) ) ss.ITT or mmiBPiM ) i II. The fore9oln9 instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th dey of November, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson a Dorothy N. ■mllin. Mayor a City Clerk of the city of Orono, s Minnesota ■onielpel corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page € of 7 W-'f- cm ov omomo »• O. Sox fi ZOHISG PILE il€82 Cmtal Say 473-73S7 m 55323 SOnCB OP PLAIIMIIIG rOMMlSSIdf ACTION Date of Notice: 10/23/91 ' f r V- fOt Chriitlne Brickley 3282 North Shore Drive NSysata* NN 55391 COPIBS TOt f:- ► ' V - 11: r'”: I: P |f: '5-1. i. ¥ m or SmZCSTXOHt variance I 10/21/91 VOTBi 6 For 0 Against da the followlags Approval subject to conditions noted below. ■QfnS AND SPKXAL OONDITZONSi Plamiiag CoMisaion recommended approval subject to: X, 24* X 32* garage as proposed* 3.33* from west lot line* 10.56* from south lot line. 2. •* X 32* remainder of slab to be removed. 3. 9x9 shed to be removed. 4* Pinal hardcover In 75*250* zone shall be limited to 3221 s.f. (46.9%). Applieant*s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as p.m City Council Tuesday* November 12* 1991; meeting starts at 7:00 Xf you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission ■ittlltes* they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. MUtyrif OP THI OIONO PLANNING COMMISSION MUTING OF OCTOBER 21, % 1991^ #1626 - CONT. Ch#ir K«U«y that this is a better plan that the Traffs. Cohan atr««<i m t MAi-Arf frhAt the CoBmission seems to be doing exactly what iowlBttB notad that tne commiaai -onrovina variances for thay aaid thay weren't going to do. i.e. approving van naw construction. obllgatad to approve this request- "4”;. Tlu ‘s:indicated that thay plan to recycle the existing buildings. Ctelr It.U.y oot.d th.t if the Mitchells didnt h^^^ •araanant driveway aasenent on the west siae, davalopnant of this lot much easier. It mov,d by Johnson, seconded by Moos, to ''f III ijoU^ty St 26M North Shore Drive to construct a new widSSir Ayes 4. nays 2. Rowlette and Bellows voted nay. (#4) #1662 CHilSTINB BRICRLEY. mXAIICB^ CoStINUATIOM of public hearing 7:33-7:50 P.M. Chriatina Brickley was present for this application. Gaffron noted that this is a revised proposal ia nnchangad. sr-?bii^-Lrir r.ou^° hardcover ..k.d if the previous slab was incorporated within the BB« slab area. nrieklev said yes. and the hardcover is exactly the sane aSd initeid of three boildin,. there will be one. ■ntad the height of the garage has been reduced 6-8 . as She Ckair Kelley noted that by retaining the sl.-b. it quite possibly Sul ba*built upon in the future, so it aakes no sense to cut the Hite of S. ga?n. *nd to alio- the slab portion to reaain. % c ^7 •— Kc:.- r.', i:- f,;lins or THE OBOHO PLANHIHG COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 21. 1991 #1682 - CONT. Johnson is^Jeason^bU. Un:u‘?h2*:ijoln?;. .Ub .HouK, not n. .llo-.d. A DUt - -- B.UOW. noted th.t . hardship for the g.re*. i» the storage construction aquipnant. Bricklay notad that is correct.OrXWKAV/ aawe.w— - - up - - , Gail Naffua. Casco ®“‘*iot*2tkinrtoS‘*aSch*'''and*‘’is‘*only noted that the “oSe n«df. She noted that the «“;• ii“In *thr«lct 5;.e spot as the previous garage and shed. ••• A* — - It »aa ooved by ■^®'*JJ®"’,,!l2°for**Christine Brickley. J2«2 North anproval of *FPl‘9*‘*®?„f't*M ‘!Itbick variance and a nardcover cJSJtrSci-i m” ; .??«":G”ori2?geJ\hcn’'‘^S s‘«;S“ni:i“oJ?!;:rS^rrrtron' rth. Slab and the renaining B' of the slab to be renoved. Ayes 6. nays (M) *1603 BOBEBT F. SUESS. JSSlSimTCLAsS^in SUBDIVISION ' „ ^ „JSnflSoATION or PUBLIC HBABING 7:31-0! 15 P.M.------------------- lij- ::: ?::u3%hri»i%?ss “:;i«?i"*”-s:n?ar‘of : topc.raphic oap to review drainage. Caffron noted that the enjineer^.d ^“,„-”r*«Mje?deS“ knowing that “L«! niy be sone flexibility inCook la reeonnendlng that «« y point, that drainage tetnlly finishing t^ rii*iJit*lot line be completed now. end along Wotertoen end neighborhood would have:.;;:.tin. tb.t dral«.g. in the ^ckberry^n.lgh iSrthL.n«::? aftS?“!; d^lUS^plan ha. bee. subnltted. BMg wuwen^p ^— Chair lelley asked if an extension has been considered of the rood to the north.roes WM •*'*“ — Oaffron noted that staff ha. * '“jrfhi'i..?!*"Sow. a nor. viable option being connection to the west. usrus .» lift c A5 gV IW/O'^ %■■ f> V i!'' t i [• r K'' i I: «; Rii' r Tot Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse* City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator tetoi October 14, 1991 I 91682 Christine Brickley, 3262 North Shore Drive - Variance > Continuation of Public Hearing List of ■ahiblte A - Revised Garage Plan Submitted B - Staff Sketch, Revised Site Plan C - Notice of Planning CossRission Action 9/16/91 D - Mmo and Exhibits of 10/6/91 Moenooioo Applicants have revised their garage proposal, reducing Sise frost 1056 s.f. to 768 s.f. (24* x 32'). the i t V? r I,p The revised garage of 768 s.f. requires 15* setbacks from the vest end south lot lines. Applicants propose to stake use of the recently poured slab, hence the new proposal leaves a 10.5* setback to the south lot line and 3.3* to the west lot line. At your September meeting, applicant indicated that the garage and slab would not increase hardcover above the pre> existing levels, because the previous garage and shed were Msitioned near the west lot line with gravelled parking area in front* hence the area covered by slab was already totally hardeovered. Me have no photos or pre-existing survey to verify this* however* in this case hardcover in the 75-250* tone would rsSMin at 50.6% with the current plan. Applicants propose to use the southerly 8* of the slab for boat and truck storage. Isemea to Ook^idor 1. Is there sufficient hardship or justification to grant a 4.5* south lot line setback variance and 11.7* aide setback variance to allow the proposed garage? 2. Onder the current proposal, lot coverage will stay at the pre-existing level of 17.5%. The 768 s.f. garage contains the equivalent enclosed space of the pre-existing shed, garage* and storage barn. Is there sufficient hardship or justification to grant a variance for 17.5% lot coverage? 3* It hardcover stays at its claimed pre-existing level of 50.6% in the 75-250* sone, is there hardcover in the 0-75* tone that could be removed to coaq>ensate? 17V T',TT .11 I,:., t I: ’ •..,,;-5 •b f^>-- ?;<■'1 b I' f r /■' t b i: .;f: Ml toning Pile #1602 October 14r 1991 Page 2 Options for tioo Planning Coamiasion could consider the following possible recoamendations t 1. Approval as revised, with or without additional conditions. 2. Partial approval, subject to limitations on garage sise, location and/or concurrent hardcover removals (specify those conditions). 3• Denial. 4. Table further, give applicant specific direction as to what further revislonsare necessary. 5. Other. lav '1 f f. A: % P r; r *. f b; P' k.h ' L.j- s k '/y'r »v >1 ' V 7)* ^ ^ tUtUie^ ^^ M <tA-^ ^ ‘ ^.y (W' J g,r i -^? « 2 j, JcfeV/irD //?'//'?/ P^;-' .*r .* • I . i I • , . ‘ i'. A , Vi* • * ♦ •# • i •- s, ■ V *• •I y •• ■ V*** I • « I I cm or oroMo f. o. Bob if lONIIIG PILE #lit2 Crystal 473-7357 55323 ROTICB OP PLAMNI«^C CONNISSIOM ACTION Date of Notice: 9/17/91 fOt Christine Brickley 3242 North Shore Drive NSysstS, MM 55391 COPIES TOt tm or JUmiChTXOrt variance asm or IMt 9/16/91 VOTES 5 For 0 kqainat nsHiiaf n—lsslisi reoaMBoada the followings Tsblec ‘^r reasons noted below AND mClAL CONDITlOHSs Tabled pending submittal by applicant of a revised proposal that more elosely meets the hardcover* lot coverage and setback requirements. Please eOBtact Nike Gaffron at the City offices (473-7357) if you wish to discuss your options. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the October 21 meeting is October 11* 1991. If tho applicant has trouble obtaining additional information* please doatact the toning Department (473-7357). If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission aiautos* they are available from the City Recorder after review and »roval by the Planning Commission. lav i. I f!- k fo* Dat«i Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorae# City Adminiatrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning t Zoning Administrator September 6, 1991 jectt #1662 Christine Brickley, 3262 North Shore Drive - Variance - Public Hearing Womi»9 Diatrieti LR-lC-l, Single family lakeshore residential, 1/2 acre, unae%»ered Applieationt Request for varia* accessory structure (garac. construct oversized 1. 2. 3. 4. Accessory structure footprint area in excess of 1,000 a f. on lot less than 2 acres in area (Section 10.03, Subdivision t (C) (2). Lot is 0.28 acres. Proposed detached garage of 1056 s.f., if allc J, would l»equire 30* setbacks from lot lines (Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (3) (A). Proposed/*as poured* setbacks: West sides 3.33* South (rear)t 2.56* Requiredt 33* 7S*2S0* hardcover in excess of 251 allowance (Section 10.22, Subdivision 2) Pre->existin9 hardcover: 46.5% Proposed hardcover: 50.6% Motet 0-75* hardcover is 15.6% w* ere none is allo%#ed. excess of 15% allowance (Section 10.03,Lot coverage in Subdivision 14 (O). Pre-ojUsting lot coverage: Proposedi 19.8% 17.5% ■iPinhip ttn flnase see applicant's Letter of Request. list of Mlibito ■shibit A - ■iriiibit • - iRllibi*^ C - ■Mhibit D - Application Plat Nap Property Owners List Letter o* Request P W-f« : '.iUlii.- toning Fllr Soptonbor 6, 1991 Pngo 2 of 3 Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J OinettnalcMi Survay Staff Survay/Hardcover Review Befora/After Hardcover Proposals Municipal Sewer Location Diagram Garage Plan Submitted Inspection Notice 8 22/91 r-^ Applicant demolished the pre-existing 20' x 24* garage and removed from the aite a pre-existing 10* x 20' shed/barn structure without obtaining the necessary demolition permit. This came to the attention of City staff when applicant was found to be pouring a slab on the property August 22, 1991. The slab maa half poured when discovered by the Building Inspector and a Stop Work Order was immediately posted. However, because concrete for the remainder of the slab was on the way and could not be returned, applicant was allowed to pour the remainder of the slab at applicant's risk. Applicant was advised that there is no guarantee that the slab and/or any garage proposed to be constructed on it, would meet the Code requirements, and <dOOtinuing work was entirely at the applicant's risk. Applicant immediately ordered survey work, and upon submittal of the survey, as anticipated by staff, the prCr/ose^< work did not meet Code in many respects. Staff review of the survey and field me^ urements indicate that the existing house was not accuratel plotted by the surveyor in relation to the normal shoreline. Staff has slightly redrawn the shoreline to reflect field conditions, as well as oonfirm and correct the insufficient hardcover data supplied by the applicant. The city has to date not required permits for sidewalks, surfacing of driveways, or other «evel concrete pours, although quite often such work places a property owner in violation of the hardcover ordinance. ^Mnce construction of the garage itself had not been started nor were there garage construction materials on the site, technically the work to date did not need a permit. in this respect, the application for garage construction is not after-the-fact. The Building Inspectors have indicated that it may be feasible to cut away portions of the slab and make use of the remainder using certain construction techniques. The Planning Commission should not therefore necessarily make the assumption that the slab would have to be entirely redone if some portion of the proposed work is approved. I. Soiling rilo «1682 Soptonbor 6* 1991 Pngo 3 of ? iMOon to Conaidor 1. 2. 3. la thore any reasonable justification to allow a garage of any else to be located 2~3* irom the rear and side lot linea? A garage 0-750 s.f. in area would normally require 10* actbacka from the aide and rear lot lines for this lakeahore lot. A garage 751-1000 s.f. would require 15* setbacks. Bocauae the lot is only 0.28 acres in area, is there any justification to grant a variance to allow an accessory structure in excess of 1000 s.f. footprint? Is there any justification to allow lot coverage by structures to increase from 17.5% pre-existing to 19.8%, when the Code only allows 1S%? Does the intent to provide enclosed storage for collector cars, masonary construction equlpsMntr and other items currently stored outside on the property, justify the size garage proposed? Is the single large garage structure more appropriate for the site than a nusiber of smaller buildings, from a visual perspective? Vote that the applicants propose to remove the tin shed resMlnlng on the property. Is there any justification for approval of a hardcover Increase from 48.5% (including the tin shed, old 20* x 24* garage, and old 10* s 20* barn) up to 50.6% in the 75-250* some? Is there additional hardcover in the 0-75* or 75-250* tones that can be removed to mitigate the additions? Note that the driveway and parking area is part of a shared loop driveway serving two other residences. Optiems for ■soamModetlon Planning Commission wish to consider the following possible recommendations: 1. Denial. 3. Partial approval, subject to limitations on garaoe slse, location and/or concurrent hardcover removals (specify those conditions). 3. Approval as proposed, with or without additional conditions. 4. i;4. 9. lav Table, giving applicant direction as to what typ# of plan revisions might result in a positive Other.Cj./(„-'* I £- ^ A r cm OF GROW) - VARIAROS AFFLICTION XBltiAl AppUcBtion (ISO.OO p«r BACh additional variance, Aaoawal Varianca raa5100»0^ (bo chan^o from original appli^^^C # Aftor-tho-Fact Faoa (Doubla application fe*" %• .. TT • # i :j \r J.J o faOFBOT LOCATION tit# Addroaa turn.an tffimCl OFFUSrropartr XdOBtlflcation Humbor (P.I.D.) n aSS^UI? doBcription to application if not includod on iJ roquirod turvoy. ______________________________i;dSlt---iL---175.W Phone (home) W7 !»•: 6gtdtU<j___ Or^__gitvt OrawQ______ zipxS S3^_£ ;■. r'.. m-nm you i ROl TIUZ ^ / as/23/^ Phone (wor3c)_U2il22£^—— Addroas (if dlfforoBt than applicant)Phone (home) Phone (work) Address t Oats Property Acquired City:Zip: (month/year) I (do) (do not) .1*0 ovn th. .dj.c.nt parcol. of Und^ ONB OB Freseat zoning District freseat Ose of Property Reeidential Other (specify) t • • • £ftimated Construction Cost I »o«»lb. u dot.il. JV^ uiV 9 Lot Area ietbeck Verieaeee ( Other Lot Nidth Front Bardcower Sido'V ».iMMniZP undu6 hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict •nforcament of zoning regulations; — --------- ^ .s4t%s^-------- hgKBZPTZOH OF UWJOTAL PROPWTT COWDITIONS f Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning ^ CLaAx<iii /aU noi^UJn Comleted Application Form ^ • jlu Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain f ehia llet from Hennecin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Centerthis liet from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 34H-3271). Plat Nap (obtainM with property owners list). , , ^ Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 0*i"xll" for reproduction). . ^, u Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy Sh-xll"). tketchea or plans of floor t elevation views (provide 1 copy 8Jj"xll"). Aa an addendusi to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. j^ditional items as may be requested by City staff. App^leant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please ,, that vonr variemee application is not complete_if—^e above included* ^CMT*S tZONATOU applicant hereby agrees to provide ail information required or Ited by the toning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff not covered by original fee payment) and/or ccrsultant expenses in review of this anplication, and certifies that the information Iliad ia true and corpapt/^ the best/^f his/her know ledge y pplieant's Signature Date SI Wl haraby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further inaa raaaonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, Qgggnidioil BMSibera^vanu Council mMd>ers for purposes of investiga— and varificati a SigBatora requast Date It vent naat have all sohsdttals into the City offices 25 days before the Coandaeioa Neating. Planning Cosaiission Meetings are held on the ‘SS? ii“” “V'JS’STKU” “~.s of this change prior to the meeting. '. ■ r w i t / • 9MP MM 1I1f101124 NORTH SHORE DR 0S2M NOtTH MOM M i mmn mm RITA N DTWttJV NIItCTOMlA RRORERTIES INC mCHMO 0 NOIMI ET ALfmmwk■ N • D 1 DTRALIV JAMES J 0(661 missEU A Homm V-mm/mm D614 UMEM DLVD 1224 NORTH SHORE OR ISSOO MAYZATA ilVt IMT IMS - NOUK IM IDI64 ORONO (M 55141 NAYZATA m Ulfl : . M 06-117-21 44 6664 16 M-117-21 44 0016mm MM 6SIM NORTH INOIII M 012M NORTH SNORE OR r •MM MM NPDMTOWU RRDRtRTlIS INC RITA N STANLEY fMPnn J6M6 J M6M R N A S B STRALEY TOTAL MTCH Ml MOII r -MM/MM 1224 NORTH SHORE M 1014 TUMBM DLVD ; 1 i . ORONO IM 50541 MOUND IM 55144 KM MTf M/tl/91 Midi m NiWCNN COUNTY MOMRTV INTOmATlON SYSTEN MORCRTY OMCRS LIST M M-117-n 41 0001 tlMO NOOTN SNOM M L MMR • 0 MOni t/9 NOmN tNOn Ml NMUM Ittt NDRTN M«MI Ml OMMD IM Min M M>nr-u 41 tlMt NDRfM CMUtTINi N MUCRLIV CIMItTM N MIICKLIV BMt NDRTM MIOM M mVIATA IM MS41 M M-117-C1 41 Mil RCMMT NO. RMC n4si4oi 1 M M-117-tS 41 000* 0S7M NORTH SHORE OR L NORM « O HORK LMRV NORK C/0 NORTH SHORE Ml HMINA 1221 NORTH SHORE OR ORONO m B5S9I la 06-117-21 41 0007 01240 NORTH SHORE H VERA N HARTIN JAMES J MAM 1224 NORTH SHORE OH ORONO ft &S141 16 06-117-21 41 0004 01246 NORTH SHORE OR RONALD 0 STAUT7ER RONALD D STAUFfER 1246 N SHORE DR NAVZATA MN BS141 16 06-117-21 41 0010 01240 NORTH SHORE M RITA H STRALEV R N A S E STRALEV 5014 TIMEDO DLVD MOUM m 55144 16 M-117-2S 41 0012 16 M-117-tl 44 DM1 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS RERRESENTED RCRRESCNTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT OF THE NEI6CRIN COUNTY DERAR OF NY RNONLESOE AND DELIEF. DATE jld (Maxwell i '4, i'r L|^;. I. •;' h».r i;. >“/>e-/8 r» ■!■• "i 1. * i* 1 I CM (r: T:: T--' O'J o lU •/) • -W‘ • sif'j jj.Tt \ V % « • • &U jul Oi*^s /\KhMf%__ \Kt *+K4> olci. V l/\ CCM^ I tocA a ^- 0-«2c ^ X S'' sK a «X -+-k«*- u>Li __ . rvMLiU ^..0*^.4 ......y<?'' ___^iy^uuji _ - - AiXc. ___ is (po-ii-'^.. LOc A-ix<X '■^ — q1 p 5 __ 4»y, 1^ ^> C^Vtcb*^^'-*^ . feeXAo^ U6 K>C VvA>*<^ Jlx.if^>t4j( lA<>4jfcCAo —^+u-^ ___c4* ' Ctf-C/— ^ __ f=in-cl ^<CWN. <-^ 'U*^ ^ 4^ . idjLy^ '4’tnl^ A-<J? ^ p lc«,.<-ii — 4“^ cdLi ^ OVA^ U->— LA- CL« fVXa.^^^ ^ t/X-U"»ic--«P A-c( UM— fV4j|_-^ ^ pL^<.U ^ • UJe, ru«^ ife^?^^A-__J^>%v^5l4A^ ffy^ ou<, umjl £ A-cP r' _ 1^ ,S4yxA-^ _ -UM-_(>V ^ie£d»^ . ^rv^K „*^- >tX * * - AW*trri>.. i.- ht S’ ■ HI I'i |■^■^^>V i HARI3C0VER CALCULATI^ ScT3AC< ZONE; (CISCLS ONE/ 0-/O ]25C-500' ECC-ICCC' Existing HAflDcovEa in Zone A. House ii2_ length - X 1. Garage c. Driveway - X c. Sidewalk ** I y — X r .Lanoscare ».■ AREAS UNOtRUIN (0* ■Y ’ RLASTIC SMEtTmO s. O ther n WIDTH roTAL Hardcover in Zone Total Prorerty Area in Zone VVo S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ijw S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^ S.F. S.F. Lr.. jv V K) t.F 0 [2 [Y| -f [T] X100 /<^ t3 % HARDCOVER CALCULAiiOfi WORKSH^SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' (75-:5''>Existing Hardcover in ZoneA. House length width D'.L-^LL'J7“^S.F. S.F.•1^4; > S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk S.F. S.F. E. Patio/ Deck S.F. S.F. F. Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN ■V PLASTIC SHEETING S.F. S.F . S.F. jr Lkliiiiaii'ViSsI..; G. Other Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone B 1^1^ *[T] » S.F. r.F. isn .... m S.F. im ■ 70 % »■ • ^ ‘‘ V •A * % • 1 • J • • 4> ^dm ~ Wc»/<, Q& OO' 'n (<i fMoi€^ I I c»r __. • *1 t 4 I ' • • \ • • • 4) »0•n iOCOVAt '- w«.sH.caoo' 5 C«r, t I f -*/ / I • 1 - <v- /PS' '.•«» I '"'T^I s -24- 0*4 {4” M*P'- f. / y/0 r /Ow ♦'Ll // / /^c L OlV 7v - V 4* • • • • <?T «o ».4>’ Um « • • •. mt '<02 «M. y /^/ •- e «*4 *, Lif^£p ,> •»► ^;-T^ . 4 a / y / Aj (?■, jocT" I r- I I~4----J « f TTf • » CITYof ORONO Pont Offic* Bo« M*CryMai Bay. Minr.^oU 55323•MttiuapaJ OOflW On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka January IT, 1990 Norman Carlson 3262 North Shore Drive Hayzata, .5N 55391 Dear Mr. Carlson: «pw0'' line on vcur property Curr.ntly th.re i» a m--"ooo 1.tar. waste Contrclthat ia owned and maintained by t.he Me-.opoi-- Commission . la. ¥hm rece'- >ewer construction in the area byAs a result of the rec • a-eceivinq the ownership M.W.C.C., the City V^ne runs into a lift station at that sewer line. ^hat sower installation of the new 3200 North Shore Drive, because ‘ ‘ ' ci*-v of Orono canlift station by Maxwell Marina ^he Ci y o^^ :n order iliminate the lift ^^^///einstruct a new line that to accomplish this, we ^ ^ ^.^at it is now flowing. will flow in the ?Von tcur‘prooertv allowing that There are permanent easements However in order to inV. i^^Vs^^we^^^^^r^^^^w^^l^:e;d%:mporary easements from A temporary easement equipment on would restore the property to Once the project is ^ -^or vour review and file is a its original condition. Attache- - ^-en-oo-ary easement needed plan of the project and a ;*T:rbegin construction in to construct ^he prc:ec . ^e wou.d hope >o ^ February or .*..'irch. can .'h^VuV. “* Sincerely, John R. Gerh^rdaon, Public Work- Director cT jpO/tln iSVMNSa ZOMiMi . \OMIMiT«ATION»HNAM t An ns*ri ei H W4iafc> yIf DATE TIME cmrof onowo Nt^fCnON NOTICE called in SCMCOUUD 1 ¥ '3WIT NO.______________ coMfLETEO r^S i ll; ONmER.______ TUEHONENO.. ■^iwfy 4>^i .A----------j— CONTIt _4j4jltx£si®l •mNAL 11 MECHANICAL m 11 MECHANICAL FINAL a«as WOOD buhner /fireflace 12 MATER HOOK-UF 13 METER SET/TURN ON 14 EEMER HOOK-UF 2TSERT1CMAINT 15 svnc install n sf me final to met YOU: m NO 16 WELL TEST FUMF 16 EXCAV/QRAOINQ/FILLING 19 lakeshore /wet lands 34 TREE removal ITSJTEINSFECTION 06 FROORESS 21 COMPLAINT 22 FOLLOW-UP gnmwBiTi . . t -Vq 'Oa(i ui/o f\'- L/-C yogferj i.-I'- ■ ■* ’-Rl-r '' lAfA n/ aj t4 nTs NO m CALL TO ANPUNOf ACC€U iCTcoMinxn z rssui ctmiFiCAn of occufancv TfftdFOlUNy FfPMyUNiNT C FHOTO TAKiN z cTTATioN tsaufo intatrtto 473-7357 -A- • • -• c-» / fey.•w K *, • ; > «• ft«»• ^ •. •'• ^ '» . ^..■4 ■ •■**• • • f’.l'T „ . .. •t. 7 *, :• * * * * * *_ *« %???!• I- W* f i> • J ■•<!** 4^, W * »<i,- 5i^ ■* *>. MkW --•••►.# h-k: !■_-< > ;• •• ✓ <v/ I / R%,r j^l ^ **■; r , ’A‘ Z' r* < w'-y > * • X > (' ‘ i ‘••■■ y Tot Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator / <5? Froai Datas Sobjactt 'Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 Zoning Adn^ij^strf^^ November S, 1991 #1683 Robert P. Suess, 2590 Watertown Road - Preliminary Subdivision % toiliag Districts RR-lBr Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, unsewered AppXieatiooi Request for subdivision of 19.7 acre existing homestead to create two 2-acre building sites Ixhibit A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 10/23/91 Exhibit B - Planning Commission Minutes 10/21/91 Exhibit C - Memo k Exhibits of 10/18/91 Exhibit D - Memo t Exhibits of 9/9/91 Dieeoeeioo The applicant proposes to create two new 2-acre building sites from his homestead property on Watertown Road. The proposal includes creation of a 50* outlot for future construction of a private road. Each lot has been tested and proved suitable for sewage treatment drainfield sites. The applicant contends that this should be considered a 2- lot plat not subject to the requirement for construction of a private road. Me is proposing to serve the two new lots with a giagle driveway constructed within the Outlot, leaving his existing residence access directly onto Watertown Road. Applicant has provided a conceptual plan for a future cul-de-sac to serve as many as 9 lots, and staff has sketched a conceptual plan showing connection to Goldenview Drive. The City Engineer requested a topogr«.phic survey of the entire property, and upon receipt and review of that survey recommanded that applicant submit a grading and drainage plan incorporating swales along lot lines, leading to a detention pond in the northeast comer of the property. The Planning Ccrmission did not cosie to unanimous agreement regarding whether they needed to see the final grading plan before making a recommendation to Council. N Sonlng Pile #1683 November 5, 1991 9ege 2 Nlea^aq Commieeioii Recoamendation At their October 21 meeting. Planning Commission voted 3 to ?• to table the request until the grading plan is submitted. There appears to be unanimous intent to require a ful) grading plan but disagreement on who should review it. Four of six Planning Commissioners at the October 21 meeting generally favored construction of a paved road and cul-de-sac rather than merely a driveway. After much discussion (see 10/21/91 minutes) Planning Commission voted 3 to 3 on a motion to deny based on: 1. Proposed plan does not include paved road. 2. Paved road should be required consistent with City codes for 3-lot plat. 3. Lack of grading plan. Based on this split recommendation. Planning Commission sent this application on for Council review. leemee to Iteeolve The following appear to be outstanding lss<'«s that Council must address in order to grant conceptual preliminary plat approvali 1. Should a grading plan for the entire property be submitted by the applicant? It would be staff's intent to review this grading plan prior to recommending preliminary plat approval- 2. Is this a 3-lot plat? If so, does Council wish to grant a variance to allow construction ot merely a driveway to serve the two proposed lots, or require a paved road and cul-de-sac? 3. Should the existing house be forced to relocate its driveway to Outlot A? Altemete Scmerio - Tvo-Stage Subdivisioo Process Applicant's agent T.J. Raislet has suggested that this application could have been presented in a somewhat contrived tve*stege process in order to avoid the need for a paved road and eiil-de-sac. Briefly, the two stages would have beent 1. Metes and bounds lot line rearrangement/combiustion resulting in a 19>acre parcel and a 9-acre parcel. 2* Subdivision of 5-acre parcel into two 2-acre lots plus future road outlot. - Ai yv. ^ 5; > K'If It !rr s- > toning Filo #1683 NovMibor 5# 1991 Pago 3 Thore is no rsguirsmsnt in the subdivision code that roquirss consideration of commonly owned adjacent property as part of a subdivision when lot requirements are met. Under the two*8tage scenario# applicant would not be asking for any variance* and would appear to have the right to request a 2 lot plat# providing an outlot for future developement of the adjacent property. With this background information# Council may wish to consider granting a variance to allow constructloi. of a driveway rather than a paved road. The other option is to deny the variance# which would force the applicant to go through the two* stage process in order to complete his subdivision as proposed. •tnff tion Council is asked to address each of the issues noted above# and take eonceptual action to either approve# conditionally approve or deny this application# directing staff to draft the S|q>ropriate resolutions for your November 25 meeting. Isv miint <iwifim» 2285 OanMt StrMt. Box 576 Long Lake. Minnesota 55356 (812) 473-8864 (800) 421-0434 November 8, 19^1 Orono City Council Orono Ciy Offices 1335 S Brown Rd Orono. MN 55323 ^ r To Whom 1C may concern: We made application on 6~23-9i for o cl.iss III subdiv ismu. At tli»* fi’st planning commission meeting 2 mombers were .absent .iml the issues disrusse.l ifcre road or private dri/ewav and siiould the existing Imuse be retjuiiMd to connect to the outlet for access. At the public hearing on ''epteinber Ih, 1**^1 #1603 Johnson,Moos, Row let t e felt that it should be tieafed .is ,i -IttNewiv Instead of a roadway and that the existing drivewav be iett ,»lone. The other request was tf< supply a topogr.iphical m.ip ol the etitire p.it«el (19.7 acres) and show a proposed total subdivision. I had the work requcJted done and submitted n time lor the m-xt meeting. At the time of the meeting I Itad not yet receive*! stall's letter ,in<l additi«>n.il request due to some mail delav. At the planning commi s.su'ii meeting ol September Q.l^i^l it was a very different atnospher' It was 3-1 to denv until a grading plan Is received and also paved d s old be required. From the beginning we had taHed thr" the process «>f going to -i lot line rearrangement,then lot subdivision a.s a two step process to deal with r(,e road issue. It is a substantial expense t** put m a road as re<juested bv the city engineer. 560' of road with cul de sat is .ipprox im.itel v $36,0(K> which makes it a major inccnvenier.ee. What we are requesting is that a varlence be giv«*n lor thr* roadwav vs drivew.iv so that Mr. Suess does not have to go through the two step pio*ess. We are willing to get a grading plan done, however, we Iee1 it sh ild be on how the two lots will impact the drainage and not on the total concept ol 10 lots as requested by th»* city. We leel they at«* quite diffeieni in how the drninage should be dcMit with. Thank you for your at tent '^n to this e-^tter. Sinceritly,sin^ritiy, . Islet,Broker owner Century 21 Haislet Associates TJM/kmm 1" If f Office 'f A/KJ cm or r. O. Worn. Crystal • 473-7357 ZOMIMG PILB I16S3 ii >y#MM 55323 NOriCB OP PIAHMIHG COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: October 23, 1991 fOt Robert P. Sues* 2590 Nstsrtown Road Long Laka, MN 55356 COPIBS TOt T. J. Halslet 2285 Daniels St. Long Lake, MN 55356 or APTLXCRTIOHs Subdivision MOriVOt 10/21/91 1;. % i VOTBs 3 For 3 Against da the followingX Denial for reasons noted below: 1. 2. Proposed plan does pot include pa^ed road Paved road should be required consistent with City Codes for 3-lot plat. 3. Lack of grading plan Pi^ior to this denial nction, a notion for tabling until a orsding plan is subnitted, failed on a 3-3 vote. While the appeared to be unaninous in the intent to require a full grsding plan# soij"' nesbers felt that the application did not H^^d to be tabled sei».» y for this issue. Also, on an informal poll during the discussion, 4 of 6 Planning Commissioners {^dlceted they would favor construction ot a paved road rather then • driveway. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Tuesday, November 12, 1991; meeting starts at 7i00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning CosMiission minutes# they are .vaiiable from the City Recorder ^fter review and approval by the Planning Cooosission. Please contact Mike Gaffron at 473-7357 if you wish to discoss your application. minutes Of THE OHONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBEE 21. 1991 fi #1682 - CONT. « 1 fc f-hi s is A very substdnddrd lot with odny of B«Uo»* noted that a hardship for the garage is the storage of construction •quipment. Brickloy noted that is correct. lOMUtta noted that no natter what is proposed, it will still end Up with * substandard setback. sa. >;ar ■ Urng* the eject sane spot as the previous garage and shed. “ "•J.ro*'*ApplicIltioS^lM2°fo?'‘ch^ 5ricki;y.‘“3262°Nor?h Sr''Ui“SoJ?SirS'’Iof?“«t?on‘o”the%!ab and the reoaining 8' of the slab to bo reaoved. Ayes 6. nays o. (#4) #1683 BOBUT F. SUESS. 1380 VATIBT08N BOAD ' PIILIMiSSy CL\SS III SUBDIVISION - CONTXlfUATIOIf OP PUBLIC HEABINC 7:SI-8:13 P.M. T J Malslet was present for this application. He application wis tabled the last time requ^iting subuittal of topographic aap to review drainage. aas: a‘;,fs tIt5lly*finJ'huI"thS*. .‘"‘‘inrpoL'lt this point, that drainage Chair lalley aiked if an extension has been considered of the fOAd to tho fiorth. OnMron noted that staff has ..hatched a nhOHS a nore viable option be.ng connection to the west. ■nlelet aeked ho- the Connlssion f-U about • "J jiintstJi:; o:??‘n?^vu::“i?ivr*un?.w;urt;:: d.e:iop..nt. -un a lioueowners association to eaintain the dr A..-:,.: « Mimis or m orono punnino commission mejtiko w? ociobrr 21, i*»i #1683 - CONT. CAffron noted that is recomoending the road be developed at S'H' 2iS?h 2t He i. requesting Jb -ortbernl. building lot^ re^S^r^ tSi* rSJSilr inS :L!d‘?.":i» tJe existing drive to ecces, off the new roadway. Johnson felt it should be treated ^that^^it^'^would beek.v Are creatiriR two new lots and felt that ic wouiu w® iSSJonJlIte to plat the roadway at this tioe but only require dfvIloMont of the private drive until further development. He felt the current residence should maintain the existing cur cu onto Watertown Road. Habusth noted that thought must be given to how the road would be paid for in the future. Haislet askf.d if the drainage swale would have to be developed at this time as there is no immediate future plan. C«(fron indict..! th.t . .ot.on could ?i*.« SS! pun.nd -ouid table the application Saffron ^ ®rAdin£ is relatively minor and if a grading alan*is*subaitt.d it could be reviewed by tne Engineer Pfi’f to SiccU ‘muitcry Plat rev.ew. avoiding another tabling. rha.e lallav still uantad to review the drainage plans and wanted tS^ InJlc ?hil tie SSekberry Hill neighbors' conc.rns have been addrsssad. ruiim.iSr.r“?‘i: :uiiii!.tor-hici rosolvas the issue of road v *rive. ■cl.tt. fel. that if the deve.op.ent is future, and the roadway is required to be bui.t, w.the ■aintaioad pr rly •"<* **>' b. a t.rribl.:s;.i:i.'“ir:brc:i?.Tt"i..irnt"?rt-*fo ‘iov. tb. dnv. t. th. mow roadway. BAllawe stated ‘“hat the roadway should be constructed to providj ‘cicni SiviupJant. Sh. felt th. current residence should move thair drive to the new roadway. ■ali’.t noted that the applicant would not aea .rio and baa stated th.t just a short P«rf^ daveloopsnt was allowed nearby thut allowed all new lots onto the platted roadway. -hich is what he wanted to do in th first place. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 21. 1991 •1683 - CONT. Johnson folt that the application should not be tabled as the leollrant has provided the infonsation requested at the last JSJun, and CoSi can review all further issues. Rowlette and Afraid. •allows and Cohen wanted all info-nation subo.t d befre ppogfASsins to ths Council for a Johcr inf t4 furthc divided. rUuJiSt'to p;o“i:‘?esSlv:'’Sr^Se'dra?L°*e Isfues'Snd ti.e ftr i »uS bl"i;h.iti.d for the antire roadway with a portion to be eoaplntfd with this subdivision. Ayes 3. nays 3. ' .wn.on fait that the City was pena* :ing the applicant by askir<^ fS? UfoJli^iol; bas.3 on long-range plans. noted that owners could have just denied any future plans to subdiv.ie. lUi.l.t ^sk.d who would d*.: the Hackb ry H.ll re:rie on drainago aaseaents and Gatiron noted that the City wjli. tf MAS Mve«. by Bellows, seconded by Cohen, to recoonend denia if Hour i« tor Robart F. Su.ss of 2590 Hatytown Road for ^proliainary subdivis*'n approval, based oa the of a drainaao plan and noting the subdivision would have to adhere to thJ “Sa' -hi!!h ?.qul?.s a three 'of subdivision to instal! a privata road. Ayes 3, nays 3. C. unciIaoP:*e- Callahan noted tha^ the Co.-issian had tabled the 1 nSuka application because of lack of ’nfornation and fei it waa*unfair to treat this application in any other nanner. Chair KaUer fi»o noted that he .loes not have a proble* allowing tho applicant to aaintain his present curb cut ti'Lc f V . TOS Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From Dmtmt Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator October 10, 1991 Subjects #1683 Robert F. Suess, 2590 Watertown Road Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing List of Bxhlbits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit t Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Topographical Survey Future Subdivision Concept Plan Notice of Planning Commission Action 9/17/91 Planning Commission Minutes 9/16/91 Petition frcrni Hackberry Neighbors City Engineer's Letters 10/8/91, 9/12/91 Septic Layout Memo and Exhibi■s of 9/9/91 Diacuaeloii The applicant has submitted a concept plan for future subdivision of the property, and has submitted a topographical survey of the entire property. The City Engineer reviewed drainage on the site on October 17 and his verbal recommendations are suanBarlzed as follows (see 10/18/91 letter): - creation of a drainage swale along Waterto«m Road - regrading of existing drainage swale along subdivision east boundary discharging to a detention pond to created at the northeast end of the property » upgrading of culverts and swales as necessary between 15S and 185 Hackberry Bill - drainage easements to be provided along all lot lines, and over existing pond north of house and new pond to be created - construction of paved road and cul-de-sac to City standards Zt was noted that the east boundary of the property contains a nuaiber of trees which would be destroyed if the existing swale, which needs to be upgraded, is kept within the standard 10' periaieter drainage easement. It is staff's recommendation that in order to save these trees, the easement along the east border be expanded to 25', allowing the swale to be upgraded within its current location. Because this is a perimeter easement, the area of the easement should not be excluded from dry buildable area. r;’ r,; Zoning File #1663 October 18r 1991 Page 2 of 2 The Engineer's further recommendation is that a private road paved to at least a 24' width with a temporary paved cul-de-sac be constructed now to serve this first phase of the subdivision. Basework should be wide enough to accommodate a future 20* wide paved width, in anticipation of a future 9 lot development of this property. ■eighborhood Petition Referring to the neighborhood petition submitted at the Septenber meetings a. Per Exhibit G, septic drainfields are 60-70’ from the east lot line, and mote than 100' from neighboring wells, meeting all pertinent code standards. b. Drainage changes recommended by City Engineer will redirect all surface water runoff to eliminate existing drainage problems and concerns . c. The alleyway noted by petitioners is not a legal access of any sort. Applicant has sole discretion as to whether he wants to allow for continued use by neighbors. Xamoes to bo Koaolvod Again please review the staff memo of September 9, 1991. The following issues need to be addressed in order to make a recommendation for preliminary plat approval: 1. Should the existing house be forced to relocate its driveway to Outlot A? 2. Should the applicant be required at this time to construct a 24' paved road with 100' diameter paved cul-de-sac? Staff Please refer tc the Staff Recommendation on Pages 4 and 5 of the September 9 memo. Any recommendation for approval should include Conditions 1 - 9 as indicated in that memo. Condition 2 on Page 4 should be revised to read ”2. Standard drainage and utilities easements to be granted over entire plat, as well as drainage easesMnts over ponding areas as noted in City Engineer's letter of 10/18/91. Preliminary site grading/drainage plan per City Engineer's recommendation to be submitted by applicant foi* approval prior to preliminary plat review by Council.* Isv ...rri-■ K' ^ ;*•. I *g I # ;i - *r. c- f.' • 5;?,V ' ;-■ W- •'.V i- ir j.. POSSIBLE FUTURE SUBDIVISION PLAN PROPOtlO tUMNVltlON FOR ROBERT F. 8UE88 w THC at V4 OP THI« V4 01! wcnoN as-tit-as EPM COUNTV. iHNNEtOTA t |j''; ? - • • ;.4 . .. %. ^ • •; ':k IrV*. > ■ i •■.•'.■ ,• • * n. • r..* • *•• ^4 *• RTI: cm or OROHO P« O. Box €6 Crystal Bsy« 473-7357 MM 55323 ZONING PILE #1683 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: 9/17/91 TOi Robert P. Suess 2590 Watertown Road Long Lake» NN 55356 COPIES TO: T. J. Haislet 2285 Daniels Street Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Subdivision .•If I' I DATE !TIE6: 9/16/91 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planaiag CoBission reooBends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below ions AMD SPECIAL CONDITIONS: r.Tabled pending receipt of topography and contours C :>r the entire .reel* Planning Conraission did not vote on whether a paved 24* road would -9 required, but did express concerns regarding drainage from the site. The issue of reserving an access easement along the east lot line for the Backberry Hill residents was not addressed and is left to the applicants discretloni however, such an access easement by definition does not count towards dry buildable area. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the October 21 Planning Commission meeting is October 11, 1991. 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. Enclosures: - Neighborhood Petition Submitted at 9/16/91 Meeting - City Engineer Recommendation Letter Isv j: I' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16. 1991 X TUTftii ZONING FILE #1608 - CONT. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Rowlette, to recommend approval for application #1608 James Hartzoll of 2987 Casco Point Road, approving a hardcover variance to allow 27.3% hardcover In 75-250* zone, and an average setback variance of 25’ for the proposed pool. Schroeder asked If the pool 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 27.8% 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) #1663 ROBERT F. SUESS 2890 WATERTOWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 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 oareel 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 the weitern edge of the new lots. The sites have been tested for Coptic systecc. He noted that the appl1ca«<ts would prefer to consider the outlet as a private driveway. Gaffron asked how the Comlsslon would Intrepret this subdivision, as a lot subdivision. Me noted the code requires a private road if it serves three residences. He explained the current residence .sccesses to Watertown Road. Me also noted that the outlot in ^placed so-It will accommodate future subdivision of„the_remalning 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. p; 1. V.. ■ I r^’ >• LhUTES of the OROHO PU*NHIH0 COHHISSXOH HEETXHO - SEPTEMBER X6. iONINQ #16®3 " CONT. “ .4-.^ rf bv a group of neighboring Cohen read a ’“"^Ited" that no^septlc tank drainfleld be residents which requested that no f boundary of w!lst?Ccted within "iomes on Hackberry have their the newly created lots *:f ^ the drainage from the s;;:m V;:« neighbors.bors. cartway has ax's^Pj Ih.t*dra1nage does run off the property Into ;s. Si”b.??5 S 1* PalsSborhood* He said he currently has watir in his back yard.ing yfa^mr !•« — - Richard Wagner, 3S Hackberry Je’Ui2*to”dewelor his 4.K* rertwav In for his own use by the neighboringj?;p:rtr2ii!:out -f^:‘r?h:rrirrn:?-“^>ow that runs downra?srt:jh “ssrd ‘into”?hr-ighbcrhood. XOwn nwow •..ww -— - to rSrn^rrsiid'Si irioSircr^'ro^rh^ owners to set up ..Id his wells are far enough away from the proposed .ubdi:?!”:; *a‘ni\S:^ sHould be no problew. The owner. 1X9 sibSlJ?^i^*«nS%iJl “n2i''*tSit ?C„‘2?f“ro; ll,VfVoXrolV^r> his back yard. __ _ __ ^ a_> M \ I water. Rowlette noted that site grading and drainage plans have not been subaitted.SUDMItlvue . * „ J“:s" .::;5 "S drlvse'* mam She noted DAwiatte felt that more information Is nee • ^gyeloped;r:r- .. . . . . . . .-"" .. . . . . . . . . . tf \y HINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16. 19 ZONING FILE #1683 - CONT. Sehro.der f.U th« dralnaga eo,.earns should b« addressed. MODS felt the outlet should be developed as a private drive. aoD 11 MtlSJl%168rfor**RobiJrt"sC«s f“°p« 11 n.lXary“subd 1J 1 s 1 on of («8) #1889 JOHN WALKER i«IANC«^ CWTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:22 - 8:27 P.M. Mr. & Mrs. John Walker and their representative. Dick Sehlaffer, w«r« present. sehleffer explained that the "2‘so ;:SS::5 Se "aJScSver to b.l0. the;pre-19^^^ renuested by the Coeelsslon. He be at 30.«.s;::e:rth:%-TS?i"rs.s’s.e^".”cSfto*?.3, rro. 14.1.. Cohen asked staff how hardcover went from 30* pre-1975 to 50%*»> presently. Gaff non noted that most of P®"*"^*®®tll%rwh]?rdo no?fabric lined landscaping and patio blocks, bot require permits. Schroeder felt landscaping. the Increase was almost In Cohen asked If the 0-75' zone could be reduced to the o» llmitatlone s^&IrwfiV ®nd P9t®1nin9 w®11s ®r9 ;;; id"^.wU' tS°5;?e^I:?^ e ‘?r?niy: t • ress« i that shed. r; !'< W Cohen then asked If the 7S-:S0‘ hardcover could further be reduced. 9 • V Oaftron noted that some of the drlveiay could be taken out «h1eh would reduce P*’’*']"* *He felt that the drive S!S;id*Ii;t''£i''?i<*u«d ’;;d ?t .ould be to^gh to further reduce the percentage In that zone. 8 fe" ■ ••» ni' date 9/11/91 TO? PLANNUIG COMMISSION CITY OF ORONO SUBJECTr PLANNED SUBDiVISIOlf OF PllOPERTY AT 2590 WATERTOWN HC3AD NE THE UNDERSIGNED, REQUEST THAT THE FOLLOWING 8E TAKEN> INTO CONSIDERATION: THAT NO SEPTIC TANK DRAIN FIELDS BE WITHIN A REASONABLE DISTANCE OP THE EAST BOUNDARY OP THE NEW LOTS. REASON MOST HONES HAVE THEIR WELLS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THEIR HONES» AH& The drainage from the above J^ROEERTY RUNS ACROSS THEIR' BACKYARO.THEREFORE, THE DANGER OF CONTAMINATION TO THE WELLS IS POSSIBLE. IN THE PAST WE HAVE KAO ACCESS TO JTHE WEST END OF dlTR PROPERTY BY A CARTWAY OR ALLEY-WAY. WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF IT WERE TO REMAIN THAT^WAY IN THE FUTURIT;’ f_ I!- ¥Sr ;'4 Ova. /C9 ' kA^^CJ^(y /4'// /^/ y 5^/ M' 's; !-■ 8 % A ft'- f i r. ft F- n*' f -V oiB Q n w l^aem Pi. jcitjn C- ^1 M^wi k. IWVMi M- mefMl Unr.^i Qiim I. cm Tn^mai I. nq ^& M I9MC KMiWt^t Suun M. liertii C/A Kern A. Cow. ^f N jfffy A. loumM Miff A. HIW ^f %0K ne».M MCAXIT iMTW. M iooeff t. PkPp!% M. OIVWO W Aww. M Ma<« t Mi Pi MeftC Mm A. a I Angyk r| NOWlff A lorMi ^1 D mi I io^ffw *1 MVI A te Pt PMpjlCmmN imctMiffim ^ Urt&yiffiin Thormi AnecfWA AtA Cary lU^dntr At Mmft/MTi At I P^0t9^iPt C Aw*«0A A iA M 9^0 AiC 9 0 A*»WK?' Af tOOfn I DffMMf At Oiry Mow At «MPr\ L Wftrwfi. Pt Wt nM At A CMttiaA gi^M Afid^niy H#n^ M (Vton I/I Bonestroo £^Ro$ene Anderlik & |\]| Associates fngiriMn 4 ArcWtiCtJ October 16,1991 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Attn: Mike Oa^on Re: Robert Suess Subdivision Our File No. 139 • 1683 Dear Mike: We have reviewed the proposed subdivision for the Robert Sues^ property. There arc several issues diat need to be addressed on the subdivisions. Drainaae eaiementt should be provided along aU lot lines. Drainage easemcnts^ould 1^ provid^ tor the existing pond on Lot 3 and a pond to be ^ to the east should be controlled to that which existed in the undt^elopcd state. m pond in the northeast comer of Lot 3 should adequate to «o« |he 1M year .^orm. The wnstniction of a berm wfll be necessary along the ea« line to pond the water. Drainage swales should be constructed along property lines. The drainage swale ^ong the east llito could be moved 25’i west to minimize tree removal If toe ^ drainage easements will be required. The exUting dit^ on Lo** ^ ^ 2 Blwk 2 of Pantcif Long Heights Addition will have to be evaluated and possibly relocated. The ditch along Water Town Road should be constructed in accordance witl^iiy The new street should be constructed in accordance with City Standards. There should be a mmpo^ cul^-sac constructed at the end of Outlet -A". Easements should be provided for the cul-d-itc. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Yours very trutyi BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLK A ASSOCIATES, INC Glenn R. Cook ORCdh b.Ipyf ttfctMigi —wy aa • St. Paul MInntsota fSlll • 6l2-636-a600 • 15th Aoolvtfsary V.# f . • < • ^ •» • • •• ; J/^J Bonestroo MA Rosene Anderlik & |\J| Associates ■ngmetri t Afchh>":t» OQo G Bonesnoa iOOC«T W iMcne. PE joftpn C pE MjfSnt) L iorvitt PE tcn«0 E Tjmer PE C«nn ff C ool P£ Tfwrrut E Noy«l PE i(00«fT G SrmrKTit PE M Efte»v^ C pa A Gorton. PE tcrvBid W fowtr. PE Oor>aid C Ivp^a^ Jff?y A tomoon P£ Mart A Hjmon PE 1M t PE Mcn«< r Uucmjnn pe Kooen t PE O LOttDU PE 7TM3fn« WV ^wnon PE Mcm« C Lyncf^. pe j«mr^ t M«jnd PE KffmCVt P AndMOn P£ Mjrt « A d Pi. peitoocfT C tuuriL AIA 7hom« E ATI9U1 ' HnMUO A SinM PE OjraCf i Eogpfton PC Mjrt A SpC pe J CJS>wH pc iv^ MaroncL PE M«« 0 VJU®*1 PE rr«m«s C AAdmon A i A G»y f Bytsntm. PE Mm S Jpnjtn PC L Phflip Gnp«t It PE flm C P«unja AIA ^nei M Cmg, AiC P jerry 0 PC CtCAO OMT PC idop «t C DmoM <>£ Monm PE L0eo L W««v«fi PE Kfftn t Tion PE CnjrmA Efinson LfO M PlMCniry Njrt^ M Oiton September 12, 1991 ir’’: -i'-' , Qty of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Atteiition: Mike Gafiron Re: 139-1683 Suess Subdivision Dear Mike: We have reviewed the proposed subdivision for the Suess property. Wc have received ftiDiffir*"* information for review and would recommend the developer provide the following: Topography and contours for entire parcel PreL Plat for the entire parcel Please contact this office if you have any questions. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn ?• Cook ORClk 2Mi Wwt Hlghwe y 36 mr«! ’v’':v' y i .%• f € *• %: i}- [fe .. ;?• - Ife m t :ri: :--tt : :K t ,l \ * « I i .• \A 0 1 • Ili r ■ I,s I i:-' b‘', I'r Pf- »■*- f PI" ■fi S'' Tot Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Moorse rroBS Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Ofttas SobjiK^t: September 9, 1991 #1683 Robert Suess, 2590 Watertown Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing Soiling Dletrlct - RR-IB, single family rural residential, 2 acre, unaewered jlpplicn^ion ~ Request for subdivision of 19.7 acre existing honeatek^i to create two 2-acre building sites Lint of Bnhibita Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Property Owners List Survey» Proposed Plat Staff Sketches: 1 - Existing Dedicated Road System 2 - Proposed Shared Driveway 3 - Future Cul-de-Sac (Conceptual) 4 — Future Connection to Golden View (Conceptual) Exhibit P - Existing House Driveway Options Exhibit G - 1989 Air Photo Exhibit J - Pertinent Comp Plan/Subdivision Code Excerpts re: Road Development fnrtlnont Facta - 1. Total Area (Excl. Watertown Rd.)19.7 ac. Propoaed Outlot A : Lot 1 : Lot 2 t Lot 3 (existing house): 0.6 ac. 2.0 ac. 2.0 ac. 15.1 ac. 2.Lots 1 and 2 have each been tested for drainfield sites. Both lots require mound systems, and each lot has a suitable building envelope to construct a single family residence. The land is open and relatively flat, hence the sites will need to be protected with fencing during driveway/road/house construction. The existing residence has u septic system that is currently functional, and because Lot 3 contains 15 ^ ^ ^ ^ j_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _I —^ - a. ^ W & Vtl V lA. J * iasiv» a. - F ^ ^ ^- - - -- - - -- - - - acres, no alternate sites testing was required at this time. r H' K' if I Zoning File 11683 September 9, 1991 Page 2 3.Although neither applicant nor his agent have submitted a letter of request, staff was verbally advised that applicants propose contruction of a shared driveway in Outlet A to serve Lots 1 and 2, and request that the existing residence continue to access directly to Watertown Road. Dlscnasion The proposed configuration is the logical first step in the future development of this property into as many as eight or nine 2 acre lots (see Exhibits E). The configuration would allow for future development of a cul-de-sac, or for a future connecting road to Golden View Drive if that was deemed necessary at the time of future subdivision. Dri y TB. Road To be consistent with Subdivision Code Section 11.33, Subd. 4, this is technically a three-lot plat which would require construction of a 24* wide paved private road and cul-de-sac within Outlot A, serving all three lots. It is staff's understanding that applicant wishes to continue using the existing driveway access to Watertown Road for Lot 3, and construct a shared driveway to serve Lots 1 and 2, rather than construct a fullfledged road and temporary cul-de-sac. In staff's opinion, this requires a variance to the Subdivision Code. If this driveway concept were approved, staff would recosaend that Outlot A stay in the ownership of the applicant, with access easements granted to Lots 1 and 2. The City would take an underlying road and utility easement. Covenants would be needed to define the driveway maintenance responsibilities of Lots 1 and 2, and would have to further define what financial obligation would be incurred by each affected lot at such time that future development occurs. It would have to be stipulated that any new building lots created on the property in the future would trigger upgrade to private road standards. Exhibit F shows the existing driveway location and two possible alternate locations if existing house was required to access directly to Outlot A. From a safety standpoint, the existing driveway is not in a hazardous location. If a variance is granted to allow merely a shared driveway serving Lots 1 and 2, the City should require that any future development which would require upgrading of Outlot A to a private road, would trigger the relocation of the existing driveway to Outlot A. Zoning File #1683 September 9, 1991 Page 3 Otlier Issues Whether or not Outlot A is allowed to be constructed as gi0i^0ly a driveway, staff would recommend that it be given a street name and lots be assigned addresses such that no address changes would be needed upon future subdivision of the property. Both Lots 1 and 2 would be subject to the Park Fee Ordinance. This subdivision has been submitted to the Public Works Director for review by the Park Commission, and the City Engineer for comment. There are no designated wetlands on the property. No site grading or drainage plan has been presented, nor has a topographic survey been submitted. There is a potential for drainage from this project affecting the Hackberry Hill 1/2 acre severed development to the east. The City Engineer advises that a topographic survey should be required now in order to adequately address the drainage concerns as well as a concept plan for the ultimate development of the property. Issues to Resolve 1. Should the existing house be forced to relocate its driveway to Outlot A? 2. Should the applicant be required at this time to construct a 24 foot paved road with 100 foot diameter cul-de-sac? 3. Bave drainage concerns been adequately addressed? Staff Rsi r—snilstlon Given that each lot has sufficient area, width along an Outlot, and primary and alternate drain field sites tested, the 2-acre lot standards appear to be met. The Planning Commission pust determine whether sufficient justification exists to allow Outlot A to contain merely a private driveway serving two lots at this time, and if so, should determine what threshold of future development would trigger upgrading of that driveway to private road standards. Staff reconnends that full topography of the 20-acre parcel and a concept plan and drainage plan be submitted, and the J Planning Cosiuission may wish to table pending receipt of that<^\) Information. ^ & b- :r Kr cf i & l; . h i , % t-t.. ,» f^. Zoning File 11683 September 9, 1991 Page 4 The following conditions of approval should be included in your recommendation once all outstanding issues are resolved: 1* Park fee to be determined per current fee schedule. 2. 3A. OR 3B. Standard drainage and utility easements to be taken over entire plat. Drainage plan to be fcrW-ciwed per recommendation of City Engineer.^ ^ _ (If driveway onlyr with no requirement to move existing driveway): a.Outlot A to remain in ownership of developer (owner of Lot 3). b. Access easement shall be granted over Outlot A in favor of Lots 1 and 2. c.Developer shall execute covenants to define rosi^ msibility for'lWlimcof driveway, and to define future financial obligation at such time that the driveway is upgraded to private or public road status . d.Condition of approval is stipulated that any future development of the property that creates additional residential lots including use of Outlot A for access will trigger upgrade of Outlot A to current road standards. e.Developer to grant City an underlying road and utility easement over Outlot A. If required to do road now, with requirement to relocate existing driveway to Outlot A: a. b. Standard developers agreement required. Outlot A to be shared ownership of homeowners* association, standard covenants required. c.Developer to grant standard underlying road and utility easement over Outlot A; shall be written to not preclude future connection to adjacent properties. FFi'-.? Zoning File 41683 September 9, 1991 Page 5 d» Temporary cul “de“sac to be platted and constructed (easement or outlot?), c. P»y<«^r or Fees. 4. Applicant shall satisfy any Watershed District requirements (applicant advised to contact Minnehaha Creek Watershed District at 473-4224). 5. Protection of drainfield sites via fencing to be in place during road/driveway construction and to remain in place until homes are completed. 6. Dedication of 33' right-of-way for Watertown Road. I 7. Address assignments shall be north-south grid with a new road name even if this is a driveway. 8. No building permits until driveway/road is completed. 9. No curb cut/access for Lots 1 and 2 onto Watertown Road except via Outlot A. Options for Action 1. Address access Issues# table subject to submittal of topographic survey/grading plan/concept plan. ?. Address access issues, recommend approval subject to submittal of topographic/grading/concept plan prior to Council preliminary plat review. 3. Other. u r Pp* I- V:-‘ ■. f: t: rVbw, CITY OF OROMO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Sit* AOaJL rr sp ^ Property identification Number (P.I.D.) ??’-//S-23-yv-^<y/OffO2- Please check one - Property X abstract or _ _ torrens? Attach legal description to application. _ - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- flrfTCY Phone (home ) ? - tSlSSHOOPOOto Phone (work) ^7JSf03K^y iS^.W ------------------------- “HTHFT^TTiWr KOI/ APPLICANT Name TtJ'^A/AllAfZ. addreeat fr/t(€r city____ ZipftgydQpQPfi ONIIER (if different than applicant) Name SUCSS Phone (home) ^73-^ Phone (work)_ _ _ _ Addreeet £ 5*9^ C*y4rfdr^uyA^ city: - -Zip; SSJ^£_ (attach list if more than one) nZSTXNG LAND OSS Number of Tax Parcels Development Size J.9, ifZ Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total/‘all parcels Present Use (check)Residential; no. of units rfTV nonun Other (specify)___________/ygpf iJ Present Zoning District^ PROPOSAL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Division for Tax Purposes .C__izi_____^3----------------- RECEIPT-Vm YOU »22i980 m /Mi Ti2:S. Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) 0S/2V9 X Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: f Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) Units per Acres ^7 /ZO Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) fck 2. 3. MmifDM mTERIAL HBCBSSJUtY FOR COMPLSTE PRSLIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A^603 Govt Center 348-3271). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 4. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is comi^let'e.~' zoning* Official' s Signature ____________________________ Date________________ 1* V 2; 3. 4. 5. Payment, of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments) Signed-certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal'plat. Title opinion. Easements, Covenants, etc. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II £ III)S15C 00 Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangemf:nt 250.00 Preliminary Review (Class I £ II Subdivision)250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and alT* rion-residential)300.00 + 20.00/Lot Pinal Plat Review (class III) *(Pl'ttS any legal or engineering charges) 150.00 • • The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or jrsj^ested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, f^anning Coamssion and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. A * f*'i Applicant's Signature Date Owner's Signaturi^ate 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 rmtriew meetings of the Planning Coomission and Council. If an applicant is umahle to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorised agent attend in your place and to advise the Building £ Zoning Offioa of this change prior to the meeting. I'; I. I * {%} ? ut * V11 * . * .y. * • MAPI E LA • 1^ 0 m i»i B-.t.. > ; « 1 *'in w fl 1 1 • S t»> M It 1 ’f24> II • (TO ^ u » « '-’SJ fl » ’ M • !V! ’ _____‘^IL ‘ .m M ■ .1 ,m i ' (IBJX t #j f-117- s>3 x\r • * M-* «r» M----------•- *•’•«rf .w /1 *1 • • r •n«M__1j MM UTI MTCM M« NEMCPIN COUNTY MOKRTV INFOmttnON SVSTEH PMMEHTY OWCRS LIST HEPOIIT NO. PI4SBM1 PA6C IS TMMAVnmm/mm SS S4-117-» IS ooes OSMf NAItSTONN SO PATNKSA C SICKCY PATSICIA C nCKCY S44S NATHIRSM NO LONS LAKI HN fiSSM 50 04-117-S5 IS 0005 0S505 COUNTNYSIDE OR PATRICIA C DICKEY PATRICIA C DICKEY SMS NATERTOMI RO LONO LAKE MN S535A 50 55>Iie-S5 41 0000 0S54S NOOOHAVEN DR NAN OASHORE NEAL R I HARY 0 OASHORE S54S NOOOHAVEN DRIVE LONG LAKE »M SS554 t- ■' \ .1 i F';;. ' I 4 * TANMVIR TMMVfll M 41 0014 OtSU NDOONAVCN DO c j o*efM«m its o^ononi CNOISTOPMt J 0*OM«NI iND tvMrm s 0*000010 ms Mooomvf N LONS URI Mi SSSSi SO n-iio-ts ^ 0014 DOOM iOOOSSS IfflASSIONiD 0 D HtiOSON i 0 i OSTf OSON OONOViN 0 i OMfN I OfTfOSON t7IS SltVIO VlEM 00 tONO UU Mi SSIS4 TMMVIRmm/Mm n-llO-fS 4S 0004 iMOiSS IfOSSlONiO J r i N c 0 voer et it mot niMixm mo I NiVZiTi OtVD NiV2iTA Ml M IS-IlS-tS 44 OOOt OtSOO NiTtOTIMi 00 MNOr r tUiSS ETitTimm ^ . iSfi t MITiOTOMi 00 UM UM Mi SSSSi SO SS-llO-ES 41 0017 024SS NOOOHAVEN DR NARK N NOtF HARK N NOtP 240S NOOOHAVEN DR tONO tARE Ml SSSSi SO SS*110-ES 4S 0004 0Ei40 NATEOTOMi RO r 0 oooNAN i t r goohan T P A L T OOONAN Ei40 NATEOTONN 00 S tONO tARE Mi SSSSi SS SS-llS-ES 41 OOli OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSIQNED tXttXAN S PETEONAN ET At tXttXAN 0 A ROGER PETEONAN 7620 tARETOMi RO NACQNXA Mi SSSS7 SO SS-110-2S 44 0000 00105 NACROERRY HXtt R N PERRY ETAt 0 N PERRY 105 NACROERRY HILL LONO tARE Ml SSSSi SS 5S-11S-2S 42 0012 02i75 SXtVER VXEN OR G A C H KIRRPATRXCR GRAY A CHRISTINE. RXRRPATRICK 2i75 SILVER VXEN OR LONG tARE Mi SSSSi SS SS-11S-2S 4S OOOS 00120 GOLDEN VIEN DR JOHN HAttSQN JOHN T NALtSON 20Si GRAND AVE S LONG tARE Ml SSSSi SO SS-110*2S 44 0001 02590 NATERTOMi RO RQSERT F SUESS ETAL ROOERT F SUESS 2590 S NATERTOMi RO LONO tARE Mi SSSSi SO SS-110-2S 44 0009 OOlSS NACROERRY HXtt PETER XRNXN FOSSEN ETAt NR PETER X FOSSEN IS5 NACROERRY HILL LONO tARE Mi SSSSi p. .5D 55-1U-I5 44 0010 SO SS-11S*2S 44 0011 5« S5>11D-I5 44 0011 MHP MMB r ‘ ------------------ ■ - DD141 MCKMRRY HILL 0012S NACROERRY Hitt 00104 HACKiCmiY MILL •MM MM DAVID P PISCNIR ITAL P A A N t NELSON KUHT C SCHNID ' ' . . TMPAVn ^DAVID PnCPIR PHILLIP A NELSON KURT c scHrao w tmmifmm 141 MMMIMf HILL I2S NACROERRY HILL 109 HACKDiRRV HILL1;UND i>«M Ml H144 LONO tARE Mi SSSSi LONO LAKf Ml 55554 • * '*1’ * 1 > • t, .•• ‘ J • • • f. I u.* •5^ Jr- IMI MTI 0«/M/n MICH OM TMMVtR TRNMVn TMMVIR NfMCRlN COUNTY MOREMTY INFORHATION SYSTIH mUKRTY OMCRS LIST M lS*lU-tt R4 OOlS OOMR NMRMRRV NILL 0 0 PtASUV tTAL OUMMATN NASlfV 9f NRCRMRRV NIU LONB UKI Ml ttm IS-lM-tS 44 MU MKKMMV NHL J N NIIIM • R J NIIUI RICNMR J • JMCUE N fOtlXE •1 mCKMRRV NIU U1S4 Sl-lW-tl 44 Ml* NRTf RTOMI M R N NMNAN • J ft NAttUN RiaMM N ft JUM ft MONMI Ift MCftftlRRV NILL LONft LMt m mu 33-118-23 41 0010 Johh ft Patricia Harris 2445 Woodhaven Drive Long.Lake» MN 55356 33-118-23 41 0003 Janes Oillman 225 Willow Drive Long Lake* MN 55356 33-116-23 44 0005 Lamrence Gleason 140 Rackberry Hill Long Lake, MN 55356 33-118-23 44 0022 Janes ft Dana Hock 80 Rackberry Hill Logn«Lake# MN 55356 33-118-23 44 0023 Donel4* Siford 96 Heckbetry Hill Long Lake» MN 55356 M 44 0014 OOMl HACXOERRY NILL 0 ft 0 DALY DANIEL P DALY •1 HACKBERRY NILL LONB LAKE »M S5SS4 SO 5S-110-ES 44 0017 0M3S NACKftERRY HILL R N HA6NAN ETAL RICHARD N HA6HAN 5S NACKftERRY HILL LONB LAKE m SSS54 TOTAL BATCH 004 00025 33-118-23 44 0024 Thomas Pierce 66 Hackberry Hill Long Lake, MN 55356 33-118-23 44 0025 Charles Autry 50 Hackberry Hill Long Lake, MN 55356 ‘1REPORT ND. PACE P141B40119 SO S5-110-ES 44 MIS 00045 NACKftERRY HILL DONALD N DAHL ETAL DONALD N ft KAREN S DAHL 45 HACKBERRY HILL LONB LAKE IW 5SS54 SO SS>110>2S 44 MIO OOOSS HACKBERRY HILL R N NABHAN ETAL RICHARD N NABHAN SS HACKBERRY HILL LONB LAKE Ml S5S54 33-118-23 44 0028 Walter Ellis 2440 Watertown Road Long Lake, MN 55356 tt 33-118-23 44 0026 William Wear 36 Hackberry Hill Long Lake, MN 55356 33-118-23 44 0027 Mike Ernhart 22 Hackberry Hill Long Lake, MN 55356 •» V (j.. i.;0 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AMI TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORM OF THE HEWCPIN COUNTY DEPARTICNT OF PROPERTY TftNATIOIIk TO THE BEST OF NY KNONLEOBS AND BELIEF.jJ'ilmi.M. r1' <s\ r-.• • •- ^ I ... i. 0 < t ■ y • • u * t- - N t3Zt » Lot 2 ■"dItJSmtiSM LOTI t 0!««'«c IK 2 :.i. mux> *(pTl 15 w III* K QUTLOT A tfcCI LOT 3 f«07 t «L 8riVx*'r41.r '1 a 4< <VI 4'i / - ‘ ' ••• ■?• 1 tI: I' 5f ; ■■ f- pp' W |s"’i-? few- UMTIIMI tlOAI. 018CIWTH3« T«. W..I 0«..« .< <- O...... <n •Mtwa n. kwmw* i« «<»'^ **•' •' Eirrr='^rrr= Quarter ot tiM Soultiaaal OuaMar TMa ai^aar tolaiida la ai*o». it»a bou«daciaa at Iba abo*4 daacrtbad propartr. and tha 'oe*«a" •* •" palatmf •»aaaa. tarata. and barn lharaen. i« daaa not purport to atio** anr othar Improaamanla or anaroaebmanta. r JcJ f. //(f -B*: m «7 TV .*v ;* ;‘, V i‘ £W. £■-/ .'Ui m (tit . SUBLiiVtCTGX ..seaTugsA; hmm * i • > (snut f t /^... ... ... I ,.S Mnr*» i***^** J •• <» <*"•*<•s nmma T j’S I •II8CS« AM >^,1 (ID (Ml (9 ■! J (S) ;2 CJ« I •»^ » s?we* ’ (<i>» •#! (U ;•» Ili wlVM- •**• ♦CCCMVEN DP • sae V '«l . in TliM I im ^ ^ ^ — rii > • (*»»^ (^ * 35 s: L“\m n* i*r tav^ Lisim MM«I1 (44) 5TCWI «i€P aisrPICt 90W«»«» s>oa JtsTPicr 90iM>*PT wrEPiXo JtsiPicr aDv«A«T .^MCftN cowiT. Miwcsor* gun(*u 9 PtAlC SCPviS ocPMinCNt OP ppoPcary r«« iNO p'iaic n"« rj f. //# f*. A M »* jJ • - ©«. £*2. II «lt ' a ¥« •< (til - BUBLIMCTGM -Nca:wss»4 ■BY- — «*M—► —i«» -. /Jjp r 1 n ‘ •■ srtwi 3 T f I *1 j ' 1,^ 1 . ¥ 1 i « ••II i i di^ 1 ,.^ 1 i« (5^OS rt» • mcOOHAvEN DR • ill 4i SOS - ! n 4 (SP i; nmuM {Ml •mmi mnd mm mut • •« .LL ■»i^ Mi In t» I •» {Ml I 5 (!^ V* 11 ; ®“ Is % IS-, III • sarsTT ^ (1 A h** i im m> 8 8 4.T.nr.f sraw SE«n jistimct 90 w*a«» sotfa oismtcr aoiMMRT ••fSRXO OtSTRtCT »#**«» 9"4«iAac« ,«««R[N COWfT. MlMCMfA S^M OF RU&tC KRvia i^FiNnCNr OF •WRfT t*i RV&IC *F 'OROS . T. f fi M t SS30-3-5 e^. S33 STOW un» OISIKICT aOlMMr so«a sisTiiicr aowtfMT nr|«$»<0 OISIIMCT aOuMMT '•r^Cur».f »«Ki€^tM CMrT, MiMsar. MMi Of hm.tc VKvici OCfi«Tl€lif OF m^ifr lA w) ^ifacc Rf oio5 JJ T. ff§ 23 e-H A']} f€mu"%i (in - BUfifc lMGTCM • «j«f • na«i I i/1 I l9t & Is 2 iHW*as r - ***• eOOPHAVgw OW » hV (S^301 I ' t Jl-^ , UN ( 9l»#t 'M( ...f-v'S —jiW fif 1 / V-1 *5J'l. _ Jj. -Z____ ^‘/ ^.;~ I / \ ,.'>'-risG b >:•¥ 1 m IV .»3i1 ir(n«t.;fn^ fi £ I* • 4 i'll I 2 o * iM ’ • I I .(• 0 I ?® • ini^ ^ (ifl •:rr: WOiWTOHW W» ■!x,'iffirt I t.4,1.117,R.a: » ; ' fTT l«Tl >j* r <iL.Ui I t« ........ item un» oisniici «w«mt_ . -------- jooo. ourmet boim>mt .................... MtCKXO Oismicr aWMAar ,... .................... . .. SA««^|4« S33 »««CflN OMIT. MIMCSOI auMCMi or maic ieii«ia OfPMnCNi V MOPCair r* w) pija tc » •OP05 m[Aa, f .................. i’.!l M «h M r iort A____I LOTI VOIM^a "WV ihm OMMK SK------- IfevS'/, KV3u' Mf. ■K;v H C I iG "0'r ■ lAc;‘teL tA»£.VJt»-, a* •; ■ W'-m »r* ^ LOT 7 I #!«•'•• LOT 1 _____^ » '•IB'k'OUT LOT A ------------*-5 Jr.vzr'y*! \ **•« I tnszvj'.., xA,4<^ Ih* S Ui.I I I i t i>«iv«(OAy t .'. ' “• •• I I t •Ml »90 ’ 1 t m LOT 2 LOT 1 1 to 90tm>9* « 1 9 1 Wa ^1 *-**«» MM* Lm* ^ •a tM Mm QUTtftT A ->f ooivjr... § »«V^4T. 1 I • ? :>.,;.ll ^pnoMi pbiz. T^ Oi^TioT A [RfiV . 'll i^asias. V i- ' *A , .,f -A. . . , ........ , < - 3 7F4tf3 «. 6*«' V JEfj l: :7^vr ,^r' • - • u> ^ I ^1 *c • **»« il'*^.* ".- ..^»#.-*^ .» • •• «• - • • • " 99, % '*• '—‘^'Lk'^1 « ^ ^. 4. - . l?l^^>-i' ' -.>gr-wyjS*U;;£^; ^ .-« ' ’\ T>£ -' /I /*1 \•% u w i Y rv- I: 'is-' II i;' % I h -f ■ TRANSPORTATION JUNE, 1980 Service Area be essentially for airports, principal need neighborhoods away from the THF TRANSPORTATION PLM Orono's location on the perimeter of the Metropolitan Urban has pretty well dictated that our Transportation plan will a plan for streets and roads. Orono has no planning needs and has little planning requirement for mass transit. The is a plan to provide for local movement between residential and commercial centers, and for efficient commuter movement congested, environmentally sensitive lakeshore. The principle components of Orono's Transportation Plan are as follows: 1 DEVELOPING THE RING ROUTE CONCEPT including designation of collectors and minor artarials tc lirect traffic away from Lake Minnetonka. 2. DEVELOPING THE SCENIC PARKWAY CONCEPT including ‘^^fi^nation of parkways for slow-speed recreational access along the Lake Minnetonka shoreline and other scenically attractive routes. 3. DEVELOPING THE PRIVATE ROAD CONCEPT for access to low density rural residential properties. 4. PBOHOTIHO KEASONABLE LEVELS OF rUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE FOR ORONO-S URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS including maintenance of the existing MTC bu routes and investigation of alternative public transit modes for commuter travel to the center of the Twin cities region. npoMO^s ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM A commonly eccepted way to describe and analyze a transportation system is through a classification system which follows ■arvices and different levels of construction standards. This Plan the claaaificetion system developed and adopted by the Minnesota Oepartmen Of Traneportetion as applied to the types of roadways serving Orono. HAP NO. 14 INDICATES THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN FOR STREETS AND ROADS IN ORONO. This plan is consistent with the ^ * -f Md facilities of the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Hennepin County Department of . This plan ia conaiatent with the roadway systems of adjoining and with orono'8 urban and rural land use plans. The provide detailed explanations of each of Orono's roadway class |Vvm CMP 7-14 •fpfrNSPQRTAT LQN. JU^JE, 1980 Hlahway 12 that becomes llmitea-aceess east of Orono's eastern boundary »lth Haysata. isaiiiil accats and intersection characteristics are typical of a minor arterial or collector* JURISDICTION: STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RlCHT”OF”MAy WIDTH: MINIMUM 100 FEET FOR TWO LANE HIGHWAY MINOR ARTERIAL A Minor Arterial is a controlled access, moderate capacity street or highway designed to move vehicles within planning subregions and between adjacent subregions. The Lake Minnetonka arterial functioning to move, principally commuters and truck traffic, Jwm the wee^rriaL Minnetonka communities into the urbanised areas of intersections without direct access to individual residences. JURISDICTION: HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION u RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: MINIMUM 80 FEET FOR TWO LANE HIGHWAY r^T.T.grrftP A Collector street functions to collect traffic from local but is regulated as to location and number with direct ^cess to be _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ avaflable ^ ^t£'^thSf^lSffidTors“arrirte^^nt?§trrd or with four-way atop signs. Traffic usage is moderate. JURISDICTION: COUNTY OR CITY !/■ RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: 60-66 FEET CMP 7-15 f ■^PAMSPQRTAT 1 on JUNE, 1980 ariPNTC PARKWAY Scenic parkway is a designation and classification Ci^. of Lnn..poli. .nd Saint Paul and applied by Orono to those roads which traverse especially scenic and environmentally significan I, the Ci^v! The scenic parkway is typically a narrow, cury, slow :r«en:\:ti:^t!r£st;;Hi|h'voi£ th^^ aeanie parhways also provide some of the traffic and local access funetiona of both local and collector streets. JURISDICTION: COUNTY OR CITY RICHT-OP-WAY WIDTH: 50-66 FEET rt^i^rnf-rio-i^t-reet traffic. r/ & JURISDICTION: CITY RIGHT-OP-WAY WIDTH: 50-60 FEET DEAD-END: LENGTH WILL BE LIMITED BY PUBLIC SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS “SSfhStf. fuaetiona •• a local access street. The city ^ ritL will roadt ba eonatructed and maintained to city standards. The _rooerties uMirrere..».nt for public in9ress. egress end access to ali properties, but the City will .now the property ro.d. road to tha banafitting landowners and ownership will ba located on platted outlets intended for ^oint by all the benefitted property owners. A private ro.d is . “if"*'’ JURISDICTION: HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WITH UNDERLYING EASEMENT TO CIsY NAXIMUM SERVICE: APPROXIMATELY TEN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES RIGHT-OP-WAY WIDTH: 30-50 FEET DEPENDING UPON NUMBER OF USERS DEAD-END: LENGTH WILL BE LIMITED 5Y PUBLIC SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS CMP 7-16 I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I f I I f i;- :-y. TRANSPORTATION JUNE, 1980 PRIVATE DRIVEWAY A driveway is a privately owned and privately maintained vehicle path between the street and private property. Private driveways ehell be subject to access permits according to the classification of the abutting street. Private driveways will not be subject to any public easement or access right, but do require recorded private easements where (driveways cross an intervening private lot between the residence served and the street. JURISDICTION: PROPERTY OWNER MAXIMUM SERVICE:1 RESIDENCE TYPICAL? JOINT DRIVEWAYS ALLOWED WITH MAXIMUM THREE RESIDENTS PER DRIVEWAY IN RURAL AREAS MORE USERS REQUIRE PRIVATE ROAD STANDARDS DRIVEWAY WIDTH WILL BE REGULATED WHERE MORE THAN ONE USER IS INVOLVED OR FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES WHERE THERE IS EXCESSIVE LENGTH BETWEEN THE RESIDENCE AND THE PUBLIC ROAD EXISTING ROADWAY MAINTENANCE JURISDICTIONS ARE REASONABLE AS THEY RELATE TD THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN. The State of Minnesota has appropriate jurisdiction over the only Intermediate Arterial in the City. the Hennepin County Department of Transportation has jurisdiction over the only Minor Arterial designated in the Plan. It is anticipated that Hennepin County will assume jurisdiction in the future over the City- built ring route link between County Road 19 and County Road 6. Hennepin County has jurisdiction over most of the designated scenic Parkways which is appropriate in that these roads serve as access to Lake Minnetonka and to County maintained landings for many County residents who do not reside in Orono. The City has jurisdiction over t* 'se Scenic Parkways that are away from the immediate lakeshore, .’ . '^ding the access road to the Orono Golf Course. The City has appropriate jurisdiction of most of the Collector and all of the local streets which serve all Orono residents. Certain key street segments have been designated for Municipal State Aid construction assistance, including: OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD from County Road 6 to Fox Street, County Road 84 WILLOW DRIVE from County Road 6 to State Highway 12 and from the Long Lake border to Fox Street POX STREET from Willow Drive to County Road 146 McCulley Road (Ring Route link) between County Road 6 and County Road 19 Plnally, individual property owners have appropriate private jurisdiction over those private Roads serving only their individual properties. * ■ it- '-i 'j rr fn V i ir-- P C“ fe 5 11.33 D Intersections shall be designed with a flat i J" ^hi^^v (30) in a residential area te»t fn a comnT^cciai or indusrrial area The stopping aria shall be designed to provide a maximum grade of two (2) percent. S*d V.c"..:.“y by^thl city ’to provide an adequate sight distance. F The crown of all streets, including intersections, shall be three percent (3») or less. o .ww . Tvnieal Section. The typical section Indicated S:y"Se“sui"^ct'?l ?hfng%Pto ’u“bor ‘?n*gs®mlJ be^eguir^d to be determined by the City. Prltrate Street - Residential Units 3-6 50* M.P.W.** 24' Section 8“ Class 5 100% crushed 3'* 2341 Bituminous Surface Over 7 50'28'8" Class 5 100% crushed 3' 2341 Bituminous Surfac Public Street - Residential Units 3-10 R.O.W.* 50* M.P.W.** 28' Section 8" Class 5 100% crushed 3" 2341 Bituminous Surface Over 10 50*32'8" Class 5 100% crushed 3” 2341 Bituminous Surface Msxinum cul-de-sac length - IfOOO Maxiauai number of units on cul-de-sac - Section Class 4 Class 5 100% crushed 2341 Bituminous surface 8 8 * Right-Of-Way width ** Ninimun Paved Width ORONO CC 462 (4-1-84) '■ V- r. i':' ili k;- F- ir' iir. ■ M'- pv' f'-r: ■•:-5 ! ^ -. ■ ^ •'X-' ,-’:r 'yi ■t ■ i t»' :r' m 5 11.33 subd. 5. HociJontal and Vertical Control. Functional Class _ Private Street (residential) Public Street- (residential) Public Street- (com. & ind.) Design (C n A Vertical Control Maxiniuni Gradient Horizontal Minimum 30 MPH 12%275 ' * %275 ‘30 MPH 40 MPH 3%400’ ¥r Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-34 < 17 ?Q inclusive, reserved for fjt(Sections 11.34 through 11.39, inciusi expansion.) ORONO CC 463 (4-1-84) L. f' 1; 7 Tot t tot mission Mecnb^i^ <5U /o ^ O, Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator a’«d^WA» VAAAKa Ron Noorse, City Administrator October 15^ 1991 Subjocts #1687 Robert Bilger, 4005 North Shore Drive - Variances - Public Hearing looiag Oistrlett LR-IB, Lakeshore residential, 1 acre minimum List of Bshlbits - A “ Application r “ Applicant's Addendum C - Property Owners List D - Plat Nap B - Adjacent Property Owner's Acknowledgement Form F - Elevation, South G - Floor Plan B - Applicant's Hardcover Fact Sheet, 0-75* Setback Area I - 1 6 2 - Applicant's Hardcover Fact Sheet, 75-250' Setback Area J - Survey K - Staff Sketch - Detached garage, street yard of Pertinent Ordinances - A. Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (D) lakeshore lot. Allowed « 10* Proposed • 3' Variance ■ 7' or 70% B. Section 10.03, Subd. 9 (E) - Proposed accessory structure at 834 s.f. must be set back 15' from side or rear lot lines. Required ■ 15' Proposed - 10' Variance - 5' or 33.3% Staff Recommendation ■ 8' (Review Exhibit K} • Variance « 7' or 46.6% C. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - 1. 0-75* setback area ■ 8,864 s.f. Existing per applicant's survey « 456 s.f. or 5.1 % Per site inspection - 576 s.f. or 6.49%* No removals proposed. * 120 s.f. of retaining wall located within 0-75* setback area. Review Exhibit J. rr Zoning File 91687 October 15, 1991 Page 2 2.75-250' setback area - 8,380 s.f. Allowed “ 2,095 s.f. cr 25% Existing per applicant's hardcover facts = 4,093.7 s.f. or 48.9% Per site inspection = 4,165.7 s.f. or 49.7%* (72 s.f, for footpath) Proposed per applicant = 5,216.7 s.f. or 62.25%. Please note 72 s.f. of footpath area is to be removed because of swale to be installed within west side yard. Review Exhibits I, 1 and 2. Per staff recommendation ■* 5,336.7 s.f. or 63.7%. Applicant proposes no removals except foi. those improvements to be removed because of new construction. D.After-the-Pact Variance Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Applicants installed a 6* x 32* section of deck (refer to Exhibit J) resulting in 192 s.f. of additional hardcover within the 75-250* setback area or 2.29%. Applicant claims because of severely sloping topography this was an attempt to connect the front and side access deck to the rear deck and entrance to house. Dmmcripbioii of Rmqnest Mr. Bilger proposes the installation of a detached garage and storage addition in the street yard of the lakeshore lot. Doors have been provided to the side with a turnaround or backout apron provided on the property. A garage structure is allowed 10* from the street lot line. T e storage addition presents a soning issue as only garage structures are allowed 10'. Members may determine that that a mixed use structure would require a 35' setback. As structure exceeds 750 s.f., ♦■he accessory structure must be located 15' from side and tba*. lor lines. Structure is proposed at 10' from the west side lot line. Glenn Cook was asked to comment on the feasibility of the limited area for backing out from garage. Cook confirms that the backout apron will not work and recommends that the garage Li: movfKS 5* further north. Refer to Exhibit K. Structure would now be located 8' from the west side lot line. Note the improvement project results in 12.55% increase in liehardcover. Applicant proposes the removal of portions of boulder wall (60 s.f.) and garage slab (28 s.f.) resulting from proposed construction. 72 s.f. of footpath will be removed as a result of the swale to be installed along the west side lot line. Cook confirms swale can still be maintained within 8' side yard. i i Zoning File #1687 October 156, 1991 Page 3 It should also be noted that If Planning Commission members approve staff proposal that an additional 120 s»f. of drive will result by moving garage 5* north. Hardcover p'^cposed with staff's recommendation would be at 5,336.7 s.f. or 63.7%. The following is a list of existing or proposed improvements, the area of each and th«> hardcover percentage: 0-75' setback area Gravel drive > 392 s.f. or 4.4% 75-250* setback area Portion of deck constructed without building permit > 192 s.f. or 2.29% Existing garage and storage building - 319.5 s.f. or 3.8% Proposed storage/workshop addition « 258 s.f. or 3.07% t/ f r. f f i Staff would ask Plannnig Commission members who are able to visit the sight to review the gravel area. Do members feel additional gravel area can be removed now that turnaround is provided in the rear yard? Should the 392 s.f. of gravel area be removed in the 0-75* setback area....will it create exiting problems? ■mzdehip Statement Review both application form and applicant's addendum. Exhibits A and B. Applicant notes the shape, size and unique location of property. In addition the addendum notes the need for a garage to house the family cars during both the extreme cold winter months and summer months. Staff would also add the hardship that over 50% of the area of this property is located in the 0-75* setback area. The property was also developed long before the current lakeshore development standards established in 1975. Additional Staff Comments Any recommendation of approval must include either removals of existing hardcover or reduction in proposed improvements to be consistent with previous actions of the City in granting hardcover variances. Isv r-V ir Zoning File *1687 November S, 1991 Page 4 Additional Cowenta and Planning ConBission Recoaaendation Upon a site inspection of the property# the Planning Commission unanimously concur that there should be no removals of the gravel drive area within the 0-75' setback area nor within the 75-250* setback area. Any removal will restrict the ability to turn around on the property and would result in increased potential of accidents. One of the members noted this is one of the most hazardous sections of road in the City. This property is the most exposed to any potential hasard on the roadway. Xn rt.jponse to staff's recommendation that the proposed structure be moved 5* to the north to allow for a backout ability# Mr. Bilger advised that backout aprons should not have been shown as he will continue to use the existing gravel drive surface for backing out on the property. This will reduce 80 s.f. of hardcover proposed within the 75-250* setback area. The applicant explained that he did not wish to move the gravel further north on the property because of the higher elevations and the additional costs and Impact on the existing elevation. The applicant also advises that he proposes the removal of the existing garage and storage building to the north side of the property at 319.5 s.f. or 3.8% hardcover. Final hardcover within the 75-250* setback area is proposed as follows: Existing - 4#165.7 s.f. or 49.7% Proposed “ 4#817.2 s.f. or 57.48% Hardcover increase * 651.5 s.f. or 7.8% The Planning Commission also approved after-the-fact variance portion of the application that would allow a 6*x32* section of deck on west side of the house based on the severely sloping topography and the special needs of Mrs. Bilger. Mrs. Bilger sustained injuries when a car crashed into the rear of their home. The approval resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission*s unanimous recomsiendation. Hardcover within the 0-75* setback area will remain at 576 s.f. or 6.49%# hardcover within the 75-250* setback area is proposed at 4#817.2 s.f. or 57.48%. ii 5k! .r* - I',-- kfr t k.T h t yr *■ |:Pk'..[p:: ^ A RB8OL0TIOM GRAMTIHC VARIAHCBS TO MUNICIPAL lOMING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9 (D) AND (B), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND AH AFTBB-THB>PACT VARIANCE TO SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 PILE #1687 NBEREAS, Robert J. Bilger (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 4005 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; See Exhibit A (hereinafter "the property"); and NBEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) and (E) to pernit a detached garage at 834 s.f. to be located 3' from a street lot line instead of 10* as required by Code and 10' from the side or rear lot line instead of the required 15' for a structure in excess of 750 s.f. Applicant also seelcs a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit a net increase in hardcover within the 75-250' setback area at 4817.2 s.f. or 57.48% where only 2,095 s.f. or 25% is allowed. Applicant also seeks approval for a 6'x32' section of deck installed without the benefit of a building permit resulting In a 192 s.f. of hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. Minnesota: HON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1687. The property is located in the LR-IB Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 1 acre in area. Property consists of 17,244 s.f. or .39 acres. Hardcover within the 0-75' setback area - 576 s.f. or 6.49%. Existing hardcover within the 75-250' setback area « 4,165.7 s.f. or 49.7%. Page 1 of 6 3. 4. 5. The Orono Planr.l..g Commission reviewed this application on October 21, 1991 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: a) b) c) The triangular shape of the property The unique location of property on a severe "S" curve The property does not have a functional garage that can house cars during the extreme cold winter months nor the summer months. Over 50% of the area of this property is located in the 0>75' setback area. o)The property was developed before the current lakeshore development standards established in 1975. 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. OOHCLOSIOMS, ORDER AED COEDITIOE8 Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03# Subdivision 9 (D) and (E) and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of a detached garage/storage structure located fr-k Page 2 of € 3* from the street lot line and 10* from the side/rear lot line resulting in 4,817.2 s.f. or 57.48% hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area where only 25% is allowed and approval of an after-the-fact variance for a 6'x32* deck constructed without the benefit of a building permit at 192 s.f. of hardcover in the 75-250* setback area subject to the following conditions: 1. (■ y-z 2. 3. 4. 5. r. V' .f. % Is Final approved hardcover at 4,817.2 s.f. within the 75-250* setback area is approved as shown on page 6 of this resolution. All structures scheduled for removal shall be completed at the time of the footing inspection for the proposed detached garage/storage structure. The applicant shall provide detailed grading and drainage plans with building permit applicatior for new construction. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (November 12, 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 this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of € f, ri; r' r.‘V* f ■->: ri-. . rt':-' ('■ '!, tri-' Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of Movenber, 1991. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Ballin, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MIMMESOTA ) )8S. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of November, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Ballin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a f'innesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 4-^I UlLULf] I \ •ftt. /7.f» I \ / /t?3' / I ^ 1^ r ^i3[4 *fiU’ ^EGAL DescwiPTION situatad In f.h« County oi Hennapin and State of Minnesota to !u: Lot I except that part thereof bounded iy a n„o beginning at the most Southerly corner It L\i Lot; thence North on the Eaetnriv f?® °ilot, n t..t, ,h.„c: so:,S“s:sjf/ ™ t»* SO«thW.5t«li easterly of a straight line drawn ac?Ss^.iM ’ J35 3 * straight lineZ35.3 feet to a point distant 21.6 feet northwesterly from and at right anglH to the easterly line of said lot 3 and thence continues tn the same direction U? K*’* *ln« Of said lot. InHlghwood, LaKa Minnetonka, accordlna to the plat thereof on file or of ^ the Registrarof Titles In and for said County. JaiV, fx 7' 7 Rret of. Parcel 17,300 •*4 w* ii»-' / I »»•./ •q • ft.=0.397 acres , I!”i®?::?fL5*i5“^?tlons (In.sq. ft. * Coverage ) / I // / 75.2S0 2S0-S00 4,094 \ I / 2522S5 !S5!! .MMOTEi moN trr*ogwoTC»* oweenoN OF SURFACE FLOW \ ^ * • fJiTjr L-_ _ vmev ’e w «e#r«rM PjlglWO ELEVATION^onoTit nioRoseo elevation \ / I^F 44»E *»4«F0ARA«E FLOOR TOR OF FOUNDATION r>- N N \ s UKC . MMMCTDfNM' , tibpwiiive tnm \ \\ • S' l‘lT CS4<4^f SF ftST • tm A RCAUME REOISTEUCO land surveyor •1T-S42>9S9S SHEET \ •N NOMiars CROtsaoao •"■•TORRA. tswetiefa : SSS49 REVISIONS I HfREBY CERTIFY fM^T THIS ’i p.ry plan, or report W\S prepared Si NE OR UNDER my direct StPERVISION AND that I AM A DULY REGISTERED I,A\D SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. REG. ,NO. 19532 h rr‘ i5^;, r.^ K. f' i n A ItEXHIBIT "A Lot 1 except that part thereof bounded by a line beginning at the roost Southerly corner of said Lot; thence North on the Easterly line of •aid Lot, 21 feet; thence southwesterly in a straight line to a point on the Southwesterly line of said Lot distant 20 feet Northwesterly ■easured along said line from the most Southerly corner of said Lot; thence Southeasterly along said Southwesterly line 20 feet to point of beginning; all of Lot 2; and all that part of Lot 3, lying easterly of a straight line drawn across said lot, which line begins at a point in the northerly line of said lot 3 feet westerly measured along said northerly line from the northeasterly corner of said lot, and runs in a straight line 235.3 feet to a point distant 21.8 feet northwesterly froii and at right angles to the easterly line of said lot 3 and thence continues in the same direction to the southerly line of said lot, in Bighwood, Lake Minnetonka, according to the plat thereof on file or of racored in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said Hennepin County, Minnesota. . % > f Initial Application f4^$175.00 ($50.00 per each addiCT^nal-^'riance) # % S S.%- A£ter-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) U50Z ‘0^OFFICE ^eceipmh ^^' you :i223670 cool nOPERTT LOCATION Site Address iA 00^ /V SP V* Property identification Number (P.I.D.) 0? //7-^3 ^4 Ooq§ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Fhone (home)APPLICANT Nut. J' T^/I-G-B^ ■ Phone (work) _ _ _ ^AA^...,uMr rf?- city! Mnt^HO /W zipigr^if: i I *•(if different than ac'licant)Phone (home) Name Phone (wor)c) Address:. City:Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PIS8INT OSBvOP PIOPBSTT PresedtNzoning Oistric ' N V\ \Present Use of Property — ^ Residential Other (specify) INST Estimated Construction Cost $ D..crlb. in i. B QnC. #* Lot Area Setback Variance Lot Width 1 ' Hardcover Side _ __ Reer) Other r • Fa HARDSHIPDescribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resuItin^rom strict enforcement of zoning regulations: r fftn-Pt. fr.- - DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS • Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning ^ Code Requirements: if / jS. y ^ ’»JtmXKBD ^ i^Com] ✓6eri SUBMITTALS ••^Completed Application Form ^^ertified Property Owners List of^owners within 15C’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Depart^enVP#•^Pi^3*'ca A-6-03.^Govt Center .348-3271). CT^i^lat Map (obtained with property owners list). ^,rtificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include ^ hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8%"xll ” for reproduction). Topogriiphioibir^^ (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing orade are proposed (provit^e one copy 8%"xll"). C£) SketchW or plans of floor & elevation ^v'iews (provFde 1 copy 8%"xll"). (T!!) Ae an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any 4^h<^^ Persians you wish'Notified of ,this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. >5 (£) file Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete —th«— hae not been included. APfLICANT'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 origin? fee payment) and/or consultant expenses Incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information eupolied is true and correct _tp the best of hi s/he ^knowledge. Applicant's Signature i.rect the best of his/her Date 0MHIR8 SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and furt. c authortees rea*o»«J5l« property by City staff, consultants, C<nMBifl^ion members, and Council members for purposes of investiga — tidLaiid yeriffcation of this request. Owner's Signature _______________________ Date ---------------------- Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning ConsU.saion Meeting.' ^Planning Commission Meetings are held ^ ® third Monday of each month. -^Applicants must be present at all scheiluled smwiew meetings of the Planning Co—ilssion and Office of this change prior to the meeting. i m p 04JNebon QiBlity Products PO Box^DO Hc\cr. Mn. 553fcO (e :) 637-2^25 s J 7 » yfM ' T r ! / V "f % ^ •u 1 4 - . ^ -r-^ >C?/- 'y £2 C’// 0U/C . Z' 2, '^■;r,l; -> - /»j E 0^y^^P£’‘ ^/re IS fsxrisu-/ ifi., I I- IS _ ^ r> ^ pn^ 3 MH7-M t VZnBP hiHen ''•’VrsTl.^s /V 0 1 ii*i^ f '■'hr r V ,r I ■> mm MTi oa/14/91 MTCN Ml HCmEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PRO^l.*. ' dtCRS LIST TAXPAYER MHE/AMR PROP AMR ONNiR NAHi TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADM OM«R MNi TAXPAYER NAm/ANR TAXPAYER HRME/AMR M 07-S,v ;*CS MOS 04005 NORTN SNORE OR SUSAN H HALKER SUSAN OILQER 4005 N SNORE DRIVE HOUND MN S5S44 SO 07-II7-ES 44 0U6A 04000 ^QRTN SHORE DR R J ORE£A IRA JOHNSON R J BREZA ERA JOHNSON 4000 NMTN SNORE M ORMO NN 55Sn SO 00-117-tI S3 0073 01540 NORTH ARH DR PATRICXA H LANLESS PATRICIA UNLESS 1540 NORTH ARH OR HOUND m 55S44 SO 17-117*23 22 Of 03445 NORTH SNORE CHARLES J HACIOSER N RICHARD 2UCRNAN 1014 DUPONT AVE S NPLS NN 55403 REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 1 SO 07-117-23 44 0004 04004 NORTH SNORE DR JANICE F SIGNER JANICE F SIGNER 4004 NORTH SNORE DR HOUND m 5S364 SO 07-117-23 44 4005 04017 NORTH SHORE OR JOHN F THEOBALD CTAL JOHN F THE06AL0 4017 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND m 55364 30 00-117-23 S3 0069 03900 NORTH SHORE OR R N ANDERSON APS ANDERSON RICHARD N A PEGGY S ANDERSON 3900 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND m 55364 30 00-117-23 33 0071 01570 NORTH ARN OR ALICE V NELSON GLORIA J HAGEN 1570 NORTH ARH OR HOUND m 55364 30 00-117-23 33 0074 01550 NORTH ARH DR HARGARET PEiTOLA HARCARET PELTOLA 1550 NORTH ARH OR HOUND m 553 4 SO 00-117-23 S3 0075 01540 NORTH ARH DR KAREN H NEHSTROH KAREN H NEHSTROH 1540 NORTH ARH OR HOUND m 55364 30 17-117-23 22 0040 OAVIO H A HOLLY H EISS DAVID A HOLLY EISS 1635 CONCORDIA ST HAYZATA m 5C191 TOTAL BATCH 001 OOOII I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENlFO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION^ TO THE BEST OF HY KNONLED* NO BELIEF. . % OATEI J .J .J J p I \r^3 \ ^ (2^) (i4) SS * ( h) Of 1 1 ^tf (2U * ISMf 1 c ’ja.- I ^'i' Sj if -Sf.-------- (m ^ «* tj -! *• #« #% . ' V ■i—Si. Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgeaent Fora I (we) [print name(s) ] /g7/g a/ ^rm • • ^ ^ .A *_ - — A M W(print address d ^ d.h« elans for the proccsed improvement or proposed use of the iTn • - to as Land Ose Application Mo. a ^ ^ executing this achnowledgementp I (we) am I (we) or disapproval of the property or use (are) not asked Council that I (we) an. (are) aware of but nerely to that the prooosed neighbor's project or usethe improvement plans and that tne pr . requires Council approval. '/// 9/ Date Property Owner #.16 '•f I (we) [print name(s)][print address] d d.van «ian« for the oroDOsed improvement or proposed use of thehave reviewed the plans for t , . also referred to as Land Use property located at - --- -- - - - - Application No « j a...s^ ♦.h»t in ex-cuting this acknowledgement, I (we) am I (we) understand ^ disapproval of the property or use (are) not asked -itv Council that I (we) am (are) aware of requires Council approval. Frepert^' Owner Date Property Owner Date If you hnv. “u“co^*n'M«^"the Building s Jii’n^Offi”': ^riess* 10 d.% prior to the sch«lul.d -..tin, date. [i , I- i y.. f'l. !•: tV 1?. r> K. )-.' .tsss^ Ndson Qjality Products Ma)cr, (612) 657-252^ — ^ -J ^ -1^ jm'wo I/ V, • . ji-. -.pK»t*T ^1,0^5 jp B-T/ <^ ^ ■ 5 » V 7"^* • /‘r ..iLik ■ % 'i 1. ; i ■ :J • s f ► *1 zy: IIII 5 i! *r A 'i I j. t ) #1 -> >> u:87 / 9i'r 5^ -t- a/?^^ %00 A M - 5 pl^o^ fZ pj-f)H- ‘I. 7r HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEE SETBACK zone: (CIRCLE ONE) Existing Hardcover in Zone /z-i 2S0-500' 5CG-1QCGn * A X = • .» A • LENGTH X WIDTH t X X — r^'X ~ k: 1 n C A D X — A Tin r \/eu AV _ Xt1 X - k li'0. :C r neuAl It y . ■ if X S .X s 1 / '■A f' ■■■• V E.>atio/ )ecx X S ■ • >9 1 A ADC X - ift. lil' AREi^ UNOERu IN X s BY plastic SHEETING — X S “•1 ?■ X s f I;e, OrMBi ^X s Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 3 ^z.S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. B Sg6t X 100 B I % V- l.r h ‘ . •K ■■ 1 rS‘ •: r V'f- r--^ :1.'. r/ ^‘■ V-\ Bit"- ■■ li#yiiii. HARDCOVER CALCULATION WGRKSrxi] ScT3Ac:< ZONE: (ciacLE one) 0-7o' 7:-xo0>250-500' 500-10C0' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. Hou.. LENGTH B< Garage c. Driveway D. Sidewalk e. Patio/ Deck p. Landscape areas underlain BYPLASTIC SHEETING ^ccK 6. Other »/ - X .1 a '.V S.F. WIDTH J 9 • 7.S.F. S.F. S.F. .S.F. ^ - • • •S.F. , .i? i *S.F. S.F. 4. _ ^ ^ —1 r» S.’ , ^ J. -c: S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. . S.F. S.F. . X Total Hardcover iN Zone Total Property Area in Zone i ’2-^ S.F. 4!)92.') S.F. '' f " ' .S.F.B T) _4 B X 100 4^9 % 5 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET ET3ACK ZONE: (CIRCLE cne) 0*75' 25C-30C' 5C0-:CCG' -r* V i i*:-- ^i. :i- •-r m V ' I P 6. Other ic z Total H ardcover in Zone ^ Zl L^.l Toial Property Area in Zone \TU Ll'^ !xi&tih6- H ardcover in Zone A. H ouse X s S.F. length X WIDTH S.F. X S.F. X S.F. X S.F. B. r. (•fiet>es£s f (^AOAOP e-*.!S'' X J.4- Ly?'# T~ • Z 5'.^^^4 = ('S.F. nptVFWAY X 377 -------- S.F. ^ X V /f » pfD fi4a S.F. D.55tnPWAi.X ^ X S.F. 4# • X a S.F. X S.F. E.Jatio / Deck X - . 7 S.F. B.lAMinsrAPP X S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN RV . X _ .S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X ^S.F. X a S.F. xn.-/ S.F, 2 0 X 100 f 7 . S.F. . S.F. % A i Tot .:%o #1689 Terry Sadler, 1396 Baldur Park Road - Variance ~ Mayor Peterson 6 Orono Council Members City Administrator Moorse Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Ad Hovember 4, 1991 Resolution leniiig District - LR-IC, single family lakeshore residential, 1/2 acre, sewered Appllcstloii - Request for Hardcover and Side Setback Variance to Construct a 10'x26' three-season porch in place of pre-existing 10'x26* upper level deck. Resolution Notice of Planning Commission Action 10/22/91 Memo and Exhibits of 10/16/91 List of Bshibits B. ..ibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Discassion Please review the memo and exhibits of 10/16/91.^ Briefly, applicant tore off a 10«x26' deck for which a building 1985, and proposes to replace it with a three-season porch of the sise. However, hardcover conditions have changed since that original deck approval, and applicant seeks hardcover and side setback variances. Existing and proposed hardcover is 39.6% in the 75-250' zone. There is no hardcover in the 0-75' -^one. ndationFlaaniiig CoaBission Re The Planning Commission on a vote of 5 to 1 recommended approval of the request as presented. The Planning Commission did not require S the approximately 3.3% rock and plastic land bed hardcover. The Planning commission Indicated that the lot size construction of the house are a hardship, and replacement of structural hardcover for structural hardcover, and that the 0,1' setback variance would not affect the neighboring property. Staff idation A resolution reflecting the Planning Commission recommendation is attached for Council consideration. A SBSOLOTlOil 6RANTIIIG VARIAMCBS TO NinilClPAL ZOMING CODS SlCTIOa 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SBCTION 10.24, SOBDIVISIOH 5 (B) FILE #1689 WBBRBAS, Terry Sadler (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 1396 Baldur Park Road within the City of Oronc (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 16, Baldur Park, Hen^iepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property*); and NHBRBAS, the applicant has applied to the City for varlancea to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow hardcover in excess of the 25% hardcover noiinally allowed in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone and variance to Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to allow a proposed three-season porch to be located 9.9' from the aide lot line where a 10' side yard setback is normally required. Mir.:a: RON, THBRBPORB, BB IT RBSOLVBD by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning Fil»^ »i609. The property is located in the LR-lC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3.The Crono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 21, 1991, and on a vote of 5 to 1 recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: a)The 0.1* side setback variance is appropriate since it will allow the oroposed porch to match the existing side line of the house, and such a variance will have no significant Impact on the neighboring property. Page 1 of 6 ■JLi. Existing harder*'*'* is no hardcovo ol 0.3 acre, attached garage .. granting of a hazdc the 75-250' zune is 39.6%. There ? 0-75' zone. The small lot size €t location of the house with inimal driveway, all support the •r variance. c) The proposed 10'x26' three-season porch replaces a pre existing 10*x26 ‘ upper level deck in the exact same location, hence the impact of the change in the nature of the structure is minimal. No lot coverage or average setback variance is required for this proposal. d) There is no extraneous excess hardcover on the property ’-fhich can reasonably be removed to result in a decrease from tho pre-existing level of hardcover. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City s’jaff, comments by the applicant and the e:^fect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5, The City Council findc that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to i and do not apply generally to other property In this zc ing 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 se^^^e « convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary c preserve a substantial pr*ip^rty right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 6 • • • • t| • V . •* i . I... i • I I M • I* . • * III IM«I HAMCCVO CAia-LATION W0RSi5T_^Afmc^ srrsAcit zoMt: (c:»ca one) O-”’ :uG-— CjCiSTINC H aRDCOYU !H Zcn £ *. H ouse LSRCTM width X X X X - S.F. ^ - s.F. s.r. s.f. 5.P.M I, Gajuc E ----X c. DmvwAr — *----------------- , . -hffo ,. s,....u. . >■ W (j?,p X /'7,-V- I, Patio/ DfCK /g>.^ X X jmt/M unoulaiii i/ _ 52. elastic • X n 3. r X 29_ — S.F. QQ s.x. ,i^ s.R. ^ _j^0^j^S.F. FLJISTIW M fNtfTINO • i2J.yr /ex 32 ___ S.F. __s.r.^ _____________ S.F. ^4f S.F. •ToTAt ftMCOVOI IN Z0« - jSfir^SiS^S.F. J n ■• I ,. .-?n«f - mTotal Hanxn A«£a w ao "« —*------- ____ 40^1222^ X100 •a5?to»^?x.g ^sx s.'y.C. 7. e>osT>^(-* 'IS-ZSO'h^CoI/^ 5 lake Minnetonka ^*1 *4rnm4».. DALDUR PARK ROAD Page 3 of 6 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow 39.6% hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, and grants a variance to Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to allow a side yard setback for the proposed three- season porch of 9.9', where a 10' side setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. L^ysui, Hardcover in th»» 75-250' zone is approved at a level of 39.6%. 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 above the currently approved level and any proposed improvements of this property that would result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City. Such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for removal as a condition of this resolution must be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one yeax' of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (November 12, 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 this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 4 of 6 f Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of November, . 991. ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OP MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12bh day of November, 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 beii.alf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 kiiiiddtdiiililKi CITT OP OROHO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 473-7357 ZONING PILE fl689 55323 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: October 22, 1991 TOs Terry Sadler 1396 Baldur Park Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES TO: Rodney Lund 7304 Bloomington Ave. Richfield, MN 55423 TYPB OP APPLICATION: Variance ll. •if'-. r ’■ .f . IV- DATE OP TING: 10/21/91 VOTE; 5 For 1 Against Planning Connlssion recossaends the following: Approval as submitted, hardcover to remain at existing 39.6% level. HOTBS AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Tuesday, November 12, 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. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OP OCTOilR 311 (#8) #1689 TERRY SADLER. 1396 BALDUR PARK ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:05-9:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Mrs. Sadler and Rod Lund were present. Gaffron explained this is a request for a side setback variance to constrrct a three-season porch, replacing an existing decK. They are also requesting a hardcover variance. Pre existing hardcover is 39.61. He noted that applicants were allowed a porous drive in 1983 to offset hardcover percentages, but found the drive to be difficult to maintain and the drive was paved. Lund explained they were about to start construction when the Building Inspector noted the property was over the allowed hardcover percentages. Chair Kelley asked if the deck could be removed to compensate for the additional hardcover from the driveway. Rowlette pointed out that even if the drive were gravel, it still would be hardcover. Mrs. Sadler noted the deck and siding had water damage and they wished to replace it with a three-season porch. Rowlette noted there is no way to reduce the size of the drive. It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Johnson. to recommend approval of Application #1689 for Terry Sadler, 1396 Baldur Park Road, approving a side yard setback and hardcover variance to allow construction of a three-season porch, replacing an existing deck. Ayes 5, nays 1. Bellows voted nay. (#9) #1690 WILLIAM POGUE, 1991 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD - APPEALS - PUBLIC HEARING 9:11-9:13 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate noted. of Mailing was William Pogue was present. Gaffron referenced a letter of objection submitted by a neighbor. Pogue stated that he was unaware of their objection, but because of it would withdraw his appeal. To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Moorse From:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:October 16, 1991 Subject #1689, Terry Sadler, 1396 Baldur Park Road Variances - Public Hearing Soiling District - LR-IC, Single family lakeshore residential, 1/2 acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover and side setback variance to construct a 10’x26' three-season porch in place of pre-existing ^'x26' upper level deck. 10' Pertinent Code Sections 1.Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; Limit of 25% hardcover in 75- 250* lakeshore setback zone. Existing/proposed — 39.6%. 2.Section 10.24, Subdivision 5(B); Side yard setback required * 10'; Existing/proposed = 9.9'. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit P Exhibit G Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Hardcover Calculations Construction Plans Documentation from Past Building Permits and Variance History of Property This lot was granted a lot area and width variance in 1983 subject to a hardcover limitation of 2,280 s.f. The building permit for the house was issued on the basis that applicant would put in a non-hardcover type driveway, using a porous paving material. At that time porous gravel driveways were not generally considered as hardcover. In 1985 the property owner requested and was granted a permit for a 10'x26* deck/porch, and that permit was issued subject to Removal of hardcover driveway and apron to be replaced with porous pavement**. No details as to how this was to be accomplished were indicated. -... r: Zoning File #1689 October 16, 1991 Page 2 The construction in 1985 apparently never airounted to more than an upper level deck, which was shown on a 1989 as-built survey of the property. Currently, the applicant proposes to replace the existing deck with a fully enclosed three-season porch with a dec c above it. Upon staff review of the site, it was found that the driveway had reverted from a previously tacitly approved gravel driveway to a bituminous paved driveway, which is without question considered hardcover. Pertinent Facts 1, The existing house is 9.9' from the side lot line, and the proposed three-season porch is proposed to maintain that 9.9' setback. 2. Hardcover existing on the property on 10/16/91 is 3882 s.f. or 39.6% in the 75-250' zone. Hardcover orginally approved for this property was 2280 s.f. or 25%. The original zoning application does not include a sketch or diagram indicating how 2280 s.f. was arrived at. 25% of the 75-250' zone is currently calculated by staff at 2452 s.f. The difference between the existing 39.6% and the 25% allowance is just over 1400 s.f., an area equivalent to the paved driveway. Discussion This is certainly a case where ever-changing interpretations regarding hardcover result in hardcover excesses over time. One -'an argue that the house should never have been approved with the poious pavement scheme, however, during the time period in which the permit was issued, porous pavement was considered as an innovative way to deal with hardcover. Some time after 1983, when it was found that porous pavement was not a realistic soluticn for functional driveway maintenance, the City quit allowing it as an alternative. In the meantime, Sadlers' coarse gravel driveway was allowed to persist, there being no reasonable alternative. Applicant paved the driveway without the need for a permit. If applicant asked the general question of anyone at the City "Do I need a permit to pave my driveway," it is likely that he was told that no permit is required but he has to stay within the confines of the existing hardcovered driveway area, and if such a question was asked, it is unlikely that anyone on staff related to the fact that this specific gravel driveway was suppose to be "non-hardcover", because in recent years, all gravel driveways have been considered as hardcover. Zoning File #1689 October 16, 1991 Page 3 Certainly, the driveway as it exists is very minimal and constitutes the Least amount of hardcover necessary to accomplish its purpose. In the scheme of things, the question that now needs to be asked is whether the applicant should be allowed to construct a 10'x26 ’ screen porch where he had been permitted to have a deck. Applicant has removed the deck already, and second story glass doors walk out to an 8* drop. Average setback is not an issue. Lot coverage including the ^hree**season porch is 1,892 s.f. or 13.8%, meeting the 15% limit. All the proposed construction is out of the 0-7 5' setback. There is no 0- 75' hardcover. There are areas of rock and plastic on the property that can certainly be removed. These are all in the 75-250’ zone, and constitute approximately 326 s.f. or 3.3%. Removal of these areas would leave final hardcover at 36.3%. The driveway cannot be further reduced without losing its functions lit'y. There is no other hardcover on the property to consider for removal. Issues to Consider 1. 2. 3. 4. In the context that interpretations of what is and what isn't hardcover have changed since the house was built, what is a reasonable amount of hardcover for this property? Does the applicant have a hardshi,> in having been allowed to construct a deck in 1985, removing it in 1991, and now having unsafe doors exiting 8' above grade? How does the recently paved driveway factor into this request? Should the applicant be required to make his driveway "porous" if he wants to have the 10'x26' screen porch? Is there any way to realistically accomplish this? Should this application be considered in the context of other variances which have been granted to similar sized lots on Baldur Park Road? Certainly, staff can provide data for a number of hardcover variances granted in this neighborhood In the last four or five years. s: > >. s. ^I: i' ;> £ '■r' Zoning File #1669 October 17, 1991 Page 4 ndation Options Planning Commission should consider the following options for recommendation : 1. Approval of setback and hardcover variances to allow 39,6% hardcover as proposed. 2. Approve variances but require that all areas with plastic liner be made non-hardcover reducing this to 36.3%. 3. Approval of screen porch as proposed subject to applicant making the driveway non-hardcover. Specify how this should be done. 4. Denial, based on the finding that applicant has not acted in good faith by paving his driveway even though he was aware of the original condition' that required it to be porous. 5. Other. / /CfH :>■/- ^ CITY OF ORONO - VARXANCF APPLICATION •7 i' .a :.f? Initial Application Fee SlTo.OO ($50.00 per each additional variance) // Renewal Variance ?ee SiOO.OC _ ^ (no change from original application^ After-the-Fact Fees (Double applica.^o.. fi: v-i> Vi• •« f o ■ly uX i t rwl U’fVWITU^>’ •.i:'*! T5iAiv• r •-rrrrc<tr___ i 4 ^ f ? '»•« >/ a V'vw'V , -i? rr^- ________ •_ I- r V ft 17^ W...... > /.W/.VV •4 * I nni u’f^i tip* MV/.1 .I^V property location Site mTH fi^LO/Je. r?r^ property Identification ‘^:^;°2on“i£ not includer^nAttach legal description to application required survey._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - -7 F.hone (home)_fX-/i- -applicant^O •>-/ Phone (wor:<) Name .-f .r» ritv: /C^^CfJO _ _ _ Zip: - Address i_ _- - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - “rdlfierenrthiripplicant ) Phone (home )------^------------- !_iJ(^}r^ Phone (work) r^l-^ I^spC^-------^/und trnt Name u Address :7^JL\k3STr^K^ri ^v. S 0^^1^llgLl> Zip : 7W«5 Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own t.he adjace.nt _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ rrBSBHT osb of property Present Zoning District lo- Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) dbsgriptioh of rbqobst Describe request in detail Estimated Construction Cost $ flUUABCBS BBQUIRBD Lot Area Setback Variances ( AC Hardcover 0.)_S Sid^ _ _ _ Rear) Other I..( ‘^•1' HARDSHIPDescribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting fr^n strictenforcement of zoning regulations; ----------- <* — DBSCIL^^ION op (JNDSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS . . ^ • Describe unusual property conditions preventing '■omp-iance with uoning Code Requirements_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ B2QUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form _ 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). C.rtificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8% xll for reproduction). . . .^ u Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 85«'’xll"). Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8%"xll"). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The .ipplicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vonr variance application is not—complete—xf—the —above 4 has not been included. APPLZCAMT'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 informa ion supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and urt er authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature //ki __________________Date T jII-------------— f J 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 Mviaw Metlnas of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please it.ke arrangements authorized agent attend in your place and to aavise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ^ I f ^ • mmETmxA « •;1 • • * - ,*yrw-^ •iy-'- ^..ViJ.-W •„ • •• •./•% . •' •• V. . » ‘r north *4'•' ^‘•* »-•-*.-♦ *V A V*> ► ‘jr. .'' -V •a • 4 k> yj'-'--^^. ■■ V-'. ks''*-*V'\ j*.•••ic,^^ -«»» •» *»r- -j-*, , y: - ;:--J .If. E» -r* «ir^5.45trv*^:-3u:.;';sjSfe^-^yS.|ft; . ' • ■ » 4'ik '■ > >>^ % J ^L. ^/fy 0/^cwo h t. ■ RUN DATE 09/lA/n MTCM 002 HEM4EPIN COUNTV PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0»#IERS LIST PROP AMR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NMC/AMR SO 08>117-23 31 0001 01400 BALOUR PARK RD CHARLES B REID CHARLES B REID 1400 BALOUR PR RD HAYZATA MN 5S391 PROP AODR 0»tCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 30 06-117-25 31 0004 01304 BALOUR PARK RO 0 A V KEESL1N6 JR D0NAL0/VIR6IN1A KEESLIN6 JR 1304 BALOUR PARK RO HAYZATA m 55391 PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 3B 00-117-23 34 0017 0140B BALOUR PARK RD JAMES P NERNER ET AL JAMES P NERNER 1406 BALOUR PARK ROAD NAYZATA MN 55391 PLXJP AMR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AMR 3B 08-117-23 34 0031 0003B AMRESS UNASSIGNED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING SERVICES ESTATE OF EONARO SPINOLER C/0 LARKIN. HOFFMAN. OALV 7900 XERXES AVE S SUITE 1500 BLOOMINGTON m 55431 PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR TOTAL BATCH 002 00012 M . ■■ /■ 30 08-117-23 31 000201396 BaLOUR park RO TERRIS M SADLER TERRIA M SADLER 1396 B.**OUR PARK RO HAYZATA ^f^ 55391 38 08-117-23 31 0005 01376 BALOUR PARK RO NENOY L HEINE HENOY HEINE STORLIE 1376 BALOUR PARK RO HAYZATA 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0018 01404 BALOUR PARK RD CHARLES AFFIAS CHARLES AFFIAS 2634 JERSEY AVE S ST LOUIS PARK MN 55^>26 3 08-117-23 34 0032 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO PUBLIC ACCOUNTING SERVICES ESTATE OF EDHARD SPINOLER C/0 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, OALY 7900 XFRXES AVE S SUITE 1500 BLOOMir46TON r*4 55431 REPORT NO. P1435401 PAGE 638 08-117-23 31 000301392 BALOUR PARK RO R H BERRY t B S BERRY ROGER H I BECKY S BERRY 1392 BALOUR PARK RD HAYZATA W 55391 38 08-117-25 34 0016 01412 BALOUR PARK RO C C HAGFORS A K E MAGFORS CURTIS C HAGFORS 1412 BALOUR PARK RO HAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0030 000T8 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO PUBLIC ACCOUNTING SERVICES ESTATE OF EDHARD SPINOLER C/0 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, OALY 7900 XERXES AVE S SUITE 1500 BLOOMINGTON Ml 55431 38 08-117-23 34 0033 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO HAROLD R KITCHEN HAROLD KITCHEN BOX 418 NISSHA Mi 56468 JJ Adjacent Property Owners •' Acknowledgement Form . / ^ n X ,we, [print namens)][orinr address] have reviewed tahe plans f^rjihe proposed O^e property located at / oy -fa--------------------- Application No I ,wel understand that in ex-nting^this^acknowled^^ («el_^a- (are) not asJced ty council that I (we) am (are) aware of but merely to confirm ^ prooosed neighbor's project or usethe improvement plans and that tne pr . requires Council approval. f-A-1 /. Property Owner Date [ Property Owner Date ************************************** I (we) rrojcr. I [print name(s) ] >7 of [print address . have reviewed the plans for the proposed -P™-^\°://J°,Vls“'Land Ose property located at-----------------------------—---- Application No. I (we) understand that in of thl^ro"^^^^^^^^ (are) not asked « declarem.ppro-1 but merely to confirm ^ prooosed neighbor's project or usethe improvement plans and that tne prop requires Council approval. /7 Date Date If you have ^y yout^co^en^ts^ to''th\ Building s “i‘nfo«r=: aTleasf Ifdaf %“r”r to the ’' scheduled meeting date. n.' i? r.i. &'v< r:l i ^•■1 ?:■ r i- ;- f;/ >C- 'S- r*. i: , ‘u--^- i-'' ‘ f» ‘ I r . . . .1 lift ', I Ml « « \I I I I • • ■ 11 r 11 r /J .AC Li P- z>/L^Utxy 11<«IIIj • III. II M- .m, #1'.V. r' 0 1 ; BALDUR PARK rq AD ........... ' I'M 1 I y thrtt tin b I i ., ■ ■••■ I'MI < orrett represeMi atioii "I -I sti.vcy ,,f ti,p r)'juiM),ines ui ‘ ^ ‘ I 'tur P<]r k , iietm#»|>i fi ' ^ ......*sul., iHKi i„e Iu ^u U m: V; ^Mny 1)111 Id, ru,, thereun iun ,Mir,)Ort to sMow aity •H ho. » i|. MviMMiMit ,)r enrrodtli ii I ' '»• » ’ R flKUNlU li,;. I fic ‘ nnhor «| I r,y »£* ' ,s * . L.mh I burviiyiir s .md ; ) ' •’ “« I *V ?H IMIH^iUl ft r 1 O 8 9 ’1» .l 1 »•1 ** . II.111..* / J rr^ J-/f §t 11 , r.|ii <i.l»'l. “i _ Il.| t IftM H'i .111 se«j 1 p vtf 1 — f /w — -t n s t 1 otj contour Cl)b|)()f e 1 e V a 11 0 n-azD—c0/*f0t^ am ®' ^fpi •-4 .» • HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET A-'cr^^j SET3AC:< ZONE : (ciRCiH one) C-75' C >4.-TLw !:Lw---v.j £:<isting Hardcover in Zone . House __x WIDTHLENGTH S.r.%. ^ y s.r. S.F.«|tfc S.F. B. Garage — x —— “ _2^^-^^s.r. c. Driveway x-^l(Cr.— = s.f.*^ i X S.F. >/ ^ D. Sir*^’-<ALK - X - - S.F. y E. Patio/ iC.z^ X ^ V /^- ^ ^ S.F. "UpOs^i:^ S.F. yS.F. ^UNDlifp?jfeL_ AREAS UNDERLAIN W BY : ___________2- S.F. / = /2B S.F. PLASTIC o SHEETING • _ X 3. r X ^/02-S.F. S. OTHER _ _____ X _S.F. S.F. Total Hardcover in Zone S.F. Total Propmty Area in Zone ^^2^s.f. II X100 - ;a ^ SSSZ. r^^Cl.C Yo y:erMi'Cf »»2a-m— .y{_.<^ tf-7^. ma.'TciJ atsA^aJi^ <9l4lkl^l.M W <piM ^ijsu • Y^'" » r-«‘' •:. 1 'O ^il rL Od -■ o4 ‘'j Vi )0 :'Lf( u 4 y 3 d ui. .Vur -i<i tt) ii V' U) IQ ns ^Q3\ f—0 ^irciq4 0 “3 > CkittI I. q.'oS£<=- aHe&i -ynrf^t n /.V*»h*t I"'-: ^ ••r- • V* •. f.n •7 •»-i1 ;tt= -»• cUl*^® ®‘-*^L.-/ A.iJeuo(lft <#’-0 ^ C »■ «•** 1®* code- =^- ■1 m .»rw i'"^' C N. JKrfe ('o“• • « «%r.f-- . \ ■.- #• j ' ^■2. fTTZ^ ^ I *• • • .• • *• * .’V : • — / — U •_ l^|3 >AtOilJ<t A • t/;-' • -• •! • »/■ • • • *’« . • • ' *1 • *: #•1; • ^- . . . . ' • '. ■ . f ' IT *i • • . • n . -. . 0 ." V* » ► !? • I • ,jb. .• ». ^ ^ • I *!rV^ >' •rv« y/^.v ; 1• ./C.'ft' ••'•> *v r.t fc* - V - • . • M •• * • V' ^ ‘> V f' r. mm V *r*‘**‘*' r •*. ••I v“. ,-. . '•} ' ;i < < < '• ;•;: i: ^ . '.; r^.^0 ’dti del dx d<' lii. r*’.‘d a; f^.. 3§g S55&V.V SMSm TvAaW'***'Ss^^fe [V; 4 >• “;.•••.. 1 . ; i- '* f > •' v v- .V > ' * . * • '.*• ; . - w'.,. • . • * , • ' ; ................ •• • ^ ‘ '** . *''!* - r. V.*‘ * . . ' • / •'* v.^ ■•-. . /• * \ '.' .V- • i . ■ . .. ; •• •.<: ,• ' . . Nn* w.r* * * *• • •, * •* • • ^ * . • » • . , • * ‘ -M . ' V . / •i- •• . « *•• ••. , ■ •/- • • f » * - I «•'. « if...’- • *% ^ ► - \ ^ \ • ^ 1 • % , <V • '. *. C . ••* V •.'» '-v % ; . 7 •k.> ': ^ *’ ■’ '. , ■ !• • •'r-. '• >.^- ;.;• ;. • - -ivv ** ’ . n ^ . • .% « • • • • .- • ' •* *‘ /•/J ?« <v- V * • ‘ *. ^•■« ? -*- . % • * . » •■ • • • • • *• . • • • * ■» • / •• •• . • • ’ •. ■ i • ♦ ' , . " ’* M V-.. '• • - • V. V.i ’# ■ .• %. ' / . \ .* • : •. • i&: 7 ) W^OOiP ... ^ .. \cyj2>f^c& • ^-30.0 o^tT* UJ^Liw i A H*I4. >^V5i.W,0. * *• ‘A. hJ.C3S*f>a ’ 3iJiiJ Vt.* c o >c. -w/cLtp®. ' . ** i ‘ ' . • • * •'*' • * . }^t. eo. • --> . . -r: •_ .. potzcw ^ ““ .r*’ i »■;• 9^<erem04^ti'u^ti 611S1J4..- /• t,K..w.o W.7T>J«Uw.W/- ' •- ■*. v; .: ,-.4 ..-• . ■ .“.iisCrf.'.T » ii• VV't .<j;!-yCd^tii biwt \v/.V.'*- '•** , •}^ ;• y\} '<n .:Clc! cix «|,S i.j^‘ M'H "O'"^ - ^o 0, . flS . « i *•. . . . i/l kr,! .: •' -.rt • - <■-. 4 aJ. ;.V i:3 mm- V • •.4 t .'if* . Granting A Variance to Municipal Zoning Coda Section 34.552 - file 770 Whereas, Ronald Gehrlng Is the owner (hereafter "owner"/ of the property located at 1396 Baldur Park Road within the City of Orono (hereafter "City") and legally deacrioed as Lot 16, Block 1, Baldur Park (hereafter "property")/ and Whereas, the owner has applied to the City for variances to ■unlcipal zoning code section 34.552 to permit construction of a principal residence on a property that consists of 12,870 square feet Instead of the required 21,780 square feet and has 50 feet of lot width instead of the required 100 feet. Minnesota : Now, Therefore Be It Resolved by the Clt, '’ouncil of Orono, Findings 1. This application was reviewed as zoning file no. 770. 2. The property Is located In the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential zoning district. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 15, 1983, and recommended approval of the variances as proposed based upon the following findings: a) There Is no additional land available to combine with the property. b) The City has approved three similar lot area and lot width applications for the property. c) The principal structure will be constructed per the required setbacks of the LR-IC zoning district. d) Sewer Is available to the property. e) A residence had existed on the property at one time, 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the owner and other Interested persons, and the ef feet of the proposed var lances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. !: t r mm •V* if '- r T V W? ■“r ’{ * > ,. Th. Clt, couocu nnd, th» property are district- that granting the variancesproperty In this zoning dlstrlc^ conditions, light, air nor %#ould not ®dvor®oly ot nuiahborlno pfoportyj would pose a fire hazard or the owner, hut'll s necessary to St merely serve as a Is necessary to alleviate a , property right of the owner; and would be splrl? .n^ »t th. ..nm, cod. .nd comprehensive plan of the City. COMCLUSIONS, ORDER AMD COHDITIOMS Based upon ^on ’^perm^ * principal variances to JVh-t conafsts of 12,8?S square feet instead of t" tV,:?r.%^^r7s^;nVh'.V5^t..^^ '*'■ iSJ f..t sgb].et to th. £oUo»ln, conditions. 1. »11 5'’' ?iiJyj'*’',tcT*s'h«'u''M''u'"l£»'*driveways, hard surfaced walkways, etc.) snaii 2,280 square feet of hardcover. Vh'.“n““” ii:VToi -tr,’ i-s^rh^”’.:d*'^ r Vt lU”'tdt.' sostUt'th. .v.r.,. l.K.dhor. s.tb.ch ot hod... cn adjacent lots. additional 3 fee" for maintenance. 4. HO oth.r d.rl.nc. .r. 9t.nt.d ot future for this structure or for the rroP«f*^y* .dthorltl.. 9t.nt.d by 'V‘/"'rAV.u.'l M'.KJHUd not dlth th. o»nor, but «t. P9ti"l..<.» “ V dot. of ?^d«^V%Vpr°oV,V/oV\*M."%«r.nc. -Ill .«plr. on th.t d.t. (September 12, 1984) . 6. Violation of or I foA4^ fL^. r -iA!: !• !«• o* . •. jV** r.f i* L k ^ # » . .r . I •>• • ••• I. C' uri.. , .• o exhibit I ir.»*' :> f-T* • •;. f • • ’ I : ■ T rprr* T* ‘’f't*. »•! vu'. ' r. c‘ • .- i'v** l»P4*; .r.'-L ' ■ -p' i- » ‘It ’ o • f... - Iv-*.5* * ■ 1 i, 1 I il un, . tv*’r * • ■ t, .. ^ . >■ ■ ••-• •» ;.Sow nti. r J-- r-^rrtx r I [SC Sif • • » * 9 • y'-' • • . • • ifiui©iiLW[i IJ i\^1 NOV - 91981 1 f 1 u\i..yj CITY OF ORONO #664 • « 5 ■■ J M MC RON GEHRING HewHOuSi ei HI nr ns 3715 CHARUS IN MOUND. MN. 55364 *. .* ...J’ A laAliT** I r r• •< •« V I I • i. k * I i •• ir i IIr i >. #*»; Croi^Offic* Mm •••Crjrtul B*». Mlh«#«ou Ronald Gehring 3215 Charles Lane Mound# MN 55364 . «7.1 7.V.- variance Conditional Ur.e Permit Subdivicion, Preliminary Date of Notice 8-22-B3 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Meeting - - - - - - Votes:For Against 1*3'Subject *to conditions noted !»fex^pprovair-fAdditional information required before Council meeting ^b^55rt^^nlal':i^‘ror reasons noted , •------receipt of additional inforr.ation from applicant _____________‘pinding review by others, cr further Planning Comission . Study ^ action required * V' m. •tructur* (Includes decks and pjtiosi may not be located closer than ,75—trSB— lakeshore In addition, the prinrinal slructurc must ecct the a.era<(c lakeshor«_ setback o£ house, on abuttinc, lots. Staff will designate required setback at _ .. . .. .. . . . . . . .it is aoolied'Tor. 31 The side yard setback of 10' nust_^ Mintalned; <1 The street setback for the principal atructure Is JO'. Speel.J^ Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as; council 12. 1977 Applicant's next scheduled meeting in dependent upon receipt of additional information. D'^adlinr for the ----------------------------------- meeting is ______________________'• o'"---------------------------------------------- for the __________________________ r>eeting. In all cares, the application must be continued with tlie submittal of inforiniition wltJiin —________ ■ • . , or*the City will consider the application as form.ally withdrawn. If the applicant has trouble obt.ilning addition-l information, please contact the Zoning Administrator. If you desire certified copies of the officii they sre available from th* Muildlng and Zor •fid approval by the Plarining Ccrvnisslon. nnlng Cerminsien Minutes .jcretary upon review ♦ . -jt*" • * P^mrofORONo ' Building Permit AND AffLIGATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY F.a 80X m, CRYSTAL BAY. MN 65323 473.7367 p ., p,. r SITE ADDRESS ----- PERMIT .* 5178 DATE ISSUED fhW EXPIRES 20NINQ OItTRICT xje^/c. FIRi VAAOATt. • ^ OONaUBIOATE ------- ARC h TtECT^NGINEER - Mult C#riifY Multl-Fewily. Commtrtlil A Induitntl Consmiction Pl^^f CERT. NO.TIRirmT (Addnii) . ; 4* *4. ■/• V w ‘ • *. (Pttont) BUILDER IPI^I - ^,'’•■1: -• lAcWnml^''’*'.? TYPEOPtmORK f Additicn l^eStDeA^C^g* Rtmodtl Rtnovatf ACOlti UfpYRHCi NEW EXISTING AOENCV.APPROV. DATE INIFfCnON REQUIREO rOOTNia Mv* 90MT t71 MAMINO mmW-M MWUCATION WALUOARO ••««'• T»«Mf oumio WN WILL •• tUA ____ NOUM «*.73I» CMLB . IS AAL NMR. f. 4 PAL CAUf* ARALINiP.NfXTOAV WORK REQUIRING SEPARATE WRMITS PLUMBSNO-----y —■■ MCCHANIMi JL ------------ WILL ----------------- MPTIC . ■ -------- IIWtR.2^1------------- WATin „ ORAOINOBIILLINa ILICTNICAL )r«n lli*. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TMI UNOIAIIONIOHIAI1YAIOUI$TSMAMISIIO»ITO»*AXI TMI RIAL IMPROVtMlwr SPICIFIIO. AND OICLARI* UNOIR MNALTY OP LAW ACKNOWLEOCCMCNTAMOAeCIPT. ANCI OP all INPORMATION. CONDITIONS ANO RIQUlRI* 'r.- MINTS RIPRI8INTIO ON TMIS OOCUMINT. TMI UNOIR- t. •lONIO PURTMIR AQRIiS TO 00 ALL WOR« IN ITRICT COM- PLIANCI with all CITYOPORONOOROINANCtSANOSTATI OP MINNIIOTA lUILOiNO COOl RIQOIRIMINT*. * ^ / *. < '.7L:i• IV /j'^ '/?/' /:. ;L /'r^ ail rt^4ar.JoT' IC. 8/lb • r ORONO HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET LAKESHORE SETBACK ZONE A. Existing lot area in zone B. Existing hardcover in zone Existing hardcover percentage t(BtA) x ioo] D. Proposed hardcover in zone E. Proposed _ hardcover percentage l(DfA) X 100) Allowed hardcover percentage 0-75*/? r sf sf *%sf 0 '/» 75-250*<f7-7r sf 'UO^ ‘sf..0 r.l~f^ 0 sf * ?5 % • 4 ^ 25 **4 250-500*Bf ’a « • - sf r.sf e' ’ * • s ' % . I Y. , • • • 30 % soo-ioou*sf • . sfU-%sf % % 35 *4 t..j> ,‘x ■V/ Dlrttctiontt r* V'r.r h iv,> A. Existing Lot Area in Zone - includei^tho total ' juaro footage of dry buildable land - ^ i,., within the f eified zone,’r . j* B. Existing Ha.acover in Zone - includeS^the square footage of existing roofs, decks,’sidewalks, driveways (gravel or paved) and other rein-lmparviouc surfaces within the specified sons. •j'. C. Existing Hardcover Percentage -J^dlvidi.the number In D by the nu-^ber in A and multiply by 100. V*’ D. Proposed Hardcover in Zone includes,the existing hardcover plu ;11 proposed additional hardcover. _ ‘_ _ _ _ _ _L %. * ♦ ' ^ «• / » i ♦ E. Proposed Hardcover Percen F. Allowed Hardcover Percent, the allotted percentages it j|^; to discuss the possibilit ^ly- of existing hardcover mat< of hardcover in a specifi< m2Dr>,‘j a >^xE j. ^ m!• 4^ er in D by the number in A and'multiply by 100. es in column E for any setback zone exceea ■ contact the Zoning Department at 473-7357 ance. Generally, if a concurrent'removal dcover proposed, resulting in no net increase '• not be necessary. ^ V ' trrf; •'“f .* ■ <a«yoiM)xo 5,3, o.,e .s^usd P.Q. BOX 66. crystal BAY. MN 55323 473-7357 An/(/u/-' /-Y^ i ■ r I ■ ■ A “i 4 ^ ZONINGjPiSTRiCTIeIll FIRE OCRARTMCNT y,a/< Rosr orPCE VAR OONO USE DATE HIOROSiO SCTBACRS ; . _ . FRONT JUUOtOA, RIAR lake - ^VFCTLANOS •— ACCESS NEW AOENCV-lf V DATE CITY county STATE PRIVATE EASEMENT .<^T //V block I ____SUPOVISION h7\lci\t OWNEP iN.if"#' iA(ldf^»»i (Pfionet Cprri»v Mu'ti f .irr^‘y & mcju5t'*Ai Cor»sifuction J’lans (Afjrl'PSSi (PhoppiiTifmi BU»LOe«if irrni I Phonal OiU/)rr ^ TYPE OF VVORH Aiem ^0 f / ^ />7 (j./^_ Rcnov.iie CONST TYPE BUU D ing St^F W/?y/ OCCUPANCY DWELL UNITS STORiES 0 ’ 2 J GAR STALLS ATT OET NUMBER OF BEDROOMS SEPTIC APP DATE PROPOSED USE COUNCIL APP DATE Esli"'^l»'<l ConstfiiCtion VMluAI'On ^ (.rco CO permit tees BLOG PERMIT STATE FEE PLAN REVIEW SAC charge SEWER UNIT PARK FEE penalty OTM <1 3 aO rOTAL DUE remarks /“ ^L//^J ^ ---- x!0 ----- h^ty)0O/\ i dlkJ'^ Mi? 7. 7< 017 infection required NflJ.... rooriNO o««» }ffS\. .... framing •(>»«»> •" I ........insulation ^..........WALLBOARO h«in>* lAC*'^ ^........FINAL I»*0*« «ecuoa>y;v {j.........SITE INSPECTION iVORK BEYOND OR without A RE' ^niiREO inspection will be sub IF.CT TO penalty ‘ISPECTIONS MUST BE CALLED IN ■■1 hours IN advance WORK REOUIRING SEPARATL PCRMIT.S plumbinu miC**»ni CA i WELL StPTiC SEwrn NATFR GRAOiNO t flUiNO FIRE □□□□□□ acknowledgement iMf UNf)fMS.(lMO Mrwcnv nfiJUf^^TS PrnMiS5;iON MAUr TMf ni 41. iMPnOVl Mf Nfs SPfCl*’'fn ^NO OfCLARtS UND! rt MfNAlTY 0»“ I AW A^H NDWl F DGC Mf AND ACCtPT ANCt 0» all ♦NfOPMATiON CONO«^»ONS AND «COU»»€- MfNTS PIPPCSFNTEP ON ^MiS POCUMfNT TmE UNOEA S'GNCO ruPtHtP AUOftS OO all WOPa fN STRICT COM- rilANCf Wt^M JLl 01^^ OI UWONO O®0«NANCCS ANO SlATf MiNNI A OU'l tJ’N(; C^'^OL RLOMiOf MF NT.*; « A*t •PY WHITE riit CAWAfiv iwsprcroA P'f^M AS^r^TOA ..,n R^ AIMp C n <*« «li«ROiHRO G»iriN f'NANCf Goin »f ci'»*T A(in»i'vw<1 P !»»•( 4A /r *v F»* nfi'»Ar, i To:Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mabusth, Building & Zoning Admini^*at(^7Tttmt Da^et Sobj«ct : Jeanne A. November 6» 1991 #1691 City of Long Lake, 130 Orono Orchard Road Nor^l|^ Rezoning - Resolution ^ List of Exhibits A B C D E P Preliminary Plat Grading/Drainage Plan Joint Resolution of the Cities of Long Lake & Orono Declaration of Covenants (sample) Settlement Agreement Staff Letter 10/24/91 Pertinent Ordinances 1.Section 10. Subd. 3 (B) (3) - Amendment of official map/rezoning. Applicant seeks rezoning of 24-1/2 acre site located within the current RR-IB rural residential zoning district requiring 2 acres in area for each residential unit. The rezoning application proposes rezoning the property to R-1A» 1 acre, sewered residential. Long Lake ’s comprehensive land use application also includes a comprehensive plan amendment for the extension of sewer to the rural zoned area and a subdivision creating 13 residential lots. Total area » 24-1/2 acres Total acreage required per RR-IB = 26 acres Area variance “ 1.5 acres or 6% Acreage required per R-IA standards » 13 acres No area variance required 2.Section 10.20. R-IA. One family residential district. R-IA standards are as follows: Area: Required = 1 acre per residential unit. As property is sewered applicant may claim credit for encroaching wetlands but each residential lot must have 1/2 acre dry contiguous envelope platted as a conventional plat. Requi• All sett. the b- setbacks = 35' front and rear, 10’ sides, rvation setbacks are applicable; i.e. 26’ *om OHW of wetland and 26' from top of - Long Lake Creek. Lot Width : Requirements under the conventional plat format ir 140' to the rear of the 35' front street setback. Zoning File #1691 November €, 1991 Page 2 In approximately 1982 the entire parcel consisted of 25 acres. one-half acre was divided off and is shown as the exception on the plat. The 1/2 acre parcel was conveyed to the HWCC for the lift station. Appropriate easements were granted over the 16" force main that extends southward to Orono Orchard Road. The force main appears to follow predominantly the path of the existing driveway that serves the MWCC lift station and former sewer pond site. The property is currently used by the City of Long Lake for outside storage, both permanent and temporaryr similar to Orono’s use of the Orono sewer pond site. Based on the directives in the Settlement Agreement (Exhibit E) entered into by both Cities, the applicant has been advised to seek rezoning to 1 acre. When staff was contacted by the surrounding property owners, they questioned the rezoning to 1 acre and were concerned that Long Lake could further subdivide in the future. Staff responded that with the conventional plat the property would be completely restricted from future development of open space areas as may possibly be the case with a PRD. The agreements between the two Cities also suggested that covenants were to be filed against the Chain of Title of the property once again reaffirming the development controls of the City of Orono (review Exhibit D). There were several other issues raised in the review memo prepared for the Planning Commission that were unfortunately not addressed because the Planning Commission refused to discuss the current proposal because it included a rezoning application from the 2 acre to 1 acre zoning. The Planning Commission denied the rezoning application finding ‘he rezoning to be in complete conflict with the directives .-i the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Members should review the minutes of the October 21st meeting for specific comments of the >lic in attendance. Based on the conceptual direction given staff by the four Council members in attendance at that meeting, staff has prepared a denial resolution for the rezoning phase of Applicatio; #1691. A public hearing has been scheduled at the Planning Comirission's meeting of November 21st at 7:00 p.m. to once again review comprehensive land use Application #1691 that will now include a conditional use permit for a Planned Residential Development of 13 units based on the current RR-IB zoning. Please review the enclosed letter to David Squire (Exhibit P)r planning consultant for the City of Long Lake. Please note the applicant was given the opportunity to withdraw the application and to apply the original fee against the conditional use permit. Squire advised that the City of Long Lake at a recent meeting requested action on the rezoning application. Please note staff has recommended the tabling of the comprehensive application because we failed to receive the necessary hydraulic information to determine ordering high water mark of pond and flood plain elevation. We have received confirmation from the Department of Natural Resources that the Ordinary Bigh Water Mark has been determined for the sewer pond/lagoon area and the necessary hydraulic information to Zoning File #1691 November 6, 1991 Page 3 determine the flood plain elevation has been subraiited to both City Engineer and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The Planning Commission will have all necessary information for their i^^view so that formal action can be taken at their normal meeting. Options of Action Denial - Council may adopt the findings set forth in the enclosed staff resolution denying the rezoning. Table - Table all action on the rezoning application until the Council receives the Comprehensive Land Use Application for review and action* ik JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITIES C? LONG LAKE AND CRCNO Cha stlBulatlon o« both munlclpaiities that nalthar will support^future annexations by either municipality pursuant to Minn. Stat. 5 414.061. RECITALS WHEREAS, Long Lake has petitioned for the concurrer.t ddtachfluent and annexation of certain real prope-ty, described in Exhibit A which incorporated herein by reference, into the City of Long Lake pursuant to Minn. Stac. S 41i.06i, Subd. 5, At &ea.; and WHEREAS, Orcnc has opposed the petition of ^ong Lake; an<- WHEREAS, the matter is presently pending before the 1 ^ti' V scKsdii.dd to ^33^in3Minnesota Municipal Board, and c—-e..u.y trial on November 25, 1991; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to amicably resolve whe patltlon of Long Lake without further litigation allowing Long Lake to aaeuma jurladietlon and Orono to anforoa certain covenants after annexation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Cities of Long Lake and Orono do hereby resolve as follows: 1. • That certain real property situated in the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, which is legally described in Exhibit A, and to which Long Lake holds title In fee should be detached from the City of Orono and annexation to the City of Long Lake H:'. 2.That the City Cottcil ior the City =i Oror.o finds that the afceve-deseribad ptnpetty r.cu located within the City of Orono abute the City of Lon? Lake and ie anb5est to coneuttent detaehrrent and annexation by concurrent resolutions of the two council of the two municipalitie. pursuant to Minn. Stat. 5 414.061. 3. That city council of the City of Orono agrees that the above-described property should be ecncurrentiy detached from the City of Orono and annexed to the City of Long La.ke. 4. That the city council of the City of Long Lake agrees that the above-described property should be concurrently detached from the City of Orono and annexed to the City of Long Lake. 5. That this resolution is being adopted concurre.ntly and 3olntly between the city council of the City of Orono and the elty council of the City of Long Lake, Hennepin County, Minnesota, approving such detachment and an.-.exation as provided by law. g. That both the city council for the City of Orono and the City of Long Lake requests the Minnesota Municipal Board to grant their - • est for the concurrent detachment and annexation of the above-described real property to be effective upon ieeuance of the Board'-- order or at such later data as provided by the Board in it-s order. 7.That it i3 the desire of the City of Orono to covenant that it will =PP=s. from thl. day forth the concurrent detachment pursuant to Minn. Stat. 5 414.061 of any property 2 . i.. w prssdntly located within the City of Long ^ake ar.d ar.r.exation o£ laid property into Orcnc, and agrees that this covenant shall be specifically enforceable against Crcno by the City ci Long Lake in any proceedings betors the Minnesota Municipal Board, or any court of competent jurisdiction. 8. That it is the desire of the City of Long Lake to covenant that it will oppose from this day forth the concurrent detachment pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 414.061 of any property presently located within the City or Qrono and annexation of •Aid property into Long Lake, and agrees that this covenant shall be soecifically enforceable against Long Lake by the City oi Oronc in any proceedings before the M-r.nesota Municipal Board, or any court of comcetant jurisdiction. 9. That both the cit'' council for the City of Orono and the City of Long Lake request that the Minnesota Municipal Board approve their covenants ..hat rieither will from this da' forth support the concurrent detachment and annexation pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 414.061 of any property located within the jurisdiction of the municipality, and that said covenant shall be specifically enforceable by either municipality in any proceedings before the Minnesota Municipal Board and any court of competent jurisdiction to be effective upon issuance of the e Board's order or by the court upon the Issuance of its order. 3. t ■ ■ Passad by the City of Orono this day of 1991. Barbara Peterson, Mayor ATTEST; , Cleric Paatad by tha City Council of tha City of Long Lake this day of_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. 1951- Betsy Swartwood, Mayor ATTEST: LaVerne Hanson, City Cie^k CJD'.QWas 4 . DECLARATwS- Or COVENANTS D THIS DECLARATION OF COVENANTS is cade this 19^1, Sy anc between Ci-.. v>r vyr^^Jv^, a muhicipai corporacion ("Oronc”), and THE CITY OF LONG ^AKr., a municipal corporation ("Long Lake”). recitals Long Lake is the fee owner cf cer-ain real property wr.icr. is legallv described on Exhibit A attacned hereto "Property"). The Property is currently wit.y.n toe c.t/ limits of Orono. It is the intent of Long Lane an^ Cror.c to bind -ne Property to certain zoning restrictions and cor... it ions, ^ to allow the intended develop..;ent cf the Property by -or.g -ana. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideratlcn, the receipt of which .a hereby acknowledged, Long Lake and Orono agree as fo^-ows: 1 • The Property has been rezoned by Orono to a classification of _ _ ___ _ _:__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __—-- - - - --- - which allows the following jses: ■. . ^^ ----------^— and is subject to the following conditions; 2. Property has been replatted by Crono as 3. The Property shall be developed into no rocre than, ►hirtean (13) flinola family loca, the configuration of which is set forth on Exhibit P attache^ hereto. 4, The forego* g restrictions shall apply to and bind each and every owner of any part of the Property and their respective personal representatives, successors and assi.^.ns, and shall operate as a covenant passing with the title to the Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Long Lake and Orono have executed this Oeclaracion on the above dace. THE CITY Of ORONO Its Its .r iir ■ THE CITY OF LCSG LAKE Its y a•L 3 STATE OF MINMESOTA 9S . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foceaolng instrament -^aa ackr.owledged before .r.e t.-.la da/ of -_ _ _. 1591- fvtne and oi The City of Long Lake, a ffiunjoipal corporation, on behalf of the corpcratior.. Nocary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA 8S . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this <«./ o£- - -1551. _ _ _of The City of Orono, a municipal corporation/ on oenalf of the corporation. Notary Public THii INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED 3Y; LARKIN' HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGRSN, Ltd. 1500 Northwestern Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 (RWU RWL:CI0a 2. l&iLa. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is encerea into between tne City of Long Lake (Long Lake), a municipal corporation, located at 1964 Park Avenue, Long Lake, Minnesota 55356; and the City of Orono (Orono), a municipal corporation, located at P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323. RECITALS WHEREAS, on February 26, 1990, Long Lake filed with the Minnesota Municipal Board a petition for the concurrent detachment and annexation of certain real property, which is described in Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, into the City of Long Lake pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 414.061, Subd. 5, seq. ; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 1990, Orono filed its response in opposition to the petition of Long Lake; and WHEREAS, the matter is presently pending before the Minnesota Mu.iicipal Board, and currently scheduled to resume trial on November 25, 1991; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to amicably resolve the petition of Long Lake without further litigation. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows: 1. Long Lake shall forthwith file an application for rezoning and subdivision approval of the subject property with Orono for the development of thirteen (13) lots as described in n Exhibit B which is attached hereto arid incorporated herein by referenr<->. a« ct subject property, Long Lake agrees to extend sewor and water to the subject property, which shall be chargeable against Long Lake's allocation for sewer and water units. 2. Upon filing of the application for rezoning and subdivision approval with Orono, Orono agrees that it will use its oest efforts to expeditiously process the applications. Additionally, upon receiving ail appropriate filings from Long Lake as an applicant property owner for subdivision, rezoning and comprehensive plan amendment, Orono shall commence its required procedure to file an application with the Metropolitan Council to amend the MUSA line and shall work with the Metropolitan Council to expeditiously process that application. Orono agrees to process all aspects of the rezoning and sxibdivision applications simultaneously with the processing of the application for amendment of the MUSA line with the Metropolitan Council. 3. This .Agreement is expressly contingent upon the zoning approvals of Orono, and the approval of the amendments to the MUSA line by the Metropolitan Council, in a form that in the sole judgment of Long Lake would permit the reasonable development of the thirteen (12) lots on the subject property. Upon the granting of the zoning approvals of Orono, and the approval of the amendments to the MUSA line by the Metropolitan Council Orono shall contemporaneously complete and execute the Declaration of Covenants contained in Exhibit C and forward it 2. 'r to Long Lake for execution along with copies of the zoning appro’'* ’c? tl ^ • cr • i •»to . i r. hi M L» i A X 1 n s • it Long Lake determines in its sole judgment, that the zoning approvals of Orono, the approval of the amendments to the MUSA line by the Metropolitan Council, and the completed Declaration of Covenants would permit the reasonable development of the thirteen (13) lots on the subject property. Long Lake shall execute tne Declaration of Covenants and cause the same to be recorded and proof thereof forwarded to Crono. 4. Upon satisfaction of all conditions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, supra. and upon filing of the final plat, the parties shall cause to be executed and delivered to the Minnesota Municipal Board a Joint Resolution in the form attached as Exhibit D providing for the concurrent detachment and annexation of the subject property from Orono into Long Lake pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 414.061, Subd. 5. 5. The parties agree that time is of the essence and that each municipality binds itself to the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in taking all action that is reasonably necessary to effectuate the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Dated:r p » p SjxJ liii THE CITY OF ORONO Its Mayor X Itte CLy/> Attorney 3. hL ATTEST: City Clerk Dated:J.,.y. !h THE CITY OF LONG LAKE / ATTEST: City Clerk CJD:QUls ItsMay^c 4. H A CITYof ORONO Miinkipd Offlca I^)il Office Boi 66 CryoaJ B«y, \fiiinc9ott 55323^)066 October 24, 1991 David Squire McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55447 RE: Application #1691 - Fleming Trail Addition Dear David: As you are well aware the Planning Commission denied the application as presented for their review and consideration, finding the rezoning from 2 acre to 1 acre in complete conflict with the directives of the Comprehensive Plan of the City. In denying the rezoning, the Planning Commission failed to address many of the Issues raised in the staff memo. We know that the layout of the residential pads or lots will be the same whether we classify the subdivision as a conventional plat at 1 acre density or a PRD at 2 acre densities. In our most recent phone conversation, I advised that we would publish for a public hearing for a conditional use permit for a FRD format of development at 2 acre per current densities. In that conversation I advised that if the rezoning application was tabled prior to staff preparing a memo and denial resolution, staff would credit the $250 of the rezoning application against the new conditional use permit for a PRD. The fee for the PRD application with subdivision is $390 (13 x 30). The original $35/unit was quoted if a PRD was not accompanied with a subdivision application. You have informed me that you must first make contact with your client to determine how they wish to proceed with this matter. In any event, staff will call for a public hearing for the PRD conditional use permit and you will be billed accordingly upon your client's final decision. The rezoning phase of the application would be presented to the Council at their November 12, 1991 meeting rather than the October 28th meeting as stated by the Planning Commission Chair at their meeting. Denial applications can never be scheduled for an immediate meeting but must *ollow the normal review process to allow for time for the preparation of the minutes, staff memo and denial resolution. telephone - 473-7357 • FAX • 473-0510 ( Mr. David Squire October 24, 1991 Page 2 for the ^t^‘oreu\".^t«^'‘’o^el^ Se"lnll™2tlon*needed to application This infor^atl^ would include both the information needed for the oLo«tr As f noted ear7i«r 1 think it is imperative that we meet b.\\^%ri%vv.res‘’^.rt^^^"h%rr%’ip« “3'3-h/ih-it t\“n“/cefi%\-:hs^-:rth; w\?rh-e established the OHW of the lagoon or pond. As to the issue of the need for a Certificate of Survey, I would v«n onre aoain to review the preliminary subdivision sections of the ;;s;prtV »trew'=^a?r'^hr^"th”r th. "cSd^ and handout you have already advised, you have P°f p««l aoquiiL in later ylars. Staff would ^ 1982 survey at your earliest convenience. Per that same Code if tne “?LS-shapid parcel is included, a Certificate of Survey must be provided that includes the triangular-shaped parcel. Infoxaation or Submittals for PRD Application:^ 1.Analysis of dry buildable ".‘"Vro® .“iTdJyTnnrr Talc*» Creek) Now that we're dealing with a PRO aii ary buildable areas of property can /ma : ,eit 1 ions irreaardless of their being intersecrea oy drainaqeway or wetland. Please provide a table designating the dryTu’ildable and wet areas within each building pad As for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 you may wish to ^^e lines so that the proposed b?“« B«“=bure on Lot 1 can be areas. Please refer to the enclosed staff sketch. Long Lake Creek tituld be designated as a drainage nroiiminarv olat Along the northern portions it can be dMttnt”! at a 20- minimal width as it extends -outhward within the area of the outlet from the ^^w® culvert under Orono Orchard Road, the easement should be extended including the outlet of the lagoon at the eas , the top of the bank at the west. f Mr. David Squire October 24, 1991 Page 3 2. The benefit of the PRD in this case will be that you may include the area of the plat road and areas to be dedicated for Orono Orchard Road in your dry buildable calcuations. Now that the lot standards of the 1 acre zoning are no longer applicable you may wish to realign your lots or pads to pick up an additional unit on the east side of the property and combine originally proposed Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 as one pad. Current RR-IB zoning standards are 50 and front and 30' side setbacks. You may request special setback standards per the directives of the PRD ordinance which you have already received from the City. You may seek special setbacks for building pads that differ from the underlying zoning standards but the City cannot waive the special standards set forth for wetland protection? i.e., the 26’ setback from a wetland. 3. Designate the building envelope for each of the 13 pads designating the special setbacks sought by applicant. Proposed location of each residence within that pad and as in the original proposal the first floor elevation of each of the residences (I* above flood plain elevation of property). 