The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-26-1990 Council PacketPUBLIC ATTENDANCECITY OF ORONO MEETING OKIE Z)/si’/Q^)PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.NAME OR NUMBER PUBLIC attendance meeting date f9 ClHE information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY REnt)addressi cV “ 'y k i' * <NAME OR NUMBER present FOR (from agenda)■u w p<>AGENDA FOR COONCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1990, 7:00 P.M.(*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Discussion will be held upon request. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request from the Recorder.ROLL CALL1. CONSENT AGENDA*APPROVAL OF MINUTES* 2. Regular Meeting of February 12, 1990PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS3. a.) Park Dedication Feesb. ) Set Public Hearing Datec. ) Bederwood Baseball Field Little League iLii.riiD 2 0 vOjO r:-: ■PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ♦•applicants** Immediately after the Council has reviewed your application please sign the three (3) original resolutions at the Recorder's desk. Applicants need not execute resolutions for subdivisions and vacations. * 4. #1366 Loren Butterfield, 3925 Watertown Road - Extension of Preliminary Plat Approval Expiration Date - Resolution 5. #1458 Blake Hichanich, 332 Westlake Street - Variance 6. #1470 Dan & Ruth Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Subdivision 7. #1486 Sussex Square Development, 3020 Fox Street - Preliminary Subdivision - Resolution 8. #1481 Gerald McCourtney, 1055 West Ferndale Road - After the Fact Conditional Ust' Permit 9. #1475 John McDowell, 4105 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision 10. Accessory Structure Ordinance Amendment MAYOR/COONCIL REPORT CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 11. Stubbs Bay Sewer Project City Facilities - Image Discussion Highway 12 Corridor Study - Technical Committee Cigarette Vending Machines Request for Social Service Funding Comprehensive Plan - Metropolitan System Statement Bid Awards Equipment & Materials Salary Adjustment - Officer Bruce Anderson Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting C.D.B.G. Year XVI Public Hearing Telephone System Installation Employment - Part Time Officer 1950 Shoreline Agreement 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 22A COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MOHDAT, FBBROARI 2*, I»»o, 7,00 P.M.ted upon by onn'mot ion'^by the c* tv°Co^"^ I ent Item* on the agenda. Dlscunnlo'l ‘heest. Memos regardinq each oF ♦*>! ^ ^ held uponlable in the Public Packet whirh Agenda items are ^3t from the Recorder. obtained uponUUii.'ruliL r^t»FEv:^OnOO'',TV nv ' jf :ENT AGENDA*MINOTBSlar Meeting of February 12, 1990ION COMMENTSPark Dedication Fees Set Public Hearing Date aederwood Baseball Field Little League 9TS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) CSTRATOR'S REPORT nxnary Subdivision - Resolution Street - :o:d^\“ona'fX‘"p7r'miV ” the Usfon '•105 Bayside Road - Preliminary 5ory Structure Ordinance Amendment REPORT tATOR’S REPORT i Bay Sewer Project acilities - Image Discussion tte VendlifKalJJ^^s' Committee t for Social Service Funding Ird"l‘E’^ur^"n; ' OtfiuFr Bruce Anderson -ouncil/Planning Commiaaion Meeting ... Year r/I Public Hearing ^ 3ne System Installation »ent - Part Time Officer loreline Agreement OHCIL MBtIHG SBT TOR KOHMY, FEBRDARY 26, 1»»0, 7:00 P.M.ment - Part Time C.S.O yment - SecretaryVehicle Acquisition istrator's Information Waste Sites R.E. program Regulations Namingr*S REPORT1*) Tins AMD BVEHT^ cil Meeting icil Meeting ming Commission icil Meeting -Vit' 'Irlb1 (I - ! •i •I ».«l WMINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETINC ^ ‘ 'HELD FEBRUARY 12, 1990ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M.The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Grabek, Counci Imembers Goetten, and Nettles.CounciImembers Peterson and Callahan were absent. The following represented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson,Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public Works Director Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Police Chief Kilbo, City Engineer Cook, City Attorney Barrett, and City Recorder Scheffler.CONSENT AGENDA*City Administrator Bernhardson requested the removal of Consent Item #6; CounciImember Goetten requested removal of items #13A and #28. Bernhardson noted that Mr. Dan Parten, was requesting that his application #1470, #8 on the agenda, be tabled. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Items #6, #13A and 28, which were removed and discussed in the order they appear on the agenda. Motion, Ayes=3, Nays=0, Motion passed. APPROVAL OP MINUTES* It was moved by Counci 1 member Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to approve the Minutes of the January 22, 1990 Regular Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. OATH OP OFFICE - JEFFREY LARSON City Administrator Bernhardson asked Officer Larson to take the Oath of Office. Mayor Grabek welcomed Officer Larson to the Orono Police Department . PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS PARK DEDICATION FEE ORDINANCE Bernhardson informed the Council that the Park Commission had requested tabling this matter until the February 26, 1990 Council Meeting. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to table this matter until February 26, 1990. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REPORT JoEllen Hurt, Gene Strommen and David Arndorfer were present . ( , ><:-x«m=s OP , - , ,,,,*CB 7:00 P.M.members Peterson and Caliahar Goetten, and Nettles ;nt,d the City fotlowl'n^9 « Zoning Administrator M^bust-h ^ ^ernhardson,Chl’.?V-^f^*"' anS zoM^a a IV"-' Olrecto;» ?' f^nalneer Cook cit^^2it °®ffton.Recorder Scheffler, ' City Attorney BarrettpAGBNOA*Jl-VtV/ t‘e!:oMro7 Vte^f ication »i"°7o!“’ I? on "the°age^da"®be’ ^7led!*“®“‘'''’ ie7er"Nettle7. tra^pVovr^e **<=°n<ied by d 1^ ih®“® **' *13a and 28, wm7"! *^enda with the o in the order thev annoa*- ”ich were removed and fays»0. Motion passed. agenda. Motion, OP MIMDTBS* inber Nettles^^to °app?ov^"®he^ seconded by■lat cooncii Meetfn%. ^ICE - JBPPRBY LARSON =f 0mU""°'' asked Officer Larson to take r crabek welcomed Officer Larson to the Orono Police tSSIOM COMMENTS atkmi pee ordinance .ted’?7\Yn°/?hls"eat'\°e?u^^^^ Park CommissionSting. nrii the February 26, I990 3 tabl'e thi.*'Mttef''7ui' Fe'bru"’’®'^ 3'’'' la'ember■•-0, Motion passed; ’’'^ruary 26, 1990. Motion' “»0*T • Strommen and David Arndorfer were MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP FEBRUARY 12, 1990Eurasian Milfoil -Gene Strommen began the presentation by providing updated information regarding Eurasion Milfoil funding. Strommen said, "The latest information regarding funding involves our appeal to the Eennepin County, Ways & Means Committee. We are asking for $93,500.00 as a share in the program, which would be more than their 1989 contribution. Their contribution last year was strictly limited to in-kind contribution of a field supervisor. We have asked them to help fund our trucking service, in addition to a field supervisor this year. We have reason to believe that we will be given reasonable consideration. We are still waiting for funds from the DNH. The DNR had wanted to put the LMCD on hold until the end of their fiscal year. We are also preparing to launch our volunteer compaign. We budgeted $55,000.00, but we may need to raise more than that to offset some possible shortfalls in the DNR and possibly Hennepin County. The cities have all committed their share through budgeting this year for a total of $60,000.00. We are very grateful that we received that contribution. We have projected that the project will cost $195,000.00 based on a 15 week cutting program. Cutting will begin the Monday after Memorial Day and concluding on September 7th. We will have 4 machines to put in full service at the beginning of the program. We expect to have a permit approved to cut 1500 acres compared to the 667 cut last year. We will cut our shifts back from 14 hours to 8 hours. At this point we are just about committed to running the program ourselves as opposed to contracting it out." Mayor Grabek said that there is some controversy as to whether contracting out would be more or less expensive. Strommen replied that they had considered taking bids to do the harvesting. However, what they knew of the potential harvesters, there were not enough contractors available to serve their needs. Also, the harversters used by other contractors generally cut only a 7' path, as opposed to 14'. Grabek asked what percent of total milfoil existing, the 1500 acres represents? Strommen replied, "Approximately 1/3." Grabek asked about the opportunity for using chemicals to eliminate the milfoil? Hurr replied that the DNR is still looking at that option. Chemicals can be used on a small scale. Strommen added that chemical are permitted in only 10% of the infested area compared to 50% for cutting. He said, "We are not cutting the entire acreage where the weed is located, much of which is in between the docks and along the shorelines. It is the responsibility of the homeowner to take care of that area Buraaian Milfoil -updatedL"'3a«i'‘“a“"‘r to"p*„t“VhV^^ribution Wa K ^ Very qrat«»fn i this year for s.a-sed ca ^^'’Jee^^ttt “%^Cutting will k^„.l^“eAI\’c.°at?h ‘*K ‘'*"’‘'''^' «"°wf/l Wua'orlal Day and ermit approved A cut"l5oo '*'® P"'®9ra^.^ "we*'ex** *° >»lves as opposed to cont“raot!"g^U*out.° " h’e° p?ogr«^ “trac't"^,’', i= so. controversy as to Stronwen reoH.d expansive. »*«s*"trr-e ■a """cut on/y°'a r%a?F ”“*"'“«‘^"4 "hVr"'^ ^ '’®‘''' as opposed to 14. '’®'^ eontractors Grabek asked what n«r acres represents? ^ ^°tal milfoil exist!existing, the o««n replied. -Approximately 1/3.. ’a*aVt.e“''!SA5°u ‘ “PP=Ptunity tor using chemicals to :al. ca^n be*"us ‘.d'‘on\".ATjA%n“ ' at that option, trommen added that <-h i = "nV"thVVnti°rra"'‘ =oVf*rcu"tt?„‘rnlO* Of is in between A “•’axe thrwe.d A 7* "“a are •P°".ibi lity g, 'th^e^tAerne*'”? ta" cS""’ ‘ = a r ea * MINUTES OP OROMO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 1990EURASIAN MILFOIL CONTINUEDWe are working primarily on the recreational boating traffic patterns and some of the fishing areas."Nettles asked whether there were chemicals available to individual homeowners to kill the weed near their docks?Stronunen replied that it would be best for an individual to use a commercial service, otherwise they would need to obtain a permit.Grabek confirmed that chemicals were not available on a large scale basis?Strommen agreed and added, "Minnesota is one c-f the toughest States on the use of herbicides and chemicals in water." Hurr informed the Council that the Freshwater Foundation is working on the milfoil problem. She said there will be a workshop in March which will bring in professional people from all over the Country that have been involved with Eurasian Milfoil. Goetten questioned whether the LMCD will need the City to provide a truck and driver to do some of the hauling? Hurr replied that would be necessary if they are not able to get County assistance. Hurr said, "We are looking to the cities to provide storage space for the weed. When you see what the cities are going to have to do for composting leaves and grass clippings, you might consider whether there will be space for the weed. The weed is a good nutrient and makes a better compost than just leaves and grass clippings." Nettles asked how much area the LMCD is requesting for disposal of the weed? Hurr replied that the LMCD was looking for area nearby, which implies anywhere in Orono. Hurr added that the LMCD is hopeful that farmers will take the milfoil as they did last year. She noted however, that Hennepin County will be paying farmers to take leaves and grass clippings and they may not be willing to take the milfoil for free. CcMsprehensive Plan - Hurr informed the Council that she, Mr. Strommen, and Mr. Arndorfer were here to answer any questions regarding the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehesive Plan is scheduled for distribution around the 19th of April. There will be a 60-day review period and the revisions wiJ 1 be made and a final plan will be drafted by July 19th. Hurr said that the only entities that have to adopt the plan are the Met Council and the LMCD. Hurr said that Bernhardson had been especially helpful with the preparation of this document. She further commented that Orono has the best shoreland regulations of any of the shoreland MINUTES OP ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 1990 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN communiti. Goetten said that her concern was the funding for this project. She indicated that it was disappointing that the Met Council and/or DNR want to be involved with the Plan, but are not willing to provide any funding. Hurr said, "If the Board is expanded to 18 members including those other bodies, with them would come funding." Mayor Grabek asked how much the spending for the Lake had increased? Mr. Arndorfer said that taking everything into account, including water patrol, the spending on the Lake was approximately $600,000. The spending would increase to approximately $1,000,000.00. Ke suggested that if the recreational use of Lake Minnetonka is going to continue, funding will be necessary to assure that. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Arndorfer, "In your opinion, from where is the greatest pressure to control the lake and shoreline coming?" Mr. Arndorfer explained that a Metropolitan Access Committee was formed several years ago. The Committee decided that Lake Minnetonka was high priority and had inadequate access. Adequate access was defined as being one boat coming through a public access, for every 20 acres on the Lake. This translated to 700 car/trailer parking spaces on Lake Minnetonka. He said that the basic issue for the DNR at this time is to give the Metropolitan Access Committee 700 confirmed car/trailer parking spaces. Mr. Arndorfer said "When the Lake became more important from a regional perspective, there was no change in inter-governmental relations, no change in funding or institutional arrangements to accomplish those goals. That is where the conflict became intense." Arndorfer suggested that should the 700 parking spaces be provided, and the Comprehensive plan is in place, the DNR and Met Access Committee should not interfere. CounciImember Goetten asked Hurr if she believed that the Met Council and DNR are working with the Lake Communities in trying to come out with a successful management plan? Hurr said that it will be hard to determine that until the Met Council and DNR have provided their review of the Comprehensive Plan. CounciImember Nettles asked whether the addition of 4 other members would result in a loss in control by local municipalities" Mr. Arndorfer said that during the process of developing the Comprehensive Plan, it became apparent that the Board had to be 5RONO COUNCIL MEETING OP FEBRUARY 12,1990LANaid that disappointthe Met'Snr «a“t to be involved with the Plan, but are ide any funding..If the Board ia expanded to 18 tnenbers Includin,lies, with them would come funding.bek asked how much the spending for the Lake,nfer said f oThr^ %^.'’e"L:hr“:a;s r8%0r.000 ‘' The 8P-VuV,e':.red ‘’y $1,000,000.00. He sugg ^ continue, funding se of Lake Minnetonka is going to co sary to assure that. ,re«e“’'p«ssure"ro"?on^"ol\^"e"?a”e°an^^ ,nfer explained that a «etropolitan^Acc^^^^^^ COh^ittee rh\-,i ^'-it^-and^eou^^^^^ access. «ec,uj e tfined as being . ThiS translated to 700 very 20 acres o" the ^ He said that the arking spaces . to give the Metropolitan or the DNR at ^his time tee 700 confirmed <^®t/traii w imoortant from a ,id "When the Lake inter-governmental spective, J*® institutional arrangements to , change m "ugre the conflict became :hose goals. shl^uld the 700 parking spacesndorfer suggested that sho place, the DNR and ^h:s;rn"on^ra^^e«■ .enber Goetten asked Hurt ^Communities in «*"oV:itr: s“uccVss?ul mana,ement plan! id that it -ill be ‘°/*“'Ti"®review"o “ ^he 1 and DNR have provided their e Plan. ::’TrT,V” ““'a ro*.'r\J'’*=onfr “°'' by ^rc’'a'^ rsT"ni-#»ss of developing tne idorfer said that ‘^'t'^that the Board had to bePlan, it became apparent tnai 4 MINUTES OP ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP FEBRUARY 12, 1990COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONTINUEDopened up to representation other than local municipalities if this was going to be resolved. Arndorfer said, "This is because the perception was that decisions out here were made in parochial manner. That decisions were made by the LMCD for the benefit of the lakeshore property owners and residents of lakeshore communities. After observing the LMCD for two years, I don't believe that was the case, that is not how they function. After a member is on the Board for a year or so, he/she starts making decisions on the basis of what is best for the Lake. It takes about a year to get that perspective. However, when you look at certain patterns out here, there is some credence to support the argument that decisions are made to benefit local residents. We have tried to take care of that potential argument with the Comprehensive Plan. Adding members to the Board is ore key to the Comprehensive Plan. It should foster communication and cooperation." Nettles asked if it was just a matter of identifying additional slots that already exist to meet the 700 slot requirement? Hurr replied that the slots do exist and it is just a matter of identifying and signing them. Hurr said that there have been conflicts with Hennepin County regarding signing of parking slots on County roads (she used County Road 51 as an example). Arndorfer said that at one point there was great discussion regarding what was considered to be a reliable parking space. He said that they tried to deal with that issue by stating that there should be 700 car/trailer parking spaces in formal parking lots, off the street, near the lake, but not on the lake. Arndorfer suggested that the use of church and other parking lots not in use on weekends would be ideal. He said that a fee could be charged for parking and/or a shuttle service. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission Representative Cohen indicated that he that he had no comments at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: #1428 OTTEN BROTBERS-fflLLOIf DRIVB/HIGHWAY 12 COMMEPCTAT. SITE PLAN REVIBN COUNCIL OF PROPOSED SIGNAGE GARDEN CENTER USB City Administrator Bernhardson explained that since the information being presented was prepared, staff has determined that the appropriate setback of the sign from Highway 12 should be greater than proposed. Staff is suggesting that the sign may need to be placed an additional 20' - 25' back. Bernhardson requested that this matter be tabled to allow staff the MINUTES OP ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP PEBRUARY 12, 1990 ZONING PILE #1428-OTTEN BROTHERS CONTINUED opportunity to work with the applicant. It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to taole application #1428 until the February 26, 1990 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. CONCEPTUAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN NORTHWEST AREA City Administrator Bernhardson stated that as a result of recent subdivision applications, there was concern about the overall future transportation plan for the Bayside Road area. As requested by one of the CounciImembers, staff did a very preliminary review of the grid system for that area. Bernhardson said if Council has any interest in pursuing the linkage shown as a possibility, it would be necessary to do a Comprehensive Plan Transportation Study. If the Comprehensive Plan is to be amended, the City would be required to notify all of the area property owners. Bernhardson suggested that access corridors could be platted as part of upcoming subdivisions and used only if there is a need. CounciImember Goetten asked whether the City would request that Mr. Parten provide a portion of the proposed road as part of his subdivision? Bernhardson replied that would be a possibility. He said that based on Mr. Parten's application, there would be a need to provide access for the property. Goetten said that Mr. Parten should not be held responsible for all the adjacent property owners. Goetten asked whether .Mr. Parten was aware of what was being proposed? Bernhardson said that since the time Mr. Parten submitted his application, there has been talk of the need for an access to serve the properties up to the Luce Line. Bernhardson said that what was being presented was in response to a request by a CounciImember. This proposal represents staff's efforts to respond to that request as quickly as possible. Bernhardson said that Mr. Parten was provided with a copy of staff's proposal. Mr. Parten noted that there were other areas within Orono that lacked connection roads to complete the grid system. Gaffron said that the objective of staff in preparing the current proposal is to address the lack of a linkage road in the northwest quadrant. Gaffron said that there is no question that there are are/”: wjthin the City where there is a system. "gap" in grid Mr. Parten commentte '•hat Orono's policy may indicate that roads are not to go throu.; vrt lands, yet McCulley Road runs through the middle of a wet ,<nd. Parten asked what the City would have to do in order to 'eceive approval to locate a road across the Luce Line Trail? i OP ORONO COONCIL MEETING OP PBBRUARY 12, 1990t #1428-OTTEN BROTHERS CONTINDBD to work with the applicant.taMe‘’appUcatioi"'#l5'!S bV Mayortin,. Motion. 1990r^SPORTATION PLAN NORTHWEST AREAliW^“‘n”aV°p^rcI?;rs?°^rr “:ta‘^“ cV ^ure transportation plan for the Bav<*^S'"".. ^ by one of the Counoi I nLber a? a ta f f° d ireview of the grid system for ®icil has any interAc^^in that area. Bernhardson:y, it would be n'eoesaarJ' to “do ’ ''"r «ion Study. if the Comoto^^ • ^°'"P‘^ehensive Plana City woild b” rr,:treTtrn«Vf?all"of Vh "" ners. Bernhardson sugoested area Tneet upcoming subdivisions'^l^d useS^only “ovTdl^VVrtifnLon? portion of the proposed road as part of f M°r. Varien^ ’"'ca^'titn^’® th 1 i ty. He said IS for the property. ' there would be a need to idja1:ent^Voperty''own^ responsible are of what was Lrg"”r'oposed? llT, thete^h^sheertaii^oftL^^^ submitted r,".?r- e“n^:d ^ ^ -n waa provided with a copy of at*aff rnUft?orr^oid\\^'":pYete°i^;r,“rid'%^^^^^^^^^^^ that the obiective of 'rini;.’ 'GatfJoY'saiY thtftY * ?lnYa,e ‘'rolYjn till - w.thin tb:Y!ry^wYeYe\YeY.?,Y.-VY-,^-b "o^TthVo ?Y"d * ‘’““=1' "“V i"«i«te that IddlYof a w‘*t „d Road runedo in order fo -lol' Parten asked what the City > I-xh^ ° approval to locate a roij HINDTES OP OROHO COUNCIL MEETING OP FEBRUARY 12, 1990ll>(iCONCEPTUAL TRANSPORATION PLAN CONTINlGaffron said that if this proposal were going to be studied, that would probably be the main issue.Parten asked Gaffron whether the City would be reviewing the current zoning along with its review of the road sytem?Gaffron said that the study done in 1980 indicated that what is in place is adequate. Gaffron said there may be a need to reexamine that however. Gaffron said another issue to look at is future development pressure resulting from the extension of Interstate 394. Gaffron noted that if the City does plan ahead for an increase in density, it may be self-fulfilling.Ms. Roberta Schmidt, 3980 Watertown Road, questioned why information regarding this proposal was not distributed to all property owners that may be affected? Bernhardson said that the proposal being presented this evening is very preliminary. If Council has any interest in pursuing this kind of linkage, we would notify all of the residents for their input. Mr. Jerry Rice, 4025 Watertown Road, said, "I would like to put a stake through the heart of this monster before this goes any further. I feel that this proposal is going to vastly impact my home, the Dorn's next door and the Luce Line. I think that swamp is the largest signficant wild area along the Luce Line. What you are contemplating is very expensive because that map does not show the topography of that area and the hills that you are going to be dealing with, I believe that the DNR's input should be sought if you are serious about this. I'm hoping that you are not serious about this. I think that you are going to get a lot of resistance to this. I will resist this with every bit of energy and money at my disposal." Mayor Grabek reiterated that this proposal is a preliminary analysis of the development of the City. Mayor Grabek told Mr. Rice that his input was welcomed and appreciated. However, the City must look ahead to future development and needs. He said that poor planning would create a road system that would be ineffective as fa^* as traffic flow, fire and police. He said that they need to continually analyze the situation, keeping in mind the environment. Grabek said that the subdivision of property has prompted this analysis. Mr. Loren Butterfield, 3925 Watertown Road, said that he has 20 acres and is trying to subdivide only 5 acres. He has no intention of subdividing the remaining 15 acres. Mr. Butterfield asked that the City provide the property ovmers with information resulting from any transportation study that may be done. Mayor Grabek said, "I don't think the Council has a record of pushing through major programs in this City without notifying the people residing in that area. Let me put your mind at ease HIHUTES OP OROHO COUNCIL MEETING OP PEBRUART 12, 1990 •JHICONCEPTUAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN CONTIN1 that we would not be trying to sneak something through. CounciImember Goetten added that the City was legally obligated to inform residents of projects such as this prior to Implementation. Mr. Parten said that the 5-acre zone was a sensitive area, representing a small portion of the property in *ono. Mr. Parten believed that the pressure for subdividing c^we more from the 2-acre zone than the 5-acre zone. Mr. Loren Kjersten, 680 Orchard Park Road, asked whether the developers of the two subdivisions would be asked to bear the cost of the road being proposed by the City? Bernhardson said that has not been considered yet because of the preliminary nature of the review. Mr. Parten asked if would be possible to direct staff to look only at the 2-acre zone and defer any action regarding the 5-acre zone? Bernhardson said that if there is any further consideration of what is being proposed this evening, and a Comprehensive Plan amendment is required, the affected property owners will be notified at that point. Nettles said that it is the property owners that wish to subdivide that have control over the rate at which the City develops. He pointed out the fact that once a property owner subdivides and a certain number of houses are present on a road, the City's code requires that the road be upgraded. Bernhardson said that the grid system and internal circulation are the two issues involved here. He said that the lack of access to the Styles property has been a concern for sometime. It was due to a lack of planning that the property became land-locked and the City i trying to avoid having a similar situation occur. The City needs to provide internal circulation without creating additional curb cuts onto Bayslde Road. Mr. Rice commented that the people in the 5-acre zone would prefer to have the City condemn that land-locked lot than add another street to the grid. Bernhardson said that it is possible to serve the land locked parcel and provide internal circulation without crossing the Luce Line. Bernhardson said "Even if the Council agreed to not ever look at a road across the Luce Line, that does not mean that it won't be necessary to have a corridor through the Parten property to serve the northern lot." Counci Imember Goetten said that it is the role of the MINUTES OP ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP PBBRUART 12, 1990CONCEPTUAL TRANSPORTATION PtAN CONTINUEDCouncil to plan for the futv're of the entire City. She said that the Council would not do aiything without properly notifying those that would be affected. Goetten said the Council appreciates the 5-acre zone and would like to keep it as is. However, the Council cannot prevent people from coming into the City, purchaiing and subdividing property. The Council has to plan for that. Goetten said that she welcomed the comments being brought forth this evening.It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Nettles, to table this matter and direct staff to notify all affected property owners if there is any further action on the transportation plan. Motion, Ayes-3, Nay-0, Motion passed. *1470 DAM & RUTH PARTEN 4300 BAYSIDB ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to table application #1470, as requested by Mr. Parten. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1473 JACQUELYNN KELLY 2056 SBAOYWOOD ROAD AFTBR-THB-PACT VARIANCES Ms. Jacquelynn Kelly, Mr. James Klein, Mr. Stuart Bear, Attorney for the applicant and Mr. Dennis Johnson were present for the review of this application. City Administrator Bernhardson provided a brief explanation of this request for after-the-fact variances. Mayor Grabek asked the applicant why work had continued after the City had issued a stop work order? Mr. Johnson replied that due to winter coming, work continued so that the lumber wruld rot be laying on the ground. CounciImember Goetten noted that the stop work order was issued in September, which she did not consider to be winter. Mr. Johnson said that his client has complied with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. They have r*»moved the portions of the deck extending into the 0-75' setback area. The neighbors on each side of Ms. Kelly have no objections to the deck as long as there is nothing built on top of it. Mr. Johnson said that Mr. Bear would be preparing a document that would place future land owners on notice that nothing further could be done to the deck. Mr. Johnson noted that the portion of the deck that extends into average lakeshore setback is lower than the pre existing deck. Mr. Bear said that it is the intent of the applicants to bring the deck into conformance with the 10' side setback. r*i M MINUTBS OF ORONO COUNCIL HSETING OP PBBROART 12, 1990 ZONING PILE fl473-KELLY CONTINUED CounclImember Goetten said that the Council looks unfavorably on persons that build without the proper permits and then continue working after a stop work order is issued. Goetten said that she was happy to see that there will be no need for a side setback variance and that hardcover in the 75-250' is being reduced. Goetten said that she would like to see hardcover in the 250-500' zone also reduced. She said that they can rebuild the deck to be the same as the original deck. Otherwise *^he new deck can exist with only a step to the ground. Goetten informed Mr. Johnson that the City can include language in the resolution that would not allow anything further to be added to the deck. Mr. Johnson said that what his client would like to see is approval of the average lakeshore setback in exchange for the hardcover being removed. Mr. Johnson said that the agreement they are proposing to draft would immediately notify any future purchaser of the property that the restriction regarding the deck exists. Mr. Johnson also Informed the Council that Ms. Kelly was not the person building the deck. He said that the violation matter is being handled through the normal ticket process. Mr. Johnson said that he would like to treat this as if someone is looking to add to their property, but subtract in certain areas that will make the addition more acceptable to the Council. Mayor Grabek asked Planning Commission representative Cohen for his opinion regarding this matter. Mr. Cohen recollected that he and Chairman Kelley had recommended denial. CounclImember Goetten said that she was disappointed that the Planning Commission had not recommended that additional hardcover be removed. CounciImember Nettles asked what hardship existed to warrant approval of the variances? Mr. Johnson said that the pre-existing deck was not secured to the ground and was very flimsy. Mr. Johnson said that there are glass doors extending across the front of the house. Mr. Johnson requested that the Council table this matter as opposed to denying it. deck? Mayor Grabek asked who the builder was that constructed the Mabusth replied that to the best of her knowledge the contractor was a relative of the applicant from Arizona. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to table this application. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. i 1 »enfb„« wo^rVln^'aneV Fv/"oetten said tha\*'a’h ‘he 75-25n"®r* *•^«ne ai3„" |5* “IbVtalt^'^H^” hardc‘/v.^*‘r»•t with^onlv*^ original decJc*^o^h*^ rebuildthat the cA’; V‘*'' ‘•'o grcuii co^Jr^** ’ '>® "•“- -noe e„,tAA%" aA%i“bl “rd^Ad%?i*"«'»- hv^A-e-1.?-•’-—-Old n:;v''’‘- i"Ahrt7d%Aitrthe proDertv g-K i^ediatelv ®9reement<i to theiroA, treat this .. -"i "r. - -t -Itl^n-:-- o-^-rj! n rAg^A'A/^trs^-Z^-^-slon reptesentatlve Cohen ;ji—- that he end Chalt„„ Kelle, had eov"ed!“^°" «Ara*ncVs*/ '"’« "hrdshlp existed to warrant ^d wif J?*? Pte-exlstln, deck was „ . ^*t"a"Ah7 ‘''""^tonA"’o7 t^iA™the Council table this L«A a“'®‘ ^®r as opposed h asked who the builder was that that constructed the rVi:tl„'e'-®o', JA\Apll"nt "/ro^AAoAA'®'”* ‘>’® MINOTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP FEBRUARY 12, 1990• :i:EYER«1467 CHARLES & ANN H(4125 OAK STREET AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCESMr. and Mrs. Hommeyer were present for this matter.City Administrator Bernhardson provided the Council with a brief explanation of this application.Mr. David Morse, builder of the home adjacent to the Homroeyers, said that he had just sold the home he built. The new owner has indicated that he objects to the privacy fence being built. The fence would interfere with the lakeview sight lines of the residence. Mr. Morse said that the purpose of the average lakeshore setback, is to protect the views of the lake. Mr. Morse said that there is no hardship to warrant granting the variance for the fence. He said that the Hommeyers have stated that the fence is needed to reduce the noise from the tram on his property. Mr. Morse said that the noise generated from the tram would be less than that of an air conditioner compressor. Mr. Morse said, "In regard to the lower deck, if the Council approves a variance for that, they will be setting a precedent. They will encourage people to construct something that is not allowed and then come into the City to get a variance." Mr. Hommeyer explained that the retaining wall was built in 1981 because the bank was sliding into the lake. He said that he was unaware of the need for City approval to do that work. Construction of the deck and stairs began in 1983, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy in 1985. Mr. Hommeyer said that the stairs are needed because of the steep slope. He said that the deck is an integral part of the overall structure and is tied into the retaining wall. Mr. Hommeyer said that the entire system has worked to stabilize the bank. Mr. Hommeyer asked that the Council consider allowing the deck to remain until such time that it needed to be repaired. Mr. Hommeyer showed the Council pictures of him holding a board above his head, standing on the neighboring deck. He said that the pictures are to show that a fence would not interefere with the sight lines of the neighbor. Mrs. Hommeyer said that there were a number of trees cut in error by Mr. Morse's tree cutters and that is another reason that they need the fence. She said that she has obtained the opinion of various landscapers in regard to what they could plant in that area. She said they were told that they would not be very successful in planting greenhouse kinds of trees in that area. Mr. Morse reiterated that there is no hardship to grant the variances being requested. CounciImember Goetten said that the stairs are needed, but she has a concern about the deck. She said that she would be inclined to have the deck removed from its pres *• location, and allow the Homroeyers to construct a deck closer to the house. Goetten understood that a portion of the deck could be removed COOMCX^meeting 1990**« were present tor ttf ^'•'' nroviaed tte Council «iSie“.PPU'«^°"- , „ tho,e builder So:e%e built-'• Wd luet so w ^^^be pr rv»oV f en .that he ob j«c e of the -rUfd f ® of if the council ap^p erd to tbe lover ^ e P'Vs*''no"t >11°«« ' '^'’”nr«t “pethlng that isO construct variance. city to 9« i„i„, veil ““id that h. .xpl.lPed the labe. Be^ t>.at »or^; TaiiVa b%" - S^?^-Ver he Ber^ o7 the eteep sloP-^_^% ctificate because ot^^^ that the v*^is*^an iT'tegral pa’^ Horomey®^ Howroeyer 'the re«^u“‘biUre “?x'to revarn,“a”Vhe ?"tVt' relitrtSJ .^-.^^riintU^ro-ehr- -,rnot\nteretere v.th a number of gon that ter »-^^rrutfer.%rd-'that^i. -afn'ed^^^ opini- l:c^%r.^rn\«BarB «rt%Heerih U_ ^?.n\>i^^, Br^Vouee . .ant the , reiterated that q requested. stairs are nee^^^^^ ooetten ee^/^'^She .aid that J^„tion. a^ '®'^n about the ‘*®^^‘from it» to the house. T. «'^°n”truct » ^aect could bo removed xro’o'J'th" a portion oi the 1 1 MIHUTBS OP ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP PBBRUARY 12, 1990ZONING FILE f1467-HOMMEyBR CONTINUEDwithout disturbing the footings connected to the retaining walls. Goetten said in regard to fences, she would prefer to see vegetation rather than structure. Goetten also asked whether it would be possible to remove any other hardcover existing further to the north on the property.Mrs. Hommeyer said that the deck was tied into the retaining walls.CounciImember Goetten asked City Engineer Cook to address some alternatives to the deck.Cook said that the 3-1/2' x 19' section between the stairways could remain. The decking could be removed from the section that is 3.8' x 12' and the timbers could be ► down to grade level and some of the structure could be placed underground so it could be grassed over. Counci]member Nettles indicated that he concurred with CounciImember Goetten. CounciImember Goetten asked Mr. Morse if he knew whether the new owner of the property may be willing to plant vegetation in lieu of the fence proposed by Hommeyers? Mr. Morse said that the Hommeyers are being compensated from his insurance company for the trees that were removed. He also noted that the area where the trees were removed is not the same area the Hommeyers are asking to have fenced. Mayor Grabek indicated that he had no objection to the entire deck remaining since it had existed for 7 years. Grabek said that he did oppose the fence. Mr. Hommeyer asked if the fence application could be tabled to allow them time to talk with their new neighbor. It was moved by Mayor Grabek to recommend approval of the variances for the deck, stairs and retaining walls already existing, but deny the request for the 6' fence. There was no second. It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to table this application to provide time for the Hommeyers to work with the neighbor on the fence issue and a full Council can decide on the deck area. Nettles said that he was not partial to the deck one way or the other. He felt that since the deck passed with the certificate of occupancy he may approve it, yet it did set a precedent which may cause him to deny it. Mabusth noted that the certificate of occupancy did not approve the deck because it was not observed by the inspector. Motion, Ayes-2, Mayor Grabek, Nay. Motion passed. MINUTES OP OROHO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 1990 PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14(C) City Administrator Bernhardson said that after the Planning Commission reviewed this matter, they preferred to leave the ordinance as is. He said the Planning Commission is looking at pools from a visual coverage aspect, rather than a hardcover aspect. CounciImember Goetten thought that this issue should continue to be reviewed. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles to table this matter. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. ENGINEER'S REPORT: WELL BIDS HIGHWAY 12* It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to award Keys Well Drilling the contract to construct the 16" well at a cost of $70,155.00 as recommended by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates. Motion, Aye-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. WELL WATER TEST DRILLING PAYMENT «2* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to approve Pay Request 12 to Keys Well Drilling in the amount of $807.50. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. WELL WATER TiST DRILLING CHANGE OROEF: #1 AMD «2 Councilmember Goetten was concerned about the reference in Gerhardson's memo to a suspicion of high radium and the need to retest. City Engineer Cook said that occasionally the testing results in a false reading. He said they were very concerned when they had received the reading, which is why they are retesting. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Mayor Grabek, to approve Change Order #1 in the amount of $650.00 for retesting of the test well for the Highway 12 Improvement Area. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to approve Change Order 12, extending the completion date of the water well test drilling to March 16, 1990. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. HIGHWAY 12 SEWER AND WATER PAYMENT «3* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to approve Request Payment #3 to Albrecht Construction in the amount of $41,028.41 for the Highway 12 0» OBOHO COONCn OP P8B«o„,••■•.». .....,n^-. ® hardcoverincj.ijnenjb#»r- r*^_^ .•ncilroenber Goef«-to be reviewed. " thought that this i.-=y Councils BBPOBP. ■BIGHNAT 12* "her Nettles^^t^°"”*^^ ^'"®'"t)er Goett- ^ot the 16- well Driiu; ®®°°nded by Jtion ^°®®"®' Anderliw®\°^ 570,155.00 Ig^J® contract Jtion passed. * Associates „ ® t®commended "y®-3 as «o?ed #2* "her Nettles^ ^°“"ci imember Goetten the amount o/P/g^/® Pay Request #2 to'ed. cf 5807.50. Motion, AvJ/®ya Well ........................... ^ *'®y®“0.«ST DRIU.IHC 5‘ #1 AMD #2 Imember Go^tf-^wn ^ -- ‘O « i n A 9m ^ ----- i.iie need a /."rie ‘-..t cccani.„ , , ’*<j received Ui’e rladV*^ ''**« ''erV’co‘®'“^"®r®ading, which is whv ^°"''®tned «y they are fflOVAr? K*. -r are ««io„%aJ|.J*^'’way u Ia.prcv|»L;V.^• «rea. Net?le»^^to^°a “”‘'^^'"®'"t>er Goett ate of the Change Order ®econded by ' Ayes-3, Nays-o ^ they® Op Motion passed. ^ Warch 16, »Mwifc. ______«B AMD MATBR PATw»ti_ , **« Highway 12 MINUTES OP QRONO COUNCIL MEETING OP FEBRUARY 12, 19S0HIGHWAY 12 SEWER £ WATER PAYMENT CONTINUEDsanitary sewer & water main. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed.PLANS & SPECS WATER TOWER RESOLUTION #2755*It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2755, authorizing the City Engineer to prepare plans/specifications and advertise for bids for the water tower to serve the Highway 12 improvement area. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed.PLANS £ SPECS PUMP HOUSE/PUMPS AND PRESSURE TANKS RESOLUTION #2756*It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2756 authorizing the City Engineer to prepare plans/specifications and advertise for bids for the pumphouse/pumps and pressure tanks to serve the Highway 12 improvement area. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. SEWER INTERCEPTOR RESOLUTION #2757* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2757, directing the City Engineer to prepare a feasibility study relating to the location of a main/gravity sewer line south on Old Crystal Bay Road from the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission pump station at 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road. It is additionally approved to include the costs of the feasibility study into the project costs if a project is ordered. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT: Mayor Crabek indicated that he had nothing to report this evening. Councilmember Goetten informed those in attendance that there will be a meeting of all candidates for Governor and Legislators on Saturday, February 24, at the Art Center. Councilmember Nettles said that he had been talking with a Councilmember for the City of Minneapolis regarding the change in well regulations. The Councilmember, (Joan Campbell) had indicated that they were taking the same approach that had been suggested by the Orono Council. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: STUBBS BAY SEWER MEETING City Administrator Bernhardson said that a meeting had been held on January 31st regarding this matter. The general consensus of the property owners attending that meeting was that they would like to see the project proceed, but had cost concerns. Bernhardson presented information this evening J... mm mmMm ;r.^ ... :O0HCIt. HBBTIHC OBter inairi*^ « seconded byY forto a^°P^ edifications and .-ptoveroent ,t\ plans/specinc 12 i„,prr“;ava-o. ,OSB/POHPS BBD PBBSSOBB »»» aed bybV Councilb--Uo^^^•p«r P^^°^sWcUic« use/pubP^ and P^^n, Byes-3. »ay tent area. second®^ py Cooncllb^|”^®Jtiort2""', the to adopt P.®»°^“ty study "^“'"jtal Bay .re'pare a ««*‘?iirsouth <=" °J^-“k’'s to thesewer o.iiroad tra -iqoo Old Sroiosa:."-“ -■•'• , n;....... »■■ •• r. n-stir:.'---> r‘?sSS""'•■" ■•r::;.s""-A.roK.ri«S5 fhev we*^® taKir»v» s Orono council. ^•S WSPOVt. ^ « MVKTIItG , _ said that a w general rVq"a^rdinq tb^' "\\VYeea^^ bha ernhardton P #S Ai:: ■■ • tt’ •»>_ MINUTES OP ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 1990STUBBS BAY SEWER MEETING CONTIN1highlighting some of the issues and recommended delaying any action on this item until the February 26, 1990 Council Meeting.CITY FACILITIESCity Administrator Bernhardson informed the Council and Mayor Grabek that the Architect would be attending the February 26, 1990 Council Meeting.CounciImember Goetten asked if costs and land values would be presented at that time? Goetten asked whether the aspect of working with other cities had been explored. She understood that Wayzata had expressed interest in working with Orono on a public works facility.Bernhardson replied that the feasibility of working with another city was uncertain at this time, but that he would look into the matter further. NAVARRE AREA MASTER PLANNING Bernhardson advised the Council and Mayor Grabek that the next step in the master planning process would involve a cost of approximately $9,700.00. He said this amount is within the budget, but he recommended tabling this item until all CounciImembers are present to vote. Mayor Grabek said that he is really torn between proceeding with the project and delaying the project until the property owners push for it. Grabek said that he felt responsibility to get some organized plan to that area. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to table this item. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. HIGHWOOD STORM SEWER Bernhardson said that the City has tried to resolve this matter. Public Works Director Gerhardson has outlined the three- step process, which does enta.' 1 some expenditure on the part of the City. Bernhardson said that the cost to the City would be approximately $500.00 for the catch basin and $5,000.00 to do the ponding. These amounts are within the budgeted funds. Goetten asked whether the City would assess the costs? Bernhardson replied that the City would be responsible for the costs. Goetten asked about the cost of the feasibility study and whether the City would have to pay that cost as well? Public Works Director Gerhardson replied that the cost of the study was approximately $500.00/$600.00. It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by 15 PTBS OP OROHO COUNCIL MBBTING OP PBBRDARY 12, 19900 Council Meeting. uncil«n,ber Goetten asked if cos« e:prrssed'\rt,r«tnrwor^k\n^with Orono on a public acility. te matter further. S AREA council and Mayor Grabek that the jrnhardson advised the C _____would involve a cost of ?•a ‘rtbutherecommendedtablingthisitem Lmembers are present to vote. .yor Grabek f«*'®^^nr^'ro^ec"un\*^rrhe"pr“p«?? :''p*ufJVor“lt”'’%rab^*k"‘s"a\d ‘rharh,'felt responsibility to me organized plan to that area. Kw Mtvnr Grabek,seconded by Counci Imember t was moved by ^Morion Aves-3,Nays-0,Motionis to table this item.Motion,Ayes j,wayo »STORM SBWBR ^^ied to resolve this ^?uburSo“s Director Gerhar^dson ®“'“-AJe%a5rli Jess, which does enta: I some expenditure ritefr^'o^-oS^or^he «*tch basTn and «,000 0„to do the Th«e amounts are within the budgeted funds. ttten asked whether the City would assess the costs? rnhardson replied that the City would be responsible for Itten asked about the cost ‘»® the City would have to pay that cost as weiif” Pile work. Director '*P“®''dy was approximately $500.00/$600.00. . was moved by Counci1member Nettles, seconded by MINUTES OP ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP FEBRUARY 12, 1990HIGHHOOD STORM SEWER CONTINUEDCounciImember Goetten, to approve the recommendations of the City Engineer and Public Works Director Gerhardson. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed.MARINASBernhardson informed Mayor Grabek and the Council that thelicense applications are being mailed. Once staff receives thecompleted applications, they will see what the appropriate reviewprocess is and will determine how much change has occurred.Staff will bring a recommendation to Council based on the resultsof that review.JOINT COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGBernhardson presented the Council with a list of topics theymay wish to discuss with the Planning Commission. Bernhardsonsaid that more than likely it will be too early to discuss the LMCD Comprehensive Plan because the draft will not be presented until April. It was agreed, after considering several options, that the joint meeting would be held Saturday, March 10th in the morning- LAKE MINNETONKA/WELLS This was an informational item. There was no discussion or motion . HIGHWAY 12 -CORRIDOR SELECTION Bernhardson reported that MNDOT would like to establish three committees: Policy Advisory (one primary and an alternate). Technical, and Citizen. Bernhardson said that he would like to delay the appointment of persons to the Technical Advisory Committee until he receives criteria from MNDOT. He suggested advertising for public interest for serving on the Citizen Task Force. Mayor Grabek suggested that some criteria be established for the selecting the Citizen Task Force. Mayor Grabek indicated that he would like to be the primary representative for the Policy Advisory Committee and would like City Administrator Bernhardson to serve as the alternate. Counci 1 member Goetten believed that the Policy Advisory Committee should be comprised of elected officials. Goetten said that she has been involved with the Highway 12 Task Force for nearly two years. She said she would like very much to become a member of the Policy Advisory Committee. Mayor Grabek replied that any of the Councilmembers were welcome to attend the meetings. He said that he preferred to have the City Administrator serve as the alternate because he is knowledgeable and is in communciation with the entire Council on a regular basis. u->_-. m I- * •V.u- A' OP ORONO CODMCIL MBBTING OF FEBRUARY 12, 1990ORN SEHBR CONTINUEDer Goetten, to approve the reconunendations of the City d Public Works Director Gerhardson. Motion, Ayes-3, ion passed.rdson informed Mayor Gratek and the Council that the lications are being mailed. Once staff receives the pplications, they will see what the appropriate review and will determine how much change has occurred, bring a recommendation to Council based on the resultslew.EL/PZANNING COMMISSION MEETINGrdson presented the Council with a list of topics they discuss with the Planning Commission. Bernhardson ore than likely it will be too early to discuss the hensive Plan because the draft will not be presented agreed, after considering several options, that the ig would be held Saturday, March 10th in the morning. [>NKA/WELLS as an informational item. There was no discussion or -CORRIDOR SELECTION rdson reported that MNDOT would like to establish littees; Policy Advisory (one primary and an Technical, and Citizen. Bernhardson said that he to delay the appointment of persons to the Technical )mmittee until he receives criteria from MNDOT. He idvertising for public interest for serving on the c Force. Grabek suggested that some criteria be established for ig the Citizen Task Force. Grabek indicated that he would like to be the primary ive for the Policy Advisory Committee and would like Btrator Bernhardson to serve as the alternate. Imember Goetten believed chat the Policy Advisory lould be comprised of elected officials. Goetten said s been involved with the Highway 12 Task Force for years. She said she would like very much to become a ie Policy Advisory Committee. Grabek replied that any of the CounciImembers were attend the meetings. He said that he preferred to ty Administrator serve as the alternate because he is le and is in communciation with the entire Counci 1 on asis. .••• I . r'V- ■ ■ ; m : .. . ' "''V. MINUTES OP ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 1990HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR SELECTION CONTINUEDIt was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to appoint the Mayor and City Administrator as the representatives for the Policy Committee, and to delay the appointment to the Technical Advisory Committee until further information is received. Staff is directed to advertise for the Citizen Task Force position and to provide certain criteria for that position. Nettles asked whether the Citizen Task Force would exclude Council persons? Bernhardson said that he would look into that further. Motion, Ayes-2, CounciImember Goetten, Nay, Motion passed.CANINE PROGRAMBernhardson said that the City had taken the position that the dog the officer used would be his pet. However, that Fair Labor Standards has taken the position that feeding and grooming the dog is work and that the Police Officer should be compensated for his time. Bernhardson presented a memo providing various ways in which other communities are handling this. Bernhardson recommended that the Officer work a full shift, rather than 7-1/2 hours, compensate him in the equivalent compensatory time in shifts that are taken off. The compensatory time that the Officer f;kes off will be filled by the part-time Officer. CounciImember Goetten asked what the annual cost of the program will be? Bernhardson replied, "Originally we were looking at $500.00 for the actual fees for the dog and $1,000.00 for compensation. However, due to the Fair Labor Standards requirement for overtime, we are estimating the $1,000.00 to increase to $1,400.00. The total estimated cost would be $1,900.00." CounciImember Nettles asked whether it would be feasible to take the dog to a kennel at the end of the shift? Bernhardson said that such an arrangement would perhaps interfere with the rapport between the Officer and dog but they would look into it. Goetten said that she was concerned that this program is getting more and more expensive and that Orono could work with other cities when a canine unit is needed. Goetten said that she cannot support this. Chief Kilbo said, "We are talking about an additional $1400.00 to a $950,000.00 budget. I have been lucky in the last 5 years in keeping the budget within constraints. This is not much to pay for a program that might reap some excellent benefits." It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to accept the recommendation of staff in administering the canine progreun. Motion, Ayes-2, Counci Imember Goetten, Nay, Motion passed. 17 '^° ®^cinr?«‘ ^nd unti 7 the^ into fh® Council ® ®®^ed wh ^^O'^ide r>° ®*i''ertie ^^^ther''■• Of?/ t,at t^ . " °'>*‘ten,S »F*'If «SFF^rftJi|"f 1 1 o„ t‘‘^nclJn, ^ ^iiled by °oTv^"®®^°ny ti -u ff- Oca,,a„ as,a/„ * -fi.af\|P •««?Va?V*'<. -Or, . '°at „' (?ue ♦. ®®s for fh J 7„ *=^® *' ?h'e“°®‘of ff * fo*,„. ®^tual°^^^®Piied, itf, ^^al cost © ' (?uV/®®® for th ^'■^^inaijv '•' SFVaF'FFfT-'S? - «00.oc Joo . ^®n Nett 7« '^ould fco to inci-J^ ^or a *e„„V/V,aa^ . 'l.Soo.„„!Poaae ‘ardson « • of \u ’^ould k “pJi fr'4pof,Moe. ^ ,0 ■a -a, a. ^a."= and more 1 ^® *>'aa ^ theo aT""afofr ‘-.is 'aping th°a'°fc ‘’“‘Iset* f f i"9 ab * “P a Progff ' “itbln V'® ‘'aef f ?" addlt, ""^"^fPalntff 4"^Ppf?a"|» O'ad by ®®P ao„e f‘a Is not ;Papt the afP CPabek '"oaUent "ot/cT"";nOatf„®f ondao by o ■ ’'*®'^- Counff" 1" a°d;f„V ”’®”‘''P p‘l"»mbao coettf‘oPlbg Na y ^ 17 MINUTES OF ORORO COUNCIL MEETING OP mROARY 12, 19901990 PEE SCHEDULEORDINANCE AMENDMENT 79, 2ND SERIES*It was moved by CounclImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to adopt Ordinance #79, 2nd Series. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed.BID AWARDASPHALT ROLLER AND/OR TRAILER*Councilmember Goetten said that she did not object to purchasing new equipment. She said in light of the increasing costs the City needs to look at the possibility of sharing equipment with neighboring communities whenever possible.Public Works Director Gerhardson agreed. He stated that this particular item, however, is difficult to share because all of the cities use it at the same time. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to approve the purchase of 1 new bituminous roller and trailer from Aspen Equipment Company for an amount not to exceed $23,488.00. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. CONSULTANT SERVICES/ENGINEERING RATE* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to approve the engineering rates from Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates to the rates proposed for 1990. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. 3865/3877 SHORELINE DRIVE HAZARDOUS BUILDINGS RESOLUTION #2758 & #2759* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to adopt Resolutions #2758 and 2759, initiating hazardous building proceedings for 3865 Shoreline Drive and 3877 Shoreline Drive respectively. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. ANNUAL INVESTMENT REPORT* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to accept the 1989 Annual Investment Report as presented. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT OFFICE MARX TBOMTON* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to approve the step increase for Officer Mark Thornton from $16.24/hour to $16.727/hour (1989 contract rate) effective January 27, 1990. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. AGENT OF RECORD* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to appoint Mr. Duweyne Carlson, Apple Valley Agency, as Insurance Agent of Record for 1990 at a fee not n co«wc«‘ *r.”.i’*ulP»ent. fSok’V^ P^°”^/possibl«-k. Clr.ctot OerM «item, s;„e time. seconded bYse it ab t Goetten, ^ j^ew tinei♦-Vte pnr®ba®® _ an s%” * *8-00.exceed " ‘.''o®*°Motion P«««‘ >k?o"n,^V5- WV.-0< a*LlW .econdea bV »« ‘ ^ r^so S-r.^Une ortve resp ion pass®*^- „ seconded by —itn-r* K*»r Goetten» jiivestwent .econaea by * h councll”«”p®%tep*lnai«®',®,g9”contract *®- ?,/ruT- *\‘-f Vv«-3, i-va-O-$l6.2ybouro^ Motion, AY® luary 27, , insurance TB0I«W» MINUTES OP ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP FEBRUARY 12, 1990AGENT OP RECORD CONTINUEDto exceed $6,500.00 including conunissions earned through policy premiums paid by the City. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed.ANIMAL CONTROL VEHICLE*It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded byCouncilmember Nettles, to table this item until February 26, 1990 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed.TELEPHONE INSTALLERS CONTRACT AMENDMENT*It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded byCouncilmember Nettles, to authorize the addition of Addendum #1to the telephone contract with Telephone Specialists. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. RECYCLING COMMISSION JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to approve the Joint Powers Agreement with the West Hennepin Recycling Commission. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION* It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to accept the City Administrator’s Information regarding: City LOGO; Comprehensive Plan Extension; 1990 Board of Review Date; Tree Trimming - Corner Old Beach Road/Shoreline Drive; Telephone System Installation; DARE; Golf Dome; Part Time Officer Hiring; December Receipts and Disbursements; and Gcal Setting. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: City Attorney Barrett requested an Executive Session. LICENSES* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to approve the following license; Pull Tab Renewal Application: Multiple Sclerosis Society Sell At: Jimmies Lounge 3380 Shoreline Drive Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. BILLS* It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to approve payment of the All Funds Accounts. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0, Motion passed. EXECUTIVE SESSION - 9:40 P.M. Mayor Grabek requested that the Council go into an executive session at 9:40 p.m. MINUTES OP OBONO COOMCIL MEBTr% OF FBBROART 12, 1990 ADJOURNMENT 9s45 P.M. It was moved by CounciImember Mettles, seconded by CounclImember Goetten, to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 9:45 p.m. Votion, Ayes-3, Nays-O, Motion passed. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, city clerK James R. Grabek, Mayor i 1 13090.1 TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator's February 22, 1990 r r'* 0 I’’.‘H SUBJECT: Park Dedication Fees V r?' Attachment: A. Park Dedication Fee Memo Date 1/3/90 ISSUE - 1. Determine what changes Council desires in its dedication fee. 2, Determine any phase in schedule for making it effective. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's January 8, 1990 Counci1 meeting the issue of park dedication fees was discussed from the proposal from the Park Commission together with comments by Mr. Alan Carlson resident and developer in the community. Principal among the concerns were: A. Appropriate level for dedication. B. Capital expenditure program. C. Whether the fee is determined annually or on a per application basis. D. The proposed percentages would generate more in income thin indicated in the examples based on values at which the properties sold. E. The means by which properties were to be valued, if it were done on an individual basis. F. Any appropriate phase in. G. The effective date. H. Public hearing prior ;o the institution of such fees. DISCUSSION - The primary issues and alternatives for each of those Issues are as follows: 1. Capital Expenditure Plan -. . . . . . . . . . aT Require one prior to the fee becoming effective b. Develop one based on available funds generated by a fee c. Table consideration of fee until one is developed d. Request an estimate of needs without requiring a full capital plan nhatason* ^ 9 ,3 V^vjOf.v’ rA'iri^K*^^atlon r*®®nate 1/3/’“. „ 5.-6 Memo Dateoealoatlon feeOeaica'-*'-" in i« '**■ anges Council aes ^etective. ,se in soheaule £o ““ the'’p”°P°f * „ ^'';i=rion'Vees3"5|f^cg-^^ ® eio^°rrtne communilV. tor aealcatlon- ate leeel to „alture ptogram. on a P*' expenait «Jnea annual ^ o is aetermi*'^ the tee is '^asis. _____«»rate mote^ ^>,ich . fee is ,n income basis. ,«uia g®'™® i,,es at ^ta.cr\ujaaes woui values rtnV examplea “ -U" ^^^^-Tthe examples t>as ea in 1^® vaiuea» 50^^* ettles vjete to which P^°P ^jasis. I ll inaivid'^^'- native date- ^ ^ t„atltutlon of. auc hearing P“° ^,„es f®' ®®'" °arlng P'^”' •-° tor each of A altetnativ follc'*s* -._e,».ive maty ollo«s'* eCtective aEendlt^o^ ‘''tirabin"°‘“"""ire one P on ava develop ... of fee until le i“"— . op one ba until one is a » V 4 on of t®®^flP without teq e oonsiae«tV=n of needs 'fapttat%3an RECOMMENDATION - 2. Level of Fee Dedication -a. Escalation using consumer price inaex from lastchangeb. Utilization of fee common to other areas3. Basis for feea. Annual fee basea on a percentage of the average lotb. Individual consideration of each application using a percentage fee1. percentage selected2. basis for determination3. means and method of valuationc. Continue a set dollar amount per dwelling unit 4. Phasing in a. Institute immediately b. Phase in as a percentage of the target over a two to three year period c. Set specific fees during the phase in period taking into account any escallation 5. Effective date a. Specific date for applications b. Date of preliminary plat approval c. 31 March d. Set number of days following public hearing and imposition The Park Commission at their meeting recommended that the City change its fee to 8% effective April 1, 1990 with phase-in. Staff recommends the following on the issues: Expenditure - It is recommended that the Park CcmmissTon “be directed to develop a plan and the needed funding for that plan will assist in setting the fee. Level of Fee - It is recommended that the fee be an annual “Tee adopted based on approximat 'ly 8% of the average value of a lot platted in the community during the previous year. It is recommended that the plan effective 31 March for all subdivisions that have not received preliminary subdivision aj^^^roval starting at 75% of the rate. This to «!o to 90% of the rate or. i January 1991 as part of the fee ordir e and 100% for 1 January 1992 if needs are so indicated by an e- iture plan. Public Hearing - Additionally it is .nmended that a public hearing be held on t’ is matter at the . jncil's March 12, 1990 Council meeting at the beginning of the meeting.PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded that the Council afterdiscussing the issues and giving their preliminary considerations on the matter to staff, direct that a public hearing be established for the fee consideration at the Council's March 12, 1990 Council meeting. Ayes , Nayscc:Park Commission Alan Carlson I Park Commission Alan Carlson TO:FROM:DATE:Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato January 3, 1990 1390.1M rmUMe^riSUBJECT: Park Dedication FeesAttachment: A. Park Dedication Fee Memo Dated 12/8/89B. Letter to Planning Commission Dated 12/15/89ISSUE1. Determine if Council desires any change in its park dedication fee.2. If change is desired, to what level should it change. 3. If the goal level the Council desires to achie;"/e should be phased in, the means for phase in. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's December 11, 1989 Council meeting they reviewed Attachment A, proposal from the Park Cbmmission relating to a change in the park dedication fees. As noted in that memo the City last changed is park dedication dollar amount in 1975. Since that time the Consumer Price Index has escalated approximately 250%. Had the park dedication fee followed the Consumer Price Index it would be approximately $500 per single family home on 2 acres as opposed to the present $200. DISCUSSION - Attachment A outlines the proposal together with providing comparisons of the rates with other cities. A synopsis of the proposal is as follows: Current Rates Prooosed Rates Single Residential Density Range .15 or less per acre 1 per 2.00 acres 1 per 5.00 acres $600/Lot 200/Lot 100/Lot Multiple Residential (Units/Acre) Duplex .20 to 6.01 250-1500/Bldg Multiple .20 to 6.01 jrO-900/Unit 10% of fair market value at time of platting not less than $500/Lot (Based on their example it could range from $800 to $1800 per lot) 10% of fair market value at time of platting and # 139041 City council,«nhatdson, City Mminlstratoi^3, 1990 tcation Fees level should It change. desired, to w . achieve should be ,avel the Council desires to achre leans for P ase Council the Council-s December^ p,,, Co<nmxss.on attachment , dedication fees. tiange in the p dedication ^• *.»f last changed is p pyice index l”,T, ‘ SUce Jhat tU. the^ fn^s^ef ia opposed*M'’the present $200. tiy hone on 2 acres ittachment ^^°“\\es with other cities, at Isons ot the race the proposal is as foUousi Oirrent^ PtoooseO^ >ntial per acre ores cres $600/Lot 200/Lot 100/Lot TT"^ <-s/Acrel 250-1500/Bldg v'iO-900/Unit Tn<^ustria4 $500/Acte °tLe’o'f riat'tinrio- fearfhan «»0/Lot_^_^^^, ft“fuld"ra'nge £ro» $000 to $1800 per lot) XOt of fair ”f/,t5„randS“t'lrss“'thfnn300%nit 10% of value \i < PHASE IN - If the Council does not desire an immediate imposition of a certain dollar amount, there is a possibility that it could be phased in over a 3 to 5 year period.ADMINISTRATION - Presently the schedule is relatively easy to ^rculate. The new system would involve determination of value which is subject over to some "disputs,' depending on the proposed value. As presently proposed it does place the Council in the position of being the final arbiter of value on each subdivision. An alternative would be to either base it on the l-^st market value for tax purposes or base the annual rate on a "Typical value" property to be set at the beginning of the year.PARK DEDICATION POLICY - The City's Comprehensive P felt that park development was appropriate in the urban areas out because there were 2 acre and 5 acre in the rural zone, that there was less of a need for park facilities. To the extent that parks were viewed strictly as open space, there is less of a need for such open space in the 2 and 5 acre zones. However, those do not lend themselves to other uses of parks such a organized sports, significant playground equipment, etc. USE OF FUNDS - The expenditures in the park areas have been on an "as need" basis, with no programming for these funds. It would be appropriate in conjunction with or as a follow up to this that the Park Commission be directed to develop a plan for utilization of these funds. An initial need has been the desire for implementation utilizing these funds for implementation of the Bike Hike system previously presented to the Council. ^ No estimate has been made of the cost of this system and there is a need to review the use of park dedication funds for such ideas as Bike Hike trails. As you will note Attachment B was transmitted to the Planning Commission, but no responses have been received. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the proposal as is. 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Concur with the idea of a change however, table for consideration of specifics. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - Given the fact that there has been no adjustment in the park dedication fees for 15 years it would be appropriate that a change be made. The extent of the change however, should be tabled until the Council’s meeting in February. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, that the Council agree to change the fees, however, delay specifics for the change until its February 12, 1990 Council meeting. Ayes _, Nays _. cc; Park Commission members John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator [N - If the Council does not desire an immediate imposition trtain dollar amount, there is a possibility that it could ted in over a 3 to 5 year period.STRATTON - Presently the schedule is relatively easy to jte. The new system would involve determination of value s subject over to some "disputv' depending on the proposed As presently proposed it does place the Council in the m of being the final arbiter of value on each subdivision, ernative would be to either base it on the Inst market for tax purposes or base the annual rate on a "Typical property to be set at the beginning of the year.DICATION POLICY - The City's Comprehensive P felt that ivelopment was appropriate in the urban areas out because rere 2 acre and 5 acre in the rural zone, that there was E a need for park facilities. To the extent that parks ewed strictly as open space, there is less of a need for en space in the 2 and 5 acre zones. However, those do not lemselves to other uses of parks such a organized sports, cant playground equipment, etc. FUNDS - The expenditures in the park areas have been on an d" basis, with no programming for these funds. It would opriate in conjunction with or as a follow up to this that k Commission be directed to develop a plan for utilization se funds. An initial need has been the desire for ntation utilizing these funds for implementation of the Lke system previously presented to the Council. No e has been made of the cost of this system and there is a review the use of park dedication funds for such ideas as ke trails. will note Attachment B was transmitted to the Planning Lon, but no responses have been received. )t the proposal as is. ! for further discussion :ur with the idea of a change however, table for ’ation of specifics. no action. 'JDATION - Given the fact that there has been no adjustment ark dedication fees for 15 years it would be appropriate :hange be made. The extent of the change however, should id until the Council's meeting in February. MOTION - Moved by _, seconded byA. - - - - - - - - - - - - —U r ^ ^ change the fees, however, delay specifics for the change s February 12, 1990 Council meeting. Ayes _, Nays k Commission members n R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director nne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator j.12889.3HD : -ij?/6COUNCIL MEETINC;Mayor Grabek S Orono Council Members Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator December 8, 1989 Subject: Park Dedication FeesAttachment A - Park Commission's Memo dated 11/9/8^1/7 OF GRONGTo;From:Date:DEC 111989XSSU6SProviding Council with Park Commission's proposal regarding alteration of the manner in which City collects Park DedicationFees.Introduction -As noted, the Park Commission has been reviewing the City's park dedication system. The proposal would bring it more in-line with the practice and fees of area municipalities. Alternatives - Issue #1 - 1. Accept. 2. Discuss. 