Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-12-1990 Council Packet
PUBLIC ATTENDANCE CITY OF ORONO PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FQ,R OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME OR NUMBER NAME (please print) ADDRESS PRESENT FOR .(from • agenda) 3 l ( f ( 6. 7 . .....,;..------"''--'-"'.;...,,,.;,.-___,.;,.-------+--.....-.---....... -------+--------------,- 8. 9. 10 . .,.; 11. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. .-19. 2:0. r •</.K 1/^7J ^./S'1 1^6 <^../■*r//-./r1^1 is~^------- iP ✓'f•'It' ^1 - f i .P.4- 0(/n r\^-1 ■pc //y j I'M i /ii I'o^i, P ./J'-t.A1 7^v -<.< i ?>[3^«-itX ^A- 1 >7 7c /f?v,^,;(,C P-/\ Lin4^^LjH\,cj>r\.^I yO^bo t \f,Ofi !S^ i±±-______I —4t—* k 7/^;^S^'•?Af 0:lJ^/)\’U,hr7h -f/‘7VV.7.ry;rf:)x.^^^] 1/77c^ih./ / > *'f7>';>>T«-7 ‘Zfj A'V" P"A"^l'^7’‘tir/a.'.vK ■2.ts /^^/j'n;'^'} / 4^‘ AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SBT FOR MONDAY, MARCH 12, 1990, 7:00 P.M. (*) Ast�risk .it�ms arP. co•nsid rP d to be cout1ne i .· ms. to b enac ted upo n by on e mo tion by t P Ci ty Council un d�r th� Co ns nt It m* on the ag nda. Di scussion w1 b h ld upo rE',quest. �mo s reg arding eac h of th Ag �nda items ar av ai l abl� 1n the Public Packet which may b@ obtai ned up on request from th RPcorder. ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEETING MAR 121991.CONSENT AGENDA* APPROVAL OP M'INUHS CITY OF ORONO * 2. Regular e@ting of February 26, 990 PARK Cc»IMISSION COMMENTS • Lit 1 Le = u · eb 11 D • ond -1 e wood k PUBLIC t�OMMBNTS -(Lilli t 5 Minute·s Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ••APPLICANTS•• Immedi.ately aft,e·r the Cou ncil has revlelll!d 3. 4. s. 6. 7. * 8 . . 9. 10. 11. *12.,*13. *14. your application please sign tbe three (3) origina l resoluti ons at the Recorder's desk. Applicants neerl not ezecute resolutions for subdivisions, v:.1cations and de·n1.als. 1457 Al an Carls on, 314 0 watP.ctown Ro ad Pr�li minar y Su bdiv is�on -Resolt.i:ion 11452 WaltPr PembP.4 ·"'•' 1720 Shadywo od Ro ad -Re elutio n11470 Da� & Ruth Farten, 4300 Baysi d -Road -Pr�l imin ary S•Jbdivis ion #1 4 68 GPocge Pi llsbu ry, 130 0 BrackPt ts Po in t Road -Resolutions 11483 Harold Vogt, 1342 R�s t Poin t Ciccl� � Conditional Use P�rm·t 1486 Suss�x Sq ua re o.vel o pment, 30 20 Fox Str@@t -Preliminary Subdivision -o�nial R solution 11488 John Rogers , 755 Tonkaw a Road 1490 K-P PropP-rties, 340/350 North Arm Lane -Pr:Pliminary Subdivision -Resolution 11489 F. John Hardin, 1496 Park Drive -Varianc� 11491 Jack RhodP-, 1690 Shadywood Road -Renewal Variance 14 94 Francis Ligh tly, 3585 Fred rick St re�t -Varianc� -R fPrral back to Pl anning Commis sion Joint Use Dock Licens�s -Resolutions CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 15 . Stubbs Bay Sewer Proj ct 16·. Cigar·@tte Vending Machines -OrdinancP AmAndm·�nt 17.Navarr· Master Plan Consid�ratlon 18.Engineer - �ervice Review19.water Conservation R�gula tions20.1990 Co mp os ting*21.Eurasian Milfoil Program -Ci ty Participa tion*22.Hazardous Bu ilding Acti on 24 05 Dunwoody Av nu P, 38 65 Shocel1n , 387S. ShorelinP.· and 3877 Sho rPl1n� DrivP -Resolutions *23.1989 Corporat� Repo rt *24.Po lice Vehicle Acquisiti on POH COONCIL MEETING SET POE MONDAY, MARCH 12. l„o, 7,00 P.M.asterisk items are considered to be crmHn^•i.enacted upon by one motion by the citv Counrii^*”^Consent Item* on the aaenr^a n-» Council under theequest. Memos regarding ’ pach o^f^i?! ^vailable in the Public Pai'ipo*- Ag»?nda items are■equest from thrRicorVer.obtained uponCOUNaiMEETINGSftR12I990CITYOFORONOCONSENT AGENDA*OF MINUTESRegularMeeting of February 26,1990fISSIONCOMMENTS-Bederwood ParkOTUSMTS-(Limit 5 Minutes Per Person)IMINISTSATOR'S REPORTilCANTS**Immediately after the Council has rcTrirw.i your application please sign the three (31 "solunons at the RecoriH's disi,Applicants neeo not ezecuh^v*oor-hi ■««.* subdivisions,vac,«ons ,nS“e„la?s!""‘“’"* ubdlvlsion-'^ResoTtVlon^^'*Watertown Road -Preliminary ■sVlStion°s'’*Pillsbury,1300 Bracketts Point Road - I48i3tHarold Voqt,1342 Rest Point Circle -Conditional Ose -'DeniaTTesoiuUon"’.488 John Rogers,755 Tonkawa Road ■bd^vlVlV-TeVolu\'lon‘°^”°’Preliminary 489 F,John Hardin.1496 Park nritpo fnt"?s\^?SSk ‘Slc%^Ss"e"‘"2 L“So"iS?L”n"s ISTRATOR'S REPORT ubbs Bay Sewer Project "=;bines - Ordinance Amendment /arre Master Plan Consideration jineer - Service Review ier Conservation Regulations >0 Composting rasian Milfoil Program - city Particioation loreline ^“3875"|horeV°" Dunwoody Avenue, 3865solutions Shoreline and 3877 Shoreline Drive - 9 Corporate Report ice Vehicle Acquisition ****A(XNDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, MARCH 12, 1990, 7:00 P.M.CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT Continued * 25. 1990 Wayzata Fire Contract26.Secretarial Employment27.Police Part Time Secreatry - Salary Review28.Public Works Supervisor29sa, Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting 30'. "Bid Award <^treet Sweeper 31.Administrator's InformationHighway >12 - Corridor StatusLOGORoadAdministrator's Vacation Goals and Objectives January Receipts & Disbursements Wire TransfersCITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (32*) BILLS (33*) ADJOURNMENT UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 03/ -Joint Council and Planning Commission Meeting 03/12 - Council Meeting 03/19 - Planning Commission 03/26 - Council Meeting ft COUNCIL B4BBTIHG SET FOR MONDAY, MARCH 12, 1990,STFATOR'S RBPOBT Continued 0 Wayzata Fire Contract -salary Ravi.w:U°M™cll/p!anninrco«lssion!AwaeO^<&teeet Sweeper.inlstrator'aLghway.d2-CorridorStatusDGOKatS&^jlwood Roaddministrator*sVacation“aSilrrtSl;«^roU.urse.a„tsiceTransfers EQ((Ey*S REPORT (32*) 3*) NT !gfngs AMD EVENTS nt council and Planning commission Meeting incil Meetinginvjix --.-a inning Commission incil Meeting COWMCIl MEETING 9-^MAR 12 1990MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING C(TY AT AAHELD FEBRUARY 26, 1990 * • Wr UifATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M.The Council met on the above date with the following memberspresent; Acting Mayor Callahan, CcunciImerabers Nettles, Goettenand Peterson. Mayor Grabek was absent. The followingrepresented the City staff: City Administrator Bernhardson,Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Public Works DirectorGerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron,City Attorney Barrett, City Engineer Cook and City RecorderScheffler.CONSENT AGENDA*CounciImember Peterson requested that item #25 be removed.Counci Imember Nettles asked to have item #24 removed, and CityAdministrator Bernhardson asked to have item #19 removed. It was moved by CounciImember Peterson, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to approve the Consent Agenda, with the exception of items #19, #24 and #25, which were removed and discussed in the order appearing on the agenda. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. APPPROVAL OP MINUTES* ^ ^ w It was moved by CounciImember Peterson, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to approve the Minutes of the February 12, 1990 Regular Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. PARK COMMISSION C NTS PARK DEDICATION FEES Phil Bradley, Dick Flint, Jim Gilbert and Alex Vongries were present. Mr. Bradley said that the Park Commission has been preparing the proposal for changing the Park Dedication fee for over a year. He pointed out that Orono currently has 13 parcels of park land in Orono ranging in size from l/5th of an acre to 12 acres. The proposed bike/hike trail is estimated to be 20 miles in length when fully developed and would connect with the Luce Line Trail, Baker Park, Hperenberg Park. It would also connect with the communities of Plymouth and Tonka Bay, etc. The present fee schedule that has been used since 1975 generated $186,000 f'^om 1975 to 1988. The expenditures from that fund for capital improvements, land acquisitions and a debt return amounted to $188,000. The current balance is $143,000 which represents interest accumulated on the funds. Mr. Bradley responded to the Council's request^ for future funding needs and projected spending. Bradley said that the ""S' I. Ih r>. MIMOTBS OF ORONO COUNCIL :ih;rriNG OF FEBRUARY 22, 1990 siiigTre tennis court is $17,000. Four or five pieces of playground equipment would cost approximately $7,000. He said that the present fee schedule is not generating anywhere near the money needed to do a decent job with the parks. Mr. Flint said that there is no need to raise money unless there is a purpose for the funds. He said that the Orono Park Program has been run on a "lick and a promise" in the past. He said there is not much of a park program in Orono and that most residents are not aware of the location of the parks. He said that due to the regional recreational sources and the open, undeveloped nature Orono had in the past, parks were not as important as they are becomming today. He said that the Park Commission feels it is important to lay the groundwork for the future. One way to do that will be to impose a realistic Park Fee for subdivisions while subdivisions are prevalent. Secondly, Mr. Flint suggested that a consultant be hired to work with the Council and Park Commission to prepare a Comprehensive Park Plan for Orono. He said that Plymouth prepared a Comprehensive Park Plan 10 years ago at a cost of $31,000. Mr. Flint reiterated that the cost of the bike/hike trail will be $620,000 if constructed with bituminous at a 6* width. CounciImember Nettles asked what the cost would be if gravel were used rather than blacktop. Mr. Flint said the cost would be cut approximately in half if ag-lime were used. He said that the Park Commission is going to try to minimize the cost of the trail by using other materials and piggy-backing on other road construction projects that may occur in Orono. He cited an example where the City is installing a shoulder along East Long Lake Road and the Park Commission is going to put in some ag-lime for a bike/hike trail in that area. Mr. Flint said that the Council had asked the Park Commission to show that there is a need for an increase in fees. Flint noted that the $620,000 needed for the bike/hike trail would be twice *-he amount of Park Commission revenues generated in the last 13 years.He said that placing 10 tennis courts at the school would cost $300,000. He said that the intent of increasing the Park Dedication Fee was to bring Orono more in conformance with other communities. He said that a survey of other communities indicated that Park Fees are 7% to 10% of the fair market value of the property being subdivided. The majority of the communities in the survey charged on the high side of that range. Mr. Flint said that there had been discussion regarding phasing the increase in gradually. He said that the majority of the Park Commission felt that the proper fee should be established and used immediately. The Park Commission anticipated that major development would be occurring now. Mtonmar OP FEBROAIW 221 1990F<?R0N0 COUNCIL MEETING OF FBlintsaidthatthemis that the Orono Park;3PS:irruroVa-Xi|\-n^^^^'ail "nft ”a«fre“o/t"hWlca|lon ^>i''/es"Vn/-thr olln-h B^rl^""t \“c 7av."iVrr"e^“’°i-i°%irk Moi^s ears ago at a cost of $31,000. ,.the bike/hike trail :;:ler .ttles^askea -hat the cost -onld he It praml I rather than blacktop.,half Flint said the =°a ‘"“°|hft*’thl“?aik'’cow»rsVlon^Is going *_tip c 1^Ko Park Cottun 1 ss 1 onhong lake Poaa and^^the ^ area. .pot in some ag-Ume for a h"eHirtrrg%foTo{;ne\g.^^^^^^^ ^.%h other communities. are 7% to 10% of the =-‘i“r:n?£«'7.SS“.ti»*r. ty of the communities ;that range..4«,,„ssion regarding -\-rla%‘e^ln-g\airalty^“^Hr««l hi Commission felt that the Commission ’thit""maTot%av ”“P"""‘ MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1990Mr. Flint said that the Park Commission took into account theconcerns raised by Council regarding the increase in the ParkDedication Fee, and is recommending the following;1, That the proposed ordinance that accompanied their Novemberreport be adopted as soon as possible.2.That the percentage utilized in that fee schedule be 8% ofthe fair market value of the land.3.That City Ordinance #1252 be amended as set forth on Exhibit"B" of the Park Commission Report to provide that Park DedicationFees can be utilized for trails or open space as well as publicparks, playgrounds and surface water holding areas.Acting Mayor Callahan asked what amount of fees the ParkCommission anticipates it will generate in 1990? Mr. Flint replied that it is difficult to estimate because the amount of development that will occur is unknown. Bernhardson noted that last year there were approximately 45 lots subdivided. CounciImember Nettles asked when construction of the trail system would begin? Mr. Flint replied that the planning process should be done first and could be done this year. The construction would not begin until next year. There is a possibility that parts of the project could begin earlier. Public Works Director Gerhardson said that a determination must be made of where the project will begin and how much funds are available to begin. He estimated it would be at least two years. Counci Imember Goetten said that she had attended the Park Commission Meeting when this matter was discussed. She said the City needs to get started on this before all the land is subdivided. Goetten believed that bike/hike trails would be beneficial to a community such as Orono. Goetten indicated that she is concerned that scheduling the Public Hearing for March 12th may not allow enough notice. Bernhardson replied that the March 12 date was tentative and could be rescheduled. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to schedule a Public Hearing for March 26, 1990 for the purpose of increasing the Park Dedication Fee. Bernhard.son suggested that an indication be made as to what the increase will be. Goetten agreed with the ?»ifk Commission recommendation of 8%. Callahan thought it best to indicate 8% to 10% rather than stating a specific percentage. Motion, Ayes-4, ««nr*s or oroHo coo»ci.«he,i»o or rHB«,*rr 22,a„.their Novemberve!Se “||theVaM^*”BO-^ule be 8t ofSi'Sai™“kv£Ss.s s:.'x:i;s,s:k».playgroundsand sutface'^a?er'’S:;dlSr«e«':'““ fees the Park »oinroY de;?i“:t„«tL^‘„/i\ subdleldld?'’°‘®'’‘"®'l®®t year there were approximately 45 »°w“o"Sjirg^f„%When construction of the trail =°“l'l'^be^doL‘this''Jeat?“"The®should be done =t could"“.\fn «rller"®'‘>°®®‘«ll“'thaV°par?s““?hl !aUa^bl”°'‘"“‘d®'J<-termlnatlon to begin.He estimated It^wou”be°a"t"i“°Sat“?™ ounc i Ini^inb^r Goetfc^n sai^fha*-u t_ ^£/7o“Slt"-s\"ar‘iyd -«"tSe‘ =lal 'to a°ol™IlnltyVuch'’aro?o^o''®'{“*^®°‘'““^^^blconcernedthatschedullnoth.o'.°?®tten Indicated that >y not allow enough notioe?®for March 'e rescheduled.^"arch 12 date was tentative nnd member "^etten^''to*sched’ule^a°pLbllc^i*'‘“sooonded byorthepurposeof increa-?inn^Hearing for March 26^ dson suggested that an indlran^^^ Dedication Fee^ i« .111 be. Goetten agreed w,r"h M"“'^' “what the htr Callahan ^thought hi-r s’' Commission -nr than stating a specif‘°Mo‘t'fin=r'X*ye”-5? fe < MIHOTBS OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1990Nays-0, Motion passed.SET PUBLIC HEARING DATEIt was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to schedule the Public Hearing for March 26, 1990. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed.BEDERNOOD BASEBALL FIELD LITTLE LEAGUEMr. Gary Larson of the Orono Baseball Association was present for this matter.Bernhardson explained that the Little League Association has approached the City and requested that a regulation little league ball diamond be constructed at Bederwood Park. The Little League Association would only use the field temporarily as they are currently discussing the future use of school property with the School Board. Public Works Director Gerhardson informed the Council that the proposal is for dug outs, fencing, and construction of a concession stand and press box. The entire project would be done at the expense of the Little League Association. The Park Commission approved the project with a 4-1 vote. Acting Mayor Callahan asked who would be responsible for the activities. Gerhardson replied that the Little League Association would be responsible for the program. Councilmember Goetten said that it was her understanding that the Park Commission expressed concerns about the concession stand being abandoned. Gerhardson said that the original intent was to put in something temporary. However, the Park Commission preferred to have a permanent structure constructed. The structure would become property of Orono when the Little League Association no longer requires its use. Councilmember Peterson asked where the press box is going to be located? Gerhardson replied that it will be located adjacent to the concession stand. The original proposal was for a two story concession stand/press box. However, due to the topography of the ball diamond, it was suggested that the buildings be side by side. Mr. Weldon Dunn, 40 Stubbs Bay Road, indicated that he did not think Bederwood Park was an appropriate place for a little league facility. He said that there will be a traffic problem on Stubbs Bay Road. He also objected to the p.a. system proposed. He asked ^.5 Park Commission why they would vote favorably to allow one a.-j.veiation to monopolize use of the baseball field. MIHOTBS OF ORONO COONCIL MBBTIHG OP FEBRUARY 22, 1990 field. Mr. Larson said that there would be approximately 250 boys ol *'ing Littl*' League. Mr. Larson said that the field would be available for Public use all but weekday afternoons and evenings. Mr. Scott Stien, 3575 Christine Drive, said that there is not very much parking available at Bederwood Park. He said when there is a soccer game at the Park, people are parking sideways on Stubbs Bay Road. He also indicated that he opposed the p.a. system. Acting Mayor Callahan asked how the Park is currently being utilized? Mr. Stien replied that i*^ is used regularly for soccer, softball, picnicing, etc. He said that the baseball diamond is probably under utilized but the Park is used. participate. Ms. Use indicated that she also had concerns 'egarding parking. Mr. David Use, 3630 Eileen Street, said that he was not sure of what exactly is being proposed. to be"placV/°."ol ’nd th^^Uldf^riug out would be oonsttucted tr, Vo'." ."„rio^c‘a tVd o?h'i ^d“"h“o*ll ‘p°?'are!=%orw ??l“a ‘cld on the infield. Mr. Stien asked whether this proposal would have an impact on the area used for soccer? Mr. Larson said that the fence would be placed such that soccer could not be played in the area now used. JJ’;.* noted that the baseball diamond does not cover the entire Park and there is other space available for other activities. Park Commissioner Jim Gilbert said that he voted in favor of :his proposal because it was his understanding that Bederwood >ark was acquired for the purpose of establishing a baseball liamond such as this. He said that the results of the Park Survey indicate that Bederwood Park is used very little. Gilbert said that there are several hundred children that would use the field.Mr. Larson said that there would be approximately 250 boys si ying Littlo League. Mr. Larson said that the field would be svailable for Public use all but weekday afternoons and evenings.Mr. Scott Stien, 3575 Christine Drive, said that there is sot very much parking available at Bederwood Park. He said when :here is a soccer game at the Park, people are parking sideways sn Stubbs Bay Road. He also indicated that he opposed the p.a. system.Acting Mayor Callahan asked how the Park is currently being stilized?Mr. Stien replied that i'- is used regularly for soccer, softball, picnicing, etc. He said that the baseball diamond is srobably under utilized but the Park is used. Ms. Sherokee Use, 3630 Eileen Street, said that she did not lomplete the Park Survey, but is a frequent user of the Park, ihe said that the equipment at Bederwood Park is not conducive to such activity. She and her two sons use the park for kite lying, frisbee and bike riding. She said that she was concerned ibout the Baseball Association having exclusive use of the •aseball diamond. She said after school on weekdays is when her :hildren use the Park the most. She also said that a neighbor of lers has four girls and feels that this is a male only activity ind closes off unorganized activities in which her girls might participate. Ms. Use indicated that she also had concerns egarding parking. Mr. David Use, 3630 Eileen Street, said that he was not lure of what exactly is being proposed. Mr. Larson said that the proposal is for a chain link fence :o be placed around the field. A dug out would be constructed lown each base line. The concession/press box building will be 14* X 10' and located behind home plate. Sod will be placed on ;he infield. Mr. Stien asked whether this proposal would have an impact >n the area used for soccer? Mr. Larson said that the fence would be placed such that ioccer could not be played in the area now used. Mr. Larson loted that the baseball diamond does not cover the entire Park ind there is other space available for other activities. MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL TING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1990Mr. Stien said that the fence will limit the use of the field.Ms. Use said that there is also a problem with the children that come to watch the games getting bored and using the equipment. She said that it makes the Park too crowded.Park Commissioner Flint said that he is not sure that Bederwood Park is the best place for Little League. He said that Mr. Larson has indicated that they will use Bederwood for two or three years and then move to the school. He said that the school area is much more suitable for this use. Mr. Flint said that he voted against this proposal because he was concerned about the impact on the neighborhood. He said that concession stands can be an attactive nuisance.Mr. Dunn ..aid that a baseball game is played at least once aweek. Ms. Use asked for an estimate of how many cars will be in the area for the games? Mr. Larson said that from observing games over the last th-ee years, the parking that exists for Bederwood Park should be adeqw’ite. Counci Imember Goetten said that she too is concerned with the aspect of exclusivity and the parking situation. Goetten asked Gerhardson if he agreed with the neighbors that the Park is used more than the Park Survey indicated. Gerhardson replied that the ball diamond portion of the Park is not used very much. Goetten said that she did not think there would be r.iough room to do everything proposed for the ball diamond. She indicated that the p.a. system was another concern. Goetten said that she understands the need for the ball diamond, but is concerned about the impact on the neighborhood. CounciImember Nettles agreed with Goetten. He said that he was an assistant coach in Little League last summer and it is a good program for boys and girls. However, he was concerned about the location of this program in relation to the residential area. He agreed that the school area would be much more suitable. He did not understand why public use would be prohibited starting at 2:00 p.m. when most of the parents involved with Little League are not home from work until 5:00 or 6:00. Nettles said that he favored the use of private monies for such programs, but not if it is going to limit public use of public areas. Nettles said that he would like the Park Commission to take a more indepth look at the issues involved with this proposal. Nettles thought that Mr. Larson was underestimating the number of cars that would be generated. OF OROHO COUNCIL MEBTING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1990Itien said that the fence will limit the use of theIse said that there is also a problem with the children ( to watch the games getting bored and using the She said that it makes the Park too crowded.Commissioner Flint said that he is not sure that Park is the best place for Little Lea9^^« He said that I has indicated that they will use Bederwood for two or :s and then move to the school. He said that the school ich more suitable for this use. Mr. Flint said that he inst this proposal because he was concerned about the the neighborhood. He said that concession stands can ictive nuisance.unn .aid that a baseball game is played at least once a Ise asked for an estimate of how many cars will be in or the games? .arson said that from observing games over the last c,the parking that exists for Bederwood Park should be jilraember Goetten said that she too is concerned with t of exclusivity and the parking situation. Goetten ardson if he agreed with the neighbors that the Park is than the Park Survey indicated. irdson replied that the ball diamond portion of the Park d very much. ten said that she did not think there would be rnough lo everything proposed for the ball diamond. She that the p.a. system was another concern. Goetten said understands the need for the ball diamond, but is about the impact on the neighborhood. :ilmember Nettles agreed with Goetten. He said that he sistant coach in Little League last summer and it is a ram for boys and girls. However, he was concerned about Lon of this program in relation to the residential area. that the school area would be much suitable. He iderstand why public use would be prohibited starting at when most of the parents involved with kittle League 3me from work until 5:00 or 6:00. Nettles said that he he use of private monies for such programs, but not if ng to limit public use of public areas. Nettles said ould like the Park Commission to take a more indepth he issues involved with this proposal. Nettles thought :.arson was underestimating the number of cars that would ted. HINUTBS OF ORONO COUNCIL TING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1990CounciImember Peterson noted that Hackberry Park is located in a residential area and is used constantly for Little League, soccer, etc.Mr. Larson said that he is not proposing to put in any lights. He said that the loud speaker system will not be very elaborate, and is not essential, though most Little League fields have such a system. Mr. Larson explained that Orono has been a part of the Mound Little League system for the last three years. Mound has the charter and needed outside help when the number of participants was down. Since that time, the number of participants has increased and Mound has informed Orono that last year was the last year they could play with them. Mr. Larson said that Orono is the process of getting its own Little League Charter. F' said that they have the number of children necessary to do that, >ut having a charter dictates that the organization must have a field. He said they do not have a place to play as of June. He said that the use of Bederwood Park would only be temporary until the property across from the school is developed. Mr. Larson said that it is more than likely teams from the Orono Association that the neighbors are observing at the Bederwood Park ball diamond. He said that the coaches that are aware of the Park use it for practice. Mr. Larson said that "T" ball attracts more of a crowd than Little League. Acting Mayor Callahan said that he is not in a position to vote on this matter this evening. It seemed to him that the neighborhood did not receive adequate notice about the proposal. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to set this matter over until the March 26, 1990 Meeting and that between now and then that the Park Commission give further consideration to this matter and report back to Council with that information. CounciImember Goetten suggested that the neighbors may wish to meet with Mr. Larson. Mr. Use indicated that would not be necessary because this issue involved the entire Community, not just his neighborhood, Callahan suggested including information regarding this proposal in the City's newsletter. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the Public. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: #1366 LOREN BUTTERFIELD 3925 WATBRTOHN ROAD EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL EXPIRATION DATE RESOLUTION #2760* It was moved by CounciImember Peterson, seconded by Counci Imember Nettles, to ’^dopt Resolution #2760 granting a one year extension to the effective period of preliminary plat approval granted to Loren Butterfield at 3925 Watertown Road via MIHDTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1990 Resolution 12610 on March 27, 1989. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. *1458 BLAKE BICBANICH 332 WESTLAKE STREET VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2763 Mr. Bichanich was application. present for the review of this City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this application was tabled in October to allow the City and the applicant to enter into an agreement regarding the future expansion of the septic system on Mr. Bichanich's prDperty. Gaffron said that the resolution requires that Mr. Bichanich execute an assessment appeal waiver foi-m before the resolution is in effect. Gal.’fron said that he also looked at possible options for expanding the septic system should that be necessaiy prior to sewer availability. Acting Mayor Callahan asked what circumstances would evolve if the applicant defaulted on either of the contract for deeds after the addition to the house is constructed? Gaffron replied that such an occurence would limit the options available for expanding the system. Bernhardson noted that if the options were not available a holding tank could be installed. Acting Mayor Callahan questioned whether it would be possible to upgrade the existing cabin-like structure on the other lot? Gaffron said that variances would be required before that structure could be upgraded to a livable state. Councilmember Goetten understood that it was the applicant's intention to combine these lots, but the current financial situation would not allow that. Councilmember Nettles questioned whether the lot combination should be a condition of approval. Callahan said that the parcels are being purchased on contracts for deed and the lot combination cannot be dyne until both are paid in full. Callahan suggested that it be required that when the contracts are paid, a lot combination be 3one. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Acting Mayor Callahan, to approve the side setback variance with the condition that at such time that the contracts for d<»ed are paid that a lot combination be done. Gaffron asked how staff will monitor the paying" off of the contracts for deed? C'lllahan acked 8 t S OP ORONO CODNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1990Ayes-4, Nays-0,UCE BICHANICH::akb street)N #2763^Bichanich was present for the review of this 'f Administrator Bernhardson explained ^h4o»llOW th.Cit‘y V„d tilagreementregardingthefutureof the septic system on Mr. Bichanich's property.ron said that the resolution requires that Mr n as«,sn,ent appeal waiver lorm before the reVolifiH t| ^Aiclnl Circumstances would evolve addition the contract for deedsadditiontothehouseisconstructed? "na;iiS ‘or%xp“ai\“rthrsm?;;""* ;ii"”b‘l‘'i„“taned.‘'’"--‘l^ble a ig Mayor Callahan questioned whether it would hr to upgrade the existing cabin-like structure on thi that variances would be required before that could be upgraded to a livable state. ‘^"‘^^'^stood that it was the applicant ’s «llldrt^"a!llw^Vh:ti“‘='fin.ncT.t “llld^*lill“f%y“la ‘i°"''^combination parcels are being purchased on ft f ^®t combination cannot be done until fhtf Callahan suggested that it be required the contracts are paid, a lot combination be done. ^ Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Acting Lahan, to approve the side setback variance with the that at such time that the contracts for d?ed are oaid » f>avina'^rtf^" asked hov staff w^i 11paying'off of the contracts for deed? Cullahan asked >1 MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 19vJMr. Bichanich when the contracts will be paid in tall? Mr, Bichanich replied that one contract will be paid in April, the other in 5 years. Gaffron suggested placing that information in the City's tickler file. Peterson asked whether Mr. Bichanich would be assessed for two sewer units when available? Gaffron said that issue has not been addressed. Gaffron suggested that it be indicated that the lot with the principal structure would be assigned a unit, the other lot would not. He said that would be a tool to encourage that the lots be combined. He said, however, if someone attempts to build on the other lot, they should be charged for a sewer unit. Councilmember Nettles amended his motion to address that issue in the resolution. Acting Mayor Callahan seconded. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion p.’»ssed.#1470 DAN 6 RUTH PARTEN 4300 BAYSIDE ROAD SUBDIVISION Mr. Par ten was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson provided a brief history and explanation of this application. Bernhardson said that he had met with Mr. Patten today to discuss his objectives and options. An issue that concerns Mr. Parten is the point at which the "private driveway" would be upgraded with hard surface. He and Mr. Parten discussed the long term goal being the possible future need for a north/south road. There could, perhaps be a delay of upgrading th* private road until such time that a third lot were to develop or a permanent public road to the south is completed. Mr. Parten has indicated that he would like to proceed with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Gaffron reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendations. Gaffron said that the north/south driveway access is being configured as shown because the Planning Commission did not want Lot ? to be a flag lot. Councilmember Goetten asked Gaffron where the 50' road corridor referred to in his memo would be located. Gaffron said that based on the discussion at the previous Council meeting, the City may wish to have a corridor ext ..ding north along the east property line to provide internal circulation. Gaffron said if it is the intent of the City to provide access to the northern properties, that corridor could be extended further north. Goetten asked whether Mr. Parten would have adequate land for three 5-acre lots if the 50' corridor is included in the plat? Gaffron replied that if both the 50' outlots along the east boundary and a 50' outlot along the existing driveway are included it would have an impact on the amount of dry buildable land available. 8 JARY 22,19r 0>e paid in Lull?Mr.be paid in April,thengthatinformationinwhetherMr.Bichanichnavailable?GaffronSaffronsuggestedthatncipalstructurewould3t.He said that wouldecombined.He said#n the other lot#theyLmemberNettlesamended‘solution#Acting Mayor#Motionpassed. ed a brief historyand rdson said that he had objectives and options, le point at which the \hard surface.He and ing the possible future perhaps be a delay of »that a third lot were the south is completed, ke to proceed with the sion's recommendations, eway access is being lommissiondid not want )n where the located. ssionat the previous e a corridorext...ding to provide internal intent of the City to that corridor could be lid have adequate land or is included in the outlets along the east xisting driveway are imount of dry buildable MINUTE!Ber the CityMr. memo perActi allow M informatiMr. address new lot# that thei property the east moving tl also sai there are not his r have sati Bern r ecoirmem easements Acti more of not being Gaff narrow ou creating Acti favorabl future da [•llBiC* Coun upgrade tl Bern there ma Bernhards across th which bri that City PRO subdi Mr. Parte Planning Acti easements immediate [•IIBV* L*lnlnf^tX«KtX« MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUART 22, 1990Mr. Parten said that it is disadvantageous to have the prospect of a city street running through this heavily wooded area with the wetlands and Luce Line Trail. He said that the term "internal circulation" is an excessive term to describe three houses on a driveway.Acting Mayor Callahan said that it is likely that at some point in the future, the 5-acre zone will be reduced to 2-acre or 1-acre. The City has to look ahead.Mr, Parten said that the future zoning of that property does not concern him and the issues involving access would be dealt with at the time the property is rezoned.Councilmember Goetten said that the City has just started to consider a transportation plan for that area. She asked whether the City is sure that this is where a road should be placed? Callahan said that the City is not sure from an overall transportation plan that this is where a road should be placed. However, there are properties to the north of Mr. Parten*s property and Mr. Parten's property itself may be further subdivided. Cal’.ahan said that due tc the topography of the land, the locatio.'. being proposed for the road is the best location. Bernhardson said that Mr. Parten initially proposed a 3-lot subdivision that had a 50' outlot coming up from the south proceeding along the south property line toward the east and then proceeding north and west. Bernhardson said that he had ta3.ked with Mr. Parten regarding a variation of the initial proposal that would accomplish what Callahan had indicated he would like to achieve. Mr. Parten said that the property owners to the north of his property had indicated that they did not want him to put a road in as he first proposed. He said that the Planning Commission had recommended that he go back to the beginning and come up with another proposal. He said that now his proposal only involves a lot line rearrangement and he is not creating any new lots. CounciImember Goetten informed Mr. Parten that proceeding with a PRD would allow him more options. Nettles observed that due to the proposed driveway being 41* into Mr. Parten's property, the property needed to upgrade the driveway to a pub'. Ic road would come entirely from Mr. Parten's property. Mr. Parten s. recent informati Council table thi that due to the fact he had not received the from the s'-.aff, he would request that the litter. Acting Mayor Callahan informed Mr. Parten that when this matter 's heard again that he will recommend that there be a 50' ;OP ORONO COONCIL MEETING OF FEBRDAFI 22,1990p»rfe«n said that it Is disadvantageous to have theo^rSity street running through this heavily woodedh°t\l wetLnL and Luce Line Trail.He said that theternalcirculation"is an excessive term to descrioeisesonadriveway.ina Mavor Callahan said that it is likely that at somethe(Stare,the 5-acre zone will be reduced to 2-acre orTheCityhastolookahead.Parten said that the future zoning of thaternhimandtheissuesinvolvingaccesswould be dealtthetimethepropertyisrezoned.iT.stissurethatthisiswhere a road should be placed? m t e.sit-he citv is not sure from an overall riau"on“1n‘t"hat thSs"u='wh^re a --^=h-ld be placed ■v Mr“%a'’r7ln''s“p%%pe“rt‘ri-ri'’f °m'ay’’be f“rVhe? fled Cal’ahan said that due to the topography of the “he^-loc“tVo "\"efng proposed for the road is the best I • nhardson said that Mr.Parten initially a <slrm that had a 50'outlot coming up from the soutn ng along the south property linenr^r^h and west.Bernhardson said that he had ta.'.Kea Pa??e^rtgarding a variationof the initial P’-oposal ;il SccompUsh what Callahan had indicated he would like ?ve. narhen said that the property owners to the north of his husi1r:?rsed!‘-^5e‘sndnLr^hrp"Lnn"i/g%^^^^^^^ -rorcetr^'”L''Lrd '^rt row"hts-;?»’o-^fir^fv^^^^a e'^««”ngement and he is not creating any new lots. uncilmember Goetten informed Mr. Parten that proceeding PRD would allow him mote options. ttles observed that due to the P*;oP°s«‘d driveway bei^ y* •parten s that due to the fact he had not «^eceiv®d the *info^mati from the staff,he would request that the table thi .matter. 'tinq Mayor Callahan informed Mr.Parten that when this '^s he^rd^again that he will recommend that there be a 50 MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1990outlot rather than 20' and that there be underlying easements.Councilmember Nettles agreed u’ith Callahan.It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded byCouncilmember Goetten, to table this application to the March 12,1990 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed.#1486 SUSSEX SQUARE DEVELOPMENT 3020 FOX STREET PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION |Ms. Nina Wildman was present for this matter, as was Mr. Mark Gronberg, the Surveyor/Engineer for Ms. Wildman. Bernhardson reviewed the information involved with this application and noted that the Planning Commission had recommended denial. Mabusth briefly noted that there had been opposition to this proposal expressed by the adjacent property owne.'s. Mr. Gronberg said that Lot 7, Block 2 is ,ery conducive to a tennis court because of the shape. He said that there has been much interest in tennis courts expressed by future lot owners. Gronberg said that more than likely a tennis court will be constructed on that lot whether it is done by the developer of the individual that purchases the lot. He said that there would be more control exercised if the developer constructed the court. Mr. Gronberg noted that the tennis court meets all of the required setbacks. He also said that there will be nothing to restrict the construction of tennis courts on other lots, but having this court available to the residents of the subdivision would probably discourage individual courts. Acting Mayor Callahan asked what the use of Lot 7 will be if not used for a tennis court? Ms. Wildman replied that it would available for building. It disturbed Councilmember Goetten that the subdivision had already been approved and this request was being presented after the fact. Goetten believed that it should be the responsibility of individual property owners to build their own tennis courts. She said that it is not in keeping with this area to have a tennis court located at the entrance of the subdivision. Goetten had attended the Planning Commission meeting when this was discussed many of the neighbors were very opposed to this propsal. Ms. Wildman said that the reason she was coming back with this request was because she had been approached by an interested party wishing to buy Lot 7 and install a tennis court. She thought that it may be best to put the tennis court in herself because it is at the entry to the subdivision. She said that she MIHUTBS OF ORONO COUNCIL HEBTING OF Fj^RUAIOr 22, 1990 could properly landscape it to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Acting Mayor Callahan said that the neighbors had felt that a private tennis court would have less use than one available for the entire development. Mr. George Stickney said that there is a wide range of costs involved with the construction of tennis courts. He said that an individual homeowner may not spend the money to make the court visually appealing. He also said that the aspect of future maintenance of the tennis court should be considered. Bernhardson suggested that the developer may wish to consider placing restrictions on the construction of individual tennis courts on certain lots. He asked Councilmember Goetten if she would object to an outlot with a tennis court being located elsewhere in the subdivision? Goetten replied that due to the nature of this subdivision, that it will attract buyers that will be able to construct their own tennis courts. Ms. Wildman said to the contrary that she had gone to the trouble of receiving approval from other entities to insure that the environment is protected. She said that there would be less impact on the environment if only one tennis court were constructed rather than many. Councilmember Goetten said that there is nothing to preclude the construction of private tennis courts in addition to the court being proposed. Goetten said that the adjacent neighbor, Mr. Chadwick, would be severely impacted by this proposal. Ms. Wildman indicated that she is not opposed to restricting private tennis courts. Mr. Stickney understood that the neighbors were opposed to the noise that would be generated by persons playing tennis. He suggested that if the tennis court is properly screened, it would act as a buffer and the noise impact would be lessened. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to conceptually deny application 11486 and direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. fl481 GERALD MCCOORTNEY 1055 WEST FERMDALE ROAD AFTER-THE-FACT CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT RESOLUTION *2761 Mr. Gerry Wenkus, Mr. McCourtney's contractor, was present on his behalf. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron MIHUTBS OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP FEBRUARY 22, 1990 explained this application for an after-the-fact conditional use permit and variance. Acting Mayor Callahan asked whether the efforts to keep drainage away from the doorway to the basement was successful? Gaffron replied that the drainage swale seems to be working. CounciImember Goetten said that Mr. McCourtney should be placed on notice that she has concerns about the hardcover existing on this property. In regard to this application, Goetten said that she wanted confirmation that a walkout was not created and that Mrs. Lindstrom's concerns about drainage had been addressed. Mr. Wenkus said thac Mrs. Lindstrora was concerned about the drainage problems that would occur if the grading and excavation had not been done. He said that the work that has been done seems to have alleviated the drainage problems. Mr. Wenkus said that the house does have a walkout in the 75-250* zone and it was approved with the building permit. CounciImember Goetten asked Mr. Wenkus to remind Mr. McCourtney that he contact the City for anything he wishes to do on his property. Mr. Wenkus said that he has been working with staff to comply with the City's guidelines. It was moved by CounciImember Mettles, seconded by Acting Mayor Callahan, to adopt Resolution #2761, approving the conditional use permit and variance for land alterations within 75’ of the lakeshore. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1475 JOHN MCDOWELL 4105 BAYSIDE ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISON RESOLUnON #2762 Mr. John McDowell was present for application, as was Mr. Charles Hayssen. the review of this City Administrator Bernhardson provided the Council with a brief summary of this application. He noted that access it the main issue involved with this subdivision. CounciImember Goetten indicated that access to these properties was a mess. She asked why a mutual agreement could not be reached by everyone involved? She said that this arrangement was not good policy or planning and should not be approved. Acting Mayor Callahan noted that the private driveway being used by White, Rezabek, Alt and Hayssen should be upgraded due to 14 MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUART 22, 1990 the number of houses on the driveway. Mr, McDowell replied that the property was subdivided years ago and is not involved with this subdivision. He said that White, Alt, Hayssen and Rezabek want to keep the driveway as it is. Acting Mayor Callahan asked CounciImeraber Goetten what alternative she would propose in lieu of what Mr. McDowell is proposing? CounciImember Goetten suggested Eminent Domain and asked City Attorney Barrett for his opinion in that regard. Barrett replied that the City has the legal right to condemn any road for public access. Acting Mayor Callahan asked about the purpose of Outlot B shown parallel to the existing driveway. Gaffron replied that the City is taking the opportunity to create a road outlot with Mr. McDowell's subdivision. Mr. "Chip" Hayssen responded to the question regarding the ^:roperty owners working together to solve this problem. He said that what is being proposed represents a compromise and agreement on behalf of the affected property owners. He said they have resolved the problem amongst themselves, but the Council is not accepting the solution. Mr. Hayssen indicated that he could see no reason for Outlot B. He said that it is located in an area where there are many mature trees growing. Acting Mayor Callahan suggested that it nay be best to have Outlot A extend to the end of the property. He said that it would be necessary to condemn the portion of the White property that would be used to access Bayside Road. Callahan agreed with Mr. Hayssen that nothing could be done in the future with Outlot B. CounciImember Goetten asked if access should not be considered for the White property which wi21 more than likely subdivide in the future. Callahan replied that the City could address that issue at the time that Mr. White submits an application to subdivide. He said that if Mr. White gives the City the portion of the road that he owns, Outlot B will still serve no purpose. Outlot A should provide whatever access is necessary. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to adopt Resolution #2762, approving the Preliminary Subdivision for John McDowell, with the exception that there be no Outlot B. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. 1 MINDTBS OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1990 ACCESSORY STRUCTORE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Adninis^rntor Bernhardson 0xplain@d that the issue was whether pools should be included as lot coverage without a fence, or only in cases v/here there is a 6' fence surrounding a poo 1. The Planning Comruission reconunended that the Ordinance remain as is. Bernhardson said that the Planning Commission is considering the visual density aspect of this ordinance. He said the Ordinance could also be considered from the aspect of how much structure exists on a property regardless of whether it is above or below groi’ad. A third way to consider the Ordinance would be from a hardcover standpoint. Bernhardson said that he prefers to consider the Ordinance from a total structural lot coverage aspect. He said that one property could have a principal structure, swimming pool, tennis court, and driveway which would leave very little grass. CounciGoc^tten agreed. Acting Mayor Callahan and CounciImember Peterson indicated that they too agreed that lot coverage should be the issue. Gaffron suggested that if the Council is going to view this Ordinance from a lot coverage aspe^'*-, that all flat surfaces are going to have to be considered. That would include patios, sidewalks, and driveways, which would be a hardcover issue. City Attorney Barrett said that what Gaffron was suggesting, that if the present ordinance is to be a structure ordinance, then it is inadequate. It does not address all the possible structures that could exist on a particular property. He said that the Ordinance wa= drafted with a different perspective than that of the Council's. He suggested that the Council may wish to consider whether their perspective is a separate, hardcover issue. CounciImember Peterson said that when the reference was made to lot coverage of 15% for lots 0-1.99 acres, that it was referring to everything that covered the ground. said that the intention of the Planning Commission was that if structure would be limited to only 15%, then it would include onlv structures that are above ground. It would not include side/alks, driveways, etc. CounciImembers Goetten and Peterson indicated that they did not interpret the Ordinance that way. Acting Mayor Callahan said that though patios without pools could be considered the same as patios around pools, tha : there is a difference. He thought that the intent of the Ordinance was to address lot coverage, not projections upward. Callahan believed that the Ordinance should be amended to include pools as part of lot coverage. MINDTBS OF ORONO COUNCIL ICBETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1990 It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, seconded by Counc1 Imember Peterson, to amend the Accessory Structure Ordinance to include pools as lot coverage. Callahan said if the Ordinance was drafted from a different viewpoint, then he would like to have staff provide Information regarding what changes may be appropriate to the existing Ordinance to have it conform with Council's perspective. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. MAYOR/COONCIL REPORT: There was no Mayor's report for this meeting. CI".'Y ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: STUBBS BAY SENER PROJECT City Administrator presented a summary of the significant questions from the meeting on January 30th. He requested that this item be tabled until March 12th. It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to table this item until March 12, 1990. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. CITY FACILITIES-IMAGE DISCUSSION Mr. Jack Boarraan was present to provide some ideas for the Council to consider regarding their preference for building design. He also presented two preliminary site plans, one showing the use of the Old Crystal Bay Road site, the other shows the site currently used. CounciImember Goetten asked if any particular materials were being discussed at this point, or if this stage was merely for the purpose of putting the design on paper? Mr. Boarman replied that the site planning stage involved determing the size of the site and the ability to fit the building within the required setbacks. He said that parking, screening and the location of the building with respect to views are being considered during this phase. Acting Mayor Callahan noted that Highway 12 is scheduled to change and suggested that be taken into consideration for the Old Crystal Bay Road location. Mr. Boarman replied that the building would be 300' to 400' from Highway 12. Mr. Boarman said that in looking at the site currently used, the building may encroach into the setback areas and variances may be required. Acting Mayor Callahan asked what negative aspects exist for the constructing a two-story building? Mr. Boarman replied that a two-story building would require an elevator and would be more of an urban-style building. 1i I > itI; \ i ! •. • HIHDTBS OF ORONO COONCIL NEBTIHG OP FEBRUARF 22, 1990 -ilmember Goetten said that she would prefer to h«.'ve a building style that is not indicative of the East or South. She preferred a Midwestern style that would use materials from the area. Goetten said she would like a residential character to the building and favored the use of wood and/or brick. CounciImember Peterson concurred with Goetten. She said that none of the images Mr. Boarman was showing were what she had in mind. Councilmember Nettles indicated that he liked the style of the Champlin City Hall building if it were located on the Old Crystal Bay Road site. He said if the ourr«Mifc site is used, a more residential structure would be suitable. Mr. Boarman advised that materials that are indigenous to Minnesota are brick, wood and Kasota stone which can be cream color or more okra colored. Councilmember Goett«*n said that a lot of the design is going to depend on the cost. Mr. Boarman said that there are a lot of subjective options to get imagery to work and keep the cost within $80-$85/s.f. Councilmember Goetten said that in her opinion $80-$85/s.f. is too much. Mr. Boarman said that he would like a motion from Council providing him with some direction as to what cost he should consider. Councilmember Goetten said that she would like to see cost comparisons depicting the various costs of different building options. Mr. Boatman said that he will bring back an image of a building with a varying roof profile, with some sloping, and the functionality being discussed by staff, and gives a 20% to 30% variable in cost. He said that he is proposing a building that has four elements to it rather than just one, large element. Acting Mayor Callahan said that the design for the building if located on Highway 12 should be different than if it is located on the South Brown Road site. Callahan questioned whether the four elements proposed for the building would be more costly than just constructing a rectangle. Mr. Boarman said that the elements do increase the cost. Mr. Boarman suggested that he should bring back a floor plan for the Council review and provide cost estimates for variations to that plan. •••BS OP ORONO COUNCIL MBETING OP PBBRDARI 22# 1990-ilmembet Goetten said that she would ®g styfe that is not indicative of the East or South She ^d a^Midwestern style that would use materials from whe SottMn sril she would IIKe a residential character to the g and favored the use of wood and/or bricic.uncilmember Peterson concurred with Goetten. She said ne of th^Images Hr. Boatman was showing were what she had•uncilmember Nettles indicated that he liked theimniincitvHallbuildingifitwerelocatedon the OldriaiRoad"site'He said"If the curr.ut site Is used,a sidential structure would be suitable. •Roarman advisedthat materials that are indigenous to otf are brick,wood and Kasota stone which can be cream mote okra colored. ,uncilmember Goetten said that a lot of the design la going *nd on the cost. r. Boarman said that there are ® imagery to work and keep the cost within $80-$85/s.f. 5uncilmember Goetten said that in her opinion $80-$85/s.f. much. rlng"“h^'m”^^?h‘to'm!l“'dlVec^7o'n^'s‘^%^raV°c^sV“h\T^^^^ ?r. uuncllmenber Goetten said ‘^at she^uld like to isons depicting the various costs of different ouiiaing s. <5 a 1♦•hat’he will brinQ back an iina^^of a au wUh a varying roof 30% i^e^'^/os^^'"le"UirMe’lViVop ’o"sln"g a building that “r elements to It rather than just one,large element. .ctlng Mayor Callahan said that the .design for the building "d'on aJown "loal Titt^“Sariah«’",ues tloned ^r the four elements proposed for the building would be more r than just constructing a rectangles. ir. Boarman said that the elements do Increase the cost. nr Boatman suggested that he should bring back a *1°°'P!;®" ilrcluncTl review and provide cost estimates for variations at plan. MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OP FEBRUARY 22, 1990Acting Mayor Callahan said that there should be some comparisons of costs. He said that the exterior of the building is not an immediate concern. He said he would prefer to determine how large the building needs to be in order to meet the functional requirements. Councilmember Callahan recollected that $50-$55/s.f. was estimated in the first discussions for a new facility, several years ago. He said that the next time that dol'>ar estimates were discussed, the cost had increased to $81>/s.f. Callahan also said that he would like costs comparisons of placing the building on the South Brown Road vs. the Crystal Bay Road.Mr. Boarman said that if the building is plac on the South Brown Road site, -.'c will probably have to be reduced in size orstacked to avoid the need for variances.Councilmember Callahan said if the final option requires variance approval, that would not be an unreasonable request. Mr. Boarman said that these aspects all need to be addressed as does the expansion potential of the building. Acting Mayor Callahan said that he would not recommend that the next discussion of this matter occur during a Council Meeting. Bernhardson said that the natter will be discussed at the joint Planning Commission/Council Meeting. HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY - TECHNICAL COMMITTEE City Administrator Bernhardson recommended that Public Works Director Gerhardson would serve as the primary respresentative and volunteered himself as the alternate. Councilmember Nettles noted that Bernhardson is the alternate for the Highway 12 Corridor Study-Policy Committee. He suggested that Councilmember Goetten may wish to serve as the alternate for the Technical Committee. Councilmember Goetten said that she would like to serve in that capa- ity. Administrator Bernhardson indicated he was agreeable to such an arrangement. Councilmember Peterson suggested that Mayor Grabek and Councilmember Goetten could serve on the Policy Committee and Public Works Director Gerhardson and City Administrator Bernhardson serve on the Technical Committee. Councilmember Goetten indicated that the appointments for the Policy Co.amittee have already been made. It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to appoint Public Works Director / BS OF ORONO COUNCIL HEBTING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1990ions’of OTsts^^HP^s"a°?ift V’®'-®»e somesnImmelfateconcern.L sarfhV®'ne how large thebuilding needs to^bi^in o^rdt?t’o'miet thf7s.f?’w«"«;iLteriS ‘ire"fVrs''tVi®s®"VstraVeV w^rV®dn£sS.”:i‘SE>7‘S IHrsfSS'”ncilmember Callahan said if thf» final approval, that would not be an unreasliable requesr.'"®®Boarman said that these aspects all noori i-rt ka ,jj .s the expansion potential ofThe building "‘'‘Pressed 7dUcus%ioi^o‘’f®"th'^'“ “fj ”®«=0"»»»nd thatdiscussion of this matter occur during a Council ihardson said that the matter will be discussed at the inning Commission/Council Meeting. cussed at the .2 CORRIDOR STUDY - TECHNICAL COMMITTEE Bernhardson recommended that Public Works t?;rV/rm"serf “i^bTJTltrrnale®.-spres^‘n'ta"t’i^® icilraeraber Nettles noted that Bernhardson is th« J \°hat^Co!l!ic^iTL^h Study-Policy Committee.LGoettenmaywishtoserveasth*ifortheTechnicalCommittee..® cilmember Goetter.said that she would like to serve in rVangemeSt.®^''"^^'''^®®"indicated he was agreeable to cilmember Peterson suggested that Mayor Grahekanri otk®3 °D°i®r^‘c'?or ““r"'’'■°l"c®rcommUtee andonesDirectorGerhardson and City Administrator m serve on the Technical Committee.Acministrator -Vcmmittea°hr«V®"i ^^^^^ated thatthe appointments forCOinmitteehavealreadybeenmade. fmhoTV^..Counci Iraember Nettles,seconded by -mber Peterson,to appoint Public Works Direct©? [• r--. i : MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1990Gerhardson as the primucy representative and CounciImember Goetten to serve as the cilternate for the Highway 12 Corridor Study Technical Committee. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed.CIGARETTE VENDING MACHINESCity Administrator Bernhardson presented the Council with several options to consider regarding cigarette vending machines.CounciImember Goetten questioned whether the Council should delay any action on this until the Legislature makes a decision. Goetten asked if all of the operators involved with cigarette vending machines have been notified that the City is reviewing the policy. Bernhardson replied that the City Clerk had sent a letter to all of them. Acting Mayor Callahan stated that he would find it difficult to legislating such an issue. Counci Imember Peterson said that she wouldn't vote to ban them. CounciImember Goetten said that she would be in fa/or of restricting them at this time and taking further action if needed. Callahan asked for a consensus from the Council in regard to delaying action until the Legislature makes a decision. It was moved by CounciImeaber Nettles to limit cigarette machines to places where minors are prohibited. CounciImember Peterson noted that it would eliminate everyone but Jimmies Lounge. There was no second. Bernhardson noted that option 4 involving a remote control was provided by the cigarette industry to avoid the prohibition of cigarette vending machines. Bernhardson said that Bloomington and Minneapolis are proposing that option. After discussion of the options. CounciImember Goetten suggested that CounciImember Nettles may wish to make the motion he previously made. It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by CounciImember Goetten, to restrict cigarette machine sales to places where minors are prohibited. Motion, Ayes-3, Councilmember Peterson, Nay. Motion passed. R7?"^T FOR SOCIAL SBRVtCH FUNDING It was moved by Actlr.g Mayor Callahan, seconded by I.llmember Nettles, to table this item until the C.D.B.G. t is determined in March. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion ed. •TifiWiiiTT:.MMllI*] •1»H« i«L^ltl«] M*]*liC*l* :4H:-4s li¥4nl« -‘♦TTyWtWiKH # *0T8S of oroho council VI :*♦:!TING op FBBRUART 22,I990PLANOPOLITAN SYSTEM STATEMENTwas an Informational Item and there „ae no r-eqoipm™,atilmemberHe\tle^^®hnciImember Peterson ee MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1990•LOYMENT-SBCRETARY*CounciImember Nettles said that there appeared to be a discrepancy in the salary range presented to Council for the full tine secretary and the salary range being offered to applicants for that job. Nettles said that the Recording aspect of the job is being removed as a responsibility for that job and consequently the starting wage should be lower.[•l»PCe L^JfTe •1 «•! [•IsIcXe l^T9Ti [•Mil [•liTi [•ItTsK^e^el [•JfTe rOFORONOCOmiCILKEHTIHGOFFEBROMH22.1990Ihou..xowe.hardson =«l"i„'"/„:?dan««Uh'th/payplan and ahouWecotrect.will b® a IS schaduled to b*„eond.d by „s boved by ^|‘‘„\®ho?Ua°hltl%a pata^^^^ massed. n«?“m'S”VetV?son understood ^^’'%Jerrthlng ’“'*She SrVr"poaea,\^„=r-ollVbranadditionalamount tor ta, ,„ed whether thera^uMi ense after th • n ..hat he would confitro it,tnhardson said tha^^h knowledge ther seconded by passed. STR»TOB'SIl^W^«<»;„„,U.anberPeterson^ t was moved oy accept the City « itionSf K ^ ^TIOBinrfS ^quested an EaeoutWe Session. :ltyAttorneyBarrett i:«h !liderrttJesd tdattttdttrtt Atdi^ri-- MinUTES OP ORONO COOHCIL w TING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1990r *•Cigarette License: Over the Counter - One QuarterWilliam W. Wear2160 west Wayzata Blvd.Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed.BILLS*It was moved by CounciIraember Peterson, seconded byCounciImember Nettles, to approve payment of the All FundsAccounts. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed.EXECUTIVE SESSION - 11:30 P.N.Acting Mayor Cal3"''ai. requested that the Council go into anexecutive session at 30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT 11:35 P.M. It was moved by CounciImember Nettles, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 11:35 p.m. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk ridward J. Callahan, Jr. Acting Mayor i--: -xbotbs op orono coohcil VIH:TIHG of PEBROARY 22, 1990license. o»«the Counter nWlUiam M. 1,*,^ °"®2160 west Wayrata Blvd.•ion. Ayes—4, Nays—0 Mni'sJ/ Motion passed.LS*ncllnieinber ^Ijoeiubec Pa^a.>™:r:-f:that the council ,o into an•OTOMBWI 11:35P.M.Bilwembet'petlrson^Imembec Nettles>p.m.Motion,Ayes-4 the Regular^Con'„„-V°°"'’*'l byAyes-4,Nays-0,Motion paVsed!*"''ting at T; M.Hailin,City Clerk ^wara J.Callahan —7— Acting Mayor 3890.1Mayor and City CouncilMark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratoMarch 8, 1990 PiCOUNaLMEETHIGMAR 121990CITYOFMr 'ISUBJECT: Little League Baseball Diamond - Bederwood ParkAttachments: A.Baseball Diamond Improvement Dated 3/7/90B.Bederwood Park Memo Dated 2/22/90C.Bederwood Park LayoutISSUE - 1.Determine if Council desires to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Baseball Association for improvement of Bederwood for use by the Association. 2.If so, what terms, if any, would be attendant to that agreement. INTRODUCTION - At the Council meeting of Febraury 26, 1990 Council referred the issue to the Park Commission. They reviewed the issue again and have outlined the issues in Attachment A. DISCUSSION - As noted in Attachment A, the Park Commission has outlined several conditions upon which any agreement would be conditioned. As noted, the Association agreed to all but the concession stand issue as it is the source of their funds. While a portable facility would not necessarily be attractive, a more aesthetically attractive structure could be required to remove when the Little League leaves. As noted in Attachment C, the use of the chain link fencing would only limit "excess" soccer use and still leaves a soccer field in tact. The layout also illustrates an expanded lot for additional parking slots. It is estimated this would could be done by City employees. As to the issue of "nose in" parking the city could post parallel parking only on Stubbs Bay Road and installing a sign on Christine Drive (a private road) would limit parking on that road. Expanded parking needs are not expected to be substantial. ALTERNATIVES 1.Approve. 2.Amend and approve. 3.Choose not to permit. 4.Table. RECOMMENDATION - It is cecommended that the City allow subject to the conditions in Attachment A together with the following: -A Concession stand to be removed upon leaving similar to that for dugouts and fencing. In addition the city would do the following: -Expansion of the parking lot -Posting parallel parking restriction : f ■ [1 i /I 9'if1II tJ [-i TO: raoNt DATS: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson# Public Works Director March 7, 1990 ^: SUBJKT: Baseball Diamond Improvements ~ Bederwood Park On February 9, 1990 Mr. Gary Larson from the Orono Baseball Association appreared before the Park Commission with a proposal for the baseball diamond at Bederwood Park. Mr. Larson stated that they would like to upgrade the ball diamond to Little League standards. Little League standards require dugoutS/ fencing and a scoreboard, the association would also like to construct a concession stand/press box. The Park Commission approved the proposal contingent o.i certain requirements (see attached correspondence). On February 26, 1990 the Park Commission recommendation was heard by the Orono Council. Because the neighbors objected to the proposal the matter was referred back to the Park Commission. On March 6, 1990 the Park Commission reviewed the proposal for the second time with several neighbors adjacent to the park in attendance. The concern of the neighbors were basically: 1.Increased use. 2.Parking. 3.Noise. 4.Permanent structures creating an attractive nuisance. 5.Int ir€erence with other park type activities. 6.Exculsive use. The Park Commission approved the proposal contingent upon: 1.No concession stand - (they can sell concessions from a mobile unit). 2.No lights. No public address system. City should consider expansion of the parking lot the City's expense. When Orono Baseball Association moves to another site. City will have option as to whether fencing and dugouts will remain or removed. If removed, must be done by Orono Baseball Association. 6.Orono Baseball Association will submit affidavit cf insurance to City. 7.Orono Baseball Association will have exclusive use of ball diamond only from 2 p.m. - dark, Monday through Friday from April 15 to July 15, 1990. 8.Orono Baseball Association must post a schedule of times and dates when ball diamonds is in use. 3. 4. at 5. Baseball Diamond Improvements March 7, 1990 Page 2 of 2 -Bederwood Park 9.The City will review and approve/deny Orono Baseball Association use of the ball diamond annually. 10.Orono Baseball Association to extend its best efforts to allow other activities on the ball diamonds# soccer etc. Mr. Gary Larson stated that the above conditions are acceptable with the exception of not being able to construct a concession stand. The reason for a concession stand is to sell candy, pop, etc of which the profits from the concession pays for maintenance of the ball diamond and the umpires. Mr. Larson will attempt to pursuade the Council to be allowed to construct a concession stand. I I I ) 22290 11 TO; FSOMt Mayor and City Council ^ , Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate DATE: February 22, 1990 SOBJBCT: Baseball Diamond Improvements/Bederwood Attachment; A.Baseball Diamond Improvement/Bederwood Memo Dated 2/21/90 B.Orono Baseball Association Proposal Dated 2/1/90 ISSUE - 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 22290 ilrrWiAmeurMayor and City Council: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator^: February 22,1990BCT: Baseball Diamond Iraprovements/Bederwood:hment: A.baseball Diamond Improvement/Bederwood Memo DatedB.Orono Baseball Association Proposal Dated 2/1/90E - Ln?;attendant to that le^BaQAbaT in the attachments the Orono Little Association has found need for a different .ity. At present Bederwood Park is an area that could y convert for summer's use. This issue has been reviewed bv ark Commission at its February 8, 1990 meeting. ^ the area by the Little League would Setlt a"! tho"ae"'’?n“?a/?“A==oclation^^fit all those m the Orono community. Site improvements Construction of necessary fencing Construction ot dug outs (above ground) Construction of concession stand jriginally approached, the Association indicated that this be more of an interim solution of up to 5 years rather ®°^“tion. The Association is looking at the ^ B^i^Road Orono School at County Road 6 and Oldil Bay Road for a longer term solution. Issues attendent to i agreement in addition to those outlined in Attachment A Determine if guarantee for work completion is desired. agreement, A primary concern of the 2rer^°cSr?^nr?“^?hthe overflow of parking from the j Currently there are 20 parking spots in the nark and Stubbs Bay Road is currently wide enough to allow or parking on both sides without impeding the traffic flow.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.ALTERNATIVES -Issue 1 -1.Indicate willingness to undertake an agreement.2.Desire not to undertake.3.Table for further discussion.Issue 2 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 term not to exceed 5 years and indicate that beyond that the Association should look for a long term 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 I M S'! A To: Proa: Hark E. Bernhardson, city Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director rk Date:February 21, 1990 Subject: Baseball Diamond Improvements - Bederwood Park As a result of increased interest, the Orono Baseball Association is requesting use of the ball diamond at Bederwood Park for little league baseball. However in order to qualify for little league certain improvements to the ball diamond is necessary: 1, One story concession stand only. 2.All permanent improvements become the property of the City. 3.The exclusive use agreement will be reviewed annually. 4.Orcno Baseball Association assumes all maintenance of the ball diamond with the exception of the outfield. 5.Orono Baseball Association will submit affidavit of insurance. 6.Orono Baseball Assocation will have exclusive use of field from 2 p.m. through dark, Monday through Friday, May through July. 7. All costs for Improvements will be paid by Orono Baseball Association. Because the proposal is an approved use by ordinance, it is not necessary to conduct a public hearing. However, because it will increase use I have notified neighboring residents of the proposal and when it will be before the Council (see attached). Recomendation - To approve of the proposal as presented by the Orono Baseball Assocation subject to the findings of the Park Commission and entering into an agreement with the City of Orono and the Orono Baseball Association regarding the responsibility of the installation and ownership of the improvements. seconded by to approve thoProposed Motion - Moved by ___, . __ proposal presented by the Orono BaseballAssociation fo improvements to Bederwood Park subject to the findings of the Park Commission and entering into an agreement with the City of Orono and the Orono Baseball Assocation regarding the responsibility of installation and ownership of the improvements. Ayes ___, nays ___. 4 I Mark E. Bernhardson,City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director February 21,1990Baseball Diamond Improvements - Bederwood Parkmmmmimm.:y:One story concession stand only.All permanent improvements become the property of theTheexclusiveuseagreementwillbereviewedannually.assumes all maintenance ofballdiamondwiththeexceptionoftheoutfield. urance°Association will submit affidavit of ^*1®proposal is an approved use by ordinance,it is ssary to conduct a public hearing.However,because it an/lhT -I neighboring resident^of theandwhenitwillbebeforetheCouncil(see attached). approve of the proposal as presented by the Orono Baseball Assocatlon regarding the nts.Ay.r ,ownership of the .^tHUeUT x>'4.iProposal For;1 LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL FIELD To Be Located At: BEDERWOOD PARK ORONO, MINNESOTA Submitted By: Orono Baseball Association February 1, 1990 1 i I.PROPOSAL The Orono Baseball Association (which serves the youth of Orono, Maple Plain and Lone, lake) propose building a ’’regulation" Little League Baseball 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 ot 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. II.HISTORY In 1987, the Orono Baseball Association (OBA) decided to affiliate itself with Little ^egue, Inc. This means that those youth included in T-Ball (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 OBA forms three (3) "major league" teams (ages 10-12). These three teams join five (5) Mound teams '■o 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. 1.08 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. D)1989 Major League continues with 4 teams. Minor League expands to eleven (11) teams T-Ball and Instructional expands by 15%. I ♦ III.STATOS 1990 IV.H\r^FIELD -A pivotal year for OBA! 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 exp-*' to 6 teams in 1991 due to increased c i .^us in 10 to 12 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 t; serve over 450 youth ages 5 thru will NEEDS -Since we will now have our own charter we need a regulation Little League Field. Wolner Fields in Mound ere over-flowing and not available for our continued use beyond 1990. Holbrook Park in Long lake was built for softball and is not "regulction" LL (fences too long, no safety screen in front of dugouts, etc.). We <.re curren*"!/ utilizing Holbrook Tuesday and Thursday evenings, but are there on "borrv'*wed time” due to demands for use by other gxcups. 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 tit Bederwood Park. B)A diagram of a regulation LL field is enclosed. A C)Major Elements to be constructed: D. -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 2-story structure. Believe we can build a temporary foundation (i.e, embedded concrete blocks) so that building 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 gravel). 5R 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 A.1990 If proposal is approved, work would begin 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 Hay 5). Remainder of schedule will be played on Wolner Field or Bederwood Field. This schedule will permit minor leagues to use the field also, thus exposing the new facility to use by 250 youth in OBA. Little League will retain exclusive use of field through mid-July. LL will also have priority on practice times for post-season play through approximately August 10. Minor league will use for post-season tournament finals. 1 1 l-l B.1991 to ? L,! t h ■ IL -At least for 1991 emd 1992 Little League will 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.MTfirBT.TAWF.nng 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 help if City of Orono could mow grass for us, especially in the outfield area. With the cooperation of the City of Orono, 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 hundreds of our area's youth can enjoy and benefit from for years to come. Respectfully submitted. ORONO BASEBALL ASSOCIATION •><««.At •A Diagram—1 Diagram showing Little League Field layout. All dimensions are compulsory unless marked "Optional." I r% 9'R X 0''^ I <<s.\r % %: r •ac* Slop Diagram—1 U1 *liowing Little League Field layout, lui aunensions are comoulaorv unlA««compulsory unless marked "Optional." «•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 us» of the ball diamond from 2:00 p.m. through dark. Monday througi 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, John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director JRG/tln 1 i i- ?••• 5-117-23 21 0013iorge Burnhart530 Eileen Streetiple Plain MN 55359February 20, 1990theCityofOtono baleba“llelationtoperformwillconsistofderwoodPark.^,re ball diamond andpressbox/concession stand,>„for the Improvements 10 to oPPrade thejjastln| fo“r Vy“tVe iroro%U“e"blVl ‘^‘'hsso*cVation. 10 Baseball Vuaive'*us»of*the'ball diamond if they can have Friday,May through .through dark,p^tk Commission on matter was anoroved the above request^90.The park ^07^!®®!®"®Pproved^Because this is annual review of ^j^^®conduct a public hearing. a",‘ISW. l1 ins have questions or o and d the meeting, please call me at 473 7357. Sincerely, A. John R. Gerhardson, public Works Director it.. r 5-117-23 21 0014;ephen Whitmam520 Eileen Stiple Plain, MN 55359 32-118-23 34 0006John Dunn20 South Brown RdP.O. Bex 77 Long Lcdce, MN 5535632-118-23 34 0011John Merideth 3685 Watertown Road Maple Plain, MN 553595-117-23 21 0002Dhn Burger750 Bayside Rd3ng Lake, MN 553565-117-23 21 0016antes & Joan Maus 700 Bayside Rd 3ng Lake, MN 55356 5-117-23 12 0018 :ott & Jill Stein 575 Christine Drive hple Plain, MN 55359 5-117-23 12 0009 aldon Duni: } Stubbs Bay Road South aple‘Plain,“'MN 3555359 5-117-23 12 0022 lenient C. Kroll 3 Stubbs Bay Road South aple Plain, MN 55356 3 et 55359 ,4 55359 )2 55356 L6 J.S 55356 18 ein Drive 55359 09 oad South ::55359 22 1 :oad South 55356 32-118-23 34 0006John Dunn20 south Brown RdP.O. Box 77Long Lake, MN 5535632-118-23 34 0011John Merideth3685 Watertown RoadMaple Plain, MN 55359 .. . . . .. To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Proa: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administr-IEETIII Date: March 7, 1990 Subject: t1457 Alan Carlson, 3140 Watertown Road -Preliminary Subdi v ision -Reso l ution List of Additional Exhibits MAR 121990 CITY Of (P l ease note onl y re l evant exhibits have been se l ected for Council's review of the amended preliminary plan. The exhibits were ori gina lly cre ated for pres entation before the Pl anning Commiss:t.o n at their Se pte m ber 18, 198 9 c1n d Jan uary 16, 1990 meetings.) Item 1 -Staff Member of 9/15/89 Item 2 - Staff Member of 1/10/90 Exhibit A -Application Exh bit B -Property owners tjst Exh bit C -Plat Map Exh'bit E -Sundee Report 9114/89 Exhibit F -Carlson Letter of 9/1 4/8 9 Exhibit I -DNR Wetland Classification Exhibit J -Watershed Map Exhibit K -City Wetland Map Exhibit L -Flood Plain Map -Area 8 Exhibit M -Conceptual Road Plan for Area ketched by Cook for Wear Application Exhibit N -AerialExhibit o -Gaffron's Memo 3/7/90 Exhibit P - MCWD Permit 89-167 Exhibit T -Planning Commission Minutes 9/18/89 Exhibit U -Planning Commission Minutes 1/16/90 Exhibit v -Carls on Letter 12/28/89 Exhibit W -Drainfield Covenant Exhibit X -Gaffron's Memo 1/8/90 Exhibit Y -Cook's Report 1/8/90 Exhibit z -Watershed (Sundee Drainage Plan) Exhibit AA -Drainage Before (Sundee Drainage Plan) Exhibit BB -Drainage After (Sundee Drainage Plan) Exhibit CC -Preliminary Plat Exhibit DD -Grading PlanExhibit EE -Street Profile -Entrance Monuments Exhibit FF -Location Map zoning le 457 7, 199 ge 2 of a r r o he b v sion s by an C rlso encing w s etch 89 ollowe by 2 or 1 e n b or th so. he ·o r d.l s th:-o hout thi rev e h xch .nges tw e n appl c n t , a a re ek e shed Oistri t rega g r •opos to in t 11 cont ol dev ·c s a ou o heere that int r ect pro pe ty w t in e w te rs hed/flo od p n w thin e pr operty . ies. For or de t il on he vol ti on o th rev iew, pl e se r fer to E h b t 1 a d 2, t ff me os r ·f d for e pr s n ation b for t e Pl nn ng Co miss on. The subd vis o c s o 16 lo+: , 1 e t n, th RR-1B s and rs for 2 acre dry cont gu ou 1 ad nd required lot widt hs o 200' to the re r o the front yard set ck line.Fiv outlots are hown on the pl t o tl ot , D and E re de ign ed priva t ro d dev lopment: Out ot e, a sh ed dr ve y or Lo and 2, lock 2: Outl ot port o of th proper yo h north side of t e ra c prop r y de ript on ru o the north s de of he ur i gt n ilr oad r ght-of-w y. Ou tlot Ce d sign ed s un build ble nd v ilable for co mb in ton had .ce t prop rt ie s on nort de of railroa . Ro d/Future Acee s Corr idors - Al 1 lots shal 1 ach eve acces vi the pr v te ro d/dri v w y y t . Outl ot D (e st cces ·orr dor) sh 11 be d veloped aspr v t o d through the wetl nd rea.Out ot E (wet corri or) h 11 not be de veloped at this time, bu sh 1 de velop etof the 1 rger pr operty to thews (rev e F). The �hared dr ive ay, Outlo t , has been ppro ved so a oprovide es mpac on t e res e ti al building sit es. t w ·s noted thro gout t e review nd conf rmed by applicant hat t e priv te ro d could be ex tende d 11 the wa y to the nor he t por ion of the property but it ppe red unn ece ary zon ng 1 reh 7, P ge 3 o 5 n e d o d a ove,d not al ow e ty to i 11 c o r or red r c s rf e w ter. he pplica be op ov deddi t on 1 tor ge w h n h p n io n to compen te for road w ys nst 1 ed w hin oo in/w et nd area. he propo ed pplicat on also nvolves var s o d-Y are cons t uc ted thro ug d s gn ed w tl Per DNR cla sif c tion (Exhib t ), th wet and typ .is class ed yp 6 and ype 7. 1s is no a D :R rote d we port on of e wetl nd de igned tor belo the re w h n e flood pan. Th e pro e ret t on are o the Lake C ssen . -rf o the rthe s to ;: e es ro prop . ppl c nt bee requi ed to pro e po n orde� to co pe s te fo1 a y f 11 • g.e e se ents be taken ev er 11 re s or belo w 9 o• e ev ton and nclude dra n geways tat intersec from tees nd drain gew y ere ted by the deve ope w th the n t lation of · h ro sys em. Ple e rev1 w ages 4 and 5 of It m 1 in you p ckets th t reviews the re son why t e ro dw y w not in t lled along the p r. ph ry of he nor thern ort on of the pro per ty but w llo ed to encroa ch he we lands oca ed in the nort cen tr l portion o t e pro er y. e en cr achment of the desig n ted wet and equ re v r an ce. Septic - All lot h ve been fo und to ave su1 ble reas for pr imary -nd al er nate septic i es . rt s i per ti v tat specific septic et ar a be prot cted throug out the in t llat on of the ro d nd ot her site improvements This wou d lso in clude the develo pment o ind vidu 1 lots or res ident 1 u e. Speei 1 dr infiel d coven nt wi ll be filed gin t the ch in of t tle of ach of he rur. lots (Exhi it W). In review of the final gr ding pl ns, Ga ffron c utions (E,xh bit P) that tot 5, Block 1 septi c ite wil also h ve to be pro ected prior to y land 1 er t ons on the s • e. he ity wi require specia l pla tic e cing s m lar to tes me type used in he ox Bend ubdivi ion ro nd pee f c tes t s_ e wit in t e p at. Lots 1 and 5, Block 1; Lot , B ock 4 (sept cs te loc ted n sou wes orne only , nd Lo 6 nd 7, Block 4. The dr n ie d cove a .s su mi t d with yo r pa cke w be ended o in clude ina· e d n s req ues ted b G ffron ( v ew Exh bit X). 11 stri ct did not a l l o w i n h ib it or r ed i re ct eq u i r ed t o pr o v id e r(970' elevat i o n) to .l o o d p l ai n /w e t l ands variances as r o ad-, we t land . Pe r D N R 1 is clas sified as a t ed wet l a nd . Maj or � t he 970 ' elev ation :y pr o vid e s a m a j o r hed .A cre e k fl ows the p r op er t y. The tio nal po nding a re asinage eas ements w il l970• ele v a t i o n an d,e e a st and dr aina e tl la tio n o f t h& r�ad e m l i n y o ur p a c k e ts no t installed al ong t he p r oper t y b u t w a s n th e n o r t h c e n tr a l t o f th e d e s i gn at e d >l e areas for pr i mar yttive that spe c i f i c! ins tallati o n o f the rl d al s o i n c lud e t h e �nti a l u s e . Sp e c i a l-he chain o f ti t l e ofr.ev i e w of t h e f i n a l I t h a t L o t S, B l o ck 1 !d pr i o r t o a ny l and,uir e sp ecia 1 p l a s tic Fo x Be nd su bdi vi s i on Lo ts 1 and S, Bl o ck U thwest c o rner o n l y)• c o v e na nt s s u b m i tt drde f i na l a me n d m e n :s Zoning File tl457 March 7, 1990 Page 4 of 4 Grading/Erosion Cont ol/Landscaping -Review Exhibit DD, er osion contro l has been defined on thegrading plan. Note, sediment fi lter will be installed within tots, Block 1. A major ponding ar ea wi ll be created in tot 1, Block 2, required to rep lace area filled by private roads within floodpla�_n/w etl and area. Note the co�jcern that Gaffro n has definedfor tot 5 where the road alterati ons come within 1-2' of the mo stnorthern septic area.The Planning Commission recomme nded approval of the entrancemonuments at approximat ely 5 1/2' high, run ning 10 line al feet,placed on the east and west si des of the entran ce driv e at Watert own Road. The app licant has not discussed sign age orproposed an y specifi c si gnage for the mo num ent area. ThePlanning Co mmission found them accep ta ble and quite typic al ofother monuments approved by the City for a rural su bdivision. Asmonuments exc eed 3' in hei ght, the y ar e su bject to standard sunder section 10.03, subdivision 16 -Traffic Visi bility. La ndscaping is propo sed wit hin th e entranc e area of the su bdivision. Forma l landscapi ng plans has not been proposed as developer feels the natural physical amenities of this p r operty provide the necessary aesthetics. Purther Directions to Applicant on the Review of Pinal Drafts of Preli■inary Plans - Site grading improvements cann ot comme nce until the Cit y Eng in eer has pr ovided a wr it ten rep ort on the final grading/drainage/erosion contro l an d plan s for road. As for the final grading plan s, staff would as k that the drainage direc��= �v che west boarder of tots 1 and 2, Block 1 be directed along the west lot lines by either swaling or a drainage ditch so th at drain age can out let to the drainage ditch along Watertown Road drai ning westward . The enclosed reso luti on has bean dr afted per the Planning Comm ission's ap proval reco mmend ation pre sented fo r Counc il's review and action . A RB L I �a'61t.&'W G PRELIRIRARY APPROVAL O TRB PRO ------ I CR BK PLA I'LB . 1457 ---AS, la G. C rl on er i a ter on August 24 , 1989 fi led a fo rm 1 su bd vis t e c· y or pprov al o a 7 ot resi ent leg ally d scr bed fo lo s· e ubdiv der•) pplic tio n w h p at of pro perty Exh I t c d (. ere f r he pr pry•) nd; BAS, af er du e ublishe n m iled notice in ccord anc th ne ota St s 62 358 et. s q. nd t e City of Orono Zoning and Pl t ing Codes, the Orono Planning commiss on eld pub c he r ngs o Septe er 8, 1989 nd J nu ry 6, 1990 t which t,me al per ons des ng to e heard co cern gt s pplication were given the opportun ty to spe k th ereo n: nd lfBBRBAS, at hei r regul r meeti ng he don rch 12 , 1990 th e Orono i y Co nci 1 con idered the ended subd vis on pplication of 6 ots, o ng ng f n ng of ct. e proper y loc ate thi the R B Single Fam ly u al Re iden ial Zon g st ict requ r ng m n mum of 2.0 ere of cont guous d y bu ild ble land within ach new ly crea ed ot. 2.he subd ivision as a end d from the orig inal 17 lotproposal find th te ch ot eets or excee s e 2 0 ac re minimum dry con tiguou s lot rea st ndards. 3. ch of he 16 lo s me ts the requ ed lot wid th to e rear of the 50' front treet setback li ne. 4.Al l of the 16 lots shall achie ve access via network of nterior priv te roadw y No dir ct cce onto w tertown oad w 1 be lo wed or a ind vid 1 ot wne . s.In h s re ort dat d J nu ry , 1990, Glen:n Cook, ityEngineer, found t.e revise 16 ot plat o e exc pt ble nd recommended pp ro val subject to fi n 1 ppro�al of the te rshed Di tr ct. P ge 1 of 7 ez r :ter •the subdivider•) Lon application wi thial pla t of prope rt y the property•) and• , nd mailed notic e inet. seq. and the City o Plannin g C ommission and January 16, 1990 heard concerning this ieak t h ereon: and l9 h e ld on March 1 2 amen d ed sub d iv i s i o �� fi ndi n g s of fa ct: � RR-1B S ingle Family iri ng a mini mum of 2 0 n d w ithin each newi y the original 17 lot exceeds the 2.0 acre rds. ired l ot w i dth to the l ne. ::cess v i a a netw o r k o f alcc e s s o n t o W a t erto w n o t o w n e r . ➔9 0 , t t o nal G l e nn c oo k , city b e exceptable a n d a ppro '.'a l o f t h e 6. The Minne hah a creek wa t e r sh e d D is tri c t g r a n t edconditional permit appro val (89-16 7) of t h e drainage,grading and ero sion c o ntro l pla n s of the Indian creek platat their February 15, 1990 mee t i ng.7 . In memos da ted January 8, 1 990 and March 7, 1990,Michael P. caffron, As sistan t P l an n t,,g &zonin gAdministrator, confirmed that al l 1 6 l ots had b,e n teste d and found to have sui tabl e ar eas for on-site septicdevelopment. 8. The prop osed co nfiguration and ove rall desinn of th e lot s within the p lat finds that each lot satisfieS the lo t s t andard s o f t h e RR- l B zoning dist ri ct requi ri ng no variances with t h e g r a n t in g o f t h e a pproval o f t h i s subdivi sio n. Each lot c an be develop ed a s a res id e n tial unit without the need f or future var ian ces. 9. Th e orono Cot>nci 1 ac cepts the fi nd i ngs of the Plann ing com m is s i o n i n a ppr ovi n g a v a r ia n c e to section 10.ss, subdivision 8 that wou ld pr oh i b it anY land a lterat ions within a defined protected wetland. Th e f ollowing f indings were n ote d by the applicant and acc ep te d by t he Pla n ning commisson: A) In crease d h ardcover from a roa d 2-3 t imes longe r would crea te more storm water run-o f f and envi ronmentalburdon on s u rrounding la n d . Th e u s e of 1/2 acre of t he woo ded area w ill have 1e ss environmental i mpact on the surrounding area. In a d dition, a pp licant will prov ide r e p l a c e m ent for f u rther r e t en tion to off-set additiona l Bl toss of majo r port i o ns u f tre e s if a periph era lfilling. road is constructed outside of th e w etland arPas. C) Maj or visu a 1 and aest hetic impact on a dja ce nt prop 0 rt ies to the east as ther e a re no plan ti ng s to provide screening from roadway and the low er elevatio ns along the eas t lot line. D)The nature of the wetlands ba s cha nged over t he 30 years since it was origina l ly de s ig na t ed as a protect ed a rea.Ma tu re trees n ow occupy what was once c lassifie d as a mars h land. There is no obvious sign of flooding o r re ten ti o n o f fl ood w at e r s as a d itc hing s yste m b a s d rie d c u t t h e a rea an d a l l o w e d t h e tr ees to nouris h , Page 2 of 7 tr ic t g r a n t e dthe d rain age,dian cre ek p latMarch 7, 19 90,, : ,1 9 & z o n i n ghad b 1 en te stedon-sit e s e p t i c1 de sifJn of the atisfies th e lot ,t requiring no p r o v a l o f t h i s as a resid e nt ial 8 of the Plan n i n g > se c t i o n 10 .ss , land al tera ti ons ·01 lowing findings 1 by the Plan ni ng 2-3 tim e s l omge r and environmental of 1/2 acre of the ,ntal impact on the icant will provide off-set additional !S if a perip haral ·et land ar eas . lmp act o n adjac e n t re n o plan tings t o :he lower ele vations c hanged over the 30 nated as a prote cted was once c lassif ied ous si gn of f looding d itc h ing sys tem h as tr e es to flOltrish. E)Subdivider is not asking for a re designation ofwetlands for building sites and septic deve lopment,only to be allo wed to constru ct a roadway.F)The we tland area is not considered a prote cted ONRwetland and is class if ie d as a Type 6/7 we tlandreferred to as a shru b and woode d sw amp wetland .10.The subdivider has pr ovide d future access corridors tothe east and west an d shall be re sponsible for de ve lopingprivate roads to the specific at ions set forth by the City.ROW, TBBRBPORB BB IT RBSOLVED, that base d up on one or more vf the findings note d above, the City co unci 1 of the City of Or ono hereby ap proves a variance to Se ction 10.55, Subdivision 8 and the pre liminary plat of In dian Cre ek per plat sur ve y date d most revis ed Fe bruary 23, 1990 by Edward H. Sunde, a re gistered lan d surve yor under the la ws of the State of Minnesota of Sunde Land Surveying, Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1.All access to the 16 lot plat mus t be via the in teriorplat road. No curb cuts for the pr oposed lots shall beapproved off of the adjacent roadway, 2.Priorpurposes,fe ncin g.boundaries to any lan d alterat ions for drainage or road the following se ptic sites must be stak d with su ch fe ncing to be inst alle d 20' fr om th e of each drainfiel d test site, as foll ows: Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 5, Block 1 Lot 1, Block 4 (septic site lo cate d in SW corner only ) Lot 6, Block 4 Lot 7, Block 4 3.Subdivider to gr ant underlying road and ut ility easementover all private road outlots (Outlots A, D and E). 4.Out lot A shall be ins talle d per engi neering road plansdated 12/19/89, revised 1/9/90 for a 28' rod wa y with curb.Outlot D shall be i�s talle d by the su bdivider thr ough thewetlands ar ea as a rural 24' wid e roadway with ditchsections. Outlot B, the 16' wide pr iv ate •. ·-;y servingLots 1 an d 2, Block 2 shall be install ,; • .oadway withditch are as per that same plan. Page 3 of 7 5 bdivider to g nt Con erva ion ad low ge E seme t over all wetl d/flood pl in re s defined tor b low the 970' elev tio . The subdiv der h -11 a· so gran dr in g e e ent over draina ge w y nd s or m ewers not loc ed w th n right-of-way of road outlots. 6.Bitumi�ou flum e wi 1 he requi red w er w ter s tod ch rge nto w 1 nd are s. 7.ub d-v de to ex c te pr iva e cov n n s for he s a edco t nd m in en nee nd upk ep of pri v e road. he sub v ider m y w h to u e \,,. e st d rd' fo .rm u e by the c ty for i clue on in e pr v te cove nts. n dd tion, t .e Ci y wi ll expec pr iv te c·C\v enants to ddress inte n nee and protection o dra n gew y and ret ntion rea by pr ivate pr operty owners. Upon pr liminary p rova l of he plat, t e subdivide i to dr ft ppropria e pr iv te coven nt to be sub itted to the c ty pr or to the c ty grant ng pproval o the f n 1 p at. 8.Su d v • der to x cut a dra inf ie • d co·vena t to b f i. edg in t he cha n of title of e ch of the 16 lot with n the·pl t n order to en ure ut re owne r's k ow edge and of� e pee 1 lim tation on the eptic c pabil ti o t e ur 1 lots and the need to p tect e in sept ct st site he fol ow ng addition sh�ll be made to the covenant proposed by applic n. The follow ng sentence is to be added between sentences nd 2: In mos ca es, th.est! a th e only two feasib le site o eicn lot nd must not � disturbed. The exi st ng n tu top o· must r main in place ad mu t not be 6j�c o ny r f icwhich w 1 cause even the sligh e compact ·o. 9.Tbe subdi v.ider sh 1 i t dequ erosion co ··o , (per approved p 1 ns most ev sed d e Fel'rua ry 2 3, 1990 b Ger 1 d s ) t ro g o t h con t . ct i o of the ro d, drain ge m rove ent nd ntii all grou d cover di turbed on the pr operty restore d lO. The d ve loper to ere te ea ements n f vor of the homeowners soci ton over Lots , Block 1, nd Lot 1, Block 4 for he pur po e of ma in ten nee and upkeep of the monum nts. The ity pproves h mon ment pr opo don plans d ted Decemb er 19, 1989, re ised Janu ry 9, 990 by Gera ld Sunde ent led •Typic on ment Deta il• that defin s a 5 12• hi g , 10 inea fe et in 1 ngth, 3' wide monum n s to be ta le d o e ch side of the entrance of he pl trod. Page 4 of 7 Zoning File #1257 January 10, 1990 Page 3 of 6 The drainageway in Lot 2, Block 3 has been shown carrying drainage from the railroad to the wetlano to the southwest. In reviewing the grading plans, drainage from Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 4 will now be redirected along their east lot lines to the shared lot line of Lots 5 and 6 and then out along the road ditch to the wetland to the north. Septic sites will be protected from run-off in Lot 1, Block 1 by taking drainage along the shared lot line of Lots 1 and 2 and out to the west drainageway. Cook has requested that bituminous flumes be required where water is discharged into the wetland area. He also notes that storm sewer with catch basins will be installed near Watertown Road to control the run-off (section of Watertown Road east of the Intersection of the plat road to the retention pond at the southeast corner). Both Mr. Sundee and staff will be able to explain the drainage plan in greater detail at the meeting. If members have any questions or seek additional information prior to the meeting, please contact staff. Plat Road/Future Road Corridors/Access - After many review meetings with the applicant and applicant's consultants and upon submission of the final draft of the preliminary plan, the Orono staff determined that there was a very definite need for a future access corridor from this property to the west. Review the staff sketch (Exhibit CC), the applicant shows Outlot E extending northward of the original location requested by the City staff. The original plan was to have a future western extension proceed along the section line, not necessarily in a straight line but within the area of the section line to provide access to all adjacent parcels. The roadway outlot may be realigned as staff recommends without any negative impact on the adjacent lots. Once again review Exhibit V, Mr. Carlson states his position regarding the driveway outlot providing shared access to Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. Lot 1, Block 2 satisfies the lot width at the rear of the 50' front/street setback line from the plat road and also at the intersection of Outlot B. As the applicant's addendum notes, the roadway could be extended northward along the north boundary providing direct access from a road outlot. In light of the impact upon this property by the the access corridors to the east and west, the driveway outlot to the north will minimize the disturbance of the heavily treed area. The City Engineer has asked for road plans for a 16' wide roadway with Outlot B. Outlot D shall be developed up to the edge of the wetlands subject to the private roadway standards either as a rural section to 24' width with ditches or urban at 28' wide with curb. The City will not require the development of Outlot E as it will never serve any lot within this subdivision. 1 • .1 'I ,1 1 zoning File #1257 January 10r 1990 Page 4 of 6 At the September meeting it was noted by one of the neighbors in attendance that it would appear appropriate that Outlot D (extension to the east) be aligned with Silver View Drive. It is not necessary for Interconnecting private road systems or layouts to be aligned with other private roadway systems on opposite intersecting collector roads. The Comprehensive Plan does not call for inner neighborhood roads to be straight line roads, but curving as these roadways provide connections through existing Improved properties. Cook only notes that it is important that there is a 100* offset, but certainly not necessary for complete alignment. The roadway has been aligned to fall at the shared lot lines of 2 properties rather than within 1 property as originally proposed in the first plan. Gradinq/Erosion Control/Landscaping - As of this writing, we have yet to receive a landscape plan although applicant has advised that plantings are proposed. The entrance monument is shown on Exhibit FF. It will stand approximately 5' high and run 10* on each side of the access road entrance. The monuments ir excess of 3* are subject to the setback standards of Section 10.03, Subdivision 16, entitled "Traffic Visibility". As nonuments are located within the residential lots, it will be necesary to create easements in favor of the homeowners association to allow maintenance and upkeep. As noted above, drainfield site«> on specified lots must be fenced prior to road construction. Erosion control shall be installed at the time of grading (refer to Exhibit EE for a cross section of the erosion control fencing to be used). Cook has also approved the grading plan. Options of Action - 1. Denial. If members vote to deny the application, your findings must be based on the standards set forth in Section 11.02, Subdivision 10 (A). 2. Approval. If Planning Commission votes to approve the 16 lot subdivision application as amended, the following findings may be considered: A) All lots meet the standards of the RR-IB zoning district and have been designed so that there will be no need for future variances to develop as single family residential units. Zoning File #1257 January 10, 1990 Page 5 of 6 ■1 B) Septic testing has confirmed that all lots have satisfactory primary and alternate septic sites. In addition, the City has developed additional protections to safeguard destruction of those test sites, especially for those lots where septic expansion is limited. C) This 16 'lot subdivision as proposed is consistent with the rural standards of development as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan and appears to be consistent with the intent of the specific rural residential zoning district. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Amend the plat as follows: a) Realign west access outlot (referenced Outlet E on current plan) so that future roadway will meet the section line. b) Realign lot width of Lot 2, Block 4 so it meets the 200' width to the rear of the front yard setback line. 2. The following drainfield sites must be fenced 20' outward from the boundaries of the defined drainflelds prior to any road construction or other land alterations: Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 1, Block 4 (septic site located (n so’.thwost corner only) Lot 6, Block 4 Lot 7, Block 4 3. Street construction shall be in accordance with City of Orono standards. Stabilization fabric will be required in *11 areas where organic materials are not removed from under the roadbed. The developer shall provide a soils report for construction of the street through the low area. 4. The east road corridor shall be constructed as a normal street section through the wetland area. The shared driveway outlot should be constructed as a driveway section 16' wide through the wetland area. 5. Bituminous flumes will be required where water is discharged into the wetland area. Zoning File #1257 January 10, 1990 Page 6 of 6 6. Drainfield covenant to be filed against the chain of title of each of the 16* lots within the plat in order to assure future owners knowledge and awareness of the special limitations on the septic of certain lots and the need to protect the existing capabilities of septic test sites. 7, The developer shall maintain adequate erosion control throughout the construction of the road and until all ground cover disturbed on the property is restored. 8. Developer to create easements in favor of the homeowners association over Lots 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 4 for the purpose of maintenance and upkeep of the moniunents. 9. City to ask for a Conservation & Flowage Easement over all wetlands and drainageways within the subdivision. 10. Developer will be asked to grant underlying access and utility easements over Outlet A and the east/west road outlets. All access to the 16 lots shall be via the approved plat roadways. No individual curb cuts onto Watertown Road will be allowed. As there are no specific standards for the consideration of monuments, each developer is asked to provide plans and elevations for the City's special review and approval. The Planning Commission should also make a recommendation to the Council regarding the proposed monuments. -J e #1257 , 1990"£"«c“of°thri«^ »9aln« the chain o£or eacn of the 16 lots within the plat in order tos future owners knowledge and awareness of the specialatlons on the septic of certain lots and the netdto.t the existing capabilities of septic test sites.shall maintain adequate erosion control the construction of the road and until all oround disturbed on the property is restored. groundIcreate easements in favor of the homeowners Latlon over Lots 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block rlS^ thl e of maintenance and upkeep of the monuments.1 Conservation & Plowage Easement over tlands and drainageways within the subdivision.underlying access and -y easements over Outlot A and the east/west roadIs 16 lots shall be via ?he ^ p"cVa*wl7l*1r/".liowed ‘’. cuts onto ”ea^h Btandard. £or the conelderatlon o£ £or thl provide plans andfor the City's special review and approval The irdino the ® recommendation to theiraing the proposed monuments• ,I Receipt -CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATIONSite Address 3140 Watertown RoadProperty Identification Number (P.I.D.) 33-118-23-32-0001Please check one -* Property X abstract or torrens?Attach legal description to application Phone (home)/UrirXiX xName ^ Oarhdn Phone (work) Address :City: ^ fdVlO Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) N2une Phone (home) Phone (work) Address 2 Citv:Zio: (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USB Number of Tax Parcels 1 Develooment Size 42.69 Acres Dry Land 21735 Acres Wet Land parcels64.04 Acres Total, all h^resent Use (check)Residential; no.of units 1 Other (specify) Present Zoning District RR-1B PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: 1 ^rpmnvpri) Existing Units New Units Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) 87,120 Total Units Units per 64 Acres Sq Feet Dry Buildable Land h ; i 1 •] Residential Other (specify)_ Phone (home )(tn QarHdn Phone (worlc)33fcWfe33sides'Fat "S--Citv: ^ f^O Zip: rent than applicant)Phone (home ) Phone (worlc) Citv;Zio: ist if more than one) SE Tax Parcels 1 * t Size 42.69 Acres Dry Land 21.3b Acres Wet Land 64.04 Acres Total# all parcels e (check) X Residential; no. of ' units 1 Other (specify) ning District RR-1B MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION ipleted Application Formiliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey.•tified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain list ?roS SeLepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center.smplaV’legal aiaed envelopes (110) pre-addressed « ‘h*nes on the above list with no return address (use address labels•ained with oroperty owners list)# ^ j ^an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list or Other persons you wish notified of this application.cation by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application isDat ^)fficial's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ :le opinion. lementSf Covenants, etc. relopers Agreement and Letter of Credit. ration by Zoning Department that Final Plat Application is complete. Date)fficial's Signature Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) Preliminary Review (Class III. and all non-residential) # Pinal Plat Review (Class III) *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) _________________ ilicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or ed by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer, g conmission and Council necessary to Process agrees to pay all additional fees established by ordinance. $150.00 250.00 300.00 + 20.00/Lot 150.00* tit's Signature Date Datelignature -- - - --- - - - - - - - - - • must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the nday of each month. Applicants must be present at ®^®^ setings of the Planning Commission and Council. If r® D attend a scheduled meeting, please make , Zoning id agent attend in your place and to advise the Building 6 Zoning : this change prior to the meeting. PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONThe West 869 feet of the South 1170 feet of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota measured along or parallel with the West and South lines thereof, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.AndThe West half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, EXCEPT part taken for railroad, and also EXCEPT that part of said West half lying South of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter;thence North along the West line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 1170 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence East parallel with the South line of said Southwest Quarter to the East line of said Southwest Quarter, and there ending, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. . « ft jm ^ « • • # L property description1170 feet of the West Ml of the Southwest 1/4 of Ranoe 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian. Henne- ong or parallel with the West and South thereof, Government Survey thereof and situate in HennepinAnduarter of Section 33, Township 118 ^jo^lxCEPTan EXCEPT part taken for railroad, and also tXLtKi5 South of the following detcrited line: Co^nc ngSouthwest Quarter,thence North alongance of 1170 feet to the point of beginning of theer narallel with the South line of said Southwestj Southwest Quarter, and there en<1^9.By thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.t I Mil MTi eem/M MTCMTASMAYiiN«Hi/AMIflMKR MMnNRAVUTAKRAVn M M*117-tS <X OMS OSIM MATCRTOMI RO 0 e MRZ tor MERZ DOUOLAS I ■ OIMC P MRZ nn NRTtRTOMN RD UM0 UKC IM 0SSMS0 OR-117-tS U OOU OOOM CVeNIT RL RICNAR0 J MMLAR ALAN SLONZN M CV0NET RUCE UM0 LAKE HN 5SSM10 0A-117-U At Mt7ttr OP LAURA PERREU NARt R FERREll S40I NATERnOtt RO UNO LAKE HN SSSS*HEIMERIN COUNTY RRORERTY INFORfUTlON SVSTEH RRORERTY 0»*CRS LIST39 04-n7-tS 22 0007 0002S CVSNET RL JOSEPH S I AHI L FISCHER JOSEPH S A AM L FISCHER 2S CY6NET PLACE LONG LAKE HN S635ASO 00-117-23 22 0017 OOOaO CVONET RL P A A VITKO RAUL A A AHI L VITKO 00 CVSNET PLACE LONS LAKE ftl SS3SA30 00-117-23 22 00200300S HATERTOm RO 0RUCE C A KATHRYN S HALL 0RUCE C A KATHRYN S NALL 3005 NATERTOtM RD ORONO HN ^.,354 REPORT 110. PlOSSOOl PAGE 1230 00-117-23 22 0000 00045 CYOCT RL UIANE L KOEPKE OIANE L KOEPKE 45 CYGNET PLACE LONG LAKE Ml 5535430 00-117-23 22 0020 00020 CYGNET PL T A C SHIEJATHOMAS A CHRISTINA SHIEJA P O BOX 71LONG LAKE m 5535430 05-117-23 11 0 U03205 HATERTONN mO C A A RHATC CARL P RIIAHE 3205 HATERTOItl ROAD LONG LAKE HN 55354TANPAVIRNRM/AROR M 05-117-23 11 0005 ROOTS UAF ST E C GRANAN JR ETAL E C GRANAN JR Of LEAP ST UMO LAKE HN 55354 30 32-11)1-23 10 000203205 NAYZATA BLVO H F EISIMGER ETAL HOHARO F EISINGER 3205 NAYZATA BLVO LOIIB LAKE HN 55354 30 32-110-23 01 00010003B AOORESS UNASSIGNED PAUL A STUBBS LVNOOM STUBBS 105 OLD CRYSTAL BAY P- LONG LAKE HN 55354TAXPAYERNENE/AORR 30 32-110-23 00 0001 03220 NATERTOFM RO CAROL L SEMI CAROL L SENN 900 0 OROMI ROAD NAYZATA >BI 55391 30 32-11B-23 00 000203200 HATERTOM RO DAN HART DOUGLAS N HART 3200 HATERTOm ROAD LONG LAKE m 55354 38 32-110-23 00 0003 03260 HATERTONN RO 0 t H HART DOUGLAS H NART 3200 HATERTOMI ROAD LONG LAKE NN 55354 •J*. -t. TAXPAYER NAM/ARRR 30 33-1U-23 23 0002 03025 NAYZATA BLVO ROBERT E A KATHRYN DIMAS ROBERT E A KATHRYN OUHAS 30EI NAYZATA BLVO LONG LAKE N4 SS3S4 30 33-110-23 31 0002 00345 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N GEORGE E JOHNSON ETAL GEORGE E JOHNSON 545 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD LONG LAKE HN 55354 SO 33-110-23 31 0004 00315 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N AAA ENGLEMAN ALLAN J EHGLENAN 315 OLO CRYSTAL BAY RD LONG LAKE SS3S4 i71 •n J- ' nm I y 33 -//Jf- ^4 -------- LJ r.vit 9JK9JJ9I --------a. //4 - 2 3 Jz - - V *• '** • "• />' ■ H ■u* -.-J ] ■•« ^ « < ^ - I ^ *•■ |sf;f . ArU-\jr:pr^_' 4 !« ;4 !'• 1 *r • i : : or^"V~: •• V ••« ■• •• «1 • •• •« 1 ' yfrTi “0 1. h 1 ” ■ ► ■ • l.J Our road has a lesser environmental impact than does peripheral road. A road around the outside of the property would be between 2-3 tiroes longer than the road. The increased hardcover would create more stormwater runo’f and the environmental burden on surrounding land will be greater than will be the use of one-half of an acre of the wooded area. Furthermore, we are providing about 0.3 acre feet of replacement storage capacity in a pond on the west side of the site to compensate for the roadway filling. It is my opinion that using one-half of an acre of the wooded area will have minimal environmental impact on the area, whereas having a road along the limits of the site will have greater environmental burden. 2.) A peripheral road would be detrimental to the property. At least five lots would be harmed by a peripheral road. Block 2, Lots 6 and 7 would be the most seriously impacted. These lots have the best trees on the entire 64 acre property. The trees are mature, desirable maples. In order for the road to get to the easterly periphery, it would have to cut a path through the trees. A peripheral road will also be visually and esthetician displeasing to other parts of this property. A peripheral road running across Block 2, Lot 8 and Block 3, Lots 1 and 2, would be very close to the building sites which is undesirable and inconsistent with the rural nature of Orono. Also, having a road or the periphery, which is open with no trees, will be visually and esthetician unappealing. There is nothing pleasing about a road, particularly a road which takes three 90 degree turns and travels approximately 1,300 feet ppin a straight path along the east property line. The peripheral road would be industrial looking and not in kt^eping with the appearance of the overall site. 3.)A peripheral road would also be harmful to the east. properties When we filed the application for subdivision, Orono^s staff provided the long-range plan for the development of the area along Old Crystal Bay Road. The plan showed a planned north-south artery to the Indian Creek. Attachment 4 shows that road. As the land along Old Crystal Bay is subdivided, there would be a row of homes along the west side of that future north-south road. There is already one home in that area, owned by Scott Goldsmith. If the Indian Creek Development road went along its periphery, those homes at the back of the Old Crystal Bay property would have a road on each side of their property. Thus, we would be creating an esthetician undesirable situation for the residents of Indian Creek and also for those residents directly to the east of Indian Creek. For these reasons, we felt that the best environmentally and esthetxcian feasible road plan was per our subdivision drawing. We believe that there are two legal reasons why the Indian Creek Development is entitled to use the approximately one-half acre of the ten acre wooded area for road purposes. These are discussed in a separate letter by Mr. Carlson. Yours very truly. GMS:skw 7 ^55T*. 7^'•rJTm > .m. * ^ ^S< 'i r/ ^** ■'->•*• *^f A * iVJi *; i 'v /a ^^N<; ;is:-K _ * - por? ?*£- :MQM^ : rn j • • !• I 1 4» V- >.* ^ ^1 i^jt. 0 . ;nf<|f9saB;|np^Bppp^ . y* / f 4k 4 ♦ :! r* September 14, 1989 Alan G. Carlson 3125 Fox Street Long Lake, MN 55356 Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zone Administrator City of Orono Following the report of Sunde Engineering, I believe it is appropriate for my application to contain my position on the legal basis for the use of a portion of the treed acre for road puarposes. The first basis is that the treed area does not fall within the definition of a protected area. The Orono Code defines a protected area to be a low area that is "subject to periodic flooding or overflow." The treed area does not flood and it does not take overflow from other areas. I understand that Orono originally designated the protected wetlands approximately thirty years ago based upon aerial photographs. Since that time, the nature of the treed area has changed. The ditch system has kept water from other areas out of the treed area and the trees have flourished. Today, this treed area does not fit the definition of a protected area. While the entire ten acre of trees could be redesignated, I am not asking for that. I am not asking to use the ten acres for home sites. I am only asking that that one- third of an acre of that treed acres be used for a road. The second legal basis for using the approximately one-third acre for a road is that, assuming the land were protected wetlands, a variance should be granted under Section 10.08, Subd. 3 of the Orono Code, because the variance "will not alter the essential character of the locality." As Mr. Sunde discussed, the road path is, in fact, environmentally superior to the peripheral road alternative. Very truly yours. Alan G. Carlson t areas when, in midsummer and late summer, the less permanent marshes begin to dry out. The borders of such areas are used for nesting through out the Northern States. \Miere vegetation is plentiful, they are used in all sections of the country as feeding and resting areas by ducks, geese, and coots, especially during the migration period. F!yw»y area: 1. Pacific north............................................. nnn 2. Pacific south ........................................... ^ 4. Central south........................................... 5. Misaiaaippi north..................................... 6. Mississippi south..................................... lo®- ^ 7. AtUuuic north.......................................... Jf. ^ 8. Atlantic south.......................................... 541. 50U Tjpc 6 —Shrub swamas (pi. 6). The soil is usually waterlogged during the growing season, and is often covered with as much as 6 inches of water. Vegetation inclu<les alders, willows, but- tonbush, dogwoods, and swamp-privet. Shrub swamps occur mostly alo.ng sluggish streams and occasionally on flood plains. They are used to a limited e.xtent for nesting and feeding in the North and for roosting and feeding in some of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley States. Else* where, shrub swamps an little used except in a few special situations. Fly way area: 1. Pacific north............................................ 2. Pacific south............................................ 3. Central north........................................... 4. Central south........................................... -3. 5U() 5. Mississippi north—-............................ 4^ 6. Mississippi south..................................... IJJ ’ 7. Atlantic north.......................................... <' • ^ 8. Atlantic south.......................................... ^22. 100 Type 7 —Wooded swampa (pi. 7). The soil is waterlogged at least to within a few inches of its surface during the growing season, and is often covered with as much as I foot of water. Wooded swamps occur mostly along sluggish streams, on flood plains, on flat uplands, and in very shallow lake basins. In the No-th, trees include tama rack, arborvitae, black spruce, balsam, red maple, and black ash. In the S<iuth, water oak, overcup oak, tupelo gum, swamp black gum, and ’cypress are dominant. In the Northwest, western hem lock, red alder, and willows are common. North ern evergreen swamps usually have a thick ground covering of mosses. Deciduous swamps frequently support beds of duckweeds, sm^r^- weeds, and other herbs. Wooded swamps often occur in association with shrub swamps, and waterfowl often use the 22 a:two types interchangeably. In the Southeast, Type 7 swamps become particularly important in years when lack of sujfficient fall and early winter rains leave overflow areas dry. At such times, wooded swamps represent the only shallow water available over wide areas. This type is particularly useful to the wood duck throughout the range of this species. Fly way area: 1. Pacific north........................................... ^2' 2. Pacific south.........................................- 2, 100 4 Central south--____________________39,000 S: MissLippi north.................................... 2.906,^ 6. Mississippi south.................................... 2, 813, ^ 7. .Atlantic north......................................... 556. ^ 8. .Atlantic south......................................... 10,4^3,200 Xjpe 8 —Bogs (pi. 8). These are often called pocosins. bays, and savannahs in the South. The soil is usually waterlogged and supports a spongy covering of mosses. Bogs occur mostly in shallow lake basins, on flat uplands, and along sluggish streams. Vegetation is woody or herbaceous, or both. Typical plants are heath shrubs, sphagnum moss, and sedges. In the North, leather-leaf. Labrador-tea, cranberries, carex, and cottongrass are often present. In the South, cyrilla, persea, gordonia, sweetbay, pond pine, Virginia chainfern, and pitcher-plants arc common. Scattered, often stunted, black spruce and tamarack may occur in northern bogs. Bogs have the lowest waterfowl rating, country wide, of all the 20 types. In northern New Eng land, however, they assume considerable signif icance. In Maine alone, 25,500 acres are classed as being of primary importance to w'aterfowl. Fly way area: 1. Pacific north............................................. j* 2. Pacific south............................................. ^nn 3. Central north........................................... 4. Central south............................................ 5. .Mississippi north..................................... 6. Mississippi south...................................... J5* 7. Atlantic north........................................... 8. .Atlantic south........................................... <33. 5UU INLAND SALINE AREAS Xype 9 —Inland Saline flats (pi. 9). The soil is without sunding water except after periods of heavy precipitation, but it is waterlogged to within at least a few inches of the surface during the growing season. Vegetation (often sparse or patchy) consists of salt-tolerant plants such as seablite, saltgrass, Nevada bulrush, saltbush, and burro-weed. Type 9 wetlands occur in un drained sumps in many parts of the arid \Vest. Sometimes they cover e.xtensive areas. 1/1 Bonestroo Rosene ^SAnderlik & Associates Ono G 3on«troa PE fibOftt ^ Ro«ne. PE JOKon C Anoeftiii. PE P<na#0 E Turner. PE C Osson PE Gienn P Coot PE Thomas £ Noyei PE ROOert G Scrxirtcftt, PE VUrwtn L iorv#4, PE A Go»don PE w Po«ef, PE DonatJ C BurgifOi. PE jerry A Bourdon. PE Mart A Manion. PE Ted K PE M<naet T Rjuamnn p£ Rooert R Pfsffcne PE Oavid Q Lowxa. PE Tnomas Peterion. PE M<nae« C Lyncn PE jamei R Maiand. PE Kerviem P Anoenon PE Mart R Rbtfl PE Hboert C Ruiiet a i a Thomas E Arguv PE MO¥va»o A Sarfcra PE D^jct J Edgcrtor p£ Mart A Sec P£ Ph4<» j Caswet PE / r.tart 0 Waitv PE Thomas R Anderson. AJ A Gary F Rytarx3er PE Miles B Jertsen. PE L Pn mo Gravel fl PE Cnanes A Enckson Leo M Pawe^ Hanan M 0<son SusanM Ebertn CPA Engineers & Architects JanuaxTT 8, 1990 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth Re: File No. 139-1457 Indian Creek Dear Jeanne, We have reviewed the preliminary plat submitted on the Indian Creek subdi vision. The plan as submitted is acceptable provided an outlot is provided to the west for a future street. The storm water drainage calculations have been provi led for the subdivision. The runoff from the site has been controlled at the same rate that existed prior to development or less. The City may reduce the flow from the watershed in the future when the comprehensive storm sewer plan is completed. The developer has provided a ponding area to mitigate the filling in of the wet land required to construct the streets. Drainage easements will be required along all lot lines and at other locations as shown on the plan. The street construction will be in accordance with City of Orono standards. Stabilization fabric will be required in all areas where the organic materials are not removed from under the roadbed. Three feet of good soils will be required between the fabric and finished subgrade. The developer shall provide a soils report for construction of the street through the low area. Outlot D shall be constructed as a normal street section through the wetland area. Outlot B shall be constructed as a driveway section 16 feet wide through the wetland area. The developer shall grade the ditch along Watertown Road to provide for a standard roadway section. The construction of bituminous 4.*lumes will be required where the water is discharged into the wetland area. Storm sewer with catch basins will be placed near Watertown Road to control the runoff. If you have any questions, please contact this office. 1 Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. GRC:li 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 “i.w -w-T- .-k- “ >.'7;^ I Cir©ek “ Addn Ssptlc Rsvisw January 8, 1990 Page 2 of 2 *1 V applicants have advised that the the pri?atr?old*'to »^sed to direct flow from appear to be relatively good building sites. is west end of the drainfield site is fairly near road construction and should be ,strictlv drainfield sites in Lot 7, Block 2*4re in an open area near the end of the existlna ^ should be protected from inadvertent traffic. ^ code requirement for pr!/,ry*\”md"’alt\?„'Lte°‘dr?irf?^?d ‘Lrel! «pe£?1H“"reco^«nH^??^?"i; within this subdivision. I would ^ :STr ?r*"^ s»*e‘i?^mi‘rrrm\"mi‘'rniy^ exlsi?in must not be disturbed. The eub3:i?%o“V„;*\r\?f?c“whTmh^^Tl^Vu"el^\%%“rHe”Vl^^ Note that the covenant requires a fence 20' outward ■from +-v>« mpinrequipLnt*'ald®furlUr%:q^^^ drl« on“‘ad7ac?nt°\o“ts“°" °° traffic does not the of,tto^d-°" comments, I would recommend approval of t. i To: Fron: Dates Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator January 8, 1990 Subjects Preliminary Plat of Indian Creek - Additional Septic Review w The applicants have slightly revised their plat since my memo of November 7th, and have provided additional testing on various lots. I would make the following comments: 1. For Lot 1, Block 1, I was previously concerned about the location of the drainfield site in the southeast corner, near potential drainageways and road construction. At our meeting with the applicants on December 15th, they Indicated that along Watertown Road, the existing ditches would be used, and that drainage from the west side of the new private road would be culverted to the east. Additionally, the site evaluator confirms that the system can feasibly be moved further west to meet the minimum 20' lot line setbacks and should not be affected by road construction. This site definitely must be fenced off during road construction, however, this appears to be a viable lot. 2. Nothing has changed on Lots 2 and 3, Block 1. Those lots appear to have acceptable drainfield sites and adequate room to place a house. 3. The easterly proposed drainfield site near the proposed road in Lot 4, Block 1 has been eliminated. The new alternate drainfield site is shown at the base of the hill but above the flood plain elevation. Per our discussions with the City Engineer, the location of the Conservation and Flowage Easement and the flood plain demarcation line have been moved to a lower elevation near Lots 4 and 5 based on the berm systems to be created upstreaun (see grading plan). The drainfield sites on Lot 4 seem to be quite suitable, and elimination of the site near the road is a very appropriate measure. 4. Similar to Lot 4, the drainfield sites in Lot 5 are feasible and suitable in light of the grading plan with berm system. I 5L 5. Lots 4 and Block J-and Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, as noted before,^ all appear to have reasonable drainfield sites. We would encourage owners to locate houses and other lot improvements as far from the drainfield sites as possible where houses are directly downhill from those sites. X I ; ! 1 [■; U Drainfield Covenant Each lot has two Orono approved sewage treatment sites. protect those important sites from inadvertent damage or destruction, no owner shall permit any cars, trucks, or earth moving equipment to enter upon the lot of any other owners. Additionally, no lot owner shall construct any driveway, erect any building, or permit earth moving equipment on that owner's lot without first: A.Erecting a clearly visible fence during construction twenty feet from the boundary of its sewage treatment sites along that part of the site that is between the site and all areas which are assessable to earth moving equipment; and B.Erecting a clearly visible fence during construction along that part of the owner's lot line that is between an adjacent owner's sewage treatment site and the areas on the owner's lot which are assessable to earth moving equipment. To assist each owner in identifying the location of drainfields, the developer has staked each drainfield at its corners. Further, tie drainfield locations are shown on the Preliminary Development Plan on file at the City Hall, City of Orono. W Drainfield CovenantEach lot has two Orono approved sewage treatment sitej. To set those important sites from inadvertent damage or niction, no owner shall pennit any cars, trucks, or earth ig equipment to enter upon the lot of any other owners. ;ionally, no lot owner shall construct any driveway, erect )uilding, or permit earth moving equipment on that owner's rithout first:A. Erecting a clearly visible fence during construction twenty feet from the boundary of its sewage treatment sites along that part of the site that is between the site and all areas which are assessable to earth moving equipment; andB. Erecting a clearly visible fence during construction along that part of the owner's lot line that is between an adjacent owner's sewage treatment sire and the areas on the owner's lot which are assessable to earth moving equipment. To assist each owner in identifying the location of fields, the developer has staked each drainfield at its rs. Further, t?'