4. Issue of road realignment. Although we did not have a chance to discuss any of the other issues raised during the review by affected neighbors, clearly the impact upon the owner to the south will become an issue when the application is reviewed at our next meeting. Now that the property is to be subdivided as a PRD, can the road be realigned to follow the access road? If not, your preliminary plan should show utility easement over 16" force main not be included in road outlet. 5 It will be necessary with the final plat to designate drainage and utility Lsements 1C ’ wide along all exterior boundaries of property and adjacent to all interior lot lines. Drainage and utility easements need only be shown at a 5’ width on either side of interior lot/pad lines. This is only mentioned now as a consideration in the design of the building pads. Additional Inforaation/Submittals Remaining Per Original Review Cements 1. jetermination of OHW of pond/lagoon as requested J^he DNR. The llgoon area to be defined as a DNR Protected Wetland with specific numerical designation. 2. Determination of flood plain elevation or 1°° and resolve of the water quality issues raised by the Watershed District. Staff would once again encourage a meeting with tne Watershed as soon as possible so that the November 1st deadline date can be met. Mr. David Squire October 24# 1991 Page 4 3. B. Revise Qradinq and drainage plan. - i • A Or. ^resolve of flood plain elevation, final road elevation Burlington railroad of creek and other s^ot elevations requested by DNR at inspection. Upon resolve of flood plain elevation to ^end the and drainage plan either using pond for surface ^mi-off from development or additional retention areas outside of pond area (above flood plain elevation). C. At our site inspection with Ceil Strauss of the DNR, she once the OHM of the pond was determined that the area above the t the upper banks of the lagoon would be under the jurisdiction of the of similar applications in our City. o “thl%oten\® ^ M«.“e ‘iSform^^ioTwlth^ the amended proposal. I have Sir. Watershed District on the flora pla. n issue. Please let me know if you have any questions pertaining to the request noted above for either additional information or for revision of preliminary plans. The City will proceed to post the appropriate legal notice to review the 13 unit PRD. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator cc* Ron Moorse JAM/18V m • # .• Q VISION OF WATERS PROj ect ; AT/ jwxx w—l-°”g (»u RPOSC ; SURVEY type : c eV 6 L s i I JW^oiUllJLdii 87-115 NVESTIGATION TOI»OG»AP mv jI—!MOHW / 0 H W maintenance ___ reconnaissance hydro graphic work i-eEPORT «c TA t -^e; Tns R23; in the Metropolitan Long '■ll'’J OT^Kres^pl’animetered and*301 acres meandered. It Creek. On 6/26/87 the survey crew th^outlett^downstream to Investigation of the lake and control fjr the survey was from S? ^SrS?r"!l°mMl=caUflS ^wirof sec. 35): siev. ■ 972.508. NGVD 1929. Following are the elevations we found at the out'et: "At 6’ X 8’ concrete box culvert thru old Hwy. U Water surface t Lo"9 (no outflow) P?2s«t“™S5Sr(‘SrSoint on rocks across upstream LoJ"Soi«'ai ’'?2lins of possible old support for ^”he alleged meul plate across upstream end Of culvert Upstream invert of culvert (B*Mj*Top centerline of upstream headwall USiisi^emn headwall Downstream invert Downstream flowline Flowline at end of apron End of apron 943.24 943,48 944.0 943.9 943.29 949.21 951.IS 952.3 950.82 942.89 943.0 942.9 942.69 •At »' X 6' concrete box culvert thru new Hwy. 12“ Stain on upstream wingwall i“';.rt.??inV^st;sri«dwan 7/13/87 _ n 4 r S 943.9 944.7 950.08 'Purvey Cr°‘^' <;..nprvis.o T » T ^ E 9 I C C 0 f-- Upstream soffitt Upstream Invert End of upstream apron j ,n Top centerline of downstream beadwail 0ownstre^3 invert End of downstream apron 943.-: 942.46 942.61 S49.55 941.95 941-93 'At 72" CfiP thru R.R. grade" Top upstream end (on bent lip) Upstream flowline Upstream Invert Stain on upstream end of culvert Top downstream end of culvert Downstream flowline Downstream invert 944.82 939.1 938.80 941.1 944.18 938.5 938,28 we «1$0 obUlned tte follwing elevations on the SMff gage on the left upstream Slnjialllf the old Hwy. 12 culvert: Top of^gage 945.53 C°® of gage 943.47 During our OHW Investigation we boated “1,,^' J^sed Sn the obteiSed the ground, elevation at 8 Jong U. wStS be 0»“rf“tSl!“trees“ a‘2!2- et^sS «sl25* y«rs old. W. also .^orted®rr^m b«c!:nne at 944 3 and distinct stains on the upstream wingwall of the outlet culvert at 944.1 and 945.j. . A RESOLOTION DBNYIHG THE RBZONING OP PROPERTIES (PIE 35-118-2J-32-0006 AND PIN 35-118-23 33 0001J TER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.Oi,. SUBDIVISION 3 (B 3) PILE #1691 NBERBAS, the rity of Orono is a mu/*xcipal corporation organized and existing urdei the laws of the State of Minnesota, and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statute 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted a community management plan and zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and of Long Lake (hereinafter "the in the property located within the WHEREAS the City applicant") has an interest ... ^ , City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Refer to Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a rezoning per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.06, Subdivision 3 (B 3) seeking to rezone the proper ' from the cur»-ent zoning of RR-IB Rur 1 Residential requiring 2 res in area per residential unit to -.-lA a Residential 'ic equiring one unit per acre. The rezoning application rt of a Comprehensive I'lnd Use Application involving a co .lensive plan amendment that would approve municipal services co a property not included in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and a subdivision of thirteen residential lots; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed tiie applicat on; the recommendation of the Planning Commission; the written reports of the staff, and the comments of the applicant's consultants. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the C'*-y Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby denies the rezoning as piw •e'^ for the operty described above based upon one or u'.ore o^ e following landings of fact concerning this property; FINDINGS 1. The property is currently zoned r:<-13. One Family Rural Residential. The district is intendea to allow a combination of low density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Page 1 of 5 2. The property consists currently of 24 1/2 acres. 8 to 9 acres consists of wet areas that include the Long Lake Creek and a former sewage treatment pond that has now reverted back to a wetland. 3. The remaining 15+ acres of land consists of both flat and steeply sloped topographies. Long Lake Creek intersects the property along the west side. The former sewage treatment pond now wetland is located in the middle, surrounded on the north by the MWCC property, on the west by the Long Lake Creek and on the south and east by dry lands. 4. In the early '60's the City of Long Lake acquired the 5. 6. 7. property for the purpose installing a sewage treatment pond. During the time of Long Lake’s attempt to acquire the property there was much oppostion voiced by surrounding property owners both within Long Lake and Orono. The City of Long Lake commenced a condemnation action but matters were resolved between the two cities out of Court and the City of Long Lake completed the installation of the treatment pond. This treatment pond also received waste or sewage from sewered properties within the City of Orono. Some time in the early '80's the use of the sewage treatment pond was discontinued as all sewer lines were to be now taken over by the Metropolitan Waste Commission and the system now part of the Metropolitan Service Network. Some time in 1982, a 1/2 acre parcel was divided from the original 25 acre parcel and deeded to the MWCC for the purpose of maintaining the lift station. A 16" force main runs from the 1/2 acre parcel with the lift station along the north end of the property to the south to Orono Orchard Road. The force main is located within the area of the current driveway that serves the property. Since the acquisition of the property, the City of Long Lake's Public Works Department h^s also used the site for outside permanent or tempor? y storage purposes. At some point in the mid-80's, the councils of both cities commenced informal discussions about a future residential development of the property and various schemes of development were discussed. In recent years the City of Long Lake has publicly disctissed the plan to annex and develop the property. Page 2 of 5 8. On February 26, 1 990, Long Lake filed with the Minnesota Municipal Board a petition for the concurrent detachment and annexation of the property to the City of Long Lake pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414,06, Subdivision 5. Then on March 28, 1990, Orono filed its response in opposition to the petition of Long Lake. 9. The petition for annexation is presently pending before the Municipal Board. 10. In July of 1991, both cities entered into a Settlement Agreement whereby it was hoped that both parties would resolve the annexation position of Long Lake without fur\.her litigation and the parties agreed as follows: Long Lake shall forthwith file an application for rezoning and subdivision approval of the subject property with Orono for the development of thirteen lots as described... As part of the application for rezoning of the subject property. Long Lake agrees to extend sewer and water to the subject property which shall be chargeable against Long Lake’s allocation for sewer and water units... Upon receiving all appropriate filings from Long Lake as an applicant, property owner, for subdivision, rezoninc and comprehensive plan amendment; Orono shall commence its required procedure to file an application with the Metropolitan Council to amend the MUSA line and shall work with the Metropolitan Council to expeditiously process that application. Orono agrees to process all aspects of the rezoning and subdivision application simultaneously with the processing of the application for amendment of the MUSA line with the Metropolitan Council. 12. On September 23, 1991, the City of Long Lake filed a Comprehensive Land Use Application with the City of Orono consisting of a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning and preliminary subdivision application. The application was filed in tim^r ..o meet the publication deadlines for the Planning 'ommission’s consideration at their October 21, 1991, meeting. 13. On October 21, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. the Comprehensive Land Use Application was scheduled before the Planning Commission for their review and comment. The general public in attendance were asked to provide their comments. A major concern expres*"*’ by all in attendance was the issue of rezoning from the current rural residential 2 acre to 1 acre zoning. Page 3 of 5 14. The Comprehensive Land Use Application No. 1691 was denied by the Planning Commission based on the issue of rezoning finding the rezoning to be in complete conflict with the directives of the Comprehensive Management Plan of the City of Orono. 15. The City has approved petitions to sewer properties within the rural areas of the City. These areas have been relocated within the Metropolitan Urban Service area. The City has not approved rezonings to higher densities as a result of these sewerings but has maintained the rural standards for the residential development of those properties. This position has been upheld by the Metropolitan Council and consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the community management plan for the rural areas of che City as follows: Rural area goals and policies of the Community Management Plan (CMP 2-6 and CMP 2-7) Rural Land Use Policies 1 -11 are hereby noted for reference and attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. 17. On November 18, 1991, the Orono Planning Commission will consider a Conditional Use Permit for a planned residential development of thirteen units based on the current rural residential zoning. Adopted by the Orono City nci 1 of the City of Orono on this J2th day of November, 1991. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of November, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson fit Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor ft City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota Biunicipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 5 of 5 r vu* r\ L«gal Description of Property: All that part of the Southwest I/** or tr.e southwest 1/4 Section 35, Township 118, Range 23, desorlhed as follows: Commencing at a point 953 feet ^^ortn of the Southeast corn, the Southwest 1/4 of the Soutnwest w4 o. thence North to the Northeast corner of said Soutnwes. 1/4 Townsnip iiOf - - Cemm.neln9 at a point 953 fa.-- = f® tha Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest ./4 o. sa.d Se-.-on thence North to the Northeast corner of said Soutnwes. 1/4 the Southwest 1/4; thence west to the ,Nort..west^corner o- saiw. Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4: tnence Scat., to a 13.38 chains North of the southwest corner of aaid^Southwest /4 of the Southwest 1/4; thence southeaster./ a-on^ ,..e c ine of the Long Lake-Orono Road to a point 838 feet orthwesterly along said center line from its .ntersectior he south line of said Section 35; thence Nort-eaSs-er./ 1- set to the place of beginning. _ _ _ chains L/4 of the r line of the W ^ A 1^ point 838 feet from its intersection with ence Northeasterly Hi 1.9 RWL:ClOa URBAN AREA GOALS AND POLICIES JUNE, 1980 URBAN COMMUNITY GOALS 1. TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC IDENTITY AND SMALL TOWN CHARACTER OF THE SEPARATE NEIGHBORHOODS. 2. TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCE, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL FACILITIES TO SERVE ORONO ’ S URB^^LJ AND RURAL RESIDENTS ALIKE. 3. TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND NEIGHBORHOOD AESTHETICS WHILE TiAiNTAINING THE EXISTING DIVERSITY OF HOUSING AND SHOPPING OPPORTUNITIES. 4. TO PREVENT OVERLY DENSE DEVELOPMENT OR ANY EXCESSIVE DEMAND FOR SERVICES WHICH WOULD IN ANY WAY ADVERSELY AFFECT LAKE MINNETONKA OR ITS ASSOCIATED WETLANDS OR DRAINAGE AREAS. 5. TO PROVIDE MUNICIPAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES AT A LEVEL CONSISTENT WITH SMALL TOWN URBAN REQUIRE.MENTS. URBAN PLANNING POLICIES 1. FUTURE URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CAREFULLY INTEGRATED INTO THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS. No new development will be permitted to conflict with or adversely affect the establir^-^d neighborhood character. 2. THE CITY WILL ENCOURAGE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES AND SOCIAL CENTERS THAT COMPLEMENT THE EXISTING AVAILABLE SERVICES. The City will favor those developments oriented toward local neighborhood needs, recognizing the integrated service area of all adjoining lake-area communities. 3. PRIVATE LANDOWNERS AND DEVELOPERS WILL BE ENCOURAGED TO IMPROVE THE IMAGE OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. Programs will be pursued to encourage maintenance and upkeep of all properties and to promote the rehabilitation of older or under-used properties. Commercial areas will be encouraged to provide a coordinated approach to identity, aesthetic and neighbor hood appeal. 4. URBAN DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE CAREFULLY SCREENED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY. Most of Orono's urban neighborhoods are located very close to Lake Minnetonka, therefore any urban development has the potential for direct adverse Impact on the Lake. Storm water runoff control, erosion and sedimentation are particular concerns requiring careful design attention in all new urban developments. In addition, particular care will be taken to preserve open spaces, wooded areas and solar access. CMP 2-5 URBAN AREA GOALS AND POLICIES JUNE, 1980 5. URBAN DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY CAN BE ADEQUATELY SERVED BY THE EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. New development will not be permitted to exceed the existing capacity of local roads, utilities, parks, police and fire protection. Where development within the urban service area requires local extension of roads or utilities, such extension will be the full responsibility of the developer, not the general taxpayer. 6. HIGHER LE\"ELS OF PUBLIC SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED IN THE URBAN A.REA THAN IN THE RURAL AREA. The greater land use density and the greater number of residents combines to require more intensive levels of public services. Police, fire, and ambulance calls are more frequent. Roads, parking lots and playgrounds require more maintenance. Public sewer and water is necessary because of population density and proximity to the Lake. All of these factors combine to increase the cost of government in the urban portions of the City, which increased cost will be pai ■* by the urban users of the services without subsidy fro* the rural residents. RURAL AREA GOALS AND POLICIES RURAL COMMUNITY GOALS 1. TO MAINTAIN THE RURAL CHARACTER OF OPEN SPACES AND CLOSENESS TO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. 2. TO RETAIN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR RURAL COMMERCE SUCH AS FARMING, ORCHARDS, GREENHOUSES, STABLES AND SIMILAR ACTIVITIES WHICH REQUIRE LIMITED SERVICES BUT RELATIVELY LARGE AMOUNTS OF OPEN SPACE. 3. TO RETAIN THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TYPES AND THE AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLES. 4. TO PREVENT THE ENCROACHMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT OR ANY ACTIVITY WHICH WOULD IN ANY WAY ADVERSELY AFFECT LAKE MINNETONKA OR ITS ASSOCIATED WETLANDS OR DRAINAGE AREAS. 5. TO PROVIDE ONLY THOSE PT'BLIC SERVICES WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO SERVE A TRADITIONAL RURAL COMTv TNITY SO AS TO LIMIT THE FINANCIAL BURDENS ON THE COMMUNITY AND THE LANDOIVNERS ALIKE. CMP 2-6 RURAL PLANNING POLlCIEi^U L t.'t f 1980 1. FUTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE GUIDED SO AS TO HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE LAND OR ON THE EXISTING RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS. Rural developments will be permitted only at rural densities and only where the land is capable of self- supporting the necessary on-site sewer and water services. Care will be exercised to ensire that no new development encroaches upon its neighbor s open space activities. 2. RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS WILL BE RESERVED FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND QUASI-AGRICULTURAL LAND USES. Commercial services will continue to be provided in the urban areas of Orono and adjoining municipalities. No new commercial QP industrial activities will be permitted in the rural 3efvice area except those quasi-agricu1tura1 uses that do not require central sewer or other urban services. 3. RURAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE CAREFULLY SCREENED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY. Most of Orono’s rural land includes major or minor drainageways and wetlands all intricately tied to Lake Minnetonka. Therefore, each rural development will require particular care to prevent encroachment on these vital resources and to ensure protection of the soil vegetation and drainage patcerns. In addition, consideration will be given to protection of woodlands and special open vistas having general public benefit. 4. RURAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE LIMITED TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY CAN BE SERVED BY THE EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. New development will not he permitted if it requires the extension of urban services into the rural area. Privately constructed and maintained roads and recreational facilities will be favored over require ments for additional public facilities. Bu..ldings and structures must be located and designed fcr rural levels of police and fire protection. Rural residents cannot expect the same level of services as provided to the more concentrated urban area.:; of the City. 5. SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR THOSE PARTS OF THE RURAL AREA LOCATED ON LAKE MINNETONKA ISLANDS. It is impossible for the City to provide island residents with normal public services such as police, fire, ambulance, sanitation or transportation. Therefore, all of these needs must be met by the individual property owners who choose to develop land on the islands. Because of these physical limitations, the City has determined that private island development must be discouraged, and may be permitted only in strict compliance with all applicable performance standards. CMP 2-7 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING STRATEGY vJUNE, 1980 PLANNING GOALS 1. TO IDENTIFY COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS, NEEDS, ISSUES AND ASPIRATIONS. 2. TO FORMULATE AND MAINTAIN LONG-TERM COALS FOR FUTURE COMMUNITY GROWTH AMD MANAGEMENT. 3. TO FORMULATE AND MAINTAIN POLICIES, ORDINANCES AND PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO IMPLEMENT THE COMMUNITY GOALS. PLANNING POLICIES THE CMP IS DESIGNED AS A MANAGEMENT TOOL ^OR CITY OFFICIALS, ST» T AND CITIZENS IN THE CONDUCT OF BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ACTIVITY WITHIN THE CITY. 2. THE CMP IS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE EFFECTIVE AND COORDINATED IMPLEMENTATION METHODS TO PROPERLY BALANCE PRIVATE INCSiNTIVES AND THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 3. THE CMP IS DESIGNED TO HELP COORDINATE THE VARIOUS IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS SUCH AS REGULATIONS, ORDINANCES, PUBLIC PROCEDURES, PUBLIC EXPENDITURES AND PROPERTY TAX POLICIES. 4. .HE CMP IS INT^ DAY BASIS. TO BE A LIVING DOCUMENT TO BE USED ON A DAY TO 5. THE CMP IS INTENDED TO BE REVIEWED, AND UPDATED IF NECESSARY, ON . ANNUAL BASIS. f.r-:. CMP 2-8 iM II •)vW« r«P«f¥* INTATION OF [•r.v«wiK» •1 i. ill I •1:^411! V'lA V >"* ^»1 ■ 'j'' € X K; !■If* \fr ii*- ‘i'- LAND USE JUNE, 1980 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR QUASI AGRICULTURAL LAND USES. Greenhouses, orchards, trucJc farms, riding stables and recreation areas such as large golf courses and park reserves are not possible in more crowded urban areas but they are compatible with rural residential properties. Thus, the total commercial activity of Orono is broader and more varied than if the City were all urban or all rural. RURAL DENSITY IS LIMITED BY NATURAL CONDITIONS. Development of rural Orono is naturally limited by a number of conditions including extensive wetlands, steep slopes and areas of high water table, which factors influence building locations and transportation options as well as the location and spacing of on-site sewage treatment systems. THE EXISTING RURAL AREA WILL NOT BE URBANIZED. Orono*8 Community Management plan is not a staged growth plan. The urban service area will not be expanded into the rural area. Municipal urban services will not be extended into the rural area or across open, rural lands. Rural land uses and rural land use density will be maintained a a level to ensure that private on-site sewer systems will operate satisfactorily and that rural wetlands and drainageways will not be overloaded with storm water nutrient pollution. RURAL LAND USES AND DENSITIES DO N'OT REQUIRE URBAN SERVICES. Urban services are not compatiblu witn rural land use. Extension of certain urban services, such as extensive public road i aintenance or municipal sewer or water cannot be economically justified or easily provided to developments in rural areas or at rural densities. RURAL LAND USES DO NOT REQUIRE MUNICIPAL SEWER SERVICE. Orono*s soil, topography and low-density rural land use provide the ingredients necessary to assure safe, adequate, permanent on-site sewage treatment and waste water disposal without haaard to ground water, surface water or the public health. CMP 4-20 c K. • i-' A<> i' .v^- • r 'v- ■r I h. f 'i'. 'r- P X iV b:-r■'( LAND use JUNE, 1980 7.RURAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE SUBJECT TO PROVEN ON-SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT CAPABILITY. Future development in the rural area will be contingent upon the developer providing prior technical evidence that the site contains sufficient suitable land for ;»11 development, an acceptable primary drainfield area, and reserved space for at least one alternate drainfield area. The zoning area requirements for rural Orono will therefore be based upon minimum areas of dry buildable land exclusive of roadways, wetlands, streams or areas of high water table. 8.RURAL DEVELOPMENT MUST BE SELF-SUPPORTING. All future development in the rural area will be required to be proven self-supporting for the intended use, especially in terms of water supply, sewage treatment and internal improvement maintenance, so as to prevent extension of costly urban services into the rural area. 9.RURAL LAND USE DENSITIES WILL ALLOW MAXIMUM RETENTION OF PRIVATE WOODS AND OPEN SPACE. Low rural densities will aecomsiodata homesites without affecting the traditional vistas of open fields and woods. The retention of these woodlands and marsh- lends will then assure permanent habitat for our abundant wildlife. Public open space will be provided on a large-scale or Park Reserve Basis, but neighborhood or mini-parks are unnecessary because of the large amount of available privately owned and maintained open space. 10. RURAL WETLANDS AND MARSHLAND WILL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR SURFACE WATER RETENTION AND FILTRATION. As total population in the watershed increases, the total requirement for storm water filtration will increase. Orono*s rural land use plans will protect all of our rural wetlands and marshland for future use as retention ponds and nutrient filters including the capability of accepting recycled urban storm water for increased nutrient filtration. CMP 4-21 LAND USg JUNE, 1980 r 11. RURAL LAKESHORE AREAS WILL HAVE DUAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. The low-density residential land uses will automatically reduce environmental pressures on the shoreline. In addition, the rural areas will be subject to the same shoreline protection performance standards as the urban areas, incl. ling mini'r>am setbacks, green belts, clear- cutting prohibitions and lake use regulations. Taken together, these factors should preserve to a large extent the original appearance of Orono's rural shoreline as seen from the lake. THg LAND use PLAN HAP NO. 6 INDICATES THE BASIC LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY: THE DESIGNATION OP ORONO'S URBAN SERVICE AREA AND ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA. The detailed location of the dividing line (the MUSA line) between the Urban Service Area and the Rural Service Area has been established by careful evaluation of each of the elemencs of this Community Management Plan. Environmental concerns, historic land use patterns, and the availability of sewer, transportation and other public facilities all enter into the local decision of actual MUSA line location. ( Orono's urban service Area identifies those portions of the City that liave been provided with public services and facilities necessary to support urban types and densities of land use as defined by the Metro politan Council's Development Framework Guide. Orono’s Rural Service Area identifies those portions of the City that do r*v>t have urban services and are not planned to have urban services. Orono's Rural Service »cea intended to permanently accommodate General Ru.;al Land Uses an'^ housing densities defined by the Metropolitan Council, and as distinctly different from a Commercial Agricultural region. Orono's MUSA line location as shown on Map No. 6 has been legally described and established by City Council Resolution No. 1135 adopted April 14, 1980. This Resolution is included in the CMP Appendix. The detailed location of this line will not be changed without further official action of the City Council. Orono's MUSA line location as shown on Map No. 6 is consistent with the hroad—brush location of the MUSA line as drawn by the Metropolitan Council. Orono's MUSA line location is consistent with the MUSA location and land use plans of adjoining municipalities. Orono's MUSA line location directly affects the detailed land use and facilities plans of the City. MAP NO. 7 INDICATES THE DETAILED LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY, IDENTIFYING APPROPRIATE LAND USES AND DENSITIES FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOOD. This land use map will form the basis for land use zoning decisions. ( CMP 4-22 Tdz Oates Subjects Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron^ Asst Planning & Zoning Administra^l^^ November 4, 1991 ^ 11692 Bruce W. Engelsma, 990 Partenwood Road - Vari<uice - Resolution ,■' I IIm-w- ' 'i V-' f: 'M'' ■ ■f. ’■.» ■ I'-I: ‘'K • -*■ ■' h. --rl*I i rv k». - Sonliig Districts LR>1B, Single family lakeshore residential, I acre, sewered Applications Request for lakeshore setback and 0-75* hardcover variance to construct additions to existing residence. Mat of Bahibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Discussion Resolution Notice of Planning Commission Action 10/22/91 Memo 6 Exhibits of 10/14/91 Please review the memo and exhibits of October 14, 1991. Briefly, the applicant proposes to construct an addition to his •nlsting residence. A 98 s.f. portion of the new structure is proposed for the 0-75* zone. Additionally, 38 s.f. of non- structural hardcover will be added in that zone. Planning CosKlssioo Re ndation Planning Ccxnmission reviewed this request at their October neeting, and on a vote of 6 to 0 recommended approval, finding that the addition only increases the 0-75* hardcover by 0.7% to 10.6%, and with proposed decreases in the 75-250* zone results in a net reduction of 357 s.f. of hardcover on the property. The Planning Corainission further noted that given the location of the existing house, the proposed location for the addition is logical and reasonable, and because the house is already partially located in the 0-75* zone, there are few, if any, other options. The Planning Commission also noted that the steep and somewhat hazardous driveway situation will be partially rectified by the proposed elevation of the garage. The Planning Commission discussed the possibility for removal of other structural and non-structural hardcover in the 0-75* zone, and agreed with applicant that no other potential removals are apparent. Staff Race latioD reo Isv A resolution for approval per the Planning Commission mendation is attached for Council review. t-M- '!-r^ f A RBSOLOTION GRANTING VARIANCBS TO MIINICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22t SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 FILE #1692 WHEREAS, Bruce W. Engelsma (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 990 Partenwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Partenwood Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit the construction of a room addition to the existing residence, such addition constituting hardcover and structure within the 0-*75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1692. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 21, 1991, and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A.Hardcover in the 0-75' zone is proposed to increase 136 s.f. from 9.9% up to 10.6%. In conjunction with this increase, applicant proposes to decrease hardcover in the 75-250* zone 493 s.f., from 26.3% down to 25.0%. The net result is a decrease in overall hardcover in the property of 357 s.f., which is a positive aspect of this request. Page 1 of 6 V I :s >>• s I I"’. B.The existing house is located partially within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. Only a small portion of the proposed addition will be located in the 0-75' zone, and the location of this addition is appropriate in relation to the location and orientation of the existing house. C.In conjunction with the room addition, applicant proposes to relocate and reconstruct the attached garage on the property, raising it in elevation to decrease an existing steep hazardous driveway situation. D.There is no structural hardcover in the 0-75' zone which can be reasonably removed to result in no hardcover increase in the 0-75 ’ zone. 4.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the 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 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. Page 2 of € H,- p V-r^ r . 0 V > p‘ VI w> COMCLOSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings# the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22# Subdivisions 1 and 2 and Section 10.55# Subdivision 8 to permit the construction of a room addition and landscaping materials constituting 136 s.f. of additional structure and hardcover in the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone where no such structure or hardcover is normally allowed# subject to the following conditions: 1.Hardcover in the 0-75* zone is approved at a level of 10.6%. Hardcover in the 75-250* zone is approved at a level of 25.0%. 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 above the currently approved levels and any proposed improvements of this property that will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City. Such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of exisitng hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for removal as a cond> cion of this resolution must be removed prior to the foe ting inspection for the new construction. 2.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 (November 12# 1992). 4.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. Page 4 of 6 I vf- • . ; H »-Vi LrV. ;^V’ f( i-’ :'^-'ro- h' t4' ipy-\h t^-- > i V ^:-'i ■ "■*■75.-. J. -■■ J'.^,i. 5.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. r Minnesota h-ai-1991. if ATTEST: Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Dorotiiy M. Hallin, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property 0%mer(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of November 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 5 of € W' ■I cm OP OROHO P. O. Box B€ Crystxl Bxy« MB 473-7357 55323 20HIBG PILB #1692 HOTICE OP PUUmiBG COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice: October 22, 1991 TOi Bruce W. Engelsma 990 Partenvrood Road Long Lake, MN 55356 TTPB OP APPLICATION: Variance DATS OP MBBTINGi 10/21/91 VOTB:6 For 0 Against Plannifig Co«ieeion r da the folloving: ♦tv • ••• •• War IS OP THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 1991 :■ " ■ (tVlO). #1692 BRUCE W. ENGELSMA, 990 PARTENWOOD ROAD - „ w VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:12-9:23 P.M. The - Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Bruce Engelsoa was present. Gaffron explained this is a request for lakeshore 75* hardcover variances to construct additions to the existing residence. Engelsaa indicated the reason for the proposal is due to his exnanding family. He noted that they propose to add a family room area, and because of existing driveway problems, renovation to the garage and raising the elevation of the garage tS riducJ the probleml. He stated that the house is primarily built within the 0-75’ zone. Bellows felt that absent a grading Plan. it is hard the improvements will work. She felt a grading and water management plan should be submitted prior to issuance of the permit. Engelsma felt there is nowhere else to locate the addition and they have proposed removal of approximately 500 of driveway. wmsrisi-i reducing the driveway size. Ayes 6. nays 0. (#11) #1693 ALBERT 0. HANSER, IfifiS FOX STREET **A) VARIANCE TO MORATORIUM ORDINANCE #96. 2ND SERIES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:23-9:26 P.M. B) SKETCH PLAN REVIEW The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noted. Heriditb Howell, applicant's representative, and Mark Gronberg, surveyor, were present for this application. this application until the lakeshore regulations have been completed. TOS FroB: Date: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Moorse Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Plannir j 6 Zoning Administrator October 14, 1991 Subject: #1692 Bruce W, Engelsma, 990 Partenwood Rd. Variance - Public Hearing Soiling District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application ~ Request for lakeshore setback and 0-75 ’ hardcover variance to construct additions to existing residence. List of Bjchibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit B - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Site Plan Construction Plans Hardcover Calculations 1989 Air Photo (not to scale) Pertinent Code Sections - Requires 75 ’ lakeshore1. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1: setback for all structures. 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2: 0% hardcover allowed in 0-75* lakeshore setback zone; 25% hardcover allowed in 75-250' lakeshore setback zone. 3. Section 10.55, Subdivision B: No hardcover or structure allowed within 75' of the shoreline. Pertinent Facts - 1. 2. 3. Applicant proposes to construct two story family room/bedroom addition, remo'^e and rebuild garage. Mew addition setback to shoreline: footage of structure in 0-75 ’ ■ additional non-structural hardcover. 67'. Total new square 98 s.f., plus 38 s.f. Hardcover: Existing 0- 75' 9.9% 75-250' 26.3% Changes (+136 s.f.) (-493 s.f.) Proposed 10.6% 25.0% Allowed 0% 25% F r ■ I Zoning File #1692 October 14, 1991 Page 2 Applicant's Stated Bardshlps/Onusal Property Conditions 1. 2. Due to contour of the lake, a corner of proposed addition falls within 0-75' setback area. Existing living area of house falls within 0-75' making it impractical to add on outside 0-75'. To tie into existing home and preserve architectural style requires nlnor enroachment of 0-75'. Site is long, steeply sloping lot requiring a large driveway surface to access house. We propose to reduce by rebuilding garage at higher elevation. Existing home built within 0- zone. Issnss to Consider 1. 2. 3. 4. Is the proposed 493 s.f. xeduction in 75-250' hardcover a sufficient justification to allow a 136 s.f. hardcover increase in 0-75' zone? Does the pre-existing location of the house provide a reasonable hardship to justify a 90 s.f. portion of the addition to be located within the 0-75' zone? Could the additions be redesigned to eliminate any new structural encroachments in the 0-75' zone? Are there items of existing structure or hardcover in the 0- 75' zone that could be eliminated to result in no 0-75' hardcover increase? Dlscassion The existing house is perched on a terrace level about 15' above Maxwell Bay. The proposed garage revision is Intended to make for a more functional garage access. The existing driveway is fairly steep near the house. Where the additions encroach the 0-75' zone, mature trees dot the slope in the 0-75' zone, such that during the summer leaf-on conditions, the 0-75' addition will be barely visible from the lake. As you stand at the site of these additions, the lake is perceived to be perhaps 150-200' distant due to extensive wetlands (see 1989 air photo). It is not known whether these wetlands will disappear as the current near-normal lake level conditions persist. Lot coverage by structures is about 5% and not an issue. The average setback line is far lakeward of the house due to a curved shoreline. Average setback is not an issue. — - ^ mI- ..I ■jj i !/'■t- r->.‘ > S'-:«;; ;• T ,'^”v I. Zoning File 11692 October 14, 1991 Page 3 Kerof nilwtion Options Planning Commission may wish to consider the following options for recommendation: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Approve as proposed. Conditionally approve, specify conditions. Table, request specific or general revisions (give applicant direction). Deny, specifying reasons. Other. 'i-r^" jt' - r ) 7^' /-f(^ p cm OF OROHO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Tnitial Aoplication f’e« $173.00 ‘^Iso.oo'per each additional variance) l^ewal variance Fee $100.00 change from original ' -..-...-^ha-Pact Fees (Double application .e-) -V- . • / i A£ter-the-Fact LOCATION Rite Address 990 Partenwood Road cm OF mio FimfiCE OFFICE 1350200000 01 QSi 175.00 CHECK TL 175.00 required survey. ______________________________________ ——---------------- ** Phone (home)___121l2212--------- IFFLXCABT Phone (work) .13 2-124] \MM m r^cT»» A _______Name Bruce W. En^elsma Address ^ 990 Partenwood Road— (if different than applicant) Zip; 5533£ Phone (home) Phone (work) Name Address:City;Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Ir^\ JT OSB OF FBOPERTT Present Zoning District LR-ia Present Use of Property siiv^le Famii Other (specify) Residential or M008ST ®*HS5rcovt/“iHSho exists liouse. Tear down and rebuild garage qgiBXBNCBS RBQOZNBD Lot Area Setback Variances i_ _ Lakeshoresetback Lot Width Front 0-75X Hardcover Side _ _ _ ^ Other J.V- |vv IIASDSBIPDescribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict OT O^rerolL conditions SW-'r^im-es nnnSr encroac™.=n. oV u-75 . D.scrii,e unusual p^ona^tx, «nditions^gr^^^^^^ Code Requirements:pOucs u j • ^ -- - - - — - ^ - — to access house.- We propose to reduce this by rebuilding garage at higher elevation. F"' j _ j. j L- L.a?l i n /il» BJ 1. 2. • I li STTBWIT TV-^ Existing home built within U-/b'. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 130' (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 propose; elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8*!"xll"). Sketches or plans of floor 6 elevation views (provide 1 copy 8*i"xll'*). As an addendum to this applicationr please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vonr variance application is not wwHMMlete if the above ^ hae not been included. APVLICJUIT'S SIGHATORE 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 cqrre^ to tb«-bei?t of his/'.ier knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OMBRS SI6KATDSB The owner hereby acJcowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents# Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification 9^ this ^ Owner 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 xmwlmi meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. mx S' :•> MM MTf Of/tO/n■ATCN MI HEWCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY QNNERS LIST OMCII NMC TRMPAYf II. NMC/AOM M 00-117-2S U 0002 00970 TOMCANA RO J t OMM 4 E A 0BER6 JAMES R A EMILY A 00CR6 070 TOMUNA M OMMO IM. B5SM TAXPAYER MME/AOOR SO 00-117*tS U 0004 MOM PARTEtORWO RO RAUCE A NARY ENOELSHA RMJCE A NARY ENMLSHA OM PARTENNOM RO .LONO LAKE tfl SS3SA OMCR NRtC TAXPAYER > NUMi/AOM M M-117-2S El MIO OOOM TOMIANA RO JAM aLSERT JAMES N A NARY N 6IL0ERT OfS TONKAMA RO LONO LAKE MN SSS54 TAXPAYER TOTAL SATCN NAME/AOM 001 00009 r « *» . I* f • • 0 •i' '9* • f. • i • ? i, *4 • • t . *. i • ‘ f M 08-117-2S 12 OOOS OOHO TONKAMA RO DAVID J RIDLER CTAL DAVID J RIDLER 2925 GARFIELD AVE S HPLS m 55406 58 08-117-2S 21 0007 00950 PARTE»*«X)0 RD MALAND C A JO ELLE L NURR NALAND A JO ELLEN NURR 930 PARTENHOOO ROAD LONG LAKE m 55356 38 08-117-23 21 0015 00975 TONKAMA RD A A H KARAS ANTHONY J fARAS 975 TONKAMA RO LONO LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. P1455401 PAGE 158 08-117-25 12 0004 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED DAVID RIDLER ETAL DAVID J RIDLER 2925 GARFIELD AVE S MPLS MN 55408 58 08-117-25 21 0013 00935 TONKAMA RO NILLIAN J HCLELLAN ETAL NILLIAM J NCtELLAN 935 TCMCAMA ROAD LOI|G LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 21 0017 00960 PARTENMOOO RD GARY H A JEAIM H KRII9REL GARY M A JEANNE M KRIItCL 960 PARTEI8I000 RO LONG LAKE m 55356 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE MEMCPIN COUNTY DEPARIJCNp OF PROPERt)^ T^TIONs TO THE/fSEST OF MY KNQHtEDGE AND RELIEF f f 5- . :*( i > >- <■ f. ' 4. y • \ \ r • Tii C-. • • • • ••m I I '• C» IS*' ic A jf 0' Mnf ' # '.»W • lUCl 4. fiCUSNA • PA«rf«^oor» Mr.4 « «,. . .., *M| frju«iif Ht me SO IA p-i .V I t lt64l 0gSCiy»T |0iln Loi I. Plnrk 1, '••rttn«oo«t ^rfntut '««.••! .on i'*rrfT A aiot?c*:G. Grf»«hrrn iff. *.*n. *7*S!^ tnpippcrt, i AOit ^iirvAvr«rt. ^l.innr'A • lAir, MJnn«>t(ttA a««e : y-io»iu»M — »»•••% mm*^*^^* %fM\9 : I Ipcfl n^m*rr% « : Proa Urke^ foimii HOMto £a*^ I lor ■rorio^i %r»0«O *9- t*4«rit M|»rn 40 d4i.it. 1 l'liai.^:vlt^ .A-.',' ■.■^^. r. >. ‘' t»a-m- ^ IV' f A V:-' Si i^xn j, Tbuc.. 1^ f>«8:rEJ4y» 2,^ HARDCOVER CALCUU\TION WORKSHEET SETBACK zone: (CIRCLE-one)^^^^75-250 2S0-5C0' SOO^ICGQ' Existing H/thcover in Zone A. ■ House LENGTH 6.0 c. D riveway E. Patio/ .. becK ,I 3 . F.Landscape AREAS underlain BY t . PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other X X _ X WIDTH C->.l'5> <r,z /4. S' ZA /J X S, / X _______ Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone 9 7a S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 37 S.F. S F. S.F. ZS'5.F ■S^..S.F. /X? S’OO S.F. S.’F. 67^ • G>-t Z7^ y a a -• ■ S.F. Aril '^aa_ X 100 -9. 9 A E % • - •• *-w • ••• • •* « • Lwr: r I A ■■••• ? i« . t-- ■?>v. ..’’ 'i’' \A ^?4V ,r.; y-'- "\f , i- j; f fk I V ^ • • • •••« ■ ^_______ Un- L ■ftuc. 1^ ?>ci5WWi»' HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE'ONE) 0-75/*, Ex ISTInT)Hardcover in Zone 250-500' 500-1000' 0^< (^‘2^ A. ■ House ee- c. Driveway '&i‘iuiMiuaab E. Patio / Deck F.Landscape areas UNDERLAIN BY . . PLASTIC SHEETING Wau-'G. Other . LENGTH Q. o D, Sidewalk _ X X X X X X WIDTH \p . ' ''■« 4o Total Hardcover in Zone • * To ^L Property Area in Zone A 4-so.S.F. • • • • • • « S.F. • S.F. •LL• S.F. 37 S'.F. 7SSO S.F. • • . * • m • • S.F. .o.F. ti • . •S.F. •‘ * ’« S.F. « m *• • t S • F • • S.F. • ^ * • • « • M # S.F. • S.F. • S.F. S.F.« S.F. 3 7: -m S.F. ^7$7 jL I y X 100 • ^ m % « «. «A*.« « V * I- •' 'v ■ . m. , .;k .K*' r''H'' 'm ^■;’- r^V'-' :;V:i"- : ■ -t ^ Ir ' .#s .- ■'h-m- S'f: i.. ■■y P I' W! y(r... Ph'^-r • If :•; • 4^ •HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEr:ScT3Ac:< zoNc: (CIRCIS ONS)25G-5CC' 5CC-1CCQ HARDCOVES in ZONtl s" A. H ouse LENGTH A^lh B« Garage c. D riveway D. ^BEVfALK 7.5 E. Patio / 5.^ * F. Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY » . PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other • I. pAo /3.0 S.l n^.z. 7^.3 /f.f "Total H aadcovw in Zone -^ggrO Total Propkty A rea in Zone fg.iCrO US' S.F. S • r» S.F. S.F. S. r . S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. S.F S.F S.F 1: t V;:- f zii S.F. S.F. [3 S.F. [£ 0 Zooc> ,4[3 X IOC J.6 % Nr' r f i-If' W-I li-' • • ' KARDCaVE?. CALC'JLATIQ.N ’^ORKSHEHSETBACK ZONE: CciHCLE ONE) 0-/3 (^75^ Harccove ^ in Zone « ■ A. HoUfS X •250^ 25u-5G0' 5CO-IGCO' LENGTH WIDTH •• X #S# r . • « X . S.F. .S. r . X .S.F. . 7/St?. • c- D riveway ,, x . jTar S.r» X s • Si r. • D. Sidewalk x •S.F. X .S.F. X . E. ’aTIO/ /OU> A c L V S.F. • •* p.Landscape ' • • x . 7iO S.r. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY . X S.F. PLASTIC • SHEETING ____ X a S.F. X . S.F. G. Other x m S.F. - Total Hardcover in Zone -S.F. rx Total Propesty Area in Zone ?70i'0 s.F. [1] fjl -ffT? 310^0 X 100 - Z^O ^ m- j t,' ■’■?•/ , • ■-■■' ■■■ (>■.;.' ■• ■y?:; ■ r iL i • ‘ t, ' ■f:U/ . :•/ *'Si 1 '*9«1PIMmM.^ 5^3 if^ - k*t > » m CL?J" -V- '•.- > <• / wSm*^ ' Vy > 'ft r' .V* « ^ ^i'9 A^pr«fr*s (OT 'h ^fiSt u.-*«- • ; * •' ■ • * > . , M » in k-i 4 *i>) T ifftei'' 4 • • /4S'1 * I ,' s y / J f •4 •r #-*•-;<!*t Ni'^a >>' >. *♦% I -^•^-^;TTi^n''r1 4 y ^0 > ♦> % f INNOVATIVt ► J MICROGRAPHICS DUE TO THE POOR CONDITION OF THE PRECEEDING DOCUMENT WE CANNOT 1 PRODUCE AN ACCEPTABLE MICROFILM IMAGE L 'V To:Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator %o Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: November 7, 1991 #1695 Thomas & Alice Stuck/John Bauer - 4365/4345 North Shore Drive - Subdivision Moratorium Variance/Lot Line Rearrangement - Resolution #1674 Thomas i Alice Stuck - 4365 North Shore Drive - Hardcover Variance Revision - Resolution List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D MoratoriumZ/Subdivision Resolution Variance Revision Resolution Notice of Council Action 10/30/91 Survey Discossion At the October 28 meeting, Council voted 5 to 0 for conceptual approval of a variance to the moratorium, and approval of lot line rearrangement and revision to the previous hardcover variance. Staff Re ndation Staff recommends approval of the attached resolutions. Isv A RBSOLOTION GRANTniG A VARIANCE TO ORDINANCE NO. 9€, SECOND SERIES, AND APPROVING A METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION OP A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 4345 AND 4365 NORTH SHORE DRIVE FILE #1695 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existin<j under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter •City Council*) has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, on August 26, 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 96, Second Series, an ordinance establishing an interim moratorium on the granting of land subdivisions that have not received preliminary approval from the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for A subdivision of a lot line rearrangement by "^honas and Alice Stuck of 4365 North Shore Drive and John Bauer of .-45 North Shore Drive (hereinafter "the subdividers") of properties legally described as follows: A. B. The North 125 feet of the West half of Lot 6, and the East half of Lot 5, Block 18, "Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin Co Minn.". Lots 7, 8 and the East half of Lot 6; ALSO that part of the West half of Lot 6 lying South of the North 125 feet thereof. Block 18, "Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin Co Minn."; and WHEREAS, the subdividers have requested a variance to Ordinance No. 96, Second Series to allow the proposed subdivision of a lot line rearrangement to proceed; and Page 1 of 3 :• > WHEREAS* the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the request for the moratorium variance on October 21, 1991 and recommended approval* finding that no new building lots will be created by the proposed subdivision; and WHEREAS* the City Council finds that the proposed variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan* that it is compatible with the zoning and official control amendments being considered by the City as part of the Shoreland Regulation review process* that it promotes the health* safety and welfare of the citizens* and that failure to grant the variance would create a hardship for the applicant; and WHEREAS* the subdividers have completed all requirements of the City for metes and bounds subdivision for division and combination purposes. HOW* THEREFORE* BE IT RESOLVED* that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby grants a variance to Ordinance No. 96* Second Series and hereby approves the metes and bounds subdivision of a lot line rearrangement for Thomas and Alice Stuck and John Bauer as shown on the Certificate of Survey by Mark S. Gronberg dated September 30* 1991 and attached to this resolution* subject to the following conditions: 1.Upon approval of this subdivision by the City Council of Orono* the owner of Parcel A as described in the Certificate of Survey referenced above must apply to the City for legal combination for tax purposes with Parcel C as described in that same survey. 2.The aforesaid division as shown on the attached Certificate of Survey shall be filed by the City of Orono with the Hennepin County Recorder’s office on or before May 12* 1992 together with a certified original copy of this resolution. The approval granted by this Resolution shall expire if the division has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event* it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Page 2 of 3 r Adopted by the City Council of Oroni , Minnesota, this 12th day of November, 1991. ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledo'ed before me on this 12th day of November 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor i 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 m A RBSOLOTION AMENDING CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION #3017 - PILE #1674 WHEREAS, Thomas and Alice Stuck (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 4365 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: The North 125 feet of the West half of Lot 6, and the East half of Lot 5, Block 10, "Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin Co Minn" (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants are in the process of acquiring additional adjacent property, which will result in the following legal description: The East half of Lot 5, Block 18, "Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin Co Minn,*, and that part of Lot 6, said Block 1«, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 6; thence Southerly along the Westerly line of said Lot 6 a distance of 138.50 feet; thence Easterly parallel with the Northerly line of said Lot 6 a distance of 36.81 feet; thence Northerly to a point on the Northerly line of said Lot 6 distant 47.00 feet Easterly of said Northwest corner of Lot 6; thence Westerly along said Northerly line to the point of beginning; and WHEREAS, on September 9, 1991 the City Council adopted Resolution #3017, which granted lot coverage, hardcover, and side setback variances for construction of additions to the existing residence; and WHEREAS, the applicants are acquiring additional land for the purpose of relocating lot lines so that applicants existing garage will be totally within applicants property and meeting the appropriate setbacks, and for the purpose of increasing the area of applicants 250-500' lakeshore setback zone to allow additional hardcover in conjunction with the proposed residential additions; and WHEREAS, Resolution #3017 granted the applicants approval for 66.2% hardcover in the 250-500' zone where only 30% hardcover is normally allowed; and Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS* the applicants propose to construct a deck constituting an additional 180 s.f. of hardcover over and above that which was approved in Resolution #3017, and are increasing the area of the 250-500' zone by 1,710 s.f. Accounting for 126 s.f. of existing garage and driveway which will now be within the property boundaries, the final 250-500' i:ardcover will be 5,794 s.f. or 58.0% of the new 9,995 s.f. 250-500' zone; and WHEREAS, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed this request for variance revision on October 21, 1991, and on a vote of 6 to 0 recomnended approval of the 180 s.f. additional hardcover for the proposed deck, finding that in conjunction with the lot line rearrangement, hardcover in the 250-500' zone will decrease from 66.2% to 58.0%; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 1991 the City Council reviewed the ].^qii^3t for a variance to the subdivision moratorium currently in effect for shoreland properties, and the request for a lot line i^earrangement and hardcover variance revision, and on a vote of 5 to 0 ^i^anted conceptual approval of the request variances and lot line rearrangement. MOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota, that Resolution #3017 is hereby amended as follows; 1.Hardcover shall be allowed at a level of 58.0% (5,794 s.f.) in the 250-500’ zone rather than 66.2% as stated in Resolution #3017. This amendment shall not take effect until the applicant provides satisfactory evidence of ownership of the 1,710 s.f. parcel of adjacent property in the 240-500' zone. The sketch attached to this reolution as Exhibit A depicts the allowed hardcover per this amendment. 2.All other conditions of Resolution #3017 shall remain in effect. Page 2 of 4 r -L.. L . 3.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 of the date of Council approval of Resolution #3017, or that variance and this amendment will expire on that date (September 9, 1992). 4.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. 5.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of herself, her heirs, successors a. assigns, hereby agrees to tne recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of November, 1991. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF HIMNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of November, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor t City Cle-*' of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said i;i>. -ent was executed on behalf of the City, Notary Public Page 3 of 4 APPLICATION NO. 1695 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 473-7357 NOTICE OP COUNCIL ACTION 55323 Date of Notice; 10/30/91 TOs Thomas & Alice Stuck 4365 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 COPIES;John Bauer 4345 North Shore Drive Mound, MN 55364 Dick Benson 16211 Ice Circle Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 TIPS OF APPLICATION: Variance - Revision Subdivision - Lot Line Rearrangment DATE OF TING: 10/28/91 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against r IHCIL ACTION - NOTION: Conceptual approval of lot line rearrangment and variance revision. Your lot line rearrangement will be presented for final approval by Council upon receipt of the following; 1.3 copies of the Certificate of Survey by Mark Gronberg dated September 30, 1991, signed by each of the affected property owners. All persons with an interest in the property must sign the surveys. 2.Provide 2 copies of survey at a scale of 1" * 200' for City records. Your lot line rearrangement results in the transfer or exchange of a parcel that will not be recorded on your title until deeds are exchanged and filed by the property owners. Deed exchange and filing is the responsibility of the property owners. Upon final approval ot the lot line rearrangement, property owner Stuck must complete legal ''ombination fonns at the City offices, combining Parcels A and C. The deadline date for submittal of signed surveys is Wednesday, November 6, 1991 for the Tuesday, November 12, 1991 Council Meeting. Resolutions approving the moratorium variance, lot line rearrangement and variance revision will be prepared for Council action on November 12. (Please advise immediately if you will be delayed in obtaining signatures so that this can be rescheduled for a later Council meeting if necessary.) If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. To: ilik Front Date: Subject: Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator ^O/* rife / \/ / Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administr October 17, 1991 #1696 Stephen & Joanne Ward, 469 5 North Shot^fl^iv/i*^ 0 Variances - Public Hear ng Seeing District: LR-IB, Lakeshore residential, 1 acre minimtom% Pertinent ordinances 1.Section 10.75, Subd. 3 - Additional heights on sloping lots. "On any lot sloping downhill from the street, which has an average ground slope on that portion of a lot to be occupied by the main building of 25% or more (measured in the general direction of the side lot lines). An additional 12' of height may be permitted in such main building and the garage or parking space may be in the required front yard provided a yard of 10' or more is maintained." A. B. Allowed height. Based on the above Code section, the principal building is locaced on a slope of 26-31%. An Increase of 12' is allowed for principal structure. Total allowed « 42' Proposed at lakeside = 39' Height at street elevation = 20' No variance required. Street setback. 10' was proposed by applicant. 35' is required per the LR-IB zoning district for street setback of principa ructure. In early discussions with applicar , a garage addition was proposed at the County road It-vel. The preliminary design showed a first level floor beneath the garage with connecting breezeway type addition to the main residence. In those early discussions staff considered the structure predominately a garage addition and qualified under the above section. In a later revision a full third story appeared for the master bedroom suite. Question for the Planning Commlcsion, "Is this a "main" building or garage addition?” Per LR-IB Standards Required = 35' Proposed ■» 10' Variance «* 2^' or 71% or Per Section 10.75, Subdivision 3 Allowed “ 10' Proposed ■ 10' (does not include enchoachment of upper level deck) ..i mmZoning File #1696 October 17, 1991 Page 2 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Lakeshore hardcover. A. 0-75 ’ setback area = 2841 s.f. 121 s.f. or 4.26% per applicants hardcover facts 149 s.f. or 5.24%* per staff's inspection * Additional hardcover results from 12’ x 12' deck installed over existing shed resulting in 28 s.f. of additional hardcover. There is also a 12' x 16' deck that extends over the portion of the property located below the 929.4 elevation. Applicant has credited 80 s.f. against his property. Total area of the deck is 192 s.f. Staff has no record of a building permit being issued for either the deck above the shed nor the deck structure installed at the lakeshore. B. 75-250' setback area = 8,389 s.f. Allowed « 2,097.25 s.f. or 25% Existing “ 1,671.1 s.f. or 19.92% Proposed * 2,976.41 s.f. or 35% Hardcover variance = 879.16 s.f. or 10.4% List of Exhibits A - Application B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map D - Applicants Addendum E - Application for a Driveway Permit from Hennepin County F - Survey Information G - Hardcover Fact Sheets, 0-75', 75-250', Existing and Proposed H - Staff Sketch Determining Height I - Packet - Includes Floor Plans, Elevations, etc. Description of Request Please refer to Exhibit D. Staff can confirm applicant removed the former garage loc' ad predominately in County right- of-way over some 10 years ago. No City has the right to ask for a structure to be removed unless it is in a deteriorated or hazardous condition. In the case of this structure, because of its location in the right-of-way, the Department of Transportation would probably have recommended that it be rebuilt out of the County right-of-way. The original garage was a single stall garage. The County right-of-way has served as a parking area f; r this property these last 10 years. It should also be noted uhat all of the properties along North Shore Drive make similar use of the County right-of-way. Early in the review staff advA^^::d Mr. Ward to contact the Cour'. y to determine what they would approve as far as _n approved drive within the right- of-way, Mr. Ward is advised that Dave Zetterstrom of the County has recommended that the doors face out to street with tu’-n lanes provided as shown on Survey Sketch, Exhibit F. Zoning File #1696 October 17, 1991 Page 3 The 23' X 35' addition consists of a full basement, first floor (family room/bedroom), second level garage and third floor master bedroom. Staff has questioned the applicant as to the size of the footprint of the addition, noting that it is larger than the existing principal structure and asked if certain elements of structure could be reduced. Applicant advises that the two-stall garage is needed and that the interior access stairs at an 8' width is needed to serve both the lower levels and upper level of the master bedroom. Review Exhibit I, the elevations, profiles and floor plans. There is no feasible way to connect a stairs access to the third level in the new addition via the existing portion of the house. The only interior access to lower levels and original house portion is via down staircase (4* of additional width). The only access to upper level is via up staircase (4* of additional width). If a total of 8' i^ needed for stairs, then two-stall garage occupies 27' of width. Note applicant proposes no change in the existing portion of the residence• The existing exterior access stairs shall be removed and rebuilt in a safer manner, certainly with handrails meeting all DBC standards. Mr. Ward advised that a policeman in making an attempt to get down to their residence slipped and fell in icy conditions during the winter. This is a continuous problem and the main reason for the proposed interior access in the addition. Applicant proposes three decks from the master bedroom level. The deck facing the lake will be extended over the existing roof requiring no additional approvals of hardcover or setbacks. The deck to the west side results in 24 s.f. of additional hardcover (8' x 3'). Deck to the north is proposed a merely a 1-1/2' width. Applicant asks if the 1-1/2' deck would be the same as a 1-1/2* overhang which is considered a non encroachment into a setback area. The deck structure requires a setback and would result in an additional setback variance of 1- 1/2' into the proposed 10* street setback. Note per hardcover facts this was not included because it was pxaced over the paved drive area. Staff comments regarding existing and proposed hardcover improvemerts also noting area and percentages of hardcover resulting with these improvements. A. Proposed addition. If interior access is desired requiring the 8' of width to provi a staircase both to an upper and lower level, then possibly the two- stall garage could be reduced from 27' in width to 24* resulting in the final footprint of 736 s.f, or 8.7% (two-stall garage 24* x 23') as opposed to the proposed 805 s.f. at 9.5%. Applicant should be asked to respond. Zoning File #1696 October 17, 1991 Page 4 B.The proposed 4* exterior access stairs results in 148 s.f. or 1,76% hardcover. To be consistent with other lakeshore lots with steep topography, very often these are excluded from hardcover calculations. The Planning Commission may wish to consider final hardcover facts excluding the 4' staircase. In fact, applicant should be encouraged to construct safe access stairs down to lakeshore yard. Staff cautions all members who proceed to trudge down the lakeshore yard as it is in a hazardous condition when wet with leaves on ground. C.Upper level deck along west side of house proposed at 24 s.f. (8' X 3') or .3% hardcover. Is this essential to structure? D.The area measuring 9' x 15’ on west side of garage resulting in 135 s.f, or 1.6% hardcover could be grassed rather than paved. Note the 10’ ~ 55’ yard in street yard is shown as paved to provide off-site parking for visitors. Applicant may be asked to trim back portions of this paved area. E.Trade-offs in the 0-75’ setback area. Members may take issue with the magnitude of the proposed structure. Staff would ask that you look at the structures on either side of Ward’s property. The one to the west is a multi-level A-frame structure and to the east a much larger multi-storied structure facing lakeside. The pattern for all of the houses along North Shore Drive West has been to make use of the County right-of-way to facilitate access to and from the site. The Planning Commiscior just reviewed a similar access use for the property to the immediate west. The key for this review is to determine if the 10% increase in hardcover can be reduced. Description of Bardship Once again staff would refer you to Exhibit 0. Applicant has listed a most complete list of hardships. It should also be noted that there is no impact on the lake views of the homes on the adjacent properties as both homes are located at or near the 75* setback line. Staff would ask that you review sheet 1 of Exhibit I. Note the location of the well to the structure and lot line. Now review Exhibit F that shows a 6 foo*. retaining wall to the immediate north. The State advises that a 3 foot setback has been maintained and that it is feasible to maintain or secure the well from the upper elevation. The State advised the City to ask a well contractor to provide written confirmation that the well can be serviced as shown on plans. This should be included as a condition of approval. fr Zoning File 11696 November 5, 1991 "*age 5 Additional Coanents and Planning Coanission Reccanendation The Planning Commission failed to effect a vote of recommendation to the Council resulting in a 3 to 3 split vote. The issue for all members was the increase in hardcover that produces a 10% hardcover variance at proposed 35%. All members concurred that an attached garage constructed at the street level was appropriate because of the limited street yard width at 33*. The three members who voted to deny the application as proposed recommended a footprint at 24' x 23' (two-stall garage). Members that chose to deny the application did not agree that an interior access to the residence was necessary The applicant was advised that the 1-1/2' deck shown in the street yard was considered an encroachment and could not be approved as it would bring the structure 8-1/2' from the street lot line. Members who voted to approve Mr. Ward's proposal felt that staff's suggestion to consider limiting total structure to merely a two-stall garage and the 6' access stair at 32' x 23* had a minimal effect on the overall hardcover (applicants footprint proposed at 23' x 35' or 805 s.f. and staff's suggestion with a footprint proposed at 23' X 32' or 736 s.f. resulted in a reduction of only 69 s.f. or 0.82%). Revieir of Total Bardcover Within the 75-250' Setback Area Allowed - 2,097.25 s.f. or 25% Applicants proposal (approved by 3 members of the Planning Commission) * 2,976.41 s.f. or 35% Hardcover per denial vote « 2,699.41 s.f. or 32.17% Council members are asked to review Page 3 and 4 where staff lists ex ting and proposed hardcover improvements relating to area ar' percentages of hardcover. Council members may wish to seek add.tional removals. The Planning Commission did not address staff's request for written confirmation from a well contractor that well can be serviced as shown on approved plan. The condition has been included in the enclosed approval resolution. All members concurred that tlie street setback required for this principal structure addition would be 35' rather than 10' for a garage addition. The street setback variance required is for 25' or 71.%. An approval resolution has been drafted with appropriate blank spaces. The resolution can be completed once Council has determined the allowed percentage for the hardcover variance within the 75-250' setback area. Isv r A RBSOLOTIOM GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) AND 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 PILE fl696 WHEREAS, Stephen and Joanle Ward (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 4695 North Shore Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "city") and legally described as Lot 2, Bloc)c 1, Tristana Cove, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for varlarrec to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (2) and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of a _ _ X addition to the street or north side of the existing rer.idence located 10' from the street lot line instead of the required 35' resulting in an excess of hardcover within the 75-230* setbac)c area at _ _ _ s.f. or _ _ _ % where only 2,097.25 s.f. or 25% is allowed. WOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1696. 2, The property is located in the LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 1 acre in area. The subject property consists of 11,230 s.f. or .26 acres. Existing hardcover within the 0-75' setback area » 149 s.f. or 5.24% Existing hardcover within the 75-250' setback area ■ 1,671.1 s.f. or 19.92% 3. Whereas the City Council reviewed this application on November 12, 1991, and recommended approval of the variances as amended based upon the following findings: A. The existing home sits on a steeply sloped lot and has been placed approximately 33' from the right- of-way line of County Road 19. There is limited area between the existing house and the street setback and requires the garage to be attached to the house and built over a steep slope. Page 1 of 6 6. C. D. E. Because of the steeply sloped lot and the need to have the garage floor elevation at tl.w same level of the adjacent County road, garage wall will be located above the roof eve of the existing house therefore requiring a substantially deep masonry foundation in order to avoid excessive ground pressure on the existing foundation wall. The excessive elevation difference between the existing house and the lakeshore requires a stair system to safely access the lake. The steeply sloped lot is a special condition that should be taken into account when considering hardcover. The vast majority of the existing and proposed hardcover lies 180-255* from the lake. There is no impact on the lakeviews of the homes on the adjacent properties as both homes are located at or near the 75* setback line. The proposed addition is located well behind the average lakeshore setback line. 4.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the 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 Ccxnprehensive Plan of the City. 5.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 6 1. 2. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) and 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of a x addition to the rear or north side of the existing residence located 10* from the street lot line requiring approval of a 25' or 71% variance and a liardcover variance within the 75-250* setback area at _ _ _ s.f. or %, subject to the following conditions: All hardcover scheduled for removal r.nd as shown on Page _ _ of this resolution shall be removed at the time of the footing inspection for the addition. Upon application for a building permit, applicant shall provide to the City staff written confirmation from a well contractor that the well can be serviced as shown on approved plan. 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 (November 12, 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 3. 4. 5. l- i. a? Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of November, 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 12th day of November 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson 6 Dorothy H. Hallln, 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 STATE OF MINKESOTA ) ) 88. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 bsforo me a Notary Public within and for said county* personally appeared _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ knoim to me to be the personCs) described in and who executed the foregoing instrumentf and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) Notary Public ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ day of_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _» 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument* and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 II;,'- *1:. 'em OF OROMO - VARIANCE APPLICATION ^ ^ Q ^ ^ "" ssf p& Pon^wa.X VclJri^ncc r tse Aw^vtv-wv'v j \aRenewsX V orioinal apolicatxon) i;£.V ]75.iW (no change from fee) r^cr)^ ji 175.00 _____________________________________ hMjo COOl property locatiom Sit. -......... 00^*} A?s:r i.“a required survey. ___________________________________________________ ———---------------------------------- Phone fhnrma) 612-^'^-15ij applicant Stephen 4 Joanie Wars_________________ Phone («=r)0_^:;-n-'3 723-------- Address - .n.tn Shnre_Drlv^__._ Ci^y: Mn„np (Orpn,^ = (i£ different than applicant) Phone (home) Name Sane As APo^_____________________ -------------------------- City:________________“P =---------------- Address: --------------------------------- Date Property Acquired September 197?--------- -------- (month/yea 1 ,atO (do not) also own the_adjacent^parcelsjf^la^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ iBBSENT OSS OF PROPBRTI )C_-|-/b Present Zoning District SaJS:—I--------------------------- , , ^ ., Residential Present Use of Property . _________Other (specify)---------------;______ -------------------------Estimated Construction Cost $ 50,000 ^ DESCRIPTION OF RBQOBST Describe request in detail: See seperjt? OUdrOfiO ---------------------------- _ m variances RBQ0IE)BD Lot Are. _____ Hardcover Rear) SetbaOc variances (_____ Ftont --------------------------------- Other .U3SHIPDescribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulaticns; coo DESCRIPTION OP ONUSnAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS -- - - - - Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning e Requirements; Oescrihed in acive ^artship Section T p 'O H o Q o RE^ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. €. 7. 8. ^ SUBMITTALS ----------------------- Completed Application Form 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 & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8%"xll"), As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not compl ete j f the above lo Tormm'tloa 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 not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses Incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of hia/her )cnowledge. Applicant's Signature ■Mct to the Date 00 jzr? I q / n—IIHJ SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Cotincil members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this irequest. C \A}^ olkih IOwner's 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 nriafW meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrang iits to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the L.aiding & Zoning Offic€ of this change prior to the meeting. mm MTE 09/ts/n MICH MS HiNNEPXN COUKTY raOP€RTY INFORHATION SYSTEN PROPERTY OmERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4SM01 PAGE S PROP ADOR OMCR NAME TiO(PAYCR NAHE/AfMNI M 07-1I7-E3 32 0003 0472S TONCAVIEN U EAT CHRISTIANSON EML A TERRY CHRISTIANSON 4441 TOMU VIEH LANE HOUND ttl 55344 30 07-117-23 32 0016 04731 NORTH SHORE OR DENNIS A NEVER 0ENT41S A MEYER 4680 NORTH SHORE OR MOUND m 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0017 04725 NORTH SHORE DR J P HENRY ETAL J P HENRY 4725 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND ^t4 55364 TAXPAYER NANE/AOM 38 07-117-23 32 0024 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED RICHARD A LAU6HLIN RICHARD LAUGHLIN 4435 TQWAVIEN RD ORCMO Itl 55344 38 07-117-23 32 0050 04680 NORTH SHORE OR 0E^t4IS A MEYER DErtllS A MEYER 4660 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND m 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0053 04675 NORTH SHORE OR T C CORBIN A J L HISfELDT TYLER C CORBIN 4665 NO SHORE OR HOUND MN 55364 i-.