3. Table. Reo mendation - It is recommended that the Issue be tabled for further discussion at the Council's January 8, 1990 meeting should the Council desire to amend the present system. A subsequent am^^dment to the general fee ordinance can be done at anytime to be effect upon publication. Proposed Motion - Moved by Council accept the information seconded by the Orono the Park Commission regarding their recommendation regarding alternation of the Park Dedication Fees. Ayes ___, nays 12889.3HDvp/6^COUNCIL MEETINUSEC 111989/silTY OF OSONOroposal regarding 3 Park Dedicationiewing the City's j it more in-lines. led for further sting should the ibsequent anendmaiit to .me to be effect ___j the Orono tission regarding » Park Dedication ; -Enclosed are;1. Proposed new Orono City Ordinance and Park FeeSchedule (drafted by Jim Gilbert).2. Proposed Report and Recommendations to the City Council which would accomp^y the proposed ordinance.We should finalize each of these at next Tuesday's meeting. 0571X 3 Parks conraission and JohnFlintnber 9, 1989JLC •,3ed ne» Orono City Ordinance and Park Fee :ed by Ji® Gilbert).3ed Report and Recoaunendationa to the City ,ould accomp^y the proposed ordinance, linalice each of t.hese at next Tuesday's meetrng RRPDRT .aMH RFCQ?<(MENDATTnNTO:FROM:R2:Orono City Council Orono Parks CommissionProposed New Park Ordinances and Park Dedication Fee ScheduleDATE : COPY:November 9, 1989City Administrator City EngineerFor more than 13 months, the Orono Parks Commission has been studying the Orono Parks Dedication Fee Schedule and Ordinance. Based on that study and the reasoning set forth herein, we recommend that new Ordinances and Fee Schedule be adopted in the form of Exhibits A and B attached to this memorandum. Adoption of the new Fee Schedule and Ordinances would accomplish the following: 1. Bring Orono's Park Dedication Fee Schedule and Ordinances in conformity with that of similar: Minnesota communities.' 2. "'' Raise the Park Dedication Fee to a level consistent with that levied by other communities and provide an automatic adjustment for inflation (since it is tied to a percentage of the value of the land being subdivided). 3. Provide more adequate funding for parks, playgrounds, trails and open space as our community is subjected to inevitable development pressures. 021:tE:Orono Paries Coimnission IS?e^ 0rdi„.„„3 and ParJ. oed'^arjc Dedication FeoNovember 9, 15 ggCity E5?f"i«rator ^^gineerFor more than is months, the Or= the orono ParhsBased on that stnd. and the rea7on"""'' "® J^soomniend that nev Ord-- - .rm o. .rhjtsTr;::: -i«dum. ^^tached to this ■rii“";,'" Bring Orono's Park Dedication r in conformity eirh that of simi7 ties.' oinilar Minnesota " Bnlse the Park Dedication Pee to a 1 . ' by other co™m.ities and «“i«ent W for inflation (since it ■ an automaticv^xace it IS tied i-« ' ^eing suhdirided,. ^ Bnovide more adequate funding for parks ol =Pen opace as our communitv is suhd - ' <iovelopment pressures ' 4. Amend the resolution which governs the Park Fund to bring it in conformity with Section 462.358, Subdivision 2b of the Minnesota Statutes by providing that the funds therein can be used to acquire land for "trails or open space", as well as public parks and playgrounds.SUI4MARY OF PARK DEDICATION FEE SCHEDULE IN ORONO AND OTHER COMMUNITIESThe Parks Commission has surveyed the Park Dedication Fee levied in (a) nearby communities and (b) other communities in the metro area which, according to the League of Minnesota Cities, recently have adopted Park Dedication Fee Ordinances. The results of that sxirvey are set forth on Exhibit C. Our conclusions from that sxirvey are: 1. Orono's approach of charging a Park Dedication Fee based on a sliding scale depending upon the acreage of the resulting lots (the larger the lot, the smaller the fee) appears to be unusual among the communities surveyed. 2. The most common approach appears to assess a Psu:k Dedication Fee equal to a percentage of -the land value, with the percentages varying from 7% to 10%, but the most common percentage being 10%. 3. One problem with the current Orono approach is that it fails to adjust for inflation, resulting in the Park Dedication Fee charged by Orono being much lower than that charged by other communities. - DU F®® •the e) appear® I parjc e, with the I is that it Dedication ged by other SU:-*MARy OF THE RESULTS OF PARK DEDICATION FEE CHARGED BY ORONO IN RECENT SUBDIVISIONSThe following schedule surunarizes the Park Dedication Feecharged by Orono in recent subdivisions and compares that to thefee that would have been charged had a 10% Park Dedication Feebeen charged.Painters Creek - 5 acre zoneTotal Acres (37.69 + 14.97)Land Value (131,800 + 50,000)Number of Lots (PRD)Park Dedication Fee Actually Charged Using Percentage of Value (10% of 181,800) Golden View - (Peterman Addition) 2 acre zone Total Acres Land Value Number of Lots Park Dedication Fee Actually Charged Using Percentage of Value (10% of 83,900) Meyer Dairy Addition — 2 acre zone Total Acres Land Value Number of Lots Park Dedication Fee Actually Charged Using Percentage of Value (10% of 115,000) Rolling Meadows - 2 acre zone * e Total Acres Land Value Number of Lots Park Dedication Fee Actually Charged Using Percentage of Value (10% of 49,000) 52.56$181,80010$1,000$18,180 18.75 $83,900 6 $1,200 $8,390 34.24 $115,000 11 $2,200 $11,500 18:47 $49,000 6 $1,200 $4,900 The foregoing schedule, we believe, demonstrates the woeful inadequacy of the current Orono Park Dedication Fee Schedule when comoared with the fees charged by other similar communities -3- STjyjSARY OF THE RESULTS OF PARK DEDICATION FEE CHARGED BY ORONO IN RECENT SUBDIVISIONS'he following schedule suiwnarizes the Park Dedication Feed by Orono in recent subdivisions and compares that to theat would have been charged had a 10% Park Dedication Fee [larged.PS Creek - 5 acre zone^cres (37.69 + 14.97) ilue (131,800 + 50,000) of Lots (PRD)sdication Fee Actually Charged 'ercentage of Value (10% of 181,800) View - (Peterman Addition) 2 acre zone cres lue of Lots dication Fee Actually Charged srcentage of Value (10% of 83,900) liry Addition - 2 acre zone • • :res .ue if Lots [ication Fee Actually Charged rcentage of Value (10% of 115,000) Meadows - 2 acre zone res ue f Lots ication Fee Actually Charged rcentage of Value (10% of 49,000) 52.56§181,80010$1,000 §18,180 18.75 §83,900 6 §1,200 §8,390 34.24 §115,000 11 §2,200 §11,500 18;47 §49,000 6 §1,200 §4,900 foregoing schedule, we believe, demonstrates the woeful :y of the current Orono Park Dedication Fee Schedule the fees charged by other similar communities NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDINGThe following schedule summarizes the Park Dedication Fees collected and expended from the time the Park Dedication Fee Schedule was first adopted in 1976 through the end of 1988. It also shows the current balance in the lund.PARK FUNDCash and investments balance at 12/31/88Investment §117,113Year1988Tnt. Ea-rned 'T’ota''Expand t:§ 7,900 § 8,923 $ 16,823 $ 16,63119876,440 10,368 16,808 32,39419866,950 10,283 17,233 1,88419852,950 11,125 14,075 5,917 1984 11,830 11,744 23,574 15,888 1983 6,290 11,708 17,998 68,834 1982 17,339 17,664 35,003 6,199 1981 5,480 19,268 24,748 7,661 1980 2,890 9,258 12,148 7,731 1979 10,140 10,515 20,655 7,316 1978 38,781 5,996 44,777 989 1977 37,964 305 38,269 14,398 1976 29,239 142 29,381 2,535 1975 Total 7.453 3.453 — — §186,646 §127,299 §313,945 $188,377 Major expenditures include the following: 1988 - Well at Hackberry Park to flood skating rink 1987 - 1984 - Bederwood Park and Summit Beach 1983 - Repay golf course debt The current size of the fund (§117,000) plus annual addition of under §10,000 prevent the Park Commission from undertaking cny more than a "maintain and hold" approach toward the existing park system. Major improvements and enhancements FY'PTgT'T’ glication Feesration Feeof 1S88. It$117,113ditures631394 884 917 388 334 199 561 731 316 389 398 535 rinJc nual n from oach toward hancements CITY OF ORONORESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILNO. 1252.A RESOLUTION TO A^MEND RESOLUTION 1252 ESTABLISHING A PARK FUNDThe City of Orono hereby amends Resolution 1252 to read;WHEREAS, City of Orono Ordinance No. 220 requires the establishment of a separate fund for deposit of all cash contributions received from subdivisions in lieu of conveyance or dedication of land for parks, playgrounds, and other public purposes. BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the Park Fund be established and all park dedication fees collected by the City according to the current fee schedule be credited to the Park Fund. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the park dedication fees be used only for the acquisition, development, or maintenance of public parks, playgrounds, trailsi Qgen space. surface water holding areas limited only to ponding areas, euid debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired for such public purposes within the City of'orono. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held- - - - - - - - - --- - Attest: ♦Proposed change is underlined. 7034T ■i* V. )252 to read:requires the osit of all sions in lieu parks, be collected by hedule be ication fees pment, or / trails, open sd only to [inection with purposes 3no # Minnesota A are just not practical. In addition, we have been studying a trail system for several years and the City Council has given it conceptual approval but there clearly are insufficient funds available even to initiate such a system.For the reasons stated above, we recommend adoption of the Ordinances and Fee Schedule schedules set forth on Exhibits A and B.WajHoi PI '•/89 Cr Di : practical. In addition, we have been studying a 1 for several years and the City Council has given it pproval but there clearly are insufficient funds en to initiate such a system.reasons stated above, we recommend adoption of the ad Fee Schedule schedules set forth on Exhibits A 4' •’■EXHIBIT CsyjiiE.iuiL_EAivKJiE}iy;mM_EEBSipfle..Regjld.enlLlai Land Cash Multiple ReBldential Land Cash Commercial/Industrial Land Cash5 ac. 100 2-5 200 1-2 WO 1/2-1 /iW over 5 ac. |150/DU %e& / i\A /JCoHaysata7X of MVraw land. Being revised to lOX f .' /Nouiid lOX of MV raw land. Not less than $300Plymouth$600 per lot $600/DUi/89 Crystal lOX lOX of HV. Max. $h00/DU 5X $^00/ac« max.I98li Brooklyn Park lOX lOX subj. to max of $500 per lot where k lots or less 5X1/87 ninnotonka lOX $600/DU lOX $250/LJ apts. lOX$300/DU Towntuns.l0|(-20< per sq ft. bldg, area•Shorewood 8X 8X MV-raw or $300/DU 8X 8X MV or $500 sewer unit 5/8i|Anoka 5-18X based upon density 3% Cor Commercial 5X Cor Industrial 7/88 8 Ramsey ^can be increased Cor storm water lOX*$500/DU** **or lOX MV of raw land, whichever greater 5-lOX* 3/35.In'" Grove Heights A-lOX B-lOX • $300<* $185* -5- 'i g^lpVRT OFdak. 100 200 IlOOI /i/»0 Hult^pffi p*«iAentlfli ^and CftShover 5 ac» $150/D0 Comercial/IlMimHifll yjind Cd&biff. J IXA-Pco Sc'"'if HVland. Being Ised to lOX, of MV raw land., leas than $300)0 per lotI of MV.K. $<«00/DUiX Bubj. to max of iOO per lot where lots or lesstiOO/DUiX MV-raw ,r $500/001 upon density$500/00****or lOX MV of raw land, whichever greater$300*lOX $600/00 $600/ac. max.$250/LJ aptB. lOX $300/00 TownhraB.l0rf-20< per Bq. ft. bldg, area8X MV or $500 Bewer unit 3X for Cocnaercial 5X for Industrial5-lOX* **bate City6/86 Creenfleld6/77 Lakeville10/86 BastingsNinnetristaMedina12/86 Lino Lakes.06 3T Single Residential Xmul Ua.«h Multiple Residential Land Cash CoBBBercial/InduBtr i Land Cash51MV raw $250/00land, as agreed 5X 5X 5X 5X5X5X MV 2-5X 2-5X MV$300 $l00/bedroomSee Multiple 5X-15X based upon density. Min. $250/DU 2-1/2X 2-1/2XOp to lOX Up to lOXlOX$160 DO lOX lOX MV lOX lOX HV CITY CF ORCNO STATS OF MHJNSSC Ordinance No. _ _ _ _An ordinance amending Section _ _ _ of therelating co park dedication and casn for development of Ian .The City Council of the City of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1.C 2 20 Of the Orono City Code is hereby amended and theanrrJi fiTslkll.ll to? par. dedication fees is hereoy repealed.Parks, Playgrounds and Open Space.Section 2.Section _ _•s Tant«<; ^ublic Use. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,^ Lancs ^or .uoiic „ r-='a”ires all oersons, corpora-1971, 2.308, succ. -ne C-- subdivide land within the Citytions or ct.her legal entities t.nat eaodiviae^i ^ division,of Orono must as a prerequisite t previously divided by plat,final plat, °^developme.nt of any land^previ^^^ y^ city or metes and bounds, or any ot- narks playorounds, trails, ordedicate to thepublic, for use as^park^^^pl^Y-^ platted or devel- ooen space, a given perc-ntag rj* „rtions to be aoproved by the oped as hereinafter specified, said portio theootion of the City, in J^lrthfalqu^ dev'elopment or City, pay to the avqrounds, trails or open spacesmaincenance of public parks/ p ^9 land oreviouslyand debt retirement In connection with the land^pretio^ J accuired for such public purpos . land Co be developed. The bas'ed upon the fair market «lue or ®n thJreof) Spon the need and con- formance with the Comprehensive Plan. o :;pactor3^^^^ quacy of proposed ^^e'cove', access and location,graphy, drainage, geology, tree v,o e-, C- Land Dedic^t--ion Minimum r- u"2?“;Le“ «fSSr'1ubU= purposes as a'minimum that percentage of gross land area as set out below; (1) Residential/Agricultural/Multiple Residential Zoned Land. Dedication requirement of 10% of the land being platted, suodivided or existing lot of record. (2) Commercial/Industrial Zoned Land. Dedication requirement of 10% of the land being platted, subdivided or existing lot of record. D, Cash Contribution in Lieu of Lands. In those instances where a casn contribution is to be maae bythe subdivider, in lieu of a conveyance or dedication of land, the cash contribution to be contributed shall be equivalent to the fair market value of the ecuivalent undeveloped land that would otherwise have been con veyed or dedicated. f E. Fair Market Value of Lands.Fair Market Value" for pur- be the land value to be determined by theposes of this Code shall City Council as of the time of preliminary plat application in accordance with the following: (1) The City Assessor shall recommend to the City Council as to the fair market value of the land after consultation with the subdivider. (2) If agreement is not reached between the City Assessor and subdivider, then the fair market value shall be determined in accordance with the following: # * (a) Fair market value as determined by the City Council based upon a current appraisal submitted to the City by the subdivider*, at his expense. The appraisal shall be made by appraisers who are . approved members of SREA or MAI, or equivalent real estate societies. (b) If the City disputes such appraisal amounts, it may obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real estate appraiser which the City Council selects and which appraisal may be accepted by the City as being an accurate appraisal at fair market value. The cost of the appraisal shall he :jaid by the subdivider. (3) The determination of fair market value of the undevel oped land by the City Assessor, City Council, or desig nated appraisers, shall be determined as of the time of preliminary plat application as long as there is final plat approval within the time limits as set forth in this chapter. The time of preliminary plat approval ) ResidentialAgricultural/Multiple Residential ZonedLand.Dedication requirement of 10» of the land being platted, suDdivided or existing lot of record.) coramercial/lndustrial Zoned Land.Dedication requirement of 10% of the land being platted, subdivided or existing lot of record.Cash Contribution in Lieu of ^an^. In those instanceslnt‘^undtieloperiand^Sat^SoSd othL4iL®have been con- : dedicated. Pair Marker Value of Lands. "Fair Market Value" for pur- : tiis Cooe shall be the land value to be determined by ^.he Inch as of the time of preliminary plat application in 1C9 with the following: I -^he City Assessor shall recommend to the City to thffair market value of the land after consultation with the subdivider. I If agreement is not reached between and subdivider, then the fair market value shall be determined in accordance with t.he following: (a) Fair market value as th^*^^^based uoon a current appraisal submitted Jo th City bv the subdivider, at his expense. The aopraiial shall be made by appraisers who are . approved members of SREA or MAI, or equivalent real estate societies. (b) If the City disputes such appraisal obtain an appraisal of the property by a qualified real estate appraiser which the City Council selects and which appraisal may be accepted Jy ^he City as being an accurate appraisal at fair marke value. The cost of the appraisal shall b< . a y the subdivider. The determination of fair or^^desig- oped land by the City Assessor, L nated aopraisers, shall be determined as of preliminiry plat application as long as J^®**® plat aporoval within the time limits as set this chanter. T.he time of preliminary plat approval (4)is utilited because the nature or the subdivision, its probable population, lot size and value, and other relevant factors are known. If an extension of the time limits in this chapter is approved by the City Council, the fair market value shall be determined as of the time of the approval of that extension. In determining the fair market value as of time of preliminary plat application, or the extension thereof, the factors to be included in the analysis shall include any and all factors which are generally accepted and used by approved members of SREA or MAI or equivalent real estate appraisal societies.Notwithstanding the above, in no event shall the cash contribution per lot be less than $500.00 per lot or $300.00 per dwelling unit.Develooment of Land Previouslv Platted. If the land hasalready been previously suodivided and a fee .nad not been previ ously paid, the requirements of this division shall apply at the time of the issuance of a building permit for the primary struc ture . G. Future Subdivision. Any land which is further subdivi ded, divided or replanted subsequent to _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 9 , shall be subject to the requirements of the ordinance then in effect ' concerning dedication of land for public purposes, and credit shall be given for any charges previously imposed upon that land if the subdivider can prove that fees were previously paid. In no event shall the City be liable for any payment which may be due because of a subsequent reduction in the application percentage of land or equivalent market value in cash to be dedicated. H. Administrative Procedures. The City Council shall estab lish such administrative procedures as they may deem necessary or appropriate to implement the provisions of this section of the code. Section 3. This ordinance shall have full force and effect upon its passage and publication. Passed by the Council of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, this dav of , 1989. ATTEST: Mayor Clerk “on; or« o7 t'v°in lor*® ib^ it -luded in °*'®dsion’bors'of 9®««a; To'cale t“'ithst^fnr? • ®s^ate’^ihat!on^^^ ^i>ove i„per dwe^*! -^®ss than^s?^^ s^all -^he®—-*”*5 ur.it. ^500.00 oer i•^vT....... I ''®^q Pro.r.-of r = „j^ perJi-" e^ea a|i- f-vi."P^e«M~rub ■‘ee'i ■'hich ,• .^roT'"="e"te o7%« ‘°_:!1:" ^“"''er suMivl.prov^i^ff •°^®'^^ousIv and cro^'f"b^ fees upon 7~|S_L'-ocedur.. - *’* '^®'^-‘«tllr®"'®9e o?‘eraint thP°^e es^tbfy*^ Council shmi--^-ene ol7.??? fo%=?i-«|i;|‘o%^®bali have fun «force and effect »^ect upon its=>uncii of i-h>5ey Of *® Of Orono s■ —=““0ty. Mayor "^erjc tOHIHG APPLICATIONS (COHT.) PARK DEDICATION FEES I Section 11.62, Subd 1Cash contcibutlona in lieu of land for use in the acquisition, development or maintenance of public packs, playgrounds, storm water holding areas and debt retirement in connection with land previously acquired for such public purposes.1. Residential Development - Cash contributions dedicated shall be according to the following table:1. Single Family Residential[Lot Size (Acres/Dwel..lng Unit)ASingleExisting DSingle New '• Crl Existing Residence5.00 or2.00 to more4.99 $ 50 $100 $01.00 to 1.99 150 *200.0.50 to .99 350 400 0■I-'.33 to .49 390 440 01.25 to .32 430 400 01. 16 to .24 470 520 0H'.15 to less 510 560 0■u •550 600 0 i . I ZONIMG APPLICATIONS (COHT.)PARK DBDICATION FF.GS I Section 11.62, Subd 1section U.«*h conttIbutlonn ded^Otl.• ASlnql®Rxlatln;$ 50 150 • 350 390 430 410 510 550 §100200.400440400520560600 • Crl. gristingresidence 2. Duplex, Multiple Residential Dwelling Unit Density(The greater o£ proposed density or zoned permitted density)(Dwelling Units Pet Acte).20 or less .50 to .211.00 to .512.00 to 1.013.00 to 2.014.00 to 3.016.00 to 4.016.01 or more DDuplex Per Bldg$ 250 500 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 BMult. Per Unit$150 300 600 660 720 780 040 900 C-2^ExistingResidencesKey A Single Family Residence, Existing Vacant Lot: Fee to be paid withbuilding permit Eor new residence on previously platted property or; 1C vacant land Is subdivided, Cee to be paid with subdivision Cor the one "existing" residential lot.D Single Family Residence, Mew Lot: Fee to be paid with subdivision Cor each "new" residential lot.C 1 and 2 Existing residential: Mo Cee Is required Cor existing principalresidential units.D Duplex Residential: Fee to be paid with building permit or with subdivision, whichever occurs Clrst, Cor each duplex building (duplex Is defined as two attached single Camlly residential units). Should an existing single Camlly residence be converted to duplex, the Cee siinlT be one half oC the schedule amount due with the building permit. E HultlCamlly Residential: Fee to be paid with building permit or with subdivision, whichever occurs Clrst, Cor each residential unit In a mill, fcl fnml 1.y (throe or more unltn) hiH l.rl I luj. I *Section 11.62, Subd 1entiald density oc zoned permitted density)D E C-2DuplexMult.ExistingPer Bldg Per Unit Residences$ 250 $150 $05003000100060001100660012007200130070001400840015009000ExistingVacant Lot:Fee to benew residence on previously platted property or; IE llvlded, fee to be paid with subdivision for the one al lot.dence, Hew Lott Fee to be paid with subdivision for .al lot.tsldentlal: No fee Is required for existing principal » «ZONING APPLICATIONS (CONT.) PARK DEDICATION FEES I Section 11.62, Subd 1II. Comecoial or industrial Development - Cash contributions dedicated shall be at the cate oC $500.00 pec acre of gross land area, to be paid with building pecalt foe principal structure oc at the time of subdivision, whichever occursfirst.' Ir »I ealt Fee to be paid with building permit oc with Ever occurs first, for each duplex building (duplex Is lached single family residential units). Should an kily residence be converted to duplex, the fee shal) be ledule amount due with the building permit.ential: Fee to be paid with building permit or with hever occurs first, for each residential unit In a or more tinltn) bull.dlnn. irtwmmil » f : I . .(CONT.I I • .*f *• g rR--^V -■F CITTVf II ItaHawey CITY of ORONOPost Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota S5323• Municipal Offi< On the North Shore of Lake MinnetonkaDecember 15, 1989Dear Orono Planning Commission Member:At the December 11, 1989 meeting of the Council, the Park Commission provided background information and a proposed amendment of the park dedication fee for Council's review and action. At that meeting. Council accepted the information but requested that the Planning Commission review the proposed amendment before Council's formal action.The Council will formally act on the park dedication fee amendment at their January 8, 1990 meeting. The Planning Commission is asked to submit their comments to Jeanne Mabusth or Mark Bernhardson by a deadline of Wednesday, January 3rd. The packet submitted for Council's review has been enclosed with this letter. . If you have any further questions on the ormation, please contact Dick Flint of the Park Commission .3-5585). Sinc^ely, lCL(n/iC^ Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator JAM/tin cc: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Richard Flint, 1405 Sixth Ave N, Long Lake ) BUILDING A ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION A FINANCE - 473-7358 FAX-473-0510 PUBUC WORKS - 473-7359 22290.2 S 0 TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato February 22, 1990 . SUBJECT: Baseball Diamond Improvements/Bederwood ri 0 ‘ .r- .. v' Attachment: A. Baseball Diamond improvement/Bederwood Memo Dated 2/21/90 B. Orono Baseball Association Proposal Dated 2/1/90 IS^E - 1. Determine if Council desires to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Baseball Association for improvement of Beder- wood for use by the Association. 2. If so, what terms, if any, would be attendant to that agreement. INTRODUCTION - As noted in the attachments the Orono Little League Baseball Association has found need for a different facility. At present Bederwood Park is an area that could be easily convert for summer's use. This issue has been reviewed by the Park Commission at its February 8, 1990 meeting. DISCUSSION - The use of the area by the Little League would provide a long term upgrade that would be done by the Association to benefit all those in the Orono community. Site improvements include: Construction of necessary fencing Construction of dug outs (above ground) Construction of concession stand When originally approached, the Association indicated that this would be more of an interim solution of up to 5 years, rather than a long term solution. The Association is looking at the land purchased by the Orono School at County Road 6 and Old Crystal Bay Road for a longer term solution. Issues attendent to such an agreement in addition to those outlined in Attachment A include: Determine if guarantee for work completion is desired. Term of the agreement. A primary concern of the neighborhood could be the overflow of parking from the area. Currently there are 20 parking spots in the park and Stubbs Bay Road is currently wide enough to allow for parking on both sides without impeding the traffic ement/Bederwood Memo Dated ion Proposal Dated 2/1/90 enter into a cooperative for improvement of Beder- .d be attendant to that :hments the Orono Little nd need for a different is an area that could be issue has been reviewed by 1990 meeting. the Little League would be done by the Association lunity. Site improvements 'e ground) ind Lation indicated that this of up to 5 yearSf rather :iation is looking at the at County Road 6 and Old ition. Issues attendent to * outlined in Attachment A k completion is desired. primary concern of the ‘rflow of parking from the parking spots in the park ntly wide enough to allow hout impeding the traffic In a review by the staff it was indicated that no land use application would be required apart from building permits for the improvements anticipated.1. Indicate willingness to undertake an agreement.2. Desire not to undertake.3. Table for further discussion.1. Accept issues outlined in this memo and Attachment A for terms of the contract. 2. Add or delete terms. 3. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council proceed with an agreement to allow it for a terra not to exceed 5 years and indicate that beyond that the Association should look for a long terra solution. Park Commission did recommend approval of the improvement. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by , Council gives conceptual approval to the issue and directs staff to work out the necessary agreement with the Orono Baseball Association. Ayes , Nays cc: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator •rcTiiM •llCttl*l«] L*I«1*I*J *. ^ I,19903.ct: Baseball Diamond Improvements - Bederwood Park ^^3r*6sultoF*“foVlutle dl'" °'"°"° Baseballtie league ceVt“a^ B«"ever in *X"t “ B*1«t»ood(ssary: ^'"Provements to thecne ball diamond is1- one story concession stand only.city*” permanent Improvements become the oome the property of the'• “PJ'aive use agreement -U1 be revi e <• Orono Basebal • » *ewed annually.‘-a ban diamond „ith*?S| e\Ve°p"tirr/?H*e^^ri/e"lV'’*"'^* Lur--.--”-PcIatIon .n submit ay^vlt oy asebaiJ ABSocLt?on.‘"'’‘’°''®'"®"‘a ''HI be paid by orono ecause the proposal . OronS"4sS‘Installation and n^^^PHtion regarding the '■Ity of Orono t.on and ownership of t?e lmp7ovementY'’°"®‘‘’“'''l' 'd Hotinn _ __ .f Motion - Moved by ^ presented hk/ —=•' seconded by , 'inents to Bedoft^ the Orono Baseball—aoe. fPProve the (ibiUft Baseball Assof^/A the City of aVL./ aSr ‘o “w"ne"ri;-^"| J jf y^diiiHeaProposal For:LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL FIELD To Be Located At: BEDERWOOD PARK ORONO, MINNESOTA Submitted By: Orono Baseball Association February 1, 1990 -:v I.PPOPOSALThe Orono Baseball Association (which serves the youth of Orono, Maple Plain and Lone ’ke) propose building a "regulation" Little League dc*-. ».oall Field at Bederwood Park on Stubbs Bay Road in Orono.The area to be utilized would be the current baseball field on the south side of the park. The layout of the field would remain as is with home plate in the northeast corner of the field and left field adjacent to the Luce Line right-of-way.Proposal For;LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL FIELD II. HISTORY To Be Located At; BEDERWOOD PARK ORONO, MINNESOTA Submitted By; Orono Baseball Association February 1, 1990 In 1987, the Orono Baseball Association (OBA) decided to affiliate itself with Little League, I:ic. Th:s means that those youth included in T-Bali (ages 5, 6 and 7) , Instructional League (age 8) , and. Little League (boys ages 9 thru 12) now come under the Little League "umbrella". 1987 1988 D) 1989 - OBA forms three (3) "major league" teams (ages 10-12). These three teams join five (5) Mound teams to form Upper Tonka Little League (UTLL) . - OBA forms nine (9) team "minor league" system (ages 9-12). Games played at sites throughout Maple Plain, Long Lake and Orono. - As number of participants rapidly increases, OBA forms a 4th Major League team. OBA's four (4) teams and Mound's six (6) teams forms ten (10) team UTLL. Playing facilities (Wolner field in Mound and Holbrook Park in Long Lake) are now being utilized to their fullest. - OBA expands minor league system to ten (10) teams. Now using fields in Maple Plain and at Orono Schools. - T-Ball and Instructional teams continue to expand. - Major League continues with 4 teams. - Minor League expands to eleven (11) teams. - T-Ball and Instructional expands by 15%. e th® yout-h.^^%°rono!warw::i:r;woia - - sThe area « *’|ouhh ^°« tieW adiacent‘i""a°e"ldTould P-f Se fiiw and le£hS- °rUh-ot-V.to the 1.987 L988 989 JlSnd teams to (UTLL). ,o^ team throughout ' |°?!^l2')^^Games piy^®^/orono. ifpfe Plain, inc-f-' . AS number ^®J?tities tome ten ‘W) ,„ Mound »nd ” d to their (Molnet ftei^e heinq . r lea^nn w“leln end at - OBh erpanf in Maple rr^o- schooie. to „ ,1 and instructional ' Ixptnd. ^„ues with 4 teams. . „.ior I^a,ue cont . Minot League expan . III.CU'>R’=’»ri' STATUSI'p'O IV. THE FIELD A pivotal year for DBA! We now have the population base, the program, the interest and support of our parents and the financial plans and resources to receive our own Little League Charter. The new charter will be in place for the 1990 season.Major leagues will remain at 4 teams for 1990 but must expand to 6 teams in 1991 due to increased census in 10 to 1.2 age group.Minor league will expand to 12 or 13 teams.T-ball and Instructional leagues also have increasing participation.We project a 1990 OBA program that will serve over 450 youth ages 5 thru 12. NEEDS - since we will now have our own charter we need a regulation Little League Field. Wolner Fields in Mound are over-flowing and not available for our continued use beyond 1990. Holbrook Park in Long lake was built for softball and is not "regulation” LL (fences too long, no safety screen ir. front of dugouts, etc.). We are currently utilizing Holbrook Tuesday and Thursday eveningj, but are there on "borrowed time" due to demands for use by other groups. Therefore, to facilitate having our own LL Charter and our own LL system and to enhance a program that directly serves 250 youth, we need our own regulation LL field! A) A regulation LL field fits perfectly on the previously described site at Bederwood Park. B) A diagram of a regulation LL field is enclosed. m C) Major Elements * 2 constructed:- Chain Link fence to enclose field. Fence will be permanent.— Dugouts can be built so that they can be removed at a later date.- Concession Stand/Press Box - probably a /!^*story structure. Believe we can build a temporary fouudation (i.e, embedded concrete blocks) so v.r't tou.lding could be moved in the future. Structure has a main floor concession stand and a second-story "press box". A 15' X 20' building would be adequate.- The playing field itself is in place. Grass infield will"need to be installed (infield is currently grave’).D. OTHER SITE CONSIDERATIONS- Water is available and would be utilized. — Electricity is on street. Would have to be brought in to Concession Stand. - Parking is adequate. - Toilet facilities would be 'portable" as now exists on site. V. USE OF FIELD Ci} % A. 1990 ; If proposal is approved, work would b. with OBA forces as soon as weather permits. With maximum organization, we can "throw out the first pitch" on Saturday, June 2, 1990. Beginning June 2, 1990, use of Holbrook Park will be terminated (actual season begins May 5). Remainder of schedule will be played on Wolner Field or Bederwood Field. Tl' is schedule will permit minor leagues '• use the field also, '’.‘■.ub exposing the new ^'.'ility to use by 250 yo»ith in OBA. Little league will retain exclusive use of field thicugh mid-July. LL will also have priority on practice "'imes for post-season play through approximately August 10. Minor league 'ill use for post-season tournament finals. if- L^v ¥ > • ^ m B. 1991 to ? - At least for 1991 and 1992 Little League n/ill have exclusive use of field from mid-April to mid-July with same post-season provisions as above. Major Leagues will use field on a regularly scheduled basis, with minor league using field as time permits. Each youth in the program will have the opportunity to use the field. Eventual plan is to build permanent fields on school property across from Orono School campus. Those fields would become permanent home for OBA. These fields are in early planning stages. "Best guess" now is that Bederwood would be primary site for Little League through 1993 season. C. BEYOND 1993 Continued use of field for OBA, but on a less formal basis. Fence and backstop would remain. Other structures remain if so desired. Would be ideal "home field" for our minor league system. VI. MISCELLANEOUS A)Financing - OBA will finance improvements proposed above. OBA would welcome any contribution the city of Orono might make in the form of equipment and labor (i.e. tractor, post-hole digger, truck, miscellaneous labor on the site, or on the structures). Maintenance - OBA will be responsible for over-all maintenance of field and surrounding area. It would be a tremendous h 'Ip if City of Orono could mow grass for us, especially in the outfield area. With the cooperation of the City of O ono, the Orono Park Board and the parents and youth of the Orono Baseball Association, we believe a quality facility can be built to serve our community. Furthermore, this facility can be the cornerstone upon which we can build a first-rate baseball program that hindreds of our area's youth can enjoy and benefit from for ?ars to come. Respectfully submitted. ORONO BASEBALL ASSOCIATION 1■ \ Diagram —I «!i j- ahowing Little League Field layout. All dimensions are compubory unless marked ’‘Optional." •WI? February 20, 1990Dear Resident:Recently the City of Orono received a request from the Orono Baseball Association to perform improvements to the baseball diamond at Bederwood Park. The improvements will consist of contructing dugouts, fencing the entire ball diamond and constructing a press box/concession stand. The reason for the improvements is to upgrade the existing ball diamond to little league standards. All of the above costs will be paid for by the Orono Baseball Association. The Orono Baseball Association will perform the above improvements if they can have exclusive use of the ball diamond from 2:00 p.m. through dark, Monday through Friday, May through July. This matter was presented to the Park Commission on February 8, 1990. The Park Commission approved the above request subject to an annual review of the activities. Because this is an approved use, it is not necessary to conduct a public hearing. However because it will increase the use of the park, the City Council will conduct a public information meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, February 26, 1990. If you have questions or concerns and can not attend the meeting, please call me at 473-7357. Sincerely, 'yi /r. , John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director JRG/tln -117-23 21 0013 orge Burnhart 30 Eileen Street pie Plain MN 55359February 20, 1990Resident:V,™ ehe orono7r;::: -1 atV///"’Prove,..„ts ,, , imn Orono Ba<!ok ^ ^®®°clatlon. costs from°r?r‘'® they ^cVn\a^®®°^^^tion win me at 473-7357 Sincerely -117-23 21 0014 ephen Whitman 20 Eileen St pie Plain, MN 55359 ^G/tln 32-118-23 34 0006 John Dunn 20 South Brown Rd P.O. Box 77 Long Lake, MN 5535632-118-23 34 0011 John Merideth 3685 Watertown Road Maole Plain, MN 55359-117-23 21 0002 hn Burger 50 Bayside Rd ng Lake, MN 55356 -117-23 21 0016 mes & Joan Maus 00 Bayside Rd ng Lake, MN 55356 -117-23 12 0018 ott & Jill Stein 75 Christine Drive pie Plain, MN 55359 -117-23 12 0005 Idon Dunn Stubbs Bay Road South ple‘Plain',“'MN 5555359 -117-23 12 0022 ement C. Kroll Stubbs Bay Road South pie Plain, MN 55356 )13treet55359314tid 55359002 32-118-23 34 0006 John Dunn 20 South Brown Rd p.O. Box 77 Long Lake, MN 5535632-118-23 34 0011 John Merideth 3685 Watertown Road Maple Plain, MN 55359fr cr ^ C ^To;Date:Subject:FLD 2 G 1990Mayor Grabek S Orono Council Members City Administrator BernhardsonProa: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning AdministratorFebruary 21, 1950#1366 Loren Butterfield, 3925 Watertown Road - Preliminary Subdivision Approval - Extension of Effective Period of Preliminary Subdivision Review. u ^ a o 4» a 1 Mr. Rll h t ^ r ^ i © X (3 el^tlel re»Hil«l P:leleSM h;¥eMe] IZfiFTe PUB r •»-■TV n IT 9^ rnimcil Members -r.r.aRK.:-“ '"";T.„. >.»... Febtuaty 21- 1”” Matettovm o* .« tl -bacbea vr- '°tire pa""»«- , /LTffactVva for 1 Y*ar.. iiat appcoval is e.i it"e»plraa. Section H-l'/trtba n .an appncabl irements. • • w-i^tv to continue resulted since the aPpU«Jp^a .‘^tina P'Tirousf alorrena action, “^Vneea* « Tests"’'-'-'Ton"'be adoptea.,.. .- 'aPaTsTs'tat’''^^” P«%«ty^thro»|h^ i,''a\TtoanV \TTt""'the'^«Tch|« aesolun^^^^^ F,, an alTs ThT a«ecn Ve P^n™^ l„l. ional year, to t- seconded by _» effective A. Moved by ——' extension to ontterfi®^^-«,ed Hotio*'a j.j_q a one year t© Loren B i989. ““t'Ton *-^,„T^TVlat approval TT.TnO „n hatch 27, As°'«a«inToa^a via Pasolutio , nays .—.• L*UiIK1 r*Hi€e r^Helir•TcT;!* ■ •] OF ?js-..v,--:r®»'»l*ne ^°^en BumT^<^ity1?'^®' the ®PPtovaIio normaii®^^®ctive ^ ^ 3925i:r •■"■«•«£=:«’•«■■■••..., ®rjr TorFroa: Date: Subject:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson 5"l-DO.'st/j, Wl> 'l.-,ij.? G (Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning AdministratorFebruary 22, 1990#1458 Blake Bichanich, 332 Westlake Street - Variance - Second Review - ResolutionZoning District - LF-IA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2 acre, unseweredApplication - Request for side setback variance to construct second story addition.List Of Exhibits ^ tzrsco^TffiNExhibit A - Memo & Exhibits of 10/19/89 Exhibit B - Council Minutes of 10/23/89 Exhibit C - Notice of Council Action 10/27/89 Exhibit D - Letter to Applicant 11/29/89Discussion - This item was tabled at your October 23, 1989 meeting in order for applicant to work with staff regarding appropriate language pertaining to the existing and future needs for sewer/septic systems on this property. Briefly, recall that the applicant wish to add a second story to the existing residence, and construct a porch at the southwest corner. The house is 13' from the south lot line, 8’ from the north lot line, but 58' from the north lot line if the adjacent commonly owned property is taken into account. Due to the size of the property, hardcover was not a factor in the application, and average setback was determined to not be a problem. Staff had raised concerns about future septic needs. The applicant had noted that due to ownership of the two parcels on separate contracts for deed, he could not combine the two properties until some future date. Council directed staff to draft language regarding conditions on methods and timing of septic system expansion should it be needed in the future, and language for a possible assessment appeal waiver to be incorporated as a requirement in an approval resolution. The applicant was sent a draft of an assessment appeal waiver paragraph which he agrees to in principle, although staff had suggested that perhaps he wait for the general appeal waiver letter that is going to be sent to the Stubb's Pay neighborhood. Since that general appeal waiver information has not been sent as of this week, the applicant is requesting that Council go ahead on the basis that applicant will agree to signing an assessment appeal waiver for the reasonable share of the costs to serve his property wif!-'I ’tij„ council FL-D2G11S3Gtanek ^^"lernharason ,4.lpls«»«'xat«lnls“®'° , Pi.nnlnq ‘ ^ ’•' '•*p. Gallon, ^nataaty W' 35 vlestlako lasiaantlal. 1:r. .-U. --- .ona»uclswetea . variance to, for siae eetbacK,;„®y'\“aVltlon. fc*I,f-T70N "a"® ‘u'Sna ”' fSo^ «”S to a at you' 0'%rr%G«^'"^VnO'a"»'«aa tablea^^at ^ ,orure a'^" s"ln‘thia property. , secona Stews on ^licant » porch g,. a.v,«» _^«attuct a t; ^ line» ®, crurciv/firap^si^notice or ucant li' . m 1'®'^’^®’^ ,1 1989 w®®^oriate fi at e fot«aa tablea^^a,^ Jub stall reG -S;s"?n^bis «,3b^to eaa^e e^co^na house the account. ^ II "S'ltea that aue to not cV^aa uotec aeea» ue s'i:e”lntnre aate.^ ^y^tln "Vensit: altectea stal^^j^j^^ ana°lanU “»oe *® qoirement 1" '"nreVe^a " ?!!s/Sr ^ncor%"o^stea aa a r 0 Sn- r«"al\"er"tn he IncotP" lotion. o£ an esses^^j^ h^sta^^ :ant ““'^e^aptee^ to In the"Genetal ePPea^£,„t|,ooa^ “ ''*'‘^haps oe «s'-‘-.*the Stobb e 0«f" J rheaaoo to ne sent ” £o%atlon has n i 90 s" r\^ fen\’Vs'%n\e%t ‘nO^‘^^^^^^^ his v-C.» j3 zoning File *1458 February 22, 1990 Page 2 of 2Applicant and staff have discussed future septic concerns should the municipal sewer system not become a reality. Per Mayor Grabek's suggestion that the City take a "reasonable man's approach" to the septic concerns, the following is proposed as a set of conditions regarding those concerns:1. For the time being, the existing substandard but apparently fully functional system will be allowed to remain as is. Because the existing system is functional and because the number of actual occupants of the house is not expected to change for this owner < ; a result of the house expansion, no changes to the system will be required at this time. The system is expected to continue functioning in the same manner that it does now.2. If at some future date the system is found to be failing, the applicant would have the following options:A) extend the trenches, and if extending onto the next lot, this would require legal combination of the lots at that time; B) if sewer is anticipated in the near future at that date, the existing septic tanks could be used as holding tanks; C) if sewer is not anticipated at that time, then the third option is to go to a total nolding tank system; D) The fourth option would be to test other areas of the property to install some type of system suitable and acceptable to the City which would, although perhaps not totally meeting code standards, at least not result in a potential for contamination of neighboring wells or disturbance of neighboring properties. Staff Reconendation - Based upon the above information, the resolution previously drafted has been revised to incorporate the above language, and is presented for Council review. H4581990 septic concernsthl“llnf<“°" ‘hat\he City t*likt°s®-* Pericns regsfa?„”rth%"J; c‘^*c/r'’nVr‘”^ "7r'’o"p%^Vd 7s"'ltlin© b^lno jly fully functional system wMi"k ^andard but-c?pVnTs° for this owner - . . house is not' "® changes to the system‘J<?i <=he houseer tLrit%o?s®nol! "" ^°"tinue func?“on7nVi'n'tlSl‘^e“s;p^/ert^^„?a^^y^'’tH|^lVl?oe‘tn^ ^p^t^o^ns?xtend the trenches an/» ^etueonla regnl/e - next ^ ^^^^iclpated Inthe ©xistlnq senf^^ ♦. near future a*“ thaf* tanks; tanks could be us^d as op'roV i‘i ?o”\rt‘o'vrt:? u^^s^^steV^* '6 fourth option would .- tc»i ‘e“ -/-V >-rt -V aJS-l? wens or ^iet„rlrncrr/:lrg£^-rln“| Ion - i?HTf' ti"tn?oVpo°rate‘'’t* e"/bi PtevlouslyCouncil review. above language, and r i h RBSOLUTIOR GRANTING A VARIANCE TO HUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 5 (B)PILE *1458NBERBAS, Blake Bichanich [ reinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the properties located at 324-332 Westlake Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 4 & 5, Block 1, Hillside Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a second story addition above the existing residence, located 13.0' from the south side lot line and approximately 8' from the north side lot line of Lot 5 where side setbacks of 30' are normally required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1458. 2. The property is located in the LP-IA Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 18, 1989, and recommended approval of the proposed variance on a vote of 4-2 based upon the following findings: A) Applicant owns the adjacent Lot 4 to the north, hence the effective side setback to the north lot line is approximately 58*. The applicant has not combined the two properties because they are on separate contracts-for-deed. B) The proposed second story addition and extension of the existing house along the south line of existing south wall, will encroach no closer to the neighboring residence than the existing house, hence there is no significant impact on the neighboring property. Page 1 of 6 DEN 5 (B)inafter "the applicant") 324-332 Westlake Street r "City") and legallyark, Hennepin County, "); andplied to the City for a on 10.23, Subdivision 5 nd story addition above rom the south side lot h side lot line of Lot 5 equired. ) by the City Council of Zoning Pile #1458. he LP-lA Single Family ‘Viewed this application lended approval of the sased upon the following ■',6 C) The most appropriate method for determining location of the average setback line is to use the residence to the north at 3865 Bayside Road as the northern terminus of that defined line, rather than the small cabin on applicant's Lot 4. Based on an average setback line defined between the houses at 3865 Bayside Road and 340 Westlake Street, the proposed additions do not require a variance for average setback.4. Per Municipal Zoning Code Section 12.30, Subdivision 4 (E), the existing on-site sewage treatment system on the property has been reviewed based on the expansion of this residence from a 1 bedroom status to a 2 bedroom status. The existing septic system is substandard in design and size, based on estimated soil conditions and minimum code requirements. However, that system is functioning adequately and no seepage or evidence of past seepage is visible. It is unlikely that this system could be upgraded totally within the requirements of the code based on probable soil conditions, but the system could conceivably be expanded by lengthening the existing drainfleld tr<*nches without encroaching into sanitary setbacks or lake setoacks. Such an expansion would require extending into the adjacent commonly owned Lot 4, and at such time that trench extension occurred, the northerly and southerly Iocs would have to be legally combined.5. The installation of municipal sewers has been studied in the Stubb's Bay area, including this property. As of the date of this resolution, no decision has been made as to whether the City will proceed with a municipal sewer project. The applicant has agreed to sign a waiver of his assessment appeal rights for the reasc^nable share of costs to be assessed to his property if tJiat sewer project is undertaken. 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and wel^" of the community. Page 2 of 6 t i nt Lot 4 to the north, k to the north lot line licant has not combined they are on separate ddition and extension of south line of existing loser to the neighboring 3use, hence there is no boring property. LSlrHSlami]L«JfT5 •kiCt §):Ji •1^ ♦L«r:i iiV: i*J ^ [•raXffil •Hit* * ¥ •*. * • % i . ii" .- 'V , The City WU anavariance would fire hazard serve as aSouiabeinkeepiMVl „ o, the City. Cci. ana coeptehenei COHOItlOW COSCLOSIOHS, ORDER KVD ,.eeo X-7^]-t%°3 l^.ri'an« « S&S i„l*n,“onaitlons: ^ ll^ilcVyste: 1. ontll auch “"%S^°aPP3«"\W functional aepti 5fu bV a°lloiiea to remain •as-ia . eahntic system is ro ;^\\“bV.U0«ea to remain -as-r. • ,cUon ia neceaaary Tthal point mipl inclu-a, but -ouia not Jf'i^^^trthe'folfowin,: ---------sa to the following: „tenaing into Lot 4, . ^ the trenches, of Lots 4 and 5 at ^tlis"oria reguue legal combin.tron that time; ^ the near future at that Vate- \re-eJi%t"iVg-/epV^"»"- «uia be uaea noiaing tanka, ,t that time, a hoiaing ‘‘ °tem'couia°be Inatallea. tank system coux ?age 3 of 6 D) test o*h«r areas of the property to install some type of system suitable d acceptable to the City which would, although pert., .js not totally meeting code standards, at least not result in a potential for contamination of neighboring wells or disturbance of neighboring properties.3. Prior to this variance app applicant shall sign a formal wa. rights for the reasonable shar-t municipal sewer to the property as pa sewer project.nking effect, the assessment appeal costs to provide of any forthcoming4. 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 (February 26, 1991). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, t.all automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall he punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, hiP heirs, successors and assigns, here!/agrees to the record; ig of this resolution in the chain of title ot the property. Adopted by the City Council ;f the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 26th ^ay of February, 1990. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward Callahan, Jr., Acting Mayor Property Owner(sT -V-"* Page 4 of 6 It* * STATE OP MINNESOTA )) ss.COUNTY OP HENNEPIN )The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of Pebruary, 1990, by Edward Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Acting Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commissica Expires STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _f 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 tne foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 5 of 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ))ss.COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )On this day of 199 before me aNotary Public within and for said County, personally appeared_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known tome to be the person(s) described Tn and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.ATE OF MINNESOTA ))DNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on is 26th day of February, 1990, by Edward Callahan, Jr. & rothy H. Hallin, Acting Mayor & City Clerk of the City of ono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was ecuted on behalf of the City. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Notary Public \TE OF MINNESOTA ) ) JNTY OF HENNEPIN ) this __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 199 'ore me a Notary Public within and for said county, personalTy peared _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ jwn to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the cegoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed j same as his (their) free act and deed. MINUTES OP ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 23, 1989 #1453 WILLIAM BIBBS 1905 PAGERNESS POINT ROAD VARIANCE Mr. Hibbs was not present for this review. City Administrator Bernhardson recommended tabling this matter until Mr. Hibbs could attend. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to table application #1453. Motion, Ayes«=5, Nays=0, #1458 BLAKE BICBANICH 332 WESTLAKE STREET VARIANCE Mr. Blake Bichanich was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this application involved a request for a side setback variance to construct a second story addition. Mr. Bichanich said that he hoped to combine the two lots as soon as possible. He was hopeful that City sewer would go through the area, but in the mean time he was asking for an allowance or variance that would allow him to modestly alter the existing residence. CounciImember Goetten thought that Gaffron's suggestion to extend the drainfiel'’ seemed reasonable. Gaffron elaborated on his recommendations for the septic system. Mayor Grabek thought it would be best to allow the addition, leave the septic system as is until such time there is an indication of failure, and then try the additional drainfield. Grabek said that hopefully sewer would be available by that time. Bernhardson said that the City would like to work out an agreement with the applicant that would require him to extend the drainfield when needed or pump if the extension is not possible. He would also explore with the City Attorney whether it would be legal to require the applicant to sign an appeal waiver for any future sewer assessments. Mayor Grabek asked Gaffron whether there were defined standards that would indicate a septic system is failing so there can be no dispute? Gaffron said if there was seepage, there would be no question of failure. However, there are gray areas leading up to that point. Mayor Grabek asked Mr. Bichanich if he would object to a condition of approval that would require him to extend the drainfield if the present septic system failed. MINUTES OP ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 23, 1989O COUNCIL ®ETIHG BEU) OCTOBER 23.1989)INT ROAD,s not present tor this review. ^^3,3trator Bernharason reoo».endeaHibbs oouia atten . CounciIsiember ea by “wtion, hyes=5, Nays-0, ,le application lANlCB a. for this matter.chanich was presen ^ ^\%V/r^e,lVst''?or^=a-sii;Ve?hao\ varianoe to “a story aaaition. K ..ia that he hopea to Je„er wouia goch said tnat that City ^ j, an U ht that Gatfron-S suggestion to Goetten '?'°^onable.£ieia seewea reaso A on his recomroendatiiborated on his b thought it 3.CSS r-Sa-be ^a«e-by-rt ti.e. hopelully sew " sata that t^,“«irreVi« “i. «,*f“slb\e!:he applicant th t extension would be -e the applicant sessments. defined 1, A raffron whether failing so there'rxa\^'atate“ septio syste. is £aiii ^ fhere would be no -.^'„„?e^ertVerlVrr|?ay areas ieaaing UP to ^A obiect to a ZONING PILE #1458-BICHANICH CONTINUEDMr. Bichanich indicated that would be reasonable.Bernhardson asked if the Council could table this matter to provide time to work out acceptable language for the resolution.CounciImember Callahan questioned whether Lot 4 would provide additional drainfield sites if needed?Gaffron said that combining the two lots would not solve the problem of finding a septic system location. Gaffron said that the combination would provide additional room to extend the drainfield. Gaffron said that he would like to have a special lot combination or other document that would place any future owner of Lot 4 on notice, that there is the need for the encroachment into that Lot for the extension of the drainfield. CounciImember Goetten noted that there had been 4 persons residing at this residence prior to Mr. Bichanich purchasing the property. There were no problems with the septic system during that time period. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImembe.r Callahan, to table this application and have staff work with the applicant regarding appropriate language pertaining to the existing and future needs for sewer/septic on this property. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1459 JAMBS MULVANNY 559 PARK LANE VARIANCES RESOLUTION #2718 Mr. and Mrs. Mulvanny were present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson informed the Council and Mayor Grabek that the Mulvannys were requesting approval of an average lakeshore setback and hardcover variance to construct an addition over an existing deck. Mayor Grabek said that this type of application really put the Council in a difficult position. Mayor Grabek explained the danger of setting a precedent. Mr. Mulvanny replied that unlike many of his neighbors, he has a double lot. Mr. Mulvanny said that the house was built in 1917. CounciImember Goetten questioned the purpose of the addition? Mr. Mulvanny replied that the addition would increase the size of the dining room and bedroom which are both very small. Goetten questioned whether there was any other location for the addition that would not encroach into the 75-250* setback !l lLR I CITY of ORONO CITY Post Oflice Box 66•Crystal Bay, BAinnetoU 56323• Municipal OfficM OF ORONQ On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka November 29, 1989 Blake Bichanich 332 Westlake Street Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear Mr. Bichanich: AS we discussed on November 16th, I am Council your house expansion. The draft language reads as follows: 'Conditions of variance approval include the following: 1 In orantinq the side setback variance to allow expansion of the existing residence on this property which is substandard in area and width, the City that expansion of the existing residence increases the polentill use of the existing substandard septic system on the property, and therefore may ultimately contribute to the need^for installation of municipal sewers area Bv siqninc this resolution, the applicants agree a covenant^that should the property be the reasonable costs of installation of municipal sewer lines to serve the property, the applicants waive their right to appeal the assessment of such costs. The total unit cost of sewer for this property is SIO 750 00 for 1989. The applicants agree to waive appea- of thi^amount plus an additional incremental amount based on the inflation rate for years subsequent to 1989. Please review this and advise whether this is acceptable a conditio^of apprcval, your application is tentatively sohaduled for fS?ther review at the December 11, 1989 City Council meeting. Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administra or MPG/tln . . cc: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Tom Barrett, City Attorney BL'ILDING 4 ZONING - 47J.7357 assessing AUMINlSm\TION 4 nVVNCE - 47J.735H JA.\-4734)510 PI BLIC WORKS - 473-7359 CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 10/27/89TO: Blake Bichanich332 Westlake Street Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES:TYPE OF APPLICATION: VarianceDATE OF MEETING: 10/23/89 VOTB:5 For 0 Against To: Froa: Date: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron/ Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator October 19, 1989 Subject: #1458 Blake Bichanich, 332 Westlake Street - Variance > Resolution Boning District - LR-IA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2 acre, unsewered Application - Request for side setback variance to construct second story addition. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Discussion - Draft Resolution Planning Commission Minutes of 9/18/89 Planning Commission Action Notice of 9/19/89 Memo & Exhibits of 9/15/89 Please review the memo and exhibits of September 15, 1989. Briefly, the applicant is proposing to construct a second story addition over an existing residence which is 13* from the south side lot line where a 30' setback is required. Additionally, although applicant owns the lot and cabin adjacent to the other side, he is not able to combine the two properties due to their contract for deed status, hence a 22' side setback variance is required also from the north lot line. A number of issues are raised by this proposed addition, as follows: 1. Status of non-plumbed cabin at 324 Westlake Street as a guest house. 2. Average lakeshore setback line determination. 3. Increase in intensity of use from a 1 bedroom to a 2 bedroom use, without the ability to upgrade or replace existing substandard but functional septic system to a fully conforming status. At their September 18, 1989 meeting. Planning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend approval of the side setback variance, and address the above issues as follows: t:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning a zoning Administrator October 19, 1989V«ifnce^f^lesolS?ioS^' Westlake Street - -re, unsewered * Single family lakeshore residential, 2*cond story addition.^ setback variance to construct ExhibitsB " Resolution hibit C - Commission Minutes of 9/18/89 dibit D - Memo &"Lhibitror9/l?/?? 9/19/89 Lon - ' the appllcanif isSeptember 15 iQpg t line where a 30* setbaeir the south I applicant owns the lot and oah!2“ ^"S^ltionally, ‘=°'">>ine tha^ two'^Vl-on'l^^f"' *’’® '>‘Aer fro^ t\%“n “oVth'’l"oriLlr ~ ™ber Of issues are raised by this proposed addition, as ■?‘“llse!' "°"-Pl™»ed cabin at 324 Westlake street as a Average lakeshore setback line determination. iof t.Ve! w"i4"oVt liiTiVr: * 1 ‘>*<^-0"' to a 2 o™!nr«a?us!"* ^““‘toAa/septi^’s^s^Sa “to heir September 18. l9flo * to recommend approval of Planning Commission >a above issues'^L follows: ''*tiance, JSd ommission informed the applicant that it is nt that the lots be uli imately combined and ise torn down, but Planning Commission .d not recommend that a condition of approval s be combination of the lots, in deference to ted problems with having to refinance the two >perties in order to combine them. Planning ed on the fact that the cabin at 324 Westlake plumbing and is generally used for storage, :ant indicated they may have to inhabit that temporary basis during construction of the dition.determination of the average setback line, ission felt that the appropriate average ould be drawn between the adjacent residence 340 Westlake Street and the next house to 65 Bayslde Road, ignoring the location of the Westlake Street. Based on this line no average lakeshore setback variance is •IcW: f • !• 1:^9 M Lng Commission left the resolution of the concerns to staff and the City Council, the section entitled "septic system concerns" September 15th. In summary, that discussion ! City has the right and responsibility to ion of an existing system when addition of lumbing fixtures changes the character or use of a structure. Staff feels that the s 1 bedroom in nature and will be expanded to th the addition. The existing system is ■y functional, with no seepage noted, but ls tandard in design. - though no soil testing the soil survey indicates soil types which require a much larger drainfleld and likely a It is unlikely that the existing system can replaced in a fully conforming mannner based soil types. The issues remain: the house be allowed to double in inhabitant ith no septic system expansion? expansion of the system by increasing trench e allowed regardless of actual soil types ed on the basis that the existing system be functioning relatively well in the soils ig Fil®“fof ’3 ” .„jormea the1. Planning Co»»iaal°J/, lots be^ul^lma«^ «”:^pVo«"the'^gue'a** ^°teco»ena'that a condition o^ftirtte-^n/, «rn!“’'second story average ^ average|l.n*n'’nV««jaslo'feetbaoh line «ooia „,stlake Street l°°ation °i Sv«tr&;E"cabin no average deterininatio r ,a.ion of thenecessary. ^ues resolutior^___^iSsST"- “ ; ... -.K manning Commission ^-he concerns" 3. The ^ _ concerns ^°^jvied "septic ®Y® ^ discussion ®eptic ®y^the in nonsibilitYPlease review ^^^g^ber 15th. addition of in the memo ° city has system when ® ^ ^er or "‘■”<rfexP«^on ol •",*^^%\^"^han,e. the cheract^ llTrolV7.^^ foTe" o"^ a«ucture. ‘1* expand./ « intensity of bedroom inbut is current <=®^^[^itb^ the no seepage testingo Kedrooms witn witn n „uict :S«ent cabin i® I addition. ^^"%eepage 2 bedrooms J'^^y functional, wi h ®° es which apparently^ubstandard /y indicates soil typ a elso V ^vod the soil larcier dreinr .4 — — avstem cenhas fi'j require a much 1 / existing Y* basednormally wou^d t o uhlltely th.‘ forming mannne „ound sy.tem- “ oed In a ‘"^^nnes remain: rn tfeinrectsa „ ^ouhle In Inhabitantrtxre=«^”°^^ to dounle m mnamtant jUclty"«i"« nrse^tlc i"«f “"A “yP« !J«,"r"s Vo"be luhotioning Zoning File #1458 October 19, 1989 Page 3 of 3C) Should granting of the variances to expand the house rely on applicant provide a fully conforming septic system, which may be impossible?D) How does the possible installation of sewers in the near future affect Council's decision on this application?E) Does Council wish to consider conditioning approval on the applicant signing an appeal waiver of any future sewer assessments?Staff Recommendation -Until municipal sewer is installed in the Westlake Street area, the inevitable redevelopment of that neighborhood will be severely hindered by septic system constraints. The following would be some options the Council might consider; 1. Grant the variances for house expansion without any septic system upgrade. 2. Grant the variances but require extension of the existing system. 3. Conditionally grant the variances subject to applicant providing a fully conforming septic system for the two bedroom house. 4. Denial of the variances. Any of the three approval options could include one or both of the following conditions: A) Require that the lots be legally combined or at least be covered under a special lot combination resolution, which would place any future buyers of the cabin lot on notice that it is not considered buildable unless held in common with the residence parcel. This condition would be critical if the existing drainfield trenches are lengthened, since they will cross the lot line onto the cabin lot. B) Applicant could be required to sign an appeal waiver for any future sewer assessments that would be forthcoming. Staff has drafted a resolution containing some gaps which need to be filled in per Council's final action on this request. . I r- A RBSOLUTIOH GRANTIIIG A VARIAMCB TO MDNICIPAL ZOHIIIG CODE SECTION 10.23r SDBDIVISIOH 5 PILE #1458 (B) WHEREAS, Blake Bichanich (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the properties located at 324-332 Westlake Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 4 & 5, Block 1, Hillside Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a second story addition above the existing residence, located 13.0' from the south side lot line and approximately 8' from the north side lot line of Lot 5 where side setbacks of 30' are normally required. HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1458. 2. The property is located in the LR-lA Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 18, 1989, and recommended approval of the proposed variance on a vote of 4-2 based upon the following findings: A) Applicant owns the adjacent Lot 4 to the north, hence the effective side setback to the north lot line is approximately 58'. The applicant has not combined the two properties because they are on separate contracts for deed. B) The proposed second story addition and extension of the existing house along the south line of existing south wall, will encroach no closer to the neighboring residence than the existing house, hence there is no significant impact on the neighboring property. Page 1 of 5 J A RBSOLOTION GRAMTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 5 (B)PILE #1458WHEREAS, Blake Bichanlch (hereinafter "the applicant") the owner of the properties located at 324-332 Westlake Street hin the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally ::ribed as follows:Lots 4 & 5, Block 1, Hillside Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); andWHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a iance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 5 to permit the construction of a second story addition above existing residence, located 13.0' from the south side let e and approximately 8' from the north side lot line of Lot 3 re side setbacks of 30' are normally required.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of lo, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1458. 2. The property is located in the LR-lA Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 18, 1989, and recommended approval of the proposed variance on a vote of 4-2 based upon the following findings: A) Applicant owns the adjacent Lot 4 to the north, hence the effective side setback to the north lot line is approximately 58'. The applicant has not combined the two properties because they are on separate contracts for deed. B) The proposed second story addition and extension of the existing house along the south line of existing south wall, will encroach no closer to the neighboring residence than the existing house, hence there is no significant impact on the neighboring property. Page 1 of 5 C) The most appropriate method for determining location of the average setback line is to use the residence to the north at 3865 Bayside Road as the northern terminus of that defined line, rather than the small cabin on applicant's Lot 4. Based on an average setback line defined between the houses at 3865 Bayside Road and 340 Westlake Street, the proposed additions do not require a variance for average setback.6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 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 zoning district; that granting the variance would nut adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of second story addition and minor first story addition of the existing residence, such existing structure and additions being 13' from the souch side lot line where a 30' side setback is normally required, and being 8' from the north side lot line wnere a 30' side setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 5 f 1 IO V- !• r«I 4 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of October, 1989. ATTEST: Dorotli/ M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OP MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of October, 1989, by James R. Grabek & 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 My Commission Expires Page 4 of 5 MINDTES OP THB PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989ZONING FILE #1456-EMPIKLD CONTINUEDMrs. Brad Childs, the prospective buyers of the property.Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that this is an application requesting approval of an after-the-fact structure-to-structure setback variance for a detached garage. Gaffron said that approval of this variance should be conditioned upon inspection by the City to verify that appropriate fire walls exist in both garages.Mr. Childs expressed his support for the approval of the variance.There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed.Planning Commissioner Cohen observed that the City had ^j-fften a letter to the Emfields on June 17, 1986 and questioned whether anything further happened beyond that date? Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth replied that the Emfield's building contractor was supposed to meet with the City's Building Official, but did not follow through. Mrs. Emfield said that the contractor had indicated that he had followed through, but he had not. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of the after-the-fact structure-to-structure setback variance for a detached garage, subject to the City's inspection of the fire wall and that the garage remain detached. Motion, Ayes=6, Nays=0, Motion passed. #1458 BLAKE M. BICHAHICH 332 WESTLAKE STREET VARIANCE PUBLIC BEARING 8:50 P.M. TO 9:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Bichanich were present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron provided a brief explanation of this application for a side setback variance to construct a second story addition. Gaffron also said that the existing drainfield system is small and does not meet the current codes, but it seems to be working. Gaffron also explained the septic concerns involved with the proposed expansion of this property (see MPG memo of 9/15/89). Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Bichanich what the current use of the guest house is and what he plans to do with the two lots? 1 n ‘ - > - MIHU TBS of the PLAHHIHG COMMISSIOII MKBTIBG SBFTBHBiS 18, 1989 i ii ZOHIBG PILE #1458-BICHMIICH COHTim,— Mr. Bichanich said that he intends to combxne the l°ts, but he needs to refinance in order to do that. In order t refinance, he has to make some improvements to the house. He said that once the lots are combined and sewer goes in, .*1® either incoporate the guest house into the principal residence or remove it* Chairman Kelley indicated that f^ regarding the intensification of the use and the effect it will have on the septic dystem. Planning Commissioner Brown asked Gaffron if there was another drainfield site on the property? Gaffron replied that it was very likely that ? system could not be installed. He said that the soil type will probably call for a mound system, but there is not enough area with suitable slopes on the lot for a mound system. Chairman Kelley questioned whether the combination of these two lots could be a condition of approval? Gaffron and Mabusth believed that such a condition could be part of the approval of the variance. Mr. Bichanich presented a letter that he had received from a neighbor supporting his application. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Brown indicated that he was concerned about the septic system. Gaffron said that the septic cede is not part of the zoning code, il saif^hat he would have to take this issue to Council for some direction. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend °n KellevLtback variance to construct a second story addition. K®ll®y informed the Bichaniches that it is really the intent of the City to have these lots combined and the guest house torn down. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1459 JAMBS MULVANHT 559 PARK LAMB VARIAHCBS certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Mulvanny were present for this matter. v,,ir»a*^ ^®Uification wasriSn%^Hpti: „ .s.ea =a«-" th suitaa , V ouest-ioned joval- “ “""tuevea ..a. a.c. a ccna <0 .._v,,y«tlv ^®^^.^4ance. F the apt' i.od a 1®^^ , -,«ttet jr suppo froio ^ ^r-orned a ..ioner *rc«n , supportin, poDx. •s-““Sr/--••‘-•“*“:r.....;? „,.„ —.v. ”«’"*••■• ” ”"" said ^rtuld have t b^■txon aa^S fh* " seconaea.M a* aa^-rtlon! „issioner Banaon’^ thejaa^ ^yes*»»>» ,W«S ( Mailin? -e’^® 55, y»J« “** , « *0 *;"d Certi*i=a«5U.»fSMa«« ^jnaavlx „ax duly a°a®*‘ Muivanny ««'* «r. ana Mra. «“ CITY OP ORONO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN473-7357 55323 ZONING PILE #1458NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONDate of Notice: 9/19/89COPIES TO:TO: Blake Bichanich332 Westlake Street Long Lake, MN 55356TYPE OP APPLICATION: VarianceDATE OP MEETING: 9/18/89 VOTE: 6 For 0 AgainstiPlaimlng CoHission recoansends the following:Approval as submitted INOTBS and SPECIAL CONDITIONS:Planning Commission recommended approval of variances for side Jsetbacks. Average setback variance is not required based on the two [adjacent lots owned in common being considered as a single building site.Planning Commission did not wish to condition approval on legal [combination of the lots, but expressed the unanimous feeling that the City's ultimate "goal" for this property should be removal of the structure [at 324 Westlake and combination of Lots 4 and 5. Planning Commission left the resolution of the septic system upgrade lissue to staff and City Council. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday October 9, 1989; meeting starts at 7:00p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission linutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and ipproval by the Planning Commission. Please contact Mike Gaffron at 473-7357 if you wish to further discuss :he septic system concerns. -hStreet55356 COPXfiS ----------f/^9/89 ^^lOHL^y^ffance/•18/89^ecottmencia tK ® ---------------------------iUe. ---------------^^^lOHSs *^®n reo*tbac;c ®;°®»ended‘Common ls^f'‘°'^ai q-, *’*«9 «nslde«d ‘ '^*9u%ed*^««=es ,bi? ffi «l»i, t„ bull «e t»o17*" « co„«, October o . as, 'bl9°f'’‘®s Of tb **’ starts at >-sa/- -® « -3-,3s. ,,« -3-33S3 3 r " ^ - “isb to f„,^ °^SCUss ■' ■4 *^ 1^CITY OF OROHO P.O. Box 66 FILB HO. 1458 MOnCB OF MEBTIliG RESOHKbULIWGcostal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Data of Notice: 9/27/89TO: Blake Bichanich COPIBS:332 Westlake StreetIion^ Lake# MN 55356 _—NOTICE OF CANCELLED CODNCIL MEETINGThe reoular City Council meeting originally scheduled for Mondav o^^ars, 1989 has been cancelled for lack of quorum due Sr^lfflirtrin schedules of 3 of the 5 Councllmembers.All loning application items previously scheduled for°.:ttina Ttlftf a“t*7":0o“p.m‘.*‘‘iro‘r°l:r' tl^'ml'nlmire?Srpo"t®enti’a'‘l ?mVa=t of ‘bis delay on your 9rol®cb, you may wr,hfo |“h^i^t^orr^1r^l^m\%riT,1i?%^\%nrni“t f?/ea7y Tubmftted it) for early plan review. Please contact City staff if you have any questions. r1 ■i* itSKJtkn 4*^iiiTf 1 ertn •«««■»>«.« s I Tot Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:September 15, 1989 Subject: #1458 Blake Bichanich, 332 Westlake Street Variance - Public Hearing Soning District - LR-IA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2 acre, unsewered Application - Request for side setback variance to construct second story addition. List of Bzhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit D E P G H I Application Letter of Request Plat Map Property Owners List Survey with Staff Notations Hardcover Calculations Elevation Views & Floor Plans Letter from Applicant’s Structural Engineer Topographical Survey Pertinent Facts - 1.Applicant is the contract-for-deed owner of Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Hillside Park, also known as 324 and 332 Westlake Street respectively. There is a cabin at 324 Westlake Street which contains no plumbing but does have electricity, and is currently used as a guest house for the principal residence structure at 332 Westlake Street, although the two lots are separate for tax purposes. Applicant notes that he would have to refinance the two properties in order to combine them for tax purposes. 2.Applicant is proposing to construct a second story on the house on Lot S. Additionally, he would be constructing a porch at the southwest corner of that structure in line with the existing walls of the house. 3.The existing house is 13' from the south side lot line where a 30' side setback is normally required. Additionally, the existing house is about 8' from the north lot line. If both properties are taken into account, the north side setback is about 58'. I E-xanning commission Members •City Administrator BernhardsonMichael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator September 15, 198911458 Blake Bichanich, 332 Westlake Street - Variance - Public HearingSMwered^‘“' l«lt«8hore residential, 2".t'oAr* addilionf conetructIbitstttttttttABCDEPGHIApplication Letter of Request Plat MapProperty Owners List Survey with Staff Notations Hardcover Calculations Elevation Views & Floor Plans Engineer lets - f "hiVi owner of Lots 4 and 5, ^Ve8DVctlvelS''^''?h^®° Westlake Lcitv contains no plumbing but does have , currently used as a guest house for the ^fh structure at 332 Westlake Street, igh the two lots are separate for tax purposes ies iS^Mder ^® ^®^® refinance the twoies in order to combine them for tax purposes. m L^t s'"® Ad®d"l*ln«n°.??"®^K“®^ ® second story on the t ^® be constructing a ating wtl“ Vf th°eTols°e. 1" Una with it i^;nSflTy‘r,',n7“e‘? ‘ MdiUo„V“v’''’?r tes are taken into account, the north side setback is _]« p*n~% «<Bi Zoning File #1458 September 15, 1989 Page 2 of 54. Hardcover on the property is as follows;0-75* 75-250' 250-500*500-1000'Lot 5 OnlyLots 4 & 5 Combined 1.7%0.9%20.9%15.4%20.6%*10.1%20%*10%* Includes entire width of drivewayBased on the above, hardcover is not a factor in the current proposal.Applicant also proposes an extension of the house 8' east of the existing wall. This would be located over the area of the pre-existing porch which applicant has torn off. Note that this addition would line up exactly with the neighboring house to the south. It would extend nearer the lake than the "guest house" on Lot 4, but would be behind the average lakeshore setback defined by the next lakeshore residence to the north at 3865 Bayside Road. The proposed lakeward addition would be approximately 150' back from the normal shoreline. The site topography, location of wells on this property and the neighboring property, and the fact that this is a long, narrow lakeshore lot, all have a very limiting effect on the additional development of this property without municipal sewer. Discussion - If the applicant cannot combine these two properties, you should look at Lot 5 as a separate parcel for variance review. It would certainly be preferrable from a development standpoint if the applicant could combine the two parcels and develop towards the center of the property to maintain appropriate setbacks. For purposes of this staff review, the assumption is made that Lots 4 and 5 will ultimately be combined. No average lakeshore setback variance is required presuming that the adjacent residence to the north is 3865 Bayside Road. The average lakeshore setback line is drawn under this assumption. Applicant would not be encroaching nearer either north or south lot lines, but would be extending approximately 10-12' vertically above the existing roof. As of this writing, no comment from the neighbor to the south, who would be most affected by the addition, has been received. Lows:250-500* 500-1000*20.6%*10.1%20%*10%b a factor In the currentn of the house 8* east of Located over the area of cant has torn off. Note up exactly with the would extend nearer the 4, but would be behind led by the next lakeshore side Road. The proposed lately 150* back from the Lis on this property and ict that this is a long^ ■y limiting effect on the perty without municipal lese two properties, you el for variance review, a development standpoint MO parcels and develop :o maintain appropriate svlew, the assumption is s combined. tee is required presuming th is 3865 Bayslde Road. i is drawn under this g nearer either north or ng approximately 10-12* As of this writing, no ith, who would be most ved. Zoning File *1458 September 15, 1989 Page 3 of 5The assumption that the lots will be combined raises the issue of use of the cabin at 324 Westlake Street as a guest house. While that building contains no plumbing, it does have electricity and a "kitchenette” i.e. contains a stove. The stove could certainly be removed, making this a non-dwelling unit, with use merely as a storage building. Ultimately, applicant notes his intent would be to expand the house at 332 Westlake Street northward, ultimately removing the cabin at 324 Westlake Street.Septic System Concerns -Orono*s On-site Sewage Treatment Ordinance in Section 12.30, Subdivision 4 (E) requires that permits for expansion of existing buildings served by septic systems, may not be issued until the septic system has been Inspected and certified by the City as being in compliance with this section. It goes on to state that the City may require expansion of existing systems when the "addition of bedrooms and plumbing fixtures . . .changes the character or intensity of the established” use of a structure. In this case, applicant has noted that the previous property owners used the porch as a second bedroom, hence technically this might be conceived as a pre-existing two bedroom house. Note from applicant's building plans that his proposal is for a two bedroom home. Inspection of the existing system, in conjunction with a review of City records regarding that system, indicate that there are two 500 gallon tanks and approximately 250 square feet of trench drainfield in three drainfield lines on the lakeshore side of the house. The most downhill drainfield line is 79* from the normal shoreline, meeting the setback requirement. The existing system appears to be functioning adequately and no seepage or evidence of past seepage is visible. From a design standpoint, the existing drainfield system is quite substandard based on current codes. The soil survey indicates kilkenny soils at this site, which commonly would be expected to have a perc rate requiring 300 s.f. of drainfield per bedroom. The existing 250 s.f. drainfield would not technically be large enough to serve a two bedroom house unless the soil was a sand or sandy loam texture with a perc rate faster than 5 minutes per inch. In general, the existing system would be expected to be capable of serving two people, possibly three on a long term basis. This also disregards the fact that Kllkenney soils typically require use of a mound system due to seasonal saturation zones near the surface. That seasonal saturation tends to decrease the useful life of a trench-type drainfield. combined raises the s Street as a guest amblng. It does have a stove. The stove t-dwelllng unlt^ with tly, applicant notes 332 Westlake Street 324 Westlake Street.nee In Section 12.30r expansion of existing be Issued until the .fled by the City as oes on to state that ig systems when the *es . . .changes the se of a structure.:he previous property ince technically this >edroom house. Note roposal Is for a two conjunction with a , Indicate that there f 250 square feet of >n the lakeshore side line Is 79* from the ‘ement. The existing Ly and no seepage or dralnfleld system Is . The soil survey :h commonly would be f. of dralnfleld per ould not technically unless the soil was rate faster than 5 Lng system would be r possibly three on a fact that Kllkenney tern due to seasonal seasonal saturation i-type dralnfleld. h ; Zoning File #1458 September 15 r 1989 Page 4 of 5The ultimate question to ask Is whether this house should be allowed to virtually double Its livable space without requiring expansion of the dralnfleld system. The existing system Is working under its current usage, but the proposed additions to the house probably will tend to make the house large enough for three or possibly four inhabitants. Chances are if soil testing was done, the existing system could not be expanded in a conforming manner using trenches, but would require a mound system. There is no feasible location on the property to construct a mound. Should further development of this property, including the currently proposed expansion, be held up until municipal sewers are provided to this neighborhood? Council has made no determination as to if or when sewers will be provided.The applicant should be advised that these questions and this discussion would be occurring regardless of the need for the side setback variance, since expansion of a residence on a subsl,ondard, unsewered lot is subject to the on-site sewage treatment code provisions noted ear.i ier. Staff Recfsendation - Aside from the septic system issues. Planning Commission approval of the side setback variance based on additions being no closer to the side lot lines than the existing structure. Considering Lots 4 and 5 as a single building lot, no average setback variance is necessary. One condition of approval would logically be that the two lots be combined for tax purposes, thus negating the need for a north side setback variance but bringing up the issue of the second structure as a guest house vs. storage only. Finally, Planning Commission is requested to consider the septic system issue. If municipal sewer was available, the concerns about a substandard septic system would be eliminated. The fact that the existing substandard system is functioning correctly indicates that under current usage, no problems are Planning Commission feels that the proposed additions will effectively increase the probable number of inhabitants of this residence, that creates a potential for septic system problems in the future that perhaps cannot be solved in a conforming manner until municipal sewer becomes available. One interim option would be lengthening of the existing dralnfleld onto Lot 4, providing extra capacity but being in soils and water table conditions which will limit the useful life of the system. This would seem to be a reasonable option if City sewer is definitely expected to be provided in the relatively short-term future (5-10 years). question to ‘rlgrinlton® of "'Se^draln'iie^ld »y«^®”\hrp*ro®p''o^sVd addl^^:s,rtV^^^ert\r,n'v«%^^^,couianot^b:i„'q manner «%i"|e«!Efe* loo.tlon on PI^IEE^Irty”. There is "O ” further development of this P^P^^uilliJg'thrcurrently P’^°P°|\\" Milhboihood? Council has pal sewers are f,\“ X„ I determination as to if questions and T ‘ls^Vn'tEuld"hE“ c«r* nVlLsg^ ‘r'E'si'de‘nol “ on ‘'S .^%”rcrvari.nce, BiJ'is'JKje'ot to°‘the on-site sewage rt“ctdeT-U?o^« -- R«co —endation - Planning Commission Rside from the «P\i= f”EE*s”ide‘seVb'ack variance bs»ed on !L„'n\‘=Cin"g'no ‘’ricse"r to' the side lot .^"qVe'JuridlSg^ot, no EEEl considering bo« 4 and 5 « “nV cIndition of »PPb°«i rirgt«i\r be“"rha't= rhrvw%; lots be c-bined^ f« ^raTirPrarnVc"oLssion^is -/AVb'l^r III e'nns“’'a1,'ort i; s“^st.^ will effectively in°^«*!®^ti!tls a potential for Ltions this residences that oerhaps cannot beibitants of tnis r future that pernap tic system problems ^ until municipel sew Zoning File #1458 September 15# 1989 Page 5 of 5A conservative interpretation of Section 12.30# Subdivision 4 (E) would require that the existing system be upgraded to be totally conforming to current codes. That is not possible on this lot# in staff's estimation based on knowledge of the area. A more liberal interpretation tempered with the thought that municipal sewer may be in the offing# would go so far as to allow the addition with or without extension of the existing trench drainfield# with the property owner being advised that major expansion over and above the two bedroom threshhold would not be approved until municipal sewer is provided.\l ^ r tJ -^ ! . ' ’^‘J5S('yAllif\nct.lSOO<CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $150.00 ($50.00 per each adaitional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $75.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ‘•.•I •'1 •- a J PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 35E We ^TLAI^E j LoiSl^ L aKC. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) OS~~ll'7-'Z'Z '2,^ CiOl'Z Please check one - Property X abstract or ____ torrens? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Plione (home) -^“7^' Name ______ Phone (work) '~/0<bO Address: H5? City: L aK£ Zip: SSZSh OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired L. )(month/year) I ^d^) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. 324 (>J)E5TUAtC Sf*. PRESENT OSE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property _ _ _ _ _ Other (specify) Residential DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ '2-~7f ^OO Describe request in detail: /-£‘7Tt'2 ^ 'FL.^MS _________ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Lot Width Front X _ _ Hardcover Side Rear) Other HAHnSHIP - j. •Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting^om strict enforcement of zoning regulations; <,gg LSTTEK- - - - - - DBSCBIPTIOH OF OHOSOAL PROPERTY COHDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with zoning Code Requirements; - - ■ SDBK~^TTALS Certified Pro^rty^ Owner?* List of owners within 150* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348*"327X)stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list). . Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. NOT ^QUI&ED Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). i, As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ 3. 4. CD 6. 7. 8. knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature /Vl _ _ _ Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building 9 Office of this change prior to the meeting. .*»• V >. »J'■^r^'^jr-r-jmM ■'“ikm”«•■•■“* SSS*«SKS!*»f|T7iir'** gg^tlcf*? o* w"-” V5SfSr<5«»w «w***^ ^^..rt***** aiS- “ Si\fK 5S*‘- -—■ tw ‘wiis: irt«“ •*•’• >y «onin9 0*p**^*^_______________P»t<^ ___SS I** 8i9n»t«r«^________ _______ ^ r«atttt«* ®* ——----- 4 a. all ln«oni*tlo» and/©* MS ioc«**V^ 4. tru© »®* corr«w —rrii^tt©!© ^»^®^2SiSsio» ii©«^^“«*/Vi ?•«*»•*'**■ 4* • hsv© »lan»i»9/®VlVVb© P****®S!^*S ^1[sslon H©©ti«J* Applicant* •©•J ^Jicil. X«^ **?o !»•©• *® ■ ”” WMtorfe-r Cu® to the increased sideyard recjuiremen ts under the ne»r«ier ordinance* I am requesting a s/diriancB for the sideyard setbacks in order tio add to my existing home. My present lot is typical of manv of the older lake lots in this area in that it is long and narrcaw (5C)' x 625). My existing home is situated nearly 200* back from the lake and the existing sideyards are a little over 9 fee*c on the north side arid feet on tne scxith side. I do wi^h tochange these setbacks all of mv additi.jn ls vertical, tut the new ordinance requires 30 sideyard? uv^hicn are impose idle on a fi.' l-r. The footer in t o- tlie hcxiss will remain the same as 1 am simply auoing sotie- bedrooins abo'vs the existing structure for us and the new babv. Uie ask ycxir* approval to leave the existing sideyarTl setbacks as Uey presisntly exist* which tnet the requi» enents at the ti:7ie the heuse ^3 .xilt out no icnaer Ti-^et zro side/ard reguiraments of Fjr this we request a s..oeva^d =e-/i::^ack variance. Thfink ycu again for yoLtr help in this matter Blake Bichanich BEcr.nj. / N I vl C‘. Wn 0s m III ♦ irt a 1 ui OK p4 O »- O I/) M UI M -i M H- I iO t lA O ^ M Ktss >• lA X lA X CA UI Xu « M UI ca li X S UI"1 U A UI 2a* -I UI:;;a M 8 »o ^A M « CM O ►- a A Nl UI~a CM ►- I A I o ^ oM A O 90 O Se UIa K UI na UI •’t A UI •• A A UI“•8 A UI A O O vO Aro A A «5 UI^ UI Qto .s 'tCM O K 0 A A UI CM ^ < A ^ CM »- 1 A UM^ 2 I A O M A CO o A O Z UI M A A UI A A A o Z A 2A Z «• A UI ^ ^ UIooSg SSx-' A A A ^ zUI*•» A A O > A 5 A A 3^M O A A A M Asi M O §3 a e A Is A R A UI *"5 UI A UI CM A A A 2i A O CM *- rlSM < M M KS2I2 1 A 3^ A o A O O Q A MA 2 I Ao o A K A UI UI = 25:s A A UI UI A h- M A ^ -IX > a S9 s ^ o o a & A ^ A A Sg A A W25 A *9?3A A A O O A A CM UI X 5bi A -I < CM M . A UI ^ 2 ^1 O A < A O UI ^ O A O ^ X O A 2 ^ 2 AO 0^0 A O A K A -I A A O O O A A O a m < e CM S s O X^ u 9^ O Oo 2*!& A O AS^S A UI UI < A AM UI _ A Z UI A A A UI X A UI j! 9^ A A _ A n A 5 A A X A A O U U A ^ < A A <ip CL O K CM A O K 0 A A UI "5^A ^ < CM M M 1 A UI 3*- I A O CM -i A A UI S o lu Xu A A A A A 3 * - 01-2 M A A A O A O A A «J 5^^ uj at A r osiss < > N at < \M gS**^ «2 SO S A O O Z UI A X& o CM CM O h- O A A UI ~5A -i CM M I A 3* Su.M A A O A O A O O< ao A a <« A A A ►- A x’" lU UI ^ UI o o A tu O A • “i*i:isi S N- K ui A A M OK* 0 A ^ A UI Z ~5- A O CM ►- 1 A 3!it M I A O 9^ Aa Rz IM Z A o A O g UIl33 ’s*a•-258 UI Ul A -i g O ^ A O O Z UJ < < > \ §1 K A A UI A X < Z a 8 K i HARDC jVEH QLCULATIGfl WORKSHEET 3E~AC:< ZONE: (c:=CL£ c;ic) 2^:0' .ilc-l E;<:2T ing Harzc:ve = i:i Zone A. hCUSE le :i6T h 3. Gasage , c. Driveway □. Sid£wal;< £. P atio/ Deck r. Landscape AREAS UNDERLA IN BY . , PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other ^.5 X WIDTH . :< . X , X X X X X . X . . X . X . X X X X X . X . O 7.1 '' *bnED Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone c • r I S.r. St r • m # r I Si.-. S.. SI r • S #.- • S.r. 7 / m ^ /' -7 in ' X100 - 2iiLL_ % ^ I In S.r. A% mm mp i • r • Str •> S.r. s..-. S.r.xl S.r.1 S.r. ^ S.F. S.r. fTl I I s.?,/ ;< X -T’ ' J — ■ S.F. *2?’-i ^ ~ ^-1-s.?. ^ !Z.4 CL^ r>SC,4>- _ _X £_ _X ~ZZ !-r—) • y - S.F. ) -J 'V L - S.F. 3. Safacs I - (- -i, _C2* i.// X ✓ ✓ c. Driveway . ik —' T ^ Sir, i / / -'- 12. D. SiwsWALX -?■ <■ E. Patio/ De-::< /■2.r^ F.Landscape AREAS UNDC.RUINBY RUSTIC SHEETINS — X _ X _ X _ X . - X , . ^ - X _ y' S.F, 4 : o ,. y ^««r i 1.-✓ Z2.. O —• j IS SI r I _ S.F.y S .r • S,r, G. Other - ” - X _ X - X , - X , S.F. Sir, .'•S S.F, S.F. Total Hardcover in Z one - Total Property Area in Z one [Tj •^-LLS^s.r rp X 100 •N .-v (-9 yo • i 2 /r. Vi y ___/ IHARDCjVE?. CALC'JLATIGfl liCRKcHEET ScT2Ac:< zcNc: CciHc:^ CME) 0-75' 75-250' \i50-5G0j) 5CC-1CC0' £-<I27:ng Has2c :v£3 i.n Zcns Mt nwUvS. LENGTH Y WIDTH K S.P. M A 3^S • r • Y S.F. i.r. ^ 3. GaRAGc ,:< • ** • • - • 1 1- «£ • i* • c. Driveway _ i c>Z-S •Z ^ ^3 £ • r t f '•3 a 2.-.• 1 D. SlDEWALX X r - ^ 1 • ^ ’ ^ < /^IZ s - /d I r •* tt::)S t r •E. Patio/ Deck Y • .$ t r • p. Landscape • X S • r •AREAS UNDERLAIN 3Y X S t r •PLASTIC SHEETING X • S • ^ • X S.F. G. Other X S • r 1 Total Harocoveh in Zone Total Property A re .a in Zone 'S.’^nr?-rr .p. . #<s.P. [i] B ll -CC X 100 /Z.G % < t f jj ✓ ' r-W.H:C jVE= C;LC!JU7IC:I ’.iORKSHc TT SST3ACX icns: (crscLE c:i£j G-7:' 75-25G' 2:u-;CC' CCQ-iCCOj E;<:i7:NG Ha«:c:ve» :.‘i Zc:i= Total Harocove.^ in Zone Total Property Area in Zone /; -r> , j=_ _ S.F. .7 3 ' ;N . //. s.p. |T Li. X 100 - /i'i % ■ '-A /N • i tW U ^ ^A le:igth hicth :<S.P. X m X S.P. X 5.2. 3. Garage V S.P. c. Drivev^ay _i' S X ^ J S.P. X .5. r , D. SiDEWALX X S.P. X 5.2. X - S.P. E. Patio/ Decx X 5. ?. p.Landscape X a S.P. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY X 5. PLASTIC SHEETING X S.P. X ._ S.P. G. Other X a S.P. a I 1 AK>i iNQ U^yEL PLAN \X/ >4t”» I * WESTELEV. I'O ftirriiitaHn' • “ y* r* *''• • •• • m "rrr Im 4 i %;• •f •'I > •f t -m§im MH ■1 HI * •**VH»<K •. *t4 3^^^SS8S ^ *. .• • • •«. . • ’ . n- ♦ •.. ‘ • ' i ’*• *>* . ' I* ' -• ■' -f • ■. * ' ' ‘ ■■•’i • i; V »•. /S-y-> '• -i•• .* V >• . -tr•. ' r-. . . ■:/ . .r.;,-Vv:*. • . V\- ^ I? *?r • i‘'. u! g-Lc: •• ^ 1 . V'-s** !*•* ^ -y * * 9 ♦ . ^ NOTt: eip-S'O ’Aor^iTioN to uvirs^# A-b ah Alt -0 a2O v/?Vt» ON BOTTOK - PJ?|LL V l^iTO FLUE FT^4 l0"6aFT4 V/Z*-1^ £A. WAT^ - tSLK ON TOP 2* 2 x|0'j6 ! 3 rnyi ■TSP/ADG Architecture • Engineenng • Interiors • Planning • Design Energy Consultation • Construction Management • Design/Build August 22, 1989 /7,7 Dr / \ r o i »K / - .1 I Q Mr. Blake BichanIch 332 Westlake Street Long Lake, MN 55356 Re: Bichanich Residence 332 Westlake Street Long Lake, Minnesota At your revest, I have reviewed the . ,s of your proposed addition in the City of Orono specifying the beams, headers, etc. I also reviewed the adequacy of the existing foundation and foundation wall. The wall and footing are of adequate size and strength to support the additional load of your proposed addition. if you have any further questions, please feel free to call. ^ Sincerely, TSP/ADG r L^son, P.E. Structuril/Engineer \^hnesota Reg. No. 15847 Denver. CO Oulum. MN Minniiapolis. MN Rochester. MN Rapid City, SD Sioux Fails. SO Gillene. WY Shendan. WY 7301 Ohm* jne. Suite 480. Minneapolis. MN 55435 (612) 030*0070 FAX # (612) 030*1507 s 12.304. Site limitations including soil characteristics and lot size may require Alternative System design for the repair, alteration, extension or replacement of existing systems, or for the construction of new systems on lots of record as of the date of adoption of this Section.^ In such cases, the City shall have authority to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the proposal.5. Subdivision proposals may include Alternative Systems for one or more proposed lots. In such cases, the City's review and recommendations shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Council for inclusion in the review of the preliminary plat. The Council may approve, conditionally approve or disapprove of the proposal and may require that the proposed subdivision be redesigned to reduce or eliminate the use of Alternative Systems. E. Building Permit Applications. No building permit shall be issued by the City for any new building which will be connected to a new on-site system until the site evaluation report and system design specifications as required by the Design Manual have been reviewed and approved by the City. No building permit or plumbing permit shall be issued by the City for any expansion or alteration of a building or use connected to an existing on-site system, until such system has been inspected and certified by the City as being in compliance with this Section. Whenever the addition of bedrooms or plumbing fixtures, or a change in the character or intensity of the established use is proposed, the City may require the review and/or replacement, repair, alteration or expansion of the existing system or any portion thereof. F. Subdivision Applications. No si division, lot division or renlatting for the purpose of creating u new building site, which property includes the use of on-site systems, shall be approved oy the City until a site evaluation report as required by the Design Manual has been reviewed and approved by th<* C*-./ all existing systems have been inspected and certified by the City as being in compliance with this Section. 1. Wherever the site evaluation report indi cates slopes in excess of 12%, or percolation rates slower than 60 minutes per inch^ or ground water table less than five feet or soil classifications requiring the use of Alternative Systems, the site evaluation report shall also include specific system design specifications as normally required for building permit applications. 2. As part of any subdivision, the owner shall grant to the City in a form approved by the City a perpetual right of entry to allow for the future inspection of all systems, which right of entry may be filed in the chain of title for the property. ORONO CC 494 (4-1-84) To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Proa: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:February 22, 1990 Subject: #1470 Ruth & Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision List of Exhibit Exhibit A - Memo & Exhibits of 2/8/90 i Discussion - This item was tabled at the applicants' request at Council's February 12th meeting. In light of the road discussions at the February 12th meeting, staff would add the following options to those indicated in the February 8th memo: 6. Direct applicant to revise his standard plat proposal to include a 50' road corridor along only a portion of the length of the east property line for internal traffic circulation purposes, and not necessarily for the provision of future road connections to Watertown Road. 7. Council could request that applicant revise the proposal to a PRD in order that future concerns about ability to gain a future third lot are eliminated. / To;Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson C . *2. * IZ * ^T’=>^ I C4^'■ ^Prom;Date: Subject: VMichael P. Gaffron, Ass^ Planning & Zoning Administrator February 8, 1990 lubaivUior^""' - List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Memo & Applicants’ Letter, 1/19/90 Notice of Planning Commission Action 1/17/90 Memo & Exhibits of 1/10/90 Discussion - Bayside pJad.^® ^ minimcim, and provide it legal access to hav? Planning Commission rpong-^a. that the Original plan would have construction of a standard private road, to serve 3 driini/?^ within a subdivision. The applicant subsequently a.-^® proposal, not wanting to bear the expense of constructing an extremely long private road. City Engineer Reconendation - homestead parcel. He further recommended that the applicant clnss®rvanirprope'ty?‘'' ^ ®nn®"®nt to the nature 'i I zoning File #1470 February 8, 1990 Page 2 of 3 Planning Comiission Recoinnendation - The Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 16, 1990 and voted 5-0 to recommend approval subject to the following: 1. 50' wide outlot from Bayside Poad to the east lot line. 2. 20' wide outlot extending to the northerly parcel. 3. Drainage easement for ravine to be 15' wide. 4. Standard drainage and utility easements to be granted. 5. Standard road and utilities easement to be granted over the 50' outlot. 6. At the time that a third residence is developed on this or neighboring properties which uses the existing driveway for access, the shared driveway will have to be upgraded to City private road standards. 7. Applicant to provide a turn-around or back-up apron for each of Lots 1 and 2 for emergency vehicle access. 8. Park fee for Lot 2 to be collected with the building permit. 9. Protect drainfield sites. 10. No requirement for nature conservance property access easement. Northwest Orono Road System Review - At Council's January 22nd meeting. Council reviewed briefly a letter from the applicant regarding road standards, and Council directed staff to do a review of road needs in that general area. Please refer to the road study document in your packet. That study generally suggests that it would be appropriate to plan for a future route to develop a connecting road between Watertown Road and Bayside Road, approximately midway between the Ring Route and Stubb's Bay Road. That study generally recommends that a 50' corridor be provided generally along the property line between the Parten and Reiersgord properties. Depending on whether the corridor is taken entirely from the Parten property or shared by Parten and Reiersgord, it would have a distinct effect on both those properties. Zoning File #1470 February 8, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Staff Reconendation - If the Council wishes to proceed with acquiring dedications roadway in this area, that certainly affects the applicants proposed lot line rearrangement. Council's options are as follows: 1. Approve per the Planning Commission recommendation. 2. Direct applicants to work with staff to revise the proposal to create a 50* corridor along the entire length of the east property line for future road. 3. Refer the application back to Planning Commission for further consideration in light of road study recommendations. Note also that the City might wish to consider updating its Comprehensive Transportation Plan. 4. Table for other reasons. 5. Other. i TO; FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adninistrator^i January 19, 1990 SUBJECT: Parten Letter Attached is a letter from Mr. Parten outlin^ his concerns regarding oublic and private roads and his development. He has indicated‘a desire to address the Council and it has been indicated he could do so during public comments* This letter has been oreoared in advance of his appearance* His anolication was recommended for approval with the road by the Planning Commission at its 1/16/90 meeting and is expected will be presented to the Council for their consideration at its 2/12/90 meeting. I 1 Daniel C. Partan 1015 Tonkava Hoad Long Lake, MM 53355 ✓ •J«J3 v*'r» January 19, 1990 Orcno City Council Crystal 3ay, Minnesota Private Hoad and Drivevay Standards This oast August cy vifa and : purchased property on Sayside Hoad vion the intention of building our personal residence and of selling one or tvo lots. tVe vera especially attracted by the manv nature trees on t.na site and the long graceful drivevav that togatner give a feeling of peacefulness and orivacv. Hovever, in vorking vith staff ve learned that currant citv standards vould require that we build a 24 foot wide asphalt drivewav*into this araa to serve just four sites. In addition, we learned that the city's Svancarcs are in cont-ict witn eacn other. (See attached coov of nano fron Mike Gaffron to the Planning Cotr.nission. ) .'(hile we have been able to modify our plans to avoid the negative environmental consequences of constructing a 24 foot wide paved road into this special area, we feel that a review of the city's recuirenents for driveways and private roads in the rural areas woui-’ be of benefit. Perhaps factors other than number of residences served juld be con sidered such as lot sice, length of drivevay, and pota.ntial for additional future access, to develop standards for*width of roadway, materials of construction, and alternative surface .materials. The rural areas of the city are an attracti”’o compliment to the more suburban sections of our community, but wide asphalt driveways do not add to the character of this unique area. Thank you ror considering this request and for your service to our community. cc: Planning and Zoning Administrator To:Planning Coimnission Chairman Kellay Orono Planning Conanission Members City Administrator Bernhardscn From:Michael ?. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date January 11^ 1990 Subject: Code/Comcrehensive Plan Conflicts Meeding Future Resolution A. Conflict Between Subdivision Code S Contprahensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan defines a "driveway" as an allowable f/te of access to serve a maximum of three residentSr not subject to'anv cublic easement or access right. It says that driveway width*(i.e. the actual traveled width) will be regulated in cases of more than one user or where there is excessive driveway length. The Subdivision Code (not t.he Zoning code) provides private road design standards that state for 3 to_6 residential units, a richt-of-way width of 50 ’ is required, with a minimt^ paved wid^h of"24'. The Subdivision Code requires an putlog -or a private road serving 3 or more lots [Section 11.10, Subdivision ^1 (C)J. Clearlv, there is a conflict between these two doouments. 3. Conflict Between Zoning Code S Citv's Development Intent Both the Subdivision Code and Comprehensive Plan provide for and encourage the development of private roads in the rural area [Subdivision Code S 11.10*, Subdivision 21 (C); Comprehensive P-an Section 7-12, Subp. 4 "Rural Transportations Policies). Yet the City has interpreted its Zoning Code as stating that, y extranolating of definitions, all newly created lots must front on a ‘public street, therefore new lots ?”P°sed to front on orivate roads require a variance (see MPG memo or j/6/8oj. -*.ne definitions for lot standards seem in dire need of -evasion. u is the City's clear intent that development with private roads is aopropriate^Tb do so should not require variances. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 TO: Daniel Parten 1015 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 ZONING PILE NO. 1470 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 473-7357 Date of Notice: 1/17/90 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OP MEETING: 1/16/90 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Outlot A shall be 50 feet in width and extend from Bayside Road to the east lot line. 2. The 20' corridor as shown on the proposal shall be platted as Outlot 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7. 3. 9. B. The drainage easement traversing Lot 1 to be 15 ' in width. Granting of standard drainage and utility easements along all lot lines, i.e. 10' along perimeter lot lines, 5* either side of the interior lot line between Lots 1 and 2. Applicants to grant a standard road and utilities easement over Outlot A subject to a private road covenant to be filed in the chain of title in Lots 1 and 2, providing for private ownership and maintenance of Outlot A. The property owners are placed on notice that at some future date that Lot 1 is subdivided to create an additional lot, the City will require upgrading of Outlot A to private road standards. Furthermore, at such time that any other abutting properties are developed that will make a use of Outlot A for access, such development shall trigger the requirement that road be upgraded to City private road standards even if Lot 1 has not been split. A turn-around or back-up apron shall be provided for each of Lots 1 and 2 for emergency vehicle access. If such access is provided by a loop driveway, the minimum center line radius of that driveway loop shall be 50', with a minimum 20' driving surface width. Because this is a lot line rearrangement. Park Fee for Lot 2 need not be paid until such time that a residence is constructed on Lot 2. Drainfield sites have been defined on each of Lots 1 and 2 and the property owners shall protect those sites from any use^ or disturbance which would render them unusable as sewage treatment sites. ZOHIMG FII*pIAIWIHG COMMISSIOM ACTIO*KOTICE op PI*A** 1/17/90Date of Notice:__l/17/__55323 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - - - - - - - - - -COPIES TO:I • ——Road _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _55366 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _nN- subdivision _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _0**' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ c por 0 Against- - - - -- VOTE: 51/16/90 -•„ldor as shown on the pt , Wo 15' in width. ge easement traversing Lot along all lot a drainage and utility easements of standard ‘^^^^J'f^eter lot lines, 5 10’ along 1 and 2. lot line between hots easement over Outlet ' ^ future date that ,,ry owners are a-a\"T°t,' ‘^£“’eUorV, -fo^uilot 'k° t?^t?va\"e -f,raf/Stelop^e(\hat -^-°"Ci'3SId“fo r%a\ standards even ;®hls^not been split. provided «°F/\°ovided°b? a around or back-up^epronJ^^_ "“d^rort^hat driveway loop ’rveway!°tbe minimum ”urface width. rso^r^itb s minrmum 20 ^ d notjf tn6 mill driving sui 1 such time that a a.- i and 2 and the defined on each of Lots 1 o"d^. ^,„banceSSSr;h: .•si.-K.-.s-...... I- I HOTICB OP PLAMMIIIG OJanuary 17, 1990 Page 2 of 2 • ,1*[ISSION ACTION10. Planning Commission recommended against the requirement that a futureeasement to the Nature Conservancy be committed to.Applicar.w's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as:City Council Monday, February 12, 1990; 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.Please contact staff to discuss what (if any) additional exhibits may be required for submittal prior to Council's preliminary plat review. COMMISSTOK ACTIONnt to ^®*^°"“"ended aga-»naf t-hnexV 7: -at a-c«l ; ;t «=nonday, February la, i,,„."rtrt r/aVi“*f,«P^es oF tbe omT,’ ^•”-t'>e Planning Coaunlsslon'!' '"’® “®=°*aer^ after* r‘e°^?^®**°"contact ataff to •• “ ’ '> ! s To:Pros:Date:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator BernhardsonMichael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator January 10, 1990Subject: #1470 iiuth & Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road -Preliminary subdivision - Revised Proposal - Continuation of Public HearingApplication - Applicant has revised his request to merely a lot line rearrangemr-it to bring the northerly 4.25 acre parcel into lot area conformance while providing access to Bayside Road via an outlot. The remaining 12 acre parcel is not proposed for division at this time. This will be a plat rather than a metes and bounds rearrangement in order to create the outlot. Note that applicant now owns th 4.25 acre northerly parcel.List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Discussion - Revised Preliminary Plat Drawings Applicants' Letter of Request 1/9/90 Planning Commission Action Notice 11/22/89 Planning Commission Minx i;es 11/20/89 Memo & Exhibits of 11/14/89 Memo Re: Conflicts/Standards of Zoning/Subdivision Code vs. Comprehensive Plan Please review the attached proposed preliminary plat. Briefly, the applicants are proposing a lot line rearrangement between the existing homestead parcel and the 4.25 acre parcel which abuts the Luce Line. That parcel will be increased to include 5 dry buiJdable acres and will have approximately 600' of frontage on the 20' wide portion of the proposed driveway outlot. Additionally, applicant is proposing a 40' driveway outlot width extending from Bayside Rv-ad to the southeast corner of the 10 acre parcel. Please review applicants' letter of request. Staff finds merit in providing a long narrow portion of Lot 2 to provide for future additional useful "trade" acreage for the Reiersgord property in exchange for additional area to the northeast, while such an exchange may or may not occur, *.he future exchange concept makes sense in view of the topograpny of the Reiersgord parcel, and does not detract from the buildaoility of Lot 2. ■j ct:Planning Coininlsslon Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardoor.Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator January 10, 1990#1470 P.uth & Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Revised Proposal ~Continuation of Public Hearing.cation ■* Applicant has revised his request to merely a lot line rearrangem'?^t to bring the northerly 4.25 acre parcel into lot area conformance while providing access to Bayside Road via an outlet. The remaining 12 acre parcel is not proposed for division at this time. This will be a plat rather than a metes and bounds rearrangementT in order to create the outlet. Note that applicant now owns th 4.25 acre northerly parcel. of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit P - Bsion - Re^•ised Preliminary Plat Drawings Applicants' Letter of Request 1/9/90 Planning Commission Action Notice 11/22/89 Planning Commission Min'-ces 11/20/89 Memo & Exhibits of 11/14/89 Memo Re: Conflicts/Standards of Zoning/Subdivision Code vs. Comprehensive Plan Please review the attached proposed preliminary plat, ly, the applicants are proposing a lot line rearrangement en the existing homestead parcel and the 4.25 acre parcel abuts the Luce Line. That parcel will be increased to de 5 dry buildable acres^ and will have approximately 600' ontage on the 20' wide portion of the proposed driveway •t. Additionally, applicant is proposing a 40' driveway t width extending from Bayside R«^ad to the southeast corner e 10 acre parcel. Please review applicants' letter of request. Staff finds in providing a long narrow portion of Lot 2 to provide for e additional useful "trade" acreage for the Reiersgord rty in exchange for additional area to the northeast. While an exchange may or may not occur, -.he future exchange pt makes sense in view of the topography of the Reiersgord 1, and does not detract from the buildability of Lot 2. i . Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 2 of 6Regarding lot width, the City has taken a recent direction to require that the narrow access portion of flag lots should be an outlot, so that the "front lot line" will be defined at the widened portion of the property rather than within the narrow corridor. This way, technically a variance for lot width is avoided. Based on this concept, considering a possible future trade. Planning Commission may wish to recommend that the 20' outlot portion be extended 100' north to abut the widening of proposed Lot 2.Access Issues -Three issues present themselves regarding access for this proposal:I. What should be the width of Outlot A? (Please review also Exhibit F.) Since we know that Reiersgord has a 60' easement over the 40' wide part of Outlot A, we know he is likely to use it for access if his lot ever is granted variances to build. Therefore, this portion of Outlot A will likely ultimately serve at least 3 residences, perhaps a 4th if Lot 1 is further divided. At a level of 4 houses, both Comprehensive Plan and subdivision code standards define the traveled access as a private road rather than a private driveway. Although in the past the City has allowed a few 3 lot developments to use 30' private road outlots (Parten on Tonkawa; Strong/Massopust on South Brown Road), most 3-plus lot developments have been required to provide a SO' outlot, per the subdivision code standard. Because Outlot A abuts the White property to the southeast, there is a potential that the White property would in the future be developed with access via Outlot A. While one could argue that such a development would merely require White to grant an additional 10' to the proposed 40' for Outlot A, the subdivision code Section 11.40, Subdivision 1 states that "street systems in new subdivisions shall be layed out so as to eliminate or avoid new perimeter half streets". This suggests that now is the appropriate time to obtain a total 50' wide outlot from the Parten property. It would seem to be an appropriate Cit ilicy that, where additional future development is likely to »ase to 3 or more the number of houses being served by a pri outlot/driveway, the City should require dedication of the st£. .rd 50' outlot per the standards of the subdivision code when it has the opportunity to do so. L.J- L^l* MkVK [•ipW^ Zoning Pile #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 3 of 6If the Reiersgord property develops before a future subdivision of Lot 1, the City will not have the opportunity to expand the outlet to 50* width because Reiersgord will not own Lot 1. The only future opportunity to gain an additional 10* for Outlet A would be when Lot 1 is divided.The northerly 20* wide proposed outlet segment will serve only 1 lot now and perhaps 1 additional future lot. This segment of Outlet A could be considered as merely a private driveway, not necessarily subject to an underlying road and utility ejsement to the City. Staff would question whether the drivev.ay can be constructed within th« 20* corridor provided. It nor, Lot 1 could grant a widened easement to Lot 2, or the outlet could be increased in width. Either way, the fire code standards would require that a 20* driving surface with emergency vehicle turnaround be provided for this extremely long driveway length.II. What part of Outlet A should be paved now? What part shouldpaved at future development levels? If it is the City's intent to start requiring that private roads be upgraded as old existing subdivisions reach a certain level of development, that would be a positive change in policy, but with many reunifications for homeowners. Would the trigger level be based on the subdivision: code standards? (i.e. 3-6 units requires 24* paving, "more than 7" requires 28* paving, 1, 2 or 7 being undefined.) Does the poor 3rd user who triggers it incur the wrath of the other 2, who will help pay for it? In the Parten proposal, is this a subdivision tb‘t should have a trigger at the 3 unit level, or at the 4 unit 7 1, or at any specified level? Is it the intent of the subdiv: a code_ to apply road standards to this mere lot line rearrangement with access outlet creation? III. Should the City request a road and utility easement over all, a portion, or none of Outlot A? If Outlot A is created, the City should logically take a road and utilities easement over it, since it will ultimately serve 3 or more lots, to be consistent with subdivision code Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (D). Note that the recently approved ordinance which requires public accessability to private roads for which the City has underlying easements, would have to be available for White's future use if he so desired, with no cost-sharing stipulations. •n i Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Ptge 4 of 6 If Outlot A was to exclude the northerly 20' wide section, making that part Outlot B, the 20' strip might be considered a private driveway serving only possibly 2, houses and serve as merely a private driveway without the stric*- requirement for underlying road and utility easement. The preliminary plat drawings show that th.- existing road easement serving Reiersnord's property is "to be released". While this would be a logical pioposal, if the easement holder agrees to such a rele'se, .<o information has been provided to suggest that that property owner is willing to release his 60' easement. Additional Discussion - As noted at your last meeting, the property owners to the north have stated that they dc not feel an access to Bayside Road is necessary to serve their properties, and they believe they have legal access acioss the Luce Line to Turnham Road. The City has so obligation to provide access for these property owners, and the current .applicant does not propose to provide them with access. A brief review of the White property to the south suggests that it might be feasible to subdivide that property with probably no more than 3 new 5-acre lots making use of Partens' Outlet A. Of course, there is no guarantee that White would want to develop using Partens' Outlot A. A short cul-de-sac might conceivably be developed to serve Whi''-'»‘'^ acreage with its own road system from Bayside Road. The applicants have pro- over the ravine in Lot 1, sin affect drainage of properties tc 15' wide drainage » asement >ckage of that ravine could west. City Engineer's Recommendation - The City Engineer in reviewing this proposal has «5v.?jgested that under the most comprehensive approach to development in this area, the entire length of Outlot A should be 50' wide, it should be extended to serve the properties to the northwest, and should be totally upgraded to a paved standard either now or when the 3rd housing unit is built (which could be by further subdivision of Lot ' or by construction on Reiersgord's property) or by conax-iUctiorT on White's property. ' n I 1» J ile #1470 10, 1990 f 63utlot A was to exclude the northerlv 20’ wide sectionslVAT be consfde^ra4 ^ possibly 2, houses and serve as^iriir!j\\TlTtl for^"r\^"nrRe/ei”,o"r"s ‘pVop«°ty “f •to"-hfr>hh«^- r.V V information has been provided to -hat that property owner is willing to release his 60°1 Discussion -oted at your last meeting, the property owners to th«lary ^to^serv^ their °n"°^ access to Bayside Roadserv* their properties, and they believe thevlioatton i*“oe i-ine to Turnham Road. The Cityn™V P^°^ide access for these property ownetcrrent applicant does not propose to provide them win. Lioht®'be%«^ ^ property to the south suggests[night be feasible to subdivide that orooertv w<th uSro'f 'pV;t''ens'; ■p Ling Parpens® JLlot ““ "“'=® ipplicants have pro ravine in Lot 1, sin inage of properties tt 15' wide drainage casement '-ckage of that ravine could .« ;west. eer's Recommendation - r JLrldad to the northwest, and' shouldf upgraded to a paved standard either now or when Phe or bv LnLL* further subdivislSn ii ^i?I!^"p®rcpert?." Property, or by i Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 5 of 6The Engineer recommends a 50' wide drainage easement over the ravine due to its extreme breadth and depth. He states that a 30' easement would be the miminum width drainage easement that would be acceptable. Applicant shows a 15' easement based on discussions with staff prior to the Engineer's input. Re-iember that the area of the easement will not count as buildabie lot area for this or any future division.Also recommended by the Engineer is a provision to give the City access to the Nature Conservancy parcel via a future easement right. Apparently the Nature Conservancy has approacht*d the City to transfer its ownership to the City, with covenants for its preservation as open space. If this occurs, the City would like the abiltiy to acquire a future easement to gain access to the property.Variances Required - While the 40' outlot does not necessarily present itself as a variance to the zoning code, it does not strictly meet the intent of the City's subdivision standards due to the existence ot the Reiersgord property and easement. Lot 2 requires a variance fee lack of frontage on a public road. Technically, staff would interpret that neither Lots 1 or 2 require a lot width variance, since they both have more than 300' of frontage on a private road or private driveway outlot. Staff Recommendation - All things considered, the current proposal has merit and solves a number of concerns in this neighborhoods 1. Increases the area of the northerly parcel to a conforming acreage and provides it access via an outlot to Bayside Road. 2. Provides a dedicated access corridor to the Reiersgord property to the east which, if some day granted variances, could possibly be developed as a residential lot. The applies .ts' goal is to merely make the northerly parcel buildabie by increasing its area and providing it with legal access to Bayside Road. However, in attempting to accomplish that single reasonable purpose, the City is forced to consxder the impact of this minor -development as it affects and is affected by potential development of neighboring properties. The City's long-term goals and the developer's short-term goals do not necessarily match, and the City could potentially place extreme financial burdens on the developer in attempting to accommodate all future area development concerns. • I 4. « «• V Bient over„cc«n,ends “/eadthiJs extreme b«^ „i.dtti dtai „ent “ ,e„betbit- /J’/ior to the EM ^„„„t aa' the easement ml the.'STiuture divi ^ proviso- « ! :nkl"Hr"nfal^^= rasefe^t to .rn vation as acquire property- ^3 , d-iv present the ' rtt necessarily P^^ctiy ® ®^e^ce grS:ill:s/2^“" ”•■"r\cei privat-e road or v merit and ■pcreases pro Reiersgord rtning acre g iances, de , .ecess ^°’^’'.aY panted var ■rovides a ^ -“sidentiel lot- *"ibW*be developed "“"■V'^Jith le'3®A d possibly merely »eb^vidln9 it 3tCompll|^ «|s:i^€«isslong-t®^J match. ^ concerns.cessarriY burdens ;j,opwent e fi^Sffuture area de -l-a^-e al-T Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 6 of 6Staff therefore is suggesting consideration ofthe followng "compromise" position:Based upon the above discussions, staff would recommend approval with the following revisionsA. Outlot A from Bayside Road to the southeast corner of the 10 acre parcel, be expanded to a 50' outlot width.B. Revise drainage easement over the ravine to 30' width.Staff would recommend approval subject to the following conditions:1. Granting of standard drainage and utility easements along all lot iines, i.e. 10' along perimeter lot lines, 5' either side of tne interior lot line betwe*'>n Lots 1 and 2.2. Applicants to grant a standard road and utilities easement over uutlot A subject to a private road covenant to be filed in the chain of title in Lots 1 and 2, providing for private ownership and maintenance of Outlot A. 3. The property owners are placed on notice that at some future date that Lot 1 is subdivided to create an additional lot, the City will require upgrading of Outlot A to private road standards. Furthermore, at such time that any other abutting properties are developed that will make a use of Outlot A for access, such development shall trigger the requirement that road be upgraded to City private road standards even if Lot 1 has not been split. 4. A turn-around or back-up apron shall be provided for each of Lots 1 and 2 for emergency vehicle access. If such access is provided by a loop driveway, the minimum center line radius of that driveway loop shall be 50', with a minimum 20' driving surface width. 5. Because this is a lot line rearrangement. Park Fee for Lot 2 need not be paid until such time that a residence xs constructed on Lot 2. 6. Drainfield sites have been defined on each of Lots 1 and 2 and the property owners shall protect those sites from any use or disturbance which would render them unusable as sewage treatment sites. 7. Applicants are to grant City future right of entry to Nature Conservancy property via an easement at future City request. ”9 File #i47«■^t'n .fjmim '.'MKp'»«••• PO.XUoV‘«Vu"/?; “>• .bov,,,»tIot At* «t.f,*«•- t, t*e- *° * **’ »< tb. ,0?nV. — t. 3.. ^-* subject to *w'4 •»«<,.„ , ‘"“llovln,side l.e. and utiii^ '"• -n\V /4‘! r»4rt"o‘ c*A*“ Mlu?4/^5 4cr°''^‘’*'’ for ^ oU “.- *«®« this Is * , * ' ‘'ith a Scants are t« «"nsabie aj .nc Propl-‘4i ‘i:„^«- r,,b. <.. easement at tofuture City ^ 1 ■J January 9,1989To: Orono Planning CommissionFrom: Ruth and Daniel PartenRe: Proposed Plat for Bayside WoodsPer your suggestion we have prepared a two lot plat for your review. Based upon our discussions with city staff we have attempted to address the current and long term concerns of the city for the development of this area. Perhaps a few comments regarding the configuration of Lot 2 would be helpful in evaluating the proposed plat. The 20 foot wide driveway outlot follows the .latural contour of the land in that area. By staying away from the east property line as shown the driveway avoids an area with steeper slope and many mature trees. The proposed location of the driveway minimizes the need for grading, filling and tree removal. In considering how to add area to Lot 2 in order to meet the 5 acre size requirement we visited the site several times and concluded that the most desireable solution would be to enlarge the lot toward the east, but we don't control that property. However, we do have land adjacent to the only building site on this neighboring parcel, and it seems reasonable that some future owner would be interested in an exchange of property that would be of advantage to both parties. Therefore, the driveway outlot is located away from the east property line, setting up the possibility of an exchange between these adjoining owners. The 40 'oot wide driveway outlot covers the existing driveway and provides room for any necessary enlargement. At the suggestion of city staff we have shown a 15 foot wide drainage easement over the seasonal flowage area in the ravine. In preparing this proposal we have attempted to balance good development thinking with a desire to preserve the rural character and sense of privacy experienced in the woods. This proposal is intended to provide for the long term development of this area and we request that you recommend its approval to the Council. TD<Danl«l Parten COPIES TO:1015 Tonkawa RoadLong Laka, MN 55356rmOP APPUCATZOVt Subdivision A / / / / ^0- / / 0 MIMUTBS OF THE PLANNlFn COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989ZONING FILE f1481-MCCOORTNEY CONTINUED relieve drainage going into the house?Mr. Wenkus replied that ultimately it would be due to the fact that they were putting in a walkout. He said that he had not applied for the building permit and just assumed that dirt would be excavated away from the foundation and the swale would be used for drainage. He said that a reading with a transit indicated the need to cut an additional 6" to 12" nearer the house to enable drainage to occur. It was necessary to take that same additional cut near the lake.There were no comments from the pub"* *' ; regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed.It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of the after-the-fact conditional use permit, the hardship being the need to relieve runoff concerns on the other side of the house. Chairman Kelley questioned whether the City should take a drainage easement across this property? Gaffron said that he could look into that aspect. Kelley amended his motion to include direction to staff to look into the dedication of a drainage easement and make a recommendation to the City Council, Hanson seconded. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays»0, Moti n passed. #1470 DAN & RUTH PARTEN 4300 BAYSIDB ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 8:55 P.M. TO 9:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Parten were present for this public hearing. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron provided a brief history regarding this application for a 3-lot subdiv.’" I'^n. Ch. aan Kelley questioned whether it would be possible to split Ou«...ot A into two outlets. One portion would end in the northeast corner with a cul-de-sac and Outlet B would serve the two lots in the back. Because Outlet B would serve only two lots, it could remain a dirt road. Kelley said that the issue to him is serving the lots to the east as well. Mr. Parten asked Gaffron to show the Planning Commission the proposal for a 2-Lot subdivision. Planning Commissioner Bellows asked where the septic system is located for Lot 1? Gaffron indicated that the alternate site is still located in Outlet A and the 60’ easement creates a configuration for Lot 1 so that it is not contiguous with Outlet A. i ! THE PLANNIW commission meeting NOVEMBER 20,1989„.us replied -ouia^,^Vh“.:■hey were putting in a . ^ just assumed that>d for the building p foundation and the swalebe excavated away irom that a reading with a.sed for drainage. f J“|jitional 6’ to l^’ ire^atird “intgr^^cur It was necessary to [dditional cut near the lake.„„e no consents froo the pub^' = regarding this natter jlic hearing was closed.moved by Chairman Kelley, '^after-the-factsr Hanson, to ’^®'°™|"ash'?p'be°ing the need r° e®‘irrof thfitS« s?je of Jthe ^““hether the City eho“^^..V he could look into that r>io!‘’U^fht=fitroo^nlil”Hrnlon seconded. Motion, ys»0, Moti n passed. 6 ROTH PARTEN [db road [°?r£fSu ”^“i’o;=!nr?;rt"?f i«?e"=^Mai lin were etd Mrs. parten were present for this public hearin,.^^^ stant Planning tppr”a?io?“« r°3-lot history regarding tnis awF .0«n Kelley '3 “«r'^“r®ts"‘’“oSrp«tion^would'’end^ the r ‘cfrn''e/”w’ith‘''a° cu“lVd“en«JEVw^”u‘ll serlli Vn I’y' in the back. ?f°,fyoad. Kelley said that the issu .=r;rn^%r\o"ts‘?o^%Ve°ea« ae well. Iced Gaffron to show the Planning Commission sutdlTsion. , < wiener Bellows asked where the septic sys nning Commissioner Beiio ed for Lot still located fron indicated that ^configuration for Lot MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989ZONING FILE fl470-PARTEN CONTINDEDKelley observed that if Outlot A were put in with only a 50' easement, Outlot A and Lot 1 will be contiguous.Gaffron suggested creating a more narrow Outlot A.Hanson noted that such a configuation would create "the ultimate flag lot".Bellows indicated that she did not approve of this configuration .Hanson indicated that the land would lend itself well to development with the adjacent property.Bellows suggested the property be developed as a 3-lot PRD with the houses clustered. She said that what the Partens are proposing more closely resembles a conventional subdivision. Mabusth interjected that the Planning Commission's directive to have the septic systems included in the homestead pad with a PRD proposal made it very difficult. Bellows indicated that she would not object to the septic systems being located in a commons area. She said that the septic system location is an item that had to give in order to not have this application be a typical subdivision. Ms. Parten explained that the PRD being proposed is the best that can be done due to the topography of the land. Bellows suggested that perhaps the City has reached a de<7. ee of development where a certain amount of acreage no longer guarantees a certain amount of lots. Ms. Parten said that she was frustrated because she could not understand how there could be 50 acres in an area that will not sustain 4 lots. Chairman Kelley asked Bellows for her opinion regarding the 2-lot subdivision proposal he suggested with the 2 outlets. Bellows replied that she was uncomfortable with the overall shape of the subdivision and the location of the alternate septic site for Lot 2. Planning Commissioner Brown observed that lot area variances would be required for two of the three lots being proposed. Mabusth suggested that it would not be difficult to make unique findings that would still allow denial of other less unique applications seeking lot area variances for newly created lots. Mabusth said that the extension of the road and the inclusion of the Styles property placed restrictions on the development of the parcel. Mabusth said that an area variance \\\ " ; r MimJTES OP TBB PtMWIHG COMMISSIOS MEBTIHG »OVl BER 20p 1989 ZOHIMG FILE #1470 subdivision. Mabusth noted it may be impossible to accomplish that. Kelley asked Bellows if she would accept have the 3 pads o:. Lot 1 and the septic systes,s on lot 27 Bellows said yes she would accept that. Gaffron advised ^^e Planning ^ 2? existing drainageway ^ ^ 3^g an easement. Gaffron said rh^at1hra%”rlo^^“h%tn%i=^r,e^i;:^tld not have to he excluded from the total area if developed as a PRD. MS. Parten said that she has tried o.et^the tr.t"there “t 00^^^^°”, f let areas for clustering hones, but Jathe? therrare three^ separate landing areas. Bellows said that the Fattens nay not be able to do all that they want to do with this property. MS. parten said that they would ^ted^'k\t of the City's Ptotlenis with access.^^Sh^^ ^t^^^ this application 'J® narcel and surrounding property that there are 50 acres "tk'? t>>® P?'"^ approval would not be this Si“icSll'^ ms! ?«ten said that it does not nake sense that this parcel cannot be subdivided. • nrown asked if a determination has Planning Commissione avist for the northwest lots tobeen made as to whether easements exist for tne no cross the Luce Line? «r. Asao said that he and the Dieters have an easenent in the form of a right-of-way from the DNR. Planning Commissioner Brown suggested leaving the Styles' property undeveloped. purch^fing''\re ltVl^s'i‘'pr\p''eU"«hi^c!!tl,!irbr ‘i'‘ng ®P to City standards. Kelley said that would be favorable ‘Vrivati but it would also require the P®“®"® for input from the ttHTnl “mmlsriolris °to th'e Partens proceeding with a 2-lot To: Prom: Date: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator November 14, 1989 Subject: #1470 Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public Hearing Application - 3-lot Plat List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Discussion - Memo from Applicants Large Siz-» Proposed Plat Drawings lanning Commission Action Notice 10/20/89 Memo & Exhibits of 10/10/89 The applicants have met with staff and have attempted to address Planning Commission's concerns with their revised proposal, a 3-lot plat. This proposal results in three lots of 4.3, 4.4, and 6.0 acres respectively. They would be served by a 50' private driveway outlet that connects to the Reiersgord property to the east and to the Asao property on the northwest. Each lot would meet the lot width standard as measured at the 50' setback from the road outlot. Lots 2 and 3 would require a lot area variance. The applicants request that they not be required to pave any portion of the road/driveway within the outlot. They propose to construct an 18' wide gravel driveway to the t jm-around area (see Sheet 2 of the large scale site plan) and * 14' wide gravel driveway to Lots 2 and 3. Alternatives - Please review the applicants' memo. They have considered two alternatives to the proposal. Their Exhibit A indicates a two lot plat excluding the northernmost parcel from the subdivision, wherein each lot would contain 5 acres, being served by a 50' private driveway outlot. Under this scheme, they would not be required to pave, and this would be considered as merely a shared driveway. Such a proposal does not resolve any of the concerns with surrounding properties and would likely make it harder in the future for those access problems to be resolved either by the City or by the affected property owners. Kelley I'MrHO— » wiiItler u't'eT' ‘ «a.l„i3traterP«J.?eiSa?y*subd"?slo"-‘’con^'‘''® ‘«on - 3-lob Plat -"—lea oy p„m1c Heatla,Exhibitslibit B - Applicantslibit C ta?nino^r Piat Drawingsiibit D - Memo & Exhibitl^of^io/io/sg^®^^*^® 10/20/89on - to to the east and te the^Asao ”rope?t'; on° th”* '>*i«ts,7rl > lot would meet th , northwest. "^/aSa'^e-! toad%u?Ll^-^'^a 3“wo"„!y“rS?^l?| f the toad/drl«My*^tlthln*th"°*^ tequired to pave any qrav^rd^/v" ^''ev orSL\^^"^ MINUTBS OF THE PLANKING C •):i:tSSIOH NESTING NOVEMBER 20, 1989ZONING FILS «1470-PARTEN CONTINDSDsubdivision of the 12 acres, subtracting out the acreage dedicated to the 60' easement that runs the whole south lot line. Kelley suggested putting in a 50' outlet that follows he southerly lot line all the \<ay around to the east lot line.Gaffron observed that such a configuration would create two flag lots.Brown said that he would favor the 2-lot subdivision.Mabusth advised that rhe flag lot would require a width variance. Mabusth suggested putting a 25' outlet the extends up to Lot 1 cn the east side.There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was continued. It was moved by Chairman Kelley to recommend approval of the preliminary 2-lot subdivision of 12^ acres, less Outlet A which will run 50' from the southerly boundary to the east lot line. Outlet B will run on the eastern boundary commencing at Outlet A to the south up zo the lot line of Lot 1 at a width of 25'. It was suggested by the applicant's surveyor that the outlet will need to be wider than 25' to contain a driveway. Kelley said that he did not want to create substandard lots. Mabusth suggested that it may be better to have the property owners work out the details. Kelley 3uggest<^d tabling the application until further information is available regarding actual lot areas. Bellows said the issue of drainage easements had not yet been ^ ^ j •f^eTSl •lefelel* PLANHING COMmSSIOS ting SCJVEMBBR 20,470-PARTEH COmiBOED^^ ^he acreage5T%ut\of\\nt .\“rt "e^ay around to the ea.t lot Una..nserved that such a configuration would cr.at, two,a that he would favor th.2-lctsuhdivision.^^^^^advised that the flag ut?ot*the extends opbusth suggested putting atie east side. *..,01-g. from the public regarding this matteroved by Chairman J-es°”^l?s^s ^0^^ A '^ineL run on the eastern a width of 25*. , It d'"by''the^a®pp^°icant’^8 ®'^F^®/°/j.iveia^!^* Kelley said :iS:sS;= Kelley withdrew his motion. ■ -«.w,or "allows, seconded by moved by Planning Commissioner - pending IlsSonIr Hanson, to issue of easement vs.if a plan addressing J^sue o rather e drainage and auMi7i?S°".”li\*'rifioation of what Mr Parten aske^ Gaffron explained ^SRMXT r?;hI?cUfon';l:d certificate of hailing were was present for this mati inistrator Mabusth lo“’'r%‘aira" a wall, n oondiri''”*!. use the applicetiv" ■“t'^lsaV’^alofptrh'ie and recommended that the J Zoning File #1470 November 14, 1989 Page 2 of 3The second alternative is shown on applicant's Exhibit B as a PRD layout. The proposal appears somewhat contrived in order to placa the alternate drainfield site for Lot 1, within Lot 1. Applicants feel that the PRD concept is not necessarily appropriate since the shared nature of the open space would tend to negate the privacy aspects cf the low density development. Applicants further are concerned about the marketability of the PRD as it applies to this specific property. Certainly ipplicants are correct in that the property does not lend itself to clustering, as was the case in the Luce Line Ridge PRD development just to the west. However, with 3 lots on over 17 acres, as a PRD no lot area variance is necessary since the road outlot can be credited for meeting the density requirement.Issues - 1. Does the Planning Commission feel comfortable via the proposed standard plat in granting the necessary lot area variances for Lots 2 and 3, to be less than 5.0 acres in the 5 acre zone? If so, the proposed plat would seem to address the general issues outlined by the Planning Commission previously. If not. Planning Commission should consider the PRD alternative, in which the lot area request is no longer a variance. 2, Is the applicants' proposal for an 18' wide gravel road to the cul-de-sac, with an extended 14' gravel driveway tc Lots 2 ana 3, acceptable to the Planning Commission? If not, what additional standards would Planning Commission recommend? If Planning Commission wishes to „*ecommend approval for lot area variances for the standard proposed three lot plat, there are number of l ’ .que findings that might be made that wou ‘■ > set this applicac; part from other future applications requesting lot area varian 7 in the 5 acre zone: 1. In order to provide future acces.*? to neighboring land locked parcels, the City is requiring an unusually lengthy outlot road that subtracts from the overall acreage. 2. Due to the extremely hilly t*->ography and "stretched out" nature of the parcels encomp. sing the property, the length of roadway to serve only three parcels is necessarily of an excessive length. 3. The overall density for the three proposed lots is 5.6 acres per residence, meeting the intent of the 5 acre minimum lot size standard of the RR-IA zoning district. it ning File #1470 vember 14, 1989 ge 2 of 3D“a'a"rt 'a^^'Jles^loTh'irf "arke/abmty'lrjhe’c'r"r r" tre^^i'erlj'/oer^ot len5‘i\s"ei?:lot can be credited for meeting °4e®denYuy^r?qu\^^^^^lues -Does the Planning Commission feel comfortable via <-ho standard plat In granting thrSiinaaJy lot aJeSTae" zone?”'’ if no ‘*’®” S-' acres in tne r:.;;;™"’- ■■' “ .