.e drainfield locations are shown on the minary Development Plan on file at the City Hall, City of 2. Minimizing the length of the road is consistent with Orono City Code Section 11.32.subd.2.b.4. which states that "roadways shall be laid out . . . to re(^ire the minimum number of roadways necessary to provide convenient and safe access to property."3. At the September Planning Commission review, the commission specifically recommended that I consider the use of such an outlet to access the northern properties and suggested that I go out to the Hunt Farm Subdivision which utilized ’:e outlet concept to access two properties.4. The Outlet B plan is consistent with other subdivisions with similar topographical considerations such as Hunt Farm and North Stream.To summarize. Outlet B provides a far more aesthetic access to properties than using a wide, more lengthy road, and it is in furtherance of Orono City Code and consistent with the Planning Commission's prior recommendation and prior Orono subdivisions.Very truly yours, Alan G. Carlson December 28, 1989 / OK 2 91989 ?.i.an G. Car. 3125 Fox Street Long Lake, HN 55356 Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zone Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55356 Dear Jeanne: As you know, the preliminary plat which we submitted for Indian Creek utilizes an outlet for the access to Lot 4/ Block I would like to state the factors which influenced the use of the outlet. / Lot Block ^ has 200 feet fronting on the main road. However, a driveway which came off of the main road would have to travel about 400 feet through low ground. Consequently, we preferred other alternatives for access to the building site on XiO ^ 6. Our preliminary plat uses the Outlet B configuration for access to Lot Sl The road's cul-de-sac ends on the high ground of the treed area approximately 400 feet from the northern boundary of the property. Instead of providing Lot/f with an easement over Lot we felt it was preferable to create Outlet B over which Lot I's driveway could be built. Lot ^ could also use that driveway. An alternative was to simply continue the main road along the path that Outlet B occupies and provide the cul- de-sac at the junction of Lotsljl and We have the necessary high ground on those two lots to accommodate the road and the drainfield locations would not be impaired by the road. I have asked Sunde Land Survey, Inc. to provide you with a drawing showing that configuration. Considering the two alternatives, the Outlet B design is preferable to extending the road for a number of reasons. 1.Aesthetics favor the use of Outlet B. A single driveway going up to Lot I#- and ^ will be far less disruptive of the area and more aesthetically pleasing than a wide paved road. The present cul-de-sac located in the high ground in the treed area will be a very attractive turn around point for motorists. There is simply no good reason to run turn-around motorists up the hill to the junction of Lots & and f. I ^ M V:i:•i:4iiiMfUlU r«w:T*iii o •! «•] •nK # KIHUTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION !TING JANUARY 16, 1990 ii:4»PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS CONTIN1 Kelley said that the first point to consider is whether the pool is in the ground or above it. The next point is whether any part of it extends beyond 6* in height above grade. Mabusth informed the Planning Commission that the reason this matter has been brought forward is due to the questions raised in the Peterson application for a pool. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend leaving the recently adopted Accessory Structure Ordinance as is. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1457 ALAN CARLSON 3140 WATERTOWN ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 7:25 P.N. TO 7:30 P.M. Mr. Alan Carlson was present for this public hearing, as was Mr. Jerry Sunde and Mr. Gary Petersen. Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided a brief review of this application. Mabusth noted that Lot 2, Block 4, does not meet the required lot width at the 50' setback. Mabusth said that with the revised plan, there are no longer any flag lots and Lot 7 achieves access from the extension of the east corridor road. Mabusth recommended that there be a shared access for Lots 1 and 2. Mabusth said that drainage pertaining to off-site improvements is still in the review pre *;ess. Mabusth said that should there be a change in a lot line due to something that had to be agreed to as part of final approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, it will come back tc the Planning Commission. Brown asked how the drainage easements were designated on the plat? Mabusth explained that the conservation and flowage easements extend out everywhere to the 970* elevation. Mabusth said that the area where the berm is to be located, the conservation and flowage easement will be amended to go to the 968* elevation. Planning Commissioner Hanson asked why the cul-de-sac was being placed as indicated? Mr. Carlson replied that the cul-de-sac location was determined by the topography; the ground in that location is higher. Chairman Kelley asked Mr. Carlson if he objected to any of the conditions of approval? Mr. Carlson Indicated that he had no objections. Mabusth said that it should be noted that this is a 16 lot plat, not a 17 lot plat. Mabusth said the Outlot C is on the Li MIHDTBS OP THE PIANHIH6 COMMISSION :i:-K TING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 ZONING PILE «1457-CARLSON CONTINUED Planning Commissioner Bellows, to table this application until such time that the septic report has been reviewed by the staff and Planning Commission. Planning Commissioner Brown questioned how the City would protect the draintile or drainage ditches running through this property? Mabusth replied that they would be protected with drainage easements. Kelley placed the applicant on notice that he should submit information pertaining to the location of the draintile before coming back before the Planning Commission. Motion, Ayes»6, Nays=0, Motion passed. *1440 1ST NATIONAL BANK OP THE LAKES 2445 SV'‘'>T:I00D ROAD COMME L SITE PLAN REVIEW CONTia .TION OP PUBLIC HEARING 7:56 P.M. TO 8:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Mark Winter was present as a representative for the Bank. Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided a brief explanation of the application being presented. 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 Hanson, to recommend approval of the commercial site plan for application #1440, and the installation of an additional lane. Motion, Ayes*»6, Nays**0, Motion passed. #1441 DON COPLEY 1185 TONKAWA ROAD VARXANCES CONTINUATION OP PUBLIC HEARING 8:03 P.M. TO 8:09 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Copley was present for this matter. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth explained that staff's hardcover calculations had been incorrect due because a portion of the 0-75' setback area was not included. Staff has calculated that there will a 1.2% increase in hardcover in the 75-250' setback area. Mabusth said there will be a 1' to 1.5' encroachment of the average lakeshore setbacx lin^ Planning Commissioner Hanson asked Mr. C would be willing to remove existing hardcover the percent of hardcover the same? whether he sr to keep Mr. Copley said that he would prefer not to remove any of the existing hardcover. MIIIUTBS OF THE PIAHimiG COMMISSIOH MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989TEMDER 18, 1989application until iewed by the staff sr Brown questioned : drainage ditches ed that they would elley placed the orination pertaining ng back before the Motion passed. 00 P.M. ate of Mailing were ssentative for the h provided a brief sgarding this matter onded by Planning the commercial site .on of an additional 09 P.M. ate of Mailing were 5th explained that rect due because a eluded. Staff has n hardcover in the 11 be a 1* to 1.5' lin • C whether he sr sr to keep Dt to remove any of M i ZONING PILE #1457-CAHLSON CONTINL_Mr. Schirmers pointed out specific lots on the diagram and stated that because of the severe slope and poor percolation rates some of the sites will be limited as to septic development.Chairman Kelley asked how the City protects the alternate sites from being destroyed for the purpose of constructing tennis courts and other accessory structures.Mabusth said that the City will have to warn the future property owner, not only the developer of the need to protect those sites. Mabusth said that the City has not specifically done this in the past although those concerns were always addressed when accessory structure permits were requested. Mabusth said that a copy of the mapping of the septic sites approved with the preliminary subdivision would filed with a covenant or another appropriate document. The Planning Commission as a whole, with the exception of Planning Commissioner Cohen, did not object to the road be located in the designated wetland. In regard to configuration as a whole, Cohen indicated that he believed the plan was calling for more lots than the area can efficiently handle. Bellows said that the configuration as shojra would not get her approval, due to the flag lot and pushing the parcel to its limit of development. Brown said that he would vote favorably if it is demonstrated that the lots can handle two septic sites and if there are no variances required. He also conditioned that upon the septic being approved. Hanson that he had trouble with the northwest configuration# the lot and that he felt the density was a bit too high. Moos that the development was too dense for the topography and that she too objected to the flag lot. Mr. Carlson asked the Planning Commission for direction and more specific information as to what they would like to see him do. Kelley said that he would like to see all lots meet the width standard# irrespective of configuration# including a direct access to the lot. Bellows summarized that the road through the wetlands is no problem, but it must provide direct access to the dry buildable portion of the lots. The Planning Commission suggested that Mr. Carlson may have to revise his proposal showing one less lot along the east side in order to meet the 200* front width. 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 mUOTES OF THE PUUnmiG COMMISSIOH MEBTIHG SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 < ZOHIMG FILE #1457~CARLSOH COMTIHI Gaffron said that staff needs more time to review this aspect of the application once the detailed reports are submitted. Hr. Carlson asked that approval be given conditioned upon approval being given by staff. Mr. A1 Engleman, 315 Old Crystal Bay Road, said that he was opposed to the road outlot being proposed to the east. Chairman Kelley explained the policy of the City regarding the need to plan for future roads. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that the road being proposed does not have direct access to the lots. She also said that she questioned the buildability of two of the lots shown in the plat. She said that she would have difficulty giving preliminary approval of this subdivision without the septic report. Bellows also said that she objects to the creation of a flag lot. Mabusth asked the Planning Commission how they felt about the shared access being proposed for Lots 6 and 7 along the south lot line. Bellows said that there are many beautiful trees to the south which will call for the road to be placed north of the property line. This in turn will push the house lots further north into the wetland. Mr. Carlson disagreed with Bellow’s opinions regarding the proposed road. He said that he had gone to great lengths to find the optimum plan for the road and there were no other options. Planning Commissioner Hanson said that he had reservations about approving a road that runs through the Orono designated wetlands. He said that he may be able to approve such a configuration, but did not like the concept of the additional road beyond the end of the cul-de-sac needed to access the lot. Hanson also said that he objected to the creation of the flag lot and would have difficulty approving the subdivision without having the opportunity to review the septic testing report. Chairman Kelley said that the lot configurations bothered him. He suggested that Mr. Carlson was trying to force too many lots into this development. He said that he did not object to the road running through the designated wetland. Kelley said that he objected to the septic informtaion being incomplete and the creation of the flag lot. Mabusth asked Schirmers which lots would be considered to have the most limited location for septic sites? MIHDTBS OP THE PLANNIH6 CONNISSIOH MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 r ZONING PILE #1457-CARI.SON CONTINDED that area as long as it is far enough north so that it catches the runoff. Mr. Merz asked whether due to the lower water levels now existing if the applicant's drainage plans would further slow the runoff from Claussen Creek? Mr. Sunde did not believe it would have any effect. Chairman Kelley asked how much flowage there was currently? Mr. Merz said that it was fairly dry. Mrs. Senn added that in the Spring there is heavy flow coming from Claussen Creek. Mr. Scott Goldsm:.th, 265 Old Crystal Bay Road, said that he had a flowage and conservation easement on his property that was required by the City. Mr. Goldsmith said that water comes into his property from the north and runs west. Chairman Kelley asked how the slope of the lots would facilitate septic systems? Mr. Schirmers said that all lots would require mound systems. He said he has found areas available that are at 6% slope or less. Two lots appear to have future expansion sites within areas at 7% slope. Along the perimeter of the wetland, erosion has forr»d plateaus and will allow for septic systems being placed t the base of the slope. He said that all of the lots had bee ; tested with the exception of Lot 8. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron said that there are some steep slope concerns for Lot 8 where the slopes are at 9%. He said that I- t 8 was questionable as a building site. Gaffron said that he is also concerned about the existence of only one primary anr. one alternate site being available for the majority of lots. He said that during the course of constructing the road, lack of extreme care by the contractor could easily result in the destruction of one site or the other, thus Icsing the buildability of the let entirely. Mr. Carlson said that he would take necessary measures to assure that those sites would be protected. Planning Commissioner Bellows observed that it would be difficult to achieve access to the proposed attached garage on Lot 6, Block 1, and yet avoid the septic areas. Gaffron replied that indeed he had not yet received a detailed report for each site and it is difficult to determine any specific separation distances without that. Schirmers said that there would be some room to slide the systems around on Lot 6. He said that the slope would allow the mound to wrap around to the west. Mr. Sunde said that the lot was open and would allow for flexibilit ’.' in the location of the septic system. the runoff. Ih enough north so that It catohesfullffirtfSCS5£'14 “nVe PUns^ru!/?Sr%U*?f^’-e. that Jthe"l^rr„Tth\-I -LOW coming from Claussenhta property fros. the'north and'j^ii^sS'.'’ '='’" ‘"o^o^e^^ln "laoilltate septic Vyste“^®'^ ''°" '='’* *1°?® of the lots would'H J7, fr -PP«“S{H"‘ “*'« ”°,“s"l'o^pr*o ”‘- laced .t the =”•* "HI al l^w "'Hand, erosion - -est'ed'’l?th°'ti.'e'':-;?!;n o"l -*"”tn^^*^t"l ;UeH: “* pe-^tl/p-l saffron said is?t”nl/‘o‘r o. ?“"" 'L \ 1“” 1-«io‘’na';\V\s ‘'’: urse Of co„etruct"<V°ll ‘5' 1®“. le said"tV®. »®1 ”9 '^ttactor could easilv^ toad, lack of extreme ®®ting the * other, thus losing >;b”ruJ ‘idi"bi5^1y"^rfb"l1c? °'"""H‘e‘Sr' Mre Carlson said i. tzrely, 'ure that those sites would V protected measures to rrVsfem-- - HeVibi"ll;;^ ig -r . f\ MIHDTBS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MBBTING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 ATTENDANCE 7^00 P.M.The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairman Kelley; PlanningCommissioners Cohen, Bellows, Hanson, Brown and Moos. The following represented the City staff: Building and ZoningAdministrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron and City Recorder Scheffler. CounciImember Goetten was also present.#1457 ALAN CARLSON3140 HATERTHON ROADPRELIMINARY SUBDIVISIONPUBLIC HEARING 7:00 P.M. TO 7:55 P.M.The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing wereduly noted. The applicant was present for this public hearing, as was Mr. Gary Peterson, Mr. Jerry Sunde, his surveyor, and Mr. Steve Schirmers, his septic consultant. Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided a brief introduction of the proposed subdivision. Chairman Kelley observed that the "flag lot" would not meet the required lot width. Mabusth said that a lot width variance would be required for that lot and that staff was presenting two options for accessing that lot. Mr. Doug Merz, 3195 Watertown Road, asked in what direction water from the wetland flowed? Mabusth explained that the water came from the north from Claussen Lake and flows toward the south. Mabusth said that there is a large wetland that drains from the Eisinger property through a drainageway under the railroad tracks. The southern one-third of the property drains to the south and then exits at the southeast corner. Chairman Kelley noted that the applicant is proposing to install a retention pond to slow the movement of water leaving the property. Mr. Sunde said that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will require the developer to not exceed pre-development discharge. Mr. Sunde explained the applicant's proposal to control drainage. Ms. Carol Senn, owner of property to the west of Mr. Carlson, asked whether the pond would be located close to her property line. Mr. Carlson confirmed that it would be close to her property line. Mr. Sunde said that the pond could be located anywhere in sbptbiibbr 10 f 10®® nine COWUSSIOII meetiiig sbptbb »»present*I ce..«i=a« .. «a.un, ««e «%VrVy sana “/hi3^»“«^^^^ ,ptlc ccnsultan . p„vided a brief d zoning '^^3'J^l ”i?ion.the proposed subdrvi lley observed that ‘5®jh“*a lot width variance Sf-thafro^orfhafftaff was presenting :.sing that lot. direction erz, 3195 Watertown Road, letland flowed? north from .plained that th* “|?“^n*ger “prV*rt5 «te “rnl «at draina southern bro%^«« d%arns ”ti the south and then corner. _ . proposing to that the appl^<=*J^ * water leaving Kelley slow the movement of wat sntion pond to sxo age. the west of Mr.- F;:SHtS3VSiii ’u tr^s."" M....... ...• •••” “ •■’•”■• ” . i r 4 t\ . l m n - .IVIIhjiuiP.O. Sox 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391loan OF MANABBIS: James R Spensieyi Pres. • AiberU. Lelunan • JoiinE. Thomas Richard R Milter • Robert 0 Erckson • C. Woodrow love • Clarkson lindiey im MINNCTOMHAPermit Application Mo. 89-167 February 22, 1990Owneri Alan G. Carlson 3125 Fox Street Long Lake, MN 55356 City of Orono, Sec. 33CCStormv/ater management plan for a 16-lot single family residential subdivision called “Indian Creek."Location!Purposei Dear Mr. Carlsoni At the regularly scheduled February 15, 1990 meeting of the Board of Managers, the subject permit application was reviev/ed. Action was taken allowing the District staff to issue your permit only after receipt and staff approval of the following! 1. Hydrologic calculations for a 1-year frequency storm event for the structure in the southeast corner of the project demonstrating conformance to District water quality treatment standards. 2. Revised plan including easements to provide access and prevent future . alteration or encroachment for stormwater management facilities. 3. Revised plan including a revised easement for the pond in the southeast corner of the site set at the projected 100-year frequency flood elevation. 4. Hydrologic calculations projecting a 100-year frequency flood elevation for the pond in the southeast corner of the site. 5. Revised water quality treatment structure details including dimensions and providing the str acture for the north portion of the site with a minimum of 8 square feet of open area for flow through the baffle. Please be advised that the project is not authorized until the above has been submitted to me and you have been notified of permit is-tuance from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 473-4224. Sincerely, JAMBS M. MONTGOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Engineers for the District Ronald S. Quanbeck, P.B. cc! Bo^d File iJZix'i of Orono J. Sunde, Sunde Engineering To; Front: Date; Jeanne A. Habusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator March 7, 1990 Subject: Indian Creek, Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 - Additional septic Information Steve Schermers has submitted additional information for Lots 4 and 5, Block 1, Indian Creek. His field work included a site analysis of the topography, which resulted in the revision of the topographic map, which had been Incorrect. The revised information indicates the following: Alternate drainfield sites on both Lots 4 and 5 appear to be above the 970' contour line which has been established as the flood plain for design purposes of this subdivision. Note that we had previously expressed concerns that, without the total berm system, no lowering of the flood plain elevation in the area of Lots 4 and 5 would be possible. The new information indicates that even with the flood plain at 970', these sites are not within the flood plain. 2. In Lot 4, the primary site is at a slope of 6%. The future expansion site has a slope of 8%, which I approved at our last meeting with the developer. 3. The slopes at the primary and alternate sites on Lot 5 are both in the range of 4%, posing no problems. 4. Note that for both Lots 4 and 5, the location of lot lines and the extent of proposed grading are such that these systems could not be extended beyond a four bedroom home capacity without reducing the availability of an equivalent alternate site. With the proposed lot lines, it would appear that the remaining lots do not share this restriction. Based on the information submitted, I would recommend approval of the proposed drainfield sites, with the condition that the easterly end of the easterly site in Lot 5 must be fenced prior to any grading within that area. The grading plan shows the limits of grading within a few feet of the easterly drainfield traffic can be allowed to encroach into that drainfield site during berm or road construction. O # .4 A H Ik. COUNCIL MEETM6 Lj MAR 12 1990 TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council CITY OF Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admin. I.al,. DATS: March 6, 1990 SUBJECT: #1452 - Walter anl Marilyn Pemberton, 1720 Shadywood Road - Variance - Resolution List of Exhibits A. Draft Denial Resolution Per Council Direction of 1/8/90 B. Notice of Council Action 1/26/90 C. Council Minutes of 1/8/90 D. Memo and Exhibits of 1/16/90 Council voted 3 to 2 to conceptually deny the Pemberton request for set-back and hardcover variances on January 8, 1990, and directed staff to draft a denial resolution. That application was tabled at applicant's request on 1/22/90 by a vote of 3 to 1. The applicants have proposed no changes in their request since the January 8th meeting. Per Council's direction, a resolution for denial has been drafted. MOTION: Moved by __, seconded by __, to adopt Resolution #___ denying variances requested by Walter and Marilyn Pemberton at 1720 Shadywood Road. Ayes _, Nays _. V i ■ i : i r L meetingMAR 1 2 1990i,;d .Mayor and City Council Q|]Y 0pMichael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admin.March 6, 1990rP: #1452 - Walter and Marilyn Pemberton, 1720 Shadywood Road - Variance - Resolution>£ ExhibitsA. Draft Denial Resolution Per Council Direction of1/8/90B. Notice of Council Action 1/26/90C. Council Minutes of 1/8/90D. Memo and Exhibits of 1/16/90\ ^ ^ conceptually deny the Pemberton request■t"®3CK and hardcover variances on January 8, 1990, and to draft a denial resolution. That application bled at applicant's request on 1/22/90 by a vote of 3 to 1. plicants have proposed no changes in their request since nuary 8th meeting. Per Council's direction, a resolution nial has been drafted. I: Moved by __, seconded by __, to adopt Resolution # g variances requested by Walter and Marilyn Pemberton it nadywood Road. Ayes ___, Nays DWT33M nnilUOO^'^000 ^0 YTI"A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODESECTIONS 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 AND 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 AND 2FILE #1452WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; andWHEREAS, pursuant to State Statute 412 seq. and 462 seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Walter and Marilyn Pemberton (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1720 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lots 12 and 13, except that part of said Lot 12 lying northerly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 71.2 feet northerly measured at right angles fro.*> the southerly line of said Lot 13, Shadywood, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 and 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit the construction of a room addition to the existing house, such addition proposed to be located entirely within the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the owner and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby denies the application of Walter and Marilyn Pemberton for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 and 10.55, Subdivision 8 for the property legally described above, based on one or more of the following findings: Page 1 of 4 111 • j |j riw»H»iiifi« [•IfHvJ Mil«« rtffsH*r;f:Ti rti^M r«iti«i*i4ir«i*i« fimdings1-250' zone is 58.0*^%. existing hardcoverCor the LR-lc District and amounts are unusuallyallowed in the harScSti?n the 75-250* zone. Alth^nnh*I*k^ hardcover normallv‘rdcover in both the 0-75'^and 75*i?5V'®*"^® proposed tot overall decrease in harWvar in hn!h in *do not justify grantinv' of i>ho •-« both zones# such proposedI hatdcov.t of iS?« ii ?L 5 ,i«.i th« Ton^. *Thl‘i°"iAVrVho'u7‘‘l%‘?| f^“ij f .trucotur. 1„ >»»d addition .111 b° appcoxlmltVw ?: S"* . A ground level deck extends f^omVh^- k® the » and at its closest point currVnf i towards the a«. any •gtandfath.rod- right to°co ‘"s*t«*cf aSl" rhat'Uct'’ Hating deck, tending to prolono and <-/ "!"*"* nature lity of the existing strultSre?' ^ ‘"‘*nsify the degree of iich requires a mlnlmun^ lotVrea of ‘21 ?J*‘^'"tlal toning n of a residence. Furthermore %hV i V ?° fo? ‘nee Th®®*" lot width is no^aily 71 feet in nee. These factors combine to erATl- ^ construction structure on the property resultV i * situation where >d a reduction in open visual not generally in keeoina w4 i-K the ted in the orono Land^se ?\^an°ehW Policy inagement Plan, as follows: chapter of the Orono LIGHT^AND air . ^ SufnSent*S?e°J® PRESERVATION OP OPEN 'ighborhood and on each lot to oStpnl- *** provided in •aaguat. light, air and ^V,rl°at‘i;rf"o'r riVV.‘:^di"n't.*^^ 5. Approval of the proposed addition %#ould also be in direct conflict with the Urban Land Use ^ 'icy 110 within the Land Use Plan, as follows:10. THE DESIGN AND NSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONTROLLED TO ASSURE tritOTECTION OF LIGHT, AIR AND SOLAM ACCESS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. Requirements for minimum lot sise, amounts of open space, minimum yard setbacks and maximum building heights will be designed to assure protection of these values for all urban residents.6. The granting of the requested var . .^s would result in thefollowing violations of Section 10.08, Si vision 3(a) of the Zoning Code with which the applicant must first x;omply before the requested variances can be granted: A. The conditions of lot area, lot width and existing lakeshore setback are not peculiar to this property but are found in many similar properties within the LR-IB zoning district and in this general neighborhood. B. Granting of the proposed variances does not deny the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The house in its current condition has served as a functional residence for this and previous owners. C. The property owner bought the property with the full knowledge that a variance would be required in order to construct the proposed addition, hence the plight of the land owner is effectively created by the land owner. D. The variance, if granted, will tend to alter the essential character of the locality by increasing the visual density of the neighborhood and the immediate property. E. The granting of the requested variances will merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is not necessary to alleviate a deomonstrable hardship or difficulty. 7. The property owners' claim that the space within the dining room is not adequate for applicant's intended use of the area as a formal dining room with major furniture components, does not constitute a hardship sufficient to justify variance approval. Page 3 of 4 Page 2 of 4 Adopted by the Orono City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held March 12, 1990. MINDTBS OP OROHO COUNCIL MBBTING OP JANUARY B, 1990 PARK DEDICATION PEES CONTIWtBD cet this out to persons in a public forum sc we can address the topic with the citizens and then set a date so we can accomplish the increase in fees. Bernhardson suggested bringing responses to the questions raised tonight back in one month and following thatr set up a meeting date. Councilmember Callahan suggested designating a specific date as to when the fees are expected to increase to provide adequate notice to developers that this will occur. It was moved by Mayor Grabekf seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to table this item with direction to staff to address this in a timely fashion and also to publicize that an increase will occur. Motion, Ayes»5, Nays»0, Motion passed. PLAimiNG COMMISSION COMMENTS . There was no Planning Commission Representative designated for this meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: #1452 WALTER PEMBERTON 1720 SHADYWOOD ROAD VARIANCE Mr. and Mrs. Pemberton were present for this matter. Bernhardson provided a brief review of this application for the Council and Mayor Grabek. Bernhardson said that the applicants are now proposing to reduce hardcover in the 0-75 setback zone to 19.9%. The Pembertons also propose to reduce hardcover in the 75-250' zone to 45.*^* Mayor Grabek said, "this is a * ry tough situation. In my mind, it brings me back to a person with a deck that was 9 beyond the setback line and we had difficulty with that one . Mayor Grabek asked the Council for their comments. Councilmember Nettles said, "I think this shows a lot of good faith on their part to bring it (the hardcover) ^ a tough situation to grant in order to be totally consistent, but one of our goals is met to the extent that we do reduce hardcover- in the areL we would like it reduced. Presumably, if we don t go along with it, we won't get this good result. Councilmember Goetten said that the hardcover on the property far exceeds what is allowed. Goetten felt that she could not approve this request and asked that the City^take a comprehensive look at building over decks. Goetten said, "We are F:'HIKUTBS op ORONO council meeting op JANUART 8, 1990 1 i ZONING PILE tl452-PEMBBRTON CONTIN1 going to have to stand up and be counted on something like this. Are we going to allow people to build over a deck in the 0-75?" Goetten further said to Mr. and Mrs. Pembertons, "You buy property, and you have these existing situations and sometimes you are just not able to do the kinds of things that you might like to do with a substandard piece of property. This is substandard; this is lakeshore”. Mayor Grabek said that he could not disagree with Goetten and that the concern of covering over decks is often relayed to an applicant when approval for a deck is given. Grabek said "My only concern with this one, as with the other one, is that it is not someone wanting to add on the entire deck, it's squaring off a room". Grabek said that he has trouble with these when the applicants work with the City in alleviating hardcover concerns. Bernhardson posed a hypothetical question of whether the Council would allow this application if the deck did not exist. The general consensus was no. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to allow the variance for the 95 s.f., provided that all of the hardcover proposed to be removed, is removed and so verified by staff. Nettles said that he had previously voted against this and had been prepared to vote no again. He felt, however, the applicants had made significant changes in terms of accomplishing what he considered to be the more important of two goals. Mayor Grabek asked that there be strong language included in the resolution prohibiting any additional building in the 0- 75* setback area and an explanation of the pre-existing deck. CounciImember Peterson asked whether or not the Pembertons would still consider removing the deck? Mr. Pemberton replied that he would prefer not to. Motion, Ayes-2, Goetten, Peterson and Callahan, Nay, Motion failed. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to conceptually deny this application and direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the January 22, 1990 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-3, Grabek, Nettles, Nay, Motion passed. #1468 GEORGS PILLSBURY 1300 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD VARIANCES/ CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT Mr. and Mrs. Pillsbury were present for this application, as were Mr. Herb Baldwin, Landscape Architect, Mr. Thomas Meyer, Architect and Mr. Bob Mitchell, Attorney. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this application involved the approval of variances to construct a greenhouse and a conditional use permit to do minor grading of the lakeshore bank. Bernhardson said, "Since this matter was To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Tromx Date: Subject Michael P. Gaffronr Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator January 16, 1990 #1452 Walter Pemberton, 1720 Shadywood Road - Variance - Request for Tabling At your January 8, 1990 meeting. Council voted 3-2 to conceptually deny the Pembertons' request for setback and hardcover variances. Council directed staff to draft a resolution for denial. The applicants have requested tabling of final action on their application pending further consideration of their options. Motion: Moved by seconded by___ _ ___, to table application #1452 Walter and Marilyn Pemberton, 1720 Shadywood Road, at the request of the applicants. Ayes , nays / . I Li I APPLICATION HO. 1452 CITY OP osfno P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 473-7357 NOTICE OP COUNCIL ACTION 55323 Date of Notice: 1/9/90 TO:Halter Pemberton 1720 Shadywood Road Hayzata, MN 55391 COPIES:Ross Thorfinnson Harvey, Thorfinnson, Scoggin, Lucas & Kallas, P.A. 400 Marquette Bank Building 6640 Shady Oak Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 type op APPLICATION: Variance DATE OP TING: January 8, 1®90 VOTE: 3 For 2 Against COUNCIL ACTION - NOTION: Staff to draft a resolution of denial for adoption at Council meeting of January 22, 1990 (meeting starts at 7:00 p.m.). If you wish to revise your request or submit additional information, please advise staff no later than Tuesday, January 16, 1990. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder or City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:December 29» 1989 Subject: 11452 Walter Pemberton, 1720 Shadywood Road Variance - 3rd Review List of Bxhibits Exhibit A - Letter from Applicants 12/28/89 Exhibit B - Staff Letter to Applicants 12/20/89 - Existing Hardcover Sketch - Proposed Removals Sketch ~ Proposed Final Hardcover Sketch - Council Minutes 11/27/89, 10/23/89 Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Discussion - Staff and the applicants and their attorney have met to discuss applicants' options. The Pembertons again reiterate that there are no other reasonable locations for an addition that would accomplish their goal of making the dining room larger, without requiring variances and negatively affecting of the character of the house. The applicants have considered whether additional areas of hardcover can be removed, and per Exhibit D, are proposing to remove 375 square feet of hardcover in the 0-75' zone, and remove 844 square feet in the 75-250' zone. In the 0-75' zone, hardcover decreases from 26.8% to 19.9%. In the 75-250' zone, hardcover decreases from 57.5% to 45.9%. Staff Re datlon - Please review the attached exhibits. Council's options are as follows: 1. Approval with hardcover removals as proposed. 2. Approval conditioned on further hardcover removals 3. Denial. Action for approval should specify the hardships supporting approval. Action to deny should specify reasons for denial. A resolution reflecting Council's action will be drafted for your next meeting. DEC 2 91989 December 28, 1989 Michael P. Gaffron Ass't Planning & Zoning Adminiscrator City of Orono P.O. ^ox 66, Crystal Bay, MN Dear Mr. Gaffron: My wife and I want to thank you and Ms. Jeanne Mabusth for the time you accorded us in preparing our levised hardcover reduction proposal. The sketches you prepared are an accurate reflection of the agreed upon removals and fairly represent our best efforts to remain cooperative with the city official's wishes. The removal of this hardcover will enable us to landscape these areas with greenery and flowers. We believe, as we have previously submitted, that the windows and openings in the present dining room prohibit effective placement of normally accepted dining room furniture and therefore result in a room inappropriate to the balance of the house. As we have discussed with the city officials, there does not appear to be an alternate solution that does not conflict with other set-back require ments or substantial architectural modifications which could easily destroy the appearance of the structure. We respectfully submit this proposal with the hope that the council members will focus on the positive nature of our jointly agreed upon effort. W. H. Pembercon /Ik Marilyn E. Pemberton \\ ® II 1■^ORONC^ CITYof ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnceota 55323 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka December 20, 1989 Walter and Marilyn Pemberton 1720 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Pemberton; As we discussed on December 19> 1989f I have revised the sketches to show the areas of hardcover you are now proposing to remove. The attached exhibits A, B, and C show existing hardcover^ proposed removals, and proposed final hardcover, respectively. Per the summary sheet, in the 0-75' zone, hardcover is reduced by 375 s.f., a reduction in percentage in that zone from 26.8% down to 19.9%. In the 75-250* zone, proposed removals totalled 844 s.f., a reduction from 57.5% down to 45.9%. Please advise me as to whether the sketches accurately depict what you are now proposing. A letter describing your proposal and any additional information you wish to have transmitted to the Council, should be received in the City Office by December 29, 1989. Please contact me if you have further questions. Sincerely h-JLC'f- Michael P. Gafxron Assist. Planning & Zoning Admin. MPG/ls Enclosure cc: Ms. Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Mr. Ross Thorfinson, Attorney at Law BUILDING a ZONING - 473-73S7 ASSESSING • administration a finance - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 i CITY of ORONOPost Office Box 66 • Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake MinnetonkaDecember 20, 1989rtonton:December 19, 1989, I have revised theas of hardcover you are now proposing to exhibits A, B, and C show existing movals, and proposed final hardcover.leet, in the 0-75’ zone, hardcover is duction in percentage in that zone from, proposed removals totalled 844 s.f., a n to 45.9%.as to whether the sketches accurately t proposing. A letter describing your tional information you wish to have .1, should be received in the City Office you have further questions. Sincerely Michael P. Gaf^ron Assist. Planning & Zoning Admin. :h. Building & Zoning Administrator , Attorney at Law // ^//Afr ^/fmfy K. \ C. MINDTBS OF THE ORONO COUNCIL TING NOVEMBER 27, 1989 ■■ ■*’ ■ ^ ‘ ff V-A / V *■ L ZONING FILE il452-?EMBERTON CONTINUEDthe house, coetten said that issue would have to be addressed with the sellers of the hose Pemberton purchased. Mrs. Pemberton asked if they could give up more hardcover? Bernhardson requested amending the motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial. CounciImember Nettles amended his motion. CounciImember Goetten secondeu. CounciImember Peterson asked whether pert o7 the driveway could be removed? Gaffron replied that appi..ximately 300 s.f. of driveway could be removed and still be functional. Councilmember Nettles suggested to Mr. Pemberton that he would table the application if he wished to explore removal of the hardcover and come back. Councilmember Nettles withdrew his motion.It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to table this application to allow the applicants to further explore their options and return with a more favorable proposal. Mayor Grabek said that it was apparent that what was being proposed would not be acceptable so that there would have to be a compromise or redirection of the addition or there would be a vote at the •ext meeting. Mrs. Pemberton asked for direction as to how much reduction in hardcover the Council would like to see? Mayor Grabek said that he has a problem with approving an addition ove’* a deck in the 0- 75' setback zone. Grabek said the only factor that allows him to even consider this application is that the house is not extending further toward the lake, it is filling in a corner. Councilmember Goette»> said that the only way she would be inclined to *pprove •* application would be if the deck were Imr ir Peterson asked whether the northern reiu-o/ed also. Mr. Pemberton said that gravel, could replace th#' sidewalk. Councilmember _ _ _ _ _ _ __ :hat he usually is persuaded by the Planning Commission recommendation and is impressed with applicants' efforts to reduce hardcover. Callahan said that on the other hand he would be inclined to adopt a rigid policy pertaining to covering over decks. Councilmember Peterson said that she concurred with Councilmember Callahcr’ and asked the Pembertons if they had considered totally removing the deck? Mrs. Pemberton reiterated that her hardship is that the dining room is too small for the size of the house. Mayor Grabek said that such a hardship could be cited by anyone wishing to add on to their homes. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays*0, Motion passed. removed, sidewalk cr with no pi Callahan sc #1463 CONTEL OF MINNESOTA TONKAVIEH LRNE/COUNTY ROAD 19 VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION #2734 Mr. Milt Seeman, Wayne King and Peter Broziac were present as representatives on behalf of Contel of Minnesota. City Administrator Bernhardson provided a brief history of this application. Bernhardson said that the building proposal now has the building rotated as requested which reduces the variance to the north lot line by 6' and increased the south lot fi:/M»l:U)vCtM»^»i(]rvi* j ^ ^ 10 ^ i<r^ikpu I ilij i ■ MiuT4 ill»J •:§mraMi*]I ■ M •i^*i*i* r*ikpv* r»T«K-iij r« H aCvK ^-111 [•] r^i»pp* 'N y 7*5- B2> ur URUfiO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 23, 1989S FILE #1441-COPLEY COBT!:t was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by Llmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2717, approving the >ver variance and average lakeshore setback variance for Mr. jpley, 1185 Tonkawa Road. Motion, Ayes»5, Nays»0, Motion MZMDTBS OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 23, 1989WALTER PEMBERTON IHADYWOOD ROAD CBr. Pemberton was present for this matter.ity Administrator Bernhardson explained this application to uncil and Mayor Grabek.ouncilmember Goetten said that she was surprised that • ver in the 75-250' zone was not addressed at the Planning Sion meeting. She said that 58% in that area is far too She^ said that she would like to see a decrease in ver in the 75-250' area if this application is proposed, sn said that she did not oppose the structure being ed, if something could be worked out with the staff tc existing hardcover. ayor Grabek expressed his concern with the conversion of structure. Mayor Grabek said that he could not see cship for placing the addition in the 0**75* setback zone* >uncilmember Goetten asked Mr. Pemberton if it would be e ro locate the addition elsewhere? luncilmember Callahan indicated that he agreed with the ng Commissioners that voted against approval of this tion. . Pemberton indicated that he did not understand how the hich is hardcover, would be allowed, but putting a roof le deck and closing it in without extending it further the lake is not allowable. He said that he did not ;and why he would be asked to remove hardcover from the e the house when he is not proposing to do anything to the c the house. yor Grabek said that the City is tryi. y to protect the ween O' and 75' of the lakeshore. Mayor Grabek said that f would set a precedent by allowing structures to be built area. Grabek said that each application is reviewed for lip that will warrant the approval of a variance. Pemberton reiterated his inability to understand how his 1 would have any more impact on the lake than what is ■y existing. He noted that the hardcover being removed in ^ the house is more than double than the area being (d into the addition on the back of the house. ZONING FILE #1452-PBMBERTOH CONTINUEDCounciImember Goetten tried to offer Mr. Pemberton a further explanation of the difference between deck and structure. She too informed Mr. Pemberton that she could see no hardship for the variance.Mr. Pemberton said that the only hardship he can offer is that he purchased the house with the assumption that there would be no difficulty in obtaining a variance to do this addition.City Administrator Bernhardson said that the City has no records pertaining to the existing deck being allowed.Councilmember Nettles questioned whether the City has any specific policies regarding covering over decks?Bernhardson replied that there is nothing directly dealing With that issue. He said that in the 0-75' zone the City prefers no encroachment at all. He said that there have previously been requests lor minor encroachment into that area and in cases where there is an existing deck, the City has requested that the deck be removed. Netvles said that he disagreed with the policy categorizing decks as hardcover since they are water permeable. He said that in regard to this application, the City has two goals. One is to reduce hardcover, which Mr. Pemberton's proposal would do, and the other is to prevent the conversion of decking into structure. He said that he could not see a hardship for the variance. Councilmember Goetten offered Mr. Pemberton an opportunity to propose another location for the addition. Mr. Pemberton said that there is no other location for the addition that would allow them to enlarge the dining room. Mayor Grabek said that he would not approve the application as presented. He objected to the excessive hardcover currently existing, the building of a structure on an existing deck that was not approved by the City and adding a deck beyond that structure further into the 0 —75' zone. Mayor Grabek advised Mr. Pemberton that he could request the tabling of this application to allow time to revise his proposal. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to table this application to allow any revision to the proposal that would not encroach into the 0-75'. Councilmember Goetten suggested the addition of language requiring severe reduction of the hardcover. Mayor Grabek incorporated Goetten's suggestion into his motion. Motion, Ayes*5, Nays*0, Motion passed. 8 COOSCII.1989. ..id that tba City has noini.trator Be^rnji^ardscn^^ .llowad.ning to the City has any,i„ regarding coveting .,„ctly ae»li”9""'nf elTd’^ th«‘ ^“gHah ’VhaV^er": ha^v^e ^”%%r,fi«rrch'; '?h: city^rs -rur^e- /»c?ed. said thf,^%?^*n ”e*tat« permeable. B. Icover since tney ritv has two goals. and|-r.Thitr«r'pe« “ ^'Tr^of serrh"t“eh"ip for the variance, ne could not ^ opportunity „en.ber Goetten ofiered _ oother location for the '^«‘Td ?Ao« them'^«”"l“"^' the dining room.t would aiiow li aoolication . id that he would not .»PP”;®.“ver currently irabeb said tha excessive deck that j. Be obpected «^"“oture on an e«*«"9 “"d that p’-Zov^d .^vAhe City and__^addin,^a advi..d^«- - -»e to revise his p Councilmember ■ th''is"t^pUca ”"on’'to“a\lo« any r.wi.io;,t^J Ur wo'uld" not Jenc^ !.r,*ua “g. ■rrhrP=\v«-„ Mayor Gr.^.^;r5 ,P b„s-0 , Motion k into his motion. .;v J* :CITT OP OROHO P.O. Box 66Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357TO: Walter Pemberton1720 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391TIPE OF APPLICATION: Variance APPLICATION NO. 1452NOTICE OP COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 11/28/89COPIES:DATE OP ITIN6:11/27/89 VOTE: 5 For 0 AgainstCOUNCIL ACTION - MOTION:Table pending further consideration by applicant of options, including additional hardcover removals and/or relocation of the proposed addition.Pleasf contact City staff to discuss your application (472-7357).If you desire certified copes of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder or City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. A • f I >1— I# ir ,ip'- - C r f .A'’f ' ..5 8 >NO APPLIGATIOM no. 1452*>r, MN 55323 473-7357 NOTICEDate OP CODNCIL ACTION of Notice: 11/28/89Pemberton hadywood Road a, MN 55391 COPIES:LICATIOMs VarianceKH6: 11/27/89 VOTBt 5 For 0 Against Michael P. Geffron, Asst Planning s Zoning Administrator November 20, 1989" ^«”no?*“"d‘’l^lli°"' Sho-Sywood Road -=ret“Ji|?ed' l«keshore residential, I,Itbalk"sone1*‘’“*°‘ >aiJltlon in 0-75' laheshoreExhibitshlbit A - Applicant's Sketch & Letter of Reou^«,t- Submitted 11/20/89 RequesthibiJ I -- Arohiteots Rendering from Proposed Building dibit E - Memo s Exhibits of 10/19/89 Lon -!”ha?e''trvire^^\^*=;o^/AVo'n°o'f^T"‘-. »»Pl‘cant,room, and applicant^ cortlr^ i J house and g house only 14' from the s/dl "i°V®i <1 to the side^ would be fe^iblf ® 4' h side of the house towards the ro;,5\ ' *" extension of oom would require complete re^o^«^r„ ® "®'* up any additional dining room space! " kitchen d«!;\7rdooeeVVpp?;:rnt ofo"""*““"’ ’"'iP'- over I plastic in the o-7?f Proposes to remove 231 s.f. of between the house and dri^ew^/ in'^thi^e® e. (22.5%K In the 75-2??* 5^''” (26.78%) to 55 s.f. (58.04%) to 3,788 s.f. t52!03%Y.‘^*°''®*' decreases i Zoning File #1452 November 20, 1989 Page 2 of 2At your October 23rd meeting. Council discussed the issue of covering over decks. Grade level decks such as that located on the lakeside of applicant's residence not only require a permit for construction but also are considered as hardcover by this Council and past City Councils. Any construction above such a grade level deck always requires adherence to setbacks (lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback, side setback, etc.). In a situation where construction above an existing grade level deck would meet all required setbacks but the property is over the hardcover limits, construction above that existing deck hardcover would still require a variance. The existence of a grade level deck does not vest any rights to build above it when hardcover is excessive, according to the City's contemporary policies.Staff Recosmiendation -The applicants have indicated there is no reasonable alternative location for an addition to their dining room. They have provided a letter detailing the reasons why they feel their situation i‘J a hardship. If Council feels that the stated hardships are valid and the additional hardcover removals provide adequate compensation, then the previously drafted resolution could easily be revised to reflect the additional findings and conditions. If Council wishes to deny the request, a resolution would bo drafted for your December 11th meeting. • I 1 • 1 ! i t • 1 USlMIlWlS NW20SK i /^y^> ^ y // L^ ^ T r ^ ’A^L^ ^ n*T*iv*^_ A-'^X'^ _- -. '...^ji^0^X^0>^C<rc-^*0dUi/ti' j r^ ' / Ao~^ ^ <a_- z. <lerzr€A^ >^*^--c.ir^7^^ /tr^ / y / ^ ^ ^■ -i ^iS~Ar>^a^A/<^*%i4^CCr^4.U ^rx^g ^ ---- ------------- -----------«- -,*•*' ^ *if» ‘ ' s* I ' V ■ » '• ' . ‘ ’ •. T ‘ . • • • * «. ■‘ ^ * •-i.'; :^>i<:r:*f!'l-K^ :. • • '» ;. I * , • «•V •I '.^-'» V■;4* •{ . :..... %i'^-'= '•■:t'. **. '. ';•• {.■ .‘••t. >• ■0'r^.. '-n;-.••, .• •• ••;.-i>v<':*: - •' ;' . ^ • ;: i .i- *,. . % . . • • 5,J?'-':..» 1^. ’■ -.: .■ *• • ‘ ■^^;• ,• . m..'^‘ : ; -.i. . .•• • *,■•Y,x-:' - ■ ■ • .'. . • ■;••• ■... - ■r.lt'‘••' f- .• . V.M,'■ •. S',.. ^ '■• ; :i.-* ’• "•* * *.! %1^1 i#' ' • >4 ^ -r*»-^1-r-'*-r • “* r*^ ^».nXCTMMB. MUMtINO, €W HtWHIli^ l« iMt ••••»•«« •••••^ ***^aiacMMc*! •• wimu «••• »<y<«!• Mtl It !• M M tt4IMtttl «itrit. V.V'• j J\t! > ilU } .1 - ” • .t-/ r- • . . z.Tn ‘ - » ' ' » * 2SSS1 .:;>' !i '• .J.V V . ‘ . I r. Es;. V iiiibi'w. , .1, T* *V.* •' ’ fc'?/; : :: .4.'";.'V.S:.:...■• '.,■■ -..'I'? .'I.‘ ^ ••.,.• . Vrt». * • •»•. • .• • a w w « miiijii- i, .M'.-• . • * * *4.'\.' »•feSiSt7‘• •t ’. . /'i li»■■ -y^'4 ,i:if.*mr-A •*' >• .H V • .. j .--------.. I • '• 4^ »j'S •:..••■■'il-,' 1 • ‘ I'. • ■ '.-‘Vi! 'V. •* *. r •»■ •...••«. .< >.-r’ *«f.-, .».r.. *.;■ • ERejtS ’qK'. ■^p/7?-:tr.p.i '‘ SAWH** »6 **•1 ^•):(#: •# \ \ iV N I i f. j r: MINUTBS op OROHO COONCIL meeting held OCTOBER 23, 1989 ZONING PILE #1441-COPLBY CONTINUED . ^ kIt was moved by CounciImember Goetten# seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2717, approving the hardcover variance and average lakeshore setback variance for Mr. Don Copley, 1185 Tonkawa Road. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1452 NM.TER PEMBERTON 1720 BHADYliOOD ROAD VARIANCE Mr. Pemberton was present for this matter City Administrator Bernhardson explained this application to the Council and Mayor Grabek. Counci Imember Goetten said that she was surprised that hardcover in the 75-250' zone was not addressed at the Planning Commission meeting. She said that 58% in that area is far too much. She said that she would like to see a decrease in hardcover in the 75-250' area if this application is proposed. Goetten said that she did not oppose the structure proposed, if something could be worked out with the staff to remove existing hardcover. Mayor Grabek expressed his concern with the conversion of decks into structure. Mayor Grabek said that he could not see the hardship for placing the addition in the 0-75' setback zone. CounciImember Goetten asked Mr. Pemberton if it would be possible to locate the addition elsewhere? Councilmember Callahan indicated that he agreed with the Planning Commissioners that voted against approval of this application. Mr. Pemberton indicated that he did not understand how the deck, which is hardcover, would be allowed, but putting a roof over the deck and closing it in without extending it toward the lake is not allowable. He said that he did not understand why he would be asked to remove hardcover from the front of the house when he is not proposing to do anything to tne front of the house. Mayor Grabek said that the City is trying to protect the area between O' and 75' of the lakeshore. Mayor Grabek said that the City would set a precedent by allowing structures to be built in that area. Grabek said that each application is reviewed for a hardship that will warrant the approval of a variance. Mr. Pemberton reiterated his inability to understand how his proposal would have any more impact on the lake than what is currently existing. He noted that the hardcover being removed in front of the house is more than double than the area being converted into the addition on the back of the house. 1 MINDTBS OP ORONO COUHCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 23, 1989 ZONING FILE #1452-PENBERTON CONTINUED CounclInenber Goetten tried to offer Mr. Pemberton a f’lrther explanation of the difference between deck and structure. She too informed Mr. Pemberton that she could see no hardship for the variance. Mr. Pemberton said that the only hardship he can offer is that he purchased the house with the assumption that there would be no difficulty in obtaining a variance to do this addition. City Administrator Bernhardson said that the City has no records pertaining to the existing deck being allowed. CounclImember Nettles questioned whether the City has any specific policies regarding covering over decks? Bernhardson replied that there is nothing directly dealing with that issue. He said that in the 0-75' zone the City prefers no encroachment at all. He said that there have previously been requests for minor encroachment into that area and in cases where there is an existing deck, the City has requested that the deck be removed. Nettles said that he disagreed with the policy categorizing decks as hardcover since they are water permeable. He said that in regard to this application, the City has two goals. One is to reduce hardcover, which Mr. Pemberton's proposal would do, and the other is to prevent the conversion of decking into structure. He said that he could not see a hardship for the variance. CounciImember Goetten offered Mr. Pemberton an opportunity to propose another location for the addition. Mr. Pemberton said that there is no other location for the addition that would allow them to enlarge the dining room. Mayor Grabek said that he would not approve the application as presented. He objected h-' the excessive hardcover currently existing, the building of a structure on an existing deck that was not approved by the City and adding a deck beyond that structure further into the 0-75' zone. Mayor Grabek advised Mr. Pemberton that he could request the tabling of this application to allow time to revise his proposal. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounclImember Goetten, to table this application to allow any revision to the proposal that would not encroach into the 0-75'. Councilmember Goetten suggested the addition of language requiring severe reduction of the hardcover. Mayor Grabek Incorporated Goetten's suggestion into his motion. Motion, Ayes»5, Nays*0, Motion passed. 8 LUl To;Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator October 19, 1989 Subject: #1452 Walter Pemberton, 1720 Shadywood Road - Variance - Resolution Xonlng District - LR-IC, Single family lakeshore residential, % acre, sewered Application - Request for room addition in 0-75* lakeshore setback zone. List of Bxhibits Exhibit A - Proposed Resolution Exhibit B - Planning Commission Minutes of 9/18/89 Exhibit C - Planning Commission Action Notice of 9/19/89 Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 9/13/89 Discnssion - Please review the memo and exhibits of September 13, 1989. The applicants propose to construct a room addition within the 0- 75' setback zone. This addition continues the exi»ting south and east walls of the house, and is over existing deck hardcover. Planning Commission reviewed this application at their September 18, 1989 meeting and recommended approval on a vote of 4-2, conditioned on removal of rock/plastic hardcover in the 0- 75' zone at the northeast corner of the house. Planning Commission noted the excessive percentages of pre-existing hardcover as the reascr they are recommending a net decrease in hardcover rather than "no net increase". The area recommended for removal by Planning Commission is approximately 15'xl5' in dimension (231 s.f. per applicant's hardcover calculations). The proposed addition is approximately 7'xl3.5' in dimension, and is 58' from the shoreline at its closest point, but no closer to the lake than adjacent portions of the existing house. Staff Recoonendation - Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission recommendation. Requirement of a net decrease of hardcover when existing percentages are so excessive, would generally be consistent with past Council actions in similar situations. With the 231 square foot removal in the 0-75' zone, 0-75' hardcover reduces from 26.78% to 22.5%. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone remains at 58.04%. Additional removals in the 75-250' zone would be possible if Council so desires. A resolution reflecting the Planning Commission recommendation with 231 s.f. removal in the 0-75' zone, is attached for Council review. i = I ii ii /■ r A RBSOLOnON GRANTIHG VARIAMCBS TO MOHICIFAL SOHIIK3 CODS SBCTIOH 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 & 2 AND SBCnOH 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 PILB *1452 NHKRBAS, Marilyn & Walter Pemberton (hereinafter "the applicants”) are owners of the property located at 1720 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 12 & 13, except that part of s*'*d Lot 12 lying northerly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 71.2' northerly measured at right angles from the southerly line of said Lot 13, Shadywood, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and NHBRBAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 & 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit the construction of a room addition to the existing residence, which addition is entirely located within the 0-75* lakeshore setbacJc zone where no s\:ructure or hardcover is normally allowed. NON, THBRBPORB, BB IT RBSOLVBD by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1452. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 18, 1989, and recommended conditional approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A) Existing hardcover in the 0-75* zone is 26.78%. Existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 58.04%. These hardcover eunounts are unusually excessive for the LR-IC district and any proposed structural additions on the property should be subject to a concurrent reduction in overall hardcover on the property. Page 1 of 5 I f j ■ K?- ! B) There Is an area of rock and plastic of approximately 231 square feet in the 0-75' zone (per applicants' hardcover calculation) that can easily be removed to compensate for the additional structure in the 0-75' zone. The additional structure is completely in the 0-75' zone but does not in and of Itself Increase hardcover on the property since it is over an existina hardcovered deck area. C) The proposed addition continues the existing east and south lines of the house, squaring off the house, and encroaches no closer to the shoreline than existing portions of the house, which are 56' from the shoreline. The proposed additions do not encroach past the defined average lakeshore setback line. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIOIIS, ORDER AMD CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 & 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit the construction of a room addition located entirely within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover or structure is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: i Page 2 of 5 f : ( • 1. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone shall be reduced from the existing 26.78% to a level of 22.5% by removal of at least 231 square feet of rock/plastic landscaped area, and this area shall revert to grass. Hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone shall not increase above the existing 58.04% level. The site plan and hardcover calculation basis for this condition is attached as Exhibit A to this resolution. 2. The applicants are advised that no future hardcover increases on the property will be approved, and any future proposal to Increase hardcover on the property might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of pre-existing hardcover on the property, resulting in either a net decrease or no net Increase in hardcover on the property. 3. Since the current proposal is for a 1 story addition at this corner of the house, any future proposal to place a second story above that addition will require a new variance application. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 23, 1990). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a vl%;'a^.ion of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 5 ! 1 I Adopted by the City Council of the City of Oronor Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of October# 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) S8. COUNTY OP 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 i . hi V ■ •a* I ITES OF THE PLAHHIMG COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989 “"^rown said that th. existing hardcover was 24%. He would be willing to allow the applicant to increase to 25% which is the maximum allowed. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to average lakeshore setback variance of approximately 1.5 and tha hardcover was to be retained at 2.5%. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0, Motion passed. * troN#1452 WALTER B. P) 1720 SBADTWOOD ROAD VARIANCE public hearing 8:10 P.M. TO 8:11 P.H. 4T4_-The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Pemberton were present for this matter. explained %^he”pe^irtoi"s^ plopos^" to^con-i^^^^^ an existing grade level deck into an addition to their dining room. Chairman Kelley asked whether the Pemberton’s had received any input from their neighbor to the south? Mr. Pemberton said that he had spoken to his neighbors on both sides and they had no objection. Planning Commissioner Brown asked if there was existing hardcover that could be removed? There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commisu-oner Brown reminded Mr. Pemberton that during thei"/recent visit he had indicated that he would be removing hardcover from the back of the house. Gaffron said that staff prefers to have the plastic removed, since hole punching is nearly impossible to verify. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Planning commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of this application provided that the plastic the northeast corner of the property is removed. Motion, Ayes 4, Bellows and Kelley, Nay, due to their preference to see hardcover removed rather than converted into permanent: structure. Motion passed. 1 [; .• « M FILS HO. 1452 CITY OP OROHO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 NOTICE OF MEBTIH6 RESCHEDULING 473-7357 Date of Notice: 9/27/89 TO:Walter Pemberton 3580 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: NOTICE OP CANCELLED COUNCIL MEETING The regular City Council meeting originally scheduled for Monday, October 9, 1989 has been cancelled for lack of quorum due to conflicts in schedules of 3 of the 5 CounciImembers. All zoning application items previously scheduled for October 9th will be rescheduled for the October 23rd, 1989 meeting. The meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. In order to minimize the potential impact of this delay on your project, you may wish to submit your building permit application lO days or moM to the October 23rd meeting (if you have not already submitted it) for early plan review. Please contact City staff if you have any questions FILE HO. 1452>F OROHO OX 66il Bay# MN 55323 NOTICE OF NBETIH6 RBSCHEDOLIHG 473-7357 Date of Notice: 9/27/89falter Pemberton J580 North Shore Drive fayzata# MN 55391 COPIES:NOTICE OF CANCELLED COUNCIL MEETING?he regular City Council meeting originally scheduled for U October 9, 1989 has been cancelled for lack of quorum due iflicts in schedules of 3 of the 5 CounciImembers.ill zoning application items Pr«^io“sly scheduled for er 9th will be rescheduled for the October 23rd# ng. The meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. In order to minimize )tential impact of this delay on your project# you may wish )mit your building permit application 10 days or more s October 23rd meeting (if you have not already submitted )r early plan review. Please contact City staff if you have any questions. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 1989ZONING PILE «1441-COPLET CONTIN1Planning Commissioner Brown said that the existing hardcover was 24%. He would be willing to allow the applicant to increase to 25% which is the maximum allowed.There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed.It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen# seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson# to recommend approval of the average lakeshore setback variance of approximately 1.5' and that hardcover was to be retained at 2.5%.Motion# Ayes»6# Nays^O# Motion passed.#1452 WALTER H. PEMBERTON 1720 SHADTWOOD ROAD VARIANCEPUBLIC HEARING 8:10 P.M. TO 8:11 P.M.The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. and Mrs. Pemberton were present for this matter. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the Pemberton's proposal to convert an existing grade level deck into an addition to their dining room. Chairman Kelley asked whether the Pemberton's had received any input from their neighbor to the south? Mr. Pemberton said that he had spoken to his neighbors on both sides and they had no objection. Planning Commissioner Brown asked if there was existing hardcover that could be removed? There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Brown reminded Mr. Pemberton that during their recent visit he had indicated that he would be removing hardcover from the back of the house. Mr. Pemberton said that he would be willing to "punch holes" in the plastic that is presumed to be underlying the rockbed. Gaffron said that staff prefers to have the plastic removed# since hole punching is nearly impossible to verify. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson# seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of this application provided that the plastic underlying the rockbed in the northeast corner of the property is removed. Motion, Ayes»4# Bellows and i.?*y, Nay# due to their preference to see hardcover removed rather converted into permanent structure. Motion n— 5S OF CTB PLMmn.0 COMHISSIOS MEBTISG SBFTEHBER W, IMSlit to 25% which is the maximum allowed.There were no cements fro» the public reg.rdln, this better he public hearing was closed.It was moved by ^ tT^rVco°mm^^^?i”’leK«ho«* .«Va=h%«°ien=e of epproxieately 1.5 ’ and thatsn“M“?on%a;sei.t WALTER H. PEMBERTOH SBADTWOOD ROAD ^S^?faeii^rPubI?=“aiion';nd Certificate of Mailin, were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Pemberton were present for this matter. Assistant Pl“""^,"’ *"„ 3al"to’convert^a"exi^^^ grade room. rselrman Kelley asked whether the Pemberton's had received i"pSt™“m\he\'/ neighbor to the southP Mr. Pemberton said ‘hat he had spoken to his neighbors on I sides and they had no objection. Planning Commissioner Brown asked if there was existin, icover that could be removed? There were no comments from the public regardin, this matter the public hearing was closed. Planning hV°ha"d ”"d\"cated"'that"l^rwould be o^in, haricjvir from the back of the house. thfpla«?f that’fs%r«Ud tc“it u*nd«ijin| t“e locSeS! ce^oirpuncMnris nea“/^^^^^^ Xt was moved by Planning inning ^ rh2'olastio underlying the rockbed in .lication provided ‘h>‘ ‘h« P‘”‘‘=,“,„<,ved. Motion, Ayes-4, N"°'''^a^d’Vu.7,'MVy, due'^M their preference to see hardcover ioved rather converted into permanent structure. Motion MIMUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 18p 1J89ZONING FILE Mi 441-COPLEY CONTINTOEO passed.#1453 WILLIAM HIBBS1905 EAGERNESS POINT ROADVARIANCESPUBLIC HEARING 8:15 P.M. TO 8:25 P.M.The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted.The applicant was present for this matter.Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that Mr. Hibbs was requesting a hardcover variance to enclose an existing canopy area. Gaffron said that there would be no increase in hardcover resulting from the conversion of the canopy/bituminous area into a screen porch.Chairman Kelley told Mr. Hibbs that he was concerned about the fact that there was no existing garage. He said that more than likely there will be a future request for a garage. Mr. Hibbs replied that a tuck under garage would be most practical for this property. He said if a tuck under garage were constructed approximately 1,000 s.f. of bituminous could be removed. Planning Commissioner Cohen said that he would prefer to see Mr. Hibbs make application for a garage prior to proceeding with this application for the screen porch. Chairman Kelley said that he preferred not to change hardcover into structural hardcover. Mr. Hibbs said that the hardcover already exists. Planning Commissioner Bellows expanded on Chairman Kelley's concern about converting hardcover into structural hardcover. She said that in order for the porch to be constructed, footings would have to be poured which would make more permanent an already excessive hardcover condition. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to recommend denial of application #1453 requesting a hardcover variance to enclose an existing canopy area. Motion, Ayes»5, Hanson, Nay due to his belief that hardcover is hardcover. Motion passed. M. PILE m^x^<»PLEI CORTIHTOEO .E2H*" MBPS^gUSBSS POIMT SCIADfhe^HidaJiJ^of‘pjbj? B.M.»oW<J. «t^°n and Certificate of Mailing were■^e applicant was present for this Matter, ssistant PiAn«i*'bitUMinous area °n"t" a"* crt“"|„'«" the conversl'o"c?”^©iXfiV f*o 1 t£belV’Vhere*;?irh\"a'’ «” a"“at‘‘J?°“*future request for a garaVe. “ "°''®• aiobs replied ^■.‘..■r.S‘4.K?..;;- .SH oitumlnous could be inning Conunissioner Cnhan s make application that he wouia ar llcation for the scre°en ^?oh?® “> Ptf«eaYnrwith • Into sYructLaYtlrdYover.'’® not to change • ^ ^^^^^issxoner HoV-“- «=essiveVrYcY4r''cYnYitI^n".^<’ YeYia'rnV"!’ ibuYhYarlnrtYs’cYoYed!'’* «9at«ng this Matter omiS*^sioner BeVl""^”^ Commissioner Cohen”-'srr, Sf” I CITY OF OROHO P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bayp HH473-7357 55323 ZONING FILE #1452NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONDate of Notice; 9/19/89TO:Walter Pemberton COPIES TO:3580 North Shore DriveWayzata. NN 55391TYPEOF APPLICATION: VarianceDATE OF MEETING: 9/18/89 VOTE: 4 For 2 AgainstPlanning Cn—I ssion recommends the following:Approval subject to conditions noted below.NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS:Recommendation for approval conditioned on removal of rock/plastic hardcover area (approximately 220 s.f.) at northeast corner of house.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 minutesp tney are available from the City Recorder after review and approv^'l by the Planning Commission. ZOmilG PII^ #1452 goncB OF PI*™!"®,MH 55323 of notice^ ^9/19/89_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- - - - - - - - - - COPIPS TO:embertonth Shore Drive _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _KN 55391 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _—^^r'^rcrr'^rai;;;'fSG: 9/18/89■isslon reco«mend8 the following. 1 subject to conditions noted below. »BC1AL COMDITIOHSs of rock/plastic . »^ina is confirmed as: ant’s next scheduled me starts at 7:00p.m. ^ Q 1989; meeting ity Council Monday Oc o . i planning Commission . ce..mea To:Proa:Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator BernhardsonMichael P. Gaffronp Asst Planning S Zoning AdministratorDate:September 13p 1989Subject: #1452 Walter Pemberton, 1720 Shadywood Road -Variance - Public HearingZoning District - LR-IC, Single family lakeshore residential, % acre, seweredApplication - Request for room addition in 0**75' lakeshore setback zone.List of ExhibitsExhibit A - Application Exhibit ' - Plat Map Exhibit - Property Owners List Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Survey with Staff Notations Exhibit P - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G - Plan & Elevation View Pertinent Pacts - 1. The applicants are proposing to contruct a room addition to expand their existing dining room area. The area of expansion is totally within the 0-75' setback zone, but would continue the existing south and east walls of the house (see Exhibit E). 2. The addition will be approximately 58' from the shoreline. The closest point on the existing house is 56* from the shoreline. There currently is a deck on the lakeshore side of the house that extends as close as 42' from the shoreline. Note that the proposed addition will not encroach past the average lakeshore setback line. 3. Although this addition will be over existing deck area and will not inciease the hardcover percentage on the property, the existing hardcover on the property is excessive, being 26.78% in the 0-75' zone, and 58.04% in the 75-250'. There are significant areas of rock with plastic that could conceivably be removed in order to reduce hardcover in both the 0-75' and 75-250' zones. In the 0-75' zone, approximately 250 s.f. could be removed, a reduction to 22% in the 0-75'. In the 75-250' zone, 733 s.f. of plastic exists and could likely be removed- to decrease hardcover to 3,492 s.f. or 48%. ,r 1 ►t.; Zoning File #1452 September 13r 1989 Page 2 of 2Dlscasalon -This addition is intended by the applicants to increase the area of the dining room by :^bout 95 square feet without increasing hardcover on the property. The elevation views indicate this is merely a 1 story addition. The addition meets side setback requirements and continues the existing side line of the house^ also being aligned with the existing east wall of the house .Due to the excessive hardcover on the property taken up both by parking and driveway areas as well as rock with plastic^ it seems that significant reductions are possible and perhaps appropriate in order to compensate for additional structural encroachment in the 0-7'5' zone.Staff narn—enilBt I nn -Planning Commission could recommend approval, finding that the proposed addition will not increase hardcover cr the property, will not be out of character with nor encroach further lakeward than the existing neighboring residences. Approval could be conditioned on removal of significant areas of hardcover, including rock with plastic and perhaps even a portion of the paved driveway areas. Planning Commission should determine what areas of hardcover, or what percentage of hardcover must be removed. r’c o - mil#rwii»ra«^«r« v^i •i«i p- VARIANCE APPLICATIONration Fee $150.00 each additional variance) ice Pee $75.00 from original application)£ Fees (Double application fee)I :’Jitu;noH 4 ... * -- - .2** t •tification Number (P.I.D^) //-//f "^ torrens? , 'if not included on ^one - Property abstract'•cdescription to application ey.Phone (home) VfX,n»i At /4,M.te>eTzi^_ _ Phone (work) C(/a yUuiSVS’mid^ ^/l>r -ity:_<zip; ferent than applicant)Phone (home) Phone (work) City:Zip: iperty Acquired do not) aiso own the adjacent parcels ot land. (month/year) )F PROPERTY Zoning District Use of Property xS/0tfJ&. Residential Other (specify) Estimated Construction Cost v.OP request QOIRBD Lot Width _ _ _ Hardcoverot Area Variances (Front Side Rear) HARDSHIPDescribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations_________________________________________DESCRIPTION OP ONUSOAL PROPERTY CONDITIONSDescribe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements t ^REQUIRED SUBMITTALS1. Completed Application Form2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtainthis list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center348-3271).3. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of thenames on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained with property owners list).4. Certificate of survey including hardcover calculations as required.5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Zoning Department that Variance Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge._1 _ ' - Applicant's Signature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this request. DateOwner's Signature Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled 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 & Zon ng Office of this change prior to the meeting. ty resulting from strictig com(>liance with ZoningVii* Atlin 150' (you must obtain finance A-603 Govt Centerddressed to each of the ess (use address labelsrulations as required, evations) if any changes ttach a separate list of pplication. itaff. s application. Please complete if the above )plication is complete nformation required or to pay all fees and/or ition, and certifies that to the best of his/her ipplication and further ity staff, consultants, ■ purposes of investiga- Efices 25 days before the Meetings are held on the resent at all scheduled cil. If an applicant is arrangements to have an te the Building 6 Zoning aw MTE Oa/lA/19 lATCM OM M 17-nr-ts ti 0002 000JO AOOMSO WASSIONID A « • FIMlfUTCINAamia a oaaafTNy fiNKfisn-mIMO OMAOVNOOO AOAO NAV2ATA Mt 10X91SO 17-117-2S 21 0017 01490 SHAOVMOOO HO JACK F ONOOf JACK F woolsue Noam smat oa IMVaATA W CSS91so 17-117-2J 21 0020 01700 SNAOVHOOO M A a 0 FlNKiUmN Aaraua a aoaoniv FziodLSTtiN1740 IHAOVNOOO ROAO NAVZATA W BSS91 WMCPIN COUNTY PKOPERTV INfORMATlON SYSTEH PROPERTY OHNERS LISTSO 17-117-2S 21 OOOS OOOSO ADDRESS UNASSXGNEO AID FIIKELSTEIN ARTHUR a DOROTHY FIMKELSTEIN 1740 SNAOYHOOO ROAO NAYZATA MN S5S91SO 17-117-2S 21 0010 01710 SHAOYHOOO RO HARRY L NEYER JANE PETERSON PALM 1710 SHAOVNOOO RO HAVZATA 194 US91SO 17-117-23 21 0021 017S0 SHAOYNOOO RO 0 a N SNAIOECK CKO C SNANREOC 11021 ARROTT LN HIWETONLA MN 55S4S REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 9SO 17-117-2S 21 0005 01719 FAGERNESS POINT RD LAUREEN E DARLING LAUREEN E DARLING 1719 FAGERNESS POINT RO NAYZATA 194 6SS91SO 17-117-2S 21 0019 01720 SHAOYNOOO RO M I J KEENENILLIAH H a JANICE H KEENE 1720 SHAOYNOOO RO NAYZATA HN SS3911 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RFCOROS ■ r m 'm. ■. ^DATE f V j... -61 r VATi —* ••*;.r**^.--rk- ., ..MA. . /j VAn oM V-IIARDCOVEK CALCULATION WORKSHEETSatback *onoi lolrcJo ono) 0>75* y^-250^ 250-500* 500-1000*^ »»t«cow in loao2/. V X *^A 3‘I-'tel!..Hout«9s€ n.typlvfm '*P'4-length7. fHS \ /width. /r. / ■ // r y. /!. / - So > yX ■9af.S • f .b- Cerago 2^.Z 2/m 3 *• ___S.fa ^C. Driva«ay----3^— * ,rT .33 .f^S€s.f. ^*•'4e . f a >A•5 Z3^~XloU'^ cCa««weik 2 • V - X .tsm2. c 33 -C,C c.f....y, ■ •-• h r-'V X 1.3 7Si>»i' ‘J. ^*t ^ ^. potlo/ ^ _ X 3.t2 zl /Safa V15backXms.f.h ■F f ToffidseeDt A 7 X 3,3 .5. fa1-[v^ /F araaa ^ fiiht. •uAderlain a •Z^o s«f. Y37 Saf a r|r X a 6 a F • h 1' V • • acitr*mif §4tf « « AaheC ^ *2 V S.f.r ^a SaF. ¥ ‘ p'm Oaf. If-1 ^''\^STIKC HARDCOVER IH 20HE 92ZS Oaf. (1) 11'r,' ■■■Klrti»-.'»-«W«i.i)>- »' 5.1. I-» ....- a.’4- -v.t •=!h'- 1*.^ . •• y:./x r/< 7WExisting Mordcovee t - Total Existing Ifnirdcover x 100Lot Area Within Zonevzts^.i.X 100 5g.oy *Additional Hardcover to be added in tone:Item Length x ___Width - __TOTAL s,(*# A* ' i * *'X »m oX -Ti apO'>*ar K X mTOTAL S.F. TO BE ADDED Existing Hardcover to be Removed, ^if any:Item Length x Width •t totala Xm •X mXX m.tJi . . )i.f aTOTAL SaF. TO BE BEHOVED Final Hardcover Propos ali (Line (1) ♦ Lino (2) -Line (31) - 1 t.r. (41 Existing To be Added Proposed Ifardcovcr I ** To bo Removed Final Line (41 X 100 Lot -?.Oa*C . S « F a Oaf a X 100 Ttcm Lenoth x Width •TOTAL 5.X •SX - -aeO^*•fl•1TOTAL S,r. TO DE ADDED Existing Hardcover to be Removed, ^if aoyi <Item Length x Width TOTAL «X m• ♦X mXmX Line (<) x 100 »f f < V o»* C TO:PROM:DATE:COUNCIL MEniNGMAR 12 1990Mayor and City Council CITY OF ORlMichael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning S Zoning Admin. March 7, 1990 \ uSUBJECT: 11470 - Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary SubdivisionList of ExhibitsA. Notice of Council Action 2/27/90B. Memo and Exhibits of 2/22/90 Discussion This item was tabled at your February 26th meeting for further consideration of issues related to road outlots and access. Since that meeting, applicant has discussed his options with staff, and may be submitting a revised proposal for Council review. No revision has been submitted as of this writing. Some members of Council gave applicant general c.rection that they would prefer to see a 50’ outlot in place of the previously proposed 20' driveway outlot. However, this direction did not appear to be unanimously held by all CounciImembers present. Staff continues to recommend that this property be divided via a Planned Residential Development. This would give applicant the greatest flexibility and highest possible use of his property under the current RR-IA zoning standards, while sti]1 addressing many of the City's concerns about access and further development in this neighborhood. Staff has not drafted a preliminary plat approval resolution pending a determination by the applicant and Council as to whether this will be a standard plat subdivision or a dependent upon Council's conditions of approval. A preliminary plat approval resolution will be drafted as soon as approval parameters are defined. I C. TY OF OROI^M •P.O. Box 66Crystal Bay. MN 55323 473-7?57 APPLICATIOH NO.1470NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTIONDate of Notice: 2/27/90TO: Daniel.parten 1015 T6hW*m- Poad ' Long Lake, HN 55356 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Subdivision DATE OF MBBTING:2/26/90 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - NOTION: Tabled to March 12th meeting for further consideration of issues related to road outlots and access. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Pecorder or City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. 1470HN 55323 473-7357 applicatioh ho.gone* OF cowit ,,oDate of Notice: 2/27/^^COPIBS»6.a . . . . . . . . . . . .Ike, MN 55356. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .—- -;ii;r'rror''r;;;rn;r"';;;;_nRO: _ _- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -■*»" - further consider.tion of Issues-a o"^ts^^.^S rhsF^‘ --ror'tVe “?ttrV«%rL'r^'o?'^lt ‘;^Cl^“r; .ftet review .nd able frojn tne ,y the City Council. To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator BernhardsonProa: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning AdministratorDate;February 22, 1990Subject: #1470 Ruth & Daniel Parten, 4300 Dayside Road -Preliminary SubdivisionList Of ExhibitExhibit A - Memo & Exhibits of 2/8/90Discussion -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. I y Orono council «. ,"^strator Bernhariitiff ‘'>e road g, '*'*”' “^"“ncli.,■»ntii^ II. eonZV^‘>'“ at th. .KpC;.. '■’•"’•■■ ■•«-a.:a '“""action. ”°‘««aa.rl4 f«%';*^ trafl?! ;'/l could r.qg„, "" P^^islon •"^ty to gain '~T^^l C >• To:Proa:Date:Subject Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson ^ 7. - t ''■ -.' (ZV'""" r^“> -’'Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator February 8, 1990♦1470 Ruth fi Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road - Preliminary SubdivisionList Of ExhibitsExhibit A - Memo & Applicants' Letter, 1/19/90Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 1/17/90Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 1/10/90Discussion -The applicant is proposing a lot line rearrangement between his 13 acre homestead property and an adjacent 4 acre parcel which he owns. The 4 acre parcel abuts the Luce Line and was the ^abject of a lot area variance re^guest in 1988, which was tabled tin. 1 the applicant could provide legal access. Mr. Parten pjtfcnased this property, and proposes to expand it to increase it« area to the 5 acre minimum, and provide it legal access to Bayside Road. The application as described above has evolved from Mr. Parten's original request to concurrently also split the homestead parcel into 2 lots. Staff and the Planning Commission have taken the position that the original plan would have required construction of a standard private road, to serve 3 building sites within a subdivision. The applicant subsequently dropped that proposal, not wanting to bear the expense of constructing an extremely long private road. With the current proposal, there remains a concern as to the need and timing for private road development, due to the vacant 4«acre Relersgord property directly to the east, which gains access via an easement through Parten ’s property. City Engineer Recommendation - The City Engineer had recommended that a 50' road outlot extending to the northwesterly property boundary be dedicated to provide future access for 2 existing residences south of the Luce Line, which currently use Turnham Road. Glenn also recommended construction of the road now, and further recommended that a SO' drainage easement be dedicated ever the ravine traversing the homestead parcel. Re further recommended that the applicant agree to grant the City a future access easement to the nature conservancy property. Zoning Pile #1470 February 8, 1990 Page 2 of 3 Planning Conission Reconendation - The Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 16r 1990 ard voted 5-0 to recommend approval subject to the following: 1. 50' wide outlot from Bayside Road 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 r^operties which uses the existing driveway for access, th'. shared driveway will have to be upgraded to City private .oad standards. 7. Applica't to provide a turn-around or back-up apron for each of Lots 1 and 2 for emerg* vehicle access. 8. Park fee for Lot 2 to be c«^.lected with the building permit. 9. Protect drainfield sites. 10. No requirement for nature conservance property access easement. Northwest Orono Road System Review - At COLHcil'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. Le #1470 B, 1990 3CoHBission RecoMendation -tSO- «ld« outlet fto» Boyolde Bo.d to th. e.ot lot lino.20* wide outlet extendln9 to the northerly parcel.Drainage easenent for ravine to be 15' wide.Standard drainage and utility eaaenenta to be granted.Standard road and utilities easenent to be granted over 50' outlet. At the time that a ®the existing ^driveway \•‘c^^^l'‘;^.^«‘d^^v":^a^^"ill b^'-v'e «'be ungraded to r private ..oad standards. park fee tor Lot 2 to be elected with the building mit. >rotect drainfield sites. NO requirement for nature conservance property access Tient. Orono Road System Review - ouncl 1-s "•Jl\‘5^'oa? 8"Mndar'ds^ ComIu ‘Jwf 5o teJiel of toad needs in that general area. ,f« to tht toad study document in your packet. study generally connectlng*ro*ad between 'or a future route ^ ^ midway between the ; Road and Bayside Road, generally recommends :e and Stubb's Bay property line)• corridor be provided generally ai y Depending on the Fatten and '“;7"„“the Fattin property the corridor ** 7if2rMord ’it would have a distinct >d by Fatten and pelersgord, n both those properties. Zoning File #1470 February 8, 1990 Page 3 of 3Staff R«c ndation -If the Council wishes to proceed with acquiring dedications for future 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 leasons. 5. Other. TOs FfiOM: OATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Barnhardson, City Administrato^ January 19, 1990 SUBJECT: Fatten Letter Attached is a lett ?rom Mr. Parten outlin^ his concerns regarding public and .vats 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 prepared in advance of his appearance. His application 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. Sar.ial C. Parcan 1015 TonXawa Soad Long La)ce, MN 55355 Ni'5r\ <■! ‘Ji January 19, 1990 Orono City Council Crystal 3ay, Minnesota ?>e: Private Road and Driveway Standards This oast August sy vifa and I purchased property on Sayside Road with the intention of building our personal - isidenca and of selling one or t-o lots. We were especially attracted by the many aatt're trees on the site and the long graceful driveway that together give a faeling of peacefulness and privacy. However, in vor'cing with staff we learned that current city standards would reguire that we build a 24 foot wide asona-t driveway into this area to serve just four sites. In addition, we 'earned that t.ne city’s standards are in conflict with each ocher. i See attached copy of tiewo front Mi:<e Gaffron to the Planning Commission.) While we have been able to aodif*/ 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 requirements for driveways and private roacs in the rural areas would be of benefit. Perhaos factors other than number of residences served could be con sidered such as lot size, length of driveway, and potintial 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 attractive 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 for considering this request and for your service to our community. cc: Planning and Zoning Administrator Z0NZM3 PILB HO 1470jniag Adainistratorting FutureLensive Plan' as an allowable lent 3, not subject ys that driveway egulated in cases lessive drivewayprovides private tdential units, a niaum paved width ot for a private idivision 21 (C)]. locuments. opment Intent Plan provide for Ln the rural area )mprehensive Plan Licies). Yet the :ating that, by . lots must front sed to front on of 3/6/36). The of revision. It private roads is s. CITY OP OROMO P.O. Box 66Crystal Bay, MN 55323 HOTICB OP PLANNIHG COMMISSION ACTION473-7357 Date of Notice: 1/17/90TO: Daniel Parten1015 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356TYPB OP APPLICATION: Subdivision COPIES TO:DATE OP TING:1/16/90 VOTE: 5 For 0 AgainstPlanning CosBission recosBenda the following:Approval subject to conditions noted belowNOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS:1. Outlet 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 B. 3. The drainage easement traversing Lot 1 to be 15' in width. 4. 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. 5. 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 an 1 maintenance of Outlot A. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. ZCnilBG FILE HO. 1470SOTICB OF PLMiHIllG COMMISSIOB ACTIOM, Date of Notice: 1/17/901 55323 473-7357 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _III". . . . .iwa RoadMN 55356 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _kTlOV: Subdivision _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _;• 1/16/90 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against»ion reco-ienda ^subject to conditions noted belowlAL COEDITIOESsShall be 50 feet in width and extend from Bayside Road to the line.orridor as shown on the proposal shall be platted as Out o ^age easement traversing Lot 1 to be 151 width. of standard drainage and utility ease-n- lot L.e. 10’ along perimeter lo. lines, lot line between Lots 1 and 2. t. to grant a standard »‘t ?e ra"nd’?:Vr%w5rnrf°r*p?;va\Vo*«nar.nip an. aaintonanc. o, erty ov/ners are placed on notice that at y require subdivided to create an ^ards. Furthermore, at such g of Out lot A to private developed that will make a ? any other abutting shall trigger the outlet A for »ocess, such oev®lopme standards even Lent that road be upgraded to City privar , has not been split. sround or back-up aP*^on shal 1 ^be^provided^for^ea^^^^^ ^ >r emergency vehicle ac radius of that driveway Icopiveway, the minimum center l^ne e 50’, with a minimum 20' driving surra _a. o-_v Fee for Lot 2 need not u‘St^‘L:h uV^“t”/r?.irnc"e‘i. constructs, on Lot 2. ,.ld sites have b«" Lfd"rendfr‘«eru°n'u»ble as sewage treatment sites. NOVICE OF PLANNING COMUSSIOH ACTIONJanuary 17, 1990 Page 2 of 210. Planning Commission recommended against the requirement that a future easement to the Nature Conservancy be committed to.Applicant's next scheauled 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. Toi Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator BernhardsonMichael P. Gaffron* Asst Planning & Zoning Administratore requirement that a future tted to.Date I January 10, 1990rmed as:eting starts at 7:00 p.m.Subject: 11470 Ruth 6 Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road -Preliminary Subdivision - Revised Proposal - Continuation of Public Hearingicial Planning Commission Recorder after review andny) additional exhibits may iliminary plat review.Application - Applicant has revised his request to merely a lot line rearrangement 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 he 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 P Revised Preliminary Plat Drawings Applicants' Letter of Request 1/9/90 Planning Commission Action Notice 11/22/09 Planning Commission Minutes 11/20/89 Memo & Exhibits of 11/14/89 Memo Re: Conflicts/Standards of Zoning/Subdivision Code vs. Comprehensive Plan Discussion - 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 buildable 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 Road 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, the future exchange concept makes sense in view of the topography of the Reiersgord parcel, and does not detract from the buildability of Lot 2. Planning Coimnission ChairmanCor»i,sio„ M.mb.rl*’' ty Administrator BernhardaonMlch«l P. Cffron, A..t Pianntn, . Ad»i„i.t„torJanuary lo, 1990PraUmlnary SuMlvlalon'^*?' ®aysid« Road - ContinuatlJn of '"ina r" arranjMen ” to*‘brtni*tha’’io “> nerely a lotnto lot area conformant «=« Parcwoad via an outlet. Th® rama^ Providing access to Bayside ropo.ed for dlvl.ion a? t" 1* no?the outlet. Note that order to-re northerly parcel. applicant now owns th 4.25Bxhibitshibit A hibit B hibit C hibit D hibit E hibit P Lon - - AppUcfntl-Drawings Code vs. CoHprihensiJe"piI^® 2°«ing/Subdlvision p the appiicaiJtJ aU^prSpos/no°®°?*J P^^ellmlnary plat. 5U*-* ®^^®ting homestead parcel ^®**Tangement5Uts the Luce Line Thar 1 ^ ^^® ^-25 acre oarcai 5 dry buiidable acres, a^^Suf nai^^ ^® i"cre.Ld to ■®|® the 20 ’ wide portion thJ ®PP’"®’‘i"’«tely 600’ Additionally, applicant -a proposed driveway 0^«e“p‘a“^"’ "^"?^V,"’.o'■utr.'a.rVo'rn^? ..A«"2n*.e"7n ?!%:?, «e"“«=b«ae* "<J does not detract from the°b?ird?b''/l??y‘?; Zoning Pile #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 2 of 6Regarding lot width, the Civ/ 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 ICO' north to abut the widening of proposed Lot 2.Aecass Issues -Three issues present themselves regarding access for this proposal:I. What should be the width of Outlot A7 (Please review alsoExhibit P.)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, tnis 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/Nassopust on South Brown Road), most 3-plus lot developments have been required to provide a 50' 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, tha 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 SO* wide outlot from the Parten property. It would seem to be an appropriate City policy that, where additional future development is likely to increase to 3 or more the number of houses being served by a private outlot/driveway, the City should require dedication of the standard 50' outlot per the standards of the subdivision code when it has the opportunity to do so. a recent direction flag lota should be L be defined at the within the narrow e for lot width is I a possible future immend that the 20* ut the widening ofing access for this(Please review alsoeasement over the kely to use it for } build. Therefore^ ly serve at least 3 her divided. At a nd subdivision code rlvate road rather lowed a few 3 lot (Parten on Tonkawa; most 3-plus lot 50' outlot» per the y to the southeast^ »#ould in the future le one could argue e White to grant an A, the subdivision "street systems in eliminate or avoid s that now is the le outlot from the Zoning File #1470 January 1C, 1990 Page 3 of 6If the Reiersgcrd property develops before a future subdivision of Lot 1, the City will not have the opportunity to expand the outlot to 50* width because Reiersgord will not own Lot 1. The only future opportunity to gain an additional 10* for Outlot A would be when Lot 1 is divided.The northerly 20* wide proposed outlot segment will serve only 1 lot now and perhaps 1 additional future lot. This segment of Outlot A could be considered as merely a private driveway, not necessarily subject to an underlying road and utility easement to the City. Staff would question whether the driveway can be constructed within the 20’ corridor provided. If not. Lot 1 could grant a widened easement to Lot 2, or the outlot 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. Nhet pert of Outlet A should be paved now? What part shouldbe paved at future developwcnt 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 ramifications 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 that should have a trigger at the 3 unit level, or at the 4 unit level, or at any specified level? Is it the intent of the subdivision code to apply road standards to this mere lot line rearrangement with access outlot creation? III. Should the City request a road and utility ail, a portion, or none of Outlot A? lent policy that, where crease to 3 or more te outlot/driveway, idard 50' outlot per has the opportunity If Outlot A is created, the City should logically t.iKe 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. elops before a future have the opportunity to Reiersgord will not own aln an additional 10* fortlot segment will serve future lot. This segment y a private driveway, not d and utility easement to ler the driveway can be rovided. If not, Lot 1 , or the outlot could be Lre code standards would emergency vehicle turn- ng driveway length.sd now? What part sboald la?: requiring that private Lvisions reach a certain ssltive change in policy, rs. on the subdivision code 4' paving, "more than 7" defined.) Does the poor of the other 2, who will subdivision that should b the 4 unit level, or at f the subdivision code to line rearrangement with d utility easeaent over ? ihould logically ^.^/.e a Lnce it will ultimately t with subdivision code (fote that the recently accessablllty to private easements, would have to ' he so desired, with no Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 4 of 6If 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 1, possibly 2, houses and serve as merely a private driveway without the strict requirement for underlying road and utility easement.The preliminary plat drawings show that the existing easement serving Reiersgord's . j-®.While this would be a logical proposal, if the easement holder agrees to such a release, no information has been provided to suggest that that property owner is willing to release his 60easement.Additional Oiscnsaion -As noted at your last meeting, the property owners to the north have stated that they do not feel an access to Bayslde Road is necessary to serve their properties, and they have legal access across the Luce Line to Turnham Road. The City has no 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 - new 5-acre lots making use of Fattens Outlot A. Of course, there is no guarantee that white would wan to develop using Partens' Outlot A. A short cul-de-sac might conceivably be developed to serve White's acreage with its own road system from Bayside Road. The applicants have provided a 15' wide drainage easement over the ravine in Lot 1, since blockage of that ravine could affect drainage of properties to the west. City Engineer's RecfssaMndation - The City Engineer in reviewing this proposal has that under the most comprehensive approach to development in this area, the entire length of Outlot A should be 50’ wide, it ®»oula 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 1 or by construction on Reiersgord's property) or by construction on White’s property. lerly 20' wide section, might be considered a 2, houses and serve as itrict requirement forthat the existing road is "to be released", if the easement holder n has been provided to ing to release his 60'>roperty owners to the access to Bayside Road and they believe they Turnham Road. The City these property owners, e to provide them with ^ to the south suggests le that property with making use of Partens' e that White would want ihort cul-de-sac might 's acreage with its own fide drainage easement i of that ravine could proposal has suggested to development in this 1 be 50* wide, it should ‘ northwest, and should either now or when the by further subdivision ford's property) or by Zoning File #1470 January 10, 1990 Page 5 of 6 recommends a 50' wid% drainage easement over « extreme breadth and depth. Re states thatwnt, 1 ^ miminum width drainage easement that®®®®Ptable. Applicant shows a 15' easement based orthi? f Engineer's input. Remembereasement will not count as buildable Ic* area for this or any future division.*^«c<^ended by the Engineer is a provision to give the City access to the Nature Conservancy parcel via a future right. Apparently the Nature Conservancy has approached the City to transfer its ownership to the City, with covIn^tVwon open space. If this occurs, the Cityaccisi abiltiy to acquire a fu;:ure easement to gainaccess to the property, ^Variances Required - While the 40' outlet does not necessarily present itself as intMt*o/?hl°r!^«.code, it does not strictly meet the if Vll Li ^ ® subdivision st;nH^rds due to the existence property and easement. Lot 2 requires a lack of frontage on a public road. Technlcallv SiJjJ would interpret that neither Lots 1 or 2 require J^iot dth variance, since they both hove mox«^ than 300' of frontage on a private road or private driveway out. ot. Staff Rerrimidation - things considered, the current proposal has merit and solves a nu,L<her of concerns in this neighborhood: 1. Increases the area of the northerly parcel to a conro^ing acreage and provides it access via an outlet to Bayside Road. 2. Provides a dedicated access corridor to the Reiersgord which, if some day granted variances, could possibly be developed as a residential lot. bulid?hi merely make the northerly parcel buildable by increasing its area and providing it with leoal thSt“liJale“?lifj attempting to accomplish of !?? ? purpose, the City is forced to consider 1 minor development as it affects and is potential development of neighboring properties. The not^nec^s"sVr\Yv ‘*«veloper's short-term goals do ^*^® City could potentially place accommodai-i^f^f \ burdens on the developer in attempting to accommodate all future area development concerns. •JUl04^^J •11 W»»7iliW*l'i nSi] lllln ♦1*1 ^9 ir* A ^ T« if • % r«Til*Kil •T-*Vi r«itf-iii •l^Hi •liPVi iiiK*!*!' lillltfi • 1 • I •!•» 1 X* inuary 9,1989: Orono Planning Commission om: Ruth and Daniel Parten ! Proposed Plat for Bayside Woodstempted to address the riirror,^ city staff we havey for the development of this area "perhl" of thefarding the configuration of Lot 2 would hof commentsproposed plat. ^ ^ would be helpful in evaluatingthe land in that^reaT^'^By staJiL^aia°'^f natural contour e as shown the driveway avoids^an^a ^ property y mature trees, rle IIsteeper slope and imizes the need for g^Idin^ driveway In considering how to add area Jo^Lr? fn®® eluded that the most desiroihff ^ ^ several times and lot toward thl east buJ w^d be to enlarge *ver, we do have ?aJd adjacent property. 5 neighboring parcel, and it coo only building site on ir would be interested in an exchanornr^”"^® ®°‘"® future ®ent over the seasonal flovagl a™a ’u\Jr‘ e^ o£r -- SroUNG PILE NO.1470CITT OP ORONO P.O. Box 66Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357ID1 Daniel Parten1015 Tonkawa Road Long Lake, MN 55356 NOnCB OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONDate of Notice: 11/22/89COPIBS TO:TTPB OP APPLICATION: SubdivisionDATS OP ITINGt 11/20/89 Vote: 4 For 0 AgainstPlannlBg CoaMission recoaaeBds the following:Tabled for reasons noted belowNOTES k SPFTIAL CONDITIONS -Tabled pending submittal of revised preliminary 2-lot plat proposal, excluding northerly parcel. Planning Commission generally favored a proposal for a 50-foot outlot to the east lot line, and a 25'-30* outlot continuation to Lot 2 (see attached sketch), likely requiring merely a private driveway rather than paved road. This proposal should be submitted at least 10 days prior to the January 16th Planning Commission meeting. A copy of the site topography is being forwarded to the City Engineer for review of the need for drainage easements. Please contact City staff at 473-7357 if you wish to discuss your application further. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning CoMission, Tuesday, January 1€, 1990; meeting starts as 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. 1470^C» 0» rumrmi comamcMV 55323 yjZllll--------------------------------.«■«•••**"*"***” OOVU^ SOtP«rt«ntm, KH ________________________________ _______--------r;;;—TSIS^' *SST" Xl/20/09 »»«••____-■- tte ..*-it«i ‘JiSniM cSEiiSiS? ;r^^“ Vo{t3"hw.h.d*u * 5,UJ P.7- —• .. on. ^ ahottld !>• • Sf?i*.Sl»0 •=““'“^'* t.«.rd- t. th. Clt, - of th. .It. I.J2i!2t.. „ th. «.* *” ’ oo ai.c.. T-' ,. eontaet City .t.f* .» Ml further. _____ 70 / / / / h'- / / / fV'- Ml*ITBS OF TBB PIAmilliG C0MM2SS10B tOEBTIIIG HOVZHBBR 20, 198980nac FILE #1481~NCCOaitTHBT COFTlllUBl) r«li«v« drainage going into the house?Hr. Wenkus replied that ultimately it would be due to the fact that they were putting in a walkout. Be 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, that same additional cut near the lake.It was necessary to takeThere 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 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, Rays*0, Motion passed. #1470 OJUl a ROTH PARTBII 4300 BATSZDB ROAD FRBLUUMART SUBDIVISIOR COHTIRDRTIOR 0/ PUBLIC HBARIMG 8:55 P.M. TO 9:40 P.N. 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 subdivision. Chairman Kelley qpiestloned whether it would be pos&ible to split Out lot A into two out lots. One portion would end in the northeast corner with a cul-de-sac and Outlot B would serve the two lots in the back. Because Outlot 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 svibdivision« Planning Commissioler Bellows asked where the septic system is located for Lot 17 Gaffron indicated that the alternate site is still located in Outlot A and the 60' easement creates a configuration for Lot 1 so that it is not contiguous with Outlot A. minjTBS or tbs PLJuniiiiG SSIOH TIMS HOVl 20, 1989; HOTEMBBR 20, 1989it would b« due to the t. He said that he had Bind just assuned that lundation and the swale that a reading with a tional 6" to 12* nearer t was necessary to takec regarding this matterseconded by Planning L of the after-the-fact ng the need to relieve louse. Chairman Kelley e a drainage easement le could look into that Lude direction to staff je easement and make a ion seconded. Motion, t> 9:40 P.M. Ificate of Mailing were this public hearing. trator Gaffron provided icatlon for a 3-lot t would be possible to rtion would end in the It lot B would serve the would serve only two / said that the issue to Planning Commission the where the septic system site is still located t configuration for Lot ZOrniMG PILE *1470-PAKT13I COHTIiniBDKelley observed that if Outlet A were put in with only a 50* easesient. Outlet A and Lot 1 will be contiguous.Gaffron suggested creating a more narrow Outlet 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 degree of development where a certain amount of acreage no longer guarantees a certain amount of lots. Ws. 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 regardin9 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 applications seeking lot area variances for newly created 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 \ OF THE piahhihg commissioh TIMG HOVDIBBR 20, 1989COHTIHDED’ ?on",uSSI/" ‘’"^5' • SO'■ron su9ge.ted cr..tla, . ,<,re narrow outlot A.flag” lot-. * configuatlon would create "theIt «Ah*thi*naji'Mnt VroUrtyr"^ it.elf w.ll to”u.r.Ti’u‘.'?’.r\'’d* ^«or. Clcly r«.«,l„ . conventLnir.uW* Vi*"*']* ,• ••PtViVyVt.is'incjtdV/in^th.'^h?'**''^”'’'’ '"‘^•'ttiv.il tt^de it very difficult. homestead pad with a ten “o^onVlr.V “‘’she* - .ppaVATon^U". ment^ w*here a^^VertaiJ^an,^^® 5^^^ reached a degree I certain amount of lota, acreage no longer .nd"w‘tnVrVcou* d“V. iS.'t'w^^? Lion proA~V .jsTh«*touVd%VilTi?l"rdtn '’Y“'“^^ “*•ationa seeking lot area variaiff”^^^ other less th said that the extension**!?#* newly created the Styles property placed the >f the parcel. Mabuath slit tha?Vn V^°^^cnat an area variance \MZHDTBS or THE PIAMHIIIG COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 1989 XCnmiG PILE 81470 PARTEM CONTINUEDwould not be necessary with the 2-lot subdivision. Nabusth noted that proceeding with the 2-lot subdivision would leave the issue of accessing the northern properties unresolved.Bellows indicated that she would prefer to see a PRD if there is to be a subdivision of this property. She said that the PRO should not resemble a conventional 3-lot subdivision and,that it may be impossible to accomplish that.Kelley asked Bellows if she would accept a PRD that would have the 3 pads on Lot 1 and the septic systems on Lot 2?Bellows said yes she would accept that.Gaffron advised the Planning Commission that there is an existing drainageway running t*'rough the property over which it may be necessary for the City 3 take an easement. Gaffron said that the area for the drainageway would not have to be excluded from the total area if developed as a PRD. Ns. Parten said that she has tried very hard to meet the intentions and directions of the Planning Commission. She said that there are not any big flat areas for clustering homes, but rather there are three separate building areas. Bellows said that the Partens may not be able to do all that they want to do with this property. Ms. Parten said that they would be willing to clean up some of the City's problems with access. She noted that when making this application she had felt confident that due to the fact there are 50 acres with the parcel and surrounding property that will yield no more than 4 lots, approval would not be this difficult. Ms. Parten said that it does not make sense that this parcel cannot be subdivided. Planning Commissioner Brown asked if a determination has been made as to whether easements exist for the northwest lots to cross the Luce Line? Mr. Asao said that he and the Dieters have an easement in the form of a right-of-way from the DNR. Planning Commissioner Brown suggested leaving the Styles' property undeveloped. Mr. Asao said that he had looked at the possibility of purchasing the Styles' property which would bring his property up to City standards. Kelley said that would be favorable not only to the City, but it would also require the Partens to put in only a private driveway to serve two houses. Kelley asked for input from the Planning Commission as to the Partens proceeding with a 2-lot i6 HOVBMBER 20, 1989)division. Mabusth noted on would leave the issue tsolved.prefer to see a PRD if ;>erty. She said that the 'lot subdivision and thataccept a PRD that would lystems on Lot 2?lat.ission that there is an property over which it easement. Gaffron said not have to be excludedi very hard to meet the ig Commission. She said r clustering homes> but areas. t be able to do all that 'illing to clean up some noted that when making t that due to the fact irrounding property that val would not be this lot make sense that this if a determination has )r the northwest lots to rs have an easement in :ed leaving the Styles' at the possibility of d bring his property up i not only to the City, put in only a private iked for input from the roceeding with a 2-lot Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administiator BernhardsonMichael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator November 14, 1969#1470 Daniel Parten, 4300 Bayside Road -Preliminary Subdivision - Continuation of Public HearingApplication - 3-lot Plat List of BzhibiteExhibit A Exhibit 3 Exhibit C Exhibit DDiscDSsion -Nemo from Applicants Large Size Proposed Plat Drawings Planning Commission Action Notice 10/20/89 Memo 6 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 lota 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 turn-around area (see Sheet 2 of the large scale site plan) and a 14' wide gravel driveway to Lots 2 and 3. Alternatives - Please review the applicants' memo. They have considered 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 fer those access problems to be resolved either by the City or by the affected property owners. fAlr’iO?;%di“ist?ator Bernh.tasor1.,,.«........ ‘)venib6r 19891470 0.ni.l celiminary Subdivision- 3-lot Platlibit* a variance. required to pave any applicant. ^ to Lots 2 and 3. Thev have considered ,,.e t.vi.w th. .ppllc.nf A mdict.* • srnatives to northernmost P*'®®bgin|Terved■ plat wo^ld contain 5 acres, being ae ,ion, VLtlot. Ond.r ‘hi. .=h»«' . .?rir.rtrp3/.na ^;rcitro? v' HI HMTIffr OF THB PIAIHIIWG COMOSSIOH NBBTHIG HOVEMBKR 20* 1989 SOanMS PILB 81470-PJUtTBV COMTIHOEDsubdivision of the 12 acres, subtracting out the acreage (Sadicated to the 60' easement that runs the whole south lot Kalley suggested putting in a 50' outlot that follows the southerly lot line all the way around to the east lot line.Saffron observed that such a configuration would create two flag lots.Brown said that he would favor the 2-lot subdivision.Mabusth advised that the flag lot would require a width variance. Mabusth suggested putting a 25' outlot t«ie extends up to Lot 1 on 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 the preliminary 2-lot subdivision of 12+ acres, less Outlot A which will run 50' from the southerly boundary to the east lot line. Outlot B will run on the eastern boundary commencing at Outlot A to the south up to the lot line of Lot 1 at a width of 25 • 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 suggested tabling the application until further information is available regarding actual lot areas. Bellows said the issue of drainage easements had not yet been addressed. Kelley withdrew his motion. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to table this application pending transmittal of a plan addressing the issue of easement vs. outlot, site drainage and subdivision of the 12+ acres rather than 17+ acres. Mr. Parten asked for clarification of drainage information they needed to submit? Gaffron that the City may require a 20* to 30' drainage easement be taken over th* existing drainageway. Motion, Ayes*4, Nays-O, Motion passed. •1471 DARTLB OPBOFP 2899 OUT ATOOB COHDITIOMAL OSB PBBHIT POBLZe BBABZB6 9s42 P.M. TO 9t45 P.M. , . _ <X>he Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mi. Ophoff was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth provided a brief review of application for a conditional use permit to repair a sea Mabusth said that the City Engineer had reviewed the application and found the proposal acceptable and recommended that the 14701989,nd alternative la ahown. The propoeal for Lot It withinalter nate drainfield site for ^ necessarilyfeel th’t the PRO nnen soace would tendjince ti e shared iJw density development.>e privacy aspects ^.^e marketability of theurther are concerned -ou^rty. Certainlyi^.^Jo^V.crin‘'ll.:t ?tVproperty^J- ,?”ct".SlttS eneting th. den.ity r«,«ir»..nt. , Plannin? n.ceaaaty lot area standard pl«t i? lea. th« 5.0 acres in the , tor Lots 2.sn ‘’_i' olat would seem to address dara pxax. x** ^oe 5.0 acres in ,ral issue, outlintd by tn oon.ld.r theissue, outlined by the Fiann....^;-^ ‘];;til'erin :h\*c"h"‘t"h’e^- «”« ce. , e- .n 1ft* wide qravel road to ppllcants' PPoPO’jiJ^ 14" qravel dAveway to Lots S-sac, with an ««f Jf,„’-„\„^q ”com»i..ion7 II not, dJtltn” s'tandard. would Planning Commissi t 14- Lng commission wishes '^o recoiOTend approve^ tor the »ia"«>''’ be made that would set ion" ««tVr1i"lth.r futile applications requesting aic.s in the 5 acre rone. rd.r to Pjovldo 'oPoPO^'^iVg « "un«ilnV'’•■'"bv «d"tha't subt«cl. from the overall acreage. to the extremely billV fopogtaphy^and^^^^^^^ ;rroa°/wa'y"‘to'’*.«'vi ’on?r':''ree parcel, is necessarily tcessive len9^^* ovaral 1 den.ity '« ^J'thVVntMt"”'’ tVW’acie 'Vot'”«*."tVnd.r"d of tL RB-IA zoning district. Zoning File #1470 November 14. 1989 Page 3 of 3If Planning Commission feels that these end other appropriate findings provide a substantial justification to grant the lot area variances requested, such that the precedent-setting aspect would be minimized, then a recommendation for approval of the proposed plat would be appropriate.On the other hand, if Planning Commission feels that granting the lot area variance here will ultimately lead to pressure for lot area variances on less unique properties in the 5 acre zone, then the PRD concept with three distinct building pads and commonly owned open space, could be considered.Staff would also note that if a recommendation 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. Li - I ’ i h'/V2-^0 TO:Plannin9 Commission Chairt^n Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson 11190.2HD Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning It Zoning Ac;. i.nistrator Date: Subject: January 11» 1990 Code/Comprehensive Plan Conflicts Needing Future Resolution A. Conflict Between Subdivision Code & Comprehensive Plan The 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 o* 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 outlot for a private road serving 3 or more lots [Section 11.10* Subdivision 21 (C)l. 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 S 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. 0^^ E.11190.2HDininglo Planning SSTf AdBiiniatrator Bamhardaon„.i P. e.f*to», AMt Pl««i»9 ‘ uary 11# 1990a/CoBprahanalva Plan Conflicts Mssdlng Future olution «,aidt-«f1"- g°*« « rnw>rphfnti»< ywa« to »rvo • aC2^ It Vw that «rl*«»oyc aaaauant or width) will ba rsoulatsd In eases.xc'S’.lv. drl,«..y.itirtoo cod. (»«t"* »»s‘;2 r?:iiis«ir-ni‘t”“•tondoxds thot otot. —ith . poyW width width of SO* io MtStTofo priv.t. tooim "r'* ‘ Twaat sobdiwioion cod. ^ the 21 ^cT; ccwprahsnsivs Plancoda 5 ll.lOf Subdivision 21 1C J> cw subp. 4 7ta^^^^^ ‘•y isrpratad its ersatad lots aust front of dafinitlons, proposed to front on ss S ViiSli. T. ^lioV i^t'S? tlit rv.lop-.nt ^ priv.t. rood. i. b do so should not raquiro varian TO: Orono Planning CommissionFROM: ^ n and Ruth PartanRE: ^side Woods Subdivisionf .' !I. Proposal • Thraa Lot SubdivisionHe propose a 3 lot subdivision with road outlot, including an IS foot vide gravel driveway to the turnaround, and a 14 foot vide gravel driveway to Lots 2 and 3- Lot 1 is arranged to incorporate an alternate septic site as shown.Variance Request ♦! - 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 vide road outlot of 2.3 acres creates a hardship that ve feel justifies the granting of a variance. Variance Request #2 - Paving He recognize that at some future date the driveway Outlot could access up to 'six properties and provide access to three landlocked parcels. The additional cost of bituminous paving for the 1,250 foot long driveway to the turnaround is approximately $23,000. He 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. Alternate #l - 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 parcel required. ,.■> variances ono Planning Connission n and Ruth Parten .side Hoods Subdivisionsal - Three Lot SubdivisionJool iide^grapJ‘*dJiJiSiy''io*'thrtu?!Iaioin^vide gravel drivevay to Lots 2 and 3. Lot 1 isged to incorporate an alternate septic site as shown.nee Request tl - Lot Areased ^ots 2 and 3 are 4.3 and 4.4 acres respectively, is o.O acres and the proposed road outlet is 2.3reran density of this project is 5.6 acres per property together with.eation of a 50 foot vide road outlet of 2.3 acres »8 a hardship that we feel justifies the granting of a IClB • tee Request #2 - Pavino .ognize that at sone future date the drivevay Outlet access up to six properties and provide access to landlocked parcels. iditional cost of bituminous paving for the 1,250 foot turnaround is approximately $23,000. rmlhl * requirement, those costs should i . parties. Therefore a variance is iveway^*^ naive, for the present time, paving of ate #1 - Two Lot Subdivision ariance for paving is out of the question we propose a t subdivision, shown as "Exhibit A". The additional e of paving the drivevay and turnaround make a three an economically impractical. Ian produces two 5 acre plus parce* •»? variances BQ • Page 2 - Bayside Hoods Subdivision III. Alternate #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. M • 1 - %ro^ ^ ^ ~M1 ^ *10.-.n)]\iZIlEJ I ^n' ♦ •II • ^-fto ^ \ \ \ \ ^ '4Y /h I ' ^ ,-"gigio ~ '/ I -='' / 10 A \ \ \ 3* XOHIIK: PILS no. I470CITT OF 0«0»0 NOTICE OF PLMmiNG COMMISSION ACTIONsly, MS 55323 473-7357_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _TO: Dani«l Parten COPIES TO:1015 TonXava RoadLong Lake» MN 55356 ___ _ _ __ _ _TTP* OF APPLICATION: Subdivision _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _OATB'S'mKNG: 10/16/89 Vote: 7 For 0 AgainstPlanning CoBMiasioii reiu—snda tbe following:Tabled for reasons n<->ted below,NOTES » SPECIAL CONDITIONS -Applicant to sui^ibit revised proposal(s) for review. General comments by the Planning Coaunission: 1. Septic alternate sit^ for Lot 1 (existing 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 residenceA7 acres density. 3. Planning Comisaion would pr.f.r that access eorridors be pcovldjd to the Relersgord, Aaao, and Deters properties, given the access concerns with those properties. 4. 50' outlet corridors would be appropriate throughout the subdivision; paved width of actual road/driveway to be all houses are served, perhaps some flexibility on paving if 1 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 f®ceipt of additional information. Deadline for the November 20, 1989 meeting is November 10, 1989. In all cases, the application must be requested information within 120 days or the City will consider t application as formally withdrawn. If you desire certified copies of the official 5fviiw“iSd minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. ZONING PILE NO. I470^66**° "OnCE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONBay, MN 55323 473-7357 .Notice; 10/20/895 Tonkaw^Road COPIES TO:r Lake, MN 55356Subdivision ■vot';:‘T;;r"TA-,-;i„";- - - - - -Conission reconends the following:Bd for reasons noted below,PBCIAL CONDITIONS -inning proposal(s) for review. General comments if a standard p 1 au ^i3 prooo house) must be within ble if a PRD is proposed. Some flexibility may bS hether a standard plat or prd _ consider granting lot ar« va/i.„'’o°-."’' ?l^""i"g Commission 8nce/l7 acres density. ances, given the overall 3 Laiming Commission would prefer Asao, and Deters corridors be provided .ns with those properties. ^ parties, given the access vision; paved width*oVactual*^ro^/rf^?^°^^^®^® throughout the ouses are served, oerhena to be standard 24* if are served. Perhaps some flexibility on paving if less ^VtloS! ‘>oth a PRD and a standard plat for ?9Tg lllliVi ll \h ITO:Prw.:Date:Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator BernhardsonMichael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator October 10, 1989Subject: #1470 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 Exhibits Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Plat Map I - Property Owners List I - Preliminary Plat DrawingsCcV-'.-c re I - Letter from Neighboring Property Owner White ' - Sketches by Staff Including: 1. Neighboring Property Ownership 2. Acreage Layout 3. Scale Concept Plan Showing Building Sites 4. Existing & Proposed Driveway System 5. Staff Conceptual Sketch A 6. .Staff Conceptual Sketch B Exhibit G 7. Staff Conceptual Sketch C .v - Subdivision Code Section 11.10, Subdivision 21 4;;.03.it/ 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 Outiot 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 outiot road, but is proposed to be served by 'n easement driveway, which conflicts with Section 11.10, division 21 (c). Lot 1 contains the existing house aj ’’e existing primary drainfield. The site evaluation .^rt on file Indicates there are no suitable alternate urainfield sites within proposed Lot 1 and the only apparent alternate site is within Outiot 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. aanningirono Bernhardson:lty Aa»lnis«.« ^ Mminl.tr.tor«ich«i p. o»£«°"'October 10, 1080 .•uiurrsb-fv-ion - —..^oAw«bred„ 1* s acre, unseweicwDuilding lots m cbibit*bit A “ bit B - bit C - bit D - .bit E - .bit F - Sxhibit G Application Jilpem^ners List^ings^ Bif fnMrSketches by Sta ^ Ownership 1 neighboring Fr p cutes V. Lriage WV°f-,3„ showing 1: scale Conoep^l^^ Brlveway System I: l»l£"tn ‘=e|^i f-fh ^S . V. I“t£ “^^’^seotiofll-lO, subdivision 21(1‘^ - Subdivision Code 4;i.o3.a*^ acts - as follows: . house)ed lot areas arenas (existing no reposed Lot i ^ roposed Lot ^ g acres 'reposed Lot J )utiot A » 1*®' -nrvev “ does this s 17.06 acres (per ^jgtertown Road?) rotal 331 of right-of-way figure include nublic outlet -s. ‘.T ,osed “£.£.*”The toothlrly 80- of hot Rei«s|°Js ,i„ outlot A. The^ „,e„ent in £»^°’;ot « “ “:3.v JK-.””.»»■■“ •• S3 :rt.. •”‘v" Zoning File #1470October 10, 1989Page 2 of 53. 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 2.4. 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 outlot road, but gives it about 158* of frontage on a proposed 30' private road easement.5. 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. 6. 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. 7. A number of variances would be required in order to approve the plat as proposed: A) Lots 1 & 3 would require a variance for lack 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 CO* wide where 300* in lot width is normally required. lots 1 & 3 do not front on a public roadway nor a private read outlot, hence they each technically require a 100% variance for defined lot width. CJ 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. 1 Zoning File #1470 October 10, 1989 Page 3 of 5 D) Variance to Section 11.10, 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 Fl through F7. FI notes the neighborhood ownership patt*^rn 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) ir 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. •x*i»i«r«L*i9f*I*] [•»«*r*i L*i»pr* L*l-«7i1 ^MlirOfTSiWiT:^ •1»PV»I Zoning Pile #1470October 10, 1989 Page 4 of 5However, 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 ReccMMmdation *• 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 .ot be continued to the Asao and Deters properties to the i. i, so that the Luce Line driveway crossing for those two pZi jrties 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 outlet? 5. Presuming that whether this is a plat or a PRD, the Planning Commission will not waive the standard requirement that outlet 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 lot area variances with the subdivision? -a;;''j'lO Jj.< fftCITY OP OROHO - SOBDIVISIOH APPLICATION /■ -?1i-# nVr2JP?*yifl i \ PSOPBRTT LOCATZOH Site Addr-sss ^ (f Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 3 I ~ M 8 •~Z3H 3~0<^ ^ 06-// 7- Z.3 i a - ooo OFFICf Please check one - Property abstract or torrens? litCEIPT-YOU 3j - Z3 H 3 ~~ COai§9S(X CCOl ROl f04i; Attach legal description to application.Q9/2Z'l Phone (home ) _____________ Phone (work) ^^/~*73/>^ Address: 101^ I "iPiJ3ci City: Li>x.c, Zip: ^^3^^ APPLICAHT Naune TDan**■P,rlcnn j ONHBR (if different than applicant) Phone (home) ~7^ ^chv'/z-O^e/// (Icr-porfm^ j. rhone I work) ■4’^- 73/^ ^ .ip: Nome T^a/t^y/ aftd. / / / Address: /OjLfS / City: A3A^< (attach list if more than one)<J EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size 2 n no nc. /'~7 Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Present Use (check)Residential; no. of units Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ / Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangeiuent Only (no new building sites) \/^ Subdivision for New Building Sites /Number of Building Sites:Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) ^ 3 Units per /^7 Acres 3c.-^s Sq Feet Dry Buildable L«mJ \/^ Residential _ _ _ Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ KT i i t MIHIMON NATBRIAI. HBCBSSART POR COMPLETE PRBLINIIOUIY APPLICATION 1. Completed Application Form Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). Stampedr legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of the names on the above list with no return address (use address labels obtained witn property owners list). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 2. 3. 4. 5. Certification by Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application is complete. Zoning Official's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ Date 1. Payment of fees (par)c fees, filing fee, sewer and water assessments). 2. Signed certificate of survey or mylar copies of formal plat. 3. Title opinio. 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 FEES'y Slcetch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Preliminary Review (Class I & II Subdivision) Preliminary Review (Class III and all non-residential) Final Plat Review (Class III) *(Plus any legal or engineering charges) §150.00 250.00 300.00 + 20.00/Lot 150.00* t 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 allxN30itional^^ees/@tetabilished by ordinance.) 