- H- PROP ADDR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 07-117-23 32 0054 01345 ^EST POINT LA S L HI. REN ETAL SAMUEL HXLLIREN 1345 R POINT LANE HOUND 51364 38 07-117-23 32 0056 04685 NORTH SHORE OR T C CORBIN A J L HISEELDT T C CORBIN A J L HISFELDT 4685 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0058 04705 NORTH SHORE OR R A CRANFORD A A C CRANFORD ROONEY A A ANN C CRANFORD 4705 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND rt4 55364 Aoon (MCR NttC TAXTAVEII NWC/AOOK Sa 07-117-23 32 0059 09«95 NOOTM SHORC OR STEPHEN C t JOAMC A NARO STEPHE)! : NARO AA95 NORTH SHORE OR NOUND Itl 553*4 TOTAL BATCH 002 00010 X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEMIEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF HY KNOMLEDGE AND BELIEF. N W'd ■itltv Oc «f - !•* V, • . A.WO fl^CLcND'S ‘C:s "'pp ,T I Qf 2 i>-;T .i’ ■; ^ 1 ( 10 / I 10) ii.. ^ it EM WXAVlP ^ Py ^ ^ /io ^ : i (J)* (j jL—ifus_j ■«•»•• It .7 ^**_ » 'CAi'^EfJ I T3) ^/ x> fl 1 ^5 HlOI JO)C6) ?It • >#fe f f P ( tt). ’ .J^ 15B) »1 s «k(/L t>*^ . ^et (28) t '■ CSC) • % (17) uTT At* / \ -• y\C8iM2) # •. lh;'' (ir /•try 0^ O^CNO D-i Variance Rsauest Aoplication Stephen A Joanie Ward • 46 ->S North Shore Drive 27Septemt>er 1991 Separate Pages (1 of 2) Description of Request Owner desires to build a Garage and additional needed living space attached to a small exlstir)g home on an existing steeply sloped lake lot The existing garage was torn down ten years ago at the informal request of both the City of Orono and Hennepin County Public Works because it enct<X3Ched on the Co. Rd. 19 right of way and because it's continued use posed a hazardous entrance on to Co. Rd. 19 The City of Ornno Zoning Administrator, the Hennepin County Entrance Permits Coordinator and the Property C wner met at the site prior to the garage removal and brainstormed ideas of how n useful garage could ue built in the futu> and eliminate hazardous conditions. The Garage Plans that accompany this Variance Application reflect many of the Ideas proposed dura \g that site meeting. Vnrinncf* R&auasi AuDlicattOD fitsohen A Joanie Ward - ^695 North Shore Cnvs 27 September /99/ Seporate Pages (2 of 2) b- nasr.rintiory of Hardships and Unusual Property Cprigitignj^ I Existing garage was removed in po. t due to the City s request and Owner has been without iSSSercoT" 9 S" rcf ToZZ condition only minimal area is available between the existing house and the roadside setback r^uiring the garage to be attached to the house and built over a steep slope. 3 Because of the excessive elevation difference between the proposed garage level and the House Entry, a series ot stairs is required in the past. without the shelter of an attached aaraae the stairs have been exposed rendering them hazardous during inclerr^nt weather. The proposed Garage Plan locates a set of stairs within the proposed building envelope m order to eliminate hazardous conditions for the Owner and the public during 4. ^B^a^ offhe desirability to have the above stairs enclosed and still have a functional doiJole garage, the stair enclosure adds to the footprint of the garage the therefore the 5. the steeply sloped lot. the limited amount of available roadside area, and the need to have the garage floor elevation nearly the same as Co. Garage floor e'evation is located above the roof eave of the existing house therefore requiring a substantially deep masonry foundation in order to avoid excessive ground pressure on the existing foundation wall. The above conditions requ/re the new ^undatlon to be built along side of the existing foundation and at the same depth below grade. The condition of joir^ing the two structures requires a unique structual. functional 6. Because of the excessive elevation uifference between the existing house and the lake shore a stair system is required to safely access the lake. This requirement would not exist on a ieveler lot and the stairs would not add to the hardcover calculation. The stBBpty slopsd lot is o spsciol condition the thot should be token info account whe< considBrlng the ’ ardcover. 7. The existing deck system which water freely passes through contributes to an exc )SSive amount of the calculated hardcover allowance of 25% m proportion to the house. Deck Area - 23.1 % of Allowable Hardcover House Area -36% of Allowable '.-'ardcover ^ ____ Note: Ground under existir)g decx system is highly permeable and should be discounted somewhat when calcuiotin.^ the true impermeable hardcover area , 8. The vast majority of existing and proposed hardover lies from 160' - 255 from the lake not In the 75 ‘‘ 150' area yet the same 25% allowance applies. HC 5339 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS_PefTrut No 320 Wash,ngion Avenue So#h^ Hoc?k:ns, Minnesota APPLICATION FOR DRIVEWAY OR STR4/r ENTW^CE PfeRA^IT ' (Read "General Requirements" reverse side! o , . Stephen 4 Joanie WaraName of applicant----- n-----------------------------------------------_ Phone 612-^72-1679 4695 North Shore Drive, Mou'^a (Crone), Minnesota 55364 Address --------------------------------------(cTryi i«Tjit*i (ro coc3«) N.H,.ofProoenvo«ner Stejhen i Joanie warj---------»ddr.» 1,695 Hor:n_Shore Drive ip6a , i-omn-f-r-'f------1—- upward Bovnci Design i Construction, ^nc.------- Phon. 6ii-.5Zi:3Z£^----- 2. Application is hereby made for permission to construct and thereafter maintain Driveway (si PMhtwxShteet « 3. Bui'C'i,3 to be constructed; M Yes C No Residence O Commercial (Specify Type) Garage 4, Driveway or street will be: a Temporary tX Pe manent Date proposed entrance will be needed: ^xi Inq----- 5. 1$ the property: JOrPlaned 'O Unplatted Number of present driveways or entrances to property; A. L)-----One. ft Building Permit acquired: ® Yes h No City —Qrona A>.plie(d for Permit No. 7, Typ0 of proposed entrance surface. ^ Bituminous -- Concrete C Rock ^ Other ------ « . _ 4695 North Shore Drive, Co. Rd. 19, Oroho, Minnesotao. Location-------------------------------------------------------------—------------------------------------- ■ 9. Location, if rural (Address) ON (Co. Ro«d)(Citvl Miles IN., S.. 6.. O' W.l 25 September 1991 Applicant's Signature County Road 19 < Roed O' Si'eef ) To help the inspector, place a stake vwth a doth attacned m the center of the proposed entrance, higher than any surrounding vegttation. NOTE: Owner met with Dave Zetterstrom at site to discuss proposed garage placement APPLICANT'S DIAGRAM • (If plot or construaion plan is not submutedi aCCeSS tO County Road 19. (CompMa thU form »nd v.nd sDcopiMto: Hannepin C.'ounty Highway Division. Treftic Office. 320 Wellin gton Awwme South. Mophins. Minnesota 65343. Phono; 93b*3381. After epproval. on# copy will be relumed to applicant.) - .46^5^ M:>i^ HARDccvE?. c,;l::lat :c!i wc?,:<shii: /!■ s£T3Ac:< zc.NS: (::?.:.£ -;;£' (p-~^ E,'<isTir:G Harzc :ve.~ ::; U- t A. ■ House L=:iGTH 3. GaRAGc c. Driveway D. Sidewalk _ • ••••E^,PaII5/ CTiJcCX3 /*<•>• (tTT F. Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY . . PLASTIC SHEETING SAe^- •• . Other ^.4- X X X X X X • / A X X X X X X X n i ^ < ii Total Hardcover in Zone Total PROPERrf A rea in Zone W • . • L ♦ "* » s. = . s..-. s. = . s. -. S.F. s..= . <• r O « < • S..= . • S.r S • r 1 S.F. /2.Z ------s,F. - S.F. ri /2/B t X 100'2 ^ .% r t'2-1/ p/ytg - f 1’A""^'^‘I f* •■^’— I *4"'. * W L W * —. * ^4 . W - - — • * ‘ .•r^ r.“-. I «. y £ 2 E'Csting Ha.-.:::v*.- ::i »:::s S£T3AC:< ICNc: (cir.CLH :■■■-'' '- ' - V . -» — - / t* ^ ^ ^ , •■lOUSH X /A^ti ^fcr LENGTH X ?J. 2 W! Z TH / .’ s. X e r « i • « • • • •• AREAS UNDERLAIN 3Y , . PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other •X #• ^ w • X [Rarag^:< A \ % »rio f VPWAY :<W • * i ^C>CK ff/ti/C /Am j M 3a ma ^ / r* ^X mmm • P/o » ^ Ci/cftzc. Sidewalk X ■/7:>-i • r « u/ffai? cu/i 77. ?X ?/7 J i I r » :< •A . r . ^ATIO//(y. s g — ^ y /O. f - /'I • Jec :< ^ /t V X ■4 . S r <t *?. ? j<x. ? - /7 r. (T s s. .=. • .L andscape 9 .17. / ■ « — y _ X . ^.4 -- /<7 ^ s • .S..“. X S.r. S • t* • S.r. Total fUaccoveR in Zone Total PaopsRrf Area in Zone X 100 / 7 /• / Sir. A g'Sf’) t s.f. n /r7/. / 4 B ■' /9. ?^ % s-<k.^r.- SZ ^ ^ HARDCJVE?. c.;lcjU tio :i wcr;<:hez : ^6>es tior^rh Sh-^- zone : (c:=ci^ :m=) Q-7:- 75-:5C' :5:-5:C' _ 0'^ •tepPSEQ-s Hah 2cqv £h ::i Z:-;i h r\ •Hcusc 22..is. -3 = ~7S5-6 LENGTH “ 4 1 • » X keW ^3 ;<3.5 B. Garage c. D riveway .1 D /5 N a /ooO 0. SlOEVfALX S' / 4- X___^ URtyirytT fe X___^ teAmmt WALC F.Landscape ___ AREAS UNDERLAIN BY PLAS1IC SHEETING ■ G. Other Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone Ad S'SO as so c r w • • • ^ • I** W » “ • S . r » S'b “ i_________ S.r. S • F t i > r • S.F. S.P. S,P. 2^?^.4/ s.f. 5 SIO.SC S3>2,^.d\... [I ;^Z47t..4l -[[] ^38e» X 100 - 35: % To: <^c- Proa: Dates Subject s Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Adminy^^iratr^p November 6, 1991 .. % #701/726 Dragonfly Hill Plat - Subdivision^fecation Application Approved in 1983 - Request of City to Fulfill Condition of Approval List of Exhibits - A - Written Request/Representative of Edward Hamm B Resolution #1462 C - Plat of Dragonfly Hill D - Survey - Lot 1, Block 2 Background on Applicaton #701/726 In 1983 the City reviewed a proposed lot line rearrangement between the David Duff and william Gregory properties. During that review certain title and confusions in actual ownership resulted in Edward Hamm joining in the preliminary subdivision application. During that review the applicants, specifically the Gregorys, sought the vacation of a section of an unimproved dedicated right-of-way known as Brackett Avenue (Molly's Corner) used as an informal parking area serving fisherman and local peddlers. As was expected, there was a public uproar and it became apparent to the City that if Molly's Corner parking area was to be vacated (remember this was the era of the 80's when the DNR was attempting to increase public access to all lakes) that the public needs could be addressed by providing direct public access to lake and parallel parking along County road adjacent to Brown's Bay. The City conditioned approval of the vacation upon the applicants deeding the lakeshore outlets A and B to the City of Orono. Refer to Page 16 - Condition 3 of Resolution #1482. Condition 3 (B) obligates the City to construct a fence between Brown's Bay shoreline outlot and the Hamm property intended to discourage trespassing. Mr. Miller's letter suggests a privacy fence in dealing with trespass problems. The City has found that a 3-1/2* high fence is suitable. A privacy fence also suggests 100% opaqueness. The privacy fence can be of a cyclone- type fencing providing zero opaqueness. In reviewing the City Clerk's official files. Resolution #1482 was never fully executed by all three property owners. The City has accepted deeds for the out lots and continues to maintain the access for the public use. As for the issue of trespassing, staff can confirm for other property owners who own property adjacent to the Hamm property that trespassing is an issue for all landowners within this area along Brown's Bay. Council may wish to have the City Attorney comment as to the validity of the r olution that was not fully executed by all parties. Has the City obligated itself in the accepting of deeds to the lakeshore outlots? i. •. -* • ^ *-■ :**'|J**^ ‘•^f‘> ; - 4^ . • . • . •*.' • * • * *’ ;• * •% .#> ^ . .*'» • >-•«*,'. ••• • •• .' f j 0'*x.f'.5: - ’^ . T 9:'v ♦ -1*•. f;-..v l> <li- 'V/?-r r. •• > ■ . ‘ • ' L V ; v*‘«^ * *'; '■'*-\. i’:-: ;V.r- • . vr ‘-r?.- ' ' ■ "■ #1!: -m^ .t ^ . ‘ • » • k.'! .. -V [5;. .*' • , >-’'i ... .»wi • • • Zoning File #701/726 November 6« 1991 Page 2 If fencing is to be installed for trespass purposes, the fencing shall be a cyclone-type fence and limited to 3-1/2' in height. Per the resolution it shall be Installed along the shared lot line of Lot 1, Block 2 and Outlot A (approximately 31 lineal feet). If additional fencing is desired by Mr. Hamm, it must be approved b> he Council, installed at Mr. Hamm's expense and preferably the . le type instal led by the City. The City may consider appropriate signage advising of the private property and that there should be no trespassing upon that property. Isv - •^ ■* . i-t*’- -j* v^: • - v; 4 •. '.«< •** -V •• * * *. ^ , W. * • 0<% .0k. ‘ :■ • ' Z*.{‘ ■'•‘■.'I'./'’-' r r- V’’ r;r aaaa v'.‘'■•-'• ; > ^ -SI < .' V, ' A k V* •#!». • ..*^4 > ' "%•’ *41- : <vf . V- ^ - • • V i -■ '-.Vi-K j4- • •*, V- r!^;>>- *:>*:•- -V,,.. .'. •'4. *, ■■•.*: *:1 .-y-j , ■-■ •. ^v ' .t i EMi Pr UNITED PROPERTIES BrcKerage a Management Comoan’^ err/'S C«CNO '!f?r October 7, 1991 ^j] 9 1991 Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Public use of Brown’s Bay shoreline; privacy fence on Hamm property. Lot 1. Block 2. Dragonfly Hill Dear Ms. Mabusth; As we have discussed, this letter is to request that the matter of the construction of a fence by the City, as referenced on page 16 of City of Orono resolution #1482. be brought before the City Council for review. Ongoing public use of the Brown’s Bay shoreline of Lake Minnetonka has continued to result in trespassing and littering of Mr. Hamm’s property. It appears that the City originally intended ti r-onstruct a fence betweeiJ the Brown’s Bay shoreline outlet and the Hamm proper-y to discourage trespassing. We are requesting that this fence be installed. Please advise me of any additional requirements to have this request considered Sincerely. Clinton A. Miller Executive Vice President CAM/cjt tuAStt^ Iflfij ^ 3500\'\A?s!e0th Stfoel SmlG 1 10 WnrvMtyMis ^.lrl 55J.3 ’ (612) 831-1000 J I t^,> ■■■ fr Sv *.*'••'■ ^0Kt -r* •' •• _ -1t ^ ' •• *-.#• s mm r4 r F-.-va- »*• v-m: \‘ r ( >1 i 1^. c -..»• r*.',«. '•■ ■ I I;., ClI.Y^iirr City of OROrVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MO. ^1482 ORONCfc REAFFIRMING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND AGREEING TO VACATE BRACKETT AVENUE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS STATED HEREIN > APPLICATIONS 1701 AND 1726 > WHEREAS, the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Orono has adopted a comprehensive Community Management Plan, planning, zoning and subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered land use applications made by William D. Gregory II, David J. Duff and Edward H. Hamm (hereinafter "the applicants"), to wit: #677 Made 3-1-82 by Gregory and Duff for a 4-lot residential subdivision; withdrawn after 7-26-92. #701 Made 8-28-8 2 by Gr egory and Duf f for a 2-lot residential lot line rearrangement subdivision, later amended to include Hamm. #*»2 ade 1-21-83 by r ••y requesting vacation of Brackett Avenue and determli. .vn of right-of-vay width for County Road 15 abutting the ^regory. Duff and Hamm properties, all to facilitate completion of the #701 subdivision plat. NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota: FINDINGS OF PACT 1. Land Involved in applications #701 and #726 is owned and recorded as follows: Gregory: Tax parcels PID 82-117-23 33 3007 (Exhibit A-1 attached) PIO 02-117-23 33 0008 (Exhibit A-2 attached) PID 11-11*7-23 22 0001 (Exhibit A-3 attached) parcels A-l & A-2 first acquired by deeds from the P. D. McMillan estate in November, 1961; parcel A-3 first acquired by deed from Sally Kallestad in October 1976; the attached legal descriptions being as recorded in said deeds. '4 i. Of 20 .A wtr iIrnmf^h %*aJS»«-^^...;.tr ■■• ■:.»■. • |i.'v-'-‘ }ri: (ft,.; ■> '»« : r i'KPrM w&fSr-?M ( 'ci ‘V? m.#St^ fe;>‘! i:k-‘ ** ( ’ • *■ •mm: i •;,,^/m/ m St. r>v I. '• ‘MVI . ■ oho NO' City o^ OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 11482 2. li^ittiiiiiii^liiy^^^ Duff: Tax parcel rtD J.1-117-2.1 22 (\HI02, first ac der from Maslon in July 1972; according to tr description on Exhibit B attached. / il Hamm: Tax parcel PID 02-117-23 33 000^, first acquired by deed from Chapman in June 1945/ according to the legal description on Exhibit C attached. Burlington Northern Inc. has a 100 foot wide railroad right- of-way (formerly Great Northern Railway) abutting the northwesterly boundary of the Gregory property^ as shown on the Hennepin County platting mapS/ which railroad was in existence prior to the 13B7 p):*"’.ing of the Town of Orono. Hennepin County has highway r ight-of-way interest in County Road No. IS as travelled and as originally platted as Brackett Rvenue in the plat of Orono# which interest was recorded 2-17-82 as a highway plat of County Road No. 15# document #47^1343. 7he City of Orono has interest in that part of platted Brackett Avenue which is now known as Orono Orchard Road# that part of Brackett Avenue which is not part of th' currently travelled right-of-way of County Road No. IS# a' c subordinate interest in the remainder of the travellwJ County road right-of-way. The City of Orono has reviewed applications 4701 and 4725 at the following public meetings# the minutes of which are hereby incorporated in this resolution by reference: 9.20-82: 1701 Planr.irg Commission public hearing and recommendation for preliminary plat approval. 10-13-82: 4701 City Council preliminary plat approval# subject to further review of right-of-way questions. 1-10-83: 1701 City Council review of additional information and request for vacation application. d) a) f) 2-7-83: #726 Planning Commission public :iearing. 2-14-81: 1726 City Council status discussion. 2-28-83: #726 City Council status discussion. 2 of 20 I f-mmm5,"I ' Sk? • 'J»:* ;• • *'• k, T* *r > . •■ %0 '*’• ' ^*v- ■'j; -iT •:• r,^v % * -.‘: V*'^l i'i‘'■_ ■ r ► 4». f •', '-• • c ^ V "k-;v*.'r ■ r' .Wm,- City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. #1482 3. 4. S. 4. 7. t 3-21-83: 4*^26 Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation for partial vacation, with City to assume public rights to shoreline areas. 4-11-83: #726 City Council review of Planning Commission recommendation, with conceptual direction to City staff. 4-25-93: #791 & #726 City Council conceptual approval reaffirming preliminary plat approval and agreeing to vacation of Brackett Avenue subject to certain conditions. 5-9-93: I7B1 & #726 City Council consider this resolution. The town of "Orono” was platted and recorded in Hennepin County on 8-18-198‘». The plat included all of the applicant's land located in Section 2, Township 117, Range 23, excepting out the railroad right-of-way. The land owners dedicated "to the public and for the public use forever, all the streets, avenues, and alleys as herein indicated", which included a 66 foot wide "Brackett Avenue". The applicant's land located in Section 11, Township 117, Range 23 has never before been platted. An 1892 nap of Lake Minnetonka in the City records shows "Orono" and a publ Ic roadway located therein along the course of Brackett Avenue, along the current County Road 15 route south of "Orono", and along the current Orono Orchard Road and Orono Lane routes north of "Orono", but not along the current County Road 15 route north of "Orono". Portions of the plat of Orono were vacated by District Court Order dated 4-18-1899, including vacation of certain lots and blocks and certain named streets and alleys "except Brackett Avenue", with title to the vacated lands going to the abutting owners "subject only to the public right-of-way over said streets and alleys and such right as the public may have in said Public Reserve, so called". The plat of the Town of Orono was again vacated by District Court Order dated ll-6.-t9l4, including vacation of many lots, blocks and streets not vacated in 1899. The Order reads in part: "all of said streets, alleys, avenues and the public reserve embraced within the said plat be and the same hereby are vacated, save and except Brackett Avenue as the same is a County road e e e e • 3 Of 20 ‘v- ■ • '♦p '■ |.:. .- ^■;'' m'' jlv ■ ‘4* ■’ > a It ^ ^ f-"I r v<y» »a^t "Z,'TTJp:\ 1 r*:a TTi '‘>^ . '•<- X.'X'i • •%•' .■?■ N- ■%■ *’*•-' V 'r .i a-’. ♦4.-A* U* . f #- ■c --Jf'*• ‘Ti c r'. •i-r^•/4* T^M:f 'Ti ';y--r \ 'V-•is ' M - * ■■■i r ' ’ --.-V ■■ -*1 4:' i ^1 j*. - f i s -i .i'/i-.; ‘'/■ r ,r>:- ■•s >i9s a'‘c V.;’ •?,;*-■■ ■: 4 ■ 4 :'W' iHi' t‘^‘1- City of OR.ONO vv>">.;r : I i ‘ Cl LY' (TJ ■ ORUNQ 8. 9. 10. 11. ♦ ^ 1^ 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ _ _ _ _ Somatim* between 1919 and 194(1 the County road was rebuilt and relocated through the narsh north and east of "Orono* abandoning through use of %rhat is now Orono Lane, changing from the sharp corner of "Brackett Avenue" to the sweeping curve now located through the area, and moving the roadway east of the original Brackett Avenue alignment into areas originally platted as public reserve and lakebed. A 1940 County highway map in the City record shows this current alignment. The exact date of change Is not known but it is known that the lake level was extremely low In the early 1930’s which would have facilitated the shoreline adjustments. Realignment of the County road resulted in the travelled road surface, shoulders, ditches and maintenance area existing in part within Brackett Avenue as platted in 1387, in part over what was the bed of Lake Minnetonka at the time of the 1887 plat of Orono, and in part over areas platted as private land in the original plat of Orono, including: Over parts of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 17, Orono. (Hamm) Over part of the "Public Reserve", Orono. (Gregory) Over part of Block 18, Orono. (Gregory) Realignment of the County road resulted In portions of the originally platted Bracketts Avenue no longer being in active use for the travelled road surface, shoulders, ditches and maintenance area. Including: A triangular area of platted Brackett Avenue north of Lot 1, Block 17, Orono. b) A triangular area of platted Brackett Avenue between the travelled read, the railroad right-of-way and Blocks 1^ and 18, Orono, known as the Molly's Corner parking ares. A triangular or dogleg area of platted Brackett Avenue adjacent to Lots 4 thru 10, Block 19, Orono, where the travelled roadway was relocated eastward over the original bed of Lake Minnetonka. Minnesota Statutes Section 180.05 provides for the statutory dedication of public roads two rods (33 feet) each side of center line when ever such road or a portion thereof has been used and 4 of 20 y ■r> m itM rr---------:i-. ,'v ■' • r% U^‘ h r-r ■■ >^. •,• ' >jl: ' •--^ri- *. • .*^ .*_» »A A •« *U%t^;*.AV-v ! ‘ci fc-TsvI.. K •- M"‘ ■'• Syk'-*- - K''-' • -« Ntf ■ / I JU mV**- • iiM ■■. « i r.City of OROrVO ( c -r^-. i’^^>- V .UTVU.V ORONO 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. *• -tN T RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. #1482_ _ _ _ _ kept in repair and worked for at least six years continuously. This statute has been interpreted by the Courts to provide for the full 66 foot dedication only where it can be shown that this full width has been used and is necessary for these public purposes. Minnesota Statutes Section 160.14 provides for the marking and platting of public roads as done by Hennepin County in their 1982 highway plat for County Road 1S» and further provides for filing of objections thereto by abutting property owners. When such an objection is filed the statute provides for judicial determination of the correct right-of-way or for negotiated agreement between the road authority and the objecting owner. Minnesota Statutes Section 163.11 provides for the establishmentf alteration^ vacation or revocation of County highways by order of the County Board# and further provides that any such vacation or revocation by the County Board results in reversion to the City as a City street. There is nothing in the record of the City which indicates any prior action by the Hennepin County Board regarding the relocation of County Road Mo. IS nor action regarding vacation or reversion of the unused portions of Brackett Avenue to the City. Applicants Gregory# Duff and Hamm each claim interest in those portions of originally platted Brackett Avenue which abut their property and which thoy claim are no longet in active use for the roadway purpose laid-out and originally dedicated. Applicant Gregory has filed a formal objection to the County highway plat with Hennepin County. Applicants Duff and Hamm are to the City's knowledge considering filing such objections. A major purpose of subject vacation application #726 is to facilitate City review of the private ownership claims pursuant to City interests and to Minnesota Statutes sections 160.14 and 163.11# and to facilitate settlement of the issues so as to permit completion and recording of subdivision application 1701. Public use and interest in the County Road is evidenced as follows: Approximately 13#100 vehicles travel this stretch of County Road Mo. 15 every 24 hours. 5 of 20 ■5 *1 * rr** K. ;<: c*:* S ^ * r • ^ .. ,*4.-^l .•t*IP « |43 r ( 't V-1 4 *H, -S;- ( m<--i .f SM «^4. ■■«. ^ •»*. •• -••••- “** * • • ^ ‘ I J -#.».* .■:?r ';'.v‘^v&--- ^ Vv - • '. *.i^ <:n Y . OHUNO I’^Ytfiir- City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL#1482NO, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hennepin County platting maps Indicate a foot wide rlght- of.way throughout the area, but do not Include portions of Brackett Avenue more than 33 feet from the travelled centerline. The Hennepin County highway plat recorded as document 14701348 on 2-17-82 indicates a basic 66 foot wide r ight-of- ^ay and also Includes those portions of platted Brackett Avenue on the west side of the road. This plat does not include those portions of platted Brackett Avenue more than 33 feet from the travelled centerline on the east side. A review letter for subdivision application #6’’7 from Hennepin County DOT to the City dated 3-19-82 states that the platted - dedicated right-of-way must match the recorded highway plat. (Note that Gregory’s formal objection thereto was filed 8 days later on 3-27-82). A review letter for subdivision application #701 from Hennepin County DOT to the City dated 11-12-82 states only that the platted dedicated right-of-way must be 65 feet wide. Areas of platted Brackett Avenue lying west of 33 feet from centerline would not be included in the 66 feet right-of-way. • Approximately 7gn feet of the shoreline side of County Road No. 15 wae obviously created when the road was straightened, moved eastward toward the lake and rebuilt prior to 1940. This area consists of large boulders, rip rap, subroadbed materials and shoulder gravel. This area has been maintained by Hennepin County DOT for drainage, roadway support and snow removal from the travelled road to the water line. .Approximately IBfl feet of the shoreline side of County Road No. 15 including part of the area originally platted as •public reserve* now privately owned by Gregory has also been maintained by Hennepin County with shoulder gravel and rip ' p but is not actively used or necessarily required for roac ^y support, maintenance or snow removal because It is farther from the travelled surface. North of the lakeshore on the east side of the road as it curves along the Hamm property Hennepin County DOT maintains a wide paved shoulder and a narrow gravelled varying from 28 feet to 38 feet from the travelled centerline. 6 of 20 i I ./I T,'-i i'\»^*-**-4 -. . I ». . ■ •. «S. !. . i r « -4-[ *• •- V'- <• - ■ > *' • mmi• u>, •r**'^‘***‘^.* r «\ *• • .•.. . •it ‘ ro---?.v—-1 r * •*»' **^ 5‘itV , V 'V- yWlkV'. •*% * ‘ • ♦ - »'r. % ^ r*»«- *i :: r-*' . ^ •J****** ^ * * -• * .* ^^/** :J . •• ♦ AT*,\. 5' .V;-^.'> •*yn r ( «...:l"-r> » li'*' . v.J f ^ • - ail f[^y .’it: C K-,: ■:V - '.V=*^'- ;•( I V CiHOINO i* m t I ^ } City of OROrVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. *1482_ _ _ _ Hennepin County DOT has installed and maintains a 200 foot lon^ l~c^^le on the west side of the curve separating the travelled road from the Molly's Corner parking area. Gregory has installed a wire fence along his property on the west side of the road approximately 30 to 33 feet from the travelled centerline, including through the areas platted as Brackett Avenue. Hennepin County DOT maintains the road shoulder and grassed ditches between the travelled road and this fence line. South of the driveway into the Gregory prc perty on the west side of the road the topography becomes steeper and ditches are narrower and are eliminated entirely along the steep hillside along the Duff property. Hennepin County DOT maintains this area to approximately 27.S feet from the travelled centerline. 19. Public use of the subject Browns Bay shoreline on Like Minnetonka for other than roadway purposes has been evidenced as follows: a) The subject shoreline is about 950 feet in length divided as follows: 1) About 50 feet (6l) within the owned by Gregory. reserve” lot privately 2) About 550 feet (55%) in unplatted Section 11 along the Gregory and Duff properties, all of which is within 33 feet of the travelled centerline of County Road 15, and all of which has been maintained by Hennepin County DOT as noted above. 3) About 250 feet (29%) between the above areas in Section 2, all of which was created from the bed of Lake Minnetonka when the roadway was relocated prior to 1940 and all of which has been maintained by Hennepin County DOT. But this area is more than 33 feet from the travelled centerline and it is not included within the right'-of<-wa^ of the recorded highway plat nor is it within the originally platted "reserve* lot. Ownership of this acretion area is legally disputable. The entire 850 feet of shoreline has been used by members of the public for fishing access for as long as anyone has been 7 of 20 ■i i- ' <• I g 11 ■ Ailiihii.ir dAAi .JBU.M t; ^ * A • «I rnmmrnm'i:0' i-‘ i-“ •y *.■?■ r 1^5 ^ ' . I >; I.V-' I ••lr4 rV-^ V,*v«T^ l!3•s':- •i ^.'»tr-vMr'-^r §-• m • • -vVv /V '- ■ t' ■-' ‘'.'•»- V 4. 155^ M't * t c i ■ ■-> [ivV-r '•,. r V .; • '1-- i: r’>^V:.X/ 4 (.1 r y City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. *1482 _________ (’MONO 20. ‘i able to remember. This use has never been officially sanctionned nor has it ever been subject to public or private limits or controls. Approximately 350 feet of roadway shoulder has been posted to allow parking with space for approximately 20 cars. This parking occurs within the roadway right-of-way as defined by the County highway plat and also on the adjacent lands described as the "reserve* lot and the acretion area as noted in subsections (a-1) and (a-3) above. Public use of the Molly's Corner parking area has been evidenced as follows: This area is west of the curve in County Road No. 15 and Includes the following: 1) Block 10, Orono, now vacated and privately owned by Gregory. 2) Portions of platted Brackett Avenue. 3) Approximately 20-25 feet of land within the Burlington Northern railroad right-of-way. The total parking area has been gravelled in years past and has been marginally maintained by Hennepin County. The total parking area has accomodated between 25 and 30 cars in peak use. Gregory has never authorized use of his Block 18 by the public, but he has never attempted to limit, control or close its use. The railroad has never authorized use of its right-of-way by the public, but it has never attempted to limit, control or close its use. The railroad has entered into a lease with Gregory for that portion of its right-of-way now used for parking, which lease «:ould allow Gregory to close the area to parking and to thereafter landscape the area. Neither Hennepin County nor the City has ever sanctioned, controlled or attempted to limit public use of Brackett Avenue for parking or any other purposes. 8 of 20 PS ■) ■3, -1 --■A... ♦ • 1 .'j y4( ' -' ' < . .«! ,1 5'^' ^ V *!..-• i..r e^.’K •1 ^ > ••Jl m i" - . ' (I :<?*>/; ^V>)v T 16^^- ?:45a > -I -A ' ^ . c &;■ ■ ^.} City of OROIVO p5:'i>.;'f 3h I ■ ■ rjTY-;V I • OF' —^'j ^RONC^ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. *1482 _________ 22. • ■ V- ,A^ i;-® :-,■!yi- Molly's Corner parking area has been used in the past as a construction storage or staging area for vehicles and materials engaged in maintenance of County Road No. IS and in construction of public projects such as the Areola and Tnnager Lake bridges and the Metropolitan Waste Control interceptor sewer. If public use of Molly's Corner were limited just to the areas platted as Brackett Avenue and eliminated from the privately owned railroad right-of-way and Block 18: 1) Maximum parking capacity would be reduced from 30 cars to S or 8. 2) A new entry would have to be created since the existing access passes over both railroad and private land. 21. Public utilities are located within the subject areas as follows: Northern States Power electric transmission lines and poles along the west shoulder of the County Road Ideated approximately 30-33 feet from the travelled cente Ine, and also used by Northwestern Bell Telephone. Minnegasco gas main in the west fi'h/^ulder or ditch line of County Road No. 1S» exact location unknown. Metropolitan Waste Control Commission force-main interceptor sewer located generally along the centerline of the travelled road except for a short section on the east shoulder across from Duff's driveway, and along the entire distance along the Hamm property where the interceptor is located 2< to 28 feet east of the travelled centerline. Public use of the other areas originally platted as Brackett Avenue has been non-existant since the roadway was relocated and rebuilt prior to 1940; and these areas are useless for the public purpose for which they were laid-out and dedicated, these areas being defined in Finding 10a and 10c above. 23. Private use of the disputed areas has been evidenced as follows: Duff and Gregory maintain rural delivery mail boxes on the east shoulder of the road across from their respective driveways, but no other private docks or other improvements on this east side. 9 of 20 ■ ■i*' i \ --------Svv:;Ir-^‘ te. •.t*-'y P-’' ,v ••!.:•»•» V..:; -• •*-« ?• *^ * •* ^ L\v>*r5 T-'i* MM mfi.te5‘^S'Sv <; • . - ’*>;- . ^i'*- nj'*j'v'i ^ ♦* : .‘i'- ;-;. rv-.-1 ■*, : y ( J.^ I ' ■•»'. ■* ^~,?,''i City of OROIVO r.n Y OMaiNa^ 24. 25. 26. 27. ’J RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. *1482_ _ _ _ _ Hamm maintains the triangular portion of Brackett Avenue defined in Finding 10a as part of his property r and this area is included in the County platting map drawing of his property. Gregory maintains as part of his private property all land west of the fence line installed along the west side of County Road 15» including that part of platted Brackett Avenue defined in Finding 10c above. The County platting maps include all land west of 33 feet from the travelled centerline as part of Gregory's tax parcel including all of the Molly's Corner parking lot and other portions of platted Brackett Avenue. •) Tlie County platting maps identify the "reserve* lot as a private tax parcel belonging to Gregory# including part of the acretion area defined in Finding 19a(3). Duff maintains as his private property all land west of the travelled County road including the hillside located beyond 27.5 feet from the travelled centerline. Gregory and Duff both claim private ownership rights in the total Brown's Bay shoreline abutting their properties for purposes of land area credits in current or future subdivisions. Both Gregory and Duff propertiesdirectly abut Lake Minnetonka on Tanager Lake independent of any claims to the Browns Bay shoreline. A practical difficulty in exercising riparian rights only on Tanager lake is that the channel bridge height eliminates passage of all sailboats or any other boat larger than a small runabout. The public hearing record contains much evidence concerning adverse effects of past useage and/or continuing usage by the public of the Nolly's Corner parking lot: Most persons parking in this area trespass on railroad right*of*way to walk down and fish from the railroad trestle over Long Lake Creek# and do not cross the highway to fish on Browns Bay. b) Trespassing is dangerous# illegal# and is difficult to control. 10 of 20 ■1; •’I ■ ■J A— ' TJ "^,7, ;■:A*» * .»lw %• • • # **• 4 «• f 1 r . r^ • • • r •. * »• • f *■*••{" • jj* 5T^ ■ 'VU/'.IS *• «% S«'-'iSSTJ'i 4 •^7 7-4 • fe:;ik;:- ii~«'.» fS p.- % >••.* ' - i • \*f^* *. vr* j-’CtS kV 2>>., -ft /.. City of ORONO 1 I .. n .. ♦ I • .s •*»* c I. .v>‘.: -- - ■•f' '•* 1 - ‘i r*< t» CM V 3HQNO . resolution of the city council NO. JillZ______ Trespassers ^‘*“1 Y^oti'tVt'ransom* have threatened SiSn^Se-rhal^ sVt ares and have done obscene acts. toud music and racln, car "»'«*«=“'* ^*'* **dlsturblnp the uhole nelqhborhood. :)ra*n,:Ji“\"o’c.Vl'oVCKh*Vo*or*s'f^%‘drs9U': a ‘nd tUWsiH «S2SU9« d,„,erous vehicle movements. useepe o( the coSmey Road 15 at thisrequires pedesiriencros 9 «_b ^y expensive 3:«:nnra ‘crrs*s-au' slqnal system. leqel responsibility *"'*'‘“JJjh^eveV party* mljht overtly Inlrease end “ ,“Ve Jhr«er^^^ "esp'eclally sUce Its use tor such would require «lth«c:B 1 b(l* h 0 1, Crosslnq the hlqhway to use the Brown's Bay shoreline, or 2) Trespasslnq on railroad property to teach Tanaqer UKe 28 e rtJertro‘t* ;2er9:Vn ‘d7or“cVnVln*:.^VuVe th« 8ro%m** Bay ahorallne: use o£ thB d*angVroir£2r on ‘?h*e ‘c‘ouS?r4'3d“*bec*a"2s.*‘oVthe Amlted land area availabl*e parklnq on the wide V»*thVV»v^^^ rrrvlS'eS JHe* ^*ru'nq*‘is*‘4r*aUel tS the drlvlnq lane, not parpandlcular to It- titter has been a ** ** *'“’railroad track to Tanagar Lakte public behavior has “JlrhlJ^TTttr'alonq 't*h:Ta«d\Va"ci;.‘5^ba\^^^^ vlslbl* to tha passing publice II of 20 • .«r .f i I i ;; MViato ^■>..-i.^.umd.. " ''’s’vll •. * >'. h— -•» i-X * •* \ f, ,. :* !V',<. %•■ !/■* '■ I ft-' ► Vi •. ;5^ir,- tl^ K;' ■.r --t ■ r • T"‘v ? City of ORONO i* ■. 1 • i L y. ■ <‘ .- -.. ^ -.;v * , *% t ' Cl F Y* )M0NG 29. 30. resolution of the city council wo- #1481 «) ^ U.« K—n some trespassing on the Hamm property for «:SInS bo * « of . t.o.nt vine.,.. “l»i «d y.nd.ll.« bad o«utt.d In the past.rir«9 Oliva -- - - - - - - Th.»,.t vocal public ”"Pl«‘S'*ri«nehin“ ^“p'’«*5Xr of . public ' *l‘"?„^'Vttract ,««« iS?rroSrnon."1a^‘.?“««.odat.d In a seal! area. 2;;i^c^1.r^.'’ukr‘^fn u£rja .«p.ce.d^« svb^^^ U'Jd^\U.‘Vh,°*^cu"y“ C«tn.r a'r.a by r.comm.ndln, two It.... S.cutln, of th. public-, ability to pack In th. at.., and b) Con.ttuctlon of a fl.hln, pl.t to allow u..t. to stand farther from the busy roadway.Kattnwt. —-- - -a 2?:^i^.'’Vff«^^v"^.’“??ty•rtl:uJV^ Including the following: h.bl,oltl.. in th. original platting and .ubs.qu.nt vacations of the Town of Orono.ss;. s»rs;-W.'.: to acquire additional rights of way. sVrVace va^l\Vco^il‘deraVlVfri«^^^^ JhJ^plitted* and recorded highway right-of-way.the piatteo ana --t-. There has been no judicial determination of the validity of the objection(s) to the recorded highway pla . ) ,o,y-. •lock 1» fj* “Ui,‘town-.bay.hot.lln..eegoty*. Block 18 within ^jp^-’isay .hotilln. •xSt Vi2rd::i: noV;Vv7\oir.r.';*..“';o.....i’'on nght.. 12 of 20 ■■ -V,' . / mmmM..... .• • . *’ * ^ »« if .«»■•*•»•A •-i y.;v ^s'fe::it'-*:'e.,; > \ ^ ' %>' •■' .r.« t;.r Ni t.'mi'j'*' *.* *,-,.r,.r..w S‘V>..f'. ?<»■■ V«*‘ '.i u •' "1.> * i,.. • r»-_i V.’ lIS;? fi' '- C.) w*% V4' %\4 i' ■ if V •'••>* . -' - - - .■ t. I * • T.‘»^ ► ■«♦ ■ ^ ■ ’* i ' 11. .V*V* Si'^S , •*> '^. I'--^"; ♦ it 4 C ‘f ... ■ c -^t ■*>: " if ,' '-'>t |44)!Mj| V-r' .', .City of OROIVO h I ' y i ff^ fN(; RESOLUTiOM OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. #1482_________ Edward H. Hamn date STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On thla day of , 1983, before me, a Notary Publicwithin and forsaidCounty, personally appeared Known to me to be the person(s) described in and who execu'jd the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Hy tOMMtS^fdH ek^fRES Adopted by the Orono City Council on this ^ day of . by a vote of jf ayes and a nays. y , 1983, ATTEST:CITY OP ORONO 20 of 20 m--- ■-"v .;i % \ •^4 v1W.L I.m-ii ’>■ ■;■ - ir-' ' ^-3r.v:: . ' *, ” ► V ^ ■jv* r V'Vi ^•V •’ * % '- ;V* I ;«r» :v f*> g| BIF? c ■••.,■. . ,W’.;-; I- '••i )N0 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL N0._#1482 Th» Coonty may ”//to°dwVy7and\"h«T«"*^^^ r.y*it: MvVra^iiat'; to «nsia« 1« vacation pnoc County Board action.County Boaro acT.i«>>» 0t.9ory has Jptop.r?y"nt tUl. issoa. as *!^1 ‘ COHCLUSIOMS „„ ... — “• ”••• "“■•"■ ■■ follows: Th. ptopossd lot-llnahst.ln conJotms to all into- tonin, and ths ruS§'i;rs?:!;’':ta?n":n“."«s'^“t->.’=ity. rci; Lo. as l.l-“d^‘aVnr«^^"h^^vVca^^^^^^^^^ Sr." d?« {^SErRr.Xtt^reii.^^ 2ir.i rUuc '.•.d*'.tnhos. tu...US9 as a puoiic - «.. county Road was tahoiU 1914 and 1940 at for public toad pucposas, and at 5Srch*tt.ra7dVtror.t ‘public shot.un. «. cr.at.d alon, Mwly built roadway shouXdst. r.r. ar. a-bi,uitio. ^^\Vt%"ut r.crtro«, iruc.^on oVrhi runir»VaVnVffiu. acc-rstlons. 5. County roao «na Lake SuniJ2nka“^\'oVVh."^ raasonabla uss of tha roaoway • . , affacted nalghborinq N.^ r fi*r * t k 1 n< 4. .now r-ovax -rtolly ’* Cornaf patklnq lot 13 of 20 • i. 1 — f « -i 4 i v;V P'-' i-r • ; •■■v. '<U mtA JL- rJt:n^. 90tm f, #.V?^:* )I ^ *■■' '%• i 38 r (. c •- «-r.'' City of ORONO 1 *,(;HY'..: ' X '» j RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. *1482 < )l .. ^ ORUNO:* k''--' '^M 7. 8. 9. 10. dali^m and threatening actions to neighbors, and have been in personal danger because o£ unsafe use of the railroad trestle for fishing purposes. This parking area has never been opened or auti^crized for use by the public for this purpose. Much of the actual area used for parking is on either railroad or private property owned by Gregory, and is not within platted Brackett Avenue. If the City were to open and develop an official parking area at Molly's Corner within the Brackett Avenue right-of-way and not on railroad or private property, there wuld be room at roost for 6 to 8 ears. Use of this parking area for Brown's Bay fishing would entail creating a crosswalk across the curve in County Road 15 and this would be more dangerous than continuing to have Brown's Bay fishermen park directly on the shoulder of the road on the lakeshore side. The best interests of the public, including neighborhood residents, fishermen and users of County Road 13, will be served by closing the Molly's Corner parking lot and by securing permanent public right to continuing use of the Brown's Bay shoreline for fishing access. The proposed platting of the entire area is the best method for clearifying actual and intended ownership of the various areas. The proposed plat design including lots and outlots, the location of proposed lot lines, the width of dedicated road right-of-way and the proposed maintenance easements are all consistent with the facts of record concerning valid ownership claims and the intent of the Council concerning preservation of public rights. Vacation of all of Brackett Avenue concurrent with the proposed platting, will facilitate clearing of title ambiguities and is reasonable provided public interest in the shoreline and the travelled roadway is preserved. Such vacation is in the best public interest because: a) Brackett Avenue as platted is useless and no longer in use for the public road purposes intended. Vacation of Brackett Avenue will allow platting and dedication to the public of the actual right-of-way currently used by and for County Road No. 15. Existing public interest in the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka will be preserved and protected by creation of the proposed lakeshore outlots to be owned in fee by the City for the use and benefit of the general public. 14 of 20 ...j \ :■ v.- ••''8"-w ir-' ■■ V .fe-' .- «w>- .w •• * ^.v /• .**v«:i'*^V*-;?v V. - •', *w ♦. 'rt.tl** *; Sis * *wpi»J j *; i/ .* • 7.*>- > i5fev^»*pi«s kV.*-* -Vi f^‘: .• -■»i ( ( ( fi i Vu’^ku. .•• •«. -. .• r;. . ,' f ? • • * ‘• f. M y* City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. *1482_________ OMcDNO. nr nxxng ownership and responsibility for the shoreline outlets in the City is a reasonable compromise position which should result is achieving an agreement between the property owners,the County and the City regarding the entire area: Private ownership claims are disputable, but private ownership has not been exercised. b) Continued highway maintenance by the County is necessary and can be accomodated by City fee ownership with maintenance easements to the County. c) d) City ownership assures continuing public fishing access. City ownership allows local control and regulation for the benefit of local residents rather than control by a more remote public agency. 12.The County Board must act to approve the agreement, vacation of Brackett Avenue and adjustments in the recorded highway plat before the City can take final action on either the vacation application 1726 or the subdivision application 1701. ORDER AMD CONDITIONS Based upon the above FINDINGS and CONCLUSIONS, the orono City Council hereby reaffirms preliminary approval of proposed lot-line (sarrangement subdivision application #701, and agrees to simultaneous vacation of Brackett Avenue as originally lald-out in the 1BB7 plat of "Orono*, now vacated ,-appI icatlon #726, all subject to the following conditions: A. CONDITIONS OP PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, LOT-LINE REARRANGEMENT SUBDIVISION APPLICTION 1701: 1. Pinal lot lines shall be located a* sSown on the preliminary plat ()fat#ing by Gordon R. Coffin Co., Inc, dated May 6, 1983, except as follows: a) Road right-of-way shall be platted and dedicated for "Orono Orchard Road" north of the County Road 15 right-of-way in the northeast corner of the plat, and 33 feet wide from the east line thereof. b) Verify dry-buildable square footage in Duff’s Lot 2 compared to intended 2.01 acres. c) Road easement on lakeshore to be over all of Outlets A a B. IS of 20 I I 1 I ■i M '■i t.- •1 ■ * ' *. •> »«*«*«fc>« •« •*•«•!. .^« «» ■*« •**■ * -• ' «fk js«‘Vv^ . ^Vrie V' V *;*. 4 mm. «:.v-V4 f p-'V / . 3^V^?i'!'.*« m!T.i te:;-- ^k:Vi r ( c C5ity of OR-QINO Cl lY- ORONO 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. •.■■ |iillSi& RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. #1482_ _ _ _ _ Wi Road easement on Lot 2 to be widened north of the hillside near Duff's driveway to -oatch width on Gregory's Lot 1. e) Road right-of-way to be adjusted between Lot 2 and Outlot B for travelled location such that the platted width is 30 feet on the ea^t side of the platted centerline instead of 27.5 (narrows Outlot B). Applicants shall provide Hennepin County's signed agreement the proposed plat specifically indicating agreement to t vacation of Brackett Avenue and approval of the proposed Coun Road IS right-of-way widths (and maintenance easements) Indicated on the preliminary plat. Brown's Bay shoreline outlots shall be deeded to the City of Oroi«o in form to be approved by the City Attorney, concurrent with fin plat recording, and subject to: a) Highway maintenance easements to Hennepin County; and b) Construction by the City of a fence between the Brown's Bay shoreline outlot and the Hamm property intended to discourage trespassing thereon. c) Tl.e City hereby agrees that there shall not be permitted to be any boat launching, ramp or facility anywhere on these lakeshore outlots, but that there shall be no other deed restriction thereon except that the City will not sell or lease the property to the ONR or others nor construct any fishing dock or pier thereon without first holding a public hearing concerning same. Gregory shall execute a developer's agreement with the City providing for closing, berming and landscaping the Molly's Corner parking area portion of his lot according to a landscaping plan to be prepared by Gregory and approved by the City Council. County Road 15 shall be dedicated to the public on the plat, width as indicated on the preliminary plat drawing referrenccd above. Wetland areas shall be platted as "drainage easements” dedicated to the public on the plat, and with standard City Flowage and Conservation easements granted and recorded therefore. "Drainage and Utility" easements shall be platted along the outside of the County Road IS right-of-way 10 feet wide in all areas except being the full width of the Brown's Bay lakeshore outlots, which easements shall be dedicated to the public on the plat. 16 of 20 I 1 I 1 1 J ■■4 I ■i41 J r •>' A * -m ■ C Lv. *■. !:'>.'V';" !.i> *c V •-■ ;■ , ’ '■ ■. r- -■ S --r-'Vr'-'\'5'-T;r'» :;--i ?f'- ‘ , v City of ORQNO •?• . • - * ' ' t I Y 1 "' ■1 ;hi< :n(T RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. »148j_________ S. 9. 10. B. 1. 2. 3. 4. 0««ds to tho City of Orono for the lakeshore outlots are to be accepted by the City as full payment for all required park dedication fees. Applicants shall submit to the City current title opinions indicating all parties having interest in the land and said parties shall have signed the plats and all pertinent deeds or easement documents prior to final City Council plat approval. Applicants shall pay all city costs for all past and future preliminary and final plat review, and for all review of the vacation applications, and for recording thereof. CONOITZOMS OF CiTY VACATION OP BRACKETT AVENUE, APPLICATION |726: Applicants shall provide Hennepin County's prior signed agreement to the proposed vacation as part of the platting process and in return for travelled road dedication and maintenance easements all as noted in Section A above. Vacation of the Nolly's Corner parking area shall be subject to the applicants assuming full responsibility for private control and administration of the area, and for closing and landscaping' of the area according to the developer's agreement noted in Section A above. Vacation of Brackett Avenue shall be subject to the City receiving deeds and clear title to the Brown's Bay shoreline outlots. Vacation of Brackett Avenue shall be by resolution of the City Council to be adopted concurrent with final plat approval and to be recorded concurrent with final plat recording, and such vacation shall not become effective except in concert with such plat approval and recording. C. AUTHORITIES AND DEADLINE: 1.Granting of this preliminary plat approval and agreeing to the vacation of Brackett Avenue shall not vest any right in the property other than as specifically provided herein, and shall net constitute City policy or intent except as part of the total package or agreements and mutual covenants contained herein. 17 of 20 i '5 '1 u 1 i ■firUfir.^ »«*r« •i\? .*•• • ^‘V's1U V- yft'f': ^• \'i,f* > iV i.-*.. •- . • - » % * ■ 1 r r* M <2 ;i§r m r4^: ?:'‘:jjy' S.i{#C ,"•••• ^ |(-;t> , .VS.rm ?->*/!Tii2 * < >»»f •••tv , * **V-.. - J<l/ , .i,*'..' c _, , #■ ' k ; .•M: ■ \^• Hi 'NO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. »1482 _________ 2. 3. 4. 5. Authorities granted by this preliminary plat approval shall be valid for one year from the date of adoption of this resolution within which time all agreements, easements, dee^s, documents and plats must be prepared and submitted for final City Council approval, or this approval shall expire at that time. It is understood by the City that the on>going Torrens Title proceeding will not be pursued until this plat and all deeds referrenced herein are properly recorded, and that the applicants will thereafter continue with said Torrens proceeding in such Banner as necessary to result in the City being declared * fee owner of the lakeshore outlets A a B, subject only to the .easenents provided herein. Authorities and approvals granted by this resolution will not become effective unless and until the applicants agree to the conditions contained herein, and execute their approval by signing this resolution in Section D below. Because of the complexity of all the transactions contemplated herein it is impossible for the City and the applicants to forsee all of the additional details which may have to be included in final action and resolutions approving there applications in order to effectuate the intents and purposes as setforth in this resolution. Therefore the City reserves the right to require such modifications of detail in the above as future review may show to be necessary. 18 of 20 -■’-.’S.-JI1 V 1 1* • ^ '■if 4 'V i-. ‘ •V^-f* r :V s *'. r 1 City of OROrVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. *1482 _________ : M M fNj o k nf.NFPLZCANT'S AGREEMENT: Tb« undtrsigncd applicants have read and understood the Findings and Conclusions contained in this resolution, and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, seccessors and assigns, hereby agree to the Order and Conditions of Approval contained herein: William D. Gregory ii Stanley B. Gregory date STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this day of 1983, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared William D. Gregory II and Stanley B. Gregory, husband and wife, known to me to be the person (a) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOtAftVTiifttfC MY COMMISSION EXPIRE^ David J. Du^f Anne B. Ouf^date STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this day of 1983, before me, a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared David J Duff and Anne B. Duff, husband and wife, known to me to be the person (s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTAA y PliBLid MY <!:ommission expir ^^ 19 of 20 kr v; ' ^ .1! .. .......... ^7,;'ifeiiiiiiXi 'itiri r.v B' - • !■',;■■>; W>K i-i?.;...■f'v.-* »> %... . • ^•owon «. coFnN eo. inc X4'n«-n- ^ ......-______________...jj iK--'-.—r- ■ V. ■ ' ■* ffif K-:.- K ■%'^y- ^jvr,,-,,%-; 4mmamsr' I w i8e&- ^<-t~ ■ D c: •’“ * Orono L.. / To:Mayor Peterson and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administr^rr^ November 6» 1991 9 #1532 Fullerton Properties, Inc., 2225 Sixth Avenu^^ North “ Request to Amend Declaration of Private Covenants List of Sxhibits - A - Resolution Approving Plat of Shadowood Farm B - Plat of Shadowood Farm C “ Declaration of Easements, Covenants, Conditions 6 Restrictions D - Proposed First Amendment to Declaration E - Proposed Second Amendment to Declaration F - Preliminary Plat of Shadowood Farm G - Fullerton Properties Request Descriptlcm of Request The developer, Fullerton Properties, seeks two £unendments of the original Declaration of Covenants (Exhibit C). The first involves the exclusion of Outlot B, the future road expansion outlot to serve property to the south, from the Association's responsibility *to own, construct, manage, improve, maintain, insure, repair and administer a future private road to be contained within Outlot B.” It would appear the developer not only does not want to be responsible for share in maintenance and upkeep of this section of road but wants to relinquish all ownership of said road. The City has still to develop a comprehensive procedure/policy for dealing with interconnecting private roads. Similar issues were raised during the preview of the Lombardozzi subdivision adjacent to the Wear subdivision. What if future owners of Lot 3, Block 2 or Lot 10, Block 1 seek a curb cut off of this new section of roadway? Is it the intent of the City to have all property owners who benefit from the use of these private road sections responsible or share in the upkeep and maintenance of that road? The current covenant should be amended to include assurance that all benefiting property owners, whether within the Shadowood Farms plat or adjacent to it, are to share in the upkeep of said roadway. Before Council acts on this request, staff would recommend that appropriate legal counsel be sought to consider all the implications of this amendment. Council may remember that Popham, Haik has a conflict of interest and we will be obliged to use Mathew Selzer of Dorsey, Whitney for legal counsel on this issue. Zoning File #1532 November 6, 1991 Page 2 The second request involves Out lot A, currently owned by Jim Cox, that would seek to exclude Outlet A from all restrictions of the private covenants. This would certainly be consistent with Mr. Cox*s position throughout this review as he sought no connection to the Shadowood Farms for his developed residential site, the exception on the plat (review Exhibit B). Once again staff would recommend that legal counsel for the City review this request before Council's final action. Another issue Council is asked to c dress regards the current status of Outlot A. Over two months ago Mr. Cox contacted the City to adivse that the Assessor determined that real estate taxes on Outlot A, if combined with his homestead property, would br greater than if Outlot A remained as an independent substandard parcel. Staff has made contact with Dave Wilde. He advised he knew nothing of the special conditions surrounding Outlot A with the subdivision approval but once again confirmed that Outlot A, as a substandard parcel in its current configuration, would be taxed at a lower value than if Outlot A was combined with Cox's homestead with a potential 2**lot division. Mr. Cox followed the directions of the Council as set forth in the final plat resolution (Exhibit A, Condition 3, Page 3 of resolution). Cox applied for the legal combination and within a few months requested the division. Staff advised that this could only be done through the County and that when the division '■equest came before the City that the City staff would present the division request before the Council. Staff has recently been advised by Hennepin County that Mr. Cox was able to stop the legal combination process before it was completed and that Outlot A remains separate from the homestead lot. As Condition 3 notes, upon the legal combination the owner has the right to Install accessory structures or other permitted accessory uses. Review Exhibit F. Mote portions of accessory structure on homestead lot encroach into Outlot A. Any major repair of this structure would require variance approval from the City. The City could not issue building permits for accessory structures to be constructed on Outlot A because it lacks the principal structure. This was the reason why the City requested the legal combination. The existing improvements upon both Outlot A and homestead parcel suggest one defined residential use. Mr. Cox does not want to complete the legal combination of the parcels because of the impact on his real estate valuations and eventual tax payment. Zoning ile #1521 November 6r 1991 Page 3 Options of Action A.Uphold directives of Resolution tr2880 and require the immediate legal combination of the p^-operties. B.Allow the properties to remain independent parcels and advise Mr. Cox that any improvements classified as accessory structures or uses proposed for Outlot A must be reviewed and approved by the City Council before their installation. C.Review poten ial use of special lot combination agreement that would recognize the special relationship between Outlot A and the homestead parcel and to provide a credit of the residential structure on the homestead lot for any proposed accessory structure or uses on Outlot A. Mr. Cox's attorney will be asked to use the standard agreement form developed by the City that may be altered for this property's special needs. Such an agreement would be subject to the review of the City's legal counsel in this matter. Isv V''V City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 2880NO. ORONO A RESOLDTIOH APPROVIliG THE PLAT OP SHADONOOD FARM FILE MO. 1532 WREREAS the City of Orono is a municipal corporation or,«i«d Sndir the lews of the State of Htnnesota, and HHBRBAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has UBBREAS. the City Council has considered the ??5pir?ierinc.'; a M?ntesoU'’co?pora?io^^^ ^the^\ubd?vider^ and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet all e. nf ♦•he RR—IB rural residential zoning district finding the need of any variances; and whereasB the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1. Completion of all the requirements of Resolution *2826^ a resolution that granted preliminary approval of subdivision. 2. Dedication on the plat of rights-of-way for public roads shown as H.C.S.A.H. No.6 and Willow Drive. 3. Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements• 4. Dedication on the plat of drainage easements. 5 Creation of private roads shown on the plat as ® «d C. Su?lot C to h, known henceforth as Shadowood Drive and Cox Farm Road. /age 1 of 4 .• ? • • • • • City of OROINO Cl T Y RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 2880NO. ORONO 6« Concurrent with the creation of this private road^ the subdivider has dedicated to the City a road and utility easement granting to the City permanent access, improvement and utility easements over said outlet; the subdivider has created non-exclusive ingressr egress, drainage and utility easements over said outlet in favor of all abutting and/or benefiting lots including a declaration of certain maintenance covenants wherein each of the abutting and/or benefiting lot owners covenants and agrees to permanently maintain and pay the cost of maintenance for said private road. 7. Dedication to the City of a Flowage and Conservation Easement providing for limitations on the use of wetlands, dralna96waysr flood plain and Dickeys Lake described therein and shown on the plat as drainage easements 8, Execution of a subdivider's agreement providing for installation of certain improvements as a condition of subdivision approval. 9. Creation of three outlets for the following approved uses: Outlot A - to be legally combined with the James Cox homestead property which is surrounded by Outlot A. Outlot B - designated for future road extension to the south. This section of roadway is not to be constructed at this time but is set asiue for future road use. Outlot C - interior road outlots to be constructed upon ^inal plat approval. 10. Execution of agreement with James Cox dealing with interim use of 7* of additional right-of-way of Willow Drive along west border of Outlot A and possible vacation of unused portion of right-of-way upon determination of final upgrade of willow Drive whether by City based on MSA standards or as future County Road 116. 11, Execution of an easement agreement with developer granting easements to the City for bike trail pu^oses over the 10* drainage and utility easements that border the property on the north and west sides of the subdivision. Page 2 of 4 • •• * • I I I V OHONa city of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 29SQ---------------- 12. payment to the City of a Park Dedication fee in the amount of $2»400.00# a. a... r-ii-v for the leaal review and filing of th; p5“ar«.»en» fnd^o«nants in" the amount of S150.00. 14. Payment to the City of a final subdivision application fee in the amount of $150.00. imitfuwynpg BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of NOHp THBRBFOREf the olat of Shadowood Farnir Hennep^V CoUy?Minnesot"ar?ub3ect to the following condition: «nstrl«ion,° t\e“ following improvements mOst be completed and approved by ti»e City: ri-avel road base to be constructed per engineering OLns bO iark° S CroOberg, Sheets 1 and 2, dated August 31, 1990. B) Ditch along Willow Drive to be graded in accordance with City standards. C) Drainage swales and water quality structures as shown “7n"/i"n*al grading and a-in»ge Plans Per plans^by Mark S. Gronberg, Sheets i ana 1990. fenced: Lot Ip Block 2 - septic envelopes 1 and 2 Lot 5p Block 1 - septic envelope 1 Lot 8, Block 1 - septic envelopes 1 and 2 3. owner of Outlot A •>«11 ePPlV 0*o"-“bin.'’ttO“\'S2with adjacent homestead lot. Open legal c ^ owner has right to ?.raccessorrSses.area of outlot for other permitted access y Page 3 of 4 • • «t t \/ E\ gRQNCEj City of OFtOIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2880_ _ _ _ _ 4. The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder's Office or the Registrar of Titles Office on or before April 8, 1991 together with a certified original copy of this Resolution together with executed copies of certain easements and covenants noted above. The aooroval granted bv this Resolution shall expire if the plat has noVbeen filed by the date specified above. In that event# it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Dated this 8th day of October, 1990. Theresa L. Maab, Deputy Clerk Edward J.^llahan, Jr.#^Acting Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) } ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrur®nt was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of October, 199o, by Edward J. Callahan# Jr. & Theresa L. Naab, Acting Mayor & Deputy Clerk of the City of Orono# a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. UNBA & VEE Htmmm county Page 4 of 4 ¥ k. r DECLABATIOB OP EASEMEHTS, COVEHAHTS, CONDITIOHS AMD RESTHICTIONS DKXAHATIOB OP EASEBEBTS, COVEBAHTS, COBDITIOBS AND 'a^d™'between ^Fullertif “properties! £r.:5!£: ■r.su-...T,. ^ recitals : pK'niHrS rS£ ‘E"“Ssl;fS%!.r;s£/'£fS3 :;^rfots;"bein" he/eiS so^etiJs referred to as a -Lot- or the -Lots," when referring to more than one). B. Developer fIVJ. property legally described as B and c, according to the Plat {-Outlets B and C ). C. outlets B and C and ■'f,^/-„^t“rlcrP« ^k-^rbe^-^en Of that certain a^s vendor, dated (k!cWi-» 1990,Developer, as vendee, and Lender, as vendoj^,^ in the S??icro7 t*he OouS?T-5555rde7 in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota (the •Recorder's Office"). r a.{mnio fiHe to that certain real property legally described® as Ltlot A, Shadowood Parm, according to the Plat (•Outlet A"). E The Lots and Outlets A, B and C_ are sometimes collectively referred to hereinafter as the -Property. r. Developer, Lender and Cos are_ sometimes collectively referred to hereinafter as the -Declarants. submit' the P«p£y‘^^ ilSirSlsTtrVn! L« wUhirthr^r^/er!!. “contrf!! vendees (collectively, the -Owners ). AGREEMENTS: easemIn!s“«!erts,^oSon77n7^e^7ri^^^^^^^^^^^ , „ «han constitute covenants running with thethat this Declaration shall t and their respective land and shall be ^““e ' ^ o£ all or any successors and improvements thereon, together with IS^rr^^esUtlve grSs, successors, assigns heirs, executors, administrators and devisees. article I SHADONOOD FARM HOMEOWHERS ASSOCIATION; O 9] w i ^N AREAS Mn n Every person or entity who is an Section 1.1. ,"®^Jf^^^*ntract^ sellers and including in place Owner of any Lot gpj.g\ shall be a member (a "Member*) thereof their contract pu K--neiation (the "Association*). The o£ Shadowood Farm persons or entities who hold an foregoing is “or the performance of an obligation interest merely as a a fee simple interest in such sole qualification for membership. Section 1.2. °i„ ?^n«iation Developer shall be classes of voting aother Members shall be Class A the only Class ® *"■*./Vhe t«o ®'® different fromwafers. The voting rights of the two^^^^^ Articles of ?;c5rpo«u'on the* Association (the -Articles*) Just as if such had been fully set forth herein. of the of the insure, by the nsection 1.3. ^—on ®“bi®°^he*'°resVlrnsibu''uy Owners set forth ^ manaae improve, maintain. Association to .“^1 %he private road to be owned -repair and administer (i) the pri ^ ^ o^^er Association and contained in designated by the Associationwithin the property as may be^design^t^,^^ for common use of all owt^rs { prior to conveyance by collectively as the "C<M-.on Sli^loper shall,, by quit Developer of the last L right, title and interest in and to claim deed, ^L-ociation. The Association shall accept .outlets B and ^ to the Association. whenever Developer /the conveyance^of outlets B and C fro^.^^ ^tne COnveyaiiwo wi. ------------ ha^is shall convey the same on an As-Is ARTICLE II assessments section 2.1. . °*’“’/Va°c“h Owne/^^f'’a'lot ^ acceptance Tf d^ed^Vhe-rVf'o'?, ^ en^ pSf tf^h;*A«ociati" snLal assessments or charges, and specie T'. ■ el^riTsKed and'co!!ectld ai"" he° elna" tVr Pp'i‘5®\'"*5r?eaarnaS5e lllZ date payable. Each assessment, together with interest, "leas expteasly hV»e“"be*e” me/ ln° /minV^ftr^he »icSrd«-/'‘ Sw“n« ‘Thin escape UabilUy for the 5«.«™n?s which fell due while he was the Owner by reason of S”!”rof the Conmon Area or non-use, transfer or abandonment of his Lot or the right of possession thereof. Section 2.2. Purpose of Assessments. The assessments levied by a// we“l%1re“frhr<irne/s° an^/Te‘stde^?I orth^Ptoperty^ aAd to f/lfill the obligations and responsibilities set forth herein. fismotion 2 3 Annual Assessments. Annual assessments shall be ■Rviawa*) No annual assessment has been assessea a ____ *-kT« nar*i'aration Annual assessments may not be increased by this , *T;''Vbove the assessment for the previous year, SSpr‘'“th?r the‘ /nnuVl may in=«ased note th^n ten SSrr/e‘^p“r\U^t ^rb^ pr-^ra'^/iit/nV^callrd in accordance with Section 2.5 hereof. SMTtlon 2 4 Special Assessments. In addition to the annual «;^rn^r«y‘cLs«'ucriX'^efonstr«ii/|; «p ”i of a capital edprovided th« ’ any such of the Members who are voting in person or oy proxy duly called for this purpose. Section 2.5. Notice and Quorum, called for the purpose of Sections 2.3 or 2.4 hereof shall be than thirty (30) days nor more than the meeting. At the opening of such or by proxy of Members entitled to votes of each class of the membership the required quorum is not present, Written notice of any meeting 3ny action authorized under ggnt to all Members not less sixty (60) days in advance of meeting, the presence in person cast two-thirds ,(2/3) of the shall constitute a quorum. If another meeting may be called subject to the same notice m'**aV'*the^or?c*e*ding meeting.* No such subsequent meeting shall rS"d*.^re‘’th^”nxJr(6oT^a^7s following the preceding meeting. section 2 6. Rate of Assessment. Both annual and special assesf;^njrmu« be fixed at a uniform rate for all Lots. _ . 4 ronmencement of Annual Assessments. By .. «•;;» 2:; S',-n:;r ^ ;;; f*r*?L°lo«d''fixes”thramount of annual assessments it shall adopt ^Todo^t for the llllowing calendar year and cause a copy of such Su^,•t in teasoMble de-ail to be furnished to each Owner. section 2 8 Proof of Payment. Upon written demand of an 2a«en*cegui«£^sig'^^^^^^^^ -“1"? ^*ToriL^‘*etiSrn^"e*%r‘;a assessments not stated therein as unpaid. <SAcfcion 2 9 Nonpayment of Assessments. Any assessments which... .tnir. Vi. .v.sri ~ " is not paid within thirty aays s-hx* nf twelve ir^llSr lip rch"^LoT^*n/*tre*"Iss^^^a^^=or^^^^^^ iSSS~r end*"?rreclose *ri’^ ??'bas or which may exist for its benefit. Asn«*«-4nfi 2 10 Becording and Enforcement of Liens. To evidence Section 2.10. Kecorux g fhis Article, the Association a lien for sums ‘f,*ttfng ^ a>»oh"t Is-Er:.‘fS. % :r€.'E“5fI: iJTdelinquency in payment of^the A2S5ciat?on"?i "he Th^'Uen^Tn^'h^ manner* pwcrYbed by Minnesota Statutes for the foreclosure of ---- _ __ mechanic's lien. In any such foreclosure, the obligated to pay the lien shall be required to p y such costs foreclosuce. including reasonable attorneys fees. A1 -Vt-he ?£^rjqui Lirbe^Sme‘^^e-d^rl^‘^°be ^^tio^^^^r c£ ££^^-ion the riqht and power to bid at tno foreclosure other legal ^rarwUh th°e ^Lot \TtTe OwneTther'Iof! a^“in^'t “r" oT\“ran2ssmentr'’rVm‘ain°in"’^unTa^^^^ *“"€?Ser t‘^a“^ T .IIT eTclli,rTn:t ^f^sTsSafl Sa~: ?«nis ‘‘h^ *0'the^Alsocfation written notice of such encumbrance. Section 2.11. Subordination of Lien. The assesSJSSjrp^roiided h««i%=>’»“j,f„s^“fnd''^"uens‘° for" s‘pecia any f taii^ and assessing unU of ’”:iSSt‘ liln'" Holeve?.""the s'’/le“7r »a^sfer “or"alqu"i“ tfon‘of n - ??L ^fnerroff-fLir e-fnrufsh ‘rni^fe- oj; sf| sHKir^Sn: transfer or acquisition of possession. article III lahd use ahd boildihg type .b.llTe ‘«ed^«ceprforrenrnriIl pu “r"pos‘’e°/,“e"fceff that ^‘^‘0^ shall be u P used by home builders for temporary office, such as pool houses and cabanas. if u,?rro..f f interest pe'rmifted to remain on any portion of ?jrProper%'r««p? that on -/ file those accessory buildings constructed, erected, Connittee (as hereafter rimain' At such time as Developer ?“"no"’’lon^g«""a^n Own^eWf fny Lot and no longer holds any interest T«i- and thereafter, no structure shall be cSSs??uc?ed/erecte^^^^^ Vamlly'^ dwe^and'^VhcsV^^ccl^ss^ry^ bui?din^ then existing _ nisrlaration the term "structure* shall conmittee. As <,ther than 'trees and landscaping, which in0dn 3nd rBfcr to 3 y 9 aff^r^t its oGnorsl sppBsrsnc©# i£ placed upon the ™^,fi‘„’Vnd nit limita?Ln, any including, by way *5^1^ driveway, walk, fence, wall, dwelling, accessory it^htiaa tixtute. -Structure- mailbox, satellite dish ^i^tion’or fill, the volume of Shall also ««»“. «■'<’,ff«*'il ?«ds " any excavatioi, fill, ditch, which exceeds five *?) device that affects or alters the diversion dam, or o. iet i^aters upon or across any portion of the SiSpirty “r tbit *a«llt% or alters V ^acrisi natural or artificial stream, Declaration, the term sSal/mean and refer to a"/ -le^ -.S'’t; - -9 A T^*- Ronfcal Buildings located on Lots within theSection 3.4. I^t Renta . owners thereof for transient or Property shall be in^l as (i) rental for any period hotel purposes# which shal tii\ anv rental if the occupants of less than thirty (30) days .<i^Vrv hote^^^ such as roomthe building are provided customary hotel s furnishing laundry# service for food and foregoing obligations#linen and bellboy service. Other than the^ the ,bsllute right to p» all of the provisions of this Declaration. trailers, camping ' *^®„unds orLs weight# or unlicensed or or trucks in excess of 4,000 ^ ProDerty# including the ‘"blirVt'teets^Ve*r*ving" and^ adjacent to the Property, shall occur, Sithiut the express prior written consent of the Committee. S«:tion 3.6. Size '’^“‘“''Vontatn''re%“'than”"!oM^ any portion of the Property sh finor in the case of a single feJt of interior 3»%f„%’rortquarrfee\ o ® ^ spa=e in ?£rVg«“atrin°Jhi*^cye''*o"f^sp\\^Tn^t^ or two story structures. — 6— Each-Lot within the Ptopetty shall contain a garage sufficient to store a minimum of three (3) motor vehicles. am M.- ^ ^ 1 rradina All Grading, construction and related Section 3.7. Grading. . ^^.^oertv shall be conducted in activities on any portion ^such construction and the accordance with «« *Vh".refor the 5ity of Orono. Minnesotarequirements^ proscrrhed.^,^^^^^^^^ p„perty shall he hard-surfaced. JSr^pirt ”n"'*o”f ' the Property any time as a residence, either temporarily or permanently* ^ 9 Busioess Operations. No business may be fSSS“b5tin«sn'whfch*arri^"he*SLine«"Sf1eUrng'^^^^^^ in the Property. nuisance to the neighborhood. section 3.1X. *nls»ls; n«d"or'Kept“;r“he or poultry of *"^ **?^ ® cats and othe'r household pets may be r .s.‘s w srwu;".“:s:s they do not constitute a nuisance. s*w.r.,rvr Clearly be d^onstrated the provisions of Article r. SSJ^oTtha^Il Je^lmed^Tirrpreregulsite'’ to erection of said television satellite dish. . SF Is,'- «. IT mav ko allowed to accumulste and remain on eoMttuetlon debris ^Trash garbage, or other waste shall sny portion of ‘'>%'’VL‘’*n^itar^ containers All incinerators or section 3.14. Soil p*“rtVon*of'the ’'p‘ro%«rt?' tinber, shell be excavating ^for the eonstrection or •zcept for the purpose o nromiaes or s»part<=>tisnc^s thereto# “Jeistion of . ‘’‘Sr "r laXaplnl. or for road or for the Developer *s no I nger nn Owner of ir°I^r"no ‘• so?f « ”ol *“i„"tr*tbs«Te *o “? whilhll a^i^%l“te'd *t TOce or places designated by Developer. A • Snetion 3.1S. Signs, ?ne Vr^perty,'except^ as follow^to the public view on any porti^.. of the properry. <„ "otwithstandin, any Of the Provi»^i»-^ ^tJy • s jJJn*'o ’rdin«“crs!M"JSSreto approved by the City Council of the City. <b) Subdivision ^"‘/rV’nce “ve~fs?n,"’*iig« ‘"‘ti^lMMUe'd brDe«?oper at the entrance to the Property Ind maintained until Developer no longer owns any Lots. (c) Durirg the directional and* subdivision property# Developer may one sign no larger than advertising signs as are mc Jiaced on each Lot advertising 3 feet to 4 feet «®\Ct^ and/or signs in «0i» Lot for iS sise are permitted on Lota having Liangs 2dv«tis^d for sale by the Developer or its assigns. Lot for sale is permitted. .. s-i - --___ MShiis All septic sewer systemsSection 3.16. Septic constructed and maintained inand wells located on any »hall rules and accordance , ‘j-L *b!?^^the^ City Vnd all other governmentalrssis:^:. r.5?sj^?i:i?sd??tirovS “?h. property. article IV archi tec tur al COHTROL COWaTTEB NO nt") shall be constructed, altered, theShadowed ;‘chi\e\tu^£c^^^ ^fte^^foc^Mon ?IIeteo£, and' O^the builder who will actually perform the proposed work. 4 2 Composition ot Conraittee. The Cemnuttee shall sSSll*be“appointei"by"evlJlpe^^^^^ whTch? the''Co°nS,Ut« shall be appointed by the Board. , . ^ o MAA*>lnaa* Ouorum. The Committee shall appoint one mS^of^t^e Oo-Ut\e to be its Ch^-, H o7-tf mT^b\‘^l. -?he-krr^m"an-|f--e SrdUrp'pri^ar^Sr^rmtla? rnl^uLn^'n^^^ctuatm, Lcisions of the Committee. with the name of the Developer is n^ longer a Member, allwork. Until such time as the P Developer at 608 Second such Plans shall be submitted J" °^55°®^®"°\„,gther wit a «“e«ing'‘f« of" «"o*00° Thereafter, the Plans shall be submi :ted as required by the Committee. S«:tion 4.5. ;U“\hVname 0^“" buUde/," an'S'the (30) days of receipt of th. notify the party submitting the SJmr”f'its'lpproval,oTdis:pprov^^^^ The bui Jer if the Committee . standards Committee such builder does not C'U intended ?:jroJSs ”a% no^t suitable for the Property or for one or more oT, Zt not limited to, the following reasons: (a) noncompliance with the Declaration; .