■™.;s“ frrr:.s: proposal for an 18' wide gravel road to 2 ana extended 14' gravel driveway to Lots whai- Planning Commission? if not, stardards would Planning Con,missioi; » vir^ an"™ % Commission wishes to recommend approval for lot ariances for the standard proposed three lot nlat "appuca/i ' furt“f"/oi"’?n ‘’’“f ^'^e'?ha"t'w%‘; .'""t” arS varlVn. ^ in thf5 acre ”zone ”requesting looked °oarcel ”f P5°''ide future aooeso to neighboring land- M«ot r,f»d th r “! ia requiring an unusually lengthyoutlot road that subtracts from the overall acreage. ^ o;t-“nat«e ”o? t”he na ”roe^, ‘->c?raphy and -stretched oS ”"arero^n?re-leir ”” - aop-J^^® overall density for the three proposed lots is 5 6 :Jn”fa”u.-l^ot%”i%^-s"t?ndar"d””o ”f-tL”^^^^^ Zoning File #1470 November 14, 1989 Page 3 of 3If Planning Commission feels that these and other appropriate Findings provide a substantial justification to grant the lot ar-?- ariances reques'-ed, such that the precedent-setting aspect wouIq oe minimized, then a recommendation for approval of the proposed plat would be appropriate.On the other hand, if Planning Commission feels that granting tho *ja variance here will ultimately lead to pressure for variances on less unique properties in the 5 acre zone, a PRD concept with three distinct building pads and commo: nsd open space, could be considered.Staff would also note that if a recomrr*endation for approval be forthcoming, the plat would be subject to the standard drainage and utility easements, a drainage easement over the major drainage ravine, park fees, private road easements and covenants, etc. I 7 - —. h11190.2HDTo: Planning Conunission Chairman KelleyOrono Planning Conunission Members City Administrator BernhardsonMichael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning AdministratorJanuary 11, 1990Subject: Code/Comprehensive Plan Conflicts Needing FutureResolutionA. Conflict Between Subdivision Code & Comprehensive PlanThe Comprehensive Plan defines a "driveway" as an allowable type of access to serve a maximum of three residents, not subject to any public easement or access right. It says that driveway width (i.e. the actual traveled width) will be regulated in cases of more than one user or where there is excessive driveway length. The Subdivision Code (not the Zoning code) provides private road design standards that state for 3 to 6 residential units, a right-of-way width of 50' is required, with a minimum paved width of 24'. The Subdivision Code requires an outlet for a private road serving 3 or more lots [Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (C)]. Clearly, there is a conflict between these two documents. B. Conflict Between Zoning Code & City's Development Intent Both the Subdivision Code and Comprehensive Plan provide for and encourage the development of private roads in the rural area (Subdivision Code § 11.10, Subdivision 21 (C); Comprehensive Plan Section 7-12, Subp. 4 "Rural Transportations Policies). Yet the City has interpreted its Zoning Code as stating that, by extrapolating of definitions, all newly created lots must front on a public street, therefore new lots proposed to front on private roads require a variance (see MPG memo of 3/6/86). The definitions for lot standards seem in dire need of revision. It is the City's clear intent that development with private roads is appropriate,To do so should not require variances. E.1 ^i !11190.2HDplanninq Conunission Chairman Kelley oiono Planning Commission Members City Administrator BernhardsonHichael P. Ctfron, Rs.t Planning a zoning Admini.trator January Up 1990code/comprehensive Plan Conflicts Needing Future Resolution. . .. .<on Code » romprehensive Plan^ A "r^riveway** 3ls ancomprehensive of three residents, not subjectea%e-rn: ^^Sfc^e-^^g^J^^^d^^n^rs^ei\-.rn* o*nrS^errVk^er“in^’ere“L exce^ssive drivewaysubdivision code rteLidmtia” uKts?‘a Ign standards that state for minimum paved width -3ay width of 50' ^aJ ou?lot for a private The Subdivision Co Subdivision 21 (C)l. iVaT/nfifcl lUSUftihi'two docun-ents. c. r-<t*v*a ng»velopinenfc In'tQn^t Flict Between Zoning code & Cl Y--------------ti ;p?/e ?-ir^uip* y«S«tTs ^°^a-tiVg>-tb\t ‘S? ltLVV/”eh\\tfon%r{ll^ •‘”*Vx.‘S*v«?ancrrsee of 3/6/86). Theroads require a variance ise revision. It TO: 0'ono Planning CommissionFROM: DSi. w.nd Ruth PartenRE: Bayside Woods SubdivisionI. Proposal - Three Lot SubdivisionWe propose a 3 lot subdivision with road outlot, including an 18 foot wide gravel driveway to the turnaround, and a 14 foot wide gravel driveway to Lots 2 and 3. Lot 1 is arranged to incorporate an alternate septic site as shown.Variance Request j^l - Lot AreaProposed Lots 2 and 3 are 4.3 and 4.4 acres respectively.Lot 1 is 6.0 acres and the proposed road outlot is 2.3 acres.The overall density of this project is 5.6 acres per residence. The unique terrain of the property together with the creation of a 50 foot wide road outlot of 2.3 acres creates a hardship that we feel justifies the granting of a variance. Variance Request #2 - Paving We recognize that at some future date the driveway Outlot could access up to six properties and provide access to three landlociced parcels. The additional cost of bituminous paving for the 1,250 foot long driveway to the turnaround is approximately $23,000. We feel that if paving is a requirement, those costs should be shared by all benefiting parties. Therefore a variance is being requested to waive, for the present time, paving of the driveway. II. .^Mternate #1 - Two Lot Subdivision If a variance for paving is out of the question we propose a two lot subdivision, shown as "Exhibit A". The additional expense of paving the driveway and turnaround make a three lot plan economically impractical. This plan produces two 5 acre plus parcels with no variances required. i -- lanning commissionSoo5s"subdivision. Three Lot subdivision including^ a 3 lot ' ''ri.;» •'“ " "■■'to incorporat „5pe=tlvely ,ro%^ OP.O. .s .3 . ^his project IS =““'tollther eirt •all density of ^ if the property tg^^^^ a hardship that we e. r.iio<^t »? ~ driveway Outlot -- - - o future date the <?^^^®^cess to = that ^^.^"topertus and provide (S up to SIX P ocKed parcels. ^250 foot 3nal cost °^^^iaroin^^^P^^^ “arirpfvtn £e -t”-of by all benefiting P resent time. P ,eited to waive. Cor r • ^ d« “o"e the ooestion ve ProP«t “ inoi.?caliy impractical. variances Page 2 - Bayside Woods Subdivision III. Alturnate #2 - PRDExhibit B is an attempt to create a PRD as requested by the Planning Commission. The intent of a PRD (as explained by staff) is to cluster home sites in one area of development and leave open space for the enjoyment of the residents, maintaining the overall density of the project at 5 acres or more per residence.The topographic features of the property, potential septic sites, and the natural building sites make clustering of homes unfeasible. The use of open space around building sites when the sites are separated as these are, would infringe on the privacy of the residences and therefore make the lots less marketable. _J' __r EXHIBIT A 1 EXHIBIT B I ) j CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING PILE NO. 1470 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONDate of Notice: 10/20/89TO:Daniel Parten COPIES TO:1015 Tonkawa RoadLong Lake, MN 55356TYPEOP APPLICATION: SubdivisionDATE OP MEETING: 10/16/89 Vote: 7 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following:Tabled for reasons noted below.NOTES 6 SPECIAL CONDITIONS -Applicant to submit revised proposal(s) for review. General comments by the Planning Commission:1. Septic alternate site for Lot 1 (existing house) must be within Lot 1 if a standard plat is proposed. Some flexibility may be possible if a PRD is proposed. 2. Whether a standard plat or PRD is proposed. Planning Commission might consider granting lot area variances, given the overall 3 residence/17 acres density. 3. Planning Commission would prefer that access corridors be provided to the Reiersgord, Asao, and Deters properties, given the access concerns with those properties. 4. 50' outlot corridors would be appropriate throughout the subdivision; paved width of actual road/driveway to be standard 24* if all houses are served, perhaps some flexibility on paving if less houses are served. 5. Applicant advised to propose both a PRD and a standard plat for consideration. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the November 20, 1989 meeting is November 10, 1989. In all cases, the application must be continued with the submittal of requested information within 120 days or the City will consider the application as formally withdrawn. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. reao^ ----------------<^o»ox„o„, ,tri» =°™»isslon Propos.,,if a s,-^ ^®''iehr. ^•le if for r ^® PRD is is n^ i fexisf ‘"°^ents'’'^“Posp.j. ‘^jThouse, ,._.*PWca,. ■ for .•le if ^^^^dard ^*® for r ^®^erai ^-er : ;r ---/ p”Vo3'/.--in, .003, „ ""-0 f3 p®® densitv ^ area f ^^^opos«^:rcor ’• "°Per?/a5»'‘«<*°r3 pvoo,,' sero.3 P''®<J, B..?°‘“al rr.^ ^PPron-^ _o“‘^°‘ cor P'^“P®?We'"M<3cr3 pvoo,,Perp-“« , „ bet. a _ iear J”ation*°^^‘^“-tecJ „ * p‘p.<Jarti • for hpMop*'='lb<JuIe<, „ * ^ PboPd.’• "• Oeada/. “eetina v. :, pp “'■ bbe l»ove»'’p*"'*bnt po >«on “t'!^-‘'Pbloo '■ ^‘>' “’89 I®=*lpt or ,pp - ""*”8 Co™.f, fboo t.a‘i-® Pffioj. , .. ‘'’® wv-ITo;From:Date:Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator BernhardsonMichael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator October 10, 1989Subject: 11470 Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road -Preliminary Subdivision - Public HearingZoning District - RR-IA, 5 acre, unseweredApplication - 3-lot Class III subdivision to create two new 5 acre building lots in addition to existing residence.List of ExhibitsExhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit P - Application Plat MapProperty Owners List * Preliminary Plat Drawings(c'-' -: T' Letter from Neighboring Property Owner White Sketches by Staff Including: 1. Neighboring Property Ownership Acreage Layout Scale Concept Plan Showing Building Sites Existing & Proposed Driveway System Staff Conceptual Sketch A Staff Conceptual Sketch B O^ • 3. 4. 5. 6. Exhibit G - 7. Staff Conceptual Sketch C . v Subdivision Code Section 11.10, Subdivision 21^c.j ’ '\-o3.3.*4 Pertinent Pacts - 1. Proposed lot areas are as follows: Proposed Lot 1 = 5.2 acres (existing house) Proposed Lot 2 = 5.0 acres Proposed Lot 3 = 5.0 acres Outlet A = 1.87 acres Total Acreage = 17.06 acres (per survey — does this figure include 33' of right-of-way for Watertown Road?) 2. Proposed Lot 1 would not abut a private or public outlet road, but is proposed to be served by an easement driveway, which conflicts with Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 (c). Lot 1 contains the existing house and the existing primary drainfield. The site evaluation report on file indicates there are no suitable alternate drainfield sites within proposed Lot 1 and the only apparent alternate site is within Outlot A. The southerly 60' of Lot 1 contains an existing private "road" easement in favor of the Reiersgord property to the east. Applicant has not excluded this existing road easement from his calculation of lot area as required by the subdivision code. • otv Ci« r.,tt*°«' ^otv istta tot \ cfcs 0®'°'’ »1 ss-'^r • 4300 ® ^ic .wet've <e. to ®*^ttW®-cte* leiot^. rt tee*® Xon tie'* .adt ^ f - ns-i?-^S-" “■■' V«ii-^® 0 bV ®.a ?lO?*’' tjet’owt^’ ^ 1. ..rea'S® «ce9^ losed ^A h f «ib's r Si^®® waV ?• S^® vv AOSte^^tt '""cest'i-'tion4. 5. 6 • sta£* 'A cod® 5uTd ai^i-® ioa Sta*" coo ^ SO' pe X tt.i***ooeed**^* °\a* i"** * ‘’■ ° * YvooS* ^to9®® ^opO®®°a 3 - Vtce ^’"°tJ)Sed b°X.aT ® r/"® tVvi® ^OotXo^ t®®_.lwaV , aoe®^oadA eo t At e 1 iot as® *’■ iis®*\ woo-^ to ^^®^ tot ” oOt- ., e ot V at-® ease®'®®-!! * i matV tiot-^® setof® Sot>d*^ c^t\®rn e oti *'sites PtOpo®St'i-® vuati®® Vts^®^tlte«®®co>®^^9'’qotd load. "^Siili-fvfe e%^®^e e^tl«?tia^®iteO_% ®it ® Iiei®f J^is id at® *.«itis toao^- coot^*ttie ®;ite ®;itetoe; ^at ^1cvi.cn Aas TYie ®_--Le ®A«iV ?f, 60 ot ® ot l^cl^^®^t-ea Zoning File #1470 October 10, 1989 Page 2 of 5 6. 7. Proposed Lot 2 is a "flag" lot which would have 60' of frontage on Bayside Road per the proposal. The flag portion of Lot 2 also is covered by the 60* existing road easement, which again was not excluded from the area calculation by the applicant's surveyor. Primary and alternate drainfield sites for Lot 2 would be located along the northerly lot line of Lot 2.Lot 3 abuts the Luce Line Trail and was the subject of a prior variance application which was never completed. This subdivision proposal increases the area of that parcel to 5.0 acres (including the proposed road easement). One of the issues with that prior variance request was access across the Luce Line Trail, which the applicant could not obtain. The current proposal leaves Lot 3 with no frontage on a public or private outlet road, but gives it about 158' of frontage on a proposed 30' private road easement. Outlot A was proposed for possible sale to the abutting property owner at 4360 Bayside Road. However, since septic testing indicates the only alternate site available for Lot 1 would be within the area of Outlot A this poses a problem. The proposal does not strictly meet the requirements of the septic code, which requires that drainfield sites be within the building lot which they serve. The proposed dividing line between Lots 1 and 2 generally follows a deep ravine. The proposed 30' easement road was located to fit the existing topography. The property contains steep slopes which significantly limit the potential roadway locations. A number of variances would be required in order to approve the plat as proposed; A) Lots 1 & 3 would require a variance for lac)c of frontage on a public roadway. B) Lots 1, 2 & 3 would require lot width variances. At the 100' setback from Bayside Road, Lot 2 is only 60' wide where •j n ft I 1- n 1 /i+- M-i rM- h i‘ e norma llv r#»auired. Lo- 1. ^ WAll W n A w — ^ 300' in lot width is normally required. Lots 1 & 3 do not front on a public roadway nor a private road outlot, hence they each technically require a 100% variance for defined lot width. C) Section 11.03.24, the definition of "minimum lot area", requires the exclusion of private or public access easements from the calculation of lot area. With this in mind, the actual defined areas of Lots 1 & 2 are each about 4.0 acres, and that of Lot 3 is 4.95 acres. Each lot would require a lot area variance. ■A:. A A' r-^i....'■ : '•x;."■ ri-: r Zoning Pile #1470 October 10r 1989 Page 3 of 5 D) Variance to Section ll.lOr Subdivision 21 (c) to allow 3 lot development without a private road outlot. Discussion - In early discussions with staff, the applicant was advised that complete septic testing would be required for this 5 acre subdivision due to the slope concerns on the property. Additionally, it was suggested to applicant that a Planned Residential Development (PRD) be considered for this property due to its unique natural characteristics and unusual boundary configuration. As of a week before this writing, applicant had been requested by staff to provide a revised proposal showing outlot roads rather than road easements to serve the subdivision. In your discussion of the issues noted previously, staff would suggest reviewing sketches FI through F7. PI notes the neighborhood ownership pattern and the location of neighboring residences to the north. F2 notes the acreages of the three blocks of property within the subdivision. F3 is a reduced version of the applicant's concept plan for two new building sites. F4 indicates the existing and proposed driveway system. Especially note the extreme length of driveway that would serve Lots 2 and 3. From Bayside Road, the driveway serving Lot 3 would be about 2,100 feet (or four-tenths of a mile) in length. Sketch F5 is the first of three conceptual layouts provided by staff for discussion purposes. This layout provides a 50' road outlot to the Reiersgord boundary, and uses the applicant's proposed 30' corridor for Lots 2 and 3. The alternate site for Lot 1 is within Lot 1, although the contiguity is merely through a 10' wide neck. With this configuration, there is still an apparent need for an outlot east of the 30' driveway corridor, and this outlot would need to become part of Lot 1 to make up the required 5 acres for Lot 1. This sketch shows Lots 2 and 3 abutting the private road outlot and containing significant frontage on that outlot. The required 50' side and 100' rear setbacks for the existing house would be maintained. Please note that staff is not recommending this configuration, it is only for discussion purposes. Exhibit F6 is staff conceptual sketch B, which shows a typical "block" subdivision configuration that ignores the topography concerns for road construction. Each lot would have the required frontage on a private road and meet the lot width requirements. Also, the Asao property would have frontage and required width on the private road. Zoning File #1470 October 10, 1989 Page 4 of 5 However, the negative aspects outweigh the positives in this layout. The required 5 acre minimums are not met. The road could not feasibly be constructed within the outlet due to the steep slopes which would have to be cut or filled. The road wipes out the only feasible drainfield sites for Lot 2. The alternate site for Lot 1 is still on a separate outlet not attached to Lot 1. Again, conceptual Sketch B looks good on paper but does not accommodate the topography or physical characteristics of the property. Conceptual sketch C, Exhibit F7, suggests a planned residential development (PRD) giving each building site a 2-*- acre building envelope, with the remaining subdivision acreage as an open space outlet. Outlets B & C would be private road outlets. Outlet C could conceivably be narrower than the standard 50' private road outlet, since it would serve only two lots. Staff Recoimendation - Given the information provided by applicant, staff would recommend that the following issues be addressed for the applicant so that he can return with a revised proposal more in keeping with the subdivision requirements while still relating to the natural characteristics of the land: 1. Should this be a normal plat subdivision, or should it be a planned residential development? 2. Is there any justification to grant variances to allow development with easement roads rather than private road outlots? 3. If a private road outlot is required, should it continue to the Reiersgord property? Further, should a private road outlot be continued to the Asao and Deters properties to the north, so that the Luce Line driveway crossing for those two properties might ultimately not be necessary? 4. Will Planning Commission require that the alternate site for Lot 1 be within the boundaries of Lot 1, if this is a plat? or, if this becomes a PRD, will Planning Commission allow the alternate site for Lot 1 to be within the open space outlot? 5. Presuming that whether this is a plat or a PRD, the Planning Commission will not waive the standard requirement that outlot roadways be excluded from lot area, if the remaining acreage after exclusion of roadways is less than 15.0 acres, will Planning Commission consider granting of l<rt variances with the subdivision? fj t ; L Zoning File #1470 October 10» 1989 Page 5 of 5 Additional Co—nnta - 1. Applicant is advised to contact the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for plat review. 2. Once a revised proposal has been received^ further review of drainage and other site concerns will conunence. Lie #1470 LO, 1989 e 5il CoMients -contact the Minnehaha Creek Wat0rsn©d District for plat roviow»Once a revised proposal has been received, further ew of drainage and other site concerns will commence.fe"-lCITY OF OROHO - SUBDIVISIOM APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION -Site Address ^Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 3l~M8'~'33*~/5~~OOP.y 06-//7- Z.3 i 2 - COCPlease check one - Property v abstract or torrens?Attach legal description to application.Phone (home) ~ 7Phone (work) HH! ~~ 73/^Address: fOI^ I ooid<gq/3 ^cjscl City; Lo^c, L'b Ic ^ Zip;APPLICANTOWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) ^O/— ~7^Name ^ Phone (work)a»d.^vT^Address; /OjLS ^iaci City; A-d/cei. zip;(attach list if more than one)njL i w YQF dm OFFICE- or ____ torrens? lSCEIPT~nm’ YOU3) -//<5'-23^3~coatS^'o..cm roi mr09/22/i Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ / Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) \/^ Subdivision for New Building Sites / Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per J7 Acres 3c.~tfS Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 i ;rr ^-•'"^vV. 1I-f:^ VIIVISIOH MPLIOTIOW ^53:5:% s.>‘>s««y'.777_23 4 3.tion to -------------—tJnT ^fsS'------------------- phone (hone)---------------^--- r""nan applicant) . ^ i^/-73/A. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r%TSjrt^°«i-_ _ _ _ _ reels £ Z2 /IQ Acres Dry Land fereJ all parcels • * Residential; no. of Other (speexfy) District _ _ -oi;rsro;To;'Tat purposes Mt Line Beartanpenent only suhaivision for Be« Buliain, Sites / «»vi «txn lilding Sites; Existing Onits Hew Onits Total Units )ss Density; Size; e: (check) onits per Z7-5 Units i—X- sq reet Dry Buiiaable Lana Residential ^- Other (specify) 2.3.lUHIMOM MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application FormPreliminary 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).Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners listnAs an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application.4.5.Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete.Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1.2.3.4.5.Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). 1,’lgned certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat.Title opinion.Ea*«:ments, Covenants, etc.Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ FEESV Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) ^ Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) $150.00 250.00 Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential)300.00 + 20.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) ♦(Plus any legal or engineering charges) 150.00* The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City Attorney, Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all^'-craaitic'iial^ees.^tal^^.ished by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature Date Date / Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. :-r;•y• • A . --1*V ‘ iS".•!V r*>N* ■ ■ ■ - ■. (#1• ’ , ••♦' 1mm OATE 0f/06/S9 BATCH 001 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OltlERS LIST REPORT NO. PI415401 PAGE 4PROP AOOR ONNER NAHi TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SB 0A-117-C3 11 0001 04t44 BAYSXOE RO vex CAPXTAL INC vex CAPXTAL INC PO BOX 175 LONG LAKE HN 55154 IB 06-117-21 12 0001 04160 BAYSXOE RO J A OLSON APE OLSON JAteS A OLSON 4160 BAYSXOE RO MAPLE PLAXN rtl 55359 36 06-117-21 12 0002 04300 BAYSXOE RO SCIIUTZ-O'NEXLL CORPORATION SCHUTZ-0*NEXLL CORPORATION 1015 TOnCAHA RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADBR OIMFR NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SB 06-117-ES 12 0001 04155 BAYSXOE RO vex CAPXTAL XNC vex CAPXTAL XNC PO BOX 175 LONG LAKE m 55156 IB 06-117-23 21 0001 04465 BAYSXOE RO HAP JOHNSON HARK S A PATRXCXA P JOHNSON 4465 BAYSXOE RO MAPLE PLAXN HN 55359 36 06-117-23 21 0002 04455 BAYSXOE RO HAP JOHNSON HARK S A PATRXCXA P JOHNSON 4455 BAYSXOE RO MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 o LV r PROP AOOR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 36 31-11B-23 41 0009 04115 HATERTONN RO N R i N E PLANK MICHAEL R A NARY E PLAM( 4145 HATERTONN RO MAPLE PLAXN MN 55359 SB 31-11B-2S 42 0005 OOOSB AOORESS UNASSXGNEO NXNNXFREO N BRYANT NINNIFRED N BRYANT C/O MERLE STXLES IBOl LAKEVXEN TER LONG LAKE IM 55354 3B ll-llB-23 41 0007 0003B AOORESS UNASSXGNEO P ASAO A J ASAO PHXLLXP ASAO 125 TURNHAH ROAD MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 SB 31-11B-23 43 0011 00145 TURNHAH RO KEITH L HQHELL ET AL OAVXO A DETERS 145 TURNHAH RO MAPLE PLAXN MN 55359 3B ll-llB-23 42 0001 04245 CHXPPENA U R L SORENSEN ETAL ROBERT L SORENSEN 4245 CHXPPENA LA»IE MAPLE PLAXN HN 55359 SB 31-116-21 41 0003 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGI4E0 HimiFREO M BRYANT Hill IX FRED M BRYANT C/O MERLE STXLES 1601 LAKEVXEN TER LONG LAKE HI4 55356 36 31-116-23 43 0006 04300 BAYSXOE RO SCHUTZ-O'NEXLL CORPORATXON SCHUTZ-0‘NEILL CORPORATXON 1015 TONKANA RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 31-116-23 44 0001 0003B ADDRESS UIASSXGNEO STATE OF MXrt4 STATE OF MXNN 36 31-116-23 42 0003 04355 CHXPPENA LA FREOERXCK E SHENANEK JR ETAL FRED E SHENANEK RT 2 BOX 16 MAPLE PLAXN HN 55359 36 31-116-23 43 0006 00125 TURI4HAM RO P R ASAO A J A ASAO PHXLXP R A JOY A ASAO 125 TURNHAH RO MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 36 31-116-23 43 0009 00036 ADDRESS UNASSXGNEO NATURE CONSERVANCY NATURE CONSERVANCY 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 36 31-116-23 44 0004 00038 AOORESS UNASSXGNEO THOMAS E REXERSGORO ETAL THOMAS E REXERSGORO 4500 N 44TH ST MPLS MN 55424 tH =tfc TT ■ 'OCT - RCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEMproperty atttRS list38 OS-117-25 12 0001 OASSO BAYSIDE RD J A OLSON APE OLSON JAMES A OLSON 4360 BAYSIDE RO MAPLE PLAIN FW S5359 38 06-117-« 21 0001 04465 BAYSIDE RO K4RK*'s'*?*P^ICIA P JOHNSON 4465 BAYSIDE RO maple plain MM 55559 30 31-118-25 A2 0001 04245 CHIPPEHA LA R L SORENSEN ETAL ROBERT L SORENSEN 4245 CHIPPEMA LANE MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-25 45 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIOIED HIllilFREO M BRYANT HIllilFREO M BRYANT C/0 MERLE STILES 1801 LAKEVIEM TER long lake MN 55556 38 31-118-23 43 0008 CORPORATION SCHUTZ-O'MEILL CORPORATION 1015 TOFACAMA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 44 0001 00038 ADDRESS UFIASSIONEO STATE OF MINN STATE OF MIFJN i- -■^;r'.‘i*REPORT F«. PI4SB40X PAGE 438 06-117-23 12 000204300 BAYSIDE ROSJSSt SSSS?S!!1015 TOFUAHA RD LCMG lake MM 55356 38 06-117-25 21 0002 04455 BAYSIDE RD NARK*'s^?*MTMC1A P JOHNSON 4455 BAYSIDE RD FIAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 42 0003 04355 CHIPPEMA LA FREDERICK E SHEFWMEK JR ETAL FRED E SHEMANEK RT 2 BOX 16 FtAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 43 0006 00125 TURNHAM RD P R ASAO A J A ASAO PHILIP R A JOY A ASAO 125 TURFFHAM RO MAPLE PLAIN MM 55359 38 31-118-23 43 0009 00038 ADDRESS UMASSIGNED nature conservancy nature cofiservamcy 1313 5TH ST S E suite 314 MPLS MM 55414 38 31-118-23 44 0004 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO THOFIAS E REIERSGORO ETAL THOMAS E REIERSGORO 4500 H 44TH ST MPLS MN 55424 , -^1 VCI capiul,tnc. RQ BoxM?,* Long Lake, MN SS3S8 • (612)476-2637October 3, 1989JEANNE A. MABUSTHBuilding & Zoning AdministratorCITY OF ORONOOrono Village HallP. 0. Box 66Crystal Bay, MN 55323Re: Residential Subdivision4300 Bayside RoadDear Ms. Mabusth: In conjunction with the Parten application for a proposed three lot residential subdivision of a property located at 4300 Bayside Road, I submit the following information. If blacJctooping of the north-south access road from Highway 84 is being considered, the following information may be pertinent. 1) The blue quarter-section map which I have tends to indicate that that road is 0n part on our property. (Our property abuts that road on the east and north of Highway 84.) I visited briefly on this with Mr. Gronberg, and he indicated that he thought it appeared that way also. 2) When that access road was put in, it was raised above elevation so that drainage on the extreme southwest corner of our property was restricted so that there appears to be about a third of an acre which has now become inadequately drained and uncroppable, particularly in wet years. 3) If a culvert would properly drain that corner before the blacktopping, it obviously would make that partial acre more usable again. If a telephone or other visit on any of the above is appropriate, I will be most pleased to be available. Very truly yours. LUC£- ...... ***» ■ *■■■• / •' y/// * \ C ^^ »i » « )»( 6/ '• •• M(M#» IMr< v<»CA«^ : ! — c»«€Wr« '2- AJCVO f -•■ V I''•..••.•Mro*»»*S6*» I t / r \ 0 C7> I &n. ^/sn^C> p^^^\/^WAcV $v/sr^tw C5i,:.'i\ . - r^zoo SicjiTCH 'A' exH. F-S ^>c ' 'N fo*^Yav# 129 29 / 'ICO / I r/^crT-CW ‘5 I -'ZOO I O.L.C F-1 rr> ih;m 129 29 ^rClkP'f C(^t^cts^'VAM^ SttertK the tec mine fe-o „„ .na co.as^'nift *•*’ „ .Ktic streets the JubUc tbV ‘■‘'"''oil tonsW«"' *t»££ »n'5 '*’®,i,aU !=« ®?*|^Clty « -rii'be "<,„.ent to thejtel^^^ P««'-j‘‘"?l finai. ,, vje suwj- _ ^-ina^. *- ■ouncil» ®^*^ecuted pti°^ plat has • 5'^?rpt=*^io/.v.eb% v®£?r ° „ Tb. ”.Vt', ^a/oz Ci^y ^ and , Hoad and «“Utt. Co»«l«clf?/o.cta^„^°*aCoeaa ° . ptlvata 4®|rand%°"®'^®" ’•• d “oatwt‘adaU b* J^latd CUV «.'”t® »*,*!d . ceqaltad dd_^„t 1„ t»e^ tb. plat „„, » atUltia* Mhanavat » conatiod on td^^^„,,e .11= ®'^''.‘nd* d“.dW^,d‘;iat d.-‘»’‘ ” b U fiudV «.aa and “=‘Vl«* V ^‘"f shtu '”’***"” •««".«' td^W. ®*rtd“ nna'e nSe j easement s^ desccipj^®” og title b. “^®Yun,ltd the ISO CC S 11.0321. "Improvements, Private" - Any improvement, required by this Chapter, which improvement the City or subdividet shall construct at subdivider's expense and for which the City will not assume any responsibility for its maintenance and operation and which shall not be dedicated to the City.22. "Improvements, Public" - Any improvement, required by this Chapter, which improvement the City or subdivider shall construct at subdivider's expense and for which the City will ultimately assume the responsibility for its maintenance and operation upon issuance of the certificate of satisfactory completion.23. "Lot" - A tract, plot or portion of a subdivision or other parcel of land intended as a unit for the purpose, whether immediate or future, or transfer of ownership or for building development. Every platted lot shall be a buildable lot or an outlot. ^J[^24. "Lot Area, Minimum" - Each lot shall contain the minimum required for each proposed lot as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. In rural zones not served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain a minimum of two acres or contiguous dry buildable land exclusive of wetlands, public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements, surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water or areas at or below the flood plain elevation for a specific property. All rural lots must comply with the City s on-site Septic system provisions of the City Code. In urban areas served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain contiguous dry buildable land equal to the minimum areas as prescribed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code or half-acre, whichever is less, (exclusive of public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian ease ments, surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water wetlands or areas at or below the flood plain ej-eya- tion for a specific property) and have legal access to the building site without encroachment of a wetland or flood plain area. 25. "Lot, Buildable" - A lot or combination of lots or outlets which*meet all of the requirements of the Zoning Chapter of the City Code and this Chapter for the intended purpose. 2€. "Lot, Outlot" - A lot which is intended only for public or private roadways, open space or other use, which use must be restricted by the appropriate easement and which use must be approved by the City at the time of final plat approval. use of*^the outlot will thereafter be restricted by the appropriate restrictive covenant or open space easement. 27. "Lot, Corner" - A intersection of two (2) streets, the intersection not exceeding 135 degrees. lot situated at the interior angle of such ORONO CC 419 (4-1-84) [uired by this* Priv»f«» ^ ^i*03‘^3 J®"»truct at sifb*divider^? ^“Pfoveinent the Cit ^”P'^®'^®»«nt,lired by thif*chaptr/^ Public- ai ®°'?*‘^uct at subdivide^'? ^“P^overaent the CiL ^®P^®'^®nent, un^ **•“»* the ®nd for whii? »«Wivideran^lot. E»«y platted lot'**■ a[re^ teouir^^ Mlniaun** - Earh i ■vv.i‘« v,cS'’*io?7“»->-“‘trjojri S'!/,; "iS:?-o-:c?e- s below the ordinarv V{ Podestrian 1. ^ ' Public and ■tV. °Al?*J:“,i‘'-*„/^lood““iVln’Vi\,°f,«y •piV'oa*t“;/%" l?«y"efe?r‘e«S®iot ”^* “‘p «'‘y'**5nfiu| 'city°codS th^ ®P*oific property) *nrf*L below the flooH ' —c-«t or’a"^^- >ts whi^h* ®uildable" - a i “tlot will ther«l5..^^** final plat Til: ®“»t be « covenant or o~n ,*i. *’* '"‘“ctM 6y*‘’?Sr*^- ■">• ose®P«n space easement. ^ **** appropriate iornoVex'c7.dl"n; iSV^eJ^es^ ior'ai^le oV 41) (4-1-84) 7<e ' I ;.. '‘■I*;/o■ . a *TO: Mayor Grabek and T'ancilPlanning Commission Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members City Administrator BernhardsonFROM: Jeanne Mabusth, Building & Zoning AdministratorJanuary 4, 1990#1486 - Sussex Square Development, 3020 Pox Street Amendment of Original 17-Lot Preliminary Subdivision Public HearingList Of Exhibits -Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F ApplicationProperty Owners List Gaffron Memo and Sketch Site Plan of Tennis Court on Outlet A Developer's Letter 1/8/90 Amended Preliminary Plat Purpose of Application - The applicant has filed for an amendment of the original 17- lot plat approved by Council on October 23, 1989. The applicant wishes to create an outlot for the purpose of constructing a tennis court for the shared use of the future homeowners of the plat. It is the desire of the developer to prohibit the installation of tennis courts on all 17 lots. The covenants for the plat shall provide for the creation of a homeowners' association that shall provide for the shared ownership of the outlot and the maintenance of the tennis court and grounds. As the court will be constructed in a rural residential area, it may be appropriate to establish a reasonable schedule for its use. The City may wish to consider limits on lighting and hours of use. In addition, staff h. s asked the developer to consider setting aside additional area for septic expansion for rhe substandard parcel uwfined as the exception on the plat. The applicant has responded by providing an additional outlot along the west side of the exception. Please review Gaffron's memo that confirms the area suitable for septic expansion. It should also be noted that all lots still retain the required lot area and lot width and that septic test sites have not been negated with the creation of the out lots. In consideration of the recent ame»idment of the Accessory Structure Ordinance, the creation of an outlot for a specific accessory use and structure may necessitate the approval of variances never before addressed by the City. Section 11.0 3^^ Definition 26 - Lot, Out lot - 'a lot which is intended only for public or private roadways, open space or other use, which use must be 0 ' - ^filS;»2ks’ ”“"labusthf 4. 1990 3020 of oris Hearing outlet » » - r«ron »«”■’’ court on Outio ■=' •» Develope^reliB'i’^*’'^ , n- =f‘f. '°n 0«cT« tennis “or°"t»>« qro“"^f; „»y :;‘cirtr:=t\a.cum», establi?. • \i.„its °n : -b to conaraur ,.,.,o,.r « -eiar. . „ .tail . ‘%-’‘f^r »b^-„*r”e Pi^t^l-* parcel , prov olease r« ^©n. fa^e^^'.Vlf:/ertion”t^« ,oc...c- . tbo ran'c“"'»\rapp’c*^ ‘•‘^*'ance," tb« eVtV-'“'i^'ana Structurej-V^ CrtV “‘.'v.r beJer. jot, ffiiifjnllc or prl^^m ua°e. "** v»nicn toace or , open spa restricted by the appropriate easement and which use must be approved by the City at the time of final plat approval. The use of the out lot will thereafter be restricted by the appropriate restricted covenant or open space easement.”Please note an outlet is not defined in the Zoning Chapter. Outlets have been used with PRDs to define shared open space or common recreation areas. It would appear there is nothing in the subdivision regulations what would prohibit the creation of an outlet with a Class III subdivision. There are no area standards for outlets. An outlet is not a residential unit for a single family use. In this case« would Section 10.03, Subdivision 9B be applicable? An Accesory structure requires a principal structure. Is it necessary to grant a variance for an outlet created for a special approved use (Yes/Nc). Section 10.03, Subdivision 9C, Tennis Courts without a roof structure are not considered an oversized accessory structure. The proposed tennis court shall be surrounded by a fence in excess of 6'. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14D, Required Setbacks for Tennis Courts: Front yard: Requlred-50', Proposed-50* Side/rear: Required«30', Proposed»30’ No setback variance will be required for the tennis court structure (60' x 120'). Section 10.03, Subdivision 14C, Lot Coverage Standards - Proposed tennis court shall ‘ijednelosed by a fence in excess of 6’ in height. Does this apply to an outlot of less than 1.99 acres in area? Total Area Allowed Proposed 27,878 s.f. 4,182 s.f. or 151 7,200 s.f. (60* X 120') or 26% Was it the intention of the Planning Commission to make this standard applicable for outlets for special use? If it was the intent of the Planning Commission to include outlets into the lot coverage standard, then a lot coverage variance is required. Option* of Action - Denial - If denied, the following findings nay be applicable: 1. Location of tennis court and Impact on existing rural residential neighborhood. 2. Depending on reap- noted above, the nee prohibit approval of “^s or findings raised with questions approve multiple variances will mended subdivision. Approval - If approvod, the Planning Commission may consider one or more of the following findings: 1. The creation of the outlots has no negative impact on the tested septic sites» nor created a need for lot standard variances for the 17 residential lots. 2. The tennis court does not require s .tback variances. 3. With the creation of Oulot B, the Developer has provided future septic expansion area for the substandard residential unit surrounded by the subdivision. 4. Outlots A and B are not considered bulldable lots. Out lot A shall be jointly owned by an association of 17 homeowners for the exclusive use of those owners and guests. Applicant shall provide appropriate covenants for the maintenance of the accessory structure and grounds. Out lot B shall be set aside for acquisition for either the current or future owner of the developed residential lot to the imn-ediate east of the outlot for future septic expansion. Developer shall execute a special covenant de special use and restrictions on both outlots. *.ng the The approval of this subdivision is subject to the following conditions: 1. Use of the tennis court on Outlot A shall be limited to the hours of a.m. to _ _ _ p.m. and to be limited to the use of the owners within the Fox Bend Subdivision and their guests. 2. No outdoor lighting is approved for Outlot A. 3. No other accessory structures are approved for Outlot A. 4. Other conditions deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission for the future use of Outlot A or Outlot B. J approval - I. approvad th. Pl.nnia, Co™.l..lo. »ay coa.ld.r on. r »o« of th. follo«ln9 findincfst1. Th. cr.atlon a"n.^***o\ lot atandard‘rnl ‘arr •irt*.iidrnt?a* iota.J Th. t.nnl. court do., not t«iulr. a .tbaok vatlanca. ';l?”ur«und«a by th. aubdlvlaion.4. outlet. A an- » Vn^aaVoViri^ of^^T Outlet A shall be J’ * _f those owners and guests. ho»ao-n.r. for th. “p” pJlJtt cov.n.nt. for th. :SfnV.?.no.%f tUVcc..aory".truotur. and ground.. outlet B .hall b. fo^'h^'T.‘r;d^^^ «rVfihroSjlot ^for futur. ..Ptic expansion. a «h«ii execute a special covenant de ;^'l‘a?*u«‘l:Jd r.Vt*rlcJlon, Sn both outlet.. Ing the Th. approval of thl. aubdlvlaion Is .ubj.ct to th. fol loving ondltlon. t.iot A .hall b. ll.lt.d to 1. 0.. of th. t.nnl. court on Outlo^ A^^b^l ^ IT, !::rof°thrS=-n.;"wl?hlirth. ro. B.na subdivision and their guests. 2 NO outdoor lighting l. approval for Outlet A. 3. BO otbar accaory atructur.a ar. approved for Outlet A. JU-uVlL%«" tV.°"fStu'rV^^^^^^ Zoning File #1486 February 22, 1990 Page 4Additional Exhibits -Exhibit G - Planning Commission Minutes 1/16/90Additional Cements t Planning Comission Recomendation ^The neighbors most impacted by the proposed location of the shared tennis court were in complete opposition to the amended proposal. Although applicant’s representative advised that a tennis court could be Installed by the owner of the residential lot in that same location^ the members noted that there is a big difference in the use of a shared tennis court over a singly owned tennis court.Please review Exhibit G, the Planning Commission minutes for background discussion and the Planning Commission recommendation. The Planning Commission denied the amended preliminary plan for Sussex Square Development and based their denial on the following findings: 1. Introduction of an outlot for a shared use tennis court appears to be introduced too late in the planning process and could have been considered at the time of the original review of the 17 lot subdivision. 2. There would appear to be adequate area for tennis courts on other lots within the plat. 3. Based upon applicant's representative, the shared court would not reduce the number of courts on other lets as applicant does not propose restrictive covenants to prevent construction of individual courts. 4. An interior location for the outlot would have less impact on the existing residential properties that border the property. 5. There is a far greater impact created from a community owned/shared use tennis court and an individually owned court. The applicant has been given the opportunity to withdraw the application prior to presenting it to the Council for their review and consideration. The developer has asked to present her position and has asked to be scheduled before your February 26, 1990 meeting. Council Action - To provide conceptual direction to staff so that an appropriate resolution can be drafted for action at the March 12, 1990 meeting of the Council. I#/'/26 CIR OF OKOaO - SOBDIVXSKM APPUCkVI #1486 PIOPBKTT LOCATIOH Sit* Address J‘7>'^'<'T - ^y ‘>}^ O-y^zyz'S' •& c?zz Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) v-/- • -J,~* - r^.-y i Please check one - Property ^ abstract or ^ torrens? attach legal description to application. ^PLZCAIT ^ Phont thome) ^ "-''"^2// m ' Name T.'/fZ^y /’■rt-r/./-/-phone (work) Address: 7yi~ ■ ' /Z/c^ / City; /- _____Zip:srj ? / OffMBR (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home)• # ,r r Phone (work)X» * . • • • Address:City:Zip:^ m • • (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND 08B Number of Tax Parcels Development Size >•//. fJ 7S t Acres Dry Land * Acres Wet Land u/'/'Acres Total, all parcels .i r Present Use (check)Residential; no. of units Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning District /f'—//• • ^9 49 99 99 9N ^9 99 ^9 99 ^9 ^9 ^9 ^9 NBN ^9 ^9 9B ^9 «9 99 ^9 99 ^9 ^9 99 ^9 ^9 ^9 ^9 99 ^9 ^9 ^9 ^9 ^9 ^9 ^9 ^9 ( PROPOSAL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Division for Tax Purposes X. Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: /5 / Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: /7 _ Units per V/:.vAcres /Z Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use: (check)Residential Other (specify) - SOTDIVISIOB APPLICATl #1#6icm ification Number (P.I.D.) ':;izJ~ - - >••,■>, . r) ^ 1 ^ >ne - property _2< •*>««« « description to application r/j.u- y r/^y* /■ rt-r<^■'^A "Z” / ^ ^ 7S-QZ/SPhon«. (home) _ ----------------- r Phone (worh)^------^------ - - -- ■-v^^. /.V.—^i:.::rr ferent than applicant) Zip:'rj* ^ / Phone (work) 4 -•'" •■*. '. ■ ► f- *r 'L*!•-•'- ■ • ••-.... City:Zip: D aSB of Tax Parcels ment Size : Use (check) 53 : r- - Acres Dry Land Acres wet oarcels '*<Acres Totalp all parcels Residential: no. of units Other (specify) — ling District,- - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Division for Tax Purposes -- - ™nt Only (no new building sites)Lot Line Rearrangement Only New Building Sites subdivision for New of Building Sites: ed Gross Density: B Lot Size: ed Use: (check) Existing Units New Units Total Units / 7 units per Acres sq PMt Dry BulWabl. I-»d Residential Other (specify) mBIMON HATBRIAL BBCBSSARY FOR COMPLBTB PRBLUIIBARY APPLICATIOH1. Completed Application Form2. Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey.3. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtainthis list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center340-3271). ^ V * 4.K4. Stampedr legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each or thenames on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list).5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application.Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete.Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date- - - - - - - - - -1. Payment of fees (park fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments).2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, Covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete Zoning Official's Signature _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date- - - - - - - - - - Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II S III) Preliminary Review (Class I fi II Subdivision) Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) Pinal Plat Review (Class III) ♦(Plus any legal or engineering charges) $150.00 250.00 300.00 4- 20.00/Lot 150.00* The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, City^ Attorney, Planning Commission a.‘>d Council necessary to process this application and further agrees to pay all additional fees #»staolished by ordinance. Oi'' / A. Date / ^ ^ ,3 / y 7Applicant's Signature j Owner's Signature J Date Applicant must have alk submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held <m the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is uneble to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building fc Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. /.mm Mft w/tvsfMTCtl ttfTAMMVliTAXMVIt TIdMVtft TANPAVtl TIWAYtR 39 0A*ll7*tS tS •OITA UAF ST i s STEHunr • i If sroMT iOQAN r i ftOSTN H STIHAIir ITS UAT ST S UM URf m 5SSSA5S SA-lir-fS » P007 00339 LEAF ST SAIMVH A AHDESSQM MTNRYN A ANDfSSQM S9S lIAf ST LOHB URf Iff SSSS4 39 OA*117-ES 33 0033 OSISO RIOGEMOOO CIS J 9 SSINOIEY 1 S J SStfSN.iY jmms A SATSICIA SSXMtfY SiSO SIOCCMOOfl CIS tCM URE m S5SS4 39 SA-117-'ES 30 9009 SASSASA R COFFIM SASMU R COrFlN 3039 MATESTCSCf SS vam URE iti ssssA NiltCStN COMNTY SSOSfSYY SNFOSHATION SYSTEH SSOSESTY OltCSS LIST5S 04-117-ES El 000500170 V LEAF STL P STENAST i S H STENASTLOOAN P A SOSYN H STEMASTS70 LEAF STLONO LARE Itl 55S5410 04-117-tS ES OOOYOOSAO LEAF STH C FUSCIffftS JS ETALHENRY rURCHNES 540 LEAF ST LONO LARE NN 55554 50 04-117-E5 E5 00E5 05100 R106EHOOO CIS FRATK J A PATRICIA R ROinSQN FRANK J ROUrSON 5100 R1D6EH00D CIS LONO LARE HI 55554 50 04-n7-EI 51 0001 004ES OLD CRYSTAL SAY RO S HAP LAHTON OR NILLIAH 0 lANTON AES OLD CRYSTAL DAY RO LONO LARE tOI 55554 REPORT NO. P141S401 PAOi E4 50 04-117-E5 51 0005 00505 OLD CRYSTAL SAY RO S OERTRUOE NENTSCNEL OERTRUOE 0 NENTSCNEL SOS SO OU CRYSTAL SAY RO iOm LARE MN SS5S4 50 04-117-EI 51 00555 OLO CRYSTAL SAY RO S ROBERT S BRANSON ETAL ROBERT S BRANSON 555 S OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO LONO LARE HI 55554 50 04-117-E5 E5 0004 00050 AOORESS IJNASSIONEB L P STENART A R N STENART LOOAN P A ROBYN H STENART 570 LEAF ST ORONO m S5554i50 04-1I7-E5 E5 0010 00400 LEAF ST E T A S A NILLNAN TtHOTNY HILLMAN 400 LEAF ST LONO LARE HI 55554 50 04-117-E5 E5 00E7 00050 AOORESS IflASStONEO H N A S J LAUE NERNAN N A SNlRiSY J 554 PARR LANE LONO LARE Hi 5S5S4 50 04-117-E5 51 OOOE 00455 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO S CAE NOLAN CftARlES A ELIEABETN NOUN 455 OLO CRYSTAL BAY RO S LONO LARS HI 55554 50 04-117-E5 51 OEYEO FOK ST CHERRY C SUMS CHERRY C STUBBS E4E0 FOK ST LONO LARE MN S55S4 T CO TANPAVtR 50 04-117-E5 51 0004 0E440 FOK ST NINA N NILBHAN NINA N NILONAN 745 SPRINQ HILL RO ORONO HI 55541 50 04-117-E5 51 0011 OEOOO FOK ST LESTER E TIlQirSON ET AL LESTER E THOMPSON 2000 FOK ST RT 1 BOX 525T LONO LARE MN 55554 50 04-117-25 52 0002 050^0 FOK ST J CHADNICR A R L CNAONXCR JOSEPH A RAREN CNAONICR 5040 FOK ST LONO LARE MN 555S4 •UN lATf M/t9/t9 •AfOl M«TMMVU » »«-117-tS St OOOS «MS* MMUS UNft$S16Nt» MNA N MUONWt NOW N NKBHAN Mt SMUNi mu NO BSS91 mwcnN COUNTY MorntTv iNramanoN systshraOKRTY OMCRS IIST39 IH>li7>tS St 9099 00^39 /AOOmSS tffWSSXONEO NINI^ NMIOMMIninavn/nilohan74B BMINB NHL NO '|W SSSYL S« OA-11/- ooos«MNA H mi!mm N m 7AS apumyinOMNO m mPORT NB. rSASMtl NAflf t7St OOOS SS (MASSimiN TAWAYIR 117>tS M OOM FOX ST mUMIN mUHAM m Htu 90 m Bssn 30 OA-117-tS SS OMS OSOYf farvien la A t NENmtCSEN JR IT AL ARTRUR E HEWamSEN JR 3099 FARVIEN LA LOW LAKE fW SSSM SR ««>117-tS SS 0S091 FARVltN U J • S OUKIAK JOSERN BUKIAR son FARVIEN LAW LOW LAKE m SSSM flwn mm TAWAVIR so 00>ll7-tS SS 0010 •SITS FON sr •AVIS A NAASS SAVIR A HAA» UW LAU Ml HSSO SO 00-117-tS SS 0011 OSItS FOK sr A 0 CARLSON A S J CARLSON ALAN CARLSON A SUSAN CARLSON sits FON ST LOW LAKE NH BSSS4 SO 04'117'ts SO otros FON ST IWRR F EWESRETSON ET AL NARK A CAROL ENOEORETSON toes FON ST LOW LAKE Ml SSSSO CD TANRAVER TAMRAVER mW/ARBR SS 00-U7-tS SO 0011 •SOTS FARVIEN U JAR OUTEN JAMI L OLSTEN ISOS XNTtANATlOMU. CENTRE 000 M AVE SO ssoot so OS-117-tS to 0007 •StOO SAYSIOE RO RAT mM(Em ROBERT L A TERESA N mNKEm StOO OATStOE RO LOW LAM Ml SSSSO SO 00-117'tS SO OOtt OSOSO FARVIEN U J N RANKER ABC RANKER JOHN N A BOMNE C RANKER SOOO FARVIEN U S LOW LAKE Ml SSSSO SO 0S-U7-t3 01 0010 OOSOS LEAF sr J A C NC COY JOHN I A CHARIEW H HC COY SStS NllLSlOE CXR EOSm Ml ssoss so OB-117-tS 10 0000 estoo OAYSISE RO 0 A 0 OOVIAN BOmiO K OOVIAN StOO SAYSIOE RO LOW LAKE Ml SSSSO SS OS-117-tS 01 0017 •SttS SAYSIOE RO R 0 A V O SNEISON ROWLS 0 SHELSON RO BOX 01 LOW LAKE Ml SSSSO tH TAWAVER SO 0S>U7-tS 01 0010 OStll OAVSIBE RS A J ROBOIW STL ROBOINS ARNOLO J ROBOIW Stll BAVSIOE RB LOW LAM Ml SSSSO SO 0B-117‘tS 01 0010 OOOOS LEAF ST N A 0 KOMIOClEmCt JR miTER J KOROMllimcZ OOS LEAF ST LOW LAKE Ml SSSM SO os-117-ts 01 sots •OStS LEAF sr JONATHAN CNAREL JONATHAN CHAFEL A RELIOIOUS SCIENCE S2S LEAF LOW LAKE Ml MSM nuMtni M of>ttr-n 44 0004 tUM roN or «tOMt N •»«»•Mom N nxoN111 NOSHtNOrON AVI S m 017 M*U m SS401 NiMCriN COUfTV PROrcOTV INroOHATIOH SYSTEN OmPERTV OWKRS LISTSO 09-U7-CS 44 0005 0S400 rox ST JAMES 0 rULlCRTON III IT Al FULLERTON L(»«ER CO R O SOK SO MPLS M4 RtfORT NO. R14SS40I RAM MTOTAL SATCN 000 OOOSO t CCRTIFY TNAT TWC FACTS RERRESEHTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE RCRRESCNTAriON Of INFORMATION AS IT ARREARS THIS DATE ON TNB RECORDS or THE NEFMERIN COUNTY OERARTMENT Of RRORERTY TAXATION, TO THE REST or NY RNONLEOOE AND OELIEf. [fM tH to* Jeanne A. Mabuethr Building t Zoning Administrator FBOMs Michael P. Gaffroni Asst. Planning t Zoning Admin. DATS* January 4« 1990 1X486 Pox Bend Subdivision *■ Outlot B Septic Potential At your request, I have reviewed the septic concerns for the Chadwick residence at 3060 Pox Street in relation to Outlot B of the Pox Bend subdivision. Outlot B *PP*^*P^Jy. J;? intended as additional future septic area for the Chadwick property. I would make the following comments: 1. The Chadwick residence is generally centered on its and the existing location of the well severely limits future septic development. 2. The existing septic system is northeast of the house and is probably near the lot line. Having extrapolated the topographic contour lines from the Pox Bend Plat, it appears that the drainfield la in an area of 8% to 12% slopes. These slopes would generally not be suitable for with a mound system if the existing trench system ever fails. The LrB and LrD soils on the site might support a replacement trench system. No testing information has been submitted. 3. Without a site inspection it is impossible to verify that the contour extrapolation is correct. appear that a flat area of approximately SO x 100 northwest of the house for a potential mound site. flat area extends into Outlot B, therefore it seems that Outlot B will have some potential benefit to future septic development! on the Chedwick property# 4. This potential drainfield site is shown in blue ®n the attached drawing and is approximately 100 from the wetland arees both to the northeast and southwest# 5. Chadwick's property is approximately 1 acre in the additional outlot would make it about 1.25 area While the addition of Outlot B would not make that a totally conforming lot, the potential for finding « drainfield site would appear to be much increased based on this additional land. 6. Neither Outlots A or B have any effect on tested drainfield sites in adjacent lots. { [ ------ i...,i l©iOWi JW-8B90 anuary B, 1990 Nina Wildmnn Sussex Sqijare Developement 745 Sprinphill ’’.oad Wayzata, MN 55391 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MH 55323 To: Planninp Oimmior.ion & Courcil Re: FOXRKND Outlets In marketing our lots we have found substantial interest in constructing tennis courts on 5 to 6 lots, particularly Lot 7, Block 2, since this is a larger lot. Rather than having one homeowner put a tennis court on tliis Jot as part of the building permit process, we f€:el it would be advantageous '.o make this a seperate OUTLOT with a tennis court to be used by the whole subdi vision. Plantings would be placed around the court to screen it from the property to the west and make for an attractive setting. An additional OUTliOT would be set up to the west of the exception parcel for pos.^ ble use in expanding a drainfield .rea for the house on the exception. After subtracting these two outlota, the adjoining lots still meet the requirments for buildable lots. We feel the overall aesthetics of the subdivision would be better with tlie developer building the tennis court with plantings rather than having the construction left to an Individual owner. Sincerely, SUSSK.X SQUARE DEVELOPMENT Niha W. Wildman NWW/lh (sussextc) MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. ^ , .^u The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with ^he following members present; Chairman Kelley; Planninj Commissioners Brown, Cohen, Hanson and Moos. The follow.-.r; ^■013 576300ted the City staff; Building and ^.oning Adminic'^.r.; c. Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron d City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Goetten attended and CounciImember Callahan was also present. #1486 SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT CORP. 3020 POX STREET REVISED PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PUBLIC HEARING 7:C0 P.M. TO 7:15 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, was present on behalf of the applicant. Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that the applicant wished to create an outlot for a tennis court. Mabusth noted that the City had recommended that if such a use was proposed for that outlot consideration should be given to the future expansion of the septic system for the "exception" lot. Mabusth said in light of that consideration, the developer was asked to set aside another outlot for future acquisition by the owner of the "exception" lot. Mr. Gronberg said that th« developer has received requests for tennir courts from potential buyers of the lots. Gronberg said Ms w ’dman thought it best to provide one tennis court for the deve’e .ent, rather than having several, individual t *nnis courts. Gronberg added that Ms. Wildman felt that a tennis court would more than likely be constructed cn that lot if purchased by an individual. Gronberg said that the developer wanted to have 0IQJ.0 control over the tennis court and make it more attractive. Kelley said that individual tennis courts could still be constructed even if one is built for ■^he entire development. Mabusth said that it was her understanding, from discussions with the developer, that covenants would be written to prohibit individual tennis courts. Gronberg said that the developer felt that the existence of the one court would limit the number of individual tennis courts# but did not want to prohibit them. Kelley asked if any resirictions had been placed on tne tennis court constructed as part of the French Creek development? Mabusth replied that there were none f6 r MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990ZONING PILE #1486-SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT CONTINUEDCohen asked Gronberg if the of the tennis court would be restricted to the homeowners?Gronberg replied that he believed that would be the case.Kelley said that restriction could be a condition ofapproval.Mr. Joe Chadwick, property owner of the "exception" property, believed that locating the tennis court as proposed would detract from the rural aspect of the area. He asked Gronberg if they intended to cut all of the existing trees?Gronberg replied that a couple of trees would come down, but the big oak would remain. Gronberg said that the developer was proposing to plant trees along the west side. Kelley added that the Planning Commission had received a plan showing the proposed plantings. Kelley said that it appeared as though 5 spruce trees were to be planted on the westerly lot line. Mr. Chadwick asked what height the spruce trees will be? Lley said that the tree height could be specified in the resolution approving the subdivision. Mr. Chadwick said that he will be able to see the tennis court from his dining room, living room, kitchen and bedroom and that he did not approve of that. Chadwick said that he would also lose the privacy of his back yard. Chadwick asked whether the location of the tennis court will be dug out or built up? Gronberg replied that the middle of the tennis court will be dug out approximately 3' and the north end will be filled about 3'. Chadwick expressed concern about the 3' that would be filled. He said that would place the tennis court higher than his garden and drainage could be a problem. Gronberg said that more area is being cut down than filled. Kelley informed Mr. Chadwick that the developer cannot increase runoff from this property onto his. Chadwick objected to the tennis court being located near his property and suggested placing it in a more central location. Gronberg said that the shape of that lot lends itself best for the location of the tennis court. Gronberg said that the developer would be willing to do whatever the Planning Commission asks in regard to screening. Gronberg also noted that the tennis ,ii •tf 01- tbb co«mxssxo» «h,z»c „„‘o the homeowners? ‘ ‘*’® ‘®"nis court would be■etg replied that he believed thatty sa-d that “«•a.d that restriction could b.ie a condition of-Vv/ot Td 0^Sr% ' 'tTeVs";ieVHteSr“"iJe ^-el^"; w\“J ^ added that the Pl;,n«< ® Planted on the dwicJc asked what heiah^ ^.k*at neight the spruce* said that the t ^proving the subd!visron."‘ *>* tP«cified i„ the a-/b?d*s privacy Of Chadwick said Ih 5®*!^°°'" and said that more =?-..= a ,. . >'or-ed Mr. chadwi I ' «rom this PropertJ ‘'ontV'his?'’® '^*''®l°Pet cannot Ejected to the t tan- • -Sted Placing i^i^ i^f ’bo°5 fl® ‘®""is^court itself best o so “r^Vn\"n!.‘“o'*® th:"p^ ‘Oat thj ®^a® Put%'|"t"h'r| ?hTJ|n®n\°s" MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUART 16, 1990ZONING PILE #1486-SOSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT CONTINcourt meets all zoning requirements.ii:4»Kelley observed that a variance is really not required to proceed with the tennis court.Mabusth said that depended on the Planning Commission's interpretation of the various sections of code she has asked them to review with this application. Mabusth said that due to the new accessory structure ordinance^ a lot coverage variance may be required. Mabusth said that lot coverage for an out lot was not specifically addressed.Kelley indicated that he would have preferred tc see the proposal for the tennis court included with the original subdivision. Kelley said that had the tennis court been initially proposed and had he heard the comments from Mr. Chadwick, he would not have al cwed the creation of the outlet in that location. Jann Olsten, 3090 Farview Lane, said that he could appreciate the developer's interest in providing a tennis court or recreational facility for the future owners of the development. Mr. Olsten said the developer is locating the tennis court as proposed because that location is least obstrusive to the future residents. Mr. Olsten said that his main concern regarding this recent proposal is that it is after- the-fact. He said that if a recreational area is going to be created, the burden ought to be shared by those persons benefitting and using the facility. Mabusth advised the Planning Commission that the City does have the right to approve or deny the creation of outlots and their intended use, even though there are no standards for them. Mr. Olsten further commented that placing individual tennis courts in the back yards of homeowners would have less impact than this shared tennis court. Olsten said that he also had concerns about relying on the homeowners' association for governing the use of the tennis court. Mr. Dan Parten, noted that he was aware of the French Creek tennis court being used by non-residents. Gronberg said that if the developer had known from the beginning there would be such an interest in tennis courts, she would have come in with a proposal for an outlot at the time of the preliminary plat. Cohen suggested that the future homeowners interested in tennis, can build their own courts. Cohen said that he has great empathy for the neighbor. Brown indicated that he was compelled by the argument that one court would preclude the need for having courts on the ^gnUB ,^SSIO» •«»' 10M«M® , ^ed to is r«liv ^^^varlan=® ^ ,„„„lsslonl| catxon. ^ an outlet coverage ^at 1®^ see tb« la »=''« “'A’iee" ■\ld that ha“ h*;^ =o>"”|\'he sard beard ^on ot had, a the ciae j^ve ^^ ' Y\6 cou said ^^^tennis dour^ ,0 .arview Y;Vrov^otne% \re’°.s interest future locat^ feast ^UtV ^°'he aevel^^stion bi® .ten -id^b.se ^^^.^isten ^ after; ^?rtesl3hh ”- al le h js 9°^\isone h^e rt-t|h»°r/e/'hv roh^'-iUV its Ci«the ta«l>-« „,aslon outlote nannih^ tor the ;Cn thou,h th® • r.^®fa -raTrh-%“?-a%“sa]^^^ --Station tor ^ nis court. °^^oineo«a®^ennrs tbe u creel' 2_ving -ftis court* ^^encbf \he tennxs IvtP horoet^"- Shi® s Ot the .reach creeK av»are o>- tbat flents • frow ^b® n oer bad ^^°'"courts. sbe^ develop® tennrs co ot , the tutureJo^-Ta -at h® srqufeht that oallea M. TeSoit® °h - ■t - rnSSr/ot havrn, ide tne MINUTBS OP THE PXANNIMG COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990ZONING PILE «1486-SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT C0NTIN1 individual properties and reduce the density. Brown said that he did not, however, like the location of the tennis court and would prefer to see it located in the interior of the project which would involve coming back with a revised plan.There were no further comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed.It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Moos, to recommend denial. Motion, Ayes-4, Brown, Nay.PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTSA. SECTION 10.52, SUBDIVISION 3B. SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14(C) PUBLIC HEARING 10:30 P.M. TO 10:35 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mabusth explained the changes being proposed. Kelley indicated that the inclusion of the availability of municipal water service to the Ordinance for Sanitary Sewer Availability in the Highway 12 Corridor area was fine. The other Planning Commissioners concurred. Gaffron noted the Council's request for a Planning Commission recommendation regarding inclusion of all pools as lot coverage. He asked the Planning Commission to clarify their intent of the Lot Coverage Ordinance. Saffron's concerns are that 15% is not a sufficient percentage if pools are included and whether the intent of the Ordinance was to limit visual encroachment of structures that stand above ground. The Planning Commission replied that was ;heir intent. Gaffron noted that there are two different types of pools commonly built, and they should be treated differently. Gaffron said that he categorizes an in-ground pool the same as a patio. Kelley concurred with Gaffron and added, if there is a pool that is 8' above ground and has an additional deck, that is a structure. Gaffron said that it is his understanding that the Planning Commission would like the Ordinance to remain the way it was written. The Planning Commission said that it was written the way they intended it to be. Mabusth asked if a fence is required around a pool and it is at least 5' high it should not be included in lot coverage? I To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson ! ^ .. .. 0 I- , Proa: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning fit Zoning Administrator February 23# 1990 #1481 Gerald T. HcCourtney# 1055 West Ferndale Poad - After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit - Resolution Zoning District - LR-IA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2-acre, sewered Application - After-the-fact conditional use permit and variance for land alterations within 75' of the lakeshore. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Proposed Resolution Exhibit B - Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/89 Exhibit C - Planning Commission Action Notice 11/22/89 Exhibit D - Memo S Exhibits of 11/17/89 Discussion - Please carefully review the memo and exhibits of November 17th. Briefly, no grading plan was submitted with the original building permit for the remodeling work on the property. Some grading occurred in the 0-75' zone as a result of rip rapping along the shoreline. This grading was necessary to restore damage caused by trucks carrying boulders, as well as to maintain a drainpipe through the rip rap. This drainpipe and the associated swale along the west border of the property were required in the 1975 subdivision that created this lot. A portion of the swale in the 0-75' zone was deepened approximately 1', and additional excavation outside the 0-75' zone, was done to accommodate the basement access door installed at the west end of the house. While this access door was found to have been in the approved building plans in a later plan review, no grading plan had been submitted to indicate grade changes to accommodate that door. While staff feels that the door could certainly be accommodated without any grade changes in the 0-75' zone, that would require a cribbing and step down from original grade to get to that door, leaving a "well" which would collect water. It is hard to fault the logic of wanting to have natural gravity drainage away from that doorway towards the pre existing swale, but the lowering of that swale as much as 1' in the 0-75' zone technically requires a conditional use permit and i variance. *1& Orono council Members f f r ';r Aa^fnistra?or Bernharason f L- 0 ^.Hael P. OaBfron, .aat Planning a BoniaB ,*a»,n.atra.to^btuary 23r 1990 in^*; West Ferndale Road- Baaoluticn- LH-IA, Single fanlly la.eahore realdentia , nd alterations within - proposed Resolution . ^gg n/20/89 t B - Planning Commission Minut 11/22/89 S : reri"lmSi^= O' e carefullv review the "t«a*’luh%he TiglM )ermit for the re_^^, 3 result ot rip ='s“ho7eline This, grading was necessary ^t^hr^^sfh^ ?-H}s::>gVJ/thi"p^^«-^l^e t, ?::\'97VXi\ui''on that created this lot. ■ n 7.;- -one was deepened \Vl7v^ an^d%d^itton^^"e^^cavation^ou^ i'^st^uld ‘done to'accommodate the basemen ^ ^oor was found "o "SSy""be a«‘omm'od°aVed "V^ou'y"/'lo^n ’^froS ‘'Jfi th« iluld requite a oti°bs"9 and st p orade to get to that door, lo^^ng a ^Yll„tlr,g to have "afity drainage'awVi '*'?^af sill’^e a°s”“uch as® v'ij Zoning File #1481 February 23» 1990 Page 2 of 2Staff has reviewed the grading plan with the City Engineer. Staff and the Engineer recommend that regardless whether the extra depth of excavation is allowed to accommodate the walk-out door, the swale should remain in place and an easement should be granted over the swale. Such easement should be 10' in total width from the lakeshore at an angle to the property line, then 5' in width along the property line.Planning Cosmisslon Recommendation -Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's request and felt that, unlike a number of recent applications which proposed major grading changes to create a walk-out, this specific proposal was not as significant in its impact on the lakeshore yard, and would not change the character of the lakeshore at this location. Planning Commission also noted that because a swale must be maintained along the west side of the house anyway, the 1' change in grade in portions of the 0-75' zone will not be a major change from pre-existing conditions. Staff Recommendation - Staff would recommend after-the-fact approval for the conditional use permit and variance for grading in the 0-75' zone, per the Planning Commission recommendation. The City should require that a drainage easement be granted over the swale area, as recommended by the City Engineer. A resolution for approval is attached for Council consideration. e. ry 23, 1990 of 2and the Engineer recom^^nfl^fwith the City Engineer lepth of excavation 4c regardless whether thehe swaie Should reniain in walk-oSt3 over the swale vtt^k place and an easement should berom the lll,esh«e afan ar,cVe’’®ke\S'’°““* 1”' tomidth along the property line! Ptoperty line, theng Conalssion Recoinnendatlon -St "!inu‘h‘y"Vnumber recent*^aoD?i^^ *"'*iradlng changes to create a waVif o!?"® Proposed.d *o"Ar ^l^e" l-^*Pr‘e%'!,YsVi”nrc?n'd!?fon“;7" to^n”e“ri/l"-%-bl\*comRendation - ff would recoitimend after~the—Faof Ann^esn g - >nal use permit anH a- approval for the r’ric'lm‘mended'’b'y‘"th? Cltv"rn ‘cln*ef “■* 0“*lo is attached for''co“n\n c"ona*tYon. * resolution for A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APTER-THE-PACT VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8,AND AN APTER-THE-PACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 PILE #1481WHEREAS, Gerald T. McCouttney (hereinafter "the aoplicant") is the owner of the property located at 1055 West Ferndale Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Tract B/ Registered Land Survey #1372, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for an after-the-fact variance and conditional use permit per Municipal zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, and Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 for approval of grading work in 0-75' lakeshore yard where no such grading work is normally allowed. NOW, THEREPORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council Of Orono, Minnesota: BINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1481. 2. The property is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 20, 1989, and recommended after-the-fact approval for the proposed variance and conditional use permit for excavation and grading in the 0-75' lakeshore yard based upon the following findings: A) As a result of rip-rapping the shoreline of the property, trucks transporting boulders to the site damaged the lakeshore yard by creating ruts and disturbing the existing soil and vegetation. As a result of this damage, the applicant was required by the City staff to restore and regrade the damaged area to its original condition. The applicant did this upon completion of the rip-rapping work. Page 1 of 6 A RfcSOLtJTION GBANTIMG &PTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE TO^ moSicipal zoning code^ <;OBDIVlSION 2 AND SECTION SOBDIVISION 8»SECTION 10;”' ??5®the-pactPILE #1481 "the EAS, Gerald ^ ra“d „\rhin“rhe city o£ Orono .hereinafter ,edaa follows. Hennepin county, Eegistered hand = l[ty): and (hereinafter the P ,,,etion to the city .\^i%TrP^Xlne lrctlo"n p: iu^i=‘re no 'of grading lake® o ,ork is normax y Council of e, QV TT resolved by the City , thereporEe be it R Ota: findings reviewed as Zoning File *1481. application vO ated :/^-id\‘n\iil zoning oistrict. ^ Ohono Planning fTna^^-o^Vn^ea e%'ndu'ionri“use \Ve P-^er/Ja^Ii'n%"“ 0-75' laheshore for excavation J3 9 findings: aed upon the following ahoreline of the AS a ts="l\“\Ja‘ns'po?t'’ing ^PPl-^'^ing" r‘u’’ts “nd a°/a g eV't h e"l a he sho r e^ F ''ege » Ve°g"ul r ed" h? -3s o its origin rip-rapoing work, oppletion of the rip B) As part of the rip-rapping project, the applicant was required to maintain drainage through the rip—rap via a draintile, which was a necessary part of a swale system required in the 1975 subdivision approval that created this lot. The conditions of that subdivision approval required that a swale be maintained generally along the west end of the property to continue drainage towards the lake from the neighboring property from which the lot was split off. Such a swale has always been in place, and was required to be maintained in a functional manner. Grading within 20' of the shoreline was necessary to maintain proper elevations for the discharge tile line through the rip-rap. This grading work was not brought to the attention of City staff until after the rip-rapping project was underway.C) In conjunction with remodeling of the pre-existing residence on the property, applicants constructed a basement access door at the west end of the house. While a review of the plans later indicated that this door had been proposed, no grading plan accompanied that plan to indicate that outside grade changes would be proposed or necessary. In order to accommodate gravity drainage away from th^h basement level doorway to the adjacent swale area, the swale was lowered at the vest end of the house approximately 3', in the 75-250* zone. the J5 setback line, the swale was lowered approximately l from its pre-existing condition to accommodate drainage from this doorway. As the swale headed nearer the shoreline, the extent of grade elevation changes in the 0-75' zone decreased to a few inches. D) The Planning Commission found that the impact of the deepening of the swale in the described above is minor. The grading does not redirect drainage on the property, but maintains the pre-existing drainage pattern which was required to be maintained when this lot was subdivided. Furthermore, lowering the pre-existing swale by one foot or less in the 0-75' zone to accommodate gravity drainage away from the basement access door would be preferable to requiring the applicant to crib an area near the doorway leaving a stairwell that could cause potential basement water problems. Page 2 of 6 Page 1 of 6 J 3. Prior to this resolution taking effect, the applicant shall provide an executed drainage easement 10' in width centered on the swale in the 0-75' and 75-250' zones, such drainage easement reducing to a 5' width along the westerly property boundary north to the road right-of-way. Applicant's surveyor shall provide a legal description for such easement. 