7 / ^ Applicant's Signature Owner's Signature Date Date f-rz / 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 malce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Mi OATI •f/M/89 ftATOfl Ml NEMCPIN COUNTY PIWERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY QHCRS LIST REPORT NO. PIAS5A0I PAGE ATAXPAYER mm/i TAXPAYER mm/i nMPAvm mm/mn OtCR MWi TAXP''rt NMI/AOM MhV MM TAXPAYIR NMC/ARM ORCR mm TAXPAVU mm^AMR M M-U7-tS 11 MOI OAMA RAVSIK RO VCI CAPITAL INC VCl CAPITAL INC PO MN STS UMB LAKE »M 65354SR R5-117-2S U OMS RASSS RAVSIK RO VCI CAPITAL INC VCI CAPITAL INC PO RON STS LONS LAKE *M SSSS4 SR Sl-IlR-tS 41 OMS 041U mnOTOMN RO f1 R A N E PLAMl mCNAf L R A NARY I PLAM( 414S mtlRTOMI RO NAPU PLAIN Ml SS3SS SO Sl-no-ts 42 OMS OMSO AOOKSS (A4ASSI6NEO BFWO N SRYAHT IFMO H MYANT C/0 NERic onus IMl LAKiVlEN TER LONS LAKE MN B5SSA SO Sl-lIO-tS 4S OM7 OMSO AOOKSS UIASSIGNED P ASAO I J ASAO PHILLIP ASAO Its TUHNNAH OOM MAPLE PIAIN MN SSSS9 SO Sl-llO-tS 4S 0011 M14S TURNHAM RO KEITH L HOMELL ET AL OAVie A KTERS 14S njRNHAH RO MAPLE PLAIH Ml S53S9 SR 04-117-23 12 0001 04S40 RAVSIK RO J A OLSON APE OLSON JAICS A OLSON 4340 RAVSIDE RO MAPLE PUIN Ml S53S9*4 04-117-23 21 MOI U444B RAVSIK 00 MAP JOHNSON HARK S A PATRICIA P JOHNSON 444S RAVSIK RO MAPLE PLAIN Ml 55359 SO Sl-UO-23 42 0001 (K24S CHIPPLNA LA R I S0KN5EN ETAL ROKRT L SOKNSEN 4245 CHIPPEHA LANE MAPLE PLAIN Ml S5SS9 30 31-110-23 43 0003 00030 AOOKSS UNASSIGNEO NINNIFKO H OAVANT HIMUFRED M BRVAMT C/0 MERLE STILES IMl LAKEVIEH TER LONG LAKE Ml S63S4 SO 31-110-23 43 0000 04300 OAVSIOE RO SCHUrZ-0’NEILL CORPORATION SCHUrZ-O’NEILL CORPORATION 1015 rOMlAHA RO LONG LAKE Ml SSS54 36 31-116-23 44 0001 UOOSS AOORESS UNASSIGNEO STATE OF MINN STATE OF HINII 36 04-117-23 12 0M204300 BAVSIK RO SCIIurz-O'NEILL CORPORATION SCHUTZ-O’NEILL CORPORATION 1015 TUM(ANA RO LONG LAKE Ml 5535430 04-117-23 21 000204455 OAYSIK RO MAP .lONNSON HARK S A PATRICIA P JOIMSON 4455 BAVSIK M MAPLE PLAIN Ml 55359 36 31-116-23 42 0003 04355 CHIPPEHA LA FREKRICK E StIEHANEK JR ETAL FRED E SHEHANEK RT 2 BOK 14 MAPLE PLAIN Ml 55359 SO 31-116-23 43 0004 00125 TUnOIAH RO P R ASAO A J A ASAO PHILIP R A JOV A ASAO 125 niRNHAH RO MAPLE PLAIN 55359 36 31-116-23 43 0009 00030 AOORESS UIASSIGNED NATUK CONSCRVANCV NATURE CONSCRVANCV 1313 5TH ST S E SUITE 314 MPLS MN 55414 36 31-118-23 44 0004 00036 AOOKSS UIASSIGNCO THOMAS E KIERSGORO ETAL TMOHAS E REIERSGOHO 4500 H 44TM ST MPLS Ml 55424 o tH JEAk a. mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator CITY OP ORONO Orono Village Hall P. 0 7 • Crystr IN 55323 Re:Re 430U ial Subdivision side Road Dear 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 blacktopping 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 ^n part on our property. (Our property abuts that road on the east and north of Highway 84.) I visited briefly on tli i ■ with Mr. Gronberg, and he ’ndicated 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 o. our property was restricted so that there appears tc 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 biacktopping, it obviously would make that partial acre more usable again. If a telephone or other visit on any of the above is appropriate, I w' .v *?e roost pleased to oe availa' **- Very truly yours. r yj \ • X r- K-t\ !' '59 4» ' £xy, Ey/sT?/i<k ffUffoieti p/2i\/^<oAfV I -zoo 1^ ' \ /V ', \S^I '( ' / f 1 ^1 'V « \ (4*>C7*) :m f\S^ : .*a L ahias A.*/.* I .. ''i|/ '^rrrZ'^‘'oy. IN ■ Vi - i 148.04 |«i ?I#S^ X r»o«»»o io^ >1 Z- -• 1.^ .• .*#- ■ V-f- CC>:^i-L. . W ✓ cl •N«9*44-3rw 59S.^» BQcasaasy \ I V 'V - STATf CtM^C4yATX4^ J|4^C44 '>4* F-S 79 no A4, ^M70«59 ’5^*W 129.29 If / '2<%> •{ •I K •: # t ; y ^ xV^ US P^Y *II70»9^*5 129.29 STAPP Sf^tr'TC.H I I* ^/ =200 S89i«6'OI*E Lim • •OHTTort ?i/.Mtji»^i. • I.Ooe................. ^ ^ODi I r. ‘I J / rV;. . 148.04 l9*46'orE yt4 ■ I4 •''j/^.' /\.,j, /,// ‘"^^lt0 2oc V < y tin^mn ^)*ku rA%rHtm^<4'^Z' N89*44*3rw 593 53 r • O.U.C e<» ■ F-7 V*'’ c<?i^c.«rf^*nAAu SK.erCH ^C* Subd. 21. Special Requirements for Class II and III Subdivisions.A. Improvements. All public and/or private improvements required by the City to be completed by the subdivider prior to Final Plat approval, shall be fully completed and shall have had a certificate of satisfactory completion issued by the City Engineer prior to endorsement of the Pinal Plat by the City. All public and/or private improvements required by the City to be completed by the subdivider after Final Plat approval shall be fully set forth in a subdivider's agreement to be executed prior to Pinal Subdivision approval. All local streets in subdivisions where sewer and water are not available shall be private unless otherwise approved by the City at preliminary subdivision approval. The City reserves the right to determine whether a road is to be public or private in all areas of the City. B. Public Roads. Public streets and roads will be required to be platted, constructed and dedicated to the City when required by the Council consistent with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the City staff and the established City practices and design standards. Public roads shall be completed and issued a certificate of satisfactory completion by the City Engineer prior to Final Plat approval or, when specifically authorized by the Council, shall be subject to the conditions of a subdivider's agreement to be executed prior to Final Plat approval. C. Private Roads. When the Preliminary Plat has been approved on the basis of a private access toad providing the only access to three or more lots, the private road shall be identified on the Pinal Plat as a separate outlot. The private road shall be identified by name if the road serves four or more lots. Whenever a private road outlot is proposed, the subdivider shall be required to provide for a permanent homeowner's association or road maintenance agreement acceptable to the City in order to insure ownership and maintenance of th? road outlot. D. Road and Utilities Easements. The Council may, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission and/or City staff, require the subdivider to convey to the City certain road and utilities easements permitting public ingress, egress and access over private roads as a condition of Final Subdivision approval. 1. Whenever a private access road is authorized, the required outlot shall be included on and conveyed in a road and utilities easement in the standard City form. 2. Whenever areas of the plat are to be set aside for public or private utility construction an! use, said areas shall be describ'^ci and dedicated for public use on the plat. This shall include areas shown on record plat drawings as "drainage and utilities easements".3. Whenever a road and utilities easement is required, the easement shall be fully executed prior to Final Plat approval using the legal descriptions of the Final Plat and shall thereafter be filed in the chain of title of the property concurrent with the filing of the Pinal Plat. ORONO CC 442 (4-1-84) Subdivisionsf^' Requirements for Class II and III^ Improvements. All public and/or privateImprovements required by the City to be completed by the subdivider ?cior to Pinal Plat approval, shall be fully completed and shall ^ certificate of satisfactory completion issued by the .ity Engineer prior to endorsement of the Pinal Plat by the City Lll public and/or private improvements required by the City to be :ompleted by the subdivider after Pinal Plat approval shall be^ subdivider's agreement to be executed prior to inal Subdivision approval. All local streets in subdivisions rhere sewer and water are not available shall be private unless therwise approved by the City at preliminary subdivision approval, he City reserves the right to determine whether a road is to be ublic or private in all areas of the City.B. Public Roads. Public streets and roads will be equired to be platted, constructed and dedicated to the City when squired the Council consistent with the recommendations of the lanning Commission and the City staff and the established City cactices and design standards. Public roads shall be completed Id issued a certificate of satisfactory completion by the City igineer prior to Pinal Plat approval or, when specifically Council, shall be subject to the conditions of a ibdivider s agreement to be executed prior to Pinal Plat approval. (en approved on the basis of a private access road providing jly access to three or more lots, the private road shall be lentified on the Pinal Plat as -a separate outlet. The private idd shdll b6 id6nti£i6d by name if the road serves four or more ^^1*1 3 private road outlet is proposed, the subdivider lall be required to provide for a permanent homeowner's sociation or road maintenance agreement acceotable to the City in der to insure ownership and maintenance of th- road outlet. D. Road and Utilities Easements. The Council may, on recommendation of the Planning Commission and/or City staff, quire the subdivider to convey to the City certain road and ilities easements permitting public ingress, egress and access er private roads as a condition of Final Subdivision approval. 1. Whenever a private access road is thorized, the required outlet shall be included on and conveyed a road and utilities easement in the standard City form. 2. Whenever areas of the plat are to be set Ide for public or private utility construction and use, said !as shall be described and dedicated for public use on the plat, .s shall include areas shown on record plat drawings as "drainage I utilities easements". 3. Whenever a road and utilities easement is [uir6dp the easement shall be fully executed prior to Final Plat iroval using the legal descriptions of the Pinal Plat and shall treafter be filed in the chain of title of the property current with the filing of the Pinal Plat. NO CC 442 (4-1-84) S 11.0321. "Improvements, Private" - Any improvement, required by this Chapter, which improvement the City or subdivider 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. requir 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 of 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 eleva 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 ot combination of lots or outlots which meet all of the requirements of the Zoning Chapter of the City Code and this Chapter for the intended purpose. 26. "Lot, Outlot" - A lot which is intended only for public or privace 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. The use of the outlot will thereafter be restricted by the appropriate restrictive covenant or open space easerient. 27. "Lot, Corner" - A lot situated at the intersection of two (2) streets, the interior angle of such intersection not exceeding 135 degrees. ORONO CC 419 (4-1-84) Ij. p « « « «u4^IS 11.03Private" - Any improvement, :ovement the City or subdivider ise and for which the City will 3 maintenance and operation and :ity.Public" - Any improvement, ovement the City or subdivider se and for which the City will for its maintenance and opera- \ of satisfactory completion.:t, plot or portion of a d intended as a unit for the !, or transfer of ownership or itted lot shall be a buildable i" - Each lot shall contain the osed lot as prescribed in the In rural zone** not served by in a minimum of two acres of isive of wetlands, public and pedestrian easements, surface mark of any surface water or ,n elevation for a specific nply with the City's on-site Code. In urban areas served itain contiguous dry buildable escribed in the Zoning Chapter ;hever is less, (exclusive of vehicular or pedestrian ease inary high water mark of any : below the flood plain eleva- e legal access to the building d or flood plain area. A lot or combination of lots irements of the Zoning Chapter the intended purpose. Lot which is intended only for e or other use, which use must sement and which use must be final plat approval. The use sstricted by the appropriate serjent. - A lot situated at the the interior angle of such / (4-1-84) iOCOUNCIL MEETING MRR121990CITYOFORONOMayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator BernhardsonMichael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning S> Zoning Administrator March 7, 1990#1468 George & Sally Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road Variances/Conditional Use Permit - ResolutionList of Exhibits - Exhibit A - Denial Resolution - 0-75' Zone Greenhouse Exhibit B - Approval Resolution - Lakeshore Grading/Retaining Wall Exhibit C - Notice of Council Action 1/26/90 Exhibit D - Council Minutes of 1/8/90 Exhibit E - Memo 1/16/90 Exhibit F - Notice of Council Action 1/9/90 Exhibit G - Memo & Exhibits of 1/3/90 On January 8, 1990, Council voted 3 to 2 to conceptually deny variances for the proposed green house addition. Council further directed staff to draft a resolution for such denial while incorporating language for approval of the conditional use permit and variance for grading and retaining walls in the 0-75' zone. This application was tabled at applicants' request on January 22, 1990 by a vote of 3-1. The applicants have proposed no changes in their request since the January 8th meeting. Per Council's direction, the resolutions for green house denial and grading/retaining wall approval have been drafted and are attached for Council review. Moved by , Seconded by , to adopt resolution ♦ denying lakeshore setback and Hirdcover variances requested oy George & Sally Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road, for construction of a green house. Ayes ___, nays ___. Moved by Seconded by to adopt resolution # granting variances and a conditiona1 use permit requestedby George & Sally Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road, fur construction of retaining walls and grading in the 0-75' setback zone. Ayes ___, nays ___. KH' H r#i : I IniiK rtiT^ [•JiWii •wr«i imiii •n: F^fSj47ET*H«j7Htra«I«i ^ PIHDIHGSThis appllcstion was rsvlewsa as .osin, meThe property is l^^^t^a^fa'^ljpprMtaateiy’zfse acres "arer^nea^iySSi l«9e'r than the 2 acre minimum lot sis Jn"ia\ zonln, aistrlct.Haracover in the 0-75- 75-250',*»re no hardcover is normally a25% hard- jne» the existing hardcover • jso-SOO' zone» existingr*'r is normally allowea In the ^3 normallyardcover is 6.3% wnetc fllowed. attached greenhouseThe applicants have unction with concurrentisSsake in the 0-75' rone, resulting r^ , 24 s.£. :»a7c'tir'ora* rVarctJon‘’f\o; 5.754 to 5.654. ^ An 1Q49 and than • The existing resiaence City orainance 4155’• „Tfea ilth all existing orainances. City , faf^ibsegle^ ly Vegui r°e‘;e^t"£o^*' airne: construction 75' lakeshore setback r g existing residence is 57 on lakeshore P^opevties addition will be Lake Minnetonka. The pr P n'ltv is^not limit lUrt lleTol the property that currently considered as hardcover. 6 The applicants have ®hp^|e‘S^a tV’lake, in«ll«t sur’iace «n-o« between the house :;e^:i^nVa‘i»'Us?- - 0-75' setback rone 7 The City council finas that while V'®o^/rhV^ •”)" may |2b%Va"ntfal iV P«i^«>,“uch V AfiTilV not 5SS%TScn%'r%bole!gVr s^^^J^r^^Tn" the 0-75' zone. 8. The Council finds that the applicants claim that there is no appropriate location landward of the 75' setback line at which a green house could be attached to the existing residence, is not sufficient to justify a lakeshore setback variance, especially in the light of the large lot size and available unused hardcover allowance in the 75-250' zone.9. The Council finds that approval of additional structure in the 0-75' lakeshore setback is not appropriate in this circumstance where an area of the property is obviously available where construction of a fully conforirting addition could occur. The Council finds that the Interior layout of the house and the architectural continuity of room layouts of the existing house are not sufficient justification for granting of the variance to allow additional structure in the 0-75' zone.10. The Council rejects the applicants' premise that the green house is partially justified by the need for higher humidity for the comfort of the residents, finding that higher humidity can be provided within the residence by other means than a greenhouse in the 0-75' zone.11. The Council rejects the applicants' claim that the variance is justified by the need for southeast exposure for the proposed growing of orchids, finding that such an orientation could be accomplished by an attached greenhouse in a conforming location outside the 0—75' setback zone. 12. Council finds that granting of the requested variances would result in the following violations of Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A) of the zoning code with which the applicant must first comply before the requested variances can be granted: A) Granting of the proposed variance does not deny the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The house in its current condition has served as a functional residence on this property for many years. There is substantial area available on which to construct a conforming greenhouse addition without the need for variances. B) Granting the requested variance will merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty. Page 3 of 4 Page 2 of 4 ----"^^itlonaT "V foii?- ’’»• Council . «‘'-“cture 1„hu«l5u5“|® P«r*/a*fly i!;®.1PPllca„ts. dmeans tha^ Pi'ovide./ finAt ^^P^'erII ^'■®®"'>°“ae In the rirfi"® ‘*>»t..1..,.* •-’■■ ■«."•'*•■"• »i- finding^^t ®/Posure fo7 2 « ' outside fc)?//?" attached >uid result ^^at gra„^, setback zone. ® Ml«n^® n“"et " /i’r ol“t°h“e "L*iPlPtionI*lr“®ti''«'«"P« " »e wanted! '“PPI-v ^P^o^e"^h?tU“!ld“ Dr. ®P*"‘ln9 Of th. '’^fiances*i erantin, of th ''arlancel fllhrorthe *"^3»?"ie®nt does not d pTo«Vt“y" f"« a«vii-e"‘- f ’•"» ^o“u^sr?„»ar pto7et^« avall.hV "any year. '“"Ptlonai r.l'^.^‘a eurrenf addition wl°t"h<J'oV'th*^°'P"atru«V ®“P*tan11 aT I’ th ^* "**^ ^- -?ircU™^n,-Veih*o-| nlcessatv''t"^®"'«*'’to®Vh ''arlance wa, 'Jlffleulty ° alleviate a* ^ ®an ts, "but^'I servo ^®"onstrahie h^aVdsi?p"« *’®9e 3 Of 4 Adopted by the Orono City Council of the City of Orono on this 12th day of March, 1990.ATTEST:Dorothy M. Hallin, City Cleric James R. Grabek, MayorSTATE 'P MINNESOTA ) 88.COUNTY OP HENNEPIN )The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of March, 1990, 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 4 N A RBSOLOTION GRANTING VARIAHCBS TO HONICIPAL ZONING CODE SECT'^N 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SEC .;4I 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 PILE #1468NHBRBAS, George and Sally Plllsbury (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1300 Brackett's Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows:Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); andNBEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for •ariances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to construct a retaining wall within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no structure, hardcover or land alteration is normally allowed, and further requesting a conditional use permit for such grading uk jk within tne 0-75' lakeshore setback zone per Section 10.03, SuL-’i vision 19. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as zoning File #1468. 2. The property is located in the LR-lA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The property is approximately 2.96 acres in area. 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 16, 1989 and recommended approval of the proposed variance and conditional use permit on a vote of 5-2, based on the following findings: Page 1 of 5 A RBSOLOTION GRAHTIII6 VARIAMCES TO MOMICIPAL aOHlIIG CODE SBC---E 10.22, SUBDIVISIOW 2 ABDSBCTIOH 10.03, SOBDIVISIOH 19 PILE *1468WBBRBAS, George and Sally Pillsbury 1300nd legally described as follows.ibit A attached (hereinafter "the property")? and unpvPAS the applicants have made ®PP^^ Or"on™“l' v^.rU^nVes tc Hunlolpal w, i'? within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone per Sect! uL-Ti.^ision 19* HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council Of linnesota: FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1469. The property is located in the ^p-lA Single Family ceshore Residential zoning District. The property is approximately 2.96 acres in area. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed thU a^lication October 16, 1989 and recommended a°\*o\e ^of ^5-2, based riance and conditional use permit on a vote of the following findings; Page 1 of 5 f ' iH A) The retaining wall and associated grading proposed at the top of the lakeshore bank is necessary for preservation of the lakeshore bank, which is currently exhibiting some slumping effect. The 24"-30" proposed height of the single proposed retaining wall is low enough that the wall can be easily screened using existing and additional vegetation coupled with the stone construction materials proposed.B) The proposed 96 s.f. hardcover Increase resulting from the tops of the retaining wall and stair timbers in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone is an increase of a fraction of 1%, and is relatively minor in its Impact on the lake given the relatively large 0-75' zone. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district? that granting the variance for grading and retaining walls in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, 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 applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty? is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants? and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the proposed grading and retaining walls in the 0-75' zone 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. Page 2 of 5 riM«]r*w«(«ifT*•iii«h:x*I lli|i| ■ M ■ ■ ■■ r«ifW« •r.i«i* 5. 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. 6. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Oiono City Council on this 12th day of March, 1990, ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of March, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor 6 City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public I ‘ My Commission Expires Page 4 of 5 V I 1APPLICATION HO. 1468CITY OP ORONO P.O. BOX 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 NOTICE OP COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 1/26/90 TO:George Pillsbury 1300 Bracketts Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES:Robert G. Mitchell, Jr. Lindquist & Vennum 740 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Thomas Meyer Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastle, 325 Second Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55401 LTD Herb Baldwin Landscape Architect 4196 West 185th Street Jordan, MN 55352 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OP HEETING: 1/22/90 VOTE: 3 For 1 Against COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Tabled at aoolicant's reouest. Please contact staff to verify at which future coincll meeting you wish to appear, future meetings are^^^^^^^^ fo^ F©bru3rv 12# Fsbrusry 26# March 12 and ^!a4.ch 26» y information'you wish to have the Council review should be submitted least 10 days before the meeting. M 55323 473-7357sbury .tts point Road55391 APPLICATIOB no. 1468HOTICE op *”/26/90Date of Notice. /____rftiTEs"”'Robert G. Mitchell, Jr. COPIES. 6 Vennum740 East Lake Stre Wayzata, MN 55391rer & Rockcastle, Avenue North , MN 55401 tON: Variances 1/22/90 LTD Herb BaldwinLandscape ^5?Ji^|treet 4196 west l®5th StreJordan, MN 55352 ATION: variances _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _laainst G* 1/22/90 ------------------------------------------------ .fore the meeting. MimiTBS OF ORONO COONCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 1990ZONING FILE #1452-PEHBBRTON CONTIN1going to have to stand up and be counted on something like this. Are we going to allow people to build over a deck in the 0-75?"Goetten further said to Mr. and Mrs. Pembertonsp "You buy property/ and you have these existing situations and sometimes you are just not able to do the kinds of things that you might like to do with a substandard piece of property. This is substandard; this is lakeshore".Mayor Grabek said that he could not disagree with Goetten and that the concern of covering over decks is often relayed to an applicant when approval for a deck is given. Grabek said "My only concern with this one, as with the other one, is that it is not someone wanting to add on the entire deck, it's squaring off a room". Grabek said that he has trouble with these when the applicants work with the City in alleviating hardcover concerns. Bernhardson posed a hypothetical question of whether the Council would allow this application if the deck did not exist. The general consensus was no. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember Nettles, to allow the variance for the 95 s.f., provided that all of the hardcover proposed to be removed, is removed and so verified by staff. Nettles said that he had previously voted against this and had been prepared to vote no again. He felt, however, the applicants had made significant changes in terms of accomplishing what he considered to be the more important of two goals. Mayor Grabek asked that there be strong language included in the resolution prohibiting any additional building in the 0- 75' setback area and an explanation of the pre-existing deck. CounciImember Peterson asked whether or not the Pembertons would still consider removing the deck? Mr. Pemberton replied that he would prefer not to. Motion, Ayes-2, Goetten, Petersen and Callahan, Nay, Motion failed. It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to conceptually deny this application and direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the January 22, 1990 Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-3, Grabek, Nettles, Nay, Motion passed. tl468 GEORGE PILLSBURT 1300 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD VARIANCES/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. and Mrs. Pillsbury were present for this application, as were Mr. Herb Baldwin, Landscape Architect, Mr. Thomas Meyer, Architect and Mr. Bob Mitchell, Attorney. City Administrator Bernhardson explained that this application involved the approval of variances to construct a greenhouse and a conditional use permit to do minor grading of the lakeshore bank. Bernhardson said, "Since this matter was i IMUTBS OF OROHO COUNCIL MEETING OP JANUARY 8, 1990PILE #1452>PEMBBRTON CONTIN10 have to stand up and be counted on something like this, jolng to allow people to build over a deck in the 0-75?"Btten further said to Mr. and Mrs. Pembertons, "You buy y, and you have these existing situations and sometimes just not able to do the kinds of things that you might 5 do with a substandard piece of property. This is Sard; this is lakeshore".yor Grabek said that he could not disagree with Goetten t the concern of covering over decks is often relayed to leant when approval for a deck is gi/en. Grabek said "My ncern with this one, as with the other one, is that it is Bone wanting to add on the entire deck, it's squaring off . Grabek said that he has trouble with these when the Its work with the City in alleviating hardcover concerns. rnhardson posed a hypothetical question of whether the would allow this application if the deck did not exist. i general consensus was no. was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by CounciImember , to allow the variance for the 95 s.f., provided that all hardcover proposed to be removed, is removed and so d by staff. Nettles said that he had previously voted this and had been prepared to vote no again. He felt, , the applicants had made significant changes in terms of Lshing what he considered to be the more important of two Mayor Grabek asked that there be strong language included resolution prohibiting any additional building in the 0- back area and an explanation of the pre-existing deck, nember Peterson asked whether or not the Pembertons would onsider removing the deck? Mr. Pemberton replied that he •refer not to. Motion, Ayes-2, Goetten, Petersen and n. Nay, Motion failed. was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by nember Peterson, to conceptually deny this application and s^aff to prepare a resolution of denial for the January ) Council Meeting. Motion, Ayes-3, Grabek, Nettles, Nay, >assed. tORGB PILLSBURT kCXBTTS POINT ROAD IS/ CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT , and Mrs. Pillsbury were present for this application, as . Herb Baldwin, Landscape Architect, Mr. Thomas Meyer, :t and Mr. Bob Mitchell, Attorney. ty Administrator Bernhardson explained that this tion involved the approval of variances to construct a use and a conditional use permit to do minor grading of eshore bank. Bernhardson said, "Since this matter was J: MmUTBS OP OROHO COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 8r 1990 11141ZONING PILE #1468-PILLSBURY COHTIN1 Nettles# to approve the hardcover# setback# and average lakeshore setback variances and the conditional use permit for the Pillsburys. Councilmember Goetten indicated that she would support the conditional use portion of this application. Goetten said that she had to be consistent# however# and has never approved any new hardcover within the 0-75' setback zone. Goetten said that she could see no real hardship for the ?reenhouse and questioned if it could be located elsewhere. Goetten said that she tries to be fair# but feels this would be precedent setting if approved. Councilmember Callahan said that the characteristics of the lot are such that a hardship is not difficult to find. Callahan said that he too# however# must be consistent and could not vote favorably for new structure within 0-75' of the lake. Motion# Ayes-2# Goetten# Peterson, Callahan# Nay, Motion failed. Mr. Mitchell said that there is no other location for the greenhouse that would remove it entirely from the 0-75' zone because of the location of the house. Mayor Grabek said that the Council cannot tell the Pillsburys where to locate the greenhouse other than a location out of the 0-75' setback area. Mr. Baldwin said that one of the problems with locating the greenhouse elsewhere is that the plant material the Pillsburys wish to culture requires exposure p^;vided in the location proposed. Mr. Baldwin said that the besu exposure would occur if the greenhouse were located more to the east. However# in that location, there would be further encroachment into the 0-75' setback zone. It was moved by Councilmember Callahan, seconded by Councilmember Goetten# to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial of the structure addition while incorporating approval of the retaining wall work. Motion, Ayes-3, Grabek, Nettles# Nay# Motion passed. #1480 ED TOTH 725 OLD CRYSTAL BAT ROAD SOOTH VACATION/VARIANCES RESOLUTION OF DENIAL #2744* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles# seconded by Councilmember Peterson# to adopt Resolution #2744# denying a 0.9' aide setback variance for a proposed deck addition at 2811 Farview Lane. Moti'.r.# Ayes-5# Nays-0, Motion passed. ENGINEER'S REPORT: HIGHWAY 12 SEWER AND WATER PAYMENT* It was moved by Councilmember Nettles# seconded by Councilmember Peterson# to approve payment request #2 for Albrecht Excavating# Inc.# in the amount of $59,418.59. Motion# Ayes-5# Nays-0, Motion passed. To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Froa: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron/ Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator January 16, 1990 #1468 George & Sally Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Request f<*r Tabling At your January 8, 1990 meeting. Council voted 3 in favor, 2 against, for conceptually denial of variances for the proposed greenhouse addition. Additionally, Council directed staff to draft a resolution for such denial, while incorporating language for approval of the conditional use permit and variance for grading and retaining walls in the 0-75* zone. It is anticipated that this work will ultimately be necessary to preserve the lakeshore bank, whether or not the greenhouse is constructed. The applicants have requested that this application be tabled in order that they may further consider their options. Movt.d by ___, Seconded by ___, to table application #1468 George & Sally Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road, at the applicants' request. Ayes nays / . TO: George Pillsbury COPIES:Robert G. Mitchell, Jr.1300 Bracketts Point Road Lindquist & VennumWayzata, MN 55391 740 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391Thomas Meyer Herb BaldwinMeyer, Scherer & Rockcastle,LTD Landscape Architect325 Second Avenue North 4196 West 185th StreetMinneapolis, MN 55401 Jordan, MN 55352 h [; Tb:Mayor Grabek i Orono Cov. ambersCity Administrator BernhardrjnMichael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning AdministratorDate:Subject:January 3, 1990#1468 George Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road Variance/Conditional Use PermitApplication - Request for hardcover, setback and average lakeshore setback variances and conditional use permit for addition and minor grading in lakeshore yard.List of Exhibits -Exhibit A - 12/29/89 Letter of Request from Applicant'sAttorney, Draft Resolution (Drafted by Applicant's Attorney,V Hardcover CalculationsMemo & Exhibits of 11/22/89 Memo & Exhibits of 11/9/89Exhibit B Exhibit CIntroduction - The applicants are proposing to construct a greenhouse addition, retaining walls, stairs and walkways, mostly in the 0- 75' setback zone. Also, minor grading is proposed at the top of the lakeshore bank in conjunction with the retaining walls. One corner of the proposed greenhouse will be 58.5' from the shoreline. A corner of the existing house is located 57' from the shoreline. Existing hardcover in the 0-75' zone is 1,491 s.f. (-5i6-%-). Applicants have revised their original application to include concurrent hardcover removals jin the 0-75' zone, resulting i|} * decrease to 1,467 s.f. (3.5fHardcover in the 75—250' and 250 — 500' zones is substantially less than the hardcover allowance for this 3 acre property. Discussion - Included in your packet is all the information reviewed by the Planning Commission, plus additional supportive information from the applicants' architect (letter of 11/22/89) and the applicants' attorney (letter of 12/29/89). Applicants' attorney has drafted a resolution detailing possible findings of fact in support of approval of the application. f!| ! 'onlng Administratorts Point Road -back and average lal use permit for rd.►m Applicant’s if ted by irruct a greenhouse , mostly in the 0- losed at the top of lining walls. 1 be 58.5 ’ from the s located 57' from 1,491 s.f. (-5 .6-%). Lcatlon to include ne, resulting in a le 75-250' and 250- lover allowance for nation reviewed by >rtive information .1/22/89) and the plicants' attorney Lndings of fact in Zoning File «1468 January 3, 1990 Page 2 of 3Planning Coanisslon RecoHaendation -At their October 16, 1989 meeting. Planning Commissionrecommended approval of the hardcover and setback variances and conditional use permit for grading, on a vote of 5-2. In their minority opinion. Planning Commission'- s Kelley and Cohen indicated that tiipy felt that there was no hardship nor justification shown for the increase in hardcover and structure in the 0-75' zone.The comments from the Planning Commissioners recommending approval Indicated that the relatively low percentage of hardcover in the 0-75' zone coupled with the fairly insignificant visual impact from the lake, are positive aspects of the request, as is the Intent to direct drainage away from the shoreline (applicants propose to construct a curtain drain to collect runoff from the lakeshore side of the house and redirect it to the 75-250' zone).Planning Commission also directed applicant to work with the City Engineer regarding the grading work at the top of the bank. The majority of the Planning Commission felt that the bank grading work was appropriate and probably necessary regardless of whether the greenhouse was constructed. Some slumping of the lakeshore bank is visible. Regarding the average lakeshore setback variance. Planning Commission felt that no neighboring residences would have their existing views affected by this proposed addition. Note that the 330 s.f. of pavers proposed for removal were included in the originally noted 1,491 s.f. of existing 0-75' hardcover (confirmed by landscape architect). Paragraph two of the letter from applicant's attorney should not be construed as "recently discovered" hardcover. iry of Variance/Conditional Ose Permit Request - 1. Average lakeshore setback variance. 2. Variance for new structure located 58.5' from shoreline, 75' required. 3. Hardcover variance 0-75' zone, net hardcover reduction proposed. 4. Conditional use permit and variance for grading work in 0-75' zone. . 11468990Bission Reco««endation -w ifi 1Q89 meeting. Planning Commission ir October 16, 1989 -etback variances andapproval of the hardcover setter v_^^. use permit for ^gg^on' .s Kelley and Cohenjinlon, there xes "o hardship nor‘'■‘sU''7or':he%nSr%\.e'’'irhardcover and structure ' zone.a„.,nts fros, the tannin, Co™issioner.^^^^^^^^^^ndicated that the r- . fairly insignificantn the 0-75' zone ‘he’request,ct from the lake, *'* a«ay*^*t°" ‘’'® »hotellneintent to direct ’^rain to collect run-,e'?lk°e%%o?e“JfeTf%’he'hrsi"and redirect It to the,tig Conunission also t^'SIe^ Mp'*of*'the bank. % oTrte% 1 »n?n^ bVv n"ece^^V^2l®rd'’lesVS? 'S gUeXu°se^S« cons«°uSted. Some slumping of the Dank is visible* ^felt'"'SarnrreigSo?inrrn^ ' iews affected by this proposed addition. that the 330 s.f. of pavers ATtTnV in the originally ^ect) Paragraph two of discovered" hardcover. r Varlanco/Conditional Ose PenUt Request - werage lakeshore setback variance. variance for ne« structure located 58.5' from shoreline, required. Hardcover variance 0-75' zone, net hardcover reduction osed. conditional use permit and variance for grading work in * zone. i;I f *N Zoning File #1468 January 3, 1990 Page 3 of 3Staff RecoaoBendationThe City has rarely *ted variances to allow a hardcover increase in the 0-75' zutit-. The proposed removals with net reduction of hardcover constitute a positive aspect of the request. Council must determine if the setback variance for additional structure in the 0-75' zone is supported by adequate justification and hardships. Can this addition reasonably be located in a more conforming location?Please carefully review the resolution drafted by applicants' attorney. That draft summarizes the applicants* stated hardships and justifications for the proposal.If Council feels that the stated hardships and justifications adequately support granting of the variances and conditional use permit, that resolution is in a format that could be adopted by Council with minor revisions.If Council determines that denial is appropriate, applicant might be expected to request approval for the retaining walls and gradirg to preserve the lakeshore bank. Council has the following options of action; 1. Approval per applicants' draft resolution. 2. Pat'ial or conditional approval. 3. Denial, directing staff to draft a resolution of denial. 4. Table for additional specific Information. 5. Other. A «» -.ft .k.-*! L*r* M o I r*Tcf uf-.Jm L^m • •niMcj* •K7^ » MTALTCA tACMMAt*THOMAS L rASCt JCrr»cr m scmm .ot TiMOTMr H SuTtCH ftoecA ' o MiTCHCtt, jm J. MI-MACt OAOTJ n. ^ H COtTLCV "Oi .Ar j ma AT mah JOtC^Ho KOHLCO WtCHAAO 0 MCHCIL OONALO C SA^NtON ••UCC A AOHJOUA JAMCt A Mc CAAT ht •TCVCNj JOHNSON • •CHAAO IHAIG CAAOL T AltOCA nOOCAiCK » MACKCNZ iC WILLIAM C. rLTHN JAMES w ACUtCA MICHAEL 8. MAAC ul 'CS Thomas O lOv£*t iv Thomas c OlEnnonJOHN A. HOUSTON OCNNIS M. O'MALLCT COWAAO J. WfCOCASOH LINDQUIST & VENNUM^200 IDS centerMINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402-2208 telephone 10121371-3211telex 29 004^^AX; 1612) 371-3207 CABLE: UNLAW MINNEAPOLISWAY2ATA orricE EAST LAKE STPrcT WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391WRITER'S DIRECT D ial NUMBER612-473-4208t>er 29. 1989 OAVIO A ALLCCTEA TEAAENCE J K lEminO POL7 CNCHaichaao T ostlunoOESOAah m ACC an maatjn a AOSE nsaum clinoa c . aosenstein AOSANNE h wiath OCSA a h aacc Michael o olaksohJOEL H GAECH Oavio L hall CT t C haa LES a . weaves . jA OAVIO L Sass EvillCOAVIO A OONNA OCNISC 0 ACILLT JONATHAN M Arc MAA t a MCCONNELL SALLY S GAOSS man Tihotht a saea Timothy s. mcintee JOSEPH A. Thomson ANN L. ItJIMA CLIZABET m g AS ykathaainc n. helms tHAALES A MOOASE PAT I JO POPA ml LUKE H TCA haaa Michael j ^Oung KAAEN L SCHAEISCA CHAA lES j lloyoJAMES A LOOOEN SUSAN A MQNHMEYEAaanoy g Gullicmson Saaam ourr halvoason SANOA a him CHAA lCS C. MACLEAN william a MIMOS •OBC at c tunn Eim ANSiS V. VIMSNINSor COWNSClLCONaAD E LINDQUIST NOAMAN L NCWM allAKViAcoTHOMAS VENNUM>f Oronotouth Brown Road MN 55391Re:®®orge Pillsbury Application No. 1468and Gentlemen: •PPllc.tlon to th. city »tlon, as amended. i have w?ieied®thr«^Jt^®'' ints^ requests. i have reviewfd^sfigranting the Le including the amendmem-e^^'^^^K®^^ of the materials in J'i? letter of November 22° 1989*and^th^^°" “J'* Noting the concerns of th^stalf ?n on ie-ha^JrSfX^- e during the^week*^of°Dece^er*7« Baldwin reinventory ntainin? abourSo of HIL ^ er was overlSokL letlull til Originally, this and have overgrown with grass to e widelye past decades. ^ ® significant degre? of^thl 330°s^t?|^feet^lf MSerS^^h'^\^^ agreeing to the 5n in existinHardcover L^?hro constitutes a J hardcover (330^|q? ft ?‘excSeds“?h"^ reduction of ^hus, the?4 will be ^ nit ^*^® °*75' I from 1.491 square feet\o i'^467°” hardcover in the o- 'eet This 1»46? square feet, or 24 re the planning commissi^j: In“t"Sa‘i :.ii! ! ! ! ! I * Y If LINDQUIST 5c VENNUMCity of Orono December 29, 1989 Page 2 i }improvements will constitute a net reduction in hardcover in the 0-75' zone.Second, the applicants and Tom Meyer have done everything in their power to move the building addition as far from the lakeshore as possible and to reduce its size as much as possible. But for the reasons stated in the application, namely design of the house, location of driveway, location of living areas inside the house, the need for the sunlight to come in from the southeast, the benefit of retaining existing mature birch trees, neither the size nor the location of the addition to the house can be further decreased.I;* VIAll such cases as this are difficult. Nevertheless, there are compelling reasons these variances and conditional use permit should be granted. It appears from the application as amended, the staff report, and the draft resolution I enclose that there are more than adequate and accepted^le reasons for finding a hardship and granting the variances and conditional use permit requested. The enclosed resolution provides all of the necessary findings of fact to document the wholly unique circumstances present in this case which together more than comply with the variance standards. Without restating the draft resolution in its entirety, those compelling reasons are that the house is an architecturally significant house more than 40 years old. The house was constructed on a lot which is 50 percent larger than even present day minimum lot size standards require in this zone. The lot vastly under-utilizes the hardcover allowed. The reverse slope of the land is the primary reason the house is within the 75' zone in the first place. Much of the new hardcover is for the purpose of stabilizing the embankment. The actual house addition is only 170 square feet and because of the layout of the house the addition cannot go anywhere else since it is for living area purposes. With the above amendment to the application there is now a net reduction of hardcover within the 0-75' zone. Virtually no other property on the lake has this unusual coincidence of facts. '4 While the Orono Council does look hard at variances, and should look hard at this one, I feel confident that when all of the foregoing facts and circumstances are taken into account that the reasonableness of the variances to allow an addition to this house should be granted. If you have any questions about the facts or if you would like to view the property, please don't i i& V E N N U M )no), 1989«iU constitute a net reduction in hardcover in the. ««Biicants and Tom Meyer have done everything in r to move the 5'*i^‘^^”Lce^iti°si2e as^much"as ^ssible.ther decreased. if Set to document the wholly unique . J this case which together more than comply with the standards. rrSS’nsTre^Srt urn lot size standards require in Js* slopeSSr-utilizes the l^^^dcover allowed. The revers^ slop nd is the primary reason the house is within^ he first place. Much of ^he ^ house addition,f stabilizing the e^ankment. The actual nou .70 square feet and because of the layout ot :ion cannot go anywhere e^J® implication there isWith the above amendment to ^^® zone• reduction of hardcover within the 0-75 zone. } S oSi? P?Urty on the lake has this unusual ice of facts. 1 orono council ail"? i at this one, I feel i-to account that the ?eness of the variances to allow ^ “ffVo'u 3 ”;d*?ike^?o ’'e?ertheTro?^rty, please don-t ■4 r -5 LINDQUIST & VENNUMCity of Orono December 29, 1989 Page 3hesitate to call either me at 473-4208, Tom Meyer at 375-0336, Herb Baldwin at 492-2180, or George Pillsbury at 338-3873.Thank you.Respectfully submitted, LINDQUIST 6 VENN^ / x /Robert G. Mitchell, Jr.RGM:skrEnc. A RESOLDTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 & 2, SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 FILE #1468B Meyer at 375-0336, iry at 338-3873. i.-.- BACKGROUND1. George and Sally Pillsbury (hereinafter *the applicants') are the owners of the property located at 1300 Bracketts Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter 'City') and legally described on Exhibit A attached (hereinafter the 'property').2. The applicants have made application to the City of Orono for variances to (a) Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, (b) Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to construct a greenhouse addition and a retaining wall within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, resulting in structure and hardcover in the 0-75' zone where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed, and which greenhouse addition encroacnes past the defined average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed, and further (c) requesting a conditional use permit for grading work within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone per Section in.03, S\ibdivision 19. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application October 16, 1989 and recommended approval of the proposed variances and conditional use permit on a vote of 5-2, based on the following findings: A) The average lakeshore setback encroachment will not impair any existing lake views enjoyed by neighboring property owners. B) The retaining wall and associated grading proposed at the top of the lakeshore bank is necessary for preservation of the lakeshore bank, which is currently exhibiting some slumping effect. The 24'-30' proposed height of the single proposed retaining wall is low enough that the wall can be easily screened using existing and additional vegetation coupled with the stone construction materials proposed. C) The proposed hardcover increase from 5.7% up to 7.6% (based on the extent and size of the improvements at that date) in the 0-75' setback zone is relatively minor in its impact on the lake given the relatively large 0-75' zone. Further, the effect of the additional hardcover in Page 1 of 5 1,491 ( 5.7%)0 ( 0 %) 11,450 (18.2%)15,725 (25 %) 2.500 (12.000 (30 %) 1.5,441 (12.0% avg)27,725 (21.5% Sa.Ft .lU__ 0 ( 0 ! 15,725 (25 ;i2 .000 (?0— high humidity in the greenhouse adjacent to the bedroom is beneficial to reduce the impact of arthritis.large "*®^®™ined th«°thf °".^*»«ir site. The%pJJ|5® the dock about^l? J® ® sg. - f r^® aaended thelr^«l.« the ^— r ^ *PropSjJd*^J„®J ®^«tation, after reduction i avers by the lakff removal of 2ls?< ®^*®=tion, L AJoil! ®'^®®^-ent to th°fS« 'Data Sheaf attach.) over is*^3o*^”*T^*'® hardcover is s i. used *49 is onlv 1 °*75' zone the*“he ^ ^/49i 8q^ ^sjTdcover *r., a 24 sq. V ■« «-75- zone. “''*■' <>®«easi^"^e®* dSg°?hl'r«Ji^^" 9?eertlu|?; OTiel'p^^? hardcover ft.) are f~ '"'IVstairs (sl aS^; °* “>e •tter *t«blUzL'’SS°f!f lunuscipini'-' e^antanent haa%J?feS5®^’°"®"‘ to'tate 'i the"eiiitl'’® ®‘’’’^^'®"t»'°draiMM°"i'^““®® °ver the eJJi?!"? ‘toding condlf ?}«= tall »f the exi«*.< *PPlicants' drain»««"i ®“®^® the*’:„h'a*n& ^ &?„“ uvesent to =ontrof“2oli”i“«* ls””“" - • L^Ssi*? ®‘*^ltioJIal^Jiea^of 1"*^ ®«tfer from 12. The existing 1949 house is as c3ose as 57' to Lake Minnetonka which was permitted when the house was constructed. All parts of the new house construction will be further from the shore of Lake Minnetonka than 57' with the closest such new portion being 58^' from Lake Minnetonka. Views from adjacent houses are not impacted by the addition.13. Given the layout of the house and the configuration of the shoreline there is no reasonable alternative location for an addition to the master bedroom for additional area for it and for use as a greenhouse since such improvements must be on the southeast side of the house. The applicant did reduce the size of the proposed addition and move it as far to the west to comply with Orono ordinances as best as possible under the circumstances.14. The house has architectural sionificance.15. The findings of the Planning Commission majority set forth at paragraph 3(A)-(D) above are adopted by the Council. 16. The combination of the above factors is justification for the addition applicants wish to make in the zone within 75' of Lake Minnetonka, the placement of the addition 58.5 teet from the lake and installation of requested retaining wall, stairs, paving, grading, and drainage system. The conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district. Granting the variances will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties. The variances are not merely conveniences to the applicants, but are necessary to alleviate the foregoing hardships and difficulties. The variances are necessary to preserve substantial property rights of the applicants and are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. There is a net decrease of hardcover in the 0-75' zone. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS 17. Based upon the above findings, the Orono city Council hereby grants variances to (a) Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, (b) Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit construction of a greenhouse addition and retaining walls in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, and further (c) grants a conditional use permit for grading and retaining walls in the 0' to 75' lakeshore s«.tback zone per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19, according to the applicants' application, as emended, subject to the following conditions: Page 4 of 5 „ the greenhouse :educe the i»P»cs existin^l949 *»ouse house was construct^=h was P«^i construction will »« »u,v.n th. layoutLne ^here is . ^^00^ for oust be on the3 the ®*®^^ince such i»pr°^®®*5^5 Reduce the si*« rrt'^rSou... to tw «.t to cooplyStt^Ta-pcitle onaor th.'* ^itectural significance. Che house has archxtec majority set of the Planning wy the Council* «'* ‘t"t (t?- (t) Stv. are aaopt.0 by th. ^ agraph 3(A) i is justificfph 3(A)-(D) justification combination °«^/»txe in^^he zone within 75^^ "Sr"SS*" srs-in this conditions, The lely affect tr neighboring P^°?i--nts, but areIt other danger to neig »PP^i'"J’J:?iculties* “t ..r.ly «;«4Xfhard.hlp. iirtfctaStyJo titt.iona. : decrease of narat- COHCUISIONS, OPDER »"> COHMTIO" ^ council as.a upon th. ruction of jf^aone, and farther W^^g 0 lakeshore se __-(jing and retaini 9 subdivision 19, ““ ^.f"ttU tofeli? So?tr t“.-»inlt5!‘.-».iaot to "III Ipplitanta' application, a. q conditions; page 4 of 5 A) Applicant shall provide the city Engineer with a detailed final grading and retaining wall plan, which must be approved before permits can be issued for the grading/retaining wall constmction. The City Engineer shall work in conjunction with the applicants to establish suitable limits for the grading work.B) The applicants shall maintain existing vegetation on the lakeshore bank as proposed, and shall plant additional vegetation to screen the proposed 24*>30* high retaining wall from the lake to reduce its visual impact. Applicant shall use native materials and natural coloring to minimize the visual impact of this wall to the greatest extent possible.C) As proposed, the applicants shall construct a drain tile system between the existing residence and the lakeshore, to redirect the drainage from the 0-75' zone to the 75-250' zone for dispersal.0) As proposed, the applicants shall remove the _ _ sq. ft. of pavers near the lake. 18. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit wirhin one year of the date of Council approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (January _ _, 1991). 19. 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 puni.^hable as a misdemeanor. 20. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, representatives and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. \'t I Adopted by the Orono City Council on this January, 1990. ATTEST; day of Dorothy M. Ha11in. City Clerk Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 5 of 5 grading and retaininq wall Bi*n ^ *•nt ,h.U ;.; i«iv^°.f?f “?*,I»l2e the visual lBpact*St*'th?.“"'*,I‘®‘“'’®^ possible. ''*11 to the>posed, the applicants shun >m between the exiai-i adirect the draSiae thefor dispersal. * 0-75' zone topaws Jelr^the^lake®-n With the‘cil approval or ihf^22 ”^thin one«xplr. on thit date (jSnSi?Jesol“ion'’"hall"Sn^t?? ‘”®^ this teeo'Ji^” ?h%*%\"fi„-'r?r«.no City Council on this day of Mayor Page 5 of 5 250-500*75-250*0- 75*S Peni. struc.Ret. WallB/Stairs PavingSubtotalTotal Existin So. Ft.Q Removed So. Ft.DATA SHEETAdded So. Ft.Net New Total So. Ft.2,500 ( 6.3%)-0- -0-2,500 ( 6.3%)11,450 (18.2%)-0-+ 44 11,494 (18.3%)595 ( 2.2%)-0-+ 170 765 ( 3.0%)325 ( 1.2%)-0-+ 96 421 ( 1.6%)571 -lafi + 49 2gl (-Lai)1,491 ( 5.6%)-330 + 306 1,467 ( 5.5%)15,441 -330 + 350 15,461 APPLICATION NO.1466 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 NOTICB OP COONCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 11/28/89 TO:George Plllsbury 1300 Bracketts Point Road Wayzata» MN 55391 COPIES:Thomas Meyer Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastle 325 Second Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55401 Herb Baldwin 4196 West 185th Street Jordan, MN 55352 TYPE OP APPLICATION:Variance/Conditional Use Permit DATS OP MEETING:11/27/39 VOTE: 5 For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Tabled at applican::'s request. This item will be rescheduled for the January 8# 1990 meeting. Any additional information you wish to submit for review should be received by December 29r 1989. To:APFLICXTIOH so. 146855323473-7357 ___________________“S^Point Road 55391 “fsSicond »v.^u. »|rth Minneapolis^1?« SSifissth strMt Ji’4 ”352 _____11/27/99_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ■ „lll ba DatatSabjacti Mayor Grabek & Orc'io Council Members City Administrator BernhardsonMichael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator November 22r 1989#1468 George Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road - Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Resolution - Additional ExhibitsOlscasaion -This item was tabled at your November 13th meeting at the applicant's request, in order for applicant to provide additional supportive information.In addition to the attached memo and exhibits of November 9, 1989, applicant has submitted the attached 3-page letter and additional exhibits A, B and C. ( / : - ' (f a . • 'J. i f. «_ ■ ■■ f <4^ W [«r=H»n W£z» HAWMTiTl •! [• WtT« B *1 L04B«] [•BOM • BiC* —L, prepared by Herb c, will completely deal 1 tile will conduct r from where it will be '-250' area (see i house already drops Droposed arrangement Irainage patterns. We :one steppers and 16 le impact of water I, screened by 1 effort to manage not further erode the )OtS . /o—\/^X m,:Vir >" '-V-p'mp:- .h V* 1 the fact that ick zone will represent rer in the 250'-500' 8 will be only 18.3%.) id proposed changes Difference 170 96 -40 17 6.9 306 .ng hardcover that IS elsewhere. in an addition and meal and visual impact >h. We believe our I the requirements of ihip variances. We sbury's request with id answering any project. ^g-TT2€6- 0 TR€& \ \ N /• exhibit a 2Z movcmbcp. 8f? ••• f " f ■ I I (;io6-to6*4o'P W c -5K9®> \ itoit i I t>ru>isr>c.<sy^ (Avo sAujr piujs&op.'T pes.(C56Nce / ■<l^‘<:;.> |.x^ 4..> 0 ! 3 SEO^ee fittJD nu^Bi/p-T j»e5io^«j= To: Frost Dote: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator November 9, 1989 7 #1468 George Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road - Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Resolution Sooin9 District - LR-IA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2 acre, unsewered Application - Request for hardcover, setback and average lakeshore setback variances and conditional use permit for addition and minor grading in lakeshore yard. List Of Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Commission Minutes of 10/16/89 Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action of 10/20/89 Exhibit C - Memo 6 Exhibits of 10/12/89 Exhibit D - Draft Resolution Discussion - Please review the memo and exhibits of October 12, 1989. the applicants are requesting a hardcover and setback variance to construct a greenhouse addition to the existing residence. The existing residence is partially within the 0-75* zone. Per Exhibit H, applicant indicates that, contrary to ®taff*s measurement on the small scale survey, the proposed addition will be no closer to the lake than portions of the existing house. ®**'‘5cover in the 0-75* zone is proposed to increase from 5.7% to 7.6%. No hardcover removals are proposed. In conjunction with the greenhouse addition, applicant proposes to construct a 24"-30" retaining wall at the top of the bank adjacent to the house (see Exhibit H). Also, applicant proposes to construct a draintile between the house and the lakeshore bank to transport surface run-off from the 0-75* zone to a wet well in the 75-250* zone, which would ultimately discharge over land in the 75-250* zone. The Planning Commission, at their October 16th meeting, recommended approval of the hardcover and setback variances and conditional use permit for grading, on a vote of 5-2. In their minority opinion. Planning Commissioners Kelley and Cohen Indicated that they felt that there was no hardship nor justification shotm for the increase in hardcover and structure in the 0-75* zone. Comments from the Planning Commissioners recommending approval indicated that the relatively low percentage of hardcover in the 0-75* zone coupled with the fairly insignificant visual impact from the lake, were positive aspects of the request, as was the intent to direct drainage away from the shoreline. Zoning File #1468 November 9, 1969 Page 2 of 2 Planning Conuniaaion alao directed applicant to work with ataff to eatabliah limita on the grading work propoaed, and applicant waa adviaed to contact ataff to arrange a meeting with the City Engineer. Aa of thia writing, applicant haa not contacted ua, but the City Engineer haa adviaed ataff that additional detail of the propoaed grading would be needed before a permit could be iaaued for the grading, if Council chooaea to approve the requeat. The engineer haa indicated that the propoaal ia conceptually acceptable from a technical atandpoint. Alao note that there ia a need for an average lakeahore aetback variance for the propoaed addition. All neighboring reaidencea are ao diatant that the addition will not encroach on any exiating lake viewa enjoyed by neighboring property ownera. Staff RacoaaMndatloQ - Staff recommenda approval of the average lakeahore aetback variance and the conditional uae permit for regrading and retaining wall conatruction per the conceptual plan. Such approval should be aubject to final detailed plan approval by the City Engineer before a grading permit is issued. Regarding the lakeahore aetback and hardcover variance, staff does not necessarily disagree with the majority Planning Commission recommendation, but would note to Council that past approvals of new structure in the 0-75' zone have in most cases been tied to removal of equivalent amounts of hardcover in the 0- 75' zone, resulting in no hardcover Increase in the zone. Also, additions in the 0-75' zone normally have not been allowed to extend closer to the shoreline than the existing residence. In this case, applicant has indicated that the addition will be 58.5' from the shoreline with portions of the house already 57* from the shoreline. Council should consider whether the proposed drainage system to direct run-off from the 0-75' zone to the 75-250' zone is justification to grant a hardcover increase. This would seem to be breaking new ground, and would be an apparent departure from past Council policy. A draft resolutic^ reflecting the Planning Commission recommendation ia attached for Council review. MiaOTBS OF THE PLMmiliG COMMISSION MBETIHG OCTOBBB 16, 1989 ZONING PILE tl466->KOKSSH CONTINUED Gaffron said that in order to construct the 14* x 16' porch a Roberta Schmidt, 3980 Watertown Road, said that Mr. * state of disrepair when he purchased It. time, he has greatly improved the house and she felt that the porch would be a nice addition. ,.K4 further comments from the public regardino this matter and the public hearing was closed. ^ Planping Commissioner Brown inquired as to the owner of the property to the north? Chai^n Kelley answered that the property was owned by Mr. Kokesh s father and was pasture area. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Kokesh if he had considered purchasing land from his father? responded that it was not financially possible at 5® ^^® very small and would his father^* ^^“® ^® land from It was moved by Planning Commissioner Bellows, seconded by Pianiu.ng Commissioner Brown, to recommend approval of the deck *rt variances to construct a porch and open ?! ?*j Kelley questioned whether Bellows wished to include in her motion a condition disallowing enclosure of the Jhri' ® future time. Bellows amended her motion to include that approval is conditioned upon the deck remaining a deck only and may not be improved at any time in the future. Brown seconded. Motion, Ayes«7, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1468 GEORGE PILLSBORY 1300 BRACKETT'S POINT ROAD VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 8i25 P.M. TO 8:40 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were 4.V..4. and Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that th® Pillsburys wished to put a greenhouse addition on their ®*?!^r!?’ residence located less than 75' from the lake. Gaffron said that the existing hardcover located within the 0-75' setback increase to 7.6%, Gaffron further explained that the te?® '^*w* *^®° proposing to put some kind of drain tile in the 0-75' setback that would lead back to the 75-250' zone to a 1 • * WIMUTBS OP THB PLMOmiG COMNISSIOII MEBTIRG OCTOBER 16, 1989 ZOEniG PIU •1468-PZLLSBORT CONTINUED Planning Coonissloner Brown questioned whether the City Engineer had reviewed the drainage concept being proposed? Gaffron replied that the City Engineer had only conceptually approved of the plan, but had not received the plans in time to fully review them. Planning Commissioner Bellowr said that the drainage and addition are really two separate issues. Planning Commissioner Johnson asked whether the sketch plan showed existing or proposed plantings? Ml. Baldwin explained that he was going to try to preserve the desireable plants on the bank and then supplement them with more plantings that would help prevent erosion. Chairman Kelley asked what is the hardship for the variance in this case? Mr. Baldwin said that it was the applicant’s intention to have a plant room that has the kind of sun orientation necessary. In the process of constructing the addition, they will address the problems with the existing grades and drainage on the property. Mr. Meyer explained the scheme of the existing house in relation to the need to locate the greenhouse as proposed. Planning Commissioner Bellows said that she understood that the greenhouse would be used for growing orchids. She said that an orchid house is more sensitive than a regular greenhouse. She said that the orchids need a more southeast orientation rather than south or southwest. Planning Commissioner Hanson suggested that the greenhouse addition be shorter so that it would not extend toward the lake to the degree now proposed. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Planning Commissioner Johnson said that he did not have a problem with the hardcover, even though it is in the 0-75* setback zone, due in part because the slope to the lake is so steep that any runoff goes directly to the lake. He questioned whether a grading plan had been submitted? Mr. Baldwin said that he would work with staff to establish limitations for the amount of grading that the City will allow. Planning Commissioner Brown noted that there would be a new 2 foot retaining wall. He informed Mr. Baldwin that the City is sensitive of the visual aspect of retaining walls and that MIIIDTBS or THE PLAMN1H6 COMMISSION HBBTIliG OCTOBER 16, 1989 tCmiMG PILE #1468-PILLSBORT CORTINDED screening is usually required. Mr. Baldwin said that plantings would be placed in front for screening. There were no comnents from the public regardinc '■r .s matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Bellows, to recommend approval of the hardcover variance, average lakeshore setback variance to construct an addition and a conditional use permit for minor grading in the lakeshore yard, conditioned on the applicants working with City staff to establish grading limits. Chairman Kelley inquired as to what direction water running off of the roof of the addition will go? Mr. Meyer said that a drain spout will be installed that will direct drainage west. Motion, Cohen, Kelley, Kay, due to their opinion that there is not a sufficient hardship to warrant encroachment of the 0-75' setback zone. •1469 CITT OP OROHO RI6BT-OP-NRT OP HIllDJAMMER LAME COEDZTIOHAL 08E PERMIT PUBLIC HEARIH6 8:53 P.M. TO 8:58 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained that the City wished to install a civil defense siren within the right-of-way near 835 Windjammer Lane. Lieutenant Cheswick Informed the Planning Commission of the locations of sirens throughout the City. He said that Minnetonka Beach is considering the installation of a siren in their area. The Windjammer Lane location was selected in order to provide protection for the northwestern area of Orono. He said that there is currently no siren in that area. Mr. Chuck Bldwell Indicat'*.' that he did not object to the noise Impact, but was concerned .t the visual impact. Planning Commissioner Bellows questioned whether there were alternate locations for the siren? Mr. Bidwell said that it was his understanding that other sites were considered, but the Windjammer Lane site was selected. Be said that the Police Chief had suggested placing the siren on the Lakeviow Golf Course. Cheswick indicated that the owner of the Golf Course had Indicated that he did not want the structure on his property. Chairman Kelley indicated that he would rather locate the XOHimS PILE HO.14(8 cxn OP OBOBO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, HN 55323 Honcs OP PLAmnw* connissiov actiob 473-7357 Date of Notice: 10/20/89 TOs Thomas Meyer COPIES TO: Georgs Plllsbury Meyer, Scherers, Rockcastle Arch. 1300 Bracketts Pt R<3 325 Second Ave N Wayrata, MN 55391 Minneapolis, MN 55401 type op APPLICATIOBj Variance/Conditional Use Permit DATE OP NEETIEGt 10/16/89 VOTEi 5 For 2 Against Planning CoMlsaioo recaamends the following: Approval subject to conditions noted below 4 I BOTES AMD SPECIAL COBDITIOBSt Motion was to recommend approval of hardcover variance, lakeshore setback and average lakeshore setback variances, and conditional use permit for additions and grading work (land alterations) in 0-75’ zone; conditioned on drainage re-routing as proposed, and conditioned on appl-i-rnt working with staff to establish suitable limits of grading prior to Council review. Minority Opinion (Cohen, Kelley): "No justification for encroachment, no hardship shown.* Please arrange to meet with staff and the City Engineer to review your grading plans. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, Boveaber 13, 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. TO:Mayor Grabek Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Planning Commission Members City Adminis'‘rator Bernhardson FBON:Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning i Zoning Administrator OATS: SOBJ: October 12, 1989 ♦1468 George Pillsbury, 1300 Bracketts Point Road Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Soning District - LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Unsewered Application - Request for hardcover and sewback variances and conditional use permit for addition and minor grading in lakeshore yard. List of Exhibits - A - Application B - Property Owners Letter of Request 10/2/89 C - Architect's Letter of Explanation 9/28/89 D - Plat Map E - Property Owners List . P - Hardcover Calculations G - Survey with Topography H - Site Plan I - Greenhouse Plan View J - Greenhouse Elevation View - >K - Proposed Grading Plan L - Cross Section View Portinent Pacts - 1. The applicants are requesting 0-75' hardcover and lakeshore setback variances to construct an attached greenhouse to the existing residence. Portions of the sxisting residence and most of the proposed greenhouse are located in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. The existing residence is approximately 57' from the shoreline. The proposed greenhouse will be approximately 55' from the shoreline at its closest point. 2. Hardcover existing and proposed on the property if as follows: Lot Area:0- 75' 75-250' 250-500' 25,925 s.f, 62,900 s.f. 40,000 s.f. 128,825 s.f. » 2.96 AC .,1 tOM:CT:BJxTO: Mayor GrabekOrono Council Memfeev n Planning Commissic ! »-Kellev Planning Cominission > • ■ < ^ ^City Administrator Boiu^.-irdsonMichael P. Gaffron,Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator October 12, 1989Ding District -LR-IA, Single Family lake.hore Feaidentlal, 2 Acre, Onsewered [>lication -. P^Srlor%dU^tn Vn'd (t Of Exhibits - A - Application ® Owners Letter of Request 10/2/bd Property Owners List Hardcover Calculations Greenhouse Plan View Greenhouse Elevation View Proposed Grading Plan ^ Cross Section View r«oroGtlA^HS :inent Facts - lakeshore*^setfb/ck *varra/<?^^*to^"^ 0-75' hardcover and greenhouse to the existino construct an attached existing residence anfmosJ^of the Portions of the located in the 0-75' lakeshore greenhouse are residence is approximtteiv S7' % ^^® existing proposed greenhouse ^ili^be anfrol^'^^f shoreline. ThI shoreline at its closest polSt. «"<i proposed on the property is a. c 0 E . P G H I J >K L Lot Area:- 25,925 s.f. 75-250' = 62,900 s.f. 250-500' « 40,000 s.f. 128,825 s.f. =e 2.96 AC HARDCOVER0-75’75-250'250-500*EXISTING S.F. (%)1,491 (5.7%) 11,450 (U.2%) 2,500 (6.3%)ALLOWED S.F. (%)0 (0%) 15,725 (25%) 12,000 (30%)PPOPOSED S.F. (%)1,965 (7.6%) 11,494 (18.3%) No Change3. In conjunction with the greenhouse development, applicants are proposing some minor regrading and a 30" stone retaining wall at the top of the steep lakeshore bank. This work is intended to redirect drainage away from the ridge of the slope in order to preserve that slope. A draintile is proposed to collect runoff between the house and the steep bank in the 0-75' zone, and transport that runoff to a wet well in the 75-250' zone where it will be dispersed below grade, with an overflow to grade in the 75- 250’ zone. This drainage concept has been briefly reviewed with the City Engineer and he has requested seme additional detail but feels the proposal generally should be acceptable. 4. Applicant was also asked to provide some elevation views and cross sections to help in visualizing the degree of impact the 55* setback will have from the lake. Due to the topography and low profile of the greenhouse, that visual impact may be minimal. Applicant was also made aware of the City's concern regarding 0-75' building additions that encroach closer to the shoreline than the existing house. • 5. Technically, an average lakeshore setback variance i? required. However, the most affected neighboring residence is more than 200' away and this greenhouse will have no impact on lake views enjoyed by that property. Discussion - This is an approximately 3 acre parcel, and the majority of runoff from the house and driveway areas already flows generally away from the eastern shoreline. The proposed tile/wet well surface drainage system would appear to compensate for not only the proposed additional hardcover, but may help to decrease the impact of existing runoff flows. The applicants have stated that the grading work directly east of the existing house and proposed greenhouse is to help redirect drainage and provide additional support for the steep slope area. Some slu'^r'inq apparently is already occurring, as can be witnessed in the hedge line at the ridge. The applicant's st- -tent is to preserve the existing vegetation on the sti. v,;* .^ :>pe. Planning Commission may wish to address the potential tur screening the retaining walls to minimize its visual impact from the lake. The applicants have noted that other than the existing house and existing embankment walls in the 0-75' zone, there is very little additional hardcover which could conceivably be removed to EXISTING S.F. (%)1,491 (5.7%) 11,450 (It.2%) 2,500 (6.3%)allowed S.F. (%)0 (0%) 15,725 (25%) 12,000 (30%)PROPOSED S.F. (%>1,965 (7.6%) 11,494 (18.3%) No ChangeI„ conjunction «ith the 9re%nhou»^ellcants are of^the steep lakMhore bank,ne retaining wall at th drainaae away from the, work is « ”^"jrprtsUvVthat’'sl^ Age of the slope Tgct^runoff between the houseintile is 0-75' zone, and transport thatthe steep T^glzlo' Vone where it will beoff to a wet well m the 7 5 grade in the 75-persed below grade, with briefly reviewed• zone. This /w" t^s requested some additionalfaiT b^'’' /s-lirJhrpJopra [Te%%ral l, should be leptable.Applicant was also degree ofj cross will have from the la)ce. Due to the>act the 55' setbaclc will n oree-house, that visual pography and low r ant was also made aware of the jact may be minimal. PP ,, building additions that ^?;ich'“c"l'ore"r t'o'Vne^t"hl.eu’nl tSai the Li.tin, house. Technically. ®” f*cted%”ghboring residence ‘*'^"^®‘^\hmr0''aSay Tnd this greenhouse will have no p^ron la)ce views enjoyed by that property. iis”is an approximately 3 {lo^aB^geneilllyJrom the house and driveway areas a^Y „all rom the eastern a^oreline. The P^^P^^g^te for not only ;p^i:d”rd*dininri Cdco^^rbut ..y h.lp to decrees, th. of existing runoff flows. ,e applicants have ^^^^^^^^ropos^^d® |r”enh^^^f the existing house and pr p ^g^^ ^^^ steep ct drainage and a-iy ig already occurring, asarea. Some slur_-^-g apparently is airea^^ b witnessed t’ '"/"it is to Preserve the existing pplicant's st- ‘ Planning Commission may wish to ,V°?he°”porenfi^ ,‘or"screening ?he retaining walls to ze its visual impact from the lake. he applicants have noted that other ^th^^^ ® he"re 7s \°e?y ;^M\uoTal*"h«lcov« Which could conceivably be removed to compensate for the proposed addition. There is an existing stairway for lakeshore access, and there are two terraced areas with randomly spaced t.Tagstones located in the 0-75' zone. Note that on an overall basis, hardcover on the property is substantially less than the allowed maximums, except for the small percentage in the 0-75' zone.Staff Rec0 — endation -Staff would recommend approval of the variance for average setback, based on the finding that no lake views currently enjoyed by neighboring properties will be reduced.Staff would recommend approval of the conditional use permit for regrading in the 0-75* zone including installation of a drain tile/wet well system to transfer runoff from the 0-75' zone to the 75-250' zone, subject to final detail plan approval by the City Engineer.Regarding the lakeshore setback variance. Planning Commission in the past has adhered fairly consistently to the position that no new additions should extend closer to the shoreline than the existing house. The proposed greenhouse would extend approximately 2' closer to the lake than the existing house, but this occurring only at the very corner of the greenhoi'se. Planning Commission could base approval of the lakeshore setback variance on the location of the ex.' <tinq house and the fact that the bulk of the proposed addition, ■»xc:-*(./t for one corner, is no closer to the lake than the existing t.ousi^. Regarding hardcover. Planning Commisison might consider finding that the proposed drainage system transferring runoff from the 0-75' zone to the 75-250' zone for dispersement, is a suitable mitigation of the additional 1.9% hardcover in the 0-75' zone. Alternatively, it would be consistent with past Planning Commission policy to require removals of existing hardcover in the 0-75' zone, resulting in no net percentage increase. The fact that the majority of 'ralnage from the house already drains or can be directed to drain away fr^m the eastern shoreline, makes this property unique in tha* espect, and may be an additional finding to support a reco' iation for approval. r ■ • * Cirr OP OROHO - gsheral land dsb applicamjhPROPERTY LOCATIOH Site Address 1^00 aPAO^gr-rS PO^NTrProperty Identification Number (P.I.D.) I (IPlease check one - Property X abstract or _______(for Conditional Use Applications only)rS'8 ilcijy OF oamtorrens? Fl^mE OFFICE 13S020(includSlRJmiT-j^Please attach legal description to application if not on required survey. p^(UJ.«»ioeEMCNrr of o P^^mo poi^rr lot 4- C«?JAPPLICABTl ame THOMAS MEYEP.Phone (home) 'hl't - HAfePhone (work) -033faMPVEIZ. SCHSFBF 5* MOOMCTUS rTBCTSAddress gfegMO .4v;e>^J0E K/oo -tm_______ City Min »«jc^pous $^5*01 OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home ) 412> - eeopeE Pitcsaop-Y ___________ Phone _________3814 City Name Address I3CP Bpackett ^ p3»N-r P-O ad Date Pr,cpe rty fljCquired_____APmc n<a3 I (do) ^ OPOKJO Zip ^93^1 (month/year) not) also own the adjacent parcels of land FEZ BIT-^pWL al Fee - r-the-Fact USE 1/2 Fee PERMITS - Currer. Fee - Double Current Application Fee $100.00 a)Residential accessory Use $150.00 b)Instirational (church# school# ' $150.00 c)Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 d)Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 f)Land Alteration X Ung and filling - designated wetland or ' .oodplain i-ading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Gradin g# seawall# retaining walls within 75' of lalceshore X _ /fA€PCCVc^ lcrS.Ae^c PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS $150.00 $250.00 $150.00 $ 50.00 ' $250.00 $100.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) Vacation Easement Vacation Easement Vacation With Subdivisio ’’; Rezoning Appeals Other - «ee fee schedule tie-Fact Fee $100.00 a) $150.00 b) $150.00 c) $250.00 d) $200.00 f) MSScR-OeconJ Avenue NorthMinneapoUs. Minnesota 554c611 t75"‘333^ptember 19894abusth °lZ\cr,im Administration ith Brown Road Minnesota 5539 isburv Residence - #8830 V, , of the Plannin, conmissron: ,„ne and Member - ler Ts^Titten in * * • f^ioofdefine^^^^^ : pre-existing o building house^to get the ,e severely limits loUection in5i?ec? li^ht necessary^£«^_^^ i high bedroom. -•-'iroom. areenhouse would neighbor within airectvi|«,=einga?e^ Plllsbury, Whose “!!”,? toot embankment )scurc close P largely transp like an arbor r\feTtrrctrre which i-rtertS'’fxif,^f3 TS e^:^fufe “whfti ^ir^ch trees among which b - MS&RJeanne Mabusth 28 September 1989 Page 2The landscaping plan calls for planting the bank edge co reduce soil erosion and promote the absorption of rain water runoff. Perforated drain tile around the addition will conduct runoff to a wet well with a perforated cover.It is awkward to have to seek a variance in any circumstance but particularly when a code, such as Orono^s setback requirement, has been enacted both to preserve natural resources as well as to protect community interests. However, the Pillsbury's proposed addition, because of its nature (being in effect a greenhouse) and size (210 SF) would have minimal environmental and visual impact. A denial of their application would cause them sufficient hardship in the use of their land that we ask that you recommend a granting of their variance request. —« :-*s.mi MS&Rcalls for planting the bank edge to and promote the dbsorption of rain water drain tile around the addition will wet well with a perforated cover.B to seek a variance in any circumstance 1 a code, such as Orono's setback 1 enacted both to preserve natural to protect community interests. However >sed addition, because of its nature reenhouse) and size (210 SF) would have . and visual impact. A denial of theirhardship in the use of tk that you recommend a granting of their HARDCOVER tALCULATIQfl WOR ;SHE£T y^p^*Vs:c^ ^PlPuC'rrrcN SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500'! 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone BFS5H5 ^iC -a.STStL^so CW^feS'. • • ;u House •X a • S.P. . ,LENGTH width X m •S.P. X S.P. •X _:.p. X S.P. B.Garage .X S.P. c.Driveway X S.P. X • • • S.P. 0.Sidewalk X S.F. X S.F. 9 X a S.Ft E.’at10/ Deck X S.P* F.Landscape • X 9 S.P.AREAS UNDERLAIN BY X . S.F.PLASTIC SHEETING X ,S.F. X m S.F. G. Other X S.P. Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone ^500 S.P. -a X 100 ^C> 60Q s.F. fa-3 % t I HARDCQVE? CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000 Existing H ardcover in Zone A. H ouse B. Garage c. Driveway 0. Sidewalk E. Patio / Deck p. Landscape AREAS UNDERLAIN BY . . PLASTIC sheeting 6. Other LENGTH X X - X WIDTH Total H ardcover in Zone Total Property A rea in Zone 4|T]X 100 S.P. S.F. . S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. - S.F. _ S.F. _ S.P. S.F. S.F. S.f. 0 .!■. lU % IN Zoner' 250-500 ' 500-1000A. HouseB. Garage c. Driveway •' Sidewalk HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET V<q(aj,^MCC -^PPU C<fTvJKiSETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone tt-gI sriM© HARDCOVER CALCULATIOH WORKSH^>/<^ai -^mce ^pPUCA-n«Klr^ 250-500 - 500-1000- c io»e: (circU one) 0-75 |2:f£iiiG H ardcover ih Zone SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' j 75-250'j 250-500' 500-x000'3./pp^f>OCBO(jMCC 0VC<W«^N®)Y » • ______ S»F«length WIDTH ilVEWAY ICOVER “LCUUTIOH «OR«H|^ <6: (circle one) I- -.rdcover in Zone ovc(«*+^N«) \GE .slengthWIDTH.•1s«•0 a X ________-- VEWAY IEWALK ---- no/ CK lOSCAPE ' ? jti^LAlN ^STIC f'fiTING . X . . X - _ X _ _ X . - X . X _ X — X _ X r.-ER _ X - X S • F • S.F. S.F. StFi S • F • S>F« ♦ , S.F. . S.F. . S.F. _ S.F. _ S.r. _ S.F. __ S.. ___ S.F. _ S.Fi — S.F YAL Hardcover in Zone Totaw Property Area in Zone B II 4^^_ S.F. X IOC S.F. 0 S % r.LoLSva^f ^Z Q£>‘CS; ‘MJa.i-.NiCE r5?-.Osm«-K)HARDCOVER CALCULATION WOR.KSHEETSETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000'Exis'TING H ardcover in Zone SEpsO.'S /Sn -A . H ouse _ x _•’IF _ S.F.LENGTH x _WIDTH ;S.F.X _.S.F. t . *'•’m X a rS.F. VXar >sS.F.B •Garage x . S.F. C.Driveway x S • F1 X 3 ■ wS.F. 0.Sidewalk . x mm . _ S.F. X _a S.F. X S.F. E.’at 10/ Deck X a .S.F. P.lANn5?CAPC X _ _ S.,*' . AREAS UNDERLAIN BY X __ .S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X _ .. S.F. X S.F. s. Other x S.F. Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone .4^S.F. .S^'l Z_ S.F.E •f B X 100 Si 'Vr- r- 7^P.!.NCEhardcover calculation worksheetHARDCOVtHULu 250-500' 500-1000'etback zone : (circle one ) J)“75_^ _xisTiNG H ardcover in ZoneA. H ouseB> Garage c. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Batio/ Deck HARDCOVER QLCULATION WORKSHEETSETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ^ 0-75'[ 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000'P“^a./F«o posse ^^4 ^ s.F. ' piH . 1V 1'1£: ?ieoft>sc^ 6?GCt'>'" /'MO,if r- ^ f —Ml ^r7^xs^~rrf> P^ntirT /Ort^n^^ 'T‘VfcV' ,vV <’;■..>■TrQp^lU ^ecir<5H f • I ' -I-* • ( V ? 1 *• s • * I .. 1 t I • } ■ I t • i HsIMMI(D«ZC?-ti? a M « 0 zrm ;v rnmm ^ • 9 u *1 » M (0 r fi ■ '-V : ■ i •.: I '663R5E /SNO a-ti-'T O'-00o\CCUJCQOHUO W6 PPOPOSED ADDITION (outline SKeiCHED |N ABOVE) WOULD POJECT FPOM THE 6L/WK END WALL OF THE EXISTIK& HOUSE. THE SITE IS LAPeeLi ENVELOPED IN A CLUSTEfLOF BIP^OCS. 'Urn ii*. ;.n *v/ \ 4 m , V> I .! V ' V ‘ • .»< '' V -V' ‘ r • . ' <r ' i 1 mf ' • ♦ v; «• ‘ r• 1 i'..;. JLISTINS and PPaOSEO NEW SLUESfONE STEPPIN© PAVEPS APE WIDELY SEPARATED STONES,SFf IN 6PASS Ar>iD GPOUtO CCWEP, X cm<PCOO HO - Xcm LlJ ^ w (J H z 55 « s DC UJ O. UJc/) <zo H 5zou ocou. H CO UJ ;do UJ DC ***.4 VIk y •V s. . ^> '''. •^• V w>: K ■ ' . w, • I'ijux v;v m' .*:*^ r / •U : • { * »» ^ -<E CTEEP LAH-E BAI'(C VIPTUALLY OBSCUP-ES views of tup FPOM a DISTAMCe.TME 6LASS OF THE PPOPOSED ADDITION 'OFOSED ADDITOf-J (TOP SKETCHED IN ABOVE). WOULD MAKE IT lAfOELY TPANSPAPENT A\IC • fj/7 [{J " S: [i4'' • iJ’' s>T .T 'ISB-" f.-: ‘ ■;■■■.' ill. I 'ri . V • • •'■• • "> '•'' ’ I 1,1.- I' ,. 'KV* * ••4 .. i If /'• A*.* ■•'.i* • If --iV '" * * I V \ I fi-..* '-*♦cr?a(K . ’-V :; ?5^?5?2^3cs::;rr LOK<OoH O X Cu UJ B OnecONq:tuCQOHUO UJ z □J Q m UJ X >X D CQ J k-J H >—4 X. Di UJ a. W c/) D .J < 7: C C 7 Ou r> V-/ U- H U i-U O LU Crl A RBSOLUTIOH GRANTIIIG VARIANCES TO HDNICIPAL ZONING CC»>B SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 ft 2 AND SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8, AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 FILE #1468 NHBRBAS, George and Sally Pillsbury (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1300 Brackett's Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and NBERBAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to construct a greenhouse addition and a retaining wall within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, resulting in structure and hardcover in the 0-75' zon.? where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed, and which greenhouse addition encicaches past the defined average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed, and further requesting a conditional use permit for grading work within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19. NOW, TBBREFORB, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council Of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1468. 2. The property is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The property is approximately 2.96 acres in area. 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 16, 1989 and recommended approval of the proposed variance and conditional use permit on a vote of 5-2, based on the following findings: Page 1 of 6 8I A) The average lakeshore setback encroachment will not Impair any existing lake views enjoyed by neighboring property owners.B) The retaining wall and associated grading proposed at the top of the lakeshore bank is necessary for preservation of the lakeshore bankr which is currently exhibiting some slumping effect. The 24"-30height of the single proposed retaining wall is lowenough that the wall can be easily JJf existing and additional vegetation coupled with the stone construction materials proposed.C) The proposed hardcover increase from 5.7% up to 7.6% in the 0-75' setback zone is relatively minor in its impact on the lake given the relatively large 0-75 zone. Further, the effect of the additional hardcover in the 0-75' zone is minimized by the proposed drain- tile which will collect runoff between the residence and the shoreline and transport the runoff to the 75- 250' zone for below grade and overland dispersal. D) The lakeshore setback variance is justified by the need for southeast exposure for the proposed growing ot orchids, this being the only suitable location for such a greenhouse addition because of the existing orlcntiatlon and location of the house. Further# the elevation of the existing house and proposed greenhouse addition above the lake and the height of the lakeshore bank will tend to minimize the visual impact of tne greenhouse as viewed from the lake. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting t e variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; would not merely serve ® convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 6 6. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the proposed grading and retaining walls in the 0-75’ zone 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 and 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit construction of a greenhouse addition and retaining walls in the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone, resulting in an increase in hardcover from 5.7% to 7.6% in the 0-75' zo: e where no hardcover is normally allowed, resulting in additions- structure in the 0- 75* zone where no structure is normally allowed, resulting in an average lakeshore setback encroachment of approximately 125'; and further grants a conditional use permit for grading and retaining walls in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19, subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall provide the City Engineer with a detailed final grading and retaining wall plan, which must be approved before permits can be Issued for the grading/retaining wall construction. The City Engineer shall work in conjunction with the applicants to establish suitable limits for the grading work. 2. The applicants shall maintain existing vegetation on the lakeshore bank as proposed, and shall plant additional vegetation to screen the proposed 24"-30" high retaining wall from the lake to reduce its visual Impact. Applicant shall use native materials and natural coloring to minimize the visual -mpact of this wall to the greatest extent possible. 3. As proposed, applicants shall construct a draintile system between the existing residence and the lakeshore, to redirect the drainage from the 0-75' zone to the /5-250' zone for dispersal. Page 3 of 6 ' 1 4. Hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone shall not increase above the 1,965 square feet (7.6%) approved with this resolution, as indicated on the site plan attached hereto as Exhibit B. Applicants are advised that any future proposals to Increase hardcover in the 0-75' zone will not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of equivalent eunounts of hardcover in the 0—75' zone, resulting in no 0—75' hardcover increase. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (November 13, 1990). 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 *vthorlty granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. „ . Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day ofNovember, 1989. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Acting Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 4 of 6 ,1 ♦ !S ! L ♦ I . iJ( V 1 11 not Increase 3ved with this tached hereto as future proposals le will not be injunction with of hardcover in ver increase.in run with the permissive only building permit >provalr or the L expire on that of the terms and ;ute a violation ' terminate any tunishable as a understood and >n and on behalf assignsr hereby in the chain of f > m ': STATE OF MINNESOTA | COUNTY OP HENNEPIN )8S.foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me on Dorothy M H^llnrATt^TnVM^^yor^^ Citrcieik^'of^“^r^ity :his 13th day of an, Jr. . * Page 5 of 6 i • k COUNCIL MEETING 7 TO:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson fMR12t990 CITY OF Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator January 12$ 1990 #1403 Harold & Merle Vogt, 1342 Rest Point Circle Condition Use Permit - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 & 2 - The lakeshore setback regulations and hardcover regulations of the City adopted on January 1, 1975. Existing lakeshore structure is located approximately 30-35' from the shoreline. Age unknown, it appears to be 40-50 years old. The original use was a boat house. Please note on the various site plans and surveys submitted for previous land use reviews and building permits, the structure has never been designated (review Exhibits H and L). The repair of such a structure would require City approval. Purpose of Review - During the review of a land use application in the latter part of 1989 in the vicinity of 1342 Rest Point Circle, certain Council mi*mbers noted the location and condition of the subject structure. The Orono staff was asked to review the files to determine if required approvals and/or permits were Issued to the property owner as the structure appeared to be in excellent condition. Staff reviewed the address file and 2 previous land use application files. The current owners, Mr. & Mrs. Harold Vogt, were sent written notice of Council's concerns and asked to meet with staff concerning the status of the subject structure. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B <■ Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Application Applicants' Addendum Plat Map Property Owners List Orono Inspector's Letter 6/12/72 Building Permit for Detached Garage 7/1/65 Council Minutes 8/25/75 Approving Lot Width & Area Variances for Construction of New Residence Site Plans Submitted with Variance Application Building Permit #3179 Isi^ued 11/21/75 for New Residence to Harvey Larsen Planning Commission Minutes li/''/76 - Variance for New Detached Garage »f >(11;111 >»h if ■ W M [iD^tJ 1*1 o«* •H«C* [•fit ^1*1 r. B C* C =« •] Zoning File #1483 January 12> 1990 Page 3 of 5 In staff's meeting with the Vogts, it was clear that they had no knowledge of the previous variance reviews that required the removal of the structure. The previous owner had never acknowledged to the Vogts that there was any question concerning the status of the subject structure. The structure is not used as £, guest house, contains no plumbing, no heating, is not insulated, and would not be fit for permanent habitation. The applicants claim that they use it as a 3-season porch and storage at the lower level. The applicants also note that when they purchased the property, there was nothing in the chain of title that would reflect any problems with the structure. Ther» is no doubt in staff's review of the files that it is the lake ore structure that was to be removed and that somewhere between ..he zoning and building staff, there was a lack of communication in advising the field inspector of the need for the removal of the structure prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the new residence in 1975. The applicants claim that they should not be penalized for the negligence on the part of the Orono zoning and inspection staff. It is also interesting to note that neither the staff in their memos in 1976, nor both staff and Planning Commission members obviously visited the site to see if the accessory structure had been removed in the 1976 review as there was no mention in the records. After public notices were sent to the adjacent neighbors of the public hearing, staff received visits and calls from the adjacent neighbors. Many of the neighbors had lived there prior to and during Mr. Larson's residency. The neighbors confirm that the boat house/storage structure had existed on the property prior to the construction of the new residence. Mr. Larson never improved the lakeshore structure, and the structure remained in an unmaintained deteriorating state until the purchase of the property in June of 1989 by the Vogts. Neighbors advised that at the time the Vogts did certain improvements to the existing residence structure, that they also made certain repairs to the boat house structure. The City has no record of a building permit being issued for either the repair of the principal nor of the accessory boat house structure. If the required building permit had been obtained, the City staff would have been able to review the file to determine the status of the structure within the 75' setback area. Any repair to a structure within the 75' setback area would have required approval by the City. Staff would appreciate Planning Commission members contacting staff prior to our meeting if additional information is required for your review and determinations. t 0 •^T»l [•IIPV* r«w«T«i l•lo«r•v^u••lf«un •PMP* •11 •! P 4« » 483- 1990iAction -6 Of the foil owing recommendation on onele^apoYl* °^"®*"®^^*thiVeqSired>r requlr®d removal back in 197?^e« !!*? scheduledthe structure would have re|ulied '®P«^r*«‘4"rr®a a land use review.;ructures^/o^”be ViT structure and similarve\"e? *^®9“latlons fo*"/^laJesh"^^^®^ ^^®velopment, the ComprehMslvt^vi f residential e regulations of the st^vJ ^^® City, andBources. State Department of Natural ructures wlthYn^\he*'o-7^''%tb?^i?^^**® contain>™ the City before rfn«^ »®®J' approval ^ucture. The city would qilstloS"*^® "®‘*® sn it appears obvious " u property owner .lv.d re„cv,tiran‘d'‘V«.IS^?i„* *>«" ?T2 appxdcnt. >y mid-spring of *990?^^*^ *** that the structure he re ”f XTofx “x*»ay consider The City staff fai-i inai directive to rem*ote‘U"".te‘.‘t'/uc^ireT^'” -l-ture and the dir%“t*i^‘? Sl^hV o‘r'’o1.o'‘&”f L^rs^^® ®xact ^sTatui of*the”ort h®^ neverLarson appeared to mak« J? ? **®“®® structure. ure and certainly did minimal upk2ip. “®® ^^® Zoning File #1483 January 12, 1990 Page 5 of 53. Optional approval. The Planning Commission may find the unique background and conflicting findings of this review to be divided between the ordinance demands of the City and the property rights of the applicants, and may consider granting approval based on the condition that the accessory structure located within the lakeshore yard be removed within * specific period of time - _ _ __ years.Additional Comments and Planning Commission Recommenuatlon - March 7, 1990 -Additional Exhibits -Exhibit 0 - Planning Commission Minutes of 1/16/90 Exhibit P - Vang's Memo of 3/7/90One of the conditions of the Planning Commission recommendation was that the applicant was to provide a report from a structural engineer confirming the structural stability of the boat house structure. Mr. Vogt has phoned since that meeting to advise that their personal friend, a licensed engineer, is now out of the country and unable to provide the report as requested by the Planning Commission. Staff advised Mr. Vogt to wait until Council's review in order to determine if the structural analysis will be necessary as part of the condition of Council action. Staff would remind Council that the underlying intent for such land use rev lews involving boat house structures/guest house units within the 0-75' setback area is to gradually have the structure "deteriorate away". This is why the City must approve all structural repairs of such structures. The building staff has Inspected the structure to determine not only the soundness of the structure, but also to determine what recent repairs have been made to the structure without the benefit of the building permit review. Please review Exhibit P, Bruce Vang's inspection report. Any condition of approval of this structure would require the applicant filing a building permit application for all repairs made to the structure. The report lists both cosmetic and structural type repairs done to the structure within a very recent period of time. The applicant originally advised that there was no plumbing to the structure. Mr. Vang's report notes that there is water but no drains within the structure. Ap»''* leant should advise as to the source of the water. .jhe Planning tevUw‘topptoval. TUe ^ finding® the^‘-"■'r.vS B i%v.v;:K» s..>. ■Ithin the lakesn years.01 ti.e - „ ,eco«.ena.tlon -«ents and Planning Co.«” rommission Minutes of 1/16/90Planning CommissionVang'S Memo of 3/7 ittucture. Mr. ^ a as requested .helt 'to p" o»iae the tepo« « 'j? u„til ;ty ana .„££ advised Yf^ctural analysis commission. Star ®V ,^^uncil action., in order to detetmi ^^^^^^^ f Cou^ ary as part of ^ne^^ under lying intent^^^ ^ nind Council w_«t house structxy^ _ have the “« se"tS.o°/‘.te°." ‘= uy ins ‘he 0-75 setp« „^y the city > staff •riorate structures. T ® soundness I repairs of sucn not oniy^" ,^3 have the determine what building “■ "s.vs.r. r.'~” " ""'•■•■“ ............................ ? of the water. Zoning File #1483 March 7, 1990 Page 6It should also be noted at this point in the review that we are not dealing with a conditional use permit as the structure is not a second residential unit/guest house. Structural repairs to this structure requires multiple variances to the lakeshore standards of the zoning code (hardcover and lakeshore setback variances). It is difficult to determine the setback from the lakeshore as the structure has never been designated on a survey. If the structure is to remain, an updated survey must be submitted confirming the exact location of this structure in relation to the 929.4' elevation (lakeshore of Lake Minnetonka).The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application that would allow the structure to remain for an unlimited period of time based on the hardship that the structure was allowed to remain and that applicant had no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the legality of the structure. Approval was conditioned upon applicant obtaining a building permit for all repairs made to structure and applicant providing an analysis by a structural engineer of the Integrity of the structure. Options o£ Action - The options of action remain the swsie as set forth on Pages 4 through 5 of the memo to the Planning Commission. Staff would add that if the structure is to remain, that the following conditions be added to the Planning Commission's recommendation: 1. An updated survey be provided locating the 929,4' elevation and the subject structure within the lakeshore yard. 2. Resolve of water supply to structure and the need to cut off water supply if structure is to remain as storage/three- season porch. Options of action - denial, approval or approval with specified period of time for removal at some future date. Council Action - To provide conceptual direction to staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for Council action at an upcoming meeting. CITY OF OROHO ~ 6EHBRAL LARD USB APPLI PROPERTY LOCATICHI Site Address y * Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) QV I 1"7 <^3 OO^'^ Please attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLZCAMT Name V~ MfinSiC' Address I3Q-Q, • ONHBR (if different than applicant) Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (home) IXIS O'yo3 _Phone (work) H 9S } City Mo __ _--/IT Address 7 Phone (home) Phone _ _ _ _ City _ _ _ Zip Date Property Acquired _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I (do) tdo not) alnt. own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) PEES ~ CONDITIONAL USB PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee with CUP application ^ $150.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $200.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling ” 101 cu. yd. or more Grading^ seawall^ retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore _ _ _ PRD/PID - see fee schedule APPLICATIONS $200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $250.00 Vacation $175.00 Easement Vacation $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $250.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $100.00 Appeals Other -see fee schedule » I FR2SENT OSB OF PROPERTY ^ ‘ " Present Zoning District L K. ! t-> Present Use of Property f»*'^^*^*'^esidential Other (specify)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ DBSCRIPTIOR OP RBQOBST , / /? / / DMcribe request in deytil: Ajeu-U RBQOIRBD SDBKETTRLS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271). 3. Plat Map. 4. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor). 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). 6. Construction plan# if applicable (see staff for requirements). 7. As an addendum to this application# please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. CUy CF . TOO ARB RBQOIRBD TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCOHBMTS ^ v A WORKIHG COPY (ll* X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCOMBHTS SOBNiniD. ' ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------/‘)fi The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application.’^’^'^^’ei^iiS'J??^ remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff; Date APPLICABT'S SIGRATORB The applicant hereby agrees to provide all Information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator# agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses Incurred in review of this application# and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knojtledge; ' Applicant's signature Date OflNBRS SIGRATORB The owner hereby ac)cnowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff# consultants# agents# commission members# and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of ^his r^ Owner's signature /(/ ^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Ccxnmission ^md Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting# please maJce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building s Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 1 Addendum to General Use Application 1342 Rest Point Circle, Urono, Mn 55364 In seeking continued legal usage of an accessory structure on our lakeshore property this addendum should help describe the property in question. The structure is somewhere between 50-60 years old and pre-dates all other structures on this lot. Prior to purchasing this property we had a structural engineer inspect the subject building. He indicated to us that it was in very good shape having been built with 8x10 solid wood beams on a block and poured cement foundation. Approximate size is 12" x 20”. The lower level opens to the outside through several openings and doorways. This area is used for storage, dock sections, boat gear etc. This area is not secure. The upper level consists of an open room secured by one door and several windows. This area is used as a detached 3 season porch. It should be noted that this structure is not suitable for Habitation as there is NO BATH, NO BEDROOM, NO HEAT, NO TOILET, AND NO INSULATION. We paid a premium for this property in June 89 largely because of the existence of this structure. There was no indication any where in our title search or abstract of any problems with the existing buildings. Also, within a very short walk of our property easterly, in Orono, there are seven similar structures. Our question to the council is why have we been singled out to be required to get a special permit at some expense for continued use of our property? Looking forward to clearing up this misunderstanding in the near future. #1483 I m i ITTT"TOST raan b.6o !^47.i1 TTjTarNfi.I7S0I 17400 300150 OJOO 000 177460 0V97 095 W 1NRS200I10001094.11 020 020 1Nn11701SI300121520200.00 79900 (MS 112 W 1. .. •• • • •................• • • • •• • • •TT R iitN 49400 77li§ob6 ^4&iy >4400 0W7 WwNRZSM511009112402002073000im 300 CNRlsoonS2SO014«J1 020 2«27 000 021N • •A.• •fOM• • • •4KO0 • • • • •101152 020• • • • •000 • • • »TTir siMb -mar 299M4 020 bdb wi 4ib wNa599005010035192000090096000liyiS 260 wNR249004270011922000900Nn.99300 75300 330022 000 000 1900NR2200071300136220000000 102290 IM7 430 WTTTT"249iU Hwn sMi&l bU 000 bbbbb boric i\i wNi960000170032915200000012900012/02 CH9k71900040002S0O220200201340000303 ISC WHfk92000969004021.«0.00 000 146000 OVI7 430 WN%12000 5000 140720 0.00 000TT“H7 "IW KMU “T7I73T i.o6 ra obT7{ bobNl15000071900000000NRL075003710014R.4I 000 000 70500 97/79 091nRl71900314003S2I24020000H9L5990071300260534000900TT"HT 46^0 34i66 9110^bob 000 790^isns 3ob ibHRL59900591001920200000001130000303 420 W KpEVLLi’*'vi ■■BmK^ V i B=5''i KT!9 K I , .■'^!rw ..-.V.. ' ^ ■-• ' ^ ■=%'<?':;'i'!«..-..it, t • * ^ •w • .'■• • '.V .V. «‘.a A • .s-'-rf:- Jun# l2 * 19 72 Rl'! . »• • • «. V. _ '^'S^y.- 'V Mf; R*»r^<M> • ,"'^'1'7Z ^^" 5 v1542 *»«t Point *^^^6bond, Mlnn«*oU 553' ‘ , •■»• r .y i • ,^4“^ ‘^* T!^ iL- - V • I v ’ . ^ *.j, r i i»«r Mr. Irt«rdoa t t *' *m v:,^ ' .i - T-. '^Til» rrtidonod tonnot bo A •» ,2» Ao^M I will •11®’'^ ^ M ^ Ail#l tll#& *UBt glWW ’ ;:#»l ■“ - • ■^^^^.>;sincoT«l7 yours, - . . • w/v 7- ■liir-r-COvTrSl mmm- ■■■■■"': • '■ v: ;r ■. -% « -M • %? .- V K« <p$l4?3gK^^ I !• ir -y Lv.< • JUlM ll. • ’ « ♦» ^ •< * ' 1 ■ - ■j- <*■-:;■'• i • ■.*.V '*■"]* ?SE v 5< ::,-''.i -. m^si |S»v>''»- -■ •• —V/ if * ' '’j V i ^ ^ ^ ’'V . • • *' m * ,-V 4 ^ f\ i S&.1 Vi'. *" 'V - ’" 4i" • ’ . .v’?*wUNoe or onc^'o "'•••.'?ing ?srmit /==''u--'!•’(»* \. ./, t A'v ^^' v-^-O"*-•.^v:;'';>..:-^:-^>.«-/2r'*-'••♦_iLTS..-iD-JJS runrc^f or ni/ur»N<'»PUIlDf»?AOnRf^^ THONr NO.fiKMiT N2 1621'‘nrt#! /^ Hl^W /» AdrfIfIrtI Of ^Mfedlvltlpot^ sA' fr ^iau^^••“•C’irTION , o# tet• !Vr n.RUIlOtNa LOCATION Dll. From Rood Oil. Sldfi Dti. flock Drntnoo*-•♦^.roN*«Rrlck, SolidRflck V#n#«f' ^C#m«nt Block *mo5 * ».'**i looif Otpfb •S Bolow Grodo ' A7ION. Conttructlon Slio ........NT ..*..0«r| Dmlnago Floor >. .. «- roitf SIro Spacing •-•■NO Slfo Span vrNTfLArroN anl■>..t*ntoo• of floor Aroo Vonf. r<.rr«»ningo of llgKt to floor AfolINtriS!•» T"I orn»5rn Spo«wm TvreC<''r>^»fwct*0n I r^rn^lfyn SrpTiC TANKS OR MUNtOMl HOORUR □ '•i f • Dl^fnnco FfOffI Woll CnoRtruc^lOfl _______ ••T5 *- --'cif’on w*>K» Abovo iloal Pfp# Dfttooco From Joltti Slf<R Span RrldglnQ ......ns RAmtS CCIUNO JOISTS o m Slto SI(o • irO*Spocing Spacing * — 1« •Sport Broclng Inngiift Spon • «,-rNflifSf ..IM No.Sir#Sfnlrwny ''-Nar —• No.S!r«Stairway •ON — editing Wnllt DPAINfiriD DfoptS Wi.'iS liino’h DUtiifico from Wolf Dlitonco From lot Uiioi riuMHiNi nxTUtn * / CsM^fsr^ t);ipeiol Wotlior r.inkt Sfiowr laundry Tolfot nofh Tub r ■■ . .. 7j/Ja f>Mq. i Plumb, I. r,li« r»nmlnnllon $«.,Wod 1 Totol t 7^ wm ornirw Apn»r"i _ V.-r^^MTOACro»,Apprnv*d • Of MimOMiO ;*• r A <sG, .... • •. : ■ ••■"< ••V. i; .. * rt ''•'.‘•lO COOHCIL MEETDIC RBLO AOGOST 25, 1975 jach rJidSnSTS • ?5?A raport aa te% fh. oparai Page 4 ^•■i^nca and 8 ftir tha^eo»iIIJ«?**f*** A raport aa to tha voluiia*a!il^IS?fSi*^-®P*'*^«»> watar from tha bait itorloataSfl^iS ®f ovarfloi# roquaatad. Tha PXaaSg Co^2if«!*f ataff to ehaek with tha CiSAttoS-J^* ^’ctad Poaaibllitiaa of probloM ^-attpucuy ,* »Kini!.*s:iLS!? ““ VASXAMCl 1440 Shoraliaa Orlva (Coatlnoad) ot^grg:.‘;“sr. y , tt** th.«wt « 8710 «thI“AS;!S”£.*” ? *«!So. no othar varlancaa bilS Sl22 ' !?*^**^ ^ waa roeoaoMndad aa th^ •PPWval «<*3olalngvacant laS^ ThI avallabla asaaaaad'for aoMra^ **••*»2"i«tant w4tr!th£?*p!;jSti2JHoUon, Ayaa (3) - Naya(0) ^ ^ ; -V ^ VAXZANCB 2720 Ithal Avanya #•> ?**• Jfaqwaat at 1342 Baat Point CiJeiS* S vacant lIii*?.*Kf?r?iV "? * •''.vtC.... • • :.« , •■ >. oOlS rtjnilSyJeSraU'? Wtov^I „ „ 1 . M#a ______ sra. now raaldSca. ' occupancy ia iaauad for • •»/ % 0 • • -Ar^^rMotion, Ayaa (3) - Maya (0). *«ni.«ly, 2435 l«S! ;lSJ iiSJ ‘SI J|^ 1975 by cutting *»■ ?s-ViS*.*KtSi„‘!r 'll*?!'" ««xJSJ;*-"’Which tiaa tha inaMe«>ybi® ^apfction waa mada at approval. Photoa of obtaining -re on file, it wJ. atumpa nacaaaary action ba tah^*^ racooMndad that Of tha four traaa thi?^2d baIS®?ii;Ji,'**^‘“‘^0" v;? f*v : • .a,. variance a PERHIT t.* I 2435 Scotch PiM iV a-H ' ctecL'e v\ ] /< K> ^4 7 .0 /=<■ :' >- V T <— cTo' X I'bU'd V^\ Cr.CcAii X i r< ri ] i X/«! I FOR BUILOING l^kHnllT ^:w aariFKATC of occuMiicr VHIAUI or OIONO. MINNUOIa «* C I « n«»iu • MMU IlMMkI (M • •«iMl «il !• •••4 ^ M p\ • I MM« I ■«« N!' 3179 4 liMA4 ./? o d iSi.co I*'! *«• ek. totAfcr ^^ A-?&, mnni Miaicr 4 .. / I • "t; f • 7 tT 4 x —tkm lf•^“s•T .» AMCiwTtCI it*i a»r *'A» 1 rv^g»MM / ^ ' • Wi 0» VmiCTM A «0 fl» UO«l«« **^^W*P Ni^wt / - fj n n 11 VI »r ?111# HiAil f«iK» <1^H ___iZAfljANCt ;i V lu r- f\ m • . 2>?c ^ AX it«i itoi iw i^*yiufi(»v4Ar __ptS ^ ® l< *«J W* *Mf«4«4%|tt '4 V <«l *9i| * rili »AM«4 t nsnoiunr Hw>o kUssnsrBnr SmSHTSSS? SSnSTB' • • f #^CiCiiO%VL£DGci¥lENT AND SICNAVU h E; ft.»i «Mia r.ufvUf u|mMI •!! wl llir of *«». icr J.c j tr*v VILLAOC Of Gmo «0 lu !««• t/.K »,rv.n I. rfi 4I1 )iUU*m«rfiU »♦*... a*« tru^ ^•4 U'»i»t •!• M'^r* r*«rvii« will w« (KMW III .«. ..I ♦..,. 1- Mitn U.« .. ,1 ‘f.w VILLACe Oh OHOHO, lh» U-i. U... ..4 .mU. «i*l f i.j. J tr... ij •* ..I j Gv|orfr tiiKfit ^ o ««««•* f 4M4. V»'C. « *v«»« •A* l« - oV » » ' ^<c- V.hiI MMOTS OF A PLAMIDC OHOSSION fCETING HBU) NOVMER 1. 1976 - PAffl 4 Mr. Urson tas pttmt. H» it nqutttinf tpprovtl^ ^14 • na< |tTt|t wiA tht jpropostd loettifln to bt 6* side lot line and 6* mm the street line. A pr frai tiie A previous verisnce request ess gnnted in 197S to build s house on this pr y. Vsrisnces were approved subject to several condit! one being that no other variances be necessary. Thera wfc. soee discussion over the meaning of thU stipule* tion. Sara mabers felt this was meant to include the Range, whUe other ■■bers felt this pertained ra the house only. Mr. Larson who purchased the house fron Full Scherber stated he could not use the present garage in the winter time. The proposed location extends over a verti^ drop. Mr. Larson's plans are to build a concrete wall on a footing from the lower olevation up to the hi|Mt grade at road level. Lower level would be used for storage iXfter scan discussion, Guthrie moved, Pesdc seconded, to recommend approval because of the topography of the la^. it is consistent with the nei^ibors and location wwld preserve large maple tree on property, ^btion • Ayes (s). Nays (2) - Van Nest and Hosfield. Mr. Peterson was present. The Zoning AMinistrator infonMd the Oxraission that the applicant is re<p»sting variances for an addition to the rear of the existing residence and a garage additior to the front. No other land is available and proposed additiots wwild be a grrat inprovenent to the existing house. Several pictures of the property were presented to the Gunission. Qiainwdan Dunlap was concerned about the large tree on the property. Mr. Peterson assured her that there was approximately lS-20* between the tree and the addition. Both additions would continue the existing line of the building. Pesdc movad, liosfield seconded, to reconend approval of the necess^ variances house is consistent with neighboihoM and would upgrade to houses already there, lot is narrat, and no other land is available, ^totio^. - Ayes (7), Neya (0). Mr. Solie was present. Hank Mihich informed tte Crauisslmi that the applicant has done aome grading and fillirig on his property without approval. Mr. Mihich further erplainad that this was first brought to the attention of Staff en August 8, 1976, when a coivUint was received concerning work in progress on this property. Investigatin rsvaaled 4 major excavation <kne with earth filled near to the shore and siltation of the water evident. A st(q> »ork erder ‘ posted and a tag was Issued. Mr. Solie was advised to a peraiit application and to seek approval fron the other agencies. HMWEV LMCSON 1942 VEST pooir aia£ VAHAKS • GMMZ SUE YARD « SnSET SETBACK (4W7) MICE FBimSOM 2447 CMMMI SnEBT VARIAWS * U3T AREA, W«m: SETIMX (•189) enniiBT SGLS *^es NGMIH AM DRIVE . .TIOML USE REMIT 'SAW FUXINC I •V. i >'. -P' ?.r- •■ •.f •Vj' • "b:- 'i- OROnO COOlfCZI. MtRXIfG HILO NOVBffBSR t, 1&7C »«9« S of novMibor ITlf?*. notion, Ayoo O) - Hoy* <0). fOWZVXfZON 3S27 Shorolino Drivo (Oontinood) Ronsy llohleh. Building • *ooi^ MinisttoMr, ototod that tho Planning Oowiaaion at thait ttoumbar 1, 1»7« naating raeooMndad approval of otraat and oida yard oatbaek varianeas for a garaga for Rarvay taraon, 1342 Raat feint Clrela. VMUMfnW 1342 Root Point Cirola fflB7 Rarvay Lapoim >/ Botlar Movad, Paorua aaeondad, to approx tha otraat and aida yard aatbaek variancaa for a garaga for Rarvay Laraon, 1342 Raat Point Cinla, par tha Planning Coavioaion ttinutaa of Rovanbar 1, 1974. notion, Ryan (3) - Raya (0). Hanry tiuhieh. Building * toning Mniniatrator, otatad that tha Planning Oenadaoien at thair tfovaatoar 1, 1774 naating appcevad tha lot araa and oidth aatbaek varianea for Bruea Pataraon, 2444 CariMMi Btraat. Approval oaa haaad on tha fact that thara ia no additional land available and propoaad addition would follow axiating hpuaa axtraadtioo and not encroach tha axiating aatba^. Tha propoaad addition would naka a vaat inprevanant to tha property. gARZMfCB 2447 9119 Broca fatan Paurua aovad, Outlar aaeondad, to approve tha let araa and width aatbaek varianea for Bruea Potaraon, 2444 Caman Btraat, par tha Planning CoRmiaa^an ttinutaa of Revanbar 1, 1974. Notion, Ayaa (3) - Raya (0). Hanry lluhidi. Building • Zoning Adniniatrator, ■t^tad that Oavid J, Kruakopf, 1200 wildhurat Trail, ia raquaating a lot araa and width varianea. SDBDXVZSIOR 1200 Rildhnrat fmU •90 David Rruakopf Thin proper^ ia located lona. tir lot araa Rruakopf ia td width raqui LR*1B raaidontial varianea freo ita of one aero (43,940 aa. or ft.) aiki 140 ft. lot width. Ria lot eonaiata 0,7 of an acre and ia 90 ft. widai tharafora. ha ia raqoaating variancaa of 13,940 aq. ft. and 50 ft. Tha propoaad location doaa naat all aatbaek raguii ronta. Bowavar, wa do have a problem in tha axiating location of tha raaidanea on tha property to tha pint -i ••-vt .•i I '• k k IVt' k K K '■ '■ '-rX ■ u ;• ii' I ,Jr- ! r '•»«%««4i]L^ 1 01mil .•.:>.•! ii.n I DM Ol.iilil iCArt ()» «■. > { X .»•. «:i«i;.l/U DAY. M.4 bbJ2J i/i/i:./ ;ilTL AlHIMt V. !nm • HCHMIT N? 3C7 i OAYE ISSUED MjL^LljL/. EXf'IRES_________________ • (JK» 1 lilC I > iia VAM JAU tl’K ?0 CO^O use DATE lot area width OEI^TH PHOraSCOSETttACKS , R SIDE NEAR LSlOE to * LAKE WETLANDS ACCESS NEW EXISTING acencvaprrov . date city COUNTY STATE PR. EASEMENT /- 7-< - llOAL l>l M NII'I ion l-MiiH Mi a I^ I.Or It (K.K ^ SUSOIVISION <* / r-j ^ JWNI I 1« « Ul f IA iMim*) ’•4 ^tr ^ AlU’ii. ItCT/Llii.lUi lH Mull Gf.fittf Mtilti f iniily. ConwilifCl^ A MuHflii CoRIlNMRflPl«ii CEIti ^ |l MM»J lAiltlltNl (PRMWI BUllLER (AddftM) )RK AddiiiQf th'f Rffviodil COf^^i rvrt NriAw OWLLl UNK‘. GAH .'ACtli ATI OtT NON iiVm U OCC CL Ay.; ST'' -Its ULLfU Si/L u -V 7 :3x UDMM*.. / 11« Mflir: Al*»* L»Mfl l*M< (I il^l CCiU*«».u A»*»* .«• I i EtT. CONST. VALUATION HfUMTHU ■LDO. KAIMT ____ ITATi Fll HANMVItW ftNALTV MNK Ml SACCHANCi ZL TOTAL OUI HMARKH '■ : - -y-J . . ] I INSi>£CriO;.l REQUIRED ,.| J -----^ wC/f *«•(« C»U«« IfUM. ■ .1 5 -I, , -, t «u3 — ^ iN«* t ij MOr*.< ut T # t'j m 111 C«W* -t^ «’• X*C'» till.L Jv 4 «U r^i r»t *.«*cf f 4 » •*** * 4/ t t \*t V.L y I / *• M lf« ##* 1 4 •* M ^.^1 ,. I 4 r M I■ I <#i, / f L** ^ WORK REQUtiUMG St**..HATE i*:;n....rt; • ’ • , •' .1 •/•(# Ml . M.*f« I.AI in i •I •'1 i‘I .1 4«t M . •*|l M I I « • .M<* * llN»« 4 * ti « . . . I i I ».rMl(.AL ....................... ACKNOWLEOQCMCNT the UNOtRSiCNiO HEAESV RlQUfSTSPfRiNiSlON TO MA al The real iMPRJViMSNTS fSCCIfltO. AND 0CC laha 4 UNDER penalty OA LAW ADCNOWLEOGIliiliT ANO A€Cif»T ANCE OF ALL INFORMATION. CONOfTiONi ANO RfOuiMO MENTS REFREUNTSO ON THIS OOOUMENT. THE UNOEN SIGNED FURTHER AGREiS TO OO ALL WORKS tN iTRlCT COM TMANCE with all city OP OROMO • ••••••« • itt '.*<* t *• I m**'. • : .'-v >,pt* •• • . . - •tNCT' V; . • » 4 i • •..t >lti?N I UM U Hill h :a II OMj(.< 1(1 ,.:.I. ^ /V# . . i.>. ^ <.o I HAV. MN _______/. r IHL • Ui.L •l/l/i*,; bia AouHi*^:« / W - tlCjAC Ot.CHU*r Mi'« It# lOT 10 111 Iii iL 1‘eHMiT S\» ;^.'4901 DATE ISSUED EXPIRES__________ VAH DATl Ji'^7Q I.CNU (At UATk tOT AHtA _ _ _ _ _IS^ • xvidtm t oiVrV# •»HO«JStOUtTOACKS fHONf M ilOC »4tArt Lt#lDt LAKb fr >.iL I LANCS ^ ACCESS NLW EXISTING AGtNCV APfHUV DATE STa Tc i»H EASEMtNr INSPECTION HEQUIREO WORK REOUIHING . i ^ l.glwfw tfstt*SEPARATE HEMMITS -jti .11 MM... ... MML cU^^AAASi^ UrI'c TEI I wM**T*4 MiCitAMCAi i^HLL____ ;*ipric____ /4CH^ lii 'a H »«IIh <a «>| m lEl -iirtitM _ . Af'i.M I'a U 4#ILL Hi «Utl 4L^.7 ro.'i. .aai . w ^4AriM *. ^1 Vi 4/'« /';!W * P II 1 i/... '••ALuJ */ AA w 1 4 •» M Cn *LL I 4 »* M ll«> NlAl Ua « f LLi(.rMlCAl fi.wi. . ..iw A * - w4 « MA^rl A..1 '»___^ -3 - X X ----------------------) > ACKNCRWUEOQEMENT THt 0*iOtA$iOI»*OHtAt«viuouMTII»H^|*iONro*i*^i the ae *e i»M«oveiai.tt aMci*i«o. ano o4ct(»«.. UNOSN ^NAkTV O* LAW ACKNQWlfOMMtNT ANO ACCLHI ANCt Of ALL INTONEMTION. COWOITIOM AMO NEguiMt MENTS MEMfUNTiO ON THIS OOCUMtNT. TMC NMOEn IIICMEO f UATNCn AUNf Et TO OO ALL WOWKC IN iTAlCT c Om l-LIAMCi WITH ALL CITY OT OHONO OflOMtAMCU ANO STa Ti 0» MiNNEWTA tUILOlNOCOOf mcumunntb . S *U <4 PiriANCL * Oili lltClIKf *'r.A SlfMli ; ...(>4. • *■ ? >I ••.• . 1 .* 1 t»i«i *. •. *.OMliLL _ . f A| . •.^ .1. • »«i 1. Uu/. ML:«iii I*. . 4 occ t. . t . . »•»*»* .* . 4 •' • •jianautT is, 1990flcate of Mailing warexplanation of hoir this:ha boathouse for the i rafters shown in the »IB to be 50 to 60 years new. lot new. leek with the treated LS existing when he replaced the rotted that he also replaced or on the front of the loor existed when he that he did nail the ucture. Be said that se of this structure, learch of the property . Mr. Vogt said that roperty value if the iinented that if the ve a sheer cliff that Mr. Vogt said that he »use and he determined obtained a building K>athouse? ntended on replacing ling. Once he began e deck. I:tS [ 4 MZmtBS OF TBE FtAMHlMG COIMIS8ZOH NBBTIS6 JMCUtT 16, 1990xonac PZLB «1403-V06T COMTIMOBDKelley said that the City has a dilema where these accessory structures are concerned. Re said that the property owner has the right to cosmetically maintain the structure, but at the point structural repair is required the City must decide if such a structure should be torn down?Hanson asked Mr. Vogt to specifically identify what he replaced on the structure?Mr. Vogt said that he did the lattice work around the bottom of the structure. Be said that he also replaced the entire deck.Hanson asked him whether he also replaced the floor joists Inside the structure.Mr. Vogt said that he did not replace the interior floor joists. Hanson noted that the floor joists are also the supports for the cantilevered deck and that they look new. far. Mr. Vogt said that the floor joists did not go back that Hanson made a comment that the floor joists must extend to a certain point in order to offer proper support. Mr. Vogt said that he replaced a broken window and the rear door. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Brown, seconded by Hanson, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for an accessory structure, the hardship being that the building already exists. Mabusth asked that the motion include a condition requiring the applicant to apply for a building permit for the work done to the deck. Kelley also suggested that a structural engineer look at the boathouse and render a written opinion to the City regarding its condition. Brown amended his motion to include those two items, Hanson seconded. Mr. Vogt said that he would come into the City offices tomorrow to obtain a permit. Mabusth suggested that Mr. Vogt allow the City inspector to look at the boathouse to determine what had been done. Motion, Ayes~4, Cohen, May. Motion passed. #1484 RCmunB ST88ZK 4470 F0BB8T lAXB LMDZM6 VABZMCB PUBLIC BBARIB6 9s30 P.M. TO 9s37 P.M. Mr. Stasik was present for this matter. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were L-'' I' El L t t- : r: To:J«ann« A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator fro«;Bruca Vang, Building Inspector Da to:March 7, 1990 Dobjaet: Ranodel of Accessory Building in 0-75* Setback from Lake This building was apparently built 50-75 years ago. The lower level probably was used for storage, possibly as a boat house. The upper floor sloped indicating that the upper level was originally a screened porch. The upper level has an old masonry fireplace. Over the years the building has been repaired and redone several times. The upper floor was leveled off and a variety of windows and a patio door used to fully enclose the building. According to the Vogts, there was also a deck added extending toward the lake. Most recently: 1. New deck cantilevered toward lake at patio door. 2. Hard board siding on upper exterior. 3. Lattice used to screen foundation and exterior storage. 4. New paint and carpet in upper level. 5. Refrigerator, kitchen sink unit, stove (Vogts smy these are just stored there). 6. There is water (unknown source) but no drains. 7. some of the windows look very recent. r I iiADi COUNCIL MAR 121990 cmroFOROW A KBSOLOTIOII DBMmG PBBI.IHXNA]nr APPROVAL __OF A SOBOmSIOH APPLICATIOH AMBRDING 0RI6IRAL 80BDIVI8I0R APPROVAL (RBSOLOTIOR *2725) PILB «148C WIBRBA8, Nina Hildnan of Sussex Square Oevelopnent (hereinafter ’the subdJvlder”) on December 22, 1989 filed a formal subdivision application with the City seeking amendment of an original 17 lot residential plat, granted preliminary approval by the City on October 23, 1989, of property legally described as follows: Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter *the property*)j and W8BRBA8, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statues 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 16, 1990 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and w WBBRKAS, at their regular meeting held on February 26, 1990 the Orono City Council conceptually denied the subdivision application of Sussex Square Development that would amend the original 17 lot subdivision approved by the City that would add two additional outlots, one outlot created for the purpose of a ase tennis court and the second outlot was to provide additional area for septic expansion to an adjacent rural residential property not included within this subdivision. The following findings of fact were noted by the Council: 1. The property is located within the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of 2.0 acres of contiguous dry bulldable land within each newly created lot. The original subdivision application (File *1411) proposed 17 lots that satisfied all standards of the RR*>1B zoning district. 2. Per Section 11.03, Definition 26 - Lot, outlot *A lot which is intended only for public or ^>r(vate roadways, open space or other use, which use must"be restricted by the appropriate easement, and which use rvsi- be approved by the the time of final plat approval. Tine use of the outTot will thereafter be restricted by the appropriate restrictive covenant or open space easement.” Page 1 of 3 A I r: h I t 1 3. Per Section 11.03, Definition 26, the use of an outlot must be approved by the City and found to be consistent with the Intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The proposed amendment of the original plat has been scheduled too late in the planning process and should have been considered at the time of the original review of the 17 lot subdivision. 5. Each lot has been designed so as to provide adequate area for individual tennis courts. 6. The creation of the outlot for the shared tennis court use would not reduce the number of courts on other residential lots within the plat as the subdivider does not propose restrictive covenants to prevent construction of individual courts. 7. An interior location for the proposed outlot would have less impact on the existing residential properties that border the property. 8. Council finds tiiat there is a greater impact created from a community owned/shared tennis court than an individually owned tennis court. 9. The subdivider has been given the opportunity to amend the plat to relocate the outlot for a shared tennis court to a more interior location but has refused. 10. The proposed amended subdivision application has been found to be in conflict with the Intent of the subdivision regulations regarding creation of outlots for special uses within a rural residential neighborhood. MOW, THBUBPORB BB IT RBSOLVBD, that based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies the preliminary plat application of Sussex Square Development per plat survey dated 5/6/89, revised 12/21/89 by Mark S. Gronberg, a licensed engineer and surveyor of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc. Page 2 of 3 ■i •• f. r • AdopwJd by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 12th day of March, 1990. ATTEST:Jer» <3 R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy H. Hallin, city clerk STATE OP MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) ) 5S. Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 3 of 3 t , ! . mi - -u A RBSOLOTION DBN7THG PRBLIHINART APPROVAL OP A SOBDIVISIOH APPLICATIOH AHBNDIMG ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL (RESOLUTION *2725) PILE *1486 NBBRBAS, Nina Wildman of Sussex Square Development (hereinafter "the subdivider") on December 22, 1989 filed a formal subdivision application with the City seeking amendment of an original 17 lot residential plat, granted preliminary approval by the City on October 23, 1989, of property legally described as follows: Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and NHBRBAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statues 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 16, 1990 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and NRERBAS, at their regular meeting held on February 26, 1990 the Orono City Council conceptually denied the subdivision application of Sussex Square Development that would amend the original 17 lot subdivision approved by the City that would add two additional outlets, one outlet created for the purpose of a shared use tennis court and the second outlot was to provide additional area for septic expansion to an adjacent rural residential property not included within this subdivision. The Lullowing findings of fact were noted by th< Council: 1. The property is located within the RR-lB Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring ? minimum of 2.0 acres of contiguous dry bulldable land each newly created lot. The original subdivision application (Pile #1411) proposed 17 lots that satisfied all standards of the RR-IB zoning district. 2. Per Section 11.03, Definr.tion 26 - 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. The use of the outlo;: will thereafter be restricted by the appropriate restrictive covenant or open space easement." Page 1 of 3 3. Per Section 11.03, Definition 26, the use of an outlot must be approved by the City and found to be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 4. The proposed amendment of the original plat has been scheduled too late in the planning process and should have been considered at the time of the original review of the 1/ lot subdivision. 5. Each lot has been designed so as to provide adequate area for Individual tennis courts. 6. The creation of the outlot for the shared tennis court use would not reduce the number of courts on other resid0ntlal lots within ths plat as the subdivider does not propose restrictive covenants to prevent construction of individual courts. 7. An interior location -or the proposed outlot would have less Impact on the existing residential properties that border the property. 8. council finds that there is a greater Impact created from a community owned/shared tennis court than an individually owned tennis court. 9. The subdivider has been given the opportunity to amend the plat to relocate the outlot for a shared tennis court to a more interior location but has refused. 10. The proposed amended subdivision application been found to be in conflict with the intent of the subdivision regulations regarding creation of outlots for special uses within a rural residential neighborhood. MOW, THBRBFORB BB IT RBSOLVBD, that based upon One or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Crono hereby denies the preliminary plat application Square Development per plat survey dated 5/6/89, revised 12/21/89 by Mark S. Gronberg, a licensed engineer and surveyor of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc. Page 2 of 3 i Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono# Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 12th day of Marchf 1990. James P. Grabek,Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) 88. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of March, 1930, 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 3 of 3 James pr-GraEiTTM^o' OTA ) Z’Ji-: "ssr:; vSi:-« 1■'•=■- •• ”“ Notary Fuoii- commission Kxpl*-'^^ page 3 of 3 Tom Barrett has indicated to me that the applicant is his brother-in-law, so he would need to exclude himself from any discussion on the matter. To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson a Proa: Date: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator February 13, 1990 COUNCH.a:im Subject: #1488 John E. Rogers, 755 Tonkawa Road Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing MAR 121990 Pertinent Ordinance -cmroFomiio Section 10.24, Subdivision 3 (A) - Conditional use permit required for guest nOuse use. Applicant plans to renovate existing garage to recreational/residential unit. Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) - Lot requirements - secondary detached residential unit must meet standards of LR-IB zoning district. Zoning District - LR-IB Required Area » 1 acre or 43,560 s.f. Existing ■ 2.3 acres or 101,100 s.f. Required Lot Width - 140' Proposed » 220' Required Separation Between Residence Structures if Divided: Required * 20' (10' side setback) Required * 100' (50' for rear/front setback) Existing « 144' • Required Setback for Principal Structure from Street Lot Line * 35' Existing » 192'+ List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Application Property Owners List Plat Map Planning Commission Minutes 2/21/89 Floor Plan Cross Section of Structure Survey/Site Plan Zoning File #1488 February 13, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Review of Application - During the review of Application #1382, the applicant sought structure within the 0-75' setback area. ylBliBJjW:4»*^ei!