„.J “UVAK the exterior of the building to be of he *:^;*^erra^‘ii«r ‘gu";iity/cf construction and price range as the dwelling^ ouilc or to be built on the Prope y. built or to be built upon adjoining Lots and in a manner compatible with the terrain of the Lot. fd) failure of a fence to be compatible with Lots and with the character of the subdivision as TwHoll in%erms o£ height, location, design, materials and/or obstruction of views; and (e) failure of the Plans to show all information necessary to evaluate the foregoing characteristics. _ . . - r*ofimittee*s DeterminatioD Final. The Committee s determinations* concerning \*liV^lans ""“i^^shV'u staU *"i0 Plans, or l£ construction *”g'%l"peL or the Owner o£ any accordance with the construction and to Lot, may bring ‘f lavement t^ the Plans approved by compel the con£or ce such action shall be commenced and a the committee, P'°''i^«'*^‘V K» fnerno later than ninety (90) days notice o£ certificate “£ occupancy is issued by thr'app-roptttte“"municipal authority^ t£ ‘^^.tttfl^f^The ^r^^rtt r,rwSfcr.‘c’ertTriratrpj|~^ :?th?S 15 ‘SiytMtrrhfplatntitf in the action discovers or learns of the Improvement. a A Record of Plans and Actions. The Committee shall retai^n PlanV su“^tttd%o it, and a record of all actions tahen with regard to them. . — »_ • pshttwb Hgr of Owoets. In the eventSection 4.9. Fax lure to Acte R^dy of the Committee that Developers the Co^ittee. obligations under Articleshall fail to discharge their re^pe^^^^ IV of this Declaration, then any ^ner may oring^^^ the discharge of sal oig Developer, the Committee, and/or 5^«VsJ^r5Tf%hV Co".i.ittee shall not ot*rerwUo be liable to any person for damages (direct, consequential, or otherwise). article V STRUCTURE LOCATION The committee may require a fjLe‘’%haT%"he mtnimum from the side lot lines »nd/ot front lot line than building setback requirements the city. <• c -a Finwaae and Conservation Easement. The Declarant's hereby covenant, grant, gift, quitclaim and /he rilht to restrict and the Declarants agree to limit and preclude the use, o'f®''the'’Ta"nd locaLd ®in‘'°Heinepin Countyl’^MinnesotV^^egally described in Exhibit -B- hereto (the "Flowage Land") as follows: (a, NO e'%rowf,e“'L"^ YnSng°'wUhout uSitatioY fences. fireplaces, steps, Y/J'YthY/Ytr/cYuYe “''“ ?^prYvYmUSrcLs"=tYY/YYIYatYrarsttYe*;f“tYe=Y^ Land; (h'i NO trees, shrubs or other vegetation shall be destroU, cut or removed from the Flowage Land except as authorized by written consent of the City, (c) No earth, loam, peat, gravel, soil or any other natural material or substance shall be moved or removed from the Flowage Land and there shall be no dredging or exca.atio of any nature whatsoever or any change of the topography of t Flowage Land without the written consent of the City, fi^'s Nn soil sand, gravel or other substance or material as landfill nhall be placed, dumped or stored upon the Flowage tand «d no waste, tr«h or garbage shall be placed, dumped or stored upon the Flowage Land; (e) No use shall be made of the Flowage Land if anv^ which will not change or alter the natural condition of the Flowage Land, and no use which would tend to drainaae flood control, water conservation, erosion contro , drainage, tJ. wildlife habitat characteristics shall be made of the Flowage Land or the water situated thereon; The City may enter upon the Flowage Land for the purpose of YnJpectLn and enforcement ^ contained herein and to cause to be removed f rom t*’® land without any liability, any structures, uses, materials, aSbfta/ces, or unnatural matter inconsistent with the covenants cSS?Uned ierein and the natural state of the Flowage Land; (g) The Declarants .lereby grant, gift, “"j convey to the City, a perpetual flowage easement and right and p?Wilege to trespass with water over and upon any or all of the Flowage Land; (h) The Declarants herein do hereby ^®”’^ “11?“ s-aY/°JmYrJyetYYf“aYd ‘lYim^-y “aYd “a"l^ c?fim“s“ dVmaiSs -12- I, • T, nf anv kind or nature whatsoever which may or trespass with water within terms of these agreements. injunction; The Declarants do J,",V"land^V''vir'’tui"of='’?hls £:c!arl?Ln ‘or*rtherw\se'except as hereinahove set forth; and or in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. « 4.- « « 4 Private Road Easement. The Declarants .herebySection 6.4. private ku« easement for driveway, ingress create a non-exclusive g the Road Area for the mutual and egress purposes over Lreby covenant and agree, on benefit of all Lots. The ^'^'^“ccessors and assigns, asbehalf of themselves and their neirs. Owners of Lots, as follows: (a) That the Owners f^h|«^i;3*=S^ri«ranS%he'rxmence ^?‘?hrp:fv:tr«ar':rch is not a publicly^d^^^^^ "?v:?e*%'ord.‘=^'nrth%"%h”e^‘c?trd:ernrt''\'n\end to acguire or open said private road as a public roadway. <b) That the owners «ill/"^,’*°„'j®'®lj;re?nTV"paS o° pay a Association of the costs of maintaining,assessments to the Associar private road overrepairing and "Placing, if necessary the P ;n;.r Ch. iv »■ .s.” «.™ roads. , ■ eKaii be responsible for maintaining,(r> The Association shall be respons repairing and replacing said P . accordance with charges incurred in that the Association shall Article II hereof. In t-he ,ooiace the private road as fail to maintain, ^.®P®“ «areed by all parti^es that the City provided for herein, it is g «n,4 reolace the private road may undertake to maintain, repai ^|tions by the City will S3 P"''!'*®'*. ^°'’’®'®^"'t“ foad's'becoming a public roadway, and ?S^t Tac!.' Of" tr <^np':wu"nay f o £city tbe. P";®"-"J- «*^ip't"'o"f"ruch^hrr"ges^.*'o^ ';\'s"e "su'c^h^c^r <e Uall become , * 13 lien, upon each Lot at P_ropoction^^and_^. aa^ '’an°d'enfoteed SCl'becomfuaStrioi said proportionate'share from and after the date of this Agreement. iA\ Each of the Owners of a Lot hereby covenants >^ith each (d) -f the other Lots, and each Owner of a Tot^^'bv a<Tce*ptance of a deed therefor, whether or be so expressed in ^.^°''''then"^Owners^^^^^ *Tll^of th^/ther Tolll llsc^i.eT.^n VheVne^rTsT”o^ r*pre«ira/sumed S^them^or unless the City specially assesses such Lot. fe) The private road shall be used strictly in accordance Vh*7 ea^sements granted therefor. Except as herein with the oh-truct or interfere whatever with r1ohts"°and P^vi leVes of other Owners in the private road and nothing shall be j -is" srsiyir the ^jemaln^g^ 0«ne„ ^Sh^au the right to restore the pri “ against the Owner who ;fS!‘,Us‘''t*his"rubs°eJtfr and -ch assessment become due Tf-fright and power to collect the cost interferes with legal proceeding for that purpose. q «r in the use of the the rights and as ^herein provided, the remaining Owners,private road, except as herein proviaea,tn enjoin such Sr any of them, may commence entitled to interference and the ^fees^as\he court may allow, recover costs and disbursements incurred intogether with all necessary cu»to nhstruct or interfere S??rt‘hrpas\*^e^^^^ -^'le^-eTate *'^fi%i;h%' ^f invitees. -14- article VII GENERAL PROVISIONS ?SSi«n?Tnd b.“"binding °%5J%rrchtUrs* of °3;iro°r" lly n”?SI fptciVlcVny “seV forth^feretf J^fftThe prVvislfns of this ^Declaration shall renain in full force and effect in perpetuity. <s«ct:ion 7.2. provisions Separable. Invalidation of any one or :?^Lt^ny"o/ire "p'.olfsioL and effect until the date of expiration. ,overS:5‘fn ‘'a^d cofsfrSir^ufdef tfe State of Minnesota. 0 a.*00 T A Pnforcement. Developer and any Owner shall easei^ntf. «srrlft!onsI ’^o%"di/ifn?tnd ’cl;enfn ”s°^ imposed by the provisions of this Declaration. 0 *.*00 •? i; Amendment This Declaration may only be amended hy a n^d^fo^Ufenf u„?:ss'!tf S:Sn'rf^ru«t%ne’lorixc°e^^' i"n%he case of Article VI hereof, where the consent of the City shall also be requi Section 7.6. counterparts. This Declaration nay be executed in counterparts. failsTon-ulfl-l ’i anroV “^s ''^bli^tfons'undfr tff fonfrf t’’rf f «“S:l."t?.l?%o%‘"D«d'is ?erm\"?ate"/ bf fendeVfn" a«ordancr«ith the ‘!l^?l?J«’=of"mnnesot, Statutes .Section .21, __upon |o™Pl|tron^o« JSSSer"ha??“succeed*tf the tiP*>ts afforded to developer under this ?:Sj:^rfo^S!ch‘°De^““peff iftefe^'/hS-ufer^^he Co^ntra^t Tor Deed is extinguished pursuant to said termination. -15- ■K -f vr' r ! r.»'.- !>■I DREAL3S 082490 -developer FULLERTON PROPERTIES, INC., a Minnesota corporatio. LENDER COX BROTHERS FARM, a Minnesota generol partnership Z/james A. Coz Its General Partner -COX S A. COX bernadine a. cox -16- 1^' ) ) ss. ) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ^ Funerl^U*muy. 1990, 33^dday of _____ Properties, Inc. corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA )• ) ss.m <.uunix u. -- - - -- - -- - general partnership. - / Notary Public ) ) ss. ) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTT OF ^ T1>..f?tefl0in, instrunent_ was ^ Cox ‘"husba..y of r cox and Bernadine A. Cox. husband •»o -^‘irsBrsSSm Notary Public THIS IHSTUUNEHT HAS DRAFTED BY: popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd 3300 Piper Jaffray Building Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 333-4800 LJR -17- .Aav.i.,. 'u . . ^7 i exhibit "A ENCUMBRANCES 1.Easement for highway m"7;s 'Socumen?billboard restrictions, filed on August X2, lyD'* No. 2890650. 2.Biohts o£ City of Orono over west 33 feet pursuant to deed filed on April 1, 1983 as Document No. 4782350. 3.Rights of Hennepin rTqh7of way^ ifne of* CSAH »I as sSoSn*'on%iUsy%lat 5 Document No. 3844153 pursuant to deed filed as Document No. 4782351. r I' * t- & I’f ‘if- I r 1^f- k Lm exhibit "B LEGAL description (FLOHAGE LAND) The -Drainage Easement- as identificl and depicted on the Plat. LJ^.rxUC. ^ A. r ' i FIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF EASEMENTS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF EASEMENTS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (the "Amendinent*) is made an entered into as of the 1st day of October, 1991, by and between Fullerton Properties, Inc., a Minnesota corporation {"Developer"), Cox Brothers Farm, a Minnesota general partnership ("Lender"), and James A. Cox and Bernadine A. Cox, husband and wife (collectively, •Cox*). RECITALS A. The parties hereto entered into that certain Declaration of Easements, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions dated as of October 9, 1990 filed for record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota on October 17, 1990 as Document No. 5713561 (the "Declaration") (all capitalized terms utilized herein and not separately defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Declaration). B. The parties hereto desire to amend the Declaration. ACREEMENTS For good, fair and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the foregoing Recitals, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 1. With respect to Section 1.3(i) of the Declaration, reference to Outlot B therein is hereby deleted and Association shall have no obliaation to construct, manage, improve, maintain, insure, repair or administer the private road, it any, on said Outlot B. 2, This Amendment may be executed in counterparts. 3. EzCwOt as hereby amended, the Declaration shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their respective hands as of the day and year first above written. •DEVELOPER FULLERTON PROPERTIES, INC., a Minnesota corporation 0 LENDER COX BROTHERS FARM, a Minnesota general partnership -COX BERNADINE A. COX STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The day o£ ^.foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me_jthis yff-feiflr . 1991, by /V/a . the //M / of said corporation. STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The_£oregoing instrume^ was acAn^ledged before me this JJ.— day of fSrfepCr-. 1991, n (Ic^ a general partner of Cox Brothers Farm, a Minne^ta general partnership, on behalf of said general partnership. nsff r m n*m N(^ary Public o>\ -2- rV,-- ,* ■ - STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ’^he^foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this jl. 1991, by Juries f Cox and Bernadine A. Cox, h and and wife. / Notam^Puul ic CONF ENT The undersigned hereby consents to the foregoing Amendment. Dated: October 1, 1991.CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota municipal corporation Its STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of_ _ _ _ _ _, 1991, liy_ __ _ _ _ _ _, the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ of the '-ity of Orono, Minnesota, a Minnesota munijipal corporation, on behalf of said municipal corporation. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd. 3300 Piper Jaffray Towor 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 333-480C 1422LJR/1-3 -3- SECOND AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF EASEMENTS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF EASEMENTS, COVI.NANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (the “Amendment") is made an entered into as of the 15th day of October, 1991, ".y and between Fullerton Properties, Inc., a winner^ota corporation ( Developer ), Cox Brothers Farm, « Minr,^sota general partnership (“Lender"), and James A. Cox and Bernadine A. Cox, husband and wife (collectivelv, •Cox"), RECITALS A. The parties hereto entered into that certain Declaration of Easements, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions dated as of October 9, 199C filed for record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County# Minnesota (the "Recorder ) on October 17, 1990 as Document No. 5713561, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Declaration of Easements, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions dated as of October 1, 1991 and fried for record with the Recorder on - - - -,1991 as Docum'^nt Mo. (collectively, the “Declaration") (all capitalized terms utilized herein and not separately defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Declaration). The parties her**to des . to amend the Declaration. AGREEMENTS For good, fair and ..uable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the foregoing Recitals, the parties hereto h^^reby agree as follows: 1. That portion of Outlot A legally described on Exl ibit “1 attached hereto shall be and hereby is released from the Declaration. 2. Sections 3.6 and 3.7 of the Deciaratic shall not apply to Outlot A. 3. On September 1, 1995, the Declaratio!. ill not apply to Outlot A. 4. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts. 5. Except as hereby amended, the Declaration shall remain unmodified and in full foice and effect. X:-.' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their respective hands as of the day and year first above written. STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) DEVELOPER" FULLERTON PROPERTIES, INC., a Minnesota corporation y fP LENDER COX BROTHERS FARM, a Minnesota general partnership COX Th^ foregoing instrumen^was acknowledged before me ,^his day of . 1991, by (/)■ /"ruth. the Uk’^ of Fullerton Properties, Inc., a Minnesota corporation^ on ^l^ehalf of said corporation. -2- STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The^fqregoing insLrumenywas ackriow day of . 1991, uL tSdY Cox Brokers Farm, a Minng^ta general p said general partnership. ledged before me this _ _ _, a general partner of partnership, on behalf of STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Qf 1991, by James A. Cox and Bernadine A. Cox, // husband and wife. CONSENT The undersigned hereby consents to the foregoing Amendment. Dated: October 15, 1991.CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota municipal corporation .is STATE OF MIFJESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of _ _ _ _ _ _, 1991, by * the - - - - - - - of the City of Orono, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of said municipal corporation. Notary Public -3- . rr. r; hi .'i •h i-' 9^; Kf'-iv THIS IHSTRUMEHT WAS DRAFTED BY: Popham, Haik« Schnobrich & Kaufman, Ltd. 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 333-4800 1406LJR/4-7 -4- u »!• EXHIBIT That part of Outlet A, SHADOWOOD FARM, which lies southerly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 299.00 feet north of the most southerly line of said Outlet A, and its exteisions. 1406LJR/8 mUHtTi Properties. Inc. ^ k 1 IMIing Addrtss: f. 0. Box 30 MinnMpolii. MN 55440-0030 608 2nd Ave. So. Suite 1100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402*1937 (612) 339-9611 November 5, 1991 FAX » 47J-0510 r -I • * t - i 1 . ■■ T r City of Orous. 1335 Brown Road South Orono, MN 55323 'UQV 6 1991 Attn; Jeanne A. Mabush, Building and Zoning Subject; Ammendments to Shadowood Farm Declaration Dear Jeanne: The aamendments to t/i_- Shadowood Farm Declaration recently submitted for City Council review were submitted after review of the ammendments revealed that clarification seemed appropriate. The aittnendment regarding out Jot B was sutnutted beca >se it was never intended that the Shadowood Farm Association would 5e responsible for constri’-:tion and maintenance of the future road that was really designated as a benefit to the City and another Jandovner. I hope that the City Council will feel that if any road is ever built that its construction and care should be the responsibi litu of the parties benefited as quite honestly it is a detriment to the future ner lots at the South end of the subdivision. The ammendment affecting Jim Cox property is submitted after %,'^nsult. tion with Jim. It was never our intention to have the association exercise absolute control of future development or improvements to Mr. and Mrs. Cox's property. The aimendment submitted I believe is a suitable compromise and certainly takes in consideration of the existing controls already in place by the City of Orono. Thank you for your consideration of these requests. Sincerely, J. W. Franks Vice President * * « Tox Proa: Date: Mayor Peterson and City Council Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administ June 4, 1991 % 7 Approval of Individual Entrance Monuments for 4 Lots > %Subject: #1551 Robert L. Waade - Wildhurst Estates - ^ ) ist of Bzhibits - A - Elevation n - Site Plan The developer seeks approval of entrance monuments for each of the 4 lots within the Wildhurst Estates plat. Based on the 40' per inch scale submitted for staff's review, it would appear the monuments are placed approximately 3' from the street lot line. This would place them within the 10' drainage and utility easement that abuts the street lot line of all of the lots within Wildhurst Estates. The City has no spe Ific standards for entrance monuments and when entrance monumer.es are proposed with a subdivision, the City Council is asked to review and approve each proposal. In this case because of the configuratios? of this 4 lot pi*t, the developer seeks approval of indiv • .;al entrance monuments at the entrance to each private drive. Review Exhibit A. Entrance monuments are proposed at a 7-1/2* height and appear to be 3' X 3'. The elevations call for brick exteriors with cedar shake roofs. It also appears that each monument has a sign with the name "Wildhurst Estates" at approximately 3' x 3', Per Section 10.61, Subd. 2 (A) (1) - Nameplates. One nameplate sign for each residential dwelling shall not exceed 2 square feet in area per surface and no sign shall be so constructed as to I.c^ve more than two surfaces. Issues for Consideration 1. Height - Can height of monuments be reduced? Monuments are not placed at the entrance to a plat road but at individual driveways. Pences for properties located on a minor street would be limited to 3-1/2'. 2. Setback - Entrance monuments must be located out of drainage and utility easements that abut each of the lots, 10* along the road and 5' either side of shared lot lines. 3. Signage - The configuration of the lots does not allow for a single monument and entrance sign to subdivision area. Can signage still be minimized on each of the monuments at 4 or 6 square feet naxlmum? Can signage needs be worked into the 3-1/2' fencing adjacent to roadways? Options of Action Denial of entrance monument plan as proposed OR Approval of entrance monument plan as amended by Council. Isv T\\f I I j 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 > ! ! 1 1 4i 1 I1 ;1 1 : 'j 1 1 \1 !1 1 j i 1 1 1 1 1 i, 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1bi » i i • 1 '1 11 11 I ; > ( 1 i i • j f 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 \1 1 1 1 1 1 ! ! 1 I ! * 1 »1 1 ! 1< 1 1 1 :i I .1 11 1 1 11 ( 1; 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 : 1 i 1 1 \ 1 1 1 1 i 1(( 1( 1 11 1 { k i •1 i 1 1 i[1 1 1 i[ t 1 1 \ • ! 1 1 1 11 9 1 t ! . 1 * !1 1 1 » 1 1 * 1 f •1 i I4iij4 • r I I _ T-(.v'-----^ilTT 1 n«?HWH0i-m peai«iu4 1 L. % To: Proa: Dato: Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council _ Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wa •<?Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Admini^watoc ^'G,>. October 31, 1991 Subject: 3350 North Shore Drive - James Dunn - Residential/Conunercial Use Issues Soiling District: B-2, Lakeshore Business District Issue:Interim Conunercial Use of Property Dur'ng Certificate of Occupancy Application Review Process Pertinent Code Sections: 1.Section 10.07, Subd. 1 - A zoning occupancy certificate is required for changes in the zoning classification of use of existing buildings and proper*-y. 2.Section 10.41, Subd. 9 - Lot area/width requirements: acres, 200*. List of Exhibits Exhibit rt Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhib-'t E Exb P Exhx . G Exhlb.C H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K Exhibit L Exhibit M Exhibit N Exhibit 0 Exhibit P Exhibit Q Exhibit R Exhibit S ation Exhibit T Exhibit U Exhibit V Exhibit W Exhibit X Exhibit Y Exhibit Z 10/28/91 Order for Corrective Action 10/24/91 Inspection Slip 01/28/91 Marina License Memo 01/05/89 Marina License Memo 02/23/88 Marina License Memo 08/05/87 Inspection Verifying Compliance 07/20/87 Notice of Violation 01/09/87 Zoning Statement 05/29/86 Letter Requesting Additional Ini 05/05/86 Le**ter from City Attorney 10/04/85 Meeting Notes 08/19/85 Planning Commission Minutes 08/17/85 Letter from Gayle's Marina Cl/15/85 Memo & Exhibits 08/14/85 Letter from Schoenemar & Ramberg 08/13/85 Notice to Employees 08/09/85 Application #953 08/05/85 Letter from Attorney Bruce Douglas 07/28/83 Letter Notifying Pauly s Dunn that C.O. is Required 07/20/83 Letter to Pauly 06/16/76 Letter to Henry Andersot-t 06/01/76 Inspection Slip 09/10/69 .setter to John Anderson 09/05/69 Memo RE: Marine Use 07/17/69 Lettei co John Anderson Staff Sketch, Required .Setbacks for Storage 3350 North Shore Drive October 31, 1991 Page 2 Sonlng Status/Hiuvory Prior to March 11, 1957 this property was unzoned. Ordinance No. 9, adopted 3/11/57, rezoned this property as "commercial district". That district specifical 1'* allowed buildings to be used for commercial purposes, 'Ut also specifically allowed any use wh • .Id be permitted in a residential district. This property remained conunercio.. :oned and was re-defined as the B-2 Lakeshore Commercial Distrl^L. in the 1967 Zoning Code. As of September 14, 1967, existing residential uses within property zoned B-2 became non-conforming. The property has remained under commercial marina zoning since 1957. Dlscasaion The property >3*- 3350 North Shore Drive has approximately 60 feet of shoreline on Maxwel 1 Bay, and is approximately 0.30 acre in area. The property contains an existing single family residence. Intermittent attempts at commercial use of this property go back to at least 1969. The property was first zc’^Rd for commercial use in 1957. The City's initial contact with the urrent property owner regarding conversion of the property .rom residential to commercial use was in 1983, when the property was o ’ ned in conjunction with Chaska Marina. This eventually resulted in an application for a lot area and width variance and Commercial Site Plan Review in 1985. In August 1985 the Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommended certain conditions foi commercial use of the property. ..hese recommendations Included: A. Approval of lot area and width variances (2 acre, 200' width required for commercial use in B-2 zone). Rental residential use of property will be allowed to continv-e for one year, then revert to use by a paid security person only. Parking and storage on the property limited per .lioning Code requirements, no variances granted to yard or landscape area requirements. Variances granted only for Chaska Marina's use of the property . Hardcover ordinances apply. No recommendation regarding the use of docks n th«* property . B. C. D. E. F. 3350 North Shore Drive October 31, 1991 Page 3 Shortly after the Planning Commission meeting staff requested that Chaska Marina provide a letter agreeing to comply with parking storage setbacks, a sketch on a survey of how and where employee vehicles will be parked, and a Certificate of Survey accurately locating the existing structure and hardcover. This information was not submitted, and a letter was sent to Mr. Dunn on May 29, 1986 reiterating these requirements. In late 1986 or early 1987, Chaska Marina Royale was sold to Gerald Toberman. During 1987 while Toberman owned the property, storage and junk violations were noted at 3340 and 3350 North Shore Drive, and those violations were subsequently corrected. In fact, since that clean-up in 1987 until October 1991, no incidents of illegal storage on this property have been doctunented. Apparently in early 1990 Dunn reacquired the property at 3350 North Shore Drive. For some time he has been living in the residence, but until mid-October of this year there have been no complaints documented about commercial storage on the property. Staff Request for Interim Direction City staff inspected the property on October 24, 1991 and hand-delivered a Notice of Violation on October 28, 1991. Mr. Dunn acknowledged that the commercial use of the property is in violation, and agreed to appear at the City offices on Tuesday, November 5, to fill out the appropriate application forms for the change to commercial use. He indicated he believed he had a survey of the property and would look for it. He did not specifically indicate that he would remove the offending boats.- trailers, vehicl<*s and equipment within the seven day pericw specified in the violation notice. Pending receipt of a complete application and based on the anticipated scheduling of this application before the Planning Commission at their January meeting, the Council would not review this request until February. Therefore, staff felt that Council should give staff and applicant direction as to whether any storage will be allowed on the property in the interim. Unfortunately, the recent snowfall on November 1 will make removal of stored boats difficult unless the weather cooperates. Staff requests Council direction regarding interim use of this property. Optlv^iis for action include: 1.Require that all commercial use of the property cease and employee parking as well as all stored equipment be eliminated immediately. r h. ¥ ^ .*• nIs- If:,, f-W'i^>. 3350 North Shore Drive October 31, 1991 Page 4 2.Allow limited storage and vehicle parking in the interim, but require adherence to minimum zoning code setback standards. (See Exhibit Z). 3. Allow current commercial use to continue "as-is" during the interim period. 4.Other. Isv K-' ;'t ■ ,- I ■ ■f'" &vfi, A '.•’</A-k \\ rVV.r»- CITYof ORONO Municipal OfOoes Post Office Bo* 66 CrrsuJ Ba% MinoesoOi 55323-0066 '^b ^o3- October 28, 199i Mr. Jaunes J. Dunn 3224 North Shore Drive Mayzete, Minnesota 55391 Re: 3350 North Shore Drive Dear Mr. Dunn: Within the last two weeks it has ^ t Zoning Department ®f®5torage purpose. While this is a ^erm7tte'a nse^ln ^hri-Z^z^U^^^he suhjlct^roperty is non-conforming due to its residential nature within a commercial zone. residential to commercial. YOU will no doubt recall <=hat the issue of your con^er^ this residential property was ^he “.^ted i^ 1985. The ?Ss\4 “l‘l%a?LTlS^ -/e a^^"m"b«" o77eSd°a"ti"r to IL Council regarding use of the property. The attached letter of May 29 1986 l«%„7%/A7iSnt! Commission’s recommendation, ^ the City Council, and necessary information at 3340 andreiterated that continued commercial use ott p P ^ 3350 North Shore Drive ^\^e certm^^ of Survey, wasAdditional information, specifically the ixever subinittBd. commercial use of the P-Perty et 3250 «°rth Sho« Or^i^ve Has nevej been granted City -V’^he owner of the subject property, years in the i"H«nt"re°introd^7on of co^Vrcial use to' this property iHo7an a°lloSed use until it receives Council approval. TELEPHONE - 473-T357 • FAX • JTJ-OSIO Mr. James J. Dunn October 28r 1991 Page 2 mr» all commercial use of w^^ch aTe^°no?^ t^he personal AMD TRAILERS STORED ON THE PROPERTY^^^ REMOVED. IF PROPERTY OP THE OWNER OF 3350 N ^°^?q„PI,ETED WITHIN SEVEN DAYS, be initiated. , ^ t-h-iQ is3ue would be to reapply for Your appropriate Plan^Review as was done previously. Sincerely, . SAFFRONMICHAEL P. GAFFRON ......as«t. Planning « Zoning Administrator MPG/ch cc:Jeanne Mabuath, Building ( Zoning Administrator Inspections Department City Administrator City Attorney City Council Attachments: - Subdivision 1 i; 6 r' ■' i.- r i 5 i0.06 . • * nf its Droc“‘*dinas which shall include tne .tinu^es Oi. ill meetings its /indices 'and the action taken on each mattec heard by it, includin'; the final occer. Source: City Cede Effective Date: 4-1-34 SEC. 10.07. OCCDPANCy CSBTIFICaTES subd. 1. When Requited A 'b" • shall be requited for occupancy and^^u^ ^9^ hereinafter erected new use is of a differentuse of an existing building when thejewj^se^^ zoning classification, o ■ g different zoning use of vacant ”^®u,„gg i„ the use of a non-confotming use. ^ certificate .ay be issued as part of building permit. t- A “5 Prohibit’on. It is unlawful for any person to Subd. 2. in Subdivision 1 above as requiring do any of the without havina one in force. Any an occupancy false state.-nent of any fact whicn is certificate issued upon , shall be void. Whenever the factmaterial to the issuance thereof sha^^^^^ satisfaction of ?L*“zfni1.^/Ad.^^^^”r^^^^ Sn^"Vroce;d"l.he«afrer “w!th such'werk or use wit.hout having obtained a new certificate. subd. 3. Application f°J S^i“buUd?Ag or^to application for a f‘^^bail*be°deemed to be an application for an mike a major occJinc-i certificate |«Tu7e "/“In”where no building permit is required shall be naL directly to the Zoning Aoministratoc. ^“\^lfll;te ^sLu^"brap°/rol/d= w'’^t"h!n^ llV/^dl/l aftj/ rolf«u1^t"l “h« “een th| P;-f-/s ^o"/'’//e" Zonfng certified to be in -hanqe il the use of occupancy of an IfilVing ruridi ’nr or^ilr changl a"s soon Is involved, thythe premises and determined • 3 ORONO CC 263 (4-1-34) w^-. . & CATE T ME •w. • r ^ ••• .'•I• ^ • *• ‘^' * *• • *' ** * , * ' ^'* ' ■• . CITYOFORONO INSPECTION NOTICE PERMIT NO. called IN SCHEDULED • • address OWNER -------- __ CCMPUETEO ----- CONTR. TELEPHONE NO. DESCRIPTION 01 FOOTING 02 FNAMING 03 insulation ^aj ___ 11 MECHANICAL Rl 16 WELL TEST PUMP 11 MECHANICAL BNAL 18 EXCAV/GRADING/FILUNG 24/2S WOOD BURNER/FIREPLACE 19 LAKESHORE'WETIANOS 12 WATER HOOK-UP 13 METER SET/TURN ON 14 SEWER HOOK-UP 27 SEPTIC MAINT. 15 SEPTIC INSTALL 23 SEPTIC final YOU:__YES___NO 34 T] 17 SITE INSPECTION ■06PRDG35 21 COMPLAINT a'FDLLUw-uP' )raUpri» r*---. -.. A • • v.v : •’ * • • • 1 >• “ - •a >: r > . -* • 0- . . f. ’v *".• O Uj S*'/- .’ir-' > ••/•'r'r'J*'.*• • v>-^» • wv•: ui - ;- _*■’ -..T ic'-.-' i 7-i4*J.. ; ** |nN/6r4^t/V O-Ia.4; rtw (D^^7 FK ^ To-r»ir*» f ----------J______4, - Nils/ / <rl^ SaCL^ Sy lf S:^;r cj^ ^ ----- . f * ' - Iff >1^ ----------------------------------------------- 't %r>,F‘ V70S-7 ^ .V^LeC^lA, '‘Oovc ^ 1 ________ ^«i /OIL. fwVi Ul 1^4- PNg i)U^ rap2 u/iAi PA-H 3<?7 CrHC i)^ 7l«€uE ’ '?'ack -P/»rA ‘D-rT’ vCh,...! K^tr- S a WORK satisfactory; PROCEED 2 a CORRECT WORK & PfWCEED Q □ CORRECT WORK, CALL FOR RQNSPECTION 0 BEFORE aWERINQ a CORRECT UNSAFE CONOfTION WITHIN----- INSPECTOR WILL RETURN a STOPOROER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR C PROJE< C ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TEMPORARY .PERMANENT HOURS.C PHOTO TAKEN C QTATION ISSUED LJ I wr • — □ iNSPECnONREOUlRED-CALLTOARRANGEACCESS. Call for the next Inspection 24 hours in advance. 473-7357 Owner/Contractor on site:-------——--------------------------------------------- Inspector ----------------------------------------------------------------------- WTiH* Copyrtnsp^ctort F1M CAMfy Copy<SH* Nolle# /• * - .. •* ••!.> - .*••* • • • - _ ^ ^ ^ »4.»-- W-.T- - *>.■ • •-.*<»- • *-r- - v:*' « •.. • s - • / • •** ^v'*: - • r-. , . . -- • • *• « e• « • ' : \ V* f ; . I--*'I . ■ • * p •-* -c x^‘ • K • •p-7 - - > * * - * * » .*p* • •••. • T f .»•— ” FJ- . • ► ^ j,^ I •p.. '•.* v- >■. . V'-C tPW.* •..r: .r • <• - - t.. . ^ » ♦To:Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator exH. c From:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date January 28, 1991 Subject: Conunercial Marina Licenses for 1990/1991 Commercial Marina License Renewal Application forms for the 1991 season have not been mailed pending direction fro couniri. Although marina license -plications 1990 -re received from all marina operations except for ^rys Qarvice 1990 licenses have never been issued. Y fntliir to continue licensing, the 1991 licenses could be retroactive to 1/1/90. The 1990 license review got lost in discussions about the LMCD Lake Management Plan. Council min from Aoril 23 1990 indicate Council generally supported the i or" Sna “ioi^rttee. No marina committee was ever formed, however. Council did form a committee to review the LMCD pla . Since the mid-1980s, the City has not exercised concurrent jurisdiction with the LMCD regarding dock marinas. The City has continued an active reviewing land use aspects of marina ' ^^HncL^f ” m«inl SSeV at"wiKd'"Marinl, Minnetonka Boat Works, -d Smith's r:«berirs\^pT authority only over the land, not the water. Marina Activity Update - The following is a summary of marina activity over tho last few years: 1 w-sn,4wftT-,9 Marina - 118 slips - Windward Marine is nearing i;mp"lett”'of ““““o-piaL «"°-tion involving MLo^“a^'^^""a•ste ‘’ers^or"ag'e 'b°u7ldfnf oM"th^^ east side of Shoreline Drive, replacing ® ?w^-o^n-th^e-T^nag^erL;kr^^^^^^ Thrfinal^'Itep^nUi^^ re^^ation will ^2f old showroom building, landscaping, and replacement parking spaces. The City has received no complaints regarding the operation of this marina. Consnercial Marina Licenses 1990/91 January 29, 1991 Page 2 of 5 ■7 »Hnn*ii-onka Boat Works - 1989 increase in slips from 70 lo U4 - During 1989/1990 Minnetonka Boar works was approved by the LMCD for additional slips on Tanager Lake, the ^ ^ ^ ciTSSition of additxonsX psiTiCxn^ the road, which have been It shovld be noted that this upgrade also ?eSuItef i^ the striping of a crosswalk location ser-vring both Windward Marina and the Boat Works intent to define a crossing point for pedestrian traffic. The City has received no complaints regarding the Minnetonka Boat Works operation. trMlTrice J. Wagener, with David J. Carlson currently the General Manager. The new property owners have indicated to the orocee^ with a club building similar to that which had prev.ously been approved by the Council ?hat^the owner, hr. Toberman. Staff is under the impression that t current cwners will be proposing a ^^The'Citymiaht oroceed with the review process this year. The City Sil reLntly issue a permit for limited -if building is being used as the temporary marina office until the new building can be constructed. The City has received no specific complaints, but 4nfTuiries regarding the status of this marina. As lak levels return to normal, we would expect this marina operation to again become viable. 4. North Shore Drive Marina f 1984 stacks^- dry stacks; 1991 LMCD application: ^itv in North Shore Drive Marina was last 1^®®"®®*^^^^ ?^sfnce 1984. A number of issues (some resolved, some not) 1984 include: a) encroachment into adjacent dock use areas; b) authorized/un-authorised dredging (DNR/LMCD); c) expansion of marina operation onto adjacent residentially zoned properties; and d) apparent increase of slips and dry stack units (1991). Conunercial Marina Licenses 1990/91 January 29r 1991 Page 3 of 5 5. Lakeside Marina (forjierly Maxwell Bay5has“ Marina, formerly Northstar Manna) - -6 slips This ^ rr^n^g°^9 9\^r\%rcit^y -{eive neces^s^itLerdredging rchanneT\"o^\he^ existing ^^tl^^not in compliance with all LMCD regulations. ^ the following have also been issues regarding this manna. a) dock layout related to its effect on neighboring properties? and 7^£ S /;?v;s, s r,a.srt,”sn marina depending on the ownership at the time. 6. Gayles Marina - 143 slips - Gayles Marina not been licensed by the City since 1981. Licenses for 1982 throug 1985 were withheld subject to compliance with a number of conditions which have never been ^®|Jsires^^^a) orovisijn of specific sediment control measures in assolriation with rip-rapping done in 1988; service slips at the shoreline; c) screening/planting. In recent years, Gayles Marina has been in DNR and the LMCD regarding dredging and the app Sp«ation of a dredging business. The City has corresponded with the owner regarding this issue. 7. Crystal Bay Service - 3 slips - The Crystal Bay Service operation is primarily a gas dock ^So two transient slips with no over night boat 1990 marina license application was received . , ^ ^ _ Bay Service and their operation was apparently curtailt.d f most of the year due to low water. Heirina Licensing Issues - The City has not had a marina committee in ® jjjff 1985 the last year in which licenses were reviewed by that comiL'ttee. In 1986 and 1987, the City did mirinas S anticioation of approving code changes to make SS^ditional use rather than a licensed permitted use. Those proposed code changes were met with some 1® g/ ^eso 1 ved.operators and have never been finalized or the issues resox ■'h Commercial Marina Licenses 1990/91 January 29t 1991 Page 4 of 5 Tn iQB» the Citv issued marina licenses to four of the ^ J^^thLlding licenses from North Shore Drive, KlTVa^ Marina, end 03yl^ Uain mailed out marina license ®PP““Va?%'ay''%'er^^^^^ applications from all Discussion with cSllecting an licenses April 1990, :5^Srcrtim?lfe"co"uncil discussed forming a - Pla^fn/^mi^ri'^Pa-'llSg l°nTtt mar^%^^^llt\tl were^gain placed on a back burner. The 1990 licenses have yet to be issued, applications have not been mailed out. The 1991 I would again make the following observations about marina licensing in Orono: ^ Marina licensing by the City has lost whatever effectiveness it mighi have had in the past, because the Cit^has not forced marinas to cease operations when a required license was withheld. 9 Tanf5 use controls and procedures have been relatively b^i IdVn^s "o^'"s lirexplnsiolfl^^^^^^^^ ^add'el'palkLg) has been proposed. 3 With low water levels for the last 3 yearsr some miirinas have been barely making ends meet^,^ and have^resorte^ ‘°-^tl1.n“th'eiP'buliPlss^°"At°the same time, other marinas have expanded or upgraded bheir facilities and j>perations^ f-his activity has been aided# hindered# o by the City's intermittent licensing of marina, operations. Short Term Goals - Does Council wish to proceed with mailing of 1991 Marina License Applications? Conraiercial Marina Licenses 1990/91 January 29, 1991 Page 5 of 5 Long Term Goals - What are Council's long term ^oals for marinas?Do you want to: a) Maintain status quo? (license now and then. . .) b) Help marinas prosper absent expansion? c) Eventually legislate marinas out of existence? d) Make existing non-conforming situations gradually become conforming? e) Allow non-conforming situations to remain as-is as long as they don’t expand? f) License marinas merely as a source of revenue? ri'-- To: Cr^fTT f3'3-= ‘C« Frcm: Date: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning s Zoning Ad.tinistrator January 5, 1989 X r"'" , Ci’" ^(o.sV^Subject: 1988 Marina Licenses The City of Orono has within the City since the ear J ’ revision which would make suspended in i;-36 pending - ^^f-^f/e^^sTon h” ^ever reached fruition, marinus a condif vnal use. = 1936 and 1987. In 1988, HO license fees were ^ boggL down with little apparent =e”ofn:rit:i:::\- - -- - Due to staff time revTo" of"Lrh mlrina niver occurred including a *nd complete a thorough site review of during 1988. It is staff however, staff also feels it is :p%%V“etrtoTs:ue"l988 liceLes before sending out license applications for the 1989 licenses. There are seven marina operations historically licensed in Orono including: Windward Marine sl^thTBay'M^inrrformerly Sailor's World, formerly Paul's landing) Mt^elTTay M^rTna^Uoraerly Chaska Marine, formerly North Star Marina ) Gayle's Marina Crystal Bay Service (gas dock operation A number of marina operations ar time. There which has resulted to resolve conflicts with Ci y t*. **taff's intent at this time to In withholding of past licenses. generally in compliance with i,.u. 1988 licenses to those and to recommend City requirements as documents P Ki.m. exist denial of licenses where continuing unresolved problems exist. I ....... ii!' i988 Marina Licenses J&nuary 5, 1989 Page 2 of 7 A brief overview of each marina operation follows: A) Windward Marina J 4= ■{« midst of a major renovation program. Windward -orrugated steel storage structure with a involving replacement of a larg '' alone County Road 15. The much smaller ^ include an expansion of the commercial second phase County Road 15, which was the subject of :rrran«s c“^\tio" r use permits which received Council approval. There have been no complaints regarding Windward Marina ’s operation during 1988, and historically uL\^eTf^T8?riit: :: Manager l.he, 78 sli^s on Browp Ba. and^B8 other boats on the P«perty for „,,ina, per the B) Minnetonka Boat Works The Minnetonka Boat Works facility on Brown's Bay and Manager Lake is primarily a boat slip rental Works tn^cl”::\^\radror:h:Xn^Vi o:-:roperty.^and widening of-the boat lift area. The Minnetonka Boat Works operation has .lip, on Brown's Bay “^/^Vati"%°h\I:rv%%e%n%o compla^^^^^^ regardingon land for a total of 70 boats. ™ere na e fee paid by Srnne«"nr Bo" "“s Ts'833:.^or ^-ff would recommend approval of the 1988 license for Minnetonka Boat Works. 1988 Marina Licenses January 5, 1989 Page 3 of 7 C) smith Bay Marina & Yacht Club Inc. ^ marina in Orono that is undergoing major renovation This is . Council. Except for a garage/office area, the work approved by the been removed, a new dock system buildings on this and utilities have been placed in constructed, » ^ „ew nain .arina building. Tha recent preparation for con f«r landscape areas near the lake, council approval included the property. The with the main 3„f£ that the main building construction property owner has indicated to stair is expected to commence in spring 1989. ■ ^ « <-nmrlaints about the Smith Bay Marina operation staff received no Yy’” * been approved far 63 slips and 20* during 1988. the water, plus 11 on land. The off-shore buoys for a total of 83 lonaer exists at the site. Paul's Landing fishing boat renta ^ $362.00 for the 1988 sailor's world paid a license tJ marina license license year. Staff would recc^end a^roval for Smith Bay Marina & Yacht Club Inc. ^,\jar€ :/98B L/wcb ro-SC«t. pi5aM*.r/A»w«fl-i080 OF 2.0 S^OYZ ^tiOCJc (_ 0) crystal Bay Service v't>cL»K:er' j c^srvice station at the corner of Tonkawa crystal B-V “ ^^Voperatiorconsists of a gas dock on the ™i%Tside ol thread, and\he operation has historically been grLted 2 transient slips and 1 company slip on that doc. . There have been no complaints Service for operation. The vtl of^a i?88 commercial marina license for $206.00. Staff recommends approval Crystal Bay Service. MTlna operations North Shore Drive Marina, Harwell The remaining 3 marinas, licenses in 1985 due to a Bay Marina, and Gayle's Marina, ^ ^gg and dock use. At this number of unresolved issues regar i g issued, for these time staff is recommending that -^ived Note that all three of marinas until the operation absent the required these marinas have continued their daiiy op license. r i. 1988 Marina Licenses January Sr 1989 Page 4 of 7 A) North Shore Drive Marina Horth Shore Drive Marina was last issued a marina license for the 1984 season The 1985 license was denied pending resolution of a dock use l.,lT Mr. Hork, owner of the marina, persisted in docking his personal boat on the east side of the main dock extension, which is an encroachment into the dock use area setback. The neighboring dock use due to a concave shoreline configuration, hence use of the M^^^o;kTc^r:a:“h^^‘ tTeraVnadru “dockVd^rtii: location because it was his personal boat and his handicapped wife and brother could not use the boat if it was in any other location. The L.M.C.D. considered this setback encroachment as a violation in 1986 p note the attached memo of May 20, 1986. in 1987, Hork apparently either purchased or gained some the adjacent Millard property to the east and was using it storage, as noted in the L.M.C.D. letter of November 6, 1987. Also in 1987 staff was at issue with the marina regarding construction o ior ;he houee at 3250 North Sho.-e Drive (part of the marina property). That permit was finally issued in April 1988. Also, in 1987 or 1988, Hork removed the blue privacy fence along North Shore Drive? which had been a source of complaints from neighboring property owners and passersby for many years. However, in planting an Sc^^ng as a replacement to the fence, Hork also placed the entire area between the toad and the dry-stack units. Staff ^as n verified whether the landscape rock is underlaid by p however, this may constitute an increase in hardcover on * ^ already greatly exceeding the hardcover limitations (as our commercial marina operations). AS was intended in 1988, staff for 1989 intends to make a :tnirk^u^nr ‘^a"v^ra??o^s"p«^"sr, applications for Council review as necessary. This marina paid a 1988 license fee of $396.00. 1988 Marina Licen-es January 5, 1989 Page 5 of 7 B) Maxwell Bay Marina Maxwell Bay Marina was formerly known - C^ka f North Star Marina. The marina was subject of a number ofT« iQflA and 1985, the marina was the suD^ecn oi season. In 1984 ^ ' property owners to the immediate west of the complaints from nerghbor_xngjroFe J ^^pasties interspersed property, regarding commerc used property in this B-2 zone. r”r'.r::: Still an issue. In 19 , „-rina nroperties, in order to gain a applications lZ\o fin’ally determine what specific uses would be allowe,’ for .^ho ”license was never application ..at was filed was never comt-eted and a .985 issued. .r M,„ 39 1986 letter to the then marina owner James Dunn, staff noted that the the B-2 width ^commendations regarding the use of those nrc;i" but requested'additional information which also was never adequately submitted. staff has ^eceived no formal com^.1^ r“i:::e:^Ti«u"es “"e“ u/e Of the --- hence staff is likewise opportunity to discuss the issues Maxwell Bay Marina resolve the outstanding problems,with the property owner and attempt to resoxve p This marina paid a 1988 license fee of 8354.00. 1988 Maxina Licenses January 5, 1989 Page 6 of 7 C) Gayle's Marina The issues which remain unresolved are as follows. * 4. rir-racoing project (which commenced after years of i*. ' „ in 1988^ thTLrL" was required by the City to prov .ie fi:heraTo' landsc’’p: buffer, a her™ system, or a filtration system either ric-racping, which the property owner adamantly in ^ ^ p'p was apprised of the City's concerns, however u”i«”ely thiy did issue a rip-rapping permit as well as a dredging ^ Cayle-s Marina and to staffs Lrm water quality protection measures were not installed. 2. There is a long standing question of whether or ® slips at the shoreline expansion of City has =“«f-^„J=‘;;Vproper^^ that they were always !nt%:d“d"trbe \n pla=;when%relious licenses had been granted in the 1970s. 3. Although the landscaping and plant materials that plantings over the year , thrived very well, were to be in relatively unscreened, appearing as a to the water's edge. 4.K /ea«o with Maxwell Bay Marina and North Shore Drive Marina, site and determine what iss license be issued to Gayle's Marina them. Staff recommenos that no lyoo until the questions are resolved. This marina paid a 1988 license fee of S486.00. t- h. I" 1988 Marina Licenses January 5, 1989 Page 7 of 7 Staff RecoBOBcndation ...........™.r." staff recommends Marina, and Crystal Bay Service. North Shore Drive Mann , .ites and operations,further in-depth review of those sites and ope ISS, Marina Uoense ‘Pf wfetren r.rinV Co:l:ftt?e%":nsirtlng Of‘a ooehination of Council and Planning commission Members should be re-establishe . To:I-lark E. Bernhardson, City Adninistrator From:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Adoiinistrator Date: February 23, ''988 Subject: 1988 Marina Licenses - Sunir.ary or Issues Applications for i^B8 Con^ S activity and issues for each of these operations: a Hindifard Maxine *• "Sress: Shoreline Drive 2”""o?'’SS«tlon- - SUp^^Rental (mainly sailboats)Type of operation. _ ^ g^ies - Ships Store ,i A f\ 78 on Browns Bay /Number of Slips: 118 (40 Available 77 Number of Parking Spaces: R q contemplated a maj^or Notes S Comments: In 198 ' . nlars they discontinued when remodeling of the required sprin)cling of thf buildings' operation on both sides of County Road 15. 1. 200’ docjt length, ?®^roperty line on Browns Bay2. Doc)c side setback to north property i tanager Lake 3. Dock side setback to s°“ ^je^e'ty line on Tanager Lake 4. Dock side setback to north 77, including condi^LniriVV^rmit for' 21 spaces on adjacent properties Most Recent Year Licensed: 1985 Major Unresolved Issues: None B r iiM President, Dennis Keating. Operations Manager 473 Type of operation: - s Service Number of Slips: 66 (41 iva\\Ibl^^ Number of Parking recently obtained a conditional useNotes 6 Comments: The marina nt Y coinciding with their permit for widening of their boat r^p Sew boat lift, Tanager LlkeT’^'This layout never been^reviewed^by^^^ ty^o^ 2«e° created" tf”taffs" knowledge. The operation uses of Coui^ty Rosd 15*variarcrirstrric:fly"fantjd With Yearly License: None Most Recent Year Licensed: 1985 M^jor tjnrssolved Issues: None 1988 Marina Licenses February 22, 1988 page 2 o£ 6 C. •x" I I' h. t: D. Type of operation: - SUp Rent^ Number of Slips: 85 p«miired 52: Available 52 Number of Parking undergoing a major renovationNotes t Comments: This marina including new seawalls S^p^ved by “the “city -d sventual^ly^constr^^^^^^^^ a^singl^ Sfet"the“sut”ecrora cLmercial site plan review by the City Council. r-v-ant-od with Yearlv License: variants ^i^^^rs'^nl^pr^Tr^rs a :L^lnro^/the*%rul"nan^dT5g''boat rental operation contract. That use reauired to maintain a The Sailors World ^ di^'ing the summer week-end full time made the City's fark^n^g Tot°"on County "poad 146 available for the ” t'Vea'r LT=*ensed:^"fm (current own^r/operation has U=en"e”at this location) Major unresolved Issues: None 2. "SSS-fSt'Sm’So^'thore Drive S;^";orrSSn"Mwards ( general onager, Type of Operation: SI p 471-2628 - Dry Storage - Repair Parts s Service - Fuel Sales - Boat fi Trailer Sales . e, • 86'olus'’20®bn« dry-stacked for use in lake plus 45 other boats 72+ Number of Parking Spaces: Required 72, av 1988 Marina Licenses February 23, 1988 Page 3 of 6 D.comments: The most 'J^=®g”\.P°*blurfenoVw2s r„rrrp\rc\^d^h"y\an.soepin,^ ^::fcYractirin t^iis -i-,r%ndif,""cl/r^l^^atro'’n*"f«: license application ta P regarding handicappedthe City Attorney and the L.M.C.D. regar g marinas,access requirements and how^theym.^ghtp^^^ and specifically Hork . Additional concerns overdock for Hork's personal cruiser. Addit^„^„„ ^^e baffle the, years have been p^rty, the fact that this we^ir at the inlet on the p P . , g people who may property contains (i.e. or may not use of a commercially zonecmixed residential and commercia . of dry-stack use property), and units are allowed to have a and whether or not the y coov of an agreement thatroof (Staff recalls being ®h°w" | ccpy^ of ^ ^ allowed the f°°* asked Hork to provide same). VariafctrHfsWricrily Granted with yearly License: Hone Most Recent Year Licensed: 1984 Major^Unresolj^edJ^^^^^^ of owner's boat on east side of main 2. Mixe.i of^ dly^-stlc\^* unit and3. Questionable compliance of ary Potential?ss”esrAt l®®?V"c:„%%°r"n“t‘Lr tteraV ’e" a^re^ of^ marina has ®*P“®®1p gp^k to purchase properties east of contract ®9'®®“®"p'=Jl^„p®°’t « :L%"rT St’aff h« mSde no attempt to substantiate. *.♦ 1988 Marina Licenses February 23, 1988 Page 4 of 6 E. 471-8581 Maxwell Bay Marina & Yacht Club, Inc. operator: Vern Type of Opetatiop: - Slip - Boat Repair, Parts i Service - Boat s Trailer Sales Number of Slips: 76 oomiired 54; Available 54 Number of Parking was last licensed i- 1983. Notes S Comments: Thxs f ownership in the last 5-10 undergone numerous jj^ly has plans to expand the years. The current %o the west of the existing operation both ®ies owned by the marina to the west operation. The tie east between Maxwell ale zoned B-2; the P«P®“^®®^’Drive Marina are stilled Bay Marina and the however, the City has made zoned single family twricre parcels become iJailable in this Irea, they will be considered for rezoning Variarcernistorically Granted With year^ 1. Temporary dock varian sides. ^ oTl "hat irtte%asrdenied"alyt se of laRe access o^tte CrysLl Bats'ide of North Shore Drive. Most Recent Year Licensed: 1983 Major "nresolved Issues: j^nt-ial use of properties adjacent^ 1. Mixed commercial/resxdential use or p F Marina to the west pt?petty line between^ complaints and Gayles Marina. Ther over the years regarding by one specific proper y marina employees, storagetrespass by ®arina 'isers and marina i:si"d%tt\arprtpert|^^^ end^^ Te'se hate ^fv«tefnt4tlV -°rot the west side ^rtirtatrn/"dtcrsts\lm have ^been e" ^issue^and^ an item of contention between , favor of the ilth the City 0""° itSc apparently objectedexisting layout which the L.M.c.u. app to. Koon a suitable resolution of the 3. There has „.-v be used commercially on the properties between Maxell y ^^^^3ble resolutign "rtw t^ose properties should be used on an inter,m bases. 1988 Marina Licenses February 23, 1933 Page 5 of 6 Harwell Bay Marina & Yacht Club, Inc. Cent. potential Future b«n :?q“u/riTp«cels‘’betie\%'-Mai-"ll Bay Marina and North Shore Driv6 Msrins* F. “Sdares^^66 1 ®‘’S • ttid^''‘'4 71-9 4 9 5ry?r^?Sre^aConf’^-%urK-taliype oi. . _ Launching — Repair Parts s Service - Fue.’ Sales - Bait & Tackle Sales - Boat S Trailer Sales Number of Slips: 193 ,e„uired - Approximately 104: Number of Farking Spaces, Approximately 108 Notes s Comments: Gayles a®licen°s®e”%°ince that time. 1981 and has °P«at«^ ^nde^went soma JaLshore protection The property while this rip-rap was measures has neVer verified that the rip- approved by the staff verified whether or not a rap was completed nor ^as sta incorporated within that filtration/sedimentatio ^^y ^ ^hat only 134 slips rip-rap. marina and the 9 additional service were approvable Contention for a number of years,slips have been a bone of content to get Gayles Staff has also, for ® ^ requirements in to comply with the oroiec^ Staff has made no conjunction with the - landscape insp^ection to % «beth«n"l^ variances SL°?o’ri=aHy Granted with Yearly License: None Most Recent Year Licensed. Major Unresolved Issues: ' Jrov\^A'’ln''o/^^nds^=a•pe area of at least 10- along Jomrietlcn of rip-rap project which would incorporate a filtration or sedimentation system. 1. 2 3. r 1983 Marina Licenses February 23» 1988 Page 6 of 6 ?*^3f9rNorth Shore Drive Swner/Operator: Mike Mehner^^^471-0183 Type of Operation. ^ ^^pair Parts & Service Number of Slips: 2, plus is a gas dock operated Number of Parking v°i« Station at the corner of Tonkawa ^LftndTorth IKrfSrlve, The gas doc. is on the Crystal which requires “"^^^cuSncni gas spill three or |:S^yeI5raV«ardu'’e^Vo faulty equipment which has been varianoesiltiorioally Granted with Yearly License: None Momecent Year Licensed: 1985 Major Unresolved Issues: No Staff “ that a number of major changesIt would appear that a licensed marinas m 1905. i woux existing hardcover# etc. marinas# yet haraco : . . -i r.Vt‘We«3 ’'“ei:rro^\"av%^eco^^^ pro^rtiesf such of aacf marina property. It m^gh^ Satina owner and detailed appoint a marina teview committee to^MsiSssi specific "erinas^ an i^tee review. be spent if there is no helieve to be all of cur I have four archive boxes t°"taining w at I 1960's, stacked in existU;~rinVi,^^^^^^ e strategy for ;Xni“nfs^Ving rrin’i'°licenses for 1988. \ / DATE TIME CITY OF OnONO INSPECTION NOTICE PERMIT NO-------------- CALLED IN SCHEDULED COMPLETED I 2 iO ADDRESS______"3^ SO ^JC) ^g.w>-C, OWNER /l^ATtujetf ______CONTR. ___ TELEPHONE NO--------------------------------- K*u; i aa □□ a□□□ FOOTING niAMINQ I iSULATtON WALL BO. RNAL PROGRESS OEMOL FIRE PREV. □□□ □□□ □□ □ PLUMBING Rl PLUMBING FINAL MECHANICAL WATE.^ HOOKUP METER SET/TURN ON SEWER HOOKUP SEPTIC INSTALL SEPTIC MAINT WELL TEST PUMP ;iTE INSPECTION □ excavvgraoing /filling □ LAKES h ORE/WETLAKOS □ licensing 4i^COMPLAINT •^<OLLOWUP □ SEPTIC FINAL □ FIREPLACE/WOOO BURNER □ _________________ COMMENTS: I QC2 Ul A I :: i □ PHOTOTAKEN□ WORK SATISFACTORY: PROCEED □ COR «CT WORK I PROCEED □ CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING O CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS INSPECTOR WILL RETURN □ STOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR a inspection required , call to arrange ACCESS call for th« next inspection 24 hours in advance , F • %•* * *• . i r . *L , . rr-jn^n-a .* * . ..J.* *’ • ‘ *• .....-V ^ f . -C. .L y, V.' .— . • • -.7 -: •; - . ^-4,. r- • • • " .-- v-w-'- L . . . ' i . • . . -••• ; / - ^ A** - * ^ • •• * • # * * a . • • • « .,*• ^ ■ j. • ' ' • •• . . *. - » .• .w.#* .'•fc* •• • •• T - ,.... ,>•. ■ •; • ! , r. ■■ r. !/ w CITY.. ■°Fr - • ORONO mi. Qa. CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66»Cryital B«y, Minneeou 55.'!23* Municipal Office* On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka July 20, 1987 Maxwell Bay Marina Attn: Jerry Goodwin 3394 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: 3340 fiQ3350jl}brth Shore Drive, Orono Dear Mr. Goodwin: On July 16, 1987, an inspection was conducted at the above subject property which revealed the following code violations: 3340 North Shore Drive, Orono Storage of unlicensed, inoperable vehicles Dodge truck Y/X 84157 expiration 1986 MG - no license Mustang BYH 816 expiration June 1986 Plymouth BLO 953 expiration June 1984 ^ ^ w • Maintainance of private property - various ^unk and debris - ^ weeds - hazardous dock - boat trailers and cradles stored with^ * 75 r lake. -----1 /3350 North Shore Drive, Orono ___, I I Maintenance of private property - high weeds and large scrap pile. \ The above is in violation of Orono Municipal Code Sections 9.50 s 9.55. I am writing this letter to inform you that corrective action be made befor' .ugust 3, 1987. If corrections have not been made by this time, citations will be issued and you will have to appear in court to explain why you will not correct this matter. The City is also considering •Srting Hazardous Building Action on the house at 3340 North Shore Drive. Please contact our office and update us on the status of the buiIding. If you have any questions on the Zoning Code violations, please feel free to contact me at my office. Thomas J. Jacobs, Building Official TJJ/tln Enclosure - Orono Municipal Zoning Section 9.50 & 9.55 cc: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator Lyle Oman, Field Inspector Mel Kilbo, Police Chief Scott Richter, City Attorney lUILDINCa ZONING - 473*7357 • ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473*7358 • ASSESSING PUBLIC WORKS - 473*7359 b . IV. CITYof ORONO Post Officv Box 66*Crystal Bav Minnesota S531^i*Municipal Offices ‘ r • •; i • * u' * On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka January 9, 1987 Richfield Bank & Trust Co. 6625 Lyndale Avenue South Richfieldr MN 55423 RE; 3350 North Shore Drive P.I.D. 08-117-23 41 0014 Gentlemen: This letter is to confirm that the property located at the above address is zoned B-2, lakeshore commercial, that the primary residential use of the property is non-conforming and that such property does not fall within the 100-year floodplain under local ordinance. Sincerely, ix« A. MabusthJean] Building & Zoning Administrator cc: Huemoeller 6 Bates JAM/pp BUILDING A ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING administration a finance - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 t-; I CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323*Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka vocaaBSsr May 29, 1986 Chaska Marina Royale 3324 North Shore Drive Hayzata, MN 55391 Attn: James Dunn Re: Zoning Application #953 Dear Mr. Dunn: In reviewing our files, I note that Application #953, for variances to allow commercial use of your 2 substandard parcels in the B“2 Commercial Marina Zoning District, remains to be resolved. This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 19, 1985. The Planning Commission recommendation forwarded to Council as follows: a) Approval of area (and width) variances for the two separated parcels (variances were required to the 2-acre, 200 width requirements for a commercial use in the B-2 Zone). b) Recommended that the rental residential use of 3350 North Shore Drive be allowed to continue for 1 year, then revert to being used only to house a paid security person. c) Recommended that both parcels be limited to parking and storage only as allowed in the zoning code, and that no variances granted to the yard or landscape area requirements. d) Recommended that these variances to be granted only for Chaska Marine* use of the property. e) Noted th? recommendation ^ properties. hardcover ordinances apply. No •de regarding the use of the docks on these In a subsequent meeting with your attorney, Bruce Douglas, on follows : BUILDING* ZONING - 473-7357 assessing administration * FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 H t: ifc-N-:: Chaska Marina Royale Re: Application #953 May 28, 1986 Page 2 o£ 2 1) A letter stating that Chaska Marina will comply with the setbacks for parking and storage. 2) A sketch (on a survey) of how and where the employee vehicles will be parked. 3) A survey of these two properties accurately locating the existing structures and hardcover. Staff's intent was to proceed with this item at the October 28, 1985 Council meeting, as well as to present the 1985 Marina License fog iippj^oval* Mr» Douglas to date not provided the information to us, jjQdce the application has not progressed. At this point, continued commercial use of the two properties remains in violation of City Code. One additional issue which was brought to our attention this spring is that the house at 3340 was apparently inhabited over the winter. Again, this mixed use was never represented to the City as an intended or proposed use in the original application. I have received a complaint that the remnants cf that occupancy, i.e. a barbecue grill and other debris, remain on this site. Please check on this and rectify as the situation warr ts. It is imperative that this a-nlication be followed through and resolved immediately. In order - bring the application to the Council in a positive light, you should submit Items 1 thru 3 outlined above, and also update us on the intended use of the structure at 3340 when will it come down?) and re~address or -pdate us on the current use of the docks at 3340 and 3350. In order to schedule this application for Council review in July, we will need your further information by June 20. Please contact me if I can be of assistance or to further discuss the matter. If a response is not received in a timely manner, appropriate enforcement action will be taken. Assistant Zoning Administrator MPG/tln cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Kathleen Blatz, City Attorney PoPHAM. H aik.Schnobrich . Kaufman & Doty. Ltd . MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55A02 TCuCCO**C*> 612-333 --*aoO MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 19, 1985. PAGE 9 #954 ORONO GOLF COURSE 265 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 7:53-7:56 Chairman Callahan explained the application tor a conditional use permit for expansion of the 4th tee and regrading of tee apron area at the Municipal Golf Course. Asst. Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Gaffron submitted plans drawn up by the City Engineer for fill and grading near the 4th tee on the Orono Golf Course. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the Public Hearing was closed. It was moved by Goetten, seconded by McDonald, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use permit as submitted. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). #956 MRS. PHILIP W. PILLSBORY 1200 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD VARIANCE Mr. William W. present. Scott, architect for Mrs. Pillsbury, was Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that when the building permit was filed it was found that the old foundation was not going to be used with the new construction, therefore a lot area and lot width variance is required. Mabusth stated that it is an improved lakeshore setback because the new structure will be located out of the 75 foot setback area. Mabusth also stated that this application was too late for the Public Hearing deadline, so the Planning Commission is being asked to make their recommendation and the Public Hearing will be held before the Council at the August 26th meeting. It was moved by Chairman Callahan, seconded by McDonald, to ^ppj-Qve the procedural variance application as recommended by staff in their findings as listed. Motion, Ayes (6 ), Nays (0). Cfis^CHASKA MARINA NORTH SHORE DRIVE VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 10:58 - 12:04 . r ....Asst. Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Gaffron explained the applicant's request for variances to permit commercial open storage and parking of conunercial and employee vehicles. Gaffron explained that there are two separated properties, owned by Chaska Marina, that are not adjacent to the property itself but separated by residential used lots within the B-2 zoned district. HINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 19, 1985. PAGE #953 CHASKA MARINA Chaska and his attorney, Bruce C. Douglas were present for this matter . Mr. Douglas stated that this is a commercial marina permitted zone# with pre existing uses which have certain grandfather rights within the City. Douglas explained that his client is seeking a variance to the area and use functions of two parcels, 3340 6 3350 North Shore Dr. Douglas stated the area variance is needed because neither parcel meets the minimum 1/2 acre requirement. The use variance is required because there is a pre-existing adjacent residential use involved. Douglas noted that the proposed site plan takes into consideration the 75' lake setback and 10* sideyard setbacks, and the plans meet the hardcover ordinance. Douglas stated that they intend to put in a 3' high staked fence to physically protect the 10' sideyard setback areas from use by the Marina. Douglas also stated that they intend to abide by any setback requirements from the roadway even though the site plan doesn't show it. Douglas also informed them that the house at 3340 North Shore Dr. is prohibited by contract from being destroyed prior to August 1, 1986. He noted that he has written to the contract vendor seeking permission to destroy the house prior to that date and has not yet received a response. If they do not receive permission, Mr. Douglas said that the house will be removed no later than a month after August 1, 1986. Douglas stated that the house on the other property is not a problem house in terms of structural stability. In order to respect the rights of the adjacent residential prcperty owners, Mr. Douglas stated that they have attempted to delineate and identify the issues that must be dealt with such as providing the neighbors with copies of signed statements from all the employees of Chaska Marina acknowledging that they are aware of the trespassing rules. Mr. Douglas stated that it is the residential property owners interests which are non-conforming in this area and that the burden of obligations must be met by all persons involved. Douglas stated that they are merely asking for a variance to conform to the use that is permitted in this commej-cial zone. Douglas said that they intend to use the lots for vehicle parking with appropriate screening, of trailers, and some marina equipment such as cradles that hold boats. Sandy Ramberg and Marcia Schoeneman, 3332 North Shore Dr., and Phyllis Sprague, 3342 North Shore Drive, were present for this matter. problems, Commi" .on member McDonald had ccncerns regarding the number of bo .s in the water and on land. E MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 19. 1985. PAGE 11 #953 CHASKA MARINA continued Mr. Douglas stated that there is wet slip storage, dry slip storage, and winter storage which the Marina Committee and City Council deals with when issuing the Marina license each year, and this issue has nothing to do with the land use application before the commission. Mr. Douglas indicated that they wish to continue the mixed commercial and residential use of the 3350 North Shore Dr. parcel to serve as the on-site residence for a permanent 24 hour security person for the Marina. The issue of hardcover was raised and Mr. Douglas indicated disagreement from staff's contention that gravel is hardcover. However, Mr. Douglas stated that if gravel a.s considered hardcc r, they will conform by leaving the area dirt. Mrs. Sprague stated that at the present time they are not parking within the setbacks. Mrs. Ramberg stated that as time passes there are more problems with the enfringment of their rights, and they are against the granting of any variance. Mr. Douglas stated that in order to comply with the setbacks they agreed to put up the physical barrier of the staked fence and that although he feels the Marina has the primary responsibility, the residents have a secondary responsi bility to try and work these problems out. McDonald voiced her opinion that the area could not handle the added use. Chairman Callahan felt that there is no problem granting the area variance to 3340 North Shore Dr. , but felt uncomfortable granting the mixed use variance to the other property. Callahan stated that he feels both houses should be removed before the parcels be used commercially. was moved by Rovegno, seconded by Callahan, to recommend an area variance for the two subject lots; recommend a use variance for 3340 North Shore Dr. until it is torn down in one year (or until a specific date such as September 1, 1986 ); recommend a temporary variance for the mixed uses for 3350 North Shore Dr. for residential use for one year thereafter being used only for a paid security person; and that no setback or landscaping variances be granted; and that such lots be limited to use for parking and storage by Chaska Marina. Motion, Ayes (5), Nays (1). McDonald voted nay because of the uses involved and felt that issues such as dockage and hardcover should have been considered. APPROVAL OF MINUTES JULY 15. 1985 It was moved by Sime, seconded by Goetten, to approve the Minutes of the July 15, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). 3366 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 AREA CODE 612-471-9495 August /7, I9S5 ' S !SS5 /' I I I I Offo/vd Ctty 0^ O^orto P. 0. Box 66 Olt/4.ta£ Bai/, MM 55323 ATTEMTTOM: Jeanne f-fabusth VzaA. Jeanne; Ai PM ./PM police I ^cce-cved Aaaait 15, I9S5 icgMtiiu Ctofca Ma-iiim 00/uance. A4 on adjacznt tandcmzx and ne<lg/i6ot J have nc to Cheuka Hoxim. (Utlvsx stofemg o-t ^xting tkeex com-netetoX veatecei oa boati on -t/ie pA.opzAJtij uou 4peafe 0({. SincLZXziij, GAVLEAS JWRIMA CORP. Gaylz^tig, P-izsta‘yit m/st To;Planning Commission Members Prom:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Admnistratoi Date August 15p 1985 Subject:1953 Chaska K>tina, 3340 s 3350 North Shore Drive - Variances h • n ,.=.*=4- v;^riances to permit commercial open stc i Application - J%o„u„eroial and employee vehicle on prcpe- - '^ B**2 but used residentially• and led List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Applications I) 3340 II) 3350 Plat Map . List of Property Owners Lxst Site Plan Submitted - Proposed Uses Tetter From Applicant's Attorney 8/5/85 Letter of Response From Schoeneman/Ramberg Hardcover Calculations Submitted Lmple Chaska Marina Employee Acknowledgemen Staff Sketch Summary of Request: Chaska Marina has -ng-term plans ol ^p" |2yie^; Srir%°party^:^ cLska has involved, both of which are bound on « and city Council used residentially (see H.) The «a of the have insisted that separate land use appii^^^ substandard sized property two separated properties, in ... Marina employees or renters occupying SrSspLt?v“ o. the lots while employee parking and boat/-, caller stLfgl iralso taking place on the same properties.-- - - - -- - - - ^ - In general, when the property s!"th^rlsidenU uses from residential to B-2 to commercial use reguires a became legal non-confor g* ^mgrtificate of occupancy for the commercial site plan 4-ask is to review the proposed usage ofThe Planning Commission s tas cific performance standardsproperties, realizing that our code has n - - residential or for the mixed use, hence it is necessary commercial standards apply. The Marina intends to Gholld 3?tVnVh1^s bt“Il^eed^%rt!nue2 which use is primary^ which standards should apply? Finally, realize when discussing "mi.ted use” that v, are dealing with: U-leJT f -- - - - - - - - • 1 /vocidential uses within a given piece ormixed commercial/residenriax property, i.e. house and storage on same lot Zoning File #953 August 1985 Page 2 2. mixed coramer cia1/residentia1 uses within a neighborhood, marina next to residences. 1 .e. 3340 NORTH SHORE DRIVE This property is approximately 0.2 acres in area. The minimum lot area in the B-2 zoning district is 2 acres, with a lot width requirement of 200* and a lot "depth" requirement of 200'. B-2 "yard" requirements are: lakeshore yard 75'; side yard 10'; front yard along street 30'. Section 10.41, Subdivision 10 (B & C) states as follows; B. Setback t Residential. No operation or activities except for storage ...d parking may be conducted closer than 50 feet to the boundary of an adjoining property line which property is used for residential purposes. C. Setback Along Streets. No operation or activities except for storage and parking may be conducted closer than 50 feet to the right-of-way of any existing street, road or highway. The same hardcover limitations apply as for the lakeshore residential zoning districts. In the B-2 standards, per Section 10.41, Subdivision 5 (P), parking is not allowed in any required yard or landscaping area. The landscaping areas required are 10' on the side lot lines, 10' on the street lot line, and 10% of the average lot depth on the lakeshore (in this case, lot depth is about 200', so the landscaping area must be at least 20'). No uses other than landscaping are allowed in the required landscape area. Also, remember our "R" distric s standards on screening and storage. Section 10.60; Subd. 10. Screening Required. Sci-tening shall be required in residential zones where; A. Any oii.-street parking area which contains more than four pat*;ing spaces and is within 30 feet of an adjoining residential lot lir.c, and. B. Where the driveway to a parking area of more than six parking spaces is within 15 feet of an adjoining residential lot line. Subd. 11. Screening, Type of. The screening required herein shall consist of a solid fence or wall at least 50% open, not leM- than four feet nor more than fi-.-j feet in height but shall not >ixi*end within 15 feet of any street or driveway opening onto a street. The screening shall be placed along the property lines or in case of screening along a street, 15 feet from the street right- of-way with landscaping (trees, shrubs, grass am planting) between the screening and the pavement. A louvered fence shall be considered solid if it blocks direct vision. Planting of a type approved by the Planning Commission may also be required in addition to. or in lie*': Zoning File #953 August iSf 1985 Page 3 Subd. 12. Maintenance. In all districts, all Structures, required landscaping and Lences shall be maintained so n noT to unsightly or present harmful health or safety conditions. Subd. 13. Exterior Storage in "R" Districts. In all "R'* Districts, all mobile materials and equipment . •ej* nr- fiiilv screencd so as not to be visibl- p!:r%"oses/!rsto"red"?o the rear’.of the house, and a distance of 10 feet or more from any property line. over the entire 30' street setback area and up to the east side lot line. The applicants propose trailer and boat storage on the lakeshore side of the house in winter,^ and mostly trailer storage in summer, meeting 10 side III 5?' laiLhore landscape aJea setbacks The B-2 hibit "storage" in the 75' lakeshore setback area, hence the question becomes, do stored boats and trailers constitute hardcover? If so, we have a variance to consider; if not, the storage of boats and trailers might be appropriate if properly screened. What limits should be placed on the numbersize/height/screening/location of boats and trailers stored. The house on this property is in very poor condition but is currently being lived in by a marina employee. The applicant intends to demo, .o this^ouse by the end of August, 1986 or sooner if he obtains — from the owners (Chaska is purchasing on a C.D.). For the time being, t rHTde'ice is“barely habitable and possibly hazardous If this can ba termed as rental property, the City can inspect and if health and safety items are found lacking, the City can force the issue, perhaps speeding up the demolition schedule. Mr. Douglas, attorney for the applicant, has J issues relating to land use in his letter. Planning Commission should review the specific items and the proposed solutions they are acce^able solutions to the specific problems which ^®^^® ove^ the last two years. Also, read the Schoeneman/Ramberg response to the Douglas letter. % f I !