4. Applicant or his contractor shall obtain a land alteration permit prior to sodding of the yard. Such permit must be obtained before a Certificate of Occupancy for the house is issued. 5. 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 resolution will expire on that date (February 26, 1991). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of February, 1990. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward Callahan, Jr., Acting Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 4 of 6 I 'hall Providian executed draiSiSI applicant•entered on the swale in the 0-7?? ralnage easement reducing to a 5* wfdh^hroperty boundary north to the westerlyPPllcant's surveyor shall right-of-way.uch easement. ^ Provide a legal description f^rIteration permit^ prior ^ ^ obtain a landJst be obtained b^efore a Certthe yard, such permit luse is issued. ^ Certificate of Occupancy for theWith the «st be exercised by ^^pplic^t^on T® P^'^’^issive only and thin one year of the dftV of ® building permit solution will expire on that date (Pebrua?y"26Vl9?i^“‘® nditions of thiV r"esof°tfon ^shal terms and the zoning code? shall = violation thority granted herein and terminate anysdemeanor. nerein, and shall be punishable as a reby agrees ^V^the^terms^o^^ read, understood and hirself, his he??s, successors and the recording of this reso^Mon ®^rees i pro:erty. *^®®°-^“bion in the chain of title of :s at a «Vlar?eet?n?he?d"on \he%6t? da?of ?eb?ua"ry,' "• '-“i' ^ard Callahan, Jr., acti l^Mayor Page 4 of 6 E) The grade changes proposed for after-the-fact approval do not increase the rate, volume or quantities of run-off to the lake from this property.F) The proposed after-the-fact grade changes have no significant visual impact as viewed from the lake, and do not change the pre-existing character of the shoreline.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 properties; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council finds that granting an after-the-fact conditional use permit to allow the grading work in the 0- 75' lakeshore yard will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLDSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, and a conditional use permit per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 for after-the-fact approval of grading in the lakeshore yard where no grading, filling or excavating in normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall sod the 0-75' lakeshore yard and the area of the swale in the 75-250' zone as soon as weather permits in the spring of 1990. 2. During the spring run-off, applicant shall maintain proper erosion methods to eliminate erosion and sedimentation prior to resodding of the yard. Page 3 of 6 [ for after-the-fact volume or quantities property.grade changes have no red from the lake, and ig character of the>nditions existing on0 not apply generally ct; that granting thetraffic conditions/ or other danger to merely serve as a lecessary to alleviate ty; is necessary to of the applicant; and1 intent of the Zoning STATE OF MINNESOTA ))COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )ss.t is 26th Jiv acknowledged before me onM Hall?n Callahan, Jr. & DorothySTATE OF MINNESOTA )COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )) ss. .ng an after-the-fact rading work in the 0- ental to the health, :, would not adversely rd or other danger to epreciate surrounding 3 level of use of the intent and objectives Ian of the City. [TIONS lings noted above, the e to Municipal Zoning on 10.55, Subdivision 1 10.03, Subdivision 19 1 the lakeshore yard In normally allowed. ceshore yard and the ( as soon as weather On this __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _^ (Jay q£ appear "d® ^ "ithln aTa tor aaid county, paraonalTy 5"°"" parsoncs) described In and who executed the foregoing Instrument,"and acknJJredged that he (“he^vYe^eculJ! the same as his (their) free act and deed. ^ executed Page 5 of 6 [cant shall maintain inate erosion and i yard. A •jSk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to ine 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 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 6 of 6 [NNESOTA ))ss.aENHEPW ) „e a,'"h\VTth"u) £«e act ana deed. MY COMMISSION EXPiKM page 6 of 6 CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ZONING PILE NO. 1481NOTICE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION473-7357 Date of Notice: ll/22/>9TO: Gerald T. McCourtney14335 43rd Ave N Plymouth, MN 55445 COPIES TO: Gerry Wenkus LTD.3531 Maplewood Clr Excelsior, MN 55331TYPE OP APPLICATION: Conditional Use PermitDATE OP :ih;-TING:11/20/89 VOTE: 4 For 0 AgainstPlanning Commission recommends the following:Approval subject to conditions noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS:Planning Commission recommended approval of the grading plan as submitted, recommending that a drainage easement be granted over the swale area if deemed appropriate by the City Engineer. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, December 11, 1989; 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. ®6**° n Date of Notice: 11/22/^9“y, MN 55323 473-73_57_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1 - - - - - - - - - - - -—---------------------------- TOs Gerry Wenkus LTD.ZONING FILE NO. 1481^CE MJWHIHG COMMISSIOH ACHOE_ *______ 1 ’lid T. McCourtney 15 43rd Ave N aouth, MN 55445 COPIES TO: Gerry3531 Maplewood CirExcelsior# MN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- VOTE! 4 For 0 Against IEBTING: 11/20/89 conmission tocomisenas the follo»l“9- coval subject to conditions noted below g SPECIAL COiromOES: coe-ission te=o.n.end^^^^^ |||er//be'grantel over the swale tererTprop/iate by the city Engineer. ,lioanfs nett scheduled meeting is confirmed as^^^ ^ ^ ^ ,y council Monday, Deoenber 11, 19»’! commission 1 by tL Planning Commission. MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989ZONING PILE #1465-MCCOORTNEY CONTINUEDsame location as proposed but it would have a straight configuration rather than curved.Chairman Kelley asked whether the applicant had explored the possibility of a 3.5' high fence?Mr. Wenkus indicated that it would be more appropriate to construct the iron fence at the height proposed.Chairman Kelley asked whether lu was the applicant's intention to plant arborvitae along the fence?Mr. Wenkus said that they would be planting shrubbery and trees in the entire front yard and on either side of the fence. Mr. Wenkus said that the fence would also limit trespassing.There were no comments from the publio regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Brown said that normally he would not look favorably at a 6' fence and would prefer to see the standard 3.5' height. Brown said that a 6' fence had previously existed in this location and the proposed fence would be less obtrusive. Planning Commissioner Hanson indicated that he did not object to the height of the fence. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that the Planning Commission normally does not vote favorably for such request. She felt that this proposal was appropriate however due to the openess of the fence. It was moved by Planning Commission Brown, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of this height variance for a fence as proposed. Hanson requested that the motion be amended to reflect the new location of the fence due to the denial of the turn-around driveway. Brown amended his motion, Hanson seconded. Kelley said that it was important to note that there was a pre-existing 6' fence on this property. Motion, Ayes=3, Kelley, Nay due to his preference to see a 3.5' fence Motion passed. #1481 GERALD MCCOURTNEY 1055 PERNDALE ROAD WEST APTER-THE-PACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITAARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8:40 P.M. TO 8:55 P.N. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. McCourtney was present for this matter, as was Mr. Gerry Wenkus, Mr. McCourtney's contractor. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained how staff had discovered the construction of a basement ** 1 iferyBTr^r*Kzj*H«r»w«r« 1 •» • •!• H •- J #■•-■ [•im« 4’ 'mi- m-4 et _ ••■V ^L.*'::-. r ♦ t: , rw •in:•i:ojr« Vc¥*^ 1 •«■■¥• H •][•laH* [•live* iriMii •7;1l • 1^11 [•li P •!•] •1»PP* [••«h:h?£«iipp* •IIPP* To:Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator Date:November 17, 1989 Subject: #1481 Gerald T. McCourtney, 1055 West Ferndale Road - After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-lA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2-acre, sewered Application - After-the-fact conditional use permit and variance for land alterations within 75' of the lakeshore. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit G - Application Plat Map Property Owners List Proposed Grading Plan Elevation View, Lake Side of House Staff's Site Inspection Notes 10/11/89 Pertinent Pacts - 1. With the or >nal building permit for the remodeling work at 1055 West rerndale Road, no grading plan was submitted and no indictcion was ever given to staff that work in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone or on any yard areas for that matter, would be taking place. 2. During the remodeling, applicant revised the southwest deck scheme into a terraced area with full concrete foundations. This resulted in some excavation in the 75-250' zone with stockpiling in the 0-75' zone. Inspector Lyle Oman notes that this was allowed on a temporary basis, and that Mr. Wenkus kept silt fence at the shoreline during the storage period. 3. In September and October 1989, applicant had large boulder rip rapping Installed at the shoreline. Because of the low water levels, materials had to be trucked in from the land rather th.in barged in. This caused some disruption of the 0-75' yard area which applicant was advised to restore immediately. Also, at the time work was being done on the boulder wall, the applicant replaced a culvert that led fro.”^ the pre existing swale along the west lot line through the old rip rap. In doing so, the applicant lowered the rip rap culvert in order to eliminate puddling in the 0—75' zone, which had resulted from silting of the old drainpipe (also due to raising of the grade at the shoreline from ice pressure over the years). SC' - • ' — >zom:te:bject:Chairman KelleyMichael P. saffron. Asst Planning s zoning Administrator November 17, 1989<ma ^- .-V,. ^onaitional Use Permit - Public Hearing 2^acre^^tewered^”^*' Single family lakeshore residentialfoTitnd alterfuJns^wUh?r^^^ variancet of ExhibitsS “ Application Exhibit B - Plat Map Exhibit n “ Owners List E^hiblJ ? I Proposed Grading Plan Exhibit G - Staff^s°site*i' Houset)catf s Site Inspection Notes 10/11/89 binent Pacts - 1055 West°PerndVle remodeling work at no Indictcion was ever given ^to^tiSf/i?"^.''^® submitted and w^o^^d\%-ta\--- - - -/y- a-s7Jr^ t^^t^^ scheme into^|"*teriac6d a?ei"^Sith full®®** southwest deck This resulted in some exctvat\^orf foundations, stockpiling in the 0-75* zone inane 75-250' zone with that this was allowed on a temnn^®^® u°^i^y^® °*"an notes Wenkus kept silt fence at the eh ‘^asis, and that Mr. period. shoreline during the storage In September and October 1989 ar,.^T4 .. rip rapping Instal Zed at the shor-lln? « boulderwater levels, materials had to Because of the low rather than barged in. This cau^aef^^Jlf^®*!!/” ^and i™’e=d'i/t-er,.“- -p-cr„rtara*dti “d^Vo°"r:/t ‘j: a1.“^"n%“z“Vs:J°?h%“p‘prfc\‘„t^'f linVti;r*c"u/h^Tne‘"o!d'’:!p- in order to eliminate pSddling ii 7=? """"P ”P culvert resulted from silting of the old^t,°r^ . ®°"f®' *^adraising of the grade at the shnr-oi i ‘drainpipe (also due to :he years). ^ ^ shoreline from ice pressure over Zoning Pile #1481 November 17, 1989 Page 2 of 34. In conjunction with lowering that culvert, applicant also regraded the swale in the 0-75' zone to accommodate drainage away from the walk-out door which was constructed to the basement area. •'’his walk-out door was approved by the building inspector on the remodeling plan, but no indication of site grading to accommodate that door was submitted. Staff had no indication that the applicant intended to lower the grade between the door and the shoreline. A door well could easily have been constructed to accommodate that doorway without the need for grading in the 0-75' zone.5. The applicant notes that as part of the original subdivision to create this lot, a swale along the west lot line was required and had been installed in 1975. The grade at the wall in the location of the basement doorway previously was approximately 3' higher and the swale just continued along the west side of the house from the front yard out to the lake. It is staff's opinion that the reduction in grade in the 0- 75' within 20' of the shoreline is necessary for drainage maintenance. Any grading work from 20' to the house doorway (about 100' back from the shoreline) was not necessary except to provide gravity drainage away froin the basement door. Discussion - Except for the area of the swale, the lakeshore yard has been restored back to original grades, i.e. the temporary storage fill has been removed and the ruts created by the trucks carrying rip rap boulders, have been refilled and top-dressed. The questions posed to the Planning Commission are two-fold: A) Should a conditional use permit be granted after-the- fact for grading work within 20' of the shoreline to maintain the culvert through the rip rap and the swale, which were required as part of the 1975 subdivision? B) Should the additional depth of swale be allowed to accommodate the basement doorway, or should that area be restored to pre-existing grades and some sort of well/step system be constructed for the doorway, totally in the 75- 250' zone? The grade at the basement doorway has been dropped approximately 3'. In the 0-75' zone, the lowering of the grade at the bottom of the swale ranges from just a few Inches to approximately 12 inches to 18 inches at the 75* setback line. } - CT . /A- ^ _ tJ - N 11481’ ” , that culvert, ePP“==‘a’'Ai‘‘nVgejunction “‘■*'\„’'°h”o-75 ’ rone “g^con'Xucted to the ed the ®''®^Tv«out door was aPP’^°^®„flication:rom the ^"Ais walX-out door^^^^^ "%^"bmSted.ent area. ^ remodeling v to lowerLng g to accommodate 11?,;ttUt the need for ^a^a vt^-Tt to the •oximateiy^ house fr "e staff- oPj"t-within 20 oi ^^ing v»ork r ^ was nor j„ent ^'^TTo- it/areins%s a«ay fr- l°ept to provide pravrt. >n removea »* tefii^-- two-toxu. tJ: Pis""^"^ ^ ,, ,„nted efrer-hs; ould a conditional ;,\ViriV^ of ^thejrt^^^^ a«ale, for leading through Ph® subdivision? lin the . , ss part of allowed towere required a p area be .m be cons >,een dropped t the basenent aoor«ay^^ha|„ J^eVer« tely Zoning File #1481 November 17p 1989 Page 3 of 3Also note that the "pre-existing contours" shown on the proposed site plan, were taken after restoration grading occured. It is staff's impression and the concurrence of the neighboring property owner, Henry Skarp, that lakeshore grades except at the west end of the house, are very near the pre-existing situation. Unfortunately, no. grad-ng plan with pre-existing contours (prior to the remodeling) is on file. Obviously, applicant should have submitted a grading plan for the proposed changes to accommodate the basement doorway, and Orono's building permit application requirements clearly state that any changes in grade must be accompanied by a grading plan.The other point to note regarding 0-75' grading is that the proposal shows grade changes of approximately 0-6" between the west half of the house and the lake, and then creates a more gentle slope adjacent to the southwest terrace area. If the grading to accommodate the basement door is not allowed, the extent of retaining walls and grading near the southwest terraced area would be slightly revised.Just as a matter of record, the applicant has paid the required $400.00 after-the-fact land alteration conditional use permit application fee rather than the standard $200.00 fee. Staff Recommendation - Staff recommends approval of the grade changes within 20' of the shoreline to accommodate the drainpipe through the rip rap. This maintenance work would appear to be necessary to continue the drainage system that was put in place with this subdivision in 1975. Regarding the lowering of the swale in order to accommodate the basemenL cc-ess door, staff would note that the changes in grade do not significantly change the drainage pattern nor do they have any significant impact on quantity or quality of run off. In the 0-75' zone, the swale is lowered approximately 6-12" from its pre-existing status. The more pertinent question is one of policy. The City has in recent history denied cutting of lakeshore bank or grading in the 0-75' zone merely to accommodate a walk-out situation. There are a number of precedent cases within the last few years which have been based on the concept that changes in the grade of the lakeshore 0-75' zone are detrimental from the standpoint of visual Impact as viewed from the lake, as well as changing the character of the lakeshore. In the McCourtney situation. Planning Commission should determine whether the impact on the lakeshore yard is «lgnificant or whether this situation is unique due to the pre-existing swale and the relatively minor changes in grade proposed in the 0-75' zone. 4tr Ciry OP ORONO - general land ose applicatjc^ ' •“ PROPERTY LOCATION / fjI O »4 X'^ rrrv ,-r r*.%;n I i Wl w «w 1w* Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^ WJ**^^**W --------I Wl / -*ww f 7r.v“ -w-kA ^wWVi.U'V'VV'V .. ;;■ "" ?f’►* ^ ' -vv»vvr u IT i W i i i’*' i' " / •‘tA v A r I* i? Please check one - Property ^__ abstract or (for Conditional Use Appircations only) 4* ♦ < I*f • f '' Itorrens?"-"-"’^'a V'.' w f ' Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT Name dS>£j^^ Ldc^tUc^Phone (work) S/^c> Address_ _ _ _ _ OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) ■» 1 rc li t i- —FERAL LAND DSE APPLICAT^C^ §/ ^ ^ !•> ^tion Number (P.I.D.) (Z^'L'-Z/ 7ProDiTty vl abstract or il Use Applications only)t T t WI I k'l W/ tb tu*» w/ » -wui Tr/»r,^„^wViAU'V'wvr » *1 r ^7.J •*'»'» * ’tut *T\»V»VV—. Ti M,'. •• u -»vv«vv'PT-imS YOUii i i c^L'A i .V* f T f' “ ^torrens7-‘-‘'“‘''' '"'■^,r.'P--'i • ■*description to application if not included' Ldcyt^^c.^Phone (home)_Phone (work) <2^^ ^c>_ _ _ City v/L. Zip SXT^3/ than applicant) Phone (home) ^tSTN3 2^3o p •'7^^ Phone / &1I City 2ip_SC^iC icf^uired 6/^'C'(month/year) also own the adjacent parcels of land. rSE PERMITS - ,/2 Current Fee Fee - Double Current Application Fee ycf^?L./ //'j a /''JOo/Xj a) Residential accessory Use ^C-7" b) Institutional (church, school, etc.) c) Duplex Credit/Bldc d) f) Conunercial/Industrial Use ^ Land Alteration -f 2Syc^^(j^~' J ______ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore - see fee schedule Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) Vacation Easement Vacation Easement Vacation With Subdivision Rezoning F^ppeals 2e fee schedule PRESENT DSE OF PROPERTYPresent Zoning District -------------------------Present Use of Property -- - - - - - - -- KesxdentialOther (specify)^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _description op request 7)/^Describe request in detail: -----------^ (=> ■REQUIRED SUBMITTALS1. Completed Application Form. - owners within 350' (you can obtainthis^list f^omVennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government3. StS^ped?'‘!egiV’ sired envelopes (#10) ore-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address.t: ^rpogrrph^c'surVeT (existing and, proposed contours, if landalterations involve changes in elevation (grades).6. ?o^sSc?ion'plan. if applicable (see staff for requirements). not been included. ______________________________________- ^e^nicailorbrjoninrDeparWenr^hat Land Use Application is complete. DateZoning Officials Signature __ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _iillim_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SFa^jitanrS^by agrees to provide all information J|quired^or requested by the Zoning Adminis^ator, agr^s ^ , certifies that rnr-^f o\r?ro=n -7pntd-is:^J^ -1^3;-the-btsro1-h\s/her DateApplicant's signature ------------7 ?TSSner‘^TX achnovledges ■ agrees to this application an<l iu^ ^mL^b^Js^^r'purposes of investigation and veri^cajjion of this r^uest. rf" Date ______Owner's signature *'*' - r~~~_________——-—— Applicant must have aYl submittals Meetings^ ar^^ the Planning Commission Meeting. must be oresentfat all scheduledthird Monday of each month. Applicants must applicant is review meetinos of the Planning Commission and council. ir an unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have^an authorized agent attend in your place,ard advise the Building Office of this change prior to the meeting. ; - - V . ’ ■»r L'i i “t ■ f nn« occof^h MlNNE TONKA AoPfotW*** t'"* «♦ . Sortn S^of t OCCOfdinQ to rtCOfO p - WNS BAY) 7.R.23 PROPERTV OWKIIS LISTIB 02-117-73 03 0003 30 02-117-23 03 0000•1070 rcmOALE RO UHEmV N SKARP GOOORICII lawY ETALHE»0<V n SKMP GOODRICH LOHRY100$ H FERMIALE RO 1070 U FERIOALE ROHAYZATA m $5391 HAYZATA IM 55391M Ot-117-21 tm 30 02-117-23 03 0007GOODRICH lOWY ETAL G H RITZ 0 J H RITZGOODRICH LOMIV GORDON H A JOYCE N RITZ1070 H FERHOALC RO 1000 U FERNDAIE RONAYZATA m 55391 ORONO »tl 5539130 0t-ll7-E3 03 ••»30 02-117-23 03 0023• I0$S FERIBALE RO H 01095 FCRF9ALE RO HGERAIH T nCCOUITNEV ET AL B A K FOXGERAIR T nCCOURTNEV B C A KATHERINE H FOX105S U FERIOALE ROAD 1095 H FERNDALE ROOROm IM 55391 HAYZATA r«l 55391 /Os^ t/O- ^f=:^./o-/y-&^. yytr^/r/hui ^f-ttJi^f'--^ OF- *^’T7i fiO'j^tieF: /S OcCU/C/tz/^Cr- CoiT7>S>^ OF . .(cfXiarv^ ;c^ L^A^€ ^^t^oe4FC^'f . . ________ n^/s *;7^r/ ‘^-'f. '•/ i£eroiH.e-^ : Ir I I » I — ______ o.<= v'aA^<?.!A<-c 0ft<5c.^^ TO ___ . ' r T. •. ' ‘:i .'•/> /i'.'Lc ■? / ________r. '. T^'^pori CtyiT 7Vrdr?wt^i4 .r^T^/^ «iA^o< ^7^ _. . .................. £■ ifc--T ^#VJ^ r'^:> rjyyy Th^ , __________' (Th*^. \ Z t.O '\Z.'A ' ____ ______ — A*f^^»^‘'^T__!n^^’>c<ft_.T^pr;c J'-'rr' ___ ir!Tn,€r .c^..rfc> ^s/sacc _/teM4r/^/^.G . »V*r^-24»r//^>vrt3 *_________ ^c^n^iTy /aJ ; ^ plUL. STO/«-4^ <i.f' /^ — S^Oi^A.C(T^ y^'-f f^/^T70f~> 7«‘’^'>/ J po.^J St^ ^ ::i ^ ;^T ■ r'c-J^ • rjm 0/?^ ' ---------------------------------- /J-?r- UA.c,^c<e,.e, ^ '_, AvAy__^ TWf' £^.;^v«-«.-m7- . AJa^'CtM^; 0'-5^'.l-V^<uv^c. . ..//^As^ g^^ ,H-<K^^.T7o^^..___ Vf^ Up^sHo^______ 4.1>ec^ '7/^'77n----------- ------ -.-<. , /4r V **' M<: ^ ^o-f- ®’?y 7>/ • <'‘-^* "fTQ Je/A ' •''« f A t * Ll :il■^ij H<. /«yMXris» (M/v<c A'^'^c. r!®» /- ^'* |!____ rv".^..-awatP"^«r- ft<-M^': rlc, ( f• • . . . .— ‘If» » Mayor Grabek & Crono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson i;uo;’!i;ii. wtt'W's)FED :5 01930Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning s Zoning AdministratorFebruai v' 22, 1990Subject: #1475 John McDowell/c. .les Hayssen,4045 - 4135 Bayside Road - Preliminary Subdivision - ResolutionApplication - Lot line rearrangeir*;-' and subdivision to create tw7zoning District - LR-IA, single fa, acre, unsewered \3en 2 homestead parcels building sites.akeshore residential, 2List of Exhibits -Exhibit A “ Planning Commission Minutes 1/16/90 Exhibit B - Planning Commission Action Notice 1/17/90 Exhibit C - Draft Resolution Exhibit D - Memo S Exhibits of 1/11/90 Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of January 11th, and the Planning Commissx .i recommendation. Briefly, the applicants are proposing to rearrange tho lot line between their two homestead parcels. Additionally, McDowell is requesting to split the adjacent existing 6.6 acre parcel into two 3-acre lots. The attached exhibits document the issues re^^rding access to the proper-y. The existing private easement road access to the Hayssen property and properties further south, is part.ally owned by Mr. White to the west. White contends that the McDowe.^ 1 vacant p»-operty and the Hayssen and Alt properties do not have legal access across White's land to at to Bayside Road. McDowell has title insurance guaranteein t'iose accesses. White has agreed to allow Hayssen and Alt (new i.omes built in the last 2 years) to use the private road, but would deny the 6.6 acre McDowell parcel any access. White would agree to grant McDowell an easement driveway further ea,jt along Bayside Road. Planning COBunission Recommendation - Planning Commission discussed the merits of the subdivision as proposed and made the following recjmmendal 1. On a vote of 5-0, recommended approval of the proposed lot line rearrangement between Hayssen and McDowell's propertie 2. On a vote of 3-2, Planning Commission approved Option A, (Exhibit E of the January 11th memo) with the followlug conditions: * Zoning File #1475 February 22, 1990 Page 2 of 3 A) Designate Bayside Ridge Road on the plat drawings as an outlot rather than a named road. This outlot road and any other outlets created within the subdivision are intended to remain in private ownership and be privately maintained. (Since under the first three schentes noted abovef no additional lots will be created that access to Bayside Ridge Road, it would appear that under current policy, no upgrading of Bayside Ridge Road is required as part of this subdivision.) B) Lots 2 and 3 shall be served by private access driveway/easement through the White property to the north per the recommendation of Hennepin County. C) Standard Park Dedication Fees shall be paid for Lots 2 and 3. D) Standard Drainage & Utility Easements to be shown on the plat drawings. E) Prior to filing of the subdivision, applicant shall satisfy the City Attorney that proper legal access through the White property is provided. F) Setbacks and lot line designations for proposed Lots 2 and 3 are as shown on attached exhibits. In their minority vote, Cohen and Kelley indicated that access is the issue, and they felt access to the 6.6 acre parcel should come from the existing road, not from an easement further east directly to Bayside Road. They felt that the City should take whatever steps are necessary to have the two new 3.3 acre lots access over the existing private road. This concept is strongly supported by the Hennepin County Department of Public Works in their letter of January 3f 1990. However/ the legal issues in making this access viable could be expensive and time consuming to resolve^ and remember that the City does not have an underlying road and utility easement for the existing private easement road. Staff RecoBORendation - The Council's options are as follows; 1. Grant preliminary plat approval per the Planning Commission recommendation for both the lo . line rearrangement and the lot split, per the conditions noted above (resolution attached). L. I Zoning File #1475 February 22, 1990 Page 3 of 3 2. Grant approval for the lot line rearrangement as a separate action, and table the lot split for further review. (Applicants wish to proceed with the lot line rearrangement regardless whether the lot split is approved.) 3. Approve the lot line rearrangement, deny the lot split. 4. Table the entire application for further review. If tabling occurs, please clarify for the applicant what additional information is needed or under what conditions Council will consider granting approval. 5. Other. A resolution based on the Planning Commission recommendation (Option 1 above) is attached for Council review. I I . ► : n MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY X6» X99Q ZONING FILE 31473-KELLY CONTINUED regulations. Mr. Bear said that the house has four 8* sliding glass doors in that location and he could not have them opening onto nothing. Mr, Bear added that the applicants have talked with the neighboring property owners and they approve of the deck. Mr. Klien indicated that the site lines were cut down because the old deck had more of a "boxy" appearance and did not tier down the hill. Mr. Klien said that the railing on the old deck was thick wood. Kelley observed that the new deck does not have railings^ which he added are needed, and it is difficult to tell what the site lines will be once they are installed. Mr. Klien informed the Planning Coimnission that he is proDosing tubular railings rather than wood railings. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Kelley said, "We have been pretty consistent on decks, hardcover and hardships in Orono. From my point of view, you can replace what was there and stay within the ordinance. The increase in the 0-75' setback zone, even if it's minimal, is objectionable in my opinion, as I have been a strong supporter of maintaining the lakeshore protective area. In regard to the 75- 250' zone, if vou can delete other parts of the hardcover on the property wit.hin that zone to bring hardcover back to 57.2%, I don't have any problem with that. As to the average lakeshore setback, I think we have to stay within what we were be..ore. We have, however, in the past dealt with grade level decks a little differently. However, this does not classify as a grade level deck." Kelley advised the applicants that the deck wculd have to be brought back to the site lines that existed with the previous deck. • It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Moos, to recommend denial of the average lakeshore setback variance of 19' to 20 , the variances to increase hardcover in the 0-75 and /5-250 setback areas, as well as the sideyard setback variance. Kelley said that he would approve what pre-existed. Hanson asked wnat could be done in the interim period to make the existing situation safe. Cohen said that the deck should be removed. M'juion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1475 JOHN MCDOWELL 4045, 4105 & 4135 BAYSIDE ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 8:25 P.H. TO 8:40 P.M. Mr. McDowell was present for this public hearing, as was Mr Thomas Owens, the Attorney for Robert White. 1 «•3 CONT ijidedr:,::r-•"• •"-se the old deck had®*^ site lineodown the hi 11.^ of a "boxy- appea ® cf""®thick wood. ’ said that the railing^on th^'Ji ‘Bat the „e„ deck dc,.. ..>^Phhl!rh:iclrrwfs%V;?e.'^* puhXtc recardm, this matter^wFa? Port^ii^cL- onah-x:- -er^r„l"„ Th%" ling the laj£ch ^*^on, as I have been a ® n'inimal, is e, if you protective area ®'^PP°^f®r ol V within -^hat- other parts of t-h to the 75- "ever, i„ the past L,,/ "hat we we^e 'in=y ariie%^'tL^^= 4-""“ s^'/s/;rai ^ ''ith the previous 'as moved bv x«> •? i • the average lakt»^iF^ seconded by Moos t-n Motion passed, uid be removed, MCDOWELL =DoweXi™as‘^p^"° » = 25 P.M. TO 8:40 P H - the Attorney /or « «« Mr. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990N 1 *3 •i:4»ZONING FILE #1475-MCDOWELL CONTINlGaffron provided a brief summary of this two part application involving a lot line rearrangement between the existing Hayssen and McDowell parcel and a subdivision. Gaffron explained the dilema involving access for the McDowell subdivision and said that a tentative agreement has been reached bv the • arties involved.Kelley said that the existing access is best to serve the properties and the proposed outlot to Bayside Road is absurd. Kelley compared this with the Wear Subdivision.Gaffron noted that this varied from Waar's subdivision in that there was a dedicated outlot going all the way to the Will property and the City had underlying road and utility easements. In this case, there is no outlot or existing easements. Gaffron said that the City would have to condemn land and look at the aspect of taking over a public road which would probably be very precedent setting. Kelley said that this is very unique and he has never run across anything like this. He said that it is absurd to give access to Bayside through the easement from Mr. White. Access to the McDowell property should come from the existing road. Cohen concurred with Kelley. Mabusth asked Mr. McDowell to identify the reason for the access being proposed. McDowell said that the proposal would offer a "win, win- situation for everyone. He explained that should the Council deny his application, he will go back to the Title Insurance Company and request access and the matter will go to Court. If Mr. White prevails and it is determined that Mr. McDowell cannot use the existing access, then the County will have to grant him access off of Bayside. Kelley said another option would be that the City steps in and takes over the road. Mr. McDowell said that the access being proposed onto Bayside is safer than the existing access onto Bayside. Gaffron confirmed that. Brown asked what the distance between the existing and proposed Bayside accesses will be. Mr. McDowell replied that is approximately 500'. McDowell added that he preferred this configuration, which will eliminate placing a cul-de-sac out in the middle of the field. Mr. McDowell asked the Planning Commission to vote on the lot line rearrangement portion of the application. Ih ernia meeting )P the plashing commissiu: °Vnt'tet«''een'’“he^on provided “feline rearrangement oion i®^°^^^McDowell parcel and ^ thea\"te£rnvclvij.,--”e'nt has hean reac.eair?lefin^^ed • „ ,erve thesaia that the e*l^h^hih„\-“B«siae Kc,a Is ahsura. .es^ana the P>^?P°°ht Wear Sutaivislon.on.patea this with the eubaiwisio" innotea that this.? the cm -VpuS?" ”al°whlch"«ouia prohahlY he ver a£ taking over a puon't s6tt.ing* he has^ • ,•< very unique and "® " ^ to gi^ei,ev said that this i ^j^at it Access torsa»jf~si*.s:“s “r..:«*.. ■••*■ "“ "TrrU»“" •• ■"•" "■ '"■abusth asked Mr. m being proposed. ^ffer a "winr kas existing access^o£ Bavsiae. ,Peps in ^'e“oU"tte“roaS*' onto .Sr.-sSle^tU”^ saffron confirmea that., confitmea that. .,,„een the existing ana .. *. vhe distance between asked _ will be. ..iyside accesses wxx 11aSKea vrill be. ,vside accesses wx ^ i„ «i00'. McDowell ^ V, +• is approximately a-ii eliminate the,„l.d.-sao out coomission to vote on -“raVemraf^o^t-" ^ *> i iI MIHUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990ZONING PILE #1475-MCDOWELL CONTINUEDThere were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed.It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of the Hayssen/McDowe 11 lot line rearrangement as proposed. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed.It was moved by Kelley to deny access onto Bayside Road for the proposed 2-lot subdivision.Mr. Owens, expanded on the reason for the access proposal. He informed the Planning Commission that a motion to deny could have disastrous results for everybody involved, including the City. Mr. Owens said that he had talked with the County regarding this matter. Re said that if Tract A is split into 2 lots and if Mr. white prevails in litigation as to accessing those lots, then the Title Company will have to spend a lot of money to satisfy Mr. McDowell. Mr. Owens said that this access problem is due to an error made by the Title Company years ago. Mr. Owens said that the obvious access that Mr. McDowell will be entitled to is where his Tract A abuts Eayside Road. He said there is approximately 190' of property abutting Bayside. Mr. Owens indicated that Mr. White was not thrilled with the current proposal, but felt it was a compromise that would avoid the need to litigate the matter. Hanson said that he had reached the same conclusion that Kelley had. However, after listening to Mr. Owens, he was not sure. He asked Mr. .McDowell what exactly he wanted. Mr. McDowell said that basically he wanted what currently exists. He said that everyone using the existing road loves the way things are now. McDowell said that the only problem is that he doesn't have access to his property. He said that what he wants is access to his property without the need to put in a cul- de-sac and destroy what now exists for the other residents. Cohen questioned why Mr. White would not give McDowell access to his property, since the road is already being used by Alt and Hayssen? Mr. Owens replied that Mr. White does not want the traffic that the two additional lots will create on his property. Mr. Owens also said that everyone involved agrees that they do not want the road upgraded, which would have to occur if the McDowell lots are added. Mr. Owens said that the road is enclosed on both sides by mature trees which would have to be removed. Mr. Owens added that he did not think approval of this proposal would set any precedent and furthermore, the County has approved the access being proposed onto Bayside. Brown indicated that he is compelled by a couple of things. One concern is that the City does not have an easement under the existing driveway so the City cannot do what it did in the Wear 14 • r>ed ^ ?ajssen7 P'°'teV a° "tl :"5riSH:^S“S;S-S.r^^o addeo. vihi^^ aoprovax ^ . g app^^ .. „. ..in.;- MINUTES OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 16, 1990ZONING PILE 31475-MCDOWELL CONTINUEDsubdivision. The other concern is that Mr. White might prevail in the lawsuit and the City would have ar unsatisfactory access onto Bayside Road rather than the one the County approved.Kelley withdrew his motion.It was moved by Brown, seconded by Hanson, to recommendapproval of Option A for access to Tract A across the Whiteproperty, including staff recommendations 1 through 6 of Gaffron's memo dated 1/11/90.Mr. Owens asked that the Outlot running north and south be labeled Outlot "B", rather than Bayside Ridge Road. Brown incorporated that into his motion. Kelley asked whether Outlot A is still required? Gaffrcn said that with the proposed easement, there is direct access through the easement to Bayside. If you have Outlot A, then Lot 2 would have possible future access to Bayside via the existing White driveway. Brown agreed that they should keep Outlot A. Kanscn seconded the amendments. Kelley asked whether the Outlots would have any impact on the dry buildable area of the newly created lots? Gaffron replied that the dry buildable will be sufficient. Motion, Ayes-3, Kelley, Cohen, Nays. #1479 DOUG WILLIAMS & LECY CONSTRUCTION INC. 1020 TONKAWA ROAD VARIANCES CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 8:50 P.M. TO 8:55 P.M. Mr. Jurgen Stielow was present for this matter. Gaffron provided the Planning Commission with the information regarding the revised plan proposed by Mr. Williams. Mrs. Marge Gasch, 1030 Tonkawa Road, wanted to be sure that grading would occur to alleviate the runoff coming from this property onto her property. Mrs. Gasch said that all of the water coming from this property runs through her pumphouse. Kelley questioned whether it would be necessary to approve grading in the 0-75' setback zone? Gaffron said it is not clear whether that may be necessary, he has asked the applicants to supply additional grading plans for the City Engineer's review. Gaffron said after talking to Mrs. Gasch, he is questioning whether it may not be better to bring the drainage to the center of the property and allow it to disperse from there. Kelley noted that grading will have to occur once the existing house is removed. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. 15 •..... >■ • the commission meeting JANGABY 16, 19,„»«. .-xtMrew his motion. ^PProved.moved by Brown .Option A ^OT- ' bv Pan«;r%n"■eluding Tract a acrn^° recommend= dated I/u/9of '’ddon.n.endations 1 thro'ugh''6“o| ’‘^■-“rVt^e^" %Hi°\ —nortn a:red?'‘"Glffil KeYlVy:t access through‘’the^e3"“*’ '•‘’® Pr°Fos!■ then lot 2 would have dp" Saysiti;“f“"5 »-hite drivewar^n^’^' nanson seconded the am°“ a ^Sreei whe-he- *h o amendments. Nays. de suffteient.- cams U)S LECy CONSTRUCTION INC. f«-th’?s “‘” '■•*'•‘•'->1- cnis matte’- s^ovided the d i , p"-'’prop"ordYy “„Y “ ;dur'’;o“l°ie’'v?ate%hY ‘^' to be s r property. Mrs Gac coming ft ““ Property run's tYrlSlgh^Yer IY'k' “ loned whether it would b setback zone? ^ ^^cessary to tiYupplYaYdAY' ‘’d "dd's reviow ^^ional to^thi°"^"^ whethe/°i ”t ^ma^v emoved.^''^'^'^"^ have to occur one ^"9 was%lcsed!^® regarding this n CITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ZONING PILE NO. 1475 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION473-7357 Date of Notice; 1/17/90John McDowell 4045 Bayside Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 COPIES TO; Charles Hayssen4135 Bayside Road Maple Plain, MN 55359TYPE OP APPLICATION: SubdivisionDATE OP MEETING:1/16/90 VOTE:(As below)•lOM lission reconmends the following: subject to conditions noted belowICIAL CONDITIONS:rearrangement proposal recommended for approval on a vote of it recommended on a vote of 3-2 for approval per "Option A" f January 11, 1990 memo, with the following conditions; gnate Bayside Ridge Road on the plat drawings as an outlot :han a named road. This outlot road and any other outlets within the subdivision are intended to remain in private p and be privately maintained. (Since under the first three noted above, no additional lots will be created that access to Ridge Road, it would appear that under current policy, no ng of Bayside Ridge Road is required as part of this ion.) 2 and 3 shall be served by private access driveway/easement the White property to the north per the recommendation of County. dard Park Dedication Fees shall be paid for Lots 2 and 3. dard Drainage & Utility Easements to be shown on the plat • r to filing of the subdivision, applicant shall satisfy the orney that proper legal access through the White property is • acks and lot line designations for proposed Lots 2 and 3 are on attached exhibits. t's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as; jncil Monday, February 12, 1990; meeting starts at 7;00 p.m. esire certified copies of the official Planning Commission y are available from the City Recorder after review and he Planning Commission. . W . X CONO._f^n^p__MN 55359 413^1! «?yssen -------------------'^•XCATlON- -------------------------- Waple-------------------------------------------------------------- MN 553-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ..........................................................................."fission recommo ^ ......................................................gement proposal reoecoimnended for- 3-. " °" ^ -Within rK ° ^oad. This bhe platL I? Road, It „o„,i°"^l lots “»<3er 4e /" Private snd 3 sh;»7i . Of th/ ^rivevay/eas - Oodicatioa Pees s. p i Utiuty P3! ' 3 and 3 -mopoPtn " -pyat “« -°-Ve-f---'tS-3iea„t staiy -^lotdtned --eVnr,-!^-R«ons Pot scheduled m ^ 3 are «°"^Ry. Rettuat^^"’ as: ,„aVaVub'3‘'^<^°Plas of the ofn'-"'' " ' = °“ P'”- eview and ii A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL POR A PLAT AT 4045-4135 BATSIDE ROAD PILE NO. 1475WHEREAS, John McDowell on October 27, 1989 filed a formal subdivision application with the city for approval of a lot line rearrangement and two-lot residential plat of property owned by John McDowell and Charles N. Hayssen, legally described as follows:Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 748, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and Tract D, registered Land Survey No. 540, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); andWHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statues 462.358 et. seg. and the City of Orono Zoning and Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 20, 1989 and January 16, 1990, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on February 26, 1990 the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of John McDowell and Charles N. Hayssen, noting the following findings of fact: 1. The property is located within the LR-lA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2 acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created or revised lot. 2. The property contains a total of approximately 15.5 acres, all of which is considered as dry buildable land. 3. The proposed plat consists of a lot line rearrangement between the two homestead parcels within the property, and further includes a lot split of an existing 6.6 acre parcel to create two building sites each in excess of three acres of dry buildable land. Each rearranged lot and each newly created lot exceeds the 2.0 minimum lot area requirement. 4. Proposed Lot 3 requires a variance by virtue of it being a newly created lot without frontage on a public roadway. Page 1 of 5 riNG FOR A IDE ROADctober 27, 1989 filed a he City for approval of a idential plat of property [ayssen, legally describedSurvey No. 748, Hennepin egistered Land Survey No. sota (hereinafter "theed and mailed notice in ,358 et. seq. and the City Orono Planning Commission .989 and January 16, 1990, be heard concerning this :o speak thereon; andating held on February 26, Idered the subdivision ,es N. Hayssen, noting the 1 the LR-IA Single Family Let requiring a minimum of le land within each newly al of approximately 15.5 as dry buildable land. a lot line rearrangement within the property, and n existing 6.6 acre parcel in excess of three acres ranged lot and each newly m lot area requirement. ance by virtue of it being ge on a public roadway. 5. Proposed Lots 2 and 3 are proposed to access to Bayside Road via an easement shared driveway over the neighboring abutting property between Lots 2 and 3 and Bayside Road. Lot 3 technically requires a variance to the 200' lot width standard since it does not abut an outlet that provides it direct access to a public road. However, each of newly created Lots 2 and 3 meet the required 200' width at the building site. Both Lots 2 and 3 exceed 200' in both width and depth dimensions.6. The private access easement intended to serve Lots 2 and 3 shall be constructed as a private driveway, and will not be subject to a City road and utility easement.7. An outlot 25' in width for private road corridor purposes is proposed along the west boundary of the property. This corridor generally parallels the existing private driveway serving the Hayssen, Alt, and Rezabek properties to the south and west of this plat. This outlot is intended for private road purposes and is intended to be privately owned and maintained. The City will require that the developer execute the standard road and utility easement over this private road outlot, and shall execute the standard "declaration of private road easement and declaration for maintenance of same" over this outlot. Because the existing private driveway does not fall within this outlot corridor nor within the applicant's property boundaries, the City will not require upgrading of the private road at this time. 8. An additional 25' wide driveway outlot for private driveway purposes is intended to be platted along the north boundary of proposed Lot 3, to serve Lot 2. This outlot shall remain in the same ownership as Lot 2, and is intended to provide legal access to the westerly existing private easement road should access for Lot 2 become available to that roadway in the future. 9. It is intended that at such time that Lots 2 and 3 gain legal access to Bayside Road via the existing private road across the neighboring White property, at that time Lots 2 and 3 shall be required to access to such private road, and all direct access or easement driveway accers '<< liu^slde Road at that time be eliminated. 10. No additional right-of-way is tc be dedicated for County Road 84. Page 2 of 5 osed Lots 2 and 3 P/i°^e°way'^ov%rth” neighb«^1 an easement shared dri Y ^ Baysideproperty between Lota 2^^J 200' lot width^chnically tequites a outlet that Provides itd since it does not a However, each ofaccess to a public roa * 2OO' width at theBoth L^rs 2 and 3 excesd 200' In both wldt th dimensions. ,,tvate access eanenent ln^ „ot ec\* t? a CUy'roaT a^utility easement, outlet 25- i" '“f,e*’!E.ist''boundaty of the ^-fhis’^ corri^dor^ generally '^nd ^Rezabek ^J-drJJjewar serving the Hayssen Alt, \"°is outlet ■ies to the south and west ° . intended to be Landed for private ^oa6jarposes^ana ely owned and road and utility easementveloper execute the standard ro^^^ “s^troro^^^tT-" road easement ^h?Ufstlng d?iv°ewaTdoernJt armies? t"he "citY Lthin the applica-tjs^p^ at this time, not require upgrading of P private »iVln^'n-tre1are\{ne^ a-ot 2,^^^^^^^ --^'’o%“Lot 2 become available '®o"ad«ay in the future. t is Intended that at auch ^aif private road 'allect a"ocirs“oVea«:ent driveway acce.rr, t„ ...i-,. at that time be eliminated. , -oht of-way is to be dedicated for NO additional right-of Y ty Road 84. Page 2 of 5 !11. The two newly created building lots and the two existing homestead lots being rearranged, all have been demonstrated to contain suitable sites for primary and alternate drainfields to serve the existing or proposed single family residences.12. Single family residences can be constructed on each of the new Lots 2 and 3 without the need for further variances.NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat for John McDowell and Charles N. Hayssen at 4045-4135 Bayside Road per the survey attached as Exhibit A hereto by Sathre Bergquist Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1. The location of the proposed private driveway access to serve Lots 2 and 3 shall be as shown on Exhibit B attached. Lots 2 and 3 shall derive their principal access via such driveway easement. Prior to filing of the subdivision, applicants shall satisfy the City Attorney that such legal access has been appropriately granted and filed with Hennepin County. 2. At such time that an alternative access becomes legally available to Lots 2 and 3 via the existing private road abutting the westerly boundary of the property. Lots 2 and 3 shall be reuqired to access to such private road, and all direct access or easement driveway access to Bayside Road shall at that time be eliminated. 3. A variance will be granted to the 200' lot width standard for Lot 3, and likewise a variance will be granted to Lot 3 for lack of frontage on a public roadway, 4. Lots 1 and 4 will continue to use and maintain their private driveway accesses as currently exist. 5. The private road outlot along the westerly boundary of the property shall be designated on the plat as Outlot B. The plat drawings shall not designate a name for that road outlot. Outlot B shall remain in the private ownership of the abutting property owners. The text of the plat drawings shall be revised to omit language which "donates the private outlot road to the public for public use forever". A standard road and utility easement and private road maintenance covenant for this road outlot shall be filed with the plat. Page 3 of 5 1 s 6. Outlet A shall remain in the same ownership as Lot 2 and shall serve as future private driveway access to Outlet B. 7. standard drainage and utility easements to be shown on the plat along lot lines. 8. Payment of standard Park Fees of $200.00 each for Lots 2 and 3. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month: A. RECORD PLAT drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1"=200’. Drawing to include: a) Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Sathre Bergquist Inc. attached as Exhibit A hereto as revised per the conditions herein. b) Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' wide along all perimeter property lines and 5' each side of internal property lines. B. LEGAL DOCUMENTS required: a) Title opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. Title opinions shall be required of both Hayssen and McDowell for their various property interests in the plat. b) The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. c) Signed and executed road and utility easement over the private road outlot, Outlot B. d) Signed and executed "Declaration of Private Road Easement and Declaration for Maintenance of Same", for Outlot B. e) Signed and executed easement document for the Bayside Road access driveway over the White property. Page 4 of 5 . outlot A Shall te"ai_^n^in the Outlet B.tell eetve as £ut eassmehts to be sho«hr set\e as lutute ^^ve e ^c^.edata drainage and utility ,e plat along lot lines. , _ ,r;;art yees o£ BIOO.OO eaoh tor hots Bpayment of standard Paid 3.r final subs.lttals must ,e £oll°y^.''^is^Vator *two »eeks prior to t ^^^ays oj the i"e‘d"lou\rU eeVttng on the seoond and of two (2) myla>^ copies record plat to l'-200\ Drawing to inclu e. r„d one°(l) copy reduced to ^ »> «hel“s«it A hereto as revise |«The conditions herein. casements- 10’ b, Dedication of ^a«Be^e^^ and 5' eac “aide' o'f Tn’ternal property Unee. R legal DOCDMENTS required. owners, Title opinion eddressed^to ,th^ Pt°P«’L'?au'«ret mortgage boldest°'^^i^for indicated by such ‘and McDowell fot rh^n bV -guir^ea ^of the plat. their variou P ortified copies of all b, The applicant Bust Ptovtde^=^^^^„^ ,be property, tacorded easements otillty easement over o) Signed and executed road^and^util the Ptlvate road outl , ^t^-V-.^fcr -alie^Vd Urafaiio^ ?o'r maintenance of outlot B. docun\ont for tho --/otd'a"c^eirlr"iVeU'ov':r"'t^he white property. Bayside Road access page 4 of 5 RTiMtli —- ' I m Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson n Prom: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: Subject: January 11, 1990 ♦'les Hayssen,#1475 John McDowell • ‘ 4045 - 4135 Bayside Rc ' Lot Line Rearrangement/Suodivision - Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits - Exhibit A - Letter from Hennepin County 1/3/90 with Attachment Letter from Hennepin County 11/30/89 Proposed Easement Sketch & Legal Description Letter from Applicant Hayssen Affirming Endorsement Sketches, 3 Options Notice of Planning Commission Action 11/21/89 Memo & Exhibits of 11/3 6/89 Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit P Exhibit G Discussion - At your November 20th meeting. Planning Commission tabled the applicant's request pending further information regarding Hennepin County's position on access via the existing private road as opposed to new access directly from Bayside Road. Additionally, you directed the applicant to pursue obtaining the easement over the existing private road. Hennepin County originally reviewed this request in November 1989 and determined that there is no safe access within Lot 2's Bayside Road frontage. The County at that time supported the use of Outlot A to provide access for Lot 2 via the existing private road. At the same time, McDowell was pursuing the issue with Mr. White as to whether any or all of the McDowel 1/Hayssen/Alt properties could use the existing private road. McDowell and White have tentatively agreed that Alt and Hayssen can continue to use the existing private road. McDowell's Lots 2 and 3 would not be allowed to use the private road. White would agree to convey an easement to McDowell through the tiangular wetland area north of Lots 2 and 3. The easement would appear to be easterly of the wetland boundary. This 30* driveway easement would be merely a shared driveway for Lots 2 and 3. Hennepin County in their letter of January 3rd located and approved this specific access point, as meeting the minimum site distance standards for a shared driveway. Zoning File #1475 January Ilf 1990 Page 2 of 4 The County also strongly recommended extending Outlet A across Lot 2 to eventually serve McDowell homestead lot if "Bayside Ridge Road" becomes a City street. Their intent is to centralize the access locations by removing as many driveways as possible from the County road. The County noted that accessing all lots by Bayside Ridge Road would ultimately be the most appropriate outcome if the legal issues could be resolved. Access Issues - The following would appear to be issues for discussion regarding access for the subdivision to create Lots 2 and 3: 1. Proposed Lot 2 has frontage on Bayside Road and has 200' of width at the 50' setback line from Bayside Road. Howeverr because there is no safe access along Lot 2's Bayside Road frontage# Lot 2 and 3 would gain access via an easement through the White property. The center line of this proposed easement is at the northwest corner of proposed Lot 2, hence the easement will abut Lot 2 and Outlot A. Does Planning Commission have any concerns regarding the use of this easement for legal access to Lots 2 and 3? 2. Outlot A was originally intended to provide a legal access corridor to "Bayside Ridge Road" for Lot 2. Given the new proposed easement, is Outlot A strictly necessary? Note that Hennepin County proposes that Outlot A be retained, and be extended across Lot 2 to abut Lot 1, so that even Lot 1 has the potential for future access to Bayside Ridge Road. Notwithstanding the goals of the County in reducing County road access points, it would seem to be a rather unusual move to redirect McDowell's homestead drive way to a point 1/4 mile west of his house. However, one could argue that, at the same time Lot 2 should have Outlot A for a future access to Bayside Ridge Road, Lot 3 should have an outlot along the north end of Lot 2 so that it has a legal out lot access to Bayside Ridge Road. 3. To date, staff and applicant have not discussed the alternative of the City condemning access across White's property over the existing "Bayside Ridge Road". A search of Council minutes for 1957-58 indicates no City review or approval of R.L.S. 748 (which was filed with the County on 4/15/58). Such review was not required at that time for a Registered Land Survey. ^9 File #1475 ary u, 19902 of 4The County alsoth"e acc«s Zocatlont ^«S15?4 r^eCoZ\7 .VJZ a‘a°Priate outcome X, thenera!^ra°„“%““^P« a Issues - couid be resolved.i!^e following would =.acceas Xo. bbe a«/=3—• Proposed Lot 2 ha r ' ^Pwa “ver? bVcaSse tS' "l"!''°a •>« ^OO’>yside Road frontal*’®''® aaf^af^. Road,^sement through the wh°^ ^ 3 would Sin 2's’is proposed eas^m Property. ThS via an•oposed Lot 2 hot the^nort?t« iine of itlot . 2 hence the easement of rr" ‘'>®'ease.”®b "wY^\'’”®b=V ”"®' warding the use of ?m Commission hale aS ^ and and 3? this easement for loSf concerns ^®5ral access to Lots Out 1 r\4 “ nOutlot A was on- G^liS axned, and be evi- o*’^ty proposes thA<- necessary? t even Lot 1 ®®^oss lS% hn A be side Ridge Road », Potential for t I-ot 1, so reducing County*the goals'^^t ®^®®®s to ^er unusual mole to rSff Points, it Sou Id °f County to a point 1/4 tn ^®‘^^^®ot McDowell's ®®®'" to be a ■^/4 mile west of his house. ^°'"®stead drive- •'V Q 2T f OH0 COUid 3 °ah“u!d Sate%r*“‘”®*®”«®‘’to ^ *»ould - -3 a oVtd/r- To date, staff a ^ Pidge Road. ^native of the ci'fhave not d-t erty over the exists condemning access ^^® >U"C1I „i„„te3 for 195? Rlage Ro/d '58). °Loh%®evl^® ‘'"’^®'’ "®®‘*filld°w5?h “‘''' ‘®«a Land survey! “®® 3®<J®ired at Zoning File #1475 January 11, 1990 Page 3 of 4However, if White's contention that the R.L.S. and subsequent ownerships created "landlocked" lots is correct, and if it is in the City's best planning interest to have these lots use the existing private road, then absent private easement agreements the City could consider roadway condemnation and charge the costs back to the benefitting properties.To summarize, the Planning Commission is presented with the following options;a. Approve plat as proposed with outlets for Bayside Ridge Road and Outlet A, access to Lots 2 and 3 via a 30' easement across the White property east of the wetland.b. As (a) above, but require an extension of Outlet A along the north end of Lot 2 so that Lot 3 has a continuous legal outlet access to Bayside Road. c. As in (b) above, but extend Outlet A across the north end of Lot 2 all the way across to Lot 1 as proposed by Hennepin County. d. Recommend approval subject to acquisition condemnation of public road access over the existing private road, force all lots to use "Bayside Ridge Road", keep Outlet A as proposed for Lot 2's access to "BaxJ;i.de Ridge Road". e. Request that applicant consider some other option. Staff Recommendation - If the Planning Commission can resolve the access issues, staff would recommend approval of the proposed subdivision and lot line rearrangement, finding that each lot exceeds the required 200' in width, each lot has frontage on an acceptable access road or driveway outlot, that each lot contains the required 2 acres of dry buildable land, and each lot has suitable house locations and tested drainfield sites. The following conditions of approval are recommended if one of schemes a, b, or c is chosen; 1. Designate Bayside Ridge Road on the plat drawings as an outlot rather than a named road. This outlot road and any other outlets created within the subdivision are intended to remain in private ownership and be privately maintained. (Since under the first three schemes noted above, no additional lots will be created that access to Bayside Ridge Road, it would appear that under current policy, no upgrading of Bayside Ridge Road is required as part of this subdivision.) la) above* but that Lot tl . „„ttot h acrosa the^njrt^J‘iLSr?i -ajaia^;-^ , raT.%o^o%ers „StruF"^ aoou.tttoh„-rf«“ -”-”-^'=:rcrha.aetao.eOtheto.t^^^ ,a,ueat that a.pUca ^««ena.tioh - ^^„ive 'ha^•=«,isioh •"« °"\ f rS'ate “ VS”3 a/rfctes t rte\“ier^ai^;“f fe tVot sche.ea locatlona ana teoonweno lone o£ appt°''a „t ata»lMJ„a anyr":^— s;‘: ;*: ® fs2 ” ‘Sistf Zoning File #1475 January 11, 1990 Page 4 of 42. Lots 2 and 3 shall be served by private access driveway/easement through the White property to the north per the recommendation of Hennepin County.3. Standard Park Dedication Fees shall be paid for Lots 2 and 3.4. Standard Drainage & Utility Easements to be shown on the plat drawings.5. Prior to filing of the subdivision, applicant shall satisfy the City Attorney that proper legal access through the White property is provided.6. Setbacks and lot line designations for proposed Lots 2 and 3 are as shown on attached exhibits. HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Operations Division 320 Washington Ave. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 Phone:(612)935-3381 January 3, 1990 John McDowell 315 East Lake Street wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Re: Bayside Ridge, CSAH 84 (Bayside Road) John: At your request Hennepin County has reviewed private driveway access possibilities for the proposed Lots 2 and 3 from the above plat onto County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 84. The only location lies Immediately west of the crossroad culvert under CSAH 84, approximately 220 feet west of the property corner shared by the White property, proposed Lot 2 and CSAH 84. If and when an access easement Is executed across the White property, It should be at least 30 feet wide to provide for a 16 foot wide driveway (minimum) plus appropriate side slopes. If this shared residential driveway becomes a necessity, a permit for construction within the CSAH 84 right-of-way must be processed through this office prior to construction. Hennepin County also strongly recommends extending Outlet *A" across Lot 2 to provide for future access to Lot 1 If Bayside Ridge Road becomes a city street or CSAH 84 Is realigned and reconstructed. Finally, providing access to alj^ lots via Bayside Ridge Road is the best alternative for everyone concerned, residents and the motoring public alike. Hennepin County supports this concept the strongest. If the legal tangle can be sorted out. Thanks for your cooperation in this matter and please call with any further questions. Since^rely David K. Zetterstrom Entrance Permit Coordinator DKZ:p1 cc: Mike Gaffron, City of Orono HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opporlunHy employer o 1 > * $ 1 j r HENNEPIN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division 320 Washington Ave. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 Phone: (612)935-3381 November 30, 1989 Mr. Michael Gaffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gaffron: RE:Proposed Plat - Bayside Ridge CSAH 84, South side, approximately 200 west of CSAH 135 Section 6, Township 117, Range 23 Hennepin County Plat No. 1796 Review and Recommendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and makt the following comments: For future improvements to CSAH 84 the developer should dedicate an additional 7 feet of right of way making the right of way 40 feet from the center of CSAH 84. No location along the CSAH 84 frontage of Lot 2 meets the minimum sight distance for the posted speed limit, and therefore. Hennepin County supports using outlots to provide access to Lots 2, 3. and 4 via existing Bayside Ridge Road. The existing access from Lot 1 will be the only direct access to CSAH 84 permitted from this plat. Any revision to an existing access requires an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before beginning any construction. Contact our Operations Division for entrance permit forms. All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. This Includes, but is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. Contact our Operations Division for utility permit forms. The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County right of way. Please direct any response or questions to Les weigelt. David W. ochmidt, P.E. Transportation Planning DWS/LDW:lw HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer 4135 Bayside Road Orono, MN 55359 January 10, 1990 Mr. Michael Caffron Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 E)ear Mr. Gaffron: Charles N. HayAen Helen F. Hayssen iJ i K t A ■4 - *■ I I rj ti: fV . ! asasife 1 !'••;' ■■ • t-; 1- ii ':l!i.'.tinibli PILE NO. 1475 CITY OP ORONO P.O.Box 66 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 Date of Notice:11/21/89 TO:John McDowell COPIES: Charles Hayssen 4045 Bayside Road 4135 Bayside Road Maple Plain, MN 55359 Maple Plain, MN 55359 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision DATE OF MEETING: 11/2(1/89 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES & SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Planning Commission tabled the application, requesting applicant to: 1. Provide further information regarding Hennepin County position on access via interior roads vs. access directly from Bayside Road. 2. Pursue the easement over the existing private easement access road. As noted at the meeting, the City would allow a revision of the existing application to include just the lot line rearrangement, if applicants desire. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the January 16th meeting is January 5, 1989 or February 9th for the February 20, 1990 meeting. If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please conta t the Zoning Department (473-7357). If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder Clerk after review and approval by the City Planning Commission. /. To:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardsor. From:Michael P. Gaffron/ Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:November 16, 1989 Subject:#1475 John McDowell & Charles Hayssen, 4045/4105/4135 Bayside Road Preliminary Subdivision - Public Hearing goning District ~ LR-IA, Single family lakeshore residential, unsewered Application - Lot line rearrangement and subdivision tr create ontj additional building site from three existing tax parcels. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map & Area Map Exhibit C - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Proposed Plat Drawings Exhibit E - Survey with Locations of Existing & Proposed Houses & Driveways Exhibit F - Survey Noting Proposed Lot Areas Exhibit G - Map of Area Property Ownership Exhibit H - Air Photo Exhibit I - Letter from Applicant's Attorney Re: Access Exhibit J - Letter to Hayssen dated 7/28/89 Pertinent Facts - »*• f 1. This proposed plat accomplishes two purposes: A) Rearrangement of lot line between the Hayssen and McDowell homestead properties. B) The remaining 6+ acre portion of Tract A, RLS #748, is being split into two 3+ acre building sites. 2.Note that, per Exhibit E, Hayssen’s pre-existing north lot line is approximately 22' from the house constructed in 1988. The setback approved on the site plan for the building permit for the house indicated a setback of 34'. The property owner later pivoted the house around the northeast corner of the garage and made arrangements with McDowell to purchase an additional piece of property, but this did not come to staff's attention until after the house was finished, per the letter of 'V28/89 (Exhibit J). The proposed subdivision leaves a side setback of approximately 100'. The rearrangement also places Hayssen's septic system completely W:.chin his property boundaries, while maintaining the appropriate t»v backs.I 1 / H Zoning File #1475November 16, 1989Page 2 of 4■» q-ha leant is oroDosing a north/south division line toBites. The applicant noted thst the?idqriine and location of drainfield sites suggests that 4-hA nroDOsed house locations are centrally located within each^proposed lot, and that an east/west lot line would result in^ less functional lots due to the slope of the north h*i f ftf the lot. In order to provide interior access to Lot 2 aoolicMt proposes a 25* oStlot to the proposed "Bayside Ridae^Road". Applicant would prefer to serve Lot 2 with a seofratrdrivewa? from Bayside Road, but it is questionable whether the County will approve an access site Road especially if an alternate access is feasible. Remember that Orono Code requires that all newly created lots be served by interior roads whenever possible.4 Acnlicant has provided a 25' corridor for what is shown on Jhe plat as -Bayside Ridge Road". This corridor generally Darallels the private driveway that serves four existing residences. Although not shown on the survey, the existing driveway location is west of this outlot, on the Rezabek property (see Exhibit G). Staff would anticipate that an additional 25' outlot could someday be added to the west of this -oposed outlot, for private road purposes. 5 Prima and alternate drainfield sites have been tested in nc^o^f the proposed new lots. The Hayssen property has alternate drainfield sites to the south existing system. The McDowell re^^dence at 4105 Bayside Road exceeds 5 acres in area and appears to contain a number of possible drainfield sites. Alternate site testing is not required. All of the sites tested require mound systems, S The neighboring property owner to the north and west, Robert ■ White hL challenged the validity of the easeiaent acroes his nronAri-v out to Bayside Road (see Exhibit I). The City Attorney has preliminarily reviewed the concerns and has sSooestid that, since Minnesota Title insured the access easement on file, it would likely be up to Minnesota Title t^take whatever steps are necessary to provide access to the affected properties. The City Attorney advises that any approval of the proposed subdivision be conditioned upon the applicant providing suitable documentation that the access issue has been resolved, prior to filing of the division. e #1475 6r 1989 4 1989* north/south.^/Ur£SiXai'n9;3-;r:.r.»:r ‘“h::: “-her the County ^alternate acce created" BaVBWe^W^'lv^av th'at" «r°v« to« «\®Vl«l teat ce fS’o« -::?rr::» «a^-- If.rnate arainfla^l^d slte»^,, «•*""« oan«ln a n^Ber 5il Wa;Va«^^^^ We site testin. * nnd syst^®®^®*^ .:ir;33^-3rr - -SS^iv t'o Zoning File #1475 November 16, 1989 Page 3 of 4Mr. White has indicated verbally to City staff that he does not intend to cooperate in validating the existing easement, and would prefer that the new parcels in addition to existing residences at 4135 and 4165 be served through some Other corridor. If the applicant ultimately fails to gain access over the existing driveway, a revised subdivision would likely have to be reviewed by the City.Discussion -RLS #748 was filed in 1958. Some time in the late 1950s or early 1960s, the residence at 4185 Bayside Road was constructed, along with the driveway within Tract F, which at that time was the Tearse property. Mr. White granted the Tearses an easement across White's property to get from Tract F to Bayside Road. Some time after that, Tearse granted an easement (over the White property easement) to E.W. Spencer to serve his properties known as Tracts A, B and C. Mr. White claims that Tearse had no right to grant the additional easement over White's property. Staff discussed with the applicant early in the subdivision process that the City would require a 25' outlot for the existing private road. It is anticipated that at some future date, the additional 25' to create a standard 50' private road outlot, would be dedicated from the adjacent property. Applicant was advised that the City would require interior access for both Lots 2 and 3» hence applicant is providing an additional Outlot A along the north end of Lot 3, to serve Lot 2. The west line of Lot 2 then becomes the front line and the lot width standard is met. The alternative would have been to make Lot 2 a flag lot. Staff Reconaendation - The applicant is providing a private driveway outlot adjacent to the area of the existing access road. Because this is a two lot subdivision. City code does not require construction of a new private road. Both new lots abut an interior access road as required bv code. Each new lot contains in excess of the required two acres, each lot exceeds the required 207' in width, and each lot has suitable house locations and tested drainfieid sites. The lot line rearrangement incorporated into this plat leaves adequate setbacks and potential for septic system expansion as required by City codes. lie #1475 16, 1989, m.lte has indicat'd ^5 ^Sru"ir°prr,?r ^J;“^,i3t*a„r«6"5“irU%ved thr-,h ac.aS”\i°keVy hive'w be reviewed by the City." 1 a-Ka» late 1950s orarse -tv* to get from Tract F ^ the White; White's P^°P®’"Tearse granted an properties known 5' ^“dftfonar«"eien%°o«r White's property, int the additions the subdivision ,tal£ discussed the applicant ear ^y^^ ? i s%'. ;“Tvft“:"r”ad-^--‘- ^-»dUIUd //o^“Vhe“ad1acent property.