^ubmitted with that review (Exhibit G) shows the garage structure designated for future recreational use. In reviewing the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 2l, 1989 (Exhibit D), staff questioned the applicant on use of the detached garage structure and the iappTlcant advised members of the proposed future recreational use. The floor plan submitted for the application shows plans for plumbing (bathroom) and heating. If the detached structure was not provided with heating or plumbing, the structure would not have required a conditional use permit. The structure could function as an independent residential unit. The only thing lacking is a kitchen area. If applicant receives approval of a conditional use permit, applicant may install a kitchen area within the facility. There is no change in hardcover proposed on the property. Hardcover within 75-250’ setback area remains at 18.4%. The ordinance does not distinguish betwen the conversion of an accessory, detached, support use structure as proposed from the full scale guest/caretaker house (i.e. Winton, Nolan). As a result, the applicant will be required to pay a separate sewer unit ($6,542.16) and SAC charg^ ^^6^0.00). The structure must also be served by an independent^inland cannot be served by the existing line that serves the principal residence. Although one would argue that this structure would never become a future principal structure if subdivided, in review of the survey/site plan submitted with the application the property contains adequate area and could be subdivided to meet regular lot requirements and all structures meet required setbacks. Options of Action - 1. Denial. If denied, members should review the necessary findings within Section 10.09, Subdivision 6 (A) 1-3. 2. Approval based on the following findings: A) The subject property meets all lot standards for a residential subdivision of 2 lots. B) The structure is proposed as a recreational area for the use of the occupants of the principal building and their guests. This approval is based on the condition that the structure shall never be used for rental purposes. » t Zoning Pile #1488 March 7, 1990 Page 3 Additional Conents and Planning Conission Recomendation - Since the Planning Commission's review of the application, Mr. Rogers has contacted staff to aovise of his confussion concerning the Planning Commission's complete action. The confussion appears to cencer upon the Planning Commission's specific directives in their motion regarding payment of SAC and sewer assessments for the guest house unit. Staff's memo briefly touched upon the fact that our ordinances do not distinguish between an obvious "accessory residential unit" as proposed by applicant, and a totally independent guest house unit as in the Winton proposal. The Zoning Code defines a guest house as an Independent, residential unit, sewer assessment and SAC fee pay ments are required. Staff has received no additional written comments from the applicant on this matter prior to your meeting. The applicant may wish to discuss this matter with Council at your meeting. The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the conditional use permit for a guest house use at the property. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission recommendation for your review and action. A RBSOLOTION GRANTING A CONDTIONAL OSB PBRHIT PBR MONICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 3 (A) PILE #1488 WHEREAS, John E. Rogers (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 755 Tonkawa Road located within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit to permit a guest house on the above referenced property per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 3 (A). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1488. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 1 acre in area. The property consists of 2.3 acres. 3. On February 20, 1990, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application as proposed and recommended approval based on the following findings: A) The subject property meets all lot standards for a residential subdivision of two lots. B) The structure is proposed as a recreational area for the use of the occupants of the principal building and their guests and is not proposed for rental purposes. Such use is in conformance with the standards of the Orono Zoning Code. C) The application Involves no increase in hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. Page 1 of 4 A RBSOLOTKMI GRANTINCSECTION ZONING CODEION 10.24, SOBDIVISION 3 (»)MLE «148S »ppllca„f)edasfolW: <»«elnafter 'CltyT aXibit A (hereinafter -property-), andondltfonfi ose Vltmlt"^/*® “PPlled to the city of oSb'd*f5?5!^on^'7Alf ‘^ ■>« «“"'Vlpa\ \o*n?nVin??rit™«"°"«. B* »eso.veo hy the city cooncll Of^HIDINGS This application was reviewed a« i 1.U lewed as Zoning Pile #i4aa The propertv i e> i «*V'cVnera"t-?fB--£{n^o/r"ln?r a^/r'e^n ^ahruary 20 tqqa 5v?/ba*sed Proposed®"a"nd^ Commissionthe following findings: ^ recommended ?eslSStL^^^-^,f;-"^ort^“ iWa.^- Btandarde for a for the use^'^oVthe P^®Posed as a recreational standards of the Orono Zoning '^ith tU -Ithln ‘"P«>se In hardcover Page 1 of 4 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicant and t:ne affect of the proposed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the community.5, The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow a guest house on the property will not be be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 3 (A) to permit a guest house on the property located at 755 Tonkawa Road, subject to the following conditions: 1. The guest house structure shall never be used for rental purposes. 2. A SAC payment of $600.00 and eewet unit assessment of $6,542.16 shall be collected at the time of the issuance of a building permit for the conversion of the detached garage to the guest house. 3. Authorities granted by this conditional use permit 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 conditional use permit will expire on that date (March 12, 1990). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 2 of 4 til 5. The undersigned owner has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of March, 1990. ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN )n The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of March, 1990, 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. J Notary Public My Commission Expires Page 3 of 4 erslgned owner has read, understood herebythe terms of this resolution and on behalf of is heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to ing of this resolution in the chain of title ofty.ed by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of .in. City Clerk James P.Grabek, Mayor ) ss. ) iregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on >f March, 1990, by James P. Grabek & Dorothy W. & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnepta ration and said instrument was executed on behalf Notary public My Commission Expires Page 3 of 4 STATE OP MINNESOTA )) ss.COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )On this day of 199before me a Notary Public within and for saicJ county, personalTy appearedknown to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.NOTAP1 PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) Or. this day of ________ __________, 199__, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to me t"o be the person (s) described Tn and who execu ted the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 ^ OP HENNEPIN )is wthf/ ______o '"e"‘tB~BrtEr~—^ ®ard^c5uKtir"^',"9 in»truJ^P^^^S;7sr-?i5;yn::^___ PersonallyB as ... and aot.^..... V*^«a In .mJ ----------------■•SSSs|£^-WTAW? pubTh?MINNESOTA ) HENNEPIN )®®* ^'I’APY PuHi^iQ ®^'^®®^®'575irE3f5T553- P®9e 4 Of 4 r:-,-EXHIBIT A ■. . r.i'xLEGAL DESCRIPTIONp«>^o'i i r All that part at'lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision Hunbar 217, Hennsp^ County. Minnesota lying Horthiieaterly of a line drawn parallel with and 150 feeti Southeasterly, . measured at rlidit angles from the Northwesterly line of said Lot I, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County. Minnesota.g? All that part of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision Nvinber 217, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying Northwesterly of a lino parallel with and 200 feet Southeasterly snasured at right angles from the Northwesterly line of said Int i and .'lying Southeasterly of a. line drawn parallel with and 150 feet South** esateriy measured at ri^t angles from the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate In Hennepin County, Win- XldSOtk. P^Tf»el ar ; Tho southeastely 20 feet of Lot 11, Auditor's Subdivision Number 207 of Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to tho recorded pl't thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. _ _ _ _ 44- Tt r4 /?- • ^ CITY OP ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATICTST'* ^ PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ^ I 0UJA- c J(LdA/C> _ ^ i 7^n'}f\i YiA' Property Identification Number (P 'V A'.I.D.) OS'-in-22, occs> ZR[K :,cr:y2-. VM‘}^ I krPlease attach legal description to applica*-ion if not include^‘^"’ on required survey. APPLICANT Name Phone (home) ^7 3 Phone (wor)c)—V.- - - - -ckjcj—1—a- - - - - - - - - - - - - Address \^\QQ OY)City Zip ^S'3^fl __ OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name 3 Phone ~- - - - Address City ■ Zip Date r*roperty Acquired 3/^?(month/year) I (do) <(3o no-j^ also own the adjacent parcels of land* FEES - CONDITIONAL OSE PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee _ _ _ _ $ 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application _ _ _ _ $125.00 Residential accessory Use $150.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) be (TjT7o.OO^G^^t House/Guest Apartments _ _ _ $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 Commercial/Industrial ^je $200.00 Land Alteration _ _ Grading and filling - designated wetxand or floodplain _ _ Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or- more _ _ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule OTHER APPLICATIONS _______ $200.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _ _ _ _ $250.00 Vacation _ _ _ _ $175.00 Easement Vacation _ _ _ _ $ 50.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _ _ _^ $250.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _ _ _ _ $100.00 Appeals _ _ Other - see fee schedule PRBS r USB OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District Present Use of Property P< Residential OtKer (specify) DBSCRIPTIOH OF REQUEST / . C' ^ ^ ^ Describe request in detoil; Ztc iZBOir\! dpo''^ Vv R ath _ 3 6. . •7. IRBD SUBMITTALS Completed Application Form. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin Courn.y Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 34«»-3271). Plat ’“ap. certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor). Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for reouirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARB REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING CCx>y dl" X 17* OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. mm ^ mm ^m mm mm mm mm mm mm mmm mm ^m ^m mm mm mm mm ^m ^m ^m ^ ^ mm ^m ^m ^m ^ ^ mm ^m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ^m ^m ^m ^m ^ ^m Mi ^m ^m ^m mm ^m mm mm ^m mm mm ^m ^m ^m ^m eM ^m ^m ^m ^m mm mm mm ^m^m m» ^m ^m ^m ^m mm mm mm mm ^m ^m APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zonim 'ministrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not cover ’ ''•/ or lal fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of 5pl^ ^tion, and certifies that the information supplied is true and c to th^e-best of his/t sr Jcnowledge. Applicant's si9..ature Date OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agr^vts to this apolication and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by Ci’-y staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Applicant must have all submittals into '*e City offices 25 days before th*. Planning Commission Meeting. Planning C - 'ssion Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants ^t be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commisr' nnd Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, , ase make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. lOPERTY.ng Districtof Property JX Residentialr (specify)RLSpplication Form. within 350' (you can obtain&VeYn.p^" c;u..^^Vep^^?r„rof^^^nce .-/o3 Oovern^.nt-3271).Lc's^rVey (e"x?ftin idum lersons you REQOIBBD to supply 3 0 ®J-{**5SnraS*SOBMITTBD - Please ™(i”x 17- orswo^ and Property ?'^®Jlnlete i^^t1\e*above information hasDur application is not complete ir tne aw 7::;;;i;;rD;;;r;;;;;r;h;rL;;ru;rAppiication is complete. rlcal Staff t_______________^______________.'----------------------------* NATURB e hereby agrees to additi^onal fees (staff ( Zonin> 'ministrator, “Jf®®®./.-^unusual expenses incurred ■ ITrt\%\e%”\^^”T?nfor.\tion .upplled ‘ T ,___^ Vnnwledaeato .ature best of his/h'^r knowledge,o the-best or CivTfe Date m fmi CERTIFICATE OP HAILINGSTATE OP MINNESOTA ))COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) SS.)CITY OP ORONO )I, Jamie Bosma, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of #1488, was mailed to the attached list of property owners .In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 31st day of January, 1990. few ■<-4> MISOTBS of the PLAHNIIIG COMMISSIOR MEBTIRG FBBROART 21, 1989 / ZOHIRG FILE «1381-RBODB CORTIR1 be, with the exception of the foundation. She recommended that this application be reviewed with similar considerations as the Johnson application off North Arm Drive, in that approval be conditioned upon the existing foundation being used. The general concensus of the Planning Commission was that they were in favor of the proposed house not extending as close to the lakeshore as the existing house. They were also in favor of the reduction in hardcover in the 0-75' setback area from 15.8% to 13.3%. The new structure would be right on the average lakeshore setback line, and will have an attached garage. The detached garage will be removed. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, tc recommend approval of this application granting the lakeshore setback variance required for new construction on the existing foundation. The setback shall be allowed at 59* to accomodate the 2' upper story deck extending into the lakeshore protected area; the main part of the house shall be at 61*. In addition, approval is recommended for the hardcover variance of 13.3%, or 812 s.f., within the 0-75* setback area, with no additional hardcover allowed in that area. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays*0, Motion passed. , «1382 JOHN ROGERS / 755 TORKAHA ROAD ' VARIARCBS PUBLIC,HBARIRG 8:47 P.M. - 9:00 P.M. ^"The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were not present for this matter, however, Mr. Mark Lumry of Arteka Corporation, was present on their behalf. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that there had been a revision to this proposal. There will be no increase in hardcover in the 0-75' zone due to the removal of an existing storage shed. Mr. Lumry also explained that there would not be any additional terrace area as originally proposed. Chairman Kelley clarified that this application now involved only the conversion of hardcover to structural hardcover and an average lakeshore setback variance. Gaffron agreed. Planning Commissioner Brown asked for clarification as to the average lakeshore setback. Gaffron explained that the house to the south, approximately 200 ’ away would not be affected, to the north, there were only camp buildings. Mr. Lumry mentioned the fact that the existing guest house and main residence were in front of the addition. There is an existing brick retaining wall which would minimize the visual impact of the addition from the lake. )P THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBROART 21, 1989CLE #1381-RHODE CONTINl----the exception of the foundation. She recommended that lication be reviewed with similar considerations as the application off North Arm Drive, in that approval be led upon the existing foundation being used.general concensus of the Planning Commission was that e in favor of the proposed house not extending as close13«3%. The new structure would be right on the average :e setback linep and will have an attached garage. The garage will be removed..ras moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by r Commissioner Cohen, tc recommend approval of ion granting the lakeshore setback variance required for truction on the existing foundation. The setback shall .wed at 59 ’ to accomodate the 2' upper story deck 3 into the lakeshore protected area; the main P*rt of tne all be at 61'. In addition, approval is recommended for cover variance of 13.3%, or 8i2 s.f., within the area, with no additional hardcover allowed in that area. IVyes-5, Nays»0, Motion passed. BH ROGERS ANA ROAD S baring 8:47 P.M. - 9:00 P.M. , , • j^ffidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were ed. applicants were not present for this matter, however, k Lurary of Arteka Corporation, was present on their listant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron the Planning Commission that there had been a revisi proposal. There will be no increase in hardcover in the ne due to the removal of an existing storage shed. Mr Lso explained that there would not be any additional area as originally proposed. irman Kelley clarified that this application now involved .inversion of hardcover to structural hardcover and an lakeshore setback variance. Gaffron agreed. inning Commissioner Brown asked for rage lakeshore setback. Gaff/o" h! o the south, approximately 200 i, to the north, there were only camp buildings. Mr. intioned the fact that the existing guest house and main *e were in front of the addition. There is an existing Staining wall which would minimize the visual impact of tion from tne lake. MIHOTES of the PUUmiNG COMMISSION MEETING FEBROART 21, 1989ZONING FILE «1382*ROGERS CONTINUEDZoning Administrator Mabusth inquired about the proposed use of an existing garage. Mr. Lumry informed her that the Rogers were planning to convert the garage into a recreational area. Mr. Lumry also noted that at some time the Fogers may wish to rebuild and slightly relocate the existing stairway leading to the lake.It was moved 'by Planning Commissioner Brown, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of the average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance in the 0-75* zone. Moos suggested removal of the storage shed so that there will be no net increase in hardcover. Brown incorporated that condition into his motion, Hanson seconded. Gaffron mentioned the fact that the City Engineer was requesting a drainage plan. Mr. Lumry said that it was the Rogers intention to have that information. Brown also included that condition in his motion; Hanson seconded. Motion, Ayes»3, Kelley and Cohen Nay, because they would prefer hardcover in the 0-75 setback area open or removed, as opposed to converted into structural hardcover. Cohen expressed his concern over the potential of being asked bit by bit for more and more hardcover in the future. COHFIRMATIOM BT PLANNING COMMISSION OP FO.RMAT/PROCBDORAL MODIFICATION BY REVIEWING STAFF The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to continue with the change in memo format whereby staff would refrain from the use of recommendations when not appropriate. The Planning Commission would monitor the new procedure for the next few months. PIANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF JANUARY 17, 1989 MINUTES It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to approve the Minutes of the January 17, 1989 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays«0, Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE It was agreed that Planning Commissioner, Sarah Moos, would represent the Planning Commission at the March 13, 1989 City Council Meeting. The February 21, 1989, Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. ;v ■m.]tf/N|t)E VEMT5rc"4f Pbtf V IMSUL ik: pLvwoOD^OMNV MTIMUOUS 1IMf^SME£ FROCK WftUJE* RNb CfJLING tV t«» L l>4 RE EIT SOFriT KIML PROVIDE VEMr EIT £^4 lE’OC i^CTION ^ .*• X' ---------V \ I M ^ \ li || •^1 19100 Minnetonka Blvd. Mayzata, MN 55391 March 8, 1990Ma. JeaniM Mabuath City of Orono 1335 S. Brown Road Orono, MSRe:0J4S8John E. Royers 755 Tonkaf’ood Road Conditional Use Pennit Dear Ms. Mahusth: Me do not think that a C:>nditional Use Permit for a separate guest house is in order in this situation. This separate quarters is now a garage. Me need, for space considerations, this structure to be used as a recreational facility with cots for our own faxaily. In order to service a bath, we would propose tying into the exists ing residence's sewer line, which the staff has indicated would be an acceptahie aiternative. f/e wouid agree to taJke whatever legal steps would be necessary to assure the city that this structure would not be rented out, that no kitchen facilities would be installed in this structure and that only our own family would make use of this structure. Sven if the City deems it appropriate to require a Conditional Use Permit, we do not believe that we should be required to pay a separate sewer charge if we use the current sewer connection. Clearly this structure couid not be used as a separate dwelling and, secondly, sewer char -s have already beBn assessed to this residence. Thank you for your consideration Sincerely John E. and Lois A. Rogers r r >i-i X9100lurch 8, 189lUbusthonoi0ifn RoadS. RogersrorJMHwd Roaditlonal use Pemu«- jila^usth:'*=^- .. for a separate guest house ,. ehl» sltMtion. cOT.lJ«r.tions, - r» -- - “ b's sewer line, wnio« Iternative. neceasary to assure «3uld be structure. i maJce use of this sc „dltional t7se Permit, ,i/T this resihshcs. your consideration. rely r. md toi« *• To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator BernhardsonProm:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building &ZoningDate:March 7, 1990Subject:♦1490 K-P Properties, Inc. - Preliminary Subdivision Class 340/350IIPertinentOrdinances -COUNCIL MEETINGMAR 121990LnOinOFrOltSection 11.03, Definition 66, Subdivision B - Class II Subdivision required for the proposed lot line rearrangement because of .leed to designate wetlands as drainage easements and the approval of lot width variances (please review exhibit B, Council previously approved lot width variances for North Arm Estates Second Addition when platted in 1976)Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) - Lot width variance required for Lot 2. Existing ■ 176.13’ Proposed in Original Plan • 76.13' Variance ■ 123.87’ or 61.93% Proposed in Amended Plan * 126.13' (submitted since PC review) Variance ■ 73.87' or 36.9% List Of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit B - Exhibit P - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Exhibit K - Exhibit L - Exhibit M - Application Addendums P»'operty Owners List F at Map Council Minutes of 7/26/76 Hap Locating Travelled Road Within Pight-of-Way of North Arm Lane Dedication Language for North Arm Estates Plat North Arm Estates Plat Staff Sketch Conceptual Transportation Plan for Area Planning Commission Action Notice 1/16/90 Morse Letter 1/18/90 Original Preliminary Plat Additional Exhibits Since Planning Commission Review - Exhibit N - Letter of 3/2/90 from K-P Properties Inc. Exhibit 0 - Amended Plan Exhibit P - Staff Sketch zoning Pile #1490 March 1, 1990 Of-4 V y. levlaw of Lot Lino Koarrangoaont - The lot line rearrangement is proposed to solve the septic limitations of Lot 1, the most northern of the lots. In previous discussions with an on-slte septic evaluator, it would appear that Lot 1 would be limited to a 2-bedroom residence. The septic limitations result from the dredging and filling project that took place within the lower eastern portions of the property preventing future septic use. Septic systems cannot be installed within disturbed or filled areas. The severe sloping portions of the property to the west side prevent the installation of mounds. The results of percolation tests call for mound systems. The only additional area suitable for mound septic systems are located within Lot ? Kevlew of Application - At Planning Commission’s January meeting the applicant advised that through their review of the plats of the properties created in North Arm Estates that the 33* of right-of-way had been dedicated from the North Arm Estates properties. Since that meeting and the filing of the formal subdivision application, staff has asked the City Attorney’s office to review old plat records to determine from which properties the original 33' of of North Arm Lane was taken. The City Attorney's office has advised that sometime prior to the creation of the lots within North Arm Estates, there was a roadway of 66’ in width previously known as County Poad 43 or Townline road. At the time of the Installation of North Arm Drive as presently configured, the portion of the old County Poad was obviously vacated to underlying fee owners. The property in that day was originally all one parcel and under single ownership. At the time the single owner started to divide off the property such as North Arm Estates, they created the 33 of acc6S8 corridor to th8 nowly inscall^d North Ann Drive* The City has maintained the road for over 21 years and per state statutes the road is now * puolic roadway. There is no record of when the roadway was named North Arm Lane. At the time of the North Arm Estates ^ ^^subdivision (the property to the immediate south), the City asicea for x7' of right-of-way. There is nothing in the records that would reveal staff was aware of the history of the previous County Road nor of the fact that the roadway is currently owned by the property owner to the north (refer to Exhibit P). (The City maintains the roadway, but taxes are paid by orlvate property owner.) Zoning File #1490 March 1, 1990 Page 3 of 4 Staff has enclosed a section of the conceptual study recently completed by Gaffron for the City Council. North Arm Lane has been delineated as a future collector toad providing access to Bayslde Road, North shore Drive ind North Arm Drive. The Planning Commission unanimously denied the origins? lot line rearrangement stating that the lot width variance sought was too excessive. Although not noted in the denial, it was clear that the Planning Commission was responding to the City's needs to acquire additional right-of-way for the public road. It would be consistent with previous actions for roadways serving more than three properties. North Arm Lane currently serves four residences and, with the development of the subject property a total of six. In regard to applicant's letter (Exhibit N), it should be noted that at the time of the sketch plan review the Planning Commission was advised that the 33' of right-of-way was taken from the properties within the North Arir Estates plats. Since that sketch plan review, this was confirmed as incorrect. Staff has already clarified the history of the 33' of right-of-way known as North Arm Lane. The applicant has submitted a revised plan showing a reduction in the lot width variance sought (review factual findings on first page) and providing 8 1/2* of additional right- of-way for North Arm Lane. Staff has not received confirmation from the on-site evaluator that a mound system can be installed within the rearranged portion of the property along the west border. It it: my understanding that the on-site evaluator will confer with Gaffron regarding placement and design of the alternate mound system. Note a septic site is now shown further east on more gentle slopes within Lot 1. Staff has discussed the revised proposal with the City Engineer. The amended proposal would be the City's last chance to obtain additional right-of-way from this property. The applicant has already advised that he would he forced to withdraw the subdivision application if 17' of right-of-way is required. 17' of right-of-way would negate all septic site n the west yard area of proposed Lot 1. 0'6" of right-of-we will allow adequate area for one tound site and the minimal 10* setback from the road. Staff recommends that Counc iprove the amended proposal subject to applicant's on-site luator submitting septic designs for both principal and alternate septic sites on Lot 1. Zoning File #1490 March 1, 1990 Page 4 of 4 Council Action - i li^ CITY or ORONO - SOBDIVISION APPLiCATJON PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address lan and iso North Am ’ ;^np ./1 i •i 4-0009 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 06-11 7-?:^-?4-nQin Please check one - Property abstract or torrens # Attach legal description to application --------------------—■““T'-----------------------------------------------*--------------------—~ \PPLZCANT CITY sr om ■ffit/iXS^SFFtes Name K-P Properties. Inc« Phone {home) a7i-0601 Phone (work) 4 71 Addresst 3048 North *^hnrp Drive City: wavzata. MN. 2ipjr^i/ OWHER (if different than applicant) Katherine P. Axel Name Oames S Evelyn Adams Phone (hon,el 5il:170^ome 'i^U. Address; Phone (work' 4 21-0647 home Hopkins. MN. " 55343 (attach list 1020 Seltel Court 0 32C ^ ^ . 10610 g. Rlv iClty: rnnn 6641J1 if 1more than one) BUSTING LAND OSE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size .20 9.52 ..v*res Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcel Present Use (check)Residential; no. of rts Other (specify) varxnr rA^irtontial Present Zoning District LRi A PROPOSAL Division for Tar Purposes X__ Lot Lint Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) _ _ _ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites:^ i Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density: Minimum Lot Size 0.2 :_____Units per J___ Acres 1963^___ Sq Peet Dry Buildable Land Proposed Use: (check)Residential Other (specify) NINIMON MATERIAL RECESSARY FOR COMPLETE PRE1.IMINARY APPLICATION1. Completed Application Form \2. Preliminary Plat information on Certificate of Survey. \3. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you must obtain \this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center348-3271).4. Stamped, legal sized envelopes (#10) pre-addressed to each of thenames on the above list with no return address (use address labelsobtained 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 iscomplete.Zoning Offitial's Signature_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1. Payment of fees (par)c 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 FEES Slcetch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Preliminary Review (Class I S 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 additional fees established by ordinance. Applicant's Signature K-P Properties. Inc. Owner's Signature By: Date Oan ?5. 1 QQf) president Date Jan. 25. iQqf) Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Plemning 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 ma)ce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building £ Zoning Office of this c^'ange prior to the meeting. [NARY APPLICATION \:e of Survey. \.within 350' (you must obtain \ of Finance A-603 Govt Centerre-addressed to each of the iddress (use address labelsle attach a separate list of Ls application.Lminary Plat Application isDatewer and water assessments), es of formal plat.lat Application is complete. Date sion) $150.00 250.00 n-residential) 300.00 + 20.00/Lot 150.00* 1 information required or ' Engineer, City Attorney, irocess this application and lished by ordinance. Date jan 25- lQQn jent Date Jan. 25. 1QQ0 ' offices 25 days before the >n Meetings are held on the i present at all scheduled >uncil. If an applicant is ike arrangements to have an (rise the Building C Zoning K-P Properties, Inc,REAL ESTATEDEVELOPMENT • MANAGE.MENT3048 North Shore Drive • Wayzaia, Minnesota 55391 • 612-471-0508i1 0January 25, 1990Jean A. MabusthBuilding & Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66Crystal Bay, MN. 55323Dear Ms. Mabusth:Enclosed is the application for Class I subdivision of the property at 340 and 350 North Arm Lane in Orono. Also enclosed is the application fee in the amount of $ 250. Attached with this application is the property list of owners within 350 feet of the subject property and the prelimi nary plat drawings. This subdivision application is being submitted based on the indication by the Orono Planning Commission on January 16 that since 33 feet of private road easement had been reserved from the east side previously that any future 17 feet of roaJ ease ment would not be required from the property east of the present road. A septic engineering study previously submitted shows the need for a variance for mound septic system setback to 10 feet from the existing west boundary and slopes up to 8%. Please submit this application for consideration at the February 20, 1990 planning commmission meeting. Sincerely: 1 Donald R. Peterson, president K-P Properties, Inc. RUN RATI Oi/24/fO MEHIEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATIOH SYSTEH PROPERTY OK4ERS LIST REPORT m, P145W01 PAGE Z^ lATCIi 002PROr AOOR ONNiR NMC TAXPAYER NMC/AORR Sa 04-117*25 12 0005 04555 SAYSXOE RO VCl CAPITAL INC vex CAPITAL INC PO BON 575 LONB LAKE NN 55554 58 04-117-25 23 000100058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JEANT€ T ARItSTROriG JEAN T ARI1STR0NG 255 NORTH ARH LANE NOUNO m 55344 58 06-117-25 23 000204620 fTDRTH ARH OR H 0 A A H H NINTER DON A HINTER 4620 NO ARH OR NEST HOUND m 55564PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 58 04*117*25 25 000504440 NORTH ARM DR H DAL IVERSON DANIEL A LINDA IVERSON 4440 NORTH ARM OR MOUND m 55564 58 04-117-25 24 000100215 IR)RTH ARH LA JEAftC T ARMSTRONG JEAN T ARMSTRONG 255 NORTH ARH LANE HOUND MM 55564 58 06-117*25 24 000200215 tlORTH ARM LA JEANNE T ARMSTRONG JEAN T ARMSTRONG 255 NORTH ARM LANE HOUND K4 55564 PROP AODR CMffR NAME TAXPAYER NAt«/AOCNI 58 04-117-25 24 0005 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED R N ARMSTROr« ETAL JEAN T ARMSTRONG 255 NORTH ARM LANE MOUND MN 55544 58 04-117-23 24 0006 04590 NORTH ARM OR H D C 0LSa4 A V S OLSON DONALD C OLSON 4590 NORTH ARM DR M MOUriO »tJ 55364 38 06*117*25 24 0006 00570 NORTH ARH LA RAH SMITH ROSCOE S A MAP**TET C SMITH 570 NORTH ARM Lmtic M0UT4D HN 55364 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 58 04*117*25 24 0009 00540 NORTH ARM LA KATHERINE P AXEL KATHERINE P AXEL 4225 I47TH PL N E D102N BELLEVUE NA 98007 30 06-117-23 24 0010 00550 rX)RTH ARH LA J A E ADAMS K*P PROPERTIES INC 5048 NORTH SHORE DR NAYZATA hWi 55591 38 06-117-25 24 0011 00566 NORTH ARM LA MAM LARSON rURK JAM LARS0I4 566 f^ORTH ARM LA HOUNO (94 55564 i PROP AOOR OmER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/A4DR 58 04-117*25 24 0012 00540 NORTH ARH LA R 0 BACKERUD AOS BACKERUD RODNEY 0 A OlANE S BACKERUD 540 ARM LN N MOUND MN 55544 '"0 TOTAL BATCH 002 00015 • •• •• EMItPIM C0W4TY PROPERTY INFOWttTIWI SYSTEM PROPERTY CRtlERS LIST58 06-117-Z3 2J OOOT00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JEAMJE T ARHSTROrie JEAN T ARHSTR0N6 255 NORTH ARM lAfK HOtMO m 5556458 06-117-25 24 000100215 NORTH ARM LA JEAIME T ARMSTR0N6 JEAN T ARMSTRONG 255 NORTH ARM LANE hound MH 5556458 06-117-25 24 0006 04590 NORTH ARM OR N 0 C OLSON tvs OLSON OONALO C OLSON 4590 NORTH ARM OR N MOUJD >tl 55564 58 06-117-25 24 0010 00550 NORTH ARM LA J t E ADMIS K-P PROPERTIES INC 5046 NORTH SHORE OR NAVZATA m 55591 REPORT NO. P1455401 PAGE 258 06-117-25 25 000204620 NORTH ARM OR H 0 A A M H HINTER OON A MINTER 4620 NO ARM DR NEST HOUJO m 5556458 06-117-25 24 000200215 t«)RTH ARM LA JEANNE T ARMSTRaU jean T ARMSTRONG 255 NORTH ARM LANE hound MN 5556458 06-117-25 24 0006 00570 NORTH ARM U RAH SMITHROSCOE S A HAf*TET C SMITH 570 NORTH ARM L«nE HOUJO MN 55564 58 06-117-25 24 0011 00566 NORTH ARM LA hah LARSON lURK JAM LARSON 566 fJORTH ARM LA HOUJO MN 55564 i % ■S-P TESTING, INC.951 KATYDID LANE ST. MICHAEL MN 5S376 497-3566Steven 3. Schirmers 12March 9, 1990To the City of OronoRe: Lot 1# Block 1,North Arm Est. 2nd Add. Oronof Henn. Co,, MN for Don Peterson TOTAL BATCH 002 OOOIS This letter is in reguard to C'Ti-Site Sewage treatment for this property. The proposal is to locate a Pressurized Mound System approx. 130* east of North Arm Ln. with the system on the slope north & south. A site evaluation was completed the summer of 1988 ( a system was staked out) . The system would be located on a 6% slope with the most southernly corner being on an 8% slope. Soil borings indicated mottled soil between 18" to 30" below the ground surface. Pinal testing will need to be completed in the spring to approve this site. The secondary site is located in the southwest cor*. : of the property from testing completed on November 22, 1989. At this time it appears both site will work for a Pressurized Mound System. Steven B. Schirmers * *1 SBS/ds Soil amf Pereotation T*»t§ Septic Syttem Deaign ^.!l s-p TESTINOyINCSteven B. Schirmers March 9» 19903f orono Block 1»rm Est. 2nd Add.Henn. Co.» nn I Peterson ,lte sewage treatment for this ptop.rty Is In teguatd to On- System appro*- 13» I 1, to locate a north s south, th Arm Ln. «lt»> isaa ( a system was .luatlon was completed the sum^m^er^ ^ . The system wouw be o^ borings Indicated ■rnly corner being on an .urface. Final IX between IS" to 30 be this site. II need to be comp.eted In tn 4. noT : of the property ary site Is located In *»« “““*” this time It appears as completed on system. will wor)c for a sw^TeTsShirmers Soil a««* P»rro*«*|f Soplic SyMttm Dfign .rORONO COUNCZL MBETZNG H2LD JULY 26, 1976Paurua aoved, Butler seconded, that the request of Park Gun Club, 3660 Sixth Avenue North, for a conditional use pensit, be referred to the Planninq CooBission. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0).Pago 3OONDITZOIIAL USB PBRIUT 3660 Sixth AVMUM NortnPaurus iBoved, Butler seconded, that the request of Joseph Whitney, 840 Old Lonq Lake load, for a variance, be referred to the Planning Cnasdssion. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0).VARZANCB840 Old Long Lake BondPaurua aoved, Butler seconded, that the request of Klaus Becksr, 511 North Perndale Road, for a prellninary subdivision, be referred to the Planning Cooniasion. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0),SUBDZVZSZQB511 North femdale RoadPaurus noved, Butler seconded, that the request of Malt Maasengale, 2711 Kelly Avenue, for a lot area and width variance, be referred to the Planning CoAalsoion. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0). VARZANCB2711 Kelly Avenue Paurus noved, Butler seconded, that the request of J. Richards, 3243 Casco Circle, for a lot area and width variance, be referred to the Planning Cooniasion. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (0>. 5«?Scci..u Public Rearing - April 5, 1976 After the public hearing, the Connisslon re< to the Council approval of the subdivision and variance request as subnitted. Council Meeting - April 12, 1976 The Council approved the petition as subsiitted. >nded Henry Muhieh, Building 4 Soning Administrator, PZNAL BUROXVISZOM stated that the property of Thomas Giare, 350 NorUi 390 North An Lane Arm Lane, is located in an LR-IA residential tone with nlninun lot requirenenta of two acres and 200 ft. width. This total parcel consists of 9.6 acres and is 352 ft. wide at the road. I4r. Glare is requesting approval to subdivide this parcel into two lots cf approxiaatsly 176 ft. wide. Doth parcels, however, «fould meet the aininun area. Parcel A consists of 5.4 acres with 0.4 acre of wetlands and the area of Parcel B is 4.1 acre. A public hearing should be scheduled. Planning Comiasion - March 1, 1976 The Planning Comisslon scheduled a pui<lic hearing for April 5, 1976 at 8i00 P.ii. (COttelMMdl 1 8^ HBt*"® ““xr.«r-‘“.r.ph M «“«' ** m ”Syi !»' •k, Ay«* 15) "•» -„w.t th« r«q«**^ . »v.4. »«i« SfSfwnSu ~.4. *« ,lnq jnlnq *!•* PPCOPd*** ^*^**#S*p*l2^**•* -"*v. >•>• srsjsSt- V^w »»«- jlSs^cSoo «*•»• ^tdth. at the road. is 352 tt._____ . “StdJh. ThU SS^rthe road. r. i-ircel t^ver,0.4 •«*• o£ S.4 •fViV4^ “*•parcel X ««•«« P®«el a !• irs.sSy^'’ *- •'»-““’'■• , c-i..i» - n«.i« ss^?! S?? «••“ '•"• ... tM»« " u W.ti"» -.. ..I-W"*- o»cU W”'"* **" OKXIO COOHCn. >SBT1N6 HSLD APRIL 12, 1975Butler aoued. Searlea aeconded, that the request for e aubdlvlalon and variance for Toe Glare, 350 north Are Lane, be approved based on findlnqa of the inability to expand. Motion, Ayes (4) - Ways (0).Henry Huhleh, Buildlnq 4 Boning Administrator, stated that Hr. Roae is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to erect an accessory building (storage shed) on his property, a through lot at I960 LaJceview Terrace (Lot 1,Block 1, Long Lake Country Club Addition),Thia parcel consista of approximately one acre and therefore does not meet the minimum lot requirement of two acrea. tt. Roan also owns the adjacent Lot 2, of thia aubdivision which oonaiata of approximately one acre area. Our wetlands map Indicates about 75% of Lot 2 to be marsh and wetlands. Tn order to prevent any future problems, X vnuld reccseiend approval of this conditional use passdt conditioned on a combination of the two parcels. Planning Cosuiission Meeting - April 5, 1?7S Just as the Coienlsaion began to recoimnend approval with a condition requiring Mr. Ross to eoaB>lne his homestead property with his vacant lot. Hr. Roes objected and that his adjoining property not be a consideration in the petition. The Coitoisslon pointed out that presently his hoeesite was located in a two acre sone and his existing homeslte consisted of one ecru. Coitoinatlon with the adjoining lot would bring his property up to present zoning requirements. The toning Administrator advised Mr. Ross that a building permit could not be issued for the vacant lot because it consisted of about 75% wetlands. He also advised the Ccxeilaoion that a eoebination now would prevent probleee that might result from any new owner purchasing the property as the two parcels ere not canS>ined, we have no control over the sale of each Individual parcel. Athough Mr. Ross persisted in objecting to thia condition, the Cesmission made a reconrtendatlon to the Council that the application be approved subject to the ctwsbination of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Long Lake Country Club Addition, into a single sites . *CONDmONAL OB* PBWOT 1960 Lakeview Terrato^.•>'' S'-; ..1'kV} ■.•31«H 5j» ’X ■'.V-i■ V ’-♦**4"*. ?'Sl|1 |k,Nwu r A_ j mr •* * i§ . I 4 • ;v;>^7 * .j. Hi' ikiT'-'v *»_^' ry-''? t;^’? 'a>w >.'.*>< .*• ur • ^ i"C^-* ■■.. . 'jStJ •■v-»2r*i^* '* • i *' ■ '•* * * *• ___^ ^ _• 1 - • A^*5 5 • ;• »j "t- ♦ U*W OFFICES DAVID B. MORSEA PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONCity of Orono January 18, 1990 Page TwoThe important point to b^ noted is that if, in fact, the City is insistent on the 17 feet. This will then automatically render unworkable the solution Don Peterson presented with respect to the septic tank and, in fact, my client’s property is in reality virtually unsaleable and unbuildable due to the lack of an adequate septic tank site and probably diminishes in value by $40-50,000. This presents a hardship to the property and also to Mrs. Axel personally as this is the one significant asset that she received in a marriage dissolution proceeding approximately 2-3 years ago.From an equitable standpoint, T also think it is perhaps appropriate that the additional 17 feet needed for tlie road way come from the otter side since from a historically perspective, they have contributed nothing and this property has already contributed 33 or approximately 2/3rds of what will ultimately be the 50 foot. I believe the scenario that is outlined in this letter will allow the City ultimately to achieve its goal, i.e., a 50 foot dedicated road, since, at some point in the future, T asstime that the Olson property will be subdivided and also the Armstrong property will eventually be platted and subdivided. If you have any questions with respect to Mrs. Axel's concerns or the solution I have outlined your convenience. in this letter on her behalf, please call me at >ry truly yours, David B. Morse DBM/ami cc: Katherine Axel L- OFFICESDAVID B. MORSEA PBOFESSIONAL ASSOCUCnON urono J. 1990 £ t- fhe City is insistenttant point to be ;;;^^;^;;tomafic«lW’"ender^n^^^^^ feet. This will then septic tank a"**’J",J^ble due to ,„„ ““^,',“'Titt...lly '■"'“'JrtL’dt.lPlshw property is i" site and ™ j -Iso to Mrs. of an ®‘*®‘^“'“'®_gnts^a hardship to the P’"°P®' she received in a ,,000. Tl.l> p»«f sonally as this is cn approximately 2-3 years s aioooW.ion proC.i..» t0« .Ouit.hU .t.ndpoUt, \ '“"•.rrUuf.d no;hU ye the scenario that a 50 foot i be Lded and also tne « '•‘le*^’ . concerns or the have any letter'on hit behalf. pUase call me at on I have outlined in this truly yours. (V David B. Morse LAW OFFICESDAVID B. MORSEA PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 7807 CREEKRIDGE CIRCLE P.O BOX 330MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55440 (612) 944-5722 TELECOPIER (612) 829-2317January 18, 1990 1/aroi ; Katherine Axel City of Orono Attention: Jean Mabiist Planning and Zoning Department P.O. Box 66Crystal Bay, MN 55323RE: Lot 1, Block 1, North Arm Estate Second Addition Dear Jean: T represent Katherine P. Axel, tlie owner of the above described real estate. This item was on the Planning Commission agenda on Tuesday, January 16, 1990 as item i!fl3 for a "sketch • plan review" and was presented by Mr. Don Peterson of K-P Properties, Inc. I was in attendance and heard the discussion. I thought it important for your background information to correspond with you and give you some additional information with respect to the City s request for an additional 17 foot of roadway and the corresponding hardship that this will create with respect to the property as well as Mrs. Axel personally, if the 17 feet is taken: 1. First of all, as was noted hy Don Peterson, the 33 foot strip for the present road did come from the North Arm Estates property. 2. This is a private road way and is owned by Armstrong whom I believe continues lo pay taxes on ft although the City has apparently maintained the road. 3. With respect to the Olson property, I think at such time as a subdivisif)n is requested, obviously as a precondition the City can get the 17 feet it needs for the road from the Olson property as opposed to the North Arm Estates property. 4. At such time as Armstrong property Is developed, I assume as a precondition, the City can extract the present 33 foot strip as a dedicated road as well as its cul-de-sac, etc., that they may need on the Armstrong property. K CITY OP ORORO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING PILE NO.1485 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Notice; TO:K-P Properties Inc. 3048 North Shore Drive Wayzata, HN 55391 COPIES TO: Katherine P. Axel 1020 Seltel Court Hopkins, MN 55343 #324 David Morse 7807 Creek Ridge Circle P.O. Box 330 Minneapolis, MN 55440 James & Evelyn Adams 10530 Mississippi R. Blvd. Coon Rapids, MN 55433 TYPE OP APPLICATION: Sketch Plan Review/Subdivision DATE OP MEETING; 1/16/90 VOTE: No Vote Required Planning Commission provided the following conceptual direction concerning your proposed lot line rearrangement. 1. Planning Commission would consider granting approval of additional width variance for newly aligned Lot 2 of North Arm Estates, 2nd Addition. 2. As the 33' of right-of-way disignated for North Arm Lane came from the properties divided along the east side it would be recommended by the Planning Commission that the additional 17' of right-of-way by taken from the property on the west side of North Arm Lane at the time of a future subdivision. Applicant is encouraged to file a formal subdivision application with the City. The filing deadline for the February 20th, 1990 meeting is January 26, 1990. The filing deadline for the March 19th, 1990 meeting is February 23rd, 1990. Please contact Jeanne Mabusth (473-7357) if you have any questions concerning the above matters. r.- ♦ Hf!Ss4^3 imm \m II NK‘P Properties, Inc, REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT • MANAGEMENT 3048 North Shore Drive • Wayzata. Minnesota 55391 • 612-47I-0508 March 2. 1990 3eanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, t. 55323 Dear Ms. Mabusth: The Orono Planning Commission considered our application for lot rearrangement through subdivision of Lot 1 & 2, Block 1, North Arm Estates Second Addition. At the January 16, 1990 sketch plan review they indicated that they would favor allowing the additional width variance for lot 2 required by our lot rearrangement and that they would recommend no additional right of way would be needed for North Arm Lane. Based on this recommendation we submitted a preliminary plat for their consideration and at the February 20 meeting they voted to deny our preliminary plat and gave the reason that the lot width variance for lot 2 was unacceptable and that it would be inconsistant for the city not to acquire all of the 17 feet of right of way from the east side of North Arm Lane. We understand the desire of the city to obtain additional right of way and will be able to provide 8i feet of right of way if we can be allowed a 10 foot setback on our mound septic systems. No matter what we do the lot width for lot 1 S 2 will continue to need a variance as they always have. We can bring both lots in conformance on the lake side by providing the recommended 200 foot width but can't provide 200 feet for both lots on the roadway because we only own 352 feet. We can revise our plat to provide more road frontage for lot 2 if we can be approved for the needed 10 foot septic system setback. We wish to provide two very desireaole sites for substantial homes on this property and are trying to rearrange the lot lines so that adequate septic treatment can be obtained. We will be able to dedicate 81 feet of additional right of way for North Arm Lane if we can be al lowed a setback of 10 feet for the mound system from the road and a setback of 10 feet r-om the north line of lot 1 for a second septic site. A curtain drain can be provided for this site. . i f I I»■ : f- I If these setbacks can be accepted by the city we can solve the problem associated with lot 1,which is owned by Katherine Axel, while we own lot 2. If this variance is not approved that opportunity to solve her problem will be removed. Please consider our preliminary plat at the March 12, 1990 council meeting. Please call me at 471-0508 if you have questions. A revised plat showing this changed layout will be submitted to you next week when it is completed by the surveyor. Please submit this revised layout along with thn original layout to the council at their March 12 meeting or their consideration. If the road right of way is not required the first layout would be preferred. Sincerely: Donald R. Peterson, president K-P Properties, Inc. Copy: Dave Morse, attorney for Katherine Axel rl- COUNCIL TO<Mayor Grabak and Council Planning Connnission Chaiman Kelley Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson MAR 121930 arroF j : i fr FSOMs Jeanne Mabusth, Building t Zoning Administrator DATBt February 13 r l**vO SOBJs 11489 - P. John Hardin, 1496 Park Drive - Variances Public Bearing List of Exhibits - Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Application Applicant's Addendum Property Owners List Plat Map Survey/Site Plan Elevations Floor Plan PertiiMBt Sections of the Ordinance- 1. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9(c) - Oversized Accessory Structures . ^ ^ ^a. Variance to allowed area for an oversized accessory structure for property within 0-1.99 acres. Total Area Allowed Existing Proposed Variance 44,418 s.f. or 1.01 acres 1,000 s.f. 999 s.f. 1,166 s.f. r i 166 S.f. or 16.6% b. Total accessory s’tfu?tVres''allowed on property within 0-1.99 acres: Allowed Existing Proposed Variance 2,000 s.f. 1.889.6 s.f. 2.055.6 s.f. 55.6 S.f. or 2*7% f 2. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(c) - Review of lot coverage requirement for lot under 1.99 acres: Allowed Existing Proposed 6,662.7 s.f. or 15% 2,724 s.f. or 6.13% 2,890 s.f. or 6.5% No Variance Required L I 3. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Review of Hardcover 250-500* setback area: Allowed « 13,325 s.f. or 30% Existing ■ 5,124 s.f. or 11.5% I1 Zoning File tl489 February 13, 1990 Page 2 of 2 (Applicant proposes structural hardcover of 166 s.f. over existing non-structural hardcover). Review of Application -* The applicant proposes the squaring-off of the existing over sized structure of 999 s.f. with a total area of 1,166 s.f. for a property less than 1.99 acres in area. The oversized accessory structure at 1,166 s.f. will require an area variance. In review of the remaining accessory structures on the property, the applicant would also need approval of a variance to the allowed combined total area of accessory structures on his property. Please review the factual findings noted above. Applicant may be asked if one of the existing accessory structures could be removed or reduced in area in order to reduce the number of variances required for this current proposal. Both accessory structures to the rear or east of the property appear to be in good condition. The shed is of an older vintage, in fact in close review of the survey submitted for this application, it would appear that the shed may have been an older garage and scheduled for removal. As survey shows on most southern accessory structure to the «ust "garage-new position ”. Applicant should be as)ced to respond. Note that the proposal does not require hardcover nor variance to the allowed lot coverage standard for principal and accessory structures. Optioma of Action - 1. Denial: If denied, please refer to the necessary findings in the section of the code. Section 10.08, Subdivision 3(a). 2. Approval: a. As proposed requiring approval of an oversized accessory structure for total area of 1,166 s.f. where only a 1,000 s.f. accessory structure is allowed. A variance to the total area for accessory structures on a lot less than 1.99 acres in area; or b. Approval of the variance for an oversized accessory structure requiring the removal of existing accessory structure (whole or partial ). .1 P : "'4. Zoning Pile #1489 March 7, 1990 Page 3 Additional CoHwnts and Planning CoMisaion Raco—nndatlon - In regard to the earlier question raised by staff concerning the designation of the garage to the east or rear of the property, note the rear garage is entitled 'garage, new position*, .t was staff's concern that in a previous building permit review the existing shed was to be removed and a new garage to be located in the new position. The applicant advised that this was Incorrect, in fact, this was a position for a proposed new garage and had no bearing on the existing shed in the rear yard that is apparently in good structural condition. The Planning Commission asked the applicant to consider either the removal or partial removal of one of the existing accessory structures so as not to exceed the allowed total area for accessory structures. The applicant advised that he would still not gain the additional area needed for his storage needs. Since that meeting, staff has also advised the applicant that a garage could be added to the residence structure. The garage addition would now be considered part of the principal structure and not subject to the total area allowance for accessory structures. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the requested variances to the new accessory structure ordinance finding the variances requested too excessive in light of the fact that this is a recent ordinance amendment. The applicant has asked to present his position to the Council for their consideration. Council Action - To provide staff with conceptual direction so that they may prepare the appropriate resolution for council action at your March 26, 1990 meeting. •i 4 /7 ”'7 u-yCITY OF OROVO - VlUtlAHCB APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) #1 V**1 Qv.,; O s- PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ^rk Property Identification Number (P.I.O.) 07*H7*13 0013 J3Sfl&S IC£mvAttach legal description to application if not included on required survey. APPLICANT Phone (home) Name TeUm fow»ler^ Phone (wor)c) Address: City: flp: STr?4y e * w 01/24/i OHNBR (if different than applicant) Name _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone (home) Phone (worJc) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land PRESENT 08E OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District LRIZ Present Use of Property I sk Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF RBQOBST Estimated Construction Cost $ SdO. Describe request in detail: QJA Ikl t‘^ earner ----- fvr tihh Ft. ft els*C » VARIANCES RBQOIRBD Lot Area Setback Variances ( Lot Width Front _ _ Hardcover Side_ _ _Rear) Other \/e»»amc< ^e ■ c A A ■j application■ion Fee $175.00 ‘%:yioo!ss^"es^(DoSb7 *PP^^=ation) ' 'cation fee):•!V •;;•* -*4 ai«c ■;Qo V ’Ii iiia 001^rlption to application i( „ot l„cl„dad on ^ ^ jjf'm-’hone (woTT^^T^.i 9a^h h-,.. ---- '“■’«>_££L.£i2fc__I i Phone (work) City: ------ Zip:, (month/year) acquired , -“—------- inion --~^°.!r!:..'i«.ff3fcent parcel, of la„a. RTT ---------------- district L A n? ly I - Residential i.. <. C _ _other (specify) Eatlnated Jjj ILl €. ft , Jl / £1^ i-ot Width Front Hardcover - Ai» Side Hear) ££££X . / >-i«.. HARDSHIPDescribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations :TW bat»^ te_ _ _If want 1i»aH ***jy eev< iw <i>i u*mT awHat.tDESCRIPTION OF UNDSOAL PROPERTY CONDITIONSDescribe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _REQUIRED SUBMITTALS1. Completed Application Form2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271).3. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list).4. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to Include hardcover calculations as required.5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed.6. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views. 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. YOU ARB REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OP LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. 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 Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Initialed by Clerical Staff:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to ^h® beslv of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature correct to the besl^ of Date f« 4 OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification Owner's Signature n of thi^^reques^ Date / . t T d 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. ■; .V Vi ‘•4 1*11 -•-** * \JaAi^^§ tA ^ tii %^(J^Ajf^ ^ ^ HfCfo^y*^ (^ /lUAciX^ 'A. kAA 14/C4fvjt%Uu ^ ll C aa 4» Ji \J09y»Jf & J^Mf, AJ. Jit vwtji # IlqI)«4J/cv^ t C m 04. owu /)>^IW«4 94 ^IaLm * T,<Aaa L lA/b^y it /VW* & J^MfJliJl>^ OA * * A^b<JLiJl4juj\mU^ Ujt^A. Jln^ 6k/v tyU«A4 CA^yc^ yJ^»m. iJL^ ^CTAOiy. UJC4. iuJtj^. 4/44AW. 4UVUmV C«WW^4^U/4& 0^ ^uJ2JLh ^ , ^<pbU^ ‘RUN OAH 01/19/W HE^t^EPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0»#«RS LIST REPORT NO. PM^Ol PAGE 1RATCN 001OMNIR NAME TA)0»AVCR NAHR/AINHI 38 07-117-23 <kZ01422 PARK OR 0 J ANORYS I T L 0 J ANORYS A T L 1422 PARK DRIVE MOUND MN 55364 0013PEDERSENPEDERSEN 38 07-117-23 4201442 PARK OR G L SCHULTZ ETAL GEORGE L SCHULTZ 1442 PARK DR M0UI40 MN 55364< i LajLM jLJ.to TM»AVfRNMC/AOWt^ 0VU fuUjl |I«-WU«/> Aj*>JL 4^m *1^*011 V****^4^a y*.^ MmrJlu>MA cv\ • Jjf U^VU-CJ^ ylXirwt PROP AOOR QltCR NANO TAXPAYtR NAHE/AOOR 58 07-117-23 42 001801415 PARK DR RONALD BERTAGr^OLI ETAL RONALD H BERTAGNOLI 1415 PARK DR HOUND MN 5536438 07-117-23 45 000100036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED F J HARDIN III ETAL FRAfACLIN J HARDIN 1496 PARK DR RT 1 M0UT4D MN 55364PROP AOOR CUtCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOORPROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 88 07-117-25 41 007401400 PARK DR TONI P ANOERSEN TONI F Af«)ERSEN 1400 PARK OR HOUND m 5536488 07-117-23 42 0015 01462 PARK OR LORENZ H KUTZ ETAL LORENZ H KUTZ 1462 PARK OR HOUND MN 5536488 07-117-23 42 0020 01435 PARK DR N J KELLEN t L C KELLEN HICHAEL J KELLEN 1485 PARK DRIVE HOUND m 5536488 07-117-23 43 000301530 ORCHARD BEACH PL L A DONNAY L A OOltlAY15304 MINNETONKA INO RO HINNET0F4KA MN 5534538 07-117-23 43 001504210 NORTH SHPPE OR KILLIAN F KALEY NILLIAN F KALEY 4210 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND »tl 55364 PROP AOOR OMNER KANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 58 07-117-23 43 0027 01448 PARK DR STEPHEN J HONELLS STEPHEN J HOHELLS 1448 PARK DR HOUND MN 55364 REPORT NO. PX«35401 PACE 2 NTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS T OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE BEST 10 LtUA-' m ... e —-- o o II-4 Curraht SiJd Sl^sfafton i 4 •*•S'3f_ w t f \---------------:i-*-t27r PrftptfSftd StJ# ^ley'hidti U CurrP 1 Current Fle\/€iti'on J,! ' -------- Piropo^ecl T?GQr ElevQ"^^iigL i .■ **•'Im' -|i."‘k \# '•■mg>;e ■■■'':'b ■ !• . b b ?s' 1^'- •; *“.! • ; w'- - '■' i.'.';-t ifr* K / I i ) ift** pr ir -I vy i av'^1 42'^1 Currant PUt Plan Propoltil Floor PUn TOt FBOMs DATBl SUBJs Mayor Grabak and Council Planning ConuBission Chairman Kalley Planning Commisaion Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne Mabusth, Building t Zoning Administrator February 13» 1990 41489 - P. John Hardin« 1496 Park Drive Public Hearing - Variances List of Bmhibita Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D ~ Exhibit E - Exhibit F ~ Exhibit G - Application Applicant•8 Addendum Property Owners List Plat Map Survey/Site Plan Elevations Floor Plan PArtlfMiit Sections of the Ordinance- 1. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9(c) - Oversized Accessory l‘"v«?ance to .1 lowed .tea tor an oversited accessory strocture for property within 0-1.99 acres. Total Area ■ 44.418 s.f. or 1.01 acres Allowed ■ 1,000 s.f. Existing ■ 999 s.f. Proposed ■ 1,166 s.f. Variance * 166 s.f. or 16.6% b. Total accessory s^tu^fU-rera 1 lowed on property within 0-1.99 acres; Allowed Existing Proposed Variance 2,000 s.f. 1.889.6 s.f. 2.055.6 s.f. 55.6 s.f. or 2.7% 2. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(c) - Review of lot coverage j^equirement for lot under 1.99 acres: Allowed Existing Proposed 6,662.7 s.f. or 15% 2,724 s.f. or 6.13% 2,890 s.f. or 6.5% No Variance Required 3.Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Review of Hardcover 250-500* setback area; Allowed « 13,325 S.f. or 30% Existing • 5,124 s.f. or 11.5% Zoning File #1489 February 13, 1990 Page 2 of 2 (Applicant proposes structural hardcover of 166 s.f. over existing non-s^ructural hardcover). Seview of Application - The applicant proposes the squaring-off of the existing over sized structure of 999 s.f. with a total area of 1,166 s.f. for a property less than 1.99 acres in area. The oversized accessory structure at 1,166 s.f. will require an area variance. In review of the remaining accessory structures on the property, the applicant would also need approval of a variance to the allowed combined total area of accessory structures on his property. Please review the factual findings noted above. Applicant may be as)ced if one of the existing accessory structures could be removed or reduced in area in order to reduce the number of variances required for this current proposal. Both accessory structures to the rear or east of the property appear to be in good condition. The shed is of an older vintage, in fact in close review of the survey submitted for this application, it would appear that the shed may have been an older garage and scheduled for removal. As survey shows on most southern accessory structure to the east "garage-new position*. Applicant should be as)(ed to respond. Note that the proposal does not require hardcover nor variance to the allowed lot coverage standard for principal and accessory structures. Options of Action - 1. Denial: If denied, please refer to the necessary findings in the section of the code. Section 10.08, Subdivision 3(a). 2. Approval: a. As proposed requiring approval of an oversized accessory structure for total area of 1,166 s.f. where only a 1,000 s.f. accessory structure is allowed. A variance to the total area for accessory structures on a lot less than 1.99 acres in area; or b. Approval of the variance for an oversized accessory structure requiring the removal of existing accessory structure (whole or partial). Zoning File #1409 March If 1990 Page 3 Additional Conaenta and Planning coaalaaion Raconnendation garage to be located in the new position. The applicant advised that this was incorrect, in fact, this was a . proposed new garage and had no be-ring on the exiting shed in the rear yard that is apparently in good structural condition. The Planning Commission asked the »PPl either the removal or partial ® accessory structures so as not to exceed the *^^°'**^ uahIH for accessory structures. The applicant advised that he woul still not gain the additional area needed for his storage needs. Since that meeting, staff has «lso advised the applicant that a garage could be added to the residence garage addition would now be considered part of the principal structure and not subject to the total area allowance for accessory structures. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the requested variances to the new accessory finding the variances requested too excessive in light of the fact that this is a recent ordinance amendment. The has asked to present his position to the Council for their consideration. Coancll Action - To provide staff with conceptual direction so that they may prepare the appropriate resolution for Council action at your March 26, 1990 meeting. 7 7 rrCITY OF OROMO - VRRUUKE APFLICATIOH Initial Application Fea $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Pact Fees (Double application N A • •«Q' ■“o fee) PROPERTY LOCATIOH Site Address Rark f MauptJ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 07'tty’Zi Hi 0013. ciTY£ cm. —uR-ICE Attach legal description to application if not included on ® required survey. t- j'* ^f! ------— ““ 7k” T cool aoiilz-Phono (home) I 01/ Name [*. Ta U k Phone (wor)c)—‘ Hi----- Address; IH^k ?at ‘U City; nt§0mtJ______ Zip; aTi* — APPLICAHT OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address;City;Zip; Date Property Acquired (morth/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land PRBSENT use OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District UMZ Present Use of Property i •*» 1^-Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Front ___ Hardcover Side_____ Roar)Setback Variances (____ \/atta»»cS e.llewJ (mr a.r» AUtCftTttl iOther Describe undue hardship or practic^ difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulationstT^t •f Tm- - - It 4ae letelt »a imy Seei A e>i ___________- ■ DBSCRIPTIOa OF OHUSOAL PROPSRTY COMDITIOIiS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - ' '■ RBQUIRBD SUBMITTALS 348-32711. 3. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required, 5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views. , j .. « 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. TOO ARB RBQUIRBD TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMBHTS OR A MORKIMG COPY (ll* X 17* OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMBHTS SUBMITTBD. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. PlMse r«neraber that voor variance app Ication is not_cqglfit*—if—£32— infQgMtion has not been inclqded. Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Initialed by Clerical Staff:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APFLICAHT'S SIGMATURB . . The applicant hereby agrees to provide all requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (stati time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to bes^ of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature ■ /* ---------- OMHBRS SIGMATURB jThe owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of th^^rMuest^ Owner's Signature ^ ■» _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Date / * t _ _ _ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings third Monday of each montn. Applicants must be present at 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 4 Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. • TJ(| 9^ ^ ^ ^ l^U /t*7 Asyt^^^uU^ . • iJ'A IU4 wJ^^ CrJtmu 4 \kAii>*t^!L /\}jl*J^*^*^> ^'St^ 0«A4 \fjLJ. ^ •**£ UJIM*.^ & C3Ka^ «-W VMtMi. tlr H/«^ ^rvAA«/• |L^ w‘J^ llQ l)vJi} %y^ tS^ U«0C ImLm *«jM''4 ^y>*- • 1* J1&A&. wj^y it ^ <y\ • • rAi JibJJ^AA^'y^ UJOA **T' Cgo-u^ujt^LuM-. JJ iiAu^ mm rnn •1/19/90•ATOI iOlTAKFAVCIIMmm/Mumpmm um cwwi mm TMMYll mmut iMMi TAKPAVM pmm Aoot QltCi NM TAMTAYEII NMC/AOOO pmm um TAMPAYEII NAnE/ADDO •IW ADCm ommn NAHi TAX^AYEK NAtC/AOOO M 07-117<2S <il 0074 01400 PARK DR TONI F ANDERSEN TONI F ANDERSEN 1400 PARK DR HOUND IOl S5S44SO 07-117-25 42 0015 01442 PARK DR LORENZ N KUrZ ETAL LORENZ M KUrZ 1442 PARR OR HOUND MN 55544 50 07-117-25 *t2 0020 01455 PARK OR H J KELUN A L C KELLEN HICNAEL J KELLEN 1455 PARR DRIVE HOUND m 55544 50 07-117-25 43 0005 01550 OICHARD REACH PL L A DONNAY L A DOItlAY 15504 HINNETONRA INO RO HINNETONRA HN 55545 50 07-117-25 45 0015 04210 north shore DR HILLIAH F RALEY HXLLIAH F RALEY 4210 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND m 55 .44 50 0/-A* 25 45 0027 01440 PARR DR STEPHEN J HOHELLS STEPHEN J HOHELLS 1446 PARR OR HOUND m 55544 HEFRIEPXN COUNTY PROPERTY IHFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY DEMERS LIST58 07-117-25 42 001501422 PARR OR D J ANORYS 4 T L PEDERSEN 0 J ANORYS ATI PEDERSEN 1422 PARK DRIVE HOUND m 5554456 07-117-23 42 001601415 PARR DR RONALD BERTAGNOLI ETAL RONALD N DERTACNOLI 1415 PARR OR MOUIID fM 55564 56 07-117-23 45 0001 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGtTED F J HARDIN IXZ ETAL FRAf4KLIN J HARDIN 1494 PARR OR RT 1 HOUND H4 55544 54 07-117-25 45 0015 01494 PARR OR FRAMCLIN J HARDIN III FRATTLIN J HAROXN 1494 PARK DR RT \ HCXJMO tN 55564 58 07-117-25 43 0016 04200 NORTH SHORE OR 0 T RYAfI A H J A RYAN DANIEL 1 MARY JO RYAN 4200 NORTH SHORE DRIVE HOIMO MN 55344 REPORT NO. P14S5401 PAGE 1 J56 07-117-25 42 001401442 PARR OR G L SCHULTZ ETAL GEORGE L SCHULTZ 1442 PARR OR HOUNO MN 5554456 07-117-25 42 001901425 PARR OR R T HOHELLS ROBERT T HOHELLS 1425 PARR DR HOUIIO HN 55564 56 07-117-25 45 0002 04198 NORTH SHORE DR J I J HEHP JAMES A t JEANNE H NENR 4196 NORTH SHORE OR HOUNO m 55544 58 07-117'23 43 0014 04240 NORTH SHORE DR SANDRA J SHANSON SANDRA SYWISON 4240 NORTH SHORE DRIVE MOUND MN 55544 38 07-117-25 45 0024 01535 ORCHARD BEACH PL MAICY F DELTON NANCY r DELTON 1535 ORCHARD BEACH PLACE MOUND 55364 (h)• • • • ij *V. % TOTAL BATCH 001 00014 I if : } PrapoS€ti 1 — .. . . ____ HHHi■■■imiHIHBniHiHMI COUNCIL MEETINGMAR 121990CITY OF ORONOsk and Council onunission Chairman Kelley omniasion Members istrator Bernhardsonu.th, BuiWln? t Boning Aanlnlstrgtor 2, 1990t F. Fhod., 1690 Sh»a^^ R0»d Srlincen - RnbU'pplication lat MapProperty Owners List applicant's A<adendum ixistinq Hardcover proposed Hardcover Inventory elevations wnlgnatin, «« Con.t«ction »lthin 0-1S' ?**,*'’'of 2/21/89 Planning i!?;il.n-MoUaed Bedcover and Removals Existing Survey Resolution #2593 t Applicmtl-®® " „-se4«nces of the original pplied lor 1®"®“®’^,;; 5ga9 (Rll® *1381'- nation applied for In submittal. ,.es no ®h*"|®® “"h 13? 1990. Tbe application will expire on Marcn *-»» lowing variances: : ii:”oea: 1th:Required Lakeshore Building Line 100' 82.9' or 82% 80' or 80% 1 T«kPshore Setback Variance '“c"ott:r ‘u%‘tTon^n-d Vn-^nstflcatlon of Structure leshore Protected Area): Required - 75| Principal Structure - -5 Principal Structure = 61 kccessory Structure - 10 Accessory Structure 9 * » <J V . •Memo “Zoning File #1491“Rhode February 12, 1990(Second level deck extends 2* beyond lake front of proposed principal residence, steps at lower level extend 14 beyond frontline of house).Variance: Principal Structure » 14' or 18.6%Accessory Structure ■ 16' or 21%Section 10.22 Subdivision 2 - Hardcover Variance Required within 0-75* Protected Area for New Construction.Review of hardcover within 0-75' setback area:Area » 6,100 s.f.Allowed * 0 s.f.Existing ■ 926 s.f. or 15.8%Proposed *® 812 s.f. or 13.3%*Reduction in hardcover • 114 s.f. or 1.9% Removal of 326 s.f. (Review Exhibits E, P, I and L) ♦New Construction within 0-75' setback area « 177 s.f. of new principal structure and 35 s.f. of upper balcony. Review of hardcover within 75—250' setback area: Area Allowed Existing Proposed Increase of Hardcover 11,600 s.f. 2,900 s.f. 2,290 s.f. 2,883 s.f. 593 s.f. or 25% or 19.7% or 24.85% or 5.1% In light of recent Council reviews dealing with new construction or expansion within the 0-75’ setback area, staff would aek that you refer specifically to Exhibit 1. There will be approximately a total of 812 s.f. of structure within the 0-75' setback area. Of that, 212 s.f., or 3.4% will be new structure (177 s.f. of structure on the lower level and 35 s.f. for upper balcony. Also, there is an overall reduction in hardcover within the 0-75 setback area of 114 s.f. or 1.9%). The Findings and Conditions of the original approval are set forth in Resolution 12593, Exhibit 0. ously to approve the renewal ” findings set forth in the *13ol« The enclosed approval view and action.A RBSOLOTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO HUNICIPAL ZCmiNG CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 2PILE NO. 1491WBBREAS, Jack Rhode (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 1690 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows:Lot 10 and that part of Lot 11 described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 11; thence Southernly along the Westerly line thereof to the Southwest corner of the North 14' of said Lot 11; thence South 87 degrees, 27 minutes East to the shore of Crystal Bay; thence North along said shore to the North line of said Lot 11; thence West along said lot line to the point of beginning, in Shadywood, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 & 2 to permit the construction of a new principal structure using the existing foundation, the proposed new construction would require approval of a lakeshore setback at 61' instead of the required 75 ’ and a hardcover variance within the 0- 75 ’ setback area of P12 s.f. or 13.3% where none is allowed. Minnesota: HOW, TBBREPORB, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This renewal application was reviewed as Zoning File #1491. 2. The property is located in the LF-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a 1/2 acre or 21,780 s.f. The property consists of 17,700 s.f. or .41 acres. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this renewal application on February 20, 1990, and recommended approval of the requested variances based upon the following findings: A) Major upgrading of the property will result in the following changes to existing substandard conditions: Page 1 of 5 riNGX>DB [OHS 1 f> 2the applicant") ia owner of the id within the City of Orono s follows: ! as follows: Beginning at the Southernly along the Westerly f the North 14' of said Lot 11; It to the shore of Crystal Bay; I North line of said Lot 11; the point of beginning^ In (hereinafter "the property"); 3 to the City for variances to ivioions 1 i 2 to permit the sing the existing foundation, ipproval of a lakeshore setback dcover variance within the 0- one is al lowed. >y the City Council of Orono, id as Zoning File #1491. (“1C Single Family Lakeshore a 1/2 acre or 21,780 s.f. The acres. led this renewal application on val of the requested variances ' will result in the following iditions: LakeshoreRequiredExistingExistingProposedProposedVariance:ExistingProposedExisting Proposed setback:- 75*Principal Structure Accessory "tructure Principal Structure Accessory Structure 55’10''ory -* 59’ (second level deckextends 2' beyond lakefront of principal residence)Principal Structure Principal Structure Accessory Structure Accessory Structure 26%18.6%86%21% (second story upper level deck) 2) Hardcover within the 0—75' Setback Area: Allowed » 0 s.f. Existing ■ 926 s.f. or 15.8% Proposed “ 812 s.f. or 13.5% Total Reduction • 2.5% B) The application involves no need for a hardcover variance within the 75-250* setback area as applicant major portions of existing hardcover within the 75-250 setback area. C) The use of the existing foundation will provide less of an impact on the l?keshore property. D) The original strucf're waf. placed on the property prior to current standards for lakeshore development. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports y City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the propo variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply w^Jld IroUrty in this zoning district; that granting the Sot adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor hazard or other danger to neighboring property; aTTeviate a as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to » demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to * substantial property right of the applicant; and would be ^®®J*^^ with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 I COHCLOSIORS, ORDER AHD COHDITIOHS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permit the construction of a new residence structure using the existing foundation subject to the following cond ■ ’■ ions: 1. All hardcover scheduled for removal must be completeo to the final insUction by the Building staff for the new construction. Please refer to Exhibit A of this resolution for hardcover areas designated for removal. 2. Applicant to provide a Highway Department permit for the relocated curb cut to the site. 3. Applicant or applicant's architect shall provide the Building staff with the engineering data or findings that confirm the existing foundation can sustain the proposed 2-story structure at the time of application for a building permit. Applicant is hereby advised that, if for any reason unknown at this time, the existing foundation cannot be used, variance application #1491 shall be scheduled for further consideration before both the Planning Commission and the Council. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, buv 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 (March 12, 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, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be 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, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 5 I 1990.Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of March,ATTEST:[TIOHS;s noted above, the Orono ;ipal Zoning Code Section 'action of a new residence ibject to the following: be completed prior to the for the new construction, tion for hardcover areas It permit for the relocated i]1 provide the Building that confirm the existing structure at the time of it is hereby advised that, existing foundation cannot be scheduled for further ssion and the Council. run with the property not ' and must be exercised by one year of the date of ixplre on that date (March Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk James R. Grabek, MayorProperty OwherTs)STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) SS. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this m- -ET- -TT_ _ _ ___ _ _, » 19_ _ _, by James R. Grabek fiDorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & city Clerk of the cTty of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said Instrument was executed on behalf of thewi ry« Notary Public My Commission Expires ;h any of the terms and a violation of the zoning hority granted herein, and erstood and hereby agrees If of himself, his heirs, 3 the recording of this erty. Page 4 of 5 y the Orono City Council on thi. iith d.y of H.rch,fty Clerk James k, Grabek^ Mayor88.Ih, ln.trun.nt we. .chno.l.<„.a before n. on th.. ^or 6 city Clerk of the cTn>'G^«beJc & ■n end ..id ln.tru..„t*:.%^^.S'ero“n"“bei;.?f"rf*?h‘J Notary Pu My Coimnlsslon Expires' Page 4 of 5 STATE OP MINNESOTA )) S3.COUNTY OP HENNEPIN )On this _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _t 199^_before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personallyappeared _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing Instrument^ and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 5 of 5 :e of MINMESOTA ) ) as. ITY OF HENNEPIN ) :hia __________________ day of _____________________ *re me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally »ared __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ^ m to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the igoing instruments and acknowledged that he (they) executed same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES *E OF MINNESOTA ) )SS. tTY OF HENNEPIN ) :his ________ day of ______________________» 199__» before me a iry Public within and for said County# personally appeared _______________________________________________________ )cnown to to be the person(s) described in and who executed the 39oin9 instrument# and acknowledged that he (they) executed same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 5 of 5 ( A • ' J. »■r ^l.f^LtfvJL-v . r r i K ' ^ J j : •nr ty 4 \ i I - /i I •. ww t a1 I • I • •£xHi'o'> A •;•' ilr : Jii! r ' " I .i*- i; '• q.;' ;!■ i" ;i ‘ ?! I • \ ‘ * : V. 5. ■ • ! •! v» . T 1.1 Vi I i • ‘ ; M * > I q • • ». ; .1 ;; I f )' k• ’ I ^ » i V .I’fi I, I :1. mi f Iff i'. ■''l.'.lJ'll :!■ • J*. J .1 ^ium e 7-y \ " ir < •A : !: r 0- N KA- »• CITY OF OROHO - VRRXAMCB APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ^ ($50.00 per each additional varian Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Pact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address /Cf 90 /• . • s 1. <h Tt» . ft Property Identification Number (T'.I.D.) SS //7-ZJ — 1JS020CQ00 a 01 C& 1Q0,0C cm . 71 100.00RECUPT-mti rou 11167120 cool m 715:4:01/25/h oc/7 Attach legal description to application if not Included on required survey. _ _ applicant Nam. - - - - - - - - - Phone (home) -^7/- 7/^/ Phone (work) SS^-OS^/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ Phone (home) Phone (work) Address: Date Property Acquired /9d7 City:Zip: (month/year) ;; (do) (^0^0^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. PRESENT USB OP PROPERTY Present zoning District ^^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Present U?e of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __Describe request in detail: VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Lot Width Front _ _ Hardcover Side _ _ _ Rear) Other .1. <n50200(M01 CW 100rw0X‘ Jl 1^* 00^c£i/>r-W ,ifm cmd^mam<^, - VMUMttB UPPtlOkTIOHLcation Fee $175.00 r each additional variantKTIOH - - - - - - -- - - - - - _■- --- - - - . 4»c /'7-//7'Z3_^intification Number -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1 description to .ppllcetloo It not Inelodod on _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - -- Phone (home)- - - - --- - - - - -ifferent than applicant) Phone (wor)c) City:Zip: is: property Acquired (month/year) ) ^^o~notJ) also ovm r B OF PROPERTY nt Zoning District tnt Use of Property the adjacent parcels Z/^-/C ^;j^^Identi^3^ Other (specify) 3H OF REQ ribe request in rbqoirbd Lot Area ac)c Variances ( Estimated Construction Cost S •'.V Lot Width Front Hardcover Side Rear) HARDSHIPDescribe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-DESCRIPTION OP UNOSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONSDescribe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code Requirements;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __REQUIRED SUBMITTALS1. Completed Application Form2. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271).3. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list).4. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required.5. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. 6. Sleetches or plans of floor and elevation views. 7. As an addendum to this application, please attach separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (11* X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. T’.e Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please •member that your variance application la not coaplete If the above '^formation has not been includ^. •• w •• •• certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Initialed by Clerical Staff;_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or i.squested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses Incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her Jcnowledge. Applicant's Signature ^Date //^s'/9t OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this request. z/lS/^oOwner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting* Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please ma)ce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building s Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. i.-*% 5 •• U 4JR No.51) *~v Id if* n/oo)r^idd (i« MAPLEGATi r«V ^ \fShi ^ V j... r 4 - ;sd \5<*?i *» :i '• I \s^ f; Qs#- / <* v*" ./ St . t '' rf '• 'V :' ■•) .1 “tf'V ’ ■ • f»C \ f fi0 \ '_\o i^\ V . \\ \ V \V to (»*) (s^'. A**? --------■^\,-^l ■V \ 45,“ ii*X^ZIA. (fo2o) \ V VT 6CBRTIPICATE OP MAILING STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) ss. CITY OP ORONO I, Jamie Bosma, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of #1491, was mailed to the attached list of property owners . In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 31st day of January, 1990. Jamie Qp^ma f k ‘f*- *fj f •li^issa.-''^>$‘54Wf:K MICN MtK":•it<- V^v ■ .-'.v . TAXMYU NMC/AOM W I7>117>t3 SI om •MTS 8MADVWOOD RD RIOIMO O NOMM • HIFC RXCIUm INMUH MTS 8HAOYNOOO ROAD HAV2ATA IM S53S1 ■ -Ov: :'i, •■ .r— ,S:- •/ r- ^-'•, ommM wm TAXPAYER HANE/ABOR 56 17-1I7-E3 El 6615 61476 8HADYHOOD RO T1I0HAS R 9AREIIPA ETAL TNOHAS R SAREMPA 1476 SHAOYItOOO ROAD MAVZATA 161 55361 ■M- : Oltn HAHE TAXPAYER HAHE/ADOR 36 17-117-E3 El 6616 61716 SNAOYUOOO RO HARRY L IIEYER ETAL DALE C PALH 1716 SHAOYmOO RO UAYZATA lil 55391 i : HENNEPIN CCUITY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMNERS LIST REPORT NO* P143S461 PAGE 4 138 17-1I7-2S II S00501717 FA6CRNCSS POINT RO UURCCN E DARLIN6 lAWEEN E DARUII6 1717 FA6EMIESS POINT RD ORONO NN 55371 30 I7-117-E3 tl tOM• M50 9HAOTNOOO RO K N ROEIOFS ETAL K H ROEIOFS M50 SHAOYNOaO HD NAT2ATA t*l 55371 ■ ;)1* 30 17-117-23 21 OOM 01500 SHAOYHOOO RO JOIttI 6 OOIEIIAN ETAL JOilH 6 OOLENAII 1680 siiAonxrao roao NATZATA Itl 55371 38 17-117-23 21 0017 01670 SHAOVNOQO RO JACK F RHODE JACK F RHODE 3155 NORTH SHORE OR MAVZATA NN 55371 1 30 17-117-23 21 0017 01720 SIIAOTNOOO RO N A J KEENE HULIAII H A JANICE N KEENE 1720 SHAOTHOOD RD ORONO »tl 55371 TOTAL BATCH 702 00000 X O'OJ I CERTIFT THAT THE FACTS RErRESEMTEO ARE All ACCURATE AlO TRUE RErRESEIITATlOII OF INTORMATIOII AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE Oil THE RECORDS OF THE HEItICPIH COUIITV OEPARTHEIIT OF PROPERIT TAKATIOin TO THE BEST OF NT KII0HLE06E AlO BELIEF. DATE #, X^-^<±'>fry 0>j£?'-r'.^‘vis D-, 'y ___# — . ' ^_. r ________ ✓ ” • ' —^ ^ ■---------------------__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ i_______ # 1 « :Q 1•w -O X b. -------------------: /l yf ^ ^ ^ y/yy^^ y . yyyy^y (U^i HARDCOVER CALC ’.L-TION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'( ' 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Hardcover in Zone A. H ouse y.o X <fo.o a S.F.7? LENGTH WIDTH X 9. A ■ Ji.3 S.F. S'.S X .. . . S<7i s.F. 7.::X ?.S'‘6/. Ao £wT?cy X a S.F. B.Garage X ^0.3 S.F./i'/S c.Driveway -T7.r X S3.0 ^C' 7. S'o S.F. X .S.F. D.S i dewalk ^ • C X 3 77^S.F. X 7?.C^/7S S.F. X S.F. E. ;’atio / Deck X .S.F. F.Landscape • X S.F. AREAS UNDERLAIN BY X S.F. PLASTIC SHEETING X . .S.F. ftsrm/A/yA^/*3 • -< X Jo.o S9 S.F. G. Other X 3 S.F. Total H ardcover IN Zone J7^9o S.F._A_ Total Property A rea in Zone /A 6^S.F.T -ffn X 100 - “7 % HARDC0VE3 CALCULATION WORKSHgT/ seiaACJc ZONE: (circle one ) Existing H ardcoves in Zone IN HORKSHg^ . j (O^^SsO' ^5O-M£Ns00^fe • i H ouse y~r.c> ,*Kfcn ^.F. /^-z. f4ciAssr LENGTH WIDTH ^.7 y ^/.7 / ^ s. P. ^ s;rar's^S /. S X i.S' “ St/9a ✓ sy>«/jes X 7.3 m s.f. ^-9 CO^/CAtSTS" S"7S9^S U/ACL /(C'»o X y ^- /'•:? X . . S.S" ^S.o —oo /f-// 9'/.‘7 «!.F. /€-zc) B*Garage X S.P. c.D riveway X S.P. X S.P. 0.Sidewalk X S.P. X S. P. X S.P. e*Jatio / D eck X S.P. F« Landscape X S.P. AREAS underlain BY X 5. P. PLASTIC SHEETING X . •• • S.P. X •S.F. G. Other X - S.P. % Total H ardcover in Zone s.F. f A 1 Total Property A rea in Zone S.F. bI 1 A 9^^ 4.^ <^/00 X IQQ - /'T. /^' % HlkltnCftVfER. CAL(. 0- "3 Q 1 77 Ji. <w> JL 'F>6.5^^£FE.t. HxRD^oVt FoTURt ?> Pi ?5 P4 HOObt M.Z X 5'^-U - ^(K^r HDubE ST l P Z.o 5.0 I 6 A<^ f l.^ 6 fiRAOrt 5) o vvnA —r— 11. 0 -? \X U- 0 - 1^ 13 Kj 0 M e. —T-------------- K<(? IM tt. LRWOicftPtN. u58^t'^t»X»M te>V PLA6tU_ f bwctriKic. J kl 0 VJX. T otal uxsLfcC^vjni- \M z ^ivJe ; felo. SaFr K T oTKL i Rfi t> E-ft.r_V Ab _e A ik1 lAKit fj>lOO^Tt ft a^^^7aTT4M (fl'OO s, I'i,’,^ ?fe(lPERTV liwBCA hJ-ZAI^L. TAkCk PR.OM CORm <iRtkbP.n/3 11&)• ^ J. X MAR0CQ\J£»^ CftLCULQTlOklb SerQALK- rz-o M t_>7^^ ^ r T~ PR.QPQ*>g.Ci WLJt'^CA^^y^_/^llTVJltt Wou'^e UOObE 6^R^^GrL DR\'^E.\i4j\y j / ps* ?4 PI PI } PIC P'A U(^MQ6cAP|. UisiOe.>X(_Aiu Hy ^>H£E7IW^ Ib.'^' y sb to = <1Sl.O 1.0 1.0 .= *^<1.0 O-'l.l X *>-5.0 ^ S'13.. 3.0 a5.0 - 75,0 \<{.i 'be 0 i 570.0 1.< lO.fl - ‘^^■0 8.0 = £76 MoWEr' T<3 tal '\At'.oco\;c.K Ik] ^okicl 2865 f^4fr TO T ot <wl "V^oPtRiy ^Rtft \v» "Lome \\ioOO^?T 5 1803 ^Fi -i-'T^ 11 IffOOkh ~ l'i-8S‘’A ?ROPtA.Ty Ktieft \ii 7.0vit TkJ^EM FROM ^tfRl£V ^ <.bPFIl4 ^iROKJEfR.^ il 2 88 ^ J«Fr 1? 1 \ \ loOO ^ FT 6 r:*; /; ■?riL iiinippi'i!uy .W.WVJ.... ULJl jUipi^•?.U)•!» ‘ ---------------- • . .■ “" .L.I' ■' i i1 J..I.. K% <_ wu. ! Lz-j: 1 *ri--.... ij 4- :! j -- « L A ■■^-T- L V- L V ' 0 >JTToio*Uyri77~Z >• • V-CT3 81A./Sh-'.V-V** —% - -41 1^, .i_ - »* • 1• 1 1 ^ 1 11 u \.. _::v —- I S t •• * j«■ ' l| f• • 1 . ^ . s • i. • t 1 i t 7- -A 'M e ^T El iv^T\r jj ^ o-cM^ / ' • ^e-Sttte «»f'*»‘6' >« • I P/oo!^ MIHDTBS OF THE PIAHimiG COHMISSIOH MEETING FEBROART 21, 1989 U ZONING FILE #1378-OSTROM CONTIHl---- With respect to Kelley's concerns about the closeness of the neighboring residence, Mr. Ugurbil explained that there was dense vegetation that would screen the addition from view. Mr. Ugurbil farther added that placing the addition in another location would either interfere with an existing porch or with the natural "Minnesota farm-character" architecture which was a main reason he purchased the house. The Planning Commission, as a whole, concurred with Kelley's views that the addition would encroach too closely to the adjacent property to the west. Planning Commissioner Brown reiterated his belief that there were other alternatives. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed (Planning Commissioner Bellows departed at this time). It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to deny the variance for the sideyard setback for #1378, Curtis Ostrom. Motion, Ayes»5, Nays»0, Motion passed. 11379 WATZATA COUNTRY CLUB 200 WAYZATA BLVD. CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 8x37 P.M. - 8:38 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of this application. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays«0, Motion passed. #1381 JACE RHODE 1690 SHADYVfOOD ROAD PUBLIC HEARING 8:39 P.M. - 8:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that this application involved a setback for new construction within the 0-75' setback area, as well as a hardcover variance for new construction. Even though there is a reduction in hardcover in the 0-75' zone, variance approval for new construction is required. The proposed structure will be 61' from the lakeshore. The second story, 2-foot wide, deck, will be 59' from the lakeshore. The overall reduction of hardcover in the 0—75' area will be 3%. Chairman Kelley questioned whether the entire existing structure would be removed. Mabusth replied that yea it would TBS OF THB PLANMIH6 COMMISSION TING FBBRaARY 21, 1989 MINUTES OP THB PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 1989NG PILE «1378-OSTROM CONTINIWith respect to Kelley's concerns about the closeness of the fhborlng residence, Mr. Ugurbll explained that there was e vegetation that would screen the addition from view. Mr. bil further added that placing the addition in another ition would either interfere with an existing porch or with natural "Minnesota farm-character" architecture which was a reason he purchased the house.The Planning Commission, as a whole, concurred with Kelley's 's that the addition would encroach too closely to the cent property to the west. Planning Commissioner Brown erated his belief that there were other alternatives.There were no comments from the public regarding this matter the public hearing was closed (Planning Commissioner Bellows rted at this time).It was moved by Chairman Kelley, seconded by Planning Lssioner Cohen, to deny the variance for the sideyard setback 11378, Curtis Ostrom. Motion, Ayes»5, Nays*0, Motion passed. > tlATZATA COUNTRY CLUB lAYZAIA BLVD. [TIOHAL USB PERMIT [C HEARING 8:37 P.M. - 8:38 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicant was present for this matter. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Cohen, seconded by ning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend approval of this ication. Motion, Ayes=5, Nays»0, Motion passed. . JACK RHODE SHADYWOOD ROAD LHCBS ;C HEARING 8:39 P.M. - 8:45 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The applicant was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that this application Lved a setback for new construction within the 0-75' setback as well as a hardcover variance for new construction. Even rh there is a reduction in hardcover in the 0-75* zone, nee approval for new construction is required. The proposed ture will be 61* from the lakeshore. The second story, >t wide, deck, will be 59' from the lakeshore. The ill reduction of hardcover in the 0-75* area will be 3%. Chairman Kelley questioned whether the entire existing !ture would be removed. Mabusth replied that yes it would ZONING FILE fl381-RHODB CONTINUEDbe, with the exception of the foundation. She recommended that this application be reviewed with similar considerations as the Johnson application off North Arm Drive, in that approval be conditioned upon the existing foundation being used.The general concensus of the Planning Commission was that they were in favor of the proposed house not extending as close to the lakeshore as the existing house. They were also in favor of the reduction in hardcover in the 0-75' setback area from 15.8% to 13.3%. The new structure would be right on the average lakeshore setback line, and will have an attached garage. The detached garage will be removed.It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Planning Commissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of this application granting the lakeshore setback variance required for new construction on the existing foundation. The setback shall be allowed at 59' to accomodate the 2' upper story deck extending into the lakeshore protected area; the main part of the house shall be at 61'. In addition, approval is recommended for the hardcover variance of 13.3%, or 812 s.f., within the 0-75' setback area, with no additional hardcover allowed in that area. Motion, Ayes»5, Nays»0, Motion passed. #1382 JOHN ROGERS 755 TONKANA ROAD VARIANCES PUBLIC HEARING 8:47 P.M. - 9:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. The applicants were not present for this matter, however, Mr. Mark Lumry of Arteka Corporation, was present on their behalf. Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that there had been a revision to this proposal. There will be increase in hardcover in the 0-75' zone due to the removal of an existing storage shed. Mr. Lumry also explained that there would not be any additional terrace area as originally proposed. Chairman Kelley clarified that this application now involved only the conversion of hardcover to structural hardcover and an average lakeshore setback variance. Gaffron agreed. Planning Commissioner Brown asked for clarification as to the average lakeshore setback. Gaffron explained that the house to the south, approximately 200' away would not be affected, to the north, there were only camp buildings. Mr. Lumry mentioned the fact that the existing guest house and main residence were in front of the addition. There is an existing brick retaining wall which would minimize the visual impact of the addition from the lake. iJF TttB PUUiNIifG COMMISSIOH MEBTITS6 PBBR0AR7 21, 1989ILE #1381-RHODB CONTINUEDgeneral concensus of the Planning Commission was thatproposed house not extending as close ikeshore as the existing house. They were also in favor13“?»^‘’"Th'^" hardcover in the 0-75' setback area from e setbac^linr *** average*CommT«io« Commissioner Hanson, seconded byCommissioner Cohen, to recommend approval of thislakeshore setback variance required forexisting foundation. The setbTck shallli" be\t *'"**'’ part of th^11 be at 61 . In addition, approval is recommended for over variance of 13.3%, or 812 s.f., withirthro-7^ no additional hardcover allowed in that area. es»5, Nays^o, Motion passed. I ROGERS % ROAD RING 8i47 P.M. - 9:00 P.M. ffidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were pplicants were not present for this matter, however Lumry of Arteka Corporation, was present on their Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron tie Planning Commission that there had been a revision ^due*to be no increase in hardcover in the existing storage shed. Mr. _**P^®4"?** that there would not be any additional la as originally proposed. that this application now involved !!Uk hardcover to structural hardcover and an ceshore setback variance. Gaffron agreed. Lng Ccamissioner Brown asked for clarification as to e lakeshore setback. Gaffron explained that the .he south, approximately 200* away would not be camp buildings. Mr. M existing guest house and main re in front of the addition* There is an existina ^ning wall which would minimize the visual impact of [» from the lake. ^ MINUTES OP REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 13, 1989\#1381 JACK RHODE1690 SBAOTWOOD ROAD / VARIANCESRESOU^IOH #2593Ir. Rhode was present for this matter.Acting City Administrator Gerhardson explained that Mr. Rhode was requesting hardcover and lakeshore setback variances for total reconstruction of a residence using the existing foundation. The reconstruction will result in a reduction of hardcover within the 0—75' setback zone, however, approval is required because of the new construction.There were no questions or comments on behalf of Mr. Rhode or the Council.It was moved by CounciImember Goetten, seconded by CounciImember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2593, approving the lakeshore setback and hardcover variances. Motion, Ayes»4, Nays*0, Motion passed. #1382 JOHN ROGERS 755 TONKANA ROAD VARIANCES Mr. Rogers was present, as was his Landscape Architect, Mark Lumry. As it was explained by Acting City Administrator Gerhardson, the applicant was seeking hardcover and lakeshore setback variances to allow the conversion of a patio into structural hardcover. This conversion would provide a connection between the existing house and the existing guesthouse. The Planning Commission, at their February 21, 1989 meeting, approved this application on a 3 to 2 vote. Mr. Lumry informed the Council tnat he had reviewed the various drainage plans suggested by the 7ity Engineer. Assi<«tant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron provided the specific details involved with the drainage plans. The question is whether to allow a drainage pipe to be installed that would take water from the 75-250* zone and discharge it 40* from the lake on a steep slope. Other options would be to end the pipe prior to the slope so that discharge would occur on a flat surface or route the pipe across the property so it will discharge behind the 75* line. Mr. Lumry explained that the current drainage pattern brings water down across an existing patio and is then funneled down a stairway in the 0-75* zone. The runoff is currently being discharged in the same area it would be if the pipe brought it to the slope. Arteka's Civil Engineer calculated that there would be .25 cubic feet of water per second running through the pipe in the event of the 100-year storm. ■ Counci Imember Goetten questioned the hardship involved with flHDTBS OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL ITING MARCH 13, 1989 N 11 JACK RHODE \ SBADTWOOD ROAD JUICES *2593 -^r. Rhode was present for this matter. Acting City Administrator Gerhardson explained that Mr, e was requesting hardcover and lakeshore setback variances total reconstruction of a residence using the existing idation. The reconstruction will result In a reduction of Icover within the 0-75' setback zone, however, approval is ired because of the new construction. There were no questions or comments on behalf of Mr. Rhode he Council. It was moved by CounclImember Goetten, seconded by cilmember Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2593, approving the ishore setback and hardcover variances. Motion, Ayes>4, ■0, Motion passed. 2 JOHN ROGERS romCAIIA ROAD INCBS Mr. Rogers was present, as was his Landscape Architect, Mark As it was explained by Acting City Administrator Gerhardson, applicant was seeking hardcover and lakeshore setback ances to allow the conversion of a patio into structural :over. This conversion would provide a connection between existing house and the existing guesthouse. The Planning Ission, at their February 21, 1989 meeting, approved this Lcation on a 3 to 2 vote. Mr. Lumry informed the Council that he had reviewed the )us drainage plans suggested by the City Engineer. Assistant ling and Zoning Administrator Gaffror. provided the specific Lis Involved with the drainage plans. The question is er to allow a drainage pipe to be installed that would take from the 75-250* zone and discharge it 40* from the lake on lep slope. Other options would be to end the pipe prior to tlope so that discharge would occur on a flat surface or > the pipe across the property so it will discharge behind 5* line. Mr. Lumry explained that the current drainage pattern brings ’ down across an existing patio and is then funneled down a way in the 0-75* zone. The runoff is currently being larged in the same area it would be if the pipe brought it to lope. Arteka's Civil Engineer calculated that there would i cubic feet of water per second running through the pipe in vent of the 100-year storm. Oouncilmember Goetten questioned the hardship involved with IIBA * \. ' -i!,f !• * s m Vvi-U:\ »? 5li'i *::■ bMviill; ' i ■•y! k' I'.-i jji • ------ /. . ? I J I i ?!.i; I' • )< :-1i| i i ^ i‘*v y K' ! . i M . 1 ifl' r; '1 J ar .I 'l! .. t-'' f j ,V '' t II Ik r , *1 ^ 1 »■. ir'i" i I ■j'' - i ^1/. i< i i-f hi 5S1 \ / Li ■sl I r* V / y 2 do & zS v/c 4: O’ lU 3o H lA O ‘O or» ^ ^<D '' o ii p V lu O H P T"rr^ ^ d i n 1^ J-" r iJ•Jr» 5 9 ■4 3 hV U- |u Qs e»5 >r .o<rST i?!ii g mr- #'o 3 IPr I# • ,:-i ;i•I /) o ^ ^ *1 on !5*3>V~ytuo,5 ssa'< >r J' f o O • a <r2T iTJii * PJ 5521157City of OROIVORESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNClLNO. 2593 -T«ANS''?n SNTEReO0£F Of ?«C?*S- AX * PU6UCKC0W•-(CPIM MINN.nmiT¥A RBSOLDTIOH GRAIITIH6 VASIARCBS TO MDHICIPAL ZOMII16 CODE SECTION 10.22* SUBDIVISIONS 1 «PILE NO. 1381WHEREAS, Jack Rhode (hereinafter "the acclicant") is owner of the property located at 1690 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Lot 10 and that part of Lot 11 described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 11: tlience Southerly along the Westerly line thereof to the Southwest corner of the North 14' of said Lot 11; thence South 87 degrees, 27 minutes East to the shore of Crystal Bay; thence North along said shore to the North line of said Lot 11; thence West along said lot line to the point of beginning, in Shadywood, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"}; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 s 2 to permit the construction of a new principal structure using the existing foundation as the proposed new construction would require approval of a la)ceshore setback at 61* instead of the required 75 ’ and a hardcover variance within the 0- 75 ’ setback area of 812 s.f. or 13.3% where none is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1381. 2. The property is located in the LR—IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring a 1/2 acre or 21,780 s.f. The property consists of 17,700 s.f. or .41 acres. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 21, 1989, and recommended approval of the requested variances based upon the following findings: A) Major upgrading of the property will result in the following changes to existing substandard conditions; Page 1 of 5 o>NO3UNCILTRANS^^n SNTSREO)EPT OF :AX i PUBLIC KCOflOScant") is owner of the 1 the City of Orono )ws: Beginning at the Ly along the Westerly th 14' of said Lot 11; shore of Crystal Bay; ine of said Lot 11; nt of beginning# in fter "the property"); City for variances to 1 s 2 to permit the existing foundation as if a lakeshore setback ariance within the 0- lowed. ty Council of Orono# #1381. jle Family Lakeshore re or 21#780 s.f. The this application on )e requested variances suit in the following LakeshoreRequiredExistingExistingProposedProposedVariance:Existing Proposed Existing Proposed setback:- 75*Principal Structure Accessory Structure Principal Structure Accessory Structure 551061■ 59' (second level deck extends 2' beyond lakefrcnt of principal residence)Principal Structure Principal Structure Accessory Structure Accessory Structure 20' 14' 65’ 16' or 26% or 18.6% or 86% or 21% (second story upper level deck) 2) Hardcover within the 0-75’ Setback Area: Allowed • 0 s.f. Existing • 926 s.f. or 15.8% Proposed * 812 s.f. or 13.5% Total Reduction * 2.5% application involves no need for a hardcover variance within the 75-250' setback area as applicant proposes removal of major portions of existing hardcover within the 75-250’ setback area. C) The use of the existing foundation will provide less of an impact on the lakeshore property. D) The original structure was placed on the property prior to current standards for lakeshore development. 4, The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission# reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5» The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property ir this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 1 ciTr OF QRQNCt City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2593_ _ _ _ _ _ CONCLOSIOHS, ORDER AHD COKDITIORS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permit the construction of a new residence structure using the existing foundation subject to the following conditions: 1. All hardcover scheduled for removal must be completed prior to the final inspection by the Building staff for the new construction. 2. Applicant to provide a Highway jepartment permit for the relocated curb cut to the site. 3. Applicant or applicant's architect shall provide the Building staff with the engineering data or findings that confirm the existing foundation can sustain the proposed 2-st<-^ structure at the time of application for a building permit. Ap, *icant is hereby advised that, if for any reason unknown at this time, the existing foundation cannot be used, variance application #1381 shall be scheduled for furt er consideration before both the Planning Commission and the Council. 4. 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 cf Council approval, or this resolution will expire on that date (March 13, 1990). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood^ and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page cf 5 ►rvo)UNCIL CITYORONa City of OROIVORESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILNO. 2593OBSnoted above, the Orono :al Zoning Code Section :tion of a new residence ject to the followinge completed prior to the I new construction.permit for the relocated 1 provide the Building hat confirm the existing structure at the time of is hereby advised that, cisting foundation cannot le scheduled for further sion and the Council. un with the property not and must be exercised by >ne year of the date of cpire on that date (March ^ any of the terms and a violation of the zoning ority granted herein, and irstood and hereby agrees f of himself, his heirs, the recording of this 19p.AT^ST:Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of March,r>rks>Do;3tS3^.K-ciaJ,linT City Clerk 1 _ __ _ _ _Jam4s R. Grabek, MayorPrtJperty Owner(s) STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) day of before me on thisThe foreaoing instrument was acknowledged _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 19^^ , by James R. Grabek £ 'orothy M. Halim, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. (Lm / , ary Pub 5 ffUc K. SC.HcfFLER U»llL - MIKNISOTA .--cNNEf'N CCUNfY My espjra* 6*6*93 My Commission Expires Page 4 of 5 t » L ■I cirv I OF I^QROriQ City of ORO jNO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2593 _________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) ) ss. , US? on thi. . wf&ln a7a /gr county, pT-.onall? ]>0£or6 ni« ^ Notary j known to mo to ba appeared | J(\^^ ^L ^ who executed the foregoing «7ndH,aXtha-. he (they) axacut.d the sane as his (their) free act and deec. / notary public my COMMISSION EXPIRES )SS. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ^ , 198_, before me fH0ttry-pi;5Hr^n^7d'’:cr sa.d person(s) descrioec in as his knd acknowledged tnac he (their) free act and deed. notary public my COMMISSION EXPIRE'*^ Page 5 of 5 RONOCITY COUNCIL 19s2aid county » personally known to me to beecuted the foregoing r) executed the same as rj 3N EXPIRES , 190_, before me , personaTly appeared m to me to be the I foregoing instrument, :ed the same as his To:FromDate:Subject:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator BernhardsonJeanne A, Mabusth, Building S Zoning Administrator March 7, 1990#1494 Francis S. Lightly, 3585 Frederick Stre^^gffjyQ^ MEET]mar 12 199D^firOFORList of exhibitsExhibit A - Staff Memo of ::/14/90 Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action Exhibit C - Original Proposal Exhibit D - Amended ProposalRequest - To refer variance applicati #1494 back to the Planning Commission for review of amendv J proposal. Commission shall review amended proposal at March 1-, 1990 meeting. At the February 20, 1990 meeting of the Planning Commission, the variance application of Mr. Lightly was unanimously denied based on the excessive setback variance sought to the average lakeshore setback line. The applicant has formally requested referral back tc the Planning Commission for review of an amended proposal (review Exhibit D), that would now Propose no encroachment of an average setback line by a structural to the principal structure. The grade-level pool and patio area are now shown as the only improvement that would encroach the average lakeshore setback line. Staff would recommend that the variance application of Francis Lightly be rescheduled before the Planning commission ..or further consideration at their March 19, 1990 meeting. Proposed Motion: Moved by seconded by to refer application #1494, Francis S. Lightly’s variance application for the property located at 3585 Frederick Street for reconsideration by the Planning Commission at their March 19, 1990 meeting for the purpose of reviewing and making a recommendation regar ing the amended proposal. Ayes ___, nays ___. ON EXPIRES To:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson rro«; Jeanne A, Mabusth, building & Zoning Administrator 'February 14, 1<^90 subject: #1494 Francis S. Lightly, 3585 Frederick Street - Variances - Public Hearing pertinent Ordinances - Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 - A) Encroachment of average lakeshore setback line determined from line drawn from closest projections of principal residences to lakeshore: 1. Structural Addition 2. Pool/Patio = 34' B) Encroachment of average lakeshore setback line determined from line drawn from closest projection of second story deck with railings: 1. structural Addition * 10' 2. Pool/Patio = 28' Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 within 75-250' setback area. A) 0-75' setback area * No hardcover - Hardcover variances required 2,575 s.f. 75-250' setback area » 14,520 s.f. Allowed ■ 3,630 s.f. or 25% Existing ■ 6,791 s.f. or 47% Proposed = 6,582 s.f. or 45%* Net Reduction * 209 s.f. or 2%*^ 250-500’ setback area « 4,065 s.f. Allowed - 1,212.5 s.f. or 30% Existing » 960 s.f. or 24% (no change proposed) Existing structural hardcover within 75-250* setback area * 1,590 s.f. or 11%; Proposed structural hardcover ■ 2,340 s.f. or 16%; Net increase of 750 s.f. or 5,16%. A) 660 s.f. or 4.54% of paved area in street yard to be removed; B) water retention area of pool is not considered hardcover. I ayor Grabek & Orono Council Members 'lanning Commission Chairman Kelley irono Planning Commission Members :ity Administrator Bernhardsonleanne h. Mabusth, Building i zoning »5mlnlsttatot i'ebruary 14, 1990H494 Francis s. tightly, 3565 Frederick street - /arlances - Public HearingOrdinances - . , ,on 10.22, subdivision 1 -principal residences to lakeshore. 1, Structural Addition * 16' 2. Pool/Patio = 34' second story deck with railings. 1. structural Addition = 10' 2. Pool/Patio = 28’ Lon 10.22, subdivision 2 - Hardcover variances required Ln 75-250' setback area. ^ ^ . A) 0-75' setback area = 2,575 s.r. No hardcover B) 75-250' setback area = Allowed * 3,630 s.f. or 25% Existing = 6,791 s.f. or 47% . Proposed * 6,582 s.f. or ^^^2 Net Reduction = 209 s.f. or 2% 250-500' setback area » Allowed = 1,212.5 s.f. Existing = 960 s.f. or 24% (no change proposed) or 16%; Net increase of 750 s.f. or 5.1 . =ted“, 'kV w/teVrJt'enHoS^.Vel of pooi"ls Vor«n'’sVdeted° 3cover. Zoning File #1494 February 14, 1990 Page 2 of 4Section 10.06, Subdivision 15 (A) - (review Exhibit H) Overhang area of roof exceeds 1 1/2'; overhang is shown at 3 1/2'. 10' side setback must be maintained from the edge of the roof line. In reviewing Exhibit P, the roof line appears to be 10' from the east side lot line. Applicant's architect should confirm.Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) - grade level patio/terrace areas that do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building are not considered an encroachment of required yard area but under no condition shall they extend closer than 2'. Applicant proposes a 9' setback from the grade level cement patio ar-''a adjacent to pool. Please note, applicant does not propose fencing in pool area. Lot coverage considerations are not applicable. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J - Exhibit K - Exhibit L - Exhibit M - Exhibit N - Exhibit 0 - Exhibit P - Exhibit Q - Application Applicant's Addendum Property Owners List Plat Hap Adjacent Property Owner's Acknowledgement Form Letter from Laureen Braaten and John McLeod (neighbor to east of subject property) Existing Hardcover 75-250' Setback Area Proposed Hardcover 75-250' Setback Area Existing Hardcover 250-500’ Setback Area Proposed Hardcover 250-500’ Setback Area Existing Structural Hardcover 75-250’ Setback Area Proposed Structural Hardcover 75-250' Setback Area Elevations First Floor Plan Second Floor Plan Site Plan Survey Review of Application - The applicant proposes an addition to the lakeside of the existing structure requiring an average lakeshore setback and hardcover variances as set forth in the factual findings above. The structural improvements consist of a first floor great room, storage and vestibule area and a second story loft expansion and deck expansion along the east side or over first floor vestibule area. Other improvements consist of a 32'xl2’ pool with concrete patio. A porch wit.' steps is proposed along the west side of the great room providing access to the pool area. ng File #1494 nary 14, 19902 of 4section 10.06, Subdivision 15 (A) - (review Exhibit H)overhang area of roof exceeds 1 1/2-; overhang is shown at3 1/2' 10' side setback must be maintained from the edgeof tL' roof line. In reviewing Exhibit P, the roof line appears to be 10’ from the east side lot line. Applicant sarchitect should confirm.Section 10.03, Subdivision 15 (C) -oatio/terrace areas that do not extend above the height ofthe ground floor level of the principal un^erconsidered an encroachment of required yard “"f®!no condition shall they extend closer than 2 . oroooses a 9' setback from the grade level cement pati fdjlcent to pool. Please note, applicant does not P^P®®® fencing in pool area. Lot coverage considerations are notapplicable. t of Exhibits Exhibit A - Exhibit B - Exhibit C - Exhibit D - Exhibit E - Exhibit F - Exhibit G - Exhibit H - Exhibit I - Exhibit J “ Exhibit K - Exhibit L - Exhibit M - Exhibit N - Exhibit 0 - Exhibit P - Exhibit Q - Application Applicant’s Addendum Property Owners List AdjLent Property Owner’s Acknowledgement Form Letter from Laureen Braaten and John McLeod (neighbor to east of subject property) Existing Hardcover 75-250’ Setback Area Proposed Hardcover 75-250’ Setback Area Existing Hardcover 250-500’ Setback Area Proposed Hardcover 250-500' ^®^hack Area Existing Structural Hardcover 75-250 Setback Proposed Structural Hardcover 75-250’ Setback Area Elevations First Floor Plan Second Floor Plan Site Plan Survey BW of Application - The applicant proposes an addition to the lakeside of the /tructure requiting an average lakeshote setback and cover Jlriances as set forth In the factual findings above. «^u«ural ieprovenents consist of a first floor great toon, agl and vestiLle area and a second story . *’‘grhl^°^4i “?/e«s=c ’onstif o7 a° iVkl'^^pooV with concrete "porch Witt steps is proposed along the west side of the t room providing access to the pool area* IVZoning File #1494 February 14, 1990 Page 3 of 4Staff has designated 2 average setback lines based on the setbacks of the principal structures and on the setbacks of the 2nd story decks with railings of the houses on adjacent lots. Note that we are dealing with the setbacks not only of the structure, but of the grade level pool and patio area. No fencing is proposed around the pool. There is no encroachment of the 75' setback area proposed. The increases in hardcover resulting from the proposed lakeside improvements have been matched within the same setback area by removals of 660 s.f. of non-structural hardcover in the street yard.Please review Exhibit F, the neighbor most impacted by the proposed improvements claims their opposition to the proposal. The neighbors suggest that possible landscaping could remedy the above concerns. Please review Exhibit B, the applicant’s consultants plan to present elevation drawings and aerials to assist members in determing the extent of the impact of the encroachment of the average setback line.In that same addendum, the applicant notes the following hardships and unusual property conditions; 1. The property is a narrrow, triangular shaped lot with house located in the center of the lot preventing expansion to the side. 2. Interior design of house makes expansion to the street side of the house impractical. 3. Swimming pool and patio area requires southern exposure, and in addition, would allow full view of the pool area from the living areas of the house for safety purposes. 4. Living areas in existing house are relatively small. The addition would improve the livabilty of the house. Please note the significant imcrease in value of the proposed project is not a concern of the City and has no bearing in this review. As of this writing, staff has heard nothing from the property owner to the west, upon insrection of the site, members will notice the permanent or seasonal plantings along the west boundary minimizing the view impact for this property. 3 File #1494 iry 14, 1990 5 of 4^ks of the princfpa^l s\ructures*and based cn the:ory decks with rai M noe setbacks of thethat we are deanig Ci?h the se^°h“/V adjacent lots. :ure, but of the g?ade leJe! pfol and g is proposed around the pool The^i fr^ Patlo area. No 5’ setback area proposed ThI / encroachment of•ing from the proposed lakeside hardcover<3 within the same setback area hv ^ elements have been ructural hardcover in tjfstreet yard."’°''"'"ed Improvemen^t^s^cla^ims 7°®*^ impacted by the concerns ” ?leas. ^^vlew tants plan to present elevaf4r!n^i^ applicant's members in determing t\e ex\en^*^of aerials to hment of the average setback line. impact of the use located in the\entVr*^ oV shaped lot with the side. preventing expansion 3e^Srt“e°*ho1iVe‘^iVracticI^ expansion to the street I in addmo^nTlou^lIl aVlo^^ th^^JJ exposure, * living areas of the house for safety purpolls! ^ VdVitlol,'w^®ufS i!!'Proie%^°e^%taMl^^^^^ ring in%hls review. " City and has no Uner'Vo^SiVes?: Vpon'in.^e ^-m the ^ice the permanent or seasor a i i site^ members mlnlmlring the view Impact for this p?op\?ty?® Zoning File #1494 February 14, 1990 Page 4 of 4In order to determine the impact upon the east property owner, members should stand on the shared lot line and look to the west and imagine a single story structure extending approximately 30' in front of the edge of the second story deck with the highest point of the roof reaching 1' under the maximum height of the second story railing. As already noted, the applicant's consultants plan to provide additional exhibits for consideration at the meeting that will deal with the question of view impact.Options of Action -Denial. If denied, please refer to Section 10.08 for the necessary findings of fact.orApproval. To approve the average lakeshore setback encroachment of the principal structure, pool and patio area, and a hardcover variance within the 75-250' setback area at 45% for the new structural and non-structura 1 improvements within the lakeshore yard and approve no other variances for this current improvement, based on the hardships and unusual property conditions as noted in applicant's addendum (Exhibit B), noting specifically items 1 and 3. Staff would also add that there is no excessive hardcover within the 250-500' setback area and no hardcover within the 0-75’ setback are^. Appjvval may be subject to the following: 1. Landscaping plan providing screening to the single story structure portion of the improvement along the east lot line. 2. If overhang remains at 3 1/2 ’, the structure must meet the 10' side setback from the edge of the roof line. Table. Finding applicant has not explored all options for the necessary expansion of living area providing applicant with additional time to work with consultants in order to revise plans. -.ling File #1494bruary 14, 1990ge 4 of 4In toner, members should impact upon the ea«sf® West and iman'tn ^®nd on the shared To#- • ®9st property?roxlmately 3V iVfronf story strLV"® to•b the highest point of the^second ®*tending^ght of the secon^*^ / reachina T j story deck'Ilcant's consultlnL®^?*^^ failing. is^ hrmaximumw impact " '"®"ting that wiH forwith the question ofions of Action -®«nlal. Tf denied oi"««sary to section 10.08 for theApproval. Tooncroachment of the average laka«K®f®a, and a hardcVler^^ ®tru?ture ^ dooV® ®®tback ?rea at 45% for °he 'within the f5-5%Patioimprovements within i,®*^*^“^tural and setback hardcover within“the^I.eVt'’ ‘hat therV’Ts^^^'"^*^ "Ithln the 0-75" se?hf v'''’"’ setback are, anH "° '“‘'aalve ‘he following: Appr .val fly lfn\‘. -t,lT.iZcV /ro.^';'he ‘';*gV'o‘'f“t“h7 7oVl a7li”%%^ ?i? °P‘icns for ■Vise plans. '"® ''ork with consu^l tantapplicanti-ancs in order to ZONING PILE NO 1496 iCITY OP ORONO P.O. Box 66Crystal Bay, MN 55323 NOTICE OP PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION473-7357 Date of Notice: 2/26/90TO: Mr. & Mrs. Francis Lightly COPIES TO3585 Fredrick Street Wayzata, MN 55391TYPE OP APPLICATION: VariancesDATE OP MEETING: 2/20/90 VOTE: 5 For 0 AgainstPlanning Comission recomends the following:Denial for reasons noted belowNOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS:1. The extent of the encroachment of the average setback line was too excesive.2. Neighbor to the east claimed major impact by the proposed encroachment claiming a view Impact. 3. The addition to the lakeside of the house would create a "creeping" expansion towards the lake. The lakeshore setbacks appear to be established by the current development of homes in the neighborhood. Per our recent phone conversation, you have requested an opportunity to present an amended plan to the Planning Commission for their review. This can be accomplished by formally requesting the Council to refer an amended plan to the Planning Commission. Please see that your amended plan is received by this office no later than March 6, 1990 so it can be presented in the Council packets for their consideration. Staff will prepare the necessary memo requesting referral to the Planning Commission for additional consideration. _______ m: r ^ TO A i : ! ' i •^OO’ jpB^KS/^^e. T^? L>>>C£ '•- fe?cl^riH£» coNicP.CT£ t To t»e rehcjv 'Cd C^F=»Peox. n*?!:? -S»oi. K=fTv ✓ '• Applicant (Contact)Foxhill Homeowners (Judy Zitzloff)No. of Slips 13 Date Appl. Received 2/26/9b Fee Paid ~Tf6TW CorrectPee$4F7ffOMtka Power Squadron (Dennis Peterson)45(transi 2/27/90ent)50.00 20.00Walters Port (Charles Garrity) 5 2/6/90 60.00 30.00 Sandy Beach (H.P. Zuckman) 7 1/31/90 64.00 34.00 Victoria Estates (Paul Hanssen) 6 2/20/90 62.00 32.00 Phode/Enlow/Lindihl (Jack Phode) 3 2/20/90 56.00 26.00 Forest Arms (Jim Lange) 14 3/2/90 48.00 48.00 Navarre Cove (Dan Lindsay) 6 3/2/90 32.00 32.00 All of these renewal applications indicate no changes ____I &mClL MEETM6i : I.aiI*4^hapl P Gaffron,MAR 12'990March 7f 1590.clnt cse .OC. Licenses:hed ate aPP“«“°t"he\"ou'’o»ing organisations:Dock Licenses for the ton a C O r‘’pUeivlV FeePa)^act) T71U^ "TTeTCiriieo;?ners 13 ^ ‘loff )squadron 45 . 2/27/90,terson) (transient)2/6/90 50.0060.00arrity) nan) states sen) iw/Lind:*^il 1/31/90 64.00 2/20/90 62.00 2/20/90 56.00 3/2/90 48.00 3/2/90 32.00 correct Pee$4TTff0 20.0030.0034.00 32.00 26.00 48.00 32.00 ; these renewal applications inaicate^hO/J'|"r/„'"S numbers. »' JWnv“orthrioint use docks during tne filed regarding any ot cn« j •• •• ,q lakeshore property ow F recommends »PP'°''*\ “/ions* * ^ ier the attached resolutions. 1990 Joint Use Dock Licenses*900Note thAt the license application forms sent out incorrectly stated the renewal license base fee as $50.00. The correctfee is $20.00. The initial base fee for a Joint UseAppropriate refunds will be issued.Proposed Motion: Moved by __, seconded by ___r to approve theJoint Use Dock License for the 1990 license year for: PoxhillHomeowners' Association, Minnetonka Power Squadron, Walter's Port Homeowners' Association, sandy Beach shores, victoria Estates Homeowners' Association, Rhode/Bn 1ow/Lindahl , Forest Arms Homeowners' Association, and Navarre Cove Homeowners' Association per the resolutions drafted by staff. Ayes ___, nays ___. ^se^Dock Licenses* '■|"ewa/^nceL\^^biir fe"e $5®o®"o*0fTf'fee is $20.00. The IniMAi correcti.OO. Appropriate refuF^s wi ri^be® Issted?*^ ®Jock License fo/ nir'lllo^llcense v—' V* approve the Association, Minnetonka Power c PoxhillAssociation, Sandv Bea^h Ik Walter’s PortAssociation, and Navarre mVL Porest Armsolutions drafted by staff.^ A^es ^''"nays • CITY OF ORONO P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 473-7357 LICENSE YEAR 19Cc.I 'i(association)ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42Date Form Sent by City StaffDate Application Returned to City ~2-- ^By Employee il I T Oh UtilWMR^c^ipr-imK YOUttnmo cool roi02/26/9(Fee Recived $_ _ -ryx*'- Section 5.42 Subdivision 2. LICENSE REQUIRED - It is unlawful for any (group or association of persons or familleS/ more than two in number whether incorporated or not) to engage or participate in...joint use (of any lakeshore property) without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBM'T SIGNED APPLICATION, REQUIRED ATTACHflENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICAT'.JN FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY MARCH 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. ASSOCIATION INFORMATION 1. Association title or name (if any) f^O )f-. ki Jl /}^S/) ■ 2. Lalce iOO i n n 4. ~Vt;>h ICa^_ _ _ _ _Bay i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3. Person responsible for this application: Name J U.cL^ "2- t T “Z. U> Phone VV3-34>32-._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Mailing Address \ I U & -f-f ^ PlKJSZ^^l Relationship to association Page 1 of 5 / 9 Insurance Coverage - The Jointly used dock is insured by one of the follo%rtng: property owner's homeowner's policy. ^ separate group/association owned policy list the follO’.rt.ng information: nane of insured name of insurance carrier ** <• i . name of insurance agency - - - - - - - - - - - - policy no. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ effective date of coverage amount of coverage; Public liability, ter person, per >ccurence 10- public liibility . zer occurence 3 / ^^ v Security and colicing of toe Joint_y useo docA and property *s provls^^ed (cneck applicable items): fencing.security lighting. __[ property owner's presence. contract security ser'.'ice. other (specify) DOC.K iriPCHMATION 11.List Dock Use Area Specifications: ^ Width of shoreline; g? f ft. Length of main dock from shore; ^ ft. Dock setbacks from side property lines at shore; ^ ^ and 2-.0_____ ft. 12.Dock Constx'uctlOQ (check applicable items): seasonal dock (relocated or replaced each year). permanent piling with seasonal ieck. wooden decking. ___metal decking. permanent piling and decking 13. List Dock Accessories: Number of fire extinguishers available at the dock Number of life preservers available at the dock tr~n __________ 14. List number of slips in each category ("slips" includes boat lifts): Transient (day use only) slips_____. Transient (day use) off-shore bxioys Permanent moorage slips 13_______• Permanent moorage off-shore buoys Dry storage (rack) slips ____________.Maximum number or boats at the dock 15.List number of off-street parking spaces available for users of the Joint use dock. Parting, if provided must not be separated from the dock by any public road . soaces • *5 c 3 < ' 4 :? I -i — P^psrty ovner’s homeowner's policy._ separate group/association owned policy St the follo’/ing information:se of insured f'tPKlXliJ________ _ _a of insurance carrier e of insurance agencyicy no. ^i,L .- -- - - - - - -efx active date of coverage 2>-l-^0-t o. covera..; P„M1= UaMZ.-,,, P,. pe.^oa, pe. ,cc„„„ea TiUUl;^ -Ity and poilcin;tp\^“t'n--:''J" T'Cic applicable items): ” ‘ -"^Perty is provided by^enoing. _l^sec'urity lighting.contract securit*' •do-r-.r-in.. • /^er'.'a.ce. ot.ner (specify)property owner's presence. WTION Dock Use Area Specifications: Of Shoreline; ft. length of main dock from shore- t/ --cks from Side properoy ii.es at shore; “ aonsti-uction (check applicable items): ' «sonal doc-^c (relocated or replaced each year), rmanent piling --ith seasonal deck Oden decking. ___netal dec.<ing. 5ck Accessories: Of fir. ex-.ln«ni,ner3 dvnn.M, „ „e deed ^ ^ Of Ilf. pr.s.rv.rs .ran»dle at td. docK U • ^ • permanent piling and decking, mber of slips in each catego—/ f'aHna" -t ia j \ slips includes boat lifts): >nt (day use only) slips t,.. • —Transient (day use) off-shore buoys It moorage slips / 3 b -------‘ ---------■ P®™aaeot moorage off-shore buoys •age (rack) slips „ , - - - - - -- - - - - - -. Maximum number of boats at the dock /5 amng, if Pr^^ded^m^s^norbrseJaro?ed%^° T*”_£. spaces. separated from the dock by any public “5 C •^i SROSION AND SEDIMENTTON CONTROL16. Shoreline is prote'.ted by (check applicable items):i'-'^tons rip rap. ___ wood seawal.'.. ___ meta'- sea\rall.jr-jss and vegetation only, other (specify) _________concrete seawall.17. . ’» of water at s.noreline is ^ ft; at 50 f** out is Q ;,»at 100 ft. out is /REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application:A. DOCK PLAN - ALL APPLICATIONSA dock plan, drawn to scale, showing t.ie shoreline width of this property, the side property lines and the location, layout and dimensions of all docks, slips and buoys. If off~street parking, diy storage or other on—land functions are intended, these also should be shown on the plan. B. UNINCORPORATED GROUPS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. A list of the names and mailing addresses of all members and/or slip users. A certified copy of the by-laws or agreement for joint use. Note: This copy is not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same by-laws or agreement originally made in (state year) and on file with the City." L •’^/o ^3 2. Applicant's initials INC0P^^:*/TED CLUBS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. A list of the names, mailing addresses and ti.ies of all corporation officers. 2* A statement as to the total number of members in the club or association. /T members. 