• Zoning File #953 August lS7 1985 Page 4 To summarize, the issues for you to address are as follows: 1. Variance to allow parkin? of vehicles in yard and landscaping setback zones, and screening of same. 2. Limitations on storage of boats/trailers in lakeshore yard area 3, Residential use of the existing house 4. Items II (A-G) of Douglas letter. * 1 1 V <-he issue of usage of the dock space, although not specifically a land use J^°^^4e^^use"^o7^d^ock. ^V^s\afVs"^^ ?Se~7i"st\nV d°oc“"i2 t%r„rci?ly ' th?^re s“u°b?ect"to"a''lo';ma^'c^a! docks are being rented commercial in the “«rt “SrippnL^"t'wifl le sSbjLt to LMCD regulations on the number of Slips allowed. For the time being, what type of f ”nf/mar\°^^ Presumably, staging o^f involve the public, with a potential ‘rHujf ?r:^c\^ „re“da\\y^cti°vit^y ‘’:n°fhrprptrty tLn^ental slips. II. 3350 NORTH SHORE DRIVE sr.‘.“. ‘“."s u “,'ssii,u ;= ’.»i. ~ notable exceptions are: The existing house is not planned for demolition in the near future. It is currently rented out. c) Because this parcel surrounds Mrs. Sprague on two sides, the parking area and storage setbacks are critical. Again read through Hr. Douglas- t‘'akl’n%'prat^^^^ the home continue while commercial ^ areas^ especially noting ?Srsftl “aVks“p"ro“osrd? ° Wht? ?ype'of use is appropriate for the dock on this property? dkki m A ! <fUMI^'roM k:A /^(6<2(=w/w4 A^L^cJAirSL^^Qf ^ '"6 ____-tcT ^/-o ^......!:^:0''„.....jO^J i V 'i---------------^ t: . /Hj- • d :oOhi T\. ■ Pea lV_v SCMJ&. I" = 5>o . AJ.er 5u^eV LJ. - i '■ I i i r « P- ", ; r ! 2, * I' V /1 zs.' r^ August 14, 1985 Ip"I «* I AUG I 5 IS65 •! I > I ii I t CITY OF OROMO Mr. Bruce C. Douglas 120 Edina Business Center 5500 Lincoln Edina, Minnesota 55436 Re: Chaska Marina Dear Mr. Douglas: Your letter of August 5, 1985, to Jeanne Habusth reouested a response from us. Pirst of all. you are to be complimented on your understanding of a^<;oriated with Chaska Marina's operation. There are now at least three of us who have a clear picture of the situa tion. Secondly, our comments: I.Main building operation at 3324 North Shore Drive. A. C. D. ?n?![^:d*'’“?h:i-r‘r:^nTf‘’i:gSsr]rie?rn?tf? sediment in our yard. The blacktopping and its grade appear to be effective. Fencing and screening needs to be accomplished on the west lot line of 3324, not the east (although the neighbors on the east side may appreciate it, too). We assume that the small fence segment from the water line to the existing fence and additional screening material will be installed within 30 days on the west lot line of 3324. In addition, the boats parked along the west must be moved toward the building to preserve the 10 setback reouirement. The dogwood bushes planted for screening will grow better without boats parked on too of them. We are hereby requesting copies of the acknowledgments signed by employees that crossing over the Schoeneman/ Ramberg property will result in immediate termination. 5renc?urage the Marina to install "No Trespassing- signs but they must be on Chaska's property and preferably bolted to posts in the ground and not attached to our fence. We don't feel compelled to spend the time and mnntfv to install these signs when the Marina should assuJi the responsibility Its employees and customers. Mr. Bruce C. Douglas Page 2 E.Roatinq activities remain a nuisance. We heartily {mmpdiatelv in front of our dock and may force them tHack out into the open water as we have suggested many times and that Mr, Dunn once agreed to. Wp are not interested in a "no cost slip" or having clAll construct a U-shapad dock in front of our property for mutual use. continuously running engines (like the j was revved up for most of Sunday, August lU Aggravation. How can a salesman deliver his pitch over all that noise? F.llrare^noA?nmAterAn ‘lra?reAe^ dock configuration approved by the LHCD and the City 0? OrSnS. we will nSt agree to adjusting side site ?etblcks; even 20* is inadequate, especially when it is not observed. II.3340 North Shore Drive (the Olson property) A.• ■ m««..priatP the effort to date to clean up this rnfrjg ‘^;eg:“r5fnrch:ra^s"u:i\^: A^n A JAriA^l" request. B.nnrkanp - 3340 It is our understanding that there is nnp land only one rental slip on the Maxwell Bay side. ?[Ie boats packed there the last two weeks belong to Chaska, however. Where, oh where, is the rente . E.Fenci ig on the east lot line needs improvement. The shoddy^fence at the cottonwood tree was hastily cojj* !fJiicted earlier this year by Chaska employees. This area needs attention, preferably using permanent, less tacky materials. F.Mixed Residential/Commercial Use: Again, comments will bl made at the August 19 meeting depending on variances requested or land use plan presented. G.„ Ymir I15P of the phrasBS "minimize operational iSoSet" lnd ‘-obligation to maximize cooperation so as to euALte the inherent conflicts” is inappropriate. i. k: Mr. Bruce C. Douglas Page 3 Keep^in mind that the residential use of our property existed before any marina operations (Chaska's, North Star's or others before that). Our property was rezoned to commercial use over the objections of our parents several years ago; we are now dealing with that legacy. We dispute your statement that good fences make good neighbors. Good fences are merely reminders to those who need something obvious that says keep out. Cone!usion: 1 ADoropriate fencing and screening and control of Marina employees and customers have been discussed at length at oast marina committee and council meetings and with Mr. Dunn (as well as with Mr. Pauley when he was involved). Th«e are the marina's responsibility. If there were not marina operations on both sides of us, the necessity of screening, fencing, and customer control wou.d be a dead issue. 7 We are opposed to a variance request that would decrease the prescribed side setbacks, either on the land or in the water. 3 We will not consider any changes to accommodate joint v/ater- front use; that could only lead to more encroachment. d We onlv ask that the marina and its personnel operate in a manner (and within the law) that does not infringe on the enjoyment of our property. And when infringement occurs, it will be met with appropriate action. Frankly, we re tired of talking. If you would like to discuss our comments prior to the August 19 meeting, feel free to call. Sincerely, Marcia Schoeneman 6731 4th Avenue South Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Home phine: 869-1093 Work phone: 296-3495 cc: - - - - - Sandra Ramberg 5108 Woodlawn Blvd. Minneapolis, Minnesota 55417 Home phone: 724-‘*i22 Jean MabustlO Orb no MJMUlrTommi ttee Orono City Council #953 AUGUST 13, 1985 TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF CHASKA MARINA WE OWN TIa/O parcels OF LAND LOCATED TO THE VvEST OF OUR MAIN OPERATIONS FACILITY, RESPECTIVELY LOCATED AT 3330 AND 3350 NORTH SHORE DRIVE. MRS. SCHOENEMAN AND MRS. RAMBERG LIVE DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF OUR MAIN FACILITY, AND MRS. SPRAGUE LIVES ONE LOT OVER TO THE WEST OF THEM. THE SCHOENEMAN/RAMBERG PARCEL AND THE SPRAGUE PARCELS ARE PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT ALL MARINA EMPLOYEES UNDERSTAND THIS AND RESPECi. THE FACT THAT THESE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS MUST BE RESPECTED TO THE MAXIMUM. ACCORDINGLY, I AM HEREWITH ADVISING EACH OF YOU THAT: 1. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, ANY EMPLOYEES WHO TRESPASS UPON EITHER*OF THESE PRIVATELY OWNED PARCELS OF MRS. SCHOENEJ^N/MRS. RAMBERG OR ON MRS. SPRAGUES PROPERTY WILL BE TERMINATED. IF YOU MUST MOVE FROM ONE OF OUR TIVO PARCELS TO THE MAIN FACILITY, YOU MUST DO SO BY GOING FROM OUR PARCEL TO NORTH SHORE DRIVE, AND THEN ALONG NORTH SHORE DRIVE TO YOUR DESTINATION WITHOUT CROSSING EITHER THE PARCEL OWNED BY MRS SPRAGUE OR MRS. SHOENEMAN AND MRS. RAMBERG. THIS IS NOT THE WAY THAT I WANT TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM, BUT RATHER, ONE THAT OUR LEGAL COUNSEL HAS ADVISED US WE MUST IMPLEMENT. THERE WILL NOT BE ANY "WARNINGL-" , NOR WILL THERE BE ANY "ACCEPTABLE EXCUSE". VIOLATION OF THIS DIRECTIVE WILL CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR, AND WILL RESULT IN, IMMEDIATE TERMINATION. YOU WILL NOT CUT ACROSS THEIR PROPERTY IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER. THIS MEANS AT THE SHORELINE AS WELL AS AT THE AREA NEAR THE ROAD. THESE PROPERTIES ARE STRICTLY "OFF LIMITS. 2. SIMILARLY TC THE TRESPASSING DIRECTIVE NOTED ABOVE, NO ONE SHALL, AT ANY TIME WHATSOEVER, PARK A VEHICLE IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO BLOCK THE DRIVEWAY TO MRS. SPRAGUE'S PROPERTY. THERE IS A SHARED DRIVEWAY INTO MRS. SPRAGUE'S PLACE. THE RIGHT TO USE THAT DRIVEWAY IS NOT THE RIGHT TO PARK VEHICLES, OR TO LEAVE A VEHICLE UNATTENDED FOP. AN INDEFINITE PERIOD, SUCH THAT MRS. SPRAGUE (OR OTHER USERS OF THE DRIVEWAY) ARE IMPAIRED OR IMPEDED IN THEIR USE OF THE SAME. ANY EMPLOYEE WHO VIOLATES THIS RULE WILL BE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE TERMINATION. ANY VEHICLE IMPROPERLY PARKED ON THE DRIVEWAY WILL BE SUBJECT TO TOWING AT THE VEHICLE OWNERS EXPENSE. AGAIN, THERE WILL BE NO WARNINGS, NOR WILL THERE BE ACCEPTABLE EXCUSES. JUST DON'T DO IT, PERIOD. 3. THE LAWS REQUIRE THAT WE NOT STORE OR PARK VEHICLES, AND OTHER ITEMS WITHIN A TEN FOOT DISTANCE OF OUR LOT LINES WHERE OUR PROPERTY ABUTS A RESIDENTIAL USER. MRS. SPRAGUE AND MRS. SCHOENEMAN/MRS RAMBERG'S PARCEL ARE RESIDENTIALLY USED. THUS, NO CARS, BOATS OR OTHER MATERIALS MAY BE PARKED OR PLACED ALONG THE LOT LINES OF THE MAIN OPERATIONS PROPERTY, NOR UPON THE TWO SEPARATE PARCELS WE OWN TO THE WEST, WITHIN A TEN FOOT DISTANCE FROM THE FENCES WHICH SEPARATE OUR PARCELS FROM THE TWO RESIDENTIAL PARCELS. AGAIN, VIOLATION OF THIS DIRECTIVE WILL BE GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION. r ' r\ i>(*. f-K ^.r It:. 'i hr-.. hrh.' #9534. NEITHER EMPLOYEES OF THIS COMPANY NOR OUR CUSTOMERS HAVE ANY RIGHT TO USE THE DOCKS LOCATED AT THE SCHOENEMAN/RAMBERG PROPERTY, NOR AT THE SPRAGUE PROPERTY. IF YOU SEE ANYONE USING THEIR DOCKS WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE OR CUSTOMER OF THIS COMPANY, TELL THEM TO IMMEDIATELY GET OFF THEIR DOCKS. AGAIN, VIOLATION OF THIS RULE WILL BE GROUNDS FOR IMMEDIATE TERMINATION. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION H /TO initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each a After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3350 North Shore Drive_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ property Identification Number (P.I.O.) 08-117-23410014 Please check one — Is the property _x_ abstract or _torrens? Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey See Exhibit A. attached. APPLICANT Name Chaska Marina» Inc.Phone 471-8581 Mailing Address 3324 North Shore Drive, Wayzata, 55391 Name Same Phone Mailing Address Date Property Acquired (month/year) I 4dtr) (do not) also own the adjacent p'.rcels of land. PRESENT USE OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property B-2 Other (specify) Residential Mixed residential and commercial DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: Variances requested for_(JJ—area—and (^) .vise for commercial parking and storage. VARIANCES REQUIRED X Lot Area 4 Setback Variances ( Other _ _ _ _ __ Lot Width Front _ _ _ Hardcover Side Rear) (OVEP) HARDSHIP m • 'i' *’ Descicibe^ uhdu6r hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict: enforcem'ent o"f zoning reou .’tions; This propertr/ is zoned B-2.—The area is p from residential to ooimierc.Lal uses permitted in this zone. Only one reside al . _ _ MOk 1 1 OirSCtXC3J. V13C Ol. wXlXS » •» ' - ^ ?ntion Tner try separates this parcel fron another ownedTby applicant. No , ------------ diie to its size and the abutting owners use without the requested description op dnusoal property conditions Describe unusual property conditions preventing^ compliance with Zo^nq C^e pescripe unusuax^g^^j^^ ^ residential use or adjacent parcel, as noted above. Requi.rements: plus Lionel area Qoina from residential to current B-2.zo.n^ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 4. Completed Application Form. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you can obtain thxs list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271) Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) nre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. 5. Plat Map The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best^^f his/her kn wledge.1Applicant's signature OHNERS SIGNATURE Date J/85 The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasoLble entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request ^ Date 8/9/85Owner's signature AppIIcant'rust'hl^riii'iQbmittals into the City offices 25 ^ays before the Planning Coiimiission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. F V 1 >' r f r i. u-' EXHIBIT A. 3350 North Shore Drive Legal Description The East 75 feet of Lot 9 in Lydrard s Park, except that part lying West of the following described line: conunencing at a point on tne base line in Lot 9 Distant 17 feet East of the West line of said East 75 feet of Lot 9; therce North making an angle to the right of 92 degrees 30 minutes from said base line and extending jjortherly to the shore of Maxwell s Bay, aKe Minnetonka, and extending Southerly to the shore of Crystal Bay, Lake Minnetonka. That part of Lot 8, "Lydiard's Park' Lake Minnnetonka, described as follows; commencing at a point on base line where the West line of Lot 8, "Lydiard’s Park," Lake Minnetonka intersects the same, the initial point of leginning of the land to be descrioed, or ilong said West line 114 feet; thence East at ight angles 42 feet; thence South and parallel itn said West line -80 feet more or less, to lakeshore of Crystal Bay; thence Westerly along said shore to West line of said Lot 8; thence North along said lot line to point of beginning. A parallel strip of "'and 16 feet wide ad3acent to East line of above described land in said "Lydiard's Park," Lake Minnetonka. r RUII DATE 08/U/eSBATCH 003 PROP ADDR OUllER NAME lAXPArER IIAIIE/AODR PROP ADDR OtaiER tlAHE TAXPAYER IIAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OtniCR IIAME TAXPAYER MAnE/AODR PROP ADDR OtritER IIAHE SAXPAYER IIAIIE/ADOR NEItlEPlN COUNTY PROPERTY lUfORMATIOH SYSTEM PROPERTY Olttll ?S LIST36 08-117-23 ^1 0012 NORTH STAR MARINA INC hlIttlETONKA PROPERTIES INC 332^ NO SHORE DRIVE HAYZATA 55392 38 08-117-23 91 0015 03330 NORTH SHORE DR ROY B NEIKTER MINNETONKA PROPERTIES INC 3329 NORTH SHORE DR MAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 91 0018 03366 NORTH SHORE OR HARDOR INN INC GAYLES MARINA CORP 3366 NO SHORE OR NAYZATA rUI 55391 TOTAL BATCH 003 CL ^ <9 REPORT NO. PI935901PAGE 630 08-117-23 91 0013 03332 NORTH SHORE DR S RAMOERG I M SCMOENErUN S E RA. '-RG I M J GCliUENEMAN 5108 ANN L. VO lii; 55917 38 Oe-117-23 91 0019 03350 ICRTH SHORE DR HENRY ANDERSON MINNETONKA PROPERTIES 3329 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WAT/ATA ini 55391 38 08-117-23 91 0016 03392 NORTH SHORE OR rHTLLIS D SPRAGUE ET AL PHYLLIS B SF’RAGUE 3392 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 91 0017 B C ROTKVAM ETAL GAYLES NARINA CORP 3366 NO SHORE DR NAYZATA mi 55391 38 08-117-23 91 0019 HARDOR INN INC GAYLES NARINA CORP 3366 NO SHORE OR NAYZATA NN 55391 30 08-117-23 92 0003 03366 NORTH SHORE DR HARDOR INN INC GAYLES NARINA CORP 3366 NO SHORE OR NAYZATA MN 55391 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN A/CliRATE AND TRUl' REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENf OF Pnbr«^?;T/ TAXATION, TO THE DEST OF MY KNOIILEOGE AND BELIEF. > \ DATE MB'fl .BY !' /'•' "'I/ r \ ■ - • • .. * -• . n . f' J - S \ •»V • wV /. « •. * .• ».-• ' •:• • . •• • , . , -•• ••.:. • i •; f\ • ;• . *•, k- • -■ I —r— —— •\ ‘ . « r'T • • 5i‘* • » -f- ..' , ... »-4 - ». fvy.7^*^ . •• • '.y.\ . • ...... ^ •,-••.• :•,>'■■■•>.**.••**• tr us=a=*-juM- * ^ 1 * • ' »* |^‘| ■ — C1^: ^ ^ k-. J - ■-? i- » • i '• . • ».-•• .. • • . ••.' .• ■?•• T:. ' V: •• •# ^ ^ •:i . U '.•• ,, v.r • •* .- rr- •.. • • - • 5 . - O .. ' * . ■ V 7 •- • iJ**^'**' *. - •• ^ *% • • Iv.a- ORONO HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET LAKESHORE SETBACK ZONE A. Existing lot area in zone B. Existing hardcover in zone C. Existing • hardcover percentage KBtA) X ioo] D. Proposed hardcover in zone E. Proposed hardcover percentage 1(D^A) X 100]^SfJS31i■I hardcover percentage f-- 0-75*3. 7^0 Ff sf 0 %sf 0 Vo 0 % '5-250*7 SCrO sf f HSO sf sf 0 %25 Vo *50-500*^i//? sf sf sf Yo 30 Vo >00-1000*N/fi St sf %sf « • • 35 V> directional A. Existing Lot Area in Zone includes the total square footage of dry buildable land within the specified zone. B. Existing Hardcover in Zone * includes the square footage of existing roofs, decks, sidewalks, driveways (gravel or paved) and other rain-impervious surfaces within the specified sons. C. Existing Hardcover Percentage - divide the number in B by the number in A and multiply by 100. D. Proposed Hardcover in Zone - includes the existing hardcover plus all proposed additional hardcover. - - rv: E. Proposed Hardcover Percentages - divide the number in D ! v the number in A and multiply by 100. F, Allowed Hardcover Percentages - if the percentages in -oiumn E for any setback zone*exceed the allowed percentages in column F, you should contact the Zoning Department at 473-7357 to discuss the possibilities of obtaining a variance. Generally, if a concurrent removal of existing hardcover matches t’.e additional hardcover proposed, resulting in no net Increase of hardcover in a specified zone, a variance may not be necessary. I '■•V- m I ( • ■' OF COUNSEL: GLENN P. BRUDER THOMAS P LOWE Bruce C. Douglas ATTOPNEY at 120 EDINA BUSINESS CENTER 5500 LINCOLN DRIVT: EDINA. MIN.N’ESOTA 55436 August 5, 1985 > I 'LMormif' TELEP*-»ONE (6121 938-6620 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay# MN 55323 Re; Chaska Marina Dear Jeanne: Thank you for meeting with me last week after my meeting with the Marina Committee. I indicated to you that I was trying to develops a comprehensive understanding of "problems associated with Chaska Marina so that I could take those steps necessary to correct them. At the Marina Committee meeting I repeatedly offered to meet with the neighbors who were present but this offer was of no avail. Accordingly, I asked for a meeting with you and any other city staff who might be able to provide me with the specific facts so that I could deal with the problems on a systematic an logical basis. It was my understanding that Chaska Marina owns three properties: the main Marina property at 3324 and two separate parcels west of the Marina known respectively as 3340 (between Lhoeneman/Ramberg) and 3350 (between Sprague and Gayles). While the issues as to all three parcels are interrelated, for clarity I will deal with them as separate parcels; I. Main Building operation at 3324 North Shore Drive. A. Water run-off onto Schoeneman/Rainberg property. This was recently corrected by placing concave-graded blacktop over an existing hard-cover crown—type gravel driveway. The blacktop is now graded so as to force run-off water to the east# away from the Schcaneman/Ramberg property. I personally went to the site (after our meeting at your office) when it was raining very hard. I saw no run-off whatsoever going toward the west. All rainwater was running east and north toward the launching ramp. Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth August 5/ 1985 Page 2 B C. D. E. Accordingly, I believe this problem has been solved. Water run-off from the west side driveway to the lake! The run-off is no different now than when the comoacted clay/gravel crown-type existed, save and except that less sedimentary materials are now carried to the lake by the run-off because it is flowing over clean black.op. I do not believe this is a problem. IlchoeLman/Ramberg K °Apparent!j, ^°here"is a S Shtii !o2Tr!e1en?oS 3^^ ?! which could use improvement so as to further obstruct the visual field between the two properties. Chaska will, within thirty days, (1) a sLll fence segment from the water line to the existing fence and (2) place additional screening material along the east lot line. Emoloyees crossing over any part of the ScLeneman/Ramberg J^^.^^^Mf^Jn^will grlnfoLed in writing that crossrng over^thebe informed in writing that j' „ue Schoeneman/Ramberg property or nronertv will result in immediate termination, a th.se sioned acknowledgements willnrnnprtv Will result in iminea-Lai-e -- - - -- - - - - - file containing these signed ^'=’‘"°*'i®‘*’®"1'’5iirb! L maintained by Chaska and c°P^«%^hereof will be nrovided to Mrs. Schoeneman, Mrs. Ramberg, Mrs Sprague and to the City upon request. If requested, the respective fences which separate the Schoeneman/Ramberg and pj-^ate the Chaska parcels may be posted with appropriate "No Trespassing" signs on the Chaska side ^he fences by Mrs. Sprague or M'S. Schoeneman an Mrs. Ramberg. Boating Activities in front of the Schoeneman/ Ramberg Parcel. ^ ' hiiafi ‘ i p- Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth August 5, 1985 Page 3 t; (1) We must all recognize that the west lot line fence does not extend out into the water so as to physically separate the Marina use activities from the Schoeneman/ Ramberg residential use of the water in front of their property. (2) A series of water-borne bouys extending 200 feet out might be a possible solution during open wate’- periods. An appropriate snow fence on the ice may work equally well for the winter season. (3) Short of a sale by Mrs. Schoeneman and Mrs. Ramberg to Chaska Marina» a written agreement to adjust side site setback requirements under the LMCD Code and Orono ordinances may also be a viable solution. If the Schoeneman/Ramberg Dock presently existing were removed in its entirety, Chaska Marine will H) provide, without cost, a slip for the Schoeneman/ Ramberg property, and (2) build and maintain a "U" shaped dock enclosing 50 feet of water in front of the Schoeneman property with the top part of the "U” abutting the joint lot lines on the west and east of their parcel. This would provide a safe swimming/play area for the Sch'-'r'‘.man/Ramberg property, physically 'rate the water area uses between boat*. and swimmers, and reduce^the desire of Chaska employees to "short cut" by trespassing over the Schoeneman/Ramberg property. The water side of the dock (northerly) could be posted against tie-ups, or used as the parties might agree in writing. The east side could be used by Chaska Marina and the west side by the Marina property at 3340. (4) Mrs. Schoeneman and Mrs. Ramberg can meet with me to discuss a sale or agreement, as noted above, by calling me or my secretary (my wife, Laurie) at 938-6626 to set up a mutually convenient appointment. Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth August 5, 1985 Page 4 II. F. West side dock configuration of main Chas^a property. (1) As I understand it, the present west side dock configuration best meets the needs of the Marina and the desires of Mrs. Schoeneman and Mrs. Ramberg. (2) Both Orono and the LMCD have joint but independent powers over the dock configura tion and use vis-a-vis the dock use area of Chaska Marina. (a) Orono and the neighbors want the present configuration, as does Chaska Marina. (b) The LMCD wants a North/South dock configuration or an agreement between the Marina and the Schoeneman/Ramberg owners to mutually adjust side site setbacks so as to accommodate the present configuration. (c) The reason the Marina, the Schoeneman/ Ramberg interests and the City of Orono want the present configuration is the safety and traffic considerations affecting the Schoeneman/Ramberg property. Thus, it seems to me that the best solution is a written agree ment per LMCD Code §3.C2 Subd. 3. If Mrs. Schoeneman and Mrs. Ramberg will meet with me, I will draft and present such an agreement to them for their consideration. 3340 North Shore Drive (The Olson Property). A. I am presently awaiting a copy cf the contract for deed on this property so that I can determine exactly what the situation is vis-a-vis the right to demolish the existing residential structure. Jim Dunn desires to do so. A demolition permit from the City is required. The land is currently zoned B-2 but has a residential use. Chaska desires to change that use to ° use that property for vehicle parking and Marina storage. This will, of course, require either a r mwm Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth August 5, 1985 Page 5 i'- h-:- f.- f:,. variance and conditional use permit due to the adjacent Sprague and Schoeneman/Ramberg residential use rjarcels or an area variance and certificate of r cupancy. I will inquire of the fee owner as to permission to demolish the structure and will submit an appropriate application to the City for an area variance and conditional use permit» as well as for a demolition permit if consent be given. P. Hole in driveway. Mr. Dunn was advised and a load a gravel has been put in place. More will be added as th■s load compacts. When I did my inspection in le rain there was a 10 foot diameter puddle 6 to 8 inches deep about 20 feet into the drive, north of the road. The gravel should solve this problem. If it does not solve the problem, then I am, by copy of this letter, requesting Mrs. Sprague to St. advise me at 938-6626. C. Driveway blockage. Similar to the resolution of the trespassing issue, all employees of Chaska Marina have been advised in writing and signed an acknowledgement that blockage of the driveway to Mrs. Sprague's will result in termination of employment plus towing of the offending vehic?*. If Mrs. Sprague so desires, she may cause the driveway areas to be marked in an appropriate manner so as to deter bl ckage. D. Dockage - 3340. There are currently four slips at the single dock in front of this property. I have not been informed of any problem regirding the same. E. Fencing. Fencing on the west and east lot lines of this parcel needs improvement at the water's edge to deter trespassing by Marina employees. Screening needs to be examin d and improved as appropriate. This needs the cooperation of and communication Ms. Jeanne A. Habusth August 5f 1985 Page 6 (.1 F. G. from both Mrs. Sprague and Mrs. Schoeneman and Ramberg. Mixed Residential/Commercial Use, Parking and Storage needs both winter and summer site plans and fencing and screening assessment vis-a-vis variance and conditional use permit applications. Parking of employee vehicles, trailers and storage of Marina equipment and materials needs careful and appropriate consideration. On this site, as well as or the nearby site (3350) and the main facility, the Marina, must observe the 10 foot side-yard setback requirement so as to insure the rights of the residential users (Sprague, Ramberg/Schoeneman). I would suggest that; (1)side—site set back limitation physically marked with a stake and wire fence 3 feet high to prevent encroachment; and (2)That a conscious and deliberate effort be made to insure that unsightly "junk” not be permitted to accumulate or remain stored for extended periods—especially during summer months when the outside residential users o the Sprague, Schoeneman/Ramberg parcels will be a maximum. Cooperation of Sprague, Schoeneman/Ramberg. Just as the Marina has a duty to minimize its operational impact on its neighbors, Mrs. Sprague, Mrs. Schoeneman and Mrs. Ramberg also have an obligation to maximize their cooperation sc as to eliminate the inherent conflicts which inevitably exist when an area has a mixed residential and commercial use. (1)They can also screen their own property by planting appropriate trees and shrubs so as to minimize the visual impact. It is not a Qfjg—v^gy street. Good fences make good neighbors. (2)They can agree to joint waterfront use that protects their swimming areas and separate boaters from water borne activities. (3) They can meet to discuss conflic>.s. r«ial*I* •\ ' l^V ^ W r ® [•H*] r*TO¥i liTsnrr 1 m :Miil*ia4«i p'l'-- mh‘- :t= '; ■ N'<i'. Wr^m fii. fe’l' te' H %&:.r- -r ^ ,1m. €3TY«j'li)EON-0 4» * < r«»»M *tl » • A «•<* • i r*. • !.*j 1 -•• Mm.II* *1.. .:r.:i i;».tJ ''{IJI. •> , ORONC On (h*‘ Siftth Short of l,uht Mtnnftunha July 28. 1983 ^•'.x .(tJ &'*-■ stove Pauly Jifli Dunn Oiaeka Marina of Lake Minnetonka 3324 North Shore Drive Maysata, H(i S539IW'Re* Minnetonka Boat Brokers I-.c.*s itiforn.-. l i^rosentatior. v the Orono Marina Comnittcc on July 2t, 158 1 of the pror.cs^jii v . uaos of the property located at 335'1 ^crth Shore Drive tok-- '<Soneleinon: Ihia latter is written as a follow up to your informal, presentation ¥j-ff before the Orono Marina Conunitte'c. You wore advised th^t th< > property may continue in residential use and a rosidenti.;! decn may be constructed for the solo use of the occupants of th«.' residence, building permit for the ocn.ttruction or the new dock is required.itk W-' Any comnercial use of the property durinej the inter i.m will r< quire a comiwarcial site plan review by the City Council h^cw corxmercivil use of existing structure and property). Upon aporov.tl by the City Council of the new commercial use, you ntust obtain a certificate of occupancy from the Orono buildinq departntont. Any conuncrcial Manna use of the property will require a coraniercial dock license *■ ad dition to tho aoove. Any plans to have mixed comacrcial and residential use on the property . is not permitted by the municipal code. Such use would require ap- proval by tho City Council and the filimj of necessary land use ap- plications with the city. Pleaso call my office if you have any questions concernitu; ttiis ■ ■ mattor. mey-m.. - 0m -r - mm JAM:jl Sincerely, Jeanno A. Mabusth /.oninq Adr.unistraCi.r r.^r ee W. k. Denson nn-: i* 9^- n ». . t ■ ■ *■ KT iv-.■. yM • - • * ^ .;.' i r t nhc \tinm tunhi: on iHc *'"■'■■ •■' '•“ V ^ « ( I \ )NO V - • *V 1toj? 1 . * •; • II I :. r- ittiy • • ’ I "‘^.v i*-* • >•• • • * •! /.CV. ^ ■//■ • t/' ^ . * .> • ir. Brokers, l^c. aowVtivc « » fr Mr pauiv- .... ...u f;': "^’rcinskc''"o‘rin^: OU hov® **‘l®rtcrs cor.ecrt^ir.c. C^ ;•.• - “ .... cenurr. ..nderwn locatea —— U)-.c to „,... i-o^- • ■. to _ ' ^ tOWl«J®^,^'iction. . .. .....tor V.a Co :.£^*;Y‘For council « LjlK c .•.-•••— - iQfti. to • itt tto<iu*'«'*.^_ to 8CheGuii-'v J'* Jl^CoSnei? letioB- --"":':.‘°-’ “l98'j!"'to yovi.'. .^'“>cttro ^ ^ -r.' ‘ • 1.. i .-.o. ordinance 32.-. occupcncs i--- i ■i r.*.‘ “ ll"* --- ^ SSr?yr&i"c«ti” wll* ^O h ^partiAor. •{ i .'• * •V *;'• *. »> 41 ./«***i*v ’■ «•• t • • *• rn'i^y i.X.r YX V ri'- >•: :i>^ X- ?**.Jn- ik ■' & ■■ %X' ■ :.«> XX ■ ■X - 4> 5v. ■ m/. mmi iX S: }r ■:f. Iw- V ^.•4 '-■ ■ •”- . r-!;' a.X •i Xir X 4H ■^'- ^' ' Xt Xiir2km ■'■^ : Mr. Steve Pauly July 20, 1983 Page 2 Tta Marina Conenittee is meeting on July 26 , 198 3 at 5:00 P-f-^ , wu can file an application prior to the meeting day, t..e co.-jr.. can review the license application at the ir.v.cti:>g, £inv.c tht- (enclosed for your information) ..s a short one. ttcc o.'cnda Please contact roe upon receipt of this letter. Sincerely, reanne A. 4« JeXhne A. Mabusth Zoning Administrator cc:Prank Mixa, Lake Minnetonka Ccnscrv4iticn District Walter R. Benson, City Adminiitrator Alan Olson, City Planner ^ Thomas Jacobs, Euildir.g c^ficial Enclosure V* - ■i‘rX 5fc -rTr ^ mi V -v-Xv • ^ ir i ■: .•' C - » V* 'i.-fr. ■ - d "TiT:'; » rf ••••5 .*'•• *• / 4\1 "i laasdlii i1i ‘'nii' tn 1 ■:Vy >0 * *• |;*-V!wfV.. If-'> K ,: il* ;^ .VI 32.200. Occupancy Certificates. 13.210. When Reouired, A zoning ordinance occupancy certificate ihkll be Required for occupancy and use of any bttildinos hereinafter erected or structurally altered; for nev occupancv and use of an existing building when the new uee is of a different zoning classification; for occupancy and use of vacant land, new use of vacant land when new use is of a different zoning classification; for any change in the use of a non-conforming use. Where appropriate, the j?oning occupancy certificate any be issued as part of building peimit. 13.330. Prohibition. No person shall do any of the thincs mentioned in as requiring an occupancy certi ficate without having one in force. Any certificate issued uMn a false statement of any fact which is material to the issuance thereof shall be void. Whenever the fact of such false statement shall be established to the satisfaction o. the Zoninc Administrator, he shall forthwith revoke the occupanc-.’’certificate, by notice to the holder. Any person %fho shall proceed thereafter with such work or use without having obtained a new certificate shall be in violation o- the Zoning Code. occttoancy certificate for a use of land where.no . . JSImit is required shall be made directly to the Zoning Admin istrator. 32.240. Issuance of Occupancy Certificate. An oeeueanc** certificate shall be approved within 1C dajs after construction has been completed—the j and certified to be in conformance with the provisions Sonina Cede Where vacant land or change in the use or o . .*i.?iSo buildinq, or for ehan,. i" » bn i» involvod, th« certificate of occupancy ahall^ SfSins as soon as the Zoning Administrator has examined the P^^^*** ^"eteni^ that the requirement, of the Zoning Code will »rd?*i72# 12-19-74, effective 1-1-75) j -’.1... 4... aA-_ _ _a. lu.. •••• 4IW —' •. VII lA(,f 1]f OHONO- M : 'f eX-H - W I ,f |j^*»nr l7 i * Village of Orono fi..i (ifnrr ll<» H6»C'rvi>uil Mny Minn»*oU Vk'tz'i • Munian^l On the Snrth Sht\re of Lake Minnetonka Jine 16, 1976 Mr. Heniy Andersofi 53S0 North Shore Drive NojftoU. MlmraoU 55364 Mr. Andmon: Oh Juno 1, 1976. the Orono Inspector end « representative of the Lake Minnetonka Coneorvotlon District were neking routine inspections of i:arina «id dock fscili* ties when wo noticed a large nudior of boats at your dock. Investigation lovoalod seven boats in the water plus one pontooi on land and a parting area la your rear yard. The dock is located exactly on the west pit^ieity line. This letter is to advise you that any comercial use of your dock (sxich as slip or dock rental) or the keeping of nore than five of your own boots classifies eicial Ooclyour property as a CoBuicial Dock. ITiis is subject to Village Uoensing and mforcMnt cf all of the provisions of Oiapter 73 of the Onsw Municipal Code. Therefore, we aist request that you contact this office within 10 days to begin licensing procedures or to verify your intention to eliadnate coeaercial activity. Sincerely, ^\// C A. P. Olsop I'-uslding S Zoning 'n^^^tar APO: be cc: Henry F. Mihich halter R. Benson Lake Miiawtanka Conservation District \A ^ . V ^ - • • » CITY OF ORONO F. 0. tax M CRYSTAL BAY. MINNESOTA SB323 BUILDING JOB RfFOAT aooriu _2L^^^ OtMiiR CONTRACTO OATI oiacRirrioN INSPECTION RECORD ______^____/ ^ ^ . ■^■■’ y»-------------------^----------------------- / / <?<p -■ ( Timi— Wfl iltH’ ^r^-, ___________ REP. date —^- INSPECT r »• f. ftrr (f I* r i 4k - C a J Septc'nl’cr 10, 1^69 Mr, John II, Antlcrson 3550 North Shore Drive Wayzata, Minnesota SS391 Dear Mr. Anderson: The VilloBC Council J/yoJr’^?IcSnsi"wrU for the year you have rentals;contineent on a license 1 f violation of the sincerely yours. Mike Scheller INSPhCTION nEPAPTMLNT MS: as irUiffVH--?-i<T' I't i •«» u t*r 1t:^ L » f'I *• Lr •• I • IV« trin 4 «* TO: FROM: HAtE: SUnJECT: A'iministrator Inspector September 5, 1969 Anderson Marina I checked the An4erson Mnrina out nnu enclose (li.ir;ran as subnitted alone with my fiRures for side setbacks. The dock on the west side does'not meet the required 10' setback belnr only approximately I'* This always has been a bone of contention between the two nnrtics. When Gayle was asked to move his in a year aro, hr said he would if she would and so the matter stands. I roconmencf next year t.icy both be asked to comply with this minimuin standard. TI: j west dock ns the required to*. I noted yesterday that the Jock on che frystal :^ay side has a couple of boats docked. I will acquire the license number and check out whether they bclonq to owner or not. K rr-,L'.&v. '.1 ?y L ■/ -A . ^ July 1?. 15’ft^' Mr. John Anilernon 33SO North Shore nrive Wayzat.i, Minnesota 55391 Dear Mr. Anderson: It is noted on inspection .itljacent property, that you have an excess of two boats on 33SO North Shore Privo. Any usage nf the laKc snore of over two boats on one property requires i license, whether joint usaco or for rental. Also requirci is a drawing of dock installations tond a list oi pvoplc usin^ the facilities. hnclosed .in an application for the license. The fee is $10.op for the license plus SI.SO per boat. Sincerely yours, Mike Schell or INSPECTION nEPMlTVr.NT MS:as Enclosure « tt' k'I I h SfTSAcK 33^0 ajo «jH — Srt^A^ ^A»4y /4w-o<o€b ggg — St®<®»6€ ^ ft<w«c» /^i.to«*jefi> Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Oto Q BooMOWi toOffT W %)iene PE joiepT) C Aroe<i-fc ^E Marvm c kxvMd P£ E Tumef P£ Coo*. PE Tfyyrxji E No^ PE «ooea G Scrunic*'( P£ Suwn M Et)rv' C ** * Engineers & Architects <e<th A Gooon PE »ichA»0 W Ponef. PE Oonjid C PE Jfrry A Bou^tlor P£ Mat* a Hanson P£ Tec < P>e^ PE Mcnje* ^ Rjutmenn PE ac5Cen P^A^ PE O^vt O O lospoca PE 7>xxruis W Pytenon PE MchJe* C Lynch PE jjmes • Mjund PE Cmneth P Andrfion pe Mjr« ff 1^ PE Rooen C PuueA a i a Thomas € Angus. PE HfwafO A S^h^yd p £ 3^^ > EogffTon ’E vtar» A Se*o P£ PhAO J PE fsmjet Marmei p E Wart O A'UrS PE Thomas P Anoenon Gary F ffysanoer Pf MPes 6 >enien PE L PhiAo Gos«t III rE A ; A ■pne C p^/nart a i A Agnei M ftng. AJC P .eny D ^*tzach. p E Cec<«o PE tooeh 8 Ovdom pe Gary W Monm PE Ajien L W«men P£ t«h ® vaoa PE Chanei a Encrson jfa M PjM^nry Hanan M Osor' /- November 6, 1991 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Mr. John Gerhardson Re:FUe No. 13951 T.H. 12 Frontage Road Project No. 91-2 Sewer, Water «& Street Imprs. Dear John, Enclosed please find three (3) copies of the 1st Rec]uest tor Payment tor the above referenced project. This portion of the work has been satisfactorily completed and we recommend payment. If you have any questions, please contact me Yours very truly. bonestroo ^ ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Harlan M. Olson HMO:U End. 13951.cor 2335 SfifHt Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 • 35th Anniversary Owner City of Orono, 1335 Drown Road. Crystal Bay. MN 55232 Date November 4, 1991 For Period Start to November 1. 1991 Request No. 1 Contractor B & P Underground, Inc., 1351 Co. Rd. 83. Maple Plain, MN 55359 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT Trunk Highway 12 Frontage Road Sewer, Water, A' Street Improvements Project No. 91-2 File No. 13951 SUMMARY c. 1 Original Contract Amount 2 Change Order - Addition 3 Change O^der - Deduction 4 Revised c.ontract Amount 5 Value Completed to Date 6 Material on Hand 7 Amount Earned 8 Less Retainage 5% 9 Sub-Total 10 Less Amount Paid Previously n AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. Recommended for Approval by: BONESrniOO, R05ENE, ANDERUK & ASSOC IATES, INC Approved hy Contractor: BAD UNDERGROUND, INC Specified Contract Completion Date: Nov. 15, 91 - Substantial; June 30, 91 • Final I39SI.RIT $ S I6.550i0 Approved by Owner: CTTY OF ORONO, MN A i i it 188.786.00 205336J0 55,246.80 0.00 55,246J0 2,76234 52,484.46 0.00 52,484.46 Dale 26 Clear and grub trees Total Part B • Water Main IlfSlRFF RP-l 85.00 Hern Unit CnolPrtcl Quanlily trntl Prk» QuAntItv To Dolt /niMfil T*Osia pAff A - 5^AnitAry ^wcr 1 8* PVC, 10 - 12* dp. in pi.LF 40 15.00 87 1,305.00 2 8* PVC, 12’-14’ dp. in pi.LF 200 15.00 250 3,750.00 3 8* PVC, 14’- 16' dp. in pi.LF 200 15.00 200 3,000.00 4 8" PVC 16’-18 ’ dp. in pi.LF 2(i0 15.00 200 3,000.00 5 8* PVC 18 ’- 20 ’ dp. in pi.LF 60 25.00 20 6 6 ” PVC sewer service line LF 60 10.00 60 600.00 7 Std. 4’ dia. manhole 8' dp. w/If42b cstg. in place EA 3 995.00 3 2,985.00 8 Manhole depth greater than 8' deep LF 23 58.00 21.5 1,247.00 9 8* K 6* wye branch EA 2 50.00 2 100.00 10 Cut into existing 8* VCP EA 1 300.00 1 300.00 11 Mechanical trench compaction LF 820 0.65 817 531.05 12 Improved pipe foundation per 6* depth increment in place LF 750 1.00 757 757.00 13 Television inspection Total Part A - Sanitary Sewer LF 760 1.00 $18,075.05 pArt B • WAt^r Mstn 14 6* DIP, Oass 52 water main LF 50 15.60 30 468.00 13 8* DIP, Oass 52 water main LF 875 15.60 780 12,168.00 16 12* DIP, Class 52 water main LF 580 20.85 30 625.50 17 6* resilient wedge GV and box EA 2 340.00 2 680.00 18 8* resilient wedge GV and box EA 7 440.00 3 1,320D0 19 12* resilient wedge GV and box EA 2 795.00 2 1,590.00 20 3* valve hydrant EA 2 1,100.00 2 2,200.00 21 Connect to exist, water line (wet tap) 22 Connect to exist, water line (cut in) EA EA 1 1 1,440.00 300.00 1 23 CJ. fittings LB 4,500 0.85 4,185 3,557.23 24 Mechanical trench compaction LF 1,510 0.20 840 168.00 23 Improved pipe foundation per 6* depth increments in place LF 300 0.80 300 240.00 I $23,611.73 r u I. Itfin Vnll Conlrncl Quanflljr t nil Prtce Pait C - 5»orni5c«er 27 IT RCP, Class V in place LF 160 15.00 28 18* RCP, Class III in place LF 370 17.00 29 21* RCP, Class III in place LF 75 20.00 30 Sid. CBMH W/3067V casting EA 3 988.00 31 Std. catch basin w/3067V casting EA ->a.856.00 32 21* RCP flared end w/trashguard EA 1 650.00 33 12* RCP flared end w/trashguard EA 1 480.00 34 Riprap in place CY 3 40.00 35 Type 1 filer blanket SY 2 10.00 36 Sillalion/erosion control fence, MiraH *Envirofence*LF 250 1.80 37 Improved pipe foundation per 6* depth increment in place LF 3(X)0.80 38 Mechanicai trench compaction LF 510 0.20 Total Part C - Storm Sewer Part n - Street Qunnftfy To Dolt Amount To Dote S0.00 39 Common excavation CY 5.500 1.25 40 Granular borrow CY 2,000 7.25 41 Class 3 aggregate base TN 2,400 5.70 42 Class 5 100% crushed quarry limestone aggregate base TN 1,750 9.50 43 Type 31 base course mixture TN 550 16.80 44 Type 41 wear course mixture TN 275 20.00 45 AC'l bh. material for mixture TN 47 135.00 46 Bit. material for lack coat GL 300 1.80 47 2341 bit. material for patching TN 20 64.00 48 B618 concrete curb &. gutter LF 1,460 5.60 49 Reinforcing for curb LF 200 0.75 50 Sod with topsoil SY 4,000 1.50 51 Seeding AC 1 900.00 52 Geotextile fabric SY 3.500 1.20 t3*5iRIT RP-2 S.OOO 6.2S0.00 turn L'nii Conlnicl QuanlHy Unit Price Qunnilly To Dote Amo out To Doio S3 4* lubtlraio per detail Total Part D • Street 800 5.80 S6.2S0.00 r 1 *'• I- I Ir f I L-_- r ii- f- •:P- I ^dd**"**“*" ^ • P^*^ ^ ~ Water Main 54 Casing for 8* DIP 55 Casing for 12* DIP Total Addendum No. 1 CluogtXItdcL^lfl*-! 56 6” DIP, Class 52 water main 57 8* DIP, Class 52 water main 58 12* DIP, Class 52 water main 59 16* DIP. Oass 52 water main 60 6^ resilient wedge GV and box 61 8* resilient wedge GV and box 62 12T butterfly valve and box 63 16* butterfly valve and box 64 5* valve hydrant 65 Connect to exist, water line (wet tap) 66 C.I. fittings 67 Mechanical trench compaction 68 Improved pipe foundation per 6” depth increments in place 69 Casing for ir DIP Total Change Order No. 1 Total Part A • Sanitary Sewer Total Part B • Water Main Total Part C • Storm Sewer Total Part D • Street Total Addendum No. 1 Total Change Order No. 1 Total Work Completed to Date U9SI.RFF LF LF RP-3 45 60 113.00 118.00 5310.00 $5310.00 LF 50 15,60 LF (35) 15.60 LF 410 20.85 30 62530 LF 250 28.00 25.00 700.00 EA 2 340.00 EA (1)440.00 EA 2 795.00 1 795.00 EA 2 L660.00 2.00 3320.00 EA 2 1,100.00 EA (1)1,440.00 LB 2,000 0.85 200 170.00 LF 670 0.20 55 lli» LF 130 0.80 LF (60)118.00 $5.62130 18.075415 25,611.75 Oj OO 63SO j OO 5310.00 54i21 50. S5534630 V- ► ' r PRCUECT PAYMENT STATUS nroject FrajeaNa ffloNa City of Orono Trk Hwy 12 Frontage I >ad Sewer, Water & Street Improvements 91-2 13951 B & D Underground, Inc. CMANGE ORDERS No. Dale 1 10-10-91 Addhtonal work S16,550J0 Total ChangB Orders - Ad<($16,55030 PAYMENT SUMMARY No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Period Payment Relainagt:Completed Start Total Payment to Date Rctaiaage, Payment No. Total Value Completed $0.00 2,76234 $2,76234 Original Contract Change Orders Revised Contract $188,786X10 1635030 133630 imiJtFF RP-4 • - > V V ■ r I ^ 1 Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & |\J I Associates Engineers & Architects 050 G Bu»»goa %30err W Pf joseor^ C PE L ScK-^ai^ ’E PKTJftJ E ^E ^ C jos PE £ ^*oy«. P£ <toeft G k*'uncr!i **£ Simian Vi EOerm C PA A Godon PE ftC*\*rd W Poflpr PE Oonaw C Bof^aiTJL *^E ^*v A Sex^flOor f*E Mar* A **iryor ^E T«?< P«3 PE M<nae ‘ ^ ^autmanr pe Boorr B p£ Oavxj O Losiaxj P£ Thomai W i^terion PE Mienje* C Lyncn PE j^mn K Matarxl PE P Afxjprjor P£ VUrt t P£ Booen C B u &ka . a »A T*Kmas E Angui PE HovarO A SanibnJ PE Da^ j Edgerron P£ vtar% A Seid Pf Pnnp j Cas\a^ P£ %r*ae* MaTmex p£ Mant 0 MUi. PE ■'horrvjs 8 Anamon A i A Gary f Pytarxjer PE MNes 8 Jprnen P^^ Hpne c PViTTvia AiA Agnn M AiC P Jerry o ^^mch P£ Cecuo OPvier pe tooeft e Oeoo* PE Gary W Monen P£ L WiemfA PE vp<r> e ^Mpd PE Chan« A ErKtson Leo M pjywefUcy MaAao M Ohoo L Philhp Gr»<ei November 6, 1991 City of Orono Box 66 Ciystal Bay, MN 55323 X7 %! Attn: Mr. John Gerhardson Re:McCulley Road MSA Street Improvements MSAP 152-104-03 Our FUe No. 13957 Dear John, Enclosed please find three (3) copies of the 1st Request for Payment for the above referenced project. This portion of the work has been satisfactorily completed and we recommend pay ment. If you have any questions, please contact me Yours very truly. STROO,^OSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Harlan M. Olson HMO:U End. 13957.cor 2335 Wfst Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 • 35th Anniversary ./■ ■rv 1 I':P- 1 ' S'. I-V- I; V fe.m REQUEST FOR PAYMENT McCulley Road MSA Sued Improvcmcnis MSA ProjecI No. 152-104-03 nic No. 139.57 SUMMARY 1 Contract Amount 2 Cbanga Order • Addition 3 Chanfe Order • Deduction 4 Revbed Contract Amount 5 Vdue Completed to Date 6 Material on Hand 7 Amount Earned 8 Less Retainage 5% 9 Sub-Total 10 ir— Amount Paid PrevMM»ly 11 AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO '1 M >nded for Approval by: OO. ROSENE, ANDERUK A ASSOOATES, INC■OHBSmOO. ROSENE, Approved by Contractor BITUMINOUS CONSULTING & CONTRACTING Approved by Owner: CITY OF ORONO, MN Spedfied Contract Com|detion Date: October 10.199t Date: iJMTJtrp 30,569.75 s 30,569.75 $24.98SB1 $0.00 s 24.98SB1 $1,249.29 $23.736J2 $0.00 $23,73632 rjr ; I k I’t fI !<: 1^- I I' ■I Item 2104J13 2105 J26 2112J01 2232J01 2331J08 233L518 23S7J02 2503JU 2503J73 2506309 2511301 2531301 2554301 2573302 2S75305 Saw bituminous Select granular borrow Subgrade preparation Mill bituminous surface Type 41 wearing course mixture Bit. material for mixture Bit. material for tack coat 12* RC pipe sewer, Cl. 5 IT RC pipe apron w/trash guard Const. CB W/R3067V cstg. Random riprap. Class II Concrete curb & gutter, Des. D424 Remove & replace traffic barrier SUtatkxi/erosiod control fence Mirafi "Envirofence* Sodding, erosion type Total Work Completed to Date tjaST-RPi*RP-1 Coni met Vnil Qunmlty Amoant L’ntl Qiiafillfjr Price To Dole To Dolo LF 1,000 0.60 800 480.00 CY 100 10.00 SY l.(XK)1.75 800 1,400.00 SY 25 5.00 11 55.00 TN 325 18.15 318.48 5,780.41 TN 20 120.00 17.52 2,102.40 GL 150 1.00 60 60.00 LF 193 22.00 193 4,246.00 EA 2 500.00 2 1,000.00 EA 2 950.00 2 15100.00 CY 8 75.00 8 600.00 LF 1,000 7.20 960 6,912310 LF 100 4.00 LF 150 3.00 150 450.00 SY 1,000 2.85 $24,985.81 --- r r PAYMENT STATUS nOfCCt FWiiBCt No. RfeNo. City of Orono McCuUey Road MSA Street Improvements MSAP 152-104-03 13957 Bituminous Consulting 8t Contracting OlAMnE ORDERS Na Date 1 Total Cfcaage Orders • Add ia: Na 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 rMENT SUMMARY ftriod Start 10-3191 Pqrineiit $13,736.52 Retainagp $1,249.29 Completed $24,98SJ1 Total Payment to Date Retainate, Payment No. Totd Value Completed $23,736.52 1,249.29 $24,985.81 Original Contract Change Orders Revised Contract $30,569.75 0.00 $30469.75 I3M7JUT RP-2 p I'. I li I kfe. -fc, ^ TO: FROM: DATE: John Gerhardson, Public Works Director Jack Brinkhaus, Public Works Supervisor II November 6» 1991 % / SUBJECT: 1991 Pall Cleanup What follows is a recap of our 1991 Fall Cleanup. Blackowiak Containers - 18 9 Demolition and 9 Junk $6575.01 ARCA Appliance Recycling 126 Pieces 756.00 Lehne's Tire Service 180 Tires n/c $7331.01 Sam Bloom Iron 6 Metal 21590 lbs. Sheet Iron 320 lbs. Scrap Alum Credit (203.82) $7127.19 Personnel costs not included. TO:Mayor Peterson and Orono City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator O// Froa: Date: Subject: Michael P, Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Admi^^^^r^c^^ November 4, 1991 % Stubbs Bay Sewer Project A. Notice to Property Owners B. Letters from Property Owners V List of Bxhibita Exhibit A - Notice and Information Flyer Mailed to Property 0%fners re: November 20, 1991 Public Hearing Exhibit B - Letter from David and Sherokee Ils? 10/21/91 Exhibit C - Letter from Steven and Linda Whitman 10/26/91 Exhibit D ** Property Valuation Summary Exhibit E - 4/4/90 Staff Memo The attached notice of public hearing and information flyer were mailed to the Stubbs Bay area residents on November 7 The public hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, November 20, 1991, 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers. We have received letters from two property owners on Eileen Street who wish to be excluded from the project. Mr. and Mrs. Use request that the project boundaries be redrawn to omit their property, because it is on the fringe of the project area and would require a separate lateral to serve just their residence at 3630 Eileen Street. Mr. and Mrs. Whitman of 3620 Eileen Street make a similar request, however, it should be noted that the lateral that would serve them also would serve the property at the northwest corner of B^yside and Stubbs Bay Road. In 1990 the Council had requested staff to consider criteria for excluding properties from the project area. Staff suggested exclusion might be allowed if all of the following criteria are met: Lot areas over 2 dry buildable acres. The property does not abut a gravity trunk or lateral. Adequate primary and alternate septic sites have been proven to exist (formal site evaluation required at o%mer' s expense). Applicant agrees to formally preserve the alternate sites by deed restrictions and actual practice. 1. 2. 3. 4. Staff also suggested that a "partial exclusion ” might be granted to those properties which meet requirements 1, 3 and 4, but do abut a gravity service into which they can directly connect. It was suggested that these might be allowed to delay connection as long as they pay the trunk assessment up front, with connection fee to be paid at the time of connection. Please review the April 4, 1990 memo f^'r additional detail. 't-' I ¥ ■v;' r f k'. i, fr- Stubbs Bay Sewer Project November 5r 1991 Page 2 Finally^ attached is a summary of property valuations for the sewer project area. The values shown are the 1991 taxable market values, which typically are slightly below the price one would expect to pay for the property. This was compiled merely to give Council a general idea of the property values, to compare with the estimated sewer assessment figures. Staiff Berommsnrtiitloo Staff recommends that Council accept the information presented. Council may wish to address the requests of Use and Whitman. Isv CITY OP ORONO NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING INSTALLATION OP MONICIPAL SENERS IN THE STUBBS BAT AREA Notioc. V hereby given that the City Council of Oronor Minnesota, will hold a pnbllc bearing in the Orono Council Chanhers, 1275 Brown Road South, at 7s00 p.a« on Wednesday, Noveeber 20, 1991, to consider the installation of nunicipal sanitary sewer trunks and laterals, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 429.011 to 429.111. The area proposed to be assessed for such inprovement is shown on the map in this flyer. The estimated cost of such iaqprovenent is $1,944,975.00. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvement will be heard at this meeting. By Order of City Council /s/ Dorothy M. Hallin City Clerk AREAS PROPOSED TO BE ASSESSED ARE AS FOLLOWS: I. All property in the Northwest quarter of Section 5, T. 117 N., R. 23 W., lying Southerly of the Luce Line Trail. II. All property in the Northeast quarter of Section 5, T. 117 N., R. 23 W., lying Southerly of the Luce Line Trail. III. Properties in the East half of the Northeast quarter of Section 5, T. 117 N.f R. 23 H., which abut Leaf Street. IV. All property in the West half of the Northwest quarter of Section 4, T. 117 N., R. 23 W. V. All property in the North half of the Southeast quarter of Section 5, T. 117 N., R. 23 W. which abuts Oxford Road or Bayside Road. UPDATE ON 1990 QUESTIONNAIRE In July, 1990, a questionnaire was mailed to approximately 110 property owners in the Stubbs Bay area. That questionnaire provided an estimate of the project costs, and explained the proposed splitting of costs between a $6,500.00 base sanitary sewer charge to be assessed, and a connection charge (ranging from $4,670-$10,530 depending on lateral service area) to be collected at the time of hookup. For those who agreed to sign a petition/appeal waiver, the City offered to assess the entire base charge and connection charge over fifteen years. Your City Council offered this split method of financing in order to minimize the financial burden on the general Orono taxpayer. It has been and continues to be the City's philosophy that each sewer area pay the costs of its own sewer installation. The City Council had owners would agree to waJ project woe'd proceed. Bov the waiver. Another 35% inu.. did not respond. ;ated that if at least 70% of the property neir right to appeal the assessment, the , ii response to the survey, only 15% signed .ated they would not sign the waiver, and 50% STUBBS BAY SEWER CITIZENS COMMITTEE During the winter of 1990-91, a group of citizens from the Stubbs Bay area indicated to the City Council their interest in forming a citizens committee. Their goal was to he'’ inform their neighbors of the urgency of the need for municipal sewers, "he Council appointed seven individuals to the Stubbs Bay Sewer Citizens Committee and requested that, during their discussions with their neighbor?, the committee also search out ways this project could be revised to make it more acceptable to area residents. The committee sent a letter in May, 1991, to each Stubbs Bay property o«mer. Individual committee meinbers met with residents in June and July. The committee reported that in general, affected residents supported the idea of the sewer project and acknowledged the need for municipal sewers, but the costr of the project were too high. The committee suggested that some degree of City participation in the costs would likely reduce the degree of opposition to the project. Finally, the committee suggested that the City should more closely define which areas need sewer laterals immediately, and where trunks could be installed now but laterals installed at some future date. At the June 24, 1991 meeting, the City Council expressed generally that the project needs to be done and unanimously voted to direct the City Engineer to update the feasibility study. FEASIBILITY STUDY The Engineer's updated feasibility study was completed in August, 1991, and formally received by the Council in October. The study divides the project into a sewer trunk project and seven individual area lateral projects. The updated feasibility report has added Cygnet Place and properties abutting Leaf Street north of the Luce Line within the trunk service area. A map of the various project lateral areas is shown below. f Cygnet Place was included due to lot sizes averaging less than one acrCr the proxlinity to the creek which drains to Lake Minnetonka, and the generally high water table conditions in the area. The feasibility report indicates that the three areas with the greatest isawdiate need are Stubbs Bay Northwest, Stubbs Bay Northeast# and Bayslde East. Lots in these three areas are generally small and the ability to repair or construct new onsite systems is limited. The table below indicates the current estimated costs for the trunk and area laterals. Parts 1# II and III are recommended for immediate construction. However# it is proposed that all 135 properties which would be benefited by the trunk now or in the future# be assessed now for the $6# 150.00 estisiated trunk cost. Future lateral construction costs would be assessed to benefiting property o%mers when those laterals are constructed. The City has not siade a final determination of what factors would trigger future lateral installations. Sanitary Sewer Trunk Assessment Total Trunk Cost Number of Units Trunk Cost per unit $830,090 135 $ 6,150 Sanitary Sewer Lateral No. of Lateral Cost Trunk Cost Total Co Part Service Area Cost Units Per Unit Pe- Unit Per Unit Z Stubbs Bay M.W.$157#190 25 $6,290 $6,150 $12,440 ZI Stubbs Bay N.E.283,335 45 6,300 6,150 12,450 IZZ Bayside East 54,480 12 4,540 6,150 10,650 IV Bederwood 132,460 11 12,040 6,150 18,190 V Bayside North 43,300 4 10,830 6,150 16,980 VI Oxford 74,870 9 8,320 6,150 14,470 VII Cygnet PI 369,210 29 12,730 6,150 18,880 Note again that the $6,150.00 estimated trunk charge is proposed to be assessed over a period of fifteen years to all benefiting properties. The City Council has not yet determined whether the neighborhood lateral costs will be assessed over a fifteen year period or be collected as a lus.p sun at the tine of connection. Once the sewer project is completed# each property owner has sixteen months in which to connect their residence to the system. r- ADDITIONAL CONNECTION COSTS Each property owner would be responsible for connection of their residence to the municipal sewer by a private contractor. The average cost of. such, connection is estimated at $1,500.00. Additionally, a Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) of $700.00 (1'‘92 figures) would have to be paid prior to issuance of a City permit for the connection. The SAC is charged by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for each new connection. Finally, a City connection permit fee (currently $30.50) would be required. *'0BLIC BEARING The November 20th public hearing at the Council Chambers is intended to give the City an opportunity to present the updated feasibility report information to the residents, and give the Council an opportunity to hear property owners* opinions on the project. Xf the Council determines it is appropriate to proceed with the project, the Intent is to direct the Engineer to provide plans and specifications, obtain bids, and then hold an assessment hearing once the final costs of the project are )cnown. If after the assessment hearing the Council decides to proceed with the project, construction could start as early as May, 1992. ■ October 21,1991 To: Orono City Staff Orono CToundl Re: Stubbs Bay Sewer Last week we met with Mike Gafron to ^ Stu^s Ba^ Sew^ si^ation and wa^todetemune which properties could eventuall/be included in the prciject We mscussed Orono*s Comprehensive Plan which recommends that 2 acre lots should be self-sustaining and not require public sewer. ^a discussed with Mike there appear to be about 6 to 8 lots, including our own, that were drawn into the project that are on the “fringe" or “perimeter" of this project and are around or over 2 acres in size. These could justitmbly be excluded frpin the map — in other words not included when the final map is drawn up. As Mffca pointea out, moat of these lots are separate projects just to serve these homesites. These seperate laterals are quite costly and if they were not included in this project it shoula not adversely affect the many lots that need sewer. Therefore, to be cost effective and to support the comprehensive plan we ask that test staff to prepare a map of this sewer project that excludes the large lota ive good systems and that are not on the trunk line nor on the lake. Thanlr you for youT Consideration in this matter. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, David and Sherokee Ilse 3630 Eileen Street Maple Plain, MN 55359 47^2804 2 5 1991 r- 1: r’I.. STEPHEN & LINDA WHITMAN 3620 EILEEN STREET ORONO, MN. 55359 October 26,1991 To:Orono City Staff; Orono City Council From: Stephen & Linda Whitman Re:Stubbs Bay Sewer While we are supportive of anempts to eliminate sewage contamination of Lake MinneUMika, we also believe there arc a variety of ways to determine which propemes should eventually be included in the Stubbs Bay Sewer project We understand that there arc between 5-10 lots, including our own, that were inirially proposed as part the project, but are actually on the outside "fringe" - quite a distance from the pR^iosed trunk line and would require separate laterals. These loB are 2 acres (or veiy close, Le. our is 1.9), have adequate sewage disposal as well as multiple altcmarivc sites, and are not even near the lake. We feel there is sufficient justification for excluding these from the final prt^wsed map without adversely affecting the cost for the many lots which need sewer service. In summary, we will only be able to support a sewer project if the large lots with fully systems and alternative sites which are neither on the main proposed trunk line nOT adjacent to the In^ e are excluded. We have attached copies of our previous conespondence oi. matter. Best Regards, r-. c,'1WM U V ,,l Bcf 3 i 1991 . '• l: To: M. Bemhardson, City Administrator J. Cerfaardson, Public Works Director NL Gaf&on, Assistant Planning &, Zoning Administrator E. Callahan, D. Gocncn. A. Nettles. B. Peterson, Council Members J. Grabek, Mayor Ronr Stephen & Linda Whitman; Sherokee & David Dse 3620 Eileen Street, Orono Re: Tnrlus*^" of the two Eileen Street properties (which are not in lake proximity) in the Bayside sewer project We wholeheartedly support the Bayside sewer project for properties on Smbbs Bay with non-confonning sepde systems and without alternative confortmng sites. We believe Lake Minnetonka is a marvelous resource which should be vigorously protected from environmental contamination. We request exempdon for our two properties from this project for the following reasons: * We are S(X)' from the lake. * We currenUy have new, fully conforming sepde systems. * We have ample altemadve sites (per William C. Warner & Associates); and are committ^ to protecting these sites for future availability. * We arc not on the proposed trunk line. Total cost for us to hook-up would range from $18,(XX) to S23,000 each, (per discussions with Glen Cook, the planner who drew up the preliminary sewer plans, and Mark Bemhardson.) * Hie assessment would in no way be reflected in a comparable increase in the t^jpraised value of our homes, (per William C. Warner Sc Associates) Attached is a letter documendng a professional's judgment regarding the sites, terrains, underlying soils, and impact on potential increase in property values. Also attached are the individual's credendals. Finally, a map of our two properties is included for your review. nmt hi P-'"h f it' k- t: i !■ I. IV, Vc f >•?\»-*v fe L“, WILLIAM C. WARNER & ASSOCIATES Real Estate Appraisers Box One Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 (612)473-0313 March 23, 1990 Steven and Linda Whitman 3620 Eileen Street Orono, Minnesota In re: 1.9.ny <l..crlbed as Lot 4 Block 1 Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PID 05 117 23 21 Dear Friends: I hava alvan ooasHaratlon to tha installation of aunicipal sever to_ llJht o' 'ost relative to the f “f In valne of^oor property. After giving f the subject site, the terrain, and the opinion that auniclpal sever vill add only an estimated J3,000 to $5,000 in value to your property a iJiiiuritr:ufiiiiei “Tn‘:hr”cinur-- If you have additional questions please feel free to call Yours very truly. Wllliaa Ca Warner Real Estate Appraiser WCH/Jo r:. i. ^ ..V £■rr t-'- !-• t il i; l^ r>i> -A ELMER J. PETERSON COMPANY Rural Rte 2, Delano. Mn. April 7, 1990 To Wnom It May Concern; I hav^ parsc-nally inspacta-S toe property oi Steplieu ^ J "i’V ‘ t- at to20 Eileen Street in Orono. I am wllino t> certo. 'V;! allows toree aadiUonal sites for lully up to Orono cc-e seprc .._u mound or standard trench. /Ji of these toree sites w-u.. ^ .a. . A _ ^4. 4« - .* I*'% f* ill ^ ! t i \away rroin a-ijacfiit lots, tliO Yva'u^ aii'- B^et Regards, eaAfcn- Name: Stephen T. Whitman Address: 3620 Eileen St._PID 05-117-23 21 0014 STUBBS BAY SBWER QtJESTIONAIRg Response worksheet - to be reuurned in envelope provided. Please check all boxes that apply: □ i. 3. 4. I have signed the petition/appea1 waiver and have enclosed one copy of it with Exhibits A s B. (If project ^oes aheadf the base sanitary sewer charge and connection charge will be financed by the City over a 15 year period.) I do not wish to sign the petition/appeal waiver at this time because: not want sewer n^ewer is too expensive/cannot afford □ Not willing to waive right to appeal ^^.a^ther: f lIs^ Please send information regarding the Senior Citizen Assessment. Deferral Program. I have speci person to questions contact me City staff My phone number is ^ g'Lm < c ^> < I A i ... - Return by September 15# 1990 to; uh- City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay# MN 55323 c: <0 3000 VVo 6 /A k f ■ } * y: J.;. ii: PROPERTY VALUATION SUMMARY STUBBS BAY SEWER PROJECT Area Average* Value Median* Value Value* # Developed Range Properties Trunk & Lateral Estimated Sewer Assessment Stubbs Bay NW $118r900 $114,500 $ 42,000-224,000 20 $12,200 Stubbs Bay NE 61,000 68,500 7,300-236,000 40 12,400 Bayside East 88,160 83,000 75,000-107,000 10 10,650 Bedervood 120,330 108,000 79,700-198,800 10 18,190 Bayside North 227,500 210,000 152,900-320,000 3 16,980 Oxford 522,030 500,000 253,000-864,000 9 14,470 Cygnet 150,100 139,000 75,000-299,000 30 18,880 * Values reflect 1991 "Taxable Market Values" per the 1991 Hennepin County Tax Records. ^ - *• t r* - . t TO:Mayor and City Council 14/90 FRW: Mark E. Bornhardson, City Administrator DJkR: April 4/ 1990 SUBJECT: Stubbs Bay Sewer Project Attachments: A. Stubbs Bay Sewer P^°3^ct B« Scries of Maps Labeled A Th..ough F ISSUE - 1. Consideration of; 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 fglucsted "^ff to provide criteria and provide recommendation loflS^lusic 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 ej.isting "oads and physical boundaries: C. Map A and staff revisions purposely avoided Lucc^Line, west of Tonkawa, and south of Bayside (eastend) since these properties were all subdivid-d after the 1975 tezoning at greater than 2 with proven septic sites availabl^^ and were relatively far from the lake. D. Areas cast of Leaf and north of Luce Line were also excluded due to distance from the lake. DISCUSSION - In response to the Council's request, the following recommendations are made: Re<^uired Inclusion; Staff feels the criteria for required inclusion in this project should be: A. Within the study area as originally defined or B. Abutting the study area but under 2 acres. Thcs*^ propcEtios arc defined on Ma? "C Optional I>r»clusion; ar^^itional ocopf'rties which could be optionally included Su^thrfollowi'S.g c'coirarndra criteria a:<^ shown on .-lap D: under 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. 5S“t4uV-s”‘nTl°~ bV°fotai'ly 'ar n to" bn ^rllud'ed only l£ all the following criteria are me.. A. Lot area is over 2 dry buildable acres. B. The property does not abut a gravity trunk or lateral (see Map £) C Adequate primary and alternate septic sites have been proverto e^xist (formal site evaluation required at owners expense). is areas which are at least 2 acres of dry buildable and not abutting a trunk. Partial Exclusions; .. All rccuirements for t'.'tal cwluVloi lxccpt that'they abut 'a gravity service into which ihey can directly connect, might be exclune,^ .rum rrrnV1ha^^?e^’^ov?r""'tr/°t"er ‘’m^ do not meet exclusion criteria. no^-po“lluting for trunk now and install tne n igno ^^paired to any one of the systems fails and can t oe r par* the code requirci. •: its. This should be "'sort a'ttempt if %ht project appears to be grinding to halt* properties within the recommended "required inclusion ■ area Eiaht the f;” ed ’ bv°gra"v7t-; iatfral^leadite Vo gravity oai'ns that wouldy^eed to have a lift Station constructed. j^'t: ail orooerties which pay a trunk charge would be included in a MOSA line Conprehensiv? Plan adjustment. Those total exclusions should Shey desire sewer in the future would ne^d 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 Partial Exclusion 175 Landmark - Barren - Letter 185 Landmark - Lyle - Letter 3620 Eileen Street - Whitman - Letter 3620 Eileen Street - Use - Letter 3965 Baysidc - Blanch - Letter 3640 Bayside - 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 - Thiesse - Letter 3750 Baysidc - Burger - Verbal « ■3480" Baysidc — Larson - Numerous phone calls IT uVvvrfV"! Vhc%xM^rtn"asL‘Vn optional inclusions. This would indicate .hat the number units could range up or down as much as 10 t. Oxford & Christine If all Potential Potential Potential P<;t 2 Acre Optional Participate Mao C Exclusion Inclusions Plus (^tionalInclusions Required Oeiginal Additional Design Inclusion Bouses 5 85 -6-8 » 77-79 13 VSe Lots 13 -2-3 * 10-11 0 total Quits 93 W fi- n = 87-90 l3 100-103 111 ALTERNATIVES - i I- a. Inclusions — 1. Adopt the Map C criteria for required inclusions 2. Scl*:ct alternate required inclusion criteria. 3. Adopt proposed -optional inclusion" criteria pe D. ' #:ao 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 Ir 2 or 3. 4. Table. 5. Do not exclude any properties from the original. .^COHMEHDAT^ ; I t SS^hc'^total project of approximately 90-100 properties. f be di%Ued to exclude the following properties and that ;5J”£o\loiinrP«P«tics be InEoced 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: Christinc Exclusions Not Allowed: (if ctitetia fot exclusion not met) Partial exclusion :-----. cc; Michael Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator / ? M. To: Froa: Mayor Peterson & Orono Council Members City Administrator Moorse %Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admi^^st^^or November 8, 1991 ^Date: Subject: Marina Licenses - Information Update List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit P - Oiacassion Ojs % staff Memo 4-18-91 Letter to LMCD 2-14-91/Response 5-17-91 Staff Memo 1-28-91 3taff Memo 4-18-90 Staff Memo 1-17-89 Staff Memo 1 3-89 At your October 28th meeting. Council briefly discussed the issue of marina licenses. The exhibits attached should provide a preliminary background to the Council regarding marina licensing activity in recent years. The City did not have a marina committee in operation between 1985 and 1991. 1985 is the last year in which licenses were reviewed by a marina committee. In 19 J6 and 1987, the City did not license marinas nor collect fees, in anticipation of approving code changes to make marinas a conditional use rather than a licensed permitted use. Those proposed code changes were met with some resistance by the marina operators and have never been finalized or the issues resolved. In 1988 the City collected fees and issued marina licenses to four of the seven operations, withholding licenses from North Shore Drive, Maxwell Bay Marina, and Gayle's Marina, pending resolution of specific issues. In 1989, pending resurrection of the proposed code changes, no license applications were mailed out, and no fees were collected. In 1990, after little progress towards those proposed amendments, marina license applications, were again acccepted. Applications were received from all marinas except Crystal Bay Service, collecting an average license fee of $336.00. Discussion with the Council regarding issuance of 1990 licenses occurred in April, 1990, at which time the Council discussed forming a marina committee. At about this time. Council focused on the LMCO's Lake Management Plan, and marina licensing and the marina committee were again placed on a back burner. The 1990 licenses were never issued, although marinas were allowed to continue operating absent any license review. Marina Licenses Hovember 8, 1991 Page 2 1991 license applications were mailed on March 1, 1991. License applications with the full correct fee were returned by Minnetonka Boat Works, Crystal Bay Service, Shoreline Marina and Yacht Club, and North Shore Drive Marina. No application was received from Windward Marina. Lakeside Marina returned the completed license application with no fee, indicating that the 1990 fee should be applied. Gayle's Marina submitted only the $200.00 base license fee and omitted the "slip" fee, including a letter indicating Inability to pay the additional approximately $300.00 in slip fees. In early summer 1991 the City Council created a Lake Use Committee for the purpose of reviewing the LMCD Plan, DNR Bhoreland Regulations, marina licenses, and other shore land and lake issues. The Lake Use Committee set the DNR Shore land Regulations as a priority item, and marina licensing reviews were again given a lower priority. Staff RecoasMuidation Before Council's November 25th meeting, staff will provide various options regarding the 1992 licensing process. Council has already directed that previous fees for unissued licenses be credited towards the 1992 licenses. To:City Administrator Bernhardson Froa: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator April 18, 1991 Sobjoct: Marina Licenses Marina license applicati^*.j for 1991 were mailed to each of the six Orono marinas and the single gas dock operation, on March I, 1991. Deadline date for those applications was noted as April 1, 1991. As of this writing, the following opertions have returned their license application: Operation Fee Paid __ Minnetonka Boat Works Crystal Bay Service Gayle's Marina Shoreline Marina 6 Yacht $206.00 $200.00 $358.00 J-29-91 W- < “ 91 H-9*9/ Gayle's application did not include the $2.00 per boat unit slip fee. This is the second year in a row that Gayle has omitted that fee. Of the three remaining marinas who have not submitted applications, staff has only heard from Jim Dunn of Lakeside Marina, who was expected to submit his application last week but didn't. It would be helpful if Council would determine a procedure for reviewing 1990-1991 Marina Licenses as soon as possible. Options might include: 1. Staff review of licenses 2. Pull Council review of licenses. 3.Create a marina license review committee consisting of Council and/or Planning Commission members and staff. 4. Other. ]>5rr£ ^-3o~‘U Abler* Skoi S-zV-II I * L •- -.1 civy^ ■ (.U- aFrarKi ciirv* CITYof ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minneaota 55323• Munivai OCBi On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka February 14, 1991 Mr. Eugene R. Stronunen, Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 East Lake Street Hayzatar MN 55391 Subject: 1991 Marina Licensing Dear Gene, Recently the City of Orono received notice of licensing for the various^commercial marinas within the City of ^ raauested bv the City of Orono this year that as you go througk thnicenaing^cess^ for these marinas, the following concerns be responded to during this process: General Concerns - A. Temporary "dock extensions" - It is our understanding that frr last year and a half the marinas, some more that others, have been granted specific extensions and mooring facilities to accommodate low '>at least one case, it is our understanding, that f^e docks Save 5Sne from 200 to 600 feet out. It Is requested tha± these temporary doc«' permits be carefully monitored so that removal occurs when the excess length is no longer needed Further, we request that appropriate action be taken so there Is no chince that individual marinas, extended nature of these temporary permits, leverage themselves into greater deck limits in the^“^““ when the water has returned to its normal level. be aware, the City of Orono and LMCD went to Court with Nor^ it.rMatina back in the ‘TO'a to reduce its docks from 30ff> to a 200* limit. B. It la rs'‘«%“1crs“^£“errdr’rit«Vt/on*o1 first «««'ff.^“^,S°siSe*ratl2 of Orono for their review prior to any initial considerati<» of the operating licenses. ■UIUNNG a ZDNINC • 4T}>nS7 NBTRATION a nNA.NCt --*71.7351 FAX-473451# PUBLIC WORItt-*P3S# Mr. Eugene Stroininen reburary 14, 1991 Page 2 of 3 It should be noted the City of Orono is considering, as it reviews its shoreland regulations, what additional regulation it would desire related to marinas. This will be reviewed in context with the level of jurisdiction and enforcement LMCD already has in this area. Soecific Orono Land Ose/Zoning Reguirements ■* Ba^d^ on the nipt ton that, per LMCD Section 2.03 Subd. 2(e), Li!CD in their licensing process requires that the licensee must meet all LMCD reguirenents as well as all the requirements of a local government (with the most restrictive applying) we would like to inform you of the following ongoing issues the City of Orono has with specific marinas, as follows: 1. North Shore Drive Marina A. Encroachment into an adjacent dock area, residentially zoned Millard property east of marina. B. The 1991 LMCD license application indicates an increase in boats over and above the number historically licensed by Orono. The last license that was issued by Orono (1984) was for 76 rental slips, 6 transient slips, 4 company slips, 20 boats dry stacked and 45 boats stored for sale or service with a maximum density of 151 total. Apparently since 1988, North Shore Drive Marina has been given an LMCD license for a total of 165 boats. 