^^ applicant ««“«''/ T\eHoe'"apJ11can‘3is°erit^"ot*1 :!s4°4i'nro\“lo\%'T£i‘’b^^^^^^^^ h’-ave be"en \o%lfe , Standard is met. Tne [ a flag lot. E Rccomendation - a,-<vewav outlot , ■ 1- is providing a private this The of the existing access * construction on City i ;rre«%rcode l! Zoning File #1475 November 16, 1989 Page 4 of 4Based on the above, staff would recommend approval of the proposed subdivision based on the following conditions:1. On the plat drawings, Bayside Ridge Road shall be designated as a private road outlot, "Outlot B". Outlot B is intended to remain in private ownership, and be privately maintained. Because this plat effectively only creates a fourth building site where three building sites already existed, no upgrading of the private road is required as part of this subdivision.2. Lots 2 and 3 shall be served by private access driveways via Outlets A and B. (Does Planning Commission feel that there is any justification to allow access for Lot 2 directly to Bayside Road? No word from Hennepin County on their position as of this writing.)3. Standard Park Dedication Fees shall be paid for Lots 2 and 3.4. Standard Drainage & Utility Easements to be shown on the plat drawings. 5. Prior to filing of the subdivision, applicant sT.all satisfy the City Attorney that proper legal access is provided to the property. •4 •# •.** “ ,/CITY OP ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION_ _^ ^^ PROPERTY LOCATION t4/ t'S" RAU^/'f)t ^4Site Address .• / Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ' ' ' / Please check one - Property ____ abstract or —l^torrens? \ttach legal description to application^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT I u ('O'O Name \/ Phone (home ) ^ ^ li ' O ^ S ~l- _ Phone (work) ^ , -jiU • *»■ W .•*’ “ i i. u arlHrP^si ^ City: _____ 4-Han annlicant) Phone (home)__________ '-EiiL'r-}Jit'v>‘*7*OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (work) -T«wO‘»«V' UA'k'i i 1 v/r i.*dy Address:City:Zip; (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present Use (check) • % /y n V S . ^ 7 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total» all parcels Residential? no. of units Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning nistrict 4. PROPOSAL t/ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement (ino»ne wiJnHiin1idii.nqw>iA.ftg») Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use; (check) / U 3± Existing Units New Units Total Units Units per _ _ Acres 3Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land Residential Other (specify) MINIMUM 1. 2. 3. material necessary for complete preliminary application Ifst DepaX/nt “of^Fina^e .-603 Oovt Center 348**327X)» T^T*p — a.cici3r©ss0ci tio ©cicli of ttl© thraL“e”Aa\":!th"no return address (use address labels 2“n""add«d™'’trthU Tpucattll' please attach J «parate list of any Sther persons you wish notified of this application. certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4. 5. complete. Zoning Official's Signature a. p ^III~7nIrk”fees filing fee, sewer and water assessments), certilllatro!^ Iu?v4y or m?lar copies of formal plat. 3. 4. Title opinion. Easements. Covenants etc.Easements, i-ov^annua, s=ww.. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit. clrtification by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature^_ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _rrrrrrrrrrrm::: FEES Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Preliminary Review (Class I s II Subdivision) Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residentlal) $150.00 250.00 300.00 + 20.00/Lot Final Plat Review (Class III) ♦(Plus any legal or engineering charges) 150.00* The applicant hereby Engineer^^c"ity^ Attorney, requested by the zoning Administr^^^ process this application and ™'ragreTs to pay all addition fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature Date //7x? !s^ owner's Signature Date Applicant must have 'he ?irrrH’on‘i°r^’o're\"ch"»\ APPI review meetings of the Planning Commission and Counci 1^^^« an^^PP^ ^?So^\zVd \\Vn\^\«ndn"/to advise the Building a Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. I ••- «-i. "V** '‘^ • ■•'*■ » • '■.-••.••• Bfl ••■*• v^»-j■-•*••* :*. " U'^'s. •HM- ■ AiVtR R. FR ..>, COUNTY' SURVEYO-• • • TV*^ Y .•/ *HENNEPIN COUNTY ‘ > /VOS 1 " iJ *ri-^ 1 “S i N ">crT"^n11 T~n 1 / y'u 71-^-' m ^ i . r , .;.v '7* * ^ *. r.» ' M ^ ' -•* •. r. •. -r *' . /t^'v * '■'^ ■*T* • *^ • . • • ' * w : • l:^ ;r ::^-Kr.v . . •. - «.* ^ •>•.. •• \ m ■ - * . '^i\ . r. :r ^'v^''v m,^ .• • ,l ^ " '- -■- ".L’A^T / ff/j^ .» ,. .• .v>,, . .:. X ;. . - --.^ - X i cLTi. • •.. iIlt.-.Cii „ . •\ • >N ’ *n- ‘ 4m •' 4 r WH DATE 10/23^^9 BATCH 002PROP AOOR atCR NiOC TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AOOR ONTCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AOOR OIINER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR Qlt4ER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. P14IS401 PAGE 2SO OA-117-23 11 0003 0^2^ BAYSIDE RO VCI CAPITAL INC VCI CAPITAL INC PO BOX 375 LONG LAKE MN 55355 30 05-117-23 13 0001 05255 BAYSIDE RO ROBERT P HHITE ROBERT P HHITE 5255 BAYSIDE RO MAPLE PUIN MN 55359 30 05-117-23 15 0000 00030 ADDRESS UNASSI ALLAN E Ri ZABEK ET AL ALLAN « SHIRLEY REZABEK 5105 BAYSIDE RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 "K 30 05-117-23 15 05105 BAYSIDE JOHN 0 HCDOHELL JOHN 0 MCDOFiELL 5055 BAYSIDE RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 0017 RO H 55359 30 06-117-23 15 0020 00505 TONKAHA RO K A C DEDOLPH III KARL t CHRISTINE DEDOLPH 505 TONKAHA RO LONG LAKE rtl 55355 38 06-117-23 11 C00505050 BAYSIDE RO gam C0rt4£LL GARY D C0rt4ELL 5050 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 05-117-23 13 0003 00038 ADDRESS IA4ASSIG»4ED VEDA INC VEDA INC PO B0:<< 375 LOf«; LAKE m 55355 38 06-117-23 15 0012 05185 BAYSIDE RO ALLAN E REZABEK ET AL ALLAN A SHIRLEY REZABEK 5185 BAYSIDE RO MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 14 0018 04135 BAYSIDE RO CHARLES N t HELEN F HAYSSEN CHARLES N « HELEN F HAYSSEN 4135 BAYSIDE RD HAPLE PLAIN Ml 55359 38 06-117-23 14 0021 JANES N JENSEN JANES H JENSEN 14851 HELLIKGTON »UYZATA t«4 55391 38 06-117-23 12 000304355 BAYSIDE RO VCI CAPITAL INC VCI CAPITAL INC PO BOX 375 L0N8 LAKE HN 55356 (HP 3B 06-117-23 14 0003 04045 BAYSIDE RO JOHN D HCDOHELL JOHN D HCDOICLL 4045 BAYSIDE RD HAPLE PLAIN MM 55359 3B 06-117-23 14 0014 04000 BAYSIDE RO RICHARD R STUELANO ET AL R R STUELANO A R L BARBEAU 4080 BAYSIDE RO HAPLE PLAIN tW 55359 38 06-117-23 14 0019 04165 BAYSIDE RD J A H ALT JAIXS A A HARIE A ALT 4165 BAYSIDE RO ORCNO Eli 55359 TOTAL BATCH 002 00014 f i J 5 I 3 5 Uj ►- t t* « tr ir X- Li ILAW orrices LEONARD. STREET AND DEINARD tioncT LC»«r«* siOMCv ftAiiaows* 0 rifto, *CkCN I SACat* rMOMAf 3 rciw»c«0* w SmC*«a «i* OIO0OC •CU.L'^* C haau I• « 3ArrOM DA.to •« CO«* • »rLAuM* C ma A c CS a mats * kOwCkk J •*0*C»00M* CCC»OK r McOuMWiOtC. • »C ma «o O «« ^•«D»*C r •OSCMacATT' av«OM c sTAJiKa* aOMM M mCAMAM aTfvcw o ot*u^t«* ^AMca ■ ooaacT AAfHCCCM M CHAMAM arc»MCi« j OAviosoM* aTfvcw • WITMAM* 9A<riO c ZAk«* COWAHO M MOC»SfCLaKf»* *oac*T crwa aAM*owa* MCMT 1 ••cmct muom m mathamo * r«COK»tC« m: MO**'* wOMU C AUC mh aMAOCCY J OlCkAN MtCMACL A MCAICM* MAAY mA C •■AMO’ OAlfiO ■ MATMta CAMO^TM CMAk**C*a uAMCa V OOTM* ■0«CMT L. SIMAT AMCCLA W OOMMAWM ■OOCKT ■ ’HAVil’ liAMca 0 •ullaao * ^••■N H riMkCY* tA«N»ci«cc J ncko OAVtO <M ICkWCY MAa« a «ciYz* Oavi O c kiki.K**AuO OAVIO AANTOa SUITE 2300 •SO SOUTH FIFTH street MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55-402 TELERHONC ia>2) 33S-ISOO facsimile (6121 333 »657 November 9, 1989 »«*a ACL kTI ^kOWCLt Y 8TO«TX' '^oouacA^ • CkkCM • MA«aA«rr m vaa wa «a «h 1 AMOCLA M CMmarr MA»«A UMOSACM •OftAMMC MATMAMSCM • MC»IM k. AVUTM MiCMAak a TATkO* .iiOMM « Gcraiiwca THOMAa ■ aAMocaa ■OMtAY IKOkOvtrCM TimOTMV WCkCN a«cooi»T c aiKHM swaAM M ■owhcm ocaAA o arviMkOw ■COCN A kAMaOM MAHCY WtkTOCI ■CiaCMT VlACiWIA • CO*lt catmaainc •oacNcc •••CMCkkX A MikkC* rtMOTMT • MC^cnaoN :/; / •/ jCNwircA ■. PAmm ,3^RC aNCP>»0. JM ICCMC »•*•€ a a4MA«o« lt«AUM C McCLMArrOM <MMcav^«C*raANO •^vacMCc • acMAcrxa ••OimCM k COUMO ■OMAko J acMUkrt CAaOkYU V WOkaAi oco*oc • kCOMA«o<>art aaa* a »tmu « k M aracKT I ar» .«««• •CMCOtCT OC>MA»o «■•■• ■•••t AMoa a otiMAAo • >••■ Mat ICOTY tt AATaiOA a«MArrc» OAMIKk O rOTM OAJMf k M aAToatua O# eOMMMk wvRiTER S direct dial NUMaCR (612) 335-1543 Mr. Michael Gaffron Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gaffron: firm represents John D. McDowell. Mr. McDowell owns part of Tract A, R.L.S. 748 and all of Tract D, R.L.S. 540. Charles and Helen Hayssen own Tract B, R.L.S. 748 and part of Tract A, R.L.S. 748. As you know, Mr. McDowell and the Hayssens have agreed to replat their property to effect a lot line rearrangement. I am enclosing for your information a copy of the proposed plat. I am also enclosing a copy of a Quit Claim Deed dated November 14, 1960, creating a driveway easement for the benefit of Tracts A, B and C, R.L.S. 748. Mr. McDowell purchased Tracts A, B and C, R.L.S. 748 from Edson and Harriet Spencer in 1987. Jn connection with that purchase, Minnesota Title issued i:r. • well a title insurance policy expressly insuring the driveway easement as a valid appurtenant easement benefiting Tracts A, B and C, R.L.S. 748. Mr. McDowell subsequently sold Tract B and part of Tract A to the Hayssens and Tract C to James and Marie Alt. Minnesota Title examined title on both occasions and issued policies to the Hayssens and the Alts insuring the validity of the driveway easement. As you know, Robert White has challenged the validity of the easement. We have referred the matter to Minnesota Title. If it is detepnined that the original grant was ineffective, Minnesota Titls will have an obligation to take whatever steps are necessary to secure a valid driveway easement. L Mr. Michael Gaffron November 9, 1989 page 2 Rather than delay the resolved, «e suggest that ^ ^ubiect to the condition that Mr.resolved, we sug^st ^hat tne SISc:ih“=t?ateT41l1c?U: Hia,a .oaRoad to County Road No. 84. Please give Be a call It you have any questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD r,“5 rredric T. Rosenblatt FTR/jek Enclosures Mr. John D. McDowellcc: cb\mcdow\gaffron.ltP Evni 2Sm •1^*1 •!•]•r«iMtc* «4 A ■#* # *►? Mike Gaffron November 16, 1989 Page TwoApproval of the lot division and plat would impliedly sanction both a continuation and an increase in the trespass across my client's lana. sucn approvaxs axsu appeax ww wts xn violation of Section 11.32, subdivision 1, of the Orono City Code. I urge you to deny these proposals until the applicant provides for adequate and legal access.Mr. White and I will be happy to answer your questions and furnish additional background information. Additional copies of both maps are enclosed for your use.Sincerely,Thomas L. Owens ron V voul<3ilot apP«®^O^Tno'“^c% ■ 'Sc/- ... .«'-/e/c« °? pv - —-y/"^ —^ T ow®*'® Itio®®® ULO/®''Vrtvi^® -SO <^73 ZC^iHZ K€:ijMItl JIJJ ■"■^C^c \r \ I A >/7 ^H//^o .V53 -/J .'«»£ 4S*?C #»•»# g» r y.iUL rfa. 7f *.. :$ ^m*t'u r» t .A4 0) ARM E$tj^ add, I V i‘*t^ 0) •vS^ /(^U y • *HjL- - r: - • turn f* rt»rr«f t P'To: Proa: Date: W':Subject: ^■L'i It'K- ' i-v: • it- ii^:’ k fi'v. tt j?:' Ml tr.f- /D Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson 2790.1 Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator February 7, 1990 Consideration of an Amendment to Recently Adopted Accessory Structure Ordinance: Inclusion of Pools Lot Coverage ■■ ms List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Commission Minutes 1/16/90 Exhibit B - Staff Memo 12/21/89 - City Administrator Memo 10/19/89 - Staff Memo 7/21/89 - Council Minutes 8/14/89 - Current Ordinance as Adopted ' 0 Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit C D E F Discussion Council had previously referred the question of including pools in the lot coverage calculation to the Planning Commission. Please review the memo of December 21, 1989. The Planning Commission confirmed that their intent in originally recommending a lot coverage limitation was to limit visual encroachment of structures that project above the ground. Please review the Planning Commission minutes of January 16, 1990. Planning Commission recommended that the ordinance remain as previously adopted, with the intent- that in-ground pools with no projections of fencing, structure or walls more than 6* above grade," not be considered as lot coverage. Where fencing, structure, or walls/retaining walls extend more than 6' above grade, the current ordinance would be interpreted as requiring su.-;h a pool to be included as lot coverage, because it constitutes a visual encroachment. Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend leaving the recently adopted accessory structure ordinance as is. Staff Reconendatlon - staff would concur with the Planning Commission recommendation. Council Options - 1. Leave ordinance as previously adopted. 2. Direct staff to draft an amendment per the drafted language of the 12/21/89 memo. ? . laonJTBS OF THE PLABMIB6 COMHISSIOH MBBIIBG JMia&ST 16# 1S90 PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS A. SECTION 10.52r SOBDIVISION 3 B. SECTZOH 10.03» SOBOIVISIOH 14(C) PUBLIC BEARING 10:30 P.M. TO 10:35 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mabusth explained the changes being proposed. Kelley indicated that the inclusion of the availability of municipal water service to the Ordinance for Sanitary Sewer Availability in the Highway 12 Corridor area was fine. The other Planning Commissioners concurred. Gaffron noted the Council's request for a Planning Coirmission recommendation regarding inclusion of all^poo-s as lot coverage. He asked the Planning Commission to c-ari-y ..ne— intent of the Lot Coverage ordinance. Garfron's concerns are that 15% is not a sufficient percentage pools are included and whether the intent of the ordinance was to_limit v.sua. encroachment of structures that stand above grounc. The Planning Commission replied that was their intent. said that he categorizes an in-ground pool the same as a patio. Kelley concurred with Gaffron -:'.d added, ir th«e is a pool that is 8' above ground and has an additional dec.k. that is a structure. gji^fron said that it is his understanding that the P-anning Commiss"ion would like the Ordinance to remain the way it was written. Tjie Planning Commission said that it was written the way they intended it to be. Mabusth asked if a fence is required around a pool and it is at least 5' high it should not be included in lot coverage? Kelley said that the first point to consicJer is jjj* U beyond «• In h.ight abov. grad.. raised in the Peterson application for a pool. ...„s s Motion. Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. M-c< ■ /£T-0 122189.2 To: Oat«x Subject: Planning Cominission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator December 21$ 1989 Consideration of Amendment to Recently Adopted Accessory Structure Ordinance: Inclusion of Pools as Lot Coverage Introdeeticm ■* On August 14» 1989, the City Council adopted Ordinance 72, Second Series which regulates location, area, and height of large accessory structures (copy attached as Exhibit A). That ordinance amended Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) by limiting the percentage of lot coverage by structures on all lots 1.99 acre or smaller. Prior to adopting that regulation, upon staff recommendation the Council revised and detailed the language such that all roofed structures which extend more than 6* above grade, and any tennis courts, pools, patios, decks and other open structures which are fully or partially surrounded by fences that are more than 6' high, would count toward lot coverage. Cn September 25, 1989, the Council discussed reconsidering whether pools should be included in the lot coverage calculation, regardless of fence height. On October 23, 1989, pursuant to a memo of October 19, 1989 from the City Administrator, Council directed staff to initiate the process for consideration of such an amendment. Based on the City Council's discussion, the amendment to be considered would be to revise Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) to read as follows: "C. Lot coverage. In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exeed 15% of the lot area. The following shall be included In calculation of lot coverage by structures: 1. All roofed structures which extend more than 6* above grade level. 2. Tennis courts, peeisv similar "open* structures enclosed by fences, railings than 6* above grade level Structures extends more than entire structure shall count patios, decks, and all when partially or fully or walls which extend more (if any portion of such 6* above grade level, the toward lot coverage). I I1 y -r' . ■,r’ y y - • ‘-I ■ .41 ri ,ng Comroiasion Chairman Kelley Planning Commiasion Members administrator Bernhardson,1 T. Cffton, A..t Plannin9 * Adminl.tr.totjer 21» 1989 - ir. a.'d 333U 'on»'.*;v.v. ‘.r/artriiu*??; r«u"3t«re. Which «t.n^ , and any tennis /®°_tially surrounded by -“'Vrrt?.n*%*. ‘“hUL'-wluTa^cVu ’^t tow..a lot b„ 25. 19»9, the „ta* r.’t" « s,c"i33“n”S!«"3, ‘s^\a “ri1;ro ”n U •y*n- Vr«“"th"2 titVl"%«hi".a*Voitpr*i3Jiv «.:r-' ;^:v.\\«“.hri\" Lon of lot coverage by structures: 1 roofed structures which extend more than 6* jrade level. nnis courts# peoiej r "open" structures Id by fences# railings • above grade level ires extends more than structure shall count patios# decks# and all when partially or fully or walls which extend more (if any portion of such 6’ above grade level, the toward lot coverage). ^ t' i f4 Conaideration of teem December 21# 1989 Page 2 of 3 int -3. Pools, including pool basin and associated deck or patio areas# regardless of whether such poo l basin# deck# or patio Is enclosed with a fence.Ramifications -Staff would request that the Planning Commission seriously consider the original intent of the lot coverage code revision. It is staff's impression that the Planning Commission wished to limit the visual density of development on small properties by limiting the percent of above ground structural encroachments.There are typically two types of pools constructed in Orono;1. In-ground, below grade pools# typically a hole in the ground lined with concrete and surrounded by grade level patios. Typically this type of pool has permanently affixed diving boards# and often is surrounded by a fence ranging from 3' to 6' in height at a distance of 4* to 20* from the pool water surface. 2. Above-ground pools# typically with a wood superstructure containing a 3* high plastic-lined steel basin# which may be partially below grade at one end to provide a deeper diving area. The decking around such pools is typically at a height 4* above grade# and may be surrounded with an additional 4' to 6' fence outside the deck area# hence a total pool and fence height approaching 10*. Prior to adoption of the current ordinance# staff felt it was imperative that# if a lot coverage ordinance was to be adopted, the items to be Included or excluded from calculation should be strictly defined. Since a side and rear yard fence height of 6* is normally allowed in any non-lakeshore district# staff felt that on small lots# any upward encroachments higher than 6* would be considered as visual encroachments contributing to visual density of a neightx.'-? lood# hence "tennis courts# pools, patios# decks and other open structures partially or fully surrounded by fences more than 6* above grade" were considered as being visual obstructions subject to the lot coverage limitations. The idea that all pools should be considered as lot coverage by structure# without regard for the actual height above grade that the pool extends, would seem to be in conflict with the perceived "visual density" intent of the lot coverage ordinance. lllMll UPtCHDnLm • I Consideration of Amendment -December 21, 1989 Page 3 of 3Staff Recommendation -Planning Commission is requested to review and consider the intent of the lot coverage ordinance recently adopted, and determine whether its purpose was to merely limit visual density of above-grade structures, or whether it was intended as a further hardcover restriction for small lots. Staff would suggest that the two concepts not be intermingled in a confusing ordinance.Staff fails to see a distinction between grade level pool structures and grade level decks, patios, sidewalks, driveways, etc. in the context of visual density encroachments. If grade level pools are to be considered as lot coverage but grade level patios are not, then Planning Commission should clearly redefine the intent of the lot coverage ordinance, and consider whether the 15% limit is appropriate.Staff would also caution that the accessory structure code as it currently exists is not perfect, and is extremely detailed and not easily administered. Our accessory structure code, as well as many of our other unique ordinances, are a tangled web which is extremely confusing to the general lay person. ! 1 WliK Wl«il . *2 f21, 1989 ' 3 latloa -lent -ping ComnUaai-- i.««n“ce° mmHJ,"'* ®o»«ider the•|rMe etruc?u “Sr o^V.”' l"‘.r-ln,aed«nd /rade^revJi^^Hri"®*^®" between «,. ^» context of viLf Patloa, afdew/iV.® pool “ •PPropt^tV*’* ««"«ce, “^ouid also iv; «"«««eod. Y of our other un*< acceasory atrii*?*^^ *^etailed co„fS;r„"«|« ordl„.„c.7/a/: a "/• «<*•. «9 to the general liy ''•'> i e » y">ep^-i •J Z /C-23'101989.1»- /)L--Mayor and Cix”’ 'ouncil Mark E. Ber City AdministratoriOctober 19, 19v "Tv-a i^C 0I. VOversized Accessory Structures Ordinance - Regulation'of Pools i J VAttachment: Oversized Accessory Structure Memo Dated 7/21/89B August 14, 1989 Minutes (Excerpt) ISSUE - Presentation to Council on background regarding the exclusion of pools in determining accessory structure allowances. INTRODUCTION - On September 25, 1989, Council discussed reconsideration of the issue of pQols being included as accessory structures for the purpose of determining "percent of lot coverage by buildings", only when such pools have a fence that exceeds six feet in height. DISCUSSION - Prior to the introduction of the accessory .structures’ ordinance, any pool under 1,000 square feet that met the applicable setbacks could be constructed in a yard without any variances. The oversized accessory structure ordinance recently adopted contains a number of specific regulations pertaining to pools as follows: A. Any pool of basin structure greater than 1,000 square feet must meet minimum setback requirement greater than the normal 10 foot setback. B. For all lots under 2 acres in area there is a 15% maximum limit on lot coverage by buildings, which include both principal and accessory structures. Any lot regardless of size would be allowed a minimum of 2,000 square feet of buildings. Pools and tennis courts with fences over six feet high would be considered as accessory structures for purposes of this calculation. As noted in Attachment A, the issue raised at the August 14, 1989 meeting involved whether the regulation of these accessory structures was one of visual density or mass, or if in fact it was on a different basis than being total structural foot print of a lot. As noted above the exceptions in the accessory structure ordin nee were for tennis courts, pools and patios and other open strc'tures, including paddocks and arenas, with fences no higher than six feet in height. These represent a diverse range of "structures". A swimming pool is the most substantial of the abr*e items considered as a structure, as opposed to a paddock or arena which is not so much a structure as an area that SfcSSW*'"'3'r 101989.1/\a i W€f PQUnCllMayor ana ‘-i Mark E. Ber October 19* 1^ ■(X^City Administrato!i,JL iC C*^'4-«> Octob.r U. ^ Ordln.nc. - R.9ul«lo"'o‘WHCT. Ove»lz.a Accessory pools a number ot pool of basin structure 9^g\'ea?e^than the normal 10 foot ^ ,s a 15% B. For all loV^e^age ^“tru^tut^s. Any maximum ^^t^incipal and W^^owed a minimum of include both would be tennis courts lot r.9f‘„£ bulialngs. Po°l= Te conS‘^“®'^ u!t;s9 rlttscbm*"' A, tVc”"noted in Ar; whether the ‘ mass, or i^ orint 0tin9 invol visual d©ns Y ctcuctuc^l ^ a ««ocy addock or arena is fenced.Tf the Council desires to include pools in the regulations as accessor structures which count against "lot coverage by huildincs- regardless of the fence height, an amendment of the accessory structure ordinance could be referred to the Planning Commission for initiation ot the process.under both the previous and present ordinance a pool of limit^ sfze c^n be constructed on anv size property provided the required normal or oversized accessory structure setbacks aremet.ALTERNATIVES1. Accept the information.2. Direct that an ordinance amendment be drafted. 3. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council request staff nrofeed ^th .n ordinance amendment regelating pools as a PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by =V'’uf.ot’'sTa'f f'’to ptep'ifrTt!; Ordinance am^endment for Planning inclusion of pools in the calculation ot Percentage lot by buildings for a given property. Ayes —, Nays cc- Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Planning S Zoning Administrator Unci 1 desiresstructures Pools in th«acnir%-“ ■-v.i?.-be present ordinance a doS are^e information.an,end™ent be drafted, urther discussion.On • j ^ ^ /-"r-tbVa vS:--be treated as ®*^ height ?L- ''® “dlls or ' on their "h“e?gh?"ebove“gr;"^^^ - Moved bv ted the tr^c —' S6*onded bv . %“i ‘a %%"ir„\\^Siri?a\'r%\- TDs Mayor Grabok ft Orono Council Members City Administrator BernhardsonMichael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning s Zoning July 21» 1969DatesSobjacts Ordinance Amendment* Oversized Accessory StructuresList of Bzhibits - a a a *.jExhibit A - Proposed Ordinance with Minor Revisions SinceLast MeetingExhibit B - Memo ft Exhibits of 7/7/89 Oiscossion -This item was tabled at your July 10th meeting for further review. As of this writing, I have received no further comments from Council members. A few minor changes have been proposed since your last meeting* as follows: 1. The language that defines pools as non-oversized accessory structures makes it more clear that grade-level* non-encroaching patios will not be considered as part of the structure . 2. For the 151 lot coverage requirements for small lots* structures to be included have been defined as follows: a) Any roofed or covered structure exceeding 6’ in height above grade level. b) Any non—roofed structure (tennis courts* pools* decks* etc.) of which any part including fences or walls extends more than 6' above grade level. Since the intent of the lot coverage ordinance is to limib visual density on a property* it would seem appropriate that any Improvement that exceeds 6’ in height reasonably be considered a visual impact *nd should be Included in lot coverage. Since the maximum allowed fence is 6'* yards that are fenced M with a 6' fence would Mt be counted as lot coverage* t a tennis court with 10-12 fences would be includer s would a gazebo or other^v.^ accessory building. Pooli. ^i.ght or might not be includeo depending their height above grade and the type of fencing or walls existing. Ordinance Amendment, Oversized Accessory StructuresJuly 21, 1989Page 2 of 2Additionally, staff is suggesting that for the lot coverage sections, a minimum allowance be granted for small *?that for instance, a typical 50' lot in Navarre would still have the abilty to construct a detached garage in addition to the house. The proposed revision sets the allowance for any developed lot at 1,500 square feet, which would be 20% of the typical 50'xl50' lot. Of course, the 1,500 square foot threshold can be raised or lowered if Council is soinclined.3. A new section ’'■»s been added to revise and clarify the existing code section which requires an accessory building t<^ be at least 10' away from a principal structure. Staff has consistently required that accessory buildings also be 10' from each other, but it was recently brought to staff s attention that the code as it is written only requires the 10' setback from an accessory structure to a principal structure, and not between accessory structures.The proposed revision will make the code conform to what has been consistently enforced, and will provide the necessary safety and visual density controls staff fee Is are appropriate. We would not expect a significant number of new variances due to this section. It also will give us the ability to legitimately require that pool water surfaces will be at least 10' from any othar structure, accessory building roofed area, or other nearby facility that could be used as a diving board. This is a concern because there was at least one case approximately 10 years ago where an Orono property owner had a pool less than 10' from the overhanging deck on the house and sustained serious injury when trying to dive off the second story deck into the pool. 4^ j^]_thou ot revised in the ordinance draft attached, ' *'oul ecommend that you consider revising the rear Y uir^a setback for t'^nnis courts, pools and paddocks t. »rely 30' minimum aid drop the requirement that such st ires be outside the required rear yard area, since thaw would start to have a significant effect on restricting drainfield sites in the 2 acre and 5 acre zones. Staff Recommendation - With the changes noted above, staff feels that the ordinance amendment is workable and would recommend adoption. ’■•i* Lot Area Footprint Area on a Property 0-1.99 acre 1,000 s.f.2,000 s.f. 2.00-3.00 acre 1,200 s.f.2,400 s.f. 3.01-3.50 acre 1,400 s.f.2,800 s.f. 3.51-4.00 acre 1,600 s.f.3,200 s.f. 4.01-4.50 acre 1,800 s.f.3,600 s.f. 4.51-5.00 acre 2,000 s.f.4,000 s.f. 5.01-6.00 acre 2,200 s.f.4,400 s.f. 6.01-7.00 acre 2,400 s.f.4,800 s.f. 7.01-8.00 acre 2,600 s.f.5,200 s.f. 8.01-9.00 acre 2,800 s.f.5,600 s.f. 9.01 acre or more 3,000 s.f.6,000 s.f. ORDINANCB « , SBCOND SBRIBSAN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE BT REGULATINGlocation, area, and height of largeACCBSSORT STRUCTURESCity Council of Orono ordains as follows:^0 of Municipal Code of Orono is herebyrSSw^Section^lO^O?^ f9 (C) and addirjnew Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) to read as follows:Restrictions, in all -R- districts no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions:n«ore than 2.-'?; Oversized Accessory Structure „ ' shall be permitted on any property. AnOversized Accessory Structure" is defined^as anf'mwfstructure of footprint area in excess of^®®^' except that the following non-roofed accessory structures which exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint area are not considered as "Oversize Accessory Structur®s", but are subject to the special setback restrictions of Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (*): ^ - Tennis courts Pools, when pool basin structure (excluding non- encroachment-type patios) is greater than 1,000 s.f. “ Paddocks or arenas foll°owinVtIble1‘'®“°''^ Structures are regulated by the Maximum Allowed Lot Area Maximum Individual Accessory Structure Footprint Area 1,000 1,200 1.400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2.400 2,600 2,800 3,000 Total of All Accessory Structure Footprint Areas on a Property 2,000 2.400 2,800 3.200 3.600 4.000 4.400 4,800 5.200 5.600 6.000 Accessory Structure shall be subject tO the following conditions: Page 1 of 4 >':ri a) No such accessory structure shall be located within a required yard area (principal structure setbacks must be met). Further, no such structure shall be nearer the front lot line than the frontline of the principal residence on the property, and no such accessory structure shall be located less than 30* from the side or rear lot line regardless whether less strict principal structure setbacks apply.b) The maximum height for such accessory structure shall be 30’ or the defined height of the principal residence structure on the property, whichever is less.c) Such structure shall be allowed only when the property owner agrees and covenants in writing with the City as follows:i. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the City in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. ii. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area require ment for the given size of accessory building. iii. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure as defined herein shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. SECTION 2. Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono is further amended by revising Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (B) a& follows: B. Height Restrictions. No accessory building in tb® "R' District shall exceed the height of the principal building, except barns or etablee which shaii be subject apprevai of the Beaneii? nor sha11 an accessory bui 1ding exceed 30 feet in height. Page 2 of 4 SBCTIOH 3. Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono is further amended by adding Section 10.03, Subdivisions 14 (C) 4 (D) as follows: C. Lot Coverage. In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. The following shall be included in calculation of lot coverage by structures; 1. All roofed structures which extend more than 6* above grade level. 2. Tennis courts, pools, patlof, decks and all similar "open" structures when partialJy or fully enclosed by fences, railings or walls which extend more than 6' above grade level. (If any portion of such structures extends more than 6' above grade level, the entire structure shall count toward lot coverage.) EXCEPTION. Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at leaot 1,500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. D. Tennis courts, pools, and paddocks or arenas, when such accessory structu"es exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint area, shall be subject to the following special setback restrictions; Front - 30' minimum and not within the required front yard nor between the front lot line and the principal structure on the property Side - 30' minimum and not within the required side yard area Rear - 30' minimum and not within the required rear yard area SECTION 4. Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono is hereby amended by adding Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (E) as follows; E. Setbacks. Accessory structures in excess of 750 sqv re feet footprint area but not exceeding 1,000 square feet footprint area shall be located at least 15 feet from any lot line. SECTION 5. Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono is hereby cunended by revising Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (E) as follows: Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "R-IA" One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: Page 3 of 4 le of Orono Is further Bions 14 (C) 6 (D) asricts, for all lots of 1 combined footprint structures shall not i^lng shall be included ctures:1 extend more than 6'decks and all similar or fully enclosed by h extend more than 6* Lon of such structures 3e level, the entire coverage.) every developed lot i feet of lot coverage ictures. I or arenas, when such footprint area, shall itback restrictions: in the required front It lot line and the roperty in the required side E. Greenhouses. Commercial greenhouses provided all outside storage is fenced in such a manner so as to screen the stored material from view when observed from the public street or adjoining lot. Commercial greenhousa structures shal 1 not be located in a required yard area7 and a^ subject further to the general zoning code requirements pertaining to accessory structures.SECTION 6. Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono is hereby amended by revising Section 10.03, Subdivision 12 as follows:Subd. 12. Crowding Principal Building. No accessory building or structure, unless an integral part of the principal building, shall be erected, alterered, or moved within ten feet of the principal building, nor within ten feet o^ another accessory structure.SECTION 7. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption, and a short summary shall be published in the Laker and Pioneer newspapers.Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this _ _ _, 1989, by a vote of ___ ayes and _ _ nays.day of Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Jaunes R. Grabek, Mayor lin the required rear (de of Orono is hereby n 9 (E) as follows: i excess of 750 sq ‘re .ng 1,000 square feet east 15 feet from any Page 4 of 4 3e of Orono is hereby on 3 (E) as follows: thin any "R-IA" One r land shall be used use permit: minutes op the ORONO council meeting op AUGUST 14# ZONING PILE #1424-WINDWARD MARINE CONTINUED excellent, esoecially since hardcover was being reduct original proposal. Goetten did indicate, however, th the same concerns about safety and the crossing of _ ^ - - She asked to see the plan amended to show an access to the crosswalk. It was moved by Counci Imember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson: to adopt Resolution #2674, approving the renewal variances and commercial site plan for Windward *.arin . Motion, Ayes-4, Nays»0, Motion passed. «142S HARD FERRELL 3405 WATERTOWN ROAD VARIANCB/SUBDIVISIOH ^ of '■heMr. James Macl^innon, Attorney, was present on behal. of whe Ferrells. City Administrator Bernhardson provided a brief history of this application for a lot area variance and lot combination. Mr. MacKinnon provided a brief history of the property and the City of Orono's change Mr MacKinnon said that the City's ordinance disallowing buildabiiity of single owner substandard adjacent lots was a orm o? dfJcriiiLtfion with no basis. He said that he was requsting approval for one additional lot, rat er t.han two lots. Mavor Grabek recollected that due to the history and location of the lot he had previously aoorove one additional lot. He questioned staff as to whether the resulting lot size would conform to the neighboring lot s?^n Gaf//on confirs.ed that lots in that from 1 acre to 2 acres and that there were 3/4 acre lots on Cygnet Place. Councilmember Goetten said t.hat she too had that she would be willing to approve one additional lot. CounciImembers Peterson and Callahan concurred. Tt was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to conceptually approve the variance for Ward and Mary Ferrell with staff to draft a formal Approval resolution. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays-0, Motion passed. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ORDINANCE #72, SKOND SMES oointed Assistant Planning and Zoning w-ve out the specific areas of this Ordinance where the problems. Gaffron said that the Ordinance may “jJ®.,ites ' in certain cases, to maintain the setbacks from drainfield sites. Councilmember Goetten said that it was the original intent of thJrSrdinance amendment process to carefully of accessory structures that people were putting o.i their 1°^®* Ihe bSII^ve^ Sat especially where small lots are concerned, a ««.rrMr OP AUGUST ^ 0«OHO COOHCIL M®TI»GH424-MIWWM® being reduc.^»ilv since hardcover wa thSs UnVerno-bW^-0 see tne 4. « seconded by. rouncilmember approving the1 moved by o ^dopt for Windward Marine.« 'i*"e„d cowercial elte pla" .it' says-0. paased. P2SBSLL 0^ crosent on behalf ofBDIVISIOM Attorney, was prese. roes MacKinnon, At. - a brief history or • • rrator Bernhardson lot combination.Administrator B variance ana j. nation for a lot the Ferre; le the on for a Ferrells . , , _ brief history pf ^irements ;^ne” clby””o'Vhe s' ’ £ s’ing'la'°“”“ V'h"'’ be -as regnsbing 'LlnlU “^ban b-o 1°«. ,oe addibional icb, andthe history and abeb recoll«Ve^ious\y'*lbd/bV^^^^^ '''a*to'’-bebber U^=:nltr:erb\^\\cbs in bbab ar« ra^,^ „„ ° 7 acres and that the.to 2 act>= . j always indicat ember ^oetten jaid fadditional i^Urson seecnded by „o,.d by =°""“„^%”buVlly°%”J*,f£t a°£b«ri olubion SECOBO series ,j on poinbed rOCTOPB 0«»^^zoning^»^'^^®u''^»°fhf City »ay have at Planning J^fJ^O^dinance «her® th« ^fficult, ific *^®*fe°|hat the ordinance may afield sites. :lUrbo*ili-!n bbe sebbacb, t.enber Goebten “«“*i“i.\^n,'”"'“efr‘ {=»• .nance a®«"f®®that people were putt g concerned, structures that lots a ^ that especially NIHDTES OP THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP AUGUST 14, 1989ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CONTINUED30' setback for accessory structures was appropriate.CounciImember Callahan questioned why swiping pools wouldt^^^==^«n=n%T2rbb -{norsiv^anT v^sua'l ^ Irafclk^Soted, however, thatmost pools are surrounded by a fence*It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to approve the Ordinance Amendment for Oversized AccessorV Struc?Les. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed.ENGINEER'S REPORTORDERING PLANS & SPECS - WELL #3/HlGHWAY 12City Administrator Bernhardson explained that i necessary to do tt t drilling to determine whicn aquifer can beused. It was moved by Mayor Grabsk, Peberson, bo prooeed with the water well tearing. Mobion, Ayes«4, Nays“0, Motion passed. PAT REQUEST #1 “ LIFT STATION 10/43 . . w 4 y«ammKAr>It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Goebben, bo approve paymenb »l for LiJb Sbabioh 10 and 43 projects. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays=»0, Motion passed. MAYOR'S REPORT: ^'•“•‘'AaVoT^r^bJf’r^ported that the attending R:preU«a\l5ea? b^lauU bUri."rbhar-eVe°nob°kepb odeguabely The Mayors also questioned their ability to recall the respective LMCD Representative if they were not performing i satisfactory manner. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: 'XONTY ROAD 51 PARKING K«75i^br,bor Bernhard.on reoonuamnded exbending bhe "Mo Parking’ area 200 furbher than initially proposed. Public Works Director Gerhardson said still trying to work with Hennepin County to widen the parking area on the south side of County Road 51. Mr. Thomas Anderson, 3550 North Shore Drive, said that he Isp/ 7*. SECONoViniES f. AN ORDINANCE AM^NOINQ THE ORONO MUNICIRAL code by BEQULATIN3 Tl« LOCATION AREA. AND HEIGHT OF large accessory structures The Qly Council ol Orono ordaint as lollowa 4 f SECTION 1. Chapter 10 of lha Municipal Code ol Orono Is hereby amended by repeaNr>g Sec tion 10 03. Subdivision 9 (C) and adding a new Section 10 03. Subdivision 9 (C| to read as IqMows’ C Area Restrictions In all R" districts no accessory buildlr>g shall exceed 1.000 square feet or footprint area except that accessory structures In excess of 1.000 square feel win be allowed under the totlowino conditions % ; . I.ilot more then on Overalied Acceeeory Structure tOASi shell be permitted on property. An * Oversized Accetsory Stmclure** Is defkvad as an accessory structure ol fool- prlnl area In excess of 1.000 square feet, as* cept that the toMowIng nennrooled accessory atruclurea which tKceed 1.000 a.f. footprint area are not considered as "Oversize Acces sory Structures.' but are iub|ect to the spe cial setback restrictions of Section 10 03. Subdivision 14 (0| • Tennis courts . - Pools when pool basin structure (exclud ing rKm-encrnchmenf f/pe patios) is greater than 1.0(X) s f • Paddocks or arenas 2. Oversized Accessory Structures are regu lated by the following table. I I Lot Area 0*1 99 acre 2 00-3 00 acre 3 01-3 50 acre 3 51-4.00 acre 4 01-4 50 acre 4.51-5 00 acre 6 01-6 00 acre 6 01-7 00 acre '7 01 6 00 acre 8 01-9 00 acre 9 01 acre or more ‘Excluding non roofed tennis Maximum Individual Accessory Structure Footprint Area 1.000 si 1.200 s f. 1.400 8 f 1.600 S f 1.800 i f. 2.000 S 1. 2.200 S.f. 2.400 i f. 2.600 s f 2.600 8 r 3.000 s.f courts, pools, paddocks, arenas Maximum Aiowed Total of AN Accesaory Structure Footprint Areas* on\a ProperlyN 2.000 s f. 2.400 a t 2 600 s f. 3.200 I f. 3.600 i f. 4.000 a.f. 4.400 a f. 4.800 i f 5.200 I f 5.600 a f 6.000 a f 3. Any Oversize Accessory Structure shaN be eubi^l to the foNowIng condlllons: e) No auch accessory structure ShaN be lo cated wHhIn a required yard area (principal structure setbacks must be met). Further, no such structure shall be nearer the front lot Hne than the front line of the principal residence on the property, and no such accessory struc ture ShaN be located les^ than 30* from the side or rear lot line regardless whether less strict principal structure setbacks apply b) The maximum height for such accessory structure shall be 30 or the defined height of the principal residence structure on the property whichever Is less. c) Such structure shall b% sNowed only when the property owner agrees and covenants in writing with the City as foNows; I No future subdivision wIN be approved that places the structure within e lot that has no principal structure, except that the City In its subdivision approval may grant a flnlla lime period In wttich the oversized accessory struc ture may remain wIU khj I a prlrK:lpal structure. In order that a ptNicipal structure may be con structed At the end of this time period the oversized accessory siruc'ure must be re moved if no principal structure has been con structed II If the properly Is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal atructura wiU be located logelher within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building IN. In subdivision approval, the setback re quired lor II»e oversize accessory structure as defined herein shali remain Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall ba filed in the chain of title of the property. 9 SECTION 2 Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono Is lurther amended by revising Sec tion 10 03. Subdivision 9 (B) as follows: B Helgid Roslrlctlons No accessory build ing In the "R" District shall exceed the height of the principal building, except barns e# ste- bias which shelf be eub|ect to tha epprovstof theCouncti nor atiett an accaaaory build ing eieead 30 fast In halght. SECTION 3 Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono Is lurther amended by adding Sec tion 10 03. Subdivisions 14 (C) and (0) as follows C Lot Coverage In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1 99 acre In total area, the total combined footprint areas of ail principal and ac cessory stri.ctuies shall not exceed 15 per cent of H\p lot arotT The following shall be Included in calculation of lot coverage by structures 1 All roofed structures which extend more than 6' above grade level 2 Tennis courts, pools, patios decks and all similar "open structures when partially or tiilly enclosed by fences railings or waNs which extend more than 6* above grade level (If any portion of such structures exter>ds more than 6 above grade level, the entire structure ShaN count toward lot covaraga ) BXCt^TION. Regardlaaa of lot arta. avary devatoped lot ahall be aNowed «t least 1.500 square feet of tot coverage by principal raal- denca and garaga alructuraa. D, Tennis courts, pools, and paddocka or arenas, when such accessory structures ex ceed 1.000 s f footprint area. ahaN be iul^ect to the following special setback raalriclkm: Front - 30 minimum and not wtihin lha ra- qulftd front yard nor batwaen the front lot Int and the principal etructure on the property. Side • 30* minimum ar>d not within the re quired aide yard area Rear - 30* minimum and not within Itie re quired rrar yard araa SECTION 4. Chapter 10 of the Municipal Coda of Orono is hereby an»ended by adding Sec tion 10 03. Subdivision 9 (E) as foiowt: E. Setbacks Accessory structures In excess of 750 square feel footprint erea but not ex ceeding 1.000 square feet footprint erea sheN be located at least 15 feet from any lot Nna. SECTION 5 Chapter 10 of the MurNclpal Code ol Orono Is hereby amended by revising Sec tion 10 20 'Vibdivision 3 (E) as fotlowa: Subd 3. CorMAItonoi b ' Within m "R-1A" One family Residw 'ilrlcl, no structure o' land shaN ba ua ;he foNow- ing uses except by conditional i permit: E Greenhouses Commerc'al greei'^houses provided aN outside storage Is fenced in auch a manner so as to screen the stored materiel from view when observed from the public street or adjoining lot. Cemiiierelal green- houae etrueturaa ehill net ba loeeied bi a required yard area, and art eub|Wt hir- Ihar to the general tening eoda raqulre- menta pertaining to acceaaory atrueturea. SECTION 6 Chapter 10 of the Municipal Code of Orono Is hereby amended by revising Sec tion 10.03. Subdivision 12 as follows; Subd. 12 Crowding Principal Sulldlng No accessory building or structure, unless an In tegral part of the principal buHdIng, shst. be erected, altered, or moved within ten feel of the principal building, nor wlUiln ten feet er another ecetaaory etructure. SECTION 7 Adoption and Publlcallon This or dinance shaN be effective upon publlcallon. ar>d shall be published In the Laker and Plonear newspapers the week of August 26. 1989. Ado| led by the Cily CouncH of Orono on this 14th d^y of August. 1969. by a vote of 4 ayes and 0 nays Dorothy M Mallln. city clerk James R Qrabek. Mayor (Published In The Laker and Pioneer Aug. 28 1989) i t /Lot Areai0‘1 99 acre2 00*3 00 acre3 01*3 50 acre 3 51 4.00 acre ^ 01 4 50 acre ^ 51*5.00 acre5 01*6 00 acre6 01*7 00 acre7 01*8 00 acre 5 01*9.00 acre 5^1 acre or more Maximum Individual Accessory Structure footprint Areaby the lollowrnT^bf^^^^^«Mwimuiu Mowed Total of All Accessory Siruciwo Foolprlnl At^ on'^e Properly, -WWW VI rTKJfO ■•.OWMiSSi’i.™*1 _____1.000 a t1.200 a I1.400 a I1.600 a.I 1.800 a.f.2.000 a f.2.200 a.f.2.400 a f.2.600 a.I. 2.600 a I3.000 a.fe sha4 ®ccesaofy struc-raw lot lare regtdlesa^Thefhi^^^ lew elruclurS aSlbSfcl'JX principal reaWer^e aSw'*^'’!"' -aOy whichever la u.. 2.000 a.f.2.400 a.f.2.600 a I.3.200 el.3.600 t.l.4.000 if.4.400 i f. 4.800 i f,5.200 i f5.600 if6.000 i.f SiSSSi51S55S ai«H «"«1 of Ihia lime pmlod ,f|l s;»S:ThaX?’c^; Si~3r-~ K iur'lH”'"'Municipal Code ^3“J03. Subdivisions 14 (CJ and (D) as »».r;w..rs.s 1... c«.s„'tr"r.r 5 nnls courts, pools, patios deck. .„h 'tesedT »1’en patliaL wlosed by fences, raltinos or walls whfrt portion ^iuch^ruelurea e't***rt'*''*'’6 above grade tevriTlil ! "wo than" co^X")Oavatoped lot ahMbTSjU^’ ?i2m*mo I0 the following apeeW *“*^1 aw* *aw wai *** "®* **'**' '•■ 01 ?^IO-»» wow.*. •"•-"s Kissx'ssr allure o* l«,d ahVli^ ,^rlcl^ f“Jv! **k conduit >.U Mr^'^®®^bouses. Commerr'iii provided all outside aloraOTTtte^r.Vif"*** a manner so ea to acr.l» •»! . '•** *" •«:*' from view when •Oaal Of arJKrlnlng^rXISJS'Jir•»«ae ilriMiiiree ihiinJSiKtf*'.*^^ ragulred ward area .Llw*! ^ •••Wad hi a •8ar to the J!.!?** *"^661 fur***iSr;Ji2r:r lion 10.03. Sec- Ihe Principal building nwtithhil’i!!!’/*"* ®' •"Other .eeeeeoS Zitar? Dorothy M Hallln. city clerh James R Qmbek. Mayor l^bHshed In The Laker amt m.19691 *"6 Pioneer Aug. gg '■1I:I 13190.5Mayor and City CouncilMark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratoP^^TO:FROM:OATS; January 31, 1990 SUBJECT: Stubbs Bay Sewer Project COUNCIL MEETINGFEB 2 * 1990emroFORONOAttachment:A. Stubbs Bay Significant Questions - January 30,1990 MeetingB. Stubbs May Memo Dated 1/16/90C. Stubbs Bay Letter DraftD. Draft Petition and Special Assessment WaiverE. Letter from Terry OlsonISSUE 1. Provide a summary of significant questions from the meeting on January 30th. 2. Outline process steps for Council to consider if this is the appropriate route to go. 3. Provide opportunity for review of the letter and draft petition prior to its transmittal to the area. 4. Present information relevant to any City contribution to the project in advance of the letter being trasmitted. INTRODUCTION - After a brief overview at the beginning of t*"» meeting which encapsulated the presentation from last summer t.’-’*- forum was opened up to questions and comments. While several questions were repetitious of those from the previous meeting there were some new ones that are summarized in Attachment A. DISCUSSION Issue - Meeting Summary - in addition to the questions outli’ned there were comments such as the gentlemen who felt that the project was needed even though he h.a,i sufficient room for an additional septic system. He Lvit that the property was much more marketable with a sewer system, providing a wider range of people who were willing to buy it, together with it being a permanent solution. What was not mentioned was the ability of someone to add to their house with sewer, which may well be restricted without it. It was indicated in the discussion that the City would consider the project if 70% of the people in the area were willing to sign the waiver at this point. The process of petition and signing tne waiver for a specific amount allows each individual person to decide if the benefit to them of the project is sufficient to "sign on for that amount" rather than the City permitting a Court to decide it after a significant amount of litigation. Issue #2 - Process - The process that was undertaken on the Crystal Bay project was one in which although the City had discussed a contribution, the City undertook the following steps: 1. Hold the public hearing 2. Adopt the project 3. Adopt the assessment 4. Allow the 30 day appeal process 5. Have the Courts determine the benefit to the properties (and hence the amount of City contribution) As an alternative process in the Stubbs Bay area a revised process is suggested to limit the City's risk in two ways: a. Avoid the possibly non-recoverab1e undertaking the plans, specifications process (which is approximately $20,000 getting a committment to the project by a majority of the people in the area, prior plans and specs. expense of and bidding -$30,000) by substantial to ordering b. Limit the risk of substantial appeal waivers by: 1. Minimizing the actual assessment to an amount similar to the amount determined by the Court for the Crystal Bay project, with the balance being a connection charge. 2. Not ordering the project until the i isk of appeals has been quantified. A proposed process to do this are a follows: 1. Project Petition - Send out a letter which contains the petition and a special waiver. 2. Plans and specifications - Awalc receipt of upwards of 7(1% appea'" waivers. TF a lesser amount is received and it appears that few, if any additional ones are coming in that it be reconsidered by Council to analyze the risk and determine if they want to go ahead with the plans and specification expenditure. If the project does not go ahead the City funds that expense. 3. Code Enforcement - As an optional step council could consider further restrictive development controls in the area as to expansion of homes related to both zoning and septic together with giving a deadline for all those with failing or severely nonconforming systems to go on holding tanks. I •rail? ^^WWi\ r*v^*u«r*K9C*v«r«i•1C€^«•T:Mlifsl*r* r«y«iis m [•■•XV «j iMiIUt •1*XCW»XS ‘•V -'-1^ ^‘■r fJt aSK_ 1 waiv'^s are. X« ana ,o topxans ana nP ^ ,-eas2t^,aa^p;c?ar a^J^r/ntj,fniiTir. ^i"=r rsiipia..1. - r~ .W'.C^^jpa Nuiabnr o£ ^E£—rPcpgsonnt t® naan*^fuicatton has bean ptven the ..otitts appeals-fexVa^rn has been P^en ^ J he CU. l^r„naetea on not.^ ^^„tra=ts =;-;;;;r„th.ent^c^ oarticipate Van t»e made: ,or to the letter hearing or the time o£ the sped ^ ,e„t , -osts - rot nine^oht of the S^- rlicipated, due “^^^g^hat paid Twill- -y\gfs is in U.^^V's) Bas'd on thisinvolved. P’’^^^|Vtr ibution to:Tonta“Se^i aaaltional oon .. „f rrvstal BaX f the Project 9l-.-~-^f;^tal Bay eroentaat S^'i^ren^a ,^^"|aj:ent’'«ouia be j^^ofn't o. "the Ptubbs Bay $530,000 with the interest for that principal being $450,000 for a total just under $1 million over 2C years.C. Equal Dollar Value as for the Crystal Bay (» .alated for CPI) - This wouT3 result in a principal of $3'#5,OCO^^n'B an interest of $300,000 for a total of $675,000 in 20 yearsD. City Pays All Project Costs - To warrent such an expenditure Council would likely want to amend the Comprehensive Plan to reflect this major change in philosophy.ALTERNATIVES -Issue #1 - Summary of meeting questions and responses.A. Accept.B. Comment.C. Suggest policy or change direction. Issue 12 - Process. A. Undertake process as proposed. B. Utilize the Crystal Bay "Process" C. Develop a different process. D. Take no action. E. Stop the project consideration. Issue »3 - Letter Draft. If the process is undertaken: A. Make any amendments prior to transmission. B. Direct it not be sent. C. Table for further consideration. Issue #4 - City Contribution to .roject. Decide on an amount. 1. No contribution. 2. Equal percentage to Crystal Bay. 3. Equal dollar value to Crystal Bay. 4. Sel^^-tion on some other basis. 5. Table discussion. , that principal00 with t);% ^sTnlUlo" over 20 years.,1 just onaer $ related i2L.ai ooiis:: ^'*tiSAf%«75,000 in 20 years000 for a total oj- f expenditure„ s All project Costs :”a’'Vhe'Comprehensive Plan tothU fajo' " philosophy.^natives - _ _ _rpsoonse^a ^ - sus!^ 2i aSSlisa 32£2liS!ia- - - A. Accept. B. comment. . nolicv or change direction-C. Suggest policy ae #2 - Proce^ " onaertate process as proposed. ^ 3. utilize the crystal Say ’Process C. Develop a alrferent process. D. Take no action. E Stop the project consideration. ,, If the process is undertaken. *1 - Letter Praf^L§ue 13.- - orior to transmission. A. Make any amendments P B. Direct It not be sent. C e,hle (or further consideration. ,4 . CUjf contribution to thr .-oject, ssue XS l — i-iiJL------- )eclde on an amount. 1 NO contribution. S,ual percentaue to Crystal Bay J. Equal dollar value to Crystal Bay. 4. sel-tlon on some other basrs. 5. Table discussion. RECOMMENDATION -Issue #1 - It is recommended that the Council^ having made any comments or had any further questions regarding the summary, accept the information.Issue 12, #3 and £4 - Table for further discussion at March 12, 1990 meeting.PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that the Councilhaving reviewed the information table further discussion to March 12, 1990 meeting. Ayes , Nays _.cc: Glenn Cook, City EngineerJohn R. Gerhardson, Public Works DirectorJeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning AdministratorMichael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admin. ir4:li •I«llllf*V:l •MM*} 11 RlVtTZXSni KTSTIB R [• 1 (•! « f L* [•vmw9^§w /f- [• H M*!* 11#'. 1 • 3. specific property concerns. Pi. Fred Blanch property/Bayside - This property owner was concerned that the service to the property would require the taking down of a number of trees that presently provide a substantial screening to his property. Staff indicated that they would work to develop a solution that would not necessitate removal of that significant screen. B. Saving Trees/Minkema property - At the corner of Leaf and Bayside there was concern because of the depth of the line that the individual’s trees may be destroyed. This may be accomplished by an alternate routing either diagonally across his property or an alternative would be placing the lateral on the south side of Oxford. C. Alternate design that would be cheaper - The people in the Bederwood area thought an alternate design for routing of the trunk together with the laterals may provide a cheaper design. D. Splitting the Bederwood area by .lateral service area - This would be done in hopes of reduci ig the lateral cost for some people. Persons in the Bedervood area have asked if that lateral could be reduced or somt other option looked at. Splitting the area may reduce one area's costa but would probably increase another's. This will be looked at. Does the assessment process that is being proposed only skirt the law and become a way of "cheating the residents" by forcing an unrealistically high connection charge? A. Such an interpretation can be put on it, but the process being proposed is necessary to limit the City's risk. Since the City has taken the position that the area should pay its own way, this process provides a means by which the project can go ahead. If the City had to have the substantial risk that it had in the Crystal Bay project, the project may not go ahead at all. (As to benefit, the petition/waiver process allows the individual owner to decide what the benefit is to their property rather than having a court arbitrarily decide that.) It should be remembered that any value addition to the properties is not going to fully be reflected in the sale price. While it varies from year to year, a person who does •Jconcern*. „„«.iae - ® * ,2 require theih Ercperty/^*^ — property ^ proel^* *Tthe th»t P"**"*JJ,tea that^reer« ^^jV-rt. ‘t -ouia notalqnUic- hcreen.►he cotiE^ps'e o'. \te VJfconcern destroyed. across b ^tra^ternlte "be *pl^clng the lateral "n aXternatluo wouU P °iae of Ot.orU- .,Ue o. Oxforo. ^ rhat wouia be ofiSSESi routing ot thS^n'JlWtnate aeslqn ^ cheaper * “':?th the laterals nav E'» th. sEaE^o¥^e^-‘'^\S*FH:a'r. done in hop Bederwooa s'® ^pn looted at. '’Wbrreaucea or *o»* s'*'®.; |osta but would "rer-v'Vhir^u - "••ease another s. a ^ MW ?ase another s. -ooosea only skirt asoent process connection Charge _ caustically but the process b®rpretatlon can^^nE^, th. <;^,‘b“u pay d is Tfciftn that the area project taken the a ''substantial risk 3 process P have th -rt^ect »ay ‘ Ejt bh. VaVproJect. th* prj»3®'^ ^,^eaa in the Cry*”i-®tit! the P®C^‘‘°bbC b®"®“‘ “all. ^ ►o decide what th decide individual ^^"^'baving a court arbij ^^^^tion to fty rather th . _gd that any ^be sal« 'lug to ‘Ully be '‘‘^t'^ts^n who does ‘®® "«les ?roryear to year, a P le it varies i1•Ml a bathroom improvement may realize 75% of their investment where someone who puts in a pool may realize only 20% of their investment at the future sale of the property.Lateral Options - The two areas were offered the option of extending laterals providing they pay for the assessment. The question was, if they do not have a lateral, can the City prove the market benefit?Should sufficient numbers not indicate an interest in doing the trunk only, the City may in fact do the lateral and assess the trunk and put a connection charge for the lateral portion of it thereby better insuring it would get its full value. The staff indicated past projects absent Crystal Bay were paid for by those receiving sewer (currently staff is reviewing all projects to verify this.) 5. City Contribution - Other funding sources - To the best of our knowledge there are no other funding sources that are available. The City is willing, however, to finance this over a 15 to 20 year period, both the assessment and any connection charges the City may charge. Who is providing the momentum for this project? Is it the residents? While the City had in its Comprehensive Plan in 1980 identified this area as an area for sewering the primary imputus has been from the neighborhood from those people who have failed or failing systems, from those on holding tanks, and from those who wish to improve their properties but can't because of septic system constraints. As such, it will be up to the residents themselves to decide if they want this project to go ahead or not. J 11690.£3 TOs FBOM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardaon, City Administrato^Jo^ January 16, 1990 SUBJECT: Stubbs Bay Attachment: A. Stubbs Bay Memo Dated 1/3/90 B. Letter to Residents C. Stubbs Bay Memo Dated 9/lf89 D. Stubbs Bay Memo 8/17/89 E. November 13, 1989 Council Minutes Excerpts ~ Review of key issues for the public informational JHTRyaCTlON - Following the July 24, 1989 meeting with the area residents staff reviewed, at the Council’s November 13, 1989 meeting, the key issues of that meeting. DISCUSSION - Staff’s present understanding of these issues are ®*^t“*'ed in Attachment B. The Council may desire to discuss this further in advance of the meeting. The format of the meeting will be as follows; Introduction - City Administrator Recap of the project - City Engineer Questions and answers ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Indicate points of departure which can be presented at the beginning of the meeting. 3. Reschedule the meeting. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the meeting continue on tn# 30th dnd Council diract any chan9es that thay nay have on the major issues or other concerns that they may have* PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council the information indicatin9 any further policy discussions that they may have. Ayes _^ Nays _. cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth# Buildin9 & Zonin9 Administrator Michael P, Gaffron# Asst. Plannin9 & Zonin9 Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Glenn Cook, City En9ineer ► i i 'i I J - a1390.! 4TTfifU^ChST TO: FROM: OATS: Mayor and City Council Mack E. Bernhacdson, City Adninist January 3, 1990 SUBJECT: Stubb'a Bay Sewer Meeting Attachaent: A. Stubbs Bay Memo Dated 12/1/89 ISSUE - Updated information regarding proposed meeting to be held on Stubb's Bay sewer. INTRODUCTION - At the Council’s December 11, 1989, Council meeting they established January 30th as a possible date for a Stubb's Bay sewer meeting. DISCUSSION - The staff has contacted the school, where the previous meeting was held, and they have indicated that the most usable space, the theater, is available for that date. If you desire this to be rescheduled please indicate at the meeting. If acceptable a notice will be sent to the property owners within the next 10 days. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Select a new date. 2. Select a different location. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that it be scheduled at the Orono School Theater at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, January 30, 1990. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council reschedule the Stubb's Bay sewer meeting for January 30, 1990, at 7:00 P.M. at the High School Theater. Ayes _, Nays _. cc:John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning 4 Zoning Administrator Jeanne A- Mabusth, Building 4 Zoning Administrator Planning Commission Members Mayor and nCity CouncilTOs PROMs"***• Jan" '■ 3*7,'T*"'«»J«CT: stub,., 3ny s,u„«ach..nt, 3.^ Dated I2/1/8,,iS|«»ation resersi propo„s » aoPgCTTn., . ,, «aetl„3 to be hel..12189.5 [WAriVRs _ the property iect a new date. 7°' * ‘’“'®‘-«t iocetlon. ® no action. IrS^^ION - It !• ^^“^^^ater at 7"oTm"‘’V ‘t be eoh •"•' ^“aaJay, danua?y'’*3'J “^?|.« - «o».^ ... the ° motion -M„ . 30, Ayes ^0^^ 1990, at Asst.^'Vla^^® Director ‘ S- --ini^ Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdainistratJ^|^^'^Q|TOj FBOM:OATS: Deceaiber 1, 1989SUBJECT: Stubbs Bay Sewer Consideration UNCIL MEEnUGDEC 111989OTYOFOBISSUE - Establishment of a date that the Council would like to meet in a public forum with the residents of the Stubbs Bay area.INTBODUCTION - At the Council's November 13, 1989 meeting they <3iscusse^ the issues that had been raised at the last Stubbs Bay meeting with the residents and staff. At that time they directed staff to establish a date at the December 11th meeting for the January/Eebruary timeframe. DISUCSSION - The following represents potential dates in January or early February that could'be used for such a meeting. They are as follows: January 10th and 1. h January 24th and 25th January 29th, 30th, 31st/February 1st February 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th ALTERNATIVES - 1. Select a date. 2. Table until January 8 th. ...... 3. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - Is is recommended that January 30, 1990 be established as a joint meeting date to be held at the Orono High School Audltorua at 7:00 P..M. Notification of this meeting will be sent to all residents and property owners in the area approximately 2 1/2 weeks in advance of the meeting. A special letter will be sent to those on Oxford Road to determine what, if any, interest they have in being included in such a project. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that the Council adopt __ as the date for a joint meeting with the residents of the Stubbs Bay area regarding Stubbs Bay sewer. Ayes __, Nays cc: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning 6 Zoning Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Planning Commission Members Ilf= ana Cit. council MEEIIHGE Bernhardson, Cit/ a 1.1-Bay S.v«r consideration CiTY OF OWf a date that the at***.hlishment c.-idents o£ the scud,xu for» «tt t*VtU"bl ‘..fI the at the Deceabet licn►ablish a dace:uaty timeframe. potential dates.allowing represents b a meeting.- Tbe cJuld be used foribruary that caows: S^'StS'nst/rebr-ry 1st ibruary *th, aca, ss - January 8th. 1990 r* IS is '‘""Yatt*to «“«? fJpe* itt Li t.aidants and^J_^^, ^to"|jU«ln.'''»»*' 2 1/2 weeks in Q-ford Road to cm -joject.> '•“‘.'.VtrS.rnB tntlnded In .«c» « they have m o* ^ ancil ^'’.•ee: r.Bardl«9 Stubbs Bay u Bubllo ««"» »“•!*“„, Ad«lnlstrator 'SSt'sttulnt Wnt B^-istrator •cSmSlsslon M««b.rs ClTT'Vf(]FGRQNO CITYc i ■BPost Office Bos 66«Cryauii Bey» MannOn the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka January 16, 1990Subject: Public Information Meeting Dear Stubbs Bay Area Resident:On July 24, 1989, Orono staff met wih Stubbs Bay area residents at the Orono High school Auditorium to discuss sanitary sewers and alternatives for that area.At the July meeting, following introduction and comments by staff, the discussions turned to installation of sanitary sewer. Several questions were asked but too numerous to include in this letter, therefore I have reduced the questions and answers to what we feel were the most important. The key ones are listed below. The Council has reviewed these and will be available to discuss these further at the next meeting. 1. Inclusion of Other Areas A. Oxford Road. This area was developed to 2-acre lakeshore standards in 1978. Because the area is lake- shore, considerations may be given to service this area. B. Sussex Sauare/Foxbend. This area is a new 26 —*ot subdivision at Fox Street and Leaf Street. The property is bainq developed per the residen^'ial standards and is not being considered for project inclusion. C. Cygnet Place. This area is fully developed and is 2/3 to 1 acre residential lots. At this time this area is not included but the City may look at the area sometime within the next five years. 2. City Funding of Anv Reserve Charge Typically the City has not placed any sewer pipes less than 8" in diameter. An 8" pipe will handle more than just the Stubbs Bay area. This project is usinj reserve capacity that currently exists, from for which this area will pay not anything. Historically the city has not helped fund a project for that reason but may consider this. r BUILDING a ZONING - 473-73S7 ASSESSING AOMINISTRAHON SITNANCE - 473-7358 FAX-4734510 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 Li lc OT"ClTYcJanuary,,u= xn*«».ticn»r«aiic *«-- y X*- ^’*’iigh'«Soel Mdi«tlum .,\Vrn« "v." .nd e*?^ha O’f®"® 9 ^/or *that area. cotnwenta by ^”rxtt“ion'°" Vu'dTin*"*'; totth.r at. tn .. «a. d.v.j.op.« ,‘-x‘U*- , , xe-.ot ■ea. »,nd. X>'X* *'**f''*streat- _'X^* IJluaV ” *" d.«10P*«/."lril s not oe***’ ,.** is fully CXSBStJUSfSixa ’ntial l|«j loot at the aov a-e'iSn Insider this. f > Stubbs Bay Area Resident January 16, 1990 Page 2 of 23. Potential RezoninqThe Stubbs Bay area is currently zoned 2 acre residential. The City has not rezoned any of the areas that were zoned to 2 acre in 1975, and it is not anticipated this one will.4. Level of ParticipationIn order for a project to proceed, there would have to be a level of support for the project which would probably require the signing of an assessment appeal waiver by at least a large majority of the propertyowners. 5. Next Meeting Date The next meeting will be January 30, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. at the Orono High School Auditorium (theater). The Orono Council will be attending. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 473-7357. Sincerely, /John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director JRG/tln ftsucwowts-^’”’ ■Jr Grabek C■uno City CounciImembers /( c. Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat September 14, 1989 SUBJ: Stubbs Bay Sewer Attachment: Stubbs Bay Sewer Memo-8/17/89 ISSUE - 1. Presentation of information to Council related to issues raised at the Stubbs Bay Meeting held .July 27, X989 • ® "®-'*" Stubbs Bays meeting whichwould be with interested residents of the area and the Council. INTRODUCTION - “ At the Council's August 28, 1989 Council Meeting, Attachment Pf**«"ted outlining significant issues related to the Stubbs Bay sewer that had been raised at the July Meeting. DISCUSSION - Issue 1. - Outline of Major Issues A. Inclusion of other areas - " This area was developed at the 2**acre lakeshore standard ilTT978. while sewer could be extended to this area an estimate for this extension has not been made. T“*^* are 11 properties in this subdivision and presently there IS one septic system that has had intermittent problems. The Oxford Road area is in part lakeshore property and this may have special consideration as to whether or not it is included in the sewer project. 2. Sussex Development - This is presently being proposed for development. It is at a 2-acre density for a total residential lots. The topography of this area may make it expensive to sewer this area as it would need either a deep gravity line or a lift station line into the Stubbs Bay sewer to feed into the proposed Stubbs Bay system. 