3. A certified copy of the articles of incorporation and by-laws of the corporation. Note; These copies are not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement; "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same articles of incorporation and/or by-laws as oriqinally made or last amended in (state year) and on file with the City." _ _ _ Applicant's initials Page 4 of 5 D. ANNUAL LICENSE FEE - ALL APPLICATIONS Joint Use Dock License Application fee according to the current City Fee Schedule. MINIMUM JOINT USE FEE, per year PLUS SLIP FEE for each permanent moorage slip, lift, dry stack, or buoy /3 slips 9 $2.00 each TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION $ 50.00 $ AU- ^ $ ax> LATE FEE - Renewals Applications for renewal of licenses shall be made no later than February 1 of the license year. The City shall not accept renewal license applications received after March I unless the application is accompanied by a Late fee of $25.00. REVIEW PROCEDURE When a com.plete application is received, the application will be reviewed by the City Council and, in the case of new or unusual applications, also by the Planning Commission and Marina Committee. The Council will pass upon the application after complete review. THE SUBJECT DOCK MAY BE INSTALLED AND/OR OPENbw FOR USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby reguests the Orono City Council to review this Joint Use Dock License Application, and agre-’S and authorizes the City of Orono and the City's employees and agents to enter upon the property at any reasonable time to perform safety and code compliance inspections. Signed Date Page 5 of 5 :| »^ • • - - -•------------------ <t—5* ,. V-. - lir-. rtn 0 <C » *#__ .1—i j u.,„_g- T-l-._ y-J ^ • / ^ ■^ 1 U) |« t- N --------------------- -—.............. ................ 4 .. ...>4____ 0 — oc- Vl\t M CXi 2^--— CO RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A JOINT USB DOCK LICENSE TO FOXBILL HONBONNERS ASSOCIATION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1990 TO DECEMBER 31, 1990 WHEREAS, the City of Orono, hereinafter "City" is a municipal corporation organized and exist* under the laws of the state of Minnesota and has the authority and res| .bility under Minnesota Statutes, State Statute 412, et. seq. and Sta^e Statute 462, et. seq., to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the city and other members of the public within the City; and WHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the state, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the public waters and on the land within the City which, if unrec^ulated, may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City ot Orono regulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to resic^-.itial owners and the commercial marina owners to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining their property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the commonlaw rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owners; WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian owner has exclusive privileges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the e''tire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common wit>* all other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members r the public but the right to each riparian owner. Page 1 of 2 This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the public generally includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and WHEREAS, Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding fre construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and maintained by three or more families, which regulations include the annual licensing of Joint Use nocks pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Joint Use Dock License described on Exhibit A attached, WOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Joint Ose Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 12th day of March, 1990. James R. Grabek, Mayor ATTEST; Dorothy M. Hallin, C’ y Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of March, 1990, 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 2 of 2 CB*• \ ^5 '• \ •*. ‘••V ’» * ’ ------------■■••.Vi • * *‘f% / • .*1 •. »>.2f<.or CWNTY RD,• \ A\62J9 *% 1 f • •• •••:, .V'. \ • (.iC.4^45\ ‘ /4»• L • 4*J*.T»o :rr'’ 7 *. W42 C B2.fl4 \ft« .. — dO*3^-3«‘ uor ----------------- i 01/ ..•.. r-; .'• •• .-v ■'.•;••■//55*02‘ja f • •. NO. -15 ~i--------------------------------------—:_____• /■*••/•'; / * * **• '* t • • / *1 / ! t*/7/o •• / :• . 0/. /IL0.»A •JJV •?Sf^ nfjfMV , — «3aa* — I— ;. ,• • •_ PtMkHtHt Ok5; ctec»rfrn..tm ,»oa . s . I 0\JJ10T i AfX£ MINNETONKA SMITH'S * B ay j»f Aswico *l V/ ic*.y-*.*f.v rs .vr/c-yi • :/f?A4 4/»f B* ‘54 WU :corr jAMK- £■: I"'42.66' af' R t s .• / '-'f /»/!£$ •• • / I •/ '*v ' V** y* M •- . l*-£Tf I .' ■/ "ciwr • *,••• I • • ' /. : '"i' ii •• •/ unoias :S o ? (h 20' lt(N.€A5iU€nr i.. •r' ' /•90A0 • - TH aCT : 3A-OAt 1(to fROI4 WCir €0C€ OF FJtOPOSCO * HI.g. '■--is • I \os to ts «o [Asr ^rj^rrn*# rrs^r nr «*/^n/>rrn CA$r[nn TnAcr * ” 5 f /% . . • • .to •/ C J Y : ^ 41 • • '4- • • \ ------------------------- jc^qo -/^ exnt>Tio^ r^ Association Is (check applicable Iteis): unincorporated hor,eo^Tier*s groua. o. ___ incorporated Hotnecvner's Association. ___ unincorporated club or recreation greup. ^ incorporated club or recreation group. Principal purpose of Joint use dock i.- ^cneck applicable items): ---- provide boat nffloring and lake access for residential property. provide swimming access^ beach, or offshore dock. provide a club or association gathering place for activities. Dock is located on (check applicable item): ___one member’s pri'/ate property. easement or outlet owned in common, property leased by the group/asscciation. property owned by the gror.p/association. L.st Doc.'C location and ownership information; street address K:.\j • i<is^<p-0 -i- oC taJl> legal property description fec:,. a). A PID # W cec.x listed property owr.er(s} A\>y\v\<.TCA;<<A /cVQ Ax'^rr aI 8.Names of abutting lakeshore property owners: (North/West)_ _ _/I.— i. ■ . (Name + Address) (South/East)<" >' : (Name + Address) Names of other affected property owners: (Name + Address) (attach sheet if necessary) 2 of 5 CITY OP ORONO EXHIBIT A RBSOLDTIOR NO. CONDITIONS OP ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE I. IICENSBE: Foxhill Homeowners Association Dock Address: 1801 Shoreline Drive Agent: Judy Zitzloff Address: 1160 Heritage Lane, Wayzata, MN 55391 Licensee is: _ _ _ _ unincorporated homeowner's group XX_ Incorporated homeowner's association _ _ _ _ unincorporated club or recreation group _ _ _ _ incorporated club or recreation group other License Period - January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1990 II. BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibits B-1 thru B-3, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year's license. Authorized Boat Density per attache'^ plan: Bay Smith's Transient (Day use only) Slips Permanent Moorage Slips LiftsBOvi. Sub-Total: Slips at Dock Offshore Buoys Maximum Boats in water Maximum Boats per prior license MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY 13 sarsss exhibit a RBSOLDTIOH ho.^ OF ISSUANCE FOR AMNUAL JOINT PSE DOC!K r.TrPMot.BNSEB: Poxhill Homeowners AssociationAddress: 1801 Shoreline Drivet; Judy Zltzloff1160 Heritage Lane, Wayzata, MN 55391 isee is:—XX— "^Incorporated homeowner’s grouD Z=Z- - - -incorporated club or recrfa??*^^® group__ _ _other ^ recreation group« Period - 31, i„„DENSITY'r Of in-place boat silos j i.™io"„ «e “'"'^"ed Plan^ Exhibits B-1 thTB^x’Vnd , - -er--i‘t^’ed"r„-t^eVB^^^^ I Boat Dens<t-« .... . . -license.Boat Density per attache'^ plan: lent (Day use only) Slips nent Moorage Slips Clifts Jub-Total: Slips at Dock >re Buoys im Boats in Water m Boats per prior license M boat DENSITY Smith’s 0 13 13 sss: V Exhibit A Resolution No Page 2Exceeding this maximum boat density, or exceeding the number of permitted slips, lifts or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 Subdivision 2 of the Oronu Municipal Code.III. DOCK LAYOUTThe dock structure or layout authorized by this license shall be as shown on attached Exhibit D. Any changes in this layout shall be subject to prior review and approval of the City Council. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to tull compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocatiw.. and/or prosecution by the City. 1. The maximum number of slips or moorings to be licensed in the future shall not tceed 16 provided that for any given year, the license shall be ssued for no more than 1 boat per residence in the Foxhill Subdi'ision according to the findings set forih in the Resolution 1042 adopted by the City Council of the City of Ozono on the 12th day of J. le, 1979. 2. Winter storage of dock parts and sections shall be permitted on Outlot #1 between the time the dock is removed from the lake in the fall and June 1st of the following year. V. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a manner permitted by this resolution, but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public interest. 9 . lasurance Coverage - The Jointly used dock is insured by one of the follo^/ing: property owner's honiecwner's policy. X separate group/association owned policy A; Scva-v.:^/2oJ list the folloving inf'orr^tion: name of insured ____________________ name of insurance carrier -L.vj;,vui.hA/C<r (Tc: riAmA of insuracc** agency____T J--v< \ u > _ policy no. l'^\~ I^ ^M 3 cffec^iv-coverage ^ 1 amount of coverage; Public liability, per person, per occurence $ 5-^c:. ccr Public liability, ter occurence 3 ‘^Cs_ ccr; Security and policing of the Jointly ’used dock and property is provide*' by (cneck applicable items): _ 'eacing. ___ sec’urity lighting. ><^ property owner's presence. _ contract security ser*.’ice. other (specify) ^6 ^5 DOCK I?I?C?J<ATION If. List Dock Use Area Specifications: Widf-' of shoreline; S* o' O ft* Length of main dock from shore; Dock setbacks from aide property lines at shore; ft. and D x-vU/A^Ci /tu’* uO^Tt'2. C<sv<=u 1?. Dock Construction (check applicable items): X seasonal docs (relocated or replaced each year). _ _pe’-maneat piling with seasonal deck. _ _ permanent piling and decking. X wooden decking. _ metal decking. 13. List Dock Accessories: Number of fire extinguishers available at the dock cc3 Number of life preservers available at the dock ft. ft. 14. List number of slips in each category ("slips" includes coat lifts): Transient (day use only) slips V*5 • Transient (day use) off-shore buoys Permanent moorage slips "— ^ -— Permanent moorage off-shore buoys Dry storage (rack) slips ^— Maximum number of boats at the dock « 15. List number of off-street parking spaces available for users of the Joint use dock. Parking, if pro\'lded must not be separated from the dock by any public road. O spaces. *3 c l.i . EROSION Alfl) SLi}IMEHTATION COOTROL 16. Shoraline ia ^^rotected by (checlc applicable Iteas): X' stone n? rap. ___vood seaval'.. ____ niei:al seavall.concrete seawall. grass vegetation only, other (specify) 17. Depth of water at shoreline is 3 _ ft; at 50 f-* • at 100 ft. out is 7 .'T‘Uv> 1-i /V/tvirM »T. ✓ I va-L-CvlV •*_ REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application: A. DOCK PLAN - ALL APPLICATIONS a. A dock plan, drawn to scale, showing the shoreline width of this property, side property lines and the location, layout and dimensions of all docks, slips and buoys. If off-street parking, dry storage or other on-land functions are^_ intended, these also should be shown on the plan. UNINCORPORATED GROUPS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. A list Of the names and mailing addresses of all members and/or slip users. 2.A certified copy of the by-laws or agreement for joint use. Note: This copy is not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same by-laws or agreement originally made in - - - --- - (state year) and on file with the City. Applicant * s initials C. INCORPORATED CLUBS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. 2. A list Of the names, mailing addresses and titles of all corporation officers. A statement as to the total number of members in the club or associat. n. 3 members. A certified copy of the articles of incorporation and by-laws of the cor^rt .ion. Note: These copies are not required if the applicant initials and certif the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our Doint use dock City.** Applicant's initials Pace 4 of 5 D. ANNUAL LICENSE FEE - ALL APPLICATIONS Joint Use Dock License Application fee according to the current City Fee Schedule. MINIMUM JOINT USE FEE, per year PLUS SLIP FEE for each permanent moorage slip, lift, dry stack, or buoy _ _ _slips 0 $2.00 each TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION $ 50.00 . 1 ■ \ • • ^ V — LATE FEE - Renewals Applicat :.ons for renewal of licenses shall be made no later than February 1 of the license year. The City shall not accept renewal license applications received after March 1 unless the application is accompanied by a late fee of $25.00. REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, the application will be reviewed by the City Council and, in the case of new or unusual applications, also by the Planning Commission and Marina Committee. The Council will p-ss upon the application after complete review. THE SUBJECT DOCK MAY BE INSTALLED AND/OR OPENED FOR USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Joint Use Dock License Application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City's employees and agents to enter upon the property at any reasonable time to perform safety and code compliance inspections. Signed Date y Page 5 of 5 \ £ )^<dC J OS^Cy;V ’ 4J^A^ W C<iv^CiV\Tl-W I / V t A/'A^ V ^ ''U /{/IA^ nS vi --^V^ I C> ( I C»-(V*-L— -£<^^o /f/t »^i|tOA/^i>r*'Mt?<>C C (^r^c^^" L)t^.'tA,<S <:^ 3C/v^' r?C^ <To5^X >^.4»^ /t/ /^ aV‘r:a;/<4 ^ ///a' s'/j/s Scr^yCr^T/tt^^1 % » ’3vV'-y/+ :>S r-yO I_ _ i{l¥0 l^TCAJ 4l/'d y. 6£^r^J a’CTT'/o/ l4i/^ ^3^1 B t^WC^Ca J Z.pc-_>i^AvCCi^ f . . SumTfcr/c /K'^ AJ -? ^.r^AC) VO C^x/Ckti-wn\,A^^4^T>:.c<^ ll,^ O'j'V^"^ * lA'ZTrh^ di{Vi.i.-Ak sal•^iHOA,,ir/»^77^'C U.04,s <<:/7SP .Tssex /^?.4,i Al I^-A^TZ aJKAt ^(ily^_, x&^>sr(jT’it<‘^i'/c^ V Kc iJ / ,e) / /(//O U^'’toaj /ft/«i ^ ^Slc^i'^uK'CTXiAj j4'ifi ^j// <c3<// SumT5r«r /^'t- a ) /%Z!C^ /fl^ RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE TO MINNETONKA POWER SQUADRON SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREINFOR THE PERIOD OP JANUARY 1, 1990 TO DECEMBER 31, 1990WHEREAS, the City of Orono, hereinaftfc^r "City" is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, State Statute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. seq., to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of the public within the City; andWHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the public waters and on the land within the City which, if unregulated, may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of C ono regulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to residential owners and the commercial marina owners to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining their property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the commonlaw rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owners; WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian owner has exclusive privileges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. Page 1 of 2 ■■■*]StJBJBCT 1990 TO DECS wunicipa^H, mlOB or JA"®** St.« ®‘ "‘""ftatl ['p'bul .„t lutisaictio"Xa'conse/vation .a.e,s .r-a?! o’ the City «*• , i^atutal k«® ice P%®ies to ensure to ^ or neat th P^ ^etriwenta lth,"o»toW dHR, *^?®.“^asiaenvi»l i Is °the regulations te^* ’fh't/‘of tYpVrlan owners, ,„,„„ent Uentlal owners, ^ ’"“"“Ihe'lu'bllo "\nV ls%0a\ed M ;„"owner Oas axolusl anv rlParian^ "avlgaOls aoP„uY and "\\flV to%-%o/,3P/rut that^ * There canj)\ winnetonka i'uftable putpose^^ members o .Tale Winnetonka for all not arrt^St-to ea’^-rlparfao owner. page i o’^ This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the public generally includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights; andWBBRBASf Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights; and WBBRBASf the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and maintained by three or more families, which regulations include the annual licensing of Joint Use Docks pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code; and WBBRBASf the purpose of this Pesolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Joint Use Dock License described on Exhibit A attached, HOW, TBBRBPORB, BB IT RBSOLVBD, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Joint Use Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 12th day of March, 1990. ATTEST: James P. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) S S • COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of March, 1990, 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 2 of 2 the rlp„ian owner hee - e^c^^^o!vi%^\v^“fe\"beneficialbbere la no ahuae of ehe ^|^iF£;;SHf£H'.sr.r.sr ;.S ■sti„‘i-si‘‘t.v "■■■ ■"■"••'" V.v.-..;;‘e; :lsj, “*naf o'n^a notfrI%»l!Hvi TfSf b5*ce'n'a‘I la‘rch“mo?“"‘'“ bhe City of orono at their meeting ^mes R. v^taoeK, Mayor tycTirlT ss. thla 12th cn"h;ha‘l?"rtr-“?‘^‘'>» «Jpo^"at?or/„J a^‘{J WoLary Public Page El^pTiis CITY OP ORONOEXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO.CONDITIONS OF ISSOANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE I. LICENSEE: Minnetonka Power SquadronDock Address: Big Island, Record Lot #5Agent: Dennis G. PetersonAddress: 1758 Essex Road, Minnetonka, MN 55343Licensee is:unincorporated homeowner's group incorporated homeowner's association unincorporated club or recreation group incorporated club or recreation group otherLicense Period - January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1990 II. BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibit B, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year's license. Authorized Boat Density per attached plan: Bay Transient (Day use only) Slips Permanent Moorage Slips Boat Lifts Sub-Total: Slips at Dock Offshore Buoys Maximum Boats in Water Lower Lake Maximum Boats per prior license MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY assscs EXHIBIT A RBSOLOTION NO.ONS OP ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT DSE DOCK LICEWSR CENSEE: Minnetonka Power Squadronk Address: Big Island, Record Lot #5nt: Dennis G. Petersonress: 1758 Essex Road, Minnetonka, MN 55343insee is;unincorporated homeowner's group incorporated homeowner's association— unincorporated club or recreation group ^— other^°*^^^^*^ recreation groupnse Period - January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1990 T DENSITY ed Boat Density per attached plan: Lower Lake isient (Day use only) Slips fianent Moorage Slips : Lifts Sub-Total; Slips at Dock 'hore Buoys mum Boats in Water mum Boats per prior license MOM BOAT DENSITY 45 S = = = = Exhibit A Resolution No. Page 2Exceeding this maximum boat density, or exceeding the number of permitted slips, lifts or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code.III. DOCK LAYOUTThe dock structure or layout authorized by this license shall be as shown on attached Exhibit B. Any changes in this layout shall be subject to prior review and approval of the City Council.IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the City.NoneV. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a manner permitted by this resolution, but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public interest. EXHIBIT a: -Iui«l h* iLl Ck2: § —'o Ul 5-«xo X ^f •• • • ... # -.• •^v 1 1 I # • • "V #N 1 1 I • VJ • 0 « s»1 1 1 1 1 ^ v»v> 0 £ 0 a 0 c) ^ K * */j..mm /f/'i-VJ- p <u€ff .3 license year 19MN 55323 $!i.r by City Staff_*i-d;i—2:-' ,on Returned to City_^ . ^ By Employee.^ ( _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- - - - -- ’O” ) •« nn’awful for any here property* I the City- f^he license VEAR. avnRMATlON „ or na„e U* Bay oible for this application. i£U Vhone_Os^:!U^----- T' ^y.(a.h:oP- . M 7701 -----------^^iress__£Z!i!----'■—^ <;c.c«-'«-Mr ip to association page 1 of 5 -«75 •'■ -. •>U. Association is (checic applicable itexs)*)*-• ■onincorperatea hoxeoi-Trer's group.incorporated Hoxec^vner's Association. :jninoorporated club or recreation group incorporated club or recreation group.5- 8. Principal p'urpose of Joi.n~ 'use dock is (cneck applicable items): yL provide boat taooring a.nd lake access for residential property provide svlmming access, beacn, or offshore ioc.:._ _provide a club or association gathering place for acti’/ities.Dock is located on (chec.t applicable item): one r.exber's pri’.'ate property. ^ easement or outlot o'-'ned in common. property leased by tne group/asscciation. _ property ovned by tne group/essociation. List Dock location ar.d c«T.ers.tit i.nfcrmation: street address _ _ _ _ _ legal property description PID 4 listed property o'«~er(s' Names of abutting lakeshore property owners: (North/West)______________c.-fb Ojp o ______ (Name + Address) (South/East) lA/)v^ _ _ _ _*Z-7o3 (Name + Address) Names of other affected property owners: (Name + Address) (attach sheet if necessary) 2 of 5 5.Ue.,.JL ^^incorporated honeo.per’a drou.o.— i==n-or,ted Joreovrer’a Aaacclatlen.■— '■^^•'^^orporated cinb t,.=-ub or recreation groun.----- incoin^orated club o.-group.P Purpose o: ^oint -use dock is (cneck a-ollc ' '-£ .-«da toat aoorta, .ad p... aoeaaa ror "" s.i:nming access, beacn o P*-opert:---.-utoraaaoe.J- -cared oa (cCec, .icnec^ appxicable ipea);-33 ■’teaser's r.ri-rate propert-. easement or oupiop ct,-ned inin common. -----Preperty lessed b’- ’' “-^e a-roup/asscciot^-'n — property ovned by t^e ^ ^-^-P/association. — ^=:r locatira and orneraal.r laTor-.-a,. «reeo address legal o:r-ne'-v ' ---------------'®-^'/ 'lescrlptio;, PIO 4 listed property o-^TrerCs} Of —-- L^rth/w^c> . owners: of fldtr^ ,-) (Nain^a V ---------------o (Name^ AddFi'^Tr---------------------------- inies of other ra<=^ _ nffeated property o^ers: 2 Of 5 insurance Coverage - The Jointly used dock is insured by one of the following: ^ oroperty owner's homeowner's policy. £A<^ separate group/association owned policy.list the follo’.-ring name of insured .mation:c, t. 6f^'hname of insurance carrier _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _name of insurance agency Je-fprA^j hU4~>effective date of coverage >/i'i/9»policy no. 2-3- Nf-vffyT.t - ^_______amount of coverage; Public liability, per person, per occurence $ <Public liability, per occurence l»nSecurity and policing of the Jointly used dock and property is provided by (check applicable items): _ _ fencing. ^ security lighting. ^ property owner's presence. contract security ser'/ice. other (specify) DOCK IJJFORMATION ll. List Dock Use Area Specifications::W.V I ■ Width of shoreline;ft. Length of main dock from shore; Dock setbacks from side property lines at shore;ft. and 12* Dock Construction (check applicable items): _ _ seasonal dock (relocated or replaced each year). permanent piling with seasonal deck. A permanent piling and decking. » woo'^en decking iretal decking. List Dock Accessories: Number of fire extinguishers available at the dock Number of life preservers available at the dock 14. List number of slips in each category ("slips" incJudea 1 Transient (day use only) slips . Transient (day use, <u-siore buoys Permanent moorage slips S' Permanent moorage off-shore buoys __ Dry storage (rack) slips _____________.Maximum number of boats at the dock List number of off-street parking spaces available for users of the Joint use dock. Parking, if provided must not be separated from the dock by any public road. ____ spaces. ■3 Of’ c ft. ft. 4-mm rtTsiTflrarcHalATal raHiraTa M^KTal ro^KTi] M:w m^' [•Vsrara ar:^alal (aVVal^al tirslaizval pl»irs|fTar=ia M *. «*• ^ nt,- :57 ^l^aTafsrfl r=i»«*i •f 'IW -■ H V RESOLUTION.« 2367My Z Tut Z7CU \a.P1^ ^ y?/ -Of0$ Isl (b ft.VvV \»\ <V\_\ f0^ H RESOLUTION.# 2367HAtii \'^—g:—TT-r ' • _ _ • • •^ooTuoT ' 4'->I A:.• •hRR,^feu'Meu» ^Mo*I 'OU.SI« I TiPv^AvUutv^ 5l.si»' tori ftui V't.i .1 uri X >£ 4-25-84 I • • d. At S , cr^^iop'luor i a. . \• • 5 •■ ftu i i iH- rb/ irr-~ s~o /9Sfo:S-£ /167 - Sai •PftlT «= . /“18 / - S25 RESOLOTION DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A JOINT USE DOCK LICENSETO WALTER'S PORT MAINTENANCE fc IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREINFOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1990 TO DECEMBER 31, 1990WHEREAS, the City of Orono, hereinafter "City" is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, State Statute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. seq., to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of the public within the City; andWHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all ^ which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the public waters and on the land within the City which, if unregulated, may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to residential owners and the commercial marina owners to the extent prohibiting interference with the public waters adjoining their property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the commonlaw rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owners; WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian owner has exclusive privileges over T .* Minnetonka. The only additional private right that any riparian ov may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the n able depth of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that th ,ublic generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. Page 1 of 2 <■ -jp ■ tthe period op JAMOARY 1, ". "ritv* Is s municipallEAS, the City of Orono, hereinafter Minnesota„^\1?rt^’fna*VeVprsriu;^n|er Minnesota St.tutes,^State -;„line“r/l tViVarr^^t^he ViViz^eJs o^^ihe cily ana other I'public within the City! ana »BAS, the City shares M'\n'n^^?Snkrcon« r»hi l';;a^rULrorSat'’ur‘'a‘rMe^''onr''c“e''s%f the State of Minnesota, iREAS, the t®9ulotion of _th^ navlgabjle^wate^ olice power of the ' g„uai enloyitent of the public dopted rules to ®’rnear the public waters and '^fn'\‘h%°‘cUy ihTch?if unregulated, n,ay be detrioental to r.m?sa"fety‘«a general welfare, and 5FEAS, the regulations ^3™'''„„^",'s°'bot"h as'’\rr«i°le?t'la"l , with the ?“*>“■;,7,V?heir trlls?leship over the public waters of Orono must- fulfill ^hei including those who assert 'J ^?g\^"s“o/%a'rrarow\^e?s:"lhe?hei"SJ not they be cooMercial esidential owners; 1 « miinial riaht of enjoyment lEREAS, as to Lake ”iparian owners and the public ,en and is shared eges over -.ke Minnetonka. The 'ian owner has exclusive J;__ may have over the onal private right that »"V tgable depth of the rally is to construct one public generally and :s There can be no dispute . riaht to use the entire an owner to Lake Minnetonka i’Ytable purposes in common with tpVri\%^%w^^\T”mlVi|hVi^s“t‘?nhVno? only to eenbers of but the right to each riparian owner. Page 1 of 2 This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the public generally includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights; andHHEREASe Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and maintained by three or more families, which regulations include the annual licensing of Joint Dse Docks pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and co>":erns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Joint Use Dock License described on Exhibit A attached, ROW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Joint Use Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the City Council of t. e City of Orono at their meeting on the 12th day of March, 1990. ATTEST; James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) SS • COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of March, 1990, 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 2 of 2 I hi ■ft ?!CITY OP ORONO EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. CONDxTIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE POCK LICENSE I. LICENSEE' Walter's Port Maintenance & Improvement Association Dock Address: 2699/2701 Kelly Avenue Agent: Charles E. Garrity Address: 2701 Kelly Avenue, Excelsior, MN 55331 Licensee is:unincorporated homeowner’s group incorporated homeowner's association unincorporated club or recreation group incorporated club or recreation group other _ License Period - January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1990 II. BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibit B, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year's license. Authorized Boat Density per attached plan: Bay Carman Transient (Day use only) Slips Permanent Moorage Slips Boat Lifts Sub-Total: Slips at Dock Offshore Buoys Maximum Boats in Water Maximum Boats per prior license MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY 5 3s:s:s Exhibit A Resolution No. Page 2 P«n,ltted sllps/iiftro.'i^Vvs °t to tevocatlo^n aid “r prosecution Von „ s“»3«=t Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal code. Section 5.42 III. DOCK LAYOUT Shown on attached^ExhAf?t°V ^ An*v°cha^^ this license shall be as subject to prior ^ev^^V Vn‘d Vppr^oVaVVf7hV c‘i"tV^J„\cVr“‘ the cftTiJdVoT?ir?ecD:*’VheissuLcr?vrh'* <■'full compliance with these <'ondltion<! license is subject to conditions is cause fonlc^nSe revocat/on* ^^^eseCity. license revocation and/or prosecution by the 1. Variances granted for 1990: Bloc"*^\'’5^rtVr'''s ‘Vo*rtrV®;V‘’Jeaul''rVd‘proposed XQ required, zero setback Slip 2 - Lot 2, Block 2 Slip 3 - Lot 1, Block 2 Slip 4 - Lot 1, Block 1 lip 5 - Lot 5, Block 3 (part of Lot 1, Carman Bay Heights) configuration*^ the^dock.^ immediately of any change in use or All boats p registered to thi ' 5®‘st use dock must beolicant property owners. four boaU mi*?™m (Vof l^goon/s a?"2?eVlakeshorl) benefit of any property anV vested Vloht"to' “P°" ®ny person for the premises In a manner permitted bv thi Minnetonka or the Minnetonka and the premises sh»i 'and ordinances as the city and other rnmr. fo such regulations shall deem necessary from time to time iTVhV puVlYc VnVe^reVt!’’°'^“‘®" • •,RESOL. . ..JN.If .“tr- • m ey mtii-r-g UPyC^OQ M CooT v-oT Ooc-V< . U?.^^ OUT =•'■--■--“T---------- “. —- • • lE.: R\P t\f ml WALTER'S PORT (North)t subject CO Order of 4-25-84 VJOft.'VH Mft\-U /^0ft - S’ e> 1‘ib‘l - S-o' ■. ■ l^AO '5'^ • • • Su.9 \ 2. 3 S •5 ! • • . L jOT a. ta,\. a. uor'a. n»u a. • 1 iH- ^0VOT\ A ) frn- s’o '• N t^u \ ••• .. . •5"t UOrT S • tiu !<\ &7 - Si - rCVQ,T 0^ uorx \ Ct^o«r^Kv> Vk?l\ cvk'r ( n h k \ I ^C 0 OT uoT ***** t^o<^K . W^T out CITY OF ORONO P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 473-7357 LICENSE YEAR 19 ^Q• • • •• • ^5) ^Mo'T I ^7 Ctt> u- • • 5l.sj>' %Li c j-a* Lori X (association)ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42Date Form Sent by City Staff_ _ _Date Application Returned to City_/ ■.r>Fee Recived $By Employee.., ? *^<“5 ' MM - L. juMSF •iWM’!?{.•«. U/JJ/X Section 5.42 Subdivision 2. LICENSE REQUIRED - It is unlawful for any (?roup or association of persons or families, more than two in number, whether incorporated or not) to engage or participate in...joint use (of any lakeshore property) without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPLICATION, REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY MARCH 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. • • • ' - :?•••• V • ^ 2'^TLaT‘ MftU. ' • ‘-or- a •• • • ! ••• •. * a- . -iu a. ‘ <iUA /fH-ra '• . lil -v • —.O', ■i /‘(67-Si-" «i .."U/’-> • • ASSOCIATION INFORMATION 1. Association title or name (if any) Bcack SVxo*‘eS fT\\fmeibA k>_____________Bay_____lOtt'V ________2. Lake 3. Person responsible for this application: Name___ Zofck»v>an Phone w. an*^QQQ OMflg Mailing Address bupoAt A^/ftnuASoJt^ rr)mi\<apdlt& mhJ gSM03 Relationship to association Qtona^ Page 1 of 5 li. m •• • .r-Hr? 66BAY, MN 55323OINT USE DOCK LT^T^WfiE APPLICATION ■' to Orono Municipal Code section 5.42 «>cm ^ iP. w.m sent by City Staff lication Returned to City_^- -1.- -=1ved $By Employee ^,r' . ■ ~-iCT —f* • _ ^5.42 subdivision 2. LICENSE ’^re'^hafnL2«,E=i3S-rKfh^ from the City. OMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED ;NTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITi CLERK BY 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. ION INFORMATION , •4: Bcack SVto^esiation title or name (if ^ — ----------A-----------' __________Bay ------U)«V ftwi---------- OMBSL [on responsible for this application; , U.T?>cViArA £ofckiv>»n _Phone u*. Bn-^OOQ----- Ling bupoat Ax/fenuASojtVl—m^nni;VfO>SSHfl3 itionship to association___QiOnj6r------------------------------- !»■. Association is (check applicable itercs);JC^ oncH___unincorporated hocieovuer's group..ncoroorated Honecwner's Associatic5.6.unincorporated club or recreation group incorporated club or recreation group.Principal purpose of Joint ’ise dock is (check applicable items)?X provide boat mooring and lake access for residential property.___ provide svimmlig access, beach, or offshore dock.___provide a club or association gathering place for acti*/ities.IDock is located on (check applicable item);X ~~i~ pri’/ate property. easement or outlc wned in common. ___ property leased by the group/asscciation. ___ property owned by the group/association. list Dock location and ownership information: street address biof'tW N.w. Comar eX Sac legal orooerty description 2.X OOO^ (^«» Ml. R.av\ae.t: < Sac n ff. M* i.-A« Ler» %, %: w. on 4-a PID ^ S>%o<e N.VJ. >\<»l>^3 -»o w. Vo ba^i.^»\,.^^ listed property owr.er(s) __________U»fi%cVM.aA 'Z.v>cV<w\ar> 8. Names of abutting lakeshore property owners: (North/West) hOOS >0e«*tW Pr»y«. (Name + Address) (South/East) E<SS 1W3S Cea>c«rA>a S4. (Name + Address) Names of other affected property owners; Page 1 of 5 (Name + Address) (attach sheet if necessary) 2 of 5 5 / V / 9 Insurance Coverase - The Jointly ’osed dock is instired by one of the followlagj property o’^*er*s homec’^Tier*s policy. )( seoarare ^rc*rw/'association ovr.ed policy. -1st tr.e follcvln.p information: name of insured V\%^\c V n ^^A ZocV(<ro^o name of Insurance carrier fNliuj l^^ur^ryC^ C q ^ name of insurance a^pency policy no. C\)0 effective date of coverage 8*1 amount of coverage; Public liability, per person, per occurence $ 2^,000 10- Public liability, per occurence $ 2^iOOQiOOO Security and policing of tne Jointly 'used Ioc.< and property is provided by (cneck applicable items): ___ fencing. X sec'urlty lighti.ng. ___ property owner's presence. ___ contract security ser'/ice. other (specify) DOCK i:i?C?>*^TI0N 11. List Dock Use Area Specifications: Width of shoreline; JBS.ftS' ft. Length of main dock from shore; 5(p Dock setbacks from side property lines at shore; 12. Dock Construction (check applicable items): ft. and X seasonal dock (relocated or replaced each p^ear). _ _ permanent piling with seasonal deck. permanent piling and decking. X wooden decking. _ _ metal decking. 13. List Dock Accessories: Number of fire extinguishers available at the dock _ _ _ _I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Number of life oreservers available at the dock 0 ft. ft. 14. List number of slips in each category ("’slips'* incltues boat lifts): Transient (day use only) slips O . Transienu (day use) Ox'f-sho ^ys O . Permanent moorage slips _____7 Permanent moorage off-shore bao>o O Dry storage (rack) slips Q . Maximum numba* of boats at the dock 7 15* List number of of*f-street parking spaces available for u 1 the Joint use dock. Parking, if provided must not be separated from tht-. r. by any public 2.0 spaces. ^ c ist ths follcvir.5 in:'orra-ion;3r.e Of Inourod H-<^'e.Karj““ -lWlkyiosh'f,U<u.»v,..Me of Insurance agency rOtguirt Raaoeu°ny^-S!^________ effa.-.fue dsae of couara,e 8-1-S^cun-. Of coreradc; Public llabl-l-.y, p.,, person, per occurence s2,OOQ.no„onri-.y and aoll=ln^“f'-°.."!p,':::!’, "'!■ ” = OOP, OOP’■eel applicable l-Snsi.. ■- ...........' ='-'^ P^Pe.-.y is provided by- X sec’orit;'/ l-'^nt-'nir. -i..w.ng. ---- .-roperty owner's presence.. ccntracc sec-ority ser*/ice. o-.her (‘ *‘-r\DPJ'ATION : DOCJC Use Area Specificatiuns; <n Of snoreline; 21^,ft. of cain dock fnDni shore; Zip ft, . setbacks from side property lines at shore; ft. and Construction (check applicable items): seasonal dock (relocated or replaced each year). :ermaneat piling with seasonal deck ner-., -ecK. - - permane.nt piling and declcing, -ooden decking. _ „etal dec.king. Oock Accessories: / r of fire ej-inguigherg available at the dock r of life preservers available at the dock _____ ijinber of slips in each cate‘T3~v' f''sHnfl" -f iaoe^.y ^ Slips Incliues boat lifts): Lent (day use only) alins 0 . xran«,i-------Transit nc (day use) ox’f-sho tys Q ent moorage slips 7 , ------- ------—1---------. permanent .-noorege off-shore buo>o O «c (ruck) sUps -----Q----------^ joint uc, -W spaces. " separated from th^ k by any public ^ nr f EROSION AJTO SEMMENTATION CONTROL16. Shorsline is protected by (checic applicable itenis):stone rip irap. ^*^ood seaval.l. metal seava-il.concrete seawall.grass and vegetation only, other (specify)17. Depth of water at shoreline is O ft; at 50 f*^* fat 100 ft. out is IS^ .REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application:A. DOCK PLAN - ALL APPLICATIONSA dock plan, drawn to scale, showing the shoreline width of this property, the side property lines and the location, layout and dimensions of all docks, slips and buoys. If off-street parking, dry storage or other on-land functions are intended, these also should be shown on the B. UNINCORPORATED GROUPS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. A list of the names and mailing addresses of all members and/or slip UF‘*rs. 2. A certified copy of the by-laws or agreement for joint use. Note: This copy is not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same by-laws or agreement originally made in (state year) and on file with the City." _ _ Applicant’s initials INCORPORATED CLUBS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. A list of the names, mailing addresses and titles of all corporation officers. 2. A statement as to the total number of members in the club or association. _ _ _ members. 3. A certified copy of the articles of incorporation and by-laws of the corporation. Note: These copies are nut required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same articles of incorporation and/or by-laws as originally made or last ended in _ _ _ (state year) and on file with t'v City." _____________Appl -ant ’s \p. ...*.ai3 n Page 4 of 5 gnTMENTATION CONTROLe is protected by (checic applicable items}:e rip rap. _*^od seavall. _ _=etal seawall. _ _concrete seawall.be^ch3 «ri(^ vegetation only, other (specij.y)water at shoreline is O at 50 , ioi. out is IS ^ ♦ENTS The following must accompany this application:ALL APPLICATIONS, drawn to scale, showing the shoreline width of this property, the :y lines and the location, layout and dimensions of all docks, slips If off-street parking, dry storage or other on-land functions are lese also should be shown on the plan.:ed groups or associations)f the names and mailii>g addresses of all members and/or slip uc.ars fied copy of the by-laws or agreement for joint use. Note: This not required if the applic2mt initials and certifies the following it; "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be 1 under the same by-laws or agreement originally made in HfiB ^ear) and on file with the City." _Applicant's initials CLUBS OR ASSOCIATIONS if the names, mailing addresses and titles of all corporation officers. lent as to the total number of members in the club or association, imbers. ied copy of the articles of incorporation and by-laws of the corporation, hese copies are not required if the applicant initials and certifies owing statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock operated under the same articles of incorporation and/or by-laws as ly made or last ended in ■_ _(state year) and on file with th AppI ^ant's vr. .a.als Paae 4 of 5 :li r i 1 D.ANNUAL LICENSE FEE - ALL APPLICATIONSJoint Use Dock License Application fee according tw the current City Fee Schedule.MINIMUM JOINT USE FEE, per year PLUS SLIP FEE for each permanent r -rage slip, lift, dry stack, juoy 7 slips 0 $2.00 each $ 50.00$ m.QCTOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION $ bv4 0OLATE FEE - Renew;-1Applications i Feoruary 1 of t license apclicat, is accompanied by al of licenses shall be made no later than .ise year. The City shall not accent renewal -ecLiived after March_ _1 unless the applicationate fee of $25.00.REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, the application will be reviewed by the City Council and, in the case of new or unusual applications, also by the Planning Commission and Marinr Committee. The Council will pass upon the application after complete review. THE SUBJECT DOCK MAY BE INSTALLED AND/OR OPENED FOR USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code, the arr^-icant • hereby requests the O-ono City Council to review this Joint Use Dock License Application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City's employees and agents to enti. upon the property at any reasonable tin.a to perform safety and code compliance inspections. Signed _ _Date Page 5 of 5 . -\-'•o'� I ' I ' ' ' ' I ' IIlI 'I IIIIIIIIIIII IIIII I III I I I IIIII ' r I II I I ' I III I II I III ' E)<J�IBl t e r''0'�2599 J?_FSc, L •.1l 'f"?.O tJ /JC,, 1 -�",� I � � ¥' • SANOY BEAC..-1 PROPo SEO O ot K P L A N / � 9 0 S�MDY 8E�C.ti K �\C\\,._�ZUC K M,._N ' II I I III ' I III' st4o�E Ll�E' SCALE" \ '' � '2. 0' l l ' III 'Il II( RBSOLOTIOR DIRBCTIM6 STAFF TO ISSUE A JOIRT USB DOCK LICENSE TO SAMDT BEACH PLACE SOBJECT TO CORDITIORS NOTED HEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OF JANDART 1, 1990 TO DBCBHBER 31, 1990 WHEREAS, the City of Orono, hereinafter ’City" is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, State Statute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. seq., to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of the public within the City; and WHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the public waters and on the land within the City which, if unregulated, may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, MCD, ?:nd the City of Orono regulate the property rights of the riparian ov ;s t '.t.i as to residential owners and the commercial marina owners to t extent prohibiting any Interference with the public waters adjoining tneir property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert th( ‘ ■ ‘ ... .le commonlaw rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owners; WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian owner has exclu^''ve privileges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right tiiat any riparian owner way have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suit, ble purposes in common with all other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. Page 1 of I..OT JMTOART 1, 1990 TO DICBIBBR 31. 1990w«^«<niifter •City* is s municipal :he City of Orono. hereinafter^ the State of Minnesotaty^Sd^VesVonsiMUty et""seq?. \TprtVect''thllVlV«rort\% Clfy .n- other.c within the City; and he City shares Mi^^^^ o?"«ur.l ses^uroes of the State of Hinnesote, the regulation of the nevigab^le^eetets^^^^^^ power of the State, ^. enioyment of the public ^rules to ensure to all equal loy^ public waters and unregulated, may be detrimental to safety and general welfare; an the regulations ^he "5g^Vj"n a^s\o^residenti^^ ;ty rights of the riparian o* ®vtent prohibiting any aeerclal earlna »*"/'«,.\“„\„ei? p?oplrty. The LBCB, the PUbli'^J'AV'rh.iVtrSstleshlp oier the public waters ino nust fulfill th _ including those who assert tVot "rlVatlM"owne«, whether or not they be coeeereial :ial owners; , as to Lake ^^an^ihe'^^b^i^c g^eniMllyris shared by riparian o ””®' Minnetonka. The mer has exclu'^ve an owner may have over the rivate right that any °”r*'iqVle depth of theis to construct one dock ^e n generally and ere can be no dispute ^iaht to use the entire ler to Lake Minnetonka ^ puJl in common with :^\w\^^^^‘'TMsVig*ht^“s“i^r?JhVno? only to nenbers of ‘ right to each riparian owner. Page 1 of 2 H This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the public generally Includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights; andHBBRBAS, Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights; and WBBRBAS. the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and maintained by three or more families, which regulations include the annual licensing of Joint Ose Docks pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code; and ITHBRBAS. the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Joint Use Dock License described on Exhibit A attached, NOW, TBBRBPORB, BB IT RBSOLVBD, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Joint Use Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 12th day of March, 1990. James R, Grabek, Mayor ATTEST; ■Jorothy M. Hallln, City dlerk .STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) 8S. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of March, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Rallin, Mayor 6 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 2 of 2 CITY OP OROHO EXHIBIT A RBSOLOTIOH NO. CONDITIONS OP ISSOANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE I. LICENSEE: Sandy Beach Place Dock Address: 3995 North Shore Drive Agent: R. Richard Zuckman Address: 1819 Dupont Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55403 License Period - January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1990 II. BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibit B, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year s license. Authorized Boat Density per attached plan: Bay West Arm_ _ _ Transient (Day use only) Slips 0 Permanent Moorage Slips 7 Boat Lifts 0 Sub-Total: Slips at Dock Offshore Buoys Maximum Boats in Water Maximum Boats per prior license MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY I Exhibit A Resolution No. Page 2 Exceeding this naxlnuin boat density* or exceeding the number of permitted slips* lifts or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code. Ill. DOCK LAYOUT The dock structure or layout authorized by this license shall be as shown on attached Exhibit B. Any changes in this layout shall be subject to prior review and approval of the City Council. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the City. 1. The seven approved slips are for the exclusive use of the residents/renters of Sandy Beach Shores. 2. City may require written approval from abutting and affected property owners for each annual license review. V. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a manner permitted by this resolution* but the use of Lake Minnetonka end the premises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinal, .es as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public Interest. U. • »• tiO. |<»0> H oRB»-»M^ ^Ar40Y BEACH /W - 7 * 'P SU« ixrr LiHB PROPOSED DOCK P»-AN SAlHDt BBACH U ZUCKHRN SCALt r - 20^ ' f i j { ■f . -ft ipplicabie items): (Sideotial property.t dock.ce for activities. ,r N tW ^•'•Kj cc:-,' lers; 5-c^ “5 hJA : if necessary) 9 .' Insurance Coverage - The Jointly used dooS la Insured by one of the folloulng; property ovner's hoiaeovner's policy.^1^separate group/association owned policy, list the folic ini'ormation:name of insured Uname of insurance carrier A O i*v<^ *v - - - - - - - - - - -——n«mg of insurance agency f fpolicy no. '^'7? K- effective date of coverageaniount of coverage; Public liability, per person, per occurencePublic liability, per occurence ?________J-------- Security and policing of the Jointl:- used dock and property is provided by (check applicable items): fencing.security lighting. ^^^property owner's presence. contract security sear.-lGe. other (specify) DOCK IHFCRMATION 11. List Dock Use Area Specifications; Width of shoreline; '*^>0 ^ ft. Length of main dock from shore; ft. Dock setbacks from side property lines at shore; - ft. and i ft. 12. Dock Construction (check applicable items); _ seasonal dock (relocated or replaced each year). permanent piling with seasonal deck. permanent piling and decking, wooden decking. _ _ metal decking. 13. List Dock Accessories: Number of fire extinguishers available at the dock Number of life preservers available at the dock _/0<2> 14. List number of slips in each category ("slips" includes boat lifts): Transient (day use only) slips _____. Transient (day use) off-shore buoys Permanent moorage slips _6.Permanent moorage off-shore buoys Dry storage (rack) slips ^Maximum number of boats at the dock 15. List number of off-street parking spaces available for users of U»9 joint ^e dock. Paling, if provided must not be separated from the dock by any publl', road . • *5 c )\ i': 1 A •'s insured "by one of the following:verage - The Jointly used doch is insureaowner's homeowner's policy., -oup/association owned policy.t- A •,ns inforaation:ranee carrier 0v.*-' " S -- ^„nce ag.ncy I j.effective date of coverage 7^1^— a930COCi,».r.ge: Public lietai-.y, par peraoa, per occur.ne. _Public liability, per occurence “ ^policing o; the jolntl:- need dock and property ie provided -ocable items):_ security lighting, ^property ovner's presence, security ser'.'ice. other (specify) ------------------------------------- ;e Area SpBcifica’tioas: .rellne, ■vV: ^ ft. Ungth of Min dock fro. shore ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ts from side property lines at shore; »”« ■ ' =~ action (check applicable items): 1 dock (relocated or replaced each year). ,^A«eic ^^oermanent piling and decking, nt piling witn seasonal deck. decking. _ _metal decking. •cessories: Lre extinguishers available at the dock ife preservers available at the dock _ of .lip. ih each category C'eliph" Iholudes hoot lift.): (gay us. only) .Up, ____• Trensl.nt(d«. use) off-eh.rm huoye . oor«^ supe ^ -• — Vfexiio'iB number of boats at the dock _ . (rack) Sd^iS___________** , of off-etreet “Hoc^ S'e^^PUbUd EROSION AMD SEDIMENTATION COOTROL16. Shoreline is protected by (check applicable items):stone rip rap.wood seawal.'..metal seawall.concrete seawall.grass and vegetation only, o-cher (specify)17. Depth of water at shoreline is (""^ft; at 50 ft. out is ^ Jat 100 ft. out isREQUIRED ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application:A. DOCK PLAN - ALL APPLICATIONSA dock plan, drawn to scale, showing the shoreline width of this property, the side property lines and the location, layout and dimensions of all docks, slips and buoys. If off-street parking, dry storage or other on-land functions are intended, these also should be shown on th. )lan.UNINCORPORATED GROUPS O: ASSOCIATIONS 1. A list of the neunes and mailing addresses of all members and/or slip users. 2. A certified copy of the by-laws or agreement for joint use. Note; This copy is not required if the applican*" initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal a:., iication and our joint use dock is to operated under the same by-laws or agreement originally made in _ I ,,ate yeeur) and on file with the City." Applicant's initials INCORPORATED CLUBS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. 2. 3. A list of the neunes, mailing addresses and titles of all corporation officers. A statement as to the total number of members in the club or association, members. A certified copy of the articles of incorporation and by-laws of the corporation. Note: These copies are not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following scatement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock ... - . ., .^ e by-laws as year, and on file wxth the City." Cb the following scatement: "This is a renewal application and our jou is to be operated under the same articles of incorporation and/or by* originally made or last amended in ( - (state yeai/ and on fil< Applicant's initials Paae 4 of 5 [•VMM ^LICENSE FEE - ALL APPLICATIONS»PPli=«i°n *ee according to the current$ 50.00$ ^~2 .c:yC^IlNIMUM JOINT USE FEE, per year *LUS SLIP FEE for each permanent moorage slip, lift, dry stack, or buoy _^slips @ $2.00 eachOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATIONRenewals:edure received, the application will bei«! h case of new or unusualLiii Planning Commission and Marina Committee. will pass upon the application after complete Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code the anni-Jj^iain- . .sts the Orono City Council to rilie. ttis JoInJ'^SL Sock lication, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and employees and agants to enter upon the propL?y at 2nv tim(j to perform safety and code compliance^inspectionL My Date "S? •- \ ^ Page 5 of 5 RBSOLOTION DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSDB A JOINT USB DOCK LICENSE TO VICTORIA ESTATES HOMBOflNBRS ASSOCIATION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREINFOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1990 TO DECEMBER 31» 1990WHBRBASy the City of Orono, hereinafter "City" Is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, State Statute 412, et, seq. and State Statute 462, et. seq., to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of the public within the City; andWHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the public waters and on the land within the City which, if unregulated, may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to residential owners and the commercial marina owners to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining their property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the commonlaw rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owners; WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian owner has exclusive privileges over Lake MinnetonN-. The only additional private right that any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. Page 1 of 2 ’'ISSSct 1«IB PTOIOD JMIOAR^ «r^tv" is » municipalthe City of Orono, the ® tutes\"”state??.*nlzea ana «xls^,;flVty unaer Minnesota ® „ project the“e%^r'^^al“?^{SVatr*ort\%^A\i4ns oi tne City r,u\"ur«"‘'i" ,„i,aiction over the the Department o£ Involves an --‘Sir This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the public generally includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and1THBRBAS, Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights; and HBBRBASp the City has ad^—^ted reasonable regulations regarding the construction and use of 1« shore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and maintained by three or more families, which regulations include tne annual licensing of Joint Ose Docks pursuant to Section S.42 of the Orono Municipal Code; and WBBRBAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Joint Use Dock License described on Exhibit A attached, HOW, THBRBFORB, BB IT RESOLVBD, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Joint Use Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 12th day of March, 1990. iJ ATTEST: James R. Grabek, Mayor .....„ ............ f. "S' It;an own6T that, any ^ sind rtU-r^S? « o«ne:. page 1 of 2 Dorothy M. Hallin, City clerk STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of March, 1990, 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 2 of 2 CITY OP OROHOEXHIBIT A RBSOLOTION NO.CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSELICENSEE; Victoria Estates Homeowners Association Dock Address: 540 North Arm DriveAgent: Paul HanssenAddress: 520 North Arm Drive, Mound, HN 55364unincorporated homeowner's group incorporated homeowner's association unincorporated club or recreation group Incorporated club or recreation group otherLicense Period - January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1990The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibit B, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year's license. i •*h Exhibit A Eesoluticn No. Page 2 Exceeding this maximum boat density, or exceeding the number of permitted slips, lifts or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code. III. DOCK LAYOUT The dock structure or layout authorized by this license shall be as shown on attached Exhibit B. Any changes in this layout shall be subject to prior review and approval of the City Council. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the City. 1. Six slips are approved for Victoria Estates Homeowners Association for 1990 subject to the stipulations set forth in Resolution #962 dated December 18, 1978. 2. All boats permanently moored at this Joint Use Dock must be registered to the applicant property owners. V. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any verted right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a manner permittee, jy this resolution, but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public Interest. ■< ¥ V :• ^ 'i I I j| i I tyA\nneVO*"^/ Ir LC'^ IS’ By^Hi^r' S/2csotx<cr70AJ A^® •/fS5'^ *2 5*-"*^ ..... -l<!W'^6* *‘*3 o o • • •• •• /■f79-t» /w -<g^ /f^r— /^4» - <0 CITY OF ORONO P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 473-7357 LICENSE YEAR 19*^0(association)3aca:: ^ANNUAL C'OINT USE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42Date Form Sent by City Staff 3 ~'Date Application Returned to City -" -~—-SilBX-RECEIPT-Vm YOIBy Employee, :y<Z:m(iS40 cm ' _ I Fee Recived $ S'- (‘‘ o. ■ •-- .-’.‘C Section 5.42 Subdivision 2. LICENSE REQUIRED - It is unlawful for any (group or association of persons or families, more than two in number, whether incorporated or not) to,engage or participate in...joint use (of any laJceshore property) without f*,rst having obtained a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPLICATION, REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY MARCH 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. ASSOCIATION INFORMATION 1. Association title or name (if any) A/O^^ 2. Lalce Bay O^YSTy^C 3. Person responsible for this application: Name ^ Phone SJS-- Mailing Address sS/'S’S’ ^t/£^ \S^S^/ Relationship to association ^^CAC Page 1 of 5 t'ii. ORONO X 66^BAY, MN 55323 license yearIt ion)LICENfiR APPLICATTDM Municxydi Code Section 5.42I Sent by City Staff 2-"ication Returned to City By Employee' -1-fuX tor any .corporated or i" havinr?b “in':i-a'?i “|nse“ sflSo^yiSsf wliSon fe^tS oeouiredOF THE LICENSE YE^S. ^^^Y CLERK BY A/qaJ^, Cj^VS7>f/^ Linformation ion title or name (if any) ^sponsible for this application: ^ -----Phone _^tf^ ) hxp to asaooiatron_^^^4g ^^ Page 1 of 5 ; 5 )h-‘I*. Association is (check applicable iteins):^ unincorrcrated honeovner's group.___ incorporated Honecw^er's Association.___ unincorporated club or recreation groupincorporated club or recreation group5. Principal purpose of Joint ’use dock is (check applicable itens);y provide boat mooring and lake access for residential property___ pix3vide svimming access, beach, or offshore dock.___pro ’/ide a club or association gathering place for activities.6. Dock is located on (check applicable item):y one member's pri ’/ate property. easement or outlot owned in common. property leased by the group/asscciation. property owned by the group/associatioa. 7- List Dock location and ownership information: street address legal property description piD # o9-z3 yj'j ooc/ listed property owr.er(s) Names of abutting lakeshore property owners: /fflortir2>West)/^>5t4^ ¥ ’.J^^^AUZtiACY JV^tT ^ ^ (Name + Address) (f§outli)(East) /^C.C ^ ^ (Name ■«■ Address) Names of other affected property owners: (Name + Address) (attach sheet if necessary) </ y?/o^yfS ¥Si/£>Pt/ ^r>y-C06cf yJ/SS~ ^ S^A//j4yA/7~/^OQi^ 2 of 5 is (check applicable iteas): rcratad honeovner ’s rated Homeo^mer's Association, norated club or recreation group, rated club or recreation group.-orpose of Joint ’ose dock is (check applicable items):, boat mooring and lake access for residential property. I svimming access, beach, or offshore dock.! a club or association gathering place for acti ’/ities. rated on (check applicable item): iber's pri'/ate property, at or outlot ovned in common, by leased by the group/association. by owned by the group/association, location and ownership information: ress f rr TS9. lerty description rnerty ovner(s) ZT7^-C./C mtting lakeshore property owners: ------------r (Name + Address) ^^ -----------------------(Name + Address) ther affected property owners: ime + Address)(attach sheet if necessary) ___ /fa^A/S y4ys/7~^^ 2 of 5 y 9 . Insurance Coverage - The jointly used dock is insured by one of the following:___ property owner's homeowner ’s policy.___ separate group/association owned policy.list the following information:name of insured __________________________name of insurance carrier .V^ I -■t name of Insurance agency _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _policy no. Jf/9/U9/C9 effective date of coverage ^//s/90amount of coverage; Public liability, per person, per occurenceSecurity and poxicing oi tne Jointly usee aocic . na property is provided by (check applicable items); fencing.security lighting. X property owner's presence. contract security service, other (specify) DOCK IflPOiyWTION 11. List Dock Use Area Specificatluos: Width of shoreline; ft. Length of main dock from shore; SO —S’S^ ft. Dock setbacks from side property lines at shore; SO v*~ ft. and 70"^ ft. _ , , , s,Dock Construction (check applicable items): X seasonal dock (relocated or replaced each year). ____ permanent piling with seasonal deck. X wooden decking. _ metal decking. permanent piling and decking. 13. List Dock Accessories: Number of fire extinguishers available at the dock Number of life preservers available at the dock /O 14. List number of slips in each category ("slips" includes boat lifts); Transient (day use only) slips . Transient (day use) off-shore buoys Permanent moorage slips ^ Permanent moorage off-shore buoys __ Dry storage (rack) slips ____________.Maximum number of boats at the dock 15.List aunber of off-street parking spaces available for users of the Joint use dock. Paiklng, if provided must not be separated from the dock by any public xoad. Q spaces. •» 0-' c Insurance Coverage - T»ia '- Joia^^y used docJt la insured by one of 11— °«ner's ho.»o«ner.s policy. f=Uo«ng:- - separate group/associatioa ovned policy.-1st the following infonaation:“®“® of insured _ >rMoe Of insurance agency __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _of coverage ^//S/9aiinount of coverage; Public liabil-‘v n«.^ ^---------— » - - person, per occurence $•* «*—M ^ ^ -P*jh J T •* J e j ^ ft. ..piiccmTic^J;. ----------------- -cy_ f.n=ln*. __ ^_ contract security se-^ce. other (specify) POflHATIOW ’* A«a Specification: Ith of shoreline; /SC> f* t » eetbacka f„o aide cioca^y an,'^'’ S£^Si_ ft. * - at shore; Oonatntttlca (check appllcahl, iteos). •e.aon.1 dock (located or npiaoad each year,. permanent piling vrf-w »«f AAng wi oh seasonal deck wodaa daoklag. _ ~ Mllog aitl dacklns. Dock Accessories: - Of fi« extinguishers available at the dock ^ 'r Of life preservers available at the dock y- number of slips in each category C'sHdb" < ~ -• . / ^ iflcludtes boat H^a) * k.nt (day us, only) .Up, , , ■ent norag, aUp, _ 7 --------’ huoy. __ «™«e (rack) aUpa'"''^ ______ “■ber of off-etreet TT" ^ “enber of boats at the dock 3 ^ 0-* c ■;?EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION COOTHOLShoreline is protected by (check applicoble iters):?/ht7zv /yX stone ri? rap.wood seawal'..r.etal seawall.concrete seawall.17.X gras^^a^^e^tatlon only, oo.aer (specify) ________________De?oh of water at shoreline is O A/^^ft; at 50 ft. cut is ;Alc, y?y/s fSk£^?-z^yat 100 ft. out is _n-REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application:A. DOCK PLAN - ALL APPLICATIONS C. A dock plan, drawn to scale, showing the shoreline width of this property, the side property lines and the location, layout and dimensions of all docks, slips and buoys. If off-street parking, dry storage or other on-land functions are intended, these also should be shown on the plan.B. UNINCORPORATED GROUPS OR ASSOCIATIONS A list of the names and mailing addresses of all members and/or slip users. A certified copy of the by-laws or agreement for joint use.* Note: This copy is not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same by-laws or agreement originally made in _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (state year) and on file with the City." A///) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Applicant's initials INCORPORATED CLUBS OR ASSOCIATIONS A///^ 1. A list of the names, mailing addresses and titles of all corporation officers. 2. A statement as to the total number of members in the club or association. _ _ _ members. 3. A certified copy of the articles of incorporation and by-laws of the corporation. Note: These copies are not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same articles of incorporation and/or by-laws as originally made or last amended in _ _ _ _ _ _ _(state year) and on file with the City." Applicant's initials CuncAC ^ j '7Ac'j*fJ9-S f SUS/9^ ^y2^7J9 s/^s /^£>63 AaV^ys „ Page 4 of 5 •Mill .’Vto the currehtt use Dock License Applies iFee schedule. <; ^o.OO ---------Fee ------minimuh joint use FEEj_ p«PLUS SLIP pee ^j-y stack/^^^Lorage sUP^/ifi;3Y$2.00 each or buoy -*2_stotal due this application- Renewalsse a - Renewals chall be inade no rg>newal com]ani^ ancEDURE- - • n is received, the applj-^tio 'il will pass ut' fTCE ONLY UPO il will pa»= “f-..^..EOhNO/OEOFEHEOEOK USE ONLT UPON LK®S ET THe'cITY COUNCIL. 3F THE LluaiNijee -- A the app leant to section 5.« council“M^«^i®“hfcitf.quests the Otono City property at any Le time to perform Date.oe//9/9^ gned.S__^ page 5 of 5 V . .!: )ri I • Ul >2?y ^^H-iAtT S(ZiESOU. AJo.2600/ISda/‘ta->nssh?f)2i sci^s3. si^pz3ZLiP^ •—•eJ -- .Sc^ce: !'* s. ■- 'If ■n V •: Zo m m RBSOLUTIOH DIRBCTING STAFF TO ISSUE A JOIHT USB DOCK LICBHSB TO THE OWHERS OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3155 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, 3185 NORTH SHORE D’xiVB,AND 1406 BOHN'S POINT ROAD SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREINFOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1990 TO DECEMBER *^1, 1990WHEREAS, the City of Orono, hereinafter "City" is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota statutes. StateStatute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. seq.,health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and othermembers of the public within the City; andWHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka District and the Department of natural Resources of the State of Minnesota;and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono, a which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the public waters and on^the land within the City which, if unregulated, may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfar*; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of OJP"? regulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to residential owners and tne commercial marina owners to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining their property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the commonlaw rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owners; WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the no one riparian owner has exclusive privileges over Lake only additional private right that any riparian owner 2*®/® °j^®^ lH public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. Page 1 of 2 P TOSHSB»TBD AT[ SHORE D’KiVB,lADHEREINlECEMBER 11, 1990fter "City" is a municipal 18 of the State of Minnesota Minnesota statutes. State et. seq.f to protect the Lzens of the City and otherTisdiction over the primary ;e Minnetonka Conservation 3 of the State of Minnesota; Lgable wate*s involves an \ the City of Orono, all of j1 enjoyment of the public near the public waters and ted, may be detrimental to nd LMCD, and the City of Orono lers both as to residential he extent prohibiting any their property. The LMCD, ship over the public waters including those who assert r or not they be commercial nutual right of enjoyment and the public generally, over Lake Minnetonka. The jn owner may have over the :he navigable depth of the t the public generally and le right to use the entire le purposes in common with ght not only to members of This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and thepublic generally Includes the recreational benefits of the lake such asboating and fishing therein; the riparian owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and ^WHEREAS, Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights;WHEREAS, the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such racilities are used and maintained by three or more families, which regulations include the annual licensing of Joint Use Docks pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Joint Use Dock License described on Exhibit A attached, HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City hereby directs the Staff to issue a Joint Use Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meetingon the 12th day of March, 1990. ATTEST:James R, Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OP MINNESOTA COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) SS. The foregoing instrument was acknow’'’dged before me on this 12th Py James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City lerk 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 2 of 2 4o«"«s .„a theIon'S*>”‘a^"l^Tp^^u\'u%^^‘’s beneficialas to ensete there Is no abuse VAl{ ?UVAln%ti^^ctfJn'and® u«''of’®-akesJ"’ reasonable •ra used an'd%“a'lnil ’;*|5”'4 “threeVrr M"an?c “iy/?o"d“e‘"In “d'regarding racllities when such more families, which Use Docks pursuant to r“%t5^n"s"rd “^or=e\^^^^^ a*‘ *orth the above Late to an application for fn ^ following special conditions n Exhibit * atlachedV "a® Dock LloenSI »;b ”d?re?ts' t“ 'L?£fTo “/ of the city = the facts and c^/ndl^fo^ ‘“ot^l^ ^^rac^d^ day of^’Ma'rchfm^.”'’""^*^ °f Orono at their meeting ^ESOTA ) ) SS. inepin ) 'cVty°'of V®"®a™*"°‘'a^«''^a''D^^ ^Hal l*ln “ h”" a"ix\^cuVed°r°b;h^iro"f"Vh “e‘ciry?‘^ Notary Public Page ^^o“i“oion Expires CITY OP ORONOEXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO.CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSEI. LICENSEE: Property owners of 3155 North Shore Drive, 3185 NorthSh' re Drive and 1406 dohn's Point RoadDock Address: 3155 North Shore DriveAgent: Jack P. RhodeAddress: 3155 North Shore Drive, Way2ata, HN 55391Licensee is:unincorporated homeowner's group incorporated homeowner's association unincorporated club or recreation group Incorporated club or recreation group other License Period - January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1990 II. BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibit B, and In accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year's license. Authorized Boat Density per attached plan: Bay Transient (Day use only) Slips Permanent Moorage Slips Boat Lifts Sub-Total: Slips at Dock Offshore Buoys Maximum Boats in water Maximum Boats per prior license MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY Crystal CITY OP ORONO EXHIBIT Arbsolotion no,’rive and 140« aohn"s°PolnV Road""’ 3185 North'ress: 3155 ^orth shore Drivep. Rhode3155 North Shore Drive, Wayzata mn cIs: V. . ' ”391- r iiiYilL unincorporated homeowner•« erlod - January 1, 1990 n ' ’ ?ITY December 31, 1990 In-Place boat sHn. VxhX^"s°^\DSrn not exceed « Duoys -- -Vn\\Ver‘-rri"^^^ t Density per attached plan: (Day use only) slips Moorage Slips >tal: Slips at Dock loys ts In Water ts per prior license c* density CrystaJ f: Exhibit A Resolution No. Page 2Exceed perm’’ to rv Subdivis this maximum boat density, or exceeding the number of ps, lifts >r buoys is a violation of this license subject jn and/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 I of the Orono Municipal Code.III. DOCK LAYOUTThe dock structure or layout authorized by this license shall be as shown on attached Exhibit B. Any changes in this layout shall be subject to prior review and approval of the City Council.IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the City. This license is granted subject to the findings and conditions set forth in Resolution #1212 of the City Council, summarized as follows: a) The three properties tc v-*ich this Joint Use Dock License is granted are described as follows: i. (P.I.D. #09-117-23 33 0001) "That part of Gov't Lot 1 lying East of the West 442.93 feet thereof and North of the South 1058.3 feet thereof and South of Registered Land Survey No. 269" (3155 North Shore Drive) ii. (P.I.D. #09-117-23 33 0015) "Tract I and the West 28.5 of Tract H, Registered Land Survey No. 269" (1406 Bohn's Point Road) iii. (P.I.D. #09-117-23 33 0016) "Tract G and that part of Ti.act H lying East of the West 28.5 feet thereof. Registered Land Survey No. 269" (3185 North Shore Drive) b) There shall be only one dock allowed on the Rhode lot (P.I.D. 09-117-23 33 0001) which dock shall be no greater than 100 feet in length, and which dock must be constructed in accordance with all applicable City and LMCD ordinances, and which dock is intended to serve only the owners and their successors of the 3 properties described in a) above. c) On the Rhode lot (P.I.D. 09-117-23 33 0001) either attached to the dock, moored in front of the lot or located on the lot, there may not be at any time more than three watercraft, as defined by the LMCD, either docked, moored, or stored. jm/ Exhibit A Resolution No. Page 3 d) The three watercraft allowed may be owned only by the owners of the properties decribed in a) above. V. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a manner permitted by this resolution, but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public interest. CITY OF ORONO P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, 473-7357 (association) 55323 LICENSE YEAR 19 ?Q cm OF (mo SW ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42 Date Form Sent by City Staff ~ 'tc! Application Returned to City ee Recived $By Employee Section 5.42 Subdivision 2. LICENSE REQUIRED - It is unlawful for any (group or association of persons or families, more than two in number, whether incorporated or not) to engage or participate in...joint use (of any lakeshore property) without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPLICATION, REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY MARCH 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. ASSOCIATION INFORMATION 1. Association title or name (if any) 4r^s. 2 . Lake .vt _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Bay 3. Person responsible for this application: Name ^ Mailing Address Phone ‘4^72-^//^7 Relationship to association Page 1 of 5 Association is (check applicable itevjs): y ’ininccrrcrated horeovner 's group. ___ incorporated Honiec ’.n:sr's Association. -inincorporated club or recreation group. ___ i.ncorporated club or recreation group. Principal purpose 02' Joint ’use dock is (check applicable items): X. provide boat niooring and lake access for residential property. )C provide swimming access, beach, or off snore dock. _____ provide a club or association gatnering place for activities. Doc.\ is located on (cnec^i applicable item): ___ cne member's pri’/ate property. easement or out lot o'uned in common. _ property leased by the group/asscciation. _ property owned by the group/association. List Dock location and ownership information: street address /. ^ legal property description _ _ _ _ PID #_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ listed property owner(s) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Names of abutting lakeshore property owners: (North/West)_ _ _ _ _ (South/East) (Name + Address) --_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (Marne + Address) Names of other affected property owners: 4//^—A+ AdddresTj (attach sheet if necessary)(Name 2 of 5 lasurance Coverage - The Jointly used doclc is Insured by one of the following: ___ property owner's homeowner's policy. tL separate group/association owned policy. list the following info relation: name of insured name of insui-ance carrier t ■ nftHift of insurance agency 'TLJ^K policy no. effective date of coverage 9-9^ • amount of coverage; Public liability, per person, per occurence $ Public liability, per occurence $ Security and policing of the Jointly used dock and proper-:y is provided by (check applicable items): fencing. >C security lighting. property owner's presence, contract security sei^/’ice. other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DOCK INFORMATION 11. List Dock Use Area Specifications: Width of shoreline; _ _ _ ft. Length of main dock from shore; /^o Dock setbacks from side property lines at shore; ft. and VO ft, ft. 12. Dock Construction (check applicable items): »*^ea8onal dock (relocated or replaced each year). _ _ permanent piling with seasonal deck. _ _ permanent piling and decking. 'TOoden decking. _ _ metal decking. 13. List Dock Accessories: Number of fire extinguishers available at the dock Number of life preservers available at the dock 14. List number of slips in each category ("slips" includes beat lifts): Transient (day use only) slips _____. Transient (day use) off-shore buoys Permanent moorage slips / y________. Permanent moorage off-shore buoys ______ Dry storage (rack) slips ____________. Maximum number of boats at the dock 15. List number of off-street parking spaces available for xisers of the Joint use dock. Parking, If provided must not be separated from the dock by auay public road. spaces. EROSION AMD SEDIMENTATION COOTBOL16. Shoraline is protected by (check applicable iteais;- stone rip rap. 'wood seaval*.. _ _ metal seawall.concrete seawall. 17. Depth of water at shoreline is ft; at 50 ft. oat is "iz.* at 100 ft. out is 3*3/5- REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS A. The following must accompamy this application; DOCK PLAN - ALL APPLICATIONS A dock plan, drawn to scale, showing the shoreline width of this property, the side property lines and the location, layout and dimensions; of all docks, slips and buoys. If off-street parking, dry storage or other on-land functions are intended, these also should be shown on the plan. B. UNINCORPORATEr GROUPS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. A list of the names and mailing addresses of all members and/or slip users. 2. A certified copy of the by-laws or agreement for joint use. Note: This copy is not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to bo operated under the same by-laws or agreement originally made in (sh4tv9 year) amd on file with the City.” Applicant's initials C. INC9RPORATED CLUBS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. A list of the names, 4..iling addresses and titles of all corporation officers. 2. A statement as to the total number of members in the club or association. members. 3. A certified copy of the articles of incorporation and by-laws of the corporation. Note: These copies are not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement:” "This is a renewal application and o\ir joint use dock is to be operated under the same articles of incorporation and/or by-laws as originally made or last amended in / 9^-3 (state year) '^nd on file with the Applicant's initials Page 4 of 5 D. ANNUAL LICENSE FEE “ ALL APPLICATIONS Joint Use Dock License Application fee according to the current City Fee Schedule. MINIMUM JOINT USE FEE, per year PLUS SLIP FEE for each permanent moorage slip, lift, dry stack, or buoy slips @ $2.00 each TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION $ iaP -ao LATE FEE - Renewals Applications for renewal of licenses shall be made no later than February 1 of the license year. The City shall not accept renewal license applications received after March 1 unless the application is accompanied by a late fee of $25.00. REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, the application will be reviewed by the City Council and, in the case of new or unusual applications, also by the Planning Commission and Marina Committee. The Council will pass upon the application after complete review. THE SUBJECT DOCK MAY BE INSTALLED AND/OR OPENED FOR USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Joint Use Dock License Application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City's employees and agents to enter upon the property at any reasonable time to perfoj^ safety and code compliance inspections. Signed Date O - Page 5 of 5 RBSOLOTION DIRBCTIMG STAFF TO ISSUE A JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE TO FOREST ARMS COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1990 TO DECENBBR 31, 1990 WHEREAS, the City of Orono, hereinafter "City* is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, State Statute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. seq., to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of the public within the City; and WHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the public waters and on the land within the City which, if unregulated, may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to residential owners and the commercial marina owners to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining their property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against Interference by anyone, including thjose who assert the commonlaw rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owners; WHEREAS, as to Lake ''innetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian owner has exclusive privileges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. Page 1 of 2 This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the public generally includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing therein? the riparian owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights? and WBBRBASf Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights? and WHBRBAS, the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and maintained by three or more families, which regulations include the annual licensing of Joint Use Docks pursuant to Section 5.42 of th*' Orono Municipal Code? and WHEABAL, the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above nc^ed general conditions and concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Joint Use Dock License described on Exhibit A attached, ROW, THBRBPORB, BB IT ABSOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Joint Use Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 12th day of March, 1990. ATTEST: James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OP MINNESOTA COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) ) S8. ) The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of March, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor 6 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 2 of 2 CITY OP ORONO EXHIBIT A HBSOLOTION NO. CONDITIONS OP ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE I.LICENSEE: Forest Arms Country Club Addition Homeowners Association, Inc. Dock Address: 4245 Forest lake Drive Agent: C. James Lange Address: 970 Forest Arms Lane, Mound, MN 55364 Licensee is: unincorporated homeowner's group 5fX incorporated homeowner's association unincorporated club or recreation group _ _ _ _ incorporated club or recreation group other _ _ _ ___ _ ___ _ _ _ II. License Period - January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1990 BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibit B, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year's license. Authorized Boat Density per attached plan: Bay Forest Lake Transient (Day use only) Slips ~ Permanent Moorage Slips _ Boat Lifts - Sub-Total: Slips at Dock Offshore Buoys - Maximum Boats in Water 14 Maximum Boats per prior license MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY SKSiSSS same 14 tt a m m m Exhibit A Resolution No.______ Page 2 Exceeding this maximum boat density, or exceeding the number of permitted slips, lifts or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code. III. DOCK LAYOUT The dock structure or layout authorised by this license shall be as shown on attached Exhibit B. Any changes in this layout shall be subject to prior review and approval of the City Council. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the City. The Purchase Agreement by and between the City of Orono and the Forest Arms Country Club Addition Homeowners Association, Inc. will permit a maximum of 14 slips. The City will approve 14 slips for this license year based on the number of developed interior lots within the subject plat. V. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a manner permitted by this resolution, but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public interest. CITY OF ORONO P.O. BOX 66 LICENSE YEAR 1990 ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION Pursuant to Orono Muniripal Code Section 5.42 Ddte Form Sent by City Staff l/>:9/9Q Date Applicatj-- ^turned to City 3/1/90_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Fee Pecived $ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ By Employee y ^ Section 5.42 Subdivision 2. LICENSE REQUIRED - It is unlawful for any (group or association of persons or families, more than two in number, whether incorporated or not) to -engage or participate in... joint use (of any lakeshore property) wi^ first having obtained a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPLICATION, REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY MARCH 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. CITY (f Qf<cm (^FICE ASSOCIATION INFORMATION 1. Association title or name (if any) Minnetonlca2. Lake HECElPT-imK YOUitirodio coot m mn Navarre Cove Homeowners Assn. ~ ; I Wd2/9\Carman's Bay 3. Person responsible for this application: Name Danie. T. Lindsay Phone 612/337-1900 Mailing Address ~ ^500 - Mpls., MN 55402 Relationship to association President _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Page 1 of 5 4. 5. Association is (check applicable itena): unincorporated homeo'-T.er ’s ^roup. X incorporated Honeowner's Association, unincorporated club or recreation group, incorporated club or recreation group. Principal p’urpose of joint 'ose dock is (check applicable itens): X provide boat mooring and lake access for residential property, provide svimming access, beach, or offshore dock, oro'/ic ; a club or association gathering place for activities. Dock is located on (check applicable item); ___one member's pri'/ate property. easement or outlot ovned in connnon. property leased by the group/association. X property owned by the group/association. List Dock location and ownership information: street address Kelly Cove --------------------------------- ----------------- legal property desoriptier. 20-117-23 12_____ PID # _____________ - listed property ovner(s)Daniel T. Lindsav/ Thomas R. Dahl D. . Savage _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 8. Names of abutting lakeshore property owners: (North REFER TO PREVIOL *^ AFT . ICATION (Name Address) refer to previous APPa-ICATION Names of other (Name + Address) affected property owners: REFER TO PREVIOUS APPLICATION /Name + Address) (attach sheet if necessary) 2 of 5 9 .Insurance Coverage - The Jointly used dock is insured by one of the following: X property owner's homeowner's policy. separate group/association owned policy, list the follo'-^ing ini’orr^tion: name of insured Navarre Cove Homeowner's Assri^_______________________ name of insurance carrier ___ name of insurance agency __ policy no . GAO 104316-89 General Casualties Rooke, Johnson and Renslow effective date of coverage 8-1-89-90 ainount of coverage; Public UabillV, Psr person, per occurence $ 500,000 Public liability, per occurence 500,000 IG- REFER TO PREVIOUS Security and policing of the Jointly 'used dock and property is provided by (check applicable items): fencing. security lighting. property owner's presence. APPLICATION contract sec'ority ser^.'-ice. other (specify) DOCK INFORMATION 11. List Dock Use Area Specifications: Width of shoreline; ft. Length of main dock from shore; ^ Dock setbacks from side property lines at shore; fb. and _ ft 12* Dock Construction (check applicable items): seasonal dock (relocated or replaced each year). permanent piling with seasonal deck. _X permanent piling and decking. _ wooden decking. _ metal decking. 13. List Dock Accessories: Number of fire extinguishers available at the dock Number of life preservers available at the dock __ c 14. List number of slips in each category ("slips” includes boat lifts): Transient (day use only) alips ^ . Transient (day use) off-shore buoys O Permanent moorage slips______Permanent moorage off-shore buoys 0 Dry storage (rack) slips D Maximum number of boats at the dock 15. List number of off-street parking spaces available for users of the Joint dock. Parking, if provided must not be separated from the dock by any public road. O spaces. ■3 c ) lEYIOUS PLICATION EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PER 16. Siioraline is protected by (check applicable items): stone rip rap. _ _’-^od seavall. _ _ metal seawall.concrete seawall. y grass and vegetation only, other (specify) - - - - - - - - -^- - - - - - - - 17. DepLh of rater at shoreline is J±_ ft; at 50 ft. out Is at 100 ft. out is So » REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application: A. DOCK PLAN - ALL APPLICATIONS A dock plan, drawn to scale, showing the shoreline width of this property, the side property lines and the location, layout and dimensions of all docks, slips and buoys. If off-street parking, dry storage or other on-land functions are intended, these also should be shown on the plan. B. UNINCORPORATED GROUPS OR ASSOCIATIONS EFER 1. A list of the names and mailing addresses of all members and/or slip users. ^ 2. A certified copy of the by-laws or agreement for joint use. Note: This REVIOUS copv is not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following PPLICATION "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is^^o^_be V _ _ _ _.. 3 3 ..u— U..— 1 •>...» #-ir-i ni n.a 1 1 V in / / ^operated under the same by-laws or agreement originally made in (state year) -and on file with the City.” _ _ _ _ _ _ _Applicant's initials C. IN^RPO.^ATED CLUBS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. A list of the names, mailing addresses and titles of all corporation officers. 2. A statement as to the total number of members in the club or association. ^ members. 3. A certified copy of the articles of incorporation and by-laws of the corporation. Note: These copies are not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same articles of incorporation and/or by-laws as riginally'MMde or la imended in /(state year) and on file with the City." _ _ _ _ _ _ Applicant's initials Page 4 of 5 D. ANNUAL LICENSE FEE - ALL APPLICATIONS Joint Use Dock License Application fee according to the current City Fee Schedule. MINIMUM JOINT USE FEE, per year PLUS SLIP FEE for each permanent moorage slip, lift, dry stack, or buoy 6 slips 9 $2.00 each TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION $ 50/00/ S20.QQ (change per , 12.00 ”• Gaffron) 32.00 LATE FEE - Renewals Applications for renewal of licenses shall be made no later than February 1 of the license year. The City shall not accept renewal license applications received after March 1 unless the applicatio_n is accompanied by a late fee of $25.00. REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, the application will be reviewed by the City Council and, in the case of new or unusual applications, also by the Planning Commission and Marina Committee. The Council will pass upon the application after complete review. THE SUBJECT DOCK MAY BE INSTALLED AND/OR OPENED FOR USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant * hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Joint Use Dock License Application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City's employees and agents to enter upon the property at any reasonable time to perform safety and code compliance inspections. Page 5 of 5 RBSOLUTION DIRECTIII6 STAFF TO ISSUE A JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE TO NAVARRE COVE HOHEONNERS ASSOCIATION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1990 TO DBCEHBBR 31, 1990 WHEREAS, the City of Orono, hereinafter "City" is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, State Statute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. seq., to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of the public within the City; and WHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Natural Pesources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the state, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the public waters and on the land within the City which, if unregulated, may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNP, LMCD, and the City of Orono *>gulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to residential owners and the commercial marina owners to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining their property. The LMCD, DNP and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the commonlaw rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owners; WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian owner has exclusive privileges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. Page 1 of 2 This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the puolic generally includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and WHEREAS, Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and maintained by three or more families, which regulations include the annual licensing of Joint Use Docks pursuant to Section 5,42 of the Orono Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Joint Use Dock License described on Exhibit A attached, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Joint Use Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 12th day of March, 1990. ATTEST: James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of March, 1990, 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 2 of 2 CITY OF OROHO EXHIBIT A RBSOLOTION HO. CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE I. LICENSEE: Navarre Cove Homeowners Association Dock Address: 2505 Kelly Avenue Agent: Daniel T. Lindsay Address: 100 South 5th Street, Suite 2500, Minneapolis, MN 55402 Licensee is: unincorporated homeowner's group jn? incorporated homeowner's association unincorporated club or recreation group incorporated club or recreation group other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ License Period - January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1990 II. BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibit B, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year s license. Authorized Boat Density per attached plan: Bay — Transient (Day use only) Slips 0 Permanent Moorage Slips _§— Boat Lifts 0 - Sub-Total: Slips at Dock _§_ Offshore Buoys 0 Maximum Boats in Water Maximum Boats per prior license MAXIMUM Br.-^T DENSITY 6 ssasass same Exhibit A Hesolution No. Page 2 Exceeding this maximum boat density# or exceeding the number of permitted slips# lifts or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code. III. DOCK LAYOUT The dock structure or layout authorized by this license shall be as shown on attached Exhibit B. Any changes in this layout shall be subject to prior review and approval of the City Council. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/oi prosecution by the City. "NONE" V. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a manner permitted by this resolution# but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public interest. /9 7e^c = f*H r ' ^4H- ' /4/1 - ' /1H'* /^f'l I<ie7-C>'i 3290.2 TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistrato March 2, 1990 d COUNCR. MEEfM6 HAR121990 cmr OF ORONO SUBJECT: Stubbs Bay Sewer Project Attachments:A. Stubbs Bay Sewer Project Memo 1/31/90 B. Project 73-1 Memo Dated 9/23/75 C. Whitman Letter Dated 3/1/90 D. Herren Letter Dated 3/5/89 ISSUE - 1. Outline process steps for Council to consider if this is the appropriate route to go. 2. Provide opportunity for review of the letter and draft petition prior to its transmittal to the area. 3. Present information relevant to any City contribution to the project in advance of the letter being transmitted. 4. Present Council with letters requesting exemption from the Stubbs Bay project. INTRODUCTION ~ At the last Council meeting information was provided as a follow-up to the January 30, 1990 meeting with the residents of Stubbs Bay. DISCUSSION - In addition to the discussion of issues outlined in Attachment A the purpose of this memo is to expand further on the history of past projects and the City's level of financial assistance in them. Going back to the 1960's when sewer was first introduced into Orono there have been ten bond issues covering 21 sewer project areas. In all these projects except for the 73-1 project, the projects were projected to be paid by funds from the project area. The exception in 73-1 was made in two respects. One was the bond issue included the acquisition of capital equipment for the sewer system and the second having the City paying for assessments on lots that they did not want to have developed. (The alternative was to shift the entire cost of these undeveloped lots back onto the rest of the lots in the project but the determination at the time was that it would not be fair to the residents.) The second category are reductions after the initial assessment. This did take place in three proj.*cts as follows; 13190.5 4HH33H .niHtuOCi TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate *1^ DATfit ' January 31, 1990 SUBJECT: Stubbs Bay Sewer Pm-ject I II Attachment:A. Stubbs Bay Si... ' »nt Questions - January 30, 1990 Meeting B. Stubbs May Memo Dat> 1/16/90 C. Stubbs Bay Letter Draft D. Draft Petition and Special Assessment Waiver E. Letter from Terry Olson ISSUE 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 ita transmittal to the area, 4. present information relevant to any City contribution to the project in advance of the letter being trasraitted. INTRODUCTION - After a brief overview at the beginning of the meeting wiiicn encapsulated the presentation from last summer the 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 #1 - Meeting Summary - In addition to the questions outlinecT"there were comments such as the gentlemen who felt that the project was needed even though he had sufficient room for an additional septic system. He felt 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 the waiver for a specific amount allows each individual person to decide if the b^*"efit to them of the project is sufficient to -sign on for that amount" rather than the Ci^p^rmitting a Court Project 80-1 - In this project the original assessment had been made prior to the project completion. The City subsequently reduced the project assessment to reflect the actual costs of the project. Project 73-1 - After the initial assessment the project assessment was reduced by the City prior to a final Court disposition for those who participated in the appeal process (123 of 266) parcels in the project with the possibility that the City may have to pay for additional assessments over and above those that they had picked up on the front end. This however, was not required because the combination of a refunding of the bond issue for a lower interest payment, prepayments and high interest rates in the late cost. '70*s, CovetSiOt-he entire Project 85-1 (Crystal Bay) - This was the second project according to the records that went to Court as an appeal and which was reduced because of that. It is the only project that the amount of the assessment reduction has made it necessary to levy taxes to fund the debt service. The following represent the area served and the approximate per unit costs of the projects and the year in which they were done; PROJECT AREA SERVED 1963-lA/B Navarre Area Sewer Plant 1963- ST/LS Navarre Area Sewer Lines 1964- LS Navarre Area Sewer Lines 1965- LS (Eagerness Point) Sewer Lines 1965-LS (Sandy Beach) Sewer Lines 1967-LS-l Orono H.S. & South Side of Hwy 12 from Willow Dr to Old Crystal Bay Road - Sewer 1976-LW-l - Water 1969-LS-l Shore Hills Sewer Lines - Navarre ASSESSMENT $225.00/Unit $110.00/Acre plus $8.00/FF (Front Foot) $225.00/unit plus $8.15/FF $225.00/Unit plus $8.76/FF $225.00/Unit plus $12.00/FF $60.00/Unit plus $5.99/FF $1050.33/Unit plus •57.79/FF $225.00/Conn (Connection) plus $3211.33/Unit PROJECT 1969-LS-2 1969- LW-2 1970- LS-l 1970-LW-l 1970- LW-l 1971- LS-l 1973-1 1980-1 1980-1 1980-1 1980-1 1980-2 1981- 1 1982- lA 1982- lB 1983- 1 1985-1 AREA SERVED Chevy Chase (Area abutting Wayzata) - Sewer Lines Chevy Chase (Area abutting Wayzata) - Water Lines Saga Hill-Forest Lake Area - Sewer Lines Navarre Area Water Service - Commercial Navarre Area Water Service - Residential Dunwoody Avenue Sewer Co. Rd. 135, part North Shore Drive, part Hackberry - Sewer ininnetonkd Bluffs Sewer West Ferndale/Co Rd 15 - Sewer Orono Lane Sewer Co Rd 15 Marinas Sewer North Shore Dr/Scotch P*ne Lane Sewer ASSESSMENT $2300.64/Unit $1124.49/Unit $225.00/Conn plus $1270.00/Unit plus $7.80/FF $870.00/Unit plus $8.70/FF $580.00/Unit plus $5.89/FF $-25.00/Conn plus $1270.00/Unit plus $7.80/FF $3087.24/Unit plus $14.64/FF $6700.00/Unit $19,584.00/Unit $12,546.00/Unit $5223.00/Unit $18,466.00/Unit N Shore Drive/Highwood Sewer $8391.67/Unit Navarre Area - Livingston Ave Extension, Lyric Ave Extension (Old Co Rd 15 Drive-In Theatre) - Sewer - Water Navarre Area - Northern Ave - Sewer Orono-Medina Morningside- Long Lake Bypass Sewer line "D" Crystal Bay Area Sewer $2611.82/Unit $1566.51/Unit $225.00/Conn plus $2000.00/acre plus $150.00/Unit $825.00/Unit (At time of connection) $9235.00/unit Reduced to $5500.00/ Unit on appeal nSt want d"velSp.d in 73-1. (Should any of thes.» subsequently be developed, they would be charged a full unit connection charge which would include the intec#>st cost of money.) ALTERNATIVES - Iss ■» 1 - Piocess - (Refec to Attachment A) ““ A. Undertake process as proposed. B. Utilise the Crystal Bay "Process" C. Develop a different process. D. TaKe no action. E. Stop the project consideration. Issue 2 - Letter Draft. If the process is undertaken: ^A. Make any amendments prior to transmission. B. Direct it not sent. C. Table for further consideration. Issue 3 - City Contribution to tProject. Decide"*on an amount. ~ 1. No contribution. 2. Equal percentage to Crystal Bay. 3. Equal dollar value to Crystal Bay. 4. Selection on some other basis. 5. Table discussion. Issue A - Requests for Exemptions from Project 1. Consider 2»*d exempt. 2. Table for further consideration 3. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council having made comments or having further questions undertake the following actions. Issue #1 - Process - ’ xs recommended that the process proposed for this project, ch limits the City*s risk as much as possible be the one ,.ut is undertaken. Issue f2 2 Letter Draft - After making any sugge ‘ions direct staff to transmit the letter to the residents. Issue # 3 - Ci ty Contribution to the Project - Based on the past history tHe Counci 1 at this point indicate the pc eject will only go ahead if paid foe by the residents iri the area. Issue 14 - Request staff provide information as to status of 2 acre properties currently in the designated project area but not directly abutting a trunk line as presentlv proposed and any criteria for exemption. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , that the Council having reviewed the information direct stilf to continue the process with transmission of a letter to the residents including the costs, impacts and special petition and that they indicate that the project is expected to pay for itself and that staff provide Council with information regarding the status of 2 acre parcels which do not abut the proposed trunk. Ayes _, Nays Glenn Cook, City Engineer John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator Thomas Ruehn, Finance Director 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-recover able expense of undertaking the plans, specifications and bidding process (which is approximately $20,000-$30,000) by getting a committment to the project by a substantial major;ty of the people in the area, prior to ordering plans and specs. 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 risk 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 - Await receipt of upwards of ■)0% appeal waivers. iT 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 t^.-.penditure. If the project does not go ahead the Ci’v 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. 4. Bidding - If sufficient numbers of appeal waivers are received, order plans and specifications and go to bids. 5. Assessment Hearing - Once bids are received, hold a hearing for the special assessment and adopt the assessment. (Subseguent assessment can be made if additional expenses are incurred.) The vote for ordering the project would be a simple majority of the whole Council since there would be at least 35% petition. 6. Determine Number of Appeals - The appeal period after the adoption of special assessmenu is 30 days. Once that has lapsed no further appeals can be m^-de, if the notification has been given in that time period. 7. Ordering the Project - Based on the ippeals the City can then determine whether it desires to have the project ordered or not. 8. Project Construction - Then the necessary contracts and financial arrangement can be done. Issue #3 - Letter to Residents - Drafts in Attachment C and D attempt to outline to the residents the decisions that they individually need to make. One option is that in two areas the laterals may not have to be put in if the residents ag»'3e co sign the waiver for the trunk portion of it. Staff is reviewing having easement agreements signed prior to project. Issue #4 - City Contribution to Uie Project - The City can decide whether desires to financia11y participate in the project. This decision can be made: - Prior to the letter being sent out - At the time of the special assessment hearing or - After the project has been ordered and reassessment lowering the assessment could be done Options include: A. Project Area Pays All Costs - For nine out of the ten projects the City has done since 1963, Crystal Bay is the only one in which the City (willingly) participated, due merely to City properties being involved. This is in light of areas that paid upward of $20,000 a unit (in 1980 prices). Based on this prer nt there would be no additional contribution to the B. i-qual to a Percentage Share of the Project of Crystal Bay - Based on the“percentage the City ended up paying in Crystal Bay (40%) the principal amount of the Stubbs Bay payment would be $530,000 with the interest for that principal being $450,000 for a total just under $1 million over 20 years. C. Egual Dollar Value a_s for the Crystal Bay (escalated for CPI) - This wouTd result in a principal of $j?57^0 and an Interest of $300,000 for a total of $675,000 in 20 years. D. 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 philos 'hy. ALTERNATIVES - Issue #1 - Summary of meeting questions and responses. A. Accept. B. Comment. C. Suggest policy or change direction. Issue #2 - Process. A. Undertake process as proposed. B. Utilize the Crystal Ray "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 ContriL .ition to the Project. Decide on an amount. 1. No contribution, 2. Equal percentage to Crystal Bay. 3. Equal dollar value to Crystal Bay. 4. Selection on some other basis. 5. Table discussion. RECOMMENDATION - Issue #1 - It is recommended that the Council# having made any comm'enTi or had any further questions regarding the summary# accept the information. Issue #2# #3 M - Table for further discussion at March 12# 1996meeting. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , having reviewed the information table further discussion to March 12, 1990 meeting. A-es _, Nays _• Glenn Cook, City Engineer John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building S Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron# Asst. Planning & Zon;.ng Admin. 13190.6 ^rrAQ*|4(€liT ft SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS - STUBBS BAY SENBR MEBTIMG DATED 1/30/90 Following are major questions and responses to those questions from the last meeting. Further significant questions included the following: 1. Why are certain areas included in the project and other areas excluded? A. Two acre - There are certain two acre properties that are included in the project because of their proximity to the necessary trunk system route (specifically those in the Stubbs Bay north area). This is in part also due to decisions defining the study area boundaries made several years ago, when this area was identified as critical based on lake adjacency. Other two acre areas such as Sussex will not be included and it becomes an issue of where the demarcation is made. The area for Oxford could be included because of the lakeshore (however it was indicated by a resident of the Oxford area that at the present time six to eight residents are opposed to doing it.) B. What about inclusion of 2 additional houses to the east of Leaf Street? There are two houses that are served by a private driveway further east on Leaf Street, staff is presently exploring whether the five total houses east of Leaf Street should be included based on their septic capabilities. Cygnet Place - Presently Cygnet does not require service as any failing septic systems have been corrected. The inclusion of this, however, in the project would not substantially lower the cost of the project in Stubbs Bay. Any purchase of capacity for future development of a Cygnet Place sewer would by the same rationale require the people in Stubbs Bay to pay a portion of the capacity on Tonkawa and have those rebated so that in effect it may not be to any gain to those in the area. Additionally Cygnet will be an expensive place to sewer because of the existing topography. 2. There were comments regarding the specific design and 3. specific property concerns. A. Fred Blanch property/Bayside - This property owner was concerned that the service to the property would require the talcing 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 wiiagonally across his property or an alternative would be placing the lateral on the south side of Oxford. C. Alternate design that would ^ 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 reducing the lateral cost for some people. Persons in the Bederwood area have asked if that lateral could be reduced or some other option looked at. Splitting the area may reduce one area's costs but would probably increase another's. This will be looked at. Does the assessment procer "c 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 b« put oi. ' but th'' process being proposed is necessary to limit the 's ri c. Since the City has taken the position that the are,^ 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 $■ r 4. 6. 7. a bathroom improvement may realize 75% of their investment where someone who puts in a pool may realise 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. 11690.£ MTBs Mayor and City Council Mark S. Barnhardson, City Adainiatrato January 16, 1990 nmm^ SOBjaCTi Stubba Bay Attachaantf A. Stubba Bay Mono Datad 1/3/90 B. Lattar to Raaidants Ca Stubba Bay Mano Datad 9/1*1^89 Da Stubba Bay Maao 8/17/89 E. Novaabar 13, 1989 Council Minutas Ezcarpta ?r-- ISSUE - Raviaw of kay aaatinga iaauas for tha public inforaational IM7RODPCTIOM - Following tha July 24, 1989 aaating with tha araa ra i^anta ataff raviawad, at tha Council'a Novaabar 13, 1989 aaating, tha kay iaauas of that aaating. DISCPSSIOM - Staff's prasant understanding of these issues are outlined in Attachaant B. Tha Council aay desire to discuss this further in advance of tha aaating. Tha foraat of the meeting will be as follows: Introduction - City Adainistrator Recap of the project - City Engineer Questions and answers ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the inforaation. 2. Indicate points of departure which can be presented at tha beginning of tha aaating. 3. Ra«ahadttla tha aaating RECOMMENDATION - It is racoaaandad that tha aaating continue on the 30ih and that Council direct any changes that they aay have on tha aajor issues or other concerns that they nay have. PROPOSED NOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, that tha Council accept tha inforaation indicating any further policy discussions that they aay have. Ayes _, Mays _. cct Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building a Zoning Adainistrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning a Zoning Adainistrator John R. Garhardson, Public Works Director Glenn Cook, City Engineer -A .,.5 •/ 1390.! TOs Mayor and City Council FBOMs Mark E. Barnbardson, City Administrat OATS: January 3, 1990 SUBJECT: Stubb's Bay Sewer Meeting Attachment: 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 Hr 1989, Council meeting ti'^ 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 1 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 TH'eater at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, January 3^ 990. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seco^.ded by , reschedule the St '"’s Bay sewer meeting for January 30, 1990, at 7:v0 P.M. at the I School Theater. Ayes _, Nays —. cc: John R. Gerhardson. Public Works Director »licb;*.el P. Gaffron. Asst. Planning i Zoning Administrator J Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator Pi ig Consnission Members : -T t 12189,5 TOs FBOM: OAZS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Barnbardsoa, City Administrata Dcceabor 1, 1989 SXJBJZCTs Stubbs Bay Sawtr Considaratioa UMEE71N6 DEC 111989 CITY OF OROMO issue - Establisbaant of a data tb4t tba Couaeil would lika to naat in a public forum with tha rasidants of tha Stubbs Bay araa* iN?aODlICTIO^r - At tha Council's Novambar 13, 1989 naating thay iscussad tha issuas that had baan raisad at tha last Stubbs Bay maating with tha rasidants and staff. At that tima thay diractad staff to astablish a data at tha Oacambar 11th maating for tha January/Eabruary timaframa. DZSUCSSION - Tha following raprasaats potantial datas in January or aarly ^abruary that could ba usad for such a maating. Thay follows 1ara as January 10 th and 11th January 24th and 25th January 29th, 30th, 31st/Fabruary 1st Fabruary 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th ALTSIWATIVES - 1. Salact a data. 2. Tabla until January 8th. 3. Taka no action. RECOMMENDATION - Is is racommandad that January 30, 1990 ba astablishad as a joint maating data to b> halci at tha Orono Bigh School Auditorum at 7:00 P.M. Notification of this maating will ba sant to all rasidants and proparty owners la tha ar^a approximataly 2 1/2 waaks in advanca of tha maating. A spaeial latter will ba sant to those on Oxford Road to datermina what, if any, interast thay haaa in baing includad in such a project. PROPOSED MOTION - Mowed by __, seconded by , that tha Council adopt as tha datr*: a joint maating with tha rasidants of tha Stubbs Bay area c«t«arding Stubbs Bay sawer. Ayas_, Nays John R. Garhardson, Public Works Dirac tor Mlchaal P. Oaffron, Asst. Planning s Zoning Administrator Jaanna A. Mabusth, Building s Zoning Administrator Planning Comsisslon Mambais ■ 1 “ CITTV*^ OF QRarif> CITYc Post Offics Box 66*Crystal Bay. Mino On the North Short of Lake Minnetonka January 16, 1990 Subject: Public Information Meeting Dear Stubbs Bay Area Resident: On July 24, 1929, Orono staff met wih Stubbs Bay area residents at the Crono High school Auditorium to discuss sanitary sewers and alternatives for that area. At staff, Several letter, what we below. discuss the July meeting, following introduction and comments by the discussions turned to installation of sanitary sewer, questions were asked but too numerous to include in this therefor^-i I have reduced t e questions and answers to feel were the most important. The key ones are listed The Council has reviewed these and will b® available to 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 lak^- shore, considerations may be given to service this area. B. Sussex Scuare/Foxbend. This area is a new 26-lor subdivision at Fox Street and Leaf Street. The property is being developed per rhe residential standards and is not being considered for project inclusion. C. Cvcmet Place. This area is fu*.*y developed and is 2/3 to 3. acre residential lots. At this time this area is not included but the City may look the area sometime within the next five years. 2. City Funding of Arv 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 using reserve capacity that currently exists, from for this area will pay not a*iything. Historically the City has not helped fund a project fo^ ihat reason but may consider tr .LOING a ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING AOMIN 11. nunoN a rnance - 473-735* FAX-473-0S10 PL'BUC WORKS . 7359 ■ L V’ ^ I ^ ! Li Stubbs Say Area Resident January 16/ 1990 Page 2 of 2 3. Potential Rezonina The 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 Particioation In 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 property owners. 5. Next Meetino 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, y I John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director JRG/tln Atm , 1990 2 R««oniagTh« Stubbs Bay y** ^*not^ r^oni^anV*®* •*••* ;..id.ntial. "la* TiS*?9 75, and It i. notthat war# zonad to 2 acra »ntieis«t«l this on. will-at Parti eipation In ordar for • b# s l#v#l of supper ^4-1- rt# ^jssssBisnfc sppssX snv*.“?y”ri««* * l/rV. lolo'itv of tn. proporty ownars. Maatino Data "%r.*e«nV Vth..%%ri. ’Th. oJono cooneil will *>• .ttwxiing. o» h.v. ..y qoo.oion.. pl.ooo "* " /John R. Garhardaon, public Works Diractor i rn^c»wvoJT aTO:FROM:DATS;Mayor GrabekOrono City Councilmembers Mark E. Sernhardson, City Administrate^ September 14, 1939SUBJ: Stubbs Bay SewerAttachment; Stubbs Bay Sewer Memo-3/17/89 ISSUE *"2, Presentation of information to Council related to primary issues raised at the Stubbs Bay Meeting held July 27,1989.2. Establish a date'cor the ne.tt Stubbs Bays meeting which would be with interested residents of the area and the Council. INTRODUCTION ”At the Council's August 23, 1989 Council Meeting, Attachment A was presented outlining significant issues related to the Stubbs Bay sewer that had been raised at the «uiy Meeting. DISCUSSION - Issue 1.Outline of Major Issues A. I.nclusion of other areas 2 1. Oxford Road - This area was developed at the 2-acre lakeshore standaH'in 1978. While sewer could be extended to this area an estimate for this extension has not been made. There are 11 properties in this subdivision and_ presently t.ne._ is only one septic system that has had ^'.5^ The Oxford Road area is in part lakeshore property and this m have special consideration as to whether or not i- is induced in the sewer project. 2 Sussex Develoonient — This is presently be.ng proposed for development. It is“it a 2-acre density for a total Sf 1^7 residential lots. The topography of this area may expensive to sewer this area as it would need either a d p gravity line or a lift station line into the Stubbs Bay sewer to into the proposed Stubbs Bay system. 3 Cvonet Place - This area contains 19 developed lots which ace pcedomlnatel^i/S - 1 acre. It look at for an alternative waste management study in the | vMrs. Topography may make sewering this area expensive. Also ?;«• are mother 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 flrruCMnnjT C^layor Grab«k°«no city count...3«bersMark E. Ee-nh;.-^-«-->ho.d,on, city Atelnist-ntS.pt«to^ 14, i5„StTObs Bay S,„„ent: Stubbs 3av* Sewer Memo-3/l7/a9issues ”rV’Ve°»^ ‘’^^O’^^jation toSstabivew , . ____ ^ '''•'ith inte-i^V® "-e nan s-.,huso, - ■ t;?ni2„%ri--® Co unC ' ^ ' e? -n ssented out * ■ *'8? Council m «ia« at tne cm^ Vet“®'' the *S*a*iM £« other areas - Oxford Bead - standard”i'n~T‘Q7a ‘^as deve?o« j estimate for* sewer could*be*e2-acre propertias ,• _ *-^-ension extended to > t«Pti= s.;s,,4 :i;4 a”” made! foad area is inte-^i •oject. « to .^nether '•’’it *i- is included ^^Vl^^oall’t ^^ -This is pi-e ^tial lots ® 2-acre densiV®”/^^FF - '£“'1"-Ptopo.*! PhuhhrBai‘rystr “• BaV^setelni ^Inate”Iy^^3” <^ontains 19 d * «lterna^^« ^ acre, rt is at . *^®'^eloped lots ►tiler 3 lota »’«*w ^^is area "«st 5 -^0 alac hV’io^.er:?”-’ include any of ^h *^-^^VaVa?ea";’“VuFr^„^l^4Fli^;«*«^ ^'Ot Within the MaSA line, it was identified as an area that could be expanded 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 aporoximately 151 of the trunk costs or about 7-10% of the overall^ Oxford would reduce the per unit *’runk cost about 12% and about 8-8% 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. Thii issue is whether the City would consider rezoning the proper + ie* in the area to 1 acre (or less) if sewer did come in. The advantage to the property own»i 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 evan 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 could b« expanded In the ;: V'i ^I would be an effort to tntial developed lota and .y buildable vacant lots, e cost approxiaately 15% k overall. Oxford would Z% and about (•St of the uld reduce the per unit % •s time, there is enough connection in the future, nation of an assessment le main.21 -re will be additional this line which will be tgetber could reduce the ivc for each 5100/000.00 i would result in about currently in the Stubbs total cost which ranges ^rtion of the sewer the il assessaents resulting is could be limited by 1 waivers to be signed t and prior to 1975 and »d at a 2<>acre zoning, ronsider resoning the I if sewer did cone in. in part to reduce the I to obtain peraits to 1 lowing aone property property and to help reaeabered/ however/ n aaount substantially es so there nay not be ated issue is the fact n the Crystal Bay area ice the 1975 resoning. ' sewers would reaain ng and therefore there I to be subdivided. In lately 9 2>plus acre litional 9 lots. This i would reduce the overall cost by 10%.D. Level of Support -The assumption on the Stubbs Bay project has been that the Council would require a certain level of support as expressed in waiver of assessment 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 property 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. area finally was assessed), but this does not insure that this would not be appealed or reduced.) Issue 2 - Next Stubbs Say Meeting It would be appropriate that the meeting be held in November/December in order for construction to be done next year. 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 interested in undertaking the project. The City could request that the assessment waivers be signed prior to the ordering of the project. Once the petition is suhmitted, tne Council could have a special meeting to address the questions raised and take any additional questions from the neighbors. ALTERNATIVES - Issue 1 - 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. Establisn a meeting date. 2. Await establishing a dat^* until after a petition is received. 3. Direct staff to send a letter regarding the level of support needed. erall coat by 10%. ooort -" oV Vurpo/t*u^:;s5««^;i;•„"t' :otirtip?2..'\*hf ”or Vnd- cv«the process. Not project is ordered,prior to he date ti^at the^P^•he s"aff isleco^ending a special assessment Led or reduced.) !bs 3ay Meeting kka *-he meeting be held in aporooriawe - to be done next year. Ln ord.r i/"id communleite to th. = "““V/hit, to oucalati toon, th.mselv.s a V would nave co titw 'nte''estea in I'minimum P^tcentage request ‘that the ■riV'^signed Pt^°5 ha5S ro'iVd'ssVhe'^c^^^^^ raised and take any ns from the neignbors. tion of tne Council on each of the rther discussion, on at this time. .eeting date. Ll.hio, a dat, until aft.r a p.tltion Is to sand a l«t« t.9atdin, ts. l.»«l # •• 1RECOMMENDATION -It is recommended that staff send a letter to the affected property owners indicating the tentative meeting date in December, but that a petition signing an assessment waiver at the 60% level of property owners interested in the project must be received prior to a meeting being held.PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by staff to sand a that Council direct, seconded by letter to the abutting property owners outliningthe level of support needed in order for the Council and City to further consider this as a project. Ayes _ _ _, Nays _ _ _ _.cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning AdministratorMichael Gaffron, Planning & Zonining Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Glenn Cook, City Engineer i ;j*5«5 ‘’*n*o “5^"» pr^'«ty* o«*«rs'*^ <*lr«ct^^ H acj/harJs 2oni"^”^ Admini«— .* • (• - 4 -;».•. 81739.11Mayor and City CouncilMark E. Bernhardaon, City Administrate irm-Mevrr hDATS: August 17, 1989SUBJECT: Stubb’s Bay Sawar M itingAttachmtnt: A. Stubb's Bay Sewer Meeting Questions and AnswersISSUE -I 1, Presentation of information regarding the Stubb's 3ay meeting held July 27, 1989. 2. Establishment of a date for the next Stubb's Bay meeting. INTSODOCTION - .At the informational meeting *'f number or ouestions were raised. Attachment A was prepared to summarize the cuestions and answers given at tnat 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. ISCUSSION - It is hooed that a meeting regarding Stubb s Bay 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. Ovfocd Road 5, "Pox Bend" Development (Leaf/Bayside) 2. Will the City absorb any reserve charge. 3. Will the properties in the designated area be to ciinge the zoning once sewer is available to help them defray the coat. Also, would buildable lots created through a J** ?hia pay a full unit charge, (It was originally zoned R-IC, 1 acre lot size prior to the 1975 rezoning,) ioeTthV'"c%\SlA “”Vs\rr ?^Vtgn«d ‘"lor^^o undertaking this project. 81789.11 V)J COtt .atd*onncilCity , and Answers^ S«w«^ «-y »e«tin9 C'-abb’s 3*^ fcV>6regarding ^ne ■' btt-* iV.i .. o« :::a ?• ■■* “•• ,0 w— ,, ot ,v;.‘ ' =« *tb« dev -^abb’s 3*3 gjjibie* St fcioal* ' ' any otM'allowing a«velo9***^ a-Hmsge* ^ any caa*':'’* «* aU®*ttabiots »«* ,„-taa •‘••iVotd*' !'o9 ““'eoVt. »VaVonloB *\m ’cbacge. ,cce 1®^ ,o««a ,e ••••/„•• “» o.x <" *“* ra'Vw--* »‘ V’Va.l'* ALTERNATIVES -1. Establish a data.2. Respond to the questions.3. Table for further discussion.4. Take no action.RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council table further discussion or the item until its September 25, 1989 meetinc. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council table further discussion of the item until its September 25, 1989 meeting. Ayes _, Nays _. Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Afministrator John R. Garhardson, Public Works Director Glenn Cook, City Engineer a data.to tt. quMtiOM. l» tat earthor «»eu»»ion.» no action.Wi* 5*5??»«ndad til**! __ _further“tth«r*dj.eJJ^^5^ _• *Kond«d byuia «•!8289.1 • • NINQUIRIES AND RESPONSES STUBBS BAY INFORMATIONAL MEETING JULY P.7, 1989ORONO BIGS SCHOOL AUDITORIUMI At the inforniational meeting that was held on July 27, 1989, approximately 35 property owners were present together with CouneiImember J. Oiann Goetten and members from the staff Including Michael Gaffron, Glenn Cook/ John Gerhardson, Jeanne Mabusth and Mark Bernhardson. Following an introduction by theCity Administrator, Michael Gaffron gave an overview of the Waste^Management Study, outlining each of the alternatives and the merits and pitfalls of each of those alternatives. This was . followed by a presentation of the sewering option as far aslayout 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 t.he 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 IS or 20 years. Ny,•. • i e u mQOISIES AHD MBSPONSES STDBBS BAI IMFOBMATIONAL MEETING JULI 27, 1989OHOBO SIGH SCH«30L AODITORIGM>tlon.l ...ting that w« h.li35 property owners were "z!-j Oiann Goetten and members fftom the stafflae'l Gaffron, Glenn Cook, John Gerhardson,B.rn “.ra.;„. Following »‘r; rri-n^nVV^o- :r: “;-:rir..3rtn:^%*:.V.n»t*r o1 :.^°^^w^“*n ”VptiVn .ilat »pi«. pt...nt.d by al.nn Coot.gen.tal '*“**'^^®"* “V* .^er^ raised and. pa^ap'raaed tb.y .ayo"ortbt.“‘qa..tiona that war. a.K.d together with “s «d ar” no\ a.o.ssarily in the order in which theasked.). . 1.« Chat recairea that the property owner be 0 pi oVly ^ »' eoecial aaseasnents are limited to the ^ .hf .bout bv the liaptowenent) to that property, srooght about by the .tructutlng the is co'^nizant of this la l«as actual special assessment to be equal to '*• *of *tbS*cUt“ w?i Tbe^ VoVererSy'’ a '"JonnectIon hare Is a possibility the connection charge can be "y the City over the same term as the assessment ispected to be IS or 20 years. ... .. » «4 2, flhst 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 $6,500 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 coat 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 yearinterest cost in the range of $60.00. Spread over_years,the annual principal would go down but the amount of interest paid over that timeperiod would be increased. If your cate is $15,000 Just multiply those numbers by 1.5 times the $10,000 number.3, Are the larger lots subsidising the smaller lots? To the estent that sewer is going to be installed adjacent to a large lot, a lot with a large frontage actually costs more g^fve than a lot with a small frontage. To the estent that sewer is needed the greater number of smaller lots actually, defray the coat 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 ease, being less than for the larger lota.) 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 nest 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 sise but also topography, soil conditions, water table etc. We looked at it as to how a sewer pipe will be run on an approsiswte basis. % t »m, m* ^- arf i^at «• «ticlpafd tocosta o£ tho pto3«ct •»*zioq option*.. khat was handad out» t, OB thB «h» * „„t eh*t». »b4„t»..n ’l;l.,ctloB eB.C9.. I* i*200 a«^ $9,700 ^ j Issua. 1*'th.t It .oaia b. • “ “ rtBt90 — *"«'•*?BBBBBB.OO^ ^ «B70 OOt iBtBCBBt\ th.t »o«X« ooBt .boat «;*»•/„00 -blob th.»«.t potiod tB. fib‘1 y«;u-rs nrA““:: bar. ,.r lot. .ab.Wl.l«9 «• »t th.t ..»«« 1» . a lot with a la«9« To tha axtant B.B . lot «ltb • Ot I, n..4.d th. 9‘“**‘ ", ,„,t lot., (tbl. lb d.ft.y tb. b.t«.o tb. ot by ‘rilt.t.l oo.t for tb. ...H-o ,t. .n« b.alM t^ jb. I.t9.t lotb-1 His casa, balng J-«»» tieh as Cygnat »!*«•* in t a:• othat placas, *ach as Cygn 1 naad to baa* AC *.« b.. looKod .t CW“*' "it l. .Btielp.t«l ■nact that has on this p 1 naxt 5 or 10 yaara- :;:. .Ill b. ioot.« .t o»« tj. , *. “L.. o..,. b«.t bOO^* ."1 OB lot .1*0 . .tody m* “^*’^,"t,o.^tl0B.. ..to* t.bl. So. . b—b ta basin • 5. Will thata not ba •Isa could osa?axcass capacity In the lina that soaaonaTha ninimua diaaatet lina that can ba put in according to stata caguiraaants would ba an 8 inch lina? This obviously can sarva mora than tha approxioataly 100 units in this araa. othar araas could ba hookad into this and utlllsa this capacity. Staff has discussad tha possibility of having a portion of tha cost of tha axcass capacity pickad up by tha City initially as a rasarva charga, to avantually ba fundad by thosa who rt .y usa tha pipa. To tha axtant that this is dona, avary $lu0,000 that tha City would sat asida as rasarva charga would raduca tha unit charga by approximataly $1,000 pa/ unit basad on 100 units. It should ba camambarad howavar, that this araa will ba hooking into tha lina on Tonkawa Road (Co. Rd. 135) which has "rasarva capacity" for this araa and for future areas. (All the people along Tonkawa paid for their entire systaa and there is no anticipation that they would ba rebated anything as a result of this improvaaant.) If you ate on a large lot can you stay out of th« sewnr project? It has been tha City’s policy to include all properties which are abutting a line. This is dona 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 baan that all properties abutting a lina hook up in tha study araa and that they must hook up within 16 months and pay for the improvamant. Will OTal"g ba ebnngad to balp us afford th* improvamant? In 1975 this araa was xonad from tha previous 1 acre to 2 •era sona because there was not sawar in tb* araa. This was also don* in othar araas of th* City that did not hav* including tha Crystal Bay araa. That sewer was installed in 19SS and there has baan n» request by tha residents initiative by tha City to raswtwa that araa. should a noted that even if rasonad to 1 sera standards, th* bulk of tb* lota in th* Crystal Bay araa would remain substandard.) Should a request for raxoning b* considered, the City would have to amand its Comptahansiva Plan. Also, to tha axtant •••» i. could UM%7 •wnonoOth.r areas could be hj^ked into •^•»-capacity, staff bas discussed *"'* «tiU*e thisportion of the cost of the excesa^V***?^**^^^^^ having a =ity inituily „ . r«.^;“;" “■'*'‘‘1' -* by U,y thOM «ho t .y u„ th, pja,“ j®*' “ •»MtU.Uy b« f»na»,Jone, every $1j0,000 that th« extent that this is„.„c. eh. ‘ ch.L.*“bv"•r unit b.,.d on 100 unitr ?* /b »l-«00owevery that this area win L JL »J^ould be reaembered onkawa Road (Co. Rd. 135) which ha ^"to the line onarea and for fut^i ^VeA (I'r^V• ^ ankawa paid for their entip.* - Peopl# alongJticipation that they would be r-baLV*” “®this iaproveaent.) ^ anything as a result' you are on eject?large lot can you stay out of the sever »**Ibutt?ng"V tllC P^Parties which* ion for sanitary disposal that v« y«c now have an n if you choose not to exercise “ <li<5 not have t all properties abutting a line^ho«fc^^^^o Policy has been that they must book up within IS month *tudy area roveaent. ^ aonths and pay for the »i»« b. cb«„a f b.ip «. *on. b.eau,. “•<«*in'th**"* ^ *® * and there has been L r.,‘ue«V:r/ 1“ lative by the City co re^wna residents nor any tb.t .... It to I .or. V' - »bould b. ot* la tta. Cryatal Bay «... oo.i.