2. Lakeside Marina A. The City has received complaints about the condition and status of the floating dock extensions. The complainant was referred to the LMCD. B. A 1985 variance review for limited commericial use of non-adjacent lakeshore lots owned by the marina, has left unresolved issues of boat storage on and off land, as well as parking and related land use issues. C. The City originally was in support of the applicants previous west side dock layout because it limited impact on the affected neighboring property owner, however, the new dock layout per the LMCD plan has not resulted in recent complaints from that neighbor. - r F [ •: h I N-rj.r- k Mr. Eugene Strommen February 14, 1991 Page 3 of 3 3, Gayles Marina o;er?t*ion o7 a'^^edfi'^^business^s no\ r^e^rnmed uU in the B-2 zone. a The City has not licensed Gayles Marina since due to unresolved issues of required rip-rap, Ldtment control neasutes, a disagreement about !SetSe! 9 service slips should '.e allowed and issues of screening and plantings w a. a. vhaf f»*istinq violations or proposed changes TO the requested that licensees be referred to impact land use it is r q t vm license. If you have Otono prior J'*"eci/ics, olea^e contact v.ichael Saffron questions regarding specirics, oxeaa Sincerely/N. \\ ^ City Administrator cc;Mavor and City CouncilHurr Orono LMCD Representative JoEllen Hur . guiiai-g 4 Zoning Administrator Sl'p. atrf«A, Arst. Ilanning 4 Zoning Admin. r : LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 C/ST WAVZATA BOUlf VAPO SLMTT WAy^ATA MINNFSO^A TElfRON^ 6*?/A73-70a3 EUGENE R. STROMMEN FxfCUnVE DIRECTOR May 17, 1991 Mr. Mark Bernhardson City Administrator CITY OP ORONO P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mark, Your letter of February 14, 1991, raised a number of concerns regarding multiple docks and their licensing. The specific docks in question came up for consideration at the May 11 Hater Structures and Environment Committee Bftsed on the committee recommendation, we can now better respond to the city's concerns. General Concerns: A.Temporary "dock extensions" ~ Multiple docks have been granted TEMPORARY LOW HATER VARIANCES SINCE 1987. Such variances are granted during years in which low water is declared, generally in February. * water is declared when the lake level is below 928.0'. It has been so declared for 1991. B. Each temporary low water variance is granted upon individual review. Original site plans are^ compared to the variance request. The variance is granted one year at a time during the declared low water year. As the low water is no longer a factor in subsequent years, ALL temporary low water 7sciences would be rescinded. The licensee is then required to return to their original dock position before the variance. A copy of the temporary low water variance conditions is enclosed. Any changes to dock c nfiguration or services offered at a licensed multiple dock, require a new dock license application. The only change to land use which LMCD considers in its licensing procedures is that of dry storage. This involves watercraft stored on land in a building or on a rack for the purpose of placing in the lake and removing at the customer's request in lieu of slip storage. Such dry storage is licensed. North Shore Drive Marina is so licensed, the only one in Orono. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900C/ST WAYZATA 0OUf VAPO SUtH^ ’60 WAy^TA MiNNFSOTA S5v19! 6t?/4r3.r033 CUGCHE «. STROMMEM FXfCUTJVE DIRECTOR May 17, 1991 Mr. Mark Bernhardson City Administrator CITY OP ORONO P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mark, Your letter of February 14, 1991, raised a number of concerns regarding multiple docks and their licensing. The specific docks in question came up for consideration at the May 11 Water Structures and Environment Committee meeting. Based on the committee recommendation, we can now better respond to the city's concerns. General Concerns: A.Temporary "dock extensions" - Multiple docks have been granted TEMPORARY LOW HATER VARIANCES SINCE 1987. Such variances are granted during years in which low water is declared, generally in February. ^ water is declared when the lake level is below 928.0'. It has been so declared for 1991. Each temporary low water variance is granted upon individual review. Original site plans are compared to the variance request. The variance is granted one year at a time during the declared low water year. As the low water is no longer a factor in subsequent years, ALL temporary low water variances would be rescinded. The licensee is then required to return to their original dock position before the variance. A copy of the temporary low water variance conditions is enclosed. B.Any changes to dock c nfiguration or services offered at a licensed multiple dock, require a new dock license application. The only change to land use which LMCD considers in its licensing procedures is that of dry storage. This involves watercraft stored on land in a building or on a rack for the purpose of placing in the lake and removing at the customer's request in lieu of slip storage. Such dry storage is licensed. North Shore Drive Marina is so licensed, the only one in Orono. > aJtt. Mr. Mark Bernhardson, 5/15/91. Page 2 LMCD has had a moratorium on ’'ew or expansions to multiple dock licenses sinc' 31/90 which runs through 1/31/92. Any change that might impact land use. such ae parking due to an expansion, is promptly called to the affected city s attention during the application process. We do not address such issues as landscaping. Specific Orono Land Use/Zoning Requirements: 1. North Shore Drive Marina A.Encroachment concerns to the Millard property appear to have been resolved per a 7/26/04 Ron Hillard letter, copy encJosed. We have had no recent complaints indicating there is a problem. B.Slips licensed by the marina are summarized per our 3/19/91 outline, enclosed. The discrepancy we identify is that in 1989 four transient slips were reported as rental/storage slips. That is a correction we are requiring the marina to make this year. They are to have six transient (for daytime use only) and six service (limited temporary overnight storage for boats in for service which can be verified by a work order) slips. The balance of changes to their licenses are as noted on the summary. These changes are supported by Board action as noted. 2. Lakeside Msrins: A.Citizen complaints concerning floating dock extensions have bee reviewed with the licensee. Corrections on lighting, fencing, placement of reflective material during winter months were made by the licensee. Some floating fragments from the styrofoam material have not been resolved. LMCD is looking^into the styrofoam material as to its durability for dock use. Apparently there are also different qualities and densities of material which affect its durability. Tnis is a relatively new experience for use on the lake. B.LMCD is not aware of nor has it licensed any multiple docks for non-adjacent lakeshore lots owne'' by the marina. Please let is know if we can of assistance in this area. i Si ■‘rjf|i-;vtef- ■ Hr. Hark Barnhardson. 5/15/91. Page A The city is aware LMCD filed a conplaint with Gayle's due to the unauthorized storage of barges. This complaint was settled with Gayle agreeing to store the three barges in designated slips. LHCD agreeing to allow storage in the dock aisles during the wint.er months, subject to no further violations of unauthorized barge storage for one year. Xhis sususary is brought to your attention in advance of the Board's Hay 22 meeting in the event there is any further information you wish to provide prior to or during the Board meeti The 5/11/91 committee meeting minutes will be mailed with the 5/22/91 Board meeting agenda to further assist you in following the committee action on these licenses. Thank you for keeping us informed of your review of the licenses for these particular applicants. Sine Eugene RT Strommen Executive Director End. ee:JoBllen Htirr Jeanne Ha -«th ^ Michael Gaffronir Jim Gratbwol. Chair. Water Structur's & Environment Committee Dave Cochran. LMC.*) Chair - 'i... !r:^‘ r I* V V ,r % !•; .1 'k 4-;■\fn ■ 4' %-r «•■• H.». i--' r. ’- I K (■: (Rev.5/90) demons braked that suci. actions will be in keeping with the and Intent of this Code. The Board may impose conditions m the qranting of variances to ensure compliance and to protect other riparian owners and users of the Lake. No variance for access forthe handicapp€«^ shall be granted w..ich allows or provides for the storage of a greiiter number of watercraft than otherwise ifoiiXd be perioi^‘'*-ed under this Code. Subd. 7. Orders to Other Owners. The Board shall not require the owner of any site who is not the applicant to take anv action at variance with what is otherwise permittea by chipter without first giving the owner a reasoiiable opportunity to be heard thereon as provided by subdivision 6. If the 8°“^ orders such rwner to take the action proposed, or any part thereof, a reasonable Irngth of time within which to take such action shall be afforded. Any such order shall be s«rved upon the owner in the manner that pf la served, and shall specify the length of time within which the owner shall take the required action, v^hich time shall be no less than 30 days. Subd. 0. Violations. Locating, constructing, ^”®talllng or maintaining a dock, moorin*. Hiff. ent from the te'-ns an .onditions ot a variance wnicn ordeVed or permitted vi ition of this Code and grounds for recislon of the varia whsn th^Lske ?lvn'1alls"°below'rievaVio^ NGVD^'the'^oardri £ requirements of Subd. ^ variance shall be grunted which variances may be issued for a spewi .iea t art^rd low water conditions continue as determine the Board. ; Section 1.08. Penalties. subd. 1. Misdemean-ors. provided In a district or « this Code, any provi- any person violating ?iyri»in bv reference, or Ine conditions • iSn of any code imposed b^ the Board, sh > U of any lice'^se, permit or ^ maximum fli>e or a mnxlnmin pe lod upon conviction, be ^ spec/fied by Minnesota Statutes,of imprisonment, or both, as specieleu y Section 609.03, for misdemeanors. •1 IW*'t' I*' I -' \' ••; • ♦ • • • • 1 1 {/. ^ • i -l:' J r CoTVOtU/^^l^ >V i-'-It. I 1^ k'L C>h ^ (HfflU). W /[tetfJi^ j^a\ "7l^i//afJ ' cJ^ ci^ ^ ^ -• fe . Jf 0/ j ^ ^ a,.^ c r-^ iv r>-' L;/. o4tJs ^ ft^j ■cu i•> '- • S’i=m '/^K>f A4> o6^ie/>lt>\) >b ^ 6oii~ tn\- s^u^ ofi<7 f.i;4aa /U JHi C ^jfo€0^ To C& 4(/ji CdK •^40^ Jkf Aeufdt Oft^ c^^oyy^ ^ari^J 0WL.(6iit^- ^ (UiA/ty/ c>u4jt^ co^2 c4 c4^474i ^ i d^ ^/7 T^r^Us^ v:. CUfd Atta 4^ Coeui 4>iO<»^*06*i c &k A s tTj :tp7v--^ ‘‘iLfw . . . jr--'V'h. '• ■*s »•#• V* > . A A ^&/ €?^rc/ ■< ]0'' te'-- p&fc; W?k te'm P:te:-,p;.pm w- ,iV .i recei^-’ JUL 31 L-M.C.D. 3^/0 ife"' ■ i'.m M' R?'. §i-- 'te- ■.It. ‘■v^’ ' . NORTH SHORE DRIVE MARINA SUMMARY OF SLIP USAGE PER APPLICATIONS 1984 Rental Transient Service Dry Storage Totals 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 81 6 6 20 81 6 6 20 81 6 6 72** 8 72 8 72 108 113 113 165 165 165 fro. H79 through 1983, Dock Licenses were denied. from the LMCD and were granted a license »*Io J.nu.ry 1988, North Shore Drive f.ond additionol dry stack “‘“T®** yg i„ March 1988. the Board :^;^o^^;^!::^i^n5:r}ic:n::“^r13'?;ta^"d::y stack stora*. .liP- 3/19/91 I *<4 - :-r te r-■ :v I'C y. ui . > ■* J. H- V-"' 4‘ ft: ^,. f^- * iJiv<w ft-ft l;pr rv m ■vt-:;I h. IP Tbs FroBs Date: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron# Asst Planning s Zoning Administrator January 28» 1991 Subjects Commercial Marina Licenses for 1990/1991 i,n ti:*Citi Although »arina license applications for 1990 were BSf i%”o- c?? iStlnds to continue licensing, the 1991 licenses could be retroactive to 1/1/90• The 1990 license review got lost in the shuffle of dlecussions about the LMCD Lake Management Plan. Council from April 23, 1990 indicate Council generally supported of a marina committee. No marina committee was ever however. Council did form a committee to review the LMCD plan. Since the mid-1980s, the City has not exercised juriediction with the LMCD regarding dock issues luplnaa The City has continued an active role in regulating ^e «7pecS of -.arina operations, c®f®f^l^rjieriS! rlquosts and granting the appropriate variances for marina umadas at Windward Marina, Minnetonka Boat Works, ? Bav Marina* Although our marina licensing fees have been ^sed “’^thf^iber Jf slips, the City has generally exerted its authority only over the land, not the water. Itariaa Activity Update - following is a summary of marina activity over the last few yearss 1 Marina - 118 slips - Windward Marine is nearing i;«p’SSSI*?f ?h'.^”o-piise ”?it:r:d o°rVgV Shoreline Drive, replacing ® spaces, green space, and a gasebo/toilet bui two on the Tanager Lake side, showrooM/retail sales structure, The final step in this renovation will be ^e removal of tne old showroom building, landscaping, and replacement of parking spaces. The City has received no complaints regarding the operation of this marina. / LioaiefeiEkkaaAafid t-'r %■ Jv r,i 'i fi'lm 'r? . ‘'V i•-^' fiV, vr.;- 'r-" k ;t K' ff-i-- .r>: '•i--5i' PJ„f fe f'-'' 'fW:m:f'v?«|,4;i::h»rL Commercial Marina Licenses 1990/91 January 29» 1991 Pa?e 2 of 5 is si: resulted in the striping of a crosswalk location be«b Windward Marina and the Boat works operations, with the intent to define a crossing point for pedestrian traffic. The City has received no complaints regarding the Minnetonka Beat Works operation. 3. Mi^nnetonka Marina and Yacht Club (formerly Smith's Bay General Manager. The new property owners have indicated to the City staff an 4n^«ne to oroceed with a club building similar to that which had previously been approved by the Council for the h^ptUir/v SSiJ§?n,“fr£S!nr5.*25 .Til the new building can be constructed. \%VrVi»V Vh."t levels rot . to norraalf we would expect this marina operation to in become viable. 4, Worth Shore Drive Marina - 1984 license: 88 slipSr 28 dry stacks) 1991 hMCO application: citH in Worth Shore Drive Marina was last licensed by 1904. number of issues (some resolved, some not) since 1984 include: a) encroachment into adjacent dock use areas; b) authorised/un-authorized dredging (DNR/LMCD); c) expansion of marina operation onto adjacent residentially zoned properties; and d) apparent increase of slips and dry stack units (1991). ; r. fi KK- Commercial Marina Licenses 1990/91 January 29r 1991 Page 3 of 5 K Marina (formerly Maxwell Bay Marinar formerly Cha.ta^Srina, folSSrly Nort/star Marinal - 76 slips - This marina has changed hands a number r“e”eivid *o*in owned by Jim Dunn. During 1990, the City received verbal complaints regarding stability of the #ioatino docks which were allowed on a temporary basis by the IMCO due to low water conditions. These docks also necessitated dredging a channel to the -xisting ramp at the ShoMliM Marina as of October 1990 was apparently not iH compliance with all LMCO reflations. the blowing have also been issues regarding this marina. a) dock layout related to its effect on neighboring properties ; and b) expansion of the marina use into adjacent adjacent neighboring properties, we Drive in 1990 regarding a property at 3262 renting out slips, that may have been unrelated to this 52?in2^dependin| on the ownership at the time. c flAvtAA Marina - 143 slips - Gayles Marina has not been T^Shf xukv ^:ns^!n jisoViaUSn with ri^rapping done in 1988: ’ service slips at the shoreline; c) screening/planting. In recent years, Gayles Marina has been in trouble wi' ^ the Ma e^ tre Liicrregarding dredging and th pp rent SS?rati5n of a dredgini busf e«. The City has c iesp-, nded with the owner regarding this issue. I;.r'aS[:n “i ^rUSIy" ^ai SSo «“licVn» a;p?i=atl'’o';"wa"s"lS^i v*e*d ? Bay Service and their operation was apparently curtailed for moat of the year due to low water. Harliia Licanaiiig lamomm - The City has not had a marina committee insals* opSntMS°^ vy/be” finalit«l or th. issues resolved. . - .eM.bA* ’/.' ■r • 'V! V' "^.;.J^Ja...v ...A... , — '-^ ■■- ■-■ ■_____-■-.■v...tAxi'^,<*.^: Cononercial Marina Licenses 1990/91 January 29, 1991 Page 4 of 5 la 1988# the City issued marina licenses to four of the Sevan operations, withholding licenses from North Shore Drive, Bay Marina# and Gayles Marina# pending resolution of sBeeifie issues. In 1989, pending resurrection of the proposed code changes, no license applications were mailed out. In 1990, little progress towards those proposed amendments, staff again mailed out marina license applications, receiving a>'lications from all marinas except Crystal Bay Service, c. lecting an average license fee of $336.00. I'lqo^ the Council regarding issuance of licenses occured in April 1990, at which time the Council discussed forming a marina committee. Xt about this time. Council focused on the LMCD's Lake Management Plan, and marina licensing and the marina committee were again placed on a back burner. The 1990 licenses have yet to be issued, applications have not been mailed out. The 1991 I would again make the following obser' 'tions about marina licensing in Orono: 1. Marina licensing by the City has lost whatever effectiveness it might have had in the past, because the City has not forced marinas to cease operations when a required license was withheld. 2. Land use controls and procedures have been relatively iilVSt:;. SH been proposed. 3. With low water levels for the last 3 years, some of the marinas have been barely making ends meet, and have resort^ by City's intermittent licensing of marina operations. Short Term Goals - Poes Council wish to proceed with mailing of 1991 Marina License Applications? Is Council interested in issuing 1990 licenses after-the- fact? If so, under what review process/criteria? i--;' I:i' h: A V. h-Pk 7:"'syri'® 'i' v^- f ->l^\ r i F'-’ sy IV;,‘ S', r ■ y. F®- • Conmercial Marina Licenses 1990/91 January 29, 1991 Page 5 of 5 Long Ten Goals - What are Council’s long term goals for marinas?Do you want to: a) Maintain status quo? (license now and then. b) Help marinas prosper absent expansion? c) Eventually legislate marinas out of existance? .) d) Make existing non-conforming situations gradually become conforming? e) Allow non-conforming situations to remain as-is as as they don't expand? long License marinas merely as a source of revenue? tt\ Tm the City interested in taking concurrent jurisdiction 2Ur d^k-rV iVlve their regulation to the LMCD per current policy? If Council creates a marina committee, or for that matter a amm committee, will its function be to merely recommend aoDroval or disapproval of marina license applications, or IS cb.rg. b. ” study all »arin. and lake use issues and rttCOiBBMnd policy on those issues? _ .el f i- \ * ??• :«:. ■ i.'C:- ■i' . ■»If- '«■■ ■■ :•}. ^'V- h 1:?^ . - ;r 1!<os Mayor Grabek ft Orono Cornell Members City Administrator Bernhardson Froas Dates Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning ft Zoning Administrator April 18, 1990 Subjects Commercial Marina Licenses 1990 •> issues dblt - Staff Memo 1/17/89 Commercial Marina License Application renewals w<-^e maile<^ to each of the seven marina operations in early February. The status of applications received to date follows: Date Application Received Marina Fee Correct Submitted Fee 2/12/90 2/28/90 3/1/90 3/2/90 4/13/90 Mtka Boat Works Windward North Shore Drive Gayles Smith Bay Maxwell Bay Crystal Bay Service $428.00 436.00 200.00 200.00 408.00 $428.00 436.00 200.OOt $2/boat unit 200.00+ $ 2/boat unit 358.00+ $50 late fee 200.00+ $2/boat unit/$50 late fe- 200.00+ $2/boat unlt/$50 latS £e< We have heard nothing from Crystal Bay Service, and note that their gas dock is mostly on dry land, hence there is some question whether they will be operating the gas dock this year. We also have no application from "Maxwell Bay Marina" which we are advised Mr. Toberman has allowed to go back to its previous owner, Jim Dunn. Mr. Dunn has had contact with staff regarding opening for business this year, but has yet to make a formal application. It _ lear that some of the marinas are in dire straits, and I woul note that: - Gayles Marina and North Shore Drive Marina only sui. -ted the base application fee, indicating they were n' sure how many slips they would want to license for 1990 due to minimal water depths at the docks. Both of these marinas have done dredging work in the last year. - Smith Bay Marina has yet to start construction of the new building and amenities that were approved in 1987. To date, we have merely seen reconstruction of the docks and sea wall, and Installation of electric service but no real activity for about a year. SoF £■ /, //i/hlCATS-^ ^ 'F 'Tt? (CdV-^.*<rve 'TT? -------- C#— ....... F-T; £ i' \ .: ;vPf' f '■!’ :'f "!:'.:■ ^r 'f-1: -.j^ I Kvk Fif‘ ! ■irt. ( ^ *■■■ y^- \'y .r i. ■y Pt' it.. Conn«rcial Marina Licenses 1990 - Issues April 18, 1990 Page 2 of 3 - Both Windward and Minnetonka Boat Works appear to have adequate water depths but negative advertising about Lake Minnetonka ter levels have had an impact on their slip .centals. Tbe Boat Works has installed the new docks that were approved in 1989. Windward is currently working on final planning for the ne»- eplacement building on the Tanager Lake side which //as approved as a phased development. - We have been made aware tb»*- property just east of Maxwel3 out slips in 1989. We will be property would not appear to be nor have a City Marina License. is a residential •'.rina which was renting tg this out, since that In the current B-2 zone There are no other apparent land use changes si”ce our last license review which occurred in 1988, apart from those you have specifically approved through commercial site plan reviews. In discussion with the LMCD, we have learned the following: - They also have heard nothing from Crystal Bay Service. - They are working on license/ownership change for Maxwell Bay Marina. - Their policy for partial licensing is "all or none”? i.e. they won*t consider just licensing the usable sliK*. Issues that need some dlscussior include: 1. Does the City Council intend tha i arinas license a^ of the slips that they have historically licensed, re7arnless of the availability of those slips? Will non*licensee lips in 1990 be grandfathered for future years? Remember :hat our marina license fee structure has historicalIv been based on numbers of slips, even though we haven't xcrted any authority over those slips. 2. Given the fact that some of the marinas appear to be in financial trouble, does the Council wish to waive any portion of fees? 3. Does the Council wish to formally authorize and appoint a marina committee? 4. What would be the i-tsponsibi litles and the authority of that committee? i J. ' t -!«* f .• . 'Commercial Marina Licenses 1990 April 18, 1990 Page 3 of 3 - Issues Does the Council wish to meet with the marina operators as a group to discuss the issues and concerns with marinas that are noted above? Optional Actions A. License Review Process 1. Form a marina committee to review applications. 2. Have only a staff review of 1990 license applications 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Other. B, Fees 1. Total fee based on historic slip counts. 2. Base fee plus only those proposed slips for 1990 season. 3. Base fee only (refund to those who paid slip fees). 4. Table. 5. Other. C, Options for Marinas Who Haven*t Applied 1. Staff to confirm marinas intent to not operate, or pursue late application. 2. Other. Staff Recomendation - License review - Option 2 Fees - Option 2 Non-Applicants - Option 1 TDS Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members From Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval of a staff license review given that there are no apparent land use changes that Council hasn't approved or were made subsequent to the 1988 licensing. ffr 'If* To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Meu.^jexs City Administrator Bernhardson Prom:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date January 17, 1989 Subject: Procedures for Marina License Review The City of Orono has licensed marinas since the early 1960s. In the 1970s and through 1985, a “marina committee" in conjunction with staff, reviewed marina license apflications on an annual basis and recommended approval or disapproval to the City Council. The marina committee typically consisted of three members, one from Council and two from the Planning Commission. City codes do not scecifically recognize, authorize or specify duties of a Marina Committee, although formation of such a committee is probably not strictly prohibited. Note that the creation of boards and commissions is regulated under Section 2.50 which suggests that such boards or commissions should be more of a formal nature (copy attached). The Marina committee in the past has functioned strictly as a recommending body regarding licensing of marinas, but has had no definite authority to make land use or license approval decisions. ^ Marina licensing historically has been approved or disapproved by the City Council based on issues which may or may not be strictly under City jurisdiction. Often, in an attempt to show a united front with the LMCD, the City has withheld licenses based on dock use issues which are not specifically regulated in Orono codes. On other occasions, the City has been in opposition to LMCD interpretations and has issued licenses without consulting the LMCD (case in point is the Chaska Marina dock layout in relation to neighboring properties, in which the LMCD was pushing for a dock layout that in the opinion of the affected neighbor and City staff was more of a problem to the neighbor than what the marina had in place). Procedures for Marina License Review January 11, 1989 Page 2 of 6 City staff has attempted to direct dock use issues to the LMCD, although the significant issue which held up North Shore Drive Marina's 1985 license had to do with dockage of the marina owner's private boat within the required dock setback area. Arguably, the City's only legitimate specific concern was whether that extra slip required additional parking space on land. Two of the six full-scale marina operations in Orono have been the subject of recent land use applications which authorized major renovations, and which involved a complete review of the land use issues. The remaining marinas are ripe for similar re-development, which in each case would undoubtedly require specific variances. Staff is obviously geared-up to do such reviews as they come up, but was unable to free-up time in 1988 to do a thorough licensing review of each existing marina as was hoped for. An update review and analysis of the degree to which each marina conforms to existing codes may be a good objective, but may take as much as one or two full days for each marina, to accomplish. Staff would note for the record that marina licensing in Orono in the 1980s has been relatively ineffective, from the standpoint that specific marinas have been operating for many years without licenses. The City has not seen fit to attempt to gain compliance by shutting them down, apparently because of the extremely high attorney fees and staff time that would be involved, coupled with the fact that the concerns generally are not strictly related to health, safety or welfare. Staff questions whether licensing of marinas is a practice that should continue, and that is the reason in 1986 and 1987 the City was looking at the possibility of making them a conditional use in the B-2 zone. That concept met with opposition from some of the marina operators and has never been followed through. Procedures for Marina License Review January 17, 1989 Page 3 of 6 There are three distinct issues Council should consider regarding future dealings with marina licenses: 1. Should there or should there not be a Marina Committee? 2. Should the City license or not license marinas? 3. Should marinas continue to be an allowed use in the B-2 zone, or should they become a conditional use? Staff Reconmiendation - In staff's opinion, a number of factors point towards the conclusion that the City should discontinue licensing marinas. First, the City has only indirect jurisdiction over dock use areas, dock layouts, and numbers of slips. These items are all regulated by the LMCD and the DNR. The City also has no jurisdiction over dredging, other than when spoils are placed on land areas within the City. Secondly, marina licensing merely serves as a duplicity of regulation, in that the licensing standards are virtually identical to the B-2 zoning district performance standards. Any changes in intensity of use, or any construction or renovation of buildings, requires a commercial site plan review by the Planning Commission and Council. Where code standards are not met, a land use variance application will be required, as it would be for any other business. Because all the marinas are substandard in their degree of conformance with performance standards (i.e. hardcover), virtually any change in a marina operation will result in a variance application. Procedures for Marina License Review January 17, 1989 Page 4 of 6 Thirdly, marina licensing or denial of licenses has not been a significant factor in the continuation of marina operations. For instance, Gayle's Marina has not been licensed since the 1980 license year, yet the City Council in that time period has apparently felt that the issues outstanding were not worth the battle of trying to shut down the marina operation. By allowing continued operation without an effective reprimand, the licensing procedure becomes valueless. Furthermore, it is apparent that the old philosophy that it will be "problematic" to sell a marina that doesn ’t have a current license has proven to be false. Case in point is the Maxwell Bay Marina, which was not Issued a 1985 license, but ultimately sold in 1986 or 1987 and is currently operating under new ownership and new management. Regarding the issue of formation of a marina committee, staff feels that unless such a committee has a distinct responsibility and authority, it has little value. In past practice, the marina committee's only function has been to provide an initial screening of the issues, but has never effectively had the authority to do anything about them without full Council action. Frankly, instead of wasting time with a sub-committee, if there are issues that need to be resolved regarding a marina, staff feels it would be more efficient to bring those issues directly to Council through a land use application or coaonercial site plan review, whichever is most appropriate. > 'lea la rt—T-« ir-i.im —'■ Procedures for Marina License Review January 17, 1989 Page 5 of 6 Regarding changing the code to make marinas a conditional use in the B-2 district, the City would face a court battle with 4 of the 6 major marinas. The marinas feel that they have a distinct right to exis*' as an allowed use, but would face a much less secure existence if they became a conditional use. The B-2 commercial district was created specifically for marina operations. All of our marina operations exist within B—2 zoning districts. If marina operations became a conditional use in the B-2 district, then, presuming the current performance standards on file are continued, none of the marinas would meet the required standards and you would end up granting variances right off the bat. The only value, then, in making marinas a conditional use in the B-2 zone is to ensure any new marina operations starting up would have to meet the new conditions. The City already has this type of control in its B-2 zoning standards. In summary, staff feels that there are three factors that support discontinuation of marina licensing: 1. The City has limited jurisdiction over dock use areas, layouts, number of slips and dredging. The City's main jurisdiction lies in land use controls. 2. Marina licensing is an unnecessary duplicity of regulation. Any changes to a marina operation requires a commercial site plan review as a minimum, and often requires a land use application, both processes which are under final authority of the City Council. 3. Denial of licenses has not been an effective reprimand, nor has it increased compliance with the codes. Lack of license has proven to not be a deterrent to the sale of marinas. - ---- ■'V r-I'fi4 M Procedures for Marina License Review January 17, 1989 Page 6 of 6 Regarding :he existence of a marina committee, staff feels that in the past the marina committee has been ineffective because it has no authority to negotiate or approve licenses. The marina committee has no mandate for its existence in the municipal code. Regarding making marinas a conditional use within the B-2 zoning district, staff feels that a zoning code change of that magnitude would result in a long and expensive lawsuit with questionable result. Finally, staff recommends that if marina licensing is continued, it should be merely an automatic, administrative procedure similar to our licensing of other businesses such as garbage haulers and septic contractors. Until such time that the Council decides to take a strict enforcement attitude towards making existing "grandfathered marinas up~ grade to meet current zoning standards, the licensing process is nothing but a fund-raising tactic. 3287.12 O ORDINANCE NUMBER 31, SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE SECTION 2.50 ENTITLED BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS GENERALLY AND SECTION 2.51, ENTITLED PLANNING COMMISSION, SUED. 1. . . . . The City Council of the City of Orono ordains: Section 2.50 and entitled Boards and Commissions Generally is amended to read: All Board and Commission appointments authorized by ordinance shall be made by the Council at the first regular meeting in January of each year unless another appointment date is established elsewhere in ordinance. The term of each appointee shall be established and stated at the time of his appointment, and terms of present Board and Commission members may be re-established and changed so as to give effect to this Section. New appointees shall assume office immediately. Provided, however,* that all appointees to Boards and Commissions shall hold office until their successor is appointed and qualified. All vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as for an expired term, but the appointment shall be only for the unexpired term. No appointed Board or Commission member shall be an employee of the City, but an ex officio member may be so employed. All appointed Board and Commission members shall serve without remuneration, but may be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the performance of their duties when such expenses have been authorized by the Council before they were incurred. The officers shall be appointed by the Council annually. Any Board or Commission member may be removed by the •'ouncil for any reason and his position filled as any other vacancy. Each Board and Commission shall hold its regular meetings at a time established and approved by the^ Council. Boards and Commissions created by resolution shall terminat*’ when the purpose for which they were created has been accomplished or upon the expiration of the terms stated in the resolution. Except as otherwise provided, this Section shall apply to all Boards and Commissions. Section 2.51 and entitled Planning Commission is amended to read: Subd. 1. A Planning Commission composed of seven members, who serve staggered 3 year terms is hereby established. The period of these terms is from 1 April to 31 March and shall be appointed by the 2nd business meeting in March. It is the policy of the Council to appoint persons to the Planning Commission as follows: Two of the members shall reside in and be appointed to represent the Rural Service Area of the City as defined in the Comprehensive Management Plan, twc members residing in and appointed to represent the Urban Service I I I < t I I i i I I I i i * ' • Irrt rrr:t-*vfr » • : ? I : I ; i I i ^ !Co mm j;. j.^ Sr*pf 0^^ [■- 1 i ! I I f t I I issufs { « I I I I •t ( I I I \CU'P i i I I I 1 I : i - -I » !» » « 1 CO^€> A^'/S /Attowtf^ I :•••*• i » i i (ill ( I -!• I * ©If^ CuP uJirt *? A. .*4 -S i_i- Ajoi uc C ka P • I i i I i" I ■ i ©t I 1 I 1 I FP-Z 1 i. C9y>e . • • i I 4-lc . CuP ® ' ’ptc'^ lA^eaJt ' r2^\£,WTS. ' /A CuP,>^^• A ^ •i I ' ^qC>C A3* Ws6m I i • I I AJO uc (7)' o^ not l^c^ie cup Aic?*re A'i A)0, t 1 ! Cal>e As- M ui;^ ^ I I iI I I • i ! I i iuH^ (Le\)(trJ - j f^ fOO ' \/j^T I i ! • : I I I I • » . • ? i I ! 1 ; : ; T- -r - -r/‘« •• • '• <•*« (^ \ttcie: stai^ o/vj/~y CITY OP ORONO -MARINA BOAT-DT.IT DENSITIES - 1989 # Current Boat Units Shoreline Length Boat Per Acre Per Boat Unit Units Shoreline (low # is (high # is (b.u.)Length Acreage least dense)least dense) 1. Mtka Boat Works With Breakwater 70 b.u.3480'3.24 ac •23 .6 49.7' Without Breakwater*70 b.u.2250'3.11 ac.22.5 32.1' 2* North Shore Drive Marina With Inlet 160 b.u.**660'3.23 ac.32.8 6.2' Without Inlet*160 b.u.**360'3.23 ac.32.8 3.4' 3. Maxwell Bay Marina 76 b.u.440'2.12 ac.35.8 5.8' 4. Gayle's Marina 143 b.u.825'2.02 ac.70.8 5.8' 5. Windward Marina 118 b.u.605'1.20 ac.98.3 5.1' 6. Smith Bay Marina 79 b.u.305'0.80 ac.98.8 3.9' TOTALS 592 b.u.6315'12.61 ac.46.9 b.u./ac.10.7' b.u./ac. *4785' Avg. 2 . 1 ac.Avg.Avg. .*8.1' b.u./ac. * Per proposed LMCD rules for measuring shore length Avg. ** Includes 20 dry-stack boat units 35l Mayor Grabek & Oronc Council Members C-.ty Administrator Bernhardson Prom:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning - Zoning Administrator Date: January 5, 1989 Subject: 1988 Marina Licenses The City of Orono has required an annual license for marina operations within the City since the early 196Us. This process was temporarily suspended in 1986 pending an anticipated code revision which would make marinas a conditional use. This code revision has never reached fruition. No license fees were collected for license years 1986 and 1987. In 1988, because the code revision process was bogged down with little apparent chance of completion, license applications and fees were again collected. Due to staff time constraints, processing of those applications, including a zoning and site condition review of each marina never occurred during 1988. It is staff's intent to complete a thorough site review of each marina operation during 1989, however, staff also feels it is appropriate to issue 1988 licenses before sending out license applications for the 1989 licenses. There are seven marina operations historically licensed in Orono including: Windward Marine Minnetonka Boat Works Smith's Bay Marina (formerly Sailor's World, formerly Paul's Landing) North Shore Drive Marina Maxwell Bay Marina (formerly Chaska Marine, formerly North Star Marina) Gayle's Marina Crystal Bay Service (gas dock operation) A number of marina operations are in the process of renovation at this time. There are also some situations where marina operations have failed to resolve conflicts with City codes and requirements, which has resulted in withholding of past licenses. It is staff's intent at this time to issue 1988 licenses to those marinas which are generally in compliance with Citi requirements as documented in previous licenses, and to recommend denial of licenses where continuing unresolved problems exist. 1988 Marina Licenses January 5, 1989 Page 2 of 7 A brief overview of each marina operation follows: A) Windward Marina Windward Marina is in the midst of a major renovation program, involving replacement of a large corrugated steel storage structure with a much smaller gazebo and added parking area, along County Road 15. The second phase of the renovation will include an expansion of the commercial space on the Tanager Lake side of County Road 15, which was the subject of variances and conditional use permits which received Council approval. There have been no complaints regarding Windward Marina's operation during 1988, and the marina remains in general compliance with standards previously approved by the City Council. Windward Marina has historically been licensed for 40 slips on Tanager Lake, 78 slips on Brown's Bay, and 24 other boats on the property for sales or service for a total of 142 boats. Staff recommends approval of a 1988 license for Windward Marina, per the attached resolution. Windward Marina's 1988 license fee was $436.00. B) Minnetonka Boat Works The Minnetonka Boat Works facility on Brown's Bay and Tanager Lake is primarily a boat slip rental operation, with no retail space and little if any service work on the premises. Recent, activity at the Boat Works included an upgrade of the signage on the property, and widening of the boat lift area. The Minnetonka Boat Works operation has historically been allowed 41 slips on Brown's Bay and 25 slips on Tanager Lake with 4 additional boats on land for a total of 70 boats. There have been no complaints regarding the Minnetonka Boat Works operation. The 1988 license fee paid by Minnetonka Boat Works is $334.00. Staff would recommend approval of the 1988 license for Minnetonka Boat Works. 1988 Marina Licenses January 5, 1989 Page 3 of 7 C) Smith Bay Marina & Yacht Club Inc. This is the second marina in Orono that is undergoing major renovation work approved by the City Council. Except for a garage/office area, the buildings on this property have been removed, a new dock system constructed, a new sea wall constructed, and utilities have been placed in preparation for construction of a new main marina building. The recent Council approval included provisions for landscape areas near the lake, with the main building being located centrally on the property. The property owner has indicated to staff that the main building construction is expected to commence in spring 1989. Staff received no complaints about the Smith Bay Marina operation during 1988. The marina has historically been approved for 63 slips and 20"^ off-shore buoys for a total of 83 boats in the water, plus 11 on land. The Paul's Landing fishing boat rental operation no longer exists at the site. Sailor’s World paid a license application fee of $362.00 for the 1988 license year. Staff would recommend approval of the 1988 marina license for Smith Ba-' Marina R Yacht Club Inc. : /98S pi5Co,v,r/»vHA<vnOAJ OF 2.0 - A3€V0 t>oc»c CC*JFlC,(AlSJKr\Ot^ D) Crystal Bay Service ^oat ^ Cttohtoz Fi:rc>^\c 6>u \ OC . Crystal Bay Service is the service station at the corner of Tonkawa Road and North Shore Drive. The operation consists of a gas dock on the Crystal Bay side of the road, and the operation has historically been granted 2 transient slips and 1 company slip on that dock. There have been no complaints regarding the Crystal Bay Service operation. The license fee paid by Crystal Bay Service for 1988 is $206.00. Staff recommends approval of a 1988 commercial marina license for Crystal Bay Service. Marina Operations with Unresolved Issues The remaining 3 marinas, including North Shore Drive Marina, Maxwell Bay Marina, and Gayle's Marina, were not issued licenses in 1985 due to a number of unresolved issues regarding both land use and dock use. At this time staff is recommending that 1980 licenses not be issued for these marinas until the remaining issues are resolved. Note that all three of these marinas have continued their daily operation absent the required license. 1988 Marina Licenses January 5, 1989 Page 4 of 7 A) Nort:h Shore Drive Marina North Shore Drive Marina was last issued a marina license for the 1984 season. The 1985 license was denied pending resolution of a dock use issue. Mr. Hork, owner of the marina, persisted in docking his personal boat on the east side of the main dock extension, which is an encroachment into the dock use area setback. The neighboring dock use areas converge due to a concave shoreline configuration, hence use of the east side of the marina docks has a significant effect on dock use areas of neighboring properties. Mr. Hork's claim was that the boat had to be docked at this location because it was his personal boat and his handicapped wife and brother could not use the boat if it was in any other location. The L.M.C.D. considered this setback encroachment as a violation in 1986, note the attached memo of May 20, 1986. In 1987, Hork apparently either purchased or gained some control over the adjacent Millard property to the east and was using it for boat storage, as noted in the L.M.C.D. letter of November 6, 1987. Also in 1987, staff was at issue with the marina regarding construction of a deck for the house at 3250 North Shore Drive (part of the marina property). That permit was finally issued in April 1988. Also, in 1987 or 1988, Hork removed the blue privacy fence along North Shore Drive, which had been a source of complaints from neighboring property owners and passersby for many years. However, in planting land scaping as a replacement to the fence, Hork also placed landscape rock over the entire area between the road and the dry-stack units. Staff has not verified whether the landscape rock is underlaid by plastic or fabric, however, this may constitute an increase in hardcover on a property that is already greatly exceeding the hardcover limitations (as are all seven of our commercial marina operations). As was Intended in 1988, staff for 1989 intends to make a complete site inspection of this marina in order to determine what specific land use or dock use area violations persist, and require the appropriate applications for Council review as necessary. This marina paid a 1988 license fee of $396.00. U.V ^ II ■ I. 1988 Marina Licenses January 5, 1989 Page 5 of 7 B) Maxwell Bay Marina Maxwell Bay Marina was formerly known as Chaska Marine and before that North Star Marina. The marina was last issued a license for the 1983 season. In 1984 and 1985, the marina was the subject of a number of complaints fvom neighboring property owners to the immediate west of the property, regarding commercial use of marina owned properties interspersed between privately owned and residentially used property in this B-2 zone. In June 1984, the Council voted to conceptually approve a 1984 marina license subject to resolution of a fence issue, however as late as 1986 that fence and the employee's use of the private adjacent properties was still an issue. In 1985, the marina was required to file land use applications for the two disconnected marina properties, in order to gain a measure of compliance with code requirements and to finally determine what specific uses would be allowed for those properties. The zoning application that was filed was never completed and a 1985 license was never issued. In a May 29, 1986 letter to the then marina owner James Dunn, staff noted that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of area and width variances to the two acre standard for commercial use in the B-2 zone, and had made other recommendations regarding the use of those parcels, but requested additional information which also was never adequately submitted. Staff has received no formal complaints regarding the Maxwell Bay Marina operation since it war purchased by Mr. Toberman in 1987. However, a number of issues regarding use of the detached parcels remain unresolved, hence staff is likewise recommending that no 1988 license be issued to Maxwell Bay Marina until staff has the opportunity to discuss the issues with the property owner and attempt to resolve the outstanding problems. This marina paid a 1988 license fee of $354.00. —-- ^ - -- -- -,rTT.HI 1 ilafiri .• Tt» —f 1988 Marina Licenses January 5, 1989 Page 6 of 7 C) Gayle's Marina Gayle's Marina was last approved for a commercial dock license for the 1981 season. Licenses for 1982 through 1985 were withheld subject to compliance with a number of conditions which have never been fully met. The issues which remain unresolved are as follows: 1. As part of the rip-rapping project (which commenced after years of discussion in 1988), the marina was required by the City to provide either a 10' Imdscape buffer, a berm system, or a filtration system in place with that rip-rapping, which the property owner adamantly opposed doing. The DNR was apprised of the City's concerns, however utiir.ately they did issue a rip-rapping permit as well as a dredging permit to Gayle's Marina and to staff's knowledge the required long term water quality protection measures were not installed. 2. There is a long standing question of whether or not the 9 service slips at the shoreline adjacent to the ramp area are allowed. The City has contended that those 9 slips were considered an expansion of the marina use, and the property owner claims that they were always intended to be in place when previous licenses had been granted in the 1970s. 3, Although the property owner has apparently tried to replace plantings over the years, the landscaping and plant materials that were to be in place more than 5 years ago have not thrived very well, and the property still remains relatively unscreened, appearing as a flat, gravel parking lot reaching virtually from the street pavement to the water's edge. As is the case with Maxwell Bay Marina and North Shore Drive Marina, staff intends in 1989 to make a thorough inspection of the Gayle's Marina site and determine what issues remain unresolved, and attempt to resolve them. Staff recommends that no 1988 license be issued to Gayle's Marina until the questions are resolved. This marina paid a 1988 license fee of $486.00. %f .lUtk r 1988 Marina Licenses January 5, 1989 Page 7 of 7 Staff Recommendation Per the attached proposed resolutions and 1988 license applications, staff recommends approval for commercial marina licenses to Windward Marina, Minnetonka Boat Works, Smith's Bay Marina, and Crystal Bay Service. Staff recommends withholding of 1988 and previous unissued licenses to North Shore Drive Marina, Maxwell Bay Marina, and Gayle's Marina pending furtihcr in—dcpth rsviow of thoso sites end operations - 1989 Marina License Applications will be mailed to each of the seven marinas within the next two weeks. Council may wish to consider whether a Marina Committee consisting of a combination of Council and Planning Commission Members should be re-established. 11791.4 /* TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator A1 *•,>, ‘ November 1, 1991 SUBJECT: Proposed DNR Public Access % John Gerhardson, Jeanne Mabusth and I have met with the DNR representatives to obtain information concerning their proposed public access on Maxwell Bay. The proposal is for an access ramp suitable for boats in the 16-18' range. The representatives indicated a public access on a 1 1/2 - 2 acre site generally has approximately 20-25 parking spaces. We indicated a number of City concerns including the following: 1. Impact of increased boat traffic on the Bay. 2. Adequacy of parking. 3. Traffic safety. 4. Control of the site. The DNR representatives have met with the LMLOA and the LMCD Director to provide preliminary information and to identify concerns. They plan to have a preliminary site plan prepared by mid December. They will hold a public information meeting in mid to late January. Staff will continue to monitor this process. Council may wish to discuss whether additional action should be taken at this point. The DNR staff are available to make a presentation to the Council concerning their proposal. I have enclosed a letter from a Maxwell Bay resident indicating strong opposition to the proposed public access. O^a^monJ J. J~fo^jTnan crt cf r ;C'0 O^'S . .. • V• •• ,• . \ . ••.r. • •• • / • lOOO rONKA^A ROAD LONG LAKE MINNESOTA 55356 • • •• lio^ 7 m % -‘r, • ’ • • ' w' •• • •.?••'•••• -• • ♦ . . • •• .V • • •* .V*. T, 'Z I 1. . •1 j * • •■ ••-■..• ■ •«••* r' /2^^ny ■9TlU^.<U.c4^cd‘I- ^C^£/yu>.^ L***^ ^.• 'V rV ‘* , •N'v : V .-•i: 4 •••-:•. * I • •» *.*.»•• - " •* . % ', •' "^ • * • * u , * : l2 .* *^‘; r L* ’• :,•..•• • :i» r 1 • -rv- . . - - ..^ W r /•*r^e-.; iS.----" • • • , •. • • • . -- .vi=?•' • *1 *« ' V i*** *4 ^‘ ^ •.. iw‘;:’ . N. -i •, • % 1 : rr* - •*} *^ V-/ • *. •sr-' ^ • -• -V.l ^ ^ j2^'uyL€^^ tcoLC<f<^ ^ y't^yry^ S’’^i.g. a: <e><4^>vXZc<'’ci^i-y yiAC. -€ . ;- -rT.. ■■••‘••■.1 ' •• V, •■•• • "■ % • • ■is-t »•.* i.v. I •■*■;•<•:'-• MVI • . r* ’^•'^ *’ :• • • • / 4 *•/-*• 1 *1• »•» ^ ^ !..•'* V*. /L> • * .*, . yuic^y't- ^ -t-2^ ^ . • 'V'i-r.v. /? % • V *•• *,—^'y' itmm 11791.3 / % TO: FROM; DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator November 1, 1991 Rescheduling of Truth in Taxation (Budget) Hearing ‘^C/ % The Truth in Taxation (Budget) Hearing originally scheduled for November 19/ 1991/ needs to be rescheduled due to a conflict with Hennepin County's Truth in Taxation hearing. Hennepin County had originally reserved November 19th as the date for its Truth in Taxation hearing. This date was inadvertently included in the list of available dates presented to the City Council. The City's hearing needs to be rescheduled away from the November 19th date. An alternative date is Tuesday, November 26th at 7:00 p.ra. If this date is acceptable, the Council should take official action to establish the hearing for November 26th. If this date is not acceptable, the hearing can be held on December 4, which was reserved for an extension of the initial hearing, if needed. The Council would then need to select another date for a possible extension of the December 4th hearing. J r 11791.5 / ^ TOs Mayor and City Council FROM: Ron Moorse, City Administrator DATE: November 1, 1991 % %/> SUBJECT: Construction Manager Contract All fee amounts and all language in the Construction Manager contract have now been agreed upon. The contract document will be prepared in time to be delivered to the Council on Friday, November 8th. Contract Fees Basic Fee. The basic fee is $89,430 which is 3% of the most current construction cost figure of $2,981,000. The contract sets $89,430 as the basic fee maximum but provides that this fee will be reduced if the final construction cost is lower than the $2,981,000. 2. Reimbursables. The reimbursables include the actual cost of the field superintendent and miscellaneous expenditures related to the Construction Manager's work on the site. The cost of the field superintendent is $37.53 per hour as set out in Exhibit A of the contract-Twin City Metro Labor rates. This hourly rate will increase approximately 4% on May 1, 1992 to reflect a new labor contract. Based on an estimate of 1,760 hours the field superintendent cost will be $67,638. Add.ng this cost to the remainder of the reimbursables ($31,671) the total reimbursable costs are $99,308. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ron Moorse, City Administrator /< DATE November 8, 1991 h SUBJECT: Construction Manager Contract % 1 have attached a copy of the construction manager agreement for Council review. If you have any questions about the contract language or fees, please call me. J fiS'e? r *W:> Pa-5^r' : 0 |a.:„^h > V ;i''/ <*' * m^rm ,■'•. Ip;/ :'. S •**'< i't" it’-'-' ■f.---vi. .• U‘y fk.E'f-i THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS AIA Document B801 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Construction Manager 1980 EOr ION THIS DOCUMtHT HAS IMPORTANT L£CAl CONSEQUENCES; CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY IS ENCOURACED. This document is intended to be used in conjunction with AIA Documents A101/CM. 1980: B141/CM, 1980; and A201/CM, 1980. AGREEMENT made as of the Hundred and 12 th day of HOVEMBER in the year of Nineteen lETWEEN the Owner and the Construction Manager: City of Orono P.O. Box 66, 1335 Brown Road S. Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55523 Kraus - Anderson Construction Company 525 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 (hKh^ 4tuiH4 e wcrtetio^ot Ptatia foestian ««e City Hall and Public Works Garage Orono, Minnesota For the following Project: the Architect:Boatman, Kroos, Pfister and Associates 222 North Second Street Minneapolis, Minnesota The Owner and the Construction Manager agree as set forth below. Co^ngM Ifn, ® 1^. bv Tbf Afntncan tritlitutt of ArchutctS, 1735 New York Avtnu*. N.W.. VVjshinfton. D C. 20006. ttgRWfcurtaw ^ tht m4l#rt4l btrtm or uibtumiai quotMioo oi ki orovitiom wviihouf wnnen ocrmtskion or the AiA kioUtts tKt COpyriflH lRw« of tht Uniitd SuiOf Mid «riH b# subject to \t%Ai prosecution. li m • OWNit-CONSTRUCTION manager ACiEEMCNr - fUNC EDITION • aia # • TMf AMERICAN INSTITUTE 09 ARCHIlfCTS. mS NEW YORK AVE . n VV . WASHINGTON. 0 C 20006 M01_19M 1 I h. kijt- II i •. r£- V r :> I ^ ; ti: TERMS AN'; C OWNE’ il'^NS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN •JNSTRUCTION MANAGER ARTICLE 1 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER'S SERVICES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Th« Construction Manager covenants with the Owner to farther the interests of the Owner by furnishing the Con struction Manager's skill and judgment in coope>’ation with, ami in reliance upon, the services of an architect. The Comtruction Manager agrees to furnish business ad ministration and management services and to perform in an expeditious and economical manner consistent with the interests of the Owner. ■ASIC SaiVICB The Construction Manager's Basic Services consist of dse two Phases described below and any other ser vices included in Article 16 as Basic Services. 1.1 PHiCONSTRUCTION PHASE 1.1.1 Provide preliminary evaluation of the program and Pn^Mt budget requirements, each in terms of the Othw. With die Architect's assistance, prepare preliminary estimates of Construction Cost for early schematic designs based on area, volume or other standards. Assist the Owner and the Architect in achieving mutually agreed upon program and Project budget requirements and other design parameters. Provide cost evaluations of alternative materials and systems. 1.U Review designs during their development. Advise on site use and improvements, selection of materials, building systems and equipment and methods of Project delivmy. Provide recommendations on relative feasibility of construction methods, availability of materials and la bor, time foquirementt for procurement, installation and ODfMfuction, and facfars related to cost including, but not limited to, costs of alternative designs or materials, pre- Itminaiy begets and possible economies. 1.1J Provide for the Architect's and the Owner's review and acceptance, and periodically update, a Project Sched ule that coordinates and integrates the Construction Man* afM'S services, the Architect's services and the Owner's raapensibilities Wirti anticipated construction schedules. 1.14 Prepare ior the Owner's approval a more detailed eatlmf*t of Construction Cost, as defined in Article 3, de- veloimd by using estimating techniques which anticipate dm various elements of the Project, and based on Sche matic Design Documents prepared by the Architect. Up- ^te and refine this estimate periodically as the Architect prepare I Design Development and Construction Docu ments. Advise the Owner and the Architect if it appears that tlM Construction Cost may exceed the Project budget. Make recommendations for corrective action. 1.1J COOrditMte Contract Documents by consulting with Bw Owner and ^ Architect regarding Drawings and Spe- cMcadona as they are being prepared, and recommending allemillYe solutiom when^r design details affect con- Miuetlen feasibility, cost or schedules. 1.1J.1 Provide recommendations and inform ?*ion to the OsHwr and the Architect regarding the assign. , ent of re sponsibilities for safety precautions and programs; tempo rary Project facilities, and equipment, materials and ser vices for common use of Contractors. Verify that the re quirements and assignment of responsibilities are included in the proposed Contract Documents. 1.1.5.2 Advise on the separation of the Project into Con tracts for various categories of Work. Advise on the method to be used for selecting Contractors and awarding Con tracts. If separate Contracts are to be awarded, review the Drawings and Specifications and make recommendations as required to provide that ii) the Work of the separate Contractors is coordinated, 2) all requirements for the Project have been assigned to the appropriate separate Contract, (3) th» likelihood •■)f jurisdictional disputes has been minimized, and (4) p oper coordination has been provided for phased construction. 1.1.5.3 Develop a Project Construction Schedule provid ing for all major elements such as phasing of construction and times of commencement and completion required of each separate Contractor. Provide the Project Construc tion Schedule for each set of Bidding Documents. 1.1.5.4 Investigate and recommend a schedule for the Owner's purchase of materials and equipment requiring long lead time procurement, and coordinate the schedule with the early preparation of portions of the Contract Documents by the ,Architect. Expedite and coordinate de livery of these purchases. 1.1.6 Provide an analysis of the types and quantities of labor required for the Project and review the availability of appropriate categories of labor required for critical Phases. Make recommendations for actions designed to minimize adverse effects of labor shortages. 1.1.6.1 Identify or verify applicable requirements for equal employment opportunity programs for inclusion in the proposed Contract Documents. 1.1.7 Make recommendations for pre-qualification cri teria for Bidders and develop Bidders' interest in the Pro ject. Establish bidding schedules. Assist the Architect in issuing Bidding Documents to Bidders. Conduct pre-bid conferences to familiarize Bidders with the Bidding Docu ments and management techniques and with any special systems, materials or methods. Assist the Architect with the receipt of questions from Bidders, and with the issu ance of Addenda. 1.1.7.1 With the Architect's assisunce, receive Bids, pre pare bid analyses and make recommendations to the Owner for award of Contracts or rejection of Bids. 1.1.a With the Architect's assisUnce, conduct pre-award conferences with successful Bidders. Assist the Owner in preparing Construction Contracts and advise the Owner on the acceptability of Subcontractors and material sup pliers proposed by Contractors. 1.2 COW The aw» ch- Ma criON mASE -uclion Phase will commence with the e iniful Construcrion Contract or pur- tt ar I, together with the Construction s obligation to provide Basic Services un- _ jm • OWNtt.CONSTtUCTION MANACCR ACMEMtST • 1HC AMtaiCAN INSmUTf or AUCHlTtCrS. 17)S NtW YORK AVE • JUNE 1SR0 EDITION • AIA» s W.. WASHING TON. O C M006 ■•01 —IBiB 2 fe'-f, - 1 m I V 0- K' r,- ’‘' 1?M der this Agreement, will end 30 djvs after final payment to ail Contractors is due. 1^1 Unless otherwise provided m this Agreement and incorporated in the Contract Documents, the Construc tion Manager, in cooperation with the Architect, shall provide at^inistration of the Contracts for Construction at set forth below and in the 1*180 Edition of aia Ooc- iMicnt A20t/CM. General Conditions of the Contract for COnstraction. Construction Management Edition. 1.U Provide administrative, management and re'ated Mfvicet as reqtjired to coordinate Work of the Contractors with e^ odwr and with tf .ctivities and responsibilities of dte Construction Manager, the Owner and the Archi tect to complete the Project in accordance with the O'^"' er's objectives for cost, time and quality. Provide sufficient organitadon, personrtel and management to carry out the lequiiements of this Agreement. 1.2X1 Schedule and conduct pre-construction, construc- don and progress meetings to discuss such matters as pro cedures, progress, problems and scheduling. Prepare and promptly distribute minutes. 1X22 Consistent with the Project Construction Sched ule issued with the bidding Documents, and utilizing the Contractors' Construction ^hedules provided by the sepa rate Contractors, update the Project Construction Sched ule incorporating the activities of Contractors on the Project, including activity sequences and durations, allo cation of labor and materials, processing of Shop Oraw- ings. Product Data and Samples, and delivery of products roquirit^ long lead time procurement Include the Own er's occupancy requirements showing portions of the Ptoject h^ng occupancy priority. Update and reissue the Project Construction Schedule as required to show current uonditiorw end revisions required by actual experience. 12XJ Endeavor to achieve satisfactory performance from each of the Contractors. Recommend courses of action 10 the Owner when requirements of a Contract are not being fulfilled, and the nonperforming party will not tiiBi sati^tory corrective action. 1XJ Revise and refine the approved estimate of Con- siniclion Cost, incorporate approved changes as they oc cur, and develop cash flow reports and forecasts ?'■ needed. 1.2X1 Provide regular monitoring of the approved esti mate of Construction Cost, showing actual costs for activi ties in progress and estimates for uncompleted tasks. Iden tify vadanm between actual artd budgeted or estimated coats, and advise the Owner and the Architect whenever pwlectid costs exceed budgets or estimates. 1XJ2 Maintain cost accounting records on authorized Work performed under unit costs, additional Work per forated on die basis of actual costs of labor and materials, or cdier Work requiring accounti g records. 1X22 Recommend necessary or desirable changes (o the Aichilcct end the Owner, review requests for changes, assist in negotiating Contractors' proposals, submit recom mendations 10 the Architect and the Owner, and if they am accepted, prepare-and sign Change Orders for the Aichiracl's signature and the Owner's authorization. 12X4 Develop and impiemant procedures for the re view and processing of AppUcatiom by Contractors for prograii and final payments. Make recommendations to die Architect for certification to the Owner for payment. 1.1.4 the -jtetN program^ de\e'Oped bv each of Ml? Contractors as reauired bv their Contract Documents ar. oordmate the satetv programs tor the Proiect. 1.1.5 Assist m obtaining buiidmg permits and special permits 'or permanent mprovements. excluding permits re fjireo to be obtained directlv bv the various Contrac tors. Ver'fv that the Owner has paid applicable fees and assessments. Assist in obtaining approvals from authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. 1.2.8 If required, assist the Owner m selecting and re taining the professional services of surveyors, special con sultants and testing laboratories. Coordinate their services. 1.2.7 Determine m general that the Work of each Con tractor IS being performed in accordance with the require ments of the Contract Documents. Endeavor to guard the Owner against defects and deficiencies in the Work. As appropriate, require special inspection or testing, or make recommendations to the Architect regarding special in spection or testing, of Work not in accordance with the provisions 01 the Contract Documents whether or not such Work be then fabricated, installed or completed. Subject to review bv the Architect, reject Work which does not conform to tne requirements of the Contract Documents. 1.2.7.1 The Construction Manager shall not be responsi ble for construction means, methods, techniques, se quences and procedures employed by Contractors in the performance of their Contracts, and shall not be responsi ble for the failure of any Contractor to carry out Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. 1.2.8 Consult with the Architect and the Owner if any Contractor requests interpretations of the meaning and intent of the Drawings and Specifications, and assist in the resolution of questions which may arise. 1.2.9 Receive Certificates of Insurance from the Con tractors, and forward them to the Owner with a copy to the Architect. 12.10 Receive from the Contractors and review all Shop Drawings, Product Data, Samples and other submittals. Coordinate them with information contained in related documents and transmit to the Architect those recom mended for approval. In collaboration with the Architect, establish «nd implement r-ocedures for expediting the processing and app'nv^! oi Shco Drawings, '‘roduct Data, Samples and other rubmittals. 1.2.11 Record the progress of the Projec* Submit written progress reports to the Owner and the .Architect including information on each Contractor and each Contractor's Work, as well as the entire Project, showing percentages of completion and the number and amounts of Change Orders. Keep a daily log containing a record of weather. Contractors' W k on the site, number of workers. Work accomplished, problems encountered, and other similar relevant data as the Owner may require. Make the log available to the Owner and the Architect. 1.2.11.1 Maintain at the Project site, on a current basis: a record copy of all Contracts, Drawings, Specifications, Addenda, Change Orders and other Modifications, In good order and marked to record all changes nude during con> struction; Shop Drawings; Product Data; Samples; sub mittals; purchases; matenals; equipment; applicable hand books; maintenance and operating manuals and instruc- 3 liM—19W AM OOOlMtNT MM • OWNCt-CONSTluaiON MANACCR ACUCMINT • JUNC 1S» lOITION • AIA* Otsto » TMI AMimCAN INSTITUTt Of AlCHirCaS. ITJI NIW VO« AV*.. N.W . WASHINGTON. O.C MOM v'**: yAar...iv. ____ T-- iom; olhtr rtUltd document* and revisions which arise OMI ol die Contracts or Work, huinuin records, in dupli- Ole> o# principal building layout lines, elevations of the bPMlP of footings, floor le^s and key site elevations CMdfied by a Qualified surveyor or professional engineer. Mebe aR reco rds available to the Owner and the Archi* iKt At the compl etion of the Project, deliver all such spcerds ID the Afchilect for the Owner. 1J.19 Arrange for delivery and storage, protection and Mcurlty for Owner-purchased materials, systems and miilgfnint which are a part of the Project, until such Ham we incorporated into the Project. 12.13 With the Architect and the Owner's maintenance pWMMMl, observe the Contractors' checkout of utilities, egwebenei tysiemt and equipment for readiness and as- dWlp diair Mdal start-up and testing. 12.M When the Construction Manager considers each Centracior's Work or a designated portion thereof sub- smnially compleie, the Construction Manager shall pre- pare for dw ArdiiSact a Nst of incomplete or unsatisfactory bwso and a sdiedule for their completion. The Construc- den *"i~fdr shall assist the Architect in conducting in- tpeedens. After the Architect certifies the Date of Subsun- del fornplsllnn of the Work, the Construction Manager dMi cemdinaie the correction and completion of the wonL 13.13 Assist the Architect in determining when the Proj ect er a desifnMed portion thereof is subsuntially com- p^. frepire for the Architect a summary of the status of the Wedi of each Contractor, listing changes m the previ- oudy bsuod Cerdflcales of Substantial Completion of the tfPwk and recommending the times within which Contrac- iwa sfieR complete uncompleted items on their Certificate pv.IJLId following the Architect's issuance of a Certificate ot tebstaiHlal Completion of the Project or designated portion theseef, evaluate the completion of the Work of die fentfifinri and make recommendations to the Archi- iKt urhon Work is ready for final inspection. Assist the Architect in conducting final inspections. Secure and trans mit to the Owrter required guarantees, affidavits, releases, bonds ?nd uralvers. Deliver all keys, manuals, record d^i ;as and malntanance stocks to the Owner. 12.1? The aatant of the duties, responsibilities and limi- tidoni of audtority of the Construction Manager as a rep- fOnmadve of the Owner during construction shall not be modided or eniended without the written conse of the Owner, die Contractors, the Architect and the Construc- ion Manapr which content shall not be unreasonably The following Additional Services shall be per- fowted upon authofiation in writing from the Owner and shall be paid for as provided in this dondoepeeleiedeoe riidi II appraiiels odieaiiemof-d equip a. OTi •dwadomial wiitingidrewiins er ether V •' ■ ■'lli2 Senricea related to Owner-furnished furniture, fur- KoiiCk equipment which are not a part of the 1 Services for tenant or rental spaces. 1.3.4 Consultation on replacement of Work damaged by fire Of other cause dunng construction, and furnishing services in conjunction with the replacement of such Work. U.5 Services made necessary bv the default of a Con tractor. U.4 Preparing to serve or serving as a witness in con nection with any public hearing, arbitration proceeding or legal proceeding. 1.3.7 Recruiting or training maintenance personnel. ^eewieee^eiewd 4e, Thw^mjeeP'W«—4Mpeelimw4 aliet ika eed^f-ahe [amiimlin Phatei U.9 Providing any other services not otherwise included in this Agreement. 1.4 TIMi 1.4.1 The Construction Manager shall perform Basic and Additional Services as expeditiously as is consistent with reasonable skill and care and the orderly progress of the Project. ARTICLf 2 THE OWNERS RESRONSIRIUTIES 2.1 The Owner shall provide full information regarding the requirements of the Project, including a program, whicn shall set forth the Owner's objectives, constraints and criteria, including space requirements and relation ships. flexibility and expandability requirements, special equioment and systems and site requirements. 2J The Owner shall provide a budget for the Project, based on consultation with the Construction Manager and the Architect, which shall include cor-ingenciet for bid ding, changes during construction aivi uther costs which are the responsibility of the Owner. The Owner shall, at the request of the Construction Manager, provide a state ment of funds available for the Project and their sourca. 2.3 The Owner shall designate a representative author ized to act in the Owner's behalf with respect to the Project. The Owner, or such authorized represenlativt, shall examine documents submitted by the Construction Manager and shall render decisions pertaining thereto promptly to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of the Construction Manager's services. 2.4 The Owner shall retain an architect whose services, duties and responsibilities arr deKrtbed in the agreement between the Owner and the Architect, Ak^^focumem gi si^fiMi iBBXdiiin. The Terms and Conditions of the Owner-Architect Agreement will be furnished to the Con struction Manager, and will not be modified without writ ten consent of the Construction Manager, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Actions taken by the Architect as agent of the Owner shall be the acts of the Owner and the Construction Manager shall not be respon sible for them. 2.5 The Owner shall furnish structural, mechanical, chemical and other laboratory tests, inspections and re ports as required by law or the Contract Documents, 2,fi The Owner shall furnish such legal, accounting and insurance counseling services as may be necessary for the Project, including such auditing services as the Owner may require to verify the Project Applications for Payment Ml • owNtt-coNsnuoiON MANACta AcactMiNT • INC AMiaiCAN INSriTUTC OT AaCHITCCTS. inS NCW voaic Ave.. • lUNC 1W COITION • AIA* N \V.. WASMINCTON. D C. a»oc BM1 —life 4 ... ' '.-r 0;r:P,3^:; ll‘3; or to otetrttin how or for what purposes the Contractors liowt tntd #HB monies paid by or on behalf or the Owner. U The Owner shall furnish the Construction Manager a wMclonl ooentity of construction documents. 14 Iho sondOM, information aisd reports required by Piryphi 2.1 throufh 2.7, inclusive, shall be furnished at Ao Rimer's aepenia, and the Construction Manager shall bo oMNIod to 1^ upon their accuracy and completeness. 15 If dw Owner observes or otherwise becomes aware of any fault or dofect in the frofect. or nonconformance with #w Contract Documents, prompt written notice (f to the Construction XU The Owner rosorves the right to perform work re- lolBd 10 Iho PlOfoCt with the Owner's own forces, and to •HOftl coobocti in connection with the Project which are not part of dw Construction Maruger's responsibilities un- dw dda Apsaomont. The Construction Manager shall notify die ^onor if any such mdependent action will in any way die Construction Manager's ability to meet Maruger's responsibilities under this Xi1 Hie Owner shall furnish the required information end sorvlcas end shaN render approvals and decisions as oapodMIeusly aa necessary for the orderly progress of the Censintciion Manager's services and the Work of the Con- Atnoi s CONSTIUCnON COST XI Conimcden Cost shall be the total of the final Con- Inci Sums of all of the separate Contracts, actual Reim- tbr^ to the Construction Phase as dc- the Coitstruction Maruger's com- 11 ConsPuction Cost does not iiKlude the compenu- den of Ae Architect and the Archiuct's consultants, the OMt of die land, rights^-way or other costs which are Ae saiponaibility of the Owner as provided in Paragraphs X3 Asoudh 2J« foduthre. XI tvihsaiione of die Owner's Project budget and cost eadmolas pseperod by the Construction Manager represent Ae CenaPuction Manager's best judgment as a profes- donal fMdiar with die construetkm industry. It is rccog- nioed, however, that neither the Construction Manager nor the Owner has controi over the cost of labor, mate- riais or epuipmant, over Contractors' methods of de- fowpinint lid prices or other competitive bidding or ne- gedatlng conditioni. Accordingly, the Construction Man- epr cannot end does not warrant or represent that Bids OP nofodaied pricas wHi not vary from the Project budget pfOpoMd, establiihed or approved b> the Owner, or from any coat eadmeia or evaluation prepared by the Construc- 14 No fiaod limit oi Construction Cost shall be esiab- Ibhod ae a condition of this Agreement by du furnishing. proposal or establishment of a Project budget under Sub pM^n^ 1.1.1 or Paragraph 2J, or otherwise, unless such Hmit has been agreed upon in writing and signed by dw parties to this Agreement If such a fixed limit has been esPwlished, the Construction Maruger shall include con- dngancies for design, bidding and price escalation, and shall consult with the Architect to determine what mate rials. equipment, component systems and types of con struction are to be included in the Contract Documents, to suggest reasonable adjustments in the scope of the Project, and to suggest alternate Bids m the Construction Documents to adjust the Construction Cost to the fixed limit. Any sue' fixed limit shall be increased in the amount of any increase in the Contract Sums occurring after the execution of the Contracts for Construction. 