3. Cygnet Place - This area contains 19 developed lots Which are predominately 2/3 - 1 acre. It is an area the City may look at for an alternative waste management study in the next 5 years. Topography may make sewering this area expensive. Also there are another 6 lots in between the Stubbs Bay area and Cygnet that could also be looked at. In order to include any of these in the development, the City would need to make a request for MUSA line extension. (Although the Stubbs Bay area is currently not within the MUSA I I I line, it was identified as an area that could be exoanded in the City's Comprehensive Management Plan.) The impact of adding these units would be an effort to reduce the cost to the existing 82 residential developed lots and the approximate 10 additional potentially buildable vacant lots. The inclusion of Sussex would reduce the cost aporoxiaately 15% of the trunk coats or about 7-10% of the overall^ Oxford would reduce the per unit trunk cost about 12% and about 6-8% of the total per unit cost. Cygnet Place would reduce the per unit trunk cost by 21% and the total by 10-12%. If these were not included at this time, there is enough capacity in the line to allow for their connection in the future. This would probably be done as a combination of an assessment together with a connection charge into the main. 3. City Funding of Any Reserve Charge - As noted in the first item, there will be additional capacity of approximately 250+ units in this line which will be constructed at the minimum size. These together could reduce the total cost by about 25%. As an alternative for each $100,000.00 in reserve capacity the City would take would result in about $1,000.00 per property reduction of those currently in the Stubbs Bay area. (About an 8% reduction in the total cost which ranges from $11,-16,000). If the City chooses not to fund any portion of the sewer the City may face a forced reduction of special assessments resulting from the appeals process. Obviously this could be limited by requiring a certain percentage of appeal waivers to be signed prior to the project being undertaken. C. Potential Rezoning - This area was originally zoned 1 acre and prior to 1975 and when the new standards came in was placed at a 2-acre zoning. The issue is whether the City would consider rezoning the properties in the area to 1 acre (or less) if sewer did come in. The advantage to the property owner is in part to reduce the number of variances that they would need to obtain permits to improve their property, together with allowing some property owners the ability to subdivide their property and to help finance the sewer project. It should be remembered, however, that additional units would have to pay an amount substantially similar in the currently projected figures so there may not be that much gained in subdivision. The related issue is the fact that the City has not done any rezoning in the Crystal Bay area or any other 2 acre zone areas sewered since the 1975 rezoning. In the Crystal Bay area those served by sewers would remain substandard lots even under the 1-acre zoning and therefore there would be few if any lots that would be able to be subdivided. In the Stubbs Bay area there are approximately 9 2-plus acre properties that could subdivide into an additional 9 lots. This I would reduce the overall cost by 10%. D. Level of Support - The asauBption on the Stubbs Bay project has been that the Council would t^quir# a certain level of support as expressed in waiver of assessaent prior to undertaking the project. These waivers of assessment initially would express the "top end over which any amount over that (apart from capitilized interest) would require that new waivers be signed. Due to the nature of the area, it is recommended that a certain percentage of the pPQperty owners in the current area sign waivers prior to taking further steps in the process. Not having a certain level of assessment waiver, prior to the date that the project is ordered, would place the City at risk for the special assessment portion being appealed. (The staff is recommending a special assessment level that would not be that much greater than the Crystal Bay area finally was assessed), but this does not insure that this would not be appealed or reduced.) Issue 2 - Next Stubbs Bay Meeting It would be appropriate that the meeting be held in November/December in order for construction to be done next ye^. In advance of that however, the City could communicate to the residents that they would have to circulate among themselves a petition and get a minimum percentage of persons interest^ed in «sM«in?^ waivefr be^'^'igned* prior project. Once the petition is submitted, the Council could have a special meeting to address the questions raised and take any additional questions from the neighbors. ALTERNATIVES - Issue i - 1, Take a position of the Council on each of the items. 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Take no action at this time. Issue 2 • 1. Establish a meeting date. 2. Await establishing a date until after a petition is received. 3. Direct staff to send a letter regarding the level of support needed. I /•' *'V'^Juce the overall cost by 10%»[.evel of Supooxt “ ^aaeunption on the ®®o/*sup^tt*as «*P^***^ would require * indertaking the P^®j5*®Vnd"^ove ’'a£ assessment prior to «ina ^3 the -top end ove.of assessment from capitilUed®y amount over that (apart trom^^iqulte that new waivers b percentage the■ it is recommended that waivers prior to talcingVoviers in the current ceftaia nailv was assssssoi # S? bVapp.»l«5 ot c»jb«d.) - N«xt Stubbs Bay Masting ”Vsi?2nr£to« tb. nalpbbors. CTIVES - i5H£ i “ •1 on each of the„b. a po.lti»n of th. council on aaob Tablt for furthat diaooasion. TaKa no action at this tlma. :ssue 2 - .. Eatabllsb a .a«tl«9 p.tltion la »„it aatabllahln, a data until aft.r '**• ^ , lattac tapatdinp tba lauel of j. Oicact staff to sand a lattac ct neededa RECOMMENDATION -It is recommended that staff send a letter to the affected property owners indicating the tentative meeting date in December^ but that a petition rigning an assessment waiver at the 60% level of property owners interested in the project must be received prior to a meeting being held.that Council directPROPOSED MOTION -____, seconded by _________letter to the abutting property owners outlining the lev3l of support needed in order for the Council and City to further consider this as a project. Ayes _____, Nays ______.Moved by staff to send acc:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, Planning & Zonining Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Glenn Cook, City Engineer A JATION -cscoinjnended that staff ««n/4 « ir owners indicating the tentatW^*^ but that a petition aeeting date inProperty owners"inteJIsted in*waiver at the prior to a meeting being held. Project must beWTIOW --- seconded by ►w.i. >,send a letter to the abuttino that Council directsupport needed in order for thS^r« outlining>nsid.r this as a project. Ayes ^«*Gaffron'‘’MJnnini”l zo^°"-"® *'*“l“l»tratoccook. City Engineer TO:PROM:OATS:81789.11Mayor and City CouncilMark E. Bernhardson, City AdministrateAugust 17, 1989 HSUBJECT: Stubb's Bay Sewer MeetingAttachment: A. Stubb's Bay Sewer Meeting Questions and AnswersISSUE -1. Presentation of information regarding the Stubb's Bay meeting held July 27, 1989.2. Establishment of a date for the next Stubb's Bay meeting.INTRODUCTION - At the informational meeting held July 27, 1989, a number of questions were raised. Attachment A was prepared to summarize the questions and answers given at that meeting. In addition, a number of residents of the area who were interested in furthering the development of a sewer desire to have a meeting as soon a possible. DISCUSSION - It is hoped that a meeting regarding Stubb's Bay would again be held in November and at that time the City would be able to respond to questions that were not able to be addressed at the July 27th meeting. Significant questions to be responded to are: 1. Will the City entertain allowing any other areas to be included, such as: a. Oxford Road b. "Fox Bend" Development (Leaf/Bayside? 2. Will the City absorb any reserve charge. 3. Will the properties in the designated area be allowed to change the zoning once sewer is available in order to help them defray the cost. Also, would additional buildable lots created through a rezoning be required to pay a Cull unit charge. (It should be noted that this was originally zoned R<-1C, 1 acre lot size prior to the 1975 rezoning.) 4. What level oC support (I) and waivers of assessment does the Council desire to be signed prior to undertaking this project. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Establish a date. 2. Respond to the questions. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council table further discussion of the item until its September 25r 1989 meetinq. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council table further discussion of the item until its September 25, 1989 meeting. Ayes __, Nays __. cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Glenn Cook, City Engineer iTERMATIVES - Establish a date.Respond to the questions.Table foe further discussion.Take no action.ZOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council table further scussion of the item until its September 25, 1989 meeting.>POSZp MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, that the Council3le further discussion of the item until its September 25 19 meeting. Ayes __, Nays . ' Jeanne A. Mabusth* Building & Zoning Administrator Michael p, Gaffron» Asst. Planning 6 Zoning Administrator John R. Gerhardsonf Public Works Director Glenn Cook, City Engineer 8289.1 NINQUIRIES AND RESPONSES STUBBS BAT INFORMATIONAL MEETING JULY 27, 1989ORONO HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUMAt the informational meeting that was held on July 27, 1989, approximately 35 property owners were present together with Councilmeaber J. Oiann Goetten and members from the staff including Michael Gaffron, Glenn Cook, John Gerhardson, Jeanne Mabusth and Mark Bernhardson. Following an introduction by the City Administrator, Michael Gaffron gave an overview of the Waste Management Study, outlining each of the alternatives and th^ merits and pitfalls of each of those alternatives. This was followed by a presentation of the sewering option as far as layout and expense presented by Glenn Cook. Following this presentation general questions were taken. The following represents the significant questions that were raised and responses given to those. (As these are paraphrased they may encapsulate two or three questions that were asked together with their responses and are not necessarily in the order in which the questions were asked.) 1. Is there not a law that requires that the property owner be required to pay only the amount of benefit to the property? Minnesota special assessments are limited to the benefit (increase brought about by the improvement) to that property. The City is cognizant of this law and is structuring the amount of actual special assessment to be equal to or less than the expected benefit to the great range of properties. The balance of the cost will be covered by a connection charge. There is a possibility the connection charge can be financed by the City over the same term as the assessment which is expected to be 15 or 20 years. 8239.1JBBS BM ^ 19,9... »-.9 -. .“^or, ® Hlcha.V aa««:; ^e «U„, oatlinlM *f jsose »'-”"'’“tion as fat »* alls of eo=- j 0®'''“““? %ollo»i"9pt.sentation of „ coK. toilowi"? pceservtea OY taken. raised anc enecal es"io"® '"^htased they »ay *"si9nlfi=®’'^^;;“\V.« »« r'asRe”^*^*'" :tOe " ” '“f^uastions tbao «"„“<,,aar I" >■•'''=’’ ' « ofnacessatUV tn tl>®sand ate not ne „ the pcopetty >**t ceq'^^^®® fit to the ptoP«'a. 91 law that ceq benefit to O.W ‘»* «“““ , „ the ben.flf ° ^ ants ate that otopettY- ‘ ‘‘■'IVVooat'bYfoe i”?'=;*nd"\sbrought aoo law <» equal to o>- . -otr -t-uf b^^ a possihi’'^'"^ cm as the aThece is a P same c® w . the City years.I by the oc 20 y expected to o I * m 2. What are the costs of the project and what are anticipated to be the financing options.The costs are detailed on the sheet that was handed out« split out between about a $S»500 assessment charge and between $4,200 and $9,700 connection charge. It is anticipated that it would be a 15 to 20 year bond issue. If your total assessment plus connection charge was $10,000 over 15 years that would cost about $670 per year in interest together with an initial interest cost of about $800 which would be decrease over the 15 year period to a final year interest cost in the range of $60.00. Spread over ___ years, the annual principal would go down but the amount of interest paid over that tiraeperiod would be increased. If your rate is $15,000 just multiply those numbers by 1.5 times the $10,000 number.3. Are the larger lots subsidizing the smaller lots? To the extent that sewer is going to be installed adjacent to a large lot, a lot with a large frontage actually cos^; more to serve than a lot with a small frontage. To the extent that sewer is needed the greater number of smaller lots actually, defray the cost for the larger lots. (This is balanced out by splitting the areas between the larger and smaller lots and having the lateral cost for the smaller lots, in this case, being less than for the larger lots.) 4. Aren't there other places, such as Cygnet Place, that in the future will need to have sewer? The City staff has looked at Cygnet Place as far as sewering and what impact that has on this project. It is anticipated that that area will be looked at over the next 5 or 10 years. Whether the area needs sewer would be the subject of a waste Management Study and will be dependent, not only, on lot size but also topography, soil conditions, water table etc. We looked at it as to how a sewer pipe will be run on an approximate basis. IZ ■"■« •« ««=lp.e«, ,,out't:::r.?« ^'•0 lSy«ar» th«V“*"‘ *’*“* oonn.ctlo° l»»ue. i^>S»th.r with an llit^'^i'’^^ *'*°“‘S«70 p!r*^** “** ^^<’'000»• dtcraase ‘"tareat coat ‘«««at'««at cnat In tht r/ “* ’’ S'*" Parltd ■'tlehunnual P^ :n=lpai ,”7/"/«°.00. Sor, J° * yearo»at that tl».„ • ^ 'Sow but t*-. *" — yeara^uat'::n-“^/-sd s"o»a;:r"\r' number. ^ ^ those numbers bv "t ^our rate^ the**• larger lota sabsidf,-aoosxdizing the small.- , ■■’* **tent that aewe- i 'S* lot, a lot wiA to be i„,_, , ^ "»• than a lot w'ith i"*® ^«"ta9e ac^ali to ffuer is „eed„ “ * frontage' "ore defray the cn * ^^®uter nunber or ^ extent "=•0 out by apiitJ^' ''>* larget " lota and baring Oetween th^l fOio caae, being l,a, th‘"^^ for thecal", “•« other pieo l«b-V “‘11 need to « Cypnet Piep., ‘ I'Vaot "that °haV^ “ "lace ea f at area win be loot a*** Project, jt ll ” f*eerlng tbe area needa aew. *''*' 'be next 5 “"“'Ipated >nt study and win b# eublect”'r^°‘'**'*- 9 topography aoiT^* **«P®ndent, not oni * a Waste V “ «• to'h” .""'""”"*'«.rt^'bi°:•'* baala. * *•“•' ptp, win w * *"• »• ®a run on an • • V5. Will there not be excess capacity in the line that someone else could use?The minimum diameter line that can be put in according to state requirements would be an 3 inch line? This obviously can serve more than the approximately 100 units in this area. Other areas could be hooked into this and utilize this capacity. Staff has discussed the possibility of having a portion of the cost of the excess capacity picked up by the City initially as a reserve charge, to eventually be funded by those who may use the pioe. To the extent that this is done, every $100,000 that the City would set aside as reserve charge would reduce the unit charge by approximately $1,000 per unit based on 100 units. It should be remembered however, that this area will be hooking into the line on Tonkawa Road (Co. Rd. 135) which has "reserve capacity" for this area and fcr future areas. (All the people along Tonkawa paid for their entire system and there is no anticipation that they would be rebated anything as a result of this improvement.) 6. If you are on a lar<ie lot ran you stay out of the sewer project? « It has been the City's policy to include all properties which are abutting a line. This is done because you now have an option for sanitary disposal that you previously did not have even if you choose not to exercise it. City policy has been that all properties abutting a line hook up in the study area and that they must hook up within 16 months and pay for the improvement. 7. Will zoning be changed to help us afford tbe improvement? In 1975 this area was zoned from the previous 1 acre to 2 acre zone '"'■cause there was not sewer in the area. This was also done .n other areas of the City that did not have sewer. Including the Crystal Bay area. That sewer was installed in 1985 and there has been no request by the residents nor any initiative by the City to rezone that area. (It should be noted that even if rezoned to 1 acre standards, the bulk of the lots in the Crystal Bay area would remain substandard.) Should a request for rezoning be considered, the City would have to amend its Comprehensive Plan. Also, to the extent A . •« J capacity in the line that so.eone • t « •. *• 'thete not be could use?e • can be put in according toBiniraum diameter me . obviouslyI requirements would be in this area..erve more than the “and utilize thisf areas could be hoo oossibility o£ having acity. Staff haa capacity picked up by theLon of the cost of the P eventually be fundedinltlaily aa a f“’/t;,e extent that thia lahose who may ^ ^ set aside as reserve, every $100,000 that the C / ^p^oximately $1^000ge would reduce should be rememberedunit based on 100 “"Vi be hooking into the line on "^*V?'Rd''!^rw'nich has -reserve capacity- for area and for future areas. \,Le is no cawa paid for Vbe rebated anything as a resultcipation that they would be rebateo ay his improvement.) .« «. . l.«. lot CCS you stay cut of th. a.«t been the City’s “ ‘"'^b«ause yru'’no» hare an ^V/rita^y"‘iispri\hat you Ptevi.^^^^^ not haue J you Choose not ‘““““ 'ne hiok un in the study area “ rh:nun:Vor:;rtr\s .onths and pay for th. emente ^in, be Chirped to help us afford th, l.proe««»t7 ,5 this «” fn *tli°a “rea". “ihla^as r :roVhVr \v.as :Vth.-r Jing the crystal by the residents nor any and there has been no q ,.u_t area (It should be .tic. by th. City to bh, bulk Of that even if rezoned remain substandard.) ots in the Crystal considered, the City would ,<j a request for . ^Iso, to the extent to amend its Comprehensive Plan. Ais , that individual properties were looking for additional hookups that would help decrease the overall unit charge but that property would then have to pay for more units.8. Will a new subdivision, such as the one being proposed eastof Leaf Street, be included in the project?It has not been the policy of the City to include any areas that do not absolutely need sewer. This area is developing to a 2 acre standard and preliminary indications are that it will have adequate conditions for on-site septic systems on each building site. Even if the City were to allow sewering of this area, the topography of the area would require significant design parameters that would not result in a substantial reduction in unit lateral cost for the Stubbs Bay project, inclusion of all those units in the project may reduce the trunk cost by about 20%. (100 units in Stubbs Bay 22, units in "Sussex") 9. (fby is the property on Oxford Road being left out? Again, this area was developed to the 2 acre standard and although it is lakeshore property which differentiates it from the property east of Leaf, it is not contemplated to e included as t.here should be adequate septic systems for this area. Based on general City policy we have not addressed this cuestion to the Council but we will address both this and th‘e question regarding the subdivision. The inclusion of the Oxford property would probably reduce t.he trunk cost by about 10%. (10 properties) 10. BOW soon conld a project be undertaken? The project progress is dependent on the level of the neighborhood. If substantial interest is generated this fall and hearings could be held this winter, plans could be drawn thl^ winter and construction begun in the opting. It is important to realize that the Council will probably no undertake this project unless a substantial majority o property owners are interested in undertaking this project to the point of agreeing to sign a waiver of appeal on project. This is a neighborhood problem, and the neighborhood should get together to decide how they want t solve it. (It was mentioned that the current prices are as ilvldu.l properties were lookingthat would help decrease the owerall amt charge but perty would then have to pay for more units.» subdlwlsion, such as the one being proposed east Street, be included in the project?ot been the policy o£ the City to not absolutely need sewer. This area is e p >cre standard and preliminary indications are that it .adequate conditions for on-slt. septic systems on Idlng site. Even if the City were to all^ sewering area, the topography of the area would requir desion parameters that would not result in a 'ial reduction in unit lateral cost for the Stubbs say inclusion ot all those units in the project y [he trunk cost by about 20%. (100 units in Stubbs Bay :s in "Sussex") ibe property on Oxford Hoad being left out? rhla area was developed to the 2 acre standard and h it IS lak.shore property which > property east of leaf, it is not j ts there should be adequate septic systems for this lased on general City policy w. have not estion to^the Council but we will address both this question regarding the subdivision. ord property would probably reduce the trunk cost y 0%. (10 properties) loald a project be undertaken? t progress is dependent on the level . ,or hood. If substantial interest is learings could be held this winter, plans could . winter and construction begun int to realize that the Council will probab y this project unless a substantial iwners are interested in undertaking th s It agreeing to sign a waiver of appeal on this This is a neighborhood problen. and th ood should get together to decide how ^5**^ (It was mentioned that the current prices ar I. much as 20% below the normal because of the low lake level, which influences the water table, this however could change within a year to two.)11. Mhen is the next meeting?It is anticipated that the next meeting will be within the next 2 to 3 months. In the meantime we suggest to you. if you have questions about your particular lot that you speak to Michael Gaffron as he has diagrammed each of the lots, and discuss not only set backs as diagrammed but also comments such as soil conditions and slopes. (Some owners indicated that they would like the meeting as soon a possible in order to get this underway.)12. Wbat Federal or State monies are available for this project?There used to be monies available in the '60*s and '70*s but with the change in the Federal program these monies are no longer available from the Federal level. The City looked at this for the Crystal Bay project and were not able to get any across-the-board grants. (We forgot to mention that the City was able to get funds individually for people through the C.D.B.G. program, but those are no longer available either.) Today we are not aware of P.C.A. or Lake Minnetonka Conservation District mandating hookups in order to preserve the lake. To the extent that other people around the lake have paid for the cost of hooking up their own sewer it is probably not expected that the L.M.C.D. would do a general assessment to help pay for the small area that is left. (Subsequent to the meeting Michael Gaffron has been in contact with P.C.A. to determine what, if any. grants might be available to help fund this project. P.C.A. has funds available for septic system rehabilitation grants, but only for cities whose overall Citywide average income is below the median. State median is $17,161. Orono ’s average income is $30,736. (all 1980 data), hence PCA has indicated Orono would not qualify.) len is the next aeeting?nesting will be within the ixt 2 to 3 months, in the meantime we suggest to you, ifMi«r particular lot that you speakMichael Gaffron as he has diagrammed each of the lots, andch“aVso?i ** diagrammed but also commentsch as soil conditions and slopes. (Some owners indicatedSt hey would like the meeting as soon a possible in ordL get this underway.)It Federal or state monies are available for this project?'hM!*****.^® monies available in the ’60 ’s and *70's but h the chanp in the Federal program these monies are longer available from the Federal level. The City looked this for the crystal Bay project and were not able to get across-the-board grants. (We forgot to mention that the Vn%? individually for people through C.D.B.G. program, but those are no longer available leriLll Minnetonkalervation District mandating hookups in order to preserve lake. TO the extent that other people around the lake paid for the cost of hooking up their own sewer it is >ably not expected that the L.M.C.D. would do a general issment to help pay for the small area that is left. sequent to the meeting Michael Gaffron has been in «hat, if any, grants might 7 project. P.c.A. has funds a e or septic system rehabilitation grants, but only 3ities whose overall Citywide average income is below the * Vmedian is $17,161. 0rono's”I7Trage »e s $30,736. (all 1980 data), hence PCA has indicated > would not qualify.) MIMPTBS op the ORONO council MEETING OP NOVEMBER 13, 19l ^TAX PORPEITBO PROPERTYPAIRVIEW COVENANT CHURCH . .city Administrator Bernhardson exp lamed ‘hat the P«f«‘y iust east of the Contel property has been- in a tax forfeit status since 1979. The City had released the property for publicsale. In 1987/1988 the City had aorooertv and variances were granted uO this pa^* / -building. Shortly after the variances weredecided not to go forward with the purchase. The Church has fJkid th^City to designate this parcel for park use only, hSiSver that may not be a course that the City can take at thist^e property in 1979 and did not have an interest xn thetheir decision.M- Fr»d Abrahamson, Chairman of the Fairview CovenantChu—‘'Vsaid that he had no knowledge that ® = Snc-Vac^ed on other prooerty. He said that he does not want the Church to lose the ability to use the tax for.eit property. It was moved by Acting Mayor Ca 11 ahan, thrcouncu. Motion, Ayes»4, Mays=0, Motion pass<Ki. ®’™“?iw’^AdS^5trator Barnhardson asked Assistant Planning and ionin? Administrator Gaffron if there were currently any problems with failing septic systems on Cygnet Place- Gaffron reolied that to the best of his knowledge there were over the last ten years due to past failures. .r.,,rd%”\re^lnc^uVili/ix"Ats^Sn%7'=iA=^^^ project. Councilsiember Goetten asked iIL*iiJved Vlfat ”the*need*to to sewer a^^id reason to sewer property ;o*n-eV 2“scr".1 A^n’/lVo* b^e 1‘.v,^ 'Jfanld tiretJ^^rt’^luJ^ b^ m" Plsn if the MDSA line were to be extended. Bernherdson replied that the Stubbs Bay area was identified within the Comprehensive Plan for potential sewer. 1 tee OBOHO COOBCII. HEBTniG OP 80VEMBEB X3. WD PROPBRTY B«nh,ra,on .plained that prc|.rty\fA =“T"hVkt^”h%'?el'.«.rth. property for public Y an° variances were g Granted, the party-rVU^ fo?r-h:ity to designate P . take at this,tp?/ crnty currant ly has f he property f or aa 1,^ f or >„d there is »Pf°*^.7”iL pir° c°Mission reviewed a^esscents and^ |rd’-„orhaye - -^^tlVeA" fhl Staffs recocmehdation at th*s ool.-.ioo '1ind%*r?nrbech°thilVreoon.n,ei;dation to Council for ion. ad Abrahamson, -'acreation aread that he had no <hOwled,a tha. .ne .e= =n Other property. He rax forfeit property.3se the ability to use the tax for.eit propet y , coved by Aotin, r%'“?rpar^ tr^e^^iew'o“f ?h%^ Ve,?e^st a”nV« report bach to . Motion, Ayes-4, Nays=0, Motion passed. ?H^a%«“o/ffrVn'lYtrre"wert curra«ly airp^bleSs g septic systems on Cygnet Place. n replied repfac^^^^ be^n ;ir:StoxYca'teYy^ha?rol/the properties in that area St ten years due to past failures. ■t • fht» various options available *hYtnolu*s?on?eYcluaion of certain areas in ................... Inenber Goetten ^lieved Yhat the need to ound the lakeshore. reason to sewer propertyad the lakeshore IS a valid reason to^^^^ e. Goetten also believed that Sussex would be am the study. if the MDSA line were;o amend the Comprehensive Plan ir ided. ,rd,on replied that the Stubb= B»y area was identified Comprehensive Plan for potential sewer. MZMUTES OF THE OROHO CODNCIL MEBTI1I6 OF HOV:;4^»;K4r 13. 1989STDBBS BAT SSHBR COHTZIinEOCounciImember Goetten indicated that should any rezoning be done, the City should rezone all of the 2-acre zoning areas which have recently been sewered.Goetten also questioned whether the Comprehensive Plan was due to be reviewed for 1990.Bernhardson replied that he would look into that matter further and report back.Planning Commission Representative Bellows did not believe it would be beneficial to rezone lakeshore property for the purpose of sewering lakeshore property.Bernhardson said that issue was brought forth by the lakeshore residents. CounciImember Peterson concurred with Bellows and Goetten that rezoning around the lake would be unwise. Peterson asked whether the Planning Commission would be invited to the upcoming meeting regarding Stubbs Bay sewer. CounciImember Goetten asked City Attorney Barrett if the City could legally ask residents to sign a waiver of appeal? Barrett replied that the City could proceed in such a manner. Acting Mayor Callahan believed that the next step for the City is to have another meeting and suggested bringing this matter back in December for consideration of a meeting date. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to bring this matter back for consideration at the December 11, 1989 Council meeting. Motion, Ayes«4, Nays»0, Motion passed. WEST RSniBPIN BOMAH SBBVICBS PLAIIHZHG BOARD RBSOUTIOH *2730 CounciImember Goetten asked whether support from the Citxes .would be indicated in the form of a letter to Hennepin County? Bernhardson said that there was a draft resolution included in the packets of information that, if adopted, would be sent to Hennepin County. CounciImember Goetten indicated that she would like to urge the Council to send a letter to the County in addition to a resolution. Bernhardson said that he could send both a letter and a copy of the resolution. It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by 8 13190. Dear L'lin As you are aware the City has been exploring the possibility of constructing municipal sewers in your area. Two informational meetings were held on this topic, one in the summer of *89 and the second one January 30, 1990. Based on the level of interest shown by the residents at those meetings, at the direction of the City Council, the intent of this letter is to provide you an opportunity to indicate your level of interest in this project, as an individual property owner. Enclosed you will find a document entitled "Petition for Improvement and Waiver of Special Assessments." Enclosed also is an estimated assessment dollar cunount for your p;-.>perty, with an annual and monthly range of costs based on that estimate. Not listed on that document are the following additional charges for which each individual property owner would be responsible: Private connection costs - This is the cost to you of hiring a private contractor to connect your house to the municipal sewer in the street. Sevec Availability Charge (SAC) - The Metro Waste Control Commission requires payment of the SAC charge with each new connection. This charge currently is $600.00 and is due and payable when you come in for a permit to hookup. Operational sewer costs - $51.15 per quarter. This charge is billed quarterly to every residence in Orono connected to sewer system, to cover the operational and capital replacement costs of the system. This charge has not been increased for the last four years. The City has worked diligently to develop the most cost effective sewer system. We are still open to considering the merits of alternative designs or layout based on individual homeowner or neighborhood suggestions. The actual cost of a sewer project to each property owner is a function of the overall construction and restoration costs, the method of distributing cost among the properties served, and the availability of outside funding. The City's consistent philosophy in virtually all past sewer projects has been that each project area pays the entire cost of its own sewer system, with no contribution from the general tax base. The present I ^ 113190.Ir0if0ctn(iauaro the citv has been exploring the possibility , you are ^^3 i„ your area. Two lnfot«atlooal;V:rr^"\:“ro?Uu}o^ Joe . .e «art.":7a ioJV^rr .‘ifutru/«?r:i«::"yo:r X«e\ o. Ut.rea. in eOi, project, individual property owner.Itloated assessment dollar Hot!d o^"^ha^"‘dVcLent"tr°e^h^to^lowin9 additional charges for ; each individual property owner would be responsible. rtn rrtshs - This is the cost to you of hiring r;:ratrrntrtorVo%o:nect .our house to the municipal sewer in the street. .ml, /car^ - The Metro Waste Control sewer Availability ^ "fc,,,. „itb each new rntVj" ^Tu rhar,rcC:re„tly U ..00.00 a„d is due and payable when you come in for a permit to hookup. 1. e«;i oer auarter. This charge is sewer system, to co This charge has not beenreplacement costs of the system. This charge increased for the last four years. The City has worked ^“‘^Ve"Vtil\Jtrn^"UVidring't“ :rtrrn:rire"'des7g:s or layout based on individual eowner or neighborhood suggestions. __ _ _- sewer project to each property owner is Ttiorofthe ovetall construction and restoration costs, the unction ot tne ovetoi* served, and the ;hod Of distributing cost th® p P . consistent .liability <>' °“‘%‘Vll pas sewer p^ole^Vs has been that Llosophy in virtually a 9 P fh rrtruu\f:n^^::: -‘ren^rVl ta« case. The present Council direction is that this area would also pay itaelf. City staff have investigated the availability of project funding froB other sources, and we believe we have exhaused all avenues with no success. However, if residents are aware of specific sources we would be happy to pursue those leads.M PETITION/APPEAL WAIVER PROCESSIf you are interested in having the sewer project go forward at the cost indicated, please sign the appeal waiver and petition enclosed and return as early as possible. If the project goes ahead, you will have the right to appeal only the amount in excess of the estimate on the form. If the project costs more than that figure, you will be requested to pay the higher amount. However, if the project costs less than the estimate, your cost will be sirailarily reduced.The City Council will proceed to the next step, ordering plans, specifications, and bidding, if at least 70% of the property owners agreed to sign the waiver. The cost of the "plans and specifications" step is approximately $20,000-$30,000. If there is not significant interest in the project going ahead, this step would likely not be undertaken. If you are not interested in the sewer system, it would be helpful, although not mandatory, if you would indicate that by returning the waiver unsigned and indicating that you are not interested. If you are in one of the two areas where a lateral at this time would be optional, but you agree to accept the trunk charge of $6,500, please indicate that by selecting that option on the appendix in your packet. If the project is bid, the City will then hold a public hearing for the special assessment and based on that hearing the Council will decide whether to adopt a special assessment. Note that the City could adopt a supplemental assessment should the project costs come in greater than the original assessment. If the special assessment is adopted, the City will then wait the legally required 30 day appeal period. Based on the extent of appeals, the City Council will then determine whether it is appropriate to order the project in SOME FINAL THOUGHTS :aff have investigated\\e \"vailabi itself, city' success. However, if resid^n»-« » «*naused all avenues with would b. happy to pursue those leVd,.**"*■■••'VTITION/APPEAL WAIVER PROCESSthe cos “t Tnditated?p'l^ease slgi,"^'''’* 9® «0'»atdtlosed and return as early as oostltr•ad, you will have the right "to aoo^^'i 90»»:es3 ot the estimate on the form If the”"^^-in that figure, vou will -If the project costs more-er, if the pro7ect costVre\“:T »"»“«•1 be Sijnilariiy reduced. estimate, your costThe City Council will proceed to th*.na, specifications, and bidding, 777 ’! “"‘L'perty owners agreed to sinn ►h ' l^ast 70% of thems and specifications- step is an ®°®t of the there is not significant interest 7n°7h?7'''' • step would likely not be undertaken. "oing ahead. If you are not interested in ?ful, although not mandatory, if you'^wLld^ind • irning the waiver unsigned and i nd indicate that by rested. icating that you are not ^would b^" VtioTa*! ^ lateral at this 6.500, please indi'cate thTt b^^ele^cUn^thidix in your packet. ^ ting that option on the Cf the project is bid, the Citv will t-Vi u ng for the special assessm^rn- ^ public lil will decide whether to adoot"a hearing the the City could adopt a suppleLntaT^ssi ‘Ct costs come in greater tharthe nr pecial assessment is adooted ri, assessment, if tly required 30 day appea^l ptriod^ '"h" ^ ^ Is, the City Council wili^i-h« d extent of priate to ord'er the"ro'e “ in it is le residents have indicated that they feel the installation eo3;.j of this project will not be reflected totally in the future sale price of their homes* this is typical of many types of home improvements, such as room additions or remodeling. However* as one of the residents indicated at the last meeting* the City sewer makes your home much more marketable. Additionally* there are some properties* and perhaps yours is one of them* that «fould have to revert to a holding tank system if your septic system fails. This would in the long run be more expensive than installation of city sewer.While the installation of city sewer represents a permanent solution to the problems experienced in the Stubbs Bay area* as is the case in other areas* the neighborhood is going to have to make the decision whether they want sewer or not.The City will make continued efforts to make the project more economically viable through design* and address individual considerations to protect property as much as possible. Should you have questions please feel to call Michael Gaffron* John Gerhardson or myself. Sincerely* Mark E. Bernhardson City Administrator MEB/dh Enclosures riNAL THOUGHTS Will‘“‘Ion tr*^j"“*“«lon Of oil,«>• City «... ‘ - noi.®°‘"» ‘» •>«. to'onically vlahf*'® ‘=°«tinued effort...;. t v„r;,;:~r • .1^:;inc.roiy, ““fton,ty Lf'.'"”"'*""=y AdministratorJ/dh losures ; . It.. .fMfevrPBTITIOa FOR SreCIAIiTO WUVB SPECIAL AS M 1fiMBMT APPEALIBIS AGBBKIlBaT, made this _ _ _ day of- - - -;—-—.* 1990,batween __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _' heirs,successors and assigns (hereinafter referred to as •Owners") and the City of Ocono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, it. ^employees, agents and assigns (hereinafter referred to as City ).1, Ovnarshio. Owner(s) state(s) that he/she/they is/are the fee owner(s) of real property located in the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, legally described in the attached Exhibit A which is made a part of this document (the "Property"). Owner(s) also state(s) that the following are liens and encur'jrances against theproperty: 2. Petition. Owner(s) hereby petition(s) the City of Orono to construct and install a sanitary sewer system (hereinafter referred to as "Improvement") within the Stubbs Bay area according to City standards. Owner(s) understand(s) that the entire cost of the Improvement shall be assessed against the Owner(s). 3. Improvement. The City, at its sole option, may cause, during 1990-1991, the construction of a sanitary sewer in the Stubbs Bay area, as referenced by a map attached hereto as Exhibit B, and made a part of this document. The general alignment and specif cations for the sewer pipe appear in "Specifications cor Stubbs Bay Sanitary Sewer Improvements for the City of Orono, Minnesota, Project No. _ _, 1990", and as they may be amended by the City of Orono (the "Improvement"). 4. Agggaamwnt. At any time after the amount of the expense to be Incurred for the Improvement, or one similar thereto, is determined by the City of Orono: a) The City may at the time it deems appropriate, assess, by special assessment, against the Property a principal amount not to exceed the amount set forth on Page 4 ("Estimated Special Assessment"). b) The Escimated Special Assessment may bear interest at the lawful rate and may be spread over a number of years as deemed necessary by tlie City. /tney i»'*5.'un<E Otono, • ,,5iqM he/»l'*;^^'‘oMno. «•■“’ • 3t.te(5> «•*. Ci« of °\ „.icO i hat th« __ -—-—— "ZZ----- q£ Oto*'° J «» .. OMO®'^*’.Jis*a »,y c»>»»®' its sol® ooV”.^®""" '*'* city. «oi«« ^f«t *®‘«r^iSoi® .?tr«.si otooo coa.fsuotl«n.»‘„ *ttsoO®^.”®»^„Uons *'°^no'l^® th« jmootit of^ jeto, i*I o.ono it® sftos ‘^•.lallat thet®l«® ' ,K. »««“”' tU®*® • ^t s«v ti-„t*“o‘ 0^.:^ :^^^'lty If 0'®“°- „ems fsop®tW * "" .0. ftl*cli*\ tTstUte® SP®cl®‘ S' - .. .ooclsl «s«rtfaa"j^« » "“■^* isaess» y jijount »® . special ^ Antaca*'^ ptinc’-P*4 /-estitn®’^®® ^ beat o£ Paqe s ^ ® As3®s»”s*“ti"o«t » years a® 4 c)The Estimated Special Assessment shall become against the Property as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429.a lienOwner(s) waive(s) any right to appeal from the Estimated Special Assessment, including but not limited to any procedural or substantive right pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429, or any other statutes, constitution, laws or judicial decisions of the State of Minnesota or United States.In the event the allocated cost for the Improvement exceeds the Estimated Special Assessment, the City may adopt a larger special assessment or supplemental special assessment. The Owner(s) may appeal only the amount in excess of the Estimated Special Assessment.If the City adopts a special assessment against the Property in excess of the Estimated Special Assessment, the City shall provide notice to the Owner(s) of Che proposed adoption of the excess assessment in accordance with the procedure set forth in Minnesota Statute, S 429.061 and the Owner(s): i)may appeal only Che amount in excess of the Estimated Special Assessment; and ii) reserve(s) the tight to appeal therefrom pursuant to the procedures set forth in Minnesota Statute, 5 429.081. Any appeal taken by the Owner(s) pursuant to paragraph £} hereof shall only be as to the amount of excess assessment and shall not include any appeal from the procedures followed by Che City which might otherwise have been required under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. 5. HQok-Up To Sawer. Upon future hook-up to the sewer pipe, Owner(s) shall pay those additional costs which are related thereto, including but not limited Co: construction of pipe from the house to Che sewer pipe, SAC charge, customary connection Charges and hook-up, and inspection fees. 6. Filina. A copy of this Agreement may be filed in the Owner(s)' chain-of-title and this Agreement shall be considered as a covenant running with the Owner(s)* property. -2- CITY OF ORONO:Its MayorIts City ClerkSTATE OF HINHESOTA AntWnWT.gnGEMENT; SS.COUNTY or HENNEPINOn this appeared day of _and 1990, before me _ _ _ _ _, to mepersonally Known as the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and that this Instrument was executed on behalf of said corporation. NOTARY PUBLIC OWNERS STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AOKNQWT.EnflEMEMT ) : .SS. On this appeared _ day of -- 1990, before me (marital status^_ _ _, who executed this document as their own free act and deed. ZNEH/3(1) NOTARY PUBLIC -3- CITY OF ORono:By Mayorstate of MinnesotaBOUNTY OF HENNEPIN AaaKJHtEQfiBjigjQ.)■)ss.On this r«d'^smSsSm notary public OWNERS: ^ OF Minnesota OF HENNEPIN 1 thisred —^Of _ _ "”®^^^NV~PUBLI^ '3- maiMgCLSPBCIAL ASSBS f1. Property Identification Number:Number of Dwelling "Unit” Assessment<s):Amount of Sewer Trunk Area Assessed:Acre4. Principal Amount of Estimated Special Assessment:ZNEH/3(4) -4- . .. M5«»»»*'"' leiUnfl •’"''TtunK “ „ses=««''‘--j^cte ) _4- 22290.3DATE:Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistrato February 22, 1990 »f vU?.'•• ••■i' !i1ts‘ %>SUBJECT: City Facilities Imaae DiscussionISSDE - This is to provide an opportunity for the architect to review with Coucil the type of image that the Council would like to see in a facility.INTRODUCTION - In order to determine an image for the building layout and site to see how it fits in the two locations under consideration ; is appropriate that the architect review the type of image City desires with its building.Jack Boarman will be out to present' photographs of various types of buildings to get a sense from the Council as to desired image. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council discuss the thoughts they have in regard to image and then direct the architect to work in developing the image sense for the sites. This together with a floor plan layout and site work will be presented at the March 10th joint Council/Planning Commission meeting. 5 5401Jack Boarman, 222 North 2nd Street, Minneapolis David Rroos, 222 North 2nd Street, Minneapolis 55401 22290.4 / y iiu<< . ‘ !\lbi TOt Mayor and City Council PWM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adminlstrato ^ i',: • •. DATS: February 22, 1990 SUBJECT: Highway 12 Corridor Study - Technical Committee Attachment: A. MnDOT Letter Dated 2/13/90 ISSUE - Selection of individuals to serve as a primary and alternate to the Technical Committee. INTRODUCTION - As noted in Attachment A the Corridor Study will be having a Technical Committee to assist in providing necessary information to the consultant and MnDOT regarding potential corridor's to both define and evaluate the various corridor alternatives. DISCUSSION - In a review of the situation it would be appropriate that the Technical Committee be composed of staff people and as such recommend that John Gerhardson be the primary person and that I would serve as the alternate. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Appoint. 2. Table. 3. Select other primary or alternate. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended, as noted above that John be the primary and I be the alternate for the Technical Committee. It is anticipated that for selected meetings other staff people such as Jeanne Mabusth and Mike Gaffron together with the consultant engineer may be required to be in attendance to assist Orono's representative for those meetings. This however will be gauged on a meeting by meeting basis. ; •« PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council nominate John Gerhardson to be its primary representative to the Technical Committee and that Mark Bernhardson be appointed as the alternate to that committee. Ayes _, Nays _. t®HttropoWaw OMrtct St Paul. Mlnnaiola 5519S Oakdale Office, 3485 Hadley Avenue North, Odcdale, Minnesota 55128 Golden VaUey Office, 2055 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, MlnnesoU 55422 Reply to Tdephone No. _____________ ntttdimjeiir /( FEB 2 0IS90 February 13, 1990 Honorable Jia Grabek Mayor of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 RE: S.P. 2713 Trunk Highway 12 Corridor Oevelopnent study Dear Mayor Grabek; The Minnesota Departnent of Transportation (MN/DOT) has begun a prellalnary study to evaluate potential corridor locations for T.H. 12 between Wayzata and Delano. The consulting engineering firm of Howard Needles Tannen & Bergendoff has been hired to assist us with this study which should last approxinately one year. This is the first step of what could becone a lengthy project development process which may have major impacts on the cities along this corridor. Community participation play an important and continuing role throughout the study. An ad-hoc committee representing these communities recently met with MN/DOT and recommended the formation of three advisory groups to provide input into the corridor development project. These groups will be known as; The Citizens Advisory Committee, The Corridor Policy Board, and The Technical Task Force. The precise roles and responsibilities of each group is still being defined but a general overview of their function is outlined below. The Citizens Advisory Committee will be comprised of two representatives from each community but will be somewhat informal and will allow participation by other citizens as well. This group will provide the perspective of area residents to the project development and will also serve as a liaison between the group and the community at-large. The Corridor Policy Board should have one primary and one alternate representative from each community. Members of this group should have a knowledge of their cities’ plans and policies and will be responsible for promoting the goals of their community. MINNESOTA W40 An Equal Opportunity Employer Honorable Jla Grabek February 13, 1990 Page 2 The Technical Task Force will have repreientativ-s £roa each city as well as from affected counties and other local and state agencies. Bach coaaunity should appoint one and one alternate nenber from their planning/engineering alternatives. MN/DOT requests that your city council appoint representatives to each of these advisory groups as promptly as possible. Initial Meeting dates have tentatively been set for the beginning of March. As part of the project development process MN/DOT is conducting a data inventory to collect all relevant information that you have. Please direct all Inquires relative to this project to MN/DOT’s preliminary design project manager, Mr. Steve Hay, at 593-8535. Thank you for your cooperation. Sii^rely, ^ T. Povlch M^lstant District Engineer I » 22090.1 i4 Jii. •f.vj FLL) 2 G *■» < . 4 *- I • < TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adainistrato FBOH: Dorothy Hallin, City Clark OATB: February 20, 1990 SUBJECT: Cigarette Sale Restrictions Attachaent: A. List of Cigarette Licenses B. Letter to Licensees Dated 1/26/90 ISSUE - Outline to Council alternatives to change the ordinance regulating the sale of cigarettes. 1NTRODUCTIOH - At the Council's January 22, 1990 meeting Council issued cigarette licenses for one quarter (February, March and April) only. Additionally Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance prohibiting the licensing of ciagrette vending machines. DISCUSSION - As a result of Council's desire to limit minor's access to purchase cigarettes Council could consider the following: A. Prohibit machine sales. B. Limit machine sales to: 1. Places where minors are prohibited. 2. Restrict machine location (in view of employee). 3. Machines that use tokens. 4. Machines that are only operational from a remote control location by an employee. C. Counter sales: 1. Limit to sales from behind the counter requiring sales person to hand out. 2. Eliminate all sales. ALTERNATIVES 1. Discuss desired direction. 2. Propose other alternatives. 3. Table. 4. Cease further consideration and direct renewal of licenses for balance of year. 5. Direct staff to draft ordinance language. 6. Send a letter to licensees requesting voluntary elimination of mach i n«>s. 22090.1City^ E Bernhardson. Cityi::; ...B. Letter to stives to chan.iternativps tou.;U». '/St'-' fEB23'«®r-*t.7V (•v-f O ~ [ prohibit nine sales to: prohibited. B- -be- of -P^»vee>. 2 Restrict machine 1° hlnes that use toKens. ^3. Machines operational 4. --n^cafion ^control locat sales per so. all sales.2. Eliminate an SATIVES , aeslred SCUSS o^a^ ♦■her alternativ ropos. ot llc.ns« tor „s. f»rtb.r consi r« to .raft or.i«an« ot Sena a letter - ■• -tfl IMayor and City CouncilMark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratorFollowing any discussion as to desired direction, direct staff to prepare ordinance language to incorporate desired direction and table discussion of it until 3/26. Tabling to 3/26 is advised to determine what if anything the legislature may do in this regard. Staff will inform the licensees of when the matter is to be considered.PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , direct staff toprepare ordinance language to incorporate de¥Tred direction and table discussion until the March 26, 1990 meeting. In addition staff is directed to notify licensees when Council will consider this matter. Ayes _, Nays _. inu /ILISTING OF CIGANBTTB LL\i ■>: Mayor and City CouncillOH: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator>1 lowing any discussion as to di^Vct^^^^^ andrepare ordinance Tabling to 3/26 is advised toible discussion of “"^“J^legislature^may do in this regard.of*«h.n «tt.r 1.1» b.cnsidered. rOPOSED motion - to" incorporate^deslred^di?ecti^^ andrepare ordinance language t^o incorporate ° addition ""= notff'y Tn" Council’-111 con.U.r his matter. Ayes Nays There are a total of 12 licensed establishments in the City.Licenses expire January 31 of each year. The fee is $5.00 per quarter .Licenses issued for machine sales are:Licensee1. Crystal Bay Services2. Jimmies Lounge3. Lakeview Golf of Orono (Feb-Oct) 4. Navarre Bowling Lanes 5. Washington Scientific 6. Wayzata Country club Licenses issued for over the counter are: 1. Keaveny’s Navarre Drug 2. Navarre Amoco 3. Navarre Liquors, Inc. 4. Orono Municipal Golf Course (Feb-Oct) 5. O'Sullivans Type of OperationGas station/Marine dockOn Sale liquor establishmentPublic golf course Bowling lanes Manufacturing plant Private country club Drug store Gas station Off Sale liquor store Public golf course Gas station/ Convenience store 6. Ricks Super Valu Grocery store CITY CITl flTT^CUMeTLjr Post Office Bok 66eCryelai Bay. aRONO On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka TO:1990 Cigarette License Holders FBON:City of Orono DATE: January 26, 1990 SUBJECT: 1990 License At the Council's January 22, 1990, meeting all cigarette licenses were approved for one quarter (90 days) only. This action was taken to give the Council time to review and possibly amend the current ordinance relating to the sale of cigarettes from vending machines in the City. A refund will be issued for the three quarters that were paid, but not approved. If you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to call. Bt ILUINC a ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISntATlON a USANCE - 473-73S* IA\-47341510 PI BLIC WORKS - 473-73SA * ■ r i i ■ ; <■ Action Alert Cigarette vending machine regulations under discussion The Legislature will bear a proposal to adopt state-wide regulatiODs on ciga rette vending machiiies. Senator James Metzes (DFL-Soutb St Paul) will proba bly be one of tbe biirs authors. Under tbe bill, sutc sututes would su persede any luic or ordinance of a local unit of government relating to regula tion of tbe locatioo of vending machine sales of tobacco. Tue biirs regulations are sunilar to the partial ban type of ordinances several communities have passed. The bill would allow vending machine sales of tobacco products: ♦ In a factor), business, office, or other place not open to the general public or minors (18 years of age); or • In an on-sale or off-sale liquor store or bar if the machine is under the close observation and control of a responsible employee . not in an outer waiting area or other unmonitored area, and if the ma chine is inaccessible after hours. Tbe hill would require that in non-factor> or bar locations, the machine must work only by an employee activating an electronic switch or by using a token. The bill will be up for a beanng shortly. It contrasts with a bill by Sen. Marty (DFL-Rosevilic) which would require local licensure of cigarette vending machines. JJ Minnesota community ordinances to restrict cigarette vending machines Total bans on cigarette vending machine sales-i4dnprfd White Bear Lake Chanhassen Kenyon Northfield Bloomington St. Louis Park St Cloud Partial reslrlcUotts on cigarette vending machine %M^-Adopied Big Lake Blaine New Brohton Preston Redwood Falls Shoreview Minneapolis St. Paul Duluth Other cities with ordinances under consideration Brooklyn Center Milaca West Si. Paul North St. Paul Brooklyn Park Owatonoa Golden Valley Austin Worthington What*s in the Census for Ms? om- prtK p.iid for answering !h« huJ II pavsofffor •*\ rr\ uTM- Thr iniorm«tiion vuur unttweri* provid*- hfip.*- vour community U*atirr> docidt* >^her€* to pul da\ tart* cfnltT?'. schiMils. hospitals, and mans more Herv'ices And the cfn«iu** IS u.sed to determine h<»w maro «eals vc»ur stale has in the I' S House of Kepreseniaiives so \our vtiice IS heard where it count.« the most Anaw^ a Centui It Counts for More Than You Think! CENSUS 9() February 16,1990 Primed on recycled paper page? ... jmim^ 5 • ytion Alert^.,-..vy-v,-.-.mding machine under discussionToposal to 00 ci^a* itor James AiUproba-would su- of a local to regula- g macbiDeilar to the es several bill would [)f tobacco or store or the close ^sponsible log area or if the ma- rs. The bill or>- or bar work only electronic ig shortly. D. Marty Id require vending Minnesota community ordinances to restrict cigarette vending machinesTotal baas oo cigarette veoding machiiie sales-Adop#edWhite Bear LakeCbanhassenKenyonNortbfield Bloomington St. Louis Park St. Cloud ^ or other I^rtial resUicUons on cigarette public or sending machine sales-i4do/ifed Big Lake Blaine New B^ghton Preston Redwood Falls Shoreview Minneapolis St. Paul Duluth Other cities with ordinances under consideration Brooklyn Center Milaca West St. Paul North St. Paul Brooklyn Park Owatonna Golden Valley Austin Worthington What’s in the Census for Me? # • No nnr pets paid for annwennp !ht crn.-ii^ but il pa vs ofT for <-vcT\nnt ‘ Tbf iniorniation your answers- prnude help*- your community leader!- decide where to pul dav care centers, schutils. hu.**pila)s. and many more »ervice.s And the census IS used to determine how man\ *ieals vour state has in the r S House of Kepre*<entaiives so your voice is heard where it counts the most Antw^ • Census. It Counts for More Then You Thinkf CENSUS 90 \\ 4i^ i 21490.4Mayor and City Council _Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adminiatratoj^'^ MUGFebruary 22, 1990 FED 2 6 1990SUBJECT: Request for Social Service Funding ' JTV f;■ n rji.;/-;Attachment:A. Westonka Community Action Memo Dated 1/31/90B. Wayzata Community Action Dated 2/8/90C. 1990 Orono Budget pg. 11/Human ServicesD. Response Letter to Interfaith OutreachINTRODUCTION - As you will note these two organizations have been seeking additional outside funding. One of the sources of this funding could be the Community Development Block Grant program.DISCUSSION - Staff has reviewed with Hennepin County whether either ot these organizations would qualify under the C.D.B.G. program. If they did this money could be allocated through that hearing process which begins in April. Both serve portions of the City, if funding were not available under C.D.B.G., the City could consider contributions to them. As noted in Attachitient C the City does currently contribute to other social service organizations through its regular budgeting program. Neither specified an amount. Both organizations serve people in Orono. The use of C.D.B.G. funds for analifyi-'g social services is limited to 15% of the City's total. It is anticipated that the City ’s Year XVI funds that become available will be $23,412. Fifteen percent would be $3,500. For the present Year XV the revised allocation was as follows: Housing Rehab Westonka Intervention $22,000 $ 1,000 Printed on recycled paper page? These requests raise the issue of the degree of funding the City places towards Human Services organizations. As Federal, State and County funding has been limited, these organizations have turned to local communities for funding. This trend is expected to continue. In addition requests from other organizations such as the Westonka School District for pool operations assistance have been received. A conscious review would be appropriate daring the budget cycle. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Indicate a desire to fund. 2. Indicate a potential source. 3. Take no action. 4. Choose not to participate 21490 i4,or ana cuy council ^ tOU.-iUH. Hit!-!Iltljbruary 22, 19S0 ,,oest «or social service runaln,A. westonka =“™“f‘’'AStion"Da ”a 2/»/M B CoitwR'i^ y ll/Huniftn S^^vicMl\ lUo orono B^set OutreachD. Response Lette uia be the comnuni y County uhether ^^o'ef/’Lht^^h Serins in hpril. e po'ti°"%f„‘'’o'ouir«nlia?r'*contr^^ (.B.G.* the City does ^'^*’'lt''^roaular budgeting neither specie 1 Orono. services is :^'xv “ iunaa that become XV the fSU”«a^^Vi’ollous = Housing Rehab westonka Intervention . the issue of the aegree “* state ^qu^sts rals^ \ces organisations. animations hav^ touaras Bultan - llmitea, these orga espectea een received. A cons the budget cycle. $22,000 $ 1,000 !>■ 5. Review as part of the budget cycle6. Table for further discussion.RECOMM^DATIOM- It is recommended that these two concerns be considered as part of the City's C.D.B.G. program during that hearing but that this not necessarily be a commitment to fund that in that manner, if it is not, the City can either choose to put it in its regular budget process to be considered in a framwork with other human service requests.PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that Councildirect staff to include in the C.D.B.G. budgeting program hearing but that this does not represent any commitment of that to those programs. Ayes _, Nays _. a desire to fund, a potential source- action. Ot to participate.Li r—" !• i ^r t'. - Weshnko Conm Action Network * KMIRCENCy ASSISTANCE * MEALS ON WHEELS * REFERRALS January 31, 1990 City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55333 rtTTENTION MAYOR JAMES R. ORASEK Dear Mayor Grabek; My name is Margaret Holste and I am one of the volunteers and current cnairDerson or westonKa Community Action Network i ueCAN). UeCAN, tormerly known as westonka Christian Services, nas been redesigned to be a human service faciIitator and emergency service provider. UeCAN is a non-profit charitable organization established to bring help to the citizens we serve during their time of need. ue are asking for financial support from the cities we serve and wouio like to receive Communii;/ Ceveiopmerit Slock C>ra t *“'unding. The City of Mound provided S4800 last /ear ana we are asking all cities in our service area for financiai aid. Please feel free to contact me at 472-0742 or 472-0321 if you have any questions. Sincerely. Margaret Holste UeCAN Chairperson CAA:lah SSOO LVNUOOD 9tU0.. MOUNO. MN MiityA I f\l JT O !D 1 f 1 E in </)(/> : m lo Q ) t\) ■ W, T> fl?c zo>^ R *d ^ -Q .2 > 5 o 6 o s s |§I |i & §€|f 5 o e2 5 ® S ^ ® ® s Iff 73 ^ S S § 2« -n C »1 8 <D *cii o w p« >1 S 3l?l Ifii2 2 tS ^ > CO 4) $ Q11 Si I a as §8 tt O)S o CL JO $ ei CO o g s • .12 , ^ «> 3;2 W Q 0 0)0. c. c. ^ iif = E o ^ 5-5 « w .2 2 « S 2.i « ® is OT CO ® ojIt JC C lO «► O -I -g o II? 2 ^ § 8 « ® j£ 2 S ” c «2 2 "o ^ 1 d> « flj ^ 9? (D ^ irts « ® s|l t| sO ^ JC O ±S JD ^ ^ Q.^ ° I 6 c o > « H ® 2 ^ 2 S tS 3 .$* c > 0 o u ® ^ o ll 75 9 at 5 2 ® 5Hilisnilio3 & 2 *: 2T ^ e 9>S l: • • S * o» ^ k- lissSS2SS£8B W to ^ I e C « Z 2 o «J o ® IS* V# Q ► <0s o« S CO — 1® ? ^ £ c S s is ® ^ o ^ ii "B 5 1.5 ^ ‘ rt ® "Q g211215I2ll illlis iil*«|iiJ « 2 w S s I O •- 0 ® ® w _ itiiill * ®I a °w ® ia 0 >,— 0 S. fl>Is si's 8“3 s I 9 g ^ § 8 s > 11till* II lip di o “ c ™ = C ^0 0 P > ® ^ c S ^ W O o o > ^ CD nj c -D XJ > > 2 « 3 S S list* 2 u I CO O 3 III 3 ^ is A |§l! 6550W # m o e s ^ s 8 9 s . |2 8 E S I 8i| S rt ^% 8- S *SI '3^0 Q p> co i^!•c a. ig i?l3 S n> o. o> |S| ® 5 = Util!I ih\m|il5|li > 2 ® IS * ■S® « 2-8itili « S 2> c ^5ll-*® Ss^ ro w ^ O* 6|8|1 III I H ft £§l«8ls IOAW€X>rr*% ^ «February 0, 1990 INTERFAITH OUTREACH & COMMUNITY BARTNERS"People Uniting to Help People""IMr. Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator P.O. Box 66Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mark; Thank you so much for your encouragement for pursuing funds for Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners programs from the Orono community. I would very much appreciate your forwarding to my attention information relative to the timetable for the funding proposals for the next budget year. We are so grateful for the role the local governments have played in extending human services to the local community and look forward to a continuing deepened partnership. Thanks again. Sincerely, LaDonna Hoy, Director INTERFAITH OUTREACH AND COMMUNTIY PART^ERS LH/Jc Enc. P.S. As you may know, we are in our new home...110 Grand Avenue S. in Wayzata and would love to have you come by to see our new place and to enthuse with us about future possibilities. IK) Grand Avenue South. Wavzulu. Minnesota 553V1-I872 473-24.36 3 < 91 I I < O UJ •-> QD O > OD UJ (/> (/) »-4 > 1-4 O o s >-4 ►- o (/I Ui o Ulv> s s u. u. >• < H- « 1-4 Ul 0 z UJ 01 a OI ^ •4 o 1-4muc/i Ui O u Ul *-> flOo o <o CM l/i o UJ 010-3 AUlO -«Oui •I < 011-3 OiUlU •4 < 0 • * O H- M 1 t O. O OlOt ••o. OlO. < w3 o»u -4< •J 1^3 O X mu • •4 M > o o ir»mo r^ m <0o o in o» o mo m o Ss Ulu »-4 > OS Ul (/> z Iz m m o (O CM o in o»o m ce r» O in O) o m o in o cn Ul O oe < Xu Ul X o I— « « V o CO CM o ino> O m CO O m o»o m o in o o ►4 cn > •4 o in I-# X 3i < <*- o Ini^CUT a o o c o o o^ o c o m 4j* vfi tH in iT> ^ <«T ^ o o o o o o^ m m o O m ^ ^ O iT> in ^ ^ ^ O vO CM O in O' o c M •H 0)tf) c 4J c (n C j: V 0)O' 0 u -H Cu 4-1 V4 X >0)0 c u 4J 0 0 c o Q)c tn •H (0 >cn 01 V)4-J suu<(0 3 N •r4 X w u u u *3 •H 0 Q)0)c <0 c c •H 0>X c u (0 3 c c -p4 0 E E 0^0 c X 3 E (n ‘-4 10 X 0 a*JQ UJ u <TJ U 0 C c 3 C kl c c V «0 0 0)3 3 X •H 4J X U)O' c tn 10 •V d)■•V 3 tn 3 3 3 </» Ulu > oc UJ (A >a 8 3 lu < K UJz Ul <9 tin V QRO P40 CITY< Post Offic* Bos tt^Cryslal Bsj, Ifiui • . • On th* North Short of Laht MinnHonkm February 23, 1990 LaDonna Hoy, Director Interfaith Outreach and Community Partners 110 Grand Avenue South Wayzata, MN 55391-1872 Re; City of Orono - Budget Cycles Dear LaDonna, Thank you for your letter of February 8, 1990. The City of Orono's annual budget cycle for the 1991 budget year will begin in June, 1990. It is requested that any funding proposal be submitted by 1 June. There is the possibility that your program may qualify for funding under the City's C.D.B.G. funds. Review of this begins with a public hearing scheduled for March 26, 1990. It Would be helpful that the amount and utilization for such be submitted to the City by March 16, 1990. Sincerely Mark E. BeFnhardson City Administrator M£B/dh buloim;.' zomm; - vy^3S"r %DMIMSTR.\nON 1 t - 47J.7JJi KX -47JJBI0 PI BUC - 473-T35S CITY<P0.t Offic Bo. 66«Cryo»*i B.jr On the North Shore of Lake MinoMtonkaMmm1990 ?««h°'.nd Co^unitv Partners orono - Budget cyules St^ed-to-til'ctV^Vrrcn U, ^0- ncetely#'X ^ ?'yOW X ^ Bel^hardso''Administrator SB/dh IV I73-1JS7 PVBUC WORKS TO:OATI:Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratolf February 22, 1990 ’ J >390i K''' fl 'SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan - Metropolitan Systems StatementsAttachment: A. Comprehensive Plan/Metropolitan Systems StatementMemo Dated 1/29/90ISSUE - Updating Council regarding progress to date regarding the for Comprehensive Plan Amendments in response to the Metropolitan Systems Statements.INTRODUCTION - As noted before, the City has has rec^^ived an extension from Metro Council, as have at least 28 other communities, to respond with any comprehensive plan amendments necessitated by the Metropolitan Systems Statement.DISCUSSION - The staff together with the consultantenglneer met Fo discuss the areas of need for changes. The general categories, if any changes are needed, are: A. Changes in response to the Metropolitan Systems Statement. B. Updating in the Comprehensive Plan to reflect what has transpired in the past 10 years since it was last updated. C. Changes that would reflect local direction that would have no impact on the Metropolitan Statements. D. Other policy changes that would effect Metropolitan Systems. As noted the two areas of the Systems Statement are in two areas. An initial review in each of these areas in addition to updating the data elements and the estimated forecasts from Metro Council. A. Sewer statement - Accurate reflection of the MUSA Line Additional designated areas where problems may be anticipated in the next 5—10 years Routing of the new interceptor serving Highway 12 Process for review of existing developed areas for potential sewering because of septic problems B. Transportation - Direction regarding private roads Any specifications or corridors for an improved grid system Deferral of any changes related to Highway 12 until a corridor has been selected Should there be other areas within these two that Council feels may be appropriate to consider, please contact staff. It is anticipated that initial work on these relatively minor changes could commence with the Planning Commission in the May/June timeframe. Prior to that submission to the Planning Commission, Council would be given copies of the Systems Statements, the current Comprehensive Plan sections and the proposed changes to determine if any other changes may be appropriate. If the review indicates a need for outside assistnace, it would be brought to Council prior to initiating any changes. The alternatives include either: a.) Replace the current elements with a redrafted element incorporating the changes. b.) Submission of an addendum to each element. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council accept the information and request staff bring back proposed changes during the April timeframe. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , Council accept the information and direct staTf to bring baclT~proposed changes in April. Ayes , Nays cc:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admin. John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Glenn Cook, City Engineer y i I ®* l»'anspo rtation - Direction regarding CO'-'-idor, for an l.pro»»d grid ni^"?d^r°'haVVMTlectVd “'^ to Highway 12 „„tu«ntrcV a?a “?f'“could commence with the these relativelytimeframe. Prior »-« #.k t Commission ®Jnor changesCouncil would be submission to the Plann< May/June current CoapJIh.MfyV ‘X' Syst,V,""*?f =°«»tMion, determine if anv sections and the o?ofi the indicates a nee<» changes may be aoDronr ichanges to Council pri« ?o ”»‘«nac?, ?t lojVd h.' include either. '"itiating any changes. ThV altVr°n “a\Vve° '■edraf ted“iU?^i“nS:rpti:hi-/-«^^*l»«nts With a AtTEHHayr!:! ^ »‘—t. 1. Accept the information. 2. Table for farther discussion. 3. Take no action. RE^MMENDATION - ir PROPOSED MOTION - Moved bv i;^u.-Vyrs - rc: A» Mdbus^h Rill 1/^4 JohS “S* OAfti-on, Ass^ llL*°"‘'’® ''■*»‘"istrator Cl^e ; Cc'-Aurdson Public wl?ks"?i ‘ Admin.Glenn cook, city Engineer “ Erector metropolitan council Hears Park Centre, 230 E. 5th Street, St. Paul, Miaaasoca 33101 612-291-6339 RESOLUTION NO. 90-2 RESOLUTION APPROVING REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO MEET REQUIREMENTS OF THE METROPOLITAN LAND PLANNING ACT WHEREAS, on April 10, 1989, the Metropolitan Council transmitted to all local governments in the region its annual statement of changes in the metropolitan system policy plans, including the policy plans for wastewater treatment and handling (sewers) and for transportation adopted in 1988, pursuant to Minn. Stat. Sec. A73.836; and WHEREAS, the 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act (Minn. Scat. <*73.356) stater that within nine months after receiving an amendment to a metrc,^ jlltan system plan, each affected local governmental unit shall review its comprehensive plan to determine if an amendment is necessary to ensure continued conformity with metropolitan system plans. If an amendment is necessary, the governmental unit shall prepare the amendment and submit it to the council for review; and WHEREAS, the law provides a procedure for granting extensions of the time for fulfilling these requirements; and WHEREAS, resolutions of the governing bodies of a number of local governments, with a description of the activities previously undertaken to meet the requirement, and the reasons necessitating and Justifying the request have been received by the Council; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has made a finding of exceptional circumstances or undue hardship as required by Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.869, that justify the requests; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Metropolitan Council hereby approves the following requests for extensions to the time for fulfilling the requirement to respond to the 1988 Metropolitan Systems Information Statements, with the condition that approval of an extension shall not exempt the community from submitting all information necessary to determine the potential Impact of any plan amendment or project on metropolitan systems plans. Whether or not an extension has been granted, if the Council determines that a local plan amendment or project submitted for review is inconsistent with the metropolitan system plans, it may not receive Council approval or favorable coiomenc. HETROPOLlTA 551°9 50 E. 5th Screec, Sc. k Centra, 250 t. ^^^291-6359rESOLUTIOH no . 90-210 19«5. M.cropoUt.n o£ ch.nj.. I-..r (Minn. Scat. *,73.356) rinlican Land Planning an amendmenc to a^ "r>»" ;'.r” i£ -ri:. pun po “opou “ - -/“rview its conlormity with metrop CO ensure -°”\'-;X,3sary. the X£ an submit it to the council .an„ £on ,unPU, .«.n-- »6 n.. £ ch. governing Af^cles previously "" °r„irh a aescriptinn o£ '‘'“/“treasons necessiraring luen w .ear £"» "/““a^be'en receivea by rhe Council. ,ci£ylng the request ha „„prional ‘•"“^1Tunrrh«al\p" « r‘e,“"raa ‘by Minn. Scar. Sec. ;r"ha% UacUy rh. re,uescs, E, BE IT RESOLVED, followl^B nolican Council ^®>^*^^/^^/°i£illlng the requirement:ha Metropolitan t„™acion Statements, l%VSe"^8rMetropolitan not exempt thrcondltlon onmunity ^ ^ impact of any P^»“ extension has been -ri-J-a-eVer^uSVab =-^%ri«e“sTor\evi« U ^ ,c £avorable it may not recea. Local GovenmentBelle PlalneMedinaOakdaleHastingsChaskaBlaineVadnais Heights LoreccoSaint BonafaciusJordanRobbinsdaleApple ValleyCerver CountyPrior LakeAnoka CountyFarmingtonLakelandFalcon HeightsUe^C Saint PaulGolden ValleyOronoAltonNorwoodCity of White Bear LakeVaconia Cottage Grove Roseville Woodbury White Bear Township Adopted this 25th day of January, 1990. 4vO-6 Months (July 10, 1990)6 Months (July 10, 1990)1 Year (January 10r 19'6 Months (July 10, 1? December 31, 1990 April 30, 1990 1 Year (January 10, 195. i 1 Year (January 10, 1991}June 1, 1990 July 10, 19909 months (September 10, 1990) January I, 19°,December !■ 15 90July 1, 1990December 1, 19901 Year (January 10, 1991)December 31, 199090 Days (April 10, 1990)8 months (September 10, 1990)October 31, 1990December 31, 1990January 1, 1991July 10, 199090 Days (April 10, 1990) 1 Year (January 10, 1991 1 Year (January 10, 1991) I Year (January 10, 1991) July 10, 19 J lineilghcsifeelusa*yxtylica*aul*7 s Beer Lake mshlp 5th day of January, 1990. ApOTmrm^i J***’. ^•^*°“«ry 10, 1991)I 10, 1990?6 Month. (July io f'cenber 31, 1990 April 30, 1990ear (January 10, 199D June 1, 1990 ^•^“ly 10, 1990December 1, 15^0 '^“ly 1, 1990 December 1, 1990D.c^ ■’»>fo Day. (April 10, 1990,‘”o>,„oJanuary i, 1991 Juiy 10, 1990 ”;.*!• 10. 19,0, 1 r“J >0. 1991)i|«ar (January 10, 1991, '^“ly 10, 19-j ^ Secretary John R, Gerhardson, Public Works Director Jaci< Brinkhaus, Street Foreman .'"i . ■ riltifL. ' • '/February 22, 1990Subject: Bid Award - Equipment & Materials Bids 1990The City of orono advertised for two successive weeks for street materials and equipment rental, with bid opening at 10:00 A.M, Friday, February 9, 1990.The enclosed tabulation contains a complete accounting of all bids received and the recommended low bidders and alternates.The accepted low bids for materials are determined by availability and location of materials. Traveling distance to a supplier is considered a cost factor when determining a low bid. When renting equipment with an operator, we are guided by the type, size of equipment, and an hourly rate. It is possible to award the low bid to more than one contractor when considering materials and equipment. In order to stimulate enthusiasm for the following years work, we make sure to divide the work accordingly among these low bidders. In the event the low bidder is not available, the City reserves the right to purchase from the next alternate. I recommend that the City Council accept the bids as presented for the calendar year 1990. To: Mayor Grabek t Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat Forwarded recommending approval. 11' * f tU’■ iilUJohn «. O«th.td»on, fobllc Works Director , , ,,jacK Brinkhaus, Street Foreman ,4 *February 22, 1990Bid Award - Equipnont a Matarials Bids 1990 ebruary 9, 1990.„.d tabal.tion contains a conpl.t..«c=o“«lb9^jf «1 ^Ived and the recommended low biooers anaepted low bids for ^ ®^,JJlinVdis ”an^ to a^^"^"s^dVr^iVa^U'tTaV^^^ when determining a low bid.ting equipment with an P^J^iy^pate? Vt* impossible to ze of *"one contractor when consideringe low bid to more th«n ^ enthusiasm for .8 and equipment, in order gVre to divide the work gly among these low bidders. vent the low bidder is not available, the City reserves t[l purchase from the next alternate. ,.nd that th. City Council acc.pt th. bids as pr.s.nt.d calendar year 1990. Mayor Grabek 6 Orono Council Members Mark E. Barnhardson, City AdnlnlstratV^' rwarded t.conM««ndinq approval. i February 27, 1990TO: ALL PARTICIPATING BIDDERSRE: 1990 STREET MATERIALS — EQUIPMENT RENTAL BIDSThe City of Orono Public works Department advertised for street materials and equipment rental bids for the year 1990.At 10:00 A.M. on Friday, February 9, 1990, all bids were publicly opened and read at the City Council Chambers.The enclosed tabulation contains a complete accounting of all bids received and the recommended low bid or bidders and alternates.The accepted low bidders for materials are determined by availability and location of materials. It is in the best interest of the City to consider mileage as a cost factor when low bidders are determined. In the event the successful low bidder is unable to perform, the City reserves the right to order from the alternate. When renting equipment with operator, the City is guided by the particular type and size of equipment, coupled with the hourly rate. For this reason, it is possible to award the low bid to three different contractors that own various sizes of the same type of ^*|® event the low bidder's equipment is not available when needed, the ci^y reserves the right to rent from the next alternate. The City of Orono approved and awarded the tabulation of bids as presented. We wish to thank all contractors for participating In bidding material and equipment for the 1990 season. Sincerely, Jack Brinkhaus, Public Works Supervisor JB/tln Enclosure WiW L»w A X ( •JlrTTiT »Q.liI<0 H [• -a>' PLANT 2341 AC TON DEL.PLACED PLANT 2341 MC TON DEL.PLACEDHm Mueller 6 Sons 15.50*19.10*24.10*22.50•26.10*31.10*Midwest Asphalt Corp.19.15(2)22.90(1)24.90 (] )Bury Carlson 25.17(2) NB Mueller ft Sons If *^0*20.10*25.10*23.50 27.10 32.10* * *Midwest Asphalt Corp.19.40U)23.15 (1 )25.25(1)Bur;; i:arlson 27.42(2)CcMmerclal Auphalt 19.70(2) All Steel Products 5.00*6.00*7.50(1)11.00*5.00*16.00A 33.00(1)69.00<1)H.V. Johnston 6.00(2)7.00'2)8.00(2)12.00(2)10.50(2)19.00(2)34.00(2)60.00(1)Contech 5.62<1)6.50(1)7.42*11.05(1)9.50(1)18.35(1)31.80*54.65* 7.50(1)11.00«5.00*16.00U 33.00U)60.00(1)8.00(2)12.00(2)10.50(2)19.00(2)34.00(2)60.00U)7.42*11.05<1)9.50(1)18.35(1)31.80*54.65• ”apron 18-apron 24-apron apron MITB48-apron44.00fl)55.00(1)44.00(1)57.00(2)16.80*5-AND 47.90*18-GANO001)8.00(1)00)9.00(2)CITY OP ORONO1990 BID TABULATIONS FOR STRBKT MATERIALS » EQUIPMENT RENTAL ALL QUANTITIES ARE BID IN TONS—EQUIPMENT IS BID PER BOURLT RATEPER HOUR CY RATE PER idim ^ CT RM18 SR.W/W'mm 4'^' :f;'i ' I f-M k'V >^B skxOF OROHO r voUlPHEMT KBKTKt*_truckPER HOUR CY RATE12 36.00*truck PER HOUR CY RATE F*R Cl----4iiiBS«ws-------------------»-_______________________ 14 42.00*==*«=====*-*='— ptv CKHOE BACKHOE ypPER HOURyY RRTE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _•r/2""48roo'"3/'4 60.00* _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __— - - - - - -- - - -3/4 75.00 (1) •Jh'-'-i Jm wm~ "s A '..‘■tA*, CITY OP OROHO _ _1990 BID TABUIAT10N8 FOR STRBBT MATBRIALS fc BQUIPHBHT RBRTAL ALL QUANTITIES ARB DID IN TONS—BQOlPMBNT IS BID PER HOURLY RATE3/4 TON PICKUP W/e PLOW PER HOURSchoening ExcavatingMBE Inc.WHEEL LOADER 34.00*40.00 (1)WHEEL LOADER :SS»1WHEEL LOADERPER HOUR CY RATE PER HOUR CY RATE PER HOUR CY RATESchoening Excavating 3 50.00*Volkenant fc Sons 2-3/4 60.00*MBS 5 75.00** DEMOTES LOW DID 1-ALTERNATE I : I ii Inreroffice Memo Date: February 13, 1990 To:Mark Bernhardson. City Administrator ^ ^ w* 0 i v' From: Mel Kilbo. Chief of Police • « i V fl Re:Longevity Step Increase Officer Bruce Anderson On 3/1/90. Officer Anderson will observe his 12th anniversary with the Department. Officer Anderson is eligible for a longevity step increase from $17,052 (1989 rate plus longevity) to $17,376 (1989 rate plus 7% longevity). I recommend this step increase. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato|^\J_^ Forwarded recommending approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by to approve the step increase for Officer Bruce Anderson from $17.052/houi to $17.376/hour (1989 contract) effective March 1, 1990. ^ _, Nays _. cc: Police Chief Finance Director Personnel File TOs PMNt 21490.2 Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato n M DATIs February 14, 1990 SlAJBCTs Joint Planning Commission/Council Meeting rLL;2GK^3J '■~iV r ' • < After reviewing the calendars with the Planning Conaission it is recoamended that the joint meeting be scheduled for: •i30 A.H., Saturday, March 10th City Council Chanbers Rolls, juice and coffee will be available for those interested. While some of the Planning Conaission members are on vacation at that time, it would be into April before more would be able to attend. PROPOS1P MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , that the Council establ h 8:30 a.a. Saturday, March 10, 1990 as the date for the joint C«. ncil/Planning Commission meeting. Ayes _, Nays _. \ I tiAtd To: Proa Dato: Subioct i;uu 'v'Jt’-' TLi: ,22190,2HD Hark B. Barnhardson, City Adniniatrator - ■' ‘ John R. Garhardson# Public Works Diractor Pabruary 21, 1990 Public Raarlng Data - Taar XVI Comaunity Davelopmant Block Grant - Harch 26, 1990 - 7:00 p.m. Por tha past fiftaan yaras, tha City of Orono has racaivad funds fro* HDD by way of tha Cor nunity Davalopaant Block Grant Program, Tha funds hava baan al^ocatad in tha past: Park Playground Davalopnant Handicap Accass at voting Pracinct Comprehansiva Planning Shada rraa Disaasa Program Sanitary Sawar Assassmants Rahabilitation of Privata Proparty Wastonka Intarvantion Ona of the raquiramants for receiving funds is to conduct a public hearing to receive citizen input. Por Year XVI tha City is to receive an estimated $23,412.00. ■acommandmtlon — To sat a public hearing on March 26, 1990^ 7:00 p.m. to receive citizen input f'^r allocating Community Development Block Grant funds for Year xvi. Proposed notion - Moved by , seconded by ___, to sat a public hearing on March 26, 1990, 7?5Tr p.m. to receive citizen input for allocating Commarity Development Block Grant funds for Year XVI, Ayes _, nays _ _. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato Forwarded reconmending setting March 26, 1990 as the date for the Year XV. public hearing. 22090.8 c>^ ^rT^Tui -.. . - erfV" ..t*f^'I FED 2 G i930Mayor and City Coonell IH«rk I. B.r.U...4»<>. eltf M.l»l.tr.t|if\ Pi. VFabruary 20* 1990 Ft Talaphona Syataa Installationr.*bix u s:‘“oA‘t“r:T«d«. xo», «r. t. h.« itonlno aora afflolantly.A# feha ataff. I would Ilka to slncataly J®' , on b«l»lt of th. «.« I ««M 1«» «» M** »®“ *•* Sleant tachnoloolaal laap. 9apartaant Haada rarl Maabf Daputy Clark f'iij '! iNTiramciBatat Fabruary 22, 1990Taa, City MalnlatratiFroai Hal Kllbo, Chla# e« FolleaHat Faralnalon to Hlra Fart-Tiaa Offlear FED 2 G i930 rtnv rti' >a>* Tn^fihY'" '•** •■•'•‘.t ' Tha Oapartaant conductad a pralininary oral of 7 applicanta on Fabruary 7, 1990 in ««hieh four paopla mmrm eheaan to go te -jn oral board on Fobruary 14, 1990. Ona of thaaa apDIXcants schadulad callad to say ha had accaptad a po*iition aith tha Plymouth Polica Oapartaant. "'-ara wara thraa applicants intarviawad by an oral board on Fabruary 14, 1990. Tha final intarviaw by tha city administrator and tha Chiaf of tha top tae candidatas mas conductad on 2/21/90. ha abpl*rant salactad is Parok Thoaaa Falkkl, 24 yaars old, of 812 8th Avanua NW, «4, drand Rapids, UN, SS744. Ha has a four yaar dagraa in Criminal Justica from Bamidji Stata. Ha attandad Skills coursa at Hibbing, HN, August to Saptaabar, 1989. Ha has parformad an intarnship Mith tha Baltraai County Shariffs offica. I raquast that mta start Hr. Pc'kki as a part-tima officar, iworking 20 hours a aeak at tha rata of 49.268 hourly t»ith an annual raviam, subjact to his passing a backround chack, psychological arid physical, which ara schadulad for Tuasday and Wadnasday, 2/27/90 and 2/28/90. Tha saeond applicant intarviawad, Tioethy Loo Sladofc, 22 yaars old from Champlin, HN, is tha Dapartmant altarnata choica if Hr. Palkki doas not pass tht? ''nsts schadulad. Hr. Sladak has a two yaar dagraa from Var'-t ion Community Colloga in Ely and took his skills at h ubing, August to Saptaabar, 1989. Ha workad his ’ntarnship with tha U.S. Forast Sarvica. Ha is an unsworn officar with tha Hinnaapolis Park Polica and workad for Sims Sacurity at Oanaral Hills Haadquartars. TOi Mayor and City Council * FROM: Nark E. Barnhardaon, City AdministraV^ Forwarded recossnendlng approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, the Orono Council authorizes the employment of Mr. Derek Palkki as a part time police officer at $9,285 effective as of March 1, 1990 dependent on successfully passing of the appropriate tast*?. Ayes_Nays _ _. Tot "*■* ‘"■nhtra.cn. CityChi„ „ . «"‘«--torPar., ®'**»H<r.* 04fict 22290.8 >V4** •' .f* ?f fOtfhtf 0*0.#.*. *c»rO'l F*bru«rv*7^ '^O'lduct.d .. "• Plymouth Poi-^ '’* '’•0 ,c^'■w' "•’•» thre. . '• *Mayor and r'-y council Mark B. Bern'iardaon* City Adoinistrato mint Febraury 22* 1990 SOBJBCTt 1950 Shoreline Drive - Agreement .uJJ, Vvi;-:"(••:■ or, ■■f".—Z7 f, -^ V Cl""auet'f;**"or., „«t~ on Ch.,4 tnrVoT’^^ c.ty‘’°"« °"_ ““ . . . . «r, .....Attached for your consideration is th and the property owner of 1950 Shore.aent between the City ^e.j'"equeat that»^»<lng 20 hoLir-*** start Mr, p,.. '“hoi o^c^^’^;^^-'P’^^h^ ^er “•'■"'’y-v, * ooc^nTcn '■■ *" ’• 4P0„n... ^iony PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by __, that Councilapprove the agreement between Tlie City and the property owner of 1950 Shoreline Drive, Ayes _* Nays _, M,'’** • ‘«o yttr'r'” '’”* 0.M’th’’°’'’''”^t®l,*f*’'' •‘ S«^v.cf\. ~»r.ia ““I* ,t ,. ■■"' Co„un,?!- "■“» «o«ouantV;f "°r,„ tn, ^■ _ _ _ *‘'^^yor and citv ry Council E 3 .ZC"' “’’ ‘“-...ItoED MOTION M ^ ®utho 'i» ^°ved by*.4^ ‘izes t-h^ - -seconded bv nt o. the orono Pj9 J L. 1- _ 1 autho- by ‘‘™e poifff 'he empi™' ff=°'ided by 'Pfbdent «r. De??,; p?fy?'°n° oy bb. ap^’^.-'-^b ,. 2 » • a L».«y POPHAM, Ha IK, SCHNOBRICH & K au FMAN, LtD.3300 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWERWAVNC O. ROPHAM PAVMONO A. HAIK POOCP W. SCHNOPPICH OCNVCP KAUFMANpoacnr a . minishPOUFC A. WOPOCN a. MAPC WHITCHCAO ■ PUCC O. WILLIS a POBCRTJOHNSON OAPy P. MACOMSCP POBCPT S. BUPK HUGH V. PLUNK err. Ill FPCOCPICK c. BPOWN TmQmk S K SCPO WAHLS 8 OPUCK JCFFPCY S. HALPCPN BPUCC O. MALKCPSON JAMES P. STCILCN JAMES B. LOCKHAPT ALLEN W. HINOEPAHEP CLIFFOPO M. OPEENE O. WILLIAM KAUFMAN PAUL H. TIET2 MICHAEL O. FPEEMAN HOWAPO SAM MYEPS, III LAPPY O. ESPEL JANIE S. MAfEPON THOMAS J. SAP0ETT JAMES A. PAYNE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402OAVIO A. JONES LEE E. SHEENY ALAIN FPECONLESLIE Gillette MICHAEL T. NILAN THOMAS M. SIPKINS POBEPT C. MOtUANEN THOMAS F. NELSON THOMAS J. PAOlO OAVIO L. HASH MALL KATHLEEN M. MARTIN JOHN C. CHILDS OOUGLAS P. SEATON THOMAS E. SANNEP PICHAPO a . KAPLAN BPUCE B. MePHEETEPS SCOTT E. PICHTEP PAUL J. LIN8TPOTH SCOTT A. SMITH BPIAN N. JOHNSONbpaoley a . fullep DONALD M. LEWIS KENNETH POSS*DAVID P. STPAND SCOTT K. goldsmith GIPAPO P. MILLEP ELIZABETH A. Thompson KEITH J. HALLELANO MAPK B. PETERSON TELEPNONE ei2 333->4800 TELECOPIER 1331 ei2-334-27l3 (321 8I2-334-278I (31) ei2*334*2503SUITE 2400ISOO seventeenth street DENVER. COLORADO 00202 TELEPHONE 303-BB3-I200 TELECOPittIP 3O3 S93-2I04SUITE 300 SOUTH IBOO M STREET, N. W.WASHINGTON. D. C. 20030 TELEPHONE 202-B2B-S300 TELECOPIER 202-B2B-83IBDIRECT DIAL NUMBER(612)334-2755 timothy W. KUCKBPUCE A. PETERSON RUTH A. MICKELSEN JANNA severance THOMAS C. MIELENHAUSEN MICHAEL D. CHRISTENSON J. MICHAEL SCHWARTZ JEFFREY P. CAIRNS ELLEN L. MAAS LEWIS J. POTMAN TODD M. JOHNSON LOUIS P. SMITH BPUCE H. LITTLE MARK F. PALMA RUSSELL S. PONESSA BRYAN L. CRAWFORD MATTHEW E. DAMON JOHN W PPOVO JILL I. FPIEDEPS PAUL B. JONES WILLIAM D. HITTLEP ELLEN SUE PARKER GREGORY G. BPOOKER BRIAN W. OHM GREGORY O. SCOTT POSANNE G. ZAIDENWEBEP CECILIA M. MICHEL ROBERT C. castle THERESE M. HANKEL JULIE FLEMING-WOLFE DEBORAH A. DYSON BENSON K. WHITNEY KATHRYN M. WALKER GEORGE J. SOCHA SHANE P. KELLEY MAPK F. TEN EYCK DUANE P. NOECKEP DEE ROWE GARY P. GENGEUn JOHN M. BAKER KAREN M HANSEN SUESAN PACE-SHAPlPO STEVEN M PHILLIPS LINDA S FR iEONEP ANDREW O. PARKER JOY M. WALOEPA PATRICIA A. O'LEARY KAREN P. COLEOF COUNSELFRED L. MORRISONJUDITH YOUNGER•AOM'rrCO eAi.l^O«N<* AMOINCLUDING THE FORMER LAW FIRM OF HALPERN & ORUCKFebruary 16, 1990 Mr. Mark Bernhardson City Administrator City of Orono P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: 1950 Shoreline Drive Our File No. 3643-103 T^FieiOWl FEB 2 0IS90 Dear Mark :: Please find enclosed the Agreement concerning 1950 Shoreline Drive, now executed by Mr. Toberman. Good newsi Please have the document appropriately executed and notarized on behalf of the City. Please return the executed original to me for recording. I am preparing a Stipulation of Dismissal to be filed upon my receipt of the signed document. If you have any questions, please let me know. Very—^uly yours. ison K. Whitney BKW/gaf Enclosure cc: Thomas J. Barrett lllZBKW fiLCfiEEMERT 1. Parties. This is an agreement by and between Smith's Bay Marina, Inc. (hereinafter "Smith's Bay") and the City of Orono, Minnesota (hereinafter the "City"). 2. Rec.i Lais.. a. Smith's Bay is the fee owner of the following legally described real property: Lots 22 and 23, "Ora Park" on Lake Minnetonka and tnat part of Lake Street lying between the ex’ienaions of tilt side line of said Lots 22 and 23 and between the front lines of said Lots and the Northwesterly line of the Right of Way of County Highway No. 7 being a line parallel to and 33 feet Nortwesterly from the center line of the existing pavement of said Highway, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); b. The property contains three structures, including a duplex and two cabins (hereinafter "duplex," "Cabin 1" (south edge of lot) and "Cabin 2" (west edge of lot), or collectively the "cabins"). c. At its meeting January 11, 1988, the City Council passed Resolution No. 2349 attached hereto as Exhibit A finding Cabin 1 a hazardous building and ordering its repcir or removal. d. At its meeting on January 11, 1988, the City Council passed Resolution No. 2350 (attached hereto as Exhibit B), finding Cabin 2 a hazardous building and ordering its repair or removal. e. In the above-referenced resolutions the City Council identified a range of hazardous conditions, including failure to hook up either cabin to available City sewer. f. The City served on Smith's Bay an Order to Raze and -remove Hazardous Building dated November 21, 1988 whj- ‘i 15 at*-ached as Exhibit C. g. Smith's Bay submitted an Answer to said Order dated De*. iinber 12, 1988, denying the hazardous conditions alleged by the City. . i and between s Bay") and the ty").of the followingn Lake Minnetonka lying between the of said Lets 22 lines of said ine of the Right 7 being a line hwesterly from the ?avement of said nnesota structures, einafter "duplex," in 2" (west edge 988, the City ached hereto as building and , 1988, the City tached hereto as s building and lutions the City s conditions, bin to available ay an Order to ed November 21, wer to said Order azardous 3. Agreement of the Parties. The City and Smith's Bay in mutual consideration hereby agree as follows:a. The City agrees to permit the cabins to remain, upon the conditions stated herein, until June 1, 1991 (hereinafter the "termination date"). Within two weeks of the termination date. Smith's Bay shall remove the cabins at its sole and complete expense. Removal shall include destruction of the cabins (including foundations), all appurtenant structures such as porches and landings, proper disconnection of all services and utilities, removal of all debris, and restoration of the cabin sites Lo a reasonable condition, including seeding or sodding.Smith's Bay shall have vacated all tenants and any personal property from the cabins by the termination date. Smith's Bay shall provide any necessary notice to tenants or other persons, and shall obtain all necessary permits and approvals, so that removal can be completed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. b. Should Smith's Bay not begin or complete removal vLthin two weeks of the termination date, the City is expressly authorized to enter upon the property without notice at any time to raze and remove the cabins. Removal in this case shall include the same elements described in the previous paragraph. Smith's Bay shall repay the City for any and all costs, including attorney's fees, incurred in removing the cabins, to be collected as an assessment against the property payable in a single year. Said assessment may be imposed without notice or hearing or other process and Smith's Bay expressly waives any right thereto. c. Within 15 days of the date of this Agreement, the City ihall initiate dismissal without prejudice of the current hazardous building proceeding against the cabins. The City shall move with due diligence to obtain said dismissal and remo’/al of the lis pendens attached to the property by the City pursuant to the aforementioned hazardous building proceeding. d. Smith's Bay will, within the next 30 days, make the following repairs to Cabin 1: i. Permanently fasten and connect back door landing to the structure. -2- r«W»lVTllTt] •1 V# «• lzi9 H m n»xctT»] •T^Howm riM*] 7 MARIHA' WV4.DATE:TO:FROM:February 20, 1990Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator Mel Kilbo, Chief of PoliceSUBJECT: Permission to employ part time CSO ri3 2C: ' -:jlowledqed before mer, f -*- *T*v £l ~r J H A*I MARINA, a Minnesota Lon.-•-t >r*lie / i A second person is needed to assist in the animal control function of our department. This second "CSO" works as a back up person when the primary CSO, Kevin Walsh, is off duty and not available.The department received calls totalino 123 hours that required either a recall of CSO Vlalsh or the "second" CSO. Our present "second" CSO, Troy Denneson's availibility, is now limited and the department needs a different alternate.I am requesting permission to hire David Dennis Nelson, 19 years old, living at 271 Greenhill Lane in Long Lake, Minnesota 55356, DOB/4/4/70.David has been a member of our Reserve Officer force since May of 1989 and has performed well. I would limit his employment to keep him below P.E.R.A. limits. I propose to pay him $5.10 an hour with no benefits and salary review in one year. Kevin worked 1199 hours in 1989. The total dollars of the two CSO's will be within the allotted budget. Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato: Forwarded recommending approval. the CouncilPROPOSED MOTION — Moved by _, seconded by ___ authorize the employment of David Dennis Nelson as the "back up" CSO at a rate of $5.10 per hour effective 1, March 1990. Ayes _, Nays 22290.7 TO: PROH: DATS: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk February 23, 1990 SUBJECT: Employment - Secretary ISSUE - Filling the secretary position. INTRODUCTION - The City received 50 applicants for the secretary position. After an initial separate review by Teri Naab and myself 17 were selected. These 17 applications were again reviewed independently by Teri and myself. From this group 7 candidates were selected for a personal interview and from these 2 or 3 would be selected for an interview with the City Administrator. DISCUSSION - After making the final selection 2 persons were interviewed by you. At the present time no final selection has been made and I would like to request that the Council authorize hiring a person to fill the secretary position and this item will be brought back to the 3/12/90 Council meeting for final approval. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, to authorize hiring a person to fill the secretary position and this item will be brought back to the March 12, 1990 Council meeting for final approval. Ayes _, Nays _. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate^ Forwarded recommending approval. /Mark E. Bernhardson, city Administrator Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk February 23, 1990 Employment - Secretarytiling the secretary position.~AftJ?*aS^ini?u/''sep|?at?'*ii''^^^ sec'-etary^ were selected. These 17 Teri Naab andindependently by Teri and^ly||iV°^From *9®^" were selected for a oersonai fj’/* group 75uld be selected for an ithese tor. ®" interview with the Cityid by you. At\"h^e present^time no°fpersons were and I would like to request that selection has irson to fill the secretarv Council authorize t back to the 3/12/90 Co^uncJrmeetlV ’, %or*"r„“i rson°to £Ul^*he'’Lctetacy°oosftl t' ““bborlje back to the March 12^ 19^90^ ciu^cTiAyes Nays _. Council meeting for final yor and city Council rk E. Bernhardson, City Administrat^ ^conunending approval # c?5Interoffice MemoFebruary 21, 1990To I Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator i't'j 2 G 1930■‘!Tv ft -From: Mel Kilbo, Chief of PoliceRetCSO VehiclAttached are memos from January 5, 1990, Kebruary 8, 9, andthe 20th, regarding the proposed purchase o+ a CSO vehicle. We have three quotes for your review.Auto Haus - Ira RosenJ906 Ford Bronco II - 60,000 miles1007. parts and labor for 30 days , :^7590He was first contacted 1/4/90 and has kept the vehicle for us pending Council action. Art Gobel Ford - Jim Boeiter 1905 Dodge Ramcharger - 78,375 miles AS IS condition - 318 V-0 AT i^7,598 1985 Ford Bronco II - 62,565 miles V-6 30 day/lOOO mile warranty drive train :^7,290 Shakopee Ford - Chris Killmer 1990 F'ord Bronco II XLT AT, AC, 6 cyl ;^14,900 w/rebate I suagesti we purchase the 1986 Ford Bronco II from Auto Haus for Ji/59u based on the model year and mileage. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate' Forward recommending approval as being within the $8,000 budgeted for this vehicle. It is anticipated that the vehicle will be used for a minimum of 3 years. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by _, to purchase a 1986 Ford Bronco II from Auto Haus for $7,590. It is anticipated that the vehicle will be used for a minimum of 3 years. Ayes _, Nays _. h ipr” intero-ff ics Memo Date:February 20,1990 To:Chie-f Kilbo From:'.t. Cheswick Re:1986 Bronco 11 I just received a call from ra Rosen o*f Auto Haus. He indicated he still has the 1996 Ford Bronco II that we have been interested in and the price is still ^7,590. I did explain to him that we were still awaiting Council acrion and would let him know as soon as possible. Intero-f-f ice Memo,ruary 20, 1990Kilbo. Cheswick B6 Bronco 11,c.lv.d d call Forreroncf "•still .waiting council -rouro n: scon as oossiOle.Interoffice MemoDateI February 9, 1990TotChief KilboFromi Lt. MoranResCSQ VehicleOn 2/9/90, I reference to aval 1able to i contacted of Hinneapol been holding ^ti11 in his the vehicle. Lt. Cho3wick contacted a number of car dealerships in anv four-wheel drive vehicles that may be use as a Community Service Officer's vehicle. Ira Rosen, 535-5707, a part owner of Auto Haus IB. This was in regard to a vehicle that he had tor us. Mr- Rosen stated that the vehicle is custody and would FAX over full information on This vehicle had previously been examined by and CSQ Walsh.in addition to that, I contacted Jim Boelter, salesman tor Hrt Goble and he had information on an '85 Ram Charger with 70,000 mil 33 on it. This was appraised at :f7,600 by him. Me also had an 05 Bronco II, automatic V—6 with 62,000 miles on it, priced at ^7,300, brown and tan in color. He would FAX the information to our office. I contacted Greala Midwest Leasing and determined that they no longer had two Ford Bronco's that they had previously stated they may have for sale. I also contacted Buffalo Ford and thev stated they had no four-wheel drive venicles available. I then contacted Don Lorenz at Bob Rvan Ford (546-5441). He stated that they haa two vehicles, one a 1985 Jeep Grand Wagoneer with 59,000 miles on it, white in color, automatic, V-8, valued at :f9,500, and a 1906 full sized Bronco, 68,000 miles on it, price sticker of 0,500. I: 1^ Intairof-fica liamo ,Dates February B, 1990 ' To*Mark Bernhardson From*Mel Kilbo, Chief 1 Re*CSO Vehicle In 1989, a request was budget, for permission in the Community Service Q-f-ficer to use in dinimal control. This vehicle would double as a police response vehicle to be used in adverse weather when impractical or unable to use a regular squad due to severe weather conditions. Budget was approved for this vehicle with the City Council. We have checked into numerous vehicles and have found a 1986 Ford Bronco II with 68,000 miles on it at the Auto Haus of Minneapolis, Inc., located at 7709 42nd Avenue North, New Hope. We have communicated with Mr. ira Rosen, 535-5707, part owner O"^ this car dealership, who advised us this is a leased vehicle taken in on another new leased vehicle. The Bronco has 100'/. for 30 days on parts and labor, and that he would make it available for us for ^7,590. Lt. Cheswick and CSC Walsh have made a visual inspection of the vehicle, noted it to be extreme clean and well cared for and the drive train, body, and tires were in excellent condition. We explained to Mr. Rosen the procedure that would have to be followed in a municipal purchase. He stated he would be interested enough in the sale to us to hold the vehicle until City Council permission to purchase was arranged. This is within our budget of ^8000 and the other equipment that would be needed to make it operational is also within our budget costs. I therefore request permission to purchase the above stated vehicle from the party so that we can get the unit in service in time for the spring animal control program. INTEROFFICE NENO Oatai January 5, 1990 Toi CM»4 Kilbe FroMi Lt. ChMMick [R»i CSO/Polie« Vahid* h In 1989, a raquaat Mas mad* by th* Orona Poiic* D*partm*nt to th* Orono City Council ior p*rmission to purchas* a v*hicl* that could b* us*d by th* Community Servic* 0^fic*r* in animal cont-^ol and doubl* as a poiic* r*spons* v*nicl* to b* us*d in adv*rs* M*ath*r 4or a standard squad whan it Mould b* impractical or non-4unctioning du* to s*v*r* *^**^^*^ c®^9itions. Budg*tary considarations ior this vahicl* Mas approvad by th* city council and purchas* ior this typ* oi v*hicl* Mculd b* alloMad in 1990. On Thursday, January 4, 1990, you askad that I bagin looking ♦or a vahicl* that Mould maat thasa raquiramants basad on th* monias that mw-* availabl*. Aftar numareus inquirias oi car daalarships and th* Star and Tribun* n*Mspap*r, 1 mss abl* to locat* a 1986 Ford Bronco II Mith 66,000 milas on it. This unit Mas locatad at Autohaus oi Ninnaapolis, Inc., locatad at 7709 42nd Avanu* North, n*m Hop*, UN. 1 communicatod Mith a gantlaman by th* nama o-f Ira Rosan, phona 535-5707, part OMnar of this car daalarship, who told ma that th* vahicl* is a laaaa vahicl* takan in from a !••••• o" anothar n*M laasad vahicl*, that th* Bronco is 100*/. Marranty -for 30 days on parts and labor, and that ha Mould maka it availabl* to us for 47,590.00. I, along Mith CSO Kavin Walsh, M*nt to th* location and mad* a visual inspaction of th* vahicl*. I notad it to ba axtramaly claar and m*11 carad for, that th* driva train, body, and tiras Mar* in axcallant condition. Aftar complating tha inspaction, I *.;plainad to Mr. Rosan th* procadura that Mould hava to ba folloMad. Ha said that ha Mould ba intarastad anough in tha sal* to us to hold th* vahicl* until finalization through city council for approving tha purchas* could ba mad*. I than contactad Stava of Straichar Guns and raquastad a prica braak-dOMn of naadad aquipmant for this vahicl*. Stava told m* that tha itarns that I needed, although not brand neM, ar* demo models of equipment that has beer kept in th* shOM room to shoM to prospectiv* purchasers. This equipment is itemized in the folloMing listl Fad*r «l Stra.»t HaMk visibar -4V1'5 * * **nc I > **.*0 111 p bar sprat or — 4 'b hUTOhrt'JS MFl:. MN W «■ w * * ^ «• ■' ■ • I ^ ! . 106059 mmcMMeomnSSr AUTOHAUS Off MINNEAPOUS, INC. kCASiNa * SAUS • NEW or UMO TIOMliW/VENUE NONTH (42NO WENUS ft WINNETK/^ MNNEAEOLIE. MINN. MOfT • PHONE; (fttft) CaMTO? SMooman; (MW«o) Zip: Mofflt Plwno: ■uyor aL. «. •w. Phono:fiuyor DOS:Oo-Suyor 000 Co^yor OL. #UfN MOIOOM Suyor'o Inouronoo Co.PWlcy «UH’!SiME > Dtmo □ wM tcHowt: Tsan# UR “1B1------------mOK --------------SaoaSouT •AEE PMd OP VEH CLE INCUJOINO PAeOHT 1 L ^ i VEHICLE PRICE — OOOEf MCrONV WfHAUEO OPTIONS 1 DEALER INSIM.LE0 OPTIONS 1 r ft' Ai'j ^A & ■sr iJetm t 7.1 aa J • 1 TOTAL RUACHASB PWCi ^ 1^ada*in of Oiacount (•!____ T0ML DUtASLE SALE i Soioo Tfta Uconoo POO ft Sap. OoM ( ) •TldaRiaa —Uon RoSMroilon Pit • #•Ooetimoni ASmM«raUon POO ■ . ■ 1 1 ft 1 1 OutfOrooM loo IhM oft poftiidon oonliol oquipnwm CUftlOMER iNmALS 1 SOS-1WM. 1 t 1 Ofi tha tpadMf aMola la imol and m oparaanQ 1 oondMon. X ---------:------------------Ooih Down Poymont MaM lladal_--------------------Oooh on Oftlivory ftortolNuM LM. Mo. nilo Numbar IMal Down Nymonl Exorao Pluo POyOh (♦» rviiM tety 1^anamlaak>n AMOUNT DUE ON OEUVnV i MiMpt Mm.MUtage o Mivtfy U#n HokSef Nam# U#n Koidar AddMft PNqf»Off Now I - ■_ ■ Eoi "^aio Ro»Con $ Etfimata ^y-OH dP Ookvary S _______Body I__________ I / - V __MOCB y - ^ » I ^ thiAwifinaa«li«IOi«OOIiniACTiOf»>W»wiht#fi!u«CONTRACTil»wiino»»'iPuWiM tn«0EAL€R wyi #101 foeoorMO ony vorboi owoomom. or tny olho' sgroomsftt or ur>aorttonOt<^ of ioy nWurt l co#t>fy no pwN fros Ooon wdomM lo w»# lor tho ourehoso c* fh^s matof V€HIC l£ obcooi os tpooort wning — ff»# itco of Ihit CQNTflACT . TUt iWfPIt ottNo COMTAACT mo ofrooO Mpoo snO Itlo CONTPACT olfifiM In ftilf MIWoMy on tno Pm. 4^^s' * • x .'A. I • - - - . :1J I ftV'''jr=)5 4 COON RAPIDS. MN 5S4U ~i (^/^A/0 ^oLs:c^ ^ ,Af‘TA/: CT K j^c Qo p/2 ^>/»i'. ^ JIM BORLTER ART OOnCL PORD -r’U i . . {DcD£~e- {/J •'»» ^ ^ /0<V ^ S/ Ive*' X, "V p c/ <*‘*^^ O . -V Lji^ yvr" ♦- t>..> ^ V / ^ '^~7 A<^ ^ "y^CjA/^^ f OoC /^, ^ 3^.ve , SraP«i ^ ^Tfe "7>«s-i»T .^'7/' UA ^rt'CCS /)Jks TUy.^ C,‘r^^st.'T'. r/t. , 'A . t oettii SORO eaplfal «f tM WORLD' ' H s: ii'- r i ’ r _22090.5 TOt Mayor and City Council ^ Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdninistratoV u;i». nriii ■ fc- *. iV V I J \J n:- OBTB: February 20, 1990 SDBJBCTt Administrator's Information ;,v i\: ' YARD WASTE SITES - You may have seen recently in the paper information regarding compost directions for Hennepin County. - - - - - - - J- - - - -- -W—Resolutions originally passed late last year and repassed by Hennepin County Board of Commissioners require that if a community did not designate a waste compost and transfer site by March 5, 1990, they would be required to handle their own waste The City of Orono feels that it has adequate land to do its own composting and it is very concerned that if it Identifies the site to the County that we would be required to take the composting of other communities who do not have the land and/or serve as a transfer site. The downside of the transfer site is if there is no place to transfer it it becomes the composting site. This is further emphasized by indicating at this time they would not develop a compost processing plant. It is anticipated that the City would generate several hundred cubic yards cf compost in a year (although this* Is a very rough estimate) a^d that current storage would be on Its sewer plant site. If che City would acquire a different site it would change compositing to that site. It is doubtful at this point, absent substantial economic incentatives, that other communities would be willing to take Orono's compost for storage. D.A.R.E. PROGRAM - See attachment. WELL REGULATIONS - Michael Gaffron and Tom Barrett have been considering a method by which well siting would be a zoning regulation. It is anticipated that the amendment will be brought forward to the Planning Commission in March and it can be considered by the Council as early as the second meeting in March. K-9 NAMING - The dog has been assigned and has the name of "Baron". As the dog is 2 1/2 years old it may become difficult to train him to a new name. n L ! DATE: TO: FROM: February 20, 1990 Chief Mel Kilbo Officer Cornick SUBJECT: D.A.R.E. To date we are half way through the D.A.R.E. Program. Lessons very well. The workbooks arrived on time, in excellent condition, and each 5th grader student has one. teachers were very skeptical of the program initially, and I was scrutinized and in some cases, criticized ” weeks 1 and 2. I also feel that I have changed their scepticism to optimism and acceptance. The teachers can see the enthusiasm of the students for this program. Some of their Ques tions relate to the real fears and ideas these kids have about drugs. I have attached a few of the questions that were asked of me. These questions should alert us to the need for a drug education program in the intermediate school. I w now preparing for the culmination of the D.A.R.E. Pro gram which should be scheduled for late in March. I hope to have a short ceremony and some guest speakers and student skits. i . 1 I i \Y '■r f . f. ? h: ■ < \r i The following are quotes, taken from notes written by 5th graders to Officer Cornick of the D.A.R.E. Program in the Orono School. "WHAT IF YOUR (sic) KNOW SOMEBODY WHO TAKES DRUGS BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO" "MY FRIEND THINKS HE HAS TO COMMIT SUICIDE IF HIS ALCHOLE (sic) ADDICTED BROTHER DIES WHICH IS VERY LIKELY. WHAT SHOULD I DO?" "WHY DON"T WE HAVE MORE DARE CLASSES? "CAN YOU DRINK BEER ONCE IN A WHILE?" "HOW DO YOU TELL YOUR BROTHER IT'S OKA (sic) TO SAY NO TO DRUGS IF HE NEVER LISTENS TO WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY?" "WHATS SO DANGEROUS ABOUT THE NEW DRUG ICE? "WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOUR FRIEND WAS DOING DRUGS?" "WHAT IF SOMEONE OFFERS YOU DRUGS AND SAYS IF YOU DON'T EAT THEM HE WILL SHOOT YOU?" "DARE: IS M.J. AND POT THE ONLY THING YOU ROLL UP IN PAPPER (sic) OR ARE THEIR (sic) CIGERETS (siC) THAT PEOPLE ROLL UP AIJD ARN'T (sic) SO BAD FOR YOU? - PLEASE ANS." I KNOW SOMONE (sic) WHO DRINKS, I'JHAT SHOULD I DO?" ‘ : n ! u CUu.'U;.’:. Mt'-^7 rr • o LIST OP LICCMSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR nerriMG of February 26. 1990 Cigarette License: Over the Counter - One quarter William W. Wear. Orono Shopping Center 2160 West Wayzata Blvd. CITY or OR. NO CRYSTAL DAY, MINNESOTA 5S323 ADMINISTHATIVn OFFICES Piione: 473-7358 APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL CIGARETTES AT RETAIL (Chapter 62, Orono Mtinicipal Code) / ■* J 19 1, Nano of Anolicant 2. Address t? ^ Sales Location: Nane cm ,RCHM-aimo cm roi m:. -------------------iM2/‘ 3. Address ^honc Principal business carried on at this location ■ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4, Method of Sales; '^^JndinR Machine_ _ _ Over Counter X" Other 4^ I hereby make application for license to sell ciRarettes at retail at the above location subject to the lai^s of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances <.‘f the Village of Orono fhirinR the following quarterly periods: Feb-Mar-Apr iWfJul/ LICENSE FEES Expiration date of license, Jan. 31, each year. Annual license fee is $20.00. Nherc applicable, as in the case of seasonal sales, this may be pro-ratC'^ by quarters, at $5.00 per quarter. Hake rcnittancc payable to : City of Orono Signature of annlleant Dated —^9^ For Office Use Action: 02/11/! CB PURI 90 P9 CB PPPEOOP NAME ANDERSON. BRUCE L BERNHARDSON. MARK E B06Z1EN. SUE A BOSMA. JAMIE L BRINKHAUS. JOHN F CHESWICK, GARY B CHRISTIANSON. SALLY CORNICK. JAMS L DENNISON^ TROY A ENGLISH in. IRVING ERICKSON. KURT R FISCHENICH. DAN T FRITZLER. JOHN M QAFFRON. MICHAEL P QERHARDSON. JOHN R GREGORY. JAMES D HALLIN. DOROTHY M HANSEN, STEVEN C HANSING. CAROL J JOHNSON. BRADLEY P KILBO. MELVIN H KNUTSON. CHARLOTTE A KUEHN. THOMAS M LARSON. JEFFREY L MABUSTH. TEANNE A MORAN^ MARK F MOROMZYNSKI, JAMES NAAB, THERESA L OBRIEN. RANDY L OMAN. LYLE E PALMER. PETER B QUAST. WAYNE A RATHBUN. BARRY J SASS. JOHN J SCHEf^FLER. LAURIE K SKREEN. DALE S STEFFENHAQEN. RONALD THOMTON. MARK R TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F TOMCZYK. MARK W VANG. BRUCE L WALSH, KEVIN L WALTERS. LINDA G YTO CURRENT DPT GROSS GROSS 31 6851.91 1837 35 12 8962.40 2115.60 31 3920.26 1042.83 12 2155 36 662.79 42 5415.13 1360.33 31 6119 73 1468.00 31 896.03 285.33 31 6660.85 2078 33 3S 81.60 30.60 31 8085.00 2563.42 31 6102.06 1364 16 31 5388 43 1347.92 31 6698.33 1500.87 33 5329.15 1338.71 42 7009.49 1760.80 42 5082 68 1379.55 12 4590.33 1153.12 42 4243 72 1087.48 31 2137.16 494.65 31 6164.32 1773.41 31 7819.84 1964 40 15 3669.64 921 84 15 7447.16 1870 88 31 800.07 900.07 33 6673.69 1676.48 31 5549.71 1537.87 31 7029.68 2246.60 12 3686.93 939.13 92 4225.19 1166 48 33 4874.36 1211 36 31 400.00 80.00 92 5720.04 1356 17 92 4211.38 1013 94 42 4165.63 1003 20 12 3302 79 829 69 42 4151.58 1124 01 93 4596.40 1154 65 31 5611.05 1465 79 31 6321.42 1835.12 31 5942.63 1632.73 33 4298.92 1079.92 35 811.26 198 31 15 3355.97 885 84 54.739.73 tsiti: ■!,,,■ f o 0 r* . ♦ VlliO CITY OF OFONO CHECK NO. DATE CHECK REGISTER0S7006OSTOOtOSTOOt0S700t057006057006057006057006 057006 057006 057006 057006 057006 057306 0570X4 057031 057036 057036 057036 057036 057056 057064 057065 057015 057015 057065 02/22/9002/22/9002/22/9002/22/5002/22/9002/22/9002/22/9002/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/50 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 AMOUNT 35212611621219113 13 56 13 13 230 340 1.019 2319 67 5020 19 62 03 02 50 02 02 25 50 94 • 45 51 45 51 • 6.86 6 66 • 75 00 27.00 14.25 116 25 • 358 31 358 31 • 79.98 79.98 • 26 46 28 46 * 146.28 146.28 • 5 85 6 93 106 60 119.38 • VENDORACRO-MINNESOTAACRO-MINNESOTAACRO-MINNESOTAACRO-MINNESOTAACRO-MINNESOTAACRO-MINNESOTAACRO-MINNESOTAACRO-MINNESOTA ACRO-MINNESOTA ACRO-MINNESOTA ACRO-MINNESOTA ACRO-MINNESOTA ACRO-MINNESOTA ACRO-MINNESOTA ALL STAR ELECTRIC AT A T COMM ANDERSON-BRUCE ANDERSON-BRUCE ANDERSON-BRUCE EARL F ANDERSON ASSC BEST BUY CO INC BLITZ ONE HR FOTO BLACKOWIAK A SONS BUDGET PRINTING BUDGET PRINTING BUDGET PRINTING ITEM DESCRIPTIONINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIES INC OFFICE SUPPLIES INC OFFICE SUPPLIES INC OFFICE SUPPLIESINCOFFICESUPPLIES INC DESK INC WALL RACK/CLAMPS REPLACE LAMPS TELEPHONE SIMINAR MILEAGE MILEAGE SIGNS ANSWERING MACHINE PROCESS FILM TRASH OFFICE SUPPLIES POSTAGE PRINTING 02-26-90 FAQEACCOUNT NO INV. 6 P.O 6 MESSAGE01-412001-412001-412001-412001-412001-412001-421001-4210 01-4210 01-4210 01-4210 01-4210 01-454001-4540 039-12059-14069-15129-31174-33249-42039-12059-14 069-15 129-31 174-33 249-42 129-31 249-42 01-4343-129-31 01-4320-175-34 01-4356-129-31 01-4381-129-31 01-4381-129-31 01-4233-249-42 01-4560-099-17 01-4210-129-31 01-4343-099-17 01-4210-129-31 01-4321-129-31 01-4322-129-31 •••-CKS -CKS -CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS t itto CITY or oroNO CI^CK NO. DATEOS7UOOS71U OS712S OS7I2I 057130 057130 057130 057150 057113 057130 057130 057133 057212 057212 057212 057230 AMOUNT CHECK REGISTERVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 02-26-C? PAGE 2 ACCOUNT NO. INV. i P.O i MESSAGE•••-CKS02/22/90 19 9S 19 95 •CHAPIN PUBLISHING AD-ROLLER 01-4322-243-4202/22/00 33 69 39 89 m CHESWICK/QARY MTQ 01-4382-129-31 02/22/90 15 00 CONCEPT MICROFILM MICROFILM 01-4306-039-1202/22/90 260.26 275 26 • CONCEPT MICROFILM MICROFILM 01-4306-174-33 02/22/90 67 15 COLONIAL LIFE INS CO FEB IND 01-4152-121-3102/22/00 .02 COLONIAL LIFE INS CO FEB IND 01-4152-126-3102/22/90 41.17 108 34 ft COLONIAL LIFE INS CO FEB IND 01-4152-129-31 02/22/90 36 80 36 80 ft CULLIQAN WATER SOFTNER 01-4343-099-17 02/22/90 241.60 241 60 ft DYNAMED MED SUPPLIES 01-4232-129-31 02/22/90 9 18 9 18 ft EARL W DAY A SONS PART 01-4232-249-42 02/22/90 91 28 ROLF E ERICKSON OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-053-14 02/22/90 29.00 120 28 ft ROLF E ERICKSON POSTAGE 01-4321-053-14 02/22/90 10 20 EXPRESS MESSENGER POSTAGE 01-4321-039-1202/22/90 10 20-EXPRESS MESSENGER POSTAGE 01-4321-063-1202/22/90 10.20 10 20 ft EXPRESS MESSENGER POSTAGE 01-4321-063-12 02/22/90 75 00 75 00 ft FISCHENICH/DAN BOOTS 01-4221-129-31 -CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS iMO curCHECK NO OF OKONO DATE AMOUNT CHECK REGISTERVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 02-29*90 RAQC 1 ACCOUNT NO. INV. i P 0 • MESSAGEMF299l»729i097299097299097269097279 097279 097279 097304 097230 097330 097306 097372 097372 097421 097421 09742’ 097421 097421 097421 097437 097437 097490 02/22/90 29 00 QOVERNMT TRAING SERV MORAN02/22/90 475 00 QOVERNMT TRAING SERV SEMINAR02/22/00 290 00 GOVERNMT TRAING SERV MORAN02/22/90 29.00-GOVERNMT TRAING SERV MORAN02/22/90 290.00 GOVERNMT TRAING SERV FRITZLER02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 1,055.00570.33 491.55 211.01 1.269 89 * 10 05 10.05 • 94.76 94.78 189 56 694.90 694.90 * 238.25 64.66 302 91 • 17 67 66.75 84 42 * 15.00 GROUP HEALTH INC GROUP HEALTH INC GROUP HEALTH INC DEPT PROPERTY TAX ICMA RETIREMNT TRUST ICMA RETIREMNT TRUST MAR INS MAR INS MAR INS POSTAGE JET QUICK JOHNS AUTO SUPPLY JOHNS AUTO SUPPLY ICMA 2/5-2/18 ICMA 1/22-2/4 PRINTING STARTER 4 HEAD LIGHT CITY OF LONG LAKE CITY OF LONG LAKE MINNESOTA GFOA JAN FLASHER JAN LIFT MEMBERSHIP 01-4356-129-31 01-4356-129-31 0i-7'~6-129-31 01-4 .-129-31 01 4ud6-129-3101-4151-126-31 01-4151-129-31 74-4151-590-93 01-4321-040-13 01-4140-039-12 01-4140-039-12 01-4322-129-31 01-4232-249-42 01-4341-129-31 •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS 390.00 LMCIT NO STAR RISK 1989 ENDORSEMENTS 01-1280-000-0049,412.00 LMCIT NO STAR RISK MUNICIPAL COVERAGAE 01-1280-000-00 29.258.00 LMCIT NO STAR RISK EXCESS LIABILITY 01-1280-000-00 33.00 LMCIT NO STAR RISK BOBCAT-89 01-43*3-249-42314 00 LMCIT NO STAR RISK GOLF CAARTS-89 74-4370-590-9328 00 LMCIT NO STAR RISK NEW GARAGE-INS 74-4371-590-93 -CKS 01-4325-249-42 73-4344-569-92 01-4360-069-15 •••-CKS 097407097447097467097467097467 02/22/9002/22/9002/22/9002/22/9002/22/90 219 20 109.60109.60 422.00320.60 1.161.00 •MED CTR HEALTH CARE MED CTR HEALTH CARE MED CTR HEALTH CARE MED CTR HEALTH CARE MED CTR HEALTH CARE MAR INS MAR INS MAR INS MAR INS MAR INS 01-4151-039-1201-4151-069-1501-4151-129-3101-4151-174-3301-4151-249-4209747402/22/90 10.715 3510.715 35 •METRO WASTE MARCH 73-1282-000-0009746602/22/90 140.00 140.00 •MPLS STAR & TRIBUNE AD 01-4322-039-1205746005746005746005746005746005746002/22/9002/22/9002/22/9002/22/9002/22/0002/22/90 671 38 74.99 670.22- 670 22 670.22 31.321.447.91 •MINNEGASCOMINNEGASCOMINNEGASCOMINNEGASCOMINNEGASCOMINNEGASCO UTILITIESUTILITIESUTILITIESUTILITIESUTILITIESUTILITIES 01-4324-099-1701-4324-129-3172-4324-549-9172-4324-549-9172- 4324-549-9173- 4324-589-9205750502/22/90 81 40 81.40 •MN FIRE & SAFETY REFILL EX:U 01-4342-129-31 057511 02/22/90 30.00 30.00 • MN POLICE CHIEFS ASN MEMBERSHIP 01-4380-129-31 057512 02/22/90 100 00 100 00 • MPELRA-BRYAN BROWN MEMBERSHIP 01-4380-129-31 OS7S32 02/22/00 35.00 35.00 • MOROWCZYNSKI/JAMES MILEAGE 01-4381-129-31 01-4381-039-12 •••-CKS• Aft -CKS•••-CKSAAA-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS litO CITY OF OtONO CHECK NO. DATE097S4IOS7S4I057S4IOS7S4IOS7S4I0$7S4IOS754I057441057544 057542 057547 057401 057413 057613 057413 057613 057613 057651 057675 057732 057732 057732 057732 CHECK REQISTE2AMOUNTVENDOR 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 02/22/90 988 81 • 112 32 4.231 3 4.378 57 00 00 00 57 PAUL SMITH 4 ASSCC PAUL SMITH 4 ASSOC PAUL SMITH 4 ASSOC PAUL SMITH 4 ASSOC ITEM DESCRIPTION 02-26-90 PAGEACCOUNT NO INV i P 0. • MESSAGE02/22/90 31 97 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC PARTS02/22/90 34 67 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC PARTS02/22/90 54 45 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC PARTS02/22/90 12 16 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC PARTS02/22/90 66 oe NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC PARTS02/22/90 14 01 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC PAHTS02/22/90 6 87 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC PARTS02/22/90 4 69 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC PARTS02/22/90 40 68 NAVARRE HARDWARE MISC PARTS265 56 • 02/22/90 177 47 N?P UTILITIES177 47 • 02/22/90 4 258 64 PUBLIC t'MPL RET ASSN PERA 2/15-4.258 b4 • 02/22/90 150 00 PANNELL KERR FORSTER 1989 AUDIT150 00 • 02/22/90 6.305 03 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR SQUAD 815602/22/90 3,559 25 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR SQUAD 915402/22/90 182 55 PERRYS TRUCK REP.MR MITCH02/22/90 352 10 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR repairs02/22/90 280 89 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR REPAIRS10.6/9 82 • 02/22/90 3 50 R C INDENTIFICATIONS ID3 50 • 02/22/90 888.41 ROLLINS OIL CO GASOLINE 01-423101-423201-423201-423201-434301-434372- 423473- 4232 73-4234 0^9-17129-31249-42290-61099-17293-61549-91569-92569-92 •••-CKS RISC SUPPLIES MANUAL FEB POSTAGE 73-4324-569-92 01-2031-000-00 01-4300-020-11 01-4232-129-31 01-4232-129-31 01-4232-249-42 01-4341-129-31 01-4341-249-42 01-4210-129-31 01-1260-000-00 01-4210-059-14 01-4240-059-14 01-4307-059-14 01-4321-059-14 -CKS ••*-CKS -CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS ft • •-CKS c1990 CITY or 090NO CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT CHECK REGISTERVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION0S774002/22/90 111.950S774002/22/90 10 00121 9505777402/22/90 35 2535 25 097779 02/22/90 254 73 254.73 057797 02/22/90 293 60 293 60 057744 02/22/90 310 65 310 65 057115 02/22/90 48 70 057415 02/22/90 29 62 05741S 02/22/9C 27 41 057415 02/22/90 22 42 057115 02/22/90 33 22 161 J7 057141 02/22/90 1,267 89 1,267 89 057401 02/22/90 45 00 45 00 057403 02/22/90 225 00 225 00 U57404 02/22/90 57 00 57 00 0574'02/22/90 310 95 310 95 05'«04 02/22/90 49 95 STREICHERSSTREICHERSTHOMTON/MARK TRACY OIL CO TURF SUPPLY CO UNIFORMS UNLIMITED US WEST COfWJN US WEST COPiKJN US WEST COMHUN US WEST COMMON US WEST COMMON WATER PRODUCTS CO A A T UPHOLSTERY CO MARTIN MCALLISTER MOUND MEDICAL CLINIC JACK NAOEL INC PRENTICE HALL PARTSREPAIRMILEAGE FUEL OIL FERTILIZER UNIFORM TELEPHONE TELEPHONE DATA PROC DATA PROC DATA PROC MISC PARTS REAIR TRUCK SEAT FRITZLER PHYCL LARSON PHSICL DARE MUGS/BOOKMARKS MANUAL 02-26-90 PAGE 6 ACCOUNT NO iNV • P 0 • MESSAGE01-4232-129-3101-4342-129-3101-4381-129-31 74-4324-590-93 74-4231-590-93 01-4221-129-31 01-4320-129-31 01-4320-249-42 01-4355-069-15 72- 4355-549-91 73- 4355-569-92 72-4345-549-91 01-4341-249-42 01-4306-129-31 01-4306-129-31 01-4210-129-31 01-4240-129-31 •••-CKS ft • i -CKS -CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS ft • ft CKS iiio CITY or oroMoCNCCK MO. DATE0S790709790105790909791002/22/9002/22/9002/22/9002/22/90 AMOUNT 49 95 •191 60 191 60 *125 00 125 00 •489 95 489 95 •210 00 210 00 •CHECK REGISTERINDORWHEELER LUMBER DUN & BRAOSTREET SOS PRINTING STATE Of MINNESOTA 110.663 63 FUND 01 TOTAL1,967 40 FUND 72 TOTAL11.069 48 FUND 73 total1 ,ii>:34 FUND 74 TOTAL 124.801 85 TOTAL ITEM DESCRIPTIONGUARD RAIL POSTSCLASSKt BOOKLETS TEST SCALE 02-26-90 PAGE 7 ACCOUNT NO INV IPO • MESSAGE01-4233-249>4201-4356-069-1501-4J22-129-3101-4306-129-31 GENERAL FUND WATER OPERATING FUND SEWER OPERATING FUND GOLF COURSE OPERATING FD •♦•-CKS (V f • •QEP4UNIS FINANCIAL SYSTEM 02/22/90 PAGE■y.‘W•V ACCOUNT IMG REPOtT USER 00 1990 CITY OF ORONONUH6ER OF REPORTS NUMBER OF UPDATES NUMBER OF RECORDS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 6 LEVEL 7 LEVEL 9 LEVEL 9 LEVEL 0 total 30914000 34 0 0 0 0 update descriptions 0SUMMARY FILE 0PAYROLL ABENEFIT ACCRUAL ACTIVITY REPORT 0CHECK REGISTER 3TRIAL BALANCE 0 BALANCE SHEET 0 REVENUE STATEMENT 0 OPERATING STATEMENT 0 BUDGET WORKSHEETS 0 CLEAR-CURR-MONTH 0 city FILE OPTION 0 PROJECT DEPARTMENT K CHART OF ACCOUNTS MO CHECK RECONCILE 0 YEAR TO DATE PERIOD 02 BUDGET RECORDS CREATED FINANCIAL REPORTSSCHEDULED RUN DATE 000000 REPORT DATE 000000ACTIVITY REPORTSSCHEDULED RUN DATE 022290 REPORT DATE 022690 PAYROLL POSTING DATES 000000 000000 000000 000000 report3RONO •EPORTS iPOATES RECORDS 30914000340000 1 oemunis financial systemUPDATE descriptions SU^WARY FILEpayrollbenefit accrual activity reportCHECK REGISTERtrial balance balance sheet revenue statementOPERATING STATEMENT BUDGET WORKSHEETS CLEAR-CURR-MONTH CITY FILE OPTION PROJECT DEPARTMENT CHART OF accounts ^ CHECK RECONCILE TEAR TO DATE PERIOD budget records created C2/22/90financial reportsSCHEDULED RUN DATE report date Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission 443 OAK STREET • EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 • (6121474 5539 DATE: TO: FROM: RE: February 12, 1990 LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMISSION MEMBERS rtC 5 i Jennifer Natta, Adeiniatrator MEETING MATERIALS Encloaed are the eateriala for our full Commiaalon Meeting and •yaten evaluation acheduled for Tueaday, February 20, 1990 at 5 p.M. at the Tonka Bay City Council Chaebera located at 4901 Manltou Road. Tonka Bay. Aa it atanda today, ee will be taping thia meeting and the evaluation for playback on Channel 20 Saturday. February 24 at 9 a.n. and Monday, February 26 at B p.n. There are numeroua notea to aome of the itema encloaed and with reapect to itema to be diacuaaed at the meeting. Pleaae bear with me, aa my intent la not to burden you with materiala but to allow you the opportunity to have as much information before you aa poaslble prior to the meeting and evaluation: 1. To begin, we did not have a quorum preaent at our January Executive Committee meeting and therefore still need to approve the minutea from our December meeting. (Pleaae refer to your packeta for January to find a copy of the December minutea.' I have encloaed a copy of the reports from our January meeting and Ji copy of the unapproved Just Claims. 2. We are hoping to arrange a tour to Waseca to visit the Triax Regional headquarters in March on the day normally reserved for our meeting. The date is March 20. with the coach departing at 5:00 p.m. (See enclosed flier for details.) I recently made the trip to see the operation, and I thought it was well worth the time. Please take a moment to look over the flier and return the bottom half by February 23. 3. Our first item of business in a request from Regional Cable Channel 6 for support in the amount of ten cents per subscriber, which roughly equals $560. ^In 1989, the LMCCC agreed to support Regional Channel 6 by contributing 8500,) We might con sider not only our budget and funds, but what RCC6 offers the metro-area cable viewers. Probably the most notable service is its role as conduit for the live telecasts of the Minnesota Senate, produced and coordinated by the Senate Media Services. Regional Channel 6 also has a new executive director, Peter Bradley, heading the organization. MEMO PAGE TWO 3. Back in Nov««b*r, tha Long-Ranga Planning Committaa aat to diacuaa tha diraction and goala for tha organlaation. Ona of tha taaka brought to this coaaittaa was tha davalopaant of a to davalop a atafflng propoaal along with tha paraonnal policy. In Dacaabar wa aat to raviaw drafts of both proposals. Copias of tha ravisad parsonnal policy and staffing proposal ara anclosad for your raviaw prior to the aaating. I d li*'* thank Toa Anderson. Jia Swartwood. Jia Olds. Lesley Hughas- Saamans and Tie Adaas for their help on this coamittae. 4. As soon as wa ara abla to conclude discussion and action on these itaas. wa will aova into the systaa evaluation. Wa will begin by explaining why wa ara conducting tha evaluation and what wa hope to accoaplish by doing so. I share with you tha evaluation questionnaire responses from Triax prior to the seating so you sight have ready any questions regarding responses noted on the fora. After the introduction, we will take coaaant# from staff and Cosaissioners. than Triax, than open the floor for coaaents from the public. Those issues we cannot resolve will bacoaa part of our seating agendas until a resolution can be reached. For your review. I have enclosed a copy of a'l tha coaplaints received into our office in lyay. along with latter* *ubalttad to us on behalf of subscriber* or coaplainants. And finally, a few articles on public access television and subscriber surveys. If you have any questions, please call me before the meeting to discuss your concerns. Again, if you are not able to attend the meeting, please let me know before Tuesday morning. I look forward to seeing you on the 20th. oE TWOBack In November, the Long-Range Planning Committee met to cuee the direction and goals for the organisation. One of brought to this committee waa the development of a ■onnel policy. In addition, we discussed the needs of our ••• fmcility, and as a result of that discussion 1 was asked levelop a staffing proposal along with the personnel policy. >ecember we net to review drafts of both proposals. Copies the revised personnel policy and staffing proposal are Losed for your review prior to the meeting. I'd like to >k Tom Anderson, Jim Swartwood, Jim Olds, Lesley Hughes- lans and Tim Adams for their help on this committee. As soon as we are able to conclude discussion and action on IS items, we will move into the system evaluation. Ve will .n by explaining why we are conducting the evaluation and ’ accomplish by doing so. I share with you the uation questionnaire responses from Triax prior to the ing so you might have ready any questions regarding the >onsms noted on the form. After the introduction, we will I comments from staff and Commissioners, then Triax, then the floor for comments from the public. Those issues we ot resolve will become part of our meeting agendas until a lution can be reached. For your review, I have enclosed a of all the complaints received into our office in 1989, g with letters submitted to us on behalf of subscribers or lainants. And finally, a few articles on public access vision and subscriber surveys. ou have any questions, please call me before the meeting to use your concerns. Again, if you are not able to attend the ing, please let me know before Tuesday morning. ok forward to seeing you on the 20th. LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONFULL COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 5:00 P.M.TONKA BAY CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4901 MANITOU ROAD, TONKA BAY I . II . III. IV. V. VI. VII . VIII. AGENDA Call to Order Approval of December minutes Reports! a) Officers b) Administrator c) Triax Request for Contribution --Regional Channel 6 Request for Approval - Long-Range Planning Committee a) Personnel Policy b) Staffing Proposal Unfinished Business; New Business LMCCC SYSTEM EVALUATION VIII , a) b) r > d) e) Introduction Comments from the Commission Comments from Triax Public Hearing Issues for upcoming meeting Adjournment I I II. 111 IV. HINUTES LAKE MINHETOHKA CABLE COMMUMICATIOHS COHMISSlOH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE LMCCC COMMUNITY TV STUDIO JANUARY 16. 1990 - 5:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER ChAlrnsn Anderson convened the meeting at 5:15 p.m. noting a lack of a quorum and asking for reports only. DIRECTORS PRESENT Tom Anderson, Chair Lesley Hughes-Seamans Peter Berzins OTHERS PRESENT Jennifer Watts. Administrator Chris Pepper, Triax Technical Evaluation Report Peter Berzins reported to the members his findings after reviewing the recent system testing performed by Triax Cablevision. His report compared similar testing done in 1986. test results and general picture quality. According Berzin, the numbers reflected in the results submitted looked good in comparison to FCC standards and 1906 test results. He said he particularly liked the use of a check sheet at each test site and the maintenance appeared to be thorough. General picture quality was good, also, said. Berzins said an independent verification of the report would validate these findings, but he recommended the Commission undertake a full technical audit of the system by an independenet engineering firm in least two years. He concluded his report by offering to go out into the field with the technicians the next time testing is done to maximize verification. Triax Report Chris Pepper presented the monthly report: Homes Passed Basic Subs Basic Percentage Total Pay Units Pay Percentage 11.770 5.637 (Gain 9) 47.09* 3,057 (Gain 6) 68.42* Admini.strator *3 Report Watts noted the NATOA survey had been sent out with only a few responses in at that time. Also, there had been no response to the MACTA conference opportunity reminder sent to Commissioners. Watts said she would contact newly appointed to give them the opportunity to attend. She said Anderson. Hughes-Seamans, Olds and Swartwood had expres.sed an interest in attending and she would make plans for them as indicated. V. Following this report, the meeting adjourned UfCCC JUST CLAIMS 12/20/69 to 1/16/90 CNSCE 8 OATS 10199 12/29 10200 12/29 2029 12/29 2030 12/29 2031 12/29 2032 12/29 2033 12/29 2034 12/29 2035 1/16 2036 1/16 2037 1/16 2038 1/16 2039 1/16 2040 1/16 2041 1/16 10201 1/16 10202 1/16 2042 1/16 PATA6LS Aoron Bloohort Jonnlfor Vatta Bank of Excalslor U.6. Hoot Wagoro PEBA Aaron Bloohort U.S. Pootoaotor Payehox Stato of HN Radio Shack Lako Buolnooo Supp PERA PERA Jonnlfor Uatta Aaron Bloohort Jonnlfor Hatto Potty Caoh AMOOHT/ ACCOUNT 153.14 762.66 696.76 51.61 45.00 97.99 12.00 50.00 24.40 15.90 31.75 67.67 104.52 9.00 100.68 229.38 007.57 73.21 Payroll Payroll Fod tax Talophono Off. oiipp PERA bonf Nlloago Pootago Soc'y Srv Mlflc. Off. Eqpt Off. oupp PERA bonf PERA lifo Ino/Mlg Payroll Payroll Various TOTAL CLAIMS 8 3333.44 BAMK EXCELSIOR Boginning Balanco Claloo Intoroot Sorvieo Chargo Dopooltat LMCIT Rofund EMDIMO BALANCE 816037.20 (3333.44) 56.14 (13.84) 952.00 813698.06 SCCU ACCOUNTS Balanco Sharo Acot Balanco Proforrod Monoy Harkot C. 0. (as of 1/16/90) EHDINO BALANCE 8 4191.36 7227.61 17.44 26000.00 837436.41 MCCC JUST CLAZH8 12/20/69 to 1/16/90HBCK t DATS PAYABLE AMOUNT/ ACCOUNT12/29 Aaron Blaohart a 153.14 Payroll12/29 Jannifar Hatta 762.66 Payroll12/29 Bank of Exeolalor 696.76 Fod. tax12/29 U.S. Waat 51.61 Teiophone12/29 Nagara 45.00 Off. aupp12/29 PERA 97.99 PERA bonf12/29 Aaron Bleohart 12.00 Hlioaga12/29 U.S. Poateaater 50.00 Poataga1/16 Payohax 24.40 Sae'y Srv 1/16 State of MN 15.90 Hlae. 1/16 Redio Sheok 31.75 Off. Eqpt 1/16 Lako Buslnesa Supp 67.67 Off. aupp 1/16 PERA 104.52 PERA benf 1/16 PERA 9.00 PERA life 1/16 Jennlfor Uatta 100.68 Ina/Hlg 1/16 Aeron Blochort 229.38 Payroll 1/16 Jonnlfor Watts 807.57 Payroll 1/16 Petty Cash 73.21 Varloua TOTAL CLAIMS •3333.44 IMK EXCELSIOR ■ginning Balanoo Lnlno ntoroot ■rvleo Chargo ■poaits t LHCIT Refund ERDinO BALANCE •16037.20 (3333.44) 56.14 (13.B4> •13690.06 2CU ACCOUMTS ■lanoo Share Aoot ■lanoe Preferred aney Market . D. (aa of 1/16/90) SNDXHO BALANCE • 4191.36 7227.61 17.44 26000.00 •37436.41 mtfc 0.1(5^1^0 2 0 1990pn v f}p -noriiijrj •Kudos to the Orono PoliceTo Iht tditor.Wc would like comincnd the Oroiv- Poli.c Dep-nmem for tnv assistance thev ga^e us in our cent ease of thef Cun tricUin asicu in a timcl> mann; • in n.|n- dlin^- our rcr*'n and ph-’fK' .alls ns answered our question' most prv>tesNH'»nall> and coanc(^^‘^ li's nice 10 knt'M ihji ihc same obicctivcs deUi'ed in ihe Mciro Area Police Force arc aloe and Mcll in our oun c^'mmu';^^^ lo^' Brian and Marnii PeUrvmMound The Laker Pabliihed «ver^- Mo^ey i^^nd^Mci Spring Founded Sept 3. 1974 Phone 472 1140 ........Bill Holm Rick Anderson associate PUBUSHER ................................. advertising manager ................... OFFICE MTu PRODUCTION.............KiUU Holir., Lome Ham r': DATE: TO: FROM: February 21, 1990 Mttnae pr r. 9 0 'jQ .jQ officer M. Tomczyk, CSO K. Kalsh, C. Hansing^“ Chief Kilbo rrrv nr SUBJECT: Letter of Appreciation - case 90-745 I wish to coBonent on your actions in the Tyann Kinney case. You were very caring and compassionate to the mother and her two young boy<S. Your actions made the situation very comfor table and easy for the boys to deal with, even using our teddy bears. You laid a foundation for action by Child Protection and the Environmental Health Department of Hennepin County. The ways in which you handled and dealt with this difficult incident are a credit to the entire department. ii *»^ ..». * IA View From the Board by warren Malkerson, Foundation board member Why should w® care at>out fresh water? I was recently asked this ques tion as a board member for the Freshwater Foundation. Although I could give several personal reasons, I lacked a scientific rationale to answer the question. So, I spent some time researching the topic and I'd like to share nny findings. Most of the world’s water resources are in the form of salt water. Approx imately 97 percent of our total water supply is found in oceans with a minuscule percentage found in inland saltwater seas and lakes. Less than 3 percent of all water Is freshwater. The following chart, supplied by the U.S. Geological Survey, lists the sources of our freshwater supply. (Keep in mind that the percentages given reflect each pjulicular source in rela tion to the total water supply—both salt and freshwater.) Freshwater source Percent of total Antarctic ice cap Groundwater, one-half mile from surface Deep-lying groundws^er Arctic ice cap d glaciers Freshwater lakes Water in the atmosphere Rivers (at average level.«^> 1.9000 .3100 .3100 .2100 .0090 .0010 .0001 2.7401 ... . • V H&a - -- -t- \ Water Use Irrigation —farm and horticultural crops Thermoelectric power —water used in production of oiBCtric power generated with fossil fuel, geothermal or nuclear energy Industrial —processing, washing, cooMng Domestic —drinking, cooking, washing clothes and dishes, flushing toilets, watering lawns, etc. Commercial —hotels, restaurants, office buHU ng.s Livestock-stock watering, feed lots, dairy ope i \ ns, fish farming Public use —parks, firefighting, street washin., -ic. Mining —extracting materials, petroleum, milling i.'Percent 40.5 38.7 8.3 7.1 2.1 1.2 1.2 .9 While the world’s total freshwater supply amounts to approximately 326 trillion gallons, water available for use is limited. Of the sources listed above, only surface water (from lakes, rivers and reservoirs) and groundwater are available to supply our daily needs. That total is a mere one-third of one percent (.033) of the world’s water supply. And. our "needs" are aston ishing—the average requirement for freshwater in the United States is esti mated to be 388 billion gallons per day. The chart shown above, supplied by the 1985 U.S. Geological Survey, illus trates our freshwater use. I believe the real eye opener here is the vast amount of freshwater used for irrigation of crops while our domestic use is so small. More than five times as much water is used every day to grow crops than is used by the 240 million people within the United States in and au ’ound their homes. It is my own prediction that we will have a "water crisis” in this nation dur ing this new decade that will more than rival the first “energy crisis" of the ear ly 70s. Water costs could more than tri ple in the next five years and within 10 years our water bills could look like our energy bills. This type of information is bound to attract attention. Obviously, as a sup porter of the Freshwater Found'«*'on. you are already vitally interested t topic. But how interested ar friends, family and business assoc .•■»? Show them this article and this news letter. Ask them to call the Freshwater Foundation at (612) 471-8407 to find out more about this important commodity. We all need to play a more personal part in protecting water. Ttt» photo totrmlott shows a portion ot tha con- tinani of AntantKa. Tha continant cov^ S.4 million squBfB miles and holds 90 percent of the earth's water supply locked in the Antarctic ice cap. A»but2 panant ot tha continant a co^r^ by an ica shaat that is threa to nvias thick. Jim Gilbert’s Freshwater Facts By weight, we humans are mostly water. An adult female is about 60 percent water and an adult male is approximately TO percent water. Alt of this water has many usea V*i iter makes food digestion possi- b.e and it carries hormones, nutrients and disease-fighting cells to and from body organs. Water makes it possible for wastes to leave our bodies through urine, fecea the skin and lunga All this can be accomplished with about three quarts of water per day. We don ’t need to drink all of the water required because we get water from other fluids and foods. We are water eaters as well as water drinkers. For example, a banana is 76 percent water. And, believe it or not. fried chicken and even pizza are about 50 percent water. ! ii: 1. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICTjyjj. j. |^q Follow up to Hennepin County Lake Improvement report of 1-22-90 to (A) Review and prioritize the 1990 Hennepin County Lake improvement projects. (B) Resolve appropriate buoy markings for channels experiencing low navigational vter. 2. Personal Watercraft draft ordinance, preparation on process, anticipated distribution by 2.23.90 3. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Report: 1. Report on meeting of 2-19-90 with charte* boat operators 2. Fish house clean up progre*'s. 3. Incident reports 4. Additional business recommended by the committee. / PLEASE CONFIRM TOOE ATTBMDAMCE I AT THE 2/28 BOARD HBBTlliG TO ASSURE A QUORUM 2-16-90 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Syftf* llllG1. Follow up to Hennepin County Lake Improvement report of 1 22 90 to(A) Review and prioritize the 1990 Hennepin County Lake improvement projects.(B) Resolve appropriate buoy markings for channels experiencing low navigational ''inter. 2. Personal Watercraft draft ordinance, preparation on process, anticipated distribution by 2.23.90 3. Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol Report: 1. Report on meeting of 2-19-90 with charte: boat operators. 2. Fish house clean up progre*’3. 3. Incident reports. 4. Additional business recommended by the committee.IK LAKE MINNETONKA1990 HENNEPIN COUNTY LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTSPROJECTBuoy and Sign MaintenancePrice Agreement ContractCoffee Channel Dredging - High volume of traffic, large boats, sewer line In channel to be abandoned May to July 1990. Center of channel 3’ deep with sides much less.Forest Lake Channel Dredging - 2.9* depth will prohibit safe passage by many boats. Problems Include access until Coffee Channel Is dredged (could be July) or long haul, If accessible v^a Cooks Bay (possible winter dredging). North Arm Channel Dredging - 2.5* depth, high volume of traffic, sewer line may prevent dredging until July. Noerenberg Channel Dredging - 3.0’ depth, critical only under and very near C.R. 51 bridge. Small estimated cost and large boat use. Tanager Lake Channel Dredging - 3’ depth is hazard for number of boats using this channel because of commercial docks. Maintenance of County public accesses, remove hazards such as logs, dock sections, fish houses, tree trimming In channel areas, etc. Special Fund Car removal from lake (winter months) Buoys Replacement Buoys EST. COST $41,00054,500 2,000 15,000 TOTAL $112,500 PLEASE COHFIRM TOUR ATTEBDAIICE AT T*** 2/28 BOARD MEETIHG TO ASSURE A QUORUM 2-16-90 Note - Depth of channels after dredging to be 3.8’ below 925.4 - today’s el. (DNR pollc - No dredging from April l through June 30 (DNR Fisheries pol’ •) LKMTKA 1/22/90 ri.. ;:l ?■■■■■. ^ ...fei.- .-r»s* Z^.-- ^Ui : 1^B iilmrn^ aa^'rv|?:« K j % -V V. rilv : p';\■ V' ■ :v- ■‘A- 9>. -X :■■/■.*:' 'a: m if ' ■> ^ Willi Crnmr^tmm^trnt «»«*tt fM ■ art ^ «f *• Kma uiv «Mi m,jm, m nSTm ^ to «• tofto* •# tto tmmtm «r niM^ «m»mSSf If^ - -r «r M filfai^ I iilii Um: r»s:r» tfl«etii« «1 4iVM» «4 ■II— 44 r 4».a tet I* tM *«M um «r H« Irtte. fOT ■Maw e«viBmu»» « tf» ra» 4iua nf I 10 tl« fllas af tto tann crmtmot ar. DOC. NO. WMM tU yti.liiPT •tt IMlHilill tIM IM. • uot at tmmit <rf »• 'MyMUO.. IToT*!SLJIL *5.^ «• »i n»«i.« ------ w a imaamm ^trm ».»J.-. -------------mLS tanmr ct mt* TnM a. kii* ia aa ^u« a t taaimiw <tt ^ ua ^S* 3'lSaT tmi .o lia —t turn ..f TIWA A wa UIM« UMWABtim. ,a., emaat Om MK tA t» acAarf aa (Oaam a> AAlXiM AirCA aa a> ^aM aa ni-------m am aalu far aalie tarn fammar rja ^kaa I. attiM aaaar mtt Oartea ». Maaaai. art aalai r. laaaaai. h-aaM SSSrSrSu. si aaaaaa. at «a.r laaia t.a --------- «r •* ;-- ■ —^.IL-gj SLy«Iir?a!rri"M~>a araaa^ a ct.fr uat I hat aatt aa ttt> am aa patr Jatri lW m m %%>flHi MtOOti taat UUa a<*4 ' < • -JOnr^ct OT rwy: 'JMt «t: .iivrarM w* corr«et;j^ «ft»n ta ra»t Mrf ■HpMwttlM r • f»m: *J»b ail •••«•«* ■•»• o#pr%.ti\ ni—ai t— *»«*< f ttMi: vrt t U1 •— taBMi —ar l«»— •—i—Ua —ai —— aaa ^r« w« — —( !— ta — —ai^t — — —U —a4. nwa A. —rviuiat ta«iatM — U— a —aar 'tUawa- Ua — .-. rvMV or ifltvni Tte f—a —taa <—*»>— OarUfi — —• 1« . t9 XtKmm S. —foaa — tAaa i “oSr 'S2Lr.rrrr.r=:iS ,r_____— cia-=--al'.r?^t“; nwtr Ki»a — «-«—f w — —»-• •• «— cur or t— ta aa crite^ X -r pan- -a «i«>0d nt— r TAX tm n«Jt i ^ M0 artar m— to— ' a — (PM tov ~. V ttiLi e. RMIA9. mtmtn oumr Jisra Aiwtr OTviauPa w—a —* CMRr. UM0»a i—MXFfM apwrr m—xsoi <jt rmm, i—piw ca —v. i— aamfr «Mt (— -tPui piaa of —laiaf xua —a fU— w —t —a —r aamfr — (— «tP oTfi^ — —r •f Mt cMuat. aomwi <v fma |S-' 'v ^ V ■ \' ' ' ' '■ ;S ry -i.: t ^ '*Sf' ■* COFFIN 8 GRONBERG, INC. Engineers, Land Surveyors and Pianner| Long Lake, Minnesota WMim m ■ ■' 1% Mr ih ^ ' : , ?• >•■■ • Ml ur SURVEY FOR: BLAKE BICHANICH .* • JM «0 ff*i \ sis.»^ tn LOT 4 X -r* , ta». rMi I I LOT 5 I I \ . f ML» s*i 0f<n SMI.** f Mi Y'rT LOT 6 / /«vrr> .’A'*-':' ■r '-ip %-- K FOX BEND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 4-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA SSL. Seoh Dole Dot in I inch >100 feel 3-6-89, N6V.D. 1929 Euting oonloi», —JOf- Einlmaiinialion am Tint part of lot 32. AUDITOS'S SU80IVISI0N NUMaER 230. OescrlOed as follous: Comnencing at Iht Northeast corner of Lot 3?. in Auditor's Subdivision Hu, 230. Hennepin County, Hinnesota; thence West on the North line of said Lot 32. 297 feet; thence South to a point in the South line of said Lot 32. 153 33 in said Audi tor’s Subdivision Number 230; thei feet West o' the Southwest corner of Lot tor’s Subdivision Number 230; thence Last along said South line to the Southwest corner of said Lot 33; thence North along the West line of said Lot 33 to the Northwest corner of said Lot 33; thence East along the North line of said Lot 33 to the Northeast corner of said Lot 33; thence North the Cast line of said Lot 32 to the point of beginning. Lot 25. Auditor's Subdivision Numb r 230 and that pert of Lot 32. Auditor's Subdivision Number 230. Hennepin County. Hinnesota described as folio nber 230, Hennepl Hinnesota described as follows: Coanenclng at a point on the North line of Lot 32, Auditor's Subdivision Number 230 Hennepin County. Minnesota. 297 feet west of the Northeast lid North line a distance ne of T Lot ber 23C Hennepin County line of said Lot 32. tnence North to the point of beginning. County corner thereof; thence West of 297 feet; thence South to a po said Lot 32, 450 feel West of the Southwest corner 33 In said Auditor’s Subdivision Number 230 Hinnesota; thence East on said South 297 part of Lot 32. said Norih thence corner said Lot to point corner of Lot Hennepin County, Hinnesota: thence North tc the point of beginning, except the South 251 feet of the Tast 200 fee^ thereof, the Southwest corner of Lot 32 being narked by Judicial landmark, Auditor’s Subdivision Number 230, Hennepin County. Hinnesota. acco on file or of record in the offl in and for said County. the Northeast r thereof; thence West on line to the Nuitr** ’.t corner of said Lot 32, thence Sout on the west lliu ot said Lot to the Southwest corner of Id Lot; thence East on the South line of said Lot to id South line 4S0 feet West of the Southwest 33.in said Auditor’s Subdivision Number 230. e plat thereof eg!ster of Deed' rveyor under the I hereby certify that this survey under my direct supervision, and Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor State of Hinnesota. COFFIN S GRONBERG. INC. Nark S. Gronberg MN. Uc.'No. 127SS a duly 1 laws of COFFIN a GRONBERG. INC. ENGINEERS, LONG LAKE, LAND SURVEYORS AND PLANNERS MINNESOTA