*^ “* «< < a r.,«„t for roroilnj"* ta —“• Cooprobonalr. Bi... .^o! #■• •. ■»; ■ :'V-- :'4S 'o. that individual properties were looking for addltioael hookups that would halp decrease the overall unit ehsrgs but that property would then have to pay foe mora units.8. Will a new sobdiwlsioa, such as the one being proposed «sst of 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 systesw on each building site. Even if the '^ity 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 Say 22, units in "Sussex ”) 9. Wby 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 be included as there should be adequate septic systems for this area. Baaed on general City policy we have not addressed this question to the Council but we will address both this and the question regarding the subdivision. The inclusion of the Oxford property would probably reduce the trunk cost by about 10%. (10 properties) 10. How soon could a project be undertaken? The project progress is dependent on the level of interest of the neighborhood. If subetantial interest is generated this fall and hearings could be held this winter, plans could be drawn this winter and construction begun in the spring. It is important to realize that the Council will probably not undertake this project unless a substantial majority of the property otmets are interested in undertaking this project to the point of agreeing to sign a waiver of appeal on this project. This is a neighborhood problem, and the neighborhood should get together to decide how they want to eolve it. (It was mentioned that the current prices ace as ;vV' t»« have to pay f« ■“'• '“^“•,o., auco a. th. on. tain, PCO»o..a ...» included in the project.I. City to include any areas policy of '=*'« „„ 1, d...lopln9tely n.ad ‘ indication, at. that it:d and pcelimi-na=/ septic systems oncondition. £« « s.w.cinpEven If tne i / requirea topography o ^ result in aI parameters that 3ay Lon in unit the oroject may - of all those units in^t^ 3st by about 20^. ex“) y on oafocd Koad beinp i.*t out? A ►o the 2 acre standard and was developed differentiates it .Ke.hot. con “,plated to t. east of Leaf, systems for this should be J have not addressed enetal City p .-iH address both this the council The inclusion of ty ^Jould probably reduce the trunk cost by coperties) set be undertaken? S dapendent on '*>* ^*''*^ j^nwaMd this a'*h“hVld Vi”, -inter, Pian. could be^Id be held cni» spring. j construction beg probably not L*e that the ® ^ majority of the :t unless a this project to nter.sted In on this nq to sign a wai wi** and the rtVn7d‘rtVh.nVr.ntprlo.. .» *. M lr L'--:■!] '••• I much as 20% below tha normal because of the low lake level, which influences the water table, this however could changewithin a year to two.)11. When 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 pestieuler lot that you speek to Michael Gaf fron aa he has diagrammed each of the lots, end 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. nhat 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 UP longer available from the Federal level. The City looked at this for the Crystal Bay project and were not able to get any acroas-the-boerd grants. (He forgot to mention that the City was able to get funds Individually for people through the C.O.B.G. program, but those are no longer available mltber.) Today we are not aware of P.C.A. or Lake Minnetonka Conservation District mandating hookups in order to preserve the lake. To tha extent that other people around the lake have paid for tha cost of hooking up their own sewer it is probably not expectad that the L.M.C.O. would do a general nmmmms'aent to help pay for the small area that is left. (Subsequent to the meeting Michael Gaffron haa been in contact with P.C.A. to determine whet, if any, grants might be available to help fund this project. P.C.A. has funds available for septic system rebebllitation grants, but only for cities whose overall Citywide average income is below the state median. State median is $17,161. Orono's average ineoM is $30,736. (all 1S80 data), hence PCA has indicated Orono would not qualify.) • —'-r - fv• . V> I much M 20% below the aocmal beeauee of the low lake leveX, which influences the water table, this however could change within a year to two.)LI. When 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 coauients 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.)2. What Fedacal os State monies are available foe 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.O.B.G. program, but those are no longer available either.) Today we are not aware of P.CJl. 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.O. would do a general assessaent to help pay for the small area that is left. (Subsequent to the meeting Michael Saffron has been in contact with P.C.A. to determine what, if any, grants might be available to help fund this project. F.C.A. has funds available for septic system rehabilitation grants, but only for cities whose overall Citywide average income is below the state median. State median is $17,161. Orono's average incQM is $30,736. (all 1900 data), hence PCA has Indicated Orono would not qualify.) > : pv. m •** .w ‘ 4',\. - .m:4.P.'■m'i.>^1 m mBOTBS OF TV* ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 13, 191 JH'ThX FORFEITED PROPERTThowever that may not be a course that the City can take at this aoint Henneoin County currently has the property for ssle for s1o"o00.0* »nd th.r. is .pproxi».t.ly 55,000.00/58,000.00 owira 1 .nd tax... Th. Park Coamiiiaion taviawadlor aoiciax ..aiaiiants «d taxea. Th. Park Coooi.aion ravi.«.d -he property in 1979 and did not have an interest in the has^changed and bring back their recommendation to Council .or their decision. Mr. Fred Abrahamaon, Chairman of the Fairview Covenant Churc‘', -said that he had no knowledge thar the recreation area Seroachad on orh.r prop.rry. He raid rhar tO. Church to lose the ability to use the tax for.eit property. It was moved by Acting Mayor Callahan, Councilmember Goetten, to refer this Commission for the review of the request and to report back to .e Council. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0, Motion passed. STUBBS^Bernhardson asked Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron if there were currently any problems with failing septic systems on Cygnet Place. Gaffrcn replied t.hat to the ^est of his k.ncwledge th^.c were no failing systems currently, buc replacement sys-ems have been installed^for approximately half of the properties in that area over the last ter vetrs due to past failures. B.rnh.rdson .xpX.in.d th.rwrdin? th. incXo.ion/.xcXajion of crtiin ar.f, in the sewer project. Councilmember Goetten asked about Oxford to sewer aroundthe lakeshore. Goetten believed that the ji«ed to sSwlTaro“^^dthe lakeshore is a valid reason to sewer Property Goetten also believed that Sussex Square should be ;S«eV f/o*; th"? stW Goetten <I«®Vr°"«,^^\V\Vsi"uSe"wer: mmeeseary to amend the Comprehensive Plan if the MOSA line to be extended. B.rnh.rdson t.pXi.d that th. Stabba Bay area was Idantifiad thin the Comprehensive Plan for potential jewer. Ifl^ r«^vr»j ImC^uS* > bay sewer continued an, .encnxn, ..•ecently beer, sewered. ® areas whichoettsn also questioned who^Vie- -‘•s. rbe reviewed for 1990. * ” ^anpre.bensive Plan -^s5rnhardson ronTioH v■ report biclc.” ‘® would lock into that .-natterId be beneficial to^^a-ong''tJf ®®-^^ows did not believe or sewering lakeshore‘procerty Property for the:e residents. ' ■■ '-^as brought forth by theincil.’ne.Tiber ?o'^o»c,nn ___=onin, ar=un=-;iTe la.a " Gcs*“'^on ^ • le.au, aa. replied mat tte Cit, could proceed in each a t/ h/i •'aSot;ter^LetmJ''rnd'su* '‘'® <=*'• c. id leceoter dor CdSL?le/a"lcro7V;VetLl7/t7. 'as moved bv Ac*.-nr- u eniber Nettles, bring th^;^'"'^"' seconded by .ron at t.he Oece.mber 11, 1989 cn^,i • for ys=0, .Motion Passed. ^ Council meeting. Motion, PIN7HDMWI SERVICES planning BOARD ll°Vh.®"fo™’‘of ?!e«e/'ivT*xetter to Hennepin County? =etrof’l«oSatl^!;nha “‘'l| al:p«d7 “;ol“l1°L'2«t‘^lo ^tio!!.^*'''^ both a letter and a copy ffloved by CounciImember Nettles seconded by 8 13190. •;s Dear saifAs 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 amount for your property, 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. Sewer 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 n (SaiF!im you arc aware L»ie City has been exploring the possibility mstructing aunicipal sewers in your area. Two informational ings were held on this topic, one in the summer of '89 and lecond one January 30, 1990, Based on the level of interest i by the residents at those meetings, at the direction of the Council, the intent of this letter is to provide you an tunity to indicate your level of interest in this project,I individual property owner.nclosed you will find a document entitled "Petition for vement and Waiver of Special Assessments.” Enclosed also is timated assessment dollar amount for your property, with an il and monthly range of coats based on that estimate. Sot d on that document are the following additional charges for each individual property owner would be responsible:rivate connection costs - This is the cost to you of hiring private contractor to connect your house to the municipal rwer in the street. ewer Availability Charge (SAC) - The Metro Waste Control emission requires payment of the SAC charge with each new >nnection. This charge c*»rrently is $600.00 and is due and lyable when you come in for a permit to hookup. >erational sewer costs - $51.15 per quarter. This charge is Llled quarterly to every residence in Orono connected to swer system, to cover the operational and capital (placement costs of the system. This charge has not been icreased for the last four years. le City has worked diligently to develop the most cost bive sewer system. We are still open to considering the I of alternative designs or layout based on individual ner or neighborhood suggestions. e actual cost of a sewer project to each property owner is tion of the overall construction and restoration costs, the of distributing cost among the properties served, and the ability of outside funding. The City's consistent lophy in virtually all past sewer projects has been that roject area pays the entire cost of its own sewer system, to contribution from the general tax base. T esent Council direction is that this area would also pay itself. City staff have investigated the availability of project funding from 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.PETITXON/APPSAL 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 similarily 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 cnat 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 TBOOGHTS itself.l„ctlon is «'i“* -a’« believe «e have «*>*“*•,, ,p,ci£ie source,irces, and «« “ „sUents are aeare o't MPPr*o’p“”“'«aiv« j -ru%rrnand return to appeal ^^ats moreou will have form. ^ the higher amount. ' be “nrestioat^ your cost aimilarily reduced. ordering City council -r-t:' -: r::^e^T:;:-n »riand .P.=‘'^=“‘Tcant interest in the prcyect :/;,uTd^Uely not be undertaten. ^ U are not interested in ar^not ^“alJboupb "--t:;d"and indicating that you ing the waiver uns sted. va«»ye a lateral at this «f the two areas wh trunk charge you are in one o ^ ^‘"''®^that option on the Jia be optionaU ^ selecting that 500, please indicate iix in your packe . .ill then hold a •ect is bid, the on thatf the project i .ggessment and base geggaent. Note £or the np«ral^ «/r \llTslls^.nt should the *il will deci<3 suppl®^®^^^ . i ass^ssiti^p^* ane City couia s^';„\“f,an ,ne °:‘^‘-\rtb.n wait the nras«»n.Vt is n-“P‘;Vriod*. Based on the .Ve;>t ::;rVatrto^"« - S final thoughts Some residents have indicated that they feel the installation costs 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 remodelinp. 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 would 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 n»akes your 7 ‘some properties^" a ®°'’® ®s«’»tetab/**^ "ssting, the^^ci to revert to a i^ours ^^^^^ionallys. Th^« ^ folding ra«L. of frh«« there-“"•■."•i-"• ‘4 ■'.v-i‘L;:-..;;;.r.-“■•V4£r'"”ioally viable^tu®”*^^"^®^^ efforts to~ - 4::;,"--....,’. ";r:,:^r“■; -Sierely^^ ••#in^ffi^etrrPETITIOS FOR SPECIAL ASS8SSMEHT AMD AGS TO WAIVE SPECIAL ASSBSSMEMT APPEALTHIS AGS between IT/ made this day of 1990,their heirs.a -vj1 Lployees, agents and assigns (hereinafter referred to as City ).1 Qwns£2hi&> Owner(s) state(s> that he/she/they is/are the fee owner^) of real property located in the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, legally described in the attached Exhibit A .smade a part of this document (the -Property-). OMner(s) also state(s) that the following are liens and encumbrances againsw theproperty;f: f*'^"'>«'^dson Wnlnlstrator ures ..r.- i-Ji 2. petition. Owner(s) hereby petition(s) the City of Orono to construct and install a sanitary sewer system (hereinafter referred to as -Improveiuent-) within the Stubbs Bay area according to City standards. Owner(s) understand(s) that t.he entire cost of the Improvement shall be assessed against the Owner(s). 3. Tmnrnvemenfc. 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. Tho general alignment and specifications for the sewer pipe appear ^n -Specifications ror 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. Aaaesamente. 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 Estimated Special Assessment may bear interest at the lawful rate and may be spread over a number of years as deemed necessary by the City. <><$MVWC M® AC*®/t^/^jiffeyT'^GSBEMB*®Qjipari^^^ ^ of orono _/g) hec®^Y system a^lccording £jS£iii&tt- Unitary *®^®%tUbs Bay af®a |»t^^tnstaU a » within the aw entic® ;:£:r.i.u »■••••••*••„..........,e assessed ag cause conscrw--- ®t”^“;r6'gene'a^:ll as cefierenced by^®^^^.^^gnfc. ^ ^ •'Tslgcif i^tions -or iS ae«er City ot Ocono,_^ *,nU«y S*“« and as ttay t«ay ^tova«snt-> . t«’■' /fche ‘improvement )• expense one®similar thereto, is improvement. S^'b? thi City of Orono. - - -.notiate.,1% City of Orono: ^pproprg TM CiW^”4cl*l*“'“*“ic«d Jh“a»^t 'et torth 0„P,qe4( ... ,„.„„,nt».y baa' J"*Tr rrjb - years as « \ I The Estimated Special Assessment shall become a lien against the Property as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429.Owner(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 the proposed adoption of the excess assessment in accordance with the procedure set forth in Minnesota Statute, § 429.061 and the Owner(s): i) may appeal only the amount in excess of the Estimated Special Assessment; and ii) reserve(s) the right to appeal therefrom pursuant to the procedures set forth in Minnesota Statute, § 429.081. Any appeal taken by the Owner(s} pursuant to paragraph f) hereof shall only be as to the amount of excess assessment and shall not include any appeal from the procedures followed by the City which might otherwise have been required under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. 5. Hook-Uo To Sewer. Upon future hook-up to the sewer pipe, Owner(s) shall pay those additional costs which are related thereto, including but not limited to; construction or pipe from the house to the sewer pipe, SAC charge, customary connection charges and hook-up, and inspection fees. 6. C.tJUu^. A copy of this Agreement may be filed in the chain—of“titie and this Agreement shall be considered as a covenant running with the Owner(s)• property. t • -2- • BCI*TT OF ORONO:Its MayorIts City ClerklEMENT , 1990, before me . to me ;y Clerk of the City of Orono, id that this Instrument was n. NOT^iRY PUBLIC RS: Effilil _, 1990, before me ital status^ who ee act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC •»'b. OvdrsiziA9 of tewoc connoction b«tvMn Daniola Lon^Lak# Heights and axiating Long LaJco Lift Station.That ovarsizing was naeaaaary to facilitata tho axtan- Sion of trunk aawar to an araa which 9owm day nay ba servicad if tha trunk lina ia axtandad bayond its praaant point* Coat of $8,000. c. That amount which tha City of Orono haa datarainad cannot ba aaaaaaad againat cartain prt^partiaa because thoae propartiaa cannot ba aubdividad to a lot size which nacaaaitataa public aanitary aa«#ar and tharafora said propartiaa are not banafitad by this project and bacauaa tha City will not allow said properties to connect to tha aanitary aawar Bystam, or tha City will not construct tha connection lines necessary for a connection to ba possible* In the event that tha City of Orono later allows said properties to subdivide or to connect to tha sanitary aawar built in this project, tha City of Orono will reimburse itself for said amount through connection charges or special assessment charges against said properties pursuant to law. The estimated maximum amount that assessing said ^ ^ properties would have generated is $115,000. This ''^ ^ ' amount therefor^ Is sprsad on the general tax levy. 2. Area Assessments Certain properties wi :hin the benefited area of this project have previously been assessed under earlier projects for the coat of downstream trunk sewers into which the lateral sewers con structed under this project connect. These previously assessed properties were assessed on the basis of area and are not being further assessed for trunk on an area basis under this assessment. Other properties within the benefited area, which were not pre viously assessed for trunk, are being assessed under this assessment on tha basis of $250.00 per acre. This charge represents the adjusted cost taking into account inflation since the time of the installation of the original trunk sewers that services all of those areas except the Daniel's Long Lake Heights Area. In this case the $250.00 charge represents the amount assessed per benefited acre for the cost oc installation in this project of tho new trunk sewer necessary to serve this area. -2- ILL ■ 3. Aaaas«m»nt Formula Th© total coat of Sanitary Sa%#ar Project Wo. 73*1 including conatniction coats and indirect coats is $1,622,118. Prom this amount the above described trues coat, poaaible future asaesament revenue, possible future trunk revenue and asseasod trunk revenue are deducted. The remaining amount of $1,466,510 is assessed as a lateral benefit. The lateral benefit is divided into 40% placed against front footage and 60% placed against building unit for purposes of providing equity in division of the costs to various shaped lots. a. Unit A building unit is defined as the minimum allowable width parcel containing adequate area to meet the requirements of the zoning code for the district in which the property is located. Wtiere properties have sufficient width and area to be subdivided they are assessed the whole number of maximum units into which the property can be subdivided if all such subdivided 'ots have sewer contiguous to them. Certain existing properties do not meet the minimum stan* dards for the lot dimensions in the zoned use district in which they exist. In those instances the properties are combined into a logical pattern to yield a lot as near as possible to the minimum standards for that use district. Each substandard lot is the assessed a fractional unit based on the numbei of lots r'-quired to make the larger lot. b. Front Footage The front footage to be aesessed ia determined according to the following guidelines: a b c d On rectangular lots, the width of the lots is assessed. On corner rectangular lots, the least dimension is con- sidered the width of the lot. On lots wich a varying width, the average width is assessed. On pie shaped or triangular parcels and on parcels where no definite width can be determined, the width aseeeeed is calculated as the prorated minimum width based on the lot area. -3- ■4 < i SUiiHARY or 1973-1 SANITARY SEWER PROJECT COSTS A»0 ASSESSMENTS3. Aa»e««Biont FormulaThe total coat of Sanitary Sawar Project Mo. 73-1 including latruction costs and indirect costs is 51,*22,1X8. Fro« this }unt the above described truck cost, possible future assessaient /enue, possible future trunk revenue and asseieod trunk revenue > deducted. The remaining amount of $1,4*6,518 is assessed a lateral benefit. The lateral benefit is divided into 40% seed against front footage and 60% placed against building it for purposes of providing equity in division of the costavarious shaped lots.a. UnitA building unit is defined as the minimum allowable dtlj parcel containing adequate araa to meat the requirements th« zoning code Cor the district in which the property is catede Where properties have sufficient width and area to I subdivided they are assessed the whole number of maximuia kits into which the property can be subdivided if all such kbdivided lots have sewer contiguous to them. Certain existing properties do not meet the minimum stan- irds for the lot dimensions in the zoned usu district in which ley exist. In those instances the properties are combined ito a logical pattern to yield a lot as near as possible to le minimum standards for that use district. Each substandard jt is the assessed a fractional unit baaed on the number of 5ta r'tquirad to Bi*ko tho larger lot. b. Front Footage The front footege to be eeaeeaed i* determined according o the following guidelines: a On rectangular lots, the width of the lots is asssssed. b! On corner rectangular lots, the least dimension is con sidered the width of the lot. c. On lots with e varying width, the average width is d. On*pl«"*h«P«<* O' triangular percale end on where no definite width can be determined, the assessed is calculated as the prorated minimum width basmd on tha lot araa. 1.2.Contract with General Contractor Services by City Consulting Engineer $1,233,0003.4.5.6. 7.a9.10.u.a. Engineeringb. Inspectionc. Surveyingd. Casement Preparation and Negotiation Right-of-Way CostsSoil TestsCity Attorney coats in condemnation, easement preparation, negotiationBond ConsultantCost of preparing and publishing assessment rollCost of publishing and mailings of notices of hearingsAdministration overhead coat to City Bond DiscountNet Interest During Construction Total Cost Amounts to be deducted 72,952 57,381 43,643 20.143 16,650 2.007 10,0008,0008,0001.41215.00034.000 100,000 $1,622,118 S 25,000 Truck 8,000 Oversizing of pipe 115,000 Possible future assessments 7,600 Trunk acre assessments $155,600 -155,600 To be assessed $1,466,518 Front Foot amount - 40% Cf $1,466,518 - $586,607 Unit amount - 60% of $1,466,518 « $879,911 front Foot Byunt • $586,607 ■ nr^i6 per front foot Total Front Footage 32,302 Unit Amount ■ $879,911 - $3,825.70 per unit Total units 2^U“““ -4- - ^ or -------------». »«"~J Sl.!3J,(,00■ • EnglnMringb. Inspectionc. Surveyingd. E*»oment Proparation and Negotiation 3. Right-Of-Way Costa<• Soil Tssts condemnation,easement preparation, negotiation 6- Bond Consultant ». Administration overhead cost to City 10» Bond Discount Net Interest During Construction Total Cost 11. 1.4-12 15.000 34.000 IQO.OOO SI.622,118 Amounts to be deducted S 25,009 Truck iif'2?2 *^vorsi*ing ^>f pipe future assessments TO be assessed Unit am^nt*^80« of^s* “ S58«,607"VI or $1,466,518 ■ 5879,811 yront Foot _ ssea an? _ i-» . , ICS.1 i'ront footage Unit Amount ■ $879,911 « c? «,e ,«local units —* *3.825.70 per unit -4- March 1,1990TO: M. Bemhardson. City Administrator J. Gerhardson, Public Works DirectorD. Goetten, A. Nettles. B. Peterson, E. Callahan, Council Members J. Grabek, MayorRE: Inclusion of 3620 Gleen Street in the Bayside Sewer Project muw!ir\I NW-5BB0 ayijaar City Administrators. Council Members and Mayor,We have some serious ccncems about the inclusion of the above mentioned property in the Bayside Sewer Project. Our lot is two acres, has fully conforming sewer, has had oa sewer problems, and has at least two other back-up sites . In addition we are over 500 feet from the lake and are not on the trunk line. In fact, it seems that extra effort and special laterals have been created just to i:-?lude the two propertier. on Eileen Street To indude the Eileen Street properties In the proposed sewer plan seems arbitrary and capricious. WNIe we support the sewer project for those homeowners directly on the lake with non-conforming septic systems, we strongly believe we should not be induded in this sewer project for the reasons stated at '' ^e. Therefore, we are writing to ask the city administrators and the coundl to exdude us. We also request that tl iSterai to our home that is currently drawn on the plans be taken J. preferably before the plan is sent to the Bayside community. Over the past few weeks and months we have been asking why we were ever induded in this project. The following reasons have been given: "When we looked at Bayalda North, wa thought tote of altot would naad cHy towar.** In fact, only two (2) of the thirteen (13) properties need dty sewer. The rest have plenty of land and conforming systems. Why should the other property owners foot the bill when they doni need it? *The line was drawn thara back In tha aarty 1970's." Most of the properties were not developed at that point so this is no longer a relevant criteria Lots within the "tine ” must be re<«valuated based on current lot size and suitability of septic systems. le also runs let. Foxbend, Leaf u 11MAR ' 6 690 ^ve anour property by a true premise, onsidered for B Bay, Foxbend, paying?eluded?" he same is trueproject. We I property We would be are the only ones wer plan Is fouldbe y expense creates ling every avenue >rt in this matter. i'March 5, 1990 175 Landmark Drive Orono, Minnesota 55356 Property, #23 on Location mapMr. Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator City of Orono Municipal Offices Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323Dear Nr. Bernhardson:We built a house at 175 Landmark Drive on 2.7 acres and moved in March 24, 1989. We installed a Mound septic system at a cost of $9,500, as the only alternative allowed us by city officials. We requested a drainage field septic system as a more cost effective alternative because we knew the Stubbs Bay sewer project was penc^ing. Our request was denied. We do not live on Bays'^ e Road, but are opposite a cul-de-sac fronting Bayside, which cul-de* ^ac is approximately 250 feet long. Our present septic system runs away from Bayside to the North and any location for hookup is approximately 300 feet from the property line at the cul-de- sac. The grade for a gravity flow line from my system to the proposed lateral line is questionable and further clouds the issue of feasibility. My neighbor at 55 Landmark Drive has been excluded for the reasons that distance and grade make his property too expensive to sewer. When I add the 300 foot hookup charge to your city's estimates, I have a $24 - 25,000 charge to abandon my newly installed $9,500 system, when my ii;cl-cion ii. t'i.i piwjecL is questioiiaole at tne outset. We have a fully conforming septic system and a fully conforming lot with no frontage on Bayside Road. We consider our inclusion in the Stubbs Bay sewer project arbitrary and capricious. We request that we be excluded from participation in the use or funding of this project. While we support the sewer project for those homeowners directly on the lake with non-conforming septic systems, we strongly believe we should not be included in this sewer project for the reasons stated above. We also request that the lateral to our home that is currently drawn on the plans be taken off, preferably before the plan is sent to the Bayside community. arch 5, 1990 -:1jy Property #23 " ’*”« Location mapI'stal Bey, Minnesota 55323P-3: C^.aKKr. e«„ _- . _ 0,5.^ Prc-'*“ Mr. B«rnhardson: built a house at 17r t-. jdenieS. '' Bay sew4 Pro7ect°tL -^^ernaUvJpe-iaing. our request ide. Which oll-de®'aJ opposite a jc system runs awaP from fPP*'?'‘i»ately'^ 250 ?eet'"li“‘^®“®*'' fronting:wssrir.-iS^^^^ bUity?* ** 'J“«tionat,le “and "* u«h"er"'' cYouVs" \°he“*Hr5 a fun -»“-Uo,.aoie at ?„l’iu\“s"et?"*"' ■">«" »V “S“conl?^er Ju“r‘r -"'»-ln, jer Particip«ien^r tC uVe^V/^/u^ndinr* 74“^ " “« « the sewer proiect f ^ project. v/»n^n ‘?i p”S*K St%'n“?/^«« «?te“d“ • community. Preferably before the d an ^*^^wn IS sent to the Mr. Mark Bamhardson March 5, 1990 Paga TwoOvar the past few weeks and months we have bean asking why we ware aver Included in this project. The following reasons have been given:**Hhan wa looked at Bayside North, we thought lots of sitas would need city sewer." In fact, only one of the thirteen properties has a substandard system and all are functioning at acceptable levels. The rest have plenty of land and conforming systems. Why should the other property owners foot the bill when they don't need city sewer?"The line for the Stubbs Bay study area was drawn there back in the early i*»70‘s." Most nf tho properties uere rot de'^eloped at that point so this Is no longer a relevant criteria. Lots within the "line" must be re-evaluated based on current lot size and suitability of septic systems. "The trunk line runs near your property." Although we are not on the trunk line it does run approximately 250 feet from our property. The trunk line also runs near many properties which are not included: Oxford Street, Foxbend, Leaf Street, Stubbs Bay Road, Cygnet, and Christine Street. Why are we different from those properties? "It will increase your property value." We don't perceive an $18,000'<- sewer line which we don't need, as increasing our property value by anything close to that amount. Since our lot is 2.7 acres, the hookup adds another $7 - $9,000 to the cost, which cost is excessive and cannot be recouped. Furthermore, if that were a true premise, doesn't this also increase properties not currently being considered for inclusion, yet in close proximity (Christine, Oxford, Stubbs Bay, Foxbend, Cygnet, Leaf Street)? Why should they "benefit" without paying? "Why were other properties such as Oxford Street not included?" VTe were told "t.'*.cy don't naed it, they are ccnformin^. However, if they want to be in they may." The same is true for us. In addition, just like the property owners on Oxford we don't want to be in this project. We need your support in excluding our property from the project. We certainly are in favor of cleaning up the lake and requiring property otmers who need city sewer to hook up to and pay for it. We would be happy to support that plan, as long as those who need it are the only ones required to fund it. Sincerely, Lee and Julie Harren m. .onth. «. «v.t B.V.--t? fcS^ir.* o?--VSr «-HAre back inStubbs e * ^tots^'Sithin.“tic BV.«»*. .lthou,h « »« -U"r run. near your P”P"\i.tely «0 ««* „. does run appro* P’^'>P“V Stubbs Bay **’ property value.- "® .“"InertwlM*»“ aase YO^’^kKS*^ we don’t need, a| lot • no close to that amount.cost, by anything another purthermore, i* the hookup adds recouped. oroperties e^xcessive and cannot ^ yet premise^^d^ered -^"‘='’-Foxbend. cygnet. Leaf ristine. oxford. f^J*^I’®vithout paying? 'iS^uia tney -benent ^ «r properties e“=\«e ocr;JortlUB._^^>'o. :::r«ciuai. lihev« ^ro ‘nred^^i are tbe only that as A ^ fund • « i ■I CITY II '' jIQRQNOj CITY of ORONOPost Office Bo* 66*Crystai Boy. MinocMita SS323*Municipal OCBom On the North Shore of Lake MinnetonkaNovember 8, 1988Eiden Construction Attn; Ross 4100 Brookshire Lane Plymouth. MN 55446Re: 175 Landmark Drive, Orono - Septic SystemDear Ross:AS I have discussed with you and the homeowner (whose property might be served with municipal sewer within the next year Since no decision has yet been made by the City Council J* J® a sewer project will be commenced for the Stubb's Bay !?:rd^&%'at-tri/rrrpo'rt'y "jitiMv:^%-oo“ji£? ?J"".sl%'n«’cl^.«u=Uon rt""n%a?l^^^ “ rSictSToJ^J^Sdl^kirirar.^’rtr\\"a^“\“:n“ird.?“?y*ro? onri^ C^c\“ « r" vY« %ur’'tllutt!on"lo^’"cort\^ I will be pleased to discuss the /Yiu"hYve'’ a“ at your convenience. Please contact ne at 473 y ^ questions. Michael P. Gaffr^—. ^ ^ Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator cef^^Jeanne A. Ms Building S Zoning Administrator Thomas J. Jat. senior Building Inspector Lyle Oman, Field Inspector Mar< E, Bernhardsorir City Administrator ai'^'ST BUILDING A ZONING ~ -*3-337 assessing administration a finance - 473-7 358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-733*^ <w •• r CITY of ORONOPo,t Offie. Bo. «6.Crr-.l B.,. Mi»n«oU 58323*OO- On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka November 8» 1900nstructionOSSokshlre Lane , MN 55446Landmark Drive, Orono - Septic System I have discussed with you »"'> “• ^°“J°lathiJ'’thl “st*ubb”*Ky . orooerty at 175 Landmarh ortve is mility that the I'aWt b • s"“VdTith -sewer withi. the uext y.«: or two. ,ce no decision has yet been ^‘bb's'say «M!*ind*aiSe!'’tSre pLific time frame construct and use tho septic dnt that this property util However, in the spring of 1®®®*« desioned by SP Testing Inc. However, be appropriate sidence construction whether some decision :ars^e\?er\^^^’“nn"iS^^ ^ r'eViVVu^^s^tu^tlSn'^Jo^" .rsir^brcfl’i,”“b:^'rdon•e^^'ft7r only a minimal ns e . - . sincerely. SSS"ianiin*,"'?Siing»aminist£ator . M- Building & Zoning Administrator ! 5* jLc senior Building Inspector ?'“B4rnhIrdsJ ”'’citrAdministrator - i 'fiSl ADMINIStRATION A FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 4'^3-735S 3890.5TOsFKMtMTBiMayor and City Council Hack E. Bernhacdson, City Administcat< March 9, 1990SUBJECTS Council/Planning Commission - Architect PlanAttachment:A. Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting Dated 2/14/90Be Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting Dated 2/5/90ISSDE 11. Setting a meeting to review size and other related cost issues with the architect. #2. Setting a meeting to review other issues. INTRODUCTICW - The only possibility for all 5 Council members plus myself to be available for a meeting with the architect before April 1 would be Thursday, March 15, 1990. A number of Planning Commission members are gone during the lacer part of March. Alternatives for this could be: Monday, April 2 Wednesday, April 4 Saturday, Aril 7 This meeting could Include discussion of issues the Council specifically desire to discuss with the Planning Commission. It is requested that a date be selected. ALTERNATIVES le Select a date for discussion with the architect. 2. Select a date to discuss other issues. 3. Select a combination date. 4. Table to March 26th. f i 2590.1 W ^ TOj FROM: Mayor and City Council MarK E. Bernhardson, City Administratosi PC3Z2:5=o OATS: February 5, 1990 SUBJECT: Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting ISSUE - 1. Decide when Council would like to meet with Planning Commission to discuss public/private roads. 2. Decide what other issues Council would like to have discussed at that meeting. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's January 22, 1990 Council ™®«ting it was indicated during a discussion during the Report that Council would like to discuss the issue of public and private roads with the Planning Commission. In addition to taking the opportunity p?ivate roads it may be appropriate to include any of the following subjects; Plan Updates - Sewer and Transportation Marina Controls City Facilities Design A date that may be open for many people would be Monday, March Sthe Alternate March dates would bo: Tuesday the 6th Thursday the 8th Thursday the 15th Friday the 16th Wednesday the 21st Thursday the 22nd alternatives - 1. Set March 5, 1990 as the date. 2. Select an alternate date. 3 • Tdt)X0 • 4nd City Council Bernhardson, City Adninistrab y 5, 1990ouncil/Planning Commission Meeting FES IS-,390 I7 --I Council would like to meet with Planning scuss public/private roads.ther issues Council would like to have discussedt the Council's January 22, 1990 Council meetingduring a discussion during the Mayor and Council :il would like to discuss the issue o£ public and th the Planning Commission.taking the opportunity to discuss public and t may be appropriate to include any of the ts: Zomprehensive Plan Orono Comprehensive Plan Updates - Sewer and - sortation Controls ;ilities Design be open for many people would be Monday, March larch dates would bo: the 6th ' the 8th r the 15th Lhe 16th Ly the 21st ' the 22nd i-RECOMMBWDATIOH - It is recommended that the Council set 6t00 P.H.r Monday# March 5^ 1990 as the joint Planning Commission meeting to tentatively discuss:Public and Private Roads LMCD Comp Plan Direction Comprehensive Plan Updates MarinasCity Facility DesignPROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by that the Council establish Monday, March S7~ 1990 at 6:00 P.M. (box lunches included) to hold a joint Council/Planning Commission meeting. Ayes Nays__.0:,' 990 as the date, mate date. - i*Sf.m3790.6ITIOH - It is r.commsndsd that tha Council sot «»00 ^.rch 5, 1990 .. th. Joint Pl.nnins Co«l..iontantativaly discuss:iblic and Private Roads (CD Coop Plan Direction HUprehansive Plan Updates icinasLty Facility Design____ Kv seconded by __p that the Council ^i?Sav nlfch Sr 1990 at 6:00”>.M. (box lunches to hold's joint counci 1/Planning Coanission meeting. ays e m1 \Mayor and City CouncilMack E. B<»rnhacdson, City Administrato| March 9, 1990 SUBJECT: Cigarette Vending Machine Sales CWmiMSIMMARUI990CITVOFflAttachment;A. Draft Language to Ordinance 5.24B. Orono Ordinance 5.24C. Memo to Vending Machine Licensees Dated 2/28/90D. Star Tribune Article Dated 3/7/90 E. Cigarette Machine Memo Dated 2/20/90 ISSUE - Consideration for adoption of ordinance language restricting vending machine sales to places where minors are prohibited. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's Febraury 26, 1990 meeting *^hey dlJected-^ staff draft language related to vending machines where minors are prohibited. Dorothy HaUm has indicated to license holders that this issue would be on the March 12 agenda. discussion - In a review of ordinance language with an associate of Tom Bar rett's it was felt ordinance language to the effect that its allowed only where those unci>r 18 years of prohibited (unless accompained by at least one parent or guardian) could be vague and chal lengable. As a draft language relates it to the existing class of holders of on sale intoxicating liquor, which seems to get at group. Of th. cuct.nt llc.ns..s In th. City of Otono this would allow machines at Jimmies and th^ Wayzata Country Club. (It should be remembered that under State law and local ordinance regarding intoxicating liquor persons under 18 can be at even these establishments as busboys, dishwashers or musicians.) Licenses with on sale non-intoxicating malt liquor are prohibited from allowing minors in the same room where non liauor is served by local ordinance but not the State law. (Current cigarette vending license holders in this category are Navarre Lanes and Lakeview Golf Course.) The secot.d section of the ordinance amendment specifically limits the purchase by those under 18 in local ordinance. AS noted in the attachment a proposed State law not only in bars, but also liquor stores and workplaces. For S?LCcurrSnt licensees which would be “jider the proposed State statute (staff has not seen a copy) as a work place. (This bill which was to preempt i was tabletf in the Senate Committee which is expected to kil for the session.) 37tW.6and City Council s. B«»fnhafdson, City Adninlsteatof9, 1990ptte Vending Machin<» Sales A COWaUBTMIDA It 1990cmroFORomDraft Languag* to Ocainanea 5.24S«o°to'vinS?r9IU««tJTa=SlnJ'i*a»o“oat.<.^/20/»0a.^ration for p^ac« wh*“rmi^no"’ a1»ending machine sales co pi. - At th» council's aVl<w"nV ci9 “Stt»staff draft l>"5uagn r.^d^ W has es where this issue would be on thelicense holders that tnis , a review of ^^"language ’^to*^^:*s it was felt ordinanc 9 q£ age ate wed only at least one parent or inless ® = ipnqable. As a result, the Id be vague and chal ^ class of licensee e relates it to ._ which seems to get at the sale intoxicating liquo^ h ^ o. Of the current licens Wavzata Country low machines ®f mndec State law and >uld be remembered under 18 can be r."V^\aSus^"o“n?s as ’ husloys, dishwashsrs or on sain non'’intoxicating naltminors in ^be same coo h r^^ State law. :::d m this cat.gor. am and Lakeview Golf Course.) nf the oc6»nance amendment specifically limits by^those under 18 in local ordinance. c*-af-P law would allo*'*^ it :hn attachnnnt > fnnd .orXplacs. Tor bars, but also liquor 3^°*^ oermitted under the rERWATTVBfiUsz3. Allow where owners Hcensees.4 "Otcicted sceess to• «-rn.tive, ^1« Adopt.2. ^end and adopt 3* Table. ««Pc*4- Take no action.IMMENDATION - Thii*. 4.U >SED MOTION - Moved bv roposed Ocdinanr^'* • —s.' S'^conded by fh«*. ^«ve 1 i„o. ORDINANCE f , SECOND SERIESAN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.24 ADOPTED APRIL 1, 1984 AND ENTITLED "TOBACCO."The City Council of Orono ordains:Section 5.24, Tobacco is hereby amended by adding the following language:Subdivision 4. Tobacco Products: Prohibited Sales fromvending machines.A. Tobacco products may be offered for sale in vending machines licensed under this chaper only on premises which possesses a current On-Sale Intoxicating liquor license. In addition to any other requirements imposed by law, there shall be placed on each tobacco product vending machine a notice as follows: "If you are under age 18 and purchase or attempt topurchase any tobacco product from this machine, you will be subject to a mandatory fine of $100." Subdivision 5. Purchase or attempted purchase of tobacco products by minors prohibited. A. It shall be unlawful for any person who has not attained the age of 18 years of age to purchase or attempt to purchase any tobacco product. A person under the age of 18 years of age who is alleged to have violated this section shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court under Minn. Stat. Section 260.111. In addition to the dispositions otherwise provided by law, a violation of this section shall subject the minor to a fine of $100 for a first violation or $200 for any subsequent violation. This ordinance shall become effective the first day of May, 1990. Adopted by the Council at a regular meeting held March 12, 1990, by a vote of _ _ ayes, _ _ nays. ATTEST: James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy H. Hallin, City Clerk 71 l IfT-"'PRIL 1, 1984 ANDed by adding th«ibltad Sales fromsale in vending t premises which uor license, in », there shall be line a notice as se or attempt to ne, you will beted purchase of has not attained t to purchase any years of age who be subject to the in. Stat. Section :wise provided by ;t the minor to a r any subsequent the first day of »r meeting held 8. yor K. Each licensee shall report membership and to the Council its gross receipt profits from gambling devices or raffles, and the profits itemized as required by this Subdivision.L. Records required by this Subdivision shall be preserved for three (3) years and the licensee shall make available the records relating to operation of gambling devices and the places^ raffles for public Inspection at reasonable times and. , . ,, Except as otherwise herein provided, gamblingdevices shall be operated and raffles cond-.cted by a licensee onlyleases except that tickets for raffles conducted in accordance with this Section may be sold off the premises. ^... . ^ , '^otal prizes from the operation of paddlewheels.tipboards and pull-tabs (or ticket jars) awarded in any single dayoperated shall not exceed $1,000.00. Total resulting from any single spin of a paddlewheel, or any single seal of a tipboard, each tipboard limited to a single seal, exceed $150.00. u” calendar year by any licensee from the operation of paddlewheels, tipboards, and pull-tabs (or ticket 3ars) and the conduct of raffles shall not exceed $35,000.00. Merchandise prizes shall be valued at fair market retail value. m.. ei. ®‘^?anization which directly or under contract to the State or a political subdivision delivers health or social sn[J^r.w?f is exempt from taxation pursuant to section 5n ^ Internal Revenue Code, as amended through December prizes in a calendar year from the conduct of raffles, in excess of the limitation provided in Subparagraph N of this Subdivision, provided that the prizes consist of real or personal property donated to the organization by an individual, corporation or other organization and, except as hereinafter provided, the organization complies with the other requirements and restrictions of this Section. An organization • " this Subparagraph is not subject to the membership t Subparagraphs C and F of this Subdivision or Item 8 of Subdivision 1 of this Section, nor is it subject to the compensation limitations of Subparagraph E of this Subdivision. SEC. 5.24. TOBACCO. », . N Definition. As used in this Section, the terra tobeoco means and includes tobacco in any form, including but not '^vwid to, cigarettes, cigars, bagged, canned or packaged product. License Required. It is unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly (or by any manner or means), to keep for retail sale, sell at retail, or otherwise dispose of any tobacco in any form unless a license therefor shall first be obtained from the City. ORONO CC 113 (4-1-84) K. Each licensee shallsrship *”^^°inq®devl«Vot^VafVin and the \l a “ cequlrei by this Subaivlslon.L. Recora, »it." ^VlVsbUcved for three (3) years »"? *imbllng devices and the:cV°o"^.mU'"lr';u^?le'•^na°pVtio? st c..«.n.ble tls... sna- H. Except ss ath«-l.e h.^,es shell be operstea end taffies ‘‘''‘•Jij o°ttt.V*conruc%e"a'’u\cc«aence »ith this Section sey be soldpremises. Pt l«* ''b” ^“tVerin ^nT>lnslra« .eras sna pull-tebs 1 noi excesd^ $1,000.00. Total rhich they are , ®aie aoln of a paddlewheelp or anyes tesulelng ft^ any single ^l U»ltea to a RlPSle ••Ri le seal of a tip^ta, each tip •’"**^,i?; rSt ?se%‘"l«tlea^In*ani° cal«a*at leat^ by *o/'uchTt :iiana"l'’s.'^^se“s"rafl “be ih'sed^at fait martet tetall value. 0. an organisation which altectly °t^ the State or a political •“baivislon deU „ sectl^on ,ices and which Is exempt ^^*8 -niended through December inul) of the internal Revenue Code, as year from the 1981, may award total - ^j^e limitation provided In duct of raffles. In ®A„^*'®orovlded that the prisesD^agraph N of this Subdivision, pro^vi^a organization by slst of ?eal or P®*^®®"*^ ^oJ^other organization and, ®*o®Pj *® Individual, corporation ion compiles with the otherelniftet provided, the organisation^ comp^i^r organisation lulrements and restriotron ,ubject to the "•■*’•'•^^1 ;‘r"fc\l‘ons‘5f‘%u\'|rara^;lp^(^: and r o^^^bls^Subdlvls^J. or «em^S ,pVn«tlon‘?[‘»l’ta?fons"of So'bparasraph E of this Subdivision. SBC. 5.24. TOBACCO. Subd. 1. Definition. AS used in th^ not :f^?d°;o:^ cTga^r^ti-,^"aU^ ^ Subd. 2. License manner o?^means), ^to keep rson, directly or or otherwise i®P°®* gt“berni"form“unVes's*V U'cense th.refos shall first ,tained from the City. (4-1-84) 113 S 5.24Subd. 3. Restrictions,A. Separa’ licenses shall be issued for the sale of tobacco at each fixed place of business, and no license shall be issued for a movable place of business.B. It Is unlawful for any person to sell or give away any tobacco in any form to any person under the age of eighteen (18) years.C. I: is unlawful for any person to keep for sale, sell or dispose of any tobacco in any form containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna, strychnos, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or poisonous drug except nicotine.SBC. 5.25. SHOWS AND LARGE ASSBMBLIBS. )Subd. 1. License Required. It is unlawful for any person to present any public show, mo'^ie, caravan, circus, carnival, theatrical or other performance or exhibition without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. It is also unlawful for any person to promote or sponsor a large assembly, for any purpose and to which the public is Invited, without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. For the purpose of this Section, "la.ge assembly" means a gathering, or projected gathering, of more than three hundred (300) persons at one time and at a single location. Subd. 2. Regulations. Unless waived or modified by the Council upon good cause being shown, all applicants for an Initial license where a large gatherIng is to be held shall snow ability to provide, and during the term of the license (if issued) shall be conditioned upon maintaining, the following* A. If fully or partially out-ot>doors, a fence shall completely enclose the location of sufficient height and strength to prevent people in excess of the maximum permissible number from gaining acess to the grounds, which fence shall have a sufficient number of gates to allow safe passage to and from the gathering. B. Potable water, meeting all Federal and State requirements for sanitary quality, sufficient to provide drinking water for the maximum number of persons to be assembled, at the rate of at least one gallon per person per day. C. Enclosed toilets, separate for men and women, meeting all State and local specifications, conveniently located throughout the grounds, sufficient to provide facilities for the maximum number of people to be assembled in accordance with the Minnesota State Board of Health Regulations and Standards, which shall be kept clean, operable, and free of refuse. ORONO CC 114 (4-1-84) ® ^ [F 22890. TO: FROM: Cigarette License Holders Dorothy Rallin> City Clerk DATE: February 28, i990 SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment - Vending Machine Cigarette Sales As you may recall, at the Council's January 22, 1990 meeting cigarette licenses were Issued for 1 quarter (February, March, April) only. This action was taken to give the Council time to consider changing the existing ordinance as it relates to the licensing of cigarette vending machines in the City. The Council will consider an ordinance amendment at the March 12, 1990 Council meeting prohibiting the use of cigarette vending machines or similar dispensing devices. The only exception would be locations where minors are prohibited. Please feel free to attend this meeting or writt on this matter for presentation to the City Council. ir opinions 22890.L'ill? II iraulmra*0» cigarette License HoldersraOMi Dorothy Hallln, City ClerkFebruary 28, 1990SOBJWCt. Ordl„.no. A.,«d«.nl: - v.ndin, Machlm. «9.r,tt. s.l„w»r» UM»d"foi ! 2*- 1**0 MttingApril) only. Thi. .cllon «« t.kln "A'cS!consider changing the e*latln« 9ive the Council tlae toucnnln, of c!,.?,t\VrV„i?“".U'lV.".‘rn%;:IMO^Co'JfnVi «.n<J.e„t ,t th. N.reh 12.obscco 3/7/tzIwinsoneXieinHousecommittee •sOHSltJ.McOMfe iaffWHMr Ha ioYrr~ »nd vcndiiif machifw MuoiM MonS s n«ocy l^aSiy IS tMir tdbR 10 nvtiw th« IMM oa dpitno aadiiMt io nine Ias ia4«stfy*sromot«d bill tbit I piohAii loai ooaunoaliiM bMwittt tbo aoc Wm ««■ ap- by tbo Hona Cofflffiarca imittaa. iM tU btU. wboM aiMbor i» Rap. lob McladMfR, DFlrMipIo Uka, wools nooloM tbo loootioa oaS o^ OMbbility of dtt iBOCfciM sttMwiSo is swob tbo HIM wqr aa oiSinaaeti ifStotiod by oMio ibts o Soam otb- or eomiBOBMoA locb iSln Miano* OpflliiiaSSthml Tbo bitt weoU fioUWt aoS ovonuni aSs^ w«l booa 00 doiioM vaa^ iif macbiaoi osS praiim BOW boat. MM M iho Homo floor, dpratia ■OiifttOl wooM bo booBoS Aon pobMc plaeoA.wiih >ba tMOpnoo ^ wuriplaoM bon aofl Hfloer mioa. In moIIA /iTtiycitiactrrrDOiQSr&tl&S Camiau*ban and liquor ttom, iho mKhines ««)vU bave tu be located wnhin ;fte view of an cniplo>c«. and cioarciic* woold be diipcnaed only wub comem of the en»plo>ae. who woold te m ch&T|c or 1 fcinoit urtlockinf dr> iCi?.SuDpoftcn of the bill tiM it would Khievt \hiin iho boo* ftod other rt- fuictioni on dpreitc mochintt m iniended to do — prohibit minon froia buying cigaretter The bill would tccompliah that and prei**^« the job! of 2M to 300 Minneaotani •ho Mnice the machinei. said .McEKhern. "Theft's no doubt about it; it’s a jobs bill." he aid McCachem cited a conitituent of hia in Mooiktilo whose job invoJvei ar- viring cigarette mKhinet. "The gtiuleman tuppons kii family of live cnildren.'* aid McEachem. "Why should I take his Job sway ftom him when I can pnevent the ule to minors?" Oppononu of the bill, including elected officials from Uie municipsN itics that have banned the mechtnei. md IN Legisltture should not stop communities from imposing more resinctive regulations than luie law, including the pssage of ordinances fbraaouthgbiban. “I'm asking you (the Commerce Committee) to not taka away the Butheniy of local claeted offieials in OUT own eommuniites.'* laid Jerry ■rigp. mayor of White fleer Lake, thanm municipality in Minnesou to ban the maehinct. Todd Paulson, a council mam Nr from Ireoklyn Centar. which voted to baa tN machines last week, aid the bill probably would protea a lot ■non iNn 200 to 300 jobt. Refrrring to iN health havrds of cigaieuei, N aid tN bill would preserve jobs "emong . -*^iotofists. respiratory therapists and undwakers.** Critics included tN sate health com* miuioner. Sister .Mary Madonna Sshion, who aid smoking kills ;il>Owl 4,300 Minnesouns each year. Permuting local governments to ban Cigarette machines i$ a "miniinum step to getting 10 iNt goal ' pi having a smcke-lVN lociciy by the year 2«)(X), she aid.Opponents also said a locking device vbOuld noi eHmtnate €i|ircii« ttici lo minoii, even ihOM|h tn empfoyf* who htl^ i minor fcyy cifor«i*i could bt (bund luitiy of i|roii mit- demrtnor. Thty ol*o noted ihoi tm* ployeet mtfHl bo too busy to memipr \ht mtehintt clo^y nod check iho &0H of buyini ci|ftrt;tcs*Among ihost who testified on this point WAS Jonlon Cushinga s I6•ycg^ old fiudcnt from SoMtb High School in MinneapoMt. Wocking with :ht Association for N6ofmoktAt-M:nnc* sou lo test how aosy it is to buy cigartucs from mochincs, Cushmg said she has succaedod in M parcant of har anampis in doaani of rcsttu* rtftUv bars, liituor ttom and gu ua- lions across (bur counties. In all casatg sha purposely let employees know she was buying the arid sometimes even asked Tor and received help from the employees, she said. You have the choice of whether to sell dgartttat to chikirtn or noi/‘ said Cushing, "btcausa kids are going to get iha ctggreuei if ihoia machtnas art still there. Any laanaitr can look older if they want to* They can act older if they want to.’* Joe Lotspeichg dirtetor of engineenng for Automatic Products, a St Paul vending machine company, disputed that; ' Believe me, vending madtincf can bt controlled ----They can be as efRxiive ti an over^the-cownttf sale*^ in stopping cigareut sales to minors. Repi Mary Murphy, DPt-Herman- lown, piopostd an amendment to remove the “pnemptioa'* clause from the biltp 10 local ordinances could be more ftringeni than state law. But that amcndmeni was deftat- fd l>d. Local govemmenii would still be able to ban the machines, but only by revoking cigarette sale licenses and outlawing the sale of cigarettes eciire- ly- The Senate Commerce Comnnuee ^MU take up the bill Thursday. 3fihsme- le nachina victory /cfieth* in nine >ill ihtt (was oiantefce r is IU^ pla Uke. n and «- suicwide Kdinsnoes joienoih- i| MinAf 4ovari''^ lene ventf* imwbnns. which new r, ctUffeiie lUlW frplB SfitPtiOA e^r«.ln Cigarettes^ouw Uo wo«W tK2 JilJrctte «1« lO swHsSSs SS^^» McHichcm. in ,iiu- M ml. "*y!Sfh^««!32i vidn»CT»>fe>w™“’'-^**’ sions Jei employees !l£*.sn»s An;“ifrom Mm ^ prevent ;0 minors''" - t#s —------------- 11^5^ (br an euin«l« ban- joe ~rm y “V'Ste^;:s'i“eCommiitec) “ ©ffiSiJ* »n ^ney can be asautherity of >o«‘« ^ jerry can be contr^W — to bin the michinct. Mirv Murphy* __, ............- r,S. fcoiUv" cm-rjijj; «. till. ■».!«». crr;r.,r„ “■”•■ miumncr Sister Ma^ kills _. , ... CommuieeTSr';."oW«v^] . S-- £— siifcift.afcuc ts • IftTTHQJfiKewr tAttachment: A. List of Cigarette LicensesB. Letter to Licensees Dated 1/26/90ISSUE - Outline to Council alternatives to change the ordinance regulating the sale of cigarettes. INTRODUCTION - 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 machines. 4 TO:Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adninistrator Following any diacuaaion as to dasired direction, direct staff ta KKI'5, ‘O incorpor.l, VlV^^Uo* .Jdtable discussion of it until 3/26. Tablina to 3/26 la a^wiaA,! Staff"Vni**Vnfori"th!l^"?i ®«y <><> i" this regard,considered licensees of when the matter is to be PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , direct ataff ►« language to incorporate desired direction and table discussion until the March 26, 1990 meeting, in addition S?i U«n.«, wh.„ council .111 consider iTTWi*Hie*r LISTING OF CI6A8BTTB LICBNSBS \i . \* I 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: Licensee 1. Crystal Bay Services 2. Jimmies Lounge 3. Lakeview Golf of Orono (Feb^^Oct) 4. Navarre Bowling Lanes 5. Washington Scientific 6. Hayzata Country Club ^ J —. • • ■ ^ ^ •- 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 Operation Gas station/ Marine dock On Sale liquor establishment Public 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 • . • w CJ.IY (IF QRaNO- CITl Peat Oillee Bm 68*Cryetel Bey, On tht Sorth Short of Lake Minnetonka TOt 1990 Cigarette License Solders FBOM: DATS: City of Orono 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 ir. the City. A refund will be issued for the three quarters that were paid, but not app' >ved. If you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to call. ■UlLniNC a ZOINIMC • 471-73S7 assessing ADMINISTRATION A HNANCC - 473-73M rAX-47>«3IO rUBUC WORKS • 473-739I m: S>;-\ Alt iqjiarii,—M »— Cigarette vending machine regulations under discussion Tbe Lcfitlxture will hear i propoui to atktfH nate*wide reiolattoot oo cifa* reoe veodiat marhinri. Senator James Metzea (DFL-Soutb St. Paul) will prota- Uy be one of tbe bill’t autbon. Under tbe bill, sate statutes would su persede aay tule or ordinance of a local unit of lOveranieDt reuting to regula tion of tbe location of vending macbine saks of tobacco. Tbe bill’s regulations are siintlar to tbe panial baa type of ordinances several canrountties have passed. Tbe bill would allow vending macbine sales of tobacco * In a factory, busineu. office, or otber place not open to the general public or minon (18 years of age); or * In an oo-sale or off-sale liquor store or bar if tbe machine is under tbe close observatioa and control of a responsible employee, not in an outer waiting area or otlitf unmonitored area, and if tbe ma- chine is inaccessible after bours. Tbe bill wouk require that in non-factory or bar locations, tbe macbine must work only by an employee activating an electronic switch or by using a token. Tbe bill will be up for a bearing shortly. It contrasts with a bill by Sen. Marty (DFL-RosevUle) which would require local licensure of cigarette vending macbioes. JJ Minnesota community ordinances to restrict cigarette vending machines Total baas on dgarellc vending machine sales~<4dop(ed White Bear Lake Chanhassen Kenyon NotthAeld Bfoomiogtoo Sl Louis Park St Goud Partial rcstrkUotts oa cigarette veadiag machiae salcs~>ldopr«d Big Lake Blaiix New Brighton Preston Redwood Falls Shoreview Minneapolis SLPaul Duluth Other cities with ordinances nndcr consideration Brooklyn Center Milaca West St. Paul North Sl Paul Brooklyn Park Owatonoa Golden Valley Austin Wotlhiogloo What’S In the Census for Ms? No one get* paid for answering iho cenpus but it payg o/f for everyone The informniion your answers provide helps your community leaders docide where to put day care centers, schools, hospitals, and many more services. And. the census is used to determine how many seats your state has m the U S. House of Represenuti^’et so your voice is heard w here it counts the most. Anawar tlis Catam. It Counts Nr Mora Thaa You TMak] CENSUS *90 February 16,1990 Printed on rteyeUd paper page? Wmmtte vending machine dons under discussionwjll beir a piopeni lo MinBCMte comnumlty t fcfulaiioii* oe dsa- fO restrict.cUMS. Senator Jmm ____—^IngMibSLPMiDwiiiimte' dgsrettev™e bUl’t aothon. BUldlillCS; ttsMea would •»* gnUnjaoe of a local t lelaiing to tegnU- of veudiag ma chine Total kHioa i*(«I ve aiinilar 10 tke ofdiMiicei seveni necLTbe bill would Ik met of tobacco busoets. office, or otber 1 to the general public or ■rt of age): or > or oir-nle liquor store or icbioe it under the clote lid control of a retpootIWc I in an outer waiting aiea or iiorcd area, and if the ma* ettible after hours. The bill t that in ooo'factory or bar > mK***” mntt work only IK activating an electiooic utiog a token. White Bear Lake Chanhatteo Kenyon Notdifleld Bloomington St Louis Park SL Cloud Partial rcalrictloM on dgarettc vtndiog mKhInt tak»-AdofUM BigUke Blaine New Brighton Preston Bedwood Falls Shoreview Minneapolis St Paul Duluth cuiM wuh ordinances leafing tbortly. ly Sen. Marty would lequiie uetiB vending Brooklyn Center Milaca Wen St Paul North St Paul Brooklyn Park OwatonK Golden Valley Austin Worthington ry 16,1990 PrWed om neydtd paper tMhat ’nin tbuConaus forMuT No on^ gftt pmid for Mifwenng the censuB Sui il p*y* ^ everyone The mfortneuon your «n»weT» provide help* your commuiuiy le*d*f» decuie whore to put d»v care eenwr*. Khool*. hoapiul*. and many «nor# aervKe* And. the ceiuua i» u*ed to detamune ho* manv »eai* your Mate haa m the U S Hou»e of R*pre*«ttauv## to your voice i* haaid where it counu the moft. CENSUS ‘90 r" page? II4I47If14IIIIII1415 14 17 ;■ It 30 31 32 33 34 35 03/04/^0 rmiSOl : M/S3A bill 4.1 4Ct »C-41nlftlAtint %% f«Riu.T#f Afo^tctionf Uaic.r»4 th#iH wllicfi i4l4t oS COMCC4 by AacMn*Mf b« m4#; A p4C4lBy{ propo«i^ cot*-4f#f ft#V l4« IB HifUl#40C4 ftacuCBBe ChApCBf IdSC*K IT inecreo av m LBSisutrju or m stats or eiwiisoTAt SMtiee i. (im.OTtl ISAI-t or TOBACCO S» VBPOIPO WtOltNC.!fc.iw4i«^|taa 1. OtriBITIOK. ; fat ButSPteP af tftl* «ecti.pn taa aaaitiaa aieea tae ta eeeeioi tor.its.(NNiniTlon.! TaPAceo aav oe ottetpd ;ar *Aie at ia tAia atat# P» er fren a ve-^diee aactiine ei app;t«r.ce oror ap-iact daaipn ated_fl<-v«e4 tar eaadiau autiaMa* a* tan rei;euise leeationii111 la a«t >*P* eiehin * faetare. huatnaea. oit;c*. oi ot.^e; plan nil t| I— —MfJl. auBlio or ca uhUli aetaana ^ndaty#Ar» o< t#t Acc^AaiIII m BB AXw.tlic b#vBrAt€ Qi tfl Ifbtcco sanding it .acAe*! within LAf yiciaitwy ^Aifi I.*.# eer.trol • ciipcr.iiblA ^ ABA* tabAcaa aura.iA^44 «^ill b# rtAAiAV fcb til4b BAchir.t r.ac f^oCACAd :r, a eeAeroOp wtfottis mitnitort ri^lvAyv c,f r d;tAr o: t***>^^ **T"1V"* —ehiriA la mgiffAiPlb •"* I ^A eloBAdt Ant 4 ti\ iB —ffciitftgtnt te agon sht goiloipint iliifc tf 1 rimriun it P"*' Il Trr*Uv ^ e nil Vt ‘ *11***- 1T°"^^‘**** haUuaic^ • ^1*. wairlaa aeaa. at a tatlar uaMH»-*^»ea ateai and %»«..5o u ^H|a.a..^ala «n tPa ntniu wiaa me aataaiUMSpe t| fU.ee,- .rd It tail It Hlfr'* ** «cttv#tisa.ar aa X2 ^.laaa aaacateA Pv an tKlavaa at t«| pe«!-lr»Wtrt ^j fcAfjiyi l #t<t ggovh^At by ifl n ^laeaa of uia eseahn «*fgt *•«»*« •"» mI#. IS :? Byps. *. iwMitrnon.i ran »ec;to" «up»tii^r ^«y tsi* ;• ill^iaaaea e * - ^gf^- g* aovainatant tal.tiM \9 xp ft* ifttl*"* f^'veUt"* *aehta a mala* ot 10S*SW r> ' y ■ 200 • 39«d 3''dW >1 1 rtT-dCd I i : ^6 . 6 am-i 3290.1 TO: FaOMt OATBt Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat March 2, 1990 SUBJECT: Navarre Area Master Planning I / MAR 12 1990 OP QM|t I Attachment: A. Navacre Redevelopment Memo Dated 1/30/90 ISSUE - 1. Presentation to the Council of the estimated cost to complete master planning in the Navarre area. 2. Determinat on by Council as to whether they want to proceed with a master plan and if so, setting a date for consideration at which the interested public would be invited. INTRODUCTION - This issue was tabled at the February 12, 1990 meeting so all CounciImembers could be present to discuss. A correction to the 1/30 memo is that the $2,500 for comprehensive plan teat preparation is included in the $9,700 fee for doing the master plan. ALTERNATIVES 1. Determine to proceed. 2. Choose not to proceed any further. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Establish public informational meeting on the issue. March 2$, 1990 April 9, 1990 RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council hold an informational meeting to undertake a master planning on April 9, 1990. The cost is within the amount budgeted for Navarre but would require a $2,200 budget amendment for 1990. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by table further discussion informational meeting on _ _ , seconded by that the Council 'bn this matter until a public . Ayes _, Nays _. i- 13090.4 * TO: Mayor and City Council PBOM: Mark E. Bernhardson» City Adninistrat DATS: January 30, 1990 SOBJECT: Navarre Area Master Planning Attachment: A. Navarre Area Master Planning Memo Dated 1/12/90 B. Shardlow Memo Dated 2/8/90 ISSUE - 1. Presentation to the Council of the estimated cost to complete master planning in the Navarre area. 2. Determination by Council as to whether they want to proceed with a master plan and if so, setting a date for consideration at which the interested public would be invited. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's last meeting Attachment^^A summarized some of the information from the November 18, 1989 meeting and based on the direction indicated that Council would table until this meeting for further exploration of the master planning concept of the area based on estimated cost. DISOCSSION - As noted in Attachment A the City had bjjdgeted $30fbb0 in 1988 and *89 and has budgeted an additional $7,50Q in 1990. Of that $37,500 total, the City has spent about $18,500. As outlined in Attachment B the cost of doing a master p^an process would be about $9,700 with the text for a comprehenTTve plan amendment an additional $2,5a0. The total for the roaster plan would bring the total to $28,200, still within the amount budgeted. ALTERNATIVES 1. Determine to proceed. 2. Choose not to proceed any further. 3. Table for further discussion. Establish public informational meeting on the issue. March 12, 1990 March 24, 1990 April 9, 1990 RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Counci 1 hold an informational meeting to undertake a master planning on ^aj^h 12, 1990. The cost is within the amount budgeted for Navarre but would require a $2,200 budget amendment for 1990. a PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by that the Council table further discussion on this matter until a public informational meeting on March 12» 1990. Ayes Nays . cc: John Shardlow# Oahlgrenr Shardlow & tJban Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building a Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron* Asst. Planning a Zoning Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Oirctor fV(^1 MOTION - Moved by __» seconded by that the Councilrther discussion on this matter until a public >nal meeting on March 12, 1990. Ayes Nays .Shardlow, Dahlgren, Shardlow c Ubante A. Mabusth, Building t Zoning Administratorlel P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning AdministratorR. Gerhardson, Public Works Oirctor 11690.I rnaMeiyrTO* Mayor and City CouncilPROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratocDATS: January 12, 1990SOBJBCTt Navarre ~ Master PlanningAttachment: A. Navarre Memo Dated 11/21/89B. Navarre Memo Dated 6/21/89C. Navarre Memo Dated 10/19/89ISSUE - Determination by the Council as to what direction they would like to take as it relates to the Navarre area.INTRODUCTION - The Council held a meeting in June to review the analysis work done by Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban together with holding a public meeting on November 18, 1989, at which property owners, business owners and residents in the area were invited at PfQShwater Biological Institute. Attachment A was prepared as a follow up to that meeting. DISCUSSION - In Attachment A there are three issues outlined which are as follows: Issue #1. Does the City Choose to do anyth’'ng further at this point in the area regarding: a. Aesthetic look of the area b. Land use It was indicated at the November 18, 1989 meeting that the Council would review this issue in the January — February timeframe. If the Co-ncil desires to do anything further with this matter staff would notify, as was indicated at the meeting, the residents in attendance that this item would be on the agenda for its second meeting in February. Issue #2. If the City does choose to do something, at what level do they want to approach it? a. Master plan of land usa b. Comprehensive Plan amendment c. Any applicable rezonings The sense of informal discussion following the November 18th meeting was that the City should go through a process to identify what it would like in the future, but that it would not take any active role in it. As such, it woul ' » appropriate to go through a process i • 1^•1 !*■« !«' 5!^ / 112189 .3 A'/ TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate DATE: November 21, 1989 SUBJECT: Navarre R^rlevelopment Meeting If5SUE - Providing a brief summary of the issues discussed at the public information meeting held November 18, 1989, at the Freshwater sillogical Institute. INTRODUCTION - Written notice was sent to all property owners within tre Navarre area. Approximately 40 people attended the meeting. This represented a cross section of residents in the area, business owners, business property owners and persons who were both business operator? aid private resiciential property ow..wrs. DISCUSSION - The followinj to be decided in the futur ents a list of issues that need ing the Navarre area: Issue #1. Does the ^ choose to do anything further at f'-id point in the area regarding: a. Aesthetic Look of the area b. Land use Issue #2. If the City does choose tc do something at what level do they want to approach it? i. Master pi art . ^and use b. Comprehensive Plan aiaendment c. Any applicable rezonings Issue #3. If the City has gone forward on 41 and #2 does it desire to undertake any active steps to assist in making the changes happen. a. Market to private businesses b. Assemble, land c. Undertake public financing It was indicateo co those in attendance that the first issue regarding whether to go ahead or not would be broached with the Council in the 7 onuary/Pebruary timeframe and that those in attendance would be notified. Additionally, should the City j ahead it would be appropriate that the meetings be held at the Freshwater Biological Institute. I s 1 s h . ALTERNATIVES - A. Accept the inforatetion. B. Comment. C. Table. RECOMMENDATION “ It is recommended that the issue at this time be tabled ior further considerdtion at the second meeting in January or the first Council meeting in February. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by __, that the Council table consideration of this item until the second meeting In January or its first meeting in February 1990. Ayes __, Nays __. cc:Chic Remien, Executive Director Westonka Chamber Jeinne A. Mabusth, Building s Zoning Administrator John Shardlow, Dahlgren, Shardlov. & Dban, Inc. Ed Hasak, Dahlgren, Shardlow i Uban, Inc. 62189.2 TOs FBOM: OAXE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate June 21, 1989 SUBJECT: Navarre Redevelopment ATTACHMENTS: A. Handouts From June 1, 1989 Meeting ISSUE - Determine what direction that the Council desires to take on this issue. INTRODUCTION - At the meeting that was held regarding the Navarre redevelopment a prasentation was made as to problems and possibilities together with discussing the range of alternatives the City could undertake and a range of alternatives for potential master planni-s^ or redevelopment. On behalf of the staff I would like apologize for the breakdown in communications with the Planning Commission and others who were not fully informed of the meeting time and place. As you may be aware interested property owners were in attendance at that meeting indicating some of their needs and desires regarding the area. In addition City staff has been approached by a private development firm who has an interest in possible redevelopment on the south side of County IS. DISCUSSION - As noted there is a growing interest in this area, not only from the City, but also from people currently in the area and others from outside the area. As discussed on the 1st the range of alternatives include: A. Beautification - "Spruce up" the area in an effort to promote the attractiveness of the area and therefore the business. The level of involvement in helping implement the Westonka Beautification Plan maybe an~ appropriate avenue at this level of involvement. B. Master Planning/Comprehensive Plan amendment - The current comprehensive plan and zoning for the area reflects what was in place at the time it was created. As noted in the attachmen s this is a bodge podge of zoning uses and that longterm there may be a more desireable land utilization in the area. One of the alternatives would be to undertake a <"aster planning of the area to designate what tb« City « .d like to see in that area as land uses and au chang- come along that they would need to fit into that ».lan. C. Participation and Redevelopment - A third alternative would be to actually participate in redevelopment either LL 62189.2r and City Council E. Bernhardson, City Adainistrato 21, 1989ere RedevelopmentA. Handouts From June 1, 1989 Meetingline what direction that the Council desires to take• At the meeting that was held regarding the Navarre at a presentation was made as to problems and together with discussing the range of alternatives Id undertake and a range of alternatives for Iter plannj-^ or redevelopment. On behalf of the Id like '•«.} apologize for the breakdown in ; with the Planning Commission and others who were jrmed of the meeting time and place. aware interested property owners were in attendance Lng indicating some of their needs and desires area. In addition City staff has been approached development firm who has an interest in possible on the south side of County 15. ivs noted there is a growing interest in this area, the City, but also from people currently in the s from outside the area. n the 1st the range of alternatives include: autification - "Spruce up" the area in an effort to te the attractiveness of the area and therefore the ess. The level of involvement in helping implement restonka Beautification Plan maybe an' appropriate e at this level of involvement. ster Planninq/C omprehensive Plan amendment - The nt comprehensive plan and zoning for the area sets what was in place at the time it was created, ted in the attachmen s this is a hodge podge of g uses and that longterm there may be a more eable land utilization in the area. One of the natives would be to undertake a '’aster planning of :ea to designate what the City • .d like to see in area as land uses and a» chang come along that #ould need to fit into that ;ilan. ticipation and Redevelopment - A third alternative be to actually participate in redevelopment either on a case by case basis or in relation to achieving any master plan arrangements the City would desire.Tnere does not seem to be substantial interest at this point in assisting any redevelopment, in part because of the experiences of a neighboring community. The issue regarding redevelopment may well be one of the extent of public participation need'ed in order to make the project work together with the security guarentee given for the public participation by the developer. (Presently the party interested in redevelopment is working on general estimates to determine the extent of assistance needed in order to undertake redevelopment of the south side.}ACTION -1. Make available an opportunity for those not present on the June 1st meeting to hear the presentation.2. Undertake a discussion on the next steps. 3. Take no action. 4. Table. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the opportunity be made aVai 1 able for the presentation for those interested. It could possibly be as part of a joint Planning Commission/Council meeting tentatively scheduled for Saturday, July 29. In addition that meeting could include discussion of further steps. Further topics could include financial and other related information on the facilities study. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by _, that the Council direct staff to set anotlTer presentation of the Navarre redevelopment information together with setting a time for further discussions with Planning Commission on the direction for Navarre. Ayes __, Nays __. cc: Planning Commission Members Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building ' Zoning Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Planr ..g & Zoning Asst. Administrator John Shardlow, Oahlgren, Shardlow and Uban mrWMevr- h NAVARRE AREA WORKSHOP MEETING A joint meeting to discuss the future of the Navarre commerciai area. * (ifHlCTJ ' J /I AKl I4WIIK101IHA|t.ll«»l*i SA*!-"'ll ► ______rrrrr•a ffffrni>S7jTTMinnriOJifc'fSTrr. «fc«8' ^r/' ..^^ ♦-y V»liAMI U»«|f lOtWA ftAt| Lfl-tB AttMMMMatm* I 4(I* Lfl'IC OMfMAlf fc*kM4«t» AtAlMMiMtbM l«l 4t«t LR'1C*I •MftMlitktHMt A*»i«4i4MtiMHIil«l Ul*ci« D-l «M«« •■!•• OtabM D*3 iMfftoi cmim DMt«m Q ‘ 4 OllltA 4«4 •«***••• ll■•t«ltl D*S uiim# ii>n»iiiii ■<§■<>»«>> PMiiiti in-18 / City of Orono NAVARRE AREA STUDY EXISTMQ ZOMNQ K-* '•nT*‘TT misii i'. <•tf'■i’-wwj.jBi mlBsiwmmm..nIf 7i *"»BI^^HmiI ,wSS®>5iK^:.vrajcnffrrjii •TiTi % ««i..-«n;;*’*............•*•.—«,«• .Mi^^• I!2!rK" »».««»W1I«...>.|„...M,k ^«MI^ «M»»#iMi fttl«f « MiMHt «iM««|pP»i ms&ii'MMK/\ \- / wui*mA Wwurtia»sw»^i,sr^ JMV -------- PL 'ismw.fi:-./ a, /Si AI <\ • sywa'tttsa‘r»»TT^ — ’ S5SSi«£H2'^-“" "52^ • «MM «Mmm» «u«t M<«1 H.M. ' *srAr» • Kss^a/.ti'vsasar City of Orono navaarb AIKA studt AHAUTM MMIMIV • • ■ •anr OF ORONONAVARRE AREA STUDY ANALYSIS SUMMARYInadaqmtcljr aad unacnened parking loadinf and storage result m duiter Redundant and poor^ placed curb cats result in aoBass/orcnlatiwi conflicts Aging and detetioratii^ buddings and parfcmg result in an iaaafe of dedtne Eneessive and oompedtive signage add dutter and oonftision Lade of safe pedestrian crossings isolate and divide this areaSmall paroeis limtt e^Mnaion and redevelopment flexibiliQr and have resulted in crowded, out of scale devdopment, parking and setback problemsF-warim development eshibits ladc of unity or positive character and little sense of community Significant wooded areas buffer the ensdng land use traositions and require sensitive devetooment Inadequately screened and unso-eened parking loading and storage result in visual dutter Redundant and poorly placed curb cuts result in access and dreuiatioa conflicts Aging and low qualigr better development w«) *»l»#terdal/industrial u*es counteract the positive influence of Mixing of inconqiatible uses contributes to conflicts and disorder Smafl paroeis limit —and redevelopment flodbiliqr and result in crowded and out of scale deveiopmeat. and partim/setback problems Turning eonflicts occur at all major mtersections Lack of safe pedaatra... isolate and divide this area Inadequate soeening and butfeting of new development/redevelopment pen>etuates harsh edges and transiticna e Inadequatefy screened and unscreened parJdng, storage and operations result in dune' and objectionable views Poorly placed curb cuts result in drculation/tuming oonf!icts near Dunwoo.ly Iyr|ari»w industrial/conunerdal uses discourage adjacent development and contribute to image problenis Substandard structures, poor signage and a lack of mainte n ance counteract pisitive affects of better developments Wetland areas ret|uire preservation and sensitive adjacent development T-iglf of safe pedestrian crossings isolate and divide this area LAviei|||^^4r^“d > lack of nainionaiice coomeraa pi.sitive a require pre«*aeion ud eensidve adfacrat devdopm„,edestii*ian crossings isolate and divide this area iTTY OF ORONO Nr47ARRE AREA STUDY PKEUMINARY LAND USE ALTERNATIVE ACowirr Road 19 AreaExpand and concentrate commerdalDevelop multiple residential to support commercialPlace commercial with building sec back to maxim,ire developable areaRevise street ^rstem to increase developable area, and reduce access and land use conflictspreserve woodland and wetland buffers Develop open space cocridorsDevelop and impl^sient performance standards to reduce visual and operational conflictsPoint Road Area Expand ind concentrate office Revise street system to enlarge ocGce area and reduce access and land use conlucu Develop and implement penijnnance standards to reduce visual and operational conflicts •i‘hL.Ajjr»!▼ Avenue Area Develop single fiunily around wetland D<^*clop new park as part of wetland and open space system Ij ^eiop office use at Dunwoody to buffer the county Tiaintenance facility Combine ciiy and county maintenance operations Develop and implement performance standards to reduce visuki and operational conflicts It' • • • • OTY OF ORONO NAVARRE AREA STUDY PRELIMINARY LAND USE ALTERNATIVE B fnnntv Rnad 19 .4re3 Expand and conceacrate commercial Place commerdai toward the front of the lot to maximize village image Develop loop road to serve commercial from the rear Develop mult^le residential and office to support the commercial High quality multiple residential to capture lake and open space views Revise the street system to reduce access and land use conflicts Preserve woodland and wetland buffers Develop open space corridors Develop and implement strict development standards to reduce visual and operational problems Casco Point Road Area Expand and concentrate office Develop multiple residential adjacent to Co. Rd. 13 Maintain rj,<rn Point Road/Blaine Avenue intersection for possible signalization Develop and implement strict development standards to reduce visual and operational problems Dunwoodv Avenue Area Relocate combined county and diy maintenance facilities Preserve woodland buffer Revise road and restore wetlands Redevelop county site to single family Concentrate at Dunwootfy and iaqirove intersection Develop and implement strict development standards to reduce visual and operational problems • • •CITY OF ORONO NAVARRE AREA STUDY PRELIMINARY LAND USE ALTERNATIVE C tid ooerational lalization td operational Crtitnfy Rnad 19 AreaExpand and concentrate commercial at Co. Rd. 19Place commercial toward the street fronttge to maximize visibility and the small town imageDesign the street system to control access and land use conflictsDevelop multiple residential and office to support commercial usesHigh quality multiple residential to capture lakc/cpen space viesDevelop and implement strict developmen'. standards to reduce visual and operational problemsDevelopment should enhance the areas imago Preserve woodland and wedand buffers, dc/elop open space systems Point Road Arga Expand and concentrate office at Casco Point Road Design street system to enlarge office area and reduce access and land use conflicts Develop and implement stria development standards to reduce visual and operational problems Dunwoodv Avenue Area Relocate county and city maintenance facilities Develop mult^)!*! residential adjacent to County Road in and arc d the wetland Restore wetland and incorporate it into the open space S3rstem Develop «ngte £unily on county property abutting existiog single family Develop a system of streets to concentrate access at Dunwoody and control land use/traffic confjets Improve the Dunwoody intersection Develop and implement stria development standards to reduce visual and operational problems d operational 101389.5 TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. aernhardson. City Administrate October 18, 1989 SUBJECT: Navarre Redevelopment - Stage II Contract Attachment; A. Navarre Redevelopment/Consultant Agreement Dated 6/12/88 B. Proposed Addendum Stage II ISSUE - Authorization to adopt the addendum as part of contract. the INTRODUCTION - The initial estimate for the work for Stage I was approximately $15,000. Because of the protracted nature of the proceedings on the matter together with the request for development of options to help illustrate parts of Stage I, the work done by the consultant has begun to actually lapse into Part 1 Stage II. DISCUSSION - It is requested that the Council authorizean addendum for Stage II up to an amount not to exceed $5,000. This would bring the total authorized to date up to $20,000. A total of $30,000 has been budgeted between 1988 and 1989. After the meeting on November 18th an estimate for the balance will be prepared depending on the scope of work decided upon at or following that meeting. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the addendum. 2. Stop the contract at the proposal. 3. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the addendum be adopt^ed as presented. This authorization is up to $5,000 for Stage 11 Phase 1 Step 1. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, Orono City Council authorizes amending the agreement with Dahlgren, Shardlow an Uban regarding Navarre Redevelopment to include an additional $5,000 for beginning Stage II work. Ayes __, Nays __. cc: John Shardlow Ed HasikJeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator « .n. CUV Co-^^» *. B«nh«d.on. CitV:ob«t 18, 18*’ sta«« 11 Contc««r. tu ■ B. propo»«<J addendum a* to adopt tne uthw ^ s, -f I .......................... I- that, th. Coancil *“”„o. Tht. on tn* 8=°'’ g that meaning* ^VES . the addendum. ,h. cohuach u ^n. Pcopc. . ,. .« 8uun« th. 5H2&S^ ;^s iutjrt^ation XS UP to Moved by *!j?"tlth 0^^^'JV an^'addltional en MOTIOS - Tha agreement wi include an • 5«?oVVMt.3>i"8 " John ShatOlo- ad»lnl>t»tot *<> Mabusth, Buiiau«jaaona »• k I ... I U\iL ^ W ^vchaaoaaTBO'“OVSLT.TtNG *'-ANNtRS LA.'^OSCAPE architects300_F1RST avenue north'.UVNE.^POirS. ,MN iiini 4i: 339 53003 JUNE 1988Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Orono 1335 Brown Road South Orono, MN 55323 Attention: Mark Bemhardson. City Administrator CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES AGREEMENT entered into todav bv and between CITY OF ORONO. hereinafter sometimes called CrrY. and DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW. AND UBAN, DfC.. hereinafter sometimes called CONSUL TANT. relating to the employment of the CONSULTANT as follows; ORJECTIV’E OF SERVICES The objective of the CONSULTANTS services will be to prep:<re a master plan to guide the redevelopment of the Navarre area in the City of Ororao. In dose cooperation with the Planning Commission and City Council the CONSULTANT will develop a plan with e£fectuating ordinances, documents, guidelines, and implemcnilng strategies. The CONSULTANT will work in dose liaison with CITY CITY conrultants me Effected properr.* cw.".er; thrcujihnu: the process and prepare a report summarizing the research and recommendations resulting from the planning study. SCOPE OF SERVICES To schieve the above stated objeaives, the CONSULTANT proposes to perform work in two stages. STAGE I would be a pilot snufy consisting of two phases, designed to update City bSM information, analyze esisting development faaors, identify problems and opportunities and summarm preli^a^ land use recommendations for the study area. STAGE I will alM establish goals and objectives for the completion of the redevelopment process. I Navarre Redevelopment Plan Pa^e 2 STAGE II will be divided into three phases and will build on the findings of STAGE I. This stage is intt-’ded to be a more detaUed study, identifying specific land uses, potential building scale and locations, and will result in a Redevelopment Master Plan. This stage will also outline specific implementation strategies including; comprehensive plan and zoning amendments, design standards, and development incentives such as Tax Increment Financing. The following work program is proposed for your consideration: STAGE I PHASE I: research AND ANALYSIS 1. Conduct meetings with City Administrator. Consulting Engineer, and other staff to gather background data and current information, and to identify key issues involved in the planning studv. 2. Secure information pertinent to the development of base maps, to indude the following items: section maps, aerial photography, soils information, existing topographic information, vegetation, land Us., zoning. This will also include locations of utilities and easements as may be available. 3. Prepare base maps of the study area at a scale of 1":100' for use in analysis and conceptual planning. 4. Inventory and analyze such development factors as slopes, drainage, vegetation, and other environmental issues. 5. Inventory and analyze such development factors as land use, circulation, traffic, parking, access points, and current tax base. PHASE II: SUMMATION OF FINDINGS / DEVELOPMENT OF GOALS Si OBJECTIVES 1. Review findings fro.n'. Ph.i.se I with CIT\' staff. Prepare a memorandum summarizing the research and analysis done as outlined above, and present the information to a joint Planning Commission and City Council workshop. X Based on input from City council and Planning Commission prepare a draft set of goals and objectives to guide the work to be conducted in Stage II. Dahlsren. Shardlow, and Uban. Inc Navarre Redevelopment Plan Page 3 STAGE n PHASE I: PLANNING _Develop preliminary coucept plans and alternatives to illustrate potential future land uses, circulation, open space, major utilities, and potential building scale and location. * 3-5 js j - 2. Prepare a summary of the pertinent data and development statistics for the properties under consideration, including size and nature of development activity, existing and future land and building values, and fis^ implications. 3. Prepare a .memora.^du.m summarizing in ••vrirter. and grapi’.ic form the alternative concepts and _ pertinent information described above, and present it to the City Council and Planning Com mission. This memorandum will include traffic generation analysis reflecting the potential impact of proposed land use changes on surrounding streets. _ _ 4. Prepare exhibits and data suitable for public presentation of the the key issues and concepts involved, and prepare a presentation of these and other important information for the workshop with the City Council and Planning Commission. ^ PHASE U; IMPLEMENTATION 1. Prepare amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, with findings as appropriate, which reflect the concepts adopted in the previous phase, for re\'iew and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council with the adopted results prepared for submission to the Metropolitan Council. 2. In consuUation with City administrator, City Attorney, and other staff, prepare amendments to the Zoning Oruinance to implement the concepts adopted in the previous phase, including application of new Zoning Districts to the properties in the study area, changes to the Official Zoning Map, and enhanced performince standards to protect the integrity of existing surround ing land uses and to guide future developments. 3. At the City's direction and working closely with the CITY Fiscal Consultant a."d CITY staff, the CONSULTANT wiU prepare » preliminary Tax Lncrernsni Financing Feasibility Sti:dy. PHASE IIL FINAL REPORT (Optional) 1. Edit, prepare and have printed a final report documenting the research, analysis, goals, plans, impiementar! i tools, and promotion strategies outlined in ail p^tases above. Tie report will be include two color printing of graphics, and high quality materiils and design. Dahlgrcfu Shardlow, and (Jban. Inc I Navarre Redevelopment Plan Page 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND PRESENTATIONS It is anticipated that five (5) presentations before the Planning Commission and City Council may be required in the pursuit of final approval of the planning study. It is also anticipated* that at least two public hearings may be required. All additional meetings and revision.^ will be charged for on a time plus materials basis. PRODUCT TO BE PROVIDED The CONSULTANT shall provide the CITY with written and graphic materials in memorandum form as may be required during the r-view of this project. Board mounted, color re.ndered exhibits a».d slides will be prepared for purposes of public presentations. At the CITY’S option the CONSUL PANT will publish a final report printed on high quality paper with two color graphics and bound in one volume. INFOR^VUTION TO BE FURNISHED BY THE CITY The CITY shall be responsible for providing legal, engineering, surveying, and municipal fiscal con sulting services as may be required. The CONSULTAl^ shall work in close liaison with these experts throughout the course of the project. None of these services will be requested without prior consent from the COY. The CITY shall be responsible for providing updated information, including legal descriptions, aerial photos, section maps, fiscal data, topography (if available), and City infrastructure and utility informa tion. COMPLETION TIME The work outlined above will begin immediately upon receipt of the executed contract and will be completed as expeditiously as possible with work for STA’^E I being completed within 60 days of commencement, unless delayed by reason of unexpected emergencies, forces beyond the control of the parties, or by request of a party acquiesced in writing by the other party. If so delayed for more than ninety (180) days at the request of the CITY, the CONSULTANT reserves the right to renegotiate the contract to account for rising costs before resuming work. Oahicrcn, Slurdlow. and Uban. Inc. •• % Navarre Redevelopment Plan Page 5 COST OF SERVICES The work will be performed on a time plus materials basis, with an estimate. We will undertake only that work which we feel is essential to complete the study and we will not undertake work which is not authorized by this AGREEMENT, without the prior consent of the City CoundL Since the costs associated with Stage II will be dependent on decisions made by the City with respect to the findings of the previous Stage, a detailed estimate of those costs will be provided at the conclusion of Stage L The estimated cost of our services for Stage I is summarized by phase below: STAGE I PHASE I; RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS Research, analysis, base map preparation Time: 30 days PHASE n: FINDINGS AND OBJECTIVES Consultation, writing design, analysis Time: 30 days TOTAL SERVICES STAGE I The work performed will be charged for on a time plus materials basis according to the above costs. Ail work and meetings will be computed in accordance with the attached Standard Rate Schedule, which shall be paid as hereinafter provided. All costs incurred will be payable to the CONSLni.TAi'JT upon receipt of an invoice showing the work completed and the cost of said work. To each invoice not paid within thirty (30) days shall be added a service charge of one and one-half percent (1.5 percent) per month for eadt month delinquenL A Na\arre Redevelopment Plan Page 6 TERMINATION This contract may be terminated uoon written notice bv either oartv In th^ _____• • l CITY shaU pay the CONSULTANT for the work completed on^^^Thn^^i^: SrSL bS CONDITIONS HEREIN AGREED TO: DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, AND UBAN, INC~* John^7 shardlow. Vice l^resident “ C. John Uban, vice President CITY OF ORQNO Iwl Mark Berhh City Administrator iam« ftrora^lc. Mayor Attachment; Standard Rate Schedule ^7/T2) Date Date <^1 Date Date STANDARD RATE SCHEDULE D aHLGREN, SHARDLOW, and UBAN, INC Staff Member Principal Senior Planner Planner Landscape Architect Urban Designer Market/Research Analyst Craphic Designer Draftsman Secretary Outside Consultants Supplies Mileage Expert Testimony Past Due Accounts Baifi $80.00 to $120.00 $40.00 to $50.00 $40.C o $50.00 $30.00 to $50.00 $25.00 to $50.00 $25.00 to $50.00 $25.00 to $40.00 $25.00 to $40.00 $25.00 to $35.00 Per Job Plus 15% Cost Plus 15% $0J0 Per Mile Two Times Hourly Rate (One-half Day Minimum) 1J% Per Month ADMItGREK StEftRBtOW "N \ »>» \ % N C'JV l.\NCSC:.\PE MEMORANDUM DATE:8 February 1990 TO: FROM: RE: John Shardlow Ed Hasek Cost Estimate for Preparation of the Comprehensive Plan Revi' sion/Navarre Area The following estimate assumes chat the City will want to establish a "cost not to exceed" figure in our agreement. Several of these work components could be completed for less, but with a process that involves -o many land owners, there is considerable opportunity for delay and revisions. This estimate assumes two-colored reproductions of lUU reports. Meetings and Presentations (Preparation and Presentation) Estimate 4 Meetings at S675.00 each $2,700.00 Write, Edit Text Graphic Presentation Revisions. Prepare Filial Plans $3,000.00 $1,600.00 Material Costs Photo Reductions Xeroxing Copying, Collating, Binding $100.00 $200.00 • $300.00 $800.00 $1.200.00 TOTAL $9,700.00 3290.5 TO: PROM ana City Council ^ COUHCll MEETING Mack E. Becnhacdson, City Administrator^ ^ Match 2, 1990 Qljy gp gggj,g MAR 1Z1990 DATS: SUBJECT: Engineering Services Review Attachment: A. Engineering Fee Schedule Memo Dated 2/9/90 B« Engineering Fee Memo Dated 12/5/89 11/'i/pq C. Engineering Fee Schedule Review Memo Dated ll/a.-/89 D. Consultant Review Memo Dated 12/1/89 ISSUE - Initial presentation of issues and relative to the provision of Engineering services to the City. INTRODUCTION - As indicated in Attachment D the City to undfrtake-^ service review of the consultant areas in the engineering area on a three year basis. nTcr'iiccTON - The City of Orono has often relied on outside g^nsultln-ts professional ataff -orlc to the City, particulacily in the areas engineering and legal. TO oeroetuate a system however, that has existed f period of time however dots not mean that be JopcopAate'in 5° years‘%u/um°stlnces »ay have significantly ^Sfngi^ It is thi reason ana benefit of such a review. engineering services provided - The aetvloes provldea by an e'rigineecinT^gcoup fall into two general catagocies. A On aoinq advice - This applies to engineering work thaT qenerall■^■"does not require a large project b S^aertake".’ This type ofland use planning matters, small repairs maintenance reviews orexisting capital facilities such as street, sewer and water. This is the type of wock that blends engineering skills and past City history to help determine decisions on these matters. n nrni.ct enoinoarlng - This arsa is for major capital UplsT^tS. Ld includes the followng it.ms: Feasibility study Design Plans and Specs Bid review and award recommendation Construction document preparation Pre-construction work Construction monitoring Project modification Project inspection Project completion and payment I ;?Phe ^^^unding for the on-going consulting work is a c'oin1:> 1 n a 1 1 o n of land use applications and departmental expenditures. Generally projects costs for work that is actually undertaken is by the project itself. Ag»as for Engineering Needs - The following City operational systems are the ones where engineering is generally used. £ reets Sidewalks/Bike trails Sewer Water Storm sewer Wells/Towers Criteria for Decision - The following represent criteria for evaluating the various alternatives. Expenditure - The ir' often used criteria would be which system resul in the least layout to still accomplish the work. To a degree the amount the City spends presently with a consultant engineer is dependent on the number of projects undertaken in a year and the amount of land use applications requiring engineering review. To a lesser degree an in-house engineer this also vary by amount of projects and specialized needs as it is anticipated that a consulting engineering would be retained for areas that the City Engineer would need assistance either in tlie area of expertise or work load. Availability when needed - One of the benefits to an in- house engineer is the general immediate availability to assist the City rather than depending on engineering assistance from a remote office where they also have demands from other cities and private organizations. To a degree this could be both a plus and a minus for the organization. As far as access is concerned the in- house person may have times when they are needed but not available especially during vacation or sick leave. Pro-rated cost - The cost of in-house engineering service Is not only personnel costs but can also be space costs and any other support personnel. Quality o^ service - The type of service is not necessarily a function of price. The City of Orono ov»r the years has utilized three or four different consulting engineering firms and the usual reason for a change was either quality or conflict of interest. Expertise - Level of expertise within a larger firm is often more specialized than you would find in a small firm or an in-house person. While perhaps not an issue for a wide range of engineering projects there are specialized projects that may be an issue (wells, water towers. Public cappoct - The contact with the public is key and this is not necessarily a function of a particular form of engineering be it consultant or in-house but more a function of the person who handles the task.ALTERNATIVES -1. Consultant Engineera. Retain present arrangement.b. Select another consultant for all engineering services.c. Utilization for specific projects.The estimated cost of the current arrangement was as follows for 1989-1985; 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 On-going consulting - $22,466 $25,462 $21,595 $11,J74 $10,629 Project support - $77,059 $13,624 $18,874 $24,502 $107,918 2. In-house - This would be hiring a certified engineer in one of the following arrangements: a. City Engineer b. Public Works/City Engineer Related to this is the amount of technical support and clerical support needed for an additional person. Part of this technical support would probably include a computer aided drafting (CAD) sytem. The City through LOGIS could obtain this CAD System which is also a computerized geograph and property data system that the City staff has looked at as a longterm issue. The primary feature would not be a computer aided drafting system but would be to graphically display as much information as the city would like to load on it. (The work station however, has an initial cost of about $35,000 together with the costs of loading in the information desired. Acquisition of such a system could be independent of whether the City has an in-house engineer or not.) 3. Cooperative arrangement with another city - Such an arrangement ccmld take the following forms: A. "Purchase" engineering services from a larger community such as Plymouth and Minnetonka. B. Employ an engineer who is dependent on a larger engineer staff for clerical and technical support. C. Arrange with a smaller community to share an engineer who splits time between the two communities. Generally arrangements are such that communities over 10,000 have their own in-house engineers either as a combination Public Works/City Engineer for cities up to about 25-35,000 and above that a Public Works Director who may or may not be an engineer together with specified City Engineer. The smaller communities between 10,000 and 35,000 often use consultants to do special projects. Those over it will do major projects in-house and only use consulting firms in specilized areas. Communities under 10,000 generally have consulting engineers to do the bulk of the work although some of those cities have a combination Public Works/Engineer that is in-house. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council accept the information as to alternatives and give any feed-b?c’k as to further comments before the review goes further. This will be brought back for further discussion during the April timeframe. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council accept the information provided by staff. Ayes , Nays ar* auch that ®®"*'***^*^** ^7*^* la-hSuaa an9lr»a»ta althac aa a ®"dThos« over It will do •»joc projects ln-hoo»« ond only Ltln9 fico* in •p«cllix«d ar««t.•tally hava conaultlng angl^ata to fj*>ugh aonc of thoaa cltlaa haaa a conblnatlon Publicnaac that is In-housa.STION - It is taconnandad that tha Council accapt tha >n aT to altacnativas and c*va any faad-back as to »«nants bafoca tha raviaw goas fucthar. This uiIX ba ek foe furthat discussion during tha April cinafrana.lOTION ~ Movad by # sacondad by ___» that tha Council inforaation proviffwS by staff. Ayas _$ Hays lrr»nf(le»fr MTO: Hark t. Barnhardson, City #dainistratorPMM: John B. Garhardson. Public Works OiractorDATBi Pabruary 9» 1990SUBJ: Consultant Bnginaar Hata RaviawRacantly staff was raquastad to raviaw ratas for consulting anginaaring sarvicas. Typically in our araa consultant anginaars ara lialtad to thraa or four fimatSchool1 « Madsan Hiaka, Carroll, Muallar HcCoaibs, Prank, BoosSonastroo, Bosana, Andarlik and AasociatasAll of tha abova firns of far basically tha sawa sarvica to tha aninlcipallty dapandant on tha daawnda of tha aunicipality. Tha hourly anginaar ratas all ara within tha $€0.00/hour for a profassional anginaar, plus or ninus $2.00/hour. Attachad ara tha proposad anginaarin ratas froa Bonastroo, Bosana, Andarlik and Aasociatas for thaxx ratas for 1990. fe adjust tka anginaaring ratas as proposad for 1990. sSA-— by _ _ _ _, to approva tha an»j..naaring ratas frost Bonastroo, Bosana, Andarlik & Aasociatas to tha ratas proposad for 1990. 115( To: Prom: Date: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R- Gerhardson, Public Works Director December 5, 1989 irr7K0^^ Subject: Engineering Rates - 1990 At the November 27, 1989 Council meeting the Orono Council tabled approving the engineering rates for 1990. The Council directed staff to prepare a survey of engineering rates for the area and to present them at the December 11, 1989 Council meeting. Attached for review are engineering rates for Medina and Maple Plain which are served by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, and Long Lake and Mound which are served by McCombs, Frank, Roos. Recommendation - To approve the engineering rates submitted by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates for 1990. , seconded by , to approve theProposed Notion - Moved by _ _ _ _ engineering rates submitted by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik 4 Associates for 1990. Ayes _, nays _ _, 1990 Served by Bonestroo, Rosene. Anderiift & Associates Principal Engineer Registered Engineer Graduated Engineer Orono Medina Maple Plain $60.00 $57.75 $57.25 53.50 52.50 52.00 43.00 42.50 43.50 1990 Served by McCombs Frank Roos Long Lake $60.00 Mound 60.00 115‘rt E. Bernh.rd.on, City Adn.ini.tr.tor ,n„ «. G.rh.ra.c„, public »crK. Director5C«i>b«r 5, 1989 inr c'o"u'nJfJO present them at tne riti'as for Medina and:S;rr ;2SK/::;r. Kv . to approve the ,„tlo. - B%T»tr1.o7 E«in.. Andorllb A A bv Dnnnt*"^*^ ^toaene. anderlilf fc Associatesj^_Bonestroo^------------ — orono “Inri? $60.00 /TTJieM216T0« Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdainistratorraOHt Thoaae M. Ruehn, Finance DirectorDAtlt Moveeber 22, 1989 SnJVCT: Approve Engineering rates for 1990Attacheents: A. Bonestroo Roaene Letter 10/25/89 and 1990 RateListB. Bonestroo Rosene Letter 12/13/88 and 1984 Rate ListISSUE ~ Review and approval of 1990 engineering rates frow Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik and Associates, engineers.DISCUSSION •*■ The engineering firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. has submitted for approval revised engineering rates to be effective January 1, 1990, A comparison of current to proposed rates is shown below.0Rate Per Hour 1989 1990 t Increase Principal Engineer $57.00 $60.00 5.3% Registered Engineer/Architect 51.00 53.50 4.9 Graduated Engineer/Field Sup.41.00 43.00 4.9 Senior Draftsman 37.75 39.50 4.6 Senior Technician 34.75 36.50 5.0 Technician 25.00 26.25 5.0 Word Processor 25.25 26.25 4.0 Clerical 19.50 20.25 3.8 Attend Regular Council Meetings 50.00/ratg 50.00/mtg - - Reimbursable Expenses at coat Mileage ^ .24/Mi $ TOt Mayor and City Council it Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adminlatrato at cost .24/Ml \ L V- Forwarded recommending approval to accept the above rates as' being appropriate within budgeted amount. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by , to approve proposed 1990 rates as an amendment to tTe contract Bonestroo and Associates for engineering services. Ayes —, Nays ( 7-, ____ Mi Bones troo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Otto G Sorwoa PE aooert w Aoscne Pt ioieon C Anoertfc Ft 6/adibrd A itrrotig, Ft FKfura F Turner Pt Jitnn c Olion p£ G^n P Coo*. P£ Tnomai E Noyei. PE Pooen G Scrnxi«rt PE Mjrwt L F£ Keen A Goidoa PC. I W taBR FC. OonMC lUiQM n. Jerry a tounaon PI Viirv A Hemon. PI Tfcd It. F««d. PC. Mdvaei T Siuiinana PC Rocerr» PiWterte . PC. Ojvm O UHMXJL PC- rhorrvu W Pggfloa PC M<P«l C L^ncn. PC JOTMft MMndLPC iter««ei p Anonon. PC IM A Ijovnervx PC MvtR ItoflPC Aoom C lUIKA AJA rhomat C Angm PC. HoMflA Smtora PC Oral 1 Mare a Seo Pi PhipiCaMCiPC M«taviMii.PC Thomii C Andnoa AJA OiiyP. i^MKPC Chants A Choaon UoM Piatirty HananM Ohon Susan M CbcreaCPA Engineers & Architects [f (a* 'jra-—n /7 pD -• 1-3 WV- IS89 ![l^ October 25. 1989 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Mr. Mark Bemhardson Re: 1990 Rate Honorable Mayor and Council: Transmitted herewith are revised hourly Engineering Rates vhich are to be effective January 1, 1990. We have limited the increase in our rates to less than 5.0 percent. We have appreciated our relationship with the City of Orono and we are all looking forward to serving you in 1990. If you have further questions on the enclosed rate schedule, please call. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Otto G. Bonestroo 0GB:mb End. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 I/ll Bonestroo %M Rosene KpH Andcrilk & |\J^ AssociatesSngIntfS * Archltecti 0»0 •onMvaNioocrtW nMnurC ^ratnm nHxr\MO f isfrm C ownOtenn f C<WL Hty^o/n» i ’'<0!^ aoo^G Scm^««Marvm c Son-W. ^'liilS:13*'^.- 3|i^8m*\\m-iB»)ctob«r 25, 1989aonorabU Mayor and City Council City of Orono Box 68 Crystal Bay. MH 55. 23 Attn: Mr. Mark Bemhardson Re: 1990 Rate Honorable Mayor and Council: effective January 1. 1990. than 5.0 percent. w, -v, C*tv of Orono and we are aii rooSr. u ,0.8... :u...r ,...u=a, ... enclosed rate schedule, please call. Yours very truly. bonestroo. rosene. ANDERLIK t ASSOCUTES. INC. Otto 0. Bonestroo 0GB:mb Enel. 2335 M/fest Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600 BOUILY RATIPrincipal EnfincerBegiatered Engineer/ArchitectGraduate Engineer/Architect/Field SupervisorSenior DraftspersonSenior Technician Tachnician Vord Processor Clerical Attendance at Regular Council Meeting S2S.2S $26.25 $20.23 $S0.00/atg The above rates »ill be nultiplled by 1.3 for review of private developers plans and inspection of private work to cover professional liability insurance coets and legal expense. leinbnrsable Eatoenses - At Cost Reproduction, Printing. Duplicating Ottt*of-Pocket Espenses such as stakes, field supplies, telephone calls, ate. Mileage Orono 1990 B » . ' CouncU *ctln o" »>y 1.3 for • expense/"'"*'* cover pTiZZllTi^t insurance ^"ting, cup^^ /7 “takes. Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & Associates OBoatamamM. \KlBmM. C AndtrML^J. •motans A. Ltfnttt*^ Bcnarq £ lyrm, P.L Jsum C Oiwn.GMfvi A. GMiL Thomai £. Na^m. AX Nbom GL Stfiunm. fX Marwi L SorvM. AX KMtfi A. GoiBOfi. AX taMWIBSK AX Oonaid C I uiqMp AX Jtrry a. teufdon. AX Mam A. Haniarv AX Tta X aim. ax MH0IMII tauortML AX Aootrt A. AfAfmnc. AX Oavid a Loam. AX Jftamm MC maaraoA. AX Oanm jl Cdgrai. ax C Mmdi. AX Mam A. sm axIX MaiBAX AX muQ 1 CatM««, ax Aairiii AX Mam a nmux ax KamiA.iKmmAX Oiaita a. imsMiiEngineers & ArchitectsDecember 13, 1988Citj of Orono Box 66Crystal Bay, MN 55323Acta; Mr. Mark Berahardson Be: 1989 Bates Honorable Mayor and Council; Transmitted 'ierewich are revised hourly Engineering Bates which are to be effective January 1, 1989. Ve have limited the increase in our rates to less than 5.0 percent. We have appreciated our relationship with the City of Orono and we are all looking forward to serving you in 1989. If you have further questions on the enclosed race schedule, please call. Yours very truly, BOHESTBOO. BOSEME, ANDEBLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC Otto G. Bonestroo 0GB :li Enel. 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. Minn*.,.. < 55113 • 612-636-4600 A •n HOURLY RATE $57.00 $51.00 $41.00 $37.75 $34.75 $25.00 $25.25 $19.50 $50.00 Ac lavoica Cost 12189.;irmm&jrDTO:FROM:lum:Mayor and City CouncilMark E. Bernhardson, City Administratoo' Deceraber 1, 1989SUBJECT: Consultant Plan ReviewAttachment:A. Summary of Comparison of Engineer's FeesB. Engineer Fees Memo Dated 11/22/89C. City of Orono Strategic Plan ExcerptDated 8/17/89ISSUE -1. Determine schedule of review of consultant services to the City. 2. Presentation of comparative engineering fees of consulting engineers from surrounding communities. 3. Consider adoption of Engineering fees for 1990. INTRODUCTION - During consideration of Attachment B Council requested that the matter be tabled and that an initial review of fees of surrounding engineers together a plan for ongoing consultant review be undertaken. DISCUSSION - As noted in Attachment C the City does have a number of consultant services that it undertakes. It had been proposed to a review of both engineering and legal fees to be done during •ll^e rereleltfoXe [•] He Service Review Inspections (Back up) 1990 Planning Recycling 1991 1990 Management 1992 Information Service (LOGIS) Fire 1992 Auditor 1995 ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept as presented. 2. Amend and accept. 3. Table. Frequency of Review As appropriate 5 years 5 years 5 years 10 years 10 years 4. Adopt engineering fees for 1990. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council adopt the schedule as presented directing inclusion in that of both the strategic plan and the Administrator's goal setting and adopt the Engineer's fees set forth in Attachment B. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that the Council adopt the review schedule set forth in this memo for inclusion in the City's strategic plan document and also the Administrator's goal setting and adopt the Engineer's fees set f'>rth in Attachment iT. Ayes / Nays cc: All Department Heads 'rrfiGJf/ifevr • ^ / To: From: Date: Subject: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director December 5, 1989 Engineering Rates - 1990 4. ui November 27, 1989 Council meeting the Orono Council tabled approving the engineering rates for 1990. The Council directed staff to prepare a survey of engineering rates for the area and to present them at the December 11, 1989 Councilmeeting• u 1 Attached for review are engineering rates for Medina and Maple Plain which are served by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, and Long Lake and Mound which are served by McCombs, Firenic# Roos« Recommendation - To approve the engineering rates submitted by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates for 1990. Proposed Motion - Moved by _, seconded by _ _, to approve the engineering rates submitted by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik £ Associates for 1990. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. 1990 Served by Bonestroo, Rosene. Anderlik & Associates Principal Engineer Orono Medina Mhd16 Plain$60.00 $57.75 $57.25 Registered Engineer 53.50 52.50 52.00 Graduated Engineer 43.00 42.50 43.50 1990 Served by McCombs Frank Roos Long Lake $60.00 Mound 60.00 TO: FROM: DATE: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Ad.ninistrator Thomas M. Kuehn, Finance Director November 22, 1989 SUBJECT: Approve Engineering rates for 1990 Attachments: A. Bonestroo Rosene Letter 10/25/89 ana jr^yw—iracv— List B. Bonestroo Rosene Letter 12/13/88 and 1984 Rate List ISSUE - Review and approval of 1990 engineering rates from Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik and Associates, engineers. DISCUSSION - The engineering firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. nas submitted for approval revised engineering rates to be effective January 1, 1990. A comparison of current to proposed rates is shown below. Rate Per Hour Principal Engineer Registered Engineer/Architect Graduated Engineer/Field Sup. Senior Draftsman Senior Technicicjn Technician Word Processor Clerical Attend Regular Council Meetings Reimbursable Expenses Mileage TO: Mayor and City Council 1989 1990 % Incre $57.00 $60,00 5.3% 51.00 53.50 4.9 41.00 43.00 4.9 37.75 39.50 4.6 34.75 36.50 5.0 25.00 26.25 5.0 25.25 26.25 4.0 19.50 20.25 3.8 50.00/mtg 50.00/ratg — — at cos t at cost - - 5 .24/Mi $ .24/Mi — — FROM:Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistr atonj'Mf)f^ii\v' Forwarded recommending approval to accept the above rates as being appropriate within budgeted amount. PR-/P0SED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded hy __, to approve the proposed 1990 rates as an amendiont to the contract with Bonestroo and ’ ociates for engineering ..^rvices. Ayes , Nays ICro <3Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik A Associates jttfm C w ^ oip«»« Coot. f»WM S *«!(■% •« iMiM G *€%i4rwt t j C acw «« uii« 0 vhMa nAnov?ion a<a^ •yMnC^r »f C>ann A iTxkm>0*im M ^inn>NMA M Oma %am M C#a■nghwars A Archlttcts wy- 11589 j J. If'October 2S, iMtlooorablo Mayor aad City Council City of Orono•ox •• Cryital lay. KM SSS23 4ttai Mr. Mark lorahardtoa lot IftO lato ■oaorabla Mayor aad Couaclli Traaaoittad horovlth aro rt'^iiad aourly Englnaarini aatat vhich ara to ba affactlva January 1, 1»M. la have lioltad tha incraaaa in our rataa o laat than 3.0 parcant. appraciatad our ralationihip aitb tha City of Orono and aa ara all looking forward to aanring you in 19«0. If you hava further guaationa on tha anclotad rata achadula, plaaaa call. Youra aery truly. •OMISnOO. lOSIMI. AMDIILXX ( ASSOCUTIS. INC. Otto G. Bonestroo 0GB tab End. jnestroosss*»UMCBW ^ noao 0 ft =^-“5r~t2T«o*«* o n!*•» , CUT C»«il 0 55»» ,„^.ari'«-!SS"-“" -»;S.'-U"-?>«- ■" %tj *♦ * j tsA Couacil* n „ City «< i*«* “vf tn. ‘ 'W ^ ftoti Otto G. ■ 0GBtab End •ttroo 1990SCHEDULE B HOUKLY BATEPrincipal Engineer Regittered Engineer/Architect Graduate Englneer/Architect/Field Supervisor Senior Draftaperaon Senior Technician Technician Vord Processor Clerical Attendance at Regular Council Meeting The above rates will be nultiplied by 1.3 for review of private developers plans and inspection of private work to cover professio-.al liability insurance costs and legal expense. Reiabursable Expenses - At Cost Reproduction, Printing, Duplicating Out’Of'Pocket Expenses such as stakes, field supplies, telephone calls, <stc. Mileage Orono Ll B€)nestroo Rosens Andertfk & Associates Ingtrwri « AnNttea 0«c r U. Ifil Cltj oi OroBo ■m «« Cr7«t«I 1«7.S5323 ▲ctai Hr. H*rk l•rehrrdson Mmt IMt lAtra lonorrbl* Mayor and Coxacil Traaaaittod hortoitk art ravisad hourly Eagiaaaring Eataa aiiich ara to ba •itmctirm Jaauary 1. lf#». Va haaa Ilaltad tha incraaaa la our rata* to laaa thaa S.O parcaat. Va haaa appraclatad our ralatloatblp with tha City of Orono aad «a lookiAf forvard to aarrlag you ia If If. If you bara furthar quaatxona ;loaa4 rata acbadula, plaaaa call. all tha Toura vary truly. ■QHISTIOO. lOSXB. AHOtlLIX « ASSOCUTtS. IMC. Otto C. BoMftroo oeitu Earl. p,„, «5,,3 , I9t9|lM«riglnaar/Arehltact A»*r/Archit«et/Fi«ld Sup«rri»or I«gul«r Council Mooting* bmonto* Printing. Duplicating Ixpontof ouch at otakos. lo callo. ate. At IttTOlCO Coot At Actual Coot g 0.24/allo 4<^mvrIw • V«#/Rovisod 01/17/89CITT or I9t9 STIATKICnr ISSOI 0BJKTT9ISTCm 1999CoMunity DnvolopMnt Diroction nnd Procoss- low Should WO Oooolop?• Chnns# Arottod Oa - storm Motor Nonosomont- Commarciol and Roaidontiol- ligbwoy 12- Land Uao- Potontlal Corridor for Upgrade • Safety Xaproeenenta > Ro^aoning - Procoaa and Control Pneironmontal Protection - Protection of aionificant lake and other natural awonitioa 3. Oroaniaational Doeolopmont - itratooic Planning Direction 4. Service Delivery - utilisation of Contracting Bntitiea ider ce •«1Idlng/Zonlng Znapectiona Utility - Public Works Back up Recipient fire (Police/Mutual Aid) Attorney Engineering Planning Inspections (Back up) Auditor Assessing Management Information Service Recycling Contractural Service Provision Review Criteria - Pinancial - Legal - Service Capacity - Administration - Market Potential Administration .issessing Garage Street Maintenance m;i;5 m/IV/m1M« •«»«#” ^***” eIt i»*oi a»J*c«w■unity *”*- sr.it r«ss*ir_ stora Hatar Man*9«*«nt lo»«rclal and Maldantlal lavarc* ll9b«*y: SS«rul cottldor for Op,r.d. - Safaty laprovaaanta Kc-soning Ptocaas and Control i.linnir—■•' rrtferion _a cantlakajnd iiltur «aaniti^ ^•QiC „.uv«y - <.tlll..tio. o« contfctin, EntltU. ■•eiolan_t %ollca/Mutual Aid) Attornay Bnglnaatlng 'iSStron. (B«» “P> Auditor SSr-rnt intoftlon S.rvte. Recycling crltarla . . . . . .. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Financial _ Lagal - Service Capacity - Adalnlatration •* Market AdalnUtralion ■tsaaaalng Street Maintenance TOtOAtlt Mayor and City Council Mark E. iernhardaon. City Adninistrato March 2, 1990JKTt Water Conservation Regulations C®***. HEIi*MAR 12IS90Citr OF OROROAttachment: A. Water Conservation Regulations Meeo Dated 6/21/S9B. Water Conservation Regulations Resolution Dated 8/14/90ISSUE “ Deteraine if the Council desires to re-iapose the water conservation regulations again effective April ISth.IHTRODUCTZON - The last two sunaers the City has iaposed water regulations because of the concern for water sources. Although it had been hoped by this tiae that additional moisture would show a turn-around on the dry cycle we have been esperienclng the last couple years, to date this has not happened. As such the rationale for iaposition of the regulations still exist. ALTBMIATIVES - 1. Allow it to be re-iaposed effective April 15. 2. Choose not to impose. 3. Table. 4. Select alternatives: a. ) Dates of iaposition b. ) Sources controled c. ) Odd/Even system $. Request voluntary compliance. RBCONMEMOATIOM - It iS recommended that the regulations be allowed to be re-iaposed as the situation that caused the initial regulation has yet not abated and remind the public in a news article in the paper. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by that the Council allow the re-laposing of the water regulations effective April 15, X990 as set forth in resolution 12680. Ayes ___, Nays 3290.3Mayor «nd city CouncilMark E. Barnhardnon, city Adnlnistratol March 2, 1990»• »«t»r Con..r»atlon Ragul.tion.fomoLMAR 1*CMYOF■ant:»-■Datad 8/14/90 9«*ation« Rasolution • lion n'i’' ,‘nV r” f “"ioiVi o ,v ^r?s ;upl. to dat/tMVj.rnoVt »»P«l<-ncln9 th. " ‘"position Of tho regulation. FIVES - ' It to ba ra-iaposad aff#ctiva April 15. • not to Imposa, t altarnativas: a.) Datas of imposition controlad^•) Odd/Ev#n systM »t voluntary coaplianca. ^po-„'i i' 't^rTifuItJ^oV b. .11,,.., »" b«n yet not •b.l.V ,nV “>* 1"UU?n tha papar. ° remind tha public in a naws MOTION • Movc^d bv mm m ^^~i*poslng of th# the Council •t forth in resolution 126,»Prll Is) 62189.4 »• TT- •TO*Mayor and City Council Hark Be Barnhardaon, City Adainlatrati Juna 21, 1989t Hater Conservation RegulationsATTRCSMEtlTSt A. Hater Regulations Heao Dated 3/23/89I3SPE ~ Oetecaine if the Council would desire to remove or modify the odd/even watering regulations currently in force. IWTROOOCTIOH - At the Council's March 27, 1989 meeting Council reinstated the watering regulations for the year because of the continuing concern regarding water supplies. DI8C0SSI0H - Hhen originally placed on the agenda for this ■eating there had been adequate rainfall (although not above normal) however, this has been tapering off and there has been no significant positive change in the level of Lake Minnetonka. The item is presented to determine if the Council would like to do anything at this point, and if not the water regulations will stay in force. ALTBRHATIVIS 1. Choose to take no action this point. 2. Repeal the regulations. 3. Modify tha regulations. 4. Table for further consideration. mCOMMEMDATIOW - It is recommended that action on this item be tabled until the August 14, 1989 meeting. To see if substantially more rainfall than normal has accumulated. PROPOSED MOTIOH - Moved by _, seconded by _, to table this item until the August 14, 1989 Council meeting. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: John R. Gerhardson, Public Horka Director Melvin Kilbo, Police Chief Jeanne A. Habusth, Building a Zoning Administrator L 62189.4TO*Mayor and city Council \»»ter Con.,c»atlon HagaUtion,TTACHMENTS i a MI>»9ulatJon. Hem> oat«l 3/23/*,!S32S2£Tto»- At tK. ..SCasSTow . „w_„ . PPiiea. we‘,S!tr-* *ot tA,a ---cant Po.t'twi%{;« £9?rAa";U'’L* > Ita. i. ................................... . • SRMA«|VTTn»#eBRNATIVgg -hooa. to tak, „o action thla point. ^«P«al the regulations. ®<3ify the regulations. “>1. foe furthar conaid.ration. MMBWDATT Om - Tt I. •« Until" th. « *^®coanended that sm MOTIOH - Moved by tne August 14 i4aa%e—' aaconded by ►« a..we' 1989 Council aeeting. “Xiei ^tea elvin Kiibo, Police Chiil * Director •«nne a. Mabusth, BuiidiM a » 2 1«9 * Zoning Adainistratoc 32389.2 /ATOsDATS*Mayor and City Council Mark B. Bernhardsonp City Adainistrato March 23» 1989'* Water Conservation RestrictionsAttachaenti A. Odd/Even Outdoor Water Osage Regulations MeaoDated 3/8/89IMTRODOCTIOW - Attachaent A was presented at your Marcn 13, 1989 aeeting with a recoaaendation to table consideration until thismeeting.RECOMMENDATION > It is reconaeided, baaed on the continued low lake levels and the fact that there has not been substantial rainfall since last suaaer, that these regulations be continued. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, that the Orono Council concurs with the reiaposition of water conservation regulation as set forth in Resoltuion #2496. Ayes __, Nays __. 6.38832389.2ciw »a,ir,istt.tolB. *.tnh.ta«o"' «WI 23, 19®’: con.««aon,aoo. ««t •>•<3 at yout ****®f,-tii this*. J*s Jlidecation until. All«e'''“"Ation to tabl. «<>" • ^ ceCO«*«*'®* *.lntt«d I®'* b..e^ »- V v.c'r?b“?*’'vi: ration, b. c-ti-*"-*''• tb«t th«»* '*«“last sunn*'» fhat tha Ocono seconded by r^*«j conaet^*^!®*^ -% Voftb U* I\ ' M Mayor and City Council ^Mark So Sernhardaon, City Adminiatrato^March 8# 1989 SUBJECTS Odd/Sven Outdoor Mater Usage Regulationa CfTfOFAttaehmenta:A. ordinance #53, 2nd Seriea, Water Oae ControlB. aSUiSSoU #2479, Adopting 0 M«..dtocy Odd/E«nC. Ro*o*atlon*#2496''*Roi«o»lng Btsttlctloo* »s atSeptember 15, 1988 but Re-Impoaing them April IS, 1989X JOT - Oototalno If Council «•*!”»“ “?i®f?''*I!g9®““°°'«e« uiogo ctgulotlono bocooo offeotl.. on AptU IS, 1989. i^S?^;.Vb^.n/=^=^c.;avlV,'Vb.,°.%V,Llctlon. until Aptil IS. 1989. &r.TgRNATIVES - 1. Table for further diacuaaion. 2. Reconaider. 3. Repeal. 4. Leave aa ia. meeting. Ayea _, Maya —. m 388<Mayor and City CouncilMark B. Barnhardaon, city Adminiatratoi March a, 1989™«cr: Odd/£»*n outdoor Osa,. Sogolatlon.flTTPftWluClTfQstt.cto.nta. *. Ordtn«o.^„3, 2nd d.rl.a, o.t.r oa. Control“■ odd/B.«,C. Raaolution #2496. Ranoving Raatrietiona m.attnm: tSr ua.9. t?9“atfoM'^eii^”ft*ott?.'‘SJ*A^Jl “J|^*JJJ,f ““®'’' S*‘onTuir>5"!Va8 * «- brnatives - 1. Tabla for fuithar diacuaaion. 2. Raconaidar. 3. Rapaal. 4. taava aa *9 a «y bar. to th. ctty ??b.T.*r‘?h'27 “’l?8»*c3S'no*»®"'‘*f.‘’' “•sooa.nta tb.v m»v h.«. ►« that Council oalc. lng. AyJ. _f ““ Ai-tnlatrator to that cr£)::ja:jcs no.53 . SECOND SZRIA WATE.^ USE CONTROL ORDINANCE RESULATING THE USE or water during PERIODS OF WATER SHORTAGE'. Tha City Council of tha City of Orono ordains aa foil owa:Sactionlanguage 3.10 is aaended by adding tha followingSection 1. Purpose.In order to avoid a water shortage due to inadeguate capacity la water systeas, to ensure an adequate water supsly for fire protecticn, to protect the environaent of La.ke Mi.nneeonka, to ensure the protection of subterranean aquifers, to aai.ttain the quality of doaestic water supplies., a.nd to protact the general health, safety and welfare of the residents, tha following regulations on non-essential water uses shall apply during periods of water shortages. Section 2. loolenentation of Restrictions. Whenever the City Council shall deteraine that a shortage of water threatens the City, it aay enact by resolution the reserictio.ns for non-essential water use set forth i.n this ordinance. The resolution shall becone effective Zi hours after passage and publication. Tha rasolution shall contain the following infornation: (1) uses of water that will be restricted; (2} types of water supply which will be restricted, such as* the public wet<«r system, private wells, lake or other surface water system; (3) times during which the restriction will apply; (4) whether tha am# restrictionm win apply to all property in the City or will vary depending upon location or identification of property; (5) (6) when the restrictions will be implemented and when they will terminate; and whether the reetrictioas will be voluntary or involuitary. Section 3. Wotice. Whenever the City Counei’’ enacts the restrictiosa in this ordinance, it shall take eueh action as is reasonably practicable to notify the general public of the restrlctioca. The notice shall be posted on the City's bulletin board and shall be published in the local newspaper. The notice shall include the information described In Section 2 (1-6}. 1 sae^ion 4. T-rsts o> Scsaly. ^ »»-t»ic--ons this ordinar.cs shall# at tha discraticn of tha laka or othar surfaca wa-a. s/s^saa. smc^icn 5 » RaatnctlOHS . During a wat.r shortaga th. City Council =ay ordar cna or any «»bination of tha following rastrictions : (1)^awn^‘*-*•s^S*;h^La!“l??ig^^on?*«^wa!I^ filliAc^iwiaaing pools, air conditioning, othar usas datarainad by tha City to ba non-assantial, or any coabination tharaof. (2)ny't:r/rtn ccd-nusbarad caiandar days; (3)a limitation of watar u*c for spaeifiad hours of tha day; (4) (5) a voluntary or involuntary raatriction; . UB. r..trietic= .jpUcBbl. f*;!,C'-v or basad cn land usa or propa../ .da. . .c -- and ($) anv othar appropriata rastriction •«« -’V *FPU«bX. «t.r raatriction is institutad. Tha Council dalegatas to the City Administrator or his designee the authority to declare an odd/evan or total sprinkling ban or a compiets water use baa of municipal users of any public system in Orono when in the opinion of the Administrator or his designee that municipa water supplies have reached the point that it could endanger tha supply for domestic sanitation and/or f're protection purposes. Thia would raguire ratification by resolution at t..a Council *• ra^ularly scheduled Council meeting. Section €. T«rainaeion. -2- :ricciana in this ordinanca shall* at tha discraticn of the jncil, acel/ to the public water systea, private wells, other surface water systeas. or any coacinaticn thereof.5. Restrictions.I water shortage the City Council say order one or any lion of the following restrictions:a cnoDlete or partial baa on water use for watering lawns, trees and shrubs. Irrigation, car washing, filling swiaaing pools, air conditioning, other uses deterained by the City to be non-essential, or any coabination thereof.an odd/even watering ban in which residents of addresses ending in an even digit aay water on even-nuabered calendar days and residents of addresses ending in an odd digit aay water on cdd-nufflbered cale.ndar days;a limitation of water uac far specified hours of the day; i} !) a voluntary or involuntary restriction; a use restriction applicable to all or part of the City or based cn land use or property identification; and i)anv other appropriate restriction. ded or sodded lawns shall be exempt from these provisions iod of 30 days after installation, although no new r sodding may begin after a.iy applicable water use on is instituted. deisgatss to the City Administrator or his designee the to declare an odd/even or total spri-tJcling ban or a complete ban of^municipal users of any public system in Orono when nion of the Administrator or his designee that municipal have reached the point that it could endanger the domestic sanitation and/or t^.rs protection purposes, rsguire ratification by resoiution at the Council's next scheduled Council meeting. Termination use restrictions imposed by the Council during a water hall terminate by resolution of zJnm City Council. -2- • • sSection 7. 5ffactive Date.This ordinance shall ee in full force and effect upon its and publication.ADOPTED this 25nh day of of 4 Ayes and Julv 1988 by a voteNays~ J IMayor id- 7-L..Admiaist^^tpr/Clsric City Clerk5087j -3- section 7, Sfftetiv Daf«This ordlaftncft thall b* in full fore« and and publication.ADOPTED this 2Sth day of of_ _ _4_ _ _Ayaa and July t upon its pasaa^o1908 by a votaPays• * .it*t U JMayorIA4.».i;»AMW"/,cisrx city Clark508 7J I k- -City of OROIV irmameof^CSIZV^QE=^;.QFRINC&RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNC NO. 2479_________A RKSOLUTICs OJD/EVBN ••' 8SGABDC.2SS OF SOOltCZ flNG A MA21DATCRT 1 BAN OUTDOORSTHROUGHOUT THE COI WITTWHS3SAS, the City of Orono has a sig.Tificant ongoing concern regarding its water resources; and WHESEASr the city of Orono has ref "-ad that concern in its adoption of Ordinance 51, of the S-scond Series as an amendment to the code Section 3.13; and WHEREAS, the precipitation for 1983 is significantly below normal as was 1987; and the the WHEREAS, recent rains have helped alleviate some of concern, however, there is still a substa.ntial concern ror longterm situation. HOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that in accordance with Ordinance 53, Second Series the Orono City Council adopts a mandatory odd/even waterii.g ban outdoors regardless of source of supoly including lake or wells throughout the community to be in effect until further notice. The exception to this ban is use of ioc seeded and sodded lawns as outlined in Ordinance S3, Second Series, Section 5 and is effective upon the Ordinance publication. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 25th day of July, 1988. ATTEST: -3- tx\f »>• 'wcirsr*^■'OEr .,OEiaKCC I it : ^ •8789.31City of OROIVO :i :v ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2680_______ A nsoLonoa ns Bssmcnoas or m ODO/svra arFBC TIVB SEPTBIBSR 15, 19S9, •i.-r-i HATIOBS BUT SB-IIIP0SI1I6 TI APRIL IS, 1990 WBBRBAS, the City of Orono adopted Ordinance 53, Second Series, to regulate the outdoor use of water, regardless of source; and WB8RSAS, on July 25, 1988, the Council adopted Resolution #2479, iaplenentinc, an odd/even water regulation in the comaunity regardless of soUi.ce of water; and HBJBRBAS, the City did such because of significant dry conditions; and NURSAS, subsequent to those restrictions being put into effect, substantial rains were seen in the area, and with the end of suffloer, the demand for water is markedly decreased; and muSRBAS, the City still maintains a concern for its on going water resources. SOH, TH8RBP0RB BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Orono repeals its odd/even outdoor water usage regulations, effective September 15, 1989; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the City re-impose these regulations on April 15, 1990. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of August, 1989. AT^ST: £Dorothy/if./Hall in. City Clerkrotny /rf.n 3890.4listratol •KBHMW12I990orroF190 Memo Dated 3/7/90ning considecatlons of a:he "yard waste" season :ions Involved. nec pet week - central (pact time). 'Xtent nepded). be foe Ocono residents, could be made with Long ark.) As no intensive Id turn to black dirt in costs for the program of presented when completed, appreciated. .i; r>.Jo;ilOt Mark E. Bernhardson, City AdministratorFMHs Jo^ R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director•MVlUO ^ 'DARt March 7, 1990SUBJKTt Yard Haste Composting 1990Beginning 1990 neither land fills nor the burn plant will accept yard waste (leaves/grass clippings t brush).In addition Hennepin County who has accepted yard waste previously has by resolution opted out of being the sole receiver of yard waste and in addition placed a fee for accepting yard waste if and when they will be ready to accept it. They have not designated a dropsite location or a transfer site at this writing. Because there is no clear direction from Hennepin County regarding yard waste it is necessary that the individual municipality designate their own or use an adjacent municipalities compost site.Previously the City of Orono has accepted yard waste during our clean up days. Two day’s in the spring and one day in the fall. Because there will be no other place for residents to dispose of there yard waste* three day's per year will not be sufficient therefore* I am suggesting the following escalation of the program. Establish a weekly drop off time where residents can drop off their leaves/grass clippings debagged in to a 40 cubic yard container. This could be done with a private contractor or City forces. When full the container would be transported to our compost site at the old sewage treatment plant and placed in a sectioned off area of the abandoned settling pond to be left to decompose. There would be no turning of the leaves or chemicals added as that type of treatment creates unacceptable odors. We would only add water as needed. This would be an experimental program for one year to determine more accurate costs of handling of the yard waste and the voluBM of yard waste all of which is unknown at this time. There would be no fee to the resident for 1990. We may have to establish a fee for lawn service companys. This program could be administe^^with City forces, a private contractor or on the honor system with no attendant on duty. Because we wish to generate comments only at this time there is no recommendation. j: n.jUoE. Bernhardson, citv •- . ^‘^"'inistratorA,«. Gerhardson, Pubji^ „March 7, i„„Vard Waste Composting 1990«Sn;frr — -■‘J^opsite *cceV7. ya*JBecause there is no i®"" * traJsfe^ *’“''« "°t rdlng yard waste it i <3irectlo^ ^hisiVa^^'*®®^9nate t hel that the° in2r*?®P^"les compost site own or use an' ®<^jacentP <JayV!® riV d*^^ accepted pre "yV/d wVst>%r ° . am%- ^ Ms m"” bVdontTith*^y®^'ln ”‘a'’«‘cuM” " * '■'•‘''M* contract ^‘’o? UVy 1 the container woulr^ i, ‘o *Mro„:rr-"l‘l„^,^“‘ an" pT/cVd" l‘„“ T" “"Po.t r%a%“me^\"o‘r^lt“er“- "-"o r^ch^^^^^^^ead«j. "*«®n ""'oooptabl* added as ®* "® «^ould only ;f--S be no fee to " no att:U ”„n“'/„b?!‘-‘' “"‘«taj”n" itlon. S®nerate comments only at thl r- y at this time there COUNCn MEETMGMAR 12 1990CITY OF OR ‘ mI3790.1To:FroaxDatex Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardsonp Public Works Director March 7, 1990Sabjeccx Eurasion Mil-Foil Program - City ParticipationRecently the City received a request from Mr. Norm PauruSy Eurasion Mil-Foil Program Director for the LMCD, to use a swim beach site for off-loading of mil-foil and to deposit that milfoil at the City's compost site. Because the request pertained to parks and recreation activitiesy Mr. Paurus submitted his request to the Park Commission on March 6, 1990.The Park Commission approved using the Lydiard Avenue Swimming Beach as a location for off-loading of mil-foil for a 2- 3 day period during one week of the summer of 1990y contingent upon Mr. Paurus receiving a verbal OK from the adjacent residents and as long as there will be no negative impact on the swimming activities at that location. The City did not place a dock or buoy at Lydiard Avenue Swimming Beach in 1989 due to the low water level of Lake Minnetonka and do not expect to place a dock this year for the same reason. For that same reasony there has been no swimming lessons at this beach according to Mr. James Glasoey Assistant Director of Community Services at Mound/Westonka Schools. Mr. Glasoe stated that they would not be conducting swimming »ssons in 1990 for the same reasons. Recommendation - To allow LMCD to use the Lydiard Avenue Swimming Beach for off-loading of mil-foil contingent upon no adverse impact on the adjacent residents and no adverse impact on the swimming beach activities and to allow disposal of an agreed upon amount of mil-foil to be disposed of at the Orono compost site. Proposed Notion - Moved by seconded by to allow LMCD to use the Lydiard Avenue Swimming Beach for off-loading of mil-foil for a one week period during the summer of 1990 contingent upon approval of the adjacent neighbors and no adverse impact on the swimming activitlesy and to allow the disposal of an agreed upon amount of mil-foil at the Orono compost site. Ayes _ _, nays Vox Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Fromx Mark E. Bernhardsony City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. / I 4 To: Fro»: Date: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth Lyle Oman, Senior Building Inspector March 7, 1990 COUNCIL MEEIW^' MAR 121990 CtTYOFOMNO Subject: 3865 Shoreline Drive, 3875 Shoreline Drive, 3877 Shoreline Drive, 2405 Dunwoody Avenue Staff is requesting Council to review the above subject properties for Hazardous Building Action. Council adopted Resolutions 2359, 2360, 2361 and 2362 on January 25, 1988. Resolutions 2359 and 2361 were amended on February 12, 1990 to reflect work done on the properties and where adopted with the amendments as resolutions 2758 and 2759. The four resolutions have now been amended to remove conflicting language as requested by the City Attorney's office. These resolutions will supersede resolutions 2360, 2362, 2758 and 2759. These are four options that can be taken: 1. Table proceedings; 2. Adopt resolution as written; 3. Adopt resolution with amendments; 4. Deny resolutions. Staff recommends adopting the resolutions as is and proceeding with Hazardous Building Action. Building & Zoning Administrator MabusthLyle Oman, Senior Building Inspector March 7, 1990 ®«*CIUIIEET||QMAR 121990OF OROIO!lcVVunZVy 387,*ork^d^* 3^*^ ''®,e amended on Felfr*ua*ry ^12^^1980 *to>een amended to remove con1nlM;„ ?*ty Attorney's nffir-a mu language as requested« 23^ !?«liV58%nd™7r9."°°'““°"" “‘33 supersedef are four options that can be taken:'able proceedings;dopt resolution as written; dopt resolution with amendments; eny resolutions. recommends adopting the resolutions with Hazardous Building Action.as is and A RBSOLOTION FINDING A HAZARDOUS BUILDING AND REQUIRING THE SECURING AND REPAIR OP STRUCTURES AT 3865 SHORELINE DRIVE, ORONO THIS RESOLUTION HEREBY SUPERSEDES RESOLUTION *2758WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corooration organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; andWHEREAS, Louis R. Oberhauser, 2425 Dunwoody Avenue, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 is the fee owner of record and John Olson, 3865 Shoreline Drive, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 has an interest in the property located at 3865 Shoreline Drive, Orono Minnesota, and legally described as follows:Property Identification Number: 20-117-23 22 0007Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 2 thence West j3 feet along the North line of Lots 2 and 1 thence at an angle to the left of 52 degrees 56 minutes to the shore of Lake Minnetonka thence Southeasterly along lake shore to a point 50 feet Northwesterly from the most Southerly corner of Lot 2 thence Northeasterly parallel with the Southeasterly line of Lot 2 to the Northeasterly line thereof thence Northwesterly 5 feet to beginning Lots 1 and 2, Block 8, Townsite of Langdon Park, Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, _he City Council of the City of Orono, having duly considered the matter pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 to 463.261, hereby finds that the above described property is uninhabitable and contains unsanitary and hazardous conditions which constitute a public nuisance and which makes this property hazardous to the public health, safety and welfare based on the following findings: INTERIOR 1. Basement; crawl space with no access. Slesiirigal 2. Fuses (two): over current protection not enough - NFPA 70 Art 240.4. 3. 60 amp service not sufficient size service- nFPA 70 Art 230-79. 4. Wiring Type; extention cords used for permanent wiring, fire hazard per OFC 85.107. is a 5. Light Fixtures : ceiling lighting fixtures not provided or inoperable - NFPA 70 Art 210-70 (a). 6. Receptacles: outlets not provided, minimum 6 feet apart - NFPA 70 Art 210-52. Page 1 of 8 K resolotioiiahd RWOI»i;g the drive, OROBOOP BEPmT |OP«S«.«SRESOtOIIOl' t^^i» -nmoration organisedth*e\awrcf th"°s"°atVof M?nn»ooa, andorIllne0riT‘0TcJ"«lnniso^^^ l®9ally deaoribad as follows.oparty Identification West =3 feet alongimmencing at ;f 1 thence at an angle to ^ he Ile North line of Lots 2 shore of Lake Minnetonka>arees 5 6 minutes to the shore o Northwesterly from:Jth.asterly along 1“''* ”2 ^n^nce N«iheasterly ;:rs\te““f''“La^raon par” 0-— Hennepin County. Minnesot , .neinafter ~tne property,, an ,uly WHEREAS -he City Council o cvatut^s Sections 463.15 to ered the matter bribed property is L hereby finds that the above g^y,hich constitute a public UaL'I Jsanitary .na^ to tne public health. and“«lfa« has'ed'on the following findings. INTERIOR , Basement, crawl space with no access. ruses (two), over current protection not enough !°’60 amp service not sufficient sir. service- HTPA 70 Art 230-7^ ^ . Wiring Type, extention cords used for permanent wiring. ire hazard per OFC 85.107* ceiling lighting fixtures not provided Aope^riir. =Art 2%i7T.a,. .. Receptacles, outlets not provided, minimum 0 feet apar irt 210“52. Page 1 of 8 - nFPA 70 Art glambipg7. Clean out plugs not provided - MN Plumbing Code Section 4715.0220.8. Floor Drain: :-ovide for over flow of water heater.9. Water Heater: not accessible.10. T & P Relief Value: must be extended within 18" of floor.11. Shut Off Valves: could not find shut off valve for water heater.Heating System12. Type of Unit: Gas Forced Air, Sears, undersized for dwellingunit. Wood - Ben Franklin, improperly installed.13. Flue Vent Pipe & Connections: forced air - shut off valves aremissing - Wood Stove; improper clearances to combustible; some charring at wall; and unit is placed on combustible floor.RBAR/SIDB ENTRY 14. Floor: wood (porch area) exposed to weather - untreated wood - UBC 1707 (a). 15. Walls: in deteriorated condition - UBC 1707 (a). 16. Ceiling; in deteriorated condition - UBC 1707 (a). KITCHEN 17. Exterior Door; blocked and not used. 18. Electrical; Light not provided - switch not provided. 19. Receptacles: outlets not provided on counter tops “ NFPA 70 Art 210-52 (b). eiumhipg 20. Vent: plumbing vent not provided - MN State Plumbing Code Section 4715.0220. 21. Stove: gas shut off not provided - MN Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning Code Section 1345.2670. Page 2 of 8 pitMibingout plu,. not ptovldud - HH Plutibin, Co.Drain, z-oviit for over flow of waterHeater: not accessible#> Relief Value: must be extended withinOff Valves: could not find shut offsvatamrn‘»anJur\bP«Url/l “.Ul"l"edVent Pine S Connections: forced air! Vent i'lpe » clearances t It^aU,“a°„d ^itT/pVaced on combustl, rbar/sidb bmtry jr: wood (porch area) exposed to weath (a). Ls: in deteriorated condition - UBC 17 Ling: in deteriorated condition - OBC kitchen erior Door: blocked and not used. ctrical: Light not provided - switch n eptacles: outlets not provided on com (b). pj^pmbing ,nt: plumbing vent not provided - M 4715.0220. >v.: gas shut off "fj aning Code Section 1345.2670. Page 2 of 8 O0 riBr£i TTUtltJ r#rtT#He] r#l Ce CUSI Eii.SS£CigfliiExiatlna Conditions Walls & Ceiling: needs paint.Windows: sills are deteriorating - not maintainedPA 70 Art 210-70.- UBC 1707 (a)light with switch not provided - outlets not ided within proper distance NPPA 21-052 Art.LlVniG ROOMCeiling: needs paint.Windows; sills deteriorating - UBC 1707 (a).Electrical: light with switch not provided - NFPA 70 Art 210-70.Receptacles; outlets over 6' apart - NPPA 70 Art 210-52. MAIH EB1RT Calling; damaged from leaking roof. Windows: sills deteriorating from weather - no maintenance - UBC I ^ • Electrical; light with switch not operable-- NPPA 70 Art 210-70. BATHROOM «1 Ceiling; damaged by leaking roof. Windows; sills weathered. Elumbing /ent: none provided. Paucet; below sjpi 11 line - no protection from back flow - MN ing Code 4715.2010. Prap: drum trap prohibited - MN Plumbing Code 4715.0960. 'oilet: Anti-Siphon Ballcock» Float Assemblyr Shut Off Valve -rovided. Page 3 of 8 38.Receptacle:none provided.BEDROOM «139.Windows; fire egress window not provided per UBC 1204.40.Electrical;ceiling light not operable.41.Receptacles:outlets over 6' apart.ATTIC42.UBC Attic: not3205 (a).accessible - attic access in closet unaccessible -EXTERIOR43.Insulation;observed from exterior - snow melting off roof veryfast - sign of poor insulation. 44. Ground Slope at Foundation: slopes toward structure. 45. Siding; weathered and deteriorating - UBC 1707 (a). 46. Soffit & Fascia; deteriorating - UBC 1707 (a). 47. Roofing: leaks on west side and south side - UBC 3202 (a). 48. Chimney: mortar joints fall out - chimr3y in a state of collapse - UBC 3704 (a). 49. Flashing & Vent Jacs: flashing around chimney improperly installed - UBC 1707 (b). 50. Roof Ventilation; inadequate ventilation at top only - UBC 3205 (c). 51. Entry Steps; over 8" maximum rise - UBC 3306 (c). Building is in a state of deterioration and dilapidation, thus it is a safety and health hazard pursuant to Minnesota State Building Code/Unifom Building Code, Section 203. Page 4 of 8 Elggtgjgal8. Receptacle: I'.one provided.BEDROOM «19. Windows; fire egress window not provided per UBC 1204.0. Electrical: ceiling light not operable.L. Receptacles: outlets over 6' apart.1. Attic: not accessibleJC 3205 (a).ATTIC“ attic access in closet unaccessible -EXTERIOR1. Insulation; observed from exterior - snow melting off roof very ist - sign of poor insulation. . Ground Slope at Foundation: slopes toward structure. . Siding: weathered and deteriorating - UBC 1707 (a). . Soffit & Fascia: deteriorating - UBC 1707 (a). . Roofing: leaks on west side and south side - UBC 3202 (a). . Chimney: mortarjoints fall out - chimpey in a state of collaose - C 3704 (a). . Flashing & Vent Jacs: flashing around chimney improperly stalled - UBC 1707 (b). ). Roof Ventilation: inadequate ventilation at top only - UBC 3205 Entry Steps; over 8" maximum rise - UBC 3306 (c). Building is in a state of deterioration and dilapidation^ thus it ifety and health hazard pursuant to Minnesota State Building ifonn Building Code, Section 203. Page 4 of 8 ■V Orders to remove or repair the structure were issued by the Building Official on January 21, 1988. These orders have not been complied with.BOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows;1. The City Council of the City of Orono, pursuant to the foregoing findings and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 to 463.261 hereby orders the owner(s) of the property to make the following repairs in order to correct the hazardous condition: ELECTRICAL a) Service: provide 100 amp service - installed by licensed electrician. b) Wiring: remove all extension cords used as permanent wiring. c) Receptacles: provide outlets on all walls so that no point on the floor line is more than 6 feet. d) Light Fixtures: provide lighting outlets controlled by a switch in each habitable room. PLUMBING e) Cleanouts: provide clean outs per MN State Plumbing Code by licensed master plumber. f) Floor Drain; provide floor drain for excess water release of water heater. g) Water Heater; provide access to «• h) Relief Valve (water heater): pr valve pipe to within 18" of floor. rvcer • cemperature release i) Shut Off Valve; provide shut off valve on water heater. Page 5 of 8 HBATIMG SYSTEMese orders have not been complied »0W, TaEREPDRE, BE IT RESOIVED as follows:a City Council of the Ci^v n-1® f" accordance with Minnesota® foregoing1 hereby orders the ownerfs) of ^fatutes Sections 463.15 to-9 repslos i„ orae. to =,t„'V ,Ve h'a^/sX? cfnSltVonT*’" *”* ELECTRICAL leoir'fo'li'!' ““ -P —e - inst.llea by ii„„3ea »irin,.. teoove all a.ttsnsion cords used as persanent wlrin,. e floor line is'’noJe'^than'6*flet? so that ni point on Itch in each habitable°roo!n* outlets controlled by a PLUMBING .ns:i":L«‘r P« «» State Pl„n:bin, Code by .“S«t«f'"‘ for excess water release of Water Heater: provide access to v Relief Valve (water heater): m - a pipe to within 18" of floor*. ^ ••• .-fcer. ceinperature release Shut Off Valve: provide shut offproviae Shut off valve on water heater. Page 5 of 8 j) Gas Forced Air Unit (wall hung): ren.ove and replace withproper size furnace which provide 70 degrees temperature at 3" above floor.)c) Wood Stove (Ben PranJclin): provide U.L. Lis*'ing andinstructions for proper installation to combustibles.RBAR/SIDB ENTRYl) Porch Floor: remove floor exposed to weather and replacewith treated wood.m) Porch Walls: remove all wood exposed to weather and replacewith treated wood. n) Porch Ceiling: remove and replace. KITCHEN o) Provide ceiling light operable by a switch. Provide outlets on all counter tops. p) Plumbing: provide proper vent for sink and provide gas shut off for gas cooking stove within kitchen area. This shut off must be accessible. DINING ROOM q) Windows: sills must be removed if rotten • provide paint. r) Lighting: provide light with switch. s) Receptacles: provide outlets maximum 6' apart. t) Walls & Ceilings: provide paint. LIVING ROOM u) Ceiling: provide paint. v) Windows: sills must be removed and replaced if rotten ~ paint. w) Lighting: provide light with switch. x) Receptacles: provide outlets maximum 6' apart. Page 6 of 8 •1 ’*. 7 / V^vr - OBC • jj) Provide insulation in ctic - m. EXTERIOR kk)Slopes away from structure 11)Siding:remove all rotten pain't • nun)Soffits:remove and re^-’ <2* nn)Roofing:remove and -ace. oo)Chimney:remove and replace. Page 7 of 8 pp;rr)*ClHOVe''•"dilation. «Placa.fiBf. * Provide.P.ov.aa„-axi.^ ,._fapair* **'If as ,,"• »att^ “•’'Of laIf th. *^tion 463 20^ or ! fi»•«lbaa • ‘='®orf, , °- '^•'’•irad V* * W«a VV;"*aPdotV*' *'’• «tv »'^“'*»®«nt t *•* lorth*?*'■t. '“noitloi ®*J' «a*. fs.^» not _______ ^nIf su. ®*'Won 4(37/'foyed ”“*■* »Jia•'«bad** ‘='®»rf a , 'f£°"5 -'Svc °"®"./f;"^^®^ «itf ' «Vf air^Id, I-;® “nVcVa?,;; ;®«rd%“i7 b«Idr'’«-^>Vt;* «nd/^<*2® a°', :r ® °? arch''‘‘*®« la 7 *"<* * aa7 «in5.7./«®ta ai,7o!!*^J*t*nraV,/®®®*"tU*^^ ,7 -^«i7i ®V.*a;i/7"ci=t7^,/i:V7„=V Onaao s" - y «sth« Citv . " - «®4!7,7 o“ --®cit... Af9« '-«*es, *«ai order V" ta ^‘l^Pted bv ..w ® "*«»crif *"<* to 4 ^SfflSa ij. R.^rabeT Mayor 8 Of 8 ^;p‘-A RBSOLOTIOll PINDING A HAZARDOUS BOILOniG AHD RBQUIRI1I6 THE SBCDRING AHD RBPAIR OF STROCTDRBS AT 3877 SHORBLIIIB DRIVBr ORORO THIS RBSOLOTION HBRBBT SUPBRSBDBS RBSOLOTIOH #2759WHERZAS, '■.he City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; andWHEREAS, Louis R. Oberhauser, 2425 Dunwoody Avenue, Wayzata, Mistnesota 55391 is the fee owner of record of property located at 3877 Shoreline Drive, Oronc Minnesota, and le.ally described as follows.*Property Identification Number: 20-117-22 22 0006Commencing at a point in che North line of Lot 1 distance 163 feet West from the Northeast corner of Lot 2 thence West along North line distance 73.01 feet nhence Southwesterly at an angle to the left of 63 degree's 14 minutes a distance of 123.02 feet to lake shore thence Southeasterly along lake shore 37.77 feet thence Northeasterlv 161 feet to begi.nning. Lots 1 and 2 Block 8, Townsite of Langdon Park", Ororo, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono, having duly considered the matter pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 to 463.261, hereby finds that the above described property is uninhabitable and contains unsanitary and hazardous conditions which constitute a public nuisance and which makes this property hazardous to the public health, safety and welfare based on the following findings: INTERIOR 1. Partial Basement; wall cracked, windows covered with plastic - UBC 2906 - 2907. 2. Baseme.nt Stairs: headroom 5'6" maximum; stair tread missing bottom. oBC 3306 (c) i (c). Slgglrisal 3. Fuses (two); over current protection not enough - NFPA 70 Art 240.4. 4. 60 amp service not sufficient size service - NFPA 70 Aj i* . "*0-79. 5. Wiring Type: extention cords used for permanent wiring, are a fire hazard per OFC 85.107. 6. Light Fixtures: ceiling lighti.ng fixture not provided or inoperable - NFPA 70 Art 210-70 (a;. 7. Receptacles: outlets not provided, minimum 6 feet apart - NFFA 70 Art 210-52. y-v-j n* ' ■ I A RBSOLOTIOM PIHPIIIG A HAZARDOUS BOILDIK AHD RBQOIRIRG THB SBCORIHG AHD REPAIR OF STROCTORBS AT 3877 SBORBLIRE DRIVE, ORORO THIS RBSOLOTIOH HEREBY SUPERSEDES RESOLUTIOH #2758WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation orpanxz ing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; andWHEREAS, Louis R. Oberhauser, 2425 Dunwoody155391 is the fee owner of record of property at 3877Drive, Oronc Minnesota, and legally described as fol ows.ar-^v Identification Number: 20-117-23 22 0006bIoII'V. lanV»H.nn,p!r ’cS‘u«y, Minnesota, (herainaf-.ar "th. propar-.y'); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono,^"n’d raL\n.\%”p%^7irr^^^^J welfare based on the following j.inc-ngs. INTERIOR wall cracked, windows covered with plasticartial Basement: !906 - 2907. basement Stairs; headroom 5’6" maximum: stair tread missing im. UBC 3306 (c) 5 (q)- Fuses (two): o^er current protection not enough - NFPA 70 Art 4 0 amp service not sufficient size service - NFPA 70 A.- ^0-79. iring Type: extention cords used for permanent wiring, are a hazard per OFC 85.107. Light Fixtures: ceiling lighting fixture not provide rable - NFPA 70 Art 210-70 (a/. Bceptacles: outlets not provided, minimum 6 feet apart - NFPA 70 10-52. Page 1 of 8 8. Clean out plugs not provided.9. Floor Drain: provide for over flow of water heater.10. Water Beater: not accessible.11. LP Tank: 100 lb cylinder not secured to building.12. T ft P Relief Value: must be extended within 18* of floor.13. Shut 0.;f Valves; could not find shut off valve for water heater.B8flt^ng,axir.m14. Type of Onit: could not oot over to unit. Furnace is ondirt/mud floor - should be raised 4" off floor and is also rusting out at the bottom.KiTcmni 15. Electrical: Light not provided - switch not provided. 16. Receptacles: outlets not provided on counter tops - NFPA 70 Art 210-52 (b). - MN State Plumbing Code Plumbing 17. Vent: plumbing vent not provided Section 4715.0220. Exiating_GQDditioDR 22. Walls ft Ceiling: needs paint. 23. Windows: sills are deteriorating - not maintained - UBC 1707 (a) - NFPA 70 Art 210-70. 24. Electrical: '* provided within prr jht with switch not provided distance NFPA 21-052 Art* LAUnn FACILITIES - outlets not 25. Installed in hallway blocking doorway to extjrior and basement Page 2 of 8 „t plu9» «®«flow of water haatar.„ln. Pr=»i0*_„*. accasaibla*r“i»’•-...............................Oct valves j nBMrtiw.ga»» ,uri..c. !• ®“ not oat over to l,o resting out b. *■ off floor ..fi ttom. KUCHBH ... . switch not provided. *ric.l. I.U»f “o* „ top. - BPP» ‘f* o«rx.to nob provfO.0 on counr . b)o .!TT..- --„t: plunblnq vent not P 4715.0220. Iiiilii inn ,X. . ClUn,. no- „,„t.lnod - 0»C !«’ »ao«. ofllo or. dotortorntlnP not ». ,0 nrt 2X0-70. ptovldod - outxot. not i-:t?irn*V .r^’ol^.trno. jjajmaa f»cilims to onnobfor bn-o-nt. .,tnXX«f in boll-y PIO'’-"-’ page 2 of 8 26. Haste water from washer dumped in bath room sinX.27. Both appliances operate by use of extension cords.28. No back-flow preventor used.LIVIWS BOOH29. Ceiling; needs paint.30. Windows: sills deteriorating - UBC 1707 (a).31. Electrical: light with switch not provided - NPPA 70 Art 210-70.32. Receptacles: outlets over 6' apart - NFPA 70 Art 210-52.MAIH BRUT33. Ceiling: damaged from leaking roof. 34. Windows: sills deteriorating from weather - no maintenance - OBC 1707 (a). 35. Electrical: light with switch not operable Exterior light not working and cover is removed. BATHKOOH #1 36. Ceiling: damaged by leaking roof. 37. Windows: sills weathered. - NPPA 70 Art 210-70. Plumbing 38. Vent: none provided 39. Paucet: below spill line - no protection from back flow. MN State Plumbing Code 4715.2010. 40. Anti-Siphon Ballcock - Float Assembly - Shut Off Valve: provided. Electrical 41. Receptacle: none provided. Page 3 of 8 not ) < t ••fmil ♦ V¥-- iC* imi r^rr^ii •I I'.i i ^ % TTS* Official cn""nTry"i;?,Vfr HOW, 9HERSF0RE, B8 IT RESOLVED as follows:,llowin, r.p.L. i„ ord.*/‘to“crrVcV th%' li"xUo'S’'crn5itVc,T*’‘* *-basekbsta) Footings & Foundation: provide new. b) stair.: pro»id. nm with propar haadroom - ...._ _ BLBCmCAL alac?"cYan!’ »”P ••rvie. - in.talled by lican.ad d) Mirinpi raaova all extension cord, used a. panianant wirin,. t‘ia "ncorri'n:n."";t":hrn“*i:a?? »»»" aiiiteh ’iif eieh hib*tabli°J:ii* outlet, controlled by a FUDOZIMS llcaSirj";;.'’;, "" »la-bln. Coda by Sita “bJ«2”^"’ f" •*=••• «tar calaasa of 1) Water Beater: provide access to water heater. Page 5 of 8 j) Relief Valve (water heater): provide temperature releasevalve pipe to within 18" of floor.k) Shut Off Valve: provide shut off valve on water heater.l) Secure LP tank to building to prevent falling over.HBRTIWC 818TBIa) Gas Furnace: raise off floorsMchanical contractor.- provide maintenance cheek byKITn) Provide ceiling light operable by on all counter tops.a switch. Provide outletso) Plumbing: provide proper vent for sink and provide gas shut off for gas cooking stove within kitchen area. This shut off must be accessible.LAOWET PACXLTZB8p) Provide adequate space for laundry room.q) Provide adequate electrical service to washer and dryer remove extension cords.r) Provide adequate drain for washer. s) Provide back-flow preventor on hose line to washer. DIEIEG KOON Windows: sills must be removed if rotten - provide paint Lighting: provide light with swicch. Receptacles: provide outlets maxlmua 6' ap. b. Walls 6 Ceilings: provide paint. LIVXE6 ROOM x) Ceiling: provide paint. y) Windows: sills must be removed and replaced if rotten - paint . Page € of 8 1%i vide temperature releaseLve on water heater.nt falling over.I vide maintenance check byI switch. Provide outletssink and provide gas shut hen area. This shut offroomLee to washer and dryer “ line to washer. rotten - provide paint. h. am 6' a|.^ w • and replaced if rotten - 2) Lighting: provide light with switch.aa) Receptacles: provide outlets maximum $' apart*MAUI BHTRTbb) Ceiling: remove and replace damaged area.cc) Windows: check all sills replace deteriorated sills *■ paintdd) Lighting: provide light with switch.BATH ROOMee) Ceiling: remove damaged area and replace.ff) Window; replace if rotten - paint.gg) Plumbing: sink vent must be installed; tub faucet must be replaced with approved unit; remove and replace tub drum tap; toile*' must be replaced with approved unit; and provide shut off valve. hh) Electrical; provide one wall receptacle outlet with GFI. BEDROOM II ii) Install fire egress window. jj) Repair ceiling light and switch, kk) Provide outlets maximum 6'apart. BEDROOM 12 - ATTIC 11) Attic must not be used as a bedroom unless Code requirements are met. mm) Provide insulation in attic - minimum R 38. EXTERIOR nn) Slope grade away from structure. oo) Siding: remove all rotten wood siding and replace and paint. West wall is falling off founaation. pp) Soffits: remove and replace. Page 7 of 8 I ;)a)3):)1)lightin,, provide li,ht with ewltcli.Receptacles, provide outlets maxiisu. 6- «p,rt.**MH EKTRYCeiling: remove and replace damaged area.Windows: Check all sills replace deteriorated .111,Lighting: provide light with switch.bath room - paint.> Ceiling: remove damaged area and replace.) Window: replace if rotten - paint.pla^eTiffh app^t,ed"U"“t ‘ re«ive‘V d*^' ».■isf »u,t te replaced witli^kp^rS^:!Electrical: provide one wall receptacle outlet with GPI.BBDROm #1 Install fire egress window. Repair ceiling light and switch. Provide outlets maximum 6'apart. BEDROOM #2 - ATTIC ^^^ie must not be used as a Sa/4w.w wet. •• e b«iroon, unless Code requirements Provide insulation in attic - minimum R 38. BXTBRIOR Slope grade away from structure. - »«‘‘we^ri7t.!liVo “f'Lu;°ation “^" ”Pl«ce and Soffits: remove and replace. Page 7 of 8 Ventilation: provide top and botton ventilation,rr) Entry Step: provide step with naxiauM •• rise.W) Garage : remove.2. If the repairs are not completed, or unless an answer is filed within twenty (20 days from the date of service of this order, the City shall move the District Court for summary enforcement of this crder.3. If an answer is filed that contests the hazardous building action, the matter shall be tried and decided by the District Court. If the order is sustained by the Court, the Court shall fix a time after which the building shall be destroyed or repaired as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 463.20.4. If the Court's Judgment is not complied with in the time prescribed, the City may make the ordered repairs, rase or remove the hazardous condition or building, or acquire the building and real ••tate on which the building or hazardous condition is located by eminent domain. The necessary costa of such repairs, razing or removal, including but not limited to attorney fees, witness fees and filing fees, shall be a lien against the real estate on which the hazardous condition exists and will be levied against the property as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 463.21 and 463.22. 5^ That the City Council of the City of Orono hereby authorizes and 3 the Mayor, Citv Clerk, City Attomev, and other officers and employees of the City t.o take such action, prepare, sign and serve suc.i papers as are n^pessary to comply with this order and to assess the cost thereof against the real estate described above fer collection along with taxes. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, this 12th day of March, 1990. APPROVED X ATTEST:James R. Grabek, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallln, City Clerk Page 8 of 8 ■>I ^ hotto* ventilation- top on* bot^***Bntry Step * P6ara««<Bntry ^Gar»9«*- remove. unl«»* *" thiVorder, the” Z11 move the uj. ,iaina action,w—rdott* building a answer i» rii« ^V^Vhe Court let forth in • , .a .ith «ustain«« - a s& -.0. h. court'. «a.r«C j'cSSitij s?'b«.rco« .? l -hio ‘"Jm «.«-*-'^ a'« Ittor«.y uhi»>* » condition ex^ Statute* Sect o - - -^»,ori*ee James rr Grabek, sr^J^-fflTT^rrcity?v Clerk page 0 of 8 A RBSOLOTION FINDING A RAZARDOOS BOILDING AND RBQOIRING TBB SECURING AND REPAIR OP STRUCTURES AT 2405 DUNWOODT ATBNUR, ORONO THIS RESOLUTION BEREBT SUPERSEDES RESOLUTION #2362WBBRBASr the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the liws of the State of Minnesota? andNBERBAS. Louis R. O’.erhauser, 2425 Dunwoody Avenue. Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 is the fee owner of record of property located at 2405 Dunwoody Avenue. Orono Minnesota, and legally described ao follows?Property Identification Number: 20 —117“23 22 0008Commencing at a point in tne Northeasterly line of Lot 2 distance 5 feet Southesterly from the Northeast corner thereof thence Southwesterly parallel with the Southeasterly line of Lot 2 to the shore of Lake Minnetonka thence Southeasterly along lake shore to the most Southerly corner of Lot 2 thence Northeasterly to the most Easterly corner thereof thence Northwesterly to beginning. Lot 2. Block 8. To%msite cf Langaon Park. Orono. Hennepin County. Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property"); and NBBRBAS. the City Council of the City of Orono, having duly considered the matter pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 463 15 to 463.261. hereby finds that the above described property is uninhabitable and contains unsanitary and hazardous conditions which constitute a public nuisance and which makes this property hazardous to the public hea^ h. safety and welfare based on the following findings; INTERIOR i. No access tc interior. ’OR 2. Foundation; cracked in sev places on all sides 2907. West wall is falling off foundation. > UBC 2906 & Ground Slop-* t Fo»’ndation; slopes toward structure. Siding: weather- d deteriorai.ing - DBC 1707 (a). Soffit 4 Fascia: rotten - UBC 17C7 (a). Roofing: deteriorating ~ leaks - UBC 3202 (a). Chimney: mortar joints bad - falling apart “ UBC 3704 (a). Page 1 of 3 MA RBSOLOTION FINDING A RAZAROOOS BOILDIMG AND RBQPIRING TBB SBCORIRG AMD ISPAXR Of STROCTORES AT 2405 DURIfOODT AVEMOB, ORONO THIS RBSOLOTIOR HBRBBT SUPBRSBDB8 RBSOLOTICm *2362WHBRBASv the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized sting under the liws of the State of Minnesota; andIfHBRBAS, Louis R. O’.erhauser, 2425 Dunwoody Avenue, Wayzata, ita 55391 is the fee owner of record of property located at 2405 f Avenue, Orono Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Jperty Identification Number; 20-117-23 22 0008 nmencing at a point in the Northeasterly line of Lot 2 distance 5 et Southesterly from the Northeast corner thtireof thence ithwesterly parallel with the Southeasterly line of Lot 2 to the >re of Lake Minnetonka thence Southeasterly along lake shore to the It Southerly corner of Lot 2 thence Northeasterly to the most iterly corner thereof thence Northwesterly to beginning. Lot 2, >ck 0, Townsite of Langcion Park, Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, reinafter "the property"); and BHBRBAS, the City Council of the City of Orono, having duly red the matter pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 to hereby finds that the above described property is uninhabitable ;ains unsanitary and hazardous conditions which constitute a public B and which makes this property hazardous to the public hea’ h, nd welfare based on the following findings: INTERIOR No access to interior. TOR Foundati.cn: cracked in sev 1 places on all sides 7. West wall is falling off foundation. Ground Sloj-"^ t Foundation: slopes toward structure. Siding: weathei «d deteriorating - OBC 1707 (a). Soffit i Fascia: rotten - UBC 17C7 (a). Roofing: deteriorating - leaks - OBC 3202 (a). Chimney: mortar joints bad - falling apart - OBC 3704 (a). - OBC 2906 6 8. Flashing k Vent Jacs: bad - deteriorating in valleys - OBC 1707(b).50. Roof Ventilation: inadequate ventilation at top only - UBC 3205<c).Building is in a state of deterioration and dilapidation, thus It is a safety and health hazard pursuant to Minnesota State Building Coda/Unifom Building Code, Section 203.Orders to remove or repair ^he structure were issued by the Building Official on January 21, 1968. These orders have not been cosiplied with. IRB, BB IT RBSOLVBD as follows: 1. The City Council of the City of Orono, pursuant to the foregoing findings and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sectio. i 463.15 to 463.261 hereby orders the owner(s) of the property to make the following repairs in order to correct the hazardous condition: BXTBRIOR a) Footings t Foundation: remove existing and replace. b) Slope grade away from structure. c) Siding: remove all rotten od siding and replace and paint. d) Soffits: remove and replace. e) Roofing: remove and replace. f) Chimney: remove and replace. g) Flashing: re ■ /e and replace, h} Ventilation: provide. Page 2 of 3 Page 1 of 3 a)Footings 6 Foundation: remove ^ b)Slops grade away from structure c) Siding; paint. remove all rotten d)Soffits:remove and replace. a)Roofing:remove and replace. f)Chimney:remove and replace. g>Plashing:re >' /e and replace. h)Ventilation: provide. A RESOLDTIOR PINDIRG A HAZARDOUS BUILDING AND REQUIRING THE SECURING AND REPAIR OP STRUCTURES AT 3875 SHORELINE DRIVE, OROHO THIS RESOLUTION HEREBY SUPERSEDES RESOLUTION #2360WHEREAS, the City of Orono Is a municipal corporation organized anu existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; andWHEREAS, Louis R. Oberhauser, 2425 Dunwoody Avenue, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 is the fee owner of record of property located at 3875 Shoreline Drive, Orono Minnesota, and legally described as follows:Property Identification Number: 20-117-23 22 0006Commencing at a point in the North line of Lot 1 distance 163 feet West from the Northeast corner of Lot 2 thence West along North line of Lot 1 distance 73.01 feet thence Southwesterly at an angle to the left of 63 degrees 14 minutes a distance of 123.02 feet to lake shore thence Southeasterly along lake shore 37.77 feet thence Northeasterly 161 feet to beginning. Lots 1 and 2 Block 8, Townsite of Langdon Park, Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono, having duly considered the matter pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 to 463.261, hereby finds that the above described property is uninhabitable and contains unsanitary and hazardous conditions which constitute a public nuisance and which makes this property hazardous to the public health, safety and welfare based on the following findings: INTERIOR No access to interior. 2. Foundation; 2907. EXTERIOR cracked in several places on all sides - UBC 2906 & 3. Ground Slope at Foundation: slopes toward structure. 4. Siding: weathered - UBC 1707 (a). 5. Soffit & Fascia: rotten - UBC 1707 (a). nni-Design (gable): roof rafters have dropoed 4" around chimneyuiJL, 2517 (n) • 7. Roofing; deteriorating - leaks - UBC 3202 (a). 8. Chimney: mortar joints bad - falling apart - UBC 3704 (a). Page 1 of 3 A RBSOLOTIOP FIHDIW; A BAZARDOOSABD RBQUIRIIIG THl SBC0FIH6 ABD BBPACT OF STROCTORBS AT 3875 SHORBLIBB DRIVB, OKBW THIS RBSOLOTIOB HBRBBT SOPBRSBDBS RBSOLOTIOB *2360jbA8» the City of Orono ia a nunlcipal corporation organised nder the laws of the State of Minnesota; andtBASf Louis R. Oberhauser, 2425 Dunwoody Avenue* Waysata* 91 is the fee owner of record of property located at 3875 e* Orono Minnesota, and legally described as follows:Identification Number: 20-117-23 22 0006 -ig at a point in the North line of Lot 1 distance 163 feet I the Northeast corner of Lot 2 thence Nest along North line listance 73.01 feet thence Southwesterly at an angle to the 13 d0Qr€0s 14 ninulitts a distanca o£ 123#02 faali to laka shoro ui^heasterly along lake shore 37.77 feet thence Bortheasterly to beginning. Lots 1 and 2 Block 8, Townsite of Langdon Park, nnepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property ); and IBAS, the City Council of the City of Orono, having duly e matter pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 to >y finds that the above described property is uninhabitable nsanitary and hazardous conditions which constitute a public which makes this property hazardous to the public health, fare based on the following findings: IBTBRIOR cess to interior. BZTBRIOR itlon: cracked in several places on all sides - UBC 2906 * i Slope at Foundation; slopes toward structure, j: weathered - UBC 1707 (a), b 6 Fascia: rotten - UBC 1707 (a). design (gable): roof rafters have dropped 4" around chimney h). «g: deteriorating - leaks - UBC 3202 (a). sy: mortar joints bad - falling apart - OBC 3704 (a). Page 1 of 3 i 9. Flashing & Vent Jacs: bad - deteriorating in valleys - UBC 1707(b) .10. Roof Ventilation: inadequate ventilation at top only - UBC 3205(c) .Building is in a state of deterioration and dilapidation, thus it is a safety and health hazard pursuant to Minnesota State Building Code/Uniform Building Code, Section 203.Orders to remove or repair the structure were issued by the Building Official on January 21, 1988. These orders have not been complied with. HON, TBBRBFORB, BB IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. The City Council of the City of Orono, pursuant to the foregoing findings and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 to 46..261 hereby orders the owner(s) of the pr~"»erty to make the following repairs in order to correct the hazardo cr .lition: EXTERIOR a) Slope grade away from structure. b) Siding: remove all rotten wood siding and replace and paint. Soffits Roofing: Chimney: remove and replace. remove and rep’’ace. Remove rafters and replace remove and replace. Flashing: remove and replace. Ventilation: provide. Page 2 of 3 orating in valleys - UBC 1707lation at top only -* UBC 3205tion and dilapidation » thus it o Minnesota State Buildingtructure were issued by the orders have not been compliedHows: lo, pursuant to the foregoing a Statutes Sections 463.15 to r the pr-*>erty to make the ! hazardc C'' -.dition: 2 If the repairs are not completed, or unless an answer Is filed order.3. If an answer is filed that contests the hazardous building action, the matter shall be tried ai.d decided by the Districtorder is sustained by the Court, the Court shall fi* a time after which the building shall be destroyed or repaired as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 463.20.4. If the Court ’s Judgment is not complied with in the prescribed, the City may make the ordered repairs, J*** hasardous condition or building, or acquireestate on which the building or hasardous condition is located by eminent domain. The necessary costs of such repairs, removal, including but not limits-* to attorney fees, witness fees and filing fees, shall be a lien as at the real estate on which the hasardous condition exists and will be Ui© property asset forth in Minnesota Statutec Section 463.21 and 463.22.5 That the City Council of the City of Orono hereby authorises anddirects the Mayor, City Clerk, City Attorney, and otheremployees of the City to take such action, prepare, sign and servesuch papers as are necessary to comply with this orderthe cost thereof against the real estate described above forcollection along with taxes.Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, this 12th day of March, 1990. APPROVED t ATTEST:James R. Grabek, Mayor rood siding and replace and Dorothy M. Hallln, City Clerk imove rafters and replace.Page 3 of 3 ‘ -■'I I 3290.4 cmoL TO: PROM: OATIi Mayor and City Council Mark E. B<»rnhard8onr City Administrator March 2, 1990 A iim } MAR 121990 ..»r OF oi SOBJICT: Corporata Raport Attachmant: A. 1989 Corporata Raport ISSUE - Prasantation to tha Council of 1989 Corporate Raport for the City. INTRODUCTION - Annually since 1985 a Corporate Report has been prepared tor the City and this represents the 1989 version. ALTERNATIVES • 1. Accept. 2. Make any comments or recommendations. 3. Table for further discussioi. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council accept the TyffT^orporate Report for the City. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _t seconded by _, the Council accept the 1989 Corporate Report for the City. Ayes _r Nays _. cc: All Department Heads A CITY OF ORONO CORPORATE REPORT 1989 Attachments:A. City of Orono Statistical Index B. Personnel Diary - 1989 C. Tax Capacity Comparisons INTRODOCTION - The la'.t year of the 80*s decade will be remeabete'BTas a triumph foe democracy. While the sproutings of democracy in China were quashed on June 4th in Tinaneman Square, autumn brought more than changing colors to the European scene, as political structures that had be«»n in place since the <»nd of World War II were transformed. During a period of four months the forty year domination of the Communist Party in the six eastern block satellites almost entirely crumbled, some peacefully, others not. The emphasis of "perestroika* (or restructuring) as a major goal in Soviet Russia, has been pivotal. These radical changes in events have had a marked effect on the world outlook. It represents the potential for a major shift in this country both in terms of d«£ense and foreign affairs that could significantly change the economy. The United States completed the first year of the Bush Administration with the deficit and the balance of trade still being primary national concerns, as have been the efforts to curtail drugs. The foreign trade deficit however posted its lowest annual total in five years. For the Upper Midwest '89 will be remembered as the second year of significant summer drought with warmer, drier winters in both •88-*89 and *89-'90. For Minnesota, the economy, like that of the national economy, has continued to show growth although it has been less dynamic than in previous years. The economy has been slowing down and this will be reflected in budget receipts for Minnesota during 1990. Taxes twre a major issue for Minnesota with the 1990 budget being the first budget year that cities were under the Truth in Taxation provisions. Introduction of these provisions was exacerbated by the fact that the tax reform package adopted during the regular '89 Session was vetoed by the Governor and a special Legislative session was held in the fall after most cities budgeting cycles had begun. The changes past in the special session resulted in a shift of State Aids away from Cities and towards school districts. Theoretically, there should be no increases because of this shift to property tax payers. The philosophical underpinning of this shift was that it would be appropriate for the State to fund important State programs such as education with local services funded locally. In the latter part of '89 it was estimated by the State that the anticipated slowdown in the State economy would result in $180 to 240 million State revenue deficit during the balance of the biennium with 1M9i:C- T«« C.p.clty cLp^ilVon,[Ow - T|j|» 1 -tX «/nv.dS- ®“V„T„ Hro=v v; ‘ ““'co"i.Snir*‘ncVy nd th« balanc# «# V ^ ®“*hhav* trad# atlli with ‘ po,tiriu xow“«‘*ii„r.fto”g*Hi" Midwast '89 will 5,!?K!' -*t. y„, ®-®‘- - «^Sf« 9*t y**“* that^VuKJ* wi‘^ budget baina r^Vh*"*; Introduction Ttuth'^lJr th# fact that thji ^ th#s^ provlairtn* ^ ,j9 cy%f:."ii;3 r4a“:^%i; i- x.irv4v, *.v.? kh !Jr“ •» *>«a 5!® “ >idi b; ^ ------------‘„vl»o *«*x"vsi?n:2would caaulV ln'si«fl ‘T "n'^cipatad •XXcit aucin, ... ..x„V.‘o"r*J.*f astimatps at th*» b<»ginning of 1990 rangad from $250 million up to $550 million.This will hava a sub'^tantial impact during 1990, which baing an alaction yaar, is ona that traditionally no naw taxes will ba adopted, with the State shifting all of Ocono's Local Government Aids and roost of its homestead credit to the school districts, reductions in those programs will not adversely affect Orono although they could be devastating to a number of other cities in the state.A major focal point of 1959 locally was the contined dropping of lake levels not only of Minnetonka but also other significant water resources including the wetlands. The economy was reflected in a leveling off of bul‘*'^l.ig activity reaching levels identical to those in 1988 but down from 1987. 1989 also reflected the centennial founding of the Orono Township. This was celebrated in events spear->headed by May^r Grabek and CounciImembecs. A book on the centennial years w«s written by Jim Roehl and together with a Centennial Ball beir.} held to commemorate the event. The celebration was not only t success for participants but has been a financial success. not only broke even for its expenses but currently is approximately $2,000 ahead and all future sales of books and medallions will go to the aid of the West Hennepin Pioneer Museum in its ongoing historical preservation efforts. Because of the focus on taxes the City's Board of Review, which has been increasing in attendance over the years, resulted in an ever larger crowd. This is brought about because of raising values and the shift of State Aids away from suburban areas to outstate areas. The substantial discussion in the Legislative session which occurred during the Board of Review piqued many people's interest in the issue of taxes. Significant strategic efforts for the City included work in the following : Highway 12 upgrade - short term and long term Highway 12 utilities development City facilities Navarre redevelopment LMCD c<MHprehensive plans development Recycling initiation Metro waste replacement project 1989 PIUaCIAL RB9IBN This represents at least the tenth year in a row that the City's revenues have exceeded budgeted projections. It is also the fourth year in a row that actual expenditures were less than budgeted although by a very minor amount. In previous years the difference had been a much as 2 to 3% of budget. The overall differential for 1989 between actual revenues and actual * •S250, 1990 ranged E^om S2. ttiP bpgi-nning o• ^ . _ loqo. wntcn “ ij«° «hlchUal i»P»- -1^7 nV’n“.« »*-•r ts^oV-That[‘"cfa^rpr/aVa ’ataan, « a nu. ______;^%ouia b.* devastal«,9 locally "%‘r^rSth«t^E-acttv^'“'.<=%%a\ln9 0«,“US;n-£cc.X»e7. to thoa*’ !•*' nlal ^®'**'^*'*'^v»eaded by Way'''f i,tl«sx«« li'btataa'*" •''*"“/|enU''"‘?Sn*'b«l<« bjoxe *?*" h,»a ana aU t g»nnepl" ?lo “';Ai*90 “° ‘K *itsacv ’iTlo’'n*a«oct.. !|oln9 hlatoclca <^^'-'>''VoV'taUlM isr-^-\a- pi-- :Ss"“-"->— -■■ '■ ”' v.alC eEEO^^® ^ „a long t.c» hoct t*c® * ,h«ay X| “^lUt'ia^ a.»«iot»*"* . in „., tnatth* S-t' •“ “ ,1 toi i»*’ tA expandlturcs (adjust foe axtcaocdinacy tcansfacs and •xpandituces) was $56,000. This is the low«st diffacantial in over 10 yaacs. This is in pact dua to tha lavaling off of building activitias togathac with moca aceucata budgat astiaatas and transfacs of funds and tha attandant loss of invastaant incoaa to tha Ganacal Fund.As foe tax capacity eatas which ac# tha cuecant taea usad foe tha tax cata, tha City of Ocono is substantially balow thosa of suecounding coaaunitias and is tha lowast ona in tha County of citias ovae 600 population. This tax capacity eata is half that of ona coaaunity that Oeono sueeounds whosa taxas aea lit highae on an aguivalant valuad pcopacty.Additional financial good naws dueing 1969 for tha City includadtA. Bond Rating ** With tha issuanca of watae and sawae bonds foe Rignway 12 tha City cacaivad a AAl rating.which placas it as ona of lass than 10 citias in tha state that hava that eating. B. Govanaant F<naca Officars Association - Tha city cacaivad tha Govaenaant Financa Officacs Association Caetificata of Achiavaaant foe Excellanca in Financial Raporting foe both its 1987 and 1988 Coapeahansiva Annual Financial Rapoets during 1989. Foe budgeting in 1990 as indicated Teuth in Taxation and tha special session resulted in a greatly extended budgeting pcocass that started in June to coaply with tha original truth in taxation dates and extended into Dacaabac because of tha changing rules and astiaatas with which tha City had to deal. Despite tha frustration attandant to it, tha City's coaaunications on tha aattac resulted in only ona parson attending tha first Truth in Taxation hearing. This parson indicated that it was aora out of curiosity than any concern about City taxas. OQMMDVITT DBVBLO Davalopaant activity in tha construction area was aquivalant to that of 1988; 53 new hoaas ware constructed and subdivisions resulted in approxiaataly 46 new lots. Additional activities included; Coaaancaaant of upgraded utilities along Highway 12 Extensive review of intial drafts of the LMCD's Coapeahnasiva Plan Coaplation of area inventory and initial aaatings on land use patterns in tha Navarra area Adoption of xoning changes for: Highway 12 ccaaarcial xona - B-6 <*£■; J ! : Planned Unit Developaent Aceeaaocy structucea Bolding of 2 joint ■••ting between Council and Planning Comisaion to diacuaa vacioua aubjecta Meeting with ceaidenta twice on the Stubba Bay sewer project Upgrading procedurea in: Basacdooa buildinga Violation procedurea In addition the Building and Zoning staff worked to upgrade its coordination to insure better quality developnents in the City. PUBLIC BBFBTr Work begun in 1BB7 and *88 in the substance abuse area continued in 1989. The City having trained an officer in the two week DARE prograa for use in the Orono High School» was able to develop a pilot prograa for the schools which comenced in the fore part of 1990. The Officers arrested 215 persons during the year for driving while intosicated and issued 211 tickets to ainors for conauBiption* of which approsinately 110 «rere parties at houses. During the year there were 371 car accidents of which one resulted in two fatalities. The City continues its truck inspection prograa having reaoved 23 trucks froa the road and issued 39 citations. The departaent in addition to doing work in the DARE and OfficerpiFriendly area instituted a rotating followup investigator using existing staff. In addition, the appointaent of supervisor together with holding a selection process for officer. second third The Aniaal Control prograa which had begun in 1988 continued with that individual engaged in contract work which resulted in 73 iapoundaents and 190 aniaal control tickets being issued. The Reserve prograa continued to flourish with the average nuaber of Reserve Officers increasing froa IS to 20. In addition to doing work at special events such as Corn Days and Orono Bigh School football gaaes they worked to do traffic control and have also assisted Police Officers during surveillance work. The Police departaent also worked closely with Lord Fletcher's to develop solutions for containing probleas resulting froa Lord Fletchers becoaing the only place for alcoholic beverages on Lake Minnetonka frequented by young adults. PUBLIC NO] 1989 was a year of iaportant planning along Highway 12 with plans being presented for a safety iaproveaent. The only apparent holdup in that prograa going ahead in *92**93 relates to the • • i iaplmntation o‘ stop light on willow. If th« project goea abeadf the Minne^' -t;a Oepactaent of Transportation will also assist in funding the city's intended frontage roads that say in that area. The long tern planning for Highway 12 was greatly aided by the announceaent by Minnesota Departaent of Transportation Conaissioner Leonard Levine that the long awaited corridor selection study, of which Orono and a nunber of coaaunities had been working, would be initiated by MnOOT at their expense during 1990. ' Additional itens in the Public Works area includedt Continued water conservation froa all sources throuch the City's sprinkling ban. Success during the city's first year of recycling in which over 18% of the tonnage was diverted, well in excess of the 101 required by the County. Assist the funding of the by LMCD.area allfoil harvesting done Park Coaaission presented a proposal on Park dedication fees. Consideration again of County Road 116. The city again expressed its opposition but felt that if it was going to be constructed to the Medina/Orono border that it should go as far as Highway 12. Public Works additionally nodified their organisational structure, isplesenting a revised structure which elininated having a separate utilities foreaan and street foreaan to having a Supervisor and Assistant Supervisor over the total function and to gain the flexibility of using people in both areas to aaxiaise the flexibility of the departaent. In addition current personnel could cross train in the other division and new eaployees being required to becoae skilled in bothareas A0MZMX8TSATI0H T^hnological iaproveaents headed the list in Adainistration with the introduction of a facsiaile aachine, upgrading the aailing aaehine, enhancing the aicro coaputer skills of people in the departa#nt and takin9 proposals for a new t#l#phone ayatoa# Additionally helpful suggestions included an agenda podiua at the entrance of the Council Chaaters for people to sign in and hold agendas for the aeetings. Additionally the City's ongoing aicro fila project was enhanced by the outside storage in fire proof containers of its aicro fila. I r: %7.’ ' -♦ COHCLOSIOH 1989 provided a lot of additional planning and development work for enabling the implementation during 1990. Given the successful workings of local city governments« such as Orono* where the City Council is in close touch with the citisens of the community# one can well understand those in Eastern Europe wanting to have a voice in their society and their destiny. r' IMO 1441 1449 1441 1444 1443 1004 1447 1000 1000 1/1/00 1000 9000f1fMootof 47SO 4J40 1 9100-9700MoonaroO 19^0 imoo 1090total (19/111 oiie 4409 4447 7091 719s 7940 7310 7370 7440 7910 1 7000 0900-7700 -9900Mtfo cooaeil Mio 4090 7010 7179 7919 7904 7170 1 7000 700014/1 1 *9m, mt Miiorof 1490 1904 1900 1941 oat 10909mmmm9mt9mMooooroO 001 1010 1049 1079 1 total (It/ll 1 1111 9341 2171 9411 9474 2994 2970 lOlt 9400 9714 9779 1990 liotro Cooaall total4/l 1471 9474 9714 9014 i 9700 9900 OreoploO 9901 9144 9449 2940 9940 9494 H77 ki^l«fw«it/ ii»tr« OMnell 470 900 1 000 000 (4/n 1 *0. of 9mm rriaovT OlOfO lO 11 11 49 94 94 44 40 91 90 (91)1 49 90/y» MO COOtt 9m, 90 10 10 49 99 94 44 40 i:40 (91)44 40 MolOoottoi • Mloo n.9M 1.400 4.114 O.on I0.M4 11.0 4.1 11.1 11.4 0.4 411.0)1 0.0 O.t/jrr (NlUioaa)1iM. 0 1 1 0 1 9 0 1 1 1 fOI 1 1 1/T» mioa 0.91 0.19 >0.09 0.174 0 0.7 .1 0.1 101 0.1 0.9 (Ntllloiio)1 9mm9ml/9m, m 174 110 919 940 170 110 910 214 900 (9401 1 940 100 /yr MilUoM 9 talao 1.4M 9.974 1.47 1.7 4.197 1.0 9.1 7.0 4.0 9.0 14.1)1 9.4 1 INlUloaol MootlMOt/ToM MfMlo Ilf MUt la lf«3 l« Ita «o It09 valaal 1 Hartot taloo-Octoal 979,94 !M4.47 141.9 197.4 3 lOi.n iM9.70 409.71 411.0 470 997 (■lltloaot-iaUaata 414.71 440 1 911 •00.00 70.0 74.7 to.i 99.9 109.1 ]100.99 101.4 107.9 OvltaMO ta taa Capaeitf iO/payal tUlioaal-ittlaato 119 110.7 190 Ma eapaoltf • Mtoal 12.00 14.14 1 19.0 (01 •atiaata <“1 19.99 10.9 •apoaiitatoo 1 ■atpitit I , I.IOl 1.449 1.911 t.411 1.790 1.499 9.947 9.199 9.401 9.791 9*91 » OMafo 17 14.4 1.7 9.1 f.l f.l 17.4 9.4 4 lO.KDl 1 9.99 Cwolatloo 4 total 9.07 1.19 9.99 9.40 1 9.01 Mtaal i 1.949 11.m 1.404 I.4J9 1.704 1.701 9.11 9.944 9.311 9.*.1 CwlaUoa 99.9 4 total 19.4 0.9 14 9.4 <0.1 14.9 9.04 9.4 9.1 9.0 9.94 17.9 9.04 1 1989 PERSONNEL DIAR7 Achlgvwnt Awards - Dorothy Hallin - Certification by th# International Clerk's Institute. Governnent Finance Officers award receipt of awards for both the 1987 and *88 awards. Less than 5% of the municipalities in the state have received this cecognition* Position Strength Changes - The only significant change was conversion of the Recorder position from a part time to a full time position. Hew Employees - Bruce Vang - Building Inspector Sally Christenson - Part time Police clerical Employee Departure - James Morrow - Part time Police Officer Thomas Jacobs ~ Senior Building Inspector Charles Schauss - Patrol Officer Scott Ryper - Part time Patrol Officer Promotions - Jack Brinkhaus - Public Works Supervisor Wayne Quast - Assistant Public Works Supervisor Hark Moran • Lieutenant Police Department 1990 Marc Pritzler Lieutenant In addition the City completed its contract with Rolf Erickson, who had been the Assessor since 1984 and engaged a new Assessor on a contract basis with Paul Smith. 112989.3 COHPARATIVB TAX SAT8S FOR SURROUIIDIIIG NDHICIPALITISS 1989 h I 1989 Comparison to Orono City Rate Est Total Tax Bill Difference Similar Value properties Due to Cities Levy Estimated Maximum Increase 1990 (Pioneer 11/27/89) Orono 9.628 --18.5% Mound 14.226 + 47.7%4%19.3% Minnetonka Beach 12.659 (est)31.5%3.2% Spring Park 19.227 * 99%10.3% Waysata 15.826 ••• 64.4%6.6%15.3% Long Lake 20.415 >111.9%11.61 37% Medina 16.837 > 74.8%7.7%19% Plymouth 13.071 > 35.7%3.6% Minnetonka 14.672 > 52.4%5.4% Excelsior 16.816 > 74.6%7.7% Shorewood 16.SQ9 > 71.5%7.4% Minnetrista 14.831 > 54%5.6%25.56% I « *'22090.4 TO; FROM: DATE; Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato February 28, 1990 SUBJECT: Police Vehicle Acquisition Attachment: A. Police Vehicle Replacement Plan Undated ISSUE - Determine impact of incorrect information on City's acquisition and assignment of squad cars. INTRODUCTION - During the review of the 1990 Budget at the meeting hel^ on September 27, 1989 the question regarding the replacement of three police vehicles was raised. In response to that question it was indicated that th<» City normally replaces three squad cars a year, but had for the 1988 budget reduced it to two squad replacements in order to reduce costs to the contract cities. At the time a replacement plan was developed. (See Attachment A) As a follow up question to that, it was asked to whom the three squads would be assigned, and if one would be for th® Chief. He Indicated at that meeting that one would not be for him but would be for a Lieutenant. DISCUSSION - In preparation for the acquisition of these squads in December the Chief reviewed the hand written replacement plan which indicated that the two would go for patrol and one would be his vehicle. His current vehicle a 1985 Ford would then be assigned to the Reserves for their use. The reserve vehicle would then be sold along with the two patrol squads being replaced. Since incorrect Information was given to the Council at budget time, as was correctly pointed out, it is appropriate that the issue be brought to Council to decide what difference, if any, this would make in their decision. ALTERNATIVES 1. Choose to accept the information and leave assignment to staff. 2. Direct vehicle assignment. a. Assign one of the new ones to the Chief with his vehicle going to the Reserves. b. Assign one to the Lieutenants with that vehicle either going to the Reserves. 3. Table any action. about 54,200 on it and the Lieutenant ’s has about 75,200. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded *’y .—' Plan'^ofaccept the cecoramendation to continue with the Master Plan o replacement developed In 1987. Ayes —> Nays —. -yex‘5o.qi •?7, vr (Si' sc, n % S'? f/ i-> Sz~ s'? L ?5 ^ /<'2 ' X r's ii/oM. KH >c S'f •: -7 ‘/iTD />3 ^^ro»iO ;</< Ci',,4 f •*'. - _ /•5 ■? XT T'cP p- /Hl I i^i yO/c#j ^ X /<^ •} < 4 “ < /•>*> ^4 /: ■ ^2^Viil'f*!:— m - / 5'^ i}a To^C ^ofhtcQ /f£ /S» trl. r-^ /d./ /5 /6w ■'7 TT /<4 ^ /X; ■t9i- /^fCfCp> (f/^ l(t)( - •■'■>- /i::. •/6 3 •» -i ---- ^— /^i “' ?*- — — /6<^ fi — X /«-? X t&'j 3290.6 TOs Mayor and City Council PROM; Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATE: March 3, 1990 SUBJECT: 1990 Wayzata Contract COUNCIL MEHMS MAR 121990 cmroFORONo Attachment; A. Wayzata Fire Letter Dated 2/22/90 ISSUE - Approval of 1990 Fire Contract with the City of Wayzata. INTRODUCTION - As noted in the letter the City had budgeted ^d,320 for service from Wayzata for 1990. The proposed bill as noted was $5,943. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council approve the contract for 1990 with the City of Wayzata. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , Council approve the fire service contract wTth the City of^ayzata for 1990. Ayes __, Nays . cc; Mel Kilbo, Police Chief 9-i CITY OF WAYZATA 600 RICE STREET. WAYZATA. MINN. 53391 PHONE 473-0234 3r> vx? February 22) 1990 Mr. M. H. Kilbo, Chief Orono Police Department 445 Willow Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear Chief Kilbo: Enclosed are four copies of a proposed extension of the agreement between Wayzata and Orono for the provision of fire service tc a portion of Orono this year. If acceptable, please execute two copies of this Agreement and return them to me for our files. You will note that the annual charge for fire service this year is $5,943. As in the past, this charge is based upon the percentage of calls in Orono for the preceding three-year period. Following is a breakdown of calls from June 1, 1986 to May 31, 1989:Calls in Calls in Total Orono Wavzata Calls June 1, 1986 June 1, 1987 June 1, 1988 May 31, 1987 May 31, 1988 May 31, 1989 9 17 II40 (10.3%) 101 110 125 142 121 US 3a7 (89.7%) 387 Following is a summary of budgeted Fire Department expenses for 1990 and the net amount of such expenses chargeable to Orono: 1990 Operating budget less Fire Relief Association payment $57,700 X 10.3% « $5,943 Also enclosed is a bill for the first half of this year's fire protection service. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, J4dn Smith i^ministrative Assistant Enc. renewal agreement for fire protection THE CITY OF WAYZATA and the CITY OF ORONO do hereby agree to renew and extend for another full year the terms of their previous agreement, dated January 4, 1988, whereby Orono purchased from Wayzata fire protection services. Exhibit B of the previous agreement is revised for execution below. EXHIBIT B THE CITY OF WAYZATA and the CITY OF ORONO do hereby terms indicated in paragraph 2. This Exhibit B shall be executed each year of service extension. In consideration of term, paragraph 2, the parties agree as follows: ^ 1. The terms of said agreement shall expire at one minute after midnight, December 31, 1990 unless further extended prior to that date by mutual agreement. 2. Orono shall pay to Wayzata the sum of $5,943 for fire protection rendered during this period, payment of which may be made on a quarterly basis. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on this _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1990. And Robert b. Gisvpld, Mayor xan orsen, City WManager CITY OF ORONO And Mayor Gity Administrator RENEWAL AGREEMENT fQB FIR£ FPOTECTXQN slfrStmiiSISiS-" Exhibit B of the previous agreement is revised for execution below. EXHIBIT fi THE CITY OF WAYZATA and the CITY „ agree to the terms indicated in paragraph 2. This Exhibit B shall be executed each year of service extension. In consideration of term, paragraph 2, the parties agree as follows: 1.2;«S™ n KiSS further extended prior to that date by mutual agreement. 2.Orono shall pay to Wayzata the sum of $5,943 for fire protection rendered during this period, payment of which may be made on a quarterly basis. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on this _ _ _ _ day of -- - - - --- - -' CITY OF ORONO By Mayor And City Administrator k 22890.2 TOj Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Dorothy Hallin, City Clerk DATE: February 28, 1990 cooni MEnm MAR 12 1990 OF ORONO SUBJECT: Secretary Position - Appointment ISSUE - Selection of person to fill the position of secretary. INTRODUCTION - As you are aware Teri Naab ind I have been interviewing candidates for the position of secretary. After reviewing the applications, interviewing 9 persons and your interviewing 2 persons the position was offered to Theresa Stahl on Monday, February 26, 1990. On Tuesday she responded stating she accepted the position and would be available to start employment, Monday, March 12, 1990. discussion - Theresa has the skills needed to fill this position. She has bee working as secretary to 4 attorneys and 3 real estate agen.s. In this position she has had word processing experience, large quantities of dictation, Lotus 123 and telephone experience. RECOMMENDATION - Because of the skills Theresa possess it is ray recommendation that she start at $9,795 per hour (Level 4, Step I). See attachments. With a position and salary review after six months. TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat Fowarded recommending confirmation of employment. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, to confirm employment of Theresa Stahl as Secretary effective March 12, 1990, at a starting rate of $9,795 per hour (Level 4, Step I) with a position and salary review after six months. Ayes , Nays _, — a«!TJ3M JlOttUOO> »CITY OP ORONO ’na»i Vp'COMPENSATION PLAN .APPENDIX B POINT GROUPINGS GROUPING POINT RANGE MID POINT POSITIONS IN GROUPING 1 44 - 47 45.5 CSO 2 48 - 51 49.5 Laborer Clerical I 3 52 - 55 53.5 Clerical II LEO 4 56 - 59 57.5 HEO Police Secretary Sr. Accounting Clerk Deputy Clerk/Secretary Recorder 5 60 - 64 62 Utility Mechanic Asst. Finance Director 6 65 - 68 66.5 Patrol Of£*^er Golf Course Supervisor (E) 7 69 - 73 71 City Clerk (E) Building Inspector 8 74 - 78 76 9 79 - 83 81 Asst. Zoning Administrator Senior Building Inspector Public Works Foreman (E) 10 84 - 88 86 Lieutenant (E) 11 89 - 100 95 Building/Zoning Admin. (E) Public Works Director (E) 12 101 - 110 105 Police Chief (E) Finance Director (E) 13 111 - 124 117.5 City Administrator (E) (E) - Exempt /' IEVEL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ID 11 12 13 CITY OF ORONO COMPENSATION PLAN expected performance levels 1990 3JEP I $8,195 $8,872 $9,229 $9,795 $1D.458 $11,359 $12,252 $13,189 $14,224 $15,558 $17,813 $20,924 $24,796 STEP n $8,677 $9,182 $9,772 $iD.371 $11,073 $12,028 $12,973 $13,965 $15,060 $16,474 $18,860 $22,155 $26,255 SIBP m $9,159 $9.02 $18,315 $18,947 $IL688 $12,696 $13,694 $14,741 $15,897 $17,389 $19,908 $23,386 $27,713 SIEP IV $9,641 $18,202 $10,858 $11,523 $12,303 $13,364 $14,414 $15,517 $16,734 $18,304 $20,956 $24.a7 $29,172 I magnitude,b.) at annual review time or cO when there is a change position. EXTERNAL ANALYSIS in the person in that i . «y Provision for establishment of a reasonable relationship in the 19P4 legislation did provide for the utilization of external (market) analysis in developing the reasonable compensation relationships. Although internal analysis/equity is required to be the primary element of a compensation plan, external analysis for this plan is utilized anytime there is more than a 5% difference between the market for that class and the class expected performance pay raaximums. If a 5% difference or more exists, the expected performance pav maximum will then be determined by a 55% weight for the intei , .l equity and 45% weight to the external market analysis. MARKET The market for the bulk of the jobs will be the metro area as defined by the Stanton group study, principally communities in the range between 5 and 15,0S0. (This reflects the fact that Orono does provide contract services for other municipalities and the joint efforts serves a population in excess of 11,000). The best data currently available is Stanton Municipal Survey, it is generally available during the summer of each year. This data can then be analyzed to determine the market data for that year and any annual adjustment can be placed to adjust the market for the following year. DETERMINATION OF SALARY Salary maximuras are for expected performance. Each class is determined by mid points of that class. This can be adjusted annually. The plan also provides that individuals who are new in positions or not fully performing in those positions will ot at an amount less than the expected performance maximum. The established steps have a range commencing at 85%, 90%, i^5% and 100%. It is anticipated that a person with no experience will start at 85% and will be annually reviewed and if expected performance has been achieved, be eligible for the next higher level on their anniversary date. 1. Evaluation - All employees will annually, in advance of their anniversary/benefits determination date, receive an evaluation from their supervisor. A. If they are not at the top of the expected performance range and their evaluation reflects that they are performing at an expected range they will advance to the next step.• • • B. If they are at the top of the expectud performance range, they shall not move further in the range. C. If they are performing at less than the expected C . H 3890.2 Intecofficp Memo TO: FROM: Mark Bernhacdson, City Administrator Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police COUNCIL MEETING MAR 12 1990 CITY OF ORONO SUBJECT: Step Raise - Sally Christianson Sally Christianson came to work for our Department on a part-time secretary, working 16 hours a week. Her _ solit between Sunday night, Tuesday and Thursdays. She^ has performed admirably, giving our secretarial work a head start for the week. I request Sally be raised from $6.03 hourly to $6.64 hourly, effective January 1, 1990. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate^ Forwarded recommending approval. The budge^t sufficient funds for this increase. Compensation for part tim^ nositions below 20 hours per week are not part of th - pay p Indore handled separately. This combines both an annual 4% and a step increase. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by , 64approves the increase of the part time police clerciai to $6.64 effective 1/1/90. Ayes _, Nays _. at DATE: January 4, 1989^teri'’j^ynhardson, City Administrator FROM: Mel Kilbo, Chief of Police .|>^r^psion to hire part time secretary • This department, with permission of the Council, placed an ad in the paper for part time help. Ten people responded. Lt. CheswicK, Sue Bobzien and Carol Hansing interviewed the ten applicants as well as conducting a typing test on December 29, 1988, of that group, three were interviewed by myself. Out of the three, Sally Lynn Christianson is forwarded to you as our person to be hirea. Sally lives at 2380 Island Drive in Spring Park, works now for the Carlson Companies as a data entry group leader and has experience in transcribing, word processing and data entry. I would request permission to hire her at a salary of $6-00 with no benefits, with employment to commence on January 10, 1989 or as soon thereafter as possible. 3790.1 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate DATE: March 1, 1990 SUBJECT: Public Works Supervisor II Job Categorization MAR 12 1990 CITY OF Attachment;A. Public Works Supervisor I Promotion Memo Dated 8/23/89 B. Public Works Supervisor Memo Dated 11/21/89 C. Orono Compensation Plan Catagories D. Orono Compensation 1990 Pay Schedule ISSUE - A request for Council approval to reclassify the position of Public Works Supervisor II in the compensation schedule. If approved authorization of a pay rate for that new category. INTRODUCTION - As noted in Attachment A, the Public Works Department has been undergoing re-organization over the last year and a half. Re-categorization of the position of Jack Brinkhaus, Street/Water Foreman, to Public Works Supervisor II is one of the implementing steps for that structure. Previously the appointment of Public Works Supervisory I, Wayne Quast, had been approved. The intent of the structure as you may recall is an effort to free the Public Works Director from some of the day to day operational tasks to be borne by the Public Works Supervisor II and Public Works Supervisor I as his assistant. This would free the Public Works Director to work on long range projects such as road systems considerations, sewer and water projects. Highway 12, and proposed City facilities. In addition to the organizational structure as part of this working to develop all of its personnel in Public Works (or at least a vast majority) especially new hires to be skilled in all Public Works areas (streets, water, sewer, park maintenance) this provides more flexibility to the work force and for the demand periods. INTERNAL ANALYSIS - The Compensation Plan requires that any change between clTssifications be done after an internal analysis of the job as far as tasks, task values, and percentage of time spent on those tasks has been accomplished. This is done through the FOCAS system which the City's Compensation Plan adopted in 1988 is based upon. This has been done in this case and the job a Public Works Supervisor II is rated at 86.5 points which places it in Class 10, up from the Class 9 the compensation class of the Pulbic Works Supervisor I. This represents the broader range of responsibilities entailed in the position. COMPENSATION STEP - Currently Jack Brinkhaus, the P'^'^son wjio^wi 11 be the Public Works Supervisor II is at a pay rate of $17.00 per hour. This is slightly above the $16,734 per hour that has as a top and is a result of the fact that he was slightly above that at the time of the implementation of the Plan. Since it has not been a significant deviation from the pay plan (l.o«) together v(U»i-the anticipation of the re-configured job of Public Supervisor II he has received the annual percentag increaselYn sllary. The proposed rate for the new gob gxven this current step would be as follows: V i I’" Level 10 Step III $17,389 Step IV $18,304 POSITION BUDGET - While the budget reflects the position ifMt\¥n”l|-Fh?-same rate (the position pay in the back of the budget on each position shows the figure at ^ ^ ® ® 4% increase was granted), the dollars between bhe Public Works Supervisor II and Public Works Supervisor I position has more than sufficient dollars to cover the proposed increase. ALTERNATIVE? Issue £* 1. Approve the re-classification. 2. Not approve the re-classification. 3. Table for further discussion. Issue #2 - 1. Approve the increase to Step III. 2. Approve the increase to Step IV. 3. Table for further discussion. recommendation - It is recommended that the position be “Pgraded ^ Levri lO^r the position of Public Works Supervisor II and that the incumbent in the position. Jack Brinkhaus ^ ^ S17 389, retroactive to August 29, 1989, which is t when Mr. Brinkhaus began performing in that position. It is also recom^eAded Shat therl be^^a performance and salary review on the 1 year anniversary, August 25. PROPOSED MOTION^ ^LtTon"ortosi\"io-' of'^^ubTic^^o^ks |S|er°vYsor II to L^vel 10 and additionallyipvel for Mr. Jack Brinckhaus as holder of that job position to $17,389 retroactive to is the date Mr. Brinkhaus began performing in that position. flso moved that there be % performance and salary review on the one year anniversary. Ayes _, Nays —. cc: John Gerhardson, Pubic Works Director Jack Brinkhaus, Public Works Supervisor Thomas Kuehn, Finance Director Personnel File 82389 TO; Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato^ DATE: August 23, 1989 SUBJECT: Public Works Supervisory I Promotion Attachment: A. Public Works Supervisor Level I Position Description ISSUE - 1. implement the conversion o? the former Utility Foreman position to a Public Works Supervisory position. 2. Appointment of an individual to that position. INTRODUCTION “ As outlined in Attachment A the public works department"'has been revising its internal structure which allows for cross training and more versitility among addition when new members are hired they are expected in boJh the street and utilities areas and are required to obtain the necessary water and sewer licenses as part of their job. part of this undertaking the two street L^^i^:tnt^°emro7eef hav%^ ^/e^n^^fVered^%h^e ^opVo^tu^r^l^y^^ be trfined in the utility area. Mr. James Gregory has been trained in that Lea, in part as a result of previous assignments in the Utility department. Mr Brinkhaus, who came from a street department background has ov4r th2 last'couple years gone through the order to obtain his license requirements in both water and also. DISCUSSION - Suoervisor I Position - The position proposed replaces the former Jack BriLhaus which will allow the s^P^vision work groups when the need arises togethe P leadership in the absence of Mr. Brinkhaus. promotion - As noted in Attachment A recommended that Mr^ and this will allow him to fully function in both areas. Mr. Gregory will be in this position for a probationary period of 1 year as set forth in the personnel plan and also during that time will be reviewed on a quarterly basis regarding his supervisory development together with having a supervisory development plan formulated by the Public Works Director. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt a change in position. 2. Choose not to adopt a change in position. 3. Appoint an individual to that position. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the position of Utility Foreman be substituted by the position of Public Works Supervisor Level I and that Mr. James Gregory be appointed to that position. This appointment will become effective as of August 29, 1989 at $14,174 per hour which is Step 3 of Level 8. The position will be eligible for a compensation review as of 1 March 1990. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that the Council authorize the alteration of the position as far as Public Works Supervisor and that Mr. James Gregory be appointed to that position. This appointment will become effective as of August 29, 1989 at $14,174 per hour which is Step 3 of Level 8 with eligibility for a compensation review as of 1 March 1990. Ayes _, Nays _. cc:John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Tom Kuehn, Finance Director ON OMoao dO 1 iioNnoo Aiio3Hido NOiimosad Alio OMOHO JO /CJIO 1 82289.2 TO: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator PROM: John R. Gernhardson, Public Works Director DATE: August 22, 1989 SUBJECT: Public Works Supervisor Level I Appointment A: Preliminary Position Description (including compensation) Through a series of events the Public Works Streets and Utility department has not been at full strength for the last two years. In July of 1987 Bill Carlson, Utility Foreman retired, Smith, Utility Mechanic resigned and Laborer Frank away from heart disease. During this ^ ooportunity to review the structure of the Public Works department for streets and utilities. After several months of review it was determined that it would be more efficient to combine the duties of streets and utilities giving more flexibility for scheduling, standby etc We have put this policy to practice with the most recent hiring of Bay RathbL and Randy O'Brien and have ®®®"^hhe benefits of the combination of duties. However we have not filled the vacancy created by Bill Carlson's retirement. The position of Public Works Supervisor ,^®''®\J the Public Works d*^partment and I received letters of interest from three employees within the department as follows: Steven C. Hansen began employment with the ^“hlic Works deoartment as a light equipment operator on November 14, 1977. Mr!^ Hansons's employment has been with the street department solely with the exception of some minor assistance wiwhin the past two years in the utility department. Wayne Quast began employment with Public Works department on March 16, 1981, as a wit? ?hehas been working solely in the utility department with the exception of assisting with some plowing on an as needed b^sis for the last two years. He has also had experience in street maintainance during his employment with the City of Minnetonka prior to being employed by the City of Orono. James Gregory began employment with the City of . . _ _ ae a utility mechanic. Mr. Gregory transferred to the street department after two years in the utility department and has been the heavy co^^ecUon"sVsteL"Vplratl^^^^^^ and "malJ:t:nVnce and water plant and distribution system operator and maintenance. After review of the letters of interest and interviews with all the applicants it is my recommendation that Mr. James Gregory . best qualified for the position of Public Works Supervisor Level I. Position: POBtlC WORKS SUPERVISOR - LEVEL T Responsible to Public Works Director: Qualifications: Summary: Duties: Salary Range: Must have a minimum of five years experience in all phases of public works which includes: street maintenance (bituminous and gravel), park maintenance (turf, park playground equipment), utilities (sanitary sewer collector system). Class D - water plant operation and distribution system. Must have or be able to obtain Class SD License in Sanitary Sewer Collections System, maintenance. Equipment maintenance background and knowledge and mild steel welding (gas and arc) . To provide on the job supervision, scheduling and coordinating daily activities for the maintenance of streets, parks, government building and utilities. Perform daily inspections of streets, parks, government buildings and utilities. Schedule daily work for eight persons in the Public Works Department. Notify Public Works Director cn the activities of the department (personnel and equipment). Inventory control of all public works supplies, responsible for daily record kaeoing, employee time sheets, water treatment plant records - daily and monthly. Must be knowledgeable in safety regulations, worker's right to know, etc., basic utility plan and as-built knowledge, basic writing skills, reports, documents, memos, etc. Must participate in alternating emergency call-out schedule for utilities, streets, in preparing annual budgets for utilities, parks, streets, government buildings. $29,480 - $31,030“ ON niONnOO All0 3HldO NOI±mOS3U ONIOHO JO ONoaa dO Alia To; Mark E. Bernhardsonr City Administrator Prcm; John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date: November 21, 1989 Subject: Supervisory Position Resignation by James Gregory On August 29, 1989 Heavy Equipment Operator James Gregory was appointed to Public Works Supervisor Level I. on November 3, 1989 James submitted a written return to his previous position of Heavy Equipment Operator. The reason for wanting to return to his previous position felt much more comfortable operating equipment. I have discussed the matter with Mr. Wayne Quast, the second choice for the position, and he is ready to accept the position. Recommendation - To accept the resignation of the position from James Gregory effecti-^e November 1989 and to adiust his salary to $13.76 per hour affective November 28, 1989 and to appoint Mr. Wayne Quast as Public Works Supervisor J effectivi November 28, 1989 and to adjust his salary to $14,174 effective November 28, 1989. Proposed Motion - Moved by seconded by ___, to accept the rnnnatioror the auperOil^S^y position fr-55T James Gregory Ilfel?ive November 28, 1989 and to allow him to return to his previous position as Heavy Equipment Operator and to salary to^$13.76 effective November 28, 1989. xt is al^o moved to appoint Wayne Quast as Public Works Supervisor Level I effective November 28, 1989 and to adjust his salary to $14,174 effective November 28, 1989. Ayes -----, nays -----. To: Mayor Grafaek & Orono Council Members From: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. r ■ .L **21188.{ 4 GROUPING POINT RANGE CITY OF ORONO COMPENSATION PLAN APPENDIX B POINT GROUPINGS mid' point positions in grouping 1 44 - 47 45.5 cso 2 48 - 51 49.5 Laborer Clerical I 3 52 - 55 53.5 Clerical II LEO «5';- 59 57.5 HEO Police Secretary Sr. Accounting Clerk Deputy Clerx/Secretary Recorder 5 60 - 64 62 Utility Mechanic Asst. Finance Director 6 65 - 68 66.5 Patrol Officer Golf Course Supervisor (E) 7 69 - 73 71 City Clerk (E) Building Inspector 8 74 - 78 76 9 79 - 83 81 Asst. Zoning Administrator Senior Building Inspector Public Works Foreman (E) 10 84 - 88 86 Lieutenant (E) 11 89 - 100 95 Building/Zoning Admin. (E) Public Works Director (E) 12 101 - 110 105 Police Chief (E) Finance Director (E) 13 111 - 124 117.5 City Administrator (E) I \ (E) - Exempt CITY OF ORONO COMPENSATION PLAN EXPECTED PERFORMANCE LEVELS 1990 lEJEL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IJO 11 12 D SUP SlEP SEP SEP I $8,195 $8,672 $9,229 $9,795 $1D.458 $11,359 $12,252 $13,189 $14,224 $15,558 $1/.813 $20,924 $24,796 n $8,677 $9,182 $9,772 $10,371 $U.073 $12,028 $12,973 $D.965 $15,060 $16,474 $18,860 $22,155 $26,255 m $9,199 $9.©2 $10,315 $10,947 $n.688 $12,696 $D.694 $14,741 $15,897 $17,389 $19,908 $23,386 $27,713 17 $9,641 $10,202 $10,858 $11,523 $12,303 $13,364 $14,414 $15,517 $16,734 $18,304 $20,956 $24. a7 $29,172 Clerical I (L2/SII) Police Secy (L4/SI) 12689.3 CITY OP ORONO COMPENSATION PLAN EXPECTED PERFORMANCE LEVELS PART TIME REGtJLAR POSITIONS 1990 LEVEL STEP STEP STEP STEP 7.803 8.262 8.721 9.182 8.330 8.820 9.310 9.795 r•• *.» 3890.5 TO; Mayoc and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistrat DATE; March 9, 1990 SUBJECT; Council/Planning Commission - Architect Plan ^9 mar 12 1990 ^^OFORottQ Attachment; A, Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting Dated 2/14/90 B. Joint Council/Plannjng Commission Meeting Dated 2/5/90 ISSUE #1. Setting a meeting to review size and other related cost issues with the architect. #2. Setting a meeting to review other issues. INTRODUCTION - The only possibility for all 5 Council members plus myself to be available for a meeting with the architect before Apcl] 1 would be Thursday, March 15, 1990. A number of Planning Commission members are gone during the later pa:t of March. Alternatives for this could be: Monday, April 2 Wednesday, April 4 Saturday, Aril 7 This meeting could include discussion of issues the Cc .icil specifically desire to discuss with the Planning Commission. It is requested that a date be selected. ALTERNATIVES 1. Select a date for discussion with the architect. 2. Select a date to discuss other issues. 3. Select a combination date. 4. Table to March 26th. 21490.2 /? Mayor and City Council FfiON: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato V34bruary 14*, 1990 SUBJECT: Joint Planning Commission/Council Meeting After reviewing the calendars with the Plan'ing Commission it is recommended that the joint meeting be scheduled for: 8:30 A.M., Saturday, March 10th City Council Chambers Rolls, juice and coffee will be ble for those interested. While some of the Planning Commission members are on vacation at that time, it would be into April before more would be able to attend. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by , tl the Council establish 8:30 a.m. Saturday, March 10, 1990 as th» date for the joint Council/Planning Commission meeting. Ayes _, Nays _. 2590.1 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistratoi DATE: February 5, 1990 SUBJECT: Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting ‘^^12-,350 '7 •Off) ISSUE - 1. Decide when Council would like to meet with Planning Commission to discuss public/private roads. 2. Decide what other issues Council would like to have discussed at that meeting. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's January 22, 1990 Council meeting it was indicated during a discussion during the Mayor and Council Report that Council would like to discuss the issue of public and private roads with the Plaryiing Commission. In addition to taking the opportunity to discuss public and private roads it -^ay be appropriate to include any of the following subjects: - Sewer and LMCD's Comprehensive Plan City of Orono Comprehensive Plan Updates Transportation Marina Controls City Facilities Design A date that may be open for many people would be Monday, March 5th. Alternate March cates would be: Tuesday the 6th Thursday the 8th Thursday the 15th Friday the I6th Wednesday the 21st Thursday the 22nd ALTERNATIVES - 1. Set March 5, 1990 as the date. 2. Select an alternate date. 3. Table. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council set 6:00 Monday, March 5, 1990 as the joint Planning Commission meeting to tentatively discuss; Public and Private Roads LMCD Comp Plan Direction Comprehensive Plan Updates Marinas City Facility Design PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by __, that the Council eftablish Monday, March^fT 1990 at 6:00 P.M. (box lunches included) to hold a joint Council/Planning Commission meeting. Ayes __, Nays __. TO: FROM: DATE: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director March 1, 1990 MIWIl HtCIlKf li) MAR 12 1990 ^OFOROHO SUBJECT: Bid Award Street Sweeper Public Works Department On Friday, March 2nd the City of Orono received and opened bids for one new street sweeper. Currently the City contracts out for this service and expends approximately S6,200. per year. The costs increase each year due to increased needs and cost increases. The sweepinq of City streets occurs in the spring and before and after seal coating City streets. A fall sweeping program would also be developed. An hourly rate would be developed to allow adjacent communities to rent this equipment. RECOMMENDATIOH to award the bid to MacQueen equipment Company of St. Paul for one new street sweeper for an amount not to exceed $6f,956.00 SacQueen” EquIpmrnrcS;i.panrof "stT?auTfor'one new street sweeper for an amount not to exceed $66,956.00. Moved,Seconded, to award the bid to Mayor & Council Mark E. P' nhardson. City Administrator TO: FROM: than co^J^rattin^when^ptr^^^ fl^'^lwetping bv others. Tie life span of this equipment is about 10-15 years so ?hat”he capital cost over 10 years is $6,695/year, assuring no residual value. ($4,460 for 15 years) The City would make it available to surrounding communities on either a rental contract for service basis when not needed by Orono. 3790.2 COUNaLME MAR 12 1990 OTYOFOMIIOTO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate DATE: March 1, 1990 SUBJECT: Administrator's Information HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STATUS - The first meeting of the Policy and Tecl^iv^a.l. Committees was to be held at 3:30 on Thursday, March 8, 1990 at the Orono Schools. It will be rescheduled for possibly the week of March 12th. This an introductory session and is the reason why they are being held together to outline the process for the study and the roles of each of the Committees. LOGO - The official entry blanks have been sent to the Art classes of both the Orono and Westonka schools together with the Art Center. The announcement for the general public was part of the Mayor's Article which had been hoped to have been in the paper this week but is expected to be in the paper the following week. WESTONKA POOL - As you will note in the attached letter the schoo1 distrlet has placed the request for financial assistance for the pool on hold while they formulate a longtecm strategy as how to best deal with the property. 1972 SHADYWOOD ROAD - Despite expectations for initial filing, a more cautious time schedule is currently being followed. Once a more definate filing date is anticipated it will be communicated to Council. ADMINISTRATOR'S VACATION - I will be on vacation out of the area from noon on March 22nd through April 1st. Staff has information relative to where I may be contacted. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES - See attachment. JANUARY RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS - See attachment. WIRE TRANSFERS - See attachment. HELP US DESIGN A NEW ORONO LCX30 CITY ORONO Our current LOGO has served us well, but it is now time to retire it. ‘^lease see reverse side for instructions. CITY OF ORONO LOGO ENTRY FORM Name Address City, State Telephone Number Zip Code 1. Please send to: LOGO, City of Orono, Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 55323. 2. All entries must be received by the City before 4:30 P.M., Friday, April 6, 1990. 3. A fi^e member panel of judges will decide the winner from all entries received. Decisions of the judges are final. 4. The City retains the right to modify on original design as it deems appropriate. 5. The City retains all trademark and copyright privileges to any design submitted and the submitter agrees to assign all such rights to the City by executing necessary documents to assign such rights. 6. Designs that are already copyrighted or otherwise protected should not be submitted. 7. The City retains the right to accept or reject all designs. 8. The winner will receive a plaque with the new LOGO on it. .No cash or other consideration will be paid. 9. Contest open to all, you need not be an Orono resident. Entries by persons under 18 must be accompanied by a written consent of a parent or guardian authorizing the entry. iriiif^mu,inntit*it*ii*ii***innnnt**'f>*********************************************** Consent for those under 18 years of age. I hereby authorize _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ is my who name to enter into this contest relationship and agree to be bound by the rules set forth above. signature of parent signature of guardian WESXr lA PUBLIC SCHOOLS PENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277 5600 LYNVvOOD BOULEVARD • MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 To: The City Council of Orone % Mark 3ernhardson. City Manager From; James L. Smith, Superintendent Westonka Public Schools Date. March 2, 199C ?.e : Swim.ming Pool Considerat ion On behalf of the Westor.ka Public Schools. I respectfully request that the City Council suspend consideration of the request for funding to operate the swimming pool for community purposes located at Mound Westonka High School. The request presently being considered by the City Council did not come from the Schccl Board. The School Board's desire is tnu; 11ty representatives and Schccl Officials continue to meet to discuss ways and .means making this swimming facility available to the co.mmunities for recreational uses. We appreciate your willingness to continue these discussions. James L. S.mith, Superintendent Westonka Public Schools •87 aro - 1587 Short Term Ojjectiv* •88 810 - 1988 Short Ihra CI4«ctl«v •89 SR) - 1989 Short Term Objwrtiw •90 9TD - 1990 Short tlraa (8>jectlv*GQRL SKTTiMUcm cr OKKNUK K. B8 WBMBB0Bcm MMimSlMMOR 1 VKX 1989 - 30 APRIL 1990 Draft 5/19/89 Rrvlard 6/30/89 7/31/89 9/05/89 9/29/89 10/31/89 12/04/89 12/27/89 1/31/90 2/28/90OOM. AW5A 1. ocmwm DBVBMPMBff mm #< A. Highway 12 1. otilitira Sever - Part I SM«rr - Part II Hatar Syatra (UBCnVE Install Install Install DATES STATUS Main Hall (6 laonths) Towar (9-12 months) Plans Spacs - Ordar Award Financing ^4agotiatian on Otilltlas (Long lake - Nrdina) 09/01/89 Bi. . Cloea 6/30/89 Projact Ordarad 7/24/89 Negotiating Aanint Tanss/Oavalop Agrant Oonraancad Construction 10/27/89 6 11/13/89 Oosplatad 1/30/90 except for tasting 07/01/90 1/22/90 Paasibility StuJy to Orono Plant Ordarad 09/01/89 Project Ordarad 7/24/89 ODsmancad Construction 10/27/89 4 11/13/89 Ooaplatad 12/15/89 04/01/90 2/1/90 Need available water 9/11/89 Table last Hell tx> 9/25/89 9/25/89 Awarded TWst Wells n/l/99 Oamence Test Drillings 11/6/89 Test drilling found adequate aquifer 11/13/89 Interim production well drilled 1/15/90 Test Results OK Main WeU Bids Close 2/2 2/12 Awarded 16" waU bids Authorised Plans/Specs PvxspAlall Houaa 07/01/90 09/89 2/12 Authorized Plans/Spacs 11/89 8/14/89 Bond Resolution adopted 09/11/89 Bond Sale Awarded/AAl Rating/6.57% 10/04/89 Bond Closing Qaaaancad water discussion 10/25/89 with Madina - Medina to meat with affected residents 1/90 to discuss |:J;' *W"k%Mm GOM. Am CBJBCnVEI. cowjNirr TBjmrmn oontimifd• '9 b.w 2. I43ng Term Q>rriaor UpgradePMSibillty Study CAIES gams•89 STO •90 STO KnOOT initiation or 09/01,'B9 6/30/89-AMBiting Rnponw fron tNiot Central OfCioe on Consultant 07/07/89 Delay«J until at least 11/30/89Qovernor’s Transporaticn Safety Mtg 10/26/89 U/15/89 OOMiiasianer >vine annowces ccnsultant/tlnDOT corridor selection study Undertake corridor selection study with MnDOT consultant S surrounding cities Take appropriate planning steps if needed in potential corridors 02/90 10/90 12/90 aoward Needles selected as consultant 2/1/90 Htg with >MX7r/Consultant/t:ities 2/12/9Q Appt Policy Oosnittee Rep. 2/26/90 Appt Tech Coasattee - Joint Mtg 3/8 •90 STO 3. 1992 Safe^ I^prowenent ■ •88 STO •89 STO B. Navarre Redevelopnent Prelininary plan approval Adopt if appropriate Vtork with MnDOT on right-of-way/frontage roads Encourage stoplight m111<»»A2 Determine project scope/ direction Determine desired direction Determine beautification plan isplementation if nay Ooaplete Master Planning, if appropriate Determine need for Tax Increment District 10/01/89 Info meeting held 7/24/89. Awaiting Long Lake response to »»DOT 10/3/89 Hold meeting with MnDOT - Discussed with Otten 10/11 - Need to Develop Frontage Road Prelim Costs - Develop warrants/^iUow Drive 12/1/89 Mtg with MnDOT - Anticipate project go ahead if traffic signal installed 1/3/90 Received frontage road estimates - 02/90 working with WSI/Van Oale/Otten 1/22/90 Staff directed to work with ^tlDOT 1/90 Mtgs with HSI/Van Dale 2/20/90 Long Lake does initial review of plan 07/90 08/01/89 6/01/89-«eld Joint Hbg 6/26/89 Discussed future direction 9/11/89 Changed to UA8 11/18 Oouncil/PC/Area mtg held tNBI. Tto take to Couicil in 1-2/90 for further consideration 1/22/90 airther discuss master plan process/ cost to 2/12/90 02/90 03/90 07/90 2/12/90 Tajled to 3/12/90 m MBfc GOM. wn1. ooMMm DevBOtgarr cantinufd•B7 3TO C. County Road ISBrautlfieatton Plan OBJECTIVE CA1ES STKRS «gProject aaiplrtian Special ansrsawnta Datarmitw naans to ij^lanant Project OoiBleted 8/28/99 -07/01/8909/01/89 8/28/89 Assesawmt adapted 10/01/89 9/8$^ %v]uest reparding Oiristtnw dMoeatioM to 10/23/89 Oouncil aaeting - Haquastad propoMl froi ataff if iVened ^(praprlabn•87 SID •90 SID D. CoaNunity Tranoportatlon Plwi B. County Road 116 storn Hater Managenent Plan Update capital project 07/89guidelines Bridge banding progran 09/89 PiS>lic/Private atreet - review 02/90 policy Undertake capital budget designated projects Preliminary plan review U/13/89 Ughtlng dropped Cor 10/23/89 »viaed 1990-2000 to OouncU 7/10/89 Mopted Need to aidiait request Cor plans and specifications bo aubait to State - 11A3/89 Cnatcil order plans « specs 7A4/89 nriio Private/Pil>lic/t)rivewnys/toada 8A8/89 Meao Ret City Attorney Private Honda 1/19/90 Draft nano to Council lb joint PC/Council aeeting spA■''Vi Si Monitor ration by County as to Its proposed oonstructlon Review and if appropriate adopt 11/89 a prelininary design Review and if appropriate adopt a final design Ascertain available napping Develop RFP Cor study if appropriate 08/01/89 Set public info nbg for design review at 7A0 ntg IMident review 7/26 Held PvStlic info 9/25 - Titled bo 10/23 10/23/89 Prelininary design approved - Resolution adopted U/13/89 BKH response due by 11/29/89 12/89 Hennepin County renove Crcm Capital Budget for 1990 Ccsqpleted Currently delayed to 1994 w «n GOM. im1. oatuim oemamn continuedG. OoMwnity Developwnt Direction Bid Progr»M H. IMX Onvehenalw Kanagewnt Plan cajBcnv^A. ) Marina ControlInitiate revi«»Oovlete reviewB. ) Hork towarda service andresults oriented *No Surprises* processC. ) Coop Plan Besponse toMetro Council K .-.<m all drafts for issues and direction Present desired changes to UCD DATES STMOS01/9003/90 1/90 - 1990 Lioense Acplicationa sent1/90 Metro Oowcil grants estension 2/15 t 23/90 staff review issues 1/22/90 Oomcil receives funding drafts 2/12/90 Review ty LHC Ripe. 03/90 Anticipate nest draft 4/90 Pf' 2. mmamohL picncncN *90 A. Stubbs Ba/Public infomational Establish policies regarding the project Detemine aasesavnt area interest 11/01/89 U/lS/89 U/30/B9 12/30/89 08A5/89 »vting held 7/27/89 Significant Issues Mno Presented at 9/25 stg Tablfd to 10/23/89 10/23/89 - Tabled issue to nest neeting 11/13/89 - Table to 12/11/89 to set stg for 1/90 or 2/90 12/11/89 Set stg for 1/30/90 1/30/30 Ntg held - Ltr/Petition to be sent 30/45 days 11/89 Qigage an appraiser Ocsisider financing options Consider developeent soratoriim If Awopriate - Initiate project - Prepare Plans ( Specifications 02/90 - Project bid 03/90 - Hold Hearing t if appropriate 04/90 order project - Bonl for project 03/90 - OoMence project 05/90 - Qaiq>lete project 10/90 - Assess project 10/90 r.MR OOM. Al»2. BWIHONiafnL PRJIBCnai omtlnupd*8$ STD B. Solid Mute Man»9i>tnmt•90 STD (BJBCnVERpvirw organlzfd collKtion ifRpview progrMB p^rforjnaiw apbid contract for curbeidaRwiw inomtiWB to iiqprow participationRrvlew recycling efforts Drt^rminr if further solid waatF regulation appropriate Review organited ooUection if appropriate C. Metro Haste Replacement Project Lift Station lOAift Station 43 Replacement Oaqpletion Bid award Public informational meeting Financing Inclement financing - Connection charges Expect 3/31/90 covletion gnrosReview 9/90Bxoee ..h] expectations 18« diversionlb be bid for 1990 Bids due 12/0/8912/11/89 Award to Polka Dot/go bo bi-weekly 2/90 Civen current participation level, staff feels incentives not needed at this tiae.OATS09/8910/8910/8902/9006/9012/90 12/90 10/01/89 Delayed to at least 12/31/89 Expett 1/31/90 ooB(>letion OS/22/89 5/22/89 Sid awarded 06/89 6/22/89 Pre-construction atg. held 07/89 7/18/89 Construction ocienr-'d Connection charges adopted 8/14/89 9^0/89 Const mostly ocapleted pending tVOC work AWa QOM. ASP3. ORauavKnaiAL ixvELcnBirA. 1990 Oouncil Coal Setting CBJECnVEOo^lete SHWTS07/89 8/28/89 Preliminary 1990 Strategic Goalsetting presented 09/89 12/31/89 Adapted*90 STD 1991 Goal Setting B. 1990 Budget Process Assesanent Board of Review Preliminary Budget guidelines Capital projects guidelines review Alternate Dates 08/01 - 08A5 Preliminary mill levy adoption (Truth in Taxation) 09/15 - 10/15 Hearing 10/25/89 Budget adoption Final levy adoption '90 STD •90 STO 1991 Budget C. 1990 Legislative Program Review 1991 Legislative Plan 0. Team Building Staff (Council 05/89 Bd of Review held 5/U/89 t 5/24/89 06/89 Presented Initial GuideUnes 6/12/89 Presented Revised Guidelines 6/26/89 08/89 Initial revised plan 1990-2000 Present 10/23/89 09A5/89 6/30/89 May require action by 8/1/89 7/24/35 Adcg>ted prellmlanry max. levy 8/14/89 Mopted ■Final* preliminary max. 8/28/89 Special Council mtg set 9/27/89 with B^et Hearing delayed pending results of Special Session 10/15/89 Revised Schedule to Oouncil foe 11/13/89 Public liearing <iet for 11/30/89 12/15/89 11/30/89 Levy adopt’d 12/11/89 Budget adopt’d 06/-10/90 12/85 To 1/22/90 Qoun 09/-U/90 12/89 goM.DKIB\m-A. Oaaprasation Biplovc* RroognitionForaulat* City coployw drwlapMtExplore pm-fonunop IncMitiv# prograa ExDlore "Caf^wria BwfltsV IBS S«>ction 125 Plan 01/9006/9010/89 an]<>rtak# LOGO ocMt^st firat/clOW 4/6/901/8/90 Presmtfd oonopptual discussion to OMincil 07/01/89 1/10/90 »oi‘iv«d Hater lals to rsinltiate 02/M protess. 2/9/90 Mst with DCA Stanton/PlM t Cafeteria Dsteriiine Section 89 requirments 10/l ’/89 Anticipate delay in nK]ulr««ents for until after 1/90 9/28/89 Anticipate Oongresaional repeal of requlmaent 11/89 Oatgress repeals B. Bgploynient Affirmative Action Progra adoption 07/01/09 «/89 Ho longer State requirement 6. habkethc CITY OP 0>0IK>SOmiMT OP PBCB1PT9, DISBOKSBimTS AND BALAMCS8 PON THX MONTB OP JANOMY 1990 ■NDING 1/31/90 TOTAL TOTAL CASR BODOBT (C>tiv.bf mVEST BODOBT (C>« OP TRAN8P INVEST BALANCR INVS8T 1989 m SOX.D Di9»tm 1989 BODOBT 20T POBCa 1/31/90 BALANCR (b) 3,934,010 231,993 3,924,010 7.9*777,183 30,300 0 880 147,340_0 -0 83,980 4,138 108,100 3.9*397,813 30,000 3,000 -3,304,993 0 -3,919_382 -839,839_84,939 •1,949,361 79,300 139,004 164,310 28.8*383,797 117,890 3 113,980 .0*474,317 14,000 0 40,380 0.0*148,189 90,780 678 109,400 0.6*183,190 38,390 0 130,860 500,339 188,900 8,333 188,310 4.4*113,718 479,040 30,398 392,090 9.3*811,491 119,800 (a)4,273 103,110 (a) 4.1*I3,083t 3,989,394 37,219 3,793,034 <7,717.039)7,717,039 4,197,790 0 3,989,394 932,734 4,371,090 0 2,793,034 393,881 7,717,039 3,888,470 0 1,331,834 -9 3,943,500 0 949.721 75,338 9,311,911 « OP BDTOST 0 8,249 0 1,604,480 118,500 194,700 0.0* 9.3* 0.0* 149,988 733,490 20.2* 60 115,900 0.1* 3,984 199,000 2.0* 0 0 3,138 13,400 17.3* 198,397 3,934.010 9.4* TOTAL 1990 CASR • INVBBTNIBT TO 1/31/90 17,970,890 NOTB (•) Golf op«r«tin9 fund bodgat do»» not Incloda aaouBta for pnrchaoaa for raaala or aalaa tax collactod/ra»ittod. Tha raealpta bodgot projacta Rroaa profit - not total raealpta. NOTB (b» oanaral fund ravaottaa racordad will not aqoal raealpta collaetad dua to roealvoblaa billed In other aecoontlno parloda and nen-raaaaoa raealpta. NOTB (e) Budqat aaounta Incloda achadolad traasfara, do not Ineloda fund balance uaaa or adt'ltloaa. cm or oaoiioIWBiflllEIIT TRAHSACTIOMS - BLECTMIIIC «IM TSASSrSSS JAMOAinr 1 TO MARCH 2, 1990PftTBTRANSFER FOR FROM TO AMOONT01/11/90 Pucchas* of Fad NATL Motto Bonds 1st Bank Lakas 1st Bank Mpls (S401,641.«7)01/11/90 Procaads fcom Matutad Rapuccl.asa Agcaaaant Nat of Putchasa of Raputchaaa Agcaaaant Hatquatta 1st Bank Lakas 271,825.57 01/12-90 Intatast on Fad Natl Moctgaga Assoc Bonds Bast Stastns 1st Bank Lakas 8.375.00 02/01/90 Pcocaada ftoa Maturad Fad Fata Ccadit Bank Bonds Notwast Bank 1st Bank Lakas 510,4«a.7S 02/01/90 Putchasa of Rapurchasa Agtaaaant 1st Bank Lakas 1st Bank Mpls (599,475.49) 02/00/90 Ptocaads ftoa Raputchaaa Agtaaaant Matutad Nat of Traasuty Bond Sttippad Coupon Putchasad 1st Bank Mpli 1st Bank Lakas 23,185.39 92/13/90 Intatast on Fad Natl Mottgaga Assoc Bonds Ptudantial Bacha (Novlck) 1st Bank Lakas 8,700.00 02/20/90 Ptocaads ftoa Coaaacclal Papat Matutad Nat of Coaaatclal Papat Putchasad Dain Boswotth 1st Bank Lakas 53,973.84 02/22/90 Ptocaads ftoa Coaaarcia] Papat Matutad Notwast Bank 1st Bank Lakas 500,000.00 02/22/90 Putchasa Coaaatclal Papat 1st Bank Lakas DaIn Boswotth (426,629. 1) 02/28/90 Intatast on Fad Hooa Loan Bond Ptudantial Bacha 1st Bank Lakas 11,187.50 02/28/90 Ptocaads ftoa Coramaicial Papat Matutad Nat of Coaaatclal Papat Putchasa Matquatta 1st Bank Lakas 221,817.33 03/02/90 Putchasa Cattlflcata of 1st Bank Lakas Palna Wabbat (95,082.02) JWAR12I990 cmroF LIST OP LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MEETING OP March 12, 1990 Home Occupation License - Dale R. Pfeilsticker 1830 Lakeview Terrace Special Events - The Bank Wayzata Annual half marathon foot race Wayzata to Excelisor May 6, 1990 - 9:00 a.m. to noon Limited'Leghold Trap Permit - Michael & Sally Bo^'anko 2090 Shoreline Drive Traps checked daily by Ted Weidenfeller CITY Qfi QRONO P.C. Brown Rd Crysta'i Bay, MN 55323 Application Date: Date License Approved: Date License Expires: OCCnPATION Li^EHSE NAME: ADDREST: PHONE: rTTY: yr ^ 7^ No. of Employees within operation:--Jcation Provide list of names of employees on back of Type of Business to be Operated; .oyees on - - - -- License nay be revoked if any violation occurs. City staff (5) business days in which to i»^*?tlg*te and -aVe a rec^^ on the second and fourth Monday of each “*'"““*"""“Srwo*^iSpal*code regulations on home occupawons PDRSDAHT TO SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 4 (C) Prohibited Home Occupation Practices. 1.It is unlawful for any business operating as a home occupation to engage in operation without proper licenses. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. OF Di All persons engaged in the business must reside in the ^FL NO commercial signs pe. .itted other than signs permitted).'1® th^.« residential zone. ^'^CUPT-J^ WW No excessive stock in trade may be stored on the premisesSfJ^tyS!) COOl Over the counter retail sales is not allowed. Entrance to the home occupation must be gained from within the Structure. _ The undersigned hereby agrees to the conditions quoted above from the OronoThe undersigned nereoy agrees uo tue —- -- --_ Municipal Code and any additional condi^onjt, the Cit^ may require z'. / yry/yi&y-', _ ^>^Dale:Signature of Applicant;__ FOR CITY USB\PNLYs After review of.,^ppllcation, staff recommends the following:Approval of License Signature of Zoning Official; Signature of Fire Inspector;^Z n Denial of License /fh nal^e: >3 - ^ 9c Date;_ _ _ ___ _ _ _ Date: APPLICATIONPARADES and SPECIAL EVENTS CITY of ORONO, MINNESOTA 55323 19 Application Number Name . fiiZiCK AfT/M LlI/i/TA 77^ . ---- ;^ddress /=yr=:rr ___i5 ‘ST9./L----- Location of Parade or Event A^c/r? /?/*/<///-Ay^o ^ A/^KCt-/</c/^ /^0/^Cf=’ //^ /]/^7^^A^----- ^ /h/r/H:H^i\ '^ame of Persons and/or Organizations Handling the Event _CllAy'^ttZ^, T D/^v H\ .__Tm /tVkX----- f=^/<. / (L fO j^f.A - pF^t a/<S‘I'^£aJ Phone Numbers /^/C< /rtvr/H/__^rd.V^?> . Date of Event Hours of Event__V'^C - J^:cQJ\'cq£/ Reason or Purpose f^r^A/LLt^/ rrrcjJ i^cT‘ /^a C(F <^^r=-7T<.<rCr// ^ firyOfr/.<;iC,C .-------------------------------------------------------------------- Insurance Coverage Amount ___________ Company ____________ i' LiUi ^ (fe [j D'^'^ m- isn w SI*asmii?T-j}m you Copy of Insurance Certificates to be Submitted with this ApplicataitfiWO COOl I am aware of all applicable State and other laws regarding Parades and Special Events and will abide by same. I also agree to hold the City or Orono harmless from all liabilities that may arise directly or indirectly from the Parade or Special Event approved bv the granting of this permit. Pee: $25.00 Fee Paid:u^^ Date: _ _ _ _ 19 Check Cash _ Initials RECOMMENDED: Yes ^ No. Public Safety Director Approved: Yes_ _ _ No Clerk-Admini.^trator Office Use Only: Remarks:_ _ _ _ _ fld The Ban Vtbyzata,EASY PLACE February 9, 1990 Mr. Mark Berhatdson Orono City Manager p. o. Box 66 Crystal Bay^ MN 55323 Dear Mr. Berhardson: our annual half-marathon between wayzata and Excelsior is scheduled for May S, 1990. we again expect approximately 600 runners. As in past years, we will start in wayzata at 9:00 A.M, and use the same route as before. As you recall, this enterf* orono on west Ferndale and crosses County Road 15 someplace between west Ferndale and orono Orchard. The course goes up Orono Orchard, turns at Fox street, takes Fox Street to Old Crystal Bay Road and takes Old Crystal Bay Road to Crystal Bay. It then takes 51 to County Road 19, takes County Road 19 to Northview, goes back through the westerly part of Minnetonka Beach and comes back to County Road 15. It crosses 15 at Old Beach Road, takes Old Beach Road to 19 and takes 19 across the Narrows bridge to Excelsior. Please send me the permit application required by your ordinances. I will complete and return it immediate'y upon receipt. Your help in arranging this event with the Orono Council and the North Shore Police Department is greatly appreciated. I Will look forward to working with Mel Kilbo as race date approaches. Once again, we will be *'tribu’-1 ng race proceeds to area civic organizationt Sincerely, Private Banking officer SAF/ld cc: Mel Kilbo 900 East Wayzata Boulevard • Wayzata. Mmescta 55391 • 612-473^8855 Offices in Plymcuth and Minneijnka/Deephaven DATE; March 1, 1990 TO; Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator FROM: Melvin Kilbo, Chief of Police RE; Beaver trapping permit, Mike Bosanko (90-925) Mike Bosanko, owner of the property at 2090 Shoreline Drive, is requesting a limited leghold trapping permit to have a profess ional trapper remove beavers which have moved onto their shore line and are doing extensive damage to the trees in the area. I am attaching an article from a wildlife magazine called the Monitor, in which the problem of the errant beaver is discussed. The article points out that the DNR's response to the bea\er habit of building dams across any running water is to trap the offending animals. The article goes on to say that there is no where left in the state to relocate beavers and that the Conibear Traps are used as a matter of choice in trapping the beavers under water. It is my feeling that we must allow the trapping to keep the young trees from being damaged on the 0 to 75 shoreline area. It is my feeling that the trapping is the only way to solve the pro blem of the errant beaver. Motfor March 1990 Dn Ike Bil Luck DNR trappers are busy as beavers controlling Minnesotans cutest rodent. • to mow dawn IIm I ■ ■|HEN THE UBIQUrrOUS BEAVER Uh invades the neighborhood, farmers ■ ■ know sleepless nights lie ahead. The impudent Castor canadensis leaves telltale signs of its nocnimal diablerie for those who care to read them. Expertly severed aspen stumps line a river’s edge, while shredded branches litter the ground. And there at the river ’s bottleneck lurks the worst nightmare of all: the foundations of a ramshackle dam poking through the sur face of the water, hinting at more havoc to come. Last year, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) spent $300,0(K) killing offending beavers and destru/ing their dams to save agricultural fields, continued on page 32 2«.MiMalillfitlly.INwclt IMO MUiMURk tomituitd from page 26 bridftt, and logging wacw from flood catamophe. And county and city go*em- mcnts, along with the Minnesota Depart ment of Tranaportation, spent roughly another 1300,000 of taxpayen’ money to contain ihccxploitiof this pidiflc anhnal. Because of their valuable pelts, beavers became one of the driving forces that shaped the settlement of North America. Traders and trappers followed the dwin dling supply of beaver west acsou the continent, nearly exterminating the ani mal. The beaver trade finally collapsed in the mid-19th century, and by the turn of the century, sighting a beaver was still a rare treat. But the years since then have been good for the bearer. In faa, the rodents have thrived and reproduced beyond anyone’s wildest dieams. Today, there are seveiai hundred thousand in the state of Minne sota alone, according to the DNR — enough to fuel a tesutgent S2 million beaver fur-trapping industry. The come back of this animal has been one of con servation’s great triumphs, but not without resultant headaches. The problem is that beavers arc innate engyncets, probably the best in the animal world. The dams they build rival the best of bumanicy's and are often more difficult to destroy. The animals have a mania for stopping running water; if they detea a current,«« mattitr how sii^t, they can’t help but bui<d a dam, even if it means ereaing a 100-foot-long structure across a barren bog. Their engioeering expertise, however, is often at odds with the needs and wants of humans. Every year beaver dams cause thousands of doilan umrth of damage by flooding fields, hardwood fotesa, houses, and Stands of wild rice. They can also hurt irout streams by skr 'the water flow, causing thr water ten to nseabm* the fish's tolerance lev weren't bad enou^, heaven have e\ known to blkt through cornfields in the late summer and fall, leaving dcvastaiioa in their wake -1 tf • harvest the stiff cornstalks for ’Diierial. R’s response to all tliii. Jrvtruc- tion > -o trap the offending animals. In dependent trappen hired by the DNR catch an awrage of 6,< 30 nuisance bcawn 2 9m R 9m •I* JO im «• Hr ■M #1 every year. “NofmaUy. the beavers am I caught undenaater in oonibear tnpa, an instam-kiUing trap operateo a the mousetnp priniapk,''explains Ed oon^ fur-bcaicr with the DNR wild life diniioii. "9k also use Icg-hoid traps. Since they are set underwater, it's all over vcty quM^y—dic animals die in a few giiiuiics. After we lemove the beavers, we blow up their dams with capfostves.” Some snimal prosBCtioii group* have ob- Iccsed to the use of leg-hold traps, main taining that uktng "a few minutes” to die is not quick enough. They are not satis fied with the effidcni of the newly devel oped cofiibcar traps, eitha, arguing that the trap feequendy fails to kill its victim inscandy. feel they should lelocate problem animals, rather than kill them," says Howard Goldman, spokesman for Friends of Animals and their Enviiorunent, an animal rights group. "The DNR says there's nowhere left in the state to lelocaie beavers, but we doo’t think they’ve done thoro^ enough beaver-popuUiioo sur vey to reach that conclusion." Goldman also suggests using drainpipes to maintain water flow throu^ beaver dams. Inserting such pipes—usually wide- diameter plastic drainage liles—through the beaver dam and extending them 15 to 20 fc« into the pond is indeed a possible solution, agrees Boggess, but, unfortu- na«ly, only a tempoiary one. Since beawis can not tolerate flaws in their dam con struction, they will immediately «op up the intruding drain rile. This is a solution only for people with time on dieir hands who ically warn the beaver to stay," s«y^ Boggess. "It’s often necessary to cleanout the tile several times a week." Sdil, despite the mutioveny over beaver comailunent methods, Goldman and Bo* gessar' hat the wcfcaholic rodent c more j than harm. By slowing vivei bank cioskm, beavers have die ability m «ker their envuonment and atatc valuable habitats for wildfowl and other animals. After decades of use, beaver dams fill in with sill, eventually forming lush grass lands, known as “beaver meadows," fre quented by deer and moose. In fact, a New York study found that beavers in that stale created Si2 of value to the environment for each dollar spent controlling them. "Beavers are beneficial animals," Bog- gesa says. The only problem is chcrc ate 30 many of them, and they're so busy." —S/arn and facqueline SUtio .LIGATION LIMITED LEGHOLD TRAP PERT«T DATE:Application Numbar:. Hama: o* f/tfer-by') 0aSSh<± ^'koreiixe ^iUL Location of Tmultnei ^ Nunbar of Traps :______Malntananca procedure for trapllnas .JSLrlj H12J1 Period of time needed for permit: ■— ^iyUyi^ "/ P*'(l ^ ^ ^ / • < ^ . j Purpose ( Include written statement of hardship) (- - ^ :^ut^ ,/*u. £-t> /t I agree to furnish a certified prop^y owners ^i^t of pr^e^ o^ers Within 500 feet of trapping area. Property ojmers application. I agree to abide by all applicable Federal# State# and Local Laws Including ordinance 232. Aopl^^t 1..? 0 Check I iX Cash I Signature of Appi^ RECOMMENDED: Yes tS] N ’ '-A ^blic safety Director Initials APPROVED:I I No um City Jidministrator ^ Certified 1’st . property owners within 500 feet of your trapline can be obtaine. rom the Hennepin Covinty Property & Description Ofilce, A-603 Count Government Center, downtown Minneapolis. 1^^ Sr>s<!^kQ ie9o . c. 4^- r ^ M/U?12)93 q ^^OFononn 33 03/04/90 PR CB PRRI(EGOR ,/v' NAME ANDERSON. BRUCE L BERNHAROSON. MARK E 80BZIEN, SUE A BOSMA. JAMIE l BRINKHAUS. JOHN F CHESWICK. GARY B CHRISTIANSON. SALLY CORNICK. JAMES L UENNISON. TROY A ENGLISH III. IRVING ERICKSON. KURT R FISCHENICH, DAN T FRITZLER. JOHN M Q^sfFRON MICHAEL P GERHAROSON. JOHN R GREGORY. JAMES D HALLIN. DOROTHY M HANSEN. STEVEN C HANSINQ. CAROL J JOHNSON. BRADLEY KILBO. MELVIN H KNUTSON. CHARLOTTE A KUEHN. THOMAS M LARSON. JEFFREY L MABUSTH. JEANNE A MORAN. MARK F MOROWCZYNSKI, JAMES NAAB. THERESA L OBRIEN. RANDY L OMAN. uYLE £ QUAST. WAYNE A RATHBUN BARRY J SASS, JOHN J SCHEFFlER, LAURIE K SKREEN. DALE S STEFFENHAQtN. RONALD THOM-^ON. MARK R TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE f TOMCZYK. MARK W VANG. BRUCE L WALSH^ KEVIN L WALTERS, LINDA Q YTD CURRENT DPT GROSS GROSS 31 3530 78 1678 12 11328.01 2365 61 31 4842 10 921 84 12 2835 60 6" : .24 42 6775.45 1360 32 31 7587.73 1468 00 31 !098,70 200 87 31 7999.01 1338.16 35 102.00 20.40 31 9590.44 1505 44 31 7508 85 1408.79 31 6850.03 1461.60 31 8094 49 1396 16 33 8667.87 1338.72 42 8770.29 1760.80 42 5242.20 1159.52 12 5743.45 1153 12 42 5284.54 1040.82 31 2692 53 555 37 31 7681.95 1517 63 31 9784.24 1064.40 1 15 4591.49 921 85 15 9318.05 i.870.89 31 1744.71 844 64 33 8350.17 1676.48 31 6886 99 1337.28 31 8892.61 1862.93 12 4608.77 921 84 92 5212 83 987 64 33 6103.24 1228 88 92 7219.95 1499 91 92 5321 73 1110.35 42 5168.83 1003.20 12 4132.48 829 69 4?5178.29 1028 71 91 5751.04 1154.64• •7049.57 1438.52 »■ 4-7799,28 1477.84 7308 79 1364 16 5378 84 1079 92 35 1027 5«216.33 15 42 *874 7$ 1.T72.94 5 mmmt 1990 CITY OF ORONO GHCCK NO. DATE m 071001 071009 071009 071009 071000 071000 071010 071010 071020 071027 071030 071030 071030 071030 071030 071030 071031 071031 071031 071031 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/09/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 AMOUNT 49 11 11 11 11 26 1111 121 ss .38 38 .38- .38 .60 .38 38 67 49.95 11.13 Cl 08 110 00 110.00 1,000 00 1,000 00 19 19 19 32 19 19 129 43 43 43 50 43 43 65 4 8 1 14 29 67 61 75 00 03 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ACRO ACRO ACRO ACRO ACRO ACRO ACRO ACRO •MINNESOTA •MINNESOTA •MINNESOTA •MINNESOTA •MINNESOTA •MINNESOTA •MINNESOTA -MINNESOTA INC INC INC INC INC INC INC INC ATAT INFO SYSTEM ATAT INFO SYSTEM AMERICAN NATL BANK APPLE VALLEY AGENCY 071070 03/08/90 1,609 94 BOARMAN A ASSOCIATES 071070 03/08/90 13 45 BOARMAN A ASSOCIATES 071070 03/08/90 58 00 1.681 39 ‘ BOARMAN A ASSOCIATES 071C74 03/09/90 100 00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN 071074 03/08/90 176 75 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN 071074 03/08/90 201 50 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN 071074 03/08/90 665 00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ITEM DESCRIPTION OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES TELEPHONE TELEPHONE AGENT FEE AGAENT FEE AT A T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCESS AT A T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCESS AT A T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROCESS AT A T INFO SYSTEM DATA.PROCESS AT A T INFO SYSTEM DATA.PROCESS AT A T INFO SYSTEM DATA.PROCESS AT A T COMM TELEPHONE AT A T COMM TELEPHONE AT A T COMM TELEPHONE AT A T COMM TELEPHONE SCHEMATIC DESIGN I SCHEMATIC DESIGN I SCHEMATIC DESIGN I ENQ RFfAINER JAN ENG-CRYSTAL BAY SWR ENG CONSULT JAN MSA NEEDS REPORT 01-4210< 01-4210 01-4210 01-4210 01-4210 01-4210 01-4210 01-4210 039-12 059-14 069-15 •069*75 069-75 -129-31 174-33 •249-42 01-4343-099-17 72-4320-549-91 44-4630-907-00 01-1280-000-00 01-4340-039-12 01-4340-059-14 01-4340-069-15 01-4340-129-31 01-4340-174-33 01-4340-249-42 01-4320-039-12 01-4320-129-31 01-4320-174-3J 01-4320-175-34 15-4305-651-00 15-4399-651-00 15-4399-651-00 01-4304-200-41 01-4305-200-41 01-4305-200-41 01-4305-249-42 ACCOUNT NO. XNV.• P.O. 6 NftSAQI 03-12-M 1 t •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS ■••-CKS ■••-CKS •••-CKS l••0 CITY OF OftOMO CNECK MO. DATE CHECK REGISTER 071074mt lliSU 071074 071074 071074 071074 071074 071074 071041 071011 071001 071142 071143 071143 071143 071143 071143 071143 071143 071143 071143 071143 071147 071147 03/04/40 03/04/90 03/04/00 03/04/90 03/04/00 03/01/90 03/08/90 03/01/90 03/08/90 03/08/00 03/08/00 03/08/90 03/08/90 AMOUNT 866 21 172 1.636 300 324 162 5,745 1,601 802 60 12.836 00 5000 38 0057 66 69 79 78 00 62 VENDOR BONCSTROO BONCSTROOBONESTROO 60NESTR00 BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE .^SN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN ROSENE ASN 21 12 26 43 47 55 BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY ITEM DESCRIPTION ENG CONSULT JAN INSPECTIONS ENG CONSULT JAN ENQ CONSULT JAN ENG CONSULT JAN ENQ CONSULT JAN ENQ CONSULT JAN ENG CONSULT JAN INSPECTIONS INSPECTIONS ENQ CONSULT JAN PROCESS FILM PROCESS FILM 03-12-90 PAGE 2 ACCOUNT NO INV. • P.O. • MESSAGE 01-430S- 01-4306* 15-4305’ 23- 4305’ 24- 4305’ 26-4305- 26-4305- 26-4305- 26-4306- 26-4306- 73-4305 840-71 174-33 651-00 356-00 408-00 434-82 436- 84 437- 85 434-82 436-84 569-92 01-4210-129-31 01-4210-174-33 03/08/90 782.34 782 34 CARGILL SALT SALT 72-4234-549-91 03/08/90 60 80 60 80 m CHAPIN PUBLISHING AD 01-4323-249-42 03/08/90 184.06 184 06 CITYVIEW PLM8Q A HTG REPAIR PO URNER 01-4343-099-17 03/08/90 177 26 177.26 ft COPY DUP PR INC INT 01-4210-129-31 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 4.25 22.95 12 20 2 55 61 42 5.90 10.10 1.02 1.53 .85 122 77 ft COMMERCIAL LIFE/QRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/QRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/GRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/QRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/QRP COMMERCIAL LIFE/QRP COMMEK AL LIFE/QRP INS HAk INS MAR INS MAR INS MAR INS MAR INS MAR INS MAR INS MAR INS MAR INS 01-4152-039-12 01-4152-069-15 01-4152-121-31 01-4152-126-31 01-4152-129-31 01-4152-174-33 01-4152-249-42 72- 4152-549-91 73- 4152-569-92 74- 4152-590-93 03/08/90 03/08/90 25 10 11.13 CROWN HARKING INC CROWN MARKING INC INK PAD NAME PLATE 01-4210-039-12 01-4210-069-15 •••-CKS *»*-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS -CKS ■f 1660 CITY OP (MONO CHECK REGISTER CNCCK NO.DATE AMOUNT 36 23 • VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV 071154 03/06/90 176.60 CYS UNIFORMS UNIFORMS 01-4221-126-31 071154 03/06/90 73.20 CYS UNIFORMS COLLAR INSIGNIAS 01-4221-129-31 071154 03/08/90 1,208.80 1,456.60 - CYS UNIFORMS UNIFORMS 01-4221-129-31 071164 03/06/90 72.21 72.21 • DAY TIMERS INC CALANDAR/8INDER 01-4210-129-31 071113 071220 071296 071296 071291 071266 071266 071272 071272 071272 071272 071272 071272 071272 071272 071272 071272 03/OS/00 03/01/60 03/01/90 03/0e/00 03/06/00 03/01/9003/01/90 03/01/90 03/06/90 03/06/00 03/06/9003/06/90 03/06/90 03/06/90 03/06/90 03/06/90 03/06/90 11.95 11 95 DYNAHED SUPPLIES 06.00 96.00 FEED RITE CONTROLS FLOURIDE B 25 334 97 343.22 GENUINE PARTS CO GENUINE PARTS CO SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 58 15 58 15 GLFNWOOO INGLEWOOD WATAER 290.00150.00 440.00 • QO/ERNMT TRAINS SERV QO'ERNMT TRAINS SERV CLASS Cl 4FERENCE 211 75 79 72 Ol io 16 43 16 12 366 01 48 46- 01- 69 48 52 15 ‘ SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES UNIFORMS RUGS UNIFORMS UNIFORMSUNIFORMS UNIFORMS UNIFORMS UNIFORMS UNIFORMS UNIFORMS 03-12-90 FAQC 01-4232-129-31 72-4234-540-91 01-4232-129-31 01-4232-249-42 01-4231-090-17 01-4356-129-31 01-4356-120-31 01-422101-4343 42-4221 42- 4221 43- 4221 43-4221 72-4221 72- 4221 73- 4221 74- 4221 240-42 129-31 549-91 549-91 569-92 569-92 549-91 549-91 569-92 590-93 6 P.O. 6 MEStAQI •••-CKS •••-CHS -CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS "••-CKS ••‘-CKS -CKS IMO CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO.DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV 071291 03/09/00 4.55 4.55 • HALLXN/DOROTHY MILEAGE 01-4391-039-12 071303 03/09/90 3,930 45 3,930 45 • HENN CTV FIN DIV JAN ROOM/BOARD 01-4359-090-16 071309 071309 03/09/90 03/09/90 73 59 40.00 113.59 - HENN CTV SHERIFF DPT HENN CTY SHERIFF DPT JAN BOOKING FEE DUES 01-4359-090-16 01-4380-129-31 071330 03/09/90 94 78 94.78 • ICMA RETIREMNT TRUST ICMA 2/19-3/4 01-4140-039-12 071399 03/09/90 1.98 1 99 * KEAVENYS DRUG SUPPLIES 01-4232-249-42 071399 03/09/90 96.30 96.30 • KOEHNENS STANDARD AUTO MAINT 01-4341-129-31 071397 071397 071397 03/09/90 03/09/90 03/09/90 45.22 11 45 14 31 70 99 • KUEHN-TH0HA5 KUEHN-THOMAS KUEHN>THOHAS HILEAGE’FEB MILEAGE-FEB MILEAQE-FEB 01-4381-069-15 01-4381-174-33 73-4381-569-92 071400 03/09/90 163 49 163 49 • KUSTOM ELECTRONICS REPAIR RADAR 01-4342-129-31 071404 071404 03/08/90 03/09/90 99.19 42 51 141.70 ■ THE LAKER THE LAKER C-FOLD TOWELS C-FOLD TOWELS 01-4231-099-17 01-4231-129-31 071407 03/09/90 35.04 35.04 • lANO EQUIP CO SHOCK 01-4232-249-42 071439 03/09/90 21.60 LOGIS - SUITE 300 LABELS'GRABEK 01-350C-000-00 03-12>90 FAOC 4 •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS *ft*.CKS •**-CKS 1190 CITY or ORCNO CHECK NO. DATE 07143S 07I43S 071435 071439 071435 071435 071435071435 071435071435 071435 071435 071435 071435 071435 071439 071459 071492 071415 071415 03 ^Ot/90 03/01/00 03/01/00 03/01/90 03/01/90 03/01/90 03/01/90 03/09/90 03/09/90 03/09/90 03/09/90 03/09/90 03/09/90 03/09/90 03/09/90 03/09/90 03/09/90 03/09/90 03/09/90 03/09/90 03/09/90 03/09/90 AMOUNT 17 399 90 240 753 439 229 4.936 366 738 327 95 15137 193 307 77 9,349 50 .03 .45 53 .43 76 31 .00 23 37 .90 .74.34 .16 45 .25 92 .87 60.00 60.00 • 362 48 362 48 • 476.61 476 61 • 13 SO 27 00 40.50 • CHECK REGISTER VENDOR LOQIS LOGIS LOGIS LOGIS LOQIS LOGIS LOQIS LOQIS LOQIS LOQIS LOQIS LOQIS LOQIS LOQIS LOGIS LOGIS LOGIS SUITE 300 SUITE 300 SUITE 300 SUITE 300 SUITE 300 SUITE 300 SUITE 300 SUITE 300 SUITE 300 SUITE 300 SUITE 300 SUITE 300 SUITE 300 SUITE 300 SUITE 300 SUITE 300 SUITE 300 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT MARTINS NAVARRE 66 MPLS OXYGEN CO MPLS OXYGEN CO 071499 03/08/90 137 00 137.00 » MN ( 071562 03/09/90 263.34 NSP 071592 03/09/90 149.99 NSP 071562 03/09/90 220.37 NSP 371562 03/09/90 2 94 NSP 071592 03/08/90 13.05 NSP 071592 03/09/90 90.68 NSP 071562 03/08/90 181.37 NSP 071562 03/08/90 7 91 NSP MN CELLULAR TELE ITEM DESCRIPTION OFFICE SUPPLIES MNT OFFICE EQUIP MNT OFFICE EQUIP MNT OFFICE EQUIP APPL SUPPORT JAN APPL SUPPORT JAN APPL SUPPORT JAN SYSTEMS DEVELOP FD DATA PROC-JAN DATA PROC-JAN DATA PROC-JAN 1989 PAYABLE APPL SUPPORT JAN DATA PROC-JAN 1989 PAYABLE APPL SUPPORT JAN DATA PROC-JAN LONG LK FORD TRACTOR PARTS MOTOR AUTO MAINT DEMURRAGE DEMURRAGE TELEPHONE UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTIlITIES UTI LITIESuTi Lines OS-12-10 ACCOUNT NO. INV. 9 P.O. 9 MCSSAQE pm I 01-4210< 01-4340< 01-4340' 01-4340 01-4352 01-4352 01-4352 01-4354 01-4355 01-4355 01-43SS 72-2040 72-4352 72- 4355 73- 2040 73-4352 73-4355 069-15 039-12 099-15 174-33 099-15 129-31 174-33 069-15 069-15 129-31 174-33 -000-00 -549-92 -549-91 -000-00 -569-93 •569-92 01-4232-249-42 01-4232-249-42 01-4341-129-31 01-4232-129-31 01-4232-249-42 01-4320-129-31 01-4324- 01-4324 01-4324- 01-4324- 01-4324- 01-4324 01-4324 01-4324 099-17 099-17 129-31 175-34 249-42 249-42 249-42 290-61 •••-CKS •■•-CKS •••-CKS •■•-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS Itto CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. OATE 0715E2 OTlStaonst2 071562 071562 071562 071562 03/06/60 03/06/60 03/06/10 03/06/60 03/06/60 03/01/60 03/01/90 AMOUNT 7.06 10.35 1.366.01 166 656 9 46 3.197 79 11 51 67 12 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP NSP ITEM DESCRIPTION UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES 03-12*90 PAGE 6 ACCOUNT NO. INV. 9 P.O. 6 MESSAGE 01-4324-290-61 01-4324-290-61 72- 4324-549-91 73- 4324-569-92 73- 4324-569-92 74- 4324-590-93 74-4324-590-93 •*“-CKS 071595 03/06/90 1.064.37 1.064 3’ • NSP FEB ST LIGHTS 01-4325-249-42 071574 03/06/90 590 00 590 00 * OFFICE PROD OF MN HAINT IBM EQUIP 01-4340-129-31 071562 03/01/60 26.7b 28.75 * OMAN/LYLE MILEAGE 01-4311-174-33 071567 03/06/90 3.629.03 3.629.03 * PUBLIC EMPL RET ASSN PERA2/19-3/4 01-2031-000-00 071569 03/06/90 9.00 9.00 • PERA INS MAR INS.01-4152-129-31 071615 071615 03/06/90 03/01/90 5 25 5.70 10.95 • PERRYS VENTURES INC PERRYS VENTURES INC CAR WASH CAR WASH 01-4341-249-42 72-4341-549-91 mm o o o e o o e o e 03/01/60 03/06/90 03/06/90 03/06/90 03/06/90 03/06/90 03/01/60 03/06/90 03/06/90 721.50 551.50 422.00 259.00 1.292.60 J40.50 144.00 155.40 233.10 4.626 10 * PHYSICIANS HEALTH PHYSICIANS HEALTH PHYSICIANS HEALTH PHYSICIANS HEALTH PHYSICIANS HEALTH PHYSICIANS HEALTH PHYSICIANS HEALTH PHYSICIANS HEALTH PHYSICIANS HEALTH MARCH INS MARCH INS MARCH INS MARCH INS MARCH INS MARCH INS MARCH INS MARCH INS MARCH INS 01-3872-000-00 01-4151-039-12 01-4151-069-15 01-4151-121-31 01-4151-129-31 01-4151-174-33 01-4151-249-42 72- 4151-549-91 73- 4151-569-92 071621 071626 03/01/90 03/01/90 1,133 57 11.564 13 POPHAM i'AIK & ASSOC POPHAM HAIK A ASSOC LEGAL RETAINER JAN LEGAL PROSECTNS JAN 01-4301-080-16 01-4302-080-16 ••--CKS •••-CKS -••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS U90 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE 07LS2I 071S2S 07192a 071929071929071921 071939 071657 071740 071740 03/09/90 03/08/90 03/08/90 CHECK REGISTER AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 03/08/90 1.020 55 POPHAM HAIK &ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT JAN03/08/90 273 00 POPHAM HAIK &ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT JAN03/08/90 329 30 POPHAM HAIK &ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT JAN03/08/90 517.65 POPHAM HAIK 4 ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT JAN 03/08/90 162 95 POPHAM HAIK &ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT JAN 03/08/90 317 20 POPHAM HAIK &ASSOC LEGAL CONSULT JAN03/08/90 282 00 15,600 35 * POPHAM HAIK &ASSOC LEGAL EASMNTS JAN 03/08/90 44 90 44 90 • PRAIRIE: OFFSET LOGO 1FORMS 141 05 141 05 RFC PET 9. SUPPLY CO K-9 DISHES/FOOD/ETC 10 25 37.75 48 00 STRETCHERS STREICHERS FLASHLQT HOLDER REPAIR QUN ACCOUNT NO. INV. Ql>4303- 01-4303- 01-4303- 24-4303 24-4399> 24-4399 26-4303- 010-19 129-31 140-71 409-00 414-00 491-00 434-92 01-4322-039-12 01-4244-129-31 01-4221-129-31 01-4342-129-31 071768 03/08/90 10,196 50 TELEPHONE SPECIALIST TELEPHONE SYSTEM 14-4540-630-0010,196 50 • 071779 03/08/90 75 00 TRACY OIL CO DIESEL FUEL 01-4220-249-4207177903/08/90 675 750 00 00 • TRACY OIL CO DIE SEl FUEL 01-4220-249-42 071792 03/08/90 87 50 TWIN CITIES DICTN sv MNT DICTATION EQUIP 01-4340-039-1?071792 03/08/90 25 00 TWIN CITIES OICTN sv MNT DICTATION EQUIP 01-4340-069-107179203/08/90 425 00 TWIN CITIES OICTN sv MNT DICTATION EQUIP 01-4340-129-307179203/08/90 112 so TWIN CITIES DICTN sv MNT DICTATION EQUIP 01-4340-174-3307179203/08/90 25 00 TWIN CITIES DICTN SV MNT DICTATION EQUIP 01-4340-249-4207179203/08/90 25 00 TWIN CITIES DICTN SV MNT DICTATION EQUIP 72-4340-549-9107179203/08/90 25 00 TWIN CITIES DICTN sv MNT DICTATION EQUIP 73-4340-569-9272500 • 071815 03/08/90 96 46 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-039-1207181503/08/90 96 46 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-059-1407181503/08/90 48 24 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-069-1507181503/08/90 164 94 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-129-3107181503/08/90 96 46 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-174-3307181503/08/90 59 34 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-175-34 03-12-90 FM# • • “•Sill Mmimm •••7CKI Wmi P •••-CKS ••*.CKS -CKS •**-CKS IMO CZTV OF OFONO CHECK NO. DATE CHECK REGISTER AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 03-12-90 PAGE ACCOUNT NO INV. • P.O. 9 MESSAGE onusonus 071I1Smill 03/01/00 03/04/90 03/04/90 03/04/90 03/04/90 06.46 14.47 33.76 70 26 119.39 92S 24 US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE TELEPHONE ADV 01-4320-249-42 72- 4320-549-91 73- 4320-569-92 74- 4320-590-93 74-4323-500-93 071117 03/01/90 142 3S 142.3S a VESSCO INC PARTS 72-4342-549-91 071M2 03/01/90 2,971 50 2.971.50 «WAYZATA-CITY OF 1ST HALF FIRE 01-4314-133-32 071S44 071444 03/01/00 03/04/00 S3 00 477.00 530.00 WAY2ATA BAY CAR WASH WAY2ATA BAY CAR WASH CAR WASH TICKETS CAR WASH TICKETS 01-4341-129-31 01-4341-129-31 071ITS 03/04/90 4.19 4.10 WRIGHT HENN ELECTRIC UTILITIES 01-4324-249-42 071901 03/04/90 390.00 350.00 •DAHLKE TREE SERVICE TREE REMOVAL 01-4343-290-61 071002 03/04/00 70 00 70 00 STATE OF MINNESOTA INSPEC SCALE 01-4342-129-31 071903 071903 03/04/00 03/04/00 44.00 14.00 66 00 ft HENNEPIN SHRFS DEPT HENNEPIN SHRFS DEPT BELT LOOPS REPAIR SPEAKER 01-4221-129-31 01-4342-129-31 071904 03/01/00 5.00 5 00 ft MUNICl-PALS DUES 01-4340-039-12 07190S 03/04/00 «5 00 25 00 ■ MQCSA SEMINAR 74-4356-590-93 071909 03/04/00 45.00 45.00 ft SOUTHWESTERN TECH COURSE 01-4356-174-33 071907 03/04/00 16 95 16 95 ft POLICE MARKSMAN ASOC SUBSCRIPTION 01-4240-129-31 071904 03/04/90 75 00 75.00 ft MN GOLF ASSOC DUES 74-4380-590-93 071909 03/04/90 64.7S RAT SPECIALTY INC DARE PINS 01-4243-129-31 •••-CKS -CKS -CKS -CKS •••-CKS lt«0 CITY CHECK NO. Of O90NO DATE AMOUNT CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. IHV 64 75 • 071910 03/09/90 100.00 100.00 * lake country chap CLASS 01-4356-174-33 071911 071911 071911 03/09/90 03/09/90 03/09/90 1.235 64 1,235.64- 1,235.64 1.235 64 • E G SCHLEE e Q SCHLEE E Q SCHLEE EASMNT COMMISSIONER EASMNT COMMISSIONER EASMNT COMMISSIONER 26-4306-434-92 26-4306-434-92 26-4306-434-92 071912 03/09/90 1,406.16 1,406.16 * LARRY REED EASMNT COMMISSIONER 26-4306-434-92 071913 03/09/90 1,229 99 1,229.99 • JON TESSIER EASMNT COMMISSIONER 26-4306-434-92 071914 071914 iim 3 41 6.59 10.00 • PUBLIC EMPL RET ASSN PUBLIC EMPL RET ASSN PERA EXTRA PERA EXTRA 01-4141-069-15 01-4141-129-31 071915 03/09/90 100.00 100.00 - FIRST HN SAVINGS BK NELSON/OAK PLACE 01-4303-090-16 071919 03/09/90 200.00 200 00 • BUSINESS TESTING INC TESTING Pa Jlul 01-4306-129-31 971445 03/09/90 164 01 164.01 • LYMAN LUMBER LUMBER 01-4343-099-17 53.204 09 10,196.50 1,953 39 1,636 39 1,297 90 12,791.17 110.00 2.901.41 1,799.40 370.40 FUND 01 tot;l FUND 14 TOTAL FUND 15 TOTAi FUND 23 TOTAL FUND 24 TOTAL FUND 26 TOTAL FUND 44 TOTAL FUND 72 TOTAL FUND 73 TOTAL FUND 74 TOTAL GENERAL FUND IMPROVE 4 EQUIP OUTLAY F BUiLDNG CAPITAL OUTLAY F MUNIC STATE AID CONF FUN PERM IMPROVE REVOLVING F 1989 SWR-WTR CONSTR FUND 1992 IMP BOND D/S FUND WATER OPERATING FUND SEWER OPERATING FUND GOLF COURSE OPERATING FD 96.149.53 TOTAL 03-12-90 PMl ME 'm -■’:M •••-CKS ••«.CKS QLMUNIS FINANCIAL SYSTEM 03/06/90 ACCOUNTING REPORT USER 00 1000 CITY OF ORONO NUMBER Of REPORTS t UPDATE DESCRIPTIONS 3 FINANCIAL REPORTS NUMBER OF UPDATES 0 SUMMARY FILE 0 SCHEDULED RUN DATE 030890r.--- V NUMBER OF RECORDS PAYROLL A REPORT DATE 031290 LEVEL 1 03t BENEFIT ACCRUAL LEVEL 2 1?ACTIVITY REPORT 0 ACTIVITY REPORTS LEVEL 3 611 CHECK REGISTER 3 SCHEDULED RUN DATE 030790 LEVEL 4 249 TRIAL BALANCE 0 REPORT DATE 031290 LEVEL 5 34 BALANCE SHEET 0 LEVEL 6 0 REVENUE STATEMENT 0 PAYROLL POSTING OATES 000000 LEVEL 7 0 OPERATING STATEMENT 0 000000 LEVEL •0 BUDGET WORKSHEETS 0 LEVEL 9 631 CLEAR’CURR-MONTH 0 000000 LEVEL 0 2 CT*'** file option 0 000000 PROJECT DEPARTMENT X ICTAL 2,S63 CHART OF ACCOUNTS X PAQE IfO CHECK KECONCUE 0 YEAR TO DATE PERIOD 03 BUDGET RECORDS CREATED 3A i CCUNCIL MEETING MAR 12 1990 CITY OF ORONO >•'. TO: CHIEF FROM: CORNICK 6521 ?UATION: MARCH 23, 1990 1300 to 1430 ORONO SENIOR HIGH AUDITORIUM -s 175 5th GRADERS ALL PARENTS INVITED FINAL WEfiR-jraST MARCH 12 THRU —eegy attachs TEACHER EVALUATIONS DURING FINAL EXAM WEEK (COPY ATTACHED) GRADUATION CERTIFICATES COST APPROX. $100 BEING DONE BY SOS PRINTING APPRECIATION PLAQUES TO BE ANNOUNCED/HANDLED BY MYSELF Po ii « r*qv»p** PIms* _! READn ROUTING - REQUEST handle __APPROVE •nd J FORWARD ] RETURN J keep OR DISCARD ^ REVIEW WITH ME D*t«-----------------------From »yyO WEEKLY NIWS IS ire full of fun activities (Reports hlOst Area ir kids en E>e- irEgan at the <•« and MT con* If. For children's hardcover and paperback book! will be accepted at the Wayiala Cowumnlty Ubrary during regular hour*, Monday, March 12 through Friday. March 16. For more information, call 473-51721 Registration begins Monday. March 12 for spring setsioos of preschool ftory- Ume offered free at the Hopklna Cone waulty Ubraiy. 22 11th Ave. N. For more information and to register, call 508-,1531. A f peclal "School*! Out Film Show" at .eMlMWloiikaCosnwiHy library. 17524 aiyare aration turday. Excels iurBlvd, will be!hownThui?day, II coun- Marth 15 at 1;30 p.m. For more infonna- ult and tion, call 804-3548. s at Trinity Episcopal celsior series 28. The Obsatz, lerCol- Excel- grams are held from 7 to 8 p.m. in the Trinity parish hall, and follow an infor mal Chapel Eucharift at 6J0 p m. and a soup supper he pro Rev. James U Jenkins, rector of Trim ly. invites the public to attend the service and supper as well as the program. tion and Til buy it" j| night rtlmern- t Issue, se ovei ugatory ler loca- Takiitg the challenge, I came upon 30 acres of woods on Hwy. lOl, a quarter- mile south of Excelsior B'vd. zoning K-4 (four to 12 homesites per acre). Buy this one. Fred, and we all will love you. PMUlp H. Seamier Minnetonka lixed test scores in the US. were the highest, the mpils and the average secondaiy class had27 pupils tica and Fanacena. March 1888. Office of Educational L Dept, of Education.) « professoral Ohio University and a member of the Iressed the lame issue in the Wall Street Jonmal mi [ie debate, however, has focused on a shocking trend natic decline m educational productivity. In I5»0. our ary schools educated 16.5 percent of the nation's rceniotthe nation’s output; in 1988. It took 3.5 percent e the tame proportion of the citizenry. In constant- e than tripled." ijects going to be? In 1908 the Wayzala School Board ond Issue for 126.500.000 The S263 million did NOT a allowance for discount biddini^ $40,000,000-plus as 1 administrative costs, rbe toUl taxpayer cost is over figures are taken from the official statement he financial advisors to the school board.) “Truth is nown." (A Jowney Mo Gravity and Sparctime by J ohn disseminate the information iUelf instead of allowing linate the information? By law. the school board is nenl and control of the school district business. The e to the voteriaxpayers. Ordinary citizens are not y elections for the quality and/or quantity of the infor ioafd and/or by the school administration. (Why did him for March 27.1990 AFTER the closing of the filing March 20. 1990?) wered, there may be more. Passing a resolution on March 27. 1990 voters approve |12.MO.OOO-plus gives c to make"lrulh well known" and insufficient time to :IAL IRISH DINNER T. PATRICK’S DAY! By Chic Remlen. Executive Director. WeMonka Area Chamber of Conuaerce Arc your property Uxe« too high? Silly question’ But what to do. ..lor starters, if you don't read anything else in this issue, please take the time to read the foUowng summ.'irv from the Metro Property Tax Coalition on how the"MinnesoU Miracle" has turned sour and sent our Metro area taxes through the roof while reducingour access to local municipal funding. We all need to begin to undersund the system so we can lobby for these 1990 legislative priorities; 1 No increa.'e in property taxes 1. Close the g.ip between property lax rates. 3 Retain the Slate budget reserve. 4. Reduce fiscal year 1990-91 spending growth to the rate of in.natioh. MINNESOTA'S PROPERTY TAX SYSIEM l«U»5 RESTTWCrURING Anyone in Minnesota who has owned property lor more than 20 years remembers wheri property taxes direcUy paid for local services such as police and fire protection, public wor* id schools If you owned property where the lax base was limited, so weregov) mt services. Ifyouownedproperty where the lax base was larger, you tendedto. moreiervicet. In other words, you got what you paid for. Notanymore! During the past 20 years, the so-called "MinnesoU Miracle" has turned the “get what you paid foP' concept on its head. The Ux and spending policies of the Legis lature no longer rely on local management of resources. Rather, the current system relies on the metro area to subs idize services for non-metro Minnesota How did we get in this situation? Here are some of the primary reasons: • Stale sptrnding is growing two timet faster than the rate of inflation, ranking MinnesoU lourtb nationally m per capita spending for five straight years. Personal income after taxes, meanwhile, has fallen for three straight years. • Some people living in the metro area pay nearly four limes more in property taxes than someone living in a comparable house outstate. Property taxes in New Brighton in 1990 will average $1,300. InBrainerd the average will be $350. This is due to the "1-2-3 percent" progressive tax structure based on a home’s value. Homes valued at 168.000 or less pay one percent Homes between $68,000 and $100,000 pay two percent Those over $10n,000 pav three percent • Because the amount of Male aid to local governments largely depends on property values, lower property values oulsUte trigger more sUte aid. So. Uxm raised in the seven county meUo area goto provide most of the sUle aid in the other 80 counties.miles. . . . • This stale aid disparity means metro residents pay more in property taxes and receive less in stale-funded local services. OutsUle residents pay low property Uxes and receive more local services Local sen-ices vary greatly from community to community both in the metro area as well as outfUle.immunitv both in the metro area as wen as ouwwe. • Individuals living in Two Harbors earning WO.OOO a yearreUin a bout 70 percent of their income after purchasing necestiUes compared to individuals making the same laxMM in Unnkmc Avhn i-f»tAin onlv 30 D^fcenL meir in^umr aitt-i puivi««z-iasB ^,--------------- income living in Hopkins who reUin only 30 percent What should oe done’ First consider how children behave when they buyWhat should oe done’ First consider how children benave wnen iney ouy <iimethlng with Uieir own money compared to when they spend their parents money Local unit! of gov ernmeiu ouUtate have no incentive to manage expenses based on ____ _______kiaiK lovnlfr Af iprvir# uiinfl alAle Aids to pay Local umls of Rovernrri-nloiJUtate iiavenoincenuvrMjman»|jT'riAp^««R:o .. local revenue They are happy to provide high levels of service using sUle aids t^ay for them- Since the connection between property Uxes and service levels has been . . a . k #_ _ _a ^ __ __ ^ w rfxmarsnC APYthlftnl IB Cnt.iC' AI for them- Since the connection between property Uxes and service leveis nas oeen severed, residents feel free lodemand more services. The problem is critical because local gov enimenis spend more than $3,500 for every Minnesotan, or20 percent above the national average.the national average. The first action must be to reconnect local spending decisions to the revenue base supporting those services l^egislators must move in this direcUon or else the sUte laces a $1 billion shortfall in 1991 Mr states don't permit cities with low prepetty values to purchase public services beyond the ability of the local tax base to support them. Minne- Ma.on the other hand, rewards increased local spending with increased state aids. More than any other Mate Minnesota embraces the idea that local governments should not be demed public services )usl because of a low property lax base. This places an unfair burden on people living in high valued homes, the vast majority ofwhich are in the metro area. The Legislature must begin to manage spending and at the same lime increase property taxes on lower valued homes to reOect Beir share of puWic services they receive. If those who aren't paying their fair share of property taxes paid more, it would make local governments more accountable and slow down the growth of local s pending It would also f pare Minnesotan ^ from another Income or s ales Lax increa« that will be required to bail the stale out ef the financial disaster it is headed toward under our cuirenl system. What can you do? U s simple. Call oi write your local slate senator or rvpresenU- live If you don't know who they are. call Senate information numbers-296-2887 or 296-0504 —or the House information numbers—296-6646 or 296-2146, INSURANCE?Home ^ Ule bT Airlo He*llh With ?pnng al hand. Ihe board Long Lake residents informed of improvements for Cty. Rd k *4 1 »\l 1 c^ IKo tA/firlcBy Carol Uppal A public hearing wa< held al the Long Cake City Hall March 6 to mlorni ren dents of improvements to be made on Cty. Rd. 146 from Orchard Ln. to Hwy 12. The road is to be widened from 40 feet to 52 feet, and curb, gutter, sidewalk and storm sewer will be added. Though still a two-lane, Cty. Rd. 148 will be brought up- lo-datp. The nght-of-way acquisition costs will be borne by the city, as well the design engineering. Hennepin County will pay $206,000. u^ ing some state aid funds, and the cil^ pay $57,600. Bids for the work will WHel in May and construction is scheduLd be tween Aug. 15 and Nov. 15. The road construction will boUad^yel and straighten the stretch of b Councilmember Fred Patch »ked that trees be planted along the rt ad, as two large trees will have to be removed to accomplish the work. F.ngineer Jeff Roos reported work is m-arly complete on the space needs study for a m*w cUy hall. The current fa« ibty has l.lOO square feet, while the pio])osed building would be 2,200 square feet. After some discuss ion, council indi cated space would be rented only as a last res oil. Public Works Director Mar.- Wurzet gave an update on h.-indling this spnng's vard Monr.«»pin c^ountv is asking ^ raToiid and Wurzer isTofrtiiwg^Uhe possibility of a jointxompoPtingsiteTol site in Councilmembers expressed concern over the City of Orono's position on where Hwy. 12 should be directed through Long Lake. “That would destroy -•our tax base so fast we wouldn’t survive as a town," said Councilmember Sam Rettinger. BREAKFAST wRlrBETTF HAMMFl Author of; ‘From Bauhaus to Bowlles; H.G.A Celebrates 35 Years' Wednesday, March 21, 7:30 a m — Sasha's — $5.00 RESERVATIONS: 473-8341 607 E. Lake SI. in Wayzata (612) 473-8341 ST. PATRICK’S DAY CORN BEEF & CABBAGE or IRISH STEW — ONLY $3.99 — (Served in the Steak House and Saloon (rom noon until we run out') TkDRINK SPECIALS ALL DAY! nJUtlimBl Green Beer & Irish Coffee MIUHTw **Whlskey River’* appearing.. HOUSE Music Starts at 2 p.m. nIHitil! Call for directions. 10715 South Shore Drive. 546-4653 with the presi at the Chaska McDonald ’t on March 2 to deUil the intricate plan ning that ’s going into the run. McDon- ald ’> is sponsoring the Torch Run. “Actually, you don’t have to run at all.” said Hall, adding that parUcipants will carry the torch only a block before pass ing it to the next“runner.” To be selected for the event, would-be torch bearers must sign up at any McDonald's. “No one is excluded because of age or physical limitation,” said HalL He noted, how ever. that very small children may need a little help holding the five-pound torch. Lovers of Olympic mystique and sym bolism are sure to gravitate to the Torch Run. The flame itself will be taken from the constantly burning flame on Pike's Peak in Colorado, home of the Olympic Victoria passes water s Vicki Biggs ValTkntly resisting the urge to plunge into ext^ded debate, the Victoria City Council paksed a water surfac .* usage or dinance, anVaction initialed due to com plaints from lakeshore residenU about noise from fcth jet skis and slalom cour ses. The/vote was unanimous at the Manjin meeting, with Councilmember fom Walsh absent Although the new ordinance does not prohibit such activities, it contains lang uage that would permit the public safety department to cite those persons d?emed in violation by virtue of adverse ly affecting public health or contributing to pollulioa Councilmember Peter Hill commented that noise pollution would certainly fall under that definition. The ordinance also addresses the numbers of licensed and unlicensed craft that may be left on shore and the * MINNETONK/> 47M Cfy. fld*. A 51, Spring Part Celebrate the Green c ST. PATRICK’S DAYI — Saturday, March 17 — Corned Beef A Cabbage CA All-You-Can-Eal 11 a.w.loll p.m. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WATER STRUCTURES & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA 7:30 a.in., Saturday, March 10, 1990 LMCD Office, Wayzata - 1. Public hearing report of Bean's Greenwood Marina for a variance and new dock license to relocate 6 slips from within the 100' zone to the lOO-to-200' zone. 2. Public hearing report of Excelsior Bay Yacht Club for a variance, a Density license, and a new dock license to add 8 slips allowing 15 slips beyond 100', and for a change-of-use from 32 transient slips to 30 rental and 10 transient slips. 3. Letter of 1-25-90 regarding temporary low water variance placement of Boulder Bridge docks. 4. Dock license renewals thru March 5. 5. Temporary low water variance: Minnetonka Boat Works, Oronoj site plan ready 3-10-90. 6. New dock license application with minor change (ownership), and temporary low water variance application for Maxwell Bay Marina by James Dunn, Lakeside Marina Properties, Inc. (application pending). 7. Progress report on dock licensees requesting $25 1990 renewal waiver with administrative fee: Mai Tai, Park Hill/Island Apartments, Seton Twinhomes. g. Progress report on Bowers/Schrock DUA conflict with Morris in City of Greenwood, South Lower Lake. 9, Amenity progress review of significant new dock license applications: executive director report. 10. Review of further Dock Committee priority project suggestions. ENVIRONMENT: Tom Reese 1. Financial progress report 2. Weed harvest project management report 3. Additional progress 3-6-90 /. LAKl^ MiNNKTONKA CONiiKWVATlON DISTRICT Public Hearing;: In the matter of applications by Bean’s Greenwood Marina for a variance and new dock license to re-locate 6 slips from within 100' to 200'r.one. The marina is located at 21945 Minnetonka Blvd.,City of Greenwood. St.Alban’s Bay. Meeting Wednesday, February 28, 1990, 7:00 p.m Tonka Bay City Hall Members Present: Bert Foster. Vice Chair. Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; John Lewman, Minnetrista; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director; Charles LeFevere, Counsel. Vice Chair Foster called a Public Hearing to order at 7:50 p.m. to consider the matter of applications by Bean’s Greenwood Marina for a variance and new dock license to re-locate 6 slips from within 100’ to the 200’ zone, and to re-position certain other slips. The Board received background information and a act sheet along with a certified survey of the property. Ihe Public Hearing was opened to discussion. James Bean, owner, answered the question relating to hardship for the variance by stating that in order to to extend previously permitted docks within the 100' zone. access to the gas dock, pump out location and rest rooms would be cut off due to an adjacent small island. The six new docks were built, admittedly without license applications. in spring of 1989. They were taken out of use in September when the need for license applications was called to Dean’s attention in July. Bean also rebuilt some walkways. In all nine slips have been repositioned. Responding to questions. Bean stated a temporary low water permit would not solve the problem for some of the slips eliminated. Some are marginal even in high water years. The new slips. while beyond tiie 100’ cone, do not interfere^ with navigation. The siips.however. are next to the channel leading to the bridge under Minnetonka Boulevard. LeFevere noted Section 2.05 of the Code does not require a Special Density permit in a case like this because there is no increase in the boat size or boat storage units. LeFevere also noted some of Bean’s lakeshore is not being used due to close proximity to neighboring marinas. The Board received a letter from Richard Parris, Greenwood, objecting to a variance and new dock license for Bean’s Marina because feels tlii.s and other marinas are already exploiting too much use of the lake. All interested partie.s having been given an opportunity to be heard, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:10 p.m. FINPINGG: 1. .;ames Bean has operated this marina since 1975. It full marina service - fuel, pump-out. repaii-s, charters. offers Public Ilearing - Bean's Greenwood Marina February 28, 1990 2. The marina was originally grandfathered for 100 slips and 10 tie-ons with 960* of shoreline. 3. In 1980 a violation of 5 to 8 boats over the 110 for which Bean was licensed resulted in Board authorization to allow an additional 10 slips for a total of 120. 4. The movement of six slips beyond 100’ was noted in a violation report of July 14, 1989. Bean stated he needed time to prepare a new site plan. He subsequently took the six slips out of service September 9. A signed site survey, new dock and variance license applications were submitted January 31, 1990. 5. The six slips beyondlOO’. while not a navigation hazard, are adjacent to the channel providing ingress and egress to St. Alban’s Bay. 6. The additional water space occupied by the new dock position appea*s to require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. ■ ^iS-';'.'':*tv- ,BEMi's euttmo HMim DEAN'S GREENWOOD MARINA, ln« Subject to Order of 4-26-72. REC£IV.. N0V8719S5 Tvr 'BtANS G Rteitwoop flAnir^A / ijM -Ito %P« — 2/5/90 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BEAN'S GREENWOOD MARINA New Dock License & Variance Application BACKGROUND: Bean's Greenwood Marina Is located on Solberg's Point» now an Island Just east of Minnetonka Blvd on St. Alban's Bay in Greenwood. Janes Bean purchased the marina and undertook Its operation In the 1975 boating season. At this tine boats were allowed for a dock use area* without regard to number In the DUA» according to Attorney LeFevere. The number of slips was not actually determined until 1977 when the Board approved 100 slips and ten tle-on positions which were In use several years prior to Bean's purchase of the marina according to the public hearing record. The City of Greenwood also approved. A violation notice and complaint by LMCD in July and August. 1980. reported 118 and 115 boats stored against a license authorized for 100 slips and ten tie-ons. As a result of that complaint. Bean applied for an Increase from 110 to 120 boat storage units (BSU's) and a public hearing was held for that purpose January 14. 1981. On June 24. 1981, the Board approved the additional 10 slips recognizing that there had been ten additional slips in place for two seasons. It further approved the ten tie-ons for repairs which had been previously authorized. It also grandfathered slips 102 and 108 as allowed beyond 100' and stipulated that tle-on 118 be relocated within the 100 foot zone per the site plan of 6-23-81. The City of Greenwood amended its 1977 allowance for an Increase to 100 slips plus ten tie-ons to allow that 'kny boat which is brought to said property for maintenance or repair work to be performed by Declarant may be moored at said docks and shall not be counted in determining, from time to time, the number of boats then moored at said docks . . . provided, however, that — a) No more than 10 boats awaiting or In the process of maintenance or repair work shall be so moored at any time, b) Each such boat so moored for maintenance or repair purposes shall at all times be specifically identified by a repair order affixed thereto bearing the date when such boat was received at said property, c) No such boat shall remain so moored for a period in excess of seven days. Any such boat which fails to meet each of the foregoing conditions shall not be exempt from being, and shall be, counted for purposes of determining the number of boats then moored at said docks." The above Greenwood amendment to its Declaration was made May 5, 1981. During the annual dock Inspection of Greenwood Marina, six new slip structures were reported on 7/14/89. A certified mail notice was sent to James Bean on 7/21/89. Subsequent exchanges in August and September brought forth a revised site plan showing the six new slips, accompanied by an Amended new dock license on 9/5/89, without the required fees. The site plan was not to scale and the application and site plan was determined not acceptable. The applicant was advised 9/9/89 following a brief review with the Dock Committee that no boats were to be stored at the new slips. A personal inspection that day confirmed all slips were vacant, and remained that way for the balance of the season. Bean advised at that time that he would arrange for a formal scale survey of the marina which had not been done since its inception. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2/5/90 Bean's Greenwood tlarina New Dock License & VArlance Application* P. 2 FACTS TO CONSIDER: 1. A new dock license and variance applications were received Jan. 30, 1990. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Six slips in relocated positions beyond the 100' distance from 929.4' shoreline consisting of five 12'x32' and one 15*x36' slips have been proposed and accompanied by a variance application. Hardship for exctending beyond the 100' distance has been cited by the applicant as due to the shape of the property, a unique gas dock configuration. Building docks to comply with existing ordinances within the 100* zone would Interfere with access to the gas dock* head pump out and public restroom facilities, all of which serve the public. Saving three of the slips would require extensive dredging in order to make them useable, and two slips had to be moved In order to rebuild existing slips along the shore with adequate walkway widths. The applicant Is otherwise not increasing the slip size within the ex Hating marina configuration. A ali-by-slip re-measurement will be ccir.Jucted with the applicant to verify the accuracy of the new site survey and resolve any minor discrepancies which are said to exist among the present slip dimensions on record in the applicant's LMCO file. The dock extension does not appear to be a hazard to navigation, although it is adjacent to the channel which provides Ingress and egress to St. Alban's Bay. Additional water space is occupied with the expansion. The additional water space occupied by the docks will require an Environ mental Assessment Worksheet. 3.. LAK15 MiNNKTONKA (JONtJKUVATiON UlSTUiCT Public llearin*: In th« matter of a new dock license. Special Density License and Variance for the Excelsior Bay Yacht Club, 685 Excelsior Boulevard, City of Excelsior, Excelsior Bay. Meeting:Wednesday. February 28, 1990, 7:00 p.m Tonka Bay City Hall Members Present: Bert Foster. Vice Chair. Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; John Lewman, Minnetrista; Robert Minnetonka; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Robert olocum. Woodland. Also present: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director: Charles LeFevere, Counsel. Vice Chair Foster called a Public Hearing to order at p.m. to consider the matter of new dock and special density license applications by the Excelsior Bay Yacht Club (Club) to allow eight additional slips for 40 total; application to allow four additMial slips beyond 100 .and for » chan«o-of-use from 32 transi. nt slips to 30 rental and 10 transi^nt^^t^r structures Committee report of the presentation by Gus Khwice. the Club general manager, was reviewed along with a background and fact sheet. The Public Hearing was opened to discussi^v^^^ reminded the Board that the application is treated as a new dock license because the original 32 slips were licensed as transient slips. Under the Code they cannot be converted to commereial docks without losing the grandfathered status they now possess. In order to convert, the applicant is abide by the 1=50 rule. The 397- of shoreline for 40 slips places the application at 1:10 density. Public amenities are required for a special density allowance. Khwice offered the availability of the cliarter boats as an amenity. He estimates 100 charter rides during a season at 4U guests each would make the lake available to a large number of the public. The other type of amenities called for by the Code caLot be provided by a private club without violating its Khwice responded to a question from Grathwol by stating the Club plans 10 slips for charter boats. 10 for transient use and 20 for over-night stor.sge. Their rule-of-thumb is ^ each fifteen boating members. Khwice further explained in the character of the Club as family and business oriented under their management. Their objective is to * private club with accommodations to their members who use the Lake for access. Club membership is open to tiie public. Rascop asked what hardship exists i 200’. Grathwol pointed out the 90 degree turn in the shoreline requiring a divl.sion line establl.' ied by the original property developers to accommodate the property to the east and the of the Club, both sites having less dock use area in proportion to the shoreline. Public Hearing - Excelsior Bay Yacht Club February 28t 1990 A member of the audience asked what restrictions there are for persons living on boats. LeFovere responded the Code prohibits using a boat as living quarters for more than 30 days during a calendar year, and not more than 10 days in succession. Slocum suggested cutting back on the size of the slips thereby reducing the length of the dock. Grathwol commented that he is giving consideration to suggesting amending the Code to increase commercial dock length from 100’to 200' to allow marinas to provide more public access. Recent variance applications and allowances for dock expansions appear to offer support for such a change. Rascop noted that in approaching this as a new application there are 15 slips beyond 100'rather than 4 as mentioned in the legal notice. The executive director agreed that this was a correct notation. j Responding to a question from Slocum, Khwice clarified the current use of the transient slips. He said they are for the use of their members. All interested parties having been given an opportunity to be heard, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m. FINDINGS: 1. The Excelsior Bay Yacht Club (Club) is a private club on a site formerly operated as a public restaurant. It is licensed for 32 PSU's since 1986, on docks which were installed by the original restaurant operators on this site in 1976. 2. The 32 slips are licensed presently for transient use, no overnight storage. The transient use is limited to members of the Club. . . 3. A new dock license has been applied for to accommodate eight additional slips, for a total of 40 slips, ten - 13’ x 32’ and thirty - 13* x 40’. It has 396’ of shoreline. 4. The increase in water storage units (WGU) is 15, from 85 to 5. Public amenities for the increase in slips is primarily that of charter service. The Club expects to engage up to ten charter boats originating trips from their docks. Four charter boats are reported to be planning to use the Club’s docks. 6. The City of Excelsior city manager responded following the public hearing, after reviewing LMCD’s Water Structure Committee minutes, that it was not aware the Club planned to promote charter service from its docks. The city has a concern that the Club’s parking provisions be thoroughly reviewed before it would agree to the charter operation. 7. A variance application is required due to the request to extend the docks to 200'. The hardship was noted to be the 90 degree turn at the east end of the Club’s shoreline restricting its Dock Use Area (DUA). * j 8. The largo slip sizes - 13’ x 32' and 13’ x 40’ were noted to be large on the average, contributing to the need tor the expanded DUA out to 200’. The present dock was noted to reach 200' at its easterly position. f t$'m tr'm M Vij'N S?”'’^1. \ > . \i *•••• WABUte t M»wts_ ............................ ........................ 2/5/90 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Excelsior Bay Holding Company dba • Excelsior Bay Yacht Club» Inc. New Dock, Special Density license & Variance Application BACKGROUND: The Excelsior Bay Yacht Club, a private club located In Excelalor, occupies the site on Excelsior Bay formerly operated as a public restaurant. It has been licensed for 32 BSU*s since the 1986 boating season, the same docks which were previously licensed to Stonewings, the public restaurant. These docks were originally licensed for transient use and have been so licensed since site on the SE corner of Excelsior Bay was prepared for development In the •1970*8. Due to an almost 90 turn In the shoreline at the easterly edge the property, adjacent to the present Mai Tai licensed facility, the otiveloper divided the dock use area between the Yacht Club and Hal Tal proper-* ties. That condlti'm is noted on the site plan and is Illustrated in an aerial photo provided by the applicant. The 32 s.lps serving the Yacht Club membership are receiving very limited use according to the applicant. The few exceptions are major sumsier holidays, the 4th of July the best example, the applicant reports. Since the club is private, the general public Is basically not accommodated at the transient slips. FACTORS TO CONSIDER: 1. The present site consists of: 11 slips at 5,070 sq.ft, for 33 WSU extending 101* to 200* 21 •' at 7,890 " *' _52 ” within 100* TOTALS ~ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 12,960 sq.ft.85 WSU The proposed site consists of: 15 slips at 7,280 sq.ft, for 37.5 WSU extending 101* to 200* 25 '* at 10,400 ” '* 62.5 '* within 100* TOTALS — 17,680 sq.ft. 100 WSU NET INCREASE 4,720 sq.ft. 15 WSU Dredging is not necessary or planned according to the application. The applicant proposes to convert use of slips from 32 transient to 30 rental and 10 transient, changing operation to a commercial dock. A length variance to 200* is requested in order to locate the 40 slips the applicant proposes to apply against its 397 feet of shoreline. It should be considered that the existing site doei; have dockage extending to approximately 200*. Slip sides on the north, south and east ends of the dock will require definite provisions so that the ends cannot be used for temporary boat storage. Environmental Assessment *'!'sheet will be required since the entire area used for slips, an-i maneuvering of boats exceeds 20,000 sq.ft. 04 & C. K Robinson Company January 24, 1990 Exacuhve OfficM Suii«200 0100 MIcheM Road Edao Praint. Minoesola 55344 (612)937 8500 3. LMCD 402 Lake Street East wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Sir or Madam: SUBJECT: Number of boat slips on Lake Minnetonka for the Boulder Bridge Property'. I am writing you on behalf of: Mr. and Mrs. Robert Dunn 28220 Woodside Road Shorewood, MN Mr. & Mrs. Jack Chandler 28200 Woodside Road Shorewood, MN Mr. & Mrs. D. R. Verdoorn 28210 Voodside Road Shorewood, MN All of us live adjacent to the Boulder Bridge property. We have been assured by past actions of the Board of Directors of LMCD that the Boulder Bridge Development would only be allowed ten boat slips on the main shoreline. This was the original agreement by the Board and the concerned adjacent homeowners. A couple of years ago Tom Wartman again brought the question before the Board In a hearing process requesting additional slips on the lake. The Board refused that request. This past year, the directors awarded Boulder Brige additional temporary slips because of the low water. We, AS neighbors, are affected by these additional slips* There is much more activity, more noise, and restricted views of the lake. We now have to look (from our decks and porches) at a mini-marina. We trust the directors will live up to the original agreement and that it will be adhered to. We also request, if it comes up for discussion again in your meetings, that we be advised prior to the meeting. Thank you for your cooperation. Yours trul^, / I n-6 D. h. and Carol Verdoorn DRV:Ip RECEIVED JAN 25 1990 4-C.O. - *r LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT TOi "Dock*' t jamittee FBOMi 6«ii« StroMcn DATBt March 6. 1990 SUBJt 1990 Dock Licenses The folloving dock licensees ere requesting reneveIs for 1990» Including orders, stipuletions end temporery extensions. Villege certificates have been received, or time has expired for responses Excelsior Bay Associates, Inc., Excelsior Bey Lekeshore Villege, Black Lake Meadovbrook Boat Club, Inc., Grays Bay and Libbs Lake Minnetonka Boat Works (Waysata), Wayzata Bay Minnetonka Boat Works (Orono), Brovns Bay and Tanager Lake Tonka Bay Marina & Yacht Club, Inc., Lower Lake South Wikner, Roger J., Waysata Bay Woodend Shores Beach Association, West Upper Lake ERStJim t •% w * fFR^l2 ^990 Minnetonka Conservation Dlatrict ‘ •.,M.C l i f ^- - - - - - - - TT i; s. (for LHC1> use) ■ocauaa thta form la I CO be copied, please I use black ink or type.I I APPLICATION! TEMPORARY DOCK EXTBN810M PERMIT During periods when the Lake level falls below 929.A feet and when so declared by resolution of the Board, the Executive Director may Issue permits for temporary dock extensions beyond the authorized dock use area. This application Is being made pursuant to LMCO Resolution No. _ _ _ declaring low water level. ________(Ipnmar TnHng<• ri ac ^ ^~ Mlnretonka Boat Works (Print or type owner's name) ________294 E. Grove Lane, Wayzata, MN 55391 __________ (Owner's address) 473-7305 (Phone) the owner of land In the City of ORONO mailing address or location of dock for which permit Is sought* 1449 Shoreline Drive Bualnes. nana. or name of occupant on premlaea where dock la to be locatedi _ _ _ _ _Minnetonka Boat Works 47:3^73aS- Box 549 (Phone) (Mailing address If different from street addr^s) which Is riparian to LMCD arca(s)^No(a). ((cj site plan of dockage showing present dock, extension requested, and water depths(a) Locator map (b) County plat of area 1. Type of facility ( )0utlot association (please check one). ( )Hultlple dwelling ( )Prlvatc multiple ( )Municipal ( X)Commerclal marina ( iTransient ( )Prlvate club ( )Other (explalii)^^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ __ 2.3480 feet.A. Site Lake frontage.- - - - -- - B. Distance of dock presently Into the Lake _ Depth of water at end of dock. 9g^:^tcct. feet. uepen ws ---- -- ■ ^ (Please call the l,.£. .l.v.tlon. 925.46f»C:. d.t.. - -for'^rrent Lak. Uv.l.) Mlnnahah. Cta.k Watershed District. F. Feet belowt 929.4 minus Lak elevation (D) 3.Q4 C. D. F. C. Feet below. 929.4 minus Lak .2 ' 929.4 wster depth at end of dock (C + E) . 200 m! DUt".:: of"emporLy dock extension -«uested, 1. Total temporary distance dock extends liUo the La e _^ feet.approxim^’ ■280 feet. Lake Hlnnetonka Conservation District Applicationr Temporary Dock Extension Permit Name Minnetonka Boat Works Special requirementst A. Please indicate the need for the temporaty dock extensiont low water The extension shall be a temporary* seasonal type dock. No extensions suy be on pile driven or permanent year-round docks. Notedt check here ( C.The extension shall meet all requirements of the LMCD other tha limitation described in this application. Notedi check here han PI. the length D.The extension shall only be permitted during the time the water level is below elevation 929.4 feet and* at any given time* shall be permitted only to the extent of the equivalent dockage and/comparable depth existing at a lake eleva< of 929.4 feet. Notedt check here {/). E.The extension, together with the original dock, shall not be used to provide storage space for a greater number of boats or watercraft than are authorised under the LMCiyCode or for a greater number of boats or watercraft than arc licensed if ly^licensc for the dock is required under the LMCD Code. Notedi cheek here (i/ ). I certify that the Information provided herein and the attachments hereto are true and correct statementsi I understand that any license issued may be revoked by the District for violation of the LMCD Code; and I consent to permitting officers and agents of the District to enter the premises at all reasonable times to investigate and to determine whether or not the Code of the District is being complied with Authorised signature Date 2/8/90 Relationship to owner Title Manager of Administration none Return this application and attachments tot Lake Hlnnetonka Conservation District 402 Bast Lake Street Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Phone! (612) 473-2033 4-6-87 r i SAturday Hond«y Friday Wcdnaaday 3-1-90 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 473-7033 L.N.C.O. MBSTIIIG 8CHBINILB March 1990 Wednesday 7 LMCD Board of Directors' Regular Meeting 7t30 p.m., Tonka Bay City Hall 10 Water Structures & Environment Committee 7:30 a.m., LMCD office* Uayzata depot Wednesday 14 Advisory Coimnlttee, Management Plan 7:00 p.m.* Tonka Bay City Hall 19 Lake Use Committee 4:30 p.m., LMCD office* Wayzata depot Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force d:30 a.m.* Freshwater Foundation, Navarre LMCD Board of Directors’ Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m., Tonka Bay City Hall : -V- LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA V:-” iS. > Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 7, 1990 (rescheduled from 2**28*90) Tonka Bay City Hall 4901 Manitou Road (County Road 19) 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Reading o£ Minutes: 1“24*90 Regular Meeting 4. Public Coanenta - from persons In attendance not on agenda 5. Reports A. Chair Cochran Ml lifclii WR*2B90 1) DNR Shor«land Grant contract and Management Plan partial fund relmburie»nt, amended draft, engaging the 14 Lake communities with LMCD for Shoreland Rules adoption 2) Additional prioritles/announceroents B. Financial Reports, Treasurer Lewman 1) Statement of Cash Transactions, month ending 1-31-90 2) Audit of vouchers for payment through 2-28 and early March 5. C. Standing Committees 1) WATER STRUCTURES & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE, Chair Grathwol a) Approval of minutes, 2-10-90 Dock license renewals, recommending approval for 57 renewals per list submitted with the committee minutes, excluding i ©visions for three licensees requesting renewal waivers for administrative fee of $25, subject to executive director review. Dock license renewal for City of Tonka Bay. reconsnendlng CO waive renewal In exchange tor $25 administrative fee. provided all docks are kept out of service (City Council declined this offer recommended by Bjorlin). c) District Mooring Are. (DMA) renewal, for 1990 licenses a. recommended by the committee for approval. City of Deephaven City of Excelsior Methodist Lakeside Assembly Minnetonka Yacht Club (continued) LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LMCD Board Agenda 3>7-90 d) Deicing renew.'Is as reconmended by the comnittee for: Tonka Bay Marina & Yacht Club, Inc. approved ll-18-d9 Virginia MacDonald and Reid MacDonald, approved 2''10*90 r Grant applications to Legislative Conmlsslon on MN Resources (LCHR) recomnendlng approval for submission of the following subjects upon review of the executive directors * Developing an Action Program for Public Access to Lake Minnetonka * Managing Nearshore Use on Minnesota Lakes * Developing a Local Fisheries Management Guidebook for Local - - - Lake Management Agencies f) City of Wayzata Environment Assessment Worksheet (SAW) review as Introduced at 2*10*90 committee meeting for approval of dlstrlbutlon/publlshing 5. C. 2) LAD USB CdtHTTEB, Chair Plllsbury a) Approval of minutes 2*26*90 b) Hennepin County 1990 Lake Improvement Projects, raconnendlng approval for channel dredging prioritized per minutest with the Slow Buoy Placement adding a third buoy In Maxwell Bay, aud two buoys north of Big Island; and all channels under JH fee*, to be marked with two danger buoys at each end, rather than with channel markers, except Seton/Black Lake Channel which Is to be marked 1th minimum depth warning signs. c) Personal Watercraft Ordinance, rccoraD.*nding approval of draft ordinance, except for changes in Sec. 1, Subd. 37, last line, change "vessel” to "watercraft,” and Sec. 2, Subd. 5, last line, change "toward” to "to or from.” d) Wine and Beer On*Sale New License for David Lawrance, Paradise Prlnceaa Charter Boat, recomnendlng approval based upon Hennepin County Sheriff Investigation finding no cause for rejection. Code requiring a public hearing prior to licensing. e) Charter Boat license, new application, for David Lawrance, Paradiae Prlnceaa charter boat, to be berthed at Excelsior city docks, recommending approval. f) Intoxicating Liquor 0n*Sale, Including Sunday On*Sale, renewal application for John Lambin and new 50% partner Franco Loris, Queen of Excelsior charter boat, recommending approval based upon Hennepin County Sheriff Investigation finding no cause for rejection. g) Charter Boat license, renewal application for John Lambin and Franco Loris, Queen of Excelsior, berthed at Excelsior city docks, recommending approval. (continued) LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LMCD Board Agenda 3-7-90 3 5. C. 2) h) Scott E. Dvorak, Ice fishing contest Special Event Permit application, requesting refund of late fee and deposit, total of $150, due to event cancellation, recosnendlng approval. 5. C. 3) ElfVIEONMENT COMHITTEB, Chair Reese a) Project Manager appointment of Norm Paurus to serve Eurasian Water Milfoil Weed Control Project part time from March through December as provided in the Weed Control Budget. b) Model C-500 Floating Conveyor, 25' length, purchase from United Marine International at $11,020, requiring 1/3 advance deposit with order of $3,673.34, required due to low water at off-load sites. c) Funding progress - local, regional and state agencies 5. C. 4) ADVISORY COIMITTEE, Chair Rascop, Consul .nt Arndorfer a) RecoTT...ndation for ipproval ot January expenses of $3,224.22 b) Progress report on Comprehensive Plan Public Review Draft, and provision for LMCD funding for printing from Public Information and Education budget. c) Progress report on final subconraittee reports and overall plan. 5. D. Executive Director's Report, Strommen 1) Recommendation on Frank Mlxa consultant agreement 2) Review of admin.itrative priorities 6. Unfinished Business A. As recommended by the Board 7. Mew Business A. As recommended by the Board 6. Adjoumaent 2-28-90 LAKE MINNETONKA OONiiEUVATlON DISTRICT UOARD OF DlltECTOHS KefCular Meetin#?, 7: 3U |».m. * January 24, 1990 Tonka Day City Uall 1. Cali to Order Cochran at 7:30 p,m. The meeting was called to order by Chair 2. Roll Call Meabers Present: David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Marvin BJorlin, Tonka Bay; Jan Boswinkel. Secretary, Minnetonka Beach; Bert Foster, Vice Chair, Deepliaven: James Grathwol, Excelsior; JoEllen Hurr. Orono; John Lewman, Treasurer, Minnotrista; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Robert Rascop. Shorewood; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Douglas Babcock. Spring Park, John Malinka, Victoria and Thomas iu.iLinson, Wayzata, arrived as noted. Also present: Eugene Strommci. Executive Director; Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Cliff Schmidt, Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol; David Arndorfer. Consultant. Absent: None J, Reading of Minutes: Crathwol moved, BJorlin seconded, approval of the minutes of the December 6, 1989 regular meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Public Comments: Duane Markus, 4U5 Bushaway Road, Wayzata. questioned the Board as to where tlie funds .ould come from if the District were to lose a law suit and wh^i-her the District carries Directors and Officers liability* insurance. LeFevere responded that any liability nof. covcre<l by iiisuran»-:e would have to be covered by levy increases to the cities. The Executive Director stated the District carries Directors and Officers liability insurance. ^ Markus requested th names of Directors who are members ol the Wayzata Yacht Club and Minnetonka Yacht Club. He also asked for permission to speak when the Wayzata Yacht Club Environmental Assessment Worksheet is discussed. Babcock arrived. Ellsworth Peterson. Tonka Bay. asked the Board to consider piping water from the Mississippi River to Lake Minnetonka and other lakes. Cochran responded that the Minnesota Department ot Natural Resources (Mn I>HU) has already said no because it is not practical or cost eftective Ellsworth suggested tl»e District buy the equipment to pump silt from the lake bottom before dredging, either leasing it to property ownerr^. Coc)iran responded that this suggestion will he passed on to the Mitmehaha Creek Watershed District. LMCD Board of Directors January 24. 1990 5.Reports A. 1) performance Chair Cochran Personnel Review and Compensation Adjustments Cochran reported the officers have reviewed the of Administrative Secretary Joan Mansk, Inspector Charles Melony and Ex«cutiv*=; Director Eugene Strommen. The officers recommend compensation adjustments as outlined in the 1/23/90 memo. attached. Lewm^n noted Melony's averafe hours should be corrected to 3U0 hours. Foster moved, Reese seconded, acceptance of the compensation adjustment as outlined in the 1/23/90 memo with the correction of Melony*s average hours annually to 300 hours. The adjustment Is effective January 1. 1990. Motion carried unanimously. 2) Clioroland Grant Contract and Management Plan tlal Reimbursement from MiiDNR. par- The Executive Director submitted a draft of the Shoreland Grant Contract and Management Plan partial fund reimbursement from MnDNR, engaging the 14 Lake communities with LMCD for Shoreland Rules adoption. He stated there are several items in the draft that require clarification. TJie contract is being reviewed with LeFevere and it will be brought back to the Board in final form in February. Cochran offered the opportunity to Directors tc review the draft contract with their City Councils at their option. 3) Save the Lake Recognition Dinner Cochran encouraged the Directors and their spouses to attend the Lake Recognition Dinner, Thursday, 2/15 at Fletcher’s. A list of those invited is available and additional names would be welcomed. 4) Notice of Executive Session Cochran announced tho Board will meet in Executive Session immediately following this meeting to consider the St. Alban’s Bay Marina and Yacht Club, Inc. litigatio!.. Martinson and Maiinks arrived. B. Financial Reports: Treasurer Lewmaii 1 Lewman pre.sented the Statement of Transactions, months ending 11/30/89 and 12/31/89. showing all fun ^s -»ith cash balances at year end. 2 Lewman submitted checks H5052 - »5932 for approval in the amount of T.44,347.94. LMCD Board ol' LHiocLorr.January . ly9U The Executive Director recommended withholding payment of H5909 in the amount of $627.16 payable to Prof. Fundraising Serv. until a determination can be made on the list's value. Hurr asked whether there is a policy limiting the amount of money a Director can incur without prior Board approval. Rascop responded Directors should not be able to incur expenses without approval. Rascop Questioned tt587.3 to Larson Printing in the amount of $4,660.69 for printing the Comprehensive Plan. The Executive Direotot explained tlii-s wiJl be credited to the LMLD as part of the Management Plan accounting. Arndorfer concurred. Lewinan moved, Ree.se seconded, approval of payment of bills as of January 24, 199'J as submitted excepting check #5909 for a final total of $4.3,726.78. Motion carried unanimously. C. Standing Committees 1) WATER STRUCTURES AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE; Chair Grathwoi. . . , ja) Approval of Minutes. Grathwoi moved, Pillsbury seconded, approval of the Water Structures and Environment Committee minutes of 1/13/90. Motion carried unanimously. David Thomas iJoveiopment, New Dock Licence South Upper Lake, Victoria, rccoirmoridlng approval. Grathwoi moved, Lewinan seconded, to authorize LeFevero to pr-osre the necessary documents for Findings and Order for Ap 'al of a new dock license for David Thomas, bouth Upper Lake Victoria, f'-t* 5 slips on a lUO' multiple dock, and 1 slip on %ach of 3 ripi vian lot.s. This i.s to includes tne easement documents, tlie .spec fic location of the docks, and include a setback at each end of the development. DISCUSSION; llurr stated she cannot support the motion as this development results in riparian owners releasing their dock rights to others. .C.he could support one multiple dock. Hurr said this arrangement creates an increased lake use density as the potential is there for all boats to be on the lake at one time while allowing four boats per riparian lot would most likely not have all boat.s in use at one time. „,n-inw the Reese expressed his concern " = creation of density by pint and subdivision. Reese said, assuming 385’ of sl.ore line, under the 1-60' 0 slips. (1*5 questioned whether a futuie ohang- to allow the di.strict t...' reduce the number of slips. Rascop ob.iected. stating ttie original proposal did not include the 3 riparian docks. The 3 docks on riparian J^^s were re-affirmed as being In tliu original proposal lieard on Arndorfer stated tliis proi-osal would give a right to access they would net have under the Management t-ian Babcock s id Lt.is proposal meets the most lestrictive rule the District has. meeting today’s l-6U' rule. LMCD Board of Directors January 24. 1990 LeFcvere stated that under the 1^60’ rule there is sufficient shoreline for 0 watercraft, readinif the criteria for grantiiiK multiple docks as outlined in Code Section 2.02 subd. 1. He explained the applicant is one Individual controlling 385’ of shoreline. The individual riparian lots will be sold with limited riparian riishts, allowing the Homo Owners Association (HOA) to control the dock location. Each year the HOA xs subject to renewal of the application. Hurr expressed an interest in having the 385' x 0’ easement platted as a lot. Bjorliri indicated he would find that acceptable. Lawman noted this application meets let standards and that residential property is excluded f? the proposed moratorium. Slocum questioned what would be the i. if the riparian owners somehow regained their rights. LeFevjre responded the outlet would be no more than a 4U* lot and entitled to only the number of slips allowed under the Code as an unimproved property. Foster observed tliere are similar arrangements for multiple docks. Wm F. Kelly, attorney representing Richard Marks. 425 BaycUffe Drive, an ad.laceiit propert y owner, submitted a »ter date : i,23/9U requesting denial of tlie license because a liearing has not been held on the aide yard variance (Section 2.01, Subd.2(b)). the application is for 8 lots although the City of Victoria has approved only 6 lots, Uie easement under discussion has not been detailed in an outline and the proposal is not supported by the LHOD Code. LeFevere responded tliat a varia»ice is not required and the Code is met in this application as it relates to the easement and 1:50 density allowance. VOTK; The motion carried, Reese, Hurr and Rascop voting nay. c) UoconuneitdaL ion to Amend Code 2.05| Subd. 4(a)(16) to include exiutiitg as well as proposed ameiiibies, and reviewing ameniti.es for ranking in value by October* 1990. The Board received a recommendatici* from the Water Structures Committee recommending adoption of an Ordinance which would amend Code flection 2.05, Giihd. 4 as follows: (16) Whether the applicant proposes to construct or certain new amenities deemed beneficial to the Lake and to the general public use of the Lake which offset the impact of all or part of the increased density. in order to offset the increased density; any proposed amenities must be in addition to existing faciiitiea and servicesr In deteriD.iiJiBK amepities which the applicant proposes to maintaio QK c9n3ttW-C_t j^re sufficient to offset the effect of the increased density, .thfi ^ard will take into consideration existing aa -WfiJJL M prCPPgflfl danaity and aineriities. LMCU Board of Directors January 24. 1990 DISCUSSION; It was understood the Board will review the anenities by October 199U to place a value ranking on each am«nlti«s. Hurr will provide the Board with her recommendatlona *'*’M0T10H*'"*Foster moved? Dabeock seconded, waiver of roadlnaa and Option and publication of Uvdit.ance No. 1U7 Relating to Special Density Licenses; AmeiiJin* LMCD Code Section 2.05, Subd. 4. Motion carried unanimously. City of Waycata Special Density and New IHksIi License. The Water Structures and Environment Committee approval of the City of Waysata Special Density and New Dock License subject to a requirement for an EAW . Ou,ntv The Executive Director reported the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) will require an EAW. * ui. - ♦!,« ritv ofGrathwol moved. BJorlln seconded, tabling Haysata application until completion of the EAW. Hotion carried unanimously. o) City of Uoophavon Special Dcmiity and Now Dock License Application. No action was taken pending payment or tees. f) ttcccMMM»id.iti»n for approval of a ^o Ammidmoiit for an Interim Ordinance to Kos’ let S^s^ctlon and Maintenanc. of New Commercial and Hultlpl. Docks. grcommendaThe Water Structures and Environment Commit! approval of the subject Code amendment. and RMtricting the Licensing, Construction and Maintenance of ®‘'““arUiwof spike'’'?n''”behal£ of adopting the Ordinance by prohibits the acceptance of appJicationo, p--thwol explainedru,r.i.r" sjiii “? concept requests. g.ffect on the number of outsiders. carried. Hurr and Reese voting nay. LMCP Board of Directors January 24, 1990 8) EAM Evaluation of Hinnotonka Boat Worka ^***^**Tha Ordor and FindiiiBs approving a Special Penalty and Hao Dock License for tlie Hiiinetoiika Boat Works Orono was racalvad. A Findings of Fact report was presented by the Executive Director. It supports a determination that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not needed. ^ - .. Grathmol moved, Reese seconded. Approval of the Order for the Special Density and New Dock License of Minnetonka Boat Works Orono. accepti.g the Findings of resulting fro. the EAW. Rascop said he does not a«ree with the EAW statement. VOTE: Motion carried, Rascop voting nay. h) Discretionary EAW for Waysata Yacht Club's District Mooring Area The Water Structures and Environment Committee recommends approval of a discretionary EAW for the Waysata Yacht Club s District Moorina Area, in response to its 1990 temporary low mater variance request, exteiidina the moorlnj? area ^?ii?^^Btiahaway The Board received a letter from Duane Markus. 40^ Bushaway Road. Wsyssta. recuesting the discretionary EAW W.yr.t. Yacht Club bo charged to a mandatory EAW, 4410.gJUW. Subd. 5. He further asks for a mandatory EAW for the Waysa a ^*°'**The*^Executlve Dlrect;r responded that many of approximately 40 temporary low water verianca dock extensions granted * marlMS whicli exceed the 20.0UO square feet of water requiring an EAW To pioparo an EAW for each does not _ be the Environmental muality Board’s rule ^"tent. A outline further detailed the rationale for leaving the EAW ‘‘^““‘’SarkCr^responded that he will petition the EQB for the mandatory EAW. He Is willing to work with the Waysata Yacht Club to expand their docks to eliminate the buoy field. Grathwol moved. Piilsbury seconded, approval of the discretionary EAW for the Waysata Yacht Club^s Area's 1990 temporary low water variance request, ^ mooring area to OUU’. Motion carried unanimously. i) Inquiry regarding refund of d^k license npplication fees for slips not used in 19051 and/or 1990. The Water Gtruchnrer. and Ki.v i ronnient Committee advising concerned marina operators they have the ^Ption o renewing their 199U application for the full number of . .. which tliey are lioensed t.o preserve their privilege o will a new dock llc.n:,e lor .. . . .. of sllrs they be usable. with all aoo^wpany ing new doi.k license requirements. LMCD Doai'd of Ui rort.-.T.-;January 2A, 199U Grathwol moved. Filisbury seconded, adoption of Structures and Eiivi rc» nine tit Coniinittee recommendation Motion carried, Bjoriin voting nay. the Water IS policy. J) Guiditlliioa lor temporary extensions wltliouL a formal pormit application resicloiitlal dock The Water Structures and Environment Committee recommends that 1(c) of the Guidelines for Temporary Residential Dock Extensions be amended to read The extension sliall be permitted only during a year in which the board declares low water in effect. ' ^ Li 4.Grathwol moved, Foster seconded, to approve the Water Structures and Environment Committee recommendation and renew the Guidelines for Temporary Residential Dock Extension. Motion carried unanimously. k) Reaffirming 1909 temporary low water varianoea for multiple dock license renewals for 1990 licenses Grathwol moved, Bjorlin seconded, that the following llcenseea holding 1989 temporary low water variances for low water be approved tor renewal in 199U witii the oonditions of tna low water variance for multiple docks: A1 & Alma’s i Club Bayview Condoiuiniuni Lyle Berman Big Island Veterans Camp BD/Go^ : <i Boulder Bridge Farm Inc. Cedarh'srsL AnsocinLi»jii Chimo Association Cochranes Boatyard, Inc. Deephaven, City of Forest Arms Association, Inc. Gideons Foiiit Homeowners Association Greenwood. City of The Harborage Lakewinds Association Libbs Bay Boat Club boring Acres Deac)i As.3ooiaiion. Inc. Methodist Lakeside Assembly Minnetonka Boat Works -Uroiio Mound. City of Minnetonka Edgewater Apartments Roger J. Wikrier Windward Marine, Inc. Woodend Shores Beach Assoc. Wayzata Yacht Club Motion carried unanimously. LMCD Board of Directors January 24. 1990 1) Ueclaration of Lo%t Water Rascop moved, Reose seconded, to declare low water for the 1990 Lake Minnetonka Boating Season. Motion carried unanimously. ■ ) rolicaii i’oinb multiple dock llcease application. The Water Structures and Environment Committee considered an application from Felican Point, 2820 Tuxedo Road. Mound. for 20 boat storage units at a multiple dock and 10 moorings. The property was licensed in 1979 ard the property has not bean developed. . ^ , .. Qrathwol moved, Hurr seconded, to accept and table the application from Pelican Point as complete and applied for the moratorium with the understanding there is no approval or the license, the applicant having one year in which to act on his application, and to table. Motion carried unanimously. n) ttockvam Boat Works temporary low water extension request. The Water Structures and Environment Committee recommends aoprovai of Rockvani Moat Yards temporary low water extension request to extend the present 211 foot dock 85 feet to a distance of 296 feet, subject to inspection by the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Water Patrol to ar.sulc no hazard to navigation exists, and that all otner low water variance restrictions are met. and further to change the dock from permanent piling to floating dock in the exact same dock c«:*nfiguration. qaf«tv Foster movr^d. Pillr.bury .seconded, approval ot Water and Environmental Committee recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. 5. C. 2) ENVIRONMKMT, Chair Reese a) Bequest for assistance from cities Reese repoited that of the sources of 199U funding for the Eurasian Water Mil Coil weed control program. the only funds committed to date are the $60.UUU from tlie cities. In UR»it of n por.«lblo funJ al.oi taue. Koose for cooperation from the cities to ease tiio weed control program financiai^burd^^^^ fire Jin"s. mads. r"blic la.incliintf areas and beecl.es where of f • I-.,wl i . ..Id h- dem l-.|.ed - Making .;oiiiposLiin! sU.jS .:«vailahle close in. to inclu ‘*i“‘^-*^lnvesti«»tln« the p...tentiol of making a truck available when the District is eut.ting lake weeds in their area. Reese submitted a draft letter to be sent on behalf members to invite Hity cooperation. U *'®“. , ,®°!up consensus to proceed witli the letter and Hoard member follow up. LMCD Board of Dire^.-tors January 24. I9BU Euruoiaii Water Milfoil (EWM) bud«0t ortfaniaation plan Reese submitt«»d a preliminary 199U EWM budget for 15 week harvest schedule starting 5/29. ending 9/7/90. The estimated expenditures total $195,100. copy provided. Reese moved. Urathwol seconded, to authorise the hiring of the Project Manager as called for in the EWM budget. Motion carried unanimously. Reese anticipates a short fall in funding. He suggested the Board consider a lake use sticker. This has been considered in the Management Plan study. He would like to pursue the idea with the funds to be used for EWM control. (jrathwol moved. Hurr seconded, the establishment of a sub committee consisting of Reese. Babcock and the officers to investigate the sticker idea. Motion carried unanimously. Reese reported bids for hauling the cut weeds by barge were received and were too high to consider. - u Grathwol moved. Boswinkei seconded, the rejection of the bids for weed barging. Motion carried unanimously. 5.C.LAKE UUK COMMITTEK, Chair Pillsbury a) Approval of Minutes LakePillsbury moved. 0.ic*rlin seconded, approval of 1/22/9'^ Use Committee minutes. Motion carried unanimously. b) 199U Huoy Placement PiJlsbury reviewed tiie buoy placement program and 1990 budget submitted by Dailey. Ifennepin County Public Service Lake Improvement Division. The Lake Use Committee concluded that the regular red and green buoy markers be used at each channel end with a danger buoy in the center of any channel where the depth is less than 4 at the beginning of the season. uii Foster commented that Miere wiJl have to bo publicity to alert the public to the purpose of the danger buoys in that location. c) Code Amundmeiit Uolubiiig to Lake Application Charges for Open Water Flnhiiig Contests Pillshtirv r*^'!**'rtf'*I t he ..Mjinmi ttoe recMium^nds adoption of the Ordinance Amendim! l.HCU Oodo 0^,Hlon3JJ9. Late Application UliareeT for Upon Water Fishing Lontaata. The Board did not act on the xecommendation. LMCD Board of Director3 January 24, 1990 d> Charter Boat Reffisbratioii Chatiicea Babcock leporte'J the Lake Use Committee approved a reKlatration fee increase from $50 to per charter boat, and that the application for charter boat licenses require city approval for passenger pickup at municipal docks and a letter of permission from other ports of call to accompany the application. Babcock moved, Foster seconded, an amendment to Resolution 62 Increasing the registration fee to $1U0. Motion carried unan* moualy. Babcock moved, Foster seconded, a cliarige in the application requiring city approval for passenger pickup at municipal docks and a letter of permission from other ports of call to accompany the application. LeFevere urged care in making these changes by Resolution. He suggested an Ordinance amendment to establish criteria for approving or denying an application. Babcock said the intention was to obtain the information. Fillsbury said the sub-committee will be meeting with the charter boat owners this month. No vote was taken on tiiis motion. e) Fersoriai Watercraft (l*WC) Foster moved, Fillsbury seconded, to autliorise the preparation of an ordin-^nce setting partuiietcrs for PWl operation on Lake Mi nnetoiik'.*, c*^titTining tlie loll<»wingt ^ FWCs be pr..hibited from uormi^l operation within 3U0* of shore. All PWC entrances and e;cits to be perpendicular to the shore, the 15U’ closest to shore to be slow (6 mph max) speed. - .lumping w.'d:o clr»r.er than IhU* to a boat to be prohibited. ,_ .^ . . , -Allow the decibel rating of 82 remain until 1992 at which time it will be reduced to 79. , , , . , 1* - To include portions of the MnDNR draft legislation as it applies to Lake Minnetonka. - To include applicable portions of the Florida law. DISCUSSION Foster reported tlie MnDNR has prepared a bill for consideration by the legislature. It contains some are troublesome to him. One is the requirement that PWC do not operate within I5n‘ of any otiicr boat. This presents a safety problem in some close pas.siiig lanes between bays. He alf® concerned about their restriction on using PWCs for water skiing. He noted the LM«;D cannot be le.-.r. restrictive than any legislation which might he p'jr,j Reese expreoacd lii.s «.'piiiion that tins ordinance does deal with repeated PWC "playing" in one area for an extended period of time. VOTE Motion carried unaniiiiou.siy. LMCD Doard of Directors January 24, 1990 f> New Special Event Application (Scott Dvorak) Scott Dvorak has made application for a private fishing contest and chill lunch to be held Saturday. 1/27/90 in Big laland/Veterans Bay. At the committee meeting tiie matter of parking cars on the Lake was discussed. The Water Patrol representative said that any permit tliey would issue would prohibit the parking of cars on the Lake. Deputy Schmidt reported Dvorak has made application to the^ Water Patrol while arrangements liave been made regarding the cars, the applicant does not have the JIUU.UUO liability insurance they require. They will not issue the permit without proof of insuran^e^^^ m.5ved. Fo.ster seconded, approval of a Special Permit to Scott Dvorak for a private fishing contest <=*‘^** lunch to be held Saturday. 1/27/9'J subject to the standard LMCD stipulations with parking restrictions placed on the permit by the Water Patrol, including the $1UU,UU0 insurance requirements. Motion carried unanimously. . , ^ ui-u Babcock moved. BJorliii seconded, to waive the lata fee which has bean paid. Motion carried unanimously. g)Policy for Special Event Licenaes prior to installation of buoys during low water iovol. The Board concurred witii the Lake Use tommittea that applicants for fishing contests to be held before the buoys are installed must inform the participants of the low water hazards. BJorlin movud, R.iscop s*^»2'mded. tn require aptjnsors of apeciaJ everit.n i.** lMiMi.‘'jh Ui*' P'lrt i pinl.n witli appropriately marked maps. Motion carried unanimously. g) Special Event Applications for Water Skiing Slalom Courses. The Board had no obj^iction to tlia Lake Uso roconmeiidation that sMlom course buoys not be In the water when not in use bocaus..- of ii.c.eased weed l.arvestinp " “ place. The ooininlttee had also recommended encouraging rotation of slalom ski areas. 1) lk>iin.>i>in County SJlwrlff's Water I’atrol Jtoport Pillsbury moved. K.i.soop .•jeoomlod, to present Speoinl Deputy Aw,-.rd to .iolui 0. Larson at tlio oave the Lake A^ual Dinner February IDth. Hot'.... carried unanimously. LMCD Board of Directors January 24. 1990 Deputy Schmidt reported 2 DWI arrests. 3 open bottle arrests and 2 arrests for brorikinc into fish houses. One deputy has been assigned to investii?ating fish house break'ins. They now have four licensed deputies. The Water Patrol will not have an open house tills year, normally hold in June. Due to light attendance alternative public iniormaLiori programs are being explored. 5.C.ADVISOUY COMMITTER. Chair Rascop and a) Approval of Deconber expenses Consultant Rascop moved. Reese seconded, approval of Arndorfer and Associates December expenses of $5,155. Motion carried unanimously. ^ i, j _ Arndorfer requested a reduction in the retainage called for in his contract from 15^^ to 10%, Currently there is $1,800. left In his account with $.37,500 being retained. A reduction to 10% will allow a retainace of S25.UUU and allow payment of the December bill. ^ Boswinkel moved, Babcock seconded, an amendment to tne contract with Arndorfer and Associates to change the retainage ^^R.^ese questviliethor flic District sliould require lien waivers from Arndorfer. Letevere replied tlie lien waiver law applies primarily to construction contractors. Motion carried unanitnousJ y . b) Frogrcos Report on Introduction Statement Arndorfer report*=-d the Introducti • >n sfatoment lias distributed to Dc^.-ird members •:Mid commit toe m«:inbers. The Public Review Draft is being written now. If Board members ««ve any concerns about any section please forward them to Arndorfer. The Public Review Draft provides for Arndorfer’s contract to furnish 5U copies. It appears there will be a need for about 350 copies. The LMCD will have to pick up ""Ldset Strommeii stated tlieio are funds in the LMtD bu^et for this under Fublic Information and Education. questioned the need for wdi City Council member to • copy furnished by the District. It wa^ aareed the Executive DirLtor will check with tli._. cities to <l»toimlne how draft copies are needed for Council. Mayor and Administrative Poster r*3portud on a muetinr! held with the Sheriff s Chief Deputy LaBar«e at which I. In... t.h.,y disciir.r.od ^l.o conoerna his department has with the t'ublic Safety section of the was aisreement on a number of items to make the p consistent and som*^ changes in .<3einaiit ics. 12 LHCD Board of Directors January 24. 19»U 6 0 5. Executive Director's Report Eu«ane Strommen a) Adaitiistrative Priorities The Executive Director reported counsel has advised that people under contract will have to qualify, or be treated as eaployees. This will involve minieue employer responsibilities for Worker's Compensation. Unemployment Insurance and FICA. The Executive Director reported there is the possibility of funding from the Loaislative Commiasion on Minnesota Resources. He asked to meet with the officers and interested directors to discuss the possibility of applying for grants. Arndorfer said he has identified several items in the Management Plan which may qualify. He offered his personal services to prepare proposals. There la a Shoreland Rules workshop 1/31 and 2/1 which the Executive Director will attend. A prospective consultant for the LMCD/DNR Shorelaiid Rules adoption program will also be there. as well as Chair Cochran. The Executive Director expressed the appreciation of the staff for approval of tlie 1990 »*ijmpensation plan. 6. Unfinished ISusiiiess There was no unfinislied business. 7. New Business Rascop asked that r.rdinance ^^mcndinents bo distributed prior to the night of th« meeting. 8. Adjournment The meeting was ad.Ion rued at 11 p.ni. David Cocliran. Chair Jan BoswiiiKel, Secretary ■”kmm LARS HINNKTONKA CONSUIVATION OISTBICT Action Report Moetlnir: Water Structures and EnvironMint CooHsittee Saturday, February 10, 1990, 7:30 a.n. LMCD Office. Wayaata Heebers Present: James Grathwol. Chair, Excelsior; Bert Foster. Deephaven; David Cochran, Greenwood; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Jan Boawinkel, Minnetonka Beach; John Lewman, Minnotrista; Thomas Reese. Mound; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Douglas Babcock, Spring Park; Marvin Bjorlin, Tonka Bay; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present* Eugene Stromnen, Executive Director. The meeting was called to order by Chair Grathwol at 7:30 a.m. 1. City of Deephaven New Dock, Special Density License and Variance applications. Foster reported the City of Deephaven has asked for a continuance to the March meeting as the city’s dock committee are having a public hearing on the subject February 13th. Foster moved, Pillsbury seconded, to table the City of Deephaven request to the March committee meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Excelsior Bay Yacht Club Special Density, New and Variance applications for a Conoierciaj. Dock. Dock License The Executive Director distributed a fact sheet indicating the Excelsior Bay Yacht Club (Club) is currently licensed for 32 transient docks datinc back to 1978 when the facilities were operated as a public restaurant. Gus Khwice, the Club General Manager, explained they have operated as a private club since 1986. Nearby residential properties limit what can be done on the property, a co: cern expressed by Excelsior City officials. Their obligation is to operate in harmony with the neiglibors. The Club’s experience has been that its docks do not get the volume of use as they did whan the restaurant was a public entity. A commercial dock license would allow the Club to maximize the use of the slips. Rental slips for members, and 10 slips fcr transit dockage would be used by the general public and charter boats. The Club has 200 parking spaces. Charter boat users would use few parking spaces since most arrive by bus. Khwice responded to questions from the committee by stating some charter boats may use the dock as a home port while others use it only to load and unload passengers. Khwice also noted that only 20% of the Club's 1086 members are boating members. The Excelsior Planning Commis.sion has approved the proposal, and the City Council has held its action pendirjg LMCD's approval. - continued Water Structures and Environment Committee February 10, 19y0 DISCUSSION; It was noted this application . ved before adoption of the moratorium. TJie proposed si^ <ts of 40 slips at 17,680 sq.ft, compared to the current 3«: s. t at 12,960 sq.ft. The existing site does have a portion of dock«. extending to approximately 200’. The proposed new configuration . luires a variance for a similar extension to 200'. Foster noted the application's justification for the variance because of the 90 degree turn in the shoreline, although he has reservations about the size of the slips. Reese stated the charter boat arrangement will give more people access to the lake. Grathwol asked for a definition of which docks will be used for the charter boats, which for rent and which ones will be transit docks. Amenities were discussed. Khwice stated the boats using the transit docks for food pick-up may use their telephone and rest rooms. Slocum suggested the applicant review the list of amenities in the code to make it aware of the typo of facilities which can be offered. Khwice said they are limited in what they can do because of the private nature of the Club and agreements they have with the City of Excelsior to protect the adjacent residential properties. « „ . Hurr moved, Bjorlin seconded, to authorize a Public Hearing on the Excelsior Bay Yacht Club application to be held at 7:00 p.m. Wednesday, February 28. 1990. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Bean’s Greenwood Marina New Dock License and Variance Application. The Executive Director submitted a fact sheet detailing the history leading up to the request to ratify the relocation of six slips from within lUO’ to beyond 100', the dock changes made early in the 1989 boating season. This application was received and accepted before adoption of the moratorium. A registered site survey has been received. A comparison of slip sizes is being made. DISCUSSION; Burr’s opinion is that this dock change could be handled as a temporary low water variance. Babcock believed by requesting a new dock license Bean would be losing the dock s grandfathered status. On that sub.iect Foster noted the marina is currently at 1:7. Under the code of 1:10 allowance Bean would be limited to 90 slips rather than the 110 plus 10 transit for service he has currently. Foster also believes this should be a temporary low water variance. A motion by Foster, seconded b> '*ocliran. to approve the request as a temporary low water variance was withdrawn when Chair indicated the applicant should be .allowed to have a public hearing on his request. Hurr moved. Foster seconded, to authorize a public hearing on the Bean’s G.-eenwood Marina application for 7:00 P "J* Wednesday. February 28, 1990 with direction to the staff to discuss with Bean clianging his application to a tenii^orary low Wcater variance. Motion carried unanimously. Water Structures and Environment Committee February 10, 1990 Dock T ' r>eo8Q Renewals for 1990 list of fifty-seven applicable orders. The Executive Director submitted a license renewals for 1990. including stipulations and temporary extensions. City certific£.tes have been received, or time has expired for City responses. It was noted there were two changes as follows: Grandview Point Association, Carson Bay, has a minor change of 8 B5U, 10 WSU to G BSU, 9 WSU; Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association. Lafayette Bay, to reinstate 8 BSU: from 8 BSU, 19^1/2 WSU to 16 BSU, 39-1/2 WSU for 1988, 1989, 1990, within required frontage. Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association is an administrative correction and the applicant has paid the back fees for 1988 and 1989, and there is no dock change. moved, Foster seconded, to approve the attached list of 1990 dock license renewals. excepting Grandview Point Association and Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association, Lafayette Bay. Motion carried unanimously. Foster moved. Cochran seconded, approval of the minor change in the Grandview Point Association, Carson Bay, 1990 dock license as a reduction in size. Motion carried unanimously. Cochran moved. Foster seconded, to approve the Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association. Lafayette Bay, 1990 dock license. Motion carried, Hurr abstaining because of a conflict of interest due to advice to the applicant. The Executive Director submitted three 13censees who have chosen to waive 1990 renewal by submitting a $25 administrative registration: Mai Tai, Excelsior Day for 19H9 and 19:UJ - The fa:ility not operating. Park Hill. Park Island. Park Island West Apartments, Black Lake for 1990 - Low Water Seton Twin Homes, Geton Lake, Minor Change: name, from Seton Place Development for 1990 - Low Water Bjorlin reported that the City of Tonka Bay will not use their docks in 1990 because of low water and asked to be exempt from paying the full fee. The City has submitted its renewals as of the 12/1/89 due date without late penalty. Questions were raised as to how the District would^ have assurance that the docks are not used, n< ting the Mai Tai location next to the Excelsior Bay Yacht Club and the resid^snees at Seton Twinhomes. Boswinkel feels they should pay the full fee. Hurr recommended that the docks bar. >d to prevent any use. Grathwol referred the three requests ’e renewal to the Executive Director for more info-mat ion j jimmendat ions. Cochran moved, Lewman seconded, to exempt the City of Tonxa Bay from the full application fee ana allow them to pay the $25.00 administrative fee witli the understanding that none of their docks will be usable in 1990. Motion carried unanimously. Water Structures and Environment <yommittee February 10, 1990 5. District Hooring Area Renewals for 1990 Licenses. Cochran moved, Boswinkel seconded, to recommend approval of the following District Mooring Area renewal applications for 1990: City of Deeptiaven City of Excelsior Methodist Lakeside Assembly Grounds Minnetonka Yacht Club Motion carried unanimously. 6. Deicing renewal for Reid MacDonald» Lafayette Bay BJorlin moved, <jrathwol seconded, to recommend approval of a deicing application renewal for Reid MacDonald. Lafayette Bay, received with late fee paid. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Amenity type and value study for Special Density Dock License Applications. Hurr submitted preliminary recommendations for categorising public amenities by type and placing a value on them. Following are additional items for inclusion in the suggested list of amenities: Fuel availability: scenic look outs; public service storage slips, i.e. for temporary use of the water patrol and LMCD weed harvesters; signage to identify special amenities. The Committee further recommended that amenities jused in past license applications be reviewed and classified. A further amenity consideration should be whether or not the amenity is available to the general public, and whether or not it is free or not. Hurr suggested the list not be too spejiflc. Rascop suggested applications distinguish between capital improvementL and services. It was also suggested the amenities be related to density rather than the number of slips. The title to Group A mentioned mandating general public parking, and it was questioned whether the District has authority over •marking. It was noted that the parking reference serves to iden* it as a city requirements and not count it as an LMCD-requirv *menity. The Executive Director will supply the subcoimnittee with a lipt of the amenities used in special density license applications to date. 10. (Out of Agenda Order) Presentation by David Arndorfer, Regarding Legislative Coamlssion on Hinneaoba Resources (LCMR) Grant Requests Arndorfer reported the grant application for Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) funding is due February 16th. He recommended the following for submittal to the LCMR: (1) Preparation of a model zoning ordinance to be used as a guide Water Structures and Environment Committe-' February 10, 1990 for other lake management districts, (2) Fisheries study, including hablwat identification and protection procedures a?? a guide to implementation for other lake management district; (3) Development of a plan for access (specific to the bay location) for 700 car/trailer parking areas. Arndorfer said the model zoning ordinance would not be specific to Lake Minnetonka but would be a guide to implementation of a zoning ordinance. The funding is available in 1992. Arndorfer added that any match in funds is helpful in gaining a priority position with LCMR funding support^^^^ moved, Pillsbuiy seconded, to authorize submission of the applications for grant funding to the LCMR based on Arndorfer' recommendations with review by the executive Director. Motion carried unanimously. Comprehensive Management Plan Guidelines for Board Member presentation to Their Respective City Counciia. Arndorfer submitted an executive summary of the Management Plan. This summary is to serve a.s a guideline for board members wher making presentations to tht respective city councils. Hurr suggested me * as/ r at least twenty minutes presentation to theii 1. ,^3cussing the Plan at a council work session is desira, \rndorfer stressed tVe Board members being iar with the contei u ot the Plan, particularly the objectives of each section. Councilmembers also should be encouraged to read the plan. Lewman said the councils should realize this is a plan, not a l.w. Upon adoption of the plan, implementing ordinances will, in time, be developed. Board members are urged to schedule their presentations daring March and April. A public review draft will be starting April 19 through June A public hearing will be held on or about June 19. Final review and adoption of the plan is expected in August. 8. Ordinance Amendment Relating to Boat Sto *e Density in Wetlands The Committee received a proposed amendmei. the Ordinance relating to boat storage density in wetland definition of a wetlands protection area and how that definitio affects boat density. The purpose of the Ordinance is to define, identify and restrict use of shoreline for boat density purposes according to Grathwol. Fx«cutiveThe proposed ordinance was referred to the Executive Direr;tor for preparation of a wetlands inventory. suggested the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and •.., ti.-s should be able to furnish wetland information. 9. Future Priority Renew of Items of Dock Committee Consideration the *:ollowi..g topics for review by the committee during the moratorium period* Water Structures and Environment Committee * February 10, 1990 Establish definitions for addition to the Code involving: Marinas District Mooring Areas Wetlands ♦ Density rules for residential watercraft storage ♦ Restrictions on outlets ♦ Inventory of district mooring areas. and review the existing policy on district mooring areas ♦ Review of “boating destinations" such as transient docks, "rafting" ar-^as ♦ Review of the 100’ and 200’ dock extension Code provisions. ♦ Shoreline zoning and/or water area zoning to control lake use ♦ Prohibition of condominium docks Members added the following suggestions: ♦ Public amenities as a trade off for special density ♦ Commercial docks vs marinas ♦ 1:50 and 1:10 rules ♦ Four boat rule for residential riparian property ♦ Land subdivisions ♦ Concept of slip size vs number of slips ♦ Restriction on boat size Directors were asked to prioritize their handout list, turn it in promptly, and the results will be used in preparing future agendas. ENVIRONMENT Water Milfoil weed control program update. Chair1. Eurasian Reese Funding Reeso reported: (1) The MN DNR has turv J down any funding until June at which time it will be decided if it has any available funds. (2) At the suggestion of County Board member Tad Jude, a resolution was prepared by the Executive Director requesting funds from Hennepin County for truck hauling and field supervision costs. (3) Attorney LeFevere submitted a review that jelling stickers for weed control would likely not be upheld in court. (4‘ There has been no response from the Corps of Engineers on the local cooperative agreement grant application. Project Manager The Executive Director reported there were five applicants for the position of project manager for Eurasian Water Milfoil. One withdrew and one was not interviewed due to questions of his qualifications. After interviewing three, the Executive Director reported Norm Paurua as the most qualified. Reese was in full agreement on Paurus* selection. Cochran moved. Bjorlin .seconded, to recommend to the Board the employment of Norm Paurus as Eurasian Water Milfoil project ..'manager a'^'cording to the position description. Motion carried unanimously. Water Structures and Environment Committee Februar/ 10, 1990 Reese stated the first task is to begin fund for the current year. The Executive Director is letter of solicitation during the coming week. 2. Other Business solicitation preparing a Cochran reported on newspaper reports that the Metropolitan Council will recommend legislation to give the Jouncil the responsibility of guiding lake management as recommended by a Citizens Lea^ ’<^ report. Cochran will discuss the matter with the local arec r^.presentative5 on the Metropolitan Council. He invited comments from Board members. The Executive Director rer->rted the shoreland grant agreement has been reviewed with John Stine, MN DNR. Stine is recommending the $40,000 Management Plan grant without the 10% holdback, ^iso the $ir 000 consulting fee for city plan adoption does not require an LHCD match. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen Executive Director James N. Grathwol Chair LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO; TO; "Dock" Commitcee FROM; Gene Stronmen DATE: February 5, 1990 SUBJ: 1990 Dock Licenses The following dock licensees are requesting renewals for 1990, Including orders, stipulations and temporary extensions. Village certificates have been received, or time has expired for responses. A1 & Alma's Supper Club, Inc., Cooks Bay Bayshore Manor Condominium Association, Excelsior Bay Baycllffe Property Owners Association, South Upper Lake Bayvlew Condominium, Spring Park Bay Berman, Lyle, Uaysata Bay Big Island Veterans Camp, Veterans Bay Cardinal Cove Beach Association, Cooks Bay Cedarhurst Association, Robinsons Bay Chapman Place Homeowners Association, Cooks Bay Minor Change: change In operator/manager Chimo Association, Carsons Bay Cochranes Boatyard, Inc., St. Albans and Excelsior Bays Crane Island Association, West Upper Lake Curly's Minnetonka Marina, Inc., Lower Lake South Deephaven, City of, St. Louis and Carsons Bays (application for expansion still under review) Driftwood Shores Association, Harrisons Bay Excelsior, City of. Excelsior Bay Foxlilll Association, Smiths Bay Gideon's Point Homeowners Association, Gideons Bay Grandview Point Association, Carsons Bay Minor Change: from 6 BSU, 10 WSU to 5 BSU. 9 WSU Gray's Landing Co., Grays Bay Greenwood, City of, St. Albans and Lower Lake South Hennepin County, Spring Park ’ Herzog Acres Association, Wayzata Bay Kreslins, Hary T., St. Albans Bay Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association, Lafayette Bay Reinstate 8 BSU: from 8 BSU, 19's WSU to 16 BSU. 394 WSU for 1988, 1989, 1990, within required frontage Llbbs Bay Boat Club, Libbs Lake Lord Fletcher Apartments, West Arm Lord Fletchers of the Lake, Coffee Cove Methodist Lakeside Assembly, Wayzata Bay Minnetonka Beach, City of. East Crystal Bay, Lafayette Bay, and Lower Lake North (continued) LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Dock Committee February S> 1990 Minnetonka Boat Rentals & Edgewater Marina, Harrisons Bay Minnetonka Edgewater Apartments, Spring Park Bay Minnetonka Power Squadron, Big Island Passage Minnetonka Yacht Club/Lake Minnetonka Sailing School, Bay St. Louis, Carsons Bay, and Lower Lake North Mound, City of: Priests, Cooks, West Upper Lake, Phelps, Black Lake, Emerald Lake, Seton Lake, Harrisons, Jennings, and West Arm Bays Navarre Cove Homeowners Association, Carmans Bay Neslund, Richard, Wayzata Bay North Shore Drive Marina, Maxwell Bay Ridgewood Cove Property Owners Association, Jennings Bay Rockvam Boat Yards, Inc*. Site 1, Coffee Cove Rockvam Boat Yards, Inc., Site 2, Coffee Cove Sandy Beach Place, West Arm Schmitt's Marina, Excelsior Bay Seahorse Condo Association, Jennings Bay Seton View, Seton Lake Seton Village Association, West Arm Tonka Bay, City of. Lower Lake South Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club/RDP Partners, Spring Park Bay Victoria Estates, North Arm Walden Tract X Owners Association, Bay St. Louis Walter's Port Improvement & Maintenance Association, Carman's Bay Wayzata, City of, Wayzata Bay (application for expandslon still under review) Wayzata Yacht Club, Site 1, Wayzata Bay Wayzata Yacht Club, Site 2, Wayzata Bay West Beach Apartments, Coffee Cove Willow Woods Corporation, Gideons Bay Woodend Shores Beach Association, West Upper Lake The following have chosen to waive renewal by submitting a $25 administrative registration: Mai Tai, Excelsior Bay for 1989 and 1990 Park Hill, Park Island, Park Island West Apartments, Black Lake for 1990 Seton Twlnhomes, Seton Lake Minor Change: name, from Seton Place Development for 1990 ERS:Jlm Action Report: Meeting: LAKE MINNETONKA CONiiEUVA'iTON DISTRICT Lake Use Committee Monday, Febriuiry 26, 1990, 4:30 p.m LMCD Office. Waysata The meeting was called to order by Chair Pillsbury at 4:30 p.m. Meabors Present: Robert Pillsbury, Chair. Minnetonka; Bert Foster, Deephaven; James Crathwol. Excelsior. Also present: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director; Deni.s Bailey, Hennepin County Public Works, Lake Improvement Division; Sgt. Wm. Chandler. Sheriff’s Water Patrol: Representatives of the Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore HomeOwners Association; Lois Jordan, Nan Woodburn and Betty W'>rkman. 1. Hennepin County Lake Improvement Division - Denis Bailey As a follow-up to the 1/22/90 Committee report, Denis Bailey submitted the following for '.’cnsideration: A. Review and prioritize the 1990 Hennepin County Lake Improvement Projects. Bailey reported the following ranking of 1990 pro.lects: Coffee Channel Dredging - The sanitary sewer line has been located and depth level estimated at 918.5'; adequately below dredging depth of 921.6’. Dredging is scheduled to begin 2/27/90 with 2/3 of the work to be done from shore. The balance will be completed the week after the ice is out. Forest Lake Channel Dredging - Work is to be done before the ice isy out in mid-March. Tanager Lake Channel, North Arm Channel dredging will follow In April. Noerenberg Channel will have rocks under bridge removed. B. Buoy Markings for Channels Experiencing Low Water. Pillsbury reported the Coast Guard and the Hennepin County Legal Department have advised against using channel markers danger buoys to mark channels experiencing low water. Chandler added that two different buoy markings give a mixed message to the public. It could subject the County to unavoidable liability claims. Chandler stated tlie Water Patrol will use the marine radio on weekends and holidays to warn boaters about low water in channels. Foster addressed tlie sub.iect of .safety and need tor adequate marking and signs. He recommended signs on the three bridges in the Seton Lake and Diack Lake areas. He also suggested marking the channels carefully with danger or channel markings depending on the bottom type and depth. Hailey replied the County will have enough danger buoys to mark the problem channels. He does not recommend botli danger and channel buoys combined. Dailey requested Committee direction as to wiiat depth would be considered dangerous. Lake Use Committee February 26. 1990 The committee reviewed the 1990 slow buoy placements dated 2/26/90 and added two slow buoys at the north side of Big Island in the rafting area and a slow buoy between Gayle’s Island and the Big Island cliannel adjacent to the Power Squadron docks. Grathwol moved, Foster seconded, to recommend to the Board the following: 1) Replace the channel marking buoys with danger buoys at channels with a depth of less than 3-1/2 feet at the beginning of the boating season. 2) Approval of the Hennepin County Lake Improvement dredging projects in priority of order as outlined by Denis Bailey. 3) Approval of the slow buoy placemont including 2 on the north side of Big Island at the rafting area and a third buoy at Maxwell Bay. 4) Place the channel buoys between Gayle’s Island and the Power Squadron docks further east. Motion carried unanimously. Note: Later in the meeting David Lawrance. Signcrafters, offered to furnish signs for the bridges, as suggested by Foster, at no cost to the LMCD. 2. Hennepin County Sheriff’s Water Patrol Report. A. Chandler reported on the meeting with charter boat operators held on 2/10/90 which was also attended by the executive director and board member Babcock. They reviewed the inspection procedures for 1990 and furnished the operators with a packet of information. There will be another meeting with the operators to furtlier discuss policies regarding boarding charter boats for bar checks. The operators objected to any signage to indicate that they are under charter. They were in agreement with the signage to identify locations of fire extinguishers and life jackets. B. Chandler reported there were two more DWIs issued. one on a snowmobile operation and one on an ATV operation. The Water Patrol -also continues issue .speeding tickets <^n the ice. Two .ore cars have gone through tlie ice. Lake spot checks are being ide from the air looking for debris and abandoned vehicles. 3. Per.eociai Water<iraft Draft Ordinance. The committee received a draft ordinance regulating personal watercraft from Attorney LeFevere along with a cover letter of explanation. Foster suggested a change in Section 3.041, bubd. "shoreline and tq oj: fcQiD the nearest point of water from the shoreline." Grathwoi recommended changing "vessel" in Section 1 Subd. 37 to "watercraft". Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend the Board adopt the Personal Watercraft draft ordinance with the two changes suggested by tiie committee and subject to Water Patrol comments. Motion carried unanimously. 5 to read 300 feet the word Laka Use Committee 4. Charter Boat Applications February 26. 1990 The Executive Director submitted charter boat applications and liquor license applications as follows: David James Lawrance for the Paradise Princess/Paradise Charter Cruises - Wine and Beer License - applications complete and in crd^jr. The 51* Bluewater yacht will be docked in the Excelsior Bay area. This is a new application. John Lambin and new 50% partner Franco Loris for the Queen of Excelsior - Liquor License - applications complete and in order. This is a renewal of the Queen of Excelsior license previously issued to John Lambin. Grathwol asked the record to show he has done le«al work for the applicant. Grathwol moved. Foster seconded, to recommend approval of the 1990 wine and beer license for David Lawrance for the Paradise Princess. Motion carried unanimously. Grathwol moved, Foster seconded, to recommend approval of a Charter Boat License for David Lawrance for the Paradise Princess. Motion carried unanimously. Foster moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend approval of a Charter Boat License and Liqu«.*r License for John Lambin and Franco Loris for the Queen of Excelsior. Motion carried unanimously, b. Kafund Special Event Permit - Scott Dvorak The Executive Director reported Scott Dvoxak did *^ot exercise the permit granted to hold a fishing contest on 1/. ^ because he could not afford the required insurance. Foster moved. Grathwol seconded, to recommend refund $100. permit deposit plus late fee of $50. paid by Scott for an unused special event permit. The $50. application not refundable. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 5:.30 p.m. FOR THE COMMITTEE: of tiie Dvorak fee is Eugene Strommen Executive Director Robert Pillsbury, Chair , ' ■ ,.f* ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO BOAT SPEED IN QUIET WATERS AREAS AND TO THE OPERATION AND RENTAL OF PERSONAL WATERCRAFT ADDING NEW SECTION 1.02, SUBD. 37$ ADDING NEW SECTION 3.041$ AMENDING SECTION 3.02. SU0DS. 1 AND 4; AND AM!!NDING SECTION 3.01, SUBD. 17 The Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ordains that the LMCD Code is amended as follows: Section 1. LMCD Code Section 1.02 is amended by adding the following definition as Subdivision 37 ann renumbering the current subdivisions from 37 on: Subd. 37. "Personal watercraft'* means a watercraft less than 12 feet in length which uses an outboard motor, or an inboard motor powering a water jet pumpi as its primary source of motive power and which is designed to be operated bv a person sitting, standing or kneeling on. rather than the conventional manner of • * -<* 1 ■-sitting or standing inside, the vessel. Section 2. The LMCD Code is amended by adding new Section 3.041 as follows: Section 3.041. Personal Watercraft. Subd. 1. Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to operate a personal watercraft or for the owner thereof to permit the operation of a personal watercraft on the Lake in any wav which is contrary to the provisions of this Code or the laws, rules or regulations of the state. Subd. 2. Personal Flotation Devices. No person shall operate or ride on a personal watercraft unless wearing a United States Coast Guard approved personal flotation device. Subd. 3. Hours of Operation. No person shai* operate a personal watercraft between sunset and sunrise the following dav. Subd. 4. Speeds No person shall operate a personal watercraft at a speed In excess of S miles per hour or at a speed which resuits in more than a minimum wake within ISO feet of any shoreline, swimmeri mooring, dock or other water structure. Subd. 5. Operation Within 300 Feei of the Shoreline. No person shall ooeratG t ^rsonai watercraft at a speed in excess of 5 miles per hour or at a speed which results in more than a minimum wake between ISO feet and 300 feet of the shoreline unless the personal watercraft is being driven perpendicular to the shoreline and Uwartf'the nearest point of water 300 feet from the shoreline. Subd. 6. Automatic Cut-off Device. No person shall operate a personal watercraft which Is equipped by the manufacturer with a lanvard-tvoe cutoff switch unless the lanyard is attached to the person, clothing or personal flotation device of the operator. Subd. 7. Wake Jumping. No person operating a personal watercraft shall lump the wake of another watercraft within ISO feet of that watercraft. Subd. 8. Age of Cjerator. Except in the case of an emergency, no person under the age of 13 shall operate or be permitted by the owner to operate a personal watercraft. No person 13 years of age or older but less than 18 years of age shall operate or be permitted by the owner to operate a personal watercraft, regardless of horsepower, without possessing a valid operators permit issued by the Commissioner pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 361.041 (1988). Subd. 9. Careless Operation. A personal watercraft must at all times be operated in a reasonable and prudent manner. Maneuvers which unre>^sonablv or wunnecessarily endanger life, limb or property, including, but not llrat^ through congested boat traffic or swerving at the last 0<>Mlbl# moihli&i to collision shall constitute careless, reckless or grossly negligent OD€fatloiHrtttl!n meaning of LMCD Code Section 3.Q1» Subd. 2, Subd. 10. Any person who offers personal watercraft for rent: (a) shall not rent a personal watercraft> regardless of the horseponner* to any person who is less than 16 years of age or who Is 16 years of age or over but less than 18 years of age and not in possession of an operator’s permit required by this section> (b) is required to provide a summary of the laws and rules governing the operation of personal watercraft and to provide instruction regarding safe operation to any person renting personal watercraft. The instruction provided to a renter must cover the laws and rules governing personal watercraft as well as the actual operation of the personal watercraft itself; and (c) is required to provide a United States Coast Guard approved wearable personal flotation device to all persons who rent a personal watercraft, as well as all other required safety equipment. Section 3. LMCD Code Section 3.02, Subd. 1 is amended as follows: Section 3.02. Watercraft Speed. Subd. 1. Maximum Speeds. No person shciil operate a wa »*aft on the Lake at a speed greater than is reasonable atio prudent under the i. ms and with regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so restricted as may be necessary to avoid wi*h any person, watercraft or structure in or upon the Lake which is in complia*. ith legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care. No watercraft may be operated on the Lake at a speed in excess of the following limits: (a) 40 mile per hour during the daytime; (b) 20 miles per hour during the nighttime; (c) & 5 miles per hour in the following areas; i) a quiet waters area established by this section. ♦i) that area within 150 feet of the shoreline, iii) that area within 150 feet of an authorized bathing area or swimmer, an authorized scuba diver’s warning flag, an anchored raft or watercraft, or a dock or pier except that from which a watercraft with a person in tow is bt-ing operated. iv) an area of restricted speed posted in accordance with Subd. 4. The sheriff or executive director may provide for the erecticr of signs at appropriate locations in the Lake to inform operators of watercraft of the speed limitations established by this subdivision. Section 4. LMCD Code Section 3.02, Subd. 4. is amended as follows: Subd. 4, Quiet Waters Areas. No person shall operate a motor opor/pd watercraft, including waterborne aircraft, on those areas of ihe Lake hereinafter specified at a sp» excess of S 5 miles per hour, or at a speed which results in more th . a mini.. v;ake in any area of the Lake ^;esignated as quiet waters areas. Quiet Waters restrictions shall apply to areas, channels, bays and shorelines as delineated by markers, buoys, or other aid r .ation placed by the County or the District. Section 5. LMCD Code Section 3.01, Subd. 17 is amended as follows: Subd. 17. Noise. No person shall operate any watercraft or boat, other than an aircraft* on the Lake which is capable of exceeding a noise level on the A scale measured at a distance of 50 feet or more from the watercraft or boat of: (a) 84 decibels in the case of marine engines or motorboats manufactured before January 1, 1982; or 82 decibels in the case of marine engines or motorboats manufactured on or after January I, 1982 r j_or (c) 79 decibels in the case of personal watercraft water jet pump engines manufactured after January 1, 1992. This enactment is in effect from and after its passage and publication in accordance with the enabling act of the District. It is enacted Ly a majority vote of all the members of the Board and has the effect of an ordinance. Adopted by the LMCD Board of Directors this ______ day of , 1999. David Cochran Chairman ATTEST? J.P. Boswinkel Secretary An Equal Opportunity Employer Phone; (612) 296-2426 STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD 165 Metro Square building 121 East Seventh Place St. Paul. Minnesota 55101-2142 February 26, 1990 Dorothy M. Hallin Orono City Clerk Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re; D-254 Orono/A-4610 Long Lake (Owned by Long Lake; 23.5 acres) Dear Ms. Hallin; Please be advised that the Minnesota Municipal Board has received a petition by the City of Long Lake for detachment of certain land owned by the City of Long Lake from the City of Orono and concurrent annexation of the same property to the City of Long Lake. The Municipal Board will be scheduling a nearing on the matter unless the City of Orono passes a resolution in support of the concurrent detachment and annexation, and forwards said resolution to the Municipal Board by March 28, 1990. Please contact this office if you have any questions concerning this matter. Sincerely, MUNICIPAL BOAPX) Patricia D. Lundy Assistant Director PDL;sjh cc: Tom Barrett, Orono City Attorney Tracy R. Eichhom-Hicks, for Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. LuVeme Hanson, Long Lake City Clerk JACK L. CHESTIWT WILLIAM F BROOKS. JR. KARL L.CAMBRONNE* CORTC. MOLTEN CRAIG A. ERICKSON DENNIS B. JOHNSON ALAN B. DEMMER- ROBERTA. LaFLEl'R. CPA JEANETTE A. FREDERICKSON STUART C. BEAR BRIAN W RUDE •ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN ■•ALSO ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA CHESTNUT & BROOKS PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW March 2, 1990 i) 222 SOUTff K/INTR StR^E7 MINNE ILIS. MINNESOTA Wi:§9|^0 FAX 16121336-2940 $102 14S UNIVtKSn Y AVt: «;t PAt^T v*iMMrSQTflL551flil (612 >291-1900 Ms. Jeanne A. Nabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono Orono City Hall 1335 South Brown Road Orono, Minnesota 55323 Re: Jacquelynn M. Kelly Variance Application Our File Number: 9244 Dear Ms. Mabusth: I just wanted to confirm the information I gave to Lori in our telephone conversation of March 1st. In cur conversation, I told Lori to leave word with you that we are no longer considering presenting our revised plan on behalf of Ms. Jacquelynn Kelly at the City Council meeting scheduled for March 12, 1990. We are in the process of continuing to develop a revised plan and anticipate that it will be presented at one of the April Council meetings. If you have any questions or desire any further information at this point, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, CHESTNUT & BROOKS, P.A. SCB:dh cc: Dennis B. Johnson, Esq. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON FEBRUARY 12, 1990 uY I mz$m The regular meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Monday, February 12, 1990. Present:Dave McKown Don Anderson Kitty Crosby James Franklin John Maresh Lucie Taylor Thomas Mich William Fenholt UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by Jim Franklin, the consent agenda was approved as follows: - approved the minutes of the January 22, 1990 regular meeting; - approved the following variance requests: Rohling children - Michel, kindergarten, Peter, Grade 1, and Erik, grade 3, to attend Orono Schools for the remainder of the 1989-90 school year, Swenson children - Katie, grade 2, and Vince, kindergarten, to complete the 1989-90 school year at Orono, John Brantingham, grade 6, to complete the 1989-90 school year at Orono, Robbie Sikka, grade 2, to attend St. Louis Park Schools for the remainder of the 1989-90 school year, Yuri Zhukov, grade 9, to attend Westonka Schools for the remainder of the 1989-90 school year; - accepted the resignation of Vernon P. Linn, middle school science teacher, effective at the end of the 1989-90 school year; - accepted the resignation of Barend J. van Wyk, high school science teacher, effective at the end of the 1989-90 school year; - approved the following coaches for winter sports: B'ian Bergstrom - assistant basketball coach - boys; Curt Eischens - assistant basketball coach - boys; Debbie Thompson - assistant basketball conch - girls; Daun Henning - assistant basketball coach - girls; Bob Komma - assistant gym nastics coach; Kelly Shaughnessy - head wrestling coach; Feter Dubay - assistant wrestling coach; Todd Meyer - assistant wrestling coach; Amy Luesebrink - head ski coach; Joe Oalman - assistant ski coach; - approved the Activity Fund Report for the second quarter, 1989-9C; - approved the bills as covered by vouchers 065143 through 065359. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Jim Franklin, the April 23, 1990 regularly schedulpd Board of Education meeting is cancelled. Dr. Mich stated that the Board had, in the consent agenda, approved the retire ments of two long time employees: Vernor P, Linn and Barend J. van Wyk. Letters of congratulations on their retirements and appreciation for their years of service will be sent on behalf of the Board of Education. Dr. Mich reported that money received by Hennepin Technical College for the land sale on County Rd. 6 is proposed to be used as seed money for fibre optics con- nection which will allow interactive capability with any of the 13 school districts associated with HTC; that on February 7 a breakfast was held with clergy in the area; that a North Central Visitation will be held February 20 - 22 examining foreign language, health, math, and social studies; that the ANSO legislative dinner will be held on February 21; that the State had filed a sum mary motion for dismissal on the equity funding lawsuit and It was denied by the court on February 7; that through staff development a wellness program is being conducted and Board members are invited to participate; that he wanted to express appreciation to Bill Fenholt and George Stubbs for their good work in the area of investment income resulting from the sale of the tax anticipation certificates; that a book fair will take place at the middle school library on February 12 - 16. Dr. Mich stated that the Orono Hockey Booster Association is undertaking a significant project * the Orono Multipurpose Recreational Center - and that they had approached him requesting to meet and discuss this with the Board. The Board concurred that Dave McKown and Dr. Mich should meet with this organization and report back to the Board. Kitty Crosby announced to the Board that she would not be running for another term of office on the Board of Education when her term expires at the end of the 1989-90 school year, Dave McKown stated that he had heard many comments on the article that Dr. Mich had written for the The Newsletter in February and that he wanted to commend him for the excellent article. UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by Kitty Crosby, the Board of Education approved the reorganization of the instructional delivery system of the school district to include an elementary school program for grades 2 - 4 and a middle school program for grades 5-8. Dr. Mich reiterated that every effort will be made throughout the year to help 5th graders acclimate themselves to the middle school. Dr. Mich reported to the Board on the construction progress of the linking building stating that bids will be opened on February 15 at 2:00 p.m. and that the Board will be informed of results as soon as possible. He stated that groundbreaking should take place in April with a completion date of late November and that he is looking at the second semester of the 1990-91 school year for an actual use date. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the School Board called for bids for asbestos abatement in the middle school tunnels and fan rooms and approved the hiring of the Institute of Environmental Assessment to design the bid specifications and manage the project. Karen Orcutt, Director of Special Education, reported to the Board on what is occurring in Orono Schools in the area of special education. She provided the Board with information on serving 0-3 year old children; new rules that became effective in August, 1989; State monitoring of HTC and member districts which will take place in April and May, 1990; and background information on the HTC EBD class closing at the end of the semester at the high school. Ms. Orcutt also reviewed Issues that are occurring in special education as well as strengths within the district in all special services areas. She stated that much time and effort is put forth to provide a cost effective, quality program at Orono. Or. Mich expressed appreciation to Karen Orcutt and her staff for the program they provide for the students at Orono. Don Anderson stated that he wanted to publicly thank Karen for the quality of the program provided as well as the stability that she has brought to this program. UPON MOTION Kitty Crosby, seconded by Jim Franklin, the Board of Education authorized the Superintendent of Schools or his designee to approve or deny variance requests for changes in school district attendance. Member Kitty Crosby introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption; RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING OATES FOR FILING AFFIDAVITS OF CANDIDACY 1, The period for filing affidavits of candidacy for the office of school board member of Independent School District No. 278 shall begin on March 6, 1990 and shall close on March 20, 1990. An affidavit of candidacy must be filed In the office of the school district clerk and the $2 filing fee paid prior to 5:00 o'clock p.m. on March 20, 1990. 2. The clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of said filing dates to be published in the PIONEER, the official newspaper of the district, at least two weeks prior to the first day to file affidavits of candidacy. 3. 4. The clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of said filing dates to be posted at the administrative offices of the school district at least ten days prior to the first day to file affidavits of candidacy. The notice of said filing dates shall be form: in substantially the following NOTICE Of flLlNG OATES FOR ELECTION TO THE SCHOOL BOARD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the period for filing affidavits of candidacy for the office of school board iwnber of Independent School District No. 278 shall begin on March 6, 1990 and shall close at S:00 o'clock p.«, on March 20« 1990. The general election shall be held on Tuesday, May 15, 1990. At that election, two Members will be elected to the School Board for terns of three years each. Affidavits of candidacy are available from the school district clerk, 685 Old Crystal Bay Rd., Long Lake, NN. The filing fee for this office is $2. A can- 21 years of age ordidate for this office must be an eligible voter, must be more on assuming office, must have been a resident of the which the candidate seeks election for SO days before the must have no other affidavit on file for any other office next ensuing general election. school district from general election, and at the same primary or The affidavits of candidacy must be filed in the office of the school district clerk and the filing fee paid prior to 5:00 o'clock p.m. on March 20, 1990. Date: February 12, 1990 BY ORDER OF THE SCHOOL NOTICE OF FILING OATES FOR ELECTION TO THE SCHOOL BOARD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the period for filInQ affidavits of candidacy for the office of school board member of Independent School District No. 278 shall begin on March 6, 1990 and shall close at 5:00 o'clock p.m. on March 20, 1990. The general election shall be held on Tuesday, May 15, 1990. At that election, two members will be elected to the School Board for terms of three years each. Affidavits of candidacy are available from the school district clerk, 685 Old Crystal Bay Rd., Long Lake, MN. The filing fee for this office is SK A can didate for this office must be an eligible voter, must be 21 years of age or more on assuming office, must have been a resident of the which the candidate seeks election for 30 days before the must have no other affidavit on file for any other office next ensuing general election. school district from gene*^al election, and at the same primary or The affidavits of candidacy must be filed in the office of the school district clerk and the filing fee paid prior to 5:00 o'clock p.m. on March 20, 1990, Date: February 12, 1990 BY ORDER OF THE SCHOOL BOARD /s/ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Katherine P. Crosby, Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Lucie Tavlor and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted In favor thereof: Crosby, Naresh, Taylor, Franklin, Anderso rKjim and the following voted against the same: None Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. UPON MOTION by Kitty Crosby^ seconded by Lucie Taylor» the Board of Education approved the appointment of Mrs. Marge Gasch and Mrs. Evy Zacher to assist the clerk In preparing for and running the May 15, 1990 School Board election. Dr. Mich Informed the Board that In the near future It will be necessary to have a workshop session to review the Instructional goals for the district. UPON MOTION by adjourned. Don Anderson, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the meeting was Katherine P, CrosbyT Clerk Approved: Dave McKown. Chairman S-P TESTING, INC. 951 KATYDID LANE ST. MICHAEL. MN 55376 4973566 Steven 3. Schlrmers March 9, 1990 To the City of Orono Re: Lot 1, Block 1, North Arm Est. 2nd Add. Oronor Henn. Co.r MN for Don Peterson This letter is in reguard to On-Site Sewage treatment for this property. The proposal is to locate a Pressurized Mound System approx. 130' east of North Arm Ln. with the system on the slope north & south. A site evaluation was completed the summer of 1988 { a system was staked out). The system would be located on a 6% slope with the most southernly corner being on an 8% slope. Soil borings indicated mottled soil between 18" to 30" below the ground surface. Final testing will need to be completed in the spring to approve this site. The secondary site is located in the southwest corner of the property from testing completed on November 22, 1989. At this time it appears both site will work for a Pressurized Mound System. Steven B. Schirmers SBS/ds 5oi7 am/ Percolation TeatM Septic Syatom Deaign TO: CHIEF FROM: CORNICK 6521 TEACHER EVALUATIONS DURING FINAL EXAM WEEK (COPY ATTACHED) GRADUATION CERTIFICATES COST APPROX. $1.0 BEING DONE BY SOS PRINTING APPRECIATION PLAQUES TO BE ANNOUNCED/HANDLED BY MYSELF Poat-it *n>uting rsqwMi p«0 fW4 READ ROUTING - REQUEST T ■ ■lA'i ■• • •.. -;•. -^. • •.. ■ .. • .. ^ •|R A.:-■• ••*■ -• • --•: ■••- ^ ■ -'■• A . . , 'aA. ■-' •*;■;■.•tP '•■ ■ '■ 'in ,K«' • ' ' ' ruTuies. iczska-c/jJ^ ____ — —©=;zt^ -97X -------------- >'■ .910---------------------r" -i-' A' Soam \ r i / & •-'n ■ ■■k few:'- fe#.: Sp‘. ' ■ S6CCBZ."C 1 \ V .3* \ / / iTm(*^TQ_ K^.- ^-'t :/^ •' ■v;^.y;.^..a! M:'W >^‘■I2tff5 ^^•J' m A|?‘‘' 'SHf-' \f mm A' '.r, - •?«?' el ir;.,o “. < • , '.'tj.i,^. llmtV^»<'*ili^ mm !f l..&’9iWiLfern- «ysl fc^ttSsfe -4ft nsmm^ wAX^ - ¥ V rnismm #» nL*^ ^w- • r^ , V '* v«*« ' ><s m. -gy ----------------------T^m^ 1 *“’'-' s 1________ -f__________-i .5§e'- . r «- V- MM (P - -. , ,, .- ?;-. -‘» '-T" ■ ' ' . . • . I!,^' ■ ■ *. fe' ^:-<- p'-'-J -I? ;*• ^^:.^'.:l2Si mm SM Sa K;ia’^«ssttjee. iS fi^mk n !!®i mmm 'mmmmmm mm:.m 5^'’'’-. -n.il -m mmi^: PfS * IsZ^. Uae, se-rdAc^z : - £(„ ^fUitCiet> AbC>AJ - SB ' SMvrt^t. teCA. - HZ' \ \ M'fo Pcf- If A-u. i«r'c'y/®i-»CT-c /<; g.er^'J^ a-7S ‘ /•/ve v --^ -2C7»X,'(^AtA^II y -si 75' -2^^'rjgo t V22S f **s»»y.(S-A^S) ■7'x<3>£’ I — 1-;:^ D O°2>s Sr"£il5 3«3 r oiom 5 01 o O) CO > <w om O O Dw ■0 30m oH 30 < > H PPOR3SED 30'CAYS') HieH STONS pcTAiNiMe wall ppoPOSED €pade cur TO MANA6S EPOSION (APPfCX.. CaO CU.VO.) PILLSBURY RESIDENCE MEYER, SCHERER & ROCKCASTLE, LTD. 12 OCTOBER 1989 SITE PLAN REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE iJJIMlilill . ■ * - . v'- Mi ::a^ Si^^rszfs; PILLSBtJRY RESIDENCE ” PROPOSED ADDITION MAIN LEVEL PLAN /. ' ""-r' ■ .. / '" ' ' ' ^ ' ^ ’' "'v afeShaai iilli (^/4 . X 0=., ,j_i-j.- PILLSBURY RESir ilNCE PROPOSED ADDITION ^ i1^ jr ll !!r j:i |i .1 'ki€• © :jni ® i1 f! 0 :F1 -Ji 1 ■ i|1 ;’ ,1!r :|i 11 'i ■Mii .; :■_l LJ BAST g_?//«^ON \ L____ t^gTfw r * -tf * EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1 >illJ^ c-'- ^ '=_ BK«TM*HOU«| M ffT Til"— ■~; </»*'V*aC'sa-^—N—»------- 1 JU.'•\- U9.4 iLCV^ Cjygjyw LfViU. . MM«rr MMroMl C -c-o- (WtHC «o<H< «rr«H>v4) PILLSBXmY RESIDENCE SITE SECTION REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE U OCTOBER 1989 3 P Silnffii -’jS’r'irrfi. a «!r-:5|8ij-*s 5-fff C2* ss-j?’’ f,*a S ?!«['!(Iffg '*!.’• V3* ffS,® 4E*"^lp[ jtifsi!:: • S& «ni!|f? ?> p c OB ss (O CO ■m .-dair HI. r Co X\ O 10 { l\ iVy'*^ \MM9MS ....^> v\ nir i ^1 ^ t <? «^ s 1 - V i »“x 5 1 '^ ^ i; i. r 1 ' ! ■ X "'1 ‘C /: • - 4A.U- - ^ » l^.. U Z. X ......^ X «« 1^* N <.! *t ■?il fv»I /■ X-- ■t'm :.> Q I N I S ^^1.Mi1 i ^Ml2 ?! :5 I sis <0 • *:• i '^■¥ iji • scale DATE' . DATUM' N.G.V. D. COFFIN a ' GRONBERG, INC. ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS 8 PLANNERS LONG LAKE , . MINNESOTA SCALE DATE* 12 “ 18 “ 89, y*r.« DATUM^ N-G.V. 0. prepared by me or under my dir** superviaion and that I an a duly stored land surveyor under the COFFIN 6 GR0NDERG» INC. _ _ Hark S. Gronbcig Hn. Lie. No. 127SS T!r.rir.'?‘?rs, Land Surveyors. Planners COFFIN a GRONBERG. INC. ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS a PLANNERS LONG LAKE, MINNESOTA mt '1 , TiiiiiiwMiirii \mm: A COMPILATION OF INFORMATION OM city, county, and STATE ITlES AMD other sources.^ « 5 « ' '. E ' j - ' ^ * 5 > ' S f ..1 Tf' im mmrrm -I ■i ■ ■■ ■ ■ "IrV. .«:'^:■-^.,::•;:r..^^: . PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR K-P PROPERTIES IN LOTS I a 2, BLOCK I NORTH ARM ESTATES SECOND ADDITION ! ■'■■■J'' -i-' V ’ '. 1 1 Z90.OO I /i A, 1 V\\'-Jiii i \.bO.Oo/ lilUi-U__ \ \ ' 1 I ! ' ' ', ', 1 s \ ^ T-r—c-3 I r 0 ■ ■= ' ; I / ' ' I T' \ \ \ L—_________ I ’ ii ' 1 I /' < I , I ^ N “ ; ' ■ • , / , ’ ' _^______ /'■ -N ''■S. N V "''C'H 1 N \ ^ \ \\ \ o3?n \ \ \ V>. \ / i' /■''/' I ' ' 9 A ;' ' ' /"(;///. < I I ' •/■ I ' •' I ' r'' \ \ \\ \ \ \ I \'\ \ -^-\' \..... ' ' \ w 1 \ \^rV" 548.H \\ _____\ \ .,;-’\ \ V\ ; i- \ \ i’2M’90^rw^. tot* and 2, Block I, Mortli Acm Batacea Sacond Addicipn. I haraby catUfy that thla sucvay was prepared by me or under ny <*' r* •et supervision and that X an a duly ro9istcrod land surveyor under tho laws of the State of Hinnesota. COPPIH t GRONBERS, INC. 2(6^ J. ••—•<'v«rr. Plann^rr COFFIN a GRONBERG, INC. ENGINEERS. LAND SURVEYORS & PLANNERS LONG LAKE. MINNESOTA 1 ^------- mm pwM •« ■• * mm* m mmn ««m«mwrJTJr-ALL-MeTRO LAND SIinVRVnnS CERTIFICATE OP SURVEY “* !■• M' "'ll rt»PREMRED FOR: 2540 Om-t* SlfMl. L«n«Lo*t. MtniMMte 99390 Ml* 479* 1493 JOHN HARDIN_ j /m/W------/70Z»■" B80JI C **'■ r .. ' ^ % r * ^1l■■f? ■i-T'K • . . f' -'.r -, :/ :' •■■ •' Ltgggm,' ifriaiiiifiirfiiiiiiin I ;? V -*» 7V" A, f^s, -V ^ '< IM'T lim : »J».* mix II».»ISED, .................. • •!» «I Ihx l••<•sl .om^f •» I wi * iKtn. ............... ih# nnriM*«»i enrn#r >■! Lui b, Blu«fc lb: IbCf; ilSUFTniUA: ih*in* ■lurli •>• ihi* iniet «r< t )••!• « • • h i A» Ai>r(h»rli liNA m( l.ul 4. |llk*i,b lb r«n*N«A«l: I N vrc a non lt» • •«)•• It «i. tbA ^MIHl >»f bVltRAini. sewehal notp Pmm* m •> ii >»■»<■>« »bM— '■••* •••tbtiM nmw f««M ■ S«h4 G«a«««r IHM* *MMI HitlMf «Ml*r«t urs:s:^rr:rs*rr’:s: S ruM I •■ • «•<• bA^P^Kjt^ 1*^ArT.-MRTSO LAND flinrvevORS f«vD«f*wYE*iL*rR nv flnitVEY 2340 0o"*#'t SlfMi. L0P*«t«b€, MimwiWb S3350 Ph- 479-1433 eaoii cr PREWRED row: JOHN HARDIN '•^. WTyuPW«*»>a iiSl' J H;? WmMrnmmMmSiiismmm-mm £> K1 ?{? M f\> -* iK“‘ ss« Si’S “5Z] STS* “■ ,;§ ^ Of 2§as Kg,§ n1 • 2 / Jl. ''~ll II "T S5 fh2 S 5® k IS;! i|iif f' ^OffTfi RPS^ : SCALE: 1" . 20' DATE : 12-31-86 0 : Iron marker CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY c^c- FOR JACK F. RHODE IN lots 10 AND It. SHADYWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA i hereby certify that this is a true and correct reuresentition of a survey of the boundaries of all of Lot 10 and that part of Lot 11 described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 11; thence Southerly along the Westerly line thereof to the Southwest corner of the North 14 feet of said Lot 11; thence South.-87 degrees 27-minutes East to the shore of Crystal Bay; thence North alop'. said shore to the North line of said Lot 11: thence West along said lot line to the point of beginning, in Shadywood, and the location of all existing buildings thereon. It does not purport to show other improvements cr encroachments. Note: Bearings shown are shown on tne plat of "Shady Hood" and the Southerly line of the above described property is assumed to be described in relation to said plat bearings. COFFIN t GRONBERG, INC. Mark S. Gronb^g LicNcFTz755 Engineers, Land Surveyors u Planners Long Lake. Minnesota ------------U _L V - — •-wt -i«H w at ;v,- ^ DUMA S ORCHARDS w |l '7' t \ I «> • 5 ! •" 5\ ': iL-uii __ I ■ ^ ti**. . \I , . «fcv» I•xJh•|1 -n«7»y _____________t I , ’ s *• 11—- ' 1 i tti /'■' 9 . V I i! / I « I Ck*t*>' ? WIM - -i ^ =. yi 1! -jy.: ■CTt ADOITIOII :z.^ ^ j ^GISTEREO LAND SURVEY NQ843 » 34'»H ?? SfeV? I i ■ iRUCt ! tU9t f' w •m. I* i 1 % .• .i*>.i ‘•s s;. %- 7}i i^Tp^ # i s / r- miNNeTOMKA h'A4 mm \ ;i--S i Jl L . ’;:, MAN04I : FK^T' V.. i - d#U* u»« '^'oL 4-- ■ . Mt/MO T tm tt 93 5 33