3.4.1 If Bids are not received within the time scheduled at the time the fixed limit of Construction Cost was estab lished, due to causes beyond the Construction Manager's control, any fixed limit of Construction Cost established as a condition of this Agreement shall be adjusted to re flect any change in the general level of prices in the con struction industry occurring between the originally sched uled date and the date on which Bids are received. 3.4.2 If a fixed limit of Construction Cost (adjusted as provided m Subparagraph 3.4.1) i$ exceeded by the sum of the lowest figures from bona fide Bids or negotiated proposals plus the Construction Manager's estimate of other elements of Construction Cost for the Protect, the Owner shall (1) give written approval of an increase in such fixed limit, (2) authonze rebidding or renegotiation of the Protect or portions of the Project within a reason able time. 131 if the Project is abandoned, terminate in accordance with Paragraph 10.2, or (4) cooperate in revis ing the scope and quality of the Work as required to re duce the Construction Cost. In the case of item (4). the Construction Manager, without additional compensation, shall cooperate with the Architect as necessary to bring the Construction Cost within the fixed limit. ARTICLE 4 CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT ACTIVITIES 4.1 Construction support activities, if provided by the Construction Manager, shall be governed by separate contractual arrangements unless otherwise provided in Article ARTICLE 5 DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE 5.1 Direct Personnel Expense is defined as the direct sal aries of all of the Construction Manager's personnel en gaged on the Project, excluding those whose compensa tion IS included in the fee, ar> the portion of the cost of their ntandatory and customary contributions and benefits related thereto such as employment taxes and other statu tory employee benefits, insurance, sick leave, holidays, vacations, pensions, and similar contributions and bene fits. ARTICLE € REIMIURSAILE COSTS 6.1 The term Reimbursable Costs shall mean costs neces sarily incurred in the proper performance of services and paid by the Construction Manager. Such costs shall be at rales not higher than the standard paid in the locality of the Project, except with prior consent of the Owner. Re imbursable Costs and costs not to be reimbursed shall be listed in Article 16. AM OOCUM4NT MW • OVVMt-CONSTKUCTION .N4ANACCX AOUtVC-NT • JU.SC iSM lOlTION • AIA* • TM| AMCtiCAN INSTITUTE OS AtCMITECTS. 1,*JS NEW YOtX AVE . M W.. WASHI.NCTON. 0.C 2000S .1 3^ I ii lilt iillX-A* All Trad* discounts, rebates and refunds, and returns from sei* or surplus materials and equipment shall accrue •i di* Owner, and the Construction Manager shall make psovisions so that they can be secured. AIT1CU 7 fAVMem TO THf CONSTRUCTION MANAGER 7.1 rAIMBSTS ON ACCOUNT Of tASIC SftVtCIS fei'-;*''V>'; €?• 7.1.1 An initrai peyment as set forth in Paragraph 15.1 is RlO mMmuffl payimnt under this Agreement. 7»'12 Subsequent payments tor Baiic Services shall be fMd* monthly and shall be in proportion to services per- tenwad wMhin each Phase ol Services, on the basis set forth in AiAde 1S.(Son nddondn 4 Article 15,16, 7.U R and lo the extent that the time initially cstab- fiiM for die Construction Phase of the Project is ex- coadad or extended through no fault of the Construction MiMfir. compensation for Basic Services required for Mcfl eniended period ol Administration of the Construe- don Oteiract shall be computed at set forth m Paragraph 1SJ far Additional Senricat. 7.10 When compen sa tion is based on a percentage of diO lOMl ol the Contract Sums ol aU the separate Con* InMti. and any r|ons of the Project are deleted or Odienwi ie not constructed, compensation for such por- iona ol die Proje ct shall be payable to the extent services NO par fOnned on such portions, in accordance with the iKlioduio set forth in Subperagraph i S.2.1. bated on (1) the lONOM Rfuroi from bona fid* Bidt or negotiated proposals, orm d no auch Kda or proposals are recaivad, the most lOeani ONlniait ol tfw soul ol the Contract Sums of alt the iipaiai* Contmets lor such portions of the Project. fa NUMMII ON ACCOUNT Of AOOITIONAL mmm ano mnmuoiibii costs 7<J*1 PaymoMs on account of the Construction Man- Mar's Addidenal Sorvicet. as defined in Paragraph 1.3. and tm RoMbursaMo Coals, as dafinad in Artkl* 16, shall be onddy upon proMnation ol the Construction 's sMiamant ^ services rendered or costs in* Manager s Proiect-site staff as provided tor bv this Agree ment. The Construction Manager shall reduce the site of the PrO)ect-site staff after 30 davs delay, or sooner if feasible, for the remainder of the delay period as directed bv the Owner and. during that period, the Owner shall reimburse the Construction Manager for the costs of such staff prior to reduction plus any relocation or employ ment termination costs. Upon the termination of the stop* page, the Construction Manager shall provide the ncces* sary Proiect*site Staff as soon as practicable. ARTICLE 8 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS ^^Vl Records of Reimbursable Costs and costs pertaining to services performed on the basis of a Multiple of Direct Personnel Expense shall be kept on the basis of generally accepted accounting principles and shall be available to the Owner or the Owner s authorized representative at mutuailv convenient times. 9.1 All claims, dispute* and other aratters In questions bettreen the perties to this Agraeaiant erieinq out of or relating to this Agraeaiant or the breech thereof, ahell be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Conatruction Industry Arbitration Rules of the Aaericen Arbitration Association then obtaining unleae the perties nutuelly agree otherwise. Arbitration arising out of or relating to this Agreextent shell include by consolidation, joinder or in any other nenner, any reasonable and necessary additional person not a party to this Agreeaient. This egreenent to arbitrate shall ba specifically enforceable under the prevailing arbitration law. II. TJkf No daductiom shait ba mad* from the Construe* idN MawHN'a compauMlion on account of penalty, iiq* UidMid damagM or odwr sums withheld from payments M» CMNactW, or on account of the cost of changes m ¥fttk odwr dian dwae for which the Construction Man* agar it haW fatally BaWa. TA ftona luwinoii or aranoonx «mt 7AI If daa Projac t it autpxndad or abandoned in whole or ill part for mom than H um months, the Construction fdinagar BhaH ks .^ompor^rted for all services performed t* from the Owner of such •**th*r with Reimbursable as. 'on Expenses at defined IP fbugnpli 1014. If ds it rammed after being IMpaMM for Rsare than mie* months, the Construction MiPiigN^ cornganiation thail be equitably adjusted. 7A1 If aoniUuction of the Project hat started and is Niggod by reason of dreumsunces not the fault of the CRMlnicilon Ma na ge r, the Owner shall reimburse the Cpoainiclfon Managar for the costs of the Construction 9.2 Nonce of demand for arbitration shall be filed in writing with the other party to this Agreement and with the Amencan Arbitration Association, and a copy shall also be filed with the Architect. The demaisd shall be mad* within a reasonable time after the claim, dispuM or other matter in question has arisen. In no event shall the demand for arbitration be made after the date when insti tution of legal or equitable proceedings based on such claim, dispute or other matter in question would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 9.3 The award rendered by the arbitrators shall be final, and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof. ARTICLE 10 TERMINATION OF ACrSEMfNT 10.1 This Agreement may be terminated bv either party upon seven days' written notice should the other party saxPoeaMMiaHi • owwiACOwtTxucnow Mxwacaa acmimiht gjdllkiNaxxiaarcNs Msmura or AXCNiraors. ins nsw vokk avc . lUNC 1N0 lOITtON . AM*N w wASMiNCTo.N. o.c. xms tiOl —1990 • 1 m 4 'I 4 I ^ jjj - '.jLMj:. Ilil 10 ptfform in accordance with its terms #MOiii^ no fault of the party initiating the termination. UlS TMi Agreement may be terminated by the Owner eeen d^‘ written notice to the Con- in the event that the Protect is perma- doned. In dM event of termination not the fault of the Manager, the Construction Manager shall be __for ad services performed to the termina- lefsdier with Reimbursable Costs then due and IRlA Terminadon lapenses are defined as Reimbursable CoaM dkaedy attributable to termination for which the Oinsimctien Manager is not otherwise compensated. Atnoi 11 MHCfUANlOUS PROVISiONS fl.1 Untaas odierwlsa spedfitd. this Agreement shall be •mmod by tba law in effect at the location of the Terma in this Agreement shall have the sa.ne mean- : big at dioat in dw IMO Edition of AIA Oocunsent A201/ Ch^ Canaial Condldons of the Contract for Construction, ^ - A Ml A A _ « M- the partial to this Agreement: as to all 10 aa by either party to this Agreement. I ^ limitations shall commence to cause of action shall be deemed to all events not later than the SubMandai Completion of the Project. I [iiai aa i^any octt m faihira^ie ao occurhng aher the p iglMiW Oiaa of Subatandal Completion of the Project laaar dian dm data of issuance of rSe final Project lft«4 Thu OuMT ood the Coe?^nietion ooiuo oil rifhte each leyon^ full by the nay ^ ingdHrbf laotMT—CO ddriof eonotruetloa.Is?-m out fottb io the idto Bditioa of aia gaoi/aif Oonoroi cooditioos of IMS?; ■Ip life.?. '■ >. :T nARTICLE 12 SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS 12.1 The Owner and the Construction .Manager, respec tively, bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party to this Agree ment, and to the partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all covenants of this Agreement. Neither the 0^vner nor the Construction Manager shall assign, sublet or transfer any interest m this Agreement without the written consent of the otf er. ARTICLE 13 EXTENT OF AGREEMENT 13.1 This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the Owner and the Construction Manager and supersedes all prior negotiations, represen tations or agreements, either wntten or oral. This Agree ment may be amended only by written instrument signed by both the Owner and the Construction Manager. (Sou/Addundo); 13.2 Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to cre ate any contractual relationship between the Construction Manager and the Architect or any of the Contractors, Sub contractors or material suppliers on the Project: nor shall anything contained in this Agreement be deemed to give any third party any claim or right of action against the Owner or the Constructioii Manager which does not otherwise exist without regard to this Agreement. ARTICLE 14 INSURANCE for OeootroetieB, C om t ruction ■ditioo. Tbo OuMr and tbu oholl ooeh roqtairo riobo oiadlor uoiuoro from thuir Oootrootorof eoMoltoats and agants. 14.1 The Construction Manager shall purchase and maintain insurance for protection from claims under workers' or workmen’s compensation acts; claims for damages because of bodily injury, including personal in jury, sickness, disease or death of any of the Consttuction Manager's employees or of any person; from daims for damages because of injury to or destruction of tangible property including lost of use resulting therefrom; and from claims ariii"f out of the performance of this Agree ment and cauteu by negligwt acts for which the Con struction Manager is legally liable. iftf—1MR AU DOCUMeNT ewi • OWNU-CONStlUCnON MANACU ACUIMCNT • lUHl isn COITION • AIM •ISM • THC AMMICAN INSTITUn OT AfOWTCCTS. ITJS NIW TOW AVt.. N.W. WASHINCTON, O.C '■-I- . V , -V : ............. ..; ,*„ Ar r L Article 15 Basis of Compensation Tlic owner shall compensate the Construction Manager for the Scope of Services provided, in accordance with Article 7, Paymients to the Construction Manager, and the other Terms and Conditions of tliis Agreement, as follows: 15.1 AN INITIAL PAYMENT of-0- dollars ($-0-) shall be made upon execution of tltis Agreement and credited to tlie Owner's account as follows: 15.2 BASIC COMPENSATION for the construction of: • City Hall/Police Construction 16.500 S.F. • Public Works Construction 24.500 S.F. • Unhealed Storage 5,000 S.F. • Site Utilities • Soil Corrections • Landscaping/Screening • Bituminous/Curb & Gutter - Fee of 3% of the construction cost in accordance witli Articles 3, 6, 15, 16 and 17. Based on the construction costs as shown in #2 of die addenda to the construction management agreement, the maximum base fee will be S89,430. Tlie fee tvill not exceed this amount unless additional ser\ices are pro\ided pursuant to addiuonal scope of services. The base fee amount may be reduced to reflect final negotiated Fee based on three percent (3%) of the construction costs, if die construction cost reduced from the amount shown in #2 of the addenda. If the Fee is reduced, the reduction will be reflected in a reduction in the final monthly payment for Construction Phase Services. 15.2.1 FOR BASIC SERVICES, as described in Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2, and any other services included in Articles 15, 16 and 17 as part of Basic Services, Basic Compensation shall be computed as follows: For Pre-construction Phase Services, compensation shall be: A fee of FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO/lOO ($15,000) payable in diree (3) equal monthly installments of FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NO/100 ($5,000) payable fifteen (15) days after receipt of invoice for the months of September, October and November, 1991. For Construction Phase Ser\iccs, compensation shall be: A fee of SEVENTY FOUR THOUS.AND FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY AND NO/lOO ($71,430) payable in Ten (10) equal monthly installments of SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FORTYTHREE AND NO/lOO ($7,443), all payable fifteen (15) days after receipt of invoice commencing with sei^iccs rendered in and continuing until the Basic Compensation Fee has been paid.The final payment may be reduced so the total pa\Tnent for basic ser\ices reflects the final negotiated fee based on tltree percent (3%) of the construction costs. 15.3 COMPENSATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES 15.3.1 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, as described in Paragraph 1.3, and any otlier services included in Article 16 as Additional Sennees, compensation sh;ill be computed as follows: Kraus-Anderson Construction Company nnll charge for Additional Services die sum of 3% of the cost of addition;d work scope including reimbursement for Kraus-Anderson Construedon Company Project Management services. The cost for tlicsc services are more fullv described in Article 16. 15.4 FOR REIMBURS.MJLE COSTS, as described in Ardcle 6, 16 and 17, the actual ccjts incurred by the Construction Manager in the interest of the Project. 15.5 Payments due the Construedon Manager and unpaid under tliis Agreement shall bear interest from the date payment is due at die rate entered below, or in the absence thereof, at the legal rate prevailing at the principal place of business of the Construedon Manager. Annual rate of interest computed on the basis of actual number of days elapsed in a 360-day year equal to two percent (2%) over the prime rate of interest from dme to dme announced by Marquette Bank Minneapolis, NA as its prime rate, with each change in interest rate hereof to become efleedve on the date corresponding change in such prime rate as announced by Marquette Bank Minneapolis, NA, becomes elTecdve. (Usury laws and requirements under the Federal Truth in Lending Act, similar slate and local consumer credit laws, and other reguladons at the Owner’s and Construedon Manager's principal places of business, the locadon of the Project and elsewhere may affect the validity of this provision. Specific legal advice should be obtained with respect to deledon, modificadon or other requirements such as written disclosures or waivers.) 15.6 The Owner and the Construction Manager agree in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of this Agreement tliat:15.6.1 IF THE SCOPE of the Project or the Construction Manager's Services is changed matenally, the amounts of compensation shall be equitably adjusted. 15.6.2 IF THE SERVICES covered by this .Agreement have not been completed within ten months through no fault of the Construction Manager, the amounts of compensation, rates and multiples set forth herein shall be equitably adjusted. Article 16 Reimbursable Costs 16.1 Kraus-Anderson Construction Company shall be reimbursed for its Project Superintendent as required to carry out the supervision of the work. See Exhibit A for work rate. 16.1.1 Carpcnter/laborer rate based upon current collective bargaining wage rate plus forty- five percent (45%) of that rate for payroll burden costs (i.e. workers compensation insurance, payroll taxes, etc.) See Exhibit A for work rate 16.1.2 Kraus-Anderson Construction Comp^my shall be reir.l^arsed for its Project Management Services in connection with any work scope changes. Tlic project manager will be reimbursed at the rate indicated below: Project Manager $55.00 per hour 16.2 An amount equal to one-half on one percent of the Construction Management Fee and Reimbursable Costs and General Expenses as outlined in Articles 16 and 17, shall be paid to the Construction Manager as reimbursement for a portion of tlie cost of the Umbrella Liability Insurance. 16.3 The Owmer shall provide die Builders Risk Insurance Policy and be responsible for any deductible amounts. F -f" i 16.4 Knius-Andcrson Construction Company shall be reimbursed for its costs associated with: • Temporary Office • Temporary Phone • Temporary Toilet • Equipment Rental • Gas 8c Oil required for openiuon of equipment •Travel 8c Expenses •Trucking •Refuse Dumpsters 2% Contingency S 2,950.00 1.500.00 1.500.00 10.000.00 1.000.00 500.(X) ^1,0(X).00 9.6<X).00 $31,050.00 021.00 T(3T\L $31,671.00 Equipment rental rates based on Exhibit B Tlie reimbursable costs shall not exceed S31,671.00 unless owner authorized additional services. All savings from reimbursable costs shall accrue to tlie owner. 16.5 The Construction Manager will require Performance and Pa)inent Bonds of individual trade contracts and supplier contracts, in excess of $10,000 individually or aggregate in amount.. Tliese Performance and Payment Bonds must be from an acceptable bonding company to the Construction Manager an ’ Owner. Bonds will be written such tliat tlie liability of the contractor and tlie security of the performance bond will not be affected by the fact tliat the Owner has hired a Construction Manager. 16.6 AIA Document A201-CM - Construction Management Edition. General Conditions of the Contract for Construction (as amended) is intended to be u.sed in conjunction with tliis contract attached hereto. Article 17 17.General Expenses • Licensed surve>ing by- Coflin 8c Gronberg • Miscellaneous barriers 8c guard rails • Continuous clean-up • Final cleaning • Temporary construe don fences Se gates • Temporary Electric • Temporary Enclosures • Temporary Fire Protec don • Project Sign • Testing - Concrete. Earthwork 8c Special Inspccdons $ 8,500.00 2.000.00 9.855.00 11.000.00 1.650.00 1.650.00 2.000.00 500.00 450.00 • Snow Removal 2% Condngency^ 8.000.00 750.00 $46,355.00 979.00 Total $47,334.00 The General Expense costs shall not exceed $47,334.00 unless Owner authorizes additional services. All sa\ings from General Expenses shall acerrue to the owner. I'r } ■ : ^ ^ • 1 This Agreement entered into as of die day and year first written above. OWNER CONSTRUCTION MANAGER City of Orono Kraiis-Anderson Construction Co. Barbara A. Peterson. Mavor William T. Taegcr. Ir.. President konald T. Moorsc. Citv Administrator Aiir ■ iiii rail ■^ ^ ------^ —■- —---------- I j I I I I I I I i I I ADDENDUM TO CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN cmr OF ORONO and KRAUS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION COMP*4NY 1. 2. This agreement shall inco^orate, and shall be imerp. etcd and applied consistent with, the foUoiving otlier prcycct contracts, agreements and documents: Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect (City of Orono and Boarman & Associates, Inc.) as amended October 10, 1991 (AIA Document B141 (1987) dated January 10, 1990). • Geneial Conditions of the Conuact for Construction: Construction Management Edidon (AIA Document A201/CNI (1980), as amended and dated October 28,1991. • Standard Form of Agreement Between Oivner and Contractor (AIA Document A101/CM (1980), for purpose:; of contractual agreements benveen City of Orono and project trade contractors and material suppliers. July 17,1991 Letter of Introduction and Proposal from Kraus-Anderson Con-struction Company to City of Orono regarding "Orono City Hall." The parties to this agreement specifically acknowledge and are bound by die attached budget relating to this project as attached hereto the .-\rchitect Amendment Betivcen Owner and Architect dateri October 10, 1991. City of Orono Preliminary Costs Staterr ent City Hall/Public Works Revised: f 1/90 8/21/91 The parties to this agreement also acknowledge that, for purposes of this Agreement, the construction cost of the project is and shall be (including construction management fees and reimbursements): Building Construction City Hall Police Construction Public Works Construction Unheated storage $1,320,000 $1,176,000 $ 150,000 Site Development Site Utilities Soils Corrections Landscaping/screening Bituminoi’s/Curb 8c Gutter $ 25,000 $ 160,000 S 60,000 S 90.000 $2,981,000 rliitirrfiriifniTtnimriflihriiiiiliiiir i wintimArtnlMW ---------irritn J EXHIBIT AUpdated 5/3/91 TWIN CITY METRO LABOR RATES Effective May 1. 1991 through April 30 .1992 Trade Regular CARPENTERS Carpenter Carpenter Foreman Carpenter Foreman-Supt Benefits included in the above rates. LABORERS Laborer Laborer Foreman Benefits included in the above rates: CEMENT FINISHERS Cement Finisher Cement Finisher Foreman Benefits included in the aoove rates: OPERATORS G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 Benefits included in the above rater: 33.68 35.35 37.53 Haw Pension Vacation Appr. To»al 28.86 29.73 Haw Pension Vacation Appr. Total 33.06 34.15 Haw Pension Savings Other Total 36.60 36.11 34.95 34.06 33.57 33.32 31.13 29.51 28.70 Haw Pension Appr. Total 'ALL RATES INCLUDE THE 45% BURDEN. Overtime 46.74 49.24 57.45 40.20 41.51 46.49 48.13 52.03 51.29 49.55 48.23 47.49 47.12 43.83 41.40 40.18 prtible Time 1.87 2.25 1.00 0JJ2 5.22 1.62 1.90 0.70 4.25 1.80 2.45 1.70 2J22 5.97 2.05 1.80 QJJl 3.95 59.80 63.13 71.17 51.55 53.29 59.93 62.10 67.47 66.48 64.16 62.39 61.41 60.91 56.54 53.29 51.66 iliiilteUMailili ____i 5- Mayor Peterson & Orono Council Members City Administrator Moorse From: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrate!^ November 1, 1991 Proposed Ordinance Revision - Mooney Lake Regulatioifl^ ^ List of Exhibits % Exhibit A - Proposed Ordinance Exhibit B - Staff Memo 10/7/91 Exhibit C - City of Plymouth Letter 9/27/91 Exhibit D - DNR Letter 9/24/91 Exhibit E - Plymouth City Code Section/Changes Exhibit F - Charles W. Crosby Letter 10/10/91 Exhibit G - 10/23/64 Letter from City Attorney Exhibit H - Ordinance No. 72 (Dec. 14, 1964) Exhibit I - Current Orono Code Section 9.32 Exhibit J - Douglas Dayton Letter 10/9/91 Summary The City of Plymouth has requested that Orono revise its current code regarding Mooney Lake rules and regulations to be consistent with similar ordinances under consideration in Plymouth and Medina. An ordinance draft is attached which could be adopted at the Council's November 12th meeting. Discussion Please review the staff memo of Octv^ber 7, 1991. Briefly, since 1964 the City of Orono has regulated boat engine horsepower and hours of operation of motor boats on Mooney Lake. These regulations were originally adopted concurrently by Orono, Plymouth and Medina. The two changes to oui* cr.de that are necessary to be consistent with the Plymouth ri’gtest would be adopting specific updated statutes by reference, and exempting enforcement, emergency, resource management, <ir. i other governmental personnel from the requirements. Douglas Dayton, the only Orono property owner abutting Mooney Lake, supports this proposal (see letter attached). Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the attached ordinance amending Section 9.32 of the Municipal Code regarding Mooney Lake rules and regulations. <i J 4: tr :V ' > ORDINANCE # , SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9.32, MOONEY LAKE RULES AND REGULATIONS. The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: The Municipal Code of the Citj of Orono is amended by adding Ordinance # , Second Series; SECTION 1. Section 9.32, Subdivision 4 is hereby deleted. A new Section 9.32, Subdivision 4 is added to read as follows; Subdivis-lon 4. Boat and Water Safety Act and Rules Adopted. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 86 B, Water Safety, Watercraft, and Watercraft Titling, and Boat and Water Safety Rules 6110.0100- 6110.2300 are hereby adopted by reference, incorporated herein and made a part hereof as though set forth verbatim herein. A violation of the statute or any rule herein adopted is a violation of this code. SECTION 2. Section 9.32 is hereby amended by adding Section 9.32, Subdivision 5 to read as follows: Subdivision 5. Exemption. Enforcement, emergency, resource management, and other governmental personnel or authorized contractors are exempted from this section when performing official duties or authorized work. SECTION 3. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall take effect and shall be enforced from and after the date of its passage and publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this 12th day of November, 1991, by a vote of _ _ ayes and _ _ nays. Dorothy M. Hallin, Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor J TO:PROM: DATE : Ron Moorse» City AdministratorMichael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator October 1, 1991 SUBJECT: City of Plymouth - Mooney Lake Request On October 1st we received a request from the City of Plymouth requesting support for a minor revision and "grandfathering in" existing City ordinances regulating watercraft on Moonev Lake. ^ The City of Orono adopted Ordinance No. 72 on December 14, 1964, for the purpose of regulating boating on Mooney Lake. A copy of Ordinance No. 72 and the current Orono Code Section 9.32 are attached. It appears that the 1984 recodification omitted certain of the specific points of Ordinance No. 72, probably because those points duplicated other sections of the Municipal Code. ^ I sense from Mr. Boyles' letter that residents around Mooney Lake “®ve been the impetus for this request. Only one property within the City of Orono abutts Mooney Lake, hat of Douglas Dayton at 300 Sixth Avenue North. Mr. Dayton called me today to express his support for the City of Plymouth's request. I suspect that Mr. Dayton was one of the original residents who pushed for the initial regulations in 1964. There are two minor revisions requested by the DNR as noted in ®®yi®s letter. The first is to adopt by reference specific State statutes and rules regarding water safety, watercraft, titling, and boat and water safety rules. This section replaces and updates our existing Section 9.32, Subdivision 4. Note that Statutes Section 361 was repealed in 1990 and replaced with Chapter 86B. The second revision is to exempt emergency and enforcement personnel from the Mooney Lake rules and regulations. Obviously, If there was a boating emergency or the need for higher powered weed management craft, they would not have to seek a variance before proceeding. I would recommend that the City of Orono support Plymouth's request and go forward with revising our Code Section 9.32 to be consistent. Since Chapter 9 is titled Public Protection, Crimes and Offenses, it probably is appropriate that Chief Sullivan also review this request. MPG/ch CC September 21, 1991 \( ^OTYCf "l ■J.l CSCNO _J ['unetiQ^ crrrcf CSCNO Ron Morris City Administrator City of Orono Box 66, Crystal Bay Orono, MN 55323 1 CITY PLYMOUTH-OCT \ .1991 SUBJECT: SURFACE WATER USAGE REGULATIONS FOR MOONEY LAKE Dear Mr. Morris: As you are probably aware, over the last few months there has been a "grass roots" campaign by some residents living in Medina, Orono, and Plymouth, and aJsutting Mooney Lake to develop a consistent set of surface water management regulations. To simplify this effort, we asked the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to consider "grandfathering" Plymouth's existing City ordinance (with minor revisions) if all three communities were to adopt it. I have attached the existing Plymouth ordinamce, together with revisions requested by the DNR which I expect to have the Council adopt on October 21. By grandfathering the existing ordinance, we can avoid many of the new technical regulations which the Department of Natural Resources requires for new surface water ordineinces. Could you review the Plymouth ordinance provisions and let me know whether you would have a problem recommending them to your City Council. We already have a commitment (attached) from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to support our efforts if we adopt identical ordinances. From the telephone calls I have received from residents living in Medina, Plymouth, and Orono, it appears that there is substantial resident support for this ordinamce. I am told that a petition has been circulated, confirming this support. Please call me at 550-5013 with your reactions by October 11. If you support th^ ordinance, I intend to place this item on the October 21 Citj^Council agenda. Assist City Manager FB;kec attachment 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447. TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000 STATE OF I.DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD • ST. PAUL MINNESOTA • 55155-40. ONR INFORMATION (612) 296-61S7 September 24, 1991 Mr. Frank Boyl :s Assistant City Manager Plymouth City Hall 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MM S5447 Dear Mr. Boyles, You have inquired of the DNR Boating and Water Safety Section regarding the acceptability of "grandfathering'' your existing city ordinance to limit the size of engines on watercraft on T.aVo ^ in your city and bordering the cities of Orono and Medina. The answer is that the DNR will favorably consider a variance to the 10 hp limit guideline in the DNR Rules, 6110.3700, subp.3. "Motor type and size" since the City of Plymouth had a five (5) horsepower limitation for several small lakes for nearly 20 years. We need a set of ordinances that has similar language applying to Mooney Lake from each of the cities bordering that lake. Since Mooney Lake is surrounded by private property, and there is no public access upon it, it our intention to make the ordinance process as simple as possible. It would seem to be a good idea to update your City Code, Section 1335 - Watercraft; Lakes and Waters to reflect the current Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 86B, Water Safety, Watercraft, and Watercraft Titling; and Boat and Water Safety rules 6110.0100- 6110-.2300 as long as you are doing this by reference. We would also like to see a paragraph in your joint ordinances regarding the waiving of these rules by official state management personnel and enforcement officers in performing their duties. A lake of this size could easily harbor a swimming, rafting or thin ice emergency, or there may be cause for aquatic weed management. The language is found in rules 6110.1200; subp. 2, par (3) " Enforcement, emergency, resource management, and other government personnel or contractors are exempt from this part when performing official duties or authorized work." Please be advised that upon receipt of written communication from your neighboring communities that they are in accord with your proposed ordinance and its conditions, and that all have adopted these identical ordinances, we would be happy to approve. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER \ •\ . I Please tell neighboring city administrators in Orono and Medina, that we would be happy to work with them individually and collectively in concluding this matter to everyone's satisfaction. Sincerel Otto Boating Staff Specialist 297-5708 r t . nrai^ti rr i k t 1— ■! « iwii ilTir ia*-— ------------- I Plymouth City Code 1335.01 Section 1335 - Vfatercra-ft; Lakes and Waters 1335.01. Boat and Water Safety Act and Rules Adopted. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter }6l and Chapter 13, I®- 200-219 of the Rules of the Comissioner of Natural Resources are adopted by reference and are as much a part of this Code as if fully' set forth herein. A violation of the statute or any rule herein adopted is a violation of this Code. 1335.03. Mooney Lake and Lost Lake; Special Provisions. The follo;^lng additioml regtilations and limitations are hereby imposed upon water craft operated, placed or maintained in or upon Mooney Lake or Lost Lake: (a)No person shall operate, place or maintain a water craft which is propelled by an internal combustion engine having a size and power in excess of five horsepower. (b)Each water craft shall be equipped so as to direct its motor exhaust under water, or otherwise completely and effectively to muffle and silence the sound of the explosions of such motor. No water craft shall othend.se make any unnecessary noise in its operation. (c) No person shall operate a water craft between the hours of 8:CX) p.m. and 8:00 a.m. (d) No person in charge of or occupying a v/ater craft shall dump or throw garbage, paper, bottles, cans, refuse or debris into the lakes. 1335.05. Hadley Lake; Special Prcvisicns . Subdivision 1. Motor Boats Prohibited. It is unlawful for ary person to operate”a motorized watercrai't, on hadley Lake. Subd. 2. Debris. It is unlawful for any person in charge of or occupying a boat on Hadley Lake to dump or throw garbage, paper, bottles, cans, refuse or debris into Hadley Lake. w CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1335 OF THE PLYMOTUH CITY CODE RELATING TO WATERCRAFT, LAKES, AND WATERS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. Subsection 1335.01 is amended to read: 1335.01. Boat and Water Safety Act-and—Bu.j-.S3 Adoptsdt 1, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter-8..6&t- -Watsr-SafStVx Watercraft, and Watercraft Titling—and—Esat—and—WatSE—Safsty—Rulsa 6110.0100 — fillQ.2300 are adopted by reference and are as much a part of this Code as if fully set forth herein. A violation of the statute or any rule herein adopted is a violation of this Code. 2. Enforcement, emergency, resource mana.gsmsnt«.- and other governmental personnel or authoria^ed—contractora—ars—SXSn»pJ:sd from thia section when performing of.ficia3. dutiss..or authprissd ,wQrls.t. Section 2. This ordinance is effective upon passage and compliance with Plymouth City Code, Subsection 110.11 Mayor ATTEST City Clerk Material: - indicates deleted text Underscore - indicates new text 11II Tft iw I !<■ nrnlliiP i Mi ri' i- Suite 1200 100 Washington Square Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Telephone: 612 343.2517 CHARLES W. CROSBY, Special Agent Jack C. Brown, CLU, General Agent October 8, 1991 Nprlhvyestem Mutual Clfe' nla CfTYCf CHC.'.0 OCl 1 0 1991 Mr. Ron Moorse Box 66 Crystal Bay Orono, Minnesota 55323 Dear Ron; Enclosed is a copy of Mooney Lake Medina Property Owners agreeing to adopt the Plymouth Water Craft Ordinance on Mooney Lake. Douglas Dayton is the only Orono owner on Mooney Lake and he is dealing directly with you in Orono on this matter. He is in favor of adopting the Plymouth Water Craft Ordinance. I sent a copy of this letter to Don* * Roehl and Frank Boyles. Sincerely, Charles W. Crosby CWC:jb cc; Donna Roehl Frank Boyles. Enel. THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY • Milwaukee VEN N U M. N EWHALL, ACKMAN & GOETZ aeo noptmwestepn bank euiLOtNO THOMAS VCNNUM NOP9HAN L. NCWHALU, JS. LAU«CSS V. ACKMAN JOHN n, OOCTZ MCL.VIN t.OPCNSTCiN JAMCa P. MARTINCAU RICHARD J. riTZOCRAUO JOHN a.FORRCST JCRROLO r. aCRO^ALK MINNEAPOLIS 2 ^EO E»A». 3-3A2I -J ; U • A 0(CT October 23, 136^^v\ Of 1 • ■ ► Village of Orono P. 0. Box 82 Crystal Bay, Minnesota Gentienen: I enclose in several copies a suggested or''nance controlUng boats, etc. on Mooney Lake. This is the same rorm as proposea for .lymoutn an Medina, except that it has been modified to conrorm to our Coae. Yours^ry truly, H. L. Hewhall, Jr. NLN:hl Enclosure 1 •mnu # • m VILLAGE OF ORC.N'O ORDIHAiNCE NO. *7^ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDUiG A CHAPTER 76 PROVIDING BOATING RESTRICTIONS ON MOONEY LAKE The Village Council of the Village of Orono ordains as roilcws: Section 1. The Municipal Code of Orono is hereby amended by adding a Chapter 76 to provide as follows: "76, BOATING RESTRICTIONS ON MOONEY LAKE "76.010. Definitions. Tne following words and pi ases, when used in this chapter shall mean: Boat. Any watercraft in or upon or docked or moored at any place in Mooney Lake. Motor Boat. Any boat which is propelled by an internal com bustion engine. Mooney Lake., is that part of such body of water herring that name located within the boundaries of the Village of Orono, 76.020. Statement of Policy. The regulations and limitations set forth in this chapter are imposed upon all boats operated, placed or maintained in or upon Mooney Lake, in the interests of the public health, safety and general welfare. 76,030, Limit on Horsepower. No person shall operate, place or maintain any motor Doat in or upon such lake whi^ is propelled by an internal combustion engine having a size and power in excess of five (5) horsepower. 76,040. Noise Restricted. Ever/ motor boat operating upon said lake shall be equipped so as to direct its motor exhaust under water, or otherwise completely and effectively to muffle and silence the sound of the Qj^plosions of such motor. Ho motor boat shall other>-/ise make any unneces sary noise in its operation. 76.050, Hours . No person shall run or operate a said lake between the hours of 8:00 P. H. and 8:00 A, M. boat upon 76.060. Dumping of Debris, etc. No person in charge of or occupying a boat shall duT^j or throw garoage, paper, bottles, cans, refuse or debris into said lake. , hi. a _ I... . r , 75,070. Incorporation of Statutes. Jo person shall operate a ctatutes are hereby adopted and incorporatea nerean and -ace a part nereor as though fully set forth at this point. 76.080. Nuisance. Any violation of this chapter, xn aadition to other penalties, nay ne abated as a public nuxsance." Section 2. Publication. This Ordinance shall be publishec in tne Minnetonka Herald at Wayzata, Minnesota, and in the Minnetonka Pilot at Mound, Minnesota, and shall be effective irnediately upon sucn punlication. /*• Passed by the Village Council of the Village or Crono tnis AI; day of . 1964, by a vora of yeas and r mays H. R. Ross, Mayor : - 2 - I r .• N •' / •s K I 5 9.ii M Ride a bicycle or non-motorized v *" .. * in ^ ^ N. Operate a model airplane in a park or swimming beach. Mark, oaint, write or post bills upon, deface, or in any oth-r way damage, destroy, remove or carry equipment, man-made, natural or cultivated plantings or other thing that is used or situated upon a park or sv imming beach. P. Sell, or by any means a^^ortise for sale, any goods, wares, merchandise or servic-.t of any kind, nature or description in a park or swimming beach. Q. Fish in any swimming beach. SEC. 9.32. MOONEY LAKE ROLES AND REGDuATlONS. Subd. 1. Definitions. The following terns, as used in this Section, shall have the meanings stated: A. "Motor boat" means any watercraft which is pro pelled, bears or has attached to it for the purpo.^^e of propu sion, an internal combustion engine. B. "Lake" means that certain portion of a body of water located within the Cit,, the -ntirety of which is common.y and officially referred to by the name cf Mooney Lake. Subd. 2. lorsepower Limitation. It is unlawf. . .or any gr.r" ‘^ro°f“o%1^rth"un^e"ngTn/rrVepo”Ser ?n e\%%^s"orf^",5,. inclusive. Which are hereby adopted by ‘^’^ferenue, incorporate h ein and made a part hereof as though set forth verbatim here^. City -I herein referred to as "City docks . Subu. 1. Unlawful Acts. It is unlawful to: (1) swim, fish or otherwise use a City doc ner^on* (2) area iri a manner so as to disturb or endanger any other P®'^ J dock any watercraft e.xcept for the temporary purpose of boardin. ORONO CC 218 (4-1-84) nruaULfS • •-__ . , ' f.. .: .>■••.•:r-; - •: •;.- ., *• :• .,^ -: ** ^ *. •' • " V 5 ' • •*J ..*•-• . _ A A V * •!»*• 'i.. •* • ’'•* ♦' --il • •• ' ■ ’ .*•* * •., *s • •* ’ V V V*‘/‘V*' •»* • •• » ; • •» • •* * . •, *** •I•• •.. - y. , ■ •■ '-v«*#V « • •.%■•'•• • ■ .••* ? • . • • , ------* \ ! • - * •/ - *' - • •. * ♦*. j*• 1 •' • • . ••« < ; ;' ' .•• . -• * • • ». ■ . DOUGLAS -J. DA^'TON »X *.'f “ .****<it ‘f :-. ’r .c6 S* Algous V’SSF V* "A 545 U1*5 V .. ( C V‘0 i ' ;!•' r ./ f “-2, •* -s , , • -I Lj lL: jU; I'I October 9, 1991 'OCT' 1 5 1991 Mr. Michael Gaffron Assistant Planning Coordinator Orono City Hall 1335 S. Brown Road Oronc, MM 55323 Dear Mike: Thank you for being willing to consider having Orono's ordinance relating to Mooney Lake's 5 HP outboard motor restriction parallel the one Plymouth has. The Mooney Lake Medina residents are asking the same of Medina. The Mooney Lake Homeowner's Association is virtually unanimous in wanting this restriction. There have been few violations on the lake, but, as I understand it, neither the DNR or Hennepin County Sheriffs will enforce the ordinance unless each municipality on the lake has identical ordinances. Mooney is a great little lake, and we are trying to keep it tiiat way. T appreciate your help and am enclosing a copy of Plymouth's ord:nance. Yours, O'--iS J. Dayton DJD/kt JtMw tu-Kuv.lL.-■ »- mfMkt ilHi rrtrT ~imi ^i~nna^g ~fi ain-jr.t •t) t». r f « M«n'ni. , •w***^w*»T*..**»■ r ~ TV dti >1 II n~i ' ~firrTlft4~i iM* ■■^i ’fi ^ < -nsr . . . i. .-^r7iAu*r» . Cf TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator %o ^/j November 1, 1991 Rescheduling of Bond Sale for New City Facilities The sale of bonds for the new city facilities was initially scheduled for November 12th. The City’s Bond Counsel recently discovered that due to the nature of the lease purchase arrangement for the payment of bonds» the bonds must be registered with the State Security Commission. The registration process will delay the bond sale by 2 weeks and will cost approximately $2,000.00 including the application fee and time spend by Bond Counsel. Due to this delay it is recommended that the bid openi-'j for the bonds be scheduled for Monday, November 25, 1991 and it an HRA meeting to award the sale of bonds be scheduled for p.m. on Monday, November 25, 1991. r- r 1 TO;Mayor and City Council FROM;Ron Moorse, City Administrator DATE:November 7, 1991 11791.2 % c / % ■?' SUBJECT; Resolution Waiving Bid Irregularities At its October 28, 1991, meeting the Council awarded the bid for concrete and masonry work on the new city facilities to Grosser. The City Attorney indicated the bid could be awarded to Grosser even though the bid bond had been provided after the deadline for receipt of bid. A resolution waiving this irregularity is attached for Council review and adoption. r; - -.J RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO IRREGULARITIES IN THE BID OF GRESSER FOR CONCRETE AND MASONRY WORK FOR THE NEW CITY FACILITIES WHEREASr the Council has decided to accept the bid of Grosser as the lowest responsible bidder; and WHEREAS, Grosser provided the required bid bond on the day the bidding closed, but several hours after the deadline for submission; and aoescontract; nor does it provide an unfair advantage to Grosser; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City of Otono that the late submission of the bid bond is hereby waived and the award of the bid to Grosser is hereby ratified. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held November 12, 1991. Barbara A. Petersen, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Halim, City Clerk I- I / !TO; iROM: DATE: Mavor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator November 8, 1991 / % i, 'OSUBJECT: 1992 Part Time Police Officer Hours and Budget At the October 28, 1991, Council meeting the Council authorized staff to proceed to develop ar eligibility list for the selection of part time police officers. Council also directed staff to determine the actual number of part time officers to be hired and the amount of funding required. The City currently has 1 part time police officer working 1,040 hours per year. Staff's proposal is to hire 2 additiona] part time officers to work a total of 1,450 additional hours per year. At an hourly rate of $10.00 per hour the amount of funding needed for 1,450 hours is $14,500.00. The source of these funds will be reductions in regular salaries and overtime salaries. Regular salaries will be reduced by $6,500 (th^ difference in salary between a Lieutenant and a Patrol Officer). This amount is available due to the department's plans to eliminate a Lieutenant position and replace it with a Patrol Officer position. Overtime salaries will be reduced by $8,000. This reduction is possible due to an improved patrol schedule and the ability to use the part time officers in place of overtime hours. c?7 TO:Ron Moorse, City Administrator ^'%/f «; '*e FROM:John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director DATE:November 1, 1991 SUBJECT: Skating Rink Bederwood Park Quite some time ago a conceptual plan (attached) for playground equipment and a skating rink was presented to the Park Commission by neighbors of the park. The Park Commission conceptually approved the plan and we proceeded to acquire costs for the improvements. Due to circumstancesr the playground equipment has not been purchased and the Park Commission would like to at least get started on the skating rink. Costs for the skating rink are as follows: Water line from well to skating rink Labor to construct skating rink (City forces) $2,000.00 600.00 Total $2,600.00 If weather conditions allow, we would like to place the water line from the well tv the rink as soon as possible. Recommendation to direct the Public Works Department to place the water line from the well to the skating rink location at Bederwood Park and to fund the installation of the water line from the Park Dedication fund. Proposed motion moved 2nd to approve the installation of the water line from the well to the skating rink location at Bederwood Park and to fund the installation of the water line from the Park Dedication fund. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Forward for approval. 1^' V • I •• *• i i : ■im ! . list op LICS’.ISES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MEETING OF November 12, 1991. % Septic System Installer - Coppi-. Plumb 2300 Chateau.Lane Mound Limited Trapping Permit - Michael A. Bosanko 2090 Shoreline Drive. • • • • • • *o V-' \ \ . I « liMla k \ ft ^ ITYof ORONO !ITY rSE )NLY Crystal Bay, Minnesota 5532.’ BI ILDING& ZONING - 473-735T assessing SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLERS license APPLICATION All Questions must be answered. License fee, bond, certificate of insurance, and evidence of MPCA Certification or Home Sewage Treatment Workshop attendence must accompany this application. All applications are subject to a ten (10) day approval period. P Iti_ _ _ _1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. Business or trade name_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ Business address 5.% Business phone ^^Residence phone Name of applicant or company reoresent^ive holding MPCA certification -- - - - - - - - - InstallerType of certification held: _ _ Site evaluator _ _System designer Is this a Pro^'^isional Certificate? - - - _ _ _ Pumper Certificate No . \l^ \ 6 . 7. 8. 10. prior to t.ie current construction season. Have you ever held a Septic System Installer license in Most recent year ^ U noOrono before? Have you ever U.t '' a license revoked? Where? _ _ __ Do you do Municipal Sewer hook-ups? Yes Do you pump out septic tanks? Yes_ _ _ When? No No 1311500000 01 CEfi H 25.00 ‘^.50 SUBMITTALS REQUIRED: cm. n. RECEIPT-THM YOU H227310 cool ROl T15H6 J 1. $25.00 license application fee. $2000.00 license and permit bond naming City of y' obligee. The State Plumbers Bond will not be acceptedyt^rp. i//3. $10-50-100,000 rainimi’.Ti Ceruificate of Insurance.-------^ ■/ 4. Copy of current MPCA Certificate or evidence of attendence _X. __mY-aTTiHf- Work«^hoD held iimnediately £irv Iat On-Site Sewage Treatment Workshop held immediately prior to current const...uction season. LICENSES WILL NOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE SUBMITTED. List persons other than applicant who are authorized by you to apply for permits under your license_ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ The undersigned hereby makes application to the City of Orono, Minnesota, for license to install and repair septic systems, and/or pump out septic tanks, subject to the laws of the State of Minnesota and the Ordinances of the City or Orono. J ^ Date Applicants Signature (7^- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -■Staff recommendation ApprovalDenial Reason for denial: Date City Council Action Date Date license mailed ____ Approved Denied LIMITED LEGHOLD TR>\P PERMIT« • • » TIATR; fTi^' . 192/ Name: 'l^J/'-3/< ^ Application N’jnber: -------------------------------------^MICHAEL A. BOSANKO 1*}B407S.P£NNAVt 'At A BLOOMNCmi. MV. UM! ^Xi/^Address^-------------------------- Location of c....pHner -X.o‘fc.$k-yil:^^ Dy'. -.:‘r Number of Traps: ^ Maintenance procedure for trapline. ~c^c <J hm IMUUiUtri X A caMwj > f ------------- r/p,-A, Period of time needed for permit ^ T aeree to furnish a certified property ov.ners list within 500 feet of trapping area. Property Ind application. I agree to abide by all applicable Federal, otate, Local Laws including ordinance 232. Signature of Appiicani $10.00 Fee paid:/ ^ jy jFee paid:/ Q Date: 19_ Check RECOMI'TEriDED: Yes L_1x0 y F Cash Initials ity Administrator w Cortifiod list of rronerty c'.vners within 500 f'^ot of be obtained from the Hennepin County Property & Description Office, A-603 County Government Center, downto'^m I-anneapolis. 3 10/27/91 PR: C8 PRREGOR a7 1 <}> •V. YTD CURRENT NAME DPT GROSS GROSS AtJRAHAMSON. FREDERIC 93 1107.50 40.00 ANDERSON. BRUCE L 31 38596 6?1704.22 BOBZIEN. SUE A 31 21150 60 953.72 BOSMA, JAMIE L 12 12722 38 543 78 BRINKHAUS, JOHN F 42 33468 27 1522.88 CHESWICK. GARY B 31 36232 00 1648.00 CORNICK, JAMES L 31 38582 13 1787.56 DELANEf. JANE E 93 1080 00 52.50 DEMBOUSKI. JAY C 31 15932 29 1336.43 ENGLISH III. IRVING 31 36967 24 1426 49 ERICKSON. KI‘M R 31 32695 00 1454 23 FISCHENICH DAN T 31 34714 29 1426 48 FRIT2LER. JOHN M 31 34979 13 1599 04 GAFFRON, MICHAEu P 33 30597 22 1392.24 GERHARDSON. JOHN R 42 42776 76 2005 03 GOMAN. DAVID J 35 1344 50 132 60 GREGORY. JAMES D 42 29395 50 1298 12 HALLIN. DOROTHY M 12 26356 58 1199 23 HANSEN. STEVEN C 42 24306.32 1176.06 HANSING. CAROL J 31 12065 79 524 63 HASEMAH. CAROLE 12 2852.37 814.97 JOHNSON. BRADLEY P 31 35652 37 1695 11 JOSTROM. FOREST J 93 2130.00 105.00 KARNITZ. RICKY 0 31 8535 90 371.56 KENNEN. JANICE M 31 1473.81 218 85 KNUTSON. CHARLOTTE A 15 21069 63 958 72 KUEHN. THOMAS M 15 44951.44 2048.09 MABUSTH. JEANNE A 33 38989 26 1743.52 MCINTYRE. WILLIAM E 93 535 00 30.00 MOORSE, RONALD J 12 7^34 40 2038.40 MOROWCZYNSKT ^AMES 3i 36218 68 1454 24 NELSON. DA' .35 4024 82 228.09 06ERAIGNER.42 21322 85 1159.27 OBRIEN. RANDY 92 25470 94 1397.88 OMAN. 1‘LE E 33 30831 53 1392 24 PALMER. .REGORY A 42 21798.67 1137 21 OUAST. WAYNE A 92 30252 51 1654 05 RATHBUN. BARRY J 92 25398 35 1177 18 ROSS JOHN A 93 658 90 57.75 SKREEN. DALE S 42 2515. 61 1317.16 STEFFENHAGEN. RONALD 93 26393.31 1200.98 STEVENS. BETTY G 93 2946.00 198.00 SULLIVAN. STEPHEN X 31 9422 80 1884.56 THOMTON. MARK R 31 32535 21 1426 48 TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F 31 35769 81 1426 48 TOMCZYK. MARK W 31 32841.12 1454.23 VANG. BRUCE L 33 25847 97 1199 28 VEE. LINDA S 12 18641 46 862 83WALTERS. LINDA Q 15 24039 72 1111 92WECKMAN. STEPHEN J 33 20334 84 U67 52 56.159 87 V '>» NAMk DPT YTDGROSS CURRENTGROSS BUTLER. MARY C 11 2175.03 241.67 CALLAHAN, EDWARD J 11 2658.37 241.87 GOETTEN, J.DIANN 11 2658.37 241.67 JAB80UR, GABRIEL 11 2658.37 241.67 PETERSON, BARBARA A 11 3300.00 300.00 1991 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER 11-12-91CHECK NO . DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV.• P.O. • 312845 11/05/91 35.88 35.88 » WECKMAN STEPHEN MILEAGE 01-4381-174-33 316030 316030 316030 316030 316030 316030 11/05/91 11/05/91 11/05/91 11/05/91 11/05/91 11/05/91 24.89 24.89 24.89 36.65 24.89 24.89 161.10 ‘ AT A T INFO SYSTEM AT A T INFO SYSTEM AT A T INFO SYSTEM AT A T INFO SYSTEM AT A T INFO SYSTEM AT A T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROC DATA PROC DATA PROC DATA PROC DATA PROC DATA PROC 01-4340-059-14 01-4340-069-15 01-4340-129-31 01-4340-129-31 01-4340-174-33 01-4340-249-42 316031 316031 ll/n5/91 11/05/91 4.61 16.40 21.01 •• AT A T COMM AT A T COMM TELEPHONE TELEPHONE 01-4320-039-12 01-4320-129-31 316039 11/05/91 71.36 71.36 • EARL F ANDERSON ASSC STREET SIGN 01-4233-249-42 Ail 316042 11/05/91 74.00 74.00 •ASPLUND COFFEE COFFEE 01-4382-129-31 316065 SJfi'iaS 316065 316065 316065 11/05/91 11/05/91 11/05/91 11/05/91 11/05/91 146.97 53.25 41.63 6.575.01 53.25 6,870.11 • BLACKOWIAK A SONS BLACKOWIAK A SONS BLACKOWIAK A SONS BLACKOWIAK A SONS BLACKOWIAK A SONS TRASH HAUL TRASH HAUL TRASH HAUL FALL CLEANUP TRASH HAUL 01-4343-099-17 01-4343-129-31 01-4343-290-61 01-4348-295-65 74-4343-590-93 316067 11/05/91 98.10 98.10 • SAM BLOOM IRON IRON 01-4234-249-42 316127 11/05/91 2.927.00 2.927.00 • COFFIN QRONBERQ SURVEY 15-4306-651-00 316142 11/05/91 511.10 511.10 • COPY DUP PR INC TONER 01-1261-000-00 316143 316143 316143 316143 11/05/91 11/05/91 11/05/91 11/05/91 1.95 16.99 25.65 16.85 COrWERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COfWERCIAL LIFE/GRP NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS 01-3872-000-00 01-4152-039-12 01-4152-069-15 01-4152-121-31 •G-« 1 4 0 ‘••-CKS ***-CKS •**-CKS ***-CKS ‘“•-CKS «**-CKS •••-CKS 1991 CITY OF ORONOCHECK NO. DATE316143316143316143316143 316143 316143 316143 316143 316143 316143 316143 « fl • A H 11/05/9111/05/9111/05/9111/05/91 11/05/91 11/05/91 11/05/91 11/05/91 11/05/91 11/05/91 11/05/91 CHECK REGISTERAMOUNTVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION3 40 45.07 6.99 20.19 1.42 1 1 2 2 2 42- 42 13 13- 13 85 49 * COMMERCIALCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRPLIFE/GRPLIFE/GRPLIFE/GRP LIFE/GRP LIFE/GRP LIFE/GRP LIFE/GRP LIFE/GRP LIFE/GRP LIFE/GRP NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS ACCOUNT NO. INV01* 4152 01-4152 01-4152 01-415. 72-4152 72-4152 72- 4152 73- 4152 73-4152 73- 4152 74- 4152 -126-31-129-31-174-33-249-42 -549-91 -549-92 -549-92 -569-92 -569-93 -569-93 -590-93 316303 11/05/91 630.00 630.00 • HENN CTY FIH DIV SEPT ROOM/BOARD 01-4358-080-16 316304 11/05/91 31.50 31.50 • DEPT PROPERTY TAX POSTAGE 01-4321-040-13 318308 316308 11/05/91 11/05/91 76.80 42.52 119.32 • HENN CTY SHERIFF OPT HENN C^Y SHERIFF DPT REPAIR SEPT BOOKING FEE 01-4342-129-31 01-4358-080-16 316370 11/05/91 97.00 97.00 • JIM HATCH SALES CO RAIN GEAR 01-4221-249-42 316385 11/05/91 5.80 5.80 ‘ KEAVENYS DRUG SUPPLIES 01-4210-129-31 316397 316397 316397 316397 316397 11/05/91 11/05/91 11/P5/91 11/05/91 11/05/91 68.48 3.00 5.95 3.00 38.70 119.13 • KUEHN-THOMAS KUEHN-THOMAS KUEHN-THOMAS KUEHN-THOMAS KUEHN-THOMAS MILEAGE-OCTOBER MILEAGE-OCTOBER MILEAGE-OCTOBER MILEAGE-OCTOBER MILEAGE-OCTOBER 01-4381-069-15 01-4381-129-31 01-4381-174-33 01-4381-295-65 73-4381-569-92 316400 11/05/91 116.14 116.14 " KUSTOM SIGNALS INC RADAR REPAIR 01-4342-129-31 316404 • 11/05/91 171.13 171.13 • THE LAKER ADV 01-4323-174-33 11-12-91 PAGE 2 • P.O. k MESSAGE AAA -CKS •••-CKS •**-CKS *»*-CKS -••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS .r I.1991 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE 316470 11/05/91 AMOUNT CHECK REGISTERVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 316437 11/05/91 15.14-CITY OF LONG LAKE FLASHER 316437 11/05/91 15.14 CITY OF LONG LAKE FLASHER 316437 11/05/91 15.14 CITY OF LONG LAKE FLASHER 316437 11/05/91 69.42 84.56 • CITY OF LONG LAKE LIFT STATN 316439 11/05/91 3.00 3.00 • LONG LK FORD TRACTOR PART 316441 11/05/91 31 80 31.80 • LONG LAKE TIRE SERV REPAIR 12.70 12.70 • METRO AREA MT,MT ASSN MTG ACCOUNT NO. INV 01-4325-000-00 01-4325-000-00 01-4325-249-42 73-4344-569-92 01-4232-249-42 01-4342-249-42 01-4356-039-12 316477 11/05/91 64.71 MIDWEST BSNS PROD COPY PAPER 01-1261-000-00 316477 11/05/91 33.55 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-039-12 316477 11/05/91 25.04 .MIDWEST BSNS PROO OFFICR SUPPLIES 01-4210-039-12 316477 11/05/91 20.94-MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-059-14 316477 11/05/91 20.94 MIDWFST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-059-14 318477 11/05/91 20.94 MIDWL. r BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-059-14 316477 11/05/91 30.73 Mir-FoT BSNS PROO OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-069-15 318477 11/05/91 3.66 MIDWtST BSNS PROO OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-129-31 316477 11/05/91 20.95 MIDWEST BSNS PROO OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-129-31 318477 U/05/91 33.99 MIDWEST BSNS PROO OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-174-33 316477 11/05/91 20.94 MIDWEST BSNS PROO OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-249-42 316477 11/05/91 115.16 369.67 • MIDWEST BSNS PROO CHAIR 01-4560-129-31 316485 11/05/91 31.50 31.50 • MPLS OXYGEN <CO DEMURRAGE 01-4232-249-42 316490 11/05/91 135.98 MINNEGASCO UTILTITIES 01-4324-099-17 316490 11/05/91 22.87 MINNEGASCO UTILTITIES 01-4324-129-31 316430 11/05/91 3.64 MINNEGASCO UTILTITIES 72-4324-549-91 316460 11/05/91 245.80 408.29 ^ MINNEGASCO UTILTITIES /3-4324-569-92 316495 • 11/05/91 24.98 MN BENEFIT ASSN NOV INS 01-4152-129-31 11-12-91 PAGE 3 • P 0. • MESSAGE •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS * • *-CKS •••-CKS V /OnV- vi,» 1981 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE V AMOUNT CHECK REGISTERVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV24.98 • 310498 11/05/91 112.41 MN CELLULAR TELE TELEPHONE 01-4320-129-31 316498 11/05/91 21.11 MN CELLULAR TELE TELEPHONE 01-4320-249-42 133.52 * 316525 11/05/91 11.82 MINN UC FUND UC-GARLOCK 01-4151-040-13 316525 11/05/91 216.12 MINN UC FUND UC-YEAGER 74-4154-590-93 316525 11/05/91 3.58 MINN UC FUND UC-LINDSTROM 74-4154-590-93 231.52 • 316534 11/05/91 86.16 MOTOROLA INC REPAIR 01-4342-249-42 316534 11/05/91 116.10 MOTOROLA INC REPAIR 01-4342-249-42 202.26 • 316545 11/05/91 447.18 NAVARRE AUTO REPAIR REPAIR TRUCK 01-4341-174-33 316545 11/05/91 537.37 NAVARRE AUTO REPAIR REPAIR 01-4341-174-33 984.55 ^ 316562 11/05/91 57.75 NSP UTILITIES 01-4324-099-17 316562 11/05/91 2.91 NSP UTILITIES 01-4324-175-34 316562 11/05/91 148.25 NSP UTILITIES 01-4324-249-42 316562 11/05/81 6.99 NSP UTILITIES 01-4324-290-81 316562 11/05/91 1.289.56 NSP utilities 72-4324-549-91 310562 11/05/91 272.98 NSP UTILITIES 72-4324-549-91 316562 11/05/91 65.81 NSP UTILT'lES 73-4324-569-92 316562 11/05/91 SO.84 NSP UTILITIES 73-4324-569-92 316562 11/05/91 7.17 NSP UTILITIES 74-4324-590-93 1.942.26 • 316565 11/05/91 1.080.49 NSP ST LIGHTING 01-4325-249-42 1,080.49 • 316582 11/05/91 56.69 OMAN/LYLE MILEAGE 01-4381-174-3356.69 ^ 316590 11/05/91 170.00 OTTEN BROS SOO 01-4233-249-42 316590 .11/05/91 200.00 OTTEN BROS TRANSPLANT 01-4233-249-42370.00 • 11-12-91 PAGE 4 • P.O. • MESSAGE•••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS t \1991 CITY OF ORONO V. ' CHECK REGISTERCHECK NO.DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV 316597 11/05/91 4,149.94 PUBLIC EMPL RET ASSN PERA 10/14-27 01-2031-000-00 4.149.94 • 316627 11/05/91 50.25 PITNEY BOWES MTR RENTAL 01-4321-129-31 50.25 • 316631 11/05/91 3,390.00 POLKA DOT RECYCLING OCT FEE 01-4392-295-65 3,390.00 • 316675 11/05/91 2,032.11 ROLLINS OIL CO GASOLINE 01-1260-000-00 2,032.11 • 316740 11/05/91 13.95 STREICHERS KEY HOLDER 01-4221-129-31 316740 11/05/91 47.70 STREICHERS MACE 01-4232-129-31 316740 11/05/91 3.00 STREICHERS REPAIR 01-4342-129-31 64.65 • 316752 11/05/91 1,535.30 SUBURBAN TIRE INC 30 TIRED 01-4232-129-31 1,535.30 • 316815 11/05/91 78.40 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-039-12 316815 11/05/91 78.15 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-059-14 316815 11/05/91 39.08 US WEST ^OMT^iJN TELEPHONE 01-4320-069-15 316815 11/05/91 170.31 US WEST COK-JN TELEPHONE 01-4320-129-31 316815 11/05/91 78.63 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-174-33 316815 11/05/91 56.64 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-175-34 316815 11/05/91 78.15 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-249-42 316815 11/05/91 11.72 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 72-4320-549-91 316815 11/05/91 27.35 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 73-4320-569-92 316815 11/05/91 78.57 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 74-4320-590-93 316815 11/05/91 124.20 US WEST COMMUN ADV 74-4323-590-93821.20 • 316817 11/05/91 63.93 VESSCO INC PART 72-4232-549-91 • 63.93 • 316831 11/05/91 17.36 WALTERS LINDA MILEAGE-OCT 01-4381-069-15 11-12-91 PAGE •••-CKS fk « *-CKS •‘•-CKS •••-CKS ***-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS -CKS •••-CKS • t 7 F 1991 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTERCHECK NO . DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV 17.36 '1 316841 11/05/91 180.30 180.30 'R WATER PRODUCTS CO PARTS 01-4233-249-42 316875 11/05/91 8.40 8.40 ft WRIGHT HENN ELECTRIC UTILITIEW 01-4324-249-42 316901 11/05/91 75.00 75.00 ft ESQ COMPANY BLADES 01-4232-249-42 316902 11/05/91 2.835.00 2.835.00ft HOTSY CORP CULVERT STEAMER 14-4560-633-00 316903 11/05/91 10.00 10.00 ft HENN TECHNICAL CLASS ENGLISH 01-4356-129-31 316904 11/05/91 85.00 85.00ft ESS BROTHERS GRATE 01-4233-249-42 316905 11/05/91 148.00 148.00 ft U OF HN WORKSHOP/WECKMAN 01-4356-174-33 316906 11/05/91 232.52 232.52ft WORTHINGTON GOLF CO GOLF BALLS 74-4801-591-94 316907 316907 11/05/91 11/05/91 75.60 680.40 756.00ft ARCA MINNESOTA INC ARCA MINNESOTA INC APPL PICKUP APPL PICKUP 01-4348-295-65 01-4348-295-65 316901 11/05/91 481.80 481.80 ft CONTECHCOHST CULVERT/LANDSCHUTE 01-4233-249-42 316909 11/05/91 59.40 59.40 ft MN BOOKSTORE CODE BOOKS 01-4240-174-33 316910 316910 11/05/91 11/05/91 37.80 8.327.50 8.365.30ft CITY OF LONG LAKE CITY OF LONG LAKE 3RD QTR WATER 3RD QTR WATER 01-4324-129-31 72-4359-549-91 316911 11/05/91 575.00 575.00 ft BLACKOWIAK i SONS LEAF REMOVAL 01-4348-295-65 316912 11/05/91 40.00 40.00 ft BAYSIDE FLORAL FLOWERS 01-4399-020-11 316913 11/05/91 • 1.200.00 1.200.00 ft JAMES A LUNDBERG ARBITRATION-ERICKSON 01-4306-129-31 316914 11/05/91 23.736.52 BITUMINOUS CONSULT MCCULLY RD PYMNT fl 23-4530-354-00 ll' V • 11-12-91 PAGE 6 •••-CKS H t ft -CKS ••*-CKS 5-1991 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE31691511/05/91 AMOUNT23.736.52 •52,484.46 52,484.46 • CHECK REGISTERVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION8 & D UNDERQROU! D 28.356.36 FUND 01 TOTAL 2,835.00 FUND 14 TOTAL 2,927.00 FUND 15 TOTAL 76,220.98 FUND 23 TOTAL 9.970.75 FUND 72 TOTAL 540.05 FUND 73 TOTAL 716.26 FUND 74 TOTAL 121,566.40 TOTAL TH12 FRONTAGE PYMTl ACCOUNT NO. INV23-4530-356-00 11-12-91 PAGE 1 • P.O. • MESSAGE •**-CKS GENERAL FUND IMPROVE & EQUIP OUTLAY F BUILDNG CAPITAL OUTLAY F MUNIC STATE AID CONS FUN WATER OPERATING FUND SEWER OPERATING FUND GOLF COURSE OPERATING FD GEMUNIS FINANCIAL SYSTEM 11/05/91 PAGEUSERACCOUNTING 00 1991 CITY OF NUFffiER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL H).y REPORTORONOREPORTSUPDATES RECORDS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 TOTAL 700 1,037 0 0 0 34 0 0 1 0 2 1,076 UPDATE DESCRIPTIONS SUMMARY FILE PAYROLL BENEFIT ACCRUAL ACTIVITY REPORT CHECK REGISTER TRIAL BALANCE BALANCE SHEET REVENUE STATEMENT OPERATING STATEMENT BUDGET WORKSHEETS CLEAR-CURR-MONTH CITY FILE OPTION PROJECT DEPARTMENT CHART OF ACCOUNTS MO. CHECK RECONCILE YEAR TO DATE PERIOD BUDGET RECORDS CREATED 00 A 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 10 10FINANCIAL REPORTS SCHEDULED RUN DATE REPORT DATE 000000 000000 ACTIVITY REPORTS SCHEDULED RUN DATE REPORT DATE 110591 111291 PAYROLL POSTING DATES 000000 000000 000000 000000 y Vi & i Ki #1 £/ d .f1' rrsi S ‘-' 2 r>.'1^^ ‘-iisd? Q %=^ ^€^\ ti i it COUNCIL MEEHNC NOV 1 2 1991 CITY OF ORONO l' . J .T-. ............ ■^-.. . 1 .<lfe.-»»»--------------------»• "1MERCM7mrsm)ULDit-a J'll i'"m. L .U-^ Merchant. Gould. SBilh, EdtII. M’elfer A Schmidt ProfcsatoDal Association Patent. Trademark k Copyright Lawyers 5 m 3100 Sorwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Mioneapolii. Minnesota U.S.A. S54024131 FAX 612/332 9081 Tklta 290593 MftGMps 612/332 5200 November 4, 1991 Direct dial:334>443S John D. Gould Phillip H. Smith Robert TEdell Paul A. Weller Cecil C. Schmidt John S. Sumners A.in G. Carlson Mtcheal L. Schwegman Earl D. Reiland Raymond A. Bogucki Charlei E. Golla Douglas J. Williams Douglas A. Strawbridge Albert L. Underhill D. Randall King Michael B. Lasky Curtis B. Hamre Michael D. Schumann Michael L. Mau John A. ClifTord Mark J. DiPietro Steven W, Lundberg Warren D. Woessner Timothy R. Conrad Alan W Kowalchyk Daniel W. McDonald David G. Johnson Michael S. Shemll R. Carl Moy Robert C. Freed Daniel J. Kluth Wendy M. McDonald Linda M. Byrne Mark D. Sc human Randall A. HilUnn John P. Sumner Brian H. Batili David K. Teliekson John J. Gresens Paul E. Lacy Michelle M. Michel Philip P Caspers Gregory A. Sebald Albin J. Nelson Robert C. Beck George H. Gates Kristine M. Strodthoff Gi-egory M. 'Diylor Steven C. Bruess Joel A. Rothfus Mark A. KruU Kevin W Raasch Karl G. Schwappach Matthew J. Goggin Antony C. Mundeliua MarkJ. Gebhardt Andrew D. Sorensen Jeanne A. Mabusth Building a Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Indian Creek (Now Crystal Creek) Subdivision Dear Jeanne: I enjoyed our meeting the other day during which I filled you in on the progress on the Crystal Creek development. I thought it advisable to document our discussion and the status of the development. If you will recall, the development was slow because of the need to obtain approval by the Corps, of Engineers for the recreational paths in the treed region on the northerly part of the property. The Corps, has decided that it is only willing to give me a national permit for filling a mere 10,000 square feet of area. Unfortunately, that is not a sufficient area to accomplish my objective of a biking/running/recreational path. Hoirever, they noted that new regulations will be written at the end of 1991 which are expected to remove land from wetland classification and my land my well be outside Corps, regulation. While seeking Corp. approval for the recreational path, we decided to seek Planning Commission approval and then Council t J ‘r :Y:-k-v'-’ ■••;■'m-- ¥p/. U; r-v , -V V, o ’;^S.‘ KV: * ■ ■■' % ■:-'■■ ifl- mBr‘ ■ ; .-' ■;;;>;■• \ ■•■ ■•. • -•. Jim u\m- ■ em:r iW- vx .>: Wm.i-r.rrm' i-ffm Jeanno A. Mabusth Novanber 4^ 1991 Page 2 approval of the basic development plan without the recreational path* We obtained preliminary plat approval early this year. If you will recall, the intent was to go back to the Planning Comission and Council for approval of whatever the Corps, would approve and add the recreational paths to the plan. However, the Highway 12 upgrade has stalled my project since early this year. In the early part of the year, the uncertainty of where the southerly corridor might be located chilled all develo{Hnent between Highway 12 and Lake Minnetonka. Now, the southerly Highway 12 corridor has been fixed, and it goes right through my property. No one will buy lots in an area on, or even near, a possible Highway 12 corridor. MnOOT has effectively frozen the project. I wish there were a more optimistic outlook for my property. With the delay caused by MnDOT, the project looks like a disaster. I am closely following the Highway 12 corridor issue. I will keep you advised if I am able to proceed. Very truly yours, Alan G. Carlson AGCilmb - 1 r-i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON OCTOBER 14, 1991 The regular meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Monday, October 14, 1991. Present: David McKown Don Anderson James Franklin John Maresh Peg Swanson Martha Van de Ven Thomas Mich Absent: Neal Lawson Board member John Maresh arrived while the meeting was in progress. UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Jim Franklin, the consent agenda was approved as follows: ii. -fm- if® fete - approved the minutes of the September ^3, 1991 regular meeting; • accepted the resignation of Frances E. Ergstrom, Schumann Elementary teacher, effective September 12, 1991; - accepted the resignation of Lynda K. Meador, district social worker, effective October 31, 1991; - approved the request of Karen J. Forsythe, Orono Primary teacher, for a leave of absence following her maternity disability leave, the extended leave would be until March 30, 1992; • approved the appointment of Deborah Rozeboom as a part>time parapro- fesslonal at Orono Primary School; - approved the appointment of Matthew Bower as a part-time paraprofesslonal at Schumann Elementary School; - approved the appointment of Sandra Johnson as a part-time paraprofesslonal at Schum <in Elementary School; - accepted the resignation of Donald G. Roiger, District custodian, effective October 15, 1991; - approved the bills as covered by vouchers 071402 through 071704 and construction bills as covered by vouchers 1433 through 1446. Notion carried. Board member John Maresh absent. Or. Mich expressed congratulations and appreciation to the students and faculty at the high school on a successful homecoming week. ■ & ■ ‘V • ■ , .-V-, . - - -*- T ,, Vwl. : aife"-:.- Dr. Mich reported that he had met with the faculty at each of the four schools to provide them with Information regarding the direction/work areas that are In process for the 1991*92 school year; that he wanted to thank all parents who ■worked to make Octoberfest a success; that Neal Lawson is participating In the Bush Program this week; that on October 7 a workshop was held for all clerical staff; that the Superintendent Evaluation is due in October and the Board will receive the necessary Information within the next week; that the Tenure Ceremony will be held at the October 28 meeting; that a Board workshop will be held following the November meeting for the purpose of discussing District finances; ii ;1 I y* n jij •i* ^a; ii# ■paa-o:. ‘lap; ' ■;r^5/■ that on October 30 the Board will hold a breakfast to honor Bill FenhoU whose retirement Is effective November 1; that the Parent Communications Network will sponsor workshops to be held on October 29 and November 6; that he wanted to express appreciation to Peg Swanson and Toni Bergland for planning/organizing an open house for realtors In the area; that he wanted to draw the Board's attention to the Annual Report which they had received In their packets; that he had met with the high school Student Council and they have determined to select the advisory board option In answer to student representation on the Board and they will meet with the Board three times a year; that In the Consent Agenda tonight the Board approved the retirements of two long time employees, Fran Cngstrom and Don Rolger, and he expressed appreciation to both of them for their many years of service to the Orono School District; that he wanted to show the Board the football commercial that was filmed at the football field. Peg Swanson stated that she will be serving on a committee through MSBA which will form an agenda/platform for the lobbyists to bring to the legislature. Dr. Mich provided the Board with infc"mation on the long-range planning process regarding target areas, Board/admini .trative representatives, etc. He stated that the charges for each committee will be developed and by late November or early December a Joint meeting of all of the committees for the purpose of a kickoff session will be held. Dr. Mich reminded the Board of the necessity to lobby the legislature and that the Board should plan a meeting with the legislators who represent portions of our District. The Board set a date of December 5 to meet with area legislators. UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Peg Swanson, the Board of Education approved November 19, 1991 as Parent/Student Exchange Day at Orono Middle School. Carried unanimously. Dr. Mich briefly reviewed, as a first reading, the Emergency Evacuation Policy which has been developed by administration for the District. Dr. Mich answered questions from the Board for clarification purposes. This policy will be pre sented for approval at the next Board meeting. Dr. Mich distributed staffing ratio information which was developed by Neal Lawson and which enables the District to recognize the staffing investment at each of the schools. Or. Mich reviewed this information with the Board and answered questions for clarification purposes. Dr. Mich also briefly reviewed the class size report and answered questions from the Board. The Board heard a report from Karen Orcutt, Special Education Director, in w>'tch she stated that two exciting programs have begun this fall - the Integrated preschool program which serves twenty-two children and a program which deals with severly handicapped students and the process of mainstreaming them in the riassroom. Ms. Orcutt encouraged Board members to visit these two very ■ iswardlng programs. ■'-I' ■ffe- fpS -, ' Ms. Orcutt provided the Board with an overview of the special education area and the various aspects Involved, changes that are occurring and challenges that are 1i m-iyKfet te -’V# i'[ ■■y mm^ a iil-K • i3v; *■*■ m P^SP*-.:-m^ ' mm ^ being met each day ^ that they put fori "taff whom she commended for the excellent work/effort ''cutt responded to questions from the Board. The Board expressed atf|^.‘tv1at1on to Ms. Orcutt and her staff for the excellent program that Is In process as well as the commitment that each of them has made to the area of special education. UPON MOTION by John Maresh, seconded by Jim Franklin, the meeting was adjourned. Notion carried unanimously. Approved : ^ Maresh, C-erk bave m-m. M; ■ ■: , ■ ■ i - --h'n-, iiiXa •ll Wi ■ ; - a __ _ , :j.iia.*jsa&. -i ■■ * ■" -i f^rj- a - f ■ ■ ftiaa'-> : - ■■■a' " a-'^'^'a-' !y..-■ ... . ^ ^ ■•■../. ■ /"••• v'.:- a.a-i: . -': •/ •..; • •:•*■-.• a;.';. *• ’ '■ •.•■'••'. • •' •■- ; •••.•. .••■ "•i- a" ■' '''„' . '■.aX'. '.a'a ^^. .•': aa'': ’■ 1' .I,' -.'a-, -• ;■ ;-::a- :■aa - ■ ,:"' h'' '•• ■.•■ a..'/ >*';■■ ■ /a"'.. a'"a ' <... . ■ X ’'■ .- ‘* . ' ■ '■' - X; ;;- ■■*■■■ •■,■■■<;■ ' '■ ^ ' ■X';a;.^a..v :.•\;v: "■;x.- ■■? ‘ - f i / *•' f/ f. t ■ ■■■-■■■--........-r'"//:Z-^ ■ •• • ----------------------------------- ' / :^'. sir.'o'm ■-'' :/- -T ''‘a _____" :■• •:^ . I / a-- z'' ■• rf.r -..p' > -1 ■ ^ /•- ,55«5jas^^ aj^a r".a .- i i /'V ''; VaX^ > • ‘. ^■imm - . .-• •. :«*• !S“SS^ ________isx^dli^ j:()iii\a^r;R().\Bi;Rc.,i\(. S ■_____..:■■■ mM ■^ -■■ :: i*t-i ■ i. :• ■■'•■•a.-■;-.r:,=.': -aif-.aiv'-^-j- ■ '— -,':-J4.,t.i.:-<>t , i':. iV^--'i;;r‘;..«}.^^-V; w -rjikc :•'...........[•^■' ' am jpiil^ -'.‘-a. • aa^..,.a . ‘-.irraHe^J aa '., ■ -■ ' W4 'as^l ^i ?a&^ajigiwirrpTWl '•’ •■ a; ' ■ ■"a. ;: X: a'. '.■■> ■; t ' ORONO'S ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS ■H MAJOR ARTERIAL IHIIIIII intermediate ARTERIAL ■■■■ minor arterial »»"«»■ COLLECTOR ■■■* SCENIC PARKWAY City of Orono, Minnesota ■ ■ / vl # V ' iSi: ■mm. K. 0 V .y -' 'V',;- • Iw? PMICA0MTWI I UiMir .«a> - ri+w-" w. ; ■. tmm .■*■«. ! •:• ■■■ ••■ - ■••■.:■• ' •••*". . • t.. .•j. •f 1 • ■•• •'. . ‘ '■'■■■:•• . :^; ^ ...... - -■ - .*• . -KT'.t . .*.... *-■ •. '-gSV...: • !- •••:i^• .S' :• TW..N—"'«•'•*-• ■ -> ! V.'i^AI"'' V-tM. U f«ic3o?Cp I-:::' 1',l r-'m.i. > S¥m k-. 1 ;• h fj PO^eo ^WMN£,WALI^ > ______irerr-r-?7r3-.-i “--T "■ I sj?// ^taipS e)(fi>riNi- - i:/l?.T (wriPNi-S I (X-. w> 5 15'-o ‘ CO. Rp 19 "f 4 <«>. KD O rTcpPifD >1KEA 'F2“" AfOF-l> M'iC Noms pAH'Rrvi^.ioNi t lO/^IF V/AKP H3MF NORiM 4ttcf£ wve, ORPNC, MN i«61- 1/4"r<’"*(»f»i;vf.L.8» lo8*¥«r«»T t-'1 MtVMCO m^T FU^dR Pi;\